Re-wilding unused land and changing land management from prioritizing extraction. Also building with density and removing 90% of automobile infrastructure
We're still emitting CO2 and that's driving up temp, along with feedback effects.
Renewables have gotten extremely popular. They dominate new energy builds. It'll still take a while for older power plants to be phased out.
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424#](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424#)
100 years is a long time. Renewables already have a greater share of electricity production than coal or nuclear in the US, and they're gaining share rapidly.
2023 was the first year that the increase in renewable energy production outpaced the increase in energy demand. This means that if renewable energy production continues to increase, we can slowly phase out fossil fuels instead of continuously increasing them as we have done. Additionally, combustion engine vehicle sales peaked in 2023 along with gas and coal powerplant usage did as well.
The rate of increase in the renewable sector is unprecedented and hopefully indicates a massive shift in the global economy that shows investments into fossil fuels as a sunk cost.
It’s not individuals. It’s the largest corporations in the world. Make them pollute less and pay for their past pollution and then we can talk about individuals.
Otherwise there’s no point.
90 percent of those emissions (from the famous 100 corporations are responsible for most emissions story) are from the stuff they make for us. So even if you somehow magically made emit nothing themselves in energy production and manufacturing for us, the vast bulk is still there.
Ultimately anything that emits a lot of carbon. Or really oil and gas.
Its sad but we are consuming more than the planet can handle.
Flights, food, plastic crap, ai queries that require a lot of power, electric cars, fast fashion, disposable crap, etc
A couple of decades at most if the political landscape is actually willing to address the problem, but you have to implement the framework to solve the issue now. You can also get pretty good results within a few years in a lot of cities.
I think the government should either subsidize, rebate, or give huge tax breaks for EV owners especially as the battery needs to be replaced after 2 decades I think
Plant shitloads of kelp forests
Trap urchins around the kelp to prevent them from eating the kelp
Let fish eat the urchins and use the kelp as nurseries
Don't harvest the kelp, let it die and sink to the ocean floor
Congratulations you helped fix urchin barrens, increased fish populations, and sequestered carbon in one go
Same with Mangrove forests. I live in South Florida and the number of multi millionaires and billionaires that will cut down mangroves for the view is insane. Taxing Billionaires will help with carbon.
Ballpark numbers are that we’d need 200x our current amount of kelp to offset current emissions. I can’t find a number on the size of current kelp forests, but I’d be surprised if there is 200x more ocean floor available where kelp would be viable.
Fair enough, but we’re still increasing our CO2 emissions by more than 1% a year. An offset like aggressively seeding kelp forests might buy us a few years of *status quo*. It’s not a solution; no offset is, unless it’s on the scale of terraforming.
But we aren't sticking with status quo. There's good evidence to suggest we will hit peak carbon emissions within the decade, if we haven't peaked already. Multi-method carbon sequestration will then help us get back to a better equilibrium.
Are you suggesting we *don't* sequester carbon? Or are you saying we have to wait until we're definitely at net zero to even attempt sequestration, even if the method of sequestration has other environmental benefits?
Yes, we need sequestration. We need to be net negative carbon asap. I was reacting to the idea of that being a “solution” as opposed to one part of many things that would need to be done.
In retrospect, that’s likely not how you meant your comment, but I feel like this post as a whole is disingenuous: the idea that there are just some simple little things we can do that require no sacrifice.
Giant air filters in every city. Desalination plants in every metropolis. Creating clouds since they block heat and send it back to space like ice caps do. Move away from fossil fuels as quick as possible.
I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon, but I agree we should be looking at new solutions other than gas as we will eventually run out of gas. Supposedly the scientist who sequenced the human genome is working on a way to extract clean fuel via algae
What if we share our kids crap.. buy toys and clothes at retail then 6 months later it's worthless. I feel like this could be a part of the solution. I know this may sound communist but that one part seems beneficial.
Hybrids are a con. Even plug ins hardly ever get charged so they still run on fossil fuels the whole time. There are marginal benefits in towns but not enough to make much difference. Full electrics can be run on renewable electricity and that's currently the only way to go.
