/sci/ - Science & Math

unironically a carbon tax and massive subsidies for renewables
probably too late though, and most everyone would hate it because of "hoax to leave future generation with clean air"

>>10317568
>conflating provable pollutants with CO2, an essential compound for plant life that is physically incapable of both trapping, yet not reflecting away an equal or greater amount of incoming infrared spectrum radiation.
Hint: The real danger is heavy metal aerosols.

this world is doomed, the monetary system is better than nothing but inevitably seals our demise

>>10317582
sun releases most of its energy in the visible range, not infrared, visible light is higher energy than infrared, CO2 is transparent to visible light, so that gets to pass through, get absorbed by the earth and re-emitted as infrared, which is absorbed by CO2
this is really basic stuff

A massive cooperation of countries researching CO2 and CH4 capture. Like, the development of a global research center in which trillions of dollars are poured. This will happen once these gases (among more I don't know about) cross a threshold that fucks the human population massively (like at least 10% dead of global population)

>>10317582
Hint the real danger is bacteria

>>10317534
Make half the population feel so guilty they commit suicide, make half of the remaining population so guilty that they stop having children.

There is no one thing you can do. It is a very long list of things that you have to do to each market sector.

In General:
>carbon tax that reflects the true cost of fossil fuels
>carbon credit to offset the costs of living raise (ideally poor people will get some "free" money, middle class people will be even, rich people will pay for polluting more)

Electricity:
>ban all fossil fuel use being harshest on coal; gas peaker plants might be needed during transition
>ramp up solar and wind to maximum capacity
>upgrade the grid, in particular increase HVDC connections so that regions can better share their energy overproduction
>smart grid to better manage renewable
>increase hydro capacity as much as possible to act as energy storage
>maintain current nuclear and build new plants

Transport:
>ban cars from cities
>invest in mass electrified public transport instead; when the roads are empty suddenly you can have super efficient pubic transport
>EV cars for intercity transport but increase train connections between cities to limit their use (because even if EV they are energy inefficient still)

Industry:
Agriculture:
No idea. You need domain knowledge to know what to do.


International:
>OG Paris Agreement had the right idea

As you can see this would be a MASSIVE economic boom, like never seen before, ever.

>>10317534
unironically just kys

mass sterilization

>>10317589
>CO2 is transparent to visible light
>but yet reflective to infrared
>you know, infrared, the adjacent spectrum
Nice irreplicable pseudoscience you spouted there, m8.
Please, provide one example of an observable experiment which proves this claim. I'll wait.
In the mean time, check this out

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/05/19/climate-alarmists-dont-understand-the-basics-of-the-scientific-method/

>>10317687

>Wooden walls are transparent to the radio waves of my wifi
>But reflective of Visible Light
>hurr durr

>>10317687
just get a spectrometer, retard, you're acting like this is a super secret experiment

>>10317687
>gives citation
>wordpress
lel

>>10317534
it's easy. just make everything out of wood, not plastic or metal. and ban all airplanes and space travel, use zeppelin airships instead. ban wide base tires and car races. stop using unnecessary aluminum e.g. for phones, make phones smarter, so they don't need so much internet anymore, e.g. with offline maps and translation apps.

make one day per week internet-free so people have to live offline again

>>10317702
Totally equivalent if you say so my friend, because everyone knows 2.4ghz and the visible spectrum are adjacent... By several logarithmic steps.

>>10317733
>pic
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/

>>10317746
>co2islife
yeah, I'm sure they are completely unbiased

>>10317746
Captcha ate me pic!

>>10317687
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/19/radiative-heat-transfer-by-co2-or-whats-the-quality-of-your-radiation/

>>>/x/

>>10317795
Oooh no, that tiny little blob representing less than 1/16 of the infrared spectrum will doomed us all!
Or... We can accept the reality of CO2 having a net cooling effect which is demonstrable, natural science.

>>10317806
nice m-muh feelings blog

Unironically ecosocialism.

Giving America and China mass tra/n/sit is a start

>>10317534
Nuclear energy, everything else is a meme.

>>10317938
>suppress the best genes and create an unaccountable ideologically motivated bureacracy dedicated to economic parity and not maximum energetic efficiency

>>10317534
doesn't exist.

>>10317534
Its not going to be stopped. At this point we should be starting more projects like the Norwegians do with the seed bank.

>>10317534
>have no more than 2 kids
yeah let's kill our species, nice try aliens

FUSION
U
S
I
O
N

>>10317534

We are so fucked.

We need a mass extinction (50%) of all the humans on the planet coupled with technological advancements to capture carbon on a massive scale. Added to that we need ALL governments to be on the same page, Not just the 1st world countries. We need the developing world with massive populations to be on board.

None of that will happen. WE are actually fucked. Our grandchildren will likely be the last humans.

>>10317643
What's the answer to global warming?
>give me free money
Fuck off you stupid cunt.

>>10318207
If you know basic spectroscopy you know that we're not fucked. The absorbtivity of a gas is logarithmic to its concentration. 50% of total max CO2 greenhouse effect is achieved by 20 ppm. At 400 ppm, we're beyond 90% of total max CO2 GHG effect. Emissions should still be reduced for the sake of air quality but, and here's the funny part, they already are being reduced, in countries that aren't full of retards.

>>10317643
This, but on an even larger scale. Basically every industry has to figure out how to decarbonize. There is no one solution for everything.

Carbon capture is still vaporware and there is no reason to believe it will be anything but for the foreseeable future.

>>10318207
thanus

you can start by putting some solar panels on your roof, it's even a good investment

>>10318472
Distributed solar is shit and the rare earth metal mining required to seed the panels is absolutely terrible

>>10317582
CO2 IS a pollutant when emitted by human fossil fuel burning. Light, heat, and noise can be considered pollution, so an actual substance surely can be as well.

>>10317534
Stop subsidizing the 3rd world. Unironically.

>>10317804
haha, got 'em

>>10317534
has anyone ever proved that CO2 is directly responsible for global warming?

>>10317643
>pubic transport

>>10317534
just stop the measurements

>>10317534
You don't, you let climate change happen.
Which will lead to massive human depopulation and a return to equilibrium

>>10318335
Tell me you're trolling. You can't possibly be this stupid

>>10318693
Nice argument, weatherman

>>10317534
Space mirror is the only one that is foolproof and guaranteed to work

>>10317582
>physically incapable of both trapping, yet not reflecting away an equal or greater amount of incoming infrared spectrum radiation.
You do realize that half of solar energy is not infrared right? It's visible and UV light, which CO2 does not absorb. When this hits the Earth, it is turned into infrared heat, which CO2 does absorb. You are literally dumber than an elementary school student.

>>10317534
What's confusing to me is that the elite want us to have fewer children to stop global warming on one hand but then say we need immigration to avoid economic collapse.

>>10319389
That's because they want to turn the first world into third world to solve the problem

>>10319359
Yes, I had realized this. I also realized that I must look very dumb to someone who obviously hasn't even read the thread before replying, neglecting to refute any counterpoints that CO2's magical property of a 'greenhouse gas' has never and will never be experimentally proven, as all 3rd party data has confirmed that CO2 always has a net 'CO'OLING effect, it's even hinted by the two letters of the molecule. Time to get a real job, globo-warming shills.

>>10317534
Get rid of 95% of human population. Offer gibs to poor in exchange for sterilization and pour chemicals into water to turn the frogs gay

>>10319400
>That's because they want to turn the first world into third world to solve the problem
I guess that WOULD solve the problem. I sincerely doubt "sustainability" is possible, or at least that we can control ourselves enough to have a sustainable economy. Everyone might have good intentions, but not enough people are following through, or ever will.

>>10319407
It's proven right here >>10317733. By your own argument in OP the effect exists since CO2 does not block the same amount of incoming energy as it does outgoing energy. Why make the argument that it blocks both if the opposite is irrelevant?

>>10319417
It would, but who wants to live in a world where everyone is poor and miserable? Might as well not stop climate change to begin with if the outcome is the same

>>10319422
Safe to assume the globo-warmists in this thread aren't interested in actually proving themselves wrong, didn't know how to interpret the following graph:
>>10317784
Or just instantly hid the post, since it heresies the established corporate media orthodoxy.

>>10317645
You must be over 18 to post here.

