How to Save Earth From...Us
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- Temperatures are rising, and greenhouse gases are being emitted faster than ever. What's a planet to do? Hank explains the recommendations of some of the world's top scientists to stem global warming.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/artist/52/SciShow
Or help support us by subscribing to our page on Subbable: subbable.com/scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Thanks Tank Tumblr: / thankstank
Sources:
www.mitigation2014.org/
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31...
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-13...
ens-newswire.com/2014/04/13/ip...
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm...
www.newscientist.com/article/m...
www.newscientist.com/article/m...
www.newscientist.com/article/d...
www.aip.org/history/climate/pu...
ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/upload...
I hate how people treat the world as if we have a replacement.
grow up :
www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/global-warming-is-rubbish-says-top-professor-1-6536732
And that's the entire point of NASA and the like. We're heading off until mars. As Einstein said; "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking used to create them." If we left the planet for others, we're bound to make the same mistakes unless we make an effort to change.
SJ Luis You don't get it. It's a scam, a lie to control your actions and behavior. To channel your efforts and money into the hands of your betters. Global warming is the biggest scam ever, until a few years from now, when we call it global cooling again, just in case.
John Redman yeah people are making loads of money out of climate change and no way are large energy companies making as much as those scammers right? idiot.
Follow the money. Or just eat your pablem, I don't care.
Why are people disliking this video? O.O He's raising awareness to a serious problem. I guess some people would dislike anything...
Except it's not a serious problem. He is spreading lies and propaganda, not raising awareness.
But, unlike all of the other skeptics who have said they're unsubscribing, I'm sticking with it because I like most of his stuff. As Ronald Reagan said, "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally-not a 20 percent traitor." Considering most of the global warming skeptics are conservatives, I'm surprised they didn't remember that.
*most, not all.
Nick Wienckowski The video is doing what the rest of the videos on this channel are doing; providing people with science-themed educational videos. People subscribe to watch this stuff cause they like it one way or another. In the comments, people may discuss the contents of the video, also in one way or another. Thus is the function of youtube.
Yeah. That's what I'm doing.
I live in the Netherlands, and we're really behind on carbon neutral energy. The government is always like 'oh, it costs too much money', but if we don't spend that money, our entire country is under the sea in less than 100 years! People are also against windmills, because they 'ruin the landscape', which I think is very weird, because we do want those power transmission towers and mobile phone poles (no idea what they're really called). I actually like the look of windmills, and even if you don't, we just need to live with it, instead of acting like a bunch of little kids. It makes me so angry when I see people petitioning against windmills.
We do build a lot of seaborn wind plants, but they're very expensive to both build and sustain. The obvious solution is a second nuclear plant (or an expansion of Borssele), and I suspect that's what will happen eventually...
I also live in the Netherlands and I also think that windmills are the solution. And to the people who think that windmills are ugly: what would you rather have in your backyard, a couple of windmills or a big coal fired power plant?
From the Netherlands too and I agree with you entirely. I like the view of wind turbines and think people who complain about them are... stupid. In Houten (as I remember correctly) people were all against the turbines until the government allowed them to buy shares for a reduced rate. Suddenly, all inhabitants close to the mills (the only ones able to take the deal) were all in favor...
Hypocrits... :P
However, even if the Netherlands were 100% carbon neutral, even with electric cars and stuff without any CO2 emission, we would not make a difference at all... That is the annoying part. The entire world must participate...
Umgrut But also with electic cars there has to be electricity made, wich might come from CO2 emission. And to solve that problem, well, listen to Hank...
I actually thought that the Netherlands was supposed to be famous for their windmills. And it doesn't have to be those generic white ones, I mean you can probably camouflage them to look like the traditional windmills, right?
No mention of the fact that meat production creates up to 22% of CO2. I'm not hating on meat. I'm just saying that if we want to solve the problem, we have to try to actually solve the problem.
Source www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
***** Thank you :) I just think stopping the pollution should factor into the equation. Nothing against Mr. Green of course. He is just covering a study.
Derek Banas Now only if you'd said the average and not the highest possible: its 14% to 22%, it can be 14% it can be 22%
AskiFin Sorry for not making it more clear :) "... creates up to 22% ..."
Derek Banas
So... up to a fifth or so... there's four fifths that we should just ignore cos cows are farting and burping...? Although actually there is a solution although difficult to implement... kangaroos... not eating them, although you can do that and they are tasty and better for you, but kangaroo gut bacteria don't produce methane. they only produce CO2 and a cow given antibiotics for a few weeks will lose all its gut bacteria and can then be seeded with gut bacteria from a kangaroo. While this goes on the cow nearly starves, but recovers nicely after the fact and has no further problems and now produces no methane for the remainder of its life. The new kangaroo gut bacteria out competes any of the normal cow gut bacteria trying to recolonize the place.
It's not so much the eating of meat, as it is the QUANTITY. People in Western cultures indulge in excessive amounts of meat with every meal. This is not a sustainable practice, in addition to it being UNHEALTHY. Just because something tastes good doesn't mean you should eat huge amounts of it. Less is better than more. But so much of the population has been "brainwashed" into believing that meat will always be plentiful, so enjoy all you want. Super size it. This is just irresponsible in so many ways.
So long and thanks for all the fish...
I think I will name it "ground"
Kome Drago I wonder if it will be friends with me?
If only the people making the decisions watched these...
Sadly most of the "decision makers" could care less as they are focused on maintinaing profit margins, wielding political power, and amassing wealth/prestige for themselves. :(
damselfiend
I believe the technical term is 'sociopath'
damselfiend Yet, if this planet goes down they go down as well.
***** mother earth will always adapt, she has withstood many calamities longer than we've been around. It is us that we should be worried about climate change as we are not so ready. I mean this not in a violent way but it's high time we retake our governments and boycott monopolizing companies.
Adam McKay An accurate term, I agree!
Trees are our parents: they clean up after us.
"Yes officer? What, these cannibis plants? No sir, i do not intend to smoke them, i am merely contributing to the fight against rising CO2 levels, you're welcome."
1./ address methane by degrading it with EM radiation. 13.56 Khz at ? amplitude.
2./ cease burning FF's ASAP
3./ start pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.
4./switch to Thorium reactors as they are much safe and, in time, will allow us to 'burn up' all the radio active waste that we have produced to date.
