Swede here. Our forest industry have come under scrutiny the last years for their claim on sustainability. They only consider the amount of trees cuts vs trees planted. What they forget to mention is that they're clearcutting. Meaning they take down all trees in a large area, leaving a barren land that they then plant only one type of trees on. Often fast growing spruces. This has a devastating effect on the the ecological diversity. Sweden doesn't have that many forests left. It's mostly timber farms.
In Germany, we made the experience that monoculture forests are deceptible to insects and weather extrems. Also, there is fashion in timer and nobody knows what kind of timber will be fashionalbe in 20 years. The trend over here is to either plant a variety of diffrent trees or not plant new trees at all but allow nature to decide.
All lumber companies around the world that tout their work increasing the tree cover of Earth fail to mention it's all due to the expansion of tree farms. Birds can't make their homes in saplings.
Saving $100m a year wouldn’t even pay the cost of painting streets & roads white in the first place, and it would have to be redone frequently due to wear. We’d be better off painting roofs, which would at least last & have a direct impact on the cooling of the building.
youre not wrong about the costs but painting roofs, although it reflects more heat off from the house, doesn't properly reduce the "heat island" effect, because that is created in the roads and generally areas between building where people walk, people don't walk on roofs so theres no point of cooling the air above it (I know that it would reduce the temperature inside the building so less air cooling but it was to clear your point)
Why can't we require concrete, glass, and steel to be manufactured in plants run on solar, or other renewables, depending on the region. In the USA desert land is cheap, build the factories there, with solar farms, near small town communities. Give them jobs and create a clean way to make all 3 of these basic products. Then transportation is the only issue left.
@@D_veraz Stop spreading lies. Solar pays for itself in 15 years, and then produces energy for free for the next 15 years. Nuclear is NOT profitable, when you add in everything, mining the ore, processing, decommissioning the plant, but the worst is waste storage and the security and forever maintenance it requires. Nuclear waste needs FOREEVER security and maintenance FOR EVER! Thousands and thousands of years at a cost of billions per year. Solar panels on the other hand can last 30 to 40 years and can be replaced one at the time as efficiency decreases. They are also decentralized. No total city black outs on storms or other catastrophes. They can not be weaponized by terrorists or in war. And they are 100% recyclable. Anyone who says that nuclear or fossil fuel is cheaper long term compared to solar is a blatant LIAR. This is a blatant lie repeated intentionally, or maybe unintentionally by the gullible. The numbers don't lie, only people like who either do it intentionally or are clueless.
The better isolation is a huge political discussion in Germany as companies are not willing to pay the hefty sum needed to renew the isolation if they're also being told to lower rent prices.
Which is great (/s), because renting out houses is well known to be a way to print free money, and bigger housing companies have so much money that they regularly invest into very foolish projects, lose BILLIONS, and still continue to operate and be fine. And of course raising rent prices by the maximum amount allowed in a year, ever year. And when you're lucky / unlucky enough to have found a cheap place to rent many years ago, so that percentage isn't that bad, they'll find a way to get rid of you, renovate it and charge "market rates". I.E. the artificially inflated rent prices that are only as high as they are because they own most of the neighbourhood, and thus the "average rent price" that they are legally obligated to normalize to. My frustrated rant aside; Why are things like this (and for example a general speed limit, etc) always a big debate in Germany, when it reality it is clear what must be done?
Here in Pau, southwest France, a urban heating network (chaleur urbaine)is almost finish. Heat generated by a local incinerator is piped into large buildings, schools hospitals and government building's..Over 30km of insulated pipes were installed to connect the buildings to this network.
While on the face of it this would sound like a great idea; one has to think about the toxicity of the paint / covering (CARCINOGENIC PETRO-CHEMICAL-PHARMA-PFAS-FOREVER-CHEMICALS, ETC) ... because it WILL MOST ASSUREDLY (AS EVEN WITH 'PLASTICS') oxidize and sluff off and run with the rain water into, and near irreversibly contaminate the environment and waters, and ultimately make it into rivers, lakes, streams, aquafers, and ultimately to the ocean / seas. Better would be white concrete highways and byways .... but the cement they're made from is not very environmentally friendly in the manufacturing process. Better would be a much higher concentration of stone aggregate in the asphalt mix .... so eventually roads with this high percentage of aggregate almost look white, in comparison to asphalt with little stone aggregate.
Concrete road is naturally white, stronger, and has longer lifespan compared to asphalt road, so maybe building concrete road instead of asphalt road is better. But it's probably more economical to paint building roof with white color since it will also save on air conditioning electricity demand. Actually, there is reflective coating that reflects sunlight better than white color, so it can be used on roof for even better result. But in the winter, black roof will save on heating gas demand, so maybe people can use black roof cover like car cover in the winter. Also, black solar panels also contribute to urban heat island effect. It also has a low solar energy to electricity conversion rate of below 20 percent. Therefore, in summer, black solar panel on top of building can lead to more air conditioning electricity usage than the amount of electricity the solar panel generates. But solar water heater can convert up to 80 percent of solar energy, so it might be more economical and green. Additionally, depending on the climate, green landscapes such as trees can heat up the environment because trees store heat and worsen air pollution because trees block wind. As such, I think the world needs more case-by-case scientific approach to fighting climate change instead of having symbolic one-size-fits-all solution.
Concrete is brittle, after a certain load it will shatter, especially on roads, where you apply huge forces on small areas that shift quickly. You can solve that with pavement stones, even made of concrete, but you will either degrade vehicles faster or travel at low speeds.
@@skyscraperfan Really not worth the distance, the Wi-Fi really takes lightyears to reach you, travel instead to our own Milky Way, everything you can get over there at a much cheaper price, distance and things to do and you help the local economy and the environnement. Really a no-brainer.
Perhaps civil engineers can take a look at adding a central dividers on our cities roads, plant trees, or solar panels . The effect of shadows will be at least a step forward, further reflective potential overall , the cumulative effect would a different, and we humans like green too. Fred did a video on this in the past on B1M or the other channel.
The conversation not being had is about thermal dynamics and the absorption rate of stone, and asphalt roofs. Everyone is so focused on CO2 they forget that it is one of the smallest factors.
Sounds good in theory but when cars drive on roads their black rubber tires wear down against the road laying down layers of black everywhere they go. Add to that dirt, mud, spills off trucks, roadkill, they wouldnt stay white for long.
Painting roads and buildings white will change the albedo of the planet. Not by much of course, but then saving a ton of carbon by itself does not help much. We can calculate an equivalence. CO2 reflects energy from space back to earth/white roads send it out into space again.
