am i retarded how is this possiblethis doesnt seem sustainable in the long term
>>1974908It isn't, but the line must go up.
Why? It’s what’s the market will bear. Are you a cuck?
>>1974908yes you are, the planes wouldn't even be a dot on a map this zoomed out if the proportions were anywhere close to accurate
>Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky." "A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceansHumans were a mistake
i mean, it's not. there's only so much magic earth goo to be found, and once it's found and burned, it's gone, forever.
>>1974968>there's only so much magic earth goo to be found, and once it's found and burned, it's gone, forever.that's a common myth spread by the oil industry, the same people spreading the "fossil fuel" meme. we've been producing synthetic fuels for almost exactly a century by now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process?useskin=vector
>>1974970just because it's physically possible to make jet fuel out of coca cola or something doesn't mean the economics are remotely the same, otherwise that's what jets would burn in real life and not a wikipedia article
oh fuck off with your "if you smash this and that together it produces hydrocarbons" shit. as though they're going to pour HYDROCARBONS into the tank of all those airplanes and it'll just work. bravo. well done. clap. good job
>bringing up nazis out of nowhere, completely unpromptedweird
you're insufferable
no, i take it back. you're literally in a One Weird Trick delusion
>>1974974>an unsustainable failed state that could only barely hold on by a thread by trying to plunder neighboring countries and eat a small ethnic minority group that had some wealth produced synthetic fuels for a short period before imploding violentlyso we agree then, it's retardedgood talk!
there is literally only so much magic earth goo to be found, and once it's burned, it's gone forever. if you're going to argue about this because NAZI SCIENCE, you're deranged
>>1974987i don't believe you
>>1974908boat transport long-long term will replace air-travel
>>1974989>Sasol uses coal and natural gas as feedstockslol, shame there's literally only so much magic earth rock and so much magic earth gas to be found, otherwise what you said might mean something
"by combining a finite fossil fuel with another finite fossil fuel, we can completely replace a different type of finite fossil fuel". absolutely outstanding
>>1974993>It uses cobalt catalysts at 230 °C, converting natural gas toit converts a finite fossil fuel into a different type of finite fossil fuel
>>1974974>synthetic fuels powered by nuclear energyIs this supposed to mean something or are you just a 14 year old popsci enthusiast?
>>1974997>mention nazis>someone points out that their economy was completely unsustainable>reeee why are you calling me a nazi!?!?!?ok I'm getting confused now are you just larping as a hypersensitive nazi for giggles and I'm just too autistic to understand the humor, or are you actually serious?
>>1974989>>1974993>>1974994>>1974997
so, turning it around a little, it's possible to MAKE air travel sustainable ... by cutting it down by however much is needed. the problem is, it would need us to dismantle our society in order to do so
>>1975005burning oil is bad. if you're not going to accept this i'm not interested in talking to you
>>1975002ah ok you are serious, well, good talk like I said, I'll check back later to see how much schizo shit you've filled this thread with, have fun
>>1974908Windy Heathrow live streamhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS_DEtXO5nY
>>1974908It's not. Tourism is killing the planet.
shit will be fucked as earth's magnetic poles continue to drift faster with each subsequent year
>>1974990>laughs in houthi
>>1974971tranny
>>1974908>this doesnt seem sustainable in the long termIt's not but you're also a gullible idiot. Planes count for maybe 8% of world oil consumption, less even than non-energy applications like making plastic.
>>1975155follow your leader
>>1974983It's called oil, or petroleum, you mental third-grader. And ocean life, to this day, is getting subducted and crushed into petroleum, so more is being created constantly. Maybe not as fast as it's being consumed, but this idea that once oil is gone it's GONE is as retarded as calling it magic earth goo.
>>1975168When I was a kid there was a shitty simpsons knockoff called "dinosaurs" that lasted about 2 seasons, where they had an episode lampooning the oil people, or maybe the deforestation people or something.The daughter dinosaur, who was a knockoff of maggi simpson, was like "but we have to conserve thing or we'll run out of thing" (I think it was a small animal the dinos ate), and the strawman was that all the adults laughed at her like she was stupid and said "what does that even mean lolol, she's crazy, of course there will always be more, that's what more means"At the time I thought it was a really cheap straw man but thanks to you I now understand it was really more insightful than I gave them credit for
>>1975170I'm sorry, did that rambling story have a point? Because I didn't see any recognition of the fact that more oil is actually being made. By the way, it was never dinosaur bones like your HECKIN SCIENCE cartoons said, but the books that tell you how the world really works don't have pictures, so I guess you didn't realize that.
>>1975174I know this is 4chan and we're supposed to be rude to each other but I want to take a break from the shit flinging and say I'm genuinely impressed with how dumb you are
>>19750123:05hors!
>>1975176NTA but calling oil "magic goo" is lame and unfunny reddit cringe. Responding with a fucking wall of text Simpsons anecdote just confirms you don't belong here.He's also technically correct and smarter than you, even acknowledging the correct version of your point:>Maybe not as fast as it's being consumed
>>1975180Did you quote me by mistake?
>>1975185I don't think you know what an oil crop is anon, I guarantee you 99% of that gain is corn.
>>1975211topofhead,,,mostoil crop is palm,,thencorn?,thensoy?,,,but if we had freedomswe could have Hempoil!,,,,,the most productive peracre, matching palm.,,,hemp was made illegal by Petroil/Monsato/pharma to stop competition.,,,,they hadto allowit to win WW2 because their plastics didnt match Canvas hemp yet,,and engine oil.,,,achohol prohibition happened when Ford made a car that ran onit,,stop car production and Booze legal again in small home batchs,,,,not enough for industry., Thats only for petrooomasters!,,,Brazil candoit,,not us.https://rapidtransition.org/Brazil today is home to the world’s largest fleet of cars that use ethanol derived from sugarcane as an alternative fuel to fossil fuel based petroleum. Twenty-seven million cars, 73% of the total, can use a mix of ethanol and gasoline. What is more extraordinary than the scale of the transition to ethanol fuel in Brazil is the speed at which it occurred.,,,USA ethinol plants are graft factorys keeping petro alive by corupt design.,,,,,,yes corn is king here,,,GMO hell corn inedible by humans,used to feed cows.,geneticly labeled patented,,,just like RNA vacine.,,THAT GENE BELONGS TO PHARMA!! give it back!,,oooya its there forever.,,wantarefund?
>>1974971They did in broke-ass Germany in WW2.
>>1975268see >>1975164
>>1974908Do not worry, you are just retarded
>>1974908Imagine if you had a map of every car in the world displayed at 100,000x true size.
>>1974908>am i retardedYes.Worse still, you're the kind of shallow, braindead retard who takes random, out of context screenshots devoid of any useful or meaningful information and posts it to his collective of choice making sure to include the right buzz words hoping to trigger a response from the collective that will include congratulatory or appreciative commends reinforcing to his shallow, braindead self that yes, you do belong the collective. Very considerate of you to include the buzz words in ambiguous language ("is this possible", "doesn't seem"), so that if the collective were to reject your input you could claim ignorance and that never truly meant it.If Christianity were still in fashion you'd post the exact same screenshot claiming you saw the message of Jesus in it which, if equally shallow, at least would be harmless compared to claiming that "air travel bad" especially if taken to its logical conclusion.
