I suggest that people see the film 2040. It portrays how we can start to beat climate change with the tech we have now. Its a bit glib on occasions but it gives hope that something could be done, if we could remove the corporate and governmental opposition.

First he goes to Bangladesh, to see how villages (we are talking shacks) can put solar on their rooftops and share it with other households, through a network of wiring and metres, which allows people to buy energy from this micro grid, even without being able to afford solar panels. The process allows microgrids to connect up, thus making a robust local system, which can cover the countryside. If the grid is broken by the increasing natural disasters of climate change, people can still get some power, as opposed to none.

This system would work well in Australia, but is currently illegal due to pro-corporate regulations. (We sold off our wires, and had to make them safe for private enterprise…). At the moment if i want to share my solar power with my next door neighbour i can’t. We need to make such links, installed by registered electricians, legal.

Then he looked at self driving electric cars, and how people could come to think of cars in terms of use, like they now think of music and films, rather than ownership. This would free up massive amounts of parking space which could be turned into urban farms, solving some of the food supply crisis, and relieving the need to transport food over vast distances. He also seemed to think it would reduce traffic and traffic jams, but i’m not sure about that. It might work because the cars go off after they have delivered you and don’t have to search for parking.

As far as I understand, this set up is not yet workable, making self driving cars that are relatively safe outside of small areas is still quite difficult. If it did reduce traffic, then you could also expect massive opposition from our toll road owners who have paid billions for waste property, and of course from oil companies who are not renown for their ethics, but are renown for ruthless political operation and massive misinformation campaigns. Anyone need to say Exxon? I’m not sure carpark owners would sell their property for urban farming either, but this could be solved by the State buying land and buildings back for people’s use (however unfashionable it is for the State to do anything useful).

Then there is regenerative agriculture. One person claimed that agriculture was responsible for more carbon emissions than burning fuels. This makes it important.

It turns out relatively easy to fix (apart from droughts). In Australia, industrial farming with fertilisers kills the soil, and the water runs off, taking the soil with it and taking the fertilisers into rivers where they provoke algal blooms and dead fish. Destructive ecologies spread.

The film maker visited a farmer who had simply planted a mix of grasses, sunflowers, sorgum, millet etc. and let them grow to about over a metre or so in height. Then he let in some cattle who ate them and defecated on the soil, and moved about as they are supposed to. Cattle that eat corn are unhealthy and their meat not so good for people, cattle that eat grass are pretty good alround.

After three months it was possible to see a marked difference between the old concrete like soil and this new spongy friable dark and moist soil. Apparently this process puts masses of carbon back into the soil and makes it more fertile without fertilisers. If we eat less meat then more soil can be let wild, we can store more carbon, and probably get a bit healthier.

We can also grow seaweed for food and fertiliser on platforms in the ocean deserts (although transport might be a bit of a problem). This provides areas for fish to grow, de-acidifies water from excess carbon, and could revitalise fish stocks – although we would have to stop industrial fishing from killing everything again. We could also do this closer to the coast. It is really easy to upscale with few negative ecological consequences.

Problem: Big agriculture will hate this, as it requires care rather than cheapness of production. They will fight against it. They want us to eat GMO foods that depend on brand name fertilisers and weed killers. However, small farmers should love it, and in the non-industrialised world saving small farmers, removes poverty (from dispossession for large farms…etc) and provides most of the food anyway. Some possible problem as crops rot releasing CO2 and methane, but still better than industrial ag.

Finally educating and empowering women and girls. Lowers population, increases care for the planet. The whole deal. What can I say?

Problem: Religions…. most of them.

Watch the film, and have a look at: https://whatsyour2040.com/