A Crazy Solution To Global Warming
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- Use code JOESCOTT50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3Db3wAT.
Our climate is constantly changing. And right now, we're what's changing it. What if we could find a way to stabilize it to ensure our survival long-term? What if we could create a thermostat for planet Earth? Here's what that might look like.
Here's Climate Town's channel. It's fun.
/ @climatetown
Want to support the channel? Here's how:
Patreon: / answerswithjoe
Channel Memberships: / @joescott
T-Shirts & Merch: www.answerswithjoe.com/store
Check out my 2nd channel, Joe Scott TMI:
/ @joescott-tmi
And my podcast channel, Conversations With Joe:
/ @conversationswithjoe
You can listen to my podcast, Conversations With Joe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Spotify 👉 spoti.fi/37iPGzF
Apple Podcasts 👉 apple.co/3j94kfq
Google Podcasts 👉 bit.ly/3qZCo1V
Interested in getting a Tesla or going solar? Use my referral link and get discounts and perks:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
TikTok: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
LINKS LINKS LINKS
www.co2.earth/daily-co2
www.noaa.gov/news-release/car...
www.technologyreview.com/2021...
www.technologyreview.com/2022...
www.statista.com/statistics/1...
mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/c...
carbonengineering.com/
climeworks.com/
globalthermostat.com/
www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...
www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/clime...
www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.heirloomcarbon.com/#produ...
www.missionzero.tech/our-tech...
www.sustaera.com/technology
www.noya.co/how-it-works
www.carboninfinity.com/techno...
www.carboncapture.com/
mechanicaltrees.com/
www.businesswire.com/news/hom...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
www.quora.com/How-many-metric...
www.researchgate.net/post/How...
www.theguardian.com/environme...
www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate...
www.c40.org/what-we-do/scalin...
www.nsenergybusiness.com/feat...
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
1:35 - CO2 Levels
2:54 - Mining The Sky
9:22 - Climeworks
10:23 - Carbon Engineering
11:17 - Global Thermostat
12:25 - Additional Startups
14:19 - Carbon Market
18:00 - How Much Carbon Do We Need?
23:17 - This Is How We Do It
26:13 - The Caveats
30:00 - Sponsor - Factor 75 - Věda a technologie
As someone who uses Celcius, watching him turn the dial to 72 was terrifying
Ditto for anyone who uses Kelvin.
Fahrenheit - 0 = cold; 100 = hot
Celsius - 0 = cold; 100 = dead
Kelvin - 0 = dead; 100 = dead
Interior temperature is actually somewhere F makes more sense than C. Ideal temperature in F would be 68F to 72F, and people tend to be very particular within that range. 1 degree difference is uncomfortable. That range, in C, is 20-22C. Just not enough granularity to find ideal comfort.
Thus highlighting the problem with a system where 0 is uncomfortable 50 is dangerous.
C is far to crude, Its like trying to eat sushi with broom handles.
In 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, published in 1872, one of the characters discusses how industrialization was already having adverse effects on ecosystems. He mentions the possibility of destabilizing large parts of the global climate if industrial trends continued. That was 151 years ago. They may not have understood the scale, but they were already seeing the signs.
It amazes me perceptive people were cluing into that way back then.
Welp great to see in 150 years so much has changed! Good to know heavy industry is totally clean now!
pollution was blatantly dumped back then into waterways, killing all the fish. they knew this was bad
You do realize that was a work of fiction right?
@@WindowsXP_logon_sound_25yrsagowhy?
Many thoughts on this but the one that I keep coming back to is this: What is wrong with hitting the problem from all angles instead of hoping to find the proverbial silver bullet? Plant trees, build nuclear, continue to innovate with renewable energy, collect carbon on the way out AND collect after it's in the air. Anyway, that's my $.02. Love your channels, Joe. Always entertaining, informative, and thought provoking! 🤓
And be proactive - stop it at its source. Just like the plastic issue - these companies went from creating glass to creating plastic and we're so busy trying to bail the water out of the boat using a bucket we're not paying attention to the fact we could just fix the hole.
because societies these days don't want to invest in any technology unless it has an immediate and long term quarterly gain. Nuclear is the obvious power choice but they aren't as spicy (in terms of profits) than wind or solar. Go figure that humans remain obsessed with profits than with their own survival.
You want a silver bullet? The one thing that can fix magically fix everything. Immediate reintroduction of industrial hemp replacing cotton, lumber, polyester, and countless other raw materials. That would have more impact and cost less for less effort than any and every other method combined.
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 While I don't necessarily think it will just take one thing, I completely agree that would be a massive start. Right alongside the going back to glass instead of plastic. Great example.
How am I expected to survive if I can't fuel my helicopter @@Javaman21011?
This was my thesis paper last semester. As I watched the video, I kept saying “is he going to talk about… yep, he did.” “But is he going to do the math..? Yep, he did.” Very well done.
My only addition to this would be the ethical implications, which is what my paper focused on. Things like: the noise these plants generate, the eyesore they are (do you know how BIG these machines have to be?), the workforce necessary to build them all, the cost of upkeep.
A long-term, global-scale project like this seems unlikely, but we need to do something.
Ok, if you did such thesis, could you answer my little question? BTW forgive me if i had wrong idea. It's morning, didn't finish my coffee and i still have to fire up my brain motor.
If he/you counted a drop from ~400ppm to ~300ppm in tons of CO2... why he did it just once... ? Or am i missing something?
