Carbon Dioxide Removal from our oceans. Can we achieve 20 BILLION tonnes per year? 

"Are you going to clean that up?" Applies to the whole world, really...

One simple thing we should all be repeating over and over is that warm oceans hold less carbon than cold ones. We accelerate return of our absorbed pollution by tolerating more warming.

It would have been useful if the cost for this scheme was expressed in $/ton of CO2 sequestration. As it presented, I can't tell if this is a cheap or expensive way to approach this problem.

hol-up. 1.4 trillion for a world wide effect? That's dirt cheap. The US, China, or the EU could do it unilaterally if they wanted. If the price tag were to get split up internationally, This could definitely get done.

The Netherlands, Holland, have been fighting the encroachment of the sea for many years. They have windmills for pumping water. More recently they have invested in electricity generating wind turbines. It would be interesting to investigate if the calcium carbonate could be used to automatically build sea defences as it was being created. I'm sure the Netherlands government would be interested in investigating the possibility of doing this if they have not already done so!

As part of this, I would highly recommend looking into GreenWave and the work Bren Smith is doing in growing a large community of small-scale farmers that carbon sequester via seaweed growth alongside mussels and oysters as a business model.

I've heard this one before. Technologically possible solution. No mechanism in capitalism to incentivize it. No major government willing to go against the short-term interests of capital.

As always, no silver bullet. We don't necessarily need $2 trillion of these systems. They have to be part of a larger system of multiple approaches combined to achieve the same effect.

This general process has fascinated me for a while (its very similar to the Biorock/Seacrete/Electrified Reef system). The primary magnesium mineral product created is hydromagnesite, which is used in fire suppression systems. If there were a market for the minerals being generated by this capture process, it would go a long way toward spurring adoption. I just wrote an article about how you could use the mineral as a coating around magnesium powder as a way to safely use the metal as an energy carrier and hydrogen producer.

Thanks for the informative video! Wow, it really is a lot cheaper to avoid emitting a tonne of carbon, than to emit and then sequester it... We *really* need international carbon pricing

A big thank you from myself and my environmental sustainability class in our first year of uni. This summery along with others on your channel have been a huge help towards furthering our understanding :)

Would be good to see an update on this based on some of the work Heimdall have been doing. Looks like they're estimating $450/ton of CO2 removal.

Thank you for putting this out there! I love this technique a lot, especially because you could produce carbon neutral cement with all that limestone. By producing and selling the hydrogen and the cement, a plant could help offset its costs.

Seems that the best way is to simply stop burning stuff in the first place.

I like this better than anything that keeps CO2 as a gas, that can leak out eventually. Also the infrastructure would be used even after we get to "net zero", to clean up the mess and reduce ocean's acidity. I don't think we would do it on such a massive scale though, it seems more logical to bet on 10 different things at a 10 times smaller scale each. But like was said in the video, what's really needed is to really invest in large scale prototypes to see if it works or not, even taking some degree of gamble in the process.

Best science/planetary health channel of all. Thank you.

An advantage of the solid production is that it is easy for the bean counters to measure. An observable process also helps the multitudes who don't trust nature to do it's thing in private.

For me, the greatest challenge is the greed included int our economic model! As you mentionned it, if our governments announce the use of such methods, soon we would see some "Greenwashing" tempting to say that we all can continue to consume at the same rate!

....always blessed by 'just have a think' info, you are a gifted presenter, thank you for sharing ...richard

It's always good to just have a think! 😃

Let’s do water capture, biological water capture and air capture. If one of them is shown to be having unforeseen consequences, ramp up the other two.

It's so encouraging to see research into such matters is being undertaken. This tech seems to make sense on many levels. Thanks JHAT for keeping us in the loop!!

Great post my friend. I appreciate all your efforts to keep my eyes open to all these developments.

Excellent video as usual - thank you!

