The Net Zero Myth. Why Reaching our Climate Goals is Virtually Impossible
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? For the first 200 people to join Planet Wild, I will personally pay for the first month of your Planet Wild subscription at www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss...
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest video here:
Protecting dolphins from mass tourism: www.planetwild.com/sabinehoss...
Everyone is talking about Net Zero. But Net Zero what? What does this even mean? Is it a reasonable goal? How far are we on the way? And do we have any chance of reaching it? For this video, we have collected all facts and numbers that you need to join the discussion.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video jordibusque.com/
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ / @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
00:00 Intro
00:20 Net zero definition
01:56 Why aim for Net Zero?
05:05 Where are we on the way to net zero?
07:19 Not all is bad
10:54 Carbon Capture
15:03 Resistance
16:25 Summary
16:36 Make a Difference with Planet Wild!!
#science #climatechange #environment - Наука та технологія
Why do UA-camrs replace videos so rarely, even if they know a video contains a mistake?
It's because if you upload a correction, that will be recommended to people who have already watched the first version. They are unlikely to watch it again, or not watch it entirely. The almighty algorithm concludes that the video is not interesting and stops recommending it to other people.
In brief, taking a video down is a bad idea.
As you see, I did it anyway. That's because the first version of the video contained a serious mistake, which is that I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. I had forgotten that carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so left to its own devices the levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
It's a mistake that you find in other places as well, but I think it's really important to get this right and I do not want to contribute to spreading it.
You will greatly help us if you let this video run until the end, maybe give it a thumb up if you think it deserves it, and share on your socials, if you still use those and if you think other people might find it useful.
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778x206633411542960240
Thanks for your patience. We try really hard to avoid mistakes, but sometimes they slip through despite our best efforts.
Thank you for bringing so much real and correct ideas/information in your vides and in your writing
Alright.. I'll watch an episode of friends while your video is playing on my phone.
Tread carefully might lose a lot of subscribers over this one a lot of idiots out there think it's completely impossible to get rid of positive carbon emissions.
Admirable. Your capitalism video could use some similar thoroughness though.
We can easily use excess solar energy to initiate Paralysis on organic material and carbonize it then take that carbon and put it into the ground which will help things grow because it is like a coral reef for nutrients in the ground... and this process will off gas usable fuels that can be burned for heat or other sources.... because it's done in the oxygen free environment you maintain the carbon structures and because you're putting the carbon back into the ground it becomes clean energy that helps you grow more food that you can use the waste from to make more clean energy.
I'm so old, I can remember when "Net Zero" was a company that promised free internet. Yeah, that didn't work out either.
I'm so old I can remember when climate scientists were telling us we entering a new ice age. They have no more idea now then they did back then. But it worked magnificently as a funding program !!
@@tuberroot1112delete your existence
@@tuberroot1112 That was due to all the smoke. We mostly fixed that, so that's why it didn't happen.
@@katrinabryceaccepting that happened in the US, yet it wildly increased in China and India. You might want to rethink your conclusion.
@@tuberroot1112 That was H. H. Lamb and what he said in the introduction to one of his great books was that if it weren't for greenhouse gas emissions from humans we'd be going into an ice age. If you look at Net Zero from that perspective, it's a terrible goal besides being impossible. Cold will kill more people than +2 degrees C will.
An awful lot of manufacturing moved from the us and Europe to China at the same time the emissions dropped in the former and raised in the latter. I don't think this was so much a reduction in emissions as much as just moving them around.
There were also real emissions reductions in the US and EU, due mostly to switching from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation. China is also cleaning up its grid and transport sectors at a rapid rate.
No it did not just move them, it increased them. In the west we use gas, in China they use soft coal. Assuming the current Chinese regime lasts, which is questionable, the "Greening" of the EU and US has and will continue to raise because it changed and will continue to change the emissions from gas to coal which employs more people than employed in the EU and US who will live in newer more energy demanding housing powered by burning coal in addition to operating the factories.
This is not particularly clear because the Chinese either lie or simply fail to report their statistics.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Renewables, yes. Gas, no. Gas is as bad as coal for climate, replacing CO2 with methane. 70 countries have mostly renewable electrical grids, 23 at or near 100%, 2 near 100% total energy. Almost all energy being built in the world now is renewable, while efficiency has replaced more carbon than anything. Primary energy in general (direct use of fuels in transportation, industry, & buildings) is being electrified all over; that's the necessary first step in renewablizing it.
"Gas is as bad as coal for climate"
Look up the carbon:hydrogen ratio in methane vs coal and think about that again.
Carbon has negligible effect on climate as an honest use of the radiation codes shows. With coal it's all the other stuff especially from soft coal. FACT is that US emissions have gone done due to switch from Coal to gas.
Sabine is the ultimate no-bullshit scientist. I'm doing research on this topic and it's important to recognize that a lot of our environmental initiatives are a lot of noise - and short on substance.
Well, it's the noise that gets you the funds.
When we consider how much carbon capture and storage AND carbon removal costs, we should consider if there are other more effective carbon-lowering investments that we could do instead. If the former only reduces CO2 by a fraction of a percent and for the same amount of money we could transition away from fossil fuels by investing in additional renewable energy, reducing emissions by several percent, then the latter investment is the wiser.
I can't help but notice how we in the West claim good economies while greening. 😂 While being wildly dependent on the developing world for almost all goods. So we are actually responsible for the carbon of the developing world. That gives us the ability to have a service economy while downplaying our impact on co2. It truly comes across as disingenuous.
To further add injury hammer third world countries with "your emission bad" (even if they dont have the highest emissions) that way they get mixed signals on wether they are allowed to industrialize or not lol.
So we are actually responsible for the carbon of the developing world.
They are responsible for their own actions.
@bastiaan7777777 actually when you think about it. The companies are Western with a clear goal of suppling that market. Consumption in emerging markets is the growth potential. The clear goal is to take advantage of cheap labor and supply the West. Of course, they'll use this opportunity to grow. It's not helpful, however, to pretend it's not our mess. It is!!!
@@jeremyholbrook2094 You are pretty ignorant if you think that those countries produce exclusively for the west. Also, why deny those countries their wealth coming from said productions?
@bastiaan7777777 The base of profitability lies in the West. The growth prospects are emerging.
The countries that have reduced their GHG emissions have done so by closing their carbon intensive industrial base and farming the work out to developing nations. So really they have not prospered from reducing these emissions. They have just moved them to another continent. Excellent content as always.
Most European countries closed their coal mines and heavy industries over 40 years ago already though, much of the recent carbon reduction is from replacing coal with gas & renewables.
France survives because of the evil Nuclear Energy....and Western Civilization is ok with China dumping pollution because it manufactures its goodies such as smartphones, and cappuccino machines and clears the conscience by giving billions to Third World Dictators while they rape the natural resources....it is phase two of The three composing factors of the "White Man's Burden" are Christianity, Pragmatism, and Manifest Destiny; they are explained in detail and an attempt has been made to show how they form a cohesive unit, and in turn, a foreign policy.
@@rey_nemaattoriand, as OP says, offshoring & selling off carbon emission rights.
They have not reduced their emissions either, they have just sent them to another country.
not true, draconian regulations on automobiles and nuclear power in France counts for a great chunk of the reduction.
Hi, I'm a tree!
