>TFW people are still falling for the Global Warning is a Hoax Jew.
What can we do to help the environment.
>>80613123
>cucks still advocating for solar panels instead of nuclear energy.
Stay mad (((solar))) fags
explose them to the fraud that is the IPCC
>>80613123
OP kill yourself to reduce your footprint you filthy scum
>>80613656
Fuck solar panels, I live in a cloudy area. The shit is useless here. I say hydro, wind, and nuclear are the three best.
>>80613801
Win is garbage and kills local bird populations
>>80613801
Nuclear>everything else
>>80614093
this
it's not a hoax but it's going to be exploited by the rich and powerful in the west as another way to fuck over everyone else, meanwhile developing countries will more than wipe out everything we do to reduce pollution
>>80613123
>people still think nuclear is bad
It's the only viable clean energy source, you mongs.
>>80614093
No it doesn't Birds aren't dumb enough to fly at slow-moving propellers, they're not moving at aeroplane speeds that you're thinking of.
>>80614093
And nuclear kills Slavs.
I think a few birds dying are a good sacrifice for slowing down climate change. It'ss also be a good exercise of eugenics.
>>80614319
It's an energy source, but it isn't clean.
Unless you're referring to fusion, which isn't ready yet.
>tfw no competitive nuclear
sigh this is why the plants are decaying and becoming hazardous
>>80614369
You know that windmills draw birds towards them because of air pressure, right?
>>80614279
It is a hoax
>>80614466
It's cleaner than most
>>80614391
You guys do know wind is a finite resource right?
We can't just use up all of the wind you fuckers
My meme degree is environmental biology. We have a lot of decent laws on the books but funding is a serous issue. As far as alternative energy, no one solution exists. The elements used in solar panels are very difficult to mine and end up fucking up the earth pretty bad in its own right. Solar won't produce e ought power and is only useful in some locations. Wind is the same as far as only being useful in a handful of spots around the earth and even then the optimal energy production doesnt line up at all with peak usage hours. Storing energy is inefficient and costly. I think nuclear is our best option however I highly recommend not using it everywhere. Some places are prone to flooding, earthquakes, and tornados. Also nuclear plants tend to cover up radiation leaks and it can be harmful for downstream residents (I live 30 miles downstream of a nuclear plant). So as far as energy, we're doing the best we can by diversifying our sources and continuing research. Right now production of biofuel costs $27/gallon in a lab, estimated commercial production would be around $4/gallon so at the moment it's not useful.
Clean water is a serious concern. Our states have proper laws on the books.but have no money to remediate their streams and rivers. Droughts are becoming worse and the US government is working on plans for how to handle a serious domestic drought. A couple years ago they dug a man made storage tank for water near d.c. it wasn't clear to me what the water was to be used for except maybe as an emergency back up supply for DC or the whitehouse. California is already u tiling toilet to tap purification facilities which literally purify sewage. Desalinization of the ocean is not financially viable. Extremely energy intensive to do on a large scale.
The ozone hole situation is actually improving. Though global warming remains a serious threat. I've read a t on of scientists predictions.. I have no idea what to expect exactly.
>>80613123
Environmental Scientist.
Clean up after yourselves and have green parking lots (grass.) Helps with run-off and erosion.
>tfw cleaning lead from dumps and waterways for a living
>will probably get sick eventually
>will never get to do any relevant study work ever again
On the bright side I make 120K a year thanks to hazard pay.
As for climate change - even if it is a 'hoax' as many believe? There is still a LOT we can do to make our environment safe for us. For example: stop fucking clear cutting tropical regions, you're destroying the soil and it wont fucking grow crops for long. Pointless losses of forestry.
>>80614571
Yeah, and getting hit by windmills will do as much as damage to birds as them flying at windows of houses.
They'll learn not to fly close to windmills, animals can adapt.
>>80614790
Sure thing, retard. Birds will just fly away after being hit in mid air by solid metal revolving fast.
It kills birds.
>>80614571
>It's cleaner than most
I can't think of an energy source where its waste needs containment and management for ten thousand years.
