Whilst I appreciate rising carbon emissions are bad, I couldn’t help but cheer them on each time just so I get to see that cool overflowing graphic lol
DO you Climate Alarmist Charlatans Deny? It is Scientifically Proven Impossible for CO2 or the Greenhouse Effect to cause Global Warming!! And these Scientists Science can be Replicated!! Unlike Maurice Strong's 1988 IPCC Pseudo-Science, Global Warming Fear Charade, to give their Club of Rome/United Nations New World Order momentum for the 21st Century!! Signed by most countries in 1992, as Strong's IPCC, UNFCCC Agenda21!
@@SimonClark bro poop is a fantastic fertilizer human poop works to but only 1 or 2% of organic farms use it. Oh only 20% of farms are organic to so ya. Also diversity in New foods would help as well.
Alternative title: "Let's watch a black cube for seven minutes" Jokes aside, I think it's a great visiual representation, very insightful and satisfying to watch
Another issue after co2 is tackled (if it ever even is) is resource depletion. Oil and ore wont magically re appear on the earth and landfills wont magically get rid of trash, a circular economy is neccesary for this but making such a thing is way easier said than done, especially for electronics like this screen you are using right now. When this screen breaks it will probably end up in one of these landfills
@@CHKNSkratch if we wanted to fix it, it wouldn't be an issue(people are Happy with plastic, dirty electricity, lumber, (milk/meat), cars and concrete(and (freon argon) air-conditioning/refrigerants hair-stiffener and the like, breaking the ozone layer , until recently ~2000)(pretty much if you like it, it pollutes) plus politicians made it worst), the tech is as old as "global warming" , currently due to people not understanding simplifications climate change.
@@edpiv2233 the problem is, renewables kind of ARE the replacement, and we need more of them. if oil and coal disappeared we'd be out of a surprisingly large amount of our energy.
We are not adding carbon. We are adding c02. Additionally, throughout history the planet has had lots more c02, like the Jurassic period. Wonderfully healthy time w lots of cool stuff. We are going to be fine.
honestly for that meat I think so so SO many people forget that you don't need to cut out meat all together. just lowering meat consumption to 3/4 times a week would already help a lot for that sector
My flat is connected to a community heat network. There's no gas boiler in the property, in fact there's no gas supply to the whole building. What there is though is an energy centre next door which right now has large gas boilers and the hot water is available to the area via highly insulated pipes, which on its own is better than everyone having their own gas combi boiler. In the next few years though this will be connected to a wider heat network that will use the waste heat from power stations and industry to heat water and send that to a huge number of homes in the borough. Once you can do this kind of thing again, Simon, you should come and see what's going on. I'm sure the scheme would be very happy to show you around it all. I'll drop you some information.
A climate action committee just published a report. The cheapest and largest action was restoring our swamps. There are a lot draining for farming and forestry. Restoration would turn them back to carbon sinks. They cannot alone solve issue. Other big issues are fossil fuel heating, transport and metallurgy. Example solution include hydrogen steel process.
Its a nice way to clear up one of the biggest misconceptions thats often repeated by climate sceptics. Yes, human emmissions only are 5% of the flow of carbon into the atmosphere, the rest is natural, yet human emmissions are resposible for 100% of the raise in carbon content of the atmosphere.
One thing missed here is that just switching to Electric cars only help a bit- you still have all the other issues outside the engine. You also need to promote efforts to REDUCE the number of cars on the roads, with more robust public transit, train, bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Plus we also need to redo zoning laws so people can have stores and other amenities within a short walking distance.
