A Crazy Solution To Global Warming
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Use code JOESCOTT50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3Db3wAT.
Our climate is constantly changing. And right now, we're what's changing it. What if we could find a way to stabilize it to ensure our survival long-term? What if we could create a thermostat for planet Earth? Here's what that might look like.
Here's Climate Town's channel. It's fun.
/ @climatetown
Want to support the channel? Here's how:
Patreon: / answerswithjoe
Channel Memberships: / @joescott
T-Shirts & Merch: www.answerswithjoe.com/store
Check out my 2nd channel, Joe Scott TMI:
/ @joescott-tmi
And my podcast channel, Conversations With Joe:
/ @conversationswithjoe
You can listen to my podcast, Conversations With Joe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Spotify 👉 spoti.fi/37iPGzF
Apple Podcasts 👉 apple.co/3j94kfq
Google Podcasts 👉 bit.ly/3qZCo1V
Interested in getting a Tesla or going solar? Use my referral link and get discounts and perks:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
TikTok: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
LINKS LINKS LINKS
www.co2.earth/daily-co2
www.noaa.gov/news-release/car...
www.technologyreview.com/2021...
www.technologyreview.com/2022...
www.statista.com/statistics/1...
mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/c...
carbonengineering.com/
climeworks.com/
globalthermostat.com/
www.bloomberg.com/news/featur...
www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/clime...
www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.heirloomcarbon.com/#produ...
www.missionzero.tech/our-tech...
www.sustaera.com/technology
www.noya.co/how-it-works
www.carboninfinity.com/techno...
www.carboncapture.com/
mechanicaltrees.com/
www.businesswire.com/news/hom...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
www.quora.com/How-many-metric...
www.researchgate.net/post/How...
www.theguardian.com/environme...
www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate...
www.c40.org/what-we-do/scalin...
www.nsenergybusiness.com/feat...
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
1:35 - CO2 Levels
2:54 - Mining The Sky
9:22 - Climeworks
10:23 - Carbon Engineering
11:17 - Global Thermostat
12:25 - Additional Startups
14:19 - Carbon Market
18:00 - How Much Carbon Do We Need?
23:17 - This Is How We Do It
26:13 - The Caveats
30:00 - Sponsor - Factor 75 
Наука
As someone who uses Celcius, watching him turn the dial to 72 was terrifying
Ditto for anyone who uses Kelvin.
Fahrenheit - 0 = cold; 100 = hot
Celsius - 0 = cold; 100 = dead
Kelvin - 0 = dead; 100 = dead
Interior temperature is actually somewhere F makes more sense than C. Ideal temperature in F would be 68F to 72F, and people tend to be very particular within that range. 1 degree difference is uncomfortable. That range, in C, is 20-22C. Just not enough granularity to find ideal comfort.
Thus highlighting the problem with a system where 0 is uncomfortable 50 is dangerous.
C is far to crude, Its like trying to eat sushi with broom handles.
In 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, published in 1872, one of the characters discusses how industrialization was already having adverse effects on ecosystems. He mentions the possibility of destabilizing large parts of the global climate if industrial trends continued. That was 151 years ago. They may not have understood the scale, but they were already seeing the signs.
It amazes me perceptive people were cluing into that way back then.
Welp great to see in 150 years so much has changed! Good to know heavy industry is totally clean now!
pollution was blatantly dumped back then into waterways, killing all the fish. they knew this was bad
You do realize that was a work of fiction right?
@@YourCapyBra_3Dpipesa90sspecialwhy?
a scientist named john tyndale did an experiment that showed increased co2 production going into the atmosphere would cause global warming. that was in 1859 ! if we were logical we would have done something back then. its over !
Many thoughts on this but the one that I keep coming back to is this: What is wrong with hitting the problem from all angles instead of hoping to find the proverbial silver bullet? Plant trees, build nuclear, continue to innovate with renewable energy, collect carbon on the way out AND collect after it's in the air. Anyway, that's my $.02. Love your channels, Joe. Always entertaining, informative, and thought provoking! 🤓
And be proactive - stop it at its source. Just like the plastic issue - these companies went from creating glass to creating plastic and we're so busy trying to bail the water out of the boat using a bucket we're not paying attention to the fact we could just fix the hole.
because societies these days don't want to invest in any technology unless it has an immediate and long term quarterly gain. Nuclear is the obvious power choice but they aren't as spicy (in terms of profits) than wind or solar. Go figure that humans remain obsessed with profits than with their own survival.
You want a silver bullet? The one thing that can fix magically fix everything. Immediate reintroduction of industrial hemp replacing cotton, lumber, polyester, and countless other raw materials. That would have more impact and cost less for less effort than any and every other method combined.
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 While I don't necessarily think it will just take one thing, I completely agree that would be a massive start. Right alongside the going back to glass instead of plastic. Great example.
How am I expected to survive if I can't fuel my helicopter @@Javaman21011?
That was the most encouraging video I’ve seen about this. No reason we can’t do it. I hope ASU gets the award. That’s what we need.
Double edged sword with trees... Yes they require water initially... but in the long run they help capture water, restore top soil, and increase overall moisture levels which encourages more rain. However, you can't just plant a bunch of trees to try and create a forest. If all the trees are the same age or the same species (as you mentioned), it actually increases the chances of failure and fires. You have to mimic nature and plant diversity and in succession. Some trees one year, and more the next, and more the next, etc. Also plant companion plats and fungi as well. Also though trees capture carbon, the topsoil itself is actually more effective at capturing carbon. So we don't necessarily need dense forests, but instead we need to restore topsoil... which does involve trees, but not nearly as many as one might assume.
Mature forests aren't even desirable for this purpose. A mature forest is carbon neutral as its trees die and rot. What we want is giant commercial timber farms using monoculture fast growing species like SPF (softwoods) or bamboo. Then we harvest them for wood and build durable structures. Every ton of dry lumber mass produced is about 1.46 tons of CO2 sequestered.
You’re right about the top soil.
That’s why we need to work to restore our Great Plains here in the US.
The thing is, it doesn't matter...Western countries are doing so much to try to make things better for the climate but it all gets undone by China, India, and other countries...we can't make progress if everyone doesn't pitch in, but it's hard to convince a brutal dictatorship (China) to do something good for the world when it doesn't even care about its people, and in terms of India most people are just focused on surviving and can't find time to care about the rest of the world
Yeah most re/afforestation minded scientist and papers I read advocate for the effects of cooling through water cooling dynamics introduced, not CO2 sequestration (considering it to be a by-effect).
