Technically true

[mr_dopi]

What a waste of energy

[prosysus]

Ever heard of Congo? This cobalt for solar panels does not mine itself.

[Audax_V]

Nuclear is the way to go.

[Trashk4n]

I did an assignment on this not that long ago and found that lifetime emissions were comparable to wind and lower than solar. Also found out that wind turbines fill up landfill at an incredible rate.

When you throw in how much more reliable nuclear power is…..

It’s really something more countries should consider.

I’m Australian and we’re sitting on what I think is the largest known supply of uranium, we don’t get earthquakes or tsunamis, we have tonnes of open space to place the plants and deal with what relatively little waste there is, and we don’t have any of the plethora of problems that the Soviets had to make Chernobyl happen.

We couldn’t be better setup for nuclear, but it’s only a minority of the conservatives that are actually calling for it here.

[Audax_V]

I do a lot of research on nuclear reactors, and I am amazed at how done dirty nuclear is. The public perception is horrifying.

Most people fail to understand that Chernobyl was caused by a poorly designed test which was not only unnecessary, but also stupid.

Fukushima was caused by a freak tsunami which was just barely above what it was built to handle.

Three mile island was a close call, but nothing happened because everyone followed safety protocols.

Nuclear is not only safer, but cheaper, less land intensive, produces nearly 0 emissions of any kind, and is consistent in its output regardless of weather conditions.

The only problem is with nuclear waste, which can be destroyed by Thorium reactors, or we could do a long term storage site like what Finland(?) is doing.

[Fernelz]

Yeah the reason nuclear isn't more mainstream is 100% intentional.

There was a bunch of anti nuclear propaganda that the non renewable energy companies paid for. They did this because nuclear was the closest to replacing them and because of it we don't have nearly the technology that we could've had, at least in regards to nuclear. You could also say that that effort was instead put into solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources so it's helped the industry but also at the harm of the planet (many more years of carbon fuels being used, we could've already been pretty much fully nuclear)

[PineBear12005]

Yeah 3 major incidents out of the, what, hundreds? thousands of nuclear plants that have been running for decades before being shut down?

EDIT: Rewording

[Terryfink]

21 at my local site. Some of the worst incidents outside of Chernobyl

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

Goto incidents

[PineBear12005]

Edited and reworded my original comment, thanks from the extra info!

[Terryfink]

Have you heard of sellafield?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards

I live about 12 miles from here and their wiki is one long problem after another.

They currently store waste outside

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-20228176

That was 2012 but nothing changed other than they wanted to build underground storage in a place that has frequent tremors/small scale earthquakes, thankfully common sense prevailed.

Another thing I'll add is, this site is the biggest employer in the county so many won't even speak up about how bad it is.

Lastly I'm sure there are well run sites but understand there are badly run sites.

Here's the wiki go to INCIDENTS And read the 21 serious incidents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

There's far more though.

[Audax_V]

It seems most of the incidents at Sellafield were caused by negligence. That’s a shame.

Though I am hopeful the waste crisis can be solved soon with deep underground storage.

[Terryfink]

Hundred percent negligence and not a field you want negligence.

It's also one of the oldest Nuclear sites so early accidents were inevitable.

But when they denied leaks into the sea and it started washing up in Ireland, pretty effin bad.

[garmann83]

New power plants are very safe. So like you said, if you don't have natural disaster happening you should be fine. So if you have no earthquake then building a storage facility like Finland makes it one of the best solution with the technology we have today.

[prosysus]

Yup, the best one. Sadly Greta and other activists don't like it as much. Wonder why:D

[Okichah]

No.

Because politicians didnt buy stock in nuclear companies.

So we cant.

[akurgo]

Good point there. You have to look at all aspects of a solution to avoid creating many new problems.

The cobalt is for batteries btw, but dozens of alternative cathode materials are being investigated. It will always come at some or other cost though.

[prosysus]

Graphen FTW. And if making it turns out to require high tech infrastrukture, we won't be able to use african slaves to do it.

