IMHO, maybe 1% are fighting Physics, same as fighting the scientific method, works less than 1% of the time. The other 99% are anti-human or just too dumb, panicked to understand the basics of anything requiring logic and just look for someone in a white coat to follow, a real-world Milgram Experiment. When there are thousands of high schools in the US without a single student (and in some cases teachers) who can do grade level math, the 1% will be 0.5% to 0.1% shortly, and they all vote.Seppia wrote: ↑Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:39 amIt is a great way to separate wishful thinking from real conviction.
I am a staunch proponent of emissions reduction because I generally hate waste, but believe most policies enacted today are either unrealistic or straight up counterproductive. If feels at times that green movement is either trying to fight physics (historical success rate: 0%) or are anti-human
The obsession for EVs or wind farms are two of them that have alternative solutions that are both more effective AND more realistically implementable (push people to buy smaller cars* and massive development of nuclear powered plants)
*This can be done in a variety of ways: tax on a global scale bigger/more powerful engines even more than we already do in Europe is a good example. A 3cyl Panda is significantly better for the environment than a Plaid Tesla or the new absurd Electric Trucks coming on the market in the USA (F-150, Hummer etc)
Methods for carbon neutrality in the next 1,000 years
Option #1 = Nuclear energy, but again human capital is by far the #1 constraint. Do you want Pete Buttigieg, Janet Yellen and Kamala Harris in charge of a nuclear plant or the most qualified people? Do you see 100X more nuclear engineers coming out of the US school system?
Option #2 = Live in Bill Gates pods and eat crickets.