If climate change is manmade, what is the solution?

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

Climate change began back when the earth was a spinning ball of hot gas. The first change was it cooled down. Man came around a billion years later and arrogantly took credit for climate change because mammals fart methane and our machines exhaust carbon dioxide.

link

[–] • 0 pt

Quite different from slow, natural changes in climate that have happened in the past.

parent
link

[–] • 3 pts

Nice science fiction. 😂

parent
link

[–] • 4 pts

The earth warming up and cooling down is a natural cycle humans don't have control over.

The Global Warming - Climate Change hoax is a fear-mongering propaganda pushed by Shekel hungry Al "Hanukkah" Gore and a consensus of Jewish scientists to collect free money by using fear.

link

[–] • 1 pt

The earth warming up and cooling down is a natural cycle humans don't have control over.

We're not going to change anyone's mind who says it's entirely a manmade problem. But as a thought experiment I'd like to propose that hypothetically it IS manmade and play through the proposed solution.

Because frankly I think the solutions to global warming/climate change are weak and pie in the sky. If you really think the world has this problem, more wind power would not be the fucking solution you saved the world with.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

But as a thought experiment I'd like to propose that hypothetically it IS manmade and play through the proposed solution.

Give us that climate change tax we've made up, goym!

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

This is what I'm saying dude. It doesn't really hold water. I'd like to hear a climate alarmists' take.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 3 pts

Mass genocide. Im not racist i just want to save the weather from niggers.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Lol

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

If climate change is man-made, which it's obviously not in any meaningful way but supposing it is, the obvious solution is to depopulate much of the world. Not the civilized world of course, just shitholes like Israel, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, ...

link

[–] • 1 pt

Now there's a solution I hadn't heard before.

But how would you propose to depopulate the world? Nuclear bombs have drawbacks. What was the last successful genocide not aided by disease? Crispr/cas9 gene drive?

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

First deport them from the civilized world, then stop foreign "aid" and embargo their countries and shut down their seafaring/fishing, destroy any nuclear capability they may have stolen. They will suffer population crashes as they outstrip their domestic ability to farm. If that doesn't work, maybe pushing whites beyond their zero empathy threshold would allow them to resolve the issue forever.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

There's a conspiracy that claims AIDS was meant to get rid of Wakandan, but it went out of control.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

The problem with AIDS is that it doesn't kill before their typical breeding age.

Wakandans aren't the victims of very smart western scientists, or the victims of improperly cooked "bushmeat". They have been known to capture monkeys and chimpanzees to use as sex slaves, and so they brought AIDS upon themselves.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

Stop eating meat cowspiracy.com/facts

link

[–] • 2 pts

(edited )

https://quillette.com/2018/04/05/case-sustainable-meat/

Here (in Section II: Cows as Eco Vandals) they provide a pretty good counter-argument to this 18% figure.

[the 2006 UN report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.”] made the shocking claim that livestock accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, placing it ahead of the transport sector. [...]

For the last decade, “Livestock’s Long Shadow” has contributed to the near-religious dogma that to tackle global warming we all need to eat less meat. However, there are important caveats behind the UN figures that take much of the darkness out of the ‘long shadow.’

Firstly, this is a global figure. It masks the fact that the preponderance of greenhouse gas (GHG) come from deforestation to create new beef pasture or animal feed crops. That is, most of the carbon emissions attributed to the beef are actually from the destruction of the carbon sinks (forests) that preceded them, rather than the ranching itself. Furthermore, this activity is chiefly happening in developing countries. Most developed countries, by contrast, have seen increasing forest cover for many decades. Consequently, when the US did its own analysis of carbon emissions, researchers found that the American livestock industry contributes only 2.8 percent to US GHG emissions. So, even if everyone in the US gave up meat entirely, it would barely put a dent in the country’s emission figures.

Secondly, in many cases it is the value of the extracted timber which drives such deforestation, not the beef production that might follow in its wake. Even if beef production ceased tomorrow, the logging would still take place.

Thirdly, the UN report didn’t consider alternative land use after the loggers had gone. Indeed, researchers have since identified that changing to grassland actually provides the most effective sink and store of soil carbon – far superior to farmland and, surprisingly, even better than replanting forest. Indeed, the Irish Government has identified restoration of grasslands and pasture around the world as a priority with significant potential to mitigate Global Warming. In their analysis, they found that for UK and Irish livestock farms, the greenhouse emissions were negligible. This is in large part because our animals feed primarily on grass for much of the year.

