The ultimate goal of all climate change mitagtion plans is to dramatically lower the global Green House Gas Emissions. (GHGE)

The global community’s PLAN-A to lower GHGE is the 2015 Paris Climate Accord or Agreement, established at the 2015 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP21).


A key part of this agreement is the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), which saw each country pledge to reduce their individual GHGE. However laudable these pledges maybe, they are sealed by little more than a handshake, and offer much too little, much too late.


Achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement, is reliant heavily upon the ability of world’s scientific community to develop large scale, Negative Emission Technologies (NETs); of which the global community has developed none to date.

PLAN-A is a good start. However with the United States of America pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and scientific climate modelling telling us we are nowhere near on the track to stay below 2C, it is of the utmost importance we develop other strategies and agreements which possess the abilities to dramatically lower global GHGE, without in any way lessening the global commitments of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Below we have briefly summarised example PLAN-B’s. These examples should not be seen as guiding examples, but rather as demonstrating that there are hundreds of potential strategies, across nearly all fields of study, which could form the basis of  a workable PLAN-B.




There is little doubt that political parties, globally, have been the greatest adversary to climate change action.

Politicians who are being brought by special interest groups to vote against sweeping changes which would see strong action taken to lower GHGE in their states and countries are the fundamental cause of where we find ourselves today.

The United States of America is a great example of this, so I am going to use this nation as an example.


However a Political Solution PLAN-B would need to be replicated in all democracies where the general population has the right to decide the government, and head of state. 

Within democracies the people decide which party and head of state will rule over them. In America as with most other democracies there is not much choice as they run a two party system. One party which is totally against climate change action, and the other which is mildly warm to climate change action. 

If this two party system remains the status quo in America, it is fair to conclude, although the planet would be better under one party rather than the other, neither would enact enough policies to limit GHGE to a level such that the planet would remain under 2C of pre-industrial times by 2100.

The answer is to form a third party which has no alliances to any special interest groups and is focused solely on building a sustainable future, for future generations of the United States.

Let us call this new party the ‘American Future Party’.

Now let’s answer some fundamental questions as to how this party could possibly position itself such that it could initially influence political decisions within the next 5 years, and control both houses and the presidency within 10 years.

It is fair to conclude that 80% of young Americans, under the age of 29, strongly believe climate change is a very real threat which is going to absolutely ruin both their, and their children's lives, if nothing is done about it soon.

Today 35% of all Americans are between the ages of 8-29 years old, and 12% are under 8 years old.


In ten years time young people who are just 8 years old today, will be 18 years old; the legal voting age in America, and today's 29 year old's will be just 39 years old. Furthermore in ten years time, many of the old generation who oppose action on climate change will have died off.


If we use today’s population spread, in ten years time more than 50% of the American population, off which just 12% will be too young to vote, will strongly support climate change action. And we can expect 50% of the remaining 50% of the population by that time to also support climate change action. 

So we definitely will have the voter numbers in ten years time.

However the reason new parties have never been able to move into the political main stream is because in days gone past, and still today with the major political parties in America, political parties are 100% reliant on party donors, to pay for their main stream political electioneering. And we all know these extremely rich political donors all have their own agendas.

However today, a new young person’s political party could exist without any rich political donors. Social Media has given a voice to everyone who uses it, and no one uses it better than the younger generation.

There is little doubt if the younger generations got themselves organised they could establish a strong political party, which in five years could hold the balance of power in many countries and in ten years be the ruling government of almost all of them. Allowing sweeping changes to GHGE to be legislated.

Some of the positives for Young People include,

  • With more and more jobs being lost to technology and robotics, a political career would seem a wise career move.

  • Young people could utilised social media to support their aligned parties in other states and countries.

Some of the positives for Climate Change Mitigation are,

  • Young people could implement stringent new GHGE polices which would dramatically lower nation's GHGE.

  • If young people took power in a number of countries in ten years, there would still be enough time, with stringent new GHGE policies to keep global temperatures 2C  below those of pre-industrial times.

There is much more that can be said and written regards a Political Solution PLAN-B. However the young people of the world need to discuss and debate a political solution, at length, amongst their friends and colleagues, and then put forth their ideas.


Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume. Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2


Dumping greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere allows the atmosphere to get warmer. And when the atmosphere warms it can accommodate a greater quantity of water vapor. As the water vapor content in the atmosphere increases, so does its global warming effect. This double whammy global warming effect is now spiraling out of control.


What we need to do is invent a process that allows us to remove huge quantities of water vapor from the atmosphere, via precipitation in areas that need it and over the open sea that is cost effective and predictable. This would dramatically reduce global warming.


Cloud seeding is a form of weather modification, a way of changing the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the .cloud. Vincent Schaefer, a self-taught chemist invented cloud seeding and created the first artificially induced snow and rainfall 1946.


However not much has changed regards the basic concepts of cloud seeding since 1946.


We need innovative young people to devise more reliable, cost effective precipitation methods which will allow us to substantially reduce the quantity of water vapor in our atmosphere.