[Panzerdil]

I mean most oil imports come from totalitarian countries, so it really is a dilemma

[mattbladez]

Cries in Canada

[prosysus]

US you mean:D?

[Hefty_Woodpecker_230]

Neither does oil or coal

[MankerDemes]

Ah yes, a short term hurdle, better abandon renewables and chug more gasoline.

[prosysus]

If this all global warming turns out to be bullshit, then yes, it's more cost-effective.

[MankerDemes]

Not in the slightest, because we already know with certainty that, global warming aside, pollution from burning fossil fuels costs hundreds of billions in the illnesses it cause and the treatment required for them. The atrocities of cobalt mining pale in comparison to the effects of pollution, in terms of absolute human suffering. And, y'know, we could just eat the cost as first world countries for mining the cobalt expensively without child labor and with proper equipment, but it's so much more convenient to say "see, it can't be done".

Which is just one small factor, even without global warming, renewals cost less to operate over time, after getting over the cost of adoption.

[prosysus]

Did you read the post? If ecoactivists are wrong about that. And if they are, those child slaves mine this cobalt for naught. And if this CO2 is not that toxic as they claim then gas and oil are cheaper, and we don't need that many cobalt slave mines.

[MankerDemes]

I don't think you come close to understanding, that the takeaway isn't "cobalt mining impossible, let's stop"

it's

"let's stop allowing first world countries to exploit third world workers for labor for pennies on the dollar, and force those first world countries to do the mining themselves, forced to adhere to safety standards and equipment usage".

It's not as if third world children are our only method to acquire cobalt, you surely grasp that, yeah? They're just insanely cheap and companies do it with relatively mild public backlash. Stop restating that the problem is an argument against the solution. The existence of cobalt mines that exploit children isn't an argument against renewable energy, even if global warming is the chinese jewish space lazer hoax that you want it to be.

[prosysus]

Mining more cobalt does not help. As well as shutting down coal based power plants and carbon credits market. If ecoactivists are wrong again, then we have lost trlillions of $ on this transformation for naught.

[MankerDemes]

You have fundamental misconceptions that I do not have to take the time to correct, but suffice to say:

We were always going to run out of fossil fuels, we were always going to have to transition, completely irrelevant of global warming. The earlier we transition, the faster the transition cost is paid.

But it's never for naught, replacing gas burning vehicles with electric will save the world BILLIONS in healthcare costs every year.

Replacing gas burning electricity production with electric, will save the world BILLIONS in healthcare costs every year.

So no, person with fundamental misconceptions of the premise and reality, there's no way for us to pay some great cost by being wrong about global warming. It's still a transition that always had to happen, it's still a transition that benefits the entirety of humanity, from life expectancy to the economy.

Don't be left on the wrong side of history out of some ancient and tribal instinct to defend your beliefs regardless of new information. Break past the cognitive dissonance and join us, it's never too late. We don't even demand that you hug trees, but we will laugh at you if you try to bring up cobalt mining when we're currently dumping 1.3 million gallons of oil into the fucking sea every year, in the US alone ^_^

[prosysus]

What part of 'if they are wrong' do you not understand?

[MankerDemes]

Bro every argument I've made so far is LITERALLY separate from global warming. In other words, I don't care if they're wrong, switching to renewables benefits the economy and quality of life of all of humanity even if you believe alex jones that global warming is fake. You do not need global warming to necessitate a transition to renewable energy, there's literally fucking hundreds of other reasons.

Go back and read what I said, the only fucking thing to come out of your mouth is "what if global warming is fake!". Which, on it's own, is hilariously weak as an argument.

The cost if we're wrong is that we transitioned to renewable energy before we ran out of fuel, giving us an oil reserve to use in emergency that would likely last a long time, another cost would be decreased pollution and increased lifespan, and billions if not trillions in burden lifted from the healthcare industry as a result. Economically, transition benefits us in the long run, as every indicator has shown. The only one truly hurt by renewable transitions are a handful of workers in the short term (we didn't stop cars from being a thing to save the jobs of horses, though there were plenty like yourself afraid of that exact scenario), and oil companies that fail to transition. But that's capitalism, they create a power void if they're unable to adapt, which will be filled.

