The Best Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint | Hot Mess 🌎

[@HotMessPBS]

These are big, challenging changes to make - and not everyone has the option to say, get rid of their car or or afford a healthy plant-based diet. Every little bit counts though, so let us know how you are working to shrink your carbon footprint!

[@Who-vt9oh]

You like Einstein? Yeah me too: monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

[@TheOnyomiMaster]

I've been taking showers Navy-style and eating less meat.

[@lncerante]

DAMN THANKS for mentioning meat! (and not saying "cut down on meat")

[@fiddiehacked]

Hot Mess; Some sound advice, if most people would consistently do a few things would certainly have a moderate impact on GHG emissions. There is one point of misinformation in this video though: checking RE on a utility bill. Electric lines don't sort electrons - you get a mix of everything supplying the grid. Checking a green box is merely an accounting trick (scam) for the utilities. This allows them to build more highly subsidized RE (guaranteed profits from taxpayers!). BTW- most taxpayers are also ratepayers. California & Hawaii are learning that there are limits to RE on the grid. Building more just ensures curtailments on sunny or windy days. Gubernatorial candidate Shellenberger has written about this, as have Conley and Maloney at RoadmapToNowhere.com.

[@gasdive]

Chris Bergan no, it's not a scam. Yes, the electrons are all mixed, but that doesn't matter any more than it matters that the money your employer pays you gets mixed up with other people's money. Your employer pays into your bank account, you withdraw when it suits you. The amount in and the amount out have to match. If you started claiming that your employer hadn't paid you because the notes they put in the bank weren't the same notes you withdrew, people would look at you as if you'd gone mad. Same with renewable. The utility has to buy in as much renewable electricity as it sells as renewable.

[@Melomathics]

I don't drive, I don't take flights, I eat plant-based food and I don't have kids. Where's my medal???

[@sephirothjc]

Stephen 🎖️there you go

[@Melomathics]

Thanks :-)

[@lncerante]

I don't either but because I'm poor XD

[@luongmaihunggia]

Does liking your comment consider a medal? Heroes don't need recognition, they do great things not because they want fame, money or some kind of reward, they do it because they want to do the right thing and help the world.

[@Melomathics]

Well, said. But I'm not a hero at all! Everyone can do this. Start small, really small, and try to progress a little bit everyday - you'll be there before you know it!

[@siobhanharney1215]

Honestly, being poor helps, I cycle everywhere, I turn off the lights constantly, use my own bag all the time and make sure to recycle.....but it's because I can save money! It's just nice that my way of living helps me reduce how I affect the climate 🌲🌱🌿☘️🍀🌳🌿🍀🌱

[@waxogen]

CARBON CAPTURE 2 The heat and loss from an smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a liquid state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye The wax carbon amalgamation create a black solution that reacts like a dye and forms into solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are captured in the wax that settle at the bottom of the wax holding tank as a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by carbon released into the atmosphere Government scientists have failed to both stop or prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax seems to be the only answer. William Nelson

[@ruguoserliegise2716]

FACTS 💯

[@earthenscience]

What we need is systemic change. For example, in "recycling", most plastics do not get recycled. When humans value profit more than survival is when there are problems. Because according to some people, its more profitable to create new plastics instead of recycling plastics. And telling random people to "don't have kids", "don't eat meat", "don't drive a car" isn't sustainable since it goes against human nature. Instead they need to change the entire system. Its the rich that need to improve the system, not the poor.

[@Noukz37]

Everything was spot on except you missed out one one of the big ones (if not the biggest) - shopping! Buying less, buying consciously, buying used and of course buying local is crucial!

[@Darth_Pro_x]

textile also creates a a lot of CO2, i recommend ted-ed's video on the life cycle of a shirt, changing your clothing habits can also be impactful

[@sanitysquota937]

Thrift store.

[@zentouro]

That is a great video. John Oliver also made a good one about fast fashion (and so did I a while back). Maybe in the future we'll cover textile's impact on Hot Mess!

[@Darth_Pro_x]

that's awesome :) also, i would love to see video that showcases the difference in impact between individual consumption and lifestyle, to the impact of the industrial section, cause although personal lifestyle changes a 'blessed' (and they really are good), there's a large difference that people should be aware of, and sometime individual activism isn't enough. anyway - great video, thank you :)

[@zentouro]

Yeah, we've got a few videos planned that tackle more of the entire life cycle of what we use. Hopefully, I can come up with an accessible way to discuss the disconnect between individual and the interconnective global system we live in - because that's a big part of why there's been so little movement on reducing emissions. Its a /big/ topic, so you may see that idea pop up in future videos before we get a chance to tackle it head on.

[@deep.space.12]

Oh trust me I have been "staycationing" for years.

[@SergioLongoni]

What about high speed electric trains instead of planes?

[@MegaJimbob125]

Across the oceans?

[@dayzm6708]

Yes pls

[@KateeAngel]

@@MegaJimbob125 there are many ppl who do not even go to other continents. Many simply do not have money for that anyway

[@stevelehel3625]

Trees will love you more if you didn't.

[@someguy2135]

Better, for sure. I just heard that Greta Thunberg has influenced a lot of people to use trains instead of flying. Check out her interview on "The Daily Show."

[@pyrotheevilplatypus]

WOOOO!!! I plan on having NO children! Score!

[@draganoiugeorge6010]

pretty sure africa and asia would still have children. do you think peasants watch much youtube? as an alternative solution, mass displacement of people from third world countries is more or less a viable option. if they are young enough they can easily be assimilated into the society. tldr: noone should have kids, we should all buy them from people who dont know what youtube is.

[@wille2680]

Analogy Accepted that only really works if you want to be stuck in our current economic system. Which is screwed up btw.

