100 solutions to reverse global warming | Chad Frischmann 

You're omnipresent in comment section man

Jesus Christ, could you please get Trump impeached.

Ma savioooorrr

@Twenty one Vultures Well, without global warming there will be no rapture...

Ok I see you everywhere dude

buying stuff we don't need is the Basis of Capitalism

Buying stuff we don't need is the basis for unhappiness. You become a slave to your possessions.

*buys bubble wrap just to pop *ok*

@Matt Roszak “need” is a big word. Frugality is always solid advice but “to each his own” trumps it!!

It would've been nice if I had gotten to make solar panels in high-school tech class when I was in high-school. On the plus side lots of schools now run on solar.

Thank you

Me too!

Minnah & Alex The only solution that anyone should expect to happen is putting a 2,000 km diameter mirror at L1, the point of gravitational stability between the Earth and the sun that continues to remain directly between the Earth and the sun arbitrarily far into the future. This can be done by any country that feels directly threatened by global warming because it only involves building a 1 km tall rail gun into a mountain next to a power plant to keep shooting high mirror (payload) to fuel ratio rockets that are just there to use the vast initial velocity from the rail gun and a few course corrections to get to L1, which while that looks hard, is extremely easy relative to getting everyone on Earth to act against their own self-interest by reducing CO2 emissions or continuously going through the extremely energy intensive process of getting the final product of a chemical reaction (CO2) back into fuel. Also, the extremely energy intensive process he described in the video is required by the rules of chemistry to require at least 5,000 times more energy than putting this mirror in place. This energy his plan would require has a real cost, and even if you are using solar panels to get this energy, those solar panels will increase Earth’s albedo value, the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, which inherently increases the temperature of Earth. Building windmills to get this energy necessarily involves pouring vast quantities of concrete and reducing iron and aluminum from their natural oxides, which itself takes energy. The energy that would be required for his plan could far more efficiently solve the problem faced directly by humanity of global warming with 99.98% left over to help humans with their personal lives if used to build a 2000 km diameter mirror at L1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by itself is actually beneficial to humans by allowing crops to grow better, and so humans should and will continue to release more CO2 than is taken back. This is because by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching Earth in the first place with a mirror, we can keep the global economy going and keep the ice caps, the only things for which we were thinking about taking drastic measures to protect. The slightly different weather we would end up getting can be solved in the future with better climate models and using that same rail gun to place more mirrors in space wherever necessary to avoid the worst storms.

EXACTLY. this green growth bullcrap is not viable. We need to learn to be part of nature as a positive force, not as living outside of it more and more. Growth, would it be "green(-washing)", won't help on the long-term

We have to use Ballot and Wallet to show what we support! Lets do it!

in our world solutions need to be economically viable to be acted upon.

those everyday solutions make a huge impact though because of compounding

All about that profit Al Gore...$$$

Id imagine its not as simple when you look at the global economy as a whole. He assumes the economy will stay stable until 2050. WRONG. The economy is built to rise and crash. This is an era all its own. To believe it will be a stable utopia is a mistake. 30 years is a long time and theres no telling what kind of violence or dystopian fortune is ahead. Im not sure if we can make it to the hundred year mark without another world war.

@@waynealan3067 its not the planet that needs saving genius its us from our own pollution. close the garage door with your SUV and see how it feels

@@waynealan3067 al gore has the money to buy air filtration and clean water, he can fly his private jet to any climate in the world and how does it make sense to do more of what china is doing? they poison us so you want to poision yourself? ok

They ARE leading emitters, don't know why it's not on the list here... Maybe because it's a list of "implementable solutions" rather than "biggest polluters"

I actually agree, cars alone are disasterous. Yet, they did put highspeed rail powered by electricity as something that reduces emissions. Something like highspeed rail, having to do all the policy to encourage less car use is certainly more expensive than the top solutions and probably takes longer. I would say that these solutions are top priority, while all the infrastructure naturally and in the background has to keep up, but it will not go as fast as these top solutions.

I saw your hashtag and downloaded right away

I know people like the idea of protecting farmers but its a dying industry and drones are taking over, people need to start organic farming and composting in their yards it needs to be standard practice to at least produce a portion of your daily greens and herbs its much more beneficial on a wide scale to convert our yards and farming will sustain population growth or will become protected land.

Agreed. Down with animal agriculture. Unsustainable nonsense! We can all do our thing by purchasing products that are sustainable and boycotting those destroying the planet. The documentary "Cowspiracy" is a good starting point if this interest any of you. We are all voting 3 times a day with our fork. "Extinction Rebellion" is also a great group trying to create structural changes to save the planet. Check them out!

