7 ms·

EDIT: downvoters, feel free to add your opinion, what seps we can take in 12 years to prevent climate change. I will gladly hear any opinion, especially if it i

by trymas 8y ago

EDIT: downvoters, feel free to add your opinion, what seps we can take in 12 years to prevent climate change. I will gladly hear any opinion, especially if it is not as drastic as mine. 1. Drop coal and gas as energy sources immediately. Use renewable and nuclear energy as main power sources. Phase out nuclear after couple decades, when we hopefully can get all our energy needs from renewables. EDIT: forgot to add in fusion. 2. Eat less meat. I am not saying to go full radical vegan, just have less of it. Most people I know have meat for every main meal of the day (breakfast, lunch, dinner). We can definitely eat less of it. Meat production generates extreme amounts of CO2 and consumes too much of valuable land. 3. "Global one child policy". Sounds extreme - but we must lessen global population of humans. I know that western countries have negative growth already, problem is how to solve overpopulation in non-western countries and do it fast (ideally in one generation). Even with technological advances, IMO having 10-12+ billion people on Earth won't do any good for anyone.

realusername 8y ago
That's about right. I would add a 4th action to this list: Financing of carbon negative research & companies though a carbon tax on the worst offenders. I don't think even reducing drastically is enough personally, we need to go negative.
pjc50 8y ago
Nuclear isn't feasible within that timeframe - takes years to even build the plants! Not to mention the unpopularity of putting fission plants in the less stable countries of the world. The other two are even more infeasible.
- realusername 8y ago
  Any electricity grid change takes years anyway, and I don't see how the other two are not feasible. As an example, we managed to reduce smoking by a good margin nowadays, which was an even more unrealistic battle than meat consumption.
- trymas 8y ago
  IMO for infeasibly tough problems we must go to infeasibly tough actions (believe me - I do not have any hope for any of these points to come at least 1% true). It's a theoretical list which would greatly reduce our impact on climate in utopian world. #3 is extremely infeasible I would not agree that #1 is impossible (it's just a problem with stigma and politics), though I agree that it is very unlikely and needs great dedication from governments of powerful countries, to make it happen in 10 or even 20 years. Though what's the problems with #2 to make it "more infeasible"? I am not vegan/vegetarian, but I have no problem eating 10 times less meat than I did 5 years ago.
candiodari 8y ago
The only ways that can be effective in 12 years are geoengineering solutions. The problem with geoengineering is that they make someone clearly responsible for climate change in the good direction. So geoengineering is going to cause trillions in damage, on purpose. So it'll never be done. These solutions: 1) takes 10 years (minimum) to happen, and ignores that the environmental groups are much more against nuclear than against fossil fuels. So probably never going to happen. Furthermore, requires rebuilding the electricity grid and changing, I don't know, 100 million households to electrical heating. That too will take time and can't happen before the first part is complete. So in 12 years ? No appreciable effect 2) won't work at all. That land won't be replaced with co2 sinks. Even if we do put forests, they take half a century before becoming sinks. Won't work in 12 years. Hell, won't work before we run out of oil. We might as well do nothing. 3) won't take effect until those kids start using significant resources, say 20 years. Won't cause decrease until the current generation starts dying off (worldwide average age is still low 20s, so let's generously say in 50 years). Also: who will take care of those people before they die ? Won't work in 12 years
kebman 8y ago
Haha, good luck! :)
tekkk 8y ago
Good ideas but impossible in practise. The people and myself included have hard time imagining how global warming will affect us so drastically that such measures would be needed. Maybe they are but as of now we're just sitting happy in our slowly heating up pan like the frogs in one previously done experiment. Only when the effects are clear and causing visible suffering I believe our human civilization will try to find measures to fix it. I wish the scientists knew how to do better marketing to educate the masses of the effects that we are about to face. But I'm not sure how many will listen.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  Eating less meat is not only possible, it is a persistent trend in developed countries.
dang 8y ago
Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvote(r)s. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cies 8y ago
1. yups. this needs a law. 2. why not radical? we have "good enough" plant-based replacements, and these will improve a lot when meat/dairy/eggs/leather simply becomes out-lawed. (needs a law too) why point one "stop immediatly" and point 2 being just reduce as a personal choice? 3. this i do not get. we have seen (again and again) that educating women greatly changes the reproductive rates. we can just do that! the one-child policy was disasterous for china, and while it may work in the dev'd world, it is the undev'd world where the reduction is badly needed and where the china-disaster is likely to repeat itself. also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty!
- explainplease 8y ago
  1. With no fossil fuel-based energy available, global food production will plummet, and distribution of what food exists will become prohibitively expensive. Millions will starve to death. 2. Go, tell the farmers they are not allowed to eat their chickens' eggs. I will wait for you to report their answer. Or do you intend to enforce your decree by force? 3. If you are allowed to tell other people how many children to have, I am allowed to tell you how many children to have: You may have none. > also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty! I wonder if you actually believe what you say.

