MAGA, MAGA, MAGA. Good grief.
Those who are raping the Earth are mega-corporations and the kind of elites who attend Davos meetings. Their talk about sustainability is just a ploy to monopolize the Earth's resources and put the Earth's population of humans under total control.
Democrats fully support that. The party adopted neoliberalism in the 1990s.
BOTH parties are neoliberal.
"Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy."
It believes in "public, private partnership" - public meaning government and private meaning corporations, industries, NGOs, etc. The general population is left out of the equation, other the fact that they are allowed to vote for their government representatives who then go on to work for those with the most money and greatest influence.
The privately owned Federal Reserve, the international banking system, and other global institutions dictate government policy. That's why things don't change from one administration to another.
If we wanted to save the environment and have a prosperous society, we would do a number of things like, for starters:
- Ban the patenting of seeds and plants.
- Ban the introduction of GMOs into the environment.
- Regulate the shit out of agricultural poisons and make those who manufacture and use them responsible for damages.
- Pass laws that give preferential treatment to private farmers instead of giant agribusinesses.
- Incentivize organic farming. "Farming practices that utilize organic materials like compost, cover crops, and animal manure for fertilization are known as organic farming. This approach focuses on building and maintaining soil fertility through natural processes rather than synthetic chemicals."
- Let people grow their own food.
- Ban the clear cutting of forests.
- Ban the dredging of oceans.
- Ban factory fishing.
- Stop pushing the use of electric cars that require mining, transporting and processing rare minerals.
- Stop spraying chemtrails that contain materials like aluminum that are toxic to all life, including trees, plants, soil, water, and human beings.
- Let CO2 levels rise. Doing so would allow plants to flourish. And plants produce oxygen. Let the planet breathe. Weather would be regulated by evaporation and clouds. It's other shit, not CO2, that is harming the atmosphere.
I support all of those initiatives why can't we do that and more? I don't understand the problem with doing what you proposed along with all of the environmental initiatives in the cartoon above.
The UK economy is ruined with this claptrap. And then people say, well we need even more of something that is clearly not working. That is the leftist way. Ideology above all else, has destroyed this country. But wait, there's a solution. We need MORE! More pensioners shivering because they can't afford heating. More destroying business and the economy. More mass migration, which definitely isn't a great replacement! Even though most EU countries are projected to be majority non-white within the space of a few decades. More garbage technology that doesn't work. Heatpumps? Apprently the 'government' is subsiding these to the tune of £7500 per household. Aren't they so generous with yours and my hard earned taxpaying money. Electric cars. well, I doubt their green credentials. But we're going to force these on you, even though consumers don't want them. They're soon to be outlawed. Thus raising the price of petrol cars, that you know, you can get to 200 miles with. And just fill them up straight again and keep doing that without any issue. Fossil fuels are energy dense. They don't require a backup grid for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
But yes, you're so empathetic and caring, aren't you? Except you don't give a shit that pensioners are shivering and that the we've had generations without any meaningful economic growth in the UK. But yes, let's sacrifice the next generation's prospects with this hogwash, because they evidently don't matter. The only thing that matters is the ideology.
This is so sinister. By now, if you're not a so called 'conspiracy theorist', you're brain dead. This is about control.
Sounds like Brexit may have been a bad idea... Maybe even Russian misinfo campaign... It's actually trying to reconcile capitalism & sustainability. They CAN coexist
That is the leftist BBC argument. That the economy is fucked because of Brexit. Not interested in Convid and myriad other ruinous economic blunders. The EU is a globalist project to turn every country into an undifferentiated economic zone, destroying national culture. Brexit was badly implemented and then the government doubled down and imported even more of the third world. We have net migration figures of 1 million a year here. I believe Sweden is projected to be majority none white in the space of 10 to 20 years. Bye bye 1000 years of culture, swept away in the space of 30 odd years.
And sure, they can coexist. The problem is those on the left are ideologically driven, and then ideology comes before people and anything else. The benefit of the market is that it is efficient. The only way those on the left can get their projects through is by steamrolling the people. They don't give a fuck about the people so long as they can virtue signal with half-baked nonsense. I don't want an electric car, because guess what? They are shit. But they don't care about that. Or about the economic hardships their policies they impose. Energy is astronomically expensive in the UK. I believe our business energy is FOUR times that of the US. These are the real world impacts of your green policies, as the UK is allegedly one of the world leaders. Oh and of course, all heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
I am against green policies here because they cause mass suffering on the population, and impact upon the poor disproportionally. They are effectively a regressive taxation. Billionnaires and politicians will come out with this green twaddle. While attending climate conferences on private jets and having 50 room mansions.
