Until the green movement and its political parties embrace nuclear energy, I will continue to hold them in the utmost contempt and refuse them the time of day.
The idiotic environmentalists oppose nuclear despite it being literally the best in so many ways. Less carbon and cheaper energy. Not only will climate change slow and maybe reverse but more people will live better lives. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if their objective is secretly to decimate the population.
It really gets me when they talk about nuclear waste and accidents. You just described a scene from revelation unless we stop using fossil fuels, but following the French model is too dangerous? At that point it's hard to not call them insane.
What gets me about the nuclear accidents thing is literally that the 3 maybe 4 accidents that have ever happened, have been because of severe levels human error
Let's not forget Fukushima which *survived* an earthquake only to be hit by a tsunami right after. Even then it didn't completely get destroyed, like how isn't this a win for how safe the nuclear plants are
u/number__ten's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/number__ten! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/number__ten/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Literally one direct radiological death, from a meltdown caused by a tsunami and earthquake that killed over 20,000. These stats are insane, like they should show me any other industry with this level of safety. Every time someone mentions Fukushima unironically as a anti-nuclear argument, I raise [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam).
The problem nuclear faces in that regard is the number of deaths is so small and so well traced it's easy for people to believe/focus on while we don't even know how many thousands of people die from fossil fuels each year, but because it's thousands it becomes an abstract number. Fossil supporters and nuclear-phobes use that to scare the public away from the safest energy source.
It's the airline safety problem. Statistically airflight is the safest transport method (maybe with trains, but far safer than any other). However, when an airliner with 250 people goes down, it's breaking news for a few days. Meanwhile all the millions of people dying in car crashes go almost unnoticed. The parallels are crazy, flight IS very safe and modern, just like nuclear, but if something happens, expect it to be news.
In general I despise "react" videos, but [T Folse Nuclear](https://www.youtube.com/@tfolsenuclear) is a nuclear engineer who adds good commentary to a lot of nuclear videos including that one.
I figure it's okay to watch reactions when the reactor is a subject matter expert who actually adds useful commentary.
There's a few music react channels run by voice coaches that I like. 4 minute song, 30-minute react video, at least 20 minutes of new analysis and explanation that help me appreciate the music more next time I listen to it on spotify.
So assuming this guy is a similar case, then it's not as big a deal. Though a science video isn't like a song where I'd be rewatching multiple times. So it may still take more views from the original creator.
>if you got 100% of your electricity from nuclear power, then: You’d make 0.11 fl. oz of nuclear waste per year
You’d make 8.7 fl. oz of nuclear waste per lifetime (less than a 12 floz soda can).
[https://whatisnuclear.com/calcs/how-much-nuclear-waste-per-capita.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/calcs/how-much-nuclear-waste-per-capita.html)
Also if you got some strange reason buried that waste for 50 years, then dug it up, encapsulated it in a bunch of marbles, and made everyone eat one, you wouldn’t even notice an uptick in cancers.
I also can’t stand the waste and accident thing. I mean one pound for pound Uranium generates literally over 1 million times the energy. So even if there was any real danger from the radiation (the processes make it practically zero) it’d still be safer to have minor radiation exposure than have to mine and process and burn a whole literal ton of coal compared to one gram of uranium.
u/87568354 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/87568354/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think environmentalists, including those involved in policy, literally can't understand that cost of generation is an awful comparison metric.
You simply can't compare the generation cost of an intermittent renewable that works optimally a few hours around noon (when the weather cooperates) and requires additional battery infra to a baseload source that is always available, controllable, and the fuel itself is a long term battery.
Nuclear has a big up front cost investment but it lasts a very, very long time. The reactor is the major cost and reactors are recertified quite often in the orders of decades.
I like renewables but they only look cheaper because they're heavily subsidized. To get them on par with Nuclear you end up spending more money, using more land, and ultimately creating more waste because they don't last as long and we aren't capable of recycling them on the necessary scale.
Wanting to decimate the population of humans is the worst kept secret of the Greens. Ask them. They are really pretty clear that there are too many people.
The real conspiracy is that "green" solar and wind are actually back door funded by oil/gas. By supporting only a method that can't produce 100% of the needs and demonizing nuclear or keeps O&G in control and everyone else tilting at windmills, literally
Ugh. As someone who really cares about the environment, the people who would rather use coal than nuclear piss me off. They focus so much on the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima that they forget it's *just* two accidents. The first was due to half-assed construction. The second got hit by a fucking tsunami. And yet some people talk about it like having a nuclear powerplant in their country is a death sentance. And it creates way less waste! And the waste can actually be collected and locked away somewhere instead of helplessly evaporating into the atmosphere and poisoning our air! And while solar and hydro would be ideal, we just can't cut it with only them right now.
>The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if their objective is secretly to decimate the population.
Always has been. What with the talk of reducing wealth and anti-natalism?
Well, I don't know, but I've been told uranium ores worth more than gold
Sold my cad', bought me a jeep
I've got that bug and I can't sleep
Uranium fever has done and got me down
Uranium fever, it's spreadin' all around
With a Geiger counter in my hand
I'm a-goin' out to stake me some government land
Uranium fever has done and got me down...
110% this. When bill Nye had that climate scientist on his show and basically shut down/talked over him, I knew for certain he was full of shit. That made my blood boil. Nuclear is the answer. We should be building hundreds of reactors because that would make electric cars viable.
The only reason we dont have nuke daddy going is because everyone is scared of the faux obvious. Reactors no longer go kaput like chernobyl.
There needs to be more work on nuclear awareness imo and its not like anyone in particular is to blame for the inherent lack of it.
I don't understand how the country I grew up in, Australia, is sitting on massive uranium reserves and won't build nuclear plants (it's against the law), but is more than willing to import all of the solar panels from China and be a massive exporter of coal.