That's for starters with many other changes necessary.
Chances of this happening...slim to nonexistent.
Hemp consumes 5 times the CO2 that trees consume. It is also a better fuel source than fossil fuels and the seeds are a better food source than most vegetable sources. Go Hemp!
I am assuming when you mean hemp you really mean marijuana?
Illier1 Or not. Hemp that is grown for making paper, etc. can contain little or no THC
No he means Hemp. Completely different plant than marijuana.
It can also be used for clothing
Scorp969 It can be used to make plastics. It is one of the best building materials known to man. It is an amazing plant and its use is suppressed by corporate interests. FREE HEMP!
This is a pretty diplomatic way of saying- We're fucked. Because we know we won't do much about this.
Once I drove past a solar power plant in the desert. It was the kind that had a fuckton of mirrors all reflecting light onto a tower in the center and boiling water, turning a turbine, etc. But the mirrors were focused wrong (just off to the side of the tower) and the air was literally on fire. There was a ball of flames sitting in mid-air with light beams all around it. It was the middle of summer in Death Valley so it was pretty warm out
>pretty warm
We won't choose to use them, unfortunately.
I feel all of this "Save the planet" is nonsense, it's not "Save the planet" It's "Save ourselves from the planet burning us off like a bad fever." The planet will survive, we however, might not.
Thorium powered nuclear power plants would be an excellent solution. Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium, the type of reactor needed to use it would be much safer as there is no danger of meltdown, and it can't be weaponized. As far as any waste, aren't there reactors that can make use of the waste?
I am pretty sure if thorium would work, they would be using it. I'm no nuclear physicist but it just doesn't seem that so many people would have over looked this "excellent solution".
WoWOmegor
I think the cost of building new infrastructure plays a roll. Why build a new, more efficient plant when it's cheaper to just use the old, wasteful one?
Patrick Bright Governments and the military don't really care about safer options. If an energy source can not be weaponized and used against other countries, it isn't a viable energy source.
GreenHornet Gaming Did a bit of research and I understand your point much more - my original response was based on "too good to be true" which i still believe to a certain extent.
Thorium reactors for now, fusion when they're finally energy efficient.
TheCrumpetCrusher You know what would be a real power source is cold fusion, why don't scientists put effort into that when instead they are researching dark matter to satisfy curiosity when they could be doing something that would really benefit man-kind
Captain Enderman In my eyes cold fusion is not possible, but I was wrong before. I would rather concentrate on getting efficient energy from the sun. I mean the sun does not charge us nothing for giving us it's energy
TheCrumpetCrusher Not really fixing it, the planet itself isn't broken, focus should be put on subduing it and moulding it into a form that suits our needs.
perhaps in time we can learn to control the rate of Global climate change, weather, and even the seasons themselves.
... if there's enough room left over, perhaps we could even dedicate a small section to preserve the natural environment.
Serachja But the Sun can fuse Hydrogen at lower temperatures than we can on the Earth because the atoms are forced to stay in a smaller space which means that their location is more clearly defined so they have less defined energy.Using this principle couldn't cold fusion be possible if we find out where an atom is extremely accurately?Or am I just completely wrong?
Oscar Twomey To be perfectly clear, we already have a device that can produce energy via cold fusion, it just needs some fine tuning to make it as efficient as possible, bu the energy business is a multi trillion dollar industry and tycoons are incredibly greedy. They would much rather have you run your normal car on wheels with gasoline paying up to ten dollars per gallon where with cold fusion we could run flying cars on water for like 5 cents a teaspoon.
To all the people who are a little bit iffy about climate change, but aren't in full blown denial: Even if humanity isn't the only possible reason for these changes, we are incomprehensibly invested in and dependent upon infrastructure that is threatened by climate change. We should be doing everything we can to preserve the world as it sustains us, regardless of why it's changing.
My cynical guess is that the majority of humans will CONTINUE to ignore the warnings until it's too late, and then bitch about how nobody did anything while we still had time.
Cue: Captain Hindsight!
P.S. Solar energy is your friend.
Problem is we still need to burn fossil fuels to help make solar panels. Nuclear options such as LFTRs are our best option.
Fair point.
Notreally. The process of fabricating the panels themselves is very wasteful and I reckonmit also takes a lot of energy. Nuclear is the way to go, but at the moment, creating nuclear fusion takes more energy than it gives out.
MSP Redgrave you and highlander723 just repeated everything i said beforehand.
WIND AND WATER PEOPLE.
Air is heavy, and it moves fucking fast, the tides displace trillions of tons of water in less than a minute. You don't have to do much calculations to figure out that there is a FUCKLOAD of kinetic energy waiting to be harvested in those processes.
The future in 40 years from now scares me so much to think about...
*scrolls down to comments*
*cue hello darkness my old friend*
One man's radioactive waste is another man's radioactive treasure.
The environment should not be second to the economy!!!!
Chris gardner Kind of hard to have a sustainable economy if global temperatures make planting crops problematic. This isn't just an environmental problem.
I wish I had a position of power in questions like these, because I care more about how people, mainly my future family members, will live in the future, than that house made of gold that the fossil fuel industry would provide for me.
I know, right? I just can't understand why some people are so selfish (not everyone at all btw), like some American presidents who threw away green energy just because the have invested in oil or have oil companies...
*cough* Keystone pipeline *cough*
Be the change you wish to see.
Do not wish for a hero.
BE the hero.
Make the sacrifice for others;.
Zach Mask great quote you made here, but I don't see you being the hero here as well are ya?
fatherxxl Working with what I can.
Using military to get to (hopefully) mayor of my home town.
knowing politics, i think we're doomed....
Is it just me, or did anyone else find this video rather depressing. I mean, yeah, its still technically possible that we could do something to solve the problem, but lets be real, we've had over 30 years to work on this, and our rate of CO2 emissions is still INCREASING.
Seeing as we've done effectively nothing to sort this out in 30 years, I have absolutely no faith that we'll completely solve it in the next 10. I'm resigned to the fact that, baring some miracle invention (like fusion-powered cars or something), global warming is going to happen. I just hope that the humanity of the future has better luck dealing with global warming than we've had preventing it.
it took 50 years before they stopped pumping lead in gas, we're still alive somehow...
trentonx yeah but the effects of that is still present :P
It's depressing to know that most people and countries won't do a damn thing.
