🌍 What other topics would you like me to explore? 👍 Commenting and liking this video helps get more views. So, if you want... comment, like, and share the video around!! 🔗 If you want to share an OCC here is a list of relevant groups: www.notion.so/Sharing-OCC-videos-7df6b0acf66b4748a76ffab52cf67aa0
I'm not sure if you've already covered this topic, but is there a way we can use psychology to help people contribute to combating climate change? Surely if could be employed to get consumers to reduce meat (particularly cow) and dairy intake and to better control their consumption habits? As for those who think it unethical: if the marketing world is allowed to continue its practices, then above goal is far more worthwhile.
Hi 👋 would a carbon tax work and what would be the best way to implement it? Also, another idea i had, that isnt really talked about much, is how convenience affects environmentally friendly decisions. For example, plastics and fast food are convenient, but really affect the environment and carbon emissions
This is one of the biggest reasons to preserve historic buildings: they have what's called embodied energy. Basically, if the building was already built, then the energy (and carbon emissions) of gathering its materials and constructing it have already happened. There's a much lower carbon footprint to repairing and maintaining a historic building than there is to tearing it down and building a new one in its place.
Older buildings however also consume more energy for heating & cooling, as many were built when energy efficiency laws were less strict or even non-existant, when modern materials & energy-saving technologies were not yet developed, and the science was less understood.
@@jonathantan2469 while that's largely true, historic preservation standards in the US almost never prevent utility updates. There's ways to update the electricity, HVAC, and plumbing. Not to mention that many older materials actually do preserve temperatures better than modern ones. Plaster and hardwood is far more insulating than studs and drywall. Vernacular architecture (building styles common to a geographic region) are also adapted to their local climates, like steep roofs in New England or wraparound porches in the South.
@@airohi96 not at all. First, gentrification involves an entire neighborhood (typically in an urban environment), not just a single building (and historic buildings can be anywhere from the countryside to the city). Second, gentrification also involves wealthier, privileged people moving into a community of poorer, less privileged people and forcing them out of their old homes. It's entirely possible to fix up an old building and have its original inhabitants continue to use it.
Kind of surprised to see the video is in partnership with Bill Gates, his views on capitalism and geoengineering makes me think the solutions he proposes for climate change will either fall way short of the huge changes we need, or are outright dangerous or demonstrate the same type of hubristic thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
I think it was just an avenue to make some bucks, which I can't condemn. OCC has been vocal about how they think our methods of production and consumption have to change in order to avoid catastrophe.
I understand and generally agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure how you find scale-able solutions without technological progress? Surely the pandemic has demonstrated that even the most simplistic "common good" behavior changes are hard to deploy widely, I'm not sure how we can expect social change to deliver us the reductions we need to see in the timeframes available.
Bill Gates thinks that we can solve this problem simply by using money and technology. It's rather convenient that there is no conversation about systemic change. I'm from India and we have been making our houses sustainably using local resources like mud, stone and bamboo for many centuries now. We already have the solutions and alternatives. Unfortunately, they are not glamorous enough to have the attention of Silicon Valley.
Yea, in the matter of 2 words "Bill Gates" this channel lost me forever. Nothing like being propped up by one of the most ghoulish hyper-capitalists GENERATING climate change while exploiting millions.
in the end we need to think about our consumption and resource use but nobody wants to advocate for actual restrictions and large scale changes to our modern lifestyle
I'm sorry but i can't see any sense in your approach or at least i can see it if you confine it in no seismic areas with a low density of inhabitants. That becomes vernacular architecture, that i love. A huge chunk of countries, with their high urban density cities, are localized on seismic ground, from centuries or millennials. They have always fought against earthquakes to survive. Think about Japan, Italy, middle East. I really care about this problem but unless we are going to start building everything, sort of, with CLT technology, with all its limits, we still have to continue to use the best material on the market to assure the safety of infrastructure and buildings. The reality is that just research, technology and a less greedy market, could mitigate the problem. At the moment there is no solution at all. The energy efficiency of concrete constructions is pathetic, it's cost during the decades is stellar, the pollution caused by demolitions it's outrageous but... We could dialogue for ages about this topic.
And we haven’t even talked about sand yet. Concrete’s use of the very finite reserves of sea sand is a HUGE problem at our doorsteps that only few want to see.
Being a safety scientist and knowing the cement industry from the inside-out, I can easily a show you that the dangerous and environmental hazards that have been presented here are not even one percent of the reality of cement industry. The alternates for cement have existed since 1968 but no one, no government is investing.
@@74thartillery__ Cavemen used technology and it is because of them we advanced in the first place, are you to disregard thousands of years of progress to the winds, ruin millions of lives further than they already are and destroy the environment further due to the lack of plants and animals from said history of humanity just to fuel a hunter gatherer lifestyle? It is simply implausible to do at this time and it would be far easier and more effective to keep advancing technologically so we can fix what we wronged.
One of the most important aspects of being an engineer is coming up with solutions within given limitations. Your new limitation seems to be using new materials, so you should look forward to being innovative.
Many things on earth release carbon. But what doesn’t is plants and trees. They actually make use of carbon. What cement does is create less space for the bioverse that balanced carbon in the atosphere. The focus should be on the greening of the planet to bring back that balance.
Late reply, but the claim that plants dont release carbon dioxide is objectively not true as when the plant dies all carbon it has bound will be released back into the carbon cycle. For long term solution we must be able to effectively remove the extra carbon we injected into the atmosphere. Problem is all carbon storage failed as of now. More greenspace would give us time still.
Or cob. Which is essentially dirt under your feet. There are many substitutes for cement in bricks. Not so many for cement in building foundations though...
I used to work as a chemical engineer at a cement factory in the united states. In the short 2.5 years I was there emissions were reduced DRASTICALLY. CO2 capture in the cement manufacturing process is actually one of the easiest methods to capture co2 with being able to use an electrostatic precipitator and a compressor you leave with almost 99.9% clean co2 which can then effectively be used in many other technologies. The problem is the sheer volume of co2 produced and the cost expected of cement makes it just not economical for the most part. The plant I worked in commissioned a carbon capture setup and ended up selling the gas to Praxair Which maybe is not the best way to handle it and it was for only a fraction of the total production. Even if the plant did fully decarbonize it would make the cement not price competitive with foreign cement(or even non-decarbonized domestic cement). I think the simplest and easiest solution would be to just subsidize carbon capture with carbon tax credits of some kind. The aggregate you presented based on the extraction of CO2 from flue gas(assuming a gas fired power plant capture or similar). Is something I haven't heard of before. I am curious on how the aggregatge preforms under shear stress, but as always more research is needed.
