Extraordinary talk!!! The twin talk to this, in my view, ought to deal with how we are going to get to the mindbogling amounts of energy needed for direct carbon capture, if that turns out to be the main avenue, especially if there are now positive feedback loops coming into play, since we moved so wildy off the geological curves. I mean: energy in orders of magnitude above than what we have today, an energy revolution not only in quality - but also in quantity.

@waylonbarrett3456

3 ай бұрын

I'm developing a process of removing carbon dioxide from mined calcium carbonate, sequestering it as carbon black, and selling the calcium oxide to industry. All energy (except for mining for the time being) will be solar-sourced. Calcium carbonate contains almost 2000 times more carbon dioxide per kilogram than a kilogram of air. What do you think?

So the idea of carbon removal from the air is very exciting, but it also carries the danger for moral hazards by going against the incentives to reduce emissions. A way to correct that is to make emission trading more expensive than emitting itself. Other idea would also be to not only be able to trade emissions to gain net-zero, but to having to trade a factor bigger than 1 to even create negative emissions.

@tosgem

2 ай бұрын

I really detest this kind of argument. It rejects truth for narrative. It assumes people are too stupid to understand a complex problem with a complex solution, that they will do the wrong with "too much information", and results in authoritarian stances that force people down single paths that are one-size-fits-all. Everyone must be treated as if they are equal with the most stupid people in our society. "This is the problem, and you must use my solution. NO, DON'T USE ANY OTHER SOLUITIONS, IT WILL STOP YOU USING MY SOLUTION!". What if, theoretically, a machine was invented tomorrow that could remove all of our emissions from the atmosphere per year? Are we not allowed to use it in case it stops us from migrating to EV's? I saw something similar during covid lockdowns. Until omicron came along there was virtually no cases of transmission in the outdoors, in open air, and in fact vitamin D from being outside was shown to have a statistically significant impact on severity of covid19 infection. A primary school in Brisbane, Australia, measured air movement in class rooms and found all the dead spots, set up a big fan and extraction system and they recorded no on-premises infections through out the pandemic. There were also charts, which quickly got buried and censored, which showed how much each extra KG of excess body weight impacted the number covid cases requiring hospitalisation, and showed how losing a few KG could impact the disease for individuals and societty. YET even those in authority who acknowledged these things to be true said any focus on these facts, or repeating thing, or making them part of health policy would make people complacent and stop them getting vaxxed.

Thank you for this inspirational talk!😍

Thank you, it really helped me with my project

Thank you for sharing this wonderful information.

Not so long ago, TED talks were telling me many things I did not know. Now, we have cute animal pictures, and rhetoric. It's almost as if we, the audience, are not expected to be able to handle numbers.

@fitszymon

3 ай бұрын

Guessing 'why' is quite simple though :)

8:20 Por dios NO, it's NOT mainly to power the FANS. It's to release the adhered CO2 from the capture media, whatever those are.

I love it! She such a good speaker and expert in this video! I agree that we need to start process of climate change and reverse the damage we have done together. Thank you so so much! I appreciate it! Keysia Efelin Bungalan

Wonderful talk. Our ship is sinking. The lower class passengers on our ship have been locked below deck. The middle class passengers are sitting back on the deck, watching the ship slowly sink. The upper class passengers are preoccupied with saving their valuables. The ship's staff are all fighting about how best to save the ship. The ship's engineer has come up with a plan to save the ship. The captain ignores the engineer's plan and instead burns the lifeboats. Only a few with a glimmer of hope are bailing water from the leaks. Sinking is inevitable and we all need to learn to swim.

I agree, she is a good speaker because her delivery is so pleasant to listen to. what is being discussed in this video is a very serious problem. these things can cause various kinds of damage. Rahmawati

Thank you from the future generations!

Ok the idea so is to studdy each place around the wold and check how each specific eco system "remove" the co from the air? If so, that's awesome! Companies coud invest and get their certificates of carbon free emitions right?

Textbook or practice - I think I know which one most of her life has been spent in

I like her speech. The important thing i got from her speech was we need carbon removals to stop climate change. We all know that it is difficult to stop climate change, that's why his speech is so important.

Thank you.

Ugh. Ted talks around climate change mostly just miss the mark. Yes, we need to extract carbon, but so much of this talk glossed over a lot of the problems and dangers of practice. First and foremost it has been one of the single most damaging elements of climate technology to climate change. This has been the show pony for the oil and gas industry has used to greenwash their utter lack of doing anything towards climate goals. Listen to that last part when she discusses the creation of biochar and basalt for that estate. Both systems required energy be put in. Heat and mechanical force for the biochar and a lot of mechanical energy for the basalt. This is the fatal flaw of carbon capture technologies. After accounting for the energy put into it, it doesn't make much of a difference. Studies have shown, even using green energy to do it actually makes climate change worse. We are in a huge energy deficit right now, if you cut out all the energy fossil fuels provide. So any green energy source used for carbon capture is taking away from energy that could have been used to offset fossil fuel energy production. The real way to deal with climate change and to have the greatest impact, comes down to efficiency. Using any great amount of energy for carbon capture instead of offsetting fossil fuel use is going to be a lot less efficient. Unless the energy source used is so far away that it wouldn't be efficient to attach it to the power grid. Still, even in that case, it would be more inefficient. How does one build, transport building materials, and staff, to such a remote location. Also, physics argues her point about how technological carbon capture could be made cheaper in the future. Currently all the experts agree that the technology has a limit on cost that will likley never be moved and it's not cheap. It wasn't all bad. There was a lot of truth in what she said. Still, conversations about this really need to point out publicly how devestating the public perception of it has been due to the greenwashing of the oil and gas industry. There needs to be a line in the sand that this technology should never be viewed as a means of offsetting some industries use of fossil fuels or even other greenhouse gas emitting industry. Far too many companies have used it to make no progress or evem get worse.

@xenod1066

2 ай бұрын

Those are legitimate concerns. There are people working on it who don't work for oil companies though. And at every opportunity, they say in no uncertain terms that it won't help unless we get to zero emissions. It's supposed to be additional because we've gone too far already. It does seem like we would need to continually educate people on that point. Emissions have to stop.

Using more environmentally friendly technology, changing energy consumption patterns, or adopting sustainable practices in industry and transportation can be done to reduce emissions. Thank you for the video because it can increase my knowledge.

Exactly, to reduce the use of carbon, we must pay attention to several ways, namely switching to alternative energy such as wind and solar power and using environmentally friendly transportation using public transportation such as cycling to reduce the use of vehicles that use fuels such as gasoline...then replanting trees helps absorb carbon from the air and in my opinion the last is awareness... the awareness of each individual is very necessary to launch the methods listed earlier.