Right not, no one is using long term protocols to contain the waste. They are only:
>putting the waste in a dry cask
>putting the casks on a parking lot with a chain link fence
>having an armed guard watch it for 10,000 years
It's fucking embarrassing and stupid. Not to mention our methods of harvesting energy from nuclear are hilariously outdated and extremely inefficient.
Thanks for playing.
My Dad Works For Nintendo degree here.
We're fucked. Play Pokemon Go instead. Also I have a Nintendo 65. I can't show you it though
>>80613123
>all of these things can only be achieved through EPA regulations, more taxes, and a total rejection of skepticism
>>80614989
You could fit all the nuclear waste weve generated so far on an American football field. Also many countries are recycling the waste. It can be reused for further energy production or of course making bombs. By the time we produce enough that the waste will pose a probablem Yellowstone will have erupted and destroyed the earth or a large asteriod/comet will smack Earth and same result.
>>80613123
Die out.
Only whites are doing this.
>>80614989
Really? Managable waste is worse than waste spread everywhere? nuclear is cheap, It is easier to predict an impending disaster in the plant, uses less resources and has more opportunities for development overall.
>>80615426
You're underestimating the waste. It would be more secure if it were in a single location, but it's stored in hundreds of locations.
Try eating one microgram of nuclear waste.
>>80614790
You are wrong. Though the rotational speed of the turbine is not that fast, you forget how fucking big these things are. The tip speed can be over 180 mph (about 80 m/s). This kills birds.
>>80614750
How does a budding biologist land that job? Job title? Govt or private?
>>80613801
So I guess it all depends on the area. Can't neglect both nuclear and solar power for working in different circumstances.
>>80615555
Nuclear energy is still stuck in the 1950s. If someone can develop it further and implement it on a wide-scale with a real long term and permanent plan for nuclear waste.
Until then, you nuclear fags are full of shit.
>>80615614
You're the one overestimating.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste
>A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year. Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 76,430 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.
Also, if you want to help the environment, FUCKING PLANT NATIVE PLANTS. FUCKING DO IT, PLANT NATIVES LOCAL TO YOUR IMMEDIATE AREA. I'D DO FUCKING EASY JUST DO IT.
>>80616221
You do realize that the left in the US has actively prevented nuclear development right?
>>80616243
I'm not talking about the quantity of waste, I'm talking about long term management and the danger of the waste.
I'm anticipating some faggot that's going to say how "harmless" nuclear waste is btw.
>>80616450
>You do realize that the left in the US has actively prevented nuclear development right?
lol, yeah, it's the "left" not our bought and sold government in general that subsidizes fucking oil and gas.
get out of here you faggot.
The problem isn't that people are against green energy entirely, it's that the more vocal elements of the field are full of people in it for personal gain and a good portion of the money being allocated to green energy and green jobs is being funneled through firms and companies owned by the friends and colleagues of the people signing in legislation. On top of that you have hucksters spouting off memes like "solar roads" that stir up the public into believing things that just aren't true to make a quick buck. Renewable energy is currently an expensive embezzling device, funds should be increased and allocated only to open and heavily scrutinized companies and research teams. On top of that the shift needs to be gradual, the US economy relies on the performance of oil, it will take decades to slowly introduce alternative energy solutions lest the petrodollar crash, decades that we definitely have as much as Al Gore might whine to the contrary.
Also all of this will be for naught if we allow the growing population of sub Saharan Africa and southeastern and southern asia to undo all of our progress by shitting up the environment even more. Tell pajeet and mbeke they need to go back to powering their drug plantations by hand or we're going to run into even more problems. People often harp about how we need climate change and alternative energy solutions RIGHT NOW but then go silent when heavily polluting countries like India, China, and swathes of the third world are mentioned. I guess not being racist is more important than the survival of civilization to them
>>80613123
It doesn't matter.
If global warming is a hoax, no problem.
If global warming is not a hoax, it's too late.
>>80613801
Reminder that wind is shit, highly inefficient, and the mills use more fossil fuels to produce and ship than they save.
tl;dr you're a dumb faggot.
