A climate solution you might not think of.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Climate solutions are desperately needed right now. You might not immediately think of going to the mining industry to find one of them though. But research shows shows that the unwanted by-product of the mining industry, rock dust, could be a transformational supplement to agricultural soils all over the world.
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos? Check out the FREE Dive Deeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Research Links
Footage at 2:33 Courtesy of the McCoy Corporation
• McCoy Corporation - Wy...
Anthropocene Article by Emma Bryce
www.anthropocenemagazine.org/...
Anthropocene Article by Dan Ferber
www.anthropocenemagazine.org/...
Leverhulme Centre for Climate Mitigation
lc3m.org/about/
2022 Leverhulme Paper
www.nature.com/articles/s4156....
2020 Leverhulme Paper
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
DACCS
www.rechargenews.com/energy-t...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Check out other TH-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner:
/ @sarahkarver
Rollie Williams / ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Engineering With Rosie
/ engineeringwithrosie
Ella Gilbert
/ drgilbz
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
I've done research into this technique for a graduate global biogeochemistry class project and at the time I did not consider using mine tailings as a source. I concluded that quarrying virgin basalt along with thorough crushing and logistics would make it a poor solution. While tailings usage avoids some costs compared to virgin rock, one big issue with all ERW is the possibility of introducing heavy metals to farmland and the biosphere overall. These heavy metals are a big part of the reason that mine tailings are environmentally hazardous in the first place. There are rock formations that contain low heavy metals and higher plant nutrients such as phosphorus, however it is unlikely any given mine tailings will have these desirable chemistries given that mining typically extracts metal rich ores as a matter of course.
Another problem is that we have a dearth of carbon rich topsoil. It's only expected to last 45 years then our ability to produce food declines rapidly. The talings solution puts the carbon most into the oceans when it should be sequestered into farmable soil. Most farming is still done in a way that kills the soil biota. This biota is crucial in binding heavy metals as well as binding carbon it's trying to sequester.
It's a short sighted, limited plan.
Very informative ... thank you, and +1.
@@b_uppy - then how do we get the needed carbon back into the topsoil and repair the biota? Here in Portland we do city wide food scrap and garden clippings collection as part of the garbage service, compost it, and spread the compost on city land and also sell it. We could probably sell this idea down the valley, but would that do what is needed to repair the farmland?
@@b_uppy curious on the timescales of farming that soil from the ocean bed vs replenishing it.
Plenty of quarries, look at the Eifel in Germany, lots of basalt. In fact our house is made of it. Those tailings could be used regionally.
I put two tons of rock dust from a local quarry on our garden last year. It's a very inexpensive way to increase minerals in the soil and is recommended by regenerative soil experts. This is something everyone who has a small amount of land can do.
You have a local quarry , whats the carbon footprint of hundred mile deliveries ?
@@MyKharli 240 pounds of Co2 in the 12 gallons of gasoline that an F-250 would burn to make a two hundred mile round trip pulling a two-ton load one way.
@@Struthio_Camelus ty
@@MyKharli Will any old rock dust do?
@@RestWithin as i understand it it has to be basaltic ?
Walter Jehne suggested we try a three prong approach to climate warming and it was simply to do global cooling of the most benign sort. He suggested we do rainwater harvesting, through simple earthworks, regreening with appropriate, diverse plantings, and sequestering carbon into the topsoil via those same plantings and reversing damage done to soil biomes by quitting chemical inputs. These three prongs work together to increase the albedo effect, while also enhancing each prong's ability to function optimally.
Nice thing about it is it is cheap, low tech, safe and reduces a lot of damage, too, while supporting all life in an ethical manner...
I hope just have a think will do more along the lines of what you posted. The channel is great but there’s not enough focus on things like regenerative agriculture and things that are not in line with big capitalism. Sorry to say
@@bozjennings sadly the world isnt going to move away from big capitalism any time soon and we therefore need to find solutions that work within capitalism. I also would prefer a less consumerist society, but that is just not happening.
I'm on it. I'm doing these things in my back yard. These are all aspects of Permaculture. Pretty much everything in my plantings produces an edible crop within 100 feet of my kitchen. This reduces the carbon footprint of my diet. I'm not going to stop global warming by myself. But It's one small step in the right direction. I also find that by producing my own food inflation is less of a problem for me.
@boz jennings @WfB.Subtraktor @alex riddles
I do too. There are big gaps in these schemes by corporatists like Gates, and I'm pretty sure they'd charge 'for the service'. Thing is, plants already have an do what they are suggesting if we stop the chemical inputs.
One thing that needs to be said about proper plantings is that they can quickly rebuild soil carbon without mining tailings, and without poisoning us in the short term. Done right It takes about three years for the soil biota to recover from chemical inputs and produce at a higher level. You have to go 'no-till,' which means zero bare ground, there must be plants everywhere.
You must have a diversity of plantings. This means that besides your primary crop, you must have several other crops, or covercrops, to provide the needed diversity to fix nitrogen, make nutrients bioavailable, etc. It works even better if you can interplant trees, shrubs, vines, and perennials. These help encourage mycelium, which move minerals to where they are needed, as well as moisture.
Better still if you can incorporate livestock and poultry to help manage 'weeds' and pests, while introducing natural fertilizers and more beneficial bacteria, etc. The livestock need a largely organic regimen so as to avoid introducing chemicals via manure and guano that will kill off the soil biota, and plants.
Mark Shepard does a very effective form of this type of farming that shows you can increase profits while raising healthy veggies and fruits, ethically produced meats, etc. Very doable and adaptable. It also raises food diversity which is important when you look at the types of lack foods available in grocery stores.
A good source for info on rainwater harvesting is Brad Lancaster, or Geoff Lawton.
Lots of videos by all three. Two are authors. .
@@wfb.subtraktor311 it can, but we need to design off ramps. Right now there are few, and those that exist suck.
First came across this in the 1980’s in Scotland as a soil improvement for crop growth on small holdings. This was prior to climate change science warnings and seemed like a luxury in comparison to a bit of muck spreading. However , as a Climate change mitigator along with soil improvement, it could be beneficial to bring back exhausted soils or marginal land into productive use. Especially at this moment when we are experiencing food scarcity scares.