>>10319456
This shows exactly why increasing CO2 increases the temperature. Hint: Temperature is determined by the energy balance of the Earth (how much energy is entering minus how much energy is leaving at any one time). Where is energy entering and leaving the Earth?

>>10319456
And you didn't answer my question, why make the argument that CO2 blocks both incoming and outgoing energy, and then ignore that this is false?

Global warming was debunked by Freeman Dyson(180 IQ)

>>10319474
Nope.

Global warming is a non-issue

Climate changes regardless of human activity just due to sun output, if a measly 4C temperature change wipes out human civilization it was already over to begin with

>>10317534
Remove human

>>10319428
I think one outcome will be less bad. I'm willing to bet it's living "sustainably", i.e. the way our ancestors lived. Most everything is just a matter of getting used to.

>>10319470
>the graph is actually showing the exact opposite of what the data implies!
Clever last ditch effort to reign back in the consensus, I'll give that to ya.
For everyone else who is genuinely curious, spectral cooling does not imply the CO2 is trapping and holding onto to thermal energy. Rather it means exactly as it sounds, CO2 provides a conduit for thermal energy to convect and radiate out of Earth's atmosphere.

>>10319491
Fusion might save us from this fate, but I'm starting to doubt it will ever happen. It will just keep getting pushed back until they'll just give up.

>>10319494
I can't imagine what deniers stand to gain from denialism. I really can't figure it out.

>>10319503
They're just typical internet contrarians, being contrarians for contrarianism's sake. They get their kicks by annoying everyone around them because they hate life and they hate themselves.

>>10319494
You didn't reply to my point. The absorption in the lower troposphere is irrelevant because heat in the lower troposphere is primarily just being spread around by convection, not radiative transfer. What determines the amount of heat being spread around is the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere, right where CO2 concentration is extremely relevant. There is also an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the fact that increased CO2 concentration increases the altitude of the top of the atmosphere where heat can escape. The higher the altitude, the colder the air, meaning heat escapes slower at higher altitudes.

Since you refuse to respond to the argument, I'll just assume that you agree with it until you do respond. Thanks for admitting CO2 warms the Earth.

>>10319503
Climatologists enable socislists to pass sweeping legislation such as the paris climate accords which allows them tk embezzle billions of taxpayer dollars.

>>10319503
If it slows down the progression of bogus confiscatory laws like carbon tax even a little, which will only affect the lifestyle of the lowest income bracket with all it's loopholes, just as every other tax scheme, then God's work has been done.

>>10319520
Because anyone who refutes your orthodoxy is being a contrarian for it's own sake.
Why doesn't hiro-shima give you zealots your own board where you don't have to interact with the rest of us laypeople?
gb2 >>>/rel/ - Religion & Scientism

>>10319528
Just as you ignored my challenge
>>10317687
I will do likewise. Plenty of material at that link to refute your claim, I won't spoonfeed any further.
Not one 3rd party experimental proof of carbon acting as a greenhouse gas to date. So please, take your unsubstantiated, academia-spawned theories to their appropriate board.
>>>/x/

>>10319566
>Just as you ignored my challenge
That is in a reply to someone else. If you want to continue having a conversation with me then respond to my post or admit defeat. I on the other hand, don't have to respond to every conversation you're had in this thread. Not to mention that your challenge was answered in the post I linked to >>10317733 which you also failed to respond to.

Again, thank you for admitting CO2 causes warming.

>>10319535
>I peddle retarded bullshit because it helps my political beliefs
how about kys denialtard

>>10319474
>>10319476
Can warmists actually read contradictory sites without automatically calling bullshit based on the source alone, since it isn't an .org, .edu, or .gov?

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

>>10319460
I am
If we all commit to kys, then climate change is solved

>>10317568
Get off my board you carbon faggot

>>10317582
reduce the population, starting with this guy

>>10319880
Get off my board you brainless fungus

>>10319879
this, but only applied to africans

>>10318478
why are you such a lying bastard?

solar panels are cheap mass products so nothing rare ore valuable is used
Solar panels are made of glass, an extremely thin layer of silicon, some copper for conduction and an aluminium frame that's it.
Silicon layers are being doped with a few boron and phosphorus atoms.

>>10319978
Killing Americans is 100 times better for the planet. To go on a shooting spree in America is actually the best you can do to stop climate change.

Don't really understand why there are 46 climate change trolls ITT. Who the fuck are you even trolling if you are the only people posting? Doesn't really make sense.

>>10317534
>have less then 2 kids

Fuck off I'm not going to let my race be replaced while we keep sending food to Africa while they breed like rabbits

>>10320033
>MUH RACE

>>10319528
>The higher the altitude, the colder the air, meaning heat escapes slower at higher altitudes.
This is the biggest lie I've read from you yet.
You climate changers are nothing but scum, day of the rope can`t come fast enough.

>>10320035
Yes I've never met a 3rd worlders I liked, they have no respect for the world or their own survival

>>10320033
It says have no more than two illiterate.

>>10320048
Didn't read it just skimmed the pick

>>10317534
Let's see:
more logging industry. If we have more logging industry, they'll be forced into replanting trees because 1) competition will lead to better customer perception, leading to the replanting of more trees and 2) there's only a limited amount of trees. They'll have to replant trees constantly to keep their business.
In general, more competition can cause a PR war, leading to heavy industrial enviromental changes.
Wait for the renewable industry to catch up. There's not much we can do with this because what we need is innovation, more competition and cheaper prices. It'll take a while but we'll get there. I doubt fusion will be here any time soon.
Extremely energy efficient but low powered computers. This won't help too much but I just want any entrepreneurs to know in case they wanted any business ideas :^)
>don't fly
last time I checked, aeroplanes release mostly water because of the extremely efficient fuel. They're the cleanest mode of transport.

>>10317534
Geoengineering

>>10317643
You can do a lot in agriculture, the thing is that most of the solutions are not necessarily animal friendly. For instance, it is best to keep animals indoors instead of outside, as this way you can capture the methane released by the animals. It's also more efficient and you need less space for your food.
As for vegetables, greenhouses are a great way to farm efficiently and is one of the reasons why the Netherlands leads with output per square km by a factor of 5 for tomatoes, cucumber and paprikas. Honestly, just making food production more efficient with the existing technology can probably save the environment on its own.

Also one other thing about your idea to ban all fossil fuels. This is naive. In the Netherlands for instance they want to ban the use of natural gas for house heating. Most houses are however heated this way, so converting all houses to electric heating would simply cost an unreasonable amount with not that much return as gas is already very efficient. Moreover the electrical grid is not build for it and would also need to be replaced, again an unreasonable thing to ask especially in the short amount of time we need to do it to comply to international agreements. Instead simply encouraging better isolation for all houses would almost have the same result and be much cheaper.

O yeah and lastly about transport, cars aren't the main problem. It is boats and airplanes that are the main polluters, but governments like to give the bill to the people instead of corporations (and this is coming from a right wing guy). But again, this kinda makes sense, as your neighboring country may not have the same strict regulations and thus you'll lose all your industry.

So, tldr: make agriculture more efficient and reduce pollution in shipping. With those two, you'll have easily saved the world without changing anything in your daily lives.

Nuclear power.

Rail electrification. Shipping to cng.

Reforestation.

Dumping iron into the ocean to cause algae blooms.

>>10320035
>yes goy, don't reproduce

>>10317643
>carbon tax that reflects the true cost of fossil fuels
wow lets see how that goes after Yellow Vests
>>carbon credit to offset the costs of living raise (ideally poor people will get some "free" money, middle class people will be even, rich people will pay for polluting more)
now thats bullshit
>ban all fossil fuel use being harshest on coal; gas peaker plants might be needed during transition
China and India called, they told you to get fucked
>ramp up solar and wind to maximum capacity
>maximum capacity
solar and wind is too sporadic to be used for baseload generation, you need on top of renewables all this infrastructure (batteries, interconnections between grids etc) to offset instability, not to mention they are fuckoff expensive
>upgrade the grid, in particular increase HVDC connections so that regions can better share their energy overproduction
see above, now you need grid infrastructure conventional power stations never need
>increase hydro capacity as much as possible to act as energy storage
conventional power stations on top of being cheaper don't need this bs
>maintain current nuclear and build new plants
good luck pushing that policy to greenies
>ban cars from cities
great, now billions of people are denied transport to major economic centers around the world
>invest in mass electrified public transport instead
thats a lot of energy, where is it coming from? inefficient and unstable solar and wind generators? imagine the fucking cost of a ticket for a train powered by expensive renewable energy

>As you can see this would be a MASSIVE economic boom, like never seen before, ever.
I could snort a line of cocaine and come up with similar conclusions

>>10320082
>last time I checked, aeroplanes release mostly water because of the extremely efficient fuel. They're the cleanest mode of transport.
Coming from somebody who has studied aviation and works in the industry, you could not be more wrong.
Jet fuel is made of hydrocarbons, and so will always release more CO2 than water. This is basic chemistry, and if you do anything else it makes the fuel burn less efficiently, and so costs the airlines more.
The high temperatures in turbine engines also produce significant amounts of nitrogen oxides.
Piston aircraft also continue to use leaded petrols, and are a major source of lead pollution in the atmosphere today.

