Microbes eating dead phytoplankton don't just use up oxygen, they’re also turning carbon from that decaying phytoplankton back into CO2, and when that happens we start to lose the potential benefits of iron seeding.
Futurama already did a whole episode on this. We just need to get a giant chunk of ice from Haley's Comet and drop it in the ocean every now and then, thus solving the problem once and for all.
People always talk about the cost of what it would take to improve/fix/reverse climate change. At the end of the day, if the planet becomes uninhabitable it won't matter how much money you have because no one will be able to find fresh water to drink or grow food to eat.
Exactly... and besides, cost is irrelevant. We have had the technology, resources and know-how to make all of that happen for decades. Monetary system is the problem.
when it comes to the cow solution: Why not just go vegan? I mean Im not vegan or vegetarian myself but I've heard a lot of CO2 is caused by meat production. Or maybe find a way to produce milk and meat synthetically idk whatever
I think that's addressed in the video here but turning to vegetarianism isn't globally viable when considering soil nutrient, time to harvest, price, and calories or lack thereof
@@Ferroes Eating more plant based foods reduces environmental impacts. There is no alternative way of looking at the facts. phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environmental-impacts.html
To live on a plant based diet you need agriculture and agriculture is not good for the climate. We need to maintain balance and not go full vegan, so for that I suggest permaculture and a balanced diet.
@@JuliusUnique Agriculture leads to deforestation and turns land into desert. By consuming meat you are removing animals from the food chain, the animals which kill/feed on plants for their diet. We are supposed to maintain this balance overdo one or the other you create an imbalance in the food cycle. The answer to global warming is permaculture.
Well, I have a crazy idea too but involves "crashing stuff" (we all love a little bit of roman circus) and the second clue is "Saturn", anyway we already have tons of debries in space some people call it "asteroids".
1) Space mirrors reducing incident sunlight by 1-2% could well be quite detrimental to plant growth - we simply don't know yet. It seems much safer than e.g. aerosols to reflect sunlight, but it's not certain. 2) Iron seeding might not work at all to increase carbon sequestration. There are studies looking into the possibility that the availability of other nutrients remains limiting globally, even if iron seeding could lead to blooms locally. 3) Feeding seaweed to cows has led to reductions of around 40% so far. It's entirely unclear if we could reduce the amount much further. Please don't speculate that we're going to be able to achieve something "with more research". We don't even know all the factors involved in live cows, and it's entirely plausible that we couldn't achieve much more without e.g. harming the cows in a way that they stop growing fast enough for meat production. Keeping large numbers of cows around is a bad idea anyway, because of the required land-use to grow feed. This is not only bad for the climate, but also for biodiversity, soil erosion, and so on. Keep in mind that most people on the planet barely eat any beef at all at this point (because they are poor because rich countries are exploiting them), and meat consumption is only going to rise if there isn't a massive shift in consciousness and politics, leading the richest 20% of people to eat much less meat over all. Over all this is an overly simplistic video and I dislike it. With info like this you are not choosing to be part of the solution to the ecological and climate-crises we face - though I appreciate the effort at the end. What we need is collective action, which will only happen if enough people are informed about the necessary changes required and know that they can't wait for potential "solutions" as presented in this video.
Instead of space “mirrors” we should put solar arrays in space to produce energy. Renewables on the earth’s surface are terrible as they are usually not as efficient as fossil fuels (or reliable). Plus if you’re generating energy, you’re also making money. Cost-effective and green.
We could have started building the Dyson Swarm since 1990 using fully autonomous self-replicating bots which would use Mercury for raw materials, and because construction would proceed exponentially, construction would have been completed in 10 years only. I also hate the idea of using mirrors in space to deflect sunlight... mainly because life on Earth NEEDS sunlight among other things. We need to get rid of Capitalism itself and replace it with Resource Based Economy, because most people don't even look towards the system itself as a fundamental problems.
Deks Roning there’s a reason the resource based economic model hasn’t been implemented anywhere. It is just an idea. There’s no structure as to how to implement it. Capitalism is the best economic system we have for innovation at the moment.
