Climate Change

[jodokus31]

Regarding Atomic plant "least polluting/most efficient". You produce waste product, which have to be shut away for the next hundreds/thousands of years. Does the company care about it?
Also, if worst case scenario happens like Fukushima/Chernobyl (so statistically once in ~30 years) its polluting like crazy. Can you estimate, how long those ruins will remain?

Why do you estimate that these happen once every 30 years? Fukushima was predicted to fail in the reference earthquake and Chernobyl was an experiment with something like 30(?) individual warnings ignored.

I don’t think nuclear waste storage is a problem now or likely to become a big problem in the near future.

First 1986, second 2011, so next in 2036? Just statistics.

Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

OK, let's all go to the bank and fetch our money in printed notes...
https://www.rankred.com/how-much-money- ... the-world/

Regarding debts:
https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt

[NotRexButCaesar]

First 1986, second 2011, so next in 2036? Just statistics.

Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

OK, let's all go to the bank and fetch our money in printed notes...
https://www.rankred.com/how-much-money- ... the-world/

Regarding debts:
https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt

That money doesn’t really exist. No money has been “created”.



So with our sample size of 2, I’ll predict that nuclear disasters will exponentially decay in magnitude. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that is bad statistics.

[ickputzdirwech]

You can sometimes read that the risk of a uncontrollable accident at a nuclear power plant is something like 1 in a million years. Those numbers are clearly wrong if you look at past accidents. Why is that? The first issue is that these kind of assessments are bound to forget some possible threads. You just can’t foresee the future. The second issue is that they assume that the reactors are properly maintained and the personnel is properly trained. Reports after the Fukushima disaster showed that this isn’t even the case in rich countries like Germany.

Which brings me to another point I wanted to mention. Nuclear power is incredibly expensive. Governments spend lots of money on it otherwise no company in its right mind would build one. The cost for deconstruction, decontamination and nuclear waste storage is most of the times not even calculated. These are most of the time entirely paid for by governments.

[jodokus31]

Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

OK, let's all go to the bank and fetch our money in printed notes...
https://www.rankred.com/how-much-money- ... the-world/

Regarding debts:
https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt

That money doesn’t really exist. No money has been “created”.

It's the 20 hour course

I wish I had 20 hours to watch videos.

Well, maybe you should spend several 20 hours... I guess, I can't convince you

So with our sample size of 2, I’ll predict that nuclear disasters will exponentially decay in magnitude. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that is bad statistics.

Sorry, we only have 2 samples and a lot of hot air (claims). Usually, 2 points are extrapolated as straight line.
Let's wait for sample 3.

[mmmPI]

Money is created when the government prints money. If everyone payed back debts, the amount of currency would not change.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The Bond system is not the only money creation source i made a simplified sum up of one thing.

Money is created when you go the bank to borrow money. The bank doesn't lend you money it has, instead it creates it "ex-nihilo". When you or a company (and not a governement) pay back your loan, the money is then destroyed by the bank, minus a small part that they keep for themselves to pay for the service they offered.

look it up a little maybe before repeating things that are myth : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractiona ... ve_banking

Sorry, we only have 2 samples and a lot of hot air (claims). Usually, 2 points are extrapolated as straight line.
Let's wait for sample 3.

there was this one in 1979 => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mil ... d_accident.

Which brings me to another point I wanted to mention. Nuclear power is incredibly expensive. Governments spend lots of money on it otherwise no company in its right mind would build one. The cost for deconstruction, decontamination and nuclear waste storage is most of the times not even calculated. These are most of the time entirely paid for by governments.

yes, because governements are proud to provide "cheap" energy to companies, it helps them develop faster than in places where energy is more expensive, and that's way more popular than asking companies to pay for ecologic regulatory measures they build their nuke plant with tax payer money.

I don’t think nuclear waste storage is a problem now or likely to become a big problem in the near future.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-dome-paci ... aking.html

The storage from some A-bomb test that occured in 1958 iq leaking into the pacific already.

[Impatient]

...
So far, I don't think the current hot temperatures we have in Europe have been proven to be a direct consequence or illustration of the climate change - despite the climate change in itself has reached a consensus in the scientific community. There might even be places in the world where the weather gets colder. That's about all for me, I know I didn't answer OP's question, but I felt it had to be precised

Look at the diagrams:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average ... production

[jodokus31]

Sorry, we only have 2 samples and a lot of hot air (claims). Usually, 2 points are extrapolated as straight line.
Let's wait for sample 3.

there was this one in 1979 => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mil ... d_accident.

so 7 years, 25 years, and ... ? (Anyway, too much)

I don’t think nuclear waste storage is a problem now or likely to become a big problem in the near future.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-dome-paci ... aking.html

The storage from some A-bomb test that occured in 1958 iq leaking into the pacific already.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/24/asia ... index.html
https://nuclear-energy.net/nuclear-acci ... ent-status

[Koub]

...
So far, I don't think the current hot temperatures we have in Europe have been proven to be a direct consequence or illustration of the climate change - despite the climate change in itself has reached a consensus in the scientific community. There might even be places in the world where the weather gets colder. That's about all for me, I know I didn't answer OP's question, but I felt it had to be precised

Look at the diagrams:

https://www.google.com/search?q=average ... production

I never questioned the existence of the raise of the average temperature due to the augmentation of atmospheric CO2 level.
I just stressed out that the hot temperature episode we experienced in Europe in July 2019 was not necessarily the direct consequence or illustration of the climate change all by itself. An above average temperature during a couple weeks is not enough to tell "well here is the proof the climate gets hotter" (as well as a cold episode is not the proof the global warming is a myth). We, as humans, are not equipped to sense average values. We can only have a sense of the current temperature. And a temporary hot weather does not necessarily mean a raise of the average temperature.
Yes, the climate has already started changing and the average globe temperature is raising, but it's not responsible for every single heat spike - or at least it's not the only thing responsible. The temperatures have varied well before climate change caused by anthropic activities. However, we can expect more and more of those abnormal heat waves, and the growth of their frequency is one of the direct consequences of the climate change/global warming.

