Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:54:57 UTC No. 16166357

we've been living in crisis for the last 20 years or so.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 20:58:27 UTC No. 16166367

>>16166357
You say that, but I don't you actually believe it.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:00:02 UTC No. 16166373

>>16166367
*don't think

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:00:06 UTC No. 16166374

>>16166350
India and China do. Both are on track to be carbon neutral by 2035.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:01:41 UTC No. 16166378

>>16166374
Great, only another 11 years of conservative crybabies whining about China's emissions to try to deflect from their own.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:06:15 UTC No. 16166392

>>16166373
/thread

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:12:04 UTC No. 16166400

>>16166350
Because it is a scam that only morons believe.
>>16166378
Demons like you must be cut in half with a chainsaw so you no longer have any carbon footprint, you fetid parasite.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:12:49 UTC No. 16166401

>why is nobody acting like it?
My country is spending a lot of money on that shit, money that could go to education and healthcare
Also think of all the regulations and taxes that even small companies have to face because of this
For you guys it's nothing but for my shitty third world country is a kick in the nuts, you cunts didn't have go throught all these shitty regulations during the industrial revolution, now it's our time to develop but you ain't making it easy

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:19:11 UTC No. 16166411

>>16166401
Kek, you thought the 3rd world was ever meant to "develop"? Argentina and Venezuela used to be more developed in the 50s than the shitholes they are right now.

It's all downhill from here, both for the 1st world and the 3rd world.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:19:33 UTC No. 16166414

>>16166400
Take your meds.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:23:11 UTC No. 16166420

>>16166378
China's is already lower than the West. They've gone completely over to electric cars.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:25:39 UTC No. 16166423

>>16166350
We are. Then you ridicule us for it.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:25:44 UTC No. 16166424

>>16166420
In what kind of bizzarro world are you living

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:31:19 UTC No. 16166429

>>16166420
Even if that were true conservatives would while about them having any emissions at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 21:39:33 UTC No. 16166453

In my college classes everybody complains about how hot last summer was. It's almost hilarious hearing them dance around climate change. Even among supposedly liberal college students it's taboo to acknowledge.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 04:40:52 UTC No. 16166836

>>16166374
Who's going to penalise them in 2036 if they aren't?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 04:50:09 UTC No. 16166843

>>16166350
There are lots of other crises that are undeniably real that nobody gives a fuck about, this is no different

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 04:51:09 UTC No. 16166844

>>16166420
>50% (which is genuinely impressive) is "gone completely over"
Nice one retard

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:21:50 UTC No. 16166860

>>16166374
>>16166378
>>16166836
Thats a tough ask for 10 years imo. Its all just so location dependent. A lot of the world is pouring a lot of resources into it and yeah its all "whats the most cost effective method" but in most cases you make steam to spin a turbine. You can make the systems more effective but I don't see the overall issue being solved in my lifetime.

I've done some studies on some smaller scale nuclear reactors which imo are really cool but they seem to run out of money and fizzle out. Optimizing systems is an incredibly complex issue and is different for every system.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 07:17:29 UTC No. 16166960

Can't we just vaccinate the planet against climate change?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 07:33:06 UTC No. 16166966

>>16166350
Same reason people become obese. It happens slowly and today's donut is more appealing than next year's health.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 07:53:04 UTC No. 16166971

>>16166350
because it's a global crisis in the same way covid is a global pandemic
is it real? yes
will it kill people? yes
is it mid enough that you can get away with ignoring it?
yes
it's also very hard to make a dent in, and very slow
and so, no one is in that big of a hurry to do anything about it

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 08:06:08 UTC No. 16166977

>>16166971
I agree anon.
Climate change is as big a deal as Covid.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 09:30:36 UTC No. 16167025

>>16166350
Coal a shit though.
Natural gas is where its at.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:09:13 UTC No. 16167048

>>16166374
>Both are on track to be carbon neutral by 2035.
Based on what projections? Whose data?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:14:32 UTC No. 16167053

>>16166378
>Great, only another 11 years of conservative crybabies whining about China's emissions to try to deflect from their own.
China burns more coal than the rest of the entire world combined. China's absolute emissions are higher than the USA's. Planet Earth doesn't care about "per capita". China still has half a billion rural citizens whose rise out of material poverty over the next 30 years will have corresponding growth in emissions, despite China's record increase in wind and solar installation.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:24:21 UTC No. 16167199

>>16166374
Fucking how?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:32:12 UTC No. 16167212

>>16166960
Geoengineering is a very controversial idea.