Better yet, train local populations to re-green and restore landscapes. Soil restoration is relatively slow (order of 10s to 100s of years). Soil degredation occurs in an afternoon.
Trees are awesome, but there is just not enough space in earth to plant as many trees as would be needed.
For those wondering what molecular sieves are, they are a sort of ceramic looking ball (BB to pea sized and can be made of several different materials) that have pores in them that are so small that they are very similar in size to the size of the molecules that they're meant to absorb, making that specific molecule or sizes smaller than said molecule able to absorb into the materials. This is generally an exothermic reaction, meaning it produces heat. I've booked alcohol before using them to remove the water from it. I mainly use them to remove water from other liquids (type 3A), but they come in many various pore sizes that can absorb much bigger molecules and many different liquids and gases. They're really cool and really neat to work with. The ones used for water can be reactivated by putting them in the oven (afterwards they've been dried on the outside and all alcohol is removed if that's what you use them for) for a few hours and they're ready to go again. Great for dessicators as well as they'll suck the water right out of your products without even having to be in them by using the air as a medium.
nice to see you here as well
I'm pretty sure I've seen NileRed using something like this in at least one video.
They are used in a lot of processes. Oddly enough it's used at the Carbon Capture plant in Saskatchewan in their amine process
Thanks for the great information! Appreciate you!
A mesh sieve is made of molecules too
This was my thesis paper last semester. As I watched the video, I kept saying “is he going to talk about… yep, he did.” “But is he going to do the math..? Yep, he did.” Very well done.
My only addition to this would be the ethical implications, which is what my paper focused on. Things like: the noise these plants generate, the eyesore they are (do you know how BIG these machines have to be?), the workforce necessary to build them all, the cost of upkeep.
A long-term, global-scale project like this seems unlikely, but we need to do something.
Ok, if you did such thesis, could you answer my little question? BTW forgive me if i had wrong idea. It's morning, didn't finish my coffee and i still have to fire up my brain motor.
If he/you counted a drop from ~400ppm to ~300ppm in tons of CO2... why he did it just once... ? Or am i missing something?
From what i know, we are pumping CO2 to the atmosphere constantly, so in my mind, we would have to pull enough CO2 from the atmosphere every year. Not once...
Then this price woul be multiplied for every year? And then it would fit his first feeling assumptions about it being insanely higher than what he calculated?
EDITED
LOL, sorry. i stopped this clip at 20:00 and wrote this question. Then i started it again and he answered. NVM 😁
If this removal was combined with putting less CO2 into the air each year, e.g. move away from fossil fuels, closed loop systems, etc, then the extra cost per year would start dropping, making it a bit cheaper overall. The initial large figure still applies, it just can get better if all the other work is done too.
Or we could just plant lots of hemp.
🙄
I submit that the thought that, "... we need to do something," is just as flawed and shortsighted as thinking that we don't need to do anything. The only thing that we can actually be somewhat near maybe certain of, is that we should do things more efficiently and more cleanly. Beyond that, our current ignorance rapidly compounds any plans too far into the fog of the Great Unknown for us to predict with any reliable measure what they will actually do.
I further submit that each of us, just trying to do a little better, within our own spheres of influence, would do more than anything else, to reduce the impact humanity has had, and will have, on the environment and the global climate. I would apply this to our personal and professional spheres equally.
Shorts have their place but these lengthy deep dives are awesome something to really get your teeth into. Joe, keep it up pal, loving it. Also fingers crossed we as a species sort our s*** out. Cheers mate
Yush, save the hoomans and spread knyowledge meow >^w^< 🐱
I can't imagine the amount of time and research you had to devote in order to create this video. I'm way to lazy to do all of that research but I am super interested in the topic so thanks a lot for presenting all this information to me in a 30 min segment. Very well done!
Thing is, the same effort doesnt go into some basic critisms of climate change. Joe is an amazing human and even if i sound judgy about his take on climate... the man is awesome and i hope his death has like 16 different dates and is really really weird =) * edit* i said that last bit because im sure he would appreciate a nice falling asleep death to become a weekend at Bernys type of situation where he is seen across multiple countries... im having too much fun. Have a great day!
For years, auto companies cried that they couldn't meet EPA standards for air pollution. That they would bankrupt the industry. The EPA didn't let up much. Eventually, the car companies figured it out, because they were forced to figure it out. Why would it be any different with the power-generation business? If carbon sequestration doesn't work right now, make it work, under penalty of bye bye profits.
It's incredible how much yall understand business law when it agrees with you, but hate the fact that businesses exist so you can express your opinion here. You're right. But you're very ignorant and childish.
That being said, the EPA made some incredibly stupid mistakes along the way (which are still on the books):
ruclips.net/video/azI3nqrHEXM/видео.htmlsi=tow-YYydmNdQPwqI
dude....Joe....you might not be reading all these comments, but i watch like...every single one of your videos. you are probably one of the most funny dudes out there. busted up laughing at least 3 times. keep this shit up. i don't know how you do it. endless hours of preparing, deleting content, editing content. it's gotta be rough. but I am a HUGE fan! will keep liking and commenting as much as possible until youtube rewards you with a most valuable trophy some day
The ocean based idea you had can pump it into old oil wells instead of the seawater. It can also double as a direct carbon capture system for capturing Carbon directly from seawater and storing it permanently, as the ocean is already quite adept at acting as a carbon battery which has done a better job of helping insulate us from the most drastic effects that were predicted.
CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere - if it goes under 0.3% all plant life dies - CO2 is absurd - WHAT IS MORE LOGICAL - is governments not admitting #CLIMATEWARFARE is a real thing - using weather as weapons. Now if they just came out and said that - I'd be fine with giving money to prevent climate warfare and being able to control climate. Rather than get lied to about it all like we are getting lied to right now. They lied about the pandemic... they lied about spying on all Americans and the 5 eyes countries. They tried to lie about MK Ultra - they wont tell the truth about the Kennedy Assassination - so don't tell me that climate change is made by humans because of carbon. And Greta Thunberg's family are the ones that started the whole "carbon" hoax. #GOFIGURE ..
