/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11177130
Efficiency. We have access to so much technology and yet it is so riDICulously inefficiently spent. We could easily half carbon footprints if we really want to. Sin blinds.

Kill all niggers. It actually increases quality of life too.

>>11177130
You make me think. Were there improvements when we all stopped driving to the video store?

>>11177130
the problem with OP pic related is not that those nuclear plants are shutting down, but rather the problem is that nothing is stepping in to replace them. guess what that means? more coal and oil and natural gas (and natural gas is not that great -- it's still just as bad CO2-wise).

30 years ago, when those plants were young, everybody knew that the technology would improve and new plants that were better and more high-tech would replace them. little did they know that the environment hippies (who shaped the current environmental movement) managed to get out the vote enough to overturn scientific consensus. the original plan was to have better, safer, more efficient plants replace those guys. but no, basically the PETA hippies overran the environmental movement and shut it all down.

why did PETA hippies manage to put a stranglehold on the liberal environmental movement? to the extent that environmentally-friendly nuclear power became a demon? because of oil-shill psyops. nothing more. oil had all the resources and thus all the hired brainpower so they managed to turn the movement into a "we hate oil but everything else is even worse" cult. when in reality the cult should have been "let's judge what is most harmful and hedge our bets accordingly" but instead it turned into hippie rallies that only have their modern analogue in antifa idiots brawling on the streets

>>11177163
Where did this fantasy come from? Economics killed nuclear not hippies with zero political power.

A way to lower costs must be found. The expansion of Plant Vogtle in Georgia is now at $25 billion, almost double the $14 billion estimate at the start of construction.

>>11177166
>Economics killed nuclear
i admit that this is a thing that certain people believe. so i don't blame you for regurgitating false "received wisdom"

if you look at physics, just pure physics, then the fact is that there is an immense amount of energy stored in nuclear bonds. the strong nuclear interaction (have you heard about how there are four fundamental forces?) is extremely strong and nuclear bonds contain immense amounts of energy. we can already extract that energy effectively enough to level cities like hiroshima.

the idea that nuclear energy is not economical is a complete cultural construct. if we can harness that energy easily enough to blow up cities then i hope we can do it in a controlled way. the fact you think this is impossible is completely the typical ridiculous fossil fuel shill argument. just because nuclear power is so powerful it needs to undergo extremely expensive regulations doesn't mean that it could never be profitable. in fact it could be extremely profitable just like nuclear weapons are extremely destructive

>>11177299
>I've lived a cloistered life in an ivory tower and don't understand how a thing being physically cost effective doesn't mean economically cost effective.

>>11177304
>i live in an anti-ivory shithole and i criticize reasonable arguments with content-free shit because i have no argument

>>11177309
Not him, but to be fair, your post is just as content-free but instead you decided to pad out your post with pointless uncited bullshit.

>>11177299
This argument has no substance, It's entirely because we have to do it in a controlled manner that makes it so incredibly expensive, your argument ignores every important factor like, safety, security at every logistical step, waste disposal and decommissioning costs. Why would any private company want to deal with all that bullshit when they could just utilize literally any other source of energy?

>>11177315
i was replying to what he said at the same level as his post. he had no sauces or arguments or anything so i replied in kind. i already gave a higher-level argument than he was able to effectively respond to, so at this point i feel no need to argue at a higher level than him so i just counter-troll at his level (at least until he can keep up)

>>11177309
I'm sorry anon, but you legitimately don't understand how a thing being physically more efficient might not translate into being economically efficient.
In my experience with the people here, it either comes down to living a very sheltered life in terms of education, or mere ignorance of it due to a lack of education in a topic.
But fine, if it riles you up too much, 'a thing being physically more efficient doesn't make it economically efficient".

>>11177315
That just comes with the territory with being on a board where everyone thinks they're '2smart4u'.

