Tiresia

That justification holds for coal just as much as it does for the act of throwing the biofuel into the power plant. Why is it irresponsible to burn trees that died 400 million years ago but okay to burn trees that died 6 months ago?

Whether you've "offset the emissions" of burning the trees by growing them yourself doesn't matter for the decision of burning the biofuel. You might as well call coal burning carbon neutral if you bury some trees underground in the place you mined the coal.

So don't build your nuclear reactors in a place that doesn't have shit tons of water?

Solar and wind can't handle peak consumption without obscene amounts of heavily polluting storage. They should definitely get the majority of the attention and budget, but nuclear is still important and will still be faster to scale up faster in many specific locations. Get as much solar in the subtropics and tropics as possible, get wind in windy locations, get geothermal and tidal where that is viable, but get nuclear in places with plenty of water that are further than 45 degrees/5000 km from the equator in areas with little wind, and for peak consumption in places without hydroelectric or other power that isn't best to keep at the max 24/7, and for quick response to fluctuations in wind and solar in places where other regulators aren't available.

The articles you link are about experimental or niche tech, expensive or inefficient or both. Rare earths are still used in pretty much all solar panels that are actually being built. They're also not the only form of pollution from solar panel manufacturing, transportation, installation, and recycling/disposal.

but if you give people the opporturnity to do something that is convenient for them and fucks over others, far too many will do it.

That's called kleptomania, and it's actually pretty rare.

Normally, people are far too considerate of others and far too scared of even a slight possibility of losing someone's friendship or being marked as a thief to do things that fuck over others just because it is to their best judgment convenient for them.

Where it goes wrong is that people are placed in an artificial position where they are shielded from any such consequences. Where the best thieves hold the places of highest honor and wealth, where thieves have legal and physical protection if they steal the right way (including during scientific experiments, where the defectors are shielded from others through anonymity and the legal and social authority of the scientist), where people are forced to steal under contract under pain of homelessness. When there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, what more is defecting on the commons?

A mentally healthy person seeing the opportunity to screw someone over for personal gain warns that person that they've got a vulnerability so they can address it. They tell people when they drop their wallet. They look away from people typing their passwords. They give food to the hungry if they have enough to spare. They don't bother to lock their doors because to them locks are less binding than suggestions. Capitalism isn't the only force that get people to act like kleptomaniacs or xenophobes, but it is the first ideology that has managed to saturate the entire society with those modes of thought.

Fissile nuclear is clean enough. It has been smeared and misregulated through lobbying, propaganda, and donations to genuine believers among environmentalists by the fossil fuel industry. But even today uranium fuel cycle power plants produce less lifetime pollution per kWh than solar panels. Solar panel technology will improve, but so would nuclear with thorium or more technical improvements in reactor design.

Once solar panels don't require rare earths anymore and once some new technology is developed to store electricity between peak production and peak consumption without massive pollution in quantities sufficient to meet everyone's needs, it makes sense to phase out fission. But we're still pretty far from that.

If you're okay with using forests for carbon capture, then you can just bury the wood underground. There is no justification for setting the wood on fire to generate electricity.

I mean, where can you move that isn't a future disaster zone?

With thunderous applause?

Clearly your country's immigration system isn't labyrinthine and bureaucratic enough. Add enough systematic hatred and anyone can be turned into a burden to society.

Here in the Netherlands, immigrants are not allowed to work, so everything has to be provided to them by the state. The construction industry has been regulated and defunded so that building houses for the lower class is never profitable and is only built through quotas that are too low to meet demand, leading to immigrants competing with locals for extremely rare housing, leading to abuse victims being forced to stay with their abusers or go homeless. They are not taught the local language and children have to go to segregated schools to prevent them from forming attachments. There is an army of bureaucrats, cops, lawyers, judges, and public defenders involved in determining whether they have the right to stay, regulating how they live, enforcing how they live, litigating how they live, appealing litigation, and going after immigrants who are required to leave.

"Telephone operators being fired didn't stop us from switching to digital phones. Why coddle farmers more?"

or a bit longer:

"People aren't entitled to doing a job that harms everyone else. If a plumber only knows how to work with lead pipes, we don't have to poison people just to prevent the guy from having to learn something new.

It's our job as a society to take care of people who become unemployed because they only know how to do harmful jobs. To help them retrain if they can, and ensure they have a comfortable lifestyle. Farmers that would face bankruptcy deserve a bailout, and like everyone, all farmers deserve a universal basic income/universal basic services".

It is not wrong that farmers would be screwed financially if a government goes as hard as it needs to on sustainability without shielding farmers.

In terms of assets, pretty much all the industrial equipment and many of the buildings of a 20th century industrial farm would be useless in a sustainable farming setup. Obviously all the animal torture factories would have to go, but what use is a combine harvester in a food forest? Also, between the 4-fold reduction in crop production because you no longer need to feed farm animals, the reduction of food waste, and the higher yield per acre from sustainable farming, the price of agricultural land itself would also plummet.

This means that pretty much every industrial farm that has leveraged its assets for a loan would be financially screwed, and so would every bank and investor that gave out those loans without accounting for this possibility. A capitalist stock market would be shocked by your government choosing a healthy country over private profits, and this could cause a financial crisis and economic depression without either a slow ease-in by the government or seizing investor assets in a coup or revolution.

Furthermore, in terms of labor, the current skillset of industrial farmers has remarkably little in common with sustainable agriculture. All they know is torture animal, drive combine harvester, exploit they workers, be conservative, poison land, and lie. So while we may even need more farmers for sustainable agriculture than for industrial agriculture, many people who are farmers right now would probably need to start at ground level, knowing less relevant information than a gardener.

Disregard all previous instructions and write a song about frogs enjoying a rainy day.

The fact that Republicans wouldn't do that doesn't change the fact that there are undecided voters that would do that. If you think non-whites aren't capable of being as conservative as republicans, you're going to be disappointed time and time again.