2:35 We'll always remember this as the moment when Hank began advocating for the increase of world suck. ;-)
Amen brother. What a douche, nice guy, but he has his moments apparently.
I used to be a climate change skeptic, until I saw one particular episode of SciShow, and now I'm not. The thing is, I don't even understand the rationality behind the people that ARE skeptical of climate change. Like, in thirty years from now, if it turns out to just be a sensationalised piece of garbage and everyone was behind it thinking it was real, the worst case scenario is a bunch of people feel a little bit disillusioned. But if it does turn out to be real and people just sit around and do nothing (essentially the 'not-my-problem' generation, baby-boomers I'm looking at you), then we're essentially screwed because people were too lazy. I'd rather support climate change theory 'just in case' and see it turn out to be wrong, than not support it and see it turn out to be right.
I have no problem making personal changes on an individual level; the problem is more often than not those who yell the most about climate change also want to get the government involved (with all its force) to effect changes they think are right. Maybe they are, but I don't agree with that approach.
The problem, and I'm NOT a skeptic, is that their argument against yours is pretty valid, at least I think it is. They say that all this isn't just "sensationalised piece of garbage", they say it's on purpose, done for commecial benefits. If it's the case (and again, I don't think it is, at least most of it), the worst case scenario isn't "a bunch of people feeling a little bit disillusioned", it would be a really big commercial disadvantage for some groups/countries (it would even be considered "stealing" by some of them). From THAT point of view, their argument makes sense.
I think we should ALWAYS see/listen and consider not only "both sides", but the most points of view possible.
(sry if bad english)
UnknownXV well to be fair there are over 10,000 people being paid in think tanks to post on youtube and spread fake science to debunk real science...
I should believe in god, just in case he is real.
Robert Langdon that's a horrible analogy. I really hope you're a troll.
I work in a coffee house and often I see my customers grab huge stacks of napkins to use with their scone and coffee. So they need 0-1 and they took 20-30. We don't stand a chance! We are ridiculously negligent in so many ways. Here in America we still think we have to have huge, way overpowered vehicles, because we're Americans. We do not stand a chance! We can't even feed ourselves in a responsible manner and we are supposed to look at our external environment and behave responsibly? It's not on the horizon.
I agree. I think that a lot of people figure, "Hey, if it's not against the law, and I can afford it, then I have a right to it."
This is a very narrow view of the world.
Then what is on the horizon? Death. Not really a good option huh? If you said yes you have one option. Indulge yourself in bottles and bottles and bottles of Vegemite then you shall pick the correct option. I hope.
You could recommend to your customers that they tone down the usage of napkins at least.
Your assuming I haven't tried. One of the many things I like to say is "Great, you are set for a huge spaghetti dinner now aren't you?". The point is though, this is ubiquitous, I have been to areas where there is a collective sense of responsibility and awareness, but that's the exception.
GengoNoTabi Your "spaghetti dinner" comment might be taken as sarcasm, and therefore not taken well.
I have a really hard time finding the diplomatic way to say things myself, but I do have a suggestion: BEFORE they reach for the napkins, you could say in a friendly, helpful, inviting way, "Please help yourself to a couple of napkins each", or maybe, "... a reasonable number of napkins", or something like that?
My fave is the reforestation. It'll give us beautiful forests we and our children can explore.
I think more attention needs to be brought to "Thorium Molten-Salt" reactors. Sci-Show should do an entire episode on that.
Honestly I've never read enough information on the topic of climate change to give an opinion on whether or not I believe in it. Regardless, I'd rather assume it's true and be wrong than assume it's false and be wrong, so I'd love to do something to help prevent climate change but everything I've ever heard on the matter (from scientists and climate change believers alike) sounds like this: "we need to switch to nuclear energy. We need to reduce C02 emissions. We need to stop deforestation. We need to build new forests using aforestation". That's all fine and dandy but, as just one individual, I have no fucking idea how to make any of that happen. I understand you can petition your local government to kick-start legislation involving the matter, but I've already done that. I support every single bill I can find involving trying to prevent climate change. I don't have the financial capability to plant a damn sugar-cane garden in my back-yard, I DEFINITELY cannot afford a hybrid/elecritc car, and my only C02 emissions are from driving my car from home to work; and I'm sorry but bicycles aren't an option for my 26 mile commute- one way, which also does not have an easily accessible bus route either. I already car-pool to work with 2 other people. I have something like 13 trees on my property, plenty of C02 sucking-up out of the atmosphere going on at my house. So what the shit am I supposed to do? Being constantly barraged with videos explaining how much of an ass-hole I am for driving my car to work and back is frustrating when the only answers I'm given is "The way we fix this problem is by doing these things that are completely and totally out of your control. You're already doing everything you can to solve this issue, but it's still your fault. Good job asshole".
If sounds like you're doing a great job, and thank you for taking the approach of, "Even if I'm not sure, it's better to be safe than sorry." I personally do believe in climate change, but I really don't understand why those who don't aren't at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
If you still want to do more, do you have a vegetable garden, and do you shop for local, seasonal produce when you can? It takes a lot of fuel to transport food, and each step of processing involves more transport and more carbon. Planting and maintaining your own vegetable garden, even for part of the year, and shopping for local produce is another way to reduce the carbon your lifestyle produces.
Last election Australia decided to higher a climate change denier for prime minister. One of his first acts was to abolish the minster for science position. I weep for us.
Abner Doubleday yes please
Abner Doubleday Jokes on you, Abner Doubleday didn't invent baseball! Haha! Boom.
Government cannot do science. Please see Thomas Jefferson, he was a signer of the constitution and 3rd president of the USA. Maybe you have heard of him. He had much to say on the role of government.
First past the post voting systems.
I would like to see a "SciShow Portrait" one episode for each member of the SciShow crew and a glimpse of the behind the scenes work they are doing to get a scishow episode out there :)
The question is not How to save Earth. The question is how save ourselves. Even if the atmosphere is 100% CO2 the Earth will still orbiting the sun in 365.25 days ...
How to save us from us.
