Why A "Green New Deal" would be Worth it

[Anonymous No.10448426]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czL0ZSscbsM

>Achieve energy independence/autarchy
>create low maintance, redibly available, cheap and rewnewable energy for whole nation'
>give us more leverage in Middle Eastern affairs and help overextended military
>No longer have to cow-tow to Israel and Saudi Arabia
>Would rival Belt and Road Initiative by a factor of 3X in scale and show world we are still strong
>Help slow effects of Climate change

Something like this would be a huge investment, but not impossible. This video just looks at solar and seems to make some compelling points. Honestly, I can't see how something like this wouldn't be worth it. It'd be daunting, but would make millions of jobs, help struggling industries (hell could even get the oil/gas companies to help for tax breaks) and would most importantly bring us all together. How could something like this not be worth it?

[Anonymous No.10448428]

>cloudy day with no wind
>Deep fat friers run out of power
>high fructose corn syrup factory machines can't run
Millions of Americans starve

[Anonymous No.10448436]

>>10448428
Watch the video dude, he even addresses that exact point by saying we should build multiple spaced out across primarily arid areas with little to no cloud cover.

[Anonymous No.10448443]

>100% Solar
It's retarded because you leave so much potential energy untapped.

Just build every type of renewable when it has the potential to generate a lot of energy such as Wind Energy, Hydro, Geothermal.

Use A mixture of Hydro and Geothermal as a baseload since they will produce the same controllable amount of power 24/7. If that is impossible for the area then use nuclear fission as a baseload instead this will mate it a purely 0 CO2 emission system.

And instead of using an expensive battery system we should use the surplus power to pump water back up behind the hydro plants this is a relatively cheap energy storage method and is a lot cleaner than mining all the materials used for batteries.

Of course all of this energy generation will pale in comparison with what we can do once we unlock fusion power with ITER in 2035.

[Anonymous No.10448450]

>>10448436
You can't transmit energy over very long distances like that as the energy loss will be so big that only 0.001% of the energy generated on one side of the US like Florida will reach Oregon.

You need a baseload that provides the minimum necessary power that can be easily adjustable and scaled up if clouds occlude solar panels. Hydro and geothermal fit the bill but these can't be used everywhere which is why you NEED nuclear fission plants as that is the only 0 CO2 alternative we have right now that can work literally everywhere.

[Anonymous No.10448473]

>>10448450
>You can't transmit energy over very long distances like that as the energy loss will be so big that only 0.001% of the energy generated on one side of the US like Florida will reach Oregon.
No.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-state-grid-corp-crushes-power-transmission-records

[Anonymous No.10448486]

>>10448426
>Achieve energy independence/autarchy

Which can be done if we drill our own oil. Not an argument.

>create low maintance, redibly available, cheap and rewnewable energy for whole nation'

There is nothing more low maintenance than burning and spinning a prime mover and if you had an argument for this you could provide one in 2 sentences or less rather than relying on a youtube video made by someone that doesn't even know what "Energy" is. Why don't you start by telling me how much material and money it would take to power a hairdryer at peak solar with solar panels?

>give us more leverage in Middle Eastern affairs and help overextended military

Being "self sufficient" means "fuck you other countries". Why should I give a shit about sand dunes? If we're no longer supposed to be using oil then what use are they? Not that we got the majority of our oil from them anyway.

>Would rival Belt and Road Initiative by a factor of 3X in scale and show world we are still strong

Like America needs to prove we're strong. Everyone knows to keep themselves in line.

>Help slow effects of Climate change

But it's cold right now, I'd like it to change into something a bit warmer please.

[Anonymous No.10448512]

>>10448450
Dude, watch the video ffs, he covers that too

[Anonymous No.10448523]

>>10448486
>I'm a brainlet
stop posting here

[Anonymous No.10448535]

>>10448443
It's a thought experiment and naturally a large array of sources would be ideal. Solar offers the advantage of taking advantage of a massively abundant and radiant source with no moving parts involved.