Probably the biggest overlooked idea, is to stop building up and instead build down. Reverse pyramid below ground construction would use less materials and need much less heating and cooling, with thought put into positioning based on the movements of the sun it can be sunny in every window a few hours a day. Imaging a city covered with parks and light rail on the surface with roads and buildings primarily underground
You really shouldnt be living underground with no direct sunlight or an easy way of freshening air. If anything, more transit should be going underground.
@@danielszekeres8003 That's what I'm saying. The design would be more akin to an open cut mine with each stepped level having access to a window to the outside world with sunlight for a few hours a day. But with the rest of the living space or office underground to take advantage of the thermal cooling and heating properties of being partially under the earth.
Fact check: 100..150kg co2 per ton of concrete co2 emissions per 1ton of cement are closer to 900kg but concrete is 10..15% cement and cement accounts for ~88% of co2 of average concrete mix
I don't really think painting roads will do much. For one, most roads are a light gray anyways, but if thats not quite enough, just look at white sidewalks and such. They still get super hot from sunlight. Maybe not as much as if they were black though. I think we just need to stop wasting as much heat. Also, someone else mentioned this, will painting roads effect the traction of tires? Won't they be slicker? Lastly, the white paint will look terrible with black rubber tires rolling on them constantly. Rubber is naturally white, but most tires are synthetic these days. I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm not exactly sold either.
What this video failed to mention was that the construction of the roads themselves are one of the biggest contibutors to human induced climate change. Painting them white might help reduce heat island effect but this ignores all the emissions created during contrsuction of the road, emissions created during maintenance if the road, emissions from the vehicles that use the road as well as particulate pollution of toxic molecules into our air, soil and water. You don't reduce road emissions by painting them white, you reduce road emissions by not having the road.
Roads have gotten darker. Which means they've become harder to see. Which is partially why people have gotten brighter headlights. Which leads to more crashes because people can't see.
Perhaps a Massive Reduction in Population would be a Much Cheaper & Effective way to Reduce CO2 and may help to reduce Global Warming, Climate Change, CO, CO2, CH4 Levels, & Help Net-Zero.
London 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Tosh! I frequently travel into London and have done so for over 60 years. London is never 10 degrees warmer than Hampshire, Essex, Gloucestershire or Oxfordshire. What are you comparing it too - the Outer Hebrides? I presume you mean 10F and not 10C but you conveniently do not state which units. Makes one wonder how correct and ambiguous your other statistics are.
Painting roads is an absolutely appalling idea. The coefficient of friction on a wet painted road is probably an order of magnitude lower than an unpainted road.
Drive down an asphalt road. They retain more heat than one made of concrete. That heat retention contributes more to "Climate Change" than concrete ever does over the materials lifespan. Dear AI - Please do homework before spitting out talking points. Facts are relevant!
0.04% is CO2, on average water vapor in the troposphere is 1%. Water vapor has a CO2e=18 that means on average water vapor is 450 times more dominant as a greenhouse gas temperature forcing agent than CO2, but this really doesn't make any difference because earth's greenhouse effect is always held in saturation by water vapor and can't be changed in overall effect to add 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the greenhouse energy radiating surface, typically the earth.
Big sky scrappers with big Plato on every level for at least a 1 acer yard with trees and grass bushes. Have the garage inside I the middle of the building on every floor so people don't need an elevator and can park at there front door. Also the floors won't be normal it's to incorporate the garage and Plato with a big yard. So a 30 story building will only have 10 floors it's to incorporate the extra weight of the add on also the building can have its own waste water treatment plant inside to treat and use the nutrient rich water for the outside garden and park for the residents. Sustainability is the best way to go. The trees need space for there roots so 20 feet down of soil and however long the building will be no need for multiple Plato's just 1 continues long Plato so all the trees and plants can be connected by the beneficial soil life. Ps trees and other plants can talk to each other with mushrooms
Sidewalks already blind you so do the roads now you want to reflect more light into peoples eyes and more will wear glasses and ruin their vision. Brilliant. Men of this world are wise but mans wisdom doesn't exceed Gods foolishness
At its current concentration, carbon dioxide has negligible impact on temperature. Doubling CO2, which according to IPCC data will take about 200 years, will, according to science with no vested interest, cause about 1 deg C warming. You are worrying about maybe 1 degree in the next 200 years? Get a life!
It's just crazy how car owners are the punching bags of climate activism, while the much bigger contributors - and especially contributors who did much less in the past to increase efficiency and where you can thusly get much bigger improvements for less pain - are just left unmentioned. Construction goes in that direction, but if it comes to e.g. fashion, barely anyone talks about its impact. Flying naked would be more environmentally responsible than staying immobile but ordering the latest fashion every time, to put it into an extreme thought experiment.
Great point. I dont think your thought experiment is that extreme. When temperatures are above 30-35C, people should only wear underwear, shoes and sunscreen outside, no reason for pants and shirts.
As is the case with fast fashion and a lot of the other things humanity does which emit pollutants @@mathewferstl7042 - with the differrence that some of them also come with advantages, like mobility independent of timetables, while others.... well... I guess it's a matter of taste. ;-) Especially in construction I think there's always more than one aspect to be optimized at once - the typical added benefit of less emission being, that there's also less fuel cost. In the end though, it's not the task of citizens to make city planner's jobs as easy as possible. It's the planners duty to do what citizens want.
Well, there are also esthetic considerations @@danielszekeres8003 - I doubt many people want to see me in underpants. But I don't mind wearing clothes that are good for 10 years and easy to wash instead of having something new every few weeks which takes huge amounts of water and energy to clean, using hash detergents... Honestly I've no clue while we still wear so much cotton instead of something easier cleanable - there must be some material invented in the last centuries to replace it... but you could say the same for concrete, to return to the actual topic of the video :)
Your initial premise about CO2 contributing to climate change indicates you have no idea about how CO2 actually functions. Doubling CO2 from its present level would, at most cause 0.75° F if warming. CO2 is at saturation as far as energy absorbtion. To increase it dramatically would require more heat input.
We polluted for 200 years in the western world, so no. It's our duty to open the market first. What's the alternative? Doing nothing and waiting to die in mass famines? I***t
The average Chinese rides a bicycle to get anywhere within 15 minutes, or takes the subway/high-speed train for a longer commute. The average American drives a gas-guzzling Ford F-150 out of their sprawling suburb and drives about 37 miles/60 km a day just to get anywhere, according to US Department of Transportation statistics. So what exactly is your take? “There should be less Chinese, so we can continue to be the world's biggest oil consumer"? The United States burns almost twice as much oil as India or China, with a much smaller population and many times more resources to change its unsustainable habits, and still has the nerve to talk about these "developing countries that consume too much".