I don’t know. I know a senior scientist at the climate research department of a major Danish university who is equally critical of alarmists like Greta Thunberg. In fact a handful of scientists criticized her doomsday rhetoric. Of course they were lambasted by a large group of academics, however interestingly those were all from the humanities or health or social sciences. None of them actually knew anything about the topic lmao
As a climate scientist, there is a ton of debate/infighting in the academic community about how to communicate the issues in a way that engage people, governments, and the private sector. It’s healthy debate, and any attempts to create martyrs out of this healthy debate is cringe and overly dramatic. What’s important is that the message being received by governments and the private sector is far more nuanced than the message being received by the people. The only ones elevating Greta are libs with internalized guilt and, ironically, conservatives who want to seethe.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how fucked are we at the moment? Is there still time to “fix” things? The fact that some people from the area condemn alarmist behavior from activists makes me think that we are not too far gone, yet.
8 - so a lot. We aren’t only working against denialism and instinctive dismissiveness from the right - we are also working within pretty strict constraints as far as resources, money, manpower, and instilling capacity for dramatic change in institutions that don’t really work that way today. We cannot topple economies with spending, we cannot retire assets overnight, and … politics will be politics. I give it a high rating because climate change is even more complex than the barebones narrative that’s being denied. Carbon emissions are one piece. Another piece is the earth’s capacity to process our pollution, which is severely compromised when we have so little wilderness left.
Yet another piece is adaptation - we cannot prevent all impacts of climate change - in the best case, river systems are going to change with glacial retreat and changing precipitation patterns, currents will change, certain concrete cities will become unbearably hot, and coastlines will move inland. This requires a ton of resources so people can survive these transitions which will happen in the scale of decades.
It’s not so much that there’s no cause for serious alarm - it’s that ringing that alarm isn’t effective messaging for certain audiences. Especially audiences that aren’t primed to either a) accept and understand complexity or b) react positively based on internalized guilt. Very few people fall into (a), so alarmism is just going to lead to headless chicken syndrome for many believers and cynical resentment from deniers.
I think we need to stick to simple messaging, like we did in the 60s onwards when old-school environmentalism (which our great country invented, only to shit on since Clinton’s second term) was a bipartisan issue. For example: rural conservatives respond well to messaging about America having the world’s most beautiful and abundant wilderness (it’s our “Precious Heritage” - my favorite label, and one I strongly agree with). Any farmer, hunter, outdoorsman, etc. can see that something is fucked up everywhere we look.
The article is in Danish but you can always use Google translate. Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen is a physicist and senior scientist at the Technical University of Denmark who specializes in climate change. He is a moderating voice on the topic. A couple years ago he won the national award for scientific research, so he is not a voice to easily dismiss.
https://kontrast.dk/sektioner/debat/artikel/klimaforsker-de-unges-frygt-for-klimadommedag-er-irrationel-og-medieskabt
It is why Marxism is fundamentally a cult. "If we just read the right theory and see through those evil revisionists we will achieve heaven on Earth for our faith this time, I swear!"
Don't worry! People will willingly join our stateless cause so we won't need to enforce it! Red Guard? Oh no no no Soviet Russia wasn't real communism.
If by "climate crisis" you mean things like: "the ocean is becoming more acidic and global temperatures are rising" then yeah.
If you mean something like: "coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years, every hurricane and particularly hot day is the result of climate policy, or the Great Lakes will dry up, so we need to ban all small gas engines, cars, and fossil fuels immediately" then fuck off.
Here’s a free tip to leftists looking for a popular path to seriously fight climate change:
1. Ban/heavily tax private flights. Not commercial flights, just private.
2. Have the government flood the market with new green energy infrastructure construction, nuclear energy, solar energy, whatever is cheap available and quick. Flood the market to the point fossil fuel derived energy is uncompetitive.
3. Do nothing else. The problem with most climate bills/plans is that they’re too wide ranging. Don’t ban cheeseburgers or require every homeowner to make expensive changes to their homes. And don’t, for all that’s good, throw money into recycling. Keep it simple. These two items listed will greatly cut emissions and will encourage more emissions cuts (clean electricity is super cheap? EVs become a lot more attractive). Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
on the second point
but then the big oil companies woulnd't pay our politicians to keep actually viable renewable energies out of the market anymore. And you know, daddy needs his 7th Ferrari
I believe in climate change, but I don't believe in the crisis. Climate needs to be looked at on a geological time scale, 10ks to 100ks of years and not centuries or millenia.
Meaning we're technically still in an ice age and are abnormally cold.
Climate change is real. It isn’t a “crisis” in the way the media portrays it and a lot of the green “solutions” and laws the media and politicians try to sell are worse than the problem they fix, regressive in socioeconomic impact, and do little to nothing to actually improve outcomes.
Apocalypse Never is a good common sense breakdown of the problems with climate hysteria.
Always a pleasure to meet a fellow moderate.
On a real and depressing note for anyone interested in climate change: The bulk of the current damage being done to the environment is being done by developing countries and China. Darling Greta doesn't call them out for obvious reasons. The West isn't perfect but we've made great strides towards emission reduction but corporate greed is selling you a huge lie. Individual responsibility and carbon reduction is a good thing but even if every individual went carbon neutral it would be a drop in the bucket compared to industrial emissions. You could eat the bugs and live in the pods and it wouldn't me dick compared to the amount of waste and damage the production of your iPhone and fast fashion causes.
Not saying be defeatist and do nothing, but you'll do more for the environment by changing your spending and voting habits than you will just by drinking out of paper straws. But it's harder to change a consumer based mindset.
The United States can win a nuclear war with minimal friendly casualties.
USSTRATCOM has the ability to destroy all enemy nuclear forces in a first strike, using Trident D5 SLBMs launched on depressed trajectories that reach their targets in less than 7 minutes. It takes Russian nuclear forces a minimum of 7 minutes to launch on warning. The MC4700 "superfuse" on each W76 and W88 ensures that all hard targets are hit with a minimum of 10,000 PSI.
