Why do they never offer any practical, actionable solutions to the climate change crisis?

Home Forums Science & tech Why do they never offer any practical, actionable solutions to the climate change crisis?

  • This topic has 172 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 37 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #218490
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why do politician, TV scientist and technicians never offer any practical, actionable solution to the climate change crisis? It’s always:
      >stop eating meat
      >don’t have children
      >drink from plastic straws
      Despite the fact that we have been eating meat and having children for hundreds of thousands of years. Oh and plastic straws are not the chief cause of climate catastrophe. So what gives? Why won’t experts stop complaining and just implement a viable solution?

    • #218491
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Fossil Fuel special interests

    • #218492
      Anonymous
      Guest

      millennial’s are starting to say that the previous generations could have prevented this by adopting nuclear power. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have switched from coal power plants to nuclear 40 years ago.

      With the coal shortages of China I see them moving to nuclear at an accelerated rate.

      • #218614
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >nuclear power
        ah yes, the energy source that requires extremely high levels of government competency
        what could go wrong

        • #218627
          Anonymous
          Guest

          YES. that and modularity. just consider the benefits if just china and india went full on LFTR…

        • #218636
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >the energy source that requires extremely high levels of government competency

          bro, the Navy has teenage losers who weren’t good enough to go to college operate their reactors and they’ve never had a problem.

          • #218642
            Anonymous
            Guest

            woke af

    • #218493
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why do
      remember to filter all threads like this anons

      > to the climate change crisis
      there is no freaking crisis

      • #218495
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >using a standard form of questioning deserves to be filtered
        I guess asking questions is illegal

      • #218506
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >lightbubs dont exist, its just a roided out GMO FireFly in a bulb. Dont belive big BULB!!!11

      • #218613
        Anonymous
        Guest

        scrotebrain

    • #218494
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because they’re politicians and TV personalities. The fuck you think they can do, invent a new source of cheap limitless power?

    • #218496
      Anonymous
      Guest

      couple of reasons.

      1. imagine you had a machine that could regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. if the climate scientists are right, then what you have is functionally a weather machine. now, who gets to control the weather for the entire planet? me? you? some politicians? nobody can answer that question, so trying to build that machine is pointless.

      2. now imagine that we do build a system or machine to regulate the CO2 in the atmosphere, and it works, and it turns out the climate scientists models about how CO2 affects the climate are drastically wrong. well, then oops we spent trillions and possibly permanently modified our planet and it was either ineffective or made the situation worse. everyone involved in that project would have their heads put on a spike. truth is, these scientists aren’t sure enough of being correct to do anything concrete so its all half hearted non-measures.

    • #218499
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >drink from plastic straws
      >implying research and media haven’t been telling you to start dropping plastic due to microplastics found in your butt waste

      Get with the times old man.

    • #218502
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The only viable response is the end of capitalism and with it western imperialism.

    • #218504
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Despite the fact that we have been eating meat and having children for hundreds of thousands of years
      Sure but not at the scale we are now.

      Up until ~200 years ago, the global population was stable. The meat consumption was extremely low. The sugar consumption was extremely low. The consumption of goods in general was extremely low.

      We were consuming 100x-1000x more per person today than we were 200 years ago. Now multiply that 1000x with 1000x population increase. Its a disaster in making. If we limit the consumption to only 10x what we ate in the 1800s per person, than crisis wouldn’t be happening. We needed a natural growth curve, not an exponential one.

      • #218526
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >we are consuming 100x-1000x more per pwrson today than we were 200 years ago
        Maybe Americans do, but not everybody else

        • #218527
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Everywhere in the western world is within that 100x-1000x range. From the baby that was just born yesterday to the old man that will die in an hour. Every single person in the western world consumes 100x+ more than what we did 200 years ago.

          • #218542
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Everybody be complaining about Africa and Asia and shiet when the real problem is white pypo eating the planet lmao

            • #218549
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Those Africans will be the real issue for Europe. Whites and probably Asians will leave Earth for Mars/space in the coming decades/centuries. While Africans will stay on the earth with no exploitable resources.

              "The meeks shall inherit the earth" – Biblical prophecy. They’re talking about Africans.

            • #218597
              Anonymous
              Guest

              We do far more for humanity per person so we deserve more resources.

              • #218601
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Like what, destroying the planet at a massive rate so we can have more stupid shit to consume and live longer then give 1% of foreign aid to 3rd world countries because we feel guilty?

                Is this the white mans burdon?

