How should we stop climate change?

[Flapjack]

What do you guys is the best way to prevent climate change? How urgant is the issue? What other enviromental problems must we tackle?

[sqishy]

What do you guys is the best way to prevent climate change? How urgant is the issue? What other enviromental problems must we tackle?

I don't think it is a matter of prevention, it is a matter of reducing the consequences of it.

Taking that we're probably going to have wars over fresh water within decades, quite urgent.

Seems we've got the ozone issue sorted out (if we haven't had done anything to reduce CFC emissions, then there would be almost no ozone left by 2070).

Aside from that, where do I start? Perhaps stopping with insane fossil fuel usage would be a start, but that's not going to happen when you have extremely powerful companies about.

If we stopped all pollutant gas emissions now, the average global temperature increase will be more than 1 degree C.

[Flapjack]

Taking that we're probably going to have wars over fresh water within decades, quite urgent.

I have never actually thought about this! How would we get more though? Boil sea water and collect and condense the water vapor? That would be crazy expensive! Maybe stopping rivers from flowing into the sea?


Seems we've got the ozone issue sorted out (if we haven't had done anything to reduce CFC emissions, then there would be almost no ozone left by 2070).

Yeah everyone always thinks of the CO2 but forgets the other chemicals!

I swear CFCs have been banned from most stuff though? Or are there uses of the chemical where there is not a viable alternative?


Aside from that, where do I start? Perhaps stopping with insane fossil fuel usage would be a start, but that's not going to happen when you have extremely powerful companies about.


We should have stopped this yesterday! This is why we need pubically financed elections and a global clean up on corruption.


If we stopped all pollutant gas emissions now, the average global temperature increase will be more than 1 degree C.
Why is this? Because we already have so much crap in our atmosphere?

[mattsmith48]

I don't think it is a matter of prevention, it is a matter of reducing the consequences of it.

I think we should also get ready for the effects of it.

Taking that we're probably going to have wars over fresh water within decades, quite urgent.

There is already wars for water in the middle east, and more will soon break out and more terrorist group could form due to the lack of water.

Seems we've got the ozone issue sorted out (if we haven't had done anything to reduce CFC emissions, then there would be almost no ozone left by 2070).

The ozone is what is protecting us from UV rays from the sun when its gone we cant go outside with out covering all our skin, we shouldnt try to reduce the CFC emissions we should ban it.

Aside from that, where do I start? Perhaps stopping with insane fossil fuel usage would be a start, but that's not going to happen when you have extremely powerful companies about.

To ban the burning of fossil fuel you can either try stop corruption or if you have enough money try to corrupt politician more than they do

If we stopped all pollutant gas emissions now, the average global temperature increase will be more than 1 degree C.

We still should stop 1 degree is still bad but still better than where we going now which is the complete destruction of live on earth. Also if we stop putting shit in the atmostphere we can then try to figure out a way to take away the shit we already put out there.

[Sailor Mars]

Besides the fact that the fossil fuels industry is huge and extremely profitable, deforestation is also a thing. The CO2 in our air isn't going to be going anywhere if there's nothing to turn it back into O2. We're cutting down and destroying more ecosystems than were allowing to grow, mostly for oil, land and manufacturing (which will later lead into CO2 and other shit in our air; it's a cycle). Cutting down on fossil fuel usage and making more renewable energy sources will help, as well as recycling and reusing things such as plastic and cans will also help in the energy problem (as plastic is made of oil and cans use energy, which we get from oil). Deforestation should be cut (see what I did there) down and we, as a race and communities, should replant and allow environments to flourish (as we use more than we produce).

[Flapjack]

Besides the fact that the fossil fuels industry is huge and extremely profitable, deforestation is also a thing. The CO2 in our air isn't going to be going anywhere if there's nothing to turn it back into O2.
Actually my friend, we can turn CO2 back into O2!!:) Have you heard of carbon capture? It has not been done on a mass scale but it seems simple enough!:) There are loads of ways we could capture the carbon but I think one of the best ways would be growing a fast growing plant. Drying and burning the plant and collecting the carbon deposits. These deposits can then be put at the bottom of the ocean or underground. The CO2 is taken into the plant and the carbon is used for stuff like energy storage and for the structure of the plant with the O2 being released into the air.

This way would be slow, expensive and use up farming land but when we become carbon neutral, it will be a good way to get the CO2 out of the air:)

plastic and cans will also help in the energy problem (as plastic is made of oil and cans use energy, which we get from oil).
I agree we should try to recycle and reuse plastic but we should not allow them to burn it for energy! The fumes from burning plastic can be really harmful! Do not fear though, chemists will come up with a practical solution!

Deforestation should be cut (see what I did there) down and we, as a race and communities, should replant and allow environments to flourish (as we use more than we produce).
I love what you did there:')

[Judean Zealot]

Dredging rivers, building dykes...

The sort of thing that the Dutch have done for centuries.

[Flapjack]

Dredging rivers, building dykes...

