/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11032965
Part of the answer. The risks of nuclear waste and potential proliferation can be managed in exchange for the significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and the critical need for base load power to complement expansion of renewables.

Solar power output has roughly doubled since the 80s, at this rate it's only about 15 years until we can run the whole world on solar, that's why the fossil fuel people are going all in.
Soon coal and nuclear will end up in the same pile of all the inventions we came up with that became obsolete.

>>11032965
You won't see any climate change activists supporting nuclear because it can be sold for profit. The climate change movement is a subversive attempt to implement socialism.

>>11033004
>addressing existential risks based on scientific facts is basically communism
this is the science board, you denialist retard

>>11033013
learn to seperate movements from concepts faggot, climate change is real and the politics around green faggotry is actively harmful especially when the dumb fucks oppose hydro or nuclear projects

>>11033004
Communists love economic growth.

>>11033016
>political advocacy is separated from the facts
Sometimes, but in this case, no. The hippie green movement is basically irrelevant while the "do whatever it takes" green movement is close to mainstream, despite roadblocks from corporate money and anti-environmentalist obstructionists and curmudgeons.

>>11032965
Yes. A 50 year old, 50 acre nuclear plant produces the same power as a modern day, 15000 acre wind farm.

>>11033036
I've never seen a Greta cultist advocate nuclear power.

>>11033052
hi

>>11033036
The green movement spends 90% of its effort pushing for stupid horseshit like "carbon credits" and "climate justice" and scolding the West while ignoring major polluters like China and India completely.

>>11033066
Carbon credits are a free market solution to the basic scientific facts and the existential crisis it represents. Dismissing it as "stupid horseshit" shows you aren't serious about discussing solutions, even ones that should be agreeable to supporters of capitalist status quo. Both cap and trade and carbon use taxes are among the most (projected to be) effective economic solutions that retain capitalism as the basic model.
>China and India
Global problems require international participation. Every country should do their part, or face the economic pain of sanctions from the remaining countries interested in survival. China has made innovations in this respect, to develop renewable power sources for this probable international political trajectory. India is as well, and while they still have lower total emissions than America, with four times the population.

>>11033004
>>11033016
>some people who believe in X also believe in Y, therefore no one should ever believe in X
flawless logic

>>11033098
>learn to seperate
>seperate
>as in apart
>not related
>you fucking galaxy brain nigger decides this means "conflate and ignore"

>>11033111
>conflate and ignore
Is this not what you’re doing? Even though you pretend you are separating things, you want to ignore the climate change movement and conflate it with socialism of all things

>>11032965
YES, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE IF THERE IS NO CLIMATE LOL

THERE IS ONLY SOLUTION AND THAT IS NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST

>>11033004
retard?

>>11033121
no you dumb shit I want to ignore the political partisan green movement in favour of actually fucking fixing the problem, which greenfags can't accept

if you have ever protested against a nuclear plant or hydro dam you are the problem

>>11033087
Most energy markets are state-controlled/monopolies and solutions that would normally work in a free market will not work because the energy market is not a free market. All it does is make things more expensive and pay off the administrators of those carbon-credit schemes (Al Gore & Co.) or the government just pockets the money directly.

Solar and wind don't harvest enough energy in most places to be viable. The battery technology to manage a grid with them as their inputs doesn't exist. State policy changes away from hydrocarbons and toward nuclear and hydroelectric is the ONLY solution and NO major political faction in any major country supports its development on the scale required to solve the problem.

>>11033134
Look in the mirror

>>11033087
China alone produces more greenhouse emissions than the US, India, Russia, Japan, and Germany combined. While the West has managed to keep their emissions steady or reduce them over the last twenty years, China and India have both quadrupled their emissions output over that time and show little to no evidence of slowing down, let alone leveling out or reducing emissions. China and India WILL be the dominant greenhouse emitters for the next two decades, they'll outpace the entire West combined, and yet they're almost completely ignored by most green lobby efforts.

>>11033146
>battery technology
A simple solution is to prioritize intermittent sources. While it is not exactly free market, it does improve utilization to significant levels. Larger companies and especially government controlled suppliers are encouraged to increase their renewable capacity to compensate according to the favorable economic conditions. Solar and wind are viable, just not as viable for delivering needed supply by themselves. Hence why nuclear and hydroelectric are also important parts of future electrical generation.

Solar thermal towers do have significant storage capacity, where they are physically and economically viable to be used, namely in desert regions.

>most energy markets are state-controlled
In America there are RTOs, and energy companies participate in an auction system to deliver power at the lowest cost. There is still opportunity there for private companies to compete, and they do.

>>11033168
So, do nothing is your proposed solution? Or is it "it's hopeless, so fuck it"? Neither addresses the problem. Trump's trade war has already proved international economic pressure can be applied, and it has nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, because he is a denialist.

China has still developed significant renewable energy capacity along with their economic expansion.

>>11032965

None of these would be closing if Nuclear energy was subsidized as much as other forms of green energy

>>11032995
Wind and solar are sporadic and peaky tho, need a throttleable main source.

>>11033185

Tight environmental regulations kill jobs, make real estate more expensive, and make it harder for people to afford energy. We'll eventually have to start adopting some of them, but when all your hard work gets cancelled out by Chinese coal it's hard to celebrate

>>11033225
Environmental concerns must be addressed, and the economic concerns can be managed if done intelligently. International concerns can only be addressed with diplomacy or economic pressure, but developed nations should be more interested in free trade than defiant autonomy, if forced to choose.

>>11033185
>So, do nothing is your proposed solution? Or is it "it's hopeless, so fuck it"?
Way to put words in my fucking mouth. I didn't say do nothing.

If my car engine is misfiring, of course I need to do something about it. It's an intolerable situation that will only get worse time if I do *nothing*. But doing *something* is not the same as doing *anything*. Pissing on a spark plug is doing anything, but it's nothing about that is going to help the situation and may even ultimately make things worse. And therein lies my problem with the green lobby. They've basically decided that literally any action they take that is ostensibly done in the name of protecting the environment and fighting climate change is inherently a net positive action simply by virtue of being actions done in the name of protecting the environment and fighting climate change... regardless of whether these actions actually have the intended effect.

Take the Paris Accords for example - what is that accomplishing? A half-assed treaty full of completely unenforced provisions on emissions, renewable energy production, and energy efficiency while trying to raise a hundred billion to spend in undeveloped nations for climate justice. That's doing *anything*.

Imagine that same hundred billion spent as a down payment on a hundred new, modern nuclear plants. You'd be getting rid of some 300 million metric tons of CO2 a year produced by the coal plants they'd be replacing. That's doing *something*

>>11033004
wtf i love environmental socialism now

>>11033287
>blah blah blah economic concerns matter more than irreversible environmental destruction
I take it you don't consider existential risk of AGW to be that important. I never argued against nuclear. In fact, I've advocated for it in every post. Paris Accords are an attempt to address a real problem having to do with the interaction between civilization and nature, and the inescapable consequences. It might not be perfect, but international agreements are an incredibly important component of a real solution.

>>11033287
Also, 300 million metric tons of CO2 per year is still a drop in the bucket in comparison to total emissions and what must eventually be done. Your solution is just as ineffective as the one you criticize.

>>11033168
>China alone produces more greenhouse emissions than the US, India, Russia, Japan, and Germany combined.
Gee. I wonder why that is.
>China and India WILL be the dominant greenhouse emitters for the next two decades, they'll outpace the entire West combined, and yet they're almost completely ignored by most green lobby efforts.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

>>11032965
no, it's a loser just pulling resources away from the proper solutions, renewables and energy saving tech.
Just another pork barrel for the 1%

>>11033168

>>11033087
>Both cap and trade and carbon use taxes are among the most (projected to be) effective economic solutions that retain capitalism as the basic model.
Denialists have lost the scientific battle, the public relations battle, and now the economic battle. They're going to drag their heels, fighting tooth and nail to stop decarbonization just so they won't have to admit that they were wrong and the hippies were right.

>>11033087
>India is as well, and while they still have lower total emissions than America, with four times the population.
People keep saying this while always conveniently neglecting to remind everyone that it is due to those large populations being dirt poor rather than any kind of forward-thinking policies or attitudes being implemented. Pollution is still pollution, and in those countries it will only get far, far worse before it remotely gets better. The per-capita argument for ignoring the developing world only makes things even more pessimistic. Stop using it.

>>11033180
>A simple solution is to prioritize intermittent sources. While it is not exactly free market, it does improve utilization to significant levels. Larger companies and especially government controlled suppliers are encouraged to increase their renewable capacity to compensate according to the favorable economic conditions. Solar and wind are viable, just not as viable for delivering needed supply by themselves. Hence why nuclear and hydroelectric are also important parts of future electrical generation.
Why have wind and solar at all when you can just use nuclear. "Renewables" are largely a fucking scam when talking about powering any substantial portion of the electric grid.

>>11033323
>Denialists have lost the scientific battle, the public relations battle, and now the economic battle. They're going to drag their heels, fighting tooth and nail to stop decarbonization just so they won't have to admit that they were wrong and the hippies were right.
Hippies are the people who made everyone afraid of nuclear in the first place and are the reason why we didn't switch to a lower-carbon economy sooner (and won't for the next couple decades).