                • #218605
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Whites don’t consume "stupid shit", that’s why advertisements are full of black people.
                  If you want to be anprim be my guest, but get off the internet.

                  • #218607
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    kek, wrong board cock gobbler.
                    Statistically "whites" produce more co2 then anyone else. Most of it is through consumption.

                    You are directly responsable for the distruction of the environment.

                    Hitler would not be proud of you.

                    • #218609
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Not all consumption is of stupid shit. Learn to read.

                      >Whites don’t consume stupid shit

                      picrel

                      • #218611
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        oh yeah white, traditional middle class people are known for minimalism and taste, especially american.

                      • #218615
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >That house
                        >Not tasteful
                        >Middle class

                      • #218616
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >proves that americans dont have any taste

                      • #218617
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Middle class
                        What then?

                    • #218624
                      Anonymous
                      Guest
                      • #218625
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        even worse is cumulative emissions

                        no sadly not, this is just fuel combustion.

                        if you look at who acctually induces c02 emissions (for products, services and waste)we look like monsters.

                  • #218608
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Whites don’t consume stupid shit

    • #218508
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The only viable solution would stop growth but our economy is build upon that and it wouldn’t work in time anyway.
      The better thing would be just to accept the possibility and act accordingly to lessen the likely consequences for humans. But I guess, that costs too much? So we’ll wait until we have to and it’ll be even more expensive.

    • #218509
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why do politician, TV scientist and technicians never offer any practical, actionable solution to the climate change crisis?
      Because it’s fake

    • #218510
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why do politician, TV scientist and technicians never offer any practical, actionable solution to the climate change crisis?
      They do, you scrotebrained luddites just ignore or deny those, too.

      • #218512
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No, less meat and less privat transport do shit compared to a stop of in and exporting goods that aren’t vital or can be produced in the country itself.

        • #218513
          Anonymous
          Guest

          you do realise, thats not even close to a complete picture. There are hundereds of interventions needed in different fields which are researched and modelled. These two points are just easy to understand and applicable to a wide audience.

          And dont underestimate the resources needed to feed animals compared to their nutritional value.

          • #218550
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Why don’t they just ban factory farming and import of factory farmed products but instead tell us not to buy whats presentet to us everywhere?
            They do that because they know it won’t work.

            • #218555
              Anonymous
              Guest

              They do that because that would be expensive, currently unpopular and needs huge international coordiation to not instantly nuke entire markets. It would be needed. But currently not a majority position.

              • #218558
                Anonymous
                Guest

                If they only gently ask us to do what most of us would do anyway at the time, they’re useless as an institution.

    • #218514
      Anonymous
      Guest

      a better question still; if these scientists are so very sure and billions, if not the entire human species, is doomed, then why aren’t CEO’s and politicians getting pipe bombs in the mail or getting shot on the streets?

      oh, its because these scientists aren’t that sure and absolutely lack the courage of their convictions.

      • #218515
        Anonymous
        Guest

        or just maby, scientists dont have much power in the modern world and dont like violence.

        No it must be a global conspiracy. And yes ecoterrorism is accepted by societies to be reasonable and prooven to further environmental change. Oh wait…..

        • #218516
          Anonymous
          Guest

          reason and a distaste for violence are irrelevant in the face of extinction. its doomsday, remember?

          • #218517
            Anonymous
            Guest

            not if using these tools, will do the opposite you want to change for the better.

            It will only and destroy any collective action for change by splitting it into militants and non violent people. Additionally it will empower reactionaries against climate action.

            • #218519
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Agreed. Uncle Ted made many great points, but folks focus in on that murdering for some reason and everything else is ignored.

          • #218520
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Activists get blinded and imprisoned for peacefully protesting pipelines, what do you think they’re going to do to anyone who does anything remotely violent?

      • #218518
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I care about climate change because it has the potential to degrade my quality of life.
        Why would I partake in actions that will virtually guarantee I live the rest of my life in a concrete box?

      • #218626
        Anonymous
        Guest

        what

    • #218521
      Anonymous
      Guest

      because everyone half-smart knows nothing can be done. We can’t just stop the industry, stop making plastic stop burning oil and coal. There is nothing to be done, nothing will get done, we’ll deal with it as it happens.

      Politicians have to soothe the people who are afraid of whats coming but they can’t really "do" anything. There is nothing to be done.

