It will reduce it to some extents. However, switching all......is paradoxical.

First and foremost, do you really think this so-called switch will be practically possible in the modern world, considering the amount of energy consumption targets being met in the industrial sector alone. I think this scenario is extremely hypothetical with no validity. Secondly, use of renewable energy will not lead to any decrease in carbon dioxide emission rates as rightly told by Kenneth.

There are several different types of 'renewable' energy. As your other respondents point out, shifting to biofuels still based on carbon/hydrocarbon/carbohydrate energy systems does not reduce CO2 - it just uses C as a 'catalyst' to turn solar energy into (usually) kinetic energy or plain heat when the sun isn't shining. A good example of this is biochar, which if I have understood it correctly, burns coal to produce power, then sequesters the carbon dioxide in biological tissue, and incinerates in anaerobically to produce something resembling coal which is put back in the ground. How this process could even come close in efficiency to solar PV is beyond my understanding. However if you use PV of some sort (I am not considering the practicality of switching the entire economy to electricity, which is as your respondents point out almost inconceivable in even the medium term) then you don't get CO2 in the atmosphere from such sources and hopefully this would make its level slowly drop towards a more benign level.

This question should be rephrased and being asked if renewable energies can significantly reduce C02-eq output from the energy sector. And the answer here could be Yes. Energy from solar panels and from wind and water generators defenitly generate less C02 per produced energy unit if compared to oil, coal or waste burning. In addition, we should be aware that there is more to learn about 'renewable energy sources'! Nicolas Tesla (and other researchers) had proposed innovations that were never followed up, because the mainstream (and most economical model at that time) was burning coal and oil. I assume that 'investment in research' related to renewables could result in more innovations that allow energy production with less C02-eq per produced energy unit if compared to renewables. To limit 'renewables' to energy generation from biomass use would of course not allow significant C02 reduction since the earth surface is limited. If we would termintate the lately installed and existing renewable energy production capacity, we certainly would increase C02 emission from the enrgy sector if we do not reduce enegry consumption. Another trend to be pointed out is the "energy efficieny". A lot of potential energy reduction is still possible here, and I suggest that related research and enhancement is linked to the trend to proceed with renewable development that aims to switch the energy sector as far as possible to reduce CO2 emissions. Even if set up of renewable energy production also generates C02 due to resources use, established, production and operation, the main factor will be if such operation generates less CO2eq if compared to fossil fuels.

We will never be a fossil fuel free world. However, we do need to stop generating electricity using coal. Some say coal can be clean but i don't think so. Currently, with the technology we have coal will not be clean anytime soon. Removing carbon ( mechanically) from the atmosphere is too costly. The world is warming, and we are not going to stop it anytime soon. We will need to adapt to the conditions of a changing world. But we could help by switching to cleaner fossil fuel such as natural gas, and get away from food based bio-fuel...corn and soy. Use grasses that can be grown in climates that are not suitable for food based crops such as switchgrass. Stop using arable land for PV and start covering parking lots and commercial buildings roof tops. But one the the best ways to reduce CO2 is not using energy.... Energy efficiency. We need to improve the efficiency of our existing buildings, and increase the fuel efficiency of the transportation system such as our cars and trucks. In New York City, city owned existing buildings account for 68% of the CO2 emission. By increasing the energy efficiency we could reduce this by 30% to 40%... energy not being used! We need to increase the energy efficiency of our existing homes and building. We have the knowledge and capability to construct new Net Zero buildings We need to stop the" business as usual" . We need to continue to planet trees to help off-set CO2 emissions. We need education and we need to change human behavior. Its a combination of all these things that will help us adapt to a changing world.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/01/can-grass-be-a-new-biofuel.html

Certainly not. It may reduce to an extent. Balancing between the two sources is essential.

If the renewable energy has no emissions definitely yes. It will prevent the greenhouse effect from getting worse. But this will never happen because people right now depend mostly on fossil fuels for energy generation.