>>80614599
....ayyy wut lmao?
>>80614599
Say that to Mars.
>>80616685
>Renewable energy is currently an expensive embezzling device
lol, more than coal, oil and gas? What a bunch of horseshit.
>>80613123
Most of the CO2 doesn`t come from either Europe or the United States. Even if we do anything to reduce our output, other countries probably wont give a shit. Geoengineering, or adaptation, are the only options.
>>80616221
Nuclear in the US, you mean. Some countries in Europe are already 100% nuclear
>>80616685
>People often harp about how we need climate change and alternative energy solutions RIGHT NOW but then go silent when heavily polluting countries like India, China, and swathes of the third world are mentioned. I guess not being racist is more important than the survival of civilization to them
We also set the standard for those nations. China is even starting to backtrack their pollution because they're fucking killing themselves. It's still going to take a good while to fix themselves.
Largely, India hasn't even gotten started and they can make a shift. The whole nation needs new infrastructure and how they build it at this point is key.
>>80613123
Even if global warming is true it's more closely tied to gross human overpopulation and industrialization than anything else and you can't properly address it unless you look at those issues. And even if you reduce the population by six billion people and return the world to how it was millions of years ago, you can't reverse emissions in the atmosphere and effectively go carbon negative on a meaningful global scale to reverse this global warming trend. Even this extremely impractical and extreme course of action doesn't actually fix the issue, so imagine the lasting impact of all of the liberal "green" cucks being in power.
Alternative energy and clean shit is fine and better than things that expedite the global warming process, but it's just postponing an inevitability that isn't going to be solved by driving Priuses and eating tofu.
So if you want to truly help the environment I recommend >>80613797
>>80613656
I consider myself for the environment and I stand with nuclear power
>>80616464
Was getting shown that the solution to waste is reprocessing as utilized by France and getting called out on prioritizing waste fears over its cost effectiveness, reliability zero emissions part of your plan?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
>>80617047
I never said coal, oil and gas weren't exactly the same, just that we can't allow a similar relationship grow with forms of energy that we're going to be moving towards in the near future.
But let me guess, it's entirely irrelevant what corruption happens with alternative energy funds because big bad oil does the same thing?
I guess it's not a crime if someone else you don't like is doing it though, right?
>>80613123
>Spend 300 billions on wind parks and solar panels
>Wind parks are ugly, destroy nature and kill loads of rare birds
>Energy prices double for the average household, no matter how poor
>CO2 not actually reduce a bit by those actions, cause it turns out you still need reliable energy sources
Bettur world
>>80613123
None of that shit requires taxing breathing, which is the only "solution" the government can think of.
>>80615846
Not biologist unfortunately in my case, so I can't say. Enviro Science for me: 50% of my degree was Chemistry. 35% Environment. 15% GIS.
I had Analytical Chemistry which opened up a ton of doorways and graduated top of my program. I interned with the EPA and got to know some guys in one of the businesses they were working with as a contractor.
If you have even a semi-solid background in Chemistry - apply to major industries. Not Environmental agencies or research groups, but like oil refineries, Monsanto, large agricultural firms, etc. They need Environmental Guys to make sure they are within Standards, on a daily basis.
You'll make 45-100 a year depending on experience. In small towns it may be 25-40 a year, unless you get a real big corp like Monsanto.
In my case, the people I work with specialize with lead and other shit. I mostly help determine what/how to clean up. EG: Did the agency who said their soils were polluted properly sample the B horizon of soil? If so, was it consistent across all locations? Okay, here is our clean up plan and disposal plan.
>>80617455
>I never said coal, oil and gas weren't exactly the same
but I'm saying they are much worse in terms of billions and billions not millions like "green energy" tax breaks and subsidies.
>But let me guess, it's entirely irrelevant what corruption happens with alternative energy funds because big bad oil does the same thing?
you're a faggot, kys I didn't say that.
If you want campaign finance reform or a cultural revolution then explain your plan for doing so.
