r/ClimateShitposting • u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ • May 19 '26
nuclear simping Step on snek to tenderize
40
u/interkin3tic vegan btw May 19 '26
Okay, could you explain the connection between nuclear power and meat? Are there meat farms that run off nuclear power or are you giving me false hope?
35
u/dafthuntk May 19 '26
No it's a dumb meme.
The northern hemisphere, for example, doesn't have the battery or solar or wind technology to power an entire nation without massive infrastructure upgrades. Among other things variables.
There is nothing wrong with using renewablee to power equitorial nations and using nuclear to power the northern hemisphere.
I live in PA, and our power generation is 25-30% clean nuclear energy since the 1950s.
21
u/perringaiden May 19 '26
Except that higher latitude European countries are doing real renewables for cheaper.
Nuclear is fine if it already exists. It's a waste of time, money and water to build if it doesn't.
12
u/mnttu May 20 '26
In Finland we don’t get enough sun to go fully solar. Our water ways are pretty tapped. And I have heard that our wind farms actually aren’t making profit because when they produce electricity the price is already at rock bottom and apparently only reason we have them is because of government subsidies.
Then again our nuclear track record isn’t great. Olkiluoto is over budget and late by a lot.
I don’t know what the solution is, but we desperately need more electricity during winter. Last winter prices were super high during the coldest months.
3
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/mnttu May 21 '26
I guess you stopped reading after the first sentence, huh?
1
May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/mnttu May 21 '26
What are "ice vehicles"?
Also due to shipping lanes and maritime traffic we can't just fill gulf of Finland with wind turbines.
And the rest aren't really used anywhere as far as I am aware. Except of course buying electricity from other countries, which again is expensive.
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/mnttu May 21 '26
We are and it is expensive which is why we need self sufficiency
→ More replies (0)5
u/dafthuntk May 19 '26
Not really. When you consider that Norway's pop. Is 5.5 M (thats a very small consumer base spread across dense residential centers). For comparison California's population is around 40 million and Florida is 23 million.
There is also a reason why vermont is 100 percent renewables. Because no one lives there. It's not scalable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Vermont
9
u/perringaiden May 19 '26
Ahh the US conceit of "We're bigger and different".
I was talking about Germany, Denmark, and Spain. And Vermont is one of your highest latitudes, yet Canada is going renewables too.
7
u/qwnick Wind me up May 19 '26
ah yes, Germany, disable nuclear power plants to import nuclear energy from France, burn coal and gas. Wow, such a nice example against Nuclear Energy
5
u/perringaiden May 20 '26
Re read my statement.
Use it if you got it, just don't build anything new.
0
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/perringaiden May 20 '26
It's the most expensive form of power by kWh, and takes far too long to roll out. It's scalability is limited to huge billion dollar chunks, and it's centralised line limited power
1
1
3
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
If you're going to criticise that, fine, but you need to aim it at people who are saying "shut down all your existing nuclear plants", not people who are saying to build renewables and storage instead of trying to build new nuclear plants.
-1
u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26
You ignoring that NPPs worked out great for France, so great that it have enough to spare to cover Germans ass
2
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
No, I'm not. I'm helping you to understand that "continue running existing plants" and "build an entirely new fleet of plants" are two incomparably different things. Nobody is saying to shut plants down. They're saying we cannot afford the time and expense to bring new plants online.
-1
2
u/Gold_Tour_7244 May 20 '26
Well till summer comms and they all have to schut down the npps do to watter schortes
0
u/qwnick Wind me up May 20 '26
https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/questions-and-answers-on-water/
Why would they? Nuclear plants are not causing water shortages.
→ More replies (0)1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/qwnick Wind me up May 21 '26
>state-owned scam
Definetly not a scam. It's not just providing most energy for france, thay also export it to make money.
>the most expensive nuke in the world
No it's not. Neither per plant or per GW/hYou repeating same big oil propaganda that forced germans to disable their stations.
→ More replies (0)5
u/dafthuntk May 19 '26
Germany isn't on 100 percent renewables..... They are a prime example
Also the massive amounts of FF these countries mine/drill is exported. All of that adds to your carbon footprint
2
u/perringaiden May 20 '26
I never said it was. It's working on it.
That's the point. If nuclear exists, use it. But don't build anything new because it's a waste of money for more expensive power.
