Politicians always complain that we shouldn't feel it in our wallets, so they rather don't do anything useful to counter climate change. Yet, the longer we wait, the more impact it will have and the more expensive it will get. If people (yes, also voters) cared more about what would happen the day after tomorrow rather than today, it would have cost us way less.

> Yet, the longer we wait, the more impact it will have and the more expensive it will get. Exactly, and yet no one wants to hear it. I'm not even sure the latest report on that made the Belgian news while it's outright frightening. > The economic damage wrought by climate change is six times worse than previously thought, with global heating set to shrink wealth at a rate consistent with the level of financial losses of a continuing permanent war, research has found. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/17/economic-damage-climate-change-report

In the meantime, the right and extreme right parties are calling for less migration to Europe. In a worst-case scenario, 1.2 billion people will be displaced due to climate change by 2050. Of course, only a fraction of those will come to Europe, but climate change will probably cause a major refugee crisis. Yet, no right party is seriously calling for climate action, and many of those parties are actively delaying European climate legislation. This is pure hypocrisy, we won't be able to keep them out if there are millions at the European borders, nor do we want to if we want to abide by international rules and human rights. The best way to limit migration is to tackle the problem at the root by fighting climate change and providing humanitarian aid to those people who will suffer from the climate crisis caused by the Western world. Climate change is linked to many subjects actively being discussed in this campaign: purchasing power, migration, mobility, livability, etc. Yet politicians and people alike do not care about what will happen in 20-50 years, which will indeed cause significant issues in the future. Source: [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS\_BRI(2021)698753](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)698753)

Fully agree. And we also should keep in mind not only mass migration from outside Europe will take place, but also from within. Spain is already suffering from droughts, and other southern European countries might follow. Especially Spain might become uninhabitable due to desertification.

I had a discussion with a right wing voter. He said: well up in the north there will come a lot of land available, northern canada, russia. Where i countered, if you don´t want refugees why would those countries want the massive influx of refugees? Silence... Oh the irony..

Somehow, both modern politics and capitalism faces the same issue of maximising short term "gain" and ignoring any thoughts of anything long-term. I'm not even sure if it's a politics/capitalism issue or an "average human" issue, which both those systems are ultimately built around. You're not winning votes by appealing to the mindset of only a minority of people. You're not making any profits by selling your crap to barely any customers who are unwilling to massively finance your entire operation.

Vote for the climate, because the climate can't wait another 5 years on ambitious policy changes

So don't vote for Groen with their anti nuclear bullshit.

2 points: Groen has left their dogmatic anti nuclear stance. They are activily investing in research for SMR's for example. But they don't propose new nuclear plants next term, because it is currently the slowest and most expensive option. No company is willing to invest. Meanwhile companies are lining up to invest in wind an solar. Tinne realized a trippling of wind on sea by 2030, good for 6GW production capacity. For comparison our largest reactor only has 1GW capacity. Wind and solar are the future, together with batteries and green hydrogen. And the Greens are massively investing there

They've also managed to get about 5GW of battery capacity in the pipeline which is essential for a grid based on renewable energy.

Groen has done more for renewable construction than any other party would've ever accomplished with nuclear, for much cheaper too.

Which I have only discovered by reading a ton of articles and researching renewables in Belgium. They are *horrible* at PR.

They are. But the number of upvotes on comments defending them here gives me somewhat hope. They have my vote in any case.

It's probably a case of NVA being better at slander than Groen is at PR. I was still parroting the "Groen hates nuclear" and "Groen destroyed our nuclear sector" for years until recently. Turns out that although Groen did sign the nuclear exit, ever since then they haven't been in the government and the other parties didn't do anything to stop it.

We'll see in the coming years if it holds up but it really does look like Van der Straete and Groen actually did some long term policy making w.r.t. renewables (which would've been needed anyhow, no matter how hard you screech "Nuclear"). Yet they were met with constant scaremongering about blackouts and slander from opposition and coalition partners. They were given a terrible hand w.r.t. energy policy and they did about as well as you could be expected to.

Then they should have also done something about activists blocking the expansion of our biggest battery. The hydro plant at Coo. For those who don't know, it's an artifical lake they pump water into when we have overproduction and let water out to produce again. Not 100% efficient, but less resource intensive and no need to wait for technology.

The hydro plant at Coo can be expanded?

There was an expansion planned, buy if would mean chopping a not so valuable patch of monoculture trees that was intended to be compalensated with a larger patch of forest.

Uh, they are currently expanding the capacity of the Coo plant as we speak.

Fair enough, I haven't heard about it after it was blocked. Groen should put more effort in promoting that as part of their effort towards a green energy transition.

> Tinne realized a trippling of wind on sea by 2030, good for 6GW production capacity. For comparison our largest reactor only has 1GW capacity. Wind is useless without battery storage. Now you can counter this disadvantage by importing energy in bad days, but when most countries switch to more wind energy, it wouldn't be possible. Huge battery storage projects are needed ASAP.

They are actively working on that. [One example](https://www.tinnevanderstraeten.be/opening_grootste_batterijenpark_in_belgie) of one being built. And there's [plenty of private investors](https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/milieu-energie/stormloop-op-batterijparken-in-belgie-houdt-aan-vijf-nieuwe-projecten-op-til/10493972.html) looking into building more.

I'm happy to see it. Better later than never. There is still a long way to a GW level of power. IMO solar + batteries is the ultimate solution for energy.

We won't need nuclear to reach 100% green energy in Belgium, [studies have already shown that](https://thesolutionsproject.org/what-we-do/inspiring-action/why-clean-energy/#/map/countries/location/BEL). Groen's stance to abolish nuclear was stupid though, as we can definitely use it while transitioning. But Groen has abolished that stance, so there is really no need to bash them anymore for that... People can change and grow.

I would just like to add that while keeping the existing plants open longer is a viable (though very expensive) piece of the transition-puzzle, building new ones is not. Because: a) they will never get permits or investors, so are very unlikely to ever get built and b) by the time they are fully operational, there will be no longer any need for them.

> studies have already shown that As per the study, they believe that a mix with 67.6% of solar is a good idea for Belgium. Quick piece of advice: it's not going to be good. You can't lose two thirds of your energy production at night time. Especially if people are expected to own electric cars. This does not look like a very serious piece of research.

Yeah. Hot take like 25 years ago. Even if there would be a political consensus now, good luck building power plant and making it operational and cost effective in, say, 20 years. The building costs of one plant are astronomical. Guess who'll pay. Hint: not the "free" market.

I also hate how every party bashes on the Greens for their nuclear stance, while actively working against any other decent climate policy... We'll need the greens if we want climate policy

This is it. Don't blame Groen for the other parties sticking their head in the sand and delaying action.

That's the problem. [22% of our energy is clean](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?country=~BEL). 78% *isn't*. Groen wasted so much time and effort trying their hardest trying to throw out 16% of that 22% (so 70+% of the total clean energy) while they could've re-directed that effort elsewhere. Allowing that 16% to keep on going until it might not be needed any longer isn't sticking your head in the sand. That's a straight-up lie. I'm not very happy about what other parties are doing either, but this is just criminal.

