this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
52 points (80.2% liked)
conservative
947 readers
4 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is in no way accurate. Bible thumper don't bring scientific evidence to the table, whereas scientists do.
What should they instead do, completely ignore the crisis? How is that responsible?
Scientists have been predicting the end of the world coming very soon for many decades now, they're no better. At least the Bible thumpers are consistent. The scientists move the goalposts everytime it doesn't happen. Once one thing is done that they say we need to do to avoid it then it's something else, and something else, and something else.
The "scientists" version is just as much fiction as the Bible thumpers. There's also no shortage of scientists that disagree with them the whole time.
You seem like you're out of the loop, because that is an incredibly simplified and incorrect statement.
Scientists have been predicting that global temperatures would sharply rise due to fossil fuel use, and they have. We are currently passing the 1.5°c threshold.
They've been predicting that forest fires, hurricanes, storms, flooding, etc would get significantly worse, and they have.
They're clearly not making shit up:
And you seem to be missing the fact that all of this is dependent on fossil fuel use and policy, neither of which are easy to predict. So the best that can be offered in terms of predictions is explaining what will happen with the current status quo. And the current status quo will lead to billions dead, with billions of migrants.
Do you know where those migrants will try to come? They're gonna try and come here. You conservatives are always complaining about people showing up on the border. And it's only going to get worse the longer conservatives ignore the science. Over the next few decades, don't go complaining it's the fault of progressives that they're millions of people try to cross the border because their homes were made uninhabitable.
Is that a joke?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
Name one time this has happened.
Lmao
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
That's what they're doing.
Being realistic, we need massive changes to avoid everything from going to shit. For decades the free market has failed to solve the problem, we need more than just thoughts and prayers.
We need to end fossil fuel subsidies and instead give that money towards renewable. And we need to do it yesterday.
This is a strawman.
I disagree with your last sentence. The only reason climate change reaches this point is because humanity doesn't fear climate change enough because we couldn't comprehend the impact, until recently of course. I'm pretty sure scientists had warned us since the 19s when humanity started to capitalize fuel but no action was taken. What else can they do except to spread fear? And scientists already provide solutions for climate change long ago, but people can only see short term profit, and ignore the damage that can be caused by the profit in the long term, since humans don't live long enough to care for the long term except for the younger generation which will face the consequences i guess.
EXACTLY! But that's a sane approach, so don't expect it to happen.
Way more fun for them to be extremists.
The sane approach is to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as humanly possible.
Meanwhile republicans are too busy defending the EPA, giving more subsidies to the oil industry, and spreading climate disinformation.
Our grandchildren won't have a habitable world if we don't do something about it. If you didn't like people being "extreme" over this, then we should have done something about it half a century ago when the oil industry learned it was a problem.
Agreed, too bad to actually do that, you need to come up with a comparable replacement. Do you have one? Because current technology hasn't figured that out yet. It sure as shit isn't EV's, our power grid can't keep up with normal usage, let alone millions of EV's, lack of places to charge them, people held up on trips because their batteries are dead. Freight that can't move because the only electric trucks that exist can go about 400mi then need to recharge for 10+ hours, so while traffic is dead, store shelves are empty, freight costs aren't affordable by literally anybody. Should I keep going? You think the supply chain was destroyed by COVID, that wouldn't even compare.
Maybe if hundreds of billions wasn't spent on bullshit for decades that doesn't work like Solar and Wind simply for the appeasement of idiots that ignore fact, the technological advancement on things that actually could work would have been figured out by now. But no, instead we fund the deforestation of hundred of thousands of acres of farmland to put up useless solar panels, that not only don't help the grid deficiency, but themselves don't have a long duty life, are toxic as hell, can't be recycled, and then what? It's literally worse than the spent nuclear fuel problem, at lest nuke makes more power than we need, doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but wait, then politicians can't cry about it.
Everything comes back the power we don't have, and ignoring that fact with every non solution. The same people that bitch about "sustainability" want to recycle, but not paper, why do that which recycles great, when you can rip out papertowels and replace them with millions of super high voltage high amperages hand dryers? Oh ya, because people will blindly do those to virtue signal their customers how "green" they are, while making the power issue even worse. But they don't want to fix that, because fixing that means making more power. They bitch about coal, yet won't let Nuke plants be built, bitch about clean natural gas, and then cry about fracking, and since solar and wind are pointless, where's it coming from?
When the "solution" to a problem creates 3 more in it's place...it's not a Solution.
Given that your response to "we need to do fix this as quickly as possible" is a 3 paragraph doomerism rant, it sounds like there isn't anything that I could possibly say to change your mind.
You aren't immune to propaganda, and evidently that especially goes for oil lobby propaganda.
I never claimed to be, which is why I pay attention to both sides, if you can dispute something I said, feel free to. What big oil does is 100% irrelevant. Until we CAN replace them, we can't, it's that simple, and right now, we can't. Taking things we absolutely need and fucking up life as we know it doesn't change that, again, if you know of a way to do just that, without that end effect, I'm all ears.
