/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10580116]

Give it to me straight /sci/. Is man made global warming real? Are we all doomed?

[Anonymous No.10580119]

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10580123]

it's obviously real, only desperate, delusional brainlets like >>10580119 still deny it
we're not doomed yet, there's still hope I think

[Anonymous No.10580132]

>>10580116
Probably real. We'll survive whatever happens I reckon. At least the direct effects. It's certainly possible a bad GW outcome would result in massively raised global tensions that results in nuclear war or some shit.

[Anonymous No.10580133]

>>10580119
>>10580123
Seriously though yes it's real.
Though the overwhelming majority of output comes from India and China, so western nations hamstringing themselves while these other nations do nothing is putting fingers in dykes and delaying inevitable disaster.
We all share 1 atmosphere, it's not like they can fuck up theirs and we still have ours.

There is also a large amount of (I would say justified) cynicism because oftentimes people who speak of wanting to control carbon emissions and any other process impacting the environment, very quickly want to control all aspects of people's lives.

For example, gender/immigration politics bullshit was in the Paris climate agreements and this is seen as a thin end of a wedge of bullshit people would just rather give a middle finger to and tell it's proponents to get lost.
These same people also loathe nuclear power, often for very stupid reasons.

Also, while many big businesses hate climate change discussion (because their industries pollute), just remember that the whole "green" sector is also an industry in and of itself which also wants to make money.

tl;dr
>tell the third world to clean up after itself and if they fuck everything up for the rest of us, don't be a sap and let them crash at your house

[Anonymous No.10580137]

>>10580133
Don't western countries produce far more shit per capita though?

[Anonymous No.10580139]

>>10580137
They do indeed. But if my neighbour has 4 pickup trucks I got to have mine as well otherwise I might seem as a failure on Facebook

[Anonymous No.10580145]

>>10580116

Very real and certainly man made. CO2 exerts a strong influence on the atmosphere's total infra red absorptivity, and industrial human activity is increasing its atmospheric concentration at rates far greater than natural systems. The thermodynamics don't lie.

The problem does not pose a threat to life on Earth. It has been through far worse. It does however pose something of a threat to human civilisation, though the extent of the threat is somewhat speculative at this point.

Since I'm an optimist in questions of human ingenuity I'm reasonably confident we'll be able to innovate our way out of the problem through some form of geoengineering. Poor people in the global south might have shit time, but that's life. I'm stoked to be born a westerner and we can't save everyone.

>>10580137
This. Western countries are by far the biggest emitters per capita. This is THE measure to use given everyone wants to live like a westerner and have Western standards of living.

[Anonymous No.10580149]

You should have also mentioned consumption and yes.
But there are just so fucking many of them that through sheer weight of numbers it crushes the metrics.
Also, through little to no environmental control it means they pollute at staggering rates. You've seen plenty of pictures I'm sure of work accidents in China that could be prevented through very obvious, already available means, well now just realize they apply that same philosophy towards fucking up the environment. The Indian subcontinent is hardly any better on the whole.

It's also why I invite anybody bringing in allegations of "racism" in discussions on third world consumption rates to throw themselves in front of a train, since they place their own moral grandstanding above hard to have discussions.
If these people keep coming into the west where they then start to engage in western consumption rates, it only accelerates environmental damage, but big corps want to sell shit to them and land owners want to raise the value of their land (many of Sweden's politicians own a lot property, this is rarely mentioned) so we're in this kind of "half awake - half asleep" level of awareness on the issue.

I feel like western nations (and certain east asian nations such as Japan and South Korea) were already on track to reducing outputs because birth rates are declining so much, which would be great too as it makes a lot of other jobs more competitive if there are less people and finally younger people have more affordable homes and of course with less people there is a lot less consumption. But fuck nice things, we have to import more people to keep financial schemes going and you better fucking believe big finance has a lot of pull.

[Anonymous No.10580151]

>>10580149
replying to >>10580137

[Anonymous No.10580152]

>>10580116
Yep, it's all fucked. Although, it's not the temperature you need to be worrying about, it's the ever-rising CO2 levels that are causing the oceans to rise in acidity. Creatures that rely on calcification will no longer be able to calcify shit, which means lol nomoreshelter UUUU to a fuckload of marine life, including those really cool coral reefs which are going to basically all going to die. Oh not to mention, those coral reefs are symbiotic with basically a fuckload of other species as well. And not to say that they're all gonna go extinct or something, but at some point it's going to take these creatures more energy than they're able to consume to survive, which kind of means that they're going to die much sooner and with a much lower chance of having reproduced (aka extinct eventually). This is gonna have a domino effect which basically leads to the extinction of a shitload of species of flora and fauna, and shit like this is going to domino effect its way into the surface level as well, because the food-chain is all gay'd up.
What's almost as bad is that there are almost 0 fucking efforts to put a stop to invasive species from ravaging the local animals, aka you have a bunch of apex predator dogs and cats running around killing a bunch of really important and specialised animals that are irreplaceable to that region's eco-system. (Not to mention the spread of invasive fungi and whatnot ie the one killing bats and frogs en mass in North and South America.)
There is a book called the 6th extinction that I would highly recommend for the little nit-picky details and analysis of the issue in depth. To put it bluntly, there's a mass die-off going on right now that is going to be named after Humanity, because we're the main perpetrators of it.

It may not be the "o no end of the woooorld" scenario, but it's not going to be fun either.

[Anonymous No.10580159]

>>10580149
>But there are just so fucking many of them that through sheer weight of numbers it crushes the metrics.
Fair. But it's legitimately seen as bullshit for western countries to be telling developing countries they aren't allowed to create as much emissions per capita as we do because the planet can't handle it, and they should just stick with lower standards of living for longer while wastern countries take their sweet time lowering their own emissions per capita.

The ultimate goal should be to allow all countries to have developed economies and for emissions per capita to be sustainable on a global scale. There's nothing stopping the west from dropping our emissions to what 4rd world countries have now, except that we really really don't want to. And by the same token developing countries don't want to continue keeping their entire populations in low standards of living either.

[Anonymous No.10580164]

>>10580145
>poses a threat to human civilisation
I accept it. We're at unsustainable levels of biomass anyways. Maybe it's just time that mother nature implemented a human die-off

[Anonymous No.10580177]

>>10580159
It might not be fair, but if we are concerning ourselves purely with saving the planet then there isn't any wiggle room. We're not going to burn down our societies and live like shit just so they feel better, but we *can* cut down the excesses.

They could try not having populations in the billions, that would be a big help. You can even have them live first world lifestyles if there are less than 100m of them.

>The ultimate goal should be to allow all countries to have developed economies and for emissions per capita to be sustainable on a global scale

There is just no way these two things go together at this rate. Though we can improve technology so our extractions of resources and manufacturing of products are more sustainable.

>And by the same token developing countries don't want to continue keeping their entire populations in low standards of living either.

True, because even though we can discuss and develop more environmentally friendly means of production, they will ultimately *always* pick what is cheaper which is also why they pollute so fucking much, they really don't give a shit because implementing all the safety controls we have costs a lot.

