Climate Change Solutions.

This is interesting, the Drawdown organisation have put together a table of all of the things we could be doing to tackle climate change, and ranked them in order of modeled effectiveness:


Summary Of Solutions

I'll just copy and paste the top ten, because they're very interesting:


Rank Solution Sector TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2-EQ REDUCTION (GT) Net Cost (BILLIONS US $) Savings (BILLIONS US $)
1 Refrigerant Management Materials 89.74 N/A $-902.77
2 Wind Turbines (Onshore) Energy 84.60 $1,225.37 $7,425.00
3 Reduced Food Waste Food 70.53 N/A N/A
4 Plant-Rich Diet Food 66.11 N/A N/A
5 Tropical Forests Land Use 61.23 N/A N/A
6 Educating Girls Women and Girls 59.60 N/A N/A
7 Family Planning Women and Girls 59.60 N/A N/A
8 Solar Farms Energy 36.90 $-80.60 $5,023.84
9 Silvopasture Food 31.19 $41.59 $699.37
10 Rooftop Solar Energy 24.60 $453.14 $3,457.63


Apologies for losing the text formatting. But the thing I found most interesting is there are a lot of things there we could be doing that aren't actually all that expensive.

I mean, reducing food waste at number 3? That seems like it should be very achieveable indeed.

a reply to: Painterz

I mean, reducing food waste at number 3? That seems like it should be very achieveable indeed.

You mean like all the corporations that throw away perfectly good food rather than give it away to the starving?
Do you just hate capitalism... are you one of those commie bastards? /sarc




Nah, I fully agree a lot can be done... the detractors usually just focus on the "Carbon Tax" idea...
Never really looking at all the other alternatives.

a reply to: Painterz

Reducing food waste. ? Oh no...but then we would have to admit that there is no food shortage and we dont need no GMO to feed the world.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Painterz

Reducing food waste. ? Oh no...but then we would have to admit that there is no food shortage and we dont need no GMO to feed the world.

Heh, yes, that is true, it would not fit the Monsanto Narrative would it.

solar variability and its impact on climate, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.

a reply to: Painterz


I really have to question the numbers they publish on this on.
Wind turbines will cost 1 billion but save 7 billion?
Same way with solar....
If I can save seven dollars for every dollar invested, sign me up.
But let's get that one in writing first.

The climate will continue to change regardless of what's put in place to stop it. Its done so long before humans were here & will continue long after we are gone. The 18 largest superfreighters produce more emmisons than all the cars on the earth combined. These ships also deliver many of the solar panels, wind turbines, etc. half way around the world & have no standards on the fuel they burn or on the emmisions they produce. All the insulation on the wiring these green devices use comes from oil. Also, the Yellowstone caldera could errupt at anytime, throwing us into another ice age.

a reply to: Painterz
Nothing about Geothermal. You would think they would put this on their list. From what I read you would use some electricity on the pump but that could be compensated using a renewable energy source.

What is it exactly you expect to change with that top ten list? It certainly isn't "climate change"! It might be a start to change human behavior but it won't stop the forces of the universe from doing what it does.

By the way, 6 and 7 imply this is all the fault of women. Darn those reproductive components in their bodies.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

6 and 7 must be about controlling birth rates.

a reply to: JBIZZ

Do you have a source for the super freighter claim? I would like to read that article.
Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

6 and 7 must be about controlling birth rates.

Yes, I got that but it just seems odd since it takes men and women to be involved in that particular solution. I edited my post to be more accurate.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JBIZZ

Do you have a source for the super freighter claim? I would like to read that article.
Thanks in advance.

Here are a couple articles.
www.theguardian.com...

www.greencarreports.com...

a reply to: JBIZZ

4.5% of the emmisions is from freighters according to The Guardian article, about 15% come from cars..

www.biologicaldiversity.org...

Your claim is inaccurate.

Also freighter exhaust is high in sulfur. This can cause a dimming effect that causes cooling.

a reply to: Painterz

Quoting JBIZZ above who is right on. Climate changes...and is supposed to. How much, how fast is the only question. But you cant stop it.

c/o JBIZZ

"The climate will continue to change regardless of what's put in place to stop it. Its done so long before humans were here & will continue long after we are gone."

Member-JBIZZ

a reply to: mysterioustranger

No he is not right on.

He is parroting a misconception that because the climate is not constant over history, man's contributions to the climate change we are observing is not significant or does not matter.

Climate has changed before misconception

Has our climate changed before? Absolutely! Nobody disagrees with that. But arguing that humans aren’t the cause of climate change today is like arguing humans can’t cause forest fires because they've been started by natural causes in the past. Basic physics tells us something important: Climate change happens for a reason. Some past changes in the climate were driven by the sun burning brighter, or by an increase in volcanic activity. That’s not the case now. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are causing most of today’s climate change by burning dirty fossil fuels and sending carbon pollution into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.

a reply to: jrod

My claim is not inaccurate. The numbers you cite only account for carbon dioxide emmisions & not sulfur & other harmful emmisions. Check out the second link I listed below the guardian link. By the way, every time everyone & every animal exhales they emit carbon dioxide. Plants thrive with higher carbon dioxide levels & use is along with photosynthesis to create the oxygen in the air we breathe.

a reply to: jrod

The Yellowstone caldera could errupt or any number of natural disasters could happen at any moment making our perceived impact on the environment insignificant. I'm not saying people should dump their used oil in the ocean or throw their batteries in the trash or not drive more efficient cars. I'm only stating that green energy is just as harmful if not more to the environment. One needs to consider shipping impacts on the environment or the battery making process/disposal. Or all the plastics used on green energy devices, which are made from oil. Also, what if we had a natural solar flare or manmade EMP attack take out all the nuclear facilities, causing nuclear meltdown waste to pollute the whole planet. We saw what happened with Fukishima & are still witnessing the fallout from that. What if an earthquake knocked out the US west coast nuclear facilities or a tsunami knocked out US east coast nuclear facilities? We should not be dependant on any single form of energy. If one really wanted to make a positive impact regarding the environment, they would call for an end to the FED & fractional reserve banking, as well as, an end to governmnet social programs & demand a mandate for a balanced budget. Think about how much pollution is created by celebrity/politician environmentalists jet setting all over the planet & living in giant mansions, while profiting from their government/corporate racketeering.

Mix Beano with the cattle feed.
That way cow farts won't destroy the world.

a reply to: JBIZZ

Despite the sulphur dioxide, shipping is an extremely efficient way of doing business. Much more efficient than trucking.

Also they are finding ways to burn less fuel using giant kites as a sail.

www.skysails.info...