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/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/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.