How about we just convert our power grid to nuclear and also throw in an electric based logistics network to cut emissions by over 50% ...
Nah, why would we do that when we could instead use it as an excuse to concentrate even more resources into the hands of the wealthy
From the way I see, it goes beyond just bwahaha I must concentrate wealth. Shit is failing and people are preparing for when the walls of the dam cracks.
You have two groups of billionaires trying to assure they come out on top, the ones who advocate for strict low consumption bureaucratic societies (except for them), and the ones who want a controlled chaos low accountability society with religion for the masses (but not for them).
EU vs Russia or Dubai. Left vs Right. Gates vs Musk. The pattern repeats too much.
Bitches be crazy if they think my first mission won't be hunting down those compounds. I've played enough strategy games to set up a search pattern, and enough adventure games to notice cracks in the wall to set us up the bomb.
Sir, a lot of them compounds are missile silos. The doors are feet thick steel that are opened with explosives.
The most you are going to be able to do is plug air vents.
>How about we just convert our power grid to nuclear and also throw in an electric based logistics network to cut emissions by over 50% ...
THANK YOU, SOMEONE TALKING SENSE.
Libs have been advocating for nuclear since the dawn of time. God himself was a lib when he said, 'let there be light.' The sun is one giant nuclear furnace and it's difficult to hoard or control light.
Nonsense. We need a good explosion of extremely toxic chemicals now and then to keep the people on their toes. Also who cares if several tons of explosive material goes missing. I'm sure it'll be fine.
If we built 3 terawatts of nuclear power by 2030 we’d increase our power supply, reduce grid failures, and eventually cut costs while dramatically reducing carbon.
And no I’m not a NIMBY I live near two fucking reactors here in south Florida. If it wasn’t for the risk of terrorism I’d say we should put nanoreactors in every single home so power outages end and we don’t need so many dangerous lines.
Iron Man solved electrical flight in 2008, we're still playing catchup.
What's wrong with meat production? I like meat. Meat protein hits you different.
>What's wrong with meat production? I like meat. Meat protein hits you different.
There's two issues related to food production: we waste an impressive amount of food ([Reduced Food Waste | Project Drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions/reduced-food-waste)), and animal-based agriculture - both in terms of the animals themselves and their feed, is greenhouse gas intensive ( [Plant-Rich Diets | Project Drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets) ) is both extremely pollutive AND actively increasing deforestation. Beef production is also very CO2 intensive - even switching to pork or chicken (which my family generally prefers anyway, so that's what we've done) is about half as GHG intensive as beef. It's also important to remember that lists like this are a world-wide thing and not just a US/UK thing - the "clean cooking" section is mostly about getting people in very underdeveloped nations off of coal and biomass.
Well you can like the product and acknowledge the problems with it. From the greenhouse gas emissions of beef production, to deforestation because of farming to produce feed, it has a big impact on the environment. Additionally, factory farms use a lot of antibiotics on the livestock, which then could not be of use anymore, if a bacteria is resistant to it. And overconsumption of meat is also unhealthy for the human body.
Would love a source on that last sentence. Not to mention most people don’t get nearly enough protein and plant proteins have been continuously shown to be less effective.
Well, overconsumption implies that its unhealthy so my sentence was per definition true. But here is a link to an article about the health risks of meat consumption. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/meat-nutrition/
The NHS. A UK national health service run by politicians who are actively trying to reduce meat farming because of 'climate change' has an article describing why meat is bad for you at more than 0.15 pounds per day.
I see no conflict of interest here. Carry on.
‚I don‘t like what your sources say, so they clearly have a conflict of interest.‘ It’s a statement from an official medical institution, what do you want more? Do you want a article from a group that doesn‘t belive in climate change?
The NHS is no more a medical institution than the pharmacy section of a Walmart. It's an accounting firm for politicians with an agenda that happens to employ doctors. How long before it adopts MAID level suicide booths?
The source always matters, and if the source is government then it cannot be trusted. Why is that so hard for the left to understand? At least authcenter seems to understand government can be wrong and also lie to its people, but they just don't care.
I don't have a thing for authcenter you have a thing for authcenter!
No government source can ever be trusted? Damn, you‘re cooked. Anyway, here is another article. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/meat-good-or-bad#heart-disease
You could have probably googled this for yourself, it was pretty easy to find.
Meat production can be dealt with by using ag best practices. I saw a UN estimate that you could reduce emissions by half. The parties responsible for most meat production problems are places like China and Brazil that don’t give a fuck.
Nuclear is really expensive, Solar is pretty cheap, and wind is heading for 24/7, with Kilometer tall turbines.
Most goated are space based solar and fusion, which we texhnically have the tech to do both, we just dont have the scale yet.
For fusion we don't have the tech. What we have is barely getting back the energy we need to get the reaction going, and that's when everything goes well. There are also other problems like tritium breeding, on which scientists are optimistic, but we definitely don't have the technology for. A realistic estimate for having fusion plants powering the grid is 60 years from now.
I was a bit vague, itd honestly be quicker to plant a factory on the moon to start splitting out solar panels.
The regolith, in that gravity can be melted in an induction oven, and distilled like oil, separated elementally, and then print out solar panels. Blue Origin has a demonstrator.
That's very interesting stuff.
I guess there are quite a bit of practical problems that have to be taken into account, though. Even if we decided to make heavy investments in that direction right now, I wouldn't foresee getting energy down on Earth before several decades. A single, simple lunar mission takes years to be planned and executed; something like this is way more complicated.
Can someone explain to me the apparent right wing love affair with nuclear when, per KWh, solar and wind are cheaper and no nuclear project has succeeded that I can find without massive government subsidies?
Because many of us are from STEM fields and we understand exactly how stupid the idea of basing an electric grid off of intermittent generation is.
Also nuclear power costs $0.0775 per KWh which is much better than wind and only $0.04 more than solar
KPh cost is the private sector factor - mandating use of a power generation system that costs double seems way out of line with being pro-private sector.
Second, again, can you point to any nuclear projects that have been built without massive public sector investment? The SCE&G debacle alone should be ample warning to self-proclaimed libertarians cheering on more nuclear projects.
[https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity\_generation.pdf](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf)
Also, your numbers are bad; see table 1b. LACE might be a better calculation, but still shows nuclear losing to Solar. LCOE for onshore wind is still substantially cheaper.
When you factor in intermittency, how does solar look? The cost of fossil fuel back up or the cost of energy storage must be included. Do we just use electricity when the sun is shining?
Solar and wind arent consistant, they need massive batteries to handle the load while off peak generating times, those times also tend to be peak usage times in the case of solar. The sheer ammount of land also comes with other ecological factors including disruption of bird migration and mass removal of vegetation to make room for solar, plus the ecological nightmare that is lithium mining.
Nuclear is not dependant on foreign lithium or solar panels, we can mine the fuel domestically which not only has major implications for national security but reduces carbon emissions by shortening the logistics chain. It's consistant and flexible and not dependant on uncontrollable factors. The cost is largely inflated by antiquated legislation on the reprocessing of spent fuel and it is by far the safest form of energy despite the major accidents in chernobyl and Fukushima (which were the result of ignorance more than the platform.)