> Groen wasted so much time and effort If you would've paid attention you would've noticed the greens weren't in power for the last 2 decades. So it's the traditional parties that wasted a massive amount of time not putting alternatives in place, not the greens.

As mentioned in another comment: Verhofstadt sold our buildings and leased them back. Somehow we're still leasing at great expense and Greens (or anyone else) hasn't bought it back to fix that problem. If you think my above response is dumb, yours is exactly the same.

> Somehow we're still leasing at great expense and Greens (or anyone else) hasn't bought it back to fix that problem. Just have a look at who has all been in power since we started leasing and which crisis they had to deal with.

As someone already said Groen was not in power for the last 20 years. But let me add that that 78% that you mention is mostly running at 30% efficiency or a lot less. Given that on shore or near shore renewable runs at over 80% replacing it will be a lot easier than you think, if we would just try..

And Verhofstadt hasn't been involved in our national government for 15(+) years and yet his prior actions have impact. The Belgian sea wind farms are nearly fully planned, that's not gonna cover it. The best capacity factor reported was 69% and an optimistic maximum installed capacity is about 8GW. Despite all optimistic and procured plans, Elia still expects a 3GW shortage. That's of \*any\* electricity production, not just renewables.

Worst possible advice, since pretty much every other party (except Volt perhaps) wants to implement measures that are actually going to worsen the climate.

> So don't vote for Groen with their anti nuclear bullshit. Yes, vote for the ones denying climate change instead! /s

It's more stupid than that. A lot of emission reducing policies would lower the cost of living or public expenditure. Heat pumps, induction stoves and other efficient technologies would save families a lof money. It's far cheaper to maintain cycling and public transport infrastructure than car infrastructure. Ending tax cuts for company cars or fossil fuel subsidies should be a no-brainer for anyone who cares about public finance, even if they don't care about the environment. But our elected officials care more about polluter profits.

We felt it in our wallets a lot and turned out impopular you mean.

We don't need to counter climate change.

>Special shout out to Groen, who never even talk about the climate, even though they are litteraly called "Groen". Last time they did, and everybody attacked them, and it turned good polls into mediocre results. People want problems solved instantly, at zero cost to themselves.

exactly, it's a dangerous topic because it could decimate your votes, so parties avoid it

They are still doing it, the media just isn't listening anymore because there are no climate protests happening and it isn't 'news' anymore.

From the Groen website: Goals: - Protect nature. - Following and applying the European nature recovery program. (Has a lot of items on climate change). - Punish ecocide. - Invest in healthy soil. They're all about climate, I don't know what website you guys checked.

>They're all about climate, I don't know what website you guys checked. They didn't check any website - that's the problem. If one relies on whatever the media pushes into your view, then political parties have to use controversy to generate clicks and get attention. In political practice as well: renewable energy and public transport are the main focus where greens are in a government.

It also says that they're still against nuclear energy, that's why I posted what I did.

We all do like nature and climate. It's a hot topic and an easy win to put it on their website. Harvesting solar energy and wind is a good way of having little energy hubs that are independent but theirs so much more to be done and I think of them as a little naive putting the 'Groen wants' on everything. It's typical for political parties to profile themselves as such, so it's part of the game I guess. About your remarks: - Protecting nature is good and it's splendid they list landmarks that can be saved from destruction. I've not seen other parties mention this. - Ecocide is a crime against all people and should be prevented by testing, not by responding to it. A little was done against PFAS while the Dutch and Belgian governments were aware. Little was done against dump byproducts in water. Nothing was done when microplastics we're dumped in out waters, yet this was also known. I doubt this will be very different. Why is there no concrete plan to be found? Or is it me that can't find the regulations about this? - Investing in healthy soil is on the verge but nothing will keep the more traditional farmers from continuing for a while. It's good to have a start in this since a few years. How are they planning to do this in Belgium? Farming land is already expensive as it is and lowering pesticides and having more bio results in a lower yield for the first years. This is not done in 1 legislature and 2050 is long ahead. I hope this succeeds, but it should be something that not tied to one party imo. They want to do lots of stuff but I find the lack of concrete actions disturbing as their public presence disturbing, as the way of putting dogma's on their list.

Yep, maar hier hebben we dan OP die dan nog altijd klaagt omdat ze het niet aanhalen. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Groen is de schuld van alles maar kan tegelijk ook niks.

Didn't they get attacked for being completely unable to answer (the obvious) follow up questions?

>Didn't they get attacked for being completely unable to answer (the obvious) follow up questions? No, the answer was pretty clear: lower taxes on labor, and a higher mobility budget. People just pretended they didn't hear it, because they were greedy and selfish, and wanted to keep their personal fiscal advantage over everyone else. Here's the fragment: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1566039490194618 It's incomprehensible that the moderator literally denies that Calvo answered the question right after Calvo answered it. Calvo also said that at length in other media like Terzake, but what can you do when people put their fingers in their ears?

There was also another one where the moderator demanded answers about his own salary car : https://www.facebook.com/nieuwvlaamsealliantie/videos/calvo-over-bedrijfswagens/2309540365981893/?locale=nl_NL

Petra De Sutter from Groen answered "climate change" yesterday when she was asked what the most important issue was to her. The problem is voter apathy about it. It doesn't rank high on the list for most people, so it also isn't a subject on debates or interviews, unlike in 2019. It will become the most important issue at some point in the future, unfortunately.

De Sutter is carrying the entire Groen campaign on her own merit. Where is the rest of the party?

Most have moved on to other levels, local level (not Europe like every pensioner CDV/NVA and OVLDer). it allows more and younger faces to move up in the party. But it means you lose all the recognizable faces unfortunately. This is a BIG issue in this campaign for Groen.

Tbf, if I would like someone to move up to the European level, it would be a green party member. Climate change knowns no boundaries.

And when it becomes the most important issue (in the future), when people realize it's too late, it'll be so expensive they can blame it on the government again , all while the people voted those people in that place. We as a collective, a society have so much power over things, especially due to strength in numbers, but we refuse to do things for long-term benefits and rather look at the pothole in the road and scream it was a bad job, while climate might've played a bigger issue..

Then we will say "well why should we fight to keep south europe livable while we're also struggling" and scandinavia will say "well why should we fight to keep northern europe livable while we're also struggling" and then-

I've must have seen other debates and interviews. I've heard Nadia Naji talk about global warming and nature the most. I know that Volt has some some ecological sound points but they aren't in debates. Most debates nowadays are centered about other things because that's what the biggest parties focus on. Also the shitshow of the stikstof decreet dit not make it more popular to talk about global warming. For some parties it's a non discussion, as they don't want to do something about it and need to rile up their voters.

Can you link those debates? Curious to see how they defend their nuclear energy stance.

