You are not gonna slow down anything with that. For AT LEAST slightly slowing down you need to stop many of them at the same time and doing it regularly, but at that level of organizing it's better to just start taking over.
>>1314664<N-no direct action doesn't work don't try it
t. Increasingly nervous glowpork.
is right. what we've seen so far, while certainly brave and enmoralizing, needs greater sophistication to truly be effective. we're talking of industrial action here, and there's plenty of evidence that limited action is far less effective compared to what say a union can pull off. just look at the energy strike in France
Okay? And you think the rest of us should just sit on our hands and wait for you to organise the unions?
No, you should organize unions too. It doesn't matter if they are working in industry or not, unions supporting each other creates a much bigger pressure on capitalists. Especially if it's an international support where porkies can't just say "hey, if we can't build this dirty plant in France, we build it in a country with less unions" or something.
no what I'm saying is anarchic action lacks strategy
You can do that if you want but you should tell or expect others not to act.
>>1314728>You can do that if you want but you should tell or expect others not to act.
what kind of BS is this? industrial action benefits from scale
True, same reason guerilla war never works.
This is why nobody likes you anon, you being the type of communist that inhabit lefttpol and other online forums.
I'm not trying to be mean but you simply can't expect anyone to stop what they're doing andeprk on the projects you think they need to be working on… I mean, if you think projects and movements could be well served by Union adjitation then you go off and do it.
Often people like this very much struggle with the necessary DIY concept we have universaly developed, nothing is going to created through suggestions and strategy proclamations.
>more climate effective ways to deliver the same energy services
>starts off talking about a conspiracy by Big Nuclear to suppress this info
shouldve stopped here
>Six months ago, a report by the International Energy Agency claimed that not sustaining and even expanding nuclear power would make climate solutions “drastically harder and more costly.” To check that claim, we must compare nuclear power with other potential climate solutions. What criteria should we use? Here I’ll use only two—cost and speed—because if nuclear power has no business case or takes too long, we need not address its other merits or drawbacks.
stopped reading, also its forbes
imagine caring about eco cucked corporate propaganda
which is why we need gas a transition fuel, and oil and coal, in fact forget the transition
people always mention how much cheaper renewable but no one takes into account storage of energy, one of the problems that keeping nuclear in the mix is supposed to solve, there are no good methods at scale yet, the ones involved have a lot of drawbacks
Not just storage but reliability and transport. Solar and wind just doesn't cut it. So the more honest climate panic mongers understand that moving the 82% of the energy consumption that is fossil fuel based over to pixie dust requires a genocidal drop in the standard of living. Fuck that and fuck them.
>>1321304>>1331541>Solar and wind just doesn't cut it
Build many times more than you need, connect the grid, most of the need for baseload is then already eliminated, build battery parks for the rest, you're at 100% renewables in most of the world in fifteen years with a good plan and today's tech.
Maybe the richest parts of the world would see a little drop of quality of life in the process, but the guys who can't build big ass power plants and high voltage lines now can build cheap solar panels and batteries for their random African village because economy of scale makes that possible.
Nuclear is basically done as baseload because 1) the abundance of renewables are in the process of killing the concept of baseload 2) without the heaviest of state subsidies because it just can't compete in market conditions. "Let's plan the economy then" you tell me, well ok, but why would we spend unnecessary efforts building arguably dangerous nuclear reactors so they can be ready in 30 years when we can build windmills, solar panels and batteries that can actually solve problems for the poorest part of humanity for way less work and resources.
>>1331554> Build many times more than you need, connect the grid, most of the need for baseload is then already eliminated, build battery parks for the rest, you're at 100% renewables in most of the world in fifteen years with a good plan and today's tech.
Even if you were not pants-on-head i-am-a-humanities-major wrong, your millennarian monomania blinds you to the much worse environmental impacts with regards to extraction, manufacture, transport, and disposal of the aforementioned pixiedust infrastructure, not to mention the deleterious impact on food security and wildlife. Where the fuck do you think your 10000 hectare bird-slaughtering parks will be situated?
