Fixing the Problem

A little research. What, according to the climate change science, is causing global climate change? You have to ask this in order to find solutions. What do they say?

The European Commission on Energy, Climate change, and Environment lists greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels, cutting down rainforests, and farming livestock. NASA's Global Climate Change site admits that the Sun could contribute perhaps 10% of the warming, but the real problem is water vapor, CO₂, methane, N₂O (nitrous oxide), and chlorofluorocarbons. To be clear, these two aren't in disagreement. These are "greenhouse gases" (GHGs). GHGs are produced in a variety of ways, but primarily by means of combustion. Cars, power plants, factories, buildings, lots of things combust things. Methane comes from livestock, landfills, natural gas, and petroleum industries. N₂O is from fertilizers, refrigeration, and industrial processes. And, of course, there is the CO₂ because we continue to exhale and the life forms (primary plants) designed to process that into oxygen are being depleted.

Okay, so the problem is defined. Now we can pursue solutions. We can find a way forward. We can save the world. Should be simple. Cut GHGs. So ...

One solution many have pushed is with an eye to "net zero emissions" with a system known as "emission trading." The Kyoto Protocol set emissions limits for various countries or entities. The idea is that a polluter with excess emissions can pay a country or entity with fewer emissions for their right to emit and count that toward the "net" of their emissions. Their gross emissions remain the same, but the overall result is a "decrease" because that other entity wasn't using their allotted emissions anyway. That isn't actually a decrease in emissions, so this seems like nonsense.

According to Scientific American, the solutions will be the most difficult for "richer nations" because we "literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from" fossil fuels. Everything, it seems, is built on oil (fossil fuels), either in their production or in their very existence. But they point out that switching to "carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction." In the U.S. alone, 43% of GHGs comes from buildings with bad roads (because of decreased fuel efficiency) as another major factor. But buildings and roads are made from cement and cement is a major source of GHG emissions. They recommend going vegetarian since livestock is a major problem. Did you know that corn grown in the U.S. requires barrels of oil for the fertilizer to grow it and the fuel to harvest and transport it? Everything is a problem and the solutions being offered are "less."

It isn't that complicated. Gas and Diesel engines emit GHGs. Eliminate them. Industries and power plants produce GHGs. Eliminate them. Livestock produces methane. Eliminate them. Too many people breathing too much produces too much CO₂. Eliminate them. Oh, and here we see a parallel path. In order to accomplish the job of saving the planet, eliminating these things in one country isn't enough. It has to be everywhere. So we should accomplish it by force, a "once for all" approach where we use deadly force as required to eliminate all these offenses worldwide. That would automatically decrease the surplus population, terminate large population centers, and keep us on equal footing internationally.

Mission accomplished! Except, of course, no one is recommending any of this, and the best we're getting is "awareness" and "decrease" (without any scientific support for "only decrease this much"). The causes of the problem are clear, but the solutions, short of annihilation, are not. Dr. Richard B. Rood Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, says that if we stopped all carbon emissions today, we wouldn't have the effect we're seeking. "After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations." Since the limit is 1.5°C and we've already surpassed the 1°C point, terminating CO₂ emissions tomorrow won't solve the problem. He says to expect a 4 - 6°C rise before it's all said and done.

And you can't rule out my silly "eliminate the population" solution. In 2012, Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford, suggested a radical reduction in humans on the planet -- from 7 billion to 1.5 - 2 billion -- to save the planet. He's not alone in this thought.

"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." Ted Turner

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it." Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage." Mikhail Gorbachev

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

There are no small numbers of people and organizations that think that decreasing (or eliminating) humans is the best answer. There are no easy answers at all. Lots of people today (especially teens, it seems) believe the solution is simple. Cut emissions a bit and everything will be fine. Current climate science says otherwise. We should stop playing these silly "Do something!" games and figure out just what is important to us. I would hope that murdering 95% of the world's population wouldn't appear to be a viable solution for most of us. Then ... what?