Climate change is a big and complex problem. There are two main ways to reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, producing less CO2 or removing more CO2.
We can produce less CO2 by changing from coal power plants to renewable energy, reducing the number of petrol / diesel cars on the road by switching to electric cars. Changing the food we eat, by eating locally produced food (to reduce the food miles from transport) and eating less meat (as livestock produce a lot of CO2)
We can remove more CO2 from the atmosphere by planting more trees, changing farming practice to capture more carbon and store it in the soil and plants, changing to different types of crop which capture more carbon.
There is no ‘one simple thing’ we can do to ‘solve’ climate change, but many changes and interventions can help slow or reverse global warming.
As Emma said it is a very complex issue and there is no simple solution. I think everyone should do their little bit to help rather than a few people doing a lot to help the environment. Maybe start by encouraging all the people you know to use a reusable water bottle or walk more rather than drive everywhere. Then maybe cut down on the amount of foods you eat that have been imported and have lots of air miles, you could also get an electric car or solar pannels. Not everyone can buy an electric car or have solar pannels so it is important just to do what you can and not stress about not doing enough.
Hi Luke, this is very interesting question. Climate change is a very complex problem and there are multiple causes of climate change. Therefore, there is no one solution that can solve the problem, however, we can make efforts in multiple directions to curb the impact of climate change. My research expertise are in waste management, sustainability and circular economy. So, the solutions I contribute to are more to to with how effectively products can be managed at the end of their life to reduce their impact on the environment as well as how waste can be designed out at the product design stage. I also look at how we can modify the supply chains to reduce our impact on teh environment and help minimize the climate change impacts.
Emma and Chloe have already covered it really. Reducing CO2 production sounds simple, but much of the economy that gives us the things we need (as well as things we don’t) runs directly or indirectly on fossil fuel energy that ultimately produces CO2. So, unlike the situation with CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons; look them up!) in the 1980s and 1990s, where it was really a small part of the economy that needed fixing, CO2 is produced everywhere. The good news is that we’re now a lot better at generating energy without producing CO2 these days, whether its by wind, solar, hydro, nuclear or a number of other technologies. Transitioning to these as much as possible by making switches in our own lives (e.g. where does your household electricity come from?) and by persuading our leaders (e.g. write to your local MP) are things that we can individually do. While, as Emma mentions, we can try to take CO2 out of the atmosphere as well, it’s much better to never put it there in the first place.
What I would add is that, in taking measures to solve climate change, we shouldn’t forget that it is the most obvious symptom of a wider problem, namely that human societies now commandeer so much of the natural space and resources of the Earth that we’ve become a force for change as large as many natural processes. We’ve done this in part by building things and directly occupying land, and by turning natural ecosystems over to ones that directly serve us, such as farmland. And in doing this, we’ve displaced or destroyed a lot of the natural world – this is the wider biodiversity crisis facing Earth. There are good ethical reasons to think this is A Bad Thing, but there are practical ones too, including losing access to the so-called “ecosystem services” that the natural world provides to us. This includes things like CO2 removal by trees, management of water by vegetation (including mangroves, meadows, wetlands), and recycling and breakdown of waste products.
Part of the reason for this is simply down to there being a lot more humans now than ever before – for instance, the total weight of humans on Earth is already almost 10 times the total weight of *every* wild mammal species added together. But, as the answers to this question already show, part of this is down to the way in which we live. We consume a lot of single-use products, we introduce a lot of transportation in our food and product supply chains, and we generally consume a lot of material resources that we don’t really need to. By way of addressing this, and much as before, there’s no single thing that will solve all our problems in one sweep – but instead there are many things we can each do to reduce our impact on the rest of the living things on Earth. And Emma and Chloe have already touched on many of these.
Hope this helps – thanks for asking such an important question.
Comments
Andrew_Y commented on :
Emma and Chloe have already covered it really. Reducing CO2 production sounds simple, but much of the economy that gives us the things we need (as well as things we don’t) runs directly or indirectly on fossil fuel energy that ultimately produces CO2. So, unlike the situation with CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons; look them up!) in the 1980s and 1990s, where it was really a small part of the economy that needed fixing, CO2 is produced everywhere. The good news is that we’re now a lot better at generating energy without producing CO2 these days, whether its by wind, solar, hydro, nuclear or a number of other technologies. Transitioning to these as much as possible by making switches in our own lives (e.g. where does your household electricity come from?) and by persuading our leaders (e.g. write to your local MP) are things that we can individually do. While, as Emma mentions, we can try to take CO2 out of the atmosphere as well, it’s much better to never put it there in the first place.
What I would add is that, in taking measures to solve climate change, we shouldn’t forget that it is the most obvious symptom of a wider problem, namely that human societies now commandeer so much of the natural space and resources of the Earth that we’ve become a force for change as large as many natural processes. We’ve done this in part by building things and directly occupying land, and by turning natural ecosystems over to ones that directly serve us, such as farmland. And in doing this, we’ve displaced or destroyed a lot of the natural world – this is the wider biodiversity crisis facing Earth. There are good ethical reasons to think this is A Bad Thing, but there are practical ones too, including losing access to the so-called “ecosystem services” that the natural world provides to us. This includes things like CO2 removal by trees, management of water by vegetation (including mangroves, meadows, wetlands), and recycling and breakdown of waste products.
Part of the reason for this is simply down to there being a lot more humans now than ever before – for instance, the total weight of humans on Earth is already almost 10 times the total weight of *every* wild mammal species added together. But, as the answers to this question already show, part of this is down to the way in which we live. We consume a lot of single-use products, we introduce a lot of transportation in our food and product supply chains, and we generally consume a lot of material resources that we don’t really need to. By way of addressing this, and much as before, there’s no single thing that will solve all our problems in one sweep – but instead there are many things we can each do to reduce our impact on the rest of the living things on Earth. And Emma and Chloe have already touched on many of these.
Hope this helps – thanks for asking such an important question.
anon-258189 commented on :
Mind blown