>>11177321
He's talking about your initial post here >>11177299

>>11177320
okay, you are trying to argue again that nuclear is economically not viable because this argument and that argument because your earlier argument about regulations failed. now you bring in "corporations" just to add to the clusterfuck of politically-laden topics we need to consider.

my point is that if you can clear the stage of political shit, then nuclear is clearly a winner. the amount of nuclear energy we have available not only puts "renewables" to shame, it also puts fossil fuels to shame. we have a GIGANTIC source of energy available to us. and unfortunately it can't actually be used for energy in today's political world, it can only be used for nuclear ships and nuclear subs and ICBMS and nuclear bombs meant for destruction all around.

the fact that nuclear is so effectively utilized in those fields should tell you that maybe you are wrong that it can't be used for making energy. just maybe?

>>11177331
I'm not a commie pinko fag so if it's not privately viable it's not viable.

>>11177130
>stop
No. Its already happening. The effects will accumulate as it goes on. The best option now is to move away from low coastal area cities and onto higher altitude cities. Just check your elevation level. Make sure its >70 inch or above sea level if your city is near a body of water.

>>11177130
There is no way to meet the metrics for co2 emssion decrease without mass murders.
It's more humane and more intelligent to prep for climate to change.

>>11177130
>Netflix
couldn't care less if it disappeared tomorrow. There is nothing to watch

>>11177341
the only reason it's not viable privately is because of the ridiculously overbearing regulations that democratic governments have placed on nuclear industries.

even so, even if nuclear power plants were completely run by the government (just like they run the nuclear power generators that power our nuclear subs and our aircraft carriers) they would still be WAY more economically viable versus what could be done in the private sector, thanks to the ridiculous regulations against nuclear that exist

>>11177353
Everyone says this, with absolutely no sources to back up this claim. Can you even cite a single rule which could be safely removed? The fact nuclear isn't privately viable anywhere on the planet proves it's a problem with the technology not politics.

>>11177322
This anon is correct >>11177326

>>11177130
>Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?
Lowering quality of life compared to what, exactly?
If you're comparing a future where we work to stop climate change to a magical fantasy future where actions don't have negative consequences, then obviously not.
If you're comparing a future where we stop climate change to one where we let it escalate freely and need to manage the consequences, then stopping climate change is actually a massive economic gain.

>Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?

yes its very easy, grow more plants. plants remove co2 from the atmosphere. growing plants is very easy, people have been doing for thousands of years, why aren't you participating? how come none of the people who complain about this problem are ever willing to life a finger to do anything about it? all they ever do is complain and backslap each other.
p.s. as an environmental problem, co2 pollution isn't worth more than a very small fraction of the attention it receives and ignoring all other problems is a terrible expense to pay for the focus on this one issue.

>>11177163

It says EARLY CLOSURE. The ones on that list still have ten or more years left in them. If you're including the dinosaurs that are shutting down from old age, then things would be even worse.

>>11177166

Powerless "hippies" made solar and wind energy get subsidized but not Nuclear. IL and NJ all allowed nuclear energy to get subsidized like other forms of green energy and now their plants aren't closing

>>11177424
>Lowering quality of life compared to what, exactly?

A person with a low carbon footprint
>Travels less
>Does not have a vehicle or has a small one
>Has a smaller living space
>Has less variety of food to eat (vegan or "eat bugs!")
>Has less children

Than a person with a high carbon footprint

>>11177130
i=p*a*t

the problem is the p is too large. so make the p smaller and you can gas guzzle all you want.

>>11177540
>Travels less
not in countries with good transportation infrastructure, flying is only necessary for international travel which is pretty rare for most people.
>Does not have a vehicle or has a small one
EV's exist
>Has a smaller living space
unnecessary if power if energy production doesn't emit CO2
>Has less variety of food to eat (vegan or "eat bugs!")
elimination of meat isn't necessary, only reduction, most Americans eat more meat than is healthy anyways, reducing meat consumption would actually improve quality of life long term.
>Has less children
honestly I'm not a fan of the don't have kids argument. It's how you end up in an idiocracy type situation. The damage the next generation will cause if intelligent people who actually give a shit stop reproducing far outweighs their potential carbon footprint.

>>11177166
Yeah, because coal is obviously cheaper (just shovel the black crap inside furnace) and "renewables" are subsidised to sky to in order to complete with coal
How could they economically compete if the economy is artificially stacked against it? I guess we will have to make due with 5 times higher price of electricity.

