Here's a general question about people's views on Global

>>135850925
Climate change in inevitable if it will ever happen. There is no measure you can take to stop a 100% chance unless somehow you convinced everyone to use inefficient energy.
The real kicker? People who spout climate change are against nuclear energy.

>>135851145
>against nuclear energy
This is the part that really activates my almonds. It's so obviously the best choice, modern nuclear power plants can't even melt down by design, they can't be turned into bombs or anything.

But I suppose my confusion is how anyone with any conservative ideals can look at the potential threat of climate change and say that it's not worth putting resources towards to prevent.

You don't have to believe something is 100% going to happen to want to prevent it. You may not be guaranteed to get diabetes from eating terribly but you're certainly not helping your chances by doing so

>>135850925
granted the "precautionary principle" which you describe should be taken serious. Most solutions to fixing global warming are flawed and will hurt westerners in the end.

pollution is a bad thing, and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a bad thing even though it is unproven how much CO2 contributes as greenhouse gas. The USA and western world has begun to reduce their CO2 and pollutant output

countries like china and India are far bigger polluters and they aren't taking any responsibility, and most solutions provided by (((climate councils))) at the (((UN))) involve westerners giving more to these 3rd world nations in the hopes that they might reduce climate emissions, even though they probably won't because truth is, is that mostly whites care about the enviorment


TL;DR: yeah we should be precautious and take care of the enviornment but all solutions to stop global warming involve giving niggers my money

>>135851577
But that's my point: you'd think we would force R&D of Solar and Nuclear into the forefront of government grants and level an ultimatum at energy companies to start producing this type of energy.
I agree that a lot of the issue is in other countries but the US still produces more emissions per capita than any other nation on Earth.
Beyond that, you say that it would hurt the West and I would wager it would actually help us in the long term. Creating a more robust energy profile helps our independence from other nations economically, as well as providing an incredibly economic boon for future generations who would have access to cheaper energy than any prior generation.

On the topic of China and India, they may be blowing smoke but at least they'll publicly endorse the notion that climate change and green house emission are bad. What I don't get about the current direction of the White House is that they won't sign up for a purely symbolic, self-goal-setting agreement to tenatively try to reach zero emission. An agreement that Russia, a nation that lives and breaths on its natural resources including gas, agreed to.

On top of all of that, even if we did agree to help 3rd worlders, we can choose HOW we help them. We can just give them the fucking solar cells, no dosh

>>135850925

>In short: regarding climate change, why not better safe than sorry?

I don't have a problem with that at all, but like most leftist sentiments they quickly diverge from anything practical and end up something like: screw all those white producers because fuck whitey. (Whew now I feel better, guilt averted!)

Meanwhile NK is a benefactor from the Paris agreement for example so they have the possibility of receiving gibs while threatening to nuke us daily. To say nothing of China.

I compare this to the Y2K scare. Yes there was truth to Y2K date counters crashing computers, and it is also true that unscrupulous consultants bilked companies out of fortunes through FUD.

Leftists are like small children, and need guidance from the right on economic practicalities. You can't trust people that think women and men should be interchangeable blobs to handle anything based in reality like a trade agreement that impacts global finance.

>>135852738
Agreed.
One of the things I wonder about is why not make it a free market and have the government just be the customer and market for nuclear and green energy?

I mean I imagine it wouldn't be hard, they just have to stop sucking saudi and oil cock for two seconds to realize they could get funded from Nuclear Americans for re-election.

I dunno...It just seems like a problem with straightforward issues, at least for what the US can do for its own emission

>>135850925
We are effecting the planet negatively, there is no denying that. But like most issues, it is blown WAY THE FUCK out of proportion by the left SIMPLY to garner support and votes, which is why I and many others are jaded to this bullshit.
For example, yes our emissions are -effecting- the global weather. But this effect is so ridiculously tiny its almost negligible. They refuse to acknowledge how much is natural and how much is manmade because as soon as you admit there IS some human element to it they plug their fucking ears and just yell "SEE? SEE? SEE?" Zero compromise with any policies from them. Its 100% or "resistance!"

File: tktl,l8l6.png (126KB, 829x493px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 829x493px

>>135850925

>>135850925
>>135851145
>>135851574
>>135851577
>>135852292
>>135852738
>>135852960

None of you people are real. The formatting of your posts shows that you are new here. No one starts a new line at the end of a sentence. In addition your vocabulary is forced. You're using words that are too nuanced for discussions on /pol/. The way you write sounds more like something from Reddit. Why are you trying to create slide threads?

>>135853244
Yes because if every post isn't LELJEWS than its not pol yea? Also you double spaced your post yourself faggot

>>135853244
Don't know, why would we do that?
>>135853173
I agree. I get red in the face when I see what the DNC is doing to the liberal movement in this country. It feels like they're trying to domesticate voters almost.

"No no, don't worry, the oil companies are taking some symbolic steps towards green energy, its okay to take money from them!"

They refuse to put forth reasonable steps for a capitalist system...they don't actually care about saving the Earth, they just want control of the energy oligopoly for themselves.

How much does building a nuclear power plant cost anyways?

>>135851145
>>135851574
This goes back to the 60's, and 70's when the "green movement" was co-opted by commies.

>>135854222
I remember reading about it but I'm only realizing how devastating turning a perfectly reasonable survival issue into a sentimental can be.
Any hope of reverting it?