[@sunspot6502]

I did that! I had no children. Didn't change the world a bit...

[@crystalgiddens7276]

nice! mental sterilization! please do not!

[@crystalgiddens7276]

they are way ahead of you folks! that's why they want you all to be gay transgender neutered good little brainwashed minions and oh boy is it working! keep on keeping on. in a few generations the gullible and easily brainwashed will be gone from the earth! you won't be missed. that you did it to yourself makes it all so sweet! i can't hurt a fly but you people need to go!

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Contacting your political representatives and saying you want them to focus on stopping climate change (or, for some places, _get their heads out of their asses and stop denying the fact of it in the first place_), is something else you can do. Individuals are certainly important, but real change will also require government intervention, because no matter what people are told or even feel that they "should" do, a large percentage of them will always resort to what's most immediately beneficial to themselves.

[@stevelehel3625]

Those whores will be happy to burn up your cash while gladly cutting a deal topocket a nice cut. Example, Pance Nalocy, $100m and counting.

[@roygreenwood79]

We want less government intervention in our life choices not more 🤔🙄

[@earthenscience]

probably they will just tax the poor and let wealthy barons pollute the same amount.

[@BeCurieUs]

'If everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little' - David MacKay

[@crixi__]

okay let's rather do nothing at all than "just a little"...

[@MegaJimbob125]

@@crixi__ Rather lets do a lot

[@zoleroid7027]

@@MegaJimbob125 let's do everything.

[@cainiddrie1482]

Well... don't be American. Right?

[@fpvsushi8590]

As an American I agree

[@scNkosiSW]

Wrong. Being American has nothing to do with driving, flying and eating meat.

[@Soumya_Mukherjee]

Or maybe don't be a human?

[@Goodvvine]

Cows emit as much greenhouse gas as transportation, so don't be a cow either.

[@geraldineiglesia5876]

Pretty much.

[@HipJipC]

I've had no problem with doing any of these. It was quite simple and barely took any effort. Become disabled! Eventually you will be below poverty level, which forces you to weigh needs against wants. Having come out the other end to eventually having NO CREDIT and NO DEBT, I discovered FREEDOM and true happiness. What a shock to find money and materialistic happiness is not true happiness. It's short-lived and needs to be fed more and more. To me, it was a sickness of never-ending cycles of mass consumption and use of resources as if they were infinite. Having lived my life as poor AND middle class, I can honestly say I am far happier poor than when I had owned a home on Cape Cod, a new luxury car and had my daughter in private school. I learned it all owned me. All in all, it humbled me. Now the LOAD of POO is gone. It even made breaking my back a whole lot easier to deal with than the "American Dream" status quo nightmare I broke my back for in the first place, literally. I guess I could say breaking my back was the best thing to ever happen to me.

[@TheLogitech3000]

When you talk about avoiding meat, dairy and so on, why aren‘t you then talking about methane? It‘s a greenhouse gas, which is more dangerous than Co2. I would like to know if the reduction of methane really changes the concentration in the atmosphere faster than Co2 does. I‘ve heard, that the concentration of methane will change immediately, while it takes decades and hundreds of years for Co2. Would love to see a video of you, where you talk about the science of a plantbased diet. Thanks :)

[@lncerante]

When they say you save 1 ton of CO2 I suppose they mean 1 ton of CO2 equivalent in the form of methane, but you are right, methane would go away faster. Animal agriculture is not the only methane source, unfortunately, it also comes from permafrost melting and leaks in all the Compressed Natural Gas (methane) systems (from your own stove to the place where the methane was extracted, it's transportation, etc.

[@zentouro]

stay tuned... I may be working on some specific diet/food/agriculture videos right now.

[@MEGALITHdotORG]

Methane eventually breaks down into CO2. So maybe they just use the word CO2 for both methane and CO2 to make the calculation simpler.

[@tylr3669]

Methane retains about 4 times the heat as co2. But its longevity in the atmosphere is about 1/7th. So on net, co2 is worse. That said, water vapor is some 95% of all greenhouse gas...so, there's that...

[@audreyrussell1631]

One, there is a video about methane on Hot Mess, Co2 is a greenhouse gas. So is methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. (Don't forget water vapor ;) )

[@vitormelomedeiros]

Excellent and deeply informative video as is becoming the norm in Hot Mess. I can't stand the classical liberal, personal responsibility rhetoric surrounding mainstream environmentalism. What really makes an impact is how the government and big corporations make business decisions, in a capitalist society. And when technology and regulations don't seem to follow the rate in which climate change accelerates, I guess we have to try our best to change culture and our lifestyles to diminish our impact on the environment. Vegan is the new punk.

[@shiny_x3]

Do you have any data to support that?

[@CaptainPIanet]

Agreed

[@alveolate]

while it's true that you need the govt or industry leaders to make really impactful changes, it doesn't mean we shouldn't make our own personal changes as well. cultural change starts with the individual. if you can personally commit to some of those changes above (i recommend halving meat consumption) then it becomes easier for you to recommend it to others, thus starting a chain of change rippling outwards. who knows if your ripple will hit someone with power to make a huge difference?

[@vitormelomedeiros]

Gregory Samuel Teo yeah, I'm not saying personal changes are not at all effective in any form to make an impact; I'm addressing rhetoric here. I don't think that it is fair to responsibilize individuals for what is happening to the world and all, because it is a social problem, as well as climatic. Who is doing harm are groups of people who hold actual power, and have very specific concerns and interests, not individuals making bad choices.