      • #218522
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That attitude is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. We can do something, or at the very least, make a solid attempt. Humanity as a whole needs to step across the mental threshold and finally assume control of our little blue spaceship. The idea that we’re all just going along for the ride and mother earth is still at the wheel isn’t true anymore, climate change literally proves that. But noone wants speak it, noone wants to say "hey, lets step up and butt fuck mom into submission and take the keys to this joint" because that is a complete 180 from the very passive approach we have to ecology.

        • #218524
          Anonymous
          Guest

          what are you saying we should do in concrete terms?

          • #218538
            Anonymous
            Guest

            The attitude change is the concrete action. So many viable projects are killed in the crib because some fish or bird or localized species could be wiped out. And these aren’t even giga geo engineering projects, its simple shit like dams or canals. those organisms exist at our behest, they have no rights under their human masters and if they don’t serve a real, measurable purpose on this ship then they are eligible to get shoved out the proverbial airlock. these natural wonders we are hesitant to modify cannot justify their existence with "but i like it" anymore.

        • #218525
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Good luck telling your kids they won’t have one third the life you have had much less exceeding what you did because the planet may get warmer in the future. In fact good luck telling them they will not even get your stuff.

          People naturally want to amass resources, buy nice shit, have a good life. This is not "consumerism" it’s pretty basic human nature. If you think they will just magically become the own nothing be happy guy you are beyond deluded.

          • #218537
            Anonymous
            Guest

            because everyone half-smart knows nothing can be done. We can’t just stop the industry, stop making plastic stop burning oil and coal. There is nothing to be done, nothing will get done, we’ll deal with it as it happens.

            Politicians have to soothe the people who are afraid of whats coming but they can’t really "do" anything. There is nothing to be done.

            Dude there is no option to do nothing. Do you want to stop at 6 to 8 degrees when the poles will be completly ice free? can you imagine what that would mean. 8 degrees in 100 years. Thats uprecedented in human history.

            Can you explain your childeren that billions of investments and property will be erased by storms, sea level rise, flooding and droughts. All the wealth from generations erased. Explain them that. If we do nothing they will get even less.

            And its not needed to live like a cave man.

            Just not living like a toddler in a candy store.

          • #218540
            Anonymous
            Guest

            im not advocating "eat ze bugs, own nothing". just the opposite. i’m saying own it ALL. every bit of it, from the highest mountain to the lowest valley, every square mile of this planet needs to be actively managed and optimized specifically for humans.

            • #218557
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >i’m saying own it ALL. every bit of it, from the highest mountain to the lowest valley, every square mile of this planet needs to be actively managed and optimized specifically for humans

              Sounds like collectivism. It’s not my way but if you want that just see if the scrotes end up on top which may well happen.

              • #218563
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >Sounds like collectivism.
                not really, its a change in perspective from being awe struck and paralyzed by "muh natures grandeur" to "how is this objectively useful to people?"

                like, who cares about polar bears or pandas? do we actually need them as part of an ecological system of human sustainment or are they just ornamentation? The grand canyon is a real gee whiz place, but do we actually need it? can we dam it off to produce power?

        • #218588
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Humanity as a whole needs to step across the mental threshold and finally assume control of our little blue spaceship.

          im not advocating "eat ze bugs, own nothing". just the opposite. i’m saying own it ALL. every bit of it, from the highest mountain to the lowest valley, every square mile of this planet needs to be actively managed and optimized specifically for humans.

          >every square mile of this planet needs to be actively managed and optimized specifically for humans.

          Dreadful idea. Humanity can’t agree on shit and we’re collectively and individually incapable of thinking, planning, and executing on timescales relevant to biosphere management. The only chance we have at our current level of civilisation maturity is to transition to low impact interactions with the biosphere. But then of course, as I said, humanity can’t agree on shit, so we won’t.

          • #218637
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Yeah, thats my point. if we CAN get everyone on the same page, the way forward isn’t being a passive passenger on SS Terra. It’s actually behaving like we own the thing and acting like a ships crew would.

        • #218622
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Humanity as a whole needs to step across the mental threshold and finally assume control of our little blue spaceship.
          You need to go back.

    • #218528
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Politicians are meant to generate votes, not solve problems. They’re also incompetent. Politics is outdated.

      Anyways, you should still eat *less* meat, stop bitching about it and do it if you actually care. It’s not that easy but it’s still easy and important.

      People bitching about things and having too little capacity and willingness to change their behaviors and entire lives is *one* of the major problems here you’d need to consider.

      • #218545
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >you should still eat less meat
        I don’t even eat that much meat, but my country contributes next to nothing to the climate crisis. My action won’t have any meaningful impact.