Hope you all have seen the Climate-Coverage
of UpisNotJump, Hbomberguy, Climate-Town, OCC, and Some More News?
You cant have enough Info.
Thank you so much for sharing this research which sounds like a win, win, win for the soil, the farmers and the planet. You cheer me up with all of your fine research. Be well.
This is a similar concept to the gentleman who put iron dust into the ocean. This fed the plankton all the way up to larger fish. It had an enormous carbon capture and increased the fishing yield from 50 million to 225 million fish. This was a microscopic attempt that showed phenomenal results. His video is on TH-cam. I’d love to see you talk about this process.
Except we also have an increasing topsoil carbon deficit that needs to be solved now. This ignores that and may hamper our ability to correct that later.
Exactly. Both are accelerations of natural processes, one in the ocean directly, this other on land. Moar research please.
However, let's not forget that the most important and effective way to fight climate change is to get corrupt politicians out of power. Vote green in your country (and make sure it's green) and your local community.
Using iron dust to mitigate climate change:
th-cam.com/video/i4Hnv_ZJSQY/w-d-xo.html
Stop messing with nature. God knows what unintended consequences it'll have down the line.
I was reading in a recent New Scientist article about putting iron whatsits in the ocean, and it mentioned that the results of various studies have been very contrasting as to the effectiveness of this idea, and worries remain of the practice creating ecological problems i.e. detrimental algal blooms, which already result as the result of artifical fertilisation of the sea (albeit unintentional) due to agricultural run-off.
i think you are one of the very best presenters out there. Mellow voice, good accent (and understandable) good speaking speed. Etc etc etc.
Most mine tailings are low grade equivalents of the ore and therefore are rich in contaminants like heavy metals, arsenic, and acid-generating sulfide minerals like pyrite. Spreading this material on farm fields would be lunacy. A bit like spreading sewage sludge which has turned out to be an environment disaster due to its contained load of contaminants. If we are going to use tailings for carbon capture it will have to be done someplace other than the farms. Yes it’s a good way to mineralize CO2, but farms are the wrong place to do it.
Contaminating perfectly clean water with sewage and industrial wastes is one of the most destructive practices humanity has taken up. In the coming years we will have to unlearn this.
Simply put you do not mix industrial wastes with good water and otherwise useful organic materials - It is so stupid... :(
mine tailings over time, can be purified using Phytomining to remove the heavy metal contaminates. problem is it takes 10-15 years just to get started.
Our Council collect green waste for compost sales they accelerated it with sewage and burnt the place down
@@dustinherk8124
Additionally annuals and most perennials pass on these heavy metals into the edible portions. A disaster waiting to happen.
@@williambreen1001
Look up Walter Jehne and his climate solution to cool the planet by rainwater harvesting, increasing green biodiversity (trees, shrubs, perennials all planted together) and improving soil biodiversity.
You need to avoid chemical input,s bare earth tillage and monocroping because those interfere with carbon building in the soil. That is an important part of the solution. You get the plantings right and mycelium will move minerals to where they do the most good...
1st of all, thanks for the amazing content! One thought I have is: it wasn't mentioned but crushing rocks (like basalt) into fine powders to increase surface area takes energy exponentially at each "step" of fineness
It's of no concern if the energy used to crush the rock comes from renewables. A windmill could turn a shaft that turns a cam that lifts a hammer to crush the rock into fine powder.
@@acmefixer1 Using direct motion from a windmill is impractical for industrial application - volatility problem again.
A big rock crusher costs several millions, added loaders ect bring the investment up to a fortune that usually has to be financed.
That machinery has to run, independent of local weather, for any economic planning to work out.
Since they usually are driven by electric motors, though, you can of course run those by renewables.
@@nilesbutler8638 impractical but possible
@@sm1522 Many things are possible.
Doesnt mean they will make sense - and thus materialize - economically or otherwise.
I am a strong proponent of renewables, and direct use of heat or motion usually are more efficient than taking the detour of electricity generation.
But you cannot run a rock crushing operation and have logistics, loading and the machinery wait for the wind to blow.
To be calculable, they have to run in a predictable manner.
I've read about spreading crushed rock on farmlands a few years ago, but nothing has been heard about it until now.
The trace minerals in the crushed basalt can contain heavy metals that could poison the soil. Here we have runoff from cropland that has high amounts of selenium, and causes birth defects in the waterfowl that nest near the runoff.
We have been crushing limestone on farmland for decades to reduce the acidity of the soil and increase crop production.
However limestone is already a carbonate, so it won’t remove any carbon dioxide.
I would hope they are selective about what mines they take the rocks from. I mean, it is a easy to fix problem from a technical viewpoint but I can easily see a greedy mine owner faking test results.
Wonder if you could harvest enough selenium from the run off to provide safe levels. it is used in the manufacture of solar panels.
@@gothboschincarnate3931
Selenium was used in the first photovoltaic cells many decades ago. But it has been totally replaced by silicon.
A superior channel, always thoughtful, well researched and notable.
Howdy! My first stop here, at this Channel! What an auspicious idea : the best of both worlds!
Thank you for your concise and precise presentation!
As a rock hound, I always knew that like many of life’s puzzles, this one could be easily solved by collecting more rocks
This works best for serpentinized rock, specifically rock high in brucite. Ultramafic nickel deposits are the most likely candidate for this type of method being implemented successfully with tailings
Sudbury Canada! 🌞
This idea is one of the two best strategies for cost-effective climate-change mitigation. Congrats on promoting it.
This seems like a great idea, I hope it actually works and can be implemented (without some unforseen disaster nobody expected as a side effect...).
Though simply emitting less, creating abundant clean energy, and doing carbon sequestration, seems to be more certain not to have unforeseen consequences (for the atmosphere, which is the important thing).
This seems like a technique perfect to pair with biochar production as a mitigation strategy. You could capture the flue gasses from the char-maker and use them to weather silicate, then mix the char and silicate together as an agricultural enhancement product. Double the drawdown punch from standard biochar, plus a product which is even more desirable for farmers because it's already "preloaded" with a lot of minerals. Ordinary biochar is normally nutrient deficient, so a product which is preloaded is a selling point
I just take a large dump in my biochar to enrich it with nutrients.
