The law in your hands?
When countries introduce new laws, it can sometimes be controversial, which means there can be a lot of clashing opinions.
In recent years, many laws have been passed in countries around the world to try to protect the climate. Different countries have different laws. For example, the European Parliament has approved a new law banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2035.
Lots of people agree that there should be tougher climate laws, so here at Topical Talk we’ve had a go at coming up with a few... but you might think they are controversial?
-
Law 1:
People can only take ten flights in their lifetime.
-
Law 2:
Everyone must become vegan (not eat or use any products that come from animals).
-
Law 3:
Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day.
-
Law 4:
Cars can only be used for three days a week.
Over to you!
Pick one of the laws above and let us know if you think it should or shouldn’t be passed and why. For example, how might people react? What impact might it have on the climate? Or how easy would it be to follow or enforce?
Once you’ve done that, have a go at suggesting some ways to make these laws fairer or less controversial.
You could even suggest some different climate laws that you think might help to protect the planet.
Comments (339)
I think that law four is a flawed idea, but the idea does have potential. I think a better version of this law is a day called "Hoy No Circula" in Mexico. This is a day in which on certain days of the week people can't drive their cars. The days are chosen by the last number on your license plate. This is a fair and fun way to keep air pollution down while making sure that citizens aren't majorly affected by it. So if I were to choose a law to be implemented I would choose law four. If law four was tampered to be more like Hoy No Circula I would be fully for this law.
I agree and another thing is that we can do it like they do in China as well. In Beijing and Shanghai they do this thing where they allow certain cars to go by the person's last digits of their license number. By people doing this it can make the air more cleaner due to how the air over there was getting very polluted.
This is an interesting proposal @cultured_television. To dive a little deeper, would richer people be able to circumvent this by having two cars with different license plate numbers, or people with larger families that are likely to have more cars?
I suppose requiring each person in a family to have the same final license plate number might be a good place to start, but I would be interested to hear what you think!
Law Two is a very interesting idea, in my eyes it is a very good, but it may seem like opposite to many others. My whole life, I was raised to see that meat isn't as essential as once believed. Although meat supplies us with vitality and can aid our body's healing, we don't need it. In fact there are many replacements to meat that do a similar job, such as: seeds, nuts, lentils, beans, the list could go on. Recently, the horrors of animal agriculture have become more recognised, highlighting its impact on our Earth. For instance, 83% of the worlds agricultural land is being used by animal agriculture, it is the lead cause of deforestation, the main driver of habitat loss and a massive danger to animals, threatening their extinction. And that's not all. I could write a whole book about animal agriculture, but that is not what I am here to do.
A University of Oxford stated that if fossil fuel use was ended immediately, the emissions produced by agricultural sector alone would make it impossibe to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. That just shows us how bad it must be. Even the United Nation themselves said that the livestock sector was awful and bad for the environment in 2006. Four years later, they even suggested a shift to a vegan diet could save us.
Many people will stuggle with making this vast change, as meat and its products are dear to them, I don't think that preference should be more important than saving the world. If becoming vegan is what it takes, we should at least give it a try.
I think that law 2 is not logical. We can't oblige all people to be vegetarians.We need protein in our balanced food.
But other laws seem to be practical.we can reduce the hours of using electricity.but i want to comment on law 4.Instead of using cars some days .we can encourage people to walk or use public transport.
Can you get protein from foods other than meat?
First of all I agree with the point that we can't coerce all people to be vegan because meat is a very efficient way to get protein.However there is a lot of substitutes for meat like black beans,butter beans,almonds, buckwheat, jackfruit, soya beans which provide nearly as many essential amino acids as animal proteins do. Hemp seed is absolute winner when it comes to plant-based protein because it contains all 22 amino acids . This includes 9 aminos that our body cant produce on its own. Tofu, lentils, chickpeas also would do.
flowing_chocolate this is very interesting and it is great to see you have done your research! I like your idea of educating about other sources of protein, I certainly did not know how good these substitutes are! Great work!
I agree because... this seems to be a very good suggestion and a fantastic substitute for meat based protein. Having said that, food is an individual choice that one has to make. And that cannot be forced.
Yes, I feel like we can get proteins from foods other than meat.We can get proteins from eating bugs, this option is not the best but it's very rich in proteins and I feel like it's more effective because instead of us killing these bugs we can instead consume them for proteins.
Well done for using your knowledge from one of the resources in the Topical Talk Festival 2022!
The second law is very strict for us because we see that most people get an amoeba when they become vegetarians.
Can you explain what you mean, focused_clam?
I think I understand what focused_clam is trying to say. According to the little research I made, an experiment was conducted from November 2020 to May 2021 to see the microbiomes gotten from vegetables. Spinach and lettuce from the supermarkets in Valencia were used and the results were that Vermamoeba vermiformis (a specie of amoeba) which is capable of causing severe illness to humans were found in a fifth of the vegetable and also Acanthamoeba castellanii (another species of amoeba) which is capable of causing blindness was also found.
I agree because... we can also eat foods like eggs and chicken which also provide us with proteins and not only products from animals.
I disagree because... some people are allergic to bugs and besides that, bugs are not common in my country. so how would you cater for the people and some bugs spread diseases and are crop pests so now you want to encourage us to rear disease vectors.
Mam I have asked my teacher "How to get protein without the meat"
For that she said there are many veggies that are rich in protein and she said some examples like "Pulses,Soya beans,Nuts,Cereals and grains". These veggies gives us not only protein also fibers and iron to our body.
I agree becauseBut we have previously studied that meat is rich in protein sources, but there are no alternatives with the same amount of protein in meat. Like legumes, they contain protein, but lack it, and therefore we cannot do without meat or its derivatives. What's the solution??
💫 Raise animals well so they can reproduce quickly.
💫 Don't waste meat, because the human body doesn't need a lot of meat to get enough protein.
🧐 In your opinion, what are the appropriate solutions?
I agree because meat provides us with proteins , the proteins not only protect us from deficiency diseases but also repair worn out body tissues. Proteins build the body hence promoting growth.
Yes, you can get protein from food sources of animal and vegetable protein: meat, dairy products, fish and eggs, as well as grains, legumes and nuts. Vegetarians can get enough of the necessary amino acids by eating vegetable proteins. But it is not logical that we dispense with meat. We must look to all segments of society. For example, children cannot prevent them from their favorite things. Some people prefer meat. If we apply this law, there will be many objections, and they will migrate to other cities that do not apply this law in order to enjoy their lives.
Algae contains many proteins, which can be eaten for protein
Of course we can .Protein is found lentil,mashrom,beans,soya,nuts and many foods.But i still insist that we don't have to stop eating meat,but we can reduce it.
we can get protein from plants like beans other than animal source.. but I think people may can decrease using animal source but not changing completly to be vegetarians beacause animal meat and fish are delecious and also it is asource of other useful viatamins minerals and omega 3.
I'm not sure about this because some plants may give you protein but will it be enough to survive and be healthy?
I can get protein food other than meat, which is pellet, which some like to call it the ground protein because it contains a large percentage of protein, starchy materials, fats and mineral salts such as phosphorus, potassium, sodium and calcium and contains vitamin A. B 1. B2. All of its components made its formula close to the composition of meat. Its benefit is the same as the benefit of meat.
Yes we can /
Legumes such as: lentils, chickpeas, beans, beans, rice, vegetables, nuts, and others.
Can you give examples of the benefits of eating these foods rather than consuming meat? Is there any research that you can find to back this up?
First and foremost, I agree with skillful_mood that we cannot be forced to rely solely on plants, but we also do not require meat; humans have cereal and grains as a source of protein, for example, 100g of tofu equals 8g of protein, or 30g of peanuts equals 8g of protein. Although cereals and grains are another source of protein for humans, some people are allergic to them and hence cannot consume them.
Yes,we can get protein from other foods like diary products,eggs e.t.c.
Yes, we can get protein from foods other then meat. We can get protein from soy beans, dairy , seeds and cereals and grains. Cereals and Grains are better than meat because it consists of carbohydrates and B-vitamins
which can help make the body cells function properly and provide the body with glucose which is converted to energy used to support bodily functions and physical activity, whiles Soyabeans consists of fat and carbohydrates which may reduce the range of health problems ,as well as improving bone health. Dairy consist of vitamin D, Calcium and Phosphorus which helps in the building of bones and can help lower blood pressure.
I completely agreed with you that we can get protein.fat and vitamin from different sources of plants.
But we can't force people to stop eating animal or animals products.
But the government could establish a whole department only concern with spreading the culture of being more health in having the needed food from plants.
This department could start several awareness campaigns to encourage people to eat plants products.
The department could use social media platforms als to to spread this culture.
This department could prepare suggested options of new kinds of plants products to urge people to have it as an alternative of animals products .
Yes you can for example beans most a animal products nutritions can be also got from plants.
Eggs, nuts, cheese and some fish can also give you good protein instead of eating meat we could result to eating more things like these although why are people vegan? to stop hurting animals? or is it just because they don't want to hurt animals? well i think if we don't eat some animals they might end up killing us all now i know this is quite a statement but the animals are eating our trees and ruining our ozone layer so if you really think about it then maybe its a good thing were eating animals.
Yes you can get proteins from other foods eg chicken turkey duck emu goose, bushbirds, fish, prawns ,crab, lobster, mussels ,oysters, scallops ,clams eggs, milk ,yoghurt, cheese and so many more.
Yes, we can get proteins not only from animal meat, but also from what animals produce, such as milk and eggs
Yes, we can get proteins from other foods other than meat for example meat from some animals are not safe for human health, like pork when it is half cooked leads to tape worm infestation hence causing ulcers and reducing one's life span. In addition to this we can also get proteins from other sources like fish, eggs, milk and legumes. some examples of legumes are ground nuts, peas, beans and many others .So for this case we cannot depend on meat only as a source of proteins.
Hey skillful mood, using public transport is still using cars .In my own view, I really think law 4 will help because when there are no cars we have to walk. Walking to school or to work or any is really good for the body. walking in general helps in weight loss and cardiovascular fitness. Besides we are not totally banned from using cars. It will go a long way in reducing carbon emissions.
I'm not sure about this because... Walking to the place of work or school will take more effort and time from you. I suggest that we implement that for a day or two at least, but why not put a law in the use of public cars more than the cars they own, so that the proportion of smoke that comes out of public cars will be less than to use all He has his own car
I disagree because there are people who go to school and workplaces that are long distances and if there are no cars which helps people to get to long distances over short periods of time, they will have to trek and they will arrive late because the distance was long and if this continues regularly it will affect
their record and if perhaps it was a student, he or she will arrive late and also not concentrate in class because he or she is already tired and famished because of trekking and this could affect his or her academic performance and if it were a person who was working, he or she won't work efficiently because of the long distance and also won't offer maximum customer satisfaction. So, I think the main solution is to change what we use to power our means of transportation such as solar power, wind and electricity which give little or no carbon emissions.
I support you because if law 4 is introduced, people can still use bicycles which is also very good for our health. Besides that bicycles also don't pollute the air hence preventing climate change.
I agree because when carbon emissions are reduced, the climate will be conserved. It will also encourage the use of electric cars like cable cars causing development in a country.
I think that the Ugandan government should also improve on other means of transport like water and air transport to encourage the use of law 4.
I also think that law 4 has some negative impact most especially drivers who use automobiles to earn a living.
It will also led to the decline of some industries like fuel, steel, rubber and paint industries since cars spur their growth.
Hi @skillful_mood, I agree, it is hard to convince the whole world to become vegetarians! but we can get protein from loads of other foods, for example: chickpeas, nuts, lentils and loads more!
Yes we should encourage people to walk, do you have any ideas on how we could get everyone motivated to walk or use public transport?
I agree because... protein is really important to the body. And also law 4 is a bit harsh because we attend school for 5 days a week .
Some good points made. Would there be any consequences of reducing the number of cars? Also, what do you think could be done to improve public transport to better enable this?
We can improve public transport by giving public transport priority at traffic signals. Reducing time spent at traffic signals makes customers happy and reduces costs. Increase circulation around doors for public transport , this increases the amount of time it takes people to board or alight the vehicles and can prevent people from crowding around the doors.
I agree to everything you say, but what about those who are unable to walk? Because waiting may lead to the loss of this person's life.
I agree because protein is a part of everyone's diet. We would not be able to grow correctly if we don't get enough protein in our diets.
I agree with you in the first point because vegetarians are offered to alot of diseases because they don't eat meat.but l don't agree with you in the second point, people need electricity all the days as we live in technology age ,alot of worker earn money by working on line.Five hours electricity per a day is impossible to be applied.
Finally I support walking every day to the near places, because walking is healthy.
You raise a valid point about the second law not being practical for everyone to follow a vegetarian diet, as it is not possible for everyone to obtain the necessary nutrients they need solely from plant-based sources. A balanced diet is crucial for overall health and well-being, and it is essential to consume an appropriate amount of protein as part of that balanced diet.
Regarding the other laws, reducing electricity usage and encouraging people to use public transport or walk instead of driving are practical ways to reduce energy consumption and decrease carbon emissions. These actions can have a positive impact on the environment and help mitigate climate change.
It's important to note that while some laws or suggestions may not be feasible or practical for everyone, there are often alternative ways to achieve the same goals. For example, reducing meat consumption rather than eliminating it entirely or carpooling instead of walking or taking public transport. It's essential to find a balance between individual needs and the broader societal and environmental impacts of our actions.
I agree because... I agree that law 2 is unlogical and there is not enough proteins and carbohydrates and especially iron for young girls
My suggestion is to don't have law like this because in case of emergency situation the elders can't travel in the time.For international sports player have to go for a competition conducted in the foreign country he can't go for more than ten times so it's also a disadvantage for that country. A group of scientists have to go for another country for a discussion about the research they carry out if the scientist have only a limited time to travel in flight according to the law .It was a economically decrease for that country so this law can't be accepted
You've given some good examples for why this might not be practical. Could some people have exemption?
I think that the third law is better not to exist, because hospitals, operating rooms, and factories need electricity greatly, and there are many operations that take more than five hours, for example, Edison's mother, who was sick and in dire need of an operation. When the doctor was performing the operation, he was in dire need of light, and Edison's mother died. Because of this problem, I agree to this law if it is established, with the exception of hospitals, factories and emergency places
Yes, if this law is applied, it will greatly affect our lives. As there are a lot of people who travel for emergencies such as treatment and work.
You are right because if we have a limited time to travel in flight,we shall not be able to access everything we need. Like in my country, most of the goods are from other countries so if this law is introduced, we shall not get all our needs.
I agree because some people conduct businesses abroad hence reducing their income. And if a person is sick to the point of death ,he/ she as completed the time to travel in a fight will he / she be left to die ,for this reason this Law will not be right. And some countries grow flowers, carryout fish and have a low market for their produce in their home country, they use air transport export them since they are perishable and air transport is the quickest type of transport, if this law was implemented , some countries would have losses .
I will be speaking about law, if you ask me I really feel everyone is the world shouldn't become vegans, why.... Well because as we speak we're already endangering some animal all in the name of feeding and that's wrong, if we switch to being vegan a good population of the earth would endanger some plants too, I get the perspective of where this law is coming from but I personally think that we need balance first.
Can you provide some evidence of veganism endangering pants? Animals that are eaten are not endangered as they are mostly farmed. This would be the case for plants too, they would be farmed.
Some evidence of veganism endangering plants is loss of important plants and animals genetic materials, increase pressure on land and water resources and worsen problems with agricultural crops residues.
I agree with you on everything Your words are correct, but it can become vegetarian and we act wisely. Perhaps animals do not exist in homes (extinct from homes), or they may be on another farm, and there is certainly vegetarian food suitable for animals. Vegetarian food is good for humans. What if we eat it? We will get used to vegetarian food Maybe 70% of what you said is correct .
I disagree with tenacious drum's thought of some plants being endangered, because as we eat the plants we replant them with immediate effect.
Very funny but you do have a point if we only eat plants we keep on farming too much that the soil will produce less and if we keep on using manure on the soil it will cause pollution because cows that produce manure cause pollution. Also if you use fertilizer you spend money because fertilizer is expensive in my country.
Hey tenacious drum,
I see where you're getting at with the endangering plants, but I have to disagree. Why? I disagree because although meat does have proteins that we do need they can't support us forever. Most plants, fruits ect. have enough vitamins and stuff to support our living. Also eating meat produces more waste which can effect the environment. Also most meat sold in stores is not real meat, the thing that animal slaughterers kill sick animals. Even if not sick most stores keep old meat that can cause many health issues like E. Coli. They sell it for cheap as well which can catch the attention of buyers who doesn't want to spend much. So although you have a point I disagree with you sadly.
I disagree because when we focus on one sector than the other we tend to unbalance nature. When it comes to plants so may factors are to be put in place before making this type of decision. For example climate change although animals can endure more than plants, plants are more subject to climate conditions because plants, it's nutrition and it's wellbeing can solely depend on climate. So I feel we need to balance the two both vegans and non vegans it will go a long way in not focusing on one sector and endangering the other. Also meat can help us to grow especially young people but we don't need to take much of it, You just need to add a little protein to balance your diet but you take not of the meat and know you're getting the meat from the right source so that you don't get human meat which is bad or an animal which has contacted a disease.
I think that the third law will not be compatible with everyone. For my part, I can now participate here through electricity because the Internet is related to the existence of electricity, and there are 7 other members of the family, so we need electricity to save food or to wash clothes and many other things. As for the first law, it is kind of good, but from my point of view, imagine that the world's population is approximately 8 billion, and each person will make 10 trips. The impact of this will be great on the environment, so I prefer 5 trips instead of 10, and so it will be better. I have a solution, we have discussed in the technology class that electricity can be generated through water, and according to my studies on it, it is very environmentally friendly, but it does not require a large amount of capital
You have made a good point around how electricity is important for you and your family to be able to be undertake your daily lives. The internet is also so important in connecting the world in this day and age!
In terms of the other law around flying, can you think of any reasons why person may need to take more than 5 flights in their lifetime? Would you have any exceptions to the rule?
A good reason why this law shouldn't be implemented is because of health care advantage that some countries have over others. If an individual who has used up his 10 permissions to fly needs immediate treatment and he or she is in a country that doesn't have good resources, what do we expect him to do? Should this individual die because of this law?
Another reason why this law shouldn't be implemented is due to effect it'll have on international trades between countries. If a person who gets perishable goods from another country and sells it to people in his own country uses up his 10 permissions to fly and he can't get his goods quickly, should he settle for water transportation which is slow and risks the spoilage of his goods?
So therefore, this law shouldn't be implemented, or else an exception is made.
A lot of people have jobs which would have to take them outside their state or country so yes there are people who would have to take more than five flights in their lifetime.
That's right ... Good job👏👏
II liked your way of performing You are 100% correct 👍🏻
I agree with you,I think the third law should not be Passed on. If you ask me why, in my country we did not even have the opportunity to use electricity for 5hours,and this is a very bad situation. It is causing alot to our society insecurity and unemployment.
Insecurity: many street has no street lights and it is affecting so many people. And it will attract robbery in our society.
Unemployment:it is a very crucial aspect most especially in my country,so many youth who are unemployed engage themselves inArmrobbery , prostitution, kidnapping and cybercrime all this are due to unemployment.
If there should be regular electricity supply many factories will be established and will be in need of workers. Low electricity supply will make them have a decrease in production,and a company that is low in production can not employ so many workers.
It will affect so many people in the society mostly traders that use electricity for frozen food to preserve it,and company that makes use of machine.
Decrease in electricity will affect in the medical aspect, because so many hospitals make use of machine.
My country lack so many equipment in the hospital due to low electricity supply. It will be good if the third law should not be Passed on.
I agree because... whenever there is unemployment people will not be able to easily meet their needs forcing them to do unacceptable behavior in the community like theft.
l also think that law three might not work in countries that experience winter due to a lot of coldness and room heaters use electricity to function.
I agree that the third law is not compatible with everyone because a lot of people may work with electricity because their job causes them to work online or just the ordinary person like a lot of us who rely on electricity everyday. For the first law I disagree because a lot of people depend on flights to meet with family that they may be far from or for their job. I know planes contribute to a lot of the world's population but maybe a compromise could be found in laws so regular people do not have a limit on flying.
Compromise is always hugely important in making decisions that affect lots of people. Can you think of any good compromises?
The third law: It should not be passed because electricity helps very important in human life, such as household uses such as lighting, heating, and operating household electrical appliances, but it has an impact on the climate because power plants burn raw materials such as coal and fuel, so gas is produced from burning that causes a rise in the earth’s temperature. And it causes pollution in the air that all living beings breathe, which endangers their health/ To make this law fair, electricity must be used from 6-15 hours per day so that people can fulfill their needs/ Perhaps this law that he proposed helps some, which is not to build factories near cities and reduce the burning of raw materials
What about in places like hospitals?
Continuous power outages pose a great danger to the lives of patients, resuscitation devices and x-ray machines stop, and departments suffer from power outages, knowing that the number of dialysis patients is very large, so it must be used 24 hours because it is important in the health field and saves human life
But some places can be excluded by the state that stipulates this law, such as hospitals, because of dialysis patients. Yes, this will affect the environment, but if people are constantly dialysis, then they will not be sick with this disease, so it helps reduce its impact on the environment.
I think law 3 cannot work in hospitals because they need electricity 24 hours.
In case of a serious emergency at night, patients cannot be left to die because of this law.
Electricity can also be used for security purpose since some patients are victims of kidnapping.
In my opinion, the law is just a simple law because it is applied in my city and I do not see any inconvenience. On the contrary, it is nice to remain without electricity and live an old life that our ancestors lived without development and bringing the family together. There are many roads in my city which have lights through the use of solar energy and solar cells. Therefore, in my opinion, all the laws are easy and simple, but we have not tried anything in this life. There are two sides to this law, a positive side and a negative side, and also a need or an invention, so it is possible to set this law to change the environment and invent things that are not harmful to the environment
I second trustful_hurricane in law three, Why? because electricity can't be used for only five hours for example at our home we use it for cooking, ironing clothes, watching series of movies and news, entertainment and that is not only used for five hours. Electricity is also used at our school, imagine we use more than five hours for learning and even typing of school daily documents, so implementing it as a rule or law won't be easy because the public at large too uses electricity for different purpose.
#I think that Law 4 "Cars only can be used for 3 days a week" can be passed because it's somewhat applicable in our life. We can reduce the air pollution and also save our natural resource.
#I feel that Law 2"Everyone must become vegan" is not possible because there are some people who consume meat for their health but it can be slowly reduced.Yes, ofcourse it's mentioned for a good cause but practically it's impossible.
That's an interesting point on cars, eager_atmosphere. Do you think this might cause difficulties for those people who live in areas without much public transport, or who need access to a car at all times (for example to attend work, hospital appointments, and so on)?
First of all THANKYOU and yes, ofcourse it will be difficult for those people without much public transport facility and for those who need access to car everytime. Cars are found only to make our lifestyle easy.
Suddenly implementing to reduce its use,surely it finds difficult.But by thinking of the future generation, it can be done.When something is being taken away,the alternative should be found. Instead of using petrol or diesel car , electric vehicle can be used .The electric vehicle can be used regularly as it won't pollute and for attending the hospital appointment , the appointment would have been informed earlier, the usage of car should be scheduled accordingly .If the government wants people to follow this law,the government should provide them with public transport facility who requires it .
Thank you for your thoughts. Relating to Law 4 - do you think there should be set days that cars can and cannot be used?
First of all THANKYOU.I don't want to set days when car can and cannot be used because already implementation of this law, people finds difficult and setting the day when the car should be used and shouldn't,makes people vexed.Those 3 days are important for the people to use their car wisely and they will be scheduling the usage of car according to their requirement.In case of medical or some other emergency ,but the day isn't allotted for them . They don't find the law for a good cause and it also have a chance to make people violates the law
No, it's okay that the rate at which we use cars can be reduced through this law. There shouldn't be any set days on when we can use cars because people may not need to drive on the set days, but there is the possibility that they may need to use their cars on other days.
I chose the second and third laws for their discussion
The second law is "that every person becomes a vegetarian." It is a law that may be applied because the body can survive by relying on plant food only, but it will not be a healthy balanced diet because the body needs meat and their products to produce certain proteins that can only be produced through these foods, and this law will meet a very large negative reaction from people because animal products make up a large proportion of their food and it has become accustomed to On the presence of these foods already, although this will help reduce environmental pollution, but do not forget that after a period of time, the number of animals will increase very dramatically, and herbivores will eat a lot of plants, which are Predators will continue to excrete gases. Some may consider this better than using animal products that are made in factories that produce large amounts of smoke, but it is in fact not the best solution, but to make this law It is more appropriate to recommend a diet based on plant foods, but not devoid of animal products as well .
As for the third law, "using electricity in five hours," it cannot be implemented because it is not possible to limit a person's needs of electricity, charging and lighting only to five hours, and we do not know what conditions we may go through and be Electricity is in dire need, and it is almost impossible to apply it in the first place, except for mentioning the attack that the government will face from the population because of this law, but it can be modified and the day divided into ten hours of electricity and ten hours of alternative energy clean .Thus, it remains only four hours without electricity, during which time a person can practice his own hobby and something like that
I think the most appropriate of these laws is (the fourth law), cars can only be used for three days a week, because there are means of transportation other than cars, such as mass transportation and so on. Also, cars are the most polluting of the environment, so they affect the climate badly. As for the first law, people can do With only ten trips in their lives, this has no effect on the climate much, so why should I limit the number of trips per person? For the third law, everyone can use electricity for only five hours a day. This will greatly affect people's lives. I believe that these four laws are more appropriate, as I said earlier, because of their great impact on the environment and climate
I never thought about the law this way but with what you have said you have made me to think deeply.
A person can only take ten flights in their lifetime, according to the law.
My suggestion is not to have a law like this because if patients could not take treatment in their own country if they wanted to go to foreign countries to take treatment if they experienced it all ten times, how could they go for their treatment? So it is not logical; instead, we can say a person can take 10 flights except for educational and medical purposes.
You show great problem-solving here, valuable_tamarind, by thinking from a different perspective and proposing a solution.
I agree with you, as scholars must move around to discuss ideas, without them ignorance would spread. As in our religion, Islam, scholars of hadith in the past would travel from one country to another to find out what hadith hadith and I would agree to this law if it did not apply to scholars and patients
Hi, valuable_tamarind,
I must say I read your comment and deeply agree with your points; a law like that does not seem logical to me but it also got me thinking, was this law made to help improve the climate or in other words reduce climate change?
I agree because if patients are not taken to get treatment to foreign countries many people would have died hence in reducing the population of an area and more importantly people at high ranks in government would die and lead it to the decline of the economy. In this case i would allow the government to allow people to rake more than ten flights in their life time especially the skilled labourers and medical workers.
I strongly agree with you. I also feel the law is not relevant because business workers would have to travel for business trips and we all know that business workers travel a lot, so if these business workers have take only ten flights in their life time how will the be able achieve all the have planned ? How will they be able to gain profit in their businesses as the are only restricted to ten flights in a lifetime ? I feel these law of ten flights in a lifetime will make businesses suffer production and financial losses , not only businesses but even patients can be affected by these law as the will not have enough flights to take them to other countries to attend to emergency treatment.
I feel these law is also not cogent for countries which are involved in wars . For instance if flight were restricted only ten time in a life times wars would be absolutely different, as airpower would not be in much existent, the scouting of enemy movements wouldn’t be possible, and all wars would be fought on the ground, taking time, so many lives and property.
Can you suggest a different law ?
I would like to say that law 1 is not applicable to people who must travel a lot for their life enrichment. roughly 100,000 flights take off and land everyday all over the globe. Businessmen must travel a lot for improving their business in an international level. Generally, people working in the research industry must travel a lot. Especially international trade consists of two types of mode of transport one is waterway and another one is airway if we have restriction that people have to travel 10 ten times in their lifetime it considerably reduces the economic growth of a country and moreover it leads to poverty condition. Instead of reducing flight time we can improve water transport facilities which emit less carbon than planes. Research concluded that flight emits 500gm of carbon or metric tons of cargo per kilometer of transportation. However, ships emit only between 10 to 40 grams of carbon per kilometer. The carbon footprint of airplanes is 20 to 30 times more than ships.
Hi thoughtful_cliff, I really like how you have thought about this problem from the perspective of business leaders, and you have also offered a solution which is backed up by facts about carbon emissions.
I would be interested to know your thoughts on our new topic - the metaverse. Do you think business people could use the metaverse to solve the problem of carbon emissions due to travel? What do you think the pros and cons might be to this?
For example
A patient checks the doctor. He is prescribing for protein deficiency . The patient should have milk,eggs and dairy products but this law opposed for it. If they are using vegetarian food without using the products came from animals it leads to severe cause of that disease.
That disease symptoms are :
swelling, fatty liver, skin degeneration, increase the severity of infections and stunt growth in children. This is the disadvantage for that law. So this law is unaccepted.
Hi observant_wolf, I would be interested to know where you found your information about a vegetarian diet being bad for those with a protein deficiency? It is true that animal products contain lots of protein, which is key to a healthy diet. Can this protein be replaced with protein from plants?
Actually observant_wolf is correct but according to research , found that overall health of vegetarians to be better than that of non-vegetarians.Because plant-based products or vegetarian products, provide a wholesome amount of nutrients along with proteins. While animal protein provides a complete source of protein, it have also been linked with various negative health effects. Red meat is said to be a primary reason for various heart diseases.Yes,ofcourse they can be replaced but not suddenly,may be gradually. There are many proteins from plant sources like soybean, kidney bean, chickpea,beans, almond, peanut and many more.
For Law 3 it is not acceptable in the hospital situation in the serious cause of emergency if we have only five hours of electricity means it did not be accepted by the people because if a patient is going for a emergency heart attack . The doctor can do respective treatment in between the time but in case of the emergency happened after the five hours of electricity means it cannot be done . So it's a disadvantage for the patient if we can't give our treatment the patient leads to loss of life. So this law is not agreeable
Well done for thinking of one of the problems with LAw 3, observant_wolf, could you think of a possible solution to this problem?
I think the solution for this may be they can say that "the electricity must be used 5 hours per day except in hospitals".
I agree because...
I liked your thinking.