Everything you brought up is a oil lobby talking point.
Anybody who tells you the climate situation is simple is lying to you.
We don't need to fuck things up, at least for now.
Fine, I'll respond to your initial comment.
So they're a lot of shit here, but this is the most egregious. EVs are not a solution to climate change, they're a bandaid used in an attempt to fix internal bleeding at best. Any environmentalist that is even slightly informed knows as much.
Transportation only makes up a quarter of all emissions. We need something that will apply to and reduce emissions from all sources, not just one. A carbon tax is the most effective way to do that. The whole point of capitalism is that it is a race to the bottom for the lowest cost product, and we need to use that. Currently the profits are privatized and the costs (carbon) is socialized. That needs to change, products need to reflect their actual cost, including the cost to the habitability of our planet. If that were to happen, companies would actually start to give two shits about it instead of just virtue signalling over it. Other countries have implemented carbon taxes to great effect, and we ought to follow suit.
But beyond that, there is more to it. Going by sector:
Transportation Emissions - We already have the technology to cut this. The first step is to reduce unnecessary travel. If a job can be worked remote, then it should be worked remote. If it can be hybrid, then it should be hybrid, etc. Few companies are willing to do so due to the lack of financial incentives, so those financial incentives need to be created, and that's where a carbon tax comes in. With that, and a law allowing corps to drop office leases early, it would overnight decrease the need for transportation and therefore emissions.
Then there is private life transportation, going to your local supermarket, community center, etc. The biggest thing that needs to change here is zoning law. There needs to be significantly more mixed use zoning, and high density zoning. If it takes only a 10 minute walk to do your local errands and spend time with your community, then people won't use a car as much, and cars are by far the worst offenders of transportation emissions aside from shipping. There needs to be more bike/walkability infrastructure to make it safe (it's a dangerous shit show now), so that people can get where they need to without using a vehicle or risk getting hit by one.
Beyond that, public transportation needs an overhaul. Electrified rail transportation has existed for over a century. We have the technology to implement this on a far wider scale than we currently have. And none of it needs vehicle batteries.
Electricity Generation emissions - Contrary to your belief, wind and solar are not bullshit. They make up a huge chunk of the EU's power generation. Every single watt of which is far more carbon efficient than anything fossil fuel based. Not only that, but wind and solar aren't the only options for renewable/low carbon energy. Hydro electric has been around for forever, it's clean, it's safe, and it's plenty powerful for entire cities. Plus it comes with the benefit of often being able to be used as a battery to help make up for the deficiencies of wind and solar.
And I agree that we should be building nuclear power plants. They're safe, clean, and powerful. We should have and could have completely replaced all of fossil fuels with them by now if we started building them en mass in the 70s.
As for the rest of the sectors, a carbon tax would work just the same. Corps would actually seek to reduce the use of fossil fuels so they can lower their taxes. If corps are financially incentivized to reduce emissions, they absolutely will do so. Part of that "the rest" is heating/cooling, which is made significantly easier with heat pumps and stronger insulation regulations/incentives.
And the last bit, we are pouring shit loads of money into fossil fuel subsides. That's money that is artificially keeping fossil fuels cheap in comparison to renewables, which is preventing renewables from gaining better traction. Those subsidies need to end as soon as possible and instead handed over to renewable projects.
Now for some specifics.
Like I said, we should be reducing car dependence which will in turn reduce the load on the power grid. And the battery life/distance/charge time is getting better and better each year. But to the extent that our society is stuck with cars, EVs are and always will be better than ICE cars.
We have the technology to build electrified rail. Granted we need way more of it, and existing rail needs to be electrified, but we are not stuck with trucks. And a 400mi range is plenty of range to go from a train depot to the end destination.
I don't give two shits about the supply chain. The habitability of our planet is far more important. We can, for now, still have both. But not for long.
We don't need to deforest at all for solar. Single unit family homes are able to have most/all of their electrical needs handled by roof panels, and there is plenty of wasted space on commercial buildings in cities and in parking lots.
If solar panels are "toxic as hell", just wait until you hear about these things they call fossil fuels. They're quite literally destroying and poisoning the planet.
We should be recycling paper. I am bitching about sustainability. And I am telling you we should recycle paper. I don't know who the fuck you're talking to that could lead you to this impression.
There is nothing clean about fossil fuels.
We are in a deep fucking mess over this crisis. We can either go with the painful option, or the extremely painful option. The painful option is to fix it, the extremely painful option being doing nothing/minimally acting.
If things continue the way they do, there will be millions, potentially billions of migrants as a result of climate change. Where do you thing those people will try to go? They're gonna try to come here. Republican policy of fucking the environment with a cactus will directly lead to more migrants.
Do you like nuclear war? I don't either. And I'd rather not have the doomsday clock tick closer to midnight because Iran lost access to potable water and decided war is a good option. I don't know about you, but I have zero desire to die in the potentially upcoming water wars.
3 small problems is better than one giant one that will end society/humanity.