Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

I studied chemical and petroleum engineering at university. For two years, I took geology lessons from Ian Plimer at the University of Adelaide. Someone who at the time, thought made an incredibly interesting and engaging teacher. As it turns out, he doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Sigh.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

Humans are pretty resourceful. If and when proverbial shit hits proverbial fan we'll just reestablish our hubs in places like Canada and Siberia and everything will be more or less fine. Different as fuck, and not without fallout, but more or less fine. In the meantime, just do your part to be environmentally conscientious and try to stop being addicted to oil and plastic.

 

[Ahasverus]

Worried as hell. what else should I be? Also impotent because the countries that are more responsible for it laugh and piss on us, or in the worst case, think it doesn't even exist

Humans are pretty resourceful. If and when proverbial shit hits proverbial fan we'll just reestablish our hubs in places like Canada and Siberia and everything will be more or less fine.

Except for the other etns of million of especies that will die. But it's not our problem. Oh wait, IT IS.

 

[BocoDragon]

They're right to try multiple methods to market the message better. It's only rational after all.

But my opinion is simply; the labelling is simply one of those obfuscatory lines of argument that have sucked oxygen away from the real issue. And it's obfuscatory because people in denial would've made a shit-fit either way.

That's probably true. It's like how changing the name of "evolution" would do nothing to stop the hardcore deniers.

But there are a lot of rational people in the center. If they can understand that maybe even increased cold periods can be attributed to imbalance in the ecosystem due to human activity, that's better than them writing if off just because it's not "warming".

 

[alterno69]

Every time i think about it i feel sorry for my two kids who will suffer the consequences more harshly. I mean we're all seeing it's effect on the planet already but it will only get worse and i'm afraid it's already too late or people don't care enough to do shit.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

2. The demonization of nuclear power - the alternative of continued coal power propogation reduced potential energy growth, while increasing radioactive waste per kilowatt hour... it's the most insane and myopic thing.

The biggest fucking failure of the left in the last 40-50 years. Its a shame. We could've been in a much better place if we would have been able to move away from coal. Now we are fucked.

 

[Paches]

I think we have a very small shot of preventing something cataclysmic.

AKA we are fucked.

 

[Cow Mengde]

We are fucked. Big time.

 

[BocoDragon]

I sometimes wonder if Kyoto might have been taken seriously had Al Gore not been defeated by Floridian hanging chads.

Same musing I have on the war on terror....

 

[ЯAW]

Yeah... I get the feeling that we're either going to trip over the runaway positive feedback loop tipping point... or we'll have come to significantly better, humanistic, technological, ecological and sustainable solution then the one that Pentti suggests.

Problem is that while Europe, USA and few asian countries will be able to adapt to green tech in upcoming decades. African nations and many asian nations cannot. Coal is going to stay cheap since labor and environment laws won't adapt fast enough. Either the "rich" countries will have to help others to adapt and it will cost or we will tell them to adapt and it will be political war.

Edit. Not to mention the meat industry isn't going away and US/Europeans are not willing to sacrifice their living standards for others. We will see the worse and only hope is we learn from it.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yeah. I'm in no position to predict what will or won't happen, but I do know enough to know that the Earth will be fine, and actually, life will be fine. Whether that includes us, who knows. Life has been through it all. There have been periods when it was much warmer than it is today, and times when there was far more C02 in the atmosphere than there is today.

Even the medieval warm period was a bit warmer than it is today. I know it is argued that it wasn't a global phenomenon, and that in terms a 'global' temperature, it may have been cooler, but in a recent studies, it seems it may have been global after all.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

There are big differences in this age and previous ages - namely we are making huge changes to the ecosystem and the various carbon sinks independently of the warming.

Moreover, previous warming periods were more gradual, allowing for a greater amount of time for interlocking ecosystems to adapt.

While previous trends do give us an idea of what to expect - expecting that things will occur exactly as before when we are balls deep in uncharted territory will make the most disastrous outcomes (i.e. global extinction) that much more likely.

In a sense, the planet *will* survive, irrespective of what happens to it. There's not enough embodied energy to shatter the crust and split it apart... and some extraordinary life forms (bacteria most likely) may adapt to the extreme conditions that will occur... but it's cold comfort if we ever find out that we've utterly ruined our planet because of our ignorance and apathy.

