The failure to act meaningfully dwarfs any comparison of various hypothetical actions. Historians for circa the next thousand years will probably not devote much attention to what our generation could have done, they will likely instead ask more earnestly why we attempted almost nothing of substance. Germans today can afford to not dwell on what their predecessors in the 1920s, 30s and '40s could have done to avert catastrophe committed in their name; they can instead focus (and have with considerable success) on how to effectively avoid ever making those same kinds of mistakes again. Anthropogenic climate change will not by itself lead to any great catastrophe that turns our civilization into some kind of Berlin 1945 rubble, but it will almost certainly make the global economy notably poorer for centuries ahead. On a monumentally different time scale, the inheritance of fossil fuels which humanity is blowing through, in a geological split-second (and in the case of our generation in colossally myopic negligence), were created over tens and hundreds of millions of years.
Homo sapiens is liable to be around for several more climate cycles after the one we are now artificially instigating. It is not likely to get a second chance at another carbon fuel windfall like the one which launched our industrial age. Germans around 80 years ago had the excuses of suffering harsh reparations, hyperinflation, and severe depression. We have no such excuses, but on this website we do have "true scientist" thought police to censor reality-based postings such as this answer.
Here is a plan to do this that does not involve taxes. It would involve regulations. Car makers would be required to produce a certain percentage of vehicles that are zero emission, increasing over time. Manufacturers of central heating systems would also face similar regulations. An electrical utility that runs coal plants would be required to have a zero emission facility under construction to replace each coal plant, and additional facilities to provide for increased demand. If the utility is just given a deadline to replace the coal plant without any requirement to have replacements under construction, they could just stall.
I thought about this earlier. I would increase nuclear energy for large scale production and increase the use of district energy systems using renewable resources dedicated for the region that would tie into the grid and provide a cheaper alternative with chances of selling the energy back into the system. I am currently thinking about how to speed the process along. Perhaps putting a price in CO2 emissions at the source that would be paid back to the consumers of that source. Both the more you burn and the more you charge would increase the amount paid to the consumers. Consumers have the option of opting out of that energy source and instead going for another alternative if that is what they'd like.
Sure - Let's start building more nuclear power stations to replace those that use fossil fuels. This would reduce co2 emissions by 50%. Agree?
I have a plan to reduce CO2 by 50%. My plan is to regulate and tax carbon. My plan guarantees that our economic growth will be negative and most jobs will go to those countries that don't have such plans. Since those countries are far less efficient and don't have burdensome environmental regulations, the net CO2 will have gone up 30% more than it would have if we simply didn't enact my plan.
My solution turned off Global Warming/ confirmed by other Nations, yet I said TURNED OFF, not destroyed. My Teams said Alien Organism, so maybe the invading Aliens moved it to another location. I gave a solution in a comment to my Linkedin account. Just look at The Major Disaster Solutionist American Master or Global Command and read the facts for yourselves or The covington who's who web site. Mike
I think the term Global Warming is misleading. Overall the planet is getting warmer but locally the climate is changing. In some parts of the US, winters are wetter and colder. The earth is a big place and climate is complicated. The Russians are happy that the planet is getting warmer. They may be able to grow wheat in Siberia in 100 years. To say that the planet is getting warmer may be true but in some ways it is meaningless because people don't live on the whole planet. They live in their little part of it.
Yes, scientists agree that AGW is occurring. The amount, however, is SERIOUSLY debatable.
As for a plan, I have multiple times given a plan. OF course, the same people that PRETEND that AGW is some scary nightmare scenario, are also against all plan that do not involve heavily taxing people.
SOOO, my suggestion is that you have a little meeting with the environazis and tell them to stop spreading misinformation and lies about nuclear, hydro, geothermal, etc.
While I disagree with your question, as I dispute whether it is necessay to reduce CO2 emissions, I will go along.
You will never get people to reduce CO2 emissions, unless you can give them a viable energy alternative, so my plan would be to go full speed ahead on developing and building thorium nuclear power plants.
If I was running my country why would I bother about anything as trivial as carbon emissions ?
For the moment, let's leave aside the question of whether anthropogenic global warming is real and/or harmful. Whatever skeptics and denialists may think, scientists have pretty much concluded that both of these things are, in fact, the case. Let's talk methods.
Assume, for the moment, that you are to make a plan with the goal of reducing your country's CO2 emissions. Specifically, you have the targets of stopping any increase in net emissions (that is, emissions minus sequestration) in the next 10 years, cutting net emissions in half in the next 30 years, and cutting net emissions to zero or near zero in 50 years. Assume other countries (all of the major emitters, at least) have agreed to reach similar goals, and that reducing "exported" emissions (eg emissions from the manufacture and transport of manufactured goods that your country imports) counts towards your goal. And assume you can use any generally legal methods to achieve this (new or changed taxes, subsidies, laws restricting certain behaviors and/or technologies, and the like)
What, roughly, would your plan look like?