What about making building materials out of the solidified carbon end product? Then it could be sold, at least partly offsetting the cost of solidifying it.

This method would cause a depletion of minerals in the ocean such as magnesium and calcium, which might affect sea life negatively. However, I'm not sure that the scale of the depletion would have a barely noticeable, moderate, or disastrous affect. As with many of these proposals, we should consider doing *all* of the reasonably good ones, not just putting all of our eggs in one basket, and then praying for divine providence that the side affects on the ecosystem, economy, etc. are not too devasting... if we have a many-pronged approach, we can shut down those that are causing large problems, while still having other effective solutions operational.

Another brilliant video. You summarise the science beautifully, and I loved the touch of humour. I wish I could afford to sponsor your series. The best I can do is “like” (love) them, turn on notifications, and subscribe to the channel. Keep going you good thing.

I enjoyed the clever comment of the lady in the background asking you to clean up the mess.

We, the people, need to put a lot of pressure on our leaders to get these things done. Now.

Ok... I quote "It will consume more than 20PWh (T=10^15) of electricity". In 2018 world's electricity consumption was 22 315 TWh (T=10^12), there is a small gap of roughly 1000 between these 2 figures... It means that to implement this "solution" we need to increase the world electricity production by 1000... See where I'm going with this?

Great channel. Please keep up the great work and keep banging the drum! Reduce Reuse recycle!

Brilliant as always I Love the Ocean 🌊

This is the most detailed and honest solution description I've seen so far. It is also the most realistic technical solution. As far as the cost goes, as long as we value our survival in monetary terms we cannot afford to survive. I suspect this one will get built at least in prototype and perhaps on a larger scale though maybe not until we stop worrying about the economic cost. Of course, you could compare its cost with the cost of not doing it and get a very reasonable ROI. This is definitely a keeper though I think more work needs to be done on the Chlorine and Hydrogen waste issue, and how to distribue the calcium carbonate so that it doesn't just accumulate in the extraction area. Imaging tons of this stuff just clogging up the intake pipes.

Ok, so, chemistry and all that again... Chemist here, having some notes. You correctly pointed out that by electrolysis of saltwater, chlorine would be produced, which is supposed to be absorbed by active carbon and removed from the process. Coating the anode would not change anything about that. So, besides the fact that this would hardly work to keep the chlorine bound for ever, I don't think you made any calculations about how many Active Carbon would be needed to do that. Because for each CO2 (from carbonic acid, H2CO3) to absorb, two hydrogens would be generated, and thus, one molecule of Chlorine (Cl2) would be formed. As Carbonate and Cl2 have _roughly_ the same mass, it means: To bind 20 billion tons of carbonate, you'd produce 20 billion tons of Chlorine gas (actually even more) per year, which has to be absorbed. And to do so with active carbon, this could easily add up to 100 billion tons or more of toxic waste. Where do you get that active carbon from? Coking wood and producing even more CO2? And where would you put all that toxic waste? So, I think it's easy to see that this approach is not useful by any means. Except... ...yes, except there will be a way _not_ to produce Chlorine by the electrolysis, but Oxygen! This would need a very special anode material which maybe has yet to be developed. But without that, the electrolysis approach will end up in a bigger catastrophe than it is allegedly acting against.

Please continue to investigate the incredible and almost infinite potential of soil to act as a carbon/CO2 sponge. ( Regenerative agriculture. )

The Significant Other, partner of Dave Borlace "Are you gonna clean that up?" and the following exasperated "Yes" is my favourite scene ever on this channel! Sorry, that may show how shallow I am, but I loved it!

Thanks for the video! I'm curious about how the chlorine could be removed and neutralised, it seams a big thing to me.

Excellent. The concept can be expanded to include fission nuclear power to run it and adding ability to filter lithium, uranium, and so on from the sea water as it is processed.

Awesome ! Thank you, this encouraged me

Thank you so much for you work! You give me a little bit of hope back with each video, in a mature, balanced way. There seems to be a way out, perhaps.