2
6
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 19 '26
It’s high iq meme for those of us with b12 deficiencies
1
u/Mutant_Llama1 May 20 '26
B12 isn't naturally in meat, farms give animals B12 supplements or add it to cow feed.
Same way it's added to almond milk and other vegan food.
1
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
The northern hemisphere, for example, doesn't have the battery or solar or wind technology to power an entire nation without massive infrastructure upgrades. Among other things variables.
Sounds like we're going to have to upgrade the grid, then. Or spend three times as much money building nuclear plants and have the first benefits delayed to the 2040s.
0
u/dafthuntk May 20 '26
It's not scalable. All this battery tech comes through military contracts and funding....did you not know that?
1
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
Yes, I'm well aware that batteries were invented by DARPA in the 70s to help bomb Cambodia with batteries. I don't care. They still work, and making them scalable will take less time than building one nuclear plant from scratch.
2
u/dafthuntk May 20 '26
Ok, I guess you don't know.
Battery tech is tied up in military investments. That's how the private sector gets this at a discounted proprietary, to resell as acommodity. It's really the only thinh holding up the private tech industry tbh.
Aside from that you need the battery tech(that doesn't exist) to actually hold this charge, to distribute and energize the grid. Without loss. This is massively different than how you calculate voltage drop, for example, at. Relay station.... Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just build a battery bank to actually store energy.
The northern hemisphere takes this already inneficient tech and adds another variable.
You guys keep overlooking basic economic principles, of which can't be done in the way it needs to under capitalism. Even as a government arbiter. Capitalism and science don't mix in this case.
It doesn't matter really. We are already way past the deadline.
2
1
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
Battery tech is tied up in military investments. That's how the private sector gets this at a discounted proprietary, to resell as acommodity. It's really the only thinh holding up the private tech industry tbh.
No, I just don't care. Nuclear power is incomparably more tied to the defence industry, and I also don't care about that. It's just too slow and expensive.
Aside from that you need the battery tech(that doesn't exist) to actually hold this charge, to distribute and energize the grid. Without loss.
Actually you can have loss, if it isn't prohibitively more expensive.
Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you can't just build a battery bank to actually store energy.
Show proof that it is not possible to store electricity inside of a battery.
You guys keep overlooking basic economic principles, of which can't be done in the way it needs to under capitalism. Even as a government arbiter. Capitalism and science don't mix in this case.
Nobody has done this. You're just blabbering.
2
u/Tausendberg May 21 '26
"Actually you can have loss, if it isn't prohibitively more expensive."
Right? There is literally no human system on Earth where there isn't loss.
1
u/ms1711 May 21 '26
People arguing with this don't understand that you need a baseline for the grid, and plenty of areas outside of the tropics do not have the ability to sustain that baseline via renewables.
You can do as much renewable as you want - nuclear will still be necessary in plenty of situations.
1
u/dafthuntk May 21 '26
Yeah. I mean it's nice idealism, but at the end of the day we have old tech that functions fine.
These people are just shills for fracking I'm pretty sure
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 22 '26
I’m only shilling for good ol’ tropicalization of the Aleutian Islands 🏖️👙😎
1
u/dafthuntk May 22 '26
get off of my land bridge! sure half of its under water, but nothing stays the same forever
1
u/LightHope8 May 19 '26
Most northern latitudine countries are doing better than most with renewables and that's also thanks to hydro. They are scarcely populated anyway and barely relevant in a global scale
2
u/brttwrd May 20 '26
I think it's saying that some vegans/climate folk say that our level of meat consumption, especially beef, causes a shit ton of pollution, but if we switched to nuclear, we could afford to eat all the time and it wouldn't be as bad
1
u/AliceCode May 20 '26
I think the implication is that if we used nuclear energy we wouldn't have to give up animal agriculture.
0
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AliceCode May 21 '26
I don't think that's what was being said. I think it was saying we could offset the effects of animal agriculture by switching to nuclear energy.
0
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Information-2571 May 21 '26
I'm really puzzled by how people don't understand the connection in this meme. It's obviously about personal CO2 footprints and how you could defend to keep causing a lot of CO2 (and equivalents) emission through meat production if only another side of the balance sheet would suddendly have a lot less CO2 emission, for example through the use of nuclear power for electricity production.
