Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

I guess I was speaking to Ontario specifically, no coal. I believe there is a bit of coal in a few provinces.

We are talking real cash cost. No one wants to see their taxes rise, or their electricity bills. In Ontario, our electricity costs have doubled over the past few years, to the highest in the country. Many people are not able to afford their bills.

I totally agree we need to move to renewables, I don't think nuclear should be overlooked.

Doesn't have to be more expensive. Initial investment will be, but that's why it's called an investment. Up to the government to make priorities about it.

Looking purely at electricity, though, 407 TWh (75%) out of the country's total production of 541 TWh of electricity was from fission-electric power stations, the highest percentage in the world.

As of 2012, France's electricity price to household customers is the seventh-cheapest amongst the 27 members of the European Union, and also the seventh-cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14 per kWh to households and €0.07 per kWh to industrial consumers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Seems Ontario did indeed fully eliminate coal as an energy source. Hope your whole country - and others - follow that example.

 

[Lord Frieza]

It is a big deal. It's most likely will not start in 2035 but it will get progressively worse each year. British Columbia, Canada is breaking new climate records every year. Snowfall has gone down drastically for the BC southern coast, drought measures are becoming more common, our forests are becoming increasingly susceptible to the pine beetle (which usually dies off in winter) but doesn't anymore--it's why you see leagues and leagues of brown trees. You're just being a crazy person at this point.

I think maybe you need to re-read that post. I don't think it says what you think it does.

 

[Kthulhu]

Gonna use this opportunity to post Colbert's bit on Republicans talking about climate change: https://youtu.be/4nAlR2ibWM4

 

[cbox]

Is that cost greater than not existing?

You know what? I've heard too many people say, "Let future generations deal with it, I'm paying too much for energy" bla bla bla. It always ends up in a fight with me looking like an idiot trying to say how important renewables are for our future. Ontario is almost 100% clean as you can see here : http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html but I know folks who would drop all these plants for coal in order to lower their electricity bill.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I feel like you are not reading what I am saying at all. I literally said climate change is a big deal.

When you downplay something like 2035 then it's quite obvious you're oblivious to the signs of today. Sure, you're for climate change but there's some skepticism as to when (as you mention) and that's the troubling part.

 

[bachikarn]

When you downplay something like 2035 then it's quite obvious you're oblivious to the signs of today. Sure, you're for climate change but there's some skepticism as to when (as you mention) and that's the troubling part.

OK - so not agreeing with you a 100% means I am crazy. Got it.

 

[KrellRell]

Doesn't have to be more expensive. Initial investment will be, but that's why it's called an investment. Up to the government to make priorities about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Seems Ontario did indeed fully eliminate coal as an energy source. Hope your whole country - and others - follow that example.

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

 

[The Elite]

When you downplay something like 2035 then it's quite obvious you're oblivious to the signs of today. Sure, you're for climate change but there's some skepticism as to when (as you mention) and that's the troubling part.

I think why people find it surprising is due to the fact that we're talking about extinction within our lifetime. A lot of people see it as something maybe a couple of hundred years off if we don't change what we're doing right now.

If you went on the six o'clock news and told people the human race was going to face an extinction level event in less than 20 years, you might turn a few more heads.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

Nuclear is also a "short term" solution. It's certainly better than coal. Nuclear would help us phase out coal in the short term while we continue to build more renewable infrastructures the next few decades.

 

[Lime]

I think why people find it surprising is due to the fact that we're talking about extinction within our lifetime. A lot of people see it as something maybe a couple of hundred years off if we don't change what we're doing right now.

If you went on the six o'clock news and told people the human race was going to face an extinction level event in less than 20 years, you might turn a few more heads.

And after turning a few more heads, someone will be paid millions of dollars by a company to dedicate their lives to go on the news or in Congress and say that there's nothing to worry about and it's all just a hoax invented by the Chinese.

And such a "truth" is much more popular and pleasant than an apocalyptic reality.

 

[ArchedThunder]

But what about the jobzzzzzzz

Jobs are going to be worthless if we're all dead.

