Discussion Title: What is the best measure to decrease climate change?

1. What is the best measure to decrease climate change?
1.1. Global politics
1.1.1. Pro: Have a more democratic political system than now.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Some nations have an environmental [plutocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy): the wealthy create the most environmental damage, while the masses bear the brunt of it. If these locations are more democratic, then the masses would have more say and support to keep the wealthy in check from doing that.
1.1.2. Pro: National and international laws that make corporations accountable for environmental impacts.
1.1.2.1. Con: Companies are able to avoid such regulations because of their power and influence.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: Companies are able to [lobby](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States) politicians and bureaucrats to prevent accountability.
1.1.2.2. Pro: Removing or reversing the [‘artificial person’](https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/artificial+person) status would put responsibly and ultimately liabilities back upon the leadership of industry. Possible jail time for a board of directors would be a better motivational tool than a corporate fine that can be written off against profits.
1.1.3. Pro: Governments \(individually and collectively\) should recognize and focus on climate change more.
1.1.3.1. Pro: -> See discussion #3871: Governments all around the world should push for 100% renewable energy as fast as possible.
1.1.3.2. Pro: The focus towards climate change would lead the government towards passing legislation to lower fossil fuels emission \(for instance, through taxation\).
1.1.3.2.1. Con: If the government passes legislation to increase the cost of fuel \(with the increase in taxes\), it would hit poor people the most as opposed to the wealthy \(as it impacts their survival more\).
1.1.3.2.1.1. Pro: Poor people live on hand-to-mouth. An increase in their cost of living will decrease \(in percentage\) their purchasing power, making it more difficult for them to purchase goods necessary for survival. However, this is unlikely to happen for the wealthy.
1.1.3.3. Con: Most sovereign governments have more pressing issues like poverty, hunger, crime, pollution, and overpopulation.
1.1.3.3.1. Con: Climate change is a risk to humanity's survival and [exacerbates](https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-really-about-prosperity-peace-public-health-and-posterity-not-saving-the-environment-120476) other problems governments have to deal with.
1.1.3.3.2. Con: Climate change will likely add to issues like [poverty, hunger](https://apnews.com/88aa7e13071e427d9ef15ea2ac996f82) and so on.
1.1.3.4. Con: There are more direct methods that nations could take to reverse climate change than just getting the government interested and focus on it more.
1.1.3.4.1. Pro: Citizen initiated afforestation and reforestation campaigns can help mitigate or reverse the impacts of climate change more directly.
1.1.3.4.2. Pro: Getting the government to focus on climate change more doesn't equate to them actively working on it. So if countries take direct action, then they may have a better chance of counteracting it instead of waiting on the government to do so.
1.1.3.4.2.1. Con: Getting the government to be more proactive about climate change will [prevent conflicting efforts](https://www.nps.gov/bicy/learn/historyculture/miami-jetport.htm) with government or between government and groups taking action directly with counteracting it.
1.1.3.5. Con: Some countries could not fight against climate change even if they tried. Therefore, it wouldn't make a difference to make them focus on climate change.
1.1.3.5.1. Pro: Some nations are not invested enough in climate change \(like if they're largely unaffected by it\), not powerful enough \(like too small/isolated\), nor further capable \(like they already are doing their best\) to make a difference. So it wouldn't make a difference to get their government to focus on climate change more, as their efforts would likely go to waste.
1.1.3.6. Pro: An increase in science advocacy for climate change research \(R&D\) in government would decrease climate change well.
1.1.3.6.1. Pro: -> See discussion #7768: Science should get more governmental funding.
1.1.3.7. Con: Politicians aren't taking the problem seriously. People have to pressure them by vowing the vote for the parties that make it their highest priorities.
1.1.3.7.1. Pro: People should advocate for more climate change R&D to advance scientific development in it.
1.1.3.8. Pro: -> See discussion #27811: The United Nations is the best forum to tackle climate change.
1.1.4. Pro: Empower Indigenous peoples' fight for sovereignty and learn from them how they have created such relationships with the planet.
1.1.5. Con: The G7 always [fails](https://prospect.org/world/climate-crisis-industrialized-world-failing-to-meet-paris-agreement/) on their environmental agreements. They prefer economical growth to the preservation of the climate.
