i consider myself pretty conservative, except when it comes to the environment. we can't continue on fossil fuels forever. why are so many conservatives against conservationism and sustainable energy?
>>70192627
No intelligent person is against sustainable energy, it just doesn't exist yet. It isn't cost effective
>>70192627
I'm actually fine with the way things are going. Only issue I have is with the democrats shutting down nuclear power, which is the safest power source we have, and is so clean that 4th gen plants can even run on the waste that the first 3 gens produce.
By the way, the total amount of waste from the first 3 gens would fill a football field (100yards x 50 yards) about 20 feet high. Sounds like a lot, but, considering that we have been using it as a reliable power source for decades, it's practically nothing, but we can still eliminate it.
But yeah, nuclear power combined with all electric vehicles sounds pretty great, and I'm definitely conservative.
>>70192627
>we can't continue on fossil fuels forever.
Find me a better alternative that's both cheaper and practical.
why are so many conservatives against conservationism
Like being almost the sole finders of conservation through all of our hunting/fishing/trapping licences/equipment?
and sustainable energy?
Because 99.999% of sustainable energy is a bullshit economic failure and the shit that does work is very geographically restricted.
>>70192627
Oh, and as an afterthought, clean energy isn't clean.
If you opt to go solar or wind, which isn't reliable, and can't be stored reliably without prohibitively expensive investments (along with regular replacements), the US government mandates that you back up green energy with a secondary source, such as natural gas, diesel, or coal.
So choosing to go for "green energy" like wind or solar, rather than going for nuclear, actually produces more pollution.
Oh, and once fusion reactors are ready for use (they are a few decades away from that), that will be even better!
>>70193078
Pretend that I greentexted that right, I'm fairly drunk and tired.
>>70192864
i support nuclear power, it sounds pretty safe.
my concern is with fossil fuels and how its becoming increasing difficult to get to them. i also believe greenhouse gasses are a threat to the environment, but that opinion isnt very popular among conservatives.
>>70192864
>Only issue I have is with the democrats shutting down nuclear power, which is the safest power source we have, and is so clean that 4th gen plants can even run on the waste that the first 3 gens produce.
Republicans are never going to actually support nuclear power. It's just a thing they talk about. The only countries with significant nuclear power industries spend absolutely fuckton huge amounts of government money subsidizing them, and Republicans are never going to put that in the budget. They would rather spend that money on moar subsidies for oil and coal (which don't need them) or just tax breaks (but only for the highest income brackets; the rest of us get an increase in the sales tax instead).
>Find me a better alternative that's both cheaper and practical.
Solar and wind are actually almost there; the last decade has seen an absolutely crazy amount of progress. We've even started making some interesting breakthroughs in energy storage technologies, which helps alleviate a lot of the concern about "wat do when no sun?"
But honestly, even without some fancy new energy storage technology we could switch to solar/wind for our primary source of energy by ~2025-2035 and then kick on extra fossil fuel generators to meet peak demand as needed (which is a thing your local power plant already does, except it's fossil fuel backed up by fossil fuel instead of solar/wind backed up by fossil fuel).
>>70193521
It's not difficult to get fossil fuels. We have plenty just in Alaska. Canada has a bunch, too, and is willing to exchange it for money. Then we have the Bakken oil field.
Even without gas cars, we still need oil, although synthetic oil is getting better and better.
As for greenhouse gases, I don't give a fuck. I haven't seen any evidence to prove the claims. But you know what? I switched every light in my house to LED bulbs. Not because I'm worried about green house gases, but because they save me a LOT of money.
I have the same opinion of electric cars. They are becoming more and more available, and they are getting cheaper and cheaper. As soon as they get cheap enough for me to invest in them easily, I'll have no problem with using one for all travel that can be easily covered by its range.
I'll still likely have a hybrid for long distance drives though.
Conservatives are the only ones who are truly conservationists. Hunting, for example, doesn't tend to get done by liberals. Most liberals get upset when controlled fires happen. Conservatives are also the ones stopping the mass pumping of oil in the U.S. (most people think the opposite is true).
Typically liberal ideas about conservation are actually about government control and are anti business. It's completely fake.
>>70193646
>Solar and wind are actually almost there
No they aren't. They are making progress, but they aren't "almost there," for universal adaptation. Yeah, the molten salt towers are good for tropical regions, but it won't do anything north or south of the tropics when it gets dark and cloudy for months at a time.
>which is a thing your local power plant already does, except it's fossil fuel backed up by fossil fuel instead of solar/wind backed up by fossil fuel
Not true. Obama's Clean Energy act is pushing that on a lot of the bigger power plants (who are VERY worried about it), but, on the local levels, nobody is adopting, because federal law dictates that you have to treat it as though it doesn't exist. So, if your town needs 40MW peak, then you would need 40 MW in both clean energies, AND in dirtier energies. What they are doing instead is keeping all their shit below at or below 25MW, and getting multiple machines if they need to. Another option that is getting popular is to just shut down the local power plant, and enrolling in Power Pools.
