Nothing is going to change, get used to it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is why we need to do a complete world phase out of fossil fuels, and be 100% renewable by 2040. It can be done. It's affordable, there's more than enough energy to do it, and plus, we have a cleaner world. We can even do it without nuclear OR biomass. Wind, water, solar, and geothermal would be enough. Also, wind water solar and geothermal energy is spread out throughout the world, so there isn't the problem of it all being in one place.

Care to provide a cite for your utopian fantasy? 

Yes, in fact.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-is-possible-heres-how-we-can-do-it.html

The massive handwaving of the economics involved that both those articles indulge in means I stand by my original assessment, utopian fantasy.To make the economics work, they assume that the future costs of clean technologies will come down to the level needed to make them economic.  They also posit a transfer of technology to the developing world that somehow doesn't run afoul of local corruption and that doesn't cause an increased demand for energy because of the accompanying increased standard of living.