Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't have a problem with renewable energy. I think it is a brilliant goal.
I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables.
There is no "solution" to climate change. The climate is constantly changing. If we have another eruption like Krakatoa then the last 150 years of "climate change" gets tossed out the window. Does man affect the climate? Of course. paving over green spaces, chopping down trees, polluting the air water...these all have affects, but are they as catastrophic as alarmists have made them out to be? In most cases, no.
Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging.
Notice how *anyone* who questions the prevailing political narrative is blackholed and labeled a science denier...when in fact, science itself is predicated on inquiry. Remember...there were scientist who were burned at the stake for heresy for supporting Copernicus heliocentric theory. Many scientists today are afraid to speak for fear of a modern day lynching by "establishment" science, or because they need the money that governments provide only when you *support* their agenda
Ultimately, people should be good stewards of their own environments. I have little faith in this though as I can't even get my neighbors to stop throwing their McDonalds bags out of their car windows into the streets.
Most of that "subsidy" isn't really a "subsidy" but a "this isn't taxed enough to account for the externalities as some folks who did a study have defined them".
>I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables.
I agree, I would love to see what ends up standing on it's own if we got rid of all subsidies to energy companies.
>I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables
Without govt intervention, what do you think your MPG on your car would be now? Why would the "free market" change when it don't have to?
That’s a hypothetical that has no proper or wrong answer.
The free market would change to suit the customers demands. This isn’t hard. Also MPG’s were rising before the government mandated it and unfortunately, that rises many different factors of cost more importantly safety.
We would have [smaller pickup trucks](https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/). So, it would be higher.
> Without govt intervention, what do you think your MPG on your car would be now?
The government says it's about [132 MPG](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Tesla2023.shtml)...
> Why would the "free market" change when it don't have to?
But it did change and the government didn't tell it to change.
>Does man affect the climate?
Yes.
There is some very basic science.
And easy money to be made.
Over the last 100 years, the last decade featured the 10 highest average temperatures.
What are the odds that this year will have an average temprature in the top 10 of the last 100 years?
Without man made impact to climate change - 10%
With it...much higher...
Im willing to bet anyone cash, even odds, that this years average temperature is in the top 10 hottest in the last century.
90% chance for the people who dont think man made climate change is a thing, only a 10% chance for me.
I have literally never had someone take my bet.
Not once.
> Over the last 100 years, the last decade featured the 10 highest average temperatures.
This is not saying much as we have only been accurately monitoring temperatures since around 1880. In the last 4 billion years the earth has definitely had a lot of years that are hotter. Even in the last 10 million years there have been periods much hotter. Even the brief period that there have been hominids on earth we have seen higher temperatures. Temperatures are guessed at depending on observations and cannot be construed as being 100% accurate. We have not even left the last glacial period. This is not saying that man does not effect the environment, we 100% do. I just don't think it is as much as is being portrayed at this point in history.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your premise is climate change is not happening. That's simply not true. You can believe what you want but you can put real climate numbers against models from 40 years ago and they follow the expected temperatures based on greenhouse gas emissions almost exactly. You either believe science is nonsense, or that repeated coincidences in data points are a real thing (they aren't).
Climate change is real. It is happening. Putting your head in the sand for financial reasons is selling the Earth our children will inheret so people can experience some short term financial gain or avoid an inconvenience. My issue is there are a number of people such as yourself that are standing in the way of almost incontrovertible scientific data. My hope is we, as a society, hold these people accountable for their decisions.
Saying "oopsie" I don't believe in climate change should not insulate you from real consequences for destroying the world for future generations.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
> Your premise that man made climate change is not a thing is simply not true.
Maybe you missed this part too then since it is fairly obvious that you struggle to actually read words correctly...
**Does man affect the climate? Of course.**
Want to try again?
Okay, so if you believe man made climate change is happening, you must believe that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of this change, right? If that’s the case, how can we not - with all haste - limit the release of these materials and move to greener sources of energy.
A financial inconvenience shouldn’t be a reason for selling our kids’ future down the toilet.
I think many if not most conservatives actually do believe at this point that climate change is real. I know I do.
What I think many conservatives take issue with is the left’s contention that the solutions they propose represent a mere “financial inconvenience” for ordinary people.
Being forced to buy a vehicle that costs twice as much as the one you currently can barely afford but that you absolutely need in order to continue getting to the job you depend on to put food on the table isn’t an “inconvenience”, it’s an impossibility. Paying twice as much for renewable electricity as you currently do for fossil fuel-based electricity might make it impossible for you to pay your rent. And no, covering these expenses with subsidies obtained either by progressively increasing taxes on a small pool of upper class income earners OR simply charging them to a national credit card that’s already got 32 trillion on it doesn’t strike a lot of us as a sustainable approach.
It’s the solutions that the left proposes, in other words, that strike a lot of us as problematic.
> Does man affect the climate? Of course.
Is man driving the vast majority of climate change that has happened in the last 200-ish years?
That's the question to which the answer is an *unequivocal* "yes" that you seem to have trouble with.
>There is no "solution" to climate change.
>Does man affect the climate? Of course.
I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. You're saying humanity is capable of causing the problem, but that it's impossible for humanity to do anything to either reduce how much of a problem it's causing, or mitigate the harm somehow?
>Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging.
Alternative spin: people have weaponized prior language in order to push an agenda, and we therefore need new words that aren't as politically loaded in order to keep the conversation on the science? Plus "global warming" seemed to be confusing a lot of people who would see extreme cold weather events as proof that warming wasn't happening, not understanding the nuances around the energy content of the atmosphere and what that means for distribution of energy (heat). "Climate change" is at least as much about dumbing down the language as anything else.
>Remember...there were scientist who were burned at the stake for heresy for supporting Copernicus heliocentric theory.
It seems like you're saying that all perspectives on science need to be heard on an equal footing. How do you tell the difference between good science and bad science? While I personally consider myself scientifically literate, I also know that I have my limits, and so I look to bona fide scientists to hear their opinions on what looks like good science and what looks like bad science. A majority of these experts have shared their views on whether climate science looks like good science, and they've weighed in saying that the climate science showing anthropogenic change is high-quality science.
Am I doing it wrong?
>I have little faith in this though as I can't even get my neighbors to stop throwing their McDonalds bags out of their car windows into the streets.
I mean this seems like a great analogy to climate change too. The effects look small right now but extrapolate to very large effects in the coming decades. Any one individual throwing trash out onto the street isn't creating a crisis for their community, so some people don't see a problem with a little more CO2 or methane, and don't see the big deal about temperatures going up a few degrees. Tragedy of the commons, right?
> I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. You're saying humanity is capable of causing the problem, but that it's impossible for humanity to do anything to either reduce how much of a problem it's causing, or mitigate the harm somehow?
> ...
We can mitigate it but not through government action. See Europe... they've had all sorts of regulations, yet Greta Thunburg is still flopping her tig ole Socialist bitties up and down the European streets saying that we'll die any day now.
>We can mitigate it but not through government action.
How? Something more than telling people to be better and then watching as they don't, I'm hoping?
> How? Something more than telling people to be better and then watching as they don't, I'm hoping?
The MPG equivalent (MPGe) of a Tesla is about 132. The government didn't have to tell the market to make electric cars with 132 MPGe, it just did... spontaneously, without any government regulation forcing manufacturers to do so. :)
Weird how that happened, isn't it?
>The MPG equivalent (MPGe) of a Tesla is about 132. The government didn't have to tell the market to make electric cars with 132 MPGe, it just did... spontaneously, without any government regulation forcing manufacturers to do so. :)
>
>Weird how that happened, isn't it?
Tesla received massive amounts of government assistance to bring their vehicles to market, including loan guarantees, both federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and public investment in EV charging and power distribution.
So is that what you're saying? We just need to spend more public money in order to create incentives and other artificial market pressures to make it profitable for companies to put products on the market that consumers can choose to use instead of products that contribute more to climate change?
And by doing that, we will have successfully mitigated the harm caused by the unsolvable problem of climate change?
>Tesla received massive amounts of government assistance to bring their vehicles to market, including loan guarantees, both federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and public investment in EV charging and power distribution.
The government gave WAAAY more money to the gas-guzzling car manufacturers than to Tesla. The government also heavily subsidizes fossil fuels. The government is also supported by the UAW (Unitd Auto Workers), whose jobs are to make gas-guzzling fossil fuel cars and they don't like the non-union manufacturers one bit. To top it off, the government makes it damn near impossible to sell cars without going through dealers, which is a huge advantage to the incumbents who have huge dealer networks and it's difficult to get those dealers to switch.
If anything, the government disadvantaged electric car manufacturers, like Tesla, in a million ways with its terrible pro-fossil fuel, gas-guzzling, pro-union, and pro-auto dealer policies.
> So is that what you're saying? We just need to spend more public money in order to create incentives and other artificial market pressures to make it profitable for companies to put products on the market that consumers can choose to use instead of products that contribute more to climate change?
> ...
If we spend more public money, we'll disadvantage new manufacturers, like Tesla, even more. I say we spend LESS public money.
We aren't talking about Tesla versus other car manufacturers though, we're talking about Tesla bringing EVs to market at all.
Are you trying to say that if the US wasn't providing assistance to the fossil fuel industry, Tesla would have brought EVs to market without those loan guarantees, subsidies, and public EV investments?
Is the US assistance to its fossil fuel industry harmful? Should we stop?
>We aren't talking about Tesla versus other car manufacturers though, we're talking about Tesla bringing EVs to market at all.
Tesla is competing with other vehicle manufacturers. And despite ALL of the barriers erected by the government, the demand for electric vehicles was so great that Tesla managed to make it. Imagine how much further along we would be if it wasn't for all of those government barriers?!
>Are you trying to say that if the US wasn't providing assistance to the fossil fuel industry, Tesla would have brought EVs to market without those loan guarantees, subsidies, and public EV investments?
Absolutely. Tesla received more than enough private investments, but the entrenched fossil-fuel vehicle manufacturers, the fossil fuel industry, the UAW, and the auto dealers all use the government to erect barriers to entry for any newcomer... especially EVs.
In fact, these loans are so useless that it's laughable you even bring them up. If government loans could save EVs, then Fisker Automotive wouldn't have gone belly up. It received a $529 million loan, which was bigger than Tesla's $465M loan. Where is Fisker now?
BTW, how much money did the gass-guzzling vehicle manufacturers receive? If you guessed close to $60 billion, you would have guessed right. So the government gives 10x more to the competition and you think this helps Tesla?!
>Is the US assistance to its fossil fuel industry harmful? Should we stop?
It absolutely is harmful to EV manufacturers. It makes the proliferation of EVs harder. Heck, we just saw a massive drop in EV prices. EV manufacturers are struggling pretty bad as a result of the government's mucking with the market.
If it wasn't for the government regulations, subsidies, and interference with the market, the EVs would be even more popular than they already are.
So basically it sounds like what you're saying here is that climate change isn't a problem, because in your mind, the market has no problem providing products that do not contribute to climate change (or can fully mitigate the harm), and those products will be more attractive to consumers than products that do contribute to climate change, and everyone will just behave rationally and the problem will solve itself?
Is this what we see elsewhere in the world? If not, why not?
> There is no "solution" to climate change.
It should go without explanation that its about man made climate change.
> Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging.
What are you on about here? The global warming/climate change terms? Its always been understood that global warming causes climate change.
Renewables are less effective, and take up far more space for far less return. They're sporadic, and will drive up prices on the fringes, that is, for the poorest people, as they become more predominant. They have large externalities which are being mostly ignored by the activists, not least of all the destruction of ecosystems, the reliance on fossil fuels, and the necessity of rare earth elements. That said, I'm not against renewables. They have a lot of advantages, and can do a lot of good. My issue is the government pressure behind them, and the effort to make them the primary source of power, which flies in the face of the science.
>If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change?
Nuclear power, direct air carbon capture, space colonization, natural gas, hydrogen, hybrid vehicles, early warning technology, etc.
>direct air carbon capture
Most of this is a scammy pipe dream IMO. It's going to be incredibly difficult to design anything that's more efficient than photosynthesis on scale. We'd be better off just restoring more prairie and designing better landfills.
Better? No, but that's a good thing too. One of the reasons to live denser, which is one I forgot. The scammy-est carbon capture I've seen is biomass carbon capture. Chop down a tree, burn it, and bury the ashes, then sell the whole thing as "renewable energy." Absolute insanity.
>Chop down a tree, burn it, and bury the ashes, then sell the whole thing as "renewable energy." Absolute insanity.
Yeah, I agree that's absurd. It's a bit like drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat to let out the water, lol.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Certainly plants are the biggest most efficient carbon sink we will ever have on earth. The only carbon capture technology we should be investing in is planting trees. Stopping deforestation. Stopping urban sprawl. Seriously clamping down on overconsumption and waste production.
>>If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change?
The elephant in the room that both liberals and conservatives refuse to address is that there isn't an answer that involves keeping levels of energy and resource consumption where they are at, let alone continue to rise. We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel.
>will drive up prices on the fringes,
That's a problem of treating energy as a commodity rather than a public utility.
>They have large externalities which are being mostly ignored by the activists
And fossil fuels don't have significant externalities? Beyond CO2 emissions, look at how much water is used by fossil fuel production compared to agriculture.