All due respect, the two solutions presented here are nowhere near good enough (though I know that's not what you were trying to make them out to be). You mention that factory curing inhibits the applicability of the first one, but that's quite an understatement. While I would probably endorse a cultural shift to less (but not none at all) high-rises in favour of more low-rise buildings, in fact far less building overall, ex-situ cement curing pretty much eliminates most of our best building techniques. Building techniques which would also contribute to lower emissions, by the way. Theres something to be said about smaller-scale use of this one, but its simply not a very flexible building material, and CLT or some other non-cementitious alternatives would likely be better for emissions as well as material properties on a smaller-scale anyway. Concerning the second one, it reminds me of why the focus on certain supplementary cementing materials as "sustainable" really bothers me. Some of the most prominent of these, like fly ash or slag, come from a similar source as the flue-gas-aggregate you mentioned here. That is, they all rely on the continued production of things like coal energy, steel, or flue gas to continue working as a solution. The way I see it, these "solutions" only exist for as long as we continue to predominantly rely on unsustainable industries elsewhere; pretty lacklustre. What's more, I'm sceptical of the water-resistance of this one because it's a non-hydrating cement, but the developers may have found a way around this. As a student/researcher in material engineering, I'm definitely going to continue searching for and attempting to develop long-term solutions for building materials. There are many promising paths in front of us in this regard, and the ones that you've chosen to present here are likely to be instrumental in their own right. But the more work I do in this field the clearer it becomes that the only acceptable path forward (in terms of sustainability) is a gigantic cultural and political shift. I know that its a meme to blame everything on capitalism, but that viewpoint is not without its merits. The capitalist may think that constructing their housing development by using the most modern green technologies will contribute to our global climate goals while still lining their pockets. The capitalist, here, IS WRONG. Many such "green" developments do not even begin to offset emissions that would be generated by a regular development until AFTER 2050 [1], because their efficiency is in their use-phase rather than in their production processes. The optimal solution, often, would be to never construct the development in the first place. Or, if more housing is required by the population, updating existing structures is more efficient (but less profitable, and more political) than constructing entirely new ones. The primary object of the invisible hand of capitalism will never be sustainability, at it will require incredible legislative leaps to make it appear as such to the capitalists. Here's the one source I cited. I can provide more if need be. It's good to keep in mind the time-scale on which alleged "sustainability" will occur: [1]: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034037
the problem is not many persons will take the time and search and read different information. they will just watch this video and then bring it up in a conversation and feel good.
In regards to the last part of your comment about capitalism: I think there are very easy legislative options to limit the effects of a free market on climate change. An Emissions trading system for example is quite simple to implement, I think. The hard part is getting everyone to do it internationally. Because whichever country moves first, loses economically.
@@thomasna5158 Cap and trade schemes are easy to implement, but whether or not hey are optimal for what we are talking about is another story. I reccomend the paper "Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap-and-Trade" by Richard Schmalensee and Robert N. Stavins Regarding international agreements, this game theoretic exposition of those might shed some light onto why I feel the way I do. VERY rewarding read, but quite dense. "Coordination vs. voluntarism and enforcement in sustaining international environmental cooperation" By Scott Barrett
"The optimal solution, often, would be to never construct the development in the first place" Well there's a lame-brain thought process but thank you for declaring what many people apparently think. We don't need no steenkin houses; but you enjoy using a COMPUTER and all the electricity it requires to operate! Do you live in a mud house without electricity? No?
how durable is it though? Because if it's not, we need to see if those bricks can be re-recycled and for how long. Otherwise, we'll just use more and more plastic, with even fewer incentives to stop using it altogether, and we'll still pollute our environment once the bricks aren't useful or useable anymore.
While I like the idea of reusing plastic as pavers and other useful things in the short term? Plastic is flammable. Earthbag construction is perhaps a lot less flammable than a plastic house, but still a fairly inexpensive, less carbon-intensive construction method?
The emissions of manufacturing are also ignored when some ’eco-friendly’ equipment are sold. Solar panels, electric cars, electric bikes, wind power…as long as fossil fuels are so cheap, they distort all calculations.
This is good to know but kinda bums me out. I'm doing a technical report designing a green roof and the deck of my roof is hollow core concrete slabs. Would have been cool to include this as an alternative
I am undergrad civil engineering student in Edinburgh Scotland, I have been studying a lot about clt and glulam it’s kind of my institutions big thing right now. What’s it like where you are
@@TheErmerm999 I'm also in civil :) I'm doing my technology diploma before starting university this summer we haven't learned about anything like that yet bit university may be different. Mostly learning about soil compositions, road and structure design and surveying
I would recommend the book our final warning. Six degrees of climate emergency to you. It is a very scientific book with all of the scenarios that play out right now and will in the future with the warming climate
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
@@Srijit1946 THAT'S why the video cuts off so harsh at the end! I'm glad he did that, as I really disliked the idea of a billionaire selling poor people a book with ideas on how maybe they can go about fixing his mess in a way that makes sure to make him more money.
@@TheErmerm999 each individual step toward decreasing our carbon footprint is a good step. CLT doesn't need to be a one size fit all to replace all uses of concrete. For instance, it's great for mid-rise housing.
My current favourite building material is large leggo blocks from recycled plastic but I'm not sure how that compares . .I love it that whilst the rest of the world is screeching about climate change ,others are quietly doing their bit and inventing better goods ...creatively ...I also note that low tech countries are inventing very simple methods to make use of our rubbish ...it is heartwarming
It's Bill Gates that says that we have to arrive to zero until 2050. It's related to his book and you can watch him saying the same on his TH-cam channel.
@@aronseptianto8142 You swer?? OMG I HAD NO IDEA Dude, Yes, it is counting with plants and microbes. In that countries territory. But, there are lots of phytoplancton and algae on the ocean that absorb lots of carbon to. And they don't count in the carbon neutral because those parts of the ocean are NOT parts of the countries territory
In the province of Quebec, Canada, cement and concrete production accounts for about 3% of all emissions. Smelting of metal is about 9%, which is nearly as much as agriculture.
You should really do a video on farming insects for food. I have heard that eating insects is very common outside of the West. I have also heard that farming insects for food could potentially use less water and fewer resources, while producing fewer CO2 emissions, compared to most traditional livestock, such as beef.
Thank you for the great video! I know you have a limited time to work on your videos and you want to be specific but I feel you really missed on talking about the crazy supply-chain of sand (which is in large part for concrete), which is depleting the stocks of sand in many ecosystems. Also I think it would have been great to talk about other alternatives that are not so closely trying to resemble the material and process of concrete (i.e. cross-laminated timber, fungi - These seem to me like much better alternatives from a degrowth and circular-bioeconomy perspective). Just my two cents
You left out that concrete leads to higher temperatures in concrete laden cities and more flooding because water absorbing grass is torn out and replaced by concrete that forces water to drain into sewers and natural water reservoirs that back up and/or flood.
interesting, never realised this! Also, an audio tip for your video: try using a 'de-esser' effect, found in most audio software. The 'sss' sound is loud for headphone users
Using other materials such as wood needs to be explored as well. But honestly, at the enormous rates that we are buildung stuff, it would propably not be susuainable anymore either. We would need a lot of reforestation along the way. But it's interesting from a technology standpoint. I saw some documentary the other day, where a company was making building plates out of straw. They were pressed so they were not flammable and could be used for both structural support and heat isolation. But again, probably only really applicable to fancy free standing homes for the rich, that take up more unused land, as opposed to affordable houding in the cities...
