Forum Thread

I feel like I know some things, even tho I don’t even have any college.

So, one of the solutions I saw on the list was renewable energy. There is actually a flaw in that, because one of the main renewable sources is trees. If everybody in the world used trees to power the power plants, then the trees would disappear pretty quickly. To add to this, deforestation is happening pretty quickly in Brazil, and a lot of places in Asia have problems with deforestation.

Another thing that I feel is when you say China was a big contributor. When you think about it, China is a larger country, has a larger population. Larger population=more demand for electricity. More demand for electricity=More need for fuel for power plants. More need for fuel for power plants=more need for newer, better fuels. Need for newer, better fuels=why we use fossil fuels.

Another thing to address. The us, when doing the total co2 emissions from the United States divided by the population, compared to chinas average per population. The us has a higher APP than China, making them technically a larger contributor than China in some ways. Also, The US has more than the EU, which is 28 countries worth of people. To make some things worse, The US didn’t agree to try and lower CO2 emissions, something I think is really sad when you think about all of their scientific discoveries(considering I’m an American citizen)

Also, I know of another solution. I read somewhere that there is a type of power plant that burns trash instead of trees or fossil fuels. They don’t work as efficiently, but they do work. Or so I’ve read.

@Mrinja, yeah that's true ^^ But it is how the world works after all.

@ToshiroHex,

1. Deforestation has absolutely nothing to do with biofuel production. If fact, most of the deforestation occurring in Brazil and Asia is illegal ^^ The point of renewable resources is that they replenish - proper biofuel production requires planting as well as cutting.

2. You can't count carbon emission by capita - at least not for China. China has a humongous wealth gap. So, if you're rating China not the biggest contributor by how many people it has, you have to first discount those that cannot afford to use energy on a daily basis which is a large proportion of the population. Meaning, China is still more wasteful. Moreover, I'm not sure I understand how needing more fuel leads to 'newer and better' fuels and means fossil fuels? Fossil fuels aren't new, nor are they better in any way.

3. I don't understand why you say that USA hasn't tried to lower CO2 emissions? They most definitely have - as can be seen in legislation passed throughout the years. Also, they were one of the leading contributors to the creation of the Paris Agreement Accord. Although Trump has now decided to pull out of that, the majority of big firms in USA have now pledged to maintain in accordance with the Paris Agreements even without the government's support.

4. I don't believe it's possible to burn trash if you mean plastics and such for fuel? They do create energy, but the cost is too significant since the burning of these things create methane gas.

---

I am gonna not argue with you about your correcting me, because you are older, meaning you are probably more experiences=probably a lot smarter than me.
As for the burning trash, you can’t burn plastic safely as far as I know. But the idea is that instead of using fossil fuels, you get rid of something that somewhat helps the economy. I don’t know very much about it, more info can be found on this Wikipedia article. I actually think that Waste-energy is a good idea if you remove recyclable products like plastic, metal, etc.
I found some more info here, but it is more for climate change.

You're more than free to debate with me? :) I don't ever want me being a moderator to prevent users from debating with me. So long as you stay polite and don't break the rules, there's no reason not to challenge a moderator if you believe we're wrong ^^ Older doesn't really mean much either - I debate with my teachers on a daily basis about politics, history etc.

As for the wikipedia page you linked, that does seem to prove my point as far as I can see - it has stated that hazardous materials have to be filtered out before being burnt. That pretty much means all plastics. Even then, it states that the air pollution costs are high and apparently higher than coal which is a big problem as it is.

---

It is a big problem for us

there is a lot video on youtube about this topic

Hello, Activist here. In my opinion, (which is based on PURE science) Global warming is literally a catastrophe that will kill us all if we don't act. The best renewable energy sources are Wind power, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. FYI whoever put birds and bats die because of solar and windmills, that is a total lie, and even if that does occur it's not like it's gonna wipe out the whole species or even do a single ounce of damage. No offense or anything but you should check creditable sources. Thanks for listening to my rant.

---