How can we mitigate climate change 2?

[lynnvinc]

• 1, except that in some suburbia type locales, growing a front lawn is probably required.

ICXC NIKA

Actually grass is a drought-resistant plant, so there is no or little need to water it. We used to go away for the entire summers up in IL, and the lawn would still be there, a little brownish. Only during the worst heat spells did a couple of small patches die out one summer, so we had to plant some grass there.

Less watering also means less mowing.

And even if lawns are wanted or required, one can slowly reduce the lawns by planting more drought resistant (or low watering) perennials, esp flowering types, which even improves property value.

 

[lynnvinc]

Australia has just gone on El Nino watch. Which means more drought. Again. If sst persist in rising over the next few months.

I thought we just finished el nino this past year …

 

[goout]

Stop driving, using electricity, plastics, etc…go back to ancient practices and we may make a small dent in the environment.

 

[lynnvinc]

Stop driving, using electricity, plastics, etc…go back to ancient practices and we may make a small dent in the environment.

Or one can do as we did – go on wind and solar electricity and get an EV.

Though as a Girl Scout I did enjoy “primitive camping”; but I don’t think at my age & in my condition I’d be able to do that again

 

[Vonsalza]

Stop eating industrially produced meat. But who wants to give up their favorite burger joint?

 

[lynnvinc]

Stop eating industrially produced meat. But who wants to give up their favorite burger joint?

You can have it now and then. Maybe half the number of times, which would also be better for your health.

We had an environmental committee at our Holy Angels Church up north, and I developed this motto (which I also got from Girl Scouts re planning items for a 2 day hike and what to take) - H.A.L.F., Holy Angels Little Flowers, reducing our ecological footprint by half (at least as a distant goal).

 

[lynnvinc]

The Bible readings today got me thinking about why so many Catholics deny or ignore CC and don’t give attention to mitigating it.

As Catholics we are asked (not demanded) to give up everything for God and His kingdom. We know there are saints and martyrs who have given up everything in service to God. That sort of frightens us a bit.

Now what does “giving up everything” mean in practice. We can’t give up our job, bec we need to eat. We can’t give up our spouse with whom we have made a vow of Holy Matrimony.

What it means is that we need to be detached from everything, and truly love (agape) our spouse, without concern for what we get out of it.

And if a tornado were to destroy everything we had, of course we’d be upset, but we’d turn to the Lord and He would help us weather it through with grace and detachment.

Now even with this practical and doable “giving up everything for the Lord” we still have reservations. We just don’t want to let go. We don’t want to take that leap of faith.

John of the Cross said it doesn’t matter if a bird is tied down by a thread or a chain, it will not be able to fly.

I’m thinking this is at the root of why so many Catholics cannot bring themselves to accept CC and mitigate it.

Doing so would first require giving up one’s self-pride and acknowledging one is doing some wrong things and need to change. That is a huge wall very difficult to scale. It would require giving up our sloth (that was a toughy for me) and taking steps to do things. It would require giving up our greed and fears of not having enough to get by.

It would require trusting in God that He would not allow our tiny efforts to amount to nothing – that he would multiply our fishes and loaves, if we would follow the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood and the Little Way of Environmental Healing.

And if people laugh at us for our clumsy, seemingly ineffective efforts, we can think of ourselves standing beside Jesus as he was mocked. If we feel hopeless that we are unable to think of anything that would help, we can think of ourselves as the Good Thief nailed to the cross next to Christ, sorry and willing to do good only if we could.

Easter will come and fill us with the joy of hope. And then Earth Day, where we can attend celebrations or watch TV and by God’s bountiful grace find out practical solutions we can implement.

 

[JanetF]

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
Buy locally when you can
grow your own food
walk/bike when you can

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I thought we just finished el nino this past year …

You guys did, we had a small La Nina. But guess who is coming back for dinner ! If we are unfortunate,

I was flooded twice. Poor old spiders were on top of fence posts, so many more snakes around.

 

[goout]

The Bible readings today got me thinking about why so many Catholics deny or ignore CC and don’t give attention to mitigating it.

I’m thinking you probably misunderstand the viewpoint of those who object to the anthropomorphic climate change/income redistribution solution.

