Easiest way to solve climate change is......

Road-Hog · 29-11-2019 08:22AM #1

........according to some experts planting something like 1.7 trillion trees Would sort out (reverse even) the rapid global warming that is taking place.....of this is true surely it’s what governments and environmental bodies world wide should be promoting rather than stuff like ‘electric cars’ etc. planting a tree is about as low tech and easy as it gets......practically no carbon footprint 👣 nvolved.....why is it that this never really features in the list of ways to tackle the issue....?

dwayneshintzy · 29-11-2019 08:23AM

Sure easy, piece of piss! Just plant 1,700,000,000,000 trees

gozunda · 29-11-2019 08:25AM

No need to plant the country wall to wall

Forestry is good and its good to plant trees but why cut off our own hand by obliterating agricultural land and the ability to feed ourselves?

According to the European Environmental Agency one of the best ways to sequester carbon is to utilise existing grasslands. Who would have thought eh?

Climate change mitigation.

The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...

The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

On farmland, ploughing the soil is known to accelerate decomposition and mineralisation of organic matter. In order to keep carbon and nutrients in the soil, researchers suggest reducing tillage

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

Vittu · 29-11-2019 08:33AM

Road-Hog wrote: »

........according to some experts planting something like 1.7 trillion trees Would sort out (reverse even) the rapid global warming that is taking place.....of this is true surely it’s what governments and environmental bodies world wide should be promoting rather than stuff like ‘electric cars’ etc. planting a tree is about as low tech and easy as it gets......practically no carbon footprint ðŸ‘£ nvolved.....why is it that this never really features in the list of ways to tackle the issue....?

I would think why not is because trees will not give a financial return straightaway. Most other options governments use to save the planet involve taxes or charges. Trees would take many years to mature where they are worth something. We can't buy a printer correctly so the idea of the Dail trying to save the planet is laughable.

It's only my opinion. But one way would be to regulate family size worldwide. This would reduce the population and so reduce our impact. That's a vague idea with nothing to back it up.

frankdub · 29-11-2019 08:36AM

Do not increase the engine rpm through traffic stops + Do not run the engine in low gear

s7ryf3925pivug · 29-11-2019 08:38AM

frankdub wrote: »

Do not increase the engine rpm through traffic stops + Do not run the engine in low gear

I've been doing this but climate change is still happening.

Peatys · 29-11-2019 08:39AM

Plant trees on all small, unsustainable, grant dependant farms in Ireland.

sydthebeat · 29-11-2019 08:42AM

Do a thanos and wipe out half the earths population......

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 29-11-2019 08:42AM

It's probably the single best solution that Ireland could use here. We have one of the lowest levels of forest coverage as a percentage in Europe. There should be a big push to grow as many native trees as possible over a 10 or 20 year cycle. There have been small scale plans by government to buy farmland to turn into woodland, but the uptake has been insignificant.

I think China has panted X million amount of trees over the last decade. But it suffered because it lacked diversity.

The positive things about having more forests, woodlands and wilderness is not simply having the added benefit to climate change. But it would increase animal and insect biodiversity, create a new tourism industry and improve people's health and wellbeing by having more nature spaces to explore.

RebelButtMunch · 29-11-2019 08:43AM

Two problems
Unlimited growth
Commercialism.

Try asking families to have one car. Or only drive suvs if they live in the city.

Try asking the eu politicians to penalise Asia and Africa to curb coal use. They have little option btw.

Try penalties for food waste.

Try making people bring bottles back to the shops.

Try limiting families to 2 or 3 kids

Etc

You'd be unpopular in no time.

randomspud · 29-11-2019 08:57AM

Have every single person leave their fridge door open all the time.

That'll cool the place right down.

blueshade · 29-11-2019 09:36AM

A good way to start is by not buying lots of things we don't need. Use electrical products until they break before we replace them. People don't need a new phone every year. We don't need cheap disposable fashion that is poor quality and won't last. Another way is to stop with the protest t-shirts that take obscene amounts of water to make. Bringing traffic to a halt in cities is another thing, protestors might want to consider all the extra fumes that are going into the atmosphere while drivers are sitting in stationary traffic. Buy locally produced goods as much as possible, those cheap veggies in the supermarket might be a great bargain but the cheap price has an environmental impact in shipping and on the amount of land used to farm it. It's important to remember that we are producing more global waste than it's possible to recycle.

