Translation: He's ass mad about the Starmer Government making fantastic progress in an energy transition that he and Trump will never be able to overturn. Get fucked.
"We've killed the energy infrastructure for the UK permanently! The whole of Britain will be powered by solar farms with cloudy skies and an a density of wind farms greater in density than the number of Pakistani child rapists in Rotherham! CRY HARDER REPUBLITURDS"
Britain must be liberated from these savages by any means available to us.
It also ignores that most of Europe is actually behind the US on green tech. But that is because Americans typically care about energy, not political correctness around energy, so we will still produce oil and gas and then find ways to make both cleaner while also investing in wind farms and solar panels.
It is why my home state of Kansas can get 40% of its power from wind turbines and not have to worry about blackouts (because the gas turbines can cover the slow days). It is also why the US is one of the only Western nations that decreased their CO2 emissions at the same time Europe was still increasing even though they virtue signal so hard about their green stances (compared to Americans screaming "Drill, baby, drill!").
America is a big diverse land, it has prime locations for basically every type of energy production and if everyone got on the same page in government we could probably make massive strides in it by investing in all of them.
But instead we do things like Dam up the Colorado River to ship it off to California to prevent them from literally dying based on some ancient agreement, and let all that hydropower go to waste.
But that is because Americans typically care about energy, not political correctness around energy, so we will still produce oil and gas and then find ways to make both cleaner while also investing in wind farms and solar panels.
France gets most of its electricity from nuclear, which is a far better source of power than these ridiculous wind and solar - of which anything more than a token number is not cost-effective. It also happens to be cleaner.
It is also why the US is one of the only Western nations that decreased their CO2 emissions at the same time Europe was still increasing even though they virtue signal so hard about their green stances (compared to Americans screaming "Drill, baby, drill!").
You wouldn't believe how many people in Europe scream about Drumpf withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. It's the one thing that people who don't dislike him dislike. While the insanity of Europeans is grossly overestimated in America, one place where it's underestimated is the whole 'climate change' thing. And I say that as someone who thinks that it's real and in significant part caused by human activity.
France gets most of its electricity from nuclear, which is a far better source of power than these ridiculous wind and solar - of which anything more than a token number is not cost-effective. It also happens to be cleaner.
True, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The UK only just now is starting to talk about nuclear after blowing it off for decades, and I dont think I need to tell you about the unhinged self own that is Germany's nuclear situation. And furthermore, the one that really yanks my chain is that they did finally start admitting they needed gas turbines to make it work, but for entirely political reasons they utterly refuse to buy American gas, to the point they still try to find ways around their own sanctions to get Russian gas to offset what Norway cant fulfill. And when Trump told them this would be a problem, they laughed at him (a moment that will forever live rent free in my head as a sign of "European Arrogance").
I guess to be fair though, the US is also behind the ball on nuclear and only recently has been making moves to increase its use (one of the few topics of bipartisanship between Biden and Trump). But we have at least made up for it with widespread adaption of gas to the point it is even replacing oil in some cases.
While the insanity of Europeans is grossly overestimated in America, one place where it's underestimated is the whole 'climate change' thing. And I say that as someone who thinks that it's real and in significant part caused by human activity.
Yeah, agreed. I have no problem admitting climate change is influenced by human behavior, and even if it isnt getting rid of pollution is a good thing. But I (and I think most Americans) have an issue with the solutions rather than the issue itself. And the Europeans and their attitude is why I have long described myself as a conservationist rather than an environmentalist, because sometimes the actually good for the environment and humanity option is to drill the oil and use it.
On a related note, I do find it funny that so many Europeans seem to treat America as some desolate hellscape compared to them, yet like I pointed out we are the one actually reducing our pollution output in comparison, and there are very few equivalents to the National Park Service or Forestry Service that the US has in Europe (both of which are some of the only universally popular parts of the US government).
The UK only just now is starting to talk about nuclear after blowing it off for decades, and I dont think I need to tell you about the unhinged self own that is Germany's nuclear situation.