It's why I advocate for less people in these places, they can keep using shitty practices as much as they like if there are as many of them as there are of us in the west. So we can combine our ideas and burn this stick from both ends.

Just remember one thing.
People who brag about not having kids and try and preach they're saving the planet, but advocate for constant unskilled immigration on humanitarian grounds (and these people breed like crazy) are some of the stupidest, most evil people on earth and you should hate them because their signalling desires counteract all actual environmental saving efforts.

>>10580164
I've spoken with a few environmentalists who unironically hope for WW3 and Armageddon, just because they're that desperate to relieve human pressure on the environment.

[Anonymous No.10580180]

>brainlet finally figures out that he was wrong after witnessing it in person
How does it feel knowing that the "libshits" were right all along?

[Anonymous No.10580188]

>>10580177
>There is just no way these two things go together at this rate.
why?

[Anonymous No.10580190]

>>10580123
There's always hope but the longer we wait the more damages we will incur.
Our standard of living is going to drop. The question is how much, and whose.

[Anonymous No.10580194]

>>10580188
Because if we had the entire world's population consuming and producing at the highest rates, we'd fuck up the environment too fast to save it.
Don't think I was calling you foolish or something, I wasn't implying that in my tone.

[Anonymous No.10580195]

>>10580177
Maybe if we weren't massive pussies and just neutered and spayed all of the literal unproductive human garbage in the world, we wouldn't have this whole over-population issue.

I don't get it. In the states, you have to have a license to drive, to carry a pistol, to be a doctor, to do a lot of shit, and ironically enough, they'll either allow it or not based on a series of tests they give you to prove that you're worthy enough to take on the responsibilities of these things. But thennnn, there's reproducing, which can happen at any given point after your love juices start flowing, and it's unrestricted because "muh free love brooooo, what are you a fucking old maaaaan???"

>hur dur you need special test to carry a means of self defence, but you don't need one to bring another unnecessary, consuming human into the world.

Having children should be a privilege at this point, not a right.

[Anonymous No.10580197]

>>10580194
>Because if we had the entire world's population consuming and producing at the highest rates, we'd fuck up the environment too fast to save it.
Ans what's so hard about dropping consumption rates in first world nations?

[Anonymous No.10580202]

>>10580197
How far do you want to drop them?

Alright, tell me your ideas.

[Anonymous No.10580204]

>>10580197
Our economy is based on consumption. If we are not consuming the economy goes to shit.

Of course it is not some law of the universe that is has to be this way. It is just our current iteration of capitalism that works this way.

[Anonymous No.10580209]

>>10580202
let's say 50% over 10 years. At the same time making remaining consumption more carbon efficient. The goal being to being western consumption levels down to match developing country emissions maximum targets.

Simply tax carbon enough until the economy figures out how to avoid it.

[Anonymous No.10580212]

>>10580204
>If we are not consuming the economy goes to shit.
The economy is also based on having an environment that is conducive to the production and maintenance of human wealth. Thus there is a trade off to be made. Some short term economic pain will be needed to gain long term economic prosperity.

[Anonymous No.10580222]

>>10580212
So basically we need to switch to non-polluting energy sources that would require some serious innovating on an international scale? I can't find anything wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.10580229]

>>10580222
Nothing wrong with it at all. It's simply challenging.

[Anonymous No.10580232]

>>10580195
How do you punish an "illegal breeder" without also punishing their children? One of two things need to become a reality before we can ethically control population: 1. the abolition of the family unit, and all children bred and raised by the state, or 2. a safe, easy, fully reversible (and mandatory) sterilization procedure done on all newborns and only lifted after earning a breeding license. Even then there will end up being underground markets for illegal sterilization reversals and such, and you end up with the same potential problem of punishing children for the crimes of their parents.

[Anonymous No.10580240]

>>10580229
That's why I advocate for it. I mean, look around. We're in a period of stagnation in almost all fields as far as I can tell. Math is a mental circle-jerk, Theoretical-Physics is a bunch of circle jerking, computer science is at a standstill it would seem, and nobody really shows interests in the concept of quantum computing with the exception of us autists. Don't get me started on the space industry. The energy industry hasn't changed, meanwhile the way we live has drastically, even on the level of "Instead of using glassware, we use plastics" or the fact that there's literally so many people now that finding a job is practically impossible. We've become so lazy that we're willing to destroy the Earth instead of actually trying to rub our monkey neurons together and make something happen worthwhile that would probably end up answering all of those mathematician's and pseudo-scientist's answers anyway.
>tfw only advancements I can think of are in military tech, and even it's shit
It's sad when even a /k/ommando is bummed out by the advancement of war-tech.

[Anonymous No.10580241]

>>10580137
They do, but due to government regulations and environmental technology advances, they end up polluting much less overall.

100 cars fresh out of the dealership in any first world nation pollutes far less than your typical 2-stroke mototaxi in South Asia or a 40 year old car w/o a catalytic converter.

[Anonymous No.10580242]

>>10580240
What are you actually advocating for exactly? What are you against?

[Anonymous No.10580244]

>>10580116
Yea it's real and we are all gona die from it, but don't worry, the hole in the O-zone layer is going to kill us all first, but it's OK because we are all going to die before that from lumberjacks cutting down the amazon rain forest but it's OK because before that we are all going to die in a ball of radiation from nuclear power plant melt downs because it's only a matter of time before every nuclear power plant turns into Chernobyl AND YET NOBODY WILL LISTEN AND WE KEEP USING NUCLEAR POWER!

[Anonymous No.10580247]

>>10580241
>They do, but due to government regulations and environmental technology advances, they end up polluting much less overall.
What the fuck does that mean? If they pollute more per capita but less over all then that's purely a function of the fact that there's lower populations in first world countries.

>100 cars fresh out of the dealership in any first world nation pollutes far less than your typical 2-stroke mototaxi in South Asia or a 40 year old car w/o a catalytic converter.
Which means nothing if the pollution per capita is still much higher in the west. Among other reasons, simply because first worlders can afford more gas.

[Anonymous No.10580248]

>>10580244
>it's only a matter of time before every nuclear power plant turns into Chernobyl
stop

[Anonymous No.10580251]

>>10580248
That was sarcasm. I thought it would be easy enough to tell.

[Anonymous No.10580256]

>>10580251
oh thank god.

Poe's law got me again.

[Anonymous No.10580259]

>>10580212
The problem is that a lot of people are employed in wasteful consumerist industries.
All of these people are producing waste that we could do without, but these people would be unemployed otherwise.

[Anonymous No.10580260]

What would be the most kino environmental disaster?

Global warming?
Global dimming?
Nuclear winter?
Hydroxyl collapse?

[Anonymous No.10580263]

>>10580259
Just make everyone work on farms like the old days.