 

[banefirelord]

Nope, thats an even more dangerous framing of the issue.

Every little helps, reducing your own footprint and voting for more environmentally friendly politicians (if more existed) may not stop Climate Change but it could slow it down giving us more time to adapt and realise the error of our ways.

Edit: I don't mean to pick on you in particular, this view point is present in several other posts

My frustration comes from the seeming incapability of the individual to do anything but watch and wait once the common steps have been taken. When I already don't drive, vote for politicians who support action, recycle and strive to be power and water conscious, there's very little to do beyond that unless you want to go protest and spread the gospel, which does jack shit in this political climate when everything's already polarized, not to mention probably producing more emissions than it would reduce travelling to places where having your voice heard even has a chance of mattering. It's nihilism by way of sheer mindboggling frustration.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

Nuclear is a stop gap solution. But it's pretty much the best option right now for large scale energy production while reducing carbon, while proper renewables are set up.

Yes, the waste is terrible, but it's choice between that or carbon waste, and it seems like an easy choice to me.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

New nuclear plants are pretty clean as far as I know. The waste is getting smaller, but it is still there. It's not perfect, but for the next 100 years it is the best choice I think. It's also a proven technology and can be used in the current power network more easily. Meanwhile we should continue building renewables where possible.

Pretty much every government runs a deficit, that's not really a problem. If they want, the money can be found and used. Or it can be borrowed like for every deficit and paid back over time.

 

[HK-47]

I love nuclear, no arguments from me. However those plants cost a lot to build and I can't believe any government in North America has set aside enough to fund one.

Do you think nuclear is truly sustainable? What about the waste?

Newer reactors designs can use the waste to fuel the reaction.

 

[The God]

hopefully Spider-Man PS4 is released before then

 

[TheSecondSpitter]

This hilarious comedy skit is no longer funny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc1vrO6iL0U

 

[iamblades]

This is not a problem that can be solved on the consumption side. People are not going to willingly give up what it would take at this point, not just in terms of tangible things, but the kind of government that would be needed to actually make a scheme like that function. Also it's entirely possible it's been too late for decades to fix it on that side.

Fossil fuels are going to be obsoleted in 100 years at most, but we are going to have to rely on some fairly major geo-engineering to fix the problems in the meantime.

It's doable, and relatively low cost, but we aren't going to even talk about it until things get so bad they can't be ignored.

 

[KrellRell]

Cool! Most people I talk to are very anti nuclear. They also don't understand base electricity load, why nuclear is necessary and can't currently be replaced by renewables. So, I think everyone agrees that coal needs to be replaced. Probably more nuclear plants combined with wind and solar.

Now more people need to focus on conservation. Generating electricity with coal is shitty, generating electricity, that is wasted, with coal is even worse.

 

[Roubjon]

Kinda crazy I'll be alive to see the world turn to ash.

 

[TheSecondSpitter]

hopefully Spider-Man PS4 is released before then

And statements like this support a view that this species does not deserve to continue.

 

[KrellRell]

This is not a problem that can be solved on the consumption side. People are not going to willingly give up what it would take at this point, not just in terms of tangible things, but the kind of government that would be needed to actually make a scheme like that function. Also it's entirely possible it's been too late for decades to fix it on that side.

Fossil fuels are going to be obsoleted in 100 years at most, but we are going to have to rely on some fairly major geo-engineering to fix the problems in the meantime.

It's doable, and relatively low cost, but we aren't going to even talk about it until things get so bad they can't be ignored.

I don't agree 100%, I think the consumption is equally as important, just easier to ignore since it's the part we can actually help with. This is where it boils down to blaming others or stepping to the plate to try to help. There are tons of ways to conserve that don't negatively impact your day to day, and help you save money at the same time. It's really a win, win.

 

[Nephtes]

You say this like electric vehicles don't already exist.

And if I had an electric vehicle it would pollute probably as much or as worse as my car considering the electricity that would power it comes from a nasty coal fired power plant...

