Make Ares Run on Renewable Energy

[spiderman1000 737]

4 hours ago, ThirdOnion said:

 

Thank you for crushing @fishFAST for me. the climate is only getting worse day by day. The hot regions are getting hotter (trust me its killing hot) and cold regions are getting colder. Ok @fishFAST you want a fight? ill get the best guys in science for it. other than the people here, i would like @Maf, @Person_Random, @ILiveOnTheChatBox123, @cube3e, @F41TH, @Sacrifice and @Mr.Nibbles to join us and put this guy to his senses. He has lost his mind recently. At least thats what his comments prove. also watch this video and understand we have a chance please. If you would have watched the vid above in my prev post, you would have probably realized that we are idealists here and will try to make the world an ideal place to live in, rather than just live in reality, face the truth. because we make the truth truth. if we wouldve listened to the scientists way back then, climate change would not have happened in the first place. If we wouldnt have hunted whales so much, they wouldnt have been endangered. But they are endangered, not extinct. We can still save them. same is with the climate. i think ill stop now.

 

[F41TH 483]

On 5/3/2020 at 9:54 AM, sensei_tanker said:

Fantastic ideas. The developers should add a fuel mechanic to the game, where there are two types of energy sources, renewable like wind and solar energy and nonrenewable like coal. After every 10000 meters a tank drives, players who use nonrenewable energy (gasoline) will need to refuel their tank mid battle. Every tank of gasoline will cost 100 tankcoins in the shop, plus a 50% carbon-tax payed in crystals, which is equivalent to about 25 000 crystals. Meanwhile, those who use renewable energy sources will never have to refuel in battle. However, this only exists as an augment for each hull and must be pulled from a container at Legendary Rarity. 

wth?! plz tell me it's a joke.

[F41TH 483]

First of all, I thank @spiderman1000 for inviting me here. I was just going to leave it as a troll post hoping that a mod would see it and close it. But, seeing that there are a few rebellious people(not really much serious but I'd like to end this foolishness here).

I would like to start with explaining everything I know about climate change. I won't go much in the past as we all know what all "ages" the Earth has gone through. We know about the Ice Age(the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, late Paleozoic, and the latest Quaternary Ice Age) are just a few major ones to name. We all know that the temperature has been rising throughout the Earth's history. But why concern now? Why give a damn about "climate change" now? The answer is simple, because a few of us still care about the future generations and feel gratitude towards everything that the Earth provides us.

Now for some real reasons why we all must give a damn about climate change and Global warming are below:

