How can rates & effects of climate change be controlled?

[KeenTeen17]

I am doing some research and was wondering How can rates & effects of climate change be controlled?

Would it be stuff like stop driving cars and burning things?

[eeyore]

in a very simple way yes

assuming you accept the arguments for anthropogenic global warming (and please please lets not have that discussion again - there are four threads running on that already)

then the only way to reduce the impact is to cut your Co2 and methane emmisions - ie stop or reduce burning fossil fuels , better insulation, etc

the other necesary prong is to deal with the effects - ie to prepare for more flooding, more storms, droughts etc , and to polder low lying areas as sea levels rise.

[Mercadante]

We have to stop digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere.

I think it's worth pointing out that fuel efficiency measures will not achieve this. Because if, for example, heating my house costs me less, first off I may start wearing nothing but teeshirts indoors in winter, and then I may spend the money I've saved on my heating bill on flying to Australia for a holiday. And that's why fuel efficiency measures tend to increase fuel consumption (which is known as Jevons paradox).

Of course fuel efficiency is in principle a good thing, because it means we get more good from the fuel which we do burn. But we shouldn't kid ourselves we're doing anything to stop climate change while we do nothing to stop carbon being dug out of the ground.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

We have to stop digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere.

I think it's worth pointing out that fuel efficiency measures will not achieve this. Because if, for example, heating my house costs me less, first off I may start wearing nothing but teeshirts indoors in winter, and then I may spend the money I've saved on my heating bill on flying to Australia for a holiday. And that's why fuel efficiency measures tend to increase fuel consumption (which is known as Jevons paradox).

Of course fuel efficiency is in principle a good thing, because it means we get more good from the fuel which we do burn. But we shouldn't kid ourselves we're doing anything to stop climate change while we do nothing to stop carbon being dug out of the ground.

true to an extent - but the only way the consumer can stop the black stuff being dug out of the ground is to practice fuel efficiency in all areas of their life - ie if we dont burn it they wont dig as much of it up

[Mercadante]

eeyore wrote: but the only way the consumer can stop the black stuff being dug out of the ground is to practice fuel efficiency in all areas of their life - ie if we dont burn it they wont dig as much of it up

Well, I would say the only thing consumers can do to help is to use less fuel, efficiently or not. But I agree that fuel efficiency improvements can make using less fuel more pleasant for consumers.

Still, we're voters as well as consumers. It seems to me that if a political party supports digging up more coal and oil, they aren't serious about tackling climate change, whatever they say about home insulation.

[nightshade]

The quickest way would be to stop the many passenger aircraft flying.
Remember they burn tonnes of fuel and oxygen a MINUTE to take people to and from Holidays for goodness sake! not very important in the light of the icecaps melting!!!!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by nightshade

The quickest way would be to stop the many passenger aircraft flying.
Remember they burn tonnes of fuel and oxygen a MINUTE to take people to and from Holidays for goodness sake! not very important in the light of the icecaps melting!!!!

while i agree that many flights are unnecessary aircraft travel only accouns for 4% of anthropogenic C02 - so even stopping entirely wouldnt be enough to make a ajor difference.

the major culprits are coal burning power stations, cars/lorries/trains burning petrol/deisel , and the breakdown on limestone (CaC03) for the manufacture of cement and concrete.

to seriously address the carbon footprint therefore we need to use less energy as mercante said , which in turn means insulating our homes, putting on more clothes rather than turning the heating up, driving small fuel efficient cars and travelling less , and building less. (on the last the down turn in the construction industry may actually prove to be a good thing in the long run)

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by eeyore

while i agree that many flights are unnecessary aircraft travel only accouns for 4% of anthropogenic C02 - so even stopping entirely wouldnt be enough to make a ajor difference.

the major culprits are coal burning power stations, cars/lorries/trains burning petrol/deisel , and the breakdown on limestone (CaC03) for the manufacture of cement and concrete.

...............
)

Lumping all transport together is not helpful - a train carrying 200 people over a long distance is clearly better than 200 cars carrying one person each.

Yes, plane usage overall is quite a small proportion but per person the rate is enormous [b]and/B] the overall usage is increasing, generally for trivial reasons.

Yes, far better to minimise transport use overall. Why do so many people have to travel each day to sit beside a telephone or computer?

[Paul mabbott]

For those who struggle with the basic maths and science of climate change, this might be worth watching:
BBC - What's On - Error
20081019/20081019_2230_4544_40678_60

[ChrisJB]

'T wouldn't be a bad idea either if we started an all out global assault on over-population. Less folk, less of an impact.

Regards, Chris