Quite merciful of you.
Although you always need to keep into account that what seems like a bad decision from the POV of public interest may be very good from the self-interest of the parties involved. E.g. the German environmentalists were bribed by Gazprom to support the Nord Stream pipeline. Their argument was that given that nuclear is a no-go for them, natural gas would be needed for the transition to supposedly clean sources of energy.
for entirely political reasons they utterly refuse to buy American gas, to the point they still try to find ways around their own sanctions to get Russian gas to offset what Norway cant fulfill.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I see is Germany and the rest of Europe committing economic suicide by buying heavily marked-up American LNG, instead of cheap Russian natural gas... and that was before the imperial puppet ceased the transit of all Russian natural gas entirely.
Remember that this is a 'country' that didn't raise a peep of protest or even comment when its critical infrastructure was targeted by sabotage and terrorism by the US. They are puppets.
And when Trump told them this would be a problem, they laughed at him (a moment that will forever live rent free in my head as a sign of "European Arrogance").
Let's be real, Trump was wrong. He was trying to foist expensive American energy on Europe vs. cheap Russian energy. It's good for you. It's very bad for us. But the interests of the mercillessly exploited periphery doesn't matter much to the imperial center.
I have no problem admitting climate change is influenced by human behavior, and even if it isnt getting rid of pollution is a good thing.
And that is why I am more enthusiastic about replacing coal with natural gas than with replacing natural gas by so called 'renewables' - even if it were practical.
I do find it funny that so many Europeans seem to treat America as some desolate hellscape compared to them
When Greece was conquered by Rome, they had to pull up their noses for Rome, because otherwise they'd have nothing. All things considered, I'd rather live in Europe than in the US, but that may be because I've always lived here.
yet like I pointed out we are the one actually reducing our pollution output in comparison
They don't care. They care about symbolism. Or rather, they care about what they're told to care about, which are solely symbolic things. With immigration, they experience in their daily lives that it is a disaster, so they don't buy what they are told - contrary to what Americans here will tell you, even leftists Europeans generally aren't PC. With climate change, they don't know much, so it's easy to buy into hypes that are in the media or ambient.
They chose wrong. At a certain point, we are the hegemon, they are our cousins, and their choice was irreconcilable with human civilization. Thus, their choice must be corrected.
Not a very Libertarian thing for me to say, but when your choice demands the violation of the NAP against the defenseless, I don't think any autistic lolbert arguments are persuasive.
I don't remember the context of this conversation. I assume that, like always, you ignore everything I said and made up your own context, and are now misapplying it here.
See, child rape is bad, m'kay? I don't really care whether or not you like the English. I don't care whether you consider them Capital W White or not. I don't care if you think of them as cousins or as an intractable foe.
The mass child rape is a problem that is so extreme it is an anathema to civilization and a crime against humanity. I don't really care what post-hoc rationalization you are making to respond to institutionally supported mass child rape as a weapon of conquest with "good", but no, it's not good.
I guess I just want to reach out to whatever sliver of humanity you have left to try and convince you that no: not good.
They're constantly choosing not to act. If they want to kill themselves and let their kids get raped, we're better off without them in the gene pool. They're just pissing in it, along with the Muslims.
Britain has no value to the US. They are the dead. I would not send a valuable american life to save the cuckistanians - only to confiscate their nuclear devices to deny the inevitable islamic state nuclear weaponry.
It's not our ground to cede, the brits were our enemy for longer than they've been an "ally " (parasite) and our government would never actually win that war, only waste lives pointlessly like the last 20 years.
Destroying the jihadis is a different conversation than saving the brits, too. If we were actually going to do it, the former is good policy. The latter is a waste of time. We don't want them as a state and allowing them self governance leads to their current problems. The britfags sending agents to meddle in our elections recently also marks them as hostile.