1. Coral reef are dying. Now, who cares if some water plants die. But no, you must care. Now what would happen if a you live on a shore, and the temperature continues to rises? The answer is simple, you never know which mermaid might come and gobble you up. Yes, you that read right(read this point again). Coral reefs are not only major sites for containing the most diverse ecosystem on the planet but they also protect coastlines from waves and tropical storm. So if your reason for saving Earth is 'cause you like to dive in for a swim near reefs, you might as well stop reading now and go and think about what you can do to save Earth.
2. For those of you all who still aren't satisfied, here is a BIG reason why. Water. Yep, just water. We all need water. Heck, who doesn't? Water is one of the only reasons that we can go on each day(I don't know about caffeine addicts). Water constitutes about 70% of an average homo sapiens body. Now unless you can run dry I have no worries. Just like our body, even the Earth is covered in around two-thirds of water. Welp, that's a lotta water! Why do we need to care then? Well, exactly because that's not a lot of water. Out of all the water available to us we can only use a very minute percent of it to drink freely. The remaining fresh water is as ice in the polar regions, and due to climate change, the ice caps are melting, that means, bye-bye water(not goodbye, because nothing is good about it). Not just that but even the slightest change in the water cycle(currently) can destabilize it. We already have 2 in 3 people who are water scare worldwide, we wouldn't want to start a WW3 for water now, would we?
3. Because rainforests. Unique, irreplaceable, and often described as ‘the world’s lungs’, rainforests are some of the most precious habitats on the planet. They really are amazing; the Amazon, for example, is home to an astonishing 1 in 10 of all the known species on Earth. Yet over a third of the Amazon rainforest is already threatened by climate change. I agree that it is a double-edged sword as the greenhouse gases that come out of it are almost second to none, but that is no reason for us to act as a catalyst. We all have seen throughout the ages(in movies of course), that whenever we have messed with nature, nothing good has come out of it. Also due to climate change(obviously not due to a politician cleaning up space to earn a bit more capital in his term), the Amazon burnt for weeks and nobody did about it. Not just that but Australian fires too. If we do nothing then these will just get worse and we'll have a living hell by the end of our time.
4. My next argument would be that we all deserve to breath clean air. The following is just picked from a site simply 'cause it phrased it better than me: "With anthropogenic climate change driven by human-caused emissions to the atmosphere, it stands to reason that we face compromised air quality. This affects human health, especially children. Air pollution can lead to asthma, heart and lung disease. Beijing’s insidious smog is a visible reminder of this, but bad air quality is also making headlines" all around the world. As a person living in India, I can say that I am grateful of every single fresh breath that I can get each morning, but there are many places where people don't even get that. So unless you don't wanna breath fresh air and your lungs are more used to smoke than oxygen, I don't really care, but I do.
5. This point is a mix of many reasons I consider to be smaller but important. Well, what can I say, clean tech is very exciting. Yep, as the world progresses towards its own destruction, unluckily a few creeps who still care about the planet we live on created many ways which can drastically reduce CO₂ emissions at a few vital places(the reason I said it's small is because not all can afford it). Now, who doesn't like polar bears, snow leopards and turtles. Not just those but many, if not, every animal on Earth(including human) will be affected by climate change sooner or later. We will reap what we are sowing right now, sooner or later.
6. This is going to be my last point for the time being because if you still aren't convinced with all that I have typed up until now, I don't know what's wrong. We all need to act against climate change not only for the future generations but also for our own sake. Doesn't it hurt you to know that you could be living a lot more comfortably if the whole world were a lot more stabler? No no no, don't go on blaming the world and saying that some messiah will come and save us all. You need to act for yourself. Now what can you do even if you plant a single tree? Well not much if you think that you're the only one planting a tree, but even if 3/4^th of the people in Earth were to plant a single tree daily each day for at least 2 months in a year, then god-damn, it pains me to say that we might as well be able to get out of this mess within 10-15 years. Many people don't think of the far future, I myself don't at times, but then I think of this, "We didn't get the Earth as a gift from our past, but we rather have borrowed it from the ones who are yet to come" and this helps me go on, not each day but most of the time.

Welp, I could writes novels on this so I'm probably going to stop for now because I'm hungry for some grub. But I'd like to finish by thanking @spiderman1000 once again for inviting me to this topic. Not really, but yeah.

I would like to end this with a quote from Barrac Obama, "Climate change is no longer some far-off problem; it is happening here, it is happening now".

Thank you(if you read it till the end).

I might have written some utter bullcrap, idk, haven't use my brain much in a while.

Edited May 19, 2020 by ControlledChaos
Kindly follow the game rules.

[Maf 32,300]

@fishFAST I really hope you're trolling with your comments here. If you are, then please stop — malicious trolling is not allowed on the forum.

If you're not, then I'll just say this. Even if the whole climate change thing isn't as dramatic as experts say it is, what's wrong with still taking action to reduce emissions and move to cleaner energy nonetheless?

[spiderman1000 737]

@fishFAST now that @F41TH has crushed you and @Maf has made his point, can you pls look into what you're saying? you're encouraging the illegal log cutting industries and someone who encourages crime is a criminal himself. (I mean, why do you think i buy these overpriced games instead of downloading them for free? Because Piracy IS A CRIME.) Ok now we all have told you what is climate change and how is you data incorrect. But if you still believe that you are right, then either you are too stubborn or too foolish. well, if you have learnt your lesson, well and good. if not, i would love to crush you again with my tankiforum-mates. it would be my pleasure.

[Maf 32,300]

1 hour ago, spiderman1000 said:

Because Piracy IS A CRIME

[Bendigedig 4]

Human influenced climate change is highly debatable. As a species we are puny compared to Earth's size. Of the big lump of land and Ocean that is the face of planet Earth only about 0.3% of Earth surface is built-up polluting land like cities, roads.etc. 0.3% ?, is that it?. Even on that puny 0.3% the amount of it taken up by polluters like vehicles, power-stations etc at any given time is even more puny. Then there's the size of the atmosphere around the Earth that we are allegedly polluting, it's monumentally massive, we are collectively monumentally puny by comparison. Humanity cannot possibly have much impact on it. Regionally? definately! Globally? no! Earth has always had its own natural climate changing, we are insignificant to that process.

