Is it possible to stop the disaster of the climate crisis?

Climate change is a disaster in an event that happens faster than expected, but the humanity that causes the disaster has the possibility of dying, according to the Secretary General of the United Nations: "The climate emergency is a race in which we lose but it can be won"

Coastal cities are sinking. Illustration: shutterstock
Coastal cities are sinking. Illustration: shutterstock

The corona epidemic almost made him forget the existential disaster on his knee, the climate crisis. The corona caused a recession in industrial and transportation activity and for a moment it seemed that global warming was stopping or at least moderating, but it wasn't. Because even though in the recent period there was a decrease in emissions, when the attention of the public and its leaders is directed to the attempts to overcome the new epidemic, the world continues to heat up due to greenhouse gas emissions and the question arises, is there a possibility to stop the ongoing disaster?

Climate change is a disaster in that it happens faster than expected, but the humanity that causes the disaster has the possibility of dying, according to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres: "The climate emergency is a race in which we lose, but we can win." Climate change, the increase in temperature fueling extreme climate phenomena, damage to the environment, natural disasters, damage to the security of food and water supply, Damage to the economy, friction between countries and the spread of terrorism, the rise of the water level in the oceans, the increase in the acidity of the ocean water, forest fires and many more hazards and disasters.

When the costs of the hazards of climate change reach enormous numbers, it is clear that "business as usual" behavior is not a solution, therefore bold and continuous cooperation is needed to stop the warming.

Every year, billions of tons of GHG are emitted into the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. Human activity produces greenhouse gases in record quantities with no signs of slowing down and reducing emissions. According to a summary of the United Nations Environment Department (UNEP) that refers to the past decade: "We are on the way to The continuation of emissions means business as usual."

According to a report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO): "The last four years have been the warmest since regular measurements began." We are one degree above the pre-industrial temperature and are approaching a situation that scientists warn of and describe as an unacceptable risk of crossing the point of no return.'

In 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed which calls for stopping the warming "well below two degrees" and for a combined effort to limit the increase to one and a half degrees, but if the emission of greenhouse gases is not stopped then by 2100 the temperatures may climb above three degrees, which will cause irreversible environmental damage.

Glaciers and ice surfaces at the poles and in mountainous areas are melting faster than ever and causing sea levels to rise, two thirds of the world's cities, each of which has more than five million inhabitants, are located in areas where there is a risk of flooding due to sea level rise. About 40% of the world's population lives within 100 km of a coast. Without preventive action, areas of: New York, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro and much more (and Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, Nahariya ), will be under water and their population will be forced to migrate during our lifetime.

Global warming harms everyone's food and water supply, climate change is one of the direct causes of the decline in soil quality and its ability to contain carbon. Today, about half a billion people live in areas affected by soil erosion, and as a result, there is a decrease in the ability to grow and, in addition, about 30% of the food is lost or wasted.

In many regions, climate change causes a limitation in the quantity and quality of drinking water for agriculture. In many areas where crops have thrived for centuries, farmers are struggling to survive because they are unable to grow enough food.

All the vulnerabilities and hazards described primarily affect poor populations, so it is very likely that the continuation of global warming will increase the economic differences between rich and poor countries.
Disasters related to climate and extreme weather events have always been part of the global system, but due to warming they are becoming more frequent and extreme. All continents are affected מHeat waves, periods of drought, storms and storms cause enormous destruction all over the world. Today, 90% of disasters are classified as weather hazards related to climate change and global warming, disasters whose economic cost is about 500 billion dollars a year and every year and cause about 30 million people to fall into poverty.
Climate change causes increased competition for resources such as: land, food, and water, thus posing a threat to security and peace by fueling social tensions and sometimes causing mass displacement. Climate change doubles the existing risks and challenges. Drought periods in Africa and South America cause violence and political unrest. .

According to the World Bank's assessment: "Without action, more than 140 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and South Asia will be forced to migrate by 2050.