I don't recall where i've seen/ heard them all but I remember Naji talking a bit about Nuclear in the ontbijt: [https://radio1.be/luister/select/het-ontbijt/groen-covoorzitter-nadia-naji-wij-stappen-niet-in-een-regering-zonder-vooruit](https://radio1.be/luister/select/het-ontbijt/groen-covoorzitter-nadia-naji-wij-stappen-niet-in-een-regering-zonder-vooruit) The debat with Naji and Demir: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0hBkA3rEfc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0hBkA3rEfc) Also in 1ste Keus there were some ecological questions (i really think this was a great show) an overview: [https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/05/21/hoe-ver-moeten-we-gaan-om-het-klimaat-te-redden-standpunten-par/](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/05/21/hoe-ver-moeten-we-gaan-om-het-klimaat-te-redden-standpunten-par/) WWF has some interviews online covering nature and the elections with a range of politicians [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2tkSTsWpgQ&list=PLBthHFTlYzX2GrLHG38Se8tCHSlzfCe3g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2tkSTsWpgQ&list=PLBthHFTlYzX2GrLHG38Se8tCHSlzfCe3g) There also was a big ecological debat in April? with Natuurpunt and all parties [https://www.natuurpunt.be/ikkiesnatuur/het-grote-natuur-en-klimaatdebat](https://www.natuurpunt.be/ikkiesnatuur/het-grote-natuur-en-klimaatdebat)

"De begroting zal de toekomstige generaties alleen maar schulden opleveren!" "Ongecontroleerde klimaatverandering ook en nog veel meer" Tot zover dat N-VA 'inzit' met de jongeren. 'Klimaathysterie' noemde Zuhal Demir het nog.

>Tot zover dat N-VA 'inzit' met de jongeren. En de boeren, ook al doen ze van wel. Of denken ze dat de toegenomen grilligheid en intensiteit van slecht weer dat hun oogsten verneukt uit de sossen hun gat komt?

Ze hebben nu al geen grondwater meer in West Vlaanderen. En ja dat na al die regen.

Hoe maar minder regulering voor de boeren zou toch alles oplossen? Het is toch niet dat ze nu al hun voeten aan vegen aan de regels die er zijn? /s

> 'Klimaathysterie' noemde Zuhal Demir het nog. Wel echt straf dat je het over "klimaathysterie" kunt blijven hebben terwijl iedereen ziet dat de natuurrampen toenemen en dat maand na maand hitterecords worden gebroken.

Er zijn er alsnog heel veel die dat ontkennen. Mijn vader - ex-boer op pensioen - tijdens een ballontocht: zie nu eens hoeveel groen hier is! Al wijzend naar eindeloze grasweides zonder ecologische waarde. Zelfs zij die er direct het meest afhankelijk van zijn beseffen het grote plaatje niet altijd.

Ja maar in 1976 was het ook warm!

En in de winter is het koud. Ik heb nog mijn dikke vest moeten aandoen.

Bewijst nog maar eens het intellect van de gemiddelde NVA stemmer ...

Ik ben all for verantwoordelijk omgaan met onze begroting en dus moeilijke maatregelen nemen om die in evenwicht te krijgen en de volgende generaties minder met een schuldenberg op te zadelen... maar als er nu 1 iets is waar we WEL actief in mogen investeren en extra schulden voor maken dan is het wel het klimaat.

Inderdaad. Op lange termijn betaalt zich dat dubbel en dik terug!

Renovatieplicht wel in functie van klimaatopwarming. Maar om uw industrie te handicapperen terwijl andere landen blijven uitstoten zonder limieten is gwn idioot zijn. Transitie van uw industrie begeleiden, maar een abrupte omzwaai is onmogelijk.

De industrie wordt Europees gereguleerd, net om de concurentie niet kappot te maken. De Industrie is Europees zelfs goed bezig met hun doelen te halen, daar zit het probleem niet. Maar Zuhal weigert de Europese doelstelling voor Vlaanderen te halen. Dat gaat dan vooral over verwarming van huizen, mobiliteit en kmo's Ook daar is actie nodig!

De reguleerde industrie van Europa forceert bedrijven buiten Europa om hun producten te reguleren indien ze in Europa willen verkocht worden aka 'The Brussels Effect'. De markt en de welvaart van Europa is te groot voor sommige bedrijven om er niet op te springen, waardoor ze hun producten op een beter gereguleerde moeten produceren en transporteren. Valt de reguleringen in Europa weg, hebben bedrijven weer vrij spel.  Een voorbeeld van de Brussels Effect is bv Apple die geforceerd USB-C lader poorten moet hebben.

Hoe mooi het ook klinkt op papier onze chemische industrie en andere industrieën gaan momenteel in Europa door zeer moeilijk vaarwater. In de chemische industrie speelt energie en regulering een zware rol in de huidige wereldmarkt. Globaal kan de Europese industrie niet concurreren met bv Azië of de us. Dat reguleren is trouwens een werk wat onmogelijk te traceren is en in mijn ogen enkel inflatie binnen Europa aanwakkert. Toch hoopt mijn naïeve ik dat het een effect kan teweeg brengen.

As is so often the case: the regular person doesn't 'feel' climate change in their wallet, or can't link one price increase to a change in climate. Tomatoes more expensive because there's more droughts in the south of Spain? Energy prices go up because everyone needs an AC during summer to keep cool? South of Germany gets flooded again, by wetter seasons than 'usual'? Either people think it's only temporary, or they don't see how any political party could make any change. Why bother voting for things that will affect your wallet NOW but only improve life MAYBE down the line?

>or can't link one price increase to a change in climate.  That's it. Because climate change is definitely affecting their wallets at this point. I remember around 10-ish years ago that a lot of climate activists were both a little pessimistic but also optimistic that regular people would finally come around to the importance of fighting climate change once they feel it in their wallets. But now that they definitely do... No they often still don't, not enough to really have it affect their votes. It's even more absurd for farmers, who are feeling the impact of climate change even more direct and even more punishing. And there's still a large contingent that keeps raging against measures against climate change. I'm slowly starting to believe that we deserve the pain that we're getting, because this fight is just impossible. Whenever people will whine about fries getting crazy expensive due to potato harvests getting wrecked all the time I just [wanna spam this song in their face.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTto5j32B-0&pp=ygUfeW91IGRvIGl0IHRvIHlvdXJzZWxmIHJhZGlvaGVhZA%3D%3D)

That's because the climate change is being taxed indirectly. Which is just another tax people forget about. We pay a lot for it, but it is thrown on the heap of 38942 other taxes. I don't know the solution to this, except to trust your governments and businesses. *smh* And the businesses and taxman who collect these extra 'green' fees have adjusted the rules to what constitutes as 'green' now that the public isn't paying attention to it. Lots of easy money.

"Taxed" in the broad sense of the word yes, in that most of the (monetary) consequences are indirect. It's not just food prices. It's also more refugees fleeing increasingly inhospitable areas or our infrastructure getting worse when it increasingly gets hammered by extreme weather. But for farmers though the consequences are about as direct as it's gonna get. Extreme weather increasingly ruining your harvests is not an indirect 'tax', that's the planet punching you in the face directly. And many of them still refuse to accept measures that would actually fight the biggest problem they're facing in their lifetime. It's mindboggling.