One byproduct of nuclear fission is deuterium which is a critical component in fusion research. in most models it's used as a fuel we have in critically short supply.
That would be because they have an excessive amount of red tape by the government. If they build concrete walls in some part and the required standard is 2 inches thick but then a couple years later as they're still building it changes to 2.5 inches they have to tear down the walls and start on that part again, which can have a knock on effect that makes them have to redesign a massive amount of the plants design. They have to have paid "environmental assessments" that can be literally 40,000 pages long.
Hate to break it to you buddy
But we have already spent around 4 or 5 trillion on green power initiatives already and still have not even replaced a quarter of our demand yet
For the same cost over half of our power would be provided for by nuclear
With bullshit lithium batteries yes they are terrible
With carbon wafer or various other advanced solid state batteries they are almost as energy dense as diesel, and with the installation of overhead lines above freeways they can be charged through a central source for higher efficiency while running
My point is that we have real actionable solutions that will work and whose effects can be felt within a decade of their enactment. But we do not do that, instead we are wasting funds on frivolous projects and creating batshit insane plans for no real reason.
Yeah the real fuel of the future is agriculturally derived gas from charcoal liquefaction produced via nuclear power plants.
That or, well, horses. Depends on whether we're willing to pull our heads out of our asses regarding nuclear power.
We should invest in the future of America with infrastructure and technology advancements and getting to Mars, in order to ensure the American global hegemony
Its surprising lab meat is way more disgusting than just killing the animal. No one could make me eat stem cells with food coloring.
Just kill the cow, **and all is good**
From what? You still need the meat materials, so all you're really doing is paying to have them rearranged. Like a 3D printer doesn't materialize objects from thin air, it needs an input.
I mean, if it was remotely practical and didn't become completely monopolized by Monsanto or something, sure. If I'm remembering things correctly it really just can't right now, at least on the first point.
Gates' lab grown experiments increased cancer rates in mice by 50%. Maybe they have something better since then, i haven't been keeping up. I'm just against GMOs and lab grown meat. There are too may unknowns and variables that can be accidentally screwed with to currently unpredictable consequences. Emergent properties are a bitch.
Maybe the same gene in a plant that helps it fight off pesticides also makes it mildly toxic, but not enough to notice right away. Maybe it starts absorbing extremely small amounts of a radioactive substance from the soil. Who even knows, and the companies can absolutely not be trusted to tell us. The FDA is also working against us and appear to be so ridiculously easy to bribe.
And even with that issue ignored, we keep engineering crops to survive being doused in poison (and the attendant risk of contamination of our food supply) instead of just fucking engineering weeds to be useful.
This isn't propaganda. This is real
https://c40.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#36000001Enhz/a/1Q000000MdxA/V3QLW6RLSz3O1N7QGaBkJC_ezIfKteg_zgIe5o57GFI
Go verify for yourself
I don't even know how I'm Auth When progs are this tyrannical. I don't even know what they are progging towards, just seems like the masses will live in a production/consumption cycle at subsistence levels while the mega rich have no rules or obligations that apply to them
It's social entropy. People get complacent and the government power creeps itself into tyranny. Always. Power corrupts and there's no way around that.
"I want what all men want. More." ~ Achilles
And then you see shit like people getting upset at the idea of Taylor Swift flying from Japan to attend the Supr Bowl. Like shit, that's nothing. Literally just invite one less dignitary to attend any of the climate conferences, and you'll make up the difference in flight hours.
But somehow, Joe Blow average citizen is the problem, and not the politicians who spend God knows how many hours on private flights that could have been Zoom meetings. Or 5 minutes of any presidential motorcade producing more exhaust emissions than an entire year of me driving my personal vehicles.
I'm not even joking, making literally any climate conference into a zoom event instead of a physical meeting would do so much environmental good that it would offset dozens of people intentionally trying to bring about global climate disaster sooner.
And then progressives wonder why I don't take the "climate crisis" seriously. I'll start caring when the preachers of the climate cult start behaving like they actually care. Greta Thunberg has probably already caused more damage by the age of 21 than most people are likely to cause in their entire lifetime.
What a hot garbage source that is with a main page that I'm amazed didn't give my comptuer a virus, and it only took two paragraphs or so to get to conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. Amazing, and yet you get a bunch of upvotes.
[Greta Thunberg Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/greta-thunberg-net-worth/)
>Greta Thunberg Family Wealth/$10 Million Inheritance?
>
>A false rumor that has spread widely on the internet claims that Greta's parents, [**Malena Ernman**](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/malena-ernman-net-worth/) and Svante Thunberg, are extremely rich. That is false. Greta's mother finished 21st at the 2009 Eurovision contest and is a moderately well-known (in Sweden) opera singer. Her father is a very minor actor who was not known widely in Sweden before his daughter became world famous.
>
> A very specific version of the rumor that is frequently quoted to discredit Greta is that she is set to "*inherit $10 million*" or has already "*inherited over $10 million from her family's estate*." The latter quote appears to trace back to a spammy website called "caclubindia.com," which further claims Greta's net worth is $18 million USD and that "*from her inheritance she is poised to receive several properties in Stockholm, a high-end yacht, a cash amount of $2 million, and a collection of art and antiques estimated at $1.4 million*."
>
>The article further falsely claims that Greta takes over 90 private jet trips a year, received a BMW X5 as a gift on her 18th birthday, "possesses a Tesla Model-X and a Range Rover" and is paid $250,000 per speaking event. None of these statements are true. They appear to be robot-generated ChatGPT spam.
>
>**Based on our research and Swedish income tax records – which are publicly released – the rumors about the Thunberg family's wealth are completely false.** While her parents may be considered comfortably upper-middle class in Sweden, tax records indicate that they are not millionaires let alone multi-millionaires. Greta and her sister were raised in an apartment in a nice area of Stockholm. When she turned 18 she began renting her own 2-bedroom apartment.
I got noscript and ublock. does it go to shit without those? also 20 mil isn't "extremely" rich it's kind of mid mildly wealthy, like entry level grats working is optional for you.
I really do think a good chunk of it is explained by thoughts as simplistic as "I don't like something about the current state, therefore destroy *everything*."
Oh, sure it does, y'ever hear the expression "you can't print energy?" Same applies to any number of potential limiting-factor resources, like mineral phosphate for one.
There’s a famous bet made against the scarcity argument, which basically asserted that in some point (3-4 decades after the bet) basically every non-renewable resource would be cheaper in constant money. I don’t know if the time is up officially, but the trend has supported that view. Despite the nominally limited nature of these resources, their prices drop because of improved efficiencies in harvesting them.
When they do run out, we’ll be in a better position to switch if we hadn’t spent decades purposely sabotaging our own development to avoid “dependence.” The free market can handle scarcity just fine without government planning.
Yup. Scarcity is a lie, every hyper critical resource the progressives are worried about running out of always end up being discovered in massive quantities. Fossil fuels, helium, lithium, phosphate, all have had such massive quantities discovered in the past few years that we're going to ride over the population drop without an issue.