Other than that, we can exploit renewable energy in every country. Here in my country there are regular winds in the Negev desert and we overlook the Mediterranean Sea, but we do not exploit it or benefit from it, and this is because we do not have the capabilities that help us in This, instead of this law, we can replace it by making every developed country provide an amount every month and collect this money and present it to developing countries, and this is a way to contribute:
1. We can establish an association in a famous country and advertise it in all developed countries
2. That we set a monthly amount to be offered by developed countries
3. To balance between all developing countries the extent of their need for these funds
4. Divide the money to developing countries
And so we can replace Law 3 by using renewable energy
Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day it is not possible in current scenario because pandemic situation makes the hospital to work 24/7, for using medical equipment such as ventilators and operation related equipment requires electricity for their functioning. Industry has to work with electricity. If we restrict the use of electricity only for five hours, they cannot provide finished goods which would not be consumable by the consumer. Daily use of electricity is consumed more at nighttime only. People at home use lighting , internet, kitchen appliances which require electricity. If we restrict the use of electricity to only 5 hours, it affects the household extremely. Businesses require internet to constitute E-COMMERCE which makes trade available at any time anywhere in the world internet would function only when there is electricity. Instead of electricity produced by other energy we can use solar power which emits least carbon compared to other sources producing electricity. We have to reduce electricity produced by thermal and nuclear power plants which considerably emit more carbon when compared to electricity produced by solar and wind energy.
You have done an excellent job of thinking about the implications of this law, and provided a thoughtful solution.
Thank you mam
Thoughtful cliff
I thought well, but we assume that the electricity company only excludes hospitals and work companies. It's kind of fine, but the pressure on electricity will be a lot because people will try as much as possible to make the most of the five hours, which leads to a lot of stress. This is not a law that should be enforced and will affect the climate.
Thank you for your answer, it was cool and scientific, but you didn't think through all the aspects
I really like how you anticipated how people might feel and behave if this law was introduced.
I really like your outstanding and interesting points.
And i also agree that if electricity is restricted to only five hour per day, the house hold would be affected because appliances which require electricity will not be completely available to run certain functions in the home, businesses involved in e-commerce will not be able to complete their daily task as their is no internet to assist them due to the five hours restrict of electricity a day and if we restrict the use of electricity to only 5 hours, industries may not be to provide finished/refined good which would not be of good use by the consumer.
As thoughtful_cliff mentioned instead using electricity generated from fossil-fuel energy sources, we could use renewable energy sources such as solar power,wind power and also hydrogen fuel cells to make a significant reduction in the the emissions of carbon dioxide.
I think that the 2nd law is impossible. If we avoid to eat the food from animals how can we have a protein rich health body and we cant live without using animals products.which are required for our day to day life
Can you get protein sources from things other than meat? For example Soya beans and nuts/seeds are all high in protein. Do you have evidence than not having meat is bad for your health? Maybe we could have meat free days? What do you think?
We can be able to get protein even from plants and vegetables such as lentils, chickpea, soybeans, legume, peanuts, almond, potato, oats, soymilk, spinach which would be a substitute for meat source of protein. But some people have allergens to milk, soya and even nuts. They must find other sources of food for getting protein. If all people started to become vegan it affects the food chain adversely. Even it affects the market based on animal products, that is silk cloth, milk and meat etc. Many countries were largely producing cattle products if this law introduced it extremely affects the whole world.
I disagree because...
A study conducted in the United States talked about the relationship between diet and death, and the results were clear, as German Provig reported that plant eaters enjoy a longer life and that they can avoid cancer more.
They often say that those who eat plants without meat do not enjoy good health, and suffer from a deficiency in nutrients, but they can be compensated with plants. For example, animal protein can be replaced by legumes and eating large amounts of carbohydrates, and vitamin D can be exposed to the sun or eating sweet potatoes. And vitamin B6 can be replaced with spinach, bananas and potatoes.
We can substitute meat and it's good for us and the planet .
The difficulty does not lie here, the difficulty lies in the method of getting used to eating meat, as there are many people who include meat as main meals daily, so it is difficult to tell them this suddenly, so we must gradually convince them at the beginning not to eat it for two days a week and then three days And so on until we get what we want .
In my opinion law 2 and 3 would be very difficult for people to follow. Yes it is true that we can have vegetables instead of non- veg but suddenly we can't ask anyone to change their habits. Instead of telling everyone must become vegan we can say that everyone can eat non only during the weekends.
And now coming to the law - 3 it is difficult for everyone right from the young infants to the old aged people. And if we bring this law during summer season everyone will get exhausted as they won't get cool air and for students who are going to schools and colleges they won't be able to study peacefully. Rest of the rules maybe we can bring
If we become completely vegetarians, the environmental balance and the food chain will be disturbed. Plants will become extinct at some point because humans and most animals depend on plants, and animals will multiply. When plants decrease or end, oxygen production will decrease through the photosynthesis of plants, and this will negatively affect the environment.
And for the law of using cars 3 days aweak. It's dufficult to be applicable in my country.
It will affect education and work..because many needs to travel big distance to reach the universties or work , and those are daily missions that must be done to improve their life and to build their future.
You are right that is what I meant. I have said the same
My idea is not to use this law because per day we will use electricity time to time ,In hospital there are many patient they want always a electrical fan time to time because it makes them to sleep well and take rest properly.In School the are many children studying they will use alteast 7 hours of electricity per day in there schools .There are many people who works in computer for their jobs they always will be connected with the electrical appliances .Certain people who works in cafe they will use electricity for making juice ,coffee,sandwich and so on .So we need more than 5 hours of electricity per day.
The law 2 is really interesting and it made me want to discuss it with my teacher and friends , in my opinion we can't apply it in our lives, there are many people who need to eat meat that has the benefits and protein that our bodies need, but there are some people who don't like it, they say :"That we should not kill animals only to eat", well people are free they can eat what they want ,but if this is make our life in danger,we must to find a solution,and here is mine : With the scientific development today, we have many vegan meats that are made from bean and potato proteins, and their taste are very similar to real meat.
Although, we can't stop eating it completely , but we can decrease consumption of real meat and try the vegan !
I agree because we need meat in our life to build our bodies so we won't Dispense meat completely if it will affect the animals' life we can eat meat but in small quantities so Your suggestion is the best
I think that the third law is not suitable for a developing country like our country,because we work on the bases of the electricity for promoting our country into a developed country .In many factories and industries we use electricity to promote the manufacturing of products .For example If I am an employee in a company called ''ROYAL ENFIELD'' it is a famous motorbike manufacturing company so I ough to make some parts to fix in my motorbikes .Now I need my accessory tools to make the parts of the motorbikes without electricity how can I make them ? cause tools need electricity to work,here electricity plays a vital role in manufacturing the parts of the motor bikes ,there will be three shifts allocated for the employees in the company to work it is termed as first shift second shift and night shift in first shift a batch of people will be working in the day time and in second shift a batch people will be working the afternoon time and in night shift people will be working in night time. Now if the first shift people uses 5 hours of electricity for manufacturing the motorbikes then what about the second shift and night shift people here? The employment of people automatically decreases and the production of company also decreases so if this continues for a week in the major companies of our country like IT companies where people work 24/7 on the computer automatically the economy of the country decreases and the country can face poverty ! ! So I feel this law is not suitable for the developing countries and without electricity how can we charge our gadgets in case of emergency how can we use their gadgets without electricity! ?and law four is quite a good law where it can reduce the global warming of the country .
That's an interesting point careful_musician, you said that this would affect the way people work and the chain of production. How would you resolve this for Law 3?
I think that the third law is not logical because electricity is an essential thing in this life, so daily habits have become dependent on electricity, such as washing clothes, washing machines, preserving food, refrigerators, and there are also some means of education that need the Internet, which needs electricity. In the end, with the discovery of electricity, everything in our life has become dependent on it
Hi Noble_Clementine,
You are right - well done for identifying the ways in which limiting electricity might not be very practical!
Can you think of a compromise solution? For example, the five hours a day law only applying to "leisure" products (such as games consoles) rather than "essential" products (such as refrigerators). Do you have any other ideas?
One solution could be capping the amount of electricity used per household, which would encourage people to use energy more efficiently. Promoting energy-efficient practices such as turning off lights when not in use, unplugging appliances when not in use because this is an important thing as even if we turn off switches the current might pass so unplugging is an important thing which we should consider, and using energy-efficient products can also help. Improving the energy efficiency of homes and buildings by adding insulation, sealing leaks, and upgrading heating and cooling systems can make a big difference in reducing energy consumption. According to my research, another way to save on electricity bills is to take advantage of time-of-use pricing, which incentivizes using electricity during non-peak hours when rates are lower. And I think the government can provide tax credits or rebates for the homeowners who invest on energy-efficient upgrades.
One easy way to compromise on reducing electricity usage during peak hours is to create a voluntary program where people can choose to participate and receive rewards for using less electricity during those times. This would allow people to decide whether they want to take part, while still encouraging them to save energy when demand is high. The rewards could be things like discounts on energy-efficient products or credits on their electricity bills.
The climate problem is exacerbating and increasing every day, and the world has not developed solutions to reduce this problem. Here I want to put in place a law to control the use of energy by replacing the energy supply with a carbon-free one or using renewable energy such as wind, sun and water energy because it runs out over time and is environmentally friendly and reduces emissions Thermal energy resulting from power generation and available in most countries of the world
This is an interesting point, you said we should use renewable energy. Do you think some kinds of renewable energy would work better in specific countries?
Yes, I believe strongly, as, for example, the tropics and their surroundings depend on solar energy, and there are countries that will depend on wind energy, and there are countries that will depend on tidal energy, water energy, and other alternatives.
I think that renewable energy specifically solar energy would work better in a country like Nigeria where most of the time the weather is usually sunny. Though it is an effect of han induced climate change it can be put into good use by turning it into solar energy.
Yes I agree ,because solar energy is usable because many developing countries are located in regions where access to sun rays is optimal and are applicable to both homes and villages. solar energy generates electricity and heat or desalinating water. And also wind energy is a clean and renewable source it produces electricity with out burning fuels or polluting the air which can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Yes, the suitability of different renewable energy resources in various countries depends on various factors like geographical features, climate condition, natural resources etc. Like a renewable energy resource which works in one country might not work in another country that is solar power can be generated in a country where there is abundant sunlight but not in a cold weathered country, hydro power can be a good option for countries having ample water resources. So choice of renewable energy resources should be made carefully based on the unique conditions of each country.
Solar energy is the best option for countries like India, Australia, China as these countries are suitable to generate solar power. And Australia is one of the world's leading producers of solar energy. Coming to hydro power, countries with fast-flowing rivers and a lot of rainfall, such as Brazil , Canada, Norway are well-suited for hydropower.And even China has world's largest installed hydropower electricity according to research. Similarly countries with strong and consistent wind like United Kingdom, Denmark are ideal for wind power. Some countries may have a particular advantage in developing certain renewable energy sources based on their technological expertise or natural resources. For example, Iceland is known for its geothermal energy resources. Therefore, understanding a country's natural resources and evaluating their potential for developing renewable energy sources is an important step in transitioning to a more sustainable and low-carbon energy system.Moreover, investing in renewable energy sources that match a country's resource endowments can stimulate economic growth and provide competitive advantages in the global renewable energy market.
The second law ; I feel like not everyone would like to be a vegetarian because others may not have the genetic disposition to maintain healthy , bodily functions without some certain nutrients. And feeding only on vegetables does not provide a balanced diet.
I think the most appropriate and best laws is the "Fourth Law", as it will push us to walk on our feet, which has many benefits, including: maintaining a healthy weight, losing body fat and improving body fitness, but if the place we want to go is far away, it is possible to use bicycles with pedals that It does not emit smoke like cars, and it is fun and increases activity. Also, let us not forget that we were not denied the right to ride in cars. We can ride for three days, and I think it is a sufficient period.
Yes, Fourth law is acceptable we can walk to the office , or in bicycle , in public transport if the world has a law like this our earth will not in the global warming because of the air pollution it affects our air. Now we are started to drink the water in the water bottle gives the money . In future why it not happen to the air to buy oxygen in cylinder. But the law four came to the countries the lot of taxi driver s will loss there job and will be jobless it also affects the countries economically.
Would this change if we used electrical vehicles?
They may be very useful but only in areas where there is a lot of air and wind to move, for example they can be used in the United States of America in the West Coast and Midwest where winds spread there which helps to use these compounds, but in my country climate fluctuations will not allow We can use them because the climate changes a lot, and one day it is raining and one day the sun is hotter than its normal rate, so we must reduce or prevent this change to allow us the opportunity to use these compounds, to prevent this change from happening again
Some interesting points raised!
I disagree because I think that it is not possible to determine the time of using cars. Because cars are somewhat important and help with emergency things. For example, when something sudden happens and you want to go quickly you will need a car to go, and if something bad happens to someone and he should go to the hospital to Rescue himself he will need a car to go, so I think it is impossible to apply this law
I think that law 1 is not logical because it affects more people like Doctors, patients, scientist, researchers, students,workers, tourist ect. In case of medical emergency,they need to move to another country for higher treatment and if they already used ten times then how will go for treatment?so there can be no restrictions or laws for medical emergency.
For the students or workers who went to study or work in abroad for 5 or more years ,how could they visit their parents, friends, relatives or home country of they already used air transport ten times? Instead,one person can travel only five to six times a year.
Scientists often have to be apply to jobs in other countries. Some types of resarch require scientists to go to specific locations to collect data on geology, local biology, air quality, or other types of measurements. These can involve international travel,so this law affects them to a large extent.
Many developing countries also require a burgeoning tourism industry to maintain a steady economy driven by accessible air transport.Instead ,we can say a tourist can travel to one country one or two times.
Law4 is comparatively easier than others because this law states that only not use cars . Instead we can use public transport for transportation. Law1 is bit difficult because 10 flights for lifetime can affect the job of a person. As being a public authority they need to travel various places for emergency and for some official meetings so this law can affect their works. Law2: As mentioned,not to use the products that came from animals. Due to this law the leather industries faces a irreparable loss and the workers position would be terrible without job and even it distrubs the profit to country. And also the people who have protein deficiency can affect because of this. Instead it can be like, can eat non-vegetarian foods only thrice a week. And also because of this the hotels ,based on animal fleshes and the butcher can face loss. Law3 can made less easier by can use electricity in some particular units a month. Some laws I would suggest is:
• Every one should plant a sampling in their home.
• Use bicycle a day in a week.
• Not to use non-recyclable plastics.
I like how you have considered all the pros and cons of each laws from several different perspectives.
Thank you very much mam...
I think that law 1 is crazy because some people have jobs that oblige them to take a plain. Like athletes.
You give a really good example of athletes who need to travel for their job. Can you think of any solutions as to have athletes who do need to travel could do it in a way that is better for the planet?
One of the athletes in Uganda like Kiprotich, Cheptegai and Chemutai.
I think that since scientists have invented the use of rechargeable cars, they can also try to invent rechargeable aeroplanes that can charge in the air as they fly. That's my opinion because I know everything is possible if interest is shown.
Passionate_ brain, I believe you should reconsider your opinion. Whilst this law would be solely instituted for climatic reasons, it can encourage people to think thoroughly regarding where they want to go first. For example, an inspiring person is Grahame Hughes who visited all 201 countries without using a plane. Instead, he used public transport and his own to feet. Now, I am not saying that we should walk from the UK to India, I am merely suggesting that Olympic events relating to your example of athletes should be held in a not isolated location that is easier to get to. Additionally, professional engineers are working on constructing electric planes using battery power. The first electric plane that has flown a considerable amount of miles was built in September 27th, 2022. I would like to pose a question passionate_brain, do you think that there should be a law where people are only allowed to use electric or public transport and at what cost?
After our teacher explained this lesson to us and discussed it with us, we have some ideas that could be a solution to this change.
There are many laws that can be applied in the world to prevent climate change, which has a negative impact on the environment, but this change can't be completely stopped.
The first and fourth laws help a lot in stopping this change and not continuing it.
Yes, people can make only ten trips in their lives, and in my opinion it helps a lot in reducing change, it is very useful, many interact with this law based on the need for them to travel to the place they want to go to and the fear of some families for their children. Following this law reduces climate change, but not in large proportions, because this problem can't be completely eliminated. The application of this law is very easy, as many people around the world are afraid of heights and don't tolerate planes.
With some modifications to this law, we can make sure that the change disappears.
It is possible to use the existing balloons in the world and take advantage of the existence of The cable cars, which don't need fuel and oil that affect the climate, and everyone enjoys riding these machines to move around.
I see that all laws talk about reducing the causes of climate change, so why don't we completely end the causes? I see that technology has developed greatly to make planes and cars that depend on solar energy or on batteries or other things, as well as electricity is a very important thing in people's lives that cannot be Cut it permanently and at the same time we useElectricity that depends on sunlight, and we do not want to use any product that comes from animals, so that food factories work to provide similar products to them, and these methods, I think, are the best thing
This makes a lot of sense sociable_yuzu. Can you see any reasons why ending all of the causes abruptly might not be supported by everyone?
You presented a wonderful point of view, but don't you see that it is impossible for us to stop using planes, or even cars, or stop using electricity? What is the reason for inventing it? Facilitating our lives as humans. In the past, they used camels and animals to travel. It used to take a long time, in addition to the house in the open with the presence of predatory animals, in addition to that they might run out of water. As for electricity, we use it for heating and lighting purposes. What will we do if there is no electricity? We will use fire to meet our needs. Imagine if everyone lit a fire. It would be a disaster because it emits carbon emissions in large quantities. Wouldn’t the climate be damaged? Imagine if you lit green spaces next to your suggestion. You are not helping the environment, but rather destroying it, so it is better for us to reduce environmental pollution and preserve it.
Every one use 5 hours of electricity per day
My suggestion is not to have law like this.
If we can only able to use the electricity 5 hours per day after five hours in case of emergencies oxygen need for any patient in hospital how could they get it without electricity and in the case of accident how doctor could treat the injured person.
India requires a continuous power supply to keep its growth in momentum.
Electricity serve as a key factor of production.
Energy infrastructure may contribute to economic growth and development.
Electricity consumption can promote economic growth.
You've listed some good arguments here, valuable_tamarind. Which law would you choose instead to help the environment?
I would suggest the 4th law to help the environment because, compared to other laws, the 4th is somehow applicable in our day-to-day life, because we can manage, like alloting the first three days for half of the population and the other 3 days for the other half of the population. Likewise, we can manage.
In my opinion, the third law does not seem very logical and practical, because there are negative aspects to that law, and it also has positive aspects for all people. Among its positive aspects: 1- Preserves electricity for a longer period of emergency
2- Works to reduce bills
3- Supporting the manufacture of energy-saving equipment, which helps in the development of the international economy
4- Reducing emissions affecting the environment as a result of fuel consumption in power plants
5- Avoid dismissal at times when the demand for electricity increases.
And these benefits enhance the state that reduces electricity consumption and helps it to withstand the difficult times that it will face in the future.
There are also negatives to this law as well as positives, as it cannot be applied to all places: such as hospitals, health centers, civil defense and police stations,For example, if the electricity is cut off, it will cause great problems and dangers. Hospitals have dangerous operations and need electricity, and there are some patients who need electrical devices for treatment and also when conducting important examinations. As for police stations, there is monitoring of the conditions of people and criminals and control of prisons. As for the civil defense centers, there is an alarm for the incident fires.
Therefore, time and places must be organized to reduce electricity consumption in homes and keep it in these centers.
I chose the first and second law to discuss them: The first law: I myself do not agree with this opinion because in the event of an emergency there are patients, whether they are old or young at that time, and in addition to businessmen, they may have their own important projects, so I do not think that this law is logical. As for the second law, it is also completely illogical. We cannot rely solely on plants for our food, even if meat is a fatty food, because this law may be dangerous. Plants are the source of our breathing, as they produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide, and there would be no rain without plants.
Actually, many people rely solely on plants for their food and are very healthy - this diet is called "veganism". Does this change your mind about anything?
I think that vegetarians replace the protein that we take from meat with the protein that is found in plants, and this is something that can reduce the percentage of protein in the body because plants do not contain protein like animals, but if these people eat plants in a very large way, they may compensate for these proteins
Wow, I was surprised. We in the Gaza Strip are used to the limited use of electricity. We lived many days using only four hours of electricity per day because of the blockade. I think it is possible for people to live using five hours of electricity a day.
hi everyone...
I feel that law 2 is very logical and it can be applicable by using special smart equipments that counts and limits the amount of electricity for every single house.
That means Reducing the electricity we use besides using sun power to produce solar systems .
Regarding law 4 ..I recommend to apply this rule so we can have less polluted air and also healthier bodies that can practise walking instead.
I think that the third law is impassoble because here in my country Electric current sometimes get off and as we all know the importance of the electric power the world is getting evolving and we all need it in our live
I think the fourth law is acceptable and we can make a walk campaign. You know there are a lot of benefits for walking, for example : Walking helps you lose weight and reduce stress so I think we all should follow this law.
Good point, fantastic_currant, that there's not just an environmental impact but a healthy living impact too. How would you make sure that people living in rural areas could still access services without a car?
In my opinion law 1 & 2 shouldn't be passed.
Law 1 says people can only take ten flights in their lifetime which is impossible for sportspersons, scientists, businesses men and even ordinary people. According to sportspersons, they have to travel in flights most of the times to represent their country in foreign countries. People like us uses flights for emergency conditions like for treatment. To reduce carbon footprints one can use waterways instead of airways.
Law 2 says everyone must become vegan which affects the persons rights. It is the individual's right to eat what they want. In different countries they will have different varieties of foods. Not only veg food is rich in protein, vitamin, carbohydrates, etc but also Non veg food is rich in protein and vitamin B. They also strengthen our muscles. So instead of compelling everyone we can implement law like to eat non once in a week.
My opinion about law 1:If this law comes into action many countries which have tourism as main economic wealth could be affected and many people need the help of airways to reach their destination fast during emergencies for example if someone is travelling for the purpose of education,job,medical treatments,research purposes inside the country will not have any problem they could use others moods of transport but travelling to other country or continents is really hard to use other mode of transport and many people dream to visit different countries in their lifetime which will not happen as they have only 10 chances in their entire lifetime.
The changes I think could be made in this law
1.people can only take 5 flights in 6months
Or
2.people can only take 3 flights inside a country and 2 flights to other countries or continents in 6months
Law4: In my perspective law4"(use cars 3 times in a week)" is passed.Because it is little easy to follow other than three laws.Cars are the most polluting of the environment.So,instead of using cars people can use public transport,travelling on public transport reduces air pollution than travelling on car,and it reduces traffic.Less traffic reduces the fuel consumption.so law 4 is passed.
The law 1is super.the law2 is everyone must become vegan I think this law little bit difficult because meat is used in our balance diet in our body . I think instead we use other food items like seed,nuts, grains. The law three was super but we can reduce electricity more.the law 4 I think the cars should not be used instead use cycle, bullet cart which is a bull carrying vehicle which is used in India in olden days.we can add some more laws like do not use plastic instead we can use cotton bag,put waste in correct dustbin. if say anything sorry for that.
I see that there is no problem for a person to travel only 10 times in his life, because it will be a positive law and in our favor because it makes everyone think about the reason behind his travel and try to benefit as much as possible.
Also, the use of electricity for only 5 hours may be a thunderbolt for countries that do not cut off electricity 24 hours a day, but in any case it will be good and I really support it, because in my country, Palestine, electricity actually comes only for 7 hours, so if this is applied The law will achieve justice around the world and help protect the climate. As for the second law that I personally vote against, how can the entire world be vegetarian?
Where is the difference in cultures, lifestyles and ways of living?
From my point of view, people can never be subject to this law, and its consequences will be dire. Famine will occur in countries that depend mainly for their food on meat, and therefore many lives will be lost, and this is a loss for the world.
Based on this, I think that this law can be changed, which is to reduce the percentage of animal food in our lives and to promote items that provide us with proteins from foods other than meat.
I think the third and fourth laws cannot be easily achieved . It will not be easy to follow and apply, as all devices need electricity to operate especially home appliances, there may be a lot of objections also, it will be difficult for people to use the car only three days a week this will affect people’s work, as some of them are from their home far from their work and must have a means of transportation to go to work But we must think in a better way what if these devices work on solar energy engines and cars as well instead of gasoline and petroleum, which will lead to the emission of harmful gases
I think Law 3 is illogical as electricity can only be used for five hours.
In hospitals, the lights in operating rooms will be turned off, and electronic devices, x-rays, and heart monitors will be suddenly cut off, and kidney dialysis machines and x-rays will be turned off.
And electricity will be cut off from schools, which will hinder the education of students, and it will not provide them with security and the ability to keep up with education, and printing machines will stop working. In homes, food will be spoiled due to power outages. However, the internet, lamps, washing machine, iron, lamps in public places, and many devices and machines will stop.
Electricity is an important source of energy in our lives that cannot be dispensed with.
We have discussed in our chapter environmentally friendly methods of generating electricity and relying on natural sources such as water and wind. And Law 1 I see that we can go out for more than 10 trips, but we must go on foot to reduce carbon emissions, maintain a clean environment, and not emit carbon emissions.
We have discussed in the technology chapter the use of renewable energy and its sources to generate electricity naturally to reduce the effects of climate.
The teacher told us that we must rely on renewable energy sources to generate electricity.
But I asked my teacher why not all countries in the world use renewable energy to reduce the climate crisis?
The teacher told us that some countries cannot use it for several reasons.
1 Lack of natural resources, as natural resources are not available in all countries. .
2 weather fluctuations.
3 The large spaces you need.
The country must have plenty of renewable energy sources such as the sun and wind, and it must have suitable weather conditions, and the country must be able to bear the exorbitant costs of use and development.
The proposed laws mentioned above, such as Law 1 (limit flights to ten in a lifetime), Law 2 (mandatory vegetarianism), Law 3 (limit electricity use to five hours a day), and Law 4 (limit car use for three days a week) can present challenges and limitations to individuals in different aspects of their lives. For example, if someone's occupation requires frequent air travel, Law 1 may significantly affect their ability to do their job. Similarly, Law 2 can conflict with personal dietary preferences or cultural practices. Law 3 can affect individuals who need electricity for their basic needs, such as medical equipment, while Law 4 can affect individuals who rely on their cars for transportation due to a lack of viable alternatives.
Good points quiet_swan. Do you think there is a way some of these changes could be gradually introduced over time, rather than all in one go?
The second law is very strict, and I am a person who opposes this law, and we cannot force all people to be vegetarians, because humans eat meat and vegetables, some eat plants only, and others eat meat, i.e. (dependent on animal products) only. I think if everyone becomes a vegetarian, it will affect our health negatively, for example I am dependent on animal products, and I cannot become a vegetarian. If this law is enacted in my country, I will oppose it, because I will find nothing but water in food, and I think not all people will implement it. As for animals, they will multiply enormously and feed on plants, and the country that will put this law in will suffer from a food crisis.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, frank_redcurrant! Actually, many people lead healthy lives as vegetarians and vegans, so it is not true that becoming vegetarian will negatively affect your health. It is also unlikely that you are "dependent" on animal products, rather, you enjoy having them as part of your diet, which many others feel the same way about. It is also unlikely that the animals would "multiply enormously" if more people stopped eating meat. Did you know that most of the meat people eat is bred in farms to be eaten? Does this change your mind about anything? Or would you like to rephrase any part of your comment to make the information more accurate?
I don't agree with law 1 because some people cannot avoid flying. Take, for instance my father. As a doctor and lecturer, sometimes he has to travel to faraway places for work. Just last year he travelled to Ghana to examine students under the West African College of Paediatrics. He could not avoid flying because, for one, Ghana is not close to Nigeria, and traveling by road, the next option, is not exactly safe. There are dangers such as kidnapping and road accidents associated with traveling by road. I'm not trying to say that flying is 100% safer or better, but it is the better alternative. Yes, reducing flights means reducing climate change, but sometimes you just have to fly. Until we innovate a better and less environmentally depleting means of transportation, we have to fly. I think the law should go something like this; If you can avoid flying, don't fly. If it is an emergency or it is inevitable, please fly.
Also, to make flying safer for the environment, engineers and other people involved in the manufacturing of airplanes should use efficient and environmentally friendly materials to build airplanes. This will make flying a win-win for everyone.
Law one seems very strange to me I mean there should be many factors that should be considered before putting a law like that one into place. I mean let's look at it together if people can only take ten flights in their life time that means that they have to rely on other means of transportation hence the goal isn't even achieved I know the intent of this law is to make sure that ozone layer isn't affected I mean look at sea travel, when someone has exhausted all the flights they have left there is sea travel thereby transfer all that pollution on one sector. Some people will also need to fly for business trips, competitions, and for medical reasons maybe a transplant. And you cannot only have 10flights cause some transplant take time so you have to go and come back. Also business trips can't be reduced, in a week one can take 10 flights then in his life time how many will he take. Some business trips need you to be there present and there are surplus business trips a good working class person will have to go on.
Personally I think we can't practice this it's a very short term solution and if actual research is put into this we'll find out that in the long run it does way more harm than good.
Do people need to travel for business now, or is there another way? How might this comment link to discussions about the metaverse?
As I have previously stated this there would be no need for that specifically for the reason that the metaverse is an interface.... Honestly I just feel like there would be no need for most of these troubles.. if you ask me the metaverse kind of solves a lot of our problems I specifically feel like this new world creates an intervention to save the old one I mean why do we need to destroy the earth while there are a lot of other substitutes the metaverse provides. I mean as you stated look at traveling no one needs to travel for trips and destroy the ozone layer when they could just do it at the comfort of their homes.
I think that at this particular time, people will not need to travel to work, as there is the Internet that makes them free from that. Of course, I will exclude the profession of doctors, because they cannot work unless they are in the place
Yes people do need to travel for business but they shouldn't use only aeroplanes and vehicles but can use computers as well for carrying out it for example online business like in Uganda we have Jumia who are the leading online dealers in business, and they have fastened the rate of doing things or activities like home delivery services, pick up station services as their ways of satisfying the communities needs and it has also helped in a wide range because people can make orders from any part of the world.
