Quantcast
What do you think should be done about climate change?

Forums - General Discussion - What do you think should be done about climate change?

curl-6 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

She's ridiculous. She's not above any criticism and just a pawn.

The world will be fine in her lifetime.

Hmmmm, a teenage girl simply asking that we listen to the science and plan our future responsibly or grown adults vehemently bashing her for doing so? Frankly, it's not the former I find ridiculous.

Right, because every scientific theory has come true. I think the planet was supposed to be flooded years ago. Hence, when the "science" is looking like propaganda don't be surprised when people stop listening.

Its also annoying to see the media blaming every natural disaster on climate change regardless of history. Politicians keep saying the planet is gonna be flooded in 10 years or so, some think we should treat this like WWIII. Climate change also being racist is kinda hilarious. That's why people roll their eyes when the word "science" is used.

Personally, I suppose we should do more to keep the planet cleaner in general. But propaganda and unreasonable solutions are being thrown out there to make this seem like a bigger threat than it truly is at the moment. Propaganda is often just means of controlling people immediately and maybe help win some elections.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions is by far the largest contributor to global warming, and thus should be our primary focus. The overwhelming majority of our CO2 emissions come from burning coal and natural gas for power generation for both the electrical grid and for and industrial processes, as well as from burning petroleum-based fuels for transportation. Transitioning power generation away from coal and gas to renewables and nuclear (yes, I said nuclear) and transitioning as much of our transportation to electric vehicles (and maybe other vehicles that use fuel that doesn't emit CO2) will be necessary. And while improving our power grid will also help a lot in these efforts, making it to where houses don't need to be drawing power from the grid all the time would also help. In that regard, we need to make reliable solar power for houses a thing.

Also, another topic that doesn't get brought up enough is population growth. People need to be having fewer children until the population gets to a more reasonable size. Population pressures produce more demand not only on things like fresh water, arable land, and fisheries, but also on electricity and transportation, and the resources needed for those things. Most of the developed world has already taken care of this thanks to the natural tendency towards the so-called "demographic transition," where as economies industrialize and modernize fertility rates fall to replacement or sub-replacement levels. As for undeveloped and developing nations, better family planning, better access to contraceptives, and probably a heaping helping of societal changes in places that view women as mere broodmares that are the property of their husbands, would do much to help in that regard. If we could spend 40 years with most people having only one child, then getting back to everyone averaging two to stabilize things, we could have a much more sustainable population size. We arguably don't have the resources for every nation to eventually industrialize.

As for reducing the amount of CO2 already in (and will be added to) the atmosphere, some serious greening efforts need to be put into place. More trees and other plants need to be added, and better forest management is necessary. Basically, we need to do the opposite of what Brazil is doing right now.



JRPGfan said:

The problem is the worst of the bunch.... USA,China,India, arn't very willing to put in much effort at all.
So even if the rest of the world, does, it wont matter.

Trump needs to lose office before anything serious can happend.
If the USA wont lead by exsample, you know China and India, wont do squat either.

Why do people assume that China or India wants to follow an example being poor or let alone wants to be poor at all ? 

There's no way the former or it's people would want to go back to the 'green' dark ages where everyone was a farmer who then suffered famine and high mortality. The latter has high hopes to lead in with the former's success so they too want to be filthy industrial rich ... 

Why can't the West just let the rest of the world industrialize the fastest and most effective way they want for their own citizens ? 

I feel like western civilization is doomed if they embrace being poor as a virtue ... 



fatslob-:O said:
JRPGfan said:

The problem is the worst of the bunch.... USA,China,India, arn't very willing to put in much effort at all.
So even if the rest of the world, does, it wont matter.

Trump needs to lose office before anything serious can happend.
If the USA wont lead by exsample, you know China and India, wont do squat either.

Why do people assume that China or India wants to follow an example being poor or let alone wants to be poor at all ? 

There's no way the former or it's people would want to go back to the 'green' dark ages where everyone was a farmer who then suffered famine and high mortality. The latter has high hopes to lead in with the former's success so they too want to be filthy industrial rich ... 