[@tuur319]

Are you from the US? Because it might be true there, but i know in many european countries this is not so luch the case, in my city the green party ( litterally created to avoid global warming) now has 30% off the votes. If you and everybody else just vote on the party that will do the most about climare change then eventually both parties will start to do a lot more against climate change

[@clarissagarvey7080]

The extremely nonchalant delivery of "I can both vote and wear pants now" made me burst out laughing. Beautiful. :D

[@zentouro]

:D

[@adrianrainbow1995]

Working class men and woman got the vote at the same time, and men were 'forced' to wear military pants before getting sent off to die in France at around the same time, quit with the PM feminist victim narrative.

[@flotin9743]

Great video! When talking about meat we also need to account for deforestation which really increases the emissions...

[@zentouro]

you're gonna love some of the videos we're writing right now then!

[@sking2173]

Keeping pets also increases GHG emissions ...

[@hclyrics]

WIthout animal agriculture, we'd free up 75% of all agricultural land. Feeding farmed animals accounts for 80% of cropland worldwide.

[@cestlavegan5793]

Avoiding animal products isn't as difficult as it seems. It gets even easier when you learn about how heartbreaking animal agriculture practices are. I'd also recommend visiting farm sanctuaries to spend time with the types of animals we treat like commodities by the billions. Most people are already vegan at heart because most people oppose animal cruelty.

[@skrcasm]

Agreed. It seems very hard in the beginning because of all the rumors in the air, but it isn't.

[@dennis3065]

In your opinion...

[@lvd8122]

Puh, I don't think that going vegan is the right step. I think zou should just reduce and buy from farms that produce in an animal friendly way, that way you don't have to limit yourself completely

[@collectibletaco7797]

I am never going to be vegan, but I buy my animal products from local farmers

[@artuselias]

Meat is not meat. You need around 8 kilograms of feed for 1 kg beef but only 2 kg for 1 kg chicken. Not to forget that cows are way more methane emissive and meat is more valuable and has more energy than plant food.

[@cainiddrie1482]

Also there is definitely a political aspect to your personal impact. Large change to society is almost always wrought when individuals band together and force the world to do more through shared choice rather than individual change. Child labor didn't end because factory owners cut back on their child abuse footprint but rather because they no longer had a the choice to use a slightly blunt metaphor. However I expect that this will be a larger and more carefully nuanced video in the future. If not already planned (and I think the team here will have, the team is a good one) then I really do think they need to schedule one. Politics, science and eventually desperation from climate change will be what solves carbon emissions... Hopefully we need less of that last one because of the first two.

[@snakesteve68]

Very well done HM! Thank you for this youtube channel - it is so very needed in today's hot mess world.

[@waxogen]

XPRISE CARBON CAPTURE The heat loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a molten state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye. The wax-carbon amalgamation result in a black wax solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are also captured in the wax settling at the bottom of the wax holding tank forming into a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by the carbon that is released into the atmosphere. Government scientists have failed to stop and prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax has been shown to be the only answer to this problem. William Nelson

[@goddamnpiero6153]

Well, that's great news, I'll never want any kids. Way to save the planet, go me!

[@TommoCarroll]

haha. You. Are. A. HERO!

[@lncerante]

You can still adopt, that footprint is already alive :P

[@luongmaihunggia]

Yes! Do it.

[@szhzs6121]

if you kill all the children, you will help the environment even more! go you!

[@User-ic1uq]

All of you disgust me

[@dw9822]

not having a kid offset my carbon footprint by so much.

[@Amuzic_Earth]

I have always considered myself to be a green guy. I mean, turning off the lights, using recyclable bags, using public transport more are the things I used to do, recently I even quit meat and fish. But, I didn't know, by not having a kid I was actually superseding all of my conscious efforts.

[@draganoiugeorge6010]

you can always just take one someone else made. 3 birds with one stone.

[@Amuzic_Earth]

That's actually part of my future plan :)

[@correctionguy7632]

its really a stupid tip that creates a lot of suspicion. and regardless most of us living in "the developed world" has negative population growth, and some speak of bringing in people from elsewhere to boost that. so it's really only a false promise of reduced carbon emissions

[@zoleroid7027]

@@correctionguy7632 well reduced carbon emissions is just another reason for me to never have kids so imma roll with it.

[@Hugo-zk6vu]

@EL JAY No it's the stupidest point of the video. People enforcing the "no kids" talk instead of talking about SMR, 4th gen nuclear reactor, graphene, vertical and organic farming are nihilists. The 60 tons that they brought in the video comes out of nowhere and is plain ridiculous.

[@robinwilson3547]

I think it would be good to add policy change to this video. The coal, oil, and gas companies love it when people just work on personal carbon foot prints without including legislating policy to hold these corporations responsible for their externalized cost of carbon. Bill McKibben points out Exxon is the richest company in the history of the world and they are not shy about using the vast wealth to buy legislators, influence public opinion with climate crisis doubt and offer a revolving door to legislators who have supported their dangerous agenda.

[@waxogen]

CARBON CAPTURE 2 The heat and loss from a smokestack can be forced into a large tank containing hot liquid microcrystalline petroleum wax. The heat will keep the wax at a liquid state which facilitate the carbon to be absorbed when combined with the wax. Carbon when mixed with wax reacts like a dye The wax carbon amalgamation create a black solution that reacts like a dye and forms into solution thereby making it impossible for the carbon to escape into the environment. Other toxic particles are captured in the wax that settle at the bottom of the wax holding tank as a sludge. A sludge release valve is located at the bottom of the tank. After the sludge is removed more wax is replaced in the vessel working something like a toilet. The sludge becomes a byproduct that can be used as an additive to asphalt for roads or used for cocooning nuclear waste materials for long-term safe burial. The entropy of the Earth has been increasing at a startling rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution caused mainly by carbon released into the atmosphere Government scientists have failed to both stop or prevent carbon pollution from entering the environment. This problem can only worsen until a solution is found before this problem becomes irreversible. It has been discovered that formulated wax seems to be the only answer. William Nelson

[@josedanielvillegas4475]

This girl looks so serious, and then, BAM! the solar panel pun. Great work

[@TommoCarroll]

A good pun goes a long way :)! Just added a wee little pun at the end of our latest video...but it might go over the heads over anyone born after 2000!