Some fun fact: there's an expression in Japanese which sounds like "ki ni naru" and is written 気になる. It means:
1. to weigh on one's mind; to bother one; to worry about; to be concerned about; to care about; to feel uneasy; to be anxious
2. to be interested (in); to be curious (about); to wonder (about); to catch one's eye
3. to feel like (doing); to feel inclined to; to bring oneself to (do)
But if you write it like 木になる, it has the same pronunciation, but it means "to become a tree" (or "I become a tree" as Japanese verbs don't have inflections for person).
Combining these, you can say "ki ni natta" and it will mean "I got interested in" or "I became a tree" depending on the context (in speech) or depending on how you write it.
🌲
Taking down a video because of a prior mistake, and correcting that mistake in a followup video despite being punished by the algorithm deserves respect.
Burning trees and capturing the carbon from it is an idea I haven't heard talked about before, but you are right in that it's the released carbon, not the combustion that's the problem, and that burning fossil fuels is releasing excess carbon while burning trees would be burning non-excess carbon. Although I am sure things are more complicated that the simplistic explanation I have here.
Just for awareness there is research with a diffrent solution to the climate change with experimentally verified results the gist of it can be found here ua-cam.com/video/tdhfuu5lPNM/v-deo.html or search climate error on youtube
carbon is not a problem, it only has benefits - more harvests, more trees and plants, deserts receding and green cools the planet again...
@@MarcoVermeij excess carbon is actually harmful to plants. There has been studies done where the CO2 content in the air is increased (inside a controlled environment) and plants actually grew less. I also believe there were models created based on the data.
Now I don't remember the specific reference off the top of my, but I am sure if you do some googling you'll find it has long as you don't stick with your bias.
Also, Venus proves excess CO2 can be very bad. CO2 in Venus' atmosphere is believed to contribute heavily to why Venus is a lot hotter than it should be.
I was midway through watching your original video, when it conked out. Thank you so much for your integrity to retract this video and repost. These are complicated topics, and we appreciate your acumen in researching and conveying these to us, whether or not they concern Einstein or quantum mechanics.
Also, some nations are fudging the numbers. For example, Canda doesn't count emissions from bushfires as it isn't manmade however they count the carbon absorbed by trees (which isnt manmade).
Those sneaky Canadians ! And I heard somewhere that Albertans are almost as bad as Canadians !
@@grindupBakeroh? I thought it was us Quebecers? 😂❤
Lol, you think they aren't manmade.
Another point is that carbon removed by trees is only temporarily removed. Eventually, the tree dies and rots (or lately, burns) which liberates the carbon again.
CONGRATULATIONS! You won a "Context' box from the purveyors of pure truth.
The resistance to CCS almost reminds me of the Gatorade scene from idiocracy.
"Fossil fuels and combustion is bad!"
"Yes, because they release carbon into the atmosphere."
"So what should we do about it."
"We should capture the carbon so it's not released into the atmosphere."
"No, that's a bad idea."
"What? Why?"
"Cause that would not reduce the use of fossil fuels."
"But why would that be a problem if we capture the carbon?"
"Because fossil fuels are bad!"
"Yes, because they..."
Sigh.
That is one thing that "separates men from boys", or scientists from talking heads: Scientists acknowledge error. I'm glad I'm subscribed.
What is this net zero everyone keeps on talking about and is it better than coke zero?
or sugar free steroids?
It is a tax accounting trick - get your carbon credits for manufacturing in China but that’ll never get the atmosphere carbon dumping down. It is a fraud.
Net Zero is a is terribly slow internet browser although slightly better then AOL.
@@SoundsLegit71it was free though, I used to use it for online gaming with PS2, those were dark days
@@ThatOpalGuy literally nothing is better than that.
Hey Sabine, I want to pinpoint out that another mistake that environmentalist groups make is opposing nuclear power. It's the cleanest and safest energy source that we could have, but is phrased as 'dangerous' by infamous accidents. Talking about that, there were 3 major accidentes in history between the more 100 nuclear power plants around the world.
Many enviromental groups and the IPCC support nuclear power.
Most people do not want them standing in their backyard.
There are plenty of reasons to not like nuclear but at this point I don't object in principle. The problem is that they are very expensive , take very long to install and they tend to lose vast amounts of money.
@@lrvogt1257 Not in China or in 80s France. It is a matter of will
@@seba24000 : French nukes are going bankrupt. China is a command economy. They don't have to worry about profit margins.
Building a dystopian world is difficult enough without the added burden of requiring that all the pretentious jargon make sense. Just eat your bugs and no farting, proles.
Why no mention that temperature increase due to CO2 is logarithmic, or that charts over hundreds of thousands of years show CO2 increase lagging temperature increase, or natural short term climate changes (decades or centuries) aka. the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warming period, or that plants thrive on CO2, or that if CO2 levels get too low plants will die, or that fossil fuels will likely run out over the next century? A logical approach would be to transition coal plants to natural gas, followed by natural gas to fission nuclear, and then fission nuclear to fusion nuclear. Shutting down fossil fuels with no real replacement will kill billions of people.
Because its wrong or not relevant.
Much easier to have confidence in a communicator that can admit to their mistakes and correct them. Bit of a novelty in the climate "debate"! I felt a bit more optimistic after watching the video.
Now she can delete this one too and admit she was wrong about EU being 2.3 above pre-industrial in 2022 because they are two different things. Then she can remove the lie that we can continue "decarbonising" without hurting prosperity because we improved efficiency once. Like eating less, that does not work indefinitely.
@@tuberroot1112 sorry, accusing someone of lying when they have just demonstrated a willingness to admit and correct errors is the sort of adversarial partisan rhetoric that indicates further discussion will be unproductive. If you want to show she was wrong, give references to your data sources and present your argument in a more moderate manner that suggests that you are willing to consider counter-arguments to your position.
@@tuberroot1112 why so but hurt?
@brodude7194 I don't think he was butthurt, he just doesn't think it possible to have a productive discussion based on that initial reply.
@@DJRonnieG well yes I do, it's the only conclusion left to a sane person
Bioenergy also captures carbon via root deposition. The plant grows above and below ground, but we only harvest the above ground portion. No till agriculture plus deep rooted perennial plants cause carbon soil levels to rise. Forests and pastures are both good at this. Coppiced biomass has the ingredients to do so, but I'm not aware of studies on this.
You talk about a possible decoupling between economy and energy, but if greenhouse gas emissions have decreased in Europe and the United States it is because these countries are deindustrializing. And if GDP increases it is thanks to debt. In reality there is no decoupling between economy and energy. What we no longer produce by polluting we import from countries which continue to generate greenhouse gases.
There's worse ways to spend 18 minutes than watching Sabine present a video again.
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏
🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏
🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏
❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
can you give an example? at this point she doesn't even hide her anti climate protection agenda
@@yonaoisme Spending that much time arguing with you would be worse.
@@CAThompson best comment I read this day 👍
@@yonaoisme She uses facts to back her statements and you espouse a dumba55 ad hominem to counter her scientific facts.
Permit me to use a similar troupe you employ by quoting a very wise rabbit: "What a maroon! What an ignoramus!"
I appreciate your call for carbon capture, I am only worried about the insane amount of energy that will cost and whether that energy couldn't better be used for other purposes.
Carbon capture is a complete fantasy, or even a scam.
cripto-mining seems to be a a better way to use it.
I'm not able to prove it, but i suspect, it would be in most cases much cheaper to stop CO2 Emission than to capture it later... but you can sell Carbon capture as a hope, and a reason, not to stop emitions right no... we can just go on... sad, but this is the way, most humans are.
@crypto anything sucks huge amounts of power and releases heat.