Hi Simon! Great video as always! That goes without saying. But... I must object to the point you made at 4:36 implying that it is not realistic to halt meat and dairy consumption. What do you base this on? It's something one hear all the time, but never with an argument to support the claim. Things we used to do in the past, some which were seen as not just unrealistic to stop, but inevitable to happen, we have ceased by law. Slavery is a pracitce as old as man itself, and until just a couple centuries ago, it was the norm in almost every major society. It was said that it was impossible to end slavery by law, until it wasn't. Women have always been treated as second class citizens. And it was said that they could never amount to anything. Yet they have. Finally, war was seen as an inevitable fact of life, that most men had to experience first hand. However, in many parts of the world today, the vast majority of the populace have not experienced war. Have we completely eliminated these things? No. But we have reduced the size of these problems to a small fraction of what they used to be. And we can do the same with the production of meat, dairy and other animal products. Improbable, but not unrealistic. We can't treat improbable things as unrealistic, because that would make change impossible. As you yourself alldue to, it is improbable that we solve the climate crisis in time, but treating it as unrealistic would be a fatal mistake, as it eliminates any chance of doing so. I really hope that you will take this into consideration, since we need people to understand that it is at least possible to cease this practice by law, if we ever hope to save the many endangered species. Anyways, loved the video. I hope you'll keep doing the good work that you do.
I think his main point is that its not realistic to halt meat and dairy consumption in the next few decades, or even in the next 100 years. Look at some of your examples; both slavery and the secondary treatment of women both took vast amounts of time to eradicate, and even then it still exists today, like you mentioned. Also the world is experiencing more armed conflicts today that ever before, just because its not labelled as war doesn't mean people don't experience it as such. Completely cutting of meat and dairy productions is also very difficult to imagine happening is parts of the world where they don't have the means to replace it with a sustainable alternative. I get that your main point was that it wasn't impossible however, so I guess we agree in that, but it is still very difficult to achieve in the relatively short time that we have.
Here's the thing, there women around the world are still treated in a misogynistic manner (example, the majority of world political leaders is vastly male) and slavery still exists. It isn't realistic to expect that meat and dairy consumption can be stopped in the next few decades when problems people care a lot more about have taken centuries to be partially solved.
@@ulysses1692 I think we might use the word 'unrealistic' differently. When I hear 'unrealistic', I think something that is theoretically possible, but because of its unlikeliness, we do not really consider it sensible to think it will happen. I wasn't just arguing that it was not impossible to drastically reduce meat consumption. i was arguing that we can realistically expect to reduce it to a small amount of what it is today, and even possibly outlaw it. I also never meant to argue that animal consumption would cease completely. When we speak of halting a practice, in most cases, no reasonable person would expect the problem to completely cease on a global scale. Because with all my examples, we set the acceptable level at zero. We never said that we wanted to reduce slavery or misogony by 50%. Even though we know, that it is in no way realistic to prevent every case of it happening, it is still much too unambitious to set the goal to anything else. Sure, we could set the bar lower, but that would probably mean achieving less. In short, there's no reason not to set it as the goal, if you believe that it would be a good thing to achieve. On a side note: Whilst it's probably true that the number of recorded conflicts have increased, the impression that it gives is misleading. Because we record conflicts much more thoroughly, than we used to. For most of human history, most people could not write. Many scribes and chroniclers just didn't bother recording small scale or local conflicts, unless they were paticularily relevant, but we do that today. In fact, when taking into account the rise in population, we probalby live in one of the most peaceful times, as measured by the percentage of people dying from conflicts (See ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace for more)
Its because thats what billionaires do, they and their other billionaire friends are at danger of looking like the bad guys here (which they are) or losing profits if they PR to look like the good guys and steer the conversation away from for example public transport to the electric cars so you will keep buying their expensive cars instead of looking at real solutions.
Carbon-neutral cement/concrete might actually be possible. Before I got this video served by the algorithm, I listened to an hour-long interview today with someone here in Sweden involved in planning the worlds first carbon-neutral cement plant, Heidelberg Cement's plant in Slite on Gotland after it's upgraded. It's currently producing around 75% of the cement used in Sweden and their plan actually seems feasible. It might even become carbon negative as they increasingly use biofuels and then carbon capture+sequestration.