[@szhzs6121]

yeah, i can imagine how they were rehearsing the episode with the hot mess crew and joe was like "but... puns!"

[@TommoCarroll]

Haha! THROW PUNS AT IT!

[@saltandvinegar2420]

Actually according to a study by the Danish government, the creation of a plastic bag is so minuscule in energy usage and CO2 emissions when compared to the creation of a reusable cotton bag, you’d have to use that reusable bag approximately 7100 times for it to have a less of an impact on the planet than the plastic bag, and it’s highly unlikely you’d even go through half of that 7100 cycles before losing it or breaking it. Thank you Kurzgesagt.

[@ClearerThanMud]

Kudos for having the courage to say that the most environmentally expensive thing most of us will ever do is have a child. In fact, the impact is greater than the video explains, because it is the one environmental impact a person can have that will continue -- and may even increase -- after their death. My sister had four kids, who went on to have their own kids, and are now quite the clan. They are still growing, and will continue to do so long after my sister is gone.

[@Hugo-zk6vu]

"Kudos for having the courage to say that the most environmentaly expensive thing most of us will ever do is to not kill ourselves. In fact, the impact of not putting a bullet inside your skull right now, is increasing the odds of climate change by an exponential power that is nearly impossible to calculate". Look at fertility rates in the developed world you midwit. It's already way below reproduction rates. I'm sure that you see yourself as a "rational" person but you don't even understand basic second order effects and the high burden of an exponentially decreasing society. I'm pretty sure you don't understand how energy production works either. Rule #1 is to try to GET Stuff before you advocate for something (here nihilism).

[@earthenscience]

@eljay5009 Your stance represents a take that humans are a sin, as if humans pollute automatically and nothing can be done. Thus you have an anti-human take by definition. Its a perspective that assumes the system cannot be changed or improved and that being human is a sin and will automatically cause climate change.

[@justintodd277]

Hello! Thanks for taking the initiative to help educate us so we can protect the planet! I have a question about the airline carbon footprint stat of 2.8 tons/trip: Where did that number come from? Here are my thoughts: A boeing 737 that can carry 130 people has an empty operating weight of 65,300lbs and a maximum takeoff weight of 128,100lbs (...according to Wikipedia). That leaves 62,800lbs for fuel, passengers, luggage, etc. 130 people X 175lbs = 22,750lbs. 130 people x 40lbs of luggage = 5,200lbs. Neglecting other sources of extra weight (carts, food, drinks, etc.), that would leave capacity for 34,850lbs (62,800lbs -27,950lbs) of fuel. 34,850/2000 = 17.43 tons. 17.43 tons / 130 people = 0.13 tons of fuel/person. On any given flight they wouldn't be burning all of the onboard fuel. I don't know the percentage of fuel that converts to CO2 after combustion, but it's gonna be less than 100%. So wouldn't the carbon emissions per trip then be lower than 0.13 tons per person, per trip? I take the climate change problem seriously and try my best to do lessen my carbon footprint. I avoid plastic where I can, I eat mostly plant based foods, have a fuel efficient car, skateboard and bike for transportation frequently, etc. I just want to be well equipped with accurate facts so that I can help spread the knowledge that will change peoples behaviours. If the numbers don't seem to add up, the sceptics will be quick to pounce. I've noticed a tendency for some to cling to any errors that help them justify not changing a thing.

[@monsteradeliciosa6845]

I also recommend reusable facial cotton rounds, Diva Cups or reusable charcoal/bamboo sanitary cloths with snaps. These alternatives require you to learn how to care for your products using aseptic techniques but is well worth the time and investment. If those alternatives do not sound crazy to you, then you're also someone who I would recommend family cloths to(cotton flannel is my fav). It is more affordable longterm; however, it does require some saving up if you're broke like me. I know it may sound crazy. But I kindly encourage you to think about how much of an impact reducing the use of disposable-toilet paper, paper towels, cotton rounds, pads, tampons, and pantyliners could have.

[@Handlehandle333]

I will try my best to pull out quickly

[@Ziorac]

Can we talk about how she's using an OS from like the 90s...?

[@Ziorac]

Oh lol, I didn't even notice the dates. xD

[@ChronitonMechanics]

Finally they included the taboo topic of the sustainable size of humanity...

[@correctionguy7632]

nothing sustainable about negative population growth when the state pays for pensions

[@shellsmacc]

This video is more important than ever now

[@henryhill3778]

Let me say one thing... "The Sky IS Falling!"

[@vitormelomedeiros]

0:45 vote green lol

[@zentouro]

Yeah, thats a big one. We left it out because its hard to attribute direct reductions in CO2 to a vote - but if I had to ask someone to do one thing for the climate, it would be vote for people/parties/actions that would reduce our emissions.

[@ChronitonMechanics]

Its probably too late for massive and quick changes of society through political means. But we can keep trying, if we have even the slightiest chance of doing in time the gigantic investments we need to make human societies more resilient overall and not dependant on rapidly exhausting mineral ressources and energy.

[@geshtu1760]

"We left it out because its hard to attribute direct reductions in CO2 to a vote" Not in Australia it isn't. Not in the US either. Of course each government might not live up to their promises, but even their promises were poles apart. Here in Australia the government is kind of living up to their promise not to do anything (useful) about the climate. Even so, it's not even about voting one way or the other. Political parties will (for better or worse) do whatever will get them elected. So if the public all across the political spectrum wanted to see action on climate change, then EVERY party would be pandering to them. But somewhere along the line climate change became politicised, which is probably where humanity first dropped the ball on it. Thing is, if the political right don't accept climate change is real (or that we are influencing it), they're not going to make the personal changes mentioned in this video anyway - so you still need to tackle the political problem first. Number one should be trying to create an informed public so that ALL future political parties are promising radical changes to address climate change (in order to win the vote), not just one side.