>>1974970>oil becomes more scarce>price goes up>unprofitable extraction processes become profitable >price stabilizes repeat ad infinitum
it's flat btw
>>1974910This is the correct answer. The only limit on the current system is catastrophe.
>>1975414>catastropheinovation,,startsometimes likethat.,,,,biofuelsinstead of shiping our produce and stinkyoil.,,Baron Rudolf anon Diesel,,,Saint Diesel just wanted everyone to getalong with overflowingindependant abundance,,,,,,WHO dosnt wanthat?>>1975211chlorophilisolar power.
>>1975391fuck off retard>>1974908yes air travel is a completely unsustainable cancer
>>1974968Planes fly on kerosene because kerosene is a waste fraction of oil that nobody else wants. A gas turbine will work on just about anything combustible.
>>1975555OP is objectively retarded, do not defend him or you'll catch retarded too.
>>1975168oil is abiotic
>>1974968Why is Mickey retarded in this one, I thought he was supposed to be smart?
>>1974958Correct. I don't know anything about airplanes but they are flying in 3D if you know what I mean.
>>1975634Mickey is right. Terraforming Mars is a meme if we can't even stop our own planet's temperature from changing by 1 degree.
>>1975663>Terraforming MarsDid you make the meme?Why are you making my 5th favorite mouse, a moron?
>>1974908>how is this possibleIt wouldn't look as bad if the planes were to scale. You wouldn't even see them on that map.>this doesnt seem sustainable in the long termyeah, that's why people are working towards alternatives
>>1975531Bacon I thought you of all people would want to stop using fuels in the first place since you ride a horse, and animal locomotion is the one true ecological transportation due to its renewability
>>1975634What’s wrong with his statement? Ostensibly it’s accurate, techno optimism doesn’t affect the sheer reality of human consumption and we need to make our planet sustainable and green before getting it into our heads that we can colonize other planets
>>1975739>stop using fuelsbiofuels,,,grass,,corn,,wood(beright back,,,another logon thefire),,,vegyoil!,itsolar power packagediesel.,,,,its the petrofuel i HATE!,leaves Nasty byproducts thattack life!,poisons made from them,,,satanstew!,,,,,,farts burnice!, hempoil smells Good,,carbon,,,runningin circles is what makes LIFE!,Sunlight pumpsitup!,onlyevil wantstostopit!,.Greta? Growomanly TITS!,feedsome kids.,,,,Donalds first line is TRUE!,then the rat tells him to just KYS?!no, Mickey,,we can spread this"oasis across the Galaxy,,starting withemoon.
>>1975740Hey anon, do you know who wrote that by chance? I recognize it, but I don't remember who said it. I just know that they were retarded and pissed me off.
>>1975739>due to its renewabilityanimal transportation cannot sustain 1/1000th of the current volume of transporation without completely collapsing the ecosystem
>>1975740>we need to make our planet sustainable and green before getting it into our heads that we can colonize other planetsThere's no conditional here. We simply aren't going to colonize other planets. Maybe military or scientific research stations, like the South Pole. That's it. The moon and nearby planets just don't have sufficiently accessible resources to make real colonization economical.
>>1975815Still sounds like a great argument for not shitting up the planet.
There are about 100k commerical flights per day and most of them are in the USA. Many of these are not huge jets but smaller aircraft.There are also 8 billion people in the world. There will be even more flights in the future.
>>1974908>sustainable in the long termhttps://pangeabuilders.com/california-offgrid-earthships/#Any off-grid, sustainable building can be permitted and built in California. All buildings must adhere to the California state building, health and environmental codes.,,,,,FFFFFFFFF!!,,youcandoit,,,as longas you Dont doit., codesays,,,NO! nothat!,,,thisissue is the CORE for me.,home,,my home my choice buthen some (n) spits in the punchbowl with AIDS and blames everyone so we need moregulation?!,,,,,indians,,,TeePee living? poop in a hole? way better then streetpoop.,and feeds the tree.,,but NO!! we have to STERILIZE thaturd!,sift,sanitize,sort,stack,shipit!,,,,years back AppleValleyCA ignored toxic fumes from concrete factory"we say its OK,so SHUT UP@", sued by residents to Prove the fumes where ladden with Mercury!!,FROM BURNING TURD SOLIDS!!,,,,,people turds dryed and burned to suplement the tires they burned making cement.,.Mercury people were eating and excreteing in their FOOD!,,,,,blame carbon for"GLOBAL(whatever)"?,taxs and carbon capture will not fix!,,,,,Damnyou,satan., yourspell istrong.,pic>CRAP!! industrial CRAP!!made from petro poison.
>>1974908>how is this possibleThe plane icon is much larger than the actual plane. The distance between London and New York is about 3,500 miles (5,600 km).
>>1975821Not really. The only kind of people affected by empty platitudes like that are mindless redditors who don't matter either way.
>>1976080Would you shit in your living room because you have plenty of other space in your house that isn't full of shit?
>>1975663We don't need to terraform Jack's hit we just going full America discovery on whatever alien is occupying the new Eden. We just yeet them out and put the savages in reserves. Simple as.
>>1976105the stupidity of your arguments are going in the wrong direction.
>>1974908invest in sailboats and nuclear powered ocean linerst. aspiring uranium geologist and has been copper geologist
>>1974971Current regulation has it that small shares of SAF is going to be mandatory in a few years. Some factories are being built already. The price for that stuff is higher than un-taxed dino juice but nowhere near prohibitive frome what little cost estimates are being published. The car-going version Porsche is already producing in small scale is expected to be below 2€/l by todays value when fully scaled up in 2030. That is for RON98 gasoline, but depending on which of the two commercially viable processes is chosen there'll be either a spectrum of diesel, kerosene and gasoline coming out or just one (which depending on catalyst and temperature).To put it very simple, the processes need CO, CO2, H2 and H2O to make fuel. Where you get those molecules from doesn't matter to the process. The cheapest source is fossile fuels obviously, but there's no reason why you couldn't source them renewably other than that costing a bit more. Commercial processes use gas or coal. You can probably find products made with one of those at your local gas station and wouldn't even know.
>>1974970Synthetic Fuels are way more expensive right now.You need to put in energy in order to get the components to react and form the hydrocarbon chains you require.So at the current level of tech and reliance on fossil fuels, you end up burning more fossil fuel to provide the energy to make synthetic fuels.
