Why all climate misinformation should be seen as disinformation (www.nationalobserver.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by streetfestival@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This isn’t just a problem for environmentalists or scientists — it’s a direct threat to democratic decision-making. Disinformation erodes our ability to have honest, fact-based debates about the future of the country. It undermines trust not only in science and journalism but in government itself. When voters are manipulated by falsehoods, democracy doesn’t function as it should.

During the election, we saw the consequences play out in real time. From misleading ads claiming that climate policies will "bankrupt the middle class," to talking points that dismiss renewable energy as unreliable, Canadians are being bombarded with claims designed to erode support for meaningful climate action. These messages often use emotional appeals and cherry-picked data, wrapped in populist rhetoric, to create the illusion that fighting climate change is at odds with economic prosperity or national sovereignty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Canada had the second last per capita GDP growth in the OECD next to Luxembourg since 2015. We also missed an opportunity to displace coal burning by neglecting our energy production, which is how the US emissions have been falling.

Solar and wind aren't cheap, and require storage to deal with their variability, as Spain recently found out. So the costs are severely understated. People aren't suggesting nuclear unfortunately when they talk about green energy, they're talking about importing cheap solar panels produced in China by burning lignite.

[-] Franklin@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I mean nuclear is great tech and I'm for investing in it but if cost is a concern, solar and wind are way ahead

at least until we get into 10, 20 and 30 year timelines

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Solar and wind definitely are cheap, until you include billions in lithium batteries to support the grid during the periods of the worst case energy production. Energy grids arent easy to restart if they go offline, blackstarts can take days and cost billions of dollars and lives.

What makes nuclear so expensive is the environmental movement through litigation, funded by oil and gas, so it makes it prohibitively expensive. I wouldnt be surprised if wind and solar are funded by oil and gas, since its perpetual vaporware, and storing that much energy for a 100% uptime grid is a massive fire hazard. France was able to build 60GW of nuclear 60 years ago before we even had computers, but I guess technology regressed and suddenly its too expensive to build.

Look at Germany shutting down its nuclear power, they ended up spending half a trillion dollars to keep the lights on due to their idiotic ideals; which would have funded the next 50 years of nuclear power. China meanwhile just pumps them out, and will replace Germany in the future, when their energy allows the cheapest production of goods and AI.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-half-a-trillion-dollar-energy-bazooka-may-not-be-enough-2022-12-15/

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago

I'm hesitant on solar in the first place. It's marginally economical in Southern Ontario, but far worse so anywhere else and will require quite a lot of land clearing to make work even before considering the usual issues with it. Wind is good, but I'm with you on nuclear. That's the way to go, and Canada is making good progress on new nuclear projects. We're one of the tops in the world for nuclear technology and have one of the world's largest uranium reserves.

That said, I think it's only the prairies that even have coal plants anymore? Ontario hasn't had coal in two decades, and Quebec is virtually a hydro superpower. If I remember right, for electricity generation, 70% is already non-carbon emitting. The real problems I believe are the vehicles and heating homes with natural gas. Oh, and apparently resource extraction is the second greatest source of CO2 in Canada.

But really, 20% comes from cars and trucks and is the single greatest source of CO2 in Canada by a massive margin apparently. And we just scrapped the only effective way to fight that source.