From what i know, we are pumping CO2 to the atmosphere constantly, so in my mind, we would have to pull enough CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Not once...
Then this price woul be multiplied for every year? And then it would fit his first feeling assumptions about it being insanely higher than what he calculated?
EDITED
LOL, sorry. i stopped this clip at 20:00 and wrote this question. Then i started it again and he answered. NVM 😁
If this removal was combined with putting less CO2 into the air each year, e.g. move away from fossil fuels, closed loop systems, etc, then the extra cost per year would start dropping, making it a bit cheaper overall. The initial large figure still applies, it just can get better if all the other work is done too.
Or we could just plant lots of hemp.
🙄
I submit that the thought that, "... we need to do something," is just as flawed and shortsighted as thinking that we don't need to do anything. The only thing that we can actually be somewhat near maybe certain of, is that we should do things more efficiently and more cleanly. Beyond that, our current ignorance rapidly compounds any plans too far into the fog of the Great Unknown for us to predict with any reliable measure what they will actually do.
I further submit that each of us, just trying to do a little better, within our own spheres of influence, would do more than anything else, to reduce the impact humanity has had, and will have, on the environment and the global climate. I would apply this to our personal and professional spheres equally.
Double edged sword with trees... Yes they require water initially... but in the long run they help capture water, restore top soil, and increase overall moisture levels which encourages more rain. However, you can't just plant a bunch of trees to try and create a forest. If all the trees are the same age or the same species (as you mentioned), it actually increases the chances of failure and fires. You have to mimic nature and plant diversity and in succession. Some trees one year, and more the next, and more the next, etc. Also plant companion plats and fungi as well. Also though trees capture carbon, the topsoil itself is actually more effective at capturing carbon. So we don't necessarily need dense forests, but instead we need to restore topsoil... which does involve trees, but not nearly as many as one might assume.
Mature forests aren't even desirable for this purpose. A mature forest is carbon neutral as its trees die and rot. What we want is giant commercial timber farms using monoculture fast growing species like SPF (softwoods) or bamboo. Then we harvest them for wood and build durable structures. Every ton of dry lumber mass produced is about 1.46 tons of CO2 sequestered.
You’re right about the top soil.
That’s why we need to work to restore our Great Plains here in the US.
The thing is, it doesn't matter...Western countries are doing so much to try to make things better for the climate but it all gets undone by China, India, and other countries...we can't make progress if everyone doesn't pitch in, but it's hard to convince a brutal dictatorship (China) to do something good for the world when it doesn't even care about its people, and in terms of India most people are just focused on surviving and can't find time to care about the rest of the world
Yeah most re/afforestation minded scientist and papers I read advocate for the effects of cooling through water cooling dynamics introduced, not CO2 sequestration (considering it to be a by-effect).
Better yet, train local populations to re-green and restore landscapes. Soil restoration is relatively slow (order of 10s to 100s of years). Soil degredation occurs in an afternoon.
Trees are awesome, but there is just not enough space in earth to plant as many trees as would be needed.
For years, auto companies cried that they couldn't meet EPA standards for air pollution. That they would bankrupt the industry. The EPA didn't let up much. Eventually, the car companies figured it out, because they were forced to figure it out. Why would it be any different with the power-generation business? If carbon sequestration doesn't work right now, make it work, under penalty of bye bye profits.
Shorts have their place but these lengthy deep dives are awesome something to really get your teeth into. Joe, keep it up pal, loving it. Also fingers crossed we as a species sort our s*** out. Cheers mate
Yush, save the hoomans and spread knyowledge meow >^w^< 🐱
That was the most encouraging video I’ve seen about this. No reason we can’t do it. I hope ASU gets the award. That’s what we need.
I can't imagine the amount of time and research you had to devote in order to create this video. I'm way to lazy to do all of that research but I am super interested in the topic so thanks a lot for presenting all this information to me in a 30 min segment. Very well done!
Thing is, the same effort doesnt go into some basic critisms of climate change. Joe is an amazing human and even if i sound judgy about his take on climate... the man is awesome and i hope his death has like 16 different dates and is really really weird =) * edit* i said that last bit because im sure he would appreciate a nice falling asleep death to become a weekend at Bernys type of situation where he is seen across multiple countries... im having too much fun. Have a great day!
For those wondering what molecular sieves are, they are a sort of ceramic looking ball (BB to pea sized and can be made of several different materials) that have pores in them that are so small that they are very similar in size to the size of the molecules that they're meant to absorb, making that specific molecule or sizes smaller than said molecule able to absorb into the materials. This is generally an exothermic reaction, meaning it produces heat. I've booked alcohol before using them to remove the water from it. I mainly use them to remove water from other liquids (type 3A), but they come in many various pore sizes that can absorb much bigger molecules and many different liquids and gases. They're really cool and really neat to work with. The ones used for water can be reactivated by putting them in the oven (afterwards they've been dried on the outside and all alcohol is removed if that's what you use them for) for a few hours and they're ready to go again. Great for dessicators as well as they'll suck the water right out of your products without even having to be in them by using the air as a medium.
nice to see you here as well
I'm pretty sure I've seen NileRed using something like this in at least one video.
They are used in a lot of processes. Oddly enough it's used at the Carbon Capture plant in Saskatchewan in their amine process
Thanks for the great information! Appreciate you!
