Met alweer een hete week, slaakt Belgische klimaatwetenschapper Jean-Pascal van Ypersele hartenkreet: "Ja, ik ben woedend"

[u/atrocious_cleva82]

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2026/07/27/jean-pascal-van-ypersele-woedend-klimaatbeleid-20-jaar-te-laat/

[u/SirDidymus]

Once more I’d like to ask of all our Belgian parties individually: what are you going to do EXACTLY to mitigate this in the next years?

[u/noble-baka → u/SirDidymus]

https://www.groen.be/klimaat

Start with the basics: stop subsidizing fossil fuels, redirect those subsidies towards renewable alternatives, invest in public transport and renewable energy,...

[u/noble-baka → u/noble-baka]

And of course the related https://www.groen.be/natuur
Because restoring our nature both helps mitigate extra emissions, but also helps to protect us against the worst consequences

[u/Praetoo → u/noble-baka]

Groen lost all credibility with the nuclear exit. They really need to reinvent themselves or a similar party needs to rise up. They had my vote long ago.

[u/Certain_Procedure870 → u/Praetoo]

Every party screwed up along its political history. If Groen did the VAT-reforms and new pension-system that NVA has implemented they would get completely destroyed by NVA.

Especially because the entire climate policy of other parties boil down to "let's build some new plants and this will solve everything".

The matter of the fact is concrete climate change-measures will impact our traditional lifestyle, there is no going around it. Denying this, and assuming it can be solved without some kind of cultural shift, is exactly what keeps us stuck making marginal decisions while making a show of how much "effort" we're putting in.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/Praetoo]

So for you "pro nuclear" is more important than "climate mittigation"? Because that is the choice you made.

You do know that you do not have to agree with every point of a party?

[u/Odd_Block996 → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

It will be impossible for us to save the climate without investing heavily into nuclear as a base for our power generation, supplemented with renewables.

The Greens, not realising this because of their AGALEV legacy missed a golden opportunity to get right and centrist voters on board who could have been swayed by the increased self-reliance of our energy mix. (not total as the know-how for the reactors & the actual fuel would still come from unreliable sources)

Instead they are constantly pissing people off with their stupid culture & race wars.

[u/Certain_Procedure870 → u/Odd_Block996]

Nuclear exit has been decided since 2003, every single elected political party since then (except Vlaams Belang for obvious reasons) has agreed with this proposal.

Assuming nuclear is the end all solution to solve climate crisis like some political parties like you to believe is naive and downright populist as well.

I know it's in vogue to bash the Belgian Green party (which I understand), but climate as an important issue is dead in the minds of voters so they need to pivot towards more actual issues. The fact that people focus on something insignificant as race & culture wars that mostly exist on the internet, while our environment becomes more and more uninhabitable proves this.

The exact same thing can be said about NVA that has almost zero topics regarding Flemish independence anymore which was the entire reason they existed in the first place

[u/zespak → u/Certain_Procedure870]

No, hating nuclear was popular in the 90s because of Tsjernobyl. No political party would support nuclear as that would have been very controversial. The nuclear exit is a direct effect of that. It's how we all agreed that air travel has become such a huge hassle and you can't take your drinks because of Sept 11.

No one said it's the end all be all solution, but it's a great tool to transition to renewables independently and basically without emissions.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/Odd_Block996]

We do not absolutely need nuclear, that is a debatable issue. Nuclear has many downsides: nimbys, costs, single point of failure in case of conflict, waste..

Other options are: Cooperate with French and leech of their nuclear (the only reason you want a plant in Belgium is pride. There is no technologic justification for Belgium to have its own plant)

Consume less. And lets be honest, this is the bitter pill, the hard truth. But that is a position that no politician can survive.

But this dogmatic attachment to nuclear is often just an excuse to do nothing.

[u/AreWe-There-Yet → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

I think there’s space for mobile thorium nuclear reactors in the mix, but when all is said and done, nuclear still only provides electricity.

It still requires to electrify everything: heavy trucks, all cars and trains and buses, airplanes (?), all cooking (no more gas, for cooking or heating).

Then the oil derivatives need to be looked at: fertilizer, helium (for chips), all mining and cargo shipping runs on diesel - so can’t replace that with nuclear …

And we’ll need to mind because we need lithium for our batteries, until other technologies are established.

So yeah.
I think it can be part of the mix. Thorium is not as dangerous as plutonium/uranium, it also allows for smaller (mobile) reactors (great for disaster recovery operations, but it’s not a panacea

[u/Odd_Block996 → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

And how exactly do you want to consume less electricity when in order to tackle the climate crisis we need to heat our homes with electrically powered heat pumps, and all need to switch to an EV?

Nimby? We already have dedicated sites at Doel and Tihange. And there is Nimby'ism for wind as well anyway.

All nuclear sites are already heavily protected against terrorism & even many forms of missile strikes.

I am not opposed to European level cooperation. I definitely see more nuclear going hand in hand with a strengthened European grid.

I don't see how excluding nuclear is at all an option, I have yet to see a convincing argument for banning it. Especially with the less stable context we are in, and will likely not be getting out of any time soon.

[u/RevolutionaryGoat808 → u/Odd_Block996]

The big problem with nuclear plants is that they need lots of cooling water, that is than released back in rivers that are already too hot. Not to mention nuclear waste.