Of course, if scientists and engineers are interested in doing this then they will develop a way to carry this process out efficiently. Or else it would've been impractical to make it work at a large scale.
I have read that even if all emissions were stopped today that temperatures would continue to increase until equilibrium was reached.
Yes the ocean takes 2,000 years. Well-known simple science.
@@grindupBaker More like 100 years actually, a regular sized lake take 10 years.That means in 2124 all excess heat from our modern solar maximum will have vanished.
Yes and emissions keep rising too.
@@lrvogt1257 They can keep rising how much they want to would still not make sweden the center of the world a tropical paradise anyways.
@@albin4323: That's both true and irrelevant. The equatorial areas will experience an increasing number of extreme and inhospitably hot days and increasing food insecurity leading to social unrest and migrations.
Because of the more extreme waviness of the jet stream, further towards the Arctic could be anything from drought and fires to floods, early or late frosts and invasive species. SEE: "NASA Watching the Land Temperature Bell Curve Heat Up (1950-2020)"
Thanks. You and your team are modern day information heroes.
This is the integrity we need. Thanks for your hard work
With all due respect, but how about supporting the politicians that are trying to achieve this rather than a sympathetic, intelligent bystander who can just move on with her life after making this video? I come from the Netherlands, the country of Timmermans, the architect of the Green Deal. He is getting a lot of nasty reactions.
That's because the decisions of politicians affect everyone while opponents of climate change will never watch this video resulting in a like minded echo chamber. Just as there are like minded echo chambers advocating the total opposite in other UA-cam channels.
We are all shielded from that, contrary to the politicians that have to take the bullets (sometimes literally, see the recent Ecuadorian elections).
Always great when someone acknowledges an error. This is why I'm glad I'm subscribed.
what is the error? if we never hit net zero, humanity will go extinct.
@@yonaoismethe only way to hit "net zero" is if we go extinct.
@@ScottBFree obviously wrong
@@yonaoisme LMAO you're not serious
or if we change our behavior in a way such that CO2 levels fall. it's that easy@@ScottBFree
When mentioning greenhouses gases, no mention was made of water vapour, which is often stated to be around 30 times as significant as carbon dioxide.
Yes but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases or decreases in line with CO2, thats why CO2 levels are the emphasis on driving climate trends.
Not thirty times, 12500 times.
Where on earth did you get that notion from? @@TheodoreChin-ih7xz
I'd be happy to stand corrected, but I don't believe I've ever seen your figure mentioned before. Where does it come from?@@geoffevans4908
It appears this tiny amount of gas controls the climate, not factors like the sun.
I love your videos Sabine. You hit the nail on the head with confusion over carbon removal and carbon capture being confused by many people, in fact there are so many problems with nomenclature in the whole climate change field, I guess because it is a "new" field of interest. From the components of a domestic PV system (inverter now means something so different and more complex to what it did 10 years ago), to the many terms and acronyms used on a bigger scale.
I think another area of poor understanding is the magnitude of effectiveness of different things we can do ourselves. I think many people believe installing PV is the best low carbon decision for their domestic heating, which turns out to be very wrong. I had a house largely heated by fossil fuels (methane) and I switched to a heat pump and a renewables tariff. After six months I did a fairly detailed calculation of the CO2 emissions from both setups and was quite astonished that they had fallen by 97%. I had done it as fairly as possible taking into account the renewable energy mix of my supplier and their lifetime carbon intensities. This reduction translates to a 10 tonne/y reduction in CO2 emissions, for context this would be equivalent to 10 transatlantic flights per year (not that I fly anymore!). Or about 6 times the emissions from a typical (ICE) car driven a typical number of miles per year.
In the above calculation I also had changed and inefficient gas cooker for an electric one. I calculated that a more typical house would save 95% of its CO2 emissions, still a colossal change.
I'm glad you focused on eco-system restoration at the end. I've long thought that if we took a look at building up new ecosystems, and revitalizing old ones, much of the carbon capture would start to take care of itself. I also think new strategies like regenerative agriculture need to be looked at more seriously. If we start treating our farms like ecosystems we'd likely environments flourish.
I understand why institutions focus on carbon dioxide, as it is easily quantifiable. However, I fear an overfocus on just the molecules, rather than the cycles and ecosystems in which those molecules are involved, misses the forest for the trees. Here's to focusing on building reslience through ecosystems!
Yes, let’s not forget that climate change is just one part of the problem. We can live in a perfectly net-zero world while still destroying the Amazon and ravaging seabeds.
Your not wrong... But also, we have in just a century liberated millennia worth of sunk carbon.
Nature will not simply catch up without our application of technology, which is what has brought us to this point.
But don't despair the numbers work out, we can undo what we have done.
Life isn't the only way to build co2 into HC chains for permanent storage...
That is actually how climate cooling project Justdiggit works. It has proven it can contain desert land, preventing them from growing, and even reclaim desert areas by making sure rain stays at the same place instead of flushing away. The net result is that new vegetation grows at areas where there was previously none.
The amounts of CO2 we are emitting per year far exceeds the amount that biology can absorb. That is the problem.
@@alanjenkins1508But it starts to help when net-zero is reached.
This is why you are one of the Best Scientists on UA-cam Sabine. You KNOW the UA-cam algorithm will kick you in the arse if you remove a video and then reupload a fix.... but you do it anyway because its the RIGHT thing to do when mistakes (which happen we are all human) crop up, evenmoreso with scientific content.
I hope the algorithm doesn't hurt you too much (and no one has control over it) but please know that this is why we appreciate your content so much. Your desire to be 100% scientific no matter the cost.
People keep on saying that CO2 is the most prominent greenhouse gas. That is simply not true. CO2 is dwarfed by water vapor. In fact, runaway climate change is dependent on runaway water vapor. (Co2 slightly warms the planet which increases evaporation and water vapor leading to runaway warming.) But water vapor is self-regulating and is also powerful in regulating energy from the sun through clouds, rain (which drives CO2 and Methane into the oceans and soil) and of course evaporation replacing the lost water vapor. Of all the issues with the models projecting runaway warming, water vapor and especially clouds are the item that programmers still cannot effectively mimic. That is why all of the Climate Models run hot -- predicting more warming than actually happens.
i just love it how academics, politicians, and others who have little problem with keeping their jobs or paying for their food, accommodation or fuel seem to think that the economies appear to be doing fine.
economies and personal wealth and health is being rapidly destroyed.
Hi Sabine, I´m a Californian Hyperion tree celebrating that finally a youtuber says hello to us 🌳🌲
DAC needs a gigantic amount of green energy to operate in a climate-relevant way. For larger DAC plants in planning, we are talking about the world's largest solar plants or even nuclear power plants and then of course the question arises why we need all the resources for carbon negative emissions if we don't even manage to decarbonize the energy sector.
DAC is a distraction because every kWh of renewable energy used for DAC removal displaces that same kWh of energy that could be used to power the grid therefore keeping carbon intensive electricity generation online.
The only way DAC makes sense is if we first decarbonize everything that's not super difficult to decarbonize.
Perhaps spell out the abbreviation the first time.
Yeah, DAC won't work without first doing the simple things. But BECCS and biochar should work. Though thay are limited to the amount of biomass we can get. BECCS also partially solves the energy issue. Maybe a worthwhile shot?
I agree that carbon capture (DAC or otherwise) isn’t an excuse for continuing to burn fossil carbon. But I’m good with doing early research and experiments on it now, so we can apply it once we have decarbonized the energy system and can build out surplus clean energy.
We are removing a lot of trees here in Australia so that we can build renewable energy farms.
