The Insane Plan to Dam the North Sea

[@MegaBuildsYT]

Go to ground.news/megabuilds to make sure you’re getting the full story. Subscribe through our link and get 40% off unlimited access. What do you think? Will the NEED ever be built? 🤔 Thanks a lot for watching!

[@USCO3441]

What

[@Galdring]

Oslo can find much simpler ways to avoid flooding. It's at the end of a fjord. We just need a dam of a couple of hundred meters. Norway also quickly rises from the sea, meaning not much land will be lost to it when it rises. we're not taking the bill for this, Netherlands. Not on my watch, lol. go buy some scuba diving equipment.

[@cliveocnacuwenga4615]

IT SHOULD BE

[@mahbubhossainsamm]

Singapore needs to build it to increase the land area.

[@cpcattin]

I love to read about enormous ideas. The greatest ideas give man something of value to direct their idle time. Sorta like the pyramids. Keep the peasants busy so they don’t revolt.

[@knightwolf200612]

I'm Dutch, and I'm confident this will never be built. The devastation on the sea life is unacceptable for all countries. Besides there are way easier and cheaper options. If sea levels rise anyway, and compromises life on land, every country can build a seawall on all the beaches to prevent the country to be flooded.

[@phantomsrage6523]

its not even practical, that is way too big to keep up, a dam a millionth of its size can already so easily fail and be completely destroyed by a simple mistake, water is just that powerful. this has no hope of working. even if they could manage to actually build it, maintenance is just not feasible

[@jdg9999]

Exactly, this was moronic propaganda. The cost of building sea walls is vastly lower than decades of "net zero" destruction of economies

[@djabroni_brochacho4644]

Man, they've really convinced y'all in Europe of all that climate jazz

[@SocialShortcuts]

@@djabroni_brochacho4644they said “if” sea levels rise not “when”

[@daddad8707]

As for draining the north sea. Drain it into where? I thought the whole idea was to cope with sea level rises, not to make them worse.

[@Evropa4live]

Were going to drain it into Africa so dont worry

[@ToyokaX]

My thoughts exactly. This would just shift the seawater elsewhere, raising the sea level for the rest of the world.

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

Not to mention there are a hell of a lot of war graves sitting on the bottom of the North Sea, I am sure the various nations and their people who have loses down there would be thrilled to have them exposed for all to gawk at.

[@auchalickallegheny1561]

@@gumpyoldbugger6944 Yeah, that's not important

[@sonnylatchstring]

Into the oceans that are 500 times bigger

[@mickeyfilmer5551]

You are missing the BIGGEST elephant in the room- The Gulf Stream , it is responsible for the mild winters currently experienced by all these countries, except for the ones in the baltics. This would mean extremely harsh winters for most of northen Europe, also, there are vast oil fields, and wind farms currently providing energy for these same countries.

[@PlaaTable]

Came here to say the same! But to be precise, the baltics too are affected by the Gulf stream, it's just that the effect is way smaller.

[@freedomfighter22222]

Why would we lose access to wind or oil in the area due to this project? The Gulf Stream passes north of the british isles, while it is impossible for me to say how much effect this wall could have on it it might possible be next to none, the heat rises out of it while it is west and north of Europe where it heats up the arctic air before it reaches Europe, it isn't the water hugging the coastline of Germany that is the source of the European climate.

[@Quickshot0]

Aside of the Gulf Stream not coming that close to the coast. If the worst case scenario happens where you need this kind of megastructure, the climate would be many degrees warmer. So even if you lost the gulf stream, it's quite possible it would be completely off set by the temperature rise and then some. Besides in such worst case scenarios there is a very real risk the Gulf Stream would stall out anyway and stop flowing, making any impact of the dam pretty irrelevant.

[@FluxDeimos]

I'm not even sure thats the biggest elephant, the trade that takes place over that body of water would be impacted and the level of cooperation between countries.... Certainly russia alone would be an insurmountable problem

[@gumpyoldbugger6944]

And what would happen to the fisheries in those waters? They are already suffering from over fishing as it is, cutting them off from the North Atlantic would finish them off once and for all. This is a stupid idea on so many levels.

[@texasranger24]

I mean some german guy also wanted to do the same with the mediterranean, and that maybe wasn't the greatest idea ever...

[@krisstopher8259]

yea but that was about DRAINING the sea, lol. every harbor and sea property would be worthless

[@Hession0Drasha]

Without the med, the south of europe would be a desert. Northern europe would still get rain, this is just a flood defense

[@zakzwijn8410]

@@Hession0Drasha also a natural N defense

[@andrewlaco1776]

Based​@@zakzwijn8410

[@andrewlaco1776]

I remember that from Man in the High Castle.😅

[@kibble-net]

A 500km wall? Maybe they could ask Mexico to pay for it!

