This is the general idea behind the multidisciplinary field of "socio-technical energy transitions", where increasing energy efficiency of existing energy systems is increased (less energy for the same demand), in parallel with energy conservation (lowering demand), in order to reduce the total demand for non-renewable energy sources. Then, replacing this reduced demand gradually with new energy sources. So far, topics like "decoupling energy demand and economic growth", "zero carbon transport/city/house, etc.", "self-organized energy communities" among other topics have tried to answer innovative approaches and different aspects of the global energy system as a complex socio-technical system

The question needs reformatting as anthropogenic climate change is already occurring and will continue to occur.

So the question may be asked in two forms; one, can humans avoid GHG emissions that would lead to an irreversible cascade of non-anthropogenic GHG emissions (e.g. release of sequestered carbon from warming permafrost and ocean sediments), and two, can humans re-sequester GHGs that have already been emitted thus returning to a pre-industrial age equliibrium? (remembering that it is and should be a dynamic changing equilibrium anyway) The earth will continue regardless of what we as humans do, but the issue of what sort of planet do we leave to future species, human and non-human, will be determined by the success of both these questions. Currently we are likely to leave a significantly degraded quality of life and degraded opportunity for improved quality of life to those born today.

Check out the amount of energy the world uses annually and you will find that renewable energy sources are much too small to replace the fossil fuels on which our lives depend.

People have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The concept behind carbon dioxide causing climate change comes from IPCC AR5 (Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis) where it says carbon dioxide increased by 116 ppmv from 1750 to 2011, its warming effect increased by 1.68 Watts per square meter and atmospheric temperature went up 0.8C.

The inference that carbon dioxide caused the increase in temperature is wishful thinking. By applying the gas laws of Boyle and Charles to the gases in the atmosphere it becomes clear that carbon dioxide does not increase atmospheric temperature or cause climate change.

This is explained in the following reference that is available as open access: Lightfoot HD, Orval AM. Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas. Forest Res Eng Int J. 2018;2(3):170‒175. DOI: 10.15406/freij.2018.02.00043

You might wish to check out the current trends in the Earth’s temperature. It has started to fall. See: https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png. The University of Alabama (UAH) also shows the same drop.

It looks like you are searching for a research topic on which to write a paper. There are no easy subjects these days as the “low hanging fruit has already been taken”. However, once one realizes that carbon dioxide and the ideal greenhouse gases do not influence atmospheric temperature, there is a whole new world of climate science to explore and write papers about.

In terms or energy, fossil fuels will be our main source of energy for many decades. Research into how to ensure adequate supplies for another century or so would be useful. For reference, every morsel of food you ate today is there because of fossil fuels, mainly oil. Reduce oil consumption and people will starve.

Hope some of this helps.

H. Douglas Lightfoot

We can describe renewable energy sources as a poor substitute for fossil fuels. I do not think, most people do not care about environmental concerns as they are interested in using the available energy

Although RE sources have been known as alternatives for fossil fuels but, we have not been successful to move totally from fossil fuels toward RE. We can say that these kinds of clean energy sources can only mitigate the hazardous effect of the fossil fuels but they cannot completely cut CO2 emissions in the world since implementation of the RE-based systems also generate CO2. I think this can be only a dream for the future.

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz

I think it is very possible if people cooperate in protecting our earth

Regards

Unfortunately, the problem of sources of greenhouse gas emissions on Earth continues to grow. In many countries, greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow.

The rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important factors for the possibility of sustainable pro-ecological economic development based on the concept of a new, green economy. It is necessary to avoid a global climate disaster!

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

Is sustainable ecological pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy necessary to avoid a global climate disaster?

Sustainable proecological economic development based on the concept of a new, green economy regarding entire national economies and future global economies is a necessary future that must be realized in the 21st century if humanity wants to avoid a global climate disaster. Sustainable ecological economic development is based primarily on the creation, development and implementation of large-scale ecological innovations, renewable energy technologies, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, automation and robotization of the process of sorting waste, recovery of recyclable materials, reclamation of a devastated natural environment, afforestation of post-industrial areas, development of electromobility etc. Apparently humanity has only been a decade of time to implement this plan in order to avoid a global climate disaster resulting from the increasingly faster global warming. According to World Wide Fund for Nature (https://cop.wwf.pl/en) humanity is already an endangered species in the 21st century!

In view of the above, the current question is: Is sustainable ecological pro-ecological development based on the concept of a new, green economy necessary to avoid a global climate disaster?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Can we still avoid a global climatic catastrophe and what should be done to avoid it?