>>11032965
Hey guys! GUYS!!

LISTEN!!

IT'S GOOD FOR MUH ECOMONY!!!!
IT'S GOOD FOR MUH GROF!

>>11033323
>US builds 1100 acre nuclear waste repository, big enough and secure enough to store all the nuclear waste in the country and everything we could conceivably produce over the next century
>hippies get it shut down because MUH ENVIRONMENT! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
>same hippies turn hundreds of thousands of acres into solar plants and wind farms
>nuclear waste is left scattered across dozens of local sites instead of a large, secure, centralized repository
>hippies - WE DID IT PATRICK! WE SAVED THE ENVIRONMENT!

>>11032965
Yes, obviously.

The irony of a bunch coal/oil lobby-funded environmental groups opposing nuclear power on the basis that it's "bad for the environment" is so rich and thick you could drizzle it over pancakes.

>>11033127
EAT THE BABIES

>>11032965
Coal and nuclear is over. Its expensive. It's not viable. Only wind, solar and natural gas is competitive. Simple as that.

>>11033419
>spend tens of billions a year subsidizing wind, solar, and natural gas while simultaneously dumping more taxes, regulations, and red tape on nuclear
>nuclear is over! it's expensive! it's not viable!

>>11033427
And even unsubsidized they're completely destroying nuclear by every metric. Meanwhile the idiots in the industry keep proving their incompetence.

>>11033434
>even unsubsidized they're completely destroying nuclear by every metric
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

>>11033004
Please dispose of your shitbox opinion in its a>>>/pol/priate receptacle.

>>11032965
The only solution until Fusion, but retards still think Wind and Solar are the only solutions, even if some of Solar panels needs more energy to be produced than it produces in a lifetime,
Of course, Solar panels can become it can replace everything in term of energy if we build them in space, but it will be to expensive right now . We talk in 10-20 years after energy crisis hit us and fuck us hard.

>>11033314
Where do you reckon they get the iron from pal?

>>11033004
>Relying less on shitskins for a limited resource = socialism plot
Imagine being this retarded.

Not burning coal is the brainlet answer to climate change. Yellowstone will explode and fill the air with CO2 anyway, then we all die because the only plan envirotards ever had was "don't burn coal".
Answer to climate change is massive geoengiterraforming to change it however we need.
Meanwhile all the uranium has to end up somewhere and that's either power plants or bombs. Solar and renewables will provide all our power within 10 years but you can't level cities with them so it'll be bombs.

>>11033004
Capitalism is the root of environmental destruction so good fucking riddance.

>>11033473
>>11033013
>>11033134
Part of the reason why environmentalists support renewable energy is because they envision some sort of green utopia where everyone lives in harmony with nature and there is no more capitalism. Nuclear energy won't radically transform society into a hippie socialist wonderland, which is why they hate it.

>>11033146
>All it does is make things more expensive and pay off the administrators of those carbon-credit schemes (Al Gore & Co.) or the government just pockets the money directly.
Implementation of carbon-credit trading in Australia led to;
- Increased energy efficiency.
- A tax cut for households and a raising of the income ceiling for no-tax households, funded by the system's revenues.
- No slowdown in the growth of the Australian economy.

>>11033873
This. Support for nuclear energy is the litmus test that separates respectable environmentalists from far left and anti-science hippie nutjobs.

>>11033493
hahah basedboy

>>11033493
Industrialization is the root of environmental destruction so good fucking riddance.

>>11033004

I just wish climate activists did not join the left so eagerly early on. Now it has just become an example of why using politics to push an agenda is a double edge sword with two results: Mediocre or bad.

>>11032965
No
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2019-Assesses-Climate-Change-and-the-Nuclear-Power-Option.html
tl;dr: too expensive, too late, too slow

>>11032970
there is no point in adding more nuclear power when we have wind and solar energy.

>>11033969
>Published by Mycle Schneider, described as an anti-nuclear activist by WISE-Paris - an organization he founded
Gee what a coincidence.

>>11033493
sustainable and green techno capitalism is perfectly achievable, given a stable and balanced population with very high levels of both education and responsibility
but it will only come to at the cost of many who aren't capable

>>11033957
That's only the case in the US and only because your "right" is a moron who thinks it's a Chinese hoax. In Germany, parties that support the fight against climate change: greens (obviously), left, social democrats, Christian democrats (conservative), (neo) liberals. The only major party that's against it is the alternative for Germany that keeps changing their main topic every few years. In the beginning they were against the Euro, then they found out they could gain votes by being against foreigners and recently they started being against climate preservation and environmental protection. Depending on how serious you take that alternative, it's all parties or all except one who have the same goal.
Where's the catch? The way they want to reach their goal. The right (including neo liberals) prefer giving a lot of money to companies expecting them to lower their CO2 emissions. The left (including greens) want a CO2 tax.

>>11033975
Decentralization and diversification of power sources, more reliable base load source. Relying too much on any one thing is retarded.

>>11033427
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.

... on top of that, the trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost in Iraq Wars I & II.

>>11033004
Based retard. Nuclear plants have to be operated with great degree of goverment interference if not entirely by goverment. If anything nuclear is the most socialist form of energy production.

>>11033975
Not really. Solar and wind are brutally expensive and unstable power production. They also are (statistically) more dangerous per TWh. We also don't have a good plan for getting rid of or recycling old solar panels.

>>11034010
>The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.
And about half that on solar and wind. Just because I disapprove of the latter doesn't mean I approve of the former. If anything I'd argue that's close to $40 billion a year we could be spending on nuclear instead. Instead environmentalists constantly slap nuclear power with more taxes, more regulations, and more red tape that make it so arguably the most cost-effective power source short of nuclear fusion becomes financially unsustainable.

It's like if Nike paid politicians to pass a law requiring all Adidas shoes to be fitted with lead plates and then Nike used that as "proof" that their shoes were better, cheaper, and lighter.

>>11034028
>It's like if Nike paid politicians to pass a law requiring all Adidas shoes to be fitted with lead plates and then Nike used that as "proof" that their shoes were better, cheaper, and lighter.

>>11033879
Everything became way more fucking expensive you cunt

>>11034028
Does this also take into account all the previous subsidies? In Europe, subsidies for nuclear today are relatively low, but overall they are insane.

>>11034021
>They also are (statistically) more dangerous per TWh.
what? Why?

>>11034157

>>11034168
where's the source

>>11033976
>a kraut hate nuclear energy
what a surprise, Germany are anti-nuclear and want to ban all the nuclear plants by 2022 and want to go full renewables energy, but in the same they use so much coal and gas, such an irony. While France use around 50-60% nuclear and they don't have any problems

>>11034168
Why did you ignore industrial solar in favor of the more dangerous rooftop solar?

What would the outfut of a commercial fusion power plant be?
5GW?

>>11033202
>2017

US solar doubled by 2019.

>>11034156
That infographic is incredibly misleading. I looked up the IEA report those figures came from:

>Data from the IEA Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Database shows historic expenditures made by 19 Member States on energy-related programs. For the energy supply technologies, the cumulative RD&D expenditure by EU Member State reported was €87 billion in the period 1974 - 2007.
>Around 78% of the funding has benefited the nuclear sector, of which the majority is on nuclear fission. The remaining RD&D expenditures were divided about equally over renewables (12%) and fossil fuel technologies (10%). Most of the RD&D funding occurred before 1990.
>Governments have supported nuclear energy by providing loans to the construction of nuclear facilities. National governments, the Euratom Loan Facility, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have enabled the deployment of nuclear energy in Europe.
>Euratom provided loans worth €3.4 billion in the period 1977-2004, whereas for EIB this figure was €2.9 billion in the period 1977-1987
>For the period 2008-2012 total subsidies for renewable energy equaled about €157 billion (of which €2012 40.8 billion in 2012).

So to recap

Over a period of 33 years the EU spent about €57 billion on developing and demonstration new fission reactor designs and €5.3 billion on subsidizing construction of new fission plants. A total of €62.3 billion over 33 years on fission.
Over a period of 4 years the EU spent €157 billion subsidizing wind and solar. Two and a half times what they spent on fission over a period eight times as long.

>>11034028
>doesn't mean I approve of the former
sure, ok, riiight

>>11034247
Don't forget the biggest irony - Germany phased out its nuclear power and has replaced most of it buy purchasing surplus nuclear power from France.

>>11032965
Your daily reminder that as of 2019, wind and solar account for only 3% of global energy consumption. Less than nuclear.

>>11034289
I don't - if you took the money we spend subsidizing coal and oil you could break ground on a dozen fission plants every year in the United States. We could double our installed nuclear capacity in a decade.

But it'll never happen because the same people stuffing money in the pockets of right wing politicians to push oil and coal subsidies are the same people stuffing money in the pockets of left wing politicians to oppose nuclear power.

>>11034203
in Rudy's iPad

>>11034287
>Two and a half times what they spent on fission over a period eight times as long.
That's insanity.

>>11033390

>1100 acre nuclear waste dump

All nuclear waste produced in the last 75 years can fit in a single walmart or the first floor of the empire state building.

>>11036200
why isn't it there then.
Your post is as stupid as saying Cape Canaveral is nothing more than the area of the launch pad.

>>11034287
Is kinda fucked up to spend this much on Nuclear Fission with Italy having it given the boot nearly over 30 years ago and Germany fucking off too nearly 6 years ago.