[Anonymous No.10448560]

>>10448535
Apart from all the moving parts that make and maintain the panels.

[Anonymous No.10448563]

100% solar is dumb. 100% any technology is dumb. We need a diverse portfolio of technologies, with emphasis in any one region tailored to that region's strengths.

Solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hell maybe even pelleted biomass. Whatever works well there, not just one source across the board.

anyway, power generation is only a small part of the problem. Industry, agriculture, and transportation are enormous problems too.

[Anonymous No.10448566]

>>10448560
Yea but no turbines, motors, bearings or other parts that are taking frequent/regular stress and can catastrophically fail potentially.

[Anonymous No.10448571]

>>10448563
It's a plan in the right direction, but it's not going to happen in Trump's America. This country is too far-right for something like this. It's over. This country needs to go to really go to shit before the people wake up.
AOC and Bernie can try all they want but we all know it is not going to happen. This is the land of billionaires, the best friend of Saudi Arabia, the country that started wars over oil and the only country where politicians still dare overtly deny climate change.

We will sooner see an socialist egalitarian Saudi Arabia than a climate friendly United States.

[Anonymous No.10448582]

>>10448571
We just gotta make going green economically beneficial.

[Anonymous No.10448587]

>>10448582
if we'd started that back in the 70s and 80s, maybe. it's too late for it to be anything but expensive. the only question left is do we tighten the belt now or go crazy in thirty years.

[Anonymous No.10448592]

>>10448582
Subsidize it. Unfortunately the free market dictates that if fossil fuels will save you a penny, then it's the right choice. Your ROI only looks at the lifetime of the product, not any further into the future. We need to tip the scales artificially a little bit.

[Anonymous No.10448599]

>>10448571
The reason the right doesn't like the GND is not because of the renewable power aspect. Yes, there's a lot of lobbying that goes on at the top, but most right-wing people aren't actually opposed to renewable energy. The reason the right doesn't like it is because it has a bunch of extra shit tacked onto it. The fact that the GND excludes nuclear entirely should be evidence enough that it has more to do with virtue signaling than actually helping America become climate friendly.

[Anonymous No.10448609]

>>10448582
It's not about the economy. It's about Oil being too strong of a lobby.
Green is already economically beneficial.

[Anonymous No.10448618]

>>10448599
Nuclear still has a bad imagine in the public eye and thus is bad publicity thanks to 3 mile Island and Chernobyl. The GND was also really lazily made by AoC and I say this as a perponent of the idea, it's just shit like "make so many trains we don't need airplanes anymore" is just childishly retarded. She should have consulted experts and cited some scientific papers at least ffs.

[Anonymous No.10448624]

>>10448599
the GND doesn't rule out nuclear at all. it doesn't mention any specific technology, nuclear or not. hell, one of the co-sponsors of the bill said on Twitter that they considered nuclear as included.

[Anonymous No.10448628]

>>10448599
If it didn't exclude nuclear, the right would start fear mongering about nuclear fission, 100% guaranteed.

[Anonymous No.10448634]

>>10448618
>cited papers
>in a congressional resolution
do you have any idea how congress works? that's just not how its done

besides, the GND isn't and was never meant to be policy. it's a wishlist, basically the congressional equivalent of a motivational poster tacked on the wall. it doesn't have policy proposals because it's not policy. that's probably the shittiest thing about it, actually

[Anonymous No.10448636]

>>10448599
>include nuclear in plan
>like literally ever other nuclear plant every built, it is delayed and over budget
>plan fails because of it

[Anonymous No.10448641]

>>10448618
Trains are much more energy efficient. This is common knowledge and one of the proposals of how to reduce emissions due to commercial aviation.

[Anonymous No.10448644]

>>10448634
Damn, didn't know that.. Still pretty retarded, I would have detailed every aspect and made it sealed tight desu.

