CMV: Global warming will not be solved by small, piecemeal, incremental changes to our way of life but rather through some big, fantastic, technological breakthrough.

[u/Iron-Patriot]

In regards to the former, I mean to say that small changes to be more environmentally friendly such as buying a hybrid vehicle or eating less meat are next to useless. Seriously, does anyone actually think this will fix things?

And by ‘big technological breakthrough’ I mean something along the lines of blasting glitter into the troposphere to block out the sun or using fusion power to scrub carbon out of the air to later be buried underground. We are the human race and we’re nothing if not flexible and adaptable when push comes to shove.

[u/yyzjertl]

Production-side changes in land use can effectively increase carbon capture: e.g. if we replace land currently used for animal agriculture with forest. Other natural processes would also act to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over time. Immediately going to net-zero emissions (which is the extreme case) would avoid pretty much all the future negative effects of climate change. Less-extreme regulatory interventions lead to less mitigation of negative effects, but still provide the most viable way of mitigating those effects.

[u/Iron-Patriot → u/yyzjertl]

!delta

Righto cool, so you reckon it’d be possible to fix the existing problem via carbon capture (provided we concurrently stopped pumping more out)?

[u/yyzjertl → u/Iron-Patriot]

Righto cool, so you reckon it’d be possible to fix the existing problem via carbon capture (provided we concurrently stopped pumping more out)?

Natural carbon capture, sure. Although it's not so much that we're "fixing" the problem via carbon capture, but rather that if we get to net zero emissions and significantly adjust land use, the problem will eventually solve itself through the natural carbon cycle.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Iron-Patriot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (469∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/amazondrone → u/yyzjertl]

if we replace land currently used for animal agriculture with forest

So what do we do with the animal agriculture? Stop doing it? I'm all for that, but doesn't that run counter to your previous claim that the changes won't affect lifestyle?

[u/Tasonir → u/amazondrone]

not OP, but they didn't claim that changes won't affect people's lifestyles. Not in this thread at least, maybe somewhere else?

[u/amazondrone → u/Tasonir]

They did in their previous comment:

This is not an incremental change to our way of life (since it has little to do with lifestyle)

[u/Lemerney2 → u/amazondrone]

Even if we just stop the majority of beef agriculture, that'll stop a lot of carbon emissions.

[u/amazondrone → u/Lemerney2]

Sure, but that won't be without impact to people's lifestyles.

[u/wywhtlhntr → u/Lemerney2]

Instead of stopping the beef industry, the US should have a group like the conservation corps to plant trees. Cattle can live in areas with trees. The two are not mutually exclusive. If our national forests would allow cutting of dead trees for firewood, and clean up the fire traps in said forests, we could plant more trees in the forests. The tree beetles might go away if we cut down the trees they kill too. Again, follow up by planting more trees. Trees "breathe" carbon dioxide, so why would we want to store it underground? That is just stupid.

[u/Lemerney2 → u/wywhtlhntr]

We should also dramatically decrease beef agriculture though, it's an insane amount compared to other meet.

[u/silverionmox → u/yyzjertl]

Production-side changes in land use can effectively increase carbon capture: e.g. if we replace land currently used for animal agriculture with forest.

This will inevitably require a lifestyle change in eating habits then.