Ideas for Technological Solutions to Destructive Climate Change – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II


Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor’s Note: What follows is a preliminary identification of potential constructive solutions to the problems of deleterious climate change. They are intended for discussion and perhaps eventual incorporation into the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform, along with other member-generated suggestions, if supported by a vote of the members. At present, though, the priority is to generate and discuss potential effective solutions that do not run into the common pitfalls of Neo-Malthusianism and Neo-Pigovianism, but rather embody the transhumanist Proactionary Principle and remain compatible with continued improvements in the length and quality of human lives. It is our hope that the U.S. Transhumanist Party will eventually emerge at the forefront of generating solutions to the climate-change issue that come to be widely recognized as feasible, effective, and palatable to the majority of people. Accordingly, the list identified in this article is open to revision and expansion in accordance with reader-generated solutions that adhere to the two major constraints specified herein. Both the initially identified potential solutions and these constraints are compatible with the existing related provisions in the Constitution of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (Article III, Sections VIII, IX, X, XI, and XXXVIII), as well as  Article XXII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0.

~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, August 5, 2018










Direct Technological Innovation


Disaster Response


Disaster Prevention


Economic Policies

  • Abolition of sales taxes on energy-efficient consumer goods.

Harm Mitigation


12 thoughts on “Ideas for Technological Solutions to Destructive Climate Change – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II

  1. instead of using “geoexchange” or “ground source heat pumps” just for heating or cooling attach sterling engines to them and vent off thermal differences by creating electricity. They could be installed nearly everywhere. The more electricity created the less heat is left in the overall system. Eventually it would get so cold we would need more greenhouse gasses not less.

    1. Thermal pumps are a great idea, particularly in combination with AC’s, which are very efficient when used for heating instead of cooling, and as Jonathan mentioned could be coupled with electricity generation. This would however not work on individual houses very well, as 1 house doesn’t produce enough heat to store. On a town or city level this could work wonders though.

      1. Sorry, The last 2 sentences weren’t very clear. I meant that an individual house doesn’t produce enough heat to make a sterling engine work very well.

        On another note, I was thinking, although I’m aware that currently transportation and energy loss is a big problem, is to have cities exchange their heat. For example, In Montana or Wisconsin people might need more energy to heat their homes, whereas in California enough heat can be stored because there is more demand for cooling. If we could effectively exchange the heat to the North in exchange for cooler (air, or cooled water… the specifics don’t matter as much as the idea right now), we could more or less make the exchange neutral, where both places get what they need.
        This would be a colossal undertaking though, I understand.

  2. Rather than disaster response to wild fires, perhaps putting an irrigation system in place in areas we know are very dry in the summer could work. By desalinating ocean water, which has the added benefit of producing salt, we could pump the water to reservoirs or basins in forest areas. When there is a drought water could be used from there to hydrate the soil and vegetation to lessen the chance of it catching fire. Besides minimizing the risk of fire, the vegetation could also more optimally produce oxygen as it is not struggling as much to survive and instead can flourish.
    Since ocean levels are rising we don’t have to worry to much about draining water from it. The only thing we should take care of is that we don’t alter currents by pumping water out, which can drastically affect marine and plant life in the ocean.
    If we apply this to the West-Coast, it could also put less of a strain on the Colorado river, increasing its function to hydrate plant life. On a large enough scale over time, we could turn Arizona and Nevada into lush forests, further minimizing the dependence on AC’s for cooling as forests can help cool the air.
    Obviously the turbines can be powered by solar and wind energy.

    1. If any Chinese official would read this: Imagine China applying this idea to the Gobi-desert, which they’ve been trying to combat for decades from expanding. The Gobi-desert could become the Gobi-forest. I would not be surprised if the amount of water needed could actually lower ocean levels a bit. Also, at the moment, China is I think also the only country ambitious enough to undertake what would be the largest project ever to be devised by mankind. The amount of pipelines needed to transport the water could possibly look like the modern Chinese wall from space.

  3. I think we should start using space-grade insulation for buildings and houses. Doing so would, probably, fuel the industry, and a desire to innovate on it, which would in turn produce better and thinner insulation materials.
    Not only does insulate houses better, we will need higher quality insulation for planetary colonization, such as Mars. On Mars, heat will be a scarce resource for a while, and as such we need to minimize its waste. Aside from that, the transportation of insulation to Mars is costly, so if we can minimize its volume we can transport more of it at the same time.
    On Earth we want thinner insulation both to transport more, reducing transportation costs, and to limit waste on thick walls which in turn limit livable space.

  4. I would also add the development of commercially viable fusion electricity.

    For ocean-going vessels, the ultimate solution appears to be the development of commercial nuclear propulsion. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” Initiative demonstrated how such technology could be used for commercial ships with the N.S Savannah. The only thing inhibiting this half-century old tech is cost (which may be alleviated through a revenue-neutral carbon tax), and public paranoia regarding nuclear energy (which may be alleviated through pro-technology education).

    For air transport there are numerous possibilities. The most near-term option is the use of carbon neutral bio-fuels in conventional engines. More speculatively, hypersonic and suborbital point-to-point transports may be employed which use hydrogen (electrolysed from water & clean energy) and methane (from atmospheric CO2 and cleanly electorysed hydrogen).

    Improvements in energy efficiency are to be applauded, but we must think beyond incremental improvement on existing technology and aim for breakthroughs and paradigm shifts.

  5. We currently build structures, particularly houses for a fairly short life-span. This in no small part I think is for financial reasons. The owner wants it cheap/ for a reasonable price because houses are still expensive, and the company that constructs it wants to maximize profit.
    However, what if a building’s worth was more determined by it’s longevity, and utility over time?
    For example; In the states of Germany it was common to build high quality houses that were intended to last for multiple generations of a family.
    Now obviously, our society isn’t exactly structured in that way anymore, but we could devise ways to make longstanding structures more desirable again.
    This idea is from the perspective that construction, and particularly subpar construction will contribute to subpar efficient living, and more contribution to pollution due to low-quality materials.
    The flip-side of course is, how can we create very affordable, and environmentally friendly high-quality housing?
    Either way, I think the answers to both questions could contribute to improving the impact we have on the environment over time.

    I say this, as I’m in an area where building is done quickly but poorly, making the longevity and efficiency of buildings really low.

  6. One option which hasn’t been mentioned is the possibility of using space-based mirrors at the Sun-Earth Lagrange Point to reflect a portion of the incoming light to the Earth. Not only would this dramatically mitigate (if not reverse) global temperature rises, the need to transport large amounts of mass inexpensively into deep space would drive the development of technology necessary for a truly space-faring civilization. Indeed, thin-film solar mirrors themselves can serve as solar sails capable of cheap interplanetary flight.

    Additionally, the development of large-scale solar mirrors would be invaluable to efforts to terraform other planets. Mars could be terraformed through such a method by reflecting light onto the planet, raising temperatures and atmospheric pressure through the CO2 outgassing which would result. Venus could be terraformed by the reverse of this method, reflecting light away from the planet to cool it down enough to allow the CO2 atmosphere to rain out and be buried.

    Solar mirror technology, when taken far enough, could even facilitate the development of interstellar civilization through the use of laser-propelled light sails. Such thin-film mirrors would capable of traveling of transporting crew and cargo at substantial fractions of the speed of light.

  7. In addition to excessive zoning requirements, mandatory off-street parking requirements also encourage car use, while exacerbating urban sprawl and reducing density.

Leave a Reply to Alexander Morrow Cancel reply