That would be very difficult to implement given the corrupt government systems of the world. Any rebate to the consumers would likely be stolen by some government institution then spent on a private company as per the usual cronyism.

​@@elinope4745 Thanks for replying to the idea rather than my example. The distrust of our elected representation is why progress is not being made on this and many other issues. The establishment of trust is the solution we should all be working towards. Unfortunately, more and more in the modern world we are selling peoples attention. The idea of increasing the cost to do things that harm people as a group but not the individual then returning the funds collected equally to all the individuals within the group is a good catalyst for positive change. This requires trust and trust takes time to establish. With so many in politics, the media and corporations after peoples attention, trust is elusive.

The missing part of the plan is Capitalism.

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex

Exactly.

I think he overestimated family planning (though still useful). Countries that emit the most, already have really low birth-rates. Countries with the highest birth-rates emit very little (the bottom 50% of the world, emit less than 10% of greenhouse gasses iirc). When countries get wealthier birth rates tend to decline by themselves. So while it might help, the impact wouldn't be much. We should still advocate for family planning and education of girls though, because it's about human rights. Overpopulation is not the problem at this point in time, over-consumption in wealthy countries is. We could cut emissions much more by consuming less and consuming more sustainably. Policies like right-to-repair laws, taxing large emitters, wealth redistribution, better recycling methods, restrains on advertising, transition to more durable products and packaging etc. could help with that.

@@KarlSnarks in 1994, as declaration of the Cairo conference, the attending countries established 6,5 billion people as the limit for a sustainable world, we are dangerously close to 8 billion

Just because of the nuclear waste we don't know what to do with

@@snowcold5932 nuclear waste has absolutely no impact on climate change and it's only the politicians who don't know what to do with it... our scientists actually do know what to do with it and that's exactly what they do... dry cask storage on site where it doesn't hurt anybody... for comparison, air pollution kills 7 million a year. Merry Christmas:)

@@mrkackwurst Yeah people just can't get over the small issue of the waste storage despite the fact we have this enormous issue called climate change which we're gonna struggle to mitigate at all without nuclear power

they under implemented nuclear in their calculations. People dont like nuclear, thats all. Nuclear and moslty 4th generation Plants could save us waaaay over 100 Gtons till 2050 of carbon emissions. They are just bit docile about the idea bc of backlash.

@@doritoification The biggest problem with nuclear power is the time it takes to build a plant. The lead time for a new one is a decade at a bare minimum and that can stretch to two. Add in the fact that many of the plants in current service need to be decommissioned and you can see why the nuclear industry does not expect to be supplying more than 12% of global electricity needs by 2050. We need workable solutions before 2050. The time to start building nuclear power stations which would solve the problem was during the 1990s but nuclear power was much more expensive to generate so governments were reluctant to sink money into vast fleets of expensive power stations that were not going to be competitive. In hindsight this appears foolish but given the electoral cycle, the unpopularity of nuclear power and basic economics it made perfect sense at the time.

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex....

20 coming attractions? Care to elaborate just a little?

@@GrumpySouthbayBRAT Solutions, which are not possible right now, but might become in near future. Like capturing carbon directly from the air.

@@RobertHildebrandt "I capture carbon from the air all the time, but sadly I keep releasing more of it than I took in"-Sad Humans

Awesome

what if you draw with acid?

Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans.

So a marker?

D E E P

Keep your hopes medium??

Who do you think is making the choices that create the conditions for Climate Change? WE! CONSUMERS!

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex...

@Mike C of course it will happen in future because when people understand vegetables and fruits and trees and forest actually save their lives and children they must be do it in a natural way..... It's just a time to feel deeply

@Mike C if we believe we can save humanity and ourselves future

will you?

Don't think about others, start by yourselves and encourage others to do the same.

Education for women and girls is spreading, along with family planning. Refrigeration methods will eventually shift because of cost. Various forms of agriculture will get more technical and competitive to reduce cost. Renewable energy is now one of the least expensive forms of energy. The changes are already happening. The question is: are they happening fast enough?

10,000 Subscribers With No Videos Challenge, Is that Mr.Bean?

Not man made. The climate is all ways changing no matter what. But there are bigger forces at work. And it ain't fake jesus or fake god.

Yes

10,000 Subscribers. It wouldn’t be a climate if it didn’t change.

