Obvious personal antagonizing.
Correct
Right or wrong, just personal opinion about our environmental situation without refence to any other sides feelings.
I'd have to see actual evidence that just taking these policy positions is about antagonizing the other side rather than just sticking with your sides orthodoxy.
Showing a picture of windmill power with the phrase "intelligent design" is an obvious dig at the other side.
It's a dig in the same theme as when conservatives employ signage saying Unborn Black Lives Matter. It's taking a slogan/phrase or concept that the other side holds near and dear, and making it about "their own thing" that they know the other side doesn't like.
In that instance, referring to replacing coal with windmills and calling it "intelligent design" is the same as when conservative reference "Black Lives Matter" to refer to their anti-abortion position.
It should. But the stigma of Chernobyl is hard to shake regardless of whether its relevant. If something terrible happens at Zaporizhzhia then theres another couple decades lost. Even if everything is fine, people still will want nuke plants far away from their own house. People will sacrifice together much sooner than they would submit to being singled out for taking a hit.
On that you could be right...it could be part of it...however, how long does a stigma "stick"? Or how long should we allow it to "stick"?
When a group of people who were completely comfortable with an explanation of "well, the science changed" numerous times over a 3 year period, seemingly has a problem of "letting go" of the issues pertaining to outdated science on nuclear, it makes my "partisan hackery" senses tingle.
Seeing "well, the science has changed since last month" as an acceptable answer to one scientific topic of great importance, but then saying "I don't feel comfortable with changing my view on this, remember that thing that happened in back in 1986??" doesn't exactly jive.
Not to mention, if the people in the US are anything like the ones in Germany, Spain, and Sweden...there seems to be a "aversion to swallowing one's pride" aspect at play. When a group of people have said so much, for so long, that Wind/Solar/Tidal is "the solution" to the energy/environment conundrum, some have a hard time letting go of that. (much like some people on the conservative side have clung to the theories of "trickle down economics"...it's been shown over a period of 40 years that it doesn't work, it doesn't produce the outcome theorizers thought it would, but yet still feel compelled to defend it and insist it's "the solution" and "we just need to stay the course")
I suspect some of the same is happening here. Much like Germany tried to shutdown nuclear power (at the behest of their Green party who wanted them to focus on Wind/Tidal/Solar) while simultaneously trying to scale back coal...environmental activists here also seem unwilling to consider any alternative options to the 3 they staked their case on.
When progressives were saying years ago "we can replace fossil fuels with these 3 options", and conservatives told them "you're crazy, there's no way that'll work", they don't want to come back 20 years later with their tail tucked between their legs. Much like when conservatives pushed trickle-down as the solution to economic woes, and progressives said "you're crazy, the rich guys will just keep all the money for themselves", they don't want to come back and admit they were wrong after the fact because in our hyper-polarized environment, admitting one's own misjudgments is seen as a "sign of weakness" or "lack of resolve"