Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

Our opposition here in Australia are pushing for SMRs. Cynics suggest it's a ploy to keep using coal for as long as possible.

[JimC]

And our government wants to increase our gas production greatly. I realise we are going to need gas for some time, but it should be steadily diminished, not increased...

[pErvinalia]

Labor, Coalition lite.

[Brian Peacock]

Both the main parties in the UK are also pushing the "gas is a vital component of the green transition" narrative. It's considered a pragmatic response to specific structural issues, whereby proposals for small gas-fired electricity generation plants were given an automatic green light after planning regs were amended in 2014 to make it functionally impossible to object to their construction.

[Svartalf]

excuse me, but when you say gas, that means natural gas and is not a short for gasoline.... am I correct?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah

[macdoc]

From the climate scientists....what can the individual do...?

What are the most powerful climate actions you can take? The expert view

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... u-can-take

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, but are you going to take any notice of it mac?

[macdoc]

WTF is that supposed to mean?
There was a general question about what impact can individuals can have and climate scientists have provided some answers.

[Brian Peacock]

I guess that's a no then.

[macdoc]

Notice of what Brian???.....either speak up or shut the fuck up. It's a climate science thread not your social science muddle.

[Brian Peacock]

I'll join the dots for you. In light of what scientists are saying about individual and collective action, are you going to, say, stop eating meat, stop flying, and start agitating for political change? I ask because whenever I've brought up the exact same things here, or elsewhere, you're impulse has been to reflexively object to the idea and/or to chide me for <insert excuse here>.

Similarly, I've previously brought up the same issues reflected in the UCS article on the unrealistic promises made on behalf of SMRs - to which you basically called me a Luddite doom-monger iirc. So what are you going to actually do with what these scientists are telling us - all of which is in the various IPCC reports btw?

[macdoc]

You do like to make unsupported claims and assumptions

Similarly, I've previously brought up the same issues reflected in the UCS article on the unrealistic promises made on behalf of SMRs - to which you basically called me a Luddite doom-monger iirc

Either show searchable quotes to support your nonsense claims or STFU...

I will freely admit to thinking of you as a doom monger with no achievable solutions presented but lots of negativity towards efforts that are being made.
Which you then offer up as with the UCS article
This relevant

SMRs may have a role to play in our energy future, but only if they are sufficiently safe and secure

and unlike you I lived in a mostly nuclear powered economy since the nuclear age began which has eliminated coal as an energy source.

It is proposing SMRs as a lower cost way to expand or replace current nuclear facilities which are aging or growing insufficent.
ALL carbon reducing technologies will be in play ...how the province handles this might be of concern to tax payers as there is a history of over runs and wasteful spending but more nukes are welcome...
Are they for you?

We as a household adhere to all of those suggestions in some measure and within our means.

Do you?

[aufbahrung]

World can't be saved. Throw everything at economic growth not worrying about short term blips in carbon. Attain the singularity and use the technology available to place and control a space umbrella above each pole for optimum control of climate. Told you what you should be doing. I'm not the luddite here.

Not a debate. Like heart surgery. There is a right way and a dead way to fix a critical emergency. Both carry risks. But this is not a debate.

[pErvinalia]

But you are a doom monger...