Yeah, we could just spray sulfur and other reflective particles into the atmosphere indefinitely, but I don't think anybody wants that.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:33:38 UTC No. 16167217

>>16166860
>>16166836
>>16167053
>conservative crybabies whining about China's emissions to try to deflect from their own.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:42:50 UTC No. 16167237

>>16167217
Yeah? China releases 5 times more emissions in a single day than my country emits per year, and they're still building new coal-fired plants while every other nation is shutting them down.
Maybe if you treated your local environment better you wouldn't be drowning under once-in-a-century floodwaters every year.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:45:32 UTC No. 16167241

>>16167217
What emissions?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:46:15 UTC No. 16167242

>>16167237
They do it for your consumer base, you just offshored your industry to them. They bear the brunt of emissions for you if you like

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:48:23 UTC No. 16167246

>>16166860
>A lot of the world is pouring a lot of resources into it
Only Germany, as far as i can see, and they reniged when they had a power supply crisis. Went back to coal right away

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:53:40 UTC No. 16167256

>>16167242
Which government's credits funded the e-bike trash mountain?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:55:04 UTC No. 16167258

>>16167237
>>16167241
>conservative crybabies whining about China's emissions to try to deflect from their own.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 12:57:17 UTC No. 16167262

>>16167258
Why did the chinese throw away all of their bikes? Are they too fat and stupid to ride them?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:03:48 UTC No. 16167276

>>16167262
>conservative crybabies whining about China's emissions to try to deflect from their own.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:05:29 UTC No. 16167280

>>16167276
You'll need to work harder than that if you want your 50 yen

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:11:08 UTC No. 16167287

>>16167280
The reason I'm not engaging with you is because you are a parody of a person. All you know is China bad.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:12:31 UTC No. 16167290

>>16167287
If you were Indian I would shit on India, but sadly you are not.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:26:52 UTC No. 16167316

>>16166350
i mean, some people are
but the rich don't care, they know that the worst case scenario they just have to live in a bunker or something that is stocked with all luxeries
for us, the best outcome of climate change is dying of heat rather than dying in the water wars

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:35:15 UTC No. 16167328

>>16167242
>you just offshored your industry to them
"I" did no such thing. The industrial base in my nation was undermined by short-sighted profit-driven offshoring long before I was born.
You seem to have trouble apportioning responsibility for actions.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:45:29 UTC No. 16167340

>>16167328
Got your pronouns wrong? If you can't understand association by nation you're either retarded or an individualist, which is also retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:33:14 UTC No. 16167390

>>16167340
>If you can't understand association by nation
And you can't understand that the child is not guilty of the sins of the father.
You say China is making emissions on our behalf as if they are doing it selflessly, merely for our benefit, not as a voluntary measure for their own interests.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:38:34 UTC No. 16167401

>>16167316
The rich have the most to lose in terms of lifestyle, emotional well-being, ego, etc. You think Bill Gates is on the snowpiercer?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:54:48 UTC No. 16167418

>>16167340
I gonna love roasting you alive, your suffering will flavor the meat.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:56:52 UTC No. 16167423

>>16167401
Wrong. They need to relinquish ALL their inheritance, otherwise they are as guilty as their predecessors.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:00:26 UTC No. 16167428

>>16167390
Yeah but they're not white so it doesn't count

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:08:55 UTC No. 16167442

>>16167390
Reading comprehension. Association by nation means that when I say "you" I mean your country, not (You) as an individual. A simple understanding of that wouldn't have you thinking I blame (You) and getting all defensive.
And of course China are doing it for their own benefit. But to talk about their emissions as if they happen in a vacuum and not tied to a global chain is disingenuous.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:17:12 UTC No. 16167448

>>16166378
I never understood this line of thinking. Perhaps it enables people to construct thoughts that are aligned with their comfortable and lazy life choices, and as such can serve as a basis of a clean conscenience. This sort of ultimate maneuver of self-service requires the person engaged in it is capable of deceiving themselves. But provided they are this might enable very comfortable albeit lazy lifestyles.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:39:19 UTC No. 16167477

>>16167442
>And of course China are doing it for their own benefit. But to talk about their emissions as if they happen in a vacuum and not tied to a global chain is disingenuous.
That works both ways though. And to reiterate, the planet doesn't care about context. The environment doesn't care WHY emissions are made.
>Association by nation means that when I say "you" I mean your country, not (You) as an individual.
A meaningless distinction and a spurious point.
China and India were going to industrialise and modernise regardless of whether or not the West offshored industry for reasons of profit.
Can you quantify which proportion of China's emissions are due to domestic infrastructure and consumption vs export goods? If you can't, then don't bring it up.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:45:04 UTC No. 16167489

>>16167448
Well, my nation has emissions per capita of 5.7t, and falling, whilst China has 8.8t, and rising. I don't own a car, I commute by bicycle. I have flown in passenger aircraft around a dozen times in my life.
Am I whining about China to deflect from my own nation's emissions, or am I advocating "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:47:32 UTC No. 16167492

>>16167328
>The industrial base in my nation was undermined by short-sighted profit-driven offshoring long before I was born.
Thats pretty antisemitic, fucking nazi. Do you even condemn Hamas?