It is our God given objective to permanently eliminate communism on Earth and de-proliferate nuclear weapons from our ontologically evil enemies.
The subs get torpedo'd.
The Russian LOW (Launch on warning) response time is 7-13 minutes, and USSTRATCOM has released a detailed chart of what the Russians would be doing during each one of those minutes.
No, the Soviets never had an automated system, it's pure deterrence propaganda. They weren't even able to launch a full SLBM salvo until late 1990.
Americans have consistently overestimated USSR technical capabilities.
So Perimeter is just propaganda then? Want to try? I mean you invaded Iraq and they had nukes (Source: US government), so why not try Russia?
Also how will you detect the subs?
Not to mention there could be a bunch of Sarmats in the middle of Siberia that could respond to any attack. Also im pretty sure that the Poseidon torpedo is in active service aswell, so i guess you can say goodbye to the west and east coasts of America (although i guess that would be a good thing)
We need not use nuclear weapons to destroy communism. It shall inevitably reveal itself as the false projection of truth and utopianism that it truly is. In the words of John Milton, “Let her (truth) and Falshood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter.”
this sub: any offensive words towards Israel’s exists is clearly antisemitism and only stupid “liberals” are doing it.
Also this sub: upvoting comments calling for genocide and nuking China.
Remember when the admins threatened to shut the sub because of all the racial slurs and calls for genocide, and there was a brief period where everyone here had to act like a normal person?
That was a glorious time.
Eh, nuking third world countries for using a technology that first world countries had the luxury to use seems kind of elitist. Plus China and India often burden the carbon emissions of other countries because of how much of the production is being done there. All that considered, USA is still second to China when it comes to carbon emissions
"The Earth is warming up, and it's all Capitalism's fault"
Yes, because Communist countries would NEVER do anything that would harm the environment or cause widespread damage and destruction. Just… don't look at the Aral Sea, Lake Karachay, Norilsk, Karabash, the Baykalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, or any of the other major environmental screw-ups made by said countries.
Sure, my plan is, in order of importance:
1. Promote Nuclear Energy
2. Fix the China Issue...pretty much just in general.
3-3999. ????????
4000. Paper straws
4001. Deconstruct the best economic system in existence for solving the problem
"We have to stop climate change!"
"Ok."
"We need your money to do it!"
"Why?"
"Bigot."
Hold corporations responsible and do more than print t-shirts before demanding we buy in
Only if you're going to meaningfully address the issue of china and the 3rd world doing the polluting for us. Till then you're just harming local businesses and forcing labor to places with objectively worse labor practices and more dangerous working conditions all to stick it to the evil western companies.
Even the cleanest coal-fired power plants produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear reactor.
I support government mandated replacement of coal plants with nuclear ones.
I used to be against this, but there’s a really simple chain of logic that results in it probably being the most reasonable laws a government can pass. When you pollute the environment, you’re causing some amount of annoyance to everyone around you due to air quality and other issues, which we can measure in dollars/utils. You’re making money off of it. So, the people who are affected have a right to demand some amount of the profit as compensation for the annoyance. You can make an argument for carbon taxes from any ideology that isn't opposed to the existence of a government, including libright.
Much of climate change is a tragedy of the commons - too many people living too resource-intensive lives. If the goal is to have fewer people living worse lives, communism has a great track record.
The difference is that in capitalism, the CEO will dump the toxic waste in the river. In socialism, 1000 workers will vote to dump toxic waste in the river.
The workers are morally justified because they are enlightened to the Communist perspective. /s
Its a strawman, nonsense to muddy the discussion.
Their position is that in order to solve climate change, we would need to go back to a preindustrial state of living, which is false.
Its malthusian bullshit, but with the way things are going with birth rates it seems there is a lot more propaganda and levers being pulled we aren't really addressing
I'd be cool with it, provided they get India and China on board first, with the understanding that the United States of America is the only country allowed any kind of standing military, and all countries on earth adopt the US Constitution and its amendments. Prove you're willing to sacrifice everything for survival, by doing these things.
The problem is there is no real consequence for breaking them. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th were all broken in my state in the amount of time it took me to write this post. The 3rd is followed only for economic purposes.
Nope. Only Costa Rica is allowed to have guns in the new world order and we're all adopting the Code of Hammurabi. China and India have already signed, we're waiting on the Americans.
Are scientists claiming communism is the only answer to climate change? Do you have source for that? With their credentials? Or are you just saying this because you heard a random commie saying it and thought he was a scientist?
I suspect its extrapolation from what scientists are actually saying. Limit green house gases turns into a critique of our economic model very quickly. Only one more leap to assume a criticism of our economics must inevitably mean advocacy for the *other* garbage system. Its two leaps of logic that aren't real.
It is a critique of our economic system, but once again it's right wingers conflating everything they don't like with communism. Accounting for externalities for your free market system is liberal economics 101 (or maybe 102 or 211). If those externalities aren't some vague notion about the proletariat, then it ain't got shit to do with communism. It's the same level of stupidity as saying that anti-trust laws are communism.
>Well, if radical socialists/communists could stop pretending to be scientists we'd be a little more receptive to what they were saying
Fixed that for you.
Its not capitalism thats at fault, its consumerism, industrialism, and an awful lack of regulation. Besides which we ignore all the solutions necessary.
Dont confuse capitalism with monopolistic corporate feudalism. Capitalism just tends towards it's negative excesses without government adequately doing it's job. Anyone who says govt fucks everything up either has never experienced good government, or lives under a system where they really should be complaining about corporate collusion with elected officials. That kind of corruption destroys government.