Why can't the West just let the rest of the world industrialize the fastest and most effective way they want for their own citizens ? 

I feel like western civilization is doomed if they embrace being poor as a virtue ... 

Im talking about apples, and your mentioning oranges.

Takeing steps to limit polution doesnt mean going back to a "dark age" without industry or technology.
Please dont quote me anymore (with this topic), your clearly trolling in this thread, so lets just nip this in the bud.



numberwang said:
Immersiveunreality said:

It is elevated by 10,59 feet,will take a thousand years at the rate sea levels currently rise

No catastrophe then? Oceans have been rising for the last 10K years since the interglacial period began.

Sea levels at Stockholm, home of famous Greta with no childhood. Seems we have declining sea levels there (or elevating tectonic plates).

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/78.php

Sea levels at Venice, Italy. There was a slow rise in the first half of the 20th century, but it seems to have mostly stalled when CO2 began to rise in the 60s.

https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/168.php

Really stop assuming the whole world is manipulated by those American politics over at your place because here they do not have a big impact on the thoughts of people about trying to do better for our environment,being tribalistic blinds you.

Ofcourse climate change has been existent since "climate" started to exist and that does not negate our industrial and consumeristic influence on it right now.

There will be places where sealevels can drop or stagnate because or other environmental influences but on a global scale and not just the pinpoint places you think to be evidenceworthy the sealevel has a high probability to rise with continous global warming that is mainly caused from CO2 releases in our atmosphere,most of those releases we can't help and nature itself is highly responsible for it but what we CAN do is minimizing our bit of influence on it in the hope to slow the process of warming(that can even result in extreme cooling) so we get more time to adapt to the shift of climate in future and avoid tragedy.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

Right, because every scientific theory has come true. I think the planet was supposed to be flooded years ago. Hence, when the "science" is looking like propaganda don't be surprised when people stop listening.

Its also annoying to see the media blaming every natural disaster on climate change regardless of history. Politicians keep saying the planet is gonna be flooded in 10 years or so, some think we should treat this like WWIII. Climate change also being racist is kinda hilarious. That's why people roll their eyes when the word "science" is used.

>think the planet was supposed to be flooded years ago

>Politicians keep saying the planet is gonna be flooded in 10 years or so, 

Nope.  While some ludicrous predictions have been made, there is conflation between "this is when we should do something" and "this is when something will happen". 

>when the "science" is looking like propaganda 

It is a science, no quotes necessary.

>Climate change also being racist is kinda hilarious

Climate Change isn't "racist".  It is simply an issue that will affect some parts of Africa the most.  



There are a lot of parameters that need to be worked on. We need to use every reasonable weapon we have.

1. We need to cut down on animal farming. This can be done if people consume less animal products. The best way to do that is to put extra taxes on animal products. If the prize of the products reflects the impact it has on the environment, that is a significant step in the right direction.

2. It shall be more favorable to use means of transport that have lesser carbon footprint, for instance bike, train, bus instead of plane and car. This can be done by lowering ticket prizes for public transport, put higher taxes on gasolin and flight tickets.

3. Massive public investment in renewable energy such as solar power, wind energy etc.

4. We need to use the science we know will help. And get rid of the science-phobia. Nuclear energy and genetically modified organisms can be of great use in the fight against climate change.

5. Birth control in countries where population growth is out of hands.

Last edited by Vinther1991 - on 09 October 2019

super_etecoon said:
We could make it a mission to plant as many trees as possible. This is actually fun, brings more beauty to communities and country sides, and is really inexpensive, especially when you coordinate with volunteer groups, churches, schools, etc. Trees are one of the greatest consumers of CO2 and also exhale that wonderful O2 we all crave. It's so easy to set a workable goal around this concept and it would give the current and future generations a bit of pride in making the world a better place. No technology here, just good old fashion agriculture.