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

The way most people are so nonchalant about it pisses me off. Especially those who are blantantly arrogant/proud to deny it or just don't care. "Hey, I got mine! Fuck my grandkids"

We should be using petroleum as a valuable resource, sparingly I might add, to help us bridge the gap until the technology improves and renewable energy becomes more efficient. Humanity, after discovering petroleum, is the equivalent of a guy who won a 100 million dollar lottery and ended up broke after splurging on hookers and blow.

 

[Zaptruder]

Problem is that while Europe, USA and few asian countries will be able to adapt to green tech in upcoming decades. African nations and many asian nations cannot. Coal is going to stay cheap since labor and environment laws won't adapt fast enough. Either the "rich" countries will have to help others to adapt and it will cost or we will tell them to adapt and it will be political war.

If the current cost per kilowatt trends for Solar holds, and economic battery storage tech makes its way into the mass market (currently in rapid development) - cost per kilowatt hour will be cheaper for solar tech than coal... and it'll be more easily deployable in the poorest nations than building centralized power grids.

The assumption that the current economic paradigms will hold true for coal and solar have lead to some extraordinarily short sighted economic decisions in the global energy market.

It is only fair to say that the social-political cost of utilizing coal in this current state of ignorance and apathy is cheaper than solar.

 

[mrklaw]

As much as I find it difficult to argue against the overwhelming scientific backing for man-made global warming, I also find it difficult to comprehend how man can make such an impact compared to nature. Eg the massive amounts of gas released during a volcanic eruption for instance.

I wonder if perhaps our influence also coincided with a natural warming of the planet anyway, so we're more giving it a nudge than literally doing it all ourselves?

Maybe I need to read up more on the sheer scale of industrialisation.

I do think there is a risk of those tipping points though, and that is fucking scary.

Ultimately though I think the Earth goes through warming and cooling phases, and it'll self correct eventually. We may not be around to see that, but I'm sure it'll happen.

 

[BocoDragon]

The biggest fucking failure of the left in the last 40-50 years. Its a shame. We could've been in a much better place if we would have been able to move away from coal. Now we are fucked.

If only we didn't have those honestly terrifying incidents of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.

Those were human errors (both the workers on site, and the politics behind the outdated plant designs that were promoted by the business of nuclear power and then never adequately updated)... and god we have paid for them. I don't blame the left for freaking the hell out, even though it's to our long term detriment.

 

[TheXbox]

If I ever have kids, I don't want them to live in a world where they or their kids have to suffer a vastly shittier Earth. People can't or choose not to comprehend how badly global warming will fuck us.

 

[M3d10n]

People won't change. Whey they finally realize they should have, coastal cities will be flooding and worldwide food production will be plummeting, causing the population to contract, which will balance things out (in a horrible way).

Unless the oceans' ecosystem collapse due to acidity first, of course. That would cause a "chain reaction of death" across nature and we would be really, really fucked.

 

[nailbombxx]

I do believe polluting our world is not a good thing, nor is using up so much resources for nothing significant.

We got a problem son.

Here's an analogy. You take a college course, you're final is to write a big ass essay. You procrastinate and be lazy, but it only dawns on you that you're fucked when you have two or so weeks to finish it up.

Society doesn't want to stop procrastinating with no consequence, and unfortunately it will be until even more huge disasters that something gets done.

 

[commedieu]

There is literally nothing anyone can do about all icebergs melting. Its just a matter of time and we are already seeing the super weather and droughts. Corrals kicking the bucket with temperature change, mass extinctions, etc. It's terrifying to know it's going to get worse every year until the poor people die, and the wealthy have bunkers.

It keeps me sort of off of having kids, to be honest.

 

[Valhelm]

Climate change is the single biggest problem in the world right now. Everything else should be a secondary concern. That being said, there are many misconceptions about global warming. We have not "crossed a point of no return", and it is hardly impossible to mitigate the damage that has been done. There need to be United Nations sanctions as soon as possible to cut down on industrial emissions. Once we cut down on emissions, the rest of the atmosphere's excess carbon will be taken back into the ocean and soil.

There is literally nothing anyone can do about all icebergs melting. Its just a matter of time and we are already seeing the super weather and droughts. Corrals kicking the bucket with temperature change, mass extinctions, etc. It's terrifying to know it's going to get worse every year until the poor people die, and the wealthy have bunkers.

