So pretty.



Too bad they'll all be dead in a decade or so.

IMO, the solution to climate change is going to have to involve something very few people seem to have a taste for: More nuclear energy. A 2009 Pew study concluded that 70% of scientists are in favor of building more plants; when you narrow it down to physicists and astronomers, that number climbs to 88%. Over a third of our emissions come from energy production, and I don't see any alternative means of both reducing these emissions and meeting the ever-growing demand for energy.

The thing is it's entirely possible for all of us to live with our current comforts, with current technology and possible advancements it'd be possible to become more pollution efficient. It'd be cheaper on all of us as a result. But this means that government will receive less money from it, so they have a massive incentive to NOT do it.

If government gets out of the way, it's just gonna be corporations that take over, and not any of them interested in the future of humanity.

Which is what is basically happening already with the fossil fuel lobbies making climate denial the official dogma of the Republican party second to Christianity despite overwhelming evidence. But the only thing better for those lobbies than buying Congress is not having to worry about the government at all. They'll likely crush renewables if that happens.

And I'm not the one making it partisan, just look at the range of opinions from equivocation to outright denial (like our moderate buddy Ted Cruz) from Republican candidates about climate change, look at how Republicans in Congress and different state governments call Obama's CPP a "menace" because of its possible impact on the coal industry, how they are are trying to derail the CPP and sabotage the climate talks in Paris, how they scoff when Obama or Sanders say climate change is the #1 threat.

So I say it's more that a certain party needs to get out of the way, in the US at least. Of course some dems are bought by the fossil fuel industry too, but it's not equivalent.

And here is Paul Krugman on the topic, who I am a big fan of in general. He is a good Paul.

This honestly sounds like hysterics, plain and simple. Eating nothing but vegetables or going vegan isn't going to save energy nor reduce pollution. Because vegetables aren't a something thwt can be harvested year round like meat products can, they have to be grown and flown in from around the world, accross oceans and through the air to deposit polutants directly in the places you're so concerned about. What? Did you think lettuce could really grow in winter, which causes most plants to enter a state of hibernation?

The fact is a local farm could never support the hundreds of thousands of millions of people that can live in an average city. For your plan to work, these farms would need to create massive yields of crops to keep up with demands. Either using potentially hazardous or beneficial GMO's designed to grow year round, or interior greenhouses with massive demands for electricity to stay powered. Electricity which would create a higher demand for the fossil fuels that power these power plants, or environmenTally destroying dams to power them, Or massive geography covering solar panels which can barely support even half a small town and would probably bankrupt most nations like China and India in installing them, Or wind whi h doesn't work everywhere.

Or nuclear plants, whose waste creates one of the most dangerous pollutants of them all.

But regardless, It's better to just do whatever on your personal level and just try to derive some form of satisfaction from that. Because every other option leads to a Russian Style Genocide or Chinese Style Genocide-By-Denial of doing these changes and letting starvation solve the number inconsistencies.

Doesn't help that the organic farm model that are being advocated cannot feed more then 1 to 2 thirds of the worlds population, meaning a third would need to die.

And personally, I would focus on a more viable option. Perhaps on chemicals to react with the acidic compounds to bind and neutralize them. Perhaps focus on air purification steps and deploy those steps in third world countries where people are trying to industrize and raise their countries out of poverty.

You're never going to chsnge people's behavior on a personal choice level. So its better to focus on changing the world on an industrial or innovative level.

I don't think it's possible (or right) to dictate people's behaviour when it comes to personal choice, but it won't exactly hurt to make them aware. I still think nuclear power is the way forward for helping resolve power consumption issues and fossil fuel reliance. One thing personally I would like to see is to more integration of organically grown foods and local farming into the food stamp system as one of the primary barriers for consumers into organic food (potentially healthier eating, and more eco-friendly) is price. It's not exactly going to "solve" the problem, but assuming it wouldn't put undue burden economically on the government, I can't really see the downside.

Good maybe people will stop stuffing their faces.

Nuclear Energy shouldn't be the way of the future though it should be a stepping stone to it until we can get energy that won't destroy a large area if the plant is destabilised that isn't coal.

Organic food should be a reasonably priced alternative not for rich hipsters and rich eco-friendly people.


Also another way you could help would be to plant a few trees, if you have the room. Trees absorb Co2 and turns it into oxygen.

I heard Oxygen is important somewhat crazy I know