I'm unironically starting to believe climate change is some big hoax...

I'm sure it's real I just don't really care

We have haarp and chemtrails to counter act these changes very successfuly .
Climate is always changing but humans are definitely filling the air with poison.

Attached: IMG_20190414_183356.jpg (4000x3000, 2.24M)

>Because all the oil will run out in 50 years
I thought fracking has extended that to 200 years?

Still, it will end one day.

based
do you even know what coral bleaching is you stupid cunt?

I'm more concerned about habitat destruction and farm/industrial runoff than climate change

>counteract
The damage has been done, user.

>do you even know what coral bleaching is you stupid cunt?
Do you? Do you understand sarcasm?
Autistic freak.

have sex, you disgusting incel freak

Take off the fucking flag.

Renewables are clearly superior but history has clearly favoured fossil fuels

Attached: 1460718381978.jpg (349x356, 76K)

If you haven't heard of it already, this country is already drowning because of climate change. Due to this the people living there are forced to migrate to nearby countries like NZ and Australia.
youtu.be/TZ0j6kr4ZJ0

Attached: IMG_20190422_131139.jpg (720x873, 175K)

fake
If a country was sinking I would have heard about it
stop filling my head with your tree hugging libtard propaganda

Not in my lifetime, so who cares. I personally will not stop using it until hydrogen fuel cells are more common.

It's real
t. lives in a place that is perpetually on fire

Attached: washington state wildfires.jpg (3078x1846, 697K)

>Why do oil companies sponsor clean energy orgs (who are all against nuclear power) 100s of millions of dollars?
Because 1) the transition is nearly inevitable and they want to have market shares in the next big things and 2) most energy sources that aren't fossil or nuclear can't have their outputs adjusted for current grid requirements as easily and so require gas, oil, and sometimes even coal suplements to ramp up. De-nuclearizing Germany made it more pollutent because now they need to burn more coal to satisfy their energy needs.

Attached: Nuclear Power Yes Please (500x500).png (500x500, 73K)

the dangers of the nuclear energy industry are far greater than the dangers of the oil industry.
one nuclear plant collapsing around France would destroy the whole Europe for hundreds of years.
the elites are aware of this and they want their assets free of the radioactivity risk.

just make Thorium plants, it's impossible for those to fail spectacularly

Same, bushfire season here seems to be slowly growing to start earlier/ending later than usual

Both these things happened many times in the past

climate change isn't a man made phenomenon, it's just being accelerated to extreme speed due to man. The world usually takes tens of thousands of years to change gradually, we've irreversibly fucked things up in the last 100 years

How are renewables inevitable though? Seems like it's mainly oil companies pushing it because nuclear energy is not profitable for them and people go with it because of their irrational fear of nuclear.

Maldives

christ you are dumb, the reef isn't as fragile as you think it is and a sizable percentage of bleaching occurs naturally as part of the coral's life cycle, quit spouting off shit you know nothing about

>Not in my lifetime, so who cares.

You are the kind of people why this society is so cancerous.

Complete bunk.

The worst meltdown, Chernobyl, killed less than 70 people, and that's including deaths from exposure decades after. And it wouldn't be so bad if the authorities weren't corrupt and tried to hide it.

The deaths in Japan were due to the shoddy operations of evacuation in the aftermath of the tsunami. Like 2 people died of radiation.

For all the talk about nuclear waste taking millions of years to decay there is no talk about the several different types of crap that doesn't decay, like lead or lithium, that we use even for renewables, and all the types of crap that are way more carcinogenic but harder to trace and that we readily spray our crops with.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Current_status
ffs, exxon did less harm with a nuclear plant failure than with any of it's oil spills

Not at this rate. Climate change is correlated with industrial civilisation and it's irreversible now. This doesn't mean that it affects everyone equally because it doesn't. In fact, global warming is a good thing for some very cold countries like Sweden or Russia. It's catastrophic for most tropical countries.

Honestly i dont even mind if we significantly alow down the economy to fight climate change.

If i had to work fewer days in the week but had less stuff to buy. Id probably be happier

>nuclear power
>switching to yet another non-renewable source instead of the quasi-infinite renewable alternatives
w e w

There's a good chance that global warming will weaken and eventually stop the gulf stream which will actually make Europe a freezing shithole

>Why would there be so many people connected to the oil industry involved in events?
Uh, you do recall that for the longest time they fought it tooth and nail, right? And a significant number still do.

Uranium is efficient enough that it is quasi infinite right?

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

Attached: Yg4vUgZf_400x400.jpg (400x400, 31K)

glad ur starting to see the truth, brother

Attached: proof (84).png (414x419, 248K)

They are inevitable because, like hydro but not as much, nuclear can't be used everywhere.

A PV cell panel, for comparison, can be picked up and dropped wherever needed with little to no requirements in infra-structure or political coordination.

Solar farms like in California are awful, though. They could've made a nuclear plant with a fraction of the area, so they wouldn't have destroyed as many cactii, animal tunnels, and had relocated so many animals. It would also be more energy efficient, with less waste during the day and less deficiency during the night.

it isn't real

t. leaves water running constantly

kek there's nothing living in Californian deserts

Attached: death valley dirt trail.jpg (1024x683, 489K)

Nuclear is plentiful and energy dense enough that it could power the world through the de-carbonization of the economy and beyond. Renewables also have their own drawbacks, common among them the fact that you don't control the sources.

Yes, and in addition to it, there is thorium, plutonium, and the nuclear waste that we already have that could be recycled.

>Why do oil companies sponsor clean energy orgs (who are all against nuclear power) 100s of millions of dollars?
They know that the transition will happen some day and are using their experience in the energy sector and their financial assets to gain foothold in a rising industry. For example the Norwegian state oil company, Statoil, has experience in building structures in the ocean (very useful when building wind parks in the sea), absurd amount of revenue which has to be invested somewhere and pressure from shareholders (the state). These factors work for big private companies as well, because some of their shareholders are either concerned about the environment or more likely about the company's lack of innovation being dangerous in the long term. There's also the trouble with stranded assets. Essentially a shitload of infrastructure for fossil fuel extraction/refining/use could be left useless when governments tighten fossil fuel use.
>To get a rough idea of the scale,Weyzig (2014) estimated(PDF)(PDF)that the exposure of the European financial sector (banks, insurance companies, and pension funds) to high-carbon assets was over €1 trillion.
> lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/faqs/what-are-stranded-assets/

wilderness.org/articles/blog/worlds-largest-solar-plant-go-live-californias-mojave-desert
forbes.com/forbes/2011/0627/technology-brightsource-turtles-energy-solar-spot-tortoise.html#5923f1c44b4f
eu.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2015/10/19/study-california-solar-farms-threaten-desert-species/74233862/
Deserts are still biomes. Many creatures that live in them, could not survive anywhere else.