So, you want to know how we can solve the problem of our warming climate? It’s simple, really. All we need to do, is stop doing the things that warm up the atmosphere. But before you tell me “it’s not that simple”, let me tell you that it really is. The only thing that needs to happen to do this, is actual accountability and consequences for those who significantly contribute to the pollution and particulate matter in the air. What I mean by this, is actual jail time, forced closing of factories, and laws that prevent people from having any further involvement in industries that produce a certain level of pollution, once they have been found guilty of doing such. You see, when it comes to people that have substantial financial wealth, things like fines don’t even phase them. Therefore, fines will not prevent them from doing what they do. However, if these people that are responsible for all the pollution have to face jail time, where the length of which is equal to the extent of damage they have caused (on the environment, on people’s health, on the changing climate, etc.), then it might just be consequential enough for them to stop polluting.
Taxing the people isn’t going to achieve much, when it comes to preventing the climate from warming. It will, however, cause financial problems for many many people, and cause some of those people to starve. There are already far too many people who have to go hungry, so that they are able to afford their bills. We don’t need more taxes. We need corporations to be held accountable for their actions. If enough people in power at corporations go to jail for the pollution they are responsible for, then the others will start to change their actions, and find a better way to produce the things they do, that doesn’t cause so much global damage.
For example, plastics are terrible for the environment in multiple ways. From toxic forever chemicals, to being non-biodegradeable, and contributing to a disgusting amount of landfill waste. I don’t see why we haven’t found a better alternative. In the past, more items came packaged in glass, metal, cloth, etc. Why are we not packaging things like this now? Because it was cheaper for the factories to make packaging out of plastic. Well guess what? These factories DON’T need to make more money. What is needed, is a healthy planet to live on, because it's the only one we’ve got. Using things like glass, metal, and cloth to package items also gives the consumer the option to recycle the packaging and use it for something else, instead of throwing it away. How many of us had a grandmother who kept her sewing supplies in one of them metal cookie tins? Did your grandfather use baby food jars to store things like screws, nuts, and bolts, etc.? Mine did. He even took it up a notch, and made rotating units, with multiple baby food jars, that he had mounted to the basement ceiling, where his wood workshop was. Similar to those pictured below..
I guarantee people would recycle things far more, if they came packaged in materials that were usable. We can’t make things like this out of the plastic that everything comes in today. Even if we could, the first time you drop it, that plastic is likely to break. Whereas grandma’s sewing box never did.
The amount of pollution that comes from vehicles is far less than what comes from factories.
On top of that, we have people trying to solve the problem of the warming climate the wrong way. Instead of trying to solve the cause of the problem, they are trying to mitigate the symptoms. The only thing that’s going to do, is requre more effort to get rid of the symptoms, the longer time goes on, and the more technology advances. Instead of this, what should take place is a behavioral change. Stop doing the things that are causing the issue. Stop allowing the things to take place that are causing the issue. Otherwise policies like the Paris Climate Agreement don’t make a difference.
Did you know that there have been people researching the idea of placing mirrors into space, to reflect the sun's rays away from the earth? Why would anyone even consider this idea? We have absolutely no way of knowing how doing so, might effect other planets, our planetary orbit, or if it would cause our atmosphere to warm up even more, since there would then be more heat in the space between the sun and the earth. Are they really that stupid?
In space assembly technology is something that is currently being experimented with. If you don’t believe me, check out the Chinese Journal of Aeronautics.
The first idea for this form of space-based technology came from engineer James Early in 1989. His concept involved building a giant glass sheet of 1,242 miles (2,000 kilometres) in width, according to the British Interplanetary Society. When orbiting Earth, this glass structure would serve as a barrier between the sun and Earth, reflecting sunlight back into space and reducing the radiation that entered Earth's atmosphere. This substantially sized, solid structure would be incredibly expensive to fly to space and would likely need to be assembled in space.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? Surely it would be more beneficial —and cheaper, to eliminate the problem at the root. Plus, the potential negative outcome would be practically non-existent then too.
This isn't the only strategy that's being experimented with, in regards to preventing climate warmth either.
The idea of gradually introducing multiple mirrors into space —like what’s puctured below— is just one of the many “solutions” to man-made clime change.
There are several other climate altering strategies that have been proposed, and are either in use currently, or being experimented with.
For example, the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology talks about a process called “Artificial Upwelling”, that involves transporting deep ocean water up towards shallower water, by pumping it through large artificial tubes. As a result of this process, colder and nutrient-rich water is dispersed near the surface. Apparently, in some instances, upwelling has caused air temperatures to drop as the colder surface water absorbs more heat from the atmosphere.
