<p>When I was researching some materials (e.g. <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> article in Scientific American) regarding the possible ways to fight climate change, I noticed that almost all suggestions look not like the solutions to the problem, but rather the way to slow down the problem.</p>
<p>I mean, the efficient light bulb still emits some non-zero heat, doesn't it? Moreover, judging by the following picture (<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>)
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4RXN0.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4RXN0.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
it seems that there are some sources of greenhouse gases that aren't going anywhere (we theoretically may make all cars electric but greenhouse-emitting agriculture will still remain).</p>
<p><em>In theory, one of the possible solutions is just to reduce the total population or significantly change lifestyle, but because, firstly, this is unrealistic and secondly, this is not the subject of this forum, let's just assume that both will remain roughly the same.</em></p>
<p>Therefore, it seems like:</p>
<ol>
<li>Even if humanity tries its best to reduce greenhouse gases and heat emissions, it will still emit some significant positive amount of them</li>
<li>Humanity can't do anything significant to actually reduce (and not emit less) greenhouse gases in the atmosphere</li>
<li>Therefore, slower or faster the amount of greenhouse gases will increase</li>
<li>Therefore, slower or faster, the temperatures will rise</li>
</ol>
<p>So, <strong>is the climate change inevitable (supposing that current population and lifestyle remains roughly the same)</strong>, or am I missing something?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-31T15:52:00.403Z
This question *might* get closed because some may regard possible answers as being opinion based. I hope it remains open. I generally tend to agree with you. Without lifestyle changes, little will happen. Over the past number of years I read & seen news items about how some people are suggesting meat is not sustainable as a food source or as an element of climate change - particularly beef. Such people have proposed veganism as a remedy. More recently I came across news items suggesting we replace meat as a source of protein with insects, for human consumption. Either way, lifestyle change!
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-01T15:39:58.893Z
Regarding "_[...] but greenhouse-emitting agriculture will still remain [...]_". This statement is not fully correct. I assume that animal husbandery is included in agriculture. Otherwise the first item belongs to another section. First, we can reduce our consumption of animal-products (meet, milk, ...). Second, we can increase the amount of seasonally growing vegetables and fruits (e.g. less heated greenhouses) that we consume and eat more divers. Changing some agricultural practices might also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from fields.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-01T15:47:37.737Z
@Fred while I agree that lifestyle change is at least part of the solution, I also think it's important to put the onus on the real problem -- government and corporations -- who would like all of us to think that we need to implement austerity measures in our own lives, while they continue dragging their feet and polluting.
LShaver
<climate-change>
Is it possible to actually stop climate change, or the only thing we can do is to slow it down?
kandi
# Is it possible to actually stop climate change, or the only thing we can do is to slow it down?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-31)

When I was researching some materials (e.g. [this](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/) article in Scientific American) regarding the possible ways to fight climate change, I noticed that almost all suggestions look not like the solutions to the problem, but rather the way to slow down the problem.

I mean, the efficient light bulb still emits some non-zero heat, doesn't it? Moreover, judging by the following picture ([source](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector))
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/4RXN0.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/4RXN0.png)
it seems that there are some sources of greenhouse gases that aren't going anywhere (we theoretically may make all cars electric but greenhouse-emitting agriculture will still remain).

*In theory, one of the possible solutions is just to reduce the total population or significantly change lifestyle, but because, firstly, this is unrealistic and secondly, this is not the subject of this forum, let's just assume that both will remain roughly the same.*

Therefore, it seems like:

1. Even if humanity tries its best to reduce greenhouse gases and heat emissions, it will still emit some significant positive amount of them
2. Humanity can't do anything significant to actually reduce (and not emit less) greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
3. Therefore, slower or faster the amount of greenhouse gases will increase
4. Therefore, slower or faster, the temperatures will rise

So, **is the climate change inevitable (supposing that current population and lifestyle remains roughly the same)**, or am I missing something?

**Tags:** climate-change

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question *might* get closed because some may regard possible answers as being opinion based. I hope it remains open. I generally tend to agree with you. Without lifestyle changes, little will happen. Over the past number of years I read & seen news items about how some people are suggesting meat is not sustainable as a food source or as an element of climate change - particularly beef. Such people have proposed veganism as a remedy. More recently I came across news items suggesting we replace meat as a source of protein with insects, for human consumption. Either way, lifestyle change!  
> **username_2**: Regarding "_[...] but greenhouse-emitting agriculture will still remain [...]_". This statement is not fully correct. I assume that animal husbandery is included in agriculture. Otherwise the first item belongs to another section. First, we can reduce our consumption of animal-products (meet, milk, ...). Second, we can increase the amount of seasonally growing vegetables and fruits (e.g. less heated greenhouses) that we consume and eat more divers. Changing some agricultural practices might also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from fields.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 while I agree that lifestyle change is at least part of the solution, I also think it's important to put the onus on the real problem -- government and corporations -- who would like all of us to think that we need to implement austerity measures in our own lives, while they continue dragging their feet and polluting.  

---

## 0 answers

