There is a Climate Emergency!!!

[Anonymous No.11020746]

>There is a climate urgency!!!
>Fine let's rapidly build more nuclear power plants, convert to electricity and gradually switch to fusion and renewables in the next centuries.
>Noooo, how dare you, we need to have less kids, but also import more third world migrants because of low gdp growth and population decline, but also have countless taxes on energy, close nuclear plants, start coal plants instead until "renewable picks up" and the wind blows at the right speed, eat insects, become vegan and scrap our cars every 7 years because of new emissions regulations.

[Anonymous No.11020781]

>and gradually switch to fusion

[Anonymous No.11020785]

>>11020746
>I hate little girls so much that I'm posting their faces on a cesspool forum

[Anonymous No.11020789]

>>11020746
There are already many other nuclear shill threads. Pick one, post your bullshit in it, and delete this dribble.

[Anonymous No.11020794]

>>11020789
Fuck off retard. This isn't your little forum or reddit.

[Anonymous No.11020802]

>>11020789
>>11020785
>t. pedo guy

[Anonymous No.11020813]

>>11020746

If these nuclear plants were subsidized, they'd all stay open. Three mile island only needs half the subsides that solar and wind get to stay alive

[Anonymous No.11020837]

>>11020802
>everybody i don't know or disagree with is a bad person

[Anonymous No.11020839]

>The invasive specie "The Argentine ant (Linepithema humile)" alone has formed a global super colony since transported outside of S America and is killing of countless species of insects, spiders and the like. And there are countless invasive species wrecking havoc on ecosystems.
>But your CO2 is the cause of mass extinction. How DARE YOU!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11020841]

>>11020746
don't forget to convert coal burning plants to wood burning plants that output much more CO2 per joule while devouring virgin forests in the process

[Anonymous No.11020842]

>nuclear power good
>socialism bad
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.11020855]

>>11020813
>Unit 1 was scheduled to be shut down by September 2019 after Exelon announced they did not receive any commitments for subsidies from the state, rendering Exelon unable to continue operating the reactor.[19][20] TMI-1 was shutdown on September 20, 2019.[28]

GIB MONEY GIB MONEY

[Anonymous No.11020866]

>>11020785
She choose it this way. (or her parent did)

[Anonymous No.11020876]

>>11020842
Nuclear power is socialism? Nuclear power killed the Soviet Union kek

[Anonymous No.11020889]

>>11020876
Nuclear power is only viable in nations with socialized electricity sectors. Every single one of those plants closed because they weren't financially viable without taxpayer support.

[Anonymous No.11020898]

>being this triggered by a teenage girl with FAS
Is it tiring getting your feelings hurt by literally everything all the time.

[Anonymous No.11020908]

No matter how I turn the problem around, I don't see a viable future without nuclear.
If those people choose regression as a solution, they can just go fuck themselves, destroy their own house and kill themselves to accelerate toward the goal they're advocating.
Evolution must go on. Evolution WILL go on.

[Anonymous No.11020916]

>>11020889
Renewables aren't generally all that financially independent either.

[Anonymous No.11020925]

>>11020908
Evolution doesn't care about you or me. I don't care about evolution.

[Anonymous No.11020926]

>>11020889
All power companies have always been rent-seeking subsidy scammers. But nuclear requires a lot less per joule especially if the red tape gets scaled back to 50s/60s levels.

[Anonymous No.11020928]

>the way things are is the way things should be

[Anonymous No.11020936]

The ultimate goal is to make human civilization ecologically sustainable. Nuclear is just too risky, and it generates nuclear waste that's difficult to store and lasts for hundreds of years (literally tens of thousands of years without entombment).

>inb4 safety improvements chernobyl is a fluke fukushima is proof it's safe etc. etc. etc.
Even if the chance is 0.01%, that risk is still unacceptable. Nuclear disasters have immense human costs, and from a human lifetime perspective they're basically permanent. Those 2,000 km^2 around Chernobyl will remain unusable centuries.

Climate change is the Real that's about to slam headfirst into the imagined reality of boundless economic growth. Whatever comes out the other end, we have the chance (however slim) of making it TRULY sustainable. Renewables are the only way.

[Anonymous No.11020939]

>>11020936
>implying people don't live around Chernobyl
>implying it was ever anywhere near 2000 square kilometers

[Anonymous No.11020940]

>>11020908
>It's fun trashing the fucking house to keep the party going just a little longer.

Face it bud. Party's over. Civilization could have lasted a lot longer without the growth mongers.

[Anonymous No.11020960]

>>11020936
>me scared
>we are the rational ones

[Anonymous No.11020963]

>>11020936
>Nuclear is just too risky
Not really. Just don't let fucking soviets design the reactors.
There are plenty of ways you can design a reactor to make it literally retard proof.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were both disasters that were caused by human error, not mechanical failure. You can draw a dotted line to the difference between naval and commercial reactors.