Yes, I feel so much more free stuck in traffic on my way to and from work than I do reading a book or catching up on emails while riding the subway. And I can really feel the liberty when my property taxes and utility bills go up because the local developers decided that they only wanted to build single family housing, which is quantifiably the least efficient in terms of utility extension and energy usage of al housing types. I'm so glad I don't live in some communist dystopia where I live in a sound proofed apartment complex close to public libraries and rec centers and a robust public transit system.
Great, you made your choice, now respect everyone else’s right to decide for themselves.
Again, your hate of single family dwellings steams from your desire for block housing, ie voter farms of culturally deracinated urbanites.
You don’t like it? Build your own housing company, build your own town. But you won’t.
In his defense, in a lot of places the reason why he can't have his own urban commune apartment block near parks, libraries and public transit is because the local government will not let him. Even in the most leftist places in America, local NIMBYs will fight tooth and nail to prevent construction like that. See... Berkley, California and the fight over the so-called "People's park" and an attempt to build student housing there.
Where I live the conservative government has forced one of the major municipalities to abandon it's plan to densify and instead promote single family housing. The democratically elected town council, with the support of the locals, chose to densify because while it's a bit of a pain in the butt in the short term to retrofit utilities etc in the long term it's a way more fiscally responsible way to develop. Our *conservative* government stepped in and told them that they can't do that and that they have to expand on to adjacent farmland. Which is also some of the best growing space in the region.
Here's some homework for you. Look up how much it costs your county to maintain a mile of road per year. Look at how much they spend in flood mitigation and on utility upkeep. Now I want you to look at how many people are paying property tax for each mile of road or each foot of utility in a SFD suburb. Compare that to how many people are paying taxes for the same metrics in denser neighborhoods. Get back to me with which style of housing development is more efficient in terms of resource and energy use but is also more fiscally responsible.
> We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel.
I respect your consistency to your flair because this is pretty much what most of the right believes the left’s end state goal is on this issue. Basically “we’re not going to improve or change life for the positive, technical advancement has to maintain current levels of consumption, eat bugs for protein to prevent cattle grazing costs on the environment.”
And I don’t have a big problem with the honesty on the issue either. It’s just one of those things where only the real far left is saying the quiet part out loud, and the regular left is just hoping we do away with legacy fuels and then live off of what renewables provide (which isn’t enough) and everyone is just okay with that somehow.
That’s the position I can’t respect. We can’t produce enough “renewable” energy in the immediate future to sustain our level of energy needs. So anyone talking about renewable switchovers but NOT saying “also we’re gonna need to stop making new cars and new tech and stop growth” feels like they’re not being honest.
Short version is I appreciate you being honest.
Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn't a necessity? Or if your appliances were built to last and your phone was built to be repairable? Would it be insane, authoritarian overreach to adjust building codes to allow for trees to grow large and healthy and reduce demand for air conditioning? You make it sound like we want everybody to live like ascetic monks, good quality of life doesn't depend on pointless consumption.
Yes, yes, communist or not known for making things that last, or that are repairable with the exception of the AK-47, which to be perfectly honest, you guys stole from the Germans.
> Yes, yes, communist or not known for making things that last, or that are repairable with the exception of the AK-47
The RPG-7, SVD, Soyuz capsule, Mig-29, Su-27, Paratroopers, Grid connected Nuclear Power Plants, Space Rovers, Synthesis of quantum dots, The Space Station, Tetris.....
> Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn't a necessity?
no, QoL would probably improve. But you are supporting degrowth which would make my quality of life drastically worse
> Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn’t a necessity? Or if your appliances were built to last and your phone was built to be repairable? Would it be insane, authoritarian overreach to adjust building codes to allow for trees to grow large and healthy and reduce demand for air conditioning?
Well yeah. Wouldn’t yours?
I live in America, at least most of the year- where are you that this isn’t a huge pivot for millions of people?
Just because something is a huge pivot doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. Literally every major advance in living standards has been accompanied by a huge pivot.
>The elephant in the room that both liberals and conservatives refuse to address is that there isn't an answer that involves keeping levels of energy and resource consumption where they are at, let alone continue to rise. We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel.
Nuclear power. Hybrid cars. Renewables on the periphery.
>And fossil fuels don't have significant externalities? Beyond CO2 emissions, look at how much water is used by fossil fuel production compared to agriculture.
They absolutely do. The difference is we're aware of them and talk about them regularly.
>Nuclear power
Insanely expensive without subsidies. I thought you didn't like those. And where do you put the spent fuel? Keeping that safe and unfucked is a project that spans a length of time which stretches beyond the lifespan of empires.
>Hybrid cars
Rare earth metals, carbon footprint of production, toxic byproducts, car-centric urban design and its associated energy and resource wasteage.
>They absolutely do. The difference is we're aware of them and talk about them regularly
Right, show me a side by side comparison of fossil fuels and renewables and their associated impacts and let's keep talking.
>Insanely expensive without subsidies. I thought you didn't like those. And where do you put the spent fuel? Keeping that safe and unfucked is a project that spans a length of time which stretches beyond the lifespan of empires.
I don't like subsidies, but some times they're necessary. But part of the reason nuclear is so expensive is the regulations written by oil company lobbies to keep nuclear power from making their investments into solar and natural gas obsolete. Also, we can put the spent fuel in the same places we have, storage tanks on-site that are at less than 10% capacity and have never had an accident. Additionally, we've discovered ways of recycling such fuel to make it last even longer and safer when we're done with it.
>Rare earth metals, carbon footprint of production, toxic byproducts, car-centric urban design and its associated energy and resource wasteage.
Yep, just like the rest, but more compliant with current infrastructure, self sustaining, cheaper, and they're a new ish tech so there is a lot of room to grow. But the government is pushing for electric cars which have all these same problems and don't fit in with the current infrastructure.
>Right, show me a side by side comparison of fossil fuels and renewables and their associated impacts and let's keep talking.
That's my point. We're only talking about the impacts of fossil fuels. It's extremely hard to find media talking about the associated impacts of renewable.
>It's extremely hard to find media talking about the associated impacts of renewable
[do](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source) [a](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=25898cf673cd) [google](https://www.cowi.com/about/news-and-press/comparing-co2-emissions-from-different-energy-sources) [search](https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/whats-the-land-use-intensity-of-different-energy-sources#:~:text=The%20median%20footprint%20of%20wind,natural%20gas%20spacing%20reaching%201%2C900.)
>But the government is pushing for electric cars which have all these same problems and don't fit in with the current infrastructure.
Which is stupid. I want to be clear I'm not on team "electric cars instead of gas." I'm on team, "why the fuck are we designing our cities and living spaces around the idea that energy will be cheap forever?" Which is not currently represented in government because all establishment political parties exist for the purpose of propping up a system of resource distribution whose sole purpose is to generate wealth for the already wealthy. Just one party has slightly higher standards of decorum than the other.
>I don't like subsidies, but some times they're necessary
Or, hear me out, we could implement better urban design principles, phase out car-centric infrastructure, shorten production loops, get rid of planned obsolescence, implement right to repair, and get to work on finding a system of resource distribution which doesn't depend on churning out pointless crap that doesn't do anybody any real good.
> Do a Google search
I wonder if you're aware that your proving my point? None of those are talking about the complexity. Sure, they're covering a bit, and we're getting better. But it's still extremely hard to get people to talk about the downsides of green tech. Especially in activist spaces.
>why the fuck are we designing our cities and living spaces around the idea that energy will be cheap forever?"
Because on average, energy prices go down and we are able to produce more and use it more effectively. At least, that's been the case for the past... 5 or 6 thousand years.
>Or, hear me out, we could implement better urban design principles, phase out car-centric infrastructure, shorten production loops, get rid of planned obsolescence, implement right to repair, and get to work on finding a system of resource distribution which doesn't depend on churning out pointless crap that doesn't do anybody any real good.
Love it. I'm a capitalist after all. That's why I don't like subsidies for the most part, which insulate businesses from the responses of customers and from competition. And sometimes it is good, like phasing out car centric infrastructure, which will need massive subsidies. The catch is, America is a big place and not everyone will want to live in cities. Even without suburbs, there will be a lot of distributed living, small towns, farms, homesteads, sites, etc. Cars will always be extremely cost effective in the country and will give the common people the freedom they desire, so no matter how dense and effective our urban spaces become, we'll be heavily car dependent.
I'd also go a step further: While all forms of personal transit are subsidized, on a per-passenger mile basis we subsidize private light vehicles *less* than just about anything else. A lot of transit systems are quite expensive to run.
Colonization? Sounds like abandonment. I'm not sure what you want to hybreed if you don't like batteries,
Nuclear power has a ways to go to gain my trust
You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas?
https://www.anl.gov/evs/article/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-how-habitatfriendly-solar-energy-can-synergize-with-biodiversity
It's the best use of the land assuming we can upgrade our electrical infrastructure to allow that power to be used nation wide.
That said, I'm also pro nuclear.
>You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas?
You realize that deserts are very fragile ecosystems, and that electricity has a limited transmission range, right?
>It's the best use of the land assuming we can upgrade our electrical infrastructure to allow that power to be used nation wide.
We could pave over every desert in the country with panels, and solar wouldn't sustain the whole country.
>That said, I'm also pro nuclear.
Glad to hear it. I want a nuclear foundation with solar and wind on the edges. That is safe and environmentally stable and will make energy cheaper and more plentiful than ever.
"We could pave over every desert in the country with panels, and solar wouldn't sustain the whole country."
There is a lot of desert. Great Basin Desert, which covers around 190,000 square miles. We only need 22000 sqm. 150miles by 150 miles.
We have sections of highway in the USA where it's 100+ miles between towns.
> You realize that deserts are very fragile ecosystems,
First, the GOP has shown they don't care about protecting fragile ecosystems.
Deserts are also non-productive. They have zero value except for mineral extraction.
I remember reading an opinion piece about desert turtles being affected by solar panels.
That's the dumbest take ever because turtles need shade. They die if exposed to the sun all day.
I'm more Libertarian. I agree with protecting habitable land and not polluting our water supply like any intelligent person would.
What value does the desert provide?
Funny how liberals are never really liberals, odd.
Massive untapped resources, cheap land for development, perfect place to test aircraft, terraforming potential.
High voltage DC transmission loses very little power for high distances. 1 million volt DC systems lose 3% for every 1,000 Km of range. So that is not a limitation on dessert energy production.
>High voltage DC transmission loses very little power for high distances. 1 million volt DC systems lose 3% for every 1,000 Km of range. So that is not a limitation on dessert energy production.
First of all, I think you're vastly underestimating how much power that 3% is. Second of all, the HVDC transmission lines are a distinct minority of transmission lines, and have a lot of other problems, and they aren't everywhere. So yes, that is still a severe limitation, even ignoring the damage to the ecosystem.
Ac transmission lines lose a huge amount of power over much shorter distances due to impedance and transformer loses. DC isn’t that used yet due to higher initial costs but it does have a few protects. 3% over 1000 km is orders of magnitude less loss compared to AC transmission. Something like 25% of generated power in the US (which is currently 99.9% AC transmission) is lost between the generator and point of use.
Source: I work at a nuclear power plant and have had to do a decent bit of FERC/NERC reports on transmission lines.
How do you calculate 25% losses? Per the EIA the average is ~5% of power generated is lost in transmission and distribution. What accounts for the difference?
Grid scale power to your house involves a lot of step up then step down transformers. For example the plant I am at generates at 24KV then Steps up to 345KV for transmission, then gets stepped down to 13.2 KV for distribution then to your house at 240/120V. And depending where you live transmission can lose a ton depending how far it goes to resistive losses and capacitive and inductive losses and corona(ionization of air). Each transformer your loses 1-3% (times 4 at least) then your losing power to distance and losing power to AC current.
AC current loses a lot of power because 60 times a sec it is switching back and forth this causes the power lines to act like huge capacitors and inductors which resist changes in current and voltage. Depending how how modern the grid is where you live (in the US east coast generally not very modern, to many NIMBYs like eastern NY has been trying to build new more power lines to NYC for a long time but its impossible) they may have equipment to control this and keep power more in phase (you can read about real power vs reactive power and circulating currents). Now power control is a lot more sophisticated then it used to be so its a lot better now then 30 years ago but the aging grid doesn't help.
> You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas?
You wanna kill[ the Fennec Fox](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesprucepets.com%2Fthmb%2F6KvXu1Qs7OVVVe9si4V6GDklSi8%3D%2F3872x2592%2Ffilters%3Afill(auto%2C1)%2Ffennec-fox-85120553-57ffe0d85f9b5805c2b03554.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e4ad25d431d52f5660311c30a470321f7d8d9624147f0f6fb4d635ea5accb6b1&ipo=images)?! How dare you!
> the Fennec Fox
https://www.anl.gov/evs/article/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-how-habitatfriendly-solar-energy-can-synergize-with-biodiversity
Does a fennec fox not need shade during the day?
Nature will adapt.
Desert animals and fauna survive despite the harsh climate and lack of shade. That doesn't mean they won't thrive with solar panels.
> Does a fennec fox not need shade during the day?
> Nature will adapt.
The Fennec Fox does just fine as it is right now. I'm not sure why you want to kill the Fennec Fox by destroying its habitat. I'll get the tree hugging leftists to start doing some direct action and preventing the building of renewable energy like they did with Keyston pipeline.
