Trumps America

AmeriKKKa pulled out of the Paris accords. To make this about culture and travel not politics, I want to ask; Why are Americans so fucking stupid and against science?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/spain-returns-to-wind-energy-with-record-low-prices/
offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Ah yes, (((science)))

Do you seriously not believe in Climate Change? The jew brackets are hilarious too, have fun with the flood of refugees from middle east and Africa running to Europe when their crops fail and droughts get worse (hint: their crops ARE already failing and they ARE experiencing the worst droughts in living memory)

Because agw is an unproven theory and using that to justify a massive global tax is stupid? Besides in the "predictions" are true we want to accelerate it to kill as many shit skins as possible.

excellent Trump.

Shoot the refugees.

Because the Paris agreements are a sham and even the UN says that it relies on agreements made after the Paris deal expires

>Climate Change

Climate changes, yes. Shooting ourselves in a dick with green energy won't help.

There is nothing wrong with green energy. The only thing you are shooting is ideology.

the whole 97 people in green energy needed to produce the same as 1 coal worker is a slight issue.

There is when the government is throwing billions into supporting businesses that will never be commercially viable

Billions?

>you will never have a loyal daughter-wife-adviser
Why live?

...

>implying people are just going to sit pretty and die

They'll literally just move on to greener pastures. Literally.

>unproven theory

It's an unproven theory in the same vein as the theory of gravity or evolution, one of which, I'm sure, you don't believe in.

He did say he would date her if she wasn't his daughter.

but they already are

Quite sure that he said "if it was socially acceptable"

>worrying about the optics of economics when the climate as we know it is at stake

Don't breed.

Several of the green energy startups Obongo supported defaulted on loans from the federal government. I think it was something like 2 billion lost on the loans and several billion from the subsidies and tax credits

The "Paris accords" are a joke anyway. All that stuff is a scam to transfer wealth to elites and to transfer wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world.

I mean, "carbon credits"? That's such an obvious and ridiculous scam.

No thanks.

>optics
HATE that word has become a meme on MSM

Leave optics to physicists and engineers please

>le catastrophic global memeing
Stop watching The Day After Tomorrow

That's has little to do with renewables themselves. Just look at successful iterations instead of failures. This is why American economics suck.

You're contributing to it by posting on this god forsaken site tho.

>is at stake

1. Not our climate, as you have pointed out
2. Europe is marginal when it comes to fossil fuels anyway

> that will never be commercially viable
Wind and sun power tech has been improving over the past few years, I don't see how it isn't commercially viable

We deserve whatever happens climatewise these next few decades. This shit should've been handled in the 60's and it wasn't. The Paris Accord is toothless and it wouldn't do that much anyway, but it was better than nothing.

If green energy was a fiscal meme, why are China and India diving head-first into it? And the rest of the civilized world except America & Australia?
>thinking the rest of the world doesn't affect us in the lords year of 2017

And besides, several European cities would be wrecked by rising sea levels, even by the on average a meter it's projected to rise within the coming century.

?

>Europe is marginal when it comes to fossil fuels anyway

Also, this is wrong.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

using up electricity, using products made out of materials which were dug up by harmful minning equipment(all the hardwere in your phone/pc), so on and so forth...

They aren't commercially viable for large scale generation because there's too much downtime and it costs too much to maintain compared to coal and natural gas plants

>why are China and India diving head-first into it?
Because they finally have the capital to build hydroelectric plants

The same way sails are not viable against turbines. They are unreliable and don't provide the necessary power.

>several European cities

Not Prague, lel. Besides, so what, a few people move further inland in a span of what, decades? I fail to see a significant problem.

>thinking the rest of the world doesn't affect us in the lords year of 2017

Not if we don't let it affect us

>per capita

Basic tier manipulation. Europe has 500 mil. inhabitants tops. That's less than half of India or China.

a Harvard professor bet $10,000 with another professor in the 70s that Britain would be under water by the year 2000


we're sick of your nonsense, and the idea that the developing world like Africa/China/India are going to do anything to stop their rise if laughable.

>I fail to see a significant problem.
There are concerns of it fucking up Europe's port cities and interfering with trade

You seemed to have confused my position as of one arguing for hippie agricultural communes for everybody. Industry is fine and good, we could just stand to do less of it and more effectively & less harmful.

>Because they finally have the capital to build hydroelectric plants

I don't understand this post, are you implying the United States doesn't or???

Why anyone would try to stop climate change?
If some species are willingfully go extinct, it means they don't deserve to live.

Paris shit is a fucking scam to increase government control, increase taxes, make us all pay German tier energy prices and kill western industry.

It doesn't even have legally binding emissions reduction targets, or for funding.