"We've killed the energy infrastructure for the UK permanently! The whole of Britain will be powered by solar farms with cloudy skies and an a density of wind farms greater in density than the number of Pakistani child rapists in Rotherham! CRY HARDER REPUBLITURDS"
Britain must be liberated from these savages by any means available to us.
It also ignores that most of Europe is actually behind the US on green tech. But that is because Americans typically care about energy, not political correctness around energy, so we will still produce oil and gas and then find ways to make both cleaner while also investing in wind farms and solar panels.
It is why my home state of Kansas can get 40% of its power from wind turbines and not have to worry about blackouts (because the gas turbines can cover the slow days). It is also why the US is one of the only Western nations that decreased their CO2 emissions at the same time Europe was still increasing even though they virtue signal so hard about their green stances (compared to Americans screaming "Drill, baby, drill!").
I suppose being literally flatter than a pancake makes Kansas actually ideal for wind turbines.
America is a big diverse land, it has prime locations for basically every type of energy production and if everyone got on the same page in government we could probably make massive strides in it by investing in all of them.
But instead we do things like Dam up the Colorado River to ship it off to California to prevent them from literally dying based on some ancient agreement, and let all that hydropower go to waste.
We have a tradition of wind power dating back to our founding for a reason.
Which is why there is also a surprising amount of Dutch-designed mills dating back to the 1800's here.
Yup, that makes perfect sense. Wasn't it also the settlement of a large number of Germans?
Wind turbines are a net loss after running numbers on their costs and the cost of constantly firing up coal plants to cover their weak periods.
France gets most of its electricity from nuclear, which is a far better source of power than these ridiculous wind and solar - of which anything more than a token number is not cost-effective. It also happens to be cleaner.
You wouldn't believe how many people in Europe scream about Drumpf withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. It's the one thing that people who don't dislike him dislike. While the insanity of Europeans is grossly overestimated in America, one place where it's underestimated is the whole 'climate change' thing. And I say that as someone who thinks that it's real and in significant part caused by human activity.
True, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The UK only just now is starting to talk about nuclear after blowing it off for decades, and I dont think I need to tell you about the unhinged self own that is Germany's nuclear situation. And furthermore, the one that really yanks my chain is that they did finally start admitting they needed gas turbines to make it work, but for entirely political reasons they utterly refuse to buy American gas, to the point they still try to find ways around their own sanctions to get Russian gas to offset what Norway cant fulfill. And when Trump told them this would be a problem, they laughed at him (a moment that will forever live rent free in my head as a sign of "European Arrogance").
I guess to be fair though, the US is also behind the ball on nuclear and only recently has been making moves to increase its use (one of the few topics of bipartisanship between Biden and Trump). But we have at least made up for it with widespread adaption of gas to the point it is even replacing oil in some cases.
Yeah, agreed. I have no problem admitting climate change is influenced by human behavior, and even if it isnt getting rid of pollution is a good thing. But I (and I think most Americans) have an issue with the solutions rather than the issue itself. And the Europeans and their attitude is why I have long described myself as a conservationist rather than an environmentalist, because sometimes the actually good for the environment and humanity option is to drill the oil and use it.
On a related note, I do find it funny that so many Europeans seem to treat America as some desolate hellscape compared to them, yet like I pointed out we are the one actually reducing our pollution output in comparison, and there are very few equivalents to the National Park Service or Forestry Service that the US has in Europe (both of which are some of the only universally popular parts of the US government).
Quite merciful of you.
Although you always need to keep into account that what seems like a bad decision from the POV of public interest may be very good from the self-interest of the parties involved. E.g. the German environmentalists were bribed by Gazprom to support the Nord Stream pipeline. Their argument was that given that nuclear is a no-go for them, natural gas would be needed for the transition to supposedly clean sources of energy.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I see is Germany and the rest of Europe committing economic suicide by buying heavily marked-up American LNG, instead of cheap Russian natural gas... and that was before the imperial puppet ceased the transit of all Russian natural gas entirely.
