4 Megaprojects That Could Reverse Climate Change | Answers With Joe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 гру 2018
- Get a 30-day trial and your first audiobook for free if you go to www.audible.com/joescott
Or text "joescott" to 500500
Climate change is happening, and time is running out to turn it around. The IPCC's most recent report gives us about 10 years to reverse our carbon emissions. We're not going to get there by reducing our emissions alone. Here are 4 megaprojects that could actually save the planet.
Support me on Patreon!
/ answerswithjoe
Get cool nerdy t-shirts at
www.answerswithjoe.com/shirts
Thinking of getting a Tesla? Get free stuff if you use my referral code:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
Snapchat: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage
Biomass is the burning of biological material (usually plant matter) to generate energy. BECCS scrubs the CO2 out of the exhaust and sequesters it underground, thus taking CO2 out of the air via that plants and putting it into the ground.
Direct Air Capture
With DAC, giant carbon scrubbers pull CO2 out of the air, after which the CO2 can be used to produce other items like fuel. Two companies that are leading in this field are Carbon Engineering and Climeworks.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
SAI is, basically, creating an artificial volcano. The Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 cooled the planet by half a degree for 18 months. By flying a fleet of SAI Lofters (SAILs) regularly into the upper atmosphere, we could spread particulates around the planet and cool the atmosphere.
Space Solar Shield
By creating a giant solar shield at the L1 Lagrange point, we could block up to 2% of the sun's rays, enough to alter the amount of heat getting trapped by the atmosphere.
LINKS LINKS LINKS:
Tim Kruger Ted-Ed
• Can we stop climate ch...
Uses natural gas to create energy while pulling CO2 from the atmosphere
Jennifer Wilcox - TED
• A new way to remove CO...
qz.com/1144298/humanitys-figh...
www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-wo...
Carbon Engineering vid
• Carbon Engineering | D...
www.climeworks.com/our-technol...
carbonengineering.com
carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon
www.virginearth.com/finalists/
Solidia:
qz.com/1123875/the-material-t...
www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...
www.independent.co.uk/environ...
Hot Mess
• Using Space Mirrors to...
www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...
www.sciencefocus.com/planet-e...
#answerswithjoe #climatechange #globalwarming - Наука та технологія
I see you have the newest NVIDIA video card in your thumbnail.
Bro rtx 7090 ti super 😂
@@mr.toothbrush6628 fan extension
Zing!
Best comment by far and I haven’t been a computer guy for years
Dont go out into the desert and figure out how to live on very little water, we have water problems here in the city!
In Singapore they invented an easier way to extract freshwater from seawater (electrolysis like). Just YT search "desalination in Singapore".
@@Justwantahover It's a Reverse Osmosis plant - we've had one in Melbourne for over a decade now, and as far as I know - that is the technology used in almost every desal plant around the world. The new Singapore plant powers the administration office with solar power (not the desal plant) and 50% reduction in cell maintenance. An improvement but pretty standard technology.
@NATHANIEL GILLIES Isn't Mercury too close to the sun?
It's worse than that Cody. He's saying, "We have problems here on earth. Were not going to do anything about them were just going to sit here and complain about them but we shouldn't go to mars either." We can't even get major governments to agree it's happening, It's never going to change. The fight is over. Major corporations and governments are hell bent on the earth burning because it's profitable.
It's exceptionally dumb when people try to pretend that it's either-or. There's several billion people on the planet, a few of them going to Mars isn't going to change anything. Besides, more people does not equal more innovation. Innovation happens when you have the right person in the right place at the right time to make a critical observation, such as the guy who discovered antibiotics.
There would be wars over who gets to control the thermostat
There are gonna be wars anyway. Wars over water, over food, over the imperialist dreams of the fascist governments that spawned from climate change chaos. You yourself are going to have to survive and be willing to kill people in order to do it. Leave your pacifist mentality behind. We need a global thermostat, no matter the cost. Or humanity will enter an unstoppable downward spiral into primitivity or extinction. I suggest you read the following paper.
mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/deepadaptation.pdf
So?
Lol agreed!
@@somedudeok1451 i believe that he was joking... or are you alone?...
@@igkslife I don't think he was joking at all.
"We have 12 years to turn this around"
*checks publication date
Well shit...just squandered another years. 10 years left.
Dont worry too much, for decades we only had few years until a catastrophe...
@@bobrosski9054 Pretty similar to how smoking kills you.
You're perfectly fine for decades despite dire warnings & scary pictures.
Until you're not
@@bannor99 well if you bet on someone dying, you will be eventually right.
Even thousands of years ago there was doomsayers ready to take your offerings to appease the gods. Now its done forcefully through taxes, to appease climate mathematical models (which so far were all wrong)
Not a worry, after 10yrs we'll be granted another 10 or 15yrs to sort out the changing climate's climate change caused by the 4 mega planet saving methods with results based on suppositions. Way to go! They're all so clever and full of it in their own minds.
@@derekborkent2899 ?
"Co2 scrubbers" You mean like trees?
Thank you so much for pointing this out. I thought it was obvious, but it doesn't seem to every come up. The cost and time scale is way cheaper, but maybe it's not considered grand enough and how much money is anyone going to make off of it. Sad, but all of these "fixes" are expensive, risky and just OTT.
@@dr-k1667 Civilizaion cant plant enough trees to absorb all of the CO2 we emit. There isnt enough viable land area
@@ianraber1509 It is not the only solution... a one size fits all solution doesn't exist, it is part of the solution. I can think of at least a dozen other things we can do immediately that would also have an positive effect, that would take untold billions and have to be invented first before we can begin.
@@dr-k1667 I agree. Your comment made it seem like you thought it was a solo solution
@@ianraber1509 You know plants grow under water? And they grow faster if there is more CO2, don't they?
So I know it is a relatively small part of your video, but I wanted to offer some insight on the clean energy issue from power companies' perspectives. I used to work as an co-op engineer for a power company with about 6 coal plants and 1 nuclear plant (along with some scattered solar and wind farms). I am all for clean energy, I am not an advocate of coal power. I asked the head engineer why we aren't moving more quickly toward renewable energy, and the answer came down, primarily, to logistics.
Wind farms are a logistical nightmare. They occupy GIGANTIC plots of land, and finding that much land, all together, in the proper climate is tough. Then comes the mammoth task of actually building and maintaining the things. Windmills are very dangerous and require frequent maintenance to make sure they don't shake too much, and that no debris falls off. Technicians need multiple levels of training and certification, and require a large fleet of vehicles (more fossil fuels) to navigate the land. They are also unreliable, as a trend of lower winds could lead to widespread outages.
Solar farms are less dangerous than wind farms, and easier to set up, but more prone to be hindered by non-ideal weather conditions. They are also much less feasible in snowy climates, as there is less sun, and more issues with the panels being covered by snow.
Nuclear is the most promising solution in the works, but is constantly set back by stigmas of historical failures (most failures have actually been caused by poor maintenance and neglect - a well-run nuclear facility is actually very safe).
I can't speak on natural gas, but the reason that coal is so popular is that it is an abundant resource. To my knowledge there is no current estimation of when we would run out of coal. Additionally, there are 2 kinds of coal that come out of coal mines: steam coal (sent to power plants) and metallurgical coal (used for making metals like steel). We already have the coal to power them from the mining that will continue, regardless, so there is no risk of instability, as coal also does not rely on weather conditions and facilities can always stay well-supplied. Concerning safety; through monitoring of machinery vibration and testing of machine lubrication samples (both very common, as I was on the predictive maintenance team for my company, where we tracked all this data and ran hundreds of monthly tests), and regular water spraying to keep coal from mixing with the air (boom), a coal plant can be kept very safe and highly efficient on a relatively small plot of land.
