The last warm period, the Medieval warm period, wasn't as hot as it is today, it was also not as widespread, the polar bears' habitat wasn't nearly as affected. It also happened little under 1000 years ago, so I don't understand the why your comment directed at young Earth creationist.
The problem is not that it's a warm period, it's that it's an unnaturally warm period with temperatures rising at alarming rates never before seen. If it were similar to the medieval warm period it wouldn't be as big of a problem.
That's not true. Solar energy has been making leaps and bounds since governments and businesses started pumping money into its R&D due to the Paris Agreement. It went from a stagnant technology to have a breakthrough almost every single day. It's constantly getting more efficient and much cheaper. Almost 90% of the power generated in Europe in 2016 came from renewable resources (factoring in Solar and Wind power)
a) Yes, reducing the Earth's population would solve Global Warming, but there are certainly easier ways to solve the issue than to try and stop people from having unprotected sex, or to punish them for having more than a certain amount of children. It would be naive at best, despotic at worst.
b) It's irrelevant if an individual buys eco-friendly stuff, it's a systemic issue, many times the products billed as eco-friendly are built and delivered is not very "eco-friendly" at all. Not (necessarily) because of bad intentions, but because sometimes there are no other ways but the old ways. Hence why the focus should be on finding alternative energy sources that could replace the old ways for everyone, rather than on commodified items like the Tesla.
Good post and replies it's so refreshing watching people actually get involved in Environmental conversations. I'm going to address the replies in both the original post and the reply in a disorganized way - So yeah.
Regarding the need to halt population increase - this is an extremely interesting concept because on its face it actually seems like a plausible option. It's only when examining the practicality of such a suggestion does it begin to become untenable. Firstly, the assumption that a reduction in population or at least a reduction in the increase of population is a prerequisite for an improvement in climate is based on a terrible antenatal philosophy which goes some way in ignoring the natural progression of technology that is often a result of population increase. It's worth remembering that I am not saying that a reduction in population would have a negative effect, rather it might not have a definite effect. We are at a point now in which - I believe - innovation is our most effective weapon against climate change. Allowing societies to develop (More so 3rd world one) has the secondary effect of incubating human ingenuity. Something which cannot be understated. As demand for sustainable technology increases so to will the innovation in fields dedicated to sustainability. 150 years ago there were no fossil fuels to run out of in the worst place - it was human innovation that developed the technology capable of exploiting physics so as to enable to use of fossil fuels in machinery. If we both agree that we are in dire straits and that drastic action is required - More demand is necessary not loss. I think there is a real chance that I'm getting caught up in the practicality of administering population reduction as a viable method with which we fight climate change.
To your comment that it is irrelevant whether or not an individual adopts sustainable/eco-friendly products. Well, I somewhat agree, In a vacuum it is irrelevant. However, it is this mindset that prohibits a collection of individuals adopting a technology so as eventually render it mainstream. Remember the Telsa needed individual approval to eventually get where it is now. The individual remains the individual only in thought - action involved the community.
I actually think I agree with what you are saying I just wanted to build up some points on here. - But I think it is worth not totally discrediting eco-friendly products and this is something I think is important.
There is a difference between climate change and environmental pollution and as environmentalists, we should always remain vigilant to not pick a side. Both are capable of having incredibly negative effects on our environment, agriculture, and infrastructure. Top-down command and control policy that seeks to ensure there is proper investment in solar power will not reduce the amount of plastic waste we are putting in our oceans.
You know, this is actually a really interesting conversation that I think needs to be had more - Would either of you be interested in helping me with a project I'm working on. It's a psychological analyse of the best ways to target issues that are percieved to be insurmountable. Steem could be an amazing tool for this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit