The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Have you ever been out in a boat in a storm, Duke?quote>

I've definitely been on a boat while it was raining, but not in a serious storm. Why?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Duke87:  I was wondering if you'd ever been in a situation where survival gear was ordered.  I have given that order a few times when I was running a yacht, and I have taught both seamanship and weather, including coastal piloting.  I generally speak in these matters with some experience, and not from academic knowledge nor speculation.  When you are the skipper (captain in charge of a small boat), the whole responsibilty for every soul on board and the vessel is yours.  The buck stops with the skipper.  Somewhere around here, I still have my copy of the Ocean Pilot Book, and the Collision Regulations.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Isn't it strange, the things that are placed before SCOTUs?

This is not a matter of law or interpretation of law. The article suggests that this a job for the EPA and its sidekick, Tonto. "Look, Tonto, smoke!" "Ah-ha, kemo sabe, those power plants are at it again."

  Edited April 19, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Duke87 1,070]

A classic example of one of the big problems we have in this country with how people treat government: nobody has any respect for proper division of power, "get it done any way you can" is the name of the game. Forget that this sort of regulation should, if done properly, take an act of congress. Since congress has not been able to pass such an act, that means it shouldn't be happening. But people just won't take no for an answer like that. So, instead, we already have the executive branch legislating (through the EPA), and, unsurprisingly, we also have an attempt to get the judiciary branch to legislate. Disgusting.

[schm0 27]

A classic example of one of the big problems we have in this country with how people treat government: nobody has any respect for proper division of power, "get it done any way you can" is the name of the game. Forget that this sort of regulation should, if done properly, take an act of congress. Since congress has not been able to pass such an act, that means it shouldn't be happening. But people just won't take no for an answer like that. So, instead, we already have the executive branch legislating (through the EPA), and, unsurprisingly, we also have an attempt to get the judiciary branch to legislate. Disgusting.

The EPA, like any federal agency, is bound by law to regulate, administer and act according to it's mandate and the laws governing and defining it. In this case, the Clean Air Act and other such legislation provides the means for the EPA to act independently as it's own entity within the executive branch. The same concept applies to the FBI, the FDA, etc.

The problem actually lies with legislators, who once involved with climate change issues proceed to lie, distort the facts or intentionally mislead in order to protect the interests of the corporations whose factories, power plants and refineries all reside within their states borders (and provide a significant contribution to their campaign election coffers, I might add.) Add a dash of lobbyist and you've got a corruption casserole. It would be ignorant to think that some legislators could fight so long (and successfully) against meaningful environmental regulation in light of the overwhelming amount of data if there weren't some other factor driving them.

The bottom line is, climate change legislation will never advance through Congress until those lawmakers who are ignorant of the science are removed from office. In the meantime, you're left with a patchwork of efforts by the EPA and NGOs to make sure that corporations can't run wild across our environment with no consequences, which is why this group is trying to advance their cause through other means (i.e. the SCOTUS.)

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Clearly, reform is needed. The vested interests are concerned only with their next bonus, earned or not, and not in being good corporate citizens. Everyone thought that corporate buccaneering went out with the last great depression, but these guys are busily driving the bus into yet another morass aided and abetted by the elected poltroons they have in their collective pocket.

Where is our Robert Louis Stevenson? We need him desperately.

Today is the anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. One of the principal companies in this mess gave all its executives a bonus for corporate safety. Does any one see something reprehensible in this scenario?

On another subject, the poll at the head of this thread is nonsense. While people may contribute to the current climatic mess, they are not the cause. We are in the end of the last ice age cycle, and it will get warmer, will we, nil we. That's just plain geology. The human contribution isn't a spit in the ocean. The Hubris of thinking that we can affect geologic processes is like King Canute trying to stop the tide.

  Edited April 20, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[zahrul3 472]

Everything involving global warming is natural, and nature usually solves our mess by itself. There are trees that consume CO2, there are fungi that eat radiation(Link), bacteria that eats oil(Link), earthworms that eats arsenic and toxic waste(Link), bacteria thriving in extremely polluted areas and much more.

Let the nature evolve by itself and leave endangered animals alone, they might evolve sometime or not to be less huntable. Don't cut undersized trees and trees which have little function(eg. mangroves) for furniture and building applications.

[hamsterTK 93]

Everything involving global warming is natural, and nature usually solves our mess by itself.

