The science isn't settled, by the way

I think it is real and we should treat our environment with respect, while working towards renewable energy, but at this point we're trying to "fix" contrived problems and ignoring very real ones. Until the Democrats actually focus on the real climate threats and stop trying to do more damage to Earth by "fixing" the U.S than they'd actually prevent I'm going to ignore them.

Personally, I think the government should keep out of it and let the market decide. If you want cleaner energy nuclear is the only answer.

THANK. YOU.

For what?

Eh, the government (in my opinion) should ensure we're not damaging the planet, but there are so many ways we can run more cleanly. We can use programs like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes to cut emissions. Our technology to cleanse byproducts of fossil fuels continually improves. Natural Gas, which burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels, is cheap, plentiful, and would allow us to cut our net emissions while creating lots of high-paying careers. Obviously in places where it makes sense we should use wind, solar, or hydroelectric power. However it makes sense to cleanly burn fossil fuels as well, for stability and economic reasons. Nuclear energy is certainly an option, but the byproducts are difficult to dispose of safely. Until we perfect nuclear fusion, rather than fission, I'd rather we avoided it. A catastrophic nuclear disaster is leagues worse than an oil plant explosion or anything like that.

You do realize 70% of French energy is nuclear.

Does the word 'Chernobyl' mean anything to you? Nuclear is not a good enough alternative

Are you aware that Chernobyl happened because of a bad design in the first place? Only around 32 people died directly from Chernobyl. Stop getting your sources from overdramatized HBO specials.

You're more likely to die from installing a solar panel than from a nuclear accident. Do you have a better alternative to nuclear? Or are you going to keep listening to a bartender and high school drop out?

Ah yes, because burying radioactive waste underground is always a good idea. NUCLEAR IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. It is better than fossil fuels, but not as good as other renewable energy

There aren't enough batteries in the entire world for renewable energy to be effective on top of that it takes more energy to make renewable energy than renewable energy can produce. Because that sounds logical.

This is the reason we have science, stupid. Also, Iceland's only emissions are from cars. All its energy is produced in geothermal plants. If Iceland can find a way, we all can

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. Yep, that's exactly what you tried to do to me.

The only person you're trying to convince is yourself

You do realize that not the volcanic activity is everywhere right? Also, Iceland is a fairly small country and not an economic super power.

You could take a piece of uninhabited desert and fill it with solar panels. It would not take up that much land to use solar power to power the entire USA

You're right you can't change your IQ I just don't need it to talk to people like you.

Well then why are you doing it...

"You've been hitting the glue again, haven't you." This one.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if you guys got high on glue and then went to a Trump rally where you pretended to listen, but you were too high to do that

Ok, whatever you have to say to yourself strawman.

Says the strawiest strawman that was ever made out of straw

Yes, all my key facts to support my point, and then calling me stupid when I actually have evidence is not the strawman move.

I was kind of thinking maybe you should choose someone on your intelligence level to debate you. Oh, wait you didn't debate you stated your opinion.

I forgot that none of you have an IQ over 50. Sorry

I'm sorry what?

For which comment is this?

Just a little bit of research you'll find that solar panels are worse for the environment than fossil fuel the same for wind. Even if you only used solar and wind and somehow found a way to make cheap you still wouldn't have enough batteries to store the power.

You've been hitting the glue again, haven't you

You're funny the lowest score you can get on the IQ test is 71, not 50 but I won't expect you to know that.

I wouldn't put it past you to get a negative IQ

Only when talking to people like you because that's all I need.

You can't change your IQ dumbass

Chernobyl was caused not by nuclear energy per se, but by the use of an RBMK type reactor, which barely used even at the time and even then it was ONLY used by the Soviet Union.
Every other nation recognised the faults in the RBMK reactor type and made the appropriate upgrades; hence no Chernobyl-type disasters today.
Nuclear energy is literally the cleanest, safest and most efficient means of energy production there is.

*Solar panels wonder what the f**k happened to science*

Would you like to say that burying toxic, radioactive waste is better than solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal electricity?