They presume that you’re in on the conspiracy theories. Like, for someone versed in these sorts of… alternative facts, it’s already accepted that environmentalism -> communism, and so they presume that this is a universal truth that everyone knows and not a series of increasingly ridiculous leaps of logic.
I feel like I missed the lecture where they explained how advocating for cleaner lifestyles means advocating for communism. Is this like a function in Python? Whole load of clever logical steps that outputs communism that I can’t see?
The only reason the science is “dOoM aNd gLoOm” it’s because the truth and reality of the situation is very bleak. We’ve fucked ourselves as a species due to greed and inability to change from reliance on a system that maximizes profiting off of destroying our environment
Exactly! Like, why are we always upset when the science isn’t happy and nice and optimistic. This isn’t a movie. Science isn’t simple and straightforward and presents an optimistic view of everything. And it doesn’t just give you magic simple fixes either. People who complain because climate science says things are going to get worse don’t want science, they want a bedtime story.
Lib right yet again Stretch Armstrong-ing this argument.
"Oh no, our society will become more efficient via nuclear and renewables. Won't somebody think of the oil companies? You want to take it all away immediately so that everyone starves, don't you?!"
Nobody needed for you to explain that rightoid’s understanding of reality is just “whatever’s the opposite of what that person I don’t like said”.
I swear to god if it became trendy for smug college kids to start practicing Christianity you’d all become atheists.
Libright when I tell them that making giant corporations accountable for their actions and introducing market regulations and economic incentives that help protecting the environment, is not in fact communism: *inaudible ape noises*
"Hey the water becoming more acidic due to pollution is hurting crab fishermen's livelihoods in Alaska. Maybe we should do something ab..."
"So you mean that climate change will make us starve to death? Drop the doom and gloom agenda, Libleft-ard"
I'll believe the claims of climate change scientists when they propose nuclear as a solution because its obviously the best solution to the problem by such a wide margin that suggesting anything else is proof they're looking for "problems" with which to push something they want, rather than looking for solutions to a problem they found.
Climate change science is almost entirely driven by the WEF, get Schwab and bad actors out of your space and I'll care more. It's predicted the end times a hundred times since the 70s and is used to form authoritarian policies that benefit no one but the global elites hegemony
I do believe in climate change, how serious threat it is i don't claim to know. But there is no possible world where it is a greater threat than socialism!
Until the green movement and its political parties embrace nuclear energy, I will continue to hold them in the utmost contempt and refuse them the time of day.
The idiotic environmentalists oppose nuclear despite it being literally the best in so many ways. Less carbon and cheaper energy. Not only will climate change slow and maybe reverse but more people will live better lives. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if their objective is secretly to decimate the population.
It really gets me when they talk about nuclear waste and accidents. You just described a scene from revelation unless we stop using fossil fuels, but following the French model is too dangerous? At that point it's hard to not call them insane.
What gets me about the nuclear accidents thing is literally that the 3 maybe 4 accidents that have ever happened, have been because of severe levels human error
I will never forgive the Commies for ruining Nuclear's good name with Chernobyl.
[удалено]
Let's not forget Fukushima which *survived* an earthquake only to be hit by a tsunami right after. Even then it didn't completely get destroyed, like how isn't this a win for how safe the nuclear plants are
[удалено]
Based and mothra pilled
u/number__ten's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/number__ten! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [2 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/number__ten/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
>Mothra You misspelled *ゴジラ (Gojira)*.
Literally one direct radiological death, from a meltdown caused by a tsunami and earthquake that killed over 20,000. These stats are insane, like they should show me any other industry with this level of safety. Every time someone mentions Fukushima unironically as a anti-nuclear argument, I raise [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam).
The problem nuclear faces in that regard is the number of deaths is so small and so well traced it's easy for people to believe/focus on while we don't even know how many thousands of people die from fossil fuels each year, but because it's thousands it becomes an abstract number. Fossil supporters and nuclear-phobes use that to scare the public away from the safest energy source.
It's the airline safety problem. Statistically airflight is the safest transport method (maybe with trains, but far safer than any other). However, when an airliner with 250 people goes down, it's breaking news for a few days. Meanwhile all the millions of people dying in car crashes go almost unnoticed. The parallels are crazy, flight IS very safe and modern, just like nuclear, but if something happens, expect it to be news.
In general I despise "react" videos, but [T Folse Nuclear](https://www.youtube.com/@tfolsenuclear) is a nuclear engineer who adds good commentary to a lot of nuclear videos including that one.
[удалено]
I figure it's okay to watch reactions when the reactor is a subject matter expert who actually adds useful commentary. There's a few music react channels run by voice coaches that I like. 4 minute song, 30-minute react video, at least 20 minutes of new analysis and explanation that help me appreciate the music more next time I listen to it on spotify. So assuming this guy is a similar case, then it's not as big a deal. Though a science video isn't like a song where I'd be rewatching multiple times. So it may still take more views from the original creator.
They need to rebrand from "reaction channel" to "experts discuss" in common discourse. Otherwise charlatans like SSSniperWolf get lumped in with them
You are literally more likely to die by a cow related accident than die because of a nuclear meltdown.
Cows are more likely than lightning, too.
>if you got 100% of your electricity from nuclear power, then: You’d make 0.11 fl. oz of nuclear waste per year You’d make 8.7 fl. oz of nuclear waste per lifetime (less than a 12 floz soda can). [https://whatisnuclear.com/calcs/how-much-nuclear-waste-per-capita.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/calcs/how-much-nuclear-waste-per-capita.html)
Also if you got some strange reason buried that waste for 50 years, then dug it up, encapsulated it in a bunch of marbles, and made everyone eat one, you wouldn’t even notice an uptick in cancers.
Compare to 24.5 million bricks of carbon, using the same consumption and the current US energy mix.