>>1974908well at least the sky is effectively infinitely big so its not really comparable to the whole car situationprobably isnt sustainable though and im saying this as a huge avfag so it hurts me to say itreally we should be using boats and trains for most long distance travel and only using planes where getting there fast is a priority
>>1974914do it by boat!may be a lil slower but itl be much comfier and cheaper
>>1976193>Synthetic Fuels are way more expensive right nowcornoil,,,waso cheap,,then people started usingit for Diesel fuel and the price jumped to match petro diesel.,,,,cant have competition?,,,same oldstory.,,,,,fuel,,,growing ontrees.
>>1976312>fuel,,,growing ontrees.orblowsin thewind.,,,oneday,,,operator forgeto ingage motor,,,vertical wind mill go brrrRRRRRRRR-ACK!,,,other windmill wins.
>>1976312damn 100 miles at 15mph is actually really impressive even by modern standardsprobably weighs a tonne tho but based af
>>1976193>You need to put in energy in order to get the components to react and form the hydrocarbon chains you require.>So at the current level of tech and reliance on fossil fuels, you end up burning more fossil fuel to provide the energy to make synthetic fuels.Just use nuclear and you have all energy you want.>fossil fuelskys
>>1974908What's the problem?Are you bothered by the number of planes in the air specifically? or are you bothered for enviromental reasons? Or is this peak oil doomerism?The first one is silly, as for the other two I doubt in the long term future aircraft will still be using the same fuels battery electric aircraft already exist and as battery tech improves you'll probably see them being used for short haul flights, there is also some research being done into using hydrogen fuel cells as well as bio fuels for airplanes and there are experiments for designing fuel efficient air frames as well.
>>1975170>When I was a kid there was a shitty simpsons knockoff called "dinosaurs" that lasted about 2 seasonsIt wasn't a simpson's knockoff (it was more of an "all in the family" knock off) and it lasted 4 seasons.
>>1976528im sad to inform you that i dont think battery powered planes can replace jets or turboprops any time soonsame rason battery trucks like the tesla one were just never gonna workfor small prop powered aircraft i think batteries could become quite popularhydrogen powered turbines maybe though, who knows if itl be able to compete with kerosine powered turbines when it comes to the scale airliners but im hopefuli dont think air travel is thaat bad in terms of its environmental issues and logistics and stuff thoughnothing compared to yknow, cars and coal powerplants
>>1976590>i dont think air travel is thaat bad in terms of its environmental issues and logistics and stuff thoughnothing compared to yknow, cars and coal powerplantsI get /n/ tends to despise cars as a concept so much, but this is a weird angle. You really think the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned every day and sheer volume of leaded avgas put directly into the atmosphere is the lesser evil then owning a car? I could redline a semi to-and-from McDonald's from now until the moment I die and I will never be able to compete with just one mid-service airliner, let alone the short haul jets of a celeb.
>>1977066>Abloobloo gas burningCarbon emissions are a meme, the environmental problems you should be worried about are heavy metals, overfishing, and plastic in the environment. But it's nonwhite countries causing those, so it can't be used as a cudgel to implement communism in the West.Arguing over what shits more carbon than whatever else is like arguing over what kind of knife is the most deadly when you've just been shot.
>>1977066my point is that there are far bigger things to worry about that are contributing multitudes more to the environmental impactyeah planes are polluting but its not like everyones flying around in their own individual planes or even using planes that much at alltheyre fying busses literallyif we improve the trains then for over land travel people will be able to just use those instead but for crossing oceans its hard to imagine people choosing to go by boat over plane so unless boats can become faster air travel is kinda inevitablealso comparing a single car or truck to a whole airliner is very sillyyes the airliner will produce more emmissions per vehicle but a truck is carrying people in the hundreds at extremely high speed is it?per person per mile planes contribute absolutely nothing compared to carsand yes fuck richoids and their private jets that shits almost never justifiablebut we can worry about this after weve done anything about the whole cars and coal powerplants thing>>1977117>non white countries causing thosethey arent causing it theyre doing it to meet the demands of the first world countrieschina isnt the factory of the world for themselves its for everyone else>>1977117what even is this copium?yes those things are also horrible and need to be solved but youre argument doesnt make any senseits more like if you were shot and the paramedics start treating the scrape on youre knee before the bullet wound which one is gonna kill you first?
>>1977117>muh communismliterally what does that have to do with this?now i know you have no argument and just gobble up your governments propaganda
>>1977142>they arent causing it theyre doing it to meet the demands of the first world countriescope, turd worlder>china isnt the factory of the world for themselvesI'm sure there's productive work in the overfishing, plastic polluting cesspool somewhere, just like there's productivity from all the literal shit flowing out of ganges.
>>1977144Feeling called out, scum?
>>1977066>You really think the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned every day and sheer volume of leaded avgas put directly into the atmosphere is the lesser evil then owning a car?yeah because I didn't fail math like most of /n/
>>1977144>What does communism have to do with environmentalism?Anon, haven't you ever noticed that the most vocal "environmentalists" do a bunch of things that are against their own rules for the environment like flying private jets, building beach houses, owning multiple houses, eating steak, etc? Or have you noticed that Earth is forecasted by "experts" to become either an iceball or desert (they go back and forth on this) within five years for the last fifty, unless you do everything they say? It's because "environmentalism" has nothing to do with the environment. The "solutions" are all that the first world needs to give money to China and India (Paris accords), stop using petroleum and consuming meat because of carbon dioxide (you know, the stuff trees breathe), and pay "carbon tax" for vague reasons. All of this stuff has no proven benefit to the environment, but does transfer loads of wealth and control AWAY from the public and TO government and a select few, who are for some reason exempt from all these rules (every rich bastard that flies his own plane to a climate conference where they eat expensive cuts of steak).
>>1977160>cope, turd worlder>i disagree therefore you are poorwhy is this the only "argument" you faggots ever have?>>1977161called out for what?>i disagree therefore you are a commieyou sound like a cartoon character>>1977180>yeah because I didn't fail math like most of /n/real>>1977195>Anon, haven't you ever noticed that the most vocal "environmentalists" do a bunch of things that are against their own rules for the environment like flying private jets, building beach houses, owning multiple houses, eating steak, etc?hollywood celebrities arent commies they are literally the bourgeois that commies hatenone of those people are environmentalists either, at best they may feature in an advert for some company that only pretends to not be actively destroying the world>Or have you noticed that Earth is forecasted by "experts" to become either an iceball or desert (they go back and forth on this)because nobody knows whats going to happen exactly yet this has literally never happened beforemost likely both at once in different parts of the world or one after the othermaybe something entirely different who knows all we know is were fucked and its already too late>within five yearsnobody has ever said that besides maybe elon fucking musk>The "solutions" are all that the first world needs to give money to China and Indiathe fuck are you talking about?the solutions are to kill the oil and coal industry and stop other forms of pollutionwe give money to china and india TO pollute and eat up all our resources>carbon dioxide (you know, the stuff trees breathe)are you fucking 12?>and pay "carbon tax" for vague reasonsits not you who will be paying its the corporations and governments that do this shit who will either pay or stop doing it so they dont have to>for vague reasonsvery clear and simple reasons>All of this stuff has no proven benefit to the environmentextremely well proven and obviouskill yourself
>>1977522>you are pooryou're not poor, you're a subhuman that is incapable of having a functional society and stopping yourself from defecating in the street without the guiding hand of a white person.>you sound like a cartoon characteryou sound like you belong in a gas chamber>hollywood celebrities arent commies they are literally the bourgeois that commies hateHmmm, i wonder what do they say about that. Or is it not real gommunism if it's done by not "working class"?>that only pretends to not be actively destroying the worldthat's all modern environmentalism>because nobody knows whats going to happen exactly yetcope and excuses>nobody has ever saidwhy lie so obviously?>the solutions are to kill the oil and coal industry and stop other forms of pollutionin white countries. you don't do shit in china and india, effectively outsourcing everything there.>we give money to china and india TO pollute and eat up all our resourcesyou do, subhuman.>its not you who will be paying its the corporations and governmentsthe least retarded leftie leech>very clear and simple reasonstaxing productivity and destroying industry in white countries>extremely well proven and obviousanother blatant lie.