Show me the evidence. I see many wind farms and solar PV farms in South Australia and not a single one was built on ground not already cleared over a century ago for farming.
8:36 "So we've seen it's possible to decarbonize even large economies without sacrificing prosperity."
Really? Can you elaborate on that?
Sabine, thank you. I really enjoy your communication of science.
I am curious though specifically about the reduction in greenhouse emissions in Europe and North America, why is no mention ever made of their transfer of poluting industries specifically to China and other parts of the world? How much of the coal powered electricity genration around the world goes to produce goods for Western consumption?
SShhhhh, the media doesn't want to talk about that because then China wouldn't be gaining an economic advantage over us.
Who exactly is forcing the CCP to pollute as much as it is? It CHOOSES to operate dirty industries.
Virtue signaling. Australia ships coal to China, and doesn't count that in their country's emissions.
There is mention. You probably didn't notice. I knew of this transfer decades ago. China was building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week and both China and India vowed to raise the standard of living of their people by burning coal at large scales.
@@solconcordia4315 There were no mentioning of Europe and US deliberately moving "dirty" production to China and other developing countries still comsuming major part of products from these factories. Moreover there was attempt of scam with carbon tax wich for some reason should pay factories and not consumers of the goods :) Let it be consumers and then they will be more cafull with chosing what to buy and producers will be competing in lessening emissions :)
Net Zero had a definition around 20 years ago. It was an internet service provider. Then they went out of business when broadband came along. 😁😁
Big remembering!
The company became zero on the net. 😄
I used Net Zero for a short time. It was free and I was a student.
I still get email on NetZero.
@@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836yep that’s how they got their name, it was free dial-up internet. A few companies did this. Their dialer app showed a banner ad on top. I had a Mac, so I used ResEdit to change the window type to be resizable, then I could hide the ads 😅
Interesting. The problem with all of this is who will pay for the cost of carbon capture? It's not exactly going to be cheap to implement at scale and as far as companies are concerned there's no profit in carbon capture technology. How can there be? Why would companies invest in technology and infrastructure for something that doesn't make any profit? On the other hand, extracting and burning oil is still eminently profitable. Even if Europe was to (somehow) fully decarbonise, it barely means jack if we can't have the same policies being implemented in Asia and the Middle East.
Companies are afraid to publicly criticize anything popular, so they are pretending to go along with it. The charade will persist for awhile, until it becomes clear (maybe in the 2040s) that *_Net Zero by 2050_* was never going to be achievable.
Love the way they show powerstations , those towers are cooling tiwers, and the large plumes are steam and water vapour.
Very well done, Sabine. The very best breakdown produced to date. Planet Wild, I will subscribe to. Very practical.
Thank you for your always informative videos. And thank you for trying to do your own small part. You are not alone.
By reducing the number of human births by 99.95%, we can reduce the total carbon in the human biomass by 99.95% (same as it was -10KY). The 0.05% human biomass would then also be producing less CO2 accordingly.
Feeding Africa, Gaza, Yemen was a bit of an own goal!
Another major tipping point is when frozen CH4 clathrates begin to thaw releasing methane plumes off the arctic seabed. 100x more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 within the first 5 years. Growing evidence is showing as the arctic seas warm, the concentration of thawing methane hydrates is rising significantly as well. (Sharpova et al)
Up to 2000 gTonnes of CH4 has the potential of being released.
Plus in the permafrost across Siberia and Canada.
As Mike said: "Plus in the permafrost..." and the leakage from natural gas production.
Not a tree but I just wanted to say hey anyway. Good to learn the difference between carbon capture and carbon removal. Thanks for reuploading with the fix. Big hug to you
" ..and the only thing we can do to get to net zero, is to actively remove carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.."
if only there was an organism that would eat CO2 and poop out something good for everyone, like Oxygen. And also be solar powered. And best of all, if it could become food for animals and even people. oh oh oh, and make it so that it can live on land AND water. HOW awesome would an organism like that be!!!
Plant's enter chat
:)
🛑Humans led to Venus global warming🤏
🛑Humans led to Mars thin atmosphere🤏
🛑Humans let to Neptune climate change🤏
❌Stop rent ur brain to corrupt environmentalists & green scammers 🤢🤢🤮
@@MR-backupthe problem is, they have always do that, at the rate they have always done that, and only that "waste" which did not decay back into the carbon cycle was sunk carbon.
If you account for all the time and how very little amount of life ended up as hc chains, that we then burnt for (~20% of the) energy content... You will notice the math is that direct photons via PV panels are about 4 orders of magnitude more efficient.
Coupled with the cosmically tragic rate that we have been burning those handy HC chains, and you'll see that simply stopping the combustion, IE: net zero. Won't come close to re-sequestering that which we've liberated.
We will need to over produce via renewables (which is actually quite easy), and then deploy the majority of that towards artificial sequestration.
This gets us back to a pre industrial carbon cycle in balance, maybe. And at the end so much excess energy that space might be a good place to spend it by lifting some mass out of our gravity well...
@@MR-backupIt is covered under Biochar😉 Although its impact is not fully understood and the produced amount is used again, instead of being buried in the leftover pits of lignite mining.
We also could refill the Ruhrpott, limiting the forever costs.
I'm not sure I capture the difference between the two. Technically identical but used in a different way?
As far as I know "Net Zero" is just the same as the expression "Carbon Neutral" which used to be in use a lot some time ago. Of course any 'net zero' or 'carbon neutral' condition implies a steady state level of carbon dioxide, without actually defining what this level is, or what level is acceptable.
It does actually... "net zero" makes sense when you take into account the whole life cycle of something.
For instance... A wood panel for a building might have a negative impact if the wood is mulched at the end of it's life and more trees are planted to replace those cut down to produce said panel.
It's not impossible but it's also not feasible that EVERY single industry would plant enough trees to offset their emissions. Therefore we need to have a system that makes it expensive to pollute as an incentive to not do so. At the end of the day all you need is that everyone reduces emissions as much as possible and someone compensates for the remainder.
My point is that with equal rates of output and input there is a steady state CO2 concentration which persists in the atmosphere. This will tend to be close to the level at which carbon neutrality of the whole economy is first achieved. What this level is, would have to be adjusted (reduced) by periods of greater input than output. The main purpose of economy-wide carbon neutrality, is to stop the CO2 level rising any further. There are many other practical problems too, planting trees uses land area and there is an increasing pressure on the use of land because of the growing global food shortage which has been causing a long-term rise in global food commodity prices. Biofuels have caused problems by competing for land use with food production. @@pedromoura1446
It's like digging a hole and filling it back in at the same time, and changing the definition of what ground level is.
Volcanoes here near the Andes, apart from earthquakes, sometimes one of them starts emitting smoke. It definitely lowers the temperature of my city at 200km away, pacific coast.. More than one month smoking and it went, nice, because here at that season the temperature is over 30º C, and it went down to 26º.C.. Absolutely cloudy... But those particles... Lots of ash reached us, cars were covered with that, also plants, like pastures for farm animals
In case anyone is wondering what the mistake was, this is Sabine's explanation: "I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. [However] carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so...levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
While I appreciate the integrity and attempt to be as accurate as possible, she wasn't wrong. If we stopped all anthropogenic emissions overnight, feedback effects mean that, at least for a short while, temperatures will continue to rise. The last bit of emissions will lead to a slight increase in temperature, which in turn leads to a slight change in water vapour partial pressure. This means increased water vapour, which itself is a greenhouse gas, which in turn increases temperature, which will loop until the effect equalises: kind of like how a spring continues to oscillate after it is released.