>>70193759
>As soon as they get cheap enough for me to invest in them easily, I'll have no problem with using one for all travel that can be easily covered by its range.
If my truck could be exactly the same but electric I would switch (BTW, electric cars are still powered by fossil fuels), but I'm not able pull my camper with any electric vehicle on the market, so libshits either need created one or stop bitching about my gas guzzler.
>>70194537
I get that. I have a feeling that it's gonna be like the 300W equivalent LED bulbs. They'll eventually arrive, but it will be quite a while after the lower powered lights reach mass acceptance.
So yeah, as Tesla gets more and more "fast charge" stations implemented, more and more people will adopt the lower powered shit, at which point, they will take that money and invest in bigger and more powerful cars.
>>70192627
>why are so many conservatives against conservationism and sustainable energy?
Because they are idiots.
>>70195055
Not one person who identifies as conservative in this thread holds the opinion that OP accuses conservatives of.
>>70192627
Because economics is solving and will solve the problem. Greenfag intervention does nothing but make greenfags feel better about themselves.
>>70192627
>i consider myself pretty conservative, except when it comes to the environment. we can't continue on fossil fuels forever. why are so many conservatives against conservationism and sustainable energy?
Because they take money from fossil fuel companies.
Because they don't support widespread government investment in new technology as they prefer private investment (and the companies owning the patents).
Countries that are really good at providing renewable energy sources and have renewable energy companies all seem to have their shit together- the Denmarks, Japans, Netherlands of the world.
We could probably spend the amount we spent on NASA during the cold war yearly and eventually develop cheap solar panels and 'plant' the energy farms out in the Mojave.
>>70195112
>>70195055
Truth be told, Conservatives/Republicans have always been the big thinkers on the environment in the US.
>Teddy Roosevelt planned and pushed through our National Parks system
>Nixon signed clean air act into law, clean water act, banned DDT
>>70195220
You're somewhat right. It's just the leftist reaction to everything. They have no patience. Remember how Marx said communism is inevitable, and would happen naturally when it was time? I don't believe in it, but communists do, but don't want to wait, so they try to force change.
Ditto for green power, or pretty much anything leftist. If it needs to happen, then the free market will make it happen. Tesla is seeing a need, and supplying a solution, and making a lot of money doing so. But that isn't good enough because it needs to be universal overnight.
>>70195240
The problem with that logic is that you are talking about a centralized government. That is assessing what people think they need, and pushing it out. Centralized planning is ALWAYS pushing, whereas a free economy is ALWAYS pulling. When people are allowed to pull, things get where they need to go, because people are rewarded for fulfilling the demand of others.
When you push shit, you wind up with Russian Bread lines and the Canadian healthcare system.
>>70195396
The thing with green power though is it doesn't benefit many people directly. It would benefit the environment and future generations but what incentives does someone have to go green if it doesn't benefit themself? Maybe when fossil fuels become incredibly scarce and alternative energies are just cheaper as a result, but I'm afraid when that point comes that the environment will be irreparably damaged.
>>70196504
That's like saying that LED bulbs don't benefit people directly.
OF COURSE IT DOES!
It saves people money! There's always the early adopters who do it for various reasons, but those people open up the demand. So when you get electric cars, people are gonna want cheaper electricity. That means that reliable, cheap energy is how they are gonna want to go. While this will NEVER be wind, and won't be solar in many locations, nuclear fission and (eventually) fusion are great.
>>70195376
But modern Republicans want to open up national parks for resource extraction, and some call for deconstructing the EPA all together. What happened to the conservatives of yesteryear?
>>70196742
I mean that was sort of my point, no one will buy it unless it's the cheap alternative. Never mind if the other alternative is destroying the environment. What if the green alternative isn't the cheap choice until it's too late?
>>70196762
This too. Trump wants to abolish the EPA
>>70196762
>What happened to the conservatives of yesteryear?
Most of them are either going libertarian (and believe in a very small government), or are reacting to the liberals push to overregulate everything.
I challenge you to try and order a new van or truck from ANY car maker, but ask them to replace the carpet on the floor with rubber, saying that you work in the dirt and mud a lot.
They won't do it, because the "green" requirements of car makers are so strict that they can't even do that, no matter how good the mileage is. You would have to purchase a car, rip the carpet out, and relay the rubber flooring, all at your own expense.
I'm not against the EPA, but its NEVER enough for these people. They want everything to be on the bleeding edge, so much so, that businesses have to struggle and cut corners in order to meet said regulations.
I would rather have more relaxed regulations, but with VERY strict penalties for violating them (so strict that they are gonna be fined out of business for breaking them).
>>70192627
Energy is the only thing that matters, fuck this planet in 10,000 years everything we had done to it will be gone.
>>70196974
Define "too late."
>>70192838
First post best post.
