Is This the Real Solution to Climate Change?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Unlimited data on your trips (international eSIM): bit.ly/HolaFly...
Check out our previous videos! ⬇️
🔴Why Are Japanese Companies Dead?
• Why Are Japanese Compa...
🔴Why Are Muslim Countries Poorer?
• Why Are Muslim Countri...
🔴Why Are Big Companies Fleeing China?
• Why Are Big Companies ...
✉️ Business Enquiries → team@visualeconomik.com
#ClimateChange #Economics #Asia
Unlimited data on your trips (international eSIM): bit.ly/HolaFly-VEKEN
This ad was so long,.. wth
yeah thats a joke lol. i clicked off just from clicking too much.
I was worried you were gonna tell us a SIM card could fix climate change
Right!?
Pitching an eSIM like SIM cards are the crux of the plastic pollution issue lol
Adaptation is how we stopped acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. It's infinitely less cruel to the world's poor than economic abstinence.
It isn't the poor who need to abstain. Quite the opposite, it's the rich. Poor people have negligible to even positive environmental impact (if they work in recycling/reuse, for instance).
Warming and acidifying the oceans is still a problem 😢
It took you 8 out of 15 minutes to get to the point of the video. What the actual f?
This is like taking high blood pressure medication, to deal with the symptoms. It is something. But not a complete solution. It doesn't deal with the underlying causes. This is probably the closer analogy, than washing one's hands.
With more heat in the system, more moisture in the atmosphere, extremes in droughts and floods, changes in the hydrological cycle, we may eventually wind up resorting to solar radiation management, just to deal with the excess heat, and to survive the effects. But it's not a complete solution, because it doesn't deal with the excess CO2, and other ecological effects, such as ocean acidification.
The downside to intentionally adding Sulphur Dioxide to the atmosphere is when it reacts with moisture and sunlight, it becomes acid rain, which we already have issues with.
We would need the particles to be spread in the upper mesosphere to exist long enough to be truly effective and not be immediately precipitated, which is too high for balloons to reach.
A better solution would be to mimic another natural by-product of volcanos and produce artificial pumice rafts to increase the ocean's albedo and reflect more sunlight.
The best part is it has no negative side effects as it becomes new beach sand once it is broken down by wave action.
Rich countries have managed to continue growing while reducing their emissions by outsourcing much of their polluting industries to places like China.
They'll do everything except regulating the pollution causing companies
Germany's recession is a very minor example of what would happen with this kind of regulation
They tried that, atleast in my country and the only thing that happened was every company lobbied the crap out of it and paid off political parties to stop it.... Because capitalism is gonna capitalism
@@pepperonish i think he's referring to pollution in the sense of oil spills in the ocean, illegal garbage patches, dumping toxic shit in rivers and other ways of ruining natural environments. I'd also add, although it wouldn't really fall in the definition, illegal and unsustainable deforestation. And if he's referring to that, and not hurr durr close the coal mines consequences be damned to the economy and entire towns who had their livelihood dependent on those industries, ***slap table*** thank you
They do, but not to a big enough degree.
Better stop exhaling CO2, before they regulate you to stop breathing.
Electric arc furnaces are nothing new , plenty of EAF plants around for ~ the past 2 descadss
Do I need to go find Auriel's Bow for when corrupt politicians start trying to blot out the sun?
Terraforming on the cheap, what could possibly go wrong
"We do not run the risk of going overboard, and producing a whole artificial winter"
I wonder if that's what the people in the Snowpiercer universe thought when they implemented this exact same plan to tackle global warming?
I knew that this would be the path that economist would go when they started talking about geoengineering. They said it would be in addition to the energy transition but now I'm starting to hear that they want to just focus on geoengineering. We need a transition to clean energy and change how we view our economy. Our current system is not sustainable.
How is it not sustainable? Because the world might be 2 degrees hotter on average in 100 years?
Clean energy is not so clean.
Carbon energy is well known because everything living is carbon based. Carbon based energy is all self-recyclables
Clean energy is not self recycling.
What can not be recycle from solar panels are toxic. Lithium ion battery seepage has been linked to autism, with 90*% of lithium batteries not being recycled today. Wind farm blades fill massive quantities of space where they are dumped.
