No shlll. Im being serious.
What the fuck is wrong with you guys? The Free market won't bring these improvements as long as oil and coal companies dominate our politics and markets with dark money.
You know the Trump administration doesn't have a plan to bring the US into a future that uses modern sustainable technologies, so why is this a good thing?
>inb4 muh jobs
implying renewables wouldn't create more jobs
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Solar and wind are not cost competitive therefore they are not viable
Renewables do create more jobs, but more people doing less work sounds like a government office.
What you've said about how oil/gas uses money to manipulate is why we're not where other countries are in terms of renewable energy.
If only we could provide subsidies to improve the technology....
Oil and coal companies don't survive because they don't pay for all the costs of the business, which should include restoration of all environmental damage done by the industry. It is privatization of profits and socialization of costs with these types of companies. These companies are basically stealing the environment from the rest of the world. This is not free market operation. Instead it is corporate form of anarchy. What is a "free market" anyway? It is one that operates within the parameters allowed by government. So, really, there is no "free" market, other than one that is pure anarchy - no rules. It is all regulated one way or another. We need to regulate the market sensibly, including privatizing the costs of industry.
TLDR
>muh free market
There is no free market.
*Oil and coal companies survive....
>Free Market won't demand clean energy
>Most reasonable people want nuclear and solar to become more widespread.
Being this stupid to think the free market would not solve this problem.
See
Jesus, you rarely find sensible arguments like this on Sup Forums. Well said.
Which is why I added the caveat about oil and coal companies.
No one ever considers the fact that renewable comes with other drawbacks as well when it comes to manufacturing, transportation, and land cost.Most common renewable energy sources are expensive without the government having to come in and help out. This is most likely why the U.S. is in so much debt due to it having to support these businesses.
Or we can actually invest into nuclear and have all the energy we need from the most energy dense materials on this planet.
>Leftist non-stop push of (((Climate Change))) agenda
>Leftist ask how can people still #resist their agenda
The (((Climate Change))) agenda is basically yet another incarnation of the of the 'seize the means of production' communist theory. Enforce an artificial limitation in an effort to control a nations economic, industrial, and overall development. Also, there is no enforcement mechanism other than (((Globalist Governance))) by way of sanctions or military action. In other words, if you do not promise to obey our (((Climate Change))) agenda you will be punished by way of sanctions or ultimately military action.
(((Climate Change))) = Justification to put in place (((Global Governance))) aka (((One World Government)))
en.wikipedia.org
>INB4 But.. but... user the weather is 1.7364782 degrees warmer than last year and my college professor said that the science is settled and (((CNN))) said that anyone who questions (((Climate Change))) is a "denier".
Seriously, (((Climate Change))) is too intertwine with leftist politics to every be considered a standalone issue.
I don't see how pulling out of the Paris accord is the same as saying America won't pursue renewable energy options at all. We're just not sending Nigeria 15 mil to put a solar panel up that'll be stolen anyhow.
Because trump has been shilling for coal companies. When has anyone in Trump campaign expressed a strong desire to invest in renewables (or nuclear) followed by actual potential laws or policies?
We dont have time for this conspiracy shit. Please don't vote anymore.
So Trump wants to help the American coal industry out? You know we're selling what we're mining to China now right? Again I've seen nothing saying we won't pursue other energy options, you're just making the assumption that we won't.
>etc etc
Also known as lowercase bullshit terms this picture paints as 'the good things'.
Kill yourself OP.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed for the ovens.
Who am I kidding, you'll flip like the boot licking faggot you are the moment you have to answer for your shit.
>banning industry and driving the world to a lower standard of living is bettering the world
Go home fuckboy
>We dont have time
Certainly we do have time to decide whether we are going to give unelected third parties influence over our decisions.
(((Climate Change))) can not be enforced without a (((Global Governance))) to punish those who do not comply. You can keep your (((One World Government))) to enforce your (((Climate Change))) agenda.
Seriously, what are the lefts desired method of enforcement of (((Climate Change))) regulations? Shaming? Sanctions? Military action?
>LMAO XD ITS DA JOOOOZ HAHA GOT EEM
Everytime
...
Disprove it fuckboy
someone did some math that proves it'll take like 1200 years to adjust the planets temperature by a single degree Celsius.
You and the rest of you libshits make it sound like its all or nothing, that if the US doesn't sign the Paris Accord that they're somehow "anti climate change" or deniers or whatever the fuck, when in reality the US can continue developing and transitioning to solar/wind etc. without signing any formal agreement. There are already companies like Tesla developing electric cars and automation and being subsidized by the US government, what further proof do you need?
It's not up to a person to disprove a statement.
It's up to the person making the claim to prove it.
Wow, scientists and leftists BTFO. How will we ever recover?
Burden of proof is one you famalamadingdong
>What the fuck is wrong with you guys?