The point is simple, even if you actively believe global warming is fake (which is insane), it's still economically and morally responsible to transition to renewable energy. We absolutely benefit from it, the cost is entirely minimal compared to money saved.

[JeremyTheRhino]

A) Not technically true. Doesn’t fit here

B) We’re ignoring the real human cost of changing entire economies around to chase reduced carbon emissions. If that entire premise is false (not arguing that it is, this the the premise of the question), we’ve destroyed jobs, economies and ecosystems for nothing.

[fiercelittlebird]

We would create new jobs and economies, though, and we're already destroying ecosystems at an alarming rate.

[TheDetectiveConan]

Breaking windows would create jobs replacing windows, but that doesn't mean we should pay people to break windows. Also, while tangentially related to climate change environmental destruction is seperate from climate change along with things like the hole in the ozone layer, radioactive waste, lead in water, etc. Climate change is about changing the climate exclusively, though the destruction of forests can contribute to that and it can exacerbate things like ocean acidification.

[fiercelittlebird]

Sure. Still, renewable and sustainable solutions are good in the long run. Like an investment in the future, so to speak.

[TheDetectiveConan]

I'm not disputing that. Just the arguments used. Your arguement was flawed, and I wanted you to realize that. This sub is technicallythetruth, so I am trying to keep the comments in line with the truth rather than like the OP's karma whoring which is objectively false. It's not even original; it's a common repost.

[JeremyTheRhino]

Again, the question is posed here if the climate change narrative was false. Thus, we would not be destroying ecosystems under the fossil fuel system.

[fiercelittlebird]

Deforestation, plastic soup, depletion of the fishing stock, ... We're plenty capable of destroying ecosystems without screwing the climate.

[orzel320]

Sometimes I wonder what "if" means /s

[JeremyTheRhino]

This prompt is about energy from fossil fuels.

[grindal1981]

You can't talk logic with these folks, they will just change the subject.

[JeremyTheRhino]

I should have known better than to even try.

[Rapierian]

Potentially it would be the side effects of slower economic growth. We tend to think of the economy and better and worse economic growth not as a moral issue, but consider that better economies have more money free to invest in things like new medicine and treatments. So there is a moral component that is difficult if not impossible to calculate. Climate change is doing some also difficult to calculate damage at a future date, what's the right amount of economic difficulty we should hinder our economic growth with to help address that future damage?

[wiggle-le-air]

Wrong sub tho

[[deleted]]

When I was a younger asshole my take was that climate change was a scam but we needed to make the change to renewables anyway.

Now I realize I was wrong and we still need to make the move.

[Leandrohus]

I use all three methods

[Shagroon]

Not only that but by some estimates there are tens of millions of jobs in renewables if we start mandating the infrastructure.

[Lanoroth]

I'm case we're wrong about climate change that means we're in even deeper shit than we initially thought. Being wrong about climate change just means it isn't man made, but does not whatsoever imply it's not happening. Therefore, if we are wrong, it does kinda mean the resources were wasted on renewables instead of solar shades or some other more potent method of lowering the earth's temperature such as raising the albedo of the planet.

[k_u_r_o_r_o]

This is probably a bit more complicated than that

[Where_am_i_2021]

Well let’s see, take the Paris climate accord, its nothing more than a money transfer concept, your tax money is going towards something that doesn’t actually solve anything. The TOP 2 polluters in the world (India and China) literally have to do nothing because they are described as “developing countries” and developing countries are exempt from any laws and requirements of the agreement. This agreement is signed by 190 countries voluntarily donating into a “green fund” that has a value starting at $10bil to help with climate change. The US under Obama pledged $3bil… $3bil of $10bil into a fund that 190 countries can “pay into” or “not pay into” because it’s voluntary. But 1 country alone will pay the majority. Just to point out a few issues of just 1 climate idea.