I think law 2 is an excellent idea because eating a plant based diet improves the health to your gut so you are better able to absorb nutrient from the food that supports your immune system and reduce inflammation. Plants are high in fiber, Fiber can lower cholesterol and stabilize blood sugar and its important for good bowel management.
Al Quds Prep Girl school/Palestine
As for the third law, in my opinion, electricity is a double- edged sword. The positive limit is that we can finish the needs of the house in 5 hours. As for the negative limit, it harms the environment by burning raw materials such as coal, oil and fuel. We must reduce the waste of electricity in unimportant work in order to maintain cleanliness.
environment and preserve raw materials for future
generations.
As for the fourth law, which provides for the use of cars only 3 days a week, I think that this is positive because it increases physical activity in humans and increases fat burning through walking fast to reach the work area, school, or otherwise...
I think that the law 4 which states cars could only be used 3 times a week is not strict because inmost of the peoples house they own more than one mood of transport for example in some houses they have a car and a two wheller they can follow the rule and use the car for three days and the remainings days they could use their two whellers which will not show any improvement in the climatic change and because in a car minimum 4 people can travel but in the case of two wheelers only 2 people could travel at a time so the number of vehicles on road will increase.
People might feel this tough to follow but eventually they will get used to it but TAXIC DRIVERS will get affected highly as they will lose their job and many taxi agencies will be closed causing economic damage
To improve this law it could be changed like:
People should only use public transports once in a week(here public transports include Ambulance,Police
Hi productive_redcurrant . Actually you're correct. I agree with all your points. While thinking of it ,this point struck me.I just wanna share it with you. Probably I don't think that taxi drivers will be loosing their job because the people who knew only driving,they can't leave.They will be increasing their driving charges to compromise their weekly income as like as what they did after the pandemic .To recover from their loss during pandemic,they started to increase the price of everything. This will be a loss for a common man and your alternative can be altered too.If "People should only use public transports once in a week", then people will be using their own vehicles ,so this also won't show any changes.This can be altered as:"People should use only public transports and non polluting vehicles like electric vehicle and bicycle.And they shouldn't use any other vehicle than this".
It's all just my opinion and this never means your perception is wrong.To be honest,I really like your perspective very much. That's why I'm sharing my perspective with you
I accept the 4 th law because it reduce the air pollution. when we use cars daily , it cause pollution. This law creates a awareness among people to prevent the earth from a big disaster.
Instead of using cars for short distance we can walk ,use cycles or use public transports. Only for emergency we can use cars. The gases from cars carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are harmful gases and also one of the gases that creates hole in the ozone layer.
If the fourth law came into the action .
Many of the drivers will lose their job.
They can't manage their income .still we can use electric cars instead using petrol cars..
Hi Straightforward_Moth,
Well done on identifying that certain jobs (e.g. taxi service / food delivery drivers) might be more affected by a law which only allows them to use cars 3 days a week. Can you think of any adjustments we can make so that this law would work better?
I think law 1 is good one because in there life time they will be happy when they go to very beautiful places in world by flights and people will be happy
I also agree with you because in our country schools like Homesdalen Primary School children go for tours using aeroplanes to countries like Dubai,I don't think there school will get more children when they no longer go for trips outside countries.
A car can only be used for 3 days a week, according to the law.
My suggestion is that this law might be somehow applicable in our day-to-day life.
We allot the first three days in a week for half of the population and the other 3 days in a week for another half of the population, as well as we can do. But for emergency situations, they may borrow their cars, but it is also difficult to do.
As we need to save our planet, we want to face some difficulties.
We can't use the third law because electricity can only use for five hours is not applicable .Instead of that we can use solar panels which cause no harm to environment.so I suggest to use solar panels Instead of electricity.
Yes, I agree with you, because it is possible to use electricity for more than five hours a day This will force the people to be careful about using electricity
An interesting point. While solar panels may not cause harm to the environment, should we consider how they are made and transported? Would this contribute to a carbon footprint?
I think that the fourth law is somewhat severe because emergency cases may occur that require rapid transportation. People may resort to cars to transport these emergency cases, and there may be chronic patients who need daily review by doctors. Therefore, in these cases, we cannot prevent people from moving by car, but rather we can Educating citizens about walking and using bicycles for transportation.
If I were actually a head of state and would enact a law, I would choose (Law 3) Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day, because nowadays all places without exception provide us with comfort and ease in moving our bodies.!, so it would be great to enact Act like this to encourage them to walk.!
Would this Law be enforced for everyone?
I think that the last law could have been more specific. Even if they can drive only three days a week, they can drive for more hours in those three days resulting in more emission of fuel. It could have been better if the law says that people should use cars for limited hours a week or a month or a year. It can also be stated that people are allowed only to use limited litres of petrol or fuel.
I can say that the second law may not be the best solution to our crisis. Yes, I agree that some animal products may be harmful to the environment and may increase the carbon footprint, but as far as I know, the human body needs proteins coming from animal products such as milk and eggs, and that meat is able to reduce the possibility of infection. Diseases such as cancer and heart disease, but we can say that we must reduce the intake of animal products, and we must balance both plant and animal foods in our lives, as it is said, “If something exceeds its limit, it turns against it.”
I think that law 3 shouldn't be passed. In fact we can have an alternate of electric charge via solar/wind/hydro power. It would be nice if government provides these facilities for all citizens.
My notes on the laws
First: Only ten trips are possible, but because in an emergency, the elderly cannot travel at that time. ten times, so it is also unfavorable for that country. A group of scientists have to go to another country to discuss the research they're doing if the world has limited time to travel in the air by law and it's economic decline for that country so those laws can't be upheld
The second is not logical at all, because they are not forced to eat plants only, as the body needs protein for their body
As for the third, I feel as if people will be forced to do everything in these five hours, and this is not in their favor
As for the fourth, this thing is never possible, because some people earn their livelihood after the car, and they do no other work than that, as it is a source of income for some people.
Yes, but I believe that if we come to the first law, we will find that it is not good in this law because the natural citizen needs an infinite number of trips to travel as well, and this negatively affects the work of investors, company owners and prospectors, while the second law cannot be implemented because our bodies need Animal products that contain important vitamins and minerals such as vitamin D, iron and vitamin B12, but green resources are the best idea for generating electricity.
And in the third law, we cannot dispense with electricity at all. We need electricity for all members of society to operate the devices and lighting either at home or in the streets at night. Electricity also works to operate the devices in our lives, meaning that if the duration of electricity operation is reduced, the amount of achievements will be reduced, especially for owners of companies.
The fourth law is my view that contradicts that. It negatively affects the citizen, if something happens to him that he must go to do, such as going to the hospital in emergency cases and other matters such as household needs. Also, if the person works, he has to go to work daily, so he must go by car. Also, if the person People with disabilities will find it difficult to walk.
All the laws given here are reasonable in their own way. But in general I think law 4 is good because it will reduce the air pollution. And it is good for us because we are the one who are breathing it. I think we should try to follow this law. On alternate days when we are not using the car we can use electric cycle. And I think we can increase the days to four days to make it fairer for everybody. We can also try not to throw the garbage in plastic bags and use some other bag to throw.
Drought, global warming, hurricanes, floods, etc. are all natural disasters that have increased in recent years. Why were these disasters not widespread in the past? Why they have increased now in the modern era?
From my point of view, in the past, man relied on his food from agriculture and his transportation depended on animals. At that time, man did not need factories that emit smoke and toxic gases to produce new types of foods like nowadays. Moreover, humans didn' t need tranportatations which give pollouted emissions. The more a person's life develops, he hurts his environment more without realizing it. So, from my point of view, I think the law of using the car three times a week, many people did not like it, and it is very difficult after the person adapts to it.
The government can help implementing this law by providing public transportation which will be available all times like trains and other transportations that depend on renewable energy. Gradually, this will reduce the dependence on fossil fuel, until it is disappeared from our normal life. Through doing some research and reading , I found that there are countries applied this law to subsidize fossil fuels, as not everyone has his own car, so they adapt to use public transportation which has specific times in which they control their lives such as Japan and North Korea . However, I think that the United Nations should hold international meetings that gather all countries of the world and agree to apply these laws everywhere.To guarantee achieveing justice and equality among people without distinguishing between rich and poor countries. We should work together to save our planet.
The fourth law has a great effect in reducing the amount of gases that come out of cars during the burning of fuel and oil, and thus cars move, thus reducing the possibility of climate change.
We can use the "mobile scooter" that is powered by renewable energy for transportation, so we cannot use fuel or oil to burn them and affect the environment.
It is also important to maintain a clean environment to reduce this dangerous pollution.
We can use science in such a change, climate change has a lot to do with chemistry and compounds because this oil and fuel are nothing but chemical compounds.
"Nitric acid and hydrochloric acid" cause corrosion and decomposition of bodies. If they are used to corrode and decompose waste, it will reduce waste in the world and prevent climate change significantly, leading to a decrease in the rate of people whose lives are exposed to the effects of climate change, and not forcing "1.2 billion" people to They leave their homes because of this change
Hi noble_whale, thank you for your comment. Your idea about using mobile scooters is good but I'm not entirely sure about nitric and hydrochloric acid being used to decompose waste to prevent climate change significantly. Can you tell us where you found your evidence?
Hi Hemma mam,
After seeing this message I have researched about hydrochloric acids with my science teacher. She said that hydrochloric acids are helpful in the decomposition of metals but it is not used to decompose plastic. If you have any effective way to decompose the plastic pls type it in the comment below.
THANK YOU
As my colleague mentioned, yes, plastic doesn't decompose with these acids, but after a long search and inquiry, I found that plastic decomposes with the passage of time, but it takes a long time, as it takes “450” years to decompose in the environment, but a method has been discovered for it to decompose, which is “biodegradation and partial decomposition.” ", for example "photodegradation", plastic contains molecules that break their bond with exposure to sunlight and thus decompose and climate change is reduced by not insignificant proportions.
There are interesting good laws and laws that must be reviewed. I think that all laws are good, but the second law needs to be considered again. It is good for the planet that humans be vegetarians, but isn't this law harmful to humans? Before thinking about any law, we must see whether it benefits humans and the planet together or not. Meat is important to humans for protein, vitamins and bodybuilding. Therefore, I think that this law should be modified, what do you think ???
I think the first law is not applicable and it deprives people from the right of movement and travel. Some people's job depend on traveling so it's not logical to give them all the 10 flights all over their life. Moreover ,implementing this low may cause depression and some psychological problems to some people because they just like to travel and doing this will deprive them from practicing their passion. Therefore, we should think in other ways to substitute the fossil fuel with other good renewable resources of energy.
In my opinion law 4 is very much useful for our environment as it reduces emission of gases from vehicles.
The emission of gases from vehicles can affect human health and it contains greenhouse gas such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that causes climate change.
Instead of using fuel based cars we can use electrical vehicles.
If this rule is implemented people
can :
• Walk for shorter distance this not only reduces air pollution but also keep our body fit.
• Use bicycles
• Take public transport
• Instead of online shopping buy from grocery shop if not consider all your packages sent in one shipment
• Switch off the engine when the traffic light signals red.
I object to Law No. 4 because some people need their car daily. For example, people with kidney disease must do dialysis every day. How will you force them to use their car only three days a week?
What about the rest of the week, what will they do? Have you thought about how their condition will deteriorate, or could you be the cause of endangering their lives, or could you be the cause of their death? People with kidney disease must show a little humanity, as there is no life as long as there is no humanity among us. Thank you
I think the third law is very strict. There are many things, if the electricity is cut off, cannot work such as hospital equipment like the al ventilator. In the hospital, any power outage may lead to the death of many patients, and electricity must be available in the hospital 24 hours, so how can a hospital that contains many medical devices that operate on electricity keep these devices operating for only 5 hours? Of course it cannot, and this was an example of the strictness of this law in our lives.
Hi,
From my point of view all the above 4 laws are cakewalk for me. Because first of all i am a vegetarian so I will definitely have to follow the second law. And I won't travel anywhere in flight so first law is also easy for me to follow. In the fourth law they said "cars can only be used 3 days a week" so I will use bike for the whole week. And in the third law they said "only 5 hours of electricity can be used" that is a hard law for everyone except me because I have born in a village so that 5 hours of electricity is more than enough for me.
Hence all the four laws are cakewalk for me.
And these laws will help us develop not only our country also the world.
THANK YOU
Hi loving_woodpecker, thank you for your comment. It's great that if these laws were implemented you would be able to uphold them all. However, can you think of a few examples where these laws might not be so easy for some people?
Hi Hemma mam,
First of all thanks for replying to my comment. And after seeing your reply I was thinking which laws will be harder to follow but I didn't get any ideas. So I started to take survey in my apartment. In that survey people said that law 1,2 and 3 are hard to follow. For the people who works in abroad, they have to come back to their native country at least once in the year. So if the first law is passed they can only come to their native country 5 times in their lifetime. If the second law is passed everyone should become vegan and we just can't use the milk cause it comes from the cow and the second law states that "everyone should become vegan and not to use any material that comes form the animal". So second law is also hard to follow. If the third law is passed it will be easy to follow, if the weather is pleasant but when it becomes hotter we can't be without a fan. So law 1,2 and 3 are hard to follow for others.
THANK YOU
My opinion about the law3 which
states everyone can only use 5 hours of electricity per day is that it will be difficult for the people and causes problems because if the government is supplying electricity only for 5 hours everyone tries to use it usefully when they all use it at the same time in large amount it may cause low voltage issues and many more but if we find a way to overcome this problems it could be passed as they can use other form of renewable electricity like home solar panels but solar pannels will be hard maintain this is why most of them are not using solar panels now but if we make this a strict law they might try finding some other ways of implementing it for example in a street people could form unions by which they can install solar panels in the entrance of the street from which all people could get electricity and the maintainace charge can be distributed . This will also cause lose to electricity generating companies causing economic damage.
I believe that the second law is difficult to pass first, because it is personal freedom, so people should not be deprived of the pleasure of food. Besides being useful, meat is delicious, and scientists have invented meat in the laboratory by multiplying a specific cow cell and providing it with appropriate conditions.
As for the rest of the laws, I do not have the slightest problem with them. I will start by explaining them in order:
1- The first law. I would like to highlight that there are people who do not travel once because of harsh conditions such as poverty, captivity or siege, so it would not be difficult to reduce the number of other people’s trips.
2- The third law for me, we live with it here constantly, so the electricity is cut off all day except for 5 hours, and despite that we pay the electricity bill that is paid by whoever gets the electricity for a full day in any other country. Solar cells, and some of them created them from scratch because of their price, and to be frank, there are deserts in central Africa because of the intensity of the sun in them. If we fill a certain area, it will provide electricity energy for the world.
3- The fourth law. I would like to mention a story to explain the reason. About a decade ago, we were suffering from gasoline prices in the country. Therefore, the mechanics converted the work of cars from gasoline to natural gas, and I believe in the ability of mechanics and scientists together to invent cars that run on wind or sun energy.
Very well said wise_shrimp you're truly wise. I agree with your believe in scientist and mechanics to invent vehicles that run on renewable energy and also I believe that in order to achieve this, the government should invest in science and tech because I feel that they are the solution to the problems in the world. Most of the recent anomalies in the flow of our world is related to chemistry and physics, things like the release of carbon monoxide from the exhaust of cars is related to chemistry while things like the generation of greenhouse gases by the power sector is related to physics. My opinion is that they are what controls our world presently, they have gotten so involved in our lives that we can barely cope for one week without them. So if we don't invest in our scientists, we don't want a better method of producing energy, it was scientist that discovered electricity and it also a scientist who will improve it, it was a scientist that discovered petrol and it is also a scientist who will improve it.
These scientists will need money to conduct experiments and the discover new forms of energy. Science fairs can be organized to culture new Einsteins from a little age, these Einsteins will one day save our world from complete extinction.
So whether we accept it or not science now runs our world, therefore investing in our scientists will lead to the gradual development of our civilisation.
If everyone turns to be vegan, the food chain would be affected.
Animal reproduction system will make a drastic change in their growth, which in turn will affect human beings.
Also it is impossible to afford plant based food for entire population. For medical purposes many drugs and tablets contain products obtained from animals and dairy products.
For a balanced diet, we can't expect all plant based food contains necessary proteins and vitamins.
Also variety of foods we consume is relatively very less when compared to non vegan diet.
Finally, any law can't force an individuals food preference.
Thank you for your comment focused_currant. You raise a good point that animal products often form part of a balanced diet or are used in medicines. If this law was passed, do you think people with certain health conditions should be exempt and if so, how do you think this could be managed?
If this law is implemented, there should be some exemptions for people with certain medications. Else more plant based medicines should be formulated.
To me I think that people with certain health conditions shouldn't be exempted from it because from the hospitals people have gone in my country, there is no hospital deterring people from eating greens instead it's being promoted so the different governments should set up research centers for making different vegetables in different areas and farmers should be give priorities of the vegetables needed and which are favourable for each places or region for better yield production and to avoid market fluctuation of the vegetables produced, hence attaining its success from the public.
Your answer is great, focus_currant, but you thought sideways. What do you think of the effect of this law on the human body? Does human being completely vegetarian affect the vegetation cover and the environment?! If it does, please explain to us
Thanks
It does affect the environment. As I mentioned animals growth ratio will increase drastically which will pollute the environment. Demand for food will increase and there will be huge price hike. So people below poverty line can't afford for their basic food.
That's an interesting point you have made, can you give examples of how the growth ratio will affect the environment?
The environmental impact of economic growth includes the increased of non renewable consumptions resources , higher level of pollution , global warming and the potential loss of environmental habitats.
Consumptions of resources such as land ,food fossil fuel and minerals . waste materials as a result of
consumption such as air and water pollutants toxic materials and greenhouse gases.
I think that if the 2nd law which says everyone must become vegan is implemented many people will be affected by protein deficence because one third of the world's protein need is filled by meat if everyone start eating other plant based food items for protien,demand for those products will rise and the price will also rise as a result some people will not be able to buy them and the entire food chain will get affected.
You raise a good point about supply and demand driving up costs, productive_redcurrant. What do you think could be done to help stop the price of plant based products rising too much, and who do you think is responsible for managing this?
I think that farmers should be encouraged to carryout vegetable growing by promoting research and field trips to the near by places or areas where vegetables are grown for the better hence promoting a positive mind set towards vegetable growing. On the same point, the governments should come out to support onto vegetable growers and giving ready market in and out of the country. Thirdly, by lowering the taxes imposed on them during imports and exports of raw materials and vegetables as well hence attracting the community to the activity.
To stop the price of plant based protein products rising too much due to the law2 which says everyone must be vegan, we can think of alternatives like encouraging terrace gardening for smaller scale demands of protein on family basis. Even the regions which are not fit for traditional farming methods can be utilized by implementing hydroponic technology.
Managing this is not the responsibility of any single individual. This should be the combined responsibility of human society and hence should be managed by the government.
I think that law (3) is unfair and not practical.Many people use electricity all the time because of their work or health needs .But instead, make use of the sun energy and use LED lamps.And more important of that , everyone must have self-censorship to use just what he/she needs.
Parents also play a main role in teaching their children from the very beginning to decrease consumption as turn off lights,fans when they leave rooms ,not turning on the machines except for necessity .
You raise a good point relating to parents playing a role. Could people be educated by other means too?
All these laws are interesting, but I don't think people will understand their purpose, so what they will see is a restriction of their freedom, so they must be amended. Instead of all these laws, what we need is simplicity and ease of implementation. It is like a game in which you start with simple guides and directions to guide the player and then gradually the levels start to get difficult until the player becomes a master.
Some of the laws I would like to implement:
1- The state exploits the unemployed by giving them opportunities to work, such as planting trees, or by carrying out awareness campaigns for young and old, so we guide them to the importance of preserving the environment. Education also has a role through teachers who have a role in influencing students after their parents.
2- Some countries have laws in preserving the environment, and I think it is worth highlighting them. In Kenya, plastic bags were replaced with recyclable bags, and Luxembourg, which reduced car emissions by providing free transportation.
Those are good examples of laws you would introduce glad_apricot.
Law 4 is not logical because an emergency situation may occur and one needs to get out by car, so I speak for myself that I oppose this law
I think law 2 is abnormal because even though can vegetables and fruits can lower blood pressure, reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke, prevent some types of cancer, lower risk of eye and digestive problems, and have a positive effect upon blood sugar, which can help keep appetite in check. But we need protein Insects are abundant and nutritious. They are high in protein, fat, vitamins, and minerals. How they taste and their nutritional composition depends on what they are fed, the species, the stage of development, and how they are prepared. So, an insect that might taste like chicken in one situation could taste more like fish or fruit under different circumstances.
I believe that the third law has positive and negative effects. There is no doubt that my country sometimes faces a crisis of "power outages" for a long period, so I became a person with experience in this matter. We, as students, saw the extent of its impact on our academic level, as we are now studying in times when there is electricity only because there is no electricity. Lighting and devices that help study, such as: computers, internet outages, and that the electricity sector may pose a threat to the lives of some patients who stay in the hospital due to the interruption of resuscitation devices and others. Let us see the positive side of all this is that we are sitting with our family more, we sleep early And we wake up early, and we rest more, in the end our lives will not stop, but we will face some difficulties (except for the sick cases in the hospital).
About the first law 1: it is completely unacceptable because any patient, elderly person, or man can be exposed to danger. For example, many patients go for treatment outside the city and the operation may be successful or not 2: While the second law is an assault on personal opinion because people are forced to eat plants and leave meat, and I do not deny that plants have benefits such as preserving human health and alleviating their chronic diseases. It is also considered a vital exercise, but meat also has benefits such as helping to build bodies and muscles and is also rich in vitamins and minerals such as iron and zinc, as well as B vitamins and the third law. 3: Electricity plays an essential role in human life, as it operates the electrical appliances necessary for our life, such as the refrigerator, washing machine, heater, etc. Electricity has contributed to facilitating human life, while the Fourth Law 4: I reject it, but in part, you will ask me why? I will answer: I, as a student, watch every day in public streets ambulances in the street, and I also see regular cars in the streets, so I noticed that ambulances cannot be dispensable, but ordinary cars can be and that instead of using many cars per person, the bus can be used, as it was designed to accommodate a large number of people. Passengers will also be protected from the spread of dust and carbon footprint.
It is not possible for us to use electricity for only five hours a day, as this thing will force the family to do everything they have to do in only five hours. This thing will put pressure on them in terms of cooking, washing, baking, etc. So I don't think it makes sense at all
I agree, but... solar energy can also be relied upon, as it is also useful and important in life, for example plants, as it is an essential source for the process of photosynthesis that produces oxygen, due to the action of stomata, as well as sugar, which produces a lot of energy and also provides warmth for living organisms in order to survive
I believe that the third law should not be approved or applied because it is one of the most difficult of these laws, because the use of electricity has become an essential matter that enters all fields, and the loss of electricity is like the loss of life, because our life is conditioned by it, and there are many works related to it, and the development of technology due to the presence of electricity And as for a brief power outage, the state loses huge sums of money
I actually stand against all these laws as they are impractical.
Firstly, law number 1 says only ten flights can be taken in a person's lifetime. I stand against this law because air is the fastest means of transportation and using air helps to cover a lot of distance. In countries with poor medical facilities, flights are important in case of an emergency.
Furthermore, the second law just brings about deficiency of protein in the diets of many. Also, some businesses survive solely on selling meat, if this law is implemented, there would be increase in number of unemployed people. This law is also impractical because if everyone was a vegetarian, plants would have to be grown and in some countries land is not readily available.
Five hours of electricity per day would affect online businesses and streamers who depend on the electricity to earn money.
Finally, cars are affordable means of transportation and are very common. Allowing cars to be used only three times a week affects the planned schedule of almost everyone ranging from students to workers and this affects the whole country. The use of electric cars can be used to curb the pollution caused by cars.
you sound very convinced about the impracticality of these laws, blissful_physics! But the arguments you make sound like a case for "business as usual": keeping the same habits and jobs and diets that we already have. Don't you think some of those things will have to change in order to address the climate crisis?
Change is constant and I have to admit that yes some of our present day habits are negative. But that does not mean that we should work towards the total annihilation of these practices rather we should try to improve on them. In the case of the first law, I think the use of jet engines are futile as they can be replaced with engines that make use of pressured air to fly. The second law is trying to in line with the Malthusian theory as we also have to put into consideration population, therefore to have a balanced consumption of resources, the second law is considered ineffective. I think the problem with the third law is the second world countries as the use of fuel based generators is common but the adaptation of the use of solar and hydro energy to generate electricity would na an improvement on the problem of pollution by fuel based generators. The fourth rule has been well dealt with as the use of electric cars is becoming popular and fuel based cars are running out. Though the cost of these electric cars are high and the roads of some countries cannot accommodate these cars, change is a gradual process so we are getting there.
1. Everyone should become a vegetarian (don't eat or use any products that come from animals).
I chose this law because it attracted me so much. If the state imposed this law, the environmental balance would be completely disrupted!! Let me show you, let's get started/
Human: If man (all the human world) becomes completely vegetarian and only consumes plant, it will lead to a shortage of plants due to the great consumption of them around the world, and there will be no cleaning of the environment by giving. Oxygen and carbon dioxide removal, but rather the air will be filled with Co² over the years, which will lead to air poisoning, which will lead to human death. As for the human body, not eating meat leads to a lack of nutrients that we get from animal products, and anemia osteoporosis, deficiencycreatine, and omega 3
As for the environment, I said that its air will be completely poisoned over the years.
In the end, this law is so bad and its damage so great that the world will end through it
Thanks
Climate change is a global problem that needs to be solved as quickly as possible, and I think the first law makes sense. Instead of people traveling a lot, they will choose the right time for them and when they really need to travel, there are people who travel for many purposes that may be important and necessary or for simple purposes that can be dispensed with such as entertainment and fun purposes, and the person must think carefully about the extent of his need to travel, Because this will reduce air pollution and reduce carbon dioxide in the air
I think that Law 2 is not logical at all. It is true that we take proteins from plants, but not with the amount that we take from meat, because the amount of proteins in meat is greater than plants
But there is an alternative from which we take proteins, which is insects, and this is not a good option, but it is appropriate if we lose meat, so instead of killing insects, we have to benefit from them in taking proteins
But in order not to lose meat, we must raise and preserve animals and provide them with comfort and food
I think that we can't apply the third law in our lives because there are many people need more than five hours of electricity to get their work done for example:the doctors who inter difficult operations that require more than five hours,so they want it for along time, police stations that must be connected to the internet to be aware of what is going on the community and to catch criminals from their phones,
press center as it need electricity throughout the day to publish the news like what happened in Corona virus when we used to turn on the TV to see the numbers of injuries also to check on people outside the country. Sholes,university and home need more than five hours of electricity for many reasons .
As I said before,we naad electricity more than five hours in day which means increasing pollution so it's becom unfair to both the life and the humanity so alternative energy will be a solution for this problem
I don't agree with the text of the second law because it's weird because we can't force people to eat plants all the time and everywhere.
Then we must not forget the importance
Animal meat is a source of protein that the body needs to grow, and a food source of such importance cannot be dispensed with, so I do not believe that this solution is really logical.
But if we think about reducing the consumption of animal meat and making reserves for animals that are on the verge of extinction, this would be better than preventing people from eating animal meat altogether.
Interesting point constructive_sparrow. How would you encourage people to reduce their consumption of meat without introducing a law?
I see that some laws are very strict and some of them I think we can coexist
The second law I see is that there is a group of people you will not be able to coexist with
As for the use of electricity, one can live with it. In my country, electricity does not come throughout the day, but this situation has been dealt with
As for the use of cars, I liked it because we should motivate people to walk and exercise, but there are urgent cases in which cars must be used, so I hope that fuel that is harmful to the environment will be replaced by another friend of it
For those that may be unable to walk distances, what alternatives would you propose that align with this Law?
For the second law, it has pros and cons. Among the cons is that the body needs the benefits of meat, such as protein to build the body, B12 vitamins and minerals, and also that we cannot force people to do something.
For the pros, the earth will keep green and full of tress that inhale CO2 and we know without trees the carbon footprint will increase and we may die. It is possible to amend the law to make it only positive, such as eating meat once or twice a week.
Five hours a day is enough to use electricity. If we divide our time, we will be able to do many things. When a person hears that he will only get five hours, he may be against it at first, but the person should not look at the thing at first sight, he should think about it and think that it is a good thing to do.
I think the fourth law is strict.
Yes, I agree that this law (which allows carpooling only three times a week) is somehow good because we ordinary people can go along with such law to protect the planet from polluted car air and replace cars with bicycles, but what about people with disabilities? Can they ride bikes? of course not . How will they fulfill their needs, such as going to the park or the supermarket? Yes, they can get around with their wheelchair, but in limited places, they can't go far. I think this law does not apply to all people. Of course, the disabled cannot only use the car 3 days a week, nor can they drive the bicycle. I think that this law should not be applied except that driving a car is always by inventing cars that run on electricity or solar energy
Everyone must be vegan, according to the law.
I would like to say that this law can't be implemented because the leather and diary industries would not be able to run the industry and the people working in this industry would lose their jobs. Instead of this law, we can say that the industry must produce limited products in a year.
Law: Everyone must plant one tree or plant once a month and must maintain the plant or tree. The plantation record must be submitted to the government.
I think this law might help to protect our planet
If the 4th law is implemented,pollution will be reduced a lot which in turn brings down global warming. Also the need for fuels will be very less, which in turn reduce many financial needs. People wil come forward to use public transports and traffic wil be reduced. As an alternative, car pooling can be considered, so that time and fuel can be saved. Also traffic will be controlled.
I think that the first law cannot be applied because travel is a human right that must be enjoyed without hindrance, and many people like to travel, moving from place to another place, and tourism to entertain themselves, also through travel patients can be transferred several times to take treatment, so this law is impossible to applyI think that the first law cannot be applied because travel is a human right that must be enjoyed without hindrance, and many people like to travel, moving from place to another place, and tourism to entertain themselves, also through travel patients can be transferred several times to take treatment, so this law is impossible to apply
This is a good decision that reduces carbon and carbon dioxide emissions and encourages people to think about alternative ways to cars, such as walking, cycling, or public transportation such as buses or trains.