A mesh sieve is made of molecules too
dude....Joe....you might not be reading all these comments, but i watch like...every single one of your videos. you are probably one of the most funny dudes out there. busted up laughing at least 3 times. keep this shit up. i don't know how you do it. endless hours of preparing, deleting content, editing content. it's gotta be rough. but I am a HUGE fan! will keep liking and commenting as much as possible until youtube rewards you with a most valuable trophy some day
Awesome video! I love how detailed your analysis is of current and future technologies. Thank you for your work and focus on topics that are very prevalent. In particular, the way you are able to articulate the impacts on difficult concepts and break them down into layman’s terms is awesome! Look forward to you future content.
I am pausing the video because I feel the need to comment. Other youtubers may be funnier than you, but I am sticking around and paying a symbolic 1 dollar monthly donation because I like you and I like the way you present complex topics. Can't explain it, but your videos sort of have an anchoring effect on me. I know I am not alone on this. I have read other comments describing this feeling. Please keep doing what you are doing. It works!
Glad to be your anchor. :)
Get a room.
@@Scepticalasfuk mwahaha tbh if I met Joe irl I might even do a stupid starstruck stunt and ask for his autograph 🫶🏻😁
Ditto… there is something about the videos and his presence is anchoring
It feels like a passionate conversation when you're taking the time to listen.
"we are currently going in the wrong direction and we keep pressing the gas harder"
Heh. I see what you did there Joe
warmed eu enough, not to req. russian ng, during war.
The ocean based idea you had can pump it into old oil wells instead of the seawater. It can also double as a direct carbon capture system for capturing Carbon directly from seawater and storing it permanently, as the ocean is already quite adept at acting as a carbon battery which has done a better job of helping insulate us from the most drastic effects that were predicted.
CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere - if it goes under 0.3% all plant life dies - CO2 is absurd - WHAT IS MORE LOGICAL - is governments not admitting #CLIMATEWARFARE is a real thing - using weather as weapons. Now if they just came out and said that - I'd be fine with giving money to prevent climate warfare and being able to control climate. Rather than get lied to about it all like we are getting lied to right now. They lied about the pandemic... they lied about spying on all Americans and the 5 eyes countries. They tried to lie about MK Ultra - they wont tell the truth about the Kennedy Assassination - so don't tell me that climate change is made by humans because of carbon. And Greta Thunberg's family are the ones that started the whole "carbon" hoax. #GOFIGURE ..
I saw a video a while back that mentioned a hydrogen capture method that uses water vapor from the ocean. Iirc water vapor requires less energy to split than liquid water and also avoids the issues of filtering (rocks, fish, sand) and brine waste (we can use some stuff in the brine but most of it is useless to us and would do more harm than good if we just dumped it back into the ocean). If we could combine such a hydrogen capture system with a ocean carbon capture system using renewable energy (probably a combination of solar, wind, and wave generators, I doubt geothermal would work well near the ocean), I could see a decently profitable company being formed. Said company would probably sell synthetic fuel as their primary income source (hydrogen plus carbon) which isn't the greatest but synth fuels can be made to produce less greenhouse gases and no toxic chemicals while also reducing our reliance on oil which means less damage from drilling and refining oil. Such a system may also be able to produce synthetic plastics and ethanols since those are also made of hydrocarbons.
⁸
@@shanefrederick1314 ?
I just found climate town recently and it's an AWESOME channel. Very recommend.
Didn't think we were getting a video this week! Loved it. Good luck on the renovations!
Christmas Video. Note the Tree.
One would think. That tree is still up. It's now a Valentine's Tree.
I didn't want to say anything about that not being a true test of time, but ours is still up as well
Climate Town is legit great channel! Well researched & hilarious dude. Props to Joe for giving them a shout out!
I disagree he makes emotional kind of simplistic arguments. Joe has much more well thought out videos
i will check it out. I love Joe because he is good dude, but seems a like so much of the successful media the climate topic has major flaws. Still, im hoping my expressing heavy doubt to you will make some good luck and Climate down wont just be another statistics drama diatribe
If only climate change was legit
@@annother3350 It is, take your head out of the sand.
@@krashd nonsense, the coral reefs are thriving, theres no sea level rise, deserts are being regreened and there's 14% more green space on the earth than 20 years ago - the planet is thriving.
Climate change was invented as a system of power and control over anyone but the super rich
Great overview of the situation. Thanks for listing specific companies as well. It's hard to get a real world picture when the real world names and details aren't explained. Keep up the great work.
Hey Joe, really burning question here!
How on earth do you manage to post consistently + research well and objectively + be entertaining AND have really good marketing/promo skills?
Where did you get all that discipline from? How did you build it? How can you follow through and finish every task every single time?
PS, free beer if you answer
He has a team
Your burning question is only adding more CO2 to our atmosphere 😅
@@markusnl He's burning hydrogen so adding to sea level rise.
also his team works on these constantly so this was probably filmed months ago after months of research.
He’s got a rare blend of skills - both educational, media, business and storytelling.
Wow !! That thermostat performance was incredible !! Bravo 👏🏼 Oscar!! I say Oscar!!
Those sound effects were on point too!
@@pixelfairy yep 👍
This video, is another reason why Joe is one my top 10 favorite CZcams channels ❤️🔥💪👍
Who are other 9
Someone tried to do a pilot project sequestering CO2 under the ocean off the coast of Spain several years ago. It caused an earthquake :( and the project was abandoned.
