You wonder why climate science is treated as a joke. We knew this ecological push was pure political and profit driven when the largest provider of cheap, stable energy (nuclear) was regulated into the ground while solar is laughable due to cost, decreasing returns every year, and high toxicity. Wind is just as much a joke while also adding in massive ecological destruction of bugs, birds, and bats. Odd that the most stable green energies (nuclear, hydroelectric) are swept under the rug while instable energies reliant on chaotic weather patterns (which they claim will only get worse) are funded in the trillions of dollars.
Wind is just as much a joke while also adding in massive ecological destruction of bugs, birds, and bats.
You also need ridiculous amounts of open land to run them. Which means less agriculture or deforestation.
Another "fun" aspect of wind energy is that turbines are REALLY expensive to dismantle once they've reached the end of their lifespan. So they're just left to rot until the public has to pay for their disposal.
AFAIK in Germany the biggest opponents of wind energy are nature conservation organizations.
I'm starting to think that the aim is that whatever method you prefer to generate power, there is an ecological argument against it: the only true solution - return to a pre-Industrial way of life and just accept a 34% infant mortality rate as the cost of doing business.
In the video, the cultist 'professor' says that "we need" the same amount of carbon reduction we saw during the coronavirus pandemic for ten years straight and perhaps afterwards as well. So this means that after the coronavirus completely disrupted our lives, not only should our lives never go back to normal, "we need" at least ten disruptions of equal or greater size.
Well, they've already been laying the groundwork for "climate lockdowns" - it's just as fatal as Covid, you see (though they may actually be right about that one, ironically, though I'm sure they didn't intend to be) - so they'll be following Schwab's preferred solution of what appears to be eternal economic depression until mankind, and it's adverse impacts, is eliminated.
With all this I'm increasingly reminded of a book I read as a kid, where it was mentioned in passing that only the rich could afford the gasoline recycled from old plastic needed to go on actual vacations, rather than virtual ones. I'm pretty sure it was implied that was just a lie to restrict travel.
If these Watermelons want to end our reliance on Oil, Coal and Gas but won’t entertain Nuclear, ask them who from Solar and Wind is paying their salary.
Exactly, globalism promotes disposability and replacement purchases over longevity and repairs. There's a reason why the saying "they don't make em like they used to" isn't just a saying any more. My grandparents are still using their pans and furniture from the 50s, meanwhile I'm on my fifth set of "environmentally friendly" non toxic Teflon pans and clothing that fall apart at a light breeze.
Every leftist organization stands for the exact same thing as every other leftist organization, because they all get hijacked by the intersectional heist.
Don't you think it's odd that every movement leads back to feminism? (BLM, environmentalism,
I think there's a law for it, that as time passes the chance that a progressive organization gets taken over by feminists who use it as a vehicle to talk about their vagina approaches 1.
LGBT "community")
Don't you usually argue that transgenderism is opposed to feminism?
Intersectionality would mean shared goals, not pretending to care about something so you can backdoor female supremacy.
ROFL. You think 'intersectionality' is carried out in good faith. Their shared goal is subservience to the person highest on the Oppwession stack.
Not exactly. I argue that it's a way to destroy female privileges by destroying what "female" means.
But you just claimed that that the BLTGP+ movement is hijacked by feminists. Since the movement is now only about supposed women with penises, that belief contracts your claim that it's a way to destroy female privileges.
You wonder why climate science is treated as a joke. We knew this ecological push was pure political and profit driven when the largest provider of cheap, stable energy (nuclear) was regulated into the ground while solar is laughable due to cost, decreasing returns every year, and high toxicity. Wind is just as much a joke while also adding in massive ecological destruction of bugs, birds, and bats. Odd that the most stable green energies (nuclear, hydroelectric) are swept under the rug while instable energies reliant on chaotic weather patterns (which they claim will only get worse) are funded in the trillions of dollars.
You also need ridiculous amounts of open land to run them. Which means less agriculture or deforestation.
Another "fun" aspect of wind energy is that turbines are REALLY expensive to dismantle once they've reached the end of their lifespan. So they're just left to rot until the public has to pay for their disposal.
AFAIK in Germany the biggest opponents of wind energy are nature conservation organizations.
I'm starting to think that the aim is that whatever method you prefer to generate power, there is an ecological argument against it: the only true solution - return to a pre-Industrial way of life and just accept a 34% infant mortality rate as the cost of doing business.
Dead babies are just an added bonus. Saves money on abortions.
Fearmongering from the elites to push for what ever new policies they want. I wonder what liberties they want to take away from us next.
In the video, the cultist 'professor' says that "we need" the same amount of carbon reduction we saw during the coronavirus pandemic for ten years straight and perhaps afterwards as well. So this means that after the coronavirus completely disrupted our lives, not only should our lives never go back to normal, "we need" at least ten disruptions of equal or greater size.
It's insane.
Well, they've already been laying the groundwork for "climate lockdowns" - it's just as fatal as Covid, you see (though they may actually be right about that one, ironically, though I'm sure they didn't intend to be) - so they'll be following Schwab's preferred solution of what appears to be eternal economic depression until mankind, and it's adverse impacts, is eliminated.
With all this I'm increasingly reminded of a book I read as a kid, where it was mentioned in passing that only the rich could afford the gasoline recycled from old plastic needed to go on actual vacations, rather than virtual ones. I'm pretty sure it was implied that was just a lie to restrict travel.
Lets be honest, 10 years will not be enough.
If these Watermelons want to end our reliance on Oil, Coal and Gas but won’t entertain Nuclear, ask them who from Solar and Wind is paying their salary.
Note the biased green cultist they brought on. "We are addicted" to fossil fuels. And: "we NEED zero oil, coal and gas". Get screwed, totalitarian.
Anytime someone says "we need", it means "I want".
Exactly, globalism promotes disposability and replacement purchases over longevity and repairs. There's a reason why the saying "they don't make em like they used to" isn't just a saying any more. My grandparents are still using their pans and furniture from the 50s, meanwhile I'm on my fifth set of "environmentally friendly" non toxic Teflon pans and clothing that fall apart at a light breeze.
why does england need to tighten their belts and not china?
Not only china, India and most of africa too
7-8 billion on the planet, something around half of that in and around India and China. But let's shout at 400 odd million in the West instead.
Yes indeed, and while we're about it let's listen to some snot nosed bint admonish us because reasons
Every leftist organization stands for the exact same thing as every other leftist organization, because they all get hijacked by the intersectional heist.
I think there's a law for it, that as time passes the chance that a progressive organization gets taken over by feminists who use it as a vehicle to talk about their vagina approaches 1.
Don't you usually argue that transgenderism is opposed to feminism?
ROFL. You think 'intersectionality' is carried out in good faith. Their shared goal is subservience to the person highest on the Oppwession stack.
But you just claimed that that the BLTGP+ movement is hijacked by feminists. Since the movement is now only about supposed women with penises, that belief contracts your claim that it's a way to destroy female privileges.
Like what?