In terms of energy efficiency, aircraft are pretty bad as well. Turbine engines produce high power at the cost of efficiency, and factors like propeller efficiency, wingtip losses, and all the sources of drag all contribute to energy losses.

>>10320036
Well you cant dump heat in space by normal transfer that happens on earth. You need it to radiate its energy away at the edge of the atmosphere and if its colder it means less molecules are doing that

>>10317534

Elect a Democrat in 2020 and people will stop talking about it.

>>10320203
They didn't under obama.

What's with the retards here who think removing the surface population solves anything? Especially hating on third worlders for no reason. I say remove most if not all cars. Then educate enough people till we think of a solution

>>10320264
>Especially hating on third worlders for no reason.
>no reason

>>10317534
remove the atmosphere
then the climate will be stable for millions of years
protip: don't hold your breath

>>10320143
>WAHHHH let's not do anything, it's not our fault it's the chinks! MAGA!
fuck off

>>10317534
Sterilize people at random

>>10320402
I should clarify those in developed countries. People in developing countries have such low per capita emissions that any arguments to reduce population growth their fall under eugenics (yikes)

>>10319992
Also tellurium, terbium, neodymium, dysprosium, etc

>>10320370
We are doing something. Our absolute carbon emissions continue to go down year after year. We don't need to tax ourselves to death or all ride the fucking bus on top of that.

>>10320370
It really depends on the amount your own country pollutes. It's basically useless to stop using fossil fuels when you're a small country, as it has no impact on a global level. In such cases it's better to focus on making industries more efficient or something so that other countries can learn from your system and implement their own version. This would probably have more impact and actually has a positive impact on the local economy and does not require major changes to daily life.

>>10320370
How about we sanction them until they make some change? All our progress has been cancelled by third worlders who won't cooperate

>>10320492
Or we could just do nothing. It's not like the sea rising a few feet or climate zones shifting northward will dramatically negatively affect the US or Europe.

>>10317534
Climate change isnt real. Go away shill.

>>10320486
imagine being this naive

Going back to the gold standard.
Doing so would restrict the extreme consumption of our natural resources. But nobody wants to do that because
>muh unlimited jew money.
It’s like we’re pretending we have unlimited resources when we don’t.

>>10320553
Imagine having this much of a non-argument

>>10320494
Don't you watch news? There are already negative effects. Hurricanes flooding coastal towns, wildfires, drought, etc.

>>10320486
Are you sure about that?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/

>>10320674
Weather is climate, retard. Severe hurricanes always happened and will always happen. California is always on fire due to poor land management and an invasive species of autocombusting trees from australia.

>>10320697
"We" as in the united states, or the west as a whole. OUR emissions are going down.

>>10320701
Weather is not climate, rather

>>10320705
Are you sure about that?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-carbontrading/eu-carbon-market-emissions-rise-for-first-time-in-7-years-in-2017-idUSKCN1HA1J7

>>10320715
Huh. Then why are we the bad guys for not signing a climate agreement with these hypocrite faggots?

>>10320481
90% of cells are silicon with boron and phosphorous 5% are cadmium-telluriu, 2% is CIGS (copper indium gallium selenium).
Gallium arsenide cells are used in space, powering satellites. Cells with other materials are mainly used in labs.
If you buy a solar panel for your roof it's always silicon. CdTe Panels are used in a few commercial solar farms in the US.

>>10320701
Sea level rise makes floods higher and warm water makes hurricanes stronger, warming and drought triggered big wildfires even in Scandinavia, this never happened before.

>>10320715
That was to be expected. Carbon taxing/trading can make society more carbon efficient over the long term, but economic/population growth - which leaders everywhere are obsessed with - will quickly thereafter negate any positive effects. For some reason governments are actively attempting to hide this fact.

>>10320749
>Sea level rise makes floods higher
Correct, but the changd in even the most pestimistic of projections is so slow that it will be outpaced by the buildings themselves becoming obsolete.
>warm water makes hurricanes stronger
No
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/14/hurricane-florence-climate-change-global-warming-weather-greenhouse-flood-column/1289272002/
>warming and drought triggered big wildfires even in Scandinavia
Uptick in major wildfires is caused by the fact that in modern times we put out smaller burns but are now unwilling to clear out the growth that smaller burns used to reduce.

>>10320619
Our carbon emissions didn't go down last year. Even if they go down in a particular year, the rate isn't nearly fast enough nor part of a larger trend of reduction.

>>10320764
>will quickly thereafter negate any positive effects
That's why a proper carbon fee system keeps increasing.

>>10320782
>sea level rise is okay because we'll keep building away from it

LFTRs

>>10320854
>That's why a proper carbon fee system keeps increasing.
One way or another, you will be saying good bye to growth eventually.

>>10320854
>>sea level rise is okay because we'll keep building away from it
Yes. The only real negative consequences are that we will lose some historical buildings, and some currently habitable islands will become uninhabitable.

>>10320887
wrong, if your growth is based on limited fossil resources your growth will slow down and finally stop and turn negative
If your growth is sustainable and based on renewable you can grow with no natural limit. It might slow down at some point but you will never end up with a shrinking economy.

>>10321008
You will lose much more. The US might lose NY, Miami, LA, basically all coastal cities. Even entire states like Florida. Nations like the Netherlands will cease to exist. It will not happen over night, but these losses will hurt.

>>10321027
No, it won't hurt. The max expected rise is 3 meters by 2100. The change is slow enough that it will be corrected for without issue or disruption. The vast majority of people's lives will not be affected, as those currently living in places that will eventually be underwater will be long dead before it matters.

>>10317534
Ship blocks of CO2 to mars

>>10321009

>growth is sustainable

>It might slow down at some point

Oh really?? You think?

You actually *believe* the sun increases its output at the whim of some delusional fucking banker asshat on earth, don't you?

>>10321009
>If your growth is sustainable and based on renewable you can grow with no natural limit.

Seriously do you even bother to read this hogwash before posting it? You're a serious fucking mental case, pal. Take a hike.

All the smart sissies itt, yet none took economics 101. Commie shills.

>>10320036
It's basic thermodynamics. And since you don't have any counterargument I'll just take this post as you admitting I'm right. Thanks.

Carbon tax on everyone on the planet.
Pay your taxes you leaches

>>10321722
Fuck the government. Me giving you money doesn't reduce the atmosphere's IR absorbance, you commie faggot.

>>10321765
You avoiding giving the government money is what reduces the atmosphere's radiative forcing, dumdum.

>>10321783
HOW

>>10317534
begin by show that it is real

>>10321700
>t. triggered scum

>>10321854
>fossil fuels more expensive
>use less fossil fuels
>less fossil fuels less CO2 in air
>less CO2 in air radiative forcing decreases

>>10320297
There's nothing wrong with third worlders. They Aren't the ones polluting the air

>>10322058
>things being more expensive means that people need them less

>>10322066
Yes they are, also they're destroying all the forests

>>10322204
>You NEED to use fossil fuels and not just be less wasteful or use cleaner energy
Fossil fuels are elastic. This has been proven every time a carbon tax has been instituted.

>>10317534
I want to point out that eating local may sound good on paper due to not having to transport the food goods nearly as far reducing emissions, in practicality it is actually the opposite. If the food doesn't grow in your local climate it grows less efficiently requiring more fertilizer and other resources which may include supplemental light in extreme cases. the energy to produce these extra resources to grow the food locally is likely to be more energy intensive than just transporting the goods.
However this would be much more likely to work in the case of growing local food that thrives in the local climate, but this isn't always feasible to fully supply the local area just with what grows there easily.