1.1.6. Pro: We managed to [fill the ozone hole](https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ozone-hole-arctic-1.5551924) thanks to humanity's combined efforts, thanks to banning substances though the successful international environmental agreement called the [Montreal Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol). Much in the same way, it is possible to fix climate change if countries do the necessary actions together for it too.
1.2. Live outside of Earth.
1.2.1. Pro: Go to Mars.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Decreases the effects of overpopulation on Earth by taking some people off it.
1.2.1.2. Pro: Human-generated warming would be very welcome there for habitability, as Mars is [really cold](https://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html).
1.2.2. Pro: If people don't live on Earth, then the climate won't get worse from human activity.
1.2.2.1. Pro: The humans remaining on Earth are likely to enjoy a higher quality of life.
1.2.3. Con: If we don't live on Earth, then we won't be able to actively repair the damage that was done, as we'd be too far away to find and remove it where it is.
1.2.3.1. Con: Humans could come back, but we would just visit, not move.
1.2.3.1.1. Con: The [cost](http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_high_cost_of_space_missions_999.html) of space travel is likely to be high. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that people would come to even visit.
1.2.4. Pro: If we live on giant space stations, the machines would regulate the temperature automatically. If warming gets too much, we space people can just dial down heating.
1.2.5. Con: We would carry the same mitigating factors that caused global warming on Earth to next planet. We need to fix the cause on Earth first to prevent potential transferring.
1.2.6. Con: Sending all humanity to space would generate enough emissions to definitely kill the Earth's ecosystem, if we consider the construction of space ships and the energy necessary.
1.3. Rethink and redesign infrastructure
1.3.1. Pro: Modify the food system.
1.3.1.1. Pro: -> See discussion #9613: Organic farming is better than conventional farming
1.3.1.2. Pro: -> See discussion #7487: Vertical Farming Should Replace Current Agricultural Methods
1.3.1.3. Pro: -> See discussion #15599: Should plastic water bottles have a five-cent deposit on every bottle?
1.3.1.4. Pro: -> See discussion #2762: All humans should be vegan.
1.3.2. Pro: Prioritize an environmental focus on urban development, as [cities are the future for humanity](https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html).
1.3.2.1. Pro: I think humans are so into making bigger buildings, wider roads, and not enough nature preserves and stuff that can make our time on Earth more beneficial. There are buildings being condemned and still we choose to cut down a field of trees to build sky scrapers. We need, as a species, to understand that we are not the only things living on this planet. The first step at taking down a problem is realizing there is one. Climate change is not a joke as people may think it is.
1.3.2.2. Pro: Teach and hire more in systems, civil, environmental engineering for optimization \(like [operations research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research)\) to develop cities better to fight climate change.
1.3.2.3. Pro: Build [smart cities](https://bthechange.com/smart-cities-a-solution-to-climate-change-fb47cf8d939c).
1.3.3. Pro: Develop weather control systems
1.3.3.1. Pro: Doing so would allow us to control the climate in a way that we won't be able to feel the effects of climate change, even when it's happening.
1.3.3.2. Pro: If we could fine-tune the weather changes to counteract climate change's effects, then we can fight against it this way.
1.3.3.3. Pro: Some ideas for weather control to fight climate change include: 1\) heat-reducing clouds using sea spray towers, 2\) wide-area installing of misting/fogging/sprinkling/irrigating gear to impede wildfires, etc.
1.3.3.4. Con: There are a host of ethical and logistical issues where [something can go wrong](https://www.space.com/36044-geostorm-trailer-weather-goes-wrong.html) in implementing it.
1.3.4. Pro: Figure out the least contributing form of transportation.
1.3.4.1. Pro: -> See discussion #31208: E-vacations \(i.e. virtual travel\) can replace real ones.
1.3.4.2. Pro: -> See discussion #10294: Ecotourism is not sustainable.
1.3.4.3. Pro: -> See discussion #2710: Battery electric vehicles are better than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
1.3.4.4. Pro: -> See discussion #9351: Private cars should be forbidden in large cities.
1.3.4.5. Pro: -> See discussion #18711: Carpooling is the way of the future
1.3.5. Pro: Have a new economics system \(or mode\).
1.3.5.1. Pro: Capitalism is based on [exploitation](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/exploitation)* for profit. A transformation into another system may provide a chance towards finding the best measure to prevent it.
