Climate change solutions: sceptic opinions wanted

a reply to: SprocketUK

What does this mean? Well, if you live in a mansion and use, say 50 grand's worth of electricity a year. Own 2 Rolls Royces and a couple of Ferraris, then you should pay for your much greater impact on the environmen

In that scenario , one already pays more
"Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Until they are
Rich no more"
Ten Years After

I have a feeling that is more like what you are trying to get across and not a noble intention

a reply to: Gothmog

well anything has to be better than tax the poor
tax them more
leave the rich
eat the poor


To be serious, I doubt very much that any of our billionaires pay remotely anything like what their consumption costs the environment.


And what good does it do the world if all that happens is the government takes another few bucks a week off someone working their butt off just to get by when they could take ten per cent of the value of all these assets that are worth a boatload off people that will still be able to bathe in krug and buy a house in just about every country on earth?


I am not on about taxing you more for owning a car, or a house or going on holiday once a year, I am talking about taxing you for 10% of the value of your 300 million quid yacht, your flat in Knightsbridge, the house the size of the Disney castle in Malibu and your collection of cars that runs into the 100s of millions.

a reply to: Gothmog

so for the sake of conversation, pretend you think it's a thing. Suspend your disbelief

so you want solutions for a problem that doesn't exist from people who don't believe that there is a problem?

youre a vegan right?
its always the vegans.

originally posted by: Rikku
a reply to: Gothmog

so for the sake of conversation, pretend you think it's a thing. Suspend your disbelief

so you want solutions for a problem that doesn't exist from people who don't believe that there is a problem?

Yep. And as you can see above, their ideas have been way more feasible and creative than "Ban straws!"

youre a vegan right?
its always the vegans.

I buy half a pig and half a cow and 20 frozen chickens each fall from my neighbors. And then I eat them. (The meat, not the neighbors.)

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Solution #5 - Ferrock Cement - No kidding, this is awesome!

5 times stronger than concrete, tons of c02 not used to make unlike regular Portland cement. I want to make a bunker out of this crap.




#6 CarbonCure Concrete

Trap carbon forever.

BTW, one pound of cement release one pound of carbon and cement is the 2nd highest industrial source of Co2 after Oil.


#7 Artificial Photosynthesis - Turning CO2 into Oxygen

a reply to: infolurker
This is marvelous. If it were used to resurface parking lots and roads, for foundations... The effect would be huge!

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: infolurker
This is marvelous. If it were used to resurface parking lots and roads, for foundations... The effect would be huge!

That one is really more of a carbon sequester like the charcoal but effective.


There are tons of real solutions but as James Lovelock of the Gia Theory mentioned in my Solution #2, He doubts much will come to pass since everyone is focused on the Carbon Trading and Tax Scams. Patents will be bought, companies will be bought.. much will be suppressed due to patent and intellectual property laws.

This is why lefties piss me off. They want to complain about a problem but will not support any solutions other than financial scams.

These solutions I provided solve multiple problems.... Algae solves both fuel and livestock feed, Plasma gasification solves garbage and landfill needs, most other solve construction and liquid fuel needs so that we are completely energy independent forever.


As you can see, not many people are interested in solutions... only pro or against carbon credit scams and taxes.

Here is the original thread on James Lovelock from 2009

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: infolurker
This is marvelous. If it were used to resurface parking lots and roads, for foundations... The effect would be huge!

everyone is focused on the Carbon Trading and Tax Scams. Patents will be bought, companies will be bought.. much will be suppressed due to patent and intellectual property laws.

This is why lefties piss me off. They want to complain about a problem but will not support any solutions other than financial scams.

These solutions I provided solve multiple problems.... Algae solves both fuel and livestock feed, Plasma gasification solves garbage and landfill needs, most other solve construction and liquid fuel needs so that we are completely energy independent forever.

Left or right, these all just make sense.

Naomi Klein wrote a book called Shock Politics, which basically says that the powerful exploit crises for financial gain. This is what we're seeing now.