> Maybe the richest parts of the world would see a little drop of quality of life in the process,
take the pants off your head.
you WILL eat the bugs because of uh carbon or something even though the temperature is dropping every year
Oh but the birds and bugs are already done man, and they're not dying because of windmills. There is very potent stuff we could ideally do now to address those issues like putting an end to cattle raising and fishing, and stop producing so much useless shit.
But to get back to nuclear, do you know how uranium is made? You need whole chunks of land where you'll pour sulfuric acid into the ground to extract the fuel, you need to make exclusion zones of a thousand km² around those sites because the pollution is so high it will kill people. While if you put solar panels (made of sand) on the same area of a uranium mine site in okay sunny conditions, you'll get roughly the same energy the uranium mined would produce. As a bonus, you can build a solar panel factory wherever you want, and you can put those panels in dirt poor countries torn by corruption or even civil war. But who cares about impoverished people, atom exploding cool because reddit said so am I right?
Uranium is better than pixiedust, because it actually exists.
That said, its judicious exploitation of fossil fuels that enabled China to eradicate poverty, just as it did the West relative to historical levels.
LMFAO at the guy trying to guilt trip me about wanting the third world to have the same thing as ze does. Your computer, medicine, food, car, job or lack thereof are brought constituted by or brought to you by fossil fuels. LMFAO
>>1331667>windmills kill birds!!>fossil fuels good actually!
Dude, we're at 420ppm of CO2, it's not nice. Am I being trolled there? Do you have exxon shares or something?
LMAO, if you don't have shares in BlackRock, your daddy surely does
>>1331589>Where the fuck do you think your 10000 hectare bird-slaughtering parks will be situated?
Fossil fuels are directly responsible for killing far more birds than windmills could ever hope for because birds are much more sensitive to air pollutants than mammals.
Try looking up what happens to avian populations around any coal or oil power plant.
Almost as sensitive as you?
Sorry that you're wrong.
how is he even remotely claiming to be a socialist?
I mean, the true heirs of Marx in here are sounding the alarm about cow farts and so is he. Therefore judging by the strict standards of logical rigor on display in this here thread, Larry Fink is not only a socialist he is Lenin 2 electric boogaloo.
Any further questions?
Strange that's the dude saying renewables are "pixie dust" and we should go to fossil fuels and nuclear turned out to be someone who thinks Larry fucking Fink is a socialist don't you think, almost like there's a pattern.
Anyway just dropping by some fact based graphs that gonna make rightoid coal burners go nuts
Or, the retards who want to keep the third world under the heel of underdevelopment are just as capitalist as Larry Fink.
Subtlety isn't your strong point and thats OK.
Consider: Fossil fuels should be used as a form of chemical energy storage for renewables. Whether by cracking heavy hydrocarbon chains into methane (which has much more energy per carbon atom than a long -CH2- chain), or by converting CO2 to CH4, it's a way to retain both high power and performance (but suffers some in thermodynamic efficiency)>>1331720
Because you believe capitalism is the only way the world can develop, we know.
The avatar you selected in your pic is apt
Congratulations for noticing what mode of production is globally used, took you some time to get there. In any case China is not building nuclear reactors in Africa, they are making PV plants (and oilfields with Total but don't mention it if you don't want to hurt dengoids feelings)
>>1331589>Even if you were not pants-on-head i-am-a-humanities-major wrong, your millennarian monomania blinds you to the much worse environmental impacts with regards to extraction, manufacture, transport, and disposal of the aforementioned pixiedust infrastructure
What a retarded statement. All infustructure is going to cause pollution and take up space. You think the massive amounts of concrete and uranium mining has zero impact? And it requires non stop fuel to continue. Once you built a windmills farm or a solar array it's producing energy for 30 to 50 years with no extra resources outside maintenance. Renewables can be decentralized, especially solar. You don't have to build infustructure around them, you can slap solar panels in parking lots and on roofs. Windmills can be integrated into already existing farm land. You can't do that with nuclear or fossil fuels. Lastly renewables don't blow the fuck up and create a thousands of miles exclusion zone or leak oil into the ground water or ocean. And since natural disaster are already becoming more frequent, energy infustructure that isn't dangerous when damaged and also can be quickly replaced is going to be vital.