Yeah, after a long time and after we've been screwed by the consequences.

  Edited April 22, 2011 by hamsterTK  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Everything involving global warming is natural, and nature usually solves our mess by itself.

Yeah, after a long time and after we've been screwed by the consequences.

Naturally. If you mess with nature, it reacts but it is never in a hurry. It doesn't really have a Cheetah mode.

Nature, as a planetary system, is very tolerant, however, the universe sometimes steps in and takes a hand. If you think we can do something about climate change, what would be do if we detected a near earth object on a collision course normal to the plane of the ecliptic (do we ever look there?)? It could easily be to late to even bend over for that final kiss.

[fukuda 351]

bacteria thriving in extremely polluted areas and much more.

Bacteria thrive in sewers, but I wouldn't live in one. There is quite a difference between what living beings in general can tolerate and what humans can or want to

Let the nature evolve by itself and leave endangered animals alone, they might evolve sometime or not to be less huntable.

Forest animals won't suddenly be able to live in open pastures (and people wouldn't let them live there anyway). Evolution can't do wonders, especially with specialized and/or non-migratory animals.

  Edited April 23, 2011 by fukuda  

[penguin1634 43]

There isn't any doubt that the planet will recover, it's just a matter of if we can speed the pace and lessen the blow. Every day humans have a massive impact on the planet. We're a 7 Billion strong species, one of the most populous mammal of our size on this planet. We use entire regions to grow food, acres and acres of buildings to build our products... we have an impact that is unimaginable simply to feed and provide for ourselves. There's no doubt that we have an affect on this planet that is changing it somehow. However, we need to realize that we aren't the only contributor to CO2 emissions. Volcanoes contribute massive amounts, and lets not forget that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere. There are other factors at play.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What we need to do is slow down and live smaller. How much would be saved if transcontinental flights were discontinued and everyone had to go by surface transport (never mind the extra time). Many personal meetings can be conducted by telecommunications.

Instead of developing hypersonic jets, maybe we should be developing better airships, for a more leisurely ocean crossing. I'd rather take my chances in a blimp than on a ship unless it was the QM 2. Maybe the day of the great ocean lines will return, after all. Ship building employs a lot of people and uses a lot of material. Ships can have nuclear power plants, and only a few countries need convincing.

Let's cut down on the use of fossil fuels every way we can. Everyone is convinced that they are contributing to this natural phenomenon because of all the (false) hype. So it is an excuse to seek good, massive alternatives.

[Duke87 1,070]

How much would be saved if transcontinental flights were discontinued and everyone had to go by surface transport (never mind the extra time).

Well, let's consult the almighty Wikipedia.

Boeing 747 = 2.6 liters of jet fuel per 100 passenger km

1998 passenger airplane average = 1.4 MJ/passenger km

QE2 ocean liner = 16.9 liters of diesel per 100 passenger km

Third-generation Prius = 50 miles per gallon of gasoline

East Japan Railway = 0.35 MJ per passeneger km

US intercity rail = 3.17 MJ per passenger km

Considering the varying energy densities of various fuels and considering the US average 1.05 occupants per car, we can convert all that into:

Boeng 747 = 0.86 MJ/p-km

1998 passenger airplane average = 1.4 MJ/p-km

QE2 ocean liner = 6.30 MJ/p-km

Thrid-generation Prius = 1.69 MJ/p-km

East Japan Railway = 0.35 MJ/p-km

US intercity rail = 3.17 MJ/p-km

So, flying is actually more energy efficient than driving, and, at least in the US, also better than taking a train. Compared to a ship, it's several times better.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Ah, but the subject was really transcontinental not intercontinental travel. You have to factor in getting into and out of the airport, along with the lost time and aggravation compared with direct city to city transport by either car or rail.

Also, how many aircraft on transcontinental flights fly with some empty seats? Also, everyone doesn't fly the Boeing JP guzzlers.

[Duke87 1,070]

Ah, but the subject was really transcontinental not intercontinental travel. You have to factor in getting into and out of the airport, along with the lost time and aggravation compared with direct city to city transport by either car or rail.

