Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
What are the ways we can limit or stop climate change?
If you do not think it is a problem to solve then please don't post.
If you do not think it is a problem to solve then please don't post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How to limit climate change
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
Individual efforts won't solve the problem, but it makes
sense to do what one can.
I minimize driving & other activities that consume power.
I heat my shop to 35F.
I have a big collection of solar panels supplying home
& business.
Dang, I make myself sound so green & wonderful.
Could ya just puke!?
sense to do what one can.
I minimize driving & other activities that consume power.
I heat my shop to 35F.
I have a big collection of solar panels supplying home
& business.
Dang, I make myself sound so green & wonderful.
Could ya just puke!?
Very little impact can be made from a consumer level. Most of the problem is squarely within a relative few number of manufacturing and energy companies. Until we get a grip on industrial energy consumption and cleaner energy solutions, everyday citizen transportation and purchasing behavior will be a ineffectual drop in the bucket.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
'Easy'
Get green technology to be on par with harmful fossil based tech to limit at least, the human equation that is being blamed for aggravating the climate.
.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
1. Population control. Less than 2 billion humans would do nicely. Halting humanity by 8 billion would be a good start on this need.
2. Control of industrial and power station fuel uses. i.e. Nothing short of government-imposed regulation will get it done in a useful timeframe (i.e. less than 20 years).
3. Shift population consumption habits from meats/dairy (massive water and land wasters) to plant-based diets. This will also allow for replanting of wetlands and forests that are currently cleared for farm animal grazing. Forests and wetlands are huge carbon sinks relative to grassy fields. Also, the discontinuation of fish in human diets and farm animal feeds will allow for rapid repopulation of oceanic environs.
Related Question (for chemists): What can be done on a global scale to de-acidify the oceans?
4. Share environmentally friendly technology between nations, so that developing nations don't grow into/through periods of pollution production. Of course population control will also mitigate development/modernization of these developing nations.
5. Impose carbon tax for wherever fossil fuels are still utilized.
So you want to limit climate change and open discussion. Got it.
Well, it's only during sub 20F cold snaps that
You and I have different definitions of "heat."
I even have to turn the heater on. I might spend
as much as $30 on heat for a winter.
And that's not for comfort...just to keep paint,
glue, & other supplies from freezing.
Yes.
You can always open your own "climate change is a hoax" thread if you're feeling pent up.
Yes. And.
I agree overall but not really sold on 1 (and its association in 4) and 3.
-1, first because high population growth areas aren't typically where we see the worst pollution, but the wealthiest nations (which are overall in birth decline) which use hundred of times more natural resource per capita than in population growth regions. You might see those wealthy nations offload their labor onto poorer regions but it's still a pollution problem of those wealthy nations.
Second because population control in practice more often than not just ends up being a poor tax. Since they have the least recourse and resources for political engagement and family planning.
-2, because while I agree with plant based for a lot of ethical reasons, worldwide vegetarianism being great for the environment is vastly overstated. And there's a much more nuanced conversation to be had about shifting climate zones.
It's not like we go to plant based and everything is solved. A ton of resource waste goes into plant farms that are popular for people in plant based diet. Such as rice, soy, wheat, nut trees and avocado (because they're high in complete proteins and nutrients). All of which are huge water wasters in the American agricultural heartlands. And getting worse as climate change progresses and aridification makes places like Texas and California more like Mexico. You can't just pick up and move farms into what are now residential zones without displacing people and causing all sorts of other infrastructure issues.
If you eliminated the meat industry you'd still have to offset the calories somehow, which means you can't just turn over grazing land back into forest but will instead have to expand plant agriculture. You'd either have to turn some of that grazing land into farms, or in places where it's too arid for farming, expand existing farms further into uncleared spaces.
I'd be happy with reduction on cattle farming, moving more 'instant gratification groceries' into limited local suppliers and curbing food waste.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I work at a University and we have researchers buying used solar panels at a 10th of the price of new ones and using them to power technology. We throw away lots of solar panels every year that are still good. They may only make 80% of the power of a new one but they are useful for a lot of things.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I applaud your efforts. I think 55 F is too low for a lot of people.
If people want to voluntarily not have children that is a good thing. Many problems facing the world would be solved or minimized if there were less people.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
So what do we do?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
How?
I think the first thing we should do is appeal peacefully (and failing that not peacefully) to end corporate lobbying. With politics in the stranglehold of corporate sponsorship there can't be any significant changes at all. The status quo is what is making money for the movers and shakers we need to persuade are on a self-destructive route within that status quo.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I agree that fewer people would help solve this issue. I see no good or moral way to do that. What do you propose?
How?
How do you do this?
I can agree. But how to do this without bankrupting businesses or governments?
How would this be implemented? What would the tax revenue be used for?