edit: and sorry for the long ass quote. It's not just that I'm lazy, but also this article was written much better than my paraphrase would've been

https://quillette.com/2018/04/05/case-sustainable-meat/ Here (in Section II: Cows as Eco Vandals) they provide a pretty good counter-argument to this 18% figure. > [the 2006 UN report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.”] made the shocking claim that livestock accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, placing it ahead of the transport sector. [...] > For the last decade, “Livestock’s Long Shadow” has contributed to the near-religious dogma that to tackle global warming we all need to eat less meat. However, there are important caveats behind the UN figures that take much of the darkness out of the ‘long shadow.’ > Firstly, this is a global figure. It masks the fact that the preponderance of greenhouse gas (GHG) come from deforestation to create new beef pasture or animal feed crops. That is, most of the carbon emissions attributed to the beef are actually from the destruction of the carbon sinks (forests) that preceded them, rather than the ranching itself. Furthermore, this activity is chiefly happening in developing countries. Most developed countries, by contrast, have seen increasing forest cover for many decades. Consequently, when the US did its own analysis of carbon emissions, researchers found that the American livestock industry contributes only 2.8 percent to US GHG emissions. So, even if everyone in the US gave up meat entirely, it would barely put a dent in the country’s emission figures. >Secondly, in many cases it is the value of the extracted timber which drives such deforestation, not the beef production that might follow in its wake. Even if beef production ceased tomorrow, the logging would still take place. >Thirdly, the UN report didn’t consider alternative land use after the loggers had gone. Indeed, researchers have since identified that changing to grassland actually provides the most effective sink and store of soil carbon – far superior to farmland and, surprisingly, even better than replanting forest. Indeed, the Irish Government has identified restoration of grasslands and pasture around the world as a priority with significant potential to mitigate Global Warming. In their analysis, they found that for UK and Irish livestock farms, the greenhouse emissions were negligible. This is in large part because our animals feed primarily on grass for much of the year. edit: and sorry for the long ass quote. It's not just that I'm lazy, but also this article was written much better than my paraphrase would've been

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Interesting. Just not a lot of sources for the author's claims

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

They don't really address methane burps either and get lit up in the comments for that. Still, they make a few good points.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

(edited )

I always find it somewhat amusing and annoying when people debate things like this.

Why?

Well gee if we go solar blah blah blah. You know what? The US, Canada etc going solar does not amount to shit. If North American went 100% solar / vegan - means jack squat. Why? Oh, but muh lotsa cars in 'Merica!

The rest of the world. Americans are VERY self centered and often think they can solve or are the source of the world's problems (I'm American by the way).

MOST countries in the world, could give a fuck about the environment, climate change etc etc. Think all of Africa. think India and the Stans. Think China. Indonesia, Philippines, Brazil......now you are getting it. The population in those countries make up a HUGE percent of the whole world and for the most part, they could not give a fuck about climate change. Until you have a solution that entices THEM to change, you don't have shit.

Just research Indonesia totally erasing the forests for muh profit. I would say they do more damage in a month than the USA does in a year. Just spitballing.

But yeah. Only way to fix, is let mother earth do her thing by a mass extinction event.

That or one world government with basic income like Star Trek type future where profit is not the sole driver of damn near everything.

link

[–] • 1 pt

This is more or less my view. Maybe the green people want that star trek galactic govt to enforce emmissions control? Or maybe they just haven't thought it through.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Natural or man-made, the answer is the same. Move uphill & away from the coasts.

If it's man-made then I have zero confidence in our species's ability to collectively act in a timely enough manner to matter. Only something cataclysmic will stop this runaway train.

And if it's a natural cycle, then all we can really do is prepare for the change...which, first and foremost, means moving our people away from the coasts because one way or another all those east/west coast cities are going under.

link

[–] • 1 pt

We simply reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and take actions to sequester excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

We just have to convince scientifically ignorant people to trust established science while massive fossil fuel corporations spend huge amounts of money on propaganda trying to convince people otherwise. Then we need to deal with the tragedy of the commons to coordinate global action. Both very difficult tasks. Perhaps is right, and the most practical solution is a nuclear war or a plague.

link

[–] • 0 pt

Well, at least you admit we have the problem of the commons.

Even if we (the west) decided to reduce green house gas, it would be for nothing if the developing world weren't on board.

This lack of a good solution is why I view climate change arguments with suspicion. What is the real goal? Save the world? Or self-hating westerners and fellow white people devising another way to ruin the west out of fairness to the rest of the world?

If it were the former, I'd think a lot more of your types would be advocating the adoption of nuclear power. It's reliable and renewable energy. We could sub-contract with shithole countries to build them energy infrastructure that doesn't emit CO2.

You can't put them everywhere. Earthquake-prone areas are not a good idea. But you can still put them many places. Why do none of you green people ever seem to advocate for it?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I don't get the preoccupation with nuclear energy... put a fair price on carbon and see how the market generates power. Nuclear would probably lose, but I couldn't care either way.

Or self-hating westerners and fellow white people devising another way to ruin the west out of fairness to the rest of the world?

Wealthy countries generally have an advantage at the negotiating table, so it'll probably be the poor countries getting a raw deal as usual.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

So by put a price on carbon you mean institute a credit system, where you have to pay for your institution. But what authority imposes this system on wealthy and poor countries alike? Do we have one world government in this scenario?