Watch Greta Thunberg tear these corporate douchebags apart in the question round

[Shadowferal]

On a related note; 35 vintage photos taken by the EPA reveal what American cities looked like before pollution was regulated

[Elegiac]

Only fools listen to a child who knows absolutely nothing as far as solutions for climate change.

Funny that, since that's....what's the term...the point.

People like Greta Thunberg and David Hogg should not *have* to be the ones standing up and demanding a change. Adults and their elected officials should be the ones discussing and proposing solutions for what is probably the most pressing crisis of our time...but instead they're busy fucking around on social media attacking teenagers for having opinions, or insulting swathes of people by suggesting folks suffering from mental illness cannot have informed opinions.

Nobody takes your criticisms of her positions seriously because we're all wise to the fact none of you are interested in actually discussing climate change, you just want people to shut up about it.

- - - Updated - - -

"Ha ha look at that mentally ill little girl being used as a pawn to sell a silly message. Now excuse me while I go and enjoy a nice can of Nestle™ Diet Air since my five minute talking break at the Amazon warehouse is almost up, and I'm feeling a little light headed from all the smog and lead poisoning. But at least I'm not a sheep!"

[Ghostpanther]

On a related note; 35 vintage photos taken by the EPA reveal what American cities looked like before pollution was regulated

Yes. I am one of the few here who can remember how bad the smog was in some cities. Esp. Los Angeles. The regulations put into place have helped for sure. Cleaner coal burning plants and more shift to natural gas. Also, cleaner vehicle emissions. It's a lot better now than it use to be. Plastic pollution is something which needs to be tackled more however.

[wunksta]

Hm, I dont see climate screechers attacking China, but conveniently ignoring it...

So when people criticize other countries, they say 'clean up your own country first'. When people criticize their own countries, they say 'what about China?'.

People also forget that the US and EU had a huge head start in emissions, and even while the US and EU are reducing their total emissions to be less than China's total emissions, the US and UK are still responsible for the majority of emissions in the first place. It's also hilarious to expect a country with a much higher population to have lower emissions than the US. For only having 300~ million people, the US has significantly higher emissions than China per capita.

In any case, China isn't being ignored and has been trying to clean up their emissions, especially since they suffer some of the worst results of it.

OT: We need more focus on nuclear energy.

[Masark]

OT: We need more focus on nuclear energy.

If you want nuclear, figure out how to make it cost less than triple what renewables do. Delivering on time would be a bonus.

Otherwise any "nuclear renaissance" will continue to break itself on the rocks of financial reality.

[Shadowferal]

The Sun is rapidly expending all of its fuel. It will very soon begin to grow into a red giant, swallow the Earth, and kill us all. What are all of your brilliant scientists doing to stop that?

6 billion years is "Soon" huh?

Liberals Conservatives are reproducing at an unsustainable rate.

Fixed.
After all the "liberals" aren't afraid of abortions.

[Masark]

6 billion years is "Soon" huh?

Technically, it will get too bright for life in only about 600 million years.

[Shadowferal]

Yes. It is quite "Soon" in the time scale of the universe.

And on the scale of a human being?
A rather large assumption on my part it seems to think that you're "human."

[Orbitus]

Yeah, no big deal right? A glacier the size of London or Sydney just broke of the Antarctic continent.

[Yriel]

Yeah, no big deal right? A glacier the size of London or Sydney just broke of the Antarctic continent.

Not related to climate change, though : https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450

Prof Fricker had predicted back in 2002 that Loose Tooth would come off sometime between 2010 and 2015.

"I am excited to see this calving event after all these years. We knew it would happen eventually, but just to keep us all on our toes, it is not exactly where we expected it to be," she said.

The Scripps researcher stressed that there was no link between this event and climate change. Satellite data since the 1990s has shown that Amery is roughly in balance with its surroundings, despite experiencing strong surface melt in summer.

"While there is much to be concerned about in Antarctica, there is no cause for alarm yet for this particular ice shelf," Prof Fricker added.

[zenkai]

Not related to climate change, though : https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450

Prof Fricker had predicted back in 2002 that Loose Tooth would come off sometime between 2010 and 2015.

"I am excited to see this calving event after all these years. We knew it would happen eventually, but just to keep us all on our toes, it is not exactly where we expected it to be," she said.

The Scripps researcher stressed that there was no link between this event and climate change. Satellite data since the 1990s has shown that Amery is roughly in balance with its surroundings, despite experiencing strong surface melt in summer.

"While there is much to be concerned about in Antarctica, there is no cause for alarm yet for this particular ice shelf," Prof Fricker added.

Those facts are tasty, thanks for sharing

[Pannonian]

So when people criticize other countries, they say 'clean up your own country first'. When people criticize their own countries, they say 'what about China?'.