Radioactive waste is not buried; it's housed safely in its own storage facility which is on the same premises as the plant itself.
And because about a handful of uranium would power a single person's electricity needs from the cradle to the grave, it produces very little waste material.

Has it occurred to you that there are a LOT of people on the planet, also, it spends about 50 years in a storage facility, and in the US, it is buried Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste repository, Nevada

You said it yourself; it's housed safely, so what's the problem? Plus nuclear waste doesn't stay radioactive forever, eventually it will degrade to be nothing but lead.

And yes, there are a lot of people on the planet; and green energy cannot even begin to produce enough energy for our requirements. Nuclear energy CAN, and it can also meanwhile power research and development to continuously streamline and make it's production more efficient, just as you suggest with green energy.
The difference is, with nuclear energy we'll be fulfilling all energy requirements while that R&D takes place, whereas if we switch to green energy we'll be having rolling blackouts while we wait for the technology to catch up.

1. It take millions of years to degrade
2. how do we know that no-one will uncover the waste before its safe?
3. Yes, green energy can't currently supply our total energy needs, but that is the reason science exists. TO MAKE THINGS BETTER.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYbgyL5n1g Here is why nuclear energy is bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVbLlnmxIbY And with these arguments for nuclear energy, you will see that green energy is still better, and that there are much better options

Precisely. It isn't the job of science to 'settle' or 'prove' anything; only to experiment, observe and report. Anyone who says 'the science is settled' or 'the consensus is...' does not understand the scientific process.

They have flip-flopped on the cholesterol in eggs half a dozen times.

my grandfather tryna fix climate change. Thanks for keeping humanity aware.

And yet? you will believe a con man golf resort guy knows more about practically every topic know to man compared to those men and women who have spent their whole lives in the fields

All because he makes fun of people you don't like. A meaningless tax break won't get a moral and rartional person to toss their morality and integrity into the trash like Trumpers did

And yet yourself. Most of the climate change industry is just a novel way to get rich while everybody else goes broke. Most of the initiatives don't have any impact on the climate. Waste management companies are giving up on recycling because recyclables markets are flooded, and many municipalities have gone back to combining recycling with other garbage.

Just because someone spent their entire life in a field doesn't mean that they are unbiased, or able to identify the best course going forward.

And green energy is nowhere near as environmentally friendly as it claims to be.

that doesnt mean we should just do nothing. solar panels could be used for a very long time without being trashed.

We can also add to the argument that solar farms, like all farms, require a massive amount of land to be cleared. In California, the solar farms not only have massive requirements from the list of toxic components I already mentioned, but they also destroy native wildlife in the area.

A certain species of tortoise has already been endangered by these farms, because the creatures cannot be relocated nor survive in captivity. Same goes for desert eagles nesting in the area; they all have to be destroyed [NOT relocated] to make room for a dubious means of energy production that won't last more than 20-25 years, will produce a ridiculous amount of non-recyclable waste, and can't even guarantee reliable output..

Just like the oil industry has been getting rich for over a century while everybody else goes broke.

Right now, with the technology that we have today, recycling isn't the best and solar energy and electric cars do some damage to the environment, but technology is constantly evolving and there will be a way around this.

We cannot convert the oil companies to go green while they are making money off damaging the environment, so they must be replaced. That's the only way we can make a start

Oil companies have trying for decades to expand into places like India and have been blocked by environmental initiatives from the UN.
Fossil fuel is the cleanest form of combustion energy but people who have an ignorant or biased attitude to fuel companies fail to realise that in their absence people in places like India, arguably one of the worst polluters on the planet, burn wood and dung instead; which are literally the worst possible energy sources with regard to the pollutants they release into the air.
You can present all the evidence you like to argue that fossil fuel would be cleaner, but the green energy crowd have an aggressive predisposition toward the fossil fuel industry, and so, because of a backward and reflexive hatred, India continues on a much filthier path.

And India is only one example.

Yes. Fossil fuel is the cleanest form of combustion, but only natural gas is relatively clean to burn. There are very few applications for natural gas compared to oil or even coal.