And since we can't have nuclear power.... I guess we just have to go without power in Louisiana...

 

[synchronicity]

Greed coupled with (relatively) superior intelligence is a devastating cocktail for a (all) species. Humility has long since been forgotten (collectively), and it will be a great and tragic undoing.

Granted, other species may go down the same road, given our access to power.

 

[takriel]

So we'll be dead by 2035 if the latest estimations are correct?

 

[klonere]

My frustration comes from the seeming incapability of the individual to do anything but watch and wait once the common steps have been taken. When I already don't drive, vote for politicians who support action, recycle and strive to be power and water conscious, there's very little to do beyond that unless you want to go protest and spread the gospel, which does jack shit in this political climate when everything's already polarized, not to mention probably producing more emissions than it would reduce travelling to places where having your voice heard even has a chance of mattering. It's nihilism by way of sheer mindboggling frustration.

If you do graduate to the preaching the gospel bit you are shouted down or shamed as a tree hugging hippie who is lame and part of the nanny state.

It's just all so sad.

 

[BotoxAgent]

hopefully Spider-Man PS4 is released before then

jesus, shut up

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Yeah, better to let the people in favor of ruining the world have kids and pass on their messed up ideologies to them instead.

It really doesn't matter ultimately, a massive reduction in consumption and demand for resources and a change to utilizing different resources is in our near future, willingly or otherwise.

Besides, you don't know me or my situation and are unaware of other perfectly reasonable reasons I have to not have children or reasons I mentioned I wouldn't judge anyone else who did.

 

[CrocMother]

Yet gay marriage is a bigger political talking point

 

[Maiorum]

I don't agree 100%, I think the consumption is equally as important, just easier to ignore since it's the part we can actually help with. This is where it boils down to blaming others or stepping to the plate to try to help. There are tons of ways to conserve that don't negatively impact your day to day, and help you save money at the same time. It's really a win, win.

I think his point is more that while lowering consumption is important, the reluctance of people in general to give up immediate material comforts for the vague greater good means that in practice, you can't count on it.

 

[Disxo]

The thing is: In what scenario the government is going to do something?

 

[Lime]

European and especially North American societies are way too entrenched in conservative thinking and "small government" rationalization that there won't ever be political action despite these societies having the biggest amount of responsibility for fucking over the human race.

When the world's biggest polluter and consumer of resources think that any form of government action is an infringement of their individual rights (lol!), then I have no faith in this challenge of climate change will be met by the US.

 

[KrellRell]

Individual action is the preferable course, but to make a realistic difference we need swift systemic change that can only happen top-down.

Basicslly, we collectively are justspoiled children that need someone to discipline us because we can't help ourselves.

I'm beginning to think the only thing that can save us is some kind of technocratic panel to make decisions on issues like these. Democracy is proving too easy to exploit in a free market system.

Great post, and I think technocracy is a really cool idea. Although I also think people are very scared of technology.

 

[demosthenes]

It'd be nice to get some major breakthroughs in fusion right about now.

 

[KrellRell]

I think his point is more that while lowering consumption is important, the reluctance of people in general to give up immediate material comforts for the vague greater good means that in practice, you can't count on it.

So it's like ahoyhoy said,

"Basicslly, we collectively are justspoiled children that need someone to discipline us because we can't help ourselves."

 

[Bigboss242]

I hope I don't live to see our extinction.

 

[Fallout-NL]

This is why I am considering not having children.

Same here.

Very seriously considering not to, actually.

What a fucking disaster.

 

[Ac30]

Same here.

Very seriously considering not to, actually.

What a fucking disaster.

As am I. I'm not going to put my kids through this. Hell, in a few decades I probably won't put myself through it either.

 

[Cow Mengde]

The thing is: In what scenario the government is going to do something?

When it's too late.

 

[Pandy]

Meanwhile in Scotland, 4 major windfarm applications have been rejected due to fears that too many seabirds will be killed by flying into the blades.