It keeps me sort of off of having kids, to be honest.

This is totally false. If we want to stop the icebergs from melting, we can simply stop the planet from getting any warmer. We do this by cutting back on industrial emissions. If the United States alone were to close all its coal plants and invest in nuclear and solar power, we would see new icebergs being formed across the Arctic Ocean. Extinction is irreversible, so it needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

 

[Zaptruder]

As much as I find it difficult to argue against the overwhelming scientific backing for man-made global warming, I also find it difficult to comprehend how man can make such an impact compared to nature. Eg the massive amounts of gas released during a volcanic eruption for instance.

I wonder if perhaps our influence also coincided with a natural warming of the planet anyway, so we're more giving it a nudge than literally doing it all ourselves?

Maybe I need to read up more on the sheer scale of industrialisation.

I do think there is a risk of those tipping points though, and that is fucking scary.

Ultimately though I think the Earth goes through warming and cooling phases, and it'll self correct eventually. We may not be around to see that, but I'm sure it'll happen.

Because the scale of our impact is understated in general understanding, the the scale of volcanic impacts way overstated.

Indeed, we recently exceeded an important threshold - humanity moves more matter around the planet than the rest of the planets processes moves matter around the planet. Insects, earthworms, bacteria, wind, rain, etc... do less than we do in total.

Look at a map of our planet at night - see how bright those lights are?

Now consider the amount of land area we use and consume in order to keep those lights lit up (and everything that goes into keeping it on; including the people that turn them on, and how they sustain themselves).

Suddenly, it's not so improbable that we can be making such a massive global impact...

 

[JCX]

I'm most sad that many of the people dedicated to preventing alternative energy implementation on a wider scale will be dead by the time the affects wreak serious havoc. Almost makes me want to stay in Michigan because we've got a great spot for the impending water war.

Also kind of funny that the planet at large is the frog in a boiling pot story now.

edit: everyone please watch the climate change episode of Cosmos. Even some of the things I considered (volcanoes) were easily debunked.

 

[leadbelly]

There are big differences in this age and previous ages - namely we are making huge changes to the ecosystem and the various carbon sinks independently of the warming.

Moreover, previous warming periods were more gradual, allowing for a greater amount of time for interlocking ecosystems to adapt.

While previous trends do give us an idea of what to expect - expecting that things will occur exactly as before when we are balls deep in uncharted territory will make the most disastrous outcomes (i.e. global extinction) that much more likely.

In a sense, the planet *will* survive, irrespective of what happens to it. There's not enough embodied energy to shatter the crust and split it apart... and some extraordinary life forms (bacteria most likely) may adapt to the extreme conditions that will occur... but it's cold comfort if we ever find out that we've utterly ruined our planet because of our ignorance and apathy.

Actually, there have been events that were sudden, like that which killed the dinosaurs. I can't be certain, but life always seems to find a way.

I suppose it may depend on how dramatic the changes are and how soon though.

 

[jmdajr]

I don't care about the Earth.

"The Earth will be fine, the people...are fucked!"

 

[biggersmaller]

Based on evidence I've read, climate change is very real, but human impact is overblown. I believe reducing emissions, planting trees, and reducing overall pollution is important for many valid reasons - but I don't think any law will ever stop global change.

 

[ЯAW]

If the current cost per kilowatt trends for Solar holds, and economic battery storage tech makes its way into the mass market (currently in rapid development) - cost per kilowatt hour will be cheaper for solar tech than coal... and it'll be more easily deployable in the poorest nations than building centralized power grids.

The assumption that the current economic paradigms will hold true for coal and solar have lead to some extraordinarily short sighted economic decisions in the global energy market.

I'm not so sure about that, I really need to see some studies. I understand that coal will be costly in Europe and US since we have things like minimum wage, various other worker releated costs and insurances not to mention envoirment regulations. These are things that make coal expensive, poor nations don't have these things.

 

[Zaptruder]

Climate change is the single biggest problem in the world right now. Everything else should be a secondary concern. That being said, there are many misconceptions about global warming. We have not "crossed a point of no return", and it is hardly impossible to mitigate the damage that has been done. There need to be United Nations sanctions as soon as possible to cut down on industrial emissions. Once we cut down on emissions, the rest of the atmosphere's excess carbon will be taken back into the ocean and soil.



