U.S. investing billions in carbon-sucking vacuums to combat climate change
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 08. 2023
- The Biden administration is investing over $1 billion on a new technology aimed at sucking out greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Evan Halper, a business reporter for The Washington Post, explains how the devices, known as "direct air capture" vacuums, could potentially help combat climate change.
#news #climatechange #carbon
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News CZcams channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Plant trees - not only do you create carbon sinks, but it's also a great way to preserve topsoil and they're supplying habitat for animals and they are attractive.
DO BOTH. why is it one or the other?!
Easier said than done. Not to mention would take decades to see any results
@@WoahJustTakeItEasyManwell it still needs to be done regardless of how easy or hard it is…
@@isafauxmystrahsmith9415 get to work then
@@WoahJustTakeItEasyMan the work is already being done by some groups, just theyre overpowered by groups who still seek to continue operating as usual, impacting climate change further.
Planting more trees to reduce carbon is a must since we’ve lost so many of them in the wild fires recently.
Would cost less and that's a problem with climate change addicts, they want financial pain put upon us serfs.
We have more trees in the United States now than we did a 100 years ago, believe it or not.
Need more. It's all BS anyway. @@jacobfromallstate4963
@@jacobfromallstate4963 We are also emitting more C02, we certainly dont have more trees than 1000 years ago
@@jacobfromallstate4963not enough
It's cheaper and cleaner to plant more Trees....
Hemp trees filter 3x
Governments cant make money of trees.
But trees take a long time to grow it can take three years just for a tree to be as tall as a avenge person and it has to survive not being eaten while small and forest fires
The lack of scientific literacy on display in this clip highlights just how important STEM education is along with technologies like carbon capture/sequestration.
My hope is that CBS can employ more educated pundits in the future, perhaps I'd tune in more often.
FYI: They Lie
Don't hold your breath.
I hear that. These CBS presenters were kind of embarrasing here.
Maybe there's hope for the STE, but we sure falling behind in the M lol.
I fully agree with you.
For the 2 commentators to suggest that investing in carbon capture technologies is an indication that we're "out of ideas" is complete nonsense. I've been reading about new innovations that are still under development (including carbon-neutral energy sources) that will help the world reach carbon neutrality and eventually stabilize green house gasses in their atmosphere. Let's not forget that we can't keep burning fossil fuels even if climate change wasn't an issue - all fossil fuels are non-renewable and we're gradually running out (and so it's still important to transition off of them before they're depleted).
The only bad news is that I don't think it's realistic anymore for the world to stay below 1.5 degrees; with the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and now Russia's war in Ukraine only making things harder, there are too many obstacles in the way for the world to transition quickly enough to stay below 1.5. But, I do still think staying below 2 degrees is realistic; I'm aware that 2 degrees would still lead to extreme weather events we really want to avoid, but it's still better than no action at all.
Plant some trees, this would be a much better way and it would cost a lot less.
Yeah but then they can't funnel cash to the carbon capture machine company that they all invested in. You can't inside trade with planting trees
You are correct.@@chrisbammer4946
Even if you plant 1 billion trees it won't be enough (and i doubt the United States will plant that many diverse plants)
@@AnonymousPanda-lo6gu a billion trees wouldn't be enough? But a few of these magic vacuum cleaners will do the trick?
@@chrisbammer4946 nope. I'm just saying that even if we plant a billion trees we can't get rid of even 1/6th of the CO2 we need to remove. Not only that, when trees die and when they are cut down especially due to deforestation, part of the CO2 stored in the trees gets released back to the atmosphere. I don't think that these vacuums will solve everything. Although they can capture the CO2 and stop it from being released to the atmosphere again, I say it's kinda(not totally but) useless if they don't make it so to reduce the carbon and green house emissions of their country and simply rely on it to take care of the aftermath of the emissions(I don't think the US is that dumb to do that). Planting trees (please not the same tree type) and using green energy as much as possible should also definitely be done.
totally dystopian. I think of Blade Runner in the 1980s movie when I see stories like this.
The epitome of insanity
This reminds me of the VW clean diesel scam. What is the efficacy? If it’s a novel system, why are we not testing more before investing taxpayers hard earned money?
