- Thread starter
- #41
It’s ok. I’ve got science on my side.You will never listen. You're not built for learning.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It’s ok. I’ve got science on my side.You will never listen. You're not built for learning.
You said 30 years.You're right. EV technology has not grown in 129 years.
Clown.
Nevada does not want nuclear waste in it's state. Why would they want more of what you claim is bad for climate? Sorry, it is a paywall site.I think the purpose is to sequester short cycle carbon and transform it into long cycle carbon.
It's the long cycle carbon the actual proponents of Climate Change believe causes the problem. It's the less informed of the nutters that can't tell the difference between the two.
My mistake then. I look around this forum and see a bunch of angry, spiteful assholes that don't care about anything but fucking over the other side. That must have been a misread.
Leftards once again making the Babylon Bee look like a legitimate news organization.
Through his foundation Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Mr. Gates is a part of the $6.6 million seed investor pool backing Kodama Systems in its proposal to remove trees in California's fire-challenged woodlands and bury them in Nevada to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2).
"We must dramatically accelerate forest thinning treatments," the Boston-based firm says on its website. Kodama calls itself a "technology-driven forest restoration service."
Climate Activists Seek to Save the Planet by Cutting, Burying Trees
While Bill Gates invests in a plan to thin out forests and bury the trees to sequester carbon, one ecologist calls it a ‘spectacularly bad idea.’www.theepochtimes.com
Technology driven!
So is a coal fired steam train.
So Envirowhackos, where’s the data that if we cut down CO2 eating trees and feed them to worms (who turn it into CO2) we save the world?
You're acting like EVs and green energy in general have not grown a lot in the last few decades. You're playing games. You're not here to have honest conversations. This is all a competition to you I guess, and honesty is not needed.You said 30 years.
What’s the delta?
Nevada does not want nuclear waste in it's state. Why would they want more of what you claim is bad for climate? Sorry, it is a paywall site.
Nevada does want and has a mighty fine nuclear waste site.Nevada does not want nuclear waste in it's state. Why would they want more of what you claim is bad for climate? Sorry, it is a paywall site.
Really? Why don't we use nuclear. That would help.Right wingers don't seem particularly interested in the advancement of technology that could help.
So you can’t think of any improvements in EV’s in the past 30 years.You're acting like EVs and green energy in general have not grown a lot in the last few decades. You're playing games. You're not here to have honest conversations. This is all a competition to you I guess, and honesty is not needed.
I don't play like you do here. You can just be a moron. That's fine
I already expressed I don't understand the government doing it the way it does. I didn't ignore your concerns. I addressed them honestly.In my opinion it's intential myopia. You would rather trash people for being supposed Luddites than deal with their questions and concerns over overreaching government control of people's daily lives over supposed human driven climate change.
or more to the point, climate change impacted quality of life changes being worse than imposed governmental quality of life destruction.
I already expressed I don't understand the government doing it the way it does. I didn't ignore your concerns. I addressed them honestly.
Next?
Nah, none. None in over 100 years in fact. Right clown?So you can’t think of any improvements in EV’s in the past 30 years.
You did? Because that wasn't my argument. Not sure what you're talking about.What next?
I disproved your whole "the right hates technology" argument.
BS. Car manufacturers are required by law to produce EV’s.
Nah, none. None in over 100 years in fact. Right clown?
Got a citation? ... what law outside of California requires us to buy EV's ... or did you not read Marty's comment? ...
This article claims that the EPA rules were proposed but only for the makers of medium and heavy duty vehicles ... and that current rules are under an Executive Order ... not law ... {Cite} from Reuters, May 2023 ...
That's what we need to go back to ... 90% fewer passenger vehicles ... including EVs ... we need to stop making cars for a few decades ...