4 Megaprojects That Could Reverse Climate Change | Answers With Joe

[@sebione3576]

I see you have the newest NVIDIA video card in your thumbnail.

[@mr.toothbrush6628]

Bro rtx 7090 ti super 😂

[@nakoda1610]

@@mr.toothbrush6628 fan extension

[@Ian_sothejokeworks]

Zing!

[@justinmckee2256]

Best comment by far and I haven’t been a computer guy for years

[@theCodyReeder]

Dont go out into the desert and figure out how to live on very little water, we have water problems here in the city!

[@Justwantahover]

In Singapore they invented an easier way to extract freshwater from seawater (electrolysis like). Just YT search "desalination in Singapore".

[@MiniLuv-1984]

@@Justwantahover It's a Reverse Osmosis plant - we've had one in Melbourne for over a decade now, and as far as I know - that is the technology used in almost every desal plant around the world. The new Singapore plant powers the administration office with solar power (not the desal plant) and 50% reduction in cell maintenance. An improvement but pretty standard technology.

[@heckell4181]

@NATHANIEL GILLIES Isn't Mercury too close to the sun?

[@joer8854]

It's worse than that Cody. He's saying, "We have problems here on earth. Were not going to do anything about them were just going to sit here and complain about them but we shouldn't go to mars either." We can't even get major governments to agree it's happening, It's never going to change. The fight is over. Major corporations and governments are hell bent on the earth burning because it's profitable.

[@zacharyhutchison4006]

It's exceptionally dumb when people try to pretend that it's either-or. There's several billion people on the planet, a few of them going to Mars isn't going to change anything. Besides, more people does not equal more innovation. Innovation happens when you have the right person in the right place at the right time to make a critical observation, such as the guy who discovered antibiotics.

[@systematic101]

"Co2 scrubbers" You mean like trees?

[@dr-k1667]

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I thought it was obvious, but it doesn't seem to every come up. The cost and time scale is way cheaper, but maybe it's not considered grand enough and how much money is anyone going to make off of it. Sad, but all of these "fixes" are expensive, risky and just OTT.

[@ianraber1509]

@@dr-k1667 Civilizaion cant plant enough trees to absorb all of the CO2 we emit. There isnt enough viable land area

[@dr-k1667]

@@ianraber1509 It is not the only solution... a one size fits all solution doesn't exist, it is part of the solution. I can think of at least a dozen other things we can do immediately that would also have an positive effect, that would take untold billions and have to be invented first before we can begin.

[@ianraber1509]

@@dr-k1667 I agree. Your comment made it seem like you thought it was a solo solution

[@lysanderhoppe765]

@@ianraber1509 You know plants grow under water? And they grow faster if there is more CO2, don't they?

[@Jack__________]

There would be wars over who gets to control the thermostat

[@somedudeok1451]

There are gonna be wars anyway. Wars over water, over food, over the imperialist dreams of the fascist governments that spawned from climate change chaos. You yourself are going to have to survive and be willing to kill people in order to do it. Leave your pacifist mentality behind. We need a global thermostat, no matter the cost. Or humanity will enter an unstoppable downward spiral into primitivity or extinction. I suggest you read the following paper. mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/deepadaptation.pdf

[@phillipmorgenthaler]

So?

[@igkslife]

Lol agreed!

[@igkslife]

@@somedudeok1451 i believe that he was joking... or are you alone?...

[@somedudeok1451]

@@igkslife I don't think he was joking at all.

[@GregHartmanMusic]

So I know it is a relatively small part of your video, but I wanted to offer some insight on the clean energy issue from power companies' perspectives. I used to work as an co-op engineer for a power company with about 6 coal plants and 1 nuclear plant (along with some scattered solar and wind farms). I am all for clean energy, I am not an advocate of coal power. I asked the head engineer why we aren't moving more quickly toward renewable energy, and the answer came down, primarily, to logistics. Wind farms are a logistical nightmare. They occupy GIGANTIC plots of land, and finding that much land, all together, in the proper climate is tough. Then comes the mammoth task of actually building and maintaining the things. Windmills are very dangerous and require frequent maintenance to make sure they don't shake too much, and that no debris falls off. Technicians need multiple levels of training and certification, and require a large fleet of vehicles (more fossil fuels) to navigate the land. They are also unreliable, as a trend of lower winds could lead to widespread outages. Solar farms are less dangerous than wind farms, and easier to set up, but more prone to be hindered by non-ideal weather conditions. They are also much less feasible in snowy climates, as there is less sun, and more issues with the panels being covered by snow. Nuclear is the most promising solution in the works, but is constantly set back by stigmas of historical failures (most failures have actually been caused by poor maintenance and neglect - a well-run nuclear facility is actually very safe). I can't speak on natural gas, but the reason that coal is so popular is that it is an abundant resource. To my knowledge there is no current estimation of when we would run out of coal. Additionally, there are 2 kinds of coal that come out of coal mines: steam coal (sent to power plants) and metallurgical coal (used for making metals like steel). We already have the coal to power them from the mining that will continue, regardless, so there is no risk of instability, as coal also does not rely on weather conditions and facilities can always stay well-supplied. Concerning safety; through monitoring of machinery vibration and testing of machine lubrication samples (both very common, as I was on the predictive maintenance team for my company, where we tracked all this data and ran hundreds of monthly tests), and regular water spraying to keep coal from mixing with the air (boom), a coal plant can be kept very safe and highly efficient on a relatively small plot of land. As I said, I love the idea of helping the planet and being a green civilization. I know many issues stated above are fixable. My point is that it is MUCH easier said than done, and many power companies are working towards renewable energy and expanding their wind and solar production, but it isn't going to happen over night. If we were to stop building coal plants and go 100 percent renewable, we wouldn't be able to keep up with the expansion of civilization energy usage. There wouldn't be enough electricity to provide stable power to countries like the US, and China, which would hurt eco-friendly developments (like electric cars), and force many people to resort to personal generators (more widespread and unregulated pollution). The only solution for the immediate future that is helpful and achievable is to continue development of clean energy methods and keep offering more incentives to make clean power as it becomes more and more feasible. Sorry for the essay, but it is a very complicated subject. Edit: made some changes shortly after post for syntax and clarity

[@Lucas-sk5iy]

These are the kind of KZbin comments I live for

[@angeliquekambeitz5105]

Floating Solar farms should be married up with saltwater hydrogen(nickel electrodes), for when there is no sun. And then towed to where the earth is tilted towards the sun. Both poles get 24 hrs of sun in summer. And unfortunately both are melting) See Ciel de Terre. See Swimsol. Saltwater is everywhere. Sunlight happens. See Joi Scientific. See falling solar panel prices.

[@squamish4244]

Nuclear is amazing, and the fear is unbelievably overblown.

[@Rasgonras]

@@squamish4244 Where do you store the waste?

[@martinweihrauch2379]

Wow, this is one of the best KZbin comments I have ever read! Thanks so much for the explanation. I believe that especially the U. S. citizens have to considerably decrease their energy consumption.

[@granadakimj]

I often hear people say, we either fix or planet or colonize Mars. I may come with a crazy idea at this piont, but we could fix this planet AND colonize Mars. It doesn't have to be, one or the other. We CAN do both and all...! Great as always Joe...!

[@granadakimj]

@@livethefuture2492 How about keep living, is that not important? And why all caps?

[@granadakimj]

@@livethefuture2492 Okay :)

[@electronresonator8882]

then have you beat Elon Musk achievement?...no?, then he's building SpaceX, I hope that will give you an idea

[@fireofenergy]

It would be easier to colonize the space between us and Mars, and would eventually add up to thousands, if not millions of times the "real estate" by building spinning habitats like O'neill cylinders. Of course, it's much easier than that to first remove the excess CO2, here.

[@Aanthanur]

without fixing our climate system, there will be no colonisation of Mars.

[@kendomyers]

"We have 12 years to turn this around" *checks publication date Well shit...just squandered another years. 10 years left.

[@bobrosski9054]

Dont worry too much, for decades we only had few years until a catastrophe...

[@bannor99]

@@bobrosski9054 Pretty similar to how smoking kills you. You're perfectly fine for decades despite dire warnings & scary pictures. Until you're not

[@bobrosski9054]

@@bannor99 well if you bet on someone dying, you will be eventually right. Even thousands of years ago there was doomsayers ready to take your offerings to appease the gods. Now its done forcefully through taxes, to appease climate mathematical models (which so far were all wrong)

[@derekborkent2899]

Not a worry, after 10yrs we'll be granted another 10 or 15yrs to sort out the changing climate's climate change caused by the 4 mega planet saving methods with results based on suppositions. Way to go! They're all so clever and full of it in their own minds.

[@kendomyers]

@@derekborkent2899 ?

[@jaridkeen123]

Reducing the light hitting the planet is not an option. It would also effect plant growth since they are getting less light and that would reduce the amount of CO2 they absorb

[@Simon-nx1sc]

He said a reduction of only 2% of sunlight is enough te tackle climate change, do you think plants would have that much damage because of that?

[@dannygjk]

1. No need to completely shade any part of the surface. 2. The Earth rotates so it wouldn't be a problem anyway.

[@vranaetf]

Why is it not an option? The issue you mention is manageable with genetic engineering.