This is a big issue, because honest there is no real substitute either for concrete or steel. And, it is simply not feasible to only build with wood and mud as people suggest... Build a house with mud, the just wait until the next earthquake to see how it levels the whole city... We need innovation but probably the best option is to develp ways to cature the produced CO2, and focus on the industries that already have solutions like power generation and transportation...
*I wouldn't 'hold my breath' on this issue* *Concrete is readily available and thus far in human history we've nothing to equal it's immense strength and durability...concrete made during the 'Empire of Rome' is still present and fully-functional to it's purpose, such as road-beds and 'footings' for large structures that would 'self-bury' into the earth beneath them without concrete to 'snow-shoe' the weight proportionally*
Why we need buildings to last for centuries, apart from a few iconic structures? Most will be demolished in a few decades when it is cheaper to rebuild than to renovate.
Being that we should be going into the next ice age right now, I had a real concern that we would decrease our co2 output to much. Thanks to this video I no longer have that fear. Let the concrete pour!!
With my limited understanding - the other issue with concrete is sand, no? Richer countries are buying sand from poor countries that are getting smaller.... as i have read reports on mainstream media.
People use a lot of cement in places where it makes no sense because of the climate, like India or Sri Lanka. Cement traps heat so these cement houses become unlivable or unlivable without an AC. I really like the concept of mud houses and straw bale houses. Good for the environment while also staying naturally cooler. This is the way go.
This video perpetuates a couple of climate change myths. 1. Blaming the third world (China and India in this video) The reality is the US is responsible for more green house gas emissions that any other country, it's just that those countries are modernizing now while the us is already modernized. 2. That the problem of climate change is a problem of technology. We have had the technology to stop climate change for over half a century. The capitalist class however makes very much money off of fossil fuels and the radical change necessary to stopping climate change is a threat to their profits. The only reason they support some efforts now is that they own/are invested in them and can now make money from them.
I would love to see more stuff about personal choices that can make a difference especially around home construction and appliances, like fridges, insulation , and they could also be about those industries!!
Never did anything with the product, but I found a way to skip firing clay like in terracotta bricks or roof tiles with a cold chemical processes I called bogging. I called it oil ceramics, is a bit different than fired clay, repeals water and is less brittle, still the same clay.
@@joaquimbarbosa896 poor bill, forced to destroy the earth with his toxic computers because we simple keep buying them. It's our fault really, what could he possibly do, he's forced to make them because people will buy them.
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
Emissions from livestock account for about 14.5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, globally, and roughly two thirds of those emissions come from cattle - mostly from methane burped by cows, growing feed and clearing land for grazing and feed crops
Waaaaaw c’est vraiment pour ce genre de vidéo que je suis abonnée : je savais pas du tout que le béton polluait et en plus j’apprends des mots en anglais :) Ce fait est intéressant même si à notre échelle on peut rien faire thanks !!!
on peut, a notre echelle. On peut decider de ne pas construire une nouvelle maison, de ne pas construire une extension sur notre propriete, de faire avec ce qui existe deja, de reparer, et de vivre "plus petit" (les vieilles maisons etant generalement plus petites que ce qui est souvent construit de nos jours. Et si on decide de construire, on peut aussi se renseigner sur les maisons ecologiques pour voir si c'est dans notre budget ou si on peut integrer certaines techniques ou materiaux a notre construction.
Would be cool if one of those alternatives proved sturdy enough to actually be used. Saw mentioned in another video that 'ash concrete' was less durable, but I'm not sure if that referred to the same thing mentioned in this video. Although I wonder what the carbon footprint for concrete buildings would be over time, with everything considered. Seeing they're durable, and allow for higher buildings (and thusly more dense population, which reduces traffic/need for roads and such). Like, how does that compare over 200 years to a building from less sturdy materials that needs to be rebuilt three times in that period, or a smaller building made from wood that leads to more space used per person? I'd guess it might still be not great, but maybe in perspective not necessarily much worse than the current alternatives (but no clue). But also, as other people have mentioned, there's so many empty buildings that are just being used for financial speculation (at least in several western countries I'm aware of). I suppose the RRRs of waste also apply to building, meaning Reduce comes first, then Repair.
Definitely great things too think about. And you're right, we should put regulations in place to ensure there are no vacant buildings or houses, it would reduce our current building rate.
There are lots of cheap alternative materials like bamboo and earth that have 0 or negative carbon footprint. Most of problems with this materials is not in resistance or safety as most people would think, but in escale and workforce. Little to no research has been done do develope ways to build with this materials in a scale that would chepen its manual work cost and make it competitive to concrete (the raw material is cheapper, the work it takes to build it's not). yet there're iniciatives, for me the most promissing it's the prefabrication of rammed earth walls, look it up The biggest hindrance it's the lack of regulation for this type of alternative material, which is itself a product of the concrete manufacturers lobbying against it
Loved this episode! So very glad you decided to make this. I already knew of the unenvironmental aspect of concrete, but this really helped me to learn more about it!
How is solidia's foot print different from traditional concrete? That also absorbs co2 as it cures, that's how cement works: you remove the co2 from carbonates, obtaining calcium oxides (there's other components, but that's the basis of it) then when you mix it with water, the calcium oxides reabsorb co2, to harden back into carbonates. Also why didn't you mention wooden construction? With a well managed lumber source, there's arguably no building material more eco-friendly than plant material, and we already know how to do it, even big buildings too.
So you asked for other topic. How about Carbon Scrubbers? You know it’s been around for a while and it would be fun to see why they aren’t used? You know it’s funny when we found out how bad asbestos was, we still haven’t really found a great substitute. Wonder why.
Carbon / charcoal compressed bricks with bonding resin. Can build structures like multi storey homes. Water proof, sound proof, high R value. Around 30% as strong as cement without rebar. Not good for the big stuff tho like dams bridges or carparks. Still amazing.
@@vIBEDoUT-Channel money is a really good way of making transactions, because it's easily comparable. What shouldn't exist is they way the whole world worships money and deals with it (in the broad sense of the term deal).
How could you use mud bricks in the standardized building industry? Can you think to produce a minimum of 100.000 pieces per day, that is nothing, around the world? That element is ideal for low raise buildings in no seismic areas, like Africa and many parts of Asia or South America but with a low demographic index.
You forgot to mention another important side of the concrete problem: the transformation of green, carbon-absorbing, water retaining spaces into solid rock air-heating ones. No matter how small is the patch you are transforming: taking it from plants to concrete plumbets the biodiversity of the area and its capacity to absorb carbon. Now imagine what kilometers of concrete without green gallerys and green roofs is the doing to the planet. My friends: time to break some unnecessary cement and/or cover things with native plants.
Why is it sad? Bill Gates has spent billions trying to make a difference in the world. He's not trying to put a microchip in your arm and he does not eat babies.
