4 ms·

Perhaps the threats that were met with decisive action were better understood. What decisive actions should be taken in this case?

adrianN 4y ago
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions for example
lupire 4y ago
> What decisive actions should be taken in this case? Putting humanity in the environment could be banned. But we're seeing a trend in the other direction.
mschuster91 4y ago
There are a lot of decisive action ideas to combat climate change (and a host of other issues). Right now out of the top of my head: - impose a maximum limit on size, weight and fuel consumption of cars, ban SUVs and pickup trucks (and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom"). Exceptions only upon proof of need (e.g. commercial or farming usage). - ban all inner-country flights of less than 2 hours duration (this one is not that applicable to the US but more towards Europe) - improve passenger high speed rail networks in accessibility, affordability and speed - improve (or, in some places, create) usable public transport systems to reduce the need for cars - entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel - construct immense amounts of solar and wind electricity generation, invest into storage mechanisms and power-to-gas - impose bans or limitations on concrete for construction (8% of global CO2 emissions result out of the manufacturing of concrete!) - ban "fast fashion", impose durability requirements on clothing - force all manufacturers to provide spare parts, 3D designs and tooling needed for repairs, no matter what kind of thing - impose per-capita meat consumption quotas. Yes, this is communism-style, but we cannot sustainably continue with mass animal farming at the scale we are at.
- snikeris 4y ago
  I don’t think any of these proposals are as strong as the case for banning lead in fuel. However maybe I’m biased by living at a time where it’s already banned.
- balfirevic 4y ago
  > and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? > entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?
  - engineeringwoke 4y ago
    > If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? Because the technology doesn't yet exist. You are banking your children's future on a technology that may never come to pass.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      It does exist, it's called trees. It just doesn't scale with the amount of flights that we are doing.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? Social unrest, plain and simple. When the rich can continue their lives as usual and only the poors have to rein in their life style, there will eventually be riots. We're already seeing social unrest with the election results for the 45th in the US and the very near election of le Pen in France that runs on precisely this ideological framework. Besides, we need to reduce the total CO2 emissions to keep the 2°C target, not just keeping the current emission amount. > Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights? Same as above, plus the reduction in noise for the people living next to airports, and (more an issue in Europe) reduce the amount of space that is needed for airports. A high speed train is way more efficient in terms of energy, CO2 emissions and required staffing than an airplane is.

adrianN 4y ago

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions https://www.drawdown.org/solutions for example

lupire 4y ago

> What decisive actions should be taken in this case? Putting humanity in the environment could be banned. But we're seeing a trend in the other direction.

mschuster91 4y ago

There are a lot of decisive action ideas to combat climate change (and a host of other issues). Right now out of the top of my head: - impose a maximum limit on size, weight and fuel consumption of cars, ban SUVs and pickup trucks (and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom"). Exceptions only upon proof of need (e.g. commercial or farming usage). - ban all inner-country flights of less than 2 hours duration (this one is not that applicable to the US but more towards Europe) - improve passenger high speed rail networks in accessibility, affordability and speed - improve (or, in some places, create) usable public transport systems to reduce the need for cars - entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel - construct immense amounts of solar and wind electricity generation, invest into storage mechanisms and power-to-gas - impose bans or limitations on concrete for construction (8% of global CO2 emissions result out of the manufacturing of concrete!) - ban "fast fashion", impose durability requirements on clothing - force all manufacturers to provide spare parts, 3D designs and tooling needed for repairs, no matter what kind of thing - impose per-capita meat consumption quotas. Yes, this is communism-style, but we cannot sustainably continue with mass animal farming at the scale we are at.

snikeris 4y ago
I don’t think any of these proposals are as strong as the case for banning lead in fuel. However maybe I’m biased by living at a time where it’s already banned.
balfirevic 4y ago
> and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? > entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?
- engineeringwoke 4y ago
  > If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? Because the technology doesn't yet exist. You are banking your children's future on a technology that may never come to pass.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    It does exist, it's called trees. It just doesn't scale with the amount of flights that we are doing.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem? Social unrest, plain and simple. When the rich can continue their lives as usual and only the poors have to rein in their life style, there will eventually be riots. We're already seeing social unrest with the election results for the 45th in the US and the very near election of le Pen in France that runs on precisely this ideological framework. Besides, we need to reduce the total CO2 emissions to keep the 2°C target, not just keeping the current emission amount. > Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights? Same as above, plus the reduction in noise for the people living next to airports, and (more an issue in Europe) reduce the amount of space that is needed for airports. A high speed train is way more efficient in terms of energy, CO2 emissions and required staffing than an airplane is.