Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

As much as I am a believer in Climate change I question things like electric cars were a majority of the components are assembled in China

So we mine our coal and Ship it by rail to ports in Vancouver as no one on the west coast allows coal through their ports. That coal is than barged to China to power what is projected a new power plant every few weeks. Those power plants power the assembly and production of the components for cars and solar panels. The minerals required for those are sourced from South America and African were environmental standards do not exist. As well in Africa many of the minerals are mined by slaves or children that work 16 hour days under the worst condition.

Add in electric cars require as well a 240 volt charger and weigh 2-3 times as much as a gasoline driven vehicle which wreck our roads twice as fast and when these vehicles get in accidents the claims are astronomical.

I get the place of electric cars for some but they are not the answer

It's a sham, it's all about control and enslaving. Anyone with a logical mind can see the whole electric car plan doesn't make any sense. Cars have emissions controls on them already, and there are oceans of oil even below the United States (but they wanted us to believe oil came from dead dinosaurs and it's running out as a way of financially enslaving us).

Yes there is climate change 100% but the question is is it cyclical or is it caused by cows farting and a carbon footprint where we have to drastically change our lives. The other planets in our solar system are also going through global warming, should we tells those aliens living in mercury or venus to switch to electric cars too then?

It isnt about controlling and enslaving, its about making money. You had businesses that spent money curtailing climate and health issues for revenue the same way you have businesses now spending money to promote health and climate issues for revenue.

If new tech benefits with a shift in public opinion towards a more suatainable way of life, then thats what we will get.

Unfortunately, it's not. They already have all the money in the world.

But it's mostly the same people owning both, you realize that yes? with index funds and centralized management of them, it's literally the same people having a financial interest in A and anti-A.

Blackrock funds include both green stuff and fossil fuel industries, banally.

It's a lot easier to plug and play the entire grid into cleaner centralized generation sources than to replace millions of smaller energy generators.

At any rate, the larger carbon emitting generators are far more cleaner and more efficient than what we have at home.

but in normal (ie continental European) countries you have condos not single houses, with gas boilers heating up 30+ flats.

and you dissipate energy with transportation, not sure that part is obvious to everyone, distance is a waste if you send electricity.

and you dissipate going from heat to electricity, instead of directly heating the water that will heat the apartment.

from NASA - see link - quote

"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change"

.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/...

.

this is the kind of stuff we should focus on when trying to "decarbonize", but given a success in these areas would imply we can decarbonize thanks to capitalism and without changing our lifestyle at all, it's very much hated by a lot of the people who claim climate change is the biggest threat ever

https://newatlas.com/materials/concrete-...

When the only acceptable solutions to a described problem are "more socialism", you know the problem is 1) being exaggerated (in the scope of the actions required to fix it, and in it's dangerousness) 2) the existence of people telling you that is the actual real societal problem

More good news for people who want to keep the problem in check without changing how we enjoy life on this planet

Since the mid 19th century it's estimated humans have put a total of 2,400 gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, much of which has been absorbed by oceans and the land, but still leaving about 950 gigatons in the air, to which we currently add over 40 gigatons each year.

So, lol.

we can build mini nuclear reactors coupled with carbon capturing facilities, let's build 500 per year , how many years will it take to completely offset emissions without doing anything else, living completely normally? 5? 10? notice this will cost a small fraction of what the socialist green transition already is costing.

we can do that with less than a trillion per year worldwide and no one has to change absolutely anything in his lifestyle

FWIW if your stuck building hundreds and hundreds of nuclear reactors, costing billions each , mind as well continue on the road we already on …..without the risk of nuclear accident and nuclear waste management problems as a freeroll .

Well I didn't read your article because you didn't post a link to it so idk about the mini nuclear reactors sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Sounds great though!

All I know is if we wanted to roll out the capture plants you posted we'd have to build ~400 million of them to remove in one year all the CO2 humans have added, so to do it over 20 years that would be about 20 million plus factor in the length of time it takes to build all those plants. lol.

mini nuclear reactors aren't in the article because it's a different topic (which the Biden admin is pushing a bit under the radar btw) . that's about how you feed the capturing energy need. they started in Iceland because of "almost free energy" (cheap geothermal).

that installation captures little quantities compared to global emissions, true, but we are at the stage, to compare, we were in solar like in 2007.

we can certainly do far better every year and go at scale, if we push it.

Actual picture of these things

Guns n Roses about to come on

Already planned improvement will be to make building bricks/cement with that, and ofc that would matter more when we can have carbon capturing facilities in the mainland (mini- nuclear or other sources are needed).

But icelandic proof of concept matters a lot anyway

it's always violent metaphors for the left. "war in nature".

anyway this is the way to go: vote leftists out, dismantle green insanities, reduce the role of the state

.
hundreds of thousands of people have been forced from their homes in Brazil due to flooding and many won't return

from the article:

"For years scientists have warned that climate change would displace millions of people reordering the world's human presence as people searched for safety.

The World Bank has estimated that more than 216 million people could be driven from their homes by sea level rise, flooding, desertification and other effects of warming temperatures.

The Institute for Economics and Peace said the figure could reach 1.2 billion people.

A future characterized by "climate refugees" The European Parliament reported, was coming"

https://archive.ph/uNvV6

.

They'll find new homes inland, with crickets and blackjack and hookers. Good times will be had by all.

Do u believe climate change has any effects on the intensity and the frequency of those « atmospheric events » ?

I believe it might have changed some patterns including reducing intensity and frequency of catastrophic events in some areas and I believe the completely bad faithed attempts to blame any flood to climate change are horrific attempts to install global socialism

Which changes do you believe climate change is responsible for?

I think we have enough data to claim that the fog in northern Italy dramatically decreased thanks to climate change.

I think we have enough data to claim the world on average is 1.1/1.2 Celsius warmer than the 1850-1900 average and reasonable science to claim a significant portion of that increase is caused by human activity.

I think we have enough data to claim such warming increased the intensity and frequency of heat waves in many places and dramatically decreased the intensity and frequency of cold spells in many places.

I think we can be almost certain southern england, Germany and northern France are making more and better wine thanks to climate change.

I think we have strong elements to think cocoa and orange production worldwide is lower because of climate change.

I think for some areas of the world we can confidently claim climate change caused by the warming is negative for human quality of life. Bangladesh in particular comes to mind, but some areas of subsaharian Africa do as well.

I think for some areas of the world we can confidently claim climate change caused by warming is positive for human quality of life. Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and Germany come to mind, but mountainous areas in most of Europe and norther USA do as well.

List is much longer than this about the claims we can make with decent data and science backing them, a lot of moderate negatives, a lot of positives, very much positive on net for the western world, unclear probably negative for the rest of humanity