Why air pollution is so scary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Overcome your brain's limitations by learning statistics with Brilliant! www.brilliant....
The World Health Organisation says that 7 million people are killed every year by the air they breathe. Why, where, and what can we do about it? Turns out, there are a few reasons we should stop burning fossil fuels...
References
1. ourworldindata...
2. www.who.int/ne...
3. ourworldindata...
4. ourworldindata...
5. ourworldindata...
6. www.who.int/ne...
7. www.nature.com...
8. www.pnas.org/d...
9. ourworldindata...
10. www.ipcc.ch/re...
So yeah, spoiler alert, air pollution kills 7 million people a year. And what causes the majority of dangerous air pollution? Humans burning stuff, specifically fossil fuels. Even without their immense impact on global climate, we should be phasing out the use of coal, oil, and natural gas because they are literally killing millions of people every single year. We have the technology to replace fossil fuel use in energy generation with renewables (and nuclear, though that's... complicated here), and wealthy economies need to support low and middle income economies in their efforts to decarbonise (and literally clean up) their energy supply.
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfph...
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage from Getty.
Beautifully edited by Luke Negus.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Conor Safbom, William Pettersson, Paul H and Linda L, InDefenseOfToucans, Savannah, Jimmy Lee, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Bjorn Bakker, Ieuan Williams, Candace H, Tom Malcolm, Marcus Bosshard, Shab Kumar, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Jesper Norsted, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Thines Ganeshamoorthy, Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Farsight101, K.L, poundedjam, fourthdwarf, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, Robert Connell, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Will Tolley, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, SexyCaveman , Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Anne Smith, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Princess Andromeda, Mach_D, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Andrea De Mezzo, Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson.
The 'look at this graph' gag is a top tier science communicator move, thank you for including it.
Awareness without Doomersim:
HOPE and Climate-Anxiety need Balance.
Both were covered so good by 'Our Changing Climate' and 'Ankur Shah', please dont miss-out.
Said Channel, Hbomberguy, UpisNotJump, Some More News, Second Thought, those are the Frontier-Fighters on UA-cam; not high on Hopium but also not Gloomy!
You believe his graph? 🤣
How is Greenland considered the most polluted place on earth? And the US is the cleanest? What about North Korea? It's also dirty yet they have not enough electricity to light up the country at night. This graph is a fraud.
Also, Africa is fully covered with data even though there is a "no data" option in gray. Having lived in Africa for many years, I can assure you most of Africa has no testing for pollution. Even quality temperature readings is woefully inadequate on most of the continent.
This guy pulls data and graphs from whoever agrees with his narrative. I've caught him using fraudulent graphs in his other videos.
This is a fear porn channel for profit.
@@loturzelrestaurant Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
As a person who was born in Krasnoyarsk, and where my parents is still living, unfortunately I knew the answer to the question of how common the air pollution is, quite well.
We have a so-called "dark/black sky" condition I think at least once in a month. But it's when the situation is REALLY bad. Serious smog happens almost every couple weeks and it can last for week or even longer if there's no wind… And the medical records prove the point of the video.
I can't even imagine! :0
You have sort of answer the question.But you didn't give the answer I was looking for ! What is the Biggest pollution maker on the planet I will leave it with you ?
Thank you for talking about it. It's a topic most people seem to not even think about.
Don’t worry. It’s only the air we breathe…..
You can help by sharing this video if you haven’t already.
Most people are NOT AWARE of air pollution - they cannot see it . 🧐
What a nothingburger. Most people don't think about most things.
7:22
_"People aren't burning fossil fuels out of spite, they just want a higher quality of life."_
Coming from a guy with not 1, but 2 computer monitors behind him.
*Rules for thee, but not for me.*
8:39 Every time I see this meme I just can't hold myself together, the "please fking kill me" stare is way too funny.
Air pollution causes inflammation throughout the body and, while not an exact analogue, basically accelerates the ageing process. So, as well as vital work tackling the air pollution at source, we should also work on treatments for ageing for those of us who have already been inhaling it for decades!
Climate, environment and health cross over everywhere, huh.
Great video!
Well I can't go live on Iceland so I'm just gonna breath crappy air okay? Not trying to be f'ing superman here
@@princeofkernow9875 You’re right, it’s not like that. It does cause inflammation at the vaccine site because that’s how vaccines work, but there’s no evidence it accelerates ageing. And, if you want to reduce systemic inflammation, avoiding covid by (amongst other things) getting vaccinated is a pretty great bet!
Yes, I could do with some help treatments to restore health. I was a gardener, in a high walled garden, in the middle of Central London. Directly outside the garden was a set of traffic lights, and whenever they changed, the garden would fill up with stinking blue exhaust fumes - most significantly from taxis.
In addition, I had the dust from London Plane leaves to contend with. It used to make me cough and sneeze all through Spring-time, and when disease caused the leaves to fall off before new growth emerged, I would go through the coughing and sneezing all over again. It's a wonder my lungs function at all.