I think law two isn't vital at all because some people aren't friends to vegetables and so it can not be implemented a hundred percent with strict follow-up. On the same note, I think so because not areas in the world favour the growth of vegetables and so it becomes too expensive for them to apply modern or improved farming methods and low expertise in use of the machines if at all they are there too.
I believe that Laws 1 and 2 are illogical. This is why:
Law 1 cannot be adopted by everyone because many people have jobs that require them to travel frequently, and ten flights will not help them at all. A better solution is for people to minimize the number of times they fly and, if possible, avoid flying entirely.
Because not everyone can become a vegan, Law 2 is also irrational. Some people have medical conditions or dietary restrictions that prevent them from becoming completely vegan. A better alternative to this rule is for people to decrease their consumption of animal products whenever possible.
Hello,
I think the law 1 is right, because emission from aviation means a significant change to the climate. Planes burn fuel during flights. But think about people whose families live in other countries far away, it can be complicated. And ten flights during a lifetime is very short when you think about it. If you live a very long life, it is hard.
But it might depend on the people, since in our community we have wealthy persons and less wealthy people, that can't afford flights all the time.
My point is, at the beginning, I thought this law was right and should be placed, but after thinking about it, I think it is very strict.
The fact that the choice is very good. Whenever I think, I find that all of them may be illogical at times, but I concluded that what we can use is the first law. Not everyone can travel, as you know, and 3 trips per year may be sufficient, according to my knowledge, but I think that if we want Choosing this law, there should be a slight amendment to it. There would be a simple exception, which is knowing the reason for travel. If the person’s travel times have expired and he is forced to travel again, for example, he is going for treatment in another country, he can be allowed to travel, and so the law will be the most logical, as it will reduce Carbon footprint and climate change. Also, no one will reject this law because it will not prevent them from their rights at all.
#In this modern world without being electricity is impossible.If we proceed law3 in our life ,people start using generator,to run this machine more amount of fuel is needed,from this co2 is released heavily it leads to air pollution.
#I approach people to use solar energy instead of using electric energy but it is little costly set so,I suggest government to spend 50%of amount to set solar power in houses and remaing 50% the house ownar should pay.By this more people can start to use solar energy.
#I request all of them to our sources limitedly if we waste, it affect our future generation and leads to "energy crisis"
I don't think law 4 should be able to pass. Law 4 doesn't make much sense because people have to go to work, pick and drop off their kids from school, go on trips, go to the doctors, and many everyday things you may need to do with your car. Yes, there are buses and many other ways of transportation, but people don't like spending money. Cars are lots of money, so for people to have to pay over 1k for them only to be able to drive their car 3 out of 7 days of the week. I believe people should be able to use their car when and how they want to use their car.
Do you think electric vehicles could be the answer instead? They also cost a lot of money and not everyone can afford them, but would help the environment if more people used them.
Electric Vehicles cost much, there are many other ways to get around. If that was the case and only electric vehicles were the answer, most likely jobs would have to pay higher. Typically electric vehicles do help the environment more, but with so many people driving them it wouldn't make much of a difference. Yes people would only be driving the car 3 days a week.Just to include if people were to only be able to drive there cars 3 days a week everyone would be in their car at the same time because they would have to get everything they need within those three days.And people still depend on driving as their job, there are many food service apps that people have to drive their car for.I say all of this to say I believe law for should not be passed .
I do not think electric vehicles are the only possible solution because there are other solutions like using bicycles made of wood which was used in Uganda a few years ago and they were very interesting because they do not even need fuel to move.
As for the third law, logically... There are many institutions that need electricity on a daily basis, such as hospitals, schools, and restaurants, and there are also homes with patients who need devices that need electricity such as oxygen devices, so what will happen if electricity is suddenly cut off from them, and people use 5 hours of Electricity per day It will pay them to use solar energy and other sources of electricity and facilities where electricity is available daily, such as restaurants.
●I think the law 3 is not applicable because in today's world, electricity is essential for many activities, including internet access, financial transactions, and government operations. A lack of electricity can lead to disruptions in these areas, as well as in industries that rely heavily on electricity, such as manufacturing and transportation. While solar panels and other renewable energy sources can help to reduce reliance on traditional power grids, they may not be a viable solution in all areas or for all purposes. In colder climates, for example, solar panels may not be able to generate enough energy to meet the demands of homes and businesses during the winter months.For example, without electricity, it may be difficult for people in forest areas to access modern communication tools, such as phones or the internet. This can make it challenging for them to stay connected with loved ones or to access important information.Additionally, without electricity, it may be difficult to power life-saving medical equipment or to maintain safe drinking water supplies.
● To make this law less complicated we can do the following things:
Encourage energy conservation and efficiency measures among households, businesses, and industries. This could involve providing incentives for adopting renewable energy technologies or implementing energy-efficient practices, as well as promoting public awareness and education campaigns.
In some cases, it may be possible to provide exemptions or exceptions to certain groups or industries that are particularly impacted by the law. For example, hospitals and other critical infrastructure may need to be exempted from the rationing scheme in order to ensure that they can operate effectively.
●Suggestion(laws):
Carbon pricing: Implementing a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon pollution. This can incentivize individuals and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint and invest in cleaner technologies.
Renewable energy standards: Setting renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of energy to be generated from renewable sources (such as solar or wind) can encourage the transition away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner energy sources.
And also LED can be used. LED lights are the most energy efficient lighting option.
For Law 2:
Meat is almost the main meal for many peoples, so their almost daily destination is restaurants that are suitable for a lot of electricity in restaurants, which will negatively affect the environment.
When a strict law like this is enacted for people, but if the law is applied forcibly, it will reduce people’s demand for restaurants, and this will lead to the spread of unemployment in their doors. It will also increase the number of animals, and it will push to grow more crops to cover the needs of animals, such as food.The idea remains a shock to the big companies, because it will lead to a sharp decline in financial stocks.
The biggest example of this is the McDonald's company based entirely on meat
Its monthly income is about $690 million, so what will happen when it closes its doors? What will happen to the millions of workers who work there?
They will be a burden on society, and the state will control to provide other job opportunities for them. This is similar to the rest of the large companies based on meat, cheese, and canned food. Thus, this law will be the worst law that can be taken in order to preserve the environment
I personally think the above 4 laws are applicable for some and for some it may not. So to make these laws less complicated we can do the following actions:
●For law 1: Exceptions should be made for people who need to travel for work or medical reasons. It is important to recognize that for some people, air travel is necessary, and they should not be penalized for this.
Provide incentives for people who take fewer flights such as tax breaks or discounts on other forms of transportation. This can encourage people to make choices that are better for the environment.
●For law 2: Some people may have dietary requirements or health conditions that make a vegan diet difficult or impossible. These individuals could be exempt from the law, with alternative options available to them.Governments could invest in research to develop plant-based alternatives to animal products, such as lab-grown meat or dairy-free alternatives. This would increase the availability of vegan options and make the transition to a vegan diet more accessible.
●For law 3: The government can offer incentives and subsidies for people to purchase energy-efficient appliances such as LED lights, energy-saving refrigerators, and other energy-efficient gadgets. This will reduce the amount of energy required for daily activities, allowing people to meet their needs during the five-hour window.The government can schedule power cuts during low-demand hours, such as midday or early morning when people are less likely to use electricity. This will ensure that the impact on daily life is minimal while still reducing overall energy consumption.
●For law 4: To make it easier for people to comply with the law, it is important to provide alternatives such as public transportation, bike lanes, or carpooling. This will not only reduce carbon emissions but also reduce traffic congestion.Instead of implementing the law immediately, it may be better to do it gradually over time. This will give people time to adjust to the new regulations and make the necessary changes.
It is unlikely that a law requiring everyone to become vegan to reduce climate change would be implemented or enforced. Such a law would be difficult to enforce and would likely face significant opposition from individuals and industries.
For example, some crops require large amounts of water and fertilizer, and monoculture farming practices can be detrimental to soil health and biodiversity. Additionally, a sudden and widespread shift to a vegan diet could have economic impacts on industries and individuals involved in animal agriculture.
And also why meat is better sources of protein is that they provide all 9 amino acids to the diet which our body cant produce on its own.
However there are some substitutes for meat proteins such as legumes, nuts, seeds,tofu, tempeh,jackfruit seitan,quinoa,veggies.
It is important to note that while plant-based sources of protein can be nutritious, they may not always have the same nutrient profile as meat. It is important to consume a variety of protein sources to ensure adequate nutrient intake.
I want to talk about the second law which violates one of the most important human rights of having good healthy food. Not only humans have the same appetite towards food, each one has his own desires and likes so we can't force them to eat specific type of food. Besides eating balanced food which contains all the types of food is very important to have a strong Health according to the scientific researches and the doctors' advice. In short this law is unsuccessful and unapplicable.
Interesting perspective, amusing_leopard. Do you think there could be a middle ground where people are encouraged to eat less meat rather than become vegan?
Yes, because the benefits of reducing meat consumption are impressive, eating less meat has been found to decrease the chance of developing certain cancers, heart diseases, stroke and kidney and liver diseases.
Actually most of those laws are not suitable to be applied and it has many drawbacks in terms of implementing them because most of them violate human rights, but we can but other laws which can do the same job like preventing burning plastic things , and throwing things that can be used many times. Besides, using containers to classify our garbage in order to recycle them. Those can be good laws and it could be obligatory for everyone which reduce the carbon footprints and the pollution of our environment.
You said that most of the laws mentioned violate human rights. Can you say how?
Yes, if we look closely at these laws, we will realize that they violate human rights.
The first law prevents people from practicing what they love. Many people love to travel, and it is a hobby for some people.
As for the second law, it prevents people from eating what they love and what they desire. People can't be forced to eat food they don't want.
With regard to the third law, many people like to watch TV and their favorite programmes, so how would life be without watching what they like.
For the fourth law, this law forbids people from Mobility, people can't be stopped from moving!
I think that law three is more of a disadvantage than an advantage the world is slowly becoming digitalized so essential firms, industries, and institutions such as hospitals, banks, production industries, etc need electricity to run daily activities. Imagine how crazy the workload will be if all these institutions and firms try to achieve electrical goals meant for twenty-four hours in five hours! There will be so much air pollution as industries will release a lot of dangerous gas. There will not be proper air circulation as every were will be filled with busy employees and heat coming from overworked machines. People working online will either have to lose their jobs or overstress themselves due to the lack of electricity, everything will become slow and the economical state of such countries with the law of only electricity for five hours will drop rapidly. This can lead to poverty, hunger, and crime, therefore, destroying it rather than saving it which is the main aim of preventing/stopping bad climate change and pollution.
I believe law 4 can indeed be passed. I think it can be passed because many cars cause pollution into the air, not only that cars would have to be a lot cheaper. Cars would have to be a lot cheaper because people now are expected to use their cars 7 days a week, but if people are only allowed to use their cars 3 the cars would have to 42.86% the current price of the car. There are many more ways to get transported to where you have to be. Buses are not considered cars so buses would be a great way to get where you need to be such as trains , trucks, planes,and walking. I say all of this to say life would not be so bad if law four was to be passed.
Regarding law 2 .. I feel that
the food we eat can have a significant impact on the environment. For example, meat and dairy products require a lot of land, water and energy to produce. They also create a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas. What’s more, food shipped from overseas uses a lot more resources than local produce.
By eating fewer animal products, especially red meat, (or choosing a plant-based diet) and shopping for locally sourced food, you can make a big difference. Why not support your local farmers’ market?
so from here we should have serious campigans each from his / her position about Change Your Diet .what do you think?
In many countries there are no strict laws on environmental protection. I will talk about my country, which does not have enough laws to protect the environment. The sewage water flows into the sea water and becomes very smelly and unsuitable for swimming. For this, I want all countries to develop laws to protect the environment and limit its pollution. harm to people's health.
Hi bright_planet,
I agree that we need to do more to develop laws which can protect the environment. Which of the four laws suggested in the post above do you think would be the best option to start with, and why?
I think it is possible to start with the fourth law to reduce environmental pollution and also add a new law not to allow waste water to be placed in the sea, as I said earlier, as it will become unsuitable for swimming! I hope they put this law in place as soon as possible.
for law 2:
the idea of making people vegan might come as a shock to large corporations, because meat is the most important financial factor without which stocks would drop sharply.
The biggest example of this is McDonald's, which is entirely meat-based
McDonald's monthly income is about $690 million. Imagine what will happen when its doors are closed? What will happen to the millions of workers who work there?
They will be a burden on society, and other job opportunities will be provided in the existing large projects in the menu of food, cheese and canned food, and therefore this law will be the worst law that can be changed in order to preserve the environment
You raise important points about potential job losses as a direct effect of this law, devoted_poem! But you also mention that it may provide other job opportunities -- when is the right time to make a change in order to address the climate crisis?
People always ask when is the right time to do something? without taking the first step.
But I say: logically, the right time is always available, but we just have to start implementing the project. When we apply the law, if enough crops are not grown to cover the needs of the people, it will lead to famine.
But how will the areas needed for agriculture be provided?
I tell you, in Saudi Arabia they put forward the idea of industrial oases to exploit the vast deserts that cover most of the Arab world. If they really implement this project, people will be provided with food and at the same time job opportunities for the unemployed, but even if these workers are engaged in agriculture, they will not cover 1% of the profits of the companies that have closed. The result of the idea of this law.
1-Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day.
This law attracted me because it is unfair. It is true that my city suffers from this thing, but it is unfair. Gaza suffers most of the time. I refer to this law, but it is a bad law for reasons including:
2- Education / We have developed and developed the means of education with us that need the Internet, and this needs electricity, which leads to a negative impact on students when it is cut off.
3- Treatment / It is known that the hospital all its equipment works on electricity, and also the hospital does not empty patients, if the electricity is cut off, most of the patients will be in danger, and this is also negative
4- Companies / Most companies depend on electricity, so what if it is cut off, will they lose most of their products or work and the like?
My answer is: This law is seriously bad and cannot be imposed. Everyone has an opinion, and this is my opinion
Thank you
In my opinion, Law 2 is too tough of a law because we cannot force humans to become vegans as they might suffer from malnutrition. It is a fact that protein makes up 15% of our body thus balancing the human diet; however, there are many replacements for meat such as beans, almond nuts, and many more that provide nearly if not the same function as meat does.
I do not agree with the limitation of electricity as Law 3 states because different people use electricity at different times of the day for different purposes but I do think the use of electricity should be decreased to help save our climate. I advise that instead of being indoors all day wasting electricity, we can discover new outdoor activities and reconnect with nature.
One law that I would like to suggest that affects our climate positively is:
The manufacture of cars that run on fossil fuels should be stopped and rather the discovery of eco-friendly means of transport that help slow climate change should be brought to life.
I believe that these laws reduce environmental damage, but at the same time restrict human life, so they become punitive laws instead of solutions compatible with the life in which we live.
If the fourth law came into action many of the car company like maruti ,bmv ,ertiga ..will have a high loss ..
Because we are going to use car 3 days a week ..why can't we buy two wheeler people will come to this mindset.. and the car company workers will removed company can be also closed ..then the car company will sell it for a very low price.... Without profit ...
You can't put the first law as a law!
You are endangering human rights here! Where is the right of movement? I can only take ten flights in my life! This is as if I am a bird and my wings are stolen from me, or as if I am a nightingale and my throat is stolen from me so I do not tweet!
Here you are stealing a right from me, thinking that you are protecting me, but it is the exact opposite
Let's imagine if it was implemented!
_ First: the airlines that will stop most of their planes from operating! Companies will incur huge losses, and I will not be shocked if they are closed. Here, you are putting pressure on the citizen, so the prices of airline tickets will rise and the quality of his trip will decrease!
Second: There are many YouTubers who rely on tourism and adventures in different countries as their content! You are here encroaching on their source of livelihood and their passion for discovery! Although they do not harm the environment with anything, you are the ones who manufacture planes that emit emissions that harm the environment
_ Third: Students who study abroad and every semester leave return to their countries to spend the holidays with their families! I think that during his studies at the university and his trips back and forth will end this ten times! And then his wish will become a flight in the New York sky, a visit to reminisce at the Boston airport, or a picture with the clock tower in London? Will keep wishing unfortunately! This is motivated by environmental protection! Here you are clearly violating three human rights, the right to education, the right to movement, and the right to treatment
Some interesting points! Do you think that people would make different decisions from the outset if they knew they could take less flights in their lifetime?
The second law cannot be applied because I simply find it anti-logical!
The world lives in enough food danger that almost 800 million people suffer from poverty! What if we stop eating meat?
We will only see famines, but mixed with revolutions and coups in countries that will agree to this decision! Also, many countries will not agree to apply it!
There are traditional folk dishes associated with a type of meat! With this law, we threaten culture and heritage. I think the work of UNESCO (Ministry of World Culture) will be getting double!
How can I prevent a Saudi from eating Kabsa? And it is linked to the history of his ancestors, heritage, customs and traditions! Where is the respect for other peoples and cultures that we are organizing cultural exchange programs to show!
This law will create double standards in the international community, which will make people lose confidence in governments and the United Nations for agreeing to implement such laws!
Of course, the enactment of new laws raises controversy, but we must appreciate the difference of opinions, but I believe that when the law is in the interest of everyone and does not oppress anyone, it must be published and act according to it.
European Parliament did not err when it approved a law banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars as of 2035, as this is very beneficial for the environment and preserves its health, as it reduces traffic congestion, air pollution and associated risks such as asthma. , and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on non-renewable energy sources and help people to walk, as there are other means for people who do not prefer walking
I will discuss the first three laws that I think are controversial
The first law I agree with, but the number of trips can be reduced so that all people have the opportunity to take trips
The second law I strongly oppose. We can't control what people eat. You will receive a lot of objection. We cannot forget about the benefits of meat, as it is a source of protein. It's true that there are other sources of protein such as legumes, grains, and nuts, but we can't stop anyone from having something they prefer.
The third law I agree with, but if it suits people's needs and we can rely on renewable sources such as the sun, but what about hospitals and places that are in dire need of electricity?
They must be provided with the electricity necessary for their needs
People can interact when we raise their consciousness, and I think everything is a double-edged sword. Let's raise their awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of each law
Laws 3 can't be applied .we live in technology age so everyone needs electricity,,,doctors need it to save patients'life ,doctors make operations daily for patients.Also computer engineers need electricity all the time as their work is on the inernet.Teachers and students nowadays can not dispense it in their learning process.
Five hours of electricity per day!!!I can't imagin.
I think flight can expensive because the prices can vary depending on the route &time of the year.Air planes burn fossil fuel.Also they can use five hiurs of electricity per day,it saves money,increasesyour energy,security,reduces pollution.
Hi there
Law (4) can be passed,it's the most realistic law of the four.
Walking helps us to be healthy,get active,lose weight,burn Calories, improve fitness,increase energy levels, strength bones and muscles,and prevent or manage heart disease, stroke , high blood pressure or cancer.
So I encourage applying law 4
From my point of view, I think that Law No. 3 should not exist. Although electricity affects climate change, but in a small way, it is not a waste that pollutes the environment and also has many benefits. For example, without electricity, how can we light the streets and buildings at night? Without it, many sources of progress in science will stop, most of which depend on electricity, and it is also a key factor To operate heating and air-conditioning devices, then, therefore, they help us to deal with different weather conditions.. In my opinion, instead of banning electricity, we can only reduce the use of electrical devices such as computers and others, because they also help in climate change and increased carbon emissions.
From my personal opinion, I think that the law of not eating meat at all and only eating vegetarian food is difficult for some people, and I think that there is a large percentage who will oppose and a percentage will complain. For example, there are people who are allergic to vegetarian food, so they cannot eat it or they cannot accept it, and meat is also important, as it contains some important substances The human body is a good source of protein that helps build the body and muscles, and it is rich in vitamins and minerals such as iron, zinc, B vitamins and other important things in meat, and there are those who will agree, as there are people who are of vegetarian origin and do not like meat, so there will be opposition and approval of this law But there are also benefits from not eating meat for the climate. For example, cows and animals whose meat we eat emit methane gas in abundance, which leads to a rise inTemperatures and affects the climate. If we stop eating meat, none of this will happen. I think for people to accept this law, we do not have to completely prevent them from eating meat. They can balance between vegetarian food and meat, or reduce meat consumption. Thus, people will accept this law.
Hi there:)
I chose the no-meat law because I thought it was more appropriate for discussion and because it interested me in the idea that becoming a vegetarian is a little difficult. Some people like to eat meat and fast food more than vegetables or fruits, so this will be difficult for them and they may not respond to this law, and that would be bad. Because eating meat is a simple thing for people, but eating only one kilogram of meat is equivalent to 13 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. Just imagine that a whole family ate 2 kilograms of meat, that is, there would be 26 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent if this simple family produced This amount of carbon dioxide, so how would it be for 7 billion people to eat meat...
I found a solution that is not the best thing, but it is useful anyway, which is that we can eat meat only two or three days a week, or we can eat 3 kilograms of meat a week. It will make people accept this law better and it will have a big impact on the climate
And no matter how difficult and unconvincing the laws are, it would be nice if we applied them to protect our planet
A good suggestion- I believe lots of people choose this option to help reduce their carbon footprint. As more meat alternatives are on offer that are better in quality, do you think meat consumption can decrease?
I Suggest law 4: cars can only be used for three days This law will be almost a solution to environmental problems, but I see that it is difficult to implement because there are many who seek to buy a car to facilitate their lives, or some seek to buy a car to serve themselves, but in the end reducing the presence of cars per day will constitute something positive for the environment instead of toxic gases such as carbon and things Many others, this law is a good option, but I think that people will seek to reject it much more than to agree to it, but with the conviction that this thing will be in the interest of them and their health for sure, and applying a penalty to those who violate this decision will be somewhat acceptable to society
I liked to talk about two laws. The first is the use of cars for three days a week only, so I agree with it strongly because the emissions crisis that comes out of cars harms the air and pollution can exist. As for breasts, I see that if a person is a plant and eats any kind of meat, the amount of protein that he eats decreases. The body needs it, and this law did not want to harm people's lives, but rather wanted to preserve the environment
In my country, I think law 4 may not be followed strictly because most of the people use vehicles daily like taxi drivers, conductors to earn a living hence improving on their standards of living in their different families, so making it a law may not be as easy , and so it will bring a lot of the natives' reactions for example during time we had lock down due to COVID - 19 pandemic, most of the people started grumbling because their sources of getting money had been restricted from operating hence dettering them from acquiring their basic needs.
If we come to look at the third law, people will look at it from both negative and positive perspectives. The negative is related to doctors and the lives of sick people, so the doctor needs more than five hours to help the patients. As for the positive, it may be normal for civilians because they may occupy their time with things not related to electricity. As for the fourth law, I think it is positive for everyone because we have We practice our favorite sports freely in the other three days, whether it's civilians or doctors, but I propose an easy suggestion to help reduce climate problems by reducing waste
I think it is difficult to implement the third law (using electricity for 5 hours a day) even though in my city (Gaza) electricity is not available all day and much less, but in the world many people will reject this decision even though it will help in combating change The climate is due to reducing the burning of coal, fuel and oil, and reduces the production of carbon dioxide gas, and it is also not easy to follow because it affects our lives greatly, as today we need to use electricity in everything in the house such as lighting, heating and operating electrical appliances household.
I think that the second law cannot be applied because the body cannot dispense with protein. Legumes can give protein, but not as much as meat. The third law is the use of electricity for 5 hours, but for example (the refrigerator) it cannot be turned off for an hour because the food in it will spoil. Also, this law cannot be applied and I was attracted For the fourth law, because it is possible to dispense with cars and use bicycles and walking, because they are beneficial to health and the environment. I think that we should use the three times in urgent and remote places, and we can dispense with cars and ride the bus. I think that the fourth law can be applied. We cannot force people to do a bad act that they do not like because it It belongs to them, and it is personal freedom, and if he wants to live a comfortable life, he must apply some laws, such as the fourth law 💜
Law 2 requires everyone to become a vegetarian. Many students have already said that it is an unbalanced food...but I see it differently. When buying plant products, businessmen cut plants to provide them to people, and this will harm the vegetation cover, and I also think that some plant animals may die due to lack of food, and if they die, predators will not find anything to eat. So they may eat each other, and that will damage the ecological balance and may lead to extinction.
I chose the secondlaw because it attracted me. If the state implemented this law, it would result in much harm to humans and plants, for example
Humans will lose the very rich elements for their body that they take from meat, and this leads to the following diseases: anemia, omega-3 deficiency, and so on.
As for plants: If a person relies entirely on plant for his food, this will lead to a decrease in the number of plants, and if the plant decreases, the carbon dioxide in the air increases, because plants perform the process of photosynthesis and take in carbon dioxide and give us oxygen, causing death to humans.
So this law is bad and I think it should not be applied
#I think law1 is difficult for us,because some people work in foreign country whenever they get holiday,they come to their own country to spend some days with their family, after some days they go back to their work.If we proceed this law 1 people will get only 5 chance to see their family in their life time.
#And people starts to use more ships for travelling to other country,by travelling in ships people's time will be wasted than compared to flight and more fuel also used to run a ship ,so law1 is not applicable for me.
Well, all these laws are necessary for the climate, but I think that using the car only 3 times a week will be a stressful thing, meaning that emergencies can happen, for example, so the person needs to drive the car, and you do not know when you might need it, and for this people will accept this law with rejection or non-acceptance because The pressure to use the car for this came to my mind a slightly imitative idea, which is to allow the use of the car that runs on electricity or the car that burns with solar energy, and this is not harmful, and also the permissibility of using the car that runs on fuel in cases of necessity only and not for a certain number of times or for certain and specific days, and this will be much better From adhering to a specific thing, and also, police, ambulance and firefighting vehicles can operate with energy that does not need fuel, because these cars work throughout the day and you do not know when you need it, so it would be better if it worked with solar or electric energy, but if we depended on this system at the time, little fuel will be lost of its value in the world
In order to succeed in improving the climate, we must apply the laws because we want to protect the planet, not because we want to apply the laws
Hello dear Kim,
I'm going to choose law number 3 because we are already living this here in Gaza due to the blockade and lack of resources and if that became a law that would be disastrous, it's been 17 years now and we still struggle with the issue of electricity starting from the very simple reasons to the most difficult. For example, in summer, we die from the heat because we can't switch on fans and AC and in winter we die from cold because electricity isn't 24-hour. Food like chicken and meat gets rotten in the fridge due to the long hours of a power cut. For the most difficult situations, let me talk about hospitals, lots of people die because they're living on devices powered by electricity. We have also a restaurant that has a fish farm, they suffer great losses in fish wealth during that crisis let alone the high taxes they paid for the farm itself.
So, if this law would be modified, the government should cooperate with its people and provide solar system cells for every house, and by this, there would be no harm to nature.
Third Law 3: From my point of view, it did not agree with me much, and it should not be easily enlightened. It must first be proposed to the people, because it may cause protests by the population in every region and conflict in public opinion, and it may affect the climate negatively because electricity helps some farms, such as chicken farms, as they depend on electricity. And while we depend on electricity to a large extent, we bake fresh bread at home through an electric cooker, and this is an essential thing in every home, and people know that it has its advantages, but caution and warning must be exercised before taking this step because it is very important. I oppose it with the same thing.
The best is laws 1 and 4 becuse it belittle of carbon dioxide
But in law 2 it we want the meat from the product animals becase it has the irons and vitamins like C and B and brotine this is make us alive and in law 3 we want the eletricity in our live in the houses work and in the school to light for us and we want it in the hospitals to operation therapeutic dvices like respirator and kidney dialysis machine wherefore we want the elecirtcity
I think that law 3 must be implemented because there are some people who consume electricity alot.For example,leaving the refrigerator lit all day,the lamp lit,the fan and the air conditioner ,also the electric oven and many many other consumable devices.This law is strict on people,but it saves electricity and money.
I think law 2 is not reasonable. You can't really force people to become vegeterians. Eating a lot of fruits and vegetables is good but we need protein to have a balanced diet. Moreover, if everyone becomes vgeterian, the consumption of plants will increase, which will decrease the vegetation around us. I think instead of making everyone vegan, they should encourage them to eat healthy, balanced diets.
The other laws seem okay, especially law 4. It will help people exercise more, thus improving their health .
What about getting protein from other sources? Is this something that could be explored more by people?
Yes actually, protein can be gotten from other sources such as legumes, kale, tofu and nuts. I think that people should indeed explore it. Tofu actually provides the same nutrients that meat does and it is a much healthier choice.
I believe that Law No. 2 is not compulsory for people, because our bodies need protein, and plants do not contain all the protein that we need for our bodies. It's a rather strange law, why did you pass it on? It is not possible to force people to be vegetarians, because meat is a very effective way to obtain protein, but I know that there are other foods in order to gain protein, such as (insects _ beans _ beans), but some people really need the protein found in meat
Iaw 1
Yes I agree with this law.Because it reduces air pollution
law 2
Yes , lagree with this law
Because it does not drain electricity and preserves it for futur generations
Law 2 is not very logical and strict. We cannot force anyone to be a vegetarian or force them to live without animal food, as it is the primary source for building protein, and animal food is essential for building the body and resisting diseases. I also do not agree with the law about using the car three days a week because we go to school 6 days a week, so do we walk?
Perhaps this is a bit positive because it encourages exercise to build a strong body
One law: I did not like it completely, because there may be harassment and restriction of freedom of movement, or someone may need to travel a lot for treatment, work, a walk, or a visit. So what if some asked us to provide them with these trips because of their financial crisis, what would happen? Will it be different?
I want to discuss Law 3..
It is a wonderful and good law, and I agree with this law, but this law is not compatible with business owners, such as employees, because they have their own business on the computer, and of course they sit on it for more than 5 hours, and this is to provide food and drink and to complete their work to the fullest. There are many people who work freely, such as writing stories, novels, legends, and others, whose uncle requires days and weeks to complete them, and this is also something else. That is why some will accept this with rejection because it contradicts their jobs and work, and that it is not permissible for them to use electricity for five hours, and in fact they need 6 or 7 hours to complete the work. One day, but there is a simple solution, which is to use a laptop that can work with a battery, or use a phone or other means that do not depend on electricity, or we can reduce the work or complete it faster without taking breaks ..
I do not know if my solution is useful, but I do not think that this law is in accordance with with everyone too
Cars can only be used three days a week....
