Yes

How

We thought we would run out of uranium

through funding?

So the us gov began investing into

Alternative nuclear power

And ta da

Thorium

Making much better use of Uranium

Makes less nuclear waste

AND produce more energy

But then in the 60s

We found more uranium deposits

So we're like lol nvm we will keep the old methods

Then as nukes got more unpopular

Research really stagnated

It's funny that inefficient 60s nuclear power plants are still the safest ones

More like i wonder if hitler didnt larp around as anti jews

And introduced some sort of honorable jew program that would have gave the germans nuclear power

If he didn't go on that whole anti-jew thing, he would be a controversial figure, not a figure of disgust

Basically, the difference between Castro and Stalin

Because there were sects of jews

Who wanted to join Nazis on the earlier days

But hitler downright rejected them

climate change helps in the temperature becoming warmer

this makes girls more wet 😍

they drip like a monsoon

to stop climate change

take off your clothese

clothes

Hot

Just open up the freezer duh

Nuclear energy is a better option than renewables

change my mind

Yea but if something goes wrong

**boom**

nuclear meltdown is rare

rare

but based

It's

@Gerry nuclear plants have killed significantly less people than all the forms of energy

Even then, if we utilized Thorium it would become Impossible

We just need to fund more research about Nuclear energy instead

I agree

Every since Germany got rid of their nuclear plants they have been struggling to stop co2 out put

Nuclear power is great

Yes sir

But they technology we have now is trash

It's much more promising, would take up much more land mass than solar or wind would need to

Nobody talks about the fact that wind hurts wildlife

Yup

I agree with u

Nuke power is the way to go

But we just need to make it safer

I mean technically now It's pretty safe

But we start using Thorium then we are set.

Yea but it will rape ya if you screw up

True

It's plentiful, less radioactive

But we ain’t got the tech yet

Just fund more research

I agree we shoul

Should*

If we moved to 100% renewable do you know how much space it would have to take

Yep

Exactly

The problem with it is that It's unpopular

There is a bias about it

Yea cuz of other disasters

The china disaster could of been minimized

But It's still killed far less people

Could

But it did not

And radiation lasts a lot longer than some water

Properly managed it's not a problem

poor excuse

properly managed, coal and oil is not a problem

You can apply this to every energy producer as well

Except that's not true with coal and oil

Properly managed, coal still fucked up the health of the miners of North England

yea

Nuclear has killed significantly less people that coal has

Even with Chernobyl counted in

Techpriest made a good point one or two days ago about why Nuclear isn't used

Because other lobbies go against Nuclear

Since if we have Nuclear, Wind and Solar becomes irrelevent

Nuclear occupies less land mass

It tells you something when outdated Nuclear Plants from the 60s is still safer and more efficient than other power plants

Weather in Ohio is as unpredictable as always

Aint that the truth lmao. It reached the 60s, then snowed over the weekend, and will reach the 60s again

Lame

Opinions on this? Imo it's not bad to have more focus on climate but Corbyn is definitely just doing it cos he thinks it'll win him the young vote

@The Lemon I meam makes sense. There were eco-warriors being twats and Corbyn just loves fighting and explosions

As long as they're not done by the Government apparently!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agTMr9qITlI
I couldnt help to not share this but here

ok back to my life

climate

The earth is a social construct.

@TheBritishGamer ❤🔑 (Meh) I don't think the climate protests are necessarily a bad thing. Sure you can say that their being twats by blocking roads etc but it's been really effective

Likely more so than if they'd done less intrusive protests and not been disruptive

It forces people to take notice and judging by the vote today Parliament has taken notice and that's a good thing imo

I'm not saying I fully endorse their methods but it's undeniable the protests were effective

@The Lemon The first problem is that it punishes ordinary people for the actions of the rich

Japan does protests amazingly

When there is a transport strike, they let everyone go on for free

It benifits the normal people and still screws over the people the strike is targeted against

But these protests screw normal people over

There's a video of one guy shouting at the protesters because he has to get to work

He works in a clean power company

If you want people to back you up, don't make them late for work

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/climate/congress-paris-climate-agreement.html

Oh please

The Paris Agreement does nothing for climate change

China said that it might stop in 10 years time

And India said it might stop in 20 years time

wait

how would it block

okay so it's a paris agreement

agreement so anyone can quit or join anytime

ohh they want to make it into a bill

wont pass in the senate

Paris climate agreement does nothing.

Yeah

The real solution is that we invest into climate change

and progress with it

not regress

If there's too much CO2, then we will engineer a way to fix the excess CO2

Instead of trying to "reduce it by nature"

Power is the ability to impose your will upon nature.

Not have nature impose her will over you

Adaption

I think it’s been adequately demonstrated that people with the power to effect policy care more about their personal interests than anything else. The only options are to make them care about the environment - which is not within our power - or deprive them the ability to dictate policy.

duh

that's obvious

Since they are easily able to hide their motives (and even their actions) by outright secrecy or by framing their actions in a misleading way, there is no way to assure that the wrong people do not gain the ability to dictate policy, leaving us with only one viable option - have *no one* dictating policy in the broad scope. Then individual groups may seek out environmental misdeeds, prove them, and act by boycott or direct action to stop them without being roadblocked by enforcement of policies that favor the transgressor.