        • #218551
          Anonymous
          Guest

          If you don’t have low emissions yourself you’re not in a position to have a meaningful impact (because you’re not even worth it yourself and haven’t even done the easy steps and the steps that need to be done enmasse so you can’t indirectly impact others).
          Of course people like that will never have a meaningful impact anyway because all they can do is watch anime all day or worry about the next day’s work or whatever but you could at least do your duty because it’s ethical and rational.

          • #218553
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Why should I stop doing something my ancestors have done for hundreds of thousands of years? Explain that to me.

            • #218560
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Because the situation and effects have changed. There’s a lot of other things that have changed and people seem.to take that for granted so I’m not sure if you’re sincerely asking that or just trying to find out something. Are you asking if it’s necessary to induce neurological changes in normies to make them change?

          • #218632
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Even if you do have low emissions, you are still not in a position to have a meaningful impact. Your personal actions are contributing approximately zero

            • #218633
              Anonymous
              Guest

              For you that’s true, because you can’t achieve anything.

              You should still do these things once you learned about them. Asking people to learn about and implement such things on a voluntary basis without personal benefits beyond health (in some cases) is obviously not the way forward.

              • #218634
                Anonymous
                Guest

                No, even for people who achieve big things like you, your personal carbon reductions still amount to a big fat nothing in the end

                • #218635
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  False, because otherwise I wouldn’t be doing them. This is a prerequisite.

      • #218571
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this is not an issue for politicians and scientists. It’s a question for capitalism.

        • #218577
          Anonymous
          Guest

          One of the fundamental socioeconomic structures and the macroeconomic system, yes.
          Capitalism and communism have both failed even though capitalism was great in many ways.

          • #218582
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It’d say it can work out with capitalism as well as communism, the only problems are the humans in charge that aren’t immune to corruption.

            • #218586
              Anonymous
              Guest

              No, corruption is a feature of those systems, not a flaw.
              Not that I’d say that that’s their main flaw. What I mean to say is those are simply shitty designs.

      • #218646
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Anyways, you should still eat *less* meat, stop bitching about it and do it if you actually care. It’s not that easy but it’s still easy and important.
        Meat is the worst example you could’ve chosen, it has practically no effect on the climate. Before the settlement of the US its been estimated there were MORE bison on the plains than we have cows now. On top of that, much more of the animal is used now than compared to the past, with shit like cartilage getting ground into burgers. But sure, eat ze bugs if you want.

        • #218652
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Before the settlement of the US its been estimated there were MORE bison on the plains than we have cows now.
          Ignoring that that’s a lie, it still doesn’t help you since there was not an entire industry behind wild bison clearing land, using fossil fuels and fertilizer to grow their food, transport the meat, etc.

    • #218529
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nuclear power is the only viable alternative that exists and basically 0 "environmentalist" politicians want more of it so that right there alone is how you can deduce this is all contrived.
      Carbon credits will change nothing about the source of power (and thus CO2) and just exist as a wealth transfer from the middle class to plutocrats as they pay for the marginal increase in cost that is low enough to not warrant a radical lifestyle change such as not cooling your freaking house in winter or using a computer.
      Basically boot all "environmentalists" into an oven.

      • #218530
        Anonymous
        Guest

        cooling in summer***

      • #218534
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Give me nuclear power for cheap/fast and we’ll do it. Thats an impossible order in modern western world. Nuclear power costs a fuck ton. Fuck ton more than coal/gas/wind/solar/etc. Thats the big issue. It needs to be economically viable.

        • #218539
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Nuclear power is slower and more expensive than renewable energies.
          The waste is a major problem and people just neglect it.
          Same for the miniscule problem of nuclear weapons.

          All its proponents can do is come up with some shallow corporate greenwashing talking points.

          Pure cope.
          France has proven nuclear is safe, cost effective and not very cumbersome to deal with.
          Are nuclear plants expensive?
          Sure.
          Is is worth not stripmining the planet to make enough solar panels to even come close to meeting present demand?
          Yes.
          Wind and solar cant even hardly pay for their own material cost in carbon neutrality.

          • #218546
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >France has proven nuclear is safe, cost effective and not very cumbersome to deal with.
            No, France government has subsidized nuclear power because they see nuclear power as a geopolitical military power projection. Most other countries dont care about such a thing and simply want cheap energy.

            • #218552
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The US subsidizes agriculture, does that mean food can’t pay for itself?
              Most other countries don’t care about CO2 emissions at all.
              If more anthropogenic CO2 really was a doomsday scenario, the ONLY way you could ever make enough power without emitting CO2 and meeting energy needs to prevent societal collapse is nuclear. Period. Wind and solar do not even cover their own CO2 emissions in materials production.