[Anonymous No.10580264]

>>10580232
I wouldn't advocate for something that extreme. I want to be reasonable, not Brave New World level autism. The way I'd do it though is by actually enforcing the family unit in the event that someone breeds out of line. So, you have a girl who has a child out of term? What you'd do is make it mandatory that she be put into a forced relationship with the father (he plays a part too.) The couple would then decide amongst themselves who is going to be the one who relinquishes their personal pursuits in order to become a full-time parent, they would testify their decision before a court, and a role-switch would be allowed every 4 years. The couple would receive assistance from the government in regards to couple's counselling and overall good parenting advice based on pure statistics and facts (no propaganda shit). If the couple cannot afford housing, or are low income, they would receive financial aid. This is because in my society, the welfare of the people comes first, not the money involved. I like to think of a country as a massive clan or family, and in my family, we don't mind spending dollars that we give imaginary value to in order to improve one another's quality of life. This would go on until the child is 16 years old. At this point, the parents would be allowed to stay together, or separate, their choice.

>>10580242
I advocate for a radical change in how society works. A society in which people value reason, and a society that takes responsibility for its actions. I want a society that innovates, thinks, questions, wonders. I want to see people start trying to make what would be headlines today the norm. I want to see people pumping out new tech and answering the questions we've pondered on for a millennia like they were basic math. Basically, humanity needs to hurry the fuck up and evolve already, I want to be an interstellar species.

[Anonymous No.10580303]

>>10580263
Go back to the afterlife, Pol Pot.

[Anonymous No.10580306]

>>10580260
Yellowstone going off while that huge methane pocket finally bursts so we all die from a humongous lit fart.

[Anonymous No.10580308]

>>10580303
I too was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.10580312]

>>10580306
Seriously though, just how fucked are you if you live in the states when that goes down? (Texas specifically >~> )

[Anonymous No.10580315]

>>10580312
Texas would be comparatively ok, if you're under red then F

[Anonymous No.10580319]

>>10580315
Hey, that's not so bad.
RIP yanks tho lmao. Don't worry, there's plenty of room in West Texas and New Mexico for a continent's worth of people.

[Anonymous No.10580320]

>>10580137
yes but the poltard brain can only comprehend absolute numbers, except when it comes to nigger crime

[Anonymous No.10580325]

>>10580306
Yellowstone would be kino for sure, but I'm thinking of man-made cases.

[Anonymous No.10580329]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

I like think of global warming as a formula of how much energy is needed to heat something up.
>the mass of earth's atmosphere
>requires X amount of energy to heat up 2-3 degrees
>we've been burning shit on an industrial scale nonstop for 200 years
>pumping man made energy into the atmosphere
I'm sure all that energy sums up nicely.

[Anonymous No.10580341]

>>10580325
Ah right, so whats a hydroxyl collapse? Sounds gnarly.

>>10580320
This is an 18+ website

[Anonymous No.10580352]

>>10580329
>I like think
Well you should stop thinking that, because it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.10580353]

>>10580341
http://www.exitmundi.nl/hydroxyl.htm

Basically, the substance that cleans the atmosphere would give out and pollution would simply stop fading until the whole world is a smoggy mess.

[Anonymous No.10580359]

>>10580341
what are you even implying?

[Anonymous No.10580364]

>>10580359
That people with hate boners for calling things racist have very small brains and even smaller dicks.

[Anonymous No.10580366]

>>10580364
who's calling anything racist. what an idiot, at least you're smug about it

[Anonymous No.10580371]

There is no precedent for this sharp, geologically instantaneous rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, among various other things.
Antarctic ice shelves are decreasing, sea levels are increasing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2749/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise/
As white, reflective ice melts, it is usually replaced with dark, heat absorbent water. This in turn cases more ice melt, which causes more water to be exposed, which causes more ice melt and so on.
Ice core samples and other natural records of past climate do not show the CO2 levels of the atmosphere jumping up to 400 ppm and falling back down just as quickly. In the case of ice-core samples you absolutely would be able to see changes on those time scales as well. There have been none in the past 800,000 years.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
This also isn't the natural oscillations the Earth has in climate, caused by the imperfect orbit of the Earth's axis is periodic and regular, happening at around 23,000 year intervals, not 200 years.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Milankovitch

All that being said, theres nothing we can do to stop this cycle. Even if we died tomorrow, climate change would still happen. It's not the end of the world, and life will probably THRIVE, especially if humans die off.
That's the problem however, the ways the climate are changing will likely not be ideal for us. There's no reason to continue making it worse even though it's impossible to stop. Would you rather hit a brick wall going walking speed, or highway speed?

[Anonymous No.10580382]

>>10580248
Not that anon but there have been two serious nuclear fission disasters in the past 60 years. The areas affected will be contaminated for thousands or even tens of thousands of years.
So how about in 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years?
How many nuclear disasters will there be by then? How much land will be contaminated?

[Anonymous No.10580386]

>>10580382
>contaminated for thousands or even tens of thousands of years
bullshit

[Anonymous No.10580389]

>>10580382
One disaster happened because a bunch of brainlets were in charge of Chernobyl (and were running tests on reactor safety at the time of a shift change, not telling the new guys that came in) and the other was an earthquake and tsunami hitting a reactor at the same time and they are still being fucking cagey about the exact nature of what caused things and what more could have been done.

These are to very extreme examples, we have plenty of other nuclear reactors running all the time. Nuclear power is great.

PS: Wouldn't even give a fuck if we had more Chernobyls, S.T.A.L.K.E.R was fucking kino af

[Anonymous No.10580391]

What will the future be like?
How can I prepare, any tools or things to buy now to have in stock for when shit goes down?

[Anonymous No.10580392]

>>10580389
Chernobyl literally doesn't count because commies have reverse midas touch and Fukushima had already received warnings I believe, and it still took the worst earthquake in their recorded history and only killed 1 person. Far more people have died for example to hydroelectric dams breaking or to pollution from thermal plants.

[Anonymous No.10580399]

>>10580389
>These are to very extreme examples, we have plenty of other nuclear reactors running all the time. Nuclear power is great.
Look, if I gave you a bowl of skittles...

[Anonymous No.10580403]

>>10580392
Points taken and yes, communists are fucking morons and evil.

>>10580399
If skittles were essential to modern life and there were hundreds of skittles in there, yes I'd eat them.

[Anonymous No.10580407]

>>10580386
Plutonium-239 has a half life of ~24,000 years. Plutonium from Chernobyl is still detectable in places like Belarus even to this day.
Add some more accidents into the mix and that will only increase over time.
Remember, it only took 60 years for two serious nuclear disasters to happen. Accidents will happen again. Humans have a pretty shitty track record with nuclear so far, seeing as we have to consider thousands of years into the future.

>>10580389
>One disaster happened because
Accidents happen. Even planes, by far the safest mode of transportation, have accidents.
Pretending accidents and fuck ups aren't going to happen is unrealistic.

[Anonymous No.10580415]

>>10580407
Accidents do happen, but the difference between a nuclear reactor and a plane is that we don't have to worry about dying from radiation sickness or desolating the land for a fuckload of years when a plane crashes.

