Far-Right Climate Denial Is Scary. Far-Right Climate Acceptance Might Be Scarier. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012915
JohnRawls wrote:If that is what it takes for them to admit it then so be it. Far Right are correct in saying that India, China and large parts of Asia are a large problem in the context of Global warming. This is not only related to Global Warming but for example to plastic pollution. They contribute around 75% of plastic pollution to the oceans. If people aknowledge Global warming as an existential problem then dropping bombs on the responsible should be considered at the least for those countries to comply. As a person who does consider global warming to be a semi-problem and a possible existential threat long term, i do consider that at some point we might need to wage war to enforce "Green" rules if the countries don't change course.


The alt-right has jumped on the climate-change denial bandwagon not because the 3rd world also pollutes but because they have been encouraged by the Trumpists to openly embrace cynicism to justify their desire for unrelenting consumerism at the price of sacrificing their own children. This is a new departure because, traditionally, the far-right has valued conservative values including homesteading and environmental protection. That seems to have gone out off the window.

It goes without saying that poor countries will also have to limit their expectations of material growth, but it is hardly possible to ask Indians to start belt-tightening at a time the US emits 10 times more green house gases per capita than India. And even though China has reached European levels and half those of the US, historical emissions for Europe and the US are still higher. Therefore, it is only fair for the industrialized world to take the lead in the fight against climate change. This is not only "moral" but also smart because economic growth in the environmental sector is virtually unlimited. Trump and the old man of the fossil fuel industry will go the way of the dinosaurs.

To declare war on 3rd world countries that don't have the resources to recycle their plastic waste is about the most retarded idea I have ever heard. On the contrary, conflicts need to be solved without war and the resources wasted on defense ought to be put into defending the planet. What we need is an alliance of all the world's nations that have signed onto the Paris climate accord to outlaw the US pariahs that are determined to destroy our future.
#15012919
Atlantis wrote:The alt-right has jumped on the climate-change denial bandwagon not because the 3rd world also pollutes but because they have been encouraged by the Trumpists to openly embrace cynicism to justify their desire for unrelenting consumerism at the price of sacrificing their own children. This is a new departure because, traditionally, the far-right has valued conservative values including homesteading and environmental protection. That seems to have gone out off the window.

It goes without saying that poor countries will also have to limit their expectations of material growth, but it is hardly possible to ask Indians to start belt-tightening at a time the US emits 10 times more green house gases per capita than India. And even though China has reached European levels and half those of the US, historical emissions for Europe and the US are still higher. Therefore, it is only fair for the industrialized world to take the lead in the fight against climate change. This is not only "moral" but also smart because economic growth in the environmental sector is virtually unlimited. Trump and the old man of the fossil fuel industry will go the way of the dinosaurs.

To declare war on 3rd world countries that don't have the resources to recycle their plastic waste is about the most retarded idea I have ever heard. On the contrary, conflicts need to be solved without war and the resources wasted on defense ought to be put into defending the planet. What we need is an alliance of all the world's nations that have signed onto the Paris climate accord to outlaw the US pariahs that are determined to destroy our future.


Such an arrangement will have to be enforced eventually by military means if necessary. You are foolish to think that greed of some will allow this to happen peacefully. Those who will not want to see the error of their ways peacefully will have to be put to the sword.

I understand why you don't like this opinion. But this is a matter of fact. Not all will care and if it will become a full blown exhistential problem then perhaps war is the only way.
#15012971
Suntzu wrote:The term "retarded" is not deemed politically incorrect. Use autistic instead. 8)


If it is not politically incorrect, why would you have me substitute it? Just for the record, JohnRawls is one of my favorite Pofoers and I certainly don't think he is retarded or autistic. I just stated the obvious that a certain conduct would be retarded if it were actually acted on.

JohnRawls wrote:I understand why you don't like this opinion.


If you did understand my thinking, you wouldn't oppose it. The military solution is always the worst solution. And even if it is used, it is always used for nationalistic of imperialistic motivations and not for altruistic reasons. Those who say otherwise are lying. The end doesn't justify the means, or rather, military means would be counter-productive in this case. There are other means to encourage compliance.

As somebody who seems to be in favor of European integration, you should understand that the most important reason for European integration is peaceful coexistence to eliminate the reasons for war. Even if not all countries can become EU members, the principle of non-violent conflict solution can radiate beyond our borders.

The normative power of the EU can often be more effective to achieve beneficial results than any amount of military power could. Or can you give any positive results that have been achieved by the US's military interventions in the ME during the last 20 years.
#15013173
Atlantis wrote:If it is not politically incorrect, why would you have me substitute it? Just for the record, JohnRawls is one of my favorite Pofoers and I certainly don't think he is retarded or autistic. I just stated the obvious that a certain conduct would be retarded if it were actually acted on.



