The Billion-Dollar Pollution Solution Humanity Needs Right Now | Stacy Kauk | TED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 дек 2022
- Could the same mechanism used to accelerate vaccine development work for spurring solutions to the climate crisis? Sustainability innovator Stacy Kauk introduces the billion-dollar fund to supercharge the carbon removal market, which would help build a new industry aimed at drawing down carbon pollution from the air and storing it safely.
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/stacykauk
• The Billion-Dollar Pol...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #TEDTalks #carboncapture 
Наука
CO2 is not pollution, it's a greenhouse gas which has a global effect on the temperature of the earth. Gasses like NOx, SOx, VOCs, fine particulate matters are pollutants. These pollutants have a high effect on the local environment, nature or human health. Start by defining the problem properly. In case of carbon capture. The problem is maybe even more about Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Actually the largest greenhouse gas by far is water vapor.
@@leveljoe CO2 does not drive the climate. It's great plant food and the elevated levels othis gas has led to the greening of the earth. Striking example is that of the canopy of the red wood forests in California. Tony Heller runs a wonderful website debunking all the nonsense of the climate change hysteria.
@@jarthuroriginal
Where did I say ANYTHING about CO2?
@@leveljoe you alluded to green house gases, the most notorious of which is CO2. However, you correctly pointed out the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. So you did not specifically use CO2 in your post.
@jarthuroriginal No, no I didn't.
As a chemist carbon sequestering is always the first thing we talk about. Whether it’s carbon dioxide, nitrogen monoxide, Methane, hydrofluorocarbons or halogenated volatile organic compounds the chemistry is so poorly funded to do this at the massive scale we need. It will take factories of sequestering across the globe to make this profitable enough for companies to invest
Summary -create a fund (currently at $1B) to power carbon removal systems…she’s a leader at an e-commerce company…is very confident and serious in what she’s saying. I commend the effort? 🤔
They want to be at the forefront for subsidies...
Well they vaccum up giga dollars every day ....take One Percent and fund the Carbon Capture fund, ask Amazon, Apple, FaceBook and the other GIGA electricity Users... Simple barely feel it on you bottom line.
@@ablewindsor1459 You first.
@@leveljoe O Kay I will throw in a exactly two cents.....Apple Alone is setting on over 300 Billion cold hard cash in the bank according to their 🥇 Financials, publicly reported...
That's after Taxes are Paid......
@@ablewindsor1459 Why don't you have 300 billion for me to tell you how much I'm going to take from you?
Thanks for sharing this❗👍🤙
good job stacy kauk
carbon removal is a narrow minded approach to healing humanities blemishes on the earth, seems like someone's gonna make some serious cash for selling a dream tho. I wonder where I've seen this model before....hmmmm
They all scam artist just reaching into you pockets because ppl belive their lies. My brain is exploding seeing how much ppl still believe these bs lies. I now know 98% of the world are just bots, 1% rule, 1% know the truth and see past bs.
Solyndra?
I'm trying to figure out how to remove CO2 from the air. I'm afraid of co ( carbon monoxide) because it is deadly. Trees and plants create oxygen by day and then create CO2 ( carbon dioxide at night) . Humans breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. I understand that pollution is not good. What exactly are people polluting the air and atmosphere with? Is it carbon and other pollutants? The best approach is to continue to lessen pollution and try to filter as much as possible. It would be nice to stop all pollution at once but it's going to take time and planning. If some people are allowed to do what they want and others are forced to go by the rules or standards, that doesn't seem fair. Patience is a virtue.
So let me get this straight, you want to spend 1 kw of renewable energy, to create .5 of a kilowatt worth of oil, that you will then bury in the ground, all the while someone else who does not have access to the 1 kw of energy still needs to pump oil out of the ground. I think I know why the market is underdeveloped, because it makes no sense! Just offer that 1 kW so that the guy will not pump the oil out to begin with.
Hi how's it going watching from Broomfield Colorado
Iron Fertilization could remove CO2 cheaply. not that we need to.
It has taken 140 years for the average atmospheric temperature to go up 1 degree Celsius. It is going to take 5,000 more years for the polar ice caps to melt, but by the year 2100 we will run out of most fossil fuels, at which point a 2 to 3-degree increase in temperature might be mildly inconvenient for some, but it is not a global disaster. We only have 46 years of oil remaining. Humans are adaptable, and the proposed solutions are far more damaging. Getting rid of fossil fuels now, as some have proposed, will have a huge negative economic impact, especially on the poor. So-called renewables are inefficient and have huge environmental impacts of their own. By the time we run out of fossil fuels, we probably will have nuclear fusion which will solve most of our energy problems.
Something funny happens with the climate roughly every 100,000 years. Due to the Milankovich cycles which affect Earth's orbit, we get an 8 to 15-degree spike in temperature followed by a 10 to 15-thousand-year warm period, which is then followed by a rapid decline in temperature and at least 85,000 years of mass glaciation. New York gets covered by a mile of ice. The "normal" state is very cold and all of human civilization arose during a brief 12,000-year warm period since the last cold period. During these 12,000 years, the planet Earth has gone from its maximum tilt, which melts glaciers, to halfway toward its minimum tilt, which will produce the next period of glaciation. We should already be in the cool-down cycle, except for those pesky humans who have warmed the planet a little bit. The preindustrial period from 1500 to 1850 was unusually cold and is labeled "the little ice age."