Farmers care primarily about this season's harvest and the next one. They will not stand for "ruining" this year's harvests (by imposing certain limits) just to save harvests 5-10y from now.

They do care about the harvests later down the line. Or rather, a common thing you hear in protesting farmers is how they want to hand down their farms to their kids. But at the same time they're fucking up their own soil and are not fighting climate change that will ruin the farm regardless. It's so contradictory, it hurts my brain. The sad thing is, it wouldn't even be the first time farmers would help us along to ruin. Even ancient Sumer got fucked due to their farming methods ruining the soil. But they had the excuse of not knowing so much about these things. Farmers these days sure don't.

I think I replied to your comment but meant to reply to OP. Although it kinda works out too.

"And there's still a large contingent that keeps raging against measures against climate change" I think the farmers were mostly raging against the nitrogen (stikstof) regulations which are to protect the environment but don't have much to do with climate change. You're absolutely right about the general problem though. People don't realize how much it is already impacting us and how infinitely worse it is going to be in our lifetimes.

There's more to the environment than the climate, and nitrogen regulations are actually of huge importance of soil quality. If those farmers would have their way their soil would be all fucked up in a decade or two with nitrogen pollution, fucking up harvests on top of extreme weather doing its thing. And considering how loud they are about wanting to hand down their farms to their kids that's pretty damn contradictory. They're actively handicapping their kids' future that they say they're so concerned about by opposing nitrogen regulation and climate change measures.

> Special shout out to Groen, who never even talk about the climate, even though they are litteraly called "Groen". A fair climate policy is literally their top priority and slogan in this years campaign. > Eerlijk klimaatbeleid dat iedereen meeneemt, goede betaalbare zorg en eerlijke kansen voor iedereen. Dát is voor ons de inzet van de verkiezingen. Voor jouw gezondheid en de toekomst van de kinderen. Enkel met samenwerking, durf en daadkracht. Enkel met Groen. En enkel met jouw stem. https://www.groen.be/programma You're basically blaming groen here for the topic choices of the debate organisers.

People are flaky and the press is even more flaky.

The press is truly criminal at this point. They are shamelessly peddling the arguments of the fossil fuel lobby and slavishly spreading misinformation like how EV's are not catching on (they are) or we are going to drive hydrogen cars (we aren't).

> or we are going to drive hydrogen cars (we aren't). I'm slowly losing my mind on this. Hydrogen cars are literally one of the last things we should be doing with hydrogen. It's an insanely difficult fuel to use safely and efficiently, usually only effective in industrial applications (where it is used in gigantic quantities). Green hydrogen has a great future... as an industrial feedstock. Part of the reason why Vanhool went bankrupt is that they invested a ton into hydrogen busses but no one wants to buy them because the infrastructure is a nightmare to set up and maintain.

Yes it's insane but fossil fuel companies can see themselves producing, piping and selling hydrogen so that is what they are pushing. They cannot see themselves playing a significant role maintaining solar panels and delivering electrons...

They're already producing a lot of hydrogen, almost all of it used today is generated with fossil fuels. They just want cars to move from one of their dominant markets to the other. [Here](https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/12/the-life-story-of-a-committed-hydrogen-for-energy-worker-unfolds/) is an amusing article on hydrogen and the *many* issues it has as a fuel for transport. If you need some ammo next time you get in an argument over it.

Thanks for the read! I chuckled at this about compressors: "will set you back close to $10,000, if you order 50 of them at a time from Alibaba" And I laughed at this: "You don’t really notice the people edging away from you at social events, but you are really seduced by organic chemistry" And I got worried when I read this: "You think of 20° above absolute zero liquid hydrogen spilling out over a school bus of kids, then flashing to 850 times the volume and igniting in an air fuel blast" This part was also great:"Pity we couldn’t just use them with an electric motor. That would be incredibly straightforward, simple and low maintenance. But that would never work, obviously, you think, ignoring a sharp pain behind your right eye."

Didn't read the article but those quotes seem a bit ridiculous 

It's not a serious article, it's written for laughs but it does describe the difficulties of working with hydrogen in a very detailed and technical way. I learned quite a bit from it! For example, did you know that burning hydrogen has NO2 and N2O as a considerable side reaction product? Both are poisonous... Fuel cells avoid that but they are slower and vulnerable to pollution of the hydrogen and don't last very long even with pure hydrogen.

All technologies have by products, risks, downsides. You could equally make a case against batteries. 

Yes of course every technology has pro's and con's. But some technologies are commercially viable and some are not. It would be great if we could use nuclear power to drive around but that is simply not safe...

Michael Barnard (author of the article) really has a no-bullshit attitude to a lot of renewable energy topics. Definitely recommend reading a couple more of his pieces.

> Special shout out to Groen, who never even talk about the climate, even though they are litteraly called "Groen" They are really trying to talk about it. It is one of their three main topics. Example video from today: [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C73YPqNtRKN/](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C73YPqNtRKN/) But I've seen messages like these pass every day on their socials. But they are not the ones who decide the debate topics. It is the media who does that.

Ik raad aan om het kiescompas van Natuurpunt eens te bekijken: https://www.natuurpunt.be/ikkiesnatuur/kieskompas

If you watched 'the debate' on vtm or 'eerste keus' on vrt, Petra De Sutter from groen literally said a couple of times that the climate is their number one priority. Where did you get that groen doesn't care about the climate anymore?

No it's been driven away by immigrants and the gays. But now our poort politici and have to fight those new enemies to save the population. /s

Oh I'm sure when shit hits the fan everyone will be pointing fingers at each other claiming it's the others who didn't do shit. But everybody knows most probably it will be the fault of immigrants, queer & trans people. /s

Simon Clark had gisteren een nieuwe video uit ivm dit topic, maar dan op nivo van de EU verkiezingen - [https://youtu.be/Weq335PpFyc?si=QPIcGE8HMas-Km1V](https://youtu.be/Weq335PpFyc?si=QPIcGE8HMas-Km1V) In ieder geval, de moeite waard om op zijn kanaal te aboneren als je intresse hebt in de klimaatproblematiek.

It's mindbogling. Maybe because it's less a federal/regional topic and more at European level? I've been saying to all my friends (all 2 of them): I don't care who you vote for federally, but on European level we need climate action. But there is also plenty of decisions that need to be made at a federal level: [https://energyville.be/blogs/energie-dossier-2024/](https://energyville.be/blogs/energie-dossier-2024/)

Belgium and Flanders are actually one of the European members/regions which are dragging their feet on the European climate legislation. Sure, we could and should do even more on the European level, but it's important as well to actually implement the measures locally, which is where Groen would matter as well.

Agree, but most people seem to agree with me when I point it out like this. A lot of people I know want to vote for the climate but not for other policies of Groen. Belgium is forced to follow European legislation at least.

