Yes, having targets is good, but they can also *harm* #ClimateAction https://abs.twimg.com/hashflags... draggable="false" alt="">.

For example, the Belgian government is insisting that European emission *targets* (ETS) "ensure" that its rush to eliminate the Belgian nuclear power sector "will not increase CO2 emissions, because ETS ..." https://twitter.com/James_BG/status/1385165253835624450">https://twitter.com/James_BG/...

Here is one example of how this argument is constructed, written up by antinuclear campaigner and Belgian government Cabinet Climate Lead @MathiasB9.

He insists:
"Shutting Down Nuclear Powerplants is Good voor the Environment and the Climate"
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="😬" title="Grimasse schneidendes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Grimasse schneidendes Gesicht"> https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/kernuitstap-is-goed-voor-het-milieu-en-het-klimaat/article-opinion-931409.html">https://www.knack.be/nieuws/be...

If it wasn& #39;t for European climate targets set in the #euets, it would be impossible for Mr. Bienstman to contrive that shutting down Belgium& #39;s perfectly operable and sustainable fleet of nuclear power stations is somehow "good for the climate". https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-regulations-finance/eu-experts-to-say-nuclear-power-qualifies-for-green-investment-label-document-idINKBN2BJ0F0">https://www.reuters.com/article/u...

Ah, but of course... https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="😏" title="Grinsendes Gesicht" aria-label="Emoji: Grinsendes Gesicht">
#antinuclearism

Let me be clear: climate targets are essential - obviously - but we must combine them with rules and regulation that prevent the antinuclear lobby from abusing such targets in order to proclaim that banning or shutting down nuclear power plants "doesn& #39;t increase CO2 emissions".