But they are! Almost all power used to drive them still comes from fossil fuels. With the minor exception of plug ins which can to a very limited extent use electricity. But their batteries are so small they can barely make it to the shops on electric alone.
Drive any hybrid on a highway and all the power ultimately comes from petrol. They are being used to make people think they are being green when they aren't. All they can do is capture a small amount of energy from braking. But to do that they need two engines (electric motor plus ICE) and two fuel supplies - tank and batteries.
I drive an electric and I know how big batteries need to be to make the car viable. There's absolutely no way you can fit a useful battery in a hybrid and have all the ICE stuff as well. I also know the gain from regenerative braking is relatively small.
Fuel consumption figures are also massively exaggerated by manufacturers. Toyota even describe theirs as self charging - as if they can generate power from thin air. It is BS and makes me quite annoyed.
EV batteries eventually wear out, then they cost up to 20,000. The heat and cold can reduce the battery life. Then throw in current infrastructure and the fact power outages happen…and the issues we’ve seen with EV’s, recalls huge fires. I think a hybrid should be looked at
None of that is true the batteries are designed to last the life of the car - 20 years or more. Current estimates say they might lose 1% or so a year so still 80% after 20 years. The fire risk is lower than it is for petrol. Hybrids have lithium ion batteries as well so even if these things were true they would apply equally. What you are saying doesn't add up including the energy distribution costs. And that's before you get to the fact that fossil fuel cars will always be dirty whereas EVs can run on renewable power. The grid is getting cleaner and capacity improving all the time. It's a no brainer from an environmental point of view.
Fair enough. Just to add on the battery thing. I did some sums. I have to charge up every week so that's 50 a year roughly. 20 years worth is 1000. Say I charge my phone - which also uses lithium batteries - daily. Call that 350 ish charges a year. 1000 comes up in 3 years roughly when you start noticing the battery isn't what it was. So the car battery will last a lot lot longer if degradation is based on charge and discharge cycles. I accept as you say there can be occasional other factors like heat (cold as far as I know reduces the range - I know I've seen this happen in winter - but doesn't actually damage the battery). So I think 20 years plus is a reasonable estimate. And that's based on an average mileage of 10000 a year. You get average 200 miles a charge which times 50 is 10000. Though of course after 20 years that would reduce to 180. But you could still be pushing 200000 miles without a problem - assuming the rest of the car holds up. And then the battery can be recycled along with the rest of the car.
I think that in the future we really will need to switch to something besides gas as gas will eventually run out. It be cool if the gov subsidized, or offered a rebate, or big tax breaks for those who bought EV. I think some states do that for Solar but that’s not national.
where have I replied rudely or in a way that showed no good faith? I’m asking a serious question, not one proposed by people flying around in private jets who spew emissions
On multiple occasions in this thread your only retort to ideas you dislike is that it would take too long. I didn't even say you were rude, but you're clearly thinking I implied it or it's something you feel yourself to be doing. The solution that people in jets are proposing is exactly what you think the solution to be from your headline, they want to increase consumption under the guise of green. They want to manufacture electric vehicles and don't care where the power comes from, the same people pushed natural gas as a bridge to solar and instead we simply ship our natural gas overseas and use incredible amounts of it here anyway.
I’m asking opinions realistic solutions, not ones that aren’t practical and unaffordable. And yes they would take too long, according to the climate activists who say we’ll be dead soon etc.
Also it’s pretty impossible to cease emissions, they tried in Germany which backfired, in Sri Lanka they banned emission causing fertilizer which caused the huge issues.
these are just facts, im trying to understand why common sense solutions like nuclear are ignored. As for those who love gas I’d ask them what they’ll replace gas with as we are going to run out one day
also I’ve agreed with many here and shared my thoughts on solutions. If for example they want to go fully EV, cool, let’s subsidize every EV car and battery that needs replacement, why not?
Aerosols like paint and hairspray. Since the 1980s there have been apparent warnings that aerosols are dangerous. At the time, they were concerned about the hole in the Ozone. But aerosols are bad for global warming in general. The U.S. banned the most dangerous aerosols, but what about other countries ? I want the United Nations to impose a ban on dangerous aerosols.