Totally worth it. I suspect geothermal has the best prospects because you get heat and electricity, and because geothermal is found near volcanoes. Volcanoes flow gigantic amounts of basalt, and carbonated water pumped into basalt fractures the basalt in the formation of limestone.
What I really suggest to people that could be just as helpful, if not moreso, that straight planting trees, is finding really empty forested locations with next to nothing growing at ground level, researching the Native plant life of your area and buying seed for groundcover plants and grasses to put under the trees. I understand that not everywhere is forest & I also understand that some regions of the country are best off having anti-wildfire measures in place, but that will sequester a heck of a lot more carbon a lot faster. If you have an area to convert into native grassland, do that, or if you have a pond and want to add bushes/ trees/ grasses around parts of the perimeter, or fill it with a variety of Native water plants. All those things are a lot more doable than planting trees, because there is so much more forest land which was stripped for one reason or another years ago and didn't grow back in right once it was abandoned & often many waterways/ swamps were damaged either deliberately or accidentally over the last two centuries.
Grow trees, build with wood, and grow more trees, thus capturing all that carbon in our living spaces.
@@seanhoude The trees will take about 10-20 years to start removing more carbon than they let off, depending on the species. The other forest plants help with that process. Trees off on their own, without a forest environment, don't really do much of anything & once you cut the thing down, it's no longer doing any more than it had already done.
@@MrChristianDT Its more complex than that as most of an actual forest lives underground in vast interconnected networks, effectively 50% of of a tree's carbon budget is sent underground where it supports the vast amount of living biomass that makes the difference between a collection of trees and a forest.
Forget about trees people. Too slow, inefficient, and labor, financially, and environmentally costly.
HEMP HEMP HEMP HEMP
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 Which would require clearing land that could be used as a carbon sink to plant a monoculture of marijuana/ Indian Hemp- the field in question of which will be doing nothing during parts of the year, will not have enough plant matter to hold onto the soil, which runs off. The fact that farmers have to keep fertilizing fields shows how poorly crops work at sequestered carbon. We can get a good bit of it stuck in the plants themselves, but the point is converting a vast majority of it into soil over time & keeping it there.
Would love a video delving into how/why the oil industry receives trillions of dollars in subsidies each year. Based on your figures surely this would mean that oil companies would not be profitable without the subsidies and would make renewable energy much more competitive (or probably massively cheaper) than the dirty alternatives. It would be very interesting to understand what justifications are made for current subsidies. Out of curiosity and because I didn't know a way to investigate these figures I asked ChatGPT what the global subsidies amounted to and the response was in the tens of billions. Not disputing your figures, but just thought that was interesting...
Any time this discussion comes up, this Icelandic experiment is brought up. This is located just 10 mins from where i live .It's located just outside of Reykjavik and there seems to be no downside to this. Might be because there is nobody living close to it and there is lots of noise it produces. But, thank you for this video. A great one.
thanks for mentioning Climate Town channel, its disturbingly funny & great journalism
Solar powered algae, then buried in the desert, is a way to sequester carbon with no additional energy input. The company Brilliant Planet is doing this in Morocco as a test project. Their estimate is 40 tons per year, per acre of sequestration. Because you can grow the algae in seawater the American Southwest could stand to see this as a huge economic opportunity.
The problem with this are the minerals and the water. Meaning algae are not only carbon. If we are able to concentrate the algae into some form of coal, this would make sense, otherwise you are just putting fertilizer in the ground that will leak out eventually and you are also creating a ton of methane that will also leak.
There’s really no reason that this couldn’t be expanded to everyone growing algae in their backyard that they let dry in the sun and then sell that dried algae to their local recycling center.
@@louislesch3878 not everyone has a backyard.
algae growths works great for dealing point sources of CO2. To get optimal growth per area, you want to feed CO2 directly to the algae. But you could combine it direct air capturing. It propably scales better than sequestration.
Perhaps make it into a slurry and pump it into depleted oil wells underground. Bury it where coal seams used to be. There are "proper" ways to grow it, but it isn't exactly picky stuff. Just ask any aquarium owner.
Happy to see the climate town shout out. Totally the best produced and most informative channel to educate on climate policy.
Definitely. He should have earned his seat with the world economic forum by now. I’m sure they are all very pleased with his contribution
Best show you’ve put out in like…. FOREVER.!!
Great Job Joe.!!
I JUST FOUND YOUR CHANNEL TODAY AND HAVE BINGE WATCHING YOUR VIDEOS ALL NIGHT AND HAVE TRULY ENJOYED HEARING ABOUT AN ASSORTMENT OF TOPICS ***
I HAVE ENJOYED THEM SO MUCH THAT YOU MY FRIEND HAVE EARNED YOURSELF A NEW SUBSCRIBER ❣️❣️❣️
THANK YOU FOR JUMP STARTING MY BRAIN WITH TOPICS AND INFORMATION I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FASCINATED WITH ❣️❣️❣️
So, Trees... Definitely could fix our problems. I work in Nantahala National Forest - 2nd Wettest Place in the USA. Elevation about 2000ft-5000ft. The trees at maturity could be 100-200+ft high. This acts like a lice comb, literally pulling moisture from the air. They also evapotransporate water from the ground water, super saturated soil+leaf litter, understory plants, seeps+creeks, etc. Water is attracted to other water due to cohesion/adhesion. Hence, the Great Smokey Mountains (just north of Nantahala). True, you need the right tree species and they right geographic / geologic features. The knowledge is available! The forests can be use not only for recreation, but as mushroom farms, for hunting + fishing, collecting wild herbs, fruits, nuts etc. There is plenty of food in the forest. I have eaten chicken of the woods, lobster mushroom, black trumpets, multiple species of chanterelles, oyster mushrooms, lactarius, black berries, raspberries, wine berries, blue berries, huckleberry, ramps, sassafras, etc 2 deer could last you a year. It is possible to live off the land
Don't forget building materials- log some of those trees when they reach the peak of their growth to allow a new tree to grow in its place, and gather more CO2, while you use the lumber in building or other tasks.