by trymas 8y ago

realusername 8y ago

That's about right. I would add a 4th action to this list: Financing of carbon negative research & companies though a carbon tax on the worst offenders. I don't think even reducing drastically is enough personally, we need to go negative.

pjc50 8y ago

Nuclear isn't feasible within that timeframe - takes years to even build the plants! Not to mention the unpopularity of putting fission plants in the less stable countries of the world. The other two are even more infeasible.

realusername 8y ago
Any electricity grid change takes years anyway, and I don't see how the other two are not feasible. As an example, we managed to reduce smoking by a good margin nowadays, which was an even more unrealistic battle than meat consumption.
trymas 8y ago
IMO for infeasibly tough problems we must go to infeasibly tough actions (believe me - I do not have any hope for any of these points to come at least 1% true). It's a theoretical list which would greatly reduce our impact on climate in utopian world. #3 is extremely infeasible I would not agree that #1 is impossible (it's just a problem with stigma and politics), though I agree that it is very unlikely and needs great dedication from governments of powerful countries, to make it happen in 10 or even 20 years. Though what's the problems with #2 to make it "more infeasible"? I am not vegan/vegetarian, but I have no problem eating 10 times less meat than I did 5 years ago.

candiodari 8y ago

The only ways that can be effective in 12 years are geoengineering solutions. The problem with geoengineering is that they make someone clearly responsible for climate change in the good direction. So geoengineering is going to cause trillions in damage, on purpose. So it'll never be done. These solutions: 1) takes 10 years (minimum) to happen, and ignores that the environmental groups are much more against nuclear than against fossil fuels. So probably never going to happen. Furthermore, requires rebuilding the electricity grid and changing, I don't know, 100 million households to electrical heating. That too will take time and can't happen before the first part is complete. So in 12 years ? No appreciable effect 2) won't work at all. That land won't be replaced with co2 sinks. Even if we do put forests, they take half a century before becoming sinks. Won't work in 12 years. Hell, won't work before we run out of oil. We might as well do nothing. 3) won't take effect until those kids start using significant resources, say 20 years. Won't cause decrease until the current generation starts dying off (worldwide average age is still low 20s, so let's generously say in 50 years). Also: who will take care of those people before they die ? Won't work in 12 years

kebman 8y ago

Haha, good luck! :)

tekkk 8y ago

Good ideas but impossible in practise. The people and myself included have hard time imagining how global warming will affect us so drastically that such measures would be needed. Maybe they are but as of now we're just sitting happy in our slowly heating up pan like the frogs in one previously done experiment. Only when the effects are clear and causing visible suffering I believe our human civilization will try to find measures to fix it. I wish the scientists knew how to do better marketing to educate the masses of the effects that we are about to face. But I'm not sure how many will listen.

Freak_NL 8y ago
Eating less meat is not only possible, it is a persistent trend in developed countries.

dang 8y ago

Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvote(r)s. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cies 8y ago

1. yups. this needs a law. 2. why not radical? we have "good enough" plant-based replacements, and these will improve a lot when meat/dairy/eggs/leather simply becomes out-lawed. (needs a law too) why point one "stop immediatly" and point 2 being just reduce as a personal choice? 3. this i do not get. we have seen (again and again) that educating women greatly changes the reproductive rates. we can just do that! the one-child policy was disasterous for china, and while it may work in the dev'd world, it is the undev'd world where the reduction is badly needed and where the china-disaster is likely to repeat itself. also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty!

explainplease 8y ago
1. With no fossil fuel-based energy available, global food production will plummet, and distribution of what food exists will become prohibitively expensive. Millions will starve to death. 2. Go, tell the farmers they are not allowed to eat their chickens' eggs. I will wait for you to report their answer. Or do you intend to enforce your decree by force? 3. If you are allowed to tell other people how many children to have, I am allowed to tell you how many children to have: You may have none. > also, with 1 and 2 in place, we have prolly no need for the one-child policy. we'll have food and land plenty! I wonder if you actually believe what you say.