The movie " Idiocracy " is a documentary of the modern society.
I hope it works. Now how about forcing the oil industry to properly cap the tens of thousands of abandoned drill sites that are leaking methane.
Is the juice worth the squeeze… ?
What a waste of OUR money!
The issue is systemic. Landuse has destroyed the carbon balance and we need to declare a climate emergency and use eminent domain to take the land back for rewilding. If we just continue down the same path and create artifical trees to suck carbon out of the atmosphere, it will be a free for all to destroy the rest of the natural world because we will have artificial lungs. The earth is not a machine you can control, it is a landscape we must nurture. .
you know.... trees do that
They don't take enough out and they don't do it fast enough. Also, when they burn it all goes back.
@@lunarwuffy5299then you plant more..
@@SiR_KN1GHT3D We're putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any amount of trees we could plant would be able to remove. We need to do more and we need to do it quickly.
Hemp trees filter 3-5x as much carbon
Snake oil salesman comes to mind.
I heard snake oil is a cure all .. ! Straight From Alex Jones
there's no way the life cycle carbon emissions of these giant contraptions and the cost to power them and dispose of them would be better than switching to 75% renewable energy. america will do anything to prop up the outdated oil and automobile-based economy...
Oil is set to reach peak use in 2026 and begin declining into negative from there. Coal is on the negative decline. Propane is the only fossil fuel which is anticipated to be a hard deactivation.
EV sales growing exponentially, sodium ion batteries will make them much more attractive than lithium, and new renewables get turned on every minute.
DAC facilities and renewables expansion are the only viable solutions to getting the air in check.
Really, Really bad idea. Hope they don't run the vacuuming operation with a coal power plant.
Welp another increase on inflation headed our way
fill the field with cannabis instead. cannabis HOOVERS up co2
it could be legitimate, or it could be another way to embezzle and launder taxpayer funds, like Solyndra
This story was very limited in scope as I watched a story years ago on Discovery and the tech works, they captured the carbon in pellet form then added it to concrete but whether it will work on large scale will need to be tested.
Moderna
They used to call these things Trees
Does the power to run this create carbon? lol
Yes, both Bill Gates and Elon Musk are investing in carbon capture technology.
Bill Gates has invested in a number of companies developing DAC technologies, including Climeworks and Global Thermostat. He is also the co-founder of Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a fund that invests in clean energy technologies, including DAC.
Elon Musk has also invested in DAC technology. In 2020, he announced that his company, SpaceX, would be investing in a DAC project called 1Point5°C. The project aims to remove one million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year by 2030.
It's a wrong application of technology that got us into this mess. Don't expect another technology that does not adress the root cause to take us out of it.
it's kind of a shock in the US MSM to hear the only question that matters as the first question, if at all, in the interview: "will less carbon be pumped into the atmosphere?" of course not. this is Elon Musk thinking. no less carbon b/c of solar panels, windmills, geo, hydro, bio, nuclear, no less plastic is being made, no fewer trees being chopped, no fewer hydros being fracked. "Is this is a joke?" it's a face lift in a jar. it's sharkboy.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is just 0.04%, if it drops to 0.02%, all plant life will die off.
CO2 is the gas of life, we need more of it.
Water si needed for life, throw everyone under water
And anything above .038% is incompatible with long term human existence
and at .085% the c02 level starts causing health problems direct ly
@@oleonard7319 I feel like before it gets even half there the health problem of, no food clean water or anything below 30 degrees Celsius would take hold
@oleonard7319 - Oh is that right? How about when plant life first evoled from 10% of CO2 levels? Not 0.10%, but 10%?
What a scam
It would be better if they constructed them more like towers and placed them in urban areas where there are more carbon emissions - there are also other passive carbon capture applications that can be used, as well as trees that've been genetically modified to grow twice as fast and absorb twice as much carbon.
And where does that tree Carbon Dioxide go again once the tree dies?
Does it take 50 times more the carbon based energy to run, like basic model-EVs do to charge, using more electricity than 50 Refrigerators ?
