Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

Everyone has opinions. The best are based on some evidence. Have any?

Sometimes the right answer has no evidence, so as to hide it. I refuse to argue or discuss, I'm just putting my opinion in the wild.

That's a lotta chopsticks!

You’re right. Sometimes, the correct answer has no evidence. But if you don’t put forward arguments, others will get to interpret what you say. And that means others get to speak for you. Make your choice.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in a flat earth? Because I remember seeing a similar username to yours in those threads.

I did not doge the question about what I mean by global climate. I actually gave two examples of what I mean by it. Sometimes I will miss a question, so if someone brings that to my attention, I will address it. But I didn't miss that one. I answered it.

The two examples I gave of what I mean by global climate were temperature rise (I gave the example of one degree) and sea level rise (I gave the example of sea level rise on the Oregon coast). It was declared that those cannot be experienced locally. I suggested that maybe one degree is too small to be measured. Who knows. But those seemed like good examples of what I mean by global climate because those are two things global climate enthusiasts often talk about and seem concerned about.

So I guess my next question would be if global climate cannot be experienced locally, how would one go about experiencing it globally? Meaning rather than having a local experience with global climate (like sea level rise or temperature rise or hurricane or snowfall or rain, or a dry summer, etc) how would one go about experiencing global climate on a global scale?

Because the conundrum seems to be if it cannot be experienced locally, how can it be experienced at all? And if it's not experienced at all, why is there any concern about it? I suppose a good follow up question might be if global climate cannot be experienced locally, can a CHANGE in global climate be experienced locally?

All good questions with a lot of dodging and ducking and diving and dipping and dodging. The 5 Ds of climate change discussion you might say.

Vapid comment. This is a discussion not an opinion survey. You might well have just said "bruh".

Chinese industry has upsides and downsides.
As most pertaining to this forum - a big downside is how and from where China is getting its electrical energy from. The source.
That's right.
Coal burning to produce electrical power.
Which is more than half of the cause of the manmade climate change disaster right there.
Worldwide coal burning to produce electricity.
China's getting a lot of its coal from Russia.
And natural gas (also known as methane and also known as CH4). From Russia.
And China getting a lot of its oil from Russia too.
--------------------------------
The Chinese (meaning its leadership too) know that it would be better to not be using foreign fuel and especially not carbon fuel.
They're trying to fix that. But there's no quick fix.
-----------------------------
Ideally - every country would be its own market too and independent of other countries in every way.
But as the centuries pass that has become less and less true.
Which is more complex?
The world's diverse commercial situations or the world's diverse climates?
They both are complex.
But the world has arrived at and within a situation of situations where the first is disastrously interfering with the second.
And the world is 'experiencing' those disastrously collective situations.
-----------------------
Commerce and weather. Both complex.
People seek to simplify.
Result: Over one billion people disagree with the realities of manmade climate change.

I think there are about 75 facilities in the US that turn garbage into energy. We had one (Salem) that operated for as long as I can remember but I think it closed down last year.

There are some places whether in the US or not that have been able to make it work.
Possible keys: 
Done on government land - no landlords or rental fees.
Or the operators already own the land.
Built/bought with cash not from loans.
Most practical technology.
Possiblities of recycling some of it.
-------------------
Problem with burning: more carbon dioxide.

To jump off of this (not oppose it)...

The whole point of technological advance is to free human beings from doing the back breaking kinds of work they used to do and increase freedom and leisure time, If technology is not putting *somebody* out of a job (i.e. reducing work hours), then it is not advancing. The world that technology is ideally striving for is a world where we work an hour a day 3 days a week and want for nothing and travel for free and all own houses on the beach.

It's the 1% that screw this up on one end of the spectrum...they want that ideal for themselves, and they want it right now, but not for you...they would much happier if you toiled 16 hours a day for minimum wage, if they could possibly get away with that. The current economy is geared towards creating mind-numbingly specialized and repetitive jobs. Efficiency is gained at the cost of burning people out in record time and forcing them into new careers.

And then the notion of being protectionist with jobs and the economy is what screws things up at the other end of the spectrum. Just because your grandpa and your dad both worked in coal mines does not entitle you to work in a coal mine and make the same living. Ideally, technology would force you into a job that is better for your health and pocketbook. Some people kick and scream about progress. What they should do is vote for a much better education system and push for much better systems for re-training people that need to change careers.

College in general should be restructured, with universities (a system that is a thousand years old at this point) killing off long term degrees and making much more modular curriculums. Want a job as a medical data analyst (highly lucrative)? Take 18 months of medical and statistical training, 18 months of computer science, hit the workforce, learn the specialization required on the job. That is how jobs should work. There's not a job on the planet that really takes more than 3 years of focused and appropriate training to learn, and that includes doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. General education should be the focus up through high school, and they should be training "how to discern what's real and fake information online" the same way they used to teach Home Economics.

