This reminds me of a book from Michael Crichton (State of Fear) fiction I know, but he underscored how climate activism is also a business and in it to make money. The short and skinny of it was: what would happen if a group of climate activists went off the rails and planned terrorist attacks that were disguised as climate change disasters, in order to gain more press? It was a good read.
Humans have been assholes to the world and I agree with Scott that all that plastic is terrible for the earth and everything that lives on it. we’ve done this to ourselves in order to make life a little easier. We are selfish asshats. But it’s not just people that bring about climate change: look at that mini ice age from the 13th to the 18th century that was the result of volcanic activity. Am I making excuses? Maybe!
Almost done: did you see HBOs Chernobyl? You must! Watch it, so so good. It did a nice job of linking the way a communist government “works” as the core (pun intended) reason for the accident.
I read State of Fear a bunch of years back. I love a good Michael Crichton sometimes!
I did watch the HBO series Chernobyl. Very entertaining. Super interesting. Did not glorify communism (which I was surprised and pleased by). It played a little fast and loose with some of the facts, but frankly it was super entertaining!
What if we consider for a moment that the Earth is roughly 4.543 billion years old. I googled it. "Research" complete. I'm certain that the introduction of millions of tons of plastic into the world's water supplies have and will continue to have catastrophic effects for all of us, and I'll concede that burning fossil fuels hasn't been a model of environmental conservation. Have we considered the long game? Most humans are on the planet for less than 75 years. That's barely a proverbial blip on the radar when we consider the history of the plant.
I think that the long term answer... if there is going to be one, is a technology not yet developed. At some point someone will figure out batteries (without rare earth metals) and we will be able to store wind and solar energy in an environmentally responsible way. But we are decades, maybe centuries away from that.
My point on nuclear is that it is a clean, affordable, safe energy source that allows for the amount of power a modern first world nation uses. Instead of telling growing populations to "use less" when new technologies are constantly being invented that require more... why don't we just use the technology that we have to provide the power. Then keep researching and inventing new stuff that will eventually replace the old.
Instead, we just get bombarded with smelly hippies complaining about crap. It's annoying, expensive, and unhelpful. IMHO
This reminds me of a book from Michael Crichton (State of Fear) fiction I know, but he underscored how climate activism is also a business and in it to make money. The short and skinny of it was: what would happen if a group of climate activists went off the rails and planned terrorist attacks that were disguised as climate change disasters, in order to gain more press? It was a good read.
Humans have been assholes to the world and I agree with Scott that all that plastic is terrible for the earth and everything that lives on it. we’ve done this to ourselves in order to make life a little easier. We are selfish asshats. But it’s not just people that bring about climate change: look at that mini ice age from the 13th to the 18th century that was the result of volcanic activity. Am I making excuses? Maybe!
Almost done: did you see HBOs Chernobyl? You must! Watch it, so so good. It did a nice job of linking the way a communist government “works” as the core (pun intended) reason for the accident.
I read State of Fear a bunch of years back. I love a good Michael Crichton sometimes!
I did watch the HBO series Chernobyl. Very entertaining. Super interesting. Did not glorify communism (which I was surprised and pleased by). It played a little fast and loose with some of the facts, but frankly it was super entertaining!
What if we consider for a moment that the Earth is roughly 4.543 billion years old. I googled it. "Research" complete. I'm certain that the introduction of millions of tons of plastic into the world's water supplies have and will continue to have catastrophic effects for all of us, and I'll concede that burning fossil fuels hasn't been a model of environmental conservation. Have we considered the long game? Most humans are on the planet for less than 75 years. That's barely a proverbial blip on the radar when we consider the history of the plant.
I think that the long term answer... if there is going to be one, is a technology not yet developed. At some point someone will figure out batteries (without rare earth metals) and we will be able to store wind and solar energy in an environmentally responsible way. But we are decades, maybe centuries away from that.
My point on nuclear is that it is a clean, affordable, safe energy source that allows for the amount of power a modern first world nation uses. Instead of telling growing populations to "use less" when new technologies are constantly being invented that require more... why don't we just use the technology that we have to provide the power. Then keep researching and inventing new stuff that will eventually replace the old.
Instead, we just get bombarded with smelly hippies complaining about crap. It's annoying, expensive, and unhelpful. IMHO