1.3.5.1.1. Con: Capitalism is superior than socialism on environmental issues, as evidenced by the fact that capitalist West Germany is now cleaning up [the environmental crimes in formerly socialist East Germany](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/deutschland-kaempft-noch-mit-umweltschaeden-der-ddr-industrie-13766763.html) \("DDR"\).
1.3.5.1.2. Pro: Capitalism encourages a culture of [consumerism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism). This promotes producing more goods to be purchased, which is harmful for the environment.
1.3.5.1.3. Pro: Capitalism encourages [profit-maximizing](https://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/33947723.pdf) behavior which causes companies to pollute the environment. Since a socialist economy is not based on profit, companies in that economy are unlikely to pollute the environment. So a socialistic system would be better to transfer into for climate change.
1.3.5.1.4. Con: It shouldn't be to socialism though, as that is based on exploitation of both the [lower rank masses](https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=9206) and [higher ranks](https://mises.org/wire/4-reasons-why-socialism-fails) of people too for the benefit of powerful party [fat cats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_cat_%28term%29).
1.3.5.1.4.1. Con: [Libertarian socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) avoids this problem by not having powerful party fat cats in the first place.
1.3.5.2. Pro: A zero waste economic system is a thought.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: The creation of new services and products need a direct alignment with zero waste, pollution and environmental impact when produced and 100% recycled where possible.
1.3.5.2.2. Pro: Counteract all those, mostly known, pollution-sources in a functional engineered, doable way without destroying economies. For example, if a production-site has been blowing dirty stuff into the air for many years, since that was okay back then, it should make now known tech-adjustments in order to catch all that stuff and transform it into other useful stuff. Though this is known in the industry as "there are no waste items anymore only different stages of form", many still do not do this.
1.3.5.2.3. Pro: Shift from the expensive, destructive 1-way mine/make/use/dump supply chains and design thinking inherited from the 20th century to cleaner, smarter, more profitable models that are circular, regenerative and distributive - by design. \(Proven principles like [Circular Economy](http://www.circulardesignguide.com), [Doughnut Economics](http://kateraworth.com/doughnut), [biomimetic technologies](http://www.biomimicry.net) that translate into the existing commercial solutions ranked by [Project Drawdown](http://www.drawdown.org/solutions).\)
1.3.5.3. Pro: Decrease poverty
1.3.5.3.1. Con: One way to decrease poverty would be a UBI. However, that would be a redistribution of wealth with no-strings-attached, so people won't by given a direction with it. Because of that, there may be no value generated in this, rendering it practically useless towards fighting climate change \(unless somehow the UBI motivates them\).
1.3.5.3.2. Con: Just eliminating poverty alone is not going to shape people into thinking about what needs to be done or modify their behaviors, so they're more conscious. Poverty could only work provided it's a contingency for fighting climate change, or it won't work.
1.3.5.3.3. Pro: People who are wealthier tend to be more conscious and capable to help the planet. If we help people become more wealthy, there's a great chance more people will team together to end the climate change issue.
1.3.5.3.4. Con: Since it's the wealthier and more developed nations that contribute the most to climate change, it's better to have a 'game plan' of how developed nations decrease their emissions/resource consumption before creating more nations like this.
1.3.5.4. Pro: Create a [value-based economy](http://www.larrychang.info/writings/Notes%20for%20a%20Value-based%20Economy.pdf) focused on sustainability, people, and environment.
1.3.5.4.1. Pro: If we measure trade-offs when obtaining a good/service, we're more likely internalize and be affected by it more to the point that we'd work on our costs of expenses.
1.3.5.4.2. Pro: We should remove money from human society to create an economic model based on sustainability, health and open access, as that's what we [desperately need](https://socialrebirth.org/social-conversation-desperately-need/) right now to fight climate change.
1.3.5.5. Pro: Change economic incentives
1.3.5.5.1. Pro: Enact [pigouvian taxation](https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-examples-4157479) for all economic transactions that have negative environmental externalities.
