Can Mass Carbon Capture Really Work? | Hot Mess 🌎
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 11. 2018
- Like this video? SUBSCRIBE to Hot Mess! ►► bit.ly/hotmess_sub
Peril & Promise is a public media initiative from WNET telling human stories of climate change and its solutions. Learn more at: www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-pro...
Carbon dioxide gets a lot of grief these days. It’s the main cause of the global warming that’s already damaging coral reefs, ice caps, and coastlines. But for eons, life survived on Earth because natural processes kept CO2 levels within limits, preventing the planet from getting either too cold or too hot. So, if we want to keep earth from warming more than a few degrees, we probably need to supercharge those natural processes, in a hurry. Or maybe even invent some new methods to suck carbon out of the sky at an even bigger scale. The question is, can we capture all that carbon before earth becomes too hot for us? Can carbon capture on a massive scale really work?
Connect with us on:
Twitter: / hotmesspbs
Instagram: / hotmesspbs
Facebook: / hotmesspbs
Hot Mess T-shirts!:
store.dftba.com/products/hot-...
References: bit.ly/2J9RVVG
-----------
Host/Editor-In-Chief: Joe Hanson
Writer: Eli Kintisch
Creative Director: David Schulte
Editors/Animator: Derek Borsheim
Producers: Stephanie Noone & Amanda Fox
Story Editor: Alex Reich
-----------
Produced by PBS Digital Studios
Theme Music: Eric Friend/Optical Audio
Music: APM
No financial incentive for companies to put scrubbers in smokestacks… hence, carbon tax.
Yes agree, I was taught we should tax companies for the negative impact on the environment. Otherwise companies aren't held responsible. It's done for electrical and packaging waste in the EU, should be for carbon so the money can be invested in cleaner technology.
We tax them ridiculous amounts and invest it in these methods but we should also make it illegal to emit certain amount of emissions. That way they find greener solutions and hopefully they don't just stay the same and avoid taxes and stress the working class to balance out the profits from taxes if they haven't avoid it them.
Or just build nuclear reactors. They're a whole lot cleaner. Except the public fears them...
@@JokerReaperComedy hey look, the guy with the only feasible solution that everyone will ignore... i'm with ya
There absolutely, no question, needs to be a cost for releasing CO2. No other solutions are sufficient without it.
This takes the cake. We capture carbon at VAST expense to all of us, instead of slowing the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere now, costing most of us nothing, but resulting in less profit for a few.
The carbon myth is the next con to fleece the sheeple.
Fossil fuels companys "look im not getting payed to save the planet so im just gonna keep killing it k?"
@Ian hey quick sceince lesson
Co2 = carbon dioxide
Guess what coal is made of? 100% Carbon (theres your C)
Guess what the air has in it O2
So when coal is burned the C comes together with the O2 and it gets released into the air
This happens just as much in America as it does in china
Yes and you must scheck your speling toe since it's companies and not companys. You ure nut very smort ar uou??
@@jean-pierredevent970 he might not be a native-english-speaker
@@lastyhopper2792 I was not really thinking about him ;-) It was irony but I won't explain it; It's complex :-)
Great production, but hey, would you listen to this critique? I percieve you have become 100% renewable proponents rather than 100% zero-carbon proponents in your communication. And the goal me and IPCC have is zero carbon really.
Im saying this seeing two things:
1. Examplify nuclear along with wind solar, all of these can be built out to a laege degree and all of them are close to zero carbon. IPCC claims we need nuclear, and its nuclear who struggles the most with public support, not solar/wind, so it matters more to examplify with nuclear yet it is not included at all...
2. Make it clear that direct carbon capture requires serious energy, and put this in perspective. If not, you are creating oversimplified models that needs to be replaced for making educated choises about energy questions, such as how much energy demand we need to plan for.
i strongly agree with both, especially with the first. environmental/climate activists must stop ignoring nuclear power because the longer they ignore it the harder it becomes for us to beat climate change. in the fight against climate change nuclear is not optional, it's a must. it is time for activists like this channel to finally start advocating strongly and consistently for nuclear power.
and for two, i'd say having abundant&cheap&clean energy will be crucial. i think nuclear would be the perfect candidate for powering any serious carbon capture and storage facility
I would disagree with wind and solar, they cost much more CO2 when it comes to manufacturing them, than they will ever save. Dam and Nuclear energy is the way, but if what these climate people are saying is true that we only have 10-15 years, then we wont have enough time to make nuclear energy facilities
2:20 "Growing food for our food" would be more precise.