>>11177559
coal is actually pretty much dead economically, natural gas is the real competitor. And renewable are actually very competitive unsubsidized which isn't something that can be said for nuclear. Nuclear has had massive subsidies historically, yet is still a dumpsterfire economically, Vogtle recieved like 14Bn in federally subsided loans yet is still an unmitigated disaster for everyone involved.

>>11177567

And how cost effective is solar at night, during the winter, when we consume the most energy? A decent percentage of our energy will have to have the same energy output 24-7.

>>11177571
Peak is midday in the summer, when solar is at it's best. And solar only loses about 40% in the winter. You'll notice the graph provided is levelized costs which include all power generated over the lifetime, so it takes into account any period where it's not generating power at peak capacity. Solar with storage is still more economical than nuclear so even that isn't in your favor.

>>11177590
>Peak is midday in the summer, when solar is at it's best.

No... heat makes up the majority of household energy consumption

>>11177590

>midday when everyone is at work on a centralized location

Wrong.

Use curves has highest demand at morning and evening when everyone goes home and decentralizes energy use.

Peak output is midday, when overall use is lowest.

>>11177590

>solar with storage is cheaper than nuclear

Not even in your wildest fantasies is this true.

Renewables has been subsidized more in the past 20 years than nuclear has in its entire lifetime, ontop of NIMBY environmentalists running a harassment campaign for the last 60 years and endlessly suing construction for contrivances.

New nuclear is about 9 cents/kwh. Old nuclear is 3/kwh.

The best energy we get from renewabkes gets us 11 cents/kwh.

This is why everyone who shuts down nuclear and spends 220 billion on solar and wind ends up increasing emissions while suffering rolling brownouts with increased energy costs. To the point that countries like Belgium use them as a template for what ti exoect when they plan to shut down nuclear to appease morons who like to talk about scientific consensus but NOT THE FUCKING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THOSE SAME SCIENTISTS.

>>11177130
Palisades needs to close. That place is a fucking shithole and they only do the bare minimum to keep it running. I've been there twice and all they do is push for the refueling to get finished as quickly as possible and they shelve the needed maintenance for everything else for "the next outage." It's always for the next outage. It deserves to be closed.

Also, check out how many Entergy nuke plants have been closed down. They suck at their job. ANO isn't closed down yet, but they're working on making that a reality, too.

>>11177130
Quality of life has nothing to do with emissions. Fossils fuels do. Simply replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources and nothing else has to change.

Now if those cleaner energy sources were more expensive, which they are not, that might lower the quality of life.

If nuclear was built with low interest and in great numbers, it would be cheaper than any fossil fuel. Especially if one takes into account health related costs from pollution.

Wind and solar are starting to be cheaper than fossil fuels everywhere and are already cheaper in many places. Can't build too much of them though without needing super expensive batteries or some other way of storing energy. Pumped hydro works but there's not enough of it. Burning biomass is helpful but does cause PM 2.5 emissions.

Optimal strategy might be having around 75 % nuclear, 10 % hydro, 15 % wind+solar or something like that. Load-following nuclear exists so it could be done 100 % nuclear also.

>>11177590

That's not what levelized costs means and even your own source doesn't consider renewabkes viable for baseload applications.

You'd know that if you even bothered to read the source instead of spamming the same graphs you don't understand in every fucking thread.

>>11177697
Please oh wise one explain what LCOE means then, this should be good.
You'll notice that Lazard report isn't on storage, it's a separate report, I'll give you that PV+storage isn't competitive with natural gas currently but it blows nuclear out of the water.

>>11177632
cite your sources for cost, they're completely out there. compare the pic to >>11177567 LCOE for PV+storage is lower than nuke, feel free to provide a recent study proving otherwise.

>>11177130
shitty graphic

Ban JS on websites.
Instantly china tier "carbon footprint" is gone.

>>11177130
Who cares? Does the idea of the quality of life lowering a bit scare you that much?

>>11177142
Niggers can be used as biofuel.

