Greta is at it..AGAIN

[GeekyBugle]

Oil drilling and oil refineries produce billions of tons of toxic waste water and other byproducts; and the diesel exhaust itself is toxic that is dumped into the air. This should be patently obvious. Does anyone want to sit in a closed garage with a running diesel engine? I'm not even saying that the EV is better -- but there is *no* option to produce energy without toxins and potential pollution. It's all a question of how much, what types, and how it is handled.

The balance between these depends on how the electricity for the EV is generated. If it is coming from a coal plant, then I suspect it may be worse. If it's coming from a nuclear plant, then the impact is probably going to be much less.

No, diesels don't produce toxic waste. Exhaust emissions are not fucking toxic waste, retard. Shit you have to bury 100 feet underground IS toxic waste. It's like you just can't admit anything that goes against some horseshit world view you hold. "Toxic waste" in the way I used it isn't just something that can be dangerous, it's specifically referring to chemicals/toxins/whatever that cannot be effectively dealt with beyond extreme measures. Breathing in diesel exhaust will kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning a billion times sooner than anything else in there. But you know this, you're just a contrarian.

I don't know EVERYTHING about energy, but I've made my research and know a lot more than ANYONE in the "green movement" about both energy and economics. If you think we don't have to take economics into account you're smoking something.

Well, I'm in the "green movement" to some degree, but purely from an economic viewpoint. And I have published research in the field, so there's that. But I also don't think delusional takes on oil/coal being SO TERRIBLE OH MY GOD! have anything to do with the green alternatives absolutely sucking in all possible ways. Just remember who you're responding to...

EDIT: And by green alternatives, I mean the lefty retard versions, not legitimate ones like fission, speculative fusion, geothermal, oceanic, whatever. Those are all viable to some degree; but giant windmills are ugly, expensive, and useless, but the CCP gets massive kickbacks from their production so of course that's what lefties mean by green energy.

Sorry not sorry, but if you're not 1000% behind solar, wind and EVs while being 1000% AGAINST oil, carbon, gas AND  nuclear you're not in the "green movement".

[Brad]

Sorry not sorry, but if you're not 1000% behind solar, wind and EVs while being 1000% AGAINST oil, carbon, gas AND  nuclear you're not in the "green movement".

Okay, I guess you're talking about some sort of Marxist ideology, not actually being an advocate for green energy.

[GeekyBugle]

Sorry not sorry, but if you're not 1000% behind solar, wind and EVs while being 1000% AGAINST oil, carbon, gas AND  nuclear you're not in the "green movement".

Okay, I guess you're talking about some sort of Marxist ideology, not actually being an advocate for green energy.

Tell me ONE group or prominent personality from the "green movement" that doesn't fall into the parameters I laid down.

They ALL are marxists, anti-human authoritarian fucks.

[ralfy]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

[GeekyBugle]

Greta won't be followed because around 70 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 a day, and want to and are earning more to cover basic needs. Meanwhile, the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own income and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, around 70 pct of heavy machinery in mining, up to half of manufacturing, petrochemicals, mechanized agriculture, and the bulk of shipping (for which goods involve extensive supply chains spanning dozens of countries) involve fossil fuels. Even transition to renewable energy involves fossil fuels.

Next, the world is physically limited, which means it can't provide unlimited amounts of oil, gas, and minerals to cover demand. Given biocapacity, in order to meet basic needs of the current world population, we'll need at least the equivalent of an additional earth in terms of material resources. To meet wants, which include everything beyond what's needed for optimal health, we'll need the equivalent of three more.

At the same time, extraction and use of material resources lead to more pollution on various levels, from air to water. These have unexpected impacts on ecosystems from which human beings need many other resources and on climate. At the same time, extraction and use are affected by diminishing returns, where increasing amounts of energy are needed to extract resources in fewer quantities and quality.

Finally, coupled with that is increasing deployment of armaments worldwide, or according to the FAS something like a thirtyfold increase in only three decades. And triggers to conflict can take place involving issues concerning lack of resources plus the effects of pollution and environmental damage. An example includes dry spells which led to food shortages which in turn triggered civil unrest and then war in places like Syria.

With that, and given the point that world oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, human beings will use every energy source available to meet basic needs plus wants. The effects of environmental damage and climate change will continue and will lead to black swans like wars and even pandemics (where diseases spread and mutate faster given changes in climate plus pollution plus conflict plus increased vectors in the spread of disease due to combinations of human and urban migration).

Been hearing this same song since the 70s

I'm not shocked or worried.

[yosemitemike]

The Club of Rome was saying this stuff in 1972 and they were completely wrong.  None of what they predicted came true.

"The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world's population to under 16%.

Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the reverse.

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular and elite thinking. Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.

