How to Reverse Climate Change

Clearly this is not an ideal situation. Mass extinction of the human race would not be a good thing. Tightly packing everyone into cities and mining the world entire resources is not an ideal situation either, as we will take ourselves and many other species with us.

If we returned to an agrarian society, many problems could be solved. However, the world population is now too large to be supportable by an agrarian society. Each person would recieve only about 5 or so acres if everyone moved into the countryside. Otherwise, I fully agree with you.

 

We are not discussing returning to agrarian society though. It is simply a lie that oil company and associated stooges drag out when faced with moving US and world to higher technology with higher energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources.

Going to higher energy efficiency is moving to more advanced technology not back to lower level of technology.

 

yawn.

 

So, the question should be asked: have we evolved enough to able to reverse climate change? Do we have the technology, finances, and determination, both short and long term to make a difference?

DBCassidy

 

Probably

yes...IF:

...NO

 

Technology for sure. Europeans and Japanese already use 50% less energy on a per capita, per GDP dollar basis.

Finances for sure. It will save the US about $1T per on oil imports, military spending, lower pollution costs, lower health care costs, increased jobs and industry.

Determination. No. US implosion over last 30 years is because we elect leaders who promote oil use over energy efficiency, who take payoffs from oil and military contractors (Cheney's classic $40M from Halliburton to start war in Iraq with Halliburton No. 1 contractor for the war). Look at gas tax issues. People should be OK with gas tax to pay off $14T oil war debt and to fund alternative energy and mass transport and energy efficiency. But when Carter put it to them as "moral equivalent of war" voters went for the Reagan's easy answer of more oil, more aircraft carriers to get it. Reagan's buddies Saddam and Bin Laden didn't turn out so well.

 

No. Just bend over and kiss your arse goodbye.

 

If we look at worldwide success at:
1) Nearly eliminating Chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the Ozone Layer.
2) Getting Scrubbers put on Sulfur emitting coal plants to nearly eliminate Acid Rain.
3) Getting Emission Controls put on Cars to get rid of most exhaust pollutants (excepting CO2)
4) Etc. (Endangered Species, Local Pollution Controls,.....)

then the answer is Yes. What really is the issue is the time frame, since this is the hardest pollution hurdle yet.

 

The time frame of increase pollution controls as an attempt to at least slowdown climate change is a difficult and a complex challenge at best. If we can achieve this, then we can start building a plan to reverse global warming.

There is a lot of work to be done.

DBCassidy

 

Agree. However, the others were not seen as easy at the time.

 

How about sexual behavior of married couples? By definition not promiscuous. Still causing a problem. It is time to figure out that advice written thousands of years ago might not still be applicable in our current circumstances.

By the way, abstinence only birth control doesn't work. Check the statistics.

 

We could use his solution and just kill nearly everybody.

 

This thread started about a theory that we can reverse desertification of grasslands by recreating migratory grazing, with heard animals - cattle and goats. This may restore some ecosystems, allowing them to improve plant life and carbon dioxide uptake, while reducing surface temperatures. These ecosystems evolved with migratory herds, and predatory hunters. Man has wiped out the natural order of them. Savoy has some interesting ideas.

I have no idea how it migrated to population control. That seemed turn it into quite a negative discussion.

 

Oh, but it would be cost prohibitive to produce clean energy... But better to simply ruin the environment, then move to renewables - when there are no renewables left. The oil industry is very powerful, and also the media is effective at brain washing. Especially when the message is exactly what people want to hear.

We have a lot of good technology. We have water cars for crying out loud. We have abundant finances (or did, until OBozo took office). We can put these to good uses. If people make a dtermined effort to be more sustainable, eat les fast food, and take proactive action towards better stewardship, we would be well on our way.
Er, I think this requires more people in the world to actually give a crap...

 

The title of the thread is "How to reverse climate change" which is an extremely broad statement.

In response to the OP, therefore, I do not know if this would work. Certainly grasslands would prosper by recreating migratory patterns, but there are no longer very many land tracts large enough to accomplish this. Certain highly respectable farmers with massive chunks of land (think 50,000 acres) use rotational grazing, which with that much land is essentially migratory grazing. Man has indeed wiped out natural grazing patterns. While this is certainly bad, but I do not see how it would reverse climate change.

 

Great point, absolutely. We need to also promote a strong family unit, with men acting like real men; the leader of the household. All truths straight from God's word.

Agreed again... without some objective moral source, it just one person's preference on the other. Fortunately God provides that for us... the Bible. After all, who knows better what is the best for us but our own creator?

 

He tried that once with Noah's flood but again it didn't take long for sin to spin its wicked web. Fortunately He said never again and came up with a redeeming plan, and sent His only son Jesus, both man and God to not only set an example for us but also provide a way for redemption... a rescue party so to speak. So simple many reject it, but it cost Jesus everything at least for three days anyways.

Happy Easter C.

 

Everything is connected with a common thread....

 

Wrong again. Cost prohibitive to not produce clean energy. Look at US, $14T in debt due to oil imports we never needed. Then there is the $10T in oil import tax from the oil trade deficit over the last 30 years. For half that amount US could have upgraded its technology and not imported oil and cut greenhouse gases 50% and built up an excellent sustainable, clear energy industry.

 

Almost anyone. The moral source of the Bible is simply evil. It advocates slavery, genocide, murdering babies in the mother's womb. Why is it 'fortunate' that god has declared that he will not again, kill everything growing on the entire planet? If no one knows better about what is best for us, how could that near complete eco-cide possibly be bad? Why did he not come up with the 'redeeming idea' first? Why could he not have just killed all the humans (as they were the only ones sinning) and left the animals and plants alone? Lazy? Couldn't think of any way to do it?

The 'fortunate' part is that it, in actuality, never happened.

***

* - you completely disagreed with my statement here. My point was that the moral source you are extolling is a behavior which might once have been beneficial, and it now no longer is. This fixed code of conduct is inherently flawed by its fixation. Adaptability is far more beneficial in any code of behavior (any code of behavior).