@ReadtheTalmudThat was a statistic FROM the DOE, genius... AND, pull up how Pete Buttigeig was just asked about this vs EV mandates in congressional hearings..
Do you always talk out of your -you know what, about stuff you don’t know?
Studies have found that, though it’s true that the production of a B.E.V. causes more pollution than a gasoline-powered counterpart, this greenhouse-gas emission difference is erased as the vehicle is driven.
And erasing the difference does not appear to take very long
Just keep getting jabbed and so it will all be over.@@debbie5728
If they plug into the grid it is powered by the most part by Gas & Oil, where is that savings again?..........@@FroggyMan
@@tommanley2924Efficiency of the motor and battery. Around 85-90% of energy put into a battery turns into motion.
Compared to a gasoline powered motor, around 25-30% of energy in the fuel tank turns into motion.
Knew this was coming. Fans as big as footbal fields are coming next. Then even bigger.
I saw this coming too.
Wouldn’t it get smaller and more efficient as technological advancements happen.
Lol what a joke! The economy is horrible and many people are homeless. Another big restaurant chain abruptly closed its doors without notifying its 30,000 employees just this week
Why can't they just invest in not putting a bunch of pollution into the atmosphere in the first place? 🤔
What will they do with the carbon that they get? How can it be stored so that it doesn't get back into the atmosphere
sorry to say this technology is far from being viable or impactful. other places its used i think make phone cases out of the collected carbon, but it would be far less energy intensive to collect plastics waste. the real benefit is a similar technology deployed at the source of the carbon pollution, but that would be a private initiative
I’m glad I pulled through, despite the crises. I am retiring next yr at 55 with 3 houses paid off worth 4.5 million. One is my place of residence the other 2 properties will give me $80,000per/yr rent . I will have an income stream of $20,000 per mnth through my super which gives me total $240,000 a yr to live comfortably. I have no debts _.._ Stay Motivated!!
Whichever firm you select, make sure you get your insurance from a reputable financial adviser, such as *Jenny Pamogas Canaya,* who has dedicated her career to financial planning. Because they will assist you in escalating, navigating better, and completing the task in a safer manner.|-|.
Lol like space balls
Good luck with that one as the technology hasn't been proved yet, plus you still have to store the waste. Far easier to stop using fossil fuel.
Its too late now
billions wasted on untested vacuums =
billions wasted on making a breachable wall
Is it powered by fossil fuels?
You see the skyscrapers that we build they need to build three of those air cleaner in these big cities that are as big as a skyscraper with all the technology we have robotic technology that could be done built and clean the air in the most populated areas and put where the most damaged hair is and clean it and it would cost a few dollars but you wouldn't have to replace it over and over and it would clean the air and you can scrape everything off and it just like a regular air cleaner in a house and renew it or use it for energy.
No maintenance needed don't cut or top let it be wild and line the sides of roads freeways and hyways with native plants and trees to reduce flooding heat wind co2 ground and air pollution.
Also in deserts use cactus succulents bushes yucca and flowers to do the same it help reduce co2 by a lot.
Oh the best part do it all by seed they adapt better that way and will potentially grow faster and be way healthier too.
Build a solar plant for the power, and start pulling the CO2 and methane out of the atmosphere fast!
And this incredible piece of technology shall be called Tr-ee
How is the one reporter completely clueless
i am going to get a seed for a tree and plant it and take care of it until i can plant it
i also hope this technology actually works
excuse me I thoughtn we were talking about a whole planet not just a country or a few states wtf
Put them in San Fran because the cloud over the city is black
They need more gas tax
Playing catch up is a mothrfukr, why so late with this?
It is really too late but let's try anyway.
Vacuums don't suck. Higher pressure pushes.
Takes energy to create.
How about we learn to turn off a light and not make everything plug in or battery powered? Remember when people peddled their bikes and didn't have garage door openers?
You can doubt the feasibility or cost might exceed benefits, or perhaps the idea is a farce. But climate deniers should think of it this way, what have we got to lose--Human extinction due to climate change. Plenty of money left will not matter if no one survived to be able to be around to enjoy it. So at this point it makes sense if pouing all money and all resources in the world to reduce carbon emissions in the air in order to meet the standard of healthy atmosphere and stabilizing the climate then thats what it should cost. Again what have we got ro lose?
