# $10B international prize to find something which will stop/halt/global warming? by ACG Tags:$10b, international, prize, warming
 P: 47 Hi! I just read that Richard Branson or someone like that offered $25M to someone who was able to do something which would reverse global warming. While that's admirable, it just seems to me that it's too low. It would probably take millions of dollars to simply do the experiments etc. to get the technology working. So, I started thinking. Would it make sense for the UN to sponsor a HUMUNGOUS prize (at least a billion dollars US) to something which will prevent global warming without reducing humanity's standard of living? You could have a sliding scale similar to what they had for the longitude prize, something like$25B for technology that will reduce the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere to preindustrial values by 2025 $10B if done by 2050$5B by 2100 $10B for cheap technology that will provide power worldwide without further messing up of the environment by 2025$5B by 2050 and so forth. The technology has to be applicable on a global scale to get the prize (maybe country scale will get 10% of the prize but the contest will still go on). I'm thinking of an exact parallel to the longitude competition and X-Prize, but with the stakes far higher because it's global (not just European) and life and death are at stake and not travel. Since it's global, either the US should run it or the most powerful superpower at the time (which in this case would be the US, though I would argue that individual countries should stay out of it because a superpower might lose its superpower status at some point). Maybe this "Bureau of Greenhouse Affairs" would be willing to fund some international school which gets as much funds as it needs -- regardless of politics and so forth -- as long as the projects being funded are intended to help the environment. Do you think this will help at all? Obviously, I personally don't have the money :) ACG
 Earth sciences news on Phys.org
P: 19
 Quote by ACG without reducing humanity's standard of living?
I seriously, seriously doubt it.
 P: 745 Ridiculous to the extreme. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades, stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere! These magic solutions don't exist, you can't throw money at something and hope it goes away.
P: 324

## \$10B international prize to find something which will stop/halt/global warming?

Solution is simple, replace coal and gas with nuclear, wind, sun, hydro, wave, tidal and geothermal power, replace conventional vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells.

Problem solved. It will cost a bit though and require some technological advancements :-)
 P: 428 less people = less polution for less people just use birth control including free sterization and abortion on demand maybe use funds to bribe people not to have kids rightwing religions will have a hissie fit but so what
P: 10
 Quote by Azael Solution is simple, replace coal and gas with nuclear, wind, sun, hydro, wave, tidal and geothermal power, replace conventional vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells. Problem solved. It will cost a bit though and require some technological advancements :-)

I wrote in only one other thread(on this board), and the 'key' is to come up with hard science that says with unequivocal precision what the 'Pre-Saturation'
point of our Atmosphere/BioSphere is.
*Then, an Academic Paper is presented to our top government leaders and corporate captains of industry(and this is on a global basis), and lets them know on 'Hard Terms with No Uncertainty', that there is a crisis that needs to be fixed STAT, or risk complete catastrophe.

*I apologize, I know I'm new here, but I do not know the science, but I do know that something is terribly wrong right now, and an immediate answer-action program must be effected very soon.

I know that 'Pre-Saturation' can be figured out, and I hope everyone can see how this knowing this 'number', will cause our Government to Act.

thankyou,
 P: 1 Appart of the mentioned solutions to not increment the CO2 levels we need solutions to reduce the CO2 levels. The solution is very simple, The plants as they grow, fixes on their tissues the CO2 they extract from the air. So what we need to do is to increment the permanent forest lands of the earth. This is the simpliest and safest solution to implement. We need to forest lands. We need to plant deforestated areas. We need to plant areas that are being affected by desertification. We need to use non-decidual trees at most of our cities so we'll have plants working at winter also. Also a fund can be stablished to support forest owners in orden them not to need to cut their forest. Unfortunatelly I understand that we are every year decreasing the forest lands of the Earth.... Your oppinions ? My Best Regards as a new member.
P: 10
 Quote by ray b less people = less polution for less people just use birth control including free sterization and abortion on demand maybe use funds to bribe people not to have kids rightwing religions will have a hissie fit but so what
I'm all for educating people to comprehend the consequences of increased population effects upon the global environment(let alone our social infrastructure), but there seems to be one flaw misunderstood in this whole discussion, and which could(if understood), save everyone of us and the future of our children and their generations.
*It is this:
The 'consumer capitalist' system says to 'consume consume consume', and that is in direct opposition to a Finite Construct(Earth's resources, and Earth itself),, and therefore, we live in some kind of Schizoid reality that is not conscious of the consequences of what we have been indoctrinated to thinking is simply 'normal economic growth and living'. Go figure that one.
*How do we acknowledge this honestly, and just change that paradigm of thinking without confusing 'global psychology'(per se) and the long held understanding of the nature of the way things have been?