It's little wonder that I am not nearly as energetic or healthy as my husband, who has been retired several years and is 17 years older than me.
Climate talk is a great way to shift the focus outta "it is dangerous & must be dealt with now" to "we have hundreds of years until SHTF, and we'll always be able to sequester carbon with Bill Gates' pumps."
David Sinclair is looking into this ageing reversal subject. More on this - ua-cam.com/video/cLZEEOZlTzo/v-deo.html
Indoor air pollution is caused by lots of things, not just indoor combustion of solid fuels. But it's a lot worse from burning solid stuff indoors.
Gas and liquid fuels aren't necessarily more expensive than solid fuels. But they require more expensive infrastructure to deliver. You can spend an hour walking a long way to gather firewood, or you can spend two minutes earning the money to buy gas. But if you're in a poor country, you may not have the second option.
Have a huge pole of logs at work can get firewood for a little work can't get gas for a little work
Hey, you are right, I live somewhere in the region of Southeast Asia and the problems revolving around pollution here are quite appalling. I feel like I can barely breathe, and no one uses forms of public transportation anymore, traffic congestion always takes place in my city and private vehicles are rampant (no one rides a bike, everyone drives or has his/ her motorbike). It's just disturbing thinking about the low wages we get paid and the amount of pollutant we exhale :(
everybody has to have their own ride😷🤢🥵
@@johnmitchell2741 yah, but the gov seems to provide little or no promotion for public transport:( in addition, they even build more roads :((
10:38 If saving millions of lives is not a worthwile undertaking from an economic perspective, then maybe, our current socio-economic system is not excatly serving the people.
air pollution (the stuff that actually kills people) is caused by motor vehicles. the simple solution is to limit motor vehicle traffic. to make it easier to cycle, to provide better public transit and walkability, etc.
@@kairon5249 Never that simple. For example you can't limit traffic in sprawling american cities where everything is far from everything, without replanning and rebuilding the. And nah, its not just motor vehicles, it is mostly that in the west but there are also many coal plants and biofuel plants (basically wood burners) and other production facilities (chemical plants factories) to cause the pollution.
@@CraftyF0X sure we can. by building bike infrastructure (not just painted gutters) and public transit.
@@kairon5249 Im all for that the rest still remains.
They are not out to serve the people. The opposite is true.
The elites plan is to thin out the worlds population to save us from imaginary global warming by demonizing fossil fuels and ending their use, which will kill billions.
Only the wealthiest people will survive... on the fossil fuels they demonized. How ironic.
definitely out of date 1:50 I'm tracking local air quality since the wildfires burned 4 million acres of forest in California 2 years ago and since then America is seeing higher levels of PMP.
Someone else quite shocked to see USA and Canada in pale yellow?
Probably just due to averages from the LARGE SWATHS OF NOTHING in those countries and most cities actually having horrid air pollution.
I'm not (though that's because this is literally my job). Part of the reason is the relatively low population density. But the main reason, at least in the US, is the Clean Air Act, which is one of if not the best pieces of environmental legislation ever. Not only is it incredibly effective and aggressive, it was initially passed in 1970, meaning we've been working on improving our air quality for the last 50 years, while Europe didn't really get started until the 90s.
@@BrianJumps1 hats off to you then
it gets even worse when you research the relationship between covid mortality and air pollution.
The idea of one of the things going wrong on the planet helping to mitigate another reminds me of that scene in The Simpsons where the doctor tells Mr Burns his body is a complex eco system of diseases keeping eachother in equilibrium.
Hi - can you talk about heat stress?
I have started gardening in a new location. My sweet basil is 6 months old and looks smaller than a 6 week old plant should. The reason is heat stress. Sorry for the small scale example. How would heat stress affect, say, the idea of planting forests and using 'normal' growth projections, growing food and the planet's overall ability to feed living things. ?
Hey Simon! Thanks for this video. I'm just about to start an MSc in Air Pollution Managment and Control at the University of Birmingham. Hoping to help solve this issue (in at least some small way) through my career. Video was fantastic as always. Especially interesting was the point on the reduction of Sulphur dioxide and the increase in global tempertautres that will lead to. Wasn't aware of that issue!
Watching this video from Dhaka, Bangladesh. City with one of the worst air. Man! May God save us.
The indoor air pollution impacts of gas stoves (and other leaky gas connected infrastructure) is an emerging topic of research- those of us in wealthy countries shouldn't count ourselves safe on that score yet!
I've been wrong before, but high income countries having less deaths from outdoor pollution is likely more due to tighter environmental regulations and manufacturing moving to middle and low income countries. Not renewables although nuclear has helped, minus it's consequences. Also particulate in the atmosphere cause clouds to drop their water sooner, thus less heat is reflected back to space. So there's that 🤷no good news here.