@@MilanCz259 what makes you think that I think that ? Sad because we still think that billionaires are the solution and not the symptom of the problem.
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
Hey OCC, I wanted to ask why you mentioned 2050 as the zero emissions target year instead of 2030, I would hate for people to forget that 2050 is only because we aren't properly committing to what scientists originally wanted
Zero emisjon? That is not possible. Then you and all living must die. Nature must die and the inner core of the earth must get cold. Most of so called emission is from nature, Then i include you. Your emisjon is 600 litres ore 1,5 kg of Co2 in 24 hours. That is not a bad thing. Co2 makes plants grow. The world is not in crisis. We live in a good time. It is the propaganda that is bad! The world is NOT heating up. Dr. Roy Spencer keeps an eye on temperatures where they should be measured: www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. 1850 was the COLDEST in 10 000 years.Since then it has got just a little varmer. Last 20 years NO warming. Take a look at this film from ice core drilling at Greenland. Done by the university of Copenhagen: th-cam.com/video/pW16LGVPfIc/w-d-xo.html Then lay back and relax! Keep your environment clean and recycle all you can!
@@arnehofoss9109 Common consensus amongst scientists is greater than the opinions of a few scientists. The overwhelming majority recognise that man made climate change is a big issue we're facing. You're right about nature fluctuating even without human involvement. But as far as I can remember from the SR15, I think about 0.6°C of the 0.7°C temperature increase was from human contributions, with only 0.1°C being from natural causes (these are rough numbers but the idea is that humans are the drivers behind most of the current warming). Make no mistake, we're experiencing an accelerated warming that would normally unfold much slower if we weren't pumping so much fossil fuels into the atmosphere. The only people who benefit from people like you and I not believing in the climate crisis are the guilty fossil fuel companies that have been polluting for decades. The hundreds of thousands of scientists doing studies and reporting what they find aren't generating insane profits from climate inaction/action
Avouding even 2° over the pre-industrial average before 2050 seems incredibly optimistic. The Video was very well done, however. Putting the sections of our carbon emissions out there clearly really shows how intersectional our approach must be. No one faction can deal with this by themselves.
In UK old houses had thatch roofs so why not new houses. Reeds grows consuming carbon with no factories to produce bricks etc & all areas grow there own reede so cuts travel polution.
I believe that with innovation, all industrial processes can be friendly to nature. Perfect to script but you have to keep going deeper and deeper into creativity to find new sustainable alternatives. I think there could be a lot of work for content creators who start to create awareness, and move the imagination so that things get better and better.
Maybe you have this explanation in a previous video (if so, I apologize), but what is a capillary web system, in the context of cities and infrastructure?
Concrete is mostly used for highways and monstrous buildings like T-Center in Vienna, all of which create hostile environments (I go to school located near the T-Center and a highway junction). We love small and human-scaled buildings, so why not build them using other materials such as wood and brick, all of which use less energy than concrete and are more beautiful?
2/3 of land is dessert and growing,a process called desertification. Successful efforts are underway to reverse this. This needs to have attention. It's the most promising fix with massive CO2 reduction.
🌍 What other topics would you like me to explore?
👍 Commenting and liking this video helps get more views. So, if you want... comment, like, and share the video around!!
🔗 If you want to share an OCC here is a list of relevant groups: www.notion.so/Sharing-OCC-videos-7df6b0acf66b4748a76ffab52cf67aa0
Could you do a video on Plastic Bank and OceanHero?
I'm not sure if you've already covered this topic, but is there a way we can use psychology to help people contribute to combating climate change? Surely if could be employed to get consumers to reduce meat (particularly cow) and dairy intake and to better control their consumption habits?
As for those who think it unethical: if the marketing world is allowed to continue its practices, then above goal is far more worthwhile.
Why noise pollution is a problem.
You should really do a video on farming insects for food.
Hi 👋 would a carbon tax work and what would be the best way to implement it? Also, another idea i had, that isnt really talked about much, is how convenience affects environmentally friendly decisions. For example, plastics and fast food are convenient, but really affect the environment and carbon emissions
This is one of the biggest reasons to preserve historic buildings: they have what's called embodied energy. Basically, if the building was already built, then the energy (and carbon emissions) of gathering its materials and constructing it have already happened. There's a much lower carbon footprint to repairing and maintaining a historic building than there is to tearing it down and building a new one in its place.
Older buildings however also consume more energy for heating & cooling, as many were built when energy efficiency laws were less strict or even non-existant, when modern materials & energy-saving technologies were not yet developed, and the science was less understood.
@@jonathantan2469 while that's largely true, historic preservation standards in the US almost never prevent utility updates. There's ways to update the electricity, HVAC, and plumbing.
Not to mention that many older materials actually do preserve temperatures better than modern ones. Plaster and hardwood is far more insulating than studs and drywall. Vernacular architecture (building styles common to a geographic region) are also adapted to their local climates, like steep roofs in New England or wraparound porches in the South.
repairing an old building and using it is called gentrification
@@airohi96 not at all. First, gentrification involves an entire neighborhood (typically in an urban environment), not just a single building (and historic buildings can be anywhere from the countryside to the city).
Second, gentrification also involves wealthier, privileged people moving into a community of poorer, less privileged people and forcing them out of their old homes. It's entirely possible to fix up an old building and have its original inhabitants continue to use it.
@@doomkitty8386 oh
Man you should consider a podcast! This was super informative and your voice is super calming.
Agree! I love the skill of the video design, but I definitely spend more time with podcasts than youtube.
100% agree! I need that voice in my headphones!
Agree 110 %!
Podcast with Rollie from Climate Town! He's hilarious!
@@huburgalula4031 @OurChangingClimate - please make this a thing.
Kind of surprised to see the video is in partnership with Bill Gates, his views on capitalism and geoengineering makes me think the solutions he proposes for climate change will either fall way short of the huge changes we need, or are outright dangerous or demonstrate the same type of hubristic thinking that got us in this mess in the first place.
Just read the book, it gives a lot of insight into what he thinks we need to change
@@ashtongilbert suspicious of capitalist solutions to the problems they create? Buy their book to have your suspicions relieved. Sounds legit
I think it was just an avenue to make some bucks, which I can't condemn. OCC has been vocal about how they think our methods of production and consumption have to change in order to avoid catastrophe.
I understand and generally agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure how you find scale-able solutions without technological progress? Surely the pandemic has demonstrated that even the most simplistic "common good" behavior changes are hard to deploy widely, I'm not sure how we can expect social change to deliver us the reductions we need to see in the timeframes available.
Bill gates is a sociopath capitalist
Bill Gates thinks that we can solve this problem simply by using money and technology. It's rather convenient that there is no conversation about systemic change.
I'm from India and we have been making our houses sustainably using local resources like mud, stone and bamboo for many centuries now. We already have the solutions and alternatives. Unfortunately, they are not glamorous enough to have the attention of Silicon Valley.
Yea, in the matter of 2 words "Bill Gates" this channel lost me forever. Nothing like being propped up by one of the most ghoulish hyper-capitalists GENERATING climate change while exploiting millions.
