What is net zero?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- More than 50 countries around the world have pledged to become net zero. But what does net zero actually mean-and is it achievable?
Find The Economist’s most recent coverage on climate change: econ.st/3zCt2uW
Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter to keep up to date with our latest stories: econ.st/3gJBH8D
Why do climate pledges fall short?: econ.st/3eVCYaI
What are nationally determined contributions to curb climate change?:econ.st/3iOi3Yz
How sincere are climate pledges?:econ.st/3l5yjqy
Decarbonising the world’s energy system: econ.st/3zQGMT1
All videos pertaining to the subject of "net zero" should start with the fact that US does not have a target date for net zero.
🏈 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE🏈
This is British media, they will only chastise China
It's not like any of the other target dates are in any way realistic...
@@schnell389 Wales - 0 by 2030. Already half green
And China
I love how almost everyone talking about emissions shows stock images of cooling towers 🤣
from the wikipedia article of 'cooling tower': "These designs are popularly associated with nuclear power plants. However, this association is misleading, as the same kind of cooling towers are often used at large coal-fired power plants as well."
@@JonasRaphaelKallasch I am aware of this, but still, they release water vapour and not harmful emissions of any kind.
I think they are being shown in this context because, the amout of steam comming out of cooling towers tends to dwarf the amout of visible smoke emitted by the smokestack, so it look like those powerplants are polluting a lot more than they really are.
Anyway, I wrote the original comment because of pictures like the one shown at 5:51, which imply that cooling towers pollute the enviroment just like (if not more than) smokestacks, which is not the case as the only thing they emit is steam and the heat to generate that steam does not have to come from burning fossil fuels.
I love how everyone preaching the gospel of "net zero" emissions is conviently leaving out the inevitability that genocide is the only way to achieve it.
@@dmitritelvanni4068 exactly
And they all are here communicating their messages with cups and strings 🤥
You had the only well-informed and sane comment here.
My company says it "aspires to net zero by 2050", but has net zero plans to get there.
Net Zero is bulls#*t any way.
@@trevorwilliams1436 yes as people feels like if your country is net zero till 2050 all carbon which will be released till 2050 will suddenly dissappear
Man made options are too small. We must use grasslands, forests, and kelp beds and plankton to remove carbon for us. They work 24/7/365 and don't ask for raises or need vacations. Nature: use it or lose.
Don't forget wetlands/bogs as they capture and store carbon emissions.
But if unfortunately they by any chance catch forest fire (which seems very probable currently) then they would release tons of Co2, just the opposite we wished when we plamted them.
Simply using nature to absorb carbon wouldn't be enough by far, if we can't cut down on emissions from human economic activities. Pricing carbon is one way to restrict it.
@@koushikmaji7998 We need to use every option at the same time.
@@joannachen76 Yes. We should employ all options possible.
net zero was the free dial up internet when I was in high school. lol
Net zero heat in your house, net zero food on the table. That's what net zero means.
I find this video misleading: 95% of emissions have to be cut.
Carbon capture will be very expensive and can thus be only used for the last 5% of emissions we can't prevent. We can't simply carbon capture ourselves out of climate change.
You might need to explain Carbon Neutrality as well, because some sources are saying they are different
We're not on path to either aspect of net zero
Stop denying historic emmisions.. it's at the root of all forms of inequality across the world
France and UK are the two countries which have the most reduced their carbon-emission. The bad western countries in term of dioxyde-emission per inhabitants are USA, Canada, Australia and Germany. So stop pointing out every western country.
@@blaiseragon8142 try to read properly. There's no mention of East or West but if you can see that somehow.. it suggests that you have a bias or you tryin to cover up for something?
@@gauravayush5494 Carbon net zero affects all industry, energy, transport, agriculture, military and political aspects. If you look on "Annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2023" you will see that apart from a little dip for Covid it only goes up. The reason I think the policy is futile is a) very expensive b) any reduction by the West will be more than compensated by the developing world c) in a world of political competition destroying your own industry is dangerous.