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:54:20 UTC No. 16167505

>>16167492
I'm British - we were sold out and offshored by >95% gentiles.
I denounce the Talmud.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:01:26 UTC No. 16167520

>>16166350
Whenever they do, they're accused of messing with ordinary working folks and actually
turning people against their cause
>>16167199
They're slated to put a lot of new nuclear capacity online, which will not only phase out coal and gas plants but has been designed to use interchangeable components such as turbines with those of the coal and gas plants (re-using perfectly good and costly turbines).

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:26:53 UTC No. 16167561

>>16166350
Covid was a real crisis and nobody gave a fuck. Man has not evolved to have prospective reasoning.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:53:11 UTC No. 16167595

>>16167217
You know
The type of post you quoted are always somewhat of a cope

But they always lean on not wanting to explore the supply side.
So long the demand side exist, fossile fuels will be picked. And so long there is no effort to offer alternatives on the supply side, nothing will happen.
People will leave poverty via pollution, and then wonder why their rivers are poisoned.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:54:37 UTC No. 16167596

>coal
>nat gas
>most accessible and abundant energy source on the planet
>requires little to no technology to mine and use
>BUT fucks up the planet

>wind
>solar
>nuclear or fusion
>all require decades to centuries of technological development to produce only a fraction of the electricity output of fossil fuels
>despite this still having abysmal ROI compared to coal, and requires massive amounts of dedicated infrastructure just to get it off the ground

Technology cannot be replaced. For instance a manual drill might be less efficient than a power drill when you have access to electricity, but that's just it: you need the electricity to use it.

Are we actually sure renewables can replace coal? Or are we only building renewables/nuclear because we have access to coal, and therefore it would be impossible to build them without access to fossil fuels.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:03:57 UTC No. 16167606

>>16167595
>People will leave poverty via pollution, and then wonder why their rivers are poisoned.
I don't disagree, however I would argue that they know WHY their river is poisoned, but they always choose material (food/energy) security over a clean environment. Once people are economically (food+energy) secure, they acquire the luxury of being able to care about their environment.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:16:41 UTC No. 16167624

>>16167596
What I'm saying is that saying wind turbines, solar panels and nuclear plants will replace fossil fuels is kind of a circular argument. It's like saying your car engine can replace the fuel that you dump into it.

Sure, maybe in theory wind turbines and nuclear could be built without coal/natgas, but those two technologies have never existed in a fossil fuel free time period, so it's impossible to tell for sure whether they can or can't. My guess is they probably can't. Also in theory these items produce electricity from an alternative method, like nuclear, but consider all the fossil fuels which go into the materials, metal casting, supply chain, etc. You see pretty quickly that it's absurd humans could build this precision technology without fossil fuels.

That's why we should just cut off fossil fuels dry, go cold turkey. After the mass human dieoff and we get out of the dark ages we'll be in for a few hundred years we might be able to rebuild. Of course by then all the technology to extract existing fossil fuels would have been destroyed, and all the remaining reserves are deep enough that you have use use advanced technology to extract them, so it would be literally impossible to use fossil fuels again. BUT, it would probably still be a better scenario than total human extinction.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:36:59 UTC No. 16167655

>>16167316
>rather than dying in the water wars
>Heat means all the water flows into space

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:38:26 UTC No. 16167658

>>16167606
At the least we have gotten far enough that Opium farmers is using solar power instead of diesel generator for their fridges and night lights.
But it still makes me wonder IF there is going to be a real alternative down the line to the petrochemical economy.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:55:46 UTC No. 16167677

>>16167658
I don't believe there will. Some esoteric (today) technologies might solve a few use case scenarios, but the energy density + reliability + versatility of petrochemicals is hard to beat.
Long-term, I envision synthetic fuels derived from engineered algae etc to become economic compared to some forms of fossil fuel. This would have the advantage of allowing the billions of existing ICE vehicles (with all the investment of time, money and resources they represent) to go on being used.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 17:58:55 UTC No. 16167680

>>16167624
Climate change will not lead to total human extinction. The Earth has gone through many periods of climate change from ice ages to warm periods. We see that many species have persisted for millions of years, such as alligators, which indicates that tropical biomes continued to exist throughout these fluctuations.

CO2 is good for plant life, and if the climate gets too hot we can use stratospheric aerosols to block a small fraction of sunlight and cool the Earth.

It's true that we will probably continue to use coal for steel production and petroleum for feedstocks in chemistry. It's technically possible to produce hydrocarbons from air and water given enough energy, though that would really only make sense if we had fusion or a similarly plentiful energy source like fission / deep geothermal.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 18:00:07 UTC No. 16167682

>>16167677
>Long-term, I envision synthetic fuels derived from engineered algae etc to become economic compared to some forms of fossil fuel.
No, I don't see it as becoming economic. Maybe it might replace fossil fuels in the distant future, i.e. as a strict downgrade, only generating 1% of the current fossil fuel economy for double the current infrastructure. Though it wouldn't really be a downgrade, since you know, it probably wont fuck up the planet to do.

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 18:19:05 UTC No. 16167709

>>16167655
heat means droughts and famines yes
water won't evaporate into space but a lot of it will move into the ocean or become contaminated by the rising sea levels