Some solutions

So given that there is no intention to change the economic model that is the cause of global environmental disaster that generates the greenhouse effect, pending that grow the cultural sensitivity necessary to face, globally and in all its components, the planetary problem of pollution, we must do something, a simple thing: reduce the effect of the impact on global warming energy coming from space, from the Sun. And you can do that in only two ways, or putting between the Sun and Earth some enormous parasol umbrellas being able to intercept the solar radiation that arrives on the planet or tilting the Earth's axis so as to decrease in both hemispheres the energy of sunlight.
There is a point in space where a body could be put into an orbit around the Sun without this being attracted by the force of gravity of our star. A mega umbrella made at that point, at the right orbital velocity (easily calculable with Kepler's laws) would remain quietly in that orbit, in front of our planet, because at that distance the force of terrestrial gravity compensates exactly that of the Sun.

This point, known as langrangian point is on the line joining the centre of the Earth with the centre of the Sun and is about 15 million kilometres from our planet. This umbrella, at that distance, to have the effect of significantly reduce the incoming solar radiation on Earth, it must have a diameter of at least 4 thousand kilometers. Another option to prevent the solar radiation reaching the earth could be to draw the asteroid of the appropriate size from the belt of asteroids and to place it at the lagrangian point...or it could explode (in a controlled way) so that the dust created as a result of explosion can intercept the solar radiation.

Too complicated and science-fiction? Less than at first glance it may seem, today we have the technologies needed. After all when it comes to "explode" something the men are unbeatable.
Imagine what technological effort and especially how much time would be needed to implement similar projects. And we do not have time.
And then it remains only the other solution, to change the tilt of the rotation axis of the Earth.

Let’s refresh a little our memory.
The greenhouse effect we have previously said is the phenomenon whereby the energy emitted from the Earth to space (mainly as infrared radiation), to balance the flow of energy received from the Sun, is partially absorbed by some gas present in atmosphere and from these radiated again toward the Earth.
In this way once delayed dispersal of energy creates an average temperature on the surface greater than that which would occur in the absence of atmosphere. The temperature on the surface of a planet depends on the balance between energy received from other celestial bodies and energy that radiates to space. Then, a balance is determined. In this process energy determines a balance between the composition and the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth and that emitted by the earth in the space, balance that defines the average temperature on Earth's surface, fundamental to take place of life on our planet. If you change one of the factors at play the balance moves. In the specific case there is alarm for the significant increase of carbon dioxide. At present the atmosphere contains 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide compared with 280 ppm of the pre-industrial age. To ensure that the global average temperature does not increase beyond two degrees the concentration of carbon dioxide should not exceed 450 ppm. This goal will be impossible to achieve because today is expected to reach 400 ppm of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next 10 years. We must accept this reality? The goal of maintaining the concentration below 450 ppm is not realistic.

This means that we are about to reach a point of no return where the changes could become irreversible. . The natural balance of the Earth heat is permanently altering; the collapse of the planet is near… And irreversible means no return, and we have to be afraid.
We have also seen previously that when the planet is in aphelion, that is the maximum distance from the Sun (152 million km around) we are in July, the hottest month in the northern hemisphere, the minimum distance from the Sun (147 million km ), We are instead in perielio in early January, the coldest month of the year.
What matters, remember it, is only the tilt of the Earth’s axis.
The solstice and the equinox correspond to important positions that the Earth assumes than the Sun in four different times in the calendar (in a year occur, in fact, two equinoxes and solstices two).
When the Earth is at equinox the sun's rays are perpendicular to the equator and kickbacks at the poles. As already mentioned, the temperature of the planet depends from the incidence between the area and rays of the sun: If these are perpendicular, they transport the maximum of energy, it is therefore evident that the heating has higher values to 0 ° latitude, namely the equator, it will have average values for medium latitudes and minimum at the poles.
The equinoxes give beginning, as their name indicates, to the seasons of spring and autumn, which concluded respectively with summer and winter solstices, when the relative seasons start.
The summer solstice occurs on June 21. On this date the rays of the sun are perpendicular to the Tropic of Cancer. So there’s a greater intensity warming in the boreal, our latitudes, where summer begins.
On the contrary, in the Southern Hemisphere begins winter because the duration of daily illumination reaches its minimum value. In the winter solstice the summer start in the austral hemisphere and in northern hemisphere is the day with fewest hours of light.
To return to us, we have two parameters on which to think about: the unstoppable emissions of carbon dioxide and energy that activates the greenhouse effect, the sunlight. As for the time being impossible to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide we have to ensure that the energy of sunlight affect as little as possible on global warming, forcing the rays of sunlight to make a longer way, to cross, that is, more time than natural, a greater amount of atmosphere in the southern hemisphere than in the north. How? By holding for a time to define the Earth in its equinoxes position, when the sun's rays are perpendicular to the equator and tangents to the poles. Or rather, straighten the axis of rotation in order to have a condition of solar radiation as the equinoxes. In this position the Earth at the poles would receive a minimum amount of energy, glaciers would not melt, ocean waters would warm the Equator and would set again exchanges cold-hot that feed the ocean currents and weather. Obviously other positions of the Earth than those assumed at equinoxes correspond to different inclinations of the Earth's axis of rotation that could cause a different distribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a transfer of it from northern emisphere to the south, "racking" that today is prevented by the "thermal equatorial barrier".
A greater inclination of the land would not prevent life on Earth. Probably it only would make a little 'more uncomfortable. It depends what you tilt. Meanwhile let’s ask ourselves: can we change the tilt of axis around which our beloved Earth turns? The desperation makes me say yes. I love life, I love lives. I love our planet, the one to life. And let us continue to be that place where the universe has generated himself to have awareness of self. And the place, Earth, where the infinite inanimate acquires and becomes awareness. And that’s what we are.