[@HolyEyeWasHere]

Better yet; they could re-negotiate NAFTA and bring in 100x what it would cost!

[@beardedlonewolf7695]

Isn't building walls racist though?

[@Solar347-m4l]

@@beardedlonewolf7695 gotta be satire

[@arkadiuszfasula6510]

👏😁. Ask Trump he’s got all the answers for you, like a smartest man on a planet 😁

[@burnerjack01]

@@HolyEyeWasHereHow much will the illegals cost?

[@VEE3RDEYE]

We have mountains just sitting around the world. Lets build our homes on them instead of right next to water.

[@ilyasanzo]

Exactly 💯 this scream alternate agenda fo sho

[@freedomfighter22222]

So we are going to replace the few thousand ships using the ridiculously easy to transport heavy goods on water with a few billion extra trucks? Yeah that's a good idea. We don't live next to water because it looks nice, we live next to water because water is the best infrastructure we have. You have no clue the monumental resource costs it would take to move away from oceans and live away from oceans would be, but it would be far more damaging to the planet than if we just nuked the entire planet.

[@ConstantChaos1]

Seriously, like yall the solution is unfortunately to move, move and start doing everything we can to right the climate. We should be investing in methods to directly cool the planet, making all building required to have roofs that use the special reflective surfaces that bounce heat directly to space and shit like that, not further destructive interventions, without the oceanic currents Europe would freeze solid while the rest of the planet jumped up significantly in temp

[@AL-lh2ht]

This is like a set up "are they stupid" jokes with how cartoonshly dumn building on a mountain is.

[@ConstantChaos1]

@AL-lh2ht I don't think the proposition is to actually build directly on mountians, while it is possible it is much more difficult even if the views are stunning, however, higher ground is a thing and we need to start considering that with all future developments

[@turdferguson3475]

Build seawalls on the shore where needed, as needed. Much easier and less disruptive.

[@dubbeledraaideur87]

It would mean at least 10,000KM of shores that need to be walled. It isn't that deep, but cities need to be moved. Beaches get cut off. I don't know if that is easier and less disruptive.

[@freedomfighter22222]

That would cost far more, be more difficult and definitely be far more damaging for the environment or commerce.

[@burnerjack01]

@@turdferguson3475 Trying to deny Mother Nature is a Fool’s Errand that, when given enough time, always fails. Work WITH the Earth not against it.

[@tjmozdzen]

It'd be much easier to just build a dam from Denmark to Sweden or Norway. That would take care of a large body of water. But near zero chance of something like the full dam getting built.

[@gilmour6754]

Countries on the north and baltic seas are not going to give up ocean access. It's very important.

[@Evropa4live]

They would still have. And if we drain it, we can make canals for ocean acces

[@freedomfighter22222]

That's why sluices exist, and unlike the problem in Panama with the inland lakes not containing enough water for more sluices to be built there isn't a lack of water in the ocean, the wall is more than wide enough for sluices to be built for every ship that wants to pass. There are many reasons this project could be bad or not work, but it isn't cost or blocking the path of ships.

[@danielmalinen6337]

​@@Evropa4liveWhat about the marine ecosystems and animals of the Baltic and North Seas? For example, Baltic Sea harbor porpoises, seals and herrings?

[@Evropa4live]

@danielmalinen6337 they would dissappear. It would bring the total of aquatic life down. On the other hand land creatures would have more space to develop a new ecosystem

[@zeeshan8171]

It's the 2nd most stupid project (idea) after neom 🤣

[@ilyasanzo]

Lololol

[@VinceMorin]

Watch the entire video... And listen carefully at 16:10 😉

[@VacationFor]

Plan of dropout kids 😂😂

[@apexbesthighlights1050]

How would they pump water out?

[@JerRou89]

With wind mills of course. Those are being used for centuries to do it.​@@apexbesthighlights1050

[@Pete7554htp]

For all those comments about how dumb the idea is etc... if you watch the entire video you'll see the proposal is more of a warning about climate change and not a real proposal to build the thing.

[@freedomfighter22222]

For real, some comments in here are saying things like "whoever proposed this is an idiot for thinking it is a good idea!" 😂

[@brucemitchell5637]

​@@freedomfighter22222 Ummmm, that's because whoever proposed this IS an idiot, little fella!