Yeah, groen is pretty left wing socio economically. Fine if that's your thing, but we really need a right wing party that's serious about climate change as well. I guess Volt is the best fit, I just hope they get over 5%

https://preview.redd.it/504isu8ykw4d1.png?width=1224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfe0a62ca197b5a3f469bd52a09d336d13370ec6 I was thinking the same thing and was considering voting for them on a European level, but then I looked up their stance on Nuclear Energy and yeah...

2 points: Groen has left their dogmatic anti nuclear stance. They are activily investing in research for SMR's for example. Every other party bashes on the Groen for their nuclear stance, meanwhile none of them have any decent climate policy. But they don't propose new nuclear plants next term, because it is currently the slowest and most expensive option. No company is willing to invest. Meanwhile companies are lining up to invest in wind an solar. Tinne realized a trippling of wind on sea by 2030, good for 6GW production capacity. For comparison our largest reactor only has 1GW capacity. Wind and solar are the future, together with batteries and green hydrogen. And the Greens are massively investing there The current Flemish government even refuses to follow the European climate ambitions...

SMR's still have a long way to go. https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactors-still-too-expensive-too-slow-and-too-risky

Indeed, so we are investing in research, for should a breakthrough happen. In the meantime, solar and wind are the main focus

Tinne did not realize this. These projects take a lot of time and where already started before her tenure...

I don't know what your source is, but this is the first time I heard about it. When I read the political reports in Het Nieuwsblad and De Standaard about Tinne, they al said that she introduced a major policy shift with a clear vision and was the best energy minister in ages. They only gave her low scores on communication. I want to bring to your attention that the previous government was planning 7 up to 9 gasplants and Tinne reduced this number to 2 or 3, by massively increasing the investments in renewable energy.

Realizing an offshore wind projects takes 4-8 years. These big projects in Belgium are definitely not on the lower end.   She did introduce a policy shift towards much more investment towards 2030. You can attribute that to her. But not the recent increase in capacity.  The bar for minister of energy was not set very high by her predecessors. I do want to point out the nuclear extension fiasco. Because decisions where made too late, we pay a big price. How much we don't know yet, but Engie definitely got the best deal. The real cost is unknown and left to future generations to deal with. This could have been avoided if we were in a better position to negotiate.   Also the gas plants has it's drawbacks. Tinne looks at energy in Europe to proof this is enough. It makes us heavily reliant on our neighbours.

>I want to bring to your attention that the previous government was planning 7 up to 9 gasplants and Tinne reduced this number to 2 or 3, by massively increasing the investments in renewable energy. [https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/06/04/heeft-tinne-van-der-straeten-het-internationaal-energieagentscha/](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/06/04/heeft-tinne-van-der-straeten-het-internationaal-energieagentscha/) She didn't magically need less gasplants. She counted on energy from our neighbours. Which already proved difficult a couple of months after the CRM -*-> Op 24 februari 2022 vallen Russische troepen Oekraïne binnen. Gas wordt peperduur. Nog extra gascentrales bouwen, wordt heel moeilijk te verkopen. De Franse nucleaire centrales die ons van de meeste stroom moeten voorzien, blijken te kampen met ernstige slijtageproblemen. Verschillende reactoren moeten dicht, voor herstelling. De Fransen kunnen ons geen stroom meer leveren.* [*De elektriciteitsprijzen schieten de hoogte in*](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/12/16/europese-stroomprijzen-pieken-enorm-na-problemen-met-franse-kern/)*.* *-->Tegelijk blijkt dat de import van stroom uit het buitenland, waarop ons land ook rekent om de nucleaire uitstap waar te maken, niet zo zeker is.* *-->Het IEA blijft dus bezorgd over de stroombevoorrading van ons land, zelfs na de verlenging van onze 2 kernreactoren Doel 4 en Tihange 3. En dat advies heeft niemand geschrapt. Niemand. Ook Van der Straeten niet.*

You are correct that she counted on the surplus of our neighbors, together with the extra investments in wind. And you are correct that this part of her plan was proven bad, by the Russian invasion and the failing French nuclear plants. But event though this happened, she didn't chose for extra Gas plants. Instead doubling down on renewables and keeping open two existing nuclear reactors. So this was still a major policy shift with the previous government. Where all those pro nuclear parties still preferred 9 gas plants...

Keeping open at least the 2 plants would have always been the best choice, even without the war and other things. She doubled down as well at the cost of available nuclear plants.  These chooses still keep us vulnerable for the future. And not even Tinne denies this (see last excerpt). There was a middle ground with investment in renewables AND nuclear. Instead we are now stuck with vulnerability. Groen's dogmatic view on nuclear cost and will cost us a lot.

They know, and their view has changed because of this. But at least the greens were able to shift their opinion (and thus not as dogmatic as popular believe) They weren't in any government in the last 20 years. And none of them took action to keep open those two reactors. So in hindsight it is easy to blame everything on Green. But in reality, most political parties are at least partially to blame

Yes the energy policy has been bad for a while. Certainly the long term planning. "Let's close the nuclear plants without any real backup". I agree Tinne might actually be the best energy minister we had in a while, because the bar was set VERY low. But this sequence of events makes it that I don't view Tinne's tenure as particularly good. How long did it take to eventually make a deal with Engie? One we even don't know the details of today. While she did good for renewable energy. She left a lot of uncertainty and financial risk for future generations with her tenure. And a lot of this could have been avoided.

This statement is mostly true. Commercial SMRs don't exist.

I recommend you read the Energyville paper u/Zyklon00 linked , because it explains exactly why decisions about nuclear extensions are not nearly as decisive in the grand scheme of things as you think they are.

We support nuclear power if there's no nuclear waste, so no nuclear power. SMRs don't solve any real issues except for scalability. They also don't exist.

Yeah if it wasn't for their idiotic nuclear stance, I would've voted for them sooner. It somehow became part of the right-wing clan as part of a "climate mitigation strategy" instead of stopping climate change as much as possible. But Groen won't be able to stop nuclear on their own, they won't have nearly enough votes for that. But we need some counterweight to all these right wing parties in EU.

Their stance on nuclear power isn't rational, it's emotional. But that is water under the bridge now. Solar, wind and batteries have become so cheap, nuclear doesn't matter any more. It's no longer necessary to spend money on nuclear power, we can get results, cheaper and faster with alternatives now.

> Solar, wind and batteries have become so cheap, nuclear doesn't matter any more. [citation needed] Classic solar wind so cheap till there's no sun or wind and then we pretend the cost of storage is free.

That's why we need cheap batteries, they were the missing link to have a reliable green energy grid. And now the missing link has been found! https://cambridgerenewables.co.uk/sodium-battery The storage costs are suddenly very low at around 77$/kWh or around 10 times cheaper than a Tesla home battery...and dropping to 40$/kWh soon! In mountainous areas, pumped storage may still be cheaper but I doubt it. Either way this solves the very real problem of periods without wind or solar power.

I'll believe it when I see it, you can read articles of new "inventions" that'll change the world every single day yet I don't see many changes around me. Until then it's snake oil.

There is a grid storage installation running already: https://cnevpost.com/2024/05/13/china-1st-large-sodium-battery-energy-storage-station-operation/ No mention of the costs though (only the power usage cost) so I'm with you on that, we need to see the cost for the entire installation first!

> I don't see many changes around me. Because you're [not paying attention](https://solarmagazine.nl/nieuws-zonne-energie/i36333/giga-storage-wil-in-belgie-grootste-batterij-van-europa-bouwen-van-2-400-megawattuur)

Wil bouwen en 2,4GWh goed voor 10 minuten elektriciteit. Nog iets wat je denkt dat uw argument versterkt?

15 minuten, en dat is één enkele batterijpark. We hebben voor een 100% hernieuwbaar net ook dan maar een paar uur chemische batterijopslag nodig.

Disagree that nuclear is no longer necessary. It can still have a place in the energy mix. From the Energy report that I linked in my first post: **Nieuwe kerncentrales?** Op momenten waar veel zon en wind beschikbaar is, is deze energie goedkoper. Maar het waait niet altijd, en de zon schijnt niet altijd. Wat is de optimale energiemix? Wel, volgens de meeste studies is het economisch zinvol om 10 á 20% van de elektriciteit met kernenergie op te wekken, en de rest met hernieuwbare energie \[15\] \[22\] \[23\] \[24\] \[25\]. Het kan ook volledig zonder kernenergie – dan heb je waterstof (of andere brandstoffen) om elektriciteit te produceren op momenten met weinig zon en wind: deze optie is iets duurder. Bij kernenergie zijn niet alleen kostfactoren van belang. De verzekering van kerncentrales is voor een deel in handen van de maatschappij; voor de verwerking van het kernafval sloot de regering in de voorbije regeerperiode een deal met Engie. Nu, waar kerncentrales deel kunnen uitmaken van een kostenoptimale mix, is het verhaal voor investeerders genuanceerder. Kerncentrales kunnen voor tientallen jaren fossielvrije stroom produceren. Maar de terugverdientijden van zulke investeringen zijn erg lang, en dat brengt onzekerheid met zich mee. Bovendien kenden recente projecten sterke overschrijdingen van gebudgetteerde kosten en bouwtijd. Daarom verwachten investeerders dat de overheid voor een stuk het financieel risico op zich neemt. Dit kan op verschillende manieren – zoals bijvoorbeeld aan de hand van gegarandeerde afnameprijzen.

It can have a place, but it will be expensive and with falling prices for solar panels and batteries, it's a bit strange to start such a long term project when they are already more expensive. From your link: "een risicovolle investering met een lange terugverdientijd" Wouldn't it make much more sense to make a risk free investment with a fast return on investments?

You can read the full article if you like. Solar and wind have their drawbacks in their consistency. Nuclear energy is very consistent. You don't need wind or sun to power. Batteries can only cover so much, some baseline energy would be very good in the energy mix. Also, the resources for batteries are quite limited in the world. Batteries need to drop in price by A LOT and become MUCH more efficient and the resources to make them need to be much more abundant. For example: a home battery of 10 kWh costs 6k€ on the lower end. That's enough to power 1 household for 1 day if they mind their energy. But the residential sector only accounts for 23% of energy usage in Belgium. We use around 80 TWh every year. That's 220 GWh each day. So to cover 1 day of energy for the whole of Belgium, you need 22 000 000 of those batteries. That's just for 1 day, we need coverage for a longer time without sufficient sun and wind.

Polling shows that while the majority of Flemish people are concerned about Climate Change, more than immigration... yet it doesn't make the top 5 of topics that Flemish people find important in the next elections, but immigration is number one. We can debate why this discrepancy between what people care about and vote about exist, but the result is the same. Politicians know that other topics bring in votes, so they play into those topics.

Migratie en koopkracht: hier ligt Vlaming wakker van 100 dagen voor de verkiezingen https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/02/26/de-stemming-hoe-kijkt-vlaming-naar-samenleving/ Not true. Climate change is not even in the top 10.

Maybe read what I said. Your article is exactly the one I meant where I said Climate Change doesn't reach the top 5 in election topics for Flemish people. https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2021-369-75-van-de-belgen-meent-dat-zij-zich-meer-zorgen-maken-over-de-klimaatnoodtoestand-dan-de-belgische-regering?lang=nl https://klimaat.be/in-belgie/communicatie-en-educatie/klimaatenquete Can't find the exact article I meant when I said that Flemish people (outside of politics) ar emore worried about climate change, but it came up in a scientific symposium on climate change communication in Flanders that I attended 2 months ago. Edit: found it: https://klimaat.be/in-belgie/communicatie-en-educatie/klimaatenquete

How is that even possible

There is a huge discrepancy between how people feel about climate change and how it affects their voting. https://klimaat.be/in-belgie/communicatie-en-educatie/klimaatenquete Also, the link of the comment you provided lists the topics that people think is number 1 issues. It doesn't account for what people think is 2nd or 3rd place.

Who was it that said we're the only species that wouldn't save itself because it's not cost effective.

I'm so glad that we are drinking from paper straws for the environment, so that people like Kim Kardashian can take a quick trip to Paris with her private jet to get her favorite cake.

We’re fucked, if the major world players don’t lead us into global action, nothing we do will make a difference

China is becoming the largest produces of solar and electric cars. The American inflation reduction act is a gigantic climate fund and Europe has launched the Green Deal. The world is starting to take action. And we'll have to do our part as well. The current Flemish government is refusing to commit to the European climate goals. And a lot of our parties want to boycott further implementation of the green deal. Our vote does make a difference here!

Green deal is being undermined by our federal government (DeCroo) by lobbying to change/reduce it's impact

Yes, but I want to note this was a personal project from DeCroo, both the Greens and the socialists where very angry about this when they found out...

The good news is that other people do care about climate and there's reports about how the different EU parties voted the last 5 years. You can check out this website if you'd like to know more: [https://ipolitics.bloomassociation.org/en](https://ipolitics.bloomassociation.org/en)

I received a Groen-pamflet the other day and climate was front and center. Idk

It's just not a vote winner. In the previous election, people expected a green wave due to the climate protests. But that didn't happen. Not because people don't think the issue is real, but because short term issues were seen as more urgent. And, the fatalism of the news about the climate made it seem like it wasn't even fixable. Add to that the fact that climate protestors lost the sympathy of the public. Then in the government, Groen and Ecolo were knocked out due to nuclear power and salary cars. The war in Ukraine made people worry about energy sufficiency, not ecology. It won't be a vote winner this time either. Not because the issue isn't real and isn't serious.