People also forget that the US and EU had a huge head start in emissions, and even while the US and EU are reducing their total emissions to be less than China's total emissions, the US and UK are still responsible for the majority of emissions in the first place. It's also hilarious to expect a country with a much higher population to have lower emissions than the US. For only having 300~ million people, the US has significantly higher emissions than China per capita.

In any case, China isn't being ignored and has been trying to clean up their emissions, especially since they suffer some of the worst results of it.

OT: We need more focus on nuclear energy.

Cannot watch the vide as i'm at work.

You know the problem about nuclear energy? It is not fucking renewable. Switching to nuclear energy, we burn through our Uranium in about 70 years... and then what?

apart from the cost factor...

[Twdft]

apart from the cost factor...

Not the only thing that's wrong with it. Noone has found a method to get rid oft nuclear waste yet. If "IT2" isn't scary enough for you check out what the everyone does with it

[Ghostpanther]

Cannot watch the vide as i'm at work.

You know the problem about nuclear energy? It is not fucking renewable. Switching to nuclear energy, we burn through our Uranium in about 70 years... and then what?

apart from the cost factor...

According to this article, that is far short of the time it will last....https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...deposits-last/

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

[Pannonian]

You found the bold functionality? Great! Let me take a shot:

roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total.

vs

Switching to nuclear energy

Yeah, it's great that we can go much longer with CURRENT CONSUMPTION RATES. What i was talking about is switching our power generation to nuclear power, which will burn through our reserves pretty fast.

Thanks for playing, anyway.

[Orby]

The Sun is rapidly expending all of its fuel. It will very soon begin to grow into a red giant, swallow the Earth, and kill us all. What are all of your brilliant scientists doing to stop that?

Hmm... our children's children or a billions of years in the future? Let's concentrate on the next 100 years shall we so we can live tos ee billions of years in the future. If we don't get hit by an asteroid within that time.

[Ghostpanther]

You found the bold functionality? Great! Let me take a shot:



vs



Yeah, it's great that we can go much longer with CURRENT CONSUMPTION RATES. What i was talking about is switching our power generation to nuclear power, which will burn through our reserves pretty fast.

Thanks for playing, anyway.

Well, first off, I do not feel like I am playing a game. lol! I am not trying to score points here.

My point was, there are those who refute your claim of only lasting 70 years. If you can link a source which says it would only last 70 years based on expected increases needed in the future, then ok. But the expected or projected needs, would be only that. A estimate. And Nuclear power can buy us some time to develop better technology while it offers less CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

[Thirza]

The amount of unpaid propagandists in this thread alone would make me weep for humanity were I not already inured to the average stupidity of the race.

You have bound up the concept of doing nothing to solve the devastation of climate change into your sense of self, just like the Koch brothers wanted. Decades of misinformation and tribalism encouraging campaigns to take advantage of your cowardice, because it is scary to admit that it is possible to destroy the world. God wouldn't let us burn Eden right? .. Right?

Something will have to be done about India and China if they don't fall in line, but lead by example or face mass migration as huge swaths around the equatorial band become uninhabitable, as sea levels rise, as food sources go extinct, as toxic water and atmosphere shortens life expectancy and skyrockets cancer rates.

And that is just for starters folks.

[Pannonian]

Well, first off, I do not feel like I am playing a game. lol! I am not trying to score points here.

My point was, there are those who refute your claim of only lasting 70 years. If you can link a source which says it would only last 70 years based on expected increases needed in the future, then ok. But the expected or projected needs, would be only that. A estimate. And Nuclear power can buy us some time to develop better technology while it offers less CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...rld-today.aspx

Currently, 10% of the power is generated by nuclear power plants. So, taking the 230 years from yout article, means that switching to nuclear power our reserves would be gone in roughly 25 years (sorry, the 70 year i saw in a documentation a year ago, would have to search for it).

25 years is nothing. Sure, there is the possibility to get it from sea water, but in this case we are talking about future technology, and i could jump to fusion reactors. Future technology is no answer to todays problems.

[Ghostpanther]

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...rld-today.aspx

Currently, 10% of the power is generated by nuclear power plants. So, taking the 230 years from yout article, means that switching to nuclear power our reserves would be gone in roughly 25 years (sorry, the 70 year i saw in a documentation a year ago, would have to search for it).

25 years is nothing. Sure, there is the possibility to get it from sea water, but in this case we are talking about future technology, and i could jump to fusion reactors. Future technology is no answer to todays problems.

Well, 25 years is a short time, I agree with that. But future technology is something which can provide the answer. And 25 years based on our current reserves? They are not even sure how much there is. Only estimates, which may or not be true. Fusion energy generation is for sure the right thing to pursue. But we are more than 25 years away from that technology and there is no guarantee we ever will be able to use it for energy generation.

And from your article. the efficiency of the nuclear plants have improved significantly over the last 40 years. So there is no rule this can not continue to improve. For the time being, natural gas is cleaner than coal for sure and is cheaper for energy regeneration. Of course the best has to be hydro. But not a realistic option for most large countries for the majority of their energy generation.