SeaFields · 29-11-2019 09:44AM

It's a no brainer to me. In the current financial environment, people are effectively being charged to hold on to money by banks i.e. negative interest. If the government issued a green bond initiative, with a return only on a par with inflation it wouldn't cost a whole lot to raise the finance over the next few years. Green investments are popular these days. Start buying land and planting trees.

But policy makers seem intent that the only way to tackle climate change is that tax us. At least that's the perception by the public.

Hector Savage · 29-11-2019 09:49AM

Climate change would be solved in the morning if everyone changed their lifestyle.

But they won't, it's easier to scream and protest and DEMAND the govt solve it.

is_that_so · 29-11-2019 09:58AM

The longer we spend on the one thing hamster wheel the longer we will take to get anything done. There is no one way and it will happen in thousands of little ways.

Road-Hog · 29-11-2019 10:00AM

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Two problems
Unlimited growth
Commercialism.

Try asking families to have one car. Or only drive suvs if they live in the city.

Try asking the eu politicians to penalise Asia and Africa to curb coal use. They have little option btw.

Try penalties for food waste.

Try making people bring bottles back to the shops.

Try limiting families to 2 or 3 kids

Etc

You'd be unpopular in no time.

That’s why tree planting on a massive scale is probably the simplest and would have least impact on the ‘masses’ life style.....!!

blueshade · 29-11-2019 10:00AM

Try banning disposable nappies and see how fast parents change their opinions on environmental change and the importance of halting climate change. All those disposable nappies and plastic nappy bags going into landfill and they will never disintegrate. I'd love to see the reaction among parents if Greta made that suggestion.

_Brian · 29-11-2019 10:09AM

The big problem is everyone wants the same solution to climate.

They want the governments to implement the changes immediately that will solve it by curtailing the activities or lifestyle of someone else but not them.

I could go with that. €50 tax onto every seat on every flight, including each connecting flight. I haven’t flown in 10 years, I think it’s perfect solution, heck maybe make it €75

A congestion charge on every urban area with a population over 10,000 people. I hate big urban areas and never by choice visit them, maybe half dozen times a year.

The money should be put towards farms and supporting farms to sequester carbon. There is amazing research out there that has proven methods to allow farm land both under cereals and grass to sequester 10x the amount of carbon thought before while boosting crop production in parallel, it uses fungi produced on the farms and could be implemented quickly and cheaply. I farm, the money collected should definitely go to farms.

Dr. Bre · 29-11-2019 10:12AM

Easiest way to solve it is to not think about it

Wanderer78 · 29-11-2019 10:13AM

_Brian wrote:

The money should be put towards farms and supporting farms to sequester carbon. There is amazing research out there that has proven methods to allow farm land both under cereals and grass to sequester 10x the amount of carbon thought before while boosting crop production in parallel, it uses fungi produced on the farms and could be implemented quickly and cheaply. I farm, the money collected should definitely go to farms.

I think all the money should be sent directly to just your farm, fcuk the rest of them

blueshade · 29-11-2019 10:14AM

_Brian wrote: »

The big problem is everyone wants the same solution to climate.

They want the governments to implement the changes immediately that will solve it by curtailing the activities or lifestyle of someone else but not them.

I could go with that. €50 tax onto every seat on every flight, including each connecting flight. I haven’t flown in 10 years, I think it’s perfect solution, heck maybe make it €75

A congestion charge on every urban area with a population over 10,000 people. I hate big urban areas and never by choice visit them, maybe half dozen times a year.

The money should be put towards farms and supporting farms to sequester carbon. There is amazing research out there that has proven methods to allow farm land both under cereals and grass to sequester 10x the amount of carbon thought before while boosting crop production in parallel, it uses fungi produced on the farms and could be implemented quickly and cheaply. I farm, the money collected should definitely go to farms.

So you don't fly but feel that people who do fly should be penalised. You don't really visit urban areas so you want a congestion charge on people who live in urban areas. Do you see the hypocrisy in your post at all or are you being ironic? Most people who work in cities can't afford to live there so they have to commute, public transport is prohibitively expensive for many so driving is their only option.