>>11177163
Hippies and Jews are the only ones that can make it for the first time in a year.

>>11177130
CO2 is a hoax. Have you ever seen CO2? No, only one Swedish dwarf has ever seen CO2. Why don't you believe your own eyes?

>>11177895
You would have to lower your living standards to that of a Sub-Saharan Negro to stop the earth from overheating. No way I can make this sacrifice.

>>11177370

Not sure what you're talking about, plenty of countries will be rolling out SMRs straight from the assembly lines of private firms, such as vid related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh5Tx1QLKBI

Just because the US is accepting a decline, doesn't mean the rest of the planet is.

>>11177935

Calm down 56%er, you just need to use a clean fucking power source, and eat healthily

>>11177130
>lowering quality of life

?
Electric bike, electric scooter, electric car, better air quality, less (minor and major) heath problems, etc...

>>11177130
nope

>>11177130
Don't worry, the people in control will have a wonderful quality of life haha

>>11177130
we need to go back to capitalism, capitalism means saving money and being provident

>>11177130
Space based industry

>>11177935
>You would have to lower your living standards to that of a Sub-Saharan Negro to stop the earth from overheating.

Prove it.

>>11177130
Yeah, stop sending food and money to Africa, promote contraception for 3rd world shitskins, and stop accepting migrants into Europe where they consume 4x more energy per capita than they do in their home countries.

>>11177130
>Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?

Yes . Not believing in Greenpeace propaganda.

Global climate

Global climate

In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[12] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[12] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[13] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[14] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[15] but many scientists doubt that there was a causal relationship.[16]

The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.The 1883 Krakatoa eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets halfway around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[18] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

>>11179420

>>11177130
How can you explain that climate was changing even before age of industrialization ?

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region lasting from c.950 to c.1250.[1] It was likely[2] related to warming elsewhere[3][4][5] while some other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Average global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[6]

The period was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic and elsewhere termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that climatic effects other than temperature were important.[7][8]

It is thought that between c.950 and c.1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th and 21st centuries that the Northern Hemisphere experienced higher temperatures

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

>>11179441
>How can you explain that climate was changing even before age of industrialization ?

Are you retarded or joking?

>>11177130
Global population reduction.

>>11177130
The solution is to let everyone else do all the suffering for fix the problem while you just pretended to care but don't lift a finger or contribute a thing to any solution. There is nothing immoral about this type of behavior because the problem is mostly fake in that its massively blown out of proportion and will only really affect you during your lifetime in that politicians will use it as an excuse to try and take even more of your money and freedom from you.

>>11177130
Is there any way to stop human-induced-climate-change 'tards from refusing to look at long-term climate data and realizing that CO2 has never been a driver of climate, and that it's been fluctuating solar cycles all along?

I'm betting NOT...

>>11179466
>>>11179441
>>How can you explain that climate was changing even before age of industrialization ?
>Are you retarded or joking?

Kek! Who's the retarded one here?

The climate has ALWAYS been changing. ALWAYS will.

What I'm certain WON'T change is the average, SJW climate-change 'tard with their persistent pin-headed, misguided, unscientific, politically-motivated "certainty" about things, who won't be satisfied until they hand over complete control of the planet to a few oligarchs who promised they'd 'take care of them' if only they reduced their CO2 output.

Kek2

>>11179441
>>11179671
>posting the exact same debunked oil propaganda memes thread after thread
I seriously hope they're at least paying you for your efforts.
https://youtu.be/CY4Yecsx_-s
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg

>>11179671
>>11179641
>Who's the retarded one here?

You. You are the retard. The canard that solar activity is the primary forcing responsible for recent climate warming trending toward a higher thermal equilibrium is demonstrably false and has been debunked as a talking point for over two decades now.

>>11179705
>You. You are the retard. The canard that solar activity is the primary forcing responsible for recent climate warming trending toward a higher thermal equilibrium is demonstrably false and has been debunked as a talking point for over two decades now.

You're just full of shit, that's all. Go back to /pol/.

>>11179753
Oh that study that one of the authoring scientists himself later said made an incorrect conclusion? You can read about that here: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html

In particular:
>Friis-Christensen now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.