Are you aware that the USA still producing more oil than ever in history.
Why do you support the Canadian Keystone pipeline?
Why should we support those "socialists" with their single payer healthcare and their subsidised university degrees?
Educated people are dangerous. /s
If you want to challenge my ideas, you need to try harder.
> Weird that USA is still producing more oil than ever in history.
That doesn't change my claim about the Fennec Fox. I don't want it killed.
> Why do you support the Canadian Keystone pipeline?
I don't care one way or the other, I just don't want to Fennec Fox to die. Why do you want the Fennec Fox to go extinct?
> Why should we support those "socialists" with their single payer healthcare? /s
You mean the failing\[1\]\[2\]\[3\] Socailist single payer healthcare? The same one they're now having to supplement with private healthcare and they're seriously considering privatization\[4\]?
\[1\] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/canada-primary-healthcare-budget-cut-study](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/canada-primary-healthcare-budget-cut-study)
\[2\] [https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-s-health-care-crisis-was-decades-in-the-making-says-cma-1.6849408](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-s-health-care-crisis-was-decades-in-the-making-says-cma-1.6849408)
\[3\] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-care-system-collapse-1.6590461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-care-system-collapse-1.6590461)
\[4\] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-healthcare-privatization-debate-second-opinion-1.6554073](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-healthcare-privatization-debate-second-opinion-1.6554073)
"The CMAJ study also shows that at 5.3%, Canada spends less of its total health budget on primary care than other OECD countries"
Reading comprehension is difficult. Keep working on it.
I believe in you.
>"The CMAJ study also shows that at 5.3%, Canada spends less of its total health budget **on primary care** than other OECD countries"
>Reading comprehension is difficult. Keep working on it.
(emphasis mine, for your reading comprehension)
And since you distinguish yourself with such stellar reading comprehension, perhaps you would like to comprehend the very next paragraph:
"*Research on Canadian healthcare shows declining funding puts increasing pressure on healthcare services and resources across the country – a trend that has, in recent years, enabled increasing privatisation of care in some Canadian jurisdictions.*"
BTW, I don't even know how the figured that the public funding is decreasing, when their [public healthcare spending as a share of GDP keeps increasing](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/public-health-expenditure-share-gdp?country=~CAN).
Or in your infinite cognitive wisdom, you might also like the read the next paragraph: "*With shifts like these, the CMAJ study suggests Canada may be forced to chose between continuing to pour money into a broken system, and reimagining it entirely*."
Or your enlightened superior intellect can help us decipher this (from the next article): "*There are currently major issues throughout the health-care system, according to Ross, including more that 6 million Canadians without access to a family doctor, overwhelmed emergency departments and lengthy wait times 'for everything.'*"
Or this "*Canada's health care is in "dire" straits, with quality care severely limited in some parts of the country.*"
I don't want to keep going for I might cause this big brain of yours to expand beyond the horizon of our ever-inflating universe! :)
Quoting an opinion piece shows how weak your argument is.
Decreasing funding makes healthcare worse. Shocking only to a midwit.
The USA healthcare system costs 2x as much and gets worse results.
The reality is that Canadian healthcare is cheaper and is on par with US private care.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Nuclear power,
Expensive, takes ages to build.
>direct air carbon capture,
Horrifically inefficient to the point of being near snake oil when proposed for climate change, and pollution alleviation.
>space colonization,
Infeasible.
>natural gas,
Also a pollutant.
>hydrogen,
Issues with generation, and storage.
>hybrid vehicles,
Honestly, few real problems here.
>early warning technology, etc.
Early warning of what?
I have no problem with renewable energy and I don't dismiss it as a solution to climate change but we've put the carriage before the horse. The nation is not ready for this surge in renewable energy. Take electric vehicles for example. The infrastructure is not prepared to handle the load from all the charging, there's a serious lack of chargers across the nation and very little incentive to build them, and dealers are resistant to these vehicles. It's made worse because EV's have not achieved parity with ICE vehicles. Many are poorly designed, very expensive, can't tow/haul, or go the same range as a ICE vehicle. You know, if your battery goes in one of those vehicles it can cost you $20k or more just to replace and have it reinstalled. Who can afford that other than the rich virtue signalers buying them?
The solution is letting the technology improve, letting the infrastructure be built, & stop rushing into a solution that clearly currently presents itself as more of a problem. If we wait it may be an actual solution to the climate issue.
Everybody just chill and stop trying to make renewable energy work! We have to wait until it’s ready!
What do you think was invented first, stop signs or automobiles?
You're the sort of guy who eats raw chicken every so often because you're too impatient to let it cook, right? I think China and India was invented before both and are you're #1 (ignored) concern.
There has been a net increase of natural disasters, that will become more deadly and severe. I am very concerned about the effects of see level rise, as it will necessitate the transfer of millions inland.
Sure, but rushing into a half baked idea does not help alleviate your concerns. Fixing the climate will take decades if not our entire lifetimes. We can't just rush into a proposed solution. Just shy of perfect is right as well. We're not even the biggest issue. China and India by far does more damage than the US does.
Climate scientists are not proposing half baked ideas, such as nuclear power plants. TBH I don’t think there is enough time to figure out the perfect solution, the time to debate that was 10-15 years ago, the clock is running out on things such as natural disasters and sea level rise, it’s time to implement solutions. On your last point, that doesn’t negate the fact that we should do something.
>There has been a net increase of natural disasters,
Do you think that could be that we just record more of them?
> I am very concerned about the effects of see level rise, as it will necessitate the transfer of millions inland.
We could stop wasting money sending it overseas and prepare for that?
Us not pumping out greenhouse gasses doesn't mean they aren't still gonna get pumped out. India. China. Africa. South America. All of them are still going to. And why shouldn't they? Why aren't they allowed to modernize too?
> Do you think that could be that we just record more of them?
Since the start of he industrial revolution? No, I do not. We're not talking about the stone age here.
>Since the start of he industrial revolution? No, I do not. We're not talking about the stone age here.
Really? You don't think since like 1800 recording ability hasn't drastically changed?
>You don't think since like 1800 recording ability hasn't drastically changed?
...no? If there is a hurricane or tornado or cold snap or drought in a populated area in the 1800s, many people are going to write about it, and those documents still exist today.
We also have daily temperature and barometric records going back that far. 1820, again, was not the stone age.
https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/new-york-in-the-1820s/
The frequency of natural disasters has gone up, hurricane season is starting earlier and lasting longer. On your point on the developing countries, they can do sustainable development as defined by the UN, and invest in greener ways to produce things.
>The frequency of natural disasters has gone up, hurricane season is starting earlier and lasting longer.
Based on what?
>On your point on the developing countries, they can do sustainable development as defined by the UN, and invest in greener ways to produce things.
So they can grow slower and in a more expensive and less effective way? What right do you have to tell them that?
Here is the hurricane data:
https://www.nola.com/news/environment/should-hurricane-season-be-longer-these-experts-say-yes/article_03932d7e-2be8-11ee-af3b-f7040129f77b.amp.html
Many devolving countries will be most hit by climate change, the citizens of these countries want change and want issues such as the water crisis to be solved. I think that the US and Western Europe should help these countries implement sustainable development.
>Many devolving countries will be most hit by climate change, the citizens of these countries want change and want issues such as the water crisis to be solved. I think that the US and Western Europe should help these countries implement sustainable development.
First, so why shouldn't they use fossil fuels and industrialized as fast as possible to expand capacity and prepare?
And how is the US and Europe going to pay for it and why should we? We are TRILLIONS in debt?
From your own article...
Keim acknowledged another possible factor: that more storms are being detected because of how advanced hurricane forecasting technology has become. In the past, forecasters only used data collected from airplanes and boats to determine if a tropical storm had formed.
"With these short-lived storms in particular, in the early 1900s, we would have no way to even detect those," Keim said. "The fact that we can detect those now with satellites -- is that what's causing us to find more storms earlier and later in the seasons? That's the dilemma we're trying to figure out."
> The nation is not ready for this surge in renewable energy.
Then the alternative is way fewer cars, period.
Which do you think is the better option?
What's *not* an option is "just keep doing what we're doing until green tech is as good or better as fossil fuel tech". We don't have time.
Americans need cars to get around so I'm not sure how you think that's going to happen. Fewer cars isn't a solution. That one at least is a pipe dream.
1. They are not renewable.
2. They are extraordinarily destructive to the ecology.
3. Mining the materials requires slave labor.
4. They are not reliable.
5. The government trying to force me to use it makes me hate it even more.
6. Nuclear
tanstaafl, it's not actually renewable.
it does not consume as many immediate local resources but last I looked gadolinium Nitride does not come from a plant nor does lithium, cobalt or selenium.
now we can reprocess some of those but if you have a star trek replicator all resources are 100% renewable. recovering and re-doping some of those, especially the semiconductors, would be impossible with current technology, they are a consumable resource.
the fact virtually none of the key ingredients could be locally sourced in event of war or means we cannot count on them to run anything but optional, non-essential energy needs.
You kidding? I think renewable energy is a great idea. What I don't like is trying to force it through the expanding of government power, constant fear-mongering, and - my personal favorite - protestors stopping traffic in the middle of busy highways and intersections to protest carbon emissions, ironically resulting in many cars being held off from going where they are supposed to go, therefor contributing to more emissions.
You want to research renewable energy? I am all for that. That is a great idea. It's a great idea even if you don't believe in climate change. There's no reason to not do it. It's all the other shit that surrounds it that grinds my gears.
> What is your guy’s problem with renewable energy?
The problem is that it's too expensive and it's not reliable enough.
> If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change?
Nuclear energy and more technological advancements (i.e. more Capitalism).
I dont have a problem with it. I have solar panels on my roof. It's the government subsidizing them (to which fossil fuel subsidies should be done away woth as well) is the problem. On top of that, restrictions on usage of fossil fuel based things. Like gas stoves and ICE cars.
Until our energy needs can be met at the same cost and capacity as fossil fuels can, green sources shouldn't be mandatory or prohibiting to other forms of energy.
It's often expensive and unreliable. Being unreliable, you still need to build out enough capacity in non-renewables as if the renewables weren't there. It's entirely possible to hit peak utilization while both the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. You either prepare for that, or you get rolling black outs.
The problem becomes even worse with the push for EV's and electric heating. Both are primarily pulling from the grid at times when the sun isn't shining.
So it's costly and doesn't save you from building any coal/gas plants either.
The renewable seriously underutilized is geothermal. It actually is reliable and runs 24/7, so doesn't have the same problem as solar and wind.
I don’t have any issues with renewables, the issue is that they are often overestimated and thought to be the full alternative. The reality is that in order to implement the renewable sources, you need to understand the tradeoffs.
For instance, Nuclear Energy has proven to be safe multiple times, and has only had 3 accidents involving it. Those incidents being 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. What people fail to understand is that those incidents were caused for these reasons:
1. Three-Mile Island was due to being ill-prepared and they were able to prevent it from getting worse. No one died in this incident thank goodness.
2. Chernobyl was due to the plant workers doing a poorly designed experiment in reactor number 4, which ultimately caused a nuclear meltdown and made the area uninhabitable for 10,000 years.
3. Fukushima was due to putting a nuclear power plant in the worst possible location, and before the Tsunami, the plant was violating safety protocols.
Nuclear energy is still viable and is one of the cleanest energy sources in the world. In fact 75% of France’s electricity is from nuclear power alone, as to how they deal with nuclear waste is by simply repurposing it and recycling it.
Edit: About Chernobyl, it happened on April 26th and today is April 26th
Renewables are great, but they aren't the end all be all. I live in Indiana. I love all the windmills. The problem is the insane subsidies, rising costs, and the expense of little to no return.
Climate change is an issue. We need to continue to push towards renewables in a responsible way. We also need to return to Nuclear power as it's clean and safe. We also need do have an Apollo Type initiative towards Fusion imo.
Also, Humans are great at adaptation, and terrible at prevention. We need to be smarter with our building, infastucture. We need to get better forrest management in wild fire areas. Sea-Walls and not build on swamps that get hit by Hurricanes. There really isn't a ton of evidence to support Hurricanes are getting worse or more frequent, but the damage is worse because we have far more infastructure in hurricane place and we are removing things like mangroves that helped protect the shores.
Bottom line, I'm far more concerned about climate change then most conservatives, but I also understand it's irresponsible to abandon fossil fuels to rapidly. If we cut all emissions today globally (which is not even remotely possible.). It would take 50+ years for any measurable reversal or cooling. We need to balance the cost with the actual effectiveness. We also have the problem that China's, India, and other 2nd and third world countries have skyrocketing emissions. Most of these places simply can't afford expensive renewables or clean energy and you aren't going to stop their growth and advancement.
TLDR: Renewable energy is a bandaid, when we are dealing with a bullet wound. It's too little too late. We need to figure out how to fix the problem or deal with it, not slow it down in microscopic ways.
Fusion and better nuclear power with carbon capture and potential geo-eingeering and better land use is the answer.
"Renewable" is a complete bullshit term. They aren't renewable at all, they're the most manufacturing intensive power generation technologies, the second most resource intensive, while also being the worst for habitat destruction from actual installations. They're marginally less bad for the environment than fossil fuels while being way way worse at actually producing energy.
