Remember back when new laws went through congress?

Lmfao genuinely ^

I wish this for you, you deserve a real authentic life.

I swear if you start tagging things you would be a wonderful replacement for WD.

Do we still have tagging as an option?

Hey did you ever take that money your parents were going to give you to see a therapist and spend it on drugs?

Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, if anything his work was anti-nihilism.

it's like Batlord said, the Democrats contribute by offering false solutions based largely on the idea of conservationism.

But yes I do think the Republicans are clearly worse. It's the difference between offering inadequate solutions and denying the problem altogether.

I dont remember it ever being an option for as long as ive been here. I was talking about graffiti.

Here's a Council on Foreign Relations link that details Biden's platform. You can ctrl+f for Coal and it lays out all of his positions.

But the coal thing seems like a moot point. For one thing, Trump actively supports all coal (for the record I think Clean Coal is horse****) and it still isn't economically viable. CFR also notes Biden supported the fracking industry, which Russia and SA currently are bankrupting. It's possible Trump provides bailouts for them, but the point is within the market system the fossil fuel industry is going down. It will be slow until we resolve baseload issue and bolster solar with storage, but we'll hit a point where most of it falls off a cliff.

Natural gas should be a separate issue. As much as I push for 100% renewables, the reduction of GHG from nat. gas alone will enable us to hit climate goals, which means it's a nice transition from our current dependency.

But all those are the facts, they don't include politics. Biden wants to transition people out of industrieis like coal, which he can't campaign on, but he can do. The economics are on his side, and the companies themselves have been downsizing due to practices like Mountaintop Removal. Batlord mentioned the pittance of technological advances. I obviously disagree with that position, because commodities don't become more advanced, technology does, which means solar will continue to become more efficient while oil has likely peaked.

Ja that's pretty much my point, Joey is only supporting the coal industry because of the economic factor, which I view as prioritizing money over legitimate climate change measures. I hope you're right that oil, coal, and gas will fall out of favour as renewables become more common, but I just don't have that kind of faith after seeing the market seemingly act against its own long term interests time and time again.

I'll need to see solar emissions better accounted for in the manufacturing process before I put my support behind that, otherwise it's just shifting the problem around instead of solving it and half measures are what brought us here. There's the land use issue, but we've already done that damage to achieve urban sprawl and strip malls, so it could easily be incorporated there. For now, a highly regulated nuclear industry seems like the climate change magic wand if we're not going to do anything on a behavioural level to lessen our climate impact.

It would be if politics wasn't a factor. You can't enact things when you're not in office. This is the reason that, while I didn't vote for Biden, I happily will in the General. He makes taking the Senate a lot easier for the Dems. He makes the likelihood of a progressive cabinet a lot more possible.


Can you say a bit more about this? I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you saying that the manufacturing emissions net-net might out pace oil? If so, I'd be shocked to see it but I'll dig in.

Nuclear has two or three major issues for the US (given that we're the 2nd biggest emitter).

1. Because we stopped making plants after 3-mile island, the US currently lacks the experience and knowledge to build them well. Easily fixed but a hurdle none-the-less

2. The upfront overhead capx costs are insane. You'd need to make a crazy push to get that passed, funded, and to provide MW at a cost comparable to renewables. Maybe this would work in deregulated markets, but admittedly I'm not an expert on this.

3. Nuclear has a ramping problem. It doesn't meet demand on demand. It's like turning a cruise ship around. That's not a disqualifier, but it does mean nuclear isn't a magical fix. Having said that, operating at a baseline level based on predictable forecasting, and filling the top 40% of demand with renewables or fossil fuels is a smart approach I do think the US needs to explore.