The Debbie Downer approach to global warming is fatiguing and we deserve to enjoy some of the silver linings. People spent centuries searching for the Northwest Passage until we just finally created one. Cool!
-
Show this thread
-
My home is about 10 meters above sea level, I really dislike the one neighbor who lives between me and the ocean, and so I'm kind of excited to lose the Greenland ice cap.
2 replies 8 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
I find the Democrats' decision to frame global warming as "we will have billions of refugees, exacerbating global injustices" instead of "this is a huge opportunity for American technology and if we play it right we can make a fortune" pretty regrettable. Gotta learn to sell it.
7 replies 9 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
The part of the "Climate Emergency" messaging I hate is the implication that we can save things if we act aggressively right now. We are not being honest with people. The choice is between a 3º and 4ºC warmer world (or whatever it is), not about preserving what we have right now.
3 replies 6 retweets 51 likesShow this thread -
We're also not being honest about who will get to make the choice, which is basically billions of people in Asia who might prefer a hot industrialized life where you can blast the A/C to slightly less hot subsistence farming. You can't just tell them 'no' so we can keep Miami.
4 replies 4 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
My rosy outcome scenario for global warming is massive population shifts out of the American south and West that fix the rural skew in Senate representation, and a Florida that finally submerges just as it becomes a Republican lock.
3 replies 4 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
Final point in this rant—it's incoherent to say climate change is a crisis if you oppose good old American fission. Nuclear energy is (bright, glowing) green energy that requires no technological breakthroughs, emits no carbon, and we should be building reactors by the dozen.
9 replies 12 retweets 91 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
Nuclear energy is a dumb way to approach dealing with climate change given the last nuclear plant that was started in America was started in 2007, and still isn't producing power. And it gets even dumber when you realize that solar and wind are considerably cheaper per KWH.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @james_roe
Those are all great arguments that it's currently overregulated.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
Even in places with much looser regulations they take around 5 years on average to install. If any of the self contained microreactors can deliver power at KWH costs approaching solar or wind nuclear will be worth reexamining, but so far they're all lab products.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm fine with breaking ground on modern versions of the large ones as a start, and relaxing the regulatory anaconda on their construction and operation a bit.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard
OK, but you haven't actually given a reason to do it. Costs more, takes longer. Bad from a deployment standpoint, and an economic one.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @james_roe
My contention is that the cost and the time it takes are both related to the regulatory burden more than the technology itself. The reason to do it would be to replace coal and oil plants as quickly as possible while bringing alternatives online too.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.