For sure the best way to reduce road traffic emissions is to get people on public transport and improve the supply/distribution chain, not to just make everything electric; technology can make a small dent but we need to address the total energy we spend on transportation instead of just shifting the source from gasoline to coal. The reason personnel traffic is such a huge polluter is because of how horribly inefficient it is to carry small groups of people in a single vehicle when we can carry hundreds at a time with public transit. Improving train infrastructure is also a huge deal for long-distance shipping because trains are vastly better than semi trucks at long-haul shipping. Trains to do cross-country shipment + semis for final distribution, more people on public transit, far less transport emissions. Expecting technological advancements to magically whisk away climate change is wishful thinking and is a guarantee that we'll be in very deep water (sometimes literally if you're a coastal resident) within our lifetimes.
It's getting better, but they are still pretty horrible. Altough if Countries like the USA did finally start building a fucking public Transit System, and if those who allready got one halfway useable system improved upon it, we wouldn't have to worry about Batteries THAT much anymore. We could easily get rid off 80% of cars, if everyone could for their usual commutes just Walk, Bike, or hop on Public transit, and used Carsharing for those circumstances, were a car is neccesarry. I
That’s an awesome summary and I love that you overview so much of the bigger picture. However when it comes to agriculture maybe Bill Gates hadn’t considered what many farmers are adopting in “ regenerative agriculture” which reduces and can even eliminate fertilises pesticides herbicides etc and sequester carbon back into the soil, also opening up the opportunity for cattle farming with a negative carbon impact and even Carbon farming.
YES EXCELLENT POINT. However it turns out most of the fertilizer emissions mentioned are actually just from the energy cost of producing ammonia, which could be zero emission if they just used renewables to heat and pressurize the process. there are minimal emissions of nitrous oxide (in terms of way less than 1% of greenhouse gasses worldwide), but those are negligible in comparison.
Going to be pretty hard to reduce carbon emissions for countries like America and China, also in my country the most used fertilizer is natural, or in other words cow poop and replacing synthetic fertilizers with it wouldn't be that hard atleast I don't think it would be.
Hi simon, don't suppose you can do a video about the emissions of energy from waste? currently work on emissions testing and we do a lot of waste incinerators and have seen a lot of complaints about them, but looking at our test results the emissions are very low in comparison to other processes such as the burning of gas from land fill and the other issues of land fill. Would be interesting to see what you could research about waste incinerators and the other alternative processes.
Great video! One thing I would point out though, and that is I guess the only silver lining to climate change, is that with enough green energy production, carbon recapture could increase as power becomes cheaper. This would mean that other industries that will take longer to go green due to inherent limitations, will be allotted more time to do so. Of course, this does not mean those industries should get a pass, they still need to go green, but carbon recapture buys them time for the green technology to mature and become affordable or profitable.
Ha, he said carbon capture, funny man You know what, i'm honestly cool with this, as long as each and every industry that keeps emitting carbon foots the ENTIRE capture bill for their own emissions. I'll bet exon wouldn't be as gung-ho about their cc&s research adds if they were actually having to foot the bill for the mythical operation of their mythical technology.
So this is pretty random, but could you possibly do a video (or have you already done a video) about how 2 degrees Celsius is a big deal? My dad doesn’t believe the climate crisis cuz he saw the figure of the global average climate only raising 2 degrees and just wrote that off as a natural thing and it really annoys me. Thanks :) love the visualization here
I've thought about this also, and a clear way to understand why such a (seemingly) small number translates to such dramatic negative impact on modern life would be very helpful for many!