The sort of thing that the Dutch have done for centuries.
Little more complex than that and dykes is slang for lesbian?

[FreddyLikes]

It s probably too late

[Flapjack]

It s probably too late
So what? We should do nothing? Except our doom? It is not too late.

[Judean Zealot]

Little more complex than that and dykes is slang for lesbian?

A dyke means a dam. The Dutch have maintained a massive sea wall chain for 500 years.

[Flapjack]

A dyke means a dam. The Dutch have maintained a massive sea wall chain for 500 years.
Soooo that helps climate change how? It is a good energy source but we need more than that.

[Judean Zealot]

Soooo that helps climate change how? It is a good energy source but we need more than that.

Prevents flooding and storm surges?

[Flapjack]

Prevents flooding and storm surges?
Yeahh we have more issues than that and what about the countries that cannot afford it?

[DriveAlive]

We need to be doing more to help prevent air and water pollution. There is far too little accountability in developing countries like India and China.

Deforestation and habitat destruction is probably the biggest issue. Combating this is essential for all countries.

[Leprous]

We need to be doing more to help prevent air and water pollution. There is far too little accountability in developing countries like India and China.

Deforestation and habitat destruction is probably the biggest issue. Combating this is essential for all countries.

Well the US is concidered to be a bigger problem than India so I wouldn't just look at other countries.

[DriveAlive]

Well the US is concidered to be a bigger problem than India so I wouldn't just look at other countries.

By who? Take a look at any city in India and the compare that to the United States. We are far cleaner and have far more regulations.

[Leprous]

By who? Take a look at any city in India and the compare that to the United States. We are far cleaner and have far more regulations.

By who? By numbers. The US produces the DOUBLE of carbon dioxide than India does. You may look cleaner on the outside but concider the fact American cars tend to be trucks that spread way more carbon than cars in other countries. Not everything about pollution is caused by just dumping stuff in the water.

In India the biggest pollution comes from a few big cities, in the US it's pretty much everywhere. Not to mention that the US is bigger than India.

India is very suburban, the US aswell but not as much. In the US most people on the country can actually afford a car. The US is way richer and has the ability to get cars and factories which pollute.

Your turn.

[DriveAlive]

By who? By numbers. The US produces the DOUBLE of carbon dioxide than India does. You may look cleaner on the outside but concider the fact American cars tend to be trucks that spread way more carbon than cars in other countries. Not everything about pollution is caused by just dumping stuff in the water.

In India the biggest pollution comes from a few big cities, in the US it's pretty much everywhere. Not to mention that the US is bigger than India.

India is very suburban, the US aswell but not as much. In the US most people on the country can actually afford a car. The US is way richer and has the ability to get cars and factories which pollute.

Your turn.

I looked up the carbon emissions, and going by those numbers, you are right. But that is probably why China and America signed that pact to reduce emissions. However, Indian cities still are more polluted, the quality of life is far lower, and air/water quality is much worse due to the garbage and lack of a real sewage system.

[Leprous]

I looked up the carbon emissions, and going by those numbers, you are right. But that is probably why China and America signed that pact to reduce emissions. However, Indian cities still are more polluted, the quality of life is far lower, and air/water quality is much worse due to the garbage and lack of a real sewage system.

The quality of life is way lower, for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean the US doesn't have to deal with the pollution problems going on there though.

[Unknwn]

I'm studying Environmental Science, so this is totally my alley :3
Climate change is definitely an extremely urgent issue that, unfortunately, not too many people want to tackle simply because it truly is a global problem. Climate change will affect us in our current time, our future, and especially the future of our children if we do not act quickly.
Personally, I think the best way to combat climate change is to reduce our fossil fuel use. Today there are much better ways to produce energy which are cleaner and, sometimes, even more effective than burning coal or oil. Solar power, for example, wind power, hydropower, geothermal, hydrogen, and even nuclear are even more examples. I think if we REALLY want to combat climate change, changing the way we get our energy is what will make the greatest impact, considering burning fossil fuels is what releases CO2 into the atmosphere, trapping heat from the sun which melts ice from the poles rising water levels, even releasing Methane which is even stronger than CO2, and so on.
Along with that, other environmental issues are pollution, deforestation, rising population, and poaching. Those are the ones that quickly come to my mind, and each of those issues causes even more issues. All of these issues are connected, and it's happening all over the world, which is why it's such a complex problem.

[Stronk Serb]

Go full nuclear, but make a global safety standard.

[sqishy]

I have never actually thought about this! How would we get more though? Boil sea water and collect and condense the water vapor? That would be crazy expensive! Maybe stopping rivers from flowing into the sea?

Distilled water can be done from seawater, but it is relatively very expensive yes (less so than wars over it, over time). If you mean mass damming of rivers and such, that would be like transcendentally expensive.



Yeah everyone always thinks of the CO2 but forgets the other chemicals!

Methane, carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and so on, yes.



I swear CFCs have been banned from most stuff though? Or are there uses of the chemical where there is not a viable alternative?