Atmospheric CO2 has been in a steep decline for about 40 million years. Calcifying marine organisms are sequestering the carbon at the bottom of the sea. It got so low during the last period of glaciation that it was close to the level where all terrestrial plants would die from CO2 starvation. Sometime in the distant future, we are going to have to put CO2 back into the atmosphere to either prevent the next mass glaciation or to support plant life. We can do this with lime.
"We are not the enemy of Nature, but its Salvation.." - Patrick Moore.
Wow, you got the big players on board. Should be easily able to offer 5 billion from that group of multitrillion dollar monopolies! Scale up way quicker.
Wait until these people hear about trees
These people act like tree dont live off carbon dioxide and give us oxygen 🤣🤣🤣... s
These are scam artist reading scripts.
"Water is the largest greenhouse gas, we need more deserts...."
Cant you just hear it now?
The ocean does a better job
Oooo !!!!
she did the creepy Joe whisper !!!
Its not about money its people
Even if we could prove this with computational simulations of data analytics our projected growth rate is unpredictable also the variables that raw materials marketing prices fluxuations. This is why most companies that apart of green new peace deal has its issues. America needs new regulations on already existing corporations that does not take care of waste
Assuring the producer that their product or service will be purchased at a set price assures that producers will find ways to inveigle consumers to buy new varieties of their product/service, whether it is good for the consumer or not. Using her example of vaccines, we've seen how some have benefits, but others have side-effects that can be life-damaging. Yet, the companies producing these vaccines have the backing of governments, as would anything to reduce atmospheric carbon, and now we have little choice as to whether or not we pay for those vaccines, beneficial or not. This sounds like a way for big business to get tax payers to pay for their R&D without risk to the companies. Tax payers are already carrying a heavy load. We don't need to carry more for big business. They already have most of the money any way.
But but... In my country it is all about NO2... Not CO2... People have no idea what they are talking about.
Any company “puncturing holes” in the infrastructure of the earth needs to quit immediately. The idea that scientists have acknowledged that the potential for an asteroid to hit earth in the future is very probable and problematic is enough to make us consider whether a porous planet is going to make damages less or more catastrophic, I think the the later is more likely so fracking, diamond drilling, mountain blasting and any other unknown efforts of inconsiderations towards the planet’s infrastructure needs to be the priority, in my humble opinion..
Co2 is not the only greenhouse gas. What about methane?
if they focus on methane, they'll be faced with the elephant in the room.. most aren't vegan and the leading cause of greenhouse emissions is animal agriculture. People don't like seeing their hypocrisy as there's No such thing as a nonvegan environmentalist.
If I know how to reduce CO2 emissions by millions and billions of tons per year, then where can I turn for help?
Cobra effect?
Well lady ,
you need to learn the ancient art of "volcano killing" because as many volcanoes as are blowing right now,
you'll never catch up. But hey !! ain't that the catch anyway ??
This is NOT better than charging high fees to extract carbon-laden material for sale as fuel, then sharing fee proceeds to all people. (This proposal appears to be a scheme for businesses to buy a way to signal their virtue. It's a marketing gimmick.)
A fee charged proportional to extraction, with proceeds shared to all, is an eminently flexible policy. If the rate of reduction is not sufficiently rapid, we can raise the fee. (A fee pegged at the amount needed to bring the rate of extraction into alignment with what random polls show as average opinion as to what is acceptable will function like an auction of a defined number of permits.) Sharing the money to all will help to ensure broad support for the policy. (The poor, who buy less stuff overall, will be less impacted by price increases. The stipend will mean that they will come out ahead.)
This 'Pay to sequester' proposal is exactly the kind of government boondoggle that causes many conservative voters to oppose policy that aims to reduce carbon emissions.
Will magic be used to properly guess what price on carbon sequestration should be paid in ten-years-time to those who use various methods of fixing, so that the methods that tend to leak carbon over time will be paid accordingly (which means paid next-to-nothing)? The certification board looks like the kind of quazi-government entity that will be rife with opportunity for major players to try to game the process, by promoting their favorite 'experts' to the certification board, for example.
The certification board is an example of centralized, unaccountable authority that voters do not want more of.
The buliding of a trillion-plus dollars of new industrial plant is not needed if we charge a high-enough fee to extract carbon-laden material.
A high fee charged to extract fossil fuels (along with fees charged proportional to other kinds of adverse impacts on the environment) will make MSR / LFTR powerplants a highly-profitable manufacturing opportunity. These plants operate at such high temperature that they can be used to drive the combustion process in reverse. They can make fuels for transportation by *removing* carbon from the air (or from seawater). It would be a simple matterr to 'tax' some of this fuel production by requiring that 10% of what is produced be buried in unfracted oilfields. (Fracking is destroying the most straightforward method for carbon sequestration.)