This is totally false. If we want to stop the icebergs from melting, we can simply stop the planet from getting any warmer. We do this by cutting back on industrial emissions. If the United States alone were to close all its coal plants and invest in nuclear and solar power, we would see new icebergs being formed across the Arctic Ocean. Extinction is irreversible, so it needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

In a sense you're right. If we acted as a monolithic whole tomorrow, we could pretty much select the better path, minimize the impact of climate change and end up with post-scarcity technology and society by the end of the century. This is still technically within the realms of possibility.

But this doesn't describe the planet I live on at all.

 

[jmdajr]

Based on evidence I've read, climate change is very real, but human impact is overblown. I believe reducing emissions, planting trees, and reducing overall pollution is important for many valid reasons - but I don't think any law will ever stop global change.

My view is... even if human impact on climate change is small, it's no excuse to pollute the whole fucking planet

 

[theepicoftyler]

I am a geologist, and everything I have seen and read suggests that its probably too late to do anything major to stop the current trends. You could shut down every carbon emitting source on the planet and it would probably be too little, too late.

However, I do believe in the ingenuity of humans, and that we will be able to mitigate a lot of effects with advances in technology. Not geo-engineering (which is terrifying), but by reductions in emissions and infrastructure engineering.

I think that green technologies will eventually reach a tipping point of cost effectiveness and convenience which will allow a rapid integration globally and it will be to the benefit of everyone.

 

[luxarific]

I think we are absolutely fucked. The anti-climate change side just has too much money invested in keeping things the way they are now. In 50 years, without serious mitigation efforts that no one has come up with yet, things are going to be much worse than they are now.

Either way, we've waited so long to begin cutting emissions that two degrees looks flatly impossible. We're on track for 4°C of warming — which is nearly the temperature difference between the world now and the Ice Age. That's a nightmare for the planet. The World Bank tried to model it and realized that they had no idea what would happen — or whether humans could manage. There's "no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible," they concluded.

The report also says drought-affected areas would increase from 15.4% of global cropland today, to around 44% by 2100. The most severely affected regions in the next 30 to 90 years will likely be in southern Africa, the United States, southern Europe and Southeast Asia, says the report. In Africa, the report predicts 35% of cropland will become unsuitable for cultivation in a 5°C world.

And we're on target for 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century (more than 11 degrees Fahrenheit).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-warming-by-2100-if-we-keep-listening-to-you/

We are fucked.

 

[Flunkie]

Geologist here. Earth's been warming up and cooling down for millions of years, so I can see his stance.

 

[hidys]

It is the most critical issue we face as a species.

 

[M3d10n]

As much as I find it difficult to argue against the overwhelming scientific backing for man-made global warming, I also find it difficult to comprehend how man can make such an impact compared to nature. Eg the massive amounts of gas released during a volcanic eruption for instance.

I wonder if perhaps our influence also coincided with a natural warming of the planet anyway, so we're more giving it a nudge than literally doing it all ourselves?

The speed at which various parameters are changing have no precedent. Also, it's hard to think we are "blips" when looking at this:

 

[Tawpgun]

Based on evidence I've read, climate change is very real, but human impact is overblown. I believe reducing emissions, planting trees, and reducing overall pollution is important for many valid reasons - but I don't think any law will ever stop global change.

the human impact is what is making it dangerous. The climate can change over the course of thousands of years, slowly. But we are accelerating it like crazy and overwhelming the natural carbon sinks of the world.

 

[Agnostic]

I wish it only hurt climate denialists.

 

[theepicoftyler]

Geologist here. Earth's been warming up and cooling down for millions of years apparently, so I can see his stance.

I have found that geologist's who feel that way spend a lot of time ignoring and disregarding the ridiculous amount of research that's been put into that field. I had a few professors along the way who seemed apathetic at best, and it was disappointing to say the least. However, most of those people were involved in the economic geology side, and didn't spend much time academically with that subject, and knew that their opinion didn't count for much. So at least there was that.

 

[CharlieDigital]

the human impact is what is making it dangerous. The climate can change over the course of thousands of years, slowly. But we are accelerating it like crazy and overwhelming the natural carbon sinks of the world.

I think it is this acceleration that many folks have a hard time grasping.

Climate scientists and lay people like myself don't deny that there are natural cycle's in Earth's climate history, but that there is an unprecedented acceleration of the cycle that has a high chance of being driven by human activity.