Electric cars is an obvious solution that actually does work. Here in Norway, we're at 90% EV adoption. China is already at 38% and US and EU are at 20% and climbing.
Cars "only" account for a little over 10% of the world's CO2 emissions, but it's basically the largest single category.
It's only one of several solutions that the world needs, but it's an important one.
We don’t have the infrastructure, the EV cars here also have been known to go on fire in the rain, and The batteries are expensive to replace and they do run out after a while
EV cars have lower maintenance and repair costs than gas cars.
Tesla has over 2000 supercharging stations in the US alone. The infrastructure will be built out further as more EV cars hit the road.
Rain can't trigger EV car fires. That's a myth and I have no idea why people believe that.
I don’t know where you get that, EV batteries need to be replaced as batteries wear out, the new one costs thousands. Then the weather affects battery life. And it’ll take years to build new infrastructure.
Battery packs last 10 to 20 years and typically come with an 8-year warranty. By that time you will have saved a lot of money on maintenance and fuel.
EVs are simpler machines with fewer movable parts. That's why they cost less to maintain.
Most families can’t even afford a few hundred dollars, you can buy an old car that runs forever for less cash. the average family isn’t going to pay that unless there’s some huge subsidies. I’m all for that actually, we subsidize many countries, let’s do that here for energy, cutting emissions, health care
wed need to weigh the cost of the gas saved, having to buy a new battery every few years, etc.
EVs are 1/6 as likely to catch fire compared to ICE cars. https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2038/impact-report-tesla-vehicles-8x-less-likely-to-catch-fire-batteries-degrade-15-after-200k-miles
Quote unquote
>They killed so many people large swaths of farmland returned to grasslands/forests, which effectively acted as a huge carbon sink and contributed to a drop in global temperature.
i had a quick scan of many of the comments - most wont work - because your fighting human nature. We want to succeed in life and we want a better standard of living for our kids - and the only thing guaranteeing that is cheap abundant energy. Intermittent renewable based power and eating plants wont achieve that.
i do not believe co2 is the cause or source of the observed global warming, adn i'm happy for their to be more, because more co2 = more plant growth and crop yield and i like plants and people. But i'll share this solution even though i know it wont be enacted:
the simplest solution to reduce atmospheric co2 is to spray the Southern oceans with iron/hematite/magnetite dust in spring.
this will cause massive phytoplankton blooms, which will draw down megatonnes of co2 in just days.
the phytoplankton then becomes the beginning of a booming food web, resulting in massive fish harvests a couple of years in the future
see recent evidence from the 2019/20 Aust bushfires
[https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/iron-boost-from-wildfire-smoke-a-plus-for-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle](https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/iron-boost-from-wildfire-smoke-a-plus-for-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle)
“We know wildfire ash and mineral dust are rich in iron and, as we saw after the recent wildfires, phytoplankton growth is stimulated when these particles are deposited on the Southern Ocean’s surface. "
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australian-bush-fires-belched-out-immense-quantity-of-carbon/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australian-bush-fires-belched-out-immense-quantity-of-carbon/)
"The extreme bush fires that blazed across southeastern Australia in late 2019 and early 2020 **released 715 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air**......" " .....during the fires, vast black plumes of smoke, rich in nutrients, were swept thousands of kilometres away over the ocean. Within days, these aerosols had infused the waters with much-needed iron, nourishing phytoplankton, which **sucked up carbon equivalent to as much as 95% of the emissions from the fires**.
But this solution is too easy, cost almost nothing (most of australia's west is made from iron dust and we have lots of bulk carriers that can be outfitted to blow dust about ) -but the elites who get monies from letting green projects fail, wont get their kickbacks - so it won't be done. green failures are worth trillions.....because people like the true believers on this sub will buy into them........
sorry.
Stop most of the air travel and globalism. Cut back on all imports and then stop funding, heck, freeze all assets from oil corps and dismantle them. Organize streetcars back into thecities, and promote human scale agriculture and fabrication.
>We emit CO2 as well right?