>>1977542you're supposed to be at least 18 years old to post here
>>1977562he's right though.>the solutions are to kill the oil and coal industry and stop other forms of pollutionthis is the naive, underage argument.
>>1977522>hollywood celebrities arent commies they are literally the bourgeoisNo, they're the party members. Stalin and his inner circle weren't living in commie blocks or starving.>none of those people are environmentalistsEver heard of Al Gore? Greta Thunberg? Barrack Obama? What about Bill Gates? Which movies were they in again?>because nobody knows whats going to happen exactly yet I could rattle off paragraphs of doomsday shit that "experts" promised would happen. They seemed like they THOUGHT they knew exactly what would happen...>the fuck are you talking about?The Paris Accords, as I said in my original comment. Ironic to call others underage when you can't or won't read.>Are you fucking 12?No, but even twelve year-olds realize how blatant and idiotic "muh carbon emissions" is with a moment's thought.>its not you who will be paying its the corporations and governments And who gets that money, huh? Mother fucking Gaia? It's just going to result in established and powerful governments and companies doing whatever the hell they want and newcomers get priced out of being a challenge. When the Catholic Church did this kind of crap it resulted in the Protestant Reformation.>extremely well proven and obviousStill haven't seen any proof, would like to before I die.
>>1977542>>1977565>>1977601are you even old enough to own a car?
>>1977625You aren't so why are you so desperate?
>>1977632im 27 i have a carnot that im happy about it its a fucking money sink
>>1977625I'm not hearing any counterarguments, just childish insults. And "I think I'm getting schooled by a child" isn't the own you think it is.30, btw
>>1977642Lmao zoomzoom. No wonder your arguments are so naive. Oil and natural gas are the foundation of the entire global economy and are key resources behind an intricate web of geopolitical relationships and conflicts. You think China, Russia and Iran give a shit about your environmentalism? Other than being all for any self-destructive policy that enables them to achieve their territorial ambitions (eg Ukraine and Taiwan)Furthermore as dire as climate change rhetoric is, the reality is that it leads to change not necessarily catastrophe. A country like Canada stands to gain enormously from global warming as maritime trade routes through the melted northwest passage rather than the drought-stricken Panama canal. The topic is complex and to suggest carelessly "killing the oil industry" is comically stupid. If it could be done, it would wreck the entire global economy and would make Bidenflation look like nothing.45 btw
>>1977642PS your car is not a money sink.A car is one of the best values for money that almost anyone can buy, unless they live in NY City (and even then...)- Excellent emergency shelter, protection from wind, rain and cold.- Fast, long-range, on-demand transport that takes you anywhere roads go (and some places they don't)- Store and haul supplies and cargoYeah sure in aggregate, automobiles emit more CO2 than any other source (completely blowing aviation out of the water). And cars are a depreciating asset so you can't just buy and hodl. But there are few machines in the modern world more practically useful to a person than a car. And I say this as someone who hates driving and has made multiple major life decisions aimed at reducing car-dependence.
>>1977665>Oil and natural gas are the foundation of the entire global economyno thats coal and oilbut its a bad thing that out world depends on this shit when we could be using nuclear power and fucking trains>>1977673>- Excellent emergency shelter, protection from wind, rain and cold.i have a house and i own a tent>- Fast, long-range, on-demand transport that takes you anywhere roads go (and some places they don't)train, bicycle, fucking walk you fat cunt>- Store and haul supplies and cargotrain, bike, rent a van>are few machines in the modern world more practically useful to a person than a car.train, bikeits only like this because its by design
>>1977647as if you have any arguments and arent just calling me poor or brown
>>1977776Crack a history bool retard you are not worth debating. You are a terminally online zoomer with no knowledge and no critical reasoning>inb4 crying about ad hominemEvery single reply is retarded on the face of it. None of them amounts to an actual counter argument given that a car is massively more useful than a bike and a train is an impossibly impractical investment. You cannot buy a train. You are not even capable of engaging with a modicum of sense. You are stupid and ignorant. Solve those problems on your own time then come back.
>>1977778Try not being retarded and you might get better responses. Might be impossible for you.
>>1974968this one goes hard
>>1977783i dont need to buy the traini just buy the ticket and if the gov would stop giving my money to your precious oil and coal industries my taxes would be funding the trains and bike paths>>1977784il never get any non retarded response from the likes of you lol
>>1974968oh its not gone forever its all in the air now!and the oceansand the plantsand our bodiesand the animalsand in the soiland turned into high maintenance structures for the oil burners to drive onits just everywhere but in the ground now
>>1977665>not necessarily catastropheWe should be more conservative about these risks. The issue is that the exact means by which we power our mechanisms to control our environment is in a positive feedback loop with the means by which the environment becomes more oppressive to our way of life. Specifically with respect to agriculture and the temporal pockets of stability of the biosphere. Everything other than us is gradually dying in a mass extinction event, and agriculture is projected to take a hit globally while power over food shifts around, causing geopolitical turmoil in the midst of the modern age of nuclear weapons and chemical and bio warfare. These massively destructive weapons are generally deployed in existential conflicts because of how much blowback they can cause, either in terms of escalating retaliation by enemies or in terms of the collateral damage they can cause to your own forces, resources and civilian population. We are collectively gambling that we can handle this volatility because of how cheap it appears today, which is not the kind of rational investment that we've made as a species in the past that even got us here. What got us here is planning for tomorrow, forgoing the available option today for investment in the more profitable or secure option tomorrow. We are stuck in a short-sighted loop of profiting today knowing that it is going to cause volatility tomorrow and just hoping we can handle it. And we are justifying it to ourselves like addicts, I don't see how this portends anything but disaster.
>>1977778as if you have any arguments besides calling me underage or oil shillbtw, you're still a turd worlder subhuman that will never seee a fuinctional society and will ride the bus
>>1977776>train, bikeall dogshit options with 1/100th utility of a car. you're essentially eating shit of transportation.
