10 Biggest Polluters on Earth

[El Kabong]

Hey Lyle, forget Greta for a minute.

Many environmentalists just want society to implement the principles we all know would be beneficial for a healthy environment. Forget the alarmists, the Gretas, the doomsayers, the extremists. Focus on what everyone knows is right. Renewable energy..... pollution control and the recycling of waste to energy that would allow much of that to happen..... the protection of our wetlands and our global forestation..... city and building designs meant to preserve the environment while conserving energy and using as much renewables as possible.... promoting alternative energy sources..... fighting pollution wherever it exists.... educating our children in these principles. What's wrong with any of that?

Let's get our heads out of the sand and support these initiatives. It's not about US vs THEM. It's about doing what's right and makes common sense to protect the environment.

No other form of energy is more efficient than nuclear. We've got oil and gas for centuries and as engines improve those will become more and more efficient using less and less. Yes wetlands, rain forests, other areas need protecting, nobody disagrees with that. Pollution control is something that the free market will address.

A lot of these "green" things ain't so great.

Lithium Batteries....where do they come from?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...car-batteries/


I'm for a clean environment, I never said I wasn't, I DO think there are a lot of folks who love to preach about saving shit but they don't practice it and it's not just brainless self absorbed actors it's world leaders too!

The sea levels are rising!!!! Is the cry of many and yet Al Gore and Barack Obama both have beach front properties....why? To be on the first line of defense? HARDLY! They're massive hypocrites and they line their pockets with the money spent on these ostentatious deals like the Paris Accords...nobody audits where the money goes. Buying carbon offsets? Same exact thing as indulgences in Catholic Church....it's a racket! And who wins? The environment? Not hardly.

[Beanz]

Hey Lyle, forget Greta for a minute.

Many environmentalists just want society to implement the principles we all know would be beneficial for a healthy environment. Forget the alarmists, the Gretas, the doomsayers, the extremists. Focus on what everyone knows is right. Renewable energy..... pollution control and the recycling of waste to energy that would allow much of that to happen..... the protection of our wetlands and our global forestation..... city and building designs meant to preserve the environment while conserving energy and using as much renewables as possible.... promoting alternative energy sources..... fighting pollution wherever it exists.... educating our children in these principles. What's wrong with any of that?

Let's get our heads out of the sand and support these initiatives. It's not about US vs THEM. It's about doing what's right and makes common sense to protect the environment.

No other form of energy is more efficient than nuclear. We've got oil and gas for centuries and as engines improve those will become more and more efficient using less and less. Yes wetlands, rain forests, other areas need protecting, nobody disagrees with that. Pollution control is something that the free market will address.

A lot of these "green" things ain't so great.

Lithium Batteries....where do they come from?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...car-batteries/


I'm for a clean environment, I never said I wasn't, I DO think there are a lot of folks who love to preach about saving shit but they don't practice it and it's not just brainless self absorbed actors it's world leaders too!

The sea levels are rising!!!! Is the cry of many and yet Al Gore and Barack Obama both have beach front properties....why? To be on the first line of defense? HARDLY! They're massive hypocrites and they line their pockets with the money spent on these ostentatious deals like the Paris Accords...nobody audits where the money goes. Buying carbon offsets? Same exact thing as indulgences in Catholic Church....it's a racket! And who wins? The environment? Not hardly.

Pollution control is something that the free market will address

You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^


It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.

You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.

[El Kabong]

Pollution control is something that the free market will address

You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^


It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.

You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.

I'm talking in terms of new technologies dipshit not just allowing companies to spew toxic waste into everything.


Stop being so literal

[TitoFan]

Pollution control is something that the free market will address

You are going to have to stop worshiping at this particular altar ^^^^


It is quite the opposite. Huge corporations are the natural expression of unbridled free market capitalism and they are the principle culprits for environmental destruction. Fuck that model. Fuck countries and people that insist that is still the model we should be following. That will end us.

You are so ideologically driven it is absolutely religious with you. You might as well say Fuck the planet and fuck God and his creation because the Dollar is my lord and savior. Insane stuff.

I'm talking in terms of new technologies dipshit not just allowing companies to spew toxic waste into everything.


Stop being so literal

The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.

Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.

So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.

Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.

[El Kabong]

The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.

Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.

So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.

Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.

Thought experiment...what if I invented something which halves the pollution emitted from your factory allowing you to increase production without drawing the ire of the government....what happens to me and my technology?


Answer: I become a trillionaire and my technology is utilized by anyone with half a brain.


Ergo "the free market will handle it" ...I never even brought up the EPA or any government agency, the immediate jump to "AH HA!!! But what about the EPA and government agencies!!!!"....I never mentioned it because the EPA doesn't invent new things, the government bureaucracy isn't in that business, they're in the "did you color inside the lines" business which is irksome but needed and that is why I didn't mention them.

[Fatboxingfan]

Tito fan worked at a steel mill







🤔








⚙️⁉️✔️








Hope you wore a mask

[Denilson-The-Comeback]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

[Fatboxingfan]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution

[TitoFan]

The thing is Lyle, new technologies for pollution control may be something the free market "will address"...... but only if they're incentivized to do it.

Case in point. Many years ago I worked at a steel mill. At the time, it was considered pretty state-of-the-art with all the pollution control mechanisms and equipment it was using. But it wasn't using all these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were so aware of the environment. They were using it because of the government and environmentalists' pressure to reduce harmful emissions at that time. The technology was costly, and added cost to the final product. But they couldn't operate without it.

So leaving the free market to its own free will regarding pollution control is a bit like leaving the fox watching the hen coop.

Companies nowadays are trying to come up with newer and better ideas at how to curb and/or re-mediate pollution. They just need to receive the boost and the importance that is warranted in order to force all of industry to use these technologies. That...... is where I believe we're lagging behind. We have the technologies. But until we can get people united behind the urgency of the need, they (the technologies) may as well not exist.

Thought experiment...what if I invented something which halves the pollution emitted from your factory allowing you to increase production without drawing the ire of the government....what happens to me and my technology?


Answer: I become a trillionaire and my technology is utilized by anyone with half a brain.


Ergo "the free market will handle it" ...I never even brought up the EPA or any government agency, the immediate jump to "AH HA!!! But what about the EPA and government agencies!!!!"....I never mentioned it because the EPA doesn't invent new things, the government bureaucracy isn't in that business, they're in the "did you color inside the lines" business which is irksome but needed and that is why I didn't mention them.

Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."

Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.

If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.

We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.

I don't.

[El Kabong]

Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."

Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.

If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.

We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.

I don't.

Well you miss the point I was making. Halving the emissions ALLOWS for more production, it doesn't automatically make it happen. And the "ire of the government" would only be drawn IF the increased production MEANT more pollution/emissions.

What technologies aren't being utilized in terms of cleaning up emissions? The ones which aren't cost effective. The fix HAS to be cost effective or the industry isn't going to implement them.

Well the Chinese are big into manufacturing because they don't have the EPA hoops to jump through, they don't give a single solitary fuck about their environment or the working conditions of their subjects (they aren't citizens)....how do we handle this? Well we stop making it worth a company's while to manufacture things in China via tariffs and taxation, ditto with India.


I feel that industry can be guided gently rather than beaten into submission. If you can't make a profit there's not going to be an industry fullstop.

[walrus]

Below are the Top 10 emitters of carbon dioxide from 2018, along with the global share and the change each country has experienced since the 2005 Kyoto Protocol.

China (up 55%}
India {up 106%}
Russia
USA (down 12% since Kyoto protocol)
Japan
South Korea (up 38% @Gandalf )
Germany
Iran
Canada
Saudi Arabia



Of the Top 3 emitters, China and India have both experienced massive increases since 2005. The U.S. has experienced double-digit declines, as have Germany and Japan.

Large changes in coal consumption are the primary driver behind most of the countries mentioned above. China and India have greatly expanded their usage of coal, while the U.S. and Germany have seen sharp declines in coal consumption.