>>80613123
It has nothing to do with making the world a better place, it's the centralization of power and control that goes a long with it. It's why people should be asking basic questions and looking for contrary proof.
Don't trust advocacy groups who take government money in order to prove these things, it is not in any way factual, it's all still theories, no one should be giving up liberty and solidarity in order to appease government shilling their dogma.
>>80617524
>ignoring geothermal with CO2 turbines.
>>80614279
What part is the 'issue' is the hoax. The climate is always changine has always been changing. The argument is whether or not what we do makes a difference, I'm inclined to think we don't have nearly as much control on the temperature of the earth as they want us to believe. It's a hoax that human beings are making the world uninhabitable, dumping oil and plastics in our oceans however is a real problem with actual evidence. Saying that we are going to ruin the entire ecosystem, of our planet by not giving everything to the globalist, is extremely stupid.
>>80613123
I wish environmentalism was unhitched from leftist politics.
Yeah, we stand to gain from reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Not in the least because we've based our entire economy on shit that happens to be found often in absolute shitholes. And certainly we can stand to gain from living in cleaner environments.
But instead we get ineffectual emotionally oriented leftists who are afraid of any effective solution, and pour billions into useless boondoggle after nonfunctional vanity project.
We need:
>nuclear power
>worldwide population reduction
>protection of biodiversity
>a shift away from a consumption economy
All things leftists oppose. Nuclear because it scares them, population because "muh racism/economy" arguments, biodiversity because of "poverty/but we did it too" arguments, and the last one they don't even know they're doing as they sip their Starbucks and fondle their iPods.
Yet this is the Big Four for solving environmental issues on the long term. It can't be done any other fucking way, and the people who claim to be saving our planet are paving the way for its doom. And I fucking hate them them for it, because there's nothing I hate more than a hypocrite. At least Cletus with his compensation truck is honest about it.
>people still fall for the global warming is dangerous myth
REMINDER: In 2005 the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1
>Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.
When it didn't come true in 2011 they tried to delete the statistics from the official UNEP website
>Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html
The "scientists" working on the global warming fearmongering scam are far-left extremists who believe in their radical anti-human green ideology where white western patriarchal humans are pure evil and 3rd world brown people and "mother nature" are always the good ones. They're not scientists, they're ideologues and they're going to do anything to manufacture a "environmental crisis" to blame on white people
>>80618211
>I'm inclined to think we don't have nearly as much control on the temperature of the earth as they want us to believe.
and you'd be wrong.
>>80613123
-Restore or built a house in your countryside
-Make it indepent for electricity with solar panels or wind turbine
-Make it independent for water with a phytopurification system
-Make it independent in city gas with a dry toilets system to make your own methan
-Grown your own vegetables, fruits, hunt, fish, animal husbandry, etc.
-Of course it's really difficult to do that only by yourself so join or create a eco-community
If you suceed, you will no longer need money because you don't have anything to buy anymore, you are now out of the system.
>>80618346
The UN should be disbanded. I can't name a single organisation that is both so full of shit and so anti-Western, with maybe the exception of the EU.
>>80618561
This is my dream.
It's also illegal.
>>80618353
If actual scientist, including the ones given federal money to find proof, haven't proven it. Then you aren't going to prove it either.
>>80614258
didn't your country have to shut down a nuclear power plant cause someone shit in it?
>>80613656
Theoretically, if we cover the Sahara with solar plates? How much of Europe would that power?
>>80618561
Repair and replacement parts. Even if you can fix it on your own.
Also, an issue we have here in Florida that our local powerplant found: high humidity environments ruined windmills. Within 6 months, windmills they put on buildings and billboards were needing extensive rework.
Solar Panels had similar issues.
Tropics are fucked in those senses...
>>80619007
That depends entirely on the robber barons that run the place. Just like it does with oil.
>>80618856
>If actual scientist, including the ones given federal money to find proof, haven't proven it.
lol, wow. you're a fucking idiot. Humans have been changing the climate for 10,000+ years. Why do you think we have so many deserts and all of the mega fauna are extinct?