@@august1871 It's also true that the 2 degrees number doesn't translate to 2 degrees everywhere. Certain regions will see much a higher increase than that, others won't see a huge difference in local temperatures. Apart from the changing climate due to the changing heat distributions and extreme weather events from that, the places that are likely to see significant temperature increases already have summers that approach the upper limits of what humans can withstand naturally. It could render regions that are uninhabitable during certain times of the year
5:24 says "this is a good thing" regarding 3/4 being from cars and trucks. Counterpoint: it's a bad thing, and the fact that it's this high is a form of survivorship bias, since it's basically a list of things that we've so far been unable to decarbonise. 50 years ago, trains would have been high up on that list, but moving trains to renewables has been trivial when compared to cars, and so they no longer feature on that list.
This is cool. Renewables are the way to go! However it doesn't solve the social issues that pervade the energy industry. Whose land gets taken for solar/wind farms? Whose water supply is going to get cut off due to dams built for hydroelectric power? Who's going to face the landslides and floods because of the dams? These are tough questions that we need to answer immediately, otherwise we might end up creating more inequality. I'm from a country where socially, the field is uneven to say the least. I kind of feel helpless at the face of the climate crisis, because running into renewables haphazardly will make those inequalities more stark, but we also need to act now. IDK, just a thought. (edit: grammar)
Trees for carbon capture n don't work. First, every quarter century, fools like Trump or Bolsanero come along & allow their cronies to cut down what you've planted. See what's done to Bialowiecsa Forest, Poland by the PiS government. Woods are on fertile soil, timber is value, even stabile govt can't keep it safe- even swedish old growth is dwindling. How do even expect to check on protection of far off forests in out of the way corrupt countries ? More important, there's simply not enough open land to plant them co2 Capture trees. Farm folk live there, if not, it's already forest or it's unfertile or too dry. Greenpeace calculated about 2 times the surface of india is needed for current offset schemes using trees. We don't have that kind of empty land surface. We need something more durable. I'd go for seeding ocean plankton, the oceans contain about 60 times the 1880 atmosphere carbon content, or 16 times the total biosphere content including soils. It might affect ocean ecosystems - but as long we're not living in there, we could probably survive with that.
I live in north Florida and because the night time temperature are in the low 70's(F), I am able to cool the house with fans at night. But not this year. Across our nation, night time temperature are up. I also hear that winters are getting colder. Heating and cooling will become more important.
Amazing video. The only thing that bothered me was the statement that expecting people to stop eating meat and dairy is unrealistic. Why? It's like saying that expecting people to stop owning slaves is unrealistic. Yet we did it, because it was the wrong thing to do. Raising animals for food is just as wrong and need to be put to stop. We SHOULD expect people to stop doing that, if we love our planet.
Because virtually nobody wants to change their behaviour. People have known for decades how bad the meat industry is yet most people are not even willing to go from daily meat consumption for virtually every meal to just eating meat on a couple of days. Banning meat would require major political powers to make this happen but with the current population this would be political suicide, so no party or politician with serious power right now would propose such a law. Also, we know what happens when governments implement prohibition. It will simply create an illegal market, and already existing illegal organisations will benefit from it the most. - Sorry, I just don't see it happening in time for it to make a difference.
I mean comparing slaves to animals is a bit of a stretch, If we all stopped eating meat and dairy products what would we do with all the cows and sheep etc. they were domesticated and bred by humans, they stand no chance surviving in nature also when they eventually die all that meat on the animals would go to waste. I'm all for eating less meat, but it needs to be a gradual slope and not a cliff face.
don't forget that nutritional science is a crapshoot at the moment and we don't actually know what the health benefits of meat are and what the lack of those benefits will do long term. That said, I support doing research on factory-produced meat. Animal suffering is absolutely a problem that we can and therefore should solve. Personally, I think we should try editing the genome of our biggest meat producers to try and remove the nervus system entirely, though I'm not sure how well that ethically flows for vegans.
@@profwaldone I don't think it's just Vegans who'll have a problem with nerve stapling. I suspect a number of religious people will take issue with that too and animal rights activists. In some ways it's even worse because they wouldn't be able to feel. But yeah it's a whole thing, if we can grow meat in a lab it also raises the same ethical questions. In short the easiest way to animal CO² emissions is to just stop eating meat, which is also difficult as it's practically engrained in 'Western' culture
Other then the fact that we are not releasing carbon, what we are releasing is not black and that the earth has has much more c02 in its environment before and it was just fine.