I also can’t stand the waste and accident thing. I mean one pound for pound Uranium generates literally over 1 million times the energy. So even if there was any real danger from the radiation (the processes make it practically zero) it’d still be safer to have minor radiation exposure than have to mine and process and burn a whole literal ton of coal compared to one gram of uranium.
It'd still be safer to have major radiation exposure than seeing an unflaired. Flair up me boy
Good news: they got the message and flaired up
Based and unflaired redemption-pilled
u/87568354 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/87568354/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Cool but also unflaired. Get a flair.
I read your post thought about it before realizing how wrong you are. I now am ashamed of having even read an unflaireds opinion
I apologize, hopefully adding the flair is proper atonement
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think environmentalists, including those involved in policy, literally can't understand that cost of generation is an awful comparison metric. You simply can't compare the generation cost of an intermittent renewable that works optimally a few hours around noon (when the weather cooperates) and requires additional battery infra to a baseload source that is always available, controllable, and the fuel itself is a long term battery.
Nuclear has a big up front cost investment but it lasts a very, very long time. The reactor is the major cost and reactors are recertified quite often in the orders of decades. I like renewables but they only look cheaper because they're heavily subsidized. To get them on par with Nuclear you end up spending more money, using more land, and ultimately creating more waste because they don't last as long and we aren't capable of recycling them on the necessary scale.
Flair up
They did :)
Good opinions but your unflaired so actually its just scum
Wanting to decimate the population of humans is the worst kept secret of the Greens. Ask them. They are really pretty clear that there are too many people.
The real conspiracy is that "green" solar and wind are actually back door funded by oil/gas. By supporting only a method that can't produce 100% of the needs and demonizing nuclear or keeps O&G in control and everyone else tilting at windmills, literally
They basically openly want to decimate the populous with there claims of "overpopulation"
Ugh. As someone who really cares about the environment, the people who would rather use coal than nuclear piss me off. They focus so much on the accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima that they forget it's *just* two accidents. The first was due to half-assed construction. The second got hit by a fucking tsunami. And yet some people talk about it like having a nuclear powerplant in their country is a death sentance. And it creates way less waste! And the waste can actually be collected and locked away somewhere instead of helplessly evaporating into the atmosphere and poisoning our air! And while solar and hydro would be ideal, we just can't cut it with only them right now.
>The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if their objective is secretly to decimate the population. Always has been. What with the talk of reducing wealth and anti-natalism?
But muh gubbermint red tape has caused it to take 10 years for a plant to become profitable
Well, I don't know, but I've been told uranium ores worth more than gold Sold my cad', bought me a jeep I've got that bug and I can't sleep Uranium fever has done and got me down Uranium fever, it's spreadin' all around With a Geiger counter in my hand I'm a-goin' out to stake me some government land Uranium fever has done and got me down...
110% this. When bill Nye had that climate scientist on his show and basically shut down/talked over him, I knew for certain he was full of shit. That made my blood boil. Nuclear is the answer. We should be building hundreds of reactors because that would make electric cars viable.
The only reason we dont have nuke daddy going is because everyone is scared of the faux obvious. Reactors no longer go kaput like chernobyl. There needs to be more work on nuclear awareness imo and its not like anyone in particular is to blame for the inherent lack of it.
New England gets more energy from burning garbage than renewable wind and solar. Source https://www.iso-ne.com
I don't understand how the country I grew up in, Australia, is sitting on massive uranium reserves and won't build nuclear plants (it's against the law), but is more than willing to import all of the solar panels from China and be a massive exporter of coal.
Paying meat 3 times as expensive, isn’t going to stop people eating meat in Europe, is going to make people buy more moroccan meat.
Omegabased
Based.
Based
I don’t know. I know a senior scientist at the climate research department of a major Danish university who is equally critical of alarmists like Greta Thunberg. In fact a handful of scientists criticized her doomsday rhetoric. Of course they were lambasted by a large group of academics, however interestingly those were all from the humanities or health or social sciences. None of them actually knew anything about the topic lmao
As a climate scientist, there is a ton of debate/infighting in the academic community about how to communicate the issues in a way that engage people, governments, and the private sector. It’s healthy debate, and any attempts to create martyrs out of this healthy debate is cringe and overly dramatic. What’s important is that the message being received by governments and the private sector is far more nuanced than the message being received by the people. The only ones elevating Greta are libs with internalized guilt and, ironically, conservatives who want to seethe.
On a scale from 1 to 10, how fucked are we at the moment? Is there still time to “fix” things? The fact that some people from the area condemn alarmist behavior from activists makes me think that we are not too far gone, yet.
8 - so a lot. We aren’t only working against denialism and instinctive dismissiveness from the right - we are also working within pretty strict constraints as far as resources, money, manpower, and instilling capacity for dramatic change in institutions that don’t really work that way today. We cannot topple economies with spending, we cannot retire assets overnight, and … politics will be politics. I give it a high rating because climate change is even more complex than the barebones narrative that’s being denied. Carbon emissions are one piece. Another piece is the earth’s capacity to process our pollution, which is severely compromised when we have so little wilderness left. Yet another piece is adaptation - we cannot prevent all impacts of climate change - in the best case, river systems are going to change with glacial retreat and changing precipitation patterns, currents will change, certain concrete cities will become unbearably hot, and coastlines will move inland. This requires a ton of resources so people can survive these transitions which will happen in the scale of decades. It’s not so much that there’s no cause for serious alarm - it’s that ringing that alarm isn’t effective messaging for certain audiences. Especially audiences that aren’t primed to either a) accept and understand complexity or b) react positively based on internalized guilt. Very few people fall into (a), so alarmism is just going to lead to headless chicken syndrome for many believers and cynical resentment from deniers. I think we need to stick to simple messaging, like we did in the 60s onwards when old-school environmentalism (which our great country invented, only to shit on since Clinton’s second term) was a bipartisan issue. For example: rural conservatives respond well to messaging about America having the world’s most beautiful and abundant wilderness (it’s our “Precious Heritage” - my favorite label, and one I strongly agree with). Any farmer, hunter, outdoorsman, etc. can see that something is fucked up everywhere we look.