I've yet to meet a nurse that can afford to live in Dublin let alone in the city. A large part of that problem is caused by vast amounts of inner city and urban housing being occupied by people who never have and never will work so don't need to be there while people who do work can't afford the rent or mortgage on a home in those areas.

magicbastarder · 29-11-2019 10:14AM

Let the uplands rewild. We're throwing money at sheep farmers for them to produce far less than what their grants they're getting are worth. Would help deal with flooding too.

kneemos · 29-11-2019 10:25AM

Get it as warm as possible before the next ice age I say.
It will inevitably come.

sydthebeat · 29-11-2019 10:28AM

25 sq m of native woodland stores 1 ton of carbon during its lifetime.

new houses built today generate approx 10 tons of carbon per year in energy demand (typical A3 - A2 BER rating)

rural houses are generally built on approx 2000 sq m min (typical 1/2 acre site)

one very simple "stroke of a pen" policy the government could do tomorrow is to legislate for 25% min of every rural site to be planted with indigenous trees and shrubs. That would equate to min 2 years worth of carbon at current levels.

as our heating systems are moving more and more towards electric sourced, the carbon output of dwellings is very dependent on the efficiency and fuel source of our grid system. Its a disgrace that out grid currently emits so much carbon to provide electricity. Currently per kwhr we receive, the grid emits 0.409 kgs of co2 .. thats every more than your solid fuel stove at home !!! We need, at government level, to honestly and seriously move away from fossil fuel based systems. Hopefully this coming foray into off shore wind farms will be teh big break we need to become CO2 energy free.

gozunda · 29-11-2019 10:28AM

Peatys wrote: »

Plant trees on all small, unsustainable, grant dependant farms in Ireland.

'Grant dependant' - do you mean the subsidies which were provided to produce cheap food? So we now want to provide more / funding grants to plant trees instead? How does that really change things? Grassland is one of the best sequesters of carbon out there. Let's use what we have and we can still reduce carbon and produce food. Forestry should be promoted but not as an Instant panacea - because it's not.

RebelButtMunch · 29-11-2019 10:29AM

Road-Hog wrote: »

That’s why tree planting on a massive scale is probably the simplest and would have least impact on the ‘masses’ life style.....!!

It's like blowing into a hurricane, and it's something to keep the masses happy. I doubt we'd plant enough to offset the damage. Besides, where's all the soya and palm going to grow .

Geuze · 29-11-2019 10:30AM

To get China to stop building new coal-fired power stations would be start.

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/11/climate-clarity.html

Hector Savage · 29-11-2019 10:50AM

blueshade wrote: »

Try banning disposable nappies and see how fast parents change their opinions on environmental change and the importance of halting climate change. All those disposable nappies and plastic nappy bags going into landfill and they will never disintegrate. I'd love to see the reaction among parents if Greta made that suggestion.

I know a lad that used cloth nappies for his baby girl, fair play to him he stuck with it...

_Brian · 29-11-2019 10:54AM

blueshade wrote: »

So you don't fly but feel that people who do fly should be penalised. You don't really visit urban areas so you want a congestion charge on people who live in urban areas. Do you see the hypocrisy in your post at all or are you being ironic? Most people who work in cities can't afford to live there so they have to commute, public transport is prohibitively expensive for many so driving is their only option.

I've yet to meet a nurse that can afford to live in Dublin let alone in the city. A large part of that problem is caused by vast amounts of inner city and urban housing being occupied by people who never have and never will work so don't need to be there while people who do work can't afford the rent or mortgage on a home in those areas.

The hypocrisy was the thrust of the post as an example of how everyone wants a solution to penalise others but doesn’t hurt them, but WOOOSHhh, that went straight over your head.

_Brian · 29-11-2019 10:55AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think all the money should be sent directly to just your farm, fcuk the rest of them

You might be onto something there. 😎

cruizer101 · 29-11-2019 11:03AM

1.7 trillion is a **** lot, that's 220 trees for every person on the planet or about a billion for Ireland alone.
Don't get me wrong we should encourage tree planting, it has many other advantages such as preventing flooding, cleaning the air, increases wildlife biodiversity etc. but better to try set more realistic targets.
I see a lot of blame go to china and while they do produce massive amount of pollution a huge portion of it is due to western economies consumption.

Easiest way to solve climate change is......

Comments