@@edpiv2233 we are realeasing carbon, and you are right, its not black, its clear, like a gas, its black here so we can see it, C02 is, wait for it, Carbon Dioxide, which is a subset of carbon, and you are right, the earth has had more, but it can no longer hold the same amount, the ozone layer weakens over time, so we may have a 1 trillion ton limit now, but in the past it may have been 10x that
5:40 There are NO market forces incentivising electric cars - there are unreasonable fiscal and legal pressure to buy overly expensive, environmentally heavy NEW cars.
Hey man, we do have an alternative to synthetic fertilizers, in fact we can switch the current practices to regenerative ones quite easily. The agriculture industry is not only about carbon you know, there are much more to that like biodiversity loss and desertification.
5:15 Ummm... No mention of public transit and transitioning society to be much less car dependent? The States particularly is a sprawling hellhole. You almost always need a car here if you want to get around. Walking and Biking emit literally no emissions, and public transit is much more safe, efficient, and cleaner as opposed to cars. I'm a bit saddened you gave no mention to it at all. Although if you were only using that book, then I'm not surprised. No wonder he didn't give mention to transitioning out of literally the most dangerous, inefficient, and the most polluting form of transportation there is. That would hurt the profits of his billionaire buddy Elon now wouldn't it?
I don't want to go too hard on them... It's just Americans unknowingly defending their car dependant American way of life. From CO2 and noise pollution, through expenses due to making so many electric cars, to problems with population density... Many people in USA just don't know that you can have walkable neighbourhood, with small shops in between residential buildings that you can visit on your way to work riding on a bike... City planners are like "Since everyone is gonna have car anyway, let's design car dependant suburbs", while those more dense and walkable ones built before those stupid regulations for some reason are more desirable and therefore expensive. "Not Just Bikes" makes great videos on this topic
Why isn't there more commentary on the fact this is entirely and solely based on a billionaires book which is just a huge PR stunt? things like this transportation but also other issues like not talking about how most emissions are not even from everyday people but these 1% etc its all because at the end of the day however "good" Bill seems its just pr. Hes still a billionaire and im not gonna listen to his crap unless he gives all of his wealth to actually fixing these issues to independent organizations (no bill and Melinda gates foundation which is just a massive tax cut project). As long as he is able to basically solve world hunger with his wealth and not doing it i am not listening to a word coming out of his mouth. And this massively impacted my respect for Simon.
I enjoy your videos Simon on these topics but I cant help but feel that at this point humanity will not shift its course. We seem to be reactive in behavior and I think ultimately this will be the end of our species and probably a crappy time on Earth for us younger people. In short is the way we are going about raising awareness to climate change effective? There is all this data, graphs and everything but we are missing the human connection in the persuasion process. Logic simply wont persuade the nay-sayers and too much dramatization will only ridicule the efforts. I feel like the effort to change course has become moot. What are your thoughts?
yesss. people also seem to forget that public transport like trains are already electrified, and for those that arent, they simply dont need to (like bikes) or just need a bit of modification to (like busses)
If we manage to buy 100 years it will be huge. Progress in technology will help us buy more in te future. Look where we were 100 houndred years ago. Cars were a thing of the future, most people did not have access to eletricity. Imagine how our life will look in another houndred years assuming we will survive :P.
I just want to put a small correction to the steel production point: It isnt completely true that it absolutely required to produce CO2 in making steel. For example Salzgitter AG (a german steel producer) has their SALCOS project in which they build plants for direct hydrogen reduction of metal. (Not sure for which metals it works, though) You might not get that value to 0 but there is still a lot of room for reducing those emissions as well. Some kind of carbon capture is still necessary, though.
