The visions of the future, in which global sustainable pro-ecological development is dominating, actually looks like a dream.
But it would be nice if it happened. Unfortunately, currently, too little is being done on this issue, primarily in the field of international co-operative.
The international agreement signed today (December 2018) in Katowice in Poland during the UN Climate Summit does not generate much real new ventures.
Most countries have declared that there will be something to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but this is not much.
Most countries do not intend to increase expenditures on pro-ecological undertakings, on necessary reforms in enenvironment, on the development of large investment projects in the field of renewable energy sources.
And there is so little time left, supposedly only a decade of time for necessary reforms to avoid climatic armageddon at the end of the 21st century.
In view of the above, the current question is: If too few activities are being undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Yes there are too few activities to make your world more sustainable reduce greenhouse gas emission and support sequestration of greenhouse gases.
For instance in Poland 82% of the electrical generation is related to coal generation which generates massive contamination, acid rain, health issues and is nonsustainable in so many ways.
The accelerated conversion of Poland to natural gas would produce the same energy while reducing greenhouse by 60% and have massive impact to reduce acid rain, health issues and disposal issues of toxic by products and greatly reduce the issues related coal mining and their activities.
The health benefits which can accrued to Polish nation will be enormous while the cost of natural gas electrical generation is less than coal even without the massive externalities coal represents compared to gas.
Poland has extensive depleted farm lands which enormous field for carbon and nitrogen sequestration which can accelerated through liming of acidified soils, the accelerated implementation of no till farming with rotations and cover crops and organic amendment a return to mixed farming and forestry crop systems.
All of these are proven economical ways to support mitigation and adaption to climate change.
Yes there are too few activities to make your world more sustainable reduce greenhouse gas emission and support sequestration of greenhouse gases.
For instance in Poland 82% of the electrical generation is related to coal generation which generates massive contamination, acid rain, health issues and is nonsustainable in so many ways.
The accelerated conversion of Poland to natural gas would produce the same energy while reducing greenhouse by 60% and have massive impact to reduce acid rain, health issues and disposal issues of toxic by products and greatly reduce the issues related coal mining and their activities.
The health benefits which can accrued to Polish nation will be enormous while the cost of natural gas electrical generation is less than coal even without the massive externalities coal represents compared to gas.
Poland has extensive depleted farm lands which enormous field for carbon and nitrogen sequestration which can accelerated through liming of acidified soils, the accelerated implementation of no till farming with rotations and cover crops and organic amendment a return to mixed farming and forestry crop systems.
All of these are proven economical ways to support mitigation and adaption to climate change.
The activities are too low because of lack of awareness.
Most of the rural people are migrating towards urban cities for enhancing livelihood.
Rest who are involved in farming, still don't use the improved technologies,
& are continuing with their faulty conventional practices which cause depletion of resources and degradation of environment.
The improved varieties and technologies developed at research institutes are not disseminated timely to the end users.
Economic residual management techniques are not available, like in North Indian regions, most of the farmers burn the paddy straw in the fields which triggers toxic smog in winters.
So farmers are left with no other option instead of burning it as they have to take their next wheat crop.
Even some of the studies says now that in-situ incorporation of paddy straw increases emissions of Methane (CH4), a gas about 25 times more potent than Carbon-di-oxide (CO2) in causing global warming.
So it's just not the technology that will do something good to sustain the environment, but also the farmers & rural masses must be made aware of the facts that they are significantly contributing to these emissions.
https://m.tribuneindia.com/article/ploughing-straw-back-into-soil-won-t-do-experts/662354/amp
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/why-stubble-burning-in-haryana-and-punjab-has-intensified-in-last-10-years/story-cZG40Ey3gHIZKbtS7LjpRN.html
I think politicians are fully aware of the matter, but they cannot get support from industries. This might be the fate of mankind.
Comparative g Carbon dioxide /KW electrical energy among various energy sources
Coal 1001 this I call this the worse of the worst why because it is
Nat Gas 469 slighty more than 50% best among the fossils fuels
Solar 46 more than 95% reduction
Geothermal 45 more than 95% reduction
Nuclear 16 virtually zero for carbon dioxide
Wind 12 beats even nuclear
Hydroelectric 4 look folks we have a winner
While Natural gas might be viewed as bridge fuel for combating climate change renewables solar, geothermal nuclear wind and hydroelectric are all very superior according to the analysis of Yale university.which align closely to IPCC results.
