Modern climate change is driven by human activity.

Im curious why i am not getting the better sources credit as im the only one who provided any citation, provided repeated citation, and provided (imo) good citations.

yes, republicans who supported bigger government, free land giveaways, and heavy industrial interference. with a constituency of urban northerners....
no, the whole past republicans/democrats part was brought up by someone else, I'm simply showing how absurd it is.

During the Civil war the Republican abe Lincoln ended slavery and the democrats were pro slavery and helped the south.

"Abraham Lincoln elected president. Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency. Lincoln received only 40 percent of the popular vote but handily defeated the three other candidates: Southern Democrat John C."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abraham-lincoln-elected-president

You keep comparing modern republicans to past republicans

Just like the republicans did after the civil war, by raising taxes, investing public money into new industries, and giving out free stuff... renewable energy is the obvious cost effective choice in the very near future, especially if it receives proper funding that prioritizes results, not return on investment.

This focus on profit over results is the weakness of a pure free market. They often do correlate, but with things like new industries, they falter. Railroads, factories, nuclear, space, and now renewables all required massive initial investment that no sane private funder would ever sacrifice. especially early in development. The first public company is just starting to launch satellites, and that's thanks to a visionary willing to burn ALOT of money. Imagine our world if we were just now starting to launch satellites!

Yes the government has failures, it also has successes.
Yes the private industry has successes, it also has failures.
Relying soley on either one is folly. They both have different limitations, strengths, and most importantly, priorities.

I personally wouldn't mind a mix or renewables and nuclear. My concern would be the new price of energy. The poor still need to be considered, and renewable energy is currently rather expensive.

Yes, batteries. Thank you.
Still, it is in battery construction, not routine operation. My point remains unchanged. Once you make it, it passively creates energy with minimal input.

You may have a point about the extra boost, but wouldn't it make sense to have an underlying powergrid of renewables with a few nuclear plants we can turn on when we need a boost. This will result in minimal waste and plenty of energy.

I thought I mentioned rare earth metals for the creation of batteries to store the energy. That is needed because otherwise you could only get energy when the sun is shining for panels or when the wind is blowing if you are using turbines. Other forms of energy are made to meet demand because they don't depend on forces of nature.

I know you mentioned the rare earth metals in solar panels, and your gonna call me out on saying renewables dont need extraction of materials...

Thats for construction of solar panels. Youll have to compare that to the building of an entire coal plant. Im talking about finding the materials for the actual energy reaction. You dont need coal to build the factory, you need it to pump it in every minute until the factory shuts down. You need it for the actual production of energy. A constant material need.

You build a solar panel, and you forget about it. (routine maintenance again goes for both). No need to pump anything. The only time youll need material is if you want to expand. But you can also spend time looking for alternatives or improvements as you dont really need to do any mining or pumping. Amazing!

you win i studied the subject and you are right i vote for you if i could

That sounds like you just read the lines.
It didnt mention that we have to handle this waste for millions of years before it is decontaminated. Meaning our great great great great x1000 grandchildren will still be handling our very first waste while looking for more sites to store more waste. This is a very bad long term solution. Only a selfish short sighted people would go for this.

It created little waste because it isnt a majority source. If it becomes the primary source it will be much more waste. + our energy needs grow exponentially... thats alot more waste. And good luck finding people happy to live near a nuclear waste storage facility. Lol

Its a good bandaid for limited use, but we need real solutions. There will never be a time without sun, wind, waves, or magma. Once its set up its just passive energy flowing through our society, and instead of extracting more raw materials, we can focus on improving efficiency and scale.

I just read between the lines. If it is true that this small amount of waste was created, then that is something I can work with.

Its not just about saying the truth, its also about saying the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and cutting out misleading sugar coating.

