The truth about green energy

Dangerous to whom?

I suspect it's a pro nuclear power hitpiece which is a good thing. More funding and research should go into making more efficient reactors. Every square foot of land or air that solar and wind farms take up is space taken away from vegetation and wildlife. Not to mention the aesthetics of the countryside is completely ruined by these low efficiency energy collectors.

the main claims are:
- solar and wind will never be viable energy sources as they are unreliable and have to backed up by a continuous power supply, defeating the purpose, also they are too inefficient
- "biomass" power which is claimed to be a type renewable or green energy is still bad for the environment, releasing a lot of CO2 and other things
- renewable energy as well as electric/hydrogen transport relies on industrial processes which are very damaging to the environment
- the green energy movement is backed by corporations who are largely responsible for environmental damage
- the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction

Just as planned.

>Michael Moore is a piece of shit who makes manipulative agitprop

what no way

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
based and redpilled

Incredibly redpilled.
The current "progressive" ideals which lean towards wind and solar, require rare resources, a lot of which are found in Africa, which is the sole reason for China's neo colonialism going on.

>- the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
Did he say where our focus should be on?

When will Americans take responsibility for what they are doing?

Attached: 1200px-CO2_emissions_per_capita,_2017_(Our_World_in_Data).svg.png (1200x847, 202.98K)

>- the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction

ah, of course the green death cult strikes again

I haven't watched it myself but people have been saying it doesn't mention nuclear at all.

Also, reminder that the anti-nuclear terrorist organization known as greenpeace is American as well.

Attached: annual-co2-emissions-per-country.png (832x572, 43.03K)

>Per captia

that shit is outdated, China has been the nr1 polluter for some years now

>The current "progressive" ideals which lean towards wind and solar, require rare resources, a lot of which are found in Africa, which is the sole reason for China's neo colonialism going on.
big brained user right here. 'Progressive ecofriendly models' are a scam, look at how recycling basically amounts to moving first world trash to the third world. Out of sight out of mind.

A Michael Moore documentary is full of misinformation Whaaaaat

Attached: 1588155904057.jpg (700x596, 75.11K)

well it should.

See America has 400 million people. Its total emissions are almost on par with China.

Wiping out Africa and India would be nothing but a positive for the entire planet.

So, nuclear power is beginning to sound pretty good again?

.t never went to china
you are fucking insane

Refer to total emissions again, friendo

Haven't watched it.

- Did it talk about how windmills break down often, have short lifespans, and cost tons to repair?
- Did it talk about how solar panels are a meme and cost a ton to produce compared to how much energy it generates and how bad it is for the environment with the mines the material come from?
- Did it talk about how electric car batteries die quickly and like solar panels, pollutes the environment more than petrol given the rare earth metals it takes to mine to produce?

Only nuclear is the clean option.

Do they dab on Tesla? I hate this motherfucker.

Nuclear gang rise up!

>emissions meme
stop

CO2 emissions are directly causing climate change.

Climate change isn't real you gay nigger.

China AND America are a plague upon this world.

yes they did, they said the cars use a lot of "bad" materials in their construction and their gigafactories which originally claimed to be self-sustaining in power terms are actually connected to the grid

those emissions are the result of human overpopulation

No they aren't, retard.
Yes it is, retard. What isn't real is the human impact on it. The climate changes, that's what it does, that's what it's always doing. It has natural cycles.

Attached: 1560990675263.png (829x493, 155.84K)

Greta Thunberg supremely BTFO. I can't wait to see the damage control her parents whisper in her ear next time she opens her maw.

Are you aware what components they make the batteries out of?

first two they talked about, third point they only touched on

BASED

>- the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
I'm good with this. Not that I'm pro green, I just hate people.

Attached: fatcat.jpg (1080x1080, 83.29K)

I agree, we should nuke America and China and get rid of our problems all at once.

I see you, Satan. Begone!

nah. china and india. then stop feeding africa and let its population return to normal

based satan telling truth bombs

you don't need moore to know that the litium used for the batteries is digged in african by black slaves and that these things are expensive as fuck to dispose once dead

>"biomass" power which is claimed to be a type renewable or green energy is still bad for the environment, releasing a lot of CO2 and other things
Biomass braps are a waste product that are going to be released anyhow. There is no way they aren't renewable.

Shame. I'll watch it when I have time.

Latte sipping Californian fucks think electric cars are clean because they don't pollute the air. Meanwhile, the Chinese/Filipino/Kazakh workers are poisoning their own air/water supply mining the materials they need to manufacture the batteries they need for the cars.

We fucking need nuclear energy. But because a few fail due to natural disasters and retards from decades ago, we've stop developing them. It's like stopping all commercial flights because we have a few air disasters a year, which is less than car accidents, and even rarer than being struck by lightning.