[@kevindegraux485]

The problem with the green party in my country is that they are ferociously anti-nuclear... Good for getting votes (the majority of people here is anti-nuclear), not great for fighting climate change (the plan is to replace our old reactors with gas plants :-( ).

[@angimellin]

I have heard people say they are saving the environment by not having children but they do have many large dogs instead...what is the impact of raising animals for comfort?

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

The no kids solution reminds me of the anti-nuclear groups in the '70s, who didn't fully consider that they'd end up with something much worse than nuclear energy in the end.

[@correctionguy7632]

you were exactly right. as currently seen in many european nations: "we need to reduce our population growth due to climate change and overpopulation" "we need to import people from other poorer countries to make up for low population growth and future pensions" they are also skewing the carbon emissions from having "one fewer child" by including the amount of children they will have in the future.

[@TheTrueStyropor]

First of let me say great video, i really appreciate how you are trying to give everyone an understanding of their personal impact and their options to make a real (if little) change! I have to say tough that i can't agree with the point of having no kids. Sure you said it is ofc personal choice and all, but i think it is already flawed to preset it as some kind of option. The goal shouldn't just be to push the number "carbon emission/year" down, it is to make a liveable and sustainable future for coming generations. Therefore, basically saying "if there would be no future humans, we could stop climate change" is not really helping at all, what we need is a way for climate change to stop and humans still living on this beautiful planet. +if you read this: thank you for your unusually long attention by internet standards :D

[@Hugo-zk6vu]

Exactly, they could have replaced the whole "no kids" point by "put a bullet in your skull". Peak midwittism ! These people are the holograms of what materialism forces you to become : a projection of nihilism.

[@ridhangurung1224]

*first of all

[@toribreathsfire]

Id love to see a vedio on what big company can do to reduce emissions!!

[@peterpiper6]

Dear Hot Mess, it is very unfortunate that you would suggest people to have no children to save the climate. If overpopulation is what you are concerned about then I am happy to say that it no longer is an issue, might I suggest an open lecture conducted in the UK by Hans Rosling, a brilliant Swedish statistician. You can find it on KZbin, the title is:"DON'T PANIC - Hans Rosling showing the facts about population". I am even going to risk saying that claiming such thing might be counterproductive to the cause. Please notice that you are reaching out to people who care about the climate change, if they decide not to have children, there will be less people who care about climate change in the next generation. Not mentioning that in some developed countries fertility rateis at about 1.3-1.4, over long periods of time this equals depopulation. I am sorry if I was too rough. Cheers.

[@MEGALITHdotORG]

You can "care about climate change" and still have a big CO2-footprint (we all do), and we don't know whether caring for climate change or not caring for climate change are highly heritable. Are the kids of climate change deniers all climate change deniers? I doubt it. Rosling (and everyone else who looks at demographics) calculate that the world's population will rise until 2100 to about 11 billion people. That is quite an insane number. At the same time, individual carbon footprints will increase in size (look at China and India for illustration). We are talking about a huge problem and a completely unsustainable situation. To call that "not an issue" is at least as wrong, as saying that climate change as such is "not an issue". Every person who decides against procreation or in favour of having less children is contributing to minimizing this huge problem. Even if the global population would stop growing tomorrow instead of 90 years from now, your thesis would only be correct if 8 billion people were the ideal amount of people for a planet of the size of earth. Obviously, that is not the case. Even if the planet were populated by only 4 billion people (so half of the current population), we would have major climate change, especially if these 4 billion people all lead western lifestyles. So, what we need to get climate change and deforestation and the depletion of the world's oceans and many other problems under control is a major reduction in the planets CURRENT population. Instead, the population will grow from 8 to 11 billion within the next few decades. This is the biggest problem we face, but (at least for us westerners) it is also a problem with a simple solution: Just don't have kids (or if you feel that you simply have to have kids, then don't have more than one).

[@Ashzeriam]

Thank you for including suggestions for changes that are actually effective!

[@geshtu1760]

Really? Their "suggestions" are exactly the same message as it's been for the last 50 years. You can track how "effective" they have been for yourself if you want to look up the relevant statistics. ;-) Don't get me wrong, I'm optimistic that we can beat climate change, but the problem is not our use of electricity or transport - it's the resources currently used by those things. If we could get enough political changes through in order to invest in generating electricity and powering transport using renewables, then there would be no harm in using those things. Yes it's difficult to do, but IMO it's LESS difficult than requiring everyone on the planet to radically change their lifestyle including living in the dark and travelling less. Returning to the dark ages is not the solution.

[@Ashzeriam]

I was just trying to be positive. These are better than nothing and it wasn't actually new information for me (already doing all 4). Personally I think we need to get rid of capitalism is we ever want to fix climate change but now I am going to get called a communist and other less flattering things. Naomi Klein did a great job of making this point in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate".

[@MindLaboratory]

Disagree with having one less kid. Only responsible people would do this, which results in smart, responsible people having fewer kids, and dumb, irresponsible people filling in the population.

[@Ashzeriam]

The smart responsible people can adopt. Then they will have not contributed to our overflowing population and they can raise their child to be smart and responsible.

[@artuselias]

Larger families with more parents could be a solution - like before people settled thousands of years ago. Actually, the establishment of the "traditional" family of 2 parents and children was probably a reason for humanity's fast population increase in the first place.