[@dannygjk]

@@imranmohammed279 You could have zero change in daylight hours and still reduce the amount of energy reaching the Earth.

[@dannygjk]

@@imranmohammed279 No I meant the amount of sunlight reaching the surface could be reduced by shades in orbit without shading any part of the surface of the Earth.

[@billmorris8515]

You want carbon-negative? Pay Brazil and Indonesia to replant and protect their vast destroyed forests with broad-leafed trees that are commercially worthless but sequester carbon better than pine needles. Also, build wind-powered desalination plants off the California and western Australia coasts to support huge increases in carbon-hungry greenery.

[@Lilmiket1000]

Not only you eat some algae but they said that it process more carbon dioxide than any plant or tree can. who knew!

[@indigodragon0613]

Bill Morris Those forests were destroyed largely for the animal agriculture industry. If we want those forests to be replanted, we need to reduce the demand for animal products.

[@Cerberus984]

Or we could just pay impoverished nations to do oceanic farming of fish, seaweed, and misc. It is reported to be capable of 2 - 20 times more carbon sequestration per acre versus forests. Even if it's only the lower end of the spectrum there is zero risk of forest fires.

[@MiniLuv-1984]

Love that idea Bill! Imagine greening 90% Australia! That's Terra forming on a grand scale. Other potential locations would be parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa. The only ingredients missing is the $ and the will.

[@Inertia888]

@@MiniLuv-1984 exactly. so we have an idea, now we need to find a way to make it profitable for the investors.

[@redstang5150]

Doing anything to artificially mess with the light coming through the atmosphere is as dystopian as anything one could think of. Not to mention, any company or government that could actually control that would wield an unimaginable about of power. And what does power do? Power corrupts.

[@heww3960]

We have put up sulfur dioxide and cloud the sun since the industrial revolution, and it has had no major bad side effects. Dont see any good reason to not do that, we could fix the problem over a night with sai, and we dont even have to use sulfur dioxide, we could use for example seawater. This is the biggest reason to why the climate change has accelerate the last years, because our emission has become cleaner.

[@DrSmooth2000]

​@@heww3960 Whew saw main comment was 2 years old and then noticed your mis-info comment is only 3 weeks so didn't go unchallenged the full 2 years! first of all 'put up sulfur dioxide' was as waste exhaust from Coal Power Plants. This was at first only 100' off the ground. Acidic ash landed on neighbors and killing trees so they went with really tall smoke stacks... this put it up so high tht it took time for it to settle and at that point was better dispersed. Didn't remove the sulfur and when combines with rain makes a sulfuric acid like in batteries, though more dilute. But spread out effect. This was all still going on in Troposphere. Stratospheric Injection is untested. Does look like it will eat the ozone layer and form chlorides. Then at end of 70s all through the 80s environmentalists warned of acid rain whole forest in Appalachia was chemically burned. They put in scrubbers. The scrubbers collect SO2. This dystopian idea is to now buy that waste product (makes artificial gypsum and agricultural soil amendment but not very profitable) and inject it way higher into the atmosphere. Has to come down either as ash particulates or in rain, ergo acid rain returns.

[@Animagx2]

Oh boy, i think the planet just found the solution for climate problem. (a good ol pandemic)

[@Rkenton48]

yep. Ever see the movie, 'Kingsmen'? The bad guy there had a cool theory. Global warming is akin to a fever caused by a virus, and WE are the virus. The Earth is simply reacting to an infection and getting rid of us.

[@randomuser5443]

Rkenton48 Fun fact, some viruses actually help. Like cow pox, but it kills small pox

[@johnnyfacchin6469]

6

[@Rkenton48]

@@randomuser5443 um, no, that's not how it works. cow pox causes a mild infection in you. The antibodies made by your body to fight the cowpox ALSO fight off the smallpox virus, thus making you immune. The real problem with viruses is that anything that would actually kill them will also kill the host. Immunity is our only real defense against them.

[@sonnypruitt6639]

@@Rkenton48 Correction; getting rid of you, just you.

[@bobhoward9016]

Hey joe im a timber operator and can say that ive been fantasizing about co generation plants for small communities that are scaled down to fit onto the backs of tractor trailers. The idea goes like this, they rock up at the front of a 5k or 10k acre ranch community and connect to the grid then log trucks rock up and start doing restorative forestry. After the clear cutting of the 50s and 60s the forest has mostly tan oak a non merchant able

[@RasperHelpdesk]

Global Thermostat. Considering the battles you get in some households and offices over where to set the thermostat, I can just imagine trying to get Russia and Iran to agree on what temperature it should be.

[@isn0t42]

Agree with whom?

[@RasperHelpdesk]

I mention Russia and Iran because Russia, being in the northern latitudes, would prefer it a little warmer while Iran, being more equatorial, would prefer it to be cooler.

[@RasperHelpdesk]

For exhibit A I present, The Smurfs - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJXXlGulZseMeK8 "Handy invents a weather machine that will allow the Smurfs to control their environment at will. Unfortunately, they cannot agree on whether it should rain or be sunny so the machine overloads and explodes."

[@bryanr9082]

@macsporan China and soon India put them to shame.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

@macsporan India and China are up there too when it comes. to this clusterfuck. Also most companies that contribute to this problem are NOT majority private investor owned.

[@UberMick]

CO2 scrubbers have been around for over a decade now. I live in Perth, Western Australia, and we had a state of the art iron smelter built by mining juggernaut Rio Tinto called the HiSmelt. It was basically a prototype to test and prove a new method of creating high grade pig iron from low grade iron ore, and part of that process was CO2 scrubbers, and in reality, its a pretty simple system. Your using water, H2O, to capture the particulates, this is done by firing a series of sprays through the smoke, each water drop captures particulates, runs down pipes into the catchment area, where the mud is dried off, and then can be used for building material, be it bricks or building foundation material, or road base. So as you can see, theres nothing really complicated about it, and really shouldn't cost much to install, in comparison to the price of a new plant. This kind of tech is also used at grey water treatment plants, to greatly reduce unpleasant odours emitted, we also have facilities here in Perth already using that tech, which was installed a good 10 years ago. So its got me baffled as to why plants burning fossil fuels wont implement this tech, but Rio Tinto used it in a new iron smelter, and its used by our Water Corp simply to stop the air smelling like shit. But with Fission tech getting closer and closer, the old goats burning coal need to step up their eco game, or they will become forgotten dinosaurs them selves...

[@Aanthanur]

CO2 Scrubbers are muc older than that, the most famous CO2 scrubbers are the one on the lunar landing modeule on apollo 13.

[@OriginalMasterChafa]

You know what thing loves CO2, regulates ecosystems, retains water, produces oxygen, protects soil from erosion, produces valuable materials and is very cheap? Trees.

[@d.b.cooper8178]

That would be a great idea if we had started on it 30 years ago.

[@christopherjabs2949]

There are far to few people talking and acting about regreening the desert

[@christopher-tipstrumleslie6307]

I agree, trees are the answer. Only plants have "transpiration," kind of the opposite of our respiration. In with the CO2, and out with the O2 and glucose from chlorophyll and sunlight. No tax needed thank you.

[@aatkarelse8218]

yeah great idea, cut em down make buildings out of em (replant em of cource) want to store only the problematic part of the co2 ? make charcoal of the tree and blow charcoal powder into old mines, oil fields etc. or mix it with earth

[@acejames7718]

And Marijuana!! They grow in months, and are renewable sources of energy as the seeds can make biofuel easily. Ok I guess that hemp would work....

[@blackbearelectronicswithco9541]

I say lets start using renewable energy and using those machines to pull carbon out of the air, which will be powered by renewable energy

[@MrSkitlesFiddles]

Renewable energy is shit. We should go fusion or fission

[@henokhjosandraehesperus7369]

@@MrSkitlesFiddles fision is the only way bro, fusion energy produce nuclear waste that cannot be treated.

[@calvinteh3297]

@@henokhjosandraehesperus7369 You mixed up fusion and fission.

[@Dislagmintation]

Nothing is for free. There is no such thing as renewable energy and whatever technology we use as long as the population keeps increasing the Earth's Temperature will keep rising. We can employ technologies that will slow down the process but we are fucked either way

[@markgreiser464]

@@Dislagmintation I was with you until "population increase".

[@Mikehikegaming]

I am a conservative and I fully believe the statistics about climate change. I also accept that something needs to be done about it and would like to help in any way I can. This isn’t all about political parties it is about the future of out planet and our species as a whole.

[@ADerpyReality]

Dale Ross is also a conservative mayor who turned his entire town renewable because it's better/more/safer work, more economically and environmentally viable. He calls it working from/listening to the facts/experts. As much he is an actually likeable republican politician.

[@barrybloggs9474]

www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/07/scandal-first-ever-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/?fbclid=IwAR21FHe0edjZkeJMZRNe4_ZDQIVhpHqdWG0MKS7wOFVNwGfP5Vq3T8Ka0-k

[@boggisthecat]

Mikehike The problem is that most conservatives view life as zero-sum, and believe that ‘someone else’ will bear the cost of climate change, so, meh. Understanding that we are all co-dependent and must cooperate to fix a global scale problem requires anti-conservative thinking.