          • #218548
            Anonymous
            Guest

            That’s not really the issue though. Nuclear reactor research and construction stagnated for the past 35 years, thus an economy of scale didn’t really happen. Most nuclear plants in the western world are 30+ years old. This means a significant investment needs to take place to develop new reactor designs as well as efficient construction of those reactors. It must be done sure, but no one wants to spend the money on them.

            • #218559
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I’m not even saying it needs to be done but IF it’s true that emitting more CO2 is the end of the world (all the experts agree!), the ONLY freaking WAY you can make enough power to prevent collapse while not making any more CO2 is nuclear. Period. And yet nobody wants it.
              You will get carbon credits instead.
              You will also get endless slave wage immigration, as if that helps climate change either.

              • #218564
                Anonymous
                Guest

                No you are wrong. It has been demonstrated time an time again.

                What you need is interconnected, highly integrated grids with fast regulation capability and distributed energy generaton with a higher margin of overhead.

                Basically averaging out spikes in demand and production over a large population of consumers and generation. But again, this needs more investement in INFRASTRUCTURE, which the west has forgot to do in decades.

                • #218566
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  infrastructure and R&D into things like floating solar, perovskite panels and marine energy…not too much going on there for current goals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_sustainable_energy_research_2020-present

                  • #218567
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    no, that shit takes to long. You need massive deployment of shit we already have and a drastic build up in power grids.

                    Accelerate build time of rewneables and grid infrastructure. Mass production (like wartime production) standartisation and quick deployment with community investment opportunities to better acceptance.

                    An example would be a unified Greater American Grid.

                    • #218640
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The fundamental problem with US infrastructure projects is bureaucracy.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p__teJLmY3k

                      ^ this scrotery is endemic across state lines. Its mind boggling that it costs millions of freaking dollars to lay down 1 mile of rail track and that most of the cost is simply a result of freaking permitting and overhead costs. That’s why Green tech budgets are so freaking insane. The actual cost of infrastructure modernization is probably 25-30% of the total bill value, and that 50-60% of it is just to file the freaking paperwork.

                      With nuclear reactors its 100x MORE costly along the same lines. We’re getting bonked not by a lack of technological progress or even cost of building shit, but simply a result of pencil pushers requiring a gorillion different forms and approval chains to do something.

                  • #218569
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    That would have been a way in the 70s to 90s.
                    There is just no time anymore for experiments.

                    • #218570
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      New nuclear is averaging about 25 years from the planning phase to being actual operational.

                      • #218572
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        yeah to slow. way to slow.

                    • #218584
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      no, that shit takes to long. You need massive deployment of shit we already have and a drastic build up in power grids.

                      Accelerate build time of rewneables and grid infrastructure. Mass production (like wartime production) standartisation and quick deployment with community investment opportunities to better acceptance.

                      An example would be a unified Greater American Grid.

                      Good points, however the R&D could also be about things we already have such as for their most efficient use or how to interconnect and deploy them etc. It’s also about things that aren’t drastically different / new but just improvements on already existing well-working things. I think a good example would be floating solar with tech including basically already exising panels that could be ready for near-term large-scale deployment.

                      • #218589
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        well then you have problems with cleaning, salt depositing, maintenance. Why not put solar on every roof, decimate car infrastructure and use space in cities to produce solar. do massive offshore wind. If you have large overcapacity invest in h2 and hydropumpstorage if you have the land.

                        America would be a great place to start, since it has such a wide range of climates, and terrrain

                      • #218618
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >well then you have problems with cleaning, salt depositing, maintenance
                        These problems may not be so hard to solve. Salt depositing could be prevented via the material, cleaning could be done autonomously in addition to nanotech and people are already working on largely automated maintenance. If accelerated these things wouldn’t take long to complete imo. The main problem there is that everybody seems to think throwing money at problems will accomplish much or is what’s needed.

                        What’s needed is people working on these things. Not getting payed a shitton. Not writing countless papers. Not having to study irrelevant crap for years. And not studying lots of relevant relevant things either.
                        Additionally, those few people should be made more efficient. Not locking things in patents, not caring about regulations/patents/basics, not reinventing the wheel an 8th time, not working in isolation, not pursuing useless endeavours, not having to carry out the monotonous work, etc But imo the problem is to get people to work on such things, rather than selling cars, driving around precooked foods or writing a software already developed a 1000 times once more.

