You realize the left has no intention of ever fixing global warming like everything they do it's just a way of engaging...

You realize the left has no intention of ever fixing global warming like everything they do it's just a way of engaging in class warfare. You know how I know, because their big plan is another tax. We will never get emissions to zero, and it is quite likely that it'll still be warming if we got them down to zero.

obviously a tax won't do anything to a non-existent problem, it's just a way to have more control over the people, another step towards a total nanny state

left of what, the "jewish"/freemason bankster gang? comparing these racketeers to 'leftism' is non sequitur

>Being so triggered by the idea of a tax that you want to instead rush headlong into a massive catastrophe

It's going to be great when global warming displaces a third of the world's population and global governments, unable to handle the crisis, force everyday citizens like you to keep 2-3 refugee families in your home.

>their big plan is another tax
Not really

>and it is quite likely that it'll still be warming if we got them down to zero.
>quite likely
NO SHIT

the world had a plan and some sort of an agreement and it was the lefty trump that basically killed it
we have nothing now

our only way is pump in more money on fusion energy

>force everyday citizens like you to keep 2-3 refugee families in your home
Just trying to imagine this working successfully is hilarious.
"Good morning Muhammed, ready to carpool to work this morning? I see you're enjoying my coffee out of my favorite mug, pretty good isn't it? You and my wife were quite loud last night, could you please keep it down? And do you know why my virgin daughter is bleeding from the waist down?"
This is why guns exist. Lots and lots of guns.

>You know how I know, because their big plan is another tax.
Taxes are a pretty normal method of controlling market externalities. Why do you think taxing CO2 emissions won't be effective, when taxing other forms of pollution has been?

>We will never get emissions to zero, and it is quite likely that it'll still be warming if we got them down to zero.
Not fucking up as badly is almost as good as not fucking up at all.

And kill most of the farting farm animals. And realize 99.9% of you aren't important enough to be driving a car around and should be using public transportation. And a whole list of things that would disrupt the rhythm and momentum of current earthling life.

As you said, the reality is we are surviving on the momentum of the 1900s, and the science of the 2100s is our only savior. If no group of scientists and businessmen among us are intelligent enough to develop the next superior form of energy generation, it all ends here.

This is the only 'hard' part, though. If we succeed in generating enough energy without baking the planet, conquering the stars should be comparatively easy.

DOESN'T THAT FEEL NICE, ANONS? YOU WERE BORN INTO THE HARD MODE OF LIFE, DESPITE THE OLDER GENERATIONS CALLING YOU ALL CODDLED BABIES.

Back to /pol/

>Typical edgy response
You think you're going to be in control when this happens? Europe is losing its mind over 60 million or so refugees. What do you think is going to happen when 2 billion people displaced by flooding, heat, famine and extreme weather head to the US and western countries.

>massive catastrophe
oh? its bad enough to be considered a """massive catastrophe""" now? well i guess we should bust out the dozens of engineering solutions we've had for the last 40 years and implement them.

oh, except when push comes to shove going nuclear is too scary, injecting chemicals into the atmosphere/ocean is too scary, creating a global carbon control infrastructure is too scary, actually expanding our hydropower generation capacity is too scary. instead, lets just wring our hands about it and get more money fo' dem programs.

guess things aren't that bad after all huh?

>He thinks a geoengineering project would actually work as intended without horrifying unexpected consequences

Also one political party in America has been trying to do something about it for over a decade. The other won't acknowledge the problem exists, and refuses to support taking steps against it.

Since when do big oil CEOs want to do any of this? Are you mistakenly believing we're in a democracy where us lowly serfs have any power?

>democrats aren't in pockets of big oil
wew

>oh? its bad enough to be considered a """massive catastrophe""" now?
Sure. Why not.

> i guess we should bust out the dozens of engineering solutions we've had for the last 40 years and implement them.
The last 40 years has also taught us than none of those solutions are actually worthwhile, and the only real solution is to stop pouring fuel on the fire.

>except when push comes to shove going nuclear is too scary
Nuclear power has a shittonne of problems, both political and economic. I don't believe those issues can be resolved fast enough, and ignoring them won't make them go away.

>injecting chemicals into the atmosphere/ocean is too scary
Have you actually looked at any of the studies done on aerosol injection? They basically all conclude with "this is an ineffective/bad/terrible idea, and we should focus on emissions reduction instead"

>creating a global carbon control infrastructure is too scary
???

>actually expanding our hydropower generation capacity is too scary
Hydropower has similar (though milder) issues to nuclear power, plus there's the whole "availability of sites" thing. I still think it's a thing we should be doing, but it's way too damn late for it two be much more than a small part.

>instead, lets just wring our hands about it and get more money fo' dem programs.
"fo' dem programs"?
Are you sure you're not massively projecting, and it's not YOU who are being obstructive for political reasons here?

>Also one political party in America has been trying to do something about it for over a decade. The other won't acknowledge the problem exists, and refuses to support taking steps against it.
This.
"Both sides are the same" is obviously bullshit if one believes there's a problem but doesn't support some of the potential solutions, and the other side is stuck in a denial-armoured fantasy land.

>Nuclear power has a shittonne of problems, both political and economic.
It has neither
The leftist politicians however prevent Nuclear power in secret

>We will never get emissions to zero, and it is quite likely that it'll still be warming if we got them down to zero.
That's a dumb strawman. The point of any carbon tax is to mitigate the damage from climate change, not to get emissions to zero or stop all warming. Economists agree that an optimal carbon tax would save many billions of dollars more than it will cost.

>It has neither
Right. That's why energy companies are throwing money at building it. It's cheap to build reactors, and the power they make is "too cheap to meter", right?

It's fucking expensive as all hell.

>The leftist politicians however prevent Nuclear power in secret
Just stop.

The world has more than 2 billion rounds of ammunition
and Europe is on the edge of implosion from the weight of those parasites already, if the horde comes, there is not a nation that would ever even be capable of sustaining them, even if their citizens wouldn't fucking revolt if their governments considered it

Underrated

It's considerably less expensive than the alternatives. The biggest issues right now are the massive amount of red tape preventing further implementation of actually modern designs.

They will be killed on the way there. I really don't care about 60 iq subhumans dying of heat

>implying
I'm not concerned, as I live in the US where more than enough people are extremely-selfish and willing to protect what's theirs. No such scheme could ever be successful here.

right and the tax won't solve anything.

>people in the US are selfish
Hahaha oh wow, stop bending over backwards to sacrifice your lives for the sake of the ruling class any time now...

we don't have to let them in and as a precedent we should start by not letting the ones we have now in.

>Taxes are a pretty normal method of controlling market externalities. Why do you think taxing CO2 emissions won't be effective, when taxing other forms of pollution has been?

because it won't be enough

>Not fucking up as badly is almost as good as not fucking up at all.

because it won't matter

>because it won't be enough
It's still significantly better than doing nothing.

>becase it won't matter
Why?

because IT will still happen

Why haven't you commited suicide?

>because IT will still happen
What is "it" in this context?

one party is using it to wage class warfare and hindering the technological advancement needed to solve the problem.

>the world has more than 2 billion rounds of ammunition
i stopped reading here

...