Technology solutions for climate change that do not involve renewables

Building larger trains and making public transport affordable for everyone and making it run on time would be a good place to start.

Also cutting back on things like packaging, everyone should start drinking out of glass bottles etc. at home. There's just no need for all that extra plastic around products, which will only end up in the trash.

 

You complain about a lack of evidence while pushing a conspiracy theory. Please tell me it's a joke.

 

@Summer Adventurer your post is so utterly ridiculous on so many levels that I just don't know where to begin.

Okay.

1. You claim scientists either lie (how would that work?) or that you understand the topic better. I could just stop there.
2. Your evidence for 1. are badly made internet memes of some politician. I can't believe you're serious.
3. Not that it matters but the quote is fake.
4. Lavish lifestyle of said politician - I have no idea whether the description fits and no interest in checking - is completely irrelevant.
   
5. What are polarized caps??
6. I just find it so interesting that you frantically search for even a weakest hint to support your thesis while completely ignoring signs which trash it - like a certain person claiming that climate change is a 'Chinese hoax' or another one presenting a snowball as a proof that temperatures are stable. It's like the x-files. You wanna believe.

But enough of that. You asked for proof. Alright, here goes: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. It's just a couple hundred pages but you should of course read also some of the referenced articles and there's a few thousand of them. After you've gone through all that, I might want to talk to you and I might even take you seriously. So see you in a year or two. Happy reading!

 

The solution to human caused global warming?
Condoms... And fast.

 

Yes! Like we do for deers and wild boars... Bill Burr's way of Population Control.

Jokes aside, I think it's a really interesting topic.
I commend you for bringing it up.
But it's quite complex too.
To tackle it, the first technology we need is one of those small power meter plug thingy ... and simple arithmetic on the back of an envelop.

I'm only half joking here.
Energy technologies and politics are universally discussed. However, I for one, don't quite grasp what is the impact of my individual way of life.
How much do I (ME) contribute to CO2 emissions, through farming for my fridge, transport for my fat ass, kerosene for my intercontinental flights (job and sunny holidays), and petrol for baking my new shinny smartphone and computers..

I don't think I'm the only one not being able to quantify his/her impact. I feel that what we all do is just blame the neighbor for doing things we don't do (I certainly do blame my neighbor and his ugly yellow quad bike for global warming)

I need to start making a proper accounting of my personal impact (i.e. my fuck-ups), otherwise I won't be able to have an educated guess (especially given the big social and fiscal consequences of the political choices we need to make) and instead I'll sound like these alcoholics in denial that keep criticizing other for their addictions and tell them to get clean..

I found this book (Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air, by David McKay)
http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf
I may have mentioned it in here before (sorry if I did)

So far I've only sift through it, but
1. The author provides a lot of 'order of magnitude' for proper CO2 accounting... Like "this provides xx kilowatt hour.. " "this uses yy kilowatt hour"...
2. He crunches the numbers for nuclear power, hydro, wind, solar, concentrating (thermal) solar.. and discuss the respective pros and cons.. (environmental impact, risks, cost..)
3. Most importantly, it doesn't seem to advocate anything in particular. He just collects the data for us to have a proper debate.
4. He often added little jokes on the side, to make it more pleasant.
I'm going to study it.

The author gave a TED talk in 2013:

 

Knew there couldn’t be a thread on climate change and AGW without some political conspiracy snuck in.

Whether we like it or not, there are consequences for our actions. What we do can change the climate around us, although nowhere near as powerful as the Sun or the ocean. Go to a maize field and see how it feels, then convert it into a grassy field. Or a rainforest compared to a deforested area. Or even starting a large bushfire. It all leads to changes, from a few degrees in temperature to even differing weather patterns.

I do believe we have issues with the environment (although climate change is a low priority compared to land pollution, air pollution, water pollution and nuclear waste) but politicians use it to their advantage. Alarmism and pushing false climate data from the Left doesn’t work, not does inaction or full-out denial from the Right. As long as that remains, we won’t have progress.

I think the most obvious non-renewable option is more efficiency in general. How do we waste energy, whether through heat output or through overuse? Maybe cut back on those or create effiency. I heard people are also experimenting with storing carbon in warehouses or in the ground to counteract the ppm rise, though I’m unsure if that’s the case still.

 

Interesting! The number on livestock population in India compared to other countries surprised me (TIL there's a looooot of cows in India).

I think the breathing weights very little on the CO2 accounting. Would you agree?

After all, it is said that "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food" (Albert Allen Bartlett). For all aspects of agriculture we burn a lot of fossil fuel, including for mining fertilizers.
And we need more farming for meat (simply because the food chain that we industrialize is longer than for Brussels sprouts)...

It's natural to imagine that demand drives production in that, even in these places where cows are not slaughtered. Don't you think? (I don't know much about Indian farming)

And I say that even though I'd rather kill than giving my beloved steaks up... (I'm joking, I'm fine with Brussels sprouts)

 

There probably should be regulations or at least guidelines to balance between efficiency and reusing CO2, simply for the sake of innovation. But I think without regulations of any kind, it wouldn’t be terrible when it comes to addition of carbon.

 

Interesting! I haven't though of this variability (i.e. climate in agricultural techniques), I need to learn more about that. Would you recommend a reference?

Mmmm, I'm not sure about your math here. In the (interesting) article that you cite, the facts are:

with which you computed a ratio... But those are 'concentrations', not amounts.
They are expressed in ppm (Parts Per Million). So it's a bit like talking about percentages of CO2 for a fixed amount of air (which is quite natural in the context of the article - i.e. air quality assessment).
But it's not the amount of CO2 emitted.

And if you think about, that wouldn't make much sense. The C component (in CO2) that we exhale comes from the burning of carbohydrates (sugar) that we ingest...
Now, I eat a lot, I confess, but I can't imagine eating the third of the weight of a tank of gas...
I'll admit that it's quite a coarse 'back of the envelop' estimation I'm doing here. I'll try to find better figures, but I'm sure you see my point..

Mmm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
The aim of this 'accounting' process is basically to understand.
In a business (or in personal finance), we account for everything *significant*, even if they are critical for survival (in fact especially if they are critical) so we can make good decisions.
The question (a question you brought up I thought) was, is mammals breathing significant or is it just a few pennies compared to the rest.

I'm not sure what I meant. I just heard once that soils need increasing amount of fertilizers to just maintain their productivity, and that modern agriculture relies a lot on phosphorus-based fertilizers (requiring a lot of dirty mining and extra CO2). I'll need to research that more...