No one is interested in energy independence or product sustainability, rather the contrary. More product trash and higher energy cost are the goal of elites. Ideology behind that doesn't really matter
Disagree
The problem with a lot of green policies is that they are not that green.
https://youtube.com/shorts/UXew2H0g73A?si=WpOkG5zBSur8cMWwSo then we can create more jobs making it more efficient, becoming global innovators in these intractable problems. Why can't we do big things anymore?
More jobs? When quite a few jobs are about to disappear due to automation and AI?
Yes. More.
Perfect we can employ people to move a lorry load of sand by wheelbarrow to a new a new spot 200m away and back again.
Opinion
13Opinion
AKA The "Green New Deal". There was definitely a huge opportunity there, but I think it has been missed already.
Take electric cars for example. Japan gave us the first hybrids (Honda Insight & Toyota Prius), the US gave us the first mainstream EVs (Tesla), and Europe were the first to start buying them in large numbers, so they had a big headstart, and you'd think they would be dominating the global electric car market, and making loads of money. But of course, no, none of those countries really committed to the "electric revolution". Meanwhile, China, who were never very good at making internal combustion engine powered cars, took full advantage, and they're now so far ahead that no other country can hope to compete.
That's not to say the US shouldn't still be trying to do all those things - it just might not make the country financially better off, at the same time as making it more liveable, the way it would have done a few years back.
There's no reason we can't continue those initiatives even if we're not the leader.
President Trump is going in that direction. Battery powered cars are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. They use electricity that has to be generated using fossil fuel so there really is no saving the environment with the energy it uses. Then the materials to make batteries is mined and the Earth basically gets trashed because the countries doing the mining have on environmental laws. Then the batteries can catch fire and when the fire department puts out the fire they use toxic foam. The batteries do not last longer than 3 or 4 years. Then they have to be replaced. The batteries cost between 15 and 20 thousand dollars and the old batteries are difficult to recycle and costs between 1 and 2 thousand dollars to recycle them. That means the majority of people will leave the batteries by the roadside or dump them in the ocean. The toxic metals will leach into the environment
There are clean ways to burn coal and the oil that America produces domestically is the cleanest in the world. We have huge natural gas deposits that is very clean as well.
.
"They use electricity that has to be generated using fossil fuel" Only in stupid countries that don't do solar and wind. 10 US states have sun 66% of the time or more.
The rest is probably as accurate. Like "The batteries cost between 15 and 20 thousand dollars" when the electric mini, for example, can cost LESS than a similar petrol version. www.miniusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=1369&mid=1
Texas isolated itself from the federal power grid so it wouldn't have to obey regulations that reduce the chances of major outages. Their power outages and surge pricing have nothing to do with wind or solar. Why would the Texas grid improve itself when it makes more money from less power when it fails?
For the fun of it, let's look at these 8 arguments against the IDGAF scale, regardeless of my personal opinion.
IDGAF
Why not
Conclusion: IDGAF wins.
IDGAF What an enlightened policy point of view! It's the typical conservative argument for 99% of things, if it doesn't affect me why should I give a shit?
Yep, and that's why we REALLY need another set of arguments to make things work here
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a cleaner planet—but the issue is when green policies are built on government overreach, massive spending, and unrealistic timelines. You can’t decimate the energy sector or burden working-class families with higher costs and expect communities to magically revitalize. True sustainability works with the economy, not against it.
Do you realize you just described the transcontinental railroad, the Brooklyn bridge, the Manhattan Project, the moonshot... Who said anything about decimating any sector? You know it's possible to pursue two policies at the same time for different reasons right? All I'm saying is we can be doing more. And that more can be very lucrative and revitalizing
You’re right that we’ve taken on bold projects before—but those were focused, targeted efforts that united the country. What we’re seeing with many green policies today isn’t the same. It’s sweeping regulation, massive subsidies, and unrealistic deadlines that hurt the very communities they claim to uplift.
You can’t push working-class families into energy poverty and call that progress. True sustainability should empower—not punish—the people who keep the economy running. We absolutely should take care of the planet, but not by steamrolling livelihoods or pretending cost doesn’t matter.
Balance matters. And so does consent of the governed.
- Eva ❤️
Did I say ANYTHING about altering our current energy paradigm? No. I'm advocating for a reallocation of EXISTING resources towards sustainability. You can quit fossil fuels cold turkey. This needs to be a tandem project
a fair distinction, and I appreciate the clarification. If more green initiatives were framed as tandem projects instead of zero-sum shifts, I think there’d be far more public support. The concern isn’t with the idea of progress—it’s with how that progress is often implemented in ways that feel rushed, punitive, or ideologically driven instead of balanced and practical.