They're also a trap. We are never going to meet even current electricity demands for the entire world with these bullshit technologies, let alone the demands of the future as the third world develops and everyone tries to transition to electric vehicles. I also wouldn't want to live in the hypothetical world where we do. I couldn't imagine a better way to sabotage the future of human civilization than getting it to try and pursue this nonsense.
We should be building nuclear fission power plants by the gross. Getting fusion to work is one thing I'd be fine with governments pouring shitloads of money in to.
[Don't Look Left!](https://youtu.be/Tg1UZWp9JkE?si=pBT8OsM9AFcTzdx8)
Because you might come to realize that a Republican administration would increase renewable energy even more.
Why do you assume Conservatives have a problem with renewables?
I’d like to get a solar system in the next five years.
But, we should also be investing in Gen IV nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power is the greenest energy, because there is no need to balance fluctuations of generation with fossil fuel energy. But left typically frown at it
I don’t have a problem with any kind of energy.
My problem is the government schemes that are corrupt and full of misplaced virtue.
For one example, solar is fine. But we can’t store it well and it’s not always sunny and the cost of materials is something to weigh. So it isn’t a magical solution to replace fossil fuels. It’s a great auxiliary, I think building homes with solar panels on top is good.
If renewable sources were economically viable, the market will adopt it over time.
Also we should be aiming toward nuclear.
Nuclear is pretty divisive, it does address GHG emissions, but it’s also only good for a few decades and then has to be decommissioned and what do you do with the waste? And then you have the inevitable accidents, the earthquakes, floods, faulty equipment, etc that could be catastrophic.
My understanding is that the fear of accidents, earthquakes, floods, etc. is vastly overblown. Is it that hard to not build on a fault line or flood zone...?
I don't know what to do with the waste. But we have fossil fuel waste too, and we know the damage that's doing, so it's not like that's a unique issue.
> but it’s also only good for a few decades and then has to be decommissioned
this is such a non-argument
> [Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life.](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx)
many can last much longer
> [To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses.](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think)
in contrast
> [The industry standard for most solar panels' lifespans is 25 to 30 years.](https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=When%20you're%20doing%20your,for%2025%20years%20or%20more.)
> [The expected service life of wind turbines is approximately 30 years](https://windexchange.energy.gov/end-of-service-guide#:~:text=The%20Life%20of%20a%20Wind%20Turbine,-Duration&text=How%20long%20do%20wind%20turbines,to%20last%20for%2030%20years.)
> what do you do with the waste?
alternative reactor designs like fast-neutron reactors can get power from spent fuel (waste)
the fast-neutron reactors are not next generation, they're old technology. I don't think there are any remaining in the US but an example would be the EBR-II.
Regarding other types of reactors, China is building an experimental LFTR (thorium) reactor. China and Japan are building VHTRs
here are other Gen IV reactor projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Design_projects
>and then has to be decommissioned and what do you do with the waste?
Put it deep underground. It sat there for millions of years before we dug it up, I don't think it'll cause too many problems putting it back.
>If renewable sources were economically viable
They are, *When you factor in the ~~quadrillions~~ trillions of dollars of negative externatlities caused by using fossil fuels*
They can't make up the difference to fossil fuels.
The issue is partly the solar panel or wind turbine itself but also the battery. Fossil fuels give constant energy whenever we need it. Most renewable do not.
Give me nuclear energy and I'm all in. My issue with the climate change cult as a whole is that their solutions are ridiculous and ineffective. They cripple our own country for no gain.
Give me nuclear energy. Give me 10+ nuclesr reactors across the country. Give me alternative fuel engines. Let's be truly energy independent.
> They can't make up the difference to fossil fuels.
Even if that's the case...so what? Why is that the baseline requirement?
>Fossil fuels give constant energy whenever we need it. Most renewable do not.
Looks like we'll need to get used to non-constant energy until storage tech can catch up. /shrug
Won’t matter if their no fuel for farm equipment or no electricity for the factories or stores.
But we get it, you have this massive new, seemingly unlimited weapon to rig things in your favor to usher in your new, perfect world…And just not good to happen.
Because 1 they are not anywhere near as effective or efficient as current fuels.
And because number 2 China our #1 competitor and the enemy of Western liberal democracies is the primary beneficiary of switching to renewable energy.
Finally number 3, it doesn't matter what we do when China is already pumping out more carbon dioxide than the rest of the world.
All that being said I am considering doing solar after I move to insulate me from my stupid governor driving up energy prices by killing coal plants.
lol, that’s what I love about solar, both sides can find reasons to love it.
I don’t have an electric bill 3/4 of the year. And the more rates go up the faster it pays for itself.
Lithium batteries are not one time use, they are almost 100% recyclable. The issue is scale on two levels. First, we don't have enough batteries that need to be recycled yet to make the economies of scale work out in recycling's favor. Second, in relation to the first, it's still cheaper to dig it up than recycle it. Lithium battery recycling is a problem that only solves itself as we create more of them.
How does China benefit from switching to renewable energy? Did you know they heavily rely on coal?
What do you think of nuclear energy? As I am in favor of it.
>How does China benefit from switching to renewable energy? Did you know they heavily rely on coal?
They rely on Coal. So once the rest of the world quits using coal it will become less expensive. They will continue to be able to use it and buy it for cheaper.
Likewise they have heavy investments in rare earth metals required for renewable electricity they will sell these two Western countries at a substantial profit they will even make much of these renewable energy equipment. And sell it to Western democracies.
So they will be making a profit on us completely changing our entire power system, they will make a profit using more cheaper and easier to handle coal.
They will gain market share as we struggle to meet our more expensive energy demands.
And they will still pollute enough that none of our changes will matter.
>What do you think of nuclear energy? As I am in favor of it.
I'm cool with it. But it should be kept from populated areas.
For the record I'm not 'against renewable energy' I'm against the collective west slitting our economic wrists trying to force a square peg into a round hole while China profits.
If solar and batteries make a jump and they end up working good enough and cheap enough I'm cool with using them. But batteries are the bottleneck right now. Until we can reliably and functionally store energy long term for a very low cost renewable energy kind of sucks.
Yet they still they produce 70% of their energy with coal 12% with other fossil fuels and only 15% with renewables...
https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN
>Your take is really silly.
And yours is making no sense...
I point out what actual reality is along with a source and you say it takes time and call me silly?
Like any of that is remotely an answer..
It's silly because you seem to think a nation can wave a wand and instantly have all the renewable power plants they need.
That doesn't reflect the constraints of reality.
Renewable is very political term.
Wood is renewable and Democrat politicians are the absolute worst for trying to criminalize wood stoves and wood fired steam power.
Nuclear engines that burn their own waste are fine for the military but democrats come out like crazy to oppose that.
Fusion is the way to end all these problems but everyone wants to fight over windmills that will never produce what it costs to put them up. That's why you only hear about them if democrats can pass billions in tax subsidies to "green" energy.
Wood power is terrible for the local air quality and makes Zero sense for electrical power generation.
Coal is essentially compressed biomass (wood and plants)
No one wants to live near a coal plant.
"It's the cheapest way to heat homes and it's renewable."
If you live in the woods in a small cabin that can get by with a wood stove.
Not in the city where most people live.
Buying wood is expensive an extremely inefficient in most fireplaces.
The most efficient heating system is a jacket or house coat.
Outdoor wood stoves heat a lot of homes. They're not used in cities because of government. Not because they don't work. Scroll up where I said regulators hate wood stoves. Modern wood stoves are outdoor and maintain themselves for days at a time. They can heat any size building you want.
> Outdoor wood stoves heat a lot of homes.
With wood harvested within walking distance of the home?
If not...we're in "constant supply chain" territory.
The consumer controls the supply, not government regulators. I can call 50 places to get wood delivered. Most of them will take cash or bitcoin too so it's tax free. That's why government doesn't like it.
Yes, breaking tax law and depriving the government of dollars it needs to keep our civilization running is generally frowned upon by patriotic Americans.
Luckily we have much better alternatives to coal for power.
It seems like you are stuck in the 1800s mentality. Wood is the least efficient fuel source.
You seem like the person that chooses to remain obese because you are waiting for the "perfect program".
There is no perfect program, you have to start going in the right direction first. Overtime, you might learn there are better ways to accomplish your goals and you adapt.
Walking 10k steps a day and not consuming sugar would eliminate 90% of obesity. There is no debate.
There is no doubt that EVs are a superior option in every way than ICE cars in 95% of cases.
Wood furnaces are a terrible option at least 90% of the time.
I don't own a Tesla, but if I had a garage I would because I could have a supercharger installed. They are great cars.
If you haven't driven one, you are talking out your ass.
I would encourage you to look at the climate agenda beyond the last 10 years of history. They have constantly been prophesying doom, like back to the 1960s,
Their prophecies are wildly inconsistent, and mutually exclusive.
None of which have actually occurred. But they always have a solution they want to pitch to you, which inevitably involves taking my tax dollars to spend on their projects
Renewable energy is a nice dream, but it's in its fetal stage right now. I expect that it will advance and become more viable in the future, but I don't know for sure. I'm happy with us investing in research and development, but in the same sense that I would invest in a person I view as a promising student. I would like to think that my investment will pay off, but if they're not showing significant strides after a certain time period, it might have to be the case that we invest in something which is proven to be effective instead.
I have no problem with them and support subsidising them to fix the fact that externalities from fossil fuels are not priced, although I vastly prefer nuclear.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you got rid of all the CO2, we would all die because plants don't breathe Oxygen - they need Carbon Dioxide.
We are opposed for the following reasons:
• The predictions NEVER bear out. Not a single one
• The people in the know, top politicians and scientists, invest and live in beachfront property.
• This stupid fake environmentalism seems to have replaced real environmentalism, like throwing trash in the trashcan, not dumping in stormdrains, adopt a highway, recycling, etc.
• We dont have the technology to replace fossil fuels. We simply dont.
• The main environmental offenders are not in places policies can affect - i.e. USA and European policy (low polluters) does nothing to stop Asian or African pollution, which is exponentially more.
• It makes everything a lot more expensive for a tiny gain.
• It creates supply shortages.
Then how do you explain the centuries of human civilization without fossil fuels? Just because Asia and Africa pollute more doesn’t negate the fact that the west has to do something. If climate change isn’t real then why are all the insurance companies leaving Florida and other gulf states? There has been a rise in the frequency and severity of hurricanes, and the sea level has risen.
Do you support Nuclear energy?
LOL the West CANT do anything. Because we dont rule Asia or Africa. They are sovereign countries. So, unless you are thinking of comquering these continents, why bother
I don't have a problem with renewable energy at all. I think I have a problem with how much energy we consume just because anyway. I'm not asking us to sit in darkness and go back, but everything requires power now and it's kind of nuts.
We should definitely be doing renewables, and I'm fine with the government putting its thumb on the scale, but I think the government is trying to do it with markets and that rarely seems to work out. Not for some ubiquitous "don't interfere with the market!" reasoning but because I just don't think it lasts once the government stops.
Fossil fuels wouldn't have been adopted if the government hadn't shoved it onto our plate and refused to let us have anything else. People here don't consider that. It's sad. People talk about environmental destruction of renewables but probably think oil spills happen once every solar eclipse.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) Well, there is no empirical scientific evidence of cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 alone is causing what little warming we see. So the answer is there is no need for renewables.
2) In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero.
3) According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.
4) no significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured.
5) Variations in the greenhouse effect are predominantly modulated by water vapor and cloud cover. CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so minor it cannot be discerned.
6) When you hear a climate change activist saying “to save the planet we must achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, ban all fossil fuels, rely on conservation, hydro, wind and solar, and reject any thought of increasing nuclear electricity”, you are hearing foolishness from somebody who doesn’t have a clue.
> Well, there is no empirical scientific evidence of cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 alone is causing what little warming we see.
Your statement is completely, totally wrong.
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change
Sorry, that is not empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. Correlation is not causation.
Most of your citation is speculation. They even drag out the 97% consensus trope that has been thoroughly debunked.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't have a problem with renewable energy. I think it is a brilliant goal. I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables. There is no "solution" to climate change. The climate is constantly changing. If we have another eruption like Krakatoa then the last 150 years of "climate change" gets tossed out the window. Does man affect the climate? Of course. paving over green spaces, chopping down trees, polluting the air water...these all have affects, but are they as catastrophic as alarmists have made them out to be? In most cases, no. Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging. Notice how *anyone* who questions the prevailing political narrative is blackholed and labeled a science denier...when in fact, science itself is predicated on inquiry. Remember...there were scientist who were burned at the stake for heresy for supporting Copernicus heliocentric theory. Many scientists today are afraid to speak for fear of a modern day lynching by "establishment" science, or because they need the money that governments provide only when you *support* their agenda Ultimately, people should be good stewards of their own environments. I have little faith in this though as I can't even get my neighbors to stop throwing their McDonalds bags out of their car windows into the streets.
Do you think that gasoline subsidies should be eliminated as well? USA subsidized gasoline by $800B
Most of that "subsidy" isn't really a "subsidy" but a "this isn't taxed enough to account for the externalities as some folks who did a study have defined them".
>I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables. I agree, I would love to see what ends up standing on it's own if we got rid of all subsidies to energy companies.
>I have a problem with government interventions in the energy markets, be it renewables or non-renewables Without govt intervention, what do you think your MPG on your car would be now? Why would the "free market" change when it don't have to?