I saw a video a while back that mentioned a hydrogen capture method that uses water vapor from the ocean. Iirc water vapor requires less energy to split than liquid water and also avoids the issues of filtering (rocks, fish, sand) and brine waste (we can use some stuff in the brine but most of it is useless to us and would do more harm than good if we just dumped it back into the ocean). If we could combine such a hydrogen capture system with a ocean carbon capture system using renewable energy (probably a combination of solar, wind, and wave generators, I doubt geothermal would work well near the ocean), I could see a decently profitable company being formed. Said company would probably sell synthetic fuel as their primary income source (hydrogen plus carbon) which isn't the greatest but synth fuels can be made to produce less greenhouse gases and no toxic chemicals while also reducing our reliance on oil which means less damage from drilling and refining oil. Such a system may also be able to produce synthetic plastics and ethanols since those are also made of hydrocarbons.
⁸
@@shanefrederick1314 ?
"we are currently going in the wrong direction and we keep pressing the gas harder"
Heh. I see what you did there Joe
warmed eu enough, not to req. russian ng, during war.
Didn't think we were getting a video this week! Loved it. Good luck on the renovations!
Christmas Video. Note the Tree.
One would think. That tree is still up. It's now a Valentine's Tree.
I didn't want to say anything about that not being a true test of time, but ours is still up as well
Awesome video! I love how detailed your analysis is of current and future technologies. Thank you for your work and focus on topics that are very prevalent. In particular, the way you are able to articulate the impacts on difficult concepts and break them down into layman’s terms is awesome! Look forward to you future content.
I just found climate town recently and it's an AWESOME channel. Very recommend.
I am pausing the video because I feel the need to comment. Other youtubers may be funnier than you, but I am sticking around and paying a symbolic 1 dollar monthly donation because I like you and I like the way you present complex topics. Can't explain it, but your videos sort of have an anchoring effect on me. I know I am not alone on this. I have read other comments describing this feeling. Please keep doing what you are doing. It works!
Glad to be your anchor. :)
Get a room.
@@Scepticalasfuk mwahaha tbh if I met Joe irl I might even do a stupid starstruck stunt and ask for his autograph 🫶🏻😁
Ditto… there is something about the videos and his presence is anchoring
It feels like a passionate conversation when you're taking the time to listen.
Climate Town is legit great channel! Well researched & hilarious dude. Props to Joe for giving them a shout out!
I disagree he makes emotional kind of simplistic arguments. Joe has much more well thought out videos
i will check it out. I love Joe because he is good dude, but seems a like so much of the successful media the climate topic has major flaws. Still, im hoping my expressing heavy doubt to you will make some good luck and Climate down wont just be another statistics drama diatribe
If only climate change was legit
@@annother3350 It is, take your head out of the sand.
@@krashd nonsense, the coral reefs are thriving, theres no sea level rise, deserts are being regreened and there's 14% more green space on the earth than 20 years ago - the planet is thriving.
Climate change was invented as a system of power and control over anyone but the super rich
Everybody seriously concerned about climate change can actually make a real difference right now by their lifestyle and their wallet. But they won’t. People could put the oil industry out of business by not using their products….but they won’t. The biggest frustration is seeing our politicians and celebrities lecture the working class on how to live and want to tax us into oblivion, while at the same time flying around the world on private jets and vacationing on mega yachts and living in mansions etc. etc. etc. it’s maddening.
Totally worth it. I suspect geothermal has the best prospects because you get heat and electricity, and because geothermal is found near volcanoes. Volcanoes flow gigantic amounts of basalt, and carbonated water pumped into basalt fractures the basalt in the formation of limestone.
Wow !! That thermostat performance was incredible !! Bravo 👏🏼 Oscar!! I say Oscar!!
Those sound effects were on point too!
@@pixelfairy yep 👍
So, Trees... Definitely could fix our problems. I work in Nantahala National Forest - 2nd Wettest Place in the USA. Elevation about 2000ft-5000ft. The trees at maturity could be 100-200+ft high. This acts like a lice comb, literally pulling moisture from the air. They also evapotransporate water from the ground water, super saturated soil+leaf litter, understory plants, seeps+creeks, etc. Water is attracted to other water due to cohesion/adhesion. Hence, the Great Smokey Mountains (just north of Nantahala). True, you need the right tree species and they right geographic / geologic features. The knowledge is available! The forests can be use not only for recreation, but as mushroom farms, for hunting + fishing, collecting wild herbs, fruits, nuts etc. There is plenty of food in the forest. I have eaten chicken of the woods, lobster mushroom, black trumpets, multiple species of chanterelles, oyster mushrooms, lactarius, black berries, raspberries, wine berries, blue berries, huckleberry, ramps, sassafras, etc 2 deer could last you a year. It is possible to live off the land
Don't forget building materials- log some of those trees when they reach the peak of their growth to allow a new tree to grow in its place, and gather more CO2, while you use the lumber in building or other tasks.
Street trees also reduce crime.
Weird but true, a cause and effect.
No one know why.
There is one downside that weakens their positive impact. Forests have a low albedo compared to most other landscapes reflecting less light and generating more heat from absorption. But yes trees are good as a carbon sync and critical to maintaining the global biosphere and its complex interwoven ecosystems.
Some estimate that we need to plant 1 trillion trees to return the climate change to pre-industrial levels. The cost for this would be around 300 billion dollars - and that is how much countries spend on subsidies of "green" industries per year. This means we can solve the problem in one year. The subsidies of other years can be used to develop tech to help those new forests thrive.
@@veramae4098 More like correlation in my opinion. Most low income areas don't have street trees. The local infrastructure itself is crumbling in areas of high crime and urban decay. Maybe there is a slight contribution to the cause however where the sight of nature reduces stress and impulsivity in artificial environments like cities.
Great overview of the situation. Thanks for listing specific companies as well. It's hard to get a real world picture when the real world names and details aren't explained. Keep up the great work.
Someone tried to do a pilot project sequestering CO2 under the ocean off the coast of Spain several years ago. It caused an earthquake :( and the project was abandoned.
