Educate the upcoming generation on environmentally friendly ways of living and working so that they can help to build a sustainable future.

Best regards,

DFJ.

Global electricity demand is expected to increase strongly over the coming decades, even assuming much improved end-use efficiency. Meeting this demand while drastically reducing CO2 emissions from the electricity sector will be a major challenge.

Given that the once-significant expectations placed on carbon capture and storage are rapidly diminishing, and given that hydropower resources are in limited supply, there are essentially only two options to decarbonise an ever increasing electricity sector: nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar PV. Of these two options, only nuclear provides firmly dispatchable baseload electricity, since the variability of wind and solar PV requires flexible back-up that is frequently provided by carbonintensive peak-load plants.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7208-climate-change-2015.pdf

Hello Sir,

Next Generation will not face energy crisis.  Sun will become nearer and nearer. Ample amount of sunlight can be used for energy generation.  The same has to be used for cooling purposes!!!

Hello Dr. Debra Sharon Ferdinand-James,

It's great pleasure for your kind comment.

Yes, we recognize that the education in Energy and Environment plays the important role to gain the Sustainable Future. So, in our university, even for the curriculum of undergraduate level of Electrical Power Engineering Student, the subject of Energy and Environment is included.

Many thanks!

Have a nice day!

Very sincerely,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Hello Prof. Kenneth Towe,

I do appreciate for your valuable comments.

I would like to share the sentences (page no.11) from the reference that attached.

The residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of the order

of a century, this rise in atmospheric concentration reflects the cumulative emissions over many prior decades. Unlike urban or regional air pollutant emission reduction, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will not reduce the ambient carbon dioxide level, only slow its inexorable rise.

Thank you so much.

Have a great day!

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Hello Mike Smith,

I'm deeply thankful for your valuable answer regarding the great works of IEA.

Good Day!

Best,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Hello Dr. Florian Glodeanu,

I'm very delighted to receive your shared very nice book regarding NEA and valuable comment.

Big Thanks!!!

Best regards,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Aung,

Climate change is exacerbated not be a single human activity, but many. So why not fight indirectly institutionalize other needed practices. Below is a concept that may institutionalize practices which can have a cumulative effect on climate change.

Treat forest wildfire risk by harvest of non-merchantable biomass and have a beneficial effect on direct emissions (CO2) and indirect emissions (decomposition of fire killed forest). Reduce harvested material into a stable carbon form (charcoal), for use on agricultural acres with low Soil Organic Matter (SOM). Do this conversion in the woods to limit transportation costs and to use some of the created charcoal in the woods. This use of charcoal in the woods will reduce wildfire risk and the risk from insects and disease in the forest amplified by climate change.

When we take the claim, "1% increase in SOM can increase soil/water capacity 25,000g/ac"; with the following. "farms across the world have lost at least 50% SOM". we can recognize a huge loss of soil/water capacity. Then we have the incorporated stable carbon, while most carbon sequestration tactics rely on assumed vegetative growth and are at the risk of climate change variations. The application of charcoal to the soil is based on an empirical measured amount of carbon sequestered. When some is applied to the forest where it is harvested from we buffer the thinned forest from variations in climate change and take the remainder to farmers who may need the addition soil/water capacity and improved CEC from the charcoal. Lastly if this charcoal/biochar amendment improves soil nutrient capacity the farmer will use less petroleum based fertilizer (100N = ~12g diesel to manufacture). So to close this extreme summary of a landscape concept, manage from Forest2Farm to safely redistribute carbon to manage Climate Change. The greatest resource to benefit Climate Change mitigation is the soil, lets use it.

Kenneth,

I appreciate your position, but maybe a few basic forestry facts need to be added to the discussion. Forest management is a fact of life, be it public or private management. Every year across those managed acres, hundreds of tons of biomass are burned in forested environments across the US and world (public and private forests). Cumulatively, it is anyone's guess as to what yearly tonnage goes up in smoke. Some of this burning is broadcast burning and the remainder is concentrated machine piles being burned. Broadcast burning mostly consumes fine materials(

Harnessing more and more the nuclear and non-conventional sources like solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, etc. will effectively tackle the energy security challenge for future generations. 