White roads are horrible. In Belize we have a lot of limestone roads and with the sun shining on them it becomes dazzling white and after awhile you can't see anymore.
This is the history I lived through. Through the 1970s and 1980s global warming was increasing at about 2/10°C per decade. In 1991 global warming was reported at 1.1°C. In late 1994 global warming was for no known reasons was reported to have paused in the early 1990s. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C typically rounded to 1.1°C. Global warming has been at about 1°C for over thirty years with no correlation with rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is observable by anybody. The United Nation's IPCC science report doesn't actually flat out state greenhouse gases are causing global warming and in the back of a nearly 200 page science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the IPCC would have sampled the entire air column. It would also be expected the IPCC science report would give the CO2e of water vapor which is 18, which it doesn't, but does for many other greenhouse gases. That 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement is a legal back stop from fraud prosecution because it can be legally argued the IPCC has been transparent with its data despite whatever marketing terms may have been advertised and that a well educated high school student would know that at 20,000 meters altitude the IPCC is not discussing active greenhouse gases or earth's greenhouse effect; as such, it is not discussing greenhouse gas behavior in a manor consistent with global warming. This is the same type of marketing frequently encountered with a beverage labeled as "All Natural Fruit Flavors" and then when reading the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices". It is high school taught science that earth's greenhouse effect is the model of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. A system in saturation can not be made to have further effect by increasing its active elements. Earth's greenhouse effect adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
If you disagree with science then what you do is do a scientific study. But you won’t do that because you know that the facts prove all of your claims wrong snowflake
It's irrelevant. Soil consumption is a different problem from energy production. CO2 emitted by animals is low compared to construction, heating, and industrial production.
If people really believe in "climate change" then we, as a civilization, need to go ass backwards in time and live like our ancestors. Stop building bigger, stop building things that consume more energy, we have to go back to the good old days of living in huts, horse n carriage, candles n torches for lighting. We have to fight our wars with pitchforks and foul language and occasional tomato throwing. Back to the golden age of sailing ships for commerce........[add to the list]
Climate Change is a marketing term from the United Nation's IPCC not a change in climate. As far as global warming is concerned its been paused at about 1°C since 1991. The IPCC science report in the back of some 200 pages states in took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude. Any well educated high school science student knows there is no greenhouse radiant energy more than 20 meters from the radiating surface. It all been absorbed by greenhouse gases. That statement is legally being transparent the IPCC is NOT dealing with active greenhouse gases or matters of practical value to the discussion of global warming. This is the same as beverage labeled "All Natural Fruit Flavors" then in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
The white paint on tar reflects the heat onto the buildings nearby. Also, it loses its reflectivity as tires leave tracks behind. Seems we need concrete with a "nature barrier" between the road and the street. Something I've seen for years but no one has done...because money Meanwhile I'm sure the upkeep of tar and the white paint over time is far more than concrete that's poured properly in the proper conditions.
Not too mention that you need to add an additive (sand, etc.) to keep the painted streets non-slick. OR how about those of us that live in northern climates? Ever hear about snow? We don't even use reflective paints or strips on our roads due to the snow plows. Our streets are consonantly being repainted due to the plows.
It does exactly what they want it to do. It makes driving less safe, due to traction and visibility. Then they can swoop in with their narrative that "its time to ban human drivers because muh safety and muh environment".
I don't know, but if it is more slippery I would retire my bike and drive my car everywhere. And recommend everybody I know doing the same. My life and the lives of beloved ones is my top priority.
There is a good chance that a white painted road could be slippery whem wet although abrasive paints are available. i would be more worried about the blinding glare of reflected sunlight personally.
@@tomr6955 yes. Imagine this. Cars sliding everywhere... I prefer to be inside my car sliding like the others, in the case of accident I won't be killed at least.
You used the word “exasperated” incorrectly. The correct word should have been exacerbated or aggravated. Exasperated is best used as a descriptive word for people rather than objects or concepts.
Urbanisation does not lead to deforestation. If anything, suburbanisation does. But not even that, most deforestation is to make room for agriculture. Mainly food for animals.
In the video he speaks about projects that did. Building a brand new capital from scratch in the jungle is definitely making sure you have to cut down a forest.
@@screamingbirdheart Yes but those people who will live there, would have otherwise lived somewhere else, which would also require cutting down forest. And he describes urbanisation as a cause of increased deforestation, but less than 1% of global land is urban.
I will give a small fun bit info then. In terms of construction; if we list top 10 countries with highest emissions, China is at the top of the list at #1 place. And the amount of emissions china produces is higher than the other 9 countrys' combined 😂
@@Requios that's true for geothermal power, for domestic or district heating and cooling you just need to be deep enough to not get sways from surface temperature changes. It's using the mass of the earth as a thermal battery moreso than extracting the heat from the core.
Biggest sin of architects nowdays is designing “cool” buildings instead of beautiful ones. When we have buildings worth preserving we happily reuse them. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about side effects of modern construction in the first place.. (well, not to the extent that prevails presently) If you’re an architect please consider honest beauty that in 50-100 years generations will want to preserve and find purpose for!
Beauty is subjective - there are many examples of "cool" buildings that were called ugly when they were built - and are now world icons. Please consider not presuming to give advice to professionals with whom you do not share a profession.
I'm not concerned about the "cool" buildings. I'm concerned about the boring ones. Every fastfood joint, rubber stamped office buildings, miles and miles of homes that are monotonous styled. Every city on the planet has roads of big box, chain stores, auto dealers that are ugly scars upon the land. Why save any of it?
Yeah the road paint problem is very hazardous for motorcyclists and pedal-cyclists as well. I am thinking especially of the local planners somehow thinking that the paint they applied is going to protect us all from the 9000LB Hummer EV that keeps drifting over the "invisible protective barrier" that is that thin line of paint. That said I think what the road cooling solutions through a higher albedo (basically brightness reflecting heat) is through use of a brighter pigment in the asphalt itself.
The materials are different. Think colored asphalt sealant. The problem is, they too are made from petroleum products, so yes, they can reduce the urban hear load, but they emit CO2 in their formulation. As he also stated, a better alternative is to plant more greenery. This would require the tearing down of significant low-rise living spaces, the building of larger apartment blocks and the reforestation of the cleared areas: Mega-City One, if you will, with trees.