              • #218573
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I agree but it still takes a couple of decades from planning to operation of a nuclear plant

          • #218554
            Anonymous
            Guest

            There is like 100 years worth of uranium at current consumption levels. Ramp up nuclear power usage and its much less. Not viable sorry. And thats even before we touch on shit like waste disposal.

            • #218562
              Anonymous
              Guest

              ok wow I didnt know that and that is depressing.
              I still know solar and wind do not cover their CO2 emissions in materials.
              I will stfu about nuclear now

              • #218565
                Anonymous
                Guest

                dude what. How can energy generation be net negative. That can only be done by using energy to bind co2.

                They are drastically better then anything else. like 11g/kWh compared to like 800g/kWh for coal.

                Plant a few trees and you have a carbon neutral wind turbine in 20 years.

          • #218568
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >stripmining the planet to make enough solar panels

      • #218535
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nuclear power is slower and more expensive than renewable energies.
        The waste is a major problem and people just neglect it.
        Same for the miniscule problem of nuclear weapons.

        All its proponents can do is come up with some shallow corporate greenwashing talking points.

        • #218547
          Anonymous
          Guest

          even if i agreed with all those points, they exist because the funding to refine the technology is miniscule compared to what other technologies get. humanity hasn’t made a sincere effort at nuclear energy, at all. virtually every reactor was built off the back of weaponization. its always been about the bombs, never the energy.

          • #218556
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >We’ll just magically make all the problems disappear because we’ll do R&D outstripping many decades worth of intense research and deployment within 5 years, believe me

            I’m all in if you’re referring to fusion power though, that’ll take way to long for any near-term relevance however.

            • #218561
              Anonymous
              Guest

              i didn’t say that. i said humanity hasn’t even tried nuclear power. its all been a secondary boondoggle to bomb making.

        • #218644
          Anonymous
          Guest

          yea, why do people shill for nuclear power.
          Its neither cheap, quick to deploy, easily regulated, storage is difficult if you dont have massive unpopulated land, storing is expensive.

          It might help in certain situations or areas. But its not a panacea.

          We need something we can deploy NOW. In massive quantities.

          we’ve got rockets capable of carrying hundreds of tonnes into outer space, we’ve got a bunch of desert shithole nobody lives in, we’ve got a dozen decommisioned bunkers not in use, we’ve got technology to build isolating container, isolating structures and making sure they keep doing it for however long they need to do so, how many more times are you going to complain about having to be on the same planet as some containable radioative waste? do you know how much pollution comes from fossil fuel? how much it fuck shits up?

          nuclear is not economically viable because nobody freaking invested in it, nobody created a standardized design/protocol like they did for panels and windmills and freaking everything else with an economy of scale, so everytime it gets built, its essentially being custom built for the area its in, jumping through hoops upon hoops, until its finally operational and recouping costs is a gigantic effort nobody bothered to make because nobody bothered to make the effort to do the above. that’s a problem idk how to solve but it’s clear that renewables are not cutting it in terms of replace fossils and shit to power things.

      • #218543
        Anonymous
        Guest

        yea, why do people shill for nuclear power.
        Its neither cheap, quick to deploy, easily regulated, storage is difficult if you dont have massive unpopulated land, storing is expensive.

        It might help in certain situations or areas. But its not a panacea.

        We need something we can deploy NOW. In massive quantities.

    • #218532
      Anonymous
      Guest

      ‘practical solutions’ are not realistically feasible under a democratic republic government.

      • #218533
        Anonymous
        Guest

        what kind of practical solutions are you talking about?

    • #218536
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the craziest part is that even merkel, a freaking physicist, completely screwed germany’s energy politics, closing down nuclear power plants and completely flatlining co2 emissions for the past decade

      • #218541
        Anonymous
        Guest

        She did screw up a lot of things, like opening our borders and allowing a million refugees in, but that’s something that she’ll be remembered for in honor. She implemented the people’s well-informed will and stood our ground unlike all those uncritical neckbeards content with all the nuclear shill spoonfeading.

        Also the nuclear decentralized dystopia is in the future, not the past so don’t tell people you know it’s safe or whatever.

        • #218544
          Anonymous
          Guest

          *decentralized catastrophe

    • #218574
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HEY GOYS, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL
      >thread #9001
      global warming is a hoax.
      climate "scientists" wouldn’t have been caught falsifying data so many times if it weren’t a hoax.
      if it weren’t a hoax there would be no reason to falsify data, the data would’ve already have had measurable global warming in it.
      the climate "scientists" who lie about nonexistent global warming get paid very well to circulate their lies, that is why they continue to circulate the global warming lie.