Soil itself naturally stores co2 as the plants that absorb CO2 die and rot into it. Last time I checked, planet Earth has a lot of Soil. Even the oceans of earth have stuff in them like plankton that absorb huge amounts of CO2, last time i checked, Earth has a lot of Ocean, 71% of Earth surface.

As we chop down trees more green stuff that also likes CO2 takes its place (unless we build on it), when new plants grow they absorb co2 through photosynthesis, well-managed tree harvesting is good when done right, especially if we re-plant tree species that absorb more co2 than others. As humans we need Trees and need to re-plant what we cut down, timber is a superb material and a tree itself improves any vista. Tree harvesting needs to be managed better for aesthetic and wildlife conservation reasons, no doubt!. And extinction of animals because of animal habitat destruction and other human activity is wrong, to say the least.

Regional pollution needs to be tackled, it's 2020 and humanity should be better than that. Bigger problem is Microplastics.

[printing_now 59]

try solar power. ares will have huge panels on top of it, therefore making it easier to target

[Thomas11239 366]

How about not making it able to drive at all?

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

10 hours ago, Maf said:

Even if the whole climate change thing isn't as dramatic as experts say it is, what's wrong with still taking action to reduce emissions and move to cleaner energy nonetheless?

Trade-offs for combating climate change are not harmless. Closing coal mines sends tens of thousands of coal workers into poverty. Banning non-renewable energy cars hits the economy hard, and will send more people into poverty. If funds that would've gone to save lives and lower the poverty rate are spent on 'renewable energy research' or similar programs, you may be killing people. While some trade-offs may be worth it, nothing is harmless.

This is besides for the fact that we have no proof that emissions are the cause for a rise n average global temperature. While it may make sense, we have no idea how many degrees it is actually warming us by. Remember, in order to get a life-saving medicine to be legalized in the USA, you need to perform numerous controlled tests with a large sample size. Global warming is totally observational and not controlled. There are other factors that affect global temperature change such as sunspots (The sun is a mixture of gases, and sometimes the outer gases are the hotter ones, and sometimes they are less hot).

I do not mean that we should trash our planet. There needs to be considerable steps taken to try to stop global warming. However, this does not mean that we have to factor in what you are losing, and how sure can you be of its gain in each situation.

[wolverine848 13,097]

10 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

This is besides for the fact that we have no proof that emissions are the cause for a rise n average global temperature.

What??  

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

3 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

What??  

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Its pretty basic that there are other factors besides for human actions.

Edited May 19, 2020 by ILiveOnTheChatBox123

[sharifsahaf 656]

@spiderman1000 , @F41TH  support u guys protesting climate change .but whats the point of saving the world if we cant save ourselves?in the world we live in some people are becoming trillionaires and some are dying without food .the recent covid 19 outbreak has shown us what humanity is actually like -people dying in the streets,no one cares .in my country,bangladesh ,many of the doctors refuse to even run tests on patients for the fear of catching the virus .leave all that -have u seen the in -game chat -people abusing each other ,racial slurs etc.we humans just divide and differentiate amongst ourselves .people choose to do whats easy than whats right .i dont wanna live in a world were the best creature(humans) act like this .my point is if some amongst us do not change our mentalities theres no point in saving the world  .this article is written as an awareness act .

[wolverine848 13,097]

49 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Its pretty basic that there are other factors besides for human actions.

But you don't think cars are a huge contribution?

[wolverine848 13,097]

20 hours ago, ThirdOnion said:

The graph only includes data up to 1854, leaving out the temperature spike of the past 150 years.

 You saying partial data is not as good a full data?

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

4 minutes ago, wolverine848 said:

But you don't think cars are a huge contribution?

The U.S. FDA would not allow a medicine to be legalized on the current global warming data. Obviously cars are warming the globe, but it might not be doing as much as thought. I still support a switch to electric-cars. However, if you place unjust restrictions on gasoline-cars, you may be doing more harm than a more gradual switch.

I don't think its not real, I just believe that its overrated to some extent.

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

17 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

The U.S. FDA would not allow a medicine to be legalized on the current global warming data. Obviously cars are warming the globe, but it might not be doing as much as thought. I still support a switch to electric-cars. However, if you place unjust restrictions on gasoline-cars, you may be doing more harm than a more gradual switch.

I don't think its not real, I just believe that its overrated to some extent.