Attached: 5160a05269bedd216c00001b.jpg (1100x825, 105.58K)

Lithium is digged in Bolivia

Yeah, today it's africa and india and tomorrow it might be us. I think they would prefer dumber and more easily controlled people so western society is in a bigger threat.

How far into it before MM whines about Flint Michigan?

Then Europe will have to feed the beaners and spooks all on their own.

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
Google degrowth movement.
It's just good old communism in a new sleeve.

Attached: 1467399434338s.jpg (250x250, 8.25K)

Both the planet and society itself are healthier with lower population levels. This is an objective fact.

>I checked some of the claims made and it seems to be correct. It's insane.
lol

Nice try, mohammed.

>beaners
>in europe
LOL

based

well that´s cringe whataboutism

we have already enough food for 11 billion people

so we just should give all up cause it makes someone butthurt

Adding to this, user, the deindustrialization of the US and oursourcing are in a large part supported by rich people because a)they are not reliant on engaging in productive labor and b) this is an effective method of externalizing pollution and removing from view the inevitable consequences of 1st world elite's lifestyle.

Attached: b000afd1a0ecdcee10bb4a916192398e.jpg (400x640, 49.54K)

But that's racist. Better that the white man should die out. Invite more Bvlls

love how poltv is spreading it as gospel. is propaganda the only answer to propaganda?

it's the west today. globalists are increasing the third world subhuman population and importing them to the west to replace whites

Start by yourself then, lol.

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
I've been saying this for years.

>believing Chink statistics provided by CCP

Yeah, better to do nothing and just use existing polluting energy resources.

BUT GREEN CARS!!

Attached: TerresRares.jpg (800x600, 738.5K)

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST TRY TO DEPOPULATE MY PRECIOUS CITYRINOS WHAT ABOUT THE VIBRANT FOOD CULTURE I NEED TO BE PACKED IN LIKE A SARDINE TO THE POINT MY BRAIN STOPS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY

Michael Moore made that Trump movie and went to all those protests and they treated him like shit anyway, so this is his little coded payback towards his (((former investors))).

well same, some shithole gets fucked for this meme energy

You're completely ignoring the issue that when something does go wrong, it's catastrophic to the surrounding area. And there's also the issue of where do you store all the nuclear waste and make sure it doesn't leak into the ground.

What if we turn the excess human population into burnable biomass

the ol' "onions green" solution

then you build the plants in areas in which accidents could be contained. nuclear waste could be sent into space

The Holocaust proved that human bodies burn far too quickly to be used as fuel.

>Google
"No."

We should have been going full nuclear for the past 60 years but retarded environmentalists got fucking handled by the most basic propaganda put forth by Oil company interns and were permanently swayed like the gullible retards they are. We were on pace to be colonizing space at this point, yet here we are.

No its not if you have an elite with concentrated wealth. The rich just get richer, no one is doing this for our own sake man.

I have the same growing suspicion.

Why would you want to contaminate space with radiation? Nuclear is a pipedream, deal with it.

Or you know, using nuclear energy.
Like we should have been doing for like 50 fucking years already but retards get spooked by "muh radiation".

In american we say "could care less". please use correct american english.

We're so far down the shitter than even Michael Moore isn't far enough left for these lunatics anymore.

>No its not if you have an elite with concentrated wealth. The rich just get richer, no one is doing this for our own sake man.
I don't want a rich ruling class, I just recognize that the population levels we have in the world today are unnatural and unhealthy. Not only is it unsustainable in the sense of resources, it's damaging to the psyche. Look up the Calhoun mouse experiments.

Everyone knows that pollution is a fucking problem that needs fixing, but you're branded a fucking conspiracy theorist and "climate denier" if you point out the fact that politicians are using the climate bullshit to consolidate their power, while big business is using the climate bullshit to siphon tax payer money into their own pockets by the fucking billions through elaborate "environmental friendly" scams.

Yes, pollution is a problem. But the solution does not mean allowing the elite to strip away our rights and big business to steal our fucking money.

>Why would you want to contaminate space with radiation

Our local star would be largely unaffected if we shot planet sized loads of nuclear waste into it, every single day for the next 70k years.

Electric cars are a meme. You want to be green? Your better off buying a 20year old beater and keeping that on the road. Less environmental impact by far.

>Why would you want to contaminate space with radiation?

Attached: 1447868884594.png (532x485, 513.33K)

>it's da politician's fault they can magically solve all our problems by signing one decree but they don't want to because they are in the league of evil
You people sound absolutely retarded

>Why would you want to contaminate space with radiation?

Attached: 1574207087033.jpg (701x702, 123.32K)

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction

ANTINATALISM GANG RISE UP

That doesn't make any sense and I hate it when it's used in US movies.

