Unit 3: Reducing Sources
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- How can we stop harmful emissions in their tracks? Discover fascinating, up-to-date methods for halting emissions before they reach the atmosphere. This unit walks through the five largest sources of greenhouse gases-electricity, food, industry, transportation, and buildings-bringing the path to a safer, low-carbon economy into sharper relief. Learn which sources make up the biggest slices of the global emissions pie.
All unit videos are now available with both English and Spanish subtitles.
Learn more at drawdown.org/climate-solutions-101.
Sign up to receive updates, provide ideas, and share how you will use Climate Solutions 101 in your classroom or community. bit.ly/ClimateSolutions101AndYou
Twitter: @ProjectDrawdown
Instagram: @ProjectDrawdown
Facebook: Project Drawdown
#ClimateSolutions101
WHAT IS CLIMATE SOLUTIONS 101?
Your climate solutions journey begins now. Filled with the latest need-to-know science and fascinating insights from global leaders in climate policy, research, investment, and beyond, this video series is a brain-shift toward a brighter climate reality.
Climate Solutions 101 is the world’s first major educational effort focused solely on solutions. Rather than rehashing well-known climate challenges, Project Drawdown centers game-changing climate action based on its own rigorous scientific research and analysis. This course, presented in video units and in-depth conversations, combines Project Drawdown’s trusted resources with the expertise of several inspiring voices from around the world. Climate solutions become attainable with increased access to free, science-based educational resources, elevated public discourse, and tangible examples of real-world action. Continue your climate solutions journey, today. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Project Drawdown welcomes comments on our videos. While we are open to diverse viewpoints, comments should move conversations forward constructively toward solutions. We reserve the right to edit, delete, or not publish comments we deem to contain inappropriate content, including name calling, offensive language, verbal abuse, etc. Comments that are self-promoting in nature and offer little to the conversation will likely not be approved.
Love this. Have read the book twice and it did an incredible job of providing objective, concise, useful information while instilling in me a stronger sense of hope than I've felt in decades. As I continue watching your videos, I hope to hear more about regenerative agriculture. When people use dietary advice as a cudgel that moonlights as virtue-signaling, it's not just ineffectual but actually turns people away. I'm glad Project Drawdown seems to understand that it's much more effective to provide people with positive choices to lead the life they want to lead than it is to condescendingly imply that people who choose to model certain cultural stereotypes are exclusively the good guys. It's time to start seeing people with whom we disagree as the good guys too. That's the only way to make the world better.
Love this series!
Very informatative! Thank you for all the work you do in this area.
I've seen your breakdown for carbon footprints a few times, and I noticed that military is not included. I have seen from several sources that military contributes a considerable amount to the US C footprint. I was wondering if you had any comments about that?
I assume the electricity sector intersects with all others?
The pie chart makes them look mutually exclusive though 2:37
THANK !!! you… Finally! Somebody who understands how to break down a problem!
Wow! I’ve been looking for a Pareto chart for three months!
Ok, Follow up questions:
(1) Where is Haber-Bosch steam reforming for urea and ammonia?
I am thinking it’s about 2% of total CO2, but I’m trying to land that one in its proper pie slice.
(2) I’m desperate to see what you’d get if you aggregate all the “other” chunks and then look for a solvable low-hanging fruit. Intuitively. I’ll check your website.
(3) Are you sure about ocean transport? I understood cruise ships were insane. Super yachts too. However that may have been political anger by those writers. CO2 per capita would, no doubt, be an incendiary chart. (No pun intended…)
(4) Suggest you do one for “start“ and then “12 months, 24 months… etc. Then you can bring in various political vapor ware and show budget vs actual, etc.
NICE WORK Y’ALL!
So far so good, but .... Plant-based ≠ Lettuce.
The narrated contnent of this series is A+. The broll is distracting canned footage. I think I understand the creative motivation: visually support what is being said. But dang, if the visual is not germane to the spoken word CUT IT!