And again, many many thanks for the goldmine of info you have posted.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
The people most critical of climate change have the potential to think of the best solutions since they're not just repeating mainline arguments, so for the sake of conversation, pretend you think it's a thing. Suspend your disbelief: what are our best solutions?

I think the first step in any comprehensive solution will have to be stopping the "them vs us" line of arguments and to stop misrepresenting the many different sides of the argument.

For example: "people most critical of climate change" ... there are very few, if any, people critical of climate change; the climate is something that has and will continue to change. Not many people are critical of this quite easy to see fact.

When someone frames their opponents arguments so categorically wrong from the start it cant be a surprise to them when their opponent is unwilling to hear their own arguments ... because they are clearly not willing to reciprocate.

The "hows" to humankind shaping the climate so that the climate remains more sutipule to their way of life will remain an irrelevant afterthought if we keep talking passed each other.

The most unpopular approach but, in my opinion the most effective, would be to aim towards decreasing the world population.

The world is expected to add another billion people within the next 15 years, bringing the total global population from 7.3 billion in mid-2015 to 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion by 2100, according to new estimates from the UN.

Here are some strategies suggested by WorldWatch Institute that could halt and even decrease world population ensuring sustainable development of natural resources and global stability into the future:

- Provide universal access to safe and effective contraceptive options for both sexes. With nearly two in five pregnancies reported as mistimed or never wanted, lack of access to good family planning services is among the biggest gaps in assuring that each baby will be wanted and welcomed in advance by its parents.

- Guarantee education through secondary school for all, especially girls. In every culture surveyed to date, women who have completed at least some secondary school have fewer children on average, and have children later in life, than do women who have less education.

- Eradicate gender bias from law, economic opportunity, health, and culture. Women who can own, inherit, and manage property; divorce; obtain credit; and participate in civic and political affairs on equal terms with men are more likely to postpone childbearing and to have fewer children compared to women who are deprived of these rights.

- Offer age-appropriate sexuality education for all students. Data from the United States indicate that exposure to comprehensive programs that detail puberty, intercourse, options of abstinence and birth control, and respecting the sexual rights and decisions of individuals, can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and hence reduce birth rates.

- End all policies that reward parents financially based on the number of children they have. Governments can preserve and even increase tax and other financial benefits aimed at helping parents by linking these not to the number of children they have, but to parenthood status itself.

- Integrate lessons on population, environment, and development into school curricula at multiple levels. Refraining from advocacy or propaganda, schools should educate students to make well-informed choices about the impacts of their behavior, including childbearing, on the environment.

- Put prices on environmental costs and impacts. In quantifying the cost of an additional family member by calculating taxes and increased food costs, couples may decide that the cost of having an additional child is too high, compared to the benefits of a smaller family that might receive government rebates and have a lower cost of living. Such decisions, freely made by women and couples, can decrease birth rates without any involvement by non-parents in reproduction.

- Adjust to an aging population instead of boosting childbearing through government incentives and programs. Population aging must be met with the needed societal adjustments, such as increased labor participation, rather than by offering incentives to women to have more children.

- Convince leaders to commit to stabilizing population growth through the exercise of human rights and human development. By educating themselves on rights-based population policies, policymakers can ethically and effectively address population-related challenges by empowering women to make their reproductive choices.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Real solutions exist.

Real solutions are out there.

But the real solutions don't raise taxes, don't empower governments, so the real solutions are ignored.




Sad, isn't it.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

The only solution would be to reduce our carbon emissions to pretty much zero.....like today. But that isn't going to happen so we are screwed. This debate is dead.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It is sad, but at the same time, it's encouraging.

I bet only ten percent of Christmas gifts, other than computers, phones, and coffee pots, will be set aside and not used much within six months. Don't buy things people do not really need for Christmas, making all that garbage is hard on our environment.

About nine million flights occurred over thanksgiving weekend, the CO2 given off by those jets a mile or more up does not have trees to process it and put it back into the earth. Do we need all of these people flying all over? If they had to drive, they would not go, tax the hell out of airline tickets to stop this from happening.

originally posted by: Rikku
a reply to: Gothmog

so for the sake of conversation, pretend you think it's a thing. Suspend your disbelief

so you want solutions for a problem that doesn't exist from people who don't believe that there is a problem?

youre a vegan right?
its always the vegans.