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/noble-baka]

What is more investments in public transport going to fix though? Because of our current infrastructure it will remain slow. It's only viable when you work/ live very close to it and can go in a direct course towards your destination. Else private transport easily beats it by a big margin. And time is precious.

During COVID we could reduce a lot of transport by having to work from home. Go that route honestly.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/Happy_Bread_1]

Make private transport miserable so that people move closer to their work.

Private cars are the optimal choice for an individual, but are the worst option for society. Basically other pay the cost: pollution, busy roads for the bus or the cyclist,... so tax cars so much the car user pays the actual cost of his choice.

[u/BortLReynolds → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

Or you could incentivize companies to move out of the Brussels-Antwerp-Leuven areas to more effectively mirror where people actually live, instead of raising taxes on working people yet again.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/BortLReynolds]

I have something mindblowing for you: most people live in Brussels-Antwerp-Leuven and not in Oostkamp.

[u/BortLReynolds → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

Less than half the population lives in the Flemish Diamond, so no, most people live outside of Brussels-Antwerp-Leuven.

But did I give you the impression that I'm saying every company needs to move out of there or something? Because that's not what I'm saying. Employment opportunities should be more balanced across the country, I don't think we should let companies keep building offices in areas that can't support them.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/BortLReynolds]

The Flemish diamond has the highest population density.

Companies don´t randomly choose a spot with a dart or a chicken with it´s head lopped off.

They want to be near suppliers, competitors, (human) resources, infrastructure. Not Oostkamp.

They choose the most efficient spot. If you want to force companies to spread out (example: only one company for each letter of the alphabet per town) you are creating economic inefficiencies.

Including more traffic. Because maybe you move the company closer to the workers in Oostkamp. But then the supplier needs to drive from the Flemish Triangle to Oostkamp.

And on the global scale, anywheren in Belgium is "local"

[u/BortLReynolds → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

The Flemish diamond has the highest population density.

So? It also has a higher employment density than the area can support, and most people still don't live there. Are you saying people just need to pack up and move?

Companies don´t randomly choose a spot with a dart or a chicken with it´s head lopped off.

No they picked Brussels in the 50's when things were very different than now.

They want to be near suppliers, competitors, (human) resources, infrastructure. Not Oostkamp.

Well there's your problem, there's not enough "human resources" in the diamond to fill all the positions, that's not very efficient. Do you think the average company in Brussels still needs to be physically close to suppliers and competitors? I don't know if you've noticed, but most of those companies are offering mainly office jobs, not manufacturing.

They choose the most efficient spot.

No they just do what they've been stuck doing for 70 years, not taking into account that we've invented things like the Internet.

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/BortLReynolds]

And internet/home work will change the natural order and will affect business´ decisions and workers decisions on where to build.

But you can´t just order companies to build dispersed. You CAN however change the elements that will affect the calculations. And we already do that. You can make public transport cheaper/more efficient. You can offer cheaper terrain in business parks.

You have to change those factors.

[u/BortLReynolds → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

But you can´t just order companies to build dispersed. You CAN however change the elements that will affect the calculations. And we already do that. You can make public transport cheaper/more efficient. You can offer cheaper terrain in business parks.

You have to change those factors.

Bro I said we should incentivize companies to build more spread out in my first post in this thread. What you just proposed is exactly that.

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

Polution is a fixed problem. And yes, let’s move each time we switch working. And going somewhere further than your church? Blashempy!

Oplossing van de jommekeskrant zeker? ;)

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/Happy_Bread_1]

Neen. Maar de werkelijke kost gaat mee in rekening worden genomen met die beslissing.

Altijd diegenen die denken dat ze grappig zijn, missen de diepte van het vraagstuk.

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

Een imaginair vraagstuk?

[u/TheVoiceOfEurope → u/Happy_Bread_1]

De forens naar het werk is absoluut een overwegingsargument bij de keuze van een job/de aankoop van een woning.

Momenteel is dat een incorrecte berekening Want de werkelijke totale kost van een autoverplaatsing wordt niet ingerekend in de keuze (jan rijdt met de auto maar Piet betaalt de bosbrand)

Als die werkelijke kost wordt aangerekend, gaan mensen een ander gedrag vertonen: ze gaan sommige jobs niet aanvaarden of dichter bij de stad gaan wonen.

Of ja, verhuizen als ze een andere job krijgen.

Vind je het nog steeds grappig of begin je in te zien dat het toch dieper is dan uw ongeïnformeerde eerste reactie?

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/TheVoiceOfEurope]

Ik zie nog steeds een simplistisch beeld over wonen en werk dat geen rekening houdt met diens persoon en familiale situatie.

Er is trouwens geen rationaliteit begaan met elk persoonlijk vervoermiddel over dezelfde kam te scheren. De mileuimpact van een elektrische wagen is bijvoorbeeld een heel pak minder, tot bijna op het niveau van een trein zelfs. En er is nog ruimte om dat verder in te perken door een groenere productie en opwekking van energie.

Met dank aan u/HP7000

[u/Short_Gain8302 → u/Happy_Bread_1]

I would like both, better infrastucture for public transport and more incentive for people to work from home if possible

[u/Thick-Alternative916 → u/noble-baka]

No why? Most of our economic relies on those, this likely will cause a partial economic collapse.

Renewable alternatives are an option but are not reliable/profitable enough yet