This means countries like China and India can say fuck it. Renewable energy companies in the western nations pushing this shit will see cash flow in to them while the average Joe gets fucked by energy costs.

>For the Paris agreement, developing countries held that developed countries should increase climate finance from a floor of $100 billion yearly

Fuck them.

We haven't yet. And the more I learn about it the more retarded it sounds. Countries set their own goals and it's non-binding.
However, I agree that we should do something to fight global warming but I think people are foolish when it comes to how much we can slow it down.

>are you implying the United States doesn't
There are only so many rivers that you can build dams on and we exploited all of them by the 1970s. The share of our energy that comes from hydroelectric isn't going up unless some sort of miracle turbine is developed

China hasn't been able to build dams for electric generation because it didn't have the money for it. Now they do and it makes people like you think that the PRC is trying to become some green paradise

(You)

So they build them up a bit. This whole "rising sea level" panic is stupid since even if it happens, it's going to be so gradual literally that everyone can move out. Yes, that's going to suck for those who have waterfront property but it's no different than those whose house gets blown away by tornado or floods or any other unpredictable natural disaster.

>make us all pay German tier energy prices

Funny you should say that. Do you know German government returns the taxes german companies pay for renewable energy?

Are you literally retarded?

>The jew brackets are hilarious too, have fun with the flood of refugees from middle east and Africa running to Europe when their crops fail and droughts get worse (hint: their crops ARE already failing and they ARE experiencing the worst droughts in living memory)
I'm sure they've had worse. We had some bad droughts too and then it rains like crazy. With and without climate crops fail it's a shitty truth and was historic population control. Also, if you think the majority of 3rd world immigrants aren't economic migrants your delusional.

Are you?

Yes, yes he is. Why do you have to ask?

>Not if we don't let it affect us
The world is connected by a myriad of things today like trade, currency and more and more so even blood-ties that span nations. It's not the 16th century, what do you propose we do when the effects of frivolous energy practices come for their dues, close every border and start shooting? The rich will always be fine, and might even prosper more in global hardship, but you and me buddy, lol.
>per capita
It's very statistically significant. 500 million people who rival 700-800 million chinamen/indians in emissions is not good.

>a smart dude was wrong so the hundreds(thousands!) of other smart dudes are also wrong!!!1"

This is how dumb you sound.

Eceryone is retarded in their understanding of power grids. You have base generation like nukes and coal plants and then peaking plants like natural gas. Solar and even wind are unreliable to be either so it's basically guess work for the grid and can fail.
A energy storage of generated power needs to be developed to ever make them (especially solar) a serious technology. The argument of economic benefit on the U.S. is b.s. because China can make everything cheaper.

I think he might be a little intellectually dishonest or an edgelord. Third, less probable option is that he is actually retarded.

The whole thing is sensationalism because people like black science man and Bill Nye try to get everyone to believe that we'll all be 500 feet under water in 10 years. I don't buy the idea that we have to throw the West into a years long depression in order to solve something that the planet has survived before. That's not even counting the ""'solutions""" to this problem that involve throwing trillions at politicians and expecting them to magic the problem away

There's no easy way to solve it and people who worship the Paris Agreement are delusional

wind power prices in auctions have been competitive with other sources already for some time, sun is lagging behind afaik. Downtimeis related to yearly sunshine hours and wind capacity of the region, Europe is shitty on both and even there those two markets are growing, now imagine how lucrative that'd be in areas like the Outback or Texas, for instance

I'm not advocating to only have those either, but a shift where renewable sources of energy are more prominent would be ideal.

>Quite sure that he said "if it was socially acceptable
I'm going to see some proofs since I only have heard the other qoute.

We don't get to keep China or India down since they can continue to disregard the accord even after signing it, so what's the point of shooting ourselves in the foot? It's pointless and self cucking, both of which suite EU better

suit*
stupid autocorrect

>wind power prices in auctions have been competitive with other sources already for some time
That's only in a select few places afaik. I don't care about those because they make sense in those situations

My problem is with people who think that we can magic the problem away by building a few solar and wind farms and expect there to be no consequences. There's always a trade off but everyone ignores that because they want a neat solution to make them feel better

>worrying about the optics of economics when the climate as we know it is at stake
Solar radiation plays a big part (ice on Mars is also melting) if there is no man made contribution how would we deal with the climate still being at stake?

You might have a point, it sounds reasonable enough but I don't know enough about dams and hydroelectricity to dispute you BUT and this is a big but, how are these reasons for U.S still having a hard-on for coal when it's worse than even natural gas and not investing in solar? I even read recently that the U.S is considering tariffs on solar power imports??? It feels like you guys, meaning Americans, are actively denying climate change and campaigning on making it worse for everybody.
Here's the thing though, the current droughts they're experiencing is not "business as usual" and even a cursory glance at the problem would tell you. Look at East Africa and the south of the Arabian peninsula right now, many climate scientists agree that man-made climate change played a part in these long-withstanding and frequently occurring droughts. And yes leaving the bad economical straits of their homeland with contributing climate change would make them economic migrants, how does that alter anything I've said?