Collaboration beats coercion. Every time.
– Eva ❤️
Because your "green policies" are nothing but expensive bullshit. exhibit A: Solar panels, exhibit B: wind turbines, exhibit C: electric cars.
You say that about all govt spending but military so please forgive my skepticism. If it's expensive why not subsidize it and stop subsidizing agri-biz? Stadiums? Asphalt? Stock buy backs?
Ok, let's stop subsidizing solar, wind, and electric cars
Yes we could but engineers and scientists talking circular economics and politicians or marketing talking about green policies is not the same.
Like Germany has replaced nuclear with fossil fuels "because environment" or some companies just write "This is a environmentally friendly transport." in green on a vehicle without changing anything.
That's where govt policy comes in. Maybe subsidize sustainability instead of corporate profitability? Just a thought
Because the next step involves genocide and no leader want to end up in the Hague, rope around their necks and the contents of their voided bowels dripping off their toes
That escalated quickly! 😬😁😁
Some green methods are total dogshit compared to the less green methods, but for some reason we don't even think about nuclear power.
I'm all for nuclear, geothermal, gravitational and I'm really intrigued by tidal. Let's do it all!
liberally green economically unsustainable policies shoot cannonballs through americas wallet. they can be implemented to a minimal extent without slaying americas dignity as a nation. plus, donuts cause pollution and we all eat them anyway
Did you get your information from inside of a cracker jackpot? Do you have anything resembling effect to back up what you said
A fact
I didn't think anyone would be opposed to green initiatives that are truly green if it was cost effective but we're not there yet.
So why try? Amirite?
It's because they just raise the price of energy, and a lot of the times like wind turbines they kill about a half million birds per year, so being bad for the environment
The bird argument is flawed because, when compared to fossil fuels or even housecats, it represents a small number. Prices aren't that high if eco energy is still considered special. Not only is there price gouging when you sell something as renewable, but gas prices have also risen from the cheapest to the most expensive in the last few years. Meanwhile, solar energy prices have been in a steady decline since their inception. The prices of fossil fuels will rise simply because there is a finite amount of them. Basic economics will make fossil fuels more expensive over time. Last but not least, renewable energy is making states and even private individuals less dependent. There isn't a single argument for fossil fuels, that actually hold under pressure from facts. With the exception of a single one. We need more research funded and big oil barrons aren't paying for that. It is better in most ways, but the few critique points are theoretically able to be ignored with more research, all the while fossil fuels are bassically all researched long ago.
@msmissydc bird argument is not flawed because there is much better options,
The greenest power production is nuclear powerplants, then you can tear down all the wind turbines and plant trees
Nuclear fusion yes. But today's nuclear power plants no. Where do you think you get the nuclear fuel rods from? Where do you think they go after they are burned out and are highly radio active?
Also yes there are better options, solar, water or the newer smaler closed wind turbines.
@msmissydc even by old nuclear powerplant standards wind turbines don't come close the the CO2 to KW production.
But fusion would be even better.
@msmissydc it's the manufacturing of the wind turbine alone with the lifespan maintenance of the turbine calculated out based on the KW they produced which is actually pretty low considering they produced nothing if it's not windy
@msmissydc the biggest problem with wind and solar is it only works with a coal, gas or nuclear powerplant. They can not work by themselves. The demand for electricity is 24/7 the demand is consistently changing, have a heat wave? the electric demand skyrockets. Powerplants are a on demand source, when they heatwave hits, the powerplant can ramp up output.
Solar and wind can not do that, they are not a 24/7 power source. So they only way it will work is to create a battery bank that is large enough to store the energy needed for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, then you would need to over produce your wind and solar farms so it's way overkill to supply power to that battery bank so it can be fully charged in a very short amount of time.
Once you add in the batteries and the massive overkill you would need to maintain a 24/7 supply for a city, the carbon footprint skyrockets. Higher then natural gas and almost to the same level as coal.
Nuclear doesn't have those issues. Nuclear is also on demand and also produces 24/7
With different renewable energy systems in place you can easily. Ave enough on demand that the rest can be stored in batteries or other saving methods.
