r/climatechange

I always hear about how bad things are going to get if we continue at the pace we're at but I never hear the opposite. If we completely stopped the production of greenhouse gases globally, stopped factory farming, stopped producing fast fashion and just adopted environmental measures throughout the world, what would the world look like in the next 50 years. Climate change is irreversible atp but what positive changes could we make?

Im asking because I’ve been looking at the temperature maps over the pacific due the super El Niño that’s on the way and was wondering why we can’t invest to place thermal energy plants in the giant heat “mountain” to stop further events in the future. It might be a very obvious answer but I’m still curious.

In my mind I see it as,

1. We have the ability to turn heat energy into electricity.
2. There is a giant, couple hundred meter deep pool of hot water just sitting there.
3. Why can’t we capitalize on the possible energy opportunity while at the same time lowering the earths temperature?

The purge followed a political backlash against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. After Mamdani urged New Yorkers to set their air conditioners to 78 degrees to prevent power grid strain, several high-profile Republicans—including Senators Ted Cruz and Nikki Haley—criticized the advice as overreach.

The solution for world climate protection is essentially a coalition of countries forcing other countries to do the same co2 cutting measures simultaneously. It’s basically forcing countries to comply.

The United States and Russia are the only 2 countries with Experiance forcing other countries to comply. And they are both not very good at that.

The theoretical climate coalition would somehow need to convince the rest of the world to stop concrete, steel, aluminum, plastic, fuel, and fertilizers production almost completely.

All manufacturing would need to be connected to green or renewable energy. All sources of freshwater would need to be closely metered out to recipients.

This is a tall order. I don’t think any country has a chance unless they form a coalition with all the major powers and immediately start enforcing climate plans.

India, USA, china, Russia, North Korea, the Middle East, and parts of southeast Asian along with parts of Northern Europe and South America all benefit from heavy co2 producing industry. I don’t even know about African countries. I feel like the African continent would need to take the lead on this as they have the least to lose financially and possibly the best systems and Experiance with eco-repair programs.

The climate coalition would somehow need to have a way to prevent those countries from continuing to produce industry goods.

That’s the goal. An almost impossible world war against industry.

Assuming extreme weather conditions continue to plague North America -- especially in coastal cities and areas within the United States -- which areas are least likely to experience severe disruptions/property damage in the next 20 or so years? Which states will become most desirable, if only because access to resources and a somewhat "comfortable" lifestyle are least likely to be affected by severe climate disruptions?

Like the refrigrant in 1980s that the world would signed the Montreal Protocol effectivly removing CFCs from from production due to its destructive effects to the ozone layer.Do you think any kind of similar event like that would happen again after the concerning heatwave that has occured in the eu?