The Himalayas are in India...
i don't think you can build a skyscraper out of bamboo and mud. If you can then you are right
in the end we need to think about our consumption and resource use but nobody wants to advocate for actual restrictions and large scale changes to our modern lifestyle
I'm sorry but i can't see any sense in your approach or at least i can see it if you confine it in no seismic areas with a low density of inhabitants. That becomes vernacular architecture, that i love.
A huge chunk of countries, with their high urban density cities, are localized on seismic ground, from centuries or millennials. They have always fought against earthquakes to survive. Think about Japan, Italy, middle East.
I really care about this problem but unless we are going to start building everything, sort of, with CLT technology, with all its limits, we still have to continue to use the best material on the market to assure the safety of infrastructure and buildings.
The reality is that just research, technology and a less greedy market, could mitigate the problem.
At the moment there is no solution at all.
The energy efficiency of concrete constructions is pathetic, it's cost during the decades is stellar, the pollution caused by demolitions it's outrageous but... We could dialogue for ages about this topic.
And we haven’t even talked about sand yet. Concrete’s use of the very finite reserves of sea sand is a HUGE problem at our doorsteps that only few want to see.
Being a safety scientist and knowing the cement industry from the inside-out, I can easily a show you that the dangerous and environmental hazards that have been presented here are not even one percent of the reality of cement industry. The alternates for cement have existed since 1968 but no one, no government is investing.
What are the alternatives?
@@khareef9004
reject all technology and live like our ancestor a caveman
@@74thartillery__ Cavemen used technology and it is because of them we advanced in the first place, are you to disregard thousands of years of progress to the winds, ruin millions of lives further than they already are and destroy the environment further due to the lack of plants and animals from said history of humanity just to fuel a hunter gatherer lifestyle? It is simply implausible to do at this time and it would be far easier and more effective to keep advancing technologically so we can fix what we wronged.
im a civil engineer and i hate this
like 90% of my study is about concrete
And.....?
If you specialized in Geotechnic, 90% of your study would be about soil.
do you learn of wood or bamboo for subtitute of concrete?
One of the most important aspects of being an engineer is coming up with solutions within given limitations. Your new limitation seems to be using new materials, so you should look forward to being innovative.
@@freechurros and what
Huge missed opportunity to title the video "What's the concrete problem?"
Do you have concrete evidence to support that?
The thumbnail is enough lol
Many things on earth release carbon. But what doesn’t is plants and trees. They actually make use of carbon. What cement does is create less space for the bioverse that balanced carbon in the atosphere. The focus should be on the greening of the planet to bring back that balance.
All life is carbon on earth.we are a carbon life form.this video is propaganda.
@@mikemills8568 How so?
Late reply, but the claim that plants dont release carbon dioxide is objectively not true as when the plant dies all carbon it has bound will be released back into the carbon cycle. For long term solution we must be able to effectively remove the extra carbon we injected into the atmosphere. Problem is all carbon storage failed as of now. More greenspace would give us time still.
I've seen bricks being made out of certain kinds of mushrooms. I'd be interested to see how that could fit into this
Also sewage sludge!
and bricks made from plastic that are 3x stronger than normal bricks!
Or cob. Which is essentially dirt under your feet. There are many substitutes for cement in bricks. Not so many for cement in building foundations though...
@@froggygirl999 is it sustainable?
@@imiy what do you mean is it sustainable? It's literally recycling.
I used to work as a chemical engineer at a cement factory in the united states. In the short 2.5 years I was there emissions were reduced DRASTICALLY. CO2 capture in the cement manufacturing process is actually one of the easiest methods to capture co2 with being able to use an electrostatic precipitator and a compressor you leave with almost 99.9% clean co2 which can then effectively be used in many other technologies. The problem is the sheer volume of co2 produced and the cost expected of cement makes it just not economical for the most part. The plant I worked in commissioned a carbon capture setup and ended up selling the gas to Praxair Which maybe is not the best way to handle it and it was for only a fraction of the total production.
Even if the plant did fully decarbonize it would make the cement not price competitive with foreign cement(or even non-decarbonized domestic cement). I think the simplest and easiest solution would be to just subsidize carbon capture with carbon tax credits of some kind. The aggregate you presented based on the extraction of CO2 from flue gas(assuming a gas fired power plant capture or similar). Is something I haven't heard of before. I am curious on how the aggregatge preforms under shear stress, but as always more research is needed.
Answer: Yes.
All due respect, the two solutions presented here are nowhere near good enough (though I know that's not what you were trying to make them out to be). You mention that factory curing inhibits the applicability of the first one, but that's quite an understatement. While I would probably endorse a cultural shift to less (but not none at all) high-rises in favour of more low-rise buildings, in fact far less building overall, ex-situ cement curing pretty much eliminates most of our best building techniques. Building techniques which would also contribute to lower emissions, by the way. Theres something to be said about smaller-scale use of this one, but its simply not a very flexible building material, and CLT or some other non-cementitious alternatives would likely be better for emissions as well as material properties on a smaller-scale anyway.
Concerning the second one, it reminds me of why the focus on certain supplementary cementing materials as "sustainable" really bothers me. Some of the most prominent of these, like fly ash or slag, come from a similar source as the flue-gas-aggregate you mentioned here. That is, they all rely on the continued production of things like coal energy, steel, or flue gas to continue working as a solution. The way I see it, these "solutions" only exist for as long as we continue to predominantly rely on unsustainable industries elsewhere; pretty lacklustre. What's more, I'm sceptical of the water-resistance of this one because it's a non-hydrating cement, but the developers may have found a way around this.
As a student/researcher in material engineering, I'm definitely going to continue searching for and attempting to develop long-term solutions for building materials. There are many promising paths in front of us in this regard, and the ones that you've chosen to present here are likely to be instrumental in their own right. But the more work I do in this field the clearer it becomes that the only acceptable path forward (in terms of sustainability) is a gigantic cultural and political shift. I know that its a meme to blame everything on capitalism, but that viewpoint is not without its merits. The capitalist may think that constructing their housing development by using the most modern green technologies will contribute to our global climate goals while still lining their pockets. The capitalist, here, IS WRONG. Many such "green" developments do not even begin to offset emissions that would be generated by a regular development until AFTER 2050 [1], because their efficiency is in their use-phase rather than in their production processes. The optimal solution, often, would be to never construct the development in the first place. Or, if more housing is required by the population, updating existing structures is more efficient (but less profitable, and more political) than constructing entirely new ones. The primary object of the invisible hand of capitalism will never be sustainability, at it will require incredible legislative leaps to make it appear as such to the capitalists.
Here's the one source I cited. I can provide more if need be. It's good to keep in mind the time-scale on which alleged "sustainability" will occur:
[1]: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034037
the problem is not many persons will take the time and search and read different information. they will just watch this video and then bring it up in a conversation and feel good.