[@allineedis1mike81]

@@FactsFirst The earths climate has never changed as rapidly as it is changing now. Never. We do not have to know precisely what effects will happen precisely when. The predicted effects are statistical in nature, ranging from not good but within our power to deal with. To an absolute nightmare hellscape apocalypse that could turn our planet into Venus and be completely outside of our ability to deal with. Yes the Earths climate does change naturally. Why would you accept that yes there were ice ages, yes there were hot house ages with virtually no ice anywhere and sea levels 100+ meters above current levels. Why accept this as fact when the very same scientists that proved these things are now telling us that we are changing the planet? Why pick and choose? The question is rhetorical because it's obvious why we do this. We have crammed hundreds of thousands of years worth of natural climate change into the time since the industrial revolution. We have no evidence that the climate has ever changed so rapidly (with the exception of comet impacts and super volcano eruptions). We do not know what the ramifications of such rapid change might be but it's not hard to imagine that they might be not good. But please dont believe me, believing some random guy is how people end up believing the kind of factually incorrect, clearly misinformed things that 90% of the commentors here believe. The topic is very complicated, the kind of thing you would need to study for years and work in the field for years more. If only we had people like that, we might call them experts. Or something more specific like oh I dont know..... climatologists. We need experts for problems like this, we have them, we just need to listen to them. When you really get into this subject you quickly realize just how much you dont know about what you dont know.

[@robertplatt643]

Conservatives are also able to point out that the old Soviet Union was a massive polluter. And if they had a larger consumer economy, they would have polluted even more.

[@olenagirich1884]

Allan Savory work for fighting desertification and China's efforts to restore deserts to stabilized soil is also of great importance. Deserts make up 2/3 of current land mass.

[@acvarthered]

"Deserts make up 2/3 of current land mass." And thanks to all the fossil fuels we burn it is now shrinking. Deserts all across the globe are greening.

[@sleepywatcher]

USA president Donald trump said global warming is fake and scam

[@btd360lel2]

《小良真狂言》Maximus When did he say this?

[@erikbjork8220]

@@btd360lel2 when he left the paris 2020 agreement

[@btd360lel2]

Erik Björk I’m pretty sure he believes it’s real but not to the extent that we say

[@gcarvlin]

You have the answer to basically removing coal and most fossil fuels already: Nuclear. The only technology that can both meet the demand and is robust enough to supply our current growth. Solar or Wind can be added as bonuses too, and we could put more towards researching fusion and pushing it faster to reality.

[@TheSalami]

nuclear is definitely a good option

[@wild360]

You beat me to it. This is really the only way to switch gears asap and keep up with our energy needs.

[@Chris-xl6pd]

Thorium looks like the most realistic sensible option moving forward.

[@shandcunt9455]

Hinkley Point C suggests you need to do some research about the cost effectiveness of nuclear

[@commentguy4711]

Nuclear is a great option however "fusion is always 30 years away 30 years ago" Fission creates serious waste by far more damaging than CO2 in the air. When ITER finally proves/disproves fusion, then we can get away from fossil fuels. There really isn't a better option with BTUs available per small quantity. Gasoline as 114,000 per gallon where most natural gas boilers use 76,000 for heating a home and domestic water. Really the hydrocarbon family of fuels has the most energy per unit than solar or wind. Until fusion is real, nuclear fission creates really bad waste. You know, stuff that makes bombs when refined.

[@unchartouille1208]

15 years ago we talked about extracting shale gas and that seemed very futuristic, but we made it (with all the cons we know though). I just hope the ideas shown in this video will emerge soon enough. Great video !

[@zoopdterdoobdter5743]

*Fusion* Honestly, why, if the Earth is in danger, is going full-bore Manhattan Project on fusion R&D not the first thing out of everyone's mouth when it comes (especially) to the environment?

[@nicbongo]

I had the same thought recently. I saw a Ted talk that talked about how the windmills and solar farms destroy tons of birds and habitats. So not very eco friendly. In addition to the rare mineral mining Thorium always seemed s good option too, especially whilst fusion is being figured out to reduce carbon omissions. No nuclear and proliferation too (which is prob why it's not funded). Carbon capture and processing though is also needed to help reverse the co2 back to normal levels. 🙏

[@zoopdterdoobdter5743]

@@nicbongo Yeah, everything you said, except I have that thought every *single* time I hear anything environment related. There is no such thing as *scarce resources*, only scarcity of the energy required to access and manipulate them. It's *the* silver bullet for all of humanity's material needs. It's to the point where, if I hear someone kvetching about the 'tipping point in 12-years' and they *don't* mention nuclear and fusion, I automatically assume they're either ignorant or disingenuously grandstanding. Either way, they're to be ignored, because they're not serious re: a serious issue.

[@nicbongo]

@@zoopdterdoobdter5743 I hear your frustration dude. Situations like that though are opportunities to present new info. Thorium in particular almost no one knows of Regarding your energy/scarcity point. Economics is also another factor. Those rare minerals require lots of energy and is hugely expensive, so economies if scale isn't there. I guess using your measure, more energy equals more environmental destruction.

[@zoopdterdoobdter5743]

@@nicbongo It's as straight forward a simple physics problem as is possible. The only non-socially constructed constraint on human activity is our ability to harness energy; the economics are dictated by scarcity...of energy. With (effectively) limitless energy, all is possible. No chemical reaction is too energy intensive, no environmental damage irreparable, nothing too expensive to recycle and no resource is out of reach. Power a thousand CO2 scrubbers, build a sunshade for the planet, draw the majority of the chemical constituents for rocket fuel straight out of the air (making launches C neutral). If even 10% net energy can be managed, it's a Golden Age inside a couple generations.

[@zoopdterdoobdter5743]

@@nicbongo Sorry. On a tear. Check this out for the proper frame of reference to be thinking about these things: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYLPmnyVjKyUfc0 The whole presentation is worth a watch but, from that timecode (till a couple minutes after) are all you need to get what I'm getting at. Once we *know how*, the dominoes all begin to fall in every direction humans have a need. Even if the only viable fusion reaction is a path dependent on He3, that (as the most readily available supply) gets us to the moon, associated near-earth space infrastructure and, from there, access to the immense energy produced by our star. Imagine any utopia you like. And then, know that it's mostly on hold because far FAR more human time, effort, emotion and capital is spent on the issues of preferred pronouns and/or preserving the 2nd amendment than on effectively ending scarcity itself. That kinda' pisses me off.

[@petersmith9633]

It kills me that people who do nothing for mankind think that the people who have the ability to do something for mankind can only do one thing at a time en-mass for mankind. I think we can try to fix the environment and go to Mars at the same time. We have done more than one thing at a time in the past, and we will continue to do more than one thing at a time in the future while those who can't (or won't) do anything for the environment sit on their collective ass eating a hamburger and criticize the people who push humanity forward for not fixing all of their mistakes.

[@Cerberus984]

Mars colonization will be more complicated than you realize on an energy generation aspect. Being further from the sun reduces power potential. Having little to no atmospheric density reduces power potential and thermal transfer. Oddly enough it might be more ideal dumping excess heat via piping similar to a geothermal loop buried into the ground. The other complex issue is that water boils at 55F which will further complicate finding a reliable source of water enough for colony to grow.

[@gustavgnoettgen]

The point is to not shit on every other planet if we end up _consuming_ our place, like Marvel's Galactus snackedy snack. We should maintain a working environment, or we leave a trail of ashes until no possible homeworld is left. Climate change is normal and everything... We live in one small nice time between 🔥 and ❄ as it ever was... But (or that's why) I think we have to control climate to survive in a manner we are used to the next thousands of years. People used to live outside unless some found caves. _Building homes_ against rain, coldness, wind, is like a first step in Terra forming, isn't it? But homes can't keep everything save, we need some dams to prevent flooding, trees are planted to stop desertification, etc... This is some low level climate control, we need it, we do it. At the moment, the most important motivation remains profit. But look at California... Some Americans already steal water from each other??? That's eerie to me...

[@thomasridley8675]

@@Cerberus984 there certainty will not be any anti science people in space.

[@Cerberus984]

@@thomasridley8675 Billionaires and millionaires, do I need to say more? LOL

[@thomasridley8675]

@@Cerberus984 and the lucky smucks who get to clean the toilets at min. wage.

[@danieljensen2626]

Optimism about teraforming Mars might have something to do with the fact that there aren't any lobbyists on Mars... Yet

[@sakshamaggarwal3460]

Science makes everything possible

[@danieljensen2626]

@Flyboy Mcnasty Most of the effects of low gravity are only felt upon returning to high gravity. So if people just stay on Mars for the rest of their lives the gravity might not be that much of a problem. And we're completely capable of saving the Earth, it's only politics stopping us. But I agree terraforming is pretty unlikely.

[@Norbert-yk4jy]

How are we going to teraform Mars? It's already 96% co2, if you believe co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas.