According to science, climate change cannot be refuted, but at the same time, scientists state that it is not too late to mitigate the damage. For this, a fundamental change in all social and economic approaches is necessary, a change in the way we grow food, use the land, transport products, a change in the way the economy operates and drives, stopping the crazy race of shopping and unnecessary purchases, stopping the unnecessary aspiration for a "growing economy".

It is possible to mobilize to change and improve the same technology that "contributed" to climate change and with its help reduce emissions and clean up the world. Already today there are technological solutions to reduce emissions by more than 70% from the sources of production, electricity, transportation and industry. In many places, cheap renewable energy is available and enables economy and industry without polluting emissions.

Until energy from renewable and clean sources is accessible and widespread, until the global economy abandons or at least moderates the use of fossil fuels, it is appropriate to use interim solutions based on natural processes, such as planting trees, correct land use, restoring damaged soils and implementing correct agricultural methods, preserving and improving natural environmental systems , improving food menus and preventing wastage of food and water, and once again stopping the race after economic growth.

Adapted technologies, actions and initiatives based on processes in nature will make it possible to gradually move towards a safer and cleaner world, when governments, businesses, companies, young people and scientists join forces we can create a green and harmonious future between people and nature.

Oh, yes, to all this we will add that: instead of controlling the environment by the human population, there should be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.

More of the topic in Hayadan: (Beresheet is the Hebrew name for the book of Genesis)

29 תגובות

  1. Suissa
    What is the connection between the shallow newspaper article you linked to and your claim?

    Wolves are really not on the verge of extinction. Domestic dogs, on the other hand, are a selfish and cruel distortion created by an intelligent creature. A domestic dog will not survive a week without the human.
    This is actually a good example that intelligent planning is a bad idea.

  2. Suissa responded:
    July 23, 2020 at 18:06

    Dear Nissim, you wanted a basis for scientific evidence, here is one https://www.ynet.co.il/article/rJC4XpEeD And if you don't understand that either, then the respected professors come to an insight that says it is not randomness, it is a certain quality that leads to survival. "It was said in our sources long ago more than 120 years ago that Hogar should not be glorified as a key". Miracles are muted.

  3. Yossi Paintoch
    The cattle industry accounts for roughly 10% of hydrocarbon gas production, while fossil fuel burning accounts for 64%.

  4. What is the part of the beef industry in the aggravation of the climate change on our planet - is this really where the solution lies?

  5. Dear Nissim, you wanted a basis for scientific evidence, here is one https://www.ynet.co.il/article/rJC4XpEeD And if you don't understand that either, then the respected professors come to an insight that says it is not randomness, it is a certain quality that leads to survival. "It was said in our sources long ago more than 120 years ago that Hogar should not be glorified as a key".

  6. Suissa
    A wise man does not argue about things he has not learned. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what randomness is, and you have no idea about physics. But - you have opinions, and you have "substantiation" for these opinions.

    If a person who doesn't know but thinks he knows, it's impossible to have a conversation.

  7. Miracles, thank you, thank you. It was nice to talk to you. Indeed, I do not have a scientific education, not bad indeed, I wrote gibberish. I have no education either. So I wrote nothing happened. The conversation is light in a good spirit. Thank you dear and wise man.

  8. Suissa
    Cantor did not research or write about randomness. There is no connection between group theory and randomness.

    What you wrote about time and volume is simply the nonsense of an arrogant person who lacks any scientific education.

    There is no point in this conversation.

  9. Nissim, thank you for your attention. Annie expects a man to take this or that person or thing seriously. Seriousness is an individual thing, it's a personal thing. And now for the example you gave. In the disintegration of a particle, in my opinion, the volume and time will not be preserved. And I should make it clear that I will give an example that is only mine and only in my opinion. In my opinion, time equals mass equals volume. T time = M mass = Z3 (Z in the third). So not everything is saved. It's like five apples weighing a kilo scattering after an explosion. So if you weigh each apple alone you will get the same weight, the same taste, the same movement. But the volume of the particle will be different and so will the time. Because as I said time equals volume. Regarding randomness, there is no such thing as randomness and there is no such thing as randomness and it is not a real thing. Randomness is not a realistic thing. Randomness is not a scientific thing. Randomness is not a scientific thing. And this is my absolute opinion always. Nissim I would suggest you read group theory and read the mistakes of Cantor who in my opinion is the wisest and wisest person in the last 200 years. Why you call randomness is a group that is not completely random and is completely accurate of the disintegration of this or that particle or this or that physical event. I would conclude in my opinion that the randomness that Tea is talking about is also a group and is not completely random. I hope this comment will not disappear and be deleted like the previous one.

