3 ms·

Most of us are not in a position of power, and a lot of these issues can only be fixed at the top-down systemic level. So it's more like the bus is going over

Most of us are not in a position of power, and a lot of these issues can only be fixed at the top-down systemic level. So it's more like the bus is going over the cliff, and the people in the driver's seat are refusing to change course.

clarkevans 8y ago
Because a very noisy section in the back insists that there's no cliff. It's only the few in the front rows that see the cliff, the rest are too busy with their spitballs.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Seems to be letting "us" off a little lightly. At least in the US the passengers (or I guess the passengers sitting in half of the bus seats) voted for the bus driver who said the problem was all a hoax.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I know of no party anywhere in the world that has a solid plan to limit global warming to below two degrees. Who should I vote for?
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    pro nuclear democrats
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Building reactors takes too long and is too expensive. It's too late to go all-in on nuclear.
      - jki275 8y ago
        compared to what? This is alarmist thinking that's not really based in anything other than politics and nimbyism. If you truly believe the world is going to end because of climate change, nuclear is literally the only path to massively decrease carbon output and still meet the world's energy needs. Is it expensive? Of course. Is it going to take years? Of course. But you're never going to get there with solar or wind -- they simply cannot meet the requirements -- ever. We stopped essentially all research and design of nuclear power plants after TMI, solely because of nimbyism -- had we not done that, we would probably be 90+% nuclear and there would be no more coal plants.
        adrianN 8y ago
        I'm pro nuclear. But just the construction time for a new plant is fairly close to a decade. That doesn't include planning. I'd also assume that we simply don't have the capacity to build thousands of reactors in a decade, for example because the manufacturing of pressure vessels is a fairly specialized industry. We have about ten years to cut our emissions by at least 40% compared to 2010 and twenty more years to become completely carbon neutral. We need to invest massively into solar, wind, and storage. We need to insulate our homes. We need to ban cars from cities. We need immense reforestation projects. If we have the resources to also build nuclear plants while we're doing all the other things, great, but it can't be the option with the highest priority because they're expensive and take forever until they're done.
        jki275 8y ago
        I think your belief that those other options would be tenable in the time frame you believe in is misled. They generate tiny fractions of the energy most people believe, and they generally never pay for themselves over their entire lifetimes. Where do you think the batteries come from? There's a finite supply of lithium. "Ban cars from cities" is a pipe dream in north america -- it's like talking about colonizing Neptune. Not going to happen in our lifetimes, probably not in two hundred years -- maybe not ever. The entire infrastructure of the american continents and huge amounts of Europe and Asia as well is built around vehicular transport. You argue those things are necessary, but then argue against the only thing that could make even a dent in the issue because it's expensive and takes time. We don't need thousands of reactors, and we don't necessarily need the ones we do build to be like the ones we use today. Had the environmentalist nimbys not stopped all R&D and construction in the 70s, we would have fixed this problem by now. There are multiple reactor designs that are safe and effective and inexpensive to run -- but nobody's building them because they think solar is going to save the world and nuclear is scary. That's what needs to be fixed. I see that Bill Gates is lobbying for new reactor designs and construction -- I really hope he's successful.

clarkevans 8y ago

Because a very noisy section in the back insists that there's no cliff. It's only the few in the front rows that see the cliff, the rest are too busy with their spitballs.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Seems to be letting "us" off a little lightly. At least in the US the passengers (or I guess the passengers sitting in half of the bus seats) voted for the bus driver who said the problem was all a hoax.

adrianN 8y ago
I know of no party anywhere in the world that has a solid plan to limit global warming to below two degrees. Who should I vote for?
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  pro nuclear democrats
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Building reactors takes too long and is too expensive. It's too late to go all-in on nuclear.
    - jki275 8y ago
      compared to what? This is alarmist thinking that's not really based in anything other than politics and nimbyism. If you truly believe the world is going to end because of climate change, nuclear is literally the only path to massively decrease carbon output and still meet the world's energy needs. Is it expensive? Of course. Is it going to take years? Of course. But you're never going to get there with solar or wind -- they simply cannot meet the requirements -- ever. We stopped essentially all research and design of nuclear power plants after TMI, solely because of nimbyism -- had we not done that, we would probably be 90+% nuclear and there would be no more coal plants.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        I'm pro nuclear. But just the construction time for a new plant is fairly close to a decade. That doesn't include planning. I'd also assume that we simply don't have the capacity to build thousands of reactors in a decade, for example because the manufacturing of pressure vessels is a fairly specialized industry. We have about ten years to cut our emissions by at least 40% compared to 2010 and twenty more years to become completely carbon neutral. We need to invest massively into solar, wind, and storage. We need to insulate our homes. We need to ban cars from cities. We need immense reforestation projects. If we have the resources to also build nuclear plants while we're doing all the other things, great, but it can't be the option with the highest priority because they're expensive and take forever until they're done.
        jki275 8y ago
        I think your belief that those other options would be tenable in the time frame you believe in is misled. They generate tiny fractions of the energy most people believe, and they generally never pay for themselves over their entire lifetimes. Where do you think the batteries come from? There's a finite supply of lithium. "Ban cars from cities" is a pipe dream in north america -- it's like talking about colonizing Neptune. Not going to happen in our lifetimes, probably not in two hundred years -- maybe not ever. The entire infrastructure of the american continents and huge amounts of Europe and Asia as well is built around vehicular transport. You argue those things are necessary, but then argue against the only thing that could make even a dent in the issue because it's expensive and takes time. We don't need thousands of reactors, and we don't necessarily need the ones we do build to be like the ones we use today. Had the environmentalist nimbys not stopped all R&D and construction in the 70s, we would have fixed this problem by now. There are multiple reactor designs that are safe and effective and inexpensive to run -- but nobody's building them because they think solar is going to save the world and nuclear is scary. That's what needs to be fixed. I see that Bill Gates is lobbying for new reactor designs and construction -- I really hope he's successful.