Unless one's origin and destination points are right near the train station, rail isn't direct, either. Granted, since train stations are generally in the center city, they are more likely to be, but this is anything but guaranteed (lots of suburban office parks out there, many vacation destinations are not in cities, etc.). As for lost time and aggravation, yes, clearing airport security is a huge hassle (a separate argument), and that is why for short hops flying does not make sense. For longer trips, however, the extra speed more than makes up for the extra time cost getting to and through the airport. High-speed rail would have the potential to win for medium-distance trips, though.

Besides, if you want to talk about direct, flight paths are pretty direct. If I am flying from New York to Los Angeles, my plane is going to fly the shortest route possible between the two cities (which, due to the irregular curvature of the earth, is actually not a straight line). Any road or train track, however, will have to negotiate hills, rivers, mountains, cities, etc. and will thus have a longer route. Google says driving from NYC to LA is 2,793 miles. "As the crow flies", it's 2,462 miles. Consider that as well when comparing efficiency.

Also, how many aircraft on transcontinental flights fly with some empty seats? Also, everyone doesn't fly the Boeing JP guzzlers.

Yes, not all planes fly full, and not all planes are similar to a 747. That's why I included the 1998 average number in there (1.4 MJ/p-km) in addition to the ideal full 747 (0.86 MJ/p-km).

[zahrul3 472]

Besides, if you want to talk about direct, flight paths are pretty direct. If I am flying from New York to Los Angeles, my plane is going to fly the shortest route possible between the two cities (which, due to the irregular curvature of the earth, is actually not a straight line). Any road or train track, however, will have to negotiate hills, rivers, mountains, cities, etc. and will thus have a longer route. Google says driving from NYC to LA is 2,793 miles. "As the crow flies", it's 2,462 miles. Consider that as well when comparing efficiency.

Well, actually, planes rarely fly direct. They circle around a holding pattern if the airport is quite busy since you have to queue. Planes also have to wait for a while on the runway to do checks, wait for other planes and stuff. Some flights go around somewhere due to political issues and laws. Some flights go around volcanoes. Basically, the millitary gives alot of emissions and wastes fuel as they can do anything they want to win(which is nearly impossible when you can't find your enemy). Certain steath planes and drones have acceptable emission levels and fuel consumption as they're important for steath operation.

[penguin1634 43]

I think the west is really starting to cut it's footprint. I see cars with 40-60+ MPG on the road, people conserving energy more, and new green technologies becoming to surface, like those telecommunication systems that allow you to chat with people in Hong Kong while sitting in a comfy chair in the USA that Nonny Moose mentioned. I think it's just the cycle of industry: agriculture, heavy polluting industry, then high tech stuff.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Getting back to the real subject, what is being done to survive the present warming trend? There is no doubt that as the trend continues and the ice sheets continue to disappear into the oceans, that salinity will decrease, and shore lines will start changing.

Railing against the tide is a non-starter, but that's all the politicians seem to want to do.

The problem is now, and there is no more time for studies and committees. It is time for the tough to get going.

[hym 358]

And what do you suggest be done? Realistically, a lot of the stuff that environmentalists want done is beyond the realm of good sense.

[Meg 368]

And what do you suggest be done? Realistically, a lot of the stuff that environmentalists want done is beyond the realm of good sense.

Such as . . . ?

[hym 358]

Such as . . . ?

• Decommissioning the US’s oil power plants: Not bad in theory, but the subsequent efforts to block all natural gas drilling or construction of LNG importation facilities to accommodate the growth in demand for natural gas didn’t exactly make sense.
  
• Drive to decommission all of the US’s coal power plants: So what are we replacing the power production capacity with? Natural gas doesn’t make sense since importing LNG is apparently not cool (to say nothing of drilling for natural gas), nuclear is a wonderful choice but that won’t be supported by most environmental groups, and I’ve already explained why wind and solar simply aren’t going to work.
  
• All green power electric grid: It won’t work for reasons I’ve already explained elsewhere.
  
• 10,000 year planning horizon on nuclear storage sites: For some reason, they believed the waste absolutely had to sit in the same place for 10,000 years, instead of a more realistic approach where we moved it around every few hundred years.
  
• Ban on all air travel: Duke87 has some figures on the efficiency of air travel versus other forms of travel.
  
• Ban on all shipment of freight by semi: Trains can handle a good chunk of that freight, but they can’t visit every distribution center in the US, and semis are more efficient at transporting freight than smaller trucks.
  
• Ban on all SUV and pickup sales in US: Sure, not everyone who buys one actually needs one, but there are plenty of people who legitimately need these types of vehicles.
  