Dams are also an environmental disaster as far as biological systems and clog downstream with silt.

>close every border and start shooting?

Yes. We were able to do that just 60-70 years ago and if the resources are dwindling, we should do that again.


>It's very statistically significant. 500 million people who rival 700-800 million chinamen/indians in emissions is not good.

Except there are 4 billion Asians. So no, even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether, the world is still gonna be fucked as ever.


>wind power prices

On what kind of market? Energy has been fucked with through taxes and subsidies so much the price is not really indicative. Not to mention how many wind turbines would you need to sate our current energy consumption.

Ultimately, you come to the base problem of storing power since neither sun nor wind are steady enough to support an economy of a larger scale.

This social Darwinism you espouse combined with a reckless disregard of human life and consequences is not how things work. If the whole of the world worked in the way you describe, I'm not sure I would want to live in this imagined dystopia.

Grow up. I'm sure your dumb ass would be one of the firsts to be shot in some ditch somewhere because you ate all the emergency rations your paramilitary death squad put away.

why's this flyover czech whatever yuro country thinking he has any say on climate change? let country's that can actually do something discuss kid

I like the way she's looking at him.

>how are these reasons for U.S still having a hard-on for coal when it's worse than even natural gas
It's cheaper than pretty much anything else and everyone is afraid of higher energy prices throwing us into another recession

>not investing in solar
It's expensive, so the same concerns as above

>solar tariffs
I haven't heard anything about that desu, I couldn't tell you

>denying climate change
Most of the people who "deny" it are just people who don't think that catastrophic climate change is a thing. Some of it is also just people reacting to the sensationalism and the efforts to grab power coming from the left

There's also a tremendous amount of debate in the scientific community on how much damage it will cause, over how long a time scale it will occur, and how much we can do about it, if anything. Most people don't think that it's worth it to throw everything we have at the problem when we don't even know how serious it is or how we can address the problem without shooting ourselves in the foot.

Treating the issue of climate change as a solved issue instead of the sensationalized mess that it is is a mistake and it alienates people. These climate deals aren't solving any of that and it's just seen as another attempt to subvert American sovereignty in favor of the international community

The only viable solution right now is nuclear energy, but hippies don't like that for literally no reason, and conservacucks live through the coal and oil industries. So yeah.

>That's only in a select few places afaik
Not really.

windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/spain-returns-to-wind-energy-with-record-low-prices/

offshorewind.biz/2017/04/13/germany-accepts-first-subsidy-free-offshore-wind-auction-bid/

Again, that's in Europe. Imagine that in a place like cali or texas.

>Ultimately, you come to the base problem of storing power since neither sun nor wind are steady enough to support an economy of a larger scale.
I repeat myself:
>I'm not advocating to only have those either, but a shift where renewable sources of energy are more prominent would be ideal.
Most of Brazil's energy comes from hydros. we had a severe drought that threatened our water reserves, so we started using thermos. Energy prices skyrocketed during that period.

>Not really.
My bad then. When I looked at it last they only had data from 2011 or so

Well, we closed the one in Philadelphia yesterday. The fact is that renewables are cheaper and obviously safer

>obviously safer
No, since nuclear energy is the safest source of energy right now.
>cheaper
Yes, but it is also orders of magnitude less efficient, and at this rate, they will never produce enough energy in time to overtake coal and oil, which is what we need to do.

Guess what, 90% of people IN THE WORLD don't give a fuck how people on different continents live, mostly because their media don't feed them self-hating propaganda. It's only the West that has grown weak and soft and afraid to impose its will.

Chinks are banned and we already have a burger in the thread.

>obviously safer
It's physically impossible for some of the newer model reactors to melt down and the waste is much easier to deal with

The renewable energy sector is already employing more people in the US than the fossil sector. There is no argument for pulling out, not even an economical one.

Just wait until 195 countries all over the wolrd put carbon tariffs on American products

Then why has Germany given up on it and banking on solar?

This but unironically

>Just wait until 195 countries all over the wolrd put carbon tariffs on American products

You mean the American products produced all over Asia employing millions? Germans are truly delusional in their ecowankery.

Only subhumans are against renewable energy. Dont reproduce

Because the German voters decided that they were willing to shoulder the economic consequences of switching to solar

How do you think coal would do without the massive history of subsidy?