Personally I love alternative energy, but that doesn't mean I hate petroleum. I say it every single thread: put solar on the sun's anvil, put wind where humans get BTFO by it, put nuclear where both natural and man-made problems are mild and stable, and fossil for everyone else. UK and Sweden have no business with solar.
>>70192627
>why are conservatives against conservationism and sustainable energy
because they are stupid, petulant children with no vision
NUCLEAR
U
C
L
E
A
R
>>70192838
>not cost effective
>cars constantly update
>computers constantly update
>brand new fucking cell phone
oh but of course, green energy has no R & D. there's clearly no reason to improve anything. let's just see how tall we can pile up trash and how wide the city dump can get
>being concerned with conservation isn't considered conservative
>>70193823
>Conservatives are also the ones stopping mass pumping of oil in the U.S
Source?
Because The conservatives in my country did the exact opposite. they increased oil production by %500 percent, causing massive environmental damage in Alberta. Definitely not Conservationists up here.
>>70192627
because conservatism was bought by industrial interests a lonnggg time ago.
enviromental conservation will only become interesting to conservatives once they can scare people with it, and get an excuse for more market liberalisation with it as a lever.
>>70197135
/thread
>>70197135
Only because most "green" faggots are zealot communists that literally hate humanity.
>>70197025
But what if we into space?
>>70197235
every time
>>70197280
If we become a spaceborne civilization then devouring 100% of our home planet's mass for resources would be a wise idea.
>>70192627
>we can't continue on fossil fuels forever
https://youtu.be/WjdJH-KrxKE
>>70197135
Western conservatives love nature. If you want to pick one man to be the absolute champion of nature, then pick a hunter.
Western liberals act like they're the sole protectors of nature, just like they're the sole protectors of the negro race. And the sole protectors of Mexicans, and Muslims, and women, etc.
>>70197071
that's not a real answer. c'mon man.
I would say that most rep/con people don't consider the environment an issue. simply out of there control. And in a way, they are correct.
After using "all" the fossil fuels we as a species would just be forced to start using other methods. most likely nuclear energy.
>>70197319
Public schools in the US are shit.
See Detroit for the result of public water.
Public highways means that locals pay for trucks to drive through them, rather than paying for what you use.
Public parks aren't a universal good, so it's everyone paying for the pleasure of a limited few.
Public Health care is shit. Let's look at Canada, which every major candidate touts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
So what's your point?
>>70197218
/wrists
>>70197063
Climate change resulting in rising sea levels, oceanic acidification, mass extinction. Things we could not fix once they start to happen.
>>70192627
i dont think they are against it, they are against being forced by government to do it.
>>70197508
Well, then, they've already started to happen. Guess they can't be fixed, by your logic, so why are you worrying about it?
>>70192627
Lots of resources here. You figure it out, genius.
http://www.theoildrum.com/
>>70197574
I didn't mean those things, sorry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
But if you agree that they're happening, why shouldn't we invest in alternative energy to stop it?
>>70195240
Energy farms in the Mojave.
That's a laugh, m8.
>Muh endangered tortoise
>Muh endangered plants
>Muh jackalope migration routes.
The so called conservationists oppose damn near anything done in the desert.
>>70192627
Conserving the environment is a conservative value. Someone who'd destroy the environment for riches is a greedy capitalist, not a conservative.
>>70197482
defund public schools - blame public schools
allow companies to pollute your water ways - blame public water
public highways work - stop being a libertarian fuckwit. How fucking stupid are you Hank? Do you always not want to pay for things you dont actively use but still benefit from? Do your goods at the supermarket just appear there? Are you this fucking stupid all the time?
Public parks - they are part of your national identity. I visited America, the only place I really have fond and lasting memories of was Yellowstone Park. Go fuck yourself hank.
Public healthcare in any country outside of your shitload serves more people, cheaper and without bankrupting people or wasting $$$ in rediculous private insurance scams.
you are a corporate cuck. Kill yourself.
>>70197862
I don't agree that oil is the main cause for everything. I've seen lots of scientists claim this, but never any actually research presented to prove their claims.
This leads me to skepticism. It's not that I'm a denier that fossil fuels could ever effect the overall climate. I'm skeptical that it's making as big of an effect as everyone claims, and I'm very skeptical that we need to give the government power in order to address it (which is pretty much what every scientist always claims). How much of a megaphone do you think leftists would give these scientists if they said that the government needed LESS power?
It's a 25 minute video, but Stefan lays out the skeptics case very well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk
As for the "What if?" factor, that doesn't stop anyone else from their freedoms. So what if having more sex results in higher unwanted pregnancy rates/abortion rates/ birth rates/STD rates? They should still have the freedom to do it, right? Or do you believe that the government should limit that, so that human consumption can remain in check?
>>70198281
>>70197862
Forgot link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk
>>70192627
Conservative ideology fakes family values because it's really just for the wealthy only there's not enough of them to win any elections.