      • #218576
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >caught falsifying data
        has literally never happened.

      • #218578
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >uses low likelyhood, high impact worse case cenario, to change peoples perspective, as an example why climate change does not exist.
        > does not mention the meriad of simulated cases woke af on multiple factors, which are more reasonable and accurate.

        HURR DURR ClImAt DUnt ChanggE

      • #218580
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Wow, predictions change in response to new data and theories! The nerve of those scientists!
        Why can’t they be like The Bible and be correct no matter what? Wtf!?

      • #218629
        Anonymous
        Guest

        LULZ is a smart board
        you should not be posting on LULZ

    • #218575
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >new nuclear power planets can be built in 5 years
      >hundreds years worth of old school uranium and plutonium
      >even more thorium available for upgrades
      We go nuclear and keep it like that until fusion is cracked and then things get interesting

      • #218579
        Anonymous
        Guest

        But wouldn’t that mean to help the shithole countrys go nuklear where most of our stuff is produced?

        • #218583
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Exactly, 3rd world countries are the worst polluters and nuclear would help the most there
          That or we take all production back home for clean manufacturing

          • #218585
            Anonymous
            Guest

            they are not. First world countries are the biggest producers of c02 and export a large part of their waste to 3rd world countries. They also cause the most co2 emissions in other countries by importing cheap goods.

            How should bangladesh or freaking pakistan manage a huge scale nuclear infrastructure in 15 years with safety in mind. Let alone manage the waste without it getting everywhere. Thats a scrotebrained idea

            • #218587
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >First world countries are the biggest producers of c02
              By consumtion of products that are produced in or use resources from shithole countries. At least I hope the emmission/head count works that way.

              • #218591
                Anonymous
                Guest

                no sadly not, this is just fuel combustion.

                if you look at who acctually induces c02 emissions (for products, services and waste)we look like monsters.

                • #218593
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  even worse is cumulative emissions

                  • #218594
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    no sadly not, this is just fuel combustion.

                    if you look at who acctually induces c02 emissions (for products, services and waste)we look like monsters.

                    Just looking at that is freaking depressing.

                  • #218596
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    And that’s just co2, is there one for all the environmental damage due to mining and producing in countries with no standarts?

                    • #218598
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      definitely harder to quantify, you’d probably need to write several books on the topic.

                • #218595
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Thanks, what an poopyhole way to count.

      • #218581
        Anonymous
        Guest

        so please show me a deployed system which is up and running in 5 years. If its "still in development" it wont be ready in time

    • #218590
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >practical, actionable solution
      Kill as many reproductive age (or younger) people as you can, then yourself.
      Overpopulation is the biggest issue.

      Preferably not scientists or engineers (of course) so that progress on eco-friendly technology continues. Or you can purchase swatches of land for use as nature preserves, but I’m assuming you can’t afford that.

      • #218599
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Preferably not scientists or engineers (of course) so that progress on eco-friendly technology continues

        More scientists and engineers are working on destructive things as as working on eco-friendly ones, anon.

        • #218600
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s true that’s where the money is

          • #218602
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >where the money is
            your transparently fake mask of selfless environmental concern falls off in a second the instant potential financial gains are mentioned

            • #218603
              Anonymous
              Guest

              she’s just a Jordan Peterson fan and believes we should clean our own rooms first

              • #218610
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Well, europe and us do come before china still.

                >Well, europe and us do come before china still.

                Which has largely already happened. China puts out more pollution than the USA, Canada, and pretty much all of Europe combined.

            • #218604
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Well, europe and us do come before china still.

    • #218592
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There will never be another centuries-long energy boom like we had with fossil fuel. It was a one-shot deal and we as a species squandered it to develop throwaway comforts, population expansion, and pointless societal complexity. The future of humanity, whatever it looks like, has a lot less energy use per capita. By choice or by circumstance, that is going to happen.

      The end of the fossil fuel boon will come about either via collective action, forced by the impacts of climate change, or simple exhaustion of the resource. There’s a valid question of when that end will come but not if. It is a certainty. There is no equal or greater energy source that will replace it and allow humanity to maintain the energy richness it enjoys today.

    • #218606
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because there’s absolutely nothing you as an individual can do to reverse climate change. It requires political action against corporations but most of the people in politics don’t want to harm their political donors.

      Your individual climate actions are meaningless:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc
      How your individual actions are meaningless:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE
      More
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIezuL_doYw

    • #218612
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Go back to pol, moron.