@@tammyleung7578 I couldn't agree more
In regards to the last part of your comment about capitalism:
I think there are very easy legislative options to limit the effects of a free market on climate change. An Emissions trading system for example is quite simple to implement, I think.
The hard part is getting everyone to do it internationally. Because whichever country moves first, loses economically.
@@thomasna5158 Cap and trade schemes are easy to implement, but whether or not hey are optimal for what we are talking about is another story. I reccomend the paper "Lessons Learned
from Three Decades
of Experience with
Cap-and-Trade" by Richard Schmalensee and Robert N. Stavins
Regarding international agreements, this game theoretic exposition of those might shed some light onto why I feel the way I do. VERY rewarding read, but quite dense. "Coordination vs. voluntarism and enforcement in
sustaining international environmental cooperation" By Scott Barrett
"The optimal solution, often, would be to never construct the development in the first place"
Well there's a lame-brain thought process but thank you for declaring what many people apparently think. We don't need no steenkin houses; but you enjoy using a COMPUTER and all the electricity it requires to operate! Do you live in a mud house without electricity? No?
I’ve seen people make bricks out of recycled plastic. Hopefully we can go in that direction
how durable is it though? Because if it's not, we need to see if those bricks can be re-recycled and for how long. Otherwise, we'll just use more and more plastic, with even fewer incentives to stop using it altogether, and we'll still pollute our environment once the bricks aren't useful or useable anymore.
While I like the idea of reusing plastic as pavers and other useful things in the short term? Plastic is flammable. Earthbag construction is perhaps a lot less flammable than a plastic house, but still a fairly inexpensive, less carbon-intensive construction method?
sounds good to just make do with the pile of trash we have now but i don't really see it scale well
If it's not post-consumer, I don't count it as "recycled plastic."
I like the idea of mud houses and straw bale houses.
The emissions of manufacturing are also ignored when some ’eco-friendly’ equipment are sold. Solar panels, electric cars, electric bikes, wind power…as long as fossil fuels are so cheap, they distort all calculations.
This is good to know but kinda bums me out. I'm doing a technical report designing a green roof and the deck of my roof is hollow core concrete slabs. Would have been cool to include this as an alternative
still, that's awesome work that you're doing!!
@@jennifer6278 Thanks! Still only in school but I definitely want to incorporate environmentally beneficial practices when I get to make designs
. The earth 🌎 is lucky to have a great individual like you.
I am undergrad civil engineering student in Edinburgh Scotland, I have been studying a lot about clt and glulam it’s kind of my institutions big thing right now. What’s it like where you are
@@TheErmerm999 I'm also in civil :) I'm doing my technology diploma before starting university this summer we haven't learned about anything like that yet bit university may be different. Mostly learning about soil compositions, road and structure design and surveying
Yes it definitely is. Sand is going extinct which is scary.
What?
@@fargoloomis3569 Yup, he's kinda right.
@@fargoloomis3569 There's many kinds of sand, and only a few of them are good for concrete we are running out of the ones that are good for concrete
Erosion makes sand
The massive use of sand is becoming a problem.
Lots of islands and nature has been Disturbed, if not even completely destroyed.
Just a small error, Concrete is NON flammable, not "Inflammable."
I would recommend the book our final warning. Six degrees of climate emergency to you. It is a very scientific book with all of the scenarios that play out right now and will in the future with the warming climate
imagine being a billionaire and writing a book on how to change the climate rather than lobby for political change
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
@@Srijit1946 THAT'S why the video cuts off so harsh at the end! I'm glad he did that, as I really disliked the idea of a billionaire selling poor people a book with ideas on how maybe they can go about fixing his mess in a way that makes sure to make him more money.
best response I've seen TY
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) is a great alternative to concrete
I am currently writing my dissertation on this topic. It’s difficult with clt not being able to compete with concretes more industrial uses.
@@TheErmerm999 each individual step toward decreasing our carbon footprint is a good step. CLT doesn't need to be a one size fit all to replace all uses of concrete.
For instance, it's great for mid-rise housing.
CLT (floors) & glulam (posts & beams)
My current favourite building material is large leggo blocks from recycled plastic but I'm not sure how that compares
. .I love it that whilst the rest of the world is screeching about climate change ,others are quietly doing their bit and inventing better goods ...creatively ...I also note that low tech countries are inventing very simple methods to make use of our rubbish ...it is heartwarming
3:17 scientests say we need to be reaching negative emmisions by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. not zero emmisions by 2050.
It's Bill Gates that says that we have to arrive to zero until 2050. It's related to his book and you can watch him saying the same on his TH-cam channel.
Well, if all countries became carbon neutral the ocean (phytoplancton and algae) Will absorve the rest
i think we can all agree though, the number need to go down, to negative or to zero, i don't care, it just need to go down as fast as possible
@@joaquimbarbosa896 "carbon neutral" in this context is already accounting plants and microbe
@@aronseptianto8142 You swer?? OMG I HAD NO IDEA
Dude, Yes, it is counting with plants and microbes. In that countries territory. But, there are lots of phytoplancton and algae on the ocean that absorb lots of carbon to. And they don't count in the carbon neutral because those parts of the ocean are NOT parts of the countries territory
Does the Bill Gates entity request changes to the content you make? To better suit their image?
looks like the video has been cut to remove the sponsor bit, in the newest video "Why Billionaires Won't Save Us
" he says he regrets the sponsorship
@@Fals3Agent let me guess Bill Gates sponsored him?
Great video as always !
Are you planning on making a video about degrowth at some point ?
In the province of Quebec, Canada, cement and concrete production accounts for about 3% of all emissions. Smelting of metal is about 9%, which is nearly as much as agriculture.
what is the biggest emitter then?
You should really do a video on farming insects for food. I have heard that eating insects is very common outside of the West. I have also heard that farming insects for food could potentially use less water and fewer resources, while producing fewer CO2 emissions, compared to most traditional livestock, such as beef.
0 emission by 2050 is too little, too late. We need full degrowth by 2030 to have any hope for survival
It's okay, fortunately we have two lives left
We will never have zero emissions, and it doesn't matter.
Thank you for the great video! I know you have a limited time to work on your videos and you want to be specific but I feel you really missed on talking about the crazy supply-chain of sand (which is in large part for concrete), which is depleting the stocks of sand in many ecosystems. Also I think it would have been great to talk about other alternatives that are not so closely trying to resemble the material and process of concrete (i.e. cross-laminated timber, fungi - These seem to me like much better alternatives from a degrowth and circular-bioeconomy perspective). Just my two cents
Mass timber materials, like CLT and glulam, can also somewhat replace concrete.
You left out that concrete leads to higher temperatures in concrete laden cities and more flooding because water absorbing grass is torn out and replaced by concrete that forces water to drain into sewers and natural water reservoirs that back up and/or flood.
interesting, never realised this! Also, an audio tip for your video: try using a 'de-esser' effect, found in most audio software. The 'sss' sound is loud for headphone users
Using other materials such as wood needs to be explored as well. But honestly, at the enormous rates that we are buildung stuff, it would propably not be susuainable anymore either. We would need a lot of reforestation along the way.
