To, once again, make things absolutely clear right from the start, so that there's no confusion about my position: Yes, anthropogenic climate change is real, climatologists know what they are talking about, there is no conspiracy nor hoax, and it's an actual real problem that affects the entire world, and it could well have very bad consequences for all of us in the next 50-100 years or so, if its course is not changed. I trust actual scientists more than conspiracy theorists and politicians. The scientists know what they are talking about, and the scientific process makes sure that any sort of conspiracy or hoax is pretty much a physical impossibility. So yes, it is a real problem, and something should be done about it.
However, now that's out of the way, let me tell you why these massive climate change protests in the west, and especially here in Finland, are absolutely idiotic. There are two main reasons for this.
Firstly, since we do indeed need to do something about pollution and CO2 emissions, how about we start with the biggest culprits in this regard?
Cutting emissions in Finland does jack shit about the global CO2 emissions problem. It's like putting out a campfire to stop it from polluting, while at the same time there's a football field right in the neighbor stock full of burning coal and rubber, burning 24/7, and doing nothing about it. Putting out the small campfire is not going do anything to the actual issue. How about we start with the biggest polluters, ie. China, India, the United States, and the other such countries?
Finland's contribution to the total worldwide CO2 and other types of emissions is minuscule. Cutting it by a small percentage isn't going to do anything to the actual problem. It's a faux solution. It's only virtue-signaling.
For example, Finland widely uses district heating in its cities, which is a very economic, efficient and very environmentally friendly form of heating large amounts of domiciles. Finland has some of the strictest limits on car emissions in the world (and have had such for many decades). Even on a per capita basis Finland's emissions are very small. The raw numbers are simply minuscule compared to most other countries.
Meanwhile China widely uses burning coal to heat domiciles, with exactly zero filtering of the burning byproducts. And there are essentially no restrictions on how many emissions cars can have. China's industry is the most polluting in the entire world. How about we start there?
The second reason why these protests are idiotic is because their demands are naive, unrealistic and completely counter-productive.
Do you know what would be the most efficient way to cut CO2 emissions and other pollutants in a country? Replacing all natural gas, biomass and oil-powered power plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear plants have almost zero CO2 emissions, and even when taken into account the mining of nuclear fuel, they have the lowest emissions in proportion to the amount of energy they produce.
But do these protests demand more nuclear power to replace the polluting forms of power production? Of course not. Because nuclear power is scaaaaary. It would be unthinkable for them to demand that.
Instead, country after country is getting rid of their nuclear plants, while their CO2 emissions are going up, not down. For example, Germany has got almost completely rid of their nuclear plants, while at the same time they have become one of the biggest polluters of Europe. In contrast, France produces over 80% of their energy using nuclear plants, and their CO2 emissions is less than half that of Germany.
But noooo, we can't have nuclear power. Because it's bad.
All these protesters are idiots.
However, now that's out of the way, let me tell you why these massive climate change protests in the west, and especially here in Finland, are absolutely idiotic. There are two main reasons for this.
Firstly, since we do indeed need to do something about pollution and CO2 emissions, how about we start with the biggest culprits in this regard?
Cutting emissions in Finland does jack shit about the global CO2 emissions problem. It's like putting out a campfire to stop it from polluting, while at the same time there's a football field right in the neighbor stock full of burning coal and rubber, burning 24/7, and doing nothing about it. Putting out the small campfire is not going do anything to the actual issue. How about we start with the biggest polluters, ie. China, India, the United States, and the other such countries?
Finland's contribution to the total worldwide CO2 and other types of emissions is minuscule. Cutting it by a small percentage isn't going to do anything to the actual problem. It's a faux solution. It's only virtue-signaling.
For example, Finland widely uses district heating in its cities, which is a very economic, efficient and very environmentally friendly form of heating large amounts of domiciles. Finland has some of the strictest limits on car emissions in the world (and have had such for many decades). Even on a per capita basis Finland's emissions are very small. The raw numbers are simply minuscule compared to most other countries.
Meanwhile China widely uses burning coal to heat domiciles, with exactly zero filtering of the burning byproducts. And there are essentially no restrictions on how many emissions cars can have. China's industry is the most polluting in the entire world. How about we start there?
The second reason why these protests are idiotic is because their demands are naive, unrealistic and completely counter-productive.
Do you know what would be the most efficient way to cut CO2 emissions and other pollutants in a country? Replacing all natural gas, biomass and oil-powered power plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear plants have almost zero CO2 emissions, and even when taken into account the mining of nuclear fuel, they have the lowest emissions in proportion to the amount of energy they produce.
But do these protests demand more nuclear power to replace the polluting forms of power production? Of course not. Because nuclear power is scaaaaary. It would be unthinkable for them to demand that.
Instead, country after country is getting rid of their nuclear plants, while their CO2 emissions are going up, not down. For example, Germany has got almost completely rid of their nuclear plants, while at the same time they have become one of the biggest polluters of Europe. In contrast, France produces over 80% of their energy using nuclear plants, and their CO2 emissions is less than half that of Germany.
But noooo, we can't have nuclear power. Because it's bad.
All these protesters are idiots.
Comments
Post a Comment