[Anonymous No.10448659]

2050 is when we are supposed to have zero to negative emission according to the most optimistic estimates (i.e. realistically we should have them sooner)
That means that we should start cutting emissions yesterday.
Ain't fucking happening.
Let's face it. We are likely to have either Trump or some right-wing Democrat till 2024. They aren't going to do shit. Even if by the grace of God, Bernie or someone who cares gets elected. They won't allow him to pass any meaningful legislation.
And without the US on board, all attempted international legislation will fail.

Shit is going to get really bad. When food is getting rationed out and people are homeless, or being drafted to fight into climate related conflicts, then maybe at last political will will be there.

[Anonymous No.10448673]

>>10448659
it's weirdly liberating to know that everything's fucked

[Anonymous No.10448681]

>>10448659
>tfw the entire world will suffer the fate of Easter Island and the Rapanui

[Anonymous No.10448683]

>>10448426
Name?

[Anonymous No.10448692]

>>10448683
Idk, it was some Russian anon in an int thread and reverse image search yielded nothing so it's probably legit.

[Anonymous No.10448705]

>>10448624
>>10448628

Look up the FAQ Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey released last month. It specifically excludes nuclear. It's unlikely the GOP would suddenly flip their stance on nuclear just to attack the GND.

>>10448636
Even if that were the case, nobody is proposing we go 100% nuclear. Nuclear power is stable and predictable, and therefore serves as a safety net for an unpredictable renewables-only grid.

>>10448618
It's really unfortunate that the public is so anti-nuclear. I wonder how much the oil lobbies have spent shilling "nookulur = bad".

[Anonymous No.10448709]

>>10448705
the FAQ that was taken down the same day?

[Anonymous No.10448713]

>>10448705
>It's unlikely the GOP would suddenly flip their stance on nuclear just to attack the GND.
GOP doesn't have a stance on nuclear but if anything they are anti-nuclear because of NIMBY sentiments and the mass expenditure by governments that is needed. Not sure where you get the idea that they would be pro-nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10448716]

>>10448705
Wait, who told you that the GOP is pro-nuclear? They aren't. At most ambivalent.

[Anonymous No.10448717]

>>10448705
Gotta spread Thorium awareness desu.

[Anonymous No.10448735]

>>10448709
Obviously publishing it was a mistake, but just because it was redacted doesn't mean it's not what they want.

>>10448713
>>10448716
From "The Republican Platform 2016":

"We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower"

"We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy."

>>10448717
Thorium is a really cool tech, but research into new areas of nuclear power is so covered in red tape it's unlikely it will ever really see the light of day.

[Anonymous No.10448739]

>>10448705
>>10448716
>>10448713
Republicans stand nominally for nuclear energy. Democrats are mostly agnostic or opposed. However Republicans have not proposed any serious investment in nuclear energy either. It seems like their pro-nuclear stance is mostly a tool to fight against alternative energy sources that threaten the oil interests, which is what the Republicans really care about.
That is why Republicans only mention nuclear when the Democrats propose alternative energy. It is a way of stalling the development of solar and wind rather than a serious interest in nuclear energy.
They will never propose nuclear over oil and if you really press them they will propose gas as the less polluting option.

[Anonymous No.10448740]

>>10448735
what they want doesnt really matter. the resolution itself is echnology-agnostic and it's just a suggestion list anyway. whatever congress does to meet those goals is what matters

[Anonymous No.10448752]

It doesn't make much sense to start with nuclear anyway. You want to make a good first impression that builds confidence and momentum so that you can get people to support even more ambitious projects.
That means short term projects that give people an immediate taste of the benefits.

[Anonymous No.10448779]

>>10448740
My original point was why the right is against the GND in general. The fact that the main proponents don't want nuclear makes people question if they really want clean energy, or if they just want to shill renewables for green votes.

Nuclear or not, I'm all for the renewable part of the GND. It's time America got off of the oil lobby's dick. Nuclear will help, and excluding it is retarded. If they want the deal to go anywhere they need to support any and all clean power sources, because as >>10448739
said the republicans will push for nuclear to delay it if they don't.

