Thoughts on Potential New Technologies
Lab grown meat and more efficient agriculture is a big one here that I feel needs mentioning. Increasing automation is likely to allow the use of more efficient food production methods (such as greenhouse farming, in particular, which is exceptionally more efficient iirc and is currently pretty expensive because you have to build a greenhouse and, more importantly, pay human labour to farm it rather than the large-scale automation in open air farms). Thoughts on potential additions to this article? ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 22:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Market based approaches to environmental problems.
This article seems to be leaning on "command and control" regulatory framework. As we pour souls now living in USA are learning (the hard way), what one inspired leader effects, some subsequent fool destroys. Any government form short of benevolent dictatorship will never be able to muster the desire,longevity, or power to implement an effective environmental solution. That's why, in a tiny nutshell, I believe market based approaches should be the primary tool to implement carbon neutrality.
Government control systems are prescriptive. They use law, a blunt and slow moving device. Markets, on the other hand, leverage ingenuity and move as fast as a dollar in PayPal. Many environmental problems, including climate change, have deep roots in the "tragedy of the commons" model. Being available as a free dumping resource, the atmosphere gets over-utilized and saturated. A hypothetical owner of the atmosphere might run out and yell "get off my lawn"at all the free dumping lots. A market for carbon emissions moves us in that direction.
Government's roll changes from edict generator into evaluator and licensor. Markets are fantastically innovative and very quick; it is a race, after all. They are, however, vulnerable to fraud. Government must be the central certification of what real carbon offsets are. They also hold the authority to set the amount of carbon allowed.
A common source of bad thinking about climate change and anthropogenic greenhouse augmentation stems from confusion about the carbon cycle. Global warming is driven by introduction of long sequestered "geological" carbon into the active carbon cycle. It is NOT caused by farting cows.
Before the industrial revolution when we started burning massive amounts of coal, we weren't introducing new carbon and everything was relatively stable. You could raise as many cows back then as we do now and it wouldn't shift the carbon balance at all. All that changed with geologic carbon. Chisel58 (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)