It is true that this law is good for the climate, but they forgot the right of the people!!
What if a family goes out three times a week, and in the same week their son becomes seriously ill, and the hospital needs a car, how will they act!!!
My answer is: This law should not be imposed because it may be dangerous for a person, just as people are tired of homes and need to go out for fun. But if they impose the same law with going out during extreme necessity, then this is somewhat better
Thanks.
In my defence i think that 1st law is not applicable for the businessmen and the people who are in emergency cases they cant be able to follow at that time.The 2nd law is kinda neutral because max number of protein is present in non vegetarian foods and i even accept that protein is available in vegetarian food too but compared to vegetarian foods,non-vegetarian foods contain more protein.I accept the 3rd law but in hospital situation they need full time electricity for patients.The 4th law is the best , walking makes a human body healthy and we can make some contact while travelling in public transports.
According to the law, every person must become a vegetarian. Of course, my suggestion is that there is no such law, because a person must eat meat that provides him with proteins that help build the body and supply it with minerals such as zinc, which works to heal wounds, and like iron, which works to transport oxygen to all cells of the body and also helps in proper growth, and among animal products is milk, which is of great importance, as it works to strengthen teeth and is important for bone growth because it provides calcium, so this law should not be put in place in any country in the world
Law (3) :
Such a law could have both positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, it could encourage people to use electricity more sparingly and efficiently, reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions. It could also motivate individuals and communities to invest in alternative energy sources, such as solar panels or wind turbines, in order to meet their energy needs without exceeding the five-hour limit.
On the other hand, such a law could also have negative consequences. It could disrupt the daily routines and productivity of individuals and businesses that rely heavily on electricity, such as hospitals, factories, and schools. It could also disproportionately affect low-income households that may not have the means to invest in alternative energy sources, or those who require electricity for medical or other essential needs.
In order to mitigate some of these negative effects, policymakers could consider implementing exemptions or allowances for certain types of electricity usage, such as medical equipment or emergency services. They could also prioritize investment in alternative energy infrastructure to ensure that communities have access to reliable and affordable sources of electricity.
In summary, a law limiting electricity usage to five hours per day could have both positive and negative consequences, and policymakers must carefully consider these potential impacts when designing and implementing such legislation .
Africa wants to develop itself but the climate laws will hinder its progress. Laws by the EU banning the use of cars running on petrol or diesel will definitely plunge oil producing countries especially in Africa into serious economic difficulties. The oil revenue is actually what keeps the econo
my of such countries afloat. Also a blanket climate law will hinder the development of the countries wishing to use fossil fuels for their industries and power generation. Africa is not asking for bail outs but it needs climate laws to be stricter on the countries generating the most pollution and lenient to countries generating the least pollution. My country Nigeria, needs to find a better source of income for example instead of selling crude oil they can start making batteries for electric cars .
but looking at the second law on the other hand we can get protein from other things, but it well have negative effects on the environment and meat factories, so we can put in place a law that states that people should eat less meat and eat more vegetarian food .
I believe that all laws must be applied quickly, because when applied, the climate will be safe and will not pose a threat to people, but the law of plant hope only has a risk to human life because the body needs protein to build the body
Law 3 is illogical. We cannot use electricity for only 5 hours a day. Electricity is used in many fields, such as: cooking, baking, refrigeration, washing clothes...
There are many countries and cities that suffer from a permanent loss of electricity or it comes for short periods.
Among these cities is the city of Gaza, which receives electricity from 6-8 hours per day.
On July 8, 2014, Gaza was confronted with a war attack that lasted for 50 days. In that attack, electricity came 3-4 hours a day. In our house, losses and troubles ensued:
*1 Some foods are spoiled, such as: meat, cheese, and dairy...
*2 Damage to foods that need refrigeration.
*3 Among the troubles we faced was the unbearable summer heat...
Therefore, electricity is very important in our lives, but we can limit its use:
Reliance on daylight.
* 2 Separate the electronic devices from the plunger when not in use.
My point of view is the second law that caught my attention the most because it cannot be applied because it has a negative impact on human health because a person cannot depend on one type of food. Therefore, human food must be healthy and varied and include the three food groups, which are energy, prevention and construction, and also followed
the food chain
My point of view is the second law that caught my attention the most because it cannot be applied because it has a negative impact on human health because a person cannot depend on one type of food. Therefore, human food must be healthy and varied and include the three food groups, which are energy, prevention and construction, and also followed
the food chain
I think law 4 is good one because it will cause air pollution and we should avoid using car it will make many pollution so we should avoid using car and use bicycle and walk and we should not harmful our earth and we should not pollute our planet
I think law 3 would not be so bad, actually I think 5 hours are still too many hours to be on electricity. Electricity or some people call it the internet is like an addiction. Humans spend all of their time on their electric device or watching television or even just using electricity in general. This rule can have its ups and its downs because some people depend on their devices for work and many other things. Before the internet was even a thing people did just fine, and the people that experience no internet didn't even have an option on whether they think this law should be passed.Electricity takes away from children's childhood because children grow up so fast because they know everything from the internet, and they also know they can get away with it because all they have to do is point the finger at the internet. Law 3 is a reasonable law that should be passed , yes I know I will get disagreement , but it's not like I am saying anything that is not true.
Iwould like to talk about the third low which is that each of us can only use five hours of electricity every day.....How people might react to this low can vary. Some may agree with the law and see it as a general guideline to conserve electricity, reduce energy consumption, and promote environmental sustainability. They may view it as a call to adopt wise and responsible electricity usage habits and consider the impact of energy consumption on the environment and the economy.
On the other hand, some may find the low limited or unrealistic, as they may consider using only five hours of electricity daily challenging or impossible in some cases, such as when it comes to basic daily life necessities or in areas with limited access to electricity.
The low may also be criticized by some, as they may see it as dependent on individual and economic circumstances, ignoring potential difficulties in accessing limited amounts of electricity, such as poverty, environmental, and social challenges.
In the end, reactions and opinions about this low may vary depending on individuals' backgrounds and experiences, and it may stimulate discussions and reflections on electricity usage and environmental sustainability in general .....If this low were implemented and people actually started using only five hours of electricity per day, it could have a positive impact on the climate through the following points:
Reducing carbon emissions: Electricity generation from fossil fuel sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas produces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to harmful climate change. By using less electricity, the reliance on fossil fuel sources can be reduced, thereby lowering carbon emissions.
Conserving natural resources: Electricity generation requires the use of limited natural resources such as coal, natural gas, and water. By using less electricity, excessive use of these natural resources can be minimized, contributing to the preservation of the ecological balance.
Promoting environmental sustainability: Encouraging responsible electricity usage and considering the environmental impacts of energy consumption can promote environmental awareness and sustainability in society. Adopting sustainable electricity usage habits may increase awareness about the importance of protecting the climate and the environment.
However, it should be noted that the impact of implementing this statement on the climate depends on various other factors, such as the electricity generation technology used in the region and the source of electricity used (e.g., renewable energy sources vs fossil fuel sources).
I partly agree with law 3 but for some instance we can decrease the amount of using cars 🚗 and use the cars only for long distances and the nearest ones we can go 🚶♀️ walking or using 🏍 bikes this will be benefit and reduce pollution and save people and environment
If law 1 is implemented, human interactions will be reduced and only virtual interactions will happen. Tourism will be affected so the countries economy gets very much affected . Skilled doctors who save people's life in emergency situation can't travel to other countries, which will lead to many lose in human life.
If law 3 is implemented, industrial sector will face huge loss, if electricity supply is limited. Hospitals use many equipments which require electricity through ou the day. Now a days people started moving towards electrical vehicals which need electricity to get it charged.
I will give my personal opinion on Law 2 .. Well, the second law is somewhat I do not like it because there are people who do not like to eat vegetarian food and do not eat it normally, and if there is suddenly a law that prohibits eating meat, it will be a difficult change, and also there are already very many vegetarian people in the world, but there are Whoever remains a vegetarian and there are those who return to eating meat, and for this I think that it is okay not to eat meat from time to time, and other than that, the meat contains elements that are beneficial to the body and is a good source of protein and strengthens the muscles of the body and is also rich in minerals and vitamins such as vitamin B, so we can only determine the amount that we will eat of meat throughout the week, and also this will be good for the animals from which we take meat, as their number will increase more
An interesting point you have raised, you have mentioned people who do not like eating vegetarian food - can you give further examples of different types of protein that fuel the body and the advantages of these? Can you extend further on how this will be good for the animals as you mentioned in your discussion?
I think that law 2 'wouldn't help much studies show that if people don't have meat in their diet we would be more weak and wouldn't have the protein we from meat.A law that would work is using other forms of producing electricity like windmills.
A good point you have made - you said if people don't eat meat then they would be weaker? Can you find evidence of this to back up your point and explain the effects of this on the human body further?
I strongly disagree with the first law because the use of airplane in modern days is a very key means of transportation from one place to another especially if it is a far distance and also it does not have any close substitute that can perform its responsibilities so therefore limiting the use of airplanes in ones lifetime is not a suitable law.
Also you may want to fly to different places for different reasons in your lifetime such as experience, business, excursions, visitation and many more reasons that would require you to take flights more than 10 times
Furthermore why I disagree with the law is that the activities of the airplane contributes a very small or little percentage to the effect of climate change compared to other effects in a country.(3.5% of warming and 2.5% CO2 emissions)
This law will be very complicated to follow and enforcing it will be a problem in some countries because citizens have the right to liberty and movement and it may be termed as the authorities are denying them of their human rights.
I will suggest that this law should not be imposed or at least the maximum number of flights an individual can take in his/her lifetime should be increased to 40 and also other effects of climate change which have a high amount of percentage as the cause of climate change should be payed more attention to such as the carbon footprints of individuals, and the production of CO2 emissions from different sources. etc.
A really interesting point you have made through your discussion - it was interesting to read the percentages of effects of climate change. You mentioned that you think people should only be able to take a maximum flight allowance of 40 per life time, can you extend further on this and explain why you think this amount? Can you evidence why 40 flights per person would help support climate change and why it wouldn't be more or less than this amount? Are there other ways people could support the reduction in climate change? Could you give examples of when people might not be able to keep to your suggested 40 flights per individual and when this might become a problem for someone?
Thanks. Why I suggested that an individual should be allowed to take at least 40 flights during the period of his/her lifetime is because every flights you take in your lifetime is based on a certain purpose or reason, so therefore if the proportion of the average number of flights by an individual during his/her lifetime is brought together, it will most time exceed 10 flights maybe to 20 for some (average individual who may travel for business to explore, and maybe visitation) 40 for some(the noble and rich) and some even have more than 40 flights in their lifetime etc. So in my own view considering the number of flights by different people in the world ranging through different numbers, I think the suitable average number for flights per person is 40.
Also I made mention of the fact that airplanes lead to 3.5% of warming and 2.5% CO2 emissions which has a very little effect on climate change, so therefore if individuals respond positively in taking only 40 flights in his/her lifetime it will reduce the effect of global change in a country and in the world at large. also, taking flights or traveling by air is a very essential activity that an individual could engage in during his/her lifetime, so we can't say that airplane flights should be canceled completely but it can be reduced to a suitable amount(40 flights) which is convenient for people around to travel for their different purposes and the effect on global change would be reduced which makes it balanced.
If the flights are more the warming and the CO2 emissions that the airplane produces would start accumulating and the effect on climate change would be much.
if the flight is less some, individuals would not be able to complete their trip and travels to other places in the world by air.
People could support the reduction in climate change by reducing their carbon footprints, obeying and adherence to law and order, reduction in usage of plastics and avoiding wasting products.
An example of a set people who might not be able to keep to the suggested 40 flights per individual are the noble and the rich, this is because they might have purposes that require them to fly on airplanes such as business appointments , visitations, and some may have flights based on their position.an example is the president. This might cause problems if they are still being restricted from flying more than 40 times.
I think that law n°3 is a good idea, but wouldn't work well. We all need electricity, and especially people working on their computer all day. We also need it in class, and to amuse ourselves. However, what if we reduced the time of electricity of the people who are using it only to amuse themselves, and leave priority to the people who are working ?
An interesting point - can you give examples of how people could reduce the amount of electricity they use? How do you think this could be controlled and monitored?
I think that we could reduce the amount of electricity we use by, for example, turning off the light, or not using it when we don't need it. Or, when we are on video chat, turn off our camera, which consumes 4% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. I think this could be controlled or monitored by a special application on your screen. For example, after an hour, you get a notification telling you to consume a little less. Or, there could be a national contest of "48 hours screen-less".
You have some up with a new idea or solution. Well done!
I think the second law is not applicable because meat is rich in proteins. Though we can eat vegetable and fruits in order to eating meat regularly. And we can reduce the releasing of poisonous gas that come from industries which affect the animals.
Emily @ Topical Talk
You have made an interesting point - can you develop further your point about reducing poisonous gases - what do you mean by this?
According to 4th law cars can only be used for three days a week is not possible.Instead of petrol we can use natural gas which does not pollute the environment.
An interesting point made, can you extend further on how you know natural gases would run the car? What other benefits would there be to limiting the use of the car?
I think law 4 can't work in my country and it would take most of the people's attention in a way that they would perceive or look on it with negativity most especially private schools, factories who transport their pupils and raw materials , products respectively, so it would derail the growth of the business once transportation means would be restricted hence making them loss market (customers) in and out of the areas where they are since it's another way of getting customers. Secondly, I think so because most of the factories can't only access to their customers within the stipulated number of days unlike it will cause more resistance from the public since their business will be hit economically.
You have made an interesting point here, can you further develop your idea by giving examples of alternatives that could be used instead of cars to abide along with the law 4 if it came into effect? Would there be any ways in which we could use the cars at anytime but reduce the effects they have on the environment - how do you think this could be developed?
I think law 4 can not be received in full swing because it would lead to loss of employment opportunity to the daily income earners "Hand to mouth category" like during 2021 in my country when different activities like driving of vehicles was put on hold for twenty-one days lock down, very many people started asking for help from the government because their income earning activities were scrabbled from operation.
I like the way you have used an example of something that has happened on your community to illustrate your point. Well done!
Law 4 can be implemented positively.
Because not everybody in the country is using cars on a daily basis. And moreover if not car there are other modes of transportation especially public transportation help people a lot in such situations. Many people are increasingly adopting public transportation and avoiding cars for several reasons. Firstly, using public transportation can be cheaper than owning a car. Taking a bus or train can be more affordable than buying, fueling, maintaining, and insuring a car
Overall, reducing the use of cars can have many positive benefits like not only reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also saving money, improving health, reducing traffic congestion, supporting local businesses, and conserving energy.
But for some it may not be feasible so for those people if they need to use a car, they can choose a fuel-efficient car such as a hybrid or electric vehicle. These cars emit fewer greenhouse gases and can save money on fuel costs.
Hello everyone
I think that the first, second and third laws aren't very practical, although they might help to reduce climate change. Number 4 seems like a reasonable law because there are other means of transportation like walking to places that aren't very far or cycle to places that might take longer to get to. It might take some getting used to but i think that we have to get out of our comfot zones if we ever want to solve climate change.
Very good point authentic_truth, I really like how you weigh up the pros and cons to come to a decision. What do you think are some things that prevent people taking transport like walking or cycling over the use over cars?
I think that people reason that it will take longer to get from one point to another since cars are significantly faster. I also think that they are not willing to stop using or give up somthing that cost so much money (cars) to walk or cycle.
from my point of view:
For the first law: The law does not harm much except for those who love to travel a lot, and that 10 trips are sufficient for each person. A little pressure must be applied to be in a healthy world, especially since planes emit a lot of gases, and the plane can be used, for example, with gas that does not harm the environment, such as nitrogen.
For the second law: I do not agree at all, because we will never dispense with meat as it is a main meal, and there are people who are not vegetarians, which means that they will not eat at all!
For the third law: I do not agree with him much, but in my country electricity is cut off for half the day and we are used to this, so I do not feel that it is very dangerous, just as I wish, like other countries, that electricity be 24 hours straight.
The fourth law: I think this is the best of the laws because there are other means instead of the car, and oil can be replaced with environmentally friendly nitrogen gas, such as my proposal for airplanes.
I think law one is not conducive for some parts of the world. One of the major problem faced by some African countries is the problem of insecurity. Using my country Nigeria as a key study, you find out that about 65% of the people that embark on distant road journeys end up running into armed robbers or kidnappers so, inorder to avoid such a risk, people prefer taking distant journeys by plane. Therefore enforcing such a strict law may lead to the jeopardy of many lives and you sure can't "JEOPARDIZE" lives to "REGULATE" climate change.
You've raised an interesting point about other factors such as safety or convenience contributing to people's decisions about climate change, affable_bird. Could you share the source for the statistic you shared about long distance road journeys?
Law 1:
We must apply it because the second law cannot be prevented, because meat contains energy, calcium, iron, and proteins that strengthen the body and increase its immunity. The third law is that we cannot do without electricity because we need it in daily life and also helps us in daily work. As for the fourth law, we cannot prevent transportation because in case of danger. We can use it and it is used in a week or rather in a day too much
I'm not really in support of the first rule though...so let's say your someone who is into adventure like exploring and trips or even maybe,your job requires you to travel round the country....what exactly would you do since your limit of travelling throughout ur lifetime is just 10.
That's crazy!!!.....
Law 3 in my own opinion shouldn't be passed because if people have 5 hours of electricity they will start using generators as another alternative source of energy for their work because not everyone has the money to buy solar panels and inverters. As the people are using their generator's the generators are emitting smoke that is depleting the ozone layer and it is also harmful to the plants and the environment.
The law can be made fairer by making it 10 hours of electricity instead of 5 hours a day, 5 hours in the morning and 5 hours in the night.
Another rule they can use to protect the climate is that every single shop in the country should use reusable bags instead of plastic and paper bags.
I feel that law three poses a risk of economical breakdown because electricity serves as a key factor of production for firms. If the period of availability of electricity is reduced, these firms will be liable to suffer bankruptcy, therefore leading to economic breakdown.
Nevertheless, there's still a better law which will go a long way to curb climate change. This law states that all individuals must have at least seven different species of plants 🌿 in their compound. This law will lead to the steady increase in the level of green life on earth resulting to the removal of carbon footprints in the atmosphere and therefore reducing climate change.
One interesting fact I found out about this is that the forests actually stores more carbon dioxide than they release, about thirty percent of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are taken in by forests. If this law is implemented, the percentage of the forest effect in removal of the carbon emissions will be probably doubled or even tripled thereby bringing us closer to attaining a healthier Mother Earth 🌎.
I really liked the idea of the Fourth Law by not using cars except for 3 days a week, as this initially reduces pollution and gases emitted from cars, and this also forces people to walk, exercise, and be active. The body and blood vessels, so it can be passed because it is applicable to a certain extent and people can apply it
I think, law 3 will not be taken into kind consideration as a public law because most the population in my country deal businesses which want electricity day in day out for more than five hours a day so implementing it will induce the public reactions in a high note for example internet cafes, factories like Tororo cement factory, Hima cement, factory, Simba cement factory whose way of earning relies on power of electricity 24 hours per day.
I think law 4 would not be accepted by many people because vehicles are the most means of transport they use. This law would have had the public reaction like in my country Uganda, people use vehicles in many ways for instance transporting goods, people moving from one place to another, importing and exporting goods.
What could be done in your country to decrease people's reliance on cars?
I think in my country i can advice those who rely on cars by using boats,ferries,ships and also using bicycles moving on foot as an exercise to the body.Note;when using boats,ferries etc it should not be the one that bring out smoke or engine boats,ferries etc thank you.
I agree and furthermore concur with strong_introduction in law 4 about use of vehicles for three days per week can't be proven as a success however, I think the manufactury of bicycles could be done in my country to decrease the reliance on cars such that the people could used them as an alternative means of transport.
I think that Law No. 2 is logical because the human body needs a variety of food, and if we only eat plants, the demand for plants will become more. I agree with Law No. 4 because we must reduce the use of cars for the sake of our health and for the sake of the environment. People are neglecting sports and walking because of cars, and the use of cars pollutes the air.
My first impression on imposing laws on people, is that, It should consider the topographic features, availability and accessibility of resources, culture and social norms of an area where people dwell. Also the laws should include people's interests.
If I consider the first law "people can only take ten flights in their lifetime" It can be a key to solve Air pollution and saves an enormous amount of energy spent as air craft fuel but air transport is considered as an important means of transport in the North-Eastern part of our country because Presence of big rivers like Brahmaputra make it difficult to construct roads and railways. Airways are suitable when rivers get flooded. Dense forests hamper the construction of roadways and railways. International borders of Bangladesh, Myanmar, China, etc., can be easily travelled by airways without much hassles.
Focusing on law two, " Everyone must become vegan" is practically not possible for people living in deserts and cold countries, for example Green land has only 1% of arable land for cultivation, which is not enough to feed the population therefore they must rely on other source of their food necessities.
Third law, " Everyone can use only five hours of electricity per day" is not suitable for this day's lifestyle. Even though we can control the amout of electricity used for TVs and phones, we need electricity for pumping water using motors for irrigation purposes and almost all the industries uses electricity.
And my thoughts on final law "cars can only be used of three days a week" can be a sustainable regulation on people using cars on a daily basis. Yet, for people who feel distressed in travelling with other people in public transports, it's can be a hassle to them.
I think the law of electricity is a bit illogical, because many of the possibilities are totally dependent on electricity like hospitals and factories, but electricity can be replaced by alternative energy that comes from wind and sunlight.
I don't agree with the third law abd I don't support it being executed!
In developing countries in the Middle East, electricity is often only 4 hours a day!
I cannot describe this tragic situation
You have work on the phone or laptop, but the phone runs out of charge and you have to postpone your work! Here productivity and quality of work decrease!
Second: Food melting in refrigerators, which led to spoilage of most food products
Third: Forcing most people to use fuel to move engines and provide electricity because it is cheaper than installing solar cells! Here the pollution will increase
What is the benefit of applying a law that does not satisfy the majority of society, and we only see it in countries that suffer from economic recession?!
It is as if we are going backwards with our full desire and ignoring the roles of scientists in providing better environmental solutions!
The first law for me is the most strict law, because I believe that a beautiful travel introduces you to the civilizations and cultures of others. I know that it has bad effects on the environment, as flights cause more pollution than a motorist causes for two months, but it's really a dream for me and for other people to travel all over the world. In fact I want to travel to all parts of the world, but did you know that for some people and countries, this is a normal and easy law, because a visa is the one that controls a person. In our country we cannot travel to all countries. For me, I think that the most appropriate solution is to replace the use of an airplane by using ships, and there is also another solution that is raising artificial borders between countries where people can move freely everywhere. Do you agree with me?
According to law one it reduces the sound pollution and environmental pollution.But I disagree using flight only 10 times in a lifetime because travelling by flight saves time and energy. Nowadays time is precious than anything. We cannot buy time. The value of time will be more than that of what we earn. We can restrict the usage of flight but then maximum number of times the usage of flight cannot be restricted to some number. Some countries earn much through tourism,when the usage of the flight is restricted the economy and development of those countries which earns tourism will come down.
Law 1 is not a suitable law for this contemporary world .Now let's discuss about the government of every country if any public authority ough to travel to a far away place for some political affairs ,now they ough to use flight for transpiration and they are the people who are working for the development for our country so how can we implement this law to them where they have to travel from one place to another and if somebody is affected by some severe disease and it cannot be solved or cured in their own country so they have to use flights to travel from their country to abroad and an another imapact of this is , If I am interested in journalism I ough to explore many things from many places so I need to travel to abroad countries to fulfill my desire and to explore ,learn etc so this will be an obstacle to me and can also affect my passion and because of this law each and every countries economy decreases cause only rich people take more flight travels in their lives ,if someone had travelled more than 9 flights and they have efficient amount of money in their hand and they will also have the desire to visit many places in the world so this law also deals with economy instead of having this law we can have like people can have flights in their lifetime but there must have a productive and considerable reason behind it .
*I liked the idea of the climate problem and its encouragement to find appropriate solutions to help the renaissance of our planet and rid it of problems and obstacles to luxury in life.
The best example of this is what we see in Gaza, where the climate problem does not leave us during this period, and we fall into many problems because of this phenomenon and it works to restrict our movement, so I liked this idea very much, perhaps it will rid us of this crisis
Climate change is a serious problem that must be addressed.
Based on what we see, the greatest danger that caused this phenomenon is the abundance of fuel, and if we want to solve this problem, we must solve the fuel problem.
*I agree with Law 1 where only doing ten trips is good enough to reduce fuel as ten trips is not a little.
*As for Law 2, I do not encourage it, because humans need protein to grow, instead of depriving everyone From eating animal foods, it is better to eat only 3 per week that contain protein.
* As for Law 4، I agree with this law, as walking helps a person to burn fat, but there should be a group of people excluded, such as: the elderly who are unable to walk for long hours and those who suffer from disabilities.
* From my point of view, I see that planting trees also helps in reducing carbon dioxide gas, in addition to giving a wonderful view to our country.
The climate problem did not start suddenly, but it started progressively, so the laws must be gradual so that people can get used to them and apply them. In my country, there has been a problem with the power station for several years, so the electricity company set up a plan to distribute electricity according to the regions 8 hours a day, then it is separated in regular order with other regions, and life continues in Gaza, and the citizens adhere to the laws. Our problem is an economic problem only, let alone a danger that threatens the planet and endangers human lives. The commitment will be stronger. Meaning, no matter how strict the law is, people will get used to it. I support the use of strict laws for the health of our beautiful planet, because we started the problem gradually and its treatment will be gradual. The four laws have pros and cons, but together we can go hand in hand.
I think law 3 can not be implemented in some countries because they manufacture military weapons which are used for security. In transport sector some cars and motorcycles use electricity, so if it banned some people like motorists, electricians might lose jobs hence lowering their life standards. Electricity is used in referral hospitals for helping patients in bad health conditions for instance when a patient lacks oxygen to save life, on the same note, electricity is used in elevators hence easing transportation.
I think, law 1 can not work in my country because most business men earn a living from importing and exporting goods which involves flights. These flights can happen after every 4 days, so if the law is introduced, very many business people will lose their jobs. But I think law 2 can work when introduced by teaching people about the effects of fats produced animal products and also teaching them how important vegetables are in their bodies. Vegetables in gardens also absorb some carbon gas hence protecting our climate.
I think the fourth law is not important and should be passed because cars cannot be used three days a week. I think it is not a problem because there are modes of transport that do not depend on cars. There are other means of transportation that are less harmful to the environment and climate, and the existence of mass transportation means that reduce harmful pollution to the environment and climate.
I would also like to comment on law 1. Taking only ten flights in a lifetime won't be possible for people that need to travel from one country to another like celebrities, people that are in to sports, and people who need to travel to do their jobs. Law 3 won't really be convenient because some people need electricity to do their jobs and carry out various activities. I think instead of limiting electricity to only 5 hours a day they should turn to cleaner energy sources like water, wind and solar energy to provide electricity.
I think that Law 1 and Law 2 shouldn't be passed on because:
Millions of people travel using airplanes every day, moreover, some other people's jobs constrain them to be traveling by planes frequently. Therefore if you pass this law it might interfere or affect with someone's work.
I think that law 2 shouldn't be passed because protein plays a very important role in our bodies. It's one of the main building blocks of bones, muscles, cartilage, and skin. Protein also helps to supply our bodies with vital nutrients and aids in digestion by producing enzymes that help to break down food into molecules for a wide range of bodily functions.
These are the reasons why I think that Laws 1 and 2 shouldn't be passed on.
I don't agree with that. People can't be forced to be vegetarians. Because meat contains a lot of vitamins and proteins. But there are some foods that dispense with eating meat, such as: cheese, dairy, and legumes..but there are people who do not like meat, so for them it is easy to become vegetarian.
Except perhaps the 4th one, everything seems impossible, for the following reasons:
1. Travelling is part of somebody's work. Hence, restricting their travel is just next too impossible. Let me take my own country. If I have to travel from my City Chennai to the Capital of the country, even by flight it takes 3+ hours and by train it's close to 38 hours! How is it right to ask someone to take the longest route and waste time? Only those who can afford are going to take flight. And asking them to use trains, which is definitely a slow mode of transportation, is not justifiable.
2. Food is the individual choice. Going Vegan is good for me, as that is the choice that my entire family made. However, forcing that thought on somebody else is nothing but authoritarian way. Which in today's context is not right.
3. Today everything functions through electricity and getting back to primitive lifestyle is not right. Having said that, usage of like Air conditioners should definitely be banned during daytime, encouraging work from home culture, would promote reduction of office space which calls for more AC usage.
4. the Fourth one is possible, as they do in countries like Singapore. For this, a fantastic public transport systems are to be in place made available by the respective country.
May be concepts like rainwater harvesting should be made mandatory for the households to get regular electric and water connections. This would save lot of water and help during the summer and drought conditions.
In the first law, it can be implemented because it will reduce the use of oil that pollutes the air. In the second law, we can amend it by preventing people from eating pork and donkeys. The third law can be applied to protect the climate, and the fourth law, we can replace it with the law of using public transportation or walking.
If 2.nd law came into action .what about milk??? Which is very important for all. It also extracted from cow what do you think??? It is possible to stop drinking milk?? So I think this law
should not to be applied
Is it possible to stop drinking milk? Can you get nutrients from milk alternatives?
"Cars can only be used for three days a week " is a good law . Through it people can reduce pollution and encourage public transport . Moreover, people can walk and be healthy.
In the fourth law, I think we can do without cars, but in rural areas and villages, we can use bicycles or walk to nearby places instead.
We will have somewhat reduced the toxic gases emitted into the atmosphere
Thus, the use of cars is much lower.
Cars can only be used in difficult cases. First aid, police, and public transportation twice a day, back and forth
The carbon emission will be in small proportions
I think I'm in disagreement of the third law which says "Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day". So those industry or companies that majorly operates with electricity 24/7,what do we expect them to do the rest of the day???
And I feel this law wouldn't really help in the development or progress of a country due to the fact that work may be slow and there may be substandard results. And no country would want to partner up with a country which is inefficient.
The first law is not going to be convenient for everyone because some people would like to explore around the world and learn new things but this law is going to restrict them from achieving this goal
If the are restricted to ten flight throughout their lifetime them they wont be able to explore round the world
Why do you think it is a good thing for people to be able to explore the world?