>>80619007
Problem is, you'd fuck over South America. Brazil's Rain Forests depend on the Sahara for nutrients. Covering the Sahara in panels will remove a primary source for South America. You essentially cut down onaeolian mechanisms.
>>80613801
Geothermal seems pretty reliable if they will insist on using fucking turbines to generate energy.
>>80613123
Obvious scam.
>>80619127
No, humans have been changing the landscape. The global climate has been changing on its own, regardless of where or when humans have existed.
The climate of the planet changes, the actual debate between the two sides is whether or not we really have that much say, in how the ecosystem adjusts. They haven't come to a conclusion, the only reason you think one side is factual is because of the amount of shit done in the name of one side, the amount of money that goes into one sides argument, the amount of laws that go up because they are being funded by outside interest.
>>80613123
The answer is NEVER increasing taxes or giving politicians more power, regardless of the problem being real or not.
Technology solves problems, politics does not.
who gives a shit about the environment
>>80619562
Glad you feel that way, and I guess you would have to, seeing as your country has done so much self harm, because of this hysteria.
>>80619549
I feel like there is a good chance what us humans do have a big impact on the shift of climate and ecosystems. This of all the man made chemicals we produce that seep into the environment. Look up the recent study about the effect of littered cigarette butts and the seeping of metals into the food chain.
>>80618271
As a wildlife biologist who works on this stuff (and a lefttard), I can tell you that, while leftists claim the environmentalism mantle, most don't know what the fuck they're talking about. So while rightist get blamed for having a horrible environmental record, leftists have a terrible one as well. We're just terrible all around as a species.
Some examples:
>Wind energy is amazing!
Except for the number of bats and birds it kills. There are efforts to redesign the turbines so it doesn't do that anymore, but until then you're killing a shit ton of important critters.
>Hunting is so horrible! #CecilTheLion
Hunting supports global environmental projects. Third world shitholes would give way less of a fuck about their wildlife if there wasn't money to be made off of it.
>Everything would be sunshine and rainbows if we all went organic.
Organic farming produces less and requires more work on a similar sized farm than our current methods of agriculture. By going organic, we would be able to feed even less people than we are now and require more land to do it. Organic farming also isn't free of pesticides, instead, you're stuck using stuff that was developed in the 60's and before. Some of it is highly toxic and environmentally damaging.
Best way:
Force people to go to gym every day and ride a bicycle there.
Connect generator to it.
Win-Win
>yes im a genius i know
>>80613123
I worked as a conservation worker across the southwest. Please, for the love of God
>Plant Native Plants. Choose local species over imports every time.
>Leave no trace. Don't feed the wildlife, don't litter and pick up litter and discarded food when you see it in wild areas.
>If some nice people come knocking and ask permission to kill some invasive plants on your property and offer to trade you nice natives FUCKING AGREE TO IT.
>>80619549
>No, humans have been changing the landscape.
You really don't know what "changing the landscape" and "changing the climate" have to do with one another?
Do you huff gasoline for fun?
>>80618689
If you buy the land there's nothing illegal in there.
>>80619094
That's sure, you need a temperate climate. If I was american I would go to Canada frontier states or Midwest states.
>>80619867
Yeah, my problem is that the supposed advocates are doing such a terrible job. I agree with the point in theory, but I can't get along with an ideology that sells our absolute best chance of kicking out fossil fuel as dangerous.
If we want to solve this problem and keep our advanced society, we need nuclear energy. The science involved in it is a bonus. Storing the waste certainly can't be more dangerous than just pumping it into the atmosphere and the oceans. There are zero sound arguments against nuclear power.
>Third world shitholes would give way less of a fuck about their wildlife if there wasn't money to be made off of it.
Exactly. Yet I see loads of leftists sticking up for poachers, of all things. Why? Because they're poor, and you're rich and Western, so you can't judge! Nevermind that these assholes are fucking over the entire population of the country they live in for a get-rich-quick scheme.