Refrigerants were a very conveniently useful application field for them, but there are so many different classes of refrigerant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants ) that CFCs are nowhere near essential for them.



We should have stopped this yesterday! This is why we need pubically financed elections and a global clean up on corruption.

If it only it were easy enough to do plans like this.

Powerful companies are powerful.



Why is this? Because we already have so much crap in our atmosphere?

Because most climate changes take time, an aspect of which is how there is a temperature lag with the solar day lengths (the winter/summer solstice is not the coldest/hottest day of the year, it tends to happen around 2 months later).


I think we should also get ready for the effects of it.

Necessarily so too yes.



There is already wars for water in the middle east, and more will soon break out and more terrorist group could form due to the lack of water.

Not surprising at this point.



The ozone is what is protecting us from UV rays from the sun when its gone we cant go outside with out covering all our skin, we shouldnt try to reduce the CFC emissions we should ban it.

Without ozone, sunscreen probably itself won't help even. I thought CFCs were already banned - if they're not, then it should be.

Ozone is vital because of its UV ray-blocking properties in the stratosphere (20-30 km up), but is also poisonous to us which is why it paradoxically is a bad pollutant when it is down here at the troposphere (20-7 km downwards to sea level). Good when it's up there, but bad when down here.



To ban the burning of fossil fuel you can either try stop corruption or if you have enough money try to corrupt politician more than they do

Possibly.



We still should stop 1 degree is still bad but still better than where we going now which is the complete destruction of live on earth. Also if we stop putting shit in the atmostphere we can then try to figure out a way to take away the shit we already put out there.

There are ways to capture carbon dioxide, but it is more difficult than its opposite which is just burning stuff in general. A +2 degree C temperature change is likely now too.


The CO2 in our air isn't going to be going anywhere if there's nothing to turn it back into O2.

It does get removed from the air naturally actually, even without biology (through rain dissolution as example), but it is on the order of up to millions of years to have a major effect, so practically you're right.


Go full nuclear, but make a global safety standard.

While I'm good with the careful control of fission, and the attempt to get fusion worthwhile too, can we not add wind/solar/geothermal power?

[Meron]

Reduce the amount of CFCs and CO2s that conquer the atmosphere, pretty much. Along with other toxic chemicals and gases.

Also stop burying wastes or throwing it in the water, dumb government!

[Stronk Serb]

Distilled water can be done from seawater, but it is relatively very expensive yes (less so than wars over it, over time). If you mean mass damming of rivers and such, that would be like transcendentally expensive.




Methane, carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and so on, yes.




Refrigerants were a very conveniently useful application field for them, but there are so many different classes of refrigerant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants ) that CFCs are nowhere near essential for them.




If it only it were easy enough to do plans like this.

Powerful companies are powerful.




Because most climate changes take time, an aspect of which is how there is a temperature lag with the solar day lengths (the winter/summer solstice is not the coldest/hottest day of the year, it tends to happen around 2 months later).




Necessarily so too yes.




Not surprising at this point.




Without ozone, sunscreen probably itself won't help even. I thought CFCs were already banned - if they're not, then it should be.

Ozone is vital because of its UV ray-blocking properties in the stratosphere (20-30 km up), but is also poisonous to us which is why it paradoxically is a bad pollutant when it is down here at the troposphere (20-7 km downwards to sea level). Good when it's up there, but bad when down here.




Possibly.




There are ways to capture carbon dioxide, but it is more difficult than its opposite which is just burning stuff in general. A +2 degree C temperature change is likely now too.




It does get removed from the air naturally actually, even without biology (through rain dissolution as example), but it is on the order of up to millions of years to have a major effect, so practically you're right.




While I'm good with the careful control of fission, and the attempt to get fusion worthwhile too, can we not add wind/solar/geothermal power?

Nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric is what I would go for, constant power sources, not ones which depend on the elements.

[Flapjack]

Distilled water can be done from seawater, but it is relatively very expensive yes (less so than wars over it, over time). If you mean mass damming of rivers and such, that would be like transcendentally expensive.
Wars should be avoided regardless of cost!

I don't see why the damming would be more expensive? Making dams are very expensive but when they're built that's pretty much it, they can also generate electricity. By having the water turn turbines energy would be taken out of the water making it easier to tap off? Little filtering and its ready to drink:)

Unless there is another way of removing the salt from water and having the product drinkable that my tired mind cannot think of, the only way is boiling and cooling. The water must be heated which obvioulsy takes energy but the cooling will also take energy. Thinking about it though, this will be done on a mass scale so maybe it won't be so expensive?

We need to start driving electric cars asap! Everyone always forgets the nitrogen oxides because we can't remove them!

[sqishy]

Nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric is what I would go for, constant power sources, not ones which depend on the elements.

I understand that reasoning, but certain locations have wind and tidal forces much more often than not. Not something to argue over, so I won't digress.


Wars should be avoided regardless of cost!

Wars have been started because the cost is less than the anticipated benefits being fought for.