It is important for us to always preserve nature. We, as technology users, must be wise in thinking and acting by not throwing industrial waste, rubbish, or other things into rivers or the sea, and by not burning forests. This behavior has very bad impacts; it can cause air pollution, harm nature, and lead to diseases.

Thank you for sharing. I've got some information. 1. It is important for us to always preserve nature. We, as technology users, must be wise in thinking and acting by not throwing industrial waste, rubbish, or other things into rivers or the sea, and by not burning forests. This behavior has very bad impacts; it can cause air pollution, harm nature, and lead to diseases. 2. Carbon removal is an important step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change. 3. "Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the World."

Gabrielle Walker discusses some of the lesser-known ways of carbon removal such as wooly pigs, volcanic rocks, and more. Gabrielle also discusses how we can store this carbon in anything from trees, soil, the ocean, buildings, to rocks deep underground.

Carbon removal is an important step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change. Efforts such as forest replanting, sustainable agricultural practices, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can help reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Great talk.

@7:35 The DAC factory looks futuristic, and it will probably stay futuristic. Just do the math: they will not be affordable, nor will they be carbon negative. We need to remove 1000 Gtons to get bac to 300ppm. We certainly need all the solutions out there, but also pick the ones that are realistic.

4:49 also a massive fire harzard.

The discussion in this video is very good and interesting and useful for human awareness to know the bad carbon for future life and efforts to stop carbon emissions and prevent climate change from getting worse. thank you for sharing new knowledge for me. Nurhasanah

Gabrielle Walker's "What you need to know about carbon removal" video provides a clear and understandable overview of nature-based carbon reduction solutions. At 12 minutes 39, the video provides a good understanding of efforts to clean up the environment and reverse the processes behind climate change. The video is well worth watching and encourages collective action to take care of our planet.

When r they going 2 talk abt cern

Who would have known that there was such thing as a woolly pig!

Gabrielle - you had me at 'woolly pig' =)

the collaboration of nature and technology reminds me of public-private partnerships. we all know who will ultimately mess up Chindra triana~

Thank you, useful material. I'd say don't forget about the ocean. The high seas have the real power to lock up carbon dioxide with zero energy only with complete protection. 🙏🙌

Grow, and use cork

the usual optimism ive been hearing for decades. we emitted 36 billion tons of co2 last year and been polluting for 250 years .scientists are in the bargaining stage in the five stages of grief

This video provides in-depth information on what we need to know that carbon removal methods are critical in combating climate change and empowering us to make the right decisions for a sustainable future. Let's work together to combat carbon emissions.

at the end my favorite methods are 1 cutting down trees and burning them scientifucally so we can capture the CO2 2 chopping down more trees to make scayscrapers or maybe a combination of the two: build a wooden skyscraper and then burn it?

@andrewthurman8836

2 жыл бұрын

We already have the technology.... wooden matches! We just need to ramp up production distribution through Amazon and sales through Walmart.... the world will be saved!

It's only expensive because someone it's putting a price on it. I wish I was super rich to buy who owns the material to make these possible so that I can sell for free.

"It worked for wind and solar, it can work for carbon removal too". Well, both wind and solar are expensive because they require rare earth minerals. Of course, we've been able to make it affordable because we buy said minerals from China who don't mind pumping toxic sludge straight into nature from their refineries. Just look up "Bautou toxic lake". But let's say this works (which I really hope it does), we have to make Asia adopt it since they are basically going through an industrial revolution and are the biggest polluters. And the west can't exactly tell them to just "cut that out!", since we already had our turn.

This video provides in-depth insight into the importance of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in facing the challenge of climate change. Learn various ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including using advanced technology such as direct air capture and also through natural practices such as planting trees. Encouraging viewers to contribute to efforts to reduce carbon emissions, both through daily activities and supporting carbon elimination initiatives.

She works at valencesolutions and in their who they work with section on their website they listed companies like shell and other major polluters . Why I listed this is because I watched video recently where it showed these oil companies have been pushing for carbon offsets or removel even when they know its not going to have an affect for 10 to 30 year . The thing that USA needs To do is investment in green energy rather than this

@DeltaNovum

2 жыл бұрын

We really don't have any proper way to do any meaningful carbon removal as of now. It's yet another bullshit spin on things by the big corporations. Same thing happened with recycling plastics and the symbols they use for it. Or when BP and others poured millions of dollars into PR campaigns to make us think we ourselves can actually make a big change with our carbon "footprint". It seems TED has gone the way of many others. Towards the money. Sad.

@samanthabaron5538

2 жыл бұрын

A good thing abt carbon capture I saw on a vice video is that they can actually use it to make a cleaner form of gasoline that is just pure carbon, which it technically net zero since it uses carbon from the air. And current vehicles can run on it if it is developed, so at least the corporate money goes to science I guess :/

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@samanthabaron5538 that sounds like biofuel with extra steps - it might be a way of storing energy, but that's ab ok it where the benefits stop - the process is inefficient (you'll be spending far more energy getting the carbon from the air than you'll get from the fuel - reducing the concentration of something that makes 0.04% of the atmosphere is really difficult! It would be far more efficient to use passive carbon capturing processes (plants and mineral) for atmospheric carbon dioxide, than to use renewable energy to power carbon capturing machines. This however runs into problems of land use - nature has barely any room today, when we use agriculture mainly for food - if we use it for fuel too, there will be even more demand for land area, leading to the destruction of the last wild areas on earth, which also happen to be some of our best carbon sinks. Also, this bio-gasoline you mention chemically cannot be pure carbon - that would make it solid or a powder, not compatible with current vehicles.

We have a RESPONSIBILITY to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people🌏!. When long as we are denied our security by criminals, who prey on our communities 🌏, and who do violence against our ♀️# women and children. -- TODAY: 🇺🇳 United Nations | الأمـــــمُ المتّـحــــدَة has a dual RESPONSIBILITY: That experience guides my conviction that partnership between 🇺🇳 United Nations | الأمـــــمُ المتّـحــــدَة and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't√. Thank you. And May God's peace be upon you | TED!. Thank you very much. Thank you. ***** ...

"Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the World🌎". Indeed, what sculptor is to a block of marble so is education to a human soul. By. # 🌍Nelson_Mandela Thank you | TED and thank you so much admin. Thanks for your tolerance with me.. 🤭!. I don't know why?. I think... Only you are one person who understands me on the 🌏INTERNET🌍🌏 !. Oh thank you, admin. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you!. 🇺🇳 'Happy International Women's ❤️ Day!. ' We love you. 🤭🤭😁

😀 👍 Yes👍 Oh TED 🤗 YES👍 and yes-. MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT 👍!. YES 👍 👍 # Cop 26 SAVE OUR PLANET 🌏🌍🌎! 👍 '' we are talked a lot about, but we are not listened to '' -why? 😀 Thank you. 😀😀

Thank you, great talks. But you miss the ocean. High seas have the real power to lock down carbon dioxyde with zero energy just by a complete protection.