[@keithclayton1271]

@@Pete7554htp it's the idea that people think they're going to undo damage they have done to nature by messing with nature on a basically unprecedented scale. What a fucking joke. Blind hypocrisy.

[@Noneyabusinessok]

What climate change? Climate movement is what it's called. Natural climate. I was told in 1987 that Belfast would be underwater in 30 years. So in 2017 I flew home and it wasn't under water. If the climate was as bad as they say. Wouldn't they just force china, Russia, Germany, USA, India, Japan, south Africa, Poland and Turkey from burning coal..stop needless flights and sports that use fossil fuels? The problem is we have 150 years of data. The planet is billions of years old. And we really have no idea what happened in the past. We may have drill samples etc..but in reality nothing concrete. The Netherlands is below sea level in many areas. I am sure anyone knows what that means. Mankind builds at the coast and expects not to get wet. I am 57 since 1987 I have listened to people talking about global this and the other. I only see governments making money from it. I still see the same damage apparently being done. Yet places like the UK and some parts of Europe have stopped burning coal. While places like Germany have doubled their coal fire power stations. Who is kidding who? I bet in the rest of my life and if I get another 20 years nothing will change with fear mongering. And it will continue when they know it's financially viable and scientists will continue to make a living. The only place in Europe I see water may be Holland. But when you are sea level and below. And storms happen with mother nature. What would you expect?

[@DavidTonner]

Thanks!

[@alexbiden9567]

Shetland has the uks cleanest waters and building the dam would change that. Think of the massive environmental impact on marine life these dams would cause

[@Delosian]

Growing up in the 1980s they told us in the warm water from the equator is what is stopping the UK and France from freezing over. Not sure if this is true, but putting a dam in there would stop that flow of warm water. This idea became a major part of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, which was based on the 1999 book The Coming Global Superstorm by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber.

[@simhedgesrex7097]

Without the Gulf Stream, the UK and Ireland would have the climate of Newfoundland.

[@leofal6]

Well the rise of global temperature and sea water could cause a collapse of the Gulf Stream… so even if it were to be built, the Gulf Stream might have already collapsed…

[@burnerjack01]

@@Delosian “By 2008, NYC will be under 20 ft of water if we don’t do something right now.” The USA ALWAYS’ has to do something’, but, strangely enough, China, the most immoral, irresponsible World Champion Polluter doesn’t have to do anything. Yep, nobody has any problem with China’s pollution at all. People are funny that way.

[@hunt1592]

​@@simhedgesrex7097 i reaserched newfoundland on youtube, soo it will ne colder climate like germany/Scandinavia ect ??? I love the idea.

[@simhedgesrex7097]

​@@hunt1592 There's a great deaom0fmdifference between moving to Scandinavia, and converting the UK live with the climate of Scandinavia.

[@RodneyArmour]

Leave the ocean as it is there and build dams and pump water into the arid wasteland of Australia.

[@eurekaelephant2714]

You mean beautiful deserts and underground aquifers.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

I think it'll run back into the ocean mate

[@Tm0n3y762]

Problem is earth has natural recycling system no matter what all that water will end up back in oceans

[@AkhilNova]

I’ve been watching this channel for years and, I have to say the recent videos aren’t giving off the same vibes as before. The older ones felt like full-on Netflix documentaries. Other than that always a solid research🔥🔥📈

[@fleshreap]

Whole idea is entirely dead on arrival. Dumb to even try to present this as a real possibility.

[@citynomad13]

You clearly haven't watched the video or the whole video ...

[@fleshreap]

@@citynomad13 I shouldn't need to, is the point.

[@vigneshkrishnamoorthy7528]

Watch the full video before you comment​ @@fleshreap

[@fleshreap]

@@vigneshkrishnamoorthy7528 why?

[@jackapotsos6130]

@@fleshreap Just watch the last 5 min then

[@daveogle3614]

As if UK 🇬🇧 would ever allow it to stop being and island.

