What would the single BEST POSSIBLE solution to global warming HAVE to have as adjectives describing it?

Question

What I mean is, it would of course have to be as cheap as possible, effective as possible, etc...

Answer 1

Over the past 25 years, the energy industry has designed a host of alternative technologies, from solar panels and windmills, to hydroelectricity and advanced biofuels. In turn, the sector has produced a number of innovations, including efficient appliances, long-life lighting, elaborate conservation programs and progressive international agreements for energy use. Yet, for all of this effort, global consumption of coal now exceeds 400 million more tons per year than when energy awareness became a priority a quarter century ago.

The results have been remarkable and costly. We now know that the continued burning of fossil fuels has driven world wide climate change, adversely affecting our biosphere in ways we had previously only imagined. To complicate matters, our demand for energy is progressively escalating, with global requirements forecast to more than double over the next 25 to 30 years.

Despite all that, we also know ylobal warming is not something that we have 100% control over.

The geological record of the earth's temperature is very clear - for millions of years the earth has been going through many cycles of warming and cooling. In general, the Earth has been warming up since the end of the Pleistocene (about 10,000 years ago) due to complex influences that we don't completely understand, but they include the angle of the earth's rotational axis to the sun, the average distance to the sun, reflectance of the earth's surface, and atmospheric conditions including CO2 and dust.

Even if there were no humans on Earth, and all the CO2 and pollution we are creating were removed from our ecosystem, the earth would gradually become warmer without any human influence. Eventually, for reasons unknown, the Earth would eventually begin a cooling cycle again - the period of each cycle is irregular but they seem to last about 100,000 years.

So the best we can hope for is to help slow the RATE of global warming. I think the evidence is undeniable - the rate of global warming is unprecedented, due to the impact of 6 billion people in a very industrial society.

One of the contributors (and certainly the one we humans are responsible for) is the amount of C02 in the atmoshere. Fortunately, the Earth has a natural buffer that keeps CO2 levels in check - vegetation. As the CO2 levels increase, chloropyll-based green plants increase their rate of photosynthesis which converts CO2 to to O2 and fixes the carbon in the plant structure. Also, forest fires have been a significant source of CO2 in the atmosphere for thousands of years. As CO2 levels increase and 02 levels decrease, forest fires will not burn as efficiently, meaning that nature already has ways of keeping atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels in balance.

But our consumption of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and even wood and peat, means that we are producing CO2 faster than nature can recover. On top of that, everything humans do creates heat and that needs to be dissipated in the earth's atmosphere.

With the technology we have today, probably the single most reasonable thing we can do to prevent the rate of global warming increasing so quickly is to replace all of our fossil fuel-powered electrical generating plants with nuclear plants.

The biggest opposition to nuclear plants seems to be the question of radioactive waste. Now here's a fact: a coal fired power plant (most of the world's electricity is produced from coal, esp. in China, Australia, and USA) produces more radiation than a nuclear power plant. The evidence is clear - nuclear is the only greenhouse gas-free energy source that produces large amounts of electricity with today's technology. While no energy source is perfect, nuclear is the the safest of any industry. Fortunately, we already have 440 nuclear reactors producing electricity around the world, and another 100 are being built or are in the planning stages. More are needed to replace every coal-burning plant, which collectively add more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source. There is no such thing as "clean burning technology" for coal, CO2 is a product of combustion that can not be reduced.

Of course the only way to completely eliminate our impact on the Earth's temperature is stop using all forms of energy, as every one of them creates heat and other side effects.

Answer 2

I think the first thing that must change is our power source. If government funding was removed from oil companies and given to alternative energy companies, the U.S. could get 40% of it's electricity from wind power alone. I believe there should be more strict emissions standards for cars, or switch to hydrogen or electric cars. Right now it is useless to switch to electric or hydrogen cars because the electricity and hydrogen comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It is difficult to use solar power, because you need such a vast number of panels to get a decent amount of power, that is why solar panels should be put on individual houses, instead of solar power plants. The power companies could own the panels and charge the residence for use. This will make it easier for citizens who cannot afford to buy a solar panel to own them. I also think that people should begin a self imposed limit on the birth of new childern so that we can stop the exponentially increasing population. We should aim to slowly decrease the population over several decades so that our economy is not hurt by a sudden drop in the number of young people.

Answer 3

The best solution to fight globale warming effect is to irrigate the dry lands of the planete .
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-6428334944196136906&hl=

Answer 4

COMPLETE BAN ON USE OF HYDRO CARBONS AND MAINTENANCE OF 1/3RD OF LAND UNDER FORESTS.