@doktorsalami9315

6 ай бұрын

Wouldn't that make the water sour?

The main solution is to regenerate ecosystems.

One of the major projects humanity needs to do is convert deserts into forests, etc. It has been proven many times that deserts can be converted into sustainable forests which regenerates the rain cycle, traps water, etc. Many deserts receive a lot of water but it turns into flash floods and causes erosion, etc.

@tomooonce7711

2 жыл бұрын

This is the first time I've heard about this! Sounds very interesting but also quite challenging (also when considering local ecosystems would probably be altered). Would you mind pointing me to some resources on this please?

@peterclark6290

2 жыл бұрын

Regenerative Agriculture is the key process. It needs animals to recycle the growth. Nature's plan.

@devonbradley5135

9 ай бұрын

The Sahara is growing year on year due to desertification. I imagine it would be very difficult to reverse this process

storing carbon in trees, WHERE THE OXYGEN IS RELEASED BACK IN THE AIR, is different than storing carbon dioxide underground, sequestered where the oxygen will never be seen again!

The role of humanity should not be exaggerated. Life on the planet will go on, with or without us. Dinosaurs died out before us. We will die too. Darwin described this process well. And this is more and more like a round of global competition under the guise of green technologies and care for nature.

@devonbradley5135

9 ай бұрын

at the very least, its creating new opportunities

@xenod1066

2 ай бұрын

False.

There are jungles that have so much oxygen that it changes the composition of the air. That's because of plants. Plants are the most sustainable and effective method.

@ratratrat59

2 жыл бұрын

Study the carbon cycle and the oxygen cycle.

@janklaas6885

Жыл бұрын

fool

@chaoticrealm777

5 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, plants are not the most effective method. They take up space for one. And you would need millions more plants without any regress of the existing ones at this moment. You should read how much co2 plants can pull and then imagine how realistic your thought is before making uninformed comments like this.

@florenbaron7111

4 ай бұрын

I disagree, plants do more than just take in carbon dioxide. They produce oxygen, clean the air, replenish the rain cycle, and much more. Nature works in interdependent cycles and vegetation is a very important aspect. I have a background that has taught me about this subject. There is also plenty of room. There are vast deserts where there was once vegetation. Humans don't take up all of the planet. Vegetation is a very important piece of the puzzle. Vegetation can also be integrated more into areas populated by humans. Mas amounts of land had been deforested.

@florenbaron7111

4 ай бұрын

Chaotic Realm, I disagree, plants do more than just take in carbon dioxide. They produce oxygen, clean the air, replenish the rain cycle, and much more. Nature works in interdependent cycles and vegetation is a very important aspect. I have a background that has taught me about this subject. There is also plenty of room. There are vast deserts where there was once vegetation. Humans don't take up all of the planet. Vegetation is a very important piece of the puzzle. Vegetation can also be integrated more into areas populated by humans. Mas amounts of land had been deforested.

Why not plant more trees!!!

Curious what impact the next 2 years will have on everyone's thoughts on fossil fuels, climate change and alt energy. Wonder how many people are willing to freeze to death

@brattymonkey7450

2 жыл бұрын

That's w little dramatic. If everyone made a few even small changes it would help. I don't think people should be made to suffer or put their lives in danger. But there are plenty of times humans over use everything. It is our craving for more that got us into this mess in the first place. Humans are troubled, our souls are hungry. We are a part of this world.. and it is a part of us. We are not supposed to be separate. And we are not alone! We share this shells with many sentient beings! We shutoff not take as much as we do! So again it's not that anyone autos freeze or suffer to change things. However steps need to be taken regardless. By everyone. Whenever they can possibly do so. And if people don't do anything then they Are just passing the problems to the children of the earth.

nature and technology working hand in hand reminds me of public-private partnership. we all know who gets screwed in the end

❤️Happy International Women's Day- 2022 !!!.

We have a RESPONSIBILITY to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people🌏!. When long as we are denied our security by criminals, who prey on our communities 🌏, and who do violence against our ♀️# women and children. -- TODAY: 🇺🇳 United Nations | الأمـــــمُ المتّـحــــدَة has a dual responsibility: That experience guides my conviction that partnership between 🇺🇳 United Nations | الأمـــــمُ المتّـحــــدَة and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't√. Thank you. And May God's peace be upon you | TED!. Thank you very much. Thank you. ***** ...

i know, there is more than 500 times more oxygen than co2 in the atmosphere but still.

@johanot

2 ай бұрын

And there are crazy amounts of nitrogen, but what's your point?

@johnoehrle5973

2 ай бұрын

@@johanot if oil is burned and the CO2 buried eventually there will be no O2 left. Only photosynthesis reverses the process.

Congrats on an excellent presentation, Dr. Walker. I wonder what you would have been saying about global warming when we were just starting to come out of our most recent ice age (20K years ago) and the Laurentide Ice Sheet was barely starting to retreat....sea levels were 350 feet below today....CO2 in the atmosphere was less than 200ppm....the earth's average temperature was several degrees lower than today....the Florida peninsula was three times as wide as it is now.....the Florida Keys did not exist, they were fused together as an extension of the Florida peninsula. What was driving global warming the past 20,000 years before we started burning fossil fuels? We are still coming out of that ice age now....the remnant of the Laurentide Ice Sheet is the Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island in Canada. The earth is still colder now than it was during 90% of its history. If we could stop producing CO2 completely today and begin extracting it from the atmosphere, the earth is very likely to continue warming. Keep in mind the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted completely in the past and is likely to do so again in the (unknown) future. This would raise sea levels about 20 feet. Large coastal cities will have to be moved inland to avoid flooding. NY city will have to be moved up the Hudson River toward Albany. Despite this reality, I'm all in for trying to minimize CO2 production and for extracting it from the atmosphere as fast as modern technology will allow. But it's an upsteam fight.

@jasonroper2160

Жыл бұрын

Love all your points except the last about being for removing CO2. You seem to have done excellent research on the ice age information, please extend that to the current versus past levels of CO2 and the impact it has on plant life and see what you come up with. For myself I have found that while you are totally correct that multiple things have died out before us, as we will and other things that come after us. I believe the point of this whole climate change 'crisis' movement is actually to save people not the planet (as you prove - anyone with a brain knows the planet will be fine); so personally I am flabbergasted with the buy in all the 'green' movement has to CO2 removal when it takes so little effort to find/work out what the affect of lowering CO2 will have on the flora that produces all the O2 that we fauna are so partial to.

saying "you put a ton of co2 in the air" isn't exactly right if the o2 comes from the air...and removing a ton of co2 doesn't reverse this process unless you separate out the o2 and replace it in the air, as do plants. stop this slight of hand.