Clean energy is a marketing term.
Clean is not sustainable.
@@L4Z3RF4C3 We already hit 2 degrees above preindustrial temps back in november. We don't have 100 years any more.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr The current average temperature on earth is just under 14 degrees Celsius. 100 million years ago during the cretaceous the earth was around 32 degrees Celsius and mammals were walking around just fine. The earth is still far below it's average temperature for the past couple hundred million years.
@@L4Z3RF4C3 Neither our crops nor any of the animals we eat are adapted to temperatures anywhere near 18 degrees higher. We're already seeing wet bulb temperatures around the equator. Our global infrastructure also isn't built to withstand the common and far more powerful storms which existed with such high levels of evaporation at those temperatures.
The mammals that existed were small burrowers, nothing like humans or cows existed.
Saying that life went on back then is like saying life will go on after a nuclear war, sure it will but your idea of civilisation will be extinct.
North America increased in temperature, after it shut down all the coal plants for energy production & the demolition of the tall smoke stacks.
After all this time, they should have just built the smoke stacks higher, huh? 😅
Woaw the sponser read was only part of the video. Not an entire video. Man i lost a bit of respect for these lads when they made that entire video about sim cards..
This is all in the book Freakonomics...16ys ago
Genetically engineered trees for carbon capture
Trees are not an efficient way to capture carbon. We already have more powerful artificial carbon capture systems. They're not economical yet though.
_"Is This the Real Solution to Climate Change?"_
1. No.
2. What's your problem with a changing climate?
ministry for the future by kim stanley robinson touches on the use of this and the logistical issues of altering the climate without the involvement of other nations
04:20 - Maybe a facade 😑
We shall see if they keep their word
That might very well be our quickest solution
Yeah, DEAD animals don't exhale CO2! 😮😢
Haha... Semmelweis was killed because he said that.
issue with sulfur use however would be acidification of rain and waters, so, not a really good idea in high amount.
Holafly... Even if your setvice is worthwhile - the freaking green washing was disgusting. eSIMs are great. You didnt invent them, but good on you for using them. But then focusing on how much plasric traditional cards generate is so disongenuous. Sure. They are 2 grams of plastic. But that is probably about as much as the pastic lining of half a dozen drink cans. Its the stupidest selling point and makes you sound completely disingenuous. It makes me doubt the premise of your entire service and whether it is a bunch of half truths and lies.
Wowow it's finally solved! A fridge freezer, air conditioning and car for everyone in China and India!
Yes, do nothing, just adapt to environmental changes, this is what animals do.
I'm pretty sure humanity manipulating the natural world is how we got into this mess
Not intentionally. now there is the intention, meaning, as long as this get's handled directly by the UN as a whole and not a single country, we finally may have a way to live our lives without idiocy of destroying our economy and moralism that comes with it.
@looseycanon I don't like the idea of manipulating weather. That seems like it's going to cause more ecological harm. Remember all the plants and animals that depend on a certain type of weather and climate.