If it doesnt cost companys anything to put carbon in the air. Just make it cost more than to use these machines and put it underground. Bit less cash for the company but better overall in the long run.
The customer pays the cost, ie you., So why not get ahead of the game and offer to pay more taxes? You are an economic fool.
"less cash for the company"...you make me laugh...more like : less cash in consumer's pocket.
@Giacomo Campanelli I still don't get it. Don't tax money come from consumer's pockets as well?
@Giacomo Campanelli Both of your's
@Giacomo Campanelli
If the government lowers the taxes in one are, they rise in other, for if they intended to have lower tax collect, they could have done it ages ago.
In the other examples, basically, In order to improve things money needs to be spent. Either by the companies and that reflects in the final price of the product that the costumers pay( the people), or, the government pays from taxes they collect from, again, the people. No matter how we twist this, it's us, not them that pay the price.
Oh, and don't believe for a second that it will not be used to also make a profit on top of those changes, out of our fear of carbon emissions. If I thought about it, they are probably already doing it.
Your videos are very helpful, clear and up to the point. Thank you so much for uploading informative videos.
The are garbage, CO2 is great for the planet, the man is a fool and he is brainwashing you.
This video is excellent! Wonderful overview and great visuals, thank you!
"putting it back in the air, basically all at once"
Good video. Beautiful editing.
3:46 yeah, I'm pretty sure co2 scrubbers on spaceships creak like that
Finally a video from the best host Joe! I not saying that the other hosts on this channel are cool. They are on average standard Joe being EXCELLENT.
Grasses? Grow hemp, then make hempcrete building materials. Crop turn around time is 120 days.
Direct ,more like directly put that co2 capturing on cars
But they can't work like that 😭 sadly.
Finally, an episode that looks at more alternatives without trying to trash them all. My biggest hope are things that massively change the incentive system and let capitalism do its work. I like the revenue neutral carbon tax idea myself.
Why not demand that all companies be climate neutral/positive?
I mean, anything else would be us subsidising companies to destroy our way of life?
@@Evimogwai - Demanding usually involves some sort of negative reinforcement system for when the demand isn't met. Making the reward system not strictly negative works a lot better.
Additionally, it's hard to know exactly where carbon can be most cheaply removed. This is the kind of problem markets solve well. And unlike sulfur emissions, carbon emission happens on a much more distributed basis and is woven more intricately into the economy making a cap & trade system infeasible for all but the most obvious and centralized emitters.
@@Evimogwai but, in general, I agree with you. Goods production needs to become responsible for the entire life cycle of everything produced. We must begin insisting on closed loops and architect incentive and punishment structures to favor them.
@@vctrtls that's why I like the idea of of a carbon tax imposed on all forms of carbon extracted from non-renewable sources. That tax money would come directly back to individuals as a flat tax credit.
This would force costs for carbon based energy higher and let the market figure out how to handle that while simultaneously giving individuals the money to deal with those increased costs.
New US wind is now 2 cents and new US solar PV is 3 cents per kilowatt hour sold to utilities. This is why more and more capital is being invested into renewables. However, I think we do need a carbon tax so the whole economy redirects capital rapidly. Could Gigafarms, similar to Tesla's Gigafactory, all over the world to grow food, create jobs but to also grow vast high-carbon sequestering, fast growing plants to make biochar. We can then bury this biochar in our global soils, coal mines and oilfields safely locking away carbon.
What about using an "All the above" approach. Making CO2 sinks more efficient, Re-Forestation, panting more CO2 absorbing plans (like Hemp), placing more efficient scrubbers on power plants and refineries and reducing the overall release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
Just doing one wont be enough, but combine them and we could make a measurable difference.