Renewables are the future dude. And you can cry and whine and call it fairy dust but the facts are that is already cheaper than fossil fuels and less a national security threat. No country can embargo you from the sun. Texas the number 1# state of fossil fuels porkies. The state that came out and blamed windmills for the 2021 blackout. Spent all of 2022 tripling its renewables.
>Texas is experiencing a rise in renewable energy deployment not necessarily due to concerns over human-caused climate change, but rather because of the low costs of renewable energy sources like solar and wind development.
>Texas has avoided federal regulation by establishing its own power grid that’s nearly cut off from the rest of the country. During a winter storm in 2021, the system collapsed amid a surge in demand and frozen utility plants, which then increased energy prices and triggered the state’s worst blackouts in decades.
>During the state’s grid failure, Gov. Greg Abbott, along with other conservative state leaders, falsely blamed the outages on renewable energy sources like wind and solar. However, most of the outages stemmed from problems with limited natural gas production and frozen supplies at natural gas, coal and nuclear facilities, and not from solar and wind failures.
I was in the 2021 freeze, I talked to a engineer from Centerpoint during it. He was my brother in laws neighbor and we were all hiding at my brother in laws house because he had power. He told me the pipes were frozen over and nobody could get to them because the roads were closed. Renewables were working fine because they can be mostly maintained remotely during a disaster. One windmill going out doesn't fuck up the whole operation. One section of pipe freezes over you're fucked. Every argument I've heard from you and every other anti renewables moron is the same.
It's either this weird eco purity thing where
>Oh renewables also cause pollution and they kill birds checkmate atheist
Again modern life creates pollution. The point is to find ways to maximize energy for the least amount of ecological damage and that's renewables.
>renewables aren't just powerful enough/technologically ready
They are though and the tech is getting better by the day. Fossil fuels are a dead end. Nuclear does have promises and we should invest in research towards it. But the tech is 30 years out at best from being as safe and cheap as renewables or as fast to deploy. Were nearing apocalypse level shit right. We don't have decades we have years. Joe smo can rig an alternator build a windmill or waterwheel if near a creek. That can generate enough energy to charge power tools and run a heater. What they can't do is refine oil in their backyards or mine uranium. You know gasoline expires after 2 years? How long do you think a salvaged alternator last? Renewable energy is so cheap it can be replicated with relatively cheap consumer goods. If You're a middle class dipshit you can go off grid or an entprising village. Renewables are the best chance for industrial society to continue. Even in a limited form that is the reality of the situation.
back to dis.cord with you
>>Even if you were not pants-on-head i-am-a-humanities-major wrong, your millennarian monomania blinds you to the much worse environmental impacts with regards to extraction, manufacture, transport, and disposal of the aforementioned pixiedust infrastructure
> What a retarded statement. All infustructure is going to cause pollution and take up space. You think the massive amounts of concrete and uranium mining has zero impact? And it requires non stop fuel to continue. Once you built a windmills farm or a solar array it's producing energy for 30 to 50 years with no extra resources outside maintenance.
So… Poly Sci, or is it American Studies?
Really good article
You are comically misinformed. They are lucky their government's idiotic eco-fascist insanity in combination with the Ukraine war has merely destroyed their economy. They were expected to spend a long cold winter in the dark.
If their energy grid really ran on unicorn farts and fairy dust then Russian gas shortages wouldn't matter, now would it?
See Alex Epstein's work on the truth about Germany's renewables mythology.
Moreover, once you know where to look, it is easy to see the links between the "blood and soil" ecology policies of the Nazis and the crazed Malthusianism of the German greens.
In keeping with their irrational and deadly world-view, Nazi Germany was the first government in the world to promote wind energy.
its like you have never even heard the words 'energy density'
>>1331656>do you know how uranium is made? You need whole chunks of land where you'll pour sulfuric acid into the ground to extract the fuel, you need …
you dumb FUCKING humanities uyghur, do you understand the raping of the earth required to obtain all the metals necessary for a worldwide renewable revolution? Not to mention the fact that certain vital materials such as silicon or precious metals are almost wholly in big no-no areas of the world like China, which would only be solved under current global conditions via a new world war. nuclear is much easier to get without bloodthirsty capital forcibly redrawing borders.
anyways, my point is that mining as an industry has been well-established for literal centuries as one of the most vulgar, destructive, long-term-damaging aspects of the global economy. However, it is still necessary for us to function, and that it is why we still do it. trying to hand-wring about the headache of uranium extraction is tone-deaf and uninformed, at best.