Re: the "Share of the population exposed to air pollution levels above WHO guidelines, 2017" figure, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the globe would be considered above WHO guidelines in an updated version using 2021/2022 data. I say this because I know that fairly recently, the WHO lowered their annual guidelines for PM2.5 from 10 ug/m^3 to 5 ug/m^3, and for the 24-hour guidelines they were adjusted from 25 ug/m^3 to 15 ug/m^3. I know this because I had to adjust these guidelines values when writing my thesis lol
First of all great video! This is something really important that almost no one knows about. As a chartered transport planner I model air quality impacts as part of my job and it is also the case that the people who contribute least to the problem suffer the most. In the UK at least the majority of air pollution in residential areas is caused by traffic generated by high income people impacting low income people that can't afford to move away from a busy road.
I'm so glad that you mentioned aerosol masking and land use....
I can't even believe how many times I've had to bring these things up on environmental channels and I've completely exhausted myself trying....
We could fix so many problems by beginning with animal agriculture (becoming vegan on a widespread scale) and rewilding all that land (made possible not just by getting rid of animal farms, but rather taking the plants we feed to animals and repurposing them for human consumption)...
This equates to an area the size of RUSSIA and 16 years worth of emissions being absorbed! Check out the study in "Nature" about this!
The most important group I know that is addressing this whole paradox is MEER Reflection Project....
Building simple mirrors that can help locally reflect a lot of heat world give us much more time to figure out how to balance the carbon levels without reducing the aerosols so soon, which as you mentioned, could actually accelerate climate change.
Once we could better manage the heat, then we could reduce these pollutants more safely!
The last thing we want is to finally get everyone on board with fossil fuel reduction, but then only speed up the degradation of the environment because we cross more tipping points without really solving the energy input disparity.
MEER Reflection Project might just be the key to solving this!
Cheers, again I'm so glad you're at least bringing up this paradox, because most people speaking about climate just ignore it!
@@princeofkernow9875 you are picking the worst example of growing veggies to compare to the best possible example of dairy.
That's not how this is supposed to work.
You don't have to have monoculture to grow plants.
And most dairy is not produced like it is where tribal people, who live in the land, produce small amounts.
The majority of people aren't willing to live with cows and give up cars, homes, technology etc, and become hunter gatherers...
Plant based diets take up less than a quarter of the land, not to even mention fossil fuel reductions and water use (btw the SW US is undergoing a HUGE drought right now, the worst it has ever seen).
This isn't me suggesting this, it's multiple studies.
Do some research and see.
Start with the land use study published in Nature.
I'd link it but then half the time the comment disappears.
I'm sure you are smart enough to find it in two minutes and read it in a few more.
It clearly shows we could massively reduce impact by going veg.....
So stop telling me I'm wrong by bringing up cherry picked anecdotes
@@princeofkernow9875 most animals are fed with large monocrops like soy...
A very small percentage are actually grazing, and these need even MORE water and land, by far.
Have you not seen the giant rotating machines with dozens of cattle locked up to them while they are milked?
This is hardly environmentally friendly, or them grazing peacefully with no impact.
In Colorado, you can smell factory farms from 50 miles away, or even while flying over them (as I've done).
It's horrific for both the animals and the ecosystem.
But this is the only way to satisfy the demand.
You simply can't get nearly the yield or profits from a more "sustainable" method.
Meat is just more profitable when it's done in mass operations.
This is also what's destroying the Amazon, as it is burned down to make room for more beef and feed crops.
Veggies don't necessarily need to be done in these destructive ways.
You can grow food at home, or buy locally, both of which require minimal transport or fossil fuels...
Transport is actually only a very small percentage of the fossil fuel use anyways.
And meat is transported more, because of the feed, which you seem to be forgetting.
Those crops aren't just sitting there for the animals to eat.
In any case, the far more efficient way is to focus that food for human consumption, which gives you much more protein by weight per acre.
If we concentrate on growing human friendly crops, the majority of land that is now used for food can actually be returned to wild biodiverse forest, as explained in the article I already mentioned.
Just think logically, it's much less impact to just eat the plants directly than to require all that extra production, transport, water, land etc...
Farms can also be biodiverse, and actually give higher yield than monocultures, they just require more work and planning.
Think of the "three sisters" for example...
Native cultures have known this for millennia
Yeah nah, I ain't going vegan, especially given the clearly visible detrimental health effects (and no you can't prove it's healthy, maybe in a lab with perfect diet it is but every single long term vegan I've ever seen in the real world looked frail as a breadstick).
Especially since we're doing jack shit to reduce emissions where it's easy. It's precisely the fault of """""environmentalists""""" (largely the same ones who are now telling me to go vegan and ride a bicycle for 17km, go figure) that the West still relies on fossil fuels so heavily. Not only did they spend the last 50 years slandering nuclear power, but they are still ACTIVELY DOING IT RIGHT NOW, knowing damn well that every nuclear reactor shut down or not built is a gas/coal plant chugging away in its stead.
50% of the world's emissions come from heating and power generation, and if we had just started a common EU nuclear program 20 years ago we would have completely eliminated them by now. But nooo, nuclear power is scawy :(
Better to keep burning gas by the cubic kilometers and then try to force everyone to go vegan and carless so you can feel like your activism hasn't activelly contributed to destroying the planet.
Also these "environmentalist" associations are the same who fought for biomass (especially wood pellet stoves) to be labeled "green" and directly contributed to its use skyrocketing even here in an area where we already had a massive problem with particulate matter pollution (several northern italian cities are among the most polluted in Europe due to geography). And they keep saying biomasses are "clean" to this day.
No, sorry, I'm not depriving myself to reduce my emissions by 5% when the ones who claim to care about the environment are doing all they can to prevent us from fixing the easily solvable 50%. My emissions are already lower than the average because I keep clothes for years, never change furniture, and don't have aircon at home. I've done my part.
Gotta hold CEOs and Politicians personally responsible for malice and gross negligence.
Once their heads start rolling, change will happen, and not a fuck earlier.
How's in the everloving fuck is this video only on 21k views?
Brilliant take and nuanced delivery. Thanks!
What's interesting is the US and Canada's low outdoor air pollution numbers despite high levels of car dependency and not being leaders in renewables. What this indicates to me is how dependent much of this is on specific regulation and legislation designed to combat outdoor air pollution. It's not simply the result of getting wealthier that really works but active political choices. A lot of developed countries ought to be looking at the implementation of the clean air act in the US, one piece of environmental legislation we've actually been good at!
I don't know if you just heard, not more than a few hours after this comment the US Supreme Court made another terrible decision. Rolling back power granted to the EPA from the clean air act 😔
@@Tclack Yeah that decision was terrible, but in the specific context of this video on particulate matter the US' protections are still good and largely effective by global standards. We may cause the globe to burn up but we'll have easy breathing (outside) while doing it
The Clean Air Act is one of the best pieces of environmental legislation ever! And it was passed in 1970, so we've had a long time to achieve good air quality. Many places, even Europe, didn't get started until the 90s.
0:52 how does that relate to cancers caused by air pollution? Are those factored in already?
Good thing I live in Finland which is one of the few places on the graph without much pollution
The extract says "contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C". So the effects of principally aerosols could be zero, but you then took the top end of the range and ran with it. That was misleading. Great video though! I liked your book.
Yes I realised this right at the end of the editing process and unfortunately I had to get the video out today so that had to stay in the video. I should clarify that the effect of sulphates is shown in the IPCC graph (as highlighted) and the mean figure for that specific contribution is about 0.5°C of cooling. You are quite right though that it was improper to give a figure towards one extreme (as caused by a hasty reading of the summary), and while the general point still stands, I can only apologise!
It seems to me that if this is true, then we are in kind of a no win situation with respect to industrial activity that puts sulfates in the air. This fossil fuel burning activity is what is taking the world to 1.5C and beyond; at the same time, we CANNOT stop doing it totally because if we do, then we woud go up approximately 0.5C in a very short amount of time, taking us OVER 1.5 in no time.
Do I have that right?
@@SimonClark Thanks for the response. I'm just getting into video creation and overwhelmed with the amount of time and effort going into a 10 minute video. Agree that the point you were making's all valid.
@@SimonClark Given how vital this point is to the entire premise of a sizeable chunk of this video it would be in your best interests to find time to re-record and splice in at least a card at the start explaining the error if you can find the time.
It is the true mark of a professional to do your absolute best to put out corrections where they *cannot* be easily missed, especially on topics as vital to our future as these.
Sadly, comment sections and descriptions are no longer adequate avenues for this, and the potential lost revenue from having to reupload it pales in comparison to the benefits of reputation and goodwill in most cases.
However, it is ultimately your decision to make and I won't fault you whichever way you decide to go - after all, content creation is always full of tradeoffs and hard decisions and this comment alone tells me you do at least care about accuracy and transparency which is already a wonderful quality to posess.
haven’t gotten too far into the video but gas stoves do contribute to particulates in the air as well as harmful gasses and while they may not be as much of a death risk, they do contribute to asthma and other health issues
I really enjoyed this one, for the first time I actually knew what was being talked about!!! Environmental science is so cool!!!
Quick point on that map: the Aussie data is likely under-representing air pollution by quite a long margin because of the way it is measured (and often not measured). I'd bet other countries have similarly under-represented air pollution. Even then, it kills as many people as the road toll in Australia.
Australia is a bit weird because of the outback.. a large portion of the continent gets almost no air pollution at all (few people live in the outback) while the majority of the population is clustered in a few extremely dense places along the coasts.