Well, these things won't solve the problem but I hope they at least buy us some time.
Biden needs to declare climate state of emergency now
Somebody got rich. Congrats : )
you will need nuclear power to make the juice to run them......
Carbon Removal is a necessity if we are to survive on the planet. (IPCC)
This is not a "nice to have"
The energy requirements of these machines are currently far too high.
Reduces emissions. The per capita consumption of US-Americans is still a world record.
You have been brainwashed. 😂😂😂😂🤦♂️
No boy. I work for myself.
ps: I like your funny pictures.
But WTF "I hide behind my hand"
Are you ugly?
@@Mike_Davidson
We wouldn't want a technology that might save our lives to be "unseemly" or make a lot of noise...
This is smoke & mirrors. This is about money & power, nothing more.
The nature already has a green free machine without using any energy. Just use it.
You fundmentally don't understand how long or what that would take.
@oleonard7319 oh yeah, then u will burn fossil fuel to run those machines?
No, but planting more trees wont, do much in the short or medium term, either. Letting the earth fix it is something that would take hundreds of thousands or millions of years
If the climate hysterics are so sure, why aren't they offering temperature bets? If incredulous Thomas wants to bet, three to one, thousand dollars on the average annual temperature remaining below 18.5°C by the end of 2029, it's his own fault if he loses the coal, this will teach them to question the experts!
So puut, put, puut, gaaack-gack-gack (arms flatter):
where is the climate experts' first bet for money?
If the worst case pans out, money will be useless.
Come on... These wont do much... This will extend the inevitable
I got a better idea. Lets invent cyrostatis tube put humanity on pause for a few thousand years and the world will fix itself
Interesting … Please continue to follow this story - thx
Copium
Wouldn't it be cheaper to give ppl electric cars? And plant more trees?
It would be difficult because the government giving people anything is considered “socialist” in the eyes of conservatives
And not all people like EV cars
What Are They Doing To Remove The Nuclear Radiation?
Not going to say that nuclear waste isn't a problem, but it's not the existential threat that climate change is. We have to have priorities and mitigating the effects of climate change has to have the highest priority.
@@lunarwuffy5299 Your Wrong... They Killed The Pacific Ocean With Fukushima Radiation. California Burns, Canada Burns And Hawaii Burns. And Over 1 Trillion Sea Creatures Have Died In The Last Decade.
Not sure why everyone is so critical of this solution. Its not perfect, but its a step in the right direction.
People are rightfully critical because companies will and already are using this as an excuse to NOT do the most important thing to stop climate change and that is to STOP burning fossil fuels.
Given the rate at which fossil fuels have been being burnt and the abysmally low rate of carbon capture we're presently able to achieve, the math does not add up. Even if you look at the models that try to project improvements in carbon capture 30 years out, it's clear that fossil fuel emissions will continue to outpace carbon capture by a longshot because there's also emerging countries that are projected to emit even more greenhouse gases.
No on several levels 1. It Probably generates more carbon than it captures 2. By existing and being inefficient it lulls us into a sense that we're doing something useful rather than worthless
@stancerin2450 okay so what should we do? What other suggestion are you offering?
Pure Insanity.
Hopium
Hope these newscasters don't make fun of these efforts. They should know the devastating landslides, typhoons, water rising, floods, wild fires, high temperature hot flash deaths happening right in front of our eyes everywhere... They're reporting some.. some serious attitude change is needed from people who go in front of TV ✌️
Lol
fkin scam lmao. more propaganda
tarded
Okay thanks Family all brother and sister and Family All freedom family all investment in police free happens family all brother and sister and Family All Democracy in police free family all investment in police free happens good Family all Democratic Policy in free family all investment in police free family all export and airport in family all export OK investment Okay happens family all brother and sister and Family All PEACE OK THANKS
as long as the economy keeps growing, you can pump all you want.
Too little too late. These machines are still in their infancy and by the time they reach the power we need, it'll be far too late. I'm all for trying though. But we need to be adapting.
Vacuums, seriously
LMAOOOOO