Dear friend it only change the source, the emissions will remain there

It is impossible to completely replace Fossil fuel but what we suggest is to slowly shift into renewable energies for sustainability purposes. If we use plant origin fuel we automatically enhance more photosynthesis process which is essential for CO2 absorption and Oxygen release to the atmosphere. At the same time I think renewable energies emits less GHGs than fossil fuel (If we consider the net emission). So we aim at minimizing the emission but not completely stopping it. Unfortunately some of the technology which we consider more sensitive to GHGs emission turn out to be the most net emitter of GHGs. I think we need to be very careful when deciding or arguing about fossil fuels and Renewable energies.

No, it will exploit GHG sink and other economic social and environmental opportunities, and neither all renewable resources are carbon neutral when used as energy.

Yes. Switching to renewable energy (RE) innovatively will slow down the greenhouse effect (GHE) on Earth and if other issues are coupled with the RE utilization then a rate of slowing down GHE on Earth will increase.

The issues to be coupled with the RE utilization for the slowing down GHE rate increase include: ensuring energy efficiency to all applications of energy systems and structures; extracting the already escaped GHGs from atmosphere with feasible means; and devising innovatively new renewable energy technologies which can do work more efficient and effective than those technologies using fossil fuels.

With all of these and other similar issues being done while considering the cost implication, there is a high chance of slowing down GHE on Earth. However, the greenhouse effect on Earth, I presume will never stop completely so long as there is life on Earth but may slightly remain constant at a reduced level at some point of time.

we have to calculate benefits and cost. Using renewables can cost much more based on current technology level, although we have greatly reduced the actual production cost of equipment and technology implementation. The issue is that in order to maintain reliability and safe operation of grid, we have to have certain capacity reserve which is fossil fuel fired that is reliable and safe. The biggest CO2 emission in US is from cattle and cows. The supercritical coal fired units is even cleaner than natural gas fired units with less emission and use only 135 g of coal per Kwh.

Dos economistas estadounidenses, recién premiados con el Nobel de Economía 2018, han dedicado muchos años a responder que sí es posible lograr un crecimiento económico global sostenido y sostenible que perdure en equilibrio. Según William Nordhaus y Paul Romer, si la tecnología, el desarrollo, la sociedad mundial, el conocimiento y la naturaleza interactúan con la economía de mercado proponen modelos económicos y científicos integrales para hacer frente al cambio climático.

Los modelos propuestos desde hace cuatro decenios se alimentan de teorías físicas y químicas que inciden en políticas climáticas. Los modelos son RICE y DICE y están relacionados con aumentos o disminuciones de emisiones de carbono, y políticas ambientales que integran armónicamente la Economía, el ciclo de carbono y las ciencias climáticas con sus impactos e impuestos del mercado de carbono.

what is needed is a method for capturing methane gas emissions in the atmosphere (like motors that suck the air and exchange clean matter). as with carbon capture methods, this might give us the reductions needed to survive into the future

Hello Dariusz,

Certainly it will slow down, however we need to analysis cost and benefit of existing and the proposed alternatives.

best regards

In the coming years, with a temperature rise of about 3 ºC, the world is expecting warmer, drier and more uneven climate conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare countries quickly to these adverse conditions. This means that especially in the leadership of governments, professional chambers, non-governmental organizations, whole enterprises with small or big have to fulfill the duties falling on each.

Measures to be taken can be listed as follows:

1- Structural changes should be made as soon as possible, legislations should be regulated and infrastructure works should be completed quickly.

2-The construction sector should be directed and encouraged to green and environmental buildings. Green buildings are compatible with nature. They are evaluated within the framework of life cycle starting from a land selection. These are buildings that are suitable for climate conditions, consumes as much as they need and are directed toward renewable energy sources. Heat and sound insulation are provided.

3- It should be ensured that the enterprises that make production in the inner-cities are moved to small and organized industrial zones quickly.

4- When choosing a place in small and organized industrial zones, attention should be paid to climate and terrain characteristics and harmony of the region.