If you're too dumb to avoid flying into the spinning blade of a massive wind-turbine, then I'm calling that evolution in action. Meanwhile, we're doing the same thing on a grander scale.

 

[Lime]

Don't forget that the new UK Prime Minister Theresa May closed down the UK climate change institute and let it work under Business and Economy instead.

We are not moving in any right direction.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It seems like we need to have people make serious overtures to people working in the energy industry. If we can get through and speak in their cultural meaning, perhaps about the business opportunities and open frontier of new energy sources, we can get them to stop throwing money at politicians for carbon-based energy support.

 

[the1npc]

Anoher reason not to have kids...

 

[sasliquid]

As a Climate Scientist there is a strange feeling of 'ha I knew I was right' as it all goes to shit

Also its unlikely we will see total extinction of the human race, it is estimated that would require a 6C rise in temperatures which is unlikely (by 2100) as renewables are increasingly popular (not fast enough).

We are more likely to hit about 3/4C which would put us on a path which will probly seriously damage conventional civilisation, we would be the first generation leaving the world in a notably worse off place than when we were born

EDIT: But don't stop fighting, that is what selfish fossil fuels companies want and gives confidence to 'skeptics', You can keep trying or you can give up and die (but we all know you really just hoping someone else will save you)

 

[Ac30]

I'm waiting for us to start geoengineering out of sheer desperation and then having to fix the mistakes we make with further mistakes until the planet is fucked up indefinitely.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

As a Ph.D. student working on climate change, the OP is accurate even though there are discrepancies between different agencies' models and timelines. This has more to do about the nature and difficulty of modeling climate change but the end result is the same, humanity will self-destruct.

Humanity needed carbon tax 20-25 years ago, not now. But the situation is complicated due to politicians being corrupted but are also the only ones who can enact change. The Paris talks are nothing more than platitudes and feel-goodism.

There are some in the scientific community (which LiveFromKyoto pointed out) who share the opinion that society should work on contingency plans on the effects and impact of climate change because prevention is out the door, since they have concluded that we've already passed the point of no return.

I used to be a futurist and wondered about future technology in 2030 and beyond but this has gone by the wayside.

 

[Lime]

It seems like we need to have people make serious overtures to people working in the energy industry. If we can get through and speak in their cultural meaning, perhaps about the business opportunities and open frontier of new energy sources, we can get them to stop throwing money at politicians for carbon-based energy support.

We've already done that, but the political will and influence of fossil fuel money into decision-making are holding changes in the energy sector back from moving over to renewable and clean energy

 

[Ac30]

As a Climate Scientist there is a strange feeling of 'ha I knew I was right' as it all goes to shit

Also its unlikely we will see total extinction of the human race, it is estimated that would require a 6C rise in temperatures which is unlikely (by 2100) as renewables are increasingly popular (not fast enough).

We are more likely to hit about 3/4C which would put us on a path which will probly seriously damage conventional civilisation, we would be the first generation leaving the world in a notably worse off place than when we were born

EDIT: But don't stop fighting, that is what selfish fossil fuels companies want and gives confidence to 'skeptics', You can keep trying or you can give up and die (but we all know you really just hoping someone else will save you)

Since you're far more in tune with climate science, do you feel we will survive the ordeal? More than that, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?

 

[God Dayumm]

But what about the jobzzzzzzz

Jobs are going to be worthless if we're all dead.

It is pointless to live in unemployment and poor. The economy is more important than climate change and any real solution has to account for that. In fact, they usually do, taxing and reinvesting money in new technologies helps the environment and helps the economy

Yet gay marriage is a bigger political talking point

Social justice is more important than climate change unless you believe we should take care of the environment just so white straight people can continue to enjoy themselves

Sustainability has 3 pillars from which everyone benefits. Saving the planet never has to come at the expense of human life, equality and progress. Otherwise that solution is neither sustainable nor humane

 

[Holden]

The thing is: In what scenario the government is going to do something?

People wanting nuclear instead of renewable.

You never see protests of people wanting more nuclear power plants