      • #218631
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Im not a /poo/ack you drip

    • #218619
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Oh and plastic straws are not the chief cause of climate catastrophe.
      Hm, I wonder how you make those plastic straws… something to do with oil… I think… and burning it…

      • #218620
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Pretty sure you’re aware that the throwaway plastics interventions are mostly about plastic pollution. Countries should stop exporting waste, that would be more significant.

    • #218621
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The best straw solution, wouldn’t it be going back to real straws? Low extra production costs, eco throwaway prduct that doesn’t count as garbage.

    • #218623
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why do politician, TV scientist and technicians never offer any practical, actionable solution to the climate change crisis

      because they’re not stupid enough to come out right and say "We need to kill three quarters of the people on the face of the Earth." because that’s the only actual practical actionable solution to the climate change crisis.

    • #218628
      Anonymous
      Guest

      global warming is fake

      • #218654
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Proof?

    • #218630
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The people that own the TV stations / streaming services have no interest in having solid arguments and solutions sent out to the masses when nearly all of these people are also heavily invested in polluters.
      >let scrotebrain talk about eating bugs
      >coal stocks do well
      >let educated people talk about nuclear and reforestation
      >coal stocks tank
      Always remember the people you see on TV are only there because the station owners want them there not becuase they are the best people to talk about the topic.

    • #218638
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They are gaining time because the problem lies in Africa and India (mostly)
      Meanwhile Africa is exploding, then they will release the news that millions of africans need to move to Europe.
      And they will finally implement your solution and not a final one…maybe for whites lmao

      Just compare Haiti with sub-saharan Africa and America with Europe

    • #218639
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because the 250 or so people that control the true political machine in America have interests that rely on accelerating climate change, locust capitalism basically.

    • #218643
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Entering an interglacial period
      >OMG WHY IS EVERYTHING WARMING UP?? STOP EATING MEAT STOP BREEDING OMG

      • #218653
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >>Entering an interglacial period
        Oh no… it’s scrotebrained. Interglacial warming was 10000 years ago, sweaty.

    • #218647
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Howcome /poo/tards always blame the penguins for the fall of the west? Don’t they realise how stupid they sound?

    • #218648
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because the only solution is removing the Industrial Society but you all are not ready for that conversation yet.

    • #218649
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why do politician, TV scientist and technicians never offer any practical, actionable solution to the climate change crisis?
      Pathetic liar.

      https://www.carbontax.org/public-officials/

      https://www.carbontax.org/scientists/

      https://www.carbontax.org/economists/

    • #218655
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It amuses me that the climate change/global warming crowd consistently ignore two facts: the Earth is constantly changing, and humans just got here. Our frame of reference is insignificant.

      • #218657
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >the Earth is constantly changing
        No one ignores this. If your weight is constantly changing does that mean obesity is healthy?

        >and humans just got here. Our frame of reference is insignificant.
        Insignificant to what?

        • #218658
          Anonymous
          Guest

          https://i.imgur.com/psPZfY2.gif

          Wrong. The climate change crowd assumes that the Earth is essentially static and refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe that a glacier melting is a NATURAL occurrence.

          The Earth is 4.6 BILLION years old. Humans just got here and we have a frame of reference that is INSIGNIFICANT. It takes an astonishing amount of arrogance to think humans will do anything but go extinct like the 99% of species that ever existed on this planet.

          Enjoy your time on Earth, because it is fleeting.

          • #218660
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >The climate change crowd assumes that the Earth is essentially static
            Proof?

            >refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe that a glacier melting is a NATURAL occurrence.
            Is current warming natural? Is obesity healthy?

            >The Earth is 4.6 BILLION years old. Humans just got here and we have a frame of reference that is INSIGNIFICANT.
            You didn’t answer my question. Insignificant to what? Are you a human or a planet?

            >It takes an astonishing amount of arrogance to think humans will do anything but go extinct like the 99% of species that ever existed on this planet.
            More inane non sequiturs. Just have a nice day right now because you’re going to die eventually.

    • #218659
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s easier to morally judge the individual who has no power over how industrial society has been organised over the course of several centuries than it is to implement regulations that limit corporate freedom.

    • #218661
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I don’t know what media you consume but over here politicians and scientists always offer concrete solutions. It’s just that some people don’t give a shit and get in the way.
      >Despite the fact that we have been eating meat and having children for hundreds of thousands of years
      Appeals to tradition are the most idiotic of logical fallacies.

Viewing 37 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.