What if we treat climate change like how we treat the covid pandemic?
for the average American or Western European to get to the COP21 targets, they'd need to cut their 10 ton emissions per year to just 2 tons. that doesn't go through radical lifestyle and system changes such as degrowth or collapse. but the Economist won't tell you that.
That would cause total collapse and require permanent wartime measures
Net zero is when an airport plants trees to offset their emissions, then the forest the tree is in dries up due to climate change, and burns down, and then becomes a grassland or a desert. But the airport keeps the tree on its ledger still, it has "offset" the emissions.
Planting trees doesn't offset anything. Look it up.
🔴 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE 🔴
Grasslands are actually great carbon traps!
Trees take carbon and store it within as they grow (wood, leaves). When you cut that tree down it will eventually rot, or be burnt and released back in to the atmosphere as carbon gas.
Grasslands, on the other hand, are individual blades of grass, all competing for sunlight. As the 'better' blades grow up past the 'weaker' ones, the weaker ones lose access to sunlight and further growth. As the blades die, and rot down, they're turned mostly into soil, which is stored in the ground, not released into the air.
You guys should know that carbon is very essential to all life on Earth. Stop buying into the climate lies. They are only being pushed harder than ever to take away more of our freedoms.
@@rileyfozz8077 Dude everybody knows that carbon is essential to life. What the climate change deniers dont understand is that this has nothing to do with the subject of climate change.
No, never. That's the realistic outlook.
Planting trees everywhere may not reduce the earth's temperature. Like if we plant trees in the sahara desert, there will be no rains in the Amazon forest and Indian subcontinent... There has to be deserts in that region to make the air flow.
.
We don't know what works for the Nature, and what does not.
.
All we can do is, not do too muchh carbonn emissions, and make life multi-planetary.
'There has to be deserts in that region to make the air flow.' That sounds wacky. How do you know?
@@clivewinbow2150 Google it !
Without sahara desert there is no Amazon rainforest.
I discovered Mr. Vaitheeswaran on a DVD from the PBS series e² -- the economies of being environmentally conscious. The program makes me hopeful about countering global warming.
It's unfeasible for the aviation industry to switch from jet fuel to renewables. But renewables can offset those emissions in the long run.
@peter totally agree, there is a place for each kind of fuel, let's not throw the baby with the bath water.
🟣 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE🟣
@@nainatalwar8050 shush search
@peter SpaceX has an infinite amount of money available. Synthetic fuels just cost way more than normal fuel does which is why nobody uses it.
@peter That is definently true for standard electricity production but aviation is a different field.
Net zero is a way for corporations to not do anything until 29/12/2049 and then just move the date back
I'm sorry, the map at the beginning doesn't say what the red or the grey countries are, net zero or no? Can someone explain? Thank you.
Either a lot of us have to die without being replaced, or a lot of us have to go back to living like cavemen. In my opinion, there’s only one way out of this mess and it’s going to be the hard way
Why dont you start us off then?
@@Stand_Up_Guys i know you don’t want to hear the truth. Nobody does
If you have a petrol or diesel vehicle, dispose of it. Travel by public transport, use a bicycle or walk. Don’t buy food that is out of season. You know, the products that have been flown in by plane so you can enjoy them. The carbon footprint to get them to your plate is just too high. Change your wardrobe to cotton or wool. Don’t buy plastic in any form. There is a start.
@@tsunamis82 you have fallen into the trick of self demonization. We don’t make plastic or control the food supply infrastructure, we don’t make the synthetic cloths or design the vehicles. 99% of us try to live, work and bring up our children in a world made by industrialists. Take your criticism elsewhere and consider for yourself, where the blame lies and even if there is a problem. The climate looks fine to me. The only evidence you will probably have of “the climate emergency” is from dubious corporate funded bodies!
What about nuclear? I didn't hear mention of that and from what I've researched it seems like a very viable option to drastically cut carbon emissions. The Gates foundation has been investing in this for years and are onto some really big things
there is a problem about dumping nuclear waste......wind and solar could be better
@@Tom36907 The nuclear waste problem is so small compared to the rewards.
