Question for those who believe in climate change

Was that your dad? Lol
the climate has been changing since the beginning of time and I am nto paying any taxes nor am I changing my lifestyle.

:abgg2q.jpg: you like to have sex with goats. My dad told me
 
This question is for those who believe in climate change.

Is there any price not worth paying to try and decrease the global temperature? Is there a freedom you would not part with, a monetary price that is too high, or a moral boundary you would not cross to decrease population levels to try and achieve your climate utopian goals?
There are an infinite number of things that I would not pay nor ask anyone else to pay. The more important question is what I would ask myself and others to pay. And the answer to that is committed effort.
 
Just lol at the idea of assured continual and ever-increasing economic prosperity on a resource diminishing planet in the clutches of a resource depleting economic system. Same goes for the whatever idea of 'freedom' that isn't anarchy going forward. The delusion required to have and maintain these beliefs in face of the ongoing collapse enveloping us in real time is really something else.
 
You're right Candycorn, the way the Navy has handled nuclear power since they started using it has been a stellar example of how to do it. The U.S. Navy hasn't had a single incident since they started.

BUT................................

You have Admiral Rickover to thank for that. He made the rules and procedures iron clad, as well as created a very high bar for people to clear before they are allowed into the program. If civilian companies could institute those kind of standards, it might have a good chance of being what we need.
I say don't even give the private companies a sniff. It is, to me, the classic win/win.

The public gets the utmost confidence that the plant isn't being run on a shoestring budget and that the commander who is in charge of the plant all the way down to the guy who works the front gate are highly trained.

The power company pays a fee to the USN to run the plant. If there is an issue with safety or security; it's on the Navy. Meanwhile they get to charge the consumers X on the bill.

The sailors who are assigned to staff the plant get the valuable real world experience in something that is easily transferrable to civilian life.
 
I say don't even give the private companies a sniff. It is, to me, the classic win/win.

The public gets the utmost confidence that the plant isn't being run on a shoestring budget and that the commander who is in charge of the plant all the way down to the guy who works the front gate are highly trained.

The power company pays a fee to the USN to run the plant. If there is an issue with safety or security; it's on the Navy. Meanwhile they get to charge the consumers X on the bill.

The sailors who are assigned to staff the plant get the valuable real world experience in something that is easily transferrable to civilian life.
How is it transferrable to civilian life if all the plants are being run by active-duty navy?
 
I'm on the Left and I like nuclear power so your simplistic statement is false. I answered the question with 'low hanging fruit". I'm will in to give up somethings but not everything and I think everyone would everywhere would agree. If you have concrete examples for me I'll happily evaluate them.
No, no, it's true

When I say those on the Left, what I mean is Leftists in power and the cult members like yourself who vote for them.

I could care less what you think, just like the people you vote for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top