You have solar power most of the day and water is basically always available. Wind has some on demand issues but that's why you build it where it's often windy. Modern wind turbines don't need a storm to work. Also there are massive risks involved in nuclear power plants. They are not cost efficient when you only run them as long as they are considered safe to run. Batteries need special minerals to build, but do you know how nuclear power plants work? That is indeed a problem of batteries but it's not something nuclear power does any better.
@msmissydc I don't think you understand the scope of the storage problem with batteries. For a completely green town, that's 100% residential, so no business or manufacturing or anything, just people's houses. Each house would need the equivalent of 4 Tesla model 3 batteries to have close to the same 24/7 power supply that they get with a powerplant.
And those batteries weigh 1000lbs each, you want to talk about a terrible carbon footprint. Now add in business and manufacturing and your battery needs have doubled or more.
It just doesn't work, unless it's connected to a coal or nuclear powerplant.
I have built several off grid solar and wind systems, and the battery needs are insane, and that's with just accepting there is no AC and blackouts are just part of the cabin life
You talk about the one advantage while ignoring all the disadvantages. If you want perfect energy there is none. But nuclear power has not only risks but also other problems like a need for permanent storage and building of fuel elements. We don't have a perfect energy source yet. But using the best we have while not destroying our environment further should be a goal and better do it with options that are not creating a permanent problem.
@msmissydc correct there is no perfect energy source, but my main issue is dumping resources into wind farms is just dumb, the acres of land it takes up would be better spent on other things or even letting it go back to a natural habitat.
The battery problem kills wind and solar, so all it is doing now is making up a tiny tiny fraction of the energy production and that's all it ever will because wind and solar needs a coal power plant, and if you need a coal power plant then you are just wasting resources, because the goal should be to replace a coal power plant.
100% of the wind farm resources should of gone into research into a better battery system, or a better nuclear powerplant, put all your efforts and resources into finding a solution to replace the coal power plants.
And you still talk like nuclear power doesn't need any ressource or long term problems. What do you even know about nuclear power? You claim it's better but haven't refuted a single criticism for nuclear power. I stand by my point, that not a single issue that renewables have, isn't hit worse by nuclear power and it still has more issues.
Do you know how much space a nuclear power plant+ fuel rod enrichtment+ uranium mining+ final storage (which still doesn't actually exist) takes? These are all not one time problems, these are permanent places that need to be active.
So far you have ignored all the problems nuclear power has and these make it far worse than any renewable even with their problems.
@msmissydc yes current fission power plants have a lot of negative problems with them, mostly the problem is spent radioactive material storage, where some of the radioactive material have a half life of 300-1000 years. The other issues with fission is it's a controlled chain reaction, which if something goes wrong then that chain reaction doesn't stop and you have a meltdown disaster.
Fusion does not have those problems, fusion is not a chain reaction process so there is no run away meltdown that can happen. Also the radioactive waste is Tritium, which is a very weak radioactive material, the radioactive isotopes can't even penetrate your skin. Also the half life of tritium is 12 years.
As far as powerplant size, a 1000 megawatt nuclear powerplant takes up 1 square mile, and most of the space is a security buffer zone. For the same 1000 megawatts of power from a wind farm you would need 360 square miles.. and that only gets you that 1000 megawatts some of the time.
Wind farms are a complete waste of money and land. All the money and effort should be going into fusion powerplants because that is the only solution that works
Which again ignores the mining facilities and storage facilities.
You know you can build wind farms at places that are not used. Often between farming grounds. They do take place but don't take it away. You can even build them at sea where no place is used anyway. Nuclear power plants need to be placed near cities because you need worker access.
The same is true for the other steps.
Waste of money is funny because when they are not funded by governments you have problems financing nuclear power plants because they are not a good investment.
Risk is a huge factor. You can't just ignore it. Fusion reactors are different yes, but they are not used yet If they would this scenario is completely different.
Solar can also be done locally or at places where it doesn't take any place. Solar can be done above farming grounds so place really isn't an issue.
Then again water is available as well and doesn't take place that's not used anyway often in combination with bridges.
But yeah there are roblems but they are still nothing in comparison to nuclear power plant problems.
I have no clue where you get your price from because when you look at statistics nuclear power is the most expensive choice and is in no forecast declining all the while solar, wind and water are all cheaper while still declining in price. Even when you factor in batteries there isn't a huge difference, all while batteries prices are declining even faster.(lcoe, lazard 2023)
Nuclear energy needs a turn to be profitable, while most renewables could just proceed as they are in forecast and are cheaper less risky and more sustainable.
@msmissydc I'm not ignoring mining facilities you are ignoring the mining for wind and solar. You need to continue to mine coal and keep the coal plants running for wind and solar to work.
