/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10949228
There is no data that proves that the only solution is to give more money to the government. Do you want to know how many huge potentially world-ending "problems" we have data to argue are plausible? Hundreds. CC is just the one the spin doctors, activists (which is a career and are paid by "non-profits") and politicians think that the general population is most likely to believe as you can explain CC to even a retarded monkey, which just happens to be their target audience.

Boohoo! WE ARE GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS UNLESS YOU GIVE ME MONEY!!!!! HURRY GIVE ME MONEY NOW NOW MONEY NOW GIVE ME

>>10949247
What are some of these other world ending "problems" next to CC?

>>10949247
>give more money to the government
Who is giving, and for what?
Also, what is your solution?

>>10949228
Buy Tesla
Invest in Musk
In Musk we trust

>>10949252
Antivaxx, overpopulation, terrorism (which is the meme conservatives used and liberals were furious but now they are doing the same shit), etc.

>>10949254
Most activists propose carbon taxes. My solution is the solution to any problem, let the markets adjust as they always do. I mean, we already have thorium. And hundreds of new energy companies are active. Let one of these fuckers succeed and flood energy markets, see how long carbon and oil last.

>>10949324
>Antivaxx, overpopulation, terrorism
Neither of these are world ending. Maybe multi- and total-resistent bacteria are.

>>10949324
>taxes are bad, subsidies are good
Retarded

>>10949337
Who said anything about subsidies?

>>10949328
IN 12 YEARS BACTERIA WILL KILL US GIVE ME MONEY MONEY WE WILL INSTALL ANTIBIOTIC TAXES TO FUND MY YACHT MONEY MONEY GIVE ME MONEY

>>10949342
>Who said anything about subsidies?
You did, when you mentioned nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant has been shown to be profitable in the west without massive subsidies. In terms of subsidies per kilowatt produced, they are even worse than fossils.

>IN 12 YEARS BACTERIA WILL KILL US GIVE ME MONEY MONEY WE WILL INSTALL ANTIBIOTIC TAXES TO FUND MY YACHT MONEY MONEY GIVE ME MONEY
>hurr durr funding research on alternatives to antibiotics are bad

>>10949228
-it endangers companies who will lose profit
-the companies pressure/influence politics (see Trump, Merkel (i know she aknowledges climate change, but zero was done till now, except talk..), Putin and all other retards with Trump attitude)
>politicians sugarcoat it
>big companies (e.g. exxon, vw) even invest in disinformation; outcome is retards like this >>10949247
its easier to live without drastic change; sad truth is that humans will only adapt if its inevitable. now everyone enjoys the ride

>>10949351
>Merkel (i know she aknowledges climate change, but zero was done till now, except talk..)
Actually, she's made it worse by shutting down nuclear powerplants and replacing them with importing gas from Russia.

>>10949355
Fukushima happened and many people wanted to shut it down; she just adapted in order to get elected..

>>10949328
No less world ending than climate change anyway. The world will still be here whether we're living in skyscrapers or caves.
Besides what are you gonna do to offset China's mass pollution problem? How are my taxes and efforts gonna cut that? Are you even boycotting China right now for Hong Kong? Or are you a single issue kinda guy?

>>10949391
Of course climate change isn't world ending, I just don't want niggers flooding into Europe because they can't grow crops anymore. Other than that I don't give a flying fuck about it.

>>10949324
>Most activists propose carbon taxes.
Most activists also propose that the collected taxes go back to the people as a tax refund.

>My solution is the solution to any problem, let the markets adjust as they always do
Ask any economist in the world, and they will tell you environmental issues are THE biggest failure of a free market system. Profits need to be made within one's lifetime to pay off, and environmental issues are not confined to affecting only the consumers. Fossil fuels remain extremely lucrative around the world.

>>10949391
>climate change won't kill LITERALLY EVERYONE so it's fine we shouldn't actually do anything
wow anon you're so smart

>>10949247
fuck off you retarded corporate bootlicking shill, somehow EPA regulations which banned leaded gasoline and made our polluted rivers and lakes livable again, as well as fixed our carcinogenic smog filled cities was completely reasonable yet somehow doing something to reduce CO2 emissions which are an even larger problem is evil big government socialism? You fucking retards have completly forgotten the meaning of of the people by the people for the people, and instead think it's of the corporations by the corporations for the corporations.

>>10949228
Jews make everything a partisan issue to shill their tricks.

The market could only fix it if there was a recognised owner of the environment with immense wealth who could participate in the market. At present, there is an "invisible owner" who all our transactions involve impoverishing

because global warming alarmists, when it started in the 70's, took an extremely anticapialist tone and were ostracized by the mainstream.

since then, they've improved their rhetoric and things are changing.

Why does removing trash from rivers and air pollution take a back seat to CO2?

>>10949518
this, when a company pollutes it hurts me and I deserve payment for it

>>10949578
It doesn't. We passed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act back in the 60s/70s.

>>10949228
When everyone screaming about the problem simultaneously preach communism, and the only solution that they come up with is yet another tax, no shit it's going to become "partisian". Add to this the fact that so far the predictions haven't exactly turned out to be true, and people aren't believing the bullshit anymore. Hence dragging kids that haven't yet been exposed to the propaganda enough to notice it's not true.
>accept the data
Data showing what? That the arctic has plenty of ice left when it was supposed to be "ice-free" in 2014? That a ~50% increase in global CO2 levels from fuck-all to fuck-all accounts for a 1 degree increase of global temperatures from 287 kelvin to 288 kelvin, and this is somehow going to kill us all UNLESS we introduce a feel-good tax that won't do shit since people will still consume resources as they did before?
If it's CO2 that's the big bad, then the solution is to replace coal and gas plants with nuclear plants, as those are the only real alternative. Wind and solar just can't meet the energy demand. If it's not CO2, then find the real culprit and come back to the discussion once you've found it.
Also, funny how I had to look quite hard for what the global average temp is, all the results talk about how the average is going up, yet the actual average temperature is hidden in a wall of text. Maybe they understand bitching about a 1 degree increase looks retarded when saying the average temp is 14.6C, and using the true scale kelvin makes it look really retarded.
If you want to tax CO2 to build nuclear plants, or at least do something with the money that would actually be useful, then we can have a discussion about whether it's good or not. If the only use for the money is virtue signalling and transferring cash to Africa/your own pocket, fuck off.

>>10949228
You need to look at climate change deniers sort of like addicts.

You simply cannot tell a coke head that their nose is imploding or they will get violent and dangerous.

>>10949228
Taxes will not work because unlike every other problem humanity has faced so far, you simply cannot "consume" your way out of this one.

>>10949597
>the only solution that they come up with is yet another tax
1) That's not true. There's also cap and trade, and other enforcement options.
2) How do you propose we reduce carbon emissions?

>>10949608
>How do you propose we reduce carbon emissions?
1) Rationing, not taxes
2) Stopping all new development

Until those are being talked about, humanity is simply not serious about stopping climate change

>>10949228
Let me get even more intoxicated. And het back to to you. Hard to rinse brainwashing.

>>10949614
cap and trade is rationing tho

>>10949633
no its isn't its essentially just like a tax. its paying to emit more. there is no hard limit on emissions with cap and trade. with rationing there is.

>>10949614
Are you 10? "All new development" includes renewables and carbon sequestration and "rationing" fossil fuels sounds like something from a cartoon.

>>10949463
Banning something is not the same as taxing it. Specially the tax schemes proposed by activists. It sounds more like they are angry they aren't getting a bigger cut.

I will actually unironically respect you if you have the balls to propose a ban on fossil fuels. But I know you are a pussy and your life is 100% fueled by them. Like the activist celebrities crying about CC but flying private jets.

>>10949641
what do you think "cap" means?

>>10949654
it means you pay when you go over the "cap".

>>10949650
>Another moronic liberal money priest who "believes" the only way out of a problem caused by consumerism is to consume more

>>10949657
that's not what wikipedia describes cap and trade

>A central authority (usually a governmental body) allocates or sells a limited number of permits to discharge specific quantities of a specific pollutant per time period

or how the enviromental defense fund describes it

>The cap on greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming is a firm limit on pollution. The cap gets stricter over time.

you might be confused because a company that wants to pollute more can buy more pollution rations from other companies, but the total amount of pollution rations in a given year is fixed (and decreasing over time)

>>10949228
I don't blame old people. First It was cooling, then warming, now its just change. NYC was supposes to be under water 20 years ago. How long until you think they're crying wolf?

That and how sure are you that they got the data right this time? Have you poured through the data? Or just looked at a few charts they showed you?

Furthermore how sure are you what they're saying to combat is the only cause? I for one believe the Earth's magnetic field is weakening and that's allowing more of the sun's heat radiation in (in one way or another. Infrared isn't the only way to heat something). Carbon taxes do nothing to combat methane, which is less plentiful but way more potent.

Another anon was asked what his solution is tho. As I see it there are 2 paths (well 3). We continue overpopulating and everyone globally willingly adopts native American stylea of living (or 3rd option we continue as is until we implode and can only live as native Americans did), or my favorite option: just ww3 genocide 2/3 of the population and quit handing africans et al medicine until they learn to farm so they can feed their cities so the corruption and stupidity can start to alleviate.

>>10949608
1)
>trade
Ah yes, the beautiful transfer of money from developed countries, to 3rd-world shitholes. Because that's what it is, lets not kid ourselves.
2) First of all, how necessary is it. Going from 280 ppm to 415 ppm is around 50% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet it only increased the temperature by 1C, and that is if it's responsible for 100% of the temp increase which is ridiculous.
And the short answer to that question is simple, nuclear. France has ~70% of its electricity from nuclear, if not more. Why can't other countries do the same? One standardized design that can't blow up, then build 1000 of them over the entire world, or whatever you need to cover the worlds energy needs. The reason nuclear is so expensive is because each reactor has to be its own special snowflake, and thus R&D costs skyrocket while building it.

The big problem with the hysteria is the retarded solutions that are put up. Tax this, "limit" that. Then enforce it how you see fit, ie let certain companies get away with not following the regulations that are put up to give them an edge (dieselgate). Go over the limit? Just pay a (((fine))). It's totally bad for you to even fly on an airplane, but it's perfectly fine for US activists, since we're just PREACHING THE GOOD WORD. Frankly, the longer this shitshow is going on, the fewer people are going to believe anything regarding climate change, even if it's legitimate.

>>10949669
Cool, can't wait till it's nothing but a sea of Costco's Walmarts and McDonald's.

That you think this is a holistic solution for society would be laughable if it weren't so depressing

>>10949669
Ok. Looks like rationing I guess.
That said I doubt cap and trade will be given serious consideration.
Everyone's favorite abrasive government carbon tax shill, Dan Bailey (or maybe its Ken Gread this time), says that rationing is like "something from a cartoon."
>>10949650

>>10949688
you were the one who suggested rationing. do you not think its a good idea anymore?

>>10949681
Are you completely clueless? Cap and trade is a domestic policy.

>>10949681
based anon is based

>>10949667
>Imagine being so retarded that you think doing literally nothing is a solution
Hey guys, let's drag out whole society back to a pre-industrial state so we can suffer the consequences of our actions for a few thousand years while the environment works itself out! Why would we ever try to switch to a renewable power source and sequester carbon to reverse some of the damage we've caused? Just stop using power! Why isn't anyone handing me a Nobel?

>>10949690
cap and trade has been given serious consideration and is policy in many places thought the world, is quite popular and also quite effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Trading_systems

>Political leaders in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States (Congress) move toward cap-and-trade systems as their preferred approach for achieving meaningful reductions in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases

>>10949699
I don't know that stats but I'd be surprised if more than 0.01% of the development going on today is to "develop renewables" or "sequester carbon".

>>10949692
Sorry I was not. That's my first post, i haven't read the entire thread yet either (my bad)

I believe if we continue overpopulating it's not whether anyone wants to, we'll have to ration. I don't want to, which is why i vote genocide. Which also, who cares what i think. I bet most of the world will want to stay safe and comfortable at the expense of liberties and luxuries only the uber rich overlords who own the major corporations can afford.

>>10949706
Spare me the rhetoric and show me results.
"move towards" is miles away from "adopting"

>>10949695
>Are you completely clueless? Cap and trade is a domestic policy.
Are you? Trading emissions is a global market, Norway is generating almost all its energy from hydro, and is selling the "clean energy" certificates to Germany so they can pollute more than they should. Is that the way to go around reducing CO2 emissions? Other shit exists like the Kyoto protocol that allows countries that don't spend all their "allowed emissions" to sell it to countries that need more, ie yet another transfer of cash to shitholes.
Cap and trade is nothing but pilpul for taxing people for living in a more elaborate way than just putting it on their taxes.

>>10949692
Wait no that was my 2nd post
This was my first >>10949674

>>10949712
Entirety irrelevant and if that's your problem then your solution should be to find ways to encourage growth in those areas, not stop doing society because we made a mistake and that made society hard to do.

>>10949597
>using Kelvin
Lmao I see we have a Tony Heller fanboy

>>10949730
It's entirely irrelevant that 99.99% of current development is the kind that contributes to climate change - the exact opposite kind of development we need to stop climate change?

You're either completely deluded, or are some kind of sleazy huckster, trying to cash in on an impending catastrophe while actually making the problem significantly worse.

>>10949727
The EU is domestic.
>Is that the way to go around reducing CO2 emissions?
If it works, yes.

>>10949739
I don't know who that is. Using kelvin just makes climate change sound more retarded.
>>10949742
>If it works, yes.
Well it doesn't. All those nasty coal plants still have to run because it takes days to heat them up and solar only works during the day, and wind is not stable enough. And if both shit themselves at once, you need to have coal running at 100% anyway to power everything. It's all a scheme to milk money from people, it always was.

>>10949727
Its providing significant economic incentives to reduce emissions, so yes its working great. I guess declaring war on polluters and bombing power plants would work too but we're trying to avoid solutions worse than the problem.

>>10949759
>Well it doesn't.
Let's see the numbers. Has cap and trade resulted in less emissions where implemented? If yes, it works. Coal plants existing does not disprove this.

>>10949762
Again
>significant economic incentives to reduce emissions
is miles away from
>reducing emissions

Seems like you people are all rhetoric and no results.

>>10949741
If I'm a huckster then you're either a moron or intellectually dishonest. Most industry does not contribute to climate change directly, they simply use the electricity provided to them by the fossil fuel powered grid. The more is invested in renewables and energy storage, the less these businesses impact the environment. It sounds to me like what you actually want is regulations and subsidies, but you're too riddled with pre-teen angst to recognize anything that isn't an edgy or extreme solution.

>>10949770
I thought we were talking about the right/wrong kind of development here, Mr. Huckster.

>>10949766
Thats literally how regulations work dude.... You penalize certain behaviors so that it is more economical to make the desired behaviors.

>>10949762
>>10949763
If coal plants still have to burn at full power while the totally clean energy sources do their "best", then it's all retarded virtue signalling. Disconnecting the cable at the coal plant and pulling the energy from those "clean" sources to skew the numbers on what you're powering your shit from doesn't change the fact that coal was burned all the same.
Taxes forced on companies for polluting result in those costs just being moved to the consumer. Those taxes make no difference if the carbon-based energy grid has to be able to support the energy demand at 100% all the time because suddenly the wind isn't blowing, or it's blowing too much.

>>10949782
That's why you cap the emissions.

>>10949228
Build a greenhouse faggot.

>>10949773
I thought we were talking about whether or not you were retarded for wanting to stop "all development"

>>10949785
>cap the emissions
Oops, I burned all of the emissions I was capped for, what do I do? 1: Fuck it and burn more, or 2: Shut it down! Lets all freeze to death.
What's the penalty for 1? Just some fine. Tax. Whatever, raise the price to compensate and just burn more. 2 is definitely not happening since people will notice when their TV shuts down.

>>10949796
Right, so you tax them and spend those sweet sweet neetbux on more solar panels and wind turbines

>>10949803
That don't do anything but virtue signal when it comes to the environment since those coal plants still run at 100%.

>>10949795
When 99.99% of accelerates climate change, and stopping climate change is necessary, it's simply logical to stop all development.

Maybe you're the retard. Or maybe you're just a career property developer - dependent on environmentally destructive and wholly unsustainable practices for your bloated lifestyle.

become? it's been one since the oil corporations decided to obfuscate and hide their own research about CO2 emissions contributing to global warming way back in the 70s and 80s. Since then, hundreds of millions of dollars have been pumped into climate change denial by special interest groups and hydrocarbon extraction and refining corporations. Their campaign of disinformation has paid in spades, as no real action has been taken yet, even though we've known about this issue for nearly half a century, and the basic concepts of CO2 's role in the atmosphere for centuries.

The ironic thing is that climate change deniers themselves believe all the models are inaccurate, all of the data is corrupt, some of them even think they can "audit" temperature data stations for bias, as if that's not something that people that create the data take into account in the first place. But of course to these people, a vast conspiracy among tens of thousands of individual scientists and governmental organizations across the world to create a "climate alarmist crisis" is definitely plausible, but corporations with net worth in the trillions definitely have had zero influence over this """debate""" and are just protecting their own financial interest because oil, gas and coal have zero negative side effects, and CO2 is plant food you fucking watermelon commie socialists!

It amazes me how these nuts are completely blind to this, you would think conspiracy theorists would be infatuated with the actual evidence that exists of fossil fuel organizations pumping millions upon millions of dollars into disinfo campaigns around climate science, but they don't even bat an eye. It's all the evil leftist librul environmentalist scientists controlling a vast conspiracy, but oh wait they don't even think climate science is a real area of science either because it uses a lot of "models," completely ignoring the fact that all fields of science use models to understand and interpret the data.

>>10949795
When 99.99% of development accelerates climate change, and stopping climate change is necessary, it's simply logical to stop all development.

Maybe you're the retard. Or maybe you're just a career property developer - dependent on environmentally destructive and wholly unsustainable practices for your bloated lifestyle.

>>10949807
You don't seem to understand how energy works. Fossil fuel plants generate the energy demand minus energy from other sources such as renewables and stored energy. More non-fossil fuel power generation == less fossil fuel power generation.

>virtue signal
I think it's time to go back
>>>/pol/

>>10949811
>it's simply logical to stop all development.
No, it's not and again, you're completely misrepresenting the situation when you say 99.99% of of development accelerates climate change. Deciding to become Amish because you went on a bender is not a logical decision, it's an extreme solution that only a retard would dream up.

>>10949796
How the fuck do regulations work, please explain it to me.

>>10949811
the problem is greed too. Our entire lives are centered around fossil fuel usage; how our food is packaged, how we get around, everything that's build and engineered is made by some usage of fossil fuels.
but humans are far too short sighted, we can't even think 1 year into the future much less 1-2 centuries.

The fact of the matter is the world is too large and chaotic / differentiated for any real progress to ever come, and it's a damn shame. I've long reconciled the fact that we're never going to be able to stop this crisis, there's far too few people willing to actually make drastic changes to their lives, livelihoods and lifestyles to enact real change, and only an authoritarian government with extreme oppression of its people would be able to do it.

Keeping the global average temps below 1.5°C is a fucking pipe dream, it's just not going to ever happen at the rates of emissions and rate of development in the world. We'll probably be lucky if we can keep temps from rising above 4°C. At the same time, you and I, our parents, etc. aren't really going to feel the brunt of the impacts from this catastrophe. It's not a singular event either, which makes it that much harder for our minds to process it. It's slow, it's incremental, and the effects just ramp up slowly over time with positive feedback loops. Thankfully, that also allows us to have some time to react with our civilization and preserve some of it from damages like sea level rise in the coming centuries.

>>10949578
Because trash in rivers/oceans is a localized problem. You can just go and physically clean it up. CO2 is global, you can't just go and clean it up.

>>10949816
You don't seem to understand how fossil fuel plants work. They need to be at a certain temperature to work. Therefore they need to still keep burning if there's an expected dip in energy production from "renewables" like the sun going down. You powering your shit from renewables when they work doesn't change the fact the coal is still burning.

>>10949823
>How the fuck do regulations work
They're suggestions of varying degrees, if you break them, you get a fine. Especially when it comes to the energy business. You think they'll shut down a coal plant because it's breaking some rule in some book? No, because people not having electricity in their wall is worse than some number being too high. Unless there's a bullet waiting for people that dare break a particular regulation, people will do a risk-reward analysis and do it if the reward is good enough.

>>10949828
well, you can, technically, on a small scale carbon capture is possible, but expensive and not very efficient.

But I don't understand why people are saying things like carbon capture should play no role in climate policy, it's absolutely retarded to say this. If it's possible to capture a fraction of the carbon we emit, why not invest into doing so?

>>10949228
The stages of grief:
>Denial
>Anger (we are here)
>Bargaining
>Depression
>Acceptance

>>10949822
>you're completely misrepresenting the situation when you say 99.99%
Are you afraid to dig up the stats?
It's probably 99.9999% world wide actually
I don't think it would be hard to find out how many millions are being spend on "sequestering carbon" and "renewable energy" and divide that number by the trillions currently being spent on expanding highways, sky scrapers, appartment buildings, houses, cargo ships, trains, automobiles, planes, etc. etc. etc. everything else (all of which is incredibly environmentally destructive even when you ignore their effects on climate change) world wide.
Why are you so against halting the acceleration of climate change? Why are you so against halting ongoing destruction of natural environments?

>>10949228
Why is climate change a problem?

>>10949839
I think when people downplay carbon capture, they're against the idea of setting up carbon capture facilities that pull CO2 out of the open air. The concentration is just too low to be cost effective. I don't think anyone is against putting carbon capture equipment on smokestacks, where the concentration is much higher.

>>10949228
It’s not a matter of accepting data, it’s a matter of accepting the proposed “solution” which is nothing more than a gibs program.

>>10949836
>They need to be at a certain temperature to work.
Confirmed psued. They work over a large temperature range at the cost of efficiency. You misread some article about the duck curve and now you think you're an expert on power generation.

>>10949865
This simply isn't true though, the vast majority of climate so called "skeptics" outright deny that the data is reliable, or disparage the entire field of earth sciences as not a real science, or that the models are wrong, that the data is biased, or flawed, or outright fabricated. Go to /pol/ and peak in on any climate change thread and you will see what the viewpoint of people from a conservative perspective have on the issue.

>>10949827
Probably right but it would be nice to expose some of the sleaze balls who are trying to cash in on this absolute tragedy before it all falls apart.

>>10949871
No shit they work over a large temperature range at the cost of efficiency. That's the problem. They're still burning coal, but they aren't even getting all the energy from it that they could get because solar needs time to shine.

>>10949855
>Imagine being this retarded
You've got to work on your reading comprehension. Those claims misrepresent the situation in that the majority of those industries and businesses are not directly responsible for the environmental damage. Give them sustainable energy and they become sustainable businesses.

Don't feel too bad though, I don't expect a 10 year old to understand that kind of distinction.

>>10949878
>"Oh no, I've shown my ignorance! Better say what he says like that's what I meant"
Lol. Also just install solar panels that work at night.

>>10949879
How about instead of insulting me, you dig up the numbers, since you seem so confident? Or are you afraid of finding out something ugly about your beloved "development"?

>>10949883
No, I'm afraid of wasting my time. I'm mostly stuck on which part of this confuses you. If you replace the energy generation with a source that doesn't damage the environment then the only industries that impact the environment are dumping waste or farming unsustainably.

>>10949879
>those industries and businesses are not directly responsible
>directly
>indirectly
that's ridiculous. Its an excuse that gets literally everyone off the hook except the guy who literally digs it out of the ground. absurd

>>10949894
Ahh so youre essentially an infinite growther nuclear shill. Great. THere is enough uranium in sea water to power economic growth for another 100,000 years right? And when that runs out scientists will surely have perfect asteroid mining and nuclear fusion? Right? Good to know you're as mentally ill as I thought you were.

>>10949895
I know this is a big leap for a ten year old to make, but because those businesses are not directly responsible, they can operate without impacting the environment. In order to do this they need certain conditions, namely available renewable energy, so we install renewables to create those conditions, and then, like magic, those businesses stop impacting the environment.

We'll have a test next Tuesday.

>>10949896
We'll have working nuclear fusion in a decade.

>>10949882
Cool, how much of the world needs to be covered in those to meet the energy demand? What's the cost of building it, both in money and just pure resources? How hard does carbon need to be taxed for this to be viable?

>>10949883
The real world isn't going to stop developing because some fanatics keep screaming at peoples ears. It's more likely those fanatics get shot by the people after the fanatics step over the line.

>>10949896
Shut down the device you're posting from, kill all power in your house, or really just fuck off into the forest and live off the land. Or are you just a communist hypocrite that demands everyone to starve to death except for you?

>>10949899
Oh ok. So you're staking humanity (no the entire biosphere's) future on untested technology that really hasn't even been invented yet, for the sake of continued exponential development.

LOL

>>10949903
>Shut down the device you're posting from, kill all power in your house
>YOU NEED TO EAT TOO YOU HYPOCRITE
>NOM NOM NOM NOOOOOOOM

LOL You people are sooooo fucking stuuuupid

>>10949228
CC will never be solved unless there's some way to make money doing so.

>>10949836
>You think they'll shut down a coal plant because it's breaking some rule in some book? No, because people not having electricity in their wall is worse than some number being too high.
If it costs them enough, they will comply. That's how regulations work. That's why my construction workers are given expensive safety equipment, because the company will get insane OSHA fines for getting caught without it.

>>10949896
>Imagine being so retarded that you try to use an unrelated strawman to browbeat your opponent
Nope. Nuclear is great and all, but it's expensive and after a few millennia we'll be out of economically recoverable fissionable material. On the other hand, the sun is a fusion plant that provides the earth with thousands of times more energy than humanity uses in all forms. Capture and store 1/1000 of that energy and we could more than double our energy consumption with no impact to the environment.

In short, I don't think we can grow without limit, I'm just better at math than you.

>>10949903
>It's more likely those fanatics get shot by the people after the fanatics step over the line.

Oh look!! How nice!! I somehow glazed over the veiled death threats from the lunatic bloated CONSUUUUUUUUMER

To be honest. I have no doubt that you fucking apes will commit absolutely commit another genocide for the sake of an extra large double cheese pizza

>>10949906
You don't even know who you're responding to anymore. It's time to stop.

>>10949903
>It's more likely those fanatics get shot by the people after the fanatics step over the line.

Oh look!! How nice!! I somehow glazed over the veiled death threats from the lunatic bloated CONSUUUUUUUUMER

To be honest. I have no doubt that you fucking apes will absolutely commit another genocide for the sake of an extra large double cheese pizza

>>10949928
And who the fuck are you?

>>10949933
Your mother. Get a job you lazy shit.

>>10949903
>>10949882 (You) #
>Cool, how much of the world needs to be covered in those to meet the energy demand?
About 0.05% of the earth, 3% of the continental US, or about half of the area used for urban development to replace all energy in all forms.

>What's the cost of building it
Significantly less than the cost of not building it which is all that matters.

>>10949915
How do you make sure they comply, rather than moving the cost of the fines onto the customer? Emission regulations aren't safety regulations in construction, you can't just buy everyone a helmet and shit and be done with it.

>>10949913
>>10949926
>>10949930
Looks like I stepped on a nerve here, why don't you tell everyone how much shit you're actually consuming and how it goes against the national and global averages. Clearly the world is consuming too much, so how much do we have to cut? To what level do we have to degrade ourselves to as a civilization before your autism is satisfied?

>>10949933
Not anyone who made any claim about fusion power. Do you know how the backlinks work or are you just sperging out because you're flustered?

>>10949942
That would be communism. Communism bad. Capitalism good. Don't make us lock you up commie scum. All hail the dollar.

>>10949944
It's a good thing power generation isn't a monopoly you fucking idiot, if fines are high enough non polluting sources out compete polluting sources. How can you be so utterly ignorant of how economies function?

>>10949228
Ration fossil fuels

Stop all development. It's environmentally damaging. It accelerates climate change. and the people who profit from it are violent, and dangerous.

>>10949942
>>10949903
I should clarify, those figures are for regular solar panels. I'm not seriously suggesting we use the solar panels that work at night, they're inefficient and we have batteries.

>>10949959
Uh hey retard why wouldn't we just offer free money if people install solar panels on their roofs. There power is solved.

>>10949968
less cost effective per KWh overall, land is cheap, it's the maintenance and installations which get expensive, utility scale is much cheaper overall.

>>10949983
No actually it's more cost effective because if you build the solar panels away from population centers you lose much more power during transmission.

>>10949944
>How do you make sure they comply, rather than moving the cost of the fines onto the customer?
1) Some of the cost will always go to the customer. The safety equipment can be incredibly expensive depending on the job.
2) That's up to them. They will comply or pay.

>>10950004
>They will comply or pay.
It's not rationing if they pay (it's a tax), and they will pay.

>>10949942
>About 0.05% of the earth, 3% of the continental US, or about half of the area used for urban development to replace all energy in all forms.
Is that in perfect scenario where everything is running at 100%, or does it have a decent margin in the event we have shit like Dorian covering up the sky.
>Significantly less than the cost of not building it which is all that matters.
I asked in both money and resources. If there aren't enough metals to build those solar panels, then we can't build them. What would the resource requirement for building all those solar panels be? Is it even remotely realistic?

>>10949951
By knowing how they actually function. Corruption, bribes, etc. If your solar panel or wind turbine can't fill the demand at all times, then there will always have to be a dirty alternative ready to go at a moments notice. Those alternatives get taxed and pump the price of energy up to the sky, and solar/wind just put their price wherever the price of the alternative is -1%. Only thing you achieve really is taxing people to death.

>>10950012
>and they will pay.
If they're just lol'ing and coughing up the fine, then your fine isn't high enough. A serious OSHA violation will get you fined $100,000 per DAY. Nobody can afford that.

>>10949999
transmission losses are generally quite low, even better if we were to upgrade our infrastructure, HVDC power lines average like 3% per 1k KM

>>10950024
Then the fine would have to be high enough.

>>10949903
>It's more likely those fanatics get shot by the people after the fanatics step over the line.
The opposite. Those "fanatics" are the vast majority of my generation. There's tens of millions of us, and growing, and we will rip out your (and our) energy and force you down if it needs to be done. You can try to "shoot us" but there's far too many of us and we'll kill you first if you really believe that your industrialized lifestyle is worth killing the planet over.
If it comes down to it, you're going back to a renaissance level of civilization. Accept it or kill yourself.

>>10949999
Not him, but you really don't. Transmission losses are on the order of 1%/100 mi. I think multi-purposed land it the best way to go about it. Solar panels can be placed on farmland without impacting production, they can be used to shade parking lots, they can be installed in clever ways to help cool houses, ect.

>>10950031
The majority of your (and my) generation won't ever give up their toys, you're delusional. The only reason they support the climate hysteria is because it's hip at the moment.
>Accept it or kill yourself.
How about neither, and if you try to kill me, I'll take a hundred of you.

>>10950030
Okay then. So strong enough regulations can make emitters cut their emissions. That's what we need to do.

>>10950013
I like how you keep shifting the goalposts because you're utterly ignorant, first you claimed coal plants would run 100% of the time regardless of renewables now you've backed off to only when renewables can't meet demand which is a tiny fraction of emissions compared to a grid with 0 renewable sources. You also completely ignore the fact intermittency can be solved with storage which while expensive it only has to be cheaper than the fines. You are right about corruption and bribes though, it's why the trump administration has gutted the EPA and refuses to acknowledge reality

>Accept the data
What data? There are a billion different models out there and none of them agree with each other. There are a billion different ways of measuring CO2 in the past, and none of them agree. If you "accept" all climate data, your head will be filled with contradictions.