What I really suggest to people that could be just as helpful, if not moreso, that straight planting trees, is finding really empty forested locations with next to nothing growing at ground level, researching the Native plant life of your area and buying seed for groundcover plants and grasses to put under the trees. I understand that not everywhere is forest & I also understand that some regions of the country are best off having anti-wildfire measures in place, but that will sequester a heck of a lot more carbon a lot faster. If you have an area to convert into native grassland, do that, or if you have a pond and want to add bushes/ trees/ grasses around parts of the perimeter, or fill it with a variety of Native water plants. All those things are a lot more doable than planting trees, because there is so much more forest land which was stripped for one reason or another years ago and didn't grow back in right once it was abandoned & often many waterways/ swamps were damaged either deliberately or accidentally over the last two centuries.
Grow trees, build with wood, and grow more trees, thus capturing all that carbon in our living spaces.
@@seanhoude The trees will take about 10-20 years to start removing more carbon than they let off, depending on the species. The other forest plants help with that process. Trees off on their own, without a forest environment, don't really do much of anything & once you cut the thing down, it's no longer doing any more than it had already done.
@@MrChristianDT Its more complex than that as most of an actual forest lives underground in vast interconnected networks, effectively 50% of of a tree's carbon budget is sent underground where it supports the vast amount of living biomass that makes the difference between a collection of trees and a forest.
Forget about trees people. Too slow, inefficient, and labor, financially, and environmentally costly.
HEMP HEMP HEMP HEMP
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 Which would require clearing land that could be used as a carbon sink to plant a monoculture of marijuana/ Indian Hemp- the field in question of which will be doing nothing during parts of the year, will not have enough plant matter to hold onto the soil, which runs off. The fact that farmers have to keep fertilizing fields shows how poorly crops work at sequestered carbon. We can get a good bit of it stuck in the plants themselves, but the point is converting a vast majority of it into soil over time & keeping it there.
Would love a video delving into how/why the oil industry receives trillions of dollars in subsidies each year. Based on your figures surely this would mean that oil companies would not be profitable without the subsidies and would make renewable energy much more competitive (or probably massively cheaper) than the dirty alternatives. It would be very interesting to understand what justifications are made for current subsidies. Out of curiosity and because I didn't know a way to investigate these figures I asked ChatGPT what the global subsidies amounted to and the response was in the tens of billions. Not disputing your figures, but just thought that was interesting...
Hey Joe, really burning question here!
How on earth do you manage to post consistently + research well and objectively + be entertaining AND have really good marketing/promo skills?
Where did you get all that discipline from? How did you build it? How can you follow through and finish every task every single time?
PS, free beer if you answer
He has a team
Your burning question is only adding more CO2 to our atmosphere 😅
@@markusnl He's burning hydrogen so adding to sea level rise.
also his team works on these constantly so this was probably filmed months ago after months of research.
He’s got a rare blend of skills - both educational, media, business and storytelling.
Concrete sequestration is a red herring. To make lime, the active ingredient in concrete, you already need to release CO2. SO sequestering it in concrete (presuming 100% efficiency) would simply be a zero sum gain. we need positive gains, not zero gains.
Solar powered algae, then buried in the desert, is a way to sequester carbon with no additional energy input. The company Brilliant Planet is doing this in Morocco as a test project. Their estimate is 40 tons per year, per acre of sequestration. Because you can grow the algae in seawater the American Southwest could stand to see this as a huge economic opportunity.
The problem with this are the minerals and the water. Meaning algae are not only carbon. If we are able to concentrate the algae into some form of coal, this would make sense, otherwise you are just putting fertilizer in the ground that will leak out eventually and you are also creating a ton of methane that will also leak.
There’s really no reason that this couldn’t be expanded to everyone growing algae in their backyard that they let dry in the sun and then sell that dried algae to their local recycling center.
@@louislesch3878 not everyone has a backyard.
algae growths works great for dealing point sources of CO2. To get optimal growth per area, you want to feed CO2 directly to the algae. But you could combine it direct air capturing. It propably scales better than sequestration.
Perhaps make it into a slurry and pump it into depleted oil wells underground. Bury it where coal seams used to be. There are "proper" ways to grow it, but it isn't exactly picky stuff. Just ask any aquarium owner.
Me watching Joe: omg, we can totally do this!
Me watching news: nope, we're still screwed.
Maybe consider not watching the news. What use does it have for you? What positive affect? The negative affects are known so i won't bother with that question. Maybe worth a try. Personally, my life has been better without it and i can't recommend abstaining enough
@@socore4659 I don't think that's what serpent was getting at.
Joe is an optimist-
As long as the systems and hierarchies of power don't change, we are screwed even if we had a magic wand to fix the climate
@So Core I know staying informed won't always be good for my mental health, but I'm a firm believer of being informed is the only way to have any hope of seeing opportunities for change.
That being said, my original post was really more of a joke. One way or another some of these changes will reach a point that we will have no choice but to address them as a society. Hopefully we can hit that point before the solutions are large runs of pain intermixed with actual problem solving.
Any time this discussion comes up, this Icelandic experiment is brought up. This is located just 10 mins from where i live .It's located just outside of Reykjavik and there seems to be no downside to this. Might be because there is nobody living close to it and there is lots of noise it produces. But, thank you for this video. A great one.
When you look up into the atmosphere it looks endless, but is not. While outer space starts at sixty miles up, all our breathable atmosphere, and almost all of the CO2 in it, is in the the first four miles. To understand the scale, take a look at a typical 24 inch diameter classroom’s cardboard globe. The atmosphere is represented by the thickness of shellac protecting the globe from those sticky kid hands. The breathable part is the thickness of the ink coloring the globe at the bottom of that clear coating of shellac. Bottom line: The atmosphere’s ability to absorb everything we throw into it is nearing it capacity.
This video, is another reason why Joe is one my top 10 favorite RUclips channels ❤️🔥💪👍
Who are other 9
Joe, lovin' the longer format. Nice to see you really go down the rabbit hole. Around 15:00 you were wrapping everything in a nice bow and I'm waiting for the ad segue, then you dive into "how to"!
JOE
Like this comment to encourage Joe to do a video covering the Earthquake in Turkey/Syria.
His way of giving an overview and or an in-depth look at events and news would be great. Please lend us your exceptional mind and cover this tragedy.
I like how smooth that transition to your sponsor; that felt like home to me.