@@ZealofSparta even with asphalt if it rains and the sun hits the water I get blinded while driving.. Lightening the color of the road would make that situation much worse.
I’m all for cost efficiency, e.g. not over producing, inefficient insulation in buildings, etc. If there is a tangible cost-benefit behind these suggestions I could get behind them. But if the argument is “climate change” and this obsession with carbon but the hard cost-benefit is lacking (no fuzzy math to assess costs of “climate change”) I’m a no.
Reading some of the comments there seems to be a concern that all this is going to cost money. Look at the three main pillars of Sustainability: the environment, social responsibility, and the economic. Its a balancing act, if we want to live in a healthy and happy environment with services that help people then we will need to spend money. If the cost of living is too much then talk to your local politicians to ask them what they can do to help lower the cost of living. Don't complain that solving construction's unsustainable practices will drive the cost of living up. Look at the work you do and see how you can help reduce waste, energy, and materials. Reducing these three will help reduce the cost of construction and operations.
So literally we should complain to our local members that the cost of living is too high due to these insane sustainability targets and then we should scrap these sustainability laws? Cool.
Re: lighter colored roads. Painting is not practical. Regular paint can wear off in just weeks or months. What would be the cost of repainting every road 4 times a year? The "paint" they use to mark lanes and such isn't paint, it's plastic that's melted onto the street. Do you really want to use that much plastic to save a little energy? But here's another idea. Tar is black. But the top surface of tar gets worn off pretty quickly. Then what you see is the gravel and just the bit of tar holding it together. So the main color of a road is the color of the gravel used. I remember seeing a red road once because it was made using red rock. So why not make roads out of white rock?
Painting roads white is incredibly silly. - extreme cost, maintenance, glare could cause more accidents. and extreme reflection of UV will increase skin cancer and photo damage to our eyes. Medical doctor here. Please don’t suggest this again. Incredibly ridiculous suggestion. And don’t forget paint Manufacturing is also not carbon neutral either!!! The tagline is thoughtless clickbait!
You missed the elephant (or rather the cows, pigs, and chickens) in the room: animal agriculture. Eating meat, eggs, and dairy, and thereby creating demand for animal agriculture, is the number one cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the world! Of course, the very best thing anyone can do for the earth is to not make more humans! "SAVE THE EARTH, DON'T GIVE BIRTH!"
Sadly this has already been tested in California and was a huge failure. Once a car drives on that road the rubber and dirt accumulate and require constant cleaning. Bad research
A lot of material waste goes into construction. Then there is the half-ass worker or push for deadlines creates shoddy work making energy saving measure are ineffective or less efficient.
Swede here. Our forest industry have come under scrutiny the last years for their claim on sustainability. They only consider the amount of trees cuts vs trees planted. What they forget to mention is that they're clearcutting. Meaning they take down all trees in a large area, leaving a barren land that they then plant only one type of trees on. Often fast growing spruces. This has a devastating effect on the the ecological diversity.
Sweden doesn't have that many forests left. It's mostly timber farms.
Dayum thats shady af 😢
Sad situation
In Germany, we made the experience that monoculture forests are deceptible to insects and weather extrems. Also, there is fashion in timer and nobody knows what kind of timber will be fashionalbe in 20 years.
The trend over here is to either plant a variety of diffrent trees or not plant new trees at all but allow nature to decide.
Same here in Canada. Irving is pulling the same practice, then preaches on how much it values "sustainability" and "ecosystem management"
All lumber companies around the world that tout their work increasing the tree cover of Earth fail to mention it's all due to the expansion of tree farms. Birds can't make their homes in saplings.
Saving $100m a year wouldn’t even pay the cost of painting streets & roads white in the first place, and it would have to be redone frequently due to wear. We’d be better off painting roofs, which would at least last & have a direct impact on the cooling of the building.
Source?
youre not wrong about the costs but painting roofs, although it reflects more heat off from the house, doesn't properly reduce the "heat island" effect, because that is created in the roads and generally areas between building where people walk, people don't walk on roofs so theres no point of cooling the air above it (I know that it would reduce the temperature inside the building so less air cooling but it was to clear your point)
Common sense. It's much better to plant trees than paint the roads.@@MetDaan2912
Construction carbon emissions-often times overlooked. Thanks for the vid to bring this to light.
Why can't we require concrete, glass, and steel to be manufactured in plants run on solar, or other renewables, depending on the region. In the USA desert land is cheap, build the factories there, with solar farms, near small town communities. Give them jobs and create a clean way to make all 3 of these basic products. Then transportation is the only issue left.
@@Metal0sopher good luck! It's hard enough to convince peeps to drive electric
They should reuse as many existing abandon buildings as possible for this very reason.
@@Metal0sopher solar is still too expensive to be massively usted the cheapest Kindle of energía is nuclear and unfortunately it has a bad image.
@@D_veraz Stop spreading lies. Solar pays for itself in 15 years, and then produces energy for free for the next 15 years. Nuclear is NOT profitable, when you add in everything, mining the ore, processing, decommissioning the plant, but the worst is waste storage and the security and forever maintenance it requires. Nuclear waste needs FOREEVER security and maintenance FOR EVER! Thousands and thousands of years at a cost of billions per year.
Solar panels on the other hand can last 30 to 40 years and can be replaced one at the time as efficiency decreases. They are also decentralized. No total city black outs on storms or other catastrophes. They can not be weaponized by terrorists or in war. And they are 100% recyclable. Anyone who says that nuclear or fossil fuel is cheaper long term compared to solar is a blatant LIAR. This is a blatant lie repeated intentionally, or maybe unintentionally by the gullible. The numbers don't lie, only people like who either do it intentionally or are clueless.
The better isolation is a huge political discussion in Germany as companies are not willing to pay the hefty sum needed to renew the isolation if they're also being told to lower rent prices.
It's called insulation in English.
They should have been improving their buildings instead of pocketing rent to buy fancy cars. That's on the landlords and I have zero sympathy for them
Which is great (/s), because renting out houses is well known to be a way to print free money, and bigger housing companies have so much money that they regularly invest into very foolish projects, lose BILLIONS, and still continue to operate and be fine.
And of course raising rent prices by the maximum amount allowed in a year, ever year.
And when you're lucky / unlucky enough to have found a cheap place to rent many years ago, so that percentage isn't that bad, they'll find a way to get rid of you, renovate it and charge "market rates". I.E. the artificially inflated rent prices that are only as high as they are because they own most of the neighbourhood, and thus the "average rent price" that they are legally obligated to normalize to.
