Geoengineering: The Riskiest Way to Save the Planet 

While I agree, try telling that to Trumps supporters who's entire self worth is derived from how big the truck nuts are on their diesels that at most move people and pets not construction equipment.

Doing away with animals agriculture, especially on an industrial scale is one of the easiest ones we can do, but people just aren’t switching on quick enough.

Literally. Like this isnt Rick and Morty please stop being so comedically lazy humanity

Because it's never going to be "instant". As you said, weaning. Innovations are needed to reduce the effects of the mass extinction period we are currently in.

God created man, so man can destroy the planet and all of God creation for $$$$$. It's in the Bible!

Or at least stop burning fossil fuels when there are way to produce electricity using things like pentane(or neopentane) in geothermal systems. It's probably just too profitable to burn gasoline, diesel, oil itself and coal for some people

You first

IF we did that and eliminated fossil fuels at the same time it would reduce the damage we are doing to the planet.

I think direct carbon capture from the air is a terrible waste of funding, energy, and materials that could be spent on developing energy efficiency, renewables, and alternative carbon capture methods. The "direct from air" carbon capture process is massively inefficient compared to other methods of carbon abatement. It also reeks of the "clean coal" propaganda machine, and IMO it's the only reason we know / think about it at all.

I agree with @Algormortis9. DAC is horrible at being efficient. IIRC the last number I read is 1% of the amount of the captured CO2's binding energy combined . BECCS is much more possible in this regard. DAC will only work if we have a ridiculous surplus in green energy production.

They are already doing this. They fly over the US (almost daily). Those stripes in the skies are NOT jet exhaust. My brother lives in Mexico and they have no chemtrails. Drive north a few hours and geoenginering all over.

We could mitigate much of the harm of excess atmospheric carbon by changing farming,. This also means changing our buying habits to force big companies to change how and what food is grown. Eating foods from biome appropriate, polycultured, alley-cropped (because alley-cropping makes better use of soil depth, sunlight, minerals, etc, and it mimics the most productive places on earth, savannas), food and biomass-producing (livestock feed, etc) perennials and grasses alternating with interplanted trees, vines, and shrubs. This reduces chances of crop failures due to droughts, heat waves and flooding, builds soil, increases nutrition, localized food, and builds resiliency. It sequesters a lot of carbon for free while also helps reduce grid strain from pumping water. It helps aquifers to recharge, relies on natural pest control, increases diversity of food available to the world market instead of relying on a fewer food varieties. Instead of managing it with shipped-in inputs like petrochemical fertilizers, weed killers, pesticides, dumping culls, burning crop residues, etc, manage it with livestock instead. This mimicks nature. It turns production costs into production profits, while producing even more food in a wildlife friendly way. Animals pastured on diverse plantings and weedy pasture have higher nutritive value than grain fed animals, deepening nutrition for both livestock and the nutrition of their products. Thus is simple, highly effective and much much cheaper than pumping carbon into the ground, ax well ad more useful. Carbon sequestered into the soil by plants improves the soil, making it easier for more regreening, as well as increasing water sequestration, reducing the need for irrigation, plowing, and high tech, high cost, low return solutions. Look up Mark Shepard for more detailed information on restoration ag. If we accompany this type of agriculture, called restorative ag (not to be confused with the more general term regenerative ag), with highly localized (onsite) rainwater harvesting through detention ponds, swales, onsite materials, etc we increase the opportunities for food production, regreening, carbon capture, reclamation etc, at very low cost as these can be quite durable when well placed, and well built. India has regions that are implementing this at scale and transforming huge swaths of low production land, while avoiding the need for pumping water. Look up Brad Lancaster's books on Rainwater Harvesting in Drylands and Beyond, latest editions for best info on building water resiliency. Andrew Millison has done a lot of work documenting rainwater harvesting projects in India, they are good videos to watch. The third thing to do is put in a lot more rail especially publicly owned rail (though the companies can remain private). This is will make moderate long distance travel easier, cheaper, increase accessibility, reduce the costs of shipping goods, etc. If you make rail something the rich want to travel on, it will mean better rail service overall. Rail can have definite advantages if it is dense enough. Restroom breaks, internet, napping, avoiding driving, air travel anxiety, and TSA lines are all excellent reasons for trains to ge our best future mode of travel. Rail is something we need to push our politicians towards, instead of dubious electric rebates for rich people... High tech solutions are just a money grab to further enrichen and empower globalist elitists.

