How did the US manage to turn the health of the environment that we all live in into a partisan issue?

I'm all for solving Global Warming (tm) as long as the solution is one that actually works.
Like say - stopping feeding a bunch of fucking niggers in Africa and letting ebola chan solve that future population explosion of carbon polluters for us.

I deny nothing, you fuck wit.

I'm saying CO2 came from plants, and will return to plants. 'Real' pollution like micro plastics heavy metal, and radioactive contamination cannot return to the environment via natural vectors.

We could have discussed solutions like environmental engineering to sequester carbon. Shit you can do mass carbon sequestration with literally medieval technology; tree farming coupled with charcoal manufacture (so long as you do not subsequently burn the charcoal) could sequester huge quantities of carbon, but seemingly nobody recognizes such a simple solution.

On a more modern level iron seeding in the remote ocean would promote plant growth in oceanic deadzones and sequester tons of carbon. However, it's LITERALLY ILLEGAL

We also could have tried fucking nuclear more but apparently that was also unacceptable to the environmentalists.

Hydro was also entirely unacceptable as it destroyed natural spawning habitats.

Now we can almost break even with solar (assuming the panel doesn't break) but it literally doesn't matter because every western research company has their product stolen and copied on the cheap before they can even get their product to market.

About the only thing that IS acceptable is moving all of our heavy industries to China and India and promoting their development into yet another burgeoning population of meat eaters and electricity users.

Why are so-called environmentalists fighting tooth-and-nail against fracking which has been the #1 source of carbon dioxide reduction in the last seven years?

Why do so-called environmentalists want the US to foot the majority of all climate-change efforts and never China or India?

Attached: bpco2.png (1191x848, 42K)

Try using solar in Canada. That shit gets covers in snow half the year. Leave that shit for African nations with hot sun and low power demand. How the fuck do you expect to provide 80,000BTu of heat to stay warm in winter with snow covered solar panels?

Nuclear is the only true solution. But, plants built in the 50s, designed in the 40s, using technology from the 30s had a few incidents... so... politically it's now impossible to build modern nuclear plans with 21st century technology. (They) don't want us to have cheap and plentiful power...

I hate how politicians/society has conflated global warming with other environmental issues. Whether or not you believe in climate change, we should all care about environmental issues (pollution, waste management, preserving ecosystems, etc...)

The CO2 we are releasing was stored in the ground in the form of oil. This combined with the fact that we've cleared an insane amount of forest for roads and agricultural purposes means that there is too much CO2 to be absorbed by trees within the next few thousands of years. We're releasing way more CO2 than trees can keep up with.

Plastics and metals are a problem, but the global temperature increase has more immediate and severe ramifications.

Because America and Israel are the only nations and cultures on this planet who would rather see the global death of civilization than accept any kind of loss.

Fracking chemicals are considered trade secrets and do not have to be revealed by fracking companies. There are even laws in place that make it illegal for doctors to tell people made sick from the chemicals exactly what chemicals they have been exposed to. Cancer and other disease rates have skyrocketed in communities near fracking operations. In some cases, the drinking water is affected and can be flammable.

Environmentalists want everyone to reduce carbon emissions, but people in the US can only really barely affect what the US does.

There is also the geopolitical complication of the fact that reducing developing countries carbon emissions will hinder their economic growth and that can seem unfair because the US has already benefited from their huge carbon emissions when we industrialized, and preventing other countries from industrializing seems unfair to everyone who isn't America.

Saving the earth via starving humanity (reducing and taxing the shit out of production... but only for white people) is the only answer to the problem the left will allow to be discussed, despite there being a multitude of substantially more effective, less expensive, and human friendly carbon reducing strategies.

Or basically what this guy said.

I should've read the the thread first before posting.

Bingo, I'm all for that. I am heavily confused why the focus isn't on this but instead social issues which will be useless when we are all dead.

>Shit you can do mass carbon sequestration with literally medieval technology; tree farming coupled with charcoal manufacture (so long as you do not subsequently burn the charcoal) could sequester huge quantities of carbon, but seemingly nobody recognizes such a simple solution.
That's because you have to store an insane amount of charcoal without letting it degrade. It's not a viable solution. Thousands of tons of CO2 are released by a single production plant in a day. You'd need thousands of tons of charcoal per day per plant. It's absurd you think that is a viable solution.

>On a more modern level iron seeding in the remote ocean would promote plant growth in oceanic deadzones and sequester tons of carbon. However, it's LITERALLY ILLEGAL
Which would absolutely decimate the sea life and the carbon would return to the atmosphere as soon as the plants decomposed. When a plant absorbs CO2, it's released when it decomposes. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the carbon cycle works.

>We also could have tried fucking nuclear more but apparently that was also unacceptable to the environmentalists.

If you can find a good place to put a ridiculous amount incredibly toxic and harmful waste (you have to scrap every barrel, forklift, palate crate, flooring, crane, insulation pad, etc - not just the uranium) for tens of thousands of years; in a way where it will never leak out, then you've solved the problem with nuclear waste. It isn't some miracle that we're not tapping to full potential for no reason.

>Hydro was also entirely unacceptable as it destroyed natural spawning habitats.
Hydro is viable in some situations, but it's hard to use hydro power in Arizona, and you can't exactly just run a wire from the coast to the midwest because of the resistance and decay of voltage through imperfect conductors.

1/2

>Now we can almost break even with solar (assuming the panel doesn't break) but it literally doesn't matter because every western research company has their product stolen and copied on the cheap before they can even get their product to market.
You fail to realize that it takes a lot of energy and carbon release to create these solar panels that don't last forever and in some cases don't break even on carbon emissions - similar to electric cars getting their electricity from coal plants. It's not a 0 emission solution or anywhere even close.

It's not just the US, you insular fuck.

Essentially this, the Republican party is the explicit party of big business (the Democrats just keep it on the down-low) and business is not helped by needing to care about things other than profit, which is the whole crux here. There is no profit motive for taking care of the environment because everyone can just wreck shit short-term and take home the paycheck, if your own personal profit/wellbeing isn't on the line you tend to rationalize and let it be someone else's problem. So the Republicans of course went all-in on casting doubt on the whole thing and fabricating a debate. You can see the root of the logic in the common response you'll see even here on Jow Forums;

>Well okay but what about China? We don't want to fall behind because we're following these dumb regulations and they aren't.

There's nothing logical about cavalierly continuing to erode the world just to make sure we don't fall behind on money, there's no point to money if there's no one left to take it or spend it. But for the right wing this is a classic case of disregarding the evidence because you don't like the conclusions it leads to, which is that if China won't regulate itself then it's more important for us to charge forward on environmentalism, not less. To whine about GDP in this instance is to have lost track of reality, but if there's no money in something nobody can be incentivized to care about it.

These are the most fundamental flaws of orienting our society around profit, that it fails to plan long-term and has no mechanism for valuing social goods.