[Anonymous No.10580417]

>>10580403
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is not. And so far we were only looking at a few that had major accidents, sellafield kept dumping contaminated water in the ocean, three mile island was also not very nice. If you look at the status of current power plants and see how many have structural damage, aren't prepared for emergency, don't have the plans they are required to have, don't have labels on different water pipes (primary/secondary cooling circuit), it's a huge wonder nothing more happened. We should be thankful and either enforce current security regulations more or just close them down. Not to mention all the radioactive waste.

[Anonymous No.10580420]

>>10580407
>Remember, it only took 60 years for two serious nuclear disasters to happen
And technology and safety measures get better and better as time go on.
Thinking that you can--

a- Create a 'trend' based on literally only 2 cases
b- That even if you could that rate of accident would remain the same in the future

--is pretty moronic.

[Anonymous No.10580426]

>>10580420
Pretty moronic? PRETTY MORONIC? Ahah
Do you realize we're talking about n nucular weapons here, MORON?

[Anonymous No.10580430]

>>10580407
You're right, it is unrealistic.
It's also unrealistic to live life only if you can have 100% guaranteed safety.

The real issue here isn't so much "nuclear power" but "power" itself, we want energy and we place enough of a priority on it's generation we accept the risks instead of living in caves. Coal generates waste, hydro requires a dam, geothermal requires volcanic activity and wind, solar and tidal are memes for hippies. (Ok seriously the last 3 are alright but you cannot power the whole earth on them, they are supplemental)

>>10580417
Reactors are already better now than they were then, a lot of waste can also be recycled now and if you want to bury it there are plenty of places to bury shit.

[Anonymous No.10580433]

>>10580426
Why are you talking like a JRPG villain?

[Anonymous No.10580445]

>>10580420
>a- Create a 'trend' based on literally only 2 cases
There are plenty of other near nuclear disasters such as three mile Island, multiple undetonated nuclear weapons that were lost, hundreds of stolen nuclear bombs, radiation leaks in storage facilities, and worst of all most of our radio active waste is NOT in long term storage.
It only takes one fuck up to contaminate land for very long periods of time.

[Anonymous No.10580451]

>>10580430
>there are plenty of places to bury shit.
Not in Europe, but I feel like we've talked about this before.

[Anonymous No.10580457]

>>10580430
By the time the process actually starts to build more nuclear reactors, ITER will be online. SPARC and other small scale fusion reactors will also have nearly a decade under their belt by that point.
Why even build something that has such an extreme amount of risk when a far more efficient method is on the horizon?

[Anonymous No.10580462]

>>10580177
>maybe everyone but Americans should just try not living
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10580464]

>>10580451
Why can't you bury them in the alps?
Why can't they just be dumped in the Sahara?

And since we are there, why can't nuclear waste just be sunk in the middle of the Atlantic? Like in the Mariana Trench, what danger could that even pose?

[Anonymous No.10580468]

>>10580451
Then come bury it here in Australia.

>>10580457
This is German meme technology and I have had so many false starts on this I will absolutely refuse to believe it's real until you run it independently.
(but yes, if you get that working then you win and we'll enter the new age together)

[Anonymous No.10580469]

>>10580445
>It only takes one fuck up to contaminate land for very long periods of time.
And normal operation of of current power plants fucks up the whole planet permanently.

[Anonymous No.10580474]

>>10580462
Not even American, you absolute deadshit.
Also, this isn't population reduction via death squads.

>>10580464
>dude just dump nuclear waste in the ocean lmao

Ok I chuckled, but seriously put it in the desert.

[Anonymous No.10580477]

>>10580329
Yeah that's a completely wrong understanding of global warming, the only thing with enough energy to heat the earth is the sun.

[Anonymous No.10580479]

>>10580469
There isn't an either or here. You can reduce greenhouse gas output without using nuclear fission. Yes that means we'll burn more fossil fuels than if we had used more fission, but as stated above new fission reactors wouldn't be built until things like ITER are running.

[Anonymous No.10580482]

>>10580474
>if there were only 100m people in India afrika south America and china they could live at a higher standard of living
>I'm not calling for deathsquads
Wat

[Anonymous No.10580484]

>>10580474
>Ok I chuckled, but seriously put it in the desert.
No, I'm serious, why would that be a bad thing? I'm sure that there are plenty of suboceanic volcanoes dumping tons of radioactive matter.

[Anonymous No.10580490]

>>10580479
>You can reduce greenhouse gases by burning more fossil fuel

[Anonymous No.10580491]

Nuke plants are better than coal but massive startups costs and the nuclear proliferation issue make them non viable for most of the developing world. Which is where clean energy is needed the most.

[Anonymous No.10580499]

>>10580490
>You can win arguments with strawmen
Solar is getting cheaper and more efficient as time goes on. It won't provide baseline power, but it will reduce how much fossil fuels we use to generate electricity.
Electric cars are becoming more and more affordable and common. Yes, they still contribute to fossil fuel usage thanks to power generation, but compared to a ICE vehicle they contribute less.

[Anonymous No.10580500]

>Are we all doomed?
Don't believe those who makes apocalyptic predictions!
The mayans predicted apocalypse at 2012.
But we are still here.

>Is man made global warming real?
The global warming hoax is fake. You know that. Or else you would not ask if it's real.

[Anonymous No.10580503]

>>10580482
Yes.
I like to call it the "Stop having 20 kids each" strategy.
If they stop breeding tremendously, and have a few kids instead then over time they will reach a more sustainable level.

I'm fucking sick of the third world's overpopulation problem being presented to the first as our problem. It's emotional blackmail propagated by assholes and believed by retards.

>>10580484
Environmental impact from it drifting around and there are a lot more factors that will go into creating environmental impact problems than if we just put it in a cold hole in a featureless desert.

[Anonymous No.10580504]

>>10580499
>Yes, they still contribute to fossil fuel usage thanks to power generation

Depends on the local grid’s energy makeup. Most states in the U.S are at least ten percent renewable.

[Anonymous No.10580529]

>>10580382
>So how about in 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years?
none, because safer reactor designs.

Also the risk of destruction of the usefulness of land by climate change is not 0 either.

[Anonymous No.10580532]

>>10580503
>Environmental impact from it drifting around and there are a lot more factors that will go into creating environmental impact problems than if we just put it in a cold hole in a featureless desert.
Why wouldn't that already be a problem with natural radioactive matter constantly being released in the oceans.
I think you are underestimating how huge oceans are and how little nuclear waste would be produced.

[Anonymous No.10580536]

>>10580503
>caring about other people is emotional blackmail
Part of the tragedy of the human condition.

[Anonymous No.10580551]

>>10580532
Look man, you'll get a lot less negative press if you put it in the desert than if you put it in the oceans and now the hippies are photoshopping you dumping cans of toxic waste on dolphins and now they're harassing you in your driveway when you leave to work, it's just not worth it homie.

>>10580536
No, being asked to subsidize the existence of people who aren't me or my community or culture who likely fucking hate me (if the great amount of data we have about third world immigration into Europe is anything to go by) is a fucking stupid idea.

Stop polluting your country, asshole.