A gradual switch is the only way we can fight the crisis. We can't be too radical and want an immediate switch. Most people don't approve of that and that would end up harming our economy. We have to set a goal and make the slow transition towards environmentally-friendly tech. One way we can begin making the transition is by making Ares run on renewable energy.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

1 hour ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

Trade-offs for combating climate change are not harmless. Closing coal mines sends tens of thousands of coal workers into poverty. Banning non-renewable energy cars hits the economy hard, and will send more people into poverty. If funds that would've gone to save lives and lower the poverty rate are spent on 'renewable energy research' or similar programs, you may be killing people. While some trade-offs may be worth it, nothing is harmless.

I agree that immediately shutting down any sort of "non-environmentally-friendly" activity would be harmful and unfeasible, but I don't think most reasonable people are calling for that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps towards a more sustainable way of life, and taking those steps won't cause as much harm as some "pro-economy" people claim they will. Here's an example: in the US, there is a law that taxes car manufacturers (not people) for producing cars with an MPG below a certain threshold. Each year the acceptable MPG increases. I'd argue that this law is beneficial for both the environment and the consumer, because less fuel spent = less money spent. And on top of that, it has encouraged car manufacturers to innovate and produce more efficient drivetrains. A typical compact / midsize sedan nowadays tends to have a fuel economy of around 30 MPG, while ten years ago, the figure was around 20 MPG.

When it comes to car manufacturers in general, consider the recent rise of electric vehicles. More and more car manufacturers are starting to seriously focus on developing electric cars. These companies are not going to go out of business anytime soon. They're simply adapting to changes. Shifting to renewable energy and maintaining the health of the economy are not things that mutually exclusive. Germany is a good example of this. Industries adapt to changes.

I think that the argument that people will suffer if we pursue renewable energy is a flawed one. Consider another example: in the past 40-50 years, most manufacturing in the US was outsourced to Asia (because labor there is cheaper), and who knows how many people lost their jobs. And yet this change was precipitated solely by businesses looking to maximize profit, without any sort of "nobler" motivations such as improving people's future lives. Many, many industries have died out due to advances in technology, or changing consumer tastes, or simply poor management. If you wanted to preserve every industry, you would never get anywhere. The reality is that the economy changes regardless of what you do. Some industries die out and others flourish. And again, it is not like these changes will cause people "to go into poverty" overnight. Let's not forget that expanding the renewable energy sector creates jobs as well. There are many new economic opportunities that have been untapped because more sustainable energy sources are underdeveloped.

Lastly, I think the argument that "funds spent on developing renewable energy programs is better spent on saving lives" is even more flawed, because you can apply this argument to literally anything that requires money. What's stopping me from saying the following: why don't all those coal and oil companies use the money with which they lobby governments to create policies favoring them to help poor people? Why don't all those oil tycoons use their wealth to help poor people? Why don't mining companies use their profits to improve safety conditions and actually pay proper benefits to their workers? It's the same logic. There are so many useless or harmful things that government funds are spent on. I don't think it's too much to ask for them to be spent on something that will improve peoples' lives in the future.

Edited May 19, 2020 by ThirdOnion

[Maf 32,300]

1 hour ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

Closing coal mines sends tens of thousands of coal workers into poverty.

Technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and in the past century dozens of professions became obsolete due to technological development. This is normal, and there is no way to avoid it. People losing jobs is a valid issue, but i don't think it's enough to counter the benefits of something like reducing coal usage.

 

[ILiveOnTheChatBox123 936]

10 minutes ago, sensei_tanker said:

A gradual switch is the only way we can fight the crisis. We can't be too radical and want an immediate switch. Most people don't approve of that and that would end up harming our economy. We have to set a goal and make the slow transition towards environmentally-friendly tech. One way we can begin making the transition is by making Ares run on renewable energy.

How about getting rid of the nuclear box (maybe replace it with a solar energy box) deleting Chernobyl might also help.

 

2 minutes ago, ThirdOnion said:

I think that the argument that people will suffer if we pursue renewable energy is a flawed one. Consider another example: in the past 40-50 years, most manufacturing in the US was outsourced to Asia (because labor there is cheaper), and who knows how many people lost their jobs. And yet this change was precipitated solely by businesses looking to maximize profit, without any sort of "nobler" motivations such as improving people's future lives. Many, many industries have died out due to advances in technology, or changing consumer tastes, or simply poor management. If you wanted to preserve every industry, you would never get anywhere. The reality is that the economy changes regardless of what you do. Some industries die out and others flourish. And again, it is not like these changes will cause people "to go into poverty" overnight. Let's not forget that expanding the renewable energy sector creates jobs as well. There are so many new economic opportunities that have been untapped because more sustainable energy sources are underdeveloped.

