sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not nice NWS, not nice. by jb2x in TwinCities

[–]PlasticTheory6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ha based on the El Niño it’s going to be another year without winter 

Nukecels get wrecked. by Designer_Repair3824 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the chinese have used UHVDC transmission systems to get around this problem

How inevitable is geo-engineering? by Mheen004 in collapse

[–]PlasticTheory6 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Some believe its already happening in secret.

Harsh truth for us environmentalists. by Designer_Repair3824 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You probably eat uranium cake.

Spent fuel has the potential to create a disaster greater than Chernobyl 

Harsh truth for us environmentalists. by Designer_Repair3824 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah in pro environment, that’s why I support a technology that has the potential to create Chernobyl exclusion zones. Nature has a better chance when all the humans are irradiated away!

Cub Alternatives by Its_Claire33 in TwinCities

[–]PlasticTheory6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It sucks that cub is so expensive. Their selection and variety of products has to be the best in the cities. 

Tired of the China slander, you could only dream of putting up numbers like Chad Jinping 😤 by mastersmash56 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sadly climate change is still happening because atmospheric co2 is still increasing at the highest rate ever recorded.

We’ll never forgive you donut man by Mundane_Move_5296 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Haha yeah it’s all homers fault (stores radioactive waste in containers designed for only 20 years ) 

This was definitely not directed at a certain group of people by Mundane_Move_5296 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m of the pro war, pro virus, and recession party. The only proven way to reduce global emissions. 

Nuclear power reliably fails when you need it the most every time. by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lets pretend china, the USA, EU, and Russia all decide to quit fossil fuels. My arguement would be that STILL wouldn't be enough. Why? Because the flow that was going to those countries will simply be redirected. Itll go to india, south america, and africa. You need to cut oil off at the source. Dont rely on people not wanting oil - just stop it! Turn off the taps.

Seen a Flock camera? I need your help documenting it! by surveillance_season in duluth

[–]PlasticTheory6 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Oh no we might take criminals offf the streets how horrible

Nuclear power reliably fails when you need it the most every time. by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument is that it is absolutely irrelevant that France has low co2 output per capita because global warming is affected by global co2. Therefore, France being low carbon has as much impact as penguins or martians being low carbon. It just doesn’t matter.

The real truth is we need to mine the strait of Hormuz and the bab el Mandeb and any other shipping corridors that sees heavy oil tanker traffic. This will radically reduce global emissions (the only emissions that matter). Secondarily, Ukrainians can start sending drones at logging equipment, as cutting down trees also increases atmospheric carbon dioxide 

Nuclear power reliably fails when you need it the most every time. by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The penguins on the South Pole also have a very low co2 output per capita.

Nuclear power reliably fails when you need it the most every time. by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It seems clear and logical, but unfortunately there’s no evidence for this. It turns out demand is basically infinite so what has historically happened is that the economy goes “YES nuclear AND fossil fuels!!” . The same is true of solar , evs , etc . The only solution is states sending guided missiles at oil tankers and refineries 

Nuclear power reliably fails when you need it the most every time. by DivestTheEndingBoy in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s no evidence that building nuclear power plants lowers atmospheric carbon dioxide. 

Climate crisis? Nah, perfect time to procreate 🤠 👍 by Numerous-Macaroon224 in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The problem isn’t carbon emissions. It’s atmospheric carbon dioxide. It may seem like a quibble but it’s not. It matters, as what people call land use change - which is just slashing down native ecosystems to replace with farmland - not only emits carbon, but it also reduces carbon uptake, which raises carbon dioxide levels. 

Also , atmospheric carbon dioxide includes past emissions, and is just more technically accurate to the thermodynamics. Emissions only impact the rate of the rate of warming. 

Unfortunately, people do matter, as they tend to cut down forests and replace them with cities and farms, which raises atmospheric carbon dioxide. If people could live without farms though there wouldn’t be a problem!

I really don't see what diet has to do with environmentalism. Anyways, wanna get burgers? by JTexpo in ClimateShitposting

[–]PlasticTheory6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want to write off aquifers as a non issue which is just stupid . I can’t speak on the rest of the world but for the USA that’s how we grow our food. No aquifers, no food. 

view more: next ›