As I said, I love the idea of helping the planet and being a green civilization. I know many issues stated above are fixable. My point is that it is MUCH easier said than done, and many power companies are working towards renewable energy and expanding their wind and solar production, but it isn't going to happen over night. If we were to stop building coal plants and go 100 percent renewable, we wouldn't be able to keep up with the expansion of civilization energy usage. There wouldn't be enough electricity to provide stable power to countries like the US, and China, which would hurt eco-friendly developments (like electric cars), and force many people to resort to personal generators (more widespread and unregulated pollution). The only solution for the immediate future that is helpful and achievable is to continue development of clean energy methods and keep offering more incentives to make clean power as it becomes more and more feasible.
Sorry for the essay, but it is a very complicated subject.
Edit: made some changes shortly after post for syntax and clarity
These are the kind of UA-cam comments I live for
Floating Solar farms should be married up with saltwater hydrogen(nickel electrodes), for when there is no sun. And then towed to where the earth is tilted towards the sun. Both poles get 24 hrs of sun in summer. And unfortunately both are melting) See Ciel de Terre. See Swimsol. Saltwater is everywhere. Sunlight happens. See Joi Scientific. See falling solar panel prices.
Nuclear is amazing, and the fear is unbelievably overblown.
@@squamish4244 Where do you store the waste?
Wow, this is one of the best UA-cam comments I have ever read! Thanks so much for the explanation. I believe that especially the U. S. citizens have to considerably decrease their energy consumption.
Doing anything to artificially mess with the light coming through the atmosphere is as dystopian as anything one could think of. Not to mention, any company or government that could actually control that would wield an unimaginable about of power. And what does power do? Power corrupts.
We have put up sulfur dioxide and cloud the sun since the industrial revolution, and it has had no major bad side effects. Dont see any good reason to not do that, we could fix the problem over a night with sai, and we dont even have to use sulfur dioxide, we could use for example seawater.
This is the biggest reason to why the climate change has accelerate the last years, because our emission has become cleaner.
@@heww3960 Whew saw main comment was 2 years old and then noticed your mis-info comment is only 3 weeks so didn't go unchallenged the full 2 years!
first of all 'put up sulfur dioxide' was as waste exhaust from Coal Power Plants. This was at first only 100' off the ground. Acidic ash landed on neighbors and killing trees so they went with really tall smoke stacks... this put it up so high tht it took time for it to settle and at that point was better dispersed. Didn't remove the sulfur and when combines with rain makes a sulfuric acid like in batteries, though more dilute. But spread out effect. This was all still going on in Troposphere. Stratospheric Injection is untested. Does look like it will eat the ozone layer and form chlorides.
Then at end of 70s all through the 80s environmentalists warned of acid rain whole forest in Appalachia was chemically burned. They put in scrubbers. The scrubbers collect SO2. This dystopian idea is to now buy that waste product (makes artificial gypsum and agricultural soil amendment but not very profitable) and inject it way higher into the atmosphere. Has to come down either as ash particulates or in rain, ergo acid rain returns.
Oh boy, i think the planet just found the solution for climate problem. (a good ol pandemic)
yep. Ever see the movie, 'Kingsmen'? The bad guy there had a cool theory. Global warming is akin to a fever caused by a virus, and WE are the virus. The Earth is simply reacting to an infection and getting rid of us.
Rkenton48
Fun fact, some viruses actually help.
Like cow pox, but it kills small pox
6
@@randomuser5443 um, no, that's not how it works. cow pox causes a mild infection in you. The antibodies made by your body to fight the cowpox ALSO fight off the smallpox virus, thus making you immune. The real problem with viruses is that anything that would actually kill them will also kill the host. Immunity is our only real defense against them.
@@Rkenton48 Correction; getting rid of you, just you.
You know what thing loves CO2, regulates ecosystems, retains water, produces oxygen, protects soil from erosion, produces valuable materials and is very cheap? Trees.
That would be a great idea if we had started on it 30 years ago.
There are far to few people talking and acting about regreening the desert
I agree, trees are the answer. Only plants have "transpiration," kind of the opposite of our respiration. In with the CO2, and out with the O2 and glucose from chlorophyll and sunlight. No tax needed thank you.
yeah great idea, cut em down make buildings out of em (replant em of cource) want to store only the problematic part of the co2 ? make charcoal of the tree and blow charcoal powder into old mines, oil fields etc. or mix it with earth
And Marijuana!! They grow in months, and are renewable sources of energy as the seeds can make biofuel easily. Ok I guess that hemp would work....
I often hear people say, we either fix or planet or colonize Mars. I may come with a crazy idea at this piont, but we could fix this planet AND colonize Mars.
It doesn't have to be, one or the other. We CAN do both and all...!
Great as always Joe...!
@@livethefuture2492 How about keep living, is that not important?
And why all caps?
@@livethefuture2492 Okay :)
then have you beat Elon Musk achievement?...no?, then he's building SpaceX, I hope that will give you an idea
It would be easier to colonize the space between us and Mars, and would eventually add up to thousands, if not millions of times the "real estate" by building spinning habitats like O'neill cylinders. Of course, it's much easier than that to first remove the excess CO2, here.
without fixing our climate system, there will be no colonisation of Mars.
Reducing the light hitting the planet is not an option. It would also effect plant growth since they are getting less light and that would reduce the amount of CO2 they absorb
He said a reduction of only 2% of sunlight is enough te tackle climate change, do you think plants would have that much damage because of that?
1. No need to completely shade any part of the surface.
2. The Earth rotates so it wouldn't be a problem anyway.
Why is it not an option? The issue you mention is manageable with genetic engineering.
@@imranmohammed279 You could have zero change in daylight hours and still reduce the amount of energy reaching the Earth.
@@imranmohammed279 No I meant the amount of sunlight reaching the surface could be reduced by shades in orbit without shading any part of the surface of the Earth.
I say lets start using renewable energy and using those machines to pull carbon out of the air, which will be powered by renewable energy
Renewable energy is shit. We should go fusion or fission
@@MrSkitlesFiddles fision is the only way bro, fusion energy produce nuclear waste that cannot be treated.
@@henokhjosandraehesperus7369 You mixed up fusion and fission.
Nothing is for free. There is no such thing as renewable energy and whatever technology we use as long as the population keeps increasing the Earth's Temperature will keep rising. We can employ technologies that will slow down the process but we are fucked either way
@@Dislagmintation I was with you until "population increase".
You want carbon-negative? Pay Brazil and Indonesia to replant and protect their vast destroyed forests with broad-leafed trees that are commercially worthless but sequester carbon better than pine needles. Also, build wind-powered desalination plants off the California and western Australia coasts to support huge increases in carbon-hungry greenery.
Not only you eat some algae but they said that it process more carbon dioxide than any plant or tree can. who knew!
Bill Morris Those forests were destroyed largely for the animal agriculture industry. If we want those forests to be replanted, we need to reduce the demand for animal products.
Or we could just pay impoverished nations to do oceanic farming of fish, seaweed, and misc. It is reported to be capable of 2 - 20 times more carbon sequestration per acre versus forests. Even if it's only the lower end of the spectrum there is zero risk of forest fires.