Doomed

​@@rebellucy6200this is funny because Mexico is the only place in the north America's who's done cloud seeding, especially recently

1.) there isn't. 2.) they won't.

❤ THIS.

@@one_field Thank you.

The scariest part is the last thing you mentioned. We could be looking at ww3 during our lifetime and that will not be pretty this time around, nukes will be used.

Hear! Hear!

Not to mention PFAS! The stuff is everywhere now and we don't know how to clean it up.

Good news then! Green energy has been more profitable than the alternative in the recent years. Texas is currently the number one green energy producer in the US. Yep, we may not have to science our way out of this clusterfuck after all.

Then stop breathing. And also avoid repeating useless phrases that don't mean anything in a context outside BS driven propaganda. Simplifications like "stop emitting CO2" are so dumb in 2023 that it does more damage than the real environmental cause. Phrases like this one are promoted to make more profit not to understand what environment protection is.

Too late for that to be the only solution. The aerosols already in the atmosphere will cause the world to warm by another 0,5-1℃ once we clean up our emissions. Like it or not, it's geoengineering or collapse at this point.

rights to emit CO2 = roles in sequestration CO2

And once global albedo starts really changing, the problems are going to become even worse almost overnight.

Exactly!!!

Friend you are in the Doom Loop

I have to make a vid not time effective to triage people singly. The American Desert aka southwest is widely known as a desert. In fact last time it was de-desertifying was the Eemian (PBS has vid on it) 116kya Was +1 over 2020 Temps and trees pushed into west Texas American desert has been drying for most of the last century. And a desert. No one who moved there expected Ozark ecology. Last years monsoon was just above average at 8" There will be droughts. GW causes more aggregate global rain. In NorthAm it will mostly precipitate in winter and summers be hotter. I'd prefer agroforestry as low tech solution since their roots can go further than any annual grain or Table vegetables. Irrigation improvements to be both Israeli point-drip and tractor friendly for 1st world and really cheap for 3rd. California started getting farmers to reverse wells and suck water into aquifer with all the rain they've been. Getting. Ended drought in America's Salad Bowl. 1930s dust bowl and FDR was destroying oranges 🍊 in mass Graves will malnourished kids looked on. Every farmer was producing much as they could to get money in case drought got them next. We had oversupply, as far as capitalism is concerned. Give away oranges to poor then no one buys them... separate convo As is general environmentalism. We'd have not two trees in eyesight of each other if had steam engine but never made sense of coal. Continents be all perennial switch grass or something. Clouds of a few species of birds. If we'd done biodiesel as basis for everything we'd still be overfishing and teak furniture. It's not all one thing. No premier Polar mammal or bird is critically endangered as a taxonomic family. 13/18 🐧 species are solid. Polar 🐻‍❄ is solid for now. 2 types of puffins are Vulnerable. Rest not listed. Beavers are a menace expanding so fast into Arctic little more as the summers grow. No longer need trees; use taiga shrubs. Nothing bad has happened, yet, at least. Adaptation steps to do, yes Fill active minds for for centuries I'm sure. If civilization collapses its due to political choice not Christmas once every four years on the patio.

Doesn't seem like it would do much to stop climate change even next to where it was produced.

How are you going to mine the minerals for the solar panels without fossil fuel?

@@mathystheart There is full size mining equipment that use only electric motors including the massive dump trucks. Most people don't know that most underground mining equipment is already using electric induction motors as it removes the problem of exhaust and lessens issues with hot engines causing vapor ignition. But even if some fossil fuel is used to do the mining, as the end solar goes online there will be a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel burns in power plants that will offset that used to do the mining. Eventually the fossil fuels will be completely replaced as everything becomes electric using the solar as the source. Overall this will result in less fossil fuel burning quicker and will ultimately end most of it for good in the power generation industry.

@@nickmcconnell1291 I stand corrected.

@@mathystheart Nothing to correct... you had an intelligent and legitimate concern. 🙂

"Thegovts need to declare a State of Emergency and use imminent domain and take over private businesses to make this happen." That's comical. The gov uses imminent domain to secure land for pipe lines to transport fossil fuels. By private businesses you must mean oil and gas companies. That ain't gonna happen when the companies own most politicians. Oh yea, the US military has a larger C02 footprint than most countries. Good luck convincing them to scale it back. Entertaining idea though, even if it is totalitarian.