[Anonymous No.10580560]

>>10580551
>being asked to subsidize the existence of people who aren't me
Only if you have psychopathic personality traits. Most people would happily pay some money to avoid seeing some kids starve to death or get blown to bits. Whether or not that's good for anyone in the long run is another matter.

Also supporting countries that aren't you financially can be a lot cheaper than not supporting them. Geopolitics is funny like that.

[Anonymous No.10580571]

>>10580560
>Most people would happily pay some money to avoid seeing some kids starve to death or get blown to bits.
But they don't. They want to use YOUR money to do that.

[Anonymous No.10580575]

>>10580560
>Only if you have psychopathic personality traits.

You have to be a psycho to even use this shitty argument tactic and only smooth brains here are going to fall for it.
You care more about your family and those more similar to you than those you don't. This is a statement of fact.

We're not talking about me donating 20 bucks to a charity, we are talking about nations giving hundreds of millions to billions in "aid" packages which is money extracted from taxpayers.

If you can't tell the difference between these two things, fuck you and whatever hick town you live in for producing such a low level manipulative dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10580576]

>>10580571
>But they don't
Most people I know do.

[Anonymous No.10580581]

>>10580116
>we all
It's mostly the vastly overpopulated countries who's population are in the greatest danger.

It's rather difficult to kill of 7+ billion individuals of any species.

[Anonymous No.10580582]

>>10580116
> Is man made global warming real? Are we all doomed?
Yes. And yes.
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY

Millions aren't migrating north from Central America because of "gang violence". That's the bullshit cover story. Venezuelans are starving, and Hondurans are migrating north en masse because climate change is already here.

[Anonymous No.10580583]

>>10580576
How many of them are sharing their homes with hobos or fresh-from-the-boat immigrants?

[Anonymous No.10580585]

>>10580575
>we are talking about nations giving hundreds of millions to billions in "aid" packages which is money extracted from taxpayers.
And people voting for that shit too. Not only do people send this aid because they don't like looking at sad kids on tv, but because it's often in their direct interests. The aid often has the goal of preventing a region from becoming destabilised or having some loyalty to the western countries coughing up the cash.

A lot of tough nuts on /pol/ certainly think the world would be better if the west keep all its money to itself and let the rest of the world rot if it can;t stand on its own. Rarely do I find this strategy is very well thought out and is mostly based on being emotionally upset about tax money being spent on something they don't like.

[Anonymous No.10580592]

>>10580583
None that I know of. That would be stupid.

[Anonymous No.10580596]

>>10580582
I'm scared bros

[Anonymous No.10580602]

>>10580592
Why would that be stupid?

[Anonymous No.10580604]

>>10580585
The west can "help" by not supporting so many fucking wars and more specifically, by further distancing itself from the politics of the USA which is obsessed with fucking up the third world. Watch for China doing the same in Africa, it is already happening.

If the USA wants to help Venezuela, they can start by stopping the fucking sanctions they are imposing on them.

[Anonymous No.10580611]

>>10580602
Because you'd want to at least do background checks and shit on everyone you were letting into your home. Letting hobos into your home isn't so bad so long as you have reason to know they'll be okay or whatever.

[Anonymous No.10580618]

>>10580604
>Watch for China doing the same in Africa, it is already happening.
China investing heavily in Africa is all the more reason for europe and US to do it to. The west does not want Africa developing into a productive continent that is overwhelmingly controlled by China.

[Anonymous No.10580622]

>>10580611
>Because you'd want to at least do background checks and shit on everyone you were letting into your home.
Why can't we do the same with people trying to enter our nation?

[Anonymous No.10580627]

>>10580116
>Are we all doomed?
Yes

[Anonymous No.10580629]

>>10580618
>China investing heavily in Africa is all the more reason for europe and US to do it to.

Ok, but just remember that no matter how much you help them, they're still going to call you "neo colonials". Also, your second sentence is correct.

[Orbulon, The Intellectual No.10580630]

Thy Orbulon has returned to enlighten /sci/.

While thou 'man-made' global warming exists, thou global warming hast been blown out of proportion for political gains.

[Anonymous No.10580633]

>>10580622
I don't know. You tell me? I'm sure anyone in this thread was arguing we shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.10580635]

>>10580629
Couldn't possibly give less of a shit. All that matters is protecting western interests. It's not even a bad way of protecting global stability either.

[Anonymous No.10580692]

>>10580622
Just what do you think the immigration process requires?
Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.10580698]

You can add snow to the list of renewable, this is gonna be big in winter when solar is not as efficient, complementing each other

[Anonymous No.10580718]

>>10580627
Humanity won't survive the bigger Apocalypse.

[Anonymous No.10580724]

>>10580718
*Nigger

[Anonymous No.10581187]

>>10580116
Sure, but not as exaggerated as people are saying, and not caused by man. Exacerbated, perhaps.

it's literally nothing to worry about

[Anonymous No.10581192]

>>10580582
excellent bait

[Anonymous No.10581221]

>Is man made global warming real?
Yes.
>Are we all doomed?
No one knows, as the effects become more pronounced it's becoming clear we have no fucking idea what the end result of will be.
My personal greatest concern is acidification of the oceans but that might turn out to be the least of our worries.

[Anonymous No.10581257]

>>10580137
produce? not necessarily... comsume is the more impactful stat

[Anonymous No.10581263]

>>10581187
well you're "literally" wrong.

[Anonymous No.10581272]

>>10581263
No, because it's been happening for thousands of years already. We have a tiny sample size that most people look at.

Ignoring that, we need to focus on actual problems, like the pollution itself that is coming from places like china and india, and the rapid species loss that we're facing.

Bonus: dealing with these is very similar to dealing with the current "global warming" scare anyway, just not as extreme.

[Anonymous No.10581273]

>>10581257
Western countries consume far more CO2 per capita than developing countries? err... neat.

[Anonymous No.10581284]

>>10581272
No, because you're wrong, CO2 production by man has a direct warming effect.

[Anonymous No.10581288]

>>10581272
Why is global warming "nothing to worry about"?

[Anonymous No.10581290]

>>10581284
but it's inconsequential to the current situation. I even mentioned that man-made pollution might exacerbate it, but it's not enough to actually accelerate the heating in any relevant manner.

[Anonymous No.10581292]

>>10581288
because it's not affecting us for at least several hundred years, and might even stop on its own before it actually does effect us.

[Anonymous No.10581294]

>>10581290
Mhmm yes, please continue explaining why you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.10581299]

>>10581292
>because it's not affecting us for at least several hundred years
Most studies show much faster than that. Cities don't need to be under water for us to be affected. We're already seeing a lot more hurricanes and droughts ect. It's also a concern that if we don't reverse things soon the whole thing might "run away" and continue warming regardless of what we do.

[Anonymous No.10581310]

>>10581294
Last (You) for you

>>10581299
And all the studies have been wrong. Don't you remember predictions of the entirety of the arctic circle being ice-free a couple years ago? The predicted date, I mean. Every study or date for milestones keeps being pushed further back and further back, every year.

I think neither of us are going to get anywhere in convincing the other though, so if it doesn't annoy you, I'd like to go ahead and end the argument.