 

[AstroNut325]

No one cares. Most of my family doesn't care. Most of my friends don't care. Heck... most of my co-workers don't care!

I just hope the human race can adapt to the changing climate of earth. I will do my part. I will use EVs and mass transit in the future. I will have solar power at my home and solar powered water heater. I will use less water and turn everything off at home when I go to bed.

We have to start seeing widespread destruction/chaos from mother nature before we see any meaningful change.

 

[Uncledick]

Does anyone else think we are at the tip of dramatic changes in the world? With climate change, the decline/fall of the west and the rise of new superpowers China/India/Brazil (Russia?). This century is scary as fuck.

I wonder if buying property in Northern Canada is a good bet. The government literally gives it away for free, once your far enough into the boonies.

 

[Zaptruder]

I wish it only hurt climate denialists.

Truly, I wish we could split the planet proportionally between people that believed it was a problem and people that didn't believe it was a problem - and have them live out their global experiment independently (as another planet in and of itself)... and we could live out ours without their shit.

But that's not reality

 

[Reuenthal]

I don't think we can solve the issue if we don't have cheap non CO2 producing energy. I see no reason that technological evolution on the issue will stop and I expect goverments to adapt to that kind of energy production and green motivated political parties to become stronger or that green agenda to become more mainstream in the next decades (because global warming will keep happening and more increasingly with more effects, those energies will become more affordable), and generally this adaptation to become more mainstream. In the next century we will still suffer from global warming effects but I am more optimistic about humanity than most here, and see us getting it completly under control in the 22th century while the start of reversing things and stabilizing temperature rises would have started in this one and completed in the next century.

We will have our problems but I am confident 21st century would be better than the 20th (who was better than the 19th and so on)

Frankly I think humanity is a good adaptator, they are just a slow one. Even though in the modern age we aren't that slow in comparison to the past. What might make the most sense to you is not going necessarilly to happen as fast as you want.

 

[commedieu]

This is totally false. If we want to stop the icebergs from melting, we can simply stop the planet from getting any warmer. We do this by cutting back on industrial emissions. If the United States alone were to close all its coal plants and invest in nuclear and solar power, we would see new icebergs being formed across the Arctic Ocean. Extinction is irreversible, so it needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

Nah, you're misinformed. You can't stop the underground melting, underneath the iceberg, that causes the iceberg to melt. It took thousands of years to get the ground temperature where it is to house the ice above. You would have to freeze them, and the ground, again. <-- That isn't going to happen with someone taking less trips in their car. A lot of Icebergs are currently on floating beds of trickling water, that pool up and create a shelf to slide off of. Thats what we and the planet temperature rise.

Even if you some how managed to stop/cut back. The icebergs will have continued to melt the entire time, falling into the ocean, and changing currents/weather as well as alternating ocean levels. Killing different types of coral, and the life that sustains there. Creating the domino effect we are already seeing, which all contributes to the co-problem of Ocean acidification as well. The carbon isn't just bad for the ice, its bad for the oceans.

The record spike in 2012 is still up for debate on whether or not the planet just naturally has carbon expulsions as well, that contributed to our overall PPM of carbon. The whole situation is dire, and we need to work on ways to prepare for climate change, rather than a fantasy world of getting everyone to agree on something globally.

I think we are absolutely fucked. The anti-climate change side just has too much money invested in keeping things the way they are now. In 50 years, without serious mitigation efforts that no one has come up with yet, things are going to be much worse than they are now.

And we're on target for 6 degrees of warming by the end of the century (more than 11 degrees Fahrenheit).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-warming-by-2100-if-we-keep-listening-to-you/

We are fucked.

Pretty much.

 

[theepicoftyler]

I think it is this acceleration that many folks have a hard time grasping.

Climate scientists and lay people like myself don't deny that there are natural cycle's in Earth's climate history, but that there is an unprecedented acceleration of the cycle that has a high chance of being driven by human activity.

It's hard to explain feedback loops in 30 seconds during an interview on CNN. Most people understand climate change as us pressing a button to increase temperature rather than pushing the first domino in a chain reaction.

 

[Valhelm]

In a sense you're right. If we acted as a monolithic whole tomorrow, we could pretty much select the better path, minimize the impact of climate change and end up with post-scarcity technology and society by the end of the century. This is still technically within the realms of possibility.