This is excellent. But I a question relating to carbon emissions derived from conflict, wars, and collapse of local socio-environmental systems.
Your videos are really well made and explained. I would just like to propose a critical component: I sense a gap in the discourse, when I hear "we could bring these emissions to zero", and then when you (rightly) explain that raising animals for food is a huge part of the climate footprint but you go on saying "we could easily reduce the intake of meat". Why not say that it's also an option to entirely ditch animal products? If we aim to bring the emissions closer to zero than possible, then advocating for vegetarianism and veganism could be part of the solution. Perhaps not everyone will agree, but the message could be clearer.
As a 20-year plus vegan myself, this resonates. On the flip side of that, I'm wary of the "personal choices" rhetoric. We need societal rule changes, like a carbon tax that incentivizes people to do the right thing even if they're not particularly altruistic.
@@ClayShentrup Good point, thanks!
Thanks for the informative video! What can I do as average citizen to advocate for these necesary government policies (beyond voting and protesting)? It seems difficult to get our leaders to respond to climate change, especially given how corporations basically control them.
That's a *great* question! I wish I know the answer. But one suggestion: If you haven't already, you might consider joining a group like 350.org or Citizen's Climate Lobby (citizensclimatelobby.org/) working to influence elected officials to take action on the climate emergency. I've started contacting my three members of congress every few months - that takes more effort than voting every 2 years but it's still very manageable.
This is why I talk about the need for better voting methods and legislative juries. So for instance I co-founded a nonprofit that brought approval voting to Fargo and St Louis. This just means you can vote for as many candidates as you want to. It tends to elect broadly appealing candidates rather than the fringes, and would basically end our polarized tribal two-party duopoly. This would lessen our lizard brain tribal thinking where we pick a tribe and then adopt whatever policies are emblematic of that tribe without thinking about the substance of them. Then you have things like sortition and deliberative democracy where random citizens act like a jury on legislation. They end up being much smarter by the end of the process than the average citizen because they have been forced to watch hours of expert testimony and ask questions and debate.
Debemos hacer cambios entorno a lo que hacemos hoy ,para que nuestros hijos sientan y conozcan el problema del cambio climático y su futuro.
I know people who avoid products with palm oil because of the deforestation. The problem is they then just buy some other product with a different oil. Palm oil is actually more land efficient compared to other oils, so switching to other oils could actually be worse. Better to avoid prepackaged foods and unnecessary oils altogether.
Se debe dar mas importancia a las energías renovables, evitar los pesticidas en el pasado no los utizaban
So if electricity production eats such a large chunk then it means that solar and wind really not that unimportant as deniers say it is. And more renewable electricity is only a matter of investments, it can be done easier than forcing all people to take only public transport and the bike.
I thought that cement, plastics and even transport were more important contributors. Going veggie seems also more important than skipping the yearly plane vacation. It's not possible , to force everybody to skip meat. Meat could be taxed more though with the money used to lower the price of fruits, vegetable products which are for the moment more expensive than cheap meat on some places.
Why don't we just use Nuclear energy for a couple of thousands of years while we try and find more alternative fuel sources? The US Gov and military uses it and it's safe.
To elaborate, I get that there are safety precautions and hurdles, but if people were rational in pushing climate change we should find efficient ways to utilize nuclear energy, but whenever a common man think 'Nuclear' they automatically asume it's bad. Becuase of this, people have been even more scared causing a raise in question to safety concerns, which has then raised costs of building plants. If people just did their homework we wouldn't be in this position of struggling to find resources before the Earths time runs out.
About fencing off forests ... The main driver of deforestation is ... wait for it ... clearing land to grow animal feed. Which animals? All of them. Farmed fish, chicken, pig, whatever. Eat less fried chicken, no fences needed.
This will only happen if you add a huge carbon tax. But to make that politically possible requires big political changes. Like approval voting.
Nope, thanks for blaming animals.