I always find your videos very interesting! You mention cleaning up chlorine produced from electrolysis of seawater on an industrial scale. I've had this idea for years but came up against the amount of chlorine produced when applying electrolysis to sea water. My thoughts were, how can we convert into energy, the extreme pressures created at depth by water. What I came up with was, electrolysis of water at depth would naturally produce gases under pressure. If the oxygen component was allowed to expand as it reached the surface it would increase in volume and could be used to drive turbines to produce electricity which would be feed back down into the electrolysis process If the energy required was greater than what the oxygen turbines could produce, this could be supplement by other green energy or even a proportion of the hydrogen produced from the electrolysis. The result would be green hydrogen and if use at sea, chlorine, which would need to be processed. I also wondered if this whole process could be tacked onto fresh water hydro projects, if they had sufficient fall and pressure. Which would eliminate the chlorine problem. Keep up the excellent work, you are making a difference!

This is an interesting idea;however, there are a few concerns that I have not seen any discussion. If we take calcium (~400 ppm in seawater) and magnesium (~1200 ppm in seawater) , we will be removing a beneficial mix of minerals that are used by many marine animals and plants. We need to be careful not to create another problem. Also, many have suggested using the solids for concrete. Again this is an interesting idea; however, to make concrete, you take calcium carbonate, heat it up using natural gas to drive off, what for it, carbon dioxide. You have actually added more CO2 to the atmosphere. In addition, much of the solids generated would contain magnesium carbonate, which will affect the quality of the concrete to some degree.

_"Our Spaceship's about to crash!_ _"Look at the instruments. Data are clear!"_ _We need to deploy the parachute NOW!"_ - --"Ah, no. The button's all the way over there. And parachutes cost money. Think about the effects on our budget. Plus effort? Be sensible." _"But the spaceship costs a LOT more money than a parachute! And we need to be alive to produce either!"_ ---"Ah, but that only costs money in the FUTURE. Just sit tight. If it makes you feel better, we'll adopt a "concerned" outlook. Oh look, there's my house." ... This is a recurring feeling regarding climate change. A not-so Merry-Go-Round. I really hope people will start moving in an actual direction. We need to be building all of these, as prototypes, and see which one works.

Ooh, I like the new logo! 😲

Assuming this technology becomes widely implemented, might it be worthwhile to transport the solid carbon to land areas, such as, but not necessarily limited to, deserts, in order to build up or restore some of these depleted soils so that plant life can once again gain a foothold and contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere? I'm thinking this solid carbon could be used in "Green Belt" initiatives around the world.

I am wondering if the carbon removed from ocean water in the process at the start of your story has any use as an agricultural input. Calcium carbonate Calcium bicarbonate ......apparently I need about 1 ton per ac on my 160ac patch of dirt. If it is the same or a like chemical compound there might be a commercial use for the stuff. Certainly a better use than just dropping it back into the oceans IMO Sea weed/kelp is a wonderful fertilizer too.....and it seem so be cheaper and thus easier to start up/ramp up than building these plants to remove carbon from the oceans At the end of the day yes we will need to work with nature. Sea weed/kelp might just be the natural way to go all the way around might as well make it a win [no trillion dollar cost] win [less inputs steel concrete copper etc etc] win a marketable product that will both help solve food insecurity as more and more of our agricultural zones are hit by drought

Thank you for sharing this information with us 🙋🏼‍♀️

I just love Daveday, I mean Sunday's 👍😂 even after a devastating few days on a personal level, your video engages, educates and entertains me in such a way that just for that few moments, I can feel positive about mankind and the efforts of so many unheralded individuals, who are working away tirelessly trying to save our planet 👍😊👌Thank you for your positive weekly messages Dave and for your wonderful dry humour 😂 keep up the brilliant work my friend 👍😊👌