But it's interesting from a technology standpoint. I saw some documentary the other day, where a company was making building plates out of straw. They were pressed so they were not flammable and could be used for both structural support and heat isolation. But again, probably only really applicable to fancy free standing homes for the rich, that take up more unused land, as opposed to affordable houding in the cities...
This is a big issue, because honest there is no real substitute either for concrete or steel. And, it is simply not feasible to only build with wood and mud as people suggest... Build a house with mud, the just wait until the next earthquake to see how it levels the whole city... We need innovation but probably the best option is to develp ways to cature the produced CO2, and focus on the industries that already have solutions like power generation and transportation...
Super interesting! Thanks for all the research you do for your videos Charlie! We always learn something... 👍
*I wouldn't 'hold my breath' on this issue* *Concrete is readily available and thus far in human history we've nothing to equal it's immense strength and durability...concrete made during the 'Empire of Rome' is still present and fully-functional to it's purpose, such as road-beds and 'footings' for large structures that would 'self-bury' into the earth beneath them without concrete to 'snow-shoe' the weight proportionally*
Why we need buildings to last for centuries, apart from a few iconic structures?
Most will be demolished in a few decades when it is cheaper to rebuild than to renovate.
@@madsam0320 What about extreme weather conditions which will increase in frequency anyway?
@@eugenhardtmann454 I think this is all about how concrete is causing extreme weather.
Being that we should be going into the next ice age right now, I had a real concern that we would decrease our co2 output to much. Thanks to this video I no longer have that fear. Let the concrete pour!!
Really interesting, something I haven't really heard about, but makes a lot of sense.
With my limited understanding - the other issue with concrete is sand, no? Richer countries are buying sand from poor countries that are getting smaller.... as i have read reports on mainstream media.
People use a lot of cement in places where it makes no sense because of the climate, like India or Sri Lanka. Cement traps heat so these cement houses become unlivable or unlivable without an AC. I really like the concept of mud houses and straw bale houses. Good for the environment while also staying naturally cooler. This is the way go.
This video perpetuates a couple of climate change myths.
1. Blaming the third world (China and India in this video)
The reality is the US is responsible for more green house gas emissions that any other country, it's just that those countries are modernizing now while the us is already modernized.
2. That the problem of climate change is a problem of technology.
We have had the technology to stop climate change for over half a century. The capitalist class however makes very much money off of fossil fuels and the radical change necessary to stopping climate change is a threat to their profits. The only reason they support some efforts now is that they own/are invested in them and can now make money from them.
As a big concrete fan this is sad, but it gives me some hope to see these alternatives
Solution I know of is #Cobhouses and #Logcabins etc.
Also they are DIY ! 🌿
✌🏼
I would love to see more stuff about personal choices that can make a difference especially around home construction and appliances, like fridges, insulation , and they could also be about those industries!!
Never did anything with the product, but I found a way to skip firing clay like in terracotta bricks or roof tiles with a cold chemical processes I called bogging. I called it oil ceramics, is a bit different than fired clay, repeals water and is less brittle, still the same clay.
Oiiiiiiiiii veyyyyyyy BILLL GATES??????? WHAT ABOUT THE TOXIC WASTE HIS COMPUTER PRODUCTS MAKE
He only build computer because ppl buy them
@@joaquimbarbosa896 poor bill, forced to destroy the earth with his toxic computers because we simple keep buying them. It's our fault really, what could he possibly do, he's forced to make them because people will buy them.
@@jwddwj9 it's so sad he even made billions out of this burden our demands have put on him
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
1:40 "inflammable" means easily set on fire ;) not what you were going for
He made me doubt for a second there :D
No that's what's flammable means
@@princeslewis um, just google it
Emissions from livestock account for about 14.5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, globally, and roughly two thirds of those emissions come from cattle - mostly from methane burped by cows, growing feed and clearing land for grazing and feed crops
This is an incredibly eye opening video. I really have never given it any thought. Thank you.
I love your viseos and it is so sad that only a few of them reach a lot of people!
Waaaaaw c’est vraiment pour ce genre de vidéo que je suis abonnée : je savais pas du tout que le béton polluait et en plus j’apprends des mots en anglais :) Ce fait est intéressant même si à notre échelle on peut rien faire thanks !!!
on peut, a notre echelle. On peut decider de ne pas construire une nouvelle maison, de ne pas construire une extension sur notre propriete, de faire avec ce qui existe deja, de reparer, et de vivre "plus petit" (les vieilles maisons etant generalement plus petites que ce qui est souvent construit de nos jours. Et si on decide de construire, on peut aussi se renseigner sur les maisons ecologiques pour voir si c'est dans notre budget ou si on peut integrer certaines techniques ou materiaux a notre construction.
Would be cool if one of those alternatives proved sturdy enough to actually be used. Saw mentioned in another video that 'ash concrete' was less durable, but I'm not sure if that referred to the same thing mentioned in this video.
Although I wonder what the carbon footprint for concrete buildings would be over time, with everything considered. Seeing they're durable, and allow for higher buildings (and thusly more dense population, which reduces traffic/need for roads and such). Like, how does that compare over 200 years to a building from less sturdy materials that needs to be rebuilt three times in that period, or a smaller building made from wood that leads to more space used per person? I'd guess it might still be not great, but maybe in perspective not necessarily much worse than the current alternatives (but no clue).
But also, as other people have mentioned, there's so many empty buildings that are just being used for financial speculation (at least in several western countries I'm aware of). I suppose the RRRs of waste also apply to building, meaning Reduce comes first, then Repair.
Definitely great things too think about. And you're right, we should put regulations in place to ensure there are no vacant buildings or houses, it would reduce our current building rate.
Would also help bring housing costs down so that more people could have a home.
There are lots of cheap alternative materials like bamboo and earth that have 0 or negative carbon footprint. Most of problems with this materials is not in resistance or safety as most people would think, but in escale and workforce. Little to no research has been done do develope ways to build with this materials in a scale that would chepen its manual work cost and make it competitive to concrete (the raw material is cheapper, the work it takes to build it's not).
yet there're iniciatives, for me the most promissing it's the prefabrication of rammed earth walls, look it up
The biggest hindrance it's the lack of regulation for this type of alternative material, which is itself a product of the concrete manufacturers lobbying against it
Spread the word
It's great that we rethink products used abundantly.
I grew up thinking that cement was just grounded up rock and water paste😕
Thanks for sharing this! It's so important that we get aware, learn about it and take action. We all have to do our part!
Loved this episode! So very glad you decided to make this. I already knew of the unenvironmental aspect of concrete, but this really helped me to learn more about it!
Had no idea about these issues with concrete, great video.
How is solidia's foot print different from traditional concrete? That also absorbs co2 as it cures, that's how cement works: you remove the co2 from carbonates, obtaining calcium oxides (there's other components, but that's the basis of it) then when you mix it with water, the calcium oxides reabsorb co2, to harden back into carbonates.