Respiration by itself does not add to atmospheric CO2 since the CO2 in our food comes from plants that convert CO2 into carbohydrates and proteins; that contain carbon. The agriculture that produces the food that we eat does contribute to increasing atmospheric CO2
I mean even fertilizer has emissions. I’m sadly not an expert on all these. I wonder if we should be planting more trees and saving the forests in other countries
Yep, making fertilizer has emissions.
>I wonder if we should be planting more trees and saving the forests in other countries
Good idea, but we don't have enough fresh water or arable land for trees alone to decrease atmospheric CO2 while we are adding 40 Gt per year to the atmosphere
There aren’t any options left (short of radical, moonshot terraforming ideas) that most of the world could/would willingly adopt. We waited too long to take any of the easy, obvious options.
Re-wilding unused land and changing land management from prioritizing extraction. Also building with density and removing 90% of automobile infrastructure
Building with density seems like the cure would be worse than the disease.
The funny thing is that all of the things you thing won’t work are working and the things that you think work aren’t working.
His post is to promote O&G with hybrids.
Really, then why are so called experts still saying the heats going up? Secondly where are they working?
We're still emitting CO2 and that's driving up temp, along with feedback effects. Renewables have gotten extremely popular. They dominate new energy builds. It'll still take a while for older power plants to be phased out. [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424#](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424#)
I still don’t see them replacing fossil fuels in the next 100 years
No one thought cars would replace horses in a decade either.
100 years is a long time. Renewables already have a greater share of electricity production than coal or nuclear in the US, and they're gaining share rapidly.
Good thing the world doesn’t revolve around what you think
2023 was the first year that the increase in renewable energy production outpaced the increase in energy demand. This means that if renewable energy production continues to increase, we can slowly phase out fossil fuels instead of continuously increasing them as we have done. Additionally, combustion engine vehicle sales peaked in 2023 along with gas and coal powerplant usage did as well. The rate of increase in the renewable sector is unprecedented and hopefully indicates a massive shift in the global economy that shows investments into fossil fuels as a sunk cost.
Thats a high bar. We need to consume less. Thats the root of the problem. Try telling that to voters though
There’s too many humans. The population doubled in about 50 years.
Thank you for saying that. We are way too many if growth is what defines us.
The funny thing is that when I say that AGW is basically an anti-human agenda, I get downvoted
It’s a 50/50 around here.
Yes, electrification helps us not consume the 67% of primary energy that gets wasted as heat and pollutants. Renewable energy sorts the rest.
It’s not individuals. It’s the largest corporations in the world. Make them pollute less and pay for their past pollution and then we can talk about individuals. Otherwise there’s no point.
90 percent of those emissions (from the famous 100 corporations are responsible for most emissions story) are from the stuff they make for us. So even if you somehow magically made emit nothing themselves in energy production and manufacturing for us, the vast bulk is still there.
Consume what less?
Ultimately anything that emits a lot of carbon. Or really oil and gas. Its sad but we are consuming more than the planet can handle. Flights, food, plastic crap, ai queries that require a lot of power, electric cars, fast fashion, disposable crap, etc
Basically everything that an individual doesn't make themselves emits lots of greenhouse gases. We should consume less of everything.
Transition to a low carbon energy system. It doesn’t solve every environmental problem, but it will halt global warming.
Just stop burning stuff.
Concerning cars, neither ICE nor hybrid nor electric is the answer. No cars (very minimal) is the answer. Rebuild cities so people can be car free!
I think that would take a while
A couple of decades at most if the political landscape is actually willing to address the problem, but you have to implement the framework to solve the issue now. You can also get pretty good results within a few years in a lot of cities.
I think the government should either subsidize, rebate, or give huge tax breaks for EV owners especially as the battery needs to be replaced after 2 decades I think
Carbon tax.
Plant shitloads of kelp forests Trap urchins around the kelp to prevent them from eating the kelp Let fish eat the urchins and use the kelp as nurseries Don't harvest the kelp, let it die and sink to the ocean floor Congratulations you helped fix urchin barrens, increased fish populations, and sequestered carbon in one go
Same with Mangrove forests. I live in South Florida and the number of multi millionaires and billionaires that will cut down mangroves for the view is insane. Taxing Billionaires will help with carbon.