Climate change has become more of a doomsday cult of futurists rather than actual climate science or even anthropology. They car more about shilling magical wind energy and solar energy than realizing that to facilitate renewable energy requires mining of resources that often pollute far worse than fossil fuels which have been advancing in tech to the point where they have become cheaper than water to produce

CO2 was never a problem is a natural and harmless gas. Big industrial focus idiots like you on this harmless gas to shift the attention from the actual dangerous particles and all the chemical shit they throw in rivers and in the air. Chemical and nuclear pollution is what is actually dangerous, not CO2. It's meme. Since it's not a dangerous gas, they made up the global warming scam to explain why CO2 is bad.

No words about nuclear energy?

How can you be this fucking dense?

Politicians are taking the opportunity to present consolidation of their power as part of the solution. "Give us the keys, and we'll fix the problem". Yes, we're giving them the keys, but they're not fixing the problem. They'll use the keys to benefit their own selfish needs.

One example of the above being the Patriot Act.

Somewhat these claims are enough to back it up that it's ok to have cattle, factories and the oil industry because the other side is "just as bad".
And also ends up with "dude, remember Malthusian theory? That dude was so right imao"

If anything this documentary serves is to have a realistic approach to how even green energy is still hard but not that is useless or "just as harmful". It feels like the whole argument can be boiled down to the classic "evolution theory is false because Darwin became Christian on his death bad".

And I'm not even attacking the points that are obviously flawed. Tackling Solar/Wind as too expensive is just a matter of time, electric cars were already thing since cars were already a thing, and just now we successfully doing it right and even better than gas cars (especially with the invention selfdrive cars).

Claiming that anything is bad because the process of doing it can be just as bad as the counterpart is clearly turning a blind eye to the long-term projections. Especially when mentioning hydroelectric power stations for example that the damage is just done around the area that was built but after this is smooth sale for the rest of it's life.

Anyway, I will probably not watch this if is based on these points but still has its value but not enough to be "the truth about green earth" tier and more like another perspective on it.

Attached: d461fe4af67805d89896cd13be99a723-imagejpeg.jpg (1024x1010, 128.65K)

>all we need to do is sing a piece of paper and poof job done
>simple
You people are actual geniuses. Obviously scientific research is not needed. We can just replace fossil fuels like that. But NOT with nuclear, though. That's evil, like politician from Gotham.

>rich just get richer
So do the "poor" people. Compare the average western poor person today to the average poor person 100 years ago. Western society is not rich and poor anymore. It's practically very rich and sort of rich.

Why aren't more anons in favor of human population reduction? You'd think they'd be against soulless urban sprawl, endless concrete buildings and globalist hell. Europe and North America are the least populated continents it would be China, Africa and India that would get their populations halved.

Why don't the people in favor of human population reduction start by themselves and just commit suicide to save the world?

Michael Moore should be shot and then cannibalized.

If you're in favor of 'population reduction', you should be absolutely willing to off yourself, otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite.

humans produce CO2 when we breathe. Those asshole literally want to tax breathing. This is how far global hypercorporatism is willing to go

literally fucking this

>Why aren't more anons in favor of human population reduction
Because of the people (((they))) want to reduce.

Why are you putting words in my mouth, you schizo cunt? You're not addressing anything I'm saying.

think you replied to the wrong post. i'm the guy who wants humans to die so industry can be mitigated

>nuclear waste could be sent into space

Oh yeah, that's a great idea. It's not like we've had disastrous failed space rocket launches or anything.

>There is a risk nuclear can be catastrophic for the surrounding area so let's just go for options that are catastrophic for the entire planet even when they work as intended.

Attached: Brain.jpg (644x500, 38.88K)

>Why aren't more anons in favor of human population reduction?
I wonder what people they would think it best to reduce?

Attached: download (2).jpg (195x259, 11.11K)

>Why would you want to contaminate space with radiation?
U rascal

Attached: 1581892415043.jpg (511x559, 73.4K)

The reason nothing ever gets done about this issue is that we are already terraforming other planets and this one is a complete write off.

Nuclear and GMOs are evil and unnatural. They offend the Pacha Mama mother nature. Humans are a plague and must all perish, except me, an enlightened anti-corporate genius.

>big business is using the climate bullshit to siphon tax payer money into their own pockets by the fucking billions through elaborate "environmental friendly" scams.

Right, but when big oil's getting giant subsidies even currently, and doesn't have to pay any price for the fact that they've known for decades that climate change is real and tried to deny it because it hurts their bottom line, that's entirely fine and should be allowed to continue.

yeah all those thousands killed by rocket failures. real tragedy

>retards get spooked by "muh radiation"
>has no understanding of the impact Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi have had

Attached: 1574415563202.jpg (1178x950, 167.91K)

Except that's bullshit because every government is borrowing itself into oblivion and needs population growth to tax in the future to pay it back.

Bad luck, you name came out in the lottery. It's a trip on the holocoaster for you.