[Anonymous No.11020970]

>>11020960
>230,000 chinese death from dam disasters
Can we all just take a minute out of our day to appreciate that the three gorges damn hasn't become the most wide spread man-made natural disaster ever yet?

[Anonymous No.11020986]

>>11020746
Posting to /pol/ should ban you from posting anywhere else on this site
>>>/pol/
>>>/r/the_donald

[Anonymous No.11020988]

>>11020936
>the imagined reality of boundless economic growth

Daily reminder that these are the same people that repeatedly say the cliché, from space Earth seems so small and limited..... and systematically fail to mention the infinity that lays behind them.

[Anonymous No.11020990]

>>11020960
>risk = death

>>11020960
>>11020963
It isn't that nuclear can't be made "retard proof" (then again, RBMK reactors WERE designed to be "retard proof" but lo and behold humans found a way outretard even that). The point is that the consequence of a disaster are too high to factor into a simple cost/benefit analysis. A nuclear disaster is a black swan event.

Let me put it like this:
Suppose you were presented with a button which, when pressed, gives you $100, but every time you press it there is a chance of it killing you. You don't know what that chance is, but you're assured it's under 1%.
How many times do you press that button?
I think most normal people WOULD press that button a couple of times. You may even press it like 10 times, maybe you're crazy and you're willing to risk 50 presses.
But would be willing to use that button as your primary source of income for the rest of your life?

[Anonymous No.11020996]

>>11020988
Yes surely it's economically feasible to send out rockets to collect resources
Reminder that each trip needs to bring back more than it costed to take the trip
Reminder that each trip will become more and more expensive as we plunder all the close by resources

[Anonymous No.11021009]

>>11020990
>>risk = death (comparative analysis over a significative amount of time)
>risk= muh spooks

[Anonymous No.11021011]

>>11020916
meanwhile back in the real world

[Anonymous No.11021022]

>>11020990
>You don't know what that chance is, but you're assured it's under 1%.
>I think most normal people WOULD press that button a couple of times.
Are you the one out of touch or is it me?
I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't touch it a single time.
Unless we're talking about starving Pakistanis.
Anyway I think this is a poor comparison.

[Anonymous No.11021023]

>>11020996
Dyson sphere automated, manufacturing stations, producing satellites, microchips and conducting biomedical research.

>No one ever talked about bringing rocks and raw resources back to earth.

[Anonymous No.11021027]

>>11020990
>(then again, RBMK reactors WERE designed to be "retard proof"
No they weren't. There was a massive design flaw that contributed to the explosion that was covered up because surely no one would ever be incompetent enough to create a situation where this could... oh wait it happened several times.

[Anonymous No.11021044]

>>11020990
>RBMK reactors WERE designed to be "retard proof"

>There were WW2 designs that were just impossible to meltdown

[Anonymous No.11021050]

>>11020996
t.Doesn't know about space elevators

[Anonymous No.11021054]

>>11020996
That's just a failure of basic economics anon.
A single iron rich asteroid would give people access to more iron than has collectively been dug out of the earth's crust in the history of humanity.
You're problem isn't running out of resources to plunder, but figuring out how not to crash the fucking market when you start to reclaim it. You would necessarily need to transition to a resource based economy.

[Anonymous No.11021057]

>>11020996
It's no use. You cannot talk science or truth with completely delusional infinite growth monger cultists.

It a shame that such people are so numerous.

[Anonymous No.11021062]

>>11020936
Neck yourself immediately, you Greenpeace-paid shill.

[Anonymous No.11021068]

>>11020988
That infinite is beyond reach. FTL travel is physically impossible.
Even in our own solar system, the hard math of flight dynamics make mass spaceflight economically unfeasible. Even if we assume 100% efficiency, the simple ENERGY COSTS of delivering 1 kg of mass into low earth orbit uneconomical. There is no mathematically possible "space freighter". "Space mining" will never be a productive industry.
And then there's the harder question of what the fuck are people going to do up there? How and where will they live? Will they just be stuffed inside pressurized steel cans, breathing the same recycled stale air for their entire lives? Or do you plan on building magical ringworld habitats for them? Nigger, we humans already have a SELF-BALANCING, SELF-SUSTAINING, PERFECT HABITAT, and we STILL can't keep ourselves from fucking it up.

You live in a fantasy world. It's time to wake up.

>>11021023
>>11020988
BUT! Even if we do lobotomize ourselves and pretend that "space industry" is a real thing that's going to happen, I assume you don't propose it will happen in the near 30 years, right? Our problem is that humanity's industrial capacity is threatening to fuck over the planet's entire biosphere in the next few decades. We need to either slow the fuck down or (better yet) redesign our entire infrastructure of civilization RIGHT THE FUCK NOW if we want to avoid complete collapse of the social order.
Your shitty daydreams are worthless even IF they were true.