Other complications include plant leaves thickening with increased CO2, which in turn reduces the carbon take-up from photosynthesis. Well known effect from greenhouses if plants aren't pruned regularly. In short, no-one can really quantify the effect, but we can be pretty confident that this will happen.
We know how horrible climate change is. When all the wealthy fly their personal jets to every meeting, instead of doing virtual meetings. When they talk about the rapid rise of the oceans, then buy beach front property. When they shift manufacturing out of countries with good waste control measures. To countries with horrible waste control measures. Maybe we could get another celebrity to tells us how we all need to do our part. Right before they jet out to their private yacht.
Well, ice core from drilling suggest that FIRST the temperature goes up, THEN the rate of atmopheric CO2 increase.
That's logical because the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and it's logocal since warm water cannot keep as much gases as a cold water.
That is not always the case.
@@old-pete Yes, cold water can always keep more gases than warm water.
@@leifwn7341 I was talking about temperature increasing first.
That is not always the case.
Everything in the research seems to indicate that we would be best off by trying to adapt to temperature changes, instead of trying to centrally plan the entire global economy into producing just the right amount of greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide removal could be something useful to do with excess electric power. In Australia, excess solar panels mean that power prices are zero while sun is shining.
The construction of solar panels has a cost which generally offsets the benefits you'd get from their existence in the first place. There's also not enough resources to construct enough solar panels to generate enough power to solve any real issues.
@@rusty6172power that is generated must be immediately used or store. At certain times a day, especially when using green energy, there is a surplus. It could be used to generate sodium hydroxide, which can be used to remove CO2 instead of being wasted. That was my point
@@stevenpace892 So how much you pay for electricity in Australia ? In Canada it has never been more expensive
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
@@dmitripogosian5084 it is expensive except when sun is shining. Government incentives cause so many solar panel installations that there is excess power. Then the coal electric plants started shutting down because they were no longer economical, causing prices to soar! Unlike North America, Australia has no significant hydro power.
I watched the first video and I’ll watch this one too. Error and rectification is an integral part of science.
The UK has been gradually reducing its emissions over the last 30 years. It is half of what it was in 1990.
That is good news if true.
@@AllioNeo Industry has been heavily exported since 2010, even food has got far lower, so if you don't count all the imported goods and food it look really great!
I'm not sure moving a factory from the UK to china really counts, since it's a global issue. Have you been keeping track of your farts also? So you know how much methane you'll need to remove from the atmosphere?
Inspiring as ever, Sabine!
Just saw it, but I'll let it run in the background anyways, for the algorithm.
Haha. I watched a good portion of the other one. Can I get a refund Sabine?? Merci
Thanks, much appreciated.
Regarding China emissions and their importance, it should be noted that China industry produces mainly to meet the demand of Western countries. In fact, county emissions charts that don't take into account the import/export balance are quite misleading, because they hide the fact that western economies have massively outsourced their production to third countries.
Correct.
Great point
They still have like 1.3 billion people.
Unless you want to institute global trade bans, that won't change. China emits far more GHG per $ of production than almost any other country. so they're not just more inefficient in the absolute but also on relative measures.
@@krishnam1 if the West wants to stop China's pollution it can do so easily enough by stopping consumerism.
What's clear at this point is that no one has a clue to real solutions or the possible consequences of those solutions.
Sure they do. It's not that complicated. The fossil fuel industry has a $4 TRILLION a year stake in keeping the fuel burning and that is having extremely negative consequences. Burning less fuel is the only way to mitigate the damage.
@@lrvogt1257And the consequences of burning less fossil fuels?
@@olibertosoto5470: Less CO2 emissions and slower temperature increases... which is the primary concern now. Freedom from dependence on OPEC+ and the FF companies etc so less ability for them to threaten, coerce and bleed us of cash.
My compliments to you on your perspective on current affairs. It is true much of the economy is under much scrutiny on current policies enforced that do not receive much favor. It is also prudent of you to avoid opening that Pandora's box. Netizens are a necessary muse. I appreciate the content you share on this platform, it's quite the achievement. Not everyday we receive an intellectual perspective about worldly matters.
Biggest issue hampering reaching netzero fast is the influence of the climate lobby & activists going all-in on renewables and villifying natural gas and nuclear, even as intermediate steps.
Sure, natural gas does have co2 emissions, but vastly less than coal and lignite, so switching to gas instead of coal/lignite would be a massive win already, especially for developing countries who might not be able to purchase a >15 billion nuclear plant. The West decarbonizing while developing countries are weened of coal into gas would still be a great benefit to total emissions.
As for nuclear, it's criminally insane we're not building at least a single plant in each Western country, it would save so much emissions it's hardly fathomable. Since it's a complete different sport than building windmills and installing PV, there's little competition for resources & personnel while at the same time it's a hedge for the winter times when there's less solar available and sometimes weeks with little to no wind.
But that only addresses the emission part, as goes for capturing, it's too complex and too politicized for most people to understand or support a certain method...so there's too much division to even decide on a path of direction., let alone make it as efficient as possible.
So much this.
Tree here. It’s evening now. Sending some O2 your way.
A large error was stated into your message as CO2 accounts for only 8% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the more powerful water vapor makes up 92%. Also since CO2 reached 200ppm it’s ability to react to the reflected energy from earths surfaces has been saturated and increased levels of CO2 above that level are logarithmic in its effect
Mechanical Engineer here...quick note on your comment about combustion. It is true that the problem with combustion is the CO2 produced from combustion and not the combustion itself. However, there are very few (if any) feasible combustion technologies that do NOT produce CO2. The only process I can think of off the top of my head would be hydrogen combustion using gas turbines, which are extremely fuel flexible. But this reintroduces the problem of production, storage, and distribution of the hydrogen which is not necessarily always green, or even blue. This is probably why Greenpeace and the EU are so fixated on the elimination of combustion processes.
That NSO definition is agony to read. I am envious of you putting in the work to extract the sense it has.
The problem is their "pre industrial" temperature goal. There was a "little ice age" that ended right around the same time the industrial revolution began. So their "normal temperature" is actually TOO LOW, because it was affected by the little ice age. They're forcing us to maintain a temperature that is NOT NORMAL -- the ACTUAL normal temperature should be about 2 degrees C higher than what they claim it should be. That's the main reason why literally none of their doomsday predictions they've been spewing since the late 1970s have come true -- the temperatures are getting back to normal, not increasing above some arbitrary baseline.
That's a interesting narrative
@@DanishValkyrieStop believing their propaganda and do some research. It's easy to google "the Little Ice Age" and read a few articles. Temperatures, on average, dropped 2C. And it ended, by all accounts, in 1850. Right at the point where they claim they want to get back to.
So they're literally aiming to get back to temperatures that are 2C too low.
Another very interesting and very understandable video, thank you.
It would have been interesting to add something about the cost of the various CCS and C removal methods, and in case of 'artificial' methods (i.e. other than vegetation/biomass) the energy requirements.
And with regard to stabilizing temperatures after net zero, I have doubts about that: the delayed temperature response might be (much) stronger than the effect of the slightly decreased CO2 level.
Ref. Hansen et al. Global Warming in the Pipeline.
Try all you want increased co2 is a good thing
@@clayed3311: CO2 is a very good thing... in the right amount and in the right place. Plant's like the CO2 for growth but PLANTS HATE the excessive heat, drought, fires, and floods the excess CO2 is creating.