I don't see why the damming would be more expensive? Making dams are very expensive but when they're built that's pretty much it, they can also generate electricity. By having the water turn turbines energy would be taken out of the water making it easier to tap off? Little filtering and its ready to drink:)

Damming does give overall benefit when the cost of it is overtaken by the amount of money set back in building it. I don't know when this overall benefit point is reached, but I'm guessing it is of a timescale which depends on a stability in the social/economic/political realm that may not happen when severe natural disasters are ongoing, others may be starting wars on you, etc.

Try building a dam in Syria.



Unless there is another way of removing the salt from water and having the product drinkable that my tired mind cannot think of, the only way is boiling and cooling. The water must be heated which obvioulsy takes energy but the cooling will also take energy. Thinking about it though, this will be done on a mass scale so maybe it won't be so expensive?

If you mean that it would be cheaper because there is just more around, that makes sense only when you already have a customer base that is interested in this and not interested in other means to obtain this water.

This also needs a certain level of stability over time, that certain geopolitical regions and/or their climates will make doing so a significant risk.



We need to start driving electric cars asap! Everyone always forgets the nitrogen oxides because we can't remove them!

Hydrogen cars are the best way to go in my view. They produce water as waste, as it happens. It's just producing and storing the hydrogen that is a main issue (the storage mostly).

[Flapjack]

I understand that reasoning, but certain locations have wind and tidal forces much more often than not. Not something to argue over, so I won't digress.




Wars have been started because the cost is less than the anticipated benefits being fought for.




Damming does give overall benefit when the cost of it is overtaken by the amount of money set back in building it. I don't know when this overall benefit point is reached, but I'm guessing it is of a timescale which depends on a stability in the social/economic/political realm that may not happen when severe natural disasters are ongoing, others may be starting wars on you, etc.

Try building a dam in Syria.




If you mean that it would be cheaper because there is just more around, that makes sense only when you already have a customer base that is interested in this and not interested in other means to obtain this water.

This also needs a certain level of stability over time, that certain geopolitical regions and/or their climates will make doing so a significant risk.


I have just thought, will one day water be used as a political tool like gas and oil is used today? A land locked country will need water imported and people need water a lot more than they need gas!

[sqishy]

I have just thought, will one day water be used as a political tool like gas and oil is used today? A land locked country will need water imported and people need water a lot more than they need gas!

Quite so, yes.

[ethan-s]

I think CC is 100 % man-made. I mean like made up. The last thing we need to do is spend billions on windmills and DEF tank enforcement.(emissions equipment on diesel engines. total PITAs. I know because of my job.)

I have just thought, will one day water be used as a political tool like gas and oil is used today? A land locked country will need water imported and people need water a lot more than they need gas! thats BS. were will the water go? into space? to another country?

[dxcxdzv]

I think CC is 100 % man-made. I mean like made up.
And you have any proof about that?

[yeehaw]

I'm just gonna sit here for a sec and put in my 2 cents


At the moment, there are currently 407 particles of CO2 per million particles (ppm) in the atmosphere. It's been stated in the past that there is a "tipping point", a point in time where we could reach a certain amount of ppm and it will be irreversible, and there will be no way of going back. Basically the world will be screwed.

It's been theorized that the tipping point of CO2 is around 450ppm, and when you think about it it doesn't seem so far away from the current amount of ppm. With massive companies creating more emissions than can be absorbed, it might not be so far away unless we act on it...

[Fleek]

I wonder if there is a way to replace ozone by releasing it into the atmosphere? And we could put solar panels in orbit and/or on the moon

[Flapjack]

I think CC is 100 % man-made. I mean like made up. The last thing we need to do is spend billions on windmills and DEF tank enforcement.(emissions equipment on diesel engines. total PITAs. I know because of my job.)

thats BS. were will the water go? into space? to another country?
You're a science denier aren't you....


DEF tank enforcement.(emissions equipment on diesel engines. total PITAs. I know because of my job.)
Do you also know because of your job why we have emissions control? Do you know why they convert CO into CO2? Because CO is a deadly gas so there is more to it than just climate change. Do you know why they reduce the sulphur put into the air? Because in a few chemical reactions later it will become acid rain.

Aside from the obvious benefit wind-mills have on reducing climate change they are also a renewable source of energy. What would you use to power your home and car when we run out of crude oil?

thats BS. were will the water go? into space? to another country?
Are simple google searches too mainstream now? It's okay though because if it is bs you would happily spend a month drinking only salt water, right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3qdd2p
I think CC is 100 % man-made. I mean like made up.
Why do you think that? The basics of the greenhouse effect is explained to children when they are 11-12 so I doubt you haven't heard of it, why don't you believe it?
I wonder if there is a way to replace ozone by releasing it into the atmosphere? And we could put solar panels in orbit and/or on the moon
Interesting ideas but today neither are practical.

[Porpoise101]

Nuclear, geothermal and hydroelectric is what I would go for, constant power sources, not ones which depend on the elements.
I agree with this, but in some environments solar and wind have been very successful. In the South of the US and California, Solar energy is very effective for example. I think a healthy mix will be necessary until we master something like nuclear fusion.