You might find this interesting it discusses some of the metals it can work with www.researchgate.net/publication/225575276_Hydrogen_as_a_reducing_agent_State-of-the-art_science_and_technology
@@seraphina985 Thanks for that. I only knew about these projects because I applied for an internship at Salzgitter AG. But this is quite interesting, really.
this is all well and good, but when will people take a stand and what will it take? we need governments to take a stand, and are they doing it? how do we get this change to occur?
@@professorfrog7181 It will also highlight solutions which are profitable from ones that aren't to billionaires and fundamentally keep the system that got them rich. For example by highlighting electric cars and not public transport like many others have commented.
I love your videos, but that's a bid crab. (Comment will get better towards the end) For a sustainable society we need (yes as you said fundamentally restructuring of the sectors but according to that) a huge transformation and another kind of economy a.k.a. system change. To ask Bill Gates how to safe the climate is asking someone who profits from the system to tell us how to change the system. Probably (just assuming) he isn't the best guy to ask for system change, because maybe he want's to keep his money and power. It's again an old white man profiting while the world keeps ignoring more sustainable solutions mostly by underprivileged p.ex. indigenous people. (That's why I was shocked why you spread his view. In the next part I'll focus more on the content.) Maybe an alternative to fertilizer for example is organic food production and permaculture. Fertilizer not only causes a huge amount on emissions, it also reduces our biodiversity and has a negative impact on soil and groundwater. So a SUSTAINABLE (sorry for screaming) solution would be negative emission technology an agriculture which uses nature better than using synthetic fertilizer. Continuing electric cars have a huge amount of rare earths elements. Raw material mining is largely connected to dangerous and exploitative working conditions. Seeing technologies and growing efficiency as the solution to climate crisis is therefor dangerous and build on human exploitation. Additionally there is the Rebound-Effect which we can especially see in (electric) cars. Of course we need more technologies in renewable energy but we also need a sufficient understanding of how we use our resources. Here is a nice study which includes a societal transformation and degrowth. Something the IPCC always ignores: konzeptwerk-neue-oekonomie.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/A%20Societal%20Transformation%20Scenario.pdf
Great video! I just thought I'd add that steel production and fertiliser can be decarbonised with green hydrogen - carbon offsets not necessarily required.
@@kevinmarrs3372 hydrogen can accomplish the same thing as coal through reducing iron ore to create water, instead of CO2 like the reaction with coking coal does. This is not done currently because it obviously costs more for the hydrogen then coal, but there are quite a few pilot plants and trials starting up. You obviously still need a bit of carbon for the chemical composition of the steel, but you're not emitting CO2.
@@rike2522 not really, it's an easy Google search. If you look up "hydrogen steel production" or "hydrogen fertiliser production" you will get hundreds of news articles and academic papers.
@@Albot940 i would imagine you’d have to redesign the reactor completely since you’re now using a gaseous reactant instead of purely solids but I guess it could be done theoretically. Question is how will the processes compare in difficulty and cost.
Decreasing meat and dairy consumption would definitely not decrease carbon emissions meaningfully, and meat consumption is crucial for feeding people and not wasting otherwise unusable farmland where only grass can grow. Removing cows from existence would help hypothetically, but we don't really have many more cows here now compared to buffalo/bison populations naturally living in the US, and many other countries are a very similar story. Calling livestock a significant anthropogenic source of CO2 is pretty naive considering that there were basically just as many animals here before european settlers came. Meat consumption is crucial if we intend on feeding the whole world, seeing as how most land in most countries cannot be used to farm edible grains. We absolutely can reduce methane emissions from beef, however, and since methane can be a relevant emission depending on local environmental factors it's definitely a meaningful metric to decrease.
Great video Simon, loved it. Conservation agriculture will play a big part in creating carbon sinks (Soil) and reducing the emissions of agriculture. I am giving my best to make a change in this sector. Reducing meat + Conservation agriculture will hopefully make a big difference in the future!