The phasing out of coal needs to be a whole priority the bridge use of natural gas and the accelerated development and use of the other alternatives.
The problem of greenhouse gas emissions is still too little propagated in the media. Still too few social campaigns are being undertaken to promote this particularly important topic in the context of the future of human existence on Earth in the 21st century.
In my opinion, both unfavorable processes, ie the global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere will increase in the future. However, there is still some time to implement the necessary pro-ecological reforms to slow down these processes. It is estimated that there has been a decade of time to carry out the necessary pro-ecological investments, thanks to which it would be possible to implement sustainable pro-ecological development in the global economy.
Hedgehogs do not take these actions in the next decade, then these unfavorable climate processes will accelerate in the future and become permanently irreversible. Then, at the end of the twenty-first century, there will be a global climate cataclysm that will threaten the life of all humanity and a large part of other life forms that inhabit the planet Earth. The problem is therefore serious and underestimated by politicians, entrepreneurs, industrialists and many other social groups. The problem of global warming and decreasing ozone layer in the atmosphere is too little publicized and the educated society is not educated enough.
I invite you to the discussion.
Yes, the actions which have been taken till now are not even the least we wanted. Media is, of course, vastly responsible for it. But the main victims are people, or specifically educated people. General people has least interest in environment. They only need spice in their lives and for them nothing comes or goes if the quality of air or water deteriorates. They only need luxurious life, even they can compromise with environment for that. And we, the educated, still do our conference and meetings in luxurious halls with no window but big sized air conditioner. I am not saying ACs are not required. But use of them at normal atmospheric condition is a luxury. We are the ones who need to stop these kind of activities because general people does not think and make their lives on proclivity.
What Science explains and scientists recommend does not reach the majority of Society, especially farmers. Some amount of information that trickles through is insufficient, as there is no reliable person to guide them to adopt climate change mitigation measures.
Climate Change has snowballed into such a large issue, that most people feel helpless to defend themselves from it, and wonder what difference can their individual actions make. A simple family man or a subsistence farmer cannot combat climate change , but only cope with it.
Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG Do you agree with my opinion that in the context of the projected acceleration of the global warming process, should it be an inflow and the largest possible measures to run greenhouse gas reduction programs?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Best wishes
Continuing the above important discussion, I formulated the following question: Can planting trees, afforestation of industrially degraded areas and creating city parks be important for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
In my opinion, planting trees is very important for reducing the concentration of CO2 in the air. In some places, such as in urban agglomerations and in areas degraded by civilization and wastelands, it is particularly important. In some regions, this is sometimes the only method of restoring civilization-degraded areas to a state close to the natural environment, protecting the land against sterilization, improving rainwater retention and increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere while reducing CO2. Of course, this is not the only, especially important method of improving the air condition. Other key methods of restoring the air quality that is close to natural, i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, are the implementation of pro-ecological reforms in the energy sector, involving the conversion of classic energy sources based on the burning of minerals into renewable energy sources in enterprises producing electricity and heat energy. In addition, the development of electromobility, the development of organic farming, the introduction of a ban on burning grass which is a frequent source of forest fires and other green areas increasingly affected by drought, etc.
In view of the above, I ask: Can planting trees, afforestation of industrially degraded areas and creating city parks be important for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
What do you think about this topic?
I am asking for an answer and invite you to a discussion,
Thank you and best regards, have a nice day
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Dear Paul Reed Hepperly, Abhilash Singh Chauhan, Lian Cheng Wang, Rachan Karmakar, Archana Waran, Thank you very much for participating in this discussion and for providing inspiring and informative responses. Thank you very much for the answers to the question: If too few activities are being undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Thank you very much for the interesting information and inspiration to continue deliberations on the above issues. Thank you for the interesting information sent. In view of the above, in my opinion, in recent years the importance of the issues described in this discussion has been growing.
Thank you very much and best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
For a somewhat quantified view on what will happen to our society, even split out for various regions of the world, I recommend the latest part in a book series following the very famous 'Club of Rome' report, by Jorgen Randers: "2052". Highly recommended reading.
Dear Carlo Luijten,
Thank you very much for the given book on this important issue. The book is very interesting. All the best!
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Now, at least people, government and regulatory bodies understand the real importance of the greenhouse gases and other emissions, and think of renewable energy technologies for Sustainable Growth, it works. Otherwise future generations will have to pay the consequences.
- Badges
- Science topic