It hurts to watch this girl fall for the same trick again and again. How can we make her read Bookchin?

It hurts to watch this girl fall for the same trick again and again. How can we make her read Bookchin?

Attached: (700x410, 33.75K)

Other urls found in this thread:


I thought she has actually said the problem is the system, what happened?

Girl that became popular thanks to her activism in global warming.

Big me me. Anyone can claim to be anti global warming, no guarantee she'd ever be one of us.

Make her read Foster and Burkett instead.

True. Even Exxon Mobil says they're anti-global warming.

It's kind of laughable all these people thinking protesting and resulting legislative action is going to lead into a reduction in fossil fuel emissions. All these activists should get engineering degrees and come up with an alternative energy source because there will be no reduction under a capitalist system until a cheaper alternative is found. And no talking about long term costs blah blah blah is not going to sway any politician LMAO.

Attached: Exxon Mobil.jpg (1778x930 310.49 KB, 924.77K)

We've had that for quite a while, I think most of the problem is a little higher up.

Attached: LCoE.png (600x452 142.35 KB, 71.05K)

ExxonMobile are not only lying, they knew about it for half a century but calculated that the lower costs of drilling in the Arctic was worth it. Capitalism is a death cult.

That's a result of protest culture, if people get their way by doing nothing or alternatively, by standing somewhere and yelling that they want other people to do things for them, the result is people incapable of thinking and acting for themselves and a perennially expanding welfare state that needs such people.

Who the fuck cares?
She's just a shitlib symbol for 'girls and young women won't be pushed around by old white men no more'

women are naturally inclined to submit, men are inclined to lead. this is the master/slave dialectic at work. a woman who rocks the boat too much is liability due to her being the one who births future generations. men just give the incentive. also women tend to be harder nuts to crack when it comes to breaking NPC narratives to them and will believe the most mainstream of opinions over men who actually DO the thinking and question said narratives. that's why philosophy is mostly a guys' game. from anarchists, to fascists, to communists to reactionaries. anything that isn't left liberal or social democracy is taking a risk and women don't tend to take risks.

she has the assburgers

What's the matter? You can't stand the sight of a strong nord woman?

She probably has a much higher Autism Level than you

Attached: fce62573bfedbd9b246750c41ccb7bd228c3d8653d0c00e1497665a7f31448e9.png (702x591, 627.31K)

If she’s a downy I’m sure she is more autistic than me. Sterilization is the only option







Whenever I hear one of these save the planet guys, I'm reminded of this classic Carlin skit

haha funny old man, we are going to die

Isn't this guy supposed to be funny?

muh eugenics

only Linkola is real. fuck Bookchin


Attached: x.jpeg (580x404, 63.55K)

Wrong girl.

Hahahaa degen detected

She should read Tarrant. Sandniggers are responsible for overpopulation and climate change!

tarrant duran

The cop looks like a Fallout character, has fashion changed at all in Russia since the '50s?

Attached: FO01_PC_Natalia.png (294x260, 94.11K)

There's literally zero ecological content in that faggot's manifesto, it all pure identity politics.

if women are submitters, men are leaders, what are you trannies?



Oops, simmer down with that idpol there

Attached: corbyn.jpg (899x1599, 98.42K)

extremely based

Capitalism destroys everything it touches. You can't just invent a new consumer product to get around it, the ENTIRE system must be fought. The only time the system was seriously challenged was in 1939, when the government spent billions of dollars on nuclear energy due to wartime demands. It literally took WW2 to give us our first serious alternative to fossil fuels, it'll take a workers' revolution to actually implement it.

Those are, except for increases in capacity and a small amount of systemic inefficiency, non-recurring costs. Electric cells and motors can be and are recycled endlessly. In comparison, nonsustainable systems such as nuclear (inb4 plutonium breeders, there are numerous security, engineering, and safety reasons they're a terrible idea that has achieved zero traction in the energy sector) consume and irreplaceably destroy fuel from rapidly depleting finite reserves.