@@JoeTony1995You might not like it, but we do it anyway, simply by existing (all living species affect their habitat, btw.). If we already unintentionally altered the weather by releasing all kinds of gasses into the atmosphere (CO2 is not the only one, yet it and recently methane are the only ones people talk about), why not take a pro active approach to climate change, rahter than pro passive, particularly if pro passive approach will eventually result in mass joblesness, uncompetitive economy and, driven to the extreme, famine?) We don't have technologies to live the green utopia that organisations like Greenpeace or even European Commission are forcing us onto. We're being forced down electric everything BS path, without having mature technologies to go down that route, be it electric cars, which have been proven to be inferior to gasolene cars in all metrics, or small modular nuclear reactors, which don't exist outside of ideas and research! Meanwhile, we have stratospheric balloons to cary cargo above atmosphere. We can and even did produce the chemicals needed to create the mist shield to protect us from excess sunrays. This is no playing god. This is just how an industrialist would solve the problem. With maximum effect for minimum impact. What would be that impact? Slightly more acidic rain all over the Earth, which could be worked around through genetic editting or even crossbreeding of crops. And that's assuming the rain would get so much more acidic, that we'd need to take action! We could very well not reach acidity level high enough for it to cause noticable damage and the rest could be protected through small conservation effort in botanical gardens! It's just moralism, that's standing in our way. Remember, we had acid rains much stronger than this would cause and we did not cause a mass extinction in that way! Not to mention the fact, that you wouldn't need to cover the whole world! A thicker layer over the ocean, so that part of it would fall straight into it would also work. You could argue about acidity of the ocean, but that has two caveats. One, the ocean can take a huge amount of this before it begins to be an actual issue (I'm talking decades), during which we could spend some resources to come up with a solution, particularly because, we'd still need to gather the chemicals used somehow, so why not get them from the very ocean they'd fall into? Bottom line is, even if we did this, which would be mindlessly expensive, it would still cause less economic harm to us as people than this green non-growth BS that is being pushed these days. Why? Because lack of economic prosperity is something that people actually feel directly and immediately and seek to end that state. In democracies, you get voted out of the office and the next government will undo everyhting you've done to preserve the planet on the mild end, turn it into dictatorship on the harsh one to prevent this ever coming back. In less free systems, you become North Korea, survive, everyone will suffer and you'd create Orwellian dystopia, or you'd meet the fate of Gaddafi and we all know, just what is going on down there. Either way, you'd destroy society.
Yeah so to lose weight lets not address overeating, lets learn to vomit voluntarily.
Making hidrogen is very green too /s
WTF?! HYDROGEN is an ELEMENT TOO?! You can't MAKE it except by ATOMIC reactions, like inside the SUN!!!😮😢
Finnaly a sensible approach to climate change. A way, that doesn't cripple production chains!
@@yourbrainwasmadebybiggovthis is a bit like replacing smoking with vaping. Ok they think that vaping is less harmful but we have no long term data to look at as they haven't been around long enough. We may actually find 50 years down the line they are worse than smoking. Apply the same thought process to this.
@@yourbrainwasmadebybiggovBecause of economy? How many people do you think earn a living through those jets? If you really intend to start banning anything, start with stuff that would hurt you!
@@yourbrainwasmadebybiggovwhat about the lose of global dimming
Bad idea to play GOD, there will be a price to pay.
Snowpiercer anyone? China & India will only do it if cost from health care overwhelms by far greater margin, but that will take 20+ years to get the bill.
Too much fucking promotion after I already pay for UA-cam Premium. Finally had enough, unsubscribing, and will select "do not recommend channel". Have a nice life.
Chill out man 🤣
Just skip over it. I don't even pay premium & I don't have Ad problem.
❤😊❤😊❤😊❤
Banning the consumption of animal based foods isn't a solution folks.
🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫🇳🇫
I never thought we'd end up living the plot of a Jimmy Neutron episode.
Visual commercial 😂😂😂
What could go wrong with something we don’t fully understand?
What happens if keep releasing co2 in the meantime and then suddenly stop releasing the sulphur dioxide? Would all the avoided heating happen at once?
of course no, the sunlight would have been reflected, not kept for later
Not exactly at once, but yes because of the higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, not only would you soon reach an even higher temperature of global warming, but it would also be going much faster (since SO2 emissions would have "hidden" that extra warming by reflecting sun rays back into space). Your atmosphere would be accumulating more energy (heat), at a faster rate, which would leave no time for ecosystems to adapt, nor for us. And then that would not do anything to solve our biodiversity crisis, and other planetary boundaries which are even more dramatic than climate change. Not a solution, but I encourage anyone trusting the "optimistic" view of this video to do the research
@@cybermacaque6622 yes I thought that would be the case, suprising to see a logical comment answer on UA-cam
@@t.g.2777 It's not a blind process. We'd know what the temperature difference is and how it'll change in response to us.
So the more you tax the steel industry the more financially viable green steel is? lol... The little bit of steel that is in a car is nothing compared to what is in buildings and nobody is going to want to pay the increased expenses for everything they need to live a comfortable life. They arent going to be building hospitals and schools with "green steel". All of this stuff falls apart when people realize how much more expensive everything will get and every lb of coal that isnt used in one place will be bought somewhere else. The 5-6 billion people in developing countries want the same quality of life as the rest of us and they arent going to worry about climate change to get there. The only people that will live in western countries in the future will be wealthy people. If you want a decent quality of life move to a developing country.