@@Amrith369 Actually, Capitalism is not the best system for innovation. If anything it STIFLES it. Why? Because when a system is based on artificially induced scarcity and competition, you end up with severe trust issues with humans. For example, take Intel, AMD and Nvidia. All of them compete against each other for market share predominantly and for the purpose of creating profits. They all produce products (CPU's and GPU's) that have pretty much same functions and features. NV for example uses proprietary features for raytracing and DLSS, however, AMD demonstrated and devs also confirmed you can do DLSS like effects with minimal impact to performance using open-source methods... and apply same technique to raytracing by using standard compute operations (which AMD has in plentiful supply in its gpu's usually). Now, will smartphones, the principles are the same... you have multiple companies producing the SAME type of technology over and over again with pretty much same functionality... the only differences are 'features'. Looking at different nations and countries... such as China and USA... the competition model has them behaving in a highly distrustful capacity against each other. We had patents for various technological solutions DECADES ago, but none of which were implemented in practice mainly because many of those were seen as 'cost prohibitive' (however, we DID and still have the needed technology, resources and know how to implement it in sustainable abundance for everyone). Patents only serve to stifle innovation, and in a competitive socio-economic system such as Capitalism based on cost efficiency, new technology will only get implemented IF its monetarily cheap enough to mass produce with the prospect it will bring in profits in the short (and potential long) term. Looking at various technologies that were never implemented fully for example are: 1. Geothermal. 2. Maglev (and vacuum maglev). 3. Fully automated vertical farming systems using hydroponics and aeroponics. 4. Recycling (less than 10% of everything is being recycled... not because we cannot recycle things - this is flawed, because we CAN recycle everything and anything with relative ease today - but mainly because most companies perceive it a lot cheaper to just dump things in the oceans or landfills and left to rot and extract fresh raw materials from the ground). That's just a few examples. Also, with people who constantly claim we wouldn't have the technology we have today without Capitalism... that's garbage... because Tesla, Einstein and DaVinci all proved they can develop marvelous technological and scientific solutions that are VOID of monetary incentive (and as studies have confirmed, money incentive is only good for repetitive tasks, not creative ones). Competition doesn't really do any good in the world except it breeds mistrust and animosity towards fellow humans. Arguably, most scientific and technological progress occurred in times when humans collaborated freely with one another... and this is more evident today than in any other time because the Internet has made collaboration between scientists across the globe A LOT easier. Money is an interference. Look at how much money is pumped into sports and useless wars as opposed to infrastructure, science, medicine and space programs such as NASA. We could have colonized the solar system by now and had a fully functional Dyson Swarm if we hadn't opted to 'play monopoly'. As for how to implement RBE... awareness needs to be raised in the global population, and right now, the exposure levels are still too low for that to occur. Not just that, but it will probably take the global collapse of the monetary system to have people seriously rethink Capitalism... and a global economic collapse was something MIT already predicted in 2012 as an occurrence by 2030. We don't need to threaten people with basic necessities in order to get them to work... in fact, this is creating a ridiculous number of useless jobs which are shuffling money for the sake of it (over 90% of current economy is based on jobs that do absolutely nothing of real value to society or world at large - and the work on which civilization as we know it exists on, is already largely done by automation).
There is a small advantage of those blooms though, they trap a large amount of carbon from what I know as a good chunk of the bloom won't be digested on the surface instead floating down the to ocean floor. This isn't a GOOD option to be sure with how much it would disrupt aqua lifeforms...
Mike Manning Afaik most space-mirror proposals are well above low earth orbit, putting them (and potential trash) well out of the danger-zone. I'm surprised they didn't talk more about the multitude of other caveats when it comes to these 3 "ways to fight climate change".
Microbes eating dead phytoplankton don't just use up oxygen, they’re also turning carbon from that decaying phytoplankton back into CO2, and when that happens we start to lose the potential benefits of iron seeding.
What if we set strategically placed mirrors on year round ice to help reflect sun rays???
Futurama already did a whole episode on this. We just need to get a giant chunk of ice from Haley's Comet and drop it in the ocean every now and then, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Well, yes. But it’s considered rude* to steal someone else’s intellectual property.
*Highly illegal
It's a comet it has no feelings.
People always talk about the cost of what it would take to improve/fix/reverse climate change. At the end of the day, if the planet becomes uninhabitable it won't matter how much money you have because no one will be able to find fresh water to drink or grow food to eat.
Exactly... and besides, cost is irrelevant.