Seaweed , algae , kelp , it’s faster than regular tree/grass
This was far more nuanced than I expected. Great video as usual!
I wish you would have talked about certain grazing systems that speed up the process of returning carbon into the soil and promoting healthy grasslands. With the amount of land dedicated to grazing animals, if it is managed properly, it could remove more carbon more economically than any of your mentioned options.
grazing animals produce methane, a far worse greenhouse gas.
regenerative agrculture
Could you please make a video addressing the consequences of meat consumption and the environmental impact of changing into a vegan lifestyle??? It's something that more people should know!!!
Yes!
They have made 2 videos about this!
@@BeCurieUs do they? I've only seen one, and its only about green house gas emissions as consequence of beef production. What I'm actually looking for is for they to compare the environmental impact of a vegan, a vegetarian and a meat diet (not 100% meat, I mean a "normal" consumption of animal products). Taking into account not only green house gases emissions but also water consumption, land usage and quantity of people that could access food if we were to change our habits (you know, whether having a plant based diet is really as sustainable as data I've read shows). These are just ideas, but I'd want to know what does the data they find say about these kind of things and to let more people know about it!
@@agustinbrusco7173 Ahh, well, maybe if they create a general ecology channel then :D
What do you use to make the videos carbon neutral? There are some services for that, but it's hard to know who can be trusted to actually use the money you give them to capture carbon. Could you make a video about that?
When capture carbon dioxide, can it be mixed or reacted with some other elements or molecules to break down carbon dioxide and use the resulting oxygen and carbon in ecologically sound way?
Could you do an episode on the Jevons Paradox? I think it’s something to relevant to discuss as to our capacity to reduce actual CO2 emissions. I do think the Jevons Paradox exists and we need to account for it in policy making.
Jevons as it relates to energy conservation is interesting and talked about often in wonk circles. The rebound effect, though, need not make us scared to innovate with energy efficiency, though. Most studies do show that efficiency goals don't reduce energy use as much as we would like, but never enough to undermine the saves entirely.
Sadly the only way any group, corporation or government will employ such methods is IF there is a way to incentivize or monetize, such a process. It needs to be lucrative and massively profitable before it gets any serious consideration. Such a process needs to make someone really rich like right now! Then it will start happening fast.
Why is the only solution to store it in the ground? I saw a video on turning it into fuel. Just wondering how feasible that is.
I feel like Direct Carbon Capture from the atmosphere and even Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is just a waste of energy to capture the CO2 being emitted from using fossil fuels to produce that energy in the first place! We should be investing more in renewable energy to eventually replace fossil fuels instead.
Nice animations! I'm not hearing as much as I should about the dangers of planting trees. I'm a tree and forest lover. But with a dryer hotter planet coming our way, we have to plan for forests in dry areas to end up as forest fires. A lot of our forests are going to become dry savannahs or deserts. If we plant those places full of trees first, they'll grow for a few years, then ultimately burn, making the problem worse. I like the mangrove planting initiatives because they grow in mud along the coast where they don't catch on fire. I didn't know the algae were such a failure, or that grasses could be good like that. Thanks for the info. And please make the case for modern nuclear, it's honestly our only hope.
Horses eat incasive usually foriegn grasses massively decreasing forest fire issues.
Great comment!
A humble request to the programmers over at youtube, please add a few changes in the algorithm so these vides are seen in recommended more.
The energy returned on energy invested of a coal plant with CCS is 1/1 so the answer is no.
Could you please do research on Allan Savory and capturing co2 in grasslands
Where are we going to get the energy to suck the carbon back into sinks? I mean... seriously: nearly all the energy we generate increases the CO2 in the atmosphere so anything that spends energy is not going to work at all, unless first we make sure that the energy we generate is 100% renewable, something that is already technically and even economically viable.
