It is in fact easy. People have been doing it for millennia, and we have better tools and techniques now.

You only need to dig down far enough for one story and you benefit from cooling.

You don't need underground cities or what have you. Just mostly underground buildings.

> That's a good idea until you try to implement it, and realize that for the scale necessary to make a meaningful impact this would be cost prohibitive, technologically improbable and potentially environmentally damaging.

> Underground tunneling is actually power intensive, so they would use a lot of power, and thus pollutants, to make it work.

And remember that many of these homes need to be multi-story because the cities are so dense. So, the challenges are even greater than simply building a single-level basement.

"Clearly, they were wrong"

Clearly your school was shit, because that was never scientific consensus.

Yes. there were multiple proposed models for climate in the 1970's. And lots of poor journalism that relayed incomplete information to the public. So in a sense, nothing has changed.

Science is a continuous process, where we change our opinions as new data comes in. We can only operate on the best data we have available. And if we wait until we are absolutely certain before we act, that's a recipe for disaster.

What we do know, that ExxonMobil's studies in the 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate ch

> 50 years ago, schools were teaching children that because of pollution, we were headed for another ice age. I know because I was in school 50 years ago, in a public school.

I was also in public school 50 years ago and I have no recollection of ever being told this.

We hit some record colds in the 70s and 80s. The Milankovitch cycles were just beginning to be understood and popularized. There was speculation about the timing of starting a new glacial period in the next few thousand years, and questions about how fast that could occur. Of course the popular press sensationalized that with headline questions about "Have We Started a New Ice Age?".

Yet I remember hearing about global warming due to CO2 in the classrooms as early as the 60s (though it wasn't necessarily

With industrialized farming and some reduction of the dependence on meat and dairy in the Western, we have the ability to comfortable feed more people than we have today. And today's food problems are a distribution problem, but that problem gets compounded when climate change introduces more frequent crop failures and reduced growth. And it compounds our use of fossil fuel for shipping food to regions that are bound to have shortages.

> India ironically is one of the few large, relatively prosperous countries (Nigeria is another) where population growth continues unabated.

India has gone from 1.90% in 2020 to 0.89% in 2025 population growth. And

> A billion people is plenty and at that level, the strain on the planet is low enough that people back then seriously thought it was impossible for a species to go extinct (like God would just conjure up some more elephants if needed).

We hit 1 billion humans in 1805. The last claimed sighting of a Dodo was reported in the hunting records of Isaac Johannes Lamotius in 1688.

You're one of them. Why don't you lead by example and show us how to reduce numbers.

> Even at 2.5 billion people (around 1950) the living standards were much, much higher -- look at how well houses were built back then.

Yes, for white people in the USA and some of europe.

> If people wonder what I mean on what a backup plan looks like then look at studies out of the UK, UN, EU, or any of a number of studies on the issue. Many of these studies will point to solutions other than relying on only renewable energy sources and energy storage as the most viable option.

Could you come out and say what you mean? Right now you're being very vague. I'm guessing some flavor of nuclear, or perhaps geothermal?

What we need is to nuke the tops of a few volcanoes, so that the world can naturally shield itself in reflective ash.