We had it 50 years ago, nuclear power plants did it then and could help now

@@PigeonHootCareful. As an engineer who is pro-advanced nuclear power, there is no panacea. For example, nukes in Europe- which, after all, have to be cooled- regularly have to be throttled back, because the river water used to cool them is too damn warm - Dave Huntsman

@@dphuntsman interesting, then i guess large scale reactors are not the way to go then?

@@PigeonHoot They are all still heat engines- unfortunately. With MOST of the energy lost as heat- not even converted to electricity. As as heat engines still ends up adding to the warming of the planet. More appropriate tech solution long-term is something like space-based solar power, collected in orbit and beamed to the ground- most of the heat/inefficiencies remain in space.

@@dphuntsman i mean its the same problem with fusion but considering the nuclear reactor we orbit is out over heating us already could we not try? Yeah you said it yourself we can throttle them to control the temps, or are you saying the water that's used itself is the issue? Couldn't we use it as a stopgap in curving the greenhouse gas production and pollution caused by it?

that's funny because people were saying the same thing 20 years ago, and we're in the same spot: endlessly "on the verge" of impending crisis that never seems to arrive...

@@quickmythril2398 It's only not happening if you haven't paid any attention at all for the last few decades. As every objective measurement has shown for literal decades already. You not having a clue doesn't actually change reality in the slightest. I absolutely love you sideshow clowns and your adorable delusions.

@@quickmythril2398 ...is arriving the data shows. The point of the post is that it is a never ending task of having to convince (teach) adults (the masses) enough basic science to the degree that they can look at climate data and be in agreement with what is necessary to do. Let's stop that.

@@Pottery4Life yes sure make up a crisism then blame the consumers right? it's not at all the corporations who are responsible for the actual mass destruction of the environment, let's blame normal people for exhaling too much... if you don't see that YOU are the carbon they want to reduce, then you are missing the bigger picture.

That doesn’t work in a lot of places…scrublands, grasslands, deserts. Tree planting isn’t a catch-all. And a forest vs plantation have different amounts of carbon capture

It's an attempt to stop global albedo change before it's too late. It's already happening, already having a detrimental effect on all sorts of crops, animals, even insects and fungi. If we don't do something about the increase of light (and therefore heat) in our atmosphere, global albedo will keep changing. Once it hits a tipping point, the worst effects of global climate change with increase almost overnight, get worse exponentially faster, and we'll be even less prepared for it than we already are.

there's a limited amount of sunlight anything can absorb, it would do as much as a few tiny clouds in the sky

​@@AmonTheWitchhardly worth doing then There's a true finite Command Economy sense where we run out of Sulfur from coal plants. We can order them to burn more so we get more precious Sulfur. There must be masses of it backlogged. Few crops need acidic fertilizer. Makes inferior construction paneling to mined gypsum. It was almost worthless til now. We can dim 10% to start if you'd like that. Is it 1978, 1880, 1750 or 17,000BC climate you wish? 2 miles of ice over Philadelphia will take time but we can start your order

We only need to reduce rolar radiation by around 1% to get back to pre-industrial temperatures, which could be acieved by injecting just 5% of the sulphur that has been cleaned out of coal and shipping emissions into the stratosphere. It will last longer (a couple years) before having to be replaced, and cause considerably less health issues and acid rain than the unintentional emissions ever did. % reduction will have very little effect on plants and solar power. The added cooling will also be beneficial since solar panels are more efficient when cool, and photosynthesis is more efficient when the plants are not on fire.

It's not some abstract "motivations" that caused these ecological disasters. This is bizarre, idealistic thinking.

It isn't an emergency until it effects the rich and powerful. Then there will be actions that mostly just help them.