[NotRexButCaesar]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The Bond system is not the only money creation source i made a simplified sum up of one thing.

Money is created when you go the bank to borrow money. The bank doesn't lend you money it has, instead it creates it "ex-nihilo". When you or a company (and not a governement) pay back your loan, the money is then destroyed by the bank, minus a small part that they keep for themselves to pay for the service they offered.

look it up a little maybe before repeating things that are myth : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractiona ... ve_banking

More helpful than "you're stupid, look it up" would be some example of a situation where you go from less dollars to more dollars

I am aware of fractional reserve banking. I count debt as "negative dollars": the bank loans you 1$ and -1$.

[Koub]

I am aware of fractional reserve banking. I count debt as "negative dollars": the bank loans you 1$ and -1$.

My limited understanding of the thing is that it's not how it works. The bank actually creates money ex nihilo before lending it. If I decided to take a loan, and got it, I would be able to spend that money without going bankrupt. If I had negative dollars on my account, I would go bankrupt as soon as I would have spent that money.

The money is scripturally created by the banks upon lending, and destroyed when the load is reimbursed.

[mmmPI]

More helpful than "you're stupid, look it up" would be some example of a situation where you go from less dollars to more dollars

I am aware of fractional reserve banking. I count debt as "negative dollars": the bank loans you 1$ and -1$.

I would have choosen ignorant rather than stupid to sum up my aggressive answer. Those things are quite complex and not understanding it after looking it up wouldn't be necessarily sign of stupidity;not quite as triggering as saying stuff that are very not true out of what appears to be ignorance. (imo). However some people learn by having hypothesis on everything and then update their belief when something's wrong. But that take the time to do some research and saying you don't have it means you either don't care or are unable to, none of which convey a tremendous appeal to the idea of spending time to organise some written thoughts for you.

Anyway,

A simplified example where you go from less dollar to more dollar would be when you go to the bank to take a loan to pay for medical fees that would allow you to continue working.

There is forseable interest to perceive if you can be cured since you'd continue working and you will get paid.

The bank then will write on your account the amount of money you requested.

They become your creditor, that amount is written as a debt you owe to them.

Congrats money has been created.

They did not need to have that money in the first place to lend it.

Now there's more money than immediatly before.

When you pay back that money, the bank write off the debt on their book.

Money has been destroyed.

The monetary mass, the amount of money, with that particular view on the topic, is just the lag between when people borrowed and when they pay back.

If you lower the interest rate , then more things enter the category that will generate enough cashflow to pay for the interest. More people borrow, more money is created.
If you increase the interest rate, then less things enter the categary that will generate enough cashflow to pay for the interest. Less people borrow, less money is created.

Money is only created for things that generate immediate interest, spending money for things that don't generate interest means you have money that comes in your pocket from other sources. Like ecology, spending money to save the environment, the planet , the baby seals, your own baby too , who can pay people to do something about it ? who will pay people to do something about it ? That would be an ever-ending task, that cost huge amount of money, for not immediate cash in return that would allow to pay back the debt associated when the money was created.

Wether it is the way governement's way of financing itself ( and other long-lasting entity) which is roughly the bond system and/or the indivual/family way of financing things BOTH seem to require the same mechanism of constant growth.

again that is quite far from the climate change topic as the title says, that's an off-topic in an off-topic subject already from a random stranger on the internet, for what it's worth you can look it up on more serious sources as it's the best way to make sure i'm not saying out loud an wild hypothesis of my own as you did

the part where i say it's responsible for the inability to take in account the climate necessity maybe lack of nuances as it's not the only cause but that is definitly a wild hypothesis of my own, but not only .

the part where i say money is created out of thin air to generate interest, this just describing an old system, the federal reserve of the united states of america but also the european central bank are presently operating under this mode, so is the world bank and the internationnal monetary fund. They have other ways of explaining it that include the whole "why they do it this way". that's interesting on its own, but my point was that with the way money is created, there is a need for constant growth which seem incompatible with the non-extensive planet we all share.


on a side note, that relate to why i feel you can't expect solutions for adaption to human-induced climate-change from governement, industries , law-makers , and so-on, that's not what they do. their purpose is to make a system function and try to perfect it, but that same system in its status doesn't include the previously mentionned mission : not ruining the environment. It is even (imo) incompatible with the other missions it has : improving living conditions of people who think it means consuming more things.

If people keeps the same mentality about consumerism a government/company/ngo that would want to effectively adress ecologic problem would be helpless or authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroflu ... Regulation

Yes there was a CFC ban, when you look at how much time and effort it took and the results, it doesn't appear likely than the same method could be used to the larger scale it would require to be effective on a the also larger scale that is the the whole climate. While not buying a refrigirator is a very simple decision to make as an individual. If many people make that decision, it then make sense to develop other things to make up for the annoyance of not having a refrigirator. ( AND you could still ban them that's not exclusive).