Certainly solar is making a lot of impact in many areas of the country and world. Let's continue down that path with more and more ambitious goals. I really think we should be pushing for more solar cells on just about everything we use. The technology is there and even if it just gives us miniscule results, it would help offset a large amount of energy on a global scale.

Encourage community gardens and local farmers markets. This is a win-win in so many ways. Communities taht garden together can share the abundance of their resources. They'll also spend less time purchasing produce packed in plastics, which is a sad trend that is occurring right in front of our eyes (why two tomatoes need a protective platic barrier around them is beyond me).

You're wrong, plants produce as much CO2 as us because they also need to break the sugar they produce through photosystesis by respiration to produce energy. The biggest procuders of O2 are the microscopic algae that live in the oceans.

The O2 output by Amazon forest, for example, is null, because it is also consumed by both plants and animals because they both breath. Only people that never studied even basic biology believe in the falacy that Amazon is the lungs of the world.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 09 October 2019

super_etecoon said:
We could make it a mission to plant as many trees as possible. This is actually fun, brings more beauty to communities and country sides, and is really inexpensive, especially when you coordinate with volunteer groups, churches, schools, etc. Trees are one of the greatest consumers of CO2 and also exhale that wonderful O2 we all crave. It's so easy to set a workable goal around this concept and it would give the current and future generations a bit of pride in making the world a better place. No technology here, just good old fashion agriculture.

Certainly solar is making a lot of impact in many areas of the country and world. Let's continue down that path with more and more ambitious goals. I really think we should be pushing for more solar cells on just about everything we use. The technology is there and even if it just gives us miniscule results, it would help offset a large amount of energy on a global scale.

Encourage community gardens and local farmers markets. This is a win-win in so many ways. Communities taht garden together can share the abundance of their resources. They'll also spend less time purchasing produce packed in plastics, which is a sad trend that is occurring right in front of our eyes (why two tomatoes need a protective platic barrier around them is beyond me).

You're wrong, plants produce as much CO2 as us because they also need to break the sugar they produce through photosystesis by respiration to produce energy. The biggest procuders of O2 are the microscopic algae that live in the oceans.

The O2 output by Amazon forest, for example, is null, because it is also consumed by both plants and animals because they both breath. Only people that never studied even basic biology believe in the falacy that Amazon is the lungs of the world.

Last edited by CuCabeludo - on 09 October 2019

CuCabeludo said:
super_etecoon said:
We could make it a mission to plant as many trees as possible. This is actually fun, brings more beauty to communities and country sides, and is really inexpensive, especially when you coordinate with volunteer groups, churches, schools, etc. Trees are one of the greatest consumers of CO2 and also exhale that wonderful O2 we all crave. It's so easy to set a workable goal around this concept and it would give the current and future generations a bit of pride in making the world a better place. No technology here, just good old fashion agriculture.

Certainly solar is making a lot of impact in many areas of the country and world. Let's continue down that path with more and more ambitious goals. I really think we should be pushing for more solar cells on just about everything we use. The technology is there and even if it just gives us miniscule results, it would help offset a large amount of energy on a global scale.

Encourage community gardens and local farmers markets. This is a win-win in so many ways. Communities taht garden together can share the abundance of their resources. They'll also spend less time purchasing produce packed in plastics, which is a sad trend that is occurring right in front of our eyes (why two tomatoes need a protective platic barrier around them is beyond me).

You're wrong, plants produce as much CO2 as us because they also need to break the sugar they produce through photosystesis by respiration to produce energy. The biggest procuders of O2 are the microscopic algae that live in the oceans.

The O2 output by Amazon forest, for example, is null, because it is also consumed by both plants and animals because they both breath. Only people that never studied even basic biology believe in the falacy that Amazon is the lungs of the world.

Plants store CO2 into their cells,they keep hold of it and that is what makes them important.

People should consider losing the "produced" term and consider just calling it released as the difference in CO2 in our atmosphere depends mostly on how it is stored in plantlife and fossils(fuels) and how it is released again by lets say humanity using those storages for consumption.