Agree, though just because we currently have not been able to establish that something is harmful, we should still be open to reevaluating that assumption given new evidence.

Consider PFAS, which we for a long time thought was completely inert and harmless, at least after production. Only recently we’ve discovered or perhaps rather accepted that it has adverse effects on human health.

Another example is freon. A completely awesome product, until we found that it caused the ozone hole and we had to ban it.

It’s a waste spending time and money on nuclear today. Building a nuclear plant takes a decade and costs more than renewables. Better to go all in on renewable sources, especially wind and solar power.

Sweden, like many other countries, already experience a huge interest in, and investments and production of renewables. Why not build on that? It’s less expensive, has faster time to market, and results in a more resilient power grid when large single points of failure can be avoided.

What is sorely needed in Sweden is making it easier to getting approval for building wind turbines, especially at sea where noise and light pollution is a non-issue, and power grid improvements to support distribution from these new production sites. One area where government support could be really useful is investing in large scale energy storage to be able to deal with peak load.