>>1977923>il never get any non retarded responseyou will never addressd any critique with anything besides whining and name calling like the worthless little bitch you are
>>1977952reddit>>1977954train is faster comfier and cheaperbike is cheaper more fun and faster when theres trafficdont need to stress over parking or fuel or insurance or tax or moti cant think of any utility a car serves if i need to haul shit il rent a van>>1977955i did but you just refuse to read because you need to justify all that money you waste
>>1977923>i dont need to buy the train>i just buy the ticket and if the gov would stop giving my money to your precious oil and coal industries my taxes would be funding the trains and bike pathsSo in other words, you have no idea what an investment is and have no idea how any of this shit works, and massively underrate your car as a consequence.
>>1978000waste of trips>investmentyeah trains are a very good investment unlike cars or their infrastructure>and massively underrate your carcars are the most overrated thing ever inventedyou underrate your legs get off your fat ass
>>1978026>yeah trains are a very good investmentAgain the point is that you can't invest in a train, dumbfuck. That was the entire point. You can invest in a transit pass or something which involves economics of government that you have proven woefully incapable of discussing and is thus not a reasonable comparison to a car. >you underrate your legs get off your fat assProving other anon correct that you're unable to make a point, only fling insults. In the years that you have not yet lived, I have spent more miles commuting with my legs than you ever will. There's nothing you can tell me about bikes, cars, or trains that I do not already know (certainly none of the entry-level dumbshit in this post:>>1977997). Meanwhile, your only response to my point about the utility of a car is to shove your head as far up your own asshole as humanly possible (then call others reddit lmao.)>cars are the most overrated thing ever inventedNot in the slightest, you're just too stupid to think outside your tiny little city bubble and the utopian fantasy alternative. Just like all the other idiots who failed algebra, geometry and economics (and history for good measure) then go shilling public services, all you can think about is yourself, and that poorly.Roads predate rail. Roads predate cars. Rail Shills love to claim "America was built on rail" but it was built on roads and rivers first. Rail lost to cars and trucks because rail is worse for most use cases. Rail was only better when the alternative was horse-drawn wagons. Rail does not scale outward or downward well. Even if you could build railroads to every little town all over the massive map of the US, you would not be able to run useful service. It would be orders of magnitude worse than the simple efficacy of cars and trucks. Even in Europe, road networks have broader access than rail.
>>1974908Each of those planes are HOURS, and half dozens of Miles apart.Not to mention, the sky has several different levels of elevation planes can travel.So you can literally have planes fly on top/bottom of each other, and still be half dozen miles apart.
>>1978121 “The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom",,,,,hyperfine,,,,hyperfine?,,,inbetween the hype is infinite,,one second lasts infinetly,,ifyou could just seeit.,,,,,,God islike that,,,,in all directions,,inall times.,,,,,,SO, ANYTHING CANHAPPEN!,atany time.,,,,,,,praying that YOU happen in the best way posible.,every second.
>>1977673Thumbnail looks like a woman in white latex shitting out gold coins
>>1977997>train is faster comfier>bike is cheaper more fun and faster lol, delusional tranny lies on full display>i did but you just refuse to readno you didn't, bitch
>>1977935>The issue is that the exact means by which we power our mechanisms to control our environment is in a positive feedback loop with the means by which the environment becomes more oppressive to our way of lifeCracking a thesaurus doesn't change the fact that "carbon causes global warming" has zero evidence (at least evidence that can't be explained away with irreproducibility or natural variations in climate) and the only logic supporting it is circular. Plus which, the biggest proponents never play by their own rules, which you'd think they would if "climate change" was the life-ending cataclysm they keep advertising.
>>1977776Nobody cares about that stuff, just give up and be gay or something I'm not even trying to be mean.
>>1975555Eat shit and die commie boy
As the San Onofre nuclear power plant is decommissioned over the next 20 years, the twin domes visible from Interstate 5 will disappear. But the most dangerous legacy of the plant — thousands of highly radioactive spent fuel rods — may remain, just out of sight of the freeway.,,,About 100 feet away, on the other side of the seawall, the ocean waves pound the beach and surfers skim the waves. That fuel will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years.,,,,noworryswhat can gowrong?
>>1978161>the fact that "carbon causes global warming" has zero evidence (at least evidence that can't be explained away with irreproducibility or natural variations in climate)This is wrong. I know the argument you think you are making but your language is imprecise and misleading. The odds of "natural variation" explaining current global warming trends are nearly infinitesimal. Only retards desperate for an excuse cling to it.I'm not a climate panicker and I really hate all the fucking propaganda and hypocrisy. I think most of the discourse on the topic is retarded. There are definitely bogus predictions and absurdly tautological rhetoric (literally any bad weather event gets blamed on "climate change"). But a big part of the problem is the opposition (You) makes such a wonderful punching bag.Humans are definitely affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere (Keeling curve), there's a clear causal relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gasses and global temperature, and we're currently measuring anomalously high global temperatures that are BEST explained by human changes to the environment.
>>1978181>Humans are definitely affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere (Keeling curve)Granted, but given that trees, grass, plankton, etc take the C out of CO2 as their main function, I don't see this as a huge problem>there's a clear causal relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gasses and global temperatureThere's not, it's climate alarmism and coincidence.>and we're currently measuring anomalously high global temperatures that are BEST explained by human changesThis is just the synthesis of your first two points and I'm still unconvinced on the point of carbon causing temperatures. Especially when any data that refutes this gets repressed harder than "hydroxychloroquine cures covid" by climate orthodoxy.
>>1978188>Granted, but given that trees, grass, plankton, etc take the C out of CO2 as their main function, I don't see this as a huge problemThat's what the Keeling curve (picrel) is all about.Turns out there's this obvious (in retrospect) dynamic where deciduous foliage in the Northern Hemisphere drops their leaves in the fall and CO2 absorption stops, growing back in the spring to capture carbon all summer. That's the zigzag you can see in the graph, representing the difference between summer and winter for all leaf-dropping foliage in the northern hemisphere, minus the much smaller fraction of foliage in the southern hemisphere. You can see that the difference between 2023 and 1960 is 20 times greater than the yearly deciduous differential. There are lots of evergreen trees on the planet, but it's not 20 times more and they aren't growing at a massive rate.>There's notYes there is. The greenhouse effect is basic fucking thermodynamics and confirmed by overwhelming evidence including the fact that major climate shifts in history have been caused by the #1 greenhouse gas which is water vapor. When climate goes into a warming phase there's a feedback loop whereby warmer temperatures causes more water to evaporate leading to a stronger greenhouse effect leading to even warmer temperatures. >This is just the synthesis of your first two points No, it's not, I'm just not fleshing out the whole argument because if you had half a brain you'd be able to go research it yourself and wouldn't need me to spoonfeed everything.>Especially when any data that refutes this gets repressed harder thanData doesn't refute it. I don't approve of censorship but everything I've ever seen touted as "refuting" climate change is childish balony.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZxgoBgKqV0(note: this video is just a real climate scientist, teaching a practical course on climate, with no agenda. But of course, believe what you want.)