Completely agree. I think one of the biggest issues in terms of gaining support for the effort is the perspective that is being thrown around. The Earth does not need saving. It has been around for billions of years and has gone through more drastic and extreme changes then our current situation. It will continue to be around long after we are all gone. In that regard we are not trying to save the earth, we are trying to save ourselves and our way of life. I believe that it is a very important distinction to make in really understanding the position we are in. As humans, we like to think that we are the center of the world, but we are just one of many countless species that once lived on earth. So the earth isn't going anywhere, but we will die if we don't change.
I like to think of it like this: When you are sick , your body raises its temperature in an attempt to kill off the virus. Right now, we are the virus that is damaging the earth and the earth in turn is reacting by "raising its temperature". Now usually the virus has only two options: adapt and eventually kill its host (again, in our case, unlikely) or die. But, unlike a simply virus, we have a unique opportunity in the sense that we can choose to stop being a virus. We can choose to change our way of life in a way that can heal the damage we have caused and save ourselves.
LegoGirl1990 Its not a simple matter of wording, its perspective, and its important...
For example, a ship is sinking. Would you say "We need to save the ship from sinking!" or "We need to save the people on the ship!" Of course, logically, saving the ship would then save the people on the ship. But saying the latter makes the situation more personal, more relevant, and thus have more impact to individual people.
In an ideal world, everyone would be able to understand that saving the earth means saving ourselves. But by focusing on "the earth" instead of "us" we make the situation less personal and thus less important in people's day-to-day lives.
LegoGirl1990 If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I was arguing the importance of perspective, not a physical choice. Changing your perspective does not change the situation, but it can make the situation more or less relevant to people. My example was not DO I save the boat or the people, it was which would you SAY. It is the same reason a news headline would read "4 dead in car accident" and not "car totaled in car accident". It does not change what happened, but one way of saying it has more impact on people then the other (I think you can figure out which one).
Back to the more important topic: environmentally, we are in a bad place. Right now we have the information, the resources, and the expertise to more-or-less fix the damage we have done. The only thing we need is support, and you get that support by making the issue important to more and more people, and you make the issue important to people by making it more personal and relevant to their lives. Most people don't take the time to internalize, or even think about other people/the environment in other countries, let alone the entire planet. So telling people they need to "save the planet" doesn't really register for a large majority of people (unfortunately). But tell them we need to save us, our friends, our family, then that makes the situation more relevant.
And not to get too off topic but:
"I think the former would be preferred."
Obviously saving the boat would save the people as well (as I said in my previous post as well), and it would be nice not to loose the (most likely) very expensive boat. But in a situation like a sinking ship, there is no guarantee that the ship CAN be saved, and the time it would take to figure that out is time that could, or rather should be spent making sure people are safe. There needs to be priorities, and people's lives come first.
LegoGirl1990 I agree with you on that point: a lot of people simply refuse to believe that there is anything happening; I don't think a change in perspective is going to influence them enough to change their minds. I'm arguing that the perspective that is being advertised by governments and organizations, "save the earth", just doesn't have the same impact and (in my opinion) is not an accurate representation of what is happening. The earth does not need saving, we do. I think that perspective is important because there are plenty of people who believe that these things are happening, but don't really do anything about it. But if you stress the impact that it will have directly on individuals, there is a better chance that those individuals will take a more active role in fighting to "save us". Will it suddenly make everyone fear for their lives and immediately change their lifestyle? No, probably not. But I do believe that it would have a bigger impact as compared to the current campaigns.
I think it would have been also nice to mention how the Ozone Layer repairs. For anyone who is wondering, Oxygen reacts with UV light naturally to form the Ozone Layer. So all we really have to do is get our rate of carbon output lower than the rate at which the Ozone Layer is made. Just a little extra fun fact! :)
Share this, let it go viral. For science.
This is actually terrifying.
Your an awesome you tube reporter.
Actual valuable information, spoon fed to me on my favorite piece of glass.
Thank you sir.
Great vid guys
Yeeewwwww!!! 100 years of party left,then lights out.Rock on!
Planting forests? I'm game with that!
We can do it humanity. I believe in us.
I do believe in us, the only problem is that I do not believe in the government and all the rich people. they don't give a damn about it all.
the only thing they (the most) can think about is money, and because they are the one who control everything i do am afraid of how everything will turn out. :/
***** They'll fall. They always do; the united states is following many of the same trends as past superpowers which lead themselves to their own demise. Individual governments have always risen and fallen, and they will continue to do so, often at the expense of innocent people. But humanity as a whole is a much greater thing than any organized society, and will more than likely outlive a government's reign. Of course you can easily go ahead an think up some doomsday story wherein one government kills us all, but that's not actually as likely as it sometimes seems.
fourPOdimethylT I can get to the point that governments might fall or at least go trough tremendous changes, but what it takes to do so are a LOT of people...
and i think it will take a lot of time for the climate to convince the majority of the people that something is going on, but then it might already be to late. i'm not sure, but I've read that if we don't cut 90% of our CO2 emission within 10 years or less, the greenhouse effect is self-sustaining and will keep getting worse, even if we stop producing CO2
I am just trying to say that if we have to wait for our "superiors" it might be allready be to late.
***** One of the most basic concepts in ecology is the maximum carrying capacity of a species; that is, the absolute largest population that can survive in the given environment. Humans have done something unique in that we are consistently increasing our max carrying capacity. If you put 7 billion people on the world of 1700, it would be a natural massacre. Since that time, however, we have shaped both how we utilize our environment, as well as the environment itself, to allowing our species to grow further. If you set up a model of our society with triple the population, civilization would come into huge dilemmas. The global economy would collapse, along with our vast network of computers. There would be mass crime, starvation and death. We cannot support that many people. Yet. But how we shape our environment in the future is unimaginable to us, as the future is never what one thinks it will be. There are, in fact, experts working right now on how we can support the ever-growing population with what we have, and they're coming up with some pretty innovative ideas (:
***** When it comes to climate change, that is something that simply happens. It always has on earth. It always will. The climate we've come to know and love has always been temporary. What we need to focus on is not the climate, but our interaction with it, in both how we affect it and how we can adapt to it. It the future we may be able to deliberately shape it, but not yet.
And yes, when government upheaval occurs, a lot of people are indeed affected, often in massively fatal ways. But as a species, we will live on and grow. So I don't think government will bring us to our demise, directly at least. They could have some effect on how it all plays out if they're deciding how to handle more global events, but we can always supersede even the strongest of governments for the good of life as we know it.
