Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

131

It seems a lot of the debate centers around whether climate change is happening, or whether it's manmade or a natural cycle.

But assuming it IS happening and it IS because of us, what exactly would the solution be?

Enact policies to curb carbon emissions and encourage the development of alternative energy sources (aside: why do all you global warming hippies geek over solar and wind and not suggest the obvious pragmatic tech of nuclear power?)? Do we force other countries to do the same? Go to war over it?

It seems a lot of the debate centers around whether climate change is happening, or whether it's manmade or a natural cycle. But assuming it IS happening and it IS because of us, what exactly would the solution be? Enact policies to curb carbon emissions and encourage the development of alternative energy sources (aside: why do all you global warming hippies geek over solar and wind and not suggest the obvious pragmatic tech of nuclear power?)? Do we force other countries to do the same? Go to war over it?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 1 pt

We simply reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and take actions to sequester excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

We just have to convince scientifically ignorant people to trust established science while massive fossil fuel corporations spend huge amounts of money on propaganda trying to convince people otherwise. Then we need to deal with the tragedy of the commons to coordinate global action. Both very difficult tasks. Perhaps is right, and the most practical solution is a nuclear war or a plague.

[–] • 0 pt

Well, at least you admit we have the problem of the commons.

Even if we (the west) decided to reduce green house gas, it would be for nothing if the developing world weren't on board.

This lack of a good solution is why I view climate change arguments with suspicion. What is the real goal? Save the world? Or self-hating westerners and fellow white people devising another way to ruin the west out of fairness to the rest of the world?

If it were the former, I'd think a lot more of your types would be advocating the adoption of nuclear power. It's reliable and renewable energy. We could sub-contract with shithole countries to build them energy infrastructure that doesn't emit CO2.

You can't put them everywhere. Earthquake-prone areas are not a good idea. But you can still put them many places. Why do none of you green people ever seem to advocate for it?

[–] • 0 pt

I don't get the preoccupation with nuclear energy... put a fair price on carbon and see how the market generates power. Nuclear would probably lose, but I couldn't care either way.

Or self-hating westerners and fellow white people devising another way to ruin the west out of fairness to the rest of the world?

Wealthy countries generally have an advantage at the negotiating table, so it'll probably be the poor countries getting a raw deal as usual.

[–] • 0 pt

So by put a price on carbon you mean institute a credit system, where you have to pay for your institution. But what authority imposes this system on wealthy and poor countries alike? Do we have one world government in this scenario?