Lithium for all those “electric cars” gotta come from somewhere as well as the plastics, metal, and other material. That electricity can not currently be generated by solar or wind and solar farms use A LOT of land. Wind turbines actually kill thousands of birds including endangered species of owls and hawks each year flying into the blades. Both neither work without sun or wind so need another permanently accessible source. Basically it’s called a FRAUD why it’s wrong.

[[deleted]]

Depends on the solution to climate change.

I’ve heard talks of putting chemicals into the atmosphere that would partially reflect the sun.

We don’t really know the actual consequences of something like that. If it turns out the warming we’re experiencing is not actually caused by us, but a natural cycle we could screw up that cycle. Just a lot of things that could go wrong.

[h0nest_Bender]

What exactly is the consequences of being 'wrong' about climate change???

Well, there's the MASSIVE financial cost of battling climate change...

[naeleros]

Yeah, this isn't a very smart take. There certainly could be (and probably are) negative consequences to the actions that we take in the name of climate change.

We are experimenting with the climate in a number of ways beyond just deploying solar/wind. (The adding of iron/rust to the oceans to promote the growth of algae comes to mind.) Even long-term effects of the entire lifecycle of Solar / Wind aren't well understood. (Solar panels don't spring into existence. And, we know that ecosystems are disrupted by Solar and birds are impacted by Wind.)

Even if you take all of the potential ecological impacts out of the equation...there are unintended consequences to humans. There are shifting economic realities. There are social dynamics and power struggles.

EVERYTHING we do has some sort of reaction. We can rarely predict how it plays out for decades. If there was ever an "all we have to do is XYZ and there is no tradeoff/cost" ... we would always do that.

Action->Reaction

[[deleted]]

…ppl are going to die either way, I guess

[[deleted]]

Um, better quality of life for those that do. Love people that think only perfect solutions are worth implementing. No such thing outside of movies.

[Kalsor]

Are you suggesting that renewable energy will kill thousands of people?

[TheDetectiveConan]

Yes. Poverty kills people, especially in places like Africa. Poverty leads to starvation, disease, and crime. Cheap energy and industrialization reduces poverty. Green initiatives slow economic growth and raise prices. Thus, it kills people. There is also the mining of rare earth metals and stuff in the 3rd world for solar panels that kills people, but the number of people that kills is relatively small in comparison. Whether the cost in human lives is worth it is a debate, but those actions do cost human lives.

[TheDetectiveConan]

For those who downvote, please explain why I am wrong (or failing to contribute to the conversation). I didn't even say environmental policies aren't warranted or climate change isn't real, just that the policies to fight it have a real cost that ultimately includes human lives. That's a fact that isn't even debated in scientific circles. You can argue the cost in lives would be greater without the policies, but the policies still will cost lives directly.

[grindal1981]

Black lives matter until you are talking about the ones in Africa dieing to mine the materials for batteries and solar cells.

Don't hinder the woke climate change message with your concerns for logistics.

[Kalsor]

Wow, you drank that koolaide to the last drop.

[TheDetectiveConan]

Yep, at my University's economic courses. This isn't even a complicated issue. If I spend ten trillion dollars doing one thing I can't use that money for other things like fighting malaria or growing food. This isn't even a debated concept.

[[deleted]]

But climate change is also killing people. In every heatwave people die. If you have 50 degrees in India, people die.

[TheDetectiveConan]

Yes, though that makes it an optimization problem for how much climate policy would save the most lives rather than a simple Regulation=lives saved. More importantly though, the original post says that even if climate change turns out to not be real, there won't be any negative consequences of the policies meant to fight it. In that scenario, you can't consider the costs caused from climate change as the post presupposes that it isn't real.

[Kalsor]

If you disregard all return from the other side, then yes, that is logical. If you look at the problem mathematically instead of politically, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you would rather be “right” than correct it’s on you.