Love that idea Bill! Imagine greening 90% Australia! That's Terra forming on a grand scale. Other potential locations would be parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa.
The only ingredients missing is the $ and the will.
@@BenMitro exactly. so we have an idea, now we need to find a way to make it profitable for the investors.
Global Thermostat. Considering the battles you get in some households and offices over where to set the thermostat, I can just imagine trying to get Russia and Iran to agree on what temperature it should be.
Agree with whom?
I mention Russia and Iran because Russia, being in the northern latitudes, would prefer it a little warmer while Iran, being more equatorial, would prefer it to be cooler.
For exhibit A I present, The Smurfs - ua-cam.com/video/ndtc8o1bYBM/v-deo.html
"Handy invents a weather machine that will allow the Smurfs to control their environment at will. Unfortunately, they cannot agree on whether it should rain or be sunny so the machine overloads and explodes."
@macsporan China and soon India put them to shame.
@macsporan India and China are up there too when it comes. to this clusterfuck. Also most companies that contribute to this problem are NOT majority private investor owned.
Hey joe im a timber operator and can say that ive been fantasizing about co generation plants for small communities that are scaled down to fit onto the backs of tractor trailers. The idea goes like this, they rock up at the front of a 5k or 10k acre ranch community and connect to the grid then log trucks rock up and start doing restorative forestry. After the clear cutting of the 50s and 60s the forest has mostly tan oak a non merchant able
15 years ago we talked about extracting shale gas and that seemed very futuristic, but we made it (with all the cons we know though). I just hope the ideas shown in this video will emerge soon enough. Great video !
You have the answer to basically removing coal and most fossil fuels already: Nuclear. The only technology that can both meet the demand and is robust enough to supply our current growth. Solar or Wind can be added as bonuses too, and we could put more towards researching fusion and pushing it faster to reality.
nuclear is definitely a good option
You beat me to it. This is really the only way to switch gears asap and keep up with our energy needs.
Thorium looks like the most realistic sensible option moving forward.
Hinkley Point C suggests you need to do some research about the cost effectiveness of nuclear
Nuclear is a great option however "fusion is always 30 years away 30 years ago" Fission creates serious waste by far more damaging than CO2 in the air. When ITER finally proves/disproves fusion, then we can get away from fossil fuels. There really isn't a better option with BTUs available per small quantity. Gasoline as 114,000 per gallon where most natural gas boilers use 76,000 for heating a home and domestic water. Really the hydrocarbon family of fuels has the most energy per unit than solar or wind. Until fusion is real, nuclear fission creates really bad waste. You know, stuff that makes bombs when refined.
CO2 scrubbers have been around for over a decade now. I live in Perth, Western Australia, and we had a state of the art iron smelter built by mining juggernaut Rio Tinto called the HiSmelt. It was basically a prototype to test and prove a new method of creating high grade pig iron from low grade iron ore, and part of that process was CO2 scrubbers, and in reality, its a pretty simple system. Your using water, H2O, to capture the particulates, this is done by firing a series of sprays through the smoke, each water drop captures particulates, runs down pipes into the catchment area, where the mud is dried off, and then can be used for building material, be it bricks or building foundation material, or road base. So as you can see, theres nothing really complicated about it, and really shouldn't cost much to install, in comparison to the price of a new plant. This kind of tech is also used at grey water treatment plants, to greatly reduce unpleasant odours emitted, we also have facilities here in Perth already using that tech, which was installed a good 10 years ago. So its got me baffled as to why plants burning fossil fuels wont implement this tech, but Rio Tinto used it in a new iron smelter, and its used by our Water Corp simply to stop the air smelling like shit. But with Fission tech getting closer and closer, the old goats burning coal need to step up their eco game, or they will become forgotten dinosaurs them selves...
CO2 Scrubbers are muc older than that, the most famous CO2 scrubbers are the one on the lunar landing modeule on apollo 13.
11:06 my OCD is so happy that the cloud lines up with the book case....
So I wasn’t the only one... 😂
OCD is a real condition and you don’t have it just because your a perfectionist. They are VERY different
@@harryithink5336 Oi everyone, we found the Karen! I actually do have a mild form of OCD, mostly related to keeping times, dates and numbers in order. But even I, with an actual diagnosis, won't take offence to casual jokes or references. When you keep pointing it out, calling it out and drawing attention to it, it makes it abnormal and unusual. By accepting it and adding humour to it, you put people at ease and normalize it. Don't be an uptight douche, just roll with it.
Omg
@@fiffihoneyblossom5891 well said 😂
12:34
Space Debris: I'm gonna pretend I didn't watch this
Allan Savory work for fighting desertification and China's efforts to restore deserts to stabilized soil is also of great importance. Deserts make up 2/3 of current land mass.
"Deserts make up 2/3 of current land mass."
And thanks to all the fossil fuels we burn it is now shrinking. Deserts all across the globe are greening.
USA president Donald trump said global warming is fake and scam
《小良真狂言》Maximus When did he say this?
@@btd360lel2 when he left the paris 2020 agreement
Erik Björk I’m pretty sure he believes it’s real but not to the extent that we say
It kills me that people who do nothing for mankind think that the people who have the ability to do something for mankind can only do one thing at a time en-mass for mankind. I think we can try to fix the environment and go to Mars at the same time. We have done more than one thing at a time in the past, and we will continue to do more than one thing at a time in the future while those who can't (or won't) do anything for the environment sit on their collective ass eating a hamburger and criticize the people who push humanity forward for not fixing all of their mistakes.
Mars colonization will be more complicated than you realize on an energy generation aspect. Being further from the sun reduces power potential. Having little to no atmospheric density reduces power potential and thermal transfer. Oddly enough it might be more ideal dumping excess heat via piping similar to a geothermal loop buried into the ground.
The other complex issue is that water boils at 55F which will further complicate finding a reliable source of water enough for colony to grow.
The point is to not shit on every other planet if we end up _consuming_ our place, like Marvel's Galactus snackedy snack. We should maintain a working environment, or we leave a trail of ashes until no possible homeworld is left.
Climate change is normal and everything... We live in one small nice time between 🔥 and ❄ as it ever was... But (or that's why) I think we have to control climate to survive in a manner we are used to the next thousands of years.
People used to live outside unless some found caves. _Building homes_ against rain, coldness, wind, is like a first step in Terra forming, isn't it? But homes can't keep everything save, we need some dams to prevent flooding, trees are planted to stop desertification, etc... This is some low level climate control, we need it, we do it. At the moment, the most important motivation remains profit. But look at California... Some Americans already steal water from each other??? That's eerie to me...
@@Cerberus984 there certainty will not be any anti science people in space.
@@thomasridley8675 Billionaires and millionaires, do I need to say more? LOL
@@Cerberus984 and the lucky smucks who get to clean the toilets at min. wage.
What Happens In Lagrange Point, Stays In Lagrange Point.
There's also the simple method of increasing albedo by painting or otherwise colouring the roofs of our buildings white or other light colours. Obviously this wouldn't wouldn't work if you're using solar panels or solar panel shingles, but for those who aren't, having white roofs would help reflect the light in the same way as snow.
*Fusion*
Honestly, why, if the Earth is in danger, is going full-bore Manhattan Project on fusion R&D not the first thing out of everyone's mouth when it comes (especially) to the environment?
