All things climate change, suggest possible fixes, get yelled at for being a dirty hippy for suggesting possible fixes. Enough religion threads already, they never have any substance, I type out long engaging posts and all I get is silence.


All things climate change. Whether you choose to ignore the IPCC finding which involved the collaborative effort or hundreds of scientists and say there is no such thing as man made climate change or you are a die hard hippie who only eats organic and looks after his/her carbon footprint.

Also I wanted to share this link
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... -flooding/

Ill kick start with a simple basic solution. More nuclear power plants until a better technology for energy is devised. Coupled with a transition to electric cars and thus cars powered from carbon neutral electricity, this could significantly lower carbon release.

Fun fact of science. Living near a coal powered station, you will be exposed to higher levels of radiation than living near a nuclear power station. Also here in Australia we have tonnes and tonnes of coal and uranium, so all possible paths to failure and horrific death are open.

One could argue that designing, building and supplying all car users with brand new electric cars would be less environmentally friendly than just letting everyone keep their ordinary cars and running them on fuel untill the next best thing comes along...


Personally I think cars should just not be used at all unless it's absolutely required. E.g long distances and moving things that cannot otherwise be carried... I see absolutely no reason why people can't walk a mile or so to the store to buy their things and carry it back. I see no reason why people can't ride their bike to work in the morning instead of taking the car. They might have to wake up earlier, but if it becomes the norm, no one would complain...

some ppl are just too lazy to ride the bike, or some think that bike is for the poor and not as cool as riding a BMW to town.

these are as much solutions as "reduce carbon dioxide"

If you're going to try and solve a global issue you might as well try to put /some/ level of effort into them and not just state the obvious.

Anyways, I think that the main problem with 'innovative' solutions to climate change is that they actually require an amount of resources that actually nullify its use. For instance, there is this (coolest thing ever) concrete that absorbs CO2 (swiss, iirc?). Now imagine swapping all of the concrete in the world to that type of concrete.

Unfortunately, now guess what the cost of a slab of that concrete would be, double it, and you get something close to what kind of money that would require. That money might as well be spent doing something actually useful, like more R&D. But I'm not worried about climate change tbh. Humans have a history of practicing austerity when it matters, like WWII for instance in America.

Also, carbon neutrality is a joke.

I think the real joke here is that the actual ways to better preserve the life here on Earth are the most costly. It's definitely not fair to have to choose between economy or health. What kind of twisted world can live like that? I'd be glad to say ours. But lets face it, our world won't last much longer like this. And people still take such a critical time as now for their own personal gains. I am definitely worried about global warming and all that stuff, because it will affect us big time soon enough. I mean, we think 100 years is long, when this planet has lived billions. So for us it is a long time but for the planet is like a snap of it's fingers.

So, were saying we should screw the planet to keep our sad little lifes like they are, because we dont want them worse. Hello, I think the death of the entire human species is worse than whatever is needed to prevent it. Surely, we are not facing an inmediate threat in our terms, as in 5-10 years, but the threat is there, and it might not be fixed if we keep this kind of mentality for too long. Scientists can pronosticate, but their predictions shorten the time for grave consecuences almost every time there's a new study.

There HAS to be a way for new ways to do something as simple as to reduce the carbon dioxide emisions. If we say the costs are too big, then everyone involved in the process of doing so should enter a compromise to lower costs enough for it to be viable. The argument of "Oh no, our economy can't support that" really has to be fixed somehow, before we have to think of economy for, lets say, just a couple of millions of persons per country. We really need to take a step forward instead of sitting on our butts debating how we will stay right where we are.

Is there any clean for of energy? Yes there is..is there any government incentive to use them? Rarely.

Renewable sources of energy are not a weak or unfit option for most places, ok maybe big cities wouldn't survive on them, probably not every place has a natural source for it, but in some cases, it is the solution.

Solar energy, wind power, hydropower... and compare the advance in their usage from countries like China over Germany for instance.

I live in a place with over one million people, it's not big, but it could be smaller, the truth is that 30% of the energy consumed is renewable.

Energy policies wont change, because economical policies wont change either.

The two bigger problems you have to deal with to change anything in a modern society, from healthcare, education, culture, etc...it's justice and economic ideology.

Since justice is something that gradually will lack in many countries, or at least good application of it, all other problems will remain the same.

this thread has been dead for almost a month, next time check the dates

also notice the 23k+ views and only 6 replies

Sad isn't it.

Indeed, but cmon the man had something to say, he has the right to even if it is a necropost

And, I completely agree with your statements there Peter. The thing is, renovable energies would destroy the existing economy, but that's only if governments implement it right here right now. Still, they should be gradually introduced as the main source of energy: they just have to, but the governments merely bank on the first argument - that they would destroy economy - and use it as an excuse to not do a crap about it. Just like I said in my previous argument: governments are right now discussing on how they will coordinate to not do anything about such problems. They dont actually sit down and seriously consider to make personal sacrifizes to fix these problems, and that is what we need. Btw, saying justice in a problem would be gravely innacurate: justice in its true nature is always positive, but the problems with it are how and when to implement it. And every day we fail worse at it, with barely any intention of being better at it.