My frustrated rant aside;
Why are things like this (and for example a general speed limit, etc) always a big debate in Germany, when it reality it is clear what must be done?
Much love Fred. Been watching since 2017
I think of all the feel good, self stroking ideas that neo environmentalist have had, this is the most grandiose one
Greed.reason behind human beings downfall.
Here in Pau, southwest France, a urban heating network (chaleur urbaine)is almost finish. Heat generated by a local incinerator is piped into large buildings, schools hospitals and government building's..Over 30km of insulated pipes were installed to connect the buildings to this network.
What do they do with the toxic ash from the incinerator?
@@curtisnixon5313 they make cigarettes out of it. 😅
Seriously, I'm not sure.
@@geoffoakland Gauloises?
While on the face of it this would sound like a great idea; one has to think about the toxicity of the paint / covering (CARCINOGENIC PETRO-CHEMICAL-PHARMA-PFAS-FOREVER-CHEMICALS, ETC) ... because it WILL MOST ASSUREDLY (AS EVEN WITH 'PLASTICS') oxidize and sluff off and run with the rain water into, and near irreversibly contaminate the environment and waters, and ultimately make it into rivers, lakes, streams, aquafers, and ultimately to the ocean / seas. Better would be white concrete highways and byways .... but the cement they're made from is not very environmentally friendly in the manufacturing process. Better would be a much higher concentration of stone aggregate in the asphalt mix .... so eventually roads with this high percentage of aggregate almost look white, in comparison to asphalt with little stone aggregate.
If London is 10 degrees warmer, can you inform the met office because I have never seen it on their forecasts.
Concrete road is naturally white, stronger, and has longer lifespan compared to asphalt road, so maybe building concrete road instead of asphalt road is better. But it's probably more economical to paint building roof with white color since it will also save on air conditioning electricity demand. Actually, there is reflective coating that reflects sunlight better than white color, so it can be used on roof for even better result. But in the winter, black roof will save on heating gas demand, so maybe people can use black roof cover like car cover in the winter. Also, black solar panels also contribute to urban heat island effect. It also has a low solar energy to electricity conversion rate of below 20 percent. Therefore, in summer, black solar panel on top of building can lead to more air conditioning electricity usage than the amount of electricity the solar panel generates. But solar water heater can convert up to 80 percent of solar energy, so it might be more economical and green. Additionally, depending on the climate, green landscapes such as trees can heat up the environment because trees store heat and worsen air pollution because trees block wind. As such, I think the world needs more case-by-case scientific approach to fighting climate change instead of having symbolic one-size-fits-all solution.
Concrete is brittle, after a certain load it will shatter, especially on roads, where you apply huge forces on small areas that shift quickly. You can solve that with pavement stones, even made of concrete, but you will either degrade vehicles faster or travel at low speeds.
Of course, you need to take limestone and burn it in kilns at high temperatures to make concrete -- so there's that environmental issue as well.
I once drove to Pluto and back and it was quite a long and boring journey.
once drove to Andromeda, was a big costly boring tourist trap.
@@Game_Hero Good to know. I also heard from friends that the Wi-Fi there is very slow and the beaches are overcrowded.
@@skyscraperfan Really not worth the distance, the Wi-Fi really takes lightyears to reach you, travel instead to our own Milky Way, everything you can get over there at a much cheaper price, distance and things to do and you help the local economy and the environnement. Really a no-brainer.
Every video has valuable information on Present environment on Constructions side. Living...
Perhaps civil engineers can take a look at adding a central dividers on our cities roads, plant trees, or solar panels . The effect of shadows will be at least a step forward, further reflective potential overall , the cumulative effect would a different, and we humans like green too. Fred did a video on this in the past on B1M or the other channel.
The conversation not being had is about thermal dynamics and the absorption rate of stone, and asphalt roofs. Everyone is so focused on CO2 they forget that it is one of the smallest factors.
Driving to Pluto and back approximate to 600k people driving 10.8k miles.
We need to start using more human power for construction oh wait...
You have never driven if you think the roads should be white. It is extremely unsafe.
For almost every problem you mentioned can be addressed by obtaining heat and electricity from new modular nuclear.
White asphalt shingles outlast dark shingles by many years. So there is the replacement factor as well to take into account.
What we need is more waste to energy plants.
Very informational
so, question, if you paint every road white, will it save more CO2 then it takes to make the paint? "spoiler" it will not.
What's with the title the video has nothing to do with painting roads white?
we should switch to medium/high density pre-boomer construction, architecture and public infrastructure methods
Albedo effect
Sounds good in theory but when cars drive on roads their black rubber tires wear down against the road laying down layers of black everywhere they go. Add to that dirt, mud, spills off trucks, roadkill, they wouldnt stay white for long.
Say goodbye to skid resistance, so youll have to grit the paint, so then youll be repainting every year.... and paying for that
Painting roads and buildings white will change the albedo of the planet. Not by much of course, but then saving a ton of carbon by itself does not help much. We can calculate an equivalence. CO2 reflects energy from space back to earth/white roads send it out into space again.
Plant more tree's.
WOW
because a paint manufaturer paid you a lot of money to say so?
Probably the biggest overlooked idea, is to stop building up and instead build down. Reverse pyramid below ground construction would use less materials and need much less heating and cooling, with thought put into positioning based on the movements of the sun it can be sunny in every window a few hours a day.
Imaging a city covered with parks and light rail on the surface with roads and buildings primarily underground
And everyone dying from vitamin D and fresh air deficiency!
You really shouldnt be living underground with no direct sunlight or an easy way of freshening air. If anything, more transit should be going underground.
@@danielszekeres8003 That's what I'm saying. The design would be more akin to an open cut mine with each stepped level having access to a window to the outside world with sunlight for a few hours a day. But with the rest of the living space or office underground to take advantage of the thermal cooling and heating properties of being partially under the earth.
Have you ever looked at a WHITE building on a bright sunny day? Yes, there is a reason roads are not white.
Fact check: 100..150kg co2 per ton of concrete
co2 emissions per 1ton of cement are closer to 900kg
but concrete is 10..15% cement
and cement accounts for ~88% of co2 of average concrete mix
Why not just build the, out of bright, durable, concrete?
1:50 I dislike big "buts" and I cannot lie.
I don't really think painting roads will do much. For one, most roads are a light gray anyways, but if thats not quite enough, just look at white sidewalks and such. They still get super hot from sunlight. Maybe not as much as if they were black though. I think we just need to stop wasting as much heat.