*Another perspective paralleling the above:
Re-duction of 'population'= Downsizing the global economy; which means that the Markets will crash and we all pay the price.
*However, those pains don't necessarily have to be realized, because that is not a reflection of 'true wealth', but only a Financial Monetary issue which presents itself on a 'Ledger' of plus and minus equations at our Fed Reserve, etc. *True wealth is intrinsically related to 'education', and 'natural resources', and what we can do with that. *Nations are never 'really broke'(per se), as long as they have the means to turn what is within the 'good earth', into food and useable materials.

*Truth hurts, but if we don't recognize this, we will continue doing what we've been doing, and then we will have nothing(assuming the BioSphere...really can 'crash'; and I think we know it can if present trends continue).

My great fear is that there are some 'A-Moral' individuals that will panic at some point in the near future, and they will seek solutions(Final Solutions..if you will), and they will commit the equivalent of what Adolph Hitler did, and start eliminating populations of people, and use the 'global warming/warning threat' as their excuse for doing so.
 P: n/a I greatly doubt that there is some technology waiting in the wings that will allow us to continue to consume as much as possible, as fast as we can produce it. Population isn't the only problem. The 1st world populations are more of a burden on the environment than the larger 3rd world populations. Since the second world war, our economy has become more and more driven by marketing. Previous generations believed in frugal living. We now have an upside down economy which would be actually threatened instead of strengthened if its members chose to live withiin their means. A technology to sequester CO2, or a technology to produce clean power, would be welcome. But it still would not allow us to overconsume without consequences.
P: 10
 Quote by BillJx ??I greatly doubt that there is some technology waiting in the wings that will allow us to continue to consume as much as possible, as fast as we can produce it. Population isn't the only problem. The 1st world populations are more of a burden on the environment than the larger 3rd world populations. Since the second world war, our economy has become more and more driven by marketing. Previous generations believed in frugal living. We now have an upside down economy which would be actually threatened instead of strengthened if its members chose to live withiin their means. A technology to sequester CO2, or a technology to produce clean power, would be welcome. But it still would not allow us to overconsume without consequences.
Would you agree then that we live in some equivalent of a 'schizoid' like economic social system then?
It somewhat reminds me of the boat with the hole in its bottom being chosen as the one most sea worthy. To stress 'hyper-consumption' to fuel continued economic growth, when we know that its feeding into the exact thing causing 'the hole in the boat', makes no sense. But we cannot see it because we were indoctrinated into this thinking.
*Beliefs are hard to break, and I've been criticized many times for speaking like either a commie, marxist, or socialist.
I'm none of any, just someone who wants a relative sanity in this world before its too late.

??:I'm just wondering(not being a chemist),, doesn't Hydrogen contain every property of all elements beneath it on the Periodic Table?
*If so, what is so difficult to incorporate it as the new Paradigm which fuels a modern economy?
I hope no one is going to tell me the reason is about 'control' of this resource.
P: 10
 Quote by llanquihue Appart of the mentioned solutions to not increment the CO2 levels we need solutions to reduce the CO2 levels. The solution is very simple, The plants as they grow, fixes on their tissues the CO2 they extract from the air. So what we need to do is to increment the permanent forest lands of the earth. This is the simpliest and safest solution to implement. We need to forest lands. We need to plant deforestated areas. We need to plant areas that are being affected by desertification. We need to use non-decidual trees at most of our cities so we'll have plants working at winter also. Also a fund can be stablished to support forest owners in orden them not to need to cut their forest. Unfortunatelly I understand that we are every year decreasing the forest lands of the Earth.... Your oppinions ? My Best Regards as a new member.

I like 'simple', and what you wrote sounds very logical and workable.
....I've a very cynical view of how our global elite view 'simple', and I guess that is why we have the problems that we do today.

I pray these days, and I will pray that they 'wake up to simple' when I go to sleep.
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,257 Since this thread is little more than banter and speculation rather than a scientific discussion, I'm locking it.

 Related Discussions Earth 1 Earth 44 Earth 6