>>10322204
>what is alternative energy the post

>>10317607
it would be useless to capture methane since its short lived and decomposes into co2 in the atmosphere

>>10317582
im sure all the plants in the arctic sea and antarctica will love the extra CO2

planes are more fuel efficient per person than a prius u dumb niggo

>>10322252
No, what happens is that consumers don't change their habits at all, and companies send more production overseas
>>10322260
They don't power my fucking car. Maybe if green fags would pull their heads out of their asses and invest in ethanol engines instead of expecting people to pay out the ass for a lithium deathtrap with a 100 mile range and 6 hour recharge time, I might not drive a gas car.

>>10322327
>No, what happens is that consumers don't change their habits at all, and companies send more production overseas
Wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fV6eeckxTs

And where will production go if the carbon tax is global?

>>10322327
>making fossil fuels more expensive doesn't work because fossil fuels are needed
>what about alternative energy
>alternative energy doesn't work because it's more expensive
Nice circular reasoning, moron.

>>10322327
>They don't power my fucking car.
Maybe if more subsidies went to electric and less to coal, oil and gas then you would have a good enough reason to get an electric vehicle.

>>10317534
OP's pic is pop sci shit that won't stop global warming but will give greenies the warm and fuzzy feelings

>Having only two children
Birth rates in 1st world nations are less than two per child and the population would have dropped if not for immigration from third world countries which are having children above and beyond the minimum replacement rate

>don't fly (only actors preaching on the evils of flying may fly), get shoved into public transit like cattle, use less resources

Meanwhile, China and India are exempt from the Paris Agreement and their pollution rates are skyrocketing but it's the US that's ostracized even though the US's per capita CO2 emissions has dropped 10% over a period of ten years

>use solar power
While doing everything in their power to close down nuclear power plants-which has done more to prevent CO2 emissions than any other source of energy

>don't use refrigeration.
Good idea. Let food spoil and go to waste so that more resources can be wasted to make up for the losses. That possibly can't go wrong.

>buy CO2 credits
Jesus H. Christ, OP is a fucking shill. Carbon credits accomplish one thing and one thing only: making their investors rich and that includes Al Gore.

And it's appropriate that OP's pic is in crayon since it's fit so well with the mentality of OP's target audience.

>>10322351
>Wrong.
Wrong
>And where will production go if the carbon tax is global?
Wherever it's the lowest, or where they can get out of paying it
>>10322358
It's prohibitively expensive, has a pathetic maximum distance, requires lots of daily downtime, and has like 15 pounds of fucking lithium in it. If my car's radiator dies, my engine doesn't explode.
>>10322362
Electric cars are shit and just plain dangerous. Maybe if we find some battery with a higher energy density than lithium, but that seems improbable.

>>10317534
we dont stop it and let species adapt as theyve been doing for the entire history of life

>>10317568
>massive subsidies for renewables
at least the same as what big oil gets

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/renewable-energy-doesnt-get-subsidies-fossil-nuclear-sources-gotten-continue-get/

... and that doesn't even count the costs and loss of lives in Iraq wars I & II

>>10322608
>nuclear
Deserves subsidies. The best form of energy production by a lot

>>10321041
>expected rise is 3 meters
This means in Florida 3 million people live in places which will be permanently under water.
But these people are already at risk right now. Every time a hurricane hits the state their houses are flooded or destroyed and they loose everything they own. This happened last year it happened the year before and might happen this year again. It matters now.

DO payed vasectomy if you already have a child.

>>10322884
Ok here's a thought
If an ocean megastorm destroys your home because your house was next to the ocean, DON'T rebuild next to the fucking ocean.

>>10320749
>wildfires even in
fucking Greenland
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/20/ice-and-fire-large-blaze-burns-in-greenland-for-two-weeks

>>10323250
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/21/greenland-melting-4-times-faster-than-did-just-16-years-ago/2638515002/

antinatalism for blacks

>>10317568
>Unironically redistribute wealth to the military industrial complex and energy oligopoly that created the problem in the first place.
Fuck off exxon mobil shill.

>>10318207
t. Thanos

>>10322608
You do realize that big oil and energy companies like exxon mobil and general electric are the primary beneficiaries of "climate change" laws and subsidies?
General Electric has made 80 billion in profit on green energy sales since 2005, they don't need more subsidies or more tax dollars.

>>10320859
Private industry sees no reason to touch it, and government spending on research has been cut to the bone in the name of tax cuts. If you want any research into nuclear energy, we're going to need to raise taxes.

>>10323255
Carbon tax on you and your entire race.

>>10323262
>in profit
*revenue
Don't want to be inaccurate.

>>10323263
>we need to raise taxes to research nuclear energy.
Or just make it less illegal to do so, which could be accomplished by giving the government less money instead of more. The government isn't poor and our problems do not arise from us not giving them enough money.

>>10323262
Companies that save the environment deserve money. Companies that sell oil don't. Pay your taxes

>>10323263
The federal budget is four trillion. Just reduce medicare and social security. Also reduce nuclear regulations.

>>10323268
Carbon taxes will increase nuclear spending as the oil companies avoid bankruptcy by changing directions.

>>10323271
We don't want Chernobyl. Reducing regulations allows incompetent people to set off nukes.

>>10323268
The only way to make nuclear energy appealing to private industry is to deregulate it so much that it becomes ridiculously unsafe. This is something that is going to have to come from public investment in research, which requires new tax revenue.

>>10323269
No. Fuck the government and fuck you. I'd rather burn my cash in the lawn than give another dime to those faggots.

>>10323275
That would hurt the environment. If you want to deflate the economy by destroying your cash bury it or destroy it with water. Or shred it.

>>10323271
> Just reduce medicare and social security
Medicare and social security are not fed through the general fund, but rather by special payroll taxes that legally are only supposed to be used for them. Diverting funds from them to something else is illegal.

>>10323263
General Electric generates 1/3 of the world's electricity.
The "energy market" is just a few companies in a iron clad oligopoly that can't be touched. It's not that they can't research LFTR, it's that there's way more money in getting taxpayer dollars to build windmills.
GE = produces 33% of the world's energy. Why don't you talk to them?
Because they aren't your friend and they WON'T let you do the LFTR shit, and would actively fight you and prevent you from achieving it if they couldn't buy you out.
Any carbon tax will get redistributed to this oligopoly, it's their lobbyists pushing for it. There is no "energy market," just an energy oligopoly.

>>10323276
Wrong! It can be regulated enough to be safd but not so much to make it prohibitively expensive. Obama era policy was designed to intentionally make building new nuclear plants too expensive. We can roll that back without risk.

>>10323276
Why do /pol/tards love nuclear accidents/wars?
They're always crying for race wars now they want Chernobyl.

>>10323276
Deregulation makes things more safe because it allows private industry to improve the technology.

>>10323279
They've been part of the general fund for years, dummy.

>>10323272
The oil companies are lobbying for carbon taxes because they get the money back in green energy contracts. You're clearly unfamiliar with modern oil and modern energy business practices. Conoco Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, BP Oil, Exxon Mobil, et al, have all been heavily investing in green energy lobbying since the late 90s/early 2000s and it's been their most profitable venture.

>>10323282
Literally more people have been accidentally killed by windmills than by nuclear power in america because that second number is zero

>>10323281
Even if you go back to pre-Obama era nuclear regulation, that's still not enough to make it appealing to private industry. You would have to completely deregulate it to ever hope to compete with something like natural gas in terms of profitability for private industry.

>>10323286
Don't those companies invest in green energy or claim to do so?
If they're cheating the government, they should be audited on what they waste their funds on.

>>10323288
Because of high regulations

>>10323274
Chernobyl was USSR you absolute retard, it was an example of what happens when the government has too much control over things.

>>10323285
No they aren't.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
> There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

>>10323274
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were incredibly regulated by the government for safety, and controlled by theirs respectively.

>>10323294
Regulations mean safety. USSR never had safety.

>>10323289
Completely unsubstantiated.

>>10323294
Chernobyl was an example of what happens when you don't follow safety regulations.

>>10323293
Those companies started the green energy movement in the late 90s/2000s. A cursory use of google using the time selection tool and making the years 1995-2005 will easily reveal this. The idea that big oil is an enemy of green energy is a weird unexplainable myth based in fiction. They spearheaded the movement and said the sky was falling.

