You are the new Climate czar- solve the crisis (unemployed, Congress, generation)

[NatesDude]

Or at least start working on it .

First off, let me explain that I am not a climate change denier. I believe it is real. The point of this thread is how would we deal with it realistically today , given the urgency that those passionate it about claim. What can be done today and in the next few years to begin to solve the issue? If you don't believe in man made climate change, BTW , please don't post. This isn't a debate about the merits of man made climate change, this is about real world solutions from those who do believe and find the matter urgent.

To set the scene, Congress* has created a cabinet position of Secretary of Climate Control and Restoration ( yeah, the title sucks, but it's the best I could think of. I'm sure the US will do even worse when they create the position ) . You have been appointed as Secretary, and your powers are on par with Homeland Security. No guns , but your agency has emergency powers to unilaterally enact laws instead of having to follow the normal process. There are 4 rules that govern your ideas, 1 that wouldn't be need in the real world but is needed for a discussion forum, 3 that would restrict your decisions as climate czar. These rules are designed to keep the discussion real and legit , and not fantasyland stuff. They are

1) For the purpose of this discussion, any ideas must be implementable currently in the real world. No science fiction solutions , no theories that might come true in 10-15 years, however plausible. The technology necessary must currently exist, and we must currently have the materials and resources to do it today. The point is what can we do today . No cold fusion, no dilithium crystals.

2) Any ideas must not cause economic crises . While some economic pain is inevitable , the ideas cannot cause economic disasters and a huge disruption of our economic system. We aren't going to put half the country on universal basic income when we make them unemployed and tax the remaining half and corporations at 70% to pay for it. Ideas have to be real and workable.

3) Any ideas must keep the energy rights of citizens intact. By this I mean that we cannot limit the basic functionality of life . Businesses can't be told they can only operate 4 hrs a day to conserve energy. Homes and businesses cannot be subject to scheduled blackouts, days with no energy use, etc. Businesses have to operate largely normally, people have to earn a living, people have to be able to heat and cool their homes, make hot water, cook, have lighting, etc. This doesn't mean that Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have to be allowed to use as much energy as a small town, but the basic functions of life have to go on. No planned blackouts between midnight and 6 ,etc . This wouldn't limit voluntary blackouts, presumably based on customer incentives, but any such things would have to be voluntary. This also would not limit restricting overuse . I don't want to come up with ideas in this post, but as one example maybe car dealerships don't have to be allowed to light up acres of property to daylight levels all night, as long as their basic ability to sell cars isn't infringed upon.

The right to own vehicles can also not be curtailed. If a family needs 1 car for working dad, 1 for working mom, and 1 for the older teenager to take younger siblings to school and back and then go to after school job, then they get 3 cars , no questions asked. Again, this doesn't mean that they need the right to own 3 huge Humvees that get 10 MPG , but they need 3 vehicles that will get them where they have to go and back. And no limits on when these vehicles can be used, no "no driving" hours.

4) All ideas must be ones that would likely stand up to constitutional challenge. I'm not trying to get too technical with this one, just saying we cannot turn the US into a totalitarian China to achieve the solution. We must assume that obviously unconstitutional ideas would be ruled unconstitutional.


FYI, if I point out any perceived flaws in any ideas, I do not do so just to be argumentative. Things that appear unlikely to be workable need to be pointed out as such. This isn't about coming up with pie in the sky ideas that really won't work and then get mad when they get shot down. It's about whether there is any real things we could actually do today that would have any measurable impact, and how feasible they would be. I'm not assuming the role of the bad guy joyfully shooting down all ideas, but neither I am I choosing to provide an arena for any half baked idea to be offered unchallenged as a serious solution. Don't take anything personal.

* No politics please. The government connections are just a means of setting the scenario. No Trump, no Biden, no Kyoto Protocol kvetching please. Discussion of Kyoto if relevant, yes. Bashing one side over Kyoto, no. Please.

So you have the power now. What are the solutions?

[ohio_peasant]

Nuclear power. Build a network of 1970s-style reactors... hundreds of them. Not fusion - if that ever comes - but good old fission. Site the reactors in places that are seismically stable, and away from major population centers. A good start would be co-location with nuclear missile silos from the Cold War. Possibly located near rivers, for cooling-water.

Rebuild the national electric grid on the backbone of nuclear power. This new grid will then support electric vehicles, all-electric homes (no propane, natural gas or heating-oil) and all-electric buildings.

Nuclear power will supply the electricity-needs, while other sources, which are still at too low of a technology readiness level, pass from research to prototype to deployment.

[Nattering Heights]

Climate change is energy scarcity's little brother. The world running out of fossil fuels throws OP's rules in a trash can. Nuclear power was never more than a subsidy dumpster that pops up whenever people don't want to say energy conservation. The sunk costs of coastal and desert infrastructure will hurt for a while, but salvaging and moving most of that stuff costs energy we won't have. High enough above sea level in habitable zones, there is more time to salvage the materials of the suburbs.

[markg91359]

I would recommend the following:

1. Shut down as many coal power plants around the globe as possible--as soon as possible. A moratorium should go into effect in terms of building new coal plants.

2. In the short term coal, should be replaced by natural gas.

3. Build more nuclear power plants.

4. A gradual transition from gas powered cars to electric cars. I would do it in fifty years instead of thirty.

5. More development of solar power.

6. Energy conservation that would require a "smart power grid" that loses less electricity in transmission and reduces waste.