I'd be interested in seeing our current CO2 emissions since they stay-at-home orders have been declared.

Imagine a rocket full of irradiated material spinning off its alignment and breaking up in the atmosphere. You have to be american.

Attached: 1581902182231.jpg (476x477, 22.34K)

Not the user you replied to but to be fair it only takes one rocket failure carrying nuclear waste to cause a global catastrophe.

>it's catastrophic to the surrounding area
The Chernobyl area is doing way better now all the humans have been cleared out.

Obviously entitled westernoid cunts would be the most beneficial to reduce.

bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve

Oh no! Chernobyl created the biggest forest in Europe!

They hated Satan, because he told them the truth.

Human population reduction is the only solution and I guess we can all agree that the first group that has to go are Trump voters. Followed by most but not all white men.

>incompetent soviet disaster and tsunami
Meanwhile france has had tons of nuclear power stations (I live near one) and 0 problem. Seethe more cuckold

Which doesn't make any fucking sense. If you could care less then really what you're saying is "I care about this a little bit.". Fucking Americans.

It enrages me to no end when people call for information or opinions to be censored because they're wrong.

Especially when they know damn well how unscientific and totalitarian that is, so they attempt to call it "dangerous" instead it - making it a matter of public safety.

I want bad things to happen to these people.

I didn't. I don't watch any Michael Moore propaganda flicks.

This guy looks pretty right wing to me
youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0

Basically a republican shill

>not all white men.
Fuck off, racist. They all have to die.

That even won't extinct the species, so its worth the risk considering what the gain would be.

>seeth more cuckold
Still not understanding the global ramifications of both of those incidents.

Attached: 1584414056986.gif (200x200, 2.9M)

>bbc
Basically Breitbart, nice try shill

The biggest ramifications of those incidents is perpetuating dumb fearmongers like you who directly oppose one of the best tools we have against climate change.

Still not making an argument against nuclear.

The argument is that although these incidents are very rare the impact they have is global. Anyone capable of basic inference could come to this conclusion from the exchange we've had, I think you might just be dumb :( sucks.

Shit nigga, the world shouldve listened
On behalf of the rest if the world, I apologize

There is a massive alien invasion on the way within the next 100 years. Thats why we have been going balls to wall in production with no thought of the future. We will be fucked if the invasion is succesful so our only hope is to spend everything possible and win the war and just hope to fuck we can learn some advanced tech out of it and colonize other bodies in space.

What global ecological impact did either of the claimed events have?

There used to be natural population control in humans
>famines
>plagues
>droughts
>wars

But look at the last 80 years.
>no major wars anywhere
>any wars that do take place don't have anywhere near as much population impact as they used to
>entire world able to instantaneously go on lockdown to stop a minor flu
>famines and droughts only ever affecting Africa, whose population is exploding regardless

There hasn't been any major form of depopulation since the plague.

The results speak for themselves, there's no way this is sustainable.
Either we're going to have to expand out drastically, onto new planets, or we're going to have to fight it out, as no one is going to volunteer to be culled.

Attached: main-qimg-62f514f3bd2f25284636aa5d443dc800-c.jpg (970x664, 87.18K)

(You)

Attached: 1576556117440.png (534x363, 87.92K)

See

it's an ironic statement, but obviously such subtlety would be lost on a low IQ European wh*teoid

It’s a very limited hangout though, as it fails to mention where population growth comes from globally, and in high consumption western countries where what have been a population decline is being purposefully stalled against electoral desires.

No blows levelled at Greta or her handlers, or scepticism at the concept of “global warming” or “climate crisis” at all. The whole live in pod, eat bug thing might’ve also warranted some comments, as well as the new “climate refugees” narrative being formed.

Also no mention of nuclear or the need for a society that values “small is beautiful” ala Kunstler

Also the Wrong Kind of Green is a good source.

wrongkindofgreen.org/

oy vey i dont want green tax fraud i just want to save the planet, honest!

Attached: 1563292967410.jpg (688x456, 42.71K)

That’s absolutely 100% right.

I’m in favor of killing troublesome peoples and nations like the Chinese and Indians. What ever do for anyone anyways?

>Why aren't more anons in favor of human population reduction?
I am. Not just for chinks and poos though, rent and job competition in the west is way too high.

Just introduce a 2 child policy (and track it across multiple partners) across the globe. Problem solved

It sounds like jew counter-measure, honestly.

Wind power is the worst and most retarded fucking meme ever. It's pure virtue signalling. It destroys the natural environment and it's not efficient at all. It's literally only done to make politicians feel good about themselves.

There are a few solutions.

