what are long term measures to fight global warming?

Question

biofuels?
nuclear fuel?

Answer 1

1. Study the past, especially the most recent cycles of the MWP and the LIA. Since they are known to be historically there, and there is a lot of good data, check into THEM for the causes and effects. Both for warming the earth and cooling it.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. And learning how Mother nature works will allow us to work in accord with the natural trends, not trying to buck them, which is always much much harder and more expensive. And seldom really effective.

2. DON'T PANIC! I hear panic all over. Probably we need to find those who are spreading panic and jail them. Panic never results in good solutions to problems. More often than not, it exacerbates the problem greatly in the long run.

Good, reasonable solutions are lost in the panic to do something, anything anybody says, without thought for the long-term effects.

3. I believe our solution is what many writers have been writing, futilely, about since prior to 1950 at least. It is to throw out the Luddites, and put our money into space. For a fraction of the money we have spent in projects that did little to really help, we could have had clean energy from space, moved much heavy manufacturing to space, and the potential would be there to move significant population to space.

The potential has actually been there, just shortsighted politicians get in the way. Even now I understand that NASA has been bent from space efforts to fixing global warming on the ground.

Seems funny...our heating for Earth comes from space; but we never think of going there for solutions!! Or even to investigate the controls.

4. Do what is being done here, brainstorm, but collect the storms and put them to non-biased scientists and economists to winnow out what has value. And come up with projects representing the best thinking, and how to fund them.

5. In the MWP, man moved to appropriate the newly-available lands, and farmed them, and traded the crops to others for needed goods.

I suggest instead of trying to break ourselves against Nature, we turn to adapt. Look forward to using the newly-uncovered land wisely for production of food and clothing. Turn to the new shallow oceans for aquaculture; the warm waters should be ideal for lots of marine plants and animals that can be for our food and other uses.

Rather than fight the deserts predicted, use solar power to purify and move water to them, and take advantage of the Israeli methods of drip watering used in present deserts to farm them.

Many such things to cooperate with Nature long term, rather than try to dig in and fight! We can start now, to prepare, or we can tax the people now for a short-term fight we are almost certain to lose.

"It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature!"

Answer 2

3DM recently posted a great link wherein a founder of Greenpeace described how he had reversed his previous anti-nuclear stance. Lets face it, when nukes are run correctly the only pollution they emit is a small amount of waste heat. And one Japanese scientist has estimated there is a 5 billion year supply of uranium already dissolved in the worlds oceans, with more on the way.

I oppose biofuels because of the blind rush underway to divert agricultural land to car fuel production, and if that wasn't bad enough the governments of Indonesia and Brazil are on the take from business interests that are burning down the tropical rain forests at an unbelievable rate to grow biofuel crops. The rain forests, as you may know, have been doing the brunt of the cleanup of CO2 emissions for thousands of years.

Answer 3

Not nuclear fuel... the nuclear power is just a very temporary solution. Nuclear fuel at the present rate of use would only last 60 years but the wastes would last thousands. New nuclear fuels like thorium could be use but no adequate commercial reactors have been developped. And the research is so expensive that we might rather invest it in heat insulation or in existing or future renewable energies.

Biofuels might become problematic as there is a competition for the land between:
- biodiversity
- food production (for the 9 billion inhabitants by 2050)
- energy crops

So might have to look at different alternatives.

The first one is the efficiency:
- higher efficiency of energy conversions (e.G. power plants)
- higher efficiency at energy use (end user)
(especially cogeneration in it)

And ONLY THEN we should look at renewable sources of energy:
- solar PV
- solar heat
- solar concentrator steam power plants
- geothermal energy
- biomass (biofuels and biowastes)
- wind power
- hydro
- ocean current
- tidal power

Moreover, non energetic measures will complete the package:
- rational use of products and production
- carbon capture and storage
- shift of lifestyles

Answer 4

I think nickel is blowing smoke up your ass. Thorium is not a fuel source. Nuclear fuel can be used over and over again if it is processed to extract the "poisons". From a fission perspective poison doesn't mean toxic to humans, it means it absorbs neutrons without splitting so it stops the reaction from happening. Once they are removed the uranium can be reused almost inifinitely ... E-mc^2 means it takes VERY little mass to create a LOT of energy. The fuel isn't used up at the rate oil is ... nuclear energy is the highest density energy source known to mankind. We just don't want to "get dirty" yet ... what was the name of that movie (with Merrill Streep?) about a fuel processing plant? Silkwood?

Clean sources of energy are preferable in the long run. The largest source of energy is nuclear: the Sun. It is the preferred long term source. No waste to contend with for the next 4 billion years or so.

Answer 5

The single biggest thing people can do, and can do right now, is to quit wasting energy. Don't drive if you can walk/bicycle/take public transportation; don't cool your house/office to 60 in the summer and heat it to 80 in the winter. Mandate that ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION (house, offices, manufacturing, whatever) have build-in solar panels and wind chargers and have truly adequate insulation (meaning that, without heating/air conditioning, the structure would maintain a constant or near constant temperature, like a natural cave).
Just doing these things would NOW stop the increase in CO2, etc., and start the reversal of global warming.
And, as Al Gore says, plant a tree.

Answer 6

First, you'll need to demonstrate that global warming is a long term problem.

It'd be simpler to address our need to move away from fossil fuels to cleaner or renewable sources. Nuclear is probably the best short term solution over the next 100 years - as far as electrical production. Biofuels makes the most sense for transportation needs in the short term because it will require less retooling of the automotive industry.

Long term, I'd like to see fusion for our electrical grid and a combination of biosolar/electric hybrids for automotive needs.

Answer 7

I don't think you can fight global warming anymore than you can fight global humidity. We are on a warming trend and without actually modifying the suns cycles or our orbit, I doubt that you would be too successful. I am certain that there will come a time, not in our lifetimes, when the warming trend turns to cooling. In the meantime, relish the warm winters and nights while they last.

Answer 8

Conserve energy.

Develop alternative energy sources. Nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels.

This is a huge problem, we'll need all our tools. A great many environmentalists have come to realize that nuclear is a necessary tool and that the risks of nuclear energy are much less than the risks of global warming. One example, (thanks, 3DM):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html