I think it is good to explore the world because I can learn something new,I can also see the problems other countries are facing and look for a way to help them out and I can also know the advantage other countries have over mine and I can look for a way to make my country better.
It is a good thing for people to explore the world than in a same corner. A quote which inspires me a lot about traveling by Oberyn Martell is "It is a big and beautiful world. Most of us live and die in the same corner where we were born and never get to see any of it. I don't want to be most of us." Credits goes to world hearts for these informations.
Travel is a valuable life experience. Ot will make memorable memories. During our journey, we forget about our problems and frustrations. We explore new places, cultures, foods, music, etc.. It improves our mental health, makes our mind calm, bring out positivity, reduces stress and anxiety. Not only this it benefits us in learning, communication skills, adapting to a given situations such as:
1. Better understanding of the world
For example, Countries like Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Palestine, etc.. What will be your observation from these countries? The media will show us only about wars and what's going on in that country but not about their lifestyle, culture, etc.. This is the only way to explore the world.
2. Personal growth
When we travel alone, it can be more challenging. By overcoming these challenged situations you can able to know your own strength, weakness, likes and dislikes. Self awareness is important to know personal growth.
In my view and opinion, regarding the second law which says "everyone must become vegan (not eat or use any products that come from animals)"I would like comment on this by saying that law should be passed and this is because the vegetable is a class of food that contains very vital resources and nutrients for the healthiness and growth of the body. also they supply minerals and vitamins to the body. What I am simply trying to derive here is that by feeding on vegetables, we can be sustained to an extent without eating or using any product that come from animals. Vegetables are healthy and they supply nutrients for the body.
if the law is passed it can eventually lead to the healthiness of the society and then the world at large and it will also reduce the rate at which animals are killed for producing their different bye-products.
This law would be quite hard to enforce and follow especially by those who are not vegans and prefer eating other things but solutions such as organized programs that would enlighten non-vegetarians of the benefit of vegetables in order to at least boost their moral.
Vegetables do not really affect climate change but it uses less energy, land and water lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal based food.
I would like to say that law 2 is not applicable because everyone in the world cannot be forced to become vegan, which is their personal opinion. Vegan is a person who will avoid consuming food products or using any animal product or byproduct. It is a way of living in which they don’t do any exploitation or cruelty to animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. Consumption of animals is not the only way of getting protein to our body because we can get those proteins from plants. When we compare the protein from animals and plants, animal protein is best for muscle building. Market across the world has products derived from various animals for an example silk are derived from silkworm, some kind of leathers are derived from animals, eggs, wool, rennet, milk and dairy products. When we all become vegan the markets based on these kinds of products derived from animals must be closed and they don’t have the minimum fund for the basic needs, that is food, cloth and shelter. Encouraging people to eat fewer animal products is a major part of stopping food waste. Going vegan could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 percent. This is due to the volumes of food which must be fed to livestock before it goes through the energy intensive process of being killed, processed, transported and stored. But it is not possible to make all the people vegan and it also affects the food chain, again it disturbs the market based on animal products.
You show a great understanding of the mechanisms behind global food production. If not everyone can do vegan, what do you think the best way to encourage people to reduce their animal product consumption is? Could you suggest a law instead of "everyone should go vegan" that would still help the mitigate the effects of climate change?
Yes sure, the best way to reduce animal consumption across the world is a law that should be passed that animals to be consumed twice a week which should be a better option to reduce animal consumption. But we must give some exemptions because people who were affected due to nutrient deficiency must consume nutrition rich food. consuming plants alone will not give the nutrients to satisfy deficiency they have to consume animal products such as meat, egg, milk, and other dairy products. We cannot force people who were vegetarians from their birth to eat animal products for their nutrient deficiency instead they are consuming pills and medicines as the plant-based nutrients are not sufficient to overcome deficiency. This will be the best way to reduce the effects of climate change. When we are consuming animal products that is meat and other products, it goes through so much process till it is consumed by people. If we implement this law with exemptions would be a great option.
You bring up a great point about a lot of animal products being highly processed. I think your compromise on this law is very wise. Well done!
All the laws here are reasonable but not conducive and able to abide by others. For example, law 1 I mean some people can't do away with flying in their lives because maybe they are celebrities or sportsmen or highly regarded people in society and so they have to be going around the world for like concerts, meetings, speeches and sport related events and many other things. For me every other law is achievable apart law 1 it is just too inevitable for people to make constant use of planes and if planes cause carbon emissions to the environment which is not good for the environment, then the best solution is for the engineers to change the materials they use to make and power planes to environmental friendly materials and I think these are the methods to use so these laws can be conducive:
law 2- Actually become a vegetarian is not that bad we use animal-based products mostly because it is a source of protein, but they are many substitutes or alternatives for meat and animal-based products such as peanut butter, black beans, tofu etc.
law 3- We can survive without electricity for 19 hours because electricity and its based appliances only stops us from appreciating what around us, I mean we should go outside and appreciate the beauty of nature and try to keep it safe and preserve its beauty rather that ignorantly destroying it because of our love for electricity and its appliances.
law 4- I know we have to go to so many places and that is what makes car to be so important, but this law will make us prioritize on what we need the cars for when it is very urgent you use your car within the only three-day usage and the remaining four days you could consider walking which increases cardio-vascular fitness but if the distance is too much you ride a bike and if the distance is also too much for riding a bike you take a plane which I stated earlier is inevitable.
No this law is for the environment to help animals to live in the environment.But law 2 I don't think that people will stop eating animals and if we eat stop eat and people will posters for eat animals.So I think we tack out law 2 so that people will be happen and leave the rest fo the law.What do you thick should will levied law 2 in or tack out law 2 life your comment so i can see your comment.
Law 3 in my opinion is not practical or realistic at all.In school everything is becoming more online and digital with sofwares such as googleclassroom,slides and lots more.I use these softwares to save the tress and the wildlife .Using only 5 hours in impractical and will effect students learning
I agree because...Why? because most of the things in my school too are done using electricity for example during time for computer lessons, surfing and they don't last for only 5 hours so making it a law isn't possible and logical enough.
In my opinion law 3 shouldn't be passed.
Law 3 says everyone can only use 5 hours of electricity per day which is impossible for each of one. Electricity plays a key aspect for modern living. Our daily routine depends on electricity like we wash clothes using washing machine, we conserve food using refrigerator and to make food we use house hold appliances like mixer, grinder, etc.. For example, now we are discussing in this platform through internet which is connected to electricity. In hospitals electricity plays a main role in diagnosing tools and for operations such as ventilation, lighting. Instead of using electricity 5 hrs per day, Electricity can be generated from water, wind and solar.
You have identified some problems with the law, and suggested a solution. Well done!
I think law 2 would cause a positive impact on people because if everyone becomes a vegan the number of cattle farms would reduce. If there are many cattle farms it would affect the environment in a way that during the digestive process of cows ,methane is produced which is a gas in the greenhouse and that would result into the formation of acid rain.For that reason I conclude saying that everyone should become a vegan.
Good point, do you think there are any other climate benefits of people being vegan?
In my opinion, there are many climatic benefits if people around the world are vegan. Thanks to Google for some informations.
How vegan is related to climatic issue?
Production of meat needs a huge pay on Earth. The process of preparing food from animals requires large amount of natural resources like fresh water, land and releases huge amount of waste and pollution. It is unsustainable. So, we need not rely on unsustainable factory to feed us. This is where veganism plays a role. By becoming a vegan, we can end rapid depletion of Earth's resources which reduces threat to climate change and protects the environment.
BENEFITS:
1. Makes healthy people
Meat industry pumps animals with antibiotics. So, reducing demand of meat results in reducing dangerous antibiotic consumption which makes people healthy.
2. Reduces energy consumption
Joseph Poore explains “Converting grass into meat is like converting coal to energy. It comes with an immense cost in emissions.” Reducing greenhouse gas emissions helps to slow climate change.
3. Stops livestock emissions
Cows produce methane emissions which accelerate climate change. Methane is 80 times more able at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and it accounts for upto 30% of global warming. Shifting towards vegan gives alternative sources of protein.
4. Combats world hunger
Soil degradation and climate change affects food production. This leads to food scarcity. Going vegan stops these. 75% of farm land can be used to feed the people.
5. Preserving habitats and prevention of extinction of animals
Deforestation takes away habitat for thousands of species. In search for food they will move out and their population slowly die out. For a fact,
This drives for 135 different species of plants, animals, and insects to extinction every day. Animal agriculture is the biggest cause of deforestation in the Amazon forest which causes over 10% of the Earth’s biodiversity.
First, I want to talk about the first law. It is that people can make ten trips in their lives. I think this law is incorrect. You can go more to get to know new areas. There is a right to travel and freedom. Some people may want to go more than that, and that is the right to travel. The second law No one has the right to control people's food, because he eats unhealthy food. Any fast food is wrong. Either it is correct. It is possible because the body needs vitamin D and vitamin C. There is vitamin B12 in meat and chicken. The third law is agreed in this law because it works to prevent climate change. This is interesting All countries must follow solar energy through solar cells, and the state must provide the poor with solar cells because their price is very expensive. As for the fourth law, this is a beautiful and correct thing. Many of them can use cars for a specific time. Bicycles that work on human effort must be used, not on oil that works on greatly polluting the environment
I think all laws are not logical except for number 3!
1. I think law number one is not logical because what if you already had 10 flights in your lifetime but there was an emergency and you had to take the plane.
2. I think law number 2 is not logical because it's your choice to become vegan or not and you would need protein in our balanced food to make us become stronger and have a healthy budget of food.
3. I think law 3 is logical because if we have 5 hours of electricity I think that's plenty and it would also help the environment by not wasting electricity.
4. I think this is not logical because , like number 1, you might need this to go somewhere for an emergency or you need to go somewhere far and I don't think less than a week is enough. I think if it was like 5 days this would be fine because I think that is plenty and would still help the environment.
Thank you for listening to my opinion!
I don’t think law 2 should be passed beaches if we keep cutting down tree but stop eating animals they will die anyway because they will have not habitat to live in so if we are going to stop cutti g down tree we then can start cutting down on eating animals
I think Law 1 is unrealistic, because as someone with family in a different country, it would be devastating to only be able to see them a limited amount of times. I am so lucky that I get to see as much as I do right now and I can't imagine having a law banning me from doing that. They are an important part of my life right now and I would never want to lose that.
I also agree with the people who have pointed out that people don't only travel for recreation. Some people, such as athletes simple need the transport they get from planes to travel to places for their job. This statement might also include people who travel for business or because they need to see someone and they need to get there quick.
If people really wanted to, they would still travel, probably by car, so that wouldn't stop the emissions.
I agree because protein is a part of everyone's diet. We would not be able to grow correctly if we don't get enough protein in our diets.Yes, you can get protein from food sources of animal and vegetable protein: meat, dairy products, fish and eggs, as well as grains, legumes and nuts. Vegetarians can get enough of the necessary amino acids by eating vegetable proteins. But it is not logical that we dispense with meat. We must look to all segments of society. For example, children cannot prevent them from their favorite things. Some people prefer meat. If we apply this law, there will be many objections, and they will migrate to other cities that do not apply this law in order to enjoy their lives.In my opinion law 1 & 2 shouldn't be passed.
Law 1 says people can only take ten flights in their lifetime which is impossible for sportspersons, scientists, businesses men and even ordinary people. According to sportspersons, they have to travel in flights most of the times to represent their country in foreign countries. People like us uses flights for emergency conditions like for treatment. To reduce carbon footprints one can use waterways instead of airways.
Law 2 says everyone must become vegan which affects the persons rights. It is the individual's right to eat what they want. In different countries they will have different varieties of foods. Not only veg food is rich in protein, vitamin, carbohydrates, etc but also Non veg food is rich in protein and vitamin B. They also strengthen our muscles. So instead of compelling everyone we can implement law like to eat non once in a week.I think that law 2 is not logical. We can't oblige all people to be vegetarians.We need protein in our balanced food.
But other laws seem to be practical.we can reduce the hours of using electricity.but i want to comment on law 4.Instead of using cars some days .we can encourage people to walk or use public transport.
Considering the 3rd law which says "Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day", I think this law should not be put into consideration and should not be passed on as a law this is because Electricity is a very essential and vital source of energy that is used in our homes, offices, and industries etc. Electricity transfer electrical power or charge in order to enable use or charge the appliance, machinery or equipment. Electricity is used every day, time, and minute in various organizations and places and if electricity is cut shot or limited most organizations would not be complete their activities and their goal would not be accomplished.
For example a barbing saloon. In Nigeria, a barbing saloon works up until the night in order to earn as much money as they can, so therefore if this law is passed and the usage of electricity is limited, first, it will cut shot the income of employees in the barbing saloon by far, secondly, it would reduce the standard of living of the employees, also individuals who have a specific time of visiting the barbing saloon might not make it when there is electricity and there is decline in service. for example business men who work in the day and it is only at evening they are free they go to the barbing saloon.
People would react positively to this law if passed because some individual in the country their income rest of the fact that there is electricity and if there is decline is electricity they loose a lot of income. Also some individuals may want to watch television, freeze their food in order to avoid waste, on the fan due to heat and other activities that would require electricity, this might be a problem.
Electricity may a small number of impact on the climate change but compared to the benefits it brings to us, it is quite much.
I think electricity should not be limited by any means but should be allowed so that individuals could make their money and industries and organizations can continue their day-to-day activities.
I think law 1 should not be passed because, workers whose job description requires them to make disctanct journeys like business consultants that may travel to new businesses to provide their professional advice and services, will really be affected if the number of flights are reduced to 10 per lifetime.
I think people should only use cars three times a week because they let out more carbon dioxide and it will be hard for people to breathe. Don't throw plastic or glass in the bin once you've used it because you can recycle those objects. To make it fair, you can drive the car for two days and you can walk for three days. If the place is quite close, then don't drive.
I agree because as we all know, the earth is changing . And not in the most positive way. One of the reasons is the consumption of fossil fuels that are emitted from cars. If we drive less throughout the week, we can prevent climate change from getting out of hand. Also, I think the fact that you mentioned that we can walk to school for 2 days and go in car for three is a very good idea. You don't necessarily have to walk, but you could scoot and cycle - with a helmet on, of course - as well. Not only will it keep you fit, but it will definitely prevent global warming for a long time to come.
Law:2 is a little bit strict for me because we need animal products in our body because they also provide fat for us and if we don't eat animal products one way or the other in might affect our health.so no that law shouldn't be enforced because it's related with a diet and food issue . other laws are ok and practical like no littering, you burn down or cut down trees you must plant it back and by saying no to illegal bush meat. And as for law 4 I think instead of using cars we could all use bycicle, Trek and so much more.
I think the fourth law should not be passed. The reason I think this is because people may need their cars to go to work. This law will not work for people who have no public transportation around them. They may also work very far from their home. This can cause people to protest against this law and start to become late.This law may have a great impact on the climate, but it is not good for the people. It would be very hard for some people to follow this law due to transportation problems. If the country were to provide more public transportation, some people would agree with this law.
Leads to note first... Hello 🖐
I see that these laws, some of them are exaggerated, because not selling cars that run on gasoline as it is beneficial to the environment could have a negative impact in terms of speed of movement, for example:
➡️ If anyone is injured in his home, he cannot By walking, how will he reach the hospital for treatment... Some will say the ambulance, but as we mention, the ambulance is like cars that run on gasoline and will have to be followed, and this is one of the negatives.
Water.... wind.....the most important of which is solar energy
➡️Using alternative energy leads to preserving the environment and climate....
🔚 Finally, I wish everyone to preserve the environment and climate....especially the atmospheric air that keeps us alive With oxygen.....
Thank you 😁
Law 1:It should not be passed because people would mostly react against and the reason why it should not be passed is that people cannot take only 10 flights in their lifetime in most cases in my country most of the people work abroad like in Asia, Oceania, N. America , Europe etc. It might have a negative impact on climate but how?
pollution of air and many others. It would be easy to enforce or follow as long as the government implements it strictly. It can be fairer if it is extended at least more than 10 times in their lifetime if the government allows. As me i would implement a law that; People should not over burn harmful substances like coal, plastics.
If these laws were to be implemented, there would be significant effects on people's lives and the economy. Here are some potential effects and suggestions for what we can do:
Law 1: People can only take ten flights in their lifetime.
Effect: This law would severely limit people's ability to travel for work, family visits, and leisure. It would also have a significant impact on the tourism industry and international trade.
Suggestion: Instead of restricting flights, we could encourage the use of low-emission modes of transportation, such as trains or electric cars, for shorter distances. We could also invest in more sustainable aviation technologies to reduce the environmental impact of air travel.
Law 2: Everyone must become vegan (not eat or use any products that come from animals).
Effect: This law would have a significant impact on the agriculture industry and people's dietary habits. It could also lead to food shortages and higher food prices.
Suggestion: Rather than mandating veganism, we could promote a shift towards more plant-based diets and reduce the consumption of animal products. This could be achieved through education campaigns and subsidies for plant-based foods.
Law 3: Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day.
Effect: This law would limit people's access to essential services such as heating and cooling, lighting, and appliances. It would also impact businesses and industry that rely on electricity.
Suggestion: Instead of limiting electricity use, we could promote more sustainable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. We could also incentivize energy-efficient behavior through education and financial incentives.
Law 4: Cars can only be used for three days a week.
Effect: This law would limit people's mobility and impact businesses that rely on transportation. It would also impact the automotive industry and the supply chain for fuel and parts.
Suggestion: Rather than limiting car use, we could promote the use of public transportation, carpooling, and cycling for shorter distances. We could also incentivize the development of low-emission vehicles and infrastructure to support these modes of transportation.
Overall, while these laws may seem drastic, it's important to take action to address the urgent issue of climate change. We can work towards a more sustainable future by promoting behavioral change, investing in sustainable technologies, and supporting policies that balance economic growth with environmental protection.
I agree with this take on the question. Instead of answering one you instead answered all of the prompts and gave each one a probable effect. I also like how you offered suggestions on making the laws more bearable to citizens. Overall, a really good comment.
Law4:Cars should only be used in three days per week: It should be implemented because the cars are very dangerous to our planet in many ways like a lot of carbon footprint is released in the atmosphere which is very harmful when the temperature increases and the there will be no cloud to control the direct sunlight i also support law 4, i would like the government of my country to implement it in order to protect our planet and also our health
I think law 3 shouldn't be passed because some people need more than 5 hours to do their work. when we look at health facilities , they need electricity 24 hours. Doctors like dentists need electricity to treat people's teeth since enough light is needed. X-ray machines also use electricity to function. Some patients need life supporting machines to continue living.
I suggest that only using the cars 3 days per week should be passed because if we continue using cars everyday it will keep realising greenhouse gasses which is really affecting our atmosphere . I believe that people might react shocked but we have to try our best to make our world safer. I think that it will have a huge impact on the climate as if we barely use the cars anymore less greenhouse gasses will be released into the air causing an impact on our climate.
Law 2 should not be implemented, in my opinion, because animal products are nutritious and have a high nutritional value, such as protein, vitamin E, zinc, iron, magnesium, and so on. And, if animal products are made illegal, people will be upset and react negatively to the decision; if they are not made illegal, people can help combat the negative impact on the climate through ongoing education. If Law 2 is not prohibited, our community leaders, chiefs, and the government must be the voice of the people, advising them on how to best prepare the skin and bones of animals in order to stop climate pollution.
And my suggestion for different climate laws that I believe might help to protect the planet is to prohibit deforestation, air pollution, the use of fossil fuels, and endangering the lives of our animals. What I mean by endangering our animals' lives is that when we cut down trees, which is also known as deforestation, we are putting at risk the lives of our animals because animals feed on plants and when we cut down our trees and plants, our animals may not or will not have any food which might also result in a reduced population of our animals.
In my personal view and opinion I think the 4th law which says "Cars can only be used for three days a week" should not be passed this is because the use of cars in our day-to-day activity is very important and vital due the fact that it helps us get to our destination early and if this law is passed and the use of cars are limited the only option for individuals in the society is to use the public transport which has a lot of disadvantages.
For example, in Nigeria, some cars are used as public transport to convey individuals to their various destination so therefore if the law is passed it would reduce the number of public transport in the society and if we where to abide by that law there would not be enough public transport to convey people.
Also if you want go out in the night In Nigeria, I don't think it would be advisable to use public transport because it is not safe but when there is unlimited usage of cars you can quickly go and comeback.
Furthermore some individuals naturally don't enjoy using public transport to go to their destination, they prefer using their own personal cars and also their working place or various destination maybe very far from their house so therefore citizens may prefer to make use of their cars instead of paying money for the public transport.
I think the second law is a little irrational, because you can't force the whole world to be a vegetarian, because we disagree, because I don't think that meat is very important to me, because I can take protein and the ingredients that are taken from meat from a plant, but someone else thinks meat is important to him.
Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day, it is not possible why because it affects many industries, hospitals and households. When every country across the world implements these laws, it will affect every country. Because hospitals must work 24/7 to cure patients who are in an emergency situation, they have to use medical equipment which requires electricity. Industry has to work with machinery to produce goods which require electricity. In the household they have to use electrical appliances for cooking, living, lighting, washing and so on. Businesses and traders have to make payments for their transactions through online facilities which also require electricity. But if we implement this law with some exemptions, that is hospitals can use electricity 24/7 and industry can use it according to their production time, but this also emits carbon. Instead of using electricity produced from nuclear power plants, thermal power station we can use electricity produced from hydro power station, solar power station and wind energy which emits carbon 20 times less than other source for producing electricity. Electricity can be also produced from pathways and roads through PaveGen. PaveGen is a tile which creates a unique connection to people through the power of footsteps, converting 2-5 joules of off grid energy per step. In UK, the local shopkeepers placed this type of tiles in the pathway to create electricity which is also great innovation in generating electricity. Many countries such as India, China, Thailand, Korea, UAE and USA were using this type of tiles in smart city plan to generate electricity. This would be a great innovation to produce electricity and also results in a reduction in carbon emission.
I want to talk about law number 1. When I first read it I had a weird feeling. Such a law can't be forced because you can't guarantee the circumstances of people. For example, presidents travel to other countries to meet other presidents to talk about some issues or conventions. Here, it would be impossible because meeting online via Zoom or Google Meet isn't the same as face-to-face meetings and we know that. Over and above, what is applied to people must also be applied to prominent state members to let equality prevail. Another example is the merchants or businessmen, this group of workers needs to travel monthly to import and export goods. Therefore, enforcing such a law would be difficult unless the companies that make up planes think of substituting petrol or gas by inventing planes that run on the solar system.
Law2:
When I had my first glance at this law, I felt happy because I hate seeing animals slaughtered just for the sake of eating them 😅
But logically and scientifically, nutritional elements found in plants aren't enough for the sustainability and growth of our bodies. And Allah (GOD) allowed us to eat animals because their meat supplies our bodies with proteins and provides us with a group of B vitamins, including vitamin B12 last but not least, it provides us with important minerals such as iron, zinc, and selenium.
Now, we know that the excessive eating of red meat and sausage raises the risk of colon cancer, especially if it is associated with obesity and lack of movement. Moreover, fatty meat also paves the way for lipid metabolism disorders due to its high content of fatty acids and cholesterol, which raises the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and fatty liver.
Based on that fact, as the saying says: "Following the middle path is a virtue", so we need to be moderate in our consumption of meat, for example, we can have a meat meal once or twice a week and the rest of the week, we can have green meals. By this, this law would be fine to apply.
Concerning law 4, we agree that this would be excellent for the environment but let's think about it deeply. Imagine that you're out of the house and your son called you telling you that his little brother fell from the roof and he's bleeding and there's no one else at home to help, so what would you do??
And if we want to assume you're at home and the same incident happened and you can't use your car and help your son because of such a law, who on earth will help you??
Imagine also that you exceeded the three times of driving the car a week and on the second day, you had a job interview which you'd been waiting for a very long time, but unfortunately, you woke up late that day. Wouldn't a car rescue the situation? or if u don't have a car? Won't a bus do it??
In a nutshell, people won't abide by this law due to life responsibilities, requirements, and sudden incidents.
Let me put this straight if a government wants to set a rule or law and wants people to abide by it, they have to provide ALTERNATIVES. They need to invent car powered by renewable power resources like the solar power or anything like that.
I chose law 2 because animal products are more nutritious; they contain proteins and other essential nutrients that growing children require. As a result, animal-derived products should be used and consumed.
I think that I can never choose (Law 2), I cannot convince people of this law, there are many health problems that may cause the imposition of this law, one of which is anemia, and becoming a vegetarian means that it comes to you not to eat (chocolate).! , and simple things because they contain animal ingredients.!
I think law 1 and 4 are ok because if you can't fly you can still drive. And when it comes to law 4 its ok because you can still get to places by using public buses and taxis.
Its law number 2 and 3 that I do not agree with. The reason law number 2 is bad is because you can't just make everyone vegan. And law number 3 is bad because what if you have an emergency and you need to use your phone.
I disagree with your statement about law one. What if an emergency happens in a far away place and you have exhausted your maximum number of flights and you can't make it in time. If you were to try to make law one better what would you do?
I disagree with number 3 because I think we need more than 5 hours of electricity i think we need more hours and I don't like law number 1 because transportation in plane is the fastest way and I think we need more lifetime flights
and I don't like law number 2 because I don't wanna be vegan.
I think law 2 is absurd. We should not have to demand citizens to be vegetarians to save the planet. The other laws are smart, reducing hours can help the world by decreasing the harmful byproducts, such as carbon dioxide, from power plants that produce the electricity. Instead of Using three cars a day in Law 4 , we should encourage people to use carpools or other forms of public transportation. Law 1 is unlogical, 10 flights our whole life wouldn't be a good idea, instead we should travel by bus, train, etc.
I disagree with all the of the laws. Law number one says " People can only take ten flights in their lifetime." I've already been on a plane more than that. Law number two says " Everyone must become vegan (not eat or use any products that come from animals).", but we still need our protein. Law number three says "Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day." if you think about how much we use electricity per day, we wouldn't be able to handle it. Last but no least, law number four "Cars can only be used for three days a week." If people carpool we wouldn't have to do only three days a week.
Great comment. If you could amend the proposed laws what would you suggest in their place on the same topics?
I Disagree with all of them Because Its Unfair for People to only have 10 flights in their Lifetime . and They Might wanna Travel Different places , And Most People wouldn't Want to be Vegan Because they like Dairy ( ect. Milk, Cheese , Yogurt ) And they Probably like Meat . And For Electricity i Agree Because If You Keep Your Light on for WAY to Long Your Bills Are gonna start Going up , Its Also Unfair for People To only Use the car 3 times a week because They Might Not Have Food and they have to buy some but the only quick transportation to get there is a car but you already used it 3 times that week .
If you were in charge, what law would you suggest to help slow climate change?
i would choose the 10 flight cause i wont go on 10 flights
1 is bad because then the pilots wouldn't be paid much
If you had to choose one law to be passed which would you pick and why?
i feel like only being able to use our ar 3 days a week could be very useful because roads wuld be less busy and less fuel would be going into the atmosphere
Law 4 has some complications. For example, what would happen if you were to run out of time and your hometown/city/village is forced to evacuate in the case of an emergency? Does this law apply to public transport such as taxis and busses? What about lorry drivers who constantly have to transfer items? There would have to be many exceptions for this rule to work. Also what about emergency services?
I dont agree with any of the new laws that the government is deciding to add because there are poeple that like to explore life and other places beauty. We need meat so then we can have a balanced diet. Being able to only use electricity for 5 hours is bad because that will have a negitive impact on school, work places, and many other things. being able to only use a car for 3 days out of the week is bad because it will affect many people that drive to work and dont like to use public transportation. This why I dont agree with the new laws that the government are considering to add.
If it were up to you to make a law to help slow climate change, what would you suggest?
The car is correct because we can use public transport or walk or a bicycle and also the cars emit smoke that damages the pollution
I do not agree with Law 2 at all... A person must become a vegetarian... Because a person is by nature free in all his conditions. I do not like anyone forcing me to do something. Also, it is not right to compel people to be vegetarians. This law is not suitable for others. It also raises controversy among people and the conversation never stops.
Therefore, I hope that every person will be given his full freedom, but freedom must not exceed limits. As it was said in the proverb (your freedom stops at the limits of people).
If you had to choose one law to ban, which would you choose?
I agree with law number one because some people doesn't travel a lot around the earth.
Are there any laws you disagree with?
I believe that law 4 shouldn't be passed. People have to find a way to get to their destination every day of the week. Many adults have jobs where they have to work at least 5-6 days a week. Children and teens also have to get to and from school 5 days a week. Yes, people do have busses and trains but a lot of times these transportation options aren't available. If people could only use their cars 3 days a week many companies would have to changes the days their employees work.
Law 4: some people have to drive to places they need to be more than 3 days a week
All laws are a no except law 4 it's depending.
Law one can be controversial. I see the national geographic from around the world and it is fascinating to see such exotic animals and wildlife's way of living. However, if people could only travel around the world in only 10 flights ( hence meaning 5 if you count going back as well) how would these intriguing animals be captured and new species being discovered? It is important to know the news around the world and other creatures not native to one's home country.
Most importantly, loved ones. My mum's parents and sister are living in Romania as well as my cousins. Yes, we do have technological devices such as Watsapp but the feeling of a good old hug is worth so much to me. If our flights are limited to only ten, it means risking the relationships I have with my other relatives. I just cannnot afford that.
Some great point here accurate_atom. In this case, do you think anything could be changed about long distance or air travel to lower our carbon footprint?
I agree with the fourth law because of the fact that cars are one of the leading factors of climate change. Since covid-19 cases decreased people have been going out and visiting family, going on vacation, and exploring new places. being locked in their homes people have taken advantage of rules being lifted, though planes have been the more popular transportation device care are also surging in use. walkable cities are not very common these days, getting from home to school could take someone an hour and most sidewalks aren't very safe either. I believe that walking could be good for people's health and mental state, going on walks has been proven to improve the risk of heart attacks and improve symptoms of depression. walking could also highlight some issues with where you live like trashed places and small businesses. my final point would be if you don't want to walk everywhere then you can ride a bike or skateboard or even use roller skates.