I'm guessing the map makes it look so low because its averaged across the entire land area. Suggesting to me that its likely a map created to track per-country CO2 emissions (ie: based on political jurisdiction without caring about concentration within that jurisdiction) rather than measuring something like health risks due to air pollution (which doesn't make much sense as an average across land area.. Australia might be especially prone to poor averaging, but the same problem applies in every country - pollution is almost always concentrated around dense urban or industrial centers, not around open wilderness).
@@altrag, a colleague's partner works in air pollution, so I'm reasonably certain it isn't about averaging. The issue is that the way air pollution is measured minimises the levels (distance from source, location of measuring equipment, etc).
And rural areas tend to have other air pollution issues. I haven't seen data for Australia, but the US has some pretty big issues with spray drift. I know Australia have lower rural density, so that probably isn't as big an issue here, but our wind erosion events are getting a bit ridiculous.
@@tim290280 That's kind of my point. I don't think it was an "air pollution" map (which would need to be more specific about where the pollution actually is in order to be useful) so much as it was a "CO2 by country" map (which doesn't care about specific locations as its more of a political tool than a practical one).
As for Australia.. the outback isn't just rural, its effectively unpopulated as its basically one massive desert covering something like 3/4 of Australia's land mass (maybe more.. I haven't actually measured just eyeballing it from maps). Its not _quite_ as unlivable as say the deep Sahara, and there are _some_ people who try to survive there (including an American military base pretty much smack dab in the middle - chosen specifically because its unlikely anyone would ever stumble upon it accidentally or otherwise), but the population density is well below what anywhere in the US would consider "rural". More in comparison to California's Death Valley than Idaho's potato farms.
@@altrag, just an FYI, you just Ausplained to an Aussie.
@@tim290280 Your phrasing sounded like typical Americentrism. Makes me curious why an Aussie would try to compare the outback to rural areas though.
What's with Greenland? Is it coloured so dark because it's Denmark, or is it indeed highly polluted where the little populations are?
10:50 Reducing methane emissions will not result in a cooling effect, but rather a reduction in the rate of warming.
11:35 please look up the movement „Debt for Climate“, everyone.
yes, that is the problem with humanity. We always want more. a more comfortable life, more holidays, more new gadgets to buy, more people on the planet to work, more. more. MORE. Our hubris, and goal to beat death itself will be our greatest downfall
Currently AQI is 94
and PM 10 : 94
PM2.5 : 78
Weather report says wear a mask when you go out
Why does the US have such low levels of air pollution compared to the rest of the world?
It's safe to say I'm very surprised the US wasn't very red, with all the car dependency
Why is Switzerland a dark yellow island? Why is it being weird again?
Does this include radiological particulate from nuclear tests in the 50s?
why is the air quality in the us so good?
because 'MURICA
or probably due to the winds, probably comes from the Pacific mostly
As a norwegian looking at the air pollution map... yay..?
Burning gas instead of coal is also huge
Hey bud great vid but you never talked about all the green energy incinertators that burn up garbage or all those plastic water bottles ect that dont get recycled but are burned up and the dioxin levels are insane in the air we all breathe ....
I mean, calling them "green energy" is a farce
10:00 all this reminds me of a recent study that estimated a 42 % chance/risk of going past 1,5 degrees of heating. Source: „42% chance of breaching 1.5°C goal even if all carbon emissions cease“.
1.5 is too low we need to get at least 10°C how else are we gonna get the high score???
PhD environmental engineering here - AQ and climate-forcing emissions focus. Yeah so the argument of not reducing emissions bc of climate cooling benefits is pretty short-sighted. Yes you remove sulfate precursors, but you also get carbon emission reductions (the cause of climate change in the first place). I'm not opposed to atmospheric sulfate injection, but that's more of a bandaid approach
your video editing is outstanding and very underrated!
Thats why we elect a government to look after our best i interests and tell us what's really going on ...i think.
I would imagine a major source of those natural emissions are also themselves combustion in the form of wildfires etc. Granted many of those are not entirely natural in origin as human activity often provides the spark (Campfire gone wrong or a dead tree branch shorting out our power infrastructure for example). We could potentially reduce this contribution too in time if we so desired though it is possible to collect that accumulated deadfall and bury it in a hole for example.
Getting rid of cole and gas-fired powerplants, cole gas, oil heating, and foilfule bring cars will help with both climate change and air pollution.
i have a question, there are a lot of desert countries very high in the scale. maybe sandstorm has something to do with that high number? or sandstorms aren't so important?
A lot of the middle eastern ones like Qatar and Saudi arabia are just very oil dependent so have poor air quality
I guessed the most dangerous thing to me would be lightning, but that's because I'm in a storm right now! Ahhhh!
Maybe all the plastic in our bodies will save us.
and india replaces them at a rate of 22 mil per annum.
I also live in Sweden so my air pollution level is really low! YAY!! 😃
Low population helps
@@qjtvaddict Not us. We need to massively increase our population
Incredible, cannot sleep!