>>10323299
The meltdown was literally the result of a government required safety test causing the meltdown, try again.

>>10323298
It's proven by the fact that we didn't have a nuclear power plant building craze before the Obama-era. There wasn't some grand age of nuclear energy that was killed by Obama, nuclear energy has been struggling in the US for decades now. Private industry has never particularly cared about it compared to fossil fuels, and there's not much public money behind it either.

>>10323289
Which is the reason natural gas fights hard to tell us how scary nuclear is and how it needs to be regulated into non competitiveness.

>>10317534
Use nuclear power to drive carbon capture plants

This'd solve global warming no problem but butthurt (((environmentalists))) would be up in arms until 100% of all global energy prpduction is exclusively solar/wind etc which ironically would end up polluting more than this solution due to the rare earth metals that these technologies require

>>10323293
Because of NORMAL regulations. Now we've piled more and more on top because both natural gas companies and greenieweenies want to kill nuclear even though it's the best.

>>10323305
Incompetent safety test. People didn't take it seriously. The guys who fucked up were like you.

>>10323312
>like you
I wouldn't have fucked up, and you're moving goalposts. The government caused the meltdown and then tried to blame everyone else for their incompetent and retarded test. Of course they write how it's not their fault, it was the fucking USSR, the king of propaganda.
The USSR basically ordered Chernobyl to melt down.

>>10323310
> even though it's the best.
For the society as a whole, sure. But for corporate bottom line? No, which is why private corporations don't give a shit about developing nuclear energy. It doesn't make them as much money, so they don't bother with it. That was true long before Obama became president, and it will continue to be true for the near future. If you actually want increased use of nuclear energy, it needs to come from the public sector. And that means we need more tax revenue. The US government is already running a trillion dollar per year deficit, and this is during the supposed good times. Another recession will be even worse. We need higher taxes.

>>10323320
We need high carbon taxes

>>10323306
>private industry never cared
Imagine a car that you only 'filled with gas' so to speak, once in your life. It's not that private industry doesn't care, it's that it's too good so the people on top of 'private' industry make sure it's regulated to be non competitive with their industries.
Otherwise it'd destroy them.

>>10323323
>we
Donate to the IRS bro. I don't need you to tell me what I need.

>>10320121
The biggest problem in agriculture is meat production. How we raise cattle releases massive amounts of methane. The problem is that corn, onions, and other crops are predominantly used to raise cattle now, but if we want to save our hides every cattle is going to have to transition to grass-fed, which are harder to raise(fencing and plot rotation is required), has less meat output, and exercising cattle affects meat tenderness. However, if every cattle was completely grass-fed today, climate change would be blunted like 50% alone, or some absurd amount, since corn and onions cause cow emissions and destroy natural ecosystems which take in carbon.

>>10317534
Nuke India and China

>>10321688
>can counter his point
>tells him to take a hike
Imagine being this frail

>>10323305
the test programme was not formally coordinated with either the chief designer of the reactor (NIKIET) or the scientific manager. Instead, it was approved only by the director of the plant (and even this approval was not consistent with established procedures)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Steam_turbine_tests

>>10323325
Modern society can't function on voluntary contributions alone. Mass action is required, not merely a few well-meaning people giving what little they can.

>>10323327
The US alone is more than enough to keep making the problem worse, especially if it goes through with doubling down on fossil fuels like coal.

>>10322327
Ethanol is a meme, it's never going to work, never. Even if we had enough land to grow all the corn needed it would still be a net carbon positive. It's expensive, competes with food prices, it's limited, and we've already reached pretty much the max amount we can produce now.

>>10323320
Lies.
1. Nuclear power would bd price competitive were it not for excessive regulation
2. The federal government needs to spend less, not more. If you want a balanced budget, reduce benefits.

>>10317534

killing all the third and fourth worlders.
not reducing the number, I'm talking about eradication.
too many people and they are going to increase.
Then after removing a good 5 billion people lower the global remaining population to 500 millions via birth control, then resettle everyone into optimal geographic positions and keep the population constant.
Voilà

>>10323334
When you were a kid and you asked yourself how people could be so dumb as to blindly follow others and do stupid things, your ends justifies the means so we'll use slaves to build those pyramids logic is exactly how.

>>10323341
Most cars in brazil burn ethanol. If they can do it, why not us?

>>10323334
Why do you believe that only a few people are well meaning? Can you prove that the people in control of governments are well meaning rather than self serving? If most people are not well meaning, then isn't democratic rule a very bad idea? So you support a well meaning tyrant to have a say over the people, since most people are bad?
Interesting ideas.

>>10323334
Come and take it then

>>10323354
Yeah, that's because they've been massacring the rainforest, see, still a net carbon positive. If we produced enough ethanol for every American, destruction of the ecosystem alone for farming would destroy us.

>>10323346
> 1. Nuclear power would bd price competitive were it not for excessive regulation
Prove it. There was a time before Obama. Show me a glut of nuclear energy development that existed then, when regulations were lighter.
> 2. The federal government needs to spend less, not more. If you want a balanced budget, reduce benefits.
Benefits like Social Security and Medicare are not part of the discretionary budget. They are funded by their own separate payroll taxes. You can't legally dial them down to make room for other spending in the general fund. If you want to cover a shortfall in the discretionary budget, you either need to cut military spending (which is the lion's share of discretionary spending) or raise taxes.

>>10323358
Off yourself. Market fundamental does not belong to the 21 century. You are history, no less of a fanatic than the monarchists.

>>10323361
We don't have to destroy forrests because we already have a shitload of productive land. Plus, as warming progresses, our arable land will actually increase

>>10323356
Most people are completely neutral, neither particularly good nor particularly evil. They won't do anything particularly harmful, but they're not rushing to do anything particularly helpful either. As such, some amount of coercion is necessary to maintain an advanced society, such as taxes. If you want to claim otherwise, then prove it. Show me a society that is able to maintain a modern level of technological development without requiring people to pay taxes under threat of punishment.

>>10323366
Cursory reading suggests that the regulations which killed commercial nuclear were put up in the 80s as a knee jerk reaction to 3 mile island. This is substantiated by the sudden halt of new reactor construction after this point.
>Benefits like Social Security and Medicare are not part of the discretionary budget.
The terms are arbitrary. The only indespensible government function is defense. Everything else is optional. Congress could, and should, reduce medicare and social security with an ordinary law.

>>10323373
and what I'm saying is that use of that land is what's helping to cause global warming. Look anywhere online and people will tell you that we've already reached the max amount of ethanol we can afford to produce already, look at my original pose. Also, by the point that land becomes usable it'll already be too late.

>>10323371
Monarchy wasn't ended becsuse some faggot said it was obsolete. It was disempowered in series of wars. So I say again: Come And Take It.

>>10323373
>Plus, as warming progresses, our arable land will actually increase
doubt.jpg

>>10323392
>growing plants in the great plains causes global warming
Also, the fuck do you mean by "too late"? There's no looming crisis, as long as we get the wall built. Future humans will just have to gradually adapt to a slowly changing earth.

>>10323387
> The terms are arbitrary. The only indespensible government function is defense. Everything else is optional. Congress could, and should, reduce medicare and social security with an ordinary law.
Scaling back social security and medicare would also involve scaling back the taxes that fund them, so it wouldn't improve the budget situation. The deficit is in discretionary spending, and if you want more of that then you need higher taxes to raise more revenue for the general fund. More research and development of nuclear energy will require raising taxes, which we should do anyway since over the last forty years they've been cut down to insanely low levels and created a massive structural deficit

>>10323397
Tell me, what inhibits agriculture in montana and the dakotas?

>>10323402
> There's no looming crisis, as long as we get the wall built.
The wall will solve nothing.

>>10323402
democrats will tear down the wall once it's their turn or give mexicans free visas so they can fly over

>>10323403
>Scaling back social security and medicare would also involve scaling back the taxes that fund them
No. Just keep the taxes and use the money on thd debt instead. There's no legal reason this could not be done.

>>10323407
It will prevent millions of south americans from flooding america once famines start

>>10323412
> There's no legal reason this could not be done.
There is. Funding for social security and medicare cannot be used to cover shortfalls in the general fund.

>>10323402
The ecosystem is infinitely more complicated than that. Native plants host insects, birds and mammals, all of which are carbon sinks. Introduced plants like corn, wheat, and onions do not have insects, birds and mammals, plus they deplete nutrients from the ground, take up water resources, and require petrochemical based pesticides. When you turn any piece of land into a farm it causes a net carbon positive. When biologists say that native plants are carbon sinks, they're referring to all the animals which come with them as well.