Thank you for this video! You cover the subject so well it's hard to find anything to talk about. ;) It sounds wonderful. An industrial, _realistic_ way to remove huge amounts of CO2 from the ocean, and eventually the air as well. Unlike other methods of carbon sequestration this taps into a natural planetary cycle, so there's a place for the carbon to go where it won't immediately come back up again. I'm suspicious of carbon capture methods that try to stuff billions of tons of gas back into geologic formations - because that kind of storage gets less efficient the more you do it. As the CO2 concentration increases it will find or force open every small crack and come back to the surface. By contrast this single step carbon process locks the carbon into mineral form and sends the rocks tumbling to the bottom of the sea, where they can be slowly covered by sand and remain locked away for a future geologic era. If it's purely an economic problem, surely we can solve that. The problem of course is that it didn't cost anything to emit all those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for all those years, and we have to pay those costs now in the form of mitigation strategies. Our economic system isn't really set up for transactions where the costs come due a hundred years after the profits. But the money was there for Covid, like you said. And this is an even bigger problem. Surely some way can be found to find the funds, perhaps involving carbon taxes so we can control future emissions as well.

Random comment for channel interaction.

Interesting. Seems worth a test.

Brilliant video!

I imagine setting up this process on all existing oil rigs around the globe so as not to concentrate it on coasts. Decommissioning the rigs from drilling oil obviously as well 😋

So, carbon capture from the ocean can potentially be done cheaper than direct air capture, I always suspected this to be the case, now just need to figure out the best method to implement it without harming various aquatic ecosystems. At the same time, I feel it is a bit naïve to believe that reducing overall energy expenditure by society is a genuine avenue that can realistically be pursued. Yes, there is room for gains in per capita efficiencies, but asking people to give up on amenities and restricting the developing world from access to standard comforts is not going to go over well. To truly transition off of oil I think it is likely that we would need to radically expand clean energy production to the point where it dwarfs that which we currently gain from geologically sourced oil and other hydrocarbons.

Time to fast track a pilot project to try this method.

1500 MWh for 660 ton CO2 means ~440 gr CO2/kWh, which is similar to the emissions of a Gas power plant. So basically the energy required by this technology for sequestration is the same that would emit the same amount of CO2 in a gas power plant, which is not too bad.

Would this limestone rock be able to be used in making cement?? Maybe seaweeds and shellfish are a more sustainable and helpful approach?

Yeah, after that 3rd Working Group video you put out a couple of weeks ago Dave, anytime I hear R&D I immediately jump to thinking that wind and solar rollout should be the primary emphasis of financial investment. I do think that climate change still requires a "silver buckshot" approach, but the majority project we should all be implementing, at least in terms of energy, is wind and solar installation, whether residential, commercial, or utility-wide. I think the point about stacking this ocean scrubbing tech with water desalination plants makes things very financially feasible, compared to having exclusive facilities. Coastline is expensive, as many diverse interests act to make claim to that finite resource. I also echo the worry about geoengineering and the prospect that IF and when we get CO2 emissions to Net Zero and work back the clock to pre-industrial levels, *we need to be very careful in not tipping the scales too far in the opposite direction by not emitting enough/capturing too much CO2 for what the global ecosystem needs.* We need to reach a steady state equilibrium where CO2, and all other GHGs, are monitored, and develop protocols and policies for knowing when to engage emissions or capture technologies to counterbalance disturbances to the system. Those protocols and policies are light-years away, relatively speaking, but we can't lose sight of the other side of the pendulum that we call climate change.

John Martin, 1988: "Give me half a tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age." This seems like a VERY expensive, highly technological solution to a problem algae might be able to solve for nearly free. Adding iron to ocean ecosystems causes algae blooms, the algae absorbs CO2, dies, and sinks to the bottom (the same mechanism that makes limestone). The only real argument against trying iron is, "We don't know how long the carbon stays sequestered. It may not be permanent." So what? Iron is cheap - if we have to do it again in 300 years, fine. Several years ago Greenpeace blockaded a ship in port to keep it from conducting a small-scale test. Why? Because they were afraid it would work.