The level of production the world as a whole currently enjoys would easily support a 30 hour work week with enough food and resources for everyone.

End of rant.

I don't know the specifics of burning vs. burying but it seems to me both are going to eventually break down and decompose into their constituent parts. I know when it comes to wood there is no difference between letting it rot or burning it, it releases the identical amount of carbon dioxide. So burning is better because you get the benefit of the heat.

All the other stuff that makes up landfill waste I don't know, but if it also releases methane, carbon, carbon dioxide, etc maybe it would also be more beneficial to burn it and at least get some energy out of it.

Garbage is a complex mixture of materials. I am an advocate for a circular economy, where cheaply dumping waste to degrade the world for future generations is not an option. This strongly encourages recycling and other beneficial choices.

Ah. Someone as cynical as I.

I would go a step farther and claim basic education, the three Rs, takes less than 5 years from toddler to graduation. Beyond that training should take over not general education for 12 years like we have now.

Training being skills not repetive broad based and meaningless nonsense.

No one needs 12 or 16 years to decide "what they want to be" when they grow up.

Everyone should be given skills while young enough to use them. They can always change their mind later.

It's easy to look back as an adult and think "we could do all that stuff twice as fast". But half of kids are having trouble keeping up as it is. Double speed education is for prodigal geniuses.

Much of education in public schools is attempted in over crowded conditions. Eliminate that, cut basic schooling to 5 years, add training for specific skills for another 2 to 3 years and follow with apprenticeships until 16.

Universities should be for people qualified in fields requiring them.

Ideally both garbage and sewage would be recycled.
Recylcing not done nearly as much as it needs to be because of money factors.
Even 'non-profit' recycling can't ignore money because workers still need to be paid.
So such business has to show a 'profit' to pay the workers and expenses with.
Recycling is done more than it used to be but because of increases in population it has hardly made a dent in emissions. And that's if it hasn't increased emissions.

Regarding the forecast for a terrible heat wave in the US during the next week - 
during the last two days the forecast has not changed for the better.
The heat wave is closer now. Becoming more and more likely.
What often happens is that air conditioning usage spikes. Heavily.
Air conditioning uses a lot of electric power.
And then there are electricity brownouts and blackouts because of too much demand.
Then there might be no air conditioning at all or even no electricity for fans.
Especially bad in cities.

The forecast here is for cold. We've had SOME good weather but today it's cloudy and cold. Currently about 56 degrees. I have friends in Montana right now. The forecast for this weekend is up to a foot of snow at Glacier National Park. 4 inches of snow in some of the valleys. They are saying it could bring down power lines. Nobody likes to be without power in the snow. Especially in June.

I don't actually care how long it takes initially, but once a love of learning and solid foundation to take in new knowledge is established, then it's "go time". Personally, if I were worldwide education Czar, I would say this system would be great:

- Montessori self-paced schools replace elementary and middle schools (this requires good Montessori schools, not phoning-it-in style facilities).

- High school becomes foundational general education across a broad range, at the age where kids are able to take in a broader view. Probably 3 years, but could also be self-paced.

- College becomes a more modular, tighter institution with 12 month, 18 month, 24 month building block programs that prepare you for jobs. Some jobs require 1 block, but most would require 2, and some of the more advanced would require 3. Internships should be possible and heavily encouraged during this "block" phase. Need to change career? Pick a block or two and go back to school instead of hoping you can finagle your way into a different role at work that will teach you some new skillsets.

The government, instead of funding colleges broadly, would take the allotment-per-person they currently fund directly to universities and hold it for individuals...not to give them directly, but to only give the college as a "credit" that the student has to release when the student starts a block, helping ensure the funds do not go to general administrative bloat. Funds and grants for research would be handled with a separate budget, as they always should be.

High school would maintain a critical role, because without it in this plan, you could selectively get yourself to adulthood having dodged a general education by focusing your self-paced efforts and then your college "building blocks". This would be dangerous for kids but even moreso because it would encourage over-zealous parents to force their kids into narrow choices the parents want and the kids do not.

Almost any education plan for the US would be better than the current one.

It isn't as much about time spent, although it is, in my estimation, exceedingly long. It's more about what is taught and what isn't.

Assuming the means ($$) were available to bring class sizes down to a teachable number, there remains the wasted repetition and antiquated memorization of basic maths , historic events and literary requirements while things related to real life like personal finance, global politics and practical geography are ignored.

I also stand firmly against any attempts at political indoctrination at any age in public schools. That includes pledging allegiance to a flag, excessive American history that ignores reality or so called citizenship.

"Patriotism" is the rot that destroys societies.