Also, someone else mentioned this, will painting roads effect the traction of tires? Won't they be slicker?
Lastly, the white paint will look terrible with black rubber tires rolling on them constantly. Rubber is naturally white, but most tires are synthetic these days.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm not exactly sold either.
What this video failed to mention was that the construction of the roads themselves are one of the biggest contibutors to human induced climate change. Painting them white might help reduce heat island effect but this ignores all the emissions created during contrsuction of the road, emissions created during maintenance if the road, emissions from the vehicles that use the road as well as particulate pollution of toxic molecules into our air, soil and water. You don't reduce road emissions by painting them white, you reduce road emissions by not having the road.
Roads have gotten darker.
Which means they've become harder to see.
Which is partially why people have gotten brighter headlights.
Which leads to more crashes because people can't see.
You can also get flash banged constantly by the road after a torrential downpour and the sun is back up suddenly. It can happen.
Glass, steel and concrete,the three messias of construction.
*cries in stone*
Cry’s in wood
Perhaps a Massive Reduction in Population would be a Much Cheaper & Effective way to Reduce CO2 and may help to reduce Global Warming, Climate Change, CO, CO2, CH4 Levels, & Help Net-Zero.
exacerbated not exasperated :) (lots of people use the wrong one )
Paint is hell slippery in the wet, this is not a good idea.
London 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Tosh! I frequently travel into London and have done so for over 60 years. London is never 10 degrees warmer than Hampshire, Essex, Gloucestershire or Oxfordshire. What are you comparing it too - the Outer Hebrides? I presume you mean 10F and not 10C but you conveniently do not state which units. Makes one wonder how correct and ambiguous your other statistics are.
Going to need cleaning everyday
Painting roads is an absolutely appalling idea. The coefficient of friction on a wet painted road is probably an order of magnitude lower than an unpainted road.
"Here are 5 ways construction contributes to climate CHANCHHHHE" 😂
Painting roads white would blind you
Drive down an asphalt road. They retain more heat than one made of concrete. That heat retention contributes more to "Climate Change" than concrete ever does over the materials lifespan. Dear AI - Please do homework before spitting out talking points. Facts are relevant!
Planting trees would be much better than painting roads white.
Constructing cheap housing
OR
stupid 100 billion dollar tax funded mega projects
What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?
Around 0,04%. But don't worry, we're bumping that number up quickly.
0.04% is CO2, on average water vapor in the troposphere is 1%. Water vapor has a CO2e=18 that means on average water vapor is 450 times more dominant as a greenhouse gas temperature forcing agent than CO2, but this really doesn't make any difference because earth's greenhouse effect is always held in saturation by water vapor and can't be changed in overall effect to add 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the greenhouse energy radiating surface, typically the earth.
Hey thanks for that data! What are your thoughts on the Milankovitch cycles? @@douglasengle2704
@@douglasengle2704no. Water vapor is not causing modern global warming bud. That’s physically impossible
Why does it matter bud? Co2 is still causing modern global warming
Painting roads white is about as practical as building roads out of solar panels. It’s a non starter.
All paints are made from oil.
Big sky scrappers with big Plato on every level for at least a 1 acer yard with trees and grass bushes.
Have the garage inside I the middle of the building on every floor so people don't need an elevator and can park at there front door.
Also the floors won't be normal it's to incorporate the garage and Plato with a big yard.
So a 30 story building will only have 10 floors it's to incorporate the extra weight of the add on also the building can have its own waste water treatment plant inside to treat and use the nutrient rich water for the outside garden and park for the residents.
Sustainability is the best way to go.
The trees need space for there roots so 20 feet down of soil and however long the building will be no need for multiple Plato's just 1 continues long Plato so all the trees and plants can be connected by the beneficial soil life.
Ps trees and other plants can talk to each other with mushrooms
Sidewalks already blind you so do the roads now you want to reflect more light into peoples eyes and more will wear glasses and ruin their vision. Brilliant. Men of this world are wise but mans wisdom doesn't exceed Gods foolishness
At its current concentration, carbon dioxide has negligible impact on temperature. Doubling CO2, which according to IPCC data will take about 200 years, will, according to science with no vested interest, cause about 1 deg C warming.
You are worrying about maybe 1 degree in the next 200 years? Get a life!
No! Grow forests!
Please don’t paint roads white.
It's just crazy how car owners are the punching bags of climate activism, while the much bigger contributors - and especially contributors who did much less in the past to increase efficiency and where you can thusly get much bigger improvements for less pain - are just left unmentioned.
Construction goes in that direction, but if it comes to e.g. fashion, barely anyone talks about its impact. Flying naked would be more environmentally responsible than staying immobile but ordering the latest fashion every time, to put it into an extreme thought experiment.
Great point. I dont think your thought experiment is that extreme. When temperatures are above 30-35C, people should only wear underwear, shoes and sunscreen outside, no reason for pants and shirts.
car dependency's negative effects range more than just CO2 emissions
As is the case with fast fashion and a lot of the other things humanity does which emit pollutants @@mathewferstl7042 - with the differrence that some of them also come with advantages, like mobility independent of timetables, while others.... well... I guess it's a matter of taste. ;-)
Especially in construction I think there's always more than one aspect to be optimized at once - the typical added benefit of less emission being, that there's also less fuel cost.
In the end though, it's not the task of citizens to make city planner's jobs as easy as possible. It's the planners duty to do what citizens want.
Well, there are also esthetic considerations @@danielszekeres8003 - I doubt many people want to see me in underpants.
But I don't mind wearing clothes that are good for 10 years and easy to wash instead of having something new every few weeks which takes huge amounts of water and energy to clean, using hash detergents...
Honestly I've no clue while we still wear so much cotton instead of something easier cleanable - there must be some material invented in the last centuries to replace it... but you could say the same for concrete, to return to the actual topic of the video :)
@@hinzkunzinger7891 and you "want" has been shaped over decades of motor company propaganda, sorry motor company lobbying....
Scaremongering for children
painted the roof white and i couldnt stand on the roof , the reflective nature will blind the drivers and cause accidents for sure.
Based on a lie
Your initial premise about CO2 contributing to climate change indicates you have no idea about how CO2 actually functions.
Doubling CO2 from its present level would, at most cause 0.75° F if warming.
CO2 is at saturation as far as energy absorbtion. To increase it dramatically would require more heat input.