[@danieljensen2626]

@@Norbert-yk4jy Science denier alert... CO2 is actually a mild greenhouse gas, heavier molecules like methane have a stronger effect. But despite the high percentage of CO2 the volume of it on Mars is actually less than that on Earth. Really to fix Mars' atmosphere you'd need to restart it's magnetic field. Which is pretty much up there with building a Dyson swarm.

[@Norbert-yk4jy]

@@danieljensen2626 so I guess gravity doesn't play much of a role in determining Mars' atmospheric density? And BTW, you need to grow up, just because someone disagrees with you about an issue doesn't give you the right to ridicule them. Using your own words, if co2 is only a mild greenhouse gas, why do you think an increase of a mere 100 particles per million is causing global warming, or more recently relabelled "climate change"? Don't worry about contradicting yourself, people are waking up to your lies anyway. It's only a matter of time now until the real science deniers are exposed, a bunch of narrow-minded hypocrites too arrogant to admit they might be wrong.

[@fiffihoneyblossom5891]

11:06 my OCD is so happy that the cloud lines up with the book case....

[@thomasmclean9406]

So I wasn’t the only one... 😂

[@harryithink5336]

OCD is a real condition and you don’t have it just because your a perfectionist. They are VERY different

[@fiffihoneyblossom5891]

@@harryithink5336 Oi everyone, we found the Karen! I actually do have a mild form of OCD, mostly related to keeping times, dates and numbers in order. But even I, with an actual diagnosis, won't take offence to casual jokes or references. When you keep pointing it out, calling it out and drawing attention to it, it makes it abnormal and unusual. By accepting it and adding humour to it, you put people at ease and normalize it. Don't be an uptight douche, just roll with it.

[@drcoconut2735]

Omg

[@archiepalmer-phelps6612]

@@fiffihoneyblossom5891 well said 😂

[@Tanspotty]

Turn carbon into building materials is probably the best method as we are running out of sand for concrete

[@databanks]

Indeed, I'd like to know more about that method. On that side of things there's already hempcrete, but it still uses some cement so not carbon negative as far as I know. Just don't smoke your house

[@JeroenJA]

yes, sounds like one of most intresting things in this video, heard about paints that absorb unhealthy gasses from the air, but not from this concrete yet.. If not that much more expensive, you could just force cement makers to have the big majority of their concrete of that type .. big part of problem solved. the thing we mainly need is time. Most parts of the world are investing in renawable in all kinds of way, just not fast enough to keep warming under 2 dregrees celsius , no idea what that is in the confusing fahernheit scale thingy american still seem to like :).

[@darrennew8211]

@@databanks It's called "trees."

[@MG-te9ub]

Fly ash is a great additive for cement, idk how good plain carbon is

[@peterjtrocanoj8514]

He forgot to show the energy balance in the equation. What are you going to burn, spin or fuse to get the energy to sequester that co2 in the bricks?

[@a.yashwanth]

Carbon is emitted while creating energy. And the same energy is being used to capture carbon from air. 😶. Edit: Trees does the same job by capturing carbon in stem, but using sunlight unlike air capture companies using electricity. So instead of investing in capture plants invest in some green plants.

[@avz7001]

First world countries have little choice but to invest in co2 scrubbing plants, since third world countries have different priorities than worrying about co2 releases into the atmosphere, such as feeding the population...

[@brucefrykman8295]

@@avz7001 No, third world countries have no cash to "invest" for them. To do this we get the World Bank and the Import Export Bank (both funded with US taxpayer dollars) to transfer Tera-bucks of taxpayer stolen cash to fund this climate bullshit. In the case of the World Bank, the politicians who fund this bullshit get a nice kickback in their pockets directly from the dictators and tyrants we "give it" to. In the case of the Import export bank we send the stolen cash directly to our crony-capitalists who then send big slices of it back to the criminal politicians. Do you know which Bank the Biden family uses for their grift?

[@Extraxi274]

Someone needs to work on converting carbon into some type of solid to use In 3d printers

[@Johandyman]

That would be some of the most effective ways to motivate production to change their ways

[@neolesedi9083]

You should be that someone. We need to all work together and stop placing the responsibility on everyone else

[@Extraxi274]

@@neolesedi9083 I'll get right on that

[@KentoCommenT]

Supercheap, carbon neutral, carbon infused filament for everything from R&D throwaways to end use parts?! Sign me up! We could also try and infuse it into the spools.

[@maxpower1337]

That's what trees do.

[@DomDomChekwa]

Would be great if you could give an update to this video - new projects (like algae-based tech), status of the older ones, etc.

[@ryanwc67]

I'm a little bit disappointed you did not get into carbon sequestration through natural means which can be extremely productive in many ways. Planting trees increasing biomass in soil increasing hummus and soil all sequester carbon. Soil is dark brown because of the carbon in it and the Richer the soil the darker the color because the carbon is increased. Just spreading compost across large amounts of rangelands can increase the bacteria in the soil and draw out carbon from the atmosphere by simply spreading compost in 1/2 inch thick depth. I've seen studies that estimate it would only take one third of us farmlands going towards a carbon sequestering method of farming could draw down significant amounts of carbon. No-till farming compost adding biomass to soils all of this stuff can significantly suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. There's also the added benefit of anything growing being much healthier and it holding moisture in the soil due to the block of sun evaporation. Just leaving Fields open dirt they off gas carbon dioxide in huge amounts. Then of course there is the forestry industry we need trees for building houses anyway why shouldn't we sequester carbon by doing massive tree planting operations and then log them sustainably and continue to add to our overall Forest Interquest of the carbon in the building of houses or whatever other structures. I think the natural means deserve some serious consideration.

[@Jwnorton]

Alarmism sells. 'Something' is happening, but we don't have a good handle on what it is. Plus, it looks like that fusion ball 93Mil miles away has a lot to do with our climate. I'm for clean, and a better power source and storage methods, but you work with what you have, and not wishful thinking. Maybe Dr. Brown will let us reverse his Mr. Fusion on the Delorian.

[@mikeharrington5593]

It's a shame that global wildfires and plant disease (eg pine bark beetle) in recent years are decimating forests faster than we are planting new trees but we must persevere. Our technology is not making any great strides in providing any silver bullets like, say, fusion energy which unfortunately is still a speck on a distant horizon. So of course we have to increase our efforts on things that do work like soil sequestration of carbon, although with its limitations it is not a cure-all, though a potentially significant contributor. Sadly political will is ignoring the will of the people to reduce CO2 emissions and its dangerous climate consequences.

[@dansanger5340]

Yum! I love hummus!

[@michaelsmith4904]

As you point out with the outgassing of CO2 from open dirt fields, whatever sequestration method we use we must be careful to not sequester it in such a way that we could suddenly re-release the CO2 because of mismanagement, accident, or unexpected interaction with the environment.

[@MrGonzonator]

So are we talking about low oxygen burning to charcoal producing power plants, then mulch the charcoal and use it as fertiliser? Sounds like a win win.

[@meowmeowmeow1243]

Type 1 civilization ? We are more like a Kardashian civilization right now.

[@vigilant545]

On point!

[@think2086]

I think you have it backwards. Back in the old days, the low IQ unremarkables caused unspeakable amounts of pain, death, and destruction in their attempt to achieve significance with small intellects. It's GREAT that we have hot asses like Kardashian and Minaj to give purpose and meaning to their lives so they get off our backs and let us get our work done. We need people who aren't actively participating in inventing the future to be distracted and happy so they don't start wars. This is the greatest time to be alive yet. Don't knock our culture too hard! It needs lots of growth and improvement, but that's already begun.

[@diGritz1]

He Shoots.......... HE SCOOOOOOOOORES!

[@AwesomeBlackDude]

First they got to figure out how to make Mar astronaut suits that don't get damaged in radioactive sands. 😳

[@loydwhatley5488]

save the planet get rid of large cities

[@johnnyorozcovargas]

Well last resort we can all go out in a bang and trigger Yellowstone's super volcano.

[@davel8885]

I was looking for this

[@TheChuckwagonLite]

Lol

[@yourlocaltoad5102]

Xan Beerboy But it will surely be a nice volcanic winter. Maybe it’ll start a new ice age and give us more time to do something about this problem instead of whining on about how climate-policies harm the economy and whatnot.

[@NinetooNine]

@@xxan84Humanity? No.. Just the USA. Well.. Maybe Alaska and Hawaii would survive.

[@loungelizard836]

It might happen anyway. One result of AGW is melting of ice caps. Ice caps weigh a lot, and the released pressure as they melt causes strains on fault lines, causing earthquakes and tectonic plate movement. It could cause volcanic activity as an indirect result.

[@Metalkatt]

There's also the simple method of increasing albedo by painting or otherwise colouring the roofs of our buildings white or other light colours. Obviously this wouldn't wouldn't work if you're using solar panels or solar panel shingles, but for those who aren't, having white roofs would help reflect the light in the same way as snow.

[@justaguywhocares4478]

The problem is, we don't know for sure what kind of secondary effects these massive projects could have.

[@tompalmer5986]

Yes, but the primary effects make it worth a hail Mary or two.

[@Simon-nx1sc]

@@tompalmer5986 for sure, but preventing the problem by reducing emissions is still the best option. I think he just means that none of the solutions are ideal, and we should avoid having to use them.