[Leprous]

I think CC is 100 % man-made. I mean like made up. The last thing we need to do is spend billions on windmills and DEF tank enforcement.(emissions equipment on diesel engines. total PITAs. I know because of my job.)

thats BS. were will the water go? into space? to another country?

I don't see how the polar caps melting can be 'made up'. I don't see how you can make up temperature changes and species dying out. You must be extremely ignorant to say things like this.

If it was made up, there would be NO benefit for multinationals to invest billions in windmills and stuff like that since well, IT COSTS MONEY, THEY DON'T WANT THAT.

For the water part, use common sense. You can easily shut down the water supplies of a Middle Eastern country as a threath. Since well, most countries there need to IMPORT their water from other countries.

[sqishy]

thats BS. were will the water go? into space? to another country?

Into a unusable form for drinking and sanitation.

[DriveAlive]

I am still disturbed by the number of birds that have been killed by wind farms.

[Devinsoccer]

What do you guys is the best way to prevent climate change? How urgant is the issue? What other enviromental problems must we tackle?

We can't by the time we become adults it will be irreparable, if we demolish all the buildings causing the climate change, it will hurt the environment, if we keep the buildings up, we're polluting the air, which is causing climate change, when we flush the toilet and it goes to the ocean, we are polluting, we can't stop climate change. The issue is urgent, and we need to get off the planet by the year 3300, if by then we probably will have a nuclear war, which will cause climate change. Best bet is to take care of the earth the best we can. If we can survive a snowball earth, we will be fine. We do have some stuff to help us survive in Greenland, if we screw up earth, or we need to evacuate the earth. The sun will have a calm supernova in a few billion years, if we survive then, we will still have to evacuate earth.

[sqishy]

I wonder if there is a way to replace ozone by releasing it into the atmosphere?

It is toxic when close to us, which is a big problem. It would also be not very feasible for other reasons regarding quantity and concentration needed to put it up there.


And we could put solar panels in orbit and/or on the moon

We have plenty of desert land area to do these solar fields already.


I am still disturbed by the number of birds that have been killed by wind farms.

Hardly worse than the number of birds that get killed by cars/trucks/boats/planes/plastic waste/oil slicks/other chemical pollution/etc.


The issue is urgent, and we need to get off the planet by the year 3300[...]

Why 3300? Just wondering.



The sun will have a calm supernova in a few billion years, if we survive then, we will still have to evacuate earth.

A 'calm' disintegration you mean (supernovas are certainly not calm).

Taking the amount of change that has happened to us and the world surrounding us, I'll be surprised that things stay mostly the same (e.g. socially) by even 2100.

A few 1,000,000,000 years is another level entirely. If we somehow last that long, it will be in a form out of evolution which will be probably not like what we are at all today; we may endure but it won't be endurance as we know it.

[Porpoise101]

I am still disturbed by the number of birds that have been killed by wind farms.
In Texas they have come up with a solution with dealing with mass numbers of birds, especially during a migration. What they do is use Doppler radar to detect birds, since the migration groups are big enough to be detected. Then the farms shut off for the time they pass over and then it resumes. This way many many bird lives are saved and the damage is minimized. This is being implemented in the states in the Gulf region.

[Leprous]

I am still disturbed by the number of birds that have been killed by wind farms.

And the amount of birds killed by hunters. Should be higher right?

Not sure what has a bigger benefit to our climate, clean energy or shooting birds out of the sky.

[Porpoise101]

And the amount of birds killed by hunters. Should be higher right?

Not sure what has a bigger benefit to our climate, clean energy or shooting birds out of the sky.
In the US bird poaching is actually quite rare, which is actually one of the few good things about the environment in the US. Mass hunting and poaching for birds is actually a bigger problem in Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe where poachers will go and catch and kill birds. They also send hunters to the Middle East and North Africa to do their doing. It's a less-reported issue that is similar to the Chinese Animal Slaughter Problem.

[Leprous]

In the US bird poaching is actually quite rare, which is actually one of the few good things about the environment in the US. Mass hunting and poaching for birds is actually a bigger problem in Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe where poachers will go and catch and kill birds. They also send hunters to the Middle East and North Africa to do their doing. It's a less-reported issue that is similar to the Chinese Animal Slaughter Problem.

Mean that ironicly since he actually hunts birds.

[DriveAlive]

Mean that ironicly since he actually hunts birds.

Just because I am a hunter does not mean I do not care about animals. In fact, it makes me a passionate conservationist. It is hard to enjoy spending time hunting in the outdoors when the environment is destroyed.

[Leprous]

Just because I am a hunter does not mean I do not care about animals. In fact, it makes me a passionate conservationist. It is hard to enjoy spending time hunting in the outdoors when the environment is destroyed.

I never said you didn't care about them, you do help in killing them.