>>1331724>You think the massive amounts of concrete and uranium mining has zero impact? And it requires non stop fuel to continue. Once you built a windmills farm or a solar array it's producing energy for 30 to 50 years with no extra resources outside maintenance.
how in the fuck can you even write out this fallacious garbage? your exact points can be directly applied to renewables such as wind farms and solar farms: you think the massive extent of mineral mining for the materials to produce these things has zero impact? and do you think, once operational, a nuclear plant does NOT produce a bountiful of clean and reliable energy for decades? Pull your fucking head out of your ass man, holy shit.
For the record, I am firmly in the camp of producing more renewables and offsetting current energy systems with them. In a perfect world, we would only source our energy from such technology. What I am NOT a fan of is your obviously uninformed, bad-faith arguments wholly in favour of a singular solution to the energy issue at the expense of all other options. Renewables can produce clean and reliable energy - they also require massive material inputs from extremely dirty and damaging mining operations. That's OK - nothing comes for free. But you say one type of mining is acceptable whereas the other is not, when the reality is that there is no way out of this without such a mess, so your arguments are detached from reality. Accept nuclear, stop being a retarded faggot. Only other moronic retards like you are convinced by your bullshit rhetoric - everyone else can tell youre a fucking dipshit.
>Germany is one of the most advanced countries in the world in renewables and they shut down nukes, do you think it has something to do with the fact that they were ruled by a physics PhD for 16 years?
oh, so I AM talking to a retard. i was just trying to be mean before - sorry for making fun of your condition, i didn't know.
>>1332138>no arguments>no sources>just seething and name calling >accusing others of being humanities majors
Dude Ive worked at one of the largest energies companies in the southwest. What's your fucking expertise besides making shit up? Do you have anything to back up any of the bullshit you are saying?
Renewables are cheaper and once again don't created irradiated hellscapes from the mining of the resources or from meltdowns. In till fusion happens nuclear isn't politically or economically viable. The technology for nuclear isn't there yet and it can't scale anywhere close to what renewables can. Nuclear technology also isn't going to develop at the speed renewables are. I can put solar panels on my house right now and be off the grid. There's no consumer equivalent to Nuclear and its decades out from being viable.
>>1332236> Renewables are cheaper
Even at face value, this is a lie. And once you take away subsidies and legal-regulatory environment, the ONLY energy technologies that are efficient, cheap and reliable are fossil fuels.
"Solar is reliable" is a purely ideological religious statement of faith. See: clouds. And batteries. Let's not even get into the precession of the Earth's orbit.
Nuclear is reliable but not as cheap as fossil fuels. Both of them curb stomp all pixiedust technologies.
> The technology for nuclear isn't there yet and it can't scale anywhere close to what renewables can. Nuclear technology also isn't going to develop at the speed renewables are.
This is factually and historically false. Nuclear was powering industrial capitalism in the 1950s. How can you say such transparent falsehoods?
>I can put solar panels on my house right now and be off the grid.
In an important sense what you just said here is the crux of the delusion of renewables ideology. "I can plug in my toaster oven" is an exceedingly individualistic and small (albeit important) sliver of the entire energy needs of a modern day civilization. What about pesticides and fertilizers? Made from dinosaurs. Materials for making your medical prosthetics and the majority of everything you use daily? Dinosaurs. Grid resiliency? Only dinosaurs and nuclear can do it.
Relative to proven tech, renewables have NO density and NO reliability.
>There's no consumer equivalent to Nuclear and its decades out from being viable.
"consumer equivalent" != "being viable" LMAO. See above.
Anyways, nuclear is far more viable than pixiedust and unicornfart technologies at scale.
The correct Marxist-Leninist line: "Drill baby, drill!"
Unique IPs: 21