However, despite temporarily altering the weather, research suggests that the upwelling system would have to remain on indefinitely. Otherwise, the absorbed heat would be released and create a reversed, warming effect. So in otherwords, it’s a bad idea. Even if it were to remain on, the water would be spending less time at deep levels, and therefore wouldn't be as cold upon upwelling, as it would have, if left down at deeper levels for longer. Overall, I see this “solution” warming up the water more, and causing incredible problems for the creatures that live in the deeper water levels. Introduction of this, would be far too quick for most creatures to adapt to the drastic changes as well. So let’s not do this, okay?
Next up, is something they call “Ocean Fertilization”. Sounds good, right? Well it’s not. Ocean Fertilization has been proposed by The Royal Society, and is a process by which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is transported to the bottom of the ocean. While humans can initiate this process, ocean fertilization relies on the activity of phytoplankton. How is this done? Well, I'll tell you. Boats are used to release large amounts of iron into the ocean. Because microscopic marine algae, called phytoplankton, need iron to produce food and grow, adding iron creates algal blooms. The Phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. Then, when phytoplankton eventually dies, it sinks below the surface and carries the absorbed carbon with it. Carbon that is carried into the deep ocean can remain out of the atmosphere for over one hundred years. Apparently, this proposed plan has been assessed in many experiments, but some scientists are concerned about the large-scale use of this method and its ability to significantly alter ocean ecosystems at different depths.
I think it’s probably best that we listen to those concerned scientists. Also, what are the effects of all that carbon on the creatures who live at lowel levels? The ones that bury in the ocean floor? Will they be effected by this? What about monsoons? Will they not churn up the water, and bring that carbon back to to the surface? I have far too many questions. Is anyone even considering the negative impact?
But that’s not all. There are more terrible “solutions” out there.
Like Iceburg Building —no, i’m not kidding. I wish I was, though.
A group of Indonesian scientists, led by architect Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha, have designed an iceberg-making submarine, as part of the ASA Experimental Design Competition. These vessels would first submerge themselves underwater so that their hexagonal centre becomes filled with water. Next the salt is filtered from this contained water. This step is essential as removing salt from sea water raises its freezing point. The water is concealed, so that it isn't warmed by sunlight, enabling it to naturally freeze. Around a month later, the ice would eject from the vessel as a 16-foot (five-meter) wide, 82-foot (25 meter) deep hexagonal iceberg. This shape was apparently chosen to increase the possibility of two ice blocks merging together.
But I thought that icebergs were made of water that has been frozen for like many many years? Surely the density of such would be far greater than icebergs made of freshly frozen water? Therefore, wont the new icebergs melt fast? I’ve never spent any time around icebergs, but I do know that ice cubes don’t last forever in a drink, even when the drink was cold to begin with. Plus, icebergs are at the surface of the water, so that means they are in direct contact with the air. If the air is warm, the iceberg is going to melt. Also, what do they plan on doing with the salt thats filtered out of the water? Would removing the salt from the water not also have negative effects on the salt water creatures living there? It seems like that would happen. Then there is also the potential of leaking fuel and other hazardous materials, if this iceberg making machine gets damaged in any way —something that happens when ships collide with icebergs. That’s even more damage that will be done to the ocean life. I really don’t see this as a good idea.
Next up, we’ve got cloud-whitening, via cloud-whitening towers. By the sounds of it, you’re probably thinking it’s just for aesthetics, but that's not the case. Yes, bright white clouds are pleasing to the eye, but apparently they also hold another useful property —they can reflect sunlight back into space, along with the heat energy it carries. This is the idea behind cloud-whitening towers, which would aim to brighten clouds in order to reduce the warming of the planet, according to the BBC.
The towers would be constructed on a fleet of autonomous boats, floating on the ocean surface. Water would then be pumped from the sea and sprayed into the sky through these towers. This fine spray of seawater would reduce the average droplet size within the surrounding clouds. The small droplets in the clouds scatter light, making clouds appear white, and in turn these white clouds would reflect more sunlight away from Earth.
Again, I'm not convinced that this won’t have negative effects on space, as well as on earth. Warming up the space between the sun and the earth seems like a bad idea, because wouldn’t doing this also warm the earth up too? Not only that, but since the sun reflects off of the ocean surface, would that not mean that the light would just keep reflecting back and forth between there and the clouds (like I've shown in the image that I created below)?