• Ban on all non-electric vehicles: Electric vehicles work well if the only thing you’re transporting is people, but strictly electric pickups and SUV’s aren’t going to cut it.
  
• Phase out of MTBE: MTBE was a fuel additive used to help gasoline burn more cleanly, but it didn’t break down in the environment, so environmental groups lobbied to replace it with ethanol. Years later, we successfully proved what the oil companies had said at the beginning of the debate: Ethanol would not be as successful at reducing smog as MTBE was, and MTBE had no known health effects at normal exposure levels.
  
• Ban on all production of pesticides and herbicides: Herbicides are a necessary part of modern food production, as are pesticides. Organic farming isn’t going to feed us all. Pesticides are necessary to control bug populations where people live.
  
• Ban on all synthetic chlorine products: Over 90% of all pharmaceuticals are produced using chlorine, your drinking water is purified using chlorine, many of the products you depend on to live are produced using chlorine, etc.
  
• Ban on all oil-based plastics: I can’t even begin to list all the types of plastic that are dependent on oil.
  
• Re-breading plants to produce natural toxins: For some reason, synthetic pesticides (most of which are designed to be relatively non-toxic to humans and most mammals) are much worse for your health than natural plant pesticides that are designed to be toxic to everything. (To say nothing of the fact that you have to eat those plant toxins, as opposed to simply washing off the synthetic toxins.)
  

Every one of the examples I have listed above has either been done or has been advocated as something that needs to be taken seriously.

[Duke87 1,070]

Electric vehicles work well if the only thing you’re transporting is people

An additional qualification: they work well when you're transporting just people over short distances. With current technology, an electric car will drain its battery dead after only 100 miles or so (compared to the 300-350 it takes to completely drain a tank of gas with a regular car). It then, assuming you have access to a 240V plug, takes four hours to recharge compared to the five minutes it takes to refuel an ordinary car. While an electric car is fine for ordinary commuting and/or errand running, the technology is not currently capable of handling roadtripping or other serious driving. Thus, for most people, it will only work as a second car for the household.

The range issue will be solved as battery technology improves. The problem, though, is that as batteries get beefier, they will take longer to fully charge, not shorter. Speed of charge is directly related to the voltage plugged into. While it would be theoretically possible to charge a car hyper fast with a really high voltage plug, the power grid can't and isn't going to be able to handle sudden huge loads popping up all over the place, so that's not the answer. You either need a way to swap batteries (good luck considering how huge and heavy they are), or to use fuel cells (hydrogen) as a power source rather than traditional batteries.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And what do you suggest be done? Realistically, a lot of the stuff that environmentalists want done is beyond the realm of good sense.

Well! Now that this debate is well established, the answer is man is adaptable in really tight situations. Solutions will be found, and not by screaming greens who are not looking at the whole picture. What can be done? Damned good question. Let us hope that some people in power or with enough clout find enough partial solutions to come together synergistically as a reasonable, affordable answer.

All things being equal, I think this is an NP complete problem, as the mathematicians would say. There is no solution in polynomial time. Therefore only partial solutions are possible, but can be connected.

Let's give a thought outside our American box. What is to be done about the volkerwandrung that will result from the disappearance of much of the land area in Bangladesh? There is going to be a diaspora that will make the Jewish expulsion by the Romans look like a Sunday outing.

With the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, who is going to provide water to the Hind? Millions of people are involved here. Maybe even a billion.

What about some of the low-lying Pacific islands that will be underwater? Anyone living on them will have to go somewhere. How about floating cities? Typhoons?

As the ice comes off the land masses into the sea, what will be the effect of all that extra mass on the very thin crust of the ocean bottoms? Will there be more vulcanism in the oceans? Will this trigger actions along the subduction zones? We've just seen what a force 9 thump can do, with the resultant tsunami, what next?

Crying about green house gas emissions is trivial. What about all that methane locked up in the (melting) permafrost and the warming oceans? One strong volcanic eruption puts more junk into the atmosphere than all the fossil fuels we have ever burned. We should cut down what we are adding, but it really is only a drop in the ocean.

Now hym has addressed some of the domestic questions, and the futility of some of the activities. What if we took all the money there various outfits are wasting and used it to address the larger issues of the warmer, more active climate and the rise of the seas? For example, what do you plan to do to keep Washington, D.C. above sea level?

[penguin1634 43]

I think the future lies in nuclear. Yes, nuclear. Now, just wait, I'm not done yet! We use that to wean ourselves off of gas by making things electric and powered by the humble atom. Then, now with a good window of energy security, switch to biogas, geothermal (my favorite power source next to nuclear ), solar, and wind. There you have it. It will be incredibly expensive and will take years, but it is feasible. It's an idea, something to think about, no?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think the future lies in nuclear. Yes, nuclear. Now, just wait, I'm not done yet! We use that to wean ourselves off of gas by making things electric and powered by the humble atom. Then, now with a good window of energy security, switch to biogas, geothermal (my favorite power source next to nuclear ), solar, and wind. There you have it. It will be incredibly expensive and will take years, but it is feasible. It's an idea, something to think about, no?

Yes. I am against freezing to death in the dark. Everyone agrees that the end of oil is on the horizon, so it is time to start selling nuclear as the necessary stop gap. Notwithstanding horrible examples round the globe that we should take to heart as lessons for those who would be taught, new nuclear sources are needed. There are some new reactor designs used by the U.S. Navy and other military for ships that need to be declassified and come ashore. While the military is very good at hushing things up, I haven't hear a scintilla of a hint of any problems they have had with their power reactors.

I think the best alternative is geothermal. The core huggers can start screaming any time now, but taking some of the heat in the core, especially in volcanic zones can not only be beneficial it might help cool some of the magma pockets that are threatening to break out at unknown times. The pin holes of world-wide geothermal projects would hardly be noticed geologically.

All that nice heat that is bottled up in the good earth could be our salvation. It can lead to Hydrogen plants that produce all the recyclable automobile fuel you could ever want simply by powering electrolysis plants along the sea coast. The by products would be oxygen (quite valuable), and lots of sea minerals which, having been concentrated, could be processed for whatever is in them. Remember, we are talking about a plant that produces lots of power here.

Now before people start screaming about the cost of all this, think about the cost of freezing to death in the dark. I don't care what it costs, I want to be comfy.

While we are talking about comfy, let's kick the ant-hill. We are overpopulated, but we haven't run out of land that can be productive in the food game. First, we have to stop making food into automotive fuel. If you want biodiesel or biogasoline, there is lots of waste around that could be coerced if we had lots of other energy, see above. Of course, with plentiful Hydrogen, why should be want other fuels? Well, they have more energy per mol, for one thing. The more chemical bonds you break in combustion, the more heat you can convert to either electrical or mechanical energy. I thought this was obvious.

So let's feed the world's hungry mouths where we can. There are some outfits on the face of the earth that need to be dealt with summarily. We all know who they are, and their repressed, abused people need to be rescued. How we do that is a good question, but in most cases it should be fairly simple to remove the cause of the misery if it is walking around on two legs. National sovereignty and diplomacy be damned! It has all failed, and in the coming world crisis we can't afford gluttonous satraps. The first step in a real world food program is removal of obstacles, including the clutching middle men and greedy governments. A good start would be a general shake out of the (dis)United Nations. Process if possible, but not necessarily process.

In conclusion, I suggest we stop wasting money on alternate sources such as wind energy, and get with it. We are standing on top of a source of almost unlimited energy and batting our hands in the air for very little return. Start drilling.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I support nuclear power, the only problem is storing the spent fuel rods. I think the plants should be built to recycle fuel rods.

As for storage, the United States was planning to build a storage facility in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but was canned by the Obama Administration. Obviously no one really likes having a nuclear waste dump in their state, but it is neccessary for long term nuclear production. If we can't store radioactive materials deep inside a mountain, then where is it going to go? To various warehouses with varying degrees of security? If the government wants us to use nuclear, they have to store the waste somewhere!

[benjames98 7]

Seeing as I don't believe in global warming, where is the proof that it's happening? There have been record lows the last couple of years.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Climate change is more apparent now than it was when I was much younger. The profile of winters has changed, and in general they are drier and warmer. When I was still in grade school, six-foot snow falls were ordinary occurrences, but they were not the "disasters" that they are now because we took them in stride. There were a lot fewer people around, and the cities were not so likely to be paralyzed by a little snow.

Summers are noticeably warmer in my area. In other areas of the world, there is more weather action. This is a symptom of the atmosphere being warmer, as are the oceans, with the result that the weather engine, driven by heat and water vapor, is more active.