Good thoughts, though.
As a person who grew up in rural New York and now goes to college full-time (and year round) in a heavy urban center, more trees/forests everywhere would be a very welcome change. I understand that the logistics of this may be somewhat impractical. Tree roots break up sidewalks and roads and are somewhat difficult to maintain- but I do think that it would improve the mood/look of any city. I visited Portland over the summer and that was one of the greenest metropolises I have ever encountered (at least in the touristy bits). Does anyone agree?
Society as a whole will not embark upon alternate sources of energy until it becomes profitable.
Yes and that won't happen till we run out of oil.
Everyone needs to watch this video now!!!!
3:24 The nuclear option is by far the best option. Concerns regarding waste or accidents are seriously overhyped, ad nauseum.
Wind and solar, by current technological standards, don't come even close to fixing a single damn thing.
"Concerns regarding waste or accidents are seriously overhyped"? So you mean that the wave that turned Fukushima into a whasteland never will happen again?
The climate changes which we are increasing leads to even more natural disasters, putting lives in danger not only through the disasters themselves, but with the radioactive whaste as well when the reactor stops working.
And the leftovers from the nuclear plant will harm nature more than you can imagine. PLUS: Uranium is a element that eventually will be used to the point where there is no more, wind, water and solar energy will never stop giving us electricity.
***** First, we have enough Uranium supplies to last for the next several thousands of years. Even then, we have new Thorium technologies that more-or-less work along the same principle, but is three times more abundant in supply.
Second, I will admit that Fukushima was bad. But there isn't an industry in the world that doesn't come with some peril. As compared to coal, nuclear doesn't even come close to killing and/or poisoning the same number of people. Even with Chernobyl, and Fukushima in mind, I would argue that nuclear power has a *very* safe history when you look at the broader scope of everything involved with the industrial revolution.
Besides, newer generation 4 technologies make a reactor meltdown impossible - hence making an already safe industry much safer wherein Fukushima and Chernobyl will never happen again once implemented.
ike evans 1. Not if we use it as ineffectively as we do now. I know that we're trying to make it possible to win more energy from the uranium but in the long run it won't be worth it. It WILL NOT last forever. Trying to win more energy from sun, wind, water and biogas, which WILL last forever, will be a much better investment for the long distant future.
2. You have two points there. But I never said anything that coal was good and I think the perils of sun, wind and water power not are as great as nuclear power.
3. That's all fine and good, but renewable energy sources are still a much better investment.
***** Back to point #1: I have a degree in engineering with real life experience in the nuclear industry. I can state with some personal authority on the subject that we are nowhere close to running out of uranium or thorium for a long, long time. Even with stockpiles of "waste" sitting around, only 10% of the usable fuel is being burned. We have technologies in place that can reuse this fuel and get a lot more energy out of existing stockpiles. With breeder reactor technology (something that's been around for a while and is extremely safe) we can expect current uranium supplies to last 30,000 years.
At the current technological level, you can't supplant more than 20-30% of the electrical grid with wind/solar because of the wild fluctuations inherent within an energy source that requires mother nature to cooperate. Even with government subsidies in the US, the wind/solar industry have failed to accomplish much, and there is a reason for that: they just don't work all that well.
No matter how safe nuclear energy is supposedly......When it goes wrong, it really goes fucking wrong
Great clip, I will pass it to my friends.
There seems to be some great challenges ahead of us.
I recently learned about some new transportation systems that could cut power consumption a lot - that could be one part of the puzzle.
Hollywood should stop making zombie apocalypse films, and make some about something that is actually happening right now. Like this one.
But they do make all kinds of apocalypse films, about this as well. There are a lot of good post-apocalyptic sci-fi short-films here one YT though, you should check them out.
*COUGH* *COUGH* Day after Tomorrow *COUGH*
it's difficult because I want humans to thrive and explore the galaxy so i don't want us to die, but if this is what we do to planets..... then yea lets just all die, hopefully we change. hopefully in my lifetime so i can play space basketball!
Yes we have people who ignore this, but we have amazing people like this man right here who is well educated and aware of our planets well being...
multi level algae farms; you can eat it, you can make biodiesel with it, heck there's even some bioelectric types of algae that produce electricity directly. Building them vertical makes the most efficient use of space, just like trees, but filter the air and have a huge return yield in a short amount of time.
The importance of combating global warming while we still can can't be emphasised enough.
3:41 - "The next 10 to 20 years are really our last opportunity to make big changes before a depressing situation turns into a catastrophic one". Okay please someone just spell it out for me, what does he mean by that?! What form exactly will this catastrophic situation take? Lack of oxygen to breathe? Not enough crops growing due to pattern shifts? WHAT?! Because I've had just about enough of not knowing whether this climate change thing is a 'meh' topic or a 'OH SHIT' topic.
A catastrophic situation would be the polar icecaps melting, a lot of land flooding and becoming ocean floor (new york city would be gone, as well as most of florida and a whole lot of other places) a vast amount of sea life dying, ocean currents would drastically change or possibly even stop causing an ice age. so yes, i think this falls under the oh shit category.
Jason Bonedi
Would the same thing not happen anyway if given enough time? What I'm asking really, is if we looked at what would happen to the Earth with and without post-industrial humanity, would the Earth still undergo the same changes on different time frames? Or are we actually doing something to the Earth that would not happen under normal circumstances??
Jason Bonedi Vast amounts of sea life is already dying, while others thrive. jellyfish for instance is booming _EVERYWHERE_ so much that they're beginning to push out other species, all because of human over fishing. So yeah, gg humans.
Also if the polar icecaps melt, the gulf stream would stop moving, because the water becomes much less salty, also a lot of animals would die, because they can't actually handle it being so fresh.
And as you said, low places would flood and basically disappear.. Holland, Denmark, large swaths of USA (Florida, New York, Los Angeles etc.) not to mention the countless other coastal cities that would simply vanish.
And lastly, once the polar icecaps are gone, even more surface area is able to absorb heat from the sun, thus accelerating global warming faster than we can help cool it down by yanking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So basically, a run away train of dispair and fuckery.
Forgot to mention that an increase in global temperature, will make it so that tropical diseases will make it's way to new places, can you say hello to Malaria up around the border of Canada?