Bit behind affairs. Sulfur is waste product of coal burning. We can buy it with no mining. 2 Pollution, air pollution anyway I'd good for climate. You don't know what you're saying if argue that. Reduced smog since 70s causes more hurricane than higher temperatures Sun pounding on water is more important We for sure would have hit 1.5 were it not for the Canadians and their proclivity for fires. (Half every year are manmade. Not intentional or intentional for a structure... I can't read minds just quote statistics Bon joure

It doesn't solve everything, but the biggest problems we face today are rooted in the increase in temperatures. Climate change effects will piledrive our economies to the point where decarbonization just doesn't happen. Climate cooling methods like solar geoengineering can buy us time to get things under control and change our ways, but none of the problems you listed will be fixed if we don't do it. We're gradually realizing just how badly we've shat the bed, and we need these solutions despite the side effects, since the side effects of not doing it is so much worse.

​@@distantmind956I was more along the lines of, this deals with only a few of the symptoms. How about we deal with the causes? Energy and material overshoot That won't happen and dealing with only some of the symptoms won't change the outcome. In fact, this is one of the things which will probably make it worse. It'll be sold as "the solution" but in reality it's so we keep business as usual

@@cheweperro Haven't seen anyone proposing it as 'the' solution yet. But let's say hypothetically that if you were terminally ill, and the illness would take time to cure, and there's a medicine that can keep you alive until the illness can be cured. The medicine itself will not contribute to curing the illness, and carries unpredictable side effects. But since the alternative is certain death. Wouldn't you be willing to make that gamble? Shouldn't this medicine at least be a 'part' of the solution, as a package deal, like how they use chemotherapy to kill cancer. Nobody 'likes' chemotherapy, but it's either that or death. A lot of people are waking up to the climate crisis these days, and due to el nino, there's gonna be a heck of a lot more of that next year, and nowards. We won't be able to geoengineer the climate at scale for a few years, and by the time we've begun, there's gonna be a huge amount of people pushing for actual change in our system. I admit, it's possible I am too optimistic here, but you have to believe in a better tomorrow in order to put in the effort to make it so. And right now I'm unable to see another option than doing geoengineering if we want to have any kind of future.

THIS I WANT BETTER SKI SEASONS 😭😭😭😭

Joe Biden's administration issued 6,430 permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years, outpacing the Trump administration’s 6,172 drilling-permit approvals in its first two years. You say that if the party of "drill, drill, drill" gets elected next year we are all doomed but I'm having trouble figuring out which party you're referring to here. Would you mind clarifying the point?

@@jessl1934 I’m just quoting trump. It’s what he said he’d do as dictator for a day. Regarding numbers of permits: it’s not just the number but the location of those permits.

@@michaellanoue9156 And Biden is planning to sell up to three oil and gas leases which is going to increase oil and gas production by the US over the coming years. Even without those additional leases, oil production in the US is predicted to reach record heights at an estimated 13.1 million barrels per day by 2024. Trump would tell you that he has never committed a crime and that he's one of the most intelligent and successful people to have ever lived. Do you really put so much stock in his words that you'd take it more seriously than real-world actions? I'll ask you again, which is the party of "drill, drill, drill" because, as cute as it is that you take Trump at his word and think that he's an honest and reputable person, it still isn't clear which party you're referring to here.

Yes you can absolutely call CO2 toxic. Safe levels are comparatively small, and we're already approaching levels where it'll eventually start collecting in the ocean and poisoning fish. It's also obviously toxic to people and plants in high enough concentrations, and that's extremely well known, so I'm really not sure why you're pretending we're supposed to be bathed in it.

“Never give up, Never surrender….” !!

"only a Sith deals in absolutes,"

@@anthonyrussano please finish school so you can understand that Star Wars is a fictional movie, not reality.

​@@anthonyrussano liberals when we get genocided "this is literally just like harry potter woah"

@@AmonTheWitch 🤣

Caution is urged; but not cynicism. History shows that problems caused by inappropriate use of technology are generally only resolved by intelligent use of even more advanced technology. - Dave Huntsman

Well, only because we collectively refuse to stop using fossil fuels, cutting down forests, polluting the oceans, or building giant things. If we had done that ~40 years ago when we first learned all this, we'd be having a very different conversation at this point. On the other hand, modular algae farms can suck 50x more carbon out of the air than a tree can, and it doesn't take decades to grow enough to have that effect. We could be doing much simpler things that could have a larger impact, but people are collectively pretty stupid and many can't stand the slightest inconvenience.