Here's one of many studies (that even directly refutes your chart) showing that solar forcing alone is not a sufficient factor: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999GL900578

Like I said this has been debunked for a long time. Time to go back to /pol/ for your next talking point.

>>11179671
this post reads like satire

to actually answer OP's question, the only realistic way is to reduce population, because nobody will ever reduce their consumption

>>11179671
>Kek! Who's the retarded one here?

You.

> The climate has ALWAYS been changing. ALWAYS will.

Yes, and why is that?
Greenhouse gasses, planetary albedo, Milankovich cycles, etc.
Currently, humans are producing large amounts of CO2, and there is little to no activity from the other forcings that aren’t also anthropogenic, so humans are causing the current warming trend.
Please stop troll-posting. It’s technically a rule violation.

>>11179777
>humans are causing the current warming trend.

Uh, what "warming trend"? Planet has seen global mean temps actual fall for the last several decades. But, what can one expect from a climate-change tard who's mind is made up?

>Please stop troll-posting. It’s technically a rule violation.

Yeah, go ahead and "report" me and everyone else for "disagreeing" with you. KEKx10^3 ! Sniveling little climate-change tard.

GTFO!

>>11179801
>Planet has seen global mean temps actual fall for the last several decades

Citation, please.

Climate change is irrelevant. The Earth will naturally go through another ice age or Yellowstone will erupt, or another astroid will destroy everything. The sun will destroy the Earth either way. Liberals just want you to pay carbon taxes and import more immigrants. They don't care about the quality of the environment.

>>11179807

This is good to read.

Now, if only the climate tards would get a clue and realize they are being manipulated by very deep-pocketed, very evil forces who have a vested interest in imposing a global carbon tax, at whatever cost, because it would pave the way to global, dictatorial gov't, with them at the top -- with the consequence large-scale culling of the masses to follow.

But some people think they'll be exempt because they were "believers." Mark my words: unless you are of some kind of value to them, you will not be spared. They intend to slaughter you, like so much excess cattle, wasting resources on their global "ranch"...

>>11179829
Provide evidence of this massive conspiracy. It’s a rather extraordinary claim, so the evidence better be extraordinary.

>>11179807
>The Earth will naturally go through another ice age

That’s over twenty thousand years away, and may never happen due to global warming.

> or Yellowstone will erupt

Yellowstone is unable to erupt.

> or another astroid will destroy everything.

Very unlikely, millions of years off.

> The sun will destroy the Earth either way.

Eight hundred million years away.
How about we focus on current issues that are actually relevant, like global warming?

>>11177163
Idk what "based" is but, I think it looks like this.

>>11179829
You just described the oil industry perfectly. I don’t know if that was part of the point you were trying to make.

>>11177130
Climate change is natural, we can't influence it and there is no reason to stop it.

>>11179832
Spoken like a true useful idiot

>>11177130
>Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?
Decreasing global population. That's your daily red pill, now you can start making sense of feminism and globohomo.

>>11177130
My parents and grandparents lived just as good if not better life while polluting significantly less. Just fuck consumerism and fuck americans. People can live fine without half the crap we are "supposed to have".

>>11181329
We should just create a plague that targets Africans/Chinese or makes them sterile or something. Probably easier than shifting economies all over the planet.

>Always vote for the left wing
>Never vote for the right wing

I guarantee that climate change will stop and your quality of life will increase

>>11181690
This but with burgers

>>11180424
Gee that sure is some extraordinary evidence you have there. Great job defending your beliefs

>>11177130
It's simple, we just kill 90% of the human population after being invited to a rich guy's bunker in New Zealand

If we elect Bernie, 50% of the problem is solved

>>11177130
Climate change is pure politics. Just kill every human with low IQ, lets say below 130, and the problem is solved.