They think "fuck it I'll be dead by then" and want to enjoy it while it lasts
>>70198260
>defund public schools - blame public schools
You're dumb and have no understanding of the history of schooling in the US
>>70197874
>The so called conservationists oppose damn near anything done in the desert.
Agreed, but putting a 25 mile x 25 mile solar panal array in the Mojave right now would power all of Southern California.
Plus the Mojave is not very pretty (Anza Borrego is the pretty one).
>>70198433
>Muh states
Your country is fucked and you can twist words as much as you want, the rest of the world sees it and is horrified by it.
>>70198260
>defund public schools - blame public schools
Nope. Common Core and No child left behind did just the opposite, pouring money into schools with lower testing scores. No effect. On top of that, there is no effect on spending and achievement: https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/April-2004/Tough-Lesson-More-Money-Doesnt-Help-Schools-Accountability-Does
>allow companies to pollute your water ways - blame public water
EPA is supposed to protect against that. Also, I'm talking about Detroit, not Flint.
>public highways work - stop being a libertarian fuckwit. How fucking stupid are you Hank? Do you always not want to pay for things you dont actively use but still benefit from? Do your goods at the supermarket just appear there? Are you this fucking stupid all the time?
Why do you have a problem with toll roads, where people pay for what they use? In my experience, they are in a much better state (not deteriorating), and are taken much better care of (even during a blizzard, they stay clear of snow).
Meanwhile, public highways haven't been paid for yet, but are already in a state of disrepair, and you are paying for people out of state to abuse the fuck out of the roads.
>Public parks - they are part of your national identity
How so?
>Public healthcare in any country outside of your shitload serves more people, cheaper and without bankrupting people or wasting $$$ in rediculous private insurance scams.
I take it you didn't watch the video.
>>70198517
>Chinese mining colony thinks the U.S. is fucked
>>70198517
Not an argument, and you're still dumb.
Honestly, a lot of our problems would be solved by less people being alive. Do we really need more retail/service workers? No, we would be better off without them.
>>70198605
that is how fucked the U.S. is
I've been there - you people live like shit.
Let me guess- I bet you haven't been outside the U.S. to tell though have you?
dumb cunt.
>>70198688
Ding ding ding
Amerifats are stupid but it's not their fault their government wants them that way.
That's why their education system is a joke and their parents work too hard and get no maternity leave
>>70192627
because a lot of conservatives are more obsessed with being against liberals than following reason
>>70198604
well fuck me
This is bullshit - who would have thought a libertarian could convince himself like this!
http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/most-states-have-cut-school-funding-and-some-continue-cutting
>Muh states!
and look I would respond to the rest of your post but you are defending toll roads. I am just going to leave it there.
>>70192627
if only reid/the retarded soviets/japs hadn't ruined our chances for rebuilding fission plants.
>>70198848
All the cucks from the U.S. who try to defend how shit their system is. Its terrifying to watch.
By the way leaf man I visited Canada on my travels and had a great time, you guys live well and seem reasonable about the right things.
Would return.
>>70198688
Well, I'm wondering how you experienced public education (let alone know about the money). I'm curious how you can look at the public roads vs the private ones, and can think that the public ones are better. I'm curious how you think public parks are part of the national identity, and I'm curious how you can think that nationalized healthcare is a good thing after watching that video, where every public health care professional in Canada referred the guys to private health care after waiting for hours (meaning the rich still had better health care treatment), and there were interviews on where they fucked up on other people, AND a Canadian doctor AGREES with the report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n61yXtwl9-M
>>70198886
Your link does not dispute or refute the research that shows more money doesn't improve academic achievement. And your "I would respond, but," isn't and argument. It's the equivalent of: "How is Trump a bigot?" being responded with: "Come on! Really?"
>>70192627
Every year there are more fossil fuel reserves than before, russians have been extrating them from 10Km+ depths (no fossil evidence ever found at this depth), fuel wells get replenished over time, HC has been produced in laboratory under temperature and pressure mantle conditions, and so on and so on.
Climate change is a meme, plants grow better with hotter temperatures and CO2, this is a fact, all the reports and propaganda you eat are speculation.
>>70198281
>and I'm very skeptical that we need to give the government power in order to address it
setting aside the "debate" for a moment and just assuming humans are the main cause of climate change what else do you suggest?
will the free market magically fix it?
>>70192864
>>70193083
>>70193521
>>70197126
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ9GYFB9DGc
>>70199020
>Climate change is a meme
incorrect
>plants grow better with hotter temperatures and CO2
literally not a person on the planet debates this, why are you bringing it up?
>>70198998
How is Yellowstone park not part of American identity?
Here in Australia my wife is pregnant - no private cover. She is at the best maternity hospital in the state, no waiting, top class equipment, has hardly cost us a cent.
When I visited the U.S. I had to get quite expensive health cover because if I had had any sort of problem - I would have been in alot of trouble.
Funny that, the same was not necessary in the U.K.