Street trees also reduce crime.
Weird but true, a cause and effect.
No one know why.
There is one downside that weakens their positive impact. Forests have a low albedo compared to most other landscapes reflecting less light and generating more heat from absorption. But yes trees are good as a carbon sync and critical to maintaining the global biosphere and its complex interwoven ecosystems.
Some estimate that we need to plant 1 trillion trees to return the climate change to pre-industrial levels. The cost for this would be around 300 billion dollars - and that is how much countries spend on subsidies of "green" industries per year. This means we can solve the problem in one year. The subsidies of other years can be used to develop tech to help those new forests thrive.
@@veramae4098 More like correlation in my opinion. Most low income areas don't have street trees. The local infrastructure itself is crumbling in areas of high crime and urban decay. Maybe there is a slight contribution to the cause however where the sight of nature reduces stress and impulsivity in artificial environments like cities.
THE INTRO WAS BRILLIANT OMG 😂
Man Joe, I love your channel and I am so glad I discovered it like a few years ago. This is just absolutely brilliant stuff you make and I absolutely look forward to every video, no matter if I like the topic or not, you just make it interesting, while being realistic, while being futuristic and optimistic, while being hella funny man
Thanks from the bottom of my heart
That's very kind, thank you. :)
Oh my god oh my god oh my god i am such a big fan and i live it so much ummmhhaaa
I agree ! Thank you Joe ❤
@@joescott Hey Joe. Love your chanel but I think you sung and missed with this one. You completely ignored a massive, supermassive factor. It's best explained by this 3 minute video, Carbon Capture Isn't Real, by Adam Something. If Adam is wrong I would love to see your correction of his mistake, but from my understating of things I think he scored, and you struck out. I mean, the trillions of dollars you mentioned to build carbon capture plants, that would be more than enough to build renewable energy plants instead, thus no need for carbon capture. No matter how I look at it, carbon capture, is an unnecessary redundancy that does not add up.
Welcome back, I actually enjoy these long format videos.
You need to do a remake discussing carbon sequestration using trees/plants/biomass converted into biochar that is then put in the farming fields to reduce the fertilizer needed to raise our crops.
Biochar put in the ground is the best carbon sequestration that works for thousands of years at the same time improving soils and hence crops!
Very, very, *very* interesting video, Joe! Left me thinking... I'm probably gonna sit with this on my mind for the rest of the day, just thinking about how to best do something like this, as a kind of thought experiment. So, *thank you* for giving me something to do that doesn't require me to move too much, since I have waaaay too high fever for that. Keep going strong, love your videos. Every single one of them.
Larry Niven once wrote we're going to make this planet nearly uninhabitable.
Then, when there's no place left for the RICH to go,
we'll fix it.
Fast.
In the meantime, hundreds of millions will die.
The upside? Yes, there is one. We'll know how to terraform planets.
Me watching Joe: omg, we can totally do this!
Me watching news: nope, we're still screwed.
Maybe consider not watching the news. What use does it have for you? What positive affect? The negative affects are known so i won't bother with that question. Maybe worth a try. Personally, my life has been better without it and i can't recommend abstaining enough
@@socore4659 I don't think that's what serpent was getting at.
Joe is an optimist-
As long as the systems and hierarchies of power don't change, we are screwed even if we had a magic wand to fix the climate
@So Core I know staying informed won't always be good for my mental health, but I'm a firm believer of being informed is the only way to have any hope of seeing opportunities for change.
That being said, my original post was really more of a joke. One way or another some of these changes will reach a point that we will have no choice but to address them as a society. Hopefully we can hit that point before the solutions are large runs of pain intermixed with actual problem solving.
What an awesome video! I feel we really need to start investing big time in carbon capture, while off course also increasing sustainable energy production. This video made me feel like we can actually fix this :).
I like how smooth that transition to your sponsor; that felt like home to me.
Awesome video, I love the realism of this channel; it’s not just what we should or shouldn’t do, it’s what we can do.
I’ll reiterate the old mantra: “Reduce, Re-use, Recycle” - in that order. Applies just as well to carbon dioxide as any other waste. Reduction is most important, but also has the most resistance against it in our growth-focused economy.
LOL I READ THIS AS OLD MAN
That's what RRR is about fighting back on being colonized.
Industry first then I’ll try it
"recycle", or at least "plastics recycle", turns out to be bullshit. We'll do better to stick with the first two. The sad truth is that a "sustainable" lifestyle require most industrial societies to drastically re-work our way of life. The changes required are so extreme that we're just not going to do these things unless we're forced by circumstances. Most believe that we will not make these changes until a climate disaster is already upon us.