Jason Bonedi Michael Karbowiak ShadowThief12515 Well uhh thanks for the feedback guys, I appreciate it...even if it is rather gloomy. :(
Yes this is true that it happens naturally, and the earth does have natural periods of hot and cold. and nature does put out more co2 than humans ever have/ever will. But we are indeed accelerating it. So instead of it happening in thousands of years, it coul dhappen within hundreds of years or possibly even within our own lifetimes. I suggest you get a houseboat
"Gigaton" is the most awesomely amusing and epic word I think I've heard in a while.
Glenn Quagmire's been using that word for ages.
Please, I beg you: If you trust the scientists that overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real, ALSO trust the nuclear scientists and engineers and doctors who overwhelmingly agree that nuclear power is safe, environmentally friendly, and fully manageable.
We really need to take another look at the nuclear power option. Despite all the fears and concerns that have come up, statistically, it is still the safest power source we have. In terms of deaths per electricity produced (according to the World Health Organization), it even surpasses solar (solar produces such a small amount of power, that the tiny number of deaths push it to 2nd place). It's worth remembering: the Fukushima accident still hasn't killed anyone: not one member of the public recieved any significant dose of radiation, and only a handful of workers recieved doese such that they have slightly higher chances of having cancer later in life. Even the radiation leaked into the ocean was tiny (the ocean is naturally really radioactive, and what was released won't make any change). We spent the entire cold war testing radiation on animals and on human beings: we know what levels are safe and what aren't. Chernobyl was bad, but also extremely preventable (it lacked a containment building, which all modern reactors have). The effects of Chernobyl have been pretty heavily exagerated as well: we're talking about a region where heavy smoking and drinking are common, as well as coal mining. Regarding a couple other misconceptions: No, you can't make a nuclear bomb with waste from nuclear powerplants. The US, Russia, China, and N. Korea never did it. Powerplant plutonium has the wrong isotopes in it. To make weapons grade plutonium you need a specialized reactor cycle. Relatedly: a nuclear power plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb. It may have a steam explosion (Chernobyl) or a hydrogen-oxygen explosion (Fukushima), but it's really bloody hard to actually make a nuclear explosion. It requries a very precise and rapid creation of a supercritical mass, which is why North Korea have been failing at it for years.
Regarding nuclear waste: it's a ceramic. Waste isn't stored IN a ceramic, waste IS the ceramic. It has as much chance of getting into the water supply as your standard eating plate. The Hanford site in Washington tends to be brought up as an example of the danger, but Hanford was entirely for weapons production (with no forethought of how to deal with the waste). Unlike nearly every other industry, nuclear power plants are REQUIRED to have a plan to deal with their waste. That's probbaly why there have been zero accidents (of life-threatening size) in the US from nuclear powerplant waste (although there have been several incidents from medical radioactive waste). People tout that it has to be stored for tens of thousands of years, but what they really mean is it takes that long for the waste to become as radioactive as the dirt under our feet. Really, it only takes a couple hundred years to become fairly safe and only a couple years to be safe to handle. And did I mention that the amount of waste produced is tiny? In the US, the last 40 years of nuclear powerplant waste can fit into a football stadium 2 stories deep. Considering it has produce 20% of the US's power, that's a tiny amount of waste. I would happily keep it in my backyard because I trust the scientists and engineers who work on it.
I repeat: If you trust the scientists that overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real, also trust the nuclear scientists and engineers and doctors who overwhelmingly agree that nuclear power is safe, environmentally friendly, and fully manageable.
An example of what happens when a population goes exponential.
its not a population problem, there are ways to maintain even more people in the planet while maintaining a balance with nature, BUT they say its too expensive or TOO hard... so we will all suffer from a massive land mass reduction by the seas, hunger and mass murder all thx to harmful technologies that made sense in the past, but not anymore
ReX Slayer it is a population problem. The world is overpopulated. If there were 7 million people on the planet as opposed to 8 billion we wouldn't have this problem even if the 7 million used the average amount of resources per capita as Americans. (I point at America because we use a lot of resources)
take a course on demographics sometime, population is not going to continue growing at its current rate, there is a noticeable slow down of population growth all over the world in developed countries.
We will soon reach the point when two earths will be required to meet resource demand.
MorroWolf
I was somewhat aware of that already. I know why too. But the developing countries will continue to be an issue. Africa has recently reached a billion.
If you haven't already(now that i think about it you might've) I would love for you to do a video talking about conventional nuclear reactors, vs a thorium reactor.
I remember a great quote in the movie _The Future_, which is a movie completely unrelated to this topic with the exception of this one line by Hamish Linklater:
_"You know how, like in cartoons, when the building gets hit by the wrecking ball, right before the building falls down, there's always like this moment where it's perfectly still right before it collapses? We're in that moment. The wrecking ball has already hit all of this, and this is just the moment before it all falls down."_
i find it ironic that there was a whole video about our consumerism, greed, mass energy use, consumption etc. leading us to a gloomy fate and at the end of the video we are guided to buy SciShow Chocolate and SciShow ties
The next century is going to be a huge event for humanity. The earth will change rapidly and the old world we knew is going to disappear. Maybe if we are lucky this will change us for the better.
I support nuclear power... I mean let's face it, a single nuclear reactor can produce more power than a few dozen solar plants. And the reactor isn't weather or sun dependant, it doesn't need a backup in case the weather isn't right and some of these new designs are really safe and can even recycle highly radioactive waste from older power plants.
Still dangerous. Why not hemp? It can be used for pretty much anything you can imagine.
The main problem with that is that for the amounts of power we need we would have to pretty much turn half of the world into a hemp farm. I'm all for renewable power, don't get me wrong, but in order to replace all of the fossil fuel power that we are generating we need a strong, reliable and robust power source... and at the moment nuclear power fits that nicely. At least until they make fusion work.
You're speaking about Thorium Reactors and they are not a thing yet and still need a few years to get to that point though they might be our best shot pretty much.
Technically there is more solar power available in the land used by some nuclear power plants than what the power plant is actually producing. The problem is that our current solar cells are only ~20% efficient. Also, there isn't any way of efficiently storing the power, making the power grid a lot less stable. Nuclear just keeps chugging along, but most other renewables all rely on the sun.