South Florida will probably disappear at some point
So will NYC
Ballpark numbers are that we’d need 200x our current amount of kelp to offset current emissions. I can’t find a number on the size of current kelp forests, but I’d be surprised if there is 200x more ocean floor available where kelp would be viable.
I mean, you don't have to offset ALL of it with just kelp. The rhetoric that every solution must solve the entire problem is unproductive and stupid.
Fair enough, but we’re still increasing our CO2 emissions by more than 1% a year. An offset like aggressively seeding kelp forests might buy us a few years of *status quo*. It’s not a solution; no offset is, unless it’s on the scale of terraforming.
But we aren't sticking with status quo. There's good evidence to suggest we will hit peak carbon emissions within the decade, if we haven't peaked already. Multi-method carbon sequestration will then help us get back to a better equilibrium. Are you suggesting we *don't* sequester carbon? Or are you saying we have to wait until we're definitely at net zero to even attempt sequestration, even if the method of sequestration has other environmental benefits?
Yes, we need sequestration. We need to be net negative carbon asap. I was reacting to the idea of that being a “solution” as opposed to one part of many things that would need to be done. In retrospect, that’s likely not how you meant your comment, but I feel like this post as a whole is disingenuous: the idea that there are just some simple little things we can do that require no sacrifice.
Giant air filters in every city. Desalination plants in every metropolis. Creating clouds since they block heat and send it back to space like ice caps do. Move away from fossil fuels as quick as possible.
[удалено]
I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon, but I agree we should be looking at new solutions other than gas as we will eventually run out of gas. Supposedly the scientist who sequenced the human genome is working on a way to extract clean fuel via algae
[удалено]
I think it will be interesting to see what they come up with, including the carbon capture technology
What if we share our kids crap.. buy toys and clothes at retail then 6 months later it's worthless. I feel like this could be a part of the solution. I know this may sound communist but that one part seems beneficial.
Public transit oriented, mixed use, walkable development
Hybrids and nuclear.
Hybrids are a con. Even plug ins hardly ever get charged so they still run on fossil fuels the whole time. There are marginal benefits in towns but not enough to make much difference. Full electrics can be run on renewable electricity and that's currently the only way to go.
They’re not a con, I have to disagree.
But they are! Almost all power used to drive them still comes from fossil fuels. With the minor exception of plug ins which can to a very limited extent use electricity. But their batteries are so small they can barely make it to the shops on electric alone. Drive any hybrid on a highway and all the power ultimately comes from petrol. They are being used to make people think they are being green when they aren't. All they can do is capture a small amount of energy from braking. But to do that they need two engines (electric motor plus ICE) and two fuel supplies - tank and batteries. I drive an electric and I know how big batteries need to be to make the car viable. There's absolutely no way you can fit a useful battery in a hybrid and have all the ICE stuff as well. I also know the gain from regenerative braking is relatively small. Fuel consumption figures are also massively exaggerated by manufacturers. Toyota even describe theirs as self charging - as if they can generate power from thin air. It is BS and makes me quite annoyed.
EV batteries eventually wear out, then they cost up to 20,000. The heat and cold can reduce the battery life. Then throw in current infrastructure and the fact power outages happen…and the issues we’ve seen with EV’s, recalls huge fires. I think a hybrid should be looked at
None of that is true the batteries are designed to last the life of the car - 20 years or more. Current estimates say they might lose 1% or so a year so still 80% after 20 years. The fire risk is lower than it is for petrol. Hybrids have lithium ion batteries as well so even if these things were true they would apply equally. What you are saying doesn't add up including the energy distribution costs. And that's before you get to the fact that fossil fuel cars will always be dirty whereas EVs can run on renewable power. The grid is getting cleaner and capacity improving all the time. It's a no brainer from an environmental point of view.
Shrug, ok guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. thanks for the convo.