We aren't AIDS-infected faggots who believe whatever CNN tells us like you are.
We look at a chart like the one I posted and say to ourselves, "Hey, how come the 'experts' were completely wrong in their climate predictions?" You, on the other hand, just swallow their cum and don't ask questions.
We happened to meet the proposed standards of the Kyoto agreement by accident. Looks like the free market does self regulate sometimes.
Let's look at your supposed improvements:
-Energy Independence: Could be achieved by increased domestic oil/gas
-Preserve rainforests: Mostly in developing/third world countries we have no control over
-Sustainability: Also a lack of growth
-Green Jobs: Yes, but fewer of them
-Livable Cities: What does this mean? Chaining everyone to public transport by banning cars?
-Renewables: Generally inferior
-Clean water, air: Natural gas and oil can actually be burnt very cleanly
-Healthy Children: Literally nothing to do with this, just "muh think of the children!" nonsense.
Is climate change real? Of course, that is the most reasonable interpretation of the data. That being said, using solutions that fuck over the economy (and by extension, causing all sorts of negative consequences), by drastically increasing the cost of energy is plainly retarded.
>he thinks the Paris agreement would have brought all that
Did you even read the thing?
Research is already happening all over the world. There's no reason to implement massive, expensive, nation-wide energy renewal programs on technology that just isn't there yet. You fund research and when the technology is mature enough you can use it. Otherwise you're arguing to rebuild once to give the companies enough money to design something better so you can rebuild again. It's retarded.
You don't understand how the world works. If people invent or harness cheaper sources of energy then people will use them, what we need is human ingenuity, not government regulations. Your image is retarded as well, nobody is against cleaner parks and the such, but forcing people to cut the use of energy sources that power the world on the basis that we might be causing a global warming of the planet will result in the death of millions and the destruction of people's livelihoods, the fact that you would post something that says we might make a better world for nothing shows that you are simply ignorant of what your opponents believe
So instead of swallowing the cum of those you disagree with, you google for shitty graphs, don't check their source or how they came to their conclusions, and then swallow their cum instead. You're so intelligent, the kikes will never get you in on their schemes!
...
He has a point, though. Climate change legislation could only be effectively enforced through global legislation, with global executive power.
Installing a global government is a very bad idea for other reasons...
>The Free market won't bring these improvements as long as oil and coal companies dominate our politics and markets with dark money.
Ok, so you're saying that politicians are corrupt and get bribed by the oil and coal companies. So your solution is add more bureaucracy and give the officials more power, monetize the system and that should improve things? What if there were less regulations so the companies could pursue the most efficient means to produce energy while removing power from the bureaucrats which reduces corruption.
of course not
no leftist ever reads the thing they crusade for
how you do think communism got so big?
2
Celsius
In
30
Years
For 200 trillion dollars
>What if its a big hoax
>and we create a better world for nothing
How can you be this disingenuous? Thats a totally contradictory statement.
Also of course its a dumb whitey, and of course there's an embarassed intelligent, independant black woman there too
>DA JOOOOZ
>It's up to the person making the claim to prove it.
>Burden of proof is one you
Clearly you cucks do not understand the left and its (((Communist))) strategy as outlined by (((Karl Marx))).
The left is using (((Climate Change))) as the political tool to influence a nations economic and industrial operations. Under the currently outlined (((Climate Change))) regulations the "means of production" would be placed in control of those outlining the regulation. Basically, have a bunch of leftist globalist set the (((Climate Change))) regulations and your buddies in the "Green Industries" and government enforcement/regulations will be placed in control of a nations economy and industrial development.
(((Climate Change))) as viewed purely as a "science" issue has not power of enforcement or influence beyond those who wish to voluntarily comply. (((Climate Change))) needs an enforcement mechanism and what better than the bleeding heart liberal left who will take the bait and use their (((Globalist))) leadership and (((Communist))) style techniques to get it enforced.
TL;DR: (((Climate Change))) is more politics than "science" and thus the rabid leftist cucks clinging to it like its their religion.
Renewable Indeed would create more jebs.
Carbon tax is shit. Climate change is mostly irrelevant, yet exists manmade.
What is a problem right no is the polution and enviornment destruction that is happening right now! Soil erosion and loss of biodiversity will come back to bit us in the ass
what if its all a hoax and we are doing nothing to help the environment while fucking our industry over and promoting open borders and crony capitalism for nothing?
blow your brains out you worthless new-age religious faggot
you're going to feel the knife
Because petrodollar you idiot
Ponzi fucking scheme perpetuated by kikes and their useful puppets
The Paris Deal does little to protect the environment (by their own stats) and asks far more from the US than any other country in the world. On top of that it would hurt the US economy by 3 tril. Its basically almost designed to take America down a peg
>(((better world)))
Whenever someone unironically promises you that go full 360 and run away as fast as you can before he gets you.