[Anonymous No.10581348]

>>10580407
>Plutonium from Chernobyl is still detectable in places like Belarus even to this day.
I fucking hate this argument. you're right, but we can detect it because our instruments are extremely sensitive.

[Anonymous No.10581360]

>>10581310
>prediction
>studies
You seem very confused virtually all IPCC predictions have proved too conservative, you might want to educate yourself and be more critical of the media you consume.

[Anonymous No.10581671]

>>10581310
>Don't you remember predictions of the entirety of the arctic circle being ice-free a couple years ago?
Not particularly. But one, or many studies being wrong among thousands does not mean the earth is not warming due to human activity. The last 10 years have all been the warmest in recorded history.

[Anonymous No.10581688]

>>10581348
There are still regions in Germany where you shouldn't pick mushrooms because of Cs-137 from Chernobyl.

[Anonymous No.10581694]

>>10581310
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10581703]

>>10581272
>happening for thousands of years already. We have a tiny sample size that most people look at.
Do you actually believe what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.10581863]

>>10581688
>>10581694

[Anonymous No.10581875]

>>10581863
http://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mushrooms-game/mushrooms-game_node.html

[Anonymous No.10581913]

>>10581875
I refuse to believe your crap

[Anonymous No.10581916]

>>10581913
i mean at least your honest about it

[Anonymous No.10581922]

>>10581916
unlike you

[Anonymous No.10581927]

>>10581922
OK I'll be honest I've been ignoring everything you say cause you seem like you have trouble getting out of bed in the morning let alone make a coherent argument on a Mongolian basket weaving forum .

[Anonymous No.10581930]

>>10580222
>So basically we need to switch to non-polluting energy sources that would require some serious innovating
We have had an energy source that is non-polluting and scalable to our needs for the better part of 100 years. The only people standing in the way are radicalized environmentalists.

[Anonymous No.10581932]

>>10581348
>I fucking hate this argument
you hate all arguments that make you look and sound stupid. understandable.

[Anonymous No.10581938]

>>10581930
what's your solution to the proliferation issue? Nuke plants are a possible solution for first world countries but for developing nations they just aren't viable.

[Anonymous No.10581947]

>>10580242
I want to see one of the Kardashians become president

[Anonymous No.10581956]

>>10581938
he thinks nuclear is literally so easy any tinpot dictator and his goons could do it, and should. hes also a big believer in MAD. so everyone having nukes = world peace

[Anonymous No.10581963]

>>10581956
For some reason some people don't grasp that MAD only works because so far everyone with nukes has had something to lose.

[Anonymous No.10581968]

>>10581938
>what's your solution to the proliferation issue?

Not that anon and I don't even have an answer. But I'm going to guess that catastrophic effects of global warming will do a lot more damage than nuclear material in the wrong hands

[Anonymous No.10581971]

>>10581963
I dont think it works. but everyone always has something to lose even if they dont know it.

[Anonymous No.10581972]

>>10581968
I guess thermonuclear war would reduce emissions pretty quickly, It kind of defeats the purpose though.

[Anonymous No.10581975]

>>10581938
>Nuke plants are a possible solution for first world countries
Why are't we implementing the solution then?

[Anonymous No.10581978]

>>10581972
War is unlikely because MAD, I was thinking about terrorism from rogue groups

[Anonymous No.10581979]

>>10581968
>catastrophic effects of global warming will do a lot more damage than nuclear material in the wrong hands
you're why people who think global warming is an issue are called alarmists, apparently

[Anonymous No.10581983]

>>10581971
Dictators of shitholes about to be deposed and tortured to death by their subjects generally wouldn't agree with you.

[Anonymous No.10581988]

>>10581983
heh. touche

[Anonymous No.10581999]

>>10581975
because enviros are just big meaniepants and theyre afraid of tech thats literally easy as pie for literally no reason at all

[Anonymous No.10582003]

>>10581975
Complicated answer, main reason is cost, it's very very difficult to convince profitable power companies to shut down existing plants and spend billions to "save the planet" especially when renewable options are getting cheaper and cheaper with much lower initial investment requirements. Even in countries like Germany where the entire country wants to go carbon neutral after Fukushima voters all agreed to close all nuclear plants despite the costs.

[Anonymous No.10582013]

>>10582003
no no no its the envirohippies stopping muh progress. they're evil, and mean.

[Anonymous No.10582017]

>>10582013
lmao what a retard

[Anonymous No.10582018]

>>10581979
I'm trying to alarm people who think global warming is an issue

People who aren't concerned about global warming also aren't concerned about nuclear proliferation.

[Anonymous No.10582021]

>>10581978
Imagine if Gaddafi had had a Nuclear arsenal, the applications would be endless. Everything from blackmailing nearby countries for weapons and supplies, to threatening to nuke rebel cities.

[Anonymous No.10582028]

>>10582018
no no no you dummy its those damn enviroterrorists. they dont care about global warming. they like proliferation and they hate progress and growth and muh 4th gen nuclear.

[Anonymous No.10582034]

>>10582013
>no no no its the envirohippies stopping muh progress. they're evil, and mean.
But that's true. Germany is literally fucking retarded and nowhere close to carbon neutral power generation because they refuse to use nuclear. France is much closer because of their embrace of a proven technology.

[Anonymous No.10582038]

>>10580116

[Anonymous No.10582039]

>>10581975
Maybe if we could actually pass a carbon tax / cap and trade system nuclear would actually be financially viable in the US until then we're just going to keep burning coal and NG because it makes money.

[Anonymous No.10582040]

>>10582021
Is this realistic though? Can a state build a nuclear arsenal without us knowing where everything is and just destroying it with conventional weapons?

States like north korea were propped up by russia, and they've had generations to entrench themselves. I don't see some asshole with no friends that NATO can flip over in a day being able to do that again.

[Anonymous No.10582043]

>>10582034
you are a very smart. are you having hotdog party soon? muh based nuclear shill

[Anonymous No.10582045]

>>10582013
You realize it's the environ-mentals who spazzed out after Fukushima? Same thing happened in Italy where the government held a referendum to reintroduced nuclear after the same mentals had it banned after Chernobyl

[Anonymous No.10582049]

>>10582040
Right now fuck no it's not viable we work really hard to make sure no one but our allies get nukes. But if suddenly every developing nation goes 100% nuclear suddenly regulation becomes almost impossible.

[Anonymous No.10582054]

>>10582039
you can thank niggers for that

[Anonymous No.10582056]

>>10582038
Turns out the media was just as bad at reporting science in the 70s as they are now.

[Anonymous No.10582060]

>>10582054
If by niggers you mean Republicans, yeah pretty much.

[Anonymous No.10582063]

>>10582060
fucking niggers, walking turds

[Anonymous No.10582064]

>>10582049
Yeah but what's the carbon footprint of dictator shitholes? Don't let them have nuclear power then.

[Anonymous No.10582065]

>>10582060
fucking republicans. nuclear is so fuckin easy any retard could do it. people are so fucking stupid. I dont know whether they're too stupid to use nuclear or too stupid to accept it. theyre just so stupid. stupid stupid stupid envirohippies. I hate them all and want them to choke on biodegradable stuff.