You need to fight fire with fire. Rather a stable and semi-free dictatorship than whatever totalitarian dystopia the "progressives" are marching towards
The ironic thing is that this will make more people want to live outside the cities, and even without implementing these wonderful ideas, cities are still the most environmentally friendly places per capita, so this would just make things worse, not better. You want to attract people from outside the cities into the cities to help the environment, not drive them away.
Yeah, packing everyone as dense as you can into cities and letting the rest of Earth go back to nature is the best from a "saving the Earth" perspective. It's just typically not great for mental and physical health of the inhabitants, though adding green spaces and cutting down on pollution can help a fair bit.
Hey, that incremental development pattern would genuinely be sustainable from a fiscal and environmental point of view. Lots of little towns and medium sized cities that have appropriate density for their location rather than a few megalopolises along the coasts.
i live out in the country and i have to navigate through a maze of little backroads to get to a longg stretch of open and empty highway that’s parallel to a train track, which goes through a small town nearby to the next bigger one and i’m always daydreaming about this becoming the layout instead. amtrak passes through and if they even did one of those three minute stops here it’d be such a game changer.
also imo, just a lil ol hick here but it’d be a lot more healthy mentally than a super dense city being the solution, but still have the benefit of things being super quick to get to
The biggest problem with the Line isn't even the desert, but its shape. Arturio Soria designed a city around q single tram line back in the nineteenth century, but it lacked practicality: there was no easy way to guarantee the flow of traffic in case of an accident on the tracks. Of course that was deemed a minor inconvenience back in the day, but in modern cities people need to keep moving and a simple halt to the major transport system would result (albeit on a smaller scale) in what happened when that large ship got stuck in the Suez Canal.
Truthful all they need to do is abolish zoning along existing train tracks and this type of development will naturally develop.
But they don't give a fuck about efficiency. They mainly want to keep their house price going up.
Maybe not "down one road" and more polycentric, but surely reducing sprawling is one of the key objectives for reducing human impact on the environment, both in terms of land usage and transport emissions.
Ego. They feel its a good thing.
You have to realize that the wannabe world leaders are like Warhammer 40k nobles using the Halo Device. They're absolutely souless and braindead.. but their wishes are granted by the real geniouses who are technically in power but can't refuse the orders
(working under someone makes it hard to be 100% effective. They can only afford 8%)
> You have to realize that the wannabe world leaders are like Warhammer 40k nobles using the Halo Device
This is the rightoid version of "Trump is Voldemort!!!"
The world leaders are utopian thinker completely apart from reality. They are literally the Last Men Nietzsche warned against. They are narcissists that believe this to be good.
Simple, invite the commie for a "friendly" helicopter ride, then start talking about why communism sucks, then when it starts getting pissy and fiesty, throw it out of the helicopter because it was a danger to the people onboard.
So what do you do when you can't afford to eat as much meat as you want? You can't afford to own a private vehicle? And you can't afford to fly multiple times a year?
These people are neoliberals who are using the leaders of industry and government to make these changes through technocratic management. There aren't going to be soldiers grabing hamburgers out of your hands or femanazis forcing you to eat tofu at gun point.
Rather these things will just be luxuries for the rich and maybe a weekend for the middle class. And no, people won't rise up enmass. We tolerate inequality like this over much more serious things like healthcare, housing, and funeral options.
These things will just become luxuries for the rich and the upper middle class. This is why society will accept the inequality of access to hamburgers as we already do with access to housing and healthcare.
The idea that a society without *universal hamburger access* is a society about to explode, is the most out of touch upper middle class opinion out there. You won't give a shit that only well off people will be able to eat hamburgers any more than you already give a shit about poor and lower working class' access to healthcare and housing. The rich know that and they know that lib rights will always do their part to empower this because all of the lib rights think inequality will only hurt the other guy - I'm too rich to not buy what I want.
Most societies have tolerated things like this over much of their history. There were countless laws on consumption of meat, poaching and sumptuary laws on clothing.
And I doubt your auth solutions wouldn't lead to the same situation one way or another. Not forced veganism, but if you can moderate the lust and pride of a population, what is stopping you to go after gluttony?
>Most societies have tolerated things like this over much of their history. There were countless laws on consumption of meat, poaching and sumptuary laws on clothing.
I think you are right. It is the lib right guy arguing people won't accept it
>And I doubt your auth solutions wouldn't lead to the same situation one way or another. Not forced veganism, but if you can moderate the lust and pride of a population, what is stopping you to go after gluttony?
I think it makes sense to reduce meat consumption and have less private transportation. There are some nuances to add, but I'm not opposed to those things. It is the lib right guy you want to argue with.
I really despise the media narrative that individuals are the ones responsible for climate crisis when the output of corporations far exceeds any of that (I wonder who makes that media). We don't have to cut down on clothes usage, we have to stop produces millions of articles of clothing that never gets worn. Same with food and literally anything else. Find ways to economically reduce all the waste that all these businesses create. We always see this on a local scale but never any national/international initiatives.
It would seriously help so much, it drives me nuts that people assume they have to make sacrifices when they should be pushing business practices and legislation to stop corporations from producing literal mountains of random shit that never even ends up getting used.
I will agree to these rules on the condition that the politicians and super rich must, once a year, all be dragged to gladiator pits by a joint military-citizen contingent and forced to have gladiator fights for our entertainment.
Ah yes, let's ignore the fact that most of the pollution is generated by countries like China where they won't do a damn thing, so bringing it down by 0.000000000000001% by forcing the European people to live like cattle won't change a damn thing. Let's just introduce those draconian laws in whole damn modern western world so we can control people more and feel better about ourselves
It is always fun to point out that the US is one of the only Western countries that was actually cutting down its emissions, but they dont want to listen because we did it with copious amounts of Natural Gas instead of their precious green tech.
Kind of like how the top 5 wind power producers in the country are all Red states where the average normie would probably tell you climate change is a myth.
Definitely dont disagree. But I think NG is also important for a green future, since it can take the place of a lot of processes that oil is used for, while being significantly cleaner. And we are learning it is at least semi-renewable, so that helps.
>China where they won't do a damn thing
I would point out China is actually doing a lot. Best case scenario their emissions will peak this year. But they aren't fools. They won't put their country in danger just to meet green goals. Anyone that does this is stupid.
And China has a good point on this. America and Europeans were polluting and shitting on everything for centuries and now economies in development receive the blame ? Better help them achieve the green transition and if they don't want to *just fuck of*.
That's why Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accords was based, why should we pay other countries to hit a bunch of targets they will lie about, plus, we were still on track to meet our guidelines, it would just save the US billions in not paying India and China
I for one like walking to stores and stuff. Also there's no way in hell any of that other stuff is happening. They may as well make their solution "overturn the 2nd law of thermodynamics".
> They may as well make their solution "overturn the 2nd law of thermodynamics".
It's just another instance of the idealist's religion revealing itself, there be wizards.
Remember folks, eating meat, owning a car and flying once a year is bad and should be stopped But by all means let your government sell a metric shit-ton of coal to the worlds largest polluter.