I believe part of the problem with biochar isn't that it doesn't have many nutrients, but that it will remove from access much of what is in the soil it's added to. It's largest benefit (for the agriculture) seems to come from it's large surface area which can harbor soil bacteria, but it needs to be cultured before it's used.
Pairs excellently with the Korean natural farming method.
@@punkdigerati it seems we need 'life', i.e. soil biota to do the heavy lifting. Such a pity then that we kill it with our 'modern' farming practices.
Good topic and subsequent discussions. As always, simple one off solutions do not exist. We often want to forget about the downsides, plenty of them mentioned here. There is no meddeling without consequence. People who make you believe there are simple solutions, probably live off it, or suffer from myopia.
Bravo! There is hope for the future!
Thanks for sharing your video. A breath of fresh air! 👍✌️🇬🇧
As JHAT proves every week, we have left it so long, there is always a catch-22 "wrinkle" at the end of these videos!
I think this is a promising concept that requires a lot of number crunching and review of the risks associated with such an approach.
Firstly, silicosis is a real risk today for communities living near to mines and quarries. Start shipping the fines around the countryside and exposure risk rapidly spreads far and wide. Secondly, as the approach incorporates an inherent natural leaching of the carbonates to eventually sequester in oceans, we have to consider the pathway - Rivers. Australian freshwater ecosystems, often naturally acidic are already suffering an excess of carbonates resulting from leaching concrete infrastructure. Answers are are never simple no matter what the proponents may claim.
Have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
The answers are also not as simple as the opponents claim either.
Definitely something to be determined by a lot of research and consideration.
Near 6:55 you mention how farm land would improve through an increase in Magnesium, Copper, etc, but it is to my understanding that it is extremely unlikely for farms to have an deffiecency in these things, but instead to have a defficiency in microbes that can make them accessible to plants or fungi. However, ironically, the type of large scale farms that use sprayers typically have troubles with keeping high microbacteria due to some of the faults of traditional agriculture, so the types of farms it would help perhaps wouldn't see that much of an improvement. Is the type of production soluable to the plants already without the help of a bacteria?
This seems like a good one to start to see how it performs.
It is obvious that a variety of projects need to be started so we can select the best for a long term project.
Great video! Your video was so informative. Thank you so much!
This video, as well as others on this wonderful channel, should be essential viewing by kids in school! Superb envisioning of the world we live in and what creative and productive work goes on right now and into the future!!!
It's all over the place, without critical analysis. It's flawed for that purpose.
Thank you Mh H. That's very kind feedback.
@@b_uppy I see these videos as highlighting useful questions and possible solutions, either to give the viewer a reasonable idea of what areas could be addressed, or as a starting point for further research.
@@sb6489
That's fair in that sense, but sometimes this channel favors certain types of solutions.
Fascinating. I find the whole idea more acceptable than many intervention schemes as it is closer to natures own processes but speeded up to match our other processes that degrade the situation. It will need incentivisation as you say in an otherwise profit motive economy.
Excellent reporting and excellent means to enrich the greening of the earth!
Fantastic video, and a great solution. Rock weathering is a natural process that should be utilized! It's wonderful to see it's becoming a more well-known solution. - Planet Cents Team
What I like about this is it can help get minerals needed into the oceans to help with marine life. I just read a terrifying article about how the bottom of the food chain in the ocean is dying off due to ocean acidification. Maybe some of the dust can be spread over the ocean too? What do you think?
I think it's a great idea! 💡 Since the trains use diesel generators to run electric drive motors, just add batteries and overhead wires, plus PV panels all up and down the RR right of way. The farmland in the US really needs trace minerals, so fine basalt would do wonders to improve soil fertility and essential trace minerals in vegetables. 🍆 🥒 🍅 🌞
Thanks for mentioning the barriers to implementation.
The most effective thing is still taking responsibility and cleaning up your own waste. Be it people, states or countries.
Speaking from a fair degree of ignorance, here: whenever I hear the phrase "mine tailings", my mind immediately goes to "heavy metal contamination". I would like to point out the obvious; that being the source and quantity of the crushed rock being used would bear close monitoring for this scourge. We don't want to find ourselves unwittingly contaminating farmland and groundwater with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, etc.
Exactly. And putting it in farmlands would contaminate most foods. It's an insidious approach.
Speaking from a fair degree of expertise here (environmental engineer/contaminated site remediation/rock dust gardener), this isn't a concern. Most heavy metal contamination from mining related activities involves some sort of chemical leaching to liberate the target metal (and then incidentally, the contaminant metals). Rock dust is a byproduct generated during the excavation of the raw ore and therefore prior to any chemical processes that would cause heavy metal leaching. Long story short, the metals in rock dust, despite their small particle size, are still bound in their geologic matrix and water insoluble.
@@jackson8085 Thankyou for your reply on this. As I was writing my own paragraph, or two, I was thinking in the global sense; to include every circumstance. There is, for instance, a market for "clean landfill", presumably left over from construction sites. It is not a commodity which can be accepted indiscriminately and repurposing mine tailings is a similar situation. All of that material must be thoroughly checked before it is distributed across the landscape. We have derelict mines of various types here in the U.S., particularly in the West, that did not have chemicals introduced during the mining process, yet many of those old mines are leaching a toxic brew into adjacent creeks and streams. Caution here would be warranted.
@@Brian-bp5pe So sorry to hear your trapped with such an uncreative mind. The only thing it could squeeze out is, "I know you are, but what am I"...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know any of the papers on this, but one potential problem that immediately comes to my mind is that while surface area relative to volume increases as you grind the rocks, the mechanical work needed to grind something can increase with a larger power. might still be more energy efficient than pumped ccs, but i doubt that it's orders of magnitude
The recommendation is to use ground basalt created as a by-product of quarrying for roadstone. It does indeed have a carbon footprint, but the additional impact of transport and application to land is minimal.