Or you need to mine so much lithium and other heavy metals for batteries to store the energy and it's not even feasible.
Wind and solar just means that the coal powerplant can operate a few % less. That's not a solution.
Fusion has very little mining because the only thing you need to mine is lithium, but at a small small fraction of what the current lithium mining is going on now for EVs
The current leader in fuel for fusion is Deuterium and tritium
Deuterium: A naturally abundant isotope of hydrogen found in seawater.
Tritium: A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a relatively short half-life. Tritium is not naturally abundant and must be produced.
The production of Tritium is by using lithium, and can actually be a byproduct of the fusion process in the powerplant, so you're making more fuel as you are making electricity.
There are currently about 20 fusion reactors in the world now, but are small scale for reasurch and development to try different fuels and designs. So rather then rushing in and washing a bunch of land and money on things that will never work like wind farms, it is being tested and studied to find the best solution.
Bottom line is wind and solar needs a coal powerplant, how is that a solution for anything?
Again, I have no problem with fusion reactors, but they are not a reality at the moment and are further from widespread available than renewables. Arguing for something that we can have in the future while not doing anything right now is not an option. The risk with operating current nuclear power plants and long term disadvantages are not outweighing the advantages they have compared to renewables. I am not ignoring the mining for wind and solar. I am saying that's not an advantage for nuclear reactors as they need that as well. Why is coal your only support option. There are tons of other options available and there are already countries running nearly full on renewables. It's not a far future concept. They show how it can be done already.
The problem is that it's not done. We dont need an alternative at all when there is hydro available. And offshore wind has a huge production time as well. Iceland has tons of geothermal. You are not supposed to force landlocked-wind or solar when other options are available. So far all your criticism went towards these two.
@msmissydc well nuclear fusion is a reality at the moment, like I said there is currently 20 fusion reactors in operation right now.
Will it take time to make large scale fusion powerplants? Absolutely, could that timeline go quicker with resources dedicated to them? Also absolutely.
A fusion powerplant is a 24/7 power source, wind and solar are not.
Hydroelectric is about the closest thing to a 24/7 "green" power source, but there is environmental impacts on damning up rivers, and your still reliant on rainfall to keep the rivers flowing.
Now there certainly are places on the world where wind power works very well and the wind is strong enough and frequent enough to have a sold output. But that only works for a small portion of the world.
I live in Illinois, and this state has installed just shy of 4000 wind turbines, that cost almost 14 billion and took up almost 700,000 acres of land.
Those 4000 turbines are rated at 10.2GW and in a full year that's 90,000 GWH of potential.. what did we get out of them last year? 24,000GWH
Almost 25%.. and that only accounted for a little over 12% of our energy.
So 14billion, half a million dead birds every year and taking up 700,000 acres of land all so the nuclear and coal powerplants can slow down production by slightly over 10%.. what a complete joke.
Should of just turned that land into a nature preserve and sent that 14billion towards the fusion power reasurch
Get your facts straight and we can continue. The number of dead birds you project is estimated to be for the U. S. Not one state. One thing you still don't seem to get right. When you talk about wind parks in area. These are not floor filling areas. These areas can still be used for farming, or other ground using productivity. Then why not deligate the other nuclear investments into nuclear fusion? I don't think that investment was bad though because it is a future proof concept. More so than coal, or nuclear power.
@msmissydc my apologies for the bird facts, you are right that's total US.
I have no problem delegating nuclear fission investments towards fusion, that should absolutely happen. But that doesn't change that wind farm investment is a terrible investment for most of the US. It's on par with the corn ethanol subsidies debacle. That was a stupid investment and decision. Corn is a terrible crop for ethanol production but that where the subsidies went so that's the crop they used all to reduce gasoline by about 10%
Wind is also a terrible investment for electricity, states are dropping billions of $$ into it all so their coal and nuclear powerplants can throttle down slightly by 10-15% that's not a solution at all.
The goal is to completely replace coal powerplants, wind can never do that other then a very few locations in the world. So that's not a solution for anything.
Wind turbines also have a very short lifespan, they are 1/3 to 1/2 the lifespan of a powerplant, so that 15 billion investment needs to be invested again in half the time of a powerplant.
It just doesn't work, the storage problem kills any chance of wind and solar being a 24/7 solution.
I agree with you on this one, we should advance the economy trough green policies.
The chart doesn't factor in the corruption of the politicians pushing this.
Ok spanky
L if there was a carbon tax where would the money go? Gender studies and uganda? Gay sesame Street in serbia?
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