Humanity has reportedly only had a decade of time for the necessary changes in the energy sector to avoid a global climatic catastrophe

Much has to change in consumer awareness, business must change and different social groups should force policies and change legal regulations. It is necessary to develop co-financing of investment projects in the field of renewable energy sources by the state from public funds. In addition, businesses must see this business. The development of renewable energy sources should be profitable, and it is not because it is cheaper to mine minerals, to devastate the natural environment. It is cheap to run classic energy based on mineral combustion because this classic energy and mining industry of hard and brown coal, oil refinery industry, automotive industry of vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines etc. is not burdened with the costs of natural environment devastation, costs of treatment of people who suffer from due to poor air, smog and no negative effects of global warming. If the mining, energy, processing and automotive industries were burdened with these costs, then it would not be worthwhile to devastate and pollute the natural environment. Then it would be more profitable to develop energy and industry based on renewable energy sources. Inventions of electricity have over 100 years of history. 100 years ago, electric cars should be produced, but the oil business this scenario of more sustainable development has crossed out. Therefore, for over 100 years, archaic energy based on the burning of minerals has been developed. During these 100 years, the average temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by 1 degree ° C. From specific scientific studies, it appears that humanity is only 12 years left to make the necessary changes, to switch energy and industry to renewable energy sources and the automotive industry to electromobility, to reduce poor quality of stoves and domestic ovens, on the development of large and small, home solar, wind and other power plants. At the same time, investment projects in renewable energy sources should be widely developed and entire economies should switch to sustainable pro-ecological development according to the concept of a green, new economy. If during this time these changes are not implemented then the average temperature of the Earth until 2030 will increase by another min. 1 degree ° C and then in the following years the greenhouse effect will accelerate and the problem of global warming will become an irreversible process, which will mean the widespread apocalyptic climate disasters covering most of the Earth's surface before the end of the 21st century.

In view of the above, the current question is: Can we still avoid a global climatic catastrophe and what should be done to avoid it?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

Though RES has huge potential to reduce emission of greenhouse gases on earth but it is simply not possible that man with the help of modern RES energy technology would completely stop the greenhouse effect on Earth. However, It is only one step towards slowing down the greenhouse effect on earth so that the impact of these gases can be minimized on future generations.

In the context of the above considerations, the following question is also current:

How can you increase the efficiency of environmental policy?

How can the effectiveness of the environmental policy of the state be increased in order to achieve sustainable ecological development based on the concept of green economy in the shortest possible time?

Please reply

Best wishes

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

How should new economies be developed according to the green economy concept with which instruments and pro-ecological policy reforms should be developed to make it possible to achieve globally sustainable environmentally-friendly economic development in the next years?

How effective green economy philosophy should be developed in a pro-ecological socio-economic policy in order to solve key development problems of human civilization, ie environmental pollution, effective and quick in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and thus slow down the ongoing process global warming, activation of the development of electromobility, renewable energy sources, development of organic agricultural production, development of production of biodegradable packaging, etc.

In view of the above, I am asking you:

How should green economy be developed to allow for a globally sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

Please reply

Best wishes

It seems the powerful , political bodies and figures are oblivious to the benefits of green economy. Unless their outlook is changed, there is very little hope for improvement.

All sources of energy are not equal or of equal size

Oil: most valuable and versatile energy source: provides electricity, liquid fuels, petrochemicals and plastics, is available on demand, sufficient to meet current world energy demand.

Coal: provides electricity, liquid fuels, petrochemicals and plastics, is available on demand, sufficient to meet current world energy demand.

Natural gas: provides electricity, liquid fuels, petrochemicals and plastics, is available on demand, sufficient to meet current world energy demand.

Nuclear fission: only provides electricity, is available on demand, sufficient to meet current world energy demand.

Biomass: provides electricity, small amount of liquid fuels, small amount of chemicals, It is questionable whether or not it is available on demand, not sufficient to meet current world energy demand. Competes with agricultural land for food production.

Wind: only provides electricity, not available on demand, very small contribution to world energy demand.

Solar: only provides electricity, not available on demand, very small contribution to world energy demand.

The differences must be taken into account.

Impossible to stop the greenhouse effect the way humans are going: still burning fossil fuels to go to work, heat their homes mostly with fossil fuels, air condition their hot-houses in the summer heat and the warming melts the permafrost and releases more methane into the air.

Don't mention the methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean getting ready to be released into the air when ocean temperature increases somewhat.

In other words, we are going towards a hotter greenhouse at an increasing speed.

We need to learn from nature, and not damage the environment. We need to move towards a carbon neutral or even carbon negative direction.

Nature gave us air, plants and trees, the sun, water, soil and minerals. Trees use these to produce food, grow, feed animals and humans and not adversely affect the environment in the process. We need to emulate these 'plants' in designing our own processes and factories. 'Do no harm', should be our motto. We also should not be wasting the resources that rightfully belong to the future generations.

We must develop processes that help produce the necessary at low to no impact to the environment. We are all connected to each other through the environment. Let's take good care of it.