If we stop aid to Africa their population is gonna dwindle to nothingness, a level their land and current tech can sustain which is almost fuck all, yes there will be a lot of unrest but that'S just how it is. Some people would argue Africa doesn't pollute much compared to the West but that is only for now, they're developing and the second they hit industrialization the Earth is fucked.

need to finish ITER soon, dumb panic sreading americans should be shot

The problem of overpopulation lies solely with;
>China
>India
>Africa

But saying that is racist so I guess we have to sterilize Europeans now.

fund thorium and fusion desu

But biomass is green. At current technology, it's CO2 neutral (tree draws co2 out of the atmosphere, which you then burn. It evens out). If you find a way to capture the carbon upon burning it, it's even co2 negative.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

It’s also a lucrative racket. David Cameron’s father-in-law received generous grants to establish wind farms, which do not much, off the East Coast of England.

(((They))) want more people it doesn't matter where they come from. More growth and consumption is good for (((them))).

Well the chinese produced most of the stuff you own?

but who will mine all the rare minerals and raw materials for our iphones?

>But saying that is racist so I guess we have to sterilize Europeans now.
Don't forget inviting excess Chinese, Indians, and Africans into western nations where they can thrive even more, use more resources, and create more pollution.

pff better introduce worldwide alimony of 200%

How does a wind farm destroy the environment?

fucking red pilled

>t. bugman who never goes out into nature

how about recycling old phones, you mindless consumerist american piece of shit

Make the chinese, indians and africans as wealthy as us and they will have fewer children. You want to do that?

>"biomass" power which is claimed to be a type renewable or green energy is still bad for the environment, releasing a lot of CO2 and other things
As far as im aware, biomass is also produced by CO2, which is why the fossil fuel industries is going in over their heads for funding ways or harvesting carbon in circular patterns. Like carbon capture, or harvesting algaes that are just OVERFLOWING the ocean because it eats up all the carbon it stores. Don´t know well its going though. Not terrible well, i´d imagine
>the green energy movement is backed by corporations who are largely responsible for environmental damage
This is the thing that infuriates climate skeptics the most. You´re called a "denier" and claims you´re in cahoots because your benefactor is a corporation with interests in carbon-fuels, while they take in every foundation-grant and charity check from big corporations. The climate lobbies make their money the same way the politicians do, because they´re the same type of institutions.

>If we stop aid to Africa
If we do that they'll start crossing the mediterranean in makeshift raft at levels we've never seen before. And all it takes is one country like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece or Malta to have #RefugeesWelcome politicians, and they'll be allowed into EU en masse.

Free border movement across EU countries will be our death precisely because of this. There is no unison when it comes to Africans illegally entering the EU. Just look at how Spain opened their arms when Italy started cracking down on the "refugee ships", and suddenly the human traffickers started sending the Africans into Spain instead of Italy. The problem persists.

Not an argument. I'm not a chink or poo or a globalist shill so I have no reason to die.

Watch the documentary or have an IQ above 95

We wouldn't need nearly as much if all the sois didn't buy a new fucking phone every year when your phone can last years.

And you can't blame the companies for it, you can't blame Apple for it, they do it cause people buy it. We need to convince people to stop buying shit, the power of Corporation ends with our wallet.

I loved it. Unironically a case for anarchofascism. Fucking niggers and currys must stop breeding. Thats the real issue here

It kills some bats, that's about it.

Nuclear has the greatest opportunity to reverse climate change for us while still providing the same or greater energy output. In the coming years millions will be displaced from their homes, weather will become more extreme and we'll see even more devastating storms, wildfires will become more destructive and we would be looking at serious famines/droughts. Can solar and windfarms provide enough output for 8 billion people across the planet? The scale of what we require is more than you think. How many turbines and solar panels would be needed to provide for NYC?

Right, so you mean in terms of aesthetics. Do you think a nuclear or coal power plant is more aesthetically pleasing? Do you think strip mining looks good?

>tonne
fuck off

It's ironic that they are forcing people to buy brand new cars supposedly because they pollute less. They carefuklly ignoret the fact that building those new cars in the first will genereta far more pollution and CO2 than if we kept the old cars running. The ecology meme is all about guilt tripping consumers into buying new shit that Mr Noseberg wants to sell.

Hecking birdarinos die

Attached: Waaaaa.jpg (785x731, 100.76K)

The problem is waste though. Failing to manage nuclear waste on the scale of the global energy need is a gazillion times worse than anything we can do with carbon

Fails to mention the Sierra Clubs about face on immigration restrictions when it receive a 200 billion donation, hmmmm....

daily reminder that climate change is a liberal doomsday cult

>convince people to stop buying it
Nigga, have you ever even had a conversation with an American?

They are human constructs that span for miles on end.

*200 million not billion, typo

>all these retards calling for global population reduction
>not realizing that births rates have been dropping globally, even in Sub Sahara Africa at replacement or below levels

It's almost like the more educated and rich people are, the less they shit out kids

Wildlife avoid the wind farms, in the air and on the ground, they transform the land into desert basically.

Netherlands is more densely populated than India.