Very, very, *very* interesting video, Joe! Left me thinking... I'm probably gonna sit with this on my mind for the rest of the day, just thinking about how to best do something like this, as a kind of thought experiment. So, *thank you* for giving me something to do that doesn't require me to move too much, since I have waaaay too high fever for that. Keep going strong, love your videos. Every single one of them.
Larry Niven once wrote we're going to make this planet nearly uninhabitable.
Then, when there's no place left for the RICH to go,
we'll fix it.
Fast.
In the meantime, hundreds of millions will die.
The upside? Yes, there is one. We'll know how to terraform planets.
Joe, co2 is not the control knob. There are other processes at work here including a complex dynamic maze between the trop & the strato.
Can't shake the belief of a cultist, unfortunately.
Wut
@@hawk4192 Who're you calling a cultist?
You need to do a remake discussing carbon sequestration using trees/plants/biomass converted into biochar that is then put in the farming fields to reduce the fertilizer needed to raise our crops.
Biochar put in the ground is the best carbon sequestration that works for thousands of years at the same time improving soils and hence crops!
The Winston Wolf quote alone sold me
I love how, in a nutshell, tech fixes one issue it creates two new ones. It does make it easier to be more indulgent in life. Totally sustainable! Don't want to run out of new jobs to create, lol XD
Happy to see the climate town shout out. Totally the best produced and most informative channel to educate on climate policy.
Definitely. He should have earned his seat with the world economic forum by now. I’m sure they are all very pleased with his contribution
thanks for mentioning Climate Town channel, its disturbingly funny & great journalism
Best show you’ve put out in like…. FOREVER.!!
Great Job Joe.!!
As always, interesting stuff, brought with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Now I'm hungry.
If you are going to build floating co2 plants, there's an easier way.
Go to the places where there are upwellings of nutrient rich water, sprinkle iron filings or iron powder out there. It stimulates the growth of microbes, which grows plankton and other stuff. Then it dies and drops down to the sea bed. And it's "almost free". Certainly easier than doing it mechanically...
that is until you encourage the wrong kind of algae to bloom and they drain the area of oxygen and kill the nearby fish
Or we could just plant acres of hemp instead of acres of trees since hemp is insanely more efficient than any other method. Faster, cheaper, easier and provides an extremely versatile raw material and food source.
@@prestonrodenkirch8412 then you risk a monoculture
@@Javaman21011 I'm not suggesting that trees be replaced with hemp. I'm suggesting that instead of planting trees for paper or cotton for making cloth it would be much more efficient, cheaper, and faster to use hemp and it also produces superior materials. Besides hemp has such a short seed to harvest timeframe I'm not sure how a monoculture would be accomplished. Maybe I am misunderstanding your use of the word monoculture.
I can just imagine the debates in the UN on what the global thermostat temperature should be. How many families argue about what the temp should be in their own house??? 😆
The staged "bad acting" XD Cracked me up!
Does this mean every working human would have to pay one percent of their income each year and then we'd maybe kinda... like a global tax for climate? Then we'd be okay-ish???
But this is just so effing scary. Climate change stresses me out so much that I need to turn on my PS4 to distract myself from impending climate doom, but that's bad for the climate too!! What do I DO!
Im half Finnish so having the temperature go from -30 to +85 celsius in a matter of seconds is something my dad has prepared me for since age 5
I was confused, then I realised oh coming from outside to into a home
@@fuzzyhair321: saunas in the Baltic Sea are commonplace in Finland. You leap from the sauna right into the sea.
@@robburns1ne oh cool, that sounds fun haha
Awesome video, I love the realism of this channel; it’s not just what we should or shouldn’t do, it’s what we can do.
What an awesome video! I feel we really need to start investing big time in carbon capture, while off course also increasing sustainable energy production. This video made me feel like we can actually fix this :).
So, when some CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere to be put back into the atmosphere (eg. by selling that captured CO2), it does not change anything.
They effectively just use energy to pump air around (with sime magic that uses more energy, but the CO2 level in the atmosphere does not change, although they capture it, because they for example sell it afterwards, they put it back again into the atmosphere).
This should bot be considered to remove CO2 out of the atmosphere, because below the line it isn't.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a fuel source that didn't just throw its waste into the air making it nearly impossible to separate, but instead the waste was super concentrated and not in gaseous form but in solid form?
And contained so much heat that it took huge amounts of water to cool down for weeks after it was used?
@@elimgarak7330 Yes. By the way It's 6-10 years after use that the nuclear fuel is in cooling ponds. I know it seems scary when you don't understand anything about it.
It would, but how would the fossil diggers make money out of that?
@@ColCurtis Yes. By the way, you come off as scared when your baseless ad hominem attack shows that you don't understand anything about what the other person understands.
@@elimgarak7330 Thanks I try. Just to point out your questing/ statement starts with the word and, ends with a question mark but you don't ask a question. You make a comment about how much water the cooling ponds use. Can you see why I would jump to those conclusions about you? Excellent name by the way I'm a big ds9 fan.
So many jokes in this one, I love it 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There are so many jokes in this one for a simple reason the proposition is a joke
Time for a footprint audit for mr. Joe.
Ok, gotta put this out there. You need to look into the amount of CO2 that's pumped underground to get out more oil. Supposedly as I've heard it anyway, more carbon ends up going into the ground than ends up coming out; would love to hear some follow up on this.
Also, this project will happen because it absolutely has to. We're not going to be able to solve this problem without it, in fact, I think we need to shoot for an even more scaled up version. Fossil fuel companies will do the right thing but of course we will need to get this whole "Rule Of Law" thing under control...or we may as well just walk into the chopper blades right now.
I died at Winston Wolf.
This was great, Joe.
Same that was VERY welcome to my heart.
omg I laughed so hard. Wasn't expecting that. And such a burn.
While Rollie is funnier than a lot of science/policy communicators, it's not a zero-sum game and I love to watch you both. I think you're both great at reaching people who aren't ready to be preached at or lectured to.
TREES - The indigenous people of the Amazon basin, turned the trees into CHARCOAL - and buried the charcoal, but that's too easy for the corporate solution makes more money.
Good coverage of the technology, Joe. I'm in the "we're not going to to this until it is financially profitable" camp.
