Leonardo DiCaprio attacks Republican presidential candidates on climate change - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50009929]I would prefer all celebrities to keep their political opinions to themselves, even if I agree with them[/QUOTE] yeah this, as far as it isn't shitposting in SH I'd rather keep my political stances to myself if not a private conversation

His Oscar acceptance speech was pretty good on the matter. [video=youtube;AOoP56eXtzM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOoP56eXtzM[/video] Relevant at 2 mins. It must be quite a large point for him to use such a big moment to push awareness of climate change. He has also been a long time supporter of Tesla and has a Roadster and a Model S.

[QUOTE=jesse1412;50011344]Are there any candidates that recognize climate change AND understand that nuclear is the best way to go about it? Even Sander's fails here. Not the best election for climate enthusiasts I think.[/QUOTE] I don't know why people on the Internet say nuclear is apparently the best way to go. Seriously, the only time I ever see people advocating for nuclear power is when I'm on an online forum. No one else wants nuclear power.

[QUOTE=sb27;50013306]I don't know why people on the Internet say nuclear is apparently the best way to go. Seriously, the only time I ever see people advocating for nuclear power is when I'm on an online forum. No one else wants nuclear power.[/QUOTE] That's because you're in Australia. Mainstream support for nuclear is very, very low.

[QUOTE=jesse1412;50011344]Are there any candidates that recognize climate change AND understand that nuclear is the best way to go about it? Even Sander's fails here. Not the best election for climate enthusiasts I think.[/QUOTE] Doesn't nuclear power still generate a lot of waste? I only have a very basic understanding of this stuff, but I'm certain that while very efficient, nuclear plants always left us with a bunch of unusable radioactive material that we just dumped in warehouses or whatever.

celebrities have a platform to have their voice heard that very few people do. i don't think we should discourage them from using it, but rather encourage people not to assume name recognition means some form of higher knowledge

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50013590]Doesn't nuclear power still generate a lot of waste? I only have a very basic understanding of this stuff, but I'm certain that while very efficient, nuclear plants always left us with a bunch of unusable radioactive material that we just dumped in warehouses or whatever.[/QUOTE] Right, but even then coal plants release more radioactivity into the environment if I'm not mistaken. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922"]Snowmew has a pretty good post summing up a lot of aspects.[/URL] Note that Gen IV reactors aren't quite ready yet, but should become viable by 2030 at the latest.

Why is global warming even politicised?

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50013590]Doesn't nuclear power still generate a lot of waste? I only have a very basic understanding of this stuff, but I'm certain that while very efficient, nuclear plants always left us with a bunch of unusable radioactive material that we just dumped in warehouses or whatever.[/QUOTE] Nuclear waste is not an issue. We have plenty of space to store it and that's ignoring our increasing ability to recycle the waste and reuse it.

Climate change should not be a political issue. End of.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50014153]Climate change should not be a political issue. End of.[/QUOTE] How can it not be an issue? Even with consensus that it's a thing, the issue is how should it be addressed. Some people believe in carbon taxes, others in emissions trading schemes, others in providing incentives, 'direct action', to polluters if they undertake projects to reduce emissions. And what should replace dirty energy? Solar? Wind? Hydro? Geothermal?

[QUOTE=sb27;50014195]How can it not be an issue? Even with consensus that it's a thing, the issue is how should it be addressed. Some people believe in carbon taxes, others in emissions trading schemes, others in providing incentives, 'direct action', to polluters if they undertake projects to reduce emissions. And what should replace dirty energy? Solar? Wind? Hydro? Geothermal?[/QUOTE] He's saying the science itself should not be politicized— and he's right. Science is nonpartisan. In the same way 1+1 is always 2 irrespective if it is a Democrat answering the question— or a Republican— the science of climate change should not be a matter of political-party preference. He's not talking about how to deal with it (e.g. carbon taxes, incentives)— because— we're not even at the part yet. There is no bipartisan consensus on climate change in the first place.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50013822]Why is global warming even politicised?[/QUOTE] Industry and jobs.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50014153]Climate change should not be a political issue. End of.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree, but unfortunately it's in a lot of corporation's interests to deny it and fight against any regulations or initiatives that would cut into their profit margins - even if it's in everybody's interests otherwise. There is hard scientific evidence behind climate change, and every scientist who isn't funded by corporate interests tells us that basically, shit is fucked. This isn't even news anymore, we've all been told we have to make changes for years now, yet here we are. The problem is that corporations are entities to themselves, organisms that we've created, but rather than needing food or water to survive, they need money to survive. You may as well try to get somebody to limit how much water they drink, reduce the oxygen content in the air they breathe, or fast every other day; even if they were able to do so, their own self preservation would stop them. It sounds ridiculous, and obviously, a corporation isn't an organism in the physical sense, but they can be considered as such. It's just important to remember that it's not about 'enough' money; as individuals, there will always be a point where we have enough money to live comfortably and pursue our own interests. That doesn't exist for corporations. The only way we're going to make progress reducing climate change is if we understand corporations, and instead of it being profitable to lobby against climate change, it's profitable to make their businesses cleaner. Some progress has already been made in that way with government grants and subsidies, however, certain corporations, cannot adapt. It's in this case, with oil companies and such, that you're basically telling them to die by fighting climate change.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50013822]Why is global warming even politicised?[/QUOTE] In short: Money. There are a lot of big corporations that depend on big oil operations and the like, and e.g. solar panels and even wind turbines are easier to make so there's more competition. It's also cheaper to not have to change fields.