What is the point of having a state if even the roads are private?!?!?!?! Do you understand that the state lays the foundations for civil society and commerce? Would you also have no police? no laws? I suggest you open a history book and understand why we created states in the first place. It might help.
>>70198281
I do think over population is a problem, but I'm not sure what the solution should be. We need more energy for the rising population, and I think investing in clean energy would be best for our future.
I will watch that video, I like to keep an open mind. Scientists can't show a direct link between fossil fuels and rising temperature levels, but they have shown that rising CO2 levels correlate with rising temperatures, and rising CO2 levels correlate with fossil fuel consumption. In any case, I'm even more confident that fossil fuels are contributing towards ocean acidification, something we can work on reversing.
>>70199065
>will the free market magically fix it?
The free market will fix it, although there is nothing magical about it. Walmart recently introduced all sorts of organic products due to the demand for organic products and humanely treated animals.
Now, I know (as I am sure you do, as well), that Organic does not necessitate humane treatment of animals, but as more people discover this, the demand will grow for even more humane treatment.
There's also huge numbers of LED lights coming out every year, with each new year bringing more efficiency and lower costs than the last. But when you have people ignorant on things like Nuclear energy (including that, thanks to 4th gen reactors, Nuclear energy now produces no waste, and even eliminates old waste from the other generations), people dig in their ground.
In order to place your trust in the government, you need to presume several things. The first is that properly informed people will do things against their interest. The second is that government workers are beyond corruption.
>>70198688
>visits a shitty part of the US
>hurr the US is shit
k bruv
Some individual states have a higher HDI than your country.
>>70198968
Honestly I'm jealous of you cunts you have the perfect weather, bitchin beaches, & a chill attitude
Any Germans here that can tell me the wonderful impact green energy has had on your life?
>>70199263
>How is Yellowstone park not part of American identity?
I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive.
>Here in Australia my wife is pregnant - no private cover. She is at the best maternity hospital in the state, no waiting, top class equipment, has hardly cost us a cent.
Super neat. That doesn't mean that, just because it is working in your nation, that it will work in all nations. I refer you to the videos I have linked above.
>When I visited the U.S. I had to get quite expensive health cover because if I had had any sort of problem - I would have been in alot of trouble.
Yes. Without any coverage, healthcare is quite expensive. With health coverage, it's more manageable (pic related).
>Funny that, the same was not necessary in the U.K.
UK has the same problems as the Canadian system.
>What is the point of having a state if even the roads are private?!?!?!?!
Public ownership of non-biased parties to ensure fairness (mostly via laws and law enforcement)
>Do you understand that the state lays the foundations for civil society and commerce?
Yes.
>Would you also have no police? no laws?
No, I already explained why the state is needed in this very thread.
>I suggest you open a history book and understand why we created states in the first place. It might help.
A bunch of people didn't want the British government to tell them how to live and tax them for things that they didn't get to use, so they United in order to resist the British government/army?
>>70199319
>they have shown that rising CO2 levels correlate with rising temperatures
there is no mere correlation, the causation is simple and well understood and the idea that fossil fuels burning would increase temperatures was suggested long before there was any measurements to back it up (only to be forgotten and dug up again once the world started becoming measurably hotter)
>>70199328
>organic products
as you pointed out have practically nothing to do with climate change
>LED lights
a band aid at best
>nuclear energy
a step in the right direction, largely fueled by governments worldwide
fact is that the free market thrives on raw efficiency above everything else
and in this case we might need to reduce our efficiency to combat the problem
do you also suggest the government should not regulate fishing and the free market should be left to decide how much is fished or whaled?
>>70199319
>I do think over population is a problem.
It is, at least until space travel is cheap.
>but I'm not sure what the solution should be.
What if a bunch of scientists were claiming that you should give more power to the state to regulate pregnancies? That's all clean energy scientists are claiming.
>We need more energy for the rising population, and I think investing in clean energy would be best for our future.
That would be nuclear fission, until nuclear fusion is viable (it's on its way). It's obvious you haven't researched nuclear very well. Most people who push green energy switch sides once they actually research the facts. It's not without its biases, but check out Pandora's Promise. I believe it is on Netflix.
>>70192627
This french company is going to try Fusion power for the first time (If you exclude the Ponns and Fleischmann's attempt).
https://www.iter.org/
>>70199754
ITER is very impressive but decades from being viable at a small scale, let alone to be any sort of dependable solution to energy problems
fusion is 50 years away and has been since the 60's (although they say it's for real this time)
>>70199627
>a step in the right direction, largely fueled by governments worldwide
That is due to the fact that it is difficult for private entities to obtain the material necessary (and rightfully so).
LED lights aren't a band-aid. That was the CFL bulb. LEDs will be a main-stay for quite some time, although some jackass expert things that lasers will be the future (I'm dubious that many people will choose to put the kind of construction needed to use lasers the way the guy suggests).