@@dphuntsman which begs the question if that advanced techology was necessary if the lesser-advanced technology would have been used more wisely or not at all... But in a world where quick profit is paramount, caution is merely a cost factor. How can you not be cynical about all that?

I bet you aren't singing the same tune when you're admitted to the emergency department

@@jessl1934 🤦‍♂

@@dasstigma Communication: "Give me the most cutting edge technology!!" Healthcare: "Intervene to save my life. Heck, intervene if it's just going to make me feel slightly more comfortable!!" Climate: "Whoa there, slow down now! We shouldn't go against what God intended..."

Horrifyingly, I can't tell if this is sarcasm

​@@samanthanewport6709barely known theory has lunar volcanism 34my made earth a ringed planet (lunar ejects even from far side would fall into our orbit) Opposite orientation to our sarcastic friend In the start of cooling terminating in our ice age... the Summers were normal-standard say +8C over 1880. However winters collapsed as cold as today... doesn't get much colder than today. Elegance of theory is ring decayed into meteorites long before Sapiens could depict. No proof. Confirming geologic activity on the moon now would then include possibility 34mya. Ringed planet is sexy and maybe worth freezing planet just to see it

Maybe if we got everyone in the world to jump at the same time we would be able to shift the earth's axis

I’m giving you a Thumbs Down- even tho I’m a proponent of advanced nuclear- because nothing is a panacea. Nuclear plants in Europe often have to be throttled back or even shut down because the river water they are cooled with is too warm, OK? - Dave Huntsman

@@dphuntsman Have they ever heard of chilling the water ik it takes power but means the reactor can still work.

@@dphuntsman well, i'm so glad we have you here in the comments showing us which ones are approved and which are not, lmao

Huh? There's plenty of livable land all around the world. And the sea level isn't rising. If it was the Statue of Liberty would show signs of sinking. But it's not.

You're d-e-l-u-s-i-o-n-a-l.

I'm sure your sources that are propped up by oil lobbyists aren't lying about something that could harm their profits

You've missed the point entirely. If we were just talking about a few icebergs here and there, there'd be nothing to talk about. When we're talking about the entire ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica that's another thing entirely. The reason is that those ice sheets AREN'T currently in the water. As they melt and that water heats up beyone 4 degrees centigrade, the water expands. And there's a TREMENDOUS amount of water locked up in those ice sheets. So why hasn't the Statue of Liberty sunk already? Because it takes a pretty long time for those ice sheets to melt completely. But the process takes on its own momentum once it's been started. And the process is well underway. Live near the coast? I hope you like swimming . . . .

It IS sinking (relative to sea level) and your science experiment is flawed. Sea water has salinity. Fresh water is more dense than sea water. So, when floating ice melts and becomes liquid, it takes up more volume than the seawater it displaced when it was ice, raising sea level. This has about 3% the effect of grounded ice-melt and raises sea level.

There's a difference between sea ice and land ice. Melting land ice will absolutely cause the sea level to rise, as they already *clearly* have been for years.

You do realize the majority of sea rise will come from the water *expanding* from increased temperatures? Like if you put a lid on boiling water it'll rise up.

It's trying to. But we're getting in it's way.

Before the industrial revolution, this wasn’t much of an issue for the flora. They just did their thing like they always did. But now, there’s way more carbon dioxide than all the plants can keep up with. The only way to let the planet “do its thing” is to either come up with solutions to help tackle the extra carbon and help out the plants…or we eradicate humans. And I don’t think a majority of people would go for the second option. Though if we don’t do anything, then I suppose the planet would just do its thing anyway by making this place so uninhabitable for humans that we go extinct. Eventually, the planet would bounce back, but we most likely wouldn’t, and it would be a new era of a new dominating species.

​@@Linkous12Its way*

Tell me you've never looked at a climate graph without telling me you've never looked at a climate graph

@@CardiologyGuy I don't need a climate graph to know the weather is changing.

I love you morons. Always accidentally hilarious and too stupid to understand why.

Thumbs Down. Turn. Off. The. Fox.

@@dphuntsman Seriously. The only good thing about that sideshow network is that its fans always reveal themselves quickly. It's like they're all deathly allergic to objective reality.

I for one am glad that they had the guts to call it like it is. The big US oil companies are doubling down on fossil fuels and their ads imply they're trying to be "green".

@@dphuntsman Secure the border first.