Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
You do have to wonder what exactly she would do in the real world. So simple to stay stop using oil, eating beef etc but putting that into practice? It would be good to hear some detailed answers.
It's like any addiction you really can't just stop.
Has anyone here heard of her actual solutions?
Andi.
Some of the conspiracy theories in this thread are crazy.
Yeah, and it's the best solution.
Listen to the experts.
Perhaps then people can spend their energy focusing on how we change things rather than trying to convince science deniers.
Nail on head. And Nuclear wastes isn't as bad as it was in the 80's, through technology the rods are far more depleted and not as radioactive as in the past. One of the few silver linings from the Chenybol is the whole industry has been shaken up and it's almost impossible for something similar ever happening again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,120
- Location
- Surrey
Zero waste should be the goal. That's what people, companies, governments, everyone should be aiming for right now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,124
Professional protester. A lot of the people who turn up regularly at protests are just that never had a proper job its all they do.
Not saying she's gotten to that point yet but theres still time.
Solutions are for experts and governments to solve. She's providing pressure to force them to act. And she's kicking up enough of a stink that they might actually do something.
It's difficult to believe that this needs explaining, but I guess we can't all be as smart as a 16 year old.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
12 year old is too young to fully understand the intricacies of a complex technological, political and economical issue therefore the killers of James Bulger are too young to understand what they did so should be 100% forgiven, no questions asked. That is basically what you just said.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,722
- Location
- Wiltshire
She obviously doesn't watch Tony Heller on youtube: https://realclimatescience.com/
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,701
Yes it's impossible for a reactor to meltdown the way Chernobyl did, it's not impossible for a reactor to meltdown however, just look at Fukushima
Nuclear energy is great until something goes wrong, then it's really really quite terrible and the waste, the best we can do is bury it underground
Given who you are, I will assume that statement is untrue.
I broke a bone some years ago. That could be described as an osteo-atypical condition. Changing terminology does not change what something is and is of no relevance to my point. Call it "Susan". Call it "Bob". Call if "bibwiddatyl" if you like. It won't change what effects it has.
I don't think that many of her followers and users are morons. Some, probably, but not many. But you're illustrating your ignorance of neuro-atypical conditions. Naughty!
Even with Chernobyl and Fukushima (neither of which could happen with a modern nuclear fission plant) and Windscale and Three Mile Island and every lesser incident, nuclear fission is still one of the safest and least polluting ways of generating electricity. It is the safest and the least polluting way of controllable and reliable electricity generation, which is essential to a functioning modern country.
We could gamble the future of civilisation on mass electricity storage becoming possible soon enough to make "renewables" viable despite the lack of reliability and control.
We could gamble the future on nuclear fusion power stations becoming practical soon enough to solve all the problems in time.
We could gamble the future on current levels of emissions being less of a problem than they're commonly thought to be by experts in the field.
We could gamble the future on some other technological solution being developed, some sort of planetary air conditioning system that would give humanity control over the energy coming in and out of Earth's environment.
We could beatify Greta Thurnberg, who offers no solution of any kind to anything, hope that one of the above gambles pays off and then venerate Greta Thurnberg for causing it, ignoring the fact that it had nothing to do with her.
Or we could try an interim solution that we know works - nuclear fission power stations. Built to spec from engineers who understand the subject, not build to cost for profit by accountants who don't. That's what caused the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi - cost cutting. Fukushima Oniichi was an equally old fission power station of the same design built a little way along the coast and hit just as hard by the tsunami. That was OK because the flood defences were built to engineer spec, not to cost-cutting spec. The cost-cutting at Fukushima Daiichi cost a great deal, as cost-cutting often does.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,222
- Location
- RG8 9
Why do Trump and Brexit supporters also deny climate change? Baffling combination of beliefs.
You're arguing that tens of millions of people think (or claim to think) that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist because they support Trump or Brexit.
It's a baffling combination of beliefs because you made it up to be baffling. It's not true and it's not relevant.
Why do Trump and Brexit supporters prefer sugar in their coffee? Baffling combination of beliefs.
They dont.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
What a ridiculous thing to say. Really didn’t think that one through did you.