1.3.6. Pro: Tackle energy.
1.3.6.1. Pro: -> See discussion #28142: Universities Should Divest from Fossil Fuels.
1.3.6.2. Pro: -> See discussion #15900: Renewable energy sources and sufficient energy storage should replace fossil fuels for grid power.
1.3.6.3. Pro: -> See discussion #6182: Nuclear power \([fission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)\) is desirable for sustainable energy production
1.3.6.4. Pro: -> See discussion #25343: Should Canada build the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion?
1.3.6.5. Pro: -> See discussion #30393: Is Low Energy Nuclear Reaction \(LENR\) technology the solution to fossil fuel burning?
1.3.6.6. Pro: -> See discussion #15489: Deep sea oil and gas exploration in the Great Australian Bight should be banned
1.3.6.7. Pro: -> See discussion #9620: Wind farms have more advantages than disadvantages.
1.3.6.8. Pro: -> See discussion #10385: Governments shouldn't subsidize ethanol.
1.3.6.9. Pro: -> See discussion #9326: Nuclear energy should be used to replace fossil fuels.
1.3.6.10. Pro: -> See discussion #7587: Fracking should be banned.
1.3.7. Pro: Create an [arcology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54) to preserve the environment.
1.3.8. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.
1.3.9. Pro: Improve the education system to focus on resolving climate change through teaching related courses on it.
1.3.10. Pro: Open access/sourcing: enable more ways for anyone to easily measure, share, and verify data to be able to truly target what's contributing to climate change.
1.4. Create and utilize innovative sci-fi ideas for Earth that already exist.
1.4.1. Pro: Catch planetary heat and shoot it into space \(like a worldwide AC, putting it into containers that go into space, etc.\).
1.4.1.1. Con: Rockets are usually [kept cool to not overheat](http://web.archive.org/web/20170307153811/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730022965.pdf) \(pg 17\). So to increase the heat may lead to rockets not working adequately.
1.4.1.1.1. Con: Rockets [get heated up to combust its fuel](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/reference/rockets-and-rocket-launches-explained/) and so captured heat from Earth could be used for that specific purpose.
1.4.1.2. Con: Heat is energy, if we shoot it out, we may come to regret it when we will need power in the future.
1.4.1.2.1. Con: There are so many other sources of power, that it wouldn't be difficult to access more heat.
1.4.1.2.2. Con: We'll just have to make do without it.
1.4.1.2.3. Con: If the heat is contained and/or close enough nearby \(like in water\) when it's in space, it could quite possibly be recoverable.
1.4.2. Pro: [Move Earth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oim7VvUURd8) away from the Sun until we reach the correct temperature.
1.4.2.1. Con: The damage caused by factors that increase climate change won't go away and unfortunately would be ignored/neglected more \(like [ocean acidification](https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification) from higher CO2 levels\) if we just change the temperature.
1.4.3. Pro: [Move the Sun](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3y8AIEX_dU) away from the Earth to cool the Earth down.
1.4.3.1. Pro: This will limit our worries about other climate change inducing issues too, like solar flares and the Sun continually getting hotter as it turns into a red giant.
1.4.3.2. Con: Our solar system works with its heliocentric orbit and can mess up the arrangement of it to where it could create more disastrous issues than climate change would.
1.5. Carbon management \(i.e. limit emissions\).
1.5.1. Pro: Corporations should be fined for excessive carbon emissions.
1.5.1.1. Con: Corporations are likely to pass on the cost of taxes to consumers, which will make the fines ineffective. The reason is that it is unlikely to affect their profits and thus it won't cause them to lower their emissions.
1.5.1.1.1. Con: This does not make fines on emissions a bad measure. Consumers will be more likely to consume alternative products that require less emissions if they are cheaper. Due to the lower demand, corporations will change what they display to consumers to increase profits. So while it doesn't directly impact corporate behavior, it does do so indirectly.
1.5.2. Pro: Fixing global warming by [carbon capture](http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/) \(putting carbon in the air back into the soil\), might solve temperature problems but will not solve other air toxicity problems, leading to a greater imbalance on other situations.
1.5.2.1. Pro: Environmental chemists have [warned](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html) that complex interactions between chemistry and climate change might be making chemicals more toxic and the environment more susceptible to damage.
