What we can do to delay/reverse

Climate change has begun and in due time it will be unstoppable. However even if the entire world can stop the use of carbon/greenhouse emission and fix the problem volcanos would erupt and ruin the problem for us. So we have two options delay or reverse. Global warming has happened before on earth and I guarantee you that Gaia underneath will reap her revenge and save her child (Earth) form cataclysmic destruction. So, if we want are skins to be around for the next few million years we could hide in a bunker whilst the other humans kill themselves; appearing from the ground like skaven and reclaiming the wasteland left behind. Or we delay or reverse.

Delaying is the easier one to do. So I’m going to list a few ideas and in the comments you can say if you want to delay, reverse, or use the bunker ideal; I would be quite happy to reply to your ideas as well.

Delaying or carbon offsetting, as some methods, are called is when we use the ‘limited’ fossil fuels whilst using different methods to negate the effect of the ghg (greenhouse gases) or other deadly to the environment gases. Sometimes however we completely cut the use of fossil fuels and gas producing items. (This however can be debatable and arguably it is more reverse method as stopping the use of fossil fuels and gas producing items is the basis of all reverse methods. I will come onto cutting fossil fuels in the bunker method.) The common use of the delay method is carbon offsetting. By the way I’m calling these methods delaying methods as that don’t help reverse the problem. We can do them but we don’t reverse the problems in a human lifetime. That is the point of reversing method.

Back to carbon offsetting. You might see on the news or hear your mum or dad talk about it when planning abroad trips but what is it really. According to the Guardian carbon offsetting is ‘allowing individuals and companies to invest in environmental projects around the world in order to balance out their own carbon footprint.’ Those schemes involve planting trees, distributing echo friendly items and catching methane from waste sites. Now in theory it is true. It works. So people who want to do good and save the planet do tend to go for carbon offsetting. For example I’m a frequent flyer and go to Tokyo often. So my trip from Heathrow to Haneda in CO2 is 2118kg (return flight). What if, I was to offset would cost me £22.72 or £43.54 for the radiative forcing packet. (Something to do with contrails left by planes?)

Yet there is many criticisms against carbon offsetting, for example, writer George Monbiot famously compared carbon offsets with the ancient Catholic Church’s practice of selling indulgences: absolution from sins and reduced time in purgatory in return for financial donations to the church. Just as indulgences allowed the rich to feel better about sinful behaviour without actually changing their ways, carbon offsets allow us to "buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction", Monbiot claimed. "Our guilty consciences appeased, we continue to fill up our SUVs and fly round the world without the least concern about our impact on the planet … it's like pushing the food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it." And final some quick maths we would have to plant one acre of trees every time I fly. (One acre of full grown trees takes in 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide in and I produce about 2.1 tonnes every time I fly. That is about 416 acres of land needed to be planted for every full Boeing 747 flown.).

The next method is the re-glaciation method. Arizona University proposed that we could spray sea/slat water reflecting the sunlight away from the ocean cooling the ocean and refreezing it. This in turn reflects sunlight out from the atmosphere and cooling the earth in turn. This is clever and expected from such university and it is perfect, yet. It will be expensive, you would require to have constant team of scientist and water sprayers. Then you would need constant surveillance of from boats to get a good area of refreezing. And then half the time it won’t work. The ice might immediately melt reversing the work of the water sprayers. There is a slightly bigger problem. How mind-bogglingly vast the Arctic region actually is. A team calculated that covering just 10 percent of the Arctic would involve erecting millions of pumps, which together would have to spray 7.5 kg per of water (16.5 pounds) every second to achieve 1 extra metre in a year. That is a lot of pumps.

Finally we have fission energy, (fusion is the degrading of nuclear elements what produces heat, what we already have.) fission energy is still an experimental idea but it is a heavily unstable idea. It’s been going on since 1920 fission energy has been on the backburner for too long. Fission energy produces 100 exajoules per year, roughly 100 times the power of the eruption of Krakatoa. (One exajoule is 1x1020 joules) so six fission reactors will create enough energy to power the entire world. Problem is there is about only £750 million pounds invested into fission research. So this problem causes us to have even more problems we can’t afford to research enough to do practice reactors. (That is about it. There isn’t a lot of information about fission energy.)

Reversing the climate change option is much simpler. The basic idea would be to remove the ghg out of the atmosphere. Then that idea makes it complicated. We could just plant trees and algae but it’s not fast enough. We can do this however. We have mined large amount of coal and piped larger amounts of oil out the ground what we could do is gather gases from the atmosphere and repipe them into the veins of coal and pits of oil. This is called carbon capture. Where places that create carbon emissions capture said carbon and redeposit it. We’re going to run out of fossil fuels anyway so it’s better that we capture the devastating ghg from power plants and run out of fossil fuels anyway, sooo we will be forced to create new energy sources. (This is just my opinion) I will leave a link to a scheme by Tatatm to increase UK’s carbon capture scheme. Green peace however highlights the dilemma of carbon capture. It takes too long. Carbon capture means that we wait for the CO2 to degrade and goes pass the half-life (not the game the scientific principle). This is a problem. A big one. As the climate is spiralling we don’t need an action that waits for ever to take action.

It works, everything works in theory but as we fight over what we what to do and quarrel like peacocks we leave the big corporations and energy companies to continually produce ghg like there is no tomorrow. We need to stand together and learn it’s today or never.

I would like to hear your view on the fact of climate change and what we can do to reverse/delay and if you want to hear my bunker plan then comment below.




Comments (1)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!