@@alayneperrott9693 ah that makes sense, though it also makes the solution not particularly scalable
Should run on renewable electricity like all factories.
@@malcolm8564 that's irrelevant when comparing efficiencies
It does not have to be croplands. It could be forest, rangeland, wild land, swamps...
A much bigger challenge to spread amongst trees, on hills and through bogs.
Plus, the farmers already own the equipment and are driving their fields anyhow.
This negates the added emissions to spread it.
Plus, there's going to be backlash if you start traversing every inch of these wilderness areas with giant off-road vehicles.
This was really fascinating. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
I think you do great work man.
Thank you. I appreciate that!
@@JustHaveaThink
Opens with LIES "about 4.5 Billion years ago" 🤥🤔👎🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@dot1298 ignore this guy and his pseudoscience he's a purveyor of misinformation aka lies.
I hope someone clever can answer this. If CO2 is disolved in rainwater which then converts insoluble rock to Bicarb etc then runs into the sea to deposit insoluble rocks, does that not mean releasing the CO2 we started with? If so where does it go then?
A secondary question relating to well rotted farm manure (the alternative). If we all go veggie and kill off the cattle, where will the well rotted farm yard muck come from?
A conundrum indeed
google compost allready
Many thanks for the very clear explanation !!
You are welcome!
Very good proposal. I use palagonite a naturally crushed basalt and and its a brilliant fertiliser to my poor quality phyllite based soil. Makes everything grow like crazy when there's enough water. Note: All quarry rock dusts aren't the same and can easily be from granite which has very low carbon capturing calcium and magnesium.
This technology needs to be integrated into the production and distribution chain of fertilizer, and the farmers should receive compensation for additional costs for the added total weight of fertilizer + basalt granulate.
I watched and had a think .... came up for air 11 minutes later and somehow 17 hours ago you said it before me. Cheers and here's an imaginary $0.02 piece.
This is flawed because chemical fertilizers kill most of the soil biota. Health, diverse, robust soil biota is needed to convert the talings. It will sit until the monocropped, chemically assisted agriculture is dumped.
Additionally healthy soils have mycelium that moves minerals to where they are needed. You must plant for site appropriateness, too.
It would be very helpful if you had the standard of exactly how much emissions we produce each year at the beginning of every video so we can compare the scale of these proposed solutions to the scale of the problem.
The one problem with that is that many of these mitigations efforts would seem like a drop in the bucket so to speak.
Then many people would assume it is useless because of the scale.
Not realizing that each drop in the bucket helps fill the bucket.
@Turd Ferguson That's what I wish for too, its very frustrating when he quotes a number but gives no context to it. it's no good giving a possible solution if its orders of magnitude off.
@@shawnr771 It's very important to show the scale, so we can balance the costs with the benefits. If someone claims a technology removes 0.5% worth of global CO2 emissions, but requires a daily sacrifice of 200 first-borns, its probably not worth the cost.
@@joeblogs6598 What is the cost going to be if we do nothing?
@@shawnr771 I don't know. Can you tell me?
Thanks for yet another excellent video
Great work!!!! Thank you so much
Fascinating. I've never considered using the mineral overburdens which come out of mines. Though I tend not to consider such industrially scaled approaches. I'm more of a smallholder/homesteader though.
What about implementing this on a smaller scale in those instances where a) the cost (carbon & dollar) is lowest and the contamination with toxic heavy metals like lead and arsenic (you didn't mention this threat) is negligible.
Sure, the benefits to CO2 capture are lower for this one idea, but maybe we should be taking a more comprehensive approach by implementing many solutions where the exact palette of methods is locally sensible. There is no single solution to this problem. It will take many approaches.
@S D It already is in some places. Climate change is here...now.
@S D ;)
That's where I like Walter Jehne's approach which is less problematic...
@@b_uppy Yes! Wow, a fellow fan of Walter Jehne! I don't run into such good folks very often. Are you also familiar with Wendell Berry?
1) I loved your map in which Uruguay is just a part of Brazil.
2) the soil of the most productive farmlands in Br is highly corrected, so this layer of crushed basalt would be just one more part of soil correction
Excellent presentation!
Glad you liked it!
Most excellent as always Dave ! What an eye opening idea !
Many thanks!
Spreading, what is in effect, sand on farmland doesn't sound like a great idea to me. It would change the water retention of the soil significantly and I can't imagine the long term effects coarse sand would have on implements like plows etc. Neither of these concerns were addressed in this video.
some mountainous regions in Africa were historically used to for ariculture but in every 3-4 years there was some sandstorm coming from the Sahara that covered the lands with dust. There was a research project trying to find ways to mitigate the perceived damage that it did. Then due to partially climate change there were two cycles where the dust did not come and crops steeply declined on the area. The research project established that the area actually got a big amount of critical nutrients (minerals of course) from the dust taken there by the prevailing winds, and once the dust was absent for 6-8 years the area became so poor people had to consider to migrate elsewhere.
My father was an engineer and a meterologist who loved to experiment with his garden. He used all sorts of things for different plants including sand mixing up special soil for different plants and various ground covers. Results were really good.
Basalt is closely associated with constructive plate margins and small scale igneous intrusions linked to vulcanicity past and present.
It also a resource thats used for road stone and for melting to produce basalt rebar for re inforced concrete in place of corrosion prone more expensive steel. .it can also be turned into a fiber that can be woven into a fabric and used a lighter stronger cheaper natural substitute for Glassfiber and in some cases Carbon fiber.
Interesting discovery. I hope it can be put into practice.