>>10448752
What would you propose?

[Anonymous No.10448786]

As long as capitalism exists they will profit off the destruction of nature.
Social democracy wont save us, a bunch of reformist twats.

There is no difference between the democratic manager and the republican manager besides a few cultural wedge issues. They are both beholden to capital and its quest for eternal growth.

The real question is what will kill us first. The super AI or mother nature.

[Anonymous No.10448808]

>>10448523
>I'm too lazy and stupid too answer questions

Not a surprise. Same reason AOC banned the press from town hall meetings.

[Anonymous No.10448867]

>>10448808
Your post >>10448486 was schizophrenic ramblings of a typical anti-science denialtard, not some incisive commentary.

[Anonymous No.10448896]

The end game of neo liberal capital seems to be to replicate what it has done to California on a nation wide scale. Crumbling infrastructure, white minority, third world slums filled with homeless people, rich white liberals living behind all white gated communities who profess a love for diversity.
Modern liberalism is reactionary and irrational. there is no point in engaging with liberals. The modern liberal is placated by capital with ideas of self esteem boosting multicultural representation in entertainment while in real life a multicultural array of homeless walk the crumbling streets.

I doubt that global industrial civilization has more than a hundred years or so left before a mixture of climate change, general ecological overshoot, pollution and it's continued impact on global animal health, soil degradation, oil, clean water, and mineral scarcity, the continued ramping up of the 6th great extinction event, et al. break down supply lines and contribute to famines which lead to regional conflicts in places that will be essentially uninhabitable within a couple generations.

If climate change is real, then the only way to solve it would be to abolish democracy, abolish every corporation that profits off the destruction of nature (and send their ceo's to the gulag), Take on a radical restructuring of the laws and society itself towards a post carbon lifestyle. Anyone who fights against it gets the gulag. Also build the wall and get rid of pro immigration laws. No one leaves or enters america. the borders would be highly militarized and anyone caught trying to sneak in would be shot on sight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSl4w6PXVbY

[Anonymous No.10448911]

>>10448896
>muh authoritarian ethnonational utopia

[Anonymous No.10448951]

>>10448867
Your post >>10448486 (You) was schizophrenic ramblings of a typical anti-science denialtard, not some incisive commentary.

"No you're wrong" is not a proper retort. Try again, mental midget. Every point I made was neither a denial of "science" nor "incisive commentary". No not even the part climate change because there's nothing scientific about basing your hypothesis on a false premise and having no control group.

[Anonymous No.10448960]

>>10448951
>Every point I made was neither a denial of "science" nor "incisive commentary". No not even the part climate change because there's nothing scientific about basing your hypothesis on a false premise and having no control group.
You didn't make any points it all. It was just word vomit from some dumb motherfucker pretending to say intelligible things.

[Anonymous No.10448965]

>>10448911
Who says it would be a utopia? It's an emergency survival process. That anon has the right idea.

[Anonymous No.10448981]

>>10448965
Wtf does immigration have to do with climate change?

[Anonymous No.10448991]

>everyone gets free everything
WOW what a plan

[Anonymous No.10448998]

>>10448951
>>10448486
oil shills in full force today.

[Anonymous No.10449009]

>>10448911
Do you have an argument?

If climate change is real i do not see why we are letting in more and more people while libtards screech about overpopulation.

Lmao.

Actually, i wouldnt genocide any race or anything. I would just set down a line. Once in power, that no one else is allowed in.

Actually, part of my social engineering would mean to break down the system of identity politics, destroying all racial identity and manufacturing an american identity that connects all the tribes in america

I would create a very unique form of american fascism. I wouldnt tolerate white supermacy, but i wouldnt tolerate black supremacy either or any other form of supermacy.

It would be us americans against the world.

It would be very starship troopers like.