@marcveillet2589

3 ай бұрын

The atmospheric content of O2 is more than 20%, that of CO2 less than 0.05%. Even if the totality of the CO2 in the atmosphere was "removed", with or without O2 replacement, the relative content of oxygen therein would hardly be affected. Hence while not completely (pedantically?) correct, these two expressions are merely convenient simplifications (figures of speech?) rather than some SLIGHT OF HAND engineered for evil purposes.

Carbon isn't the problem. Pollution, yes! Let's stop that but carbon is below the optimum level for trees! Lets help trees & increase carbon! 😊

@johanot

2 ай бұрын

*sigh*.. So... Which part don't you believe? That higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cause a warning effect? Or that the higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is caused by humans?

Let the world use 5% less energy day to day, till 2050.

😀 👍 Yes👍 O 🌎TED 🤗 YES👍 and yes-. MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT 👍!. YES 👍 👍 # Cop 26 SAVE OUR PLANET 🌏🌍🌎! 👍 '' we are talked a lot about, but we are not listened to '' -why? 😀 Thank you. 😀😀

We probably need to go back to stone age cell phones,laptops, electrical items, cars, industries all are culprits..infact zero vehicles no more road carnages saves lives too

this talk presents misleading ideas on the feasibility of CC projects and repeats fossil fuel talking points. the importance on rapid emission descale is not emphasized as net zero means the emissions will remain at the catastrophic level they are at today. CCS and BCCES are good ideas in theory but have not successfully been scaled up despite 20 years of research and billions in funding. within the US, CCS has only been used to minimize a percentage of emissions from dirty coal-burning plants. the gov touts CCS, but will only implement direct air capture with the strings attached of building new coal plants. CC needs to be implemented on an ecological scale but is not a priority. our greatest challenge, our only priority at this point is RAPID descaling of emissions, through transitioning to an economy that is not reliant on constant exponential economic growth. that means descaling emissions BELOW net 0.

The audio on this is kind of spotty - she gets louder and softer to a degree that diminishes comprehensibility. You need to compress it so that it remains level.

@tka-tpa-prapatankalisari45192

2 жыл бұрын

ah haaaaaaaaaaaa 😀🤭🤭.. O thank you and thank you so much TED✓. THANKS for your role and # women♀️ do hold 🌎high positions ✓. Thank you very much | TED✓. THANK YOU. we love you. 🤭🤭😁😁😁

@tka-tpa-prapatankalisari45192

2 жыл бұрын

🤭🤭😁 O thank you and thank you so much TED✓. THANKS for your role and # women♀️ do hold 🌎high positions ✓. Thank you very much | TED✓. THANK YOU. we love you. 🤭🤭😁😁😁

@tka-tpa-prapatankalisari45192

2 жыл бұрын

Oh Thank you and thank you so much TED✓. THANKS for your role and # women♀️ do hold 🌎high positions ✓. Thank you very much | TED✓. THANK YOU. we love you. 🤭🤭😁

and NUCLEAR energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected√. ### 🌏 ...

Who is this woman exactly? She never introduced herself and we're supposed to believe she's an expert on this? Do you know what else she didn't mention? The largest investors in direct carbon capture technologies are oil companies like Occidental Petroleum (OXY), Exxon Mobil (XOM), Air Products (APD) and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Also Talos Energy (TALO) and Denbury (DEN). They're pouring billions of dollars into developing a carbon capture market estimated at a modest $2 billion in 2021 So why would they invest in a market with less return, because they believe it gives them a license to continue to operate. Even though studies show that direct air capture technologies produce 3-4 times more carbon then they store underground. This will never even come remotely close to helping us let alone saving us.

@firestarter105G

6 ай бұрын

Professional con artist selling a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and wanting you to pay for it.

It turns out that carbon removal is very important for our environment why? Because it can prevent our earth from disasters and other natural damage.

Anyone who steps up to a microphone as an "expert" who doesn't begin with saying something about ending subsidies for fossil fuel companies is misdirecting you from action that will have impact.

@duranarts

2 жыл бұрын

It's like the point flew through your head so fast you hardly noticed it.

@honewhetstone1732

8 ай бұрын

I think she’s saying we need to do everything we can, not choose carbon capture/removals over reducing emissions. I think her strategy is far more pragmatic than just an idealistic approach of reducing our emissions. We need to do that TOO. There is a high chance we just might not be able to reduce our emissions to meet the Paris Agreement standards, therefore we need a plan of action that not only reduces emissions but effectively deals with greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.

@colinmartin6096

7 ай бұрын

You can't take anything someone says about climate change a serious when they tell you to "burn wood". 😂

@althr321

7 ай бұрын

Where that may be true, you also have to understand the immense reliance we have on fossil fuels. There is no affordable alternative. That includes renewables too. They are just far too expensive especially on a large scale and people won’t have enough money to pay for the electricity rendering it more or less useless. And so much money was put into these renewables but they’re not making any profit. And that time and money could have been spent on carbon removal. Carbon removals are the most economically viable solution for now. And we are bound by our economy. Otherwise we’d end up in another recession or something.

@colinmartin6096

7 ай бұрын

@@althr321 You said there is no affordable alternative but renewable energy is cheaper then fossil fuels and has been for awhile now according to the UN and many others. In fact it has saved Canadians and Australians alone on electric bills in but there are many other countries that are benefiting financially as well. So no, going renewable is not more expensive it actually saves you money and in fact you can make a lot of money off of renewables too as you can manufacture and sell the technology globally as well as the patent rights. As for carbon capture being the most economically viable well that's also a false claim. When you factor in emissions from burning that oil, it's abundantly clear carbon capture doesn't fix the fossil fuel emissions problem. Research on carbon capture processes, found they can emit three to four times as much CO2 as they inject underground. And that's not factoring in the fact that they are total energy hogs.

😘😘😘😘🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Wow so in order to lock carbon in biochar you are suggesting burning trees which have already locked in that carbon - how does that increase your carbon removal?? same thing with grinding up rock. Not that you want to remove carbon anyway ... as you clearly stated trees (and every other plant) make themselves from CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore if you remove CO2 from the air to below not much lower than we are now all plants die, which is a little problematic for us.

