Windmill Designer
You are the utter cunt here yourself, with your short-sighted opinion. Can’t you see the parallel in polluting something of value? Like is being done to our planet? And those people’s grandchildren will be even more annoyed when they have hardly any food left, with weather catastrophies ruining their existence. OK, that was a bit harsh, but you catch my drift.
Wouldn’t sexism be even more prevalent in right-wing spaces? Or would you say that it’s pretty evenly distributed over the political spectrum?
What I didn’t see in the reactions yet is that a lot of Americans do not want any government involvement at all. Save for things that are supposedly written down in the Bible. The Republican party is providing just that, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual and don’t forget: anti-minority. Just people being tough and dare to support the party who will turn the clock back to when times were perceived to be better. Same sentiment is present in Europe by the way, like it was a century ago.
The solutions are there, but nobody will risk loss of power or popularity. But no worries, nature will strike back harder and harder.
Biggest thing against nuclear power is the cost associated with it. Other, sustainable sources of energy like wind and solar, combined with hydrogen and batteries, are way cheaper due to their simplicity. Thorium reactors are a nice idea but need so much development (costs) that they will take a while to become a reality, if ever at all. Probably nuclear fusion will be available sooner than thorium fission for power generation, which also needs decades of development. And then there’s still the problem of nuclear waste. Maybe not a huge problem, but still one without a viable solution.
That’s no way to behave as a guest.
So right side up means its on it’s side?
Just go eat plant-based all together, so we won’t have these problems that endanger the existence of life on our planet. Including humans.
Why would they assume the whales were having sex for the first time?
Too bad you only care about how they taste, not about how they’re treated, killed, warm up the atmosphere and cause a loss in biodiversity.
Still, eating meat in today’s society is a choice you don’t have to make. Having a pleasant taste in your mouth on one hand versus climate warming, loss of biodiversity and animal cruelty. Even when locally grown. For me, the choice is not hard to make.
Can’t imagine that extraterrestrial aliens would be more weird than what is population our oceans.
Let’s just stop trying out new referenda, OK?
Let’s hope that the rest of the school takes on the same hair dress, just for support.
Well, your view is not unbiased, perhaps it’s difficult to do here, given the limited amount of writing room. And in a discussion it seems to be obligatory to only mention the parts that are favourable to one’s personal outcome, somehow. But still. Even though you seem very convinced on the pros of nuclear, others still beg to differ. Like this research shows. Money remains an important driver of the whole issue, and money being spent on nuclear cannot be spent again on wind turbines or batteries. Unbiased information is difficult to get online however, most websites on the matter have preconceived ideas that they present. Nuclear waste also concerns medium and low level waste, which are a lesser problem, but still a problem in larger quantities. And high nuclear waste remain radioactive longer than homo sapiens has been around, so although the quantity is not a lot, its longevity makes up for it, so it remains quite a problem for which no final solution has been found. As I wrote earlier: the debate is not over just yet, otherwise it would not be newsworthy every time again. Strong opinions on both sides do not make up for it, usually a strong opinion is not backed up by knowledge and facts alone, but also on feelings and emotions, otherwise it would not be a strong opinion. Which makes the discussion more difficult.
The arguments of Greenpeace against nuclear power have nothing to do with age though. It’s too expensive, which takes money away from e.g. wind and solar, with less carbon-free energy in the end for the money spent and more fossil fuels being used as a consequence. And still produces nuclear waste. Just develop batteries, hydrogen and the likes for storage. And ban or tax the use of fossil fuels. This debate is not over yet, not by a long shot, and climate will remain in the news as long as we live, I’m afraid.
There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was locked up innocently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk
I’m not saying that it’s the same scenario here, but I would remain careful in passing judgement.
There was this case of Lucia de Berk who was convicted on statistics like these, although she was innocent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk
Perhaps your chances with Michelle are better than you thought!
As she did not confess in court, I’m keeping the option open that she could be innocent. We’ve had those cases before.
Seems that Austria is just as racist as France, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, England or the USA. I probably missed a few along the way.