[@geshtu1760]

Haven't you noticed ? ;-)

[@yaknophonics]

Basically us being alive and using the Earth’s precious resources is too much of a strain, huh?

[@blackcitroenlove]

Tamaribuchi Heavy Manufacturing Concern lol---love the Simpsons reference

[@billiamc1969]

We invested heavily in a Solar PV system, converted to LEDs, work from home, grow a large portion of our own food, and capture rain water for growing our own fruit and veggies...NO KIDS!!!!

[@cuteypetz]

bless you for mentioning veganism!

[@Original50]

1:37 CO2 value appears to be massively exaggerated here... For a single passenger to produce that amount of CO2 per flight, the aircraft would have to carry/burn more fuel than it can carry. The value quoted would apply to the YEARLY emissions by flight.

[@Pugilistdictator]

What problem are you solving here? What specific problem requires these life-altering changes? If I don't do these things, and no one else does, what will be the negative consequences of nonaction?

[@mafarmerga]

NO, You SHOULD stand there and tell them not to have children!! 2:47 The single biggest impact you can have is to choose to have one less child. Two is ENOUGH. The less you have the more they have. I got a vasectomy after two. YOU should too!!

[@kwillo4]

Can you please make a video or multiple on goverment choices regarding carbon footprint? So find actions and laws goverments can pass or do and rank them in co2 result. Then we know what to aim for! Would be great! Would be even better if you also make a video ranking ways to use goverment money for how much Co2 per year it saves per dollar spend. I feel the world needs this but people are not talking about it.

[@parisedflores531]

Hard and beatiful lifestyle changes challenges :) I'm up to every point mentioned in here, now let's see how many more sum up with the example!

[@informatikos-pamokos]

What about plastic bottles? It pains me to see other people that consume so many plastic bottles in ONE DAY. And it's ONLY for water (not carbonated drinks)! I ask them - why don't you drink tap water, it's fine water, I drink it all the time! And they say - it doesn't taste good... I'm at a loss. So if it doesn't taste "magical", they automatically buy so many plastic bottles... and they don't even recycle! I tell them to recycle, and they are telling me - yeah, nothing's gonna change if only I do it. What about the others?... They don't recycle, so why should I?

[@benjones2776]

Business, industry, farming has by far a bigger impact on the environment than that of the regular population. All you can really do is vote, try to provide some industrial alternative, and just generally be less impressed by a bit of money. And this isn't even getting into the undeveloped world.

[@LampaHQ]

It was nice to get to know that some energy providers allow to choose clean energy. And maybe you can add a video about what ways do NOT help reduce carbon dioxide (or people overestimate it) but are myths?

[@artuselias]

"Clean electricity" usually has no effect and is just a reallocation on paper. Rather save the money and invest it directly in renewables.

[@Dingo689]

Don't throw away food to reduce unnecessary food production, buy local food and not food from other side od the world to reduce unnecessary transportation, plant trees if you have unused private land, don't use plastic bags and cups, don't buy unnecessary clothes because textille industry is one od the most polluting industries. The reason why people have fewer kids is because today kids cost while in the past they helped family as a working force and people tend to marry later nowadays. Not having kids will save you money for travel so you will produce CO2 emissions in another way, so have kids and teach them how to be enviromentaly friendly, educate them to help us reverse climate change.

[@khalishakhairani4795]

Well actually we living in low carbon deoxide and the plants are lovely to getting it so they can grow faster...but the thing is we also produce other toxic material such as mercury or amonnia or even plastics that can harm the enviroments.

[@stm7810]

I already don't drive or fly, won't ever have kids and have been reducing animal products used, but I live with parents so I can't control the power source yet.

[@the1exnay]

Why didn't you show us a pie chart of what is making up that 16.5 tons

[@peter-johnjones5869]

I get a lift into work with a work mate, eat quite a lot of plant based food, my garden is basically just plant life, i even have a few indoor plants. No flights, cant afford them haha and No children as of yet but the Mrs and I don't want any more than 2. Not too bad I guess?

[@Jayfb]

I'm 31 years old, & have never owned a car.

[@zentouro]

that's great to hear!

[@CalebHopkins]

But if you choose not to take an airplane for a holiday and stay in, that flight you would have taken will still take off at the same time on the same day. You just won't be on it. Or is it taking into account the extra weight you add and the extra thrust needed to fly your weight? But i didn't think that would make a difference

[@zarbibizar]

What are the carbon footprint of make-up, sport season (golf, NFL, soccer, tennis, football, cars,...), waste of energy for advertisements on TV and radio, pilgrimage to Mecca, ... ?

[@IshikaShanai]

This makes me feel better about what I'm already doing.

[@alpacino4857]

how and why does eating less meat help reduce carbon footprint ? Do we emit gas that contribute to carbon footprint if we eat more meat ?

[@adhdartist1994]

Do not worry, not having children is actually the easiest one. It is well known people that goes to college and keeps accumulating knowledge, to say it some way, have less children.

[@MEGALITHdotORG]

Thanks for having the guts to mention procreation. It is the elephant in the room that many people don't want to talk about.

[@pranshusingh7807]

what about big celebreties , they emit several million tonns of carbon

[@PhenomUprising]

So as long as I don't have any children I'm doing my part about climate change.

[@TommoCarroll]

But what if one of your children was going to be the "einstein of the climate change issue"....

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Aspect Science: But by that logic everyone should have as many kids as feasible, and they also "could be the next koch brother of climate change", so that's not really a good argument.

[@PhenomUprising]

Good point... there's a slim < 0.1% chance that it really would be better for climate change that I do have a children. But I'm not much of a gambler. lol.

[@TommoCarroll]

IstasPumaNevada, you make a great point there haha! Logic aside - what would the Einstein of Climate Change need to do to earn that title?