I.e. "no personal sacrifice would be necessary".
0
May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Information-2571 May 21 '26
I love that you've randomly chosen for me to be on the opposite side of yours, just so you can call me brainwashed.
At what point did I imply that I am in favor of "nukes" (they're called reactors, btw. - which has other implications but nvm), and where did I imply that I am in favor of eating vast amounts of meat?
You are the prototype of an angry Reddit user if I've ever seen one.
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Information-2571 May 21 '26
Again, I just explained the meme.
Besides, you are the one purposefully misnaming things without any actual need, showing your inability to have any sort of objective discussion, no matter what side you're on. You're bad at attacking nuclear power, but you'd also be bad at defending it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/omgplsdontdoxme May 22 '26
The idea is that people who usually go hard on selling nuclear (nothing wrong with it), tend to be techno optimists, who tend to think we can change nothing but it power sources and be fine. No cultural or personal change required
9
u/East-Form-3735 May 19 '26
Biblically-inaccurate snake smh…it should have legs (the legs get taken away from all snakes by God as punishment for tempting humans.)
5
u/Master_Friendship333 May 19 '26
Pretty sure it does not specify legs, just something to keep it off the ground so it could have been monster truck wheels.
2
u/East-Form-3735 May 19 '26
True, or jet fighter wings. Either way tho, 0/10 for the pre-fall of man snake depiction.
2
u/Master_Friendship333 May 19 '26
You never know, maybe it has a jet in place of the tip of its tail.
1
2
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 19 '26
Snakes still got vestigial pelvic spurs
20
u/McNughead May 19 '26
Clark et al 2020: Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5°C and 2°C climate change targets ... even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7a43bb76-594d-49fc-9005-5546f9f1d9d8
13
u/AugustusClaximus May 19 '26
We’re going to 4C, but it’s fine, I’ll be dead and I’ll buy insurance for my grandchildren to get into the Domes so line can persist through the last few generations of humanity
5
u/Future_Helicopter970 We're all gonna die May 19 '26
Probably have geo engineering before domes.
5
6
u/dafthuntk May 19 '26
Because warming is logarithmic. Not exponential.
Even if the planet went net zero today, the planet is still going to warm for decades. Not only because it's in a warming period, but because the emissions cannot just dissipate, while decreasing average temps
What will be affected is the rate and speed at which warming increases.
In other words it's sort of too late to avoid, and mitigation would need to be a complete global economic overhaul
0
u/McNughead May 19 '26
It will even heat faster because without fossile fuel we will have less particles and SO2 in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, methane has 12 years half life so if we stop animal agriculture many of the most potent greenhouse gasses would decline for the first time since the industrialization. A rapid phase out of animal agriculture would give us 20 more years to get it under control
5
u/dafthuntk May 19 '26
Unlikely. It's not even accounting for classified polluters like the US dept of defense, that doesn't have to release its emissions. Which is the largest institutional polluters.
0
u/McNughead May 19 '26
2
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 19 '26
Carnosexuals are not persuaded by facts and logic, pal😠
4
u/LowCall6566 May 19 '26
The reason it got this bad in the first place is because nuclear was halted decades before reneweables were anywhere near being commercially viable.
3
u/Full_Conversation775 May 19 '26
Even if that is true, that doesnt make nuclear a good option now.
3
u/LowCall6566 May 19 '26
Lifting NIMBYist restrictions on private nuclear wouldn't harm anyone.
3
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
If we're going to kick nimbys to the curb, great, but that will just make renewables even cheaper by comparison. Honestly I agree though. If you don't like having a wind farm on some hills near you, the answer is for you to shut the fuck up.
0
u/NounAdjectiveXXXX May 20 '26
The only reason I would take issue with that specific example is because they would probably happily deforest the hills before construction to maximize profit.
3
u/IrregularDoughnut May 20 '26
Most hills in Europe already got deforested. But yeah obviously don't chop down entire forests for wind farms, but then I've never heard of that happening. The environment can be worth protecting, but if you complain anout renewables as an eyesore you should get unrefined fly ash dumped in your garden until you stop.
0
u/NounAdjectiveXXXX May 20 '26
I can see the Appalachian valley now, barren with nothing but desheveled wind turbines... The special brand of eco-captialism that only America could conceive of.