Great video Sabine 👍🏻
See, this is why I trust your word over the countless others on youtube who talk about similar topics. Not many are willing to admit and fix their mistakes and accept that there will be a downside in views as a result of it. Although I think with you, people, like myself, will rewatch it to see the ammended version.
Another great contributor is "Just have a think". He focuses solely on climate issues and takes the science really seriously as well.
In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient). The numbers the IPCC reports are so insanely conservative.
Why aren't we talking about feedbacks and tipping points (AMOC, antarctic and arctic sea ice loss, desertification of boreal forests and so on). Do people know we've lost 80% of the volume of Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years?
What about biodiversity loss (70-86% reductions in insect populations over the last 50 years etc)? Poisoning of oceans, rivers, lakes and seas with toxic chemicals? The poisoning and overheating of oceans has reduced the ocean Ph to ~.79-.80 acidic enough to dissolve calcium carbonate shells of plankton and other sea creatures (hence why we've seen 50% reduction in their presence over the last 50 years in addition to many other species including coral reefs). All of these factors are symptoms of human population overshoot... the human species' innate need to dominate and destroy every ecosystem it comes into contact with. When will we have enough? And when will we stop having Carbon tunnel vision?
@@gregelliott1948 These are all important factors. However, I'm afraid that you have bought into entirely backwards and counterproductive solutions. The solution is abundant, safe, clean, cheap energy, to raise everyone out of poverty to decrease birth rates, and to have enough spare cheap energy to maintain high levels of environmental protection. I'm afraid that you believe in the wrong and counterproductive "solutions" of keeping humanity in (energy) poverty.
The video is improved, but it is not actually fixed. Unfortunately, Sabine did not crunch the numbers, so she mistakenly believes that carbon dioxide is taken up only "slowly" from the atmosphere by natural processes, and that if we achieve net zero the levels will just "slightly decrease." In fact, if we achieved net zero, the atmospheric CO2 level would be falling even faster (slightly faster) than it is now rising.
Averaged over the last 10 years, the atmospheric CO2 level rose only 2.45 ppmv per year (= 0.603% per year). The reason I say "only" is that human CO2 emissions averaged more than 5 ppmv per year over that same period! The reason for the large difference is that natural CO2 removal mechanisms (mainly terrestrial greening and ocean uptake) are removing more than 2.5 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere per year.
So if we were to achieve "net zero" today, the atmospheric CO2 level would not plateau (as many presume), nor would it only "slightly decrease" (as Sabine supposes). Instead, the level would fall rapidly, at an initial rate of about 2.55 ppmv per year (though the rate would decrease as the level declines).
That decrease in CO2 level would quickly (in only 10 to 15 years) cause the current radiative imbalance (0.3±0.1 W/m²) to go negative, at which point global temperatures would presumably be falling, rather than rising.
What's more, natural CO2 removal mechanisms accelerate by 1 ppmv per year for every 40 to 50 ppmv increase in the atmospheric CO2 level. That means if our emissions were to remain at the current rate, the atmospheric CO2 level would rise by only about 100 to 125 ppmv before plateauing, because natural CO2 removals would then equal our current rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
That 100-125 ppmv increase would represent just 1/3 of a "doubling" (log2(533/420)=0.34), compared to the 58.5% of a doubling of CO2 that we've already seen (log2(420/280)=0.585). That would eventually yield perhaps 1/2 °C of warming (compared to about 2/3 of the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen [WMO estimate] which is believed to have been due to CO2).
Inasmuch as the 1.15°C of warming we've already seen (since the late Little Ice Age) has been generally beneficial, there's every reason to believe that another 1/2 °C would also be beneficial, or at least benign.
@@gregelliott1948 wrote, "In 2023 planet earth breached 1.5C ~100 times compared to the 1880 baseline or 1.7C when compared to the 1750 baseline (whichever is more convenient)."
[1 of 10]
The WMO estimates that global average temperature has risen by 1.15 ±0.13 °C since "preindustrial" (late LIA 1800s). To put that into perspective:
● 1°C is the temperature change you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
● At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of about 60 miles.
● 1°C is a little less than the hysteresis (a/k/a “dead zone” or “dead band”) in your home thermostat, which is probably 2-3°F. Your home's “constant” indoor temperatures are continually fluctuating that much, and you probably don't even notice it.
● In the American Midwest, farmers could fully compensate for 1°C of additional warming by adjusting planting dates by about six days.
*Note:* Growing ranges for most important crops include climate zones with average temperatures that vary by tens of °C. Major crops like corn, wheat, potatoes and soybeans are produced from Mexico to Canada. Compared to that, 1.15 °C is negligible.
What's more, the warming is disproportionately at chilly high latitudes, where it is unambiguously beneficial.
I watched to the end and gave it a like, as I really respect anyone finding errors to correct in honest ways! (Now, you have some videos to do on photons for QM which links directly into entropy - something I find you have fundamentally messed up.)
Sabine, thank you for summarizing the policies and methods behind net-zero carbon emissions. The more clarity we have, the better. However, I'd like to point out that carbon dioxide does not contribute to the greenhouse warming effect in a linear manner. The function tying concentrations of CO^2 to heating is logarithmic, not linear. If we double the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the first-order effect of this change would be warming on the order of 50%, not 100%.
Of course, the climate does not respond so simply to changes in the levels of greenhouse gases. The interplay between changing atmospheric constituents is impossible to model with any kind of precision. We just don't have a handle on the relative importance of all the possible positive or negative feedback cycles that are at work in our global climate.
To date, the best climate models have consistently over-estimated the future warming that has actually occurred since the models were created. Since experimental validation is the gold standard for accepting a scientific theory, this divergence between prediction and reality means we are a long way off from being able to forecast temperatures or sea-levels or other important phenomena 25 years from now, much less 80 or 100 years from now.
Any discussion about mitigation strategies, such as net-zero, which doesn't mention the weak predictive value of past and current climate models is lacking very important context. Ultimately, climate change policies have to be informed by understanding as clearly as we can what we don't know as opposed to what we do know. Lacking this epistemological humility will very likely lead us to set the wrong priorities, which in turn would inevitably lead to wasted resources on an epic scale.
Thank you again for tackling some of the most important issues and scientific developments of our time. I've particularly enjoyed your videos on nuclear fusion, very informative!
I'm now going 70. We never talked about these things. Our closest issue was that Nuclear Power Plants explode.
I just noted that you've passed 1M subsribers.
congrats ! :))
Myth: "It's difficult to significantly increase the amount of vegetation on the planet." Reality: it is difficult to SLOW DOWN THE SIGNIFICANT REMOVAL of vegetation on the planet.
The world has greened 15% in the last 40 years due to higher levels of CO2 but Nutzero want to reverse that...
@@manoo422Have some studies to show what you are showing ? Lies lies lies.
@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 Wouldn't be that hard and do basic research, would it ? NASA report on greening Sahara is the good place to start.
@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 You REALLY need to move on from basing all your 'opinions' on MSM headlines...you might learn something useful, like who is actually lying to you...
@@manoo422 Funny how everyone just accepted the absolute emergency and the grave necessity of reducing CO2. People are pushed to debate about the HOW, so they totally forgot to ask "but WHY" ?
This is so sad. Even this channel self censors to fall into line, and refrain from criticizing the GOAL itself. Well, I wont be around by the time this madness decimates humanity, I have to miss my "told you so" moment.
You have a gift to explain something difficult in understanding easier. Just like Richard Feynman
Why dont you start the "preservation of nature" with the Ganges River?