I think anyone can agree that scientists are measuring data and can make conclusions based on data.
The motivations of the science/government community and the conclusions and solutions they reach are the debatable items.

Disclaimer:
I have an earth science degree. Scientists can be very biased and collusive when it comes to securing government research money and securing their families. We all want security.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m thinking you probably misunderstand the viewpoint of those who object to the anthropomorphic climate change/income redistribution solution.

I think anyone can agree that scientists are measuring data and can make conclusions based on data.
The motivations of the science/government community and the conclusions and solutions they reach are the debatable items.

Disclaimer:
I have an earth science degree. Scientists can be very biased and collusive when it comes to securing government research money and securing their families. We all want security.

First of all no one is proposing income distribution. That is a red herring, plus policies should not determine science, but rather policies should be based on science.

If you are referring to commitments to help poor nations mitigate and adapt to CC, then even if we were not causing it, even if it were caused by nature, we should still be helping those poor people, which would also help to reduce the concomitant local pollution. At least I’d be in favor of it. (Note we don’t have to help China, which is starting to do very well in addressing CC on its own; it’s mainly poor African nations we’d be helping – and they also have some bright young people addressing this, we had some give a presentation at our Univ who won an MIT award for CC solutions.)

If you are referring to “Fee & Dividend” (putting a fee on every ton of coal and barrel of oil that comes out of the ground or into our ports) then divvying it up and giving it monthly to all the Soc Sec card holders in the US (sort of the way Bush gave us tax refunds), then I’m for that, esp since the subsidies for fossil fuels far outstrips such fees.

RE earth scientists, I’ve found some at my past university to be some of the most intransigent when it comes to being skeptical of CC (disclaimer, our univ is heavily funded by oil). For instance, a geologist claimed that water vapor was the main GHG, not CO2 (trying to downplay CO2). I told her that while that was technically true, WV was a feedback and CO2 (and some other GHGs) were forcings. That is, the increasing WV in the atmosphere is due to the increase warming caused CO2+, amplifying the effect of the CO2+, but WV molecules typically reside in the atmosphere only a few days (so it is a feedback), while CO2 can be up there for over 100 years, a portion even up for 100,000 years.

I’ve been in contact with some of the top climate scientists. These guys are not nincompoops or nefarious power-grabbers as some make them out to be. They know what they are doing, that the field is highly competitive, and that whatever mistakes or shortcomings, these are pointed out and correct much faster than in practically any other field.

And Pope Francis also has education is science, and he knows very well of what he speaks. We can no longer use the excuse that our holy fathers (BXVI, JPII) know not what they say.

 

[Sarcelle]

Or one can do as we did – go on wind and solar electricity and get an EV.

Though as a Girl Scout I did enjoy “primitive camping”; but I don’t think at my age & in my condition I’d be able to do that again

The use of wind and solar energy for electricity is getting more and more common.

Used to be you had to be a homeowner to be able to install solar panels or wind turbines on your property but I was able to find an electric supplier that uses wind energy.

Another good way is to make communities less car dependent. The average American suburb is designed around the use of the automobile. I long for a community where walking is encouraged and there is good public transport. Where I Iive it is downright dangerous to be a pedestrian because there absolutely no sidewalks.

 

[NM505StKate]

While many still doubt whether anthropogenic global warming is a reality, popes and bishops have called us to take the prudent course of mitigating it, even if we personally are not convinced it is happening.

I’d like this thread to address sensible ways we can mitigate global warming – reduce our greenhouse gases – and not as a place to discuss whether or not AGW is happening (there are plenty of threads on CAF addressing that).

You can see some suggestions on an earlier similar thread that was closed: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=656903

So give us your practical suggestions. Can be for individuals, families, businesses, schools, churches, etc.

Switching to less harmful fuels, like solar, nuclear, and wind instead of coal and gas.

Car pooling instead of driving a single vehicle.

Recycle.

 

[edwest2]

Personal choices are not enough to deal with this problem; if we want to mitigate the effects of climate change, we need to pressure governments and businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly practices across the board.

Profits are the problem. There are proven technologies to help clean/scrub smokestack emissions but they cost money.