Hello Prof. Kenneth Towe & Prof.  James Archuleta,

I have really great pleasure for your valuable comments.

Big Congratulations!!!

Have a great day!

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Hello Prof. YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,

I agree with your excellent comment.

Big Thanks!!!

Have a nice day!

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

I think we need more R&Ds on clean energy, especially how to increase its productivity, and efficiency at lower costs, so it will appeal more to industries and household use.  

I believe the topics are politic more than scientific.

Climate change is included in the history of the Earth as a natural process. I am sure that nobody knows the trend of the constantly change of climate, or if the possible climate change could be positive o negative; probably it could be good for some areas & negative for others. Probably we go to a new glaciation; in this way, warming can be not too bad. But there are hundreds of predicting models that all are wrong: Only one could be OK, but it is impossible to know what of them..., less if that will be good or bad. A colder time of the Earth permitted to travel China people towards North America.  Colder times during XV Century pushed to Western Spanish to emigrate towards Latin-America for a better life. Were those facts negative or positive...? Politics!!! Then, NEVER the men can stop the climate change..., warming or cooling. Simply, please to be ready for adapting for changes.

There is nothing sustainable. Not in economy, not in thermodynamic facts. Future is conditioned for an increasing of population and an increasing of energy needs for a richer population. So, future is not a nice picture. I come back to the other question. People needs to be ready for adapting new scenarios. Probably if the population is increasing and the battles for new or old resources will be stronger, the men are close to the end as species. Probably new species will replace the extinguished idiot Homo sapiens in the Earth in the next Centuries.

That is my poor opinion, said in the more scientific way possible. Regards!

We have to work on the renewable and clean energy which has low cost and good impact for climate and environment such as water and solar energy. It is our duty to save energy for the next generations.

Hello RG Colleagues, 

I would like to share from the attached link:

#France-based floating PV specialist Ciel & Terre (C&T) International has commenced construction of a 70MW floating solar plant for Chinese state-owned developer CECEP on a clay quarry lake in Anhui Province, China.

#Once compete it could be the world’s largest floating solar plant, but only briefly, because Chinese firm Sungrow is also due to complete a 150MW floating plant in the same region before the end of the year.

#Construction started earlier this month, with 194,000 modules required across 13 floating arrays. The project will generate 82GWh in its first year.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/ciel-terre-starts-building-70mw-floating-pv-project-with-longi-mono-modules

Hello Prof. Cameen Kettanun Prof. Kenneth Towe, Prof.  Juan Fernando & Prof. Masnat Al Hiary,

I am very delighted for your valuable comments.

I agree that we may have different opinions.

Big Congratulations!!!

Have a great day!

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Aung Ze Ya, YTU, Myanmar

Hello RG Colleagues, 

I would like to share from the attached link Renewables Now:

#Renewable energy plants such as wind and solar will account for the bulk, 72%, of the money the world will spend on new power generation over the period to 2040, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance's (BNEF) latest long-term forecast.

#According to the analysis, USD 2.8 trillion will be invested in solar by 2040 and the technology will enjoy a 14-fold jump in capacity. Wind will attract USD 3.3 trillion and expand its capacity fourfold. By 2040, the two sources combined will have a share of 48% in the world's installed capacity and 34% in electricity generation, a large increase from the 12% and 5% currently.

#BNEF says that solar is already at least as cheap as coal in Germany, Australia, the US, Spain and Italy. By 2021, China, India, Mexico, the UK and Brazil will join this list.

#China and India will account for a big part, 28% and 11%, respectively, of all power investment by 2040. In the Asia Pacific, just under a third of investment will go to wind and solar each, 18% to nuclear and 10% to coal and gas.

#The rise of renewables is getting a boost from batteries. According to BNEF, the lithium-ion battery market for energy storage will be worth at least USD 239 billion between now and 2040.

https://renewablesnow.com/news/report-renewables-take-72-of-global-power-investment-by-2040-572438/

Renewables plays important role in today's energy revolution. So, the cost of the solar PV modules and others in the market of the Renewables are cheaper day by day. In addition, the advanced technologies of Renewables are developing.

Around the world, there are more and more implementations of Mega Renwewables Farms.