Start with eliminating Hollywood and entertainment industry, see where we are after we get rid of that.
Need to think outside the square, Flunky. The answer to your question lies directly in becoming willing to be open minded and honest.
The best way to achieve your objective to reduce Co2 emissions would be to go full on into development of new non combustion energy sources. This new source would be one or several new energy technologies that are known but their knowledge suppressed. My favourite would be development of sound resonance energy technology that provides free abundant wireless energy available to all across the planet.
Sound resonance energy is thought to have enabled the pyramids to have been built via acoustic levitation. It is increasingly being found to be the fundamental energy of the Universe. Humans are considered to have lived in a golden age prior to say 3000BC and used, or had assisted access to, ancient technology that is far beyond what modern day humans are capable of achieving. Ancient symbols embedded in ancient sacred sites are considered to represent codes for fundamental energy force due to being exact imprints of the torus/vector equilibrium structure that is being found to be the universal self organising systems of energy. These very same ancient symbols have the same geometry as the Unified Field theories that have been mathematically determined by cosmologist Nassim Haramein. These are the reasons I would strongly recommend investing and developing full on sound resonance energy technology, with development of other new energy technologies as a contingency backup.
To enable this development need to accept that the knowledge of these energy alternatives exist and have been forcibly suppressed. That is the answer to your problem. It is not so much the lack of knowledge but the inability to fund and develop the knowledge. Acceptance that there is a controlling force preventing this development of the knowledge, then working to overcome that control, is the solution to your energy problem.
UNIFIED FIELD AND SCARED GEOMETRY
Paradigm shifts in the conscious awareness and understanding of nature are happening rapidly. One such pioneer with these discoberies is Nassim Haramein who if you listen can explain in a simple manner, very complex information about the infinitely small that is packaged in a fractal manner within finite boundaries.
What were you taught at school/university Flunky? That the very small, like a cell or atom, had defined (finite) boundaries and that the very large, like the expanding universe, was considered infinite. This is the exact opposite of the conceptualisation described above and theorised by Nassim Haramein which went on to acquire awards and high recognition by the world of physics together with massive funding for his Resonance Projects (A very strange paradigm shift in acceptance by the scientific community). Not sure whether this be tolerated as time goes on.
It therefore becomes a totally different conceptual and mathematical interpretation of the space we live in. Understanding this pattern of nature and then adapting into that pattern is what is important as it enables awareness, perception and understanding of matter without the physical creation of it. A kind of key to creation!
The outcome form this awareness is that you, me, everyone are 99.99% space Flunky. Space is what connects all the pieces of matter that hold you and everyone together - the glue. All the matter oscillates within the space holding you, the matter, together. So rather than thinking that matter defines space, a better way of looking at it is that space defines matter. This is a fundamental change in consciousness and proposes maybe it is not you as a human that is defining space, but that the space is what defines the matter in you.
Relative to energy, it becomes apparent via this theory that space is infinitely dense and since it is infinitely dense then everything cancels out. Since everything cancels out then it looks like nothing. We as humans float in this infinitely dense mass. What that actually means is that what we have been taught as the so called vacuum of space is actually infinitely dense matter and when something is infinitely dense it therefore MUST contain infinite MASS. With infinite mass it is therefore possible to access INFINITE ENERGY from the vacuum of space by Einstein's equation of E = MC^2. Using Planck's constant to estimate the amount of mass in space, Nassim Haramein's calculations reveal the mass of the vacuum of space is 10^93 grams/cm^3. This is massively huge, greater than the entire mass of observable matter in the universe that comes out by his calculations to be 10^55 grams/cm^3. This means that there is more free energy to be accessed from the vacuum of space than currently exists in all observable matter.
Special note about the symbolism that can be created by geometry of nature. There are just small bits in this presentation but you will identify the geometric symbology of Star of David for instance. The geometry incorporated into Nassim Haramein's work is identical (as far as I am aware) to the ancient symbolic geometry that is encrypted into ancient temples and monuments like The Osirian Temple or the ball of knowledge that the Foo Dogs guard at the entrance of The Forbidden City in Beijing. This same symbology is directly related and consistent with the findings of Foster Gamble's work on the Vector Equilibrium/Torus. Nassim Harameins work can scientifically and mathematically explain the valuable information these ancient geometric symbols are yet to fully reveal.