Until your kid dies tangentially from it, then it all suddenly changes
I'm really glad you caught the issue with spreading the cost over time. When you factor that in it still looks feasible. It's a mega project, but due to the modularity, at least falls in the realm of feasible, and controllable (if things turned out to go too far in the other direction).
Why not spent those trillions in costs on building more renewable plants to reduce carbon emissions in the first place?
THE INTRO WAS BRILLIANT OMG 😂
Man Joe, I love your channel and I am so glad I discovered it like a few years ago. This is just absolutely brilliant stuff you make and I absolutely look forward to every video, no matter if I like the topic or not, you just make it interesting, while being realistic, while being futuristic and optimistic, while being hella funny man
Thanks from the bottom of my heart
That's very kind, thank you. :)
Oh my god oh my god oh my god i am such a big fan and i live it so much ummmhhaaa
I agree ! Thank you Joe ❤
@@joescott Hey Joe. Love your chanel but I think you sung and missed with this one. You completely ignored a massive, supermassive factor. It's best explained by this 3 minute video, Carbon Capture Isn't Real, by Adam Something. If Adam is wrong I would love to see your correction of his mistake, but from my understating of things I think he scored, and you struck out. I mean, the trillions of dollars you mentioned to build carbon capture plants, that would be more than enough to build renewable energy plants instead, thus no need for carbon capture. No matter how I look at it, carbon capture, is an unnecessary redundancy that does not add up.
Yeah, trees need water. Know what else they do? Bind water. Know that rain… forest in the Amazon basin? Yeah, that one. “That forest is there because it rains!” I hear you say. Yes, true, but allow me to introduce you to the island of Madagascar. It’s a really, really big island. It’s also suffering from long-term severe drought. Why? Because about 78% of the island has no forest. Some of this is for natural reasons. Since humans arrived 2,000+ years ago it’s difficult to estimate how much of Madagascar has been denuded but estimate are 80-90% of original growth. That which is absolutely verifiable is that 40-50% of the forest that was there in 1950 is now gone. The part of the island suffering the most from drought is the most deforested area. So… water for trees and trees for rain. Added bonus: if you have trees in places where it rains a lot regardless, trees bind the soil and reduce the risk of mudslides. Most of the mudslides you see in the news are either from deforested areas or originate above the tree line or upstream from forested areas. So, plant trees.
I argue that the US should plant massive forests in the Southwest and use solar-powered desalinators to irrigate them. We’re always changing the landscape. Humans did not create or cause the Earth’s deserts (no, we didn’t, don’t believe the Green Cult) but we can reduce them and reclaim some of that land. Not all of it because those are biospheres as well, but some of it.
One more idea. We have thousands of miles of pipelines for oil and gas. It’s big business so it pays for itself but considering the millions of people and all the agriculture which depend on dwindling natural supplies of water, it’s a no-brainer. It might seem silly now but just wait until cities in SoCal and the Southwest are in water jeopardy and agriculture starts to fail. You can choose the energy-intensive desalination route (which I support if done with renewables or nuclear) or just pipe it from Canada. Canada could so export water to the US. You might be thinking about those giant aquifers below the mentioned areas. Tapping those faster than they can be naturally replenished will have consequences both known and unknown. Better to desalinate and pipe it from places that have an abundance of water. We’re pretty bad at water capture because we’ve taken access to water for granted. That luxury is gonna end in some places with very large populations and agricultural output.
I may be wrong, but my math shows that it currently costs 10,000 times more to pull carbon out of the air, than put it into the air (purchasing fuel). You said yourself that they can't even afford to sequester flu gas from a power plant, and that would be way easier (per ton of CO2)(thanks to the much higher concentration of CO2) than pulling it out of the atmosphere.
finally someone actually realizes the scale we need to go to
that scale is off the chart
we must have the equipment to *terraform Jupiter* just to terraform Earth; alongside alot of stuff to handle highly toxic substances
oh and definitely plastics, and alot of it
I absolutely love this channel I love documentaries have seen a lot being the age of 65 I don't comment on the website that I watch but you my friend have a very special gift of telling your stories I like the way you tell both sides of the subject you are talking about their side and the truth keep doing what you do always looking for the next time you come on your loyal fan james
Yeah, those last few words have a very different meaning without punctuation 😑
the answer is in our backyards...instead of green carpets we try so hard to maintain perfect-looking, we should densely plant small to medium trees in order to reduce surface insolation and balance the water cycle while at the same time reducing CO2
For correcting CO2 by burning more fossil fuels: Rather than that, why not mandate soda days so we all burp together. Sounds tastier. Doesn't even need to be sweetened by syrups either, basic seltzer or cocktails involving it work too. Plus, we're much more keen to profit off of selling drinks that "save the planet" than we are to burn more fossil fuels at the moment (at least consumer wise).
I saw a video recently by a forester who said that prairie land absorbs more CO2 than forests, with a lower investment in effort, acreage and water. I'd love to hear your perspective on this.
Mature forests don't really absorb CO2, new ones do. Other plants might be better though, likely algae are the fastest growing. A prairie would need some kind of harvesting, because otherwise it doesn't really capture the carbon.
that bullshit. prairie land absorbs CO2 and the releases it ALL back the next winter
One thing that sounds concerning and one thing that sounds comforting on the long run..
1 - The technology could advance to a point where these estimates are way over the actual price, and so would give the initial stipulation more room to work.
2- Due to the economic and other types of power shift, the new technologies required are monopolized by one party and that increases the cost way over what we expected initially (we know money rules and it can rule against everybody).
The bottom line is let us not rely on future mistery and wonder technologies like carbon capture or solar shades
We have the means to change now, let's do that instead and solve the many releated problems along the way for free
Watching this is august after all the fires this summer when he’s talking about burning trees and towns back in February…. Beautiful. Love ya Joe, in retrospect this adds a level of schtick and nuance that is just *chefs kiss*
Do you remember living with your parents? Most people complained their dad’s were miserly dictators with the thermostat. Mine was in the winter. In the summer he kept the house like an icebox.
It sounds nice until you ask not what would it look like or how would it work but who gets to turn the dial.
Now I’m wondering if 78 is what Joe keeps his normal temp at? That seems pretty hot to me since I keep my house at 72, but I don’t live in Texas.
Probably depends on the season. If we go much below 76 in the Summer, at least on my thermostat, it gets too cold inside. Winter though... nothing above 72 really.