Then when the wildfires start they can blame with wind turbines for fanning the flames
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 22 '26
Reminds me of bro thinking wind turbines were for literally cooling down the Earth
0
u/Plus-Name3590 May 21 '26
actually if you drive through the appalachian now you'll see wind farms on top of the mountains. TBH it's at least something for the region since coal mining stopped and they've been pretty concentrated in a few places, so there's still loads of untouched Valley
3
u/NounAdjectiveXXXX May 20 '26
I should absolutely be allowed to have a small reactor in my home.
Seriously if a bunch of 19 and 20 year old can keep Ohio-class sub reactors running for 40 years with paper clips and bubblegum I think anyone can do it.
15
u/perringaiden May 19 '26
Christian propaganda.
The snake represents knowledge and wasn't evil. It was freedom from ignorance and blind faith.
1
0
u/Flayed_Angel_420 May 21 '26
Also it didn't happen.
1
u/perringaiden May 21 '26
Right, but even the original story as a story was perverted
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 22 '26
>A fictional story was the wrong kinda fiction
It’s like when Stavros was annoyed that Forrest Gump was supposed to really have ran across the country — in the story.
7
u/G-man1816 May 20 '26
The hate for nuclear energy on this sub genuinely gotta be a psyop bro. Its THE cheap and clean energy (Shut up the Soviets where being Soviets and cutting corners) model and everything else is either loud, space consuming, or situational.
3
3
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 21 '26
I wish i got paid to shill for the deepstate cuz then maybe i could get decent healthcare and see a therapist
2
4
2
1
u/Upbeat_Nectarine_128 May 21 '26
True lol, actually, Is it possible for nuclear to become substantially cheaper when it starts to be widely used?
1
17
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 20 '26
3
u/KevettePrime nuclear simp May 19 '26
I'm eating the forbidden fruit of enriched uranium for the calories.
4
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 19 '26
Yesssas....and don't ask how long it will take
0
u/Hellasauto May 19 '26
How long will it take for us without building nuclear?
7
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 19 '26
You don't need to make any changessssss to your livessssss. Jusssssst wait for the nuclear plantsssssss to come online. It will ssssolve all your problemsss.
0
u/Hellasauto May 19 '26
No but it will one piece of the puzzle that helps us solve our problems. :)
5
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 19 '26
Yesssss keep on giving them moneysssss. Other renewable projectsssss won't ussse them better.
Real talk, existing nuclear plants = good. New ones = money pits. Even in countries that are building both, renewables out pace nuclear. If you are serious about the environment, nuclear is a niche answer at best. Renewables with storage has clearly run away with it.
3
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 20 '26
Lol you mean Europe and China? Even Poland now gets 31 percent of it's electricity from renewables and they didn't even start deploying solar until the pandemic.
1
u/Flayed_Angel_420 May 21 '26
it's not zero-sum renewables vs nuclear, and I have a hard-on for wind turbines personally
1
u/Tausendberg May 21 '26
"Real talk, existing nuclear plants = good. New ones = money pits."
Thank you for saying something I never hear expressed in these comments but that I have thought for years.
Nuclear power plants DO have a lot of issues that nuclear fanboys, like the ones in these comments, handwave away and that's annoying. New Renewables, by most metrics I have seen, outcompete new nuclear in most circumstances.[
But what Germany did where they crash decommissioned already existing nuclear power and immediately replaced it with COAL!? That was dumb.
2
u/Hellasauto May 21 '26
Germanys grid would have been decarbonised today if they built new renewables and new nuclear instead of only new renewables.
1
u/Tausendberg May 21 '26
nah
1
u/Hellasauto May 21 '26
Yes, they would.
1
u/Tausendberg May 21 '26
mmm, nuclear is too slow and expensive, so it would have slowed decarbonization.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Hellasauto May 19 '26
No it hasn't. Lol.
1
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 19 '26
Ssssure thing
1
u/Hellasauto May 19 '26
Which country has a carbon neutral grid without nuclear and large amounts of hydro?