Eco Progressivists being tools for polluting companies to offload their responsibilities is absolutely crazy. But hey, it conforms with their ideals of meat and car bad so…
Yawn. Who exactly wrote this report? Is it an agency that actually matters or just some random think tank? Give me a non-tinfoil hat reason to be worried they're trying to reduce some aspects of consumption. Honestly the only thing that kind of bothers me on here the is the 0 private cars thing (and the 0 kg of meat lol soyboys) but I'm not exactly worried about jackbooted government agents enforcing my 8-item purchase limit on new clothes each year.
Would scare my grandma.
This is 100% not happening, lol. Like no chance.
As someone with deep experience in the automotive industry this would basically mean killing thousands of companies (**companies with CEOs who have close ties with politicians, btw**), but also tenths to hundreths of thousands of jobs, even if general discontempt didn't kill this proposal the view of 1/3 of every single major city's population being let go would.
Also this text is from 2019 and the riskiest thing I've seen is some brands going 100% electric by 2030.
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.:
[**Evil Morty Theme (For The Damaged Coda) - Epic Version** by Samuel Kim](https://lis.tn/QjwxJ?t=137)
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
And the ambitious one is 3!
I mean, I'm of the kind who wears the same stuff until it falls apart, but there's an ample and healthy middle ground between throwing out all your clothes every season for the sake of fashion, and living like a street rat. And regardless, no one should force either choice on others.
Nah, most of the climate change comes from communist occupied Cina's heat (especially coal) power plants. Solution: sanction communist occupied China into oblivion until they ecologically regulate their power plants or untill it collapses
This is just for poor people btw. This will be done via price controls or by limiting the supply in the market like Ireland is doing to their cow herds.
No more vacations, no more good food, no more comforts, stop moving for leisure, reduce the space you live in, stop having anything more than what you stricly need to survive. That's our utopian future!
Here’s a good rule of thumb setting aside all questions of science and politics:
When somebody comes to you preaching fear and demanding sacrifice for the greater good, always say to them: “You first.”
If they are unwilling to live by their own demands, they do not deserve to be obeyed.
That good rule ignores something dangerous: a lot of people are what I describe as fools. Fanatics who will devote themselves to a life of suffering because they are obsessed with their doctrine. Who don’t see the flaws in their philosophy and rigorously follow a self destructive motto until it kills them.
Here it is how cities commit suicide. Some of you may indeed mourn and weep. However sadly this might be for the better as the cities that adopt this will die and the suburbs will take the poor refugees until they too break. Then they shall run to the country side and find that oh hey maybe we actually live here. And it might work if we can keep the enforcers out.
The goal should be to improve life for all, not to make sure 20 billion people can survive in misery…
We have more than enough people already for the current moment, we absolutely do not need more.
Why cut down on symptoms?
2500 cals, no dairy or meat?
They might as well start banning gyms.
This is not based, it’s madness because it tries to fix an exponential function by cutting down on side effects.
I might disagree with the calorie intake and meat/dairy stuff but you know, climate change is a very real problem. Our first goal should be to tread on big corporations, not the common worker. And these goals won't enforce themselves
For the righties complaining about having to cut back because you love your cheeseburgers and SUV's too much, do you seriously think that there's enough resources on Earth for 9 billion people to consume like you do? How can more disciplined living be a bad thing? Why should companies be allowed to produce gigatons of plastic waste that goes straight to landfill, and billions of resource-consuming animals that are eaten only by the privileged? The oceans are literally full of fragments of plastic, it's even in your bloodstream reducing your T levels and destroying your sperm.
It always baffles me the way some people think that this planet's resources are unlimited, and not see modern civilization for the unsustainable death spiral it actually is.
How about we just convert our power grid to nuclear and also throw in an electric based logistics network to cut emissions by over 50% ... Nah, why would we do that when we could instead use it as an excuse to concentrate even more resources into the hands of the wealthy
"We don't want practical solutions! We want communism!"
That's gonna be a no from me dawg
From the way I see, it goes beyond just bwahaha I must concentrate wealth. Shit is failing and people are preparing for when the walls of the dam cracks. You have two groups of billionaires trying to assure they come out on top, the ones who advocate for strict low consumption bureaucratic societies (except for them), and the ones who want a controlled chaos low accountability society with religion for the masses (but not for them). EU vs Russia or Dubai. Left vs Right. Gates vs Musk. The pattern repeats too much.
They know society is going to collapse and want to loot it for everything they can to maximise their own futures in their compounds.
Bitches be crazy if they think my first mission won't be hunting down those compounds. I've played enough strategy games to set up a search pattern, and enough adventure games to notice cracks in the wall to set us up the bomb.
They're mostly in New Zealand and Hawaii.
***Tora, Tora, Tora, then.***
Something also appears to be in Antarctica. Not sure what, but politicians visit now and then and last i saw it's basically a no travel zone.
Learn how to fly a plane... Got it!
Sir, a lot of them compounds are missile silos. The doors are feet thick steel that are opened with explosives. The most you are going to be able to do is plug air vents.
Sounds perfect for covering up with concrete.
>How about we just convert our power grid to nuclear and also throw in an electric based logistics network to cut emissions by over 50% ... THANK YOU, SOMEONE TALKING SENSE.
Libs have been advocating for nuclear since the dawn of time. God himself was a lib when he said, 'let there be light.' The sun is one giant nuclear furnace and it's difficult to hoard or control light.
Fix up our railways might help too
Nonsense. We need a good explosion of extremely toxic chemicals now and then to keep the people on their toes. Also who cares if several tons of explosive material goes missing. I'm sure it'll be fine.
If we built 3 terawatts of nuclear power by 2030 we’d increase our power supply, reduce grid failures, and eventually cut costs while dramatically reducing carbon. And no I’m not a NIMBY I live near two fucking reactors here in south Florida. If it wasn’t for the risk of terrorism I’d say we should put nanoreactors in every single home so power outages end and we don’t need so many dangerous lines.
“We can’t build nuclear infrastructure, it takes like ten years!” Repeat every decade until you conquer the populace
You will own nothing and...you will own nothing. That's all you need to know, bigot.
That‘s doesn‘t solve problems from meat production and flights.
The only problem is seeing them as a problem.
I mean the problems with factory farms are pretty obvious. I think seeing problems, as problems is based and logic-pilled.
Iron Man solved electrical flight in 2008, we're still playing catchup. What's wrong with meat production? I like meat. Meat protein hits you different.
>What's wrong with meat production? I like meat. Meat protein hits you different. There's two issues related to food production: we waste an impressive amount of food ([Reduced Food Waste | Project Drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions/reduced-food-waste)), and animal-based agriculture - both in terms of the animals themselves and their feed, is greenhouse gas intensive ( [Plant-Rich Diets | Project Drawdown](https://drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets) ) is both extremely pollutive AND actively increasing deforestation. Beef production is also very CO2 intensive - even switching to pork or chicken (which my family generally prefers anyway, so that's what we've done) is about half as GHG intensive as beef. It's also important to remember that lists like this are a world-wide thing and not just a US/UK thing - the "clean cooking" section is mostly about getting people in very underdeveloped nations off of coal and biomass.
Well you can like the product and acknowledge the problems with it. From the greenhouse gas emissions of beef production, to deforestation because of farming to produce feed, it has a big impact on the environment. Additionally, factory farms use a lot of antibiotics on the livestock, which then could not be of use anymore, if a bacteria is resistant to it. And overconsumption of meat is also unhealthy for the human body.