Thanks Dave. This process I heard first discussed about 3 years ago in scientist's warning youtube video from memory. Yes, it's a nice idea. Could it help? Yes, it could but not sufficiently in the time frame required, and definitely not in an industrial agriculture scenario' That would be insanity. Starting in 1990 would have helped a lot. All one has to do is to follow the science as the saying goes. We have a window ending as late as 2028/9 to have a reasonable crack at societal survival, if we're lucky enough to have serious programmes in place throughout the economy. That's every economy world wide not just England. The most important thing humanity can do today, which means today immediately, is to stop burning fossil fuels and stop industrial agriculture, not something Bill Gates is big on. It's that simple and that difficult. The other important thing to do simultaneously is to completely change the economic system around the planet. Why? Well if we still have to ask that question at this stage of proceedings, there's little chance to zero of achieving what humanity has to in order to stabilise the co2 e (now at 508 ppm) concentration thereby minimising the loss of life to say a couple of billion or so. And the 6th mass extinction? Likely even more important. Suggest considering the frailty of the IPCC calculations, it's reliance on NETS and holding the temperature to +2.5 above preindustrial, which will be a seriously tough ask on its own. The AR6 is hardly a paragon of un-politicized science fact, as I'm sure you're aware. Anyway youtube comments isn't the place for serious review of where humanity's at. Realism is absolutely a requirement in these times. At this stage I admit I wouldn't want to still be around in 2050 even in England. I seriously fear for the lives of my kids and granddaughter. and all young people.
Brian, I have the deep suspicion that we won't do anything on time, and our current economic system is geared the wrong way. My hope is that as things get unavoidably worse, we will follow a suggestion James Lovelock discussed, using balloons to carry aloft fine particles into the upper atmosphere to be released in order to limit the sunlight reaching the surface. He considered it life support, but I think this could allow natural carbon uptake to happen while keeping the planet cooler, provided we reverse course on burning fossil fuels and methane emissions. There has to be some hope..
@@chuckkottke hi Chuck , Yes James Lovelock pointed to the right sort of pathways... I'm wary of geoengineering without empirical testing. Micro salt water spray also maybe helpful. But we're not testing any of this to my knowledge. The last thing we need I'd a billionaire to fund geo-scale climate engineering without testing. Hope isn't something to rely on. But appreciate the comment. Good wishes
It's too late. The methane doom loop is already in effect. We are headed for collapse soon. And you can thank capitalism. If only humanity as a whole overthrew capitalism in the previous century, just like how the Soviet Union did in 1917. The planned economies would have coordinated an appropriate response in dealing with climate change, unlike the capitalist countries who only pretend to care and yet continue to serve the interests of the capitalist class. So now, as Capitalism reaches its natural conclusive end, it will breakdown and take down humanity with it. The end. All you can do now, is prepare for the collapse of civilization. All the best!
You drastically overestimate the danger of climate change. Civilisation overall is not even close to being in danger, part of it are and yes, climate change is an important issue but there is a difference between realistic concern and panic.
@@Arcaryon Climate change is being underestimated all the time. Year after year, we find out that the situation is worst than expected.
This sounds good but info presented by others in the Comments section suggests that there are non-trivial problems with making this viable or even desirable. But worth investigating further.
Likely it will take a bunch of different initiatives. We need a lot more experimentation & research like this.
Vaclav Smil was my physical geography professor at U of M. One of my favourite profs really.
That makes you a very fortunate student!!
The nutrition of the food produced would improve a bunch too. The soil in the USA is so depleted the calories are getting emptier by the day.
For this to have any measurable effect globally, how much rock would have to be quarried, crushed and shipped?
Restoring wetlands and marine environments are surely the answer. Everyone thinks about trees, but peat bogs and kelp forests sequester about 40 times as much co2 by area as trees do.
Anf Trew Do the calculations and get back to us. Thanks for volunteering mate.
@@chuckles9767 the thing with kelp forests is we don't even have to do anything to restore them. We just need to stop destroying them then they come back on their own. Commercial fishing is the biggest culprit. The nets they drag along snag everything, including kelp, and rip it out. Greenpeace are attempting to stop this by dropping massive boulders to snag the nets.
@@chuckles9767 in the North sea, the Norwegians are not part of a fishing treaty among the EU. The Norwegians do it their own way. They ban fishing from an area for a few years. That area redevelops naturally and the fish thrive. Then they move the area. The EU approach on the other hand goes by quotas. The idea being you are only allowed to LAND a certain weight of fish. If you catch too many, you don't bring them in, sell them, and not go back out. You throw the dead fish over the side. It's absolutely scandalous. It's what happens when politicians try to manage natural resources by committee.
Trees are useful and in a balanced biome of other plants, fungi, bacteria, etc, work with them all to build *soil carbon. Soil is a great carbon sink* and has the added benefit of reducing flooding, reducing irrigation needs, increasing food production, recharging aquifers faster, etc. It can hold a lot more carbon than a tree alone. That said the soils need trees the most.
We can help by creating water harvesting earthworks in dry areas such as hilltops, deserts, drylands, etc, to support faster sequestration.
We need to stop using chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to allow the soil biomes to recover. Only healthy robust inorganic-chemical-free* soil can start increasing soil carbon again.
We desperately need a thick layer of topsoil for future crop production.
*meaning use organic, permaculture type inputs.
@@grindupBaker
Lol.
Good to see you are reading Smil. That particular book is great. Energy and civilization is also great. This idea you present is very compelling. Now how to power it? Oh, I know, let’s use Nuclear!
Great think, thanks a lot for sharing!
Fantastic, very informative
I really doubt the improving soil point. I genuinely believe it would be detrimental over time. Minerals accumulation on the top layer of the soil generally accelerate desertification of the crops.
Not much of a gardener, are you?
@@filonin2 Blind assumption.
Here is for you indico.ictp.it/event/a04207/session/38/contribution/19/material/0/0.pdf
It is very hard to figure out what is fact and what is fad. Especially when we get to complicated chemical/biological. One one hand we get industry funded science on the other just wishful thinking. I was raised believing companion planting was important. Turns out most was just silly. I've seen the tests that disprove "mineralization" of soil. Not a simple process.
@@filonin2 yeah i think not.... i mean... wtf is desertification of the crops?!
The fact that water reacts so well with CO2 has been increasing its acidity to a point where it is killing off ocean life. Perhaps this idea might be easier, cheaper, and more productive to spread over our oceans?
I'm guessing that the sun is involved somehow, which doesn't reach the sea bed.
Project Vesta is a group currently testing this on beaches
@@techtonic5758 That's the one. I read their white paper a year or two ago but couldn't remember their name.
