We’ve argued in the past that the most valuable thing you can do for climate advocacy is to vote for politicians that are pro-science and pro-environment. There are plenty of other things you can do too, but as highlighted in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the best courses of action are often rarely reported about.
This may not be surprising, however, as they tend to be things people are involved with in their everyday lives: living without a car, avoiding air travel, avoiding eating meat, and – most “controversially” – have fewer children.
7 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
A green red herring
Better to target zero emissions than 100% renewable energy
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21725001-goal-after-all-curb-global-warming-not-favour-particular-technologies-better?fsrc=scn/tw/te/rfd/pe
The goal, after all, is to curb global warming, not favour particular technologies
NOT that long ago, the world wondered whether clean energy could survive without lavish government support. Now the question is how far it can spread. The number of electric vehicles, which breached 1m in 2015, last year reached 2m
In electricity generation, too, momentum is with the greens. In June the Chinese province of Qinghai ran for seven consecutive days on renewable energy alone; in the first half of this year wind, solar and hydro generated a record 35% of Germany’s power.
California is proposing to reach 60% renewable energy by 2030; 176 countries have clean-energy goals.
But not every target is helpful. To see why, consider that goal of 100% renewable energy. It makes solving climate change seem deceptively easy. In fact, though wind and solar can generate all a country’s electricity on some days, renewables still account for less than 8% of the world’s total power output. Moreover, cleaning up electricity is only part of the battle.
Carmakers may hit their goal of annual sales of 10m electric vehicles in a decade
Most important, a 100% renewables target confuses means with ends. The priority for the planet is to stop net emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Putting too much emphasis on wind, solar and other renewables may block off better carbon-reduction paths.
After decades of investment, it is wrong to leave nuclear power off the table. Carbon emissions in Germany actually rose because it chose to phase out nuclear power and so burned more coal.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Four Radical Plans to Save Civilization From Climate Change
https://www.wired.com/story/four-radical-plans-to-save-civilization-from-climate-change
Smug eco-warriors may think they’re curbing global warming with their vegan diets, charged-up Teslas, and rooftop solar panels. But according to Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge, we’re barely staving off disaster.
In his scorching new book, A Farewell to Ice, he presents a slew of radical—and sometimes theoretical—ways to save civilization.
Carbon Vacuums
“Direct air capture of CO2 is something the whole world should be putting its research money into,”
Salt-Spraying Ships
University of Edinburgh engineers designed a fleet of boats that would pipe ocean water hundreds of feet into the sky, spraying the clouds with salt crystals to make them reflect more sunlight. The ships would target areas with persistent marine cloud cover, like the Californian and Chilean coasts.
Sparkle-Blasting Balloons
Researchers in the US and UK have proposed shooting sulfuric acid or sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere using balloons, planes, or artillery shells, effectively filling the sky with sparkles to deflect sunlight.
Supersized Space Mirror
Astrophysicists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have explored launching a giant mirror or vast expanse of reflective mesh into orbit to protect the planet from the sun.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Engineering the climate — is it a good idea?
http://www.dw.com/en/engineering-the-climate-is-it-a-good-idea/a-41006048
To fight global warming, some say humans will have to manipulate the climate system. But such intervention could have serious ramifications for people and the planet.
The year is 2050, the global average temperature has soared past the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) threshold, and the planet is being besieged by drought, rising sea levels, and extreme rainfall.
Unrest has broken out in South America over companies grabbing vast tracts of land for a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technique that uses bioenergy crops. This technique is widely favored by the European Union, whose member states’ ongoing use of coal means they’ve failed to meet their emission reduction targets.
Tensions between the United States and China are mounting over the latter’s plans to counter drought and crop failure by spraying large quantities of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere, thereby reflecting sunlight into space to reduce global temperatures.
The American public fears the impact of this form of solar radiation management (SRM) on the global climate system, while a Chinese-led coalition hopes it will negate the worst effects of warming.
Tomi Engdahl says:
American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Now there’s a handbook for that
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/05/american-conservatives-are-still-clueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
Vivek Jazz says:
Let’s keep are safe place to backup and restore service the all user, please visit https://backupnrestore.com/ there is all options are available in without registration and no need other requirement.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Here Are The Countries Most Likely To Survive Climate Change
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/countries-likely-survive-climate-change/
Two years ago, the University of Notre Dame published an index revealing which nations were more or less likely to be affected by climate change. Known as the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN), it’s making the rounds again online
Spot any pattern? It’s likely no coincidence that the wealthiest and most developed nations are generally the best prepared, whereas the opposite is true for low-income nations.
One of the worst things about climate change is that the countries that are the most prolific polluters are often those that are least likely to be affected by it. It’s morally repugnant, and in fact, it’s one of the reasons why the Paris agreement came into being – it was partly designed to encourage wealthier nations to contribute more to help out poorer countries.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.lomalista.fi/hiilijalanjalkilaskuri