THE ENVIRONMENT

THE ENVIRONMENT
*takes trip in a super yacht*
IS DYING
*takes flight in a private jet to New York*
AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT
*vapes while talking to trump*
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!

Other urls found in this thread:

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html
youtube.com/watch?v=iIWGN-0Nqhg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>the makers of this movie paid an extensive carbon tax to compensate for the travelling that was need. Please consider how you can protect our environment.

>makes documentary
>in it explains how bad eating beef is for the environment
>probably flew his private jet out after seeing the salt bae meme on 9gag to eat it

lul wut a hypocrite

Environmental decline is very real and probably the biggest problem we're facing. Who cares about Leo's hypocrisy. That's just an excuse to ignore the issue.

>911
wew lad

Just because he's an humongous hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong

Dont forget about him flying from Cannes to NYC and back on a jet to accept an environmentalism award. Fuck this fag

This.
He even openly admits he's a hypocrite. It's not like he thinks people wouldn't notice all the obvious shit you're pointing out.

Openly admitting you're a hypocrite does't absolve you of doing wrong.

If a very fat person is giving you dieting advice you wouldn't listen to them either. Thanks to Leonard being a huge cunt to the environment many people will never take this film seriously.

In just one day his possessions alone probably do more damage to the planet to keep clean and fancy than most individuals will be able to cause in 20 years.

>dude solar and wind are the future lmao, they can totally compete with fossil fuels but only if we make them illegal first
>dude look how much the alternative energy industry is growing, yeah I know it all comes from government subsidies lmao
>dude the giant machines we use to mine the materials we require for these things can just run on big batteries lmao
>dude ban nuclear power lmao

Why did you type that like you did fucking edgy memer fag

again, if you dislike Leo, whatever. but if you're using that to overlook environmental issues then you're dishonest.

Dude I'm a rich liberal and this is how I talk, now please excuse me while I retire to one of my many mansions to relax lmao.

>environment issues are so important
>watch me give zero fucks about it
This is Leo. Can you blame people for being disillusioned? If it is so important then why isn't he doing anything about it personally. And I don't mean making a feel good film to jerk himself off

they shuffled some sheckles tho so the pollution is ok

kek

DELET THIS MEME

Kill yourself

Friendly reminder that global warming is a natural occurence and human involvement in it is nearly nonexistent

>Can you blame people for being disillusioned?

Yeah. Leo is a hypocritical shithead. OK. The air and water are still getting fucked.

Wow, you're dense.

Fucking bullshit.

Answer honestly: how much of your investment in that argument is motivated in your libertarian privileging of profits over anything else?

That is a perfectly clear point, and you're retarded if you can't understand why a single celebrity's own hypocrisy has no bearing on the fact of environmental damage and its dangers.

>yfw he does it intentionally as a joke about the people who really care

lmao how is that even a yacht

its a cruise ship

why does one man need a cruise ship

If this were true the climate of the planet would be so beyond fucked by now.

Wanna do your part to save the environment? Go Vegan.

Failing that reduce your animal products consumption as much as you are able to.

>how much of your investment in that argument is motivated in your libertarian privileging of profits over anything else?

Zero percent

geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

How much celebrity cock can one man suck? Because this guy is going for the record

>Muh environment
>Muh fossil fuels

Why are some people do insanely self centered that they actually believe humans have the power to effect the environment of the entire world.

News flash for you retards, humans aren't that powerful.

do they inject the money straight back into the icebergs or how does it work?

>would
it is mate its getting hotter and hotter and more weather incidents every year we are all gonna burn.

>humans have near infinite energy at their disposal
>the anti nuclear power lobby has made the general public completely forget about this
>everyone is focusing on solar and wind, which doesn't produce nearly as much as nuclear

Before going vegan you've got to move somewhere where you can grow all your own food so you're not buying imported food from far away because then you're just choosing to not eat moo moo but still having the same impact on the environment.

Are you guys implying that if you were millionaire celebrities that looked like leo (i.e. ugly) you wouldn't virtue signal constantly so that you could sleep with Victoria Secret models?

except we obviously are powerful as fuck you autistic snowflake.

>responding to autists

I dont know why I even bother.

...

Bullshit.
Nature is coming back around the deserted Tchernobyl site. Humans are literally worse for the environment than radiations. If you truly want to save the environment, you don't go vegan, you go childfree. Veganism is nothing but a distraction on the real problem that is human demography. Even if we were to eat nothing but vegetables and fruits, we would still need space and resources, nature would still be endangered simply by our numbers.
True solution is depopulation.

Greatest Hollywood troll since Jack Nicholson.

Nature wouldn't be where it is today without humans. We carry seeds with us and inside us. We've helped forestation spread as far as it as.