What the Hades ?
I think you replied to the wrong feller
That isnt even my post

But , since you did

Whats it to ya ?

Just my .02 cents here.

Everywhere, everyone, everything revolves around the "FIX".

How are we gonna"FIX" it?
Who's gonna pay to "FIX" it?
And so on,

Why does there always have to be a money element tied to the whole "climate change" topic, or agenda if you like?

Why is it the we have to pay for anything to do with "FIXING" it.

What is done, is done. The real solution shiuld be to curb our impact on the environment and let nature run it's course and all would be worked out in the long run. We have to adapt to the changes and learn from our mistakes.

This is the whole problem I have with the climate change movement.

It is always about the dollar amount and how we should have to pay more to "FIX" it.

Profit margins run policies and policies, whether governmental or business, dictate what us as citizens have at our disposal for every day use.

If I have the opportunity to purchase a totally green vehicle that can safely and efficiently carry me to the jobsite every day, then I'm all for it. Dont want me using the electricity from the coal burning power grid, then offer a cost effective LEGAL way to produce my own power. The reason why I say legal is because the laws that are passed in a lot of areas require you to be tied into the electric grid. Why is that? (Rhetorical question)

The system is set up to consume and tax. A complete restart of the system is needed to completely cut pollution and offer a cleaner better future for this planet. An overhaul just wont cut it. The big money players are too invested in keeping profits high to satisfy stock holders.

So please pay more so we can "FIX" it. (Sarcasm)

www.greenmedinfo.com...

Planes, jets, contrails are one of the biggest issues and you dont see the people complaining stop flying
Hypocrits

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

I think that where you're going wrong is that you assume that there needs to be some sort of massive action on the issue at all. What many people fail to consider (or ignore because of its inconvenience) is that it takes a global effort to make a dent, and a global effort cannot (and should not) be forced on anyone by any sort of governing body.

But I would argue that we still do not know enough about the climate, its triggers and reactions, nor enough about the true impact that humans have had to take any action that we know will not have unintended consequences that are bad for humanity or the world.

My solution is this: An effort should be put forth to encourage people to do what they can at the individual level to curb things like plastic waste, littering, and other polluting activity. If there are enough people who are willing to take positive personal actions, then things can change a lot for the better.

But the problem is that we just don't think things through enough as a species--first, it was all about saving the trees, so massive logging and reforesting efforts and legislation was put into place. Now, we're looking at the idea of using paper more because of the amount of plastic waste (especially bags...which replaced paper to save the trees) created by tree conservation efforts (and not to mention the overgrowth that it caused that is helping fuel massive wildfires).

We want to fight fossil-fuel emission, so we create electric vehicles that use coal energy and highly-polluting materials to manufacture, and then often use coal energy to keep recharging. Then when the batteries die out, that is another pollutant needing disposed of.

My point is that we have a tendency to knee-jerk react over everything, to the point of causing negative consequences in one way or the other. What we need is a societal change toward conservation and a return to homesteading-type activities, like gardens and composting. We need to embrace discussing a focus on keeping our local ecosystems pollutant- and trash-free, and as that mentality takes hold, it will spread and be embraced and applied to things like business practices.

But we have to stop treating things like they should be knee-jerk trends, and start embracing it as a welcomed part of the American culture. Not forced by threat, but cultivated in the individual through knowledge and understanding.

We live in a meme-driven world, though, so who am I kidding?

Climate change has little to do with man but lots to do with the sun and other natural forces. Mother nature takes care of herself she has been at it for 4.5 billion years. Unworthy civilizations come and go just like the Obama administration. .la reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"What we need is a societal change toward conservation and a return to homesteading-type activities, like gardens and composting. "

You are exactly right. And those are tangible changes on a individual level, a positive change, too.

Isn't the conclusion of Candide that we should all tend to our gardens?