What Are Realistic Ways We Could Reduce CO2 Emissions?

Question

And what would be the consequences of these policies? Do you have faith that engineers will come up with a way to burn things without creating CO2? Do you believe that we could break CO2 into C and O2 without creating a net negative amount of energy?

Would you oppose wide spread use of nuclear fuels and allow developing countries to develope this nuclear technology for themselves? Would this idea have any ramifications?

Can you think of any way to approach this issue that doesn't end up..

A) hurting the environment more
B) cripple the economy causing world wide economic hardships
C) isn't completely redundent
D) makes any kind of significant impact

C & D don't make since with the sentence. I got distracted and lost my train of thought. They do however stand alone.

Pip: Sorry about that... the question is more to inspire thought about the consequences of suggested legislation and the importants that we understand their consequences.

Pip: Sorry about that... the question is more to inspire thought about the consequences of suggested legislation and the importants that we understand their consequences.

Answer 1

There are three primary sources of human-caused CO2 production.

1. Electricity
2. Automobiles
3. Forest fires

So, the solutions are pretty straightforward, and would actually help the economy, I believe, because efficiency is always a net gain.

1. Switch to non CO2 power (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc). There's lots of it out there, we just need to will to develop it.

2. Increase efficiency and change fuel type of cars. With existing technology (hybrids, composite construction), we could have all cars sold getting 100+ mpg. It just takes the will to make it so.

3. Forest fires may not seem like a human cause, but they are, because most of the ones worldwide happen because of agriculture -- people burn intentionally to clear ground for fields. A VERY SMALL investment in the promotion of sustainable agricultural methodology would make a huge difference.


The biggest problem is not that any of this would damage the economy, but that it could damage certain segments of the economy, while developing others. The problem is that the segments that might be damaged are currently major political contributors, while the new industries are still tiny (or even nonexistent), and so have no pull in Washington.

The root cause, then, might well be said to be the influence of lobbyists in Washington.

Answer 2

I think the first thing to do is fund a scientific study group, a group without agendas, to determine what can be done to reduce CO2 emissions - what technological innovations could do this. Also to study what exactly the effects are, and if those effects are harmful or even beneficial.

It would be nice to see a group of scientists enter into a study on global warming and greenhouse gases, with OPEN MINDS for Inquiry.

And you forgot E) Making sure all people who believe in the global warming disaster myth are forced to not use any energy that doesn't come non-renewable, emission-free sources.

Answer 3

i could ask of you: pretend for a 2d which you recognize the way lots fake "technology" and lies have long gone into the controlling grab of world warming. pretend you recognize that a acceptable scientist who became instrumental in the creation of this delusion has come out and admitted that there has been no significant warming on the grounds that 1995 and that it became maximum in all probability warmer for the duration of medieval situations than it particularly is now. pretend for a 2d which you recognize that international warming is in simple terms yet another unproven concept from the comparable people who added you the hot Ice Age Is Coming signs and warning signs back in the '70's. pretend for a 2d you recognize that the international has ever shifting varieties of climate, temperature, etc. pretend for a 2d you recognize something no longer revealed on a t-shirt or put in front of you by making use of firms who make extra funds tricking human beings into believing in the fairway Revolution and then promoting overrated products (GE lobbied for the ban on incandescent easy bulbs here in Calif....gee i ask your self who makes the final public of the "twisty bulbs"????)

Answer 4

Well, one clear and obvious solution would be for all humans to immediately cease breathing. Humanity itself is a cancer on the body of this poor planet, and if none of us existed, none of these other horrifying problems would either LOL.

Answer 5

Don't worry about it, we are doing just fine. Plant some more trees, work with nature.

Answer 6

imo break these up into separate question.. it's a lot to reply to in one setting.

Answer 7

Try to get the cows to stop farting.