7:15 some are. Think super yachts.
your best video i think
"essential financing from the global north to the south is needed" so it's not happening, got It
I have asthma and live in an undeveloped country, so I'm deeply aware of the consequences of it, so it just hurts more knowing that the countries with power are not gonna do their part
Urban climate vibes
seriously what is going on on your monitors
and that's why I don't go outside
There are two channels to check out if you want more information on indoor air quality, Home Performance and Indoor Chem.
7:18 isn't all leisure driving and other recreational travel by internal combustion engine burning fossil fuels for fun?
Just a nit pick on a great video :P
Search what plant DIF is
The decrease is happening in areas right now. It only takes a few too warm nights to halt crop production.
Happening regionally now. No okra produced last year in this area by anyone.
Noticed worms are gone this year too…completely as far as I can tell. Plants been blooming crazy times for few years.
It’s too late
-54yo horticulturist
Not that old or that much experience with plants, but things do seem different for sure. I've noticed that plants grow different and have their flowers at times I wasn't used to growing up at my parents. Their garden layout is still mostly the same with general species of plants present yet when they bloom seems to be different. I also remember swarms of flies and other insects on my trips to school by bicycle, these days passing by the same route for the commute to the office for work (rare since covid and mostly working from home) or just city shopping trip there are way less. Only a few rare days when the quantity is anywhere near it during some of the early hot days, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the the diversity in those few days of high flying insect quantity is much lower than it used to be.
As for it being too late, sometimes I feel like that since what's truly lost won't come back but at the same time it's still worth preserving what's left. Reduction of the harm might not be ideal but it's better than nothing.
I'm slightly annoyed that I'm considering getting rid of the remnant of my own garden but since my back became more troublesome it has become a nuisance to work on, the lower back varies from sensitive to painful and almost all flexibility is gone making kneeling required for anything requiring hands near the ground. But I don't mind the alcea rosea that have found their place in the small gap between my fence and stones to the shed, easy to take care of and they seem to come back every year now and grow to crazy heights if they survive the slugs eating near the ground leaves (1.8-2.5m already). Once they are tall I give them a bit of support so the wind doesn't knock them over and nature does the rest and while they bloom a lot of flying insects seem to be attracted to them. I don't like the way stone tiles or gravel trap the heat but unfortunately it's also no longer practical to maintain a typical decorative or vegetable garden.
latvia has much worse air quality than estonia in source 3. Seems suspicious that there would be big diffrence between them. all I know is that latvia has only couple air quality stations and all of them are in big city centre. is this really representative?
Share of the population exposed to air pollution levels above WHO guidelines in 2017:
-Estonia 0%
-Latvia 89.01%
what is this?
1:37 how the hell did Greenland manage getting dark red, not even Denmark is that colour. less than 60,000 people in an area three times the size of Ukraine
Feels like hayfever is how the atmosphere is trying to kill me. Of course, the pollution makes the hayfever worse.
Hayfever is certainly a nuisance, I noticed that using an air purifier indoors made a huge difference for me the last 3 years making the symptoms go away while inside at home. And since the start of this years season my doctor prescribed me steroid nose spray that I have to use twice per day and antihistamine eye drops, both doing their job excellent. The nose spray has pretty much eliminated my usual runny/blocked nose, sneezing and frequent blocked eustachian tube issues leading to fluid buildup behind the ear drums. The eye drops I only use as needed, so pretty much before going outside and I haven't had the itchy/burning to the point of being unable to keep my eyes open issue again (unless I neglected to apply the eye drops again halfway during the day).
While I don't like having two more medications to spend time on each day it has made being outside for extended periods of time enjoyable again during these months. I'd strongly recommend asking either a doctor and/or pharmacy for some advice on what might be worth trying with your particular symptoms.
@@extrastuff9463 I use an air-purifier at home. Before going outside I apply a little vaseline to the insides of my nostrils, except during the grass pollen season. I also take astaxanthin, which has made it possible for me to breathe and see during the grass pollen season. God knows what it is doing to my immune system. I had not seen any suggestion for it to be used against allergies. I just tried it as an antioxidant and found it took away my hayfever. I still rinse my eyes and face regularly as well.
You should visit south and central Texas when the Mexicans burn off their fields or drive through the south of Louisiana in October when the cane fields burn. These agricultural practices couldn't care less about where the smoke goes. I think the weather models we use for daily and weekly (beyond which anything could happen!) forecasting could model a mass of air (say it's already laden or could be loaded in the near future with field burning smoke) over the following days...forecast our air quality, I think they already do (Ozone Action Day and such). All that to say there's nothing we can do regulations wise to stop the practice or even to time it to favorable forecasts...and it helps sustain our future food! Can we convince these farmers to change their practice? I'm thinking, for examples, harvest the plant remainder (after the produce harvest) to make silage for stock feed, or somehow tear it up and plow into the soil for a slow but long lasting carbon enrichment.