I hope the recent discoveries regarding solar actually go through and put the yield at at least the 50% envisioned and that perhaps a good chunk of this money is being spent on Nuclear FUSION.

>>11033202
>US as an example of green policies in effect
t
o
p
k
e
k

>>11033225
>We'll eventually have to start adopting some of them
no we have to adopt them now or we're toast. It's too late, baby boomer.

>>11034028
>regulations bad
I hope your house collapses on your sorry ass and burns with you still inside because some contractor didn't follow regulations.

>>11033314

That's because chinks and pajeets are growing more food, idiot

>>11032965
Yes, it has to be at least part of the answer. Wind and solar are both very good ideas and we should expand them (onshore wind is some of the cheapest electricity you can generate, and we need more of it). But obviously both of them are intermittent. It's not always sunny, and it's not always windy. So nuclear can give us a reliable base of energy. And it's zero-carbon. And major nuclear accidents are incredibly rare. Fukushima didn't kill anybody - although I think it was last year that some guy died from cancer, which was apparently from Fukushima. So there's only one long-term casualty. Whereas coal miners and oil rig workers die in accidents all the time.

Picture related. The head of VW came out and said that Germany is wrong to close down its nuclear power plants. He said nuclear is needed if we're serious about reducing emissions - at least until other renewable sources (like wind and solar) can provide more power.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-04/climate-emergency-germany-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power

>>11032995
Solar is great, but it only provides power in the daytime. People then say "we'll use batteries to store the energy", but getting batteries capable of storing enough energy to supply an entire town or a city is basically impossible.

With time, it might be possible. And yes we should keep expanding solar. But until it can provide nighttime power, nuclear is a very good zero-carbon solution to complement solar, wind, and hydro.

>>11033004
Too simplistic. Some climate people are lefties, but look at pic related. Head of VW thinks combating climate change is important.

>>11033013
>existential risk
I doubt it. Climate change will probably cause migrations and conflicts, but not extinction. You're being too alarmist.

>>11033225
To be fair to China though, their per capita CO2 emissions are still less than half those of the United States.

The US is already using tons of coal itself, which contributes to its worse emissions. So the US can't really blame China. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as they say.

Also, China is generating more of its electricity from renewables than the US is. In 2016 it was 25% for China and only 15% for the US. This is mostly due to China's great hydroelectric capacity - they have some massive dams - but they have also greatly increased their solar capacity and wind capacity. They have the largest onshore wind farm in the world.

So yes your picture says that China has the most coal capacity in the world, but they also have the highest solar capacity, and the largest onshore wind farm. Obviously they get the largest of many things, because their population is the largest. So saying China is the biggest at X, whether it's coal or wind or solar, is irrelevant. Instead proportions are important. And China generates more electricity from renewables than the US, and emits less than half the amount of CO2 per capita that they US does.

This isn't to say China is off the hook. Absolutely not. All countries should reduce their emissions. But I'm just saying that the US can't point and China and say "they're the problem" when the US is actually much worse per person. The average American is emitting over twice as much CO2 as the average Chinese person.

Pic related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

>>11033419
Wind and solar should definitely be expanded, but they can't be relied on for constant 24/7 power, because it's not always windy and it's not always sunny.

Until battery technology advances to the stage where we can store tons of energy, nuclear provides a great role in providing a baseline of power, which wind and solar can supplement.

I mean I'm not an expert. Maybe if you installed TONS of wind capacity then, even if it's not THAT windy, it might still be somewhat windy in at least one part of your country, and give you enough energy to power your entire country? I'm not sure that's possible though.

Also your graph doesn't include hydro. Hydro is another solution to provide 24/7 power. Yes hydro has drawbacks too, since you have to flood valleys. And dams are expensive. But like I say, until battery technology advances, we need something that can supply 24/7 power, as well as the supplemental energy that solar and wind can provide.

So I think nuclear can absolutely play a role. It provides TONS of energy. It might be more expensive per megawatt, but it gives you constant power. From what I've seen I think onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy, which is great - but we can't suddenly make it be windy all the time. So yes we should build onshore wind farms, but we can't rely on them to give us enough power 24/7.

>>11034156
Maybe people are interested in funding nuclear because it provides TONS of 24/7 energy? Unlike solar and wind which are intermittent.

The only thing that could help solar and wind, surely, is batteries to store the energy. And there's TONS of research being done into improving batteries, since they're used in electric cars, smartphones, everything. Battery technology is improving all the time. Some Canadian researchers just announced they think they can make a battery for a Tesla taxi which would last 1 million miles, whereas currently the batteries can only get half of that if they're lucky.

Like, how is spending money going to improve a wind turbine? You could throw money at designing the best turbine, and it probably wouldn't generate any significantly greater amount than turbines currently do.

>>11034291
But also Germany is replacing their nuclear capacity by burning brown coal, which is very polluting. This is why they shouldn't have phased out nuclear. Not until their other renewable sources like solar and wind had much more capacity installed. But even then, those sources are intermittent.

>>11037221

If Chinese keep getting richer than they'll begin to afford cars, planes, and all the other stuff that we have that makes our emissions so high. Remember, they're much, much poorer than us and they have nowhere to go but up.

>>11037236
Hydro power is 100% determined by natural waterways. The US has hydro plants in almosrt all the places where they're available. We could get a few more hydro plants and improve the ones that exist but overall there's nowhere to go.

>>11037236
Almost all possible Hydro sites are already dammed up and generating. That's the biggest drawback of hydro power, you can't just build more, you are fundamentally limited to certain geologic and climatological constraints (needs to be large topographic variation and large amounts of water flow through the area; one without the other is either a desert or a flat swamp.

>>11037216
>80% of people dying from deteriorating agricultural and political conditions isn't an existential risk because 20% of humans would still be alive
As long as you're not one of the 80%, I guess.

>>11037258
>Source: my ass

>>11037252
>If Chinese keep getting richer than they'll begin to afford cars, planes, and all the other stuff that we have that makes our emissions so high.
Yes that's of course true. But I still think it is wrong for Americans to point at China and say "they're the problem, it's nothing to do with us", when Americans are driving their gas guzzling trucks, using coal-powered electricity to power their A/C units and their flatscreen TVs, etc. Like I said, of course China is not off the hook - all countries should reduce emissions. But right now America's per capita emissions are worse than China's - even if China's emissions are growing more rapidly (I don't know if they are, but I would very much guess they are). Also like I said, China is generating more of their electricity from renewables than America is, so they are definitely not sitting still.

>>11037252
>>11037256
>Hydro power is 100% determined by natural waterways. The US has hydro plants in almosrt all the places where they're available.
>Almost all possible Hydro sites are already dammed up and generating.
Yeah fair. That's why we need wind, solar, and probably a bit of nuclear too.

>>11037258
Would it be that high? I guess it could be. Who knows though.

But anyway, it's not an existential risk if some humans keep existing.

>>11032965
not if it gets too hot to cool them

>>11033168
Who is producing and who is consuming.
The west outsourced and offshored emissions to countries where labor is cheap and regulations are lax.

>>11032970
I agree with this. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal & nuclear.

>>11034021
>Solar and wind are brutally expensive and unstable power production
they are not expensive, they're cheaper than oil and gas

>>11032965
>Is nuclear power the answer to climate change?

was Fukushima?

>>11037466

>worst case nuclear disaster: 1 death due to radiation exposure
>wind farms at current levels: 99 fall deaths/year

You tell me.

>>11036391
I'm all for safety - but the overwhelming majority of regulations and taxes that nuclear power has had dumped on it the last 20 years have been almost exclusively shameless and transparent efforts to drive up the cost of nuclear power with pointless red tape.

>>11032970
>>11037461
Yeah I think this is absolutely the answer. May as well /thread right here.

>>11033975
Wind and solar are great - onshore wind is very very cheap. But they're intermittent. Nuclear can provide consistent power 24/7. Whereas the wind isn't always blowing, and the sun isn't always shining. So I think using both is the answer for the moment.

>>11037256
True, but many older hydro sites could be significantly upgraded.

>>11037493
>>worst case nuclear disaster:
>completely contaminated ocean surrounds

this thread is about the environment is it not? i am happy to discuss chernobyl

Although no informing comparisons can be made between the accident and a strictly air burst-fuzed nuclear detonation, it has still been approximated that about four hundred times more radioactive material was released from Chernobyl than by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By contrast the Chernobyl accident released about one hundredth to one thousandth of the total amount of radioactivity released during the era of nuclear weapons testing at the height of the Cold War, 1950–1960s, with the 1/100 to 1/1000 variance due to trying to make comparisons with different spectrums of isotopes released.[110] Approximately 100,000 square kilometres (39,000 sq mi) of land was significantly contaminated with fallout, with the worst hit regions being in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Slighter levels of contamination were detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula

the picture i have supplied is just for you.

>>11037585

in light of the obvious facts about this, it is shocking that any of you came through schooling and still beg the question.

>>11037571
Storage is already cheaper than nuclear so we might as well just use it.

>>11033168
China still produces less than half the amount of CO2 per capita that the US does. So actually America is a much worse CO2 emitter than China.