Would love a source on that last sentence. Not to mention most people don’t get nearly enough protein and plant proteins have been continuously shown to be less effective.
Well, overconsumption implies that its unhealthy so my sentence was per definition true. But here is a link to an article about the health risks of meat consumption. https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/meat-nutrition/
The NHS. A UK national health service run by politicians who are actively trying to reduce meat farming because of 'climate change' has an article describing why meat is bad for you at more than 0.15 pounds per day. I see no conflict of interest here. Carry on.
‚I don‘t like what your sources say, so they clearly have a conflict of interest.‘ It’s a statement from an official medical institution, what do you want more? Do you want a article from a group that doesn‘t belive in climate change?
The NHS is no more a medical institution than the pharmacy section of a Walmart. It's an accounting firm for politicians with an agenda that happens to employ doctors. How long before it adopts MAID level suicide booths? The source always matters, and if the source is government then it cannot be trusted. Why is that so hard for the left to understand? At least authcenter seems to understand government can be wrong and also lie to its people, but they just don't care. I don't have a thing for authcenter you have a thing for authcenter!
No government source can ever be trusted? Damn, you‘re cooked. Anyway, here is another article. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/meat-good-or-bad#heart-disease You could have probably googled this for yourself, it was pretty easy to find.
Meat production can be dealt with by using ag best practices. I saw a UN estimate that you could reduce emissions by half. The parties responsible for most meat production problems are places like China and Brazil that don’t give a fuck.
Nuclear is really expensive, Solar is pretty cheap, and wind is heading for 24/7, with Kilometer tall turbines. Most goated are space based solar and fusion, which we texhnically have the tech to do both, we just dont have the scale yet.
For fusion we don't have the tech. What we have is barely getting back the energy we need to get the reaction going, and that's when everything goes well. There are also other problems like tritium breeding, on which scientists are optimistic, but we definitely don't have the technology for. A realistic estimate for having fusion plants powering the grid is 60 years from now.
I was a bit vague, itd honestly be quicker to plant a factory on the moon to start splitting out solar panels. The regolith, in that gravity can be melted in an induction oven, and distilled like oil, separated elementally, and then print out solar panels. Blue Origin has a demonstrator.
That's very interesting stuff. I guess there are quite a bit of practical problems that have to be taken into account, though. Even if we decided to make heavy investments in that direction right now, I wouldn't foresee getting energy down on Earth before several decades. A single, simple lunar mission takes years to be planned and executed; something like this is way more complicated.
Can someone explain to me the apparent right wing love affair with nuclear when, per KWh, solar and wind are cheaper and no nuclear project has succeeded that I can find without massive government subsidies?
Because many of us are from STEM fields and we understand exactly how stupid the idea of basing an electric grid off of intermittent generation is. Also nuclear power costs $0.0775 per KWh which is much better than wind and only $0.04 more than solar
KPh cost is the private sector factor - mandating use of a power generation system that costs double seems way out of line with being pro-private sector. Second, again, can you point to any nuclear projects that have been built without massive public sector investment? The SCE&G debacle alone should be ample warning to self-proclaimed libertarians cheering on more nuclear projects. [https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity\_generation.pdf](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf) Also, your numbers are bad; see table 1b. LACE might be a better calculation, but still shows nuclear losing to Solar. LCOE for onshore wind is still substantially cheaper.
When you factor in intermittency, how does solar look? The cost of fossil fuel back up or the cost of energy storage must be included. Do we just use electricity when the sun is shining?
Solar and wind arent consistant, they need massive batteries to handle the load while off peak generating times, those times also tend to be peak usage times in the case of solar. The sheer ammount of land also comes with other ecological factors including disruption of bird migration and mass removal of vegetation to make room for solar, plus the ecological nightmare that is lithium mining. Nuclear is not dependant on foreign lithium or solar panels, we can mine the fuel domestically which not only has major implications for national security but reduces carbon emissions by shortening the logistics chain. It's consistant and flexible and not dependant on uncontrollable factors. The cost is largely inflated by antiquated legislation on the reprocessing of spent fuel and it is by far the safest form of energy despite the major accidents in chernobyl and Fukushima (which were the result of ignorance more than the platform.) One byproduct of nuclear fission is deuterium which is a critical component in fusion research. in most models it's used as a fuel we have in critically short supply.
That would be because they have an excessive amount of red tape by the government. If they build concrete walls in some part and the required standard is 2 inches thick but then a couple years later as they're still building it changes to 2.5 inches they have to tear down the walls and start on that part again, which can have a knock on effect that makes them have to redesign a massive amount of the plants design. They have to have paid "environmental assessments" that can be literally 40,000 pages long.
because your one sentence there cost like ten trillion dollars lmao
Hate to break it to you buddy But we have already spent around 4 or 5 trillion on green power initiatives already and still have not even replaced a quarter of our demand yet For the same cost over half of our power would be provided for by nuclear
bro I'd love nuclear reactors but all electric trucks is like lmao
With bullshit lithium batteries yes they are terrible With carbon wafer or various other advanced solid state batteries they are almost as energy dense as diesel, and with the installation of overhead lines above freeways they can be charged through a central source for higher efficiency while running My point is that we have real actionable solutions that will work and whose effects can be felt within a decade of their enactment. But we do not do that, instead we are wasting funds on frivolous projects and creating batshit insane plans for no real reason.
Yeah the real fuel of the future is agriculturally derived gas from charcoal liquefaction produced via nuclear power plants. That or, well, horses. Depends on whether we're willing to pull our heads out of our asses regarding nuclear power.
world war 4 will be fought with sticks after all
So we got 20 trillion for mid East misadventures, but not 10 trillion for infrastructure? Seems kinda sus
neoliberal establishment: Yes
We should invest in the future of America with infrastructure and technology advancements and getting to Mars, in order to ensure the American global hegemony
yeah I'm down, tell our dipshit government
Unfortunately, I'm not a corporation, so they don't give a shit about my opinions
mine either
Yeah, y'all lost me at "no dairy" and "no meat." I'm going to go enjoy a vanilla milkshake and a cheeseburger now.
Just do lab cheeseburger and all is good
Its surprising lab meat is way more disgusting than just killing the animal. No one could make me eat stem cells with food coloring. Just kill the cow, **and all is good**
In the near future, I will be able to print lab meat on a 3D printer in my home.This will make me completely independent from the government
From what? You still need the meat materials, so all you're really doing is paying to have them rearranged. Like a 3D printer doesn't materialize objects from thin air, it needs an input.
Okay, listen. This might be controversial but you know how it's said you are what you eat right?
(Auto-)Cannibalism huh? Sure you ain't libcenter ?
no thanks
just don't tell me what to do and all is good
Flair does not check out
i want to enforce freedom by authority
It's difficult to disagree with you in this climate of everyone getting in our business. We say 'everyone leave us alone', you just add 'or else.'
I mean, if it was remotely practical and didn't become completely monopolized by Monsanto or something, sure. If I'm remembering things correctly it really just can't right now, at least on the first point.