>>11177559
>coal is obviously cheaper

No, see >>11177567
>coal is actually pretty much dead economically
Natural gas is far cheaper and more economical than coal, by far
Simple free market principles are the reason coal is dying, the rich don't want you to realize this so they scapegoat the left wing environmental boogeyman to get your vote

>>11181814

>>11181814

That's because of Texas and PA have tons of cheap gas, not because coal power plants are inherently more expensive. Most of the cost of fossil fuel plants (~75%) is for the fuel the itself. Nuclear energy's price is mostly based off capital costs and interest, while other renewables are mostly based on technology

Now compare it with China. China has much more raw coal than gas, which is why they're building coal plants and selling it elsewhere

>>11179837
>Yellowstone is unable to erupt
?

>>11179837
>>11181914
Never mind. That one caught my eye but, I see that your whole post is pure shooting from the hip bullcrap.

>>11181916
He's not wrong, a volcanic event capable of altering the climate to the extent humans have is a one in 20 million years type event.

>>11177130
Developing net-gain fusion, pouring several trillion into mass produced reactors for 20 years. Around 16,000 1GW reactors (~15TW of permanent capacity, given their
~90% capacity factor) should do the job). Everything should also get electrified, which will probably lower the global energy consumption by a third due to massive efficiency gains (let's say from 160PWh to 120PWh) Dingy panels and turbines won't solve shit due to their stochastic generation and low capacity factor (meaning you have to massively overbuild them to the point of unpracticality) and you'll still have shitskinoids in the third world burning fossil shit into the 2100s.

>>11181690
>We should just create a plague that targets Africans
It's called AIDS

>>11177130
Almost every nation got a lower carbon footprint then the US and many got a higher quality of life. It's really not this hard.

>>11185432

>>11185012
Well we need a better one because that is not working well enough

>>11179441
>Look Oil Corps, i posted again!
At this point i'm convinced you're a legit schizo caught in a dissociative loop. Please take your meds and/or stop shitposting here. Thanks.

>>11177559
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.

>>11177130
The quality of whom's life, Kemosabe? First-worlders are already massive resource hogs, and ought to have their orgy of hedonism curbed regardless of climate change.

>>11179466
>>11186828
>you know what the biggest problem in our world is? vroom vroom juice!

Typical brainless "ecologists".

>>11187553
>Stop telling people not to waste resources, you should be telling people not to eat or heat their houses instead!
Do you folks actually believe the shit you're posting, or have you just never bothered to think about it at all?

>>11187804
Europe (a continent) produces only 10% of the worlds polution. 7% of the worlds polution is contributed to by light vehicles (e.g. cars). a 0.7% reduction if we all switch to electric vehicles is such a drop in the ocean that there's literally no point.

Go after Asians and Africans. that's 2/3rds of the worlds pollution right that.

>>11187892
First of all your math is wrong. Europe is not representative of the world average. Europe's emissions from passenger vehicles are about 13%n not 7%.

Second, your focus on European light car emissions is a strawman. You could split up all emissions into arbitrarily small percentages and then argue nothing should be done for any of them. Everyone should reduce their emissions but some people produce much more emissions than are necessary. If there was a global food shortage and food had to be rationed out to each country, would you demand that Chinese and Africans go on a diet before Americans?

>>11187892
>Go after Asians and Africans. that's 2/3rds of the worlds pollution right that.
Again, asking people to go without food because you don't want to go without an SUV is complete bullshit.
Any discussion of emissions reductions that ignores per-captia emissions is missing the point, because not everyone has an equal ability to reduce their emissions. And the fact you keep missing the same point repeatedly makes you seem disingenuous.

>Imagine being able to easily solve the problem of climate change

Vote for Bernie, he is literally the only candidate with a green deal. I mean, you can not do any easier. Just read the fucking plan.

https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

>>11188044
https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/
>End the greed of the fossil fuel industry and hold them accountable.
It would be amazing to see, but how the fuck is any politician going to "hold the fossil fuel industry accountable"?

>>11188061
A simple concept: polluter pays

>Facebook
>fashion
>sports
>superheroes
>wars
>military costs ("peace")
>Olympics
Very, very, very
>SUSTAINABLE

>>11177304
>Climate refugees are cost effective
>Toppled mountains are cost effective
>Fracking earthquakes are cost effective
>Oil seeping into ground water is cost effective
>Swathes of land becoming uninhabitable is cost effective
>Emergent lung cancers from polluted air is cost effective

There is wealth that isn't in a billionaire's bank account

>>11177893
As if we needed yet more reasons to end that damned thing.