Conservation agriculture is awesome, love to see the plug!!! re-carbonizing over-plowed soil is an awesome approach to farming that not only captures carbon, it increases the water absorption capabilities of the soil and prevents erosion, why is it not the norm =D
I feel as though it's important to note, 1 trillion tonnes of carbon emissions is not 1 trillion tonnes of burned fossil fuels. You get more greenhouse emissions then you have fossil fuels... Kinda scary stuff to think about.
Somebody needs to tell me how this guy has 337k subscribers, this video has been around for 4 months, it is FANTASTICALLY made (hence the subscribers), I have never heard of this channel thus I was recommended this video from nothing, and yet it only has 21k views? This makes no sense to me, all the right factors are there and this video NEEDS to be seen by more people, so what the fuck is going on?
One of the arguments I get against electric vehicles is that: "You're just ignoring the problem. Most of the energy that powers your car still comes from coal; and the lithium mines that build the batteries for your car do more damage to the Earth than gas cars ever do." While that is a fair point, it's important to consider that EV's are NOT the solution, but merely a stepping stone guiding us towards the solution. If we have gas cars, not only are we burning coal to fuel the car up, we are also burning coal to power the batteries. If we move towards EV's, we wipe out the emissions coming from fueling the car itself, so we can focus on removing the emissions from where we get our energy, and actually start moving towards better energy solutions like nuclear, renewables, and from space itself. As for the lithium problem, we can likely get those materials from our asteroids, or other planets; depending on where its found
This is a very important perspective, because not many people know about the impact of construction or fertilizers. And of course the governments don't care when people don't.
Unpopular opinion: we've already lost. Even after all the news, science papers and research on the matter, carbon emissions keep rising (fast) and some people nowadays still portrait global warming as an "ambientalist conspiracy theory". Maybe I am getting old and grumpy and hopeless, but I do not believe we will be able to save ourselves from our own stupidity this time. We thought we were above it all, that we could manipulate nature at will. Nature disagreed.
Fun fact, at the end of the last ice age atmospheric C02 was so low at less than 200 ppm it was perilously close to causing mass extinction of plants which would have been catastrophic for life on Earth.
@@mrradman2986 No that was a glacial period. We are still in that ice age. If you want to discuss climate change then the least you can do is learn the proper terms.
@@bluesbr0ther588 Doh! it was 10 000 years ago when the great glaciers extended into the southern US and southern UK. By any manner of means it was what everyone understands as an ice age, the age of glaciation. We are now in an interglacial and hence in all probability will go back into another age of glaciation otherwise known as an ice age. C02 when the last glaciation ended was around 180ppm. Plants die at around 150 ppm. You guys specialise in talking patronising nonsense.
@@mrradman2986 All i ask is that you remain factual. If you consider that patronising then perhaps you should remain factual to avoid those kinds of comments in the future.
The calculation i had done resulted in ~ 300 KM x 300 KM (adjusted for day night cycle,not cloud coverage)solar panel field (100 w/m^2(8 hrs/day)) patch to cancel our ~50 Trillion tons of co2 at 300kw/ton Carbon Capture (from memory, in a paper, which i surface read) . I know ireland currently makes E-rocketfuel so it is possible, but to work, that fuel should be put in the ground not burned. The chemistry is: (1+2*num)H2O + (num)CO2 + energy -complex chemistry(LEMS or someting like that, couldn't find name)-> (2*num)O2 + (num)CH4 //((num)CH2(±)+2H(±)) -carbon chain (methane,ethane,propane,butane, etc.)