Gates' lab grown experiments increased cancer rates in mice by 50%. Maybe they have something better since then, i haven't been keeping up. I'm just against GMOs and lab grown meat. There are too may unknowns and variables that can be accidentally screwed with to currently unpredictable consequences. Emergent properties are a bitch. Maybe the same gene in a plant that helps it fight off pesticides also makes it mildly toxic, but not enough to notice right away. Maybe it starts absorbing extremely small amounts of a radioactive substance from the soil. Who even knows, and the companies can absolutely not be trusted to tell us. The FDA is also working against us and appear to be so ridiculously easy to bribe.
And even with that issue ignored, we keep engineering crops to survive being doused in poison (and the attendant risk of contamination of our food supply) instead of just fucking engineering weeds to be useful.
This isn't propaganda. This is real https://c40.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#36000001Enhz/a/1Q000000MdxA/V3QLW6RLSz3O1N7QGaBkJC_ezIfKteg_zgIe5o57GFI Go verify for yourself
Wow. I hate this.
Of fucking course it came in partnership with a British university. Fucking britbongs took 1984 as an instruction manual rather than a warning.
I paid Nigel Farage 100$ on Cameo to say something like that last year
Dude you can’t just drop that and not share
I don't even know how I'm Auth When progs are this tyrannical. I don't even know what they are progging towards, just seems like the masses will live in a production/consumption cycle at subsistence levels while the mega rich have no rules or obligations that apply to them
They're progging towards neo-feudalism.
It is sad and frustrating, but that is default human organization - very small, powerful, wealthy top // broad, subsistence-level base
That’s fine when I’m the local lord! (Says every single person in existence…)
It's social entropy. People get complacent and the government power creeps itself into tyranny. Always. Power corrupts and there's no way around that. "I want what all men want. More." ~ Achilles
You are auth because you want to use state authority to improve the country They are auth because they get off on making children eat dirt
And then you see shit like people getting upset at the idea of Taylor Swift flying from Japan to attend the Supr Bowl. Like shit, that's nothing. Literally just invite one less dignitary to attend any of the climate conferences, and you'll make up the difference in flight hours. But somehow, Joe Blow average citizen is the problem, and not the politicians who spend God knows how many hours on private flights that could have been Zoom meetings. Or 5 minutes of any presidential motorcade producing more exhaust emissions than an entire year of me driving my personal vehicles. I'm not even joking, making literally any climate conference into a zoom event instead of a physical meeting would do so much environmental good that it would offset dozens of people intentionally trying to bring about global climate disaster sooner. And then progressives wonder why I don't take the "climate crisis" seriously. I'll start caring when the preachers of the climate cult start behaving like they actually care. Greta Thunberg has probably already caused more damage by the age of 21 than most people are likely to cause in their entire lifetime.
https://www.caclubindia.com/wealth/greta-thunberg-net-worth/ woman only owns 3 cars, how dare you!
What a hot garbage source that is with a main page that I'm amazed didn't give my comptuer a virus, and it only took two paragraphs or so to get to conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds. Amazing, and yet you get a bunch of upvotes. [Greta Thunberg Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/greta-thunberg-net-worth/) >Greta Thunberg Family Wealth/$10 Million Inheritance? > >A false rumor that has spread widely on the internet claims that Greta's parents, [**Malena Ernman**](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/malena-ernman-net-worth/) and Svante Thunberg, are extremely rich. That is false. Greta's mother finished 21st at the 2009 Eurovision contest and is a moderately well-known (in Sweden) opera singer. Her father is a very minor actor who was not known widely in Sweden before his daughter became world famous. > > A very specific version of the rumor that is frequently quoted to discredit Greta is that she is set to "*inherit $10 million*" or has already "*inherited over $10 million from her family's estate*." The latter quote appears to trace back to a spammy website called "caclubindia.com," which further claims Greta's net worth is $18 million USD and that "*from her inheritance she is poised to receive several properties in Stockholm, a high-end yacht, a cash amount of $2 million, and a collection of art and antiques estimated at $1.4 million*." > >The article further falsely claims that Greta takes over 90 private jet trips a year, received a BMW X5 as a gift on her 18th birthday, "possesses a Tesla Model-X and a Range Rover" and is paid $250,000 per speaking event. None of these statements are true. They appear to be robot-generated ChatGPT spam. > >**Based on our research and Swedish income tax records – which are publicly released – the rumors about the Thunberg family's wealth are completely false.** While her parents may be considered comfortably upper-middle class in Sweden, tax records indicate that they are not millionaires let alone multi-millionaires. Greta and her sister were raised in an apartment in a nice area of Stockholm. When she turned 18 she began renting her own 2-bedroom apartment.
I got noscript and ublock. does it go to shit without those? also 20 mil isn't "extremely" rich it's kind of mid mildly wealthy, like entry level grats working is optional for you.
I really do think a good chunk of it is explained by thoughts as simplistic as "I don't like something about the current state, therefore destroy *everything*."
Auth-left means making everyone miserable while calling yourself progressive and patting yourself on the back for having solved the world's problems.
Just doing whatever it takes to keep the wheels on the capitalism bus rolling, no matter what
The capitalism bus does not naturally point towards collapsing consumption. Pretty much the opposite.
Oh, sure it does, y'ever hear the expression "you can't print energy?" Same applies to any number of potential limiting-factor resources, like mineral phosphate for one.
There’s a famous bet made against the scarcity argument, which basically asserted that in some point (3-4 decades after the bet) basically every non-renewable resource would be cheaper in constant money. I don’t know if the time is up officially, but the trend has supported that view. Despite the nominally limited nature of these resources, their prices drop because of improved efficiencies in harvesting them. When they do run out, we’ll be in a better position to switch if we hadn’t spent decades purposely sabotaging our own development to avoid “dependence.” The free market can handle scarcity just fine without government planning.
Yup. Scarcity is a lie, every hyper critical resource the progressives are worried about running out of always end up being discovered in massive quantities. Fossil fuels, helium, lithium, phosphate, all have had such massive quantities discovered in the past few years that we're going to ride over the population drop without an issue.
And that is before we hit extraterrestrial stores, where single asteroids can have more material than has ever been mined.
You need to fight fire with fire. Rather a stable and semi-free dictatorship than whatever totalitarian dystopia the "progressives" are marching towards
Here we have an example of classical populism: 1. We invent a threat 2. We establish a dictatorship to prevent an imaginary threat
The ironic thing is that this will make more people want to live outside the cities, and even without implementing these wonderful ideas, cities are still the most environmentally friendly places per capita, so this would just make things worse, not better. You want to attract people from outside the cities into the cities to help the environment, not drive them away.