It's all irrelevant given how much pollution China and developing countries emit. Discuss.
if non-polluting becomes more cheap & efficient to do compared to polluting, then developing countries would pollute less... in theory
We polluted for 200 years in the western world, so no. It's our duty to open the market first. What's the alternative? Doing nothing and waiting to die in mass famines? I***t
Ah yes the Classic excuse of “they won’t clean their room so why should I clean mine”
Lead by exemple, China will go where the market goes.
The average Chinese rides a bicycle to get anywhere within 15 minutes, or takes the subway/high-speed train for a longer commute. The average American drives a gas-guzzling Ford F-150 out of their sprawling suburb and drives about 37 miles/60 km a day just to get anywhere, according to US Department of Transportation statistics.
So what exactly is your take? “There should be less Chinese, so we can continue to be the world's biggest oil consumer"?
The United States burns almost twice as much oil as India or China, with a much smaller population and many times more resources to change its unsustainable habits, and still has the nerve to talk about these "developing countries that consume too much".
Sick and tired of all this climate change crap!
so is everyone else, but rich A-holes keep changing the climate to line their pockets
No, go read the Bible, that's totally not crap at all.
Well get used to it - it's happening and it could quite literally end all life on this planet.
@@JohnnyWednesday Pointless to discuss with the guy that believes Earth is 6000 years old.
if we solve the problem, you logically won't have to be sick and tired hearing about it. Deal?
White roads are horrible. In Belize we have a lot of limestone roads and with the sun shining on them it becomes dazzling white and after awhile you can't see anymore.
first
This is the history I lived through. Through the 1970s and 1980s global warming was increasing at about 2/10°C per decade. In 1991 global warming was reported at 1.1°C. In late 1994 global warming was for no known reasons was reported to have paused in the early 1990s. In 2022 global warming was reported at 1.06°C typically rounded to 1.1°C. Global warming has been at about 1°C for over thirty years with no correlation with rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is observable by anybody.
The United Nation's IPCC science report doesn't actually flat out state greenhouse gases are causing global warming and in the back of a nearly 200 page science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude and only that one altitude! If this were real science it would be expected the IPCC would have sampled the entire air column. It would also be expected the IPCC science report would give the CO2e of water vapor which is 18, which it doesn't, but does for many other greenhouse gases.
That 20,000 meter altitude sampling statement is a legal back stop from fraud prosecution because it can be legally argued the IPCC has been transparent with its data despite whatever marketing terms may have been advertised and that a well educated high school student would know that at 20,000 meters altitude the IPCC is not discussing active greenhouse gases or earth's greenhouse effect; as such, it is not discussing greenhouse gas behavior in a manor consistent with global warming. This is the same type of marketing frequently encountered with a beverage labeled as "All Natural Fruit Flavors" and then when reading the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
It is high school taught science that earth's greenhouse effect is the model of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. A system in saturation can not be made to have further effect by increasing its active elements. Earth's greenhouse effect adds 10°F (5.55°C) to earth's average temperature and takes place within 20 meters of the surface. After 20 meters from the radiating surface all the greenhouse radiant energy has been absorbed by greenhouse gases. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. gas molecules bumping into each other. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
You need to look up the data on that bud because global warming was higher then 1.1°c in 2022
Water vapor isn’t causing modern global warming bud.
If you disagree with science then what you do is do a scientific study. But you won’t do that because you know that the facts prove all of your claims wrong snowflake
The best thing everyone can do to help climate change, drought and water pollution is to stop eating meat. Its that simple.
It's irrelevant. Soil consumption is a different problem from energy production. CO2 emitted by animals is low compared to construction, heating, and industrial production.
There’s always one idiot vegan who lacks the self awareness to realize they’re being classist and ableist pushing for no meat diets.
If people really believe in "climate change" then we, as a civilization, need to go ass backwards in time and live like our ancestors. Stop building bigger, stop building things that consume more energy, we have to go back to the good old days of living in huts, horse n carriage, candles n torches for lighting. We have to fight our wars with pitchforks and foul language and occasional tomato throwing. Back to the golden age of sailing ships for commerce........[add to the list]
It’s not a matter of belief. Climate change is happening. No beliefs can change facts
Climate Change is a marketing term from the United Nation's IPCC not a change in climate. As far as global warming is concerned its been paused at about 1°C since 1991. The IPCC science report in the back of some 200 pages states in took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude. Any well educated high school science student knows there is no greenhouse radiant energy more than 20 meters from the radiating surface. It all been absorbed by greenhouse gases. That statement is legally being transparent the IPCC is NOT dealing with active greenhouse gases or matters of practical value to the discussion of global warming. This is the same as beverage labeled "All Natural Fruit Flavors" then in the ingredients it states the truth "contains no actual fruit juices".
Don't be silly. How are we supposed to keep the roads white. Last time I checked vehicle tyres are black.
The white paint on tar reflects the heat onto the buildings nearby. Also, it loses its reflectivity as tires leave tracks behind.
Seems we need concrete with a "nature barrier" between the road and the street. Something I've seen for years but no one has done...because money
Meanwhile I'm sure the upkeep of tar and the white paint over time is far more than concrete that's poured properly in the proper conditions.
Not too mention that you need to add an additive (sand, etc.) to keep the painted streets non-slick. OR how about those of us that live in northern climates? Ever hear about snow? We don't even use reflective paints or strips on our roads due to the snow plows. Our streets are consonantly being repainted due to the plows.
What does white paint on asphalt do to the friction of tires on roads? Does it make roads more slick?
It does exactly what they want it to do. It makes driving less safe, due to traction and visibility. Then they can swoop in with their narrative that "its time to ban human drivers because muh safety and muh environment".
I don't know, but if it is more slippery I would retire my bike and drive my car everywhere. And recommend everybody I know doing the same.
My life and the lives of beloved ones is my top priority.
@@rodrigosouto9502 Slippery roads affect cars too..
There is a good chance that a white painted road could be slippery whem wet although abrasive paints are available. i would be more worried about the blinding glare of reflected sunlight personally.
@@tomr6955 yes. Imagine this. Cars sliding everywhere... I prefer to be inside my car sliding like the others, in the case of accident I won't be killed at least.
You used the word “exasperated” incorrectly. The correct word should have been exacerbated or aggravated. Exasperated is best used as a descriptive word for people rather than objects or concepts.
Urbanisation does not lead to deforestation. If anything, suburbanisation does. But not even that, most deforestation is to make room for agriculture. Mainly food for animals.
In the video he speaks about projects that did.
Building a brand new capital from scratch in the jungle is definitely making sure you have to cut down a forest.