By deploying Renewables, we can provide the less emissions for power generations and save our atmosphere as well as towards low carbon society.  

https://renewablesnow.com/news/tesla-wins-100-mw-battery-project-in-s-australia-575044/?utm_source=Renewables+Now_subscribers+and+newsletter&utm_campaign=214fdc9831-Renewables_Now_The_Daily_Newsletter_15_06_15_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_990771841c-214fdc9831-259520661

https://renewablesnow.com/news/eu-offshore-re-support-project-awards-eur-13m-in-1st-call-575158/?utm_source=Renewables+Now_subscribers+and+newsletter&utm_campaign=214fdc9831-Renewables_Now_The_Daily_Newsletter_15_06_15_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_990771841c-214fdc9831-259520661

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/meyer-burger-supplying-rec-group-with-diamond-wire-cutting-technology

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/us-monthly-renewables-generation-surpasses-nuclear-for-first-time-in-33-yea

I agree that we cannot replace all of the fossil-fueled based applications.

I'm discussing for not the present time. 

One day, we cannot utilize  the non-renewable energy sources due to their limited life times. At that time, what energy can we apply?

My point is our long-time planning for the Sustainable Future. 

 Hello Aung,

I have read many negative comments, which brings to mind a couple of proverbs:

"Never listen to naysayers they always have a problem for every solution."

"Don't listen to naysayers they never achieve anything useful."

I think IMHO that the old slogan: "Think globally, act locally." Should be revived for the aims of reducing CO2 levels.

May I suggest having a multi-level approach to start resolving the global challenge of reducing CO2 emissions:

Level 1: Individuals

Level 2: Organizational

Level 3: National

Level 1: Individual

*Provide generous income tax rebates for single people or couples who have no children;

*A single person or individual with children, receive tax rebates for expenses incurred in raising up to two children. Zero tax rebates if they have more children;

*People who do not purchase hybrid or electric vehicles, have to pay a carbon tax in proportion to the annual amount of carbon dioxide release measured by a "black box" installed in their vehicles, to be charged as part of the annual vehicle registration fee;

Level 2: Organizational

*GOs, NGOs, Clubs, Associations and Companies who do not instal Solar Hot Water, Solar Photo-Voltaic panels, and Icelandic wind power generators with battery banks, should pay a carbon tax in proportion to the CO2 released by the non-renewable energy they consume; where the building is leased the carbon tax is to be charged to the building owners;

Level 3: National

*The carbon tax revenue should be used to finance the installation of Solar Hot Water, Solar PV panels, and Icelandic wind power generators with storage batteries, to economically disadvantaged (measured through a means test) households;

*Though amending building codes, make it compulsory for new building constructions to include Solar Hot Water, Solar PV with storage batteries and Icelandic wind power generators.

Iceland has achieved 100% of its electricity from renewable energy, Costa Rica 99%, Uruguay 95%, ; if these nations can do it, there's no reason why any other country could achieve this too. Sweden is on the way towards generating 100% of its electricity from renewable sources. China is planning on closing down 1000 coal fired power stations and planning to actively install Wind power stations and Solar PV panels; the nation has the highest installed base of Wind power electrical power generating stations and the second highest base of Solar power generating capacity.

In Australia, the state of South Australia (SA) is committed to generating the majority of its electrical power from Wind power generating stations and Solar PV panels. Currently they are planning a project to build a massive battery bank to store 100 megawatts of electrical energy, to eliminate or reduce the temporary black outs due to reductions in wind activity. The Government Tender was won by the Tesla company and a french company Neoen, to build the experimental facility:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/sa-100mw-battery-storage-tender-won-by-tesla-and-neoen-65874/

Possibly in line with Sweden's goal to generate 100% of their electrical energy with renewables and to reduce their proportion of CO2 emissions, Volvo has made the decision to retool their assembly lines to begin construction of hybrid and fully electric vehicles:

https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2017/07/volvo-first-major-carmaker-forgo-traditional-engines?et_cid=6013412&et_rid=345260701&type=headline&et_cid=6013412&et_rid=345260701&linkid=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ecnmag.com%2fnews%2f2017%2f07%2fvolvo-first-major-carmaker-forgo-traditional-engines%3fet_cid%3d6013412%26et_rid%3d%%subscriberid%%%26type%3dheadline

Two important works:

1. Save energy as much as possible

2. Switch to renewable source of energy

Energy misuse can be reduced. Green chemistry is the solution. Massive climate preservation education-Think before you act module e.g. think before you print. Think before u burn. 

save energy

As the biggest contribution comes from our heat demand worldwide, so we need more effective use of a valuable resource via energy optimization schemes.