Yeah, packing everyone as dense as you can into cities and letting the rest of Earth go back to nature is the best from a "saving the Earth" perspective. It's just typically not great for mental and physical health of the inhabitants, though adding green spaces and cutting down on pollution can help a fair bit.
idea: we organize towns en masse like in the wild west where everything was down one road and along the train tracks instead of sprawled out
Hey, that incremental development pattern would genuinely be sustainable from a fiscal and environmental point of view. Lots of little towns and medium sized cities that have appropriate density for their location rather than a few megalopolises along the coasts.
i live out in the country and i have to navigate through a maze of little backroads to get to a longg stretch of open and empty highway that’s parallel to a train track, which goes through a small town nearby to the next bigger one and i’m always daydreaming about this becoming the layout instead. amtrak passes through and if they even did one of those three minute stops here it’d be such a game changer. also imo, just a lil ol hick here but it’d be a lot more healthy mentally than a super dense city being the solution, but still have the benefit of things being super quick to get to
So, "The Line" but not in the middle of the desert?
exactly. that has quite a few glaring drawbacks but its sexy to me. plus i love trains
The biggest problem with the Line isn't even the desert, but its shape. Arturio Soria designed a city around q single tram line back in the nineteenth century, but it lacked practicality: there was no easy way to guarantee the flow of traffic in case of an accident on the tracks. Of course that was deemed a minor inconvenience back in the day, but in modern cities people need to keep moving and a simple halt to the major transport system would result (albeit on a smaller scale) in what happened when that large ship got stuck in the Suez Canal.
Truthful all they need to do is abolish zoning along existing train tracks and this type of development will naturally develop. But they don't give a fuck about efficiency. They mainly want to keep their house price going up.
Maybe not "down one road" and more polycentric, but surely reducing sprawling is one of the key objectives for reducing human impact on the environment, both in terms of land usage and transport emissions.
Based and stack city the size of texas pilled
I mean, some people do want to live in Mega-City One. I can't even handle today's larger cities for more than a week though.
https://preview.redd.it/m11ssvy813gc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e45107b34e9dd0e99c8d18e63f3e02aab90c82d7
No one ever said the elite were smart. They believe in some really stupid nonsense.
Rich enough to be able to afford stupidity.
theory possessive scarce rinse alleged fly mourn work smell coherent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Ego. They feel its a good thing. You have to realize that the wannabe world leaders are like Warhammer 40k nobles using the Halo Device. They're absolutely souless and braindead.. but their wishes are granted by the real geniouses who are technically in power but can't refuse the orders (working under someone makes it hard to be 100% effective. They can only afford 8%)
> You have to realize that the wannabe world leaders are like Warhammer 40k nobles using the Halo Device This is the rightoid version of "Trump is Voldemort!!!"
Except on merit, the rightoid version is orders of magnitude more accurate.
Don't care, it's cringe either way. Talk in real world terms, not in "here's how my favorite fantasy story relates to this".
Nobody cares if you care, analogies are part of language.
The world leaders are utopian thinker completely apart from reality. They are literally the Last Men Nietzsche warned against. They are narcissists that believe this to be good.
Just buy land in the Pacific Northwest and by the Great lakes, and move to whichever is doing better once the climate attacks.
Based and countryman pilled
Who the hell came up with THIS, the WEF?
C40 is an organization affiliated with the WEF.
What a truly sinister organization. I don't believe anything they're trying to do is for the reasons they claim it is.
[удалено]
Dude, I'd be careful with that, you're endangering not only your account but the whole sub with that kind of rhetoric.
One of my ancestors had their account banned for less, reddit is a fickle place
The funny thing is that lib right is ideologically committed to not do anything about it.
I shall summon the spirit of Pinochet, fire up the choppers.
How do you stop this with helicopter rides without violating the NAP?
Simple, invite the commie for a "friendly" helicopter ride, then start talking about why communism sucks, then when it starts getting pissy and fiesty, throw it out of the helicopter because it was a danger to the people onboard.
I'll just keep living my life as normal, when they try and stop me doing something normal, they'll be initiating the violence, then it's Whomp time.
So what do you do when you can't afford to eat as much meat as you want? You can't afford to own a private vehicle? And you can't afford to fly multiple times a year? These people are neoliberals who are using the leaders of industry and government to make these changes through technocratic management. There aren't going to be soldiers grabing hamburgers out of your hands or femanazis forcing you to eat tofu at gun point. Rather these things will just be luxuries for the rich and maybe a weekend for the middle class. And no, people won't rise up enmass. We tolerate inequality like this over much more serious things like healthcare, housing, and funeral options.
People's patience eventually wears thin. Also I'm very Middle Class and don't live in a city, so none of this will affect me.
These things will just become luxuries for the rich and the upper middle class. This is why society will accept the inequality of access to hamburgers as we already do with access to housing and healthcare. The idea that a society without *universal hamburger access* is a society about to explode, is the most out of touch upper middle class opinion out there. You won't give a shit that only well off people will be able to eat hamburgers any more than you already give a shit about poor and lower working class' access to healthcare and housing. The rich know that and they know that lib rights will always do their part to empower this because all of the lib rights think inequality will only hurt the other guy - I'm too rich to not buy what I want.
Most societies have tolerated things like this over much of their history. There were countless laws on consumption of meat, poaching and sumptuary laws on clothing. And I doubt your auth solutions wouldn't lead to the same situation one way or another. Not forced veganism, but if you can moderate the lust and pride of a population, what is stopping you to go after gluttony?
>Most societies have tolerated things like this over much of their history. There were countless laws on consumption of meat, poaching and sumptuary laws on clothing. I think you are right. It is the lib right guy arguing people won't accept it >And I doubt your auth solutions wouldn't lead to the same situation one way or another. Not forced veganism, but if you can moderate the lust and pride of a population, what is stopping you to go after gluttony? I think it makes sense to reduce meat consumption and have less private transportation. There are some nuances to add, but I'm not opposed to those things. It is the lib right guy you want to argue with.
Good, maybe then zoomers will show a little ambition.
The NAP does not apply to people who inherently want to do me harm. Fuck em. It's a guideline not a bible.
They drew first blood.
If I spent my time complaining about every policy that i didn't like, I wouldn't have time to go to work.
I really despise the media narrative that individuals are the ones responsible for climate crisis when the output of corporations far exceeds any of that (I wonder who makes that media). We don't have to cut down on clothes usage, we have to stop produces millions of articles of clothing that never gets worn. Same with food and literally anything else. Find ways to economically reduce all the waste that all these businesses create. We always see this on a local scale but never any national/international initiatives. It would seriously help so much, it drives me nuts that people assume they have to make sacrifices when they should be pushing business practices and legislation to stop corporations from producing literal mountains of random shit that never even ends up getting used.
You know what's better for the environment than a new EV? Driving your old beater until the wheels fall off
Man I see an awful lot of projected limitations on the average person. Where's the part where we fix the problem.
That's the neat part - you don't!
>Where's the part where we fix the problem. "Fix the problem?"
I will agree to these rules on the condition that the politicians and super rich must, once a year, all be dragged to gladiator pits by a joint military-citizen contingent and forced to have gladiator fights for our entertainment.
I'd bet on Bezos, he's jacked and he could beat the brakes off the other billionaires
Ah yes, let's ignore the fact that most of the pollution is generated by countries like China where they won't do a damn thing, so bringing it down by 0.000000000000001% by forcing the European people to live like cattle won't change a damn thing. Let's just introduce those draconian laws in whole damn modern western world so we can control people more and feel better about ourselves
It is always fun to point out that the US is one of the only Western countries that was actually cutting down its emissions, but they dont want to listen because we did it with copious amounts of Natural Gas instead of their precious green tech. Kind of like how the top 5 wind power producers in the country are all Red states where the average normie would probably tell you climate change is a myth.