Jonathon Franzen makes a compelling (and oh-so-cranky) point that the destruction of our climate is a natural result of free-market capitalism. Only a predominantly "socialist" world has a chance at regulating the market forces that will otherwise melt enough glaciers to flood every coastline on the planet. This is super depressing if you believe it. Because we just AIN'T GONNA GO SOCIALIST. You're gonna have to pry our free-market capitalism from our cold, dead, submerged fingers, dammit!
@@twilightgardenspresentatio6384 Industry serves the consumer base. Serves is the wrong word... Industry sells stuff to consumers. It markets stuff to consumers, so they buy shit whether they need it or not. Consumers aren't powerless either. "Millennials aren't buying X" headlines are proof of that.
You also don't have to completely abandon things. Even minor reduction is better than doing nothing. You don't have to go vegan, or even full time vegetarian. Simply reducing meat consumption contributes.
Woow! Good to be back to this channel. Much love Joe❤
Watching this is august after all the fires this summer when he’s talking about burning trees and towns back in February…. Beautiful. Love ya Joe, in retrospect this adds a level of schtick and nuance that is just *chefs kiss*
Joe, lovin' the longer format. Nice to see you really go down the rabbit hole. Around 15:00 you were wrapping everything in a nice bow and I'm waiting for the ad segue, then you dive into "how to"!
I love how, in a nutshell, tech fixes one issue it creates two new ones. It does make it easier to be more indulgent in life. Totally sustainable! Don't want to run out of new jobs to create, lol XD
Very well done video!
Everybody seriously concerned about climate change can actually make a real difference right now by their lifestyle and their wallet. But they won’t. People could put the oil industry out of business by not using their products….but they won’t. The biggest frustration is seeing our politicians and celebrities lecture the working class on how to live and want to tax us into oblivion, while at the same time flying around the world on private jets and vacationing on mega yachts and living in mansions etc. etc. etc. it’s maddening.
As always, interesting stuff, brought with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Now I'm hungry.
So many jokes in this one, I love it 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There are so many jokes in this one for a simple reason the proposition is a joke
I installed the same DaikinOne thermostat and HVAC at my Florida residence recently, works great! Thanks for validating my choice lol
JOE
Like this comment to encourage Joe to do a video covering the Earthquake in Turkey/Syria.
His way of giving an overview and or an in-depth look at events and news would be great. Please lend us your exceptional mind and cover this tragedy.
Joe, co2 is not the control knob. There are other processes at work here including a complex dynamic maze between the trop & the strato.
Can't shake the belief of a cultist, unfortunately.
Wut
@@hawk4192 Who're you calling a cultist?
I'm really glad you caught the issue with spreading the cost over time. When you factor that in it still looks feasible. It's a mega project, but due to the modularity, at least falls in the realm of feasible, and controllable (if things turned out to go too far in the other direction).
Why not spent those trillions in costs on building more renewable plants to reduce carbon emissions in the first place?
Concrete sequestration is a red herring. To make lime, the active ingredient in concrete, you already need to release CO2. SO sequestering it in concrete (presuming 100% efficiency) would simply be a zero sum gain. we need positive gains, not zero gains.
You made a good case for CCS (and I agree with you that the Swiss firm you mentioned, with its main base in Iceland, is likely the only viable CCS purveyor, at least at the moment).
If you are going to build floating co2 plants, there's an easier way.
Go to the places where there are upwellings of nutrient rich water, sprinkle iron filings or iron powder out there. It stimulates the growth of microbes, which grows plankton and other stuff. Then it dies and drops down to the sea bed. And it's "almost free". Certainly easier than doing it mechanically...
that is until you encourage the wrong kind of algae to bloom and they drain the area of oxygen and kill the nearby fish
Or we could just plant acres of hemp instead of acres of trees since hemp is insanely more efficient than any other method. Faster, cheaper, easier and provides an extremely versatile raw material and food source.
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 then you risk a monoculture
@@Javaman21011 I'm not suggesting that trees be replaced with hemp. I'm suggesting that instead of planting trees for paper or cotton for making cloth it would be much more efficient, cheaper, and faster to use hemp and it also produces superior materials. Besides hemp has such a short seed to harvest timeframe I'm not sure how a monoculture would be accomplished. Maybe I am misunderstanding your use of the word monoculture.
Im half Finnish so having the temperature go from -30 to +85 celsius in a matter of seconds is something my dad has prepared me for since age 5
I was confused, then I realised oh coming from outside to into a home
@@fuzzyhair321: saunas in the Baltic Sea are commonplace in Finland. You leap from the sauna right into the sea.
@@robburns1ne oh cool, that sounds fun haha
The Winston Wolf quote alone sold me
Very impressive walk through of a multi-faceted series of issues.
Thanks Joe’s team. And Joe I guess.
Just kidding - love you Joe!
I have to say I like the new format of the videos. Keep up the awesome work, Joe.
Thanks for this awesome info, Joe!! Can't wait to see the new studio!
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I love how you are able to take complex issues and break them down for people like me. You are hilarious and get across concepts and ideas in an amazing manner. Thank you so much for your content. I love your videos.
I can just imagine the debates in the UN on what the global thermostat temperature should be. How many families argue about what the temp should be in their own house??? 😆
I died at Winston Wolf.
This was great, Joe.
Same that was VERY welcome to my heart.
omg I laughed so hard. Wasn't expecting that. And such a burn.
Well I have never seen that other channel you mentioned, but you still crack me up Joe.