The EPA is trying to help but it’s just cheaper to dump chemicals wherever.

epa.gov/climatechange/what-epa-doing-about-climate-change

Ed

I was driving by a landfill and it smelled like rotten eggs. Why? Methane from rotting organic matter in what was now a large hill was accumulating inside. The solution? Install a pipe and just let it burn off.

 

[edwest2]

I’m thinking you probably misunderstand the viewpoint of those who object to the anthropomorphic climate change/income redistribution solution.

I think anyone can agree that scientists are measuring data and can make conclusions based on data.
The motivations of the science/government community and the conclusions and solutions they reach are the debatable items.

Disclaimer:
I have an earth science degree. Scientists can be very biased and collusive when it comes to securing government research money and securing their families. We all want security.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Ed

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Solar power is not the answer. Just ask any South Australian.

 

[po18guy]

It’s probably already too late to reverse a certain amount of CC carnage of the world’s people on into the future for 100s, if not 1000s, of years. All we can do now is cut our losses as much as possible. Make it not so bad for our future generations. And every year, every day that we delay in doing what is good, right and just re CC only contributes more to the problem.

So 4 years is a very big deal.

Seriously? The earth is on life-support? It is not capable of regenerating itself? Isn’t this rather dour and depressive? I live in the shadow of Mount Saint Helens. Since 1980 and the intense heat, smoke and ash event, the area has greened right back up. By itself.

I am not into despoiling the earth, but neither am I on suicide watch over all of this.

 

[lynnvinc]

…I was driving by a landfill and it smelled like rotten eggs. Why? Methane from rotting organic matter in what was now a large hill was accumulating inside. The solution? Install a pipe and just let it burn off.

I heard about a full/closed landfill that was turned into a golf course. The methane there was used to generate electricity for the operations. I can’t remember where that was, but I’m thinking somewhere in the Chicagoland area.

 

[lynnvinc]

Seriously? The earth is on life-support? It is not capable of regenerating itself? Isn’t this rather dour and depressive? I live in the shadow of Mount Saint Helens. Since 1980 and the intense heat, smoke and ash event, the area has greened right back up. By itself.

I am not into despoiling the earth, but neither am I on suicide watch over all of this.

The scientists are not completely sure, but the knowledge I’ve accumulated over the past 28 years on CC is pretty sobering. One study suggested even if we stopped emitting GHGs today the temps would continue to rise about 2.4C (I read that article in a scientific journal some 5 or 6 yrs ago, but can’t find it now). From my understanding if it rises 3C, then that will guarantee nature to take over emitting vast amounts of GHGs, pushing the system to a 6C warming, which would be game over for a large portion of life on earth – the 6th great extinction.

Others claim less “climate change commitment” than 2.4C.

Some (see theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today-35011 ) suggest a .6C commitment:

…The warmer the planet gets, the more likely reservoirs of carbon dioxide and methane, another greenhouse gas that warms the planet, will be released from storage in the frozen Arctic permafrost – further adding to the problem.

If we stop emitting today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in temperature increase as the climate catches up with all the carbon that’s in the atmosphere. After maybe 40 more years, the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.

This decades-long lag between cause and effect is due to the long time it takes to heat the ocean’s huge mass. The energy that is held at the Earth by the increased carbon dioxide does more than heat the air. It melts ice; it heats the ocean. Compared to air, it’s harder to raise the temperature of water – it takes time, decades. However, once the ocean temperature is elevated, it adds to the warming of the Earth’s surface.

So even if carbon emissions stopped completely right now, as the oceans catch up with the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would rise about another 1.1F (0.6C). Scientists refer to this as committed warming.

Here are some other sources I just found:

• “Climate Commitment” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_commitment
• “How Much Warming are We Committed to and How Much can be Avoided?” link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-005-9027-9
• “Long-Term Climate Change Commitment and Reversibility: An EMIC Intercomparison”
  journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00584.1

And it doesn’t look like we can or will stop emitting GHGs. We just have to do the best we can to reduce without harming ourselves in the process.

Here is a review by a top climate scientist of the book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet about what could happen at each 1C increase, up to 6C, based on a lot of peer-reviewed scientific sources: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

 

[lynnvinc]

Solar power is not the answer. Just ask any South Australian.

Why do you say that?

I just read something about how all the energy from wind and solar could be stored in pumped hydro-storage facilities (to be used when it is not windy or sunny).