That is just a plain stupid ideia!
Erm they do this already the delivery is commercial flights and they been called chemtrails
Hi Visialeconomik ! Marine cloud brightening Holds similar promise of 0.5 to 1.5 degrees Centigrade cooling. Oddly, allowing diesel shipping to produce particulates unfettered does this more or less cost-free! The example you gave of sulphur dioxide reduction from shipping also Included a particulate problem and the immediate effect was The temperature increasedwhen the particulates were removed. There is a very cost ineffective war on carbon dioxide. This or any othersolution cannot be allowed to deflect from this holy crusade Against carbon Dioxide. In a political war genuine cost benefit analysis is the first thing to disappear. Colm
The only way that you'll nudge the world toward greener iron is by implementing tariffs tied to CO2 emissions on imports to Europe, North America, and Australia. It won't necessarily impact internal consumption in China and India, but it will decrease intercontinental trade in iron and aluminum, and cause a significant collapse in over capacity in China.
Hydrogen is a green fuel but the production of fuel quality hydrogen is very much not a green process and that's why electric cars have taken off but hydrogen cars have faced more resistance and scrutiny despite oil companies backing hydrogen car research.
The only advantage hydrogen had over electric is that huge batteries with the energy density required to power cars require huge amounts of costly rare earth minerals of which much of the environmental damage of mining appears overlooked. However a lot of research in battery technology is taking place and could result in the use of more abundant and cheaper materials like sodium with even higher energy densities. I think now it's the case hydrogen for vehicles is finished.
@@David-bi6lf yeah exactly
This same logic applies equally to electric cars. The manufacturing of lithium batteries is not green, either. "Green" is a lie.
@@uncensoredpilgrims except it doesn't at all. A tank of hydrogen doesn't last 5-10 years. And you're ignoring the fact that there's non lithium batteries in use and more in development.
@@michaelmayhem350 Keep the faith!
How are we are going to terraform Mars if we can't even manage our own planet's climate?
Fun Fact about terraforming - it's typically an extremely destructive process. You generally do NOT want to be living on a planet that's undergoing terraforming. Btw all the proposed methods for doing that to Mars would take centuries to have enough effect
You guys need to do some Soul searching and also as a side note bring Simon whistler back.
This show has just become an 20 mins ad campaign, and you guys have just become too corrupt.
How about not breathing out carbon dioxide
India has pledged to be a net zero emitter by 2070, it has already rolled out the green hydrogen mission which will help its steel industry to go green eventually, also India as of today fulfills 40% of its energy needs from renewable sources inspite of its large population and low per capita gdp which is way ahead of many developed western nations
How can I study more about the balloons? Pls share some sources 😢
✌✌✌
When the presidential motorcade has all EVs and when trips taken by politicians are taken reluctantly in the name of climate change, I'll start taking it seriously. I want to believe it's a concern. But until leaders start leading by example, whatevs.... and I'd say the same thing about guns, walls, medical care. If they can have them, if they don'thave to follow laws they psss on me, if they can pollute, I should be able to also. But back to this topic, sounds interesting.
Problems…
1. People like to feel bad about themselves and also Western Civilisation. Geo-engineering gets in the way of this.
2. It would affect the money to be made in the transition
3. Fossil fuels are still running out, and so still need to be replaced (so to prevent war, or reduce money & dependence given to dictatorships)
Nonetheless it is a good idea, in that it buts mankind as much time as we need.
Yes we need intentional geo-engineering now
Doesnt Iceland 🇮🇸 have these incredible machines that absorb then dissipate Co2 from the surrounding air? 🤔
Imagine if we used those on an industrial scale!
Iceland has fuck all trees
The way to absorb CO2 is called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, and it is done by PLANTs, every day of the week!!!😮😢😅.
Humans are not the main driver to climate change because climate changes all the time we do however sped it up a bit but no matter what we do the climate will change anyway 😂
There's a solution to climate change in Avengers Infinity War
Very very short term.