[@billolsen4360]

What's important is getting government grants to build them!

[@bigdbigooo7829]

Joe your reading my mind. I'm at the 3:12 mark and this so far is exactly what I've been saying,thinking and trying to help with. You can start by growing a tree in your yard,or a bunch

[@chadjacobs6070]

And the simplest most cost effective but generates no money is planting the damn forests back and leaving them alone. The lungs and air conditioning of the planet are pretty important

[@SgtLube818]

while i agree trees are a great way to go, over 60% of our oxygen is actually created by the plankton in the oceans. the damage we are doing to the oceans is have a direct impact on those plants. I think a good thing he mentioned but didn't go enough in depth about is capturing the CO2 and stripping out the carbon and making building materials, but also as many miles of carbon nanotubes as possible, because several scientist agree the only feasible way to make a space elevator is with miles of carbon nanotubes.

[@OriginalMasterChafa]

Trees can produce wood and sometimes fruits. They retain water, protect the soil from erosion and are the base of many ecosystems. They are a good investment on the long term.

[@Sl1z3r]

The problem is planting isn't that easy. Check for TEDx talks with Allan Savory, he's already doing it but you need a lot of animals, man power and a couple of years. It works but he won't be able to do it by himself. The problem is that we harvest more trees than we plant. I really like also the idea in some Nordic countries that states that you must plant atleast 2 trees to 1 harvested or the new law in Philippines that states that if a student wants to graduate he must plant 10 trees.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

Also substantial Carbon can be sequestered by requiring cover crops on agricultural land instead of synthetic fertilizers, and by preserving grassland and regreening desert using large managed livestock herds. This also recreates a healthy soil biome - good for the ecology in general.

[@blacktigerace6687]

the real problem, not only manpower and time remember, trees need surface area to and we human also need land surface area to for life, works, and plant our foods also growing livestock our planet too small for upkeep everything

[@mariae.santiago620]

Every single option to fix the problem requires money. And if corporations can’t make a profit , oh well everyone is SOL. WE WILL ALL PERISH BECAUSE OF MONEY NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Exactly. Economic growth is what keeps us safe. Inexpensive and reliable energy generates economic growth. The climate movement is not an environmental movement. It is an ideological movement. It is anti capitalist, anti industrialization and anti West.

[@evadd2]

Oil companies and coal companies should be paying large share. Equal to the benefits they enjoyed.

[@Mrch33ky]

You mean the benefits YOU'VE enjoyed from plastics and cheap gas. Or do you not wear polyester or travel via the combustion engine? Perhaps you spin your own thread and ride a donkey to work, Amish Style? Oops that donkey emits methane so we have to tax you for that. Plus you keep exhaling CO2 so we have to tax you for that too. I'm sure you understand. We're all in this together. Now pay for your benefits or its jail for you. ;-)

[@evadd2]

Nothing like inventing an argument, Strawman. I've been fighting, not hard enough, since the 80s. I live in Canada and our gas is not cheap. I drive less than 10,000 km a year. I bike and walk whenever possible, no single task trips, no drives for fun. I've cut my purchase by 80%, I eat local, organic and seasonal. My heat stays off when I'm out and I don't have AC. Is that enough? Not by a long shot. Will I make a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. It's going to be tough. I do have a plan to go near 100% by 2050. I doubt my personal efforts will succeed and I doubt we will do enough. I could go on about my efforts but that was never my point. My point was these industries knew what they were doing, knew the harm, and not only lied but actively promoted doubt. They deliberately acted in a way that they knew could and now will kill life as we know it. All life. That's the crime. The rest of us are not innocent. I have not done enough. And yes it's going to be tough to make my commitment. But what I am not doing is pissing on the future. These companies not only did but are continuing to fight to be able to. That's a crime. A crime against humanity. So what are you doing?

[@zuzoscorner]

Yeah it BS how the power plants are getting a HUGe cut form this Carbon tax BS! they are the producers yet the middle class is being sucked dry...

[@compulsoryevacuationdevice]

I read the title as "4 Megaprojects that could change answers with joe" And I was like...whoa

[@xMrJanuaryx]

Wait... wouldn't all weather related disasters be considered as climate change related disasters? Like did the people who came out with that statistic have a list of ones that were related and ones that they considered not to be related?

[@johnmcglasson3287]

Science doesn't matter...this is a religion. You can't debate climate science with a zealot any more than you can debate Islam with a Muslim. It's a feeling now, facts don't matter. They can just...feel it. Ugh.

[@saxo.309]

@@johnmcglasson3287 I hope this is satire

[@johnmcglasson3287]

@@saxo.309 The entire hoax is satire. Michael Mann ensured that

[@saxo.309]

@@johnmcglasson3287 wot

[@johnmcglasson3287]

@@saxo.309 Michael Mann. James Hansen. Fake hockey-stick graph. Angola University. EPA 20 years of fake data. Look it up if techlords haven't unmemoried it. If you claim to know about climate science but don't know these names and what they did then you're unqualified to discuss the topic. Really.

[@OddawallWood]

We have 12 years? I heard that 20 years ago.

[@v2srikb]

This is first class. You inspire people. Thanks for sharing.

[@marcbiff2192]

First class madness.

[@theobserver9131]

People think they're so clever bringing up trees. Here's a gold star sticker for your fridge.

[@jaridkeen123]

We can Terraform Mars Easy, we already are destroying the Earth without even trying

[@kyzer97320]

Earth is destroyed?

[@quattrocity9620]

@@kyzer97320 There's still time

[@mattuk56]

Fake news

[@mahande88]

Actually we can't. Terraforming Mars would be like trying to bail out a sinking ship to keep it afloat using a solo cup. The reason Mars has such a thin atmosphere in the first place is because it no longer has an electromagnetic field like the Earth does. Without it, the solar winds blast away the atmosphere at the top layers bit by bit until you are left with what it now has. More atmosphere gets removed in a day than we could possibly make. The good news is though, due to what little atmosphere that the planet has, we could easily build pressurized underground cities and even above ground buildings as long as they are radiation sheilded. This option is much more likely to happen than a full terraforming.

[@nowsherabdullah1878]

@@mahande88 Actually if we made an atmosphere on mars it would last millions of years, it took millions of years for marsion atmosphere to blow away

[@crlpop]

Climat control doesn't deal with toxic dumping, plastic in our water, over consumption, species extinctions (bees)... Shareholders need to change their attitude towards wealth and start thinking about repercussions of their fortune making entreprises... People (the consumers of these companies) need to simplify their lives and start thinking self-sufficient and local. WE NEED TO OWN THE FUCK UP FOR WHAT WE"VE BEEN DOING!

[@robertetzel219]

When he said artificial volcanoes and need of planes I immediately thought of the SR - 71 then he said fuel efficient. That idea went out the window as fast as that plane can fly

[@mike53153]

As to the Coal Burning Companies just raising their prices that is not necessarily so since they are in competition with Renewable Energy Companies.

[@AcmePotatoPackingPocatello]

Lower CO2 down to 260ppm creates potential of Sahara Desert for AGRICULTURE, essentially as it was in 15,000 bc.

[@autohmae]

sahara project already is doing that without a change of the environment.

[@dogphlap6749]

260ppm was the CO2 content of our atmosphere pre-industrial revolution, there were forests and agriculture then. Robin Hood managed to find a few trees in Sherwood Forest, bread to eat and ale to drink (even if he never existed the Sheriff of Nottingham certainly did and he did not starve to death from lack of agriculture).

[@angel22893]

Really interesting. If only we could all work together.

[@ThalassTKynn]

Pull the CO2 from Earth's atmosphere and ship it to Mars!

[@blackmephistopheles2273]

Better: pull the CO2 out of Venus's atmosphere and send it to Mars!

[@MarkOfBitcoin]

Mars atmosphere is already >90% CO2... still no warming, tho.

[@ThalassTKynn]

@@MarkOfBitcoin the atmosphere of Mars is also super thin.

[@blackmephistopheles2273]

@Thalass has it right; that .04% of Earth's atmosphere with all the greenhouse gases...yeah, that's the entire atmosphere of Mars. On the other hand, Venus has a LOT more to spare!

[@iancampbell6925]

Mars already has an atmosphere of 95% carbon dioxide and an av temp of -60c. If co2 level is reduced to 150 ppm then all life on earth will cease.

[@deathab0ve]

Its such an easy fix. All we have to do is reverse our air conditioners. If everyone cooled outside we would all be happy.

[@moriarteaa4692]

Yeah and we have to open our fridges as well

[@hightechredneck8587]

As joking as this comment is... you have actually have an idea... for temperature anyway. Heat Pumps work on AC technology, and we can pull heat out of the ground to heat houses at 400% efficiency and we can cool houses by reversing it. Basically a giant geothermal air conditioner.

[@deathab0ve]

@@hightechredneck8587I do have an idea. My dad works in HVAC and I help him a lot install large air-conditioning systems, boilers, and etc...

[@thothheartmaat2833]

The funny thing is that ac units produce heat on the back end. So while we're cooling the inside, we're heating the outside.. cool huh? Did I just explain global warming? Guess we're gonna have to capture all that heat and pump it under ground.. or blow it up into space..