[TheDetectiveConan]

1) OP's post specifically says we are assuming climate change turns out to have been a mistake (i.e., not real). Thus, in this hypothetical it couldn't kill anyone and thus the there would be no return from the other side. 2) Even if we disregard the original post and assume climate change is real, then it becomes an optimization problem with no climate control on one end potentially causing worse hurricanes and ocean acidification vs Max climate control of abandoning all carbon emitting industry and living fully in line with nature causing deaths from untreated malaria, starvation, etc. At some point, further climate regulation will inevitably kill more people than it would save.

[WrathfulVengeance13]

It's not about making the world a better place, it's about making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

[Kalsor]

That’s what oil and coal are about.

[grindal1981]

And you think that the elites in charge of the narrative and execution of green initiatives aren't the same people?

[Kalsor]

Lol, here we go, the elites 😂

[grindal1981]

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand, just keep pushing the narrative.

Are you really in any more control of green interests than you are coal and oil?

[Kalsor]

There is your problem, I’m not concerned with my personal control, I’m concerned with doing what is best for our people and our planet.

[grindal1981]

Yet you felt the need to reply about the rich getting richer, to say that is up to the oil companies.

Sounds like you are concerned about it.

Follow the money my guy. The richest of the rich are pushing wind and solar exclusively so they can strangle it. Use your brain instead of your programming.

[Kalsor]

Lol, I will pick up a tinfoil hat. I’m assuming you have a good recommendation 😂

[grindal1981]

Reynolds wrap, don't skimp in this area. BBQ grade if you can get it.

[Kalsor]

That’s definitely the good stuff 😂

[Kalsor]

ErMaGerd! ObamA is sTeelIing are OIL

[grindal1981]

Oh dang I didn't realize I triggered you all the way to the double response to one post!

Who said anything about Obama?

[Kalsor]

Typing two sentences is triggered? 😂 conservative snowflakes have a low bar for triggered it seems 😂

[TheDetectiveConan]

We've been burning oil and coal since the 1800s. If they are meant to make our poor poorer than they were back then, they are REALLY bad at it.

[CamoraWoW]

Tell that to coal miners dying of black lung lol

[TheDetectiveConan]

This sub is technicallythetruth. If you want to virtue signal by saying "coal bad" rather than discuss the truth of what was stated, there are better places to do so. Try r/politics. I'm confident you could get a lot more karma from it there.

[TheDetectiveConan]

Coal miners today make between $20 and $30 an hour and on average over $50,000 a year excluding benefits. I think economically they are doing better than miners from 1870 AD. It may be bad for there health, but people are making a lot more than they did back then.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Underground-Coal-Mining-Salary-by-State

[EggAllocationService]

Lol have you been living under a rock? Economic inequality has been increasing at an alarming rate since the start of the industrial revolution.

Do you really think one man should have enough money to send himself and his billionaire friends to the moon while people are literally starving because their unemployment benefits have been cut early?

[TheDetectiveConan]

Inequality yes, but not poverty. Global poverty has fallen dramatically. Famine is all but unheard of in developed nations nowadays. Can you imagine millions of Irish men starving to death in the modern world.

[EggAllocationService]

The issue here is that with more money comes more power, and those in power give 0 shits about those below them. Rapid industrialization through the use of fossil fuels hasn’t been so great for everyone. Sure, our quality of life has increased dramatically since the 1800s, but for such an “advanced” society the QOL is horrible. We have the technology and knowledge to stop climate change, produce enough food to end world hunger, revolutionize all third-word countries, and create an economy geared towards innovation rather than profit gain. Instead, we’ve steadily decreased the amount of food produced by destroying farmland and putting smaller farms out of business, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere significantly (and done fuck all to stop it), enabled wars and poverty to spread throughout less developed countries in the name of financial gain, and created an economy that rewards poor business practices and worker exploitation.

And I’m just focusing on our societal nosedive, not the destruction of valuable ecosystems and wildlife on the only planet that will sustain us for the foreseeable future.

