How to Reverse Climate Change

Malthus is being proven right as the near continuous wars for scarce resources (US 20 year war and occupation of Middle East for oil) escalate, mass starvation and subsistence living for billions and the increasing failure of Earth's ecosystem demonstrate.

To the question of can global warming be reversed, science tells us that IF the world reduces its greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 we can likely stop the increase in damage though much of the damage already done will continue. We have not begun to reduce emissions and will not meet that goal so damage will increase, ability to support current over population will continue to worse.

As to the suggestions for repairing the damage via reforestation, destruction of the rainforests is continuing and accelerating due to population pressure so damage is increasing. The current unsustainable population prevents any attempt to just stop doing more damage must less start repairing the damage.

As for what US could do, stop electing anti-science religious nuts to office and get US to be more energy efficient, reduce its greenhouse gases, a small step.

 

Getting rid of the machines, certainly would go a long, long way to solving the CO2 Emission problem.

Icarus

 

Getting rid of machines would definitely solve a lot of problems. However, we would be returned to the dark ages and have to live like the Amish. While I have entertained the idea of living like an Amish, I have no desire to do so and neither does anyone else.
Another problem is waste. Go to the fast food place, get your cheap food in a bunch of cheap packaging with some napkins that you throw away, and the bag, and the food if you don't like it, and cars, spouses; everything is disposable now. This causes considerable wastes. Society believes there is no reason to change; many view AGW as a hoax, whether for convenience or through mass propoganda.

Overpopulation is a serious issue, one that can't be discussed without often sounding like a Nazi. Promoting abstinence from excessive reproduction would essentially require a higher moral standard, something the US is losing.

And as far as I can tell, we haven't had any true religion in office for some time. The current President has done nothing aside from bail companies out, dump loads of money at the failure of a Volt, use drones to kill innocent people and send money to every other country except this one.

 

Actually the population issue is beginning to solve itself. The reality is that birth rates have dropped dramatically in many parts of the world due in no small part to basic education, especially of women.

Once women take ownership of thier reproductive rights, and coule that with an economic disincentive to have more children, and birth rates drop. Genertions ago, more children were an economic benefit in an agrarian society, more hands to work more ground might yield a bigger benefit tithe family.

In today's industrial economy, more children become a drain in families resources, people soon realize this, and (if they have basic education and resources) and family size drops, across the world.

I myself made a choice not to have children, because I didn't feel I had h resources to devote to them. As for living in an Amish/stone age, perhaps the alternative is less draconian. I write this using PV solar power, we live in a nearly zero fossil fuel house, and drive efficient vehicles as little as possible, buy as few products as we can, reducing, reusing and recycling as much as possible. We don't live in the stone age, in fact we live quite comfortably, and in fact quite cheaply, measured by strict dollars and cents!

Icarus

 

It is worse than that... it is a sinful nature at the core.

 

Amen bro!

 

It seems those that the leaders that talk most about sin, seem to be caught and guilty. The catholic church that fought against condoms in the fight against aids, is caught covering up pedophile priests. Right wing anti-sex ed politician sarah pailin, has her daughter get knocked up in high school, then she forces her into a sham relationship.

I don't think there is anything sinful about sex or having children. I know that differs from you. Many don't want poor people to have children to solve some kind of malthusian nightmare. If you don't do forced abortions I don't see how that works, and I definitely don't think the US government has that right.

How about we use technology to use resources to feed all the people? Silly idea I know, but there is plenty of land and food for 7 billion. We can use resources more wisely though. I find that forcing your religious, or procreation beliefs on other people is counter productive.

 

Considering that each path works for some of the population, but neither works for everyone, shouldn't we be supporting both?

 

Totally agree, and it is to bad too. Every man/woman falls short of the Glory of God.

 

I guess you would have to show me where subsidizing BC in of itself is actually working to control population...

 

Spiderman, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. If I got your opinions wrong I apologize.

 

OOPS, I didn't realize this is a religious thread, my bad!

 

That is a very good question. Usually where women are denied birth control are the same places where women are denied the right to say no.

 

It wouldn't so the rest of the rant went even further into the ditch. A classic strawman where we can't be more energy efficient because that means getting rid of machines and living like survivalists in the woods.

It actually requires BETTER machines to be more energy efficient, it requires a more ADVANCED technological society.

 

Do you hold both mentioned methods to the same standard? I know that your preferred method works well with some people, but fails miserably with others.

More than one approach is essential. I don't believe even two approaches is sufficient.

 

Both options are likely to be effective. Social conditioning is far more powerful than any other motivator when it comes to birth control, however. Religion also has a play in this, and it's easy to step on each other's views in this matter. And, while I have no desire to sound like a Nazi, the world simply cannot sustain this many people's wants.

I actually do not, myself, endorse subsidies of any kind. However it would make birth control more appealing and therefore might be used more frequently, except but rednecks. (Mandating that insurance companies cover contraception is an invasion of religious freedom, however, and accomplishes nothing.)

You are quite right. In many third world countries, families procreate exponentially in an effort to create enough hands, work, children, etc. just to survive.

ACtually it was all quite factual. Getting rid of machines would certainly solve fuel comsumption problems, becaus there would be nothing left to consume fuel. Of course, we would plunge into the dark ages, and many would die from starvation, so that's not a good idea. Decreasing our total dependence on machinery would be a good step in the right direction, however, and like you said, more efficient machines. Machines still require resources, however. However green the Prius is, it does not start being green until it gets driven.

 

Machines make us MORE fuel efficient not less. There would be 7 billon people left to consume fuel but much less efficiently than they can do with machines.

The answer, the only answer is more efficient machines. Europe is 50% more energy efficient than US on a per capita and per GDP dollar basis becaue there machines are more efficient.

US needs to upgrade its machines to European and Japanese standards wihc will get US to 50% reduction in greenhouse gases in 10 year, well on our way to meeting the science goal of 80% reduction by 2050.

 

A total lack of machinery in the world would nearly halt fuel consumption. (This is not practical, but we are still talking about it.) Without machines; you can't extract oil from deep depths. Without machines, you can't consume prodigious quantities driving around, running tractors for farming, factories, houses, etc. In other words, not society as we know it. Essentially without machinery, the only thing you can do with fuel is burn it.

More efficient machines will definitely help in our goal towards sustainability. But only so far. The Prius still requires fuel, and EVs still require electricity (which is typically coal). Also, Europe has better GDP dollar but the US has a terrible debt and spending problem. (although Europe is currently experiencing serious financial problems.)
Europe is more energy efficient, but that is because they drive subcompact micros and use refrigerators the size of printer. The US needs to stop driving SUVs for one-person transport, and much else, but I don't think we need small fridges and cars the same of aforementioned fridge to accomplish sustainability.

 

Sure, and billions would probably die. No machines making fertilizer, tilling the land, etc. No machines to get food from one place where its plentiful to where it is not. No machines to keep things cool, so people die from heat or food going bad. Sure is a beutiful picture you are painting. What is the goal again? Mass suffering because global warming is worse than starving the population?

 

Without machines people would cut trees, burn peat and dung as the do now and have done for millennia in deforestation and pollution. As technology has advanced, energy efficiency has advanced. The problem now is that powerful interests in oil, gas, coal work against national interest to move US to higher technology level and higher energy efficiency.

The idea the moving to higher energy efficiency requires a lower standard of living or lower technology level is completely false, a lie we hear often from the corporate fossil fuel industry as they struggle to block technological advance and keep people dependent on their products.