‘No silver’: A new strategy to prevent global warming
By Yves BrossardPublished August 02, 2018 08:01:56In a global warming scenario, it’s expected that the Earth will experience more than 5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
It’s estimated that the effects of the warming would include a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a dramatic increase in sea levels.
While the exact temperature rise, how long it will take, and how much damage will be caused are all hotly debated, some experts have been working on a new strategy that would allow the world to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by a significant amount.
“The idea is that if we do nothing, the planet will get through it.
That’s a huge challenge,” said Dr. Benjamin Strauss, an expert on the impacts of climate change and a senior scientist at the American Institute of Physics in New York City.
The problem with this approach is that we are already going through this.
Strauss is among those working to implement a strategy called the Gold-Electron Configuration, or GEC, which would see the use of different metals in different configurations to mitigate global warming.”
So we need to be ready to act if we have to.”
Strauss is among those working to implement a strategy called the Gold-Electron Configuration, or GEC, which would see the use of different metals in different configurations to mitigate global warming.
This approach has already proven to be successful, according to Strauss.
The idea behind GEC is that different metals would be used in different ways to reduce global warming by different amounts.
For example, gold and silver could be used to mitigate the global warming effects of CO2, while platinum could be incorporated in various shapes, such as a diamond and a diamond-like structure.
“It’s the opposite of the silver-silver approach that was proposed by the Chinese government in the past,” Strauss said.
“They wanted to reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2050, and then they said, well, you know, let’s use platinum.”
Straus said that in this new approach, the use for metals in a certain way, rather than a specific amount, will be more important.
“This approach allows for different kinds of emissions to be taken into account,” he said.
“If you look at the carbon footprint of the car, the amount that the CO2 that gets emitted in the US comes out of the combustion of the fuel in the car is the amount in a car.
So if you look, you can reduce emissions in the automobile by a little bit by using platinum, and if you use gold, it is much more expensive than using platinum.”
The gold-electron combination would mean that, for example, in a year, the CO 2 emissions would be reduced by 20 percent, but in a decade they would be at the same level.
“With this approach, we could reduce the global temperature by 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100,” Strauss added.
The approach has also been successful in reducing the amount the earth’s population would need to live, according the UN, which has predicted that by 2050 there will be an extra 5 billion people in the world.
“In the short term, we are seeing that people are able to take care of themselves,” Strauss explained.
“I’m sure they will need to do this for many years to come.”
But not everyone is convinced by the approach.
Some climate scientists have pointed out that there are some key differences between the strategies.
“Some people argue that it’s more efficient to use metals with different physical properties, but that’s not true,” Strauss stressed.
“There are two big things with the Gold and Silver approach.
One is that the different metals have different strengths.
One of the problems is that you can’t use silver or gold as a substitute for platinum in this process.
So you have to use the same kind of platinum in each case.
The second thing is that when you mix metals, you have the possibility of introducing defects.
The metal that is mixed in the process will have different physical attributes and then some will be stronger and some weaker.”
In other words, Strauss said that, in the end, there are two different strategies that can be used for mitigating the climate crisis.
“So far, the GEC approach is more cost-effective, but the Gec has to be done right, and there are still some tradeoffs between it and the silver approach,” he concluded.