In regards to Carbon capture and Sequestration I'm fixated on reforestation. Not only will that capture carbon naturally but it also affects the water/air cycle as well. Yes, trees need water but once you get the forest to a certain point it starts to regulate the water /air cycle and actually increases the water in the area. And yes, you don't plant a monocultural forest, it has to be done smart. It is the long game so hardly anyone is interested in it, but it provides myriad benefits beyond any mechanized method of carbon capture.
Haters gonna hate, but that's where I stand.
There's definitely a lot of re-forestation that needs to happen in areas that have been cleared.
I'll never be against planting trees. I just don't think it's enough to undo what we've pulled out of the ground and put in the air.
Time for a footprint audit for mr. Joe.
Climate town is so good! Glad to see him get a shout out.
finally someone actually realizes the scale we need to go to
that scale is off the chart
we must have the equipment to *terraform Jupiter* just to terraform Earth; alongside alot of stuff to handle highly toxic substances
oh and definitely plastics, and alot of it
Well done! Really thorough! I'm really surprised how much I learned. Thanks, Joe!
The staged "bad acting" XD Cracked me up!
Does this mean every working human would have to pay one percent of their income each year and then we'd maybe kinda... like a global tax for climate? Then we'd be okay-ish???
But this is just so effing scary. Climate change stresses me out so much that I need to turn on my PS4 to distract myself from impending climate doom, but that's bad for the climate too!! What do I DO!
Good coverage of the technology, Joe. I'm in the "we're not going to to this until it is financially profitable" camp.
Until your kid dies tangentially from it, then it all suddenly changes
Wouldn't it be great if there was a fuel source that didn't just throw its waste into the air making it nearly impossible to separate, but instead the waste was super concentrated and not in gaseous form but in solid form?
And contained so much heat that it took huge amounts of water to cool down for weeks after it was used?
@@elimgarak7330 Yes. By the way It's 6-10 years after use that the nuclear fuel is in cooling ponds. I know it seems scary when you don't understand anything about it.
It would, but how would the fossil diggers make money out of that?
@@ColCurtis Yes. By the way, you come off as scared when your baseless ad hominem attack shows that you don't understand anything about what the other person understands.
@@elimgarak7330 Thanks I try. Just to point out your questing/ statement starts with the word and, ends with a question mark but you don't ask a question. You make a comment about how much water the cooling ponds use. Can you see why I would jump to those conclusions about you? Excellent name by the way I'm a big ds9 fan.
Now I’m wondering if 78 is what Joe keeps his normal temp at? That seems pretty hot to me since I keep my house at 72, but I don’t live in Texas.
Probably depends on the season. If we go much below 76 in the Summer, at least on my thermostat, it gets too cold inside. Winter though... nothing above 72 really.
I say this for someone in FL who moved here from PA.
That's a big-ol nope. I actually blew a hair dryer over it to get the temperature reading higher because the house was at like 66 at the time.
I need a long sleeve shirt at 76 deg. 78 is the ideal temperature for me. 83 is ok for peak hours during the summer. That is what happens when you live in Phoenix for your entire life.
Back in the day, the EPA recommended heating to 68° and cooling to 78° and I think Joe is within those guidelines. Don’t know what the standards are today… Personally I don’t mind if the daytime temperature goes into the low 80’s if it’s not too humid, but I need to run the A/C at night for comfortable sleeping (I set my air conditioning to 74° and feel guilty for doing so…)
I may be wrong, but my math shows that it currently costs 10,000 times more to pull carbon out of the air, than put it into the air (purchasing fuel). You said yourself that they can't even afford to sequester flu gas from a power plant, and that would be way easier (per ton of CO2)(thanks to the much higher concentration of CO2) than pulling it out of the atmosphere.
Hi Joe! Love this video, but in terms of this megaproject, I have a very similar thought, but with a completely different outcome.
Basically, place a LOT of solar panels (for more energy than we need) in dry and sunny places, close to water. (Egypt is an example)
Let the energy flow to big P2X plants and use DAC to capture CO² to produce fluid energy like petrol or kerosene. These fluid energy sources contain a lot of carbon and are easy to store. We could in incredibly large scale use this to keep the CO² in check indefinitely
I absolutely love this channel I love documentaries have seen a lot being the age of 65 I don't comment on the website that I watch but you my friend have a very special gift of telling your stories I like the way you tell both sides of the subject you are talking about their side and the truth keep doing what you do always looking for the next time you come on your loyal fan james
Yeah, those last few words have a very different meaning without punctuation 😑
Superlative video, Joe. Glad you're back.
Thanks Joe for the knowledge.
Sometime your jokes kill me. Keep it up, you make my day.
A very thorough and apolitical video. Thank you for all your research and your consistently great performance. I always learn something from you every video. I really like the longer form video as well!
Yah. I can never decide if Joe is a liberal pretending to be a conservative or a conservative pretending to be a liberal.
lol this is no where near apolitical its purely religeous. He's starting with an unquestioned assumption that reducing co2 in the air is a benefit.
@@scotteskridge7460 Unlike religious narratives and ideology, the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus is in favour of the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change a) real, and b) bad. To deny that is on the same level as claiming that germs don't cause infections or that the Earth is round: absolutely stupid. Further, the only reason it's politicised is because the very wealthy people who make billions of dollars off of mining, selling and burning fossil fuels have paid some of that money to politicians to make it political. It's amazing that anyone with a 3 digit IQ doesn't realise this.
Unfortunantly it is still political, as the science is split and forces into its own politics. Your point is entirely valid. Just, scientists are out here that notice things like stable climate at twice the supposed maxiumum..