1.5.2.1.1. Pro: Melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean exposes more seawater to the atmosphere, which may make it easier for toxic chemicals in arctic waters to escape into the air. So global warming could produce more [air pollution in the arctic](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html).
1.5.2.1.2. Pro: Climate change will cause differences in the movement, quality and distribution of water that could affect [stream acidity](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html) all over the world. This would alter the toxicity of chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, which make their way into these streams when they are excreted into waster water and flushed down the toilet.
1.5.3. Pro: We can plant much more trees.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Not only do they capture [CO2](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/), but also they [cool](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190325173305.htm) our cities, provide their own microclimate and even create [rain clouds](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-15/trees-make-rain-ease-drought/10236572), provide us with [forage](http://www.fao.org/3/T0632E04.htm) for some of our animals, wood for our [structures](http://www.borealforest.org/school/trees.htm') \(new trees can grow in the places that old ones have been felled\), provide [food and medicines](http://www.fao.org/3/u5620e/U5620E02.htm) and finally they nurture our [spirits](https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=aYWDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR16&lpg=PR16&dq=trees+nurture+our+spirits&source=bl&ots=U5e86QhVbb&sig=ACfU3U3vliQD2N86L4DzaRvqBNnXAJqg4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRxfbn847mAhVPQBoKHYECCygQ6AEwE3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=trees%20nurture%20our%20spirits&f=false).
1.5.3.2. Pro: A [study](https://apnews.com/8ac33686b64a4fbc991997a72683b1c5) found that one trillion trees would stop it \(might be the best method too\).
1.5.3.3. Pro: Planting trees is one of the most cost-effective methods in many areas of the world both economically and politically.
1.5.3.3.1. Pro: Planting trees is the most cost-effective method in many [tropical areas](https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/a-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction#) that have little potential for rapid development in infrastructure.
1.5.3.3.2. Pro: [Team trees](https://teamtrees.org/) plants a tree for as low as $1.
1.5.3.4. Con: As plants, like trees, are part of the carbon cycle. While alive, they release [half the carbon they absorb](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=826#:~:text=Answer%201%3A,released%20again%20into%20the%20atmosphere), as well as [soil microbes](https://news.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected) that live off them. Also, when they die, most of the carbon that's stored gets eventually released back into the atmosphere anyway through some means \([decomposition, fire,](https://www.americanforests.org/blog/forests-carbon-sinks/) [fossil fuels](https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/fossil_fuel.htm), etc.\). So planting more trees is an inefficient way of removing CO2 to decrease climate change.
1.5.3.4.1. Con: Although typically plants fix carbon into the soil at [1.5-2%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343515001013), trees can sequester another [13% underground](http://changingclimate.osu.edu/assets/images/content/articles/011011-infogfx.jpg). While not much, at a large scale, it adds up.
1.5.3.4.2. Con: Trees don't lose their carbon just from dying. So if they're preserved \(especially the trunk, where most of the CO2's located\) after they die to prevent it from being impacted by the elements \(like decomposition, decaying into soil, etc.\), like being made into fire-proofed [wooden housing material](https://committedtowood.koskisen.com/en/wood-working/wood-products-store-carbon-for-their-entire-useful-life), then they can be much more effective in retaining carbon.
1.5.3.4.2.1. Pro: With climate change increasing the number and [growth](https://phys.org/news/2018-07-carbon-affects-response-climate.html) of plants, paired with rampant population growth, utilizing this for housing become a quick and viable option in the future.
1.5.4. Pro: -> See discussion #31640: People should go vegan if they can.
1.5.5. Pro: [CO2 capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage) \(CCS\) is one removal method. An example is a globally located, landscape-integrated [CO2 scrubber](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/co2-scrubbing.htm) [tower](https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1h3MzHpXXXXa8XXXXq6xXFXXXg/222136853/HTB1h3MzHpXXXXa8XXXXq6xXFXXXg.jpg) with a [wind-power](https://www.kenresearch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Wind-Turbine-Towers.jpg) collector \(to let wind-swirls centrifugally bring in dirty air\) combined with a fun place for recreation \(for public approval\).
1.5.6. Pro: [Atmospheric CO2](https://www.thoughtco.com/worst-greenhouse-gases-606789) causes the worst overall manmade climate change effects, so mitigating it through our behaviors will be the most feasible \(in terms of prevention\) and impactful focus we can do to fight it.