I had the same thought recently. I saw a Ted talk that talked about how the windmills and solar farms destroy tons of birds and habitats. So not very eco friendly. In addition to the rare mineral mining
Thorium always seemed s good option too, especially whilst fusion is being figured out to reduce carbon omissions. No nuclear and proliferation too (which is prob why it's not funded).
Carbon capture and processing though is also needed to help reverse the co2 back to normal levels. 🙏
@@nicbongo Yeah, everything you said, except I have that thought every *single* time I hear anything environment related. There is no such thing as *scarce resources*, only scarcity of the energy required to access and manipulate them. It's *the* silver bullet for all of humanity's material needs.
It's to the point where, if I hear someone kvetching about the 'tipping point in 12-years' and they *don't* mention nuclear and fusion, I automatically assume they're either ignorant or disingenuously grandstanding. Either way, they're to be ignored, because they're not serious re: a serious issue.
@@zoopdterdoobdter5743 I hear your frustration dude. Situations like that though are opportunities to present new info. Thorium in particular almost no one knows of
Regarding your energy/scarcity point. Economics is also another factor. Those rare minerals require lots of energy and is hugely expensive, so economies if scale isn't there. I guess using your measure, more energy equals more environmental destruction.
@@nicbongo It's as straight forward a simple physics problem as is possible. The only non-socially constructed constraint on human activity is our ability to harness energy; the economics are dictated by scarcity...of energy. With (effectively) limitless energy, all is possible. No chemical reaction is too energy intensive, no environmental damage irreparable, nothing too expensive to recycle and no resource is out of reach.
Power a thousand CO2 scrubbers, build a sunshade for the planet, draw the majority of the chemical constituents for rocket fuel straight out of the air (making launches C neutral). If even 10% net energy can be managed, it's a Golden Age inside a couple generations.
@@nicbongo Sorry. On a tear. Check this out for the proper frame of reference to be thinking about these things: ua-cam.com/video/gQliI_WGaGk/v-deo.html
The whole presentation is worth a watch but, from that timecode (till a couple minutes after) are all you need to get what I'm getting at. Once we *know how*, the dominoes all begin to fall in every direction humans have a need. Even if the only viable fusion reaction is a path dependent on He3, that (as the most readily available supply) gets us to the moon, associated near-earth space infrastructure and, from there, access to the immense energy produced by our star.
Imagine any utopia you like. And then, know that it's mostly on hold because far FAR more human time, effort, emotion and capital is spent on the issues of preferred pronouns and/or preserving the 2nd amendment than on effectively ending scarcity itself. That kinda' pisses me off.
I am a conservative and I fully believe the statistics about climate change. I also accept that something needs to be done about it and would like to help in any way I can. This isn’t all about political parties it is about the future of out planet and our species as a whole.
Dale Ross is also a conservative mayor who turned his entire town renewable because it's better/more/safer work, more economically and environmentally viable. He calls it working from/listening to the facts/experts. As much he is an actually likeable republican politician.
www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/07/scandal-first-ever-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/?fbclid=IwAR21FHe0edjZkeJMZRNe4_ZDQIVhpHqdWG0MKS7wOFVNwGfP5Vq3T8Ka0-k
Mikehike
The problem is that most conservatives view life as zero-sum, and believe that ‘someone else’ will bear the cost of climate change, so, meh.
Understanding that we are all co-dependent and must cooperate to fix a global scale problem requires anti-conservative thinking.
@@FactsFirst The earths climate has never changed as rapidly as it is changing now. Never. We do not have to know precisely what effects will happen precisely when. The predicted effects are statistical in nature, ranging from not good but within our power to deal with. To an absolute nightmare hellscape apocalypse that could turn our planet into Venus and be completely outside of our ability to deal with. Yes the Earths climate does change naturally. Why would you accept that yes there were ice ages, yes there were hot house ages with virtually no ice anywhere and sea levels 100+ meters above current levels. Why accept this as fact when the very same scientists that proved these things are now telling us that we are changing the planet? Why pick and choose? The question is rhetorical because it's obvious why we do this. We have crammed hundreds of thousands of years worth of natural climate change into the time since the industrial revolution. We have no evidence that the climate has ever changed so rapidly (with the exception of comet impacts and super volcano eruptions). We do not know what the ramifications of such rapid change might be but it's not hard to imagine that they might be not good. But please dont believe me, believing some random guy is how people end up believing the kind of factually incorrect, clearly misinformed things that 90% of the commentors here believe. The topic is very complicated, the kind of thing you would need to study for years and work in the field for years more. If only we had people like that, we might call them experts. Or something more specific like oh I dont know..... climatologists. We need experts for problems like this, we have them, we just need to listen to them. When you really get into this subject you quickly realize just how much you dont know about what you dont know.
Conservatives are also able to point out that the old Soviet Union was a massive polluter. And if they had a larger consumer economy, they would have polluted even more.
8:15 the picture on screen lines up perfectly with the shelf
The first minute, I laughed out loud in utter agreement at everything you said...
Optimism about teraforming Mars might have something to do with the fact that there aren't any lobbyists on Mars... Yet
Science makes everything possible
@Flyboy Mcnasty Most of the effects of low gravity are only felt upon returning to high gravity. So if people just stay on Mars for the rest of their lives the gravity might not be that much of a problem.
And we're completely capable of saving the Earth, it's only politics stopping us. But I agree terraforming is pretty unlikely.
How are we going to teraform Mars? It's already 96% co2, if you believe co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas.
@@Norbert-yk4jy Science denier alert...
CO2 is actually a mild greenhouse gas, heavier molecules like methane have a stronger effect. But despite the high percentage of CO2 the volume of it on Mars is actually less than that on Earth. Really to fix Mars' atmosphere you'd need to restart it's magnetic field. Which is pretty much up there with building a Dyson swarm.
@@danieljensen2626 so I guess gravity doesn't play much of a role in determining Mars' atmospheric density? And BTW, you need to grow up, just because someone disagrees with you about an issue doesn't give you the right to ridicule them. Using your own words, if co2 is only a mild greenhouse gas, why do you think an increase of a mere 100 particles per million is causing global warming, or more recently relabelled "climate change"? Don't worry about contradicting yourself, people are waking up to your lies anyway. It's only a matter of time now until the real science deniers are exposed, a bunch of narrow-minded hypocrites too arrogant to admit they might be wrong.
I'm a little bit disappointed you did not get into carbon sequestration through natural means which can be extremely productive in many ways. Planting trees increasing biomass in soil increasing hummus and soil all sequester carbon. Soil is dark brown because of the carbon in it and the Richer the soil the darker the color because the carbon is increased. Just spreading compost across large amounts of rangelands can increase the bacteria in the soil and draw out carbon from the atmosphere by simply spreading compost in 1/2 inch thick depth. I've seen studies that estimate it would only take one third of us farmlands going towards a carbon sequestering method of farming could draw down significant amounts of carbon. No-till farming compost adding biomass to soils all of this stuff can significantly suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. There's also the added benefit of anything growing being much healthier and it holding moisture in the soil due to the block of sun evaporation. Just leaving Fields open dirt they off gas carbon dioxide in huge amounts. Then of course there is the forestry industry we need trees for building houses anyway why shouldn't we sequester carbon by doing massive tree planting operations and then log them sustainably and continue to add to our overall Forest Interquest of the carbon in the building of houses or whatever other structures. I think the natural means deserve some serious consideration.
Alarmism sells.
'Something' is happening, but we don't have a good handle on what it is.