True, China's emissions are growing, since they're industrialising. But they're still lower than America's. I think America can only justifiably blame China more than themselves IF China starts having per capita GHG emissions that are worse than America's. Right now that isn't the case though.

Also China produces more of their electricity from renewables than the US does. In 2016 their electricity was 25% renewable. For the US it was only 15%. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

>yet they're almost completely ignored by most green lobby efforts
That's completely false - you realise that getting China to sign up to the Paris Agreement was a massive achievement right? There's a reason the US and China announced jointly that they would sign the agreement. It's symbolic. It shows they'll join together on this cause.

If you think China isn't pulling their weight, then okay, make an argument for that. Use evidence to support your argument. They're definitely not perfect and yes their GHG emissions are increasing. But too many American brainlets on 4chan are like "HURR DURR IT'S ALL CHINA'S FAULT", when actually the US emits over twice as much CO2 per person as China. So America is still the worse offender, even if China is catching up. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

>>11037585

Educate yourself.

>>11037601
>>11037601
>Educate yourself.

what do you know about Chernobyl? i'd like to add that arrogance is a complete stupidity. if you'd like to communicate further you'll need to adjust that.

it is obvious to anyone without bias that nuclear explosions and nuclear waste are not good for anyone nor our environment.

does this really need explaining?

>>11037594
Source? I know that Tesla batteries are being used for small towns and villages to store power, but is humanity seriously able to produce enough batteries right now to store enough power to supply big towns and cities for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining? I'm pretty sure our battery-building capacity is not that great yet.

Yes nuclear power might be more expensive than wind power per megawatt, but the nuclear power is always there. So you're paying for a better product. The wind power will be there sometimes, and then other times it won't be.

If we're serious about reducing emissions then we should be throwing everything at the problem right now. In the future when batteries are better, maybe we can get rid of nuclear. Right now we shouldn't. Germany is shutting down their nuclear plants but they shouldn't, since now they're turning to brown coal instead, which is massively polluting. And they've already made the huge investment in building the reactors so why not keep using them? The building of the reactors is where the expense lies. The head of VW in Germany has said this, that Germany should keep using nuclear for now until there's a better alternative, because otherwise it means Germany has to use brown coal. Link to Bloomberg news story about it is in this post: >>11037216

>>11037607

Chernobyl was an inherently unsafe design, operated by drunken slavic subhuman, on a corrupt socialist state with zero accountability or quality control.

It was the worst case nightmare scenario and all casualty figures due to predicted fallout came from how many poor rural Romanians applied for free gibs while the socialist state crumbled and have been readjusted down.

But even assuming the most famning figures of the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear is still safer than all other forms of energy per Kwh by a factor of 20.

Anyone who opposes nuclear to environmental impact or safety either doesn't know the actual information due to low-IQ greenpeace propaganda or is actively lying to you.

There has been no noticable increase in thyroid cancer in the regions exposed to Chernobyl's fission Products. Thank christ.

>>11037607

>talks about nuclear explosions when discussing nuclear power generation

Oh, I see I was arguing with a retard. Carry on friend.

>>11037622

well i guess the best we can do is hope an earthquake or a tidal wave doesnt happen to blow the whole thing apart, again.

honestly, if you'd like to discuss IQ my question would be how high does an IQ have to be to acknowledge high risk in an unpredictable system, and based on this, whether or not nuclear reactors are an intelligent thing to create at all.

>>11037625
>a retard

edits the text like bad reporters do, purely to strengthen their own argument : for example : you ignored 'nuclear waste' in context with accidents.

can you tell me what has happened to you that renders you incapable of this basic understanding of context?

>>11037626

IQ has to be high enough to see the extrapolated risk of occurrence and end results compared across energy systems.

Wind kills 99 people/year during falls with current levels of use.

Hydroelectric has wiped out 275,000 Chinese in the 70s, but averages out due to total energy production.

Nuclear, even at its worst, can claim a fraction of those deaths over total lifetime while also producing reliable energy.

Compared to the 7 million people killed by air pollution yearly due to burning fossil fuels.

Anyone who says nuclear is comparatively or nominally dangerous is a moron and either hasn't looked at the data, or is lying to you.

>>11037595
>China still produces less than half the amount of CO2 per capita that the US does.
Only because 90% of the population still lives in a state of extreme poverty that make Rios Favelas look like a five star resort. China produces more emissions than the next three countries combined and within a decade they'll producing more per capita than anyone else as well.

>>11037626
>how high does an IQ have to be to acknowledge high risk in an unpredictable system, and based on this, whether or not nuclear reactors are an intelligent thing to create at all

this is where bias (the enemy of science) will ignore the obvious in favor of its own self-image protection on an anonymous board.

>>11037627

>nuclear waste

Lifetime waste of a person can fit in a coke can.

All the nuclear waste of the last 75 years can fit in a single walmart.

Compared to dumping cadmium in the environment for solar or just shitting thorium and uranium ash in the atmosphere with coal.

>>11037630
>Nuclear, even at its worst, can claim a fraction of those deaths

i asked earlier if this thread is about the environment or not. chernobyl, in terms of the effects on humans, showed us what happens.

playing with fire is what fools do.

apart from that, if the heinous justification for nuclear power is merely to prop up big corporations and middle class homes with heated floors, then maybe we need to look at why anyone would want to do that.

>>11037638

>20,000 predicted deaths over 40 years due to thyroid problems never realized

Chernobyl was awful and great pains need to be taken to prevent it, but anyone who looks at that and honestly compares it to the current environmental butchery of fossil fuels or even "green energy" is at best being pearl clutchingly disingenuous.

Anti-nuclear is like anti-vaxx or anti-GMO.

>>11037631
>China produces more emissions than the next three countries combined
Which means literally nothing because their population is so much vaster than any other country (apart from India). Their per capita CO2 emissions are still less than half those of the US.

>within a decade they'll producing more per capita than anyone else as well
I'll quote the relevant part of what I said because it's clear you didn't read it:
>I think America can only justifiably blame China more than themselves IF China starts having per capita GHG emissions that are worse than America's. Right now that isn't the case though.
And another part:
>If you think China isn't pulling their weight, then okay, make an argument for that. Use evidence to support your argument. They're definitely not perfect and yes their GHG emissions are increasing. But too many American brainlets on 4chan are like "HURR DURR IT'S ALL CHINA'S FAULT", when actually the US emits over twice as much CO2 per person as China. So America is still the worse offender, even if China is catching up. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

>>11037640

>eat the bugs

you might also like to consider that nuclear power and the effects are not isolated from every other infringing technology. our "environment" is filled with various forms of radiation creating a cumulative effect, and people have the nerve to ask what the answer is.

>>11037641
>anyone who looks at that and honestly compares it to the current environmental butchery of fossil fuels or even "green energy" is at best being pearl clutchingly disingenuous.

this is a subjective statement. are we having a neutral discussion or not?

>>11037638
This thread is about climate change. Nuclear is the only viable replacement for constant energy to replace fossil fuels which kill millions of people annually and cause global warming. Nuclear power barely has an effect on the environment. Waste is easy to store safely, accidents are rare and not even close to causing as much harm as other power sources. There is no logic behind your position, just vague exaggerations.

>11037651

>objective comparisons and calling out people's "muh nuclear deaths" as grandstanding bullshit is the problem.

>>11037640
>if the heinous justification for nuclear power is merely to prop up big corporations and middle class homes with heated floors, then maybe we need to look at why anyone would want to do that.
>>11037645
>>eat the bugs

your response is obviously a losing argument based on extremism. don't give up so easily

>>11037626
To Fukushima's credit - it's failure required the worst earthquake in Japan's recorded history, the worst tsunami in Japan's recorded history, a prefecture-wide power outage, the destruction of the backup generators, and the destruction of the switching station for the backups for the backups. That is a downright biblical cascade of disasters.

And yet after all that the sum death toll from the nuclear accident was one guy compared to some 16-18,000 killed in the actual disaster.

>>11037654
>Nuclear power barely has an effect on the environment
>>11037626
>well i guess the best we can do is hope an earthquake or a tidal wave doesnt happen to blow the whole thing apart, again
>>11037626
>how high does an IQ have to be to acknowledge high risk in an unpredictable system
>>11037638
>playing with fire is what fools do.
>>11037640
>the heinous justification for nuclear power is merely to prop up big corporations and middle class homes with heated floors

>>11037660
>the sum death toll from the nuclear accident

how long does it take for the effects to emerge. further, that it can kill a human should be enough.

>>11037665
None of those statements show a significant effect on the environment. Try again.

>>11037660

Yeah, but one person died due to radiation exposure so we need to shut it all down and build/replace cadmium filled solar panels every 20 years, have 99 workers fall to their deaths with current usage, then supplement that with fossil fueled generators to make up for latency that kills 7 million, primarily children and elderly in poor neighborhoods near the plants.

Eat the bugs goy.

>>11037669
All methods of power can kill a human, you have no argument.

>>11037669

Anyone want to tell this guy what cadmium does?

>>11037670
>Try again.

i dont think i will, you are too arrogant to engage in respect scientific debate.

for everyone else,

>>11037669
>how long does it take for the effects to emerge

genetic deformations for example.
do smart people put all life on earth at risk to this degree merely to pad their own wallets?

