Dear /pol/,
Why does nobody give a shit about the environment except for Millennials? Why does Based Trump not want to solve the issues of climate change? Why is this such a big issue to me but not anyone else in the Republican party.
Sincerly,
Someone who cares about the future of the world
>>79100135
You're a huge faggot
>>79100491
Why?
>>79100135
>This post brought to you by the Oil and Coal United Diversionary Campaign Against Nuclear Energies™©
>>79100135
>Why does Based Trump not want to solve the issues of climate change
How? By massive taxes levied on Western industry but ignored by Asia? And what is there to solve anyway? How are human supposed to stop the climate changing instead of adapting to the change? It's funny how the only "solutions" proposed seem to involve lots of conferences in fancy hotels which everybody flies to in private jets.
Millennials are only crying about climate change to be trendy. See how quickly they switch when they realize that "solutions" to climate change involve the loss of cheap air travel and cheap electronics. Besides, the only ones that lose out from the climate change are baby boomer rubes who bought the wrong beach front property.
>>79100135
Trump doesn't want to talk about it because caring for the environment often means imposing regulations and penalties against corporations. He wants less regulations so that businesses will stay in America.
You don't need people to give a shit. Just give them an economic incentive and they'll do as you please.
If you believe climate change should be addressed ASAP, support this:
1. Cut ALL energy subsidies. Including fossil fuels / non-renewable energy sources AND renewable energy sources
2. Support scientists and corporate R&D, by creating an environment for them to develop new technology or improving existing technology used to harvest energy from renewable sources
3. Invest in new nuclear technology, such as molten salt thorium reactors.
4. Don't tax your way out of it.
Do this, and I guarantee you that the whole process will become a lot more rapid. However, this will never happen as
Point 1 does not appeal to either oil billionaires, or greenpeace cucks, as none of them will receive free money(tm).
Point 2 does not appeal to the progressive / "social democratic" youth, that thinks every single inch of private enterprise wants to exploit workers and destroy the earth and make it a barren wasteland.
Point 3, again, leaves both sides without free shit (c), and hippies that protested mindless anti-nuclear slogans in the 1960s, 1970s, and so forth, are now educating non-STEM college kids that nuclear power is evil and tax-funded windmills are the answer.
Point 4 would automatically be discarded.
>>79101565
When did I ever say I supported Oil and Coal? I'm totally in favor of building new nuclear reactors
>>79102923
Maybe we could start by cutting down the amount of power produced by CO2 emissions like coal and gas. Maybe we could get the world to cut down its population so less resources could be used by less people. I don't have all the answers mang but at least there could be a conscious effort to maybe cut down on the number of planes that fly and maybe cut down on the number of easily disposable cell phones. Millennials may be doing it just for show but at least it gives me the impression they are trying which I don't see from a lot of other generations.
>>79103689
>When did I ever say I supported Oil and Coal? I'm totally in favor of building new nuclear reactors
Then the environment doesn't matter.
Nuclear power completely invalidates the issue of climate change.
Even solid wastes are no longer a problem, we can just use nuclear powered ships to send them to space or Australia
>>79103483
>this will never happen
feelsbadmang.jpg
>>79103887
>then the environment doesn't matter
I don't understand. If I support cutting down on CO2 emissions to aid the environment then how does the environment not matter?
>>79104138
>endorse nuclear
>no more coal or oil powerplants
>majority of CO2 emissions gone
problem solved
>>79104205
Perfect.
But then why aren't we funding nuclear and why do political candidates make it a minor issue that is swept under the rug.
>>79104820
>the Oil and Coal United Diversionary Campaign Against Nuclear Energies™©
Half of them work for oil and coal.
The others fell for the propaganda that nuclear power is in any way dangerous
>>79104973
>>79100135
I dont care about it.
This planet has had entire continents split and drift thousands of miles apart, has had them then collide, been sacked by extinction event asteroids, had all of the ice caps melted, been frozen almost to the equator, and has been shit on with over a dozen mass extinction events.
I don't think its actually possible to wipe out a world of all life thats in the goldilocks zone with a good atmosphere and magnetic field.
>>79107547
Yes but how many times have humans been around. The Earth has had many extinctions and come out on top, but how many times have humans survived those extinctions?
I thought Maro loved the color pie?
>>79103689
>Maybe we could start by cutting down the amount of power produced by CO2 emissions like coal and gas. Maybe we could get the world to cut down its population so less resources could be used by less people
How? through genocide? Why? Because we should lower our standards of living and halt scientific progress because the climate is changing like it always has? In the past people adapted to climate change, what changed?
You see, the trouble with millennials is that they are raised in a culture where they fear difference and uncertainty to the point they want everything to be a monoculture farm and all dissent squashed. So instead of adapting to changing circumstances, they want to force poverty and oppression on everybody so that circumstance change slower. That's why they love the EU and love the idea of "integrating" Muslims into their degenerate culture. All differences and unknowns must be eradicated so you can feel safe.
>Millennials may be doing it just for show but at least it gives me the impression they are trying which I don't see from a lot of other generations
Oh, if it gives you a nice fee fee, then I guess it is worth destroying Western industry for no reason.
![NuclearSafetyChart-APCO[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/14S4XQM.jpg "NuclearSafetyChart-APCO[1].jpg")
>>79103483
>3. Invest in new nuclear technology, such as molten salt thorium reactors.
There needs to be a dramatic shift in the was nuclear energy is managed in the US.
I worked as a plant guard for 16 years at ORNL. Uranium hexafluoride (UF-6) has been "accidentally" discharged hundreds of times over the past 50 years. UF-6 has the corrosive power of sulfuric acid with the lethal radiation of plutonium. It packs quite a punch.
Half the town has died of cancers and abnormalities.
Most of it is because of corporate secrecy. Union Carbide and Lockheed Martin avoided liability by never telling the victims why mercury was in their drinking water and wells.
This is because the way a corporation maximize profits is manufacturing the lowest cost goods/services and selling them for the highest prices possible to the taxpayers.
Minimum wage guards sleeping at their desks. Nuclear techs from China. Cheaply milled and even more cheaply welded process tanks. swampland drained for foundations. It's all a recipe for 1000-year disasters.
So I disagree that nuclear energy is the way to go until we have a comprehensive and thorough revolution in this country against crony corporatism.
>>79110138
>type of reactor he mentioned is almost incapable of melting down
>has a built in failsafe to dump the core incase it does
>built in failsafe relies on no mechanical parts but rather something melting
>even if that fails and the reactor "goes critical" the exclusion zone is 600ft
Not to mention that there's stuff like fusion.
