WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

The term "climate change" has no meaning. Why do people keep using this meaningless term? It has emotional connotation, but no actual content. It is void of meaning. At least "global warming" meant something, even if that something was false. "Climate change" means nothing.

[–] 2 pts

You'd have to believe that climate change is an actual man made problem and not just a byproduct of solar activity.

Weather cucks

[–] 1 pt

The climate has always been changing, and will never stop changing.

[–] 0 pt

There's a twofer there, at night we can use the nuke plants to generate hydrogen. This should, theoretically, lower power costs as it give the power company a bigger market. Hydrogen fuel cells were set to be widely used about 10 years ago...I wonder what happened?

Yeah have fun with diversity niggers running the control room. I'm for nuclear power but I don't trust non-Whites being involved.

[–] 0 pt

There are tons of problems that need complex solutions before we could truly use clean energy. Mining enough lithium for an all electric car fleet would be hugely damaging to the environment. Then we have to recycle it so we don't have to keep mining it. We don't have enough copper on earth to transition to all electric, so we'd have to start making wires with aluminum (which is toxic to mine and refine) or some other metals. We'd have to work out how to properly recycle spent nuclear fuel (which is definitely doable), but we currently don't even recycle things like polystyrene which is 1000x easier and not subject to weapons manufacturing. We'd have to figure out how to get fertilizer from non-petroleum sources as well as convert the watering, planting, and harvesting of crops. All of this can be done, but then it puts extra strain on already limited supply of things like the electrical grid which would have to be entirely upgraded.

All of this could be done and should be started. Not because of some bullshit carbon emissions cause climate change but because mining, extracting, and refining coal and oil are getting increasing dangerous and expensive. However, most environmentalists can't even fathom the amount of effort it takes to make these transitions and they are aligned with the same affirmative action loving anti-education retards who will make high tech and low pollution alternatives impossible. I think what they really want it to kill off or move most of humanity back to the stone age while they enjoy using their iphones and private jets.

[–] 0 pt

I still remember the smug engineering grads on reddit teaching normies that Fukushima couldn't possibly go into meltdown because [difference 1 from chernobyl] and [difference 2 from chernobyl] and because the Japanese had the world's best work ethic so no corners could possibly have ever been cut in the history of that plant.