All of the world could be moved to Texas and the rest of the world used as a farm, we are not overpopulated.
The problem is that the west has a more developed way of living, that the underdeveloped part of the world also wants. But their technology is not on par with ours.

>dude diverty and tolerance, lets build bridges not walls ok thanks
*buys exlusive $2.5M property in 98% white gated community in new zealand

Yeah but its ok for him to do that because he brought the diversity to others and is getting poor people to use less. Fuck Trumptards dont get it. WE ARE ALLOWED IT BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING OTHERS TO NOT! Fucking morons.

not him but thats not true at all. you have no idea how much crop land you need to feed a cow

>probably the biggest problem we're facing
There are 500 million more niggers right now than there were in 1995. By end of century, there'll be four billion of them.

So he can continue making "I'M THE KING OF THE WORLD" references every day

They pay a company that plants a bunch of trees and shit

Who cares, there's nothing you can do of it short of genociding most of the global population.

Unless you live in China or India, air and water are the cleanest they've ever been since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Why are these retarded environmentalists act like humans are somehow separated from nature? Humans do what any other living creature would do, they model their environment to suit their needs. The only difference is that we're smarter and more capable of doing bigger changes, otherwise we're not so different to beavers or plants in this regard.

oh ok

Cant tell if this is satire or not anymore

>since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

that's not a high margin at all. The air might not be as bad as when we were pumping smoke directly into where we lived, but it's still pretty fucking bad

leo is a fucking cunt

>look at me I'm rich and can do what I want, you better live up to the same standards I can pay to ignore, you can do everything I can do ahahahaha

>muh climate change

He flew and eyebrow specialist in 7500 miles for the Oscars.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest form of energy in the world.

this triggers the environmentard

Leo does what he's told to do.

Much like global warming, Hollywood isn't real.

>be Leo
>travel on your private plane to India and China
>tell them to stop using cheap coal to provide some heat in their tiny shacks
>DUDE WHY DON'T YOU GUYS JUST INSTALL MILLION DOLLAR SOLAR PANELS AND WINDMILLS LIKE I DO
>fly to Dubai and eats thousand dollar steaks
>fly back to accept oscar and rant about the environment
>fly back home and brags to the 10/10 model he is fucking about how he saved the environment while VAPING and listening to MGMT

Damn I want his life so much

But he acknowledged it he does it so he is forgiven.

>cleanest
I agree, as long as there are ways to either recycle or destroy nuclear waste.
Just digging a hole and stuffing it in there doesnt count, because it doesnt work.
>safest
Debatable, as there are no studies about the effect of living near nuclear power plants for extended periods of time.
And as chernobyl and fukushima have proven, catastrophic failure isnt impossible and if it happens, you're kind of fucked.
Also we dont know what could happen if some towelhead decided to snackbar a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear power is the future, but saying its the safest form of energy is ridiculous to the point of just being plain bait.

>this is totally normal
>this is fine
>our CO2 and Methane is nothing compared to what Earth does by itself

I wish you lived in China. America deserves to look like this considering they pollute even more and are now doing less about it.

Chernobyl blew up because russians were retards who didn't have the slightest idea how to design a reactor. Not only that but they didn't even have a plan B when something went wrong since they didn't know how to turn off the damn thing.

Fukushima withstood the 4th largest earthquake in recorded history, an earthquake that was at least twice as powerful as what the building was designed for. It was the tsunami flooding the cooling plant that broke the thing.

Compare these extremely rare incidents to the thousands of people who die mining for coal, gas or oil. Not to mention that coal fumes also carry radioactive material.

Even if there were negative effects from living near the plant, which from a scientific perspective I don't see why they're would be unless they are dumping waste into rivers, you can just have the plant isolated.

if the fat person had sound advice on dieting i would. just because someone doesn't partake in the knowledge they know doesn't mean it's useful.

that's like saying you wouldn't trust a guys knowledge about football because he doesn't play it.

Id like to back you up by saying that Japan knowing how often they have tsunamis was trusted to put their plant on the coast in the first place. Obviously nuclear plants should be held to the tightest safety standards and really any of the historical events are the result of improper standards.

>trusted
retarded

>Also we dont know what could happen if some towelhead decided to snackbar a nuclear power plant.
nrc.gov/security/faq-force-on-force.html

It would take an army. A big army.

>they model their environment to suit their needs
Which is exactly what environmentalists try to do in theory- for instance let's not pollute to the point where we can't go outside in our own cities, or let sea level rise destroy a bunch of coastal cities, or acidify the ocean to the point where only jellyfish can live there.

next time some liberal uses that argument
show them this

baotou, inner mongolia
that lake is literally 100% toxic waste, the result of the heavy metals and other toxic materials required to make "green" technology.

I really don't know if human activity has a significant impact on global climate. If you take the stance that human activity bears no significant responsability in global warming; enviromental issues (pollution, depletion of natural resources) are still important problems we have to deal with. It drives me against the wall when people merge global warming and pollution.