5- Renewable energy sources should be used in these regions, and planning should be made in such a way that they can generate their own energy by benefiting from wind and solar energies.

to those who say it will slow down the process of destruction, stop to consider how this equates in real terms if the problem isn't literally fixed before the planet flips? .. THIS IS A CULTURAL PROBLEM DEALING WITH BAD HABITS AND FAILING SCIENCE requiring legal action and scientific know-how to 'reprogram' humanity (enjoy reading http://eresinstitute.org) ~ Note: those involved must submit to big data and begin to consider what relativism has done and can do with regards to full-scale computer modeling. this is the example demonstrating how everything is interconnected... are we to become robots are humanists? that is the question

The question was: "If switiching to renewable energy in the enérgy and industrial sector would significantly contribute to slow down the green house gas effect? To clarify: Not the Green house gas emissions! For the latter my answer would still be YES. The statistics in Germany show that within one decade the GHG emissions could be reuced by >20% through renewables. We are now on the way to reach 30%. This is a signifianct contribution and I assume that with this the full potential will not be exploited, but I agree that it may be difficult to reach 100%. A further so far not sufficíently understood factor is the generation of "black carbon" from burning processes. Renewable energy may generate these emissions likewise but smaller in magnitude, because it mostly relates only to biomass burning, which only counts for 10% of our renewable energy portion (from almost 30% of all used energy sources) in Germany at present. The majority comes from using water courses, windcraft and solar. Although I can not answer the raised question if the replacement of fossil fuels for energy and industrial sector reduces the green houase gas effect, it certainly reduces CO2 emissions. I would further like to add that the transport sector plays a relevant role in this regard too, since CO2 and balck carbon emissions can be substantially reduced by alternative transport means. I guess we should try to reach out for every +XX% possible CO2 emission reduction through use of renewable energy, as long as we have not solved how to capture CO2 emissions. This may be possible in future, but further innovations in renewable energy and transport may be possible too. The assumption that we foresee every possible innovation and its positive or negative effects is not justified by our historic records.

@Johannes Paul, the question was intuitive, making you wonder if slowing down emissions is just a form of torture leading to scorched Earth, which is why green house gas was mentioned, since that is the more salient point and relevant relative matter

@Kenneth M Towe... if the problem can only be slowed down and not fixed (as with Greenhouse Gases ignored, etc), then prolonging the inevitable means as the Earth get's hot, the waters rise and the poles melt, the oceans and forests die, the tectonic plates shift, the planet flips and everyone who is alive eats left over people and cockroaches underground ... that's a socio-economic description of a model that isn't hard to imagine given the current course

my problem only relates to what is possible, not what is impossible. so can we repair the damage we've done in time, taking into account green house gas... that is the question

primarily game theory and a transparent global actuary investor authority... enjoy reading http://eresinstitute.org ~ that's what i've produced since 2007, many others have done this much and more. politics and hiding the truth isn't my bag, but creating a empirical realtime education system is... what's your take? have you written down your answer to the same question? big data is watching @Kenneth #666

@Kenneth... if that is the number that takes us back to Earth 1st, i'd still be interested in "HOW"...

@Kenneth... your response is inadequate

@Kenneth... lookit, you can't even keep track of Giant skeletons, why should anyone Trust you or the Smithsonian? #Behemoth_Lies

i actually have good answers for those questions, but the back stabbing sabotage many of you enjoy engaging in will prohibit my public disclosure #666

we? call me on the phone and i'll discuss it, only not with you (@Kenneth) or the Smithsonian #Open Source (479 876 5719) #SOCIAL_SECURITY @666(6) x Mark all the Beasts + JESUS ALLAH SATAN & SPRU

Kenneth... i can see your socio-political conundrum, but i refuse to do your homework... i've fulfilled my socio-economic passion though, including concluding a theorem for "how" (C=R*P/M, #A=C(ME)^23 @C=SU)... the fact you can't equate your own ontology with ERES really isn't my problem... if you can't put relativity into context, you're gonna have problems you can't solve... e.g. SECUIR and the basis of a solution

I am wondering if the ongoing discussion is still going to answer the raised question? If sciene wants to keep up the value "Truth and Innovation", I would like to read that scientist who respond to a seriously asked and relevant question also something that the ´science community is interested in or can benefit from it. Nothing against a serius debate, but researchgate should be used in the best possible way by considering that a global community and many students may learn from what is offered by scientist who feel in the position to answer. I still believe that renewable energy may offer many benefits and co-benefits that lower GHG emissions, even if they (alone) may not be sufficient to lower down global GHG emissions in the magnitude needed to reach th 2 degree target. However, future innovations may further contribute to increase the positive impact of alternative energy and renewables. And in the same manner, other sectors may likewise explore innovation potentials.