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Nuclear power. Build a network of 1970s-style reactors... hundreds of them. Not fusion - if that ever comes - but good old fission. Site the reactors in places that are seismically stable, and away from major population centers. A good start would be co-location with nuclear missile silos from the Cold War. Possibly located near rivers, for cooling-water.

Rebuild the national electric grid on the backbone of nuclear power. This new grid will then support electric vehicles, all-electric homes (no propane, natural gas or heating-oil) and all-electric buildings.

Nuclear power will supply the electricity-needs, while other sources, which are still at too low of a technology readiness level, pass from research to prototype to deployment.

Where are you putting the radioactive waste?

[sunsprit]

False Premise for your thread:

Until your leadership can ascertain what is the "correct" temperature for the planet ... nobody has any basis to work from or to resolve.

"man-made" is possibly the ultimate fallacy here. It's been well documented that the Earth has gone through multiple warm and cool cycles for eons ... including time long before humanity had any influence whatsoever upon the climate. And humanity has endured cool and warm cycles for as long as humans have populated the planted. Can you tell us what temperature was absolutely the "right" one for humanity?

Have you considered that your proposed "Secretary of Climate Control and Restoration" might find that to be the case?

Not one of the proposals above tells us what the end point should be for any of the solutions they advise. At what point is the planet cooling satisfactory compared to present temps?

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I would recommend the following:

1. Shut down as many coal power plants around the globe as possible--as soon as possible. A moratorium should go into effect in terms of building new coal plants.

2. In the short term coal, should be replaced by natural gas.

3. Build more nuclear power plants.

4. A gradual transition from gas powered cars to electric cars. I would do it in fifty years instead of thirty.

5. More development of solar power.

6. Energy conservation that would require a "smart power grid" that loses less electricity in transmission and reduces waste.

Environmentally speaking, the more energy dense the fuel, the less fallout. Natural gas is better than coal, but coal is better than the alternative, biomass aka trees. And nuclear is the easiest of all because the remaining material is so minute it's just easier to manage.

This may not fit into the reduce CO2 by 100% bill, but chopping down a tree and the loss of habitat associated is worse than burning fossil fuels from a holistic view.

Going to 100% no CO2, or problem solved to the OPs point, is unrealistic in the near future, but reducing is not.

Practically speaking a lot of emissions come from electricity generation, but that sector has been and will continue to rapidly decarbonize. Transportation is the other big chunk. To decarbonize that, I think a tax to reduce use some would be beneficial, in addition to electrifying. People say carbon taxes are regressive, but I question that.

[Ltdumbear]

There is no way for humanity to 'change the climate'...and anyone who suggests otherwise is lying, or trying to get rich by selling you something NONE of us can possibly hope to afford, OR put to good-use.

'Combatting' (or 'reversing') Climate-Change is nothing short of 'Terra-Forming'...which is impossible.

Climate-Change is a RED. HERRING.

That said, there's only two things which immediately spring to mind, whenever I ponder on how BEST to 'combat' the problems facing this...human...'Race':

1) Birth-Control. Anybody & Everybody who does NOT possess the 'financial where-with-all' at their IMMEDIATE-disposal, to procreate and raise offspring (properly) should NOT be allowed to do-so.

PERIOD.

END. OF. DISCUSSION.

The 'gene-pool' is WAY over-polluted already, with WAAAAAAAY too-many mouths to ADEQUATELY feed, house & employ.

Why else would they be (literally) gathering and 'migrating' like herds of animals, away from their 'breeding-grounds', towards BETTER breeding (and 'grazing' ?) grounds ? ? ?

You can be shocked and appalled at my statements...or you can take a moment, and THINK about it, rationally.

There's no way to 'sugar-coat' this painful-reality...

Humans are OVER-BREEDING (UNCONTROLLED) LIKE RABBITS...and it needs to be STOPPED.

2) This human 'Race' NEEDS. TO. SLOW. THE. HELL. DOWN.

Moving 'faster' serves little-more purpose than to cause our species to burn-through our FINITE (ie: 'GOD-given') resources, faster than we are able to discover (and make proper use of) 'alternative' resources.

Those are the two quickest 'fixes' I can think of, in order to 'save the planet'...

...and in doing-so (possibly ?) SAVE OURSELVES.

[redguard57]

Aaaand instead of thoughtful responses we get people responding with "Climate change is a hoax!" and a suggestion of extreme eugenic policy.

I generally agree with these suggestions:

Originally Posted by markg91359

I would recommend the following:

1. Shut down as many coal power plants around the globe as possible--as soon as possible. A moratorium should go into effect in terms of building new coal plants.

2. In the short term coal, should be replaced by natural gas.

3. Build more nuclear power plants.

4. A gradual transition from gas powered cars to electric cars. I would do it in fifty years instead of thirty.

5. More development of solar power.

6. Energy conservation that would require a "smart power grid" that loses less electricity in transmission and reduces waste.

I would add to that: carbon capture and sequestration programs. Things as simple as massive tree planting and undergrowth management. The upside would not only fight global warming, but for the climate doubters, you don't even have to believe in climate change to see that carbon sink improvement efforts improve problems like wildfires, making them less frequent. In other words, good old fashioned land management that you don't have to agree with climate change to support its other benefits. A side benefit is the absorption of carbon.

[NORTY FLATZ]

Without India/China onboard, the US can not make a dent in the elephant in the room.