@yancgc5098

11 ай бұрын

The biochar is buried underground, effectively sequestering the CO2. This is more long term and faster way of storing that carbon as compared to just leaving it in trees until it dies and decomposes eventually, releasing all that carbon it captured throughout its life anyway. Grinding up basalt rock will make it more effective at capturing the CO2 as all those little pieces react with rain water. The process is called enhanced weathering. Also plants can do just fine with CO2 ppm as low as 160 ppm, we are at 423 ppm right now and we need to get that number down to 350 ppm at the very least, preferably down to 300 ppm and keep it that way for as long as possible.

@simongross3122

7 ай бұрын

The point of burning the trees is so that you can lock away their carbon permanently, but also so that you have room to plant more trees and do it again.

Or... we should start considering degrowth and consume less

Gabrielle Walker, if you read these comments, here is some criticism from a physicist's perspective with economical experience. The first aspect that seems to be fully excluded in this talk is the economics behind the proposals. This is important to understand IF Carbon Removal is even realistic, in the first place. We are talking, how much money does it cost to find alternatives to CO2-eq emission versus Carbon Removal. You should look into this, before deciding if Carbon Removal is possible or realistic, at the proposed scale, which you seem to intellectually ignore, by calling it a necessity. That would help you to understand why this isn't something that is talked much about, in the scientific community. You have to take into consideration that this will take money away from lowering carbon emission, in the first place, and by a large amount. We are talking dimensions that rival our current gas and oil industry, built with the investments over 100 years. The people who put carbon into the air, do not have that kind of money, unless they cannibalize themselves, at which point we could safe ourselves the hassle and get rid of them, where we can, even if it hurts. Let's talk trees. You are not taking the albedo of Earth into consideration, which arguably is a bigger factor than anything you mentioned. Reflection is good bc it reflects energy into space, but trees are bad at reflecting light. We know that overall, planting trees is a zero-sum game, from a physics perspective. It makes more room in our carbon budget, but also results in a lower albedo, heating up the planet. Also, trees tend to grow slowly, they are more of a sponge than a actual carbon sink. Considering that our current issue is how fast essential forests are shrinking, it's doesn't seem economical to physically plant trees, because it is cheaper and more efficient to preserve existing forest and let them regrow naturally. This isn't true in every single cases, but for the vast, vast majority. We also need to choose between getting rid of forests for food production and the forest itself. Getting rid of meat, as a primary foot source, is far more effective. It's also paramount to stabilize existing eco systems, so we even have a sufficient selection of trees that can grow in their habitat. Put that money into preservation and re-diversification of existing forests, first. This can't be a primary strategy. On high-rise wood building, that works great in cold, arid climates. From ~8 years in the construction business, I guess, it doesn't work like that in most places were humans live, bc those areas tend to be humid. What does work great is shielding buildings with plants that are alive, but that doesn't really work well with high-rise buildings. For that, I recommend Professor Ferdinand Ludwig from the TU Freising. On direct carbon extraction, you don't name the energy costs for these projects. In places were the energy cost is extremely low, like Iceland that is realistic - But Iceland has a very low energy cost bc of a already green energy source, which again, isn't the case for were most people live. Adding these numbers, would be much appreciated. So, arguing for that kind of technology, long before we have figured out our energy mix, seems counter productive at this stage. Anyways, while I might seem overly critical and we might not agree on all of the interpretations of what are the more important aspects, I appreciate the talk and you educating people on the different approaches to carbon removal, a lot. Not to speak of all the other work you are doing.

@gasdive

2 жыл бұрын

Also worth looking at her claims around basalt. For the common basalts the CO2 uptake is about 8% under ideal conditions (saturated water at 300bar 100C). Though there are some basalts that will take to to 25%, that's not the norm. So 4 billion tonnes of carbon represents mining and grinding to powder 50 billion tonnes of basalt, or about 10 tonnes a year for every adult on earth. That's more than our current production of everything combined. To drop our net production of CO2 from 34 billion tonnes a year to 30 billion tonnes a year. To actually deal with the issue you'd need to increase that by about 10 times, so 100 tonnes per person.

@gasdive

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, and 1122 kWh per tonne of CO2 to decompose calcium carbonate to calcium oxide and CO2, plus about 160 kWh to compress the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (which is what she's describing when she says the CO2 is pumped into oil reserves. It's so they can get the last of the oil out.

@apexpredator1018

2 жыл бұрын

💡

The fossil industry. Yes .....we are going to do carbon capture. (for the last 20 years.) Sorry, it is too expensive. It is actually not working that well. But we will maybe do it in future. Nobody is forcing us to pay for all the damage we have done to the globe. Oh bother. Let's increase oil gas production.

Lovely idea... So how many tons of rock, or how many years of tree growth per hectare compensates for the Australian wild fires from a year or 2 ago? To get an idea of scale...? Frankly, I think the idea of growing trees, burning them and capturing carbon is the most efficient. Largely because you can put financial pressures and regulations on this. And we all want power anyway, and more and more of it. The other public works dont sound applicable in our economic system.

My only question about fighting / reversing climate change is this: isn't the Earth naturally heating up anyway? Like leaving an ice cube in a glass of water? Sure, man kind if accelerating the process, but either way the end result is the same, save an extraordinary event such as a super volcano or asteroid impact setting into motion another ice age. Of course, people think their homes and driving are the issue, but it's not. It's primarily from the use of concrete and secondarily from over breeding livestock (methane), but by and large concrete, which sad to say is never going away since many countries are just starting to industrialize and modernize.

@tomooonce7711

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, the Earth would naturally be staying at a constant temperature or even be cooling slightly! As you mentioned, a lot of factors can play a role in our planet's temperature and if we only take natural conditions into account, climate models would actually predict a slight cooling of the Earth

@peterclark6290

2 жыл бұрын

Our internal core is molten rock. We get insolation from the sun. Yet the surface has supported life for billions of years. Ergo: there is a regulation of the surface temperature that works. FYI, the deserts of this planet are man-made; we killed off the grazers who recycled the energy in plants and grazers burp methane but they were still there when mankind showed up. Regenerative Agriculture is the key and it needs lots of CO² (airborne fertiliser) to do what it does best, support the key element in the constant recycling chain, the soil.

@SkydivingSquid

2 жыл бұрын

Max & Peter, both your comments have fundamental errors in them. I appreciate you sharing an opinion, but factually they are both untrue, both historically and scientifically..