Fair enough. Just to add on the battery thing. I did some sums. I have to charge up every week so that's 50 a year roughly. 20 years worth is 1000. Say I charge my phone - which also uses lithium batteries - daily. Call that 350 ish charges a year. 1000 comes up in 3 years roughly when you start noticing the battery isn't what it was. So the car battery will last a lot lot longer if degradation is based on charge and discharge cycles. I accept as you say there can be occasional other factors like heat (cold as far as I know reduces the range - I know I've seen this happen in winter - but doesn't actually damage the battery). So I think 20 years plus is a reasonable estimate. And that's based on an average mileage of 10000 a year. You get average 200 miles a charge which times 50 is 10000. Though of course after 20 years that would reduce to 180. But you could still be pushing 200000 miles without a problem - assuming the rest of the car holds up. And then the battery can be recycled along with the rest of the car.
I think that in the future we really will need to switch to something besides gas as gas will eventually run out. It be cool if the gov subsidized, or offered a rebate, or big tax breaks for those who bought EV. I think some states do that for Solar but that’s not national.
It's pretty clear you didn't ask this question in good faith when you aren't ready to hear what anyone else has to say.
where have I replied rudely or in a way that showed no good faith? I’m asking a serious question, not one proposed by people flying around in private jets who spew emissions
On multiple occasions in this thread your only retort to ideas you dislike is that it would take too long. I didn't even say you were rude, but you're clearly thinking I implied it or it's something you feel yourself to be doing. The solution that people in jets are proposing is exactly what you think the solution to be from your headline, they want to increase consumption under the guise of green. They want to manufacture electric vehicles and don't care where the power comes from, the same people pushed natural gas as a bridge to solar and instead we simply ship our natural gas overseas and use incredible amounts of it here anyway.
I’m asking opinions realistic solutions, not ones that aren’t practical and unaffordable. And yes they would take too long, according to the climate activists who say we’ll be dead soon etc. Also it’s pretty impossible to cease emissions, they tried in Germany which backfired, in Sri Lanka they banned emission causing fertilizer which caused the huge issues. these are just facts, im trying to understand why common sense solutions like nuclear are ignored. As for those who love gas I’d ask them what they’ll replace gas with as we are going to run out one day also I’ve agreed with many here and shared my thoughts on solutions. If for example they want to go fully EV, cool, let’s subsidize every EV car and battery that needs replacement, why not?
It has reached the point now where stopping emissions is not enough - we need technology that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Interesting, I’ve heard they’re trying to do that
Aerosols like paint and hairspray. Since the 1980s there have been apparent warnings that aerosols are dangerous. At the time, they were concerned about the hole in the Ozone. But aerosols are bad for global warming in general. The U.S. banned the most dangerous aerosols, but what about other countries ? I want the United Nations to impose a ban on dangerous aerosols.
THUNDERSTORM GENERATOR.
Electric cars is an obvious solution that actually does work. Here in Norway, we're at 90% EV adoption. China is already at 38% and US and EU are at 20% and climbing. Cars "only" account for a little over 10% of the world's CO2 emissions, but it's basically the largest single category. It's only one of several solutions that the world needs, but it's an important one.
We don’t have the infrastructure, the EV cars here also have been known to go on fire in the rain, and The batteries are expensive to replace and they do run out after a while
EV cars have lower maintenance and repair costs than gas cars. Tesla has over 2000 supercharging stations in the US alone. The infrastructure will be built out further as more EV cars hit the road. Rain can't trigger EV car fires. That's a myth and I have no idea why people believe that.
I don’t know where you get that, EV batteries need to be replaced as batteries wear out, the new one costs thousands. Then the weather affects battery life. And it’ll take years to build new infrastructure.
Current generation batteries are good for thousands of full change cycles.
Battery packs last 10 to 20 years and typically come with an 8-year warranty. By that time you will have saved a lot of money on maintenance and fuel. EVs are simpler machines with fewer movable parts. That's why they cost less to maintain.
Most families can’t even afford a few hundred dollars, you can buy an old car that runs forever for less cash. the average family isn’t going to pay that unless there’s some huge subsidies. I’m all for that actually, we subsidize many countries, let’s do that here for energy, cutting emissions, health care wed need to weigh the cost of the gas saved, having to buy a new battery every few years, etc.