Some great thinking here. Can you see any challenges with introducing Law 4?
One of the challenges I can see introducing law four is if natural disasters come, or a family member gets in trouble. Many different things can happen in a short amount of time, like death or having your house burn down. Yes, there are different modes of transportation like buses, bikes, and even walking being an option. Though most people only make minimum wage or less, getting a car is still the cheaper and more reliable way to get around. What I think should replace the fourth law should be to make more walkable cities, so that people aren't stuck needing to drive to get anything done. an average of 64% of people say they drive every day, and only 0.07% of the U.S. is walkable. Other things need to be changed too, but making cities more walkable would mean less pollution and decrease the carbon footprint of many people.
I think Law 2 is good as you can still get protein from other vegan products like soy milk,peanut butter,nuts,seeds and grains can give a lot of protein which is not from cows,pigs etc.This helps as we eat too much meat and it is crucial to help the habitat as we can also get eggs from chickens and milk from cows and if one or more of an animal from a food chain other animals can get extinct if the animal eat the animal which was extinct.
i do not agree with any of the laws!we have to find a way to start thinking of ways to help the earth while also keeping modern day life the same.I think the laws are too strict especially the transport ones.THEY ARE RIDICULOUS.i understand we must try do everything in our power to combat climate change but these laws must be realistic!!!
What laws do you think would be more reasonable and effective?
I think law one shouldn't be passed because it is unfair for those who need to travel. Many people cannot go to their home countries to visit family or visit new places. Planes were invented to make travel easier since boats took a long time to sail in the past. Yes, planes affect the earth by being a cause for climate change but us as humans should not be limited in access to planes due to this problem. If this law were to be enforced many people would not agree or some would not be affected. Overall, I believe that governments and airline companies should work together to create laws that would be good for both the government, companies, and citizens.
While I was reading the comments here ,I become astonished because I recognised that all of students sadly forgot the main purpose of the previous laws "protect the climate."Most are objecting ,afew agreed for a law, that means we turn into a close circle.
I would say law 2 should not be passed because a lot of people don't like vegan food, and they can starve if they don't eat. For example, if they wanted people to become vegan and the person doesn't like that food they wouldn't have nothing to eat. I think a lot of people would think it's not fair or be mad because you are making them eat food they want to eat. This might think would have a bad impact on the climate. It would be to enforce more than follow because as I said before people might not like that food. This is why I think law 2 should not be passed.
I think law three should be passed. Five hours of electricity would be a fair amount for people to use every day. At first, some people may be confused, but eventually, they will have to try to manage their time better. This impact would be enormous on the environment. It would be pretty easy for people to follow this rule, which is why this law should be passed.
I think that law 2 (everyone must be vegan) because I think we need things in meat such as iron vitamins, which you need to keep to keep your nerves healthy and meat should be in our diets,I think the public would be very mad if we all had to be vegan.
Do you think there are enough meat alternatives now that this could potentially happen?
Cars can only be used for three days a week shouldn’t be passed because people need to get to places. Children have to get to school people have to go to work and some people might have to go to hospital for treatment or help. Even though it would emit less toxic fumes people need to get to places. But if it was passed it would encourage more people to walk or to take public transportation.
I think that law 2 is really unrealistic. You simply can’t force everyone to become vegan and change their diet, it’s not possible. Meat is very important especially for growing children, as it contains lots of proteins. I know that you can get proteins from other sources such as nuts, but if someone is used to having animal products in their diet, it is quite hard to stop. In conclusion, I feel that there are much more realistic and better laws we could use.
I think the above laws should not become laws.They are unpractical and silly.what if its and emergency and you've already used you car 3 times?are you going to walk?likewise with a plane and your ten flights.are you going to swim?To get me on board i will need some substitutes and more elaboration.You cant stop us from living how we are now after we know what its like.
Fair points! Can you think of any alternative substitutions?
I think that if I were to choose a law I would go with law 3 because I don’t think we need to use that much electricity, if it was a law more people would be able to go out and have fun socialising with people and kids won’t be stuck to there phone in the future. It’s really good for us humans to use less electricity and it’s really good for the environment, the five hours of electricity can be used at night after a fun long day and since you would need the light when it’s dark that’s when u can use it.
I believe Law 4 is completly impractical and unreasonable.To only use your car 3 times a week is ridiculous!What if there is an emergency,what do you do then?If a women is in labour?What do you expect students traveling to go to collage to do with our accommodation crisis? So basically your saying if people live in the countryside they can only leave there house three times a week ?
What's the solution?I think we should improve our public transport system..in Ireland,for trains you only pay to get on the trains,not to get a seat..this results in trains being over crowded and stuffy!This puts people off using public transport.I think Ireland should improve this system letting people pay for a seat on the train and to travel in comfort .Because even elderly people don't get a seat causing them to stand,when there really not fit to stand for so long.Buses on the other hand are better you always get a seat.If this law was to be imposed, I think the only way it could work is to make buses bigger and have more seats ,and for more buses to travel around your area making it easy to find one in case of emergency.People should be encouraged to walk (if able to)short distances and to not be lazy.😅For example if the shop is ten minutes away..don't drive ..take a walk,it would be good for your mental heath and your physical health.Encourage people to cycle!But make sure people wear helmets and follow the rules of the road.Together simple actions could change the results of Climate Change and save our planet!
i do not agree with ANY of the laws, especially the 2nd one. it is so unrealistic. what about the newborn babies that need milk to survive? every living person needs meat and protein contained in their diet. we need to drink milk to have strong teeth and bones. i also want to comment about law 4. there are people who drive for their jobs eg. bus drivers, taxi drivers and people who transport supplies etc.
Law 1
"People can only take ten flights in their lifetime."
I sincerely believe that this should not become an official law. The reason being that many young children may aspire to be explorers; discover a new species of animal or take foot on an unknown island. When their dreams and hopes are distinguished, how will future generations of people make phenomenal discoveries? Without all of the new knowledge, how will the scientific world thrive? How will people travel the world?
Although people have made a way to travel the world - by going via a certain bus - which takes you to certain locations, multitudes of people want to travel solo. Not by boat or bus, but maybe by plane. Who can control their decisions?
Law 2
I also don’t agree with law two since no one can oblige another to become vegan. By becoming vegan, this defines that there is no meat in your diet. Meat is essential for a healthy body because it contributes to having a decent proportion of protein in one’s diet. Moreover, becoming a full vegetarian means no dairy products in your meal. This adds up to not only having no protein in your diet but not enough of the following:
Calcium.
Phosphorous.
Vitamins A, D, and B12.
Riboflavin.
Protein.
Potassium.
Zinc.
Choline.
Law 3 -
1. If one lives in a country which has exceedingly frigid temperatures, this defines that one can only have 5 out of 24 hours of heating!
2. Moreover, if one was to have a major client call which could last 6 hours, how will they survive through the whole meeting?
3. On the other hand, if someone is unwell or about to pass away at the hospital and you want to talk to them from another country, for their last hours, how will you?
To conclude, 5 hours of electricity constricts people from doing numerous things. However, some people can overcome it but not all.
For example: people can have gas heaters but how expensive could that be? Would one be able to afford it? Who knows.
Law 4:
If one was to acknowledge various circumstances, they can draw from that, that if one were to go to their kins dwelling and then travel to a famous landmark with them and go to a high street a couple miles away and then travelhome, this would define that you need to travel via car approximately 4 times, not 3!
I do understand that people can be encouraged to travel by public transport but trains and buses may not be someone’s comfort zone. Travelling as a family whilst singing songs and stopping along the way may be one’s comfort zone. Therefore, this law also doesn’t seem suitable based on many families, couples and singles needs.
Whilst I do agree with you enlightened_gooseberry on the other laws, I particularly do not agree with you on Law 2. It is proven that eating meat is not necessary for survival. With the correct food and supplement, any person could stick to a plant-based diet. Even if we do need protein within our body system, a good way to replace the protein meat provides us with is nuts. "Although nuts are high in fat, it's mainly healthier unsaturated fat. They contain protein, B vitamins, vitamin E and minerals, including iron, potassium, selenium, magnesium, zinc and copper." I am not necessarily saying that people should become vegan, I just want to make a point stand out to you that meat is never essential for our body growth. It can be replaced with Pulses, Soya beans, Quinoa, Nuts, Seeds, Cereals and grains, Quorn providing the correct vitamins and protein without abusing animals. Frankly, animals should be treated just the way we do and they should neither be force-fed such as pigs, nor under- fed and kept in horrible, cramped conditions.
I sincerely agree with the point which you are conveying, meat is not crucial to our diet and there are other sources which can fulfil your protein requirements.
However, these plant based sources do not have enough protein compared to animal meat.
It has been proven that when one is to see which item has more protein: a bowl of pulses or a piece of beef, the pulses have approximately 1/5 of the amount of protein contained in beef.
For example, if one has to eat 30 grams of protein in their diet, this defines not only mean one bowl of pulses but 5 bowls for a person to eat. This is an exceeding quantity and is not helpful to one.
Accurate_atom, how you talked about quorn having a substantial amount of items which are essential for your diet, not only does quorn have fats and carbohydrates but preservatives. Preservatives will provide a negative impact in the future.
The law that I have chosen is that cars can only be used three times a week. I don't think that it should be passed because during the week, people need to use their cars to get to multiple places in a day, such as going to work, school, picking up their children, or buying groceries. There are a lot of things that people need to use their car for in one day and there shouldn't be only three days that you can go to those places. People will probably disagree with this law and they would definitely not like this law. One way to make this more fair is that you could say that you could use your car 10-15 times a week.
I recently came across the concept of green roofing which can be a potential way to bring a climate-friendly change. Green roofing is a modern building design concept that has been gaining popularity in recent years. The idea behind green roofs is to cover the roof of a building with vegetation, which can provide many benefits for the environment and the building itself. As a biology student,I believe green roofing has significant advantages since green roofs has the ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Through photosynthesis, plants on the roof absorb carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen and glucose. This ability to absorb carbon dioxide can help to mitigate climate change, which is caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Green roofs also help to reduce stormwater runoff by absorbing and filtering rainwater, which can help prevent flooding and erosion. They can also provide habitats for wildlife, such as birds and insects, which can contribute to the biodiversity of urban environments.
To encourage the adoption of green roofs, some cities in India,like pune, have implemented regulations that require new buildings to include them. These regulations require building owners to install a certain amount of vegetation on the roof, and they may also provide incentives or subsidies to help offset the cost of installation. While the upfront cost of installing a green roof can be high, the long-term benefits of reduced energy costs and improved environmental sustainability can make it a worthwhile investment.
Even with that being said, it is important to note that green roofs require regular maintenance to ensure that the vegetation remains healthy and does not become overgrown. Additionally, the weight of the vegetation and growing medium can add significant load to the roof structure, which may require additional engineering and construction costs. It is also important to consider the climate and location when designing and installing green roofs, as some plants may not be suitable for certain climates or may require more maintenance in certain environments.
Despite these potential challenges, I believe that green roofing is an innovative concept that has the potential to create more sustainable and resilient communities. With ongoing research and development, green roofing may become an increasingly viable and attractive option for building design in the future.
'Embracing green roofs means embracing a sustainable lifestyle that benefits both our environment and our communities.'
I think law 4 is good.I think this is good because everybody dosen't really need to use a car.And it helps the air not becoming polluted.
I agree with 1) (the plane one) as long as other ways of transport were encouraged and introduced - underwater trains etc.. 3) I find OK, but it should be measured in another way than time - multiple devices on at once would be a cheat hack. As for 2) I completely disagree. If there was any nutritional condition imposed, than I would have it be a limit of kilos of meat bought a week - there would be some sart of database which recorded how much you bought. 4) I find is quite a good rule, but should be measured in CO2 emissions (from the car). On the whole, I think that these rules need to be measured specifically and are as good as you can get while keeping them short. However, I think that they are a bit too authoritarian for me, especially 2).
What law would you suggest instead?
I wouldn't actually introduce any laws just yet. I would focus on building cheaper, and quicker alternatives to planes. I have discovered Race Across The World, a BBC reality TV show where you have to travel from a to b without taking a flight and all for the same budget. It's terrible how difficult it is, and I would focus on improving cheaper and more eco forms of transport. If I was going to suggest a new law, it would be focused on either a) building up and cutting down less woods for housing, or b) introducing a strict carbon tax. I think that either one would have an impact. Another rule which would kind of merge the two together would be to introduce a tax on products which have caused deforestation - e.g. a bed made from wood from a forest. Imposing a) would mean a spike in house pricing, at least for the first few years. All in all, I think that for the moment we shouldn't focus on laws but should instead make the world a place better suited to those rules.
I think law 2 would cause a negative impact on people's health in a way that there are people of blood group O who have to over depend on beef in order to have a long life span.
But I also think that law 2 can also cause a positive impact on some people's health for example the people of blood group A need to depend so much on vegetables for long life span. So I think this law balances its impacts at some point when it comes to health.
I agree because... if people of the blood group O do not feed beef or become vegans and if law 2 is implemented world wide the rate of blood supply world wide would decrease and number of death rates would increase. This would damage the world in every way.
I would say the third law has the most potential because the average home income is $69,000 and solar panels usually cost about $13,000 to $18,000 and the solar batteries can cost about $200 to $15,000 meaning that the average person can afford solar panels and the batteries to store them. And since the solar panels can power the house without increasing emmitions or using electricity.
Law 4 states that cars can only be used for 3 days of the week. As a student who is involved in many extracurricular activities and a small business owner, no matter if i'm to young to drive or not, driving is qa essential with my everyday life. If this particular law was passed it would not only cause major changes in my daily life but the whole society. Limiting the use of cars to only three days a week would make inflation even worse. Inflation is already a bad situation right now as it is but only allowing people to drive their car 3 days a week would make it harder for adult's to get to work and change their work schedule drastically . Things like bus ticket prices would go up because their need for transportation would go up. Not only that, it would take longer for people to get to their spots because more people would be riding busses. This would also cause adults to get less pay because the busses that take them to work would have to not only drop other people off, but may even cause adults to be late to work which would lead to less money on your pay check or could even result into getting fired, All of these things would lead to higher inflation, less money adults would make, and longer transportation times. For these reasons and many more this law would not be suitable for today's life and responabiltys.
We can’t deny the fact that we are emitting far too much CO2 into the atmosphere, but are these restrictions truly necessary just yet?
#1. Planes are extremely useful modes of transport, and without them, travelling across the world would be much harder than it is now. At a cruising speed, a medium sized plane emits around 90kg of CO2 per hour per passenger. While this is quite a lot considering how many flights happen daily (approx. 100,000) there are ways you can, in a way, make up for the CO2 emissions. For example, flying on eco friendly flights or planting trees (a tree can absorb about 21kg CO2 annually) can make a difference.
#2. To be a vegan is to give up many different foods, and every animal product. This includes many common things such as gelatine sweets, animal tested makeup, and wool clothing. There is no doubt that converting to be a vegan would lower some emissions, but would it really be worth it, knowing the cost on humanity? Malnutrition, anemia and deficiencies can all be caused by becoming vegan. In my opinion, it isn’t worth the loss.
#3. I believe this is the most justified idea. In a day, you should be awake for no longer than 17 hours. If 12 of those hours are spent without electricity, how much harm would really be done? Well, let’s look at what uses electricity. Common things such as water heating, air conditioning and refrigeration all require electricity. We need refrigeration in order for foods to not spoil, but realistically, we could survive without it. Some countries are extremely warm/cold, so only 5 hours of air conditioning/ heating would be a serious problem. If this law was true, we would have to have some exceptions to what qualifies as ‘necessary’ electricity.
#4. This idea is interesting. Cars do not emit nearly as much as planes and some other modes of transport, but they are still serious problems. I believe a good solution is, like what is happing in the EU in 2035, is to stop 100% of CO2 emissions from cars, and replacing CO2 emitting cars with electric cars. This simple fix will allow many to continue their normal travels while also cutting the emissions greatly.
Your points are spectacular and are full with statistics and data. However I would just like to say that, yes, malnutrition, anemia and defiencies can be caused by converting to veganism, but that is only in SOME cases. You can still access all the vitamins, nutrients and minerals needed in your diet through a vegan diet. There have been many misconceptions about veganism across the years, and nearly all of them have been proven as false.
If we lived in a world where more that 90% of the population were vegan: vegetables, beans, nuts and seeds would be provided more, meaning more people globally can access safe and healthy foods! It would lower emissions greatly and indeed save the environment. As for products being made thanks to animals, like gelatin sweets and animal tested beauty products, I don't think they'd be that important. This is because many people opt for animal friendly products since they don't feel comfortable using products that harm animals. And many people don't eat sweets with gelatin in it, such as those who follow Islam. Demand for all of these products would decrease once we put end to using them. Thank you for reading, I love how you argued your case in your paragraph!
Law four; Cars can only be used for three days a week would, be a more beneficial law for the environment. This helps the air be less polluted. Air pollution is a major problem around the world, this law would help decrease the air pollution in most areas. The effect of decreasing air pollution would be that the earth would be way healthier, and would create a clean environment for animals and human beings. I suggest law four to be a real law, this would help impact the earth.
To develop further on your comment, could you think of ways in which cars could be changed and redesigned to support the reduction of air pollution?
Law 3 should not be approved, in my opinion. Law three is practically impossible for many families to live with. Our houses' electronics, appliances, and lighting easily consume more than 5 hours of power. This regulation is also extremely detrimental to places that rely heavily on power, such as hospitals. Patients will be unable to operate machines, putting their lives in danger. This law would likewise be inapplicable to factories and other production facilities. Consumable items will be unable to be adequately made, resulting in non-consumable products. Another option to improve electricity might be to employ alternative energy sources such as nuclear power or solar power. Both of these methods of generating power do not create greenhouse gasses. This allows power to be consumed without being constrained by consumption time.
I think law 2 is the worst law, but only because of vegan food's poor view in the media. If Law 2 were to be passed, it'd be extremely controversial as most people would not be accustomed to vegan food, hence they'd be disgusted at first. I believe if public opinion became better and veganism was explained better, then it'd be the best law to pass, as eating vegan products would prevent all the methane from cows from going up to the atmosphere, as we would haven't as many cows.
I am 50/50 on everyone should become vegan as it could be good because;
We wouldn’t need farm animals anymore, so we could just release them into the wild and let their population go back down to normal.
As a result of this, there wouldn’t be as much methane in the Earth’s atmosphere, so global warming would slow down.
However I am also against the idea of everyone becoming vegan as;
The some people may not be as healthy as they were before, as they may not be able to find enough protein alternatives to meat.
Also, many farmers could lose their jobs or not make as much money as before because they were selling meat and now they don’t have any customers.
I am interested to read your views on 'The Law in your hands.' You said that people may not be as healthy as before if they became vegan.' Would you be able to find some evidence based research to back up your views on this matter? I am interested to know what alternatives there might be out there for vegans and how these alternatives differ proportionately to meat.
There is a seed called Quinoa which you can find in the colours red, white, black or mixed varieties. If you have 100g of this seeds cooked weight, it will not only provide you with almost 4g protein, but it is also known as a complete protein, meaning that it contains all 22 amino acids. This makes Quinoa a great alternative to carbohydrates such as rice and couscous.
Amino acids are molecules that combine to form proteins, and both of these are the building blocks of life. When proteins are digested/broken down, amino acids are left. The human body uses amino acids to make proteins to help the body.
Meat and meat products, along with dairy, are some of our main sources of amino acids. This is why if the whole planet became vegan everyone would need to eat a lot more protein and amino acid alternatives.
An really thorough and interesting point you have made here - it was interesting to read your findings on amino acids and the positive effects this has on the body. Do you believe people are aware of the alternatives to meat protein? How could we emphasise and advertise the importance of this to others?
I think that the first law would be quite hard to keep up with because there are many people with different professions who need to travel a lot like business men, lawyers, politicians, doctors even world leaders and they move a lot to attend different occasions and appointments that could affect the future of the earth such as COP28 that shall take place in Dubai this year. Plus the sector of tourism would be affected because most foreigners who aren't from Africa when they come to visit most of them come by plane. Implementing this law would discourage them from travelling around the world of which most countries would lose a lot of money since most of their economy comes from tourism.
The second law would also be hard to maintain because lacking of some animal products would to an unbalanced diet leading to deficiency diseases or a weak immune system. Plus in some countries, eating only vegetables would be hard for people since it would take sometime to get used not eating any animal products which could eventually lead to starvation, ulcers or death. So basically in my opinion I don't see this law working out in the long run.
An interesting point you have made here, are you able to find research based evidence to support your thoughts of an unbalanced diet leading to diseases or weakened immune systems? Are there ways this could be reduced through alternative diets?
Law 4 , should be passed because it will help in saving energy, exploiting of non metallic minerals will be reduced and this will contribute positively to the economy of my country because displacement of people will be reduced ,soil fertility will be promoted money spent on maintenance of oil refineries by the government will be reduced which will promote development in my country
Law 4 that is Cars can only be used for three days a week would be a great option because most of carbon emission are produced from the use of personal transport that is motorcycle and car instead, cycles and even electric vehicles can be used for local transport. Personal transport, that is cars and bikes emit 4.9 million tons of carbon as we use electric vehicles it will considerably reduce carbon emission. But there are many disadvantages in using electric vehicles mainly electricity, many countries are not having sufficient electricity for industrial and hospital so how thet can afford to EV. Electric vehicles are not suitable for unpredictable weather conditions which is one of the biggest impediment in enabling this idea.
Taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions yields important economic benefits. These benefits are from the reduced risk to human health and welfare that results from lower emissions of greenhouse gases and less global warming and climate change.when we abide by the climate laws that have been outlined to us though it might be hard,it would help us to avoid negative change in climate and avoid any form of risk to our health.
A good point you have made here, can you identify some of the ways in which we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and who's responsibility it would be? Is there a way that this could be tracked to find out which way reduces more emissions than others - how can the general public of people support the reduction of greenhouse gases?
I think that law 2 is rather unreasonable, but there may be an exception. Making everyone become vegan would have negative impacts on the economy since meat is one of the main foods that almost everyone eats. This could cause farmers to lose their job and bring havoc to the economy. Now, maybe it would be best to ban people from eating animals that are low in numbers. This way we could still save our environment and help those species on the brink of extinction.
It is the farming of animals for meat that has a big impact on emissions that cause climate change. Are there any other compromises that might help with this?
I think that Law 1 would be quite impractical as what if you used up all of your flights and then someone in your family died in another country? Would you be given an exception?
I think that there should be some exceptions for important reasons such as a death in the family somewhere else in the world, or having to travel for work. Also, some people take a lot of flights in their lifetime, so if only ten flights were allowed per person, some airport workers could lose their jobs.
I also think that Law 4 is a bit impractical as on the days that people would be able to drive some people might try and drive everywhere at once, and there could be lots of traffic and quite a bit of pollution.
I think Law 1 should not be allowed as people might need to go abroad and they might have work there so then they can't make money for the items they need.People also might live a different places from their relatives like if someone lives in the UK and then their family might live in India and they should meet each other at least each year.
I strongly disagree with Law 4 because it forces people to act like puppets in the hands of the government. The people might protest or react violently and it will have little effect on the climate but furthermore, it will slow down the development of the country’s economy. Instead the government might impose a very heavy tax on all types of cars to discourage buying cars. Instead, the government should strongly encourage EV public transport which is reasonable in price, comfortable to travel with and meets the demands of the people.
How would 'strongly encouraging' work? What incentives could be offered to nudge people to take better actions?
Awareness through billboards and Ads can spread awareness about the newly - introduced system and if the infrastructure and the conditions of the buses, trains, etc. would be better than most cars, bikes then the people will surely be attracted to the system and would instead use public transportation which is beneficial to the people which will save them all the maintenance costs, fuel costs, car insurances and all the other stuff which loosens their pockets, then eventually there should be less demand for fossil fuels in the country. The government could :
1) Reduce ticket prices.
2) Make more comfortable seating and infrastructure arrangements.
3) Make the vehicles capable of AC or heaters accordingly to the country's weather conditions.
I am suggesting this law. "If anyone cut one tree, they have to plant two trees. If they don't they should be punished." The trees will take years to grow but if everyone follow this, then we can eradicate the climate problems worldwide.
I think law 4 is right one because we should use cars more it will cause air pollution because of its engine and because of this air pollution it cause illness so law 4 is correct one
I think law 3 cannot work in my country because more security is needed in areas like malls like Acacia mall, Imperial mall which need light and the security cameras that need electricity to function. Computing devices also need electricity to operate. If you look at the boarding schools with morning and night preps also need electricity for light.
When we look at the food processing industries, they need electricity to perform their tasks. Therefore, this law won't work because if there is no electricity, people will starve due to low production of food e.g. maize flour.
Law 4 is the best law from the lot, but it might be controversial as many delivery drives would lose their job. It would upset a lot of people as many people have to drive to their destinations, parents also have to drop their kid to his/her school. If we limit driving for 3 days per week than it would be really hard for people to be able to do the things they do regularly and it would majorly impact schools and offices.
I think Law 1 is not logical because some people need to go abroad to do work in different countries.People also need to see their relatives at least once a year like if you live in the UK and your relatives might live in a different country.
In my opinion, the use of electricity should not be imposed for only five hours per day, because there are people who are used to having electricity throughout the day, and this will make their lives completely change. As for me, this thing is normal because in many days the electricity comes for five hours or less because I live in Palestine, specifically in Gaza, but of course this is a very bad thing, and it is better that this law not be enacted in the world at all, because in the dark, how will a person use the light, because the light depends on electricity, and not only the light, but also the refrigerator. If there is no electricity in the remaining nineteen hours, how will it be Cooling food or drink or regulating the temperature, then this will be a big problem, and in the summer, how will we use helicopters and air conditioners, and also the Internet needs electricity, so how will we communicate via the Internet, solve problems via the Internet, or take the opinion of others like what we do or study or transmit the news that happens In the world
1.I think law one should go because there are people who want to travel around the world.People would protest because of limited travel and people who drive the plane would have to be jobless.
But the biggest con is that the climate planes 100 times more CO2 per hour and can kill the good air.
It would be really easy for humanity because they do it every time.
l think that the law is in our hands because we can stop the bad things we can do to this world. I pick law 1 because l think it should go because me and others may agree that they also want to travel to different kinds of countries whenever they want.
How l think people would react by the number 1 being gone people should be happy to see new countries. Some people may go on vacation to see family and friends more often than to have 10 flights in their lifetime.
The impact that might have on the climate is that the plane might leave too much gas in the air which might leave air pollution more known as "deadly gas".
It would be really easy for people to follow this new law because people like to travel in their lifetime a lot.
You have a big airport by you in Atlanta which provides jobs for many people. What might happen to the travel industry if we impose a limit of flights? How might that impact your community?
There would be a number of problems if we limited the number of flights. First, because fewer tickets would be sold, airlines will earn less money from flights. Then, in an effort to restore their prior level of profit, these airlines would try to raise ticket prices. Given that the cost of tickets are currently costly, this would simply make matters worse for the general public. The number of pilots, flight attendants, and other airline-related employment would decline if flights were restricted. Many people will lose their jobs and careers.
I think Law 4 is not a brilliant idea as people need to go to work and earn money and their work might be a long way away and they might need to work 4 or more days a week so then how can they get there.
But Law 4 might also be a brilliant idea as people can take a bus or a train etc to their work and that would help as in a car not a lot people sit in there and take a lot of fuel but a bus or a train takes a lot people on board and takes the same amount of fuel.
I think Law 2 is not a good idea as people might have a lot of work or have a lot of jobs to do and it is not good as you have to work in light but if you don't your vision will be impaired.
Law 2 is also a good idea as in the summer there are ore hours of daylight so it would be good and if it is dark you can light up some candles as candles don't use electricity.
A lot of your considerations involve jobs. Are their any ways to meet the needs of jobs AND our environment?
I think law 2 should not be passed, and here's why. For starters, I know some people who cant go on certain diets because of health reasons. For example, me. I can't go on some diets because it'll make me sick, and I need to have meat or I'll throw up or pass out. Yes, there are many benefits of becoming vegan, but getting proper nutrients will also benefit your health. Also, forcing people to be “healthy” won’t actually encourage them to be healthier. It’s the same thing with forcing people to exercise, its great to workout, but forcing people to do it will most likely make them not want to do it even more. Honestly, people will most likely begin protesting, since this law is not very logical.This might benefit some people, but for others, this might be disastrous. Most people would react in a negative way. If everyone became vegan, less carbon would be sent into the environment, causing a healthier environment. But, like I said before, forcing people to become vegan can cause people to react negatively, and impact people's health.
I think law 4 should be passed. Here's why.
Firstly, carbon dioxide comes mostly from mechanical objects, like cars, factories, buses, etc.
And they cause a lot of problems. Chemicals from factories cause acid rain, air pollution, so much of this is overwhelming.
Even if it's JUST the cars we're taking out, it's still not going to be other carbon dioxide-makers, Just cars.
Carbon Dioxide, And/or Air Pollution causes several health issues, like asthma, breathing problems, lung cancer, etc.
This has an extreme impact on the environment, earth, and even us.
It is a problem that is still being situated and Law 4 may be able to slow it down for a bit.
I believe that a new law should be that every person should only have 10 flights in their lifetime as aeroplanes release a lot of greenhouse gases which results in climate change which we all should now if we don't act now it will it worse because if that law was not a thing people would take as many flights as they want and that would mean more greenhouse gasses released into the air. People might get mad but they might not know that could be helping/saving the world a lot more then they probably imagined. But , my mum's parents and my dad's parents are living in Romania as well as most of my cousins. Yes, we do have technological devices such as Whatsup but the feeling of mating our family in person and not speaking to them through a technological device is way better. If our flights are limited to only ten, it means risking the relationships I have with my other relatives.
I also think that Law 2 is not a good idea as , if we don't eat as much meat as now(of course a little bit less than usual) the amount of the animals will rise and they might get dominant and take over the animals food chain but other animals who eat them might keep them at bay but still they might take over.
I disagree with all of them. Here are my suggestions.