@Johannes Paul... "i still believe" isn't all that scientific, and @Kenneth did raise a good point (carbon disposition), as did I in a previous reference (gas collection)... so please offer your solution response either apart or in relation to the subject... best

I am agreeable with the fact that the focus on C02 as we practice now may be insufficient, likewise that biomass may only lead to a minor enhancement. Adaptation, chanes in land use management etc may contribute. However, exploring additonal 'renewables' and 'extra-/intraterrestrials' can not hurt. It would be worthwhile to invest much more into the "equalization" of C02 release into the atmosphere from all types of source emissions because our mainstream business models depend on that (transport, energy, industry), which we can not easiliy change considering the strong political drive for additional economic grówth (with is high on the agenda). That the C02 reduction in point sources of emissoin is not sufficiently solved so far does not mean that a bright young student may some years from now 'get a clue' (as happend many times before, e.g. with peniclin). We have learned to take out NOx and SOx from air emission streams, so why not CO2?

point source emission control is the answer: defining change management overall and giving resource to economic solution sets requires oversight at the financial level... these people aren't scientists, and that's the real point

It seems to me that it is good that there was a discussion in the question of this question.

This is a very interesting and scientifically important topic.

Because the topic is very important so I still read the answers, I follow the interesting discussion.

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

Please, answer the following questions:

What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?

The report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that greenhouse gas levels on the globe are the highest in 800,000 years. Further emission, which arises according to the authors of the report mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, will lead to climate changes, which will be the greater, the more intensive will be the release of gases into the atmosphere. The report is a synthesis of earlier findings of the IPCC.

The conducted prognostic analyzes show that if the industrial development proceeds in the same way as before, i.e. without the implementation of eco-innovations, without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. there is a risk that by 2050 the average temperature on the Earth's surface may increase by another one degrees ° C. It would have been an increase in the average temperature on the surface of the Earth from the end of the first industrial revolution, from the beginning of the 20th century by two degrees ° C. Then the pace of climate change will increase so much that the global warming process can escape any control and then the person will not be able to stop or significantly slow down this process. In such a dark scenario, the average temperature on the surface of the Earth until the end of the twenty-first century may increase by as much as four degrees ° C. Then it will be several times the increase of any negative external effects of climate change on the current state. Slak of emerging climatic cataclysms, including tornadoes, droughts, volcanic eruptions, melting of glaciers in chains of mountain peaks and in the arctic circle region at the Arctic will significantly accelerate. The melting of eternal decay in the Arctic region will release further millions of tons of methane and the greenhouse effect will accelerate even further and in the XXII century an increase in the average temperature on the Earth's surface can achieve a geometric pace. Then it will be a disaster not only for human civilization but also for a large part of life forms on Earth. Pradoxically, man as a rational, intelligent being who, evolutionarily gained an advantage over all other forms of life on Earth and subordinated the whole planet to itself, may lead to self-destruction. Or maybe it is not too late to implement a new eco-friendly economy to at least try to stop greenhouse gas emissions and reverse unfavorable global warming processes? It is therefore necessary to promote and implement the principles of sustainable development within the framework of the new green economy.

Please, answer the following questions:

What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Chart. Global Warming. CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases, a forecast of the increase in the average temperature on Earth. Source: NOAA, NASA.

@Dariusz, it seems man is ill-prepared to create the transparent (EarnedPath) processes necessary to end fear-based death economics and the punitive tendencies associated that feed the BEAST (though ERES Institute offered an Investment Framework using Sentience in place of Intellectual Property for this purpose as a remedy for Global Warming #666). so, as the planet wobble increases and weather intensifies, the best science will go underground before Earth "flips" and begin to re-establish what is needed for whatever remains of humanity

As much as I agree with a "fear-based" I think we need to stay positive and lead by example. Don't teach or promote "doom and gloom" but teach how we can make a positive contribution. We can't stop climate change we can only adapt to it. As a conscience society it is up to each individual person to make the right choice in how they deal with the current conditions. We can lead by example and forget what is happening with politicians because it won't be them who is going to make a difference or the change you want to see

Plant trees, trees are hope!