>>10323415
The barriers we already have can't even stop the central americans that are coming north right now. What makes you think that they'll be able to stop even more people just because you've extended those barriers through areas that people don't even go?

>>10323411
you're saying that like ladders haven't been invented yet, the wall would be a joke in any case

>>10323419
That can be changed with an ordinary law
>>10323425
People do go through those areas. That's how they get around existing barriers. If you have complete coverage, illegal crossings are reduced by 99+%, as seen in hungary and israel.

>>10323387
Nuclear energy in the US actually leveled off much later, in the 2000s.

>>10323426
Oh sure let me just hump this 30 foot ladder through miles of desert, then, while balancing on top, pick it up anf put it back down on the other side

>>10323437
That's largely due to increased productivity of existing reactors. New plants have not been built in decades.

>>10323439
oh wow, you're so right, if only they would invent something like "extendable" ladders or something.... maybe some day

>>10323433
> If you have complete coverage, illegal crossings are reduced by 99+%, as seen in hungary and israel.
First off, the vast majority of illegal immigrants don't even cross the southern border between legal ports of entry. Most either fly in or are smuggled in through legal ports hidden in vehicles. Extending the existing barriers into a full border wall will do absolutely nothing to stop them. Second, plenty of people just go over or cut through existing barrier. Third, Hungary and Israel are not examples of illegal immigrants actually trying to enter the country. No one actually is trying to get into those countries to live there. Israel's wall is specifically part of a war against the Palestinians who want to attack Israel, the Palestinians are not trying to flee into Israel. As for Hungary, the walls constructed there simply led to people taking a different route to their actual destination, which sure as hell wasn't Hungary.

>>10323452
The point is the weight, you dipshit cityfag

>>10323439
A group of twenty people taking turns carrying an extension ladder can haul it up to the wall pretty easily, and all you need to do is dangle a rope down the other side for people to get down. It's not particularly hard for people who are desperate enough to try to make the journey in the first place.

>>10323453
Wrong, over half of crossings are through unguarded and unprotected stretches of the border. Both solid steel slats or a reinforced concrete wall would be prohibitively difficult to scale or breach by the vast majority of would be illegal immigrants. That's why the dems don't want the wall, they know it would work.

>>10323456
Nothing is forcing them to carry all that weight alone. Most people try to make it across the border in groups anyway. It's safer that way.

>>10323470
> Both solid steel slats or a reinforced concrete wall would be prohibitively difficult to scale or breach by the vast majority of would be illegal immigrants.
Do you seriously think that illegal immigrants don't know what ladders are?

>>10323461
What will you tie the rope to?

>>10323480
Do you seriously not get that going down is the hard part?

>>10323470
A wall isn't an effective defense on its own. It's a force multiplier that enhances the effectiveness of the people guarding it. A wall just sitting there can be easily bypassed given a little bit of time and some basic tools. After all, a wall is a very passive opponent that doesn't adapt all that quickly. The steel slats that Trump has talked about can be sawed through, and concrete didn't stop people from tearing down the Berlin wall once they had a few minutes without needing to worry about someone shooting them.

>>10323483
The top rung of the ladder.

>>10323488
Cutting through a 4 inch steel bar would require an acetylene torch, which would stick out like a sore thumb to border patrol, which do exist.

>>10323485
It's really not as hard as you seem to think. Going down just requires a way to slow yourself enough to not get hurt. That requires much less assistance than going up.

>>10323489
That sounds extremely precarious and dangerous. It would also mean thag only one person could go up and down at a time, greatly increasing the time thag the group has to spend at the most vulnerable point on their journey.

>>10323496
Border patrol's response time to breaches on existing barrier sections gets as long as 30 minutes. And that's on actively patrolled sections. There are tons of areas where border patrol doesn't get to very regularly. Adding even more fencing in even more remote locations won't change that.

>>10323501
What are you talking about? You have the ladder extend up to the top of the wall, tie a rope to the top rung, and drape it over the wall. People go up the ladder, over the top, and slide down the rope. Takes maybe a minute per person, and that's if you're playing it safe. And if you've ever seen the conditions that people endure to get smuggled across the border, you'd know that a lot of the people aren't playing it very safe.

>>10323503
It would take tens of minutes to cut through a 4 inch steel bar with portable equipement, and they would have to cut 2.
>>10323511
And if the ladder slips while you're climbing down and thus jerking on the rope tied to it right at the point where the ladder is leaned on the wall?

>>10323470
> Wrong, over half of crossings are through unguarded and unprotected stretches of the border.
Half of crossings isn't even a quarter of illegal immigrants since a majority of illegal immigrants enter the country by plane.

>>10323526
By "crossings" I meant all methods. Over hslf of illegal immigration is on foot. A large minority of illegals are visa overstays, but less than half.

>>10323525
> It would take tens of minutes to cut through a 4 inch steel bar with portable equipement, and they would have to cut 2.
And people can do that.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/10/trump-border-wall-steel-slat-prototype-sawed-through-dhs-test/2534978002/

>And if the ladder slips while you're climbing down and thus jerking on the rope tied to it right at the point where the ladder is leaned on the wall?
The weight of the other people coming up the ladder prevents it from moving that much. Plus you're just sliding down the rope, even if you do get bumped around as long as you don't sprain or break something when you hit the ground, you're fine. Compared to the kind of stuff people endure to get in through checkpoints hidden in vehicles, it's relatively safe.

>>10323530
> Over hslf of illegal immigration is on foot. A large minority of illegals are visa overstays, but less than half.
Wrong. Visa overstays are 62% of new illegal immigrants.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings
http://cmsny.org/publications/essay-2017-undocumented-and-overstays/

>>10323544
> npr
If they say it, it's a lie.

>>10323539
The pictures do not show steel rods nor breach by "saw". Those are concrete poles with a 3/8ths inch steel wrapper, and STILL required an acetylene torch to get through. You csn tell because of the molten fucking slag. The author of this article is as much of a sheltered retard as you.
>The weight of the other people coming up the ladder prevents it from moving that much. Plus you're just sliding down the rope, even if you do get bumped around as long as you don't sprain or break something when you hit the ground, you're fine.
I'm guessing you're an illegal immigrant yourself because only a spic could be this fucking stupid and reckless.

>>10323554
DHS did the testing, and they said it was a saw, not a torch. Also, the barrier they were cutting through is the same as what is currently used on the border right now.

>>10323554
> You're a sheltered retard AND an illegal immigrant who does reckless shit!

>>10323242

lol you autistic freak

>>10323554
> I'm guessing you're an illegal immigrant yourself because only a spic could be this fucking stupid and reckless.
And that somehow makes it not something illegal immigrants do... why exactly? People are willing to take risks to get across the border. You think hiking through the Mexican desert is easy or safe? That's way more dangerous than going up a ladder and down a rope.

>>10323544
Misinterpretation of data. A huge portion of visa overstays are student visas which get "overstayed" because it's hard to fly to china the next day after you complete your program. Only about 40% of illegals are visa overstays. Also even these are more likely to self deport.

>>10323585
> Only about 40% of illegals are visa overstays. Also even these are more likely to self deport.
Source.

>>10323561
That picture is not a saw cut. Somebody fucked up or is lying. And yeah, our current barriers are subpar. We're working on it.
>>10323582
>You think hiking through the Mexican desert is easy or safe?
Yes? It's just fucking hiking. Bring some damn water.

>>10323276
>deregulate it so much that it becomes ridiculously unsafe
Do you think a company wants to lose a major source of revenue, especially in an industry that thrives in long term profit?

>>10323592
http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/26/fact-check-did-40-percent-of-all-illegal-immigrants-overstay-legal-visas/

Completely unironically:

>start a nuclear war
>create eco-fascist states from the ashes
>kill anyone who doesn't conform to strict environmental regulations

I'm based btw.

>>10323607
this but ironically
and without the reddit frog

>>10323597
Private industry is run by corporate executives who don't give a shit about the long term because they'll be gone by then. What they do care about is being able to tout record earnings each quarter, and that requires constantly slashing things like safety. No one WANTS a major accident, but the incentives of private industry put a ton of pressure on people to do things that will eventually lead to one.