Okay but couldn't you apply that same criticism to cities, telephone masts, highways, etc.? Why does it suddenly become a problem with wind power when we ignore with every other construction?

have you seen how big the things are? and you need fucking hundreds of them to produce even miniscule amounts of power. Natural landscapes are raped and destroyed worse than mining does.

I believe most current and proposed wind farms are either in the desert or at sea. That problem has already been addressed.

Coastal americans, specifically the ones in NY and Cali are the worst. A fucking black hole of carbon usage who wants to vote their way to not feel "sinful" about their environmental cost, and want the other states to pay for their half-assed, unsustainable solutions
Meanwhile bible-belt, hillbilly farmers just want to live the simple life and keep the money they earn

>ignoring nuclear power

Michael Moore is still biased as fuck.

Also don't forget that West Africans have started pouring into the US from Mexico recently. When Europe said "pls stop", the human traffickers opened a new corridor from West Africa to Mexico by ship, and then by foot into the US.

I don't think nuclear comes up. Maybe it does and I missed it, but it for sure isn't about which is better than "green energy". It's about that "green" energy isn't green at all.

>Okay but couldn't you apply that same criticism to cities, telephone masts, highways, etc.?
Greens do criticize all these things. They don't criticize wind famrs, though.

That's bullshit and you know it. You can place them in the ocean or the desert where they do little damage. Even comparing it to mining shows how much of a brainlet shill you are.

Now you’re getting somewhere, the industrial revolution...

The 2nd and third world is moving all the excess population that doesn´t die from starvation or diseases to Europe though. And the greens think its ok, because carbon-usage in the 1st world is supposedly turning africa into a an unlivable wasteland anyhow. Somehow

And your hypocritical solution is to do the exact same in reverse? What a brainlet cope.

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
Holy based

>how come you idiots don't know about these statistics I just made up and refuse to provide a source for?
gee, I don't know user, maybe it's because you just made them up and refuse to provide a source for them?

Disgusting those jobs should go to American workers. We would be off in world with less Chineses, Indians and Africans in it.

The propensity to start world conflicts and genocidal socio-political systems seems like an odd requirement. Or has America not oppressed enough natives yet?

so is green energy viable but its being done halfassed or it is completely useless?
i'm still a nuclear shill

Fire with fire. What I find telling is how they say it contains misinformation but every claim I checked turned out to be true.

No? There's legitimate criticism to both urban sprawl and wind farms. Both quite literally need to destroy the environment to exist. I'm not the one who just ignores the side he likes.

it's well established that population is likely to even out at 9-10 billion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

I'm American and no we don't say that. Retards and children say that after they mishear the phrase until they are corrected. There is plenty of retarded shit we say and do but that isn't one of them.

It's not viable for the time being. It might be in the future, but that will become a moot point if we don't stop using fossil fuels now.

The thing is, Michael Moore has spent so much of his career blatantly lying that I wouldn't be able to believe this documentary's thesis, even though I've spent enough time researching the efficacy of "green" energy to have come to the same conclusion years ago.
I guess I'm going to actually have to sit through this flick to be sure. What Supersized McDonald's meal pairs best with a Michael Moore fauxcumentary?

But the wind farm criticism is completely disingenious because it ignores the many ways the problem can be circumvented (place the farm at sea or in the desert) or is the lesser of two evils (it's still objectively better for the environment than coal mining or oil drilling)

>it's catastrophic to the surrounding area
Turns out it isn't. phys.org/news/2005-09-life-chernobyl-ecosystem-flourishes-no-man.html

How do windmills destroy the environment though?

takes whole two seconds to google smoothbrain

Attached: 5CD48B94-754C-4E58-9A02-1FBDBCA22E0C.jpg (1125x2082, 447.63K)

Too bad wind is not enough to replace oil and coal.

noise pollution fucks with the animals

>in the desert or at sea
And then it costs 10 times more to maintain, is it really worth the price in the end?

Nuclear could work

>the only real solution is human population reduction
that or nuclear power

There's something missing in your graph, pal.
God giveth and God taketh. If He wanted there would be no trees or fruits and we would just strave staring at the sun in an underpopulated planet. God made a perfect creation, He didn't put us on a planet that can't sustain us. and when the time will come, the trumpets will blow and we will be judged.

Different energy production doesn’t really matter if energy consumption keeps going up infinitely

You should watch Where to Invade Next, which is largely about Moore visiting countries in Europe and pointing out what things they do better than the US

/thread

This
>Zoom in on wind turbine
>Slow-mo shot
>"This bad boy can spin at over a 1000 rotations per hour and produce enough energy for a small village"
>*violin screech*
>"But it comes with a downside. For the birds"
>3D render of a flock of seagulls flying through a wind turbine getting chopped
>"You wouldn't want one of these in your backyard"
>starwipe to a nuclear plant

Not entirely, but using it as a supplement provides a significant emissions reduction

No more than cars do.