The problem with all this "we" is that the actual decisory power is not in "us" but in a bunch of oligarchs with vested interests in keeping the emissions, because it's the way they control the economy (concentrated energy generation, sophisticated propietary engine designs, even the Saudi oil-backing of the US dollar that allows the USA to borrow in the very currency it prints at will). Two days ago I was watching this car expert explaining why the electric car transition is so slow: because the car industry oligopoly wants it to be that way. What can we do about that? Well, we can become aware of the vested interests that are blocking change first of all, because the first thing when we have a problem is to properly diagnose it and there is no global warming diagnose without diagnosing capitalist economy as it is, without diagnosing who has the power to make decisions and why do they make them or not (i.e. they make negative and destructive decisions). Then and only then, when we know who is that "they", and not "we", in charge, causing the problem, we can either exert pressure on them or remove them from power altogether. But first we must stop pretending we can do anything without identifying the power resorts and their vested interests and their stratagemes to keep change not happening.
How about we build solar PV powered Gigafarms, similar to Tesla's Gigafactory, all over the world to grow food, create jobs but to also grow vast high-carbon sequestering, fast growing plants to make biochar? We can then bury this biochar in our global soils, coal mines and oilfields safely locking away carbon. New US wind is now 2 cents and new US solar PV farms are 3 cents per kilowatt hour and scaling up fast.
NUCLEAR.
Natural gas is the answer. 1 carbon atom to every 4 hydrogen. It's very clean, cheap, and there's abundance of it. The green purists are so f'g radical now, they can't even listen to common sense, logic, and reason.
I'm a green and I say, as did before...NUCLEAR.
Outfits such as 'CO2 Rail'-a Texas based organisation linked to Canadian and. UK researchers- has addressed that issue imaginatively with its. novel 'DAC railcar'. By using the. slipstream from a. moving train to be. captured by scoops it avoids the expense of fan use and also proposes using the energy captured from regenerative braking on trains to operate the miniaturised DAC unit on the railcar.
Read the July 2022 edition of the scientific magazine-'Joule'
I would like to hear more about this shoving it underground. Can that actually contain a gas long term?
No it binds with lime to form Calcium carbonate, so in time it turns into rock. But you need special geology for this to work and free power, That's why a pilot is underway in Iceland where both is plenty.
Yes where the feck do you think natural gas comes from? We don't need to shove it underground plants love it, is is the basis of life on the planet, this crazy fool could wipe out all life on the planet.
Is skyline gardens efficient or counterproductive?
Biochar is the best way of sequestering carbon. It’s also a way of improving soil and reducing the need for artificial fertilizer (nitrous oxide). Another farming technique is to immediately til the stalks of corn etcetera back into the ground after harvest.
Nice video!
But limestone scrubbers produce calcium carbonate as a byproduct of clean air, which has a TON of uses. I don't understand why we aren't putting scrubbers EVERYWHERE, like not only on smokestacks, but on every major building that can house one. Not only would it produce tons of calcium carbonate to sell and use, it would create tons of maintenance jobs, as well as obviously clean air.
There are experiments, using tailings from mining and other rock types to bind carbon, by grinding it and spreading it on farmland. It does work. It is a viable but slow process and If we need to haul truckloads of rock cross country the feasibility drops off.
I think you may be hinting at a new method. of manufacturing. cement with captured CO2 and. calcareous. rock but I am not sure.
Have a look at recent developments in this area as this process is. currently a major. producer of CO2
It sounds like an interesting and promising idea to me! I'm excited to see if people end up trying this. We'll be in trouble if we don't do something useful soon. I want to be able to enjoy my adulthood, because I was planning on becoming one soon, which I don't think that's too much to ask for personally. 😂
Good news. If you actually go back and look at all the names storms in the US from 1900 and then their Cat number to see how strong they were, you discover that the 1940's were the worst decade for major storms in US history followed by the 1950's. There was a spike from 2000 to 2010, but you know what -- the quietest period in 120 years has been 2010 to 2020. Yep, the trend in bad storms continues to show they are decreasing in frequency and intensity. You need to stop listening to paid professional liars and there are a lot of them. Think for yourself. Don't let anybody tell you what to thiink
@Geegee Poo where did you hear that lol
@Geegee Poo bug how does that relate to your statement?
