Global warming and its devastating consequences: someone says is just a lie, while for others it’s a reality. Between truth and myth, dozens of solutions have been proposed across Europe, America and Australia – sometimes listened and implemented – but none of them had really solved the problem.
But according to a recent Swedish research from Lund University, the ultimate solution is the opposite of what we dream of, something we will not be glad to accomplish so easily, that goes against all our loved habits. They suggest a revolution, a new life style that could be even controversial from some aspects. The new recipe to save the world is made of four ingredients: less children, less aeroplane travels, no cars and zero meat (a totally vegan diet).
Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas, who led the research, say that what people have been doing so far is not enough and not really effective, even though they are following clever rules and ideas.
For example, using a low consumption light bulb saves only 0.10% of CO2, a dry cleaning helps saving 0.21% and so does recycling. And yet, a hybrid car saves 0.52% of carbon dioxide, while a vegetarian diet just 0.8%.
The research, instead, suggests four more drastic ways, four applicable high-impact actions to promote low emissions.
according to the researchers, having one fewer child will reduce the emission of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e). This figure has been calculated considering the impact of each person during his life and his future generations.
this will allow us to save 2.4 tCO2e annually.
No aeroplane travel:
1.6 tCO2e could be saved per round-trip transatlantic flight if we stop travelling by aeroplane.
having a plant-based diet would save 0.8 tCO2e per year.
All these four actions, they say, will have a much greater impact, in reducing the emissions, than the commonly promoted strategies mentioned above.
In conclusion, a reduction of the worldwide population will substantially help reducing emissions. Therefore, it’s strange how, every now and then, authorities complains with the fact that there are not enough new births – at least in Europe – if this would help the humanity. Who is right? Is there something else behind this?
To each of you the duty to discover the best and more effective solutions that hopefully will solve the problem without creating another one.