And nuclear energy is the best option we have until fusion reactors are viable.
>>70199754
Fusion energy is very promising, but like I've said earlier, and >>70199859
says, it is decades away. It was just last year where it hit the break even mark on energy needed vs energy produced.
>>70199180
Because climate change as they propose is CO2 increase in the atmosphere, it increases temperature also, the North of Europe and other regions would benefit greatly.
And climate change is a meme indeed, climate has changed from extremely hot to extremely cold without human intervention, we may actually be avoiding glaciation by burning fossil fuels.
Its a big business to tax countries, companies, etc. Keep taking your ecological footprint pill and hating yourself a bit more everyday.
>>70199896
if lighting was the main use of our energy you would be correct
unfortunately it's less than a fifth of residential use and significantly less than that of industrial use
nuclear is great, that's true but it's not the free market that's pushing it
the free market is pushing cheap coal and gas
also you didn't answer the question about fishing
how would you regulate fishing? and if at all, how is it any different from this?
>>70200018
>North of Europe and other regions would benefit greatly
they would
Iceland in particular stands to gain quite a bit with the opening of the arctic and more glacial outflow to power hydroelectric plants
but to ignore the damage done elsewhere such as in Spain, Central America or Africa would be selfish at best
>Its a big business to tax countries, companies, etc.
yes, as opposed to the small and struggling fossil fuel industry who would never spread FUD through organized campaigns and bought research
this isn't even a conspiracy theory but well documented fact
it's only for the best we let them decide for us that lead in our fuel is good for us all
climate has changed in the past but there is literally nothing that suggests it has done so as fast or as dramatically as now in historic time
>>70200036
>if lighting was the main use of our energy you would be correct
unfortunately it's less than a fifth of residential use and significantly less than that of industrial use
Absolutely correct (I work for a power plant, and am glad someone else knows their facts)! That said, regardless of the KW hours used, what matters is how you created said energy. Nuclear (until fusion) is far and away the best option, rather than solar (where it gets cloudy for months during the winter in many states) or wind (not always windy, and no efficient, cheap way to store excess power). And I can't speak for Iceland, but in the States, it is federal law that you MUST back up all solar/wind energy with a reliable back up. And nobody who invests in those power sources is going to invest in Nuclear, meaning that coal, diesel, or natural gas is going to be the back up. Which is why, at least in the States, nuclear is the best option.
The free market is pushing coal, diesel, and gas because of fear mongering, both from the suppliers AND from the government.
And I apologize for earlier, I didn't see the question about fishing/whaling (and I'll even include crabbing). I don't mind nations coming together (perhaps through the UN - so long as the UN included publicly elected officials) and agreeing to limit the amount of fishing, whaling, and crabbing done every year through a vote, with strict penalties for violating the law. Limiting the US fishermen doesn't effect the Korean fishermen at all.
But you can't give certain people an unfair advantage over others. I'm not an anarchist. I believe in regulation, so long as it isn't overbearing. I would rather have reasonable regulation with harsh penalties for violating those regulations.
I don't understand why I get so much shit in the mail that is just advertisements for shit I don't care about but at the same time I am constantly told to recycle. Hey, niggers, stop sending me the shit in the first place. I'm sick of it.
>>70192627
Actually, conservationism IS a classic point of conservative politics. The pertinent conservative leadership has unfortunately long-since been bought however, and the millions of voters who uselessly aspire to be among their ranks unquestioningly parrot their rhetoric.
You are more conservative that most conservatives.
>>70200523
Sign up for the Do Not Mail List.
http://wellness.blogs.com/green_source_/2008/02/how-to-limit-ju.html
There is no better alternative. For example wind turbines take something like 38 years before they begin to save energy, and they last nowhere near that before needing repairs. Solar is similar.
>>70198998
Using our national health care system as an example for all national healthcare systems is a terrible cherry pick. Our health care system is a joke and a half. Our wait times are the longest, and we have the least benefits.
if you look at universal health care systems in places like Germany, Switzerland or Spain, they have same day treatment of 60-70% of patients, compared to our pathetic 42%.
>>70200627
>Using our national health care system as an example for all national healthcare systems is a terrible cherry pick.
That may be. I'm not the one exalting it, though. That would be Michael Moore and the politicians in the States that point to you guys as a shining success.
>>70192864
The batteries required to run an electric car will create more pollution than a petrol powered one would throughout its lifetime.
>i consider myself pretty conservative, except when it comes to the environment. we can't continue on fossil fuels forever
That's the very definition of 'conservative', it's to conserve the environment.
What is it with Americans naming their political ideologies completely wrong? It's as if 'liberal' really means 'totalitarian leftist', while 'conservative' means 'violently radical reactionary'. I don't see how anyone can look at a violent, radical theocrat like Glenn Beck and think that he's all about risk aversion
>>70200785
Interesting. Have any proof from the past year or two? I only ask for recent research due to the fact that technology in that area is constantly improving.