Though, I believe Cecil was killed in a way that was not in keeping with good practice of hunting. But I also think trophy hunting is degenerate, and am only OK with it because it makes environmental sense to let a rich guy with a compensation drive do your work for you and pay to do it, to boot.
I might be a right wing asshole, but I support the most efficient solution for any given problem in any case. What's really getting on my nerves is the attitude a lot of people have in interpreting ridiculous hidden motives behind "right wing" ideas of environmentalism. For fuck's sake, the traditional right wing attitude is "fuck it". So if I'm not saying that, I'm certainly not trying to weasel in anti-environmentalism in disguise.
>>80620929
>If you buy the land there's nothing illegal in there.
Curious. I thought a Frenchman would be closely familiar with the horror that is bureaucracy.
the biggest threat to the environment is corporations destroying rain forests
>>80619791
Lol, I'm not saying human beings don't have influence and impacts on nature. It is however hard to argue or to prove that we can change the entire global climate. People act like the planet is going to burst into flames when in the 70's, when this all started we were supposed to be heading into a second ice age. Then the climate started cooling again in the years after "an inconvenient truth" became a household movie. The official name for it isn't 'global warming' anymore, it is the fight against 'climate change' that big scary thing that the earth has been doing since the beginning of time. Judging from history to judge all this land grabbing, the centralizing of power, it is no difference in tactics of say, the church putting fear into its constituents that Jesus is coming back.
>>80620591
Nice proof there hysteric. What exactly is your argument anyway, you know that there are more trees in the United States now than there were 100 years ago? You know that humans have lived in CO2 rich global environments before? If this is some save the trees nonsense, I'll have to tell you, nothing gets trees planted quite as often or as efficiently as industries that make money selling byproducts made from trees. You want a tree planted, buy paper, if you want a tree planted, celebrate Christmas you fucking kike. If you want tell me human beings are making the earth uninhabitable by their actions, I sincerely wish you luck in proving it.
I'm in no way saying we shouldn't be working on alternative sources for energy or preparing for the worst. The risk of not doing so, obviously outweighs the problems that could happen if the hysterics are correct. That however does not mean we need to give Federal and by extension the UN centralized power and land. I mean if you are trying to sell our country, our liberties in the name of something you haven't proven it's problem. There are better ways to go about doing this, no one is pushing to privatize these efforts.
>>80620591
Considering that having a man-made trail is enough to disqualify an old-growth forest AKA virgin forest from the title you can't be surprised when a highly populated country like the US has so little of it.
>>80622872
>What exactly is your argument anyway, you know that there are more trees in the United States now than there were 100 years ago?
>>80622872
Listen, the global issue isn't absolute CO2 levels per se, or a small rise in global heat content .. per-se.
The issue is that there's 7.4 billion humans living here, and human activities have had an impact on several aspects of the climate on this planet.
You mention CO2, but you don't mention the carbon cycle, shifting fluxes and the onset of the next extinction event.
If you want to counter or argue apocalyptic warmist propaganda, you're doing a shit job because your arguments (if one can call them such) can be dismissed easily by a first year geoscientist.
Global Warming my ass.
It was literally 15 degrees and raining outside yesterday. Explain that, climate change hippies.
>>80624924
>You mention CO2, but you don't mention the carbon cycle, shifting fluxes and the onset of the next extinction event.
Is there a consensus among scientist, that we are headed toward an 'extinction event'?
>If you want to counter or argue apocalyptic warmist propaganda, you're doing a shit job because your arguments (if one can call them such) can be dismissed easily by a first year geoscientist.
What exactly would they be refuting? The only thing they could try to refute is me denying, that human beings have a significant role in global climate change, they would not however 'prove' it. Otherwise they would have by now and I would accept all the posturing and power grabbing, done in the name of 'climate change'.
>>80626626
>Is there a consensus among scientist, that we are headed toward an 'extinction event'?