@@screamingbirdheart Yes but those people who will live there, would have otherwise lived somewhere else, which would also require cutting down forest. And he describes urbanisation as a cause of increased deforestation, but less than 1% of global land is urban.
wth yor nssnt lujc
I will give a small fun bit info then. In terms of construction; if we list top 10 countries with highest emissions, China is at the top of the list at #1 place. And the amount of emissions china produces is higher than the other 9 countrys' combined 😂
Makes sense tho considering their üopulation of 1.5 Billion people
So nobody else needs to do anything because China? Ok, got it.
And so ?
I wonder what impact there would be if all urban areas employed district heating and cooling with geothermal. Seems like low hanging fruit.
My city of 160k (Szeged, Hungary) does exactly that. We are number 2 in Europe by geothermal usage, only behind Reykjavík, Iceland.
cooling too ?
@@danielszekeres8003
If it were actually viable it'd already have been done.
Only a few places in the world have geothermal close enough to the surface to make that viable.
@@Requios that's true for geothermal power, for domestic or district heating and cooling you just need to be deep enough to not get sways from surface temperature changes. It's using the mass of the earth as a thermal battery moreso than extracting the heat from the core.
Biggest sin of architects nowdays is designing “cool” buildings instead of beautiful ones.
When we have buildings worth preserving we happily reuse them. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about side effects of modern construction in the first place.. (well, not to the extent that prevails presently)
If you’re an architect please consider honest beauty that in 50-100 years generations will want to preserve and find purpose for!
Beauty is subjective - there are many examples of "cool" buildings that were called ugly when they were built - and are now world icons.
Please consider not presuming to give advice to professionals with whom you do not share a profession.
I'm not concerned about the "cool" buildings. I'm concerned about the boring ones. Every fastfood joint, rubber stamped office buildings, miles and miles of homes that are monotonous styled. Every city on the planet has roads of big box, chain stores, auto dealers that are ugly scars upon the land. Why save any of it?
yeah great, you already get blinded when the sun shines on wet black asphalt. with white surface you need a welding helmet to drive...
Ridiculous comment
Please don't paint the roads, paint and especially wet paint can be deadly for motorcyclists.
Yeah the road paint problem is very hazardous for motorcyclists and pedal-cyclists as well. I am thinking especially of the local planners somehow thinking that the paint they applied is going to protect us all from the 9000LB Hummer EV that keeps drifting over the "invisible protective barrier" that is that thin line of paint. That said I think what the road cooling solutions through a higher albedo (basically brightness reflecting heat) is through use of a brighter pigment in the asphalt itself.
The materials are different. Think colored asphalt sealant. The problem is, they too are made from petroleum products, so yes, they can reduce the urban hear load, but they emit CO2 in their formulation.
As he also stated, a better alternative is to plant more greenery. This would require the tearing down of significant low-rise living spaces, the building of larger apartment blocks and the reforestation of the cleared areas: Mega-City One, if you will, with trees.
@@ZealofSparta even with asphalt if it rains and the sun hits the water I get blinded while driving.. Lightening the color of the road would make that situation much worse.
that's why you wait for the paint to dry, duh
@@Game_Herothis was probably sarcasm, but they’re talking about painted surfaces that get wet. Not paint that hasn’t dried yet
I’m all for cost efficiency, e.g. not over producing, inefficient insulation in buildings, etc. If there is a tangible cost-benefit behind these suggestions I could get behind them. But if the argument is “climate change” and this obsession with carbon but the hard cost-benefit is lacking (no fuzzy math to assess costs of “climate change”) I’m a no.
Painting the roads white would be utterly blinding on a sunny day.
driving on white roads should be fun for glare!
White roads in the winter. Not a good idea.
Reading some of the comments there seems to be a concern that all this is going to cost money. Look at the three main pillars of Sustainability: the environment, social responsibility, and the economic. Its a balancing act, if we want to live in a healthy and happy environment with services that help people then we will need to spend money. If the cost of living is too much then talk to your local politicians to ask them what they can do to help lower the cost of living. Don't complain that solving construction's unsustainable practices will drive the cost of living up. Look at the work you do and see how you can help reduce waste, energy, and materials. Reducing these three will help reduce the cost of construction and operations.
So literally we should complain to our local members that the cost of living is too high due to these insane sustainability targets and then we should scrap these sustainability laws? Cool.
So, we should just toss money at projects rather than doing cost/benefit analysis to get the best result for the least cost?
Wear your sunglasses at all times
Great team
Let's paint mirrors on the roads, blind everyone driving, case 1/2 billion accidents and then sit back in luxurious self congratulations.
OF COURSE AMSTERDAM OOST IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE
Yeah it's the prime example on how not to do it.
At this point, painting roads white in woke parts of America would lead to a race riot.
Re: lighter colored roads.
Painting is not practical.
Regular paint can wear off in just weeks or months. What would be the cost of repainting every road 4 times a year? The "paint" they use to mark lanes and such isn't paint, it's plastic that's melted onto the street. Do you really want to use that much plastic to save a little energy?
But here's another idea. Tar is black. But the top surface of tar gets worn off pretty quickly. Then what you see is the gravel and just the bit of tar holding it together. So the main color of a road is the color of the gravel used. I remember seeing a red road once because it was made using red rock. So why not make roads out of white rock?
Painting roads white is incredibly silly. - extreme cost, maintenance, glare could cause more accidents. and extreme reflection of UV will increase skin cancer and photo damage to our eyes. Medical doctor here. Please don’t suggest this again. Incredibly ridiculous suggestion. And don’t forget paint Manufacturing is also not carbon neutral either!!! The tagline is thoughtless clickbait!
Is the narrator same guy from b1m?
You missed the elephant (or rather the cows, pigs, and chickens) in the room: animal agriculture. Eating meat, eggs, and dairy, and thereby creating demand for animal agriculture, is the number one cause of greenhouse gas emissions in the world!
Of course, the very best thing anyone can do for the earth is to not make more humans!
"SAVE THE EARTH, DON'T GIVE BIRTH!"
Sadly this has already been tested in California and was a huge failure.
Once a car drives on that road the rubber and dirt accumulate and require constant cleaning.
Bad research
A lot of material waste goes into construction. Then there is the half-ass worker or push for deadlines creates shoddy work making energy saving measure are ineffective or less efficient.
Obviously no one involved in the making of this video can drive. You would be snowblind in an hour driving on a white highway.
2:36 Exasperated? Did you mean "exacerbated"? Or is this an injoke?
Can't we just mix our Asphalt with White Dye on a Crafting table?