Or the rivers and lakes in Uganda, Ruanda, Niger etc.
I see you "nature lovers" in pristine oceans, woods, and rivers...beautiful! Keep the good work!
I’m not sure having a quantifiable goal is helping anymore based on the results so far and the muppets we have in charge.
Also I wonder if the natural processes are going to start to degrade as well as the oceans become more saturated and the forests get cut down or die?
Aw yes. When will "they" cut down all the trees? I mean, how stupid of "them" to just keep cutting and cutting and never replanting. Don't understand why all the trees haven't all been cut down already. What? Do you mean to say there are more trees in continents with active forest products industries then there were 100 years ago? Can't be. This is just lies from shills for the forest products industry. After all, "they" are just too stupid to know that if they didn't replant more than they cut that their most important raw material would disappear. And we all know they are too stupid to realize that. Now you be a good boy and don't use paper or wood. Save a tree, y'know.
Yes they will start to degrade. Deserts do not store a lot of carbon.
♉♉♉♉♉
What are you talking about? We’re experiencing Global Greening, it’s observable from the Space Station. Greenhouse Gases are turning the world more green.
I think you are not taking into account the legislation that has passed in the US in the last couple of years. The Chips and Science Act, the Infrastructure Bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act contain massive incentives for GHG reduction and development of strategic clean manufacturing in the US. I agree that natural carbon sinks will degrade to a certain extent, but I don't think it will be enough different to worry about.
I may be misremembering, but in a book by Steven Pinker called Rationality, he mentions that to switch to purely solar and wind and meet the 2050 goals, a land the size of Germany needs to be covered with solar and wind every year. By the end, we need more than the size of all of North America to do that. In addition to that, storage technology and deployment is nowhere near sufficient and storage alone would take years to catch up.
Many experts suggest nuclear power to be at least a transitional (if not permanent) power source.
That land area might be exaggerated, but it is true that the land area required would be unimagibly big. Impossibly big. You're also correct that the bigger problem is the lack of storage that can economically scale to the size required. This is why the large majority of climate scientists, and the IPCC reports, say we need more nuclear power.
Thank you Sabine. Another clear and well researched video, on a topic that is as muddy as it gets. An effect which is not much discussed, though, is the contribution to CO2 removal by increasing vegetation growth resulting from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. I have no idea weather this factor is relevant, or how to quantify it, but I would be interested to know.😊
It's a bit of a self-correcting mechanism. The tree line is moving further north. The world is becoming more green. I'm personally not nearly as worried about the "climate" as I am about actual polluted waterways and such. I care much more about loss of habitat and the interruption of migration routes etc. than I am about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. I think it's horribly missguided for us to care almost exclusively about CO2. I think it is a clever misdirection, and I think most people fell for it.
It's not impossible. We achieved Net Zero before. It was called the Dark Ages and the average life expectancy was 28.
That's what they want.
Peasants in the fields living in cold water mud huts eating cold food and dying in their 20's.
They live in the castles.
👍🏼💪🏼
You dozy animals are not fit to comment.
I would actually argue that most of China's curve belongs to the countries that are ordering product from there. We essentially only relocated our manufacturing to China. If we didn't do that and all of our manufacturing stayed in the USA and Europe, China would not have seen as big of a spike, but we would have been much bigger.
Basically we destroying our own industry and economies to make a communist country very rich...
A socialist CO2 molecule does not have a greenhouse gas effect.
so true!
China and India are unhelpful partners on this sinking ship called Earth. The West woke up to the fact that our ship was sinking fast due to our forebears and our actions. Then China and India came along and viewed to attain economic justice by emitting their fair share of greenhouse gases to achieve the West's standard of living. That tantamounts to bailing water onto their side of this ship as the West bails hard the water sinking all of us, out of this ship.
Ring around the Rosie,
Pockets full of posies,
Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.
Exactly. It's like outsourcing our swear-jar.
I think the argument people have against CCS is that many plants that are meant to be capturing carbon and storing aren't capturing or storing (seen this stated by juicemedia and others) and that it's just a greenwashing to get the planning go-ahead to build another CO2 emitting plant and then claim they are having problems getting the capturing technology to work when a non emitting plant could have been built instead.
I get your point that a CCS plant is better than a non-capturing combustion plant but a non-combustion plant is better than both
Not only that. It's very hard to go green while simultaneously fomenting wars in this or that part of the world. It's not very hard to understand that going green is the last problem which worries soldiers on the battlefield.
Precisely. If the world powers were serious about climate change they would put a moratorium on War making.
The IPCC's scientific reports tell us that there are no significant problems that can be found to have been caused by the small increase in temperature since the Little Ice Age
Sabine you sweet summer child. Our overlords are not really concerned about climate change, but rather about severely reducing humanity's future.
@viktorfunk1819 History shows us that a society that lives in fear of the security of it's future can be easily controlled. The more esoteric and obscure the fears can be, the more easily they can be confused and accept irrational fears and even more irrational solutions to their invisible dangers. The "overlords" know that they are safe behind their closed perimeters.
It's clear from this video that we, as a species, are dealing with an over-abundance, an epidemic you could say, of things that are not Kermit the Frog.
A plethora, which is too much of it.
Sounds biased.
@@ronnetgrazer362 there's a lot of not-Kermit the Frog that's causing problems, there's no bias in saying so.
All the scientists whose research is taken as a basis to harsh policies that make our quality of life worse (by for example forcing EVs to us as a replacement of internal combustion engines) should be held responsible for their claims. So, if in the future their models would prove wrong, they and thwir heirs should be financially fined for the damage they caused. Such a piblic decision would bring more scrutiny into climate research and policies. In short: put your (and not ours) money where your tongue is.
Politicians and the rich fly in 25 seater personal jets, eat $40,000 a plate meals, then fly back home and tell us to do more for the environment.
In other words you think smoking is good for you, since some doctors smoke....
There is nothing cooler than teaching plebs on saving the planet from chartered jet or benefits of diversity from safety of gated community...
"The rich" being the main problem here.
In almost every country, the wealthiest 5-10% of households cause more total emissions (and in some cases FAR more) than the bottom 50%.
This is one reason why a decently implemented CO2 tax (so a CO2 tax where every citizen is paid back the average amount) is very effective.
It puts a price tag on emissions and rewards those who make eco-friendly choices (without even requiring them to know that it's eco-friendly!), while at the same time helping low incomes rather than making things even harder for them.
For a millionaire, this for example puts a higher price tag on private flights or owning many heated mansions. This leads to some direct reduction, and to some redistribution. Parts of that redistribution also end up in the state's budget again (poorer people buy more => pay more sales tax) and can be invested to speed up the transition to low carbon energy and increasing energy efficiency (like building insulation standards).
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N This one that you suggest look like something intended to hollow up medium class. Bottom of society would indeed get even a minor cash handout. Top 1% would pay, but wouldn't change their behavior. The medium class and especially lower medium class would be priced out.
Are you some part of those Davos champagne socialists? Or are you a Marxist who tries to speed up revolution by causing social collapse?
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450That depends on the structure of the taxes. It can be easily done with no disadvantage to the middle class.
nice video...
note: *We can convert sodium chloride to sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid using some surface ocean heat and solar panels. The sodium hydroxide can be returned to the oceans to reduce acidification; hydrochloric acid can be used to accelerate the weathering of olivine minerals. The neutralized CO2 is stored as sodium bicarbonate in seawater where it is harmless.*
Most CO2 emissions end up in the oceans. There could be cheaper ways to introduce a basic substance able to mineralize dissolved CO2. It is like the accelerated weathering of olivine sands that other scientists have suggested.