And that goes without saying that systems which require exotic materials or manufacturing techniques have well proven alternatives for most applications. For instance, in the case of solar, there are concentrated thermal systems, which while somewhat less efficient than PV, require less exotic manufacturing and can provide combined-cycle heat, making them a good fit for utility-scale solar. And for batteries, there are unitized reversible fuel cells (a.k.a.: flow batteries). Instead of requiring linear increases in the size of expensive and heavy cell stacks in relation to energy storage, they require only enough cells in the stack to achieve maximum power, with storage occurring separately using simple external tanks of arbitrary size. Further, if only brief spikes of maximum power are needed, external capacitors can further reduce the necessary size of the fuel cell's stack (also, note that in spite of the impression generally given by the media, fuel cells can use any battery chemistry including L-ion or NiMH, not just hydrogen-oxygen).

Attached: NIMBY.jpg (600x588 133.01 KB, 125.7K)

Come on now, noise pollution is actually a serious health hazard.

Windmills generate less noise than cars on even a sparsely trafficked road


Cry about nothing

She has autism so debating or communicating her ideas effectively is something her brain is not physically capable of doing.

Renaewables don't have enough energy density to be viable

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, an extremely aggressive environmentalist policy is pursued for the siting of sustainable energy generation infrastructure, and absolutely zero virgin wildlands are to be used, completely ignoring offshore power generation and geothermal.

In the USA, for instance, there are at least 15 million acres of contaminated "brownfield" suitable for utility-scale CSP and PV solar, enough that solar built on such land could completely sate the country's current energy consumption by itself:
That doesn't include the US's 61 million acres (suitable for small-scale solar) of urban development, 103 million acres (variously suitable for wind and solar) of rural development, and 408 million acres (wholly suitable for mixed use utility-scale wind) of planted cropland:

Even before sustainable generation (and storage) enters the picture, there's the question of efficiency and conservation. In the case of the US, our energy "economy" throws away ~60% as inefficiency. Looking closer at energy consumption, ~30% is used for transportation through burning fossil fuels in engines, and of remaining fixed applications, 80% is used for heating/cooling/lighting.

Both of those major applications are highly amenable to more efficient technologies that wouldn't change lifestyle at all. For instance, electrifying transport, which would more than double the well-to-wheel efficiency of the typical personal vehicle:
Or in the case of fixed applications, using ground source heat pump HVAC, which is 5 times more efficient than conventional HVAC:
On top of which, if quality-neutral lifestyle changes for conservation are on the table, massive reductions in energy and other resource requirements could come from simple changes like telecommuting, home delivery, public transport, local industry and agriculture, cogenerative combined-cycle district heat/cold/steam/pressure, cradle-to-grave externality pricing for consumer goods to encourage repairability and recyclability, etc.

Attached: bbr_why_ee_upgrades graph_11-24-14.jpg (720x540 48.06 KB, 52.93K)

meant for

Thats very subjective. I like Ramleh and Consumer Electronics. It's only reference for being noise pollution is a matter of subjective taste

I mean yeah if you're some neurotypical moron

oh Greta…

Then she's taking autism for views. We don't have emotions

Greta "The Globalist's agent provocateur" Thunberg.
Look at her corporate handlers & who is bankrolling her celebrity tour - George "literally was a Nazi in his youth" Soros.

"Climate change" is a Corporate scam piggybacking on the Green movement to make the worker think paying elites for air to breathe is acceptable.
It already worked 20 years ago for "global warming" and paying for bottled water - when previously the idea of buying bottled water was seen as retarded. There were public drinking fountains, and running taps - free water.
It already worked 40 years ago for "global cooling" and paying inflated prices for energy. Workers were encouraged to pile into a bath together to save energy while fat cats flew around on smoke belching Concorde.
Different names, different faces, same scams.

Granted her rhetoric is swathed in cartoonish LARP-y lifestylism, but your rhetoric has porky bootlicker written all over it.

eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is austerity
I guess you're right again, corporations will benevolently lower energy prices if they switch to renewables.

What a scandal!

