Are we talking reasonable, realistic change, or pie-in-the-sky change?
If the former:
Institute a modest carbon tax, and use the proceeds to help shift our infrastructure to more carbon-neutral energy sources, more public transit, and so on. Reduce deforestation. Increase research into both alternate energy and carbon sequestration. Direct foreign aid into projects that will help third-world countries attain more or less modern tech levels (at least, to the light-bulbs-and-washing-machines level) without relying on fossil fuels. Sign international agreements, so that every country that is a major source of greenhouse gasses is in on the program, and *everyone* is trying to reduce net CO2 emissions.
If the latter:
Stop all deforestation, and reforest where practical. Replace *all* coal plants with a combination of nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and the like. Generate/collect biosourced methane from agricultural waste, garbage, and so on, and use that methane to run natural gas power plants. Replace as many gas-burning cars as possible with plug-in hybrids, electric cars, cars that run on methane or hydrogen, and the like.
Build and fund public transit systems in every major city, such that it is almost always cheaper to take public transit than to drive, and such that it is practical for virtually every person to take public transit. Introduce passenger rail connecting major cities in all heavily populated regions, positioned such that the rail intersects nicely with both local public transit and airports (no more short-haul flights). Include at least one high-speed, cross-country line, such that it is practical to cross the US (New York to California) in no more than a day, without taking a plane. Move virtually all long-haul cargo transportation to trains (only using trucks for local delivery), and integrate systems so that cargo can (where relevant) go straight from train to ship, or vice versa.
Vastly increase access to and knowledge about family planning resources, particularly in poorer areas, so that no one, anywhere in the world, has more children than they want. Where practical, try to (voluntarily) move populations from vulnerable ecosystems, like tropical rainforests, to areas that have a bit more environmental plasticity. Essentially, assess the planet, and where practical move people around so that concentrations of people are adequately near concentrations of resources that people need.
Reorganize manufacturing and agriculture so that the majority of "bulk" goods *aren't* shipped far. Make it practical for Joe Average Consumer to make the bulk of his or her diet be things that grew within 100 miles of his or her home, and the bulk of his or her ordinary consumer goods (paper towels, clothing, dish soap, etc) be manufactured within a similar radius.
There's probably more I'd do, too, but this would be... a very good start.
I would just like to comment on Chem Flunky’s (CF) answer. She has provided two methods of “changing the world” based on “realistic” and “pie in the sky” scenarios related to climate change.
The vast majority of what CF advocates is good and I have no problem with. Where I have a major problem is the use of a carbon tax that is deemed by CF to be the ”realistic” approach. What concerns me is CF seems a clever person who has devoted a lot of time and effort toward trying to help bring about good things for the planet. This is very noble and worthwhile from a young clever person. These good attributes get distorted by the politics associated with this climate change, and particularly, the carbon tax. There is no need for a carbon tax whatsoever.
As some may be aware, I am highly skeptical of the science behind AGW, but even if it was realistic, or a highly precautionary approach was considered, a carbon tax is no solution at all. A carbon tax is authoritarian and mindless bureaucratic rule over the doers and creators in the world. All the benefits CF would like to implement are created by the very people who would be stifled and burdened by the bureaucracy of regulation and hardship of taxation. Consequently, a carbon tax will fail to implement what CF desires for a “changed world”, while at the same time induce major inflationary pressures in a financial world already headed for massive decline.
Everything requiring finance that CF has mentioned as beneficial to “change the world” can be financed by private enterprise in association with Government incentives. There are numerous financing approaches to get large infrastructure programs built via these methods. Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) is one method where private enterprise Builds, Owns Operates an infrastructure development project, and then Transfers this to the Government once established and operative. Some of these projects fail financially while others don’t. Where these development projects fail financially, the Government can be responsible for managing the infrastructure through the enormous taxation base and methods of extracting money from individuals that already exist. This is the role of Government, to serve the people and not control the very people that create good things for society at large, and potentially the planet. No question if the Government needs to obtain revenue to operate a financially failed infrastructure project, they will find a method. These methods include a toll, or a limited time tax, specific to that project. Realistically though, losses from a financially failed project get offset by gains from profitable ventures. A broad based tax across the entire society, with all the associated accumulated inflation associated with energy prices, does not deliver the beneficial results that are sought.
I simply want to point out that there are many good, noble ideas put forward by some AGW advocates without the reality of what really occurs in the global financial world. The global financial world is currently governed and ruled by politics between bankers and politicians/Governments. Think outside the square and look at ways that the benefits you would like to implement into the world can be achieved with maximum limitation of Government control, and therefore banker interest. Their motives are ulterior to the noble ventures sought to create a so called better world.
In answer to the question, ridding the world of the control enforced upon it by the US Federal Reserve and global Central Banks, will go a very long way toward achieving a much better world.
Ban slaughterhouses, dairies and factory farming. Ban living animal laboratory testing. Ban the destruction of the rainforest. Make recycling mandatory everywhere punishable by fines. Ban diesel. Ban nuclear reactors and anything that poll the air while were at it. Build more resis, ahh screw it , I could be typing all night.
id go back in time and dance
Take religion out of politics, make a secular society based on right sfor all.
Stop with all thsi green spending, and start investing in the economy and job growth,
Make sure that presidents had to be revoted on every year, and not have indefinite 4-year terms.
Legalize drugs, and make all medications OTC. doctors and psychiatrists can make their money prescribing it, but they shouldn't have the ultimate say,
Get rid of any policies put in place to stomp on freedom and individual liberty.
By making governments transparent, improving science education and teaching comparative religion in schools.
Step1:We should get united first and share the available sources within the world
Step2:We should do some researches to develop the world
Step3:We should change the attitude of only concentrating on money(for those who are having interest in that alone,not for all who is very proud on nation)
This is not an easy question to answer, the world is interlinked, change one or two things and you can have major impacts on everything e.g ban diesel and millions starve to death because food is not transported,
One thing would be reduce the Worlds population, but who, how, and in what way.
I think if I could do anyone thing it would be to eliminate all self interested and corrupt politicians and officials.
Outlaw lying.
(And you just know the greenies are going to thumbs down this idea. Shows which side they are on.)
I would introduce integral education to everyone, teach people how to cope with this new world-order, with the globalization and the interdependence that it's causing. We all need to realize that is is in our hands to save this planet and it can only be done trough a mutual effort. For that reason we all need to educate our selves, we need to see things from the same perspective!
http://michaellaitman.com/integral-educa...
ban religion for anyone under the age of 21
KILL ALL RADICALS1111 SHOOT EM1 GUT EM1 BOMB EM1 POISON THEIR MINDS.....AND WITH POISON TOO.
INDOCTRINATE THEM! MAKE THEM LIVE IN BARREN MOUNTAIN RANGES IN SHITTY COUNTRIES
MAKE THEM ALL WEAR MASKS SO THEY LOOK LIKE INTELLIGENT EDUCATED PEOPLE FROM WESTERN DEMOCRACIES. AND TRAIN THEM TO SHOOT ANYBODY WHO LOOKS INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED1
THAT'LL LARN EM!
By destroying it hahahahaha
