At least young people started to take things in their hands. But the standing of the vote (most votes: 'no such programs are not for me') shows how serious the problem is.
Need more info
I would be willing to cut my driving in half
I would be willing to have power cut 4 hours a day
No, such programs are not for me, let someone else do it
At least young people started to take things in their hands. But the standing of the vote (most votes: 'no such programs are not for me') shows how serious the problem is.
I think if you want to protest about something, you should have an actual understanding of the fucking problem. Doesn't take an expert to outline some basic changes if they're so concerned. Especially if they're supposedly leading the show. Because that's all it is right now, a show.
Because they know we need to do something, but they aren't the fucking experts on it, they are calling on the government do something.
Is it really so hard to even consider why a common person would protest without having to be an expert on the subject?
- - - Updated - - -
Or you protest so the government, with the help of the experts, do something about it. You don't need to be an expert to know the problems climate change causes.
Is this like the first time you have ever seen a big protest? Should I tell you the French Yellow vests are also not all economists?
Try "First world students skip classes to get a free day off come up with bullshit excuse to do so". Because over here no students skipped classes. And if they did try teachers would be out with the straps and switches to get them back in to class as fast as they could run since we don't have time for that bullshit.
STRESS
The confusion caused when one's mind
overrides the body's basic
desire to choke the living shit out of
some jerk who desperately needs it
next time they want to bring awareness to climate change, they can go outside in blizzard to study instead of staying inside in a massive heated building, or go outside and study in +100 degree weather instead of staying inside in a massive air conditioned building.
thats the attitude of a lot of people bringing awareness of the problem. they go to Cancun or some other tropical paradise on plane to have a luxurious vacation type convention, right next to a village barely getting by on what they have.
Last edited by zhero; 2019-03-16 at 06:00 PM.
Oh look protesters protesting instead of actually doing something about what they are protesting about.
The US has been reducing it's CO2 emissions since the 1980's while China has been increasing rapidly over that time and yet the US has not seen a decrease in power output over that time. It is almost as if the US has been developing more environmentally friendly energy that can meet demand for some time and continues to do so with or without political activists or massive legislation.
As for the source you requested, I'll see if I can find it, but it is based off the rates of change in emissions. The US is decreasing as is most of Europe, while the developing world is very rapidly increasing. Just fast forward to see where most of the change will come from in the coming decades.
What actions are these scientist screaming for? Screaming for government to "do something" is not a solution. What is your/their solution? How are they going to help the environment, leaflets? PowerPoint presentations?
Personally, I would like to see and expansion of nuclear power as it is the cleanest and most cost effective energy source. This is the best solution right now. As for the future, the holy grail would be batteries/energy storage that utilize superconducting since it would immediately make solar and wind actually economically viable, but that is still a ways off.
Who is they? The global temp has gone down. We can not legislate change in weather. The climate models have been proven wrong again and again. Why is the solve to global warming more government, taxes, and reduction in the standard of living for 99% of the planet while the 1% do whatever they like?
I already walk to work. I drive my car maybe 5 miles/week (basically just for grocery shopping), unless I'm taking a trip somewhere, which is a once or twice a year thing. I also have a Prius so it doesn't use that much gas even when I do drive. I have to fill my gas tank maybe 3 times/year unless I'm taking a 600 mile trip or something.
Gonna hit you with a shock. Stuff is being done already, because we already had these protests and we already had policy enacted. Governments and experts have literally enacted policies to tackle it in the west. Now if they wanted to protest western governments to pressure Brazil, India, China, Russia and developing African/Asian countries, then sure, that's a pretty big issue. But a lot of what we're going to experience is going to be due to the lag time between emissions and impact.
And I don't want them all to be climatologists, I want them to know what changes they want to happen if they're protesting it. This vagueness, from leadership will be a massive hindrance to them. I want to not drown or cook as much as the next guy, honestly, but if someones going to go and protest a well acknowledged issue that's being addressed, I want them to have something to offer, i.e changes to see implemented. It isn't a big ask.
The US has been reducing it's CO2 emissions since the 1980's while China has been increasing rapidly over that time and yet the US has not seen a decrease in power output over that time. It is almost as if the US has been developing more environmentally friendly energy that can meet demand for some time and continues to do so with or without political activists or massive legislation. The west needs to use its wealth to expand and develop these technologies to the point of economic viability so they can be adopted by the developing world. That is how to tackle climate change an there is nothing "extreme" about that.
The green energy sector is not "on the rise". It is completely dependent of government subsidies to exist and the terrible environmental impacts of wind and solar are also beginning to show. Wind loses efficiency the more windmills are clustered together and are death traps for birds and bats. Solar utilizes rare earth metals in their panels that require very environmentally unfriendly mining that is mostly done in China and Africa (the US plans to develop its own more environmentally friendly rare earth mine soon though) and they do not last as long as initially thought. Both suffer from being only available at certain times causing grid instability.
Your aversion to nuclear demonstrates that this issue is, to you, as with many others like these students, simply a push to increase government power. Nuclear is, currently, the only viable relatively clean energy which can hopefully fill the void until wind, solar, and geothermal can get their acts together.
Last edited by Kithelle; 2019-03-16 at 06:19 PM.