>>11189139
Amen. Climate change isn't being stopped because it's not profitable. I know it sounds cynical and even childish, but there's no other way to put it. All the possible outcomes, from complete avoidance of disaster thanks to an opportune technological miracle to civilizational collapse are weighed, and the cost-benefit analysis says "don't bother". What we should be asking is who gets the cost and who gets the benefit. The answer is implied, sadly, by the fact that the owners of the world have decided to apply their riches to building space lifeboats for themselves instead of slowing down the growth of said riches. We hoped that the tragedy of the commons would never get to the point of applying to the fucking land-to-water ratio of the planet's surface, yet here we are, and it's not for lack of warning.

People have to put it in their heads that, as it stands, mankind has absolutely no telos other than capital accumulation. Survival of the species, keeping civilization afloat, social progress, absolutely everything else, is, at best, a secondary concern, and this is not hyperbole.

>>11181698
It really is depressing how this boils down to effectively alternating between the Justice League and the Legion of Doom as equally valid. You can prove leftist policies' progress with graphs and numbers, objeticvely, and yet the right's justification for the reversal of that proress is shit like "Reagan tore the Berlin Wall down with his bare hands".

we could eradicate 80% of the human population and reduce our impact drastically, without losing anything of value (africa, asia, south america)

>>11177130
>without lowering quality of life?
sure, reduce quantity

>>11189622
using climate change as a justification for large scale ethnic cleaning is just fine as far as i'm concerned, but that still doesn't mean that the chicken little bullshit story that zog is pushing about global warming has any validity.
al gore is a fucking chink

>>11189622
Primitive bioengineering with the resultant necessary gene pool material storage presently preclude an expedient genocide.

>>11189622
I got an better idea, start with billionaires and get an even larger effect with less effort.

>>11177166
And as with anything, the economics improve with scale.
There are only a few countries adapt at making nuclear power plants. The French, S.Koreans and the Chinese.
You probably don't want to ask the chinks to do it, but ask the french or the Koreans.

There are no such things as off the shelf parts for a nuclear reactor, but they have the experience, the subcontractors, ect...
That alone would reduce the time and money spend by quite a lot.

Imagine if natural gas plants where a rare, the cost of building one would be a lot higher.

LFTR

Global warming is already costing us money and lowering our quality of life. If anything, it's only up from here.
https://www.staugustine.com/news/20191126/king-tides-growing-problem-in-st-augustine-other-coastal-communities

>>11177567

Wrong. Renewables receive much higher subsidies than nuclear.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130513055956/http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/relative_energy_subsidies.pdf

>>11179683
Excellent links. These threads always remind me of the true meaning of the SCROTUS deciding that corporations are people too: A lowering of the standard to include their shills.

>>11177299
mister, yer trying to get folks to ultimately solve a thermal systems problem. Yes, you are right, and yes, a wrong answer to the problem +/- 100000% continues to make you right, but here we are dealing with drooling knuckle-dragging capuchin monkeys -- and, might I add, well paid capuchins! And no one ever convinced a well-paid capuchin about nothing.

>>11177130
> Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?
Yes. Nuke China.

>>11187986
At the same time as you are genociding the africans, you are replacing suvs with electric vehicles. how stupid can you be? the problem is that the europeans will listen to american threats and nuclearize, but the niggers won't. And don't give me bs about niggers being generations behind us, because nigger nuclear physicists now exist and fucking rwanda is probably more developed than yer grandpa's sweden.

>>11177130
We can't stop now, we're closer to the other side. We have to accelerate. Into the technosphere. Upload all consciousness into computer.

>>11177777
no

>>11191025
Honestly giving every unstable shithole free access to nuclear material is without doubt the fastest way to solve global emissions. 10/10 idea.