Plus, it looks like that fusion ball 93Mil miles away has a lot to do with our climate. I'm for clean, and a better power source and storage methods, but you work with what you have, and not wishful thinking. Maybe Dr. Brown will let us reverse his Mr. Fusion on the Delorian.
It's a shame that global wildfires and plant disease (eg pine bark beetle) in recent years are decimating forests faster than we are planting new trees but we must persevere. Our technology is not making any great strides in providing any silver bullets like, say, fusion energy which unfortunately is still a speck on a distant horizon.
So of course we have to increase our efforts on things that do work like soil sequestration of carbon, although with its limitations it is not a cure-all, though a potentially significant contributor. Sadly political will is ignoring the will of the people to reduce CO2 emissions and its dangerous climate consequences.
Yum! I love hummus!
As you point out with the outgassing of CO2 from open dirt fields, whatever sequestration method we use we must be careful to not sequester it in such a way that we could suddenly re-release the CO2 because of mismanagement, accident, or unexpected interaction with the environment.
So are we talking about low oxygen burning to charcoal producing power plants, then mulch the charcoal and use it as fertiliser? Sounds like a win win.
Joe your reading my mind. I'm at the 3:12 mark and this so far is exactly what I've been saying,thinking and trying to help with. You can start by growing a tree in your yard,or a bunch
Would be great if you could give an update to this video - new projects (like algae-based tech), status of the older ones, etc.
Type 1 civilization ? We are more like a Kardashian civilization right now.
On point!
I think you have it backwards. Back in the old days, the low IQ unremarkables caused unspeakable amounts of pain, death, and destruction in their attempt to achieve significance with small intellects.
It's GREAT that we have hot asses like Kardashian and Minaj to give purpose and meaning to their lives so they get off our backs and let us get our work done. We need people who aren't actively participating in inventing the future to be distracted and happy so they don't start wars.
This is the greatest time to be alive yet. Don't knock our culture too hard! It needs lots of growth and improvement, but that's already begun.
He Shoots.......... HE SCOOOOOOOOORES!
First they got to figure out how to make Mar astronaut suits that don't get damaged in radioactive sands. 😳
save the planet get rid of large cities
Turn carbon into building materials is probably the best method as we are running out of sand for concrete
Indeed, I'd like to know more about that method. On that side of things there's already hempcrete, but it still uses some cement so not carbon negative as far as I know. Just don't smoke your house
yes, sounds like one of most intresting things in this video,
heard about paints that absorb unhealthy gasses from the air, but not from this concrete yet..
If not that much more expensive, you could just force cement makers to have the big majority of their concrete of that type ..
big part of problem solved. the thing we mainly need is time. Most parts of the world are investing in renawable in all kinds of way, just not fast enough to keep warming under 2 dregrees celsius , no idea what that is in the confusing fahernheit scale thingy american still seem to like :).
@@databanks It's called "trees."
Fly ash is a great additive for cement, idk how good plain carbon is
He forgot to show the energy balance in the equation. What are you going to burn, spin or fuse to get the energy to sequester that co2 in the bricks?
Don't use mirrors use solar panels and beam the energy to earth as microwaves to terrestrial receivers.
That is an idea (a good one) but you know that there will be wars fought over the control of the thermostat and who gets the power from the panels, who gets the money for the free power that governments will make us pay for, ECT.........
Gas X in background of "tangent cam" is perfectly placed.
Carbon is emitted while creating energy. And the same energy is being used to capture carbon from air. 😶.
Edit: Trees does the same job by capturing carbon in stem, but using sunlight unlike air capture companies using electricity. So instead of investing in capture plants invest in some green plants.
First world countries have little choice but to invest in co2 scrubbing plants, since third world countries have different priorities than worrying about co2 releases into the atmosphere, such as feeding the population...
@@avz7001 No, third world countries have no cash to "invest" for them. To do this we get the World Bank and the Import Export Bank (both funded with US taxpayer dollars) to transfer Tera-bucks of taxpayer stolen cash to fund this climate bullshit.
In the case of the World Bank, the politicians who fund this bullshit get a nice kickback in their pockets directly from the dictators and tyrants we "give it" to.
In the case of the Import export bank we send the stolen cash directly to our crony-capitalists who then send big slices of it back to the criminal politicians.
Do you know which Bank the Biden family uses for their grift?
Someone needs to work on converting carbon into some type of solid to use In 3d printers
That would be some of the most effective ways to motivate production to change their ways
You should be that someone.
We need to all work together and stop placing the responsibility on everyone else
@@neolesedi9083 I'll get right on that
Supercheap, carbon neutral, carbon infused filament for everything from R&D throwaways to end use parts?! Sign me up!
We could also try and infuse it into the spools.
That's what trees do.
lol, i just checked out your merch shop and i see ill be looking like a joe scott die hard fan girl in about 5-7 business days loool
The problem is, we don't know for sure what kind of secondary effects these massive projects could have.
Yes, but the primary effects make it worth a hail Mary or two.
@@tompalmer5986 for sure, but preventing the problem by reducing emissions is still the best option.
I think he just means that none of the solutions are ideal, and we should avoid having to use them.
What's important is getting government grants to build them!
We can capture the CO2 and sell it to the paintball community.
Why would we do that? There just going to furiously let it all back out! Bazinga!
we dont use CO2 anymore (exept neches) - HPA is the main
@@midassnap9028 Wow! Worshipers??? For not voting in Hillary??? The person who was breaking federal laws by having her own personal server with sensitive data about our nation on it. Only a real C02 sucker could vote for that.
uh... most use high pressure air since co2 freezes the valves when you get to 18 to 20 balls a second
We can pit them against the airsoft community and use this bidding war to fund renewable energy research
Well last resort we can all go out in a bang and trigger Yellowstone's super volcano.
I was looking for this
Lol
Xan Beerboy But it will surely be a nice volcanic winter.
Maybe it’ll start a new ice age and give us more time to do something about this problem instead of whining on about how climate-policies harm the economy and whatnot.
@@xxan84Humanity? No.. Just the USA. Well.. Maybe Alaska and Hawaii would survive.
It might happen anyway. One result of AGW is melting of ice caps. Ice caps weigh a lot, and the released pressure as they melt causes strains on fault lines, causing earthquakes and tectonic plate movement. It could cause volcanic activity as an indirect result.
When he said artificial volcanoes and need of planes I immediately thought of the SR - 71 then he said fuel efficient. That idea went out the window as fast as that plane can fly
Your background music somtimes sounds exactly like my alarm clock. Haaah, the thrills. Thanks for the content, very much appreciated. :)
Here's how I imagine things will go in the upcoming future.
At some point in this century, the effects of climate change will get so bad that several countries will get torn down and destroyed by wars triggered by stresses brought by climate change.
Mass migrations happening because of climate change related catastrophes, coastal or island cities getting flooded several times a year, desertification and killer droughts, potable water becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, entire portions of countries becoming completely uninhabitable, a shift in ocean currents causing severe changes in global climate... in summary, fast changes that humanity isn't prepared to deal with.
The problem with climate change isn't, weirdly enough, about climate changing itself. The problem is the speed. Human societies are not equipped or built to deal with fast changes. We have developed into the stage we are today during a miraculous period of time where global climate kept pretty stable... so our mentality nowadays is based on this stability.
If it was a couple of degrees increase in averages over say, a millenia, we'd probably handle it better. In a century this not only means we can't develop adaptations fast enough, we might also have too many extreme events that will kill tons of people and leave parts of the planet almost impossible to live through an entire year.