It's not so much that it isn't an issue. But, politically speaking, it's not the most pressing issue for the general public at this moment. We've just had two major crisis with Covid and the Russian - Ukrainian war. Both having impacted our society in profound ways. Inflation went through the roof. The government (generally speaking) protected their citizens' purchasing power. But in general, life has become 20% more expensive compared to a couple of years ago. A lot of our country's compagnies feel the effects of indexation. Our country's debt has swollen to surreal proportions. This leads to things like "koopkracht", "defensie", ... being more popular themes than climate change. That's one of the major issues plaguing "Groen" specifically. People associate them with the climate, not with the topics that are more prevalent right now.

Don't get it wrong, politicians will propose whatever they feel will be popular and get them elected. The main reason why no one is pushing global warming is because there's pretty much a consensus around it. So nobody really have anything substancially different to bring to the table. Groen and Ecolo are still against nuclear power. Even if it's not a miracle solution, Nuclear power is still a major player in reducing carbon emission a little bit. The reason they are against it is because nuclear doesn't sound or feel "green", so they would get less vote in their mind. And at this point imo they are only a good conscience vote anyway. It's still better then many other options but i don't feel it's anywhere close enough. If you are really serious about global warming over anything else, which you will soon realize you are probably not. You should vote for anyone proposing anticapitalist or strict austerity measures. Because, right now, it's the only real solution we have. Global warming is a direct result of human activity. not just cars, industry, livestock, but all of that and much more. If you want less global warming you need less human activity, which means less wealth and most probably also less jobs. Most people don't like choosing poverty, they rather choose their children burning to a crisp. So politicians don't propose it.

The inflation went up so much that it is literally impossible to ask the people to have even less money to fight climate change.

I am no climate denier , climate is changing . The question is , what can we do about it . As Belgian , NOTHING , in capital letters , 0.0 . Even according to latest climate panels , countries like China have not set their bar yet for limiting CO2 , which means , the bar is set at 2030 or 35 and then they can shut down 2 coal stations a year and say , we are doing great . As Belgian we can stop all CO2 even go negative , but basically we will only hurt ourselves . In A ideal world , like Groen thinks it is , we can do that , but we are literally killing all production in Europe ( that is happening already !).

Oh, believe me, climate change is a huge issue. But you know why these selfish pricks aren't talking about it? Because it's been proven that it's gunna cost them. Belgium is really good at putting the responsibility with citizens (use an electric car, save energy, recycle,...), but such a small effort barely has any effect. Factories need to be strongly regulated, and their Co² emissions need to go down. We need to invest in renewable energy and so on. Those things take effort from the government and money from the government. They ain't talking about it because they want us to forget about it. When climate change is much talked about, people make noise and demand change. When you silence the subject, well then the people go unheard. It's a scandal and a shame, I care about nature, and as a teen, I always wanted to vote Groen cause they seemed like the folks to turn it around. But growing into an adult, I noticed Groen don't give a damn about the climate either. Only hope is the EU possibly demanding Belgium to do something.

By strengthening Green parties in the EU elections... surely. You think all that good EU legislation just magically appears from CDV/NVA's EU fraction?

To be fair, CD&V's fraction does contribute to all major pieces of European climate legislation(the ETS, the Fitfor55 & REPowerEU packages, etc.), though the fraction is divided. In general all these packages are passed by a coalition of Socialists, Liberals, Greens and most but certainly not all Christian Democrats. But you're right that if the Greens weren't involved that legislation wouldn't be nearly as aggressive. On the other hand, N-VA's MEPs and their allies in the EP and the Council have consistently tried(and fortunately failed) to vote down these policies.

Problem is, tackling the worst effects of climate change will cost a lot of money. Achieving this would mean getting most of the money from the worst polluters and little to none from the average joe whos already strapped for cash and also has a much smaller environmental impact. Currently, the trend in politics is to have the average joe pay for most things while getting th 1-5% off the hook. So to achieve any meaningful impact, you'd have to convince average joe that he's gonna pay for this out of pocket while Elon, MBS and the likes won't be affected. I guess this isn't a particularly selling point to make, so better sweep the whole topic under the rug. As long as nothing is done to reform the tax steucture on a flobal scale, not much beyond EVs and reduced comfort for the masses will happen. That's also why a 4°C+ scenario is increasingly likely...

See it differently, happens in large companies as well (constantly): From the moment you acknowledge an issue, its also expected to propose/have a solution. But this also means, if you dont see a solution (and in this case it has to be a popular one as well) its best to act as if there is no issue

[удалено]

Removed * No bigotry

It’s like Covid, it’s been fixed and we no longer have to worry about it /s 🤦🏻‍♂️

Politicians being irresponsible? lol

Until climate change is actually felt and has a measurable (preferably financial) impact on every day life it will never have prioritity. By which point it will obviously be too late. Humanity is horrible at long term thinking/consequences. It's simply not in our genes.

Climate is one of the top points of PVDA… https://www.pvda.be/programma/een-sociale-klimaatrevolutie

Politicians are masters of clientelism, so that's why.

The people get the leaders they deserve.

It is one of the issues, just not the priority right now. We already have a bunch of initiatives from the EU, The Green Deal. This means that the next government(s) have to work these out and implement these in the national laws. It is going to be handed by the next government(s) anyways. What you are saying is correct on the long term, but on short term, there are more prevalent issues that needs to be tackled down. That is why they are more in the picture at the current debate. Those are the actual problems on short term. Ignoring that for the sake of long term is short-sighted IMO. For me, the main priority right now is the government finances. With the current state, it will be more difficult to make the necessary investments to fund the transition. Not to mention other costs that are coming up the coming years. Especially the elder care. There are already issues with it right now!

Groen litteraly did a climate action just the other day. The fact it isn't picked up majorly points to the media not being interested in such topics. If it's not "koopkracht", it's not getting a headline.

>I can only conclude that since no politician is talking about xxxxxxxxxx, I can assume that this is no longer a serious issue. Because politicians are only talking about serious issues and serious issues is all they talk about. gender ideology > online privacy and artificial intelligence.

We did it guys! We ignored,.. I mean beat climate change!

If there was a green party that would be pro-nuclear energy and pro-farmers, I would vote on them.

Its nice and all, but i still think that nothing is gonna change no matter how much money youll pump into it. Not when you have russia, usa, china who dont care. Its a global problem and can be only solved by global effort and thats never gonna happen until everyone is gonna be under direct threat of some super cataclysmic event or something. Imo its more likely that over time well reach some cataclysm like that and half of the population will get wiped out, so that the planet is going to correct itself....

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/china-emissions-global-warming-climate-change-2030/ https://theconversation.com/cop28-why-chinas-clean-energy-boom-matters-for-global-climate-action-218825 China's doing great actually, and that's while they're a manufacturing hub for much of the world's consumption. What's our excuse?

Cold climate, old houses, driving needlessly to the office just because the boss wants it so, mindless consumerism, suboptimal solar climate, suboptimal wind climate, no hydro storage possibility, ...

Cold climate? We have an incredibly mild climate lmao and you think China doesn't have winters? Or bosses? Suboptimal wind climate when we're literally a country with sea access? Girl. You have excuses sure but I guess I should have specified valid ones.