@ Mark Yuschak ... if you agree with fear-based (as you said) but don't want people to preach doom and gloom, you've got a hypocritical perspective that only complicates reality. i realize people can make money putting the "choice" option onto those who actually make choices (Gandhi was murdered, and Atheists aren't giving him much credit for continuing the pursuit), but the truth doesn't need to lie in order to make points with evolution #be the change puts the onus on individuals and this problem is too great for any one of us to solve @666

Global warming..

Any technique reduces CFs group emitting and releasing CO2 to air will contribute to lower the greenhouse effect on earth

The conversion of all energy and industry to renewable energy would significantly slow down the greenhouse effect on Earth, but this process will last for years. Over the years, the greenhouse effect of the Earth will continue and the risk of irreversibility of this process continues to increase year by year.

In connection with the above it is necessary to develop different types of ecological innovations, including energy, materials, architecture, recycling of recyclables, etc. Thanks to the development of various types of ecological innovations, the development of civilization in the 21st century will at least partially approximate pro-ecological sustainable development.

In connection with the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth, innovative start-ups that will be developing innovative ecological innovations should also grow.

I invite you to the discussion.

It was an worthy question and I came to it in different perspective. It is difficult just by switching as it should have CDM

Yes, that would be a very good step but how possible?

Joseph Sprute....Yes I did say I agree with fear based however, as an educator I don't want to come across as a pessimist. I want my students to know and understand that we can adapt and live with a changing climate. No, I'm not a hypocrite I'm a person who believes in the moment and who believes that one person can make a different in their life. If I preach doom and gloom where would that lead us? Should I used fear based education? How would that come across? It would come across as there is no hope. Why use sacred tactics when we can teach to adapt. We should be looking at the positive side and hope for the best. It's not a lie it's called living for today and be optimistic for tomorrow. We all have to understand that climate change is here to stay and we need to live with it. So we should teach to adapt, and my students know that doing something is better than doing nothing.

we must try it but i hope it happens.

@Kenneth... please elaborate on what your belief of what "they are asking us to do"... that would be helpful. are you referring to the elimination of fossil fuels? well i hate to break it to you, but there are better ways to make a buck. @Mark... you speak of education, but you don't mention economics, which are in fact hypocritical today based on fear and death (um, spell war or prison or green house effect). if you choose to be optimistic about this, then change won't come fast enough to save humanity or your twisted version of civilization (try spelling EarnedPath based on ecologic merit). yes, we will go back to being animals (30 years?), and Darwin will have won the discussion concerning evolution... that is actually a human choice, should the reality come to pass

@Kenneth... Al Gore? really? do you have a plan for changing the status quo? or are you just afraid to relate the reality? Aura-Tech x RT Media + Game Theory #666 was here

@Kenneth... you really need better corporate citizen examples: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maersk-emissions-idUSKBN1O40QW ... just the knowledge of this holds people accountable and converts negative energy to positive reality, creating force-multiplication and economies-of-scale

all waste has a use @Kenneth... the fact we haven't discovered next-life for man's creation = the matter at hand; personally, i'd be looking at filling any number of the massive man-made wholes in our planet

@Sania.... take your whimsy and feasibility and add some meat to it...

@Kenneth... i understand one man's toxins are another man's medicine... the question is neutralization, which is a laboratory discussion. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF MONEY, and fear-based death economics is a failed religion #@666

Joseph, You have a lot to say but don't offer much. Mark... you speak of education, but you don't mention economics, which are in fact hypocritical today based on fear and death I'm not sure what you mean because for you to say something like this tells me you know nothing of what I do. My students learn and are prepared for the world we are adjusting to. They learn about the Triple Bottom Line of economics. They have to quantify measures and show the cost and savings of the measure. They are taught payback period, return on investment, and saving to investment ratio. They understand a measure has consequences which can be a positive or negative feedback. i'd be looking at filling any number of the massive man-made wholes in our planet. Really, and what is the economic cost of this? You can't just bury CO2 and think the problem is going away. You need to reduce and adjust to current condition. Kenneth is right the transition is a least 100 years (maybe sooner with technology) And you mention Economic of Scale...Isn't reducing energy and maintaining production an example? How does economic of scale fit into burying CO2? What is the cost of burying CO2? Is burying CO2 going to reduce the amount being produced? For you to say THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF MONEY. I guess you didn't research this because the shortage comes from who is going to pay for this? We are already paying for the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere with our health.