[Flapjack]

Just because I am a hunter does not mean I do not care about animals. In fact, it makes me a passionate conservationist. It is hard to enjoy spending time hunting in the outdoors when the environment is destroyed.
Yeahhh there is no greater way to show one's love for animals than blowing their brains out.

As for wind farms killing birds, we need some stats on it. If it is a a lot then we need to look for a solution like the radar however one must compare the impact of climate change on animals and every other organism on this planet against wind farms killing birds.

[sqishy]

Yeahhh there is no greater way to show one's love for animals than blowing their brains out.

For sake of some fairness, I'll use the analogy that we all are okay with growing millions of plants for eventually killing them. We can like something and still terminate it.

Just a localised suggestion for this topic.



As for wind farms killing birds, we need some stats on it. If it is a a lot then we need to look for a solution like the radar however one must compare the impact of climate change on animals and every other organism on this planet against wind farms killing birds.

I'm not aware of there being such a high number of bird deaths from wind farms anyway, so I don't see this as necessary, at least for most wind farms (no problems in Ireland at least).

[Flapjack]

For sake of some fairness, I'll use the analogy that we all are okay with growing millions of plants for eventually killing them. We can like something and still terminate it.

Just a localised suggestion for this topic.

Millions of people don't claim to love plants only to cause them unnecessary suffering:p


I'm not aware of there being such a high number of bird deaths from wind farms anyway, so I don't see this as necessary, at least for most wind farms (no problems in Ireland at least).
Sameee! Tbh I think it is something that conservatives say when they're in bed with the industries and what an excuse not to do any good.

[sqishy]

Millions of people don't claim to love plants only to cause them unnecessary suffering:p

The counterargument of what is conscious and what is not, yes I get you.
Wanted to put that out anyway.

(There is no universal definitive finality to the view that plants are not conscious, by the way.)



Sameee! Tbh I think it is something that conservatives say when they're in bed with the industries and what an excuse not to do any good.

Perhaps, yes.

[DriveAlive]

Yeahhh there is no greater way to show one's love for animals than blowing their brains out.

As for wind farms killing birds, we need some stats on it. If it is a a lot then we need to look for a solution like the radar however one must compare the impact of climate change on animals and every other organism on this planet against wind farms killing birds.

Sorry I must have missed your response. This is not a hunting discussion (which I do enjoy having and would like to see another thread about it) but I will reiterate that hunting is essential to conservation.

As for the bird deaths, there are tons of different articles about it all over that have different statistics. Here are just a few that I found.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

https://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/

Clearly, wind farms do pose a serious risk to bird populations and we need to do something to protect the birds. I am not saying that we should give up on clean energy, or even wind farms for that matter, but we do need to make sure that the clean energy is not damaging the planet in other ways.

[Porpoise101]

Sameee! Tbh I think it is something that conservatives say when they're in bed with the industries and what an excuse not to do any good.
Nope. I volunteer at the local Audubon Club (bird watcher/environmentalist club), and I get their monthly magazine. The reason I know of the wind farm issue (and about the radar technique) is because the issue was dissected in the magazine they sent out. They are hardly a group 'in bed' with industry.

[Judean Zealot]

Nope. I volunteer at the local Audubon Club (bird watcher/environmentalist club), and I get their monthly magazine. The reason I know of the wind farm issue (and about the radar technique) is because the issue was dissected in the magazine they sent out. They are hardly a group 'in bed' with industry.

"The Rockefeller Birdwatchers League"

:D

[Leprous]

Sorry I must have missed your response. This is not a hunting discussion (which I do enjoy having and would like to see another thread about it) but I will reiterate that hunting is essential to conservation.

As for the bird deaths, there are tons of different articles about it all over that have different statistics. Here are just a few that I found.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-wind-turbines-really-kill-180948154/

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

https://abcbirds.org/program/wind-energy/

Clearly, wind farms do pose a serious risk to bird populations and we need to do something to protect the birds. I am not saying that we should give up on clean energy, or even wind farms for that matter, but we do need to make sure that the clean energy is not damaging the planet in other ways.

"We need to save The Byrds (sick pun), how? Shoot them!"

You know, if you want to protect Byrds (pun 2.0), maybe stop killing them.

There is actually no logic in this. You want to protect them but yet you enjoy shooting them. Don't blame something for being a danger to the live of Byrds (not sorry) if you kill them yourself.

[DriveAlive]

"We need to save The Byrds (sick pun), how? Shoot them!"

You know, if you want to protect Byrds (pun 2.0), maybe stop killing them.

There is actually no logic in this. You want to protect them but yet you enjoy shooting them. Don't blame something for being a danger to the live of Byrds (not sorry) if you kill them yourself.
I kill a small amount of birds each year that is a negligible to the overall population, while these farms kill a dangerously high amount of birds. There will be nothing left to hunt if the birds all die out.

[Leprous]

I kill a small amount of birds each year that is a negligible to the overall population, while these farms kill a dangerously high amount of birds. There will be nothing left to hunt if the birds all die out.

Why care about a species you kill for fun? Also what is fun about killing animals anyway? You know you just shoot them, probably infront of their children aswell. That doesn't seem too nice.