[@freedomfighter22222]

550 billion is nothing, the countries affected will be spending far more on letting cheap petrol resources lay in the ground than this wall will cost. The cost really isn't an issue. But unlike if you dammed the Mediterranean I suspect this area here does have more river flow into it than it evaporates? Before adding another point to that I need to say that the sluice queue problems is invented by whoever is trying to portray this idea as bad for the wrong reasons, this area wouldn't be missing access to water for its sluses if the sea outside is higher than the sea inside, you can build 100 sluices in each wall and slow down every ship with the 10 minutes they take to maneuver into and wait for a sluse to fill, that would have no impact on commerce. But, building on the first problem with evaporation, if the evaporation is enough to combat all the water coming from rivers in addition to the seawater from the sluses of thousands of ships passing, you're not going to end up with a freshwater problem, you're going to end up with an incredibly salty sea as you keep letting inn saltwater and the water evaporates away. If evaporation is not enough to combat the combined water from rivers and ship traffic trough sluices then you have a much much bigger problem, you're either going to have to not have sluices(or limit their use) and instead have ports facilities on the wall for loading and unloading ships from either sea to the other or you're going to have a few nuclear reactors dedicated to pumping water out of the inside sea... I would love to hear some of those problems addressed though, as it appears now the project seems to be presented as bad in the first place, the ecological impact would be the big problem, but water evaporation or salination of the inside sea would be far far bigger problems than the money(less than those countries are going to spend on preventing and adapting to rising seawater anyway) or commerce problems. Especially the "ruining of economies" that is presented as a consequence of the cost, that really shows no understanding of the economic capacity of the involved countries, combined they already undertake far costlier projects for less gain anyway.

[@Quickshot0]

I believe the river inflow would be higher. And as you suggest you'd have to pump water out of the enclosed area to keep the water levels down. How ever these are all things that have been done already on smaller scales, like pumping water from a river uphill, so certainly possible engineering wise. It will just cost you. And I agree saying it would ruin the economies is being pretty unrealistic, that level of cost would fall far short of that. The real cost would be in that you'd need to expend that much, just to keep your economic situation in the same general environment as you started as. Admittedly after such a huge wall you'd after that be able to control the local environment far more then before and wave action would be much reduced, which would make coastal areas safer. The fisheries will have to change though... but perhaps more sweet water adapted fishes could in time take the place?

[@kevinsharp-kn7rm]

UK would never agree to give up our natural boundary the Sea . Crazy

[@glenlongstreet7]

150 feet higher than predicted ocean level rise? Why are others saying they expect 300 feet rise? Simpler solution, move away from the ocean.

[@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302]

All ice melted in a warm world would cause approximately a 70 metre sea level rise. Somewhat over 200 feet.

[@anuragtumane5227]

NEED is surely not going to be executed.

[@mickharrison9004]

I believe the dutch could pull it off ,they know that without some big infrastructure work ,Holland will lose some land even though they have ,done well keeping the land they have .

[@undertow2142]

I’d love to see a video about automation in construction especially in regards to megaprojects. Like if you had a bunch of automated dump trucks and back hoes that are all battery powered and automated. They could literally move a mountain. Input electricity, maintenance, and directions and then it’s just a matter of how long till they’re done. Such a capability would be immensely valuable in our modern era of sea level rise and ever larger damns, dikes, seawalls, and bridges.

[@GizzyDillespee]

Rising sea levels aren't an unprecedented threat. In fact, the good people of Doggerland once made a very similar proposal. They tried but faced a similar problem the modern dam could face... is likely to face at some point - catastrophic tectonic movements. Of course, we have better technology now... but we ain't THAT rich. $600B is... you won't even get the smaller seawall for that.

[@GizzyDillespee]

Not to mention, everyone inside would lose their seaports.

[@luiscosta9469]

The fact that this deserves a 17min long is just ridiculous, let alone the idea itself

[@mkmuaqibizzuddin6885]

8:00 Wait. Hold on. Emptying an ocean into where? Into the ocean that you were previously trying to keep away? A whole North Ocean??? How about other countries?? Hawaii be damned the first day pumping station is operational

[@krisstopher8259]

it's not about emptying it (draining), it just keeps the current sea level the same, and even if they drained it the oceans in the rest of the world are like 99,9% of all the all sea water so filling the ocean with water from the drained area wouldn't even make the sea level rise even a millimeter

[@freedomfighter22222]

The North sea is incredibly shallow and compared to the ocean tiny, the volume of water in it is surprisingly insignificant. It wouldn't be the tipping point water for any other places.

[@AlbertSantisteve-Davies]

tell all ship to get out of that draining area please

[@nonenone7761]

Even if this is possible, there’s an issue or two…. 1. This century opened up with an event that changed everything, September 11th. What if terrorists blew a hole in one of these? How many could die from water rushing in? 2. Could these walls withstand the pressure and hold up if one section has integrity issues?

[@hermes7587]

It is quite difficult to blow up a large gravity dam, but there are state actors who have the means and the will to do so, as seen in the Ukraine war.

[@JeffreyGoddin]

Would make an awfully tempting target for any future adversary of any of those states...