But this doesn't describe the planet I live on at all.

If you look at global emissions, though, there isn't a huge amount that needs to be done. If the US or China manages to significantly cut back on coal burning, we're essentially in the clear. As soon as alternative energy becomes more profitable than coal, we'll see a major decrease in emissions.

Oil and natural gas certainly aren't renewable, but are much cleaner than coal. The spread of natural gas due to fracking in the upper midwest has led to a small but significant drop in American ignitions, as far as I know.

 

[MikeDip]

It really sucks that it became so political. We need to do something about climate change

 

[Flunkie]

I have found that geologist's who feel that way spend a lot of time ignoring and disregarding the ridiculous amount of research that's been put into that field. I had a few professors along the way who seemed apathetic at best, and it was disappointing to say the least. However, most of those people were involved in the economic geology side, and didn't spend much time academically with that subject, and knew that their opinion didn't count for much. So at least there was that.

This is true.

 

[commedieu]

If you look at global emissions, though, there isn't a huge amount that needs to be done. If the US or China manages to significantly cut back on coal burning, we're essentially in the clear. As soon as alternative energy becomes more profitable than coal, we'll see a major decrease in emissions.

Oil and natural gas certainly aren't renewable, but are much cleaner than coal. The spread of natural gas due to fracking in the upper midwest has led to a small but significant drop in American ignitions, as far as I know.

Stopping emissions doesnt = temperature falling. You still have everything locked into the atmosphere, carbon contaminates water and lowers its PH level. Literally turning it off -- if it could be done -- is still going to have years of effects/damage. Since it can't all be done as once, this is going to continue, along with the planets temperature rising, along with massive extinctions/droughts/super weather. It really is an awesome thing to witness, but unfortunate for living. YOu can really see how the planet is like a body, and you see what happens when you slow down its currents with melted ice.

If we manage to kidnap all the leaders of the world, and get them to agree. I think you're on the right track.

Ill bring the zip ties

 

[ampere]

I personally think there needs to be a large shift to clean running power generation (nuclear, solar, wind, water energy) and fast or the planet will be quite shit in a century or two.

Public perception of nuclear power needs a lot of work to be corrected, and there needs to be a desire by the public and businesses to change to cleaner energy. I really wish that policies like California's which requires utilities to buy up any available renewable energy first would also include nuclear power. Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and when handled properly it's very high output and clean source of power.

It's easy to say "eh not my problem, we'll be dead", but I think we should try to make the planet last for the sake of future generations of humans.

 

[Zaptruder]

If you look at global emissions, though, there isn't a huge amount that needs to be done. If the US or China manages to significantly cut back on coal burning, we're essentially in the clear. As soon as alternative energy becomes more profitable than coal, we'll see a major decrease in emissions.

That's not true - you're going off the assumption that the planet will absorb out excess CO2 at the same rate it has always done... and that only how much CO2 we put out on a per annum basis effects climate change.

Reality is; we're adding to a global carbon pool in our atmosphere. Reducing the rate at which we add to it will help - but that carbon won't dissipate naturally for hundreds to thousands of years.

Moreover, we're reducing the efficacy of our carbon sinks - meaning that the planet can reabsorb less of the carbon that we're putting out now.

 

[commedieu]

I personally think there needs to be a large shift to clean running power generation (nuclear, solar, wind, water energy) and fast or the planet will be quite shit in a century or two.

Public perception of nuclear power needs a lot of work to be corrected, and there needs to be a desire by the public and businesses to change to cleaner energy. I really wish that policies like California's which requires utilities to buy up any available renewable energy first would also include nuclear power. Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and when handled properly it's very high output and clean source of power.

It's easy to say "eh not my problem, we'll be dead", but I think we should try to make the planet last for the sake of future generations of humans.

Thats what I think the best approach is. Just fixing shit because it needs to be fixed and clean. Hopefully it at least helps future generations. Its something that doesn't need to be debated, or political. Just do whats right, because we can't rely on nuclear power plants, leaking into the ground and poisoning our environment anymore. Its just a stretch, but maybe we can all get on board. There is so much in plasma generation, hell everywhere. On youtbue you have people making alternative energy with magnents/plasma. Even the technology we know/have is better.

But then you'll get into changing the status quo of billionaires.

Which stops all progress.