I love humans and think starvation should be dealt with! Allot of humans are dying because of it. Meanwhile I will shoot some of them in the face.

How is that any different?

[DriveAlive]

Why care about a species you kill for fun? Also what is fun about killing animals anyway? You know you just shoot them, probably infront of their children aswell. That doesn't seem too nice.

I love humans and think starvation should be dealt with! Allot of humans are dying because of it. Meanwhile I will shoot some of them in the face.

How is that any different?
It is fun to be out in nature and it is fun to be a part of the natural circle of life, not just going to a grocery store and buying meat from a slaughterhouse. This is not Bambi and I sincerely doubt that I am shooting pheasant in front of their children.

Unless you are also going to eat those humans, you should not be hunting them :)

[Leprous]

It is fun to be out in nature and it is fun to be a part of the natural circle of life, not just going to a grocery store and buying meat from a slaughterhouse. This is not Bambi and I sincerely doubt that I am shooting pheasant in front of their children.

Unless you are also going to eat those humans, you should not be hunting them :)

I don't see how it could be seen as natural. You are not part of their lives, you only ruin it. Also, what if their children are watching? Aha!

[DriveAlive]

I don't see how it could be seen as natural. You are not part of their lives, you only ruin it. Also, what if their children are watching? Aha!
Unfortunately, death is a part of nature. Animals die so that other animals live. And I can guarantee that nature is far crueler than I am being when I shoot a bird. A fox, snake, or cat will kill the babies in the nest.

[Leprous]

Unfortunately, death is a part of nature. Animals die so that other animals live. And I can guarantee that nature is far crueler than I am being when I shoot a bird. A fox, snake, or cat will kill the babies in the nest.

Death is natural, getting shot in the face isn't. Guns and bullets don't exactly live in the woods.

[DriveAlive]

Death is natural, getting shot in the face isn't. Guns and bullets don't exactly live in the woods.

I guess I could find bird nests and just kill baby birds with my hands but I think quickly and humanely killing them with a gun is a far better option.

[Leprous]

I guess I could find bird nests and just kill baby birds with my hands but I think quickly and humanely killing them with a gun is a far better option.

You literally just said you kill baby birds.

This is literally the most useless debate on this forum.

[DriveAlive]

You literally just said you kill baby birds.

This is literally the most useless debate on this forum.

I do not kill baby birds. I was pointing out how ridiculous your point was about how hunting with a gun is unnatural.

[lliam]

And I can guarantee that nature is far crueler than I am being when I shoot a bird.

imo, nature isn't cruel. but human hunters are, cause they unnecessary doesn't have to kill wild animals to survive. That makes us to perverts. Even if they eat the killed deer or such.

And unfortunately it's so that you've to hunt in some areas so that certain species don't multiply redundant. Just because humans have eradicated the predators in these regions. We're such idiots.

As I said, we humans are the perverts of evolution. We hunt for pleasure and don't really use our brains, eg, to think about the possible consequences of our doings.


In my opinion, hunting should be banned.

Who wants to hunt, must prove that he 100% needs it to survive.

And who's hunting illegally and get caught, well, the right punishment would be that he has to donate 97% of his assets for social purposes. Because then he must really hunt to survive.



btw: Anyone who thinks he can stop climate change, is a dreamer. Best we can do is to delay the process. But it will never stop. Cause nature means: constantly changes.

[DriveAlive]

imo, nature isn't cruel. but human hunters are, cause they unnecessary doesn't have to kill wild animals to survive. That makes us to perverts. Even if they eat the killed deer or such.

And unfortunately it's so that you've to hunt in some areas so that certain species don't multiply redundant. Just because humans have eradicated the predators in these regions. We're such idiots.

As I said, we humans are the perverts of evolution. We hunt for pleasure and don't really use our brains, eg, to think about the possible consequences of our doings.


In my opinion, hunting should be banned.

Who wants to hunt, must prove that he 100% needs it to survive.

And who's hunting illegally and get caught, well, the right punishment would be that he has to donate 97% of his assets for social purposes. Because then he must really hunt to survive.

Let me start by saying that if you removed the slaughterhouse industry, then humans would need to hunt. Personally, I find eating processed meat from a slaughterhouse to be disgusting and much prefer to eat what I have personally killed.

Hunting to maintain a population balance is necessary in some areas, but I will admit that it has gotten out of control in some instances. However, when invasive species enter an area and seriously threaten a population, it is necessary to remove them and maintain population levels.

We do agree on people who hunt illegally. However, I think that you are being a little too lenient. In many African countries, poachers are shot on sight. Now that is what I call a deterrent.

[lliam]

We do agree on people who hunt illegally. However, I think that you are being a little too lenient. In many African countries, poachers are shot on sight. Now that is what I call a deterrent.

Well, fact is, technically we humans now don't need to hunt anymore. That's all to sayabout hunting. Even it seems alike, I don't really judge people, who are hunting and eat that meat themselfs. It's just my, lets say, strict oinion of hunting.