@Geegee Poo your statement said the less carbon, the less oxygen. We are taking out carbon from the atmosphere because there is a surplus of it. Even if the plan to take carbon out from the atmosphere is enacted, humans will still make a way to produce even more carbon. With the growing population, livestock will end up increasing due to demand. Livestock accounts for a lot of the carbon in the atmosphere. Plus, before humans, everything was in balance m, even photosynthesis. If we get carbon levels to normal, with the chance that people will start doing more eco friendly things, the system will stay in equilibrium for the most part
Idea for a novel. Invisible people are planting fake cocktail molotovs at gs stations to pressure gvts to have electric cars made. They also block train tracks.
Actually, making woodgas that is mainly Methane and Hydrogen and CO as fuel and saving the tar and charcoal for burial, would be a low tech way to extract Carbon from the cycle while getting a substitute for fossil fuels. Other hi-tech ways of pulling it out of air are bad: If you use Sodium hydroxide, you'll need 45 pounds for each gallon of fuel burned. This can be regenerated by heating it up to 350F, but this is not viable before we have a surplus of clean energy, which at the moment is better used to substitute fossil fuels directly.
You can also do carbon capture from bio sources. Say the methane and co2 produced from decomposition of garbage and organic materials. The methane can be burned for energy and the CO2 can be captured. This removes co2 from the biogenic carbon cycle and gives use a biofuel for energy. Wood waste can theoretically be used for this as well, with the additional benefit of creating biochar.
The problem is that there isn't enough material for this. Biomass energy from waste products is probably only 5% of our energy consumption. But the benefit of this approach is co2 capture from the air, without needing to bring more land under cultivation.
Weathering rocks? How do those pull carbon out of the air?
4:45 Just finished watching Beme video about carbon tax, would recommend for anybody who's interested.
Carbon tax is the fastest and most efficient way to change habits.
It hope this would not lead to a ecological catastrophe but I believe every cm should be covered with very fast growing plants.
Then next the biomass must be converted to biochar while delivering some energy. (yes, yes, avoiding dirty smoke of course :-) )
That biochar doesn't come easily back in the CO2 cycle and so storage is easy.
Perhaps it can be useful in deserts to improve the soil and so grow more plants there then too.
Another possibility is to do more with bamboo, hemp, elephant grass etc.. I think the Chinese look for new building materials based on bamboo.
The molar fraction of CO2 to air is 408e-6 and the molar weights are 44 and 26 respectively so in 1kg of air you have 0.00069kg of CO2. If the decarbonising process is 100% effective, to get 1Kg of C02 one would need to pump 1448Kg or 1200m3 of air through the machine. Doing all that pumping, even if the pressure drop is very small, would take a lot of energy compared to the CO2 recovered. There are lower hanging fruit, like coal power plants (cough China).
Outfits such as 'CO2 Rail'-a Texas based organisation linked to Canadian and. UK researchers- has addressed that issue imaginatively with its. novel 'DAC railcar'. By using the. slipstream from a. moving train to be. captured by scoops it avoids the expense of fan use and also proposes using the energy captured from regenerative braking on trains to operate the miniaturised DAC unit on the railcar.
Read the July 2022 edition of the scientific magazine-'Joule'
I agree with you that it would be desirable if China -and India and S.Africa-stopped building coal-fired plants. Alternatively they could install effective CCS equipment to remove the CO2.
How likely is all this ? So we have to look at alternatives..
Should be able bank by bank and best used at a genetating station for re-use where it may be constantly monitored for efficiency.
Can I buy the collected carbon dioxide? Because I need it for increased plant growth.
Kirby sucking sound at 2:00
Another thing we can do is to educate people. For example in cities where you are able to walk or use a bicycle, is double gain, you exercise and you don’t use a car (so you save money and carbon emissions). Right now I share apartment with this guy that every day and every time leave the lights and the fan on the whole day, even when he’s not at home, so I talked to him.
genius
You need the education. Climate change is a sham, a con, a money grab, a pick your pocket scheme.
still we need to learn how to use it otherwise it will be to difficult pay for itself in the short run to do reliably fix carbon
Dumping tons of crushed olivine in the oceans could also do the trick. More magnesium ions available to boost the oceans' ability to absorb co2.
DunnickFayuro although it can have other negative effects on the climate 🤔
Don't worry about it, it's not a problem. Let the Nature solve something sometimes
What I see a technology that is not used is to transmute Carbon to something like Boron.