Soil remineralization stimulates every form of .life in the soil,it builds brand new soil,when used with compost and charcoal it will help feed the world when the message about rockdust finally sinks in ,I've been using this technique for years,hence my moniker,it really does work its what nature has been doing from the start.
Another great video, Dave, cheers very much!
Cheers Martin.
I think one of the biggest problems inhibiting progress on taking effective measues to reduce greenhouse gases can be explained in one word - money. As long as oliticins think in terms of monetry cost over what happens if we don;t get the job done, they're likely to continue umming and ahhing about it until arge chunks of the world become uninhabitable. In short, I believe that it is the econmic system that has not only been a large part of the cause f the problem, it's also a large part of why effective measures weren't put into action as soon as it became clear what the situation is.
Global warming is down to physics, something that we cannot change. Our economic system is a human invention, though, and that CAN be changed. Historically, it has tended to favour the greedy and the sociopathic, and to concentrate the bulk of wealth in a minority of the populace. But jst as money replaced barter, and capitalism replaced mercantilism, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of mankind to devise a new economic system that doesn't drive over-consumption, and that doesn't concentrate wealth so extremely. As a species, we have had the knwledge and resources to ensure that no-one need starve or lack a roof over their heads for decades. But ou economic system is what prevented us from tackling global poverty in any meaningful way.
And, in case you think I am advocating cmmunism, I most definitely am NOT! That was a failed political experiment that did no more than tinker with the current economic system in a rather ham-fisted way. Never mind the politics, it's a NEW economic system that insists upon effective recycling throughout the economy, that dissudes over-production and over-consumption, and that also Distributes wealth more evenly (nt perfectlyevenly; just without the extremes of povery and wealth that we currently have). What that system would be, or how to transition to such I have no idea - economics is not my forte, neither is psychology. But the way we are going, we are letting a deeply flawed human mental construct - capitalism - prevent us from doing what is absolutely necessary for our survival. Perhaps our species should be renamed - the "sapiens" part might not be justified!
Typo's notwithstanding, that was very well thought out. I feel the same way.
I concur and it goes without saying that "Distributes wealth more evenly" == Boondoggle That Helps Nothing because this species consists of humans so the small portion of us who aren't as human as the rest need to somehow institute meaningful penalties for Boondoggle as the bods who take our money by having the police shoot us if we refuse outright do the old "redistributing your greedy gots" thing by redistributing it to their Constituents or Pals who "have this great can't fail idea", meaningful penalties such as a stiff fine or hanging by the neck or some mix'n'match of those. For humans that'll work.
What you label 'capitalism' in reality is 'monopolism' - a societal system for the benefit of a few at the cost of the rest (and the habitat I might add).
How I come to this conclusion?
Well, just like physicists (whose training I was lucky to receive) I started with basic observations and first principles.
Would you laugh when I tell you that money has a flaw that creates a monopoly that causes most of what you observe and describe?
PS: it naturally is more complicated than that, much more complex.. but the core of it boils down to money being flawed. There also is a deeper problem that stems from us being life (doh) interacting with a societal organism, but that's not really that important if money would work.
Glad to see you getting into greenhouse gas removal with crushed rock dust. However, basalt is far from the most commonly mined rock, so some of your points don't quite add up. I suggest instead that you read "Climate Restoration" by Peter Fiekowsky, published in April 2022, and with a variety of scaleable, financiable, permanent storage methods of removing GHGs from the atmosphere, perhaps making mankind's efforts "Net Zero" (emissions vs removal) by 2030, and CO2 down to below 300 ppm by 2050.
There’s no question that CO2 of 350 PPM (like Bill McKibben’s organization) is WAY TOO HIGH. Like you say, it should be under 300.
During the Eemian 120K yrs ago, CO2 was ~295-300, & we were a bit warmer. Sea level was ~6-9 meters (~20-30 feet) higher. Even that would be difficult & disruptive. Our goal CO2 must be under 300.
I bought the book last night after reading your comment. I'm about 1/3 into it now, and it is indeed interesting. It's nice to be presented with a glimmer of hope for a change. I worry that he might be too optimistic about his timeline, even though his big four seem promising. Either way, I like the way he sets goals the way athletes do, i.e. clearly defined, measurable, ambitious, realistic and broken down to smaller sub goals with time limits. It's the recipe for success in any endeavor. Thanks for suggesting the book!
Remove cloud, vapor and moisture of all sorts, these are the principal (97%) GHG s
@@marcwinkler I suppose you understand the difference between a cloud made of water droplets, with high albedo, capable of actually cooling by bouncing back solar radiation, and water vapour, which is transparent to visible light, but indeed absorbs some infrared radiation.
Anyway, there is a fairly big reservoir of liquid water out there, free to stay in equilibrium with current levels of water vapor given the average temperature. Unless you know how to stop the oceans evaporating, I don't see how you would think for a second to have any leverage on water vapor concentration on Earth...
@@luciobaggio8695 Stabilization of Earth's orbit is not solved as changing Solar cycles,
Ice Ages and interglacials tough luck my God! They might behave better.
All that rock dust was already sequestered carbon before it was removed from the ground.
Some bloke did the same thing with iron rich mine tailings but straight into the ocean off the coast of Brazil (i think)
Algae/seaweed and fish populations mushroomed.
Nailed it again Dave. Just checking if it is my denseness (it’s a word,honest) but would that basalt provide nitrogen as well and negate the need for the massive amount of energy needed to make it? Also would it remove our dependency on potash from Russia? If so, the incentives and energy saved must cancel out the logistical costs? Am I expecting too much from crushed rocks? If
negative homie. basalt dont have no nitrogen or potassium. other crushed rocks do but theyre probs ages away from you guys up there in yourope.
Please please discuss thermal solar cooling, it could be a breakthrough given that cooling is one of the huge emitters of CO2, not cooling powered by PV, but cooling powered by solar, thank you.
Ben over at Nighthawkinlight just did a piece on high reflectance barium sulphate and titanium oxide coatings.
Go check it out if you haven't seen it already.
Vesta is doing ERW of Olivine on beaches and shallow seas as well, so it's not just agricultural areas that can be utilized for this kind of drawdown. ERW is gonna be huge!
