There might be a pragmatic case to make, but I don't think she should be the one making it, that's just a gift to the industry and undermines her own credibility for nothing. In a sane world these 'bridge fuel' arguments might have some merit, but the logic of capitalism dictates that growth must be pursued in all sectors at the maximum possible rate, so it's never nuclear OR coal; fracked gas/renewables(sic)/hydrogen/sodium batteries OR coal - it's ~ AND coal (Germany was already burning coal before the Ukraine war). Taking up the task of deciding which is the best, or even least worst, fuel for industrial capitalism in that situation is merely deciding which of those industrial sectors you're going to give free PR to. Solving for the wrong variable as the Bright Green Lies authors describe it: https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance/solving-for-the-wrong-variable/

'Btw, I noticed that there are more *live* decarbonising of coal plants projects ongoing at the mo' - as in carbon capture stuff? Haven't seen it... source?

Agreed on Christoforous. I'm in two minds about it, as you can maybe tell from my contradictory arguments! On the one hand I hate the centrist dad-type dismissal of Thunberg, calling her Joan of Arc and refusing to engage with anything she actually says; on the other hand her relative acceptance by the mainstream does indicate that the wheels are in motion to co-opt climate change-focused environmentalism and use it to ram through the next round of authoritarian measures a-la covid, if not to the extent that some might imagine it...

The Putin clip was worth it though, so thanks for that!

cheers,
I