Why don't we use seaweed? It grows insanely quickly, it provides habitat for marine life, it can be harvested as food or fertilizer, it sucks out CO2 from the oceans to deacidify the oceans, and it pumps in oxygen into the sea.

Imagine if governments redirect the "defense" budgets to defending against global warming...

So the question is how many kWh are required to pull 1 ton of CO2 from the sea water?

that opening is definitely going into an out-of-context video

@Dave Borlace I don't know if you read all these, but I have done a load of research Ch I to desalination, reverse osmosis dialysis can remove about 25% of the cost of desalination via producing energy via the salinity differential of briny and non salty water... Adding a further 9% saving would lead to a 34% reduction on costs. Whether this can be done with renewable or SMR nuclear technology is only theory at this point.

Thank you. I have worked on CCS/U. I still didn't read the paper, but this technology sounds much better than all the other CCS/U methods I'm familiar with. However, only after a pilot plant is operating for a year or so, could we asses its practicality.

I always appreciate your videos because they provide interesting perspectives. But this time you have gotten it wrong. There is a serious flaw in this argument: precipitation CaCO3 for seawater is actually releasing extra CO2. Ca++ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 My former post has obviously not been published because I had added a link to prove my point. So I will try again without using a link but only the content. Let me also add that chlorine is not 'absorbed' by activated carbon but converted into acid (HCl) and CO2. That is not a win-win but lose-lose situation as the extra acid in large scale will reduce the pH sea water even more. There is a common misconception: Almost everyone seems to think that limestone deposition, which is a sink of oceanic bicarbonate, must also be a sink of atmospheric CO2, when in fact it is a source! I cannot publish the link, but I can show your the text and anybody interested can find the original by googling for specific word combinations. Ca++ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 This is an interesting point because limestone deposition is, along with volcanic outgassing, the major source of atmospheric CO2 on a geological time scale, while dissolution of limestone, along with weathering of aluminosilicate minerals, is the major sink. This is widely misunderstood by those not knowledgeable about the chemistry of the carbon cycle. Almost everyone seems to think that limestone deposition, which is a sink of oceanic bicarbonate, must also be a sink of atmospheric CO2, when in fact it is a source! This common error is due to the fact that bicarbonate is the major form of inorganic carbon in the ocean, and because the ocean is a pH-buffered chemical system. In effect for each molecule of bicarbonate precipitated as limestone one molecule is released as CO2 in order to maintain charge and pH balance. Therefore brucite formation at the expense of aragonite has a net effect of reducing the effects of ocean acidification caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. However, to put this into perspective, about half of all the net limestone burial in the ocean used to take place in coral reefs (Milliman, 1993), at least back when coral reefs were healthy and growing, before global warming, new diseases, and pollution killed most of them. About an order of magnitude more limestone was formed by planktonic organisms, but almost all of that dissolves when their microscopic skeletons fall into deep water, where they dissolve because of the lower temperature, higher pressure, and the higher acidity of deep waters caused by decomposition of organic matter that is formed at the ocean surface by photosynthesis and falls to the deep sea where it is oxidized by decomposing organisms and bacteria. However, the rate at which we are now adding CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion is about 100 times greater than the natural sources from global limestone burial (Ware et al., 1991), indicating how greatly human pollution has overwhelmed natural sources. Consequently global ocean acidification caused by fossil fuel-caused CO2 buildup cannot be effectively countered by manipulating limestone deposition, unless fossil fuel CO2 sources are greatly reduced and a mechanism is developed to directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If allowed to build up in the atmosphere, fossil fuel CO2 will only be very slowly neutralized over hundreds of millennia to millions of years by dissolution of terrestrial limestone rocks on land and marine limestone sediments.