We should be looking at closed loop systems which will help but is still not the answer. We need to stop the cradle to grave and think about cradle to cradle. The economics is how efficient we can use resources and reduce energy and waste output. It's too costly to bury CO2 but you already know this because you did the economics.

@Mark... "this isn't a game" (or pissing contest)... see if you can read between the lines : MDCCLXXVI connecting semantics to currency and sustainability = PRICELESS #httpse://keyword.$.vpn Intelligent Design @PlayNAC #GiantERP ^Internet *Game-Theory %Social (RT Media: Group e.g. Economic re: Aura-Tech ie. Blockchain)

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.

what is needed is an framework for guaranteeing that investments made don't harm the environment ... e.g. transparent (defense-in-depth) Global Actuary Investor Authority re: Empirical Realtime Education System ie. Clean Water, Food, Shelter, Work & Love OVERALL

Yes there will be some decrease in CO2, but I don't think it is practically possible.

Central goal = Clean our Planet, Purify Water

Level 1: COI Relativity with PlayNAC (transparent ((defense-in-depth)) Global Actuary Investor Authority) ... defines personal-public-private Ontology

Level 2 CPM, WBS, PERT Green Earth EarnedPath (Empirical Realtime Education System) ... establishes a number anyone can call for real help

Level 3: UN NGO "RESCORE" with GiantERP (Clean Water, Food, Shelter, Work, Love) ... creates a security model worthy of sustenance

Yes, to a greater extent.

The above question inspired me to the following considerations:

What are the determinants of sustainable pro-ecological industrial development?

Sustainable pro-ecological industry development based on the concept of green economy consists in changing the business model that takes into account the following issues:

- reduction of production maximizing the quantity and activation of qualitative production,

- minimization of negative externalities, including generation of production waste polluting the environment,

- maximizing the recovery of secondary raw materials, development of recycling,

- implementation of saving and purification systems used for the production of water in a closed circuit,

- transition to renewable energy sources as a source of electricity for production processes,

- taxation of production plants, imposition on the production company of the costs necessary to carry out the reclamation of devastated environment as a secondary effect of the production process,

- improvement of employees motivation instruments to invent, design proecological technological improvements of the production process and development of ecological innovations.

In view of the above, I would like to ask you: What other determinants of sustainable pro-ecological industrial development can be mentioned in addition to the above?

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

The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classic economy in green economy?

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classical economy in green economy shaped according to the principles of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

From time to time, conferences and climates summit are held in various countries around the world. In principle, everyone agrees on the importance of implementing the necessary pro-ecological reforms in economic processes. In addition to representatives of mining companies of energy resources for the traditional energy of burning mineral and traditional power plants, everyone agrees that in order to slow down the global warming processes that are unfavorable for the natural environment, it is necessary to implement pro-ecological reforms as soon as possible. above all, to develop renewable energy sources on a larger scale. In addition, pro-ecological innovations on an industrial scale should be implemented as soon as possible.

Recently, this type of climatic summit took place in Katowice in Poland. It was the UN climate summit, the so-called COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy is negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland. During this summit, conferences were held, discussions on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for ecological development, renewable energy sources to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future, and ultimately to limit the average annual temperature on the Earth's surface.

From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop ecological innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, and to develop the electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

As part of the UN climate summit of December 2018, the following were held: the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1). About 20,000 people from 190 countries took part in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.

The lecture delivered during the climatic summit shows that in recent years the warming of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to human beings will increase many times, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.

In view of the above, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth from destruction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environmental reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

Unfortunately, perhaps the only major positive effect of these conferences and climate summits is the promotion of the need to apply these pro-ecological reforms in the media. However, the scale of real actions in this direction, the scale of expenditure growth supported by subsidies from state budgets for the development of energy based on renewable energy sources, the development of electromobility, improvement of sorting and recycling processes is still small in relation to the needs.

Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?

In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:

How can you speed up the processes of changing the classical economy in green economy shaped according to the principles of sustainable pro-ecological economic development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much for your response and participation in the discussion

Best wishes