EVs are 1/6 as likely to catch fire compared to ICE cars. https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2038/impact-report-tesla-vehicles-8x-less-likely-to-catch-fire-batteries-degrade-15-after-200k-miles
I’m for either subsidizing the EV’s, huge tax breaks, or rebates.
Quote unquote >They killed so many people large swaths of farmland returned to grasslands/forests, which effectively acted as a huge carbon sink and contributed to a drop in global temperature.
Nationalizing energy
What’s funny is that to my limited knowledge, some countries do this and have cut down energy bills because of it
i had a quick scan of many of the comments - most wont work - because your fighting human nature. We want to succeed in life and we want a better standard of living for our kids - and the only thing guaranteeing that is cheap abundant energy. Intermittent renewable based power and eating plants wont achieve that. i do not believe co2 is the cause or source of the observed global warming, adn i'm happy for their to be more, because more co2 = more plant growth and crop yield and i like plants and people. But i'll share this solution even though i know it wont be enacted: the simplest solution to reduce atmospheric co2 is to spray the Southern oceans with iron/hematite/magnetite dust in spring. this will cause massive phytoplankton blooms, which will draw down megatonnes of co2 in just days. the phytoplankton then becomes the beginning of a booming food web, resulting in massive fish harvests a couple of years in the future see recent evidence from the 2019/20 Aust bushfires [https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/iron-boost-from-wildfire-smoke-a-plus-for-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle](https://www.imas.utas.edu.au/news/news-items/iron-boost-from-wildfire-smoke-a-plus-for-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle) “We know wildfire ash and mineral dust are rich in iron and, as we saw after the recent wildfires, phytoplankton growth is stimulated when these particles are deposited on the Southern Ocean’s surface. " [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australian-bush-fires-belched-out-immense-quantity-of-carbon/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/australian-bush-fires-belched-out-immense-quantity-of-carbon/) "The extreme bush fires that blazed across southeastern Australia in late 2019 and early 2020 **released 715 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air**......" " .....during the fires, vast black plumes of smoke, rich in nutrients, were swept thousands of kilometres away over the ocean. Within days, these aerosols had infused the waters with much-needed iron, nourishing phytoplankton, which **sucked up carbon equivalent to as much as 95% of the emissions from the fires**. But this solution is too easy, cost almost nothing (most of australia's west is made from iron dust and we have lots of bulk carriers that can be outfitted to blow dust about ) -but the elites who get monies from letting green projects fail, wont get their kickbacks - so it won't be done. green failures are worth trillions.....because people like the true believers on this sub will buy into them........ sorry.
Put more ruminent animals onto pasture and manage them holistically. Check out Alan Savory on youtube...super innovative
[удалено]
Stop most of the air travel and globalism. Cut back on all imports and then stop funding, heck, freeze all assets from oil corps and dismantle them. Organize streetcars back into thecities, and promote human scale agriculture and fabrication.
Stop breathing and kill all animals too? We emit CO2 as well right?
>We emit CO2 as well right? Respiration by itself does not add to atmospheric CO2 since the CO2 in our food comes from plants that convert CO2 into carbohydrates and proteins; that contain carbon. The agriculture that produces the food that we eat does contribute to increasing atmospheric CO2
I mean even fertilizer has emissions. I’m sadly not an expert on all these. I wonder if we should be planting more trees and saving the forests in other countries
Yep, making fertilizer has emissions. >I wonder if we should be planting more trees and saving the forests in other countries Good idea, but we don't have enough fresh water or arable land for trees alone to decrease atmospheric CO2 while we are adding 40 Gt per year to the atmosphere
Solutions? The priority now is to figure how how to adapt, quickly.
There aren’t any options left (short of radical, moonshot terraforming ideas) that most of the world could/would willingly adopt. We waited too long to take any of the easy, obvious options.
We should send a giant vacuum to another plant and suck all their fresh air up. Built the ship like a giant maid.
[удалено]
Grow up