[Anonymous No.10582076]

>>10582049
no no no no developing countries get the oil to develop. then they get the nukes once theyre all enlightened and sheit like we are. thats why we're abandoning the oil for the nukes. stupid dumbass. nukes are easy peasy you retard. even you could do it in your basement.

[Anonymous No.10582087]

yes.. give up your car and air conditioner goyim.. stop having kids goyim.. save the planet goyim..

[Anonymous No.10582100]

>>10582064
Here's an easy to read reference guide of counties that probably shouldn't have nukes, purely by coincidence they also need a fuck ton affordable energy.

[Anonymous No.10582108]

>>10582087
The cope and intellectual dishonesty in that facebook post is fucking hilarious.

[Anonymous No.10582109]

China needs to go balls to the wall with molten salt reactors or we're fucked. Everything is hopeless unless they get their shit together. Molten salt is the only nuclear power they can possibly manage, because every plant worker can fall in a sink hole, get stabbed in a knife attack, ran over with a car, or blown up by fireworks, and the radiation will stay contained.

There will never be enough political pressure on the republicans to buck the fossil fuel lobby and nuclearize unless china dickwaves it as superiority.

[Anonymous No.10582124]

>>10582109
China's actually the world leader in renewable tech right now, they're at least slowing down expansion of coal power though as long as their economy is based on feeding the greed of American consumer whores their energy demands will be utterly insane.

[Anonymous No.10582129]

>>10582100
>ukraine shouldn't have nukes
>pakistan shouldn... oh wait they actually already have them.. let me pretend they should be allowed

[Anonymous No.10582130]

>>10580116
>Give it to me straight /sci

[Anonymous No.10582148]

>>10582109
>amerimutts release more than half the co2 china does, despite being 1/3 in population size
>one 20th of the world population emit 15% of the world's co2
>amerimutt has the audacity to talk

[Anonymous No.10582151]

>>10582129
Oddly enough that's almost exactly how nuclear proliferation treaties work.

[Anonymous No.10582179]

>>10582129
fine let me draw a more accurate map.

[Anonymous No.10582221]

>>10582109
>never be enough

[Anonymous No.10582225]

>>10582179
>let me draw a more accurate map
Select all images with tractors

[Anonymous No.10582251]

>>10580195
First world western nations don't have a population problem. Honestly, the only solution is to nuke Africa. Try and miss Egypt and some of the North African countries, but most those chimps gotta go

[Anonymous No.10582284]

>>10580209
That's impossible because "western" countries have cold climates.

[Anonymous No.10582286]

>>10580596
> I'm scared bros
Don't fear the reaper.

[Anonymous No.10582292]

>>10581192
Good guy. Keep shilling the party line for those shekels.

[Anonymous No.10582402]

>>10582056
Source? Need to show this to my boomer dad who still thinks we need to powder the icecaps with coal ash so we don't enter an ice age.

[Anonymous No.10582460]

>>10582402
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Good summery but, I'm sure he thinks that's a website run by a cabal of evil jew lizard silicon based gay alien satanists so here's the direct source as well
>https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[Anonymous No.10582480]

>>10580116
Yes, but global warming is only one consequence of our planetary destruction.

We are more than half way through a major extinction event driven by over consumption, loss of natural habitat, and pollution. Global warming just joined the party.


we're fucked... could be quickly in a few years, could be slower and take a few decades or more.

Personally I think humanity is so resilient that we make it right to the end of this extinction event before civilisation collapses then 99.9% of the human population will die taking with it all the progress we've made since Babylon leaving our few descendent with an uncertain and difficult future.

[Anonymous No.10582984]

>>10581913
Nigger that's the federal office for radiation protection. There literally is no better source for this.

[Anonymous No.10583904]

>>10580116
yeah but these colours have been edited in recent years. im not a climate change denier but the way these charts have become so dramatic in the last three years or so is some elitist influence or something because they have definitely changed it. alice springs is always hot and it wasn't always melting in lava on the charts.

[Anonymous No.10584015]

>>10582480
>humanity is so resilient
selection pressures favor those who can mentally come to terms with mass extinction and biosphere destruction and happily live out their lives consuming away as if nothing is wrong

[Anonymous No.10584022]

>>10582480
>99.9% of the human population will die taking with it all the progress we've made since Babylon
It's ironic how techno-utopianists will be one of the major causes of this

[Anonymous No.10584133]

I skimmed most of this thread, but one sentiment I saw regarding the India and China pollution rates is that they should cut back as much or even more than the USA (which still pollutes more per-capita last I checked, though less than China overall).

The reason they don't (and arguably shouldn't) is due to the fact that the USA (and other western nations) had more years of outright, less-restricted emissions. We had the whole industrial revolution and all that.

People look at the agreements and say "wow China and India aren't cutting back as much as us, no fair!" despite not realizing it's not the "fairest" solution to them either. "Fairest" to them would arguably be cutting back little (or none) until they've had as many years of loose-leashed emissions as we did.

One always retorts with "why not stop everything or cut back high percent% across the board if it's a crisis!" The response is that global warming will create crisis in the form of forced migrations, famine, ecosystem collapses; however, going cold-turkey (or too fast) will cause economic crisis that can result in similar resource shortages (or allocation/logistical issues). The idea is to find a balance that has some bad outcomes on both ends (ecosystem and purely-economic), while minimizing the suffering overall.

To get that balance you need countries to agree to things, though. Hence those who exploited most cutting back a bit more.

>>10582480
I'm curious what you mean by this? Even if temperatures didn't change across the globe, yeah natural habitat loss would cause problems. However, the pollution is causing the temperature changes that result in die offs, and it's driven by, essentially, over-consumption/producing.
Are you simply saying that humanity would have an extinction event even in the absence of temperature changes, so long as those consequences remained? That's true I guess.

[Anonymous No.10584173]

>>10580382
Chernobyl is an extreme anomaly, it was almost designed to fail catastrophically, and those in charge of handling emergencies were criminally incompetent. Fukashima shows how a "normal" worst case scenario plays out. It was also a string of terrible decisions but the end result was far different than Chernobyl. The sea contamination is fucking nothing, anyone who claims to be seriously concerned by that is ignorant being disingenuous. The land contamination is greatly exaggerated, at its worst it's barely twice the background radiation of normal soil. They reacted so strongly to the disaster because they are being extremely cautious and then some, the surrounding land is not hazardous. And even Chernobyl, which is definitely highly contaminated by what was essentially a reactor designed to be a diety bomb, is not some god forsaken wasteland that will never support life again. In fact objectively human civilization is more of a blight on ecology than radioactive fallout as life thrived once all the people left. Ensuring that reactors are designed and maintained properly, and have the appropriate plans for emergencies is extremely important. But per kwh nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest, and most efficient power sources. And now that we have developed a method to cleanly and easily extract uranium from seawater (a process which we already know is essentially renewable, limitless, and does no ecological damage), we could power the entire world on fission until the sun makes the earth uninhabitable. The actual problem with nuclear is that it is extremely expensive and mass roll out requires more workers and technicians to be trained for them whole maintaining safety standards. Though having clean, efficient, safe, plentiful power seems like an existential question rather than economic.