>>11037640
>middle class homes with heated floors
This is /sci/, not /pol/. If you want to talk politics then go to >>>/pol/

>>11037675

i think you have no context: workplace safety and safety in the home factor in here, whereas radiation/fallout/contamination is what it is, quite openly.

>>11037677

>respective scientific debate
>argues against nuclear power

Non- I...is everything OK.

>>11037678

does the scientists ban the consideration of motives when the answer is not convenient?

>>11037677
>i dont think i will, you are too arrogant to engage in respect scientific debate.
You are not trying to engage in a scientific debate, just vague fearmongering. You run away at the merest challenge to your claims.

>>11037679

>don't just compare the numbers and statistics, this is a scientific discussion

>>11037679
What?

>>11037665
>>the heinous justification for nuclear power is merely to prop up big corporations and middle class homes with heated floors

selfish humans with no desire to curb their unecessaries would rather place everyone at risk than grow a dick.

no science was needed to come to that conclusion.

i have no issue with a generator and candles, or solar panels on my roof. what's your excuse?

"today i feel so much sympatico with my knowledge on the subject i forgot to ask if it was logical."

>>11037681
This is /sci/, not /pol/. If you want to talk politics then go to >>>/pol/

>>11037686

>it'll be easier to exert totalitarian control over people and destroy individual cultures to get people to eat bugs in the dark than use a 75 year old technology that by all metrics can solve our problems.

That's you. That's what you sound like.

>>11032965
Lol we’re not going to let you do that silly, we’re going to kill you all and regress the proletariat to cattle.

>>11037703
>it'll be easier to exert totalitarian control over people and destroy individual cultures to expose people to threats known for 75 years than to invest in a much safer AND cheaper technology

Sound familiar?

>>11037640
>heated floors
Radiant floor heating is the most efficient heating you can get.

Nuclear would be nice but if you want it in the US you'll need to choose between complete socialization of the energy sector, or a a 500% tax on fossil fuels.
Neither of which will happen as long as a single Republican draws breath.

>>11037761

>safer and cheaper
>nuclear is 20x safer than the next safest source of energy per unit energy produced
>germany spent 220 billion on wind and solar only to have the 3rd highest cost of electricity in Europe and increased emissions while suffering rolling brownouts. UAE, an OPEC nation, spends 24 billion to power their country that has giant indoor ski resorts in a desert.

Anyone who uses real world cost effectiveness or safety as an argument against nuclear either doesn't know the data, or is lying to you.

>>11037761

>I'lm just switch the words around in his argument, that'll show him.

Care to explain how energy independence and abundance destroys cultures. Or are your arguments as unexamined as your life?

>>11037802
>energy independence and abundance
I don't see how this only applies to nuclear power and not to renewable energies.

>>11037797
>germany
Milchmädchenrechnung. There is so much messed up in German energy politics. The "renewable energy tax" (intended to fund renewables) actually slows down investments.

>>11037771

>entire countries have a parliament or government that have a right wing that makes the US left look like attila the hun
>push the renewable Jew at the expense of nuclear because one world government and "let no crisis go to waste"
>entire democratic field minus a non-starter like yang advocate for preventing nuckear plant construction and closure of existing ones
>the problem with nuclear adoption is the American right

>>11037810

Becayse renewables always lead to increase use of fossil fuels to make up for latency.

And nevermind the costs of real world examples. This confuse the narrative.

>>11037813
Wrong. You can compensate the latency with biogas.

>>11037847

Which is more expensive and at best carbon neutral.

We need to start actually reducing the amount of carbon and other shit we put out.

Nuclear is the way and anyone who says otherwise always seem to have a political axe to grind or is just plain misinformed, by the people with a political axe to grind.

>>11037867
>Which is more expensive
For sure it's not more expensive to keep nuclear power plants on call just in case it is surprisingly cloudy one day.

>>11037882

Or.

We use the more reliable nuclear and cheaper in reality nuclear all the time, as it is best suited for, and solar and wind can be utilized as the hobbyist moneypit it is in actual utilization.

>>11037884
>cheaper in reality
Tell me again, who's paying for the waste storage? At least in Germany it's the state now and since we still don't know what to do with it, it's an unforeseeable financial risk.

>>11037221
The problem is that we've already stopped any additional CO2 emissions growth and China has not. They are polluting far more than us at this point and are firmly on an upward trajectory. The only reason they're not burning more than us per capita is because they are too poor to.

As renewables get cheaper, electric vehicles take over, and people generally come around to the idea of implementing more environmentally sustainable infrastructure the US will continue to decrease emissions. Meanwhile, China will do whatever it takes to ensure local hegemony and will burn as much fossil fuels (and people) as necessary to achieve that goal.

At this point they've already surpassed the US and EU combined. European countries cutting their emissions to zero would save jack shit at this point, and even the US is only capable of making a minimal impact if China continues to develop unchecked.

>>11037889

>who pays for waste storage

The up-front costs must include money for decommissioning and storage because muh nuclear boogeyman. Another reason why upfront costs are so high for nuclear.

>>11037797
You didn't actually address anything, nuclear isn't competitive in the US, we need either complete socialization of the energy sector to absorb costs, or a carbon tax high enough to make fossil fuels less profitable, 500% might work, though it probably would have to be higher.

>>11037923
You have to be beyond retarded to think this is a bad thing.

>>11037935
You mean make carbon-based fuels cost 5x as much? That is the fastest way to sling the US headlong into an unrecoverable recession. Even Eurotrash float at the 2x mark.

>>11037966
So I guess you're for full energy sector socialization

>>11037970
No, I'm more in favor of decentralization of the grid, though technology is only now getting there. There are two major sources of CO2 production for Joe Blow in the US, and that (1) heating/cooling and (2) automobiles. Pretty much all anyone does other than that is run their fridge and their PC. The former can be reduced by designing your home more intelligently (good insulation, light colors in hot climate, dark colors in cold climate, good windows, passive heat generation/shedding, etc). The latter is inevitable given the advantages electrics have over gasoline cars (cheaper to drive, quiet, less maintenance).


I have no desire to latch on to the government teat for everything. Though tax-breaks for individuals to adopt technologies that are associated with lower emissions are okay.

>>11037987
Fair enough, I guess no nuclear then, maybe wind and solar will continue dropping in price.

>>11037989
People still need to be wired up to a grid unless they go out of their way to harden themselves to intermittent power, which is doable but not ideal. I think most centralized power plants should be of an uninterruptible nature. Reason being that if everyone is using rooftop solar and their secondary power source is a solar plant, they're still going to be fucked on a cloudy day. To that end, nuclear, hydro, and even natural gas would be nice to have on reserve.

Heating is also done reasonably efficiently with natural gas as well. AC is roughly 30% efficient while burning fuel for heat is as efficient as you can get.

>>11037913
>They are polluting far more than us at this point
ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR TIMES AS MANY OF THEM AS THERE ARE AMERICANS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. How fucking stupid are you?
>As renewables get cheaper, electric vehicles take over, and people generally come around to the idea of implementing more environmentally sustainable infrastructure the US will continue to decrease emissions. Meanwhile, China will do whatever it takes to ensure local hegemony and will burn as much fossil fuels (and people) as necessary to achieve that goal
Your own image shows a plateauing of Chinese emissions, and like I've said multiple times in this thread, CHINA IS GENERATING MORE OF THEIR ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES THAN THE UNITED STATES IS. THEY ARE DOING BETTER THAN YOU. YOU ARE LAGGING BEHIND. IN 2016, 25% OF CHINESE ELECTRICITY WAS FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES, BUT IT WAS ONLY 15% FOR THE USA.

Also you're droning on about "hurr durr China will OBVIOUSLY ignore emissions and just do what they want, rite guise?" - but hang on a minute, which country said it's going to pull out of the Paris Agreement? Was it China or the US? YOU FUCKING MORON.

>At this point they've already surpassed the US and EU combined
Looking at your graph their total CO2 emissions are only about 6% higher than the US+EU, yet their population is 65% higher than those two regions combined. So again, their per capita rate is MUCH LOWER than the US+EU combined. You're not too bright are you?

>even the US is only capable of making a minimal impact if China continues to develop unchecked
THIS IS WHY OBAMA MADE A JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT WITH CHINA THAT BOTH COUNTRIES WOULD SIGN UP TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT YOU FUCKING SMOOTHBRAIN MORON

And also:
>The problem is that we've already stopped any additional CO2 emissions growth
Trump has already been implementing changes contrary to the Paris Agreement, like embracing coal, you fucking idiot. So it's entirely likely that the US's CO2 emissions will rise again.

>>11038000
You literally don't know fuck all about anything, and couldn't care less.
https://blog.euromonitor.com/asia-pacific-luxury-car-growth/

>>11038000
Nice all-caps, dumbass.
>FOUR TIMES AS MANY
Yes, and while they currently produce about 1/2 as much per capita, most of those people are poor. I would anticipate that when they are richer their use of electricity and fuel will increase as well until their are either equal to or exceed us. The issue isn't how fair it is, it's a matter of how much their actions vs ours will define how much warming actually occurs. The bulk of US CO2 emissions at this point is caught up in legacy technologies that will vanish in the coming decades. China is going balls-deep into building new infrastructure that will ensure their carbon dependence for the next 30 years at a minimum.
>plateau
The """""plateau""""" exists for all of 1 data point. The Paris agreement is a joke that provides political insulation and nothing else.
>per capita
The planet doesn't care how equitably emissions are distributed. The fact is that at this point the Chinese government decides the plurality of global CO2 emissions. If you want a counter-point look at India. They have a comparable population and emit far less CO2.
>DRUMPF
US CO2 emissions will not rise because coal is less efficient than other forms of power and thus new coal plants are not being made even with regulations removed. Natural gas at this point is the cheapest, and it is an order of magnitude better for the environment than coal. Nobody is making new coal plants, Trump is just keeping existing ones solvent for a decade or so more. Solar is a decade or so away from taking the top spot. Once again, the Paris agreement is a nonbinding piece of shit that plenty of countries that are signed on happily ignore.