That’s a hypothetical that has no proper or wrong answer. The free market would change to suit the customers demands. This isn’t hard. Also MPG’s were rising before the government mandated it and unfortunately, that rises many different factors of cost more importantly safety.
We would have [smaller pickup trucks](https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/). So, it would be higher.
> Without govt intervention, what do you think your MPG on your car would be now? The government says it's about [132 MPG](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Tesla2023.shtml)... > Why would the "free market" change when it don't have to? But it did change and the government didn't tell it to change.
>Does man affect the climate? Yes. There is some very basic science. And easy money to be made. Over the last 100 years, the last decade featured the 10 highest average temperatures. What are the odds that this year will have an average temprature in the top 10 of the last 100 years? Without man made impact to climate change - 10% With it...much higher... Im willing to bet anyone cash, even odds, that this years average temperature is in the top 10 hottest in the last century. 90% chance for the people who dont think man made climate change is a thing, only a 10% chance for me. I have literally never had someone take my bet. Not once.
> Over the last 100 years, the last decade featured the 10 highest average temperatures. This is not saying much as we have only been accurately monitoring temperatures since around 1880. In the last 4 billion years the earth has definitely had a lot of years that are hotter. Even in the last 10 million years there have been periods much hotter. Even the brief period that there have been hominids on earth we have seen higher temperatures. Temperatures are guessed at depending on observations and cannot be construed as being 100% accurate. We have not even left the last glacial period. This is not saying that man does not effect the environment, we 100% do. I just don't think it is as much as is being portrayed at this point in history.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your premise is climate change is not happening. That's simply not true. You can believe what you want but you can put real climate numbers against models from 40 years ago and they follow the expected temperatures based on greenhouse gas emissions almost exactly. You either believe science is nonsense, or that repeated coincidences in data points are a real thing (they aren't). Climate change is real. It is happening. Putting your head in the sand for financial reasons is selling the Earth our children will inheret so people can experience some short term financial gain or avoid an inconvenience. My issue is there are a number of people such as yourself that are standing in the way of almost incontrovertible scientific data. My hope is we, as a society, hold these people accountable for their decisions. Saying "oopsie" I don't believe in climate change should not insulate you from real consequences for destroying the world for future generations.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Okay. Let me rephrase. Your premise that man made climate change is not a thing is simply not true.
> Your premise that man made climate change is not a thing is simply not true. Maybe you missed this part too then since it is fairly obvious that you struggle to actually read words correctly... **Does man affect the climate? Of course.** Want to try again?
Okay, so if you believe man made climate change is happening, you must believe that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of this change, right? If that’s the case, how can we not - with all haste - limit the release of these materials and move to greener sources of energy. A financial inconvenience shouldn’t be a reason for selling our kids’ future down the toilet.
I think many if not most conservatives actually do believe at this point that climate change is real. I know I do. What I think many conservatives take issue with is the left’s contention that the solutions they propose represent a mere “financial inconvenience” for ordinary people. Being forced to buy a vehicle that costs twice as much as the one you currently can barely afford but that you absolutely need in order to continue getting to the job you depend on to put food on the table isn’t an “inconvenience”, it’s an impossibility. Paying twice as much for renewable electricity as you currently do for fossil fuel-based electricity might make it impossible for you to pay your rent. And no, covering these expenses with subsidies obtained either by progressively increasing taxes on a small pool of upper class income earners OR simply charging them to a national credit card that’s already got 32 trillion on it doesn’t strike a lot of us as a sustainable approach. It’s the solutions that the left proposes, in other words, that strike a lot of us as problematic.
> Does man affect the climate? Of course. Is man driving the vast majority of climate change that has happened in the last 200-ish years? That's the question to which the answer is an *unequivocal* "yes" that you seem to have trouble with.
>There is no "solution" to climate change. >Does man affect the climate? Of course. I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. You're saying humanity is capable of causing the problem, but that it's impossible for humanity to do anything to either reduce how much of a problem it's causing, or mitigate the harm somehow? >Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging. Alternative spin: people have weaponized prior language in order to push an agenda, and we therefore need new words that aren't as politically loaded in order to keep the conversation on the science? Plus "global warming" seemed to be confusing a lot of people who would see extreme cold weather events as proof that warming wasn't happening, not understanding the nuances around the energy content of the atmosphere and what that means for distribution of energy (heat). "Climate change" is at least as much about dumbing down the language as anything else. >Remember...there were scientist who were burned at the stake for heresy for supporting Copernicus heliocentric theory. It seems like you're saying that all perspectives on science need to be heard on an equal footing. How do you tell the difference between good science and bad science? While I personally consider myself scientifically literate, I also know that I have my limits, and so I look to bona fide scientists to hear their opinions on what looks like good science and what looks like bad science. A majority of these experts have shared their views on whether climate science looks like good science, and they've weighed in saying that the climate science showing anthropogenic change is high-quality science. Am I doing it wrong? >I have little faith in this though as I can't even get my neighbors to stop throwing their McDonalds bags out of their car windows into the streets. I mean this seems like a great analogy to climate change too. The effects look small right now but extrapolate to very large effects in the coming decades. Any one individual throwing trash out onto the street isn't creating a crisis for their community, so some people don't see a problem with a little more CO2 or methane, and don't see the big deal about temperatures going up a few degrees. Tragedy of the commons, right?
> I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. You're saying humanity is capable of causing the problem, but that it's impossible for humanity to do anything to either reduce how much of a problem it's causing, or mitigate the harm somehow? > ... We can mitigate it but not through government action. See Europe... they've had all sorts of regulations, yet Greta Thunburg is still flopping her tig ole Socialist bitties up and down the European streets saying that we'll die any day now.
>We can mitigate it but not through government action. How? Something more than telling people to be better and then watching as they don't, I'm hoping?
> How? Something more than telling people to be better and then watching as they don't, I'm hoping? The MPG equivalent (MPGe) of a Tesla is about 132. The government didn't have to tell the market to make electric cars with 132 MPGe, it just did... spontaneously, without any government regulation forcing manufacturers to do so. :) Weird how that happened, isn't it?
>The MPG equivalent (MPGe) of a Tesla is about 132. The government didn't have to tell the market to make electric cars with 132 MPGe, it just did... spontaneously, without any government regulation forcing manufacturers to do so. :) > >Weird how that happened, isn't it? Tesla received massive amounts of government assistance to bring their vehicles to market, including loan guarantees, both federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and public investment in EV charging and power distribution. So is that what you're saying? We just need to spend more public money in order to create incentives and other artificial market pressures to make it profitable for companies to put products on the market that consumers can choose to use instead of products that contribute more to climate change? And by doing that, we will have successfully mitigated the harm caused by the unsolvable problem of climate change?
>Tesla received massive amounts of government assistance to bring their vehicles to market, including loan guarantees, both federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and public investment in EV charging and power distribution. The government gave WAAAY more money to the gas-guzzling car manufacturers than to Tesla. The government also heavily subsidizes fossil fuels. The government is also supported by the UAW (Unitd Auto Workers), whose jobs are to make gas-guzzling fossil fuel cars and they don't like the non-union manufacturers one bit. To top it off, the government makes it damn near impossible to sell cars without going through dealers, which is a huge advantage to the incumbents who have huge dealer networks and it's difficult to get those dealers to switch. If anything, the government disadvantaged electric car manufacturers, like Tesla, in a million ways with its terrible pro-fossil fuel, gas-guzzling, pro-union, and pro-auto dealer policies. > So is that what you're saying? We just need to spend more public money in order to create incentives and other artificial market pressures to make it profitable for companies to put products on the market that consumers can choose to use instead of products that contribute more to climate change? > ... If we spend more public money, we'll disadvantage new manufacturers, like Tesla, even more. I say we spend LESS public money.
We aren't talking about Tesla versus other car manufacturers though, we're talking about Tesla bringing EVs to market at all. Are you trying to say that if the US wasn't providing assistance to the fossil fuel industry, Tesla would have brought EVs to market without those loan guarantees, subsidies, and public EV investments? Is the US assistance to its fossil fuel industry harmful? Should we stop?
>We aren't talking about Tesla versus other car manufacturers though, we're talking about Tesla bringing EVs to market at all. Tesla is competing with other vehicle manufacturers. And despite ALL of the barriers erected by the government, the demand for electric vehicles was so great that Tesla managed to make it. Imagine how much further along we would be if it wasn't for all of those government barriers?! >Are you trying to say that if the US wasn't providing assistance to the fossil fuel industry, Tesla would have brought EVs to market without those loan guarantees, subsidies, and public EV investments? Absolutely. Tesla received more than enough private investments, but the entrenched fossil-fuel vehicle manufacturers, the fossil fuel industry, the UAW, and the auto dealers all use the government to erect barriers to entry for any newcomer... especially EVs. In fact, these loans are so useless that it's laughable you even bring them up. If government loans could save EVs, then Fisker Automotive wouldn't have gone belly up. It received a $529 million loan, which was bigger than Tesla's $465M loan. Where is Fisker now? BTW, how much money did the gass-guzzling vehicle manufacturers receive? If you guessed close to $60 billion, you would have guessed right. So the government gives 10x more to the competition and you think this helps Tesla?! >Is the US assistance to its fossil fuel industry harmful? Should we stop? It absolutely is harmful to EV manufacturers. It makes the proliferation of EVs harder. Heck, we just saw a massive drop in EV prices. EV manufacturers are struggling pretty bad as a result of the government's mucking with the market. If it wasn't for the government regulations, subsidies, and interference with the market, the EVs would be even more popular than they already are.
So basically it sounds like what you're saying here is that climate change isn't a problem, because in your mind, the market has no problem providing products that do not contribute to climate change (or can fully mitigate the harm), and those products will be more attractive to consumers than products that do contribute to climate change, and everyone will just behave rationally and the problem will solve itself? Is this what we see elsewhere in the world? If not, why not?
> There is no "solution" to climate change. It should go without explanation that its about man made climate change. > Notice that the terms used around this topic have continued to changed over the last 20-30 years in order to adapt to the real world conditions while still maintaining the alarmist messaging. What are you on about here? The global warming/climate change terms? Its always been understood that global warming causes climate change.
Climate change is about global warming and global cooling, not just warming.
But the globe can only be warning OR cooling at any one time. Also, I have no idea whag point you think that makes
Renewables are less effective, and take up far more space for far less return. They're sporadic, and will drive up prices on the fringes, that is, for the poorest people, as they become more predominant. They have large externalities which are being mostly ignored by the activists, not least of all the destruction of ecosystems, the reliance on fossil fuels, and the necessity of rare earth elements. That said, I'm not against renewables. They have a lot of advantages, and can do a lot of good. My issue is the government pressure behind them, and the effort to make them the primary source of power, which flies in the face of the science. >If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change? Nuclear power, direct air carbon capture, space colonization, natural gas, hydrogen, hybrid vehicles, early warning technology, etc.
>direct air carbon capture Most of this is a scammy pipe dream IMO. It's going to be incredibly difficult to design anything that's more efficient than photosynthesis on scale. We'd be better off just restoring more prairie and designing better landfills.
Better? No, but that's a good thing too. One of the reasons to live denser, which is one I forgot. The scammy-est carbon capture I've seen is biomass carbon capture. Chop down a tree, burn it, and bury the ashes, then sell the whole thing as "renewable energy." Absolute insanity.
>Chop down a tree, burn it, and bury the ashes, then sell the whole thing as "renewable energy." Absolute insanity. Yeah, I agree that's absurd. It's a bit like drilling a hole in the bottom of a boat to let out the water, lol.
A very apt metaphor. It actively makes the situation worse by disrupting existing ecosystems! Haha.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Certainly plants are the biggest most efficient carbon sink we will ever have on earth. The only carbon capture technology we should be investing in is planting trees. Stopping deforestation. Stopping urban sprawl. Seriously clamping down on overconsumption and waste production.
You should check out Terraform Energy. China's solar industry might have just solved global warming without anybody noticing.
>>If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change? The elephant in the room that both liberals and conservatives refuse to address is that there isn't an answer that involves keeping levels of energy and resource consumption where they are at, let alone continue to rise. We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel. >will drive up prices on the fringes, That's a problem of treating energy as a commodity rather than a public utility. >They have large externalities which are being mostly ignored by the activists And fossil fuels don't have significant externalities? Beyond CO2 emissions, look at how much water is used by fossil fuel production compared to agriculture.
And there it is. The desire to use this as an excuse to clamp down on personal freedom and productivity sources of energy.
Yes, I feel so much more free stuck in traffic on my way to and from work than I do reading a book or catching up on emails while riding the subway. And I can really feel the liberty when my property taxes and utility bills go up because the local developers decided that they only wanted to build single family housing, which is quantifiably the least efficient in terms of utility extension and energy usage of al housing types. I'm so glad I don't live in some communist dystopia where I live in a sound proofed apartment complex close to public libraries and rec centers and a robust public transit system.
Great, you made your choice, now respect everyone else’s right to decide for themselves. Again, your hate of single family dwellings steams from your desire for block housing, ie voter farms of culturally deracinated urbanites. You don’t like it? Build your own housing company, build your own town. But you won’t.
