4 ms·

The problem lies much more in the realm of politics, rather than technology and science. We opted to wage pointless wars instead of modernizing the energy mix.

The problem lies much more in the realm of politics, rather than technology and science. We opted to wage pointless wars instead of modernizing the energy mix. There are also instances when politicians do want to change something, but their cluelessness shows - solar freakin' roadways anyone?

jonny_eh 5y ago
> We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointless wars are bad for other obvious reasons.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.
- rayiner 5y ago
  We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added
  - coryrc 5y ago
    It has to be in the US due to FPTP voting. That's how you build a coalition. Getting Republicans on your side won't do any good because they don't vote in your primary.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Don't even get me started on ecologists complaining about nuclear power for the last 50 years at least. These people should be punished for all the time and energy they wasted.
    - Teknoman117 5y ago
      It's literally the best thing we have going for us, even now. In terms of energy output (TW/h to grid over lifespan) for energy input (mining, refinement, construction, cooling), it's something like 10x both solar and wind. We would need to do fuel reprocessing to manage the waste output and also need to enter serial production of reactors so they could all stop being one-off designs that take forever and literally billions of dollars to certify. Build them where cooling water is available and build wind and solar where practical anywhere else. If fusion ends up working out and/or something better comes along, switch to building that over nuclear fission plants whenever that time comes and sunset the fission plants at the end of their lives. Waiting for a more convenient answer is no excuse for inaction today. We're going to need more power capacity that we have today, because we'll also have to be switching all transportation and manufacturing to electrical sources as well. Shipping is either going to need vessels with nuclear power, or that burn ammonia or hydrogen. One of the only things that we don't have any decent known answers for is what to run airplanes off of. Maybe they keep burning carbon fuels and we explicitly build carbon scrubbers for what we know they produce.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    Couldn't part (even a large part) of that "change-the-entire-economy thing" be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? I don't see how they are incompatible. Sometimes the correct solution has more than one benefit.

jonny_eh 5y ago

> We opted to wage pointless wars instead No, we opted to provide incentives to fossil fuel producers and consumers. That is how we got into this mess. Pointless wars are bad for other obvious reasons.

ashtonkem 5y ago
It’s worth pointing out that the US Military is one of the most prolific polluters in the world, and while an army at peace isn’t a totally idle thing, active deployment drives up consumption massively. Our pointless wars have absolutely contributed to global warming, although I wouldn’t pin the majority of the blame on them.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I think the military comparison is apt, because massive military spending is seen as table stakes for being a “serious” politician in the US, whereas massive GHG reduction spending is seen as an automatic disqualifier and makes you a silly believer in the “green dream or whatever”.
rayiner 5y ago
We also opted to make climate change a vehicle for unrelated progressive issues: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-124408358.html https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added
- coryrc 5y ago
  It has to be in the US due to FPTP voting. That's how you build a coalition. Getting Republicans on your side won't do any good because they don't vote in your primary.
- Zababa 5y ago
  Don't even get me started on ecologists complaining about nuclear power for the last 50 years at least. These people should be punished for all the time and energy they wasted.
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    It's literally the best thing we have going for us, even now. In terms of energy output (TW/h to grid over lifespan) for energy input (mining, refinement, construction, cooling), it's something like 10x both solar and wind. We would need to do fuel reprocessing to manage the waste output and also need to enter serial production of reactors so they could all stop being one-off designs that take forever and literally billions of dollars to certify. Build them where cooling water is available and build wind and solar where practical anywhere else. If fusion ends up working out and/or something better comes along, switch to building that over nuclear fission plants whenever that time comes and sunset the fission plants at the end of their lives. Waiting for a more convenient answer is no excuse for inaction today. We're going to need more power capacity that we have today, because we'll also have to be switching all transportation and manufacturing to electrical sources as well. Shipping is either going to need vessels with nuclear power, or that burn ammonia or hydrogen. One of the only things that we don't have any decent known answers for is what to run airplanes off of. Maybe they keep burning carbon fuels and we explicitly build carbon scrubbers for what we know they produce.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  Couldn't part (even a large part) of that "change-the-entire-economy thing" be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels? I don't see how they are incompatible. Sometimes the correct solution has more than one benefit.