Except that is not the strategy at all. They actually used a formula that has nothing to do with the countries tariffs, only with how much they import/export from/to the USA. Why else would they put a tariff on an uninhabited island? The penguins surely had a 0% tariff policy with the USA, which according to your logic would mean, that they would get a 0% tariff as per trumps policy. Instead, all tariffs are at least 10%, because if you actually applied the formula to all countries, some would end up with negative tariffs! I strongly recommend this video by Stand-up Maths to understand how the numbers are actually calculated.
xxd
joined 2 years ago
What the actual fuck is wrong with these people
It's not only the risk factor, people routinely oppose wind turbines just because they dislike how they look. and huge cooling towers are not exactly subtle.
but the 'risk factor' is a total non-issue in regards to making this decision. nuclear power could be 100% safe and it would still simply be far too expensive to be worth it.
It's really sad to see that evidently more than half of the german population have an opinion on something which they have little to no understanding of. It's frustrating what misinformation can achieve.
Nuclear power might work for some nations, but there is just no way it makes sense in germany. All previous plants are in dire need of renovation and will be hugely expensive to bring back up and running, and a new one is just as overly optimistic, as major construction projects routinely go far over budget here, and nuclear energy is already not price competitive with renewables. Nobody wants waste storage, let alone a power plant near them, and it would take years until a plant is even producing energy. By that time, it might already be redundant, because renewables and energy storage will be cheaper and more ubiquitous. there is just no way nuclear power makes sense for germany.
If anything it would be more a 'tu quoque' fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.
It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn't do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.
Everyone: Hey, I've seen this claim before! Elmo: What do you mean you've seen it? It's brand new!