Few things before I get down talked

  • I am not an extremists and I believe in Tech, I mention it because getting rid of everything like cars, airplanes is for my understandings not an option for modern society. I know some people here see it different but please keep that in mind.
  • I know some things I mention are highly controversial because everyone has its own opinion but I think proposed ideas are necessary trade-off.

You do not need to like it but this is what I suggest.

  • Invest more money into Fusion Power.
  • Remove all nuclear power plants and replace them with wind, earth thermal energy, water, and the other usual renewable suspects.
  • Create more decentralized networks for energy create more batteries on bigger scale, the money we use for nuclear and power plants can be used to create batteries facilities near wind off-shore parks because wind and sun is not always blowing and shining.
  • Declare coal and nuclear illegal, positive effect for climate directly because no nuclear threat + better air quality + less people die because coal has bad history regarding your health when you work there or live near around it.
  • 2 humans only policy. I think 2 children are enough. Of course this is against freedom but I see this as necessary evil. However, I am against shooting someone, the punishment should more to cut funding from government in case you violate it. I am not someone who says you should get rid of the child or something, because there is still rape etc. I think life should be valued but there should be some restrictions on how you punish someone because otherwise people find excuses to bypass this rule. I am aware that this is alone is controversial and delicate topic.
  • Renew the energy networks, the ones we have a not really designed to be used the way we use it and we need fundamental upgrades to handle decentralization. So we need money here to improve the situation.
  • Money for research should be a much higher priority. We should fund good ideas and instead of wasting 2 trillion each year on war, weapons etc, we should use the money for good. This also can be used for medical things.
  • Create at least in the cities better infrastructure for bicycles and open supermarkets 24 7. In my country supermarket often closes and running them maybe 24 7 helps to hire more people, easily ride with your bicycle into it whenever you have time, after work etc.
  • Getting rid of plastics or drastically reduce it, the effect would be noticeable I think, see oceans, micro-plastics, cancer rates etc.
  • Support more vegans and find better ways to make it more attractive. I tried it several times and it tastes awful, maybe I had bad recipes or wrong guidance, aka none. I think we should make people more aware of their options and directly provide guidance in the supermarket or via apps funded directly by the government so you know it is open source, no scam and everyone could help submitting new things.
  • War should be declared - useless - and we should work together. Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal. I mention it but that is just not realistic until 2050, but I personally would like to see that we evolve to such a point. Positive effects are so many, I do not think I need to mention them all.

This is no end solution and only my first abstract what I think is necessary and needs to be done. I clearly want to outline that all of this is a team effort and we need to come to an common ground and understand + act pretty fast on this if we really want to turn something bad around to gain more time.

🥺

  • CHEF-KOCHOP
    34·
    3 years ago

    They prove me right

    The mitigation potential is uncertain For nuclear energy, modelled costs for long-term storage of radio-active waste are included. Potential risks, knowledge gaps due to the relative immaturity of use of biochar as soil amendment and unknown impacts of widespread application, and co-benefits of biochar are …

    If I read such things you know who wrote that, how you predict 1 million years of coast for nuclear waste, its nor possible, as new plants create just only more waste and no one knows how many plants are build in that time nor can anyone predict possible risks here.

    I would not give much about it because no one can predict the long term future and with the next govt and next disaster everything change again. In 10 years we get other papers saying other things. Does not change underlying and fundamentals.

    • جيا ميڠ
      5·
      3 years ago

      You can’t just read half a sentence and say it proves you right. “Mitigation potential is uncertain…as it depends on the reference emissions being displaced”. They specifically mean that its effectiveness depends on where and how it’s used. If you had actually taken a look at the chart they are talking about, you’ll know that they have concluded that nuclear is part of a solution, though not a be-all-end-all solution. In my opinion, a rather small part, but in terms of Gt CO2eq-1, it’s still tremendously important especially when it complements wind and solar for base loads

      Also, “for nuclear energy, modelled costs for long-term storage of radio-active waste are included” may sound like it supports your argument if comprehension skills happen to be lacking or one just happens read it without context, but it really just is a footnote of the chart and it actually goes against your argument.

    • pingveno
      2·
      3 years ago

      new plants create just only more waste

      The new generation of nuclear power plants uses the waste from first generation plants, producing waste with a 50 year half life. In a way, it’s getting rid of that million year nuclear waste in favor of something much more manageable.