[Tikib]

1. Pacer
2. LFTR
3. Population Cap
4. Global Carbon tax
5. Carbon Fixing Wind turbines
6. Genetic modification of heat resistant crops
7. Increasing reflectance of buildings and other structures through painting etc
8. Burning off of vunerable clathrate deposits and other methane sources.
9. Spreading Of sulphuric aerosols in the atmosphere
10. Distributing Olivine deposits onto the land or into the ocean

Having done some research these are my favourite projects for fighting the dual problems of climate change and peak oil. In order of how helpful I think they would be.

I really beleive the human race has acted extremely irrationally towards these threats. If this had been a human threat like another country, we would have tried everything we could have to prevent our destruction even if the odds were agaist us.

[Tanada]

I think you missed a very big one. Converting excess Biomass into Bio-Char and spreading it into the soil. It is estimated that almost half of current annual emissions could be captured and sequestered by converting it into Bio-char, and the technology is very simple to use.

[C8]

There is not a real will on anybody's part to do anything about climate change. Even in Democratic Party controlled states, none of these proposals has a tiny chance of being seriously implemented on a large scale. But massive unlimited immigration, fracking, subsidies for solar companies (thank you lobbyists), and offshore drilling are totalllllllly cool man! You will get "shovel ready jobs", "cash for clunkers" and an "all of the above" energy strategy that has increased CO2 output with fracking- but, hey! we're against the Keystone pipeline ( it might trip the thousands streaming in from Mexico to join a high fossil fuel lifestyle.)

Global Warming occupies the same place with Democrats that abortion does with Republicans- if you actually solved the problems you would lose voter mobilization- so just make token gestures and votes while unlimited fracking and immigration goes on. Better to zing endless "talking points" at deniers on websites- that will save the planet! After all- if is wasn't for deniers, the Democrats would be moving at light speed to solve this problem (like they did when Obama was just elected and they controlled all the branches- "cash for clunkers" anyone?)

[ennui2]

C8, political mockery doesn't save humanity either.

[Tikib]

I think you missed a very big one. Converting excess Biomass into Bio-Char and spreading it into the soil. It is estimated that almost half of current annual emissions could be captured and sequestered by converting it into Bio-char, and the technology is very simple to use.

#

Bio-char does look promising. I need to look into it more. Usually I seem to get mocked when I post stuff in this forum so its nice to have some constructive criticism. Thanks Tanada.

[35Kas]

How about extreme measures?

Creating a LEO ice ring to reduce the incident solar radiation on the planet by blocking a noticeable % of sunlight.

Genetically engineering algae to better scrub CO2 and CH4 from the water/air.

Painting white large desert surfaces like the Sahara, the Australian Outback and the Andean and Tibetan plateaus.

Piping into and flaring the CH4 in low depth methane ice deposits and permafrost to prevent the CH4 from becoming active in the atmosphere before switching to CO2.

Blocking off Ocean currents like the Gulf Stream by literally dumping ground into the ocean between Florida and Cuba or building Sea Walls to slow down the current while generating electricity.

Building pipes that can pump water into high altitude to create ice clouds to reduce the incidence of solar radiation. Large vacuum or H2 filler balloons that are anchored to the round can hold up the pipes and the water in them. Thousands of these pipes in the West Coast could use the Jet Stream to create thin and long stratospheric clouds over NA for example.

I am sure there are many things can can and will be tried when desperation sets in.

[Newfie]

How about trying to save the other critters on Earth instead!

I mean humans created the problem, why should we be the ones who need saving? What about the innocents, the "others"?

Here is just one idea to effect that, reduce human population to 500 million.

That might actually happen the way we are going. It's just a matter of timing.

[35Kas]

As it goes, by now, most people and organic life in all diversity is going to die in the next few decades anyway.

The way I see it, it may save some people and some critters along the way too. Do nothing and everybody dies, so at this point in the story collateral damage doesn't really matter anymore.

So yeah if today was 100 years ago maybe something could realistically be done to prevent the destruction of the biosphere if somehow you could exert total control over the planet, but now, nothing short of the extreme will make any impact.

[StarvingLion]

How about trying to save the other critters on Earth instead!

I mean humans created the problem, why should we be the ones who need saving? What about the innocents, the "others"?

Here is just one idea to effect that, reduce human population to 500 million.

That might actually happen the way we are going. It's just a matter of timing.

Its either Drexlerian Nanotech to thin the herd (shrink the drone to mosquito size) or its India-like slums. WW3 can't be fought with nukes. And who is anybody kidding that pills and solar panels are progress. Alexander the Great is a better alternative than the "bidness man".

[Newfie]

I think you missed a very big one. Converting excess Biomass into Bio-Char and spreading it into the soil. It is estimated that almost half of current annual emissions could be captured and sequestered by converting it into Bio-char, and the technology is very simple to use.

#

Bio-char does look promising. I need to look into it more. Usually I seem to get mocked when I post stuff in this forum so its nice to have some constructive criticism. Thanks Tanada.

Tikib,

My apologies for my sarcastic post. I probably should not be allowed to post after a 14 hour work day. Better to do it drunk, at least my attitude is better then.

I do wish we would consider the other creatures and life forms of the planet and realize that humanity is just one of many, and really not all that special.

[Tikib]

As it goes, by now, most people and organic life in all diversity is going to die in the next few decades anyway.

The way I see it, it may save some people and some critters along the way too. Do nothing and everybody dies, so at this point in the story collateral damage doesn't really matter anymore.

So yeah if today was 100 years ago maybe something could realistically be done to prevent the destruction of the biosphere if somehow you could exert total control over the planet, but now, nothing short of the extreme will make any impact.

What you have just described is a big part of the problem. Just because the task is hard it doesn't mean its impossible, if 30 years ago we put the measures in place that I suggested I think we could have survived climate change.

As for newfies point about the other animals I do agree that they deserve a livable planet as much as we do, but I do however think that there is something special about intelligent life.