>There's also a tremendous amount of debate in the scientific community on how much damage it will cause, over how long a time scale it will occur, and how much we can do about it, if anything. Most people don't think that it's worth it to throw everything we have at the problem when we don't even know how serious it is or how we can address the problem without shooting ourselves in the foot.

So picture related is your opinion? Are you saying because even though climate change is virtually solved science at this point, since we don't know the exact to-the-dot metrics, the status-quo is the way to go? Even though most projections we have right now says the status quo might lead to a 4 degree centigrade increase in 80 years?(this being a global AVERAGE some places might see temperatures rise far more)

I am all for bleeder reactors that use Thorium as fuel, but I have yet to see it into fruition. Wasn't India taking an interest in this?

Also, there will never be a one size fits all, a combination of renewables and nuclear is probably the way to go

so the excuses so far have been that americans think it's a scam and they don't want to shoulder the costs

all of this against long term goals
interesting

Breeder*

>Guess what, 90% of people IN THE WORLD don't give a fuck how people on different continents live

That's why every country in the world is working together on the Paris Accords except America, Syria, Nicaragua (who thinks the Paris Accords aren't harsh enough and opted out and are doing great in their energy programs) and Liberia.

The spirit of mankind is rooted in peaceful cooperation and empathy but sure you fucking prepubescent sociopath, enjoy your world-view sure it'll do you good. This is the last post I'll donate to your fleeting better nature.

The worst part is it isn't even in defense of the American industry, its in the defense of wall street tycoons and rich conservatives

Not even liberal-meming here, these people genuinely believe the American president is protecting their individual financial and national interests

must be a coincidence that the west are also the most prosperous while those other countries including yours are shitholes

All of this is irrelevant as we are working on fusion and all this hippy crap will be tossed when that happens.

Nice strawman

I don't think it's a serious enough problem to throw the West into a depression that we might not recover from for a decade or more. I think that taking gradual steps towards reducing carbon emissions is a much smarter policy than charging headfirst into a situation that we don't fully understand or know how to combat

Treating climate science as a solved issue is moronic and I'm not sure if you're baiting

>Wasn't India taking an interest in this?
I don't know. I think the main holdup is that the data we have are from tests by the military in the 60's and not from something that was designed to produce power on a commercial level

I think the best solution for now is to try to reduce carbon emissions with electric and CNG vehicles and to switch to nuclear and individual generation

>every country

*every politician

Politicians love scarecrows. They enable them to get more power. And who wouldn't want to travel the world from conference to conference?

Funny coming from "We wanna be neutral, leave us alone" the country

This shit is at gradual as it gets, lmao.

I was being hyperbolic for the sake of argument but fine, what are you arguing really? Taking baby-steps to solve the apparent problem? That's the exact nature of the Paris Accords in essence. Nobody is saying shut down every fucking factory, mate.

we don't join the usual world politic petty bickering, but are sensible enough to have signed the paris agreement

no wonder your upper class are poorer than even our farmers even though we're just one germany away

>Thinks global warming is about temperatures and not how gases interact with the atmosphere

How can Americans be THIS fucking stupid?

You know, there are actually several viable solutions to fix global warming. It's just that reducing CO2 emissions is by far the easiest and cheapest. And yet you STILL fight it for no reason. It's absurd.

>I think that taking gradual steps towards reducing carbon emissions is a much smarter policy than charging headfirst into a situation that we don't fully understand or know how to combat
What do you think these climate deals entail? No policy maker is retarded enough to follow the second alternative, it'd paralyse the country for years

Climate change is a troll topic in forums. I do not seriously reply to any of these threads or read them, and I hide them all. Can you do the same? You could be in better threads.

All the good countries in this thread agree + Mexico, Sudan & Brazil.

Really makes you think. Hmm..

>You could be in better threads.
>
Doubt that la

>no wonder your upper class are poorer than even our farmers even though we're just one germany away

Yeah, it's because we didn't fall for the climate change meme that we are poor, not the 6 years of Germ genocide and 40 years of communism

>better threads
>on Sup Forums

>what are you arguing really
That people stop sucking so much cock over something that wouldn't even begin to reduce emissions by any real amount. The solution isn't in these deals no matter how much you may want them to be

>That's the exact nature of the Paris Accords in essence
The nature of the Paris Accords is to lay the foundation for more aggressive deals. The conditions in the accords are a fucking joke. I'm not willing to surrender American sovereignty over a deal that has no teeth and wouldn't be enforced even if we stayed in

bit rude. Though I wonder, do you guys use alcohol as a car fuel up there? I remember reading something about that once

RELAX! US will continue to lead in the research and technology, and implementation of renewables without signing some cucking accord. This you can count on because there is a huge market for it. So, rest of the world, try not to get your panties all twisted

If the current administration won't reduce funding for alternative energy initiatives, not too bad