If you did understand my thinking, you wouldn't oppose it. The military solution is always the worst solution. And even if it is used, it is always used for nationalistic of imperialistic motivations and not for altruistic reasons. Those who say otherwise are lying. The end doesn't justify the means, or rather, military means would be counter-productive in this case. There are other means to encourage compliance.

As somebody who seems to be in favor of European integration, you should understand that the most important reason for European integration is peaceful coexistence to eliminate the reasons for war. Even if not all countries can become EU members, the principle of non-violent conflict solution can radiate beyond our borders.

The normative power of the EU can often be more effective to achieve beneficial results than any amount of military power could. Or can you give any positive results that have been achieved by the US's military interventions in the ME during the last 20 years.


I understand that military power is a waste of resources of sorts. I just don't expect people to accept global warming if it even reaches critical point. Perhaps EU and USA will fully accept it along with the rest of the West. On the other hand China, SA, Russia, Iran will probably still ignore it because it will hurt them a lot. Simple fact of OIL becoming useless or not as important is a world changing process. Not to mention everything else.
#15013404
JohnRawls wrote:I understand that military power is a waste of resources of sorts. I just don't expect people to accept global warming if it even reaches critical point. Perhaps EU and USA will fully accept it along with the rest of the West. On the other hand China, SA, Russia, Iran will probably still ignore it because it will hurt them a lot. Simple fact of OIL becoming useless or not as important is a world changing process. Not to mention everything else.


Aren't you in contradiction here? On the one hand, you seem to realize that phasing out fossil fuels will be a game changer (in other words, we can show the finger to the Arab pariahs, Putin and Trump because we won't need their fossil fuels any longer), on the other hand, you seem to believe that humans cannot change and that we need to resolve problems by military means just like in the stone age.

Europe will have 90% renewable energy in 2 decades.

A 100% renewable grid isn’t just feasible, it’s in the works in Europe

Why waste money on importing oil, if we can have energy for free? It doesn't need wars to persuade people. The winning formula of sustainable development will make its way without firing a single shot.
#15013407
Atlantis wrote:Aren't you in contradiction here? On the one hand, you seem to realize that phasing out fossil fuels will be a game changer (in other words, we can show the finger to the Arab pariahs, Putin and Trump because we won't need their fossil fuels any longer), on the other hand, you seem to believe that humans cannot change and that we need to resolve problems by military means just like in the stone age.

Europe will have 90% renewable energy in 2 decades.

A 100% renewable grid isn’t just feasible, it’s in the works in Europe

Why waste money on importing oil, if we can have energy for free? It doesn't need wars to persuade people. The winning formula of sustainable development will make its way without firing a single shot.


First of all, i believe it to be unlikely to be 90% renewable in two decades. What i mean by this is that the renewable energy must be as cheap as the current energy for it to be feasible. So i do not think it will happen. The only "Renewable" that is exceptionally good right now is nuclear. It is cheaper than fossil fuels with little emitions or by products.

My main point is that i do not think that it will happen peacefully all across the world. There is no motivator for oil produces to do it at all. Unless oil runs out that is. That will just make their exports and mining useless. There are negative consequences that come from renewables(besides nuclear) as of now. Main thing is that going renewable 100% right now will cause the energy prices to sky rocket which will inevitably cause weaker productivity in industry and less well being for the people.

The situation is different from country to country. For countries like SA or Iran it is very hard to go renewable simply because their oil and gas will always be cheaper even compared to nuclear.
#15013410
@JohnRawls, read the article I linked. Renewable already is cost-effective and cost is decreasing all the time. Dynamic grid usage and vast storage capacities will eliminate the use for fossil fuels for peak usage. 90% is very feasible within 2 decades. We don't need nuclear. In fact, nuclear only delays the development of renewable energy.

From the economic and the geostrategic point of view, this will be of great advantage to Europe. We can forget all about the Straight of Hormus, Putin and Trump.
#15013411
From the economic and the geostrategic point of view, this will be of great advantage to Europe. We can forget all about the Straight of Hormus, Putin and Trump


and than maybe you can stop licking the Arab and Iranian asses all day like you do now
but I doubt that since you got so many of them in Europe your leaders are afraid of them
#15013415
Atlantis wrote:@JohnRawls, read the article I linked. Renewable already is cost-effective and cost is decreasing all the time. Dynamic grid usage and vast storage capacities will eliminate the use for fossil fuels for peak usage. 90% is very feasible within 2 decades. We don't need nuclear. In fact, nuclear only delays the development of renewable energy.

From the economic and the geostrategic point of view, this will be of great advantage to Europe. We can forget all about the Straight of Hormus, Putin and Trump.