Imagine parts of the US you can only stay during certain months, having to move outside of it everytime storm season comes, or everytime forest fire season comes. It's kind of already happening.
Give it a few more years for it to affect even more countries and awareness finally reach it's peak.
If we're not already neck deep into trying to remediate all the problems that are already happening, perhaps out of desperation we adopt a massive geoengineering plan. Something that requires massive funding, massive ammounts of people working, and cooperation of several different countries.
I can already imagine we botching one of those up real good, creating massive side effects that will be even worse than climate change itself, which kills a huge percentage of all life on Earth. It is the most likely scenario given how little we actually know about doing something on that scale. It's something that might have killed past civilizations, or have left societies in very dire straights during our own history. The only difference is that we don't see them as "geoengineering".
For instance, if you change perspectives, climate change might be seem as geoengineering. Through several apparently unrelated processes, we increased the greenhouse effect by pumping a whole ton of gases from deep into the Earth's crust to the atmostphere.
There are vast tracts of land in several countries that we rendered infertile due to massive agricultural projects and whatnot. There are some theories about ancient civilizations going extinct because of processes involving large populations that changed the local climate and conditions that weren't predicted.
Humanity will be left in such a shape that it'll look like either post-apocalyptic scenarios or one of those zombie movies without zombies.
Pandemics will also come and tons of people will die, even though we could have saved many with research and development... just that we won't be able to reach or finance the costs of curing most people.
By the end of these very dark times in our species, we'll either be left in a state like previous to middle ages, or in a direct path to extinction.
At that point climate change won't even matter anymore, it'll only be about survival.
Geoengineering won't be attempted anymore because it will be considered too dangerous, and there won't be funds to do it anyways.
And then, we either start over or just let go...
ua-cam.com/video/DkZ7BJQupVA/v-deo.html
7:32 I really was hoping for a fart joke
All right finally found one of your videos.
I usually watch Our Ludicrous future
@answerswithjoe thanks a lot for your enthusiasm towards giving interesting information and education. My 10yr old asked what your page was so she could follow you!
Oil companies and coal companies should be paying large share. Equal to the benefits they enjoyed.
You mean the benefits YOU'VE enjoyed from plastics and cheap gas. Or do you not wear polyester or travel via the combustion engine? Perhaps you spin your own thread and ride a donkey to work, Amish Style? Oops that donkey emits methane so we have to tax you for that. Plus you keep exhaling CO2 so we have to tax you for that too. I'm sure you understand. We're all in this together. Now pay for your benefits or its jail for you. ;-)
Nothing like inventing an argument, Strawman. I've been fighting, not hard enough, since the 80s. I live in Canada and our gas is not cheap. I drive less than 10,000 km a year. I bike and walk whenever possible, no single task trips, no drives for fun. I've cut my purchase by 80%, I eat local, organic and seasonal. My heat stays off when I'm out and I don't have AC. Is that enough? Not by a long shot. Will I make a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. It's going to be tough. I do have a plan to go near 100% by 2050. I doubt my personal efforts will succeed and I doubt we will do enough. I could go on about my efforts but that was never my point.
My point was these industries knew what they were doing, knew the harm, and not only lied but actively promoted doubt. They deliberately acted in a way that they knew could and now will kill life as we know it. All life. That's the crime.
The rest of us are not innocent. I have not done enough. And yes it's going to be tough to make my commitment. But what I am not doing is pissing on the future. These companies not only did but are continuing to fight to be able to. That's a crime. A crime against humanity. So what are you doing?
Yeah it BS how the power plants are getting a HUGe cut form this Carbon tax BS! they are the producers yet the middle class is being sucked dry...
And the simplest most cost effective but generates no money is planting the damn forests back and leaving them alone. The lungs and air conditioning of the planet are pretty important
while i agree trees are a great way to go, over 60% of our oxygen is actually created by the plankton in the oceans. the damage we are doing to the oceans is have a direct impact on those plants. I think a good thing he mentioned but didn't go enough in depth about is capturing the CO2 and stripping out the carbon and making building materials, but also as many miles of carbon nanotubes as possible, because several scientist agree the only feasible way to make a space elevator is with miles of carbon nanotubes.
Trees can produce wood and sometimes fruits. They retain water, protect the soil from erosion and are the base of many ecosystems. They are a good investment on the long term.
The problem is planting isn't that easy. Check for TEDx talks with Allan Savory, he's already doing it but you need a lot of animals, man power and a couple of years. It works but he won't be able to do it by himself. The problem is that we harvest more trees than we plant. I really like also the idea in some Nordic countries that states that you must plant atleast 2 trees to 1 harvested or the new law in Philippines that states that if a student wants to graduate he must plant 10 trees.
Also substantial Carbon can be sequestered by requiring cover crops on agricultural land instead of synthetic fertilizers, and by preserving grassland and regreening desert using large managed livestock herds. This also recreates a healthy soil biome - good for the ecology in general.
the real problem, not only manpower and time
remember, trees need surface area to
and we human also need land surface area to for life, works, and plant our foods also growing livestock
our planet too small for upkeep everything
Really interesting. If only we could all work together.
Several years ago I watched a tv show w/ competition to develop a method to scrub CO2 while being economical. There was one winner. Did you see it? What happened to the technology? It could have been 10 yrs ago I forgot the name. The winner was set up in NY football stadium i think.
Wait... wouldn't all weather related disasters be considered as climate change related disasters? Like did the people who came out with that statistic have a list of ones that were related and ones that they considered not to be related?
Science doesn't matter...this is a religion. You can't debate climate science with a zealot any more than you can debate Islam with a Muslim. It's a feeling now, facts don't matter. They can just...feel it. Ugh.
@@johnmcglasson3287 I hope this is satire
@@saxo.309 The entire hoax is satire. Michael Mann ensured that
@@johnmcglasson3287 wot
@@saxo.309 Michael Mann. James Hansen. Fake hockey-stick graph. Angola University. EPA 20 years of fake data. Look it up if techlords haven't unmemoried it. If you claim to know about climate science but don't know these names and what they did then you're unqualified to discuss the topic. Really.
Fossil fuels philosophy: privatize massive profit, socialize the cost, and pay no or little taxes.
I think you misspelled every major corporate entity.
Greed is good.
Only liberals care about Gore-BULL warming and I'm not a liberal :)
If you are thinking this way, you are no better than evil corps... If they are greedy and fucktards it does not mean you need to be greedy fucktards too... Honestly this would cost like some percentage extra cost for energy, but at least you will be able to live longer on this planet (or if you have than you child will be able to live on this planet). I would rather pay a little extra just to be able to live longer, but obviously its easier point your fingers to the energy companies... I know its not fair, but fuck it this is how the world goes, first save your life, after that you'll have time to change the world...
philosophy of all large corporations, really
Just a question, how do you power the fan of the co2 extractor?
Because it might need a lot of energy to have any impact.
Just send all our industrial Industries to Mars terraforming level 9000
Its such an easy fix. All we have to do is reverse our air conditioners. If everyone cooled outside we would all be happy.
Yeah and we have to open our fridges as well
As joking as this comment is... you have actually have an idea... for temperature anyway. Heat Pumps work on AC technology, and we can pull heat out of the ground to heat houses at 400% efficiency and we can cool houses by reversing it. Basically a giant geothermal air conditioner.
@@hightechredneck8587I do have an idea. My dad works in HVAC and I help him a lot install large air-conditioning systems, boilers, and etc...