Such thoughtful and balanced reporting. Thank you so much. Perhaps the calcium carbonate rocks could be used as building materials, a substitute for cement or perhaps road base. Just a thought.

Thank you

I wonder if the leftover limestone can also be used to help promote coral reef growth and general ecosystem rehabilitation

Another great video that. Is among your best. I am encourage by the UCLA work. Your reporting is importantly spreading the information to those who need some encores about Climate Charge. Thank You!!!

I think another simple and cheap way could be storing dry compressed seaweed.

LOL, loved that comment from the wife :)

Wonderful. Another high-tech, vast-cost, CO2 sequestration method that requires thousands more electric power plants to operate, while at the same time ignoring the most powerful sequestration engine on Earth that requires zero electric power: photosynthesis. It ignores the global train-wreck agricultural system that destroys natural carbon sequestration in organic matter in soil (roots and microbiota) and replaces it all with petrochemicals. It ignores the fact that regenerative agriculture is as productive as petrochemical agriculture yet requires far fewer inputs. Do the brilliant high tech nerds pay any attention at all to the world around them?

Have there been any considerations of using the sCS2 sequestered carbon products of limestone and magnesite as green(er) building materials? Could there be some financial offset in utilizing these products of the process instead of just sinking them to the ocean floor?

One thing that's key here is that the CaCO3 produced by this process must not be allowed to decompose back into CO2. That means no using it for cement (releases CO2) and I wouldn't advise leaving it 'out in the open' on land (e.g. as a construction material) because CaCO3 is actually quite a soluble rock, and dilute carbonic acid in rainwater or other acid rain sources would dissolve it releasing CO2 again. Ocean burial works, but it needs to be remembered that CaCO3 dissolves in the deep ocean. While that CO2 would take hundreds of years to re-appear at the surface, we'd potentially be leaving a 'time bomb' for generations to come. The best place to bury that CaCO3 would actually be shallow oceans (e.g. the edges of continental shelves) where the waters will not dissolve the CaCO3 and the rock would be rapidly buried by sediments coming from the land.

Absolutely spot-on take on this: Yes, we need CDR but must not use it as a reason to delay ramping down the use of combustion fuels. There is something poetic about sending carbon back to a geological store, that's where a lot of the CO2 in the air came from (coal).

Thank you for an interesting video. I wonder what effect that process may have on the ocean's bicarbonate-borate buffering system that maintains ocean pH around 8.3 or so? It seems from nothing but a quick think that it would have a major effect on pH, at least in the locale of the plant where CO2 removal was taking place. And, then there is the resulting imbalance of ions in the outflow that may have adverse affects on both biotic and abiotic components. Also, I'm leery that activated charcoal would be up to the task of removing the significant amount of Cl that would be generated. Nonetheless, I'm encouraged that people are thinking about ways to sequester carbon. I only hope it happens sooner rather than never.

This is an very win win situation...love it! Knowing concrete industry is one of the CO² unfriendly industry's , and limestone can actualy been used for concrete production ☆♡ Grts from the netherlands Johny geerts

That wet sponge was very stressful 😫

Thanks!

It seems that humans have destroyed mangrove forests and kelp regions all over the world. Those would be the ideal areas to begin. Plus there is nothing wrong with a varied approach that uses multiple measures that would each only have a marginal effect. As times goes by consequences would be apparent and efforts could be dialed up or dialed down to fit the circumstances.

This has far more legs than most of the Carbon Capture ideas suggested to date 👍

Thanks

Well put together video. Could this be tied in with CMSR? eg seaborg technologies. Could the By-product rock be using in building products?

Yet another example of “fossil fuel industry causes problem -> government needs to pay for it to get fixed” The fossil fuel industry should be taxed for every penny these plants cost!

This is promising. Biological carbon capture seems good, but... We do have to remember decaying plants release Nitrogen, which kills fishes. So some of each then? Are we really in danger of removing too much C02?