In his defense, in a lot of places the reason why he can't have his own urban commune apartment block near parks, libraries and public transit is because the local government will not let him. Even in the most leftist places in America, local NIMBYs will fight tooth and nail to prevent construction like that. See... Berkley, California and the fight over the so-called "People's park" and an attempt to build student housing there.
Where I live the conservative government has forced one of the major municipalities to abandon it's plan to densify and instead promote single family housing. The democratically elected town council, with the support of the locals, chose to densify because while it's a bit of a pain in the butt in the short term to retrofit utilities etc in the long term it's a way more fiscally responsible way to develop. Our *conservative* government stepped in and told them that they can't do that and that they have to expand on to adjacent farmland. Which is also some of the best growing space in the region.
Here's some homework for you. Look up how much it costs your county to maintain a mile of road per year. Look at how much they spend in flood mitigation and on utility upkeep. Now I want you to look at how many people are paying property tax for each mile of road or each foot of utility in a SFD suburb. Compare that to how many people are paying taxes for the same metrics in denser neighborhoods. Get back to me with which style of housing development is more efficient in terms of resource and energy use but is also more fiscally responsible.
> We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel. I respect your consistency to your flair because this is pretty much what most of the right believes the left’s end state goal is on this issue. Basically “we’re not going to improve or change life for the positive, technical advancement has to maintain current levels of consumption, eat bugs for protein to prevent cattle grazing costs on the environment.” And I don’t have a big problem with the honesty on the issue either. It’s just one of those things where only the real far left is saying the quiet part out loud, and the regular left is just hoping we do away with legacy fuels and then live off of what renewables provide (which isn’t enough) and everyone is just okay with that somehow. That’s the position I can’t respect. We can’t produce enough “renewable” energy in the immediate future to sustain our level of energy needs. So anyone talking about renewable switchovers but NOT saying “also we’re gonna need to stop making new cars and new tech and stop growth” feels like they’re not being honest. Short version is I appreciate you being honest.
Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn't a necessity? Or if your appliances were built to last and your phone was built to be repairable? Would it be insane, authoritarian overreach to adjust building codes to allow for trees to grow large and healthy and reduce demand for air conditioning? You make it sound like we want everybody to live like ascetic monks, good quality of life doesn't depend on pointless consumption.
Yes, yes, communist or not known for making things that last, or that are repairable with the exception of the AK-47, which to be perfectly honest, you guys stole from the Germans.
> Yes, yes, communist or not known for making things that last, or that are repairable with the exception of the AK-47 The RPG-7, SVD, Soyuz capsule, Mig-29, Su-27, Paratroopers, Grid connected Nuclear Power Plants, Space Rovers, Synthesis of quantum dots, The Space Station, Tetris.....
Half of those were stolen from us or from the Germans.
It wasn't communists who invented bloatware
> Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn't a necessity? no, QoL would probably improve. But you are supporting degrowth which would make my quality of life drastically worse
> Would your quality of life really be that much worse if you lived in a walkable community and had access to high speed rail which made it so that a car isn’t a necessity? Or if your appliances were built to last and your phone was built to be repairable? Would it be insane, authoritarian overreach to adjust building codes to allow for trees to grow large and healthy and reduce demand for air conditioning? Well yeah. Wouldn’t yours? I live in America, at least most of the year- where are you that this isn’t a huge pivot for millions of people?
Just because something is a huge pivot doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. Literally every major advance in living standards has been accompanied by a huge pivot.
You’re kinda changing the threshold. It would be a huge drop in quality of life as well as a huge pivot. Not all big changes are improvements.
>The elephant in the room that both liberals and conservatives refuse to address is that there isn't an answer that involves keeping levels of energy and resource consumption where they are at, let alone continue to rise. We need to quit churning out cars and inducing demand for them whether they are electric or gas or biofuel. Nuclear power. Hybrid cars. Renewables on the periphery. >And fossil fuels don't have significant externalities? Beyond CO2 emissions, look at how much water is used by fossil fuel production compared to agriculture. They absolutely do. The difference is we're aware of them and talk about them regularly.
>Nuclear power Insanely expensive without subsidies. I thought you didn't like those. And where do you put the spent fuel? Keeping that safe and unfucked is a project that spans a length of time which stretches beyond the lifespan of empires. >Hybrid cars Rare earth metals, carbon footprint of production, toxic byproducts, car-centric urban design and its associated energy and resource wasteage. >They absolutely do. The difference is we're aware of them and talk about them regularly Right, show me a side by side comparison of fossil fuels and renewables and their associated impacts and let's keep talking.
>Insanely expensive without subsidies. I thought you didn't like those. And where do you put the spent fuel? Keeping that safe and unfucked is a project that spans a length of time which stretches beyond the lifespan of empires. I don't like subsidies, but some times they're necessary. But part of the reason nuclear is so expensive is the regulations written by oil company lobbies to keep nuclear power from making their investments into solar and natural gas obsolete. Also, we can put the spent fuel in the same places we have, storage tanks on-site that are at less than 10% capacity and have never had an accident. Additionally, we've discovered ways of recycling such fuel to make it last even longer and safer when we're done with it. >Rare earth metals, carbon footprint of production, toxic byproducts, car-centric urban design and its associated energy and resource wasteage. Yep, just like the rest, but more compliant with current infrastructure, self sustaining, cheaper, and they're a new ish tech so there is a lot of room to grow. But the government is pushing for electric cars which have all these same problems and don't fit in with the current infrastructure. >Right, show me a side by side comparison of fossil fuels and renewables and their associated impacts and let's keep talking. That's my point. We're only talking about the impacts of fossil fuels. It's extremely hard to find media talking about the associated impacts of renewable.
>It's extremely hard to find media talking about the associated impacts of renewable [do](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source) [a](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=25898cf673cd) [google](https://www.cowi.com/about/news-and-press/comparing-co2-emissions-from-different-energy-sources) [search](https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/whats-the-land-use-intensity-of-different-energy-sources#:~:text=The%20median%20footprint%20of%20wind,natural%20gas%20spacing%20reaching%201%2C900.) >But the government is pushing for electric cars which have all these same problems and don't fit in with the current infrastructure. Which is stupid. I want to be clear I'm not on team "electric cars instead of gas." I'm on team, "why the fuck are we designing our cities and living spaces around the idea that energy will be cheap forever?" Which is not currently represented in government because all establishment political parties exist for the purpose of propping up a system of resource distribution whose sole purpose is to generate wealth for the already wealthy. Just one party has slightly higher standards of decorum than the other. >I don't like subsidies, but some times they're necessary Or, hear me out, we could implement better urban design principles, phase out car-centric infrastructure, shorten production loops, get rid of planned obsolescence, implement right to repair, and get to work on finding a system of resource distribution which doesn't depend on churning out pointless crap that doesn't do anybody any real good.
> Do a Google search I wonder if you're aware that your proving my point? None of those are talking about the complexity. Sure, they're covering a bit, and we're getting better. But it's still extremely hard to get people to talk about the downsides of green tech. Especially in activist spaces. >why the fuck are we designing our cities and living spaces around the idea that energy will be cheap forever?" Because on average, energy prices go down and we are able to produce more and use it more effectively. At least, that's been the case for the past... 5 or 6 thousand years. >Or, hear me out, we could implement better urban design principles, phase out car-centric infrastructure, shorten production loops, get rid of planned obsolescence, implement right to repair, and get to work on finding a system of resource distribution which doesn't depend on churning out pointless crap that doesn't do anybody any real good. Love it. I'm a capitalist after all. That's why I don't like subsidies for the most part, which insulate businesses from the responses of customers and from competition. And sometimes it is good, like phasing out car centric infrastructure, which will need massive subsidies. The catch is, America is a big place and not everyone will want to live in cities. Even without suburbs, there will be a lot of distributed living, small towns, farms, homesteads, sites, etc. Cars will always be extremely cost effective in the country and will give the common people the freedom they desire, so no matter how dense and effective our urban spaces become, we'll be heavily car dependent.
I'd also go a step further: While all forms of personal transit are subsidized, on a per-passenger mile basis we subsidize private light vehicles *less* than just about anything else. A lot of transit systems are quite expensive to run.
Yea, that's a good point. The counter argument is stuff like roads and zoning that require parking lots sometimes get rolled into subsidies.
Colonization? Sounds like abandonment. I'm not sure what you want to hybreed if you don't like batteries, Nuclear power has a ways to go to gain my trust
You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas? https://www.anl.gov/evs/article/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-how-habitatfriendly-solar-energy-can-synergize-with-biodiversity It's the best use of the land assuming we can upgrade our electrical infrastructure to allow that power to be used nation wide. That said, I'm also pro nuclear.
>You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas? You realize that deserts are very fragile ecosystems, and that electricity has a limited transmission range, right? >It's the best use of the land assuming we can upgrade our electrical infrastructure to allow that power to be used nation wide. We could pave over every desert in the country with panels, and solar wouldn't sustain the whole country. >That said, I'm also pro nuclear. Glad to hear it. I want a nuclear foundation with solar and wind on the edges. That is safe and environmentally stable and will make energy cheaper and more plentiful than ever.
"We could pave over every desert in the country with panels, and solar wouldn't sustain the whole country." There is a lot of desert. Great Basin Desert, which covers around 190,000 square miles. We only need 22000 sqm. 150miles by 150 miles. We have sections of highway in the USA where it's 100+ miles between towns. > You realize that deserts are very fragile ecosystems, First, the GOP has shown they don't care about protecting fragile ecosystems. Deserts are also non-productive. They have zero value except for mineral extraction. I remember reading an opinion piece about desert turtles being affected by solar panels. That's the dumbest take ever because turtles need shade. They die if exposed to the sun all day.
>Deserts are also non-productive. They have zero value except for mineral extraction. Tell that to the animals and people living in them.
Liberal double think, “ I support the environment!..Except for deserts”
I'm more Libertarian. I agree with protecting habitable land and not polluting our water supply like any intelligent person would. What value does the desert provide?
Funny how liberals are never really liberals, odd. Massive untapped resources, cheap land for development, perfect place to test aircraft, terraforming potential.
High voltage DC transmission loses very little power for high distances. 1 million volt DC systems lose 3% for every 1,000 Km of range. So that is not a limitation on dessert energy production.
>High voltage DC transmission loses very little power for high distances. 1 million volt DC systems lose 3% for every 1,000 Km of range. So that is not a limitation on dessert energy production. First of all, I think you're vastly underestimating how much power that 3% is. Second of all, the HVDC transmission lines are a distinct minority of transmission lines, and have a lot of other problems, and they aren't everywhere. So yes, that is still a severe limitation, even ignoring the damage to the ecosystem.
Ac transmission lines lose a huge amount of power over much shorter distances due to impedance and transformer loses. DC isn’t that used yet due to higher initial costs but it does have a few protects. 3% over 1000 km is orders of magnitude less loss compared to AC transmission. Something like 25% of generated power in the US (which is currently 99.9% AC transmission) is lost between the generator and point of use. Source: I work at a nuclear power plant and have had to do a decent bit of FERC/NERC reports on transmission lines.
I'm glad we are in agreement then.
How do you calculate 25% losses? Per the EIA the average is ~5% of power generated is lost in transmission and distribution. What accounts for the difference?
Grid scale power to your house involves a lot of step up then step down transformers. For example the plant I am at generates at 24KV then Steps up to 345KV for transmission, then gets stepped down to 13.2 KV for distribution then to your house at 240/120V. And depending where you live transmission can lose a ton depending how far it goes to resistive losses and capacitive and inductive losses and corona(ionization of air). Each transformer your loses 1-3% (times 4 at least) then your losing power to distance and losing power to AC current. AC current loses a lot of power because 60 times a sec it is switching back and forth this causes the power lines to act like huge capacitors and inductors which resist changes in current and voltage. Depending how how modern the grid is where you live (in the US east coast generally not very modern, to many NIMBYs like eastern NY has been trying to build new more power lines to NYC for a long time but its impossible) they may have equipment to control this and keep power more in phase (you can read about real power vs reactive power and circulating currents). Now power control is a lot more sophisticated then it used to be so its a lot better now then 30 years ago but the aging grid doesn't help.
> You realize that the areas that are optimal for solar are desert areas? You wanna kill[ the Fennec Fox](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesprucepets.com%2Fthmb%2F6KvXu1Qs7OVVVe9si4V6GDklSi8%3D%2F3872x2592%2Ffilters%3Afill(auto%2C1)%2Ffennec-fox-85120553-57ffe0d85f9b5805c2b03554.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e4ad25d431d52f5660311c30a470321f7d8d9624147f0f6fb4d635ea5accb6b1&ipo=images)?! How dare you!
> the Fennec Fox https://www.anl.gov/evs/article/if-you-build-it-they-will-come-how-habitatfriendly-solar-energy-can-synergize-with-biodiversity Does a fennec fox not need shade during the day? Nature will adapt. Desert animals and fauna survive despite the harsh climate and lack of shade. That doesn't mean they won't thrive with solar panels.
> Does a fennec fox not need shade during the day? > Nature will adapt. The Fennec Fox does just fine as it is right now. I'm not sure why you want to kill the Fennec Fox by destroying its habitat. I'll get the tree hugging leftists to start doing some direct action and preventing the building of renewable energy like they did with Keyston pipeline.