Basically. Check out http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full.pdf+html for an easy read .. and following publications that cite it:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=4464824448785919968&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
>>80613123
nobody thinks GW is a hoax, what we think is a hoax is that there's anything anyone ought to or could do to stop it. No, we can't switch off coal and natural gas. No, wind and solar are not alternatives. Electric cars produce more pollution than normal cars, Nuclear power is geopolitically dangerous and irresponsible (because depleted fuel rods are still weapons grade), and nothing anyone does will stop it. The best we can do it put it in a bottle and try to preserve the parts of nature we appreciate the most, like grass, trees, and social fauna.
>>80627451
>Electric cars produce more pollution than normal cars
Dude, whatever NOx, CO, and PM2.5 sensors you're using, get some new one's.
Yes Global warming is happening, but the hoax is saying that we causes it. The earths temperature fluctuates naturally, because of interglacials and glacials. We are leaving a glacial ( pleistocene era) and entering an interglacial. Expect things to get alot hotter.
>>80626981
Lol, i'll read it when I get back from lunch. forgive me but, I don't really care about species going extinct, if they do, maybe it was just 'their time'. That doesn't mean I think we should be burning down every rain-forest in eye-sight. there are obvious benefits and uses we could cultivate by preserving those rain-forest. We don't really need to cry every time a species just goes away, it just feels like humans are trying to take credit for nature and grieving over the cycle of life. It's all very funny to me.
>>80628137
Fair enough. I'll just drop one little spoiler - extinction event doesn't mean that we'll see a few lizards dying out, or some Dodo's being lost. A sixth mass extinction is a quite different cup of tea. Won't harm to educate yourself.
>>80627603
Where do you think the 'go' from your electric car comes from, because "electricity" is not a source.
Stupid fuck.
>>80629029
Electric motors do not produce any NOx or PMs. Sure, the primary energy needed to produce the components may, but the car itself is not.
Quoting you: "Electric cars produce more pollution than normal cars".
No. Electric cars do not pollute as much as ones with combustion engines.
>>80613123
>What can we do to help the environment.
F U S I O N
U
S
I
O
N
>>80614093
Fuck off with this meme, carbon emissions kill ×10000 more birds than wind farms you fucking cuck
>>80619007
how in the hell will you transfer that energy to Europe efficiently?
nameplate capacity would cover the whole planet needs probably...but it would work only half a day with changing strength, and maximum efficiency of 20-30%
if one asshole starts up massive aluminum factory in the wrong time say goodby to energy for the continent for few seconds or minutes
enjoy your super expensive energy and many bankruptcies
>>80629523
Wind farms are going to change the way weather occurs over time,.
Sapping that energy from the air will eventually cause droughts in places previously immune to them and downpours in deserts.
It will be an interesting situation in 2050.
>climate scientists known to skew data since the 80s
>private sector that stands to earn financial gain from continued research and funding
>"just look at our findings, clearly this is important. more money please. save the earth"
>>80613656
God forbid we diversify our ability to create energy.
Imagine having a flexible network of energy creation to provide a safety net in case a different kind fails/is deemed obsolete.
Let's just make everything nuclear power what the fuck could possibly go wrong three times since its inception lol!!!
>>80631202
would not cities be 1000x worse?
>>80631503
It doesn't take any computers or devices to see that our industrial waste is bad for the environment.
>>80631202
Yeah, it's going to be wind farms that fuck up the environment and not the burning of hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon energy in less than an century that's fucking things up
>>80614743
So, global warming's getting better, but our energy and water sources aren't? Okay, got it.
>>80629313
The electricity you put into your car can eventualy be traced back to a power plant that likely works on coal.
>>80613123
>who cares if we lied, end justifies the means because we literally created "a better world"
hahahahaha get the fuck out of here
>tfw you'll probably be in a retirement home already until you will witness efficient nuclear fusion energy
>>80634447
But the shit-trace of nitrous oxide and particulate matter that ends up in your lungs is expelled by combustion engines, not by electric motors.
In terms of pollution and air quality, the electric car is favourable.
>>80614258
t. ghandi
>>80635045
>In terms of pollution and air quality, the electric car is favourable.
Until it fucks the grid so hard they need to build even more coal plants. Look at what is happening to the grid in parts of BC now because of stress from electric cars.