>- the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
I'm doing my part.

The nazi oven technology was lost during the war. Modern crematoriums are far slower and less efficient.

Attached: 1586957513352.png (1080x1236, 1.02M)

Considering how much of the Chinese population is still rural, that doesn't mean much.

Not enough, which is the entire point.

A theory has it starting as a response to a popular phrase in the 50's: "No one could care less than I". "I could care less" is supposedly about caring the least among a group of people. But that's just one game theory.

Not enough explosions and where's the burger commercial?

So you honestly believe some people have as a motivation to make all of humanity die? How do you even come up with such a retarded opinion?

Offsetting negative effects of climate change and finding ever newer sources of fossil fuels isn't cheap either
Also
> Ten times
Can I ask for a source on that number?

You think you just plant a seed and they magically appear without taking space?

Attached: Wind-farm-BoP-terminology-tower-erection.png (1920x1080, 1.72M)

>when climate change becomes undeniable fascists just switch their rhetoric to "fuck it, kill browns"
How hopelessly predictable

>Nuke China and India to solve the population problem.
>Americans still need their iToys made, move all manufacturing to a new Asian/Latino/African Country
>repeat

America is the problem.

>the only real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
Holy shit I've been saying this for years, the most dangerous kind of socialists are the ones that know full-well that a communist revolution would result in the deaths of millions of people - they want the revolution precisely BECAUSE it would create a dramatic drop in the population
Every person I've suspected of holding this view has been cagey as fuck regarding why they want socialism and would never come out and say it, I never thought a mainstream person would outright admit the end-goal

Attached: 56d.gif (1189x1189, 2.11M)

America you've done it again

Enough for what? A reduction is a reduction. If you can convert 25% of your output to wind, that's a 25% reduction in emissions

But user, that’s the ‘39-‘45 rhetoric

Consoooomerism is the problem

hopefully automation will put a stop to this boomer rhetoric for unskilled labour

Ah yes,the movie where Moore claims Tunesia has better rights for women than US.

Most of his arguments is asinine and dumb, because virtually all European countries are sucking up to the endless depths that is the US economu.
When Trump warned that he would retract NATO funding until all countries made goals to reach their 2% commitment, every scandinavian government suspended all benefits-policies in the making. Were so dependent on the US allowing us market privilieges and investments that if they ever began to actually set their resources to support their own population, every European economy short of UK and Germany would break in half

They don't really take up much space.

Enough to replace fossil fuels and stop climate change. It's no use to just reduce when the overall effect is still moving towards that.

Fascism isn't kkk, retard

plus you charge them via the electric grid, which is powered by coal in most cases
did he at least go to bat for nuclear power?

>when climate change becomes undeniable fascists just switch their rhetoric to "fuck it, kill browns"
>How hopelessly predictable

Attached: 1520018525563.jpg (668x445, 34.36K)

If you wanted wind farms to replace fossil fuels they would need to take a shit load of space.

But it isn't. You have idling gas power plants for every windpark. Idling so they can be started quickly when wind gets too weak. And that's just one aspect of solar and wind that's often overlooked.

No

>I'll crash the entire western economy and betray our alliances over chump change
Conservatives are the enemies of the human race

Oh, a shit load? I guess that would certainly destroy the environment.

michael moore was just the bankroll. Its done by Jeff Gibbs

>every European economy short of UK and Germany would break in half

pretty sure the tourist trap countries like Italy, spain, greece and shit no one cares about like latvia, estonia would suffer, not so much snow niggers or germs

>So you honestly believe some people have as a motivation to make all of humanity die?
I see you weren't on Yas Forums between 2008-2011, or Yas Forums between 2011-2014, when like 90% of anons genuinely wanted to instigate a fucking global nuclear war. Or at best, an outright economic/social collapse by having Ron Paul tear the system to the ground.

They do though. Also kill lots of birds.

And where do you get the numbers that it's "not enough"? There are countries in the world right now who meet their own energy demands more or less entirely by renewables, with enough left to spare to sell to other countries. You don't think those kinds of reductions make a difference? If you only use fossils when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, that's a massive reduction, more than enough to combat climate change.

>When the retarded contradictary views of progressives are stated they just avoid the subject and say racist instead of defending their views
How retardedly predicatable

Yes, and the demorarized misanthropic public will beg for it, forgetting it was their plan the entire time.

A 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile. Taking these factors into account, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land.

Even with the decreasing birthrates, Nigeria is projected to surpass 1 billion population by the end of this century. This is not sustainable.

>Yas Forums between 2008-2011, or Yas Forums between 2011-2014, when like 90% of anons genuinely wanted to instigate a fucking global nuclear war
You can't possibly be this stupid.