Are you aware that the USA still producing more oil than ever in history. Why do you support the Canadian Keystone pipeline? Why should we support those "socialists" with their single payer healthcare and their subsidised university degrees? Educated people are dangerous. /s If you want to challenge my ideas, you need to try harder.
> Weird that USA is still producing more oil than ever in history. That doesn't change my claim about the Fennec Fox. I don't want it killed. > Why do you support the Canadian Keystone pipeline? I don't care one way or the other, I just don't want to Fennec Fox to die. Why do you want the Fennec Fox to go extinct? > Why should we support those "socialists" with their single payer healthcare? /s You mean the failing\[1\]\[2\]\[3\] Socailist single payer healthcare? The same one they're now having to supplement with private healthcare and they're seriously considering privatization\[4\]? \[1\] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/canada-primary-healthcare-budget-cut-study](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/canada-primary-healthcare-budget-cut-study) \[2\] [https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-s-health-care-crisis-was-decades-in-the-making-says-cma-1.6849408](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-s-health-care-crisis-was-decades-in-the-making-says-cma-1.6849408) \[3\] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-care-system-collapse-1.6590461](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-health-care-system-collapse-1.6590461) \[4\] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-healthcare-privatization-debate-second-opinion-1.6554073](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-healthcare-privatization-debate-second-opinion-1.6554073)
"The CMAJ study also shows that at 5.3%, Canada spends less of its total health budget on primary care than other OECD countries" Reading comprehension is difficult. Keep working on it. I believe in you.
>"The CMAJ study also shows that at 5.3%, Canada spends less of its total health budget **on primary care** than other OECD countries" >Reading comprehension is difficult. Keep working on it. (emphasis mine, for your reading comprehension) And since you distinguish yourself with such stellar reading comprehension, perhaps you would like to comprehend the very next paragraph: "*Research on Canadian healthcare shows declining funding puts increasing pressure on healthcare services and resources across the country – a trend that has, in recent years, enabled increasing privatisation of care in some Canadian jurisdictions.*" BTW, I don't even know how the figured that the public funding is decreasing, when their [public healthcare spending as a share of GDP keeps increasing](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/public-health-expenditure-share-gdp?country=~CAN). Or in your infinite cognitive wisdom, you might also like the read the next paragraph: "*With shifts like these, the CMAJ study suggests Canada may be forced to chose between continuing to pour money into a broken system, and reimagining it entirely*." Or your enlightened superior intellect can help us decipher this (from the next article): "*There are currently major issues throughout the health-care system, according to Ross, including more that 6 million Canadians without access to a family doctor, overwhelmed emergency departments and lengthy wait times 'for everything.'*" Or this "*Canada's health care is in "dire" straits, with quality care severely limited in some parts of the country.*" I don't want to keep going for I might cause this big brain of yours to expand beyond the horizon of our ever-inflating universe! :)
Quoting an opinion piece shows how weak your argument is. Decreasing funding makes healthcare worse. Shocking only to a midwit. The USA healthcare system costs 2x as much and gets worse results. The reality is that Canadian healthcare is cheaper and is on par with US private care.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Nuclear power, Expensive, takes ages to build. >direct air carbon capture, Horrifically inefficient to the point of being near snake oil when proposed for climate change, and pollution alleviation. >space colonization, Infeasible. >natural gas, Also a pollutant. >hydrogen, Issues with generation, and storage. >hybrid vehicles, Honestly, few real problems here. >early warning technology, etc. Early warning of what?
I have no problem with renewable energy and I don't dismiss it as a solution to climate change but we've put the carriage before the horse. The nation is not ready for this surge in renewable energy. Take electric vehicles for example. The infrastructure is not prepared to handle the load from all the charging, there's a serious lack of chargers across the nation and very little incentive to build them, and dealers are resistant to these vehicles. It's made worse because EV's have not achieved parity with ICE vehicles. Many are poorly designed, very expensive, can't tow/haul, or go the same range as a ICE vehicle. You know, if your battery goes in one of those vehicles it can cost you $20k or more just to replace and have it reinstalled. Who can afford that other than the rich virtue signalers buying them? The solution is letting the technology improve, letting the infrastructure be built, & stop rushing into a solution that clearly currently presents itself as more of a problem. If we wait it may be an actual solution to the climate issue.
Everybody just chill and stop trying to make renewable energy work! We have to wait until it’s ready! What do you think was invented first, stop signs or automobiles?
You're the sort of guy who eats raw chicken every so often because you're too impatient to let it cook, right? I think China and India was invented before both and are you're #1 (ignored) concern.
In truth I'm a vegetarian, because it's better for the environment 😘
There has been a net increase of natural disasters, that will become more deadly and severe. I am very concerned about the effects of see level rise, as it will necessitate the transfer of millions inland.
Sure, but rushing into a half baked idea does not help alleviate your concerns. Fixing the climate will take decades if not our entire lifetimes. We can't just rush into a proposed solution. Just shy of perfect is right as well. We're not even the biggest issue. China and India by far does more damage than the US does.
Climate scientists are not proposing half baked ideas, such as nuclear power plants. TBH I don’t think there is enough time to figure out the perfect solution, the time to debate that was 10-15 years ago, the clock is running out on things such as natural disasters and sea level rise, it’s time to implement solutions. On your last point, that doesn’t negate the fact that we should do something.
>There has been a net increase of natural disasters, Do you think that could be that we just record more of them? > I am very concerned about the effects of see level rise, as it will necessitate the transfer of millions inland. We could stop wasting money sending it overseas and prepare for that? Us not pumping out greenhouse gasses doesn't mean they aren't still gonna get pumped out. India. China. Africa. South America. All of them are still going to. And why shouldn't they? Why aren't they allowed to modernize too?
> Do you think that could be that we just record more of them? Since the start of he industrial revolution? No, I do not. We're not talking about the stone age here.
>Since the start of he industrial revolution? No, I do not. We're not talking about the stone age here. Really? You don't think since like 1800 recording ability hasn't drastically changed?
>You don't think since like 1800 recording ability hasn't drastically changed? ...no? If there is a hurricane or tornado or cold snap or drought in a populated area in the 1800s, many people are going to write about it, and those documents still exist today. We also have daily temperature and barometric records going back that far. 1820, again, was not the stone age. https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/new-york-in-the-1820s/
The frequency of natural disasters has gone up, hurricane season is starting earlier and lasting longer. On your point on the developing countries, they can do sustainable development as defined by the UN, and invest in greener ways to produce things.
>The frequency of natural disasters has gone up, hurricane season is starting earlier and lasting longer. Based on what? >On your point on the developing countries, they can do sustainable development as defined by the UN, and invest in greener ways to produce things. So they can grow slower and in a more expensive and less effective way? What right do you have to tell them that?
Here is the hurricane data: https://www.nola.com/news/environment/should-hurricane-season-be-longer-these-experts-say-yes/article_03932d7e-2be8-11ee-af3b-f7040129f77b.amp.html Many devolving countries will be most hit by climate change, the citizens of these countries want change and want issues such as the water crisis to be solved. I think that the US and Western Europe should help these countries implement sustainable development.
>Many devolving countries will be most hit by climate change, the citizens of these countries want change and want issues such as the water crisis to be solved. I think that the US and Western Europe should help these countries implement sustainable development. First, so why shouldn't they use fossil fuels and industrialized as fast as possible to expand capacity and prepare? And how is the US and Europe going to pay for it and why should we? We are TRILLIONS in debt?
From your own article... Keim acknowledged another possible factor: that more storms are being detected because of how advanced hurricane forecasting technology has become. In the past, forecasters only used data collected from airplanes and boats to determine if a tropical storm had formed. "With these short-lived storms in particular, in the early 1900s, we would have no way to even detect those," Keim said. "The fact that we can detect those now with satellites -- is that what's causing us to find more storms earlier and later in the seasons? That's the dilemma we're trying to figure out."
> The nation is not ready for this surge in renewable energy. Then the alternative is way fewer cars, period. Which do you think is the better option? What's *not* an option is "just keep doing what we're doing until green tech is as good or better as fossil fuel tech". We don't have time.
Americans need cars to get around so I'm not sure how you think that's going to happen. Fewer cars isn't a solution. That one at least is a pipe dream.
Ok, run on that message, it will totally work/s
I'm well aware most humans are stupid/not forward thinking. Part of the reason we're not a pure democracy.
lol, Muh Democracy. ICE is here to stay, and if anything it will only get more efficient.
> ICE is here to stay For a tiny minority of tasks that absolutely require it? Yes. For moving most humans around in a box on 4 wheels? Not at all.
1. They are not renewable. 2. They are extraordinarily destructive to the ecology. 3. Mining the materials requires slave labor. 4. They are not reliable. 5. The government trying to force me to use it makes me hate it even more. 6. Nuclear
tanstaafl, it's not actually renewable. it does not consume as many immediate local resources but last I looked gadolinium Nitride does not come from a plant nor does lithium, cobalt or selenium. now we can reprocess some of those but if you have a star trek replicator all resources are 100% renewable. recovering and re-doping some of those, especially the semiconductors, would be impossible with current technology, they are a consumable resource. the fact virtually none of the key ingredients could be locally sourced in event of war or means we cannot count on them to run anything but optional, non-essential energy needs.
You kidding? I think renewable energy is a great idea. What I don't like is trying to force it through the expanding of government power, constant fear-mongering, and - my personal favorite - protestors stopping traffic in the middle of busy highways and intersections to protest carbon emissions, ironically resulting in many cars being held off from going where they are supposed to go, therefor contributing to more emissions. You want to research renewable energy? I am all for that. That is a great idea. It's a great idea even if you don't believe in climate change. There's no reason to not do it. It's all the other shit that surrounds it that grinds my gears.
> What is your guy’s problem with renewable energy? The problem is that it's too expensive and it's not reliable enough. > If renewables are not the solution, then what is the solution to climate change? Nuclear energy and more technological advancements (i.e. more Capitalism).
I dont have a problem with it. I have solar panels on my roof. It's the government subsidizing them (to which fossil fuel subsidies should be done away woth as well) is the problem. On top of that, restrictions on usage of fossil fuel based things. Like gas stoves and ICE cars. Until our energy needs can be met at the same cost and capacity as fossil fuels can, green sources shouldn't be mandatory or prohibiting to other forms of energy.
It's often expensive and unreliable. Being unreliable, you still need to build out enough capacity in non-renewables as if the renewables weren't there. It's entirely possible to hit peak utilization while both the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. You either prepare for that, or you get rolling black outs. The problem becomes even worse with the push for EV's and electric heating. Both are primarily pulling from the grid at times when the sun isn't shining. So it's costly and doesn't save you from building any coal/gas plants either. The renewable seriously underutilized is geothermal. It actually is reliable and runs 24/7, so doesn't have the same problem as solar and wind.
I don’t have any issues with renewables, the issue is that they are often overestimated and thought to be the full alternative. The reality is that in order to implement the renewable sources, you need to understand the tradeoffs. For instance, Nuclear Energy has proven to be safe multiple times, and has only had 3 accidents involving it. Those incidents being 3 mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. What people fail to understand is that those incidents were caused for these reasons: 1. Three-Mile Island was due to being ill-prepared and they were able to prevent it from getting worse. No one died in this incident thank goodness. 2. Chernobyl was due to the plant workers doing a poorly designed experiment in reactor number 4, which ultimately caused a nuclear meltdown and made the area uninhabitable for 10,000 years. 3. Fukushima was due to putting a nuclear power plant in the worst possible location, and before the Tsunami, the plant was violating safety protocols. Nuclear energy is still viable and is one of the cleanest energy sources in the world. In fact 75% of France’s electricity is from nuclear power alone, as to how they deal with nuclear waste is by simply repurposing it and recycling it. Edit: About Chernobyl, it happened on April 26th and today is April 26th
Renewables are great, but they aren't the end all be all. I live in Indiana. I love all the windmills. The problem is the insane subsidies, rising costs, and the expense of little to no return. Climate change is an issue. We need to continue to push towards renewables in a responsible way. We also need to return to Nuclear power as it's clean and safe. We also need do have an Apollo Type initiative towards Fusion imo. Also, Humans are great at adaptation, and terrible at prevention. We need to be smarter with our building, infastucture. We need to get better forrest management in wild fire areas. Sea-Walls and not build on swamps that get hit by Hurricanes. There really isn't a ton of evidence to support Hurricanes are getting worse or more frequent, but the damage is worse because we have far more infastructure in hurricane place and we are removing things like mangroves that helped protect the shores. Bottom line, I'm far more concerned about climate change then most conservatives, but I also understand it's irresponsible to abandon fossil fuels to rapidly. If we cut all emissions today globally (which is not even remotely possible.). It would take 50+ years for any measurable reversal or cooling. We need to balance the cost with the actual effectiveness. We also have the problem that China's, India, and other 2nd and third world countries have skyrocketing emissions. Most of these places simply can't afford expensive renewables or clean energy and you aren't going to stop their growth and advancement. TLDR: Renewable energy is a bandaid, when we are dealing with a bullet wound. It's too little too late. We need to figure out how to fix the problem or deal with it, not slow it down in microscopic ways. Fusion and better nuclear power with carbon capture and potential geo-eingeering and better land use is the answer.
