It kicked off the protests in Tunisia that resulted in a radical restructuring of society, but the people of Tunisia were more empathetic to that action than Americans. So many people have absolutely dog shit takes about this act of protest, not the slightest amount of empathy for what would drive a person to this.
The post on the Atlanta subreddit about this was deleted if you need any further confirmation of that belief
Nah I think the people who constantly make the most barbaric decisions or excuse why they can't revert them are the ones being anti-democratic.
Wouldn't those with the power given to them by the population who then act against what those voters want be the anti-democratic ones?
I struggle to see how potential voters pointing out they never get what they ask for is the reason for any of our problems today.
Hey, uh, I think this thing is broken
Nah, it's working as intended, if you look back here both levers are pressing this button that says 'Barbarism'
Haven't seen this mentioned yet, so I will chime in.
I used to be very pro nuclear, and still see it as a positive addition to a healthily diverse energy system that is able to provide baseline levels of power when wind and solar are low producing like at night. It's unrealistic to think the vast quantities of batteries required for strictly renewables will be easily accessible or not lead to significant waste. This doesn't discount the harvesting and processing of uranium and other fissile materials, but a diversity of resource inputs makes a system more resilient.
My shift has been witnessing the decade it took to construct the Vogel reactor in Georgia when considered with the amount of pollution, waste, and possible risks of nuclear. If reprocessing became more commonplace and environmental regulations were not toothless, I'd still point out the arguments made by Christian Parenti a decade ago. As the Vogel reactor was just approved, he claimed it would take twice as long as the 5 stated years and be double its budget. He was exactly right.
Nuclear would be great in an already socialist society because all the downsides are more easily addressed, but the vast costs and amount of time to build reactors is in direct conflict with the urgency of the climate catastrophe. Every dollar spent focusing on nuclear projects is a dollar that won't be spent on solar or wind which have much faster ROI periods in terms of carbon offsets.
Once we stabilize with other renewables, more focus on nuclear certainly makes sense, but given the urgency of the situation, we need to do what will have the most impact as soon as possible so we have the opportunity to develop nuclear further.
They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point
You live in the US, how are you not being bribed to think the way you do?
You're such a redditor
It's also kinda hard to have 99% of people dislike China if 18% of the global population lives there and is very satisfied with their government, not even counting anyone in Russia, other parts of Asia and the Pacific, Central and South America, or Africa.
You're really showing whose opinions you actually care about. A bunch of propagandized to the brim, comfortable Americans, Canadians, and Europeans
Time for you to go make friends with the fascists and shitlibs who share your opinions I guess
I have a strong desire to get a PhD in environmental policy to try and get close to some form of person who can pass ideas to those who move the levers of power but have some idea that is pointless given how even the most mild assessments by people like the IPCC are ignored.
Issue is I feel like my STEM degree is equally useless because technology isn't what's holding us back even if I could get a job in a field that develops such technology. Unfortunately anything I see in renewables or power is out of reach with my experience and I'd spend just as much time making things worse in another industry racking up the requisite years of experience as I would getting said PhD
I logically understand a mass movement is our only solution but feel like I have to spend my 2000 hours or so a year working doing something related to climate or I'll lose my mind. Anyone else thought through this at all and have insights?