Actually, i might make it so that only the millitary has the right to vote

there wouldnt really be a need for idpol anymore, i would have killed off capitalism, both main political parties, and democracy

[Anonymous No.10449053]

>>10449009
>if climate change is real...
then we should do something about it, right?
>No! We should build the wall!

I continually lose hope in humanity

[Anonymous No.10449075]

>>10448426
So, I watched the video and I think a lot of the points were pretty fair. (I do wish they would have cited all of their sources in the description...). Anyways, I feel like this video failed to mention a lot of the political problems with doing this. There's so many of them to mention, but something I wanted to suggest is that if we could start a great enough "campaign" across the US to somehow get SJW's/radical feminists, celebrities that have massive influence, and so on, we could possibly cause politicians in the US to start paying more attention to renewable energy sources in general. If you haven't noticed, SJW's have fucking taken the US by storm and so many people adhere to whatever stupid social philosophical idea they have, including politicians. An example is Hilary Clinton, as far as I know she had no ties to feminism or LGBT before her campaign, but she used that as a huge driving point for her campaign. Why? Because it controls people. Celebrities also control large amounts of people, and anything they say will go for many people. What I'm trying to put into perspective here is that if we cause a bunch of these radical SJW type people to start pushing for clean energy, politicians and celebrities are bound to start adopting those ideas too. That doesn't fix the absolutely insane price point, but as he mentioned in the video, if more research goes into solar (or any of these renewable energy sources) we may be able to develop much cheaper versions of them.
What does /sci/ think? Assuming my post will just be buried, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.10449099]

>>10449053
we do need to build the wall, not to be racist, but to keep out the useless eaters

In the future when the world is dying and food is rationed and we live in the onions green universe we dont really need more people.

Sorry libtards. I care more about the people of my nation.

If spics die, they die

[Anonymous No.10449171]

>>10448960
>cries in incoherent tween

Go back to your safe space kid.

>>10448998
I'm not shilling oil. I'm saying that you can apply the same reasoning of "energy independence" to oil. To say that the "green new deal" proposes this as if it couldn't be possible already is fucking stupid.

>>10448571
>It's a plan in the right direction, but it's not going to happen in Trump's America

>Why didn't it happen in Obama's America?

[Anonymous No.10449459]

>American hour
>thread turns into racists rambling about immigration and the wall
Like clockwork.

[Anonymous No.10449555]

>>10448779
>What would you propose?
Not him, but large hydro-electric dam projects are futuristic, photogenic, and create a lot of immediate jobs as well as a long term source of cheap energy. If positioned well, they can create beautiful large artificial lakes near urban areas, as well as quality agricultural land down river.

It's the obvious choice. Build something like twelve mega-dams around the country to start, create tens of thousands of blue collar construction jobs immediately, subsidize energy for certain key businesses, and hire some good architects and photographers to sex everything up.

Politically, an economic program built on hydroelectric dams and trains could seduce the masses like no other. Solar is bleak, and wind looks silly at best. Dams look like massive castle walls, holding up an ocean and exuding confidence, strength, and stability. Trains are like shiny metal dicks fucking across the map with all the vitality of modern technology. If we ever get a NGD, I bet you fifty dollars that's what it will be built on.

[Anonymous No.10449681]

>>10448426
cringe

>>10448486
based

[Anonymous No.10450884]

>>10448426
You know what would also be great ? Not being dependent on food and water. I have an idea. Just stop eating and drinking.
>achieve metabolism autarchy
>solve world hunger
>give us leverage on those dirty Trump voting peasants
>no longer have to cow-tow to farmlands
>would rival the stuff Buddhist monks do from time to time
>helps slow effects of obesity in 'Murica

[Anonymous No.10450924]

>>10449555
We've already used all the good sites for hydro, there's nowhere left to put a big dam

[Anonymous No.10450946]

>>10448566
Solar panels catastrophically fail for half the day every day.

[Anonymous No.10450982]

>>10450946
I laughed.

[Anonymous No.10451495]

>>10448428
This. It should be called the "Green Leap Forward". This is Maoist retardation all over again.