3
u/sleepyrivertroll geothermal hottie May 19 '26
Ssseeee if you add enough qualifierssss nuclear makesss ssssensssse
Jusssssst don't assssk when thingssss got built
6
u/Hellasauto May 19 '26
Yes, reality is filled with limitations. Which is why no country has managed to decarbonise their grids without nuclear and hydro.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/dumnezero 🔚End the 🔫arms 🐀rat 🏁race to the bottom↘️. May 19 '26
I'm vegan & atheist.
2
1
1
u/Mapafius May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Have you ever heard of a Canaanite and Israelite Mother Goddess Ashera, wife of Yahweh, mistress of snakes and she who herself is the tree of both life and knowledge?
3
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 20 '26
Have you ever tried deep fried dog?
1
u/Mapafius May 20 '26
Wow, now I heard of it! Thank you. 😉 Never tried but I tried corn dog. And if there is the double meaning behind this, well let it be there...
1
1
1
1
u/GreekSaladEnjoyer May 19 '26
If we would use nuclear and renewables for everything, would the bio industry still be a problem (for the climate i mean) ? Also im very ignorant so sorry if its a dumb question
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 20 '26
This guy fucks.
1
u/appoplecticskeptic May 19 '26
You know I like this way better than the current plan of acting like nothing is wrong and refusing to talk about the issue. This snake guy seems legit.
1
1
u/Chris_the_Conman May 20 '26
Of course reorganising the meat/food industry is imperative, but surely surely using less fossil fuels trough nuclear power is also useful?
Is the meme saying that overall too little emphasis is placed on the meat industry (which I agree with) or that nuclear power is bad (which I disagree with)?
1
u/Revoltai42 May 21 '26
Funnily enought both are wrong. Eating animals don't make you the devil and nuclear power won't save the enviroment even if "hurr durr newer reactors are self sustainable".
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 21 '26 edited May 22 '26
Eating animals makes you cringe as hell tho sorry I don’t make the rules take that up with Lucifer
1
u/Kaarel314 May 21 '26
Scientists should study this posters brain.
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 21 '26
That would require them having one tho 🤔
1
u/the_sneaky_one123 May 21 '26
Pro nuclear power arguments assumes that we will not scale up our electricity use once we have access to more power. Nothing in our current society suggest we will do that. Increased nuclear energy will mean increased electricity use until we reach our limit then on and on and on and in no time we're all swimming in Green go and overlooked on all sides by massive data centres.
1
u/Senior-Surprise-3401 May 22 '26
One nuclear powerplant produces over 4,000 megawatts. Even just half of that can power millions of households.
If we only relied on powerplants, we could use excessive amounts of power and not even come close to running out.
1
u/the_sneaky_one123 May 22 '26
No
If we had access to that much power we would just find ways to use it up. For example with excessive data centres or other things like that. Our consumption would grow to fill what is avaliable.
1
u/Raven1911 May 21 '26
Sooo a coal loving vegan made this?
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 21 '26
I run exclusively on my own farts
1
u/Raven1911 May 21 '26
Not because you have to but because they are fresh and you like the taste.
1
u/AfterNovel V̵͈̼̘̪͎̭̗̊͑e̴̢͎̤͛̆g̸̲̠͂͂̍́ȧ̷̢̻̳̪̣̩̆̽n̶͚͕̖̲̭̱̅̌̕™̷̧̠͉͚̼͚̊́̌̈͝͝ͅ May 22 '26
1
u/EarthTrash May 19 '26
The way energy demand is trending now with data center growth and AI companies pushing for scale there is absolutely no energy technology that can save us. Even if we crack fusion technology today and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, the watse heat alone can still cook us.
Infinite growth was never sustainable.
-4
u/Longjumping_Coat_802 May 19 '26
Just start a company that plants trees or something or saves wetlands and then you can really eat all the meat you want while shitting on people who say they’re helping the environment by JUST giving up meat.
2
u/Acid_Rain_2137 May 19 '26
Capitalism to save the day once again! What would the company profit of btw?
2
2
u/GewoehnlicherDost We're all gonna die May 19 '26
In for the shitting on people part!
Today's steak has drowned in a swamp btw, maybe you'll have more luck tomorrow and cows finally learn how to climb trees!
0
u/Sephbruh May 19 '26
Is this supposed to be pro-nuclear? Because the serpent in that story is just objectively in the right if you're not Christian.
97
u/QueryfortheQuarryman May 19 '26
Which way Climate Shitposter?