@@zjean3417 yep
@@Tom36907 did you communicate this message through a cup and string?
@@bradleymcdonald6273 what does cup and string has to do anything with nuclear waste
Any discussion on emissions without the mentioning of animal farming is incomplete. I'm disappointed with The Economist. Moreover, countries like India, even though they justify their emissions with "rich country, poor country" argument, they invest must more effort in climate initiatives than for example US does.
Can you see the ridiculous stupidity of what you are saying.
@@trevorwilliams1436 Would you care to elaborate or do you just want to feel superior about your opinions by belittling mine with empty insults today?
@@vamsiacharya2099 if you can't see it then there's no point in me even trying to explain it to you, maybe if you read your words again you will see it.
@@trevorwilliams1436 usa per capita emissions is 15 ton CO2 per person india is 2 ton china 7.5 ton
India on total emissions is in 4th rank usa 2nd even though usa is developed nation why is still it's per capita CO2 consumption so much
Usa was that nation which came out of Paris climate agreement and WHO during trump rule india even though developing nation worked as much possible to go towards Paris 2030 climate action
If we live in the stone ages then yes
who is the guy in the little car holding the big magnet in front of him? so funny!
The Economicist need to talk about ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
Thanks for sharing this.
We also need to change how we consume everything. Planting trees is an interesting part, but not the absolut solution we need. Thanks a lot for sharing, tho.
@@joseferre1498 You are 100 percent correct . Planting trees is just a place to start.
@@aarononeal9830 Nope. It's not. Europe currently has the highest forestry coverage right now since before the industrial revolution.
@@AwesomeAsh99 What is your point.???
we may find it hard to get net zero immediately but one fine day definitely.lets begin whatever comes will be taken care 👍
we don't know so let's give our best on the journey other things will be taken care 👍
"Greed" play a big role ....
🔲 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE🔲
Why make rockets to land on the moon? We can not even solve the problems on the earth.😂
The Last Statement sums it up for the world and it's net zero ambitions. Unless everyone can change their mindset, it'll remain an uphill battle.
The Paris climate accords was a joke, a country could write what every they wanted on the piece of paper without any reproductions , and get participation brownie points,
It is actually worse than a joke. Even countries making an effort cannot agree on the emissions measurements.
It was toothless. But the markets in western world are signaling green awareness.
📀 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE📀
It's going really well in Sri Lanka! Who needs fertilizer? 😆 Feeding a country is a little bit different than feeding a family of 3.
Which ever is the Most Profitable process will win.
Man makes something. It breaks something. Man makes something to fix the broken thing. That breaks something. Man makes something to fix the bee broken thing. That breaks something. Man makes another new thing to fix that problem. Oops, the new thing broke more things.
This is an endless cycle. We just need to slowly rewind and let go of modern conveniences.
This whole Net Zero is a big load of bulls#*t foisted onto mankind with emotional blackmail and NOT backed up by verifiable provable evidence of science, it is devoid of any TRUE, science at all.
"We just need to slowly rewind and let go of modern conveniences."
OK, you go first. Then tell us how nice it is.
We need a revolution alright....
India and US announced a programme called TECHNOLOGY BASED ENERGY SOLUTIONS: INNOVATION FOR NET ZERO.
Turning population growth to negative in each generation would achieve a lot without anyone being forced to change his lifestyle. If each generation is 20 percent smaller than the one before, half of the problem is gone after three generations.
Yes 👏 👏 👏, I'm so happy we had the pandemic and I'm so happy we have constant supply line shortages. We can do this we can reduce the population and save the planet but we have to vote democrat if we want to do this. Banning abortion was a step in the wrong direction, everyone should be having abortions. It's gonna take a lot of work but we can do this.
You think the Taliban would run the World better than you?
Funny thing is that these meetings release more CO2 than n entire city for a month, is really funny.
Het bouw structuur moet altijd verkleint ontwikkelt worden om zo verder in ontwikkeling kan gaan met fabrikanten om zo een computer te laten lopen heten lucht hebben we al voor onze was
Economist by choice 💸 Ecologist by nature 🌱
Great job
The fact is nobody wants to take responsibility for any of the greenhouse gasses that are being released in the atmosphere as log as that they must spend capital developing the negative emissions. Provided the situation doesn't change, we can kiss net zero goodbye.
The aspect that seems the most neglected in the mainstream debate, is improving the hydrological cycle with appropriate watershed patterning and constructed features. This helps with defending against flooding and preventing drought and more rampant wildfires at the same time as improving the health and stability of ecological biomes/agricultural areas as such sequestration of more soil carbon with better optimised hydration.
It also helps mitigate various other pollutions with better filtration. More hydro power without directly damming rivers also.
@ILATE gaming What? No. No not really, you cause pollution you have to mitigate it and not externalise the cost. Materials, effluent, gasses ect in wrong places is pollution, in the right places/handled the right way should be either inert or a resource even. "Net zero" implies you "off set" it by "making up" for it in a another way.
In terms of "net zero carbon emissions" seems like a nonsense concept for high emitting industry's to move allowances around on paper when in practice these activities are often doing little to nothing to restore and develop strong hydrological and carbon cycles, landscape watersheds ect. Often they're just planting too many of the wrong trees in the wrong places or something because "on paper" it represent a potential amount of carbon sequestration, in practice they might have actually not improved watersheds in the region and increased fire risks and most of them don't survive because they've not established a well balanced forest under decent ongoing management.
You guys are deluded.
@@frenchenstein Just look at your profile picture, exactly the result of your ignorant and indifferent disposition.
@@frenchensteinYa I got a net stretched across my pool to keep it under 90 degrees. Now we just need to figure out how to get one around the planet. Maybe hang it off some satellites😂
So its need select right trees in right place , ok thanks
Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson: Someone say something?
Jeff Bezos said it was impossible to reduce consumption per capita. The only solution is to colonize other planets. His intention is to set up the initial infrastructure for next generation to achieve colonization. I fully concur with him. No one wants to “reduce their quality of life” so we have to reach further then our planet.
@@timedone8502 Really? Humans r made for Earth.U'll have to wear a full suit on Mars.Body will quickly deteriorate.
I'm sure certain countries will be able to achieve net zero for them, it will naturally involve increasing the carbon output of other countries though.
correct me if I'm wrong but at 2:38 you show a nuclear plant right? This is misleading because nuclear plants emit water vapor, not CO2 or other greenhouse gases.
They will not tell It as obviously they are against nuclear reactor just because of that one Chernobyl accident millions of people every year die due to coal powered thermal plants when compared to nuclear power few thousand died in 50 years
Pls add subtitles
net zero or forcing the individual governments to destroy the individual economic sectors. the middle class disappears, the working class disappears etc....
To clue people in, the entire jetstream circulation has changed from oceans too warm to allow Siberian cold to cross the N.Pacific turns it north with heat & moisture near BeringStrait a low point in topography to cool and go to low latitudes ONLY over LAND to balance equatorial overheating.
So, record cold winters will repeat until the ice is gone in 60yrs or less, check.
Then in summer it's reversed, LAND heats quickly, oceans don't so big high-pressure domes will get hotter and last longer, check.
For spice where the polar cold meets warm-moist tropical air we get floating-car sheet_runoff flooding globally, check.
At 500ppm CO2eqv +3ppm/yr =750ppm by 2100 2m/6.7ft more sealevel rising at 30.5cm/1ft per decade for several centuries, check.
Oe cannot remove CO2 below Mt.Everest air mixes too fast, and when emissions finally end, oceans outgas their excess CO2 to keep levels above 400ppm for >>120,000yrs.
Our extinction 3.5ky-5ky away with BAU, unstoppably like any glacier on Earth ending below a rising sealevel cannot be stopped from quickly melting from below by warm oceans and altered jetstreams, check.
Oh, we're so arrogant, the hairless apes aren't wise, check.
Expecting a short answer and a long answer.
Expertos de la distraccion.
The real problem is developing countries, they are polluting more than ever but they can’t be asked to lower their emissions since developed countries are not making any effort at this point.
Developing countries can't be assed because they don't have the money for it.
🟥 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE🟥
Historic emissions?
The animation at 1:00 is just wrong
This might be nerdy, but it’s a tad misleading to discuss pollution emissions and use stock video of nuclear plants because the stuff coming out of the stacks at those plants is water vapour, not a pollutant. However there is the storage of nuclear waste but that’s a separate issue. :)
Fossil fuel power plants and nuclear power plants look alike from distance, can’t really say which one used in this video
@@piroDYMSUS I didn’t realise that some coal/gas plants had similar looming cooling stacks for water vapour! All the power plants where I’m from that aren’t nuclear have the more traditional, thin smoke stack I guess they may have smaller production capacities.
@@buzzfletcher7132 can confirm that's a pretty standard design for cooling towers and coal plants use water generators just like nuclear plants and thus if they are big plants they also build that kind of cooling tower regardless what source of energy heats the water.
@@Dear_Mr._Isaiah_Deringer Wow it’s not like another person already told me that and I explained that where I live there are only Nuclear plants with those kind of stacks.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas actually but emitting it is not as bad as emitting other greenhouse gases because it doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for very long.
零排放非常困难，就比如我自己设计的泄漏零排放罩 也经常出问题，谢谢同仁努力
as the Keeling curve keeps rising ...
And for your amazement, Ladies & Gentlemen, we will acheive net zero, while maintaining our current lifestyles at no extra cost.
PS: I walk most places I need to go, otherwise, where time, distance, or weather are a factors, it's public transport - train or boat preferably or bus, rarely by air
Net zero: at any level, tent, home, building, city, country. requires zero inputs... zero food, zero energy usage, zero water usage, zero outputs, and zero l*fe. understand now?
A report from Bank of America has warned reaching net zero will cost the global economy $5 trillion annually for the next 30 years. Oct 19, 2021
did anyone see a 93012 at 4:03 ?
How simply were this all thrown on developing countries like India and China.
And they say just Chinese media is biased!!!
Nothing wrong with the climate, Considering they said my home town would be 2 metres under water in 2015...Its now 2023 and still have not bought a dinghy... The world is round the f........ G twist.... Who gives a s.. t
Net zero refers to my bank balance
What about US direct and indirect emissions? it's ridiculous.
Short answer - no.
Give thankhs for sharing this knowledge. I have been co~creating & only looking through universal law's lens to come up with positive idea to achieve the balance (net zero) this planet needs.
It’s too late and politically impossible to reduce carbon emissions to reduce warming. Our only hope is technology
So ,there will be no more shipping, overseas trade, air transportation, military vehicles,,( they'll go back to using horses. no manufacturing. Best of luck
We just need more clean and cheap renewables and to stop burning stuff.
Perhaps the question should be what is a sustainable population? Perhaps the planet can only manage with 4 to 5 billion people. The politicians never talk about this but it is as relevant.
I agree with you. When the effects of planet warming really start to bite, if could wipe out fair chunk of the global population specially low to medium income countries. Unfortunately planet warming is slow moving, in fact glaciers are quicker moving than planet warming, so we don't know when the point of no return will be reached or if we have passed it.
20 thousand years ago, before Agriculture was invented and very limited number of human beings living on earth, the sea level started to rise and it kept rising for 12 thousand years, in total for about 120 meters. All these happened under "net zero" of that age.
Don't hurt their brain with nuances.
@Gustav Malraux the problem is the sea level can go up and down more than 100 meters all by itself, again and again, even before human civilization ever existed. On the other hand, Gore's "20 feet" has been considered as a joke on both sides.
BTW we live in an Interglacial in the current ice age, which started 2.58 M years ago. Yes, we are currently living in an ice age.