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

The main issue isn't so much that a change is happening - the earth's climate has changed multiple times over millennia - but that rate at which change is currently happening. Past changes were over thousands of years, today they are happening over decades; most organisms aren't able to evolve and adapt to a new environment on that time scale, and neither is our modern civilization - we aren't able to relocate all current infrastructure and cities that would become flooded, or the farmland that would become unusable, in a century if we don't reduce emissions. How the climate would be changing without human emissions is another matter entirely. I'm not personally aware of which side of equilibrium the climate would be at - slightly heating, cooling, or genuinely stable - without human impacts. Solar irradiance slightly weakening and where we are in Milankovitch cycles would likely be the main forces affecting the climate equilibrium in that case. While concrete and livestock methane are certainly contributing to increase greenhouse gas emissions, these mainly originate from the burning of fossil fuels - which are basically carbon removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. Burning fossil fuels are the main new component to the carbon cycle, everything else was already present in some form long before the industrial revolution, if perhaps not at the same scale.

@peterclark6290

2 жыл бұрын

@@SkydivingSquid Please,... demonstrate your superior knowledge? It's absolutely safe here. No one will laugh.

Yang mulia, Bpk. President.. Aku seorang Gadis yang cantik dan Manis. Aku juga admin. Kayak layaknya mereka Gadis Indonesia umumnya. ... Bpk. President.. Setelah aku baca Sejarah, Mengapa Peristiwa-Berdarah selalu dimulai dari Europe? - World War I - World War II tambah lagi Europe: Mereka menyalakan Perang dalam Cold-War/ Perang dinging, antara Soviets dan USA. Kita pun secara tidak langsung, ikut terpengaruh dalam tragedy itu. Mengapa? -- Tuan Presiden.. Bisnis mereka adalah Peperangan. Ya, dan Bagaimana tidak! Perdagangan mereka adalah; SENJATA, BOM, AMUNISI, dan PELEDAK. Sejatinya, merekalah: Perusak Bumi yang SEBENARNYA. Kemungkinan ya, Mereka akan meraup banyak UNTUNG dalam tiap - tiap peperarang itu. Namun, mengapa?? - mereka menuding secara luas, bahwa: '' AGAMA adalah BIANG dari misi Perang-Dunia. '' '' AGAMA adalah Sumber penyebab dalam Conflicts berdarah berikutnya. '' Sungguh, Anggapan yang demikian, tidaklah selamanya benar!. Argument mereka, nampaknya Keliru. serta Ucapan mereka, ' hanyalah Omong Kosong.' Ketahuilah, setiap # Agama mengajarkan Kedamaian, mengatakan kebenaran bahwa: Membunuh satu orang tak bersalah, Sama halnya, merusak bumi dan membunuh umat Keseluruhan. Justru, # Agama sebagai soluti Tuhan menurun kan # KITAB SUCI. dan # PeranAgama di # Bumi🌎🌏🌍, itulah # Solusi. Thank you | Terimakasih. dan Salam Sehat!. We love you. 🙂 ...

That sounds good. instead of one step forward and two steps back we'll be spinning our wheels and moving slowly eventually, maybe move the timeline again, maybe 2070. There are too many Governments and big companies that still want to sell more fossil fuels, we can keep planting trees that take years to grow, while large forests are cut down in hours.

Mark my words, screenshot this comment if you want to: Direct air carbon capture will never scale to a level that is even remotely useful.

This is so interesting and this topic is very important.

Fun fact: these videos makes our days better

We are screwed

@scotthenrie5148

2 жыл бұрын

Don't beLIEve this propaganda. CO2 is how all plants are able to get water from the soil.

@jimmyspriggs4267

2 жыл бұрын

@@scotthenrie5148 there is more ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been for recorded history. Too much CO2 will warm up the Earth (as it always has) and leads to extreme weather, drought, famine. These aren’t new or fake ideas….do your research on peer reviewed articles before spreading false information.

@scotthenrie5148

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimmyspriggs4267 I have. You're making a collective judgement.

@whymustyouignorereality

2 жыл бұрын

@@scotthenrie5148 Damn, sometimes I think about what it would be like to be so blissfully ignorant. Must be nice...

@laneatkinson6441

2 жыл бұрын

@@scotthenrie5148 We don't have a CO2 shortage. Not even remotely. In fact, we have a surplus because we remove carbonous materials from the earth, burn them, and release CO2 into the air.

Won't happen. We're doomed.

@firestarter105G

6 ай бұрын

We're only doomed if you listen to the lies of the con artists putting a guilt trip on you in order to steal your money.

-- '🌏Indonesian Language'. -- 🇮🇩 Yang mulia, Bpk. President.. Aku seorang Gadis yang cantik dan Manis. Aku juga admin. Kayak layaknya mereka Gadis Indonesia umumnya. ... Bpk. President.. Setelah aku baca Sejarah, Mengapa Peristiwa-Berdarah selalu dimulai dari Europe? - World War I - World War II tambah lagi Europe: Mereka menyalakan Perang dalam Cold-War/ Perang dinging, antara Soviets dan USA. Kita pun secara tidak langsung, ikut terpengaruh dalam tragedy itu. Mengapa? -- Tuan Presiden.. Bisnis mereka adalah Peperangan. Ya, dan Bagaimana tidak! Perdagangan mereka adalah; SENJATA, BOM, AMUNISI, dan PELEDAK. Sejatinya, merekalah: Perusak Bumi yang SEBENARNYA. Kemungkinan ya, Mereka akan meraup banyak UNTUNG dalam tiap - tiap peperarang itu. Namun, mengapa?? - mereka menuding secara luas, bahwa: '' AGAMA adalah BIANG dari misi Perang-Dunia. '' '' AGAMA adalah Sumber penyebab dalam Conflicts berdarah berikutnya. '' Sungguh, Anggapan yang demikian, tidaklah selamanya benar!. Argument mereka, nampaknya Keliru. serta Ucapan mereka, ' hanyalah Omong Kosong.' Ketahuilah, setiap # Agama mengajarkan Kedamaian, mengatakan kebenaran bahwa: Membunuh satu orang tak bersalah, Sama halnya, merusak bumi dan membunuh umat Keseluruhan. Justru, # Agama sebagai soluti Tuhan menurun kan # KITAB SUCI. dan # PeranAgama di # Bumi🌎🌏🌍, itulah # Solusi. Thank you | Terimakasih. dan Salam Sehat!. We love you. 🙂 ...

With so many carbon removal methods out there, putting a price on carbon will let them compete. With the price of oil rising due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there is new momentum for solar, wind, batteries and electric powered transportation and building heat.

@homewall744

2 жыл бұрын

Government pretends to cares about carbon, but when Ukraine causes a natural price increase (one that doesn't actually make much sense outside of fear since we don't rely on Ukraine for anything), the first thing they do is release oil to keep prices down. That's the exact opposite of carbon taxes or the far more normal and well known taxation to cover negative externalities.

@rickrys2729

2 жыл бұрын

@@homewall744 You are exactly correct, we should have been putting a price on green house gases (CO2 and methane) long ago, but Ukraine seems to motivate actions where science like so many IPCC reports has not.