>>10323607
Green fags can't even kill their sexual infections

>>10317534
>1.
One child policy, less children = less pollution, over 70% of carbon emissions can be traced to agriculture
>2.
Prohibit large shipping and most international trade and create the incentive for local produce of foods, products and services. It will increase transparency/oversight, prevent oceanic pollution of oil and plastics, and prevent corruption. As well as the immense amounts of carbon emissions caused by transporting large amounts of goods from one part of the world to another.

>Here is a list of things which does next to Nothing to prevent climate change
Paying higher taxes which will be used as incentives or "buffers" to industrial giants
More recycling in the west (most of which is usually thrown into the same incinerator by the recycling facility anyway)
electric cars

>>10323620
But there has never been a major nuclear accident in the US

>>10323620
>Private industry is run by corporate executives who don't give a shit about the long term
anon.. Everything, including all politics is de facto run by corporate executives who don't give a shit about the long term.
Why do you think they fear populism.

>>10323610
>>10323621

>>10323623
0/10

>>10323622

>>10323553
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

>>10323602
> With the use of DHS and other demographic data, Robert Warren and Donald Kerwin of the pro-migrant Center for Migration (CMS) estimate that around 4.5 million – or 42 percent – of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 2014 were overstays.
That's the key. They're comparing it to the total 11 million illegals in the country. The thing is that most of those 11 million have been here for over a decade. If you look at the number of border crossings versus visa overstays per year, the breakdown for 2017 was 62% overstays. Other recent years have been similar in terms of visa overstays being the main way illegal immigrants are entering the country. Historically a lot of people did come across the border on land, but that has changed substantially over the years. Now it's mostly people flying in.

>>10323382
>most people are completely neutral
I don't think that's true, a productive person should be considered as well meaning. Someone attempting to vampire their productivity with threat of violence is called a slaver or a tax man.
The idea that your ideas are so good, they should be mandatory, is a heavily flawed one.

>>10323631
But it's the most efficient way and it doesn't involve death or anything of the kind.
If you people want to prevent climate change then fucking challenge it

It's more and more obvious that its just a hipster issue for fat fucks who want to drape themselves in social justice to look "cool" or something.

Real change on the climate issue requires real solution, not half assed political conjecture from some fucking lefty who takes money from every corporation in the world.

>>10323641
Show me a society that is able to maintain an electrical grid without mandatory taxes.

>>10323646
>one child policy for the people who actually care for the environment
>all those who do not continue to breed like rats
>environment gets fucked even harder than before because of the unending horde of barbarian undesirables

>>10323652
>who will build the roads!
Where do people end and the government begin? You think humans are too retarded to build the roads unless humans are... building roads?

>>10323620
>don't give a shit about the long term
There are a few industries that can only run on long term profits. You can't just pump extreme amounts of electricity down the grid and get fucktonnes of money. No executive with a short term mindset would touch nuclear power with a ten foot pole as there is absolutely no opportunity for profit for them.
Public image is also extremely important to large companies. You cause a single nuclear disaster and your entire company is fucked, no matter what else you do and however well you do it. You get that incident stuck to your name and you'll never be able to get a job again.

>>10323629
Nobody has ever been killed by nuclear power in the US.

>>10323661
It's not about being smart enough to do it, it's about being willing to pay for it. Most people, if given the choice to not pay for something, won't pay for it. It's not out of malice or stupidity, it's simply human nature to be a little bit reluctant to volunteer your own resources. Some people still do it, but I have yet to see a society where enough people voluntarily contribute enough money to maintain a 21st (or even 20th) century level of technology. Real world evidence indicates that in order to have an advanced society, you need to have some mandatory taxes.

>>10323634
Well then I guess we need a wall AND more ICE agents

>>10323671
There is no evidence. Unlike communism, libertarianism has never been tried.

>>10323667
My father works in nuclear QC and he almost died of sinus cancer, so technically you're right.

>>10323674
wrong, look up the gilded age.

>>10323671
You aren't getting my point. People want roads, people want electricity, so they are willing to pay for it. The government does nothing except make it more expensive than necessary to have these things. Dominoes Pizza fixes potholes better than the government does.
The issue is that your IQ is low, and so you actually believe the indoctrination you've received since birth, that without a police state you couldn't have a community.

>>10323681
Federal overreach was instrumental to the abuses of the gilded age.

>>10323652
The Amish, except the US would engage in violence against them if they attempted to build their own power grid, so instead they use batteries to avoid said violence.

>>10323690
wow, and who do you think was in control of the feds at the time?

>>10323693
wow, and who do you think is in control of the feds at this time, and every other time? Public education is a powerful mind control tool apparently.

>>10323693
Thhe jews, probably

>>10323662
Those industries are fundamentally made up of people. The corporate executives, the ones who are making the decisions, are short term focused. This issue isn't specific to any industry, and power generation is certainly not immune. Take PG&E, for example. They started a series of huge fires in California and burned down large chunks of the state because each quarter they skimped a little bit more on maintenance in order to constantly be increasing their earnings.

Corporate America is largely dominated by the generic corporate executive. Someone who is just slotted into a business regardless of industry and runs each according to the same principles. Is this a good idea? Hell no, but it's how private industry operates in the US. And each round of executives isn't thinking that they'll be the ones to be stuck holding the bag, but eventually one of them will be. PG&E is absolutely fucked given all the damages they're looking at, but the defining feature of a corporate executive is to be able to take credit for success and avoid blame for failure. They will sadly be able to get another job, despite what you might think. The market isn't actually that reasonable in reality. It's really just a mess of human beings engaging in all the usual personal politicking that leads shortsighted people to be able to continuously find work as long as they can successfully blame someone else for the screw ups.

>>10323674
The evidence is that we've never had an advanced society without taxation. If you want to try to prove it's possible, go ahead. Try it. But until someone pulls it off, you're talking about a fantasy.

>>10323698
The point is that libertarianism has been tried and I would not want to go back to that time.

>>10323660
one child policy for the west, one child policy or bullets for the rest

>>10323688
>The issue is that your IQ is low, and so you actually believe the indoctrination you've received since birth, that without a police state you couldn't have a community.
And you believe in something without any evidence, namely that you can have a modern society with only market transactions. There's about as much evidence supporting that as there is supporting the idea that we can travel faster than light. You're welcome to try, but right now it's a dumb idea to assume it's a given.

>>10323309
carbon capture is a meme and does not work, take a thermodynamics class for once in your life

>>10323707
I've never argued for libertarianism; but it's surely superior to what we have now, and you've demonstrated that you've got a low INT score.
More importantly, your point is wrong. The argument you made and the picture you showed weren't examples of libertarianism. Each of those industries were over regulated. You saying "it's been tried" with an example of statism and forced redistribution of property and wealth as your proof is an absurdity. Your post is the equivalent of shitting on the floor and selling it as art. You though, on being unable to sell it, would want to require its purchase by law since most people are dumb and won't volunteer to buy your shit unless forced.

>>10323700
The government is made of even more fallable and less accountable humans.

>>10323674
Libertarian economics in Chile nearly tripled the poverty rate and doubled unemployment even as GDP per capita theoretically rose. There was a ton of wealth, but the society wasn't better off since all that wealth was going to people who were already so comfortable that gaining even more wealth wouldn't actually accomplish much.

>>10323711
>market transactions
Your mind is trapped by language, I'm sorry. There's really nothing the government does that can't be done better without it.

>>10323716
Just like how communism in theory is completely different from actual communist dictatorships, libertarianism is the same. You're no different from commies who say "bu bu but it's never been tried", you even say "well, that's not real libertarianism, real libertarianism hasn't been tried". Then you argue that the period in American history where plutocracy was at a maximum was actually "statism", give me a break, the EU is statism, the gilded age was not.

>>10323723
>absence of taxation = absence of government

>>10323719
The humans in government are just as fallible, but more democratic governments create a somewhat different incentive structure precisely because it is more accountable. Retaining power when you fuck up is harder in a democratic government than it is in the corporate world. Not a whole lot harder, but enough that it creates a somewhat different incentive structure. There is at least some room for the long term in public sector decisions, whereas in the private sector the incentive is to disregard the long term in favor of the quarterly bottom line. Leaders in a democratic government need to think on a timescale of years, whereas their corporate counterparts only need to concern themselves with months.