Thanks for your knowledge sharing
If anybody's interested, I heard a scientist state 10 years ago that the reason why Venus has no water ocean, so no plate tectonics, is simply that Venus rotates too slowly. "Venus has no global magnetic field - though its core iron content is similar to that of Earth, Venus rotates too slowly to generate the type of magnetic field that Earth has". Without the magnetic field, due to rotation of its iron core too slow, the solar wind (or perhaps it was CMEs, particles from the Sun) stripped away its H2 which is the lightest molecule so it gets easiest stripped away from Venus's gravity pull by Sun's particles hitting it, so this left carbon to oxidize-burn-rust-combine-get-eaten-by acid (it's all slow burning, acid burning) by the oxygen instead of H2, resulting in CO2 instead of H2O. But CO2 has a far lower boiling point than H2O so ... the rest is history. Without a liquid ocean of CO2 there's no plate tectonics, no subduction of part of crust below another part to take what farts out of volcanoes back inside where it came from, so it builds up on the outside perpetually.
An interesting hypothesis i heard about is that the reason Venus as such peculiar rotation could be explained by Venus forming as an ocean world first which slowed down Venus' rotation. I'll search where I saw this.
@Hackarma I also heard or read something about Venus having an H2O ocean for a while. OK I've found the talk I heard in 2014/15 and I forgot that bit and didn't mention it in my comment. He's saying Venus was hot enough to evaporate more H2O ocean than Earth and when it's up high the Sun's ionized particles break H2O into H+ and O2 and THEN the solar wind (powerful because no magnetic field) strips away the H+ leaving O2 to end up as CO2. I forgot the temporary H2O ocean bit. It's at th-cam.com/video/CCYovuVKnxM/w-d-xo.html at 26:12.
-------
I'd have thought that Earth's spin was a random chance of the angle of collision of the 2 Mars-sized lumps that collided to form Earth at 4,530,000,000 years ago.
@@grindupBaker yeah, there is a lot of speculation. We simply aren't knowledgeable enough about what drives conditions on a planets.
Thanks climate crisis to ramp up research about the subject in a way :l
In other news BHP have announced that they are replacing their diesel locomotives with battery electric ones in the Pilbara. No external power is required as the run from the mine is downhill so loaded trains running downhill charge the batteries and the batteries will then be used to haul the empty cars back to the mine.
Follow the money.
Fuel and maintenance are HUGE costs to mining operations.
Don't think for a minute that BHP are doing anything positive for the environment out of goodwill for the planet.
But, I too was excited to hear something positive coming from Australia! 👏
@@jimurrata6785 No company on the planet will spend money that doesn’t provide a benefit to the bottom line.
In most countries that would actually be illegal.
On the other hand running Diesel engines for power generation on remote mine sites accommodation is incredibly expensive so I can see solar installations becoming far more common. (As is demanning and having the equipment operators sit in an office several thousand kilometres away and drive the trucks and excavators remotely - no flights required to and from site as well).
The communication links have been solar powered for thirty years, so the experience base is there.
@@allangibson2408 And the solar is already a known resource.
Powering equipment direct from solar does away with a lot of the maintenance (filters, oil changes, cooling systems, etc) but you can't remotely change a flat tire on a haul truck for example.
Remote operation certainly reduces the costs of on site labor and if it's semi autonomous the staffing demands too.
I remember a few years back, Volvo touting their loaders and dumpers that worked alone but never saw any follow up.
(Those machines were much smaller than most mine equipment)
More jobs for solar manufacturing and installation!
Yes, a traded company can't deliberately lose money. But if environmental sustainability is in their charter then investment to that end (even if it hinders maximum profit) is okay, I think...
IANAL
@@allangibson2408 What I meant to say is that extractive operations are inherently 'dirty'
This one perhaps moreso than any other mining corporation.
Absolutely, BHP are not going solar for the environment.
They are doing it for the tax breaks, write down and reduced operating expenses.
Seems like a incredible idea! Crazy I have never heard of it...I am young, but do try to know more about sustainability.
Thanks for the content.
Another consideration is the mineral deficiencies in the populace of first world agricultural countries. Zinc, magnesium and many more deficiencies are rampant in the US. Initially, American cropland's had these minerals in abundancy. Now though, the fields have given up most of their minerals. The fertilizers that are currently used do not supply many of those minerals we would normally be eating through our foods. There are many physical and mental ailments due to these deficiencies. Somehow this is not common knowledge.
A diversity of tactics. ☮️ ❤️ ^.^
Very interesting, thank you!
Ive read in tectonic history books that the building of mountain ranges increases the weathering that you discussed and captured the CO2 and can be a contribution to ice ages.
Sounds likely. Certainly the thinking of the last ~80 million years (I'm not bothering to get precise timings for this now) is that India (it's plate) barreling northeast through the now Indian Ocean from Antarctica where it was for ~30 million years at a blistering 8" / year churned up tropical sea bed that was rich with deposits of Life and caused the steady increase to 1,000, 1,200 or 1,800 ppmv (I've heard all those various from scientists) and then it smashed into Asia & started pushing up the Himalayas & Tibetan Plateau at 52 million years (just 3 million years after the PETM and 14 million years after the asteroid dinosaur extinction) and hence the steady CO2 decline from the 1,000-1,800 ppmv down to whatever it was at 3 million years ago (after declining for 49 million years due to mountain+high plateau advanced weathering) when the less-cold 41,000 year glaciation periods (colloquially "ice ages") started and then on down to 280 ppmv which started the present (in paleo timing language) full 110,000 year glaciation periods (colloquially "ice ages").
It's not possible to reduce CO2 emission while retaining our standard of living and population. If we accept this reality and want to retain a livable planet then a much simpler solution that is guaranteed to reduce CO2 emissions and consumption is to increase the interest rate. One person at a keyboard can implement this.
The most practical way of reducing resource consumption and carbon emissions is to drastically reduce human population.
Everyone wants to argue but no one has begun to prove me wrong.
Regardless the interest rate you can't buy your way out of debt.