Sadly, this UCLA idea actually makes ocean acidification worse. A single dissolved calcium ion ties up 2 carbon dioxide ions as dissolved calcium bicarbonate. When calcium carbonate it's precipitated, one of the carbonic acid molecules is left behind, thereby increasing the concentration of unassociated carbonic acid remaining in the seawater, reducing the buffering and making ocean acidification worse. A better solution is to actually fix the carbon biologically offshore and ensure that it sinks past 1,000 m depth at a high carbon to phosphorus ratio, thereby ensuring a net export of carbon to the abyssal ocean.

What is the ecological impact of removing magnesium and calcium from the ocean?

So using the figures at the 8:09 time on the video, it would take about 2,200 kWh to convert 1 ton. 2,200 kWh will take a moderately efficient EV ~15,000km. Also 2,200 kWh equals the energy in 1.5 barrels of oil so the oil equivalent necessary to remove 10Gt of CO2 annually would be 15 billion barrels of oil. The current worldwide oil production is ~ 35 billion barrels. Clearly there is no easy way to pull CO2 from the biosphere!

Very good video - gives me great hope (apart from the human race inevitably wrecking everything in their usual way because it's inconvenient to believe that climate change is real).

Onya..love your work! Yes to keeping oceans healthy. If we were to utilise technology to be more personal/ involved/interactive/informed with the oceans, this should make us whether makers better at what we do🤔

The problem is mankind doesn't learn from its mistakes, it learns from what happens when it ignores its mistakes

Thanks Dave. Another well explained presentation with a message that everybody needs to understand - and you are very good at making it unbderstandable

Everyone: The problem with solving the climate crisis is financial. The super rich: Yeah it sure is. Too bad about that. Everyone: But like we could do it if we abolished the profit incentive, right? The materials and willpower are there, just not the money. The super rich: Hey hey hey! Let's not get extremist here, it's not like the end of the world is the end of the world!

"Are you going to clean that up?" "YeeeSs...."

I'm so glad you made a video about this topic. It caught my eye like a year ago and I cant stop thinking this is a real possible tool to fight climatechange. So far ocean decarbonization seems to be such a promising candidate but yet direct air capture is the only method getting the most attention thanks to oil lobbyists. Oil companies use liquid carbon for fracking, so one can understand why they wouldnt care about other solutions. More research is needed in order to know the long term impacts, but we need to compare all possible solutions and weigh in the pros and cons. Honestly, an ocean aproach has so many advantages and useful byproducts that it cant be overlooked

For once, I can agree. CO2 removal (alongside with oxygenation of the oxygene deserts) is the most efficient way to slow down climate change and it's impact on marine life.

Great video. A durable solution will likely not involve mass behavior change (“business as usual”) - unless the alternative is easier than what we do now. The only exception to this (that I can think of) is the ‘don’t litter’ campaigns in the 70s. As an aside - It would be interesting (in future videos) if you did an in depth comparison to similar global problems where we’ve had success in reducing impacts. i.e. global food shortages, pollution of waterways… All “non-individual-level” solutions (As you often point out) have a downside. Reducing CO2 production means nuclear power or human engineered geo-thermal wells or massive batteries (all with significant downsides). By contrast, individual behavior changes could, technically, have little to no downsides. The problem is, they are virtually impossible en masse. To me behavior change is a losing argument. Any real solution will require industrial level efforts in energy production or CO2 capture and as little change to “business as usual” as practical. i.e. Jets will still use fossil fuels for the next 50+ years. Thank you for all your hard/thought provoking work, your videos are fantastic!

I'd start with the organic solutions noted at the end i.e. farming kelp and other seaweeds, anaerobically digest them along with all our other organic waste to produce methane for the gas grid, electricity, CO2 for industry and fertiliser to replace that produced from gas.

Aquatic life does SO well in Carbonic Acid.