Roughly 80 million people employed by a world environmental corps set up very similar to a military. Each person on the planet would have an invitation to spend two years with the corpse as an employee. With no control over where they’re assigned. I have a feeling there would be a waiting list. Laboratories, test facilities, field operations, construction crews, hospitality Cruise, transportation, everything you would see in the military but more science. Most of the communications were done on open websites with sections for interacting by the public. I think it would have a far-reaching impact on society as a whole in a good way.
Sorry about all the mistakes I was using voice text try to go back and correct it a little bit
Just to be clear, you’re proposing a global environmental authority, funded and staffed by 1% of the world’s economy and population?
If so, I think it’s a neat idea. Sounds like it would be nearly impossible to execute, but still a neat idea. I doubt, though, that any country would willingly give up their sovereignty over their own territory if this organization decided that they needed to interfere in how the country was treating their environment.
Sure, the environment is worth even more than 1%. But I have a hard time seeing nations agreeing to this.
I liked the “an invitation to spend two years with the corpse” part giggle…
I’d volunteer for the environmental corps if it looked at all like it was being run well.
I don’t really get the concept. Research funding can help, but we do not lack scientific knowledge about about the major environmental problems we face. More resources can help, but again the big problems are not attributable to lack of resources. We know what we need to do, but we simply lack the political will to act. What’s missing is not resources, it’s the resolve and unity to make the necessary fundamental changes in the way we do things.
Solving our environmental problems does not require the allocation of 1% of the world economy to some separate “task”. It requires that 100% of the world economy review and adjust the way it functions.
I think we need a much better idea of what we’re dealing with before we decide what to do about it
That’s because you dislike what we know and keep trying to find an alternative reality.
Those types of opinions really stifle research for information
Exactly what do you feel we need more information on?
I’m sure that most of the areas that need research I don’t even know exist but just from the part I’m interested in it would be the biological elements of our atmosphere and soil and all the bacteria and insects and every other way it’s affected. I believe that our biomass is more manageable than often believed or accepted.
Could you be more specific? That post raised a few questions and (IMHO) answered none.
All I’m getting from this is that you lack scientific knowledge.
Is the role of this corps going to be to carry out Seal Team 6-style executions of the C-suite staff and majority shareholders of major fossil fuel companies pour encourager les autres? Because otherwise, what’s the point?
If its focused on habitat and wetlands restoration, reforestation, etc., I can see it being worthwhile, as long as enuf countries want to participate. But otherwise, what @Riemann said. We (humanity) need to alter our course of how we interact with the planet - we know what needs to be done, but lack the will to do it.
Exactly. We’ve known for over 20 years now what to do and had a fairly good idea 30 years ago.
Based on what? Just things you intuitively believe?
It’s not really clear what you are proposing here. Some sort of global multinational scientific paramilitary Peace Corps entity to do…what exactly? Research atmospheric bacteria and insects to see if they will actually be impacted by climate change?
As others pointed out, it seems pretty clear to me that actual scientists are largely in agreement that the current problem is already pretty well defined - the use of fossil fuels as human civilization’s primary source of energy is not sustainable and has a detrimental effect on the global climate.
There are currently a number of known alternatives, but they are imperfect solutions and transitioning multi-trillion dollar economies is problematic, even without entrenched vested interests actively fighting those transitions.
What you propose sounds like a win-win in asking “is it worth investing 1% of the economy into environmental concerns”. But the way you describe it isn’t creating actual economic pain for anyone.
A more accurate questions is “is it worth sacrificing x% of the worlds economy in the short to medium term so we can transition to a new economy that would prevent an environmental and socioeconomic catastrophe that will destroy x+much larger y% of the global economy in the future”.
That is ultimately the problem. People don’t want to sacrifice now to prevent something that they believe is a “future people of the world problem”.
I’m finding quite a few scientists we’ll see a lot of benefits in the carbon dioxide we’re putting in the air. And quite a few other scientists who see managing the biomass as a viable mitigation strategy. The simple fact is we can’t get rid of fossil fuels tomorrow or the next day or even 20 years from now so there’s some extent I need to find out how we can make the most out of living with them. As of today all the evidence points to them being very beneficial at this point now how much higher they can go before they’re not beneficial it’s hard to say. Scientists don’t seem to agree on this one and the modeling is being used is very flawed.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt- until now. You found a buncha scientists saying that? Names and cites?
Kindly provied that evidence then.
Oh really. Then how about some links to substantive and credible research that you think is worth discussing, rather than suggesting that the answer is to spend $1 trillion a year on some vague agenda that you cannot even begin to specify.
So your agenda here is to deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, or to deny the scientific consensus on its consequences? Is that what this thread really is?