So we can save an austria a year that seams worth it.
Ocean acidification too. Just saying.
3:50
ever look at what’s in your water with a microscope ?
How the hell war casualties are so low, maybe 50000 in a month, not a year
to understand why nuclear is no reliable either just look at france atm: half their nuclear power energy production capacity is down for months now with further reductions being likely. reason: design failures leading to safety problems.
France has very old reactors, If they upgraded them as time went by they could have mitigated this problem. I look at how much Safe, Clean Power France has gotten out of it's reactors and for how long as proof of concept.
@@MrJamesDoz yeah but without the import of fossil energy from other european nations france would still have an energy shortage atm. btw: they try to build new reactors but are way behind schedule. if a nation relying as much on nuclear energy as france cant build new reactors in time and within budget, can we really expect other european nations to be capable of doing so? I myself highly doubt that.
@@Marvin-ii7bh Only because France failed to do the proper upkeep at the proper intervals on the Reactors.
As long as the people of the Globe realize Man made warming is a lie, we don't control our star.
Americans, Scandinavians, and Kiwis high fiving
More Fun Climate-Coverage: Hbomberguy, UpisnotJump, SMN, OCC, Climate-Town.
So what im hearing is we need more reflective sulphates in the atmosphere
Geoengineering Aerosols is an issue
do you have the Fortitude to discuss?
Very informative video
How comes that the US is so good on that regard? 1:50
I believe it was the Clean Air Act of 1970, but I'm not sure! www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/19/climate/us-air-pollution-trump.html
they make asylum seekers waiting at mexican border blow all bad air away as prerequisite for application (cant even speak to a barrister before that). also air cannot go over the border wall mr trump erected. it's that good.
I suspect that American air pollution is less concentrated as a result of the same low-density urban sprawl that forces Americans (and Canadians) to be more car-dependant than the rest of the developed world. When Americans are at home then they're probably several miles away from the nearest busy road (the main cause of urban air pollution). And if they're near a busy road then only a small fraction of the polluting particles actually get into the air they are breathing because they're inside a car.
@@SimonClark Thanks for the source, but i am unable to pass the paywall. Also i just wanna say i really appreciate your work and what you do for society. Especially your video about nuclear power was very informative. Keep going strong !!!
I wonder if it's because we don't use diesel in passenger cars very much.
Simon have you heard of Willie Soon?
Ah, so I don't have to feel guilty about driving a 1981 VW diesel pickup! It gets 40mpg and releases sulfates to counteract warming! Jk I don't actually think I'm doing a good thing hahaha. I should probably wear an N95 while driving 🤔
1:42 North America gang
Interesting video
I'm a bit confused about why you framed the "particulate matter reflects incoming radiation" argument so categorically as a reason to not act on pollution, when the evidence for it you yourself present in this video is ambiguous at best. The paper you quoted on screen didn't find a cooling effect of "0.8C" but of "0.0-0.8C", meaning that removing all this particulate matter from the atmosphere MIGHT cause a warming of +0.8C or it might cause less warming or it might have no effect at all (that's the 0.0 part, you will have noticed). Then you go on to conflate removing existing pollution with preventing future pollution; stopping fossil fuel consumption does not mean all these particles suddenly drop out of the sky. Consider this - you explained that GHG emissions to date have caused more warming than the corresponding pollution has caused cooling (1.1C warming vs up to 0.8C cooling), by which logic if we stop burning fossil fuels the greenhouse warming we avoid would outweigh any cooling gains from the accompanying particulate emissions.
I don't understand why, in an otherwise excellent video, the one thing you chose to state with an undeserved level of confidence is the argument against your key message, and to which every one of your opposers will now cling because you yourself said it was a reason not to act.
Different pollutants have different lifetimes in the air. CO2 stays there almost forever until it gets absorbed by a plant. Particulates have a much shorter lifespan. So if you stopped all burning right now the co2 already emitted would carry on causing warming but the particulates would decrease over time increasing warming.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 assuming the particulates do cause cooling, you make a very fair point. Thank you.
We need to match every rich city with a proe city so the rich city can build up the pore one that way we may hear about the global rebinldg efroeds our money finances in the local news.
Nice
ngl, guessed it right.
Hey, I got it right at the start, woo...
ecuse me what?
You're one to talk, look at all the smoke and fire on your monitors! You pollute way more than any of my monitors ever have.
What happend to the editing? Sections like 12:27 suffer from the same as a fifthgrader Power Point. Dont Write what is Said? Otherwise good video
Actually I got it right, I knew about the 7 million deaths beforehand. EVERYONE CELEBRATE ME AND MY KNOWLEDGE
CHEER
So how does Simon cause existential fear today? oh the air and atmosphere we are surrounded by is killing us, nice.
Dying is the price of admission to life.... this is just an uncomfortable truth that our culture hates to face.