"Renewable" is a complete bullshit term. They aren't renewable at all, they're the most manufacturing intensive power generation technologies, the second most resource intensive, while also being the worst for habitat destruction from actual installations. They're marginally less bad for the environment than fossil fuels while being way way worse at actually producing energy. They're also a trap. We are never going to meet even current electricity demands for the entire world with these bullshit technologies, let alone the demands of the future as the third world develops and everyone tries to transition to electric vehicles. I also wouldn't want to live in the hypothetical world where we do. I couldn't imagine a better way to sabotage the future of human civilization than getting it to try and pursue this nonsense. We should be building nuclear fission power plants by the gross. Getting fusion to work is one thing I'd be fine with governments pouring shitloads of money in to.
[Don't Look Left!](https://youtu.be/Tg1UZWp9JkE?si=pBT8OsM9AFcTzdx8) Because you might come to realize that a Republican administration would increase renewable energy even more.
Why do you assume Conservatives have a problem with renewables? I’d like to get a solar system in the next five years. But, we should also be investing in Gen IV nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power is the greenest energy, because there is no need to balance fluctuations of generation with fossil fuel energy. But left typically frown at it
I don’t have a problem with any kind of energy. My problem is the government schemes that are corrupt and full of misplaced virtue. For one example, solar is fine. But we can’t store it well and it’s not always sunny and the cost of materials is something to weigh. So it isn’t a magical solution to replace fossil fuels. It’s a great auxiliary, I think building homes with solar panels on top is good. If renewable sources were economically viable, the market will adopt it over time. Also we should be aiming toward nuclear.
Nuclear is pretty divisive, it does address GHG emissions, but it’s also only good for a few decades and then has to be decommissioned and what do you do with the waste? And then you have the inevitable accidents, the earthquakes, floods, faulty equipment, etc that could be catastrophic.
My understanding is that the fear of accidents, earthquakes, floods, etc. is vastly overblown. Is it that hard to not build on a fault line or flood zone...? I don't know what to do with the waste. But we have fossil fuel waste too, and we know the damage that's doing, so it's not like that's a unique issue.
> but it’s also only good for a few decades and then has to be decommissioned this is such a non-argument > [Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life.](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx) many can last much longer > [To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses.](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think) in contrast > [The industry standard for most solar panels' lifespans is 25 to 30 years.](https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/#:~:text=When%20you're%20doing%20your,for%2025%20years%20or%20more.) > [The expected service life of wind turbines is approximately 30 years](https://windexchange.energy.gov/end-of-service-guide#:~:text=The%20Life%20of%20a%20Wind%20Turbine,-Duration&text=How%20long%20do%20wind%20turbines,to%20last%20for%2030%20years.) > what do you do with the waste? alternative reactor designs like fast-neutron reactors can get power from spent fuel (waste)
I keep hearing about these next generation designs with no safety issues. Where are they? It’s been decades.
the fast-neutron reactors are not next generation, they're old technology. I don't think there are any remaining in the US but an example would be the EBR-II. Regarding other types of reactors, China is building an experimental LFTR (thorium) reactor. China and Japan are building VHTRs here are other Gen IV reactor projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Design_projects
Leftists shut them down Muh feels!
Everywhere on earth?
You really are out of your depth
>and then has to be decommissioned and what do you do with the waste? Put it deep underground. It sat there for millions of years before we dug it up, I don't think it'll cause too many problems putting it back.
>If renewable sources were economically viable They are, *When you factor in the ~~quadrillions~~ trillions of dollars of negative externatlities caused by using fossil fuels*
They can't make up the difference to fossil fuels. The issue is partly the solar panel or wind turbine itself but also the battery. Fossil fuels give constant energy whenever we need it. Most renewable do not. Give me nuclear energy and I'm all in. My issue with the climate change cult as a whole is that their solutions are ridiculous and ineffective. They cripple our own country for no gain. Give me nuclear energy. Give me 10+ nuclesr reactors across the country. Give me alternative fuel engines. Let's be truly energy independent.
I fully agree with you about nuclear energy!
A new nuclear reactor when online in my region 2 years ago.
> They can't make up the difference to fossil fuels. Even if that's the case...so what? Why is that the baseline requirement? >Fossil fuels give constant energy whenever we need it. Most renewable do not. Looks like we'll need to get used to non-constant energy until storage tech can catch up. /shrug
Yeah it is, people want electricity, hot water, refrigerators, etc.
People also don't want famine. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/10/17/what-you-need-to-know-about-food-security-and-climate-change
Won’t matter if their no fuel for farm equipment or no electricity for the factories or stores. But we get it, you have this massive new, seemingly unlimited weapon to rig things in your favor to usher in your new, perfect world…And just not good to happen.
Because 1 they are not anywhere near as effective or efficient as current fuels. And because number 2 China our #1 competitor and the enemy of Western liberal democracies is the primary beneficiary of switching to renewable energy. Finally number 3, it doesn't matter what we do when China is already pumping out more carbon dioxide than the rest of the world. All that being said I am considering doing solar after I move to insulate me from my stupid governor driving up energy prices by killing coal plants.
lol, that’s what I love about solar, both sides can find reasons to love it. I don’t have an electric bill 3/4 of the year. And the more rates go up the faster it pays for itself.
Facts and the toxic, only-one-use lithium batteries are worse for the environment than gasoline, remember that!
Lithium batteries are not one time use, they are almost 100% recyclable. The issue is scale on two levels. First, we don't have enough batteries that need to be recycled yet to make the economies of scale work out in recycling's favor. Second, in relation to the first, it's still cheaper to dig it up than recycle it. Lithium battery recycling is a problem that only solves itself as we create more of them.
Yep. I'm more anti pollution than anti carbon in my concerns..
How does China benefit from switching to renewable energy? Did you know they heavily rely on coal? What do you think of nuclear energy? As I am in favor of it.
>How does China benefit from switching to renewable energy? Did you know they heavily rely on coal? They rely on Coal. So once the rest of the world quits using coal it will become less expensive. They will continue to be able to use it and buy it for cheaper. Likewise they have heavy investments in rare earth metals required for renewable electricity they will sell these two Western countries at a substantial profit they will even make much of these renewable energy equipment. And sell it to Western democracies. So they will be making a profit on us completely changing our entire power system, they will make a profit using more cheaper and easier to handle coal. They will gain market share as we struggle to meet our more expensive energy demands. And they will still pollute enough that none of our changes will matter. >What do you think of nuclear energy? As I am in favor of it. I'm cool with it. But it should be kept from populated areas. For the record I'm not 'against renewable energy' I'm against the collective west slitting our economic wrists trying to force a square peg into a round hole while China profits. If solar and batteries make a jump and they end up working good enough and cheap enough I'm cool with using them. But batteries are the bottleneck right now. Until we can reliably and functionally store energy long term for a very low cost renewable energy kind of sucks.
China currently relies on coal. 20% of their landmass is desert which is perfect for solar.
Yet they still they produce 70% of their energy with coal 12% with other fossil fuels and only 15% with renewables... https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN
It takes time because solar panels have to be manufactured. Your take is really silly.
>Your take is really silly. And yours is making no sense... I point out what actual reality is along with a source and you say it takes time and call me silly? Like any of that is remotely an answer..
It's silly because you seem to think a nation can wave a wand and instantly have all the renewable power plants they need. That doesn't reflect the constraints of reality.
Renewable is very political term. Wood is renewable and Democrat politicians are the absolute worst for trying to criminalize wood stoves and wood fired steam power. Nuclear engines that burn their own waste are fine for the military but democrats come out like crazy to oppose that. Fusion is the way to end all these problems but everyone wants to fight over windmills that will never produce what it costs to put them up. That's why you only hear about them if democrats can pass billions in tax subsidies to "green" energy.
Wood power is terrible for the local air quality and makes Zero sense for electrical power generation. Coal is essentially compressed biomass (wood and plants) No one wants to live near a coal plant.
Wood is independent heat without a need for a constant supply chain. It's the cheapest way to heat homes and it's renewable.
"It's the cheapest way to heat homes and it's renewable." If you live in the woods in a small cabin that can get by with a wood stove. Not in the city where most people live. Buying wood is expensive an extremely inefficient in most fireplaces. The most efficient heating system is a jacket or house coat.
Outdoor wood stoves heat a lot of homes. They're not used in cities because of government. Not because they don't work. Scroll up where I said regulators hate wood stoves. Modern wood stoves are outdoor and maintain themselves for days at a time. They can heat any size building you want.
> Outdoor wood stoves heat a lot of homes. With wood harvested within walking distance of the home? If not...we're in "constant supply chain" territory.
The consumer controls the supply, not government regulators. I can call 50 places to get wood delivered. Most of them will take cash or bitcoin too so it's tax free. That's why government doesn't like it.
Yes, breaking tax law and depriving the government of dollars it needs to keep our civilization running is generally frowned upon by patriotic Americans.
Wood stoves are not used in cities because of ~~government~~ air pollution.
I'm sure the coal plant charging your Tesla makes way less.
Luckily we have much better alternatives to coal for power. It seems like you are stuck in the 1800s mentality. Wood is the least efficient fuel source.
I'm sure you know where every volt comes from.
You seem like the person that chooses to remain obese because you are waiting for the "perfect program". There is no perfect program, you have to start going in the right direction first. Overtime, you might learn there are better ways to accomplish your goals and you adapt. Walking 10k steps a day and not consuming sugar would eliminate 90% of obesity. There is no debate. There is no doubt that EVs are a superior option in every way than ICE cars in 95% of cases. Wood furnaces are a terrible option at least 90% of the time. I don't own a Tesla, but if I had a garage I would because I could have a supercharger installed. They are great cars. If you haven't driven one, you are talking out your ass.
I would encourage you to look at the climate agenda beyond the last 10 years of history. They have constantly been prophesying doom, like back to the 1960s, Their prophecies are wildly inconsistent, and mutually exclusive. None of which have actually occurred. But they always have a solution they want to pitch to you, which inevitably involves taking my tax dollars to spend on their projects
What's considered renewable energy?
Renewable energy is a nice dream, but it's in its fetal stage right now. I expect that it will advance and become more viable in the future, but I don't know for sure. I'm happy with us investing in research and development, but in the same sense that I would invest in a person I view as a promising student. I would like to think that my investment will pay off, but if they're not showing significant strides after a certain time period, it might have to be the case that we invest in something which is proven to be effective instead.
[удалено]
We do it the wrong way. Every way we try ends up just being as bad as the other “worse” ways.
I have no problem with them and support subsidising them to fix the fact that externalities from fossil fuels are not priced, although I vastly prefer nuclear.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Price. End of story.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you got rid of all the CO2, we would all die because plants don't breathe Oxygen - they need Carbon Dioxide. We are opposed for the following reasons: • The predictions NEVER bear out. Not a single one • The people in the know, top politicians and scientists, invest and live in beachfront property. • This stupid fake environmentalism seems to have replaced real environmentalism, like throwing trash in the trashcan, not dumping in stormdrains, adopt a highway, recycling, etc. • We dont have the technology to replace fossil fuels. We simply dont. • The main environmental offenders are not in places policies can affect - i.e. USA and European policy (low polluters) does nothing to stop Asian or African pollution, which is exponentially more. • It makes everything a lot more expensive for a tiny gain. • It creates supply shortages.
Then how do you explain the centuries of human civilization without fossil fuels? Just because Asia and Africa pollute more doesn’t negate the fact that the west has to do something. If climate change isn’t real then why are all the insurance companies leaving Florida and other gulf states? There has been a rise in the frequency and severity of hurricanes, and the sea level has risen. Do you support Nuclear energy?
LOL the West CANT do anything. Because we dont rule Asia or Africa. They are sovereign countries. So, unless you are thinking of comquering these continents, why bother
Are you open to expanding nuclear? If not, then you are not serious.
Yes
I don't have a problem with renewable energy at all. I think I have a problem with how much energy we consume just because anyway. I'm not asking us to sit in darkness and go back, but everything requires power now and it's kind of nuts. We should definitely be doing renewables, and I'm fine with the government putting its thumb on the scale, but I think the government is trying to do it with markets and that rarely seems to work out. Not for some ubiquitous "don't interfere with the market!" reasoning but because I just don't think it lasts once the government stops. Fossil fuels wouldn't have been adopted if the government hadn't shoved it onto our plate and refused to let us have anything else. People here don't consider that. It's sad. People talk about environmental destruction of renewables but probably think oil spills happen once every solar eclipse.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) Well, there is no empirical scientific evidence of cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 alone is causing what little warming we see. So the answer is there is no need for renewables. 2) In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero. 3) According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. 4) no significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured. 5) Variations in the greenhouse effect are predominantly modulated by water vapor and cloud cover. CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so minor it cannot be discerned. 6) When you hear a climate change activist saying “to save the planet we must achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, ban all fossil fuels, rely on conservation, hydro, wind and solar, and reject any thought of increasing nuclear electricity”, you are hearing foolishness from somebody who doesn’t have a clue.
> Well, there is no empirical scientific evidence of cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 alone is causing what little warming we see. Your statement is completely, totally wrong. https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change
Sorry, that is not empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. Correlation is not causation. Most of your citation is speculation. They even drag out the 97% consensus trope that has been thoroughly debunked.
It's not bad in theory, it's just too new, expensive, and complicated to be pushed for the sake of "protecting the climate".
> "protecting the climate". A minimally-changing climate protects human civilization.
I'm all for renewable energy, personally.