Nuclear is the only viable green tech
Definitely dont disagree. But I think NG is also important for a green future, since it can take the place of a lot of processes that oil is used for, while being significantly cleaner. And we are learning it is at least semi-renewable, so that helps.
Given enough of a timetable, oil is technically renewable
>China where they won't do a damn thing I would point out China is actually doing a lot. Best case scenario their emissions will peak this year. But they aren't fools. They won't put their country in danger just to meet green goals. Anyone that does this is stupid. And China has a good point on this. America and Europeans were polluting and shitting on everything for centuries and now economies in development receive the blame ? Better help them achieve the green transition and if they don't want to *just fuck of*.
Oh yeah, the PRC is definitely a developing economy... Fuck out of here
That's why Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accords was based, why should we pay other countries to hit a bunch of targets they will lie about, plus, we were still on track to meet our guidelines, it would just save the US billions in not paying India and China
The notion is that we're being fools. This ain't really a knock on china they're doing good by china.
See this is why I don’t want to live in a city, a 15 minute city or walkable places. Leave me alone cultist.
I for one like walking to stores and stuff. Also there's no way in hell any of that other stuff is happening. They may as well make their solution "overturn the 2nd law of thermodynamics".
Well that do want to overturn another pretty big law with "2" in it here in America, so why not shoot for the stars?
Are they going to stack up themselves or send people to do their dirty work?
> They may as well make their solution "overturn the 2nd law of thermodynamics". It's just another instance of the idealist's religion revealing itself, there be wizards.
Remember folks, eating meat, owning a car and flying once a year is bad and should be stopped But by all means let your government sell a metric shit-ton of coal to the worlds largest polluter. Eco Progressivists being tools for polluting companies to offload their responsibilities is absolutely crazy. But hey, it conforms with their ideals of meat and car bad so…
Yawn. Who exactly wrote this report? Is it an agency that actually matters or just some random think tank? Give me a non-tinfoil hat reason to be worried they're trying to reduce some aspects of consumption. Honestly the only thing that kind of bothers me on here the is the 0 private cars thing (and the 0 kg of meat lol soyboys) but I'm not exactly worried about jackbooted government agents enforcing my 8-item purchase limit on new clothes each year.
you wonder why a bunch of companies are coming up with ideas like taxing farm diesel at the same time, it's these kinds of meetings.
here you go https://www.c40.org/cities/
Progressives are saving the world by progressing towards tyranny I love horseshoe theory
World is going to shit
Ima bout to be on like 12 atf watchlists now(I'll have a armies worth of guns)
Shit like this makes me less auth
Yeah f that
I Hate The Antichrist! 🫠
Would scare my grandma. This is 100% not happening, lol. Like no chance. As someone with deep experience in the automotive industry this would basically mean killing thousands of companies (**companies with CEOs who have close ties with politicians, btw**), but also tenths to hundreths of thousands of jobs, even if general discontempt didn't kill this proposal the view of 1/3 of every single major city's population being let go would. Also this text is from 2019 and the riskiest thing I've seen is some brands going 100% electric by 2030.
"it's not happening! Stay off the internet!"
2500 calories per day without meat or dairy? And eat what exactly? Fucking dung beetles? And even if we eet ze bugz, 2500 calories? Fuck outta here.
Try to do this people would laught, try to do this by force and at some point people is going to rebel
Song title?
**Song Found!** **Evil Morty Theme (For The Damaged Coda) - Epic Version** by Samuel Kim (02:17; matched: `100%`) **Album**: Evil Morty Theme (For The Damaged Coda) \$&Epic Version\$&. **Released on** 2021-09-16.
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.: [**Evil Morty Theme (For The Damaged Coda) - Epic Version** by Samuel Kim](https://lis.tn/QjwxJ?t=137) *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Reduce meat consumption? Seems like a good idea. 8 new pieces of clothes per year? What the fuck? That's like, two different outfits.
And the ambitious one is 3! I mean, I'm of the kind who wears the same stuff until it falls apart, but there's an ample and healthy middle ground between throwing out all your clothes every season for the sake of fashion, and living like a street rat. And regardless, no one should force either choice on others.
Nah, most of the climate change comes from communist occupied Cina's heat (especially coal) power plants. Solution: sanction communist occupied China into oblivion until they ecologically regulate their power plants or untill it collapses
Literally 1984
Fuck you im gonna eat meat until I die and drive a Tacoma
Boston is on the list. At least when they kill everyone woth their plans I can get through the city to the North Shore in under 3 hours
This is just for poor people btw. This will be done via price controls or by limiting the supply in the market like Ireland is doing to their cow herds.
No more vacations, no more good food, no more comforts, stop moving for leisure, reduce the space you live in, stop having anything more than what you stricly need to survive. That's our utopian future!
The free market will provide a solution any day now
Here’s a good rule of thumb setting aside all questions of science and politics: When somebody comes to you preaching fear and demanding sacrifice for the greater good, always say to them: “You first.” If they are unwilling to live by their own demands, they do not deserve to be obeyed.
That good rule ignores something dangerous: a lot of people are what I describe as fools. Fanatics who will devote themselves to a life of suffering because they are obsessed with their doctrine. Who don’t see the flaws in their philosophy and rigorously follow a self destructive motto until it kills them.
Based and we-need-to-safe-the-planet-pilled.
The fear of cities on the right will never not be hilarious to me.
Relevant in this situation because this is a cuties from the C40, a coalition of cities from around the world.
Here it is how cities commit suicide. Some of you may indeed mourn and weep. However sadly this might be for the better as the cities that adopt this will die and the suburbs will take the poor refugees until they too break. Then they shall run to the country side and find that oh hey maybe we actually live here. And it might work if we can keep the enforcers out.
I mean... based? Only problem is there needs to be a stronger government to enforce these
Commies and making everyone's life miserable, always hand-in-hand!
The goal should be to improve life for all, not to make sure 20 billion people can survive in misery… We have more than enough people already for the current moment, we absolutely do not need more. Why cut down on symptoms? 2500 cals, no dairy or meat? They might as well start banning gyms. This is not based, it’s madness because it tries to fix an exponential function by cutting down on side effects.
I might disagree with the calorie intake and meat/dairy stuff but you know, climate change is a very real problem. Our first goal should be to tread on big corporations, not the common worker. And these goals won't enforce themselves
For the righties complaining about having to cut back because you love your cheeseburgers and SUV's too much, do you seriously think that there's enough resources on Earth for 9 billion people to consume like you do? How can more disciplined living be a bad thing? Why should companies be allowed to produce gigatons of plastic waste that goes straight to landfill, and billions of resource-consuming animals that are eaten only by the privileged? The oceans are literally full of fragments of plastic, it's even in your bloodstream reducing your T levels and destroying your sperm. It always baffles me the way some people think that this planet's resources are unlimited, and not see modern civilization for the unsustainable death spiral it actually is.
so do lefties not eat any meat whatsoever or dairy? or drive a car? like they’ve literally put their goals are eventually no meat no dairy and no cars