Or we go down the whole transhumanist route, but I'm not sure that will give us any more meaningful experiences....
@@MattAngiono Beep Boop
Around humans on average, not you and I specifically. Maybe a joke would lighten things up a bit! Do you want to hear a joke? Chinese environmental standards.
LOL. Laughable that in your chart usa appears to be near zero air pollution.
To make the map less red, simply increase the threshold and voila....problem solved.
Hi Simon, I had sort of worked out the bit about polution limiting global warming. It is after all like having curtains in the sky. Just consider the catestophic failure of harvests following the vocanic erruptions in Mexico in 1814.
Just to be controversial, I postulate that a (significant?) part of the hockey stick from the 1950's onwards is due to a cleaning up of the atmosphere, de sulfuring road fuel and more significantly the fall of the Soviet Union.
We have had a number of episodes of extrodinarily (in relative terms) periods of clearer air. One thinks of the grounding of airlines following the world trade centre attack and the Covid lock downs. Were these long enough to produce measureable differences in temperature? Has anyone tried to measure them.
If my grasp of thermodynamics is right (I did pass the exams) then to cure global warming the earth has to emit into space more energy than it receives (and generates internally). The electro magnetic radiation from the sun has a broad bandwidth ie lot of heat (IR) lot of vissible light lot of UV.
When it hits the ground it all pretty much turns to heat. Heat (IR) radiates from the Earth's surface into space when turned away from the sun.
More can be radiated at night by making it all warmer but that is defeating the object so maybe we need a way to radiate emr during daylight hours back toward the sun.
Thinking laterally we need a big mirror. Impractical? I have wondered if great rafts of inflatable mirrored mylar are feasible (stowed for bad weather) and moved about sa as not to damage marine life, or massive mirrors in the deserts (problems with sand storms).
How about roofing tiles with a resin surface coated with clear glass beads (like Scotchlite) which due to total internal reflection should reflect a fair proportion back into space bearing in mind that such reflectors do not produce much off beam scatter. It might reduce the need for aircon and would not concentrate heat nearby as quite a number of refective glass high rise buildings have done. I have seen glass ball mirrors seriously considered for ice fields, but dismissed as polution when snow coverers it or it melts into the sea.
Huge mirrors would be costly, have engineering challenges and probably political problems but the roofing tiles seems simple, fool proof and maybe win-win. To be effective I imagine it would need a very large number of rooves especially in the tropical regions.
We need lots of solutions however small to conquer climate change.
Highly reflective white paint on roofs may be cheaper than glass balls etc and work nearly as well. I've heard of people developing extra reflective white paint for this purpose but not anything involving glass.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191 Hi Adrian, I thought glass balls because they reflect back in the direction of illumination rather than dispersed. Just like number plates for cars. That way they would reflect straight towards the sun and not be a hazzard to any nearby.
I have seen a few things about large buildings with refective glass to keep the insides cool that reflect down on the roads and other building with disasterous results. Hum thinking laterally, that might be a good place for solar panels!
And it's going to get worse thanks to the US Supreme Court
I'm in Australia, but my understanding is that the US Supreme Court has stopped the EPA from imposing pollution limits on states. Hence coal rich states like Virginia can burn coal like there's no tomorrow, hmm Brillant
I bring unfortunate news. Not more than half a day following this video did the US supreme court make another appalling decision. This time it has stripped much of the regulatory power granted to the EPA from the clean air act. That graph is about to get redder :/
@@pauljackson2409 I'm not about to get into a UA-cam comment debate, so CO2 aside, there are many non-CO2 things that are released from combustion which are most definitely pollutants. All the small particulates that kill the estimated 7 million people globally. This video is not even about CO2 and the EPA has a much broader scope.
The major setback here is that now for issues "outside the fence", the EPA now has to go through congress for any "major questions". So now if for example West Virginia coal plants decide to do something which is vague deemed a "major question" , we're going to have to put up with inhaling that exhaust while the EPA waits on congressional permission to do something about it
Nice Ben Shapiro gag 😂
It's mind boggling how people whine and point to nuclear energy for two mayor accidents that caused relatively few deaths, while fossils kill millions each year.
They associate it with bombs
@@qjtvaddict The point still stands those nukes cause less deaths than fossil every year.
You are not right about this . Air pollution from fossil fuels may (does) cause death, premature or otherwise, but nuclear energy presents much more grave danger as it CREATES NUCLEAR WASTE . If you studied a little, you would know that what you are trying to promote here is much, much, worse. The problem to solve here, is NOT how to make the situation MORE environmentally hazardous.
@@sneakypress Which is contained and handled properly and stored rather than be released to the atmosphere for all of us to breath like fossils do.
sounds a lot like global wealth transfer with out asking the peoples of said countries, also unless you are going to get USA and China to stop polluting its all for naught, China has upped their coal usage by 300m tonnes this year alone. Ill keep my tax dollars thanks