We have had the technology, resources and know-how to make all of that happen for decades.
Monetary system is the problem.
when it comes to the cow solution: Why not just go vegan? I mean Im not vegan or vegetarian myself but I've heard a lot of CO2 is caused by meat production. Or maybe find a way to produce milk and meat synthetically idk whatever
I think that's addressed in the video here but turning to vegetarianism isn't globally viable when considering soil nutrient, time to harvest, price, and calories or lack thereof
@@Ferroes Eating more plant based foods reduces environmental impacts. There is no alternative way of looking at the facts.
phys.org/news/2018-05-reveals-foods-markedly-environmental-impacts.html
To live on a plant based diet you need agriculture and agriculture is not good for the climate. We need to maintain balance and not go full vegan, so for that I suggest permaculture and a balanced diet.
@@toresagen7346 agriculture is not good for the climate!? how do plant's produce more co2 than cows!?
@@JuliusUnique Agriculture leads to deforestation and turns land into desert. By consuming meat you are removing animals from the food chain, the animals which kill/feed on plants for their diet. We are supposed to maintain this balance overdo one or the other you create an imbalance in the food cycle. The answer to global warming is permaculture.
This host makes me happy! I want to see more of her! 😊
Well, I have a crazy idea too but involves "crashing stuff" (we all love a little bit of roman circus) and the second clue is "Saturn", anyway we already have tons of debries in space some people call it "asteroids".
We could build up and strengthen the ice sheets by covering them with 14% sawdust by volume in order to turn them into “Pykrete”
1) Space mirrors reducing incident sunlight by 1-2% could well be quite detrimental to plant growth - we simply don't know yet. It seems much safer than e.g. aerosols to reflect sunlight, but it's not certain.
2) Iron seeding might not work at all to increase carbon sequestration. There are studies looking into the possibility that the availability of other nutrients remains limiting globally, even if iron seeding could lead to blooms locally.
3) Feeding seaweed to cows has led to reductions of around 40% so far. It's entirely unclear if we could reduce the amount much further. Please don't speculate that we're going to be able to achieve something "with more research". We don't even know all the factors involved in live cows, and it's entirely plausible that we couldn't achieve much more without e.g. harming the cows in a way that they stop growing fast enough for meat production.
Keeping large numbers of cows around is a bad idea anyway, because of the required land-use to grow feed. This is not only bad for the climate, but also for biodiversity, soil erosion, and so on. Keep in mind that most people on the planet barely eat any beef at all at this point (because they are poor because rich countries are exploiting them), and meat consumption is only going to rise if there isn't a massive shift in consciousness and politics, leading the richest 20% of people to eat much less meat over all.
Over all this is an overly simplistic video and I dislike it.
With info like this you are not choosing to be part of the solution to the ecological and climate-crises we face - though I appreciate the effort at the end.
What we need is collective action, which will only happen if enough people are informed about the necessary changes required and know that they can't wait for potential "solutions" as presented in this video.
Instead of space “mirrors” we should put solar arrays in space to produce energy. Renewables on the earth’s surface are terrible as they are usually not as efficient as fossil fuels (or reliable).
Plus if you’re generating energy, you’re also making money. Cost-effective and green.
We could have started building the Dyson Swarm since 1990 using fully autonomous self-replicating bots which would use Mercury for raw materials, and because construction would proceed exponentially, construction would have been completed in 10 years only.
I also hate the idea of using mirrors in space to deflect sunlight... mainly because life on Earth NEEDS sunlight among other things.
We need to get rid of Capitalism itself and replace it with Resource Based Economy, because most people don't even look towards the system itself as a fundamental problems.
Deks Roning there’s a reason the resource based economic model hasn’t been implemented anywhere. It is just an idea. There’s no structure as to how to implement it.
Capitalism is the best economic system we have for innovation at the moment.
@@Amrith369
Actually, Capitalism is not the best system for innovation.
If anything it STIFLES it.
Why?
Because when a system is based on artificially induced scarcity and competition, you end up with severe trust issues with humans.
For example, take Intel, AMD and Nvidia.
All of them compete against each other for market share predominantly and for the purpose of creating profits.
They all produce products (CPU's and GPU's) that have pretty much same functions and features.