[Anonymous No.10584200]

>>10584133
you seem to think its our fault they have 3 billion people.

[Anonymous No.10584208]

>>10584133
>China and India need to be allowed to wreak untold ecological havoc because Europe got to the industrial revolution first and that’s no fairsies :(
the absolute state of environmentalists

[Anonymous No.10584211]

>>10584208
you sure he's not a commie
or maybe he's a leftist
you seem to not like him

[Anonymous No.10584214]

>>10584173
>we have developed a method to cleanly and easily extract uranium from seawater
just giving you a You and quote so others can avoid reading your retarded nonsense

[Anonymous No.10584218]

>>10582984
>trusting the government

[Anonymous No.10584350]

>>10584208
>>10584200
>Strawmen and red herrings
Nice. I accept your concessions.

>>10584173
Nuclear has some very very strong proponents. I think a lot of people just really like the science. Ultimately I've heard the issue is the cost of setup (for these fancy new reactors) and the time it'd take to recoup that cost. If it had public support then, sure, I suppose it's nice.

[Anonymous No.10584373]

>>10584218
>having a government that's not led by an orange monkey
Can you imagine?

[Anonymous No.10584380]

>>10584200
>>10584208
Imagine if there was a global food shortage and food had to be rationed. These retards would be arguing that Indians and Chinese should go on a diet.

[Anonymous No.10584433]

>>10584373
I can cause I'm a britbong and our country is lead by a useless woman instead.
It doesn't matter who's at the helm, NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.

[Anonymous No.10584436]

>>10584380
Youre amazingly stupid. Lets take your global food shortage analogy for example... you and your retarded followers are in actuality encouraging people who already have enough to eat to eat more. And somehow you actually see it the absolute opposite way. Incredibly. Truly.

If you really cared about climate change you wouldn't be encouraging 3/4 of the worlds population to burn more fossil fuels.

[Anonymous No.10584464]

>>10584380
you and your ilk would be encouraging the Chinese and Indians to have all-you-can-eat buffets because white people had a lot to eat yesterday

[Anonymous No.10584471]

China and India of course need to cut carbon emissions, but the US and Europe need to do it much much more.

[Anonymous No.10584481]

>>10584471
>China and India of course need to cut carbon emissions
well that's obviously not part of their plan.

[Anonymous No.10584558]

>>10584481
Why obviously? Is it part of western countries plan?

[Anonymous No.10584577]

>>10580116
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Haudegen

[Anonymous No.10584586]

>>10584558
because theyre constructing coal power plants

[Anonymous No.10584603]

>>10584586
Which isn't ideal. But they are also investing in green power sources. The west hasn't exactly closed all our coal plants, because dirty power is still needed for grid stability. If all our coal plants blew up, we'd have to build new ones immediately too because you can't simply replace them with solar and wind right now.

[Anonymous No.10584615]

>>10584603
investing in green power sources ≠ reducing emissions

[Anonymous No.10584617]

>>10584615
I think you'll find it does help attain that goal in fact.

[Anonymous No.10584621]

>>10584617
so far it hasn't

[Anonymous No.10584630]

>>10584617
>>10584621
The reason investing in green power sources will not work is due to something called Jevon's paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Look it up. Its a very inconvenient phenomena for people who believe in market based solutions to climate change.

[Anonymous No.10584632]

>>10584621
>MOM WHY AM I STILL HUNGRY I'VE GOT A PLATE FULL OF FOOD AND ALREADY ATE A FRENCH FRY

[Anonymous No.10584635]

>>10584621
Yes, because they are still rapidly developing economies and no one knows how to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into lower-middle class standards of living without burning more fossil fuel to support it. The west, despite being wealthy as fuck and could certainly take the financial hit of rapidly closing coal plants to replace with green shit, no one has great ideas on how exactly to do that yet. But some expect that developing countries shouldn't burn more fossil fuel at all, even though that currently burn far far less per capita then western countries to to maintain western living standards.

No one wants to stay in poverty just to burn less coal, just like most western populations don't want to drop their living standards a pinch to burn less coal. Everyone wants to prevent climate change, but no ones wants to try too hard.

[Anonymous No.10584638]

>>10584630
That's why a carbon tax is important. A carbon tax fixes that. Just set to tax as high as you need to limit carbon emissions to what is acceptable.

[Anonymous No.10584642]

>>10584638
>A carbon tax fixes that.
Fixes what?

[Anonymous No.10584644]

>>10584642
Jevons paradox preventing carbon emissions from going down enough.

[Anonymous No.10584653]

>>10584644
We do have a carbon tax in Europe and it doesn't fix shit

[Anonymous No.10584655]

>>10584644
I dont see how if efficiency increases due to new technology not reducing consumption translates to artificial efficiency decreases (consumption tax) reducing consumption

Jevons paradox seems to suggest consumption is independent of efficiency

[Anonymous No.10584672]

>>10584653
Because it's not high enough brainiac.

>>10584655
I don't see how you don't get it. You set the tax according to overall carbon emissions. Carbon emissions too high? Tax can go higher. Carbon emissions well below acceptable ranges? Tax can go lower. It doesn't matter a shit how efficient tech is.

[Anonymous No.10584673]

>>10584655
* remove 'if' and the sentence makes sense. bad typo.

[Anonymous No.10584679]

>>10584672
ya I get that.
whatever

[Anonymous No.10584688]

>>10584679
>ya I get that.
Then why did you say you don't see how it work then?
>whatever
Why even contribute if you're not even fucked to care about what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.10584689]

>>10584672
>It doesn't matter a shit how efficient tech is.
ya thats what jevons paradox says. it probably goes both ways. increase (or decrease) efficiency and consumption stays the same instead of decreasing (instead of increasing)

[Anonymous No.10584695]

Some things that could work:
>Ban or heavily tax short distance flights
>invest in public transport and bicycle lanes
>make it a pain to use a car in big cities
>require new cars to have low emissions
>invest in renewables

[Anonymous No.10584697]

>>10580116
>Give it to me straight /sci/.
bend over OP i will make you a woman... with disappointing sex and then the sounds of me snoring while you lay in a puddle of sperm oozing from your holes

[Anonymous No.10584728]

>>10584697
>disappointing sex and then the sounds of snoring while laying in a puddle of sperm oozing from your holes

Its what women crave

[Anonymous No.10584740]

>>10584653
You're doing better than murrica so there's that.

[Anonymous No.10584773]

>>10584621
over the past 20 years china has gone from 80%+ of electricity generated from coal to 66% in 2016. Gross emissions haven't gone down due to growthbut if china hadn't invested in renewables they would be considerably higher today. And they're picking up the pace they've recently been canceling construction on hundreds of coal plants.

[Anonymous No.10584794]

>>10584653
>carbon emission in europe are going down, but it doesn't fix shit