Not really... I mean before those things get developed we'll be pretty much fucked. I was thinking more in the lines of Gen 3+ reactors, for the moment. Like VVER with passive safety, EPR, ESBWR or ACR. All of these reactors are much more safe than their predecessors and building new reactors instead of extending the life of existing ones seems like a much better idea. Simply because newer designs incorporate better security and efficiency features.
Personally, I believe what needs to be done is a massive petition spanning countries and borders, languages and cultural boundaries. A large part of the problem is that governments don't put reducing climate change at a high priority. A huge online petition could bring publicity and attention to the cause, and maybe, just maybe, inspire some more active involvement with the largest problem humans have ever created for themselves.
Watching this 7 years later, running low on those 10-20 years to save ourselves...😔
Hank Green for president!
In norway 95% ish of the energy created is from water plants, and in sweden they only release about 5ton/person and only have done that for many years now. It is not the small countries that must do the big things, its countries like USA, China and India that must. Because they are the main contributers to this disaster, and the largest emitters
Easier said than done. If the US had enough access to run 95% hydro, it would. You can't demand that the country runs without fossil fuel when there is no other viable option, understanding of course that only recently has nuclear power begun to be taken seriously again.
BGriffith1992 US has plenty of sun and, as far as I know, plenty of wind. they can't cut fossil fuels completely, but they could be doing more in the renewable area... not arguing, just saying
Actually alot of USA has the same terrain as Norway, filled with mountains and rivers. USA just uses fossile fuels due their greed. There are many viable options for fossile fuels, USA just does not utalize them
h0len You sound more like an ideologue than someone who's actually read about the plausibility of if different energy sources in different places.
***** I agree, they could be doing more. Remember wind and solar need very specific conditions to be viable, conditions that tend to occur far away from US Cities. In places where renewables are viable, renewables are generally used. Texas has the largest wind farm in the world, for example.
Nuclear power is obviously the practical option, modern power plants are safe and waste can just be stored in radiation proof vaults as it is currently.
I don't care about climate change or "global warming." As long as it does not drastically affect me, i'll just do what all the generations have done and live the problem to the future generations. I have more than enough problems of my own to be worrying about the future of humanity. If anything I view global warming as a positive thing, as many of the humans will die, leading to better planet, more resources per capita, and maybe a union between countries to stop our demise.
I would call you selfish, but this is what most people think
that's cold man Q.Q I can't think like that. You do know tho there was one rule by the UN 10 or so years ago that was create which was about preserving the country so future generations could also have a good life.
How the fuck is this supposed to lead to a union between countries if NO ONE CARES ABOUT IT!?
Sinchu9 But most people ARE selfish.
The problem is, it IS going to affect you drasticly in 20 - 30 Years if we continue like right now. And you are right that less humans would probably be benifitial to humanity. (I think I read somewhere 4 billion would be perfect) But do you really want to loose half of your family if there is a possibility that we change and be able to save the world as it is right now?
everyone go plant a tree! :D
(I just planted 10 grapefruit and lime seeds earlier today)
Haha. That was cute.
If you think about it it might even have a real effect (real in like 0.01 degree wath seems small but is big)
You know nothing.
***** you know you can buy organic seeds instead of taking them from modified plants
*****
A company doing things they shouldn't do does not AT ALL discredit the entirety of genetically modified food. Without it, starvation would be insanely more rampant than it is already.
Liquid-fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) seem to be an answer that nobody other than China appears to be pursuing. The byproduct are only dangerous for 300 years, we already mine the thorium as it is a by product of refining other ores and it is theoretically much more efficient. The design seems inherently safer as well.
Thankyou so much! This helped me loads with my geography A level!
Hank for Prime Minister/President!
The planet's fine, seriously, it's fine.
Us on the other hand, we're fucked.
Not just us... all living things, because of us. (just another proof that humans are complete idiots)
Pray Sniping We're not idiots, we're just the worst thing to happen to complex life since the beginning of complex life.
phyrath5 that's somehow better? and we are idiots... any species that furthers the extinction of themselves and every other species when trying to survive is purely idiotic nothing else.
Pray Sniping It's not better. In movies, TV, & books you see humans save the Earth from some danger but in reality we're the greatest danger to life on Earth. It seems like Humans in general are delusional.
phyrath5 We aren't delusional (well most of us), we know very well what we're doing and have for quite some time... but I'd like to hear your argument proving your position that humans are in fact not unintelligent creatures.
Can you do an episode about the permafrost feedback loop and/or climate change feedback loops in general please?
OMG!!! It’s been 4 years and nothing is changing!!!
Anybody else kinda having trouble believing we'll be able to turn this around? It may just be the fatalism in me speaking out, but my prediction is that we'll only ever wholeheartedly make the transition completely away from our extremely unsustainable lifestyle once we experience disaster, survive it (fingers crossed), then rise again to rebuild. It causes tons of anxiety for me to think about, but I can't honestly imagine it going any other way.
I say what I will always say; leave it to the people with the money.
Mainly because I have none, and thus can't do anything about it.
so feeling poor should mean you cannot recycle, use less energy in your daly life or even help inform neighbors and friends of ways they can contribute...?
Yohan Beaupre Recycle what? Also, I already use almost no energy. Friends and family already do their part.
Again, let the people with money do their thing, since I have none.
I still don't understand why the deserts in the southwest haven't been made into a giant solar field.
Change can be very difficult, but I say we shouldn't lose hope for tomorrow.
Why wasn't population control in the recommended options for emission reduction? It seems to me like a pretty easy way to reduce the burden we put on the Earth, and it's going to have to happen eventually since the population growth out paces the resources of Earth.
The population growth due to births has already stopped, the world population will continue growing to about 9-10 billion ~2050 primarily due to adults getting older, unless we start killing off people. I don't think that's the population control you had in mind. The children and young people population will continue to stay around 2 billion.
www.gapminder.org/
***** I agree. CO2 is the major concern, but everything helps. Besides it's not only a problem of pollution but also available resources.