I hate it when scholars talk like actors in very bad movies

what happened to not destroying forests and planting new ones? it used to be no. 1 eco topic. now hardly anyone even mentions it

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

While it's implied that the tree-based solutions she mentioned would use planted trees, she's also head of a carbon capturing company funded by shell and co - oil presenting false solutions so they can keep polluting Plus, planting more trees isn't quite the solution it's sometimes presented as- firstly, not everywhere is suitable for this, in some environments planting trees would actually release carbon stored in the ground. Secondly, increasing forested areas means giving up land currently used for other purposes, such as agriculture. Thirdly, forests alone are slow to remove carbon dioxide, and only remove a relatively tiny amount compared to what has been emitted, not only that, but if the trees are just left to die, they then release the carbon they've stored - the carbon dioxide needs to be stored away permanently to even begin having a real effect. Schemes that plant trees to cover your carbon footprint are unfortunately mostly just green washing; planting trees can have other great effects (fighting desertification, city shade...), but do relatively little for carbon sequestration.

@tombombadil9123

2 жыл бұрын

@@polivarz6191 thanks. this explained what she wanted to say much more clearly... and truthfully.

Fundamentally disagree with her opening statement. Thankfully so did every major government in the world. If we all listen to this lady we would be turning off of everything that keeps us safe from our enemies. If you do not think you have enemies then you are simply being naive.

@janklaas6885

Жыл бұрын

fool

If we get rid of carbon will TED talks be entertaining again??

@whymustyouignorereality

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, because instead of getting fucked by climate change, we can work on improving ourselves as a country and as human beings.

@whymustyouignorereality

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jeppelelle That's exactly what I want. Definitely not a world that respects the planet we happen to inhabit. Corporate greed is helluva drug...

@milesk7465

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jeppelelle you’re right. Carbon is necessary and the earth is greener today than it’s been in a long time due to higher levels. There’s many opposing arguments but TED only shows one side of any topic.

You can keep throwing fancy methods of carbon capture at me all day, but in the end, where’s the basic anlysis of their efficiency? The 1 MILLION tons of capture is still basically nothing compared to the 43 BILLION tons of CO2 being emitted every year, for reference, that factory removes about 0.002% of the CO2. Wouldn't it have been better to spend a higher portion of the money towards making a larger scale project that would stop a bigger amount of CO2? So far, all of this is a fantasty that only makes us feel better, yes, in order to get out of the hole we need to climb, but first, we need to stop digging.

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZennExile and what would be this miracle solution only you know, but have decided only to hint at, be?

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZennExile what I understand from what you've written is: 1) you believe you are particularly suited to understanding and solving the climate crisis because of the volume of information you have access to and your unusual way of thinking 2) you've understood that nearly all energy on earth is ultimately from the sun, which itself releases far more energy than human civilization uses or is projected to use for thousands of years. 3) Life on earth, being carbon based, mainly used compounds based around carbon to store energy. As such, we can look at the cumulative mass of all these energy storage compounds of organic origin as one giant carbon-based energy battery. 4) your solution would be to develop an artificial equivalent 5) your solution would be to create an artificial "carbon battery" based on the same principles. Due to the highly interconnected and finely balanced nature of the natural world, such a project would require very high levels of interdisciplinary coordination and holistic thinking, as well as potentially developing whole new areas of knowledge. I'm not seeing any real conclusion or particularly useful insights here. You've basically described the carbon cycle, the idea behind Dyson spheres, and carbon capture and storage. Nothing about increasing life etc.

@thenoobypro790

2 жыл бұрын

First off I think she meant 1 million tons a year per plant which means we only need 50000 plants to be at carbon nuteral. We could also spen 100 years and a few trillion dollars building a dyson sphere

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZennExile 1) I agree that we get more than enough energy from the sun for current human consumption. However, converting and storing this energy so it can be useful is what is causing difficulty - intermittent power generation and insufficient storage in current grids are big contributors to hesitancy towards renewable power generation. Assuming humanity's power needs in the far future is an exercise in futility, and irrelevant to the current climate crisis. 2) "I am not suggesting an artificial solution be created..." By "artificial equivalent" I meant as in not wild or uncontrolled - i.e. a curated environment. Farm fields aren't natural but they aren't very technologically advanced either and use natural processes. Conservation is artificially preserving natural environments. As for getting natural systems to absorb all emissions as a biomass battery, that's not possible at current emission rates. If we want to slow down climate change, millions of tons of carbon would have to be permanently removed from these "batteries" - current atmospheric CO2 is too high. Most atmospheric carbon emissions by humans are from fossil fuels, which built up over millions of years and locked tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere - there isn't enough room on the earth's surface for the amount of biomass to store all that carbon at once, especially when we also need land for agriculture and cities. Add to that, as said in the video, storing carbon in the soil is a good idea, but how long does it stay there? Any change in agricultural practice, or environmental conditions, can release the carbon again. This isn't enough to prevent rapid climate change on its own. You also seem to rely on technological developments that are not guaranteed to happen soon enough - your AI's trained on distributed networks are still very much not ready. A biomass "carbon battery" does seem to be part of the solution - hence all the tree planting and studies to keep carbon in the soil - but it isn't enough. Current emission rates far outpace the rate at which living things can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - in a few decades we've emitted what took millennia to remove when the planet was completely covered in rainforest. still needs to be stored and converted into useful forms, which loses a lot of energy to inefficiency. You are still only giving extremely vague answers attached to huge promises. You said that you knew the "actual" solution and people wouldn't even bother asking you about it - I did, but your solution so far is still only massively broad strokes, plus, from what I am getting it seems a lot like a drop in the ocean. We aren't reversing climate change any time soon - we can't get all the carbon emitted back into the ground in a few years. The main focus is to minimize and slow climate change down as much as possible by ending emissions and capturing these over time, and adapting to the change; we're already locked into a 1.1C increase and rocketing towards +2 degrees.

@polivarz6191

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZennExile wow, you're not even trying to refute my points. If I've misidentified the problem as being atmospheric carbon levels, what do you believe it to be? You're still just repeating the same surface level points of solar energy, biological carbon storage and release, and advanced computer modelling without going into them, alongside the baseless claim that plants and bacteria can remove the billions of tons of carbon dioxide humanity has and is continuing to emit into the atmosphere before we experience warming effects. It took millions of years for life to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to produce the fossil fuel deposits we have nearly completely burned in just 300 years, assuming current usage doesn't change. If you disagree with me, engage with the points I am making, rather than stroking your own ego and saying I'm too dumb to understand. As many scientists have discovered, mastery in a subject is not very useful if you can't communicate that knowledge to others

Could Bitcoin mining rigs that also use a lot of energy and also use lots of fans, be combined somehow into those air carbon capture machines? If you're blowing air, at massive scale, surely adding a capture device (is it a particulate filter?) to the system design would be a huge win/win? The whole system pays for itself?

