Climate change: Saving our world

[MSC]

We all hear a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to man-made climate change. 

What I hear less of, is what science, technologies and policies are being developed that might have the potential to halt it. 

So here is a scenario; imagine we have access to the military budget of every nation and we could use it to fight climate change. What should we do with that money in this scenario? Assuming all nations agreed to cessation of all military conflicts until the climate is no longer under threat from us, for the time being. 

Obviously this is a highly unlikely scenario, but for the sake of argument I want to know what could be done with a massive re-prioritisation of resources in favour of fighting climate change. 

This is not my AOE outside of the ethics of it, so forgive my ignorance. Appreciate anyone who takes the time to respond.

[MigL]

Great idea.
Since climate change is such an existential threat, what would be a better weapon than militarizing the weather/climate ?
If you could destroy their harvest and starve another nation, tear apart its infrastructure with hurricanes, or drown it under massive rains/swollen seas, there would be no need for planes, ships, tanks and atomic bombs.

I'm joking.
( before everyone jumps on me  and gives me a beating )

[MSC]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Great idea.
Since climate change is such an existential threat, what would be a better weapon than militarizing the weather/climate ?
If you could destroy their harvest and starve another nation, tear apart its infrastructure with hurricanes, or drown it under massive rains/swollen seas, there would be no need for planes, ships, tanks and atomic bombs.

I'm joking.
( before everyone jumps on me  and gives me a beating )

"Nooooo, my inventions are meant to help mankind, not to destroy!"

You'll get a laugh out of this, Major Agnew

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by MSC
Funnier

[iNow]

Increase investment in battery tech 10,000x and carbon scrubbing options by similar magnitude.  

Subsidize green energy and have an escalating tax penalty year over year for fossil fuel usage. Want to use fossil fuels? Super, but you’re going to go bankrupt if you keep doing so. 

There’s need to be a focus on developing nations and helping them catch up, and we need more emphasis on staple crops that are starting to fail due to drought. Desalination tech would help, as well. 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

What I hear less of, is what science, technologies and policies are being developed that might have the potential to halt it. 

1. solar panels on the roof of every building.

2. more electric devices.

3. increase efficiency.

4. give up on oil and gas industry where it can be avoided. air will be cleaner. less smog and dust will increase efficiency of solar panels in the cities. people will be also healthier. Smog contains carcinogenic not fully burned chemical compounds.

5. mass production of ethanol from co2 and h2o from air.

6. free of charge mass transportation in the cities to promote it over individual car driving. e.g. one bus can have as many people as 50-100 cars. It is optimization of energy usage.

7. more virtual work from home office where applicable. it will limit the number of people having to drive to work and back through the city, and also will save their time of life. 1-2h per day is 4-8% of the entire lifetime wasted which could be used more efficiently..

Edited November 23, 2020 by Sensei

[Sensei]

8. remote work via Internet. e.g. install high-speed Internet in Africa and somebody will wear VR helmet and will be able to work in industry in Europe, America or Asia remotely controlling robot doing some easy repeatable tasks in factories. Money is immediately sent after work without paperwork. e.g. you worked 5 hour, with wage 20 euros/h, the account receives 100 euros. Person disconnects, and the next person in queue replaces him or her and takes control over robot. Factory can work 24h/d. People from poor countries won't have to abandon their families migrating to Northern countries EU/US to search for better life.

9. stop this silly unwise anti-immigration rethoric. Raise of temperature due to man-made climate change will mean more lost crops and more hungry people in the Southern parts of the planet and it will force people to migration to the Northern countries to survive. So, by fighting climate change, you are also solving the migration crisis. And vice versa. By supporting oil and gas industry, you are also accelerating the migration crisis.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Sensei

[Ken Fabian]

As serious as I think global warming is I have never thought it beyond our collective capabilities to deal with it or that dealing with it would be risking economic prosperity; rather, failing to do so has been and remains the greater risk to prosperity. Having a bottomless budget would seem to help, yet I suspect equivalence to all the military budgets would be overkill and potentially counter-productive; being cost effective is an essential requirement and an excess of budget could encourage wasteful expenditure. Use it to buy out the fossil fuel companies and shut them down as accelerated replacement clean energy comes on line, preventing the use of their revenues supporting Doubt, Deny, Delay politicking? Supporting those who will need new kinds of employment and investments?

Diverting a lot of military R&D to clean energy sounds good - but simply supporting energy R&D better would do just as well. What might help is the kind of economy wide shift to war footing that occurred during WW2 - but would be a lot less disruptive, milder, less economically damaging. A deep commitment with forethought and planning would go a long way - and not necessarily directly planning specific tech pathways, but in policy and regulatory measures that encourage the massive investments in low emissions energy needed.  For sure we are better placed now than proposing economy wide change 20-30 years ago - it is happening to some extent already.

I would do as iNow suggests and have a progressive, predictable but inexorable ramping up of carbon pricing/tax - not aimed at end consumers of energy but aimed at the energy industry and investors. It would be a carbon tax that is, by design, intended to be avoidable by choosing investments in low emissions energy options. Subsidy for clean energy? A well designed carbon pricing system ought not need that, but that - and helping out those who's careers in coal and gas and oil are going to be lost - is okay with me. But like any allocating of the proceeds should be open to scrutiny, always, and subject to revision, always. I am personally not a fan of mandating how government revenues are allocated.

[Sriman Dutta]

10 hours ago, MSC said:

We all hear a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to man-made climate change. 

What I hear less of, is what science, technologies and policies are being developed that might have the potential to halt it. 

So here is a scenario; imagine we have access to the military budget of every nation and we could use it to fight climate change. What should we do with that money in this scenario? Assuming all nations agreed to cessation of all military conflicts until the climate is no longer under threat from us, for the time being. 

Obviously this is a highly unlikely scenario, but for the sake of argument I want to know what could be done with a massive re-prioritisation of resources in favour of fighting climate change. 

This is not my AOE outside of the ethics of it, so forgive my ignorance. Appreciate anyone who takes the time to respond.

From a realist's point of view, you cannot altogether discard military. You cannot absolutely disarm and channel all your military funds to other sectors. Because there are threats. Because there is fundamentalism and violence. A recent knife-attack and inhumane beheading of a teacher in France remains the solid evidence that there exists a vast populace whose sentiment is fragile enough to be hurt by caricrature of religious figures. In essence they are arrogant, orthodox and deeply fundamentalist, lashing and attacking all the elements of modernity, viewing them vile and obstructing the progress of humanity. Thus, you need an army, you need civil security against such fundamentalist groups. Imagine if a single person carried out an attrocity as shocking as this in the heart of France, what could an entire association of orthodox fundamentalists do if France or any nation was completely devoid of military? :")

However, I agree to the fact that there is a pressing issue of climate change. If we neglect it, it can only worsen and threaten our own existence. It needs to be addressed on a war-footing basis. I am optimistic that our present and upcoming technology has the potential to drastically reduce cardon emissions. We have highly durable and efficient solar panels, wind turbines, biodegredable plastic, recycling of waste, and so on. 

 

In this regard, I remember an old quote: " We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."