I don't want to keep these industries forever, just doing anything too drastic when other industries are not ready yet will harm people.

 

3 minutes ago, ThirdOnion said:

Lastly, I think the argument that "funds spent on developing renewable energy programs is better spent on saving lives" is even more flawed, because you can apply this argument to literally anything that requires money. What's stopping me from saying the following: why don't all those coal and oil companies use the money with which they lobby governments to create policies favoring them to help poor people? Why don't all those oil tycoons use their wealth to help poor people? Why don't mining companies use their profits to improve safety conditions and actually pay proper benefits to their workers? It's the same logic. There are so many useless or harmful things that government funds are spent on, but for some reason it is only an issue when government funds are spent on improving peoples' future lives.

I mean government funds. Most real climate change intervention includes government money. A lot of that money is going to waste, but a certain politician called for a 3 trillion 'green new deal' which is a lot to much to not have negative impacts. Either the taxes to pay for such deals would stifle the economy, or it would get rid of government programs that people rely on to stay alive. A smaller amount is acceptable, not trillions.

[Maf 32,300]

Topic moved from game discussion, by the way.

[F41TH 483]

3 minutes ago, ILiveOnTheChatBox123 said:

I don't want to keep these industries forever, just doing anything too drastic when other industries are not ready yet will harm people.

Of course people will be harmed. There has never been a single drastic change in Earths history where people have not been harmed at first, but later, they're the ones thanking everyone the most.

Wanna know why I support helping climate change?

Even if we all are "puny", as someone earlier commented, compared to all the large changes happening world wide, mostly naturally, we are contributing a major factor to most of the "human" changes. We might not think it's much but each day when we go through pollution, traffic, industrial smoke, our lungs and psychology is damaged a bit. I might not have concrete proof but as someone who has studies psychology for 4 years I can assure that it is very true. 

Now, when it comes to the economical part all I wanna say is that you cannot make more opportunities without taking many from others. People who are suited for a certain job will need to step up themselves. No one is going to go to them. If you're talking about the millions who will lose their job, well we aren't telling you to take away their jobs without creating help for them. If you could reveal space truth sitting in a god-dammed lab, then thinking a solution for something you live on shouldn't be much hard. You agree?

[F41TH 483]

6 hours ago, Bendigedig said:

Human influenced climate change is highly debatable. As a species we are puny compared to Earth's size. Of the big lump of land and Ocean that is the face of planet Earth only about 0.3% of Earth surface is built-up polluting land like cities, roads.etc. 0.3% ?, is that it?. Even on that puny 0.3% the amount of it taken up by polluters like vehicles, power-stations etc at any given time is even more puny. Then there's the size of the atmosphere around the Earth that we are allegedly polluting, it's monumentally massive, we are collectively monumentally puny by comparison. Humanity cannot possibly have much impact on it. Regionally? definately! Globally? no! Earth has always had its own natural climate changing, we are insignificant to that process.

Soil itself naturally stores co2 as the plants that absorb CO2 die and rot into it. Last time I checked, planet Earth has a lot of Soil. Even the oceans of earth have stuff in them like plankton that absorb huge amounts of CO2, last time i checked, Earth has a lot of Ocean, 71% of Earth surface.

As we chop down trees more green stuff that also likes CO2 takes its place (unless we build on it), when new plants grow they absorb co2 through photosynthesis, well-managed tree harvesting is good when done right, especially if we re-plant tree species that absorb more co2 than others. As humans we need Trees and need to re-plant what we cut down, timber is a superb material and a tree itself improves any vista. Tree harvesting needs to be managed better for aesthetic and wildlife conservation reasons, no doubt!. And extinction of animals because of animal habitat destruction and other human activity is wrong, to say the least.

Regional pollution needs to be tackled, it's 2020 and humanity should be better than that. Bigger problem is Microplastics.

Exactly, this is the problem. We are leaving lesser place for CO₂ absorbtion each time we cut down countless trees. Plant don't just get efficient whenever they want, we need at least 3-4 years before we can say that a certain tree has "effects" on its surroundings.

About this, I mentioned in my previous previous post. Read point 1.

[spiderman1000 737]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Before we continue, let me state the fact the just 1 degree celcius increase in global temp would cause most of the well known animal species go extinct, not to mention the not well known and undiscovered species.

[printing_now 59]

Oh wait... I got a new idea.

Make Ares run on Nuclear Power - gotta drink up on your Nuclear Energies!