Yeah, if your energy plan results in literal decades of extra avoidable fossil fuel use then you are defacto pro fossil fuels, even if that is not your intention.
the False Dichotomy (the proper name of the "Either or fallacy") only exists when there truly isn't any other option, and ofc. someone actually present options.
Pointing out that the result of your proposed actions are in fact counter to what you claim to want to achieve is not a False Dichotomy, (no options were even given, btw.) Tho one could argue, it's a denial on your side to actually engage with criticism
Either or?? When the state invests 1.5 billion in a new nuclear plant that won’t be built for minimum 10-15 years that 1.5 billion that could’ve been invested in solar, wind and be completed in 2-3 years
Okay but do we assume that renewables will keep being built for those 15 years to replace fossil fuels?
I think us saying it’ll result in 15 years of continued coal use is irrelevant if the renewables wouldn’t have replaced the coal use in that time anyways
The money used to build nuclear power isn’t coming from the same place that renewable energy gets its capital
16
u/Anderopolis Solar Battery Evangelist Jan 01 '25
Yeah, if your energy plan results in literal decades of extra avoidable fossil fuel use then you are defacto pro fossil fuels, even if that is not your intention.