1.5.6.1. Con: Focusing upon CO2 might be the wrong thing to do altogether: higher CO2 is [beneficial for plant life and might well be a part of the self regulation the Earth](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/) is capable of as in the [Gaia hypothesis as described by prof James Lovelock](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gaia-hypothesis).
1.5.6.1.1. Con: Although plant life grows better with more CO2, there is unintended consequence of not growing the same type of plant we expect, but one of [lower nutrients](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops), [more prone to pests](https://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/plants_need_co2_to_live_so_isnt_more_of_it_a_good_thing), [competition with weeds](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/), etc., where we do need to focus on that shift.
1.5.6.1.1.1. Con: Plants will do better with more CO2, and even though there are losses, they're [not as bad](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops) as when we keep CO2 levels low.
1.5.7. Con: We are already using carbon management it does have an affect on climate change but is [not reversing it all together](https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/).
1.5.8. Pro: -> See discussion #14080: It is appropriate for the EPA to declare biomass to be carbon neutral.
1.5.9. Pro: -> See discussion #25338: A carbon tax should be used to subsidize everything that reduces the carbon footprint of consumers.
1.5.10. Pro: -> See discussion #30792: The US should adopt a carbon fee and dividend plan to address the primary cause of climate change.
1.5.11. Pro: -> See discussion #29370: The EU should introduce a carbon tax.
1.6. Do nothing \(politically, behaviorally, etc.\).
1.6.1. Pro: -> See discussion #16560: The world would be better without humans.
1.6.2. Con: This does not address fighting climate change. Doing nothing is simply useless/detracting from the issue, unless doing nothing actively fights climate change.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Not talking about issues won't solve the problem. This is quite litteraly [baby behavior](https://scitechdaily.com/why-children-believe-hiding-their-eyes-makes-them-disappear/).
1.6.3. Pro: By doing nothing, everyone will passively adjust their micro-behaviors according to their surroundings, based on how they naturally react to it. So if they notice negative changes due to climate change and decrease their contribution to it, they may eventually lead to fighting climate change without realizing it.
1.6.3.1. Con: People are unlikely to want to change their behaviors passively.
1.6.3.1.1. Pro: Many climate change policies [hurt](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/governments-must-reduce-poverty-not-emissions-by-bjorn-lomborg-2019-09) the poor. Therefore, it is unlikely they will want to adopt such policies on their own.
1.6.4. Pro: Sometimes trying to counteract something may make the issue get worse or be worse than doing nothing, so doing nothing prevents this risk from actually happening.
1.6.4.1. Pro: One example is where people may engage in other behaviors that are more harmful to the environment than any benefit they create, as they justify their behavior through [moral self-licensing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing).
1.6.4.1.1. Pro: If people go vegan, they feel they can travel more, as they're offsetting their footprint. However, [travel](https://www.popsci.com/g00/3_c-6bbb.utux78hn.htr_/c-6RTWJUMJZX77x24myyux78x3ax2fx2fbbb.utux78hn.htrx2fx78nyjx78x2futux78hn.htrx2fknqjx78x2fx78ydqjx78x2f100_6c_x2fuzgqnhx2fnrfljx78x2f7562x2f52x2fhqnrfyj-hmfslj-htsywngzynts_6.oulx3fnytpx3dwTvq4BNnx26khx3d05x2c05x26n65h.rfwpx3dnrflj_$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$) creates more greenhouse gases than the vegan diet prevents, which could increase when people change their behaviors to go vegan.
1.6.4.2. Pro: One example is vaping, where the substitution for something unhealthy \(cigarettes\) lead to an alternative that is [worse](http://www.center4research.org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/) than the original: e-cigarettes. This could happen with climate change, where we replace one negative behavior with a worse one.
1.6.4.3. Pro: Governments may 'jump on the bandwagon' for legislation that they feel may be have success without really looking deeply into whether it will or not, and may unintentionally enact something that's worse for the environment than not to and looking into it first.
1.6.4.3.1. Pro: [In California](https://weather.com/science/environment/news/drought-california-town-dumps-bad-water), residents were told to save water due to a drought and the response was so good, that the reservoir overflowed and the excess got dumped. If the government didn't tell people to be more environmentally conscious, this wouldn't happen.