I think you have to restate that question, because that's obvious

totally- and go plant-based

That's the kind of thing uninformed people say. Planting trees will not solve the problem. Yeah, it might help a tiny bit, but it's not the solution.

That’s not enough to stop climate devastation.

It'll not reverse climate change

Trees sequester carbon and in turn mitigate the effects of climate change, the video touched upon this in terms of forest conservation. It may not be enough to completely reverse global warming but it has a HUGE impact and helps a lot! Switch your search engine from google to ecosia! They plant trees for every coupe of searches and don’t track you like other search engines! ♥️

Agreed

I’m already on it by rooting as many plant cuttings as I can

Growth is accounted for -- he talks about it in the talk. Experts who spend years crunching the numbers on this aren't gonna miss something that a RU-vid comes up with in a few minutes.

@@dr.zoidberg8666 No it isn't. The only time growth is even brought up is when he talks about feeding the growing population. I'm talking about growth -- in all forms of consumption -- outstripping conservation gains.

Depends on reforestation efforts, since they at least temporarily bind CO2, but you're right. We can only do what is possible now and hope for refined future technologies for the rest, and not just keep going and rely 100% on the future of science.

@@duschinger I have no exact numbers but given how many billions of barrels of oil we combusted in the last century I believe that the worlds forests could hardly even absorb ten percent of manmade CO² in the air. Better than nothing I guess, but far from what we would need.

Forests and woods

jmkbartsch still far better than any other presented alternative.

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex...

I believe there´s a book called Drawdown where everything is explained with more detail: www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehensive-Proposed-Reverse-Warming/dp/0143130447/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=drawdown&qid=1593036597&sr=8-1

Yes agreed. No change can be brought out in a night, the transition from depletion to sustainability to regeneration is a slow process.

This is why the only real solution to global warming is to put a mirror 2000 km across at L1, the point of gravitational stability between the Earth and the sun, as this can be accomplished by several countries that could otherwise be destroyed by melting ice caps together funding a 1 km tall rail gun built into a mountain next to a power plant to shoot rockets that are mostly mirror in an easily correctable trajectory to L1. No one has to work against their self interest, no costly regulations need to be put in place and the economy moves forward as always.

Nonsanity crazy to see you in a non minecraft video

That's simply not true. Industry replaces one methodology with new ones all the time, changing the players, creating new industries and sometimes shutting down old ones .. all the while the economy chugs along. People used to get all their videos from Blockbuster ... now, not so much. Shell will likely be one of the leading global energy providers 40 years from now .. it just won't be based on oil. It is true that it is a slow process .. but fortunately, we aren't starting today. People have been working on the transitions discussed in this video for decades in many cases.

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex maybe....!?

Emphasis on mitigation is most important. Also, helping “skeptics” to understand the science of how the ‘greenhouse effect’ is about the blanketing effect of carbon dioxide on infrared radiation. This necessitates an expansion of our approach to adult education. One way is high quality videos with lab demonstrations showing the reality of CO2 having a blanketing effect on infrared radiation.

@@samlair3342 GHG theory is proven wrong, i can show you,

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex....

Because they are planning on taking the richest people on earth to move there and let all of us behind dying in agony !

I disagree. Spending money on science and technology and preparing to leave earth one day is perfectly fine with me. The earth will one day not be habitable I hope it's not because of us humans and global warming but just one big meteor, the outburst of one of the supervulcanos or the switch of the earth's magnetic field will possibly extinct human kind. So spending money and time on (space) science is not the problem. Imagine the billions spend on the military now that's a problem in my opinion.

No one is really spending money on space, and even if we were, I would be all for it, Don’t take money away from space and science, take money away from pointless nuclear weapons and endless wars! Colonising Mars, alongside global warming, should be at the top of humanity’s priority list.

the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex...

Sadly, everyone I try and talk to about this subject do not care. Such denial and apathy!!!

The elephant in the room ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oMozyspFuBM.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cw2Wm8T6tio.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LLCF7vPanrY.html watershedsentinel.ca/articles/the-militarys-carbon-bootprint www.athena21.org/in-english If RU-vid algorithm does not screw up and you receive notification and approve, please share. People must know. Thanks

I largely agree that we *should* have put in a lot more nuclear power -- it should have been put in a few decades ago, when the cost of wind, solar and storage tech was orders of magnitude higher than it is now. Today, solar is literally the cheapest power you can buy in large portions of the world. We've already reached peak demand on coal (2013), largely driven by the falling cost in solar and wind, and they are still getting cheaper as economies of scale ramp up. Nuclear may yet play a role, but the window where grid-scale nuclear power is needed is rapidly vanishing.