>>11033975
>I have no idea what baseload generation is
You havent done even the most basic of self education on the topic yet you feel comfortable forming an opinion. Anhero yourself.

>>11032965
Using thorium, yes, an important part of the solution.

>>11038006
You've provided no argument whatsoever. Which is unsurprising for a fucking moron.

>>11038020
>Nice all-caps
How else can one get through to a moron?

>WE GOOD, THEY BAD
Except the facts prove you wrong because they're generating more electricity from renewables than you are.

>The """""plateau""""" exists for all of 1 data point.
Actually on your graph it exists since about 2012, so that's a 5 year plateau. Sure it could rise again but you have at least shown that you can't read a graph. Like I said, you're not too bright are you?

>The Paris agreement is a joke
Which has nothing to do with whether the US or China is a worse emitter of CO2. Like I said in my original post, China might be catching up, but the US is still emitting over twice as much CO2 per head - or at least it was in 2017 which is the data available on Wikipedia.

>The planet doesn't care how equitably emissions are distributed.
The planet cares about emissions and Americans are worse emitters than the Chinese. Why are you too stupid to understand this?

>The fact is that at this point the Chinese government decides the plurality of global CO2 emissions.
And they produce a plurality of the world's renewable energy, and they have a plurality of the world's solar capacity, and a plurality of the world's hyrdo capacity, and a plurality of the world's wind capacity - because they have a plurality of the world's population, which makes these facts pretty meaningless. But of course you're trying to be sensationalist and cry "HURR DURR THEY EMIT MORE CO2 THAN ANYONE ELSE" while ignoring the fact that this is only because they have the largest population of anybody, because you're trying to mislead everybody into thinking that the Chinese are worse emitters than Americans, when ACTUALLY Americans are MUCH worse emitters of CO2 than the Chinese. Do you think the rest of the world is as stupid as you and will be misled by your simpleton claims?

(cont'd in next post)

>>11038020
>look at India. They have a comparable population and emit far less CO2
Yes because their economy isn't as advanced yet - you yourself acknowledged that CO2 emissions rise as a country develops. But you won't acknowledge this when it's inconvenient for you. How odd!

>the Paris agreement is a nonbinding piece of shit that plenty of countries that are signed on happily ignore
Then lobby to change it - the flaws of it do not excuse the US and do not change the fact that the US creates over twice as much CO2 per capita as China does, no matter how much you try and distract from the issue.

>>11038025
Nuclear just isnt competitive, storage, and natural gas are just too affordable without government owned nuke plants.

>>11033975
>>11037640
>>11038000
Here we see some Jews. They're quite angry, aren't they?

>>11038048
Pajeets also pollute the rivers, this can also be seen in Africa. Also, most of the Earth's problems are actually in the oceans.

>>11038039
>>11038048
Correct, modernization does entail more CO2 production. China is following the exact same trajectory the US did when it developed its industry. The problem is that we now know that if China elects to do that and continues spitting out more CO2 than we do for the next 50 years, we're fucked no matter what anyone does. It's not a matter of culpability, but reality. China spits out more CO2 than the US is on a trajectory to spit out even more. The US is going down in emissions. One of us is going in the right direction, the other is not. Penguins don't give a shit about per capita emissions, just net.

The only way out of this is not to turn into a climate activist faggot who screams at people that the world is going to end, it's to set up an agreement that is actually binding that acknowledges and explicitly addresses the fact that China wants to continue to use fossil fuels to do business more cheaply and take control of the global market. International sanctions to meet emissions goals must be part of any agreement.

If given a choice between China dominating the world economy or the US making a potentially negligible impact on the climate by applying a carbon tax or other emissions controls that make business expensive, the choice of the US is obvious. To agree to any climate deal there needs to be assurance that China can't gain an advantage off of it.

>>11032965
yes, it's really is the best thing we can do for the planet, nuking china and india

>>11038113
We created China's emission problem in the 80s by allowing American companies to abandon us based manufacturing so they could exploit their labor force. The solution is simply the us and eu levying carbon tariffs.

>>11038129
tbqh i would bet on a world where america gets deleted over china or india in the long run

>>11037935

Except the only country to make a gas tax high enough to be effective caused year long riots in France.

A self imposed gas tax WILL be dropped the minute it becomes politically unpalatable to do so, like all austerity measures.

Also why political support for nuclear is so fickle.

>>11037940

It's not.

But that means the government also needs to be on the hook to overcome these roadblocks if we actually want to see nuclear utilized.

>>11038075

>use natural gas over nuclear because if I keep saying nuckear is not competitive despite all evidence, people will believe me

Greenpeace modus operandi for the past 50 years.

>>11032965
Yes. It I impossible to run the whole world on Solar and Wind. They're not reliable 24-7, so you need nuclear energy to fill the gaps. Natural Gas is also part of the short-term solution. It's better than coal by a longshot, so it will reduce emissions.

>>11038103
>ad hominem because you have no argument
Lmao.

>>11038107
>B-BUT LOOK AT THIS OTHER THING! IGNORE THE FACT THAT CO2 IS WHAT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!
Lmao what a cope.

>>11038113
>The problem is that we now know that if China elects to do that and continues spitting out more CO2 than we do for the next 50 years
"It's fine for the US to have spat out billions of tons of CO2 in the past! China should do as we say, not as we do!"
You fucking idiot. The US has created way more CO2 than China has, pic related. Why shouldn't they produce CO2 now, when they're STILL producing MUCH LESS per person than you are? Why should the US get a free pass on CO2 for decades and yet NOW you want to curb and punish China and not yourself? WOW how utterly convenient.

>One of us is going in the right direction, the other is not
China is still signed up to the Paris Agreement, and China is generating a much bigger percentage of its electricity from renewables than the US. So yes, you are right, one is going in the right direction and the other isn't - because the other is pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and turning back to coal, and undoing other climate protections.

>Penguins don't give a shit about per capita
Penguins give a shit about emissions, and Americans are worse emitters than the Chinese - FACT. You're so fucking dumb it's absurd - or perhaps you think WE'RE dumb and will fall for your brainlet-tier methods of evasion and obfuscation. Thinking this would make you dumb though, so either way, you're fucking stupid.

>set up an agreement that is actually binding
Then you should campaign for that. But you clearly don't care about climate change at all because you're doing everything you can to shift the blame from the US (an objectively worse emitter) to China (an objectively less bad emitter).

>>11039366
95%+ of greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.

Also, you're saying we should only looking at emission and ignore reabsorption.

You need to cool off and actually read what science says.

>>11033287
>Imagine that same hundred billion spent as a down payment on a hundred new, modern nuclear plants.
What modern nuclear power plant costs a billion?

>>11039366
>The US has created way more CO2 than China has, pic related. Why shouldn't they produce CO2 now, when they're STILL producing MUCH LESS per person than you are? Why should the US get a free pass on CO2 for decades and yet NOW you want to curb and punish China and not yourself? WOW how utterly convenient.
Very simple, the West industrialized during a period where we didn't know better, and technological alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels did not yet exist. Now we live in a society where we do know better, and technological alternatives are available.

>>11039386
>water vapor
Not an argument. You cannot change water vapour concentrations without temperature changes. That's the difference between a feedback (water vapour) and a forcing (CO2)

>>11039386
I don’t even know why I googled it fuck you idiot lol

>>11038113
>Penguins don't give a shit about per capita emissions, just net.
If you want to save fairly, you have to see it per capita. Who has to change their life more? One guy who emits 15 tons of CO2 per year or one guy who emits 6 tons? Just because more people have the same passport as the 6 ton guy doesn't mean he has to bend over more than the 15 ton guy who just happens to be born in a smaller country.

>>11039386
"Hey man, your motor runs low on motor oil you should fill it up"
>95%+ of my car is metal. Why should I care about other materials in it?

>>11032965
I've always thought of Nuclear Energy as the Backbone to our energy supply with Wind, Solar, and Hydroelectic forming the meat.

Hydroelectric would be especially useful since any surplus can be used to pump water back into a reservoir so it doubles as energy storage. This way you don't need to dial the output of the Nuclear plants up and down.

>>11039542
>since any surplus can be used to pump water back into a reservoir so it doubles as energy storage
Only for the Swiss and other mountain jews. Good luck finding a reservoir in Denmark.

>>11039386
Wrong. Actually water vapour is thought to contribute about 36–72% of the greenhouse effect, while CO2 is the next most contributory gas, on 9–26%, which is ahead of methane and ozone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

The reason for the range is that the wavelengths of energy absorbed by these gases overlap (pic related, showing wavelength ranges for different gases). However, we do know that CO2, while absorbing some of the same wavelengths as water vapour, also absorbs wavelengths that water vapour doesn't, and so it provides extra heating to the planet which water vapour alone wouldn't.

Also CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 45% since before the industrial revolution. So basically a third of all CO2 in the air right now is man-made. And yes it's heating the globe.

>read what science says
You're literally trolling and trying to sow doubt on the science. Go back to /pol/ you fucking idiot.

>>11039441
They're a poorer country like you (or whichever idiot I was responding to) acknowledged. And yet they're STILL emitting only half of what the US is in terms of CO2 per person. Looks like the US has a fuckton of work to do if they want to reduce their emission rates to those of China.

>>11038030
I did some research and it seems quite a few reactors already use thorium already. However, I don't think we should aim for Molten Salt reactors until we figure out the "Kidney" first.

>>11034291 This is a myth. We're actually exporting power. Fission shills like you are just spewing misinfo based on some 2011 reports.

>>11038544
>nuclear is competitive guys! It's why even existing plants can't even stay open without subsidies!
And you somehow think BUILDING more is financially viable? Are you braindead?

>>11038540
Yeah, complete socialization of the energy sector.

>>11038030
URANIUM
---------------------------------------------
Uranium fuel rod
U-235 5%
U-238 95%

when rod is used
U-235 breaks up
U-238 --> U-239 --> Np-239 --> Pu-239

after U-235 portion drops to 0.3%
the rod is used up

waste storage: 10,000 years

Pu-239 can be used to build nuclear weapons

THORIUM
---------------------------------------------
Th-232 --> Th-233 --> Pa-233 --> U-233

U-233 is then used to make pellets

when pellets are used
no U-238 in pellets => no Pu-239 is created
U-233 --> U-232 --> Tl-208

waste storage: 300 years

U-233 can be used to build nuclear weapons,
but only after the U-232 is separated from the mix

>>11039634
I'm not him but from what I've read Germany is having to use brown coal to replace the nuclear that they're shutting down, right? Which is fucking stupid. Do you really think that polluting brown coal is better than nuclear?

>>11039682 It isn't which is why coal should be and is next.
Also they were mostly replaced by renewable energy sources. Whether or not phasing them out that quickly instead of simply not building new plants is a good idea is very much debatable.
I do think that a rapid and decisive phase-out is a good decision because for example it prevents the industry and big money from cheating and buying political decisions, because of the risks involved (especially in somewhat disorderly times) and because now people can put this to rest and focus on other areas.

>>11039743
That graphic still shows that you're burning turns of lignite / brown coal. If Germany was still producing the same nuclear capacity that it was in 2006 then you could have reduced your lignite burning to very little. Which would have been better for the environment.

Renewables are great and should be expanded, but surely it makes sense to keep nuclear for the moment. The main cost with nuclear is building the reactor in the first place, right? So once you've made such a huge investment, you may as well keep those reactors going, which would allow a country to reduce its fossil fuel burning, thus reducing CO2 emissions.

>Thread on /sci/
>people actually advocating wind and solar

what the fuck........ how many years do they have to be in operation just to be net of the carbon spent to build them?

>>11039366
GOD DAMNIT YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED
> Why shouldn't they produce CO2 now, when they're STILL producing MUCH LESS per person than you are?
THIS HAS BEEN FUCKING ANSWERED LIKE A MILLION TIMES FOR YOU
CAN YOU FUCKING READ?
PENGUINS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT PER CAPITA CO2

Take your fucking carbon tax, and fucking shove it you sleezey little weasel.

>>11032965
It is the best answer in terms of tiding us over while lower-impact renewables and battery technology mature.

The only other answers are continue using oil/coal and release carbon or destroy civilization and hope once we are all starving and poor we can get lucky with some breakthroughs while starving for resources to do the research.

>>11039854
>HURR DURR WHAT IS POPULATION, I DON'T EVEN KNOW BECAUSE I DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION AT SCHOOL
Are all Americans this fucking stupid? I really fucking hope they aren't?

YOU ARE A FUCKING DUMBASS YOU DUMB FUCK

PENGUINS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT NATIONAL BORDERS DO THEY YOU FUCKING IDIOT

THEY CARE ABOUT FUCKING POLLUTION, AND AMERICANS ARE WORSE POLLUTERS THAN THE CHINESE

HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU THAT YOU CAN'T GET THIS THROUGH YOU THICK FUCKING SKULL

TAKE YOU SINGLE-DIGIT IQ AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR FUCKING ARSE

>>11039854
>PENGUINS DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT PER CAPITA CO2
Imagine, you are the state and need money and you need to tax people. You have the poorfag family which has 10 children and the dad earns $1200 a month. Then you have a single guy earning $1000. Who do you think has more to spare?

>>11039886
Sorry pal. Climate goes to hell if we allow idiots like you to give big emitters like China a pass for whatever reason.

So sorry the facts aren't helping with your budget crisis.

>>11039902
>Imagine, you are the state and need money and you need to tax people
Imagine that.

>>11039905
Which is why we the consumption and greed in America needs to be curbed as it has no equal anywhere on the planet.

>>11039911
agreed taxation is just a nice way of dancing around the issue, polluters deserve the bullet.

>>11039854
What if the National People's Congress decided tomorrow that they are doing balkanization? China ceases to exist as one country, but all 117 autonomous counties will be independent states as of tomorrow. I bet that every individual new country will have a lower emission than the United States. Then what?

>>11039914
Rich Chinese are far richer than rich Americans, and there are more of them. So sorry, the facts aren't helping you sell solutions to your budget crisis.

>>11039925
Yeah citation needed

>>11039928
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/global-millionaire-population/

>>11033297
It isn't actually an existential risk for northern countries if they learn to close borders and stop letting in every dark skinned fellow who shows up. Canada will gain massive tracts of arible land in the next decades.

>>11036207
he literally told you dipshit, hippies get uppity whenever you use the word "nuclear", and all major waste sites have been canceled because of retarded useful idiot hippies

>>11039902
At least you're willing to admit that your "solution" is to drag Americans down to third world living standards while China builds a fucking terawatt of fossil power plants. How much are you paid to post, Zhao?

>>11039921
what is birds swam and fish flew????

>>11039886
>muh "Americans" are the highest emitters per capita so we need to tax them
Another inconvenient fact I'm sure you'd love to gloss over for political reasons is that the global rich are highly mobile. They move their money and consumerism around with them, and most of them like to hang out in North America and Europe where they add to "America and Europe's CO2 emissions".

>inb4 citation needed because this basic common sense does not align with my political agenda

yes, LFTRs.

>>11032965
No. We're fucked no matter what we do with out a Thanos event

>>11032965
THe nuclear Says you are should!

>>11039965
>Another inconvenient fact I'm sure you'd love to gloss over for political reasons is that the global rich are highly mobile.
And? Cut their access to polluting. Simply as that.

Also it's not "common sense", it's just another pathetic attempt to justify the ridicolous amounts of waste mutts are producing.

>>11040015
>Cut their access to polluting. Simply as that.
How? With a carbon tax??? A carbon tax that they're more than willing to pay???

LOL BRILLIANT
BRILLIANT SOLUTION TO YOUR BUDGET PROBLEMS

>>11040020
>How? With a carbon tax??? A carbon tax that they're more than willing to pay???
You have no idea how economics works do you? How do you think they became and stay rich?

>>11040020
>How?
You said it best. Tax their shit. But I don't think the "rich" care much about carbon tax, it's their companies that care. More like just overall put enviromental regulation on production. It's not like the "rich" are eating much mass anyway.

>>11039939
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-18/u-s-to-remain-hub-of-world-s-richest-even-as-china-closes-gap

lol

>>11039921
"Total output" tards BTFO

>>11040026
Please explain how a carbon tax is going to force people who have substantial savings and make their money through investment to consume less.

>>11040038
I'm not what's so funny. That post backs up:
>>11039965

>>11040038
What's so funny. That post backs up:
>>11039965

Yes
yw

>>11040057
>Please explain how taxing something brings people to invest in something that might generate more revenue.

>>11040065

it's mainly showing that >>11039925 was completely talking out of his ass

>>11040090
This >>11039939
is mainly showing that you're talking out your ass.

>>11040089
Wat? Learn to greentext.
Or just saying whatever it is you want to say.
Economist fags seem really stupid.

>>11040101
I'm not an economist. Are you trying to insult me?

>>11040132
AGAIN
Please explain how a carbon tax is going to force people who have substantial savings and make their money through investment to consume less.

Can you do that or not?

>>11039774
That graph in >>11039743 clearly shows coal, oil and nuclear is replaced by renewable.

Btw. the last German nuclear plant will retire in 2022.

>>11032965
Temporary solution? Sure. Use lots of solar and wind, supplement with a base load of hydro if available and if not add nuclear. When battery technology improves, we can switch to entirely solar/wind. Or nuclear fusion if that ever works out.

>>11032995
> run the whole world on solar
Not happening, look up how much silver alone would be required.

>>11032965
I believe so. It seems solar energy has been propped up for over a decade now but it seems superficial. Its only cheap because we are basically subsidizing chinese energy with our purchase of their panels. I think its a bubble and with the destabilization of China it will be clear to see. Even china in the background still has the most experimental Modular reactors on the planet, so they know whats up.