Attached: 1561919561866.png (513x441, 152.83K)

that would have been the best timeline

Attached: windmolenZH534.jpg (534x386, 36K)

For comparison, the District of Columbia’s total land area is 68 square miles. The island of Manhattan is 34 square miles, and New York City’s five boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and the Bronx) take up 305 square miles.

No wind or solar facility currently operating in the United States is large enough to match the output of a 1,000-MW nuclear reactor. The country’s largest wind farm, Alta Wind Energy Center in California, has an installed capacity of 1,548 MW. The largest solar PV plants are the 550-MW Topaz Solar Farm and Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, both in California. Between six and 10 of these facilities would be needed to equal the annual output of the average nuclear reactor.

>Europe and North America are the least populated continents
Is this bait?

Attached: 1585568655527.png (940x469, 145.9K)

Fun fact: The tech to recycle 99% of reactor fuel waste has been around since the Cold War. Most nuclear countries do that. The US stopped because it was an anti-scarcity measure before we figured out there was way more U-235 around than initially estimated.

Fuck off, election tourist. He's right.

Attached: 1384468823958.gif (190x300, 1.54M)

>"windmills cause cancer"
- dolan blirmpf

>huge corporations and rich people wanna cash in on climate change
sounds about right

I've been here since 2006. Silly pictures of Ron Paul you found on knowyourmeme don't mean anyone was genuinely trying to end the world you stupid faggot.

>real solution to the environmental problem is human population reduction
that is really drastic. But less consumptionnor energy needed is a better solution. But noone wants to hear "less tv, less social media and less youtube" and you cant go on holidays nor should travel outside of your town.

projection from a death cultist dominionist. Take a bullet pill

Where did I mention population density you dense faggot?

Just because people don't bother to live in Deserts doesn't mean they aren't worth preserving.

>Reading comprehension
Wanting and trying are two separate things, you mouthbreathing cunt.

Most anons wanted the world to end. They weren't actively trying to the end the world.

i'm 42 minutes in and so far he hasn't.

You are wrong either way.

Attached: 1573690213466.png (450x246, 15.45K)

America has plenty of space, what's the problem?

Criticism of the environmentalism movement is anti-semitic

>wants to save the environment
>by building over the environment

>And where do you get the numbers that it's "not enough"?
Compare France vs Germany. Not every country has endless rivers like Brazil or the meme necessary conditions (low population, lots of sun, wind or rivers) for renewable to completely replace fossil fuels.

Attached: Energy-Production-UK-France-Germany-Italy.png (850x448, 64.91K)

>There are countries in the world right now who meet their own energy demands more or less entirely by renewables, with enough left to spare to sell to other countries
Which countries? Not the guy your arguing with btw. I just know Germany had a huge initiative to switch to renewables and as a result it accounts for like 5% of their total whilst having the highest cost in Europe. Curious to see who is doing things better than Germany is.

At the cost of the environment, which is the thing you are supposedly trying to protect. But whatever.

lmao, estoniabros wtf

>economic/social collapse by having Ron Paul tear the system to the ground
bootlicker mentality to think the state props up productive civilians and not the other way around

agreed, there are 3 kinds of socialists user
>the useful idiots - the people that think a communist society will be like a happy hippy commune and not a dystopian shitshow where millions die of famine and conflict
>next are the people that know exactly what socialism really is and what would happen but they've deluded themselves into thinking they'd somehow end up near the top following the revolution when in reality they'd be among the first drug out into the street and shot
>third and most dangerous kind - the ones you mentioned. they want socialism because they know it would drastically lower the population and they think it's the only way to save the world

Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria.
I admit Germany has problems because of geography, but they can buy renewables from others. America has no excuse. That country has plenty of desert, rivers and coastline.

>he actually thought ron paul could fix things, and not just tear everything down so we could rebuild
lmao. ron paul was just a means to an end for the natsocs to get their way once he had fucked up the economy. lolbertarians were just useful idiots for the natsocs.

Can I be among the first to say that Yas Forums mods are fucking faggots

Attached: v3-leash.jpg (968x681, 54.19K)

mods are global you nigger

>thread moved to Yas Forums
aaaaand all meaningful discourse has perished.

Nice chatting with you lads.

America has to provide energy for 350 million people, not 10, like Sweden. I mean, good for Sweden, but in the grand scheme of things, whether they use renewable or not hardly makes a difference. America is a whole different beast.

>but it has rivers and deserts and coastline

Which you would need to destroy in order to properly exploit if you EVER want to meet the energy demands it has.

>Not every country has endless rivers like Brazil
A single dam in the Brazil-Paraguay border powers all of Paraguay and a large chunk of Brazil, it's the most productive dam in the world since the 80's and it's not even that big, it has a relatively small reservoir but a great production ratio.

Those countries haven't had to destroy their environment to produce renewables, you are grasping at straws.

Those countries don't have 350 million people. Nor do they have the energy consumption America has.