A part of me feels like that places considered "safe" or "livable" will not be the countries and regions people were initially expecting. Will make it funnier when the billionaires realize they created their bunkers in all the wrong places
would be absolutely epic if the 3rd world countries decided to spew white chalk dust all over the stratosphere to block out light, returning their climates back to normal and light-starving the global north in the process
best part is it was estimated to cost only a few billion dollars
"The process does not have to be wildly expensive; in a report last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a fleet of high-flying aircraft could deposit enough sulfur to offset roughly 1.5 °C of warming for around $1 billion to $10 billion per year"
global warming comes swinging, scientists put funny dust in the air thats supposed to offset the warming but instead plunges the earth into eternal super-cold winter, willy wonka the kid who succeeded willy wonka as an adult decided to build a giant train that goes around the whole world which became very convenient for rich people to jump ship into, but under the hood theres a pretty brutal worker conditions to keep the train so nice for the rich people, then the movie happens and it's very good so go watch it.
I think the chemicals in the atmosphere isn't even the biggest logic flaw there but answer me this: how many other worker uprising movies exist that are also entirely set on trains? I rest my case that snowpiercer is the best movie ever made :traingang:
I mean, there's those whole economy of scale thing that cities have always had going for them. And big population centers are the place that politicians will tend to protect because that's also where all the valuable capital assets happen to be.
It's certainly possible that some militarized redoubt in rural Idaho keeps its line of supply longer than the poorer neighbors. But, at a certain point, the nexus of resources will be where we originally built them. Not in some backwater you need access to a private airport to reach.
A part of me feels like that places considered "safe" or "livable" will not be the countries and regions people were initially expecting. Will make it funnier when the billionaires realize they created their bunkers in all the wrong places
would be absolutely epic if the 3rd world countries decided to spew white chalk dust all over the stratosphere to block out light, returning their climates back to normal and light-starving the global north in the process
best part is it was estimated to cost only a few billion dollars
deleted by creator
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4
"The process does not have to be wildly expensive; in a report last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a fleet of high-flying aircraft could deposit enough sulfur to offset roughly 1.5 °C of warming for around $1 billion to $10 billion per year"
snowpiercer time :comfy-cool:
what exactly is snowpiercer? just tldr it for me
I know that it contains a train of some sort
global warming comes swinging, scientists put funny dust in the air thats supposed to offset the warming but instead plunges the earth into eternal super-cold winter,
willy wonkathe kid who succeeded willy wonka as an adult decided to build a giant train that goes around the whole world which became very convenient for rich people to jump ship into, but under the hood theres a pretty brutal worker conditions to keep the train so nice for the rich people, then the movie happens and it's very good so go watch it.edit: wrong wonka lmao
hm, ok. Though the premise seems questionable, I don't think it's even possible to accidentally create an ice age with this much CO2 in the air
I think the chemicals in the atmosphere isn't even the biggest logic flaw there but answer me this: how many other worker uprising movies exist that are also entirely set on trains? I rest my case that snowpiercer is the best movie ever made :traingang:
deleted by creator
Sodium Chloride is on our side
deleted by creator
You think they have just 1 bunker
All in the places they were certain to be safe
I mean, there's those whole economy of scale thing that cities have always had going for them. And big population centers are the place that politicians will tend to protect because that's also where all the valuable capital assets happen to be.
It's certainly possible that some militarized redoubt in rural Idaho keeps its line of supply longer than the poorer neighbors. But, at a certain point, the nexus of resources will be where we originally built them. Not in some backwater you need access to a private airport to reach.