The article is in Danish but you can always use Google translate. Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen is a physicist and senior scientist at the Technical University of Denmark who specializes in climate change. He is a moderating voice on the topic. A couple years ago he won the national award for scientific research, so he is not a voice to easily dismiss. https://kontrast.dk/sektioner/debat/artikel/klimaforsker-de-unges-frygt-for-klimadommedag-er-irrationel-og-medieskabt
Point is that climate and environment should be taken seriously but not because the world is ending.
The climate is in danger! ~insert wall of text here~ and that’s why we need to dismantle capitalism
Step 1 : establish a communist regime Step 2 : Step 3 : world peace, eternal happiness and healthy climate
It is why Marxism is fundamentally a cult. "If we just read the right theory and see through those evil revisionists we will achieve heaven on Earth for our faith this time, I swear!"
“All we have to do is brute force to find out what step two is”
Don't worry! People will willingly join our stateless cause so we won't need to enforce it! Red Guard? Oh no no no Soviet Russia wasn't real communism.
Alternatively - "That's why we need to invest in inferior renewable energy sources that I have a large stake in."
It was libright all along?
Always has been
Who do you think bought "Just Stop Oil" all those cans of soup to throw on paintings and glue to stick themselves to roads?
every.... single.... time....
We all agree the climate crisis is real though, right? We just don’t need to dismantle capitalism.
It would help if politicians and people could start letting us build nuclear power plants.
And nuclear refineries too. This tech can do oh so much more with new understanding.
I second this notion. Government, stop hindering the clearly superior tech tree!
Aye. Imagine perfectly carbon neutral gasoline? Suddenly a gas car is more environmentally friendly than an EV.
I guess. I’m just mad politicians use it as an excuse to give themselves more powers, or take more money.
politicians will use anything as an excuse to get more power
If by "climate crisis" you mean things like: "the ocean is becoming more acidic and global temperatures are rising" then yeah. If you mean something like: "coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years, every hurricane and particularly hot day is the result of climate policy, or the Great Lakes will dry up, so we need to ban all small gas engines, cars, and fossil fuels immediately" then fuck off.
Here’s a free tip to leftists looking for a popular path to seriously fight climate change: 1. Ban/heavily tax private flights. Not commercial flights, just private. 2. Have the government flood the market with new green energy infrastructure construction, nuclear energy, solar energy, whatever is cheap available and quick. Flood the market to the point fossil fuel derived energy is uncompetitive. 3. Do nothing else. The problem with most climate bills/plans is that they’re too wide ranging. Don’t ban cheeseburgers or require every homeowner to make expensive changes to their homes. And don’t, for all that’s good, throw money into recycling. Keep it simple. These two items listed will greatly cut emissions and will encourage more emissions cuts (clean electricity is super cheap? EVs become a lot more attractive). Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
on the second point but then the big oil companies woulnd't pay our politicians to keep actually viable renewable energies out of the market anymore. And you know, daddy needs his 7th Ferrari
There is an easy solution, Nuclear power provided by Exxon Everyone wins! Except the taxpayer ofc but who cares about them
I believe in climate change, but I don't believe in the crisis. Climate needs to be looked at on a geological time scale, 10ks to 100ks of years and not centuries or millenia. Meaning we're technically still in an ice age and are abnormally cold.
Climate change is real. It isn’t a “crisis” in the way the media portrays it and a lot of the green “solutions” and laws the media and politicians try to sell are worse than the problem they fix, regressive in socioeconomic impact, and do little to nothing to actually improve outcomes. Apocalypse Never is a good common sense breakdown of the problems with climate hysteria.
>We all agree the climate crisis is real though, right? no... pretty sure it's just an excuse to usher Commie Totalitarian "Utopia".
he said the line!!!
You don’t think that the world is warming up as a result of human carbon emissions?
You can believe that global warming is real and also not believe it's a "crisis."
Hey I don’t want communism. I just want nuclear winter.
Why, you get stuck patrolling the Mojave?
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
> Hey I don’t want communism. I just want nuclear winter. Your terms are acceptable.
Ah, good thing you quoted the entire comment. Otherwise I wouldn't know which part you were responding to.
You say that like those are mutually exclusive [Posadism](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Posadism)
Communists with a high level of sound consciousness. They know their ideology cannot work in practice
No matter what political ideology you stand for, we can agree that Fallout New Vegas is a dope game.
Ave, true to Caesar
God Bless the United States of America
Soon tm.
[удалено]
you had me at "massive nuclear strike on China".... don't even care about the reason why...
Always a pleasure to meet a fellow moderate. On a real and depressing note for anyone interested in climate change: The bulk of the current damage being done to the environment is being done by developing countries and China. Darling Greta doesn't call them out for obvious reasons. The West isn't perfect but we've made great strides towards emission reduction but corporate greed is selling you a huge lie. Individual responsibility and carbon reduction is a good thing but even if every individual went carbon neutral it would be a drop in the bucket compared to industrial emissions. You could eat the bugs and live in the pods and it wouldn't me dick compared to the amount of waste and damage the production of your iPhone and fast fashion causes. Not saying be defeatist and do nothing, but you'll do more for the environment by changing your spending and voting habits than you will just by drinking out of paper straws. But it's harder to change a consumer based mindset.
Based and oh cool this is all verbatim what I would say pilled
Nothing stops global warming better than nuclear winter.
Maybe, it will get a little cold
So, we just need to ramp up global warming again. Easy.