Likewise, fears of over-population framed self-destructive policies, such as China's one-child policy and forced sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.

Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year – 25% of all deaths.

The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost a billion people. This has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.

The four decades since The Limits of Growth have shown that we need more of it, not less. An expansion of trade, with estimated benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually toward the end of the century, would do thousands of times more good than timid feel-good policies that result from fear-mongering. But that requires abandoning an anti-growth mentality and using our enormous potential to create a brighter future."

Limits of Panic, Bjorn Lomborg

This was 2013.  These predictions have only grown more wrong since then.

[Brad]

https://diysolarforum.com/threads/hail-damage-in-texas.81321/

Even when presented with empirical evidence, these dopes still act like nothing is wrong.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, of course the Natural World is important. Absolutely. I love animals and everything in Nature.

Having said that, as GeekyBugle mentioned, yeah, the "Green Environmentalist" movement, whatever they want to call themselves, are full of Marxism, and globalist tyranny.

So, fuck them.

DRILL BABY DRILL!

We need more economic growth. Daring, bold, and fearless. Get after it, and make wealth and opportunities accessible to the ordinary man--not locked away behind monopolies, laws, and power-grabbing by the wealthy elites.

Keep these two goals in balance with each other, and more of the world will have a bright and happy future.

But having said that, deep down, we know that isn't likely to happen. Instead, we will have more of the masses ass fucked and swallowed in stupidity and hysteria, like a giant herd of stupid cows, and continuously plundered, raped, and controlled by the wealthy elites as they establish a Marxist, globalist tyranny.

24/7 State Surveollance, you will own nothing, and be happy. And eat bug patties and live in weird, high-tech pods. No guns allowed, and absolutely controlled by the government. Piped in media propaganda, 24/7. Your every conversation recorded, tracked, and analyzed. Anyone stepping out of frame or resisting the narrative, gets killed.

We have all of this on display, right now, in China. The UN, and elites here in America and in Western Europe want to implement the same things the Marxists are doing in China.

That is the harsh truth, and reality.

The UN, the wealthy elites, the Marxist Globalists, are working around the clock to set all this stuff up, and put it into motion. Laying the foundations for global tyranny and a one-world government.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[GeekyBugle]

https://diysolarforum.com/threads/hail-damage-in-texas.81321/

Even when presented with empirical evidence, these dopes still act like nothing is wrong.

Archived for posterity and ease of access: https://archive.is/CiyUR

It's magical thinking, they are in a cult and have to not see any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. At least we Christians (except the YEC/flat earthers) don't have that issue.

[jhkim]

Sorry not sorry, but if you're not 1000% behind solar, wind and EVs while being 1000% AGAINST oil, carbon, gas AND  nuclear you're not in the "green movement".

Okay, I guess you're talking about some sort of Marxist ideology, not actually being an advocate for green energy.

Tell me ONE group or prominent personality from the "green movement" that doesn't fall into the parameters I laid down.

They ALL are marxists, anti-human authoritarian fucks.

I suspect you'd define them as not part of the "green movement" -- but there are plenty of people who support science-based environmentalism like, Michael Shellenberger. He is often described as a centrist, but he still advocates for clean energy and protecting the environment - rather than shouting "Drill Baby Drill".

It's possible to critique parts of the environmental movement (like the anti-nuclear advocates), while still advocating for the environment in general.

As I said, my main environmentalism currently is volunteering for Generation Atomic. I think stopping anti-nuclear advocacy is critical for the environment. My car has a "Green Nuclear Power" bumper sticker.

[GeekyBugle]

Sorry not sorry, but if you're not 1000% behind solar, wind and EVs while being 1000% AGAINST oil, carbon, gas AND  nuclear you're not in the "green movement".

Okay, I guess you're talking about some sort of Marxist ideology, not actually being an advocate for green energy.

Tell me ONE group or prominent personality from the "green movement" that doesn't fall into the parameters I laid down.

They ALL are marxists, anti-human authoritarian fucks.

I suspect you'd define them as not part of the "green movement" -- but there are plenty of people who support science-based environmentalism like, Michael Shellenberger. He is often described as a centrist, but he still advocates for clean energy and protecting the environment - rather than shouting "Drill Baby Drill".

It's possible to critique parts of the environmental movement (like the anti-nuclear advocates), while still advocating for the environment in general.

As I said, my main environmentalism currently is volunteering for Generation Atomic. I think stopping anti-nuclear advocacy is critical for the environment. My car has a "Green Nuclear Power" bumper sticker.

This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

Sorry my dude but if you're on the fringe you're not the one calling the shots and you're not the one we should be addrasing when making OUR arguments.

As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Fuck the "Environmentalist Movement." As HeekyBugle said, they are all fucking Marxists and Globalist Tyrants.