  10. Thank you Nissim for your learned answer. A big thank you that you relate and respond to things from your knowledge and education and you have a lot of education. I say again everything I say and write is my opinion only and of course and absolutely my opinion could be wrong. Annie expects a man to take me seriously, man, man, and his seriousness is him. Everything I say here is simply free speech that is given in terms of seriousness to the scrutiny of scientists and academics only. And to emphasize, I simply use free thinking and nothing more. And to emphasize, I am not a scientist, nor an academic, nor an educated person either. There is simply an abstract discussion here in which I express my opinion only and it does not have to be correct. And now for your response, if you would be interested in considering and responding to my opinion, I would be very grateful. As soon as a particle disintegrates, it is inflated and, in my opinion, volume equals time equals mass T time = M mass = Z3 (in the third) space, volume. There are five oranges in the bag, at the moment of the explosion the apples scattered, the mass remained. After all, you can weigh them all and they will give an accurate weight. The energy is accurate, what dissipated is exactly the force that was applied. Start all the charger fact they remained sweet. But time has changed and the volume has changed. So that's in a nutshell my stupidity about the particle. And of course it is subject to your review and consideration. By the way, in the third, T=M=Z3 is my formula, so you can take it as a completely wrong statement. Now to the topic itself, randomness in my absolute opinion does not exist and cannot exist and randomness in my absolute opinion is unscientific and randomness in my absolute opinion is anti-science and anti-logic and anti-truth. And in my absolute opinion, whoever thinks otherwise is completely wrong. I would recommend it to you and anyone who wants to know a thing or two. To study group theory, to study Cantor's mistakes, no greater scientist than him has arisen in the last 20 years. That is, "the decay of the neutron is a completely accurate calculation that maintains a finite or infinite group" and according to Soysa there is no such thing and randomness does not exist and to add Soysa claims that randomness is also a completely accurate anisfinite group.

  11. Suissa
    Your answer is wrong. In the disintegration of particles everything that is needed is preserved - mass, energy, charge, spin, angular momentum and so on.

    Your assumption is wrong - the decomposition process is random.

    We learned 120 years ago that our logic is very wrong. That's why we check again and again and again every discount of ours.

    You have the right to keep your "reason", but don't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

  12. Dear "miracles" you put me in the place of academics. And I'm not an academic, I don't have the knowledge and understanding of an academic, therefore I am. That is, I cannot answer you with tools and academic language and at an academic level. Believe me, I am a simple person and nothing more than that. And yet I will answer you at my level with my lips if you want to be interested. So that's it. My logic says that if a neutron decays then there is an energy change and a change in mass. And as is known energy does not disappear and if energy does not disappear then mass does not disappear either therefore if you see that the mass has disappeared access the energy if you see that there is no change in energy access the mass. And it is better to do this with the physics lecturer. So nothing is random, everything is balanced. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist, every reason has a reason and every reason has a reason. Radio waves were once called ether waves. Nissim, you also studied physics better than me. I tried to give an answer.

  13. To Mr. "Anonymous" I have already answered most of your questions and concerns. A. If reducing the population is effective, then it is completely effective, see the example of China. on. Is it moral? I also explained that, that is, if the use of contraceptives is moral, if not, then it is a matter of consciousness. That is, awareness. Also, if it is a family of 5 people or a family of 4 people, it is also a matter of awareness. As for the rest, I don't understand, I didn't get to the bottom of your mind. I don't understand the poet's intention. And I apologize for that. thank you

  14. Suissa
    Let's go step by step.

    Randomness does exist, and phenomena happen for no reason. A free neutron will decay at a random time - a time that does not depend on any external factor. The state of a photon hitting a semi-transparent mirror is random - either it is reflected or it passes through.