[@radornkeldam]

Regarding the point on "land reclamation for agriculture"... wouldn't that soil be super salty and unfit to raise crops?

[@AndreDeLimburger]

The Dutch province Flevoland has been reclaimed, and has agricultural use.

[@bobbun9630]

Something makes me think that no country with a submarine fleet is going to be interested in this scheme. Especially, but not necessarily, if that submarine fleet is nuclear armed.

[@hermes7587]

You are thinking about a country in eastern Europe that likes to blow up dams?

[@bobbun9630]

@@hermes7587 Most of the point of a submarine is lost if it can't come and go in secret. So I don't think any country with submarines, including those not in Europe, is going to be thrilled at having to visibly pass through a lock and dam to get into the North and Baltic seas.

[@bobbun9630]

@@hermes7587 Every country with a submarine fleet. Submarines exist to be secret, and revealing them by having to pass through a lock is undesirable.

[@andersmartensson1851]

@@bobbun9630 Vi har inga Kärnvapen på våra Ubåtar . men vi har allierade som säker kan låna några . Vi får då hoppas att ni som inte har Ubåtar kan odla 500% mer mat i era länder .

[@simhedgesrex7097]

@@bobbun9630 The UK has west coast ports, as does France, so it wouldn't be an issu for them.

[@Zestrum]

the author fell for Russian propaganda and annexed part of the territories of Ukraine to Russia on the map 6:21

[@mrintomesee]

Actually the reality is you fell for western propaganda.

[@truebluestu3428]

Yes and I want to build a torch the size of a city and light up the moon…

[@vherostar]

These dams would no doubt be bridges too IMO and therefore allow travel across them. In Britain we already have the channel crossing but this would bring in so much trade to the island and allow people to also travel to Norway and Sweden a lot faster by car. There may have to be filling stations on the damn though lol. A Dam that big too would generate a ton of power and make a greener earth. Though I can see countries arguing over who gets the funding from this.

[@andersmartensson1851]

Nu pratar vi 40 år framåt våra politiker i EU vill förbjuda Bensin och Diesel . Så vi behöver nog ha Laddstationer här och där .

[@simhedgesrex7097]

Relatively few people would want to drive to the tip of Cornwall, just to drive down to the western tip of Britanny, - these are relatively remote regions. The same is tru for traffic wanting to get from the UK to Norway - driving up the far north of Scotland, and then up the Shetland before switing east to Norway would take a lot longer than taking a ferry from Felixstowe, Hull or the Forth across to Norway.

[@KellyFrancis-bw4kj]

What If the dam broke or caused flooding in uk and in France ???? Is it a good idea ??? Sea level s too rise ???? Not going to work. Maybe

[@mesutbatan7618]

They might consider to do it shortest distance between Denmark and Sweden which will be more feasible at least half of the countries...

[@Biami21]

What about the animals and natural nutrient currents?

[@coolhand591]

Literally talked about in the video. Watch the whole thing before commenting.

[@alexcovey1200]

As a brit this means we get more land to colonize and easier access to oil. I see no problems here.

[@christopherrafferty4329]

That's if we get it I highly doubt it

[@MrFreesearcher]

Displacing all that water out into the Atlantic would raise sea levels anyway, and yes fishing and marine life would be destroyed within the dammed off area. But new mega ports could be built at each of the dams, and a series of new railways built across the newly drained land to rapidly move goods inland. It's a opportunity to lay down 21st century transportation and build not just housing, but also industries and production in the most efficient design possible. It would all help to reduce costs, by having a modern efficient system. Also not all of the water would need draining - some could be retained for turning into fresh drinking water, reducing the issues associated with drout. The new mega ports would reduce shipping costs as there would be less travel time, and thus less fuel used. New methods of border control would be needed to stop illegal migration, but there would be less deaths from drowning as they make the crossing into Britain. This also opens up the possibilities of processing centers to try and cut down illegal migration.

[@JaronBTW]

Something like this seems like it would be useful to create A LOT of hydroelectricity while taking advantage of tidal forces.

[@ChinchillaBONK]

If they manage to make this a freshwater dam it would solve freshwater needs of entire Europe for eternity.

[@spuds6423]

Most likely it would make the North Sea and Baltic into a dead Great Salt Lake .. and destroy groundwater sources

[@ianallardyce4222]

Worth mentioning that sea defences for all the major cities, like London, are already built, and will be upgraded for the next centuries. Humans will ride out the storm.

[@feolive]

Hello from Saint-Petersburg.

[@andersmartensson1851]

Hej På dej 🙂 Vad tycker du om idén med muren ? Vi här i Norden skulle slippa drunkna på Många ställen . Floder som i dag rinner ut i Östersjön skulle vända och rinna in istället .