>>11180424
>the useful idiot calling someone an useful idiot

>>11191096
I implied yhat the USA will strong-arm Europe and therefore why wouldn't they also strong-arm Africa? You think some banana republic's dictator is gonna run the nuke plant? It would be either Americans or Africans loyal to the notion America would be trying to propagate. Face it, you have no solution. Your solution would kill be few intelligent Africans/Laotians/Ecuadorians in order to preserve the greater host of dumb retards electing dictators who take out loans they can never pay. Basically, you don't take over the country, you simply btfo their air force, execute everybody who tries to use AA against you, and conquer maybe one square kilometer to place your nuke plant. It's like a medieval castle.

Autonomous weapons are dangerous and difficult to make. That's why you lay down line connecting the 3rd worlders to your power grid and dictate a new law: anyone within xyz km of this electric line will be shot by fully-automated flying electric robot. Can't hack a robot if it's autonomous.

Yeah, this sounds like a 7-year-old's imaginings, but tell me anyone has the slightest chance of shooting even a wooden biplane out of the sky when said biplane has lasers powered by remote lasers at your nuke plant that can survey and annihilate everything beyond the horizon.

Obviously do the same to the Europeans if they are not compliant. Kill every European not inside a metropolis, then kill everything, man, woman, child, elderly or deer, fuck it kill the turtles too, we'll just clone them and reintroduce them into the environment once autonomous ai has matured. Heck, those non-compliant people aren't even contributing to humanity, so there'd be no shame in just depopulating the city by poisoning their water supply or dropping chemical weapons on them, you can skip the building nuclear reactors part if you really wish. It's not like they're contributing if they refuse to comply. We'll just clone them and re-reintroduce European hunter-gatherers 100 years hence.

First, the bugs will all die. It's already happening. Google windshield effect.
Then, the animals that eat the bugs will die.
Then massive rapid shifts in the biosphere will start happening. It's gonna be a wild ride boys, strap in because WWII doesn't have shit on this. It's going to be a heroic age like no other, one that we will either come out as hardened transhumans, or get filtered like fucking trilobites. Buckle up pussies.

>>11181338
>ORANGE MAN BAD

>>11177130
>Is there any way to stop climate change without lowering quality of life?

Yes, vote Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a credible win-win scenario

https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/

>>11191096

If the 80 IQ street shitters haven't nuked the 75 IQ goat fuckers despite fighting 3 major wars last century, no one is using nukes.

>>11192544
Yes, dedicating yourself to supporting a candidate of the major political establishment parties is absolutely the way to effect substantial change. Remember when Obama was campaigning on Hope & Change and then Obama won and he changed so much, everything got better because of him.

>>11192563
Obama was a corporate plant, Bernie is the real deal, Obama is trying to stop Bernie now because he would hurt his corporate overlords.

>>11192563
Bernie is socialist, there is and was no socialist party running for presidency. So yes, as you said, "substantial change" is coming.

>>11192582
>>11192587
>this time it's different!

>>11192597
It was also different in 2016.

>>11192597
explain why even Obama is trying to stop Bernie if they're the same
I'll tell you why, it's because Bernie represents an existential threat to the corruption(lobbying) going on in Washington, for both parties, they will try to stop him at every turn, but if he has enough popular support they won't be able to.
Your rejection of him based on incredulity, when he's been saying exactly the same things for decades, is weak.

>>11192613
>explain why even Obama is trying to stop Bernie if they're the same
probably because obama hates white folks
obama says that
>whites cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
cause all whites are the same just like all blacks love dem chikunz an watermelinz
obama gets outraged that whites aren't as stupidly self sacrificing has he wants them to be while completely neglecting that he was only able to go to harvard and yale and join the political establishment because his white mother's family was super rich and well connected.
so just because obama is a racist, that doesn't mean that him and bernie aren't pretty much the same retard pandering to upper middle class baizuo children

>>11192631
>bernie is pandering to the super rich
you're just living in your own reality at this point
https://berniesanders.com/anti-endorsements

>>11177130
synthetic fuels as a battery

>>11192631
You got that Obama quote wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZWaxjiQyFk

>>11192631
Obama is 100% black. His wizard name is Barack the Black.