Would this sort of thing not just warm the air up further? Also, don’t mind my ridiculous looking cloud-making boat. I literally just threw the picture together as quick as I could. But what about the salt? Is it good to put that much salt into the air? What would it do to surrounding land, when the clouds travel, and eventually rain? I’ve seen what salt can do to a car, when it comes to rusting, so don’t tell me there won't be downsides. All the metal that gets rained on by these clouds will rust more, and be quicker to it.
Anyways, let's take a look at another method of geo-engineering: cloud seeding. Cloud seeing is already widely used around the world, whether the government tells you that or not.
Cloud seeding is a method used to make clouds rain. Using aircraft, drones or rockets, small particles of silver or lead iodide are released into the sky. The water droplets in the cloud–which are too small to fall as rain– surround the silver iodide, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. As the water and silver iodide combine, ice crystals form. Eventually, the ice crystals become too heavy to remain in the air, and as they fall, they melt to become raindrops.
If you aren't aware of what silver iodide is, here is the NIH Chemical Safety Datasheet, where you will see it’s listed as an environmental hazard.
This is some of what Wikipedia has to say about the methodology of cloud seeding:
The most common chemicals used for cloud seeding include silver iodide, potassium iodide and dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). Liquid propane, which expands into a gas, has also been used. This can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than silver iodide. After promising research, the use of hygroscopic materials, such as table salt, is becoming more popular.
Link to Wikipedia cloud seeding page.
But wait a minute.. SOLID CARBON DIOXIDE?! Yeah. That makes a ton of sense. Let's prevent global warming by using CO², which causes global warming. That should do the trick, right? Are these people absolutely insane, or are they just stupid?
In 1974, during the Vietnam War, the U.S. army used cloud seeding to alter the weather. The aim was to prolong the monsoon season in Vietnam, making fighting more difficult for the enemy. The plan was named Operation Popeye and meant that the U.S. troops were more prepared for the extensive rainy season, according to documents posted online at the Office of the Historian (U.S.) Operation Popeye used the rain as a weapon to destroy roads and flood rivers.
To do this, military pilots flew over chosen regions with canisters of silver or lead iodide. The canisters were ignited to release the particles into the clouds. When the events of Operation Popeye were publicized, a ban was put in place by the European Modification Convention to prevent military tactics that controlled the weather.
Sadly, there are still many cloud seeding operations being used today.
In 2008, China used its weather-modification programme to control weather forecasts for the Beijing Olympics, according to the BBC. The country carried out cloud-seeding in the capital, to ensure that the rain fell before events like the opening ceremony, rather than during them.
And here are some photos that I took with my phone earlier this year:
Both of these photos were taken within the same square kilometer of land, and just 5 minutes off from being exactly a week apart.
These two photos were also taken on a Saturday, and although they are not taken from the same place as the first two photos, there is only about a 20 minute drive between both locations.
It’s pretty pathetic that all kinds of money is being spent on this type of technology —and others I haven’t mentioned— to manipulate the earth’s climate, when the best way to stop global warming is as easy as forcing industries to produce products that aren't as harmful to the environment, if at all. The less air pollution that’s being created, the more our earth will thrive, and the healthier all living creatures and plants will be.
There are other strategies proposed, in which I haven’t done much —if any--research on. Take a look at the following images that I stole off of Google..
I cannot believe they are suggesting using genetic engineering to lighten to color of the leaves on crops, to reflect light. Wow. Just wow.
Come on. Wrapping glaciers in high-albedo materials? Let me guess.. those materials will include plastics? Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. When a material absorbs solar radiation, some of that light energy is converted into heat energy, and the material warms up. So then would that not make the glacier under the material melt faster, since what’s covering it will be heated? And really? Artificial trees? What ever happened to good old fashioned real trees? They clean the air. So why not plant a pile of real trees? Why is everyone so dead-set on fake crap? I hate it. It’s disgusting.
None of these “solutions” seem like a good idea to me. It’s not saving the earth if what you’re doing is adding to the pollution and waste.
Images like these are very easy to find on Google these days, so it’s not like they are trying to hide their plans.
Everybody wants to be the hero, but nobody wants to have to face the consequences of being the bad guy. All these rich elites with their fancy ideas to stop global warming, but yet none of them are pointing their finger in the mirror and taking responsibility for contributing to climate change? Typical. But it's about time somebody does something about it, before it's too late. All we have is this planet. So don’t you think we should be leaving the place habitable for future generations? I do.
Alrighty, that’s enough for now.
Leave a comment, and let me know what you think!
-Davis.