The "movement" is just like GeekyBugle described. Anti-Christian, anti-Human, anti-Progress. These fucking animals want us to become some kind of quasi-primitive society, mostly poor, helpless, and enslaved, ruled over by a high-tech, uber wealthy Marxist Globalist elite.

When the hard times come, the environmentalist freaks will be eaten and cast into the fires.

If course, most everyone knows already that part of the reason why we are experiencing increased prices, increased hardship--is yes, because of the fucking environmentalists. It stems from politicians and policies implemented that are designed to please and obey the screaming environmentalists.

Fuck the industries involved. Fuck the families involved. Fuck the people's economy and happiness.

All must bow down to their evil fucking religion.

So, yeah. Crush them. DRILL BABY DRILL!

Too bad there are not special groups set up to target the environmentalists, and crush them. Every fucking one of them. Chase them down, terrorize them, bankrupt them, and crush them.

Let them live in the gutters of poverty and fear. Let them gulp and always look over their shoulders in dread. Let them scratch in the sewers, eating rats by campfire and candlelight.

That is what they deserve.

Politically, yeah, the opposition is enormous and well-funded. Just another part of resisting and defeating the fucking Marxist Globalists throughout the landscape. Local, Federal, everywhere.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

GeekyBugle, you specifically asked to name ONE prominent personality who didn't fit your parameters. I named Michael Shellenberger -- and then you came back that naming one person doesn't count because the mainstream isn't like that. You specifically asked about one person outside the mainstream -- you can't dismiss it because he's not like the rest.

The majority of any political movement these days are ignorant fearmongers -- hyped up on social media and outrage, and going on about how we're all doomed because the other side are pure evil.

As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps. As yosemitemike noted,

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

I agree. Since 1900, we've taken many steps to limit air pollution - like the 1963 Clear Air Act. And we can do more. It's not hypothetical - many countries can and have reduced pollution. One of the best ways is through nuclear power, but there are many options.

[GeekyBugle]

This is the "nut picking argument":

The  mainstream "green movement", the bulk of whatever "enviromentalist" movement is, is composed of anti-nuclear, anti-human, marxist fearmongerers.

But I guess you would call them "no true scotssman".

GeekyBugle, you specifically asked to name ONE prominent personality who didn't fit your parameters. I named Michael Shellenberger -- and then you came back that naming one person doesn't count because the mainstream isn't like that. You specifically asked about one person outside the mainstream -- you can't dismiss it because he's not like the rest.

The majority of any political movement these days are ignorant fearmongers -- hyped up on social media and outrage, and going on about how we're all doomed because the other side are pure evil.

As for "drill baby drill" what's the option? One that doesn't neccesitate millions of your countrymen to go into poverty or die from hunger, cold, heat?

Again, we don't have a REAL alternative for fossil fuels, thanks to the "enviromentalists".

We use alternatives all the time - it's around 40% of our electricity nationally, and in many other countries it's the majority - like France or Sweden. You keep speaking as if either we use zero fossil fuels or nothing matters, but that's obviously hyperbole. There are lots of in-between steps. As yosemitemike noted,

In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.

I agree. Since 1900, we've taken many steps to limit air pollution - like the 1963 Clear Air Act. And we can do more. It's not hypothetical - many countries can and have reduced pollution. One of the best ways is through nuclear power, but there are many options.

Well, IF it's not ZERO fossil fuels then what is it? For electricity generation you don't have a more reliable, cheaper and cleaner option.

For transport you DON'T have any other option:

Batteries weight the same full than empty, which limits the cargo and range of ANY vehicle, which in turn impacts prices. EVs aren't good even for commuting, as proven by Commiefornia asking their ressidents to NOT charge them because the grid can't service them. In winter EVs often can't start.

Let's go with the lightest EV the Nissan Leaf: 3,516 lbs https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/how-much-does-an-electric-car-weigh $25,675

The closest in size is the Nissan Sentra 3,038 lbs $23,325

And that's for cars.

In trucks you're out of luck, to be able to carry ANY payload to any interesting distance you need a lot of batteries, which, since they weight the same full as empty the range is reduced, also the cargo is reduced and since you CAN'T charge the batteries in the same time you can fill the tank your time to deliver is increased. What about refrigerated goods?

Don't get me started on planes and cargo ships.

IF you're serious about reducing air pollution you MUST be 100% behind Nuclear.

If you're not an anti-human authoritarian murderer you MUST be in favor of fossil fuels for transport.

IF you're serious about the environment you CAN'T be for wind, solar or EVs because their manufacture still uses fossil fuels AND their waste is toxic AND they aren't reliable, AND the mining for minerals is environmental suicide.

ANY other question?

[yosemitemike]

.....