[@stirrcrazyn1611]

Lol

[@BaronVonQuiply]

What Happens In Lagrange Point, Stays In Lagrange Point.

[@fourleafcloveer5011]

Gas X in background of "tangent cam" is perfectly placed.

[@chrishopkins8603]

Several years ago I watched a tv show w/ competition to develop a method to scrub CO2 while being economical. There was one winner. Did you see it? What happened to the technology? It could have been 10 yrs ago I forgot the name. The winner was set up in NY football stadium i think.

[@joebender3662]

What could go wrong with centrally planning the earths climate?

[@bradleykillen6104]

Because I collect silver I googled top uses for silver.. was shocked to see weather modification on the list.. so I dug.. turns out those conspiracy "chem trails" are an actual active attempt by governments around the world to promote cloud seed nuclei forming.. they've been doing it for decades. And playing it off in the media as a fringe last resort idea.. haha

[@bradleykillen6104]

Dont search chem trails. Search weather modification or cloud seeding operations

[@wiamoaw]

We need a Stalinist style "5 year plan" to deal with it, a few million people might die but frankly the alternative is probably worse!

[@wiamoaw]

@Christobanistan My family would accept that drastic changes are a necessary sacrifice to insure the continued existence of our species. The purge would be of people unwilling to participate... You for example.

[@josephbeers2256]

@@wiamoaw bring it on, I will volunteer you.

[@XSpImmaLion]

Here's how I imagine things will go in the upcoming future. At some point in this century, the effects of climate change will get so bad that several countries will get torn down and destroyed by wars triggered by stresses brought by climate change. Mass migrations happening because of climate change related catastrophes, coastal or island cities getting flooded several times a year, desertification and killer droughts, potable water becoming an increasingly scarce commodity, entire portions of countries becoming completely uninhabitable, a shift in ocean currents causing severe changes in global climate... in summary, fast changes that humanity isn't prepared to deal with. The problem with climate change isn't, weirdly enough, about climate changing itself. The problem is the speed. Human societies are not equipped or built to deal with fast changes. We have developed into the stage we are today during a miraculous period of time where global climate kept pretty stable... so our mentality nowadays is based on this stability. If it was a couple of degrees increase in averages over say, a millenia, we'd probably handle it better. In a century this not only means we can't develop adaptations fast enough, we might also have too many extreme events that will kill tons of people and leave parts of the planet almost impossible to live through an entire year. Imagine parts of the US you can only stay during certain months, having to move outside of it everytime storm season comes, or everytime forest fire season comes. It's kind of already happening. Give it a few more years for it to affect even more countries and awareness finally reach it's peak. If we're not already neck deep into trying to remediate all the problems that are already happening, perhaps out of desperation we adopt a massive geoengineering plan. Something that requires massive funding, massive ammounts of people working, and cooperation of several different countries. I can already imagine we botching one of those up real good, creating massive side effects that will be even worse than climate change itself, which kills a huge percentage of all life on Earth. It is the most likely scenario given how little we actually know about doing something on that scale. It's something that might have killed past civilizations, or have left societies in very dire straights during our own history. The only difference is that we don't see them as "geoengineering". For instance, if you change perspectives, climate change might be seem as geoengineering. Through several apparently unrelated processes, we increased the greenhouse effect by pumping a whole ton of gases from deep into the Earth's crust to the atmostphere. There are vast tracts of land in several countries that we rendered infertile due to massive agricultural projects and whatnot. There are some theories about ancient civilizations going extinct because of processes involving large populations that changed the local climate and conditions that weren't predicted. Humanity will be left in such a shape that it'll look like either post-apocalyptic scenarios or one of those zombie movies without zombies. Pandemics will also come and tons of people will die, even though we could have saved many with research and development... just that we won't be able to reach or finance the costs of curing most people. By the end of these very dark times in our species, we'll either be left in a state like previous to middle ages, or in a direct path to extinction. At that point climate change won't even matter anymore, it'll only be about survival. Geoengineering won't be attempted anymore because it will be considered too dangerous, and there won't be funds to do it anyways. And then, we either start over or just let go...

[@landonweist]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/epy9aHWAhtqjjKM

[@Sesso20]

Your background music somtimes sounds exactly like my alarm clock. Haaah, the thrills. Thanks for the content, very much appreciated. :)

[@tomryner5830]

I will claim that 25 million dollar price from Branson! A hose made from CO2 hosing CO2 to Mars... See! Brilliant 😏

[@danbonucci3500]

And the cool thing about that is you just need to suck on the hose for a second and then it keeps on flowing

[@vaclavcervinka65]

Now technical solution.

[@dgalloway107]

Inb4 we accidentally siphon our entire atmosphere to Mars, killing all earth life, and starting bacterial evolution on mars. Then the Martians will begin causing climate change, and some genious will say, "Hey, what if we siphon the carbon dioxide to that dead planet we might terraform, you know, Earth." Then they accidentally siphon their entire atmosphere, killing life on Mars and starting bacterial evolution on Earth. Well that was a fun train of thought.

[@Pau_Pau9]

Awesome idea! And to add to your idea, we can use the same hose as space elevator to put heavy satellites into orbit! Two birds killed with a stone!

[@christynpienaar]

dear god - i hope its joke or satire if your mind thinks this will be possible i shun this earth and its people

[@isn0t42]

"Wind and solar are on par with coal." We don't have a final price on renewables unless we count the price of gas and other hydrocarbons required to compensate for the downtime and/or take into account the energy storage solution and maintenance over time. As far as I understand, those statistics tend to completely disregard that kind of data, ignoring that compared to hydrocarbons solar and wind are 100% technological sources of energy. And you must 100% include the pricetag of the technology in its entirety to make the final cost evaluation.

[@brianarthur6199]

Is cost really at issue here? If I were dying of a fatal disease, but could be cured by handing over all of my cash, I do it without a second thought. You can always earn more money, provided you are alive...

[@kylorenkardashian5518]

7:32 I really was hoping for a fart joke

[@jasonplant5432]

All right finally found one of your videos. I usually watch Our Ludicrous future

[@charliesmith9689]

Thank you for making this video, it's my 4th/5th time watching since it came out and keeps giving me hope that globally we might get our shit together 🤞

[@evo9467]

Planting trees and reversing desertification seems like the best and cheapest solution.

[@Wemdiculous]

evo false

[@hata6290]

Wemdiculous broooooo

[@tysonsperling9912]

Did you know there's more trees in the northern hemisphere now than there was 100 years ago?

[@owlan99]

Allan Savory

[@burninghard]

Unfortunately not. Of course that has to be done but nonetheless reforestation can´t simply hold up with the speed we increase co2 in the atmosphere. We need to primarily focus on reducing our output of green house gases into the atmosphere so those measures have a chance to be effective.

[@MonkeyMagick]

We have a "smart system", it's called the biosphere, it runs an OS called Ecology.

[@olenagirich1884]

@Jacob Adam Grier e.g. Allan Savory

[@chrispridemore5562]

The biosphere can not keep up with the growth of humans burning fossil fuels.

[@ev1558]

@@chrispridemore5562 well, agreed since we keep destroying it

[@Rkenton48]

One other short term solution that would help in the here and now, and it's relatively cheap as well. Paint EVERY roof on EVERY building and house a bluish off-white! It would mimick the clouds and snow, reflecting a LOT of sunlight back into space. Have you ever seen aerial photos of our cities and suburbs? It's all dark and heat absorbing!

[@Rkenton48]

but not a shiny paint. don't want to blind everyone in the sky.

[@BigDvsRL]

They could use the Co2 for carbon nanotubes^^ Maybe they will find a way to Split the Carbon from the O2

[@NathansHVAC]

We already know how to do that. It just takes the same amount of energy that you got burning in the first place. Plants use the Sun as the energy.

[@ayporos]

8:37 the solution is simple: - create a carbon-emission tax (if you country doesn't have one already) - raise this to the point where one of the following things happen: - companies start investing in carbon reduction/offsetting themselves - companies start paying for CO2 offsets to companies such as those BECCS companies that dump the carbon into the ground - companies burning coal fold and/or adapt to clean energy production alternatives Now the problem with this, of course, is that to prevent 'evasion' into countries that DON'T have a carbon-emission tax it'd have to be world wide and/or border-agnostic (in the sense that in order to do business in a country you'd have to pay the carbon-emission tax, regardless of which country your plants or letterbox taxfirm is based in)

[@sebell69]

ALWAYS WITH THE TAX ........ the problem with the TAX is WE the People end up paying the damn TAX NOT the companies! Instead WHY not give and incentive in tax cuts for companies that do alternative energy and (even higher tax) to the ones that DONT!

[@d.b.cooper8178]

A carbon tax used to be the gop solution back before they went into complete denial.

[@ayporos]

@@sebell69 You only end up paying it if you pay for the products of said company. Look man, it's free market 101: If electricity generated from fossil fuels becomes more expensive than electricity from clean energy sources because of the tax that said fossil fuel companies HAVE to pass on to you to still make a profit why the hell would you still buy your electricity from said companies? It's so simple, a 12yo could come up with it...