Regarding laws 1 and 4:
Better public and overall transport ( excluding planes, cars, mopeds, motorbikes etc.). For example, in China and other places they run extremely high-speed trains. We could have a network of high-speed trains connecting capital cities. The Eurostar is a good example, but if we had a cheaper and more global version of that it could be extremely effective. Having high-speed train networks in one country would help as well - having different routes that stopped by tourist attractions (e.g. beach towns) and major cities would be brilliant. On a slightly smaller scale, just organising flag down buses that would tour around the countryside and deposited people in big cities/towns would better public transport. For example, one of my classmates lives quite far and has to drive to school each day because the public transport is a lot more complicated. Having just a half-hourly bus route would enable to him to get to the train station, which has a direct train to a station nearby.
Regarding law 2) I just completely disagree. The only suggestion I can think of for it would be to have a weekly allowance of kilos of meat.
Regarding law 3) if I were to introduce a limit, which I think could be terrible for some people, it would be in a measure of electricity - using more than one device at a time is a massive loophole.
law 2 doesn't really seem that thought out properly because if we don't k*ll some of the animals they'll be too many so if we eat meat it won't only not be enjoyable for us but also they'll be too many animals then the zoos farms and the wild will have too many animals and the ones from the wild might start to go into towns city's and mess up the place so don't eat to much meat if you like it but there should be a law on what people eat unless it's dangerous
I chose the first one. I think in your life time 10 flights is not enough knowing some people love traveling but some people don't so they might not do ten flights.
Law number two isn't the best law, but why? Many people have different opinions on both being vegan and what is healthy. Veganism isn't just giving up meat but also dairy products and eggs. According to a research product in the university Harvard, "The nutrients and types of fat in dairy are involved with bone health, cardiovascular disease, and other conditions. Calcium, vitamin D, and phosphorus are important for bone building, and the high potassium content of dairy foods can help lower blood pressure." To sum up this quote, dairy products can build your vitamin D and other subjects needed in a healthy lifestyle. Now of course, many vegans only think of the hurting animals. Not saying they are in the wrong but they would also be hurting plants. The earth as we know it is already going into shambles. Eating all the plants would make both animals die off and us. It would be better but the earth, not so much. What do you think? Crafty_explanation will be back for another round of talk, Topical talks!
Are you sure that you can "hurt" plants in the same way that you can hurt animals? And are you sure that people would eat "all the plants" if more people (or even all people) were vegan or vegetarian? I'm not so sure this would be the case.
Yes, I do believe that we could hurt plants the way we hurt animals. The reason for this is the roots. If we look at the plant system they use roots and other supplements to replant and regrow. I'm not saying we'd eat "all the plants" as a whopping 82.4% take over the world. What I am saying is a fully plant-based diet wouldn't be as healthy as having meat at some point in your lifetime. Eating plants isn't a bad thing, but as humans we eat more and more thus can cause harm to animals too. Animals, especially farm life, eat more vegetation. Loss of vegetation can make meat go worse as animals get sicker. Yes, you can replant more food but eventually, there won't be enough crops to feed everyone. Even so, that wasn't the main focus on being vegan. The main focus was dairy-based products, which people eat all the time. According to cdc.gov, "Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products. Includes a variety of protein foods such as seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), soy products, nuts, and seeds. Is low in added sugars, sodium, saturated fats, trans fats, and cholesterol." Meaning you would need, of course, vegetables but also protein to have a "perfect" diet.
It's possible to get enough protein in your diet from only eating plants, crafty_explanation. Could you do some research into which plants might be good sources of protein?
I agree with you because...
All people cannot convert to vegan because in some places there may not be well grown plants, in that case animals will be eaten. Ofcourse we need vegetables to have a perfect diet. We alI know that protein is very much rich in meat. But consumption of meat leads to increase in methane emissions. So, reducing meat consumption reduces methane emissions. I have researched it in Google for more informations.
There are many protein rich plant based alternatives which can be taken.
1. Edamame contains 18.46 grams of protein per cup which is normally found in sushi restaurant.
2. Lentils contains 17.86 grams of protein per cup which is inexpensive and readily vegetarian friendly.
3. Quinoa contains 8.14 grams of protein per cup which is high in protein, fiber, antioxidants and minerals. It can be added to salads, veg burgers, etc..
4. Pistachios contains 5.97 grams of protein per ounce.
5. Almonds contains 5.94 grams of protein per ounce.
6. Peas contains 8 grams of protein per cup. It is a good source of fiber which has a daily recommendation of 35%.
7. Spinach contains 6 grams of protein per cup. It contains nutrients like vitamin A, vitamin K, vitamin C. It promotes healthy blood flow, support immune system and protect vision.
8. Avocado contains 4.6 grams of protein per cup. It is also a good source of fiber and potassium. It manages weight.
9. Mushroom contains 3.1 grams of protein per cup which is also rich in vitamin A and vitamin B.
Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day instead of implementing this law we can introduce a new law that is saving electricity why because electricity is wasted across the world in many ways that is in household, industries and so many places. In household electricity is not only used for the purpose, but instead it is wasted such as over usage of air conditioner, not switching off lights and other appliance when it is not in use. Industries were using electricity more and crossing their daily limit. These actions lead to higher carbon emission which would increase global warming and lead to more climate change drastically. We can use electricity generated through solar energy which emits 20 times less than other sources of producing electricity like thermal and nuclear sources of energy.
I wouldn't support law 2 to be passed because first of all the people might strike which will lead to destruction of property and loss of lives and to the side of climate being a vegan will have a negative impact and how will this happen? people use different animal products such as meat 🥩 for food and animal wastes such as the dung and urine as manure and if they are stopped from using animal products , they will result into using more plants 🌿 which will reduce on the vegetation cover that would have increased rainfall and maintained minimum temperatures which are the main aspects of climate hence leading to climate change through damage of the ozone layer and direct sunrays reaching the earth and this is referred to as GLOBAL WARMING
Rather , some climate laws that can be passed are
All that can should use solar energy⚡instead of electricity
All people should have atleast one tree 🎄 planted in their compound
For every tree one cuts, they should replace with two trees
I think Law 4: Cars can only be used for three days a week this will reduce the amount of fumes coming from moving vehicles. This is also in favor of the driver because will not waste money on gasoline.
I think that Law 2 could be a successful idea! Of course, there are going to be people that will disagree about the law, but what we need to think of is how effective this law can be. Eating meat isn't compulsory for the human body, meaning that we can survive without it. Eating only plants can reduce the risk of you getting diseases. These include heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. For starters, it can take some time to get used to the diet, but think about the benefits you get! Meat can provide nutrients that plants don't give, it won't make a big difference. You can see some people out there being vegan and their bodies are perfectly fine and healthy. In conclusion, Law 2 “ Everyone must become vegan”, can be helpful to our human bodies.
I completely agree with you fulfilled sparrow!
I agree mostly because when they butcher animals they butcher the sick animals as well sometimes. This is definitely not good for us and that's also where you get the disease thing. Most meat in the store is also processed food. Processed food is food that's been changed from its natural state and altered which as you can tell is another health risk. Most stores also keep selling old meat for a low price which will get the attention of customers who are not trying to spend much on food. Old meat and not devourable and this is the main reason people get E. Coli.
Overall, I 100% agree with you fulfilled sparrow.
A way we could move towards a more sustainable future is by looking into law 4 the only problem with law 4 is that its not the most practical as people who work in another city may need to drive 5 days a week to do there job. Even if law 4 was put into practice I do not see how it will help, if you have a car but you drive it a long distance you would need some fuel so it would still be bad. Also how would law 4 be enforced would everyone have the same 3 days or would you get to chose the 3 days you have. If it was you got to chose the days it would be hard to enforce as how would they prove you have already driven 3 times. A way we could get around that problem could be to have a passport like thing that would be stamped every day by an official and if it already had three stamps on that week you could not drive. I think a more suitable law would be to set deadlines be which everyone must have a hybrid or electric car this would be a more suitable way to cut down on air pollution. IF we put all cars must be hybrid by 2030 we would massively cut down on fuel. Although hybrids car still need a bit of fuel by 2030 the technology may have progressed to make them drive longer distances and use less fuel. After that, we could set something like a deadline for 2045 when we must all have electric cars that way are need for fuel would be so much less. But how would we do it? The governments could restrict the amount of diesel cars that can be sold in the uk gradually moving towards hybrids and electrics the only thing being bought
I think Law 3 is unreasonable because people use electricity at different times of the day. So when their electricity is limited it makes it difficult for them to execute their daily duties/routine. Another reason is electricity is used everywhere for example in schools, so when the electricity usage is also limited learners can't learn after school hours and so on. But I think homes, schools etc. can try to turn off their lights when not in use, plugs should be off when not in use. Windows should be open more often than the use of Air conditioning and fans to save electricity.
I disagree because when a person has consumed a certain amount of electricity that day and the person needs electricity badly the person will not be to use it for a specific task the person needs the electricity for.
i believe that we need tougher climate laws
Cars can only be used for three days a week. From my point of view, it would be a great idea why because carbon has become high due to overuse of fuel vehicles but if we all change our vehicles from fuel to electric it also be a bad idea many countries are insufficient in producing electricity. Countries all across the globe are not suitable for electric vehicles because some countries have very hot climates, and some countries are just opposite to those that have a very cold climate. People can reduce usage of personal transport instead they can use public transport which will reduce carbon emission and also reduce traffic jams. Flights are one of the most highest contributor of carbon when compared to ships. A research as identified that carbon is produced more from flights and ships 20 times less than in emission of carbon. If all the people across the globe acting without any responsibility towards mother earth will create more dangerous to human.
I think law 2 is possible, Because of the high development of food world, you can eat manufactured meat which gets us protein so we can be vegan
I disagree with law 1 because people have big business and they have to travel around to launch them in other states.
I agree with law 2 because it can help our evironment improve and the animal life can live .
Law 1 shouldn't be passed. First, If you can only use airplanes 10 times in your entire life, people will tend to use cars,trains, and other transportation thats on land. You might be thinking, “well that's not so bad”, well actually, airplane transportation is the safest way to travel. Since more people will be traveling from car or train, more accidents will occur. Also, how would the government know how many flights a person took? This law really doesn't make sense to me. There are many places you can only go to from a plane, so trying to get there from a car isn't very logical. Easter Island is a place where you can only get to from an airplane. In conclusion, traveling by airplane is the safest way to travel, making a law to limit this can be truly disastrous.
I feel that the problem is that there aren't enough climate laws. If we were to have enough climate laws climate change wouldn't be a global issue. For example there should be laws such as, people should not take more that 10 flights in a lifetime. This law would have many benefits on the climate because taking flights releases a toxic amount of carbon dioxide and taking only 10 flights in a lifetime can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the air. So I do believe that passing the law that people can only take 10 flights in a lifetime will help climate change.
i chose law there and i disagree because there are 8 hours of school and there are schools all over the world that use electricity and it makes sense because your in the middle of the school day and everything shuts of the every body would be in the dark with no electricity and then since there's no electricity then nobody can call parents to inform them and they just be in the dark till the end of the day and everybody gets picked up.
Due to the information I have I think law 4 is the only law that will personally impact people the least but impact the world in a good way drastically. Only using your car three times a day helps decrease the amount of gasoline let out into the air. Doing that will definitely decrease the amount of harmful gas let into the air. That will help with the large amount of air pollution that is across the world. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Decreasing that by a lot can help stop much of the pollution caused by cars used by people.
This is mindblowing_hurricane and this is why I agree with law 1.
First I agree with the fact that we should be only allowed 10 flights per lifetime. Planes go up into the sky. They use engines which like most, they produce gas, but keywords : sky, plane and gas . Planes are in the sky producing gas which is way worse than driving in a car & producing gas because this gas is easier to go into the atmosphere and contribute to air pollution. Also, planes don't even just use regular old gas, they use rocket fuel which is even worse. Although this part of my comment is about how this affects the environment and you may be still debating on the fact because how are you supposed to get everywhere. There are all different types of transportation, say you are going to an island. You can just use a boat for that and there is no point in using a plane, also you can go to more places with a boat as well. An additional thing is that boats are becoming a popular way of transportation again in the modern era. So if you can manage well you can actually get around this law and you can still travel where you desire and help the environment.
Law number 2 shouldn't be passed because what if you're allergic to some plants. If we can't eat products that come from animals then us humans won't have the protein that we need. And also animals could over populate. I feel like some people would like this law but me personally I would pass on this law.
Instead of implementing the laws above we can plan in such a way that how can we reduce carbon emission?
Use energy-efficient appliances: Using energy-efficient appliances can reduce your energy consumption, and therefore, your carbon footprint. Look for products with the Energy Star label, which indicates that they are more energy-efficient than standard products.
Use renewable energy sources: Consider using renewable energy sources like solar or wind power. If you cannot install renewable energy sources, you can opt to purchase renewable energy credits from your local energy provider.
Reduce meat consumption: Animal agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Consider reducing your meat consumption or adopting a plant-based diet to reduce your carbon footprint.
Use public transportation: Use public transportation, carpool, or cycle to work, school, or other places. These options can significantly reduce your carbon footprint and save you money.
Reduce water consumption: Reduce your water consumption by taking shorter showers, fixing leaky taps, and using water-efficient appliances.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle: Reduce your waste by using reusable products, composting organic waste, and recycling.
Support companies that have a low carbon footprint: Choose products and services from companies that have a low carbon footprint and actively work to reduce their emissions.
There are many ways to reduce the usage of resources that emit carbon. It is essential to start with small steps and gradually incorporate these changes into your lifestyle. By doing so, you can significantly reduce your carbon footprint and contribute to mitigating climate change.
My opinion, I disagree with Law 3 because per day this law may not be feasible or practical for certain individuals or communities. For example, households with young children or elderly individuals may require more electricity to power medical devices or heating and cooling systems. Additionally, individuals who work from home or have online classes may require more electricity to power their computers and other electronic devices.
Furthermore, limiting electricity usage to only five hours per day could have negative consequences on economic development and productivity, particularly in industries that require electricity to operate. For instance, manufacturers, service providers, and other businesses that rely heavily on electricity may face challenges in meeting their production and service delivery targets, thereby negatively impacting economic growth and job creation.
Another argument against this idea is that it may disproportionately affect low-income households or those in rural areas that may not have access to alternative sources of energy, such as solar or wind power. Limiting electricity usage could exacerbate existing inequalities and make it harder for these individuals and communities to meet their basic needs.
Overall, while the idea of limiting electricity usage may have good intentions in terms of reducing energy consumption and promoting sustainability, it is important to consider the potential negative impacts on individuals, communities, and the economy before implementing such a policy.
I believe that the law "Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day." Should never be passed. Although this law will help the climate dramatically, it is also a daily need. For example, Electricity is used for many things such as cooking, cleaning, and for a source of light. Without electricity how are we gonna cook? Without electricity how are we gonna get hot water? Lastly, without any source of electricity, how are we gonna have a source of light for the night?
Is the law in our hands?
Well yes and no, We can control the law with political votes but that's not likely. As a nation of laws, the United States enacts laws to define relationships between government and the people, people toward each other, business toward society, majority toward minorities. Laws can benefit one segment of the population and be a detriment toward others. Laws can be immoral and unjust and to prioritize the interests and values of some over the other.
The internet has transformed activism in the 21st Century. Email, social media, listservs, cell phone cameras, and websites, have facilitated collaboration among individuals and groups, the ability to dispense information quickly and widely, communication with constituencies, and the building of communities, communication and the exchange of ideas.Often times, it is the powerful, the majority who determine how others, marginalized and minoritized, are seen and represented. Minorities and other oppressed groups are told in stories that lack truth and complexity and reinforce stereotypes and discrimination.
So in conclusion I do think the Law is in our hands.
Thanks for sharing this, humorous_salek. If you had to choose, which of the laws on this post would you choose to pass and why?
I think that Law 3 is a very bad idea to implement. There will be slower economic growth seen due to controlled communication, transportation, industrial, and commercial actions. Moreover, it will be very difficult to keep track of per-person consumption of electricity, especially every day, and will be very costly for the government. It may become difficult for individuals to accomplish their daily tasks within a limited time frame, which could negatively impact their productivity. Additionally, the climate may not see a significant improvement as people feel pressured to complete their errands quickly, rather than taking their time as they once could and have mental health problems. It seems that electric vehicles may not have a future and could eventually become obsolete. There is a high probability that people will return to utilizing traditional vehicles for their everyday activities, which could potentially undermine the effectiveness of the aforementioned law. Healthcare systems would collapse and accidents could be seen on roads and airports. It will not seem easy to convince people of the positive impact of this law. It would be beneficial to pass a law that mandates the use of solar energy during the day and electricity at night.
I would like to share that it is possible to limit the use of cars to three days a week, but implementing such a policy would depend on various factors, including the availability and accessibility of alternative modes of transportation, public transportation infrastructure, and the cultural and societal norms around car usage in a particular region or country. In areas where public transportation infrastructure is well-developed and accessible, it may be more feasible to limit the use of cars to three days a week. In such cases, people may be more likely to use public transportation, walk, or bike to get around on the days when they are not using their cars. However, in areas where public transportation is not well-developed or accessible, it may be more challenging to limit car usage to three days a week. In such cases, alternative modes of transportation would need to be developed and incentivized to encourage people to use them instead of their cars. Cultural and societal norms around car usage may also play a role in the feasibility of limiting car usage to three days a week. In some regions or countries, cars are seen as a status symbol or a necessary component of daily life, which could make it challenging to implement such a policy. Advantages of this law would be:
Reduced fuel consumption: Since people are driving less frequently, they will use less fuel, which means less carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere.
Encouraging alternative transportation: When cars are only allowed for three days a week, people may be more likely to use alternative modes of transportation such as walking, cycling, or public transportation. These modes of transportation typically emit fewer greenhouse gases than driving alone.
Encourage carpooling: When people are only allowed to use their cars for three days a week, they may be more likely to carpool with others on the days they do use their cars. Carpooling can reduce the number of cars on the road, which in turn reduces carbon emissions.
If we implement this law, it would be more helpful to reduce the climate change why because transportation of cars plays a vital role in carbon emission, so we have to use alternative modes of transport such as public transportation, usage of bicycle and also electric vehicle which reduce high emission of carbon as carbon is much more emitted from fossil fuels. But usage of public transport in populated countries is much more difficult and even climate changes in many countries are not suitable for electric vehicles [EV]. There should be a proper plan and innovation in technology which will be suitable for all countries.
I think law 1 should not be passed because it negatively affects people who work in distant countries since they will desire to go back to their respective locations that will go on for a long time.
Although I am supposed to pick one of the four laws above and suggest my opinion on them, I would like to present a new law and I would really appreciate if users on this hub could respond whether this law should be instituted or not. My question is : should wars between countries be allowed and at what cost? Will the consequence vary if the countries are neighbouring or whether it is a world war? Climate change is a top priority concern for our planet and we need to prevent it to secure a safe and healthy environment for future generations. Wars, however, have a detrimental impact on the mass of carbon emmisions polluting our atmosphere due to missiles and bombs being displayed on open field. What's more, cities are being bombed and the heaps of rubble and broken infrastructure can pollute the ocean as well thus affecting marine life. Such examples of horribe wars are between Russia and Ukraine. More and more evacuees are entering the Uk and I know that one of my friends even let some stay in their house for a couple of days. So, is power more important than peace? Feel free to share: peace or power.
An excellent proposal, accurate_atom. The carbon cost of war would be far higher than it seems, due to the emissions caused by manufacturing weapons, transporting them to the destination and employing them. Even the antics for the King's Coronation will producer a substantial amount of CO2; parades, military displays and the rest all take up emissions.
I think that peace should be valued more than power because with power comes both lives lost and the world losing. Plus, power isn't the be all and end all. With the coming of the metaverse, who knows whether the geopolitical advantages would come into play?
I think Law 3 is a very bad idea to implement. There will be slower economic growth due to control over communication, transportation, industrial and commercial procedures. Law #2 should not be passed because what if you are allergic to certain plants. If we couldn't eat products that come from animals, we humans wouldn't have the protein we need.
Law 1 should not be passed. First, if you can only use planes 10 times in your entire life, people will tend to use cars, trains, and other means of transportation on the ground.
Law 1 should not be passed. First, if you can only use planes 10 times in your entire life, people will tend to use cars, trains, and other means of transportation on the ground.
Law 3, is a very interesting idea; I predominantly agree with it, however I think that it would only be able to be enforced, in homes. This is because, a variety of jobs include multiple hours of electricity use. For example, in teaching you need to be able to access the internet, for registers, slides, lesson resources, and more. In hospitals, it is vital that they have electricity at all times, so that they can run the tests they need, and keep machines active- effectively saving lives.
But, it would be significantly helpful, if there was an enforced law, which made it, so that you could only use five hours of electricity at home. This would help to prevent/slow down, global warming, and the cost of living crisis, by making their energy bills, go down- beneficial to everyone!
I disagree with law 1 , because for some people's work they have to travel around the world and if you are limited to 10 flights in a lifetime, you can't do all your work. Also, if you have family and friends that live in a different country, you will not be able to visit them. I think this law is very limiting to many people around the world. It should have some exceptions for if you need to travel. The law could be you can only go on a flight ten times in your lifetime for just a holiday and this could be strictly monitored to make sure people are not breaking these rules.
I think that law three's idea is one that might actually work, if it is enforced. If people around the world only use five hours of electricity, the amount of energy that we need to make will be much less. If we use our lights less and just open the curtains to let some natural light in, or simply cook less in the oven but more in the air fryer or barbeque in the summer; we could lower the amount of electricity that we are using meaning it will cost us less ( that will help with the cost of living crisis) and also help to get rid of global warming and climate change. However, if we lower everything down to five hours a day, our jobs and every day lives will change dramatically: for example teachers need electricity to present work to students and how hospitals need it to be able to work machines to save lives. So what I think should happen is that we should only be allowed to use five hours of electricity per day, at home, and we can continue to use electricity at work, but only as little as possible, for things like jobs and necessities.
Hello👋🏻👋🏻
➡️ First: Climate protection laws are very good and useful laws, as they make the climate better and thus a better life, good health, more people, and a developed world, and you are here designers [topical talk (it is the best in my life)😍] and especially Mrs. [ kim❤], for making and innovating this point of view I thank her very much, and now I will show my opinion on each of those laws, and I put you laws from my ideas:
➡️ We will talk about (law1️⃣), which is that each person has only 10 trips throughout his life. It is a bad law, for example: if the number of trips ends for a person, and his family is in a different country, and the number of trips for his family ends, how will they reach their son? Also, if a person needs to go to another country to treat his illness and has finished the number of his trips, what should he do?
⭕ From my point of view, it's a bad law, it's good for the climate because of the supply of the resulting jet gases, but it's bad for humanity because it will hinder communication, making the world scattered, ununited, unable to communicate.
➡️ : 2- We will talk about (law 2️⃣) which is that everyone becomes vegetarians. It is good and bad at the same time, good, because it will reduce the diseases that spread due to fats and carbohydrates in meat, and bad, because it will increase the number of animals and thus increase their waste.
⭕ From my point of view, it is a good law, because animal waste is beneficial to the soil, so its fertility increases more, the soil that works to grow and increase the number of plants, because everyone will be a vegetarian who needs more plants.
➡️ : 3- We will talk about (law 3️⃣), which is that electricity is used only five hours a day. This law is of course bad, because man needs electricity in many things of life, such as: cooking, entertainment, electrical tools in medical hospitals, etc....
And the use of electricity 5 Hours out of 24 Hours 19 Hours without electricity is dangerous for humans.
⭕From my point of view, this is a bad law, because man needs electricity in many things, for example: humans expected that cars will be made that run on electricity in the future, so how do we use cars that run on electricity if the average daily use is only 5 hours?
➡️ : 4- We will talk about (law4️⃣), which is driving 4 times a week. It is very good and the most useful of these laws, cars consume gasoline, which is hydrogen and other materials, and its frequent use leads to the lack of these materials, and it will produce a lot of pollution, and also the back dust that comes out of it disturbs the air, so it is a good thing to walk on our feet, and we hope that cars will be made that run on solar energy and others.
⭕ From my point of view, this is the best law so far, because it reduces noise pollution, air pollution and many other pollutants, and we hope that humans will work with this law, because it will protect the climate greatly.
➡️In the end, I will now put forward my own laws, and I want you to discuss them as I did above☝️☝️.
➡️Law ⃣1️is [minimizing the use of gases that are not necessary for daily use].
➡️And also (law2️⃣) which is [reducing gases and greenhouse gases].
See you round 🤗🤗
In my opinion, Law 1 will be one of the worst idea implemented in the world.
First of all, it will not create job opportunities and poverty will increase as the demand for pilots, air staff, ground airport staff and other professions will suffer. Technological development of civilian, cargo and military aircraft’s will decrease rapidly as there will be very few people to investigate possible aircraft crashes because of which the all accident rate was 1.21 per million sectors, a reduction compared to the rate of 1.26 accidents for the five years 2018-2022, but an increase compared to 1.13 accidents per million sectors in 2021. The fatality risk declined to 0.11 from 0.23 in 2021 and 0.13 for the five years, 2018-2022. These developments wouldn’t take place without our air accident investigators. Secondly, there would be negligible Aviation YouTubers to raise questions and doubts over safety and services of air services over the years. Possibly, Gulf Air was the most improved airline in the world in 2022. People who often travel overseas for work will be furious at the Government because the time needed to reach their destination will increase which could lead to possible pay cuts and unemployment.
It’s right to think about our Climate but we should think in the right way and don’t use methods which will create chaos and further degrading of our stunning planet.
If everyone becoming a vegan would have solved the climate change problem, then why not try it? What a joke to be made in the world now! Globally, around 500 million pastoralists rely on livestock herding for food, income, and as a store of wealth, collateral, or safety net in times of need. How will you provide employment and skills to them to do other jobs? Most importantly, what about the traditions and cultures that people follow? Every year, milk is offered to God by millions of people. You can't just think about the negative impacts of food on people after they become vegan how will they adapt to other food items or what will they eat?
Has anyone ever thought about the Oats or Almond milk they drink? milk alternatives require farming to produce the oats and almonds used to create milk. Such high consumption requires bees to pollinate almond flowers and many farmers rent bees to do so. This method is also harming bee numbers – with billions of them dying every year. A cow can produce milk without dying but for almond production billions of bees are dying every year. Matthew Evans writes in his book On Eating Meat that approximately 40,000 ducks are killed so rice production in Australia is protected, and in the same country, a billion mice are poisoned to protect wheat.
Agriculture is the industry where 70% of child labor takes place. The numbers are increasing in line with the number of people that opt for a plant-based or vegetarian diet, and of course, as the population increases and demand for more food follows.
We have to both consider the advantages and disadvantages before opting for a vegan diet and that also carefully. Maybe, a law could be passed to keep forests under strict control around the areas where livestock or farming is practiced.
Law 4 shouldn't be carried out because, if our usage of cars is restricted, how can we accomplish everyday activities like going to school and working? There would be multiple obstacles. You can commute everywhere you need to with the use of a car. You don't have to be concerned about the weather holding up public transportation if you need to make an urgent grocery run. Different issues have distinct effects on various people; while most people may find this rule to be completely useless, some may find it to be helpful. The rule would benefit the environment since fewer people would use cars, reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that was produced. Many daily duties can be made easier with a car. There's an explanation why so many people have strong emotional ties to their vehicles. While riding public transportation exposes you to the most basic aspects of your surroundings, driving is like getting your own personal pod with all of your favorite conveniences. There is no disputing that many major transportation systems in the United States are under tension, and it is evident. Commuters occasionally encounter congestion, delays, and malfunctions whether they are on a bus or train, which can seriously undermine public transportation's ostensible efficiency. I feel like each family with children should be entitled to use just one car for their various activities.
Here is a law that I would propose: No mobile phones should be used for more than 4 hours a day.
I think that it's a good idea because people tend to spend hours and hours scrolling on YouTube or TikTok on their phones. This tends to turn people into screen addicts, and nothing productive is coming out of their scrolling. People often use their computers to do important stuff like work and I included the four hour bit because phones are easier to carry and easier to speak into. This means that they're often used for communication and that can be important.
However, this means that you're hard-pressed to buy a computer. If people don't have computers then they'd have to buy new ones, which tend to be expensive. This would also mean that tech companies who invest in making computers turn out better which is not a good thing because phones are easier and cheaper to manufacture, thus making them ideal for growing businesses.
Please tell me what you think about this rule.
centered_moose might you be able to implement the rule for all screens now being used for work? Or could there be some other conditions? What do you think might be some downsides to people having a limit of 4 hours on their phones? How might this impact people who live alone and cannot get out much?
About your first question I'm not sure it would work. Lawyers, for example, who have to type up hundreds of pages of clauses for contracts would be severely impacted as they'd have to do it by hand. This would mean they would have to get less specific or they'd have to pay the lawyers a lot more, which wouldn't be good for the economy.
As for your point about there should be other conditions there could conceivably be some. However, they probably wouldn't be all that useful because people need to work and they can't really not do it on their computers. Having these extra regulations like only the amount of hours on your computer that you work could be imposed.
I think the law of electricity is a bit illogical, because many of the possibilities are totally dependent on electricity like hospitals and factories, but electricity can be replaced by alternative energy that comes from wind and sunlight.
Law 2 is an excellent idea because when we cut down our animal products and people become vegan it help reduce the climate impact of the food system by nearly half (49%) conferring annual green house gas emissions savings of 6.6 billion tones of carbon dioxide. Eating less meat can help reduce pressure on forests and land used to grow animal feed, which in turns protects biodiversity , the earth's ecosystems. Eating less meat will also save an enormous amount of land and water . People becoming vegan can help stop deforestation and also allow a large scale and rewilding. By going vegan, we free up land that would be used for animal agriculture and can allow it to return to its natural state , eventually returning soil to its naturally rich state. Going vegan can promote weight loss, reduce your risk of heart disease by lowering cholesterol levels and lower your chances of getting cancer. I am not saying we should all turn vegan because of its marvelous benefits and on the other hand I am not saying being a vegan is a bad thing. Our body needs protein naturally and depriving yourself from it can lead to malnutrition and many more. I simply urge that are meals should be balanced with the right amount of protein and not an over do. An over do of protein can lead to obesity that leads to serious health problems, so for the sake of our health especially I entreat us all to have a balanced diet .