@@scotteskridge7460 you're the one making it political.
The apolitical stance from physicists is that a 50% increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm is a big problem. That doesn't even count the climate science, which links likelihood of our recent weather extremes of temperature and extreme rainfall to CO2. Then you have ocean acidification due to CO2, which is already diminishing the fisheries which were already stressed from overfishing. Flood risk is already impacting real estate prices and flood insurance, so yep, this stuff definitely has economic consequences.
As James Carville said in 1992, “It’s the economy stupid.”
The political stance which is opposite to yours, is saying that we're all going to die by 2100. That's just as nuts as your stance. I'll be dead by 2100, but even in a +8ºC scenario, the human race can just move to Greenland and Antarctica and live off genetically engineered yeast in bioreactors. No problemo.
0:03 Joe deserves an oscar for that acting.
The Pulp Fiction reference was spot on. Well done!
That Winston Wolf reference was maybe the 'blue-est' thing I've ever seen on your channel! lol Well played, sir!!
While Rollie is funnier than a lot of science/policy communicators, it's not a zero-sum game and I love to watch you both. I think you're both great at reaching people who aren't ready to be preached at or lectured to.
I saw a video recently by a forester who said that prairie land absorbs more CO2 than forests, with a lower investment in effort, acreage and water. I'd love to hear your perspective on this.
Mature forests don't really absorb CO2, new ones do. Other plants might be better though, likely algae are the fastest growing. A prairie would need some kind of harvesting, because otherwise it doesn't really capture the carbon.
that bullshit. prairie land absorbs CO2 and the releases it ALL back the next winter
So, when some CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere to be put back into the atmosphere (eg. by selling that captured CO2), it does not change anything.
They effectively just use energy to pump air around (with sime magic that uses more energy, but the CO2 level in the atmosphere does not change, although they capture it, because they for example sell it afterwards, they put it back again into the atmosphere).
This should bot be considered to remove CO2 out of the atmosphere, because below the line it isn't.
Rollie has an amazing channel. I saw his video on the Texas blackout last year and subscribed RFN. Definitely worth a look.
The problem isn't that we need to terraform Earth into something better. The problem is that we need to stop terraforming Earth into something worse.
nice shout out to Climate town, really liked what he presented as well
I think this has potential as an idea. I just think that we need to try modelling some of what we already know but with quantum computers to run those crazy iterations that we need to foresee how all those impossible factors of meteorology and geology might respond to our efforts in the short and long term. We can't currently do this with our limited computers but quantum computing holds the promise of being able to make better models to predict patterns that we can't currently foresee.
One thing that sounds concerning and one thing that sounds comforting on the long run..
1 - The technology could advance to a point where these estimates are way over the actual price, and so would give the initial stipulation more room to work.
2- Due to the economic and other types of power shift, the new technologies required are monopolized by one party and that increases the cost way over what we expected initially (we know money rules and it can rule against everybody).
The bottom line is let us not rely on future mistery and wonder technologies like carbon capture or solar shades
We have the means to change now, let's do that instead and solve the many releated problems along the way for free
I love that you can deliver throw-away lines like, "...It's not economically feasible," like that's not a completely insane statement. It's as if humanity's survival is something we should somehow happen to afford.
Historically, humans rarely do things that benefit someone else on this planet they have never met. Virtually every large decision made by a powerful entity has a goal of power, or money, through various paths. Occasionally these align with something good, hooray, but its never the prime mover. N E V E R. It never will be, either, in a capitalist environment, unless we figure out how to change the way a human brain functions.
@@maasman240 It's not a flaw in human brain function. It's a manipulation to accept capitalism as a morally valid system of organization. I think you could make the case for the dysfunction of the corporate hive mind and its relentless pursuit of profit above all else.
Your promotion of the Henson razors was spot on, so I'll give Factor a try.
When you look up into the atmosphere it looks endless, but is not. While outer space starts at sixty miles up, all our breathable atmosphere, and almost all of the CO2 in it, is in the the first four miles. To understand the scale, take a look at a typical 24 inch diameter classroom’s cardboard globe. The atmosphere is represented by the thickness of shellac protecting the globe from those sticky kid hands. The breathable part is the thickness of the ink coloring the globe at the bottom of that clear coating of shellac. Bottom line: The atmosphere’s ability to absorb everything we throw into it is nearing it capacity.
Great video. Love your channel. Just wish I could be optimistic about our chances of doing this. 😔
I like this "I'm losing my filter" Joe. We're all adults here (for the most part), and sometimes a little colorful language can really help to get a point across with fewer words. That's just responsible time and energy management.✅And I'm getting tired of all the 🤬censoring. Keep up the good work, Joe. Can't wait to see the new studio.
Ok, gotta put this out there. You need to look into the amount of CO2 that's pumped underground to get out more oil. Supposedly as I've heard it anyway, more carbon ends up going into the ground than ends up coming out; would love to hear some follow up on this.
Also, this project will happen because it absolutely has to. We're not going to be able to solve this problem without it, in fact, I think we need to shoot for an even more scaled up version. Fossil fuel companies will do the right thing but of course we will need to get this whole "Rule Of Law" thing under control...or we may as well just walk into the chopper blades right now.
Oh my God, the Tim and Eric deep cut amazing 👌🏽I knew I liked you
Joe, this honestly made my day! It actually gave me hope. Thank you!