We don’t live like they did 20,000 years ago. There are millions of people living in coastal areas. Where are they all going to go to. Will the infrastructure be able to cope with that influx. Throwing red herrings into the mix does absolutely nothing to prevent the disaster that is looming. Hai Wu, you need to start looking at the way you live, like we all do. The babies you see are the humans that have to live when the SHTF.
@@tsunamis82 If you don't have the ability to change earth, then you have to cope with it.
That was the end of an ice age, and the rate of Co2 change was slow, and produced by natural phenomina. That made the climate suitable for humans to thrive. The rapid intoduction of Co2 to the atmosphere over the last 200 years due to industrailisation, is not caused by natural phemonina, and is taking the climate out of a range that is suitable for humans to thrive. Do you see the difference?
Net can and had been reached it's called vapor fuel system
Net zero was a grabage internet company in the early 90s
We are at the tipping point.
They said that in 2000 too. Make up your minds already 🙄
@@libertas-goddessofliberty5664 there are people like him in every age, generation, and epoch. People who think the world is on the brink of collapse. It never happens and it is horribly pessimistic.
Humans are the greatest force of innovation and achievement that we know of period. That beats believing that your neighbors are murdering the planet from their own "solipsistic narcissism"
⭕ SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE⭕
@@libertas-goddessofliberty5664 the issue is that there isn't one single tipping point. It's more that the effects slowly pile on to one another over time. The climate also has a significant amount of inertia, so actions now will have outsized effects a long way down the line. We might have already made 2 degrees inevitable, but we won't see the effects of that until the end of the century, for example. Human psychology is really not well equipped to deal with this sort of problem.
1:48
Talk about greenhouse gas emissions and one of the first we see is a cooling tower. AGAIN. Do they have any idea what its is there for?
water vapor is also a greenhouse gas :)
It is when every air-breathing animal stops breathing!
Yes we need a revolution in our mindsets and system.
Physically impossible if you still want to be able to use concrete and steel.
6:05
04:24
That is Net Zero for ya! Just kickin the can down the road.
in order for this to be net zero, you need a new definition of net zero
It's always:" we have to..". No, nobody has to do anything. You can, if you want to. Keep me out of it.
Net zero is about recognising the fact that we are already too late and need to develop technologies to extract carbon. Carbon extraction also has global risks and ramification that need to be well understood as this field matures. Consider engineered oceanic algae blooms could extract vast amounts of carbon, but equally would deplete the ocean of oxygen wiping out many fish, unless the impact can be mitigated. We need to start investing in carbon extraction; and net zero is a obvious driver of small scale ideas, which will help us develop better large scale strategies.
extraction technologies already exist
Net Zero is about taking your money and lulling you into false hopes.
@@yourneighborhoodwierdo8349 not at scale tho
Utter claptrap, read the latest IPCC report. Even that biased mass of alarmists admits there has been no warming in over a decade. Net Zero is just another financial scam, like Covid.
Recognizing
starting a climate debate video with Billie Eilish tells me something is either wrong with this video or with our society.
David Beckham has more notoriety than the entire IPCC panel.
lending against future innovation
what can possibly go wrong?
Gaslighting and crazymaking are one in the same - they are both terms to describe a person that wants you to feel like you’re losing your mind. They do that by causing you to distrust your own decisions and make you think that you are wrong about almost everything.
They know how to turn you from a happy, assured individual with your own thoughts and ideas into a dependent, unsure and fragile person that can’t take any steps without checking in with them first.
Emotional abuse is insidious in nature, but crazymaking is the ultimate perception destroyer. If you can’t trust your own perceptions, you don’t even know what reality is. After some time with the crazymaker, you’ll come to trust the very person causing you to distrust yourself.
