The simple answer is end fossil fuels. How do we do that? Vote, eat less meat, bike ride, strike, protest, invest in solar, boycott, reuse, buy less, telecommute, etc. Use your imagination. Do something, do everything, the end goal is we all stop releasing sequestered green house gasses into the atmosphere.
Build nuclear power plants.
All the other things are fine, but if you really want to end fossil fuels, you need a non-fossil-fuel source of reliable base load power. Nuclear is the only one we have. Other sources are fine, but they can't produce reliable base load power.
And, btw, I think we should end fossil fuels even if it turns out not to make much of a difference to climate change (which might well be the case since all of the models that have a high sensitivity to CO2 built in have been over-predicting warming for several decades now).
And to all the people who say "they take too long there isn't enough time": the best time to start nuclear power plant construction was 10 years ago, the second best time is now.
Renewables has already surpassed nuclear in the US. I think the new reality is the best time to build a nuke plant is never.
Are you thinking in terms of dollars or including the price of future use/materials? In other words, can’t a nuclear plant effectively be swapped in for a (e.g.) coal-fired generator and Just Work, versus all the materials (grid-scale collectors, batteries, etc), which is just the next generation of junk in a treadmill that’s still a carbon problem?
I ask because I don’t know.
The waste stream from solar is a real question. The video posted in the other reply brings it up as well. We definitely need panels that are designed for extremely long service and recyclable end of life. I do think the battery tech is evolving extremely rapidly and dovetails with EVs so that will help keep renewables competitive even as total overall renewable supply share increases.
Currently the US defense emits a non-negligible amount of CO2 [2]: "If it were a country, it would have been the world's 55th largest greenhouse gas emitter, with emissions larger than Portugal, Sweden or Denmark." [2]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700462955/former-defense-lead...
[2] https://www.livescience.com/65698-defense-department-climate...
We should do everything, though, including nuclear. i'm a big nuclear fan. All at once, right now.
And that's probably even also considering that both the actual cost of nuclear[0][1][2][3], as well as the risk of failure[4][5] and the therein resulting costs[6] are often wildly underestimated.
[0]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm
[1]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/01/31/debunking-the-low-cos...
[2]: https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/9386/nuclear-de...
[3]: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/true-cost-of-nucl...
[4]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4543400/Scie...
[5]: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-...
[6]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...
Make operation of diesel cleaner and thus more expensive so that sails and PV would be considered and used as well.
People won't go for being shamed into reduced wealth, especially when the shaming is coming from comparatively rich people. Try to force it on them and you will get a populist revolt.
So by all means keep preaching 70s style lifestyle shaming environmentalism if you want another 50 years that looks identical to the last 50 years. People will listen, nod, and ignore, just like they do with sexual moralism.
The answer is to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind, nuclear, etc. and to electrify transport and industry. Replace as in generate the same or even more energy. As I say this I live in a place where as much as 50% of my power is solar on some days and I drive an EV. We are close to cracking the storage problem with better batteries and scaling production of them. This is very possible.
Sort of like how you cut STDs and unwanted pregnancies by making contraception available and guys putting rubber things on their willies. It's what works. Only ideologues oppose it.
I agree.
> So poverty.
Don’t be so dramatic. Would it kill you to turn the thermostat up while we convert our global power infrastructure to renewables?
My list of example actions one could do to to fight climate change was not exhaustive or exclusive.
No real sacrifice involved -- other than giving up our entrenched mental models that dictate we can either be good or we can have satisfaction, but not both.
That's true along the white/blue collar divide in the West and even more so between the developed and developing world. Think Africa is going to listen to the people who used to gather slaves from them and colonize them tell them they can't do what everyone else is doing because we need to save the Earth? The response will be "fuck you, we're poor."
Hell France's vast yellow vest protests were in part triggered by a gasoline tax. Egypt's revolution was in part triggered by rising food prices. Reduce = revolt. This is because anything that increases prices of consumables amounts to a strongly regressive tax. It hits the poor much harder than the rich.
So I get what you mean but I think that whole rhetorical line is actually counterproductive. Focus on replacing fossil fuels. That matters far more than little token reductions anyway. Replace coal with solar and gas cars with EVs and the carbon reduction is large and more importantly persistent.
Personally I like to frame it as progress. Solar could in fact scale much larger than fossil fuels. In the future it could actually provide cheaper more abundant energy.
It will all naturally happens over the next several decades as the cleaner tech becomes technologically superior as well as cheaper.
The investment needs to be made as a way to improve infrastructure that provides better service at less cost, not as a “shut it all down” panic - or else the damage of forced switching itself will be measured in the trillions.
Any climate change that’s happening in the next 10 years is happening regardless of net CO2 emissions over those next 10 years. In reality, the solar minimum we’re in will significantly mitigate climate impact in the short term while the technology for cleaning up is rapidly advancing.
While eating less or no meat is a big part of it, it's more nuanced than it's often presented. For instance, this talk provides a very, very good argument for keeping livestock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Not disagreeing with you, only replying to you for visibility/to add on to what you said.
I really can't see this being turned around unless a major technical breakthrough is discovered which I consider fairly unlikely.
At this stage no one knows exactly how bad it will get. I've got between 30 & 40 years left (and no kids) so I don't think it will be catastrophic in my lifetime but I still have basic plans in my head about becoming more self-sufficient in the future as one way to deal with a potential fallout should there be some kind of calamity in the future.
http://www.walkthroughindia.com/walkthroughs/top-15-biggest-...
https://www.news18.com/news/auto/bjp-led-nda-government-mull...
On the wikipedia "list of photovoltaic power stations", China and India turn up on top when sorted by plant capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta...
So yes it would be great if they can make progress but I will hold judgement for some time.
Increasingly, I find the best thing to do is get your affairs in order, do not birth a child, and try to enjoy what is left of this life before it’s all over and the world cooks to death.
If life must have no purpose, then you might as well choose to be happy. And I mean it. BE happy, before it’s too late.