[@jatpack3]

"Free market 101"....by tax Brilliant absurdity

[@kevinhebert6370]

Wow we only have 12 years left?! Joe ocasio cortez! Hahahahaha!

[@agabrielhegartygaby9203]

I think it's going to be a combo: later and too close for my comfort - we are going to get together and all good ideas take us in the right direction. It looks awful but as you have demonstrated in this video all we have to do is bring the good stuff together....Thanks for some optimism....we all need it not just me...

[@sygarth]

Nukes at equator will fix the problem in no time :)

[@peterpetrov6522]

lol MEGA PROJECTS!!! Dr Evil would be proud! Is it really that hard to change the genes of trees and vegetation and increase their CO2 consumption? We've been doing similar things with crops and vegetables for centuries.

[@tony4650]

Exactly! They need to genetically engineer a broad-leaf plant/ tree that thrives in desert conditions.

[@georgeemmanouel2500]

Thats actually a very good idea

[@lyreparadox]

Actually, that's why grasses are so prevalent. They evolved to pump more C02 more efficiently than broad-leafed plants. IIRC, maize is particularly good at this.

[@hamstersniffer]

I've never once heard any explanation of the 'twelve years' thing. It feels like yet another arbitrary timeline for saving the planet.

[@fakiirification]

REPENT! THE END IS NEAR!!! AHEM, I MEAN... WE ONLY HAVE 12 YEARS TO SAVE THE PLANET! WONT SOMEBODY PPPPPLLLLEAAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Its religion, just a new flavor of it.

[@michaelmccluskey2044]

Rather than waiting to "hear" an explanation, why don't you just go ahead and read the IPCC report. It's publicly available. If that still doesn't explain enough for you, check out the references/sources they provide. If that's still not enough, go directly to the source. Find a friend currently attending a university and ask if you can use their log in to access one of the large subscriber-only scientific journal databases. Or, if that's too hard, just use Google Scholar. A significant portion of journal articles are available there these days.

[@thepebblesexplore83]

What if all it ends up being is fake news that makes us clean up the planet for no good reason? Jk even worst case scenario we win.

[@burninghard]

That 12 year span relies on estimates how much Co2 we can pump into the atmosphere in order to stay beyond the 2 degrees threshold. The first part is a rather simple calculatable physical barrier the later part counts with our current amount of emissions. If we reduce our emissions it could be longer if we don´t or increase CO2 emissions we will reach that point earlier. If we pass that 2 degrees threshold it is very likely that we reached a tipping point where it does not matter anymore how much we reduce our emissions but the climate will keep heating up nonetheless with dramatic impacts on human life as we know it (ocean water rises of estimated up to 70m, vast uninhabitable areas due to high temperature, rapid expansion of deserts, rapidly declining access to drinking water, a lot more extreme weather conditions and so on). So yeah the timeline varies a bit depending what we will do in the future but at the point we are right now it is a pretty accurate prediction. A prediction nonetheless.

[@rogerwilco2]

Read the report? www.ipcc.ch/2019/

[@Ravencos]

Almost 6 years now. And no closer. Actually further...

[@maxsmodels]

Why not plant millions more trees?

[@birkest3220]

maxsmodels we already have more trees today than ever before

[@eps3154]

People are already doing that, it's simply not enough. So a multipronged approach is essential

[@julz19]

Just go Full nuclear energy, geez people. and peeps in the comment section talk about trees, well trees covers a wide land mass, we need a tower type building that would hold multiple trees, like a tower forest, it's already happening with vegetables and fruits, hope someone finds a way to spark this idea or better.

[@thewildcardperson]

UncleFriis your an idiot if you think those cases are the norm for nuclear

[@augustwest5356]

Why? Are we out of land all of a sudden?

[@jellymop]

Joe Scott going full AOC on this one. Uh oh Greta. There’s a new player in town.

[@MarynJohnForever]

@answerswithjoe thanks a lot for your enthusiasm towards giving interesting information and education. My 10yr old asked what your page was so she could follow you!

[@sfomikedean1]

These are the lengths we will go to avoid taming the greedy and working together.

[@BobbyJCFHvLichtenstein]

The word "Megaproject" sounds like it came from Hermitcraft

[@oneeco]

The reason why Mars is easier to change compared to Earth: *People own land on Earth and they decide if they want to do anything in the first place.*

[@pdloder]

Cardinal. Easier?? If you think it will be easier, you've not looked into it enough. It would take multiple millennia before one could even walk outside without an insulated suit or breath the air. That said we still need to do it.

[@crgrier]

Mars is also SAFER to experiment on. If we get it wrong on Mars, then some scientists say, "Aw, darn." If we get it wrong on Earth, millions or billions could die.

[@tecknodragon]

Burn the mind-blowing cost to get what we need to Mars to do what we need before everyone dies on Earth. And yes that includes making stuff on Mars using the resources there.

[@vredehuman5242]

i can't believe there isn't any people to implement new science

[@ramsa01Yt]

Vrede Human : even kids have ideas how to quickly cool down the planet. Just needs some funding: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJ_McnqCibytmZo

[@dalemartin815]

0:50 Wind and solar is on par with coal on price, but not in energy output or reliability. This is where they are hopelessly out classed by by coal.

[@trevorkoskela6954]

If you play this video at .75 speed this guy seems very stoned.

[@ullscarf]

Hee hee, yes.

[@Faisaldegrt]

LMAO, definitely noticed

[@massatube]

haha drop him down to 1/2 speed even better.

[@wavepool4501]

Trevor Koskela watch his animals that get drunk video at .75, also hilarious

[@SQ8warrior]

These are terrible ideas at any speed lol

[@felixschwartz9139]

Helloooo Snowpiercer....

[@haydenoneil4975]

When he started talking about putting chemicals into the atmosphere that's exactly what I thought.

[@HelamanGile]

Just send all our industrial Industries to Mars terraforming level 9000

[@cmdrbudman1ao580]

I'm just pumped that our once tropical planet has almost completely recovered from that nasty ice age.

[@williamshearon4309]

Don't worry, the Ice Age will come again and we will wish we had all that co2 back.

[@augustwest5356]

Now if we could just nuke Antarctica we'd be all set.

[@augustwest5356]

@@williamshearon4309 well all be loooong dead by the time that happens

[@vredehuman5242]

now i know why this stuff isn't implemented because of the people like you guys meantime Australia and Africa burning up almost all year long.

[@markgreiser464]

lol you had to go for facts, didn't you?

[@robinyilmaz1155]

How can you talk about converting to clean energy and not mention nuclear power?!

[@eleoptera]

Because nuclear energy is carbon neutral, NOT CLEAN.

[@Chris-xl6pd]

@@LaurenBurger Theres another huge point about thorium versus uranium. People are scared by the idea of another chernobyl and rightly so, but this is the problem of a uranium reactor, everything that is done to manage it is with the sole purpose of stopping it exploding and exhausting radioactive material everywhere. The thorium salt reactor is such low volatility that everything in the reactor is being done to keep the reaction happening. If a Thorium salt reactor fails, it just stops producing energy and would need to be replaced before production could continue. No explosion, no radioactive fall out and the easiest way to cover our energy needs in the short term. This is with an existing concept that could give us the extra time needed to come up with truly global and environmentally sympathetic solution to climate change.

[@jonathanmatthews4774]

@@LaurenBurger Yep, Thorium for the future. Unfortunately it *is* still nuclear which means the uneducated masses still think "boom".

[@kevinzheng7752]

Because nuclear reactors are very dangerous and isn’t clean. Fusion would be much cleaner and much more efficient and so are thorium reactors.

[@kevinzheng7752]

Lauren Burger Please explain how nuclear waste is less radioactive than burning coal and explain how a coal plant makes the same amount of energy asa nuclear plant. Also scientists have already theorized and it is mathematically possible for a Thorium Reactor, it produces very little waste that can be easily contained and produces much more energy than coal plants do, and why do you have a link for a kid who built a nuclear reactor that violated many federal laws, and you forgot about China’s Tokamak fusion reactor that was able to stay online for 10 seconds which is a major step in the right direction.

[@todabsolute]

Everyone: NOOOOOOOOO!!! WE CAN'T JUST SPEND OUR MONEY TO CAPTURE CO2, IT'S MY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! Government: haha taxes go to spying brrrrrrrrr

[@luciferfps-fury5814]

Peter diamandis is insanely cool. The projects he runs and reports on are INSANE

[@thurielangel3239]

Hey. I just wanted to tell you I'm Tony and my jaw clicks when I eat. Got it checked. Thanks for the advice.

[@twoscoops2]

Whew, glad there are some backup plans because doing nothing is what is going to happen

[@augustwest5356]

Help! We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!

[@chrismacinnes3770]

by the way what is the optimium level of CO2 in the atmosphere

[@larrylelemur6854]

Probably much higher than at present.

[@iancampbell6925]

1500 ppm for plant growth and life in general, we are currently 400 ppm .

[@augustwest5356]

campbell so you're saying we don't have enough CO2? What?

[@janbergenhenegouwen8297]

And what is the optimum temperature on planet earth

[@Graeme_Lastname]

Define optimum. ;)

[@Tom36907]

12:34 Space Debris: I'm gonna pretend I didn't watch this

[@rwgibson1]

This is the problem with the climate change issue. You focus on carbon and totally neglect that the biggest and most harmful greenhouse gas is water vapor. It really misses the point.