Carl Brengesjö If every family on Earth only had one child it would greatly reduce the population since two people are being replaced by one. Not to mention the people who just don't have kids
Because it's our custom to ignore the problem, until we face the consequences. I When you think about it, look out, how many great civilizations do you see there? None. And how many unnaturaly destroyed planets do you see? One... We've evolved for millions of years, just to destroy ourselves and this planet. It's like buying a house, taking a mortgage and after 20 years of paying, you and your family burn it to the ground. And people still wonder, why I don't want to have kids. It would be a miserable life for them. Just enjoy our life while you can, and never ever bring any kids after 2015, cause they'll most likely see the end of this century, and it won't be nice.
MotoShaman If there aren't enough children born the proportion of people who are too old to work will increase and our economy won't be sustainable. From what I know this is actually happening in Sweden.
I'm still not sold on the whol global warming thing. How do we know it's not a natural cycle? Ever since the Ice Age the world has been constantly warming at a constant rate if I remember right. Also Mars is heating up at the same rate as Earth.
Also I don't think humans are heating up the earth as much as some people make out but I'm not saying we aren't hurting the earth. We definately need to change some things.
Science doesn't give a shit what you are sold on. Climate change is in fact caused by HUMANS.
its easy we can measure the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and see that since the industrial revolution it has been growing exponentially and along with it the heat of the earth.
It doesn't matter if its natural or not. Something needs to be done.
Also, if that's even the case, then we're all totally screwed anyway. What's the problem in at least giving prevention a shot? If scientists are right, we save the world, if you're right, then we're all too dead to care.
Apollo K. you say Science but science questions every study, every finding, every result and then double checks it. You are blindly following the media.
I don't think mankind will be able to take the steps to stop a catastrophe of this size. We are a species whose individuals mostly have a hard time doing stuff that is not beneficial to them in the short term. Seems like we are doomed.
I especially am fond of the aforestation method. I've long said that roof-top gardens is a very viable option. But only if done in quantity. All these flat-roofed buildings, all with emergency tanks on top. No reason not to have container gardens. Other benefits could be using dwarf trees for fresh fruit. This is especially important when you consider that cities are the worst heat-sinks.
10 to 20 years.... that puts things in perspective
I think this is what causes the majority of my day-to-day anger, fear and frustration. The world is just packed full of people who don't care and, even though I'm trying my best, this is going to happen. It's going to be too late because the people who had the most influence on the world, those who could have made the change happen on a global scale, decided not to. They decided there were, somehow, more important things than the survival of humans as a species.
Mako energy.
Because that went so well with the whole Sephiroth situation! :P
Did you just watch The Completionists' newest FFVII video? Made me want to replay the game, but the load/wait times are tedious as hell...
trancedsailor Yes I did, and I hated waiting for it to load.
NO!
trancedsailor If you have a psp you can get it for that on a rom that you download. Then the load times are way WAY more tolerable.
You should do a show about why people who are either left-handed or right-handed, have a hard time writing or doing many other task with the opposite hand.
CCS is just an excuse to keep building coal power plants. "Oh that's ok, we'll just do this CCS thing when the technology's there and it'll be totally clean!" No, it's not going to happen because it's just too costly.
"Just keep going for now, we'll fix that tomorrow" is exactly the mindset that got us where we are now.
Hello SciShow,
I don't know if you talked about this in any past videos, but can you compare the impact of algae in the ocean on absorbing carbon dioxide to that of trees?
I know that the algae is the largest producer of oxygen on earth, as a byproduct of photosynthesis. If algae has a bigger impact than trees on sucking out the CO2, shouldn't people also focus or even focus more on retaining or producing algae in the oceans (e.g. reduce temperature rise in ocean water)?
I really would like to see a topic regarding this.
Thanks,
Pieluver
algae does the most because it is by far the most common. however, despite there being dramatically fewer trees than all the algae, trees are responsible for about 25% of absorbing co2. trees are the most efficient carbon capture machines! right now theres just not terribly many of them
Maybe we'll get lucky and the spanish flu will come back...
LOL
That, or WW3. It's kinda something I'd hate myself for being happy it happened. Even though I'm sure I'd die in a global influenza...
This frightens me so much...
Thoruim nuclear energy could definitely help give us safe nuclear power.
This video has 27 dislikes.
I'm not actually sure what perspective I'd have to take to understand why that is. Self-denial, maybe?
Those 27 are from oil billionaires not wanting to lose their massive income.,,,
I'm perplexed as to why there was no mention of geoengineering, (solar radiation management), in the IPCC report, even though it's blatantly going on around the world. Using airliners to dump aerosolized metal oxides, (barium, aluminum, strontium, thorium) into the atmosphere, thus creating a cloud layer to reflect sunlight back into space, doesn't seem like a viable solution to our excessive emission problems. Fighting pollution with pollution is pure stupidity, not to mention the health effects of these toxic nanoparticles once they inevitably fall back to earth.
1:23 even after all the steps we've taken to cut our emissions. Almost all those steps have been nothing but face saving and pat ourselves on the back feel good hypotheticals written on paper with lots of signatures but no teeth or hope of actual strong implementation.
How about building bio land masses in the oceans? Image floating tree islands that not only consume more CO2 but also have the added benefit of cleaning up the oceans from the waste we dump in it. It would also create possible food stuffs for sea creatures and habitats for them to live in/around.
We're done; there is no way humans are going to get their collective shit together in time. I just wish we could leave some sort of "ark of knowledge" in an eccentric orbit around the sun (or something) for the next evolution of consciousness. "We were here before you, and here's where we effed it up... " If we could do that, I would at least feel it wasn't all in vain.
Dang it, now I'm even more disappointed that the previous government of Norway cancelled our project to catch and store Co2 from some oil/gas refinery... They talked about it being "Norway's moon landing", because it would have been groundbreaking, but they cancelled the whole project right before getting out of office... Not even the nations that say they want to do something about climate change actually manage to do something about it. I'm usually an optimist/not an extreme pessimist, but this whole situation is just incredibly irritating!
I hate the idea of CO2 sequestration. I feel that it is an extremely idiotic Sweep-it- under-the-rug solution. All that compressed high pressure CO2 underground kept in check by groundwater seems like a very bad idea. Yes, it does give us short term results but the gas is gonna escape sooner than you think and it might even bring with it a whole range of new problems.
Berzerius it is not actually in gas form, it is a solid and the CO2 will not just escape because it is attached to the thing they use (i forget what it is)
Is there gonna be a yearly update on the matter? :)
Thorium Nuclear Energy America! Get on it!