Would barried CO2 become carbonic acid when in comes in contact with the water table?
Yes, which is why the oceans are becoming slightly more acidic.
Can we charge the oxygen in carbon dioxide negative to make it
Repelle from carbon???
Hopes for easy coordination frameworks in chemistry permitting ready carbon sequestration are now but a vestige in the chemists' mind.
You know a way to incentivise carbon catchers? Tax cuts to companies that have the catchers. But of course politicians would never do that since taxes from big companies are what gives them a paycheck.
Put the carbon scrubbers on the market and even if it is a lose there are companies that will still put them in willingly, some will do it so they can sell those co2 credits to other companies or just because they want to make the world better.
Can a small carbon capture fan be put on every roof to of every house with a carbon capture replacement canister, i don't think that should be too expensive to run it, plus we all have to pay.
What if we use trees to generate food for us like apples, oranges, and mangoes instead of small crop plants like grains, tomatoes, watermelons, etc.?
Collecting all that CO2 from powerplants is good but makes no sense if the idea is to just bury it. Instead, we could use it: scientists have discovered a process where you can take that CO2 from powerplants and use a fraction (around 10% if I remember correctly) of the electricity that was made creating that CO2 to turn it into carbon nanotubes which can be sold for 100x the price of that electricity you used to create them. This process makes it economically viable to collect the CO2 instead of releasing it into the atmosphere even when carbon nanotubes price lowers thanks to that process
This is a radical idea, but I feel like its one of the best solutions in the long term, which would be to have a limit put on having kids. This would help massively to decrease the human population in an ethical way. It seems like no one mentions this, but it's honestly the best and most long term solution because there are just too many people and eventually there won't be enough resources on this planet to sustain us additionally we'll continue to pollute, deforest for land, ruing the biodiversity, and much more just to try and survive as a race when the solution is simple to LOWER THE NUMBER OF HUMANS.
Most of our carbon is reduced by algae, not trees, right?
What if, instad of replanting trees in large area, people make artificial algae pool and design it to be an optimal enviroment (eg predator and temperature control). Just wondering.
Good idea 💡 It's being tried already.
Last Carbon capture I read about used a lot more energy than was used in fossil fuels.
Wouldn’t matter if all energy becomes renewables. This tech is more useful after society stops emitting co2.
I think the energy required to capture CO2 using the atmosphere filtering method would generate more CO2 on the ground than it actually captures, especially if the electricity that is being used has been produced by burning gas or coal. Also, given the volume of air that needs to be filtered, it would probably take centuries before reaching any noticable result.
Would it be a relief fact if the electricity used is generated from nuclear energy?
@@weicianhtet5271 probably but I still not convinced it would be really useful.
What if people just collected and buried grass clippings for their lawns, they're mowing anyways?
Composting also releases CO2, so it has to be buried deep or dried and pressed into pellets and used as a filler in something. You can't use a gasoline mover either as the emission from it outweigh the small amount from the clippings you are taking out.
The only way I could see this happening is if we someone genetically engineer some kind of kelp or plant that grows in the oceans and are specifically engineered to not be highly efficient for sequestering carbon. Meaning not be eaten by fish or microorganisms and encapsulating the harvested carbon in something that won't get released by microorganisms on the sea floor.
A solution that doesn't require massive work or money on our behalf. You'd just spread some kind of seedlings all over the oceans and the rest happens automatically.
Of course this would have massive effects on the biodiversity of the oceans. Of course pretty much everything does at this point in time.
Is the underground storing of co2 dangerous?
How does the carbon dioxide get into the upper atmosphere when it is heavier than air
By different winds around the globe. If you want a more precise explanation, let me know.
But what happens if we accidentally take too much out of the atmosphere and the earth gets too cold.
I also wantto have solar panels or something to watch more videos and pollute less. I spend hours watching videos, I learn a lot and I have larned enough to understand I should do my part to help the world.