It also includes muh justice for brown people in it, of course

[Anonymous No.10451508]

>>10448896
Good post

>>10448911
White people were never asked if they want to be a hated minority in a 90 IQ waste land

[Anonymous No.10451539]

>>10448443
The US should make nuclear baseload a precondition for climate agreements.

Germany shutting down their nuke industry is a disaster.

[Anonymous No.10451551]

>>10451539
>Germany shutting down their nuke industry is a disaster.
While I absolutely agree with nuclear being a baseload Germany shutting down their nuke industry isn't a disaster but simply masterful machiavellian politics displayed by Merkel.

Remember Merkel actually has a PhD in nuclear chemistry. You can bet she knows that nuclear power is actually good. However she did the smart political move of banning it anyway because she knew if she spoke in favor of nuclear her political opponents would use it against her and she would be out of office.

Remember that Merkel single-handedly saved the EU which is why the Paris Climate accord still exists. If Merkel had not phased out nuclear power at that time she could have lost re-election which would mean the EU would have disintegrated and there wouldn't be a Paris Accord anymore.

She did the absolute mastermind thing of sacrificing a pawn to win the match. Merkel is one of the best politicians to ever live and it shows how it should be mandatory for every politician to hold a STEM PhD before being allowed into politics.

[Anonymous No.10451558]

>>10451551
I get the politics of it. But i don't get why they didn't reverse or throw wrenches in the phaseout after the initial shock of Fukashima had passed.

[Anonymous No.10451678]

As long as capitalism persists in america there's no incentive to change energy plans unless the lobbying ends or we pretty much run out, and it becomes more expensive to find oil, coal etc than to sell it
aka we will reach an energy crisis in the future and possibly a depression

[Anonymous No.10452068]

>Solar
Stop.
Fucking.
Stop.

The only option for green energy is nuclear. This conversation goes nowhere if nuclear is not the focus. By the time it takes to build nuclear plants and plants to repurpose the waste, we MIGHT have solar cells that could be effecient enough without lakes of mercury waste to consider large scale farms. But that doesnt matter

Because we need to build nuclear plants NOW

[Anonymous No.10452093]

>>10452068
the sun IS nuclear

stop using so much power

[Anonymous No.10452140]

>>10448426
We already have energy independence for the rest of the century at least. I'm not going to humor these wackos until they start pushing nuclear energy

[Anonymous No.10452498]

>>10452068
The truth is if global warming is real, if it is 100% guaranteed to happen you see poor 3rd world countries are going to need lots of cheap energy over the next 100 years and that will be wood, very dirty coal and oil. It ain't going to be solar or wind or even nuclear. Western countries will be a tiny part of the worlds carbon footprint in the next 100 years.

The fact is western countries should just use whatever is cheapest, our fossil fuels are really clean already and getting cleaner, we should just focus on them and attempting to expand nuclear where possible (although realistically people will be freaking out over it for at least the next 30 years so don't expect it to be making up a big % any time soon).

[Anonymous No.10452776]

>>10452093
>stop using so much power
You're not going to get people to waste less electricity. Even if you could, it wouldn't lower the demand. Power demands will continue to increase regardless of what you do. Nuclear fission is the only option you have if you want to reduce hydrocarbon power.
>the sun IS nuclear

Oh that real cute faggot.

[Anonymous No.10452989]

>>10448426
>How could something like this not be worth it?
$93,000,000,000,000

[Anonymous No.10453017]

>>10452140
>We already have energy independence
hahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.10453229]

>>10448426
>pay solar companies tax dollars
>they make a killing and deliver shit or just fail
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.10453861]

>>10453229
>muh tacks dollers
found the 'Murikan

[Anonymous No.10453941]

>>10448443
>we should use the surplus power to pump water back up behind the hydro plants
That’s fucking pointless. The water source for hydro is always flowing. You wouldn’t be storing any meaningful energy by pumping it back up. You wouldn’t need a battery.

