Discuss steps that governments and individuals could take to reduce the effects of global climate change.?

Question

explain.

Answer 1

nothing will stop the climate change. EVERYBODY would have to shut down all electrical & not use cars & stuff. if everybody did that for just a few days , it would work out , but not everybody will / can do that.

Answer 2

Everyone could do their part. This thing of buying carbon footsteps is a joke. It's still pollution to have a guy fly a big jet to give a speech on Global Climate Change.It starts on a individual basis.Will people do it? I doubt it,they don't want to give up anything,let the other guy do it. There are people that have been doing their part for years but carbon hogs counteract it. The government could ration fuel,mass transportation.recycle garbage for electricity. People could turn off lights when not in a room,Sweat for a change,turn down the temp.in the winter.Shop on the way home from work.Grow your own food(less transportation for food)or buy at local markets in season fruit and veggies.Use the internet for business meetings and shopping.Have a 4 day work week for office employee's. Many factories now do this.Get some brains together instead of the hype and let us all know what is really going on.Someone is going to make big bucks and when that happens you'll see everyone jump on the bandwagon.Most people would use solar or hybrid cars but they cannot afford them.

Answer 3

with so many stubborn and lazy people in America, it won't happen.

Answer 4

Trying to encourage people to rein back their desires and live a very low-energy lifestyle (like the natives in Ray Bradbury's Martian chronicles) seems unrealistic sadly - people in general just like all their little luxuries. Transportation at the moment is pretty much tied in with gasoline, and people often have to travel and can't use pedal-cycles or shank's ponies (there is a need to switch to hydrogen or other alternate).

We might persuade people to cut back a bit, up to 50%, perhaps. Still the carbon dioxide and methane release needs addressing.

We do need to switch energy source to one that doesn't dump loads of CO2 into the air.

1) one can develop new fuels that in being created take in CO2 and in then in being used give it off (i.e 0% C02 gain)

2) one can harness solar power better and systematically (a way of storing vast amounts of energy is required, since solar power varies in availability)

3) wind power and hydroelectric power may provide some energy (again a chemical or other storage technique is needed since wind power output varies)

4) nuclear power (with good security in these days) maybe necessary, and provides continuous high-yield energy; it would be preferable to develop it systematically like the French have done than rely on piecemeal free market development, as that is more cost-effective, imo.

Certainly the days of using gasoline (petrol) and fossil fuels are surely numbered. The high price of oil may be a "blessing in disguise", as it makes other options more viable. It would be lovely not to need to get the stuff from regimes like Saudis and Iran.

Big governments with loads of money ought to be doing this research through Universities, as well as  large corporations. (Actually large corporations that aren't oil companies would probably be better at researching other sources of energy, as there is no conflict of interest; the big oil companies for economic reasons want to keep oil going as long as possible. Possibly new energy startups should be protected by leglislation to prevent take-over by oil companies; since otherwise they can be bought up by oil firms and their research shelved. Also may be they should have special tax breaks and subsidised investment).