>>10950025
>>10950037
Still why wouldn't you also put them on house roofs there's no downside to that.

>>10950052
wow look at this guy he's such a badass killer

>>10950074
I'm not the one threatening to kill billions to "save the planet".

>>10950071
it's just really expensive compared to utility scale

>>10950052
>The majority of your (and my) generation won't ever give up their toys, you're delusional.
Our generation is the most likely to choose a traditional lifestyle.
>How about neither, and if you try to kill me, I'll take a hundred of you.
You aren't tough, stop talking like an idiot.

>>10950070
citation needed

>>10950052
You're the one who started with the threats. In your delusional fantasy world the "commies" come and try to take away your truck, so you mow them down with your guns.

In reality you're just a fascist thug, who finances your toys with the money the environmentally destructive development corporations (who you work for) gives you. You have the toys and the firepower but you're actually a small minority.

>>10950115
That model range is massive, and only goes out 30 years. Take it out 100 years and see what it looks it.

Also, cherry picking. Plot every model published in the 5 years and see what you get.

>>10949463
i fw this energy brother

>>10950140
.5 degrees C is massive? you're also ignoring the fact models aren't built to predict the same things, included are land, sea, upper and lower troposphere as well as different hemispheres.
Try and actually educate yourself rather than mindlessly regurgitating propaganda.

>>10950157
Yes. Their error bar is like 50% the magnitude of what they are measuring lol

>>10950167
>retard doesn't know how to read a graph
why is this board so shit?

>>10950013
That's using averages. If you're worried about highly unlikely senarios then just oversize it a little. Learn how to do your own research and math. There are quite a few materials that generate solar power at decent a decent efficiency so we're not limited by any one resource and even if we were, silicon makes up 28% of the Earth's crust.

We would need about 178 billion solar panels if you were determined to do this with just solar, which would be roughly 267 billion kilos of silicon if you were determined to do this with just silicon, which is basically nothing compared to the amount available.

>>10950140
different models diverge mostly as they predict different levels of human emissions, some model scenarios where we significantly curb emissions others model scenarios where nothing is done.

>>10949228
Are you really asking this question? It's because everyone is brainlets. The data is just data. To actually interpret it requires science. That means that all the people debating it are trying to learn the science. Right? Because that's what's really being debated, right? No. People argue whatever the fuck they want, and most of them being brainlets, nobody gives a shit about learning that the science actually says. As a result, the collective unconscious is overheating, and the excess heat becomes hurricanes.

>>10950088
>Traditional lifestyle
What traditional lifestyle, the one from the 50s? 80s? Before industrialization? You think this generation will give up Facebook and iPhones and suddenly start living like the amish?

>You aren't tough, stop talking like an idiot.
Fuck around and find out. I'm not the one making retarded demands here.

>>10950127
>You're the one who started with the threats.
Where did I start with the threats? After you demanded that I starve myself to death to fulfill your demands of moving back to the pre-industrial age, and that if I were to resist you'd kill me?
>fascist
I'm not Italian, and you likely have no idea what that word means. Firepower is all that matters in the end, as without it you're nothing but a meat bag with legs.

>>10950157
It's more like .7, and if we're talking about a temperature increase between 0.4 and 1.1 then it's massive.

Keep living in your nightmares that the world is going to end in X amount of years unless we kill off 90%+ of our population and revert back to the stone age. Every single generation of humanity had a some subset of population believing this, and they all turned out to be wrong. Humanity is going to be around in 2030, and in 2100 it'll still be around. If there are more problems because of some emissions causing the temps to go up by even 3-4 degrees Celsius, we'll work around them like we always did. Or at that point we'll all fuck off to space by then.

>>10950071
I think they should, but like brohammy said, it costs more. Might as well require all new buildings to have them though. That hardly raises the cost of construction at all.

>>10950202
>another idiotic strawman argument claiming that as long as humanity isn't extinct doing nothing is an acceptable course of action, rather than being responsible and curbing emissions through the use of economic incentives.
At this point you're just playing dumb

>>10949828
>Because trash in rivers/oceans is a localized problem
No it's not

>>10950202 = >>10949650's muscle

Take note

>>10949228
I don't know OP, I don't know why AGW evangelists don't accept data about diminishing CO2 returns, long pauses in warming trends, or any data that goes back more than a few hundred years. It seems like they're insistent on denying that CO2 produces less and less of a greenhouse effect the more abundant it is, or that the formation of water vapor can create either warming or cooling as a high albedo atmospheric component, I don't know why they deny the existence of significant warming pauses as recently as 2008 or why the plurality of their models and graphs simply ignore the Medieval or Roman climate optimums which both happened very recently in geological/ecological terms and both of which surpassed the current highs by a significant amount in time periods which were pre-industrial.

It just doesn't make sense.

>>10950218
I'm not saying we shouldn't do nothing, I'm saying the solution is not a carbon tax that gets fed into either bullshit or is just straight up stolen. If there's an actual problem, use an actual solution. Nuclear is already proven to satisfy the energy needs of France, with no need for magic battery tech that still needs to be developed to be relevant at the scales involved.

>>10950272
Don't you have some endangered species somewhere to shoot? Or a 500 year old tree to chop down? Why are you polluting this board with your retarded inbred hick bullshit?

>>10950085
>>10950205
It doesn't actually cost more money to produce the individual solar cells and solar panels. The fact that bulk purchases are cheaper is an artifice of capitalism rather than an objective measure of the cost of resources and labor.

>>10950327
What makes you think I'm not shooting animals right now? Maybe I rigged my gun so that each (you) fires a bullet that kills the deer I'm aiming at?

>>10950368
I'm pretty sure i've interacted with you on this board before. Your posts have a very distinctive kind of retardedness to them.

>>10950391
I'm sure you have. Now if you don't mind, I've got that deer to cut up.

The problem is that the left uses the very real threat of climate change as a battering ram to push against capitalism and for socialism (and I dont mean standard social democracy here). One just needs to look at Green New Deal.

Green on the outside, red on the inside. Dont let a good crisis go to waste, eh?

If the left truly wanted to solve climate change instead of just using it to push their political/economic agenda, ask yourself why they demonize the only source of energy we have that is capable of replacing the massive on demand energy density of fossil fuels? If the whole western world did what France did in the 80s, we would already be well on our way to decarbonization...

As a grandson of persecuted "kulaks", if I really have to choose between climate change and Communism 2.0, I would rather deal with the former.