1.6.4.4. Pro: The climate engine is so complex that it is unlikely to ever be fully understood. Human intervention into a complex system is more likely to have other, as yet unknown, negative effects on the environment. Leave nature to do its thing and rather mitigate against the climate changes as they occur. Learn to change what you can change, leave alone that which you cannot influence, and hopefully have the wisdom to know the difference.
1.6.5. Con: Inaction may lead to further inaction when something is truly needed \(like emergencies or being proactive\), due to being in that mode. This could end up being disastrous.
1.6.6. Con: Inaction is the human behavior that has us in the situation in the first place since the coal smoke smog and its fine particulates started [killing citizens of London](https://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8634378_effects-pollution-industrial-revolution.html), causing everyone on the planet to get [affected and effected](http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301) by human generated climate change \(which continues to now\). 'Someone else will take care of it' just won’t work.
1.6.7. Con: [Significant and exponentially increasing human population](https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth) means all negative climate change systems are going to become more dangerous and egregious all the time. Inaction can’t be a viable path.
1.6.8. Pro: Not believing it. Climate change could be a made up issue and when people stop believing in it, it'll go away.
1.6.9. Pro: A lot of companies create [greenwashing](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp), due to people wanting to take action to fight climate change, which causes people to consume more in an effort to protect against climate change, while in reality, they're damaging the environment when they aren't aware of it. If greenwashing didn't exist, then people could avoid environmental damage by seeing the reality of what's happening.
1.6.9.1. Pro: Climate protesters also like to often exaggerate their claims in order to spread their beliefs further. This only accelerates greenwashing and green parties in governments will use this to claim that protesters are the majority of the human population.
1.6.10. Pro: Stop production.
1.6.10.1. Pro: Stop most factories on Earth
1.6.10.2. Pro: Halt constructions. Construction might be the industry that emits most CO2.
1.6.11. Pro: -> See discussion #30084: No one should feel obliged to change their lifestyle to combat global warming.
1.7. Change our behaviors.
1.7.1. Con: Changing individual behavior doesn't reverse the already existing devastating impacts of climate change.
1.7.2. Pro: All world citizens should get and have a vested interest in global survival and need personal investment and action in solving imminent threats to existence like human propagated climate change.
1.7.2.1. Pro: -> See discussion #3185: The ecological crisis Earth is facing should become the collective and singular focus of society.
1.7.2.2. Pro: If the worlds nations unite and truly put forth an effort to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, and other global warming causes, then climate change could be halted.
1.7.2.3. Pro: Education about birth control and the importance of stopping population growth in general.
1.7.2.4. Pro: Adapt to the changes and think that what we could have and should have done to prevent this. The reason is because no one's changing till its too late and the irreversible becomes the inevitable.
1.7.3. Pro: -> See 1.5.4.
1.7.4. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.7.
1.7.5. Pro: Pray \(or pray more\) to your religion to solve the climate change problem.
1.7.6. Pro: Change society one person at a time.
1.7.7. Pro: -> See discussion #30534: Recycling is a good thing. It will contribute solving the ecological crisis and preserving life on earth.
1.8. More research and development \(R&D\).
1.8.1. Con: Much research into climate change is funded by [corporations](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hold-corporations-accountable-climate-deception). Therefore, proposed solutions are unlikely to go against their interests which means that they're unlikely to be effective.
1.8.2. Con: Climate change itself is already [extensively studied](http://www.fao.org/climate-change/resources/publications/en/) and many effective solutions are [well proposed](https://www.climatecentral.org/library/publications) and well known. The block to fighting climate change is not lack of knowledge but lack of implementation of knowledge
1.8.3. Con: R&D is a long term solution. We do not have enough time left for research and should focus on applying what we already know.
1.8.3.1. Pro: The ongoing disastrous effects of climate change merit [immediate](https://www.edf.org/climate/why-fighting-climate-change-so-urgent) attention.
1.8.4. Pro: Funneling funding towards the commercialization of discoveries from doing so with climate change R&D could allow for ideas to have a real impact in decreasing climate change.
1.8.5. Pro: -> See discussion #16729: There should be further research on solar geoengineering.