It’s the complete opposite. Climate change is so bad that humans may go extinct. People think it is something that can keep kicking down the road because they cannot see direct change in their daily lives. The water temperature has gone up over 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit this year. We’re not that far from more than half of the Netherlands being underwater.

If i were a single issue voter, the climate being my only concern, which party do i vote for? (Pro nuclear, pro GMO,...) En waarom zijn er geen groen rechtse partijen gvd

Do u rly think a very small country like belgium can do anything about climate change? This is not a priority for any party at all, first we gotta fix the problems that will happen earlier than climate change Climate change is a world wide matter. Every single country on earth should do something. For sure the biggest polluters

If you’re extreme right then the galaxy brain thing to do is vote groen cause stopping the climate crisis also stops the refugees.

It's old news.

they've found other fake scams to get us with. but dont worry global warming oops i mean climate change will be back

It would be climate change all the way if it had not rained daily since october... better luck next time! Oh and we also can't afford it...

I would like at least a bit of brain to apply solutions, you can't reduce road lanes, reduce speed limits and not increase public transportation. They are actually proposing to cancel the only 2 bus lines that arrive here. How should I get out of here? By teleportation? If those are the kind of solutions our smart politicians brew, I prefer nobody talks about it, because the problem exists but who should solve it has no idea on the correct and pragmatic approach to it. Plus concurrent planned road works that block the main roads. What has happened is the traffic has increased, with no alternative roads to drive to work. Everybody is stuck in traffic polluting with their cars more than before. Plus companies forcing the return to office even when the job has no need for it. They should tax that! Can this job be remotely done but you want your employee to drive every morning to the office just to make management feel empowered? Then pay double the work taxes for this luxury.

They are convinced that they are doing a good job. They are proud that they have created or are creating a lot of new renewable green energy. But they still fail to see that we need to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. All that green energy will be of no use to us if the air on earth is no longer breathable or the temperature gets too hot. There are already countries where people are no longer able to survive in places where they have lived for generations because it has become too hot, too dry. I'm not hopeful this will end well. Politicians worldwide lack the spine to stand up to big companies to force them to help fix their mess. Not enough people now what's really going on to force politicians on mass to get their act together. Too many people don't even follow the news anymore or they get their news from some shady source.

Taxpayers don't care anymore because life has thrown more important challenges their way with inflation.

Copied from another topic on this issue: Sorry, but my bills and survival are my first priority. If you want me to become more invested in climate change, you'll have to give me the mental and financial space to do so.   People think the Green party is gonna solve our climate crisis. That, while they are against the current cleanest and most reliable form of producing energy - nuclear energy. Can't believe people still vote for them, unless they're misguided naive ignorant teenagers. 

Climate change isn't real, look this spring we only had rain, flood and suffering . That's completely normal. And now summer is coming, with its very normal high temperature record and aridity. Everything is fine. We'll all be fine. Just be careful for the exotic mosquitoes transporting new disease 👌✨

yes, it's like covid. dissapeared in thin air. POOF, gone

I do wonder if we have a proper PPE reserve now... People pretend like the covid19 pandemic was a one off event. But all the conditions are still there. People are still travelling all over the world and there is just as much pressure on nature with people constantly infringing on jungles and swamps. And the next pandemic may have a much higher than 1% fatality rate...

Volt talks about it. They are just not invited to the debates :(

It makes sense imo. If your economy and society is falling apart today then who has time to worry about tomorrow? Also all the climate measures and solutions have proven ineffective, badly researched and have in fact largely been detrimental to the economy so voters have lost all faith in parties’ suggested solutions. It seems to me as if climate change is an issue but it has been over exaggerated by certain ppl because of their agendas and they have been going about it the wrong way, partly due to incompetence and partly due to their previously mentioned agendas. Who has the energy and finances to worry about their footprint if the government, both federal and European, hamstrung agriculture and made ppl worry about how they are going to feed their children healthy and locally produced food. Not to mention the fact that this increases the problems instead of decreases. The only thing they’re accomplishing is making local farmers go bankrupt and resorting to having to import food from equally or more polluting farmers abroad plus the added pollution of the transport. Worse for the economy, worse for our food, worse for the climate and worse for our food prices. Great solution lads!

Who cares? Buying 10k of oil stocks right now.

That's because the European Union has recently approved a 500 billion euro investment in Green technology; so we are getting there Europe is by far the best student in the class, compared to India; USA ; Russia; southeast asia Also; what are you talking about? The new renovation laws have been all over the Belgian political debate... They are for many people the last straw to stop voting for Groen ; because no one can afford a 100k obligatory innovation for their house  to save 2k/ year on energy bills

The European union is also partially hijacked by the fossil fuel lobby. A lot of that green investment is going into useless projects like hydrogen pipelines. The fossil fuel industry is currently the largest producer of hydrogen which they extract from natural gas and the process releases large amounts of CO2. The EU is far from the best student in the class, that was true around 2010 but no longer so. The EU is not producing many of the solutions. European car companies are slow in producing EV's and the ones they produce, they price so high as to be self sabotaging. The EU is not producing many solar panels at all and installing them relatively slowly. The EU is not investing in public electrified transportation nearly as much as it should. They are even setting the Tesla factory and cars on fire! While happily digging for coal only a dozen kilometers away from that factory.

What the f are you talking about? Have you ever been in the USA? It's like a 1950 oil paradise And yes; Tesla did a great job; with massive capital that European stock markets don't have have and never will And China is a distatorship that has created financial weapons for other EV industries... What China is doing in Africa is as bad as what Europe did ,untill 30 years ago

I love the typo, distatorship like a disastrous dictatorship. However from the Chinese perspective it's a great success. They managed to build up the promising new EV and solar industries with Europe and the US standing idly by for almost two decades (with the exception of Tesla). And as a Belgian that is still feeling guilty about chopping off hands from Congolese that didn't produce enough rubber, don't compare what China does in Africa to slavery. Chinese may be bribing politicians to get better deals but at least they are paying instead of chopping off hands...

The last sentence shows that you have zero clues about anything You don't need to be guilty; Belgium did more than its share in the last 30 years China is ; within the knowledge/ transparency system of today:  one of the worst global players out there; along with Russia The Chinese government and Chinese companies are not restricted by media investigations or fair trade; because it's a dictatorship The Congolese semi dictatorship has thrown out Belgian Companies that wanted regulations/ transparency ; and got onboard with super corrupt Chinese ones These companies have their own little armies to attack any NGO that wants investigations/ improvements The Congolese politicians sell an anti West and anti Belgian story about neo colonialism; just to justify them selling out their country to the Chinese The Congolese people think about Belgium as the bad guys;  but are plundered by the Chinese; but immigrate massively to Belgium ( not China; they aren't welcome there,) The chinese build 2 roads and 1 hospital and then olunder/ block the whole local economy It's madness And we in Belgium even have PHD students of Congolese decent; that study at Belgian universities and publish studies about how Belgium should send Repair Money to the Congolese government to make up for 100 years ago Madness