Live in a house? Paint your roof white. If enough households do this, it will more than offset the melting of both polar ice caps in terms of reflecting solar radiation back into space and reducing the chances of a runaway greenhouse effect. It''ll also make your roof last longer and help keep your house cool in the hotter climates, reducing energy costs. Paint your roof white. Simple and effective.
While we should do this (most commercial buildings in the States already do this) it will not more than offset the melting of the polar ice caps.
Oh, and why not? Perhaps you've done a study with calculations? Please provide a link if you can.
Won't you need to leave. space for your solar panels?
The problem is, we humans can't even make 100% of the population to slow down the environmental problems. Not even 100% dealing with the pollution and rubbish. While we humans are slowing moving on to the next phase of completely 100% using renewable sources, we should solve the pollution and waste problems first. Then in the future we will only need to deal with 1 problems and not 2 problems.
Actually our first priority is to make every single one person in this earth deal with waste. EVERY TYPE OF WASTE, RUBBISH AND POLLUTION. Make 100% of people on this earth deal with rubbish and waste.
While we are waiting everyone on this earth using renewable sources, ITS A MUST to make everyone 100% deal with rubbish and pollution at this PHASE.
If people don't want to be vegan, live simple, live without waste, then it's a MUST to make every single one of them deal with the rubbish, waste and pollution .
ATLEAST it's not polluting the ocean and nature, so when we people are moving on to the next PHASE, 100% of using renewable sources, ATLEAST we don't have to deal rubbish and pollution problems.
Then, we will ONLY need to deal with ONE problem, the thing is, it's tough to make everyone on this earth to deal with pollution and rubbish. Also, like how to make every country do that? UGH. 😑 Need a PERFECT and EFFECTIVE solutions that satisfy both sides.
Also, the greatest thing about recycling it's only reducing pollution to the earth, if they don't deal with the recycled products properly, they might pollute the earth again. I hate those who don't recycle effectively . Like make plastic cutting board using recycled plastic, and when the knife cut on it, the plastic and food its going into stomach, its just so stupid 😑 Gotta make recycling the smart way.
Need a perfect and effective solutions that satisfy both sides.
My English sucks, someone please help 🤣
dam sized co2 filtering facilities all around the world is probably the best option
I guess plants don't need food anymore to survive
Okay video... I will answer the question the title raises before I watch it at all.
Yes. It depends on how much is truly necessary, and how difficult it is to employ. "Truly Necessary" would mean science done without poltics in control.... which is what we have now on this topic.
so, will Hot Mess cover the anti-nuclear controversy surrounding the latest ipcc report or are they gonna ignore it?
Hello! Do you mind investigating marine cloud brightening? Stephen Salter believe that a few of his autonomous ships, over a few years, could reverse the amount of warming that we've created so far.
Does burnt grass become pure carbon, or just carbon dioxide? Burn it in a restricted oxygen atmosphere (as in making charcoal). No need to bury it.
Coal... I'm starting to hate it So much 😤
18% of your body mass is coal.
@@Tore_Lund I hate myself 😞
Jokes aside, I mean when it's burned from the ground...
@Tore Lund Its carbon not coal
you can also turn the carbon you capture into rock, source: carbfix
The sea already does that for free, why waste money on it?
Why "plant plants harvest them and burn them to store the captured CO2"?
Gases are kinda hard to store...
Why not "plant plants, harvest them and store them or use them to build houses instead of CO2 heavy Concrete"?
Probably should have touched upon extracting carbon directly out of the Ocean too, since CO2 + Carbonic acid levels in the ocean mirror CO2 levels in the air.
I’m scared that I will die from climate change!!!!!!!!
Collecting the pollutant from factories and pumping it back in the ground won't that contaminate the water
"The question is, can we capture all that carbon before earth becomes too hot for us?"
The short answer is no.
The answer is yes, we CAN, if we act now. The new IPCC report states that with sufficient action, we do have the potential to keep warming under 1.5* C! We just need the political will to do so.
We can so long as we give ourselves more time. That's why seeding the stratosphere with SO2 is so appealing. It would only cost around $2 billion per year to maintain and would give us an extra few decades to solve the problem. That said, we're talking about global geoengineering on a scale we've never tried before and it's bound to have complications, but it is one of our best bets to solving this problem.