>>11033926
^

>>11040015
They'll wipe their asses with whatever limp-dick fines and taxes you throw at them while they move their environmentally problematic operations over to less regulated and more profitable areas. All then that will be left are lower/middle-class residents who also get fucked, continuing to breed deniers and obstructionists through resentment.

The only way to stop the rich is to stop talking and just fucking kill them.

>>11039902
I think a more straightforward analogy would be a family with five kids telling a family with one kid: "Don't have any more kids! You're ruining the planet!"

>>11039905
Nobody's giving anybody a pass which you'd understand if you actually read my posts - I mentioned this in the very first post I made in this thread. But of course you're an absolute fucking imbecile. Thank God not everybody on the planet is as fucking stupid as you.

>>11039914
Literally this.

>>11039917
Americans deserve the bullet? Bit harsh.

>>11039921
Exactly, but unfortunately some morons on 4chan (and especially /pol/tards) are too stupid to understand this.

>>11039925
>Rich Chinese are far richer than rich Americans
There isn't a single Chinese person in the richest 20 people in the world (the top Chinese guy is Jack Ma in 21st - the founder of Alibaba).
- 14 of the top 20 are Americans (including both the top 2, and 6 of the top 10)
- 2 of the top 20 are French
- 1 of the top 20 is Spanish
- 1 of the top 20 is Mexican
- 1 of the top 20 is Indian
- 1 of the top 20 is Canadian
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

Pic related, did you know he's not Chinese? Mind boggling.

>>11039951
Why shouldn't they have coal, WHEN YOU ARE ALREADY BURNING FUCKTONS OF COAL, AND IMPORTANTLY CREATING TWICE AS MUCH IN CO2 EMISSIONS PER PERSON THAN THEY ARE YOU FUCKING MORON

THEY ARE ALREADY FAR, FAR BEHIND YOU WHEN IT COMES TO CO2 EMISSIONS FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF EACH COUNTRY

YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>11040907
>Why shouldn't they have coal, WHEN YOU ARE ALREADY BURNING FUCKTONS OF COAL, AND IMPORTANTLY CREATING TWICE AS MUCH IN CO2 EMISSIONS PER PERSON THAN THEY ARE YOU FUCKING MORON
Because they're going to keep burning more and more of it, you sobbing toddler. The per-capita rate may be low, but it is still incredibly destructive nonetheless and will only continue to get worse as these populations become more hungry for energy and consumer goods to power with it.

The other guys are right. The environment doesn't give a shit about how many people are destroying it.

>>11039965
The pollutions are mainly coming from industry, electricity generation, and transportation, not "the rich". You fucking moron.

Source is the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

>>11040020
>>11040137
>>11040900
Put the tax on businesses you fucking idiot. And on cars. And on anything that pollutes. Don't put the tax on WEALTH, you fucking idiot. Put it on CARBON. THAT'S WHAT A FUCKING CARBON TAX IS.

Why are you /pol/tards so fucking stupid?

>>11040044
Total output tards were BTFO the moment they were conceived, they don't even have two braincells to rub together.

>>11040096
14 of the 20 richest people in the world are American and 0 are Chinese, you fucking idiot.

>>11040941
>WAHHHHHHHHH THEY'RE CATCHING UP TO OUR LIVING STANDARDS AND *STILL* POLLUTING *HALF* OF WHAT WE ARE PER PERSON!

>>11040942
>The pollutions are mainly coming from industry, electricity generation, and transportation, not "the rich". You fucking moron.
Sure. Which are all owned by The Rich, who only care about their profits and being even richer, and to hell with the planet. When it all gets too difficult, they'll retreat to their private, secure compounds, still live in luxury right up to the end of civilization, and not give a fuck.

>>11040942
>Put the tax on businesses you fucking idiot.
Pushed off on the consumer or once again, the operations will be simply be moved elsewhere.
>And on cars. And on anything that pollutes.
Won't do shit to the rich, who will wipe their asses with the trivial overhead or just buy something non-polluting (especially if there are juicy tax incentives!) while those who cannot afford the alternatives will just continue to get fucked and the cycle of denial will perpetuate.
>>11040944
Dumbshit can't read, but loves to shit meaningless snark out of his mouth anyway. Typical.

If extinction is our destiny if we don't start eating bugs *right now,* then we quite frankly deserve it. Go fuck yourself.

>>11040942
>Don't put the tax on WEALTH, you fucking idiot. Put it on CARBON. THAT'S WHAT A FUCKING CARBON TAX IS.
>Why are you /pol/tards so fucking stupid?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how carbon taxes are going to force people with substantial savings and investment income to consume less oil/gas.

Why do you keep trying to deflect instead of enlightening us with your "vast wisdom"?

>>11040944
We outsourced our pollution to China. It's still our pollution, because it is produced by products that we buy and use.

>>11041041
Only to a certain extent. Europe is also on China's teat and, like the communist nation they are, they use a lot of concrete and industry to make empty cities and products that nobody will ever use.

The carbon associated with their export market likely isn't as large as you think relative to their domestic production. Regardless, it supports the argument that we should motivate manufacturers to produce domestically so that we can keep them accountable and tie them in to a grid that will inevitably be more carbon neutral than what China has. Given that they have no issues wearing masks in Beijing, I doubt toasty weather will convince the zerglings to stop destroying the planet. If exporting our carbon footprint is the problem, the best solution is to bring it back so we can see it and address it.

>>11041092
China is retarded, not smart.

>>11041095
In what sense? They're collectivists. Stupid to us isn't stupid to them. They killed off a sizeable fraction of their population just to move them into cities to produce trinkets for the West. They'll happily kill off half of their population if it means regional dominance. Climate change is likely something they view as a positive to their global positioning.

They've been purchasing politicians for years to keep trade sanctions away and enable a pipeline of theft of both IP and classified information. Many career politicians benefit either directly or indirectly from Chinese foreign influence. Frankly, they're more dangerous than Russia is by a longshot.

>>11040947
The millions of cars on the road are all owned by the rich? The electricity that you and millions of your fellow countrymen use is owned by the rich? It isn't once you've used that electricity in your home. It's then YOUR electricity, and thus you have to pay money for it.

>who only care about their profits and being even richer, and to hell with the planet
That's why a carbon tax on polluting businesses isn't a terrible idea, you fucking idiot. Do you think all energy companies are just going to vanish from the US, a massive market, overnight? Look at companies like Shell already positioning themselves as "energy companies" (instead of "oil companies") and trying to invest in stuff outside of oil, because they can see where the future lies.

>>11040960
>Pushed off on the consumer or once again, the operations will be simply be moved elsewhere.
Let's say there was a carbon tax on US energy companies, meaning any company selling electricity or petrol/diesel in the US, regardless of where they generated that electricity. I think you'd see companies investing in stuff like wind, which is actually very cheap electricity. It would most certainly be profitable to operate a business like that, so someone would come along and do it.

Also your "let's not introduce taxes because people will go elsewhere" idea is nonsensical, because if that was true, then nobody would live in the US at all unless all taxes were abolished. You fucking idiot.

>can't read
LMAO I read it perfectly correctly you fucking idiot. You're crying your fucking little eyes out because China is catching up to US living standards and STILL producing only half as much CO2 per person as you are. LMAO.

Fucking idiot.

>>11041037
Put the taxes on fucking businesses like I said you fucking idiot. Are you fucking blind?

>>11041041
You could say that. Although the Chinese still have power over HOW those products are manufactured. So the blame should probably be shared in that case.

>>11042298
>Put the taxes on fucking businesses

Ya. That doesn't explain how carbon taxes force people who have substantial savings and investment income to use less oil/gas. Not at all.

You have no explanation. Thanks for reiterating that you don't know what you're talking about.

>>11032965
Yes, that's not even a difficult question.

>>11042530
it's not individuals who contribute most to climate change.

>>11042291
>I think you'd see companies investing in stuff like wind, which is actually very cheap electricity. It would most certainly be profitable to operate a business like that, so someone would come along and do it.
Utilities already are doing this to supplement existing sources which are still not going to go away, whose increased taxes are once again going to be mostly pushed on to the consumer, because, like Wind, it's cheaper.
>Also your "let's not introduce taxes because people will go elsewhere" idea is nonsensical, because if that was true, then nobody would live in the US at all unless all taxes were abolished. You fucking idiot.
Seriously, are you even reading shit before you reply to it? Who the fuck is talking about taxes on households? Do you even understand your own shitty ideas well enough to properly advocate for them?
>China is catching up to US living standards and STILL producing only half as much CO2 per person as you are. LMAO.
You've regurgitated this line twice now and I still have no idea what it has to do with what I said, so yeah, you can't read and are just mouth-shitting for the sake of saying something.

Just shut the fuck up already and let the adults talk.

>>11033004
Back to your containment board you brainlet

>>11032965
For electricity production yes. Not for the transports and food production. We need degrowth for all of that.

>>11033087
Carbon Credits created yet another speculative investment field which was designed from the beginning to profit the creators. It has done nothing to change power generated pollution, only raised prices.

>>11037221
When 900 million people still live like peasant farmers it skews your per capita figures a whole bunch.

>>11032965
The global warming hoax was spread to force people to support nuclear power and to force people to hate coal and oil power.