>>10950272
Nuclear isnt viable in a free market, I'm all for socializing our grid and adopting nuclear though.

>>10950403
At least your tag fees go to conservation efforts so I'm all for it.

I dont give a shit. Nuclear energy never took off and oil is too big and powerful and they'll do what the fuck they want no matter what. Fuck climate change, we'll all be gone anyways. NOT MY PROBLEM.

>>10950224
You misunderstand. Each piece of plastic that ends up in the ocean is a local problem. Every gallon of gas you burn effects the whole world though.

>>10949228
they want to tax me more and restrict my freedom

>>10949828
>you can't just go and clean it up

If people were actually serious about climate change they would advocate for the genocide of india and china.

>>10949425
Your wrong if you don't think effective carbon capture or fission would be massive cash cow

>>10950636
Where's the profit in carbon capture?

>>10950587
much more efficient ratio of reduced carbon emissions to people killed by annihilating the US

>>10949228
Because it's used to push public policy, which is obviously inherently political. People that don't accept "the data" presumably do so because they don't believe it's legitimate.

>>10949865
Yep.

>>10949228
https://www.readthesequences.com/Politics-Is-The-Mind-Killer

>>10950676
yes, but if this were to happen, the US is the only one with the power to do it, and the US won't kill themselves.

>>10949930
Hey consuuuuuuumer memer guy, you're pretty cool. I'll invite you to my concrete climate bunker when shtf

>>10949228
The Koch brothers paid scientists to create a fake controversy.
Not having to be ecologically conscious helps the bottom line, you see.
Only poor people will suffer with climage change, so things go bad for you, you deserved it by not being rich.

>instead of taxing the corporations lets tax the average commuter and worker
Lol what a joke the left is.

>>10949228
Capitalism

>>10949228
Amerifats are scientifically illiterate and dickride soulless corporations

>>10949228
What data? The same as it has ever been?
>>10950808
We can fuck up where ever you are from. I can fuck up who ever you are.

>>10950793
rly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdbLtrnLkO8

>>10950819
everyone please take the time to laugh at this mutt lardball's impotent rage

>>10950793
what utter ignorance, this is what happens when your entire worldview is fed to you by corporate propaganda.

>>10950942
Yeah and I am sure one of those industries she refused to mention is automotive. Which is exactly what i am saying...

>>10950977
No you people blatantly say you want to tax gas consumption.

>>10950975
I don't see anyone laughing. Pussy.

>>10949228
The older you get the more predictions you see that don't come true. People have been making bad predictions about climate change since the 1960s. This builds distrust. I'm of the opinion pollution is bad, however I've seen enough predictions fail to be sceptical whenever someone prophesisises about the future. Screaming and shouting at me will only make me more resistant to what you're saying. In fact, even if I believed the doomsayers whole heartedly I'd probably watch the world burn just to be against the screaming banshees

>>10950981
Yeah, I'm sure she wants to go after personal cars before trucks and cargo ships. Because she's on the left and therefore EVIL.

>>10951002
Yes she does. Corporations don't pay taxes and both sides are entirely run by corporations. Yes she is trying to increase tax revenue by taxing working folks the only people who will wind up paying.

>>10951012
I don't understand. She's literally talking about going after the fossil fuel corporations, which is exactly what you said should be done. But you say she is actually talking in code and really wants to hurt consumers. Idk what you're looking for here. I don't see anyone on the right even attempting to touch climate change, and that's supposed to be the better option?

>>10951034
>she is actually talking in code
Yes they all do.

>and that's supposed to be the better option?
No I think you are just narrow minded and think there is only one path.

>>10951051
So what solution are you proposing?

>>10951054
Instead of punishing working people for trying to get home as fast as possible (which also leads to more time with children which is a positive) how about you just support the transition to electric vehicles and renewable/nuclear energy? And stop drinking the fucking koolaid you do not know what the future holds corporations want you to think the world is ending unless you vote for their candidates. And yes it is corporations pushing this not "scientists" also stop worshipping science it is not helpful in every situation human problems like emotional issues do not benefit at all fron science.

>>10950819
You fucked up your own society pretty bad so I believe it

>>10951161
Thanks bro.

>>10950778
if you're the type who has a bunker, and shtf, you'll be far too busy worrying about your own ass to care about me

>>10950819
onose an internet tough guy. so scared

>>10951064
>how about you just support the transition to electric vehicles and renewable/nuclear energy?
Ok. Who do I elect to make a push for renewable energy?

>>10951211
Why don't you go play on your own country's internet?

If space is a vacuum why can't we make a hole in the atmosphere to let excess carbon escape. For example is greenhouse gas leaking out over the hole in Australia's ozone

>>10949228
>Why has climate change become a partisan issue?

Because the purpose of climate change propaganda is to degenerate, stagnate, and deindustrialize the West. Secondly, the rate at which the Earth is warming is neither exceptional nor catastrophic, and particulate pollution is far more detrimental to us than a warming Earth anyways.

>>10951697
I should add depopulate as well

>>10951536
Gravity?

>>10949228
what data? you mean the one who said we are going to die in 18 months? they want just to raise taxes and add new taxes to fuck with the poor and middle class, to make us eat bugs etc.
We need to find real solutions, not just memes and talking shit, we have a lot of problems, overpopulation, too much trash, plastic , loss of jobs due to automation ,famine duo some of the climate change, pollution, water shortages etc. The biggest problem is the Energy Crisis, we need to find a new energy source or to fix the fusion power, after we can fix the rest.

>>10949228
it's the same shit as with big tobacco in the 1950s

>>10950500
>NOT MY PROBLEM
you're dying before the '30s ?

>>10952032
>are going to die in 18 months
we'll lose control in 12 years (450ppm/+2C)
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>10952032
>you mean the one who said we are going to die in 18 months?
Not even the article in your image says that you fucking liar.

>they want just to raise taxes and add new taxes to fuck with the poor and middle class, to make us eat bugs etc.
There is nothing that says a carbon tax has to be regressive. And you whine about a tax, something every government in the world does, as if it's the worst thing in the world without any analysis if the cost vs benefit. You're an alarmist.

>We need to find real solutions, not just memes and talking shit
>We need to find real answers to 1+1=x, not any of that 2 bullshit.

>The biggest problem is the Energy Crisis, we need to find a new energy source or to fix the fusion power, after we can fix the rest.
We can start replacing fossil fuels right now if we disincentivize their use. The market is never going to magically do it on its own because there is no natural mechanism for such a large scale problem.