[@TommoCarroll]

Phenom Uprising - if ever there is a good thing to gamble on, it's making as many babies as possible in case one could solve our climate change crisis; you know, that classic saying about gambling!

[@jimmihotdog3469]

HOW MUCH WOULD FARTING I SAVE IF I GAVE UP ONE OF MY MEGA YACHTS

[@michaelwatts5481]

We’re not designed to eat dairy and eggs anyway. Perhaps being locavore is better. Maybe everyone should only eat what grows in their immediate area

[@someguy2135]

The expert panel of the UN declared that animal agriculture contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined! That is why they urged everyone to switch to a plant based diet. Instead of comparing cutting out meat to other options, you should have compared a vegan diet to the rest. We can do more than one thing, but if you only did one...

[@7lllll]

no, doing or funding research and/or development of renewable energies and political activism against fossil fuel companies are the best we can do

[@Slovesblack]

Nice and informative video! But, personally I think you should have mensioned about the cunsumerism habits and the fast fashion industry! They have a huge contribution to the Earth's climate as well.

[@kevtb874]

'Family planning is a family thing' Maybe it's time it comes with a healthy dose of social conscience. This seems to be the elephant in the room. You can be the most eco friendly person around but as soon as you have a kid that goes out the window and any offspring they themselves have. I predict a noticeable shift in this matter in the next 50 years. Anyone with more than 2 or 3 kids might have a hard time explaining it.

[@iirosiren5120]

If i had to explain anything aboat my "carbon footprint" to someone, i would stay far away from that someone😂

[@GoldbergDaBoss]

Lmao did she just tell us not to have kids🤣

[@CharlesBosse]

In my ongoing quest to reduce my impact (it's a work in progress) I have discovered 1) solar panels work better than you might think if you just asked the internet: if you think you might possibly be able to actually finance solar panels, especially if you live in a SFH or own a building, get a real quote from a professional installer so you actually know how much energy your house can produce. Bids are usually free, and you might be surprised! 2) Electric assist bikes are the new family car... well, no, but they could be. Need that big car and don't have room for a nice efficient EV? It's likely that much of your commuting or errands can happen on an EB (kidding, nobody calls them that) which will fairly easily fit in your garage. Selection is growing rabidly and range is pretty good for most city reaidents, and they use a lot less power than even an EV (because physics) while also lowering material and infrastructure costs and upping health. I get that they aren't for everyone, but they do offer a nice alternative for people who can't just bike and don't have to always drive. 3) There are lots of great options to buy used or even trade your old stuff around! It takes a little work, but is often a great option to reduce production byproducts and landfill (which are both greenhouse emitters). 4) You can be vegan and still eat great food! Give peas a chance! 😉

[@Alex-cw3rz]

I'm so happy for this channel as a geography University student it is infuriating when anyone claims there's no evidence or we don't know a lot about or there is an academic debate about Climate change.

[@jcpessis]

Do you have the complete breakdown of the 16 tonnes we produce? I was expecting meat to be a bigger slice. Does it take into account growing food for the animals we eat?

[@PENDANTturnips]

having fewer kids would eventually lead to stagnation and perhaps even regression in progress since to keep improving civilization you need more and more people. The best solution i see is to try to reduce your carbon footprint in the meantime and make investments in renewable energy until you can afford an ev and switch your house to renewable energy.

[@nowsherabdullah1878]

actually less population means everybody is richer

[@enaljgt3565]

My solution: The hunger games...

[@shreyasrajanna7361]

I have done all of them

[@caffe-de-mancer8158]

we all need nordic permaculture

[@Holzider]

permaculture is nice, but what about that is nordic?

[@caffe-de-mancer8158]

the pagan aspect that connects people with mother nature at a spiritual level

[@Holzider]

so a way to combat the subject/object division in regard to nature?

[@consideringorthodoxy5495]

Orthodox Christians have an interesting connection to the environment as well

If the aim truly is to reduce Co2-emissions consider choosing nuclear. At worst it is equivalent in terms of co2, and depending on where you live it may be less carbon intensive than renewable. Since it's generally cheaper you can use that money to make other choices that are good for the climate, such as buying higher quality products that lasts longer.

[@lijing8984]

The nuclear plant initial cost is huge. Uranium is finite. Nuclear waste is radioactive and hazardous for long period of time.

@@lijing8984 1. Yes, but during its entire life cycle, especially considering many plants extend that cycle by tens of years, it is not expensive. The costs from climate change and air pollution health effects that will happen because we are not replacing fossil fuel plants asap are not even comparable. 2. In theory yes, in practice no. Especially not with modern reactors in mind. 3. Radioactive yes. Hazardous? Well yes if not managed properly, but we do manage the waste very well. There has not been a single incident that i am aware of that has resulted in human life loss. Yet coal plants spew particulates (some of which are radioactive by the way) into the atmosphere that are very hazardous to life. Millions die each year from air pollution caused by fossil power plants.

[@lijing8984]

@ Renewables (especially solar & wind) are the world’s cheapest source of energy, according to IRENA's report (Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020). Emerging economies will save up to $156 billion over the lifespan of the renewable projects added in 2020 alone. [WEF, Victoria Masterson, 2021]

[@lijing8984]

Are existing nuclear power plants (including radioactive waste stores) able to withstand earthquake, sea level rise, terrorist attack, war, etc?

@@lijing8984 I'm not saying dont build solar/wind/hydro, my point is that ignoring the role of nuclear is counterproductive. One of the big reasons renewables are so cost effective is because we have a reliable 24/7 production of electricity in the form of fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear. Getting rid of fossil fuels and simply replacing it with wind and solar without storage infrastructure in place will not work. They should be built to withstand any natural disaster, especially after Fukushima. War on the other hand I cant say, but you could ask the same question about hydro plants, yet few people are concerned with hydro even though order of magnitude more people have died due to dam failures. See banqio dam in 1975 for example. The risks of those two, even worst case scenarios, are nothing compared to the consequences of fossil fuels though.