[@HFOR02]

South NEED could be useful if you include hydroelectric dams on it, include high speed rail and a motorway on it. Would after a few years easily pay for itself and upkeep. A major problem with it would be immigration and require custom officers at both ends checking every crossing (xray, infra red etc)

[@Jordanpgates1]

Based on the video, from 1880 to today sea levels have risen 20 centimeters. That is 144 years. The author claims sea levels could rise an additional 2 meters or 2,000 centimeters in the next 76 years. This is 100 times more than what happened in the last 144 years. Someone does not have their thinking cap on.

[@CharlesDegraftJohnson]

He’s correct is rising exponentially not linearly

[@KabirMarekerah]

That's because the seal level rise is accelerating

[@pietjemol3420]

@@KabirMarekerah sea level rise is NOT accelerating. On the contrary, even the 20 cm's is disputed. There has been a study by comparing global coast satellite images from 30 years ago and today, and that conclusion was that coasts all along the world are growing, meaning sea level retreating.

[@hermes7587]

@@pietjemol3420 I live near the North Sea and the sea level rise is very real. In the last 10 years we have seen storm surges that were higher than the ones in the century before. Luckily we had improved dams and sea walls in time but this is a race that we will losed eventually if the sea level continues to rise.

[@pietjemol3420]

@@hermes7587 I am Dutch and visited the Dutch beaches since 50 years... No diference. Better yet, there are new beaches near Zeeland on the sea side. Reality is a bitch.

[@omarkarn]

I do think it would be incredibly expensive and would surely require a lot of cooperation and sadly weather it's helpful or not it's difficult to get a lot of people on board with the idea .but still a fun thing to think about and speculate.

[@jeffreybartlett4899]

Name the person who measured the sea level in the 1880s .... That's what I thought.

[@danielmalinen6337]

They should ask what the Nordic and Baltic countries think about the drying up of the Baltic Sea. And what about the conservation program for Baltic sea harbor porpoises and herrings? And other marine animals and ecosystems in these sea areas?

[@keithclayton1271]

Dumbest thing I've ever heard of...

[@MyKharli]

But sea level will be rising effectively forever , capping out at 65 odd meters higher than today in a millennia , that's not that long . It will easily be 1 to 2 m or higher by centuries end .Got to think pyramid long solutions to to counter the mess we humans have made .

[@keithclayton1271]

@@MyKharli lol even if what you say were to happen... your solution is to fuck with the face of the earth and ecosystems even more?

[@brucemitchell5637]

​@MyKharli let me guess, you also believe that men can get pregnant and the coof clot shot is " safe and effective " , right little fella? 😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@keithclayton1271]

@@MyKharli even if what you're talking about were to happen it is ridiculous to think mankind will fix the damaged natural environment by fucking with it on such an unprecedented scale. If people are so afraid of rising sea levels they should move inland and perhaps treat the earth with more respect. Absurdity!

[@StarrDust0]

Humans building crazy infrastructures? My kind of video!

[@JakeCloak]

From $15k to $45k that's the minimum range of profit returns every month its not a bad one for me.. As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep your accountable...

[@MathewGray-r5t]

How please, help me I really need to gain my losses back.

[@JakeCloak]

I'm guided by Juliacarter01

[@JakeCloak]

Her platform is really safe and secured, not quite long I joined her discord

[@OliverKiera-l1h]

😱Wow I can tell , I have heard her names on several occasions.. And both her success stories helping families succeed.

[@Jerrik183]

After i raised upto 125k trading with Juliacarter01, I bought a new house here in the states glory to God.

[@ClarkeDesign]

Great idea to build a wall across the world's busiest shipping channel. Just imagine too when (not if) one of the walls gets a decent crack in it.

[@cruzanmongoose]

Sea level rise is a joke I've been walking the same coast for 50 years and i see no noticeable difference, that project is nothing but a pipe dream.

[@hermes7587]

If you live in Scandinavia that might even be true because there are areas that experice the so-called "post-glacial rebound".

[@jackapotsos6130]

The sigma box in the background under the gold play button is a nice touch 😂

[@ClaudioArgentoDesigns]

If you really think a project of this magnitude will cost 600 billion, I remind you that the US has currently spent more than that just housing migrants in the last three years. So there's the urgency of climate disaster.

[@mikeharrington5593]

If the enclosed waterway was drained (to where I dont know) then redrawing the resulting land borders would be interesting.

[@EyesOfByes]

500 billion Euros? Not much more than the F35 program

[@freedomfighter22222]

Yeah, the financial cost of the project here is really nothing, many good reasons not to build this, but 500 billion dollars is far less than these countries are going to spend trying to combat sea level rise anyway.

[@hermes7587]

Large projects are always advertised with a budget that is far smaller than the really costs but the public will only learn about it after the decision has been made.

[@patsgarage8593]

Very interesting. Although I think this will be alot like "The Line". Id be worried once construction starts that I could be halted and become a massive waste of money and resources

[@andersmartensson1851]

Risken är väl att det blir som Filmerna om Vatten värld där bristen på Jord kommer hägra 🙂

[@Leeroy49]

The cost wouldn't be a problem. It's only the fortune of the 5 richest people combined. I hope it'll never be built, mainly because of environmental reasons.

[@J0HN_3_16]

Water expands as it cools unlike other molecules. Sea levela rose during decades of global cooling throwing the current global warming theories in the rubbish bin. More than any other factor, global temperature correlatea most closely with solar activity.

[@rdkmy]

No NEED to build two big dams. Just build a dam around the Kattegat and that's it.

[@manuelriveiro5770]

Or Calais-Dover

[@halbertclovis8127]

Fun fact the baltic peninsula is still rising form the last iec age, so much that at the moment it's rising faster than sea level

[@khanhns12]

this project has many disadvantages: - budget - water transportation - eco-diversity

[@freedomfighter22222]

you just mentioned 1 problem, The budget is far less than the involved countries already are using and plan to use on climate change(making one big 500km dam is a lot cheaper than 10k km of small dams). Sluices exist and the ocean has enough water to operate them, build 50 of them on each wall and the 20min time ships take to pass would be insignificant on their week long journeys. The Ecological impact this would have is the deal breaker, feasibility, cost and economy aren't problems worth mentioning as it just turns out cheaper than any alternatives.

[@hermes7587]

"Disadvantage" is a very mild term for something that would wipe entire ecosystems from the face of the Earth.

[@dennis2376]

What about the Thames? Thank you for bring this subject up.This is nuts, like the idea of building the Mediterranean dam. This project would cause massive economic problems. Netherlands major sea ports would be lost for example.

[@HammerOn-bu7gx]

While I like your commentary, your audio is not quite synchronized with your mouth. Your voice seems to be about .05 seconds or so late. Your editor should allow you to move the audio track just a tad.

[@Jarrell-oc9rv]

Dude u got to much time on ur hands to notice that 😂😂

[@krisstopher8259]

i didn't notice it this time

[@Pete7554htp]

Perfectly synched for me, must be your computer or device.

[@oddjobman1000]

Looks like a major part of Ireland and the UK would end up under water, because the excess wouldn't have anywhere else to go

[@smokymcpot5917]

Arent there huge waves in the north sea. I think it would be the only dam to have big waves hitting it. Sounds dangerous

[@freedomfighter22222]

About as dangerous as it is for those waves hitting the coastlines of the north sea countries, as in not at all, the wall in the dimensions mentioned would be a literal mountain, the only waves that could damage that would be ones from an apocalypse sized asteroid hitting the ocean, at which point who cares.

[@christophernicolasviertel8967]

And how would we... You know.. SHIP STUFF?!

[@01NATHAN10]

This is nonsense, why am I subbed to this channel?

[@CptH0vvDy]

That attempt at pronouncing 'Joakim Kjellsson' 💀

[@davidbroman8391]

Imagine how much greenhouse gases would be produced by a project like this.

[@mrlover4310]

Wishful Thinking.

[@peterdowning9191]

Thank God for this vision. We’ve known about climatic change and sea level rise for decades.

[@Yeshuaelohim616]

Thank GOD for the Bible. It already tells you what will happen. And that includes the sea receeding. And much more land being revealed. More lakes less seas.

[@cnw8891]

And it still hasn't happened

[@Yeshuaelohim616]

@peterdowning9191 carbon/ global so call warming. Is all to do with trees. Trees hold many many many gallons of water in each tree. Chop billions of trees down the water rises. Plant billions of trees the water receeds. And we have more oxygen. Co2 emissions/ cars its all a myth. The issue is lack of trees. And the elites are still chopping down the amazon. Most countries were filled with trees. Most countries now have not even 10 percent of the trees they once had.

[@Yeshuaelohim616]

@@peterdowning9191 we don't need dams. We need more trees.

[@jeffbezozss]

Whats the benefits of this project? I don't see any

[@freedomfighter22222]

All the coastlines inside the walled areas not having to spend trillions combating the ocean?