[@ZTRCTGuy]

Thats right, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. It makes up over 90% of all the greenhouse gasses. And I'm very very glad it's there, otherwise this planet would be a cold barren wasteland and the vast majority of the heat would bounce of right into space again.

[@georgeemmanouel2500]

Yeh but there is really not much you can do about water vapour since it is caused by the sun heating the oceans. The reason why people are focusing on carbon emissions is because it is also a big factor to global warming. Also water vapour can turn back to liquid form and fall back to the Earth so there won't be an increase in water vapour unless carbon emissions were to increase the temperature of the Earth and that's when we are screwed.

[@ZTRCTGuy]

@@georgeemmanouel2500 Water vapour is pretty uncontrollable by humanity yes. But so is Co2. Most of it is produced naturally through oceans, dying vegetation, animals and bacteria and seismic activity. It is also the case that if more Co2 is produced, the planet will go greener, because increased levels of Co2 will make the plants grow better. So it compensates. Lastly, it is not scientifically proven that Co2 as a greenhouse gas has a significant impact on the temperature. There are very low amounts of Co2, methane, sulfurdioxide in our atmosphere. They're trace gasses. Even if we could control the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, it would not have a great effect at all because there are many more players in the climate system which have a way greater impact. Like the orbit around the sun and solar activity itself.

[@mr.lucasifer]

@@ZTRCTGuy What you just said there is very misleading. We absolutely are adding co2, and it's definitely having an effect. It's true that the sun is the reason for Earth's heat energy. Yet, it's also true that h2o and co2 are two of the primary compounds that allow this planet to be blanketed by that heat. Our planet would be incredibly cold otherwise. Much like Mars. And no matter how you slice the pie of "natural climate change " it happened very gradually over thousands of years every single time in Earth's history. Everytime. This is occurring in our lifetime, so rapidly, my grandparents recall when everything was so much different. The impossibly delicate balance between each biome is hard to explain in a simple comment, but the reality is that nothing on this planet has adapted to the rapidity of what's happening now. When you decimate organisms at the bottom of a food chain, or in an adjacent biome, you set off reactions that have never been studied in every other level of that chain or every other biome. When you pull carbon out of the ground, which had been long buried, and burn it, it's released into the atmosphere as co2... one of those blanketing gases. It helps to trap that solar energy you mention. If you add a little but each year, and also remove natural carbon sinks(forests) you end up with a surplus of heat energy capturing gas. We've been doing this for more than 100 years, with ever increasing technology, ever increasing population, ever increasing levels of comfort which equals energy consumption, we have added to our exponentially increased consumption of this energy each year. So if last year we burned 90 gigatons, this year 92, the following 94 as an example... we have been doing this for more than a century. In chemistry terms, it can only capture more unnatural solar energy. There's nothing else it could be doing. That must be true by the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics. Positive feedback loops are the real threat. When forests burn from drought caused by increased temperature and extreme climate shifts you lose carbon sinks, when polar caps melt you lose reflective surface because it's white, you gain absorption surface in the ocean, when the tundra heats up pockets of methane are thawed and released (a greenhouse gas multiple times more harmful than co2). These feedback on the planet and make things worse then they catalyze the reactions over again. These events have already started, and once they really take off it's gonna be curtains for many people, animals, and life systems. Everyone likes to speak of natural climate change, but humans have never been using combustion in such a massive scale before in the history of this planet. We actually have nothing to compare this to. So don't try. What we do know, is that co2 traps heat, and we're adding it in a big way. That heat disrupts the natural order of things. It's going to fuck shit up. That's not a theory. It's chemistry and biology. These things are happening

[@ZTRCTGuy]

@@mr.lucasifer ​ You're not wrong in claming that Co2 has an effect on radiative forcing. (how much heat bounces back into space.) However it's not true that Co2 is a primary component in this blanket. If you consider greenhouse gasses, water vapour makes up over 95% of the greenhouse gasses and Co2 a merely 3 or 4%. The percentage of Co2 in the total atmosphere is less than 0,04%. And then I'm not even talking about the amount humanity adds to the atmosphere, yes we add Co2 to the atmosphere but how much? Less than 10% of the total. And I've already told what is emitting this in my previous comment. Because the media talks only about Co2, people are usually able to tell what effect Co2 has on radiative forcing. But are pretty oblivious to the other factors in this inmensely complex system what is named climate. Some other factors are the sunspot activity on the sun, the orbit of the earth around the sun (Milenkovich cycles), El Ninos and Ninas, ocean currents, water vapour in every form, urbanisation and many many more. Because this sytem is so complex, none of the predictions using computer models have accurately played out, you simply cannot put reality in a computer. Yes, the climate is changing, that's a quite uncontroversial fact. It's been changing since the formation of this very planet by factors which are much stronger and have a much more influence than that tiny bit of Co2 we add into the atmosphere. Lastly, then I'm not even talking about the benefits of Co2, the earth is literally growing greener because of the extra we put around. Its been growing 14% greener in the last 30 years through photosynthesis of plants (NASA). Also a warming is better than a cooling, plants thrive better in warmer weather and so do people. There is very little to really worry about.

[@TopHatNinja68]

I love how as an intelligent species our go too solution to energy waste products is to dig a hole to put it in.

[@ricardoabh3242]

Fixing the Earth is less easy than Mars... the issue is cost and short life spans memory

[@rebeccabigwest]

Hey Joe. I'm surprised you didn't mention remote volcanoes in your "GOT unpredictable seasons" video. You know? Every once in an unpredictable while, a volcano erupts, far from Westeros, and BAM! Winter has come.

[@istvansipos9940]

and hurry up. once the arctic shipping route becomes ice-free and thus a good business, there will be big players who do not want to reduce global temperatures

[@bencoad8492]

sorry to burst your bubble but the arctic is closing rapidly this year it has the highest amount of ice it has in years..so there won't be any 'ice-free' routes

[@istvansipos9940]

never mind. I had no bubble to begin with

[@atheistontheroad4545]

Direct air capture isn't 100% carbon negative. That process has to be powered by something. Fans and pumps don't operate for free. That energy has to be put into it. Direct air capture would have to capture more carbon than it releases through its power sources to be carbon negative. Right now, that's all powered through the grid, which is at least 80% fossil fuels in the US. The idea of using the carbon it captures to produce a fuel is a good idea, but the fuel it produces would have to be able to power the direct capture process, the conversion into a usable fuel, and the capture of the additional components used in the fuel making process, for this process to break even and actually be carbon neutral. If it can't do all of that, then it isn't even carbon neutral, and is far from carbon negative. Direct air capture is a cool idea, but it doesn't actually address the problem. The problem is the grid. That's what has to change because that's what is powering everything. The direct air capture idea is just a band-aid on a severed arm. It isn't what we need, and isn't a step in the right direction to get what we need. We need the grid to change, not to play around with trying to create what amounts to a perpetual motion machine.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

Flowing rivers and blowing air and shining sun power for free..

[@brabblemaster401]

@@thothheartmaat2833 Dams are a huge ecological disaster everywhere. Dams in China have driven the river dolphins extinct, damaging the rain forests in south america, and wrecked the population of fish in america. Solar is taking up huge amounts of valuable farmland in the US (can be solved by putting grids on top of large building like Walmart). Wind is probably the best of the three. The best way in the near term is to make our grids more efficient. Using more Natural Gas, along with carbon capture tech to improve efficiency. And fund more Nuclear stations with the next safe generation of plants (to replace older plants in operation). And have our vehicles improve efficiency and some people go to electric. Electric wont work for all for many years as the range and power is still not good enough for some.

[@khhnator]

@@brabblemaster401 i thought only amazon had river dolphins, huh learnign everyday

[@brabblemaster401]

@@khhnator yahtzee river dolphin. Beloved to be functionally extinct due to human causes over the past 50 years.

[@thothheartmaat2833]

@@brabblemaster401 maybe we don't need to dam up the whole river. A system of water wheels along the banks would probably suffice. You're talking about the problems these systems have but it's no longer time for problem think.. it's time for solution think.. solar grids might be taking up a lot of farm land but you didn't consider the possibility of hydroponic skyscrapers. It isn't 1812 anymore and we all need to stop thinking like it is.

[@michaelosborne4882]

Yo dog!! I've got 1/4 oz baggies of that co2 you're wantin!! $20 little man!! 100% pure!!

[@camdonhatch2063]

Hey Joe, two questions. 1) When you reference "climate change related natural disasters" are you accounting for the way that federal insurance has changed the behavior of land developers (guaranteeing insurance for properties even if they are built in previously known risk zones)? 2) The sir scrubbing mega project seems like it would be vastly more efficient if it were built in areas like Los Angeles, or the Salt Lake Valley where the natural geography already captures a huge amount of carbon dioxide. How much more effective do you think a scrubber would be if it were placed strategically rather than in a grid across the globe?

[@ashworth1064]

Could it not be scaled down so a unit per household? Rather than 1 vast scrubber for a city, millions of small scale ones for every household?