Yeah they are cost-effective on place by place basis, you can't generalise renewables. Solar is good for more sunny(Northern Africa, Spain, SA) places but it utterly sucks for Estonia, Germany, Britain, All of northern Europe. The same thing is for windmills. This doesn't cover the problem of transportation of that energy and the loss which technically can be solved by superconductors but those superconductors need to become cheaper. One thing is to use superconductors for satellites and other sensitive equipment. Another thing is to lay lines between countries and all across of Europe.

There is no cheap way to produce and move electricity around. By cheap i mean as cheap as coal or oil. Hence the renewables are around 10-15% etc. It depends if renewables can compete against coal/oil on the same level. I did an example in some other thread. We have invested enormous billions in to renewables with achieving very little. If instead we invested that in nuclear then we would be at around 50% Nuclear for most countries and places like France and Germany would easily be at 100%. We invested so much that we could literally create 30% additional output of energy compared to what we have now simply by investing in to nuclear instead of renewables.

The question of renewables is not if its economically viable. Anything can be economically viable if you are willing to pay more. The question is how it competes against others solutions. Besides nuclear, renewables can't compete globally against coal/oil. May be in some specific places that have a lot of wind, hydro or sun but those amount are usually located in specific places or regions.
#15013435
Atlantis wrote:read the article I linked. Renewable already is cost-effective and cost is decreasing all the time.


It's easy to make renewables look good on paper, you just don't factor in the cost of backups. When those costs are factored in renewables aren't even close to being competitive with coal and natural gas.
#15013456
Sivad wrote:It's easy to make renewables look good on paper, you just don't factor in the cost of backups. When those costs are factored in renewables aren't even close to being competitive with coal and natural gas.


And if you ignore externalities, fossil fuels also look good on paper.

But since we are currently dealing with environmental issues because of fossil fuel use, ignoring externalities is now impossible.
#15013574
Pants-of-dog wrote:And if you ignore externalities, fossil fuels also look good on paper.


renewables create all kinds of negative externalities, I know they call them "clean energy" but that's just propaganda. Solar and wind require rare earth and silica mining which is highly toxic and destructive to human health and the environment, the manufacturing process also creates a lot of pollution, and disposal is also costly and toxic. And they still require coal or natural gas backups so they come with those externalities as well.
#15013626
Rugoz wrote:When it comes to power it's only a matter of time until renewables take over


sure, as better technology develops and they become competitive but that's still decades off.

you only have to look at newly installed capacity. It takes time to phase out old technology.


It may be old but it's far from obsolete, attempting to transition from a cheaper more efficient fuel source to an inferior source for political ends is unlikely to succeed. They've already thrown $2 trillion into the transition and haven't gotten very much bang for the bucks.
#15013633
Sivad wrote:renewables create all kinds of negative externalities, I know they call them "clean energy" but that's just propaganda. Solar and wind require rare earth and silica mining which is highly toxic and destructive to human health and the environment,


No. Such mining is only required for solar PV cells. This is not required for wind, hydro, or other renewables.

Please note that fossil fuels also require extensive mining.

the manufacturing process also creates a lot of pollution, and disposal is also costly and toxic.


This is also applicable only to active solar and fossil fuels and not to wind.

You seem to incorrectly believe that all the problems with solar are also applicable to other renewables.

And they still require coal or natural gas backups so they come with those externalities as well.


No. We do not need to use fossil fuels for back up.
#15013641
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Such mining is only required for solar PV cells. This is not required for wind,


"Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth."
https://bccrwe.com/index.php/8-news/9-a ... nvironment
#15013644
All turbines require magnets.

We are discussing the mechanism to power the turbine, which is the windmill and that requires no turbine.

If you want to support the fossil fuel status quo, the turbines spun by the steam heated by the fossil fuels also has rare earth magnets. And those would also be added to the fossil fuel burden.
#15013652
Pants-of-dog wrote:All turbines require magnets.


:knife: not high performance rare earth magnets.

We are discussing the mechanism to power the turbine, which is the windmill and that requires no turbine.


:knife: :knife: :knife:

Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium — rare earth metals that are rare because they’re found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.
https://thebulletin.org/2011/11/the-myt ... le-energy/


If you want to support the fossil fuel status quo, the turbines spun by the steam heated by the fossil fuels also has rare earth magnets. And those would also be added to the fossil fuel burden.


Some coal generators may use neodymium but most are just ferrite. Coal doesn't use even a significant fraction of the rare earths that wind does.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

Fuck monarchs. Ya know that Prince Henry or Will[…]

https://external-preview.redd.it/k3Nd[…]

How did you become a socialist?

I want to become a socialist. I really do. It's j[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

NO. Why would you think I advocate deceit when[…]