    Can you show that what I said is wrong?

  15. Mr. Dear Suissa,
    Indeed, reducing the population is an effective act.
    But, is he moral?
    I ask you

    Will you be willing to commit suicide so that nature does not harm?

    Dear Mr. Suissa (I would appreciate it if you would identify yourself by your name and not just your last name. Including where you live and how old you are),
    In your opinion, will reducing the eastern population (Moroccans, Yemenis, Iraqis) first of all, from among the Israeli population, benefit the well-being of the State of Israel?

  16. Dear "anonymous" behind the anonymous there is a wise person write your name with respect. In connection with reducing the population, they have already done so in China today. If not for her sake, she left for her sake. After all, China faced doom before a real famine. Now India passes it in terms of population. Maybe you're young and you don't remember all the jokes about China being because of its population. Whereas now the reduction of the population has brought skin and sinews and vigorous industry and economic abundance. And all this is due to the reduction of the population and prevention of existential deterioration. Europe in general moderates if you don't like (reduces) its population. Sweden, Russia and more. So it is possible to reduce education on contraceptives by encouraging economic well-being for minimal families. Simply consciousness, meaning a change of consciousness. Another thing is that the population of the world will not continue to increase in its amount without end, because the warning bells of Mother Nature will ring at every stage. So if you're in favor of burying your head in the sand, that's your right. And for the Sipa of your response, see the Raisha of my response.

  17. Mr. Dear Suisse,
    You are right.
    Indeed "reducing the human population" will achieve the desired solution of "balance", as you say.

    Would you be the first to do so - that is, "downsize"?

    I guess not…
    And so also in nature.
    Therefore, we have to look for other solutions.
    For evidence - the ape is excellent at 'solving problems'.

    But the ape (versus, even, the chimpanzee)
    Decided that "reducing people" (with reference to the content of your comment) is something that is strictly forbidden. Decided this since the happy golden calf days.

    Over the years and evolution,
    We, the monkey people or apes, have reached somewhat higher rhetorical abilities and a slightly more developed ability to draw conclusions than the content presented in your response,
    Dear and honorable Mr. Suissa.

  18. Dear Nissim, thank you very much for your reasoned explanation. You wanted my response so please my response. And I'll start from the end. I look down on no one, not even those who understand less than me, let alone those who understand more than me and much better than me. Now to the topic. So that's how "everything that exists or doesn't exist is not random". And this is my firm opinion. And now the other languages. The variation is created due to the living conditions, due to the environmental conditions which cause the chemical changes in the genetic material. And absolutely not the randomness, nor any random change in the chemistry of heredity. Because there is no acrimony in existence. In physics, chemistry and not mathematics. There is always a reason, there is always a cause, there is always a balance. And the legacy is the tools of Ethmuel which are used for the existing now, and the existing is living, growing, and inanimate. Flint and limestone that you use as an arrowhead will follow the chemical and physical inheritance they inherited. (or in the feminine language, which will inherit a woman's behavior). And with your permission we will reach the competition and with your permission I will give a different example from the cheetahs. When I was in the 5000th grade, the teacher Yehuda explained to us about Darwin's theory of evolution (and I studied in a religious state school, it should be noted). The teacher claimed that according to this Torah the strong wins and he survives and of course he continues the existence of the species. Then the teacher asked as usual if any of you think otherwise. So I voted and got permission and answered that the strongest wins. Those who are suitable wins, and who is suitable. The appropriate one is the one who maintains the balance in nature. Then the teacher asked me to give an example. And I sat with the example of a zebra. If the zebra is strong, then it will eat more grass at the expense of the weak ones who are expelled from its area, and it will get fat and be heavy, and it will be difficult to run, and it will be easy prey for lions. That is why the strong loses, and does not sustain the next generation, and thus there will not be generations of strong who can eat all the grass and lead to the extinction of the zebras, and the lions that feed on them. In the same way, the running speed of the lions is limited for hunting, otherwise for thousands of years their speed will reach XNUMX km/h. That is why there are no fast cheetahs, there are cheetahs suitable for hunting. And the giraffes don't eat anymore, they only eat what the tops of the edible trees provide them with and nothing more If they want more, and now the process of evolution and reproduction is timed and made possible by the management of the balance in nature Environmental conditions are met. The same conditions can also have a physical, hormonal, and psychological effect. This does not mean maintaining the "balance in nature". In the animal or plant body, the lion is not born to have sex, he is led by conditions to do so, and not by choice or his decision. Thank you, dear Nissim, I would love to know from you and from anyone who wants to explain my mistakes to me in order to correct them.

