>>be rightwing
>>assert that climate change is a myth that will ruin economies and generally waste everyones time
>>dont realize pollution is bad for them even if the planet doesnt give a fuck
move to bangkok or whatever chink haven with all those factories and tell me pollution is harmless. even if climate change is horse shit i like my air and water to not be poisoned for the sake of profits.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
washingtonpost.com
pubs.giss.nasa.gov
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
washingtonpost
archive.is
twitter.com
Hate Has No Home Here
jpeg that a few more times i can almost make out what it says
>not be poisoned for the sake of profits
that has nothing to do with "global warming", just cheap kikes destroying nature for shekels and corrupt politicians that enable such kikery
>for the sake of profits
You do realize public utilities in the US are subject to significant oversight and their rates and profits margins are typically set by government regulators, right?
Has more to do with most alternatives being inefficient and impractical methods of large scale power generation compared to coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc. than some caricature of a monopolist smoking a cigar trying to maximize his profits.
thats kind of what im saying though. any attempt to make companies and industries greener for the sake of human health and efficiency is drowned by a bunch of republicans screaming "ITS REDUNDANT, LEAVE MY PROFITS ALONE!"
But anytime there are environmental regulations Sup Forums cries 'muh climate change' and bashes it. Right wingers are fucking retards when it comes to the environment
Most green power is hardly efficient, user.
If it was, everybody would already be using it because it would be cheaper than the alternatives. It wouldn't have to be subsidized out the wazoo.
the source of the energy has very little to do with how easy it is to send elsewhere, unless you mean shipping the fuel itself. its all through the powergrid, why not make the source safer?
Nuclear power is the best current source of energy but everyone is afraid of it because they don't understand how it works and "muh chernobyl"
I hope oil runs out soon so everything changes.
hardly efficient? what about nuclear? or solar? wind(genuinely not sure about wind tho)? solar used to be shit but its gotten a lot better.
Leftists just blindly support more regulations without knowing what those regulations entail.
Nuclear power has challenges. See vogtle reactors it nearly bankrupted TWO engineering firms. Another problem with nuclear is there always needs to be a large specialized workforce which unionizes and demands raises above inflation y/o/y. Which makes the price of nuclear power go up y/o/y.
>>implying leftists have a monopoly on bigotry when it comes to political topics
isnt that the republican niche? dont want to take away their thunder
I'm missing
>cost of all of this:
>half of the yearly budget
in the comic
>>literally suggesting the lives and health of ourselves and our children are less important that short term profits
you cant be serious
>pollution
>climate change
pick one you insufferable climate fag
most of the high cost involved in green energy is start up only. it very very quickly pays for itself. shill harder.
pollution causes climate change. do i have to fucking spell it out for you?
>green energy
>efficient and self-sustainable
Holy shit, you have no idea what you're talking about. 90% of the energy from wind turbines goes to waste. Go read a fucking book.
Also I don't give a shit about future generations.
>90% of the energy from wind turbines goes to waste
Take a second to Google "how efficient are wind turbines?
I knew polacks were dumb but jesus you really are pushing stereotypes to new bounds
>C02 doubling of pre-industrial levels will cause 1.2 Celsius warming
>Every hockey-stick graph says we've already had 1.2 Celsius warming, C02 could only be responsible for a third of that.
My God I've finally seen the most uneducated Leaf™ ever.
Nuclear is good in terms of cost per kWh, although still very heavily regulated and has significant capital costs up front. I don't even know if Department of Energy is even issuing new licenses for nuclear stations, for the longest time none were being built.
Even newer solar cells are terribly inefficient in terms of amount of available light energy they convert to electricity. Wind isn't much better. Both will not provide you stable output and depend on cloud cover, weather conditions, etc. Both depend on geographic location (some parts of the US are just very poor for solar, wind, or both). Solar pollutes plenty considering tons of water, toxic chemicals, etc. are needed to produce the semiconductors they're made of, and many (especially the cheap panels) are made in places like China with more lax environmental regulations.
Again, if solar and wind were more efficient and practical, they would already be in widespread use.
Tell that to China, then report back to me with your answer.
Protip: The pollution guilt meme is financed by China and directed at the West as a whole purely to make us weaker as they play catch up on a massive scale. They don't give a fuck and will laugh at you and spit in your face.
Whites are the only race demonstrably capable of environmental stewardship. If you care about the environment, why would we be party to a treaty which strips white nations of industrial capacity and hands it to nations who couldn't give less of a shit about the environment?
>132435407
>uses two arrows for green text
Not getting my Yous that easily
BTFO
>global warming
>climate change
>pollution
>somehow the always means taxes
You jews can't even keep the topic straight anymore
Chinks get free reign off how much pollution they are allowed to make. The whole thing is a scam to make people pay more for utilities and take 'climate immigrants'.
In other news, a fucking leaf.
Pretty sure he was a Chink. He sure left quickly when the China question was brought up. Chinks can be Jews too I guess.
>In other news, a fucking leaf.
Irrelevant. A lot of us know what is going on. But whatever, you're right.
en.wikipedia.org
USA doesnt have a single city in the top 500. Our air and water quality has increased dramatically over the last few decades.
You are missrepresenting the study. It only studied the magnitude of energy absorption by different sources. The point you're missing is that the initial increse in CO2 concentrations cause air temperatures to rise and warm air holds more water and increses evaporation. Read the abstract of the paper you're referencing, idiot.
"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water
vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%)
and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2
scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged, even though the magnitude of the total
greenhouse effect is significantly larger than the initial radiative forcing, underscoring
the importance of feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to climate sensitivity."
That paper isn't relevant for the 1.2 Celsius projection actually. I just have it in there for perspective on absorptive atmospheric gases.
Take this for example washingtonpost.com
>On Monday, Gavin Schmidt, a top climate scientist at NASA, tweeted that a paper he co-authored in 2010 used an almost identical phrase in its title – “principal control knob” — as the CNBC’s Squawk Box used Monday. But the paper published in Science Magazine warned about the danger of “anthropogenic,” or man-made, carbon dioxide continuing “unabated.” The paper said that the high rate of atmospheric CO2 increase was “particularly worrisome” and that “the atmospheric CO2 control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the geological record.”
That paper is pubs.giss.nasa.gov
>"For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2° and 1.3°C, respectively . . ."
Any paper on C02 and climate uses this 1.2 Celsius projection, it is correct. But the question is regarding the current ~1 Celsius increase so far and how it can't be attributed solely to C02
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
>The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005
Pre-industrial was about 280ppm
Current is about 380
Doubled is usually 600 but depends on the study's preference.
Archive the clickbaiters
>washingtonpost com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/19/trumps-energy-secretary-just-denied-that-man-made-carbon-dioxide-is-the-main-driver-for-climate-change
archive.is
the 1.2°C is for the direct no-feedback response to the doubling
you're missing a whole suite of fast and slow feedbacks that strongly amplify the warming to 3°C or more
Take it up with the chinks then, you stupid fucking leaf.