>100%
>clearly still some water in it

I can totally get how stars can buy a mansion or a yacht, but both or many?

Why?

You are only one corpeal body, and flesh.no need for like 3 mansions.

>he thinks thats water.

...

You cant just discard these events either.
There is always a risk of fuck ups especially on the human side of things and its not like you can count on nature to keep you safe either.
They didnt expect the earthquake, but they should have, you need to take every single thing into account when building these things.
Safety should always be the number one priority.
That being said, i think that we could easily built nuclear planets capable of surviving terrorist attacks, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc with the technology we have right now.
Nuclear power plants regularly vent radiation outside. This is normal and has to be done.
The reason i was addressing this, is because german studies have indicated that the risk of leukemia in children under 5 that live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants is 19% higher than the risk for children that dont live near these plants.
The study hasnt shown conclusive proof that the power plants are at fault, but its something that should be taken into consideration.
As you said, building them in remote locations and having the workers rotate in shifts, like on an oilrig for example, would completely take care of this.
I dont doubt that the security is trained for these kinds of attacks, but as far as i could see, the website doesnt really go indepth on what they can or can not defend against.
Can they defend a power plant from a plane crash for example?

Lefty, Righy, we all live on the same planet, we all breath the same air, do you think you are safe from pollution forever?

>Lefty, Righy, we all live on the same planet, we all breath the same air, do you think you are safe from pollution forever?
What is your argument here?

>that looked like leo (i.e. ugly)

dude, what ugly means to you?

Why Sup Forumstards are so dishonest ?

>cleanest
Nuclear waste that lingers for millenia

>safest
subhumans actually believei n this

Either solar or wind generated energy are both the correct answers

>Can they defend a power plant from a plane crash for example?

This is a F4 Phantom going at 500mph giving it a 2,5 inch deep scratch (and that's probably only thanks to the engine being the toughest part)

The average protection for the nuclear plant structure is a four-feet-thick concrete wall, but the reactor vessel and other parts are even more protected.
youtube.com/watch?v=iIWGN-0Nqhg

>USA pollutes more, is doing less
>USA typically doesn't look like Silent Hill
>"America deserves to look like this"
Why? Doesn't this mean the USA is doing a bretty gud job at NOT shitting up the air?

And it's not safe at all
As time has proven it over and over again

>Listening to actors talk about anything but their next movie

Why would you do that?

>Either solar or wind generated energy are both the correct answers

Hello hippy

Feels good to be right and to shit all over you desu

Thats good to know.
So we can establish that newer reactors are probably safe from such attacks, however there are still older ones still in use around the world.
Tihange in belgium is such a case.
There are cracks in the reactor hull, yet its still being used.
Then there is obviously the danger of shit quality in subhuman countries such as india or china.
A catastrophic failure in asia coupled with bad winds could majorly fuck a decent part of the world.
I think its safe to say that its too dangerous to leave these countries with such technology.

>Chernobyl
poorly made, not even the scientists were kept informed, made for nukes.
>Three Mile Island
nobody died, the reactor is still working
>Fukushima
nobody died, a fucking Tsunami got in after a 4th grade earthquake, how often do those happen?

this or bombing us all back to the stone age which would eventual lead to 90% of the population dying of starvation

Exactly, it's not safe at all

>nobody died
Thats factually wrong.
Now aside from the people that died from the earthquake/tsunami, there are people dying from the effects of the radiation right now.
Also
>tsunami after an earthquake
That is something that should be expected.

if you consider the amount of nuclear power plants that have existed on this planet and compare that to the amount of catastrophic that occurred nuclear power plants are statistically speaking safer then driving in a car

That waste is highly manageable and probably not in quite the massive quantities you imagine. Waste is incredibly manageable compared to other energy systems while being far and away the most efficient

Those are already there. Building new improved first world plants doesn't change that.

would everybody agree that "climate change activisists" biggest enemy in their quest for clear and green energy are themselves.

their more holy than thou attitude combined with their inability to engage in open debate not to forget their constant need to portray everything in black and white really makes the large majority turn their backs on them and their movement

actually the radiation to the surrounding public is within safe levels. But I think it was dumb of Japan to put a reactor on the coast of its tsunami prone island. If negligence is the argument I may as welm say wind turbines are bad because some idiot company can decide to put one by a building and poorly design it so that in the event of predictable hurricane or earthquake the blades come off and crush 20 people.

I know.
I'm saying that these are dangerous and should be controlled or at best, closed down and if necessary replaced.
Obviously it would proove to be quite expensive, but in my opinion, you're not "losing" money if its for the wellbeing of your citizens.

>That waste is highly manageable

This is simply wrong and dishonest
It's one of the biggest issues with nuclear energy

Let's get to it then.