@TrunksBish ye that's max

<:pepe_smug:560207654207750154>

oh wtf

<:pepe_sweat:378719424548569088>

he got a 3rd acc? <:shap:497652686603288576>

@vaibhav265 shrekko? <:shap:497652686603288576>

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluting-our-oceans-comes-from-just-10-rivers/

|| I dont believe it but sure <:shap:497652686603288576> ||

Tunak tunak tun

that was a forbidden image

https://giphy.com/gifs/canada-prime-bhangra-daI0FkyGfSyVG better one haha

An increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That “worst-worst case” estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation.

To place a 4% reduction in context, conservatively assume that real annual GDP growth will average 2% in the coming decades (it has averaged 3.2% since 1935 and is currently 3%). That would result in a U.S. economy roughly four times as large in 2090 as today. A 4% climate impact would reduce that multiple to 3.8—a correction much smaller than the uncertainty of any projection over seven decades. To put it another way, the projected reduction in the average annual growth rate is a mere 0.05 percentage point. The U.S. economy in 2090 would be no more than two years behind where it would have been absent man-caused climate change.

Everybody read this carefully

"worst-case climate projections show minimal impact on the overall economy. Buried in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report is a chart showing that a global temperature rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit would have a global economic impact of about 3% in 2100—negligibly diminishing projected global growth over that period to 385% from 400%."

no need for all that bro, u ruin their whole platform just by bringing to attention why they're not solving this shit in china and india @JayJS

@TrunksBish no I'm me

obv

Oww my little legs <:pepehands:378719408367075333>

what does greta think about nuclear power?

@ShrektEffect what? <:shap:497652686603288576>

I did 50 squats and my legs are gonna fall off

only 50 <:shap:497652686603288576>

fuck it imma test how many i can do rn

i remember years ago i could do 50+

Nuclear power doesn't entail subsidies for multibillionaires, a carbon tax on civilians and a wealth transfer to the elites

Ye but my legs are smol af

And I've never done squats

And it hurts okay?

I wonder what brought you to that sudden thought of doing squats 🤔

https://tenor.com/view/chernobyl-slap-dyatlov-akimov-your-boss-gif-14829413

@JayJS

owowoow

***Bully Free Zone***

he is right tho

@TrunksBish wdym

What do you think squats are for <:kek:590371888480387073>

I imagine Gretas approach to nuclear power would follow the same tennants as the rest of her positions.

Scowl and world leaders and demand something else be done.

Cheers Greta. Nice.

I fucking hate that incipid demented cunt

chinese solar panel produces don't make money on nuclear power so that a no no for Greta

Solar lobby and battery companies wants dem subsidies