The Big Question: Is there a technological solution to the problem of global warming?

[davejg]

Originally Posted by Digit

The Big Question deserves a Big Answer.
Assuming that GW is man made the answer is simple in theory. Stop over breeding!

Roy.

The only sensible answer, bring down the population by one third problem soved. I think it is an orbital thing as mars is warming as well. Whatever happens it will not destroy the human race, just change our present society a lot, hence governments wanting to keep the status quo.

[Hedgeland]

Originally Posted by davejg

The only sensible answer, bring down the population by one third problem soved. I think it is an orbital thing as mars is warming as well. Whatever happens it will not destroy the human race, just change our present society a lot, hence governments wanting to keep the status quo.

So are we going for a human cull just like we do when animal populations get too large.

I'll enjoy the public consultation on that........

As for climate change and what can be done - what if the billions of pounds being spent on new power stations was spent on installing solar power on every roof? Would not generate all energy needs but would reduce the need for many more power plants whilst also providing a new market for work in production and installation. Jobs and reduced carbon seems and easy win.
(dont quote me on the reduced carbon as i have not calculated carbon costs of producing solar panels and if during the life of panel it recoups - this is just my rants)

[1957split]

Supposing it’s a natural phenomena and there is no stopping it?

Is there a real problem? The government has taxed us to the hilt on everything linked to global warming, that’s their cure to solve this problem, keep paying the green taxes and it’ll go away, ask them.

If we don’t start controlling the population they’ll be no wildlife in Britain [or the world], the human race can’t share, profit comes first. Do you believe they’ll save a field or rain forest if people need the land for food or somewhere to live.

Unless there’s control, we’re all doomed [but the animals will go first unless of course there edible].

Scary, but as the worlds population grows the faster we'll out grow the planet and it's resources

Man = Problem. More man = More problem.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by tuckmeister

Pykrete is a super-ice, strengthened tremendously by mixing in wood pulp as it freezes. By freezing a slurry of 14 percent wood pulp, the mechanical strength of ice rockets up to a fairly consistent 70 kg/sq cm. A 7.69 mm rifle bullet, when fired into pure ice, will penetrate to a depth of about 36 cm. Fired into pykrete, it will penetrate less than half as far — about the same distance as a bullet fired into brickwork. Yet you can mold pykrete into blocks from the simplest materials and then plane it, just like wood. And it has tremendous crush resistance: a one-inch column of the stuff will support an automobile. Moreover, it takes much longer to melt than pure ice. But as strong and eco-friendly as it is, pykrete remains forgotten today save among glaciologists, who express bafflement over why no one has made use of it. "I don't really know why it has languished in obscurity," admits Professor Erland Schulson, director of the Ice Research Laboratory at Dartmouth College.

So during winter months by adding wood pulp, recycled paper, cotton fibers to the advancing ice fields or glaciers it would make them more resilient to the summer melting?

Just a thought..

sadly not - strong and crush resistant as it is there is nothing in the pykrete that stops ice from turning back to water at above 0 degrees C .

[PMG]

Originally Posted by seamusagleann

could well be !! can i just bring this to everyones attention

Forestry Law Change Will Help Global Warming Fight (from The Herald )

How wonderful and yes I'm being sarcastic! So if we want photos on unspoilt wild uplands we had better rush up to Scotland this year and photograph as many un-interrupted views as poss - before 'plane propellors on stilts' get planted everywhere ......... first it was coniferous forest they blanketed the land with - which at least is something growing - but now these hidious waste of time, space and money contraptions ....... and the wildlife where these are going to be put? Oh don't worry about that - it will die - but who's going to miss a few greenshank, merlin. golden eagle, SE owl, Hen harrier, red grouse - oh no - I forgot - they won't be put on grouse moors - can't have those birds dying ........

And the reason for these - so that shareholders can make zillions and have yachts and second homes on tropical islands - anything to do with global warming? Is the motive anything at all to do with global warming and sustainable energy? Don't make me laugh...... the only thing these will sustain is big bank balences and cocaine-fuelled existences ..........

Yours disgusted as usual
Pauline

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by 1957split

....If we don’t start controlling the population they’ll be no wildlife in Britain [or the world], the human race can’t share, profit comes first. Do you believe they’ll save a field or rain forest if people need the land for food or somewhere to live.

Unless there’s control, we’re all doomed [but the animals will go first unless of course there edible].

Scary, but as the worlds population grows the faster we'll out grow the planet and it's resources

Man = Problem. More man = More problem.

You've hit the crux of the problem. There are simply too many people on this planet.

Go back several hundred years, and there would only be a fraction of the numbers of people alive today. Go back several thousand years, and populations would have been still less.

Advances in technology have allowed the population explosion, to the extent that (if we accept global warming is a reality) the planet can no longer cope with our artificially sustained numbers.

I'm afraid I cannot see any viable way forward in the long term, other than strict control of populations.

People will not readily accept reductions in lifestyle, so this will ultimately only be achieved by draconian measures at governmental levels by taxation or whatever.

Before we reach that stage though, the various energy providers will have made themselves umpteen billions of pounds, by increasing energy costs on the premise that fuels are running out, or renewable energy costs more, or a million and one other excuses that we, - as the average Joe Bloggs, will have to put up with, because we cannot live without our ready supply of energy. (Be it originating from gas, electricity, oil, coal, nuclear, renewable, or whatever).

The world will become even more a place of wide variation between the "have's" and "have not's"

I'm absolutely conviced that world wide warfare will occur as a result of this problem at some time in the future, as nations will defend their right to carry on regardless. As I've already said elsewhere, does anyone seriously think they would get any sensible response from countries such a China, (or America for that matter), if they had to drastically cut their energy consumption.

Would such countries sit back and accept things? Do you think it would be beyond their thinking to start invading other countries to plunder resources?

I have no answers, other than being certain of one fact - nowadays, there are far too many people requiring far too many resources, from the finite supplies available on this planet.

Regards
Mike.

[PMG]

....... and the easiest population control?? Stop paying child benefit ......

Pauline

[kiwi]

Maybe go like china and only allow one child per couple and a tax if you exceed that limit.

[Country lover]

I'm afraid I'm a pessimist on this subject .. if science came up with a scientific answer to GW tomorrow the energy companies would buy and bury the patent, as they have done with so many things before like petrol free cars.

Why live and learn when you can stay stupid and get rich?!

[Mercadante]

Anthropogenic global warming is caused by us digging carbon up from far below the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. That is what we need to stop doing.

Unfortunately a relatively few people can have a large carbon footprint, as the rich world shows, so reducing population numbers is not the answer to global warming, even if it could be done in time. And it can't.

I agree that population reduction would be a good thing in general, but it's not the answer to this. Climate change is rather more likely to be the answer to overpopulation than the other way round.