Our future lies with low carbon energy and low carbon development in both developing and developed countries. Do you agree? Please provide your opinion or relevant web links of publications.
I am fully agree with you sir. Low carbon energy is the key issue of environmental sustainability. "Nuclear energy" could be a solution but also have had some serious risks too. Unnecessary use of power is very common in modern countries, which have a significant contribution on high energy consumption. I think a proper awareness and feeling about environment can lead a person to reduce their daily carbon foot print as well as wastage of energy.
https://www.altera.com/content/dam/altera-www/global/en_US/pdfs/literature/wp/wp-01148-stxv-power-consumption.pdf
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/ghg-chinese-power-sector-issuebrief_1.pdf
http://www.who.int/world-health-day/toolkit/dyk_whd2008_annex1.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/retail/pdf/Issue%20Paper%206.pdf
The change I water cycle created by change of land use may also be very important. See http://www.waterparadigm.org/download/Water_for_the_Recovery_of_the_Climate_A_New_Water_Paradigm.pdf That group have produced some compelling case studies of the effect of vegetation on climate. I keep an open mind on the topic.
However, I agree we should be minimising pollution and other toxicants.
For sustainability we have to improve our knowledge for a new binder materials. Replacement of cement clinker seems key issues
Low carbon (or no carbon) energy is beneficial, but of course economical energy storage must be developed for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and/or a sufficiently wide grid must be developed to "smooth out" solar and wind input from a sufficiently wide area (both solar and wind are remarkably constant for Earth as a whole). It is important, however, NOT to go the the extreme of trying to return atmospheric CO2 back to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. About 1/3 of the increase in crop yields owing to the Green Revolution is at the behest of extra atmospheric CO2, which (a) acts as a fertilizer (pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm and even current levels of 405 ppm are suboptimal for photosynthesis), (b) allows plants to utilize water more efficiently and hence to tolerate dry spells more efficiently, and (c) extends the poleward limits of agriculture and lengthens the growing season at any given latitude. Returning atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm would be a disaster. Crop yields would be so reduced that mass starvation could result. It would be the poorest countries that would suffer the most.
Please see a publication, a model to engage rural people with climate change. It shows that climate smart agriculture, aquaculture/fisheries, clean/green energy and carbon sink projects have potential in generating new job opportunities in rural areas; pls see the weblink:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305443648_CitizensCommunity_Engagement_with_Climate_Change-_A_Model
Chapter Citizens/Community Engagement with Climate Change
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315639803_Low-carbon_development_and_deep_decarbonisation_pathways
Chapter Low-carbon development pathways
- Badges
- Science topic