I say this for someone in FL who moved here from PA.
That's a big-ol nope. I actually blew a hair dryer over it to get the temperature reading higher because the house was at like 66 at the time.
I need a long sleeve shirt at 76 deg. 78 is the ideal temperature for me. 83 is ok for peak hours during the summer. That is what happens when you live in Phoenix for your entire life.
Back in the day, the EPA recommended heating to 68° and cooling to 78° and I think Joe is within those guidelines. Don’t know what the standards are today… Personally I don’t mind if the daytime temperature goes into the low 80’s if it’s not too humid, but I need to run the A/C at night for comfortable sleeping (I set my air conditioning to 74° and feel guilty for doing so…)
if we sort out the water problem, there are plants other than trees that can capture more carbon, such as bamboo, giant hogweed & hemp. the faster growing, the better.
The problem with using plants as carbon sinks is that it is very difficult to keep the carbon in them for millennia :(
It’s not about CO2 but many many factors, so many people have pigeonholed themselves into only talking about carbon dioxide rather than sunlight coming in, methane, algaes, and oceanic currents
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I love how you are able to take complex issues and break them down for people like me. You are hilarious and get across concepts and ideas in an amazing manner. Thank you so much for your content. I love your videos.
I vote for the 50 year plan, 1/2 paid by big oil 1/2 by taxpayers. We were in on the cheap energy thing as a species too. Great video.
only problem with your idea is that its not paid by big oil it is still directly paid by everyday people who use oil so its fully funded by taxpayer.
I’ll reiterate the old mantra: “Reduce, Re-use, Recycle” - in that order. Applies just as well to carbon dioxide as any other waste. Reduction is most important, but also has the most resistance against it in our growth-focused economy.
LOL I READ THIS AS OLD MAN
That's what RRR is about fighting back on being colonized.
Industry first then I’ll try it
"recycle", or at least "plastics recycle", turns out to be bullshit. We'll do better to stick with the first two. The sad truth is that a "sustainable" lifestyle require most industrial societies to drastically re-work our way of life. The changes required are so extreme that we're just not going to do these things unless we're forced by circumstances. Most believe that we will not make these changes until a climate disaster is already upon us.
Jonathon Franzen makes a compelling (and oh-so-cranky) point that the destruction of our climate is a natural result of free-market capitalism. Only a predominantly "socialist" world has a chance at regulating the market forces that will otherwise melt enough glaciers to flood every coastline on the planet. This is super depressing if you believe it. Because we just AIN'T GONNA GO SOCIALIST. You're gonna have to pry our free-market capitalism from our cold, dead, submerged fingers, dammit!
@@twilightgardenspresentatio6384 Industry serves the consumer base. Serves is the wrong word... Industry sells stuff to consumers. It markets stuff to consumers, so they buy shit whether they need it or not. Consumers aren't powerless either. "Millennials aren't buying X" headlines are proof of that.
You also don't have to completely abandon things. Even minor reduction is better than doing nothing. You don't have to go vegan, or even full time vegetarian. Simply reducing meat consumption contributes.
We need to decarbonize the ocean, not necessarily just the air. The ocean has been absorbing the carbon dioxide for a long time and is nice and big, so even if it's not great at it, there's a lot of it. The ocean also includes its own power sources like currents and tides. And I think there's more molecules of CO2 in the ocean than in a similar volume of air (sorry, no sources, just going on density). If we de-acidify the ocean a bit, it'll absorb more CO2 from the air and the cycle can repeat. The ocean is also very cold in places and that's good for storing CO2. Plus, we can use the ocean floor to transport the CO2 to very cold places like Antarctica where it could be solidified.
This has always bothered me. The fossil fuel companies don't burn the fuel. It wouldn't sell very well if they did. So if you choose not to buy oil products and burn them, they don't create CO2.
I have to say I like the new format of the videos. Keep up the awesome work, Joe.
The problem isn't that we need to terraform Earth into something better. The problem is that we need to stop terraforming Earth into something worse.
I remember speaking to an economic lecturer and students from Edinburgh University, and when I spoke them about renewables, and they went onto the old misguided myth that these are not sustainable without subsides... when the reality is as I told them - that fossil fuels are subsidised by $trillion every year!
These are "economic" lecturers and students getting their 'basic facts' wrong!
And to be honest, sadly I wasn't convinced they wanted to know the truth, because this would go against much of the mainstream.
They should have demonstrated more of a "courageous" attitude to the truth!
Wow.
The presumptions that:
1. CO2 is the only control knob for the climate
2. Climate didn't change before 1760
3. The climate prior to 1760 was ideal
Are just wow.
One thing that wasn't mentioned about using trees for carbon capture is that new-growth forest tend to be carbon neutral (and sometimes even carbon positive) and take many years to actually become carbon negative. Also, there's just not enough area to plant enough trees.
Did you mean to say old growth forests?
That's is true for what kind of tree exactly? In what climates?
... Alright, I'm going to ask one simple question to put this statement of yours in the litter box.
Where does the lion's share of the mass of a tree come from? (it's not the dirt.)
@@wolvenedge6214 the problem is, that mass goes right back to where it came from.
Yes, I believe it has been calculated that it takes '15 years' for a tree you purchase for your garden today to actually reabsorb all the carbon used in its culture, packaging, transport, and the damage done in disturbing your garden soil, plant stake, tree guard and all the rest of it.
I, personally, have begun a permaculture project in my garden, and the first plants I bought (unfortunately, in plastic pots, peat-based compost, plastic labels and all the rest of the nasty stuff that comes with it) - well, I made sure they were plants that could be easily propagated.
The ability to propagate plants yourself brings down the carbon impact of planting woody plants a fair bit.
With something like blackcurrant bushes (which was my first choice in the garden: fruits well, even in the shade of something like an apple tree), you can look after the plant well enough that it will be producing sufficient material to create a couple of cuttings after just its first season.
If you have the right sort of soil (loam, sandy), then those cuttings can be pushed straight into the ground exactly where you want them to grow, and that makes a significant difference on the amount of CO2 released (by digging a hole as you would for a potted or bareroot plant).
I dredge fallen Autumn leaves out of a neighbouring stream to use as mulch (as leaves trapped in a stream create methane, but collected and used as a dry mulch on land = less methane and more CO2 released instead, which is better in the long run).