If you follow the money behind Democrat Politicians, the solar company and wind pay very well with their pockets

cant blame republicans if they want to go solar and wind if the companies are pocketing them as well

I don’t understand the last statement.

Republicans will support solar and wind power

if companies will pay them

but they dont

because it's more expensive to pay a republican on something against their constituent's beliefs than a democrat

unless you ever have a republican incumbent politician in a democrat state

then you might see that republican being a little more democrat

Gotcha. Well, this is what happens when we try to abdicate personal responsibility. We don’t want to deal with the problems of our world ourselves, so we make it somebody else’s job; and the power implicit in that job doesn’t draw people who want to help humanity, it draws people who want to wield that power for personal benefit.

If it benefits them more to harm humanity, then that’s what they’ll do. That will *always* be the case, and thus by making voting our only act of influence, we’ve made ourselves impotent in effecting the change *we* want to see, and unwitting power supplies for the agendas of unscrupulous misanthropes.

"Bottled Water Ban" - Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

No, especially when you can reuse those bottles

Solar radiation managment is a scam for $ and to keep solar from taking over

@beyond_gravity Are you asking if people have the right to use violence against others for drinking bottled water? Wow. And we call these ideas “solutions”?

I think the best way to help the climate is to 1) tax oil companies. they have known the harmful effects of oil long before anyone else knew but didnt care, they should pay for the damages they cause yearly. 2) stop subsidizing animal agriculture. the leading cause of climate change and arguably the hardest to fight. 3) ban single use plastic or make it cost something, take away its convenience, 4) use sustainable farming practices. No more monofarming and gmo's that exist only to take on more chemicals. 5) encourage biking over driving. Maybe do a tax cut to people that biked more or for people that get rid of their car or make bikes the more convenient objects to use on the roads. 6) stop fast fashion.

but arguably the best thing anyone any single person can do is 1 very simple easy thing

<:CHECK6:403540120181145611> @Will not respond has been warned
```
reason: Duplicated text
```

to reduce their consumerism.

aka reduce their meat consumption, reduce the amount of clothing they purchase, reduce the amount of plastic they purchase including plastic wrapped items, reduce the amount of energy they use cooling or heating their house, etc.

Ironic

What science tells human to do is not hit our maximum potential

But limit ourselves instead

Perhaps Nietzsche was right, science is just a religion

After all it limits us

@Techpriest everything has a limit

some limits are short and easy to see others are long and even not possible to see in your lifespan

Just like my DIK

damn dude

on the short side or the long side tho 🤔

U know it long

<:ainz:538084033410891776>

Which is why you push to the limit

Not let the limit limit you

If we continue polluting the Earth yet fix it without limiting ourselves

Then we have successfully mastered terraforming

Should we all convert to green energy as of now?

Ofc not

But 2010s green energy is more efficient than 2000s green energy

Humans have been always adapting to survive and evolve

This is our will to power our human potential

Earth literally doesnt give two shits if her atmosphere is polluted

NOBODY CARES!!!!!!!

A meteor 65 million years ago ensured a hot earth

The Earth has survived worse and this is not her worst.

Reeeeeeeeeee

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Green Energy Politicians pockets are only lined with green company money

Nothing more nothing less

<:feelsdumbman:538083903835996176>

the earth will survive yes, we however will not or not as we are now

@Techpriest

Then its the test of human potential

Do not limit yourself because you cannot overcome it

we can push the limit and can overcome but poeple don't want to

people won't give up many things necessary

So how can you expect the same when you ask people to restrict themselves

If it's choosing between restricting yourself or pushing yourself to the limit, the latter is more beneficial

I hate green energy it’s like smug energy for liberals to feel good about themselves while not addressing reality or India/China

Opinion on nuclear?

Based

We should have a variety of energy

Available

Nuclear Plants make more in less than a year of what they initially cost

Not to mention they pay HUGE propery taxes

And help the area around them

harnessing solar energy by space based installation is the best

Lmao

transitting to earth in form of high energy microwave

Hmmm

But redpilled

@Techpriest sun and wind dont kill people like nuclear does tho

GG @Will not respond, you just advanced to level 3!

What if u make the nuclear plants far away

Sun and wind cant make us enough power

@Will not respond Actually Nuclear has the least fatalities

And the amount of metrial needed to make enough sun and wind plants is crazy

Nuclear Power Plants are increadibly safe

And it would take up so much space

It's just when it does go bad, it goes very bad

Sun and ind i mean

implying nuclear plants can go bad

with today's conversion of energy

omg

yall just exposed youselfs

even with a large earthquake, the nuclear reactor will stop working

because it now needs water to generate energy rather than using water to cool down the reactor

then thats not a nuclear reactor

thats water energy

lmao

boi

you retarded

Play nice @Deleted User

not if they use SRM @karn

NUKE Power isnt safe

@TheNobody

@sean g<:GWczeWhat:399970544830775300>

?

GG @sean g, you just advanced to level 1!

im sorry i though u had said it was safe sorry

Whats safe

Tech did say nuclear power is safe yes

The SAFEST

@sean g

I never said the safest

I said it's safe enough to proceed nuclear energy

@Techpriest safe enough is obvious and doesnt mean safe

Who cares if it's not *safe*

Orange man just simply bad

If you were a noble man, the safety for all life is of no concern.

<:GWcorbinHolyFuck:384871347756728321>

noble men are scum

as said by the environmentalist

the weakest of all

as he lets nature trample him instead