Remember that this is a 'country' that didn't raise a peep of protest or even comment when its critical infrastructure was targeted by sabotage and terrorism by the US. They are puppets.
Let's be real, Trump was wrong. He was trying to foist expensive American energy on Europe vs. cheap Russian energy. It's good for you. It's very bad for us. But the interests of the mercillessly exploited periphery doesn't matter much to the imperial center.
And that is why I am more enthusiastic about replacing coal with natural gas than with replacing natural gas by so called 'renewables' - even if it were practical.
When Greece was conquered by Rome, they had to pull up their noses for Rome, because otherwise they'd have nothing. All things considered, I'd rather live in Europe than in the US, but that may be because I've always lived here.
They don't care. They care about symbolism. Or rather, they care about what they're told to care about, which are solely symbolic things. With immigration, they experience in their daily lives that it is a disaster, so they don't buy what they are told - contrary to what Americans here will tell you, even leftists Europeans generally aren't PC. With climate change, they don't know much, so it's easy to buy into hypes that are in the media or ambient.
That last sentence makes you sound gay.
Well, substantiate it.
They can do it themselves or die out. And they're choosing the latter.
We're only about 10% of the world's population, and shrinking. The time is coming where we stand together or let ourselves continue to go extinct.
Letting retards live is how we got to this point.
Decadence is how we got to this point. And you're not far behind, unfortunately.
They chose wrong. At a certain point, we are the hegemon, they are our cousins, and their choice was irreconcilable with human civilization. Thus, their choice must be corrected.
Not a very Libertarian thing for me to say, but when your choice demands the violation of the NAP against the defenseless, I don't think any autistic lolbert arguments are persuasive.
I’ve been told this doesn’t matter.
By you.
I don't remember the context of this conversation. I assume that, like always, you ignore everything I said and made up your own context, and are now misapplying it here.
See, child rape is bad, m'kay? I don't really care whether or not you like the English. I don't care whether you consider them Capital W White or not. I don't care if you think of them as cousins or as an intractable foe.
The mass child rape is a problem that is so extreme it is an anathema to civilization and a crime against humanity. I don't really care what post-hoc rationalization you are making to respond to institutionally supported mass child rape as a weapon of conquest with "good", but no, it's not good.
I guess I just want to reach out to whatever sliver of humanity you have left to try and convince you that no: not good.
They're constantly choosing not to act. If they want to kill themselves and let their kids get raped, we're better off without them in the gene pool. They're just pissing in it, along with the Muslims.
Stop trying to fracture us even more. If you hate a member of the European races just say so.
This was never an issue until 1997. The English are occupied by people that hate them. That's not a good enough reason not to try and help.
Why would Elon Musk, the Solar Home and electric car guy, give a shit about Europoors energy?
Eurofags really do live in another reality.
Freezing and starving in the dark while migrants rape your children. This is the future the British Empire died for.
Britain has no value to the US. They are the dead. I would not send a valuable american life to save the cuckistanians - only to confiscate their nuclear devices to deny the inevitable islamic state nuclear weaponry.
I reject this out-right, and I will not cede ground to the Mohammedians, when we didn't cede Spain either (and that took 400 years).
What? No.
I'm talking about the West generally.
You're a race communist. I don't even consider you part of the West.
It's not our ground to cede, the brits were our enemy for longer than they've been an "ally " (parasite) and our government would never actually win that war, only waste lives pointlessly like the last 20 years.
Destroying the jihadis is a different conversation than saving the brits, too. If we were actually going to do it, the former is good policy. The latter is a waste of time. We don't want them as a state and allowing them self governance leads to their current problems. The britfags sending agents to meddle in our elections recently also marks them as hostile.
Britain was only an "enemy" for a few decades. The Special Relationship has been going on for 130 years or so.
I don't think there is a difference between destroying Jihadism and saving Britain.
And yes, the Labour Party is the enemy, obviously. But not all random British people.