>>1978216>a real climate scientist, with no agendafucking lmao
>>1978280Somewhat off the rails but this thread is a train wreck so I'll just say it. I know a guy, from a very conservative family, who got into atmospheric physics for some reason because he's really smart. Long story short, he ended up doing climate research with some crazy math and supercomputers, obviously understood that global warming was a real thing, and caused by humans, and he got so fed up with the science being subordinated to politics and ideology that he said fuck it, quit his job, and accepted a job with a hedge fund instead where he makes obscene amounts of money and doesn't have to listen to insane republicans calling him a libtard for being able to understand, admittedly not very basic math. So he moved out of my middle class area and now lives in a fucking posh as fuck condo in an incredibly expensive neighborhood. Thank you for reading my blog.
>>1978180Nothing. Similar systems survived at Fukushima and the East Coast US earthquakes in 2011 with absolutely no issues. They were subjected to beyond design basis events and the disposition was use as-is. The only marginal risk at SONGS with the U-MAX is a flooding event but that would improve heat rejection.
You can't debate the superiority of steel on steel versus rubber on asphalt for cargo. Reduces wear on the road, reduces particulate debris, reduces congestion, reduces traffic accidents, reduces energy expenditure.You don't need to use highly dubious global warming arguments to be for cargo trains.
>>1978283>Nothingwew,,,glad youcould clear that up!,,andthinkofall that NASTY CARBON wewill save the world from!,,,,carbon captured,,itsuch a hideous poison,,,Think of thetrees!,,,are you exhaleing AGAIN?!,,wearyoumask!,>>1978124>>1978282>know a gay>>>1978282>he's really smart>>1978282>crazy math and supercomputers
>>1978280Laugh all you want and keep being wrong, fucking moron.His main interest seems to be time lapse videos of cloud formations and his research focus was the fucking New Mexican monsoon. He published a course on weather and most of his lectures have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, but much more fascinating stuff like:>How storms work (covers tornadoes and hail as well):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM5eckZ_Iks>Fronts/Mid-latitude Cyclones (the dominant weather pattern where I live):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sK0Dl_C8jQBut by all means, continue to stay retarded and totally embarrass yourself whenever trying to argue about climate change without actually taking time to udnerstand it. You could watch the legitimately interesting deep-dives into meteorology and climate I have linked (with very modest view counts, this is not mainstream propaganda I'm giving you, here). You could gain practical, applicable knowledge about the world around you. But you won't, because this is /n/ and almost everyone on this board is religiously fucking stupid.>>1978286Yeah the problem is that railroads can't reach every relevant destination. Every box store needs a truck. Residential furniture delivery all needs to be trucks. Restaurant suppliers deliver fresh bread and produce daily, not feasible via rail-- must go by road. Even if you could build rail everywhere, you'll hit limitations running useful service to every necessary destination on the network.Rail is great for heavy, long-distance overland freight, but not all-purpose shipping.
>>19783072024, the year bacon went from harmless schizo to qanon freak
>>1978282There are generally 3 relevant categories in these politicized issues. Two partisan factions and working people (scientists, engineers and local policymakers) who just have some problem to solve. Eg wtf do we do about the Panama Canal? How much rainfall will the Colorado basin get in the next 10 years? The scientists and engineers want the best possible answers to these questions to make useful predictions and design systems accordingly. The politards never have anything useful to say here one way or the other. For short-term/mid-term problems that need to be solved, drastic government-enforced social changes aren't on the table anyway so they have no real horse in the race. They need to know the truth.With shit like climate change and evolution, there's rarely ever a serious problem. Energy companies may come into conflict with environmentalist goals but otherwise it's just background noise. Meanwhile, when it comes to fields where leftoids get it wrong, like gender identity and race, the opposite is true and "working problem-solvers" have to tread very carefully to avoid ending their career over a minor religious offence.The difference on /n/ is that there's only one cult of politards. You have some "working people" who are just busy making decisions about moving place to place, interested in practical knowledge of bicycles, trains, boats, planes and so on. Then you have the urbanist cult deeply committed to their utopian visions and shilling for their owner's political agendas. That's it. There are no opposition shills, just normal reactions from sane people able to recognize their bullshit. And every so often you get an America-obsessed Euro who takes the side of the lunatics without really understanding.
>>1975161>Planes count for maybe 8% of world oil consumptionand how much actual economic activity is tied to the use of jets? i doubt its 8%. so it seems like they are disproportionately bad, compared to any other means of transportation for goods and passengers
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7ZuZI8OcdUzs/
>>1978282and then everyone clapped
>>1978370>bitchuteSo what is it, child porn, some nazi who got kicked off youtube, or an ISIS beheading video?
>>1978309Just want to note, I'm the guy you've been having a back-and-forth with 1978188, 1978161, and 1977195, but not 1978280. I try not to be so flippant when someone is trying to have an actual discussion. Though he is right in that climate scientists are funded almost entirely by interests that want to see proof of manmade climate change, it's an inherent conflict of interest. The video you linked, I skimmed through it (sorry, I don't have an hour to burn) but what I gathered was exhaustive proof that climate change exists. All well and good, but I'm not arguing whether it exists, I'm arguing whether it's manmade and linked to CO2. Plus which, a couple degrees in temperature over a century is peanuts compared to other ecological disasters like plastics, heavy metals, and CFCs (ni hao, Xina). Global warming, as far as I've seen, can still be explained away with the fact that Earth is still coming out of an ice age.
>>1978340>and how much actual economic activity is tied to the use of jets? I can't give you a number, but I can tell you it's more than you think. I used to work for a company that made electrical instruments, and when we had a rush order we would fly the parts in on jets (as opposed to cargo ship). You'd be amazed how much of the belly of any given plane is devoted to things other than suitcases.
>>1978388> Though he is right in that climate scientists are funded almost entirely by interests that want to see proof of manmade climate changeNot true. Just the ones you hear about. And in this case I was careless to use the term "climate scientist" in the first place when a better term would be meteorologist. Either way, you can always analyze the arguments.>All well and good, but I'm not arguing whether it exists, I'm arguing whether it's manmade and linked to CO2That video (along with the previous one that I didn't link) outlines the case that scientists have traced climate back hundreds of thousands of years, and we have a pretty solid range of natural explanations for every climate shift. We have sunspot records going back to the invention of the telescope (Galileo's letters on sunspots is a great read by the way). We have records of volcanic eruptions. We have prehistoric atmosphere samples from air bubbles trapped in ice cores from glaciers, so we can track things like carbon in the atmosphere. We can see how all these things affected climate. None of them are acting now.1. Greenhouse effect is known to increase global temperatures.2. Humans are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.3. Global warming is observed to be happening, at rates that align with human CO2 emissions4. There is no other known explanation for this anomalous global warming other than human-driven greenhouse gas emissions. No other forces that fit the data have been observed.I've seen various anti-climate change shill arguments (most not covered in the video) and none of them actually propose a workable hypothesis to fit the data with any evidence at all. Usually it's either debunking a straw man doomsday climate model long-term prediction from some headline-seeking asshole, or posting logarithmic graphs of global temperatures with disingenuous implications.
