Unltimately, even the best idea is useless without buy-in by the masses and policy makers. Right now most people simply don't understand or accept the situation either due to lack of factual and audience-appropriate information or due to lack of information sources they trust that present the facts to them. Like it or not,tech is how information spreads and technologists have a lot of say in the outcome of this.
Tech aside,like many other factual information, climate change is presented as a fact people have to accept along with other scientific beliefs. What I mean is, people who are not confident in their own ability to objectively assess the facts rely on the trustworthiness of the people presenting the facts. Climate change should not be presented as an "Us vs Them" issue (obviously) and it needs to be presented in a way that does not challenge any other commonly held beliefs people might have. You can't challenge someone's sacred beliefs (whatever that might be) and also present factual information they're not able to independently verify and expect them to accept the latter and reject the former,it just doesn't work that way. This is mostly why I suggested neutral platforms that instill a strong level of confidence for every audience are needed.
Unfortunately, all I see is climate change being presented like any other scientific fact and on platforms that don't have the confidence of the majority of audiences. You need everyone from the cowboy rancher in texas to the lumberjack in brazil working on cutting down trees in the amazon to buy in.
Solutions like mass reforestation by essentially bombing the planet with seed planting pods seem promising and countries are increasingly switching to renewable energy sources. It all just needs mass buy-in so the solutions can take effect before it's too late.
And if you have the most unbiased source out there, someone else with an agenda can push it as an us vs. them narrative and cause the potential audience to simply avoid your site (or view it in their lens).
What you need is someone who can present real news as entertainment instead of presenting entertainment as real news, which is what he did in a way that none of his acolytes have faithfully replicated (not even when they were on the same show in the same episode). Because you have to be willing to make fun of anyone for being wrong instead of just making fun of The Other Team for being The Other Team.
But in general it feels like there is an answer in that format. Because people want to be entertained. If they're not being entertained then you've lost them. But you can entertain them and inform them at the same time, if you actually take that as a goal and consciously work toward it. A good professor doesn't bore the students yet they still learn the material.
But there is a difference between that and just making partisan propaganda humorous enough to get people to watch it.
Separate advertising revenue from news and you’ll get a more honest take on a subject. This system encourages not just fake news but manufactured controversy.
On a collective level : - policies against gas emissions - Laws: Same as speed limitation for cars, limit energy consumption per habitant - true information/news/education - Bans of polluting products ( plastics, heavy metals, ...etc ) - Change obsolete, unnecessary, inefficient and polluting tech
There’s a sincere opportunity cost if you don’t put your attention towards other causes that may be of equal importance in terms of preventable suffering, yet may have much more straightforward solutions due to lessened need for sociopolitical coordination or expensive consumer behavioral changes (such as focusing on simple ways to prevent diseases w/ Against Malaria or Deworm the World or others, or animal welfare charities like The Humane League).
However, taking it for granted that one should still focus on climate change, the main things I have come to conclude are:
- advocating use of reusable materials for cups, bottles, bags, etc., is a total waste of time & will amount to virtually no positive impact, while risking alienating people away from the cause.
- personally conserving in any extreme way is likewise useless and you’ll just be living a worse life for nothing, while also risking alienating people.
- most municipal recycling is a total scam, and frankly we’re not in any danger of running out of landfill space. It’s just a feel-good distraction akin to “Showing that you care” by Hanson regarding medical spending.
- Finally, it seems that one of the simplest things humans can do to sequester carbon at a global scale is reforestation. While probably it will require governments to do this at the necessary scale, possibly the only useful action an individual can take is to find the most cost-efficient way to donate money to a charity or organization that plants and protects trees at a very large scale.
I know it's more complicated than that, but that's a good place to start. Perhaps even pay people to grow trees on disused land.
So what if online retailers like Amazon had some sort of opt in where you could donate $1 extra with your order to get a tree planted (or it would go to that). It probably would not be enough to get you to a trillion trees but if a lot of online retailers offered that at least it would give people something they could do easily.
Reminds me of additive manufacturing (3D printing)
With solar and batteries already falling below fossil prices plus a tax on fossil fuel I'm optimistic a big change could be made without that much lifestyle cost.
This is not a troll or snark.
This is a sincere query to understand the requirement ahead of supporting the effort.
Bill Majer said it better: https://youtu.be/CWarpTWk_jg
this cartoon says it too: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5-lDJWCUAAwfya.jpg
Establish a growth curve for air capture like Moore's Law.
Do mashups. AI + climate, Biotech + climate, VR + climate.
Be curious.
https://www.apnews.com/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu...
https://energynews.us/2016/09/09/midwest/nuclear-plants-feel...
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-nuke.1.57884...
It has happened in the US too. This aside, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is a reminder that nuclear fission is not desirable.
The only thing for this kind of issue that has proved efficient historically is massive non violent protesting ( that is what Extinction Rebellion, aka XR, does ), with people landing in prison...
