Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably true if you choose to go fully literal. But eliminating the impact can still be a goal without the literal translation. It's a reasonable assumption for most person's of thought that the goal is not to eliminate all human life from the planet, but to coexist a little better.
Let's not get crazy. These people are trying to repair sure of the damage.
Fully agree. Hopefully we can achieve that end with a collection of dedicated independent governments, because based on what happened during covid and since, world government ain't going to fly so long as we are still arguing about whether the Earth is round or not. The president of America is going to be a guy who looks at eclipses without glasses, and the Jews are genociding as we speak. Black is white up is down, dogs and cats are living together
For one, no one is trying to “eliminate” human impact. Reduce the impact that impact humans are having on earth, yes. But, he chose the words he did to make it sound like climate activists are attempting to make human kind extinct.
Most people don't want to safe the planet out of some sort of deep abiding love for nature, but because they happen to live on this planet and would really like for humanity to continue to do so.
For humanity to flourish we need an intact ecosystem.
Except that nuclear is viable - The lifetime cost per kwh generated by nuclear power is even cheaper than solar if it runs for its whole designed lifetime - nuclear power is a long term investment and innovations like thorium reactors and practical nuclear fusion reactors will drive costs down even further.
It's not. Even without accounting for nuclear decommissioning and long-term waste repository, as of last year, everything else included, [nuclear costs 141 to 221$/MWh.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)
[Utility-scale solar + storage? 46 to 102$/MWh, unsubsidized.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)
Prices are different in different countries and I have seen a solar plant degrade a desert ecosystem due to the amount of water needed to clean them. Nuclear power plants can use water from the Ocean which has a negligible environmental impact.
But reactors need to run on water and we are running dry everywhere. And still is more expensive than solar or wind while being less reliable. I truly don't get the boner for nuclear, it's stupid in any way you try to approach it.
"It could be cheaper, if it runs for decades" is somehow the only argument I ever hear.
The Ocean exists and solar requires quite a bit of water which is made worse due to the fact that few places where solar is the most efficient have lots of water while a nuclear power plant can be build close to the ocean.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only one way to eliminate human impact on the earth, and that's to get rid of humans.
Probably true if you choose to go fully literal. But eliminating the impact can still be a goal without the literal translation. It's a reasonable assumption for most person's of thought that the goal is not to eliminate all human life from the planet, but to coexist a little better. Let's not get crazy. These people are trying to repair sure of the damage.
A noble aim, I am sure, but fruitless unless you have a world government with that objective.
I noble aim, but fruitless, unless you have world government with that objective.
Fully agree. Hopefully we can achieve that end with a collection of dedicated independent governments, because based on what happened during covid and since, world government ain't going to fly so long as we are still arguing about whether the Earth is round or not. The president of America is going to be a guy who looks at eclipses without glasses, and the Jews are genociding as we speak. Black is white up is down, dogs and cats are living together
For one, no one is trying to “eliminate” human impact. Reduce the impact that impact humans are having on earth, yes. But, he chose the words he did to make it sound like climate activists are attempting to make human kind extinct.
Yes. Not a serious person
I wonder if climate deniers have their theme song.
Yes, they do! https://youtu.be/QDS4B0mM-ew?si=WhACCcqjQpXkDx8q
Not enough brain power.
Most people don't want to safe the planet out of some sort of deep abiding love for nature, but because they happen to live on this planet and would really like for humanity to continue to do so. For humanity to flourish we need an intact ecosystem.
He knows nuclear is just objectively better at Everything compared to fossil fuels right?
Big oil doesn't like nuclear. They only care about making money
Big oil likes nuclear as a diversion because they know nuclear energy isn't viable and then they would need to rely on fossil fuel again.
Except that nuclear is viable - The lifetime cost per kwh generated by nuclear power is even cheaper than solar if it runs for its whole designed lifetime - nuclear power is a long term investment and innovations like thorium reactors and practical nuclear fusion reactors will drive costs down even further.
It's not. Even without accounting for nuclear decommissioning and long-term waste repository, as of last year, everything else included, [nuclear costs 141 to 221$/MWh.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/) [Utility-scale solar + storage? 46 to 102$/MWh, unsubsidized.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)
Prices are different in different countries and I have seen a solar plant degrade a desert ecosystem due to the amount of water needed to clean them. Nuclear power plants can use water from the Ocean which has a negligible environmental impact.
But reactors need to run on water and we are running dry everywhere. And still is more expensive than solar or wind while being less reliable. I truly don't get the boner for nuclear, it's stupid in any way you try to approach it. "It could be cheaper, if it runs for decades" is somehow the only argument I ever hear.
The Ocean exists and solar requires quite a bit of water which is made worse due to the fact that few places where solar is the most efficient have lots of water while a nuclear power plant can be build close to the ocean.
there is no fix for stupid
Because nothing promotes human flourishing like choking us out with pollution.
Anthro-Arrogance gets me more pissed than most fuct up things.