>>1978340probably more than 8%>so it seems like they are disproportionately bad, compared to any other means of transportation for goods and passengerstypical /n/ failure to grasp economics.
>>1978400>Global warming is observed to be happeningIt's called "climate change" chud, global warming lie was debunked and discredited years ago. Now it's schrodingr's climate and we have to implement communism to stop that.
>>1978480Yes you are up on the dumb rhetoric deployed by politards on both sides. It's basically rhetoric to account for the fact that there's noise in the data. The actual observation is warming of the global average temperature of the atmosphere over years. Global warming is really the better term for it.
>>1978377>beheadevil.000000000000000.02%,the bottom line,,,,lots of Science YOU seem to ignore?,,,,,,no,,you KNOWIT!,,YOU willfully wanto KILL ALLIFE!,,,evilier.
>>1978491>The actual observation is warming of the global average temperature of the atmosphere over years.now measure the temperature outside of overheated concrete paved cities
>>1978546Typical /n/ retard comment. Temperature is measured at diverse stations all over the planet. They measure temperature in the upper atmosphere with balloons.
>>1978128i am her
>>1978163i gave up and be'd gay yes
>>1974908you know they are not in fact that big in real life, right?
>>1974908Let me explain it since your brain seems too tiny to understand the obvious. Those planes are scalled maybe 10.000 bigger than their real size. If the plane icons were true to scale, then the map would look absolutely empty and the skies wouldn't look crowded like that image.The icons are disproportional to the reality so that it looks cool and easy to see from a distance.Lastly, even though aviation is only 2% of worldwide GHG emissions, it gets massive amounts of scrutiny. Worrying about bigger problems such as inefficient heating in housing (much bigger proportion of GHG), individual car transportation etc would be much more useful.There is no denying planes uses a shit load of fuel (even though mile per mile they are about as efficient as a prius), the ease of travel planes provide means it encourages people to move distances they would never do in their cars, therefore emitting a lot more co2.
>>1979399>>1979370>emitting a lot more co2oxelatedbicarbonate?,,,thereal problem is all that nasty FLAMEABLE,,,,,OXYGEN!,the planet KILLER oxegen.,,,STOP AIR! if we just get rid ofitall we can SAVE THE WORLD from life.,,without oxygen there would be less fires,,,and YOU dont want dangerous fire doyou?,THINK OF MAUI!,oxygen makes CO2 when humanstart breathing!! what? areyou a science DENNIER?!,,,,BLOCK the SUN!!stop photosynthisis from greening the place up!,all that food just incourages animals to get Happy!,then they fart,,and we KNOW cow farts are a MAJOR cause of CLIMATE DISTRACTION!,sure,methane is fuel,,,BUT,,, BAD!,,,?,,,,,,,,,gaslighthe gateway.
>>1974908>reeeee i seee bunch of yellow planes on screen cluttered together, in my dumb opinion it is unsustainable earth is pretty big and there are professionals who take care of this with ease. chill
>>1974908Don't worry, you will pay the carbon tax on each flight and that will make it sustainable.
overseas vacations should be illegal
>>1974908this civilization is not sustainable in the long termhope that helps you sleep better at night
>>1974908>am i retarded how is this possible>this doesnt seem sustainable in the long termThere are 7 billion people in the world. If even 1% of 1% of them are flying on any given day, that's still 700,000 people flying somewhere. A passenger plane can carry 850 people max. 700,000/850 = 823 planes needed to fly those people per day. That's how you get the image in the OP.
>>1981612I don't want to be this guy but as an old world human I know what's it's like to run on outdated propaganda, there's actually 8.1B people in the world now so your numbers need to be bumped up by over 10%. Wild how exponential humans are, right?
>>1976128>nuclear powered ocean liners
>>1981590nanopolution,,,justatiny bit addedover time addsup.,,,,,if we stopersistent poisons,,,,then wecan grow way more and stay OK.,,its the poisons,nothe people.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-38729-xHerbicides are the most commonly used means of controlling weeds. Recently, there has been growing concern over the potential impacts of global climate change, specifically, increasing temperatures and elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, on the sensitivity of weeds to herbicides.climatechanger,,plants fighting back on Glychosphate.
>>1974908My theory is It’s a soft power thing. most of those planes/routes are subsidized by European taxpayers as a matter of national security. why does every major US city need a direct connection to every European capital? Why the fuck does Chicago need a direct flight to Vienna?
Blottingouthe Sun,,,,,,, stealingall the co2,,,,its like hatred of life,,,,who would wanthishit?,,Who?
>>1981585The first step is to ban private jets: if anyone is caught landing one in any given country, they will be arrested and/or shot on sight. This will force the billionaires who currently can do ANYTHING without consequence to fly public. Next you lobby to ban first class in planes. This lets you move more people with less planes, reducing emissions.By attacking the upper class first you finally make the people who pollute the most PAY FOR THEIR SINS. This alone would reduce emissions without affecting 99% of the population. Then and only then do you consider actions that affect the middle class, and at that stage they may not need to be drastic.
>>1985938>force the billionairesAnon, you have to be 18 to post here...
>>1985944>being against wealth inequality is now seen as an extreme position that only a child would holdjust as planned
>>1985949You can still hold similar views without without having violent childish fantasies and getting a deeper than elementary school level understanding of how the world works, kiddoThough once you grow up and learn more then those views will hopefully become more refined even if the core idea is the same.
>>1986398>requiring rich people to sit in a comfy leather chair instead of a comfy leather sofa is violencewhat actually, if anything, goes on in the minds of people who say this kind of shit? do you see yourself as a temporarily embarrassed billionaire?
>>1986418You are retarded, but I already knew that since you are a communist. I wasn't even arguing the morality of banning private jets, I was saying it's impossible. Billionaires OWN politicians, any who propose making life slightly inconvenient for people with that much money suddenly find that their opponents get more campaign contributions while theirs dry up like a puddle in the Mojave. Then the news (funded in part by those same billionaires) starts running hit pieces on them 24/7. Even if the "Ban Private Jets" bill passed, there would be exceptions that any billionaire could easily take advantage of, like "corporate jets" or "it's ok if you're in the Clear Skies Club" that invites every billionaire.Tldr you're a dumbfuck for thinking laws apply to people with that much influence, the only thing they'll listen to is violence, which is why they keep you distracted with idpol.
>>1986428yeah only communists think inequality is badanyway I'm glad you've capitulated and gone with the "I was only pretending to be retarded" maneuver
CO2 is an essential nutrient for land-based plants. The Earth's biosphere has also experienced a relative CO2 famine for many millennia—the recent increase in CO2 levels has thus had a measurable, positive effect on plant life.
