I skimmed the original report and their argument is that it produces less CO2 per unit of electricity than oil or coal and is cheaper than renewables and nuclear, although the conclusion does concede that improved & cheaper nuclear or solar power would be even better.
I'm particularly amused that they claim Matt Ridley's connection to oil and coal production means he has the opposite of a vested interest, when the whole report is a justification for continuing to invest in fossil fuels over renewables... *sigh*
(And depressed by the eejit who used a dodgy methodology to overestimate the impact of methane emissions from it, nicely playing into the whole 'environmentalist conspiracy' nonsense.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'm particularly amused that they claim Matt Ridley's connection to oil and coal production means he has the opposite of a vested interest, when the whole report is a justification for continuing to invest in fossil fuels over renewables... *sigh*
(And depressed by the eejit who used a dodgy methodology to overestimate the impact of methane emissions from it, nicely playing into the whole 'environmentalist conspiracy' nonsense.)