Carbon Offsets: The Big Lie | David Detzler | TEDxHayesStreet
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2021
- David Detzler is a degreed chemist and 45-year veteran in the automotive industry, Mr. Detzler offers a unique insider’s view, that challenges his industry and us to get serious in our fight against Climate Change. In his his talk, Mr. Detzler points to the increasing popularity of Carbon Offsets as just another example of an ineffective policy that allows us to continue polluting. Mr. Detzler argues that only real solution is to rid ourselves of our addiction to fossil fuels. David Detzler is a degreed chemist with 45-years of experience in the automotive industry. He attended Michigan State University as a National Merit Scholar and at the age of 20 was invited to take the rare step of conducting research along-side doctoral students and was recognized for his senior thesis identifying the dangers of the chemical 2-4-dichlorophenoxyacetic, what the world would later come to know as “Agent Orange”
After University Mr. Detzler become a material’s engineer and later a senior manager at Chrysler Automotive. While with Chrysler Mr. Detzler would research and shepherd in many advancements to the world of coatings, including the first to introduce powder coating (an environmentally safe industrial paint) to the American automotive market.
Mr. Detzler continues today in his work pressing Automotive companies and industries as whole to move towards more environmentally conscious manufacturing methods and materials. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
If this guy had read any IPCC or UN reports he would know that to meet net Zero we need to both radically reduce emissions AND remove carbon from the atmosphere. Its not one or the other. Even if we rapidly transition away from fossil fuels for energy and transport there is still going to be super high levels of CO2 that need removing.
Rofl
Define super high.
Bot
Correct, finnally someone gets it.
And for economics some carbon avoiding is not suitable for the moment, it takes time to develop some technologies and make it profitable and we don't have time. So carbon offsetting is a good way as well. Maybe a palliative way, but that's still a good way.
Great great talk! Thank you for the information
Brilliant talk, thank you so much for going the extra mile with your explanations. Completely agree that we need absolute zero. There is a report bu UK fires called absolute zero m detailing what uk needs to do, we’ll worth a look.
Great explanation although I feel it would help immensely to show a simple visualization along with the explanations of the chemistry.
Would have understood better if there were some charts and pictures to explain. For example a balance sheet to show where and how much carbon(carbon dioxide, etc) is produced/generated against how much/where this is captured/sequestered/locked up.
Nevertheless it was quite a surprised to hear that we can never use trees to capture all the CO2 produced...If this is indeed true, then carbon trading by planting trees is just a hoax?
Very informative. Would have been great using percentages more, and relying less on actual numbers for us who use the metric system or don't know the magnitudes of certain elements
We should go with both measures
Continue to develop clean energy on the broad scale but continue to replant lost natural habitats which creates oxygen and living space for us and earth wildlife .
How do we top up EVs with solar and wind alone? The equation is incomplete TBH, and California knows it best...
We need to switch to renewable. I thinkbcarbon capture could also be useful.
This is very informative. I love learning about carbon offset specially now that I just learned about this through carb0nfi. To those who will offset their carbon footprints will get incentivize.
I’d go for trams and trains, not for e-cars.
What about all the mining needed for renewal energy and the destruction of the environment where those installation are built, take for example river dumps all the people displaced, animal habitat plus methane it gives out
Less than the damage of oil, coal, gas - and without most of the emissions. No one said switching to renewables is perfect, it’s just better.
Thought the explanation of carbon offsets well put together! Some correction to the statement about carbon capture. It is proven and in industrial operation for over a decade. Furthermore, carbon capture can be used for capturing biogenic CO2 emissions as well. This is a pathway to go truly net negative.
There’s not enough mining. Run the numbers on the cost and effect of that for the scheme.
Interesting that he didn't mention nuclear energy. Other than hydroelectric power (which requires very specific locations on earth), renewables like wind and solar are unable to provide baseload power. Only nuclear energy can reliably overcome this issue, anywhere on earth, without producing carbon emissions.
I read that in the USA, 80% of the electricity for the electric vehicles he proposes, is generated from fossil fuel energy. More EV's = more CO2.
6:34 the cameraman got lost in the explanation
Like many commentaries, this is far too simplistic and presents a false dichotomy. Of course, there needs to be a switch from fossil fuels to clean energy and then there's all the industrial emissions to deal with. But if you accept the IPCC report, cutting emissions alone will not avoid dangerous climate change - we also need to draw down atmospheric emissions. CCS tech will take time to be viable, but there are plenty of natural sequestration approaches.
The big question is, who's going to pay for that (and pay for stopping emissions from land use changes and deforestation)? Governments won't, philanthropy offers a fraction of what's needed, NGOs like Greenpeace have spent half a century making a lot of noise but achieving very little, so it has to come from the private sector. And for that to work, there needs to be a market based system that incentivises the climate finance needed for that level of investment. Carbon markets are one option. They're not perfect, need a ton of scrutiny and oversight to weed out the crooks, but it is a channel for funds to flow, especially to the global south.
The explanation was good. But where did he say carbon offset is a big lie??
He said
1. the effect of carbon offset is comparatively small, at least in US settinh, which doesn't mean it's a lie.
2. land is limited in US to do carbon farming.
He said the best way is to stop fossil fuels and transition to renewables.
The explanation is good. The title of this video howevre is misleading, is false and idiotic to put it mildly.
CO2 doesn't last for 100 years unless it is dissolved into sea water where it has no effect on the atmosphere. Natural CO2 last 4.1 years on average and only the very small % of man made CO2 stay longer.
"CO2 doesn't last for 100 years unless it is dissolved into sea water where it has no effect on the atmosphere. Natural CO2 last 4.1 years on average and only the very small % of man made CO2 stay longer." No, most CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia and if it gets absorbed by the oceans, it causes ocean acidification.
About 34% of the CO2 not in the atmosphere came from human activity.
It’s just not that simple 😅
It’s not going to change for at least another 100 years in my estimation. It’s November 27/23 as I write this and the information I’m hearing the last 6 months is that EV sales are crashing!
I’ve been to 3rd world countries and they only wish to have even a little fridge, a toaster, an ac unit, let alone a nice car 😅
We can all talk big talk in North America about EVs , our big houses, our guzzling cars for the last one hundred years 😊
We in North America going to tell the family in the hills of Peru you have to build a windmill to toast your arepa Jajajajajaja 😂
Try driving in the capital city of Bogota Colombia . Not many there think or care about the belching fumes from their vehicles! People just trying to survive. Tuff to impose our rules to people that would love to have half of what we have because of our fossil fuels 😂 !
Also those people I mentioned are probably 50% of the human population.
Cheers everyone from western Canada 👋🏻
This is old information. If you gave this talk 25 years ago it might have meant something.
Stupidity and being a Alarmist when the Wind and Solar are not up to being reliable and still need nature gas turbine generation power plants to offset the low power from wind and solar not producing enough electricity. And wind and solar is killing off natural eco systems of streams and creeks from construction pollution of solar and wind farms. And how much CO2 did manufacturing solar and wind farms components ? With other natural eco systems destroyed for cobalt and other minerals needed to mining for components? How much CO2 for mining, hauling, and manufacturing parts and components for wind generators and solar panels ? I rather go nuclear power a lot more power and reliable and doesn't use as much land and wreck as many eco systems to build and mine. And we already have some old mines still in action so not new eco systems being wrecked. Don't need a carbon tax. Cause the Climate hoax been going on for 183 years.
ℹ️
Don't agree with him
The decline of TED began with TEDx