3 ms·

> Governments and politicians have failed to act. They have not failed to act. Rather there is no action they can take. Not a single one of your suggestions, e

by ars 8y ago

> Governments and politicians have failed to act. They have not failed to act. Rather there is no action they can take. Not a single one of your suggestions, even all together, will make any meaningful difference. > I am tired of waiting for systemic change. I am tired of waiting for technological breakthrough. You're going to have to keep waiting because that is the only solution. There's simply is no other solution. As proof for what I say, think about the ozone hole and freon. There was a problem, but in that case there actually was a solution. And the solution was implemented even though it was hard. If there was a solution here, i.e. a new energy source, it would be implemented. And no, wind and solar as they exist today are not that solution although they are incremental help, and they are being installed incrementally, which makes sense.

alexgmcm 8y ago
But if this is the case then why don't we see a massive amount of research and development, like larger than the Manhattan and Apollo projects, to ensure we get a technological solution in time? Instead we see that EU countries aren't even hitting the miserable EU target of 2.4% of GDP to be spent on R&D let alone the 3% 2020 target, and other nations fare even worse.
- ars 8y ago
  Because the only possible avenue: Nuclear power, is blocked by environmentalists. The irony of that is not lost on me, but I suspect it is lost on them.
  - alexgmcm 8y ago
    I agree that we should investigate nuclear power, especially fusion as it offers an order of magnitude more energy (I remember when Greenpeace denounced ITER, I guess because it used to have Thermonuclear in the name..) But honestly, I don't think the environmental movement has that much power to block the research. I suspect it's just that while people like the idea of scientific and technological progress, they don't like having to pay for it.
    - ars 8y ago
      > to block the research. To block implementation, not research. Why do you think nuclear power is so expensive?

by ars 8y ago

alexgmcm 8y ago

But if this is the case then why don't we see a massive amount of research and development, like larger than the Manhattan and Apollo projects, to ensure we get a technological solution in time? Instead we see that EU countries aren't even hitting the miserable EU target of 2.4% of GDP to be spent on R&D let alone the 3% 2020 target, and other nations fare even worse.

ars 8y ago
Because the only possible avenue: Nuclear power, is blocked by environmentalists. The irony of that is not lost on me, but I suspect it is lost on them.
- alexgmcm 8y ago
  I agree that we should investigate nuclear power, especially fusion as it offers an order of magnitude more energy (I remember when Greenpeace denounced ITER, I guess because it used to have Thermonuclear in the name..) But honestly, I don't think the environmental movement has that much power to block the research. I suspect it's just that while people like the idea of scientific and technological progress, they don't like having to pay for it.
  - ars 8y ago
    > to block the research. To block implementation, not research. Why do you think nuclear power is so expensive?