[@maple5212]

can you guys cover legislative impact? I feel like we neglect the tons of CO2 used by corporations as we all try to find ways to trim the fat

[@HappyGrower]

This is what I hate about this hot mess. Our country is one of the worst off when it comes to climate change. Just check how extreme the weather has been in our country just in the past 10 years. Our citizens’ carbon footprint is small compared to citizens of first world nations. The world's climate is going the change no matter what we do because we aren't the ones contributing the most carbon. In addition, your politicians are the ones denying the impact of human activity on climate change. So there's that.

[@e1123581321345589144]

Not flying is stupid. Flying is actually the least carbon intensive way to travel. The amount of fuel burned per person per kilometer is far less that with any other means of transportation. Even trains consume crazy amounts of energy when compared to planes. The only way to get places with a smaller carbon imprint is by sale ship, but people don't do that anymore.

[@squidonglitter2320]

I know it's really hard to tell people to not drive especially if they need to commute a lot. But can improving public transport, public walkways and bicycle only roads in a city really help? I live in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and we have a major problem with too many cars on the road. People suggest expanding the roads but that results in many of our rainforest trees to be removed and encourages more people to buy cars. Our public transport system is rather poor and we're only just improving on our MRT train system, but there's still a long way to go. Our bus system don't have fixed schedules, we don't have safe/well-maintained pedestrian sidewalks with no shade from the sun and no safe bicycle lanes.

[@Huntererererer]

Here before the downvotes for even mentioning the "not having children" idea. Great video keep it up!

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

It is a really bad idea, because the result will be an increase in the population of people who don't care about the future of their children and a reduction in the number of people who do care. You breed for the traits you want to see in your future generations, you don't breed in favor of the traits you don't want.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

idontcare80 The problem of overpopulation has been overcome. It simply needs to get to other countries. The developed world has round about averaged overall on 2 children per family. Which is absolutely perfect. When nations develop birthrate falls. We just need undeveloped nations to well develop

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

"The problem of overpopulation has been overcome." I didn't say anything about overpopulation, but you're wrong.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

idontcare80 Firstly I am not wrong birthrate absolutely without a doubt falls when a nation becomes more developed. With greater education comes greater awareness, contraceptives and less of an inclination to more children as they become unnecessary, too much to handle as not enough die young etc. Also I was under the impression that you where talking about the fact that the people who would not have children would be the most aware, obviously, hence we have less and less aware people born, and an excess of people with low iqs. I don't know where overpopulation came from but for some reason I said it. So its here now, at least it seems you may have learned something about it.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

I didn't say anything about birthrate being a problem, the problem is that we're *already* overpopulated. Google: Overshoot (population), or ecological overshoot.

[@stevenkelty8025]

Eating some barley stew right now, while my family is abroad, I'm feeling hella nice.

[@oliverbielke1753]

How can having one child release 60 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but the average American release 16,5 tons of carbon dioxide per year?

[@HotMessPBS]

The impact of having a child stretches across multiple generations (to their kids and grandkids, etc.) as well as the increased consumption for raising a child. Check the description for references, and you can read more about how that’s calculated!

[@lncerante]

Hot Mess This is offset if by the next generation there is no greenhouse gas emission or all emissions are countered through absorption or capture. It's still 16.5 tons of CO2 per year right now so..

[@oliverbielke1753]

Hot Mess Okay, thanks for the answer!

[@fiddiehacked]

The Economist Magazine had an article about policies that affected GHG emissions (2014?). They listed the Montreal protocol (CFCs) as #1; and #2 was China's one child policy (!), which has now been rescinded.

[@quantumintel5361]

What about all the chemtrailing what kind of footprint is that making. What gives them the right to spray us

[@getrightconstruction1342]

Good question

[@getrightconstruction1342]

Good question

[@kevindegraux485]

Nice video! However, 1) renewables such as solar panels and wind turbines are great ideas but I think we should be careful with them. If you factor in their total lifetime from raw material extraction to recycling, they might not be (with today's tech) as carbon-efficient as one would think. Definitely better than gas or coal though. I would love a video about this. 2) I would replace the "do not have children" bit by "convince your carbon-hungry neighbors to have less children and educate your own children to perpetuate the transition to a more sustainable lifestyle and culture". More seriously though, I recommend this article about the "population question" and how to answer it: www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question

[@DarianSabillon]

Holding my fart😂😂😂

[@AustinIsTheGreatests]

How many miles is the 2.4 ton/year on the car based? Or is it just the tons to manufacture it? Because you said get rid of

[@rabiamariamsamra2513]

Electric public transportation

[@karlthepagan]

Where do I find a provider that will let me select nuclear energy? That will reduce CO2 and not promote fossil fuel backups.

[@jillcampbell8019]

Please please!-be aware of combining trips in personal vehicles (fossil fuel burning), and other ways to limit harm to our environment. The air quality alerts are increasing-I feel so bad for our wildlife creatures and trees/plants. They’re suffering because of humans’ bad choices. And ultimately? It will be death to us.

[@Girlcatlove1524]

Already doing a lot of this! :)

[@packi_5]

Girlcatlove1524 great job 👍

[@johnburn8031]

So: Don't drive, fly, eat meat, or have children. I don't drive, fly, or have children 🙋🏻‍♂️

[@reedclippings8991]

My reading of your sources makes it look like you conflated going vegan, with cutting only beef at 2:05. Going vegan easily cuts 3-3.5 tons per year. Huge undersell.