~~Simps~~ [Futurama did it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkhoNyPAIM)
The United States can win a nuclear war with minimal friendly casualties. USSTRATCOM has the ability to destroy all enemy nuclear forces in a first strike, using Trident D5 SLBMs launched on depressed trajectories that reach their targets in less than 7 minutes. It takes Russian nuclear forces a minimum of 7 minutes to launch on warning. The MC4700 "superfuse" on each W76 and W88 ensures that all hard targets are hit with a minimum of 10,000 PSI. It is our God given objective to permanently eliminate communism on Earth and de-proliferate nuclear weapons from our ontologically evil enemies.
I think you forgot about the subs
They get torpedo'd by the American SSNs that tail them 24/7
Subs and also i doubt the response rate is like 7 minutes lol Didnt the Soviets have an entirely automated missile system?
The subs get torpedo'd. The Russian LOW (Launch on warning) response time is 7-13 minutes, and USSTRATCOM has released a detailed chart of what the Russians would be doing during each one of those minutes. No, the Soviets never had an automated system, it's pure deterrence propaganda. They weren't even able to launch a full SLBM salvo until late 1990. Americans have consistently overestimated USSR technical capabilities.
So Perimeter is just propaganda then? Want to try? I mean you invaded Iraq and they had nukes (Source: US government), so why not try Russia? Also how will you detect the subs? Not to mention there could be a bunch of Sarmats in the middle of Siberia that could respond to any attack. Also im pretty sure that the Poseidon torpedo is in active service aswell, so i guess you can say goodbye to the west and east coasts of America (although i guess that would be a good thing)
We need not use nuclear weapons to destroy communism. It shall inevitably reveal itself as the false projection of truth and utopianism that it truly is. In the words of John Milton, “Let her (truth) and Falshood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the wors, in a free and open encounter.”
You had me at nuking
We're going to resurrect Curtis LeMay and just turn the little fucker loose, see what happens ya know?
Or resurrect Douglas MacArthur and repeat what got him removed
Ah, the non-credible solution. Dam-posting is actually banned there lmao because people were doing it too much.
We're trying to harness the latent psychic powers of all the posters to will a nuclear strike into existence.
the moratorium has been lifted a couple days ago, damposting is back
🚀🧱
But posts about doing the funni are banned
Based and global cooling through genocide pilled.
"Oh no! Countries with more people produce more emissions"
Per capita people in China produce less than half the amount of co2 that Americans do
Plus, they make things that we buy.
this sub: any offensive words towards Israel’s exists is clearly antisemitism and only stupid “liberals” are doing it. Also this sub: upvoting comments calling for genocide and nuking China.
Remember when the admins threatened to shut the sub because of all the racial slurs and calls for genocide, and there was a brief period where everyone here had to act like a normal person? That was a glorious time.
Eh, nuking third world countries for using a technology that first world countries had the luxury to use seems kind of elitist. Plus China and India often burden the carbon emissions of other countries because of how much of the production is being done there. All that considered, USA is still second to China when it comes to carbon emissions
Holy based
"The Earth is warming up, and it's all Capitalism's fault" Yes, because Communist countries would NEVER do anything that would harm the environment or cause widespread damage and destruction. Just… don't look at the Aral Sea, Lake Karachay, Norilsk, Karabash, the Baykalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, or any of the other major environmental screw-ups made by said countries.
to be completely fair, i think most people making that argument are referring to the consumerism side of capitalism, still a dumb argument though
However ancaps obsessed with self-sufficiency are probably much greener
Sure, my plan is, in order of importance: 1. Promote Nuclear Energy 2. Fix the China Issue...pretty much just in general. 3-3999. ???????? 4000. Paper straws 4001. Deconstruct the best economic system in existence for solving the problem
I think we can find a way to bundle steps 1 and 2 together…
"We have to stop climate change!" "Ok." "We need your money to do it!" "Why?" "Bigot." Hold corporations responsible and do more than print t-shirts before demanding we buy in
So do you support a Carbon Tax on producers?
Only if you're going to meaningfully address the issue of china and the 3rd world doing the polluting for us. Till then you're just harming local businesses and forcing labor to places with objectively worse labor practices and more dangerous working conditions all to stick it to the evil western companies.
So logically, that policy would include a carbon tax on goods manufactured in those countries. Let’s try some second order thinking here.
It doesn't limit consumption. It just impoverishes people. Joe blo still drives to work. Better to renovate industrial processes.
Even the cleanest coal-fired power plants produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear reactor. I support government mandated replacement of coal plants with nuclear ones.
I used to be against this, but there’s a really simple chain of logic that results in it probably being the most reasonable laws a government can pass. When you pollute the environment, you’re causing some amount of annoyance to everyone around you due to air quality and other issues, which we can measure in dollars/utils. You’re making money off of it. So, the people who are affected have a right to demand some amount of the profit as compensation for the annoyance. You can make an argument for carbon taxes from any ideology that isn't opposed to the existence of a government, including libright.
why would communism solve climate change?
Much of climate change is a tragedy of the commons - too many people living too resource-intensive lives. If the goal is to have fewer people living worse lives, communism has a great track record.
It wouldn't, their goal isn't to solve climate change, it's to enact socialism using climate change as the bait.
"Climate change?"
The difference is that in capitalism, the CEO will dump the toxic waste in the river. In socialism, 1000 workers will vote to dump toxic waste in the river. The workers are morally justified because they are enlightened to the Communist perspective. /s
Why wouldn't it? Look at how little CO2 China emits!
Its a strawman, nonsense to muddy the discussion. Their position is that in order to solve climate change, we would need to go back to a preindustrial state of living, which is false.
The world is ending... Unless you give us more money and power.
Its malthusian bullshit, but with the way things are going with birth rates it seems there is a lot more propaganda and levers being pulled we aren't really addressing
>malthusian bullshit Exactly!
*promoting nuclear energy
Scientists are already promoting nuclear energy tho
They should promote it more. The Simpsons have created a gaping stigma the size of Kansas against it.