Also why didn't you mention wooden construction? With a well managed lumber source, there's arguably no building material more eco-friendly than plant material, and we already know how to do it, even big buildings too.
So you asked for other topic. How about Carbon Scrubbers? You know it’s been around for a while and it would be fun to see why they aren’t used? You know it’s funny when we found out how bad asbestos was, we still haven’t really found a great substitute. Wonder why.
very nice video! keep up the good work!
Carbon / charcoal compressed bricks with bonding resin. Can build structures like multi storey homes. Water proof, sound proof, high R value. Around 30% as strong as cement without rebar. Not good for the big stuff tho like dams bridges or carparks. Still amazing.
But watch a house build with carbon bricks catch fire. That would be spectacular!
Or just use wood. It is already carbon bonded with resin.
Billionaires shouldn't exist.
I think money shouldn't exist
@@vIBEDoUT-Channel money is a really good way of making transactions, because it's easily comparable. What shouldn't exist is they way the whole world worships money and deals with it (in the broad sense of the term deal).
@@vIBEDoUT-Channel no problem, send me all your money so you can get rid of it
@@bassam_salim tell me your bank details
#eattherich
Would be very interesting to see a video on building with wood as an alternative to concrete. Oh and great video as always.
Hempcrete is also a viable alternative solution to use instead of concrete!
Thank you...Bravo great expose
How about heavy timber framing as the alternative to concrete. It’s been around but never pick up it speed or attentions
ooooo new video!!
Ideal way in construction in to use sustainable architecture by using CSEB block constructed earth mud block
How could you use mud bricks in the standardized building industry?
Can you think to produce a minimum of 100.000 pieces per day, that is nothing, around the world?
That element is ideal for low raise buildings in no seismic areas, like Africa and many parts of Asia or South America but with a low demographic index.
You forgot to mention another important side of the concrete problem: the transformation of green, carbon-absorbing, water retaining spaces into solid rock air-heating ones. No matter how small is the patch you are transforming: taking it from plants to concrete plumbets the biodiversity of the area and its capacity to absorb carbon. Now imagine what kilometers of concrete without green gallerys and green roofs is the doing to the planet.
My friends: time to break some unnecessary cement and/or cover things with native plants.
Suprised Hempcrete wasn’t listed as a Sustainable Alternative
the end of this video feels abruptly cut, is this intentional? it's like the closing thoughts are missing.
Oh come on, all my favourites working with the Gates...Sad sad sad
Why is it sad? Bill Gates has spent billions trying to make a difference in the world. He's not trying to put a microchip in your arm and he does not eat babies.
@@MilanCz259 what makes you think that I think that ?
Sad because we still think that billionaires are the solution and not the symptom of the problem.
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
@@Srijit1946 yeah, I know. I was really happy.
Climate activist: cement needed a fossil prosses
Politicians: wE NeED tO MiNE VOlcAnoEs.
Really well done. I’ll definitely check out the book
I’ve heard of organizations using plastic waste to make bricks. Would this work as a potential solution?
You would think so but it’s not hard enough and we don’t actually have that much of it
@@TheErmerm999 ohh interesting. So basically the plastic bricks wouldnt be durable enough ?
Great video, I do not like the ad however.
He recently made a video titled "Why billionaires won't save us" where he criticized Bill Gates and said he regrets doing that sponsorship. He has edited out the sponsorship and outro part of this video.
@@Srijit1946 wow! What a guy! Respect on that one. ✊
Hey OCC, I wanted to ask why you mentioned 2050 as the zero emissions target year instead of 2030, I would hate for people to forget that 2050 is only because we aren't properly committing to what scientists originally wanted
Zero emisjon? That is not possible. Then you and all living must die. Nature must die and the inner core of the earth must get cold. Most of so called emission is from nature, Then i include you. Your emisjon is 600 litres ore 1,5 kg of Co2 in 24 hours. That is not a bad thing. Co2 makes plants grow. The world is not in crisis. We live in a good time. It is the propaganda that is bad! The world is NOT heating up. Dr. Roy Spencer keeps an eye on temperatures where they should be measured: www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. 1850 was the COLDEST in 10 000 years.Since then it has got just a little varmer. Last 20 years NO warming. Take a look at this film from ice core drilling at Greenland. Done by the university of Copenhagen: th-cam.com/video/pW16LGVPfIc/w-d-xo.html
Then lay back and relax! Keep your environment clean and recycle all you can!
@@arnehofoss9109 Common consensus amongst scientists is greater than the opinions of a few scientists. The overwhelming majority recognise that man made climate change is a big issue we're facing.
You're right about nature fluctuating even without human involvement. But as far as I can remember from the SR15, I think about 0.6°C of the 0.7°C temperature increase was from human contributions, with only 0.1°C being from natural causes (these are rough numbers but the idea is that humans are the drivers behind most of the current warming).
Make no mistake, we're experiencing an accelerated warming that would normally unfold much slower if we weren't pumping so much fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
The only people who benefit from people like you and I not believing in the climate crisis are the guilty fossil fuel companies that have been polluting for decades. The hundreds of thousands of scientists doing studies and reporting what they find aren't generating insane profits from climate inaction/action
What about hempcrete? It is carbon negative, a great insulator and nearly fireproof
Man ince again, I love your videos, but please do consider removing that flickering filter that you apply to every video!
Very Good!
Nice job
There’s so much that has to change. It can only be done one step at a time.
Avouding even 2° over the pre-industrial average before 2050 seems incredibly optimistic.
The Video was very well done, however. Putting the sections of our carbon emissions out there clearly really shows how intersectional our approach must be. No one faction can deal with this by themselves.
Why wasn't hempcrete brought up ?! Save the forest's at the same time .
In UK old houses had thatch roofs so why not new houses. Reeds grows consuming carbon with no factories to produce bricks etc & all areas grow there own reede so cuts travel polution.
Am I the only one who gets a little dizzy from the snapping zooms this channel always uses?
Shared on Mastodon ClimateJustice by JdeB
The number of puns in this video is way too many. Well done!
I believe that with innovation, all industrial processes can be friendly to nature. Perfect to script but you have to keep going deeper and deeper into creativity to find new sustainable alternatives. I think there could be a lot of work for content creators who start to create awareness, and move the imagination so that things get better and better.
Thanks for this vid!
Brilliant. Thank you
Maybe you have this explanation in a previous video (if so, I apologize), but what is a capillary web system, in the context of cities and infrastructure?
2:18 the flame is projected from The Wrong side........ heat from diesel burners is given from the exit side.
Concrete is mostly used for highways and monstrous buildings like T-Center in Vienna, all of which create hostile environments (I go to school located near the T-Center and a highway junction). We love small and human-scaled buildings, so why not build them using other materials such as wood and brick, all of which use less energy than concrete and are more beautiful?
Thanks a lot !
2/3 of land is dessert and growing,a process called desertification. Successful efforts are underway to reverse this. This needs to have attention. It's the most promising fix with massive CO2 reduction.
Very well done! ^^