>>10952068
Mate, you have been saying the same shit for 30 years

>>10952068
Stop posting reporters making shit up.

>>10952095
it's gotten worse for 30 years

>>10952096
>making shit up
prove it

>>10952105
Thre burden of proof is on you and Dyer. Even he admits that he is going outside what scientists are saying, because "they don't really believe those numbers." This is a common doomer tactic. I bet you believe Guy McPherson too.

>>10952095
>we have X amount of time to fix the problem before Y amount of warming is locked in for the future
Retarded deniers always mistranslate this as "Y amount of warming will occur in X years."

>>10952124
not a proof, just shitposting

>>10952124
>they don't really believe those numbers
kek you idiot, it's because they think ipcc is underestimating the situation

>>10951263
Andrew Yang.

>>10952091
>We can start replacing fossil fuels right now if we disincentivize their use.
Lol no we cant at least not in vehicles we have probably the next decade to make electric cars affordable and have used options around. Taxes to disincentivize car use won't speed that up.

>>10952128
>people who think rationally about global issues instead of thinking with their guilty conscience are just deniers

Can we just admit climate change exists purely to get people to vote for democrats. They literally spit CO2 into the air that is unecessary to speed up climate change so you will vote for dems. It is real and happening but fuck you guys I am not voting for you.

>>10949228
1. Because so manny faggots come up with their own data that claims the point of no return is a year away unless they get more money for their programs and research. This delegitimizes real data.
2. Many people don’t and won’t care until it starts to directly impacting their lives to a large extent. They are more concerned with paying their bills and taking care of their children day to day.

>>10952264
>not a proof, just shitposting
Yes, that's a good description of your post. Again, the burden of proof is on you and Dyer, who readily admits the science doesn't support his claims.

>>10952277
Who believes that? I certainly hear McPhersonites repeating this over and over but no names are ever given. The claim that the IPCC is underestimating warming is just the equal and opposite of the denier claim that the IPCC is overestimating it. Which conspiracy to believe?

>>10952371
Carbon taxes don't disincentive car use, they disincentivize fossil fuel use which increases demand for EVs and clean energy. So on the one hand you believe the market will fix everything magically but on the other deny that it works via supply and demand. Fucking idiot.

>>10952416
Yep.

>>10952378
So basing your argument on misrepresenting the words of others is "thinking rationally?" Interesting.

>>10952492
Okay I am not an idiot and I don't appreciate you calling me one.

>>10952495
People don't always say what they mean.

>>10952518
no one cares anon

>>10952469
>The claim that the IPCC is underestimating warming
the reason, old as time itself, is bureaucracy:
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>10952091
>Not even the article in your image says that you fucking liar.
google the article and read it retard
>There is nothing that says a carbon tax has to be regressive. And you whine about a tax, something every government in the world does, as if it's the worst thing in the world without any analysis if the cost vs benefit. You're an alarmist.
i am an alarmist really? just google new carbon/meat taxes retard, they want to fuck the middle and poor classes in the ass very hard,
Yes, we need solutions idiot, and tax on meat is not a solution, you must find alternatives. Talking on the internet and upvoats on reddit/twitter etc will not save this World and neither choosing retards like Bernie for US president who would crash the US/World economy.

>We can start replacing fossil fuels right now if we disincentivize their use. The market is never going to magically do it on its own because there is no natural mechanism for such a large scale problem.
of course, and the planes, ships, trains etc will work on air right ? and there are more than 1 billion cars in the world, you can't replace them all with electric cars. you need at least 50 years, maybe more to replace all the cars in the world, and then you will consume more power from ??? coal like Germans?

>>10952522
Okay well i do care about earth. Goodbye.

>>10952365
In the general election

>>10952520
And?

>>10952528
>gives motive for X instead of proving X
Typical science denier.

>>10952532
>google the article and read it retard
I did, take your own advice. The article says that 18 months is the time to make a political agreement to mitigate global warming. Not that we are going to die in 18 months.

>Yes, we need solutions idiot, and tax on meat is not a solution, you must find alternatives.
The alternative is a carbon tax.

>of course, and the planes, ships, trains etc will work on air right ?
I didn't say fossil fuels would be replaced totally and immediately. It is not even necessary to completely eliminate fossil fuel use. It should be mitigated optimally.

>>10952441
>so manny faggots come up with their own data that claims the point of no return is a year away unless they get more money for their programs
Point to a single scientist who has said that.

>Many people don’t and won’t care until it starts to directly impacting their lives to a large extent. They are more concerned with paying their bills
Hence the carbon tax: Make dealing with the problem part of their bills.

>>10952532
>just google new carbon/meat taxes retard, they want to fuck the middle and poor classes in the ass very hard,
Everything I've read has made it very clear that carbon taxes will need to be as progressive possible. Either because they won't be accepted otherwise, or because the poor have the least ability to alter their emissions. Nobody but deniers are talking about "fucking the poor".

>of course, and the planes, ships, trains etc will work on air right ?
Are you seriously trying to claim that because we can't solve a problem 100% overnight, that we shouldn't even try?

>>10952846
Okay I agree with you but I hate democrats as much as republicans. No I am not a fence sitter I am just apathetic.

>>10949247
you don't even have to give money to the government, in Germany for example all you´d have to do is take away the subsidies to the coal companies and get the government out of the car companies.
Renewables are cheaper than coal and yet the German government is actively subsidizing coal to protect around 20k coal jobs.

The government is not the solution, but the IV drip that keeps the carcass of old money companies alive.

>>10949463
Okay hold up I am gonna stop you right there. Democrats are run by the corporations too everything we argue about helps corporations.

>>10952532
okay nigger, about the car, ship, plane thing:
Carbon engineering.
We can outfit these vehicles with electric motors, we then set up our power plants with filters that grab the co2 they create out of the air right at the source.
The cars themselves won't create emissions and the emissions from the power plants will be resorbed and turned into fuel again.

We cool now?

>>10952933
This. Why don't we just take the CO2 and push it somewhere else?

>>10949839
You fucking idiot. Carbon capture is small scale, expensive, ect. Any carbon capture is an excuse for companies to blast the coal furnaces more than ever. Carbon capture does the exact opposite of what we're trying to accomplish.

>>10949247
Top kek, the graduate student from Google State University has figured out our scam.

>>10952929
I won't pretend like the democrats are immune to superpacs and lobbying but they're no where near as blatantly corrupt and corporately owned as the current GOP, it's impossible to deny this.

>>10954098
I'll deny that all day.