Sir, 

As I’m working on a ‘nuclear rebound effect’ paper, I would like to answer also to Mr Kralj here ; I do not prove it but it’s just theory.  

If your nuclear plant works well, you can expect to ‘externalize’ the costs of the wastes, transfer it to the future generations ; if an accident occurs, obviously, some of the costs will also be transferred to the future.

You may produce energy at a ‘low price’ for the present generation, with the idea that the next will also benefit ; this is a ‘trade off’ : you give a sustain to economic growth for the wastes and the future raising of the price ; 

If the price of electricity is low for you, as you expected it to be, than you may get a massive rebound effect for all your consumption (you still need ‘fossils’, the substitution effect is bounded).

This is due to a ‘permanent income effect’ that makes you feel more rich, and your ‘fossil-CO2 loaded’ consumption will also rise… you will loose the benefits of the substitution, ‘fossil’ plants by nuclear plants, simply because of the lower the price of electricity, the richer you (think you) are and the more you consume (in fact, empirically, you are richer : you have 'more things'... big deal! In facts, you are alone). 

For ex. you’ll be allowed to trip more if your electricity bill is lowered, thanks to the nuclear plant, and you will not make less CO2 (you may produce more CO2 in fact). 

But you may face a problem with the uranium supply some day…

Here, the choice of ‘solar-wind-and others’ is the good one because it saves life.

If your nuclear plant does not work so well, if there are extra costs that you (or your descendants) can expect (uranium supply ?), then the ‘solar-wind-and others’ choice is the good one, because it is cheaper for you and them.

The French 'EPR' program is made to avoid this point, but it will not avoid the previous : if the Froggies and the Finnish get one at last (each), if the Britons and the Chinese get two, if the Indians would get six… can you imagine the massive ‘nuclear rebound effect’ on climate change ?

So ‘climate change’ is just an opportunity to sell more nuclear plants, that are (and will be) parts of the problem. 

Finally, if the ‘solar-wind-and others’ mix becomes 'cheap' and technically 'efficient', you can logically expect a ‘renewables rebound effect’ : the same as above, replace ‘nuclear’ by ‘renewables’… 

But you can avoid it if you change the way you produce your energy and the rest : if an energy plant is ‘smaller’ and ‘nearer’, the transaction costs may be lowered and you may expect to have a better control (‘efficiency’) on the whole chains of production. You may have a better control on your consumption also. So you make a big change in the system because you do not want to face a big shift in the climate. 

Mr Kralj, thanks for the answer ;

I do not want to have ‘the last word’, I'm not expert, this is just an extension ; everyone must make an opinion, it's important.

« (Almost) all technologies externalize costs. » Exact, in fact 'all' have 'externals' effects, all our actions have some, and 'externality' is a misleading word (see Cheung, 1970) ; this is not the point : we must choose the best technology.

« The rebound effect is what we are looking for. » Not me, it may be dangerous.

« It means growth and preservation of our civilisation. » I think the contrary.

You should read Ivan Illich, a great mind he was.

« It is our evolutionary purpose to strive for evolutionary gains in technology and economic power. » I don’t think so, again hour views are irreconcilable. 

 « Either we'll exhaust them to the point their EROEI falls to 1 or we ban them altogether (preferably - but unlikely). » I don’t understand : could you explain ?

« And let's leave climate change out of this debate. » It was in the initial questions, up.  

« Cooling could potentially destroy our civilisation while warming by the same amount would not (by far - and you probably never thought about it). » So climate change strikes back.... I don’t know if cooling is better (I prefer winter). 

Dear Mr Kralj, I give you the final word if you want it ; this is mine.