[@tommymorrison6478]

Perhaps you should try listening next time. Oh.......thinking is good also.

[@PhoenixBeI]

At first, i was horrified at the impact this would have on marine wildlife. Then sand was mentioned. Getting the sand alone would have a consequential impact on the whole planet. Sand from the Sahara can't be used because the grains are rounded by the winds. It has to be beach sand since it's more jagged because of the force exerted by the ocean. This makes it possible for it to hold on to the concrete better. Ocean communities, mainly in Asia, are being devastated by the removal of the sand, which can be a polluting process, and it also makes it possible for more water to reach these communities. If these people are serious, they should consider alternative materials. The world is fed up with the northern hemisphere being it's supplier of raw materials at the expense of other countries and peoples.

[@1Jack22]

russia would never agree to this

[@NuclearRaspberry]

Exactly bro

[@ilyasanzo]

Fo Sho

[@GilLagac]

There are 3-5 dead lakes in the Sahara that can be refilled Great Lakes style. And you can probably use new light dasalinization to reclaim the desert. Also you can refill areas in Australia for this also.

[@blueboy3990]

2:45 >600km Pretty embarissing mistake

[@phillipburns8818]

Humanity has gone coo-coo BIG TIME!

[@haraldstretjakovs9398]

This is the dumbest thing I ever have seen...

[@timothyb175]

It's not dumb, it's r3t4rded and forgetting a key detail. We are in an interracial period, not the end, just a pause. Temperatures WILL drop again and when they do, sea levels will drop fast. So this would be collosallly r3t4rded. What a waste or resources and time spent on the research.

[@NicuTorny]

No, we don't have to build; we have deserts and could direct part of the ocean water there. I am not saying to fill the desserts, but only a small part. For example, the center of Spain does not have water in sufficient quantities (for this reason it is also sparsely populated), through evaporation the water is desalinated and taken to the center, several canals up to the Sahara desert with a maximum width of 1Km and a minimum of 100m, the digging of two canals from the Sea Black to the Caspian Sea and taking the water beyond it through pipelines creating a salt lake, from which it will be pumped higher to the Aral Sea, A canal for refilling the Dead Sea, and other similar projects.

[@troyduren7092]

So let's get together and build a couple of giant dams to try to block it.Tour just gets higher in certain areas.I mean , you know , it ain't like we're too damn stupid , we're just stupid as can be

[@Successfulthoughts2023]

What about the ecological effects of

[@Remguy2468]

It's a good idea. Doubles the size of the UK as well. 😊

[@Chillclips-r9b]

Please do this!!! I'll donate for this

[@R-Lmaxan]

You should do a video about carbon dioxide capture, if you haven't done one already, and the cost involved with that.

[@stephenmiller5784]

This Idea was proposed years ago by a garage owner in Broadstairs Kent and most people considered him crazy

[@junglebooksteve]

From everyone here in Ireland, we send you all bubbles 🫧

[@tapi0]

In Finland and Sweden the land is rising more than the sea at the moment.

[@silverandgolddrew]

St. Pius X! Good Bless you brother! 🙏🏼

[@bendordoy4815]

I'm British and live in the south east and my Frist thoughts where it would not be built because of the negative affect on the economy eared from London gateway port and the other major European ports in the North sea and seems like a last resort option and there are better options.

[@SamStoddart-iv4mn]

What about the fish in that area that litterly don't exist anywhere else on the planet except for that place where they now are planning to fucking damm?

[@michaelrexrode3759]

Not just the North Sea but also the Baltic. I imagine that Russia would have something to say about its access to the Atlantic eliminated.

[@cengizsogutlu]

Great 👍 Greetings from Turkey

[@fixertise]

Awesome video

[@WestonRosch]

WE NEED TO SAVE THE PLANET!!! 🌎 ❤❤❤

[@Goxilla]

The countries with the highest co2 emissions per capita should pay for it. Saudi Arabia, Canada, Russia, Australia, USA, Korea and China

[@Sock_30]

the water can just flow around it

[@davidgillman5368]

This is a very interesting project idea. The inland sea could remain in contact with the greater oceans at their lowest tides. This would then facilitate the potential for producing almost unlimited tidal electric generation. It would allow for maintaining fish stocks, migrations and would better control the overall salination longer term situation. It could accommodate huge locks for shipping too. There is no need to vary the N. inland Sea level very much so land reclamation would only be a very minor part of the overall project. In the longer-term power generation alone would pay off the project. What do you all think about that, and someone needs to rework the economics on this basis?