NV for example uses proprietary features for raytracing and DLSS, however, AMD demonstrated and devs also confirmed you can do DLSS like effects with minimal impact to performance using open-source methods... and apply same technique to raytracing by using standard compute operations (which AMD has in plentiful supply in its gpu's usually).
Now, will smartphones, the principles are the same... you have multiple companies producing the SAME type of technology over and over again with pretty much same functionality... the only differences are 'features'.
Looking at different nations and countries... such as China and USA... the competition model has them behaving in a highly distrustful capacity against each other.
We had patents for various technological solutions DECADES ago, but none of which were implemented in practice mainly because many of those were seen as 'cost prohibitive' (however, we DID and still have the needed technology, resources and know how to implement it in sustainable abundance for everyone).
Patents only serve to stifle innovation, and in a competitive socio-economic system such as Capitalism based on cost efficiency, new technology will only get implemented IF its monetarily cheap enough to mass produce with the prospect it will bring in profits in the short (and potential long) term.
Looking at various technologies that were never implemented fully for example are:
1. Geothermal.
2. Maglev (and vacuum maglev).
3. Fully automated vertical farming systems using hydroponics and aeroponics.
4. Recycling (less than 10% of everything is being recycled... not because we cannot recycle things - this is flawed, because we CAN recycle everything and anything with relative ease today - but mainly because most companies perceive it a lot cheaper to just dump things in the oceans or landfills and left to rot and extract fresh raw materials from the ground).
That's just a few examples.
Also, with people who constantly claim we wouldn't have the technology we have today without Capitalism... that's garbage... because Tesla, Einstein and DaVinci all proved they can develop marvelous technological and scientific solutions that are VOID of monetary incentive (and as studies have confirmed, money incentive is only good for repetitive tasks, not creative ones).
Competition doesn't really do any good in the world except it breeds mistrust and animosity towards fellow humans.
Arguably, most scientific and technological progress occurred in times when humans collaborated freely with one another... and this is more evident today than in any other time because the Internet has made collaboration between scientists across the globe A LOT easier.
Money is an interference.
Look at how much money is pumped into sports and useless wars as opposed to infrastructure, science, medicine and space programs such as NASA.
We could have colonized the solar system by now and had a fully functional Dyson Swarm if we hadn't opted to 'play monopoly'.
As for how to implement RBE... awareness needs to be raised in the global population, and right now, the exposure levels are still too low for that to occur.
Not just that, but it will probably take the global collapse of the monetary system to have people seriously rethink Capitalism... and a global economic collapse was something MIT already predicted in 2012 as an occurrence by 2030.
We don't need to threaten people with basic necessities in order to get them to work... in fact, this is creating a ridiculous number of useless jobs which are shuffling money for the sake of it (over 90% of current economy is based on jobs that do absolutely nothing of real value to society or world at large - and the work on which civilization as we know it exists on, is already largely done by automation).
as a chemistry channel you should've mentioned ocean acidification during the ' shading section '
There is a small advantage of those blooms though, they trap a large amount of carbon from what I know as a good chunk of the bloom won't be digested on the surface instead floating down the to ocean floor. This isn't a GOOD option to be sure with how much it would disrupt aqua lifeforms...
How about planting trees?
Humans rather imagine a supervillainesque plan than to imagine the end of capitalism.
Embrace the change!
Surprised they didn’t mention the possible space trash issue with the orbital options
Mike Manning
Afaik most space-mirror proposals are well above low earth orbit, putting them (and potential trash) well out of the danger-zone.
I'm surprised they didn't talk more about the multitude of other caveats when it comes to these 3 "ways to fight climate change".
A. Horse good to know, thanks! I didn’t realize that the space trash is less of an issue further from earths orbit
Well we can farm algea for cow food in artificial lacks
Or we could just farm Canada, Siberia, Antarctica, and Alaska. Just get down with the sickness!
Don't you people watch Futurama? The answer's been there all along:
th-cam.com/video/6cjx4gJFME0/w-d-xo.html
How about using solar energy to power giant air conditioners?
AAAAHHH its tooo hot....
deploy the solar mirrors please
First (without notis and just discovered your channel)
I know exactly how to cool the planet just throw ice at the ground or at the ocean that should solve everything
I would be so embarrassed to talk shit of this caliber
J
Abolish capitalism