The funny thing is that ac units produce heat on the back end. So while we're cooling the inside, we're heating the outside.. cool huh? Did I just explain global warming? Guess we're gonna have to capture all that heat and pump it under ground.. or blow it up into space..
Lol
Pull the CO2 from Earth's atmosphere and ship it to Mars!
Better: pull the CO2 out of Venus's atmosphere and send it to Mars!
Mars atmosphere is already >90% CO2... still no warming, tho.
@@MarkOfBitcoin the atmosphere of Mars is also super thin.
@Thalass has it right; that .04% of Earth's atmosphere with all the greenhouse gases...yeah, that's the entire atmosphere of Mars. On the other hand, Venus has a LOT more to spare!
Mars already has an atmosphere of 95% carbon dioxide and an av temp of -60c. If co2 level is reduced to 150 ppm then all life on earth will cease.
That volcano one sounds like the beginning of Snow Piercer
Climat control doesn't deal with toxic dumping, plastic in our water, over consumption, species extinctions (bees)... Shareholders need to change their attitude towards wealth and start thinking about repercussions of their fortune making entreprises... People (the consumers of these companies) need to simplify their lives and start thinking self-sufficient and local. WE NEED TO OWN THE FUCK UP FOR WHAT WE"VE BEEN DOING!
Sometimes I swear I click so fast on these videos that UA-cam is gonna think I’m a bot. I’m not. Love your videos tho Joe, for real 👍🏻
...so I should make a bot that randomly picks a number between 101 and 1000 seconds and then clicks on a video.
sounds like something a bot would say ....... I reported your comment as spam 😉
As to the Coal Burning Companies just raising their prices that is not necessarily so since they are in competition with Renewable Energy Companies.
One other short term solution that would help in the here and now, and it's relatively cheap as well. Paint EVERY roof on EVERY building and house a bluish off-white! It would mimick the clouds and snow, reflecting a LOT of sunlight back into space. Have you ever seen aerial photos of our cities and suburbs? It's all dark and heat absorbing!
but not a shiny paint. don't want to blind everyone in the sky.
They should reuse hydroelectric plants to power carbon capture stations, while moving the grid towards Nuclear energy. Also, to those in the comments section berating carbon capture technology, I would point out that no amount of trees is going to capture all the carbon we burned from deposits in which it was stored safely for millennia. One plant over a short period of time won’t fix the problem, but it’s a start.
"Wind and solar are on par with coal." We don't have a final price on renewables unless we count the price of gas and other hydrocarbons required to compensate for the downtime and/or take into account the energy storage solution and maintenance over time. As far as I understand, those statistics tend to completely disregard that kind of data, ignoring that compared to hydrocarbons solar and wind are 100% technological sources of energy. And you must 100% include the pricetag of the technology in its entirety to make the final cost evaluation.
Is cost really at issue here? If I were dying of a fatal disease, but could be cured by handing over all of my cash, I do it without a second thought. You can always earn more money, provided you are alive...
I will claim that 25 million dollar price from Branson!
A hose made from CO2 hosing CO2 to Mars... See! Brilliant
😏
And the cool thing about that is you just need to suck on the hose for a second and then it keeps on flowing
Now technical solution.
Inb4 we accidentally siphon our entire atmosphere to Mars, killing all earth life, and starting bacterial evolution on mars. Then the Martians will begin causing climate change, and some genious will say, "Hey, what if we siphon the carbon dioxide to that dead planet we might terraform, you know, Earth." Then they accidentally siphon their entire atmosphere, killing life on Mars and starting bacterial evolution on Earth.
Well that was a fun train of thought.
Awesome idea!
And to add to your idea, we can use the same hose as space elevator to put heavy satellites into orbit!
Two birds killed with a stone!
dear god - i hope its joke or satire if your mind thinks this will be possible i shun this earth and its people
I got the plan. Ever been skiing at night when they're making snow on the trails? We get all of those to the poles....
Can you do a video on why climate scientists always say the end is 10-12 years away? In my lifetime I heard this in the 90's, early 2000s, early 2010s and now in early 2020. All saying the same thing "we must change now or in 10 years we are doomed, the tipping point!!! THE TIPPING POINT!!!!"
It's not 10-12 years away. and it probably won't affect our generation too much but it will affect our children and their children which is why we are working to make their lives better instead of just making them worse. if anyone says it'll happen in 10 years they're probably not a very good news source
I only have one thing to say. Thorium salt reactors!!!
Show me one...
@@oljimeagle6779 That's not a good counter argument. It's the same argument used to ridicule the idea of flying with planes back in the day.
Too bad there's so much stigma around nuclear
lol MEGA PROJECTS!!! Dr Evil would be proud! Is it really that hard to change the genes of trees and vegetation and increase their CO2 consumption? We've been doing similar things with crops and vegetables for centuries.
Exactly! They need to genetically engineer a broad-leaf plant/ tree that thrives in desert conditions.
Thats actually a very good idea
Actually, that's why grasses are so prevalent. They evolved to pump more C02 more efficiently than broad-leafed plants. IIRC, maize is particularly good at this.
Every single option to fix the problem requires money. And if corporations can’t make a profit , oh well everyone is SOL. WE WILL ALL PERISH BECAUSE OF MONEY NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.
Exactly. Economic growth is what keeps us safe. Inexpensive and reliable energy generates economic growth. The climate movement is not an environmental movement. It is an ideological movement. It is anti capitalist, anti industrialization and anti West.
That mirror idea reminds me of when mr.burns blocked the sun in the simpsons
Ehhhhhxcellent!
How can you talk about converting to clean energy and not mention nuclear power?!
Because nuclear energy is carbon neutral, NOT CLEAN.
@@LaurenBurger Theres another huge point about thorium versus uranium. People are scared by the idea of another chernobyl and rightly so, but this is the problem of a uranium reactor, everything that is done to manage it is with the sole purpose of stopping it exploding and exhausting radioactive material everywhere.
The thorium salt reactor is such low volatility that everything in the reactor is being done to keep the reaction happening. If a Thorium salt reactor fails, it just stops producing energy and would need to be replaced before production could continue. No explosion, no radioactive fall out and the easiest way to cover our energy needs in the short term. This is with an existing concept that could give us the extra time needed to come up with truly global and environmentally sympathetic solution to climate change.
@@LaurenBurger Yep, Thorium for the future.
Unfortunately it *is* still nuclear which means the uneducated masses still think "boom".
Because nuclear reactors are very dangerous and isn’t clean. Fusion would be much cleaner and much more efficient and so are thorium reactors.
Lauren Burger Please explain how nuclear waste is less radioactive than burning coal and explain how a coal plant makes the same amount of energy asa nuclear plant. Also scientists have already theorized and it is mathematically possible for a Thorium Reactor, it produces very little waste that can be easily contained and produces much more energy than coal plants do, and why do you have a link for a kid who built a nuclear reactor that violated many federal laws, and you forgot about China’s Tokamak fusion reactor that was able to stay online for 10 seconds which is a major step in the right direction.
Lower CO2 down to 260ppm creates potential of Sahara Desert for AGRICULTURE, essentially as it was in 15,000 bc.
sahara project already is doing that without a change of the environment.
260ppm was the CO2 content of our atmosphere pre-industrial revolution, there were forests and agriculture then. Robin Hood managed to find a few trees in Sherwood Forest, bread to eat and ale to drink (even if he never existed the Sheriff of Nottingham certainly did and he did not starve to death from lack of agriculture).