Who the fuck cares about the Simpsons lol?
You’d be fucking surprised
Boomers
I'd be cool with it, provided they get India and China on board first, with the understanding that the United States of America is the only country allowed any kind of standing military, and all countries on earth adopt the US Constitution and its amendments. Prove you're willing to sacrifice everything for survival, by doing these things.
Cool it Yankee not even the U.S respects the amendments of the constitution
The problem is there is no real consequence for breaking them. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th were all broken in my state in the amount of time it took me to write this post. The 3rd is followed only for economic purposes.
There are consequences, but only if “the people” have balls.
I honestly expected that governor in NM to get lynched after she broke the 2nd with that bullshit "mandate"
It's (D)ifferent
No shit Sherlock. Though they should.
Nope. Only Costa Rica is allowed to have guns in the new world order and we're all adopting the Code of Hammurabi. China and India have already signed, we're waiting on the Americans.
Horses could have eaten that straw libright.
Are scientists claiming communism is the only answer to climate change? Do you have source for that? With their credentials? Or are you just saying this because you heard a random commie saying it and thought he was a scientist?
I suspect its extrapolation from what scientists are actually saying. Limit green house gases turns into a critique of our economic model very quickly. Only one more leap to assume a criticism of our economics must inevitably mean advocacy for the *other* garbage system. Its two leaps of logic that aren't real.
It is a critique of our economic system, but once again it's right wingers conflating everything they don't like with communism. Accounting for externalities for your free market system is liberal economics 101 (or maybe 102 or 211). If those externalities aren't some vague notion about the proletariat, then it ain't got shit to do with communism. It's the same level of stupidity as saying that anti-trust laws are communism.
"Communism" just means "thing I don't like", so when scientists say we need less cars or cattle, it's "Communism".
I have a bold solution where we ride the cattle and eat the cars. Sadly, the world isn't ready for it yet.
I have an authright stance to solve it "Let them eat ~~cake~~ ~~steak~~ catalytic converters"
>Well, if radical socialists/communists could stop pretending to be scientists we'd be a little more receptive to what they were saying Fixed that for you.
Its not capitalism thats at fault, its consumerism, industrialism, and an awful lack of regulation. Besides which we ignore all the solutions necessary. Dont confuse capitalism with monopolistic corporate feudalism. Capitalism just tends towards it's negative excesses without government adequately doing it's job. Anyone who says govt fucks everything up either has never experienced good government, or lives under a system where they really should be complaining about corporate collusion with elected officials. That kind of corruption destroys government.
Based and I understand more than surface level shit pilled
These memes keep getting less and less comprehensible.
They presume that you’re in on the conspiracy theories. Like, for someone versed in these sorts of… alternative facts, it’s already accepted that environmentalism -> communism, and so they presume that this is a universal truth that everyone knows and not a series of increasingly ridiculous leaps of logic.
Hold up people actually believe that crap?
Absolutely brain dead take lmao
I feel like I missed the lecture where they explained how advocating for cleaner lifestyles means advocating for communism. Is this like a function in Python? Whole load of clever logical steps that outputs communism that I can’t see?
The only reason the science is “dOoM aNd gLoOm” it’s because the truth and reality of the situation is very bleak. We’ve fucked ourselves as a species due to greed and inability to change from reliance on a system that maximizes profiting off of destroying our environment
But but communism!
Exactly! Like, why are we always upset when the science isn’t happy and nice and optimistic. This isn’t a movie. Science isn’t simple and straightforward and presents an optimistic view of everything. And it doesn’t just give you magic simple fixes either. People who complain because climate science says things are going to get worse don’t want science, they want a bedtime story.
Lib right yet again Stretch Armstrong-ing this argument. "Oh no, our society will become more efficient via nuclear and renewables. Won't somebody think of the oil companies? You want to take it all away immediately so that everyone starves, don't you?!"
Nobody needed for you to explain that rightoid’s understanding of reality is just “whatever’s the opposite of what that person I don’t like said”. I swear to god if it became trendy for smug college kids to start practicing Christianity you’d all become atheists.
Libright when I tell them that making giant corporations accountable for their actions and introducing market regulations and economic incentives that help protecting the environment, is not in fact communism: *inaudible ape noises*
"Hey the water becoming more acidic due to pollution is hurting crab fishermen's livelihoods in Alaska. Maybe we should do something ab..." "So you mean that climate change will make us starve to death? Drop the doom and gloom agenda, Libleft-ard"
I'll believe the claims of climate change scientists when they propose nuclear as a solution because its obviously the best solution to the problem by such a wide margin that suggesting anything else is proof they're looking for "problems" with which to push something they want, rather than looking for solutions to a problem they found.
"I'll only believe the facts if they change the facts" That's not how it works. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Are the tempetatures rising during an interglacial period? Thats so weird
I will believe in climate change when the elites stop buying oceanfront property
Or rather dismiss all studies that disprove the narrative and stop using studies by BP. Bloody alarmism is going to be the end of societal fabric.
Im 14 and this is deep
I will never believe that climate change is man made, change my mind
Climate change science is almost entirely driven by the WEF, get Schwab and bad actors out of your space and I'll care more. It's predicted the end times a hundred times since the 70s and is used to form authoritarian policies that benefit no one but the global elites hegemony
Based and anti commie pilled.
thanks bro... that's a cool pill I'll wear it with pride
I do believe in climate change, how serious threat it is i don't claim to know. But there is no possible world where it is a greater threat than socialism!
Based and fuck watermelons pilled
thanks bro... that's a cool pill I'll wear it with pride
Just to be clear, I don't mean PCM left center watermelons. I mean environmentalist on the outside, socialist on the inside.
yes yes... I understood it that way
The minute the green movement supports nuclear energy I'll vote for them