I totally agree. I am a farmer who has transitioned to regenerate agriculture over the last few years, with a mission to inform others. I was a conventional farmer for many years, using the latest and best technology to solve my daily challenges, as that was what I was taught and advised by experts that I "trusted". I was also one of those "experts" giving the advice for a few years. I believe agriculture is the biggest cause of climate change and catastrophic environmental destruction evident today, ironically it is also the solution to the carbon problem, no technology needed. Just an open mind and a reality check, which is blocking the understanding of what regenerative agriculture really is and what is aims to achieve. My point being, the power of rational decision making has been taken away from the managers of land (or any individual in fact) and we are dependent on organisations to advise us on the best decision making when solving daily problems, while they profit from the sale of goods and services.
Deep-sea fertilization is probably the best way to achieve substantive negative emissions. We could fertilize the oceans one year, and the following year we give the seas a break with no fertilization. This could also be followed up with alkali treatment if ocean acidification becomes a lingering issue. It's risky, but I don't think we have a choice.
You're going to need a lot of alkali to de-acidfy the oceans... and when they get too acidic, nothing's going to grow there
🔵 SERCH ADITYA RATHORE, HE ALSO MAKES INFORMATIVE CONTENT LIKE ECONOMIST ON U-TUBE🔵
I want to ask something about the @economist. Why do you make few videos in a long period, You are the best of the channels but I rarely see the videos or documentaries so please speed up
Another MAJOR reason why nations are very reluctant to achieving net zero is because we must evaluate and calculate the outcome of the forbiddance of NOT combusting 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 trillionth of a hydrocarbon atom/and/or molecule and attain, sustain, and maintain the nations' gross domestic products higher and higher every year under the demands of globalization.
why aim for net zero whynot aim for negative emissions......as per our current progress to net zero, aiming for negative emission would be best way for net zero
It can be done but government has to step in which will upset all the pro freedom people that are obsessed with government tyranny and big government being evil and trying to ruin their precious little life's
Not with current technology, no.
Next?
Abdullreamen
how about negative human population growth ?
that would do much more than anything else
India would have to introduce a one child policy like China did for 40 years. 2 child policy for African countries.
What are you proposing exactly?
@@davidfmcmullen
i propose
IUDs for all teenage females
and reversible vasectomies for teenage males .
if \ when they feel ready to create new humans
they can have them removed and reversed .
of course it will have to be compulsory
and paid for by the state .
As the narrator said. "Easier said then done".
There is no doubt that rich world should lead this as they want to lead in international affairs.
We will first have to make it more affordable to go to net zero because it's expensive to get solar panels on a house and also get a electric car or a self driving car. We also have to clean out our ocean as well.
To adapt to sustainable environmentally friendly living, etc is going to be very expensive yet it has to be done since planet warming is slow moving, in fact glaciers are quicker moving than planet warming, so we don't know when the point of no return will be reached or if we have passed it.
first of all, electricity only accounts for a fifth of energy use, and only a fifth of our electricity doesn't use fossil fuels, so about 5% of our energy use is from non-fossil fuels. energy is just one part of our impact like transportation is just a part of our impact. there is also land use and industry that play big roles.
plastic in the oceans has nothing to do with climate change.
No
the right to emission is the right of development and a fundamental human right. all people living in non-industrial lands should have the right to live as great as the people living in industrial lands do such as the USA, west European countries. in contrast, developed countries like the USA, the UK have emitted much more CO2 than developing countries such as CHINA, Indien in 18th, 19th century. for fairness, the sum of emissions should be accounted in the entire period from industrial innovation to today. in this case, the developing countries can get bigger parts from this sum to cover the lack of emissions in 17th and 18th centries. in the other words, how many more co2 emissions did industrial countries emit in past centries decides the rest parts of the emission made in developing countries. at the same time, a certain limit of emission is necessary for the future of human beings as well.
Yeah no my guy you are completely wrong. the majority of pollution and emissions has happend in the last 50-100years. 18th and 19th century emissions were nowhere near those of today and thats because of globalisation and the worlds population getting much bigger. In the 17th century there were no emissions as the first industrialisation started around 1760 (aka 18th century). And also if we all collectively dont stop and change our ways now we will all be poor undeveloped and on the brink of exctinction in the next 100-200years
Sadly no
Why did i think this was about money