Similar company talking about "carbon neutral" actually carbon negative(IF you don't burn it) fuel: www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/captured-co2-and-green-hydrogen-to-produce-carbon-neutral-fuel/ Wiki on similar but simpler process: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Read further on methane wiki->Generation->industrial and on electrolysis, but couldn't find the LE... Something something reaction basically reverse fire reaction Found the paper from which i got the 300KW/ton CO2 figure(was No1 on google on "co2 capture energy consumption" if someone wants to go down the rabbit whole go research on your own this is from me): www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/9/1603/pdf-vor
I think that expecting personal consumption of heating and cooling is more than a little insane. Temperatures have been at global highs, and as we get closer to the point where we just render large swaths of earth uninhabitable for centuries due to living conditions, the need to regulate those temperatures closer to human comfortable levels will only increase, not decrease.
But if we heat and cool our homes with electricity, and we can decarbonise electricity, then won't that be quite a simple task? You can also reduce your energy consumption by up to 90% by building your house with naturally advantageous designs that keep your house cooler in summer and warmer in winter. Look into passive homes. Obviously, this can't be applied to already built homes, but it could be heavily incentivised for future builds.
@@harryiii3361 "simply decarbonize electricity bro" Most of the electricity in the world directly produces carbon. "Simply" replacing that capacity alone is a monumental talk even before forcibly converting everything to electric baseboard. As an aside, the video instead suggests... Just not using ac, like as the earth slowly becomes an inhospitable hellhole, that people will willingly choose to not make themselves more comfortable and less likely to die
you can also reduce emmisions from cars by building more train tracks and having better infrastructure. allowing people to have a normal life without even owning a car and doing everything through public transport, walking, and cycling. this is significantly more afforable for the greater population instead of trying to sell everyone expensive generally worse performing electric vehicles wich end up standing stuck on the road anyway.
I really want to believe we can do it, but I personally highly doubt we will. Bureaucracy is already to slow even without companies lobbying against it for profit. So when you combined that fact, we're doomed.
I can't imagine why a video coproduced by Bill Gates wouldn't touch on the problem that our current economic system not only encourages but requires endless growth to operate. I couldn't imagine a conflict in interest here
Even if we were to agree that ending capitalism would be beneficial, it is also completely unrealistic. You could choose to put all your energy into that goal, convincing people and fighting and whatnot, but do you actually think you'll do it before 2050, and with enough time left to then impose the necessary changes? Obviously I don't agree that it's even a good idea to begin with, but my point is that even if I did, I would still not push for it because it's not likely to succeed in time. You could draw a comparison to nuclear power, which I still think would be a great way to lower our emissions. Sadly, it's also a no-go because of politics, so I choose to focus on other goals instead.
Excellent content as always. However, the agriculture sector has a bit of a catch-22 to deal with if it needs both to eliminate animal farming and to find a mostly green source of fertiliser (synthetic fertiliser has an even bigger footprint than animal waste and accounts globally for roughly half of the supply of fertiliser), while using arable land sustainably.
Just so you know about it a very large portion of land that is slated for agriculture is unusable for crops in any way mostly because of either access to water or because of the fact that the land is just so rough that even if you were to attempt to make it unusable for crops the soil would be unusable because of fertility issues. So it would be a net increase in greenhouse emissions and then you have to think about the fact that the majority of the animal farms that produce the the largest amount of greenhouse emissions are in third world countries. You also have to think about the fact that while around 5% of the US agricultural carbon emissions are from animals its much worse in most other countries and they have a tendency not to produce anything close to the amount of produce that is made in the US. The then you have to think about the fact that we will still have a great need for fossil fuels even if we could stop using them for power production we still need simple things like the insulation around wires and things like that. Then you have to think about the fact that we need things that can produce power like solar and most things like that will still require the use of fossil fuels to be of any use. Yes we should have been trying to help this situation long ago but some of the same people who have been telling you that you need to give up your life and let the government run everything are the same ones who have been causing the problems we've been facing recently. I'm not saying that we don't need to change our ways I'm saying that the people who are trying to steal your life from you are the same ones that are saying that they have the solution to the problem they caused. Also bill gates is a pedophiles and his wife left him because of his refusal to stop it. If you don't believe me look it up.