But if the meat from the slaughterhouse gives you the creep, there would be alternatives.

Take my family for example. We primarily eat vegetarian but aren't vegetarians.

And if we buy meat, we buy it from a organic farmer who slaughters his cattle himself.

So at least we aren't part of the industrialized food production, what includes the slaughterhouses and such.

Also, we mostly eat what the organic farmer can grow seasonally.

... means we get 90% of our food directly from the producer.

Everything from one source or so. What can sometimes be little or much to buy ... depending on how often the farmer slaughters and how his harvest was.


That would, for example, a lifestyle that would greatly help to slow climate change, I guess.


Ah, Africa. I can agree with your pov.

[DriveAlive]

Well, fact is, technically we humans now don't need to hunt anymore. That's all to sayabout hunting. Even it seems alike, I don't really judge people, who are hunting and eat that meat themselfs. It's just my, lets say, strict oinion of hunting.



But if the meat from the slaughterhouse gives you the creep, there would be alternatives.

Take my family for example. We primarily eat vegetarian but aren't vegetarians.

And if we buy meat, we buy it from a organic farmer who slaughters his cattle himself.

So at least we aren't part of the industrialized food production, what includes the slaughterhouses and such.

Also, we mostly eat what the organic farmer can grow seasonally.

... means we get 90% of our food directly from the producer.

Everything from one source or so. What can sometimes be little or much to buy ... depending on how often the farmer slaughters and how his harvest was.


That would, for example, a lifestyle that would greatly help to slow climate change, I guess.


Ah, Africa. I can agree with your pov.
So what is the difference between hunting and buying from an organic farmer other than who kills the animal?

[lliam]

If I generalize it, the difference is simply that humans should largely nature left to itself,

What simply means, where hunting serves no purpose, eg, to keep the population of certain species as low as possible on a healthy level for the sake of the whole local or also global ecosphere, hunting should be forbidden ... also people should be kept out as far as possible to avoid disturbing the flora and fauna.

However, I do not think that this will ever really realized.

In Germany, for example, they has resettled wolves in some remote areas. But where she-wolves paired with dogs. eg, cause of a lack of male wolves , the descendants of those pairings were simply removed from nature, maybe even killed by bioligists.

For me this is simply playing God. We hmans are control freaks.
Even where we pretend to let nature to running by itself.

And I've not even started to insult such self-appointed guardians as species-racists, eco-nazis and such. :D

[Flapjack]

If I generalize it, the difference is simply that humans should largely nature left to itself,

What simply means, where hunting serves no purpose, eg, to keep the population of certain species as low as possible on a healthy level for the sake of the whole local or also global ecosphere, hunting should be forbidden ... also people should be kept out as far as possible to avoid disturbing the flora and fauna.

However, I do not think that this will ever really realized.

In Germany, for example, they has resettled wolves in some remote areas. But where she-wolves paired with dogs. eg, cause of a lack of male wolves , the descendants of those pairings were simply removed from nature, maybe even killed by bioligists.

For me this is simply playing God. We hmans are control freaks.
Even where we pretend to let nature to running by itself.

And I've not even started to insult such self-appointed guardians as species-racists, eco-nazis and such. :D
I think how we secure the future of our planet and our species should have a more reliable plan than simply praying to God.

[lliam]

I think how we secure the future of our planet and our species should have a more reliable plan than simply praying to God.

as you can read in my post, I mentioned PLAYING not PRAYING.

as far as I'm concerned, I rather would prefer us praying than playing. Cause we aren't Gods. And imo, even Gods messed up evelution ... or should I say their own creation?


btw: we mustn't secure the planet's future. Earth will still exist with or without us.

We've just to ensure, that we can exist as long as possible on this planet ... it's our own choice. And as far as I know, we are the only species in this world, that potentially has this choice. But we hardly use it.

[TheLivingLie]

Every house should have solar panels installed on their roof, my Danish cousins have it and they make a surplus in DENMARK (not the sunniest country in the world) so they sell energy to the government. If everyone had this there would be no need for any oil or coal. As for modes of transport, solar panel cars? Hydrogen cars? Planes fly so high in the atmosphere the solar concentration must be pretty high so why not put solar panels on them? And they fly so fast why not put wind turbines on them either?

[sqishy]

Every house should have solar panels installed on their roof, my Danish cousins have it and they make a surplus in DENMARK (not the sunniest country in the world) so they sell energy to the government. If everyone had this there would be no need for any oil or coal.

Great things happen when it's done right!



As for modes of transport, solar panel cars? Hydrogen cars? Planes fly so high in the atmosphere the solar concentration must be pretty high so why not put solar panels on them? And they fly so fast why not put wind turbines on them either?

Hydrogen cars are the way to go, I feel. Solar power and battery electrical power aren't enough to keep a car going.

The atmosphere does absorb sunlight but very little in proportion to the total sunlight entering overall, so the sunlight intensity up in the low stratosphere isn't much higher - adding solar cells to planes is not worth it really.