climate change?

I might need to look it up again but I read somewhere that for us to drop CO2 concentration by only 50ppm, we would need to re-forest an area twice as large as Australia

there just is no way around cutting emissions

>>134160878
so how do we do that?

>>134161281
>>134160878
oh shit:
https://www.cnet.com/news/power-consumption-how-much-are-your-gadgets-costing-you/

>>134161281
I can give you my opinion but there is no objectively correct way of proceeding

I'm in favor of CF&D, where a continually rising fee is levied against fossil fuels at the domestic mine or the port of entry. The fee is then payed out to every legal resident as a direct dividend.
That way, people with a below average carbon footprint will see a net increase of money (that's about 60% of the population).

Development of next generation nuclear reactors as a reliable zero carbon energy source would also help.

>>134161649

>that pentium 4
athlon 64 for lyfe

also, that shitty electricity metaphor

>>134160642
why do, OP?

everyone knows we're approaching a new Maunder minimum. warmists eternally BTFO.

>>134161728
socialism:
never the answer.
I suggest we go full ancap and have no flat rate for electricity, but add that price onto the wattage, when people can actually save money using less energy or pay up for using it then things will go down real quick. also for fuel when there's not a flat rate on shipping, and you can actually save money buying local then burning fossil fuels go down real quick. I think flat rates and socialist methods will make things ten times worse, have you looked up emissions from socialist countries? they're INSANE.

>>134161818
the big thing was our t.v.'s and game stations.

>>134162197
do you consider it to be "socialism" that companies pay their cost to society?
So far, the burning of fossil fuels kills thousands of people every day (because of air and water pollution) and threatens the long-term possibility for decent survival on the entire planet.
But the ones who have to pay for the damage are the effected societies.

The only reason the collected fee would go directly to the public is to make sure that energy costs for the majority of people doesn't go up. Would you rather the money would go straight to the government?

>>134160878

I'm guessing the Sahara Desert is the prime candidate area.

Maybe tap underground aquifers for irrigation? Cloud seeding?

Maybe with enough trees established, it'll change the climate and make the Sahara wet.

>>134162690
no,
the cost of energy should be equal to the amount it costs it takes to sustain the atmosphere, and that rate should be a flat rate throughout, and this should be on a supply and demand basis: less tree supply more energy demand.

>>134163270
even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is possible. By the time the entire Sahara desert is re-forested emissions will have caused the CO2 concentration to rise by significantly more than 50ppm. So what are you going to do then? Sooner or later, you will run out of suitable land area (which you also have to balance with an increasing area of agricultural land-use for a growing population).

That's why I said there is no way around cutting emissions.

>>134160642

The earth isn't going to reach the tipping point for another 150 years, according to Jim Hansen.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-sea-levels-rising-nasa-climatechange-chief-jim-hansen-global-warming-melting-ice-antarctica-a7841026.html

Of course, this is the same guy that said NYC would be under water by 2018, so...

>>134163693
Nice try https://archive.is/7g7eb

Lol. Hell no.

>>134162690
furthermore: we also need to grow our forests for LONGER:
http://science.time.com/2014/01/15/study-shows-older-trees-absorb-more-carbon/

and put an end to suburbian hell holes: you're either a hick or it's the city: no "we need our space but we like to have convenience" bull, break up the land owned by the jews, and boom locality initiated. if people can buy a house for cheap in the good part of town, and have money to keep It clean, then they''ll all move in close, but instead we have jew gestapos that no one wants to live in, they decay, and people are forced to move farther and farther away. (In America)

>>134162197
That's not what socialism is. Socialism isn't "the government doing more stuff." Carbon pollution from corporations present a negative externality to everybody else. To internalize that externality, you can tax it. Then you can make it revenue-neutral and just return all the revenue to citizens as dividends. That's a conservative solution, not socialism.

>>134163923
oh well when you put it like that. I need to re-read this hold on..
>>134161728
.Ohhhh, o.k. I read that totally wrong o.k. no you're right...

>>134163693
I think you will find that James Hansen neither said nor believes in any of these things

>>134164463
bro I re-read your first post your right. I just don't speak german that well it took me a while
>but it wasn't in german though.
No way? For real? Whaaatttt?

>>134164724
?

>>134164830
I'm saying you were right, I didn't read your original post right.

>>134160642
redpill alert: Africa causes global warming (switch to 10:40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

>>134160642
>climate change?
It is not man made. It is caused by an extra-solar object entering our system. It is called planet x or whatever and it is real. We have a few years left before it gets real close to our planet.

>>134165966
do people unironically believe this or are you just memeing?