There is indisputable evidence that the polar caps are shrinking. The northern ice pack is opening earlier in the year, making it hard for polar bears to keep eating the seals they depend on. The Greenland glaciers are melting at a phenomenal rate. Big hunks are breaking off the Ross ice shelf in Antarctica. All this fresh water is changing the salinity of the oceans. This will affect all life in the seas.

Flood patterns in the middle of North America are becoming more severe. In recent years the flood control systems in the Dakotas and Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been overwhelmed, as well as problems in the spring run off in the Mississippi valley.

So far, we are only talking about evidence in North America. It would be useful if correspondents in other places would add their observations.

What can man do about it? Almost nothing. This is a geological cycle, and it has happened about every 25,000 years. The cycle goes from ice age to ice age. We are in the middle of the current cycle with the world becoming more and more tropical. The big event will be the release of all the frozen methane from the permafrost and the oceans. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and there is a lot more of it around. The current major source is cow farts, but methane is produced by rotting vegetation, so if you have a composter, you are adding your share, but the big landfills are doing a much worse job.

We can only adapt. Man is an adaptable animal, but currently there are far too many of us. With changing climatic conditions, people living in coastal plains will have to move inland or go elsewhere. In the Hind, there are several hundreds of millions who will be affected. Where will they go? What will they eat? When the flow from the Himalayan glacial melt stops, so will the big rivers like the Ganges. There will probably be water wars there and both India and Pakistan have nuclear arms, eh?

All this salt and brackish water won't support us. It is time to stop bickering about this issue and start building desalination plants in earnest. In the United States, the Colorado river system and Lake Mead are in extremis. L.A. for one, will soon be out of water. What then? Farms in California are ripping out orchards because there is no longer water to support them. Water is going to become expensive unless steps are taken soon.

People may choose to disbelieve that there is some kind of global change going on, but then nobody believed that Hitler would attack Poland, either. It is time to get the heads out of the sand and the thumbs out of the improbable place.

[Alejandro24 575]

Well, I can't ignore this topic. Someone asked for a proof of global warming and climate change. I want to quote one of my physics teachers, Omar Faustino, he is a meteorologist of IAM -Astronomic and Meteorologic Institute of Guadalajara's University- who once a day he did a presentation about this topic. In a few words he said that there are proofs of these two phenomena, but there is the problem of declare it as an official happening because they don't know exactly if it is a cycle or it is new in the world. Our measurement instruments are more exactly and accurate than 50 or 100 years ago. He showed graphs and maps -of the city and the world-, and it is true, there are more accurating in the instruments, so we can measure all the changes, including that ephemeral ones. In the case of the city, there is a cycle every 75 years, when the summer and winter are more extreme than the normal and it is repeating again, but now we can do more better measures than in the 1930's and 1940's, thats because we see it as an unnormal weather. But in the case of the world there is an increassing of the temperatures and a coincidence with the number of natural disasters. As a conclusion he said that global warming is happening, but it is reversible; climate change always happened, and it is inevitable, the Earth is a changing planet; and we can't blame this two phenomena as responsible of the natural disasters, much has to do the human kind and its behavior, as animal and as society.

Despiste yes there is something wrong with the weather, it is true, we can't blame all the weather anomalies to the climate change and global warming. There are a melting of the poles, and we can't avoid it but we can stop to contribute its aceleration; there are floodings and natural disasters, but we can avoid it doing urban planing, risk atlas and restructuring our society. The problems of this planet has its roots from an egocentric system called capitalism. So, what we need to do, restructuring all our system, for the future, when our contribution to this were minimized at the maximum possible. Obviously this will take its time, years. Imagine the world without oil, from now. But everithing starts in a mind, in this case we can act as society: use the public transportation to go to the job or the school, use your car only when you're going out the city; decentralized electric system, green power, use the nuclear systems at its minimum; new forms of transportation; recover old customs as the agriculture home, green roofs, more open spaces; reforms to the water systems, to avoid lost water; recycling; reforms the the urban planing, avoid the suburbanism and slums, impulse the vertical growing, creation of risk atlas for every city and town; meteorological/civil/security alert systems; boost the cientific investigation for green technologies; forgeting of the war; ... there are many forms of how we can contribute, but everything starts in a mind.