@@KatySwiere
Political action which is not going to happen.
@@enhydralutra
Too bad that's never going to happen.
Yes, we can, _only_ if we develop a lot of clean energy sources, and I mean a lot!
Kelp! Don't forget oceans! Kelp can help!
The point is that any man-made, large-scale method of trapping carbon produces more carbon than it traps, so the only thing that makes sense is to use less-carbon produced energy. Even nuclear, solar, and wind power require fossil fuels for construction and maintenance. The fuel for nuclear power is produced by burning fossil fuels. The materials for batteries for cell phones and electric cars are mined and assembled by burning fossil fuels. All of that CO2 is extremely hard to track, so legislation to tax carbon emissions is going to be just as convoluted.
On a parallel topic, developed countries have already decreased their carbon emissions, while developing countries are still increasing in their CO2 output. Developing countries want developed countries to pay for their advancement into the developed world. Who will pay the carbon taxes of Indochina, the Middle East, and Africa? Whom will the taxes be paid to, and what will be done with the money? Taxes are meant to assign responsibility "fairly" for the benefit of the society. Where do we draw the line of responsibility against environmental justice?
Fortunately artificial carbon capture and storage is too costly and hopefully will remain uneconomical. Vegetation put there by nature removes most of the carbon dioxide. Ask the inhabitants of Oymyakon if it is too hot in the Winter.
Can you do a video about whether capitalism is compatible with not wrecking the environment beyond repair?
It depends on the factors of the cost/benefit analysis. If the actual costs, e.g. insurance pay outs for super storms, wild fires, etc., are factored in then the true cost of fossil fuels can be calculated. This is similar to the leaded gasoline debate. The automakers only saw the cost of making cars using unleaded gasoline. The governments saw the health costs of lead poisoning in the general population. It was the same with tobacco. The profits from cigarettes were private but the health impact was public. There was no business basis to factor the social costs into the sale prices of cigarettes.
@@tiacho2893"The tombstone of our species will say we died because we couldn't find a way to profit off saving ourselves."
- Step Back History (user on CZcams)
I don't think they can because the conclusions would be unavoidably anti-capitalist and that would not be appreciated by their producers and possible advertisers. That's the problem with the eco-only approach, it's lame.
Considering the largest polluter is a communist country, I think the compatability is clear.
Grow out of your school programming they lied. We've had 4 times as much carbon in the past do your homework forget what you've been taught.
Easy, don't worry about it.....u feel batter
CO2 Scrubbers???? Really!!!!! Can you realistically imagine the volume of air that would have to be processed every year.
It is big, that is why that one tends to be the most energy intensive over a shorter duration. With that said, though, if it JUST uses electrical processes, it is could be powered by only renewable or nuclear sources, making it sustainable in certain ways that other chemical or biological methods might not be.
Why can't the United Nations have control over the Amazon Rainforest and eliminate any threats and criminals who are destroying and developing there once and for all!!!
To power carbon scrubbing devices we will need nuclear power in the short term. Storing CO2 underground is also tricky. If you have a leak it can become catastrophic.
What if we eat less or no meat?
You talk about having to give farmers insensitives to grow grasses but risking them expanding their fields into wild lands and making the problem worse. but what about just taking the waste and burning that? We already grow grasses, wheat and corn, we just burn the stalks after harvest.
Ok this will be hard but plant trees, start growing plants in the ocean, make renewable energy like Nuclear and thats a big start. What if we also I don't know used things like the rooftop of buildings and put a few plants up there. I know this video says thats difficult but we just have to.
Carbon capture makes as much sense as lining up jumbo jets to cause the earth to tilt, ( Limbaugh remedy)
Trees won’t be capable of producing oxygen, camel breath.
The fishes would die off, due to lack of O2 if you increase co2 ...
vertical farming uses co2. So sell it to them.
I would like to thank the 4 people that disliked a video that is trying to save the world. Big applause for you guys.
I like his intent, but his depth of understanding is mediocre; he got some things wrong and left out others. It's a shame, because his content is usually quite good.
I didn't downvote the video, but it was close; I certainly couldn't upvote it with a clear conscience.