@notcubuzz

2 жыл бұрын

I've worked with large scale server farms in the past, and although they're slightly different, I'll give it my best shot. The problem is that these farms operate in enclosed spaces with one primary ventilation system. This system is designed to extract the thermal capacity out of the building. On smaller farms that might be different, but on larger farms usually coolant liquids are used (basically AC for servers). So there's little to no air circulation. Additionally, Bitcoin is proven to be inefficient. Proof of Work might be relatively secure, but its energy cost overpoweres all benefits in my opinion. Other cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum, are currently transitioning to Proof of Stake, a much more efficient method. You can find bunch of articles about that online. Tl;Dr: Farms don't provide air circulation. Whilst some designs might make that possible, it would take a lot of adaptation. And the power has to come from somewhere, so mining Bitcoin there wouldn't make sense (as of right now).

@bz3086

2 жыл бұрын

Talking releases carbon. Media: white man bad Also media: talking white man especially bad

@RobCantonJr

2 жыл бұрын

Running the miners would not be efficient enough to capture more that they emit.

@laurendoe168

2 жыл бұрын

Bitcoin mining rigs are actually one of the biggest sources of CO2 in the air due to the electricity they use. If you want to reduce the carbon footprint most efficiently, turn them off.

@LukePuplett

2 жыл бұрын

@@notcubuzz Thanks. I agree, I once had a desk in a large equipment room. But that's just one common, current design. Maybe all datacentres (AWS, GCP, Azure) could incorporate carbon capture in their designs. I don't know, just an idea.

I believe we might be going at it from the wrong direction we should be using nature to help get carbon out of the air not technology. And secondly we should be learning how to adapt to the new climate.

Funny how the fossil fuel industry keeps pointing their fingers away from themselves.

@apexpredator1018

2 жыл бұрын

Yup. It's distraction tactics at its finest.

It'll cause a famine because CO2 is how all plants are able to get water from the soil. *We need trees to provide shade in cities!!!*

@laneatkinson6441

2 жыл бұрын

We already have enough CO2, we're not even remotely short. Plants aren't going to "starve" if we try to undo some of the massive damage we've done to the environment.

@cr-iv1el

2 жыл бұрын

And we could stop paving over everywhere and building warehouses on every corner.

Or you are no good at science and are "staging" your talk. SMH

When I dreamt about the future, never did I picture vast forests full of pigs.

8:55 yes, money is the problem here. not the fact that you fucked up the planet. nooooo let's talk about cost and is it too expensive to provide conditions that can sustain human life on Earth. if it's too pricy maybe we should just give it up?

the biggest SCAM GOING,

@hootsmin

2 жыл бұрын

Just check all the smooth brains on here that believe it too, the carbon that is going to be removed is them, they are going to be sequestered six foot underground.

Correct me if I’m wrong….technology is why this is a problem to begin with. Technology has created an insatiable desire for things that would require sacrifice on everyone’s part. We don’t “step back” well. I’ve always said…..what science calls discovery, I call the rape of the natural world. We’re so enthralled with whether or not we can do something that we never think to ask if we should. Our species is the single most destructive species on the planet. The numbers are in…

@apexpredator1018

2 жыл бұрын

Not technology, but IGNORANCE. You can't run a civilization of billions of ppl without sufficient tools to sustain them.

@rudra7615

2 жыл бұрын

We are given the ability to innovate and create technology. No other animal on this planet has this capability..it also seems our destiny isn't to remain here but have earth simply be a resource pot that will help our goal of seeding the universe. It's strange but if you look at every other animal on this planet, they have a simple goal..to procreate and die, but humanity aren't driven to that sole purpose, we are more. Every year, there seems to be this push for us to reach for the stars and also create life and in this journey, earth and its resources are simply the means to get there. Your point is valid though in a sense we "rape" nature to get to our motives and goals, but that's because we don't really see earth as the only precious thing we have, it is true that is all we have right now but it never is humanity's goal. It's like a child leaving the parents nest, the child is a parasite to the parents, but no matter what the child won't just remain home, eventually they will leave and seek other things. Would they look after the parents later? Ofcourse but that isn't the focus. It is easy for others to say, "look that person is simply soaking up that mom and dad's offering and not caring for what happens to them", that is the reality as the priority isn't just looking after the parent's home. It is solely a single part of a bigger picture

@mr.c2485

2 жыл бұрын

@@rudra7615 Imagine if E.T. has already done the things you speak of…and earth was the last “seeding” ground. Note: if animals such as bees, earthworms, ants, etc. we’re to be eliminated from the planet, we all die, probably in a few short years. Conversely, if humans were to be eliminated, the earth would thrive beautifully. I have no reason to believe that our destructive tendencies would be any different anywhere else in the cosmos.

@rudra7615

2 жыл бұрын

@@mr.c2485 the fact we don't have a predator like other animals in this world may pave the way for the idea that we are seeds of an alien (maybe). It just seems like we aren't meant to just be here and earth is merely a vessel for us to use, grow and move on. It is inevitable, we will destroy this planet if we remain here. We're no different to a virus of the microscopic world, we adapt, breed and our goal just isn't to procreate though..what is the end goal? I feel it is to truely be gods, i.e. give birth to our true child the AI and eventually make a single collective conscious where humanity is all connected or creating our own destruction through our child th AI. Maybe that's what it is.. It's fascinating never the less

@mr.c2485

2 жыл бұрын

@@rudra7615 Would make for a great book.

Here in Europe, after Russia-Ukraine war, we are reactivating carbon plants, as only alternative to gas from gazprom. People do not want nuclear, don't want Eolic, since noisy and ruining the panorama, so that... I really think that we will be not carbon neutral for the next 100 years. I hope nuclear fusion plant will become a reality before, it is the only way.

@FunBotan

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear fusion has all the same problems as fission multiplied by the price of R&D. I'd rather bet on renewables + good storage, but that's also a thing of the future.

@matthewweflen

2 жыл бұрын

@@FunBotan Fusion does not have "all the same problems as fission" - it does not produce radioactivity and it is not prone to meltdown. Fusion's main problem is that thus far is has proved impossible to produce a fusion reaction without a net energy loss. Turns out it's very difficult to simulate the conditions inside a star on the surface of our planet.

Hi I'm new here and probably your GREATEST ally.....

Save Our Planet Now

@bz3086

2 жыл бұрын

Good bot