World: develops a global thermostat. Dads: *If that changes by one degree from where I set it, somebody’s paying the bill in a whooping!*
Peter diamandis is insanely cool. The projects he runs and reports on are INSANE
The reason why Mars is easier to change compared to Earth: *People own land on Earth and they decide if they want to do anything in the first place.*
Cardinal. Easier?? If you think it will be easier, you've not looked into it enough. It would take multiple millennia before one could even walk outside without an insulated suit or breath the air. That said we still need to do it.
Mars is also SAFER to experiment on. If we get it wrong on Mars, then some scientists say, "Aw, darn." If we get it wrong on Earth, millions or billions could die.
Burn the mind-blowing cost to get what we need to Mars to do what we need before everyone dies on Earth. And yes that includes making stuff on Mars using the resources there.
If a coal company paying to capture the released carbon puts the price of that energy up, good, that's the price it should cost for that. Having the cost of coal power kept artificially low by both subsidies and lack of responsibility being placed on the companies is what is holding back solar and other renewables in the first place. If we were paying the true cost for our dirty energy, solar would start to look a lot more appealing in an instant.
NZRoflcopter False, solar energy is mostly about upkeep. Panels get used up once a decade, it good for a single house but for powering cities, nah
@@darealpoopster So you are saying that if the opposing energy sources were more expensive it would have no effect on the demand for solar? It's basic economics. If coal is more expensive, then the alternatives become more appealing.
@pipe king Battery technology is part of what is holding us back from being 100% solar powered, but it could easily lower or reliance on other power sources very significantly even without batteries at all.
@pipe king Having solar panels won't stop that. There are batteries that can store enough power for a home, and prices are only going to come down. Regardless, you can still be connected to the grid and buy(and sell) power when you need more or have overproduced.
Actually, what's holding back solar is its 20% reliability.
We just need to start dropping giant ice cubes in to the ocean.
Heard of glacier calving?
The problem with putting capture on smoke stacks is that it doesn't fix the horrific ocean pollution by mines. It's a decent start, but only a temporary solution.
They could use the Co2 for carbon nanotubes^^ Maybe they will find a way to Split the Carbon from the O2
We already know how to do that. It just takes the same amount of energy that you got burning in the first place. Plants use the Sun as the energy.
Planting trees and reversing desertification seems like the best and cheapest solution.
evo false
Wemdiculous broooooo
Did you know there's more trees in the northern hemisphere now than there was 100 years ago?
Allan Savory
Unfortunately not. Of course that has to be done but nonetheless reforestation can´t simply hold up with the speed we increase co2 in the atmosphere. We need to primarily focus on reducing our output of green house gases into the atmosphere so those measures have a chance to be effective.
Hey Joe. I'm surprised you didn't mention remote volcanoes in your "GOT unpredictable seasons" video. You know? Every once in an unpredictable while, a volcano erupts, far from Westeros, and BAM! Winter has come.
For your knowledge - learn about the Grand Solar Minimum, 11-year Sun Cycle, Aerosol (air+Sun).
I read the title as "4 Megaprojects that could change answers with joe"
And I was like...whoa
If you play this video at .75 speed this guy seems very stoned.
Hee hee, yes.
LMAO, definitely noticed
haha drop him down to 1/2 speed even better.
Trevor Koskela watch his animals that get drunk video at .75, also hilarious
These are terrible ideas at any speed lol
There's actually a fairly simple solution:
There are a number of algae species which are positively voracious in absorbing/consuming CO2 - some are highly nutritious, others naturally produce medicinal compounds, and all of them are viable as renewable fuel sources. Given the relative simplicity of algae, it shouldn't be too difficult to tailor varieties which additionally (or alternatively) serve as excellent fertilizer for traditional food crops. While such implementation would ideally be combined with sequestration, such fields would also work passively.
Why does everyone always argue nuclear vs renewables? Both are going to be needed. One of the best part of renewables, such as solar, is how quickly it can be built. Start plans for nuclear power plants and get that ball rolling. While they are being built, build as many renewables as possible.
Both. People need to embrace the "Why not both?" mantra in their lives more.
Nukes at equator will fix the problem in no time :)
I've never once heard any explanation of the 'twelve years' thing. It feels like yet another arbitrary timeline for saving the planet.
REPENT! THE END IS NEAR!!! AHEM, I MEAN... WE ONLY HAVE 12 YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET! WONT SOMEBODY PPPPPLLLLEAAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Its religion, just a new flavor of it.
Rather than waiting to "hear" an explanation, why don't you just go ahead and read the IPCC report. It's publicly available. If that still doesn't explain enough for you, check out the references/sources they provide. If that's still not enough, go directly to the source. Find a friend currently attending a university and ask if you can use their log in to access one of the large subscriber-only scientific journal databases. Or, if that's too hard, just use Google Scholar. A significant portion of journal articles are available there these days.
What if all it ends up being is fake news that makes us clean up the planet for no good reason?
Jk even worst case scenario we win.
That 12 year span relies on estimates how much Co2 we can pump into the atmosphere in order to stay beyond the 2 degrees threshold. The first part is a rather simple calculatable physical barrier the later part counts with our current amount of emissions. If we reduce our emissions it could be longer if we don´t or increase CO2 emissions we will reach that point earlier. If we pass that 2 degrees threshold it is very likely that we reached a tipping point where it does not matter anymore how much we reduce our emissions but the climate will keep heating up nonetheless with dramatic impacts on human life as we know it (ocean water rises of estimated up to 70m, vast uninhabitable areas due to high temperature, rapid expansion of deserts, rapidly declining access to drinking water, a lot more extreme weather conditions and so on). So yeah the timeline varies a bit depending what we will do in the future but at the point we are right now it is a pretty accurate prediction. A prediction nonetheless.
Read the report?
www.ipcc.ch/2019/
just listening to the video as background noise and I hear "...Nuke the poles...", I had to make sure I was still on the right video.
Well done, one of the best on climate change.
None of this stuff is ever going to happen, because of money.
What could go wrong with centrally planning the earths climate?
Because I collect silver I googled top uses for silver.. was shocked to see weather modification on the list.. so I dug.. turns out those conspiracy "chem trails" are an actual active attempt by governments around the world to promote cloud seed nuclei forming.. they've been doing it for decades. And playing it off in the media as a fringe last resort idea.. haha
Dont search chem trails. Search weather modification or cloud seeding operations
We need a Stalinist style "5 year plan" to deal with it, a few million people might die but frankly the alternative is probably worse!
@Christobanistan My family would accept that drastic changes are a necessary sacrifice to insure the continued existence of our species. The purge would be of people unwilling to participate... You for example.
@@wiamoaw bring it on, I will volunteer you.
They've been saying we only got 10 - 15 years for decades now. None of their models have come true. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something, for sure reducing pollution, but there's really no need to over-haste.
The plane idea reminds me of snowpiercer
People think they're so clever bringing up trees. Here's a gold star sticker for your fridge.
Helloooo Snowpiercer....
When he started talking about putting chemicals into the atmosphere that's exactly what I thought.
The unpredictability of geoengineering the climate through the method of releasing chemicals into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight, in particular the dangers of disturbances to seasonal rains that billions of people rely on, make it unlikely to be used (Keller et al, 2014).
that thumbnail though, lol.
"we'll build a huge wall of fans in the desert to cool off all the global warming!"