>>10323721
>anecdote
Chile has a government similar to ours, arguably a copy of it, and it's by far the most stable region of South America. By no means is it "libertarian."
https://www.tmf-group.com/en/news-insights/business-culture/top-challenges-chile/
Please don't make shit up to support your points.

Also, if you argue that it IS "libertarian," it's literally the most successful nation on the continent where it resides.

>>10323736
>socialist venezuela collapsing.
>"libertarian" chile #1 on the continent.

>>10323721
The pinochet regime was a millitary dictatorship in which previously nationalized sectors were handed off to incompetants, and cuts to public services were redirected to the millitary rather than tax cuts. In a proper libertarian society, such state power is not a feature, and corperations only grow if they are competant.

>>10323743
Chile is a social democracy right now and is successful now as a result of it, but for many years it pursued libertarian economic policies that ruined its economy. It wasn't until Pinochet was finally ousted in 1990 that Chile was able to recover by returning to social democracy.

>>10323746
see >>10323743

>>10323741
>Retaining power when you fuck up is harder in a democratic government than it is in the corporate world
This is the dumbest fucking thing anyone has ever written. Do you have any fucking clue how hard it is to hold government workers accountable for ANYTHING?

>>10323741
The only reason someone can retain power when they fuck up in the corporate world is because of big government that they control redistributing tax dollars to them. That's literally what the bailouts were. Without your big daddy government they would have been accountable.
Big government is a buffer for the oligopoly, so they do not have to be competitive and can maximize risk and profit and reward.

>>10323747
Libertarianism, like communism, cannot exist without an authoritarian state to enforce it. If you give people a choice, they will reject it because people like things like environmental regulation health and safety regulation. The only way to maintain an ideologically extreme system like libertarianism is with military force. Just as former Warsaw Pact states rejected communism once they were given a chance to vote on it, Chile rejected libertarianism when it was given the chance to vote on it.

>>10323748
Dude Pinochet was a military warlord dictator not a libertarian champion. Of the very few libertarian ideas he utilized, every single one was wildly successful and had nothing to do with the shortcomings of his society, which stemmed from him being literally a dictator.

>>10323756
As hard as it is, it's actually easier than holding a corporate executive accountable.

>>10323761
Chileans voted for more socialism because south americans are stupid.

>>10323746
Chile became number one in South America because it rejected libertarianism and restored the social programs and economic regulations that it had before Pinochet's coup.

>>10323764
No. It's easier to get rid of a multimillionaire CEO than a DMV agent

>>10323761
Chile never had libertarianism, it had a dictatorship, which is contradictory to the idea of it. One or two policies of a libertarian bent doesn't make a government libertarian. He was a brutal dictator who committed mass murders against his political opponents and when he brought in the Chicago Boys, his economy massively improved anyway.

>>10323721
>Libertarian economics
It's called free market economics, not libertarian economics. Pinochet may have implemented free market economics in chile but that doesn't make him libertarian, merely a free market dictator.

>>10323763
> Dude Pinochet was a military warlord dictator not a libertarian champion.
The latter requires the former. Libertarianism will always be rejected by the majority. So Libertarians reject democracy. From Hayek to Ron Paul, libertarians have always expressed their support for dictators over democracies. Hayek specifically said that a dictatorship that respects free market principles is preferable to a democracy. Pinochet was one of the leaders that libertarians adored as an example of that because he gutted all of Chile's social programs. But in reality, what that did was that it made life far worse for the Chilean people. Even though there was wealth they never got a chance to see the benefits of it.

>>10323770
Chile never rejected those economic principles that the chicago boys brought to it, because it skyrocketed their economy even way back then.
It never 'restored the social programs and economic regulations that it had before Pinochet's coup'. Pinochet was never good, but his economic policies that the chicago boys made for him provably were and are.

>>10323780
Libertarianism requires authoritarian dictatorship. There is no other way to force the majority of people to suffer under it.

>>10323787
The majority wouldn't suffer under dictatorship unless the majority did not want to work

>>10323782
You're making broad assumptions as statements of fact.
If I can believe something, there's a good chance it's possible for a majority of people to believe it too. Hayek did not say that it is required.
More importantly, Chile STILL USES Pinochet's economic policies and doctrine, it merely got rid of the brutal mass murdering dictator aspect.

so if you are calling pinochet's chile as "libertarian," then you must also call modern chile the same, since it's a copy and it's responsible for its continued growth since pinochet changed the economics there.

>>10323783
> It never 'restored the social programs and economic regulations that it had before Pinochet's coup'.
Yes it did. In the 1990s after it ousted Pinochet it pursued a long recovery program in which it reestablished government services such as public transit and education, while also restoring labor and environmental laws that had been gutted under Pinochet. The entire Chilean welfare system had to be rebuilt save a single program for providing children with milk that even Pinochet had been unable to get rid of.

>>10323799
Modern Chile has been criticized in modern times for still implementing Pinochet's economic policies, I've been looking into it and you're right about restoration of these social programs.
It's as if Chile wanted to keep their new economic success, but wanted to get rid of their evil mass murdering dictator, and so that's what they did.
Now they have the boon of good economic freedom AND no mass murdering dictator.
Who'd of thunk it?

Lotta asshats arguing ITT

>>10317643
Wrong

>>10318207
Ding ding ding!
>>10318644
Ding ding ding!
>>10319410
Ding ding ding!
>>10319488
Ding ding ding!

>>10320264
I'm very sorry, but overpopulation is the problem, and the natural correction to that will be the eventual reduction of the population--man-made or the result of environmental change.

Animals are animals. Too many of anything leads to corrective change. Furthermore, in terms of quality of life, lower populations worldwide are much happier, and more value is placed on labor of all kinds. People aren't as special when they're a dime a dozen.

Everyone likes to think about technology or regulation based solutions to mankind's problems, but the big and obvious issue is everybody fucking too much and having too many kids.

>>10323347
You're dumb. Killing people would just lead to resistance and collapse of the system effecting change. The best way is like China's birth restrictions: stigmatize those who get pregnant and shame the fathers. Make irresponsible parents of too many children outcasts, then wait the necessary 40 years or so for the geriatric and boomers to die off. The economy will normalize over this time as consumption of cheap goods will slowly decrease, and emmissions will accordingly follow suit.

>>10323607
>>10323610
Fags

>>10323622
You should have left it at one-child, the rest is just resultant from long-term enforcement of that.
>>10323660
>>10323708
Take the rats bowling, take them bowling.


Seriously though, whatever is motivating you guys to argue about fucking politics, you should both go fuck yourselves.

>>10323795
> More importantly, Chile STILL USES Pinochet's economic policies and doctrine, it merely got rid of the brutal mass murdering dictator aspect.
No it doesn't. Chile has public transportation, utilities, education, FONASA, and a full set of workplace safety laws. Child labor is banned again, and union rights are guaranteed. Pinochet's policies were rejected.

>>10323807
>Lotta asshats arguing ITT
This is probably the single most sensible debate I've ever seen on 4chan.

>>10323804
> It's as if Chile wanted to keep their new economic success
Chile's success occurred after Pinochet was gone. When Pinochet seized power, poverty was at 17%. When he was kicked out, the poverty rate was 48%. Now, after decades of recovery and social democracy, it's 14%.

>>10323807
>people currently reproducing below replacement should havd even fewer kids
>we won't do anything about shitskins reproducing faster than e coli, in fact we'll feed them

>>10323834
>Hi guys, just wanted to remind everybody that I'm racist

>>10323815
Most sensible I've seen followed this chain of responses:
>I'm right, this is why
>Actually, there's this clear and obvious reason why not
>Oh, well I guess I wasn't right, sorry about that, I'll stop arguing now instead of continually responding with bias as though there's anything more meaningful on the line than my ego

Not happening here

>>10323857
If you're not racist, you're a fool.

>>10323867
>>10323857

>>10323879
What's your point? Mine is that preaching anti-natalism to westerners is retarded and counter productive.

>>10323883
Good job. You're adhering to an untenable position and consider a solution untenable. Have a nice day.

>>10323917
You solution literally doesn't fix the percieved problem of overpopulation. The endogenous population of the west is not growing and needs not shrink.

Super rich people are the worst polluters. We just need to dispossess all billionaires to save the planet.

>>10323926
it doesn't want a solution, it just wants to see whites die off completely to atone for past sins
climate change is just one of the many, many reasons they shit out as justification for their genocidal desires