>>70192838
>doesn't exist yet
How fucking stupid are Aussies
>>70200503
Iceland in particular runs on essentially 100% renewable electricity because we have so many glacial rivers for dams and the island is so volcanically active for geothermal powerplants (and to such an extent that we produce 3.5 as much electricity as the US per capita)
glad to see you have a sane opinion on fishing because it's one of those things that you'd have to be insane not to recognize HAS to be regulated by some body, like the government
and even there they often succumb to overfishing after pressure from fishing groups
I would argue that energy isn't that different
the problem isn't quite as acute or as visible but we're nearing the point where something needs to be done and I don't see any realistic solution other than regulation, subsidies and tax incentives
>>70200278
What damage exactly? There may not be any damage at all. Scientists cant accurately predict the climate tomorrow, you think they can predict the climate or the consequences for the decades to come? They dont, and they state it on the reports, this reports are "works of fiction", speculation, as it is stated in the report itself.
Of course oil companies are evil, but when Al Gore gets the nobel prize for climate change activism and you get info on how much money he has made with the meme, you must understand there is something very very rotten in this climate change thing.
>>70192627
Because conservatives are usually greedy as fuck and in some way profit from fossil fuel industries. Even if they don't profit from them directly, they rely on them so heavily that switching over to anything, even if it was proven to be cleaner, would cost too much money for them (meaning, they can afford to, but don't want to live on a lesser income than what they are currently used to).
One thing that always bothered me about the whole global warming debate is why everyone assumes it's a bad thing. Clearly we, humans can adapt easily and in warmer climates with more CO2 plants and animals will increase their production - look how fuckhuge dinosaurs and trees of that period were when it was warmer. Do people really expect all the photosynthesizing bacteria in the ocean to just die when water gets more acidic? Surely all living things can just adapt to it. Also while some land will be lost underwater when the caps melt, the increase in temperature would make more land suitable for agriculture.
>>70200972
I think that if people would just become informed on Nuclear energy (at least for all cities without easy-to-exploit energy, like rivers or oceans, or molten salt towers in the tropics), we could alleviate a lot of the pollution, especially due to the hybrids/electric cars.
Another thing we should be doing (and I'm not sure why the free market hasn't had this happen), is electric, high speed trains pushing the train cars that move so much product. The first company to be willing to make that investment will either dominate the markets, or will inspire the other rail lines to follow suit.
>>70192627
Nice environmentally friendly golf course turf in your picture buddy.
>>70192838
>it just doesn't exist yet
>>70193078
>Find me a better alternative that's both cheaper and practical
hydro is pretty fucking dope
it's considered clean, right?
>>70201441
Not sure if you are implying that trees don't naturally grow in the US, but you would be wrong.
>>70200690
>>70200690
Yeah true. Not talking about that though
That's in response to what you said to the kangaroo nigger. Stating that nationalised healthcare is a terrible idea based our our pathetic system, is a strawman argument.
>>70200835
because
COMMON
CORE
>>70201531
Hydro is completely dependant on geography. Some nations cannot get enough hydro to produce even 1% of their energetic needs.
Btw I truly believe we need to get away fro mfossile fuels, since it ties us too much from coutries such as Saudi Arabia, which in turn generates a whole lot of other problems
>>70192838
Nuclear.
>>70201547
It's a mixed bag, and depends largely on the government. Saying that healthcare is a guaranteed good thing (especially with the US government's record) is simply not true. I think that Germany is gonna start having trouble now that they are importing a shit load of completely illiterate sand people, who will never contribute a cent to the system.
And that would put them on par with the US, who has a huge problem with illegal immigration. Also, look at the US public roads. Look at the public schools. Look at the publicly owned water in Detroit and Flint.
I don't trust the US government to be able to handle public healthcare. As for public college, if education is such a shit system, why not reform what you have, instead of just making college "free?"
![c31234d1ddb45fbd3b0275a2caf3cf42[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zkMrHZv.jpg "c31234d1ddb45fbd3b0275a2caf3cf42[1].jpg")
>Conservatives
>Against conservationism
Oh look, another cuck that's bought the lefty narrative that says they have a monopoly on caring. I bet you think conservatives are supposed to hate the poor too.
>>70201544
I'm implying that you can't naturally grow grass this nice.
>>70201741
>Hydro is completely dependant on geography.
I get that. Of course, countries have different resources and coal is the one thing that we can haul all over the world. I just feel like every country out there will have at least one viable option of alternative power in the near future. A country the size of the US has really no excuses to not be investing, and they are.
You want a case of sucess for alternative energy, look at Iceland. Sure, it's a small country, but their energy is basically 1/4 geothermal (fucking impressive) and the rest hydro, with coal being insignificant. It's remarkable.
