There are so many ways to fix the environment how do you pick out the best solutions?

Question

Since nothing is now being done what would be a good way to evaluate the best solution?

Answer 1

There is no silver bullet. The best solution depends on many factors. For instance, solar cells are great in sunny California, but they wouldn't do too well in Seattle. Other places are more fit for other solutions, like wind power. If I had to choose one "best solution", I would say it's simply the one that people will use. Even if we could produce solar panels that were 90% efficient, they would be useless if nobody used them. Action is the most important solution to any problem, including environmental problems.

Answer 2

That's a good question. Here's the method I chose.

Can any one person change the world? Probably not. Maybe if another Gandhi or Churchill or Roosevelt came along they could do it.

But how would they do it? By getting a critical mass of people to follow them.

How will we fix the environment? Two parts:

1) By getting everyone (or enough people) to change their way of living. The specifics of that are pretty straightforward. Don't have more than 1 or 2 children. Consume less. Move back to a simpler life.

2) By getting governments to stop investing in the destruction of the world and start investing in the restoration of it.

So the answer is 2 part.

Do your share and lead by example.

But most importantly, and this is the #1 thing we should be doing now...

Get involved!

Lobby your government and everyone you know. Educate people about the situation we are in. Push your local government to pass ordinance. Push your provincal government to pass laws despite what the national goverment is doing. Write your legislators.

Vote for progressive leaders !!!

Answer 3

First of all--why do you assume there's one "best" solution? Few problems are that straightforward.

There are a variety of conservation strategies. Many are also of a nature that--contrary to the scare tactics of the special interests--will help, not hurt, the economy. A few examples are energy-efficient products (like the compact flouresecent bulbs), things like expanded mass transit, more fuel efficient cars. Alll those reduce energy costs far in excess of their cost--freeing up money that can be spent on other goods and services, creating economic growth.

And there are a variety of technologies for producing energy we can implement-solar, wind, probably nuclear, etc. Again, these will create jobs and economic growth as well.


So--what's the "best" solution? IThere isn't one. What we have is much better--a whole range of strategies and technologies--ALL of which provide both environmental and economic benefits--and we can--and should--take full advantage of all of them.

Answer 4

I think the first thing that needs to be accepted is that people are, by and large, not going to be willing to sacrifice their modern lifestyles and the trappings that go with them. Similarly, people aren't going to willingly pay large amounts of money to resolve the current problems.

To this end we need to be looking at long term (>50 years) changes, particulalry in the way we fuel our societies. As such we should be developing better and alternative technologies and power sources.

In the short to medium term (20 - 50 years) we should be aiming for greater sustainability and looking at ways to counteract the environmental damage we're currently causing - e.g. for each tree that is chopped another one is planted; this already happens in some places but it's the developing nations that need to adopt this apporoach more and to do so they're going to need our assistance.

In the shorter term (<20 years) we need to address the immediate problems facing us as a consequence of global warming and to do so in a way that doesn't impact heavily on society. This is where science can help. Already several schemes are being examined that will remove the harmful greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. With such technologies in place we can continue as we are, the cost on a per-person basis is small and we can mitigate many of the effects of global warming. This approach doesn't address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in the first place but it buys us the time needed to come up with better alternatives.

Answer 5

It is notoriously difficult to predict the future of technologies. Even big companies with large resources can get it spectacularly wrong (for example IBM failing to recognise the importance of the personal computer). Governments can try to 'pump prime' promising technologies, of which there are many and regulate to favour green technologies. There are already many, many technologies used in different situations. There will also be a need for many, many solutions to make these technologies greener.

Answer 6

That's the real issue now that global warming is proven fact.

But people are working very hard on this. Here's a plan that was drafted by hundreds of scientists and economists working together.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Answer 7

First of all we can use tidal energy to give us a lot more energy. Then we can drive hydrogen power cars and save on fuel. We can also make our house trap more of our heat so we save electricty.

Answer 8

Doing nothing this is a natural cycle and we have nothing to do with it. The temperature as gone in a cycle forever.

Answer 9

stop saying humans are doing it.....