That's really interesting. The only problem I see with it is that it would not generate money for whomever does it, and it might actually be quite expensive.
Sodium bicarbonate in ocean water harmless you say.
I don't have a degree in biochemistry or ecology but I am going to call that bullsh¡t anyway.
Chloralkyl electrolysis with raw ocean water is basically not possible. Perhaps desalination plant byproduct brine could be treated so that it would be concentrated and clean enough for electrolysis. That process would use up some of the desal water. Then the only hurdle left is the massive energy cost of electrolysis, and the cost of building and operating the chemical plant, and transportation of the acid, and then you have to grind up mountains of olivine, and hope that there are no unintended consequences to any of this.
My favorite foolproof plan in a similar chemical line of thought is the brute force carbonate method. Dig up limestone and heat it in kilns to produce a concentrated CO2 stream and quicklime. It is feasible to take that concentrated CO2 stream and pump it into basalt deposits where it forms chemically stable bonds very quickly. Take the quicklime and grind it into dust and spread it over the ocean, pulling carbonic acid aka CO2 out of the ocean, which will then pull CO2 out of the air. To pull enough CO2 out of the air with this method would require mining on roughly the same scale at fossil fuel mining today - that's no surprise from a thermodynamic perspective. It would also requires thousands or tens of thousands of large nuclear power plants to provide heat for the kilns.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the energy needed for carbon removal from the atmosphere.
Or the energy requirements for the Green New Deal. They have to be more than what "green" energy can provide. And then there's the question of how much ecological destruction we have to do in the name of green energy in places that are out of sight of the voters. And then there's the question of how much of green energy relies on oil based materials to keep weights down on green vehicles. The questions go on and on but we're dealing with a religious movement not science so everything is answered by our having faith in our leaders.
Just to make i clear, I think we should abandon the use of fossil fuels/oil in the long term, or at least the burning it. Obviously not by destroying nature elsewhere. I just don't believe carbon removal from the atmosphere in a substantial amount, so it has an impact on global warming, is feasible...
More than the energy it took to put it there.
The most energy efficient method is to not dig it up and burn it.
@@Tailspin80 That's exactly what I suspect to be true!!!
Wholesale capture is, quite literally, a pipe dream. Energy efficiency is about 50 to 100 times cheaper for the same amount of carbon reduction. And energy efficiency, once carried out, pays back within a v short to reasonable time.
The problem with carbon removal as it stands today (per my understanding) is that the power requirement to do it more than offsets the amount of CO2 removed. You can't even fix this by powering the removal with renewables, as you're better off just connecting the renewables to the grid and NOT building the carbon capture. What I'm basically trying to say is that we need to focus our efforts entirely on reducing emissions first, and making the grid 100% renewable. Only after that point would carbon removal make sense. There are challenges to going 100% renewable of course, but I think our efforts are better spent on that than spinning our wheels on carbon removal.
Great presentation. Capturing CO2 from the air is great. To explain it to my grandchildren I asked them to spill 250 gram of Smarties in grandmas kitchen and then collect the Smarties. One grandchild, a smart girl, proposed NOT first to spill the Smarties...
To be even more correct, you should spill 400 grams of smarties in one ton of similarly sized pebbles, mix everything carefully and then sort it back out.
@@markotrieste True! but That is too expensive. Grandma is Schwäbisch. She took 1 kg of Basmatie Rice and colored 25 rice grains red. After mixing she spilled all 60000 rice grains over her kitchen. Her grandchildren are still looking for those red rice grains.
She's so right ❤
425 red rice grains among 1,000,000 uncolored rice grains would be more accurate. Good luck with that.
CCS is not a feasible solution...ua-cam.com/video/mCnr0HwW28w/v-deo.html
The EU switched from having heavy industry to a services based economy and it outsourced its carbon emissions processes to somewhere else.
"Somewhere else" with weak environmental regulations is likely, then to be shipped long distances. It's lunacy.
And that's only part of the hypocrisy.
The reason *Hansen's Fee and Dividend system* still makes the most sense to me is that it is the only *equitable* policy.
... It offsets the increased cost of fossil fuels from the *fee* paid by the providers by distributing ^dividends* to the public - so that the people least responsible for the crisis are not harmed by the "solutions." It's also a market-based solution - allowing sustainable fuels to compete better in the market - providing incentives and leading to innovations in that sector.
Carbon capture (presumably) increases the cost of carbon fuels. If done without public subsidies, the public will revolt (The lesson of the Black jacket rebellion.)
Carbon removal if paid for by the fuel industry will raise the cost of fuel - and with that the cost of living - more trouble) - again harming the victims --- unless offset by subsidies to the public. If done by the government -- will require subsidies to offset higher taxes.
How I see it, In short, feasible solutions require wealth redistribution- made necessary by the dishonest pricing carbon fuels for decades -- a system that enriched the well off, primarily. Policies and plans that do not address the need for wealth redistribution (with dividends, subsidies -- whatever Hermit decides to call it) ... can be classified as *not feasible*, unrealistic, will lead to massive political and social pain: to overt class warfare.
Hey, I'm experimenting with making biochar for my garden! Very cool seeing that come up here.
I feel like I've learned a lot about things that are not Kermit the Frog today. Hopefully, Sabine will explain what is a Kermit the Frog in a future episode on green tech.
It's not easy Being Green.
😂
Nice to know that Sabine is hip to Kermit the Frog.
I loved the look on your face in an old video when you asked the climate change modeling expert what happened when they modeled the point of no return global warming and the climatologist said we never tried to model it.
Plenty of evidence that the natural world has negative feedback loops that keep things in relative balance. In short the idea of a “point of no return” is contradicted by hundreds of millions of years of data.
@@sirrathersplendid4825negative feedback curves nicht weiter as follows: more CO2, it gets warmer, Vegetation spreads further, especially in northern regions were there is sufficient landmass, vegetation takes up CO2 (creating wood mass), this CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere. Less CO2 is in the atmosphere, the heat decreases, ...
@@xheerio - It’s a many-body problem. The biggest factors are the oceans and water-vapour in the 🌧, which is by far the most important greenhouse gas.
@@xheerioyes. Plus 2 more negative feedback loops … most importantly, CO2 causes accelerated vegetation growth & ability to survive more arid climates. Secondly, all precipitation originates from evaporation. By increasing evaporation through higher temperatures, this increases the rate of precipitation which also increases vegetation growth rates. Plant hydrocarbons are 99% made from water and CO2.
Sabine’s stunned look reaction regarding no simulations were attempted to model the Global Warming “tipping point”, was an obvious reaction to realizing the global warming fear narrative was not science based, contrary to the marketing propaganda.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Clouds are a MAJOR negative feedback loop that everyone ignores. Higher temperature => more evaporation => more clouds => more reflected sunlight (albedo) => lower temperature.
thank you for your great videos, can you please review the Norways gov statics department who says the following,
there have been large climatic variations through-out history. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.
the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
and
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th Assessment Report on the Science says there have been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. It summarises the available scientific evidence on the signal of natural disasters and finds no change in signals for weather-related events, including river flood, rain in terms of heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire, wind speed, tropical cyclone, relative, sea level, coastal flood and marine heat wave.
(and yet virtually every climate extreme event around the world is blamed on climate change)
regards
Our local council made a big show of planting 20,000 trees this spring. By autumn, 15,000 were dead because nobody had watered them. Big headlines when they plant them. No headlines when they die.