You write : "Your way is certain self-extinction". Not at all : I'm not so pessimistic ; but with the ‘cooling side’, you seem to be a bit pessimistic too. Afraid of the warming ? Afraid of the cooling ? Afraid of everything ? No : a change is a cost, so who bears the cost ? 

Computers can fail in their expectations, but we should care of it because we do not know the cost, simply because it is impossible to put a price on things that are to be lost, like life, nature, etc. No ‘proxy’ for this. 

If we put some ‘rebound effects’ in the forecasting (economic) models about climate change, all become very complicated and it’s difficult to confess ‘we don’t know’ (see Safarzynska here). We do not have strong models for the future behaviors of the future generations that we are supposed to educate-prepare to a change, because it is contingent in many ways. It difficult to say : it can happen… or not, nothing is certain, keep cool… it depends on you. In a text here, I write ‘Quod dubitas ne feceris’, it’s about nuclear wastes buried underground : the so called ’storage’ must hold... 1 M years (this is from a geologist involved in the project). IMO, we can’t forecast for so long, we can’t say anything, there is a knowledge barrier problem. 

If "EROEI falls to 1"... then it’s time for 'smart tech', 'soft tech', 'low tech' (all together !) ; it's more affordable for the 'poors' ('poor' is another misleading word). So, welcome to whatever diminish the 'the carbon-intensive impacts of conventional consumer spending’ (T. Jackson), it is 'tools for conviviality’, in Illich's words. If we go 'business a usual', ’some' will carry the burden of every change. Then, ’some’ will suddenly realize that they are ‘poor’ ; being 'conservative' is rational in this way maybe. We are already facing massive extinctions and ‘civilizations’ are like soils : it takes a long time to build something fertile, solid, etc. 

I follow a simple line : if producers-sellers and consumers-buyers can better ‘price’ what they make-sell-buy-consume, there are more ‘makers and sellers’ on the markets, more ‘enterprises’ and less ‘firms’ (see Coase 1937), the 'products markets' are wide open, the 'labour and factors markets' are smaller (see Cheung 1983). A better ‘pricing’ of products means (for me) a better knowledge of the production process, of the ‘output', and at last a better knowledge of the ‘outcome’ of products-commodities ; all could then be less 'carbon intensive’ and more ‘convivial', in Illich's sense. Finally, in an hypothetical zero transaction costs world, the question 'who bears the cost ?' does not make sense (Coase 1960).     

I am hopeful that next generation will have better technology which can produce cleaner energy but question is for present generation and for this I agree with Kenneth M. Towe of Smithsonian. My quick opinion will be energy source which will have zero adding of CO2 to the nature should be adopted quick. Solar energy, biomass energy; they add minimal CO2 should be preferred. Recent advances in solar, fuel cell, hydrogen based, electric vehicle etc is good. Some developed nation has technology for these and also they have applied up to some extent but the price is these technologies is high so developing countries have poor adoption of such technology.

I request scientific community to travel least to reduce carbon foot print as we can discuss things over digital medium.

Folks, a short reply to Mr Towe :

Mr, you write : 'We HAVE put a cost on things that are to be lost'

This is past costs, so who cares ?

This is not a job for accountants : we shall look forward and not backward. 

IMO, your answer belongs to the 'sunk costs fallacies' (see : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/173/Sunk-Cost-Fallacy)

Kenneth, you write 'What will be lost is our way of life' : that is good, because its cost is huge (maybe 'too big to fail' ?) ; the cost of the change is very low compared to the real cost of your (our) standard of living, so a gain will come at last, be optimistic.  

Hello RG Colleagues,

Anyway, I do appreciate for your great dialogues.

Big Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/cop21-brochure-web.pdf

Hello RG Colleagues,

I do deeply appreciate for your great answers.

Sincerely

Kenneth (welcome back),

I'm not able to answer with datas - this is not my field, so this interesting exchange will not go far since I've not found the data, the paper, the report, etc. ; you are maybe right as any change is costly, measured in money, or in what you give up, or in psychological or subjective terms - all are opportunity costs (it's what you forgo, renounce) ; so we shall try to compare what we can get with what we must loose to get it (basic economics).

If I shall go on your field, I would try to discount costs, with a discount rate, and then compare the result to the value of what is threaten now ; so the actual costs in money would be lower than you fear they will be.

But I have another argument that is maybe hard or difficult to accept, it's mine yet : it is impossible to price what is to be lost and the calculus of the cost (it's your proposition) is probably out of the question, as what is "pretty costly" depends on the problem : 'costly' for what ? A dollar saved for what ? Is it worth saving lives (plants, animals, humans) ? Can you price it ? I'll never do that. But I know that everything changes, so I'm not conservative : I can renounce to things I have.

In 'subjective' terms, a threatened living body will price the cost of its death (his life) very, very hight : it will never rationally renounce to that (or it's a fanatic, a fool). So, how can you answer with datas to justify its sacrifice (as the opportunity cost of the body, his life, is infinite) ? I'm not utilitarian, it's maybe the difference between us. The problem here is to imagine frames where living bodies can adapt to changes with no costs (the lower, the better).

I think that I can give up my way of living (even if I'm relatively a 'low carbon emitter') as my 'utility' will not move so much in the long run. I believe that it's possible to imagine frames where you have less things (less commodities) without less welfare (look inside the U-States : look at the Amish community for ex.), and without being a 'degrowth' fanatic. I've no car, I don't need to trip often, I sort my wastes, I do research, etc. The basic principle is to give up things for links : the real poverty is loneliness, and loneliness comes with individualism (see Tocqueville on this, the best forever). So there's an opportunity to change ways of living and thinking.

This is a pretty long, spontaneous answer ; I have appreciated the link and I hope that the message will go through this device.

Jean-Pierre.

Jean-Pierre, Obviously Kenneth is running you through one of his denialist tricks. The Paris Accord doesn't contain any demand or promise of any country " to capture and store at least 100 billion tons of CO2."

Factually there is no mentioning of carbon extraction and storage in the agreement other than promoting natural removal through increasing natural uptake (photosynthesis).

The core of the agreement is that the countries agree on a stated goal to limit the global warming to 1½ or 2 °C and the methods used are that countries commit to goals how much they should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses. That means emitting less gasses than now, not removing that was emitted in the past.

You should not take my word for it but wait and see if Kenneth can show there his statement is supported in the text of the actual agreement:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20II/Chapter%20XXVII/XXVII-7-d.en.pdf

I predict Kenneth will once again give us a sourceless newspaper clip and some general abusive language.

Thanks a lot both ; I'm following Henrik Rasmus Andersen here, the capture of carbon deserves forests (at least) and the first thing to do maybe is to stop deforestation (pay the Brazilians ?), this means traceability of wood and/or planting trees, fight desertification ; and produce less CO2.

This not quixotic : tastes and preferences will change and there will be adaptation. If tastes, preferences and cultures change, the overall cost (the subjective one at least) will go down. The problem is in the stock of CO2 : reducing emission and capturing more, this means a change in our ways of living. If a change is a cost, the adaptation to a change is probably not. It's life. Adaptation doesn't mean that we (or the future generations) are going 'poors' ; we and they will be different, that's all.

Kenneth, you are arguing with threats (crazy geoengineering, massive immigration, we are doomed...) ; we will probably not make good science on fears (even if S. Jevons, in the middle of the 19th century, was fearing the decline of his 'English civilization' - just like you - when he was building the 'rebound effect' logic, saying 'we are burning all our coal, we are running empty soon as our machines are working better and cheaper' ; the paradoxical logic was good, but he was wrong in his own predictions).

I agree with : 'So, it is now moot as to whether the future is as bleak as projected by models or not.' (if I understand well) : the models can't tell what we are going to do. It does not mean that we or the future generations are doomed. Following Jean-Pierre Dupuy (a French philosopher), I think that we should be 'rational catastrophists' (it's possible !) ; we must fight against panic, abulia or blindness ; going 'business as usual' is not the good way. Building nuclear plants is no more the solution (as there is a potential 'nuclear rebound effect' on CO2).

Well, again a long answer, talk is cheap. I'll dig the papers, reports, treaties, datas... and we will have another sympathetic discussion someday maybe. Thanks again for the answers, Jean-Pierre.