>>70201756
Yes, there is nuclear, but libshits in most countries prevent it from ever being a thing. For instance, aussies are so kucked that they are going to take in nuclear waste from other countries and dump in their vast deserts, but their government still wont let them build nuclear power plants. AND THEY MINE THEIR OWN FUCKING URANIUM. liberals never fail to confuse and anger me with their stupidity
>>70202135
Natural gas can be hauled all over, too, and it burns cleaner than coal (even when you take into account the pollution needed to obtain it).
And yeah, Iceland is nice, but not everyone is gifted with their geography/population size. Nuclear should be used pretty much everywhere that you can trust a nation to use and protect it properly.
>>70202218
>hey let's bury radioactive waste in Australia of all places
>>70202218
>Yes, there is nuclear, but libshits in most countries prevent it from ever being a thing.
How does that make conservatives against cleaner energy? Because they don't want to piss into the wind with "safer" tech? Not that nuclear is any less safe in this day and age. We aren't Pripyat, and even our failsafes have around 10 failsafes, and if any one of them fails an inspection, there are heavy fines levied. You literally could not force a US nuclear facility to go critical, even if you knew what you were doing, and were actively trying to. It would take a team of men, all of whom knew exactly what they were doing, days, if not weeks, to be able to make the reactor go critical without it shutting down.
>>70201531
Hydro is the dirtiest imaginable power. It's about as bad as coal. Just like coal, which throws hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy metals in the atmosphere, hydro stirs up the river bed and raises heavy metals from the bottom of the river, which are then absorbed by the biosphere.
>>70202419
Kangaroos are already just rabbits that have been exposed to nuclear waste
>>70201531
>it's considered clean, right
If you consider destroying entire ecosystems by flooding them clean then yes :^)
>>70202509
Depends on the Hydro. If you are literally getting your power from the motion of the river or ocean, it's not damaging to the environment at all. But hydro dams do damage the environment, yes.
>>70201531
I hate that shit. Where I live there used to be huge salmon swimming up the river. But the state controlled company put up dams and they did not care about making salmon stairs. Grrr.
>>70201778
> think that Germany is gonna start having trouble now that they are importing a shit load of completely illiterate sand people, who will never contribute a cent to the system.
Yeah i would agree with you on Germany running into problems with their refugee crisis. They will just leech off the system without contributing back to it, causing a massive clot in wait times.
>Look at the publicly owned water in Detroit and Flint.
Your major problem with detroit and flint is internal corruption. Cutting corners in order to save money is completely inhumane. The Governor should step down and be criminally investigated (if that it not happening already).
>>70202509
haven't heard about that, as far as I know the current concern about hydropower is methane emission from the stuff rotting in the reservoir beds which could turn out to be a global warming bomb
>>70202580
>>70202651
well desu senpai nobody gives a shit about drowning some indjuns and frogs specially when there's an overabundance of them
>>70202940
>Your major problem with detroit and flint is internal corruption.
That is the major problem with any state action.
>>70203066
>That is the major problem with any state action
What makes you think there would be any less corruption when these things are privately owned?
>>70203368
The difference between public ownership and private ownership is that you do not have the ability to take your money elsewhere.
For example, what do you think would happen to your medical system if you were given the option to not pay into the public system in exchange for not being able to use the public system, and private insurance companies were allowed to exist and decide who to take, and who not to take?
Do you think you would take the private option, and be able to go to private clinics? If so, what would you do if you find the private clinic you visit to be slow and inadequate? Would you try another private clinic?
Look at it like this:
As potentially deadly as global warming is, it's still a less urgent problem than White extinction.
>>70203515
To cap this thought, centralized planning requires a mass of power to PUSH what it thinks is needed. Non-centralized planning is more efficient, because it allows individuals to PULL what they need. You don't need someone to guess how much bread is needed. You just need someone to tell you that they want bread.
The long term outcome of this on a large scale is represented by the phrase, "In America, bread waits for you, but in Soviet Russia, you wait for bread."
Proof of this is the Russian Bread Lines, in comparison to the aisle of bread in America's grocery stores.
>>70203859
>Proof of this is the Russian Bread Lines, in comparison to the aisle of bread in America's grocery stores.
True, i like the analogy, but it doesn't work for everything.
When we are talking about Flint or Detroit water systems, how can you privatize them without monopolizing them? you can't just change your water source without another significant water source to change to.
Do you really expect people to move to a different area every time their water source becomes contaminated?
The only way to truly privatize the water Industry is to add additional infrastructure to give people choice, which is massively cost-inefficient.
>>70204510
>When we are talking about Flint or Detroit water systems, how can you privatize them without monopolizing them?
Look into Nebraska's power. Privatized without monopolization. Also very cheap; among the cheapest in the nation, despite vast distances between major cities.
>Do you really expect people to move to a different area every time their water source becomes contaminated?
Not at all.
>The only way to truly privatize the water Industry is to add additional infrastructure to give people choice, which is massively cost-inefficient.
Nebraska found a way with their power. I don't see why it isn't possible with water (although if you can prove that claim, I will agree with you without hesitation).