>>1986450Bacon,,,?
>>1986428Yeah it's impossible but I can still dream desu
>>1974914do you find work locally when you get to a new place?
>>1974961>Take my love, take my land, Take me where I cannot stand
Oil is cheap and abundant. The Jew is the one who choking the flow in order to jew to the maximum.
>>1986450Plants have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 when it is truly limiting. Also note that at 400ppm on your graph (where we were a decade or so ago) it is 90% of the way to optimal.
At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped.-By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history.-Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 9000 ppm,,,,Blink!,,CO2 is agood thing!,,plants would like more Please!,>>1987001>90% of the way to optimalletsask,,,the Science,,,youdo, trust science dontyou?,,,PLANTS WANTONS MORE!!!,,ilike trees.
>>1974968way to ruin an interesting pic faggot. The original was pretty much the opposite.
>>1987014>when the ironic schizo turns out to be an actual schizo
>>1974908it isn'tmost of those are turists
make cars less heavy
>>1987517showmewhere thevil carbon touched you?,YOU> points to jar on shelf.
>>1976121Dude I think that analogy is so basic that if you need to say it is dumb without elucidating, I question if you can elucidate.Do you think the analogy of a house to a planet is not useful? Why?I actually want to hear in detail the analogy you would use to convey your perspective on waste management on Earth.
>>1988089>,Can I ask why your posts are dotted with commas in a way I have never seen another English writer employ?
>>1988068>rail lines through Siberian wasteland
>>1974908Electric planes will continue to fly long after Oil runs out.
>>1988442he's trying to be le quirky holds up spork eccentric person, sometimes he forgets he has his tripcode on and he posts in the style of your retired uncle who spends all day on facebook and forwards racist chain emails to your work email even when you told him to stop like 20 times already
>>1991512>Rookie doesn't know about Bacon RiderSad!
>>1991513you're the one who asked
>>1991516>she thinks every anon is the same person
>>1991516I'm >>1988442 , >>1991513 isn't me.That gives me enough context, thanks.
>>1991543>>1991513>>1991512>Engaging in tripfag discussionThis board is going down the tubes, fuck all of you
>>1991557I know what you mean but a Bacon Rider post is a blessing
>>1991560this, newfags don't know who Bacon even is, he's not "just" a tripfag but one of the few legendary tripfags of all of 4ch.>>1991557this board has gone downhill since the popularization and mainstreamization of urba/n/ism and anti-car-dependency but at the same time, it's understandable as this board has been moving faster than ever, as slow as it is still, back in the day, we've had threads survive over 4 years.
>>1974908There are a whole lot of people in the world. Probably more than you think, even if you know the numbers it’s hard to really conceptualize the sheer scale of the modern population. And some of those people need to fly places.
>>1991560not really though, he was fine until he turned into... whatever this is. /pol/ schizo>>1991564I was here when people were still mad that /n/ wasn't old /pol/. wasting your life here isn't something to be proud of
>>1981578Unironically, increasing final price via taxes will curb the demand anon. Thus making it more sustainable and keeping the poor grounded.
>>1991914Get a load of oscar romero here taking a bullet from the woke mob who would steal the the poor oppressed oligarchs's gulfstream jets if not for their heroic martyr defending their right to shit up the planet
>>1988068>making third world migration to the first world easier than everCan't wait for Europeans to get Hondurans
>>1991914This, I also support oppressing the poor furtherThey are getting out of line these days
I work for a mid-tier carrier as customer support, traps are gay, any other questions?
any trip that can be replaced by an electric train should be. end of discussion.
>>1974908If you feel that is bad, go on Marine Traffic and zoom out. There are.. an awful lot of ships.
>>1974968i hate to say it, because i want to return to anprim, but every time i begin to think "oh i just realized we'll probably run through the world's fuel reserves by the time i get old" i find out that the US government has just found another century's worth of oil somewhere really remotebasically we're simultaneously being led to constantly fearmonger and becoming slaves to the endless reserves of fuel that keep getting more expensivesure one day it will run out, but we'll be dead by then, and by that point nuclear energy might replace everything if the next generations are smart>buht uranium will run out in like 60 yearsbreeder reactors can run for the next 4 billion years (4.3e+09 years) on just whats approximately on earthbillions must breed
>>1974971Economics follow the process, not the other way around. It's not economically feasible right now because no effort's been put into it, so no infrastructure is being made to make it more logistically and economically convenient. Prototypes are always expensive and unwieldy, that's why they're prototypes and not the final product.
>>1987517At this point schizo is nuspeak for heretic.
>>1974908You could replace humans with robots and there will still be a large amount of airplanes, even more so now that there are no pilots
>>2008234kys
>>1975185That's a plot of changes, not absolute acreage. It totally gives a false picture of the significance of things.
>>2005121There certainly is research being done into putting oil-producing enzymes into microbes. It's not the highest priority thing ever, but it is being done and will result in an effectively infinite supply. Price will be whatever it is economic to be, but we'll have oil for thousands of years if we feel it is important, and it will be as carbon neutral as we care to make it.
>>1974908Reminder that both Africa, and Asia have not reached full market maturity. Even Latin America is lacking in some aspects of Air travel and transport maturity when you compare it to Europe and the USA.
>>1974911>living within your means is "cuckoldry"When will you short sighted faggots get out of my party, and stop pretend you are real men?
>>1975006>burning oil is badprove it or fuck off.
>>1988072based
>>2011986You don't own it. You are a hilarious dependent. That's all you need to know.
>>2011986I can burn a pan of oil right next to you every day for the next 2 years if you want. What's your address?
>>1974992>There's 5 fuel A left>We have a stock of 50,000 of B and C fuel>Make it use C
>>1974968Look up abiotic oil. Oil fields mysteriously refill.
>>1986450Truth
>>2014469>Spend more than half of the fuel creating something capable of using the fuel at a large enough capacity to satiate the demand
>>1974908This is what you get for forsaking zeppelins
>>1975268has any serious study been done on the lignite-derived avaition fuel J2 to examine the economics of producing it today or even just preserve the knowledge of how the germans did it? I found one document about it made by an american group in the 70s but then I left the tab open for weeks without reading it and then my browser crashed and I couldn't find it again
>>2015667That's basically what all the south african fuel comes from, and the process is very much the same as the production of the planned sustainable aviation fuels except for the source of synthesis gas (which is the easiest part of the process)
>>1975311>all motorised travel is roughly equally irresponsiblewhoa no shit sherlock!
>>1974908It is because planes are much faster than boats. If you're running low on oil, just make more.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8468670/
>>2014470Haha, and where does it come from?
what fraction of the movement is people moving around to do things that could be done remotelyhalf?ZOG pays for their golems to fly around to "oppressed" areas and then fly back monthly
>>2020886bacon evading his ban again
>>2020895Why the fuck is bacon banned?
>>1974961Awesome, when do you plan on fellating a shotgun?
climatechange,,,ondemand.