A key driver in the U.S. and Germany was legislation aimed at limiting carbon dioxide emissions. This helped spur rapid growth in renewable energy usage in both countries, which helped lower demand for coal.

But in the U.S., an even larger driver in reducing coal consumption was the shale gas boom, which created enormous supplies of cheap natural gas. Over the past decade, consumption of renewable power in the U.S. rose by 349 terawatt-hours (TWh). Over that same span, power from natural gas increased by 696 TWh — nearly double the renewable energy contribution.

Related: OPEC+ Agrees To Deeper Output Cuts

The U.S., in fact has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country @Beanz since the Kyoto Protocol, while China has increased emissions by more than any other country.

It should be noted that the U.S. is first among countries when it comes to responsibility for historical carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. However, given China’s current emissions and the trends, they will pass the U.S. in the overall CO2 contribution to the atmosphere in a little more than a decade.

It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. @walrus In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

All majority white and asian nations.

Not one majority black nation on that list.

Not one.

no offense but I can't think of many black Nations that had heavy industry to cause any pollution

I find this post offensive @Denilson-The-Comeback please tell frenchyfats about all the great work your industrial nations are doing on the environmental front.

[TitoFan]

Appreciate the thought experiment, Lyle. Two things though. One.... it's somewhat unlikely anyone any time soon will invent something that will "halve the pollution while increasing production" just like that. If they did, they would surely not "draw the ire of the government."

Two... what has happened so far? We've had technologies available for awhile. Are industries rushing Black Friday style to get it and implement it because they're dying to cut their pollution in half? Maybe in some fantasy world, but not in this one. Industry by and large worships at one altar. And that's the one painted green with dollar signs all over it. Pollution is just a bothersome side effect that needs policing by that very government you didn't want to bring up.

If this Utopian scenario you've painted was going to happen, it would have already happened. The technology has been available for years. But it's either too cumbersome.... "our competitors don't use it"..... "we can squeeze 2% more widgets out the door without it"..... "why aren't the Chinese doing it"....... blah, blah, blah..... ad nauseaum.

We have some basic thought differences here. You feel industry, left alone, will somehow gravitate to those measures and technologies that will eventually curb pollution and clean up the planet.

I don't.

Well you miss the point I was making. Halving the emissions ALLOWS for more production, it doesn't automatically make it happen. And the "ire of the government" would only be drawn IF the increased production MEANT more pollution/emissions.

What technologies aren't being utilized in terms of cleaning up emissions? The ones which aren't cost effective. The fix HAS to be cost effective or the industry isn't going to implement them.

Well the Chinese are big into manufacturing because they don't have the EPA hoops to jump through, they don't give a single solitary fuck about their environment or the working conditions of their subjects (they aren't citizens)....how do we handle this? Well we stop making it worth a company's while to manufacture things in China via tariffs and taxation, ditto with India.


I feel that industry can be guided gently rather than beaten into submission. If you can't make a profit there's not going to be an industry fullstop.

There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.

We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."

We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.

[El Kabong]

There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.

We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."

We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.

The United States has strict environmental regulations. Our peak emissions were 2007, we've been down more than anywhere else since then.

Money drives things. If a company comes out with a new system which cuts emissions and doesn't harm production then guess what, that company will utilize that new system and maximize their profits. If on the other hand there's this fucking albatross of a technology or system of production that hampers production, then that ain't going to be something businesses jump with joy to do. It has to be mutually beneficial in order for it to work. That is why solar and wind power companies have to be subsidized by the government...THEY DON'T WORK.

China pollutes more than anywhere else. Emissions, plastic into the oceans, all that jazz, they're the tops and they don't give a shit because they don't value their own people other than as cogs in the communist machine. That is why there are suicide nets at Foxconn factories...not to prevent people from killing themselves, but to prevent the loss of WORKERS.


We've got things in place. Natural gas is helping lower our emissions already....doesn't that prove my point? Switching from coal power to natural gas power? Cost effective, efficient, doesn't impede production.