As for trying to provide policies, we should, like any problem, have a look at the stats to prioritize, and aim at better rather than worse, we're already at risk of hitting up to +26°C in 2026 if unlucky and not doing something, hard.
Fossil fuel out phasing is not simple to address, so we should limit it as much as possible while scaling alternatives. It also means that anything producing fossil fuels or ( CO2 ) should not be able to give any kind of money or service to any kind of politicians, to avoid conflicts of interests. Scaling alternatives (e.g. solar, wind, energy storage) means a lot of new buildings, and building something using portland concrete does create a lot of CO2.
Portland concrete is already the second more polluting stuff yearly on the planet after fossil fuels. Scalable and carbon negative ( actuaally removing CO2 from air) alternatives do exist to Portland concrete:
- MgO based concrete is carbon dioxide producing at first, but even more carbon dioxide absorbing during the 6 first months. It can be even be made from sea water, and was used by Romans and Egyptians in stuff still standing today. It can be 700 times stronger than usual concrete, dry even in wet climate, and doesn't need metal structure to be mechanically good, you can just use wood or plant fibers instead.
- wood is of course one of the best alternative should it come from actually sustainable and renewable source, and if well integrated with nature, which is a challenge and where there is already a ton of abuse.
So as a politician, the first and best measure that is needed is to phase out Portland concrete as quick as possible ( e.g. in about 2 years ). Carbon Tax ( with NO exception to it) and subvention should help, probably a lot of control is also needed to avoid harming ( too much? ) nature because every massive and quick change we do is likely to harm and destroy nature.
Regarding energy, nothing is simple, yet we have to find solutions to phase out oil/ gas/coal based as quickly as possible
- oil/gas/coal should be forbidden to search for more, as using already what we have access to is more than enough to kill us all.
- ( small ? ) nuclear is one of the best short term option despite all the cons everyone knows about it ( including needing a lot of water to cool down, which is unlikely sustainable. But we need to build a bunch of them, and it is dangerous.
- solar means a lot of concrete, land use and planet albedo change ( except offshore ), plus the solar panels themselves are essentially China based, and using rare earth elements, which is not good for scaling. It also needs to deploy very fast, we should probably deploy 1 every day for dozen of years, or maybe more to be faster and avoid risks. It also means we have to efficiently store the energy to be able to use it during the night.
- offshore wind is not bad, though like solar, it means energy storage. Onshore actually kills birds, which is not good ( plus it uses quite some land )
- Energy storage is also quite a problem:
* Li-ion batteries are not really sustainable, are not really recycled yet, and rely on rare earth element, plus they aren't really safe either.
* Blue solution's (aka Bollore) ones are a lot better, as they provide more cycles and don't use ( much?) rare earth elements, though they are only good to store energy for at most a day
* Nawa ones would also be quite good, as they can be charged and discharged a lot faster than li-ion or BS ones, plus have a lifetime of millions of cycles, plus they are carbon based, which is really great (and they designed that to be great regarding CO2), though can hardly store energy for more than a day. As cells, they should be on the market in a few months, but there is no utility offers around it yet AFAIK.
* multi lake/Dam energy storage ( with an upper and lower lake, and a pump in between) is not that good, as it indirectly produces a lot of Methane and should be improved to avoid that, or phased out.
Ideally to build what is needed regarding energy we should only use carbon negative technologies, and replace phased out plants with something locally integrated, probably something like a Permaculture inspired forest would be good.
Regarding transports:
- we should not allow airports to grow, and only allow flights short term to cross oceans. It also means building new infrastructures everywhere to compensate.
- Train should probably be only electric, and subsidized somehow. Research should go into making it more efficient and faster.
- Electric cars are also a must, though the battery technology has to change, quickly.
- A new generation of Ekranoplans should also be a good solution to replace planes to cross oceans and seas, while using less energy ( and maybe be electric? ), but can't probably be achieved quickly.
Cotton and synthetic fabrics, plus leathet based products should probably be phased out, and you should have a multi year warranty on clothes you buy, or you should 'rent' them to get a good incentive for durability instead of the current fast fashion harming nature, using a lot of water, and producing CO2
All the public research we do worldwide should be focused on the sole problem of climate crisis and survival, or get no funding ( I know it is tough, and maybe reducing but I see no better option )
We should also give people help and incentives to move to more suitable locations regarding climate crisis and new transportation constraints.
We should test and see if the policies are able to provide decorrelation between economic growth and CO2e growth, and if not, look hard at a sustainable way to un-grow economically to save ourselves.
As all of this must be made at an global scale, the biggest economic powers should show the example as fast as possible, and be ready for war with countries not following.
Nothing easy in there, though I see no escape from it
The USA pulling out of climate accords also does not help, it gives 100's of millions of people entirely the wrong signals.