@@jimurrata6785 You're right but it will take a few decades of aggressive population reduction policies to reduce CO2 emissions. in the meantime we can reduce emissions immediately by increasing the interest rate to make everyone poorer so they consume less.
@@un-Denial Well, there was _hope_ with Covid! 🤷♂️
All out nuclear war is still a possibility....
@@jimurrata6785Yes, unfortunately the default path we are on leads to an involuntary reduction in populaiton via nuclear war and/or the four horsemen rather than a voluntary reduction in population that a wise intelligent species would vote for.
@@un-Denial Pestilence and famine were kind of keeping things in check for tens of thousands of years.
But mobility, huge population centers and modern medicine have us humans breeding like lemmings.
It would be wise to observe their boom and bust population.
It's going to be our fate too (just drawn out over longer lifespans)
In addition to the problem that others have noted (various noxious metals from the crushed rocks contaminating the soil), I also wonder if an additional cost would be the effect is has on the cutting blades used during tilling. Having abrasives in the soil would result in farmers spending a lot more time and money changing and sharpening blades.
As far as I can see tilling exposes carbon to the air creating CO2 and needs to be minimised anyway.
Very provocative.
Not saying that this shouldn't be pursued, as restoring soil fertility is extremely important in and of itself, but what about also just spreading the rock dust into the ocean??
CO2 dissolves in water to an extent determined by its partial pressure and the chemical reactions of the dissolved carbon dioxide with other solutes.
By adding it to the oceans it would react with all that extra CO2 the oceans have already sequestered, reacting with the carbonic acid and precipitating out, which would in turn increase the partial pressure differential, increasing the rate at which the oceans can absorb additional carbon dioxide.
In some ways this is similar to the idea of adding iron to trigger algae blooms, but relies on abiotic processes instead (although it would likely have some propensity to stimulate primary and secondary productivity to some degree).
Although the idea of iron fertilization may have beneficial knock on effects, it may also lead to some of the problems associated with eutrophication a.k.a. "nutrient-induced increase in phytoplankton productivity", and as such it is a bit of a questionable practice (there is also the issue of the iron being in the correct bioavailable form).
However, the method of adding basalt (or even better, limestone, more carbonate for shellfish) rock dust to the oceans would be less likely to have the same drawbacks and could be seen as a safer technique, but it should obviously be tested at small scale first. It may even be possible to use it in tandem with iron fertilization for even greater effect.
Now all that said, I'm literally just sharing my thoughts as they occur to me here, It may be possible that this has already been explored, and there may be issues that I am not accounting for, not to mention it may not have enough of an effect to be economically viable.. so take this with a grain of salt...
But if iron fertilization, and crop spreading are potentially viable, it certainly seems that this would be both cheaper and possibly even more effective than either of the former methods, especially considering the absolutely massive size of the oceans and the insane volume of CO2 that can be added or taken away while having a statistically insignificant effect on ocean PH (not to mention and this is a self regulating processes in that the ocean will just reabsorb whatever we take away until the partial pressure is in balance with the level of atmospheric CO2).
@Michael Ransom I imagine most of the rock remains on the field.
I'm highly skeptical that this would be a net positive for the planet. As others here have mentioned, the potential poisoning of farmland by this method, combined with the massive scale that this operation would need to be running at would make it very difficult to undo the damage it could do. We have better methods for growing food than industrial ag, no need to go spreading mining waste and making the whole thing worse.
Where is the poison in this story?
@@Skoda130 “Tailings, especially tailing stored in water by tailings dam in ponds, can be dangerous sources of toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive content. These ponds are also vulnerable to major breaches or leaks from the dams, causing environmental disasters. Because of these and other environmental concerns, such as groundwater leakage, toxic emissions, or bird death, tailing piles and ponds often are under regulatory scrutiny. There are a wide range of methods for recovering economic value, containing or otherwise mitigating the impacts of tailings. However, internationally, these practices are poor, sometimes violating human rights, and the first UN-level standard for tailing management was established to mitigate these risks in 2020.” (Wikipedia)
Calling any tailings or pulverized basalt “poison” is probably hyperbole on my part, but giving mine operators a convenient and “green” way of getting rid of their waste should not be taken lightly.
Great information.
It's a good, creative solution assuming one can keep heavy metals out of the equation. Likely various testing regimes could address this. The big question I have revolves around transport. The mass/density issues when it comes to delivery seems like a moderate carbon cost. That said, I'd love to see the research on the costs associated.
Thanks a lot!
Immediately accessible options: bamboo replacing conventional lumber and paper pulp (more efficient, better sequestration), 'hobbit' houses (passive cooling and heating), inspections for insect farms (so they can be marketed for human consumption rather than artificially protecting the beef and poultry industry from competition), electrified mass transit (too many cars of any kind), sane urban planning (too many roads and skycrapers), wetland restoration (barely attempted as opposed to reforestation)
Sure wish we could find a balance that will not get people all crazy....cause I just cannot help but get somewhat hysterical when the barbeque crowd of red meat eating men yell "Just keep your hands off my meat !!"................
Looking good, Dave.
Depends very much where the mines are vs the fields: lots of transport-induced CO2 could be generated. And it depends as well on what's being mined where because some of the minerals co-located with ores you _really_ do not want anywhere near food, water, or groundwater.
Great vid, but when Dave says the natural process of rock weathering takes centuries, it’s a major understatement. Rock weathering takes millions of years to lower atmospheric CO2 significantly under normal conditions. But indeed, we could speed it up, as long as we used renewable energy to move the rock dust around.
Yep. The actual is clearly seen on plots in CO2 reduction from 52 million (temperature peak) to 4 million years ago (when it started tailing out).
great content thanks
Starting rock dust trading inc right now. Thanks!
I think I've read somewhere a process similar to this can be used to produce concrete.
Very Interesting!
Very interesting.
I really like that idea first one on this channel
Australia might also be a great setting for this technology but as stated getting the tailings to where the agriculture is might be costly. Queensland especially should look at it due to the threat agricultural run off plays on the health of the great barrier reef. Our soils are in general quite poor and thin so adding material would seem to make sense. Lets hope it is seen to be viable.
Great ideea !