[TitoFan]

There has to be a push toward gearing up efforts for pollution prevention/remediation technology. Monetary incentives to tech companies working on these... strict and enforceable regulations on industry to ensure they're complying with environment-preserving goals... less lip service to the environment and more measurable actions. Industry can't be left on its own (IMO) to decide whether or not to implement proven technologies meant to preserve the environment. That's where we'll continue to disagree. The whole capitalism model which involves damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead in the name of maximizing profits would just have to be slightly tweaked in order to accommodate the greater good, which involves our self-preservation and avoiding plunging the world into a toxic-spewing dump, where we can't even keep the vast oceans safe.

We'll agree on what to do with the Chinese because, well...... it's a huge country and whatever they do affects the rest of the world disproportionately. It's wrong to have the rest of the world minding its P's and Q's regarding the environment, only to have the Chinese continue to fuck it all up because they have this need to "catch up."

We'll only halfway agree on how to deal with industry. Gentle guidance is a wonderful idea. How has that worked so far? We have real, tangible pollution problems. Of an embarrassing scale, really. It's like going to a beach and find it ankle-deep in litter. You feel a sense of embarrassment for humankind. As with any individual and/or group or organization, sometimes you have to drop the "pretty please" and give a couple of well-placed whacks.

The United States has strict environmental regulations. Our peak emissions were 2007, we've been down more than anywhere else since then.

Money drives things. If a company comes out with a new system which cuts emissions and doesn't harm production then guess what, that company will utilize that new system and maximize their profits. If on the other hand there's this fucking albatross of a technology or system of production that hampers production, then that ain't going to be something businesses jump with joy to do. It has to be mutually beneficial in order for it to work. That is why solar and wind power companies have to be subsidized by the government...THEY DON'T WORK.

China pollutes more than anywhere else. Emissions, plastic into the oceans, all that jazz, they're the tops and they don't give a shit because they don't value their own people other than as cogs in the communist machine. That is why there are suicide nets at Foxconn factories...not to prevent people from killing themselves, but to prevent the loss of WORKERS.


We've got things in place. Natural gas is helping lower our emissions already....doesn't that prove my point? Switching from coal power to natural gas power? Cost effective, efficient, doesn't impede production.

Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.

Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.

They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.

I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.

Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.

[El Kabong]

Solar and wind power "don't work"? Another point we'll just agree to disagree.

Easy to dismiss, because it's "too much work" to continue to tweak and perfect these perfectly good (and renewable) energy sources to the point where they can be effectively used. It's this monumental laziness that continues to push these untrue narratives. There are nations out there, with a lot less scientific manpower than the U.S., that have doubled down in their efforts to make renewable energy sources completely viable.

They DO work. It's just easier to push them aside and concentrate on getting those additional widgets out the door. I'm not claiming they'll 100% substitute other energy sources. But used wisely and efficiently as complementary energy sources is not only possible..... it's urgently needed and important.

I am not diametrically opposed to any energy source, as long as the appropriate safeguards and technology is coupled with it in order to get the maximum benefit. Nuclear is an example. A dirty word for some... but we've been sloppy in the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and not just dismiss a technology as taboo, but rather go back and make damn sure all contingency plans have been addressed many times over.

Like nuclear, there are other energy technologies out there just waiting to be developed and implemented.

Wind & solar aren't efficient, they are subsidized more than any other form of energy meaning they cause for HIGHER prices, and they don't provide the benefits to outweigh the negatives.

The farther away from the Equator you are, the less helpful solar power is. Wind power only works to an extent....if the wind blows too hard it's just as if it's not blowing at all. If the kinks can be worked out, then sure I'm all for it, but right now I think it's best to focus on making more efficient engines and burning cleaner fuels.

Oil, Natural gas, Coal, Nuclear work and are consistent, efficient, and dependable

I'm not against hydroelectric power, maybe that can help. It's bound to be better than either solar or wind. I'm not against geothermal energy either. I think both hydro & geothermal energies hold a brighter future than wind and solar.

Solar power for satellites is one thing for houses and factories is quite another.


I mean it would be lovely if they worked, they don't work not in any economical sense (other than for the folks getting rich off of government subsidies)