AmmarraKKKa... teh Country that has had THE most Nuclear accidents, preaching to the world that Nuclear is safe... Well, neWSFLaSH: the cost of ONE nuclear plant will allow hundreds of thousands of solar panels to be built, installed and either grid-connected of fed into close-circuit hydro storage and backup generation, not even necessary to add batteries... Then there is wind generation that is now supplying much of Scandinavia, the uk and Hollad, and beginning to make a difference in other regions too...

"If you think that nuclear is unsafe, think again. Nuclear has a 50+ year track record of safety that beats even solar and wind energy." WHAAAAAAAAT??? You are working for the nuclear industry, clearly! PLLLLLLLLEEEEEAAAAASE! READ before making such idiotic comments! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

While complete Nuclear Power is a nice idea in theory, renewable energy resources are better. Nuclear power is extremely expensive compared to solar energy.

nuclear isnt just for lowering CO2 emissions. Nuclear is also preferable of future energy needs. People talk about using renewables like we wont increase energy needs in the futures. Thats unrealistic. WE NEED NUCLEAR

Random Schmid yes the video should be name 100 steps to stop climate change

Yep

I wouldn’t say 100 steps, rather 1 solution with 100 steps but 20 are optional

True, but educated women (and people in general) are harder to control.

@@KarlSnarks Exactly. It's truly sad and pathetic.

It sounds like a phenomenal idea. Do you believe that you could share a link of sorts to your blueprint? As we get closer and closer to the inevitability of a climate cataclysm- grimly, those well educated cognize that we have passed a tipping-point in which if we have any hope of avoiding all known planetary life diminishing, we’re going to have to act much further that just reducing. It would be nice if I could study this plan; it sounds plausible and interesting, and could fundamentally mean hope.

Hi Jon. Like Angelina said, your idea sounds very promising. Would you consider sharing your blueprint in an open-source way, so that other brilliant minds can develop it further?

Hello, would you consider mailing me, i've got an idea about a website. Carolienserno@gmail.com

The deserts are actually really important for Oceanic life. Plankton needs iron to grow and the only thing that provides it in the middle of the ocean is dust from deserts.

lol..

Do we know what to do with the waste?

@@lo-ero As long as you store it safely it's fine.

Nuclear should be top of the list that's the fastest way to get the power consumption we need without polluting and increasing global warming

Water vapour is a way worse greenhouse gas

@@carpetsnake83 we need to ban water!

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex...

Not that simple. 1) CONSUMPTION; Wealthy nations consume several HUNDRED times more than poorest ones, meaning that 1 American consumes over 100 times what someone from Burkina faso uses in a year. 2) TYPES of consumption - heavy on meat, dairy, manufactured luxury and consumer goods, with high demand for electricity generated from Fossil Fuels; or mineral water abstracted by the likes of Nestlé and Coca Cola, robbing whole Countries of fossil water, the ONLY reserves in times of drought 3) METHODS or production, e.g. applying Hydrocarbon-derived NPK fertilisers tha get washed out into waterways, causing eutrophication (and consequent putrefaction that emits huge amounts of CH4, hs2, NO2 and CO2) I could go on, but I doubt most Climate Change Deniers here are willing to open their closed minds. The problem is not just ignorance, but the stubborn REFUSAL of some to accept science because they don't like what it is telling us...

The solution to stopping climate change should not be killing people

The misogyny in this video is just...

lol gigawatts of co2????

Scientists estimate that 50-80% of the oxygen production on Earth comes from the ocean.(it is still not much over 50% so that the reforestation is definitely the solution, besides reducing pollution).

mercury: "mom please pick me up I'm scared..."

More like fusion energy. It's still really difficult to achieve but still easrier than dyson spheres which will remain science fiction for a long time

@@flaviobiancolli9569 yeah, also water is just a tad bit more abundant and realistic than taking apart a planet.

In general, educated people are likely to earn more money which is likely to allow them to live less impactful lives (buy solar to put on your roof, shop at the local farmer's market instead of Walmart, own a more expensive electric car instead of a cheaper gas car, etc.) -- but also, it is educated people who innovate & implement solutions to global warming. More innovators means that global warming is solved more quickly (which translates to fewer gigatonnes of CO2 being put into the air) -- & the largest untapped demographic in many parts of the world is women.

Best answer I've read to this question yet. I'm still rather curious how they got the exact 59.60 Gigaton figure though. @@dr.zoidberg8666

@@AdamBechtol educated women have less kids

The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex