The best way to combat this occurrence would be to start environmental clubs in schools that go around and host free classes in their communities to educate the populace about the reality of the grave environmental issues we face today. The goal would be for this education to convince the voters to vote for environmentally progressive candidates who would then in turn sponsor and pass the legislation I am suggesting. I also believe that these candidates could avoid the persuasive power of the corporate giants that often destroy such bills because they know just how serious the current state of the environment is, and that if we don’t act now much of the eastern seaboard will be underwater by 2060.

I understand that the disposal and mining of lithium for batteries is a serious issue, but in the grand scheme of things it is very insignificant when compared to the problem of climate change and sea level rise. One of the major problems I’ve noticed with environmental groups is that they’re not willing to give a little to gain a lot. Sometimes, it’s necessary to sacrifice some things in order to fix more pressing issues. If this legislation can really help reverse climate change, then the issue of battery disposal becomes pretty minor. If I could change any part of my video, I would make it focus more on creating clubs in schools to go out and educate people about climate change. After I submitted my project I realized I didn’t focus on that enough, but that was my true plan: to eventually convince everyone that action must be taken now, and action in the form of the legislation I proposed. It is really horrific how little most of the population knows and cares about climate change, and in thirty years or so when Miami (where I live) goes underwater it will already be too late. I think selling the idea that if people don’t act now their days in the place they’ve lived their entire lives are numbered would work especially well.

Viruses can serve as a template in water to grow manganese oxide nanowires that, when combined with palladium, increase the energy potential of a lithium battery (for where I got this information, go to http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/mu...). Some constraints I might envision in enabling such a widespread adoption of hybrid vehicles would be that a lot of people are closed-minded and wouldn’t want to have anything to do with driving hybrids, which I understand. Additionally, automobile makers have a lot of power, and they probably wouldn’t want anything to do with discontinuing all of their non-hybrid models. However, all of this becomes a moot point when people are faced with the reality that if we don’t get this done, many of the world’s greatest cities will be uninhabitable in the very near future, so all of the other issues really don’t matter. Give a little, take a lot.

Sorry, the link didn’t work. I’ll try to find the proper one ASAP.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/better-batteries...

Adding an amendment banning fossil fuel/dirty energy burning in order to charge these new car batteries would be an excellent way to keep the emissions from the energy sector in check so that the proportions I referenced in my paper that would get the PPM of CO2 down below 350 would still work (those proportions assumed constant emissions from all other sectors, but I made an oversight in that the emissions from the energy sector would increase without this amendment).

It’s similar in that both attempt to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that enter the atmosphere, but I believe that my proposal is more concrete and is more of a solution than just a temporary stopgap. While the emissions standards are good, they are pretty vague and don’t do enough to reverse the warming trend we are experiencing. My proposal, in contrast, is 100% specific and would do enough to ensure that the PPM of CO2 would drop down below 350.

The goal is to educate the populace about environmental issues so that they will support candidates who will ultimately pass the type of legislation I am proposing. It would eventually be economically beneficial to the United States because the demand for foreign oil would decrease significantly, and again the goal is to elect pro-environmental candidates that wouldn’t receive much of their backing from oil companies that have got us into this mess. Energy is used when the cars charged, that is true, but as we progress more and more towards clean energy (like wind and solar energy) that will be less of a problem for climate change than emissions from cars are. Until we find a way to have wind-powered cars, charging them with clean energy will have to do.

It sounds like a lot of work from educating citizens to gaining support from candidates. If you were able to implement your plan how long would it be until we could actually see some change?

By 2022 I think the idea could legitimately take hold and we could have a majority of candidates who have progressive views on climate change in office.