The biggest problem causing climate change is the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The imbalance between oxygen breathing and carbon dioxide breathing organisms is the main problem here. The consumption of fossil fuels is a secondary problem, but a big problem nonetheless. Like I have said before, "clean" energy does its share of damage too. The technology needs some improvement, but I do believe it's there.

I would have no problem with oil companies if they at least tried to come up with a solution to a problem that has been contributing to climate change.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not contribute to climate change in any significant way in the sense you're talking about. There's a lot of babble out there suggesting that CO2 contributes to temperature increases, which it absolutely does not.
When plant and animals first came about on the earth the CO2 content in the air was around six times what it is now, but the temperature was not: ergo, temperature is unrelated. Plus anyone who has ever worked in a greenhouse could confirm that increasing Co2 levels makes no difference whatsoever in the room temperature.
As for CO2 being a pollutant, this is also untrue. CO2 is quite harmless in the levels it is currently present in the air [approx 300-400ppm] and would continue to be safe for inhalation all the way up to =/>2000ppm.
What does happen from an increase in CO2 is a direct correspondence to the rate at which plants grow and produce. Plants gobble Co2 like people do meat and vegetables, and the faster the consume Co2 [which they can consume at a rate of about 2000ppm] the faster they can photosynthesize and drink, producing sugar in the form of starch and, more importantly, O2 as a byproduct.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at a safe level right now. That’s why we’re not all dead yet. It is at a level to cause a problem. The level of any gas in a structure as small as a greenhouse isn’t enough to control its temperature. It is the glass, much denser than the gas inside, that is trapping the heat in.

On a global scale, carbon dioxide is very efficient at absorbing heat as its molecules are made up of three atoms as opposed to oxygen or nitrogen which have only two atoms. The uneven heating of the Earth is the main driving force behind weather systems. The efficiency of CO2's heat absorption causes a larger difference in heating between areas with a larger concentration of CO2, such as a city, and rural areas where CO2 concentration is lower. This causes more extreme weather such as more severe thunderstorms or tropical systems in areas which don’t normally see them.

The CO2 levels have fluctuated over millions of years and the global temperatures have fluctuated almost in sync with it. The CO2 in the atmosphere today should trigger the growth of more plant life. However, deforestation and over farming is decreasing the amount of plant life that should consume the CO2.

No, sorry. Co2 does not, and can not, absorb heat.

Don't discuss things you don't understand.

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

https://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html

https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/why-carbon-dioxide-has-such-outsized-influence-on-earths-climate

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

They understand it.

Then maybe they can explain why carbon dioxide is a type of fire extinguisher?

By the way, these people understand it too:

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044018

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682612002167

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/25/17/5976/216233/The-Radiation-Budget-of-the-West-African-Sahel-and

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.3546

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018212003926

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682612001034

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379112001539

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379112001485?via%3Dihub

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/17/1120593109.abstract

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364682612001393

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683611427331?rss=1

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018212000867

You don't know how a fire extinguisher works? It smothers the fire.

The articles you listed had nothing to do with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Yes, the global temperature does fluctuate. Our actions are making it worse. At least one of the articles even says that.

I'm not talking about large companies going broke. I was referring to environmental policies that force families deep into debt to replace equipment. I am not against solar if it is smart.

I have an idea for solar that could work, but it requires more cooperation than Americans who can't even social distance can manage.

You can't solve any problem in the world until you solve the money problem. Right now, too much green energy projects are on the backs of consumers, and the government is just another way of saying the consumers. You have to make it an affordable opportunity rather than some budget busting requirement.

Can you name a meaningless tax break?

With my "tax break" I got an extra 2 cents in my paycheck

Well I'm not going to vote for ANYONE based on their promises of a tax break so it's meaningless. I have something called morals and integrity that a "tax break" won't buy I can not be bought.

Especially for a joke amount like 2,000 a year

I have never worried much about taxes at all they go up and down as the orange retard said. It is was it is.

It's funny how Trump supporters can not accept facts they don't like and pretend their opinions matter

Well, higher tax does lead to less economic growth I wouldn't say that's meaningless. 2,000 dollars is nothing now doesn't that depend on how much you're making?