We don't need to tax producers of manufactured fuels. We could simply buy some of what they produce, either with public funds or with money clawed back from fossil fuel company profits that accrued in the days before proper extraction / emissions fees were charged. This method of sequestration would be more straightforward, more transparent and reliable than what might emerge as a result of an Advanced Market Commitment.
At first, I thought she was going to surprise us with planting tons and tons of trees. For they remove carbon without spending billions of dollars….
Second of all the big companies that have benefited all these years making billions causing all this CO2 should give 10% of their earnings a year to clean up their mess. Quit nickel and diming the average person.
wow... very interesting... but I feel sleepy when listening to her... so I missed everything
Seems like an illogical way to approach the problem. Rather than removing carbon already there surely the answer is going to be innovation in clean energy capture.
*It would be good to increase the number of green spaces in cities and reduce the area of deserts. The video is very informative!*
?how much co2 will you create if you spend 1 billion dollar
Search "Why Carbon Capture isn't Real"
It was really posted 4 seconds ago I am so early
Me to 😅
Just watch a show on the oceans. It said the ocean can absorb CO2 at 42 million tons per square kilometer. Someone’s math just don’t add up. Everything absorbs it’s rocks water trees.
First view
This is so BAD ! Is like futures in the finance business, it is a scam is not open market nor anything. instead to try to fix finance just make all pay co2 so the market will balance correctly. so fuel will become really expensive and so all the rest will have a fair fight.
Basically we need to be able to make coal on a massive scale.
Then we would promptly return the burning this "clean" coal.
Why?
If there is no monetary profits to the processing, it will never happen. Until then it will be heavily subsidized for unmeasurable results...
Nuclear power is the solution.
Ted Talk: 😂This Video says it clear, Time to unsubscribe😂
True 🤣
Sadly, too late.
Sounds like a great work in progress, especially considering where nuclear power might be in a decade 👍
Growing and applying this idea to other greenhouse gasses and pollutants could actually do the planet some good 🤔
Could do humanity something good you mean.. the planet will be fine with or without us
@@jimpanse3089 If you want to get into semantics, I care about animals, plants, bacteria, clean water, etc. by necessity too, so no I don't just mean humanity 🤷♂
She means give "Her" a billion dollars🤣🤣
this
As long as you don't say that helping people with medicine reduces population, like someone we all know very well.
Huh? Population is increasing mostly because of technological advancements in medicine. Don't be naïve.
@@GGray. I know that, and it's an obvious outcome. Here's a quote for you to Google, have fun going down the rabbit hole... “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent."
Most asian population growth is slowing down. Time to put efforts and reduce african population as well
@@ryancooper1144 Thats a slippery slope that you're alluding to. I personally agree with Elon Musk, we need more people, and more importantly, better leaders. 😉
@@seancampbell1682 ofcourse I believe, earth has enough resources to sustain 10 billion+ population. The problem is, our governments cant provide welfare for all citizens. Significant number of people dont want to work and get food stamps from Govt. The people who want to work are heavily taxed or regulated by the Govt. In short People are a mess. Not the planet
What the heck does shopify manufacture??????
code
@zacharysielck4022
Thanks!
I already knew that I was right though.
I think we should be focused on equity. Not this racist nonsense.
Lol, more BS from the propaganda machine.
Cool story...so show me how methane, nitric oxide and CO2 doesn't cause global warming? Like how is that hard to understand?
@desmet05 because global warming is a scam to take your money to fund these bs projects. They been saying the world gonna catch on fire for ages yall just fall for it every year.
@Mr. OptiMysticPrime exactly.. the word ...." Fossil Fuel " alone was to indicate a limited supply.
Anyone who wants to walk the talk of making a difference, a real difference, should do one thing more than any other thing which would go straight to the leading cause and that is, no not switching to battery cars, etc.. but going vegan. Or stay blindfully ignorant .. a hypocrite.
What a joke...
any alternative smartypants?
In this person's worldview there is no alternative because they believe it's all a hoax... I find when debating people that don't believe in global warming also don't believe the world is round either... ridiculous beliefs extend into other areas...lol since the 1970s scientists were warning people about global warming. nobody listened back then and still we have people continuously debating it even today. Even though the evidence for global warming is becoming more apparent as each year goes By.
@en4ce_ yeah we got trees, and smart people who don't belive the bs global warming crap they been telling us for ages.
@@mr.optimysticprime7013 start to grow up or change your ava 😀
@@mr.optimysticprime7013 you don't sound very well educated to be honest... you are just like oh it's fake.. OK so why is global warming a scam? And why is the earth heating up then? What happens to a planet when you pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere? Are you saying CO2 is harmless lol????
How ridiculous.........that anyone ever bought into this is as unbelievable as a paper mask defending your health.
google hildegard von bingen... trottel
Clearly you're not the kind of intelligent person TEDTalks usually speak to. Educate yourself.
So you are thinking maybe no one should even make an attempt to solve serious issues?
Heavily subsidized by the US government...
"Paper mask defending your health." You're probably NOT the target audience....
Oh honey guillotines dont cost that much
how about stop driving cars