The problem is most climate cultists dont believe scientific understanding will change.
If you told them that we might be talking about global cooling again in 30 years they would laugh in your face. But if you told th global cooling people 30 years ago that the problem is in fact global warming they would also laugh in your face.

As long as you accept that our current understanding might be totally wrong about global warming / climate change / any other scientific theoriy then we have no quarrell.

False, there weren't "global cooling people". Global cooling was barely ever even a weak position among a minority of scientists, moreover one universally described among its proponents as occurring on top of the lengthy and well documented historical warming that was known from instrument records (though I will admit certainty as to the role of humans in either trend was low). The entire thing was simply blown out of proportion by popsci journos at the time:
You can't compare that with anthropogenic global warming, which among scientists has had basically 100% consensus, moreover at uniformly very high confidence, for decades now.

Also, your attempt to pretend that use of the term "climate change" represents some kind of shift in conclusions about global warming, rather than a (misguided and pointless, IMHO) attempt to head off "BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS MAKING WINTER SNOWIER SOMETIMES IN SOME PLACES HURDURR" retardation, is exceedingly disingenuous.

So it was pure fantasy, eh kid? You either weren't there or forgot the endless diatribe
-there will be no oil by the year 2000
-whole planet frozen in permanent winter
…yada yada
Give it a rest.

In the media, sure, but not among scientists. Not just mass media, or popular scientific journalism, but even the press departments of laboratories and universities themselves have always been infamous for their poor understanding of complex research and misleading tendency for hype. As my above link noted, what was being misinterpreted and conflated by the media were weak and tentative theories at the time allowed for mild manmade cooling trends against a backdrop of CO2-induced warming, along with unrelated theories that apocalyptic cooling and glaciation were naturally going to occur in thousands of years.

Even setting aside the apocalyptic trash-tier reportage you're attempting to compare to today's AGW campaigning, the actual research being misinterpreted by those magazine stories, reflected in scientists' own direct advocacy at the time, was largely correct. Coarse particulate pollution, also responsible for acid rain, respiratory disease, smog, and other problems in the era, did cause slight cooling until legal regulations at the urging of environmental science greatly reduced their emission:
Yes, some have occasionally advanced the idea of doing this intentionally to combat global warming, but the idea is generally rejected for obvious reasons.

AGW is completely different, however, because consensus among scientists is ubiquitous and very strong, as well as scientists themselves being outspoken in their advocacy on the issue. Indeed, in this case, the tone of journalism on AGW is markedly less urgent than that of scientific consensus.

Attached: intelligent life.jpeg (507x495, 56.3K)

Same shit different day.
Third time's a charm with that excuse eh?
Not for me pal, it's not my first rodeo ride.

No, retards in the popular press were fearmongering, not scientists. Now, the press isn't fearmongering enough according to scientists.

Also, your entire line of illogic ignores another question, why do you care? At worst, all this means is a transition away from fossil fuels, fuels that are already exhausting profitably usable reserves, and which require us to engage in military adventurism protecting loathsome foreign dictatorships ruled by evil people that hate us.

So, in other words you weren't there? OK.

Naive. Still has not read or comprehended
Also no. There are some pretty massive reserves in certain countries. It is very useful to underplay how much there is so the John in the street can be squeezed for every last penny in everything he buys. The exact quantities are a national security issue, so don't expect to find much talk of it on the wire. Few know there's enough that it won't run out in your grandchildrens' lifetime.

Read the links I've posted, none of what you're talking about was ever reflected in the scientific literature.
What threat would remain from any of that after we completed a transition away from fossil fuels?
Reserves of low (or negative) ERoEI trash like shale oil, lignite coal, or fracked gas. As more and more energy is consumed to convert garbage like that into usable fuel products, less energy will be available to actually consume, even with massive "proven reserves" still sitting unusable in the ground.

Remember that "peak oil" doesn't mean literally drinking every last barrel of the stuff, but diminishing returns bumping up against the necessary function of civilization itself.

Attached: net energy cliff.jpg (662x456, 39.25K)


Not everyone is obsessed with sex.