can't we have nationalism and lower carbon emissions
why is this so hard for GoP
I don't believe in an afterlife; I live for the future of the world.
I don't want to accept any risk of catastrophic ecological damage so that quarterly profit of oil company goes up.
because i don't have a vagina that leaks idiot hormones into my brain and makes me think retarded shit like humans are giving earth the flu.
this is frightful; why are so many people OK with politicizing a potential existential threat.
If you think any energy source besides nuclear is viable you're retarded.
"""""""""""""""""green energy"""""""""""""" is a scam. look at that dumb nigger van jones. most retarded fucking subhuman around and he was the green energy czar for obummer. gave billions to a bunch of random shitty companies that failed and then chinese bought them when they filed for bankruptcy.
people who can't even tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow expect to predict 100 years from now? they're obviously just trying to game you.
global warming is a hoax
there is no threat. any economic or social reform is inherently political. frightfully stupid is what you mean, and I agree, it is stupid to think cow farts are going to melt Antarctica.
But Trump's industry plan addresses this: By subsidizing power plant and factory improvements, the government will ensure that all businesses will be able to afford to refit their machinery with the most cutting edge emission-reducing hardware.
You can't just stop everything and run off 'green energy'. You've gotta run side-by-side. A major component of this is getting people to voluntarily WANT to reduce emissions by allowing them to fold it into refits and repairs at discount.
people argue basic facts from square one every time but the greenhouse effect is well established and so is the decades of research data from around the world behind it. We also
>people who can't even tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow expect to predict 100 years from now? they're obviously just trying to game you.
making precise local predictions is difficult because many small variables become significant. but making predictions on average global trajectory is quite easy and reliable. I can't tell you with precision the path a single electron will take in a a very short span of time in a conducting medium with voltage difference applied, but I can predict with fair accuracy the average direction of the current over a long time.
if the likelihood of the hazards was 5%, it would be too great of a risk.
OK, let's fund nuclear.
Solar seems cool. You don't have to purchase, refine, or move fuel. Denmark is aiming for 100% renewable, why not us?
I just think, let's use our national fervor to do both, be nationalist and play it safe; eliminate need for extractive fuels too.
I hope you're right
Doing this is going to be one of Trump's biggest truthfulness tests: If he doesn't take steps towards this in the first 100 days in office, THEN people can start criticising his administration.
So give him 1/4 of the year to see what he does, at least.
there could be tens of millions of climate refugees from equatorial climates, dependent on agriculture, displaced from coastal communities and desertification.
plus, nationalist movements can really secure a strong share in the electorate if they adopt reasonable strategy here, even if they went far right on everything. It will be harder to demonize us.
Guess who created the first "green politics"? Hitler. That should explain everything.
>carbon emissions
this is a global problem. As a nation you don't benefit from reducing carbon emissions - especially if other countries don't reciprocate.
Nationalism with green policies.
You're looking for Nazism.
nope, the pretend-racism argument isn't gong to work either.
let's be honest, user. the kind of people who believe in global warming are sheep anyway. we'll secure them with social pressure, the same way they were secured by the left.
N U C L E A R
P O W E R
...
Climate "science" is neither repeatable, testable or falsifiable. I dare you to show me one example of a successful climate change experiment.
Nuclear power is the way to go.
If you don't believe me, look up the power output of the biggest solar farm in the world (in india).
Then, look up the power output of the nuclear power plant in Mexico (yes, Mexico).
Yeah m8, that is the difference.
>cockona
photovoltics were never meant to be used for industrial power production.
That's pretty irrelevant. Power is power. the more the better, you can either use it for industry or use it to boil a million kettles.
the problem is that there wont be a million kettles from solar any time soon. And the effort is just not worth it.
You're right with power is power. But nobody would try to use batteries to heat his home. You generally try to fit a source that is of the required magnitude rather than installing 10,000 weak appliances.
Just plant more trees.
Costs an arm and leg to build and maintain though. And have fun with your cancer in case of a reactor core flip-flapping.
this old meme. climates change. ice ages come and go, as do warm ones. glaciers rolled through the upper Midwest carving out the great lakes, then receded filling them with fresh water. northern Europe was frozen keeping populations low, the climate became more temperate triggering a population boom and subsequent Viking raids. welcome to planet scale climate science 101
A boron rod can stop the reaction in a second.
I cannot see how meltdowns even happen.
Daily reminder that nuclear power is the safest way to generate power.
reality is more complicated than simplistic assumptions. That said, meltdowns are very rare these days... the designs have been improved.
Then let's strike a hard deal with India and China. Heck, let's pay them a little. Do something.
I'll blame Chrenobyl on overworked underpaid workers.
And I mean, the roof was held on by nothing but gravity!
To stop India and china from polluting you probably will have to make them by force. Paying a little wont work at all... their entire industry is based upon cheap coal.
It would be better for all of us if we used our power to achieve something of that effect, rather than fighting turf wars in the middle east. the problem is... you would be doing something for a good cause, but you don't solidify any power. In the worst case scenario, you made the earth a nice place for your enemies.
Yes. Chernobyl was a bad design and they still assumed it's invincible, since nuclear in general is pretty safe. Testimony reports said when they first heard the explosions, they were sure it was a military attack... they didn't get to the conclusion that it might be their reactor having a fault.
Ironically, if we build more safe new nuclear plants we would shut down more unsafe old nuclear plants and be much safer overall.
In the case of Chernobyl, shutting it down was actually very hard and had to be done very slowly or it would heat up instead of cool down.
That's probably the main reason it suffered a meltdown and none of the better designed plants ever did.
Exactly, which is why nuclear is the way to go.