The only way that would work is if there was certain time of the day where you exceeed the maximum energy output of the dam. You could get around this by creating separate reservoirs that you filled with water at night during low energy usage. Basically mini dams with their own water sources

[Anonymous No.10454013]

>>10449009
>Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually Akshyually

[Anonymous No.10454031]

>>10451551
>Remember that Merkel single-handedly saved the EU
The fuck am I reading? She just threw money at greece. Anyone could‘ve done that and I heard a lot of people saying it could‘ve been done much better.
Meanwhile her doing absolutley nothing in terms of EU reforms in her 12+ years in office is arguably a contributor to brexit.
And finally she pissed of literally everyone else with her refugee politics, further driving UK, Hungary and Poland away.
Sure it could‘ve all been even worse, but that has basically been her campaign slogan for years now.

[Anonymous No.10454042]

>>10451558
>why didn‘t they cancel the cancelation of the cancelation of the exit out of nuclear power
Probably because they would‘ve gotten laughed out of the room. It was Schröder‘s government who decided to stop nuclear power, Merkel originally cancelled that, then she reinstated the exit. Canceling it again at that point just seems like lunacy.

[Anonymous No.10454177]

>>10448426
Well, here's your hope it will one day catch on
"The US is set to surpass Saudi Arabia in energy production exports by year end"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PI21B

My belief is always big business controls government because it's impossibly expensive to run for a national office and every DC politician owes their career to one business or another, or multiple.

Point is, it's also my conjectured belief the oil rich US was pumping oil out of Saudi so we'd be the eventual last card holders of such a huge and important industry. Well, they're starting to realize the growing support for renewables and have recently been pumping out their stock like it's going out of fashion.

Just saying, hope is on the horizon. But we still have a fuck ton of valuable oil to sell first. Unfortunately your logic doesn't matter as much as campaign contributions.

[Anonymous No.10454189]

>>10452093
>The sun IS nuclear
The sun would kill us if it were on our planet. So don't do it?

[Anonymous No.10454196]

>>10454042
If the only thing to risk is public opinion than it sounds like they have nothing to lose

[Anonymous No.10454216]

>>10451558
>Fukushima will be regarded as one of the worst catastrophes even though nobody died from it...
I do hope that we will actually gradually stop stopping nuclear as the memory gets lost but it wont be a big decision.
On the plus side: our nuclear industry like many others including frances is super corrupt and has a history of ignoring safety guidelines if it helps turn a profit, so stopping it and then rebuilding it from scratch might not end up being a bad idea. Problem is just that we might actually not have the time if global warming does go worst case route...

[Anonymous No.10454809]

>>10453861
Yes, let the government take more of my money to give to companies that may or may not fail. Hundreds of millions were already given to solyndra and they went tits up.

[Anonymous No.10454842]

>>10454189
If sophons are powered by a Dyson surface then I can forego pop-put rights, but only on condition that I can be sent to an origin world with my full consciousness intact.

[Anonymous No.10455403]

>>10448426
>would make millions of jobs
>help struggling industries.
>bring us all together
and live happily ever after and after and after
*slow clap*

Anon, this video is retarded. Ask yourself this following question: "What are the requirements necessary for this option not to work?" Since the video fails to tackle this, you probably shouldn't pay much attention to it.

[Anonymous No.10455417]

>>10448592
>Subsidize it.
this is the single, dumbest thing i CONSTANTLY hear about environmental protection.
subsidizing this shit is as bad as subsidizing hybrid cars - it gets the incentives completely wrong.
People only drive more and use more resources when hybrid cars are subsidized.
Similarly with energy, people will just pump out more energy and use the same amount of fossil fuels.
if anything, there needs to be a tax on carbon emissions as it actually gets the incentives correct - pushing the industry towards alternative modes of energy production that do NOT use fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.10455423]

>>10452093
>stop using so much power
>stop living easier lives.
lol okay nerd.