[Anonymous No.11021078]

>>11020785
>little
shes 16

[Anonymous No.11021083]

>>11020785
>She's 16 so you have to take her opinion more seriously! That's why she's in front of the UN
>She's only 16, you can't criticize her!
Pick one cunt

[Anonymous No.11021086]

>>11021068
Maybe once Elon Musks retarded looking rocket blows up these people might get some common sense, but I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.11021091]

>>11020986
Posting on Reddit should ban you from 4chan

[Anonymous No.11021092]

>>11021091
exactly, and since only redditors use /pol/ posting there should ban you

[Anonymous No.11021099]

>You're /pol/!
>You're reddit!
Can we all admit we just want a piece of the cunny?

[Anonymous No.11021104]

>>11021086
t.based north sentineleese poster

[Anonymous No.11021106]

>>11020936

[Anonymous No.11021108]

>>11020970
yet

[Anonymous No.11021109]

>>11021099
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.11021110]

>>11021091
Where do you think the 2015-2016 influx came from?
Who popularized that shitty frog reaction pic (and gave it a name!) and turned "normalfag" into "normie"?
/pol/ is the new /b/, it's what attracts new users to the site now. And where does it attract them from? All the conservatives and boomers who get bullied on reddit come here because 4chan has "free speech".

[Anonymous No.11021145]

>>11021106
nuclear shill AND climate denier
lol that's rich; I am not even a little bit surprised that the toxic infinite growther cultist mentality could produce such delusional thinking.

[Anonymous No.11021160]

>>11021145
>not believing Florida will disappear within 20 years is climate denying
Meme harder, /r/politics.

[Anonymous No.11021166]

>>11021068
Even in our own solar system, the hard math of flight dynamics make mass spaceflight economically unfeasible. Even if we assume 100% efficiency, the simple ENERGY COSTS of delivering 1 kg of mass into low earth orbit uneconomical. There is no mathematically possible "space freighter".

>There is an infinite amount of fuel on Jupiter
>Too costly to bring something back
>Space ships cannot be manufactured in space

Space mining" will never be a productive industry.

>Neither will be Aluminium
>Internet
>Auto
>Aircraft
...


And then there's the harder question of what the fuck are people going to do up there? How and where will they live? Will they just be stuffed inside pressurized steel cans, breathing the same recycled stale air for their entire lives? Or do you plan on building magical ringworld habitats for them?

>Ignores Automation
>Human Nature
>Socio Economic incentives
>Terraforming
>Genetic Engeneering

[Anonymous No.11021194]

>>11020746
Should climate change threads be banned from /sci/? Right now there are at least three threads, and often the largest threads are about climate change. I think it would be better for the board if climate change was restricted to /pol/ to give more room for actual scientific discussion.

[Anonymous No.11021202]

>>11021166
Holy fuck
Are you smart enough to figure out how green texting works?

I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.11021205]

>>11021194
It's the nuclear shills making them. There are even more nuclear shill threads.

[Anonymous No.11021219]

>>11021205
>Nuclear shills vs Pedo guys
>the absolute state of sci

[Anonymous No.11021220]

>>11020746
You don't just "switch to nuclear" and I say that as a massive nukefag. It's high tech solution and rushing the plants would be dangerous af. Also cowgas isn't electrical power. Vehicles don't run on electricity. Cement burning isn't electricity.

Honestly sounds like another filthy mutt, angry that someone pointed out his lifestyle is in contradiction with the best interests of humanity.

[Anonymous No.11021224]

>>11021205
Either way it's fucking cancer, any threads related to politics deserve deletion

[Anonymous No.11021228]

>>11020746
There is no climate "emergency"
You would think that after 50 years of the "cold war" that people would be less inclined to buy into this fear mongering.

[Anonymous No.11021241]

>>11020996
>Yes surely it's economically feasible to send out rockets to collect resources

It’s not only economically feasible, it’s ecologically a slam dunk.

[Anonymous No.11021249]

>>11020746
>10 climate change threads
>4 greta threads
Why nigger why

[Anonymous No.11021250]

>>11021062
Now show industrial scale solar you coke shill.

[Anonymous No.11021265]

>>11021249
Afraid of CONSENSUS faggot?

[Anonymous No.11021272]

>>11021265
This is fucking cancer, there is no need for more than one thread about the same topic, especially not 10.

[Anonymous No.11021289]

>>11020841
We can replant trees though we cant replant coal. But yes not gonna work if you live in a densely populated country.

[Anonymous No.11021304]

>>11021145
>everyone against my beliefs is a cultist

[Anonymous No.11021306]

>>11021265
Consensus and settled science is integral nihilism.

[Anonymous No.11021380]

>>11021272
I agree