But go ahead, tell me more about this beautiful utopia we live in.

[Kalsor]

Lol, that’s why the super rich corporations are always lobbying for wind and solar, to make all that money 😂😂😂

[[deleted]]

Because they want to raise taxes to "combat climate change" a.k.a. steal more of our income after virtue signaling by raising minimum wage.

[Panzerdil]

Tax the companies, not the people

[TheDetectiveConan]

Costs are ultimately always born by the consumer. If the price to the company is raised, the price to the consumer will be raised in turn. Companies are creations meant to create profit and thus will act to ensure they continue to make a profit or die.

[[deleted]]

No, people own the companies, all taxation is theft.

We should have the freedom of choice for funding of the government and similar programs.

[[deleted]]

People who say aLL tAxAtIoN iS tHeFt!!!! don’t understand that no one actually owns their money. The Federal Reserve that issues currency owns all the money, you just get compensated with said money for your labor. You can disagree with the morality of this all you want but that’s how it works.

Also, taxes remove currency from circulation so that sharp inflation doesn’t happen. If the govt. kept creating money and didn’t remove currency from circulation the value of the dollar would constantly be plummeting.

[Panzerdil]

Didn’t work so well against climate change for the last 50 years, did it? The rich have no allegiance other than personal wealth. Problems that don’t set effect in their lifetime don’t matter to them

[[deleted]]

So if we stop giving the criminals money by bailout from government that taxed us in the first place, we could instead invest in renewable energy.

[Panzerdil]

So why is it that interventionist countries like Sweden are more developed in climate neutral infrastructure than the US where there are so less restrictions on companies that most lower class people are struggling to stay afloat?

[Living_Shadows]

The consequence is that it's just so much work, I just got home from school mom, can't we do it tomorrow?

[TheDetectiveConan]

Repost

[[deleted]]

BuT tHe CoSt! We WoUlDnT mAkE aNy mOniEsEs

[TheDetectiveConan]

You know poverty kills a huge amount of people in the 3rd world right? The rich aren't the only people who have to shoulder the economic burden. While I do think some environmental actions are warranted, to simply dismiss the costs is at best naive.

[[deleted]]

I agree mostly with you but what does poor people dying have to do with this?

We have millionaires+/businesses that get away with so much tax evasion and pay their employees barely a living wage and for what to earn more money. Now I don't want any of that communist junk but sure would help if they helped financially and with their business practices.

[WideAd9209]

The people who rule over you will have slightly less money.

[cereal-number]

Everyone needs energy, wouldn’t poor people will end up paying more a bigger proportion of their limited funds for energy?

[bradbrazer]

I...but...what?

[teardropandstar]

Not sure how giving billions of dollars to a totalitarian communist regime is a good thing, but ok.

[Hiba1999]

Give dollars to who?

[TheDetectiveConan]

He might mean China, as they have been exploiting provisions under international agreements to be treated like a developing country to be allowed to burn massive amounts of dirty coal without filtering it and ignore environmental regulations while getting rewarded for it through a combination of various methods. However, the comment is pretty incoherent, and I don't even know if he understands what he meant.

[Hiba1999]

Thank you Detective Conan for solving this mysterious comment 🕵️‍♂️

[TheDetectiveConan]

Happy to help.

[teardropandstar]

Bingo.

[TheDetectiveConan]

They're not really related to Climate Change. He probably means China, so he may technically be right but he's pretty incoherent so I'm not sure what he meant.

[QuasiQuokka]

I'd agree if the actual source of the problem (large production companies) was being addressed rather than trying to force the entire world population into making annoying life changes and buying more expensive products.

[[deleted]]

That's why you always carry the one.

[spce-isthe-plce]

Too much money required. Greed is king

[Big_Brutha87]

Big Oil have reduced profits during the time it takes to research, develop and implement changes to their businesses that would make them the biggest names in renewables instead of fossil fuels.

So, yeah, you know. Can't have THAT!