My google search I think was "disposing of nuclear waste". I did realize that their wording was very skewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their facts are wrong.

do you realize you are quoting an industry lobby group?
aren't you concerned not only about their bias, but also their conflict of interest?
were you not curious about the cuddly language use in describing the radioactive cells?

what was the wording of your google search?

https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

Can you provide a link to the info?
Im pretty sure the radioactivity is still a big question.
A full switch to nuclear will be exoponetially more waste, as will our future energy need growth.

Well, it seems they typically bury it very deep. Apparently there isn't a lot of waste. The "commercial" industry since the 1950's has made enough waste to fill a football field less than thirty feet deep. That amount would obviously start increasing more rapidly, but I don't believe it would ever cause any real issues. Just have to make sure it isn't near water sources.

Certainly your solution would be excellent for climate change. Algea don't take decades to grow, but stopping fossil fuels will do the trick. Pollution is not the issue, but nuclear power contributes near nothing to climate change. Can you address the issue of nuclear waste?

I'm not sure to what degree humans are responsible for it. I do believe that we should at least attempt to reduce pollution, which fossil fuels are a large cause of. Nuclear energy is super efficient and super clean, which is why I am a huge fan of it.

Not sure about all of the fear mongering about climate change. I don't think we will all die from it within the next few decades without change, though. I am going to agree with Christopher on this. Planting tons of trees and switching to mainly nuclear power would do wonders.

Im no engenieer, i would have to do research. However my point is regarding its existence, and possibly consequences. Before we can discuss solutions, we have to first agree there is a problem. Do you agree that modern climate change is a disaster we can and should tru to avert urgently? Do you agree that it at least is real and unnatural?

Could you delineate a few of those new ways to implement renewables?

Also, as far as I know, there is not yet a way to recycle solar panels. They are extremely toxic for the environment.

Germany has to import a lot of their energy and a lot of poor people experience "energy poverty". They can't afford renewable energy because of its inefficiencies.

Mining can release gases, there can be seeping from the mining. Lots of negatives to consider.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-can-metal-mining-impact-environment

All things use fossil fuels until we make a big switch to renewables. I dont think thats a valid argument. Im not too sure about Germany's results, but technology has advanced and there are many ways to implement many different renewables.

Whats the environmental damage from digging for rare earth metals? We have to dig for coal and oil too anyway, seems like a default cost that has nothing to do with subsequent costs.

Well, I don't think we should entirely get rid of nuclear power. It wouldn't be a temporary solution. Look at how Germany failed trying to increase their renewables.

You need energy that you can depend on. The sun isn't always shining, the wind isn't always blowing, etc. If we use batteries, then you'll destroy the environment digging for rare earth metals to make them. Also, those drills use fossil fuels.

Nuclear power is clean on production, and newer gen are safe. But as far as i know we still don't know what to do about those spent rods. It also has high initial cost so not good as a temporary solution until renewables.

Eventually the market will embrace renewables, but historically governments have helped push vital new industries from railroads to medicines. This is in the public interest so they're should be no problem using public funds to invest when its to expense for for profit private

What is your opinion on nuclear power?

Seems to me that renewables might come on their own through the free market. Renewable technology is rapidly increasing in quality and decreasing in price compared to a stagnant fossil fuels industry. As it becomes more expensive to use non-renewables, renewables will be chosen simply because of the market. So in that respect, I think we will be fine. Nuclear power is extremely promising.

Always good to plant more trees, but trees take decades to grow. Algea and cyanobacteria are better options to farm. Either way, both carbon control and emissions reductions are both necessary to bring this situation under control. Renewables will eventually be necessary as our energy use keeps growing beyond the limited fossil fuel reserves.

One under-discussed idea is simply planting more trees. Planting a trillion trees globally is literally all it takes. If the UN got behind a project of that scale it could happen rather painlessly. Much better than adding tons of regulations on businesses.

I don't believe anyone rational would contend this... but I am always surprised. The only thing I would contend is whether or not the Democratic Party's policy ideas are the correct course of action to fix it given the current geopolitical climate.