  19. Suissa
    You wrote "It is possible that mutation is achieved to achieve a balance in nature and absolutely not the other way around as suggested by Darwin and his celebrity"

    In abstraction - the principle of the evolution process is simple: if there is an inherited trait that increases the rate of reproduction, then the percentage of individuals with this trait will increase over time.

    For the purpose of the process, three conditions must be met.
    The first is the inheritance of attributes. A trait that is not inherited, such as physical fitness for example, will not affect evolution.
    The second condition is competition. The reason for the competition that interested Darwin is natural selection - the fast cheetahs can do more, like the tall giraffes.

    The third condition is diversity. And for variation, you need mutations. What is interesting, and it is not obvious, is that it is better for the mutations to be random.

    A mutation is not "achieved" - it happens randomly, and I don't understand why you underestimate those who understand better than you. I would appreciate an explanation.

  20. Dear Nissim, I would really appreciate it if you could explain to me what the theory of evolution is in your opinion, even if only in a few words. Not in the style of the "gatekeeper" in a simple way, I am a simple person. thanks

  21. Thanks to the "gatekeeper" a smart, wise and accurate answer, I will take it to heart. thanks

  22. Mr. Suissa
    It turns out that since then the "XNUMXth grade" has remained in the same "opinion"
    Or rather, in the same lack of knowledge and understanding,
    If "in the fifth grade" you said the things Niha,
    But to continue to speak, to continue to write nonsense
    "At the age of 60" indicates that your "perception"
    stayed when she was in the fifth grade

  23. It is completely possible to prevent the climate crisis (when humanity's actions affect the climate balance). Simply "reducing the human population". And until the goal of reducing the population is achieved, planting vegetation, ceasing much fishing and much industry can be added. "Nature sustains and is sustained by balance." "The balance in nature is the preservation of nature and the preservation of the environment and the preservation of the existing in a balanced way" and this means that Darwin's theory has no hold on reality and existence. according to my perception. No condition sustains nature, only balance. It is possible that mutation is achieved to achieve a balance in nature and absolutely not the other way around as suggested by Darwin and his celebrity. And I wrote here, I told my teacher when I was in the 60th grade. Now at the age of XNUMX I can write my opinion for you wise people to judge. Any response will of course be received with understanding and welcome.

  24. Youth education can be very helpful, as it has helped to drive other important processes, but there is no cooperation of the Ministry of Education in Israel on this issue either.
    Nevertheless, one must not despair. Great struggles over important issues seemed lost in advance, and then succeeded.

  25. It is not clear why the UN does not convene an urgent meeting on the issue, after all, why do they have a department for nature and climate research?

    The article also presented facts that claim that there is indeed a solution, why the solution is not implemented and for years it has been about the climate crisis on a universal level and still...

  26. If each of us does a little, and talks to our friends and family about air pollution, global warming, limited consumption, then it is clear that the situation will improve

  27. First of all, great article. matter-of-fact and effective.
    Second, each time anew one gets the feeling that everything is known, the world leaders are aware of the consequences and damages that may be caused and yet put a stop to it and continue with their business. The extreme heat waves that hit Europe in the last two years, the huge fires in Australia and other events that give us decisive proof of the impact of climate change and a painful reminder of what will happen if we don't find a solution, and the world leaders are theirs. If they don't feel the impact of climate change - nobody feels the impact of climate change.

    This indifference must stop. We must stop with the talk, the agreements and the committees and start with the actions.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to filter spam comments. More details about how the information from your response will be processed.