I highly recommend that if you do have a garden/balcony/yard and do want to plant trees, do go for fruit bearing types.
That makes such a difference to food costs, with the knowledge that you have negated transport costs via the supermarket by growing your own. The fruit always tastes 300% better, and I dare say it 'IS' a lot better for you too.
You don't have to feel selfish about growing a fruit tree/bush that favours 'you' - because, believe me, the wildlife soon know it's there too. My permaculture garden is a magnet for birds and insects now.
I think that current tree planting projects could only make a small dent on carbon rates - if they continue to be managed in the usual quickly-plant-then-leave-well-alone kind of way.
However, I think humanity could greatly 'increase' the amount of carbon captured by exploiting certain types of tree. Many fall into the category of cut-and-come-again, just like potted supermarket salad greens.
Using trees like Birch and Hazel, these can be coppiced and the wood either used, stored, pulverizing for mushroom mycelium, chipped for soil building (another great way to capture carbon, but seldom discussed), the base of the coppiced tree quickly regenerating to provide more stems.
In England (and, no doubt, in other parts of Europe), there are Hazels said to be many hundreds of years old, far exceeding a normal Hazel's lifespan - because of the way ancient peoples harvested the wood for many uses, never letting the tree die, never letting it get too old and cranky, thus never requiring the arduous task of digging it all up and replanting the tree.
Selective coppicing allows trees to be planted closer together, so the harvester can return annually and cut back every 3rd/4th tree, and still leave a good canopy to continue protecting the soil from the sun/wind while having only a small impact on wildlife.
I am afraid that many of these carbon capture forests will be seen as potential revenue, felled just like any other plantation, which means massive soil upheaval - and then the devastating release of carbon dioxide as well as impacting wildlife.
We need to learn how to manage these new forests to their full potential - not just environmentally, but with a carefully constructed financial return as well.
There's nothing to say we can't augment a mixture of native forest species with those species that have marketable value too.
I like the calculation of how many gigatonnes we actually have to remove and its cost, however, it probably isn't that simple. Every PPM removed would make the next PPM harder to remove.
Not if you keep polluting! (Taps forehead meme)
that's like say taking a tea spoon of sea water makes it harder to get the next tea spoon
@@DSAK55, no... it's really not. We're not removing air wholesale, we're extracting a particular element of it and returning the rest, thus diluting it.
I JUST FOUND YOUR CHANNEL TODAY AND HAVE BINGE WATCHING YOUR VIDEOS ALL NIGHT AND HAVE TRULY ENJOYED HEARING ABOUT AN ASSORTMENT OF TOPICS ***
I HAVE ENJOYED THEM SO MUCH THAT YOU MY FRIEND HAVE EARNED YOURSELF A NEW SUBSCRIBER ❣️❣️❣️
THANK YOU FOR JUMP STARTING MY BRAIN WITH TOPICS AND INFORMATION I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FASCINATED WITH ❣️❣️❣️
Another great idea is this:
When companies want to spend money to promote themselves as being "carbon neutral", instead of investing in aborbing the CO2 from the atmosphere, that money could be spent on renewable energy production to replace fossil fuel production, or even financing heat pumps that reduce energy demand, and therefore pollution. The "avoided" pollution would be considered as "absorbed" pollution. The only change here is that it benefits people AND accelerates climate transition.
We could still talk and debate about carbon capture AFTER our transition has been made. When your house is on fire you FIRST put out fire and THEN rebuild it, not the other way around. Yet here we are debating what color we should paint our rooms when the fire is still raging in our home...
What i dont understand is what happens when they just dump it in the ground?? That doesnt sound smart at all, what if it finds a way back out again?? Its like taking your problems and shoving them under the rug...
Ummm you do realize that is where it came from? That is where Oil / gas / coal come from. It is just putting it back. Rebalancing it if you will.
That is like hiding your fart under a carpet, you understand that CO2 is a gass and wouldn't stay underground?
0:03 Joe deserves an oscar for that acting.
I've seen that bamboo is super good at absorbing carbon in comparison to trees and grows super fast and takes a lot less horizontal space than trees. Plus I think it looks cool. Just need to have hard perimeters because it spreads like fire lol.
Ive heard hemp is likewise
@@YourCapyBra_3Dpipesa90sspecial People need to do a test on different outdoor strains in their area to see what grows best and then take a massive quantity of those seeds and start throwing them everywhere that isn't mowed. Sure most of them wont make it, but the ones that don't get eaten and do really well must really like the spot they're in and they will continue to seed the area long after.
I'd love to see marijuana(captures c02 like hemp supposedly) just growing wild all over the place.
The problem with carbon capture is that is essentially recycling carbon. You take carbon and rework it to use it again. And as we all know, before Recycling comes Reduce and Reuse. The risk is that we get so fixated on recycling that we ignore that we should be reducing first and foremost, reusing whenever we can and then, only when the other options aren't feasible, recycling.
I love that you can deliver throw-away lines like, "...It's not economically feasible," like that's not a completely insane statement. It's as if humanity's survival is something we should somehow happen to afford.
Historically, humans rarely do things that benefit someone else on this planet they have never met. Virtually every large decision made by a powerful entity has a goal of power, or money, through various paths. Occasionally these align with something good, hooray, but its never the prime mover. N E V E R. It never will be, either, in a capitalist environment, unless we figure out how to change the way a human brain functions.
@@maasman240 It's not a flaw in human brain function. It's a manipulation to accept capitalism as a morally valid system of organization. I think you could make the case for the dysfunction of the corporate hive mind and its relentless pursuit of profit above all else.
We are already terraforming it. We decided it was too cold and now are working towards making it hotter ;)
The Midwest approves this message lol.
The Endotherms and Flying Dinosaurs will thank us.
When everything between 40N and 40S goes beyond BlackFlag on a daily basis.
Sabre engine should be up and running in 15 years I reckon. That should help cut out petrol used for air travel.
I suggest that you move to a place where winters remain brutal and then stay for at least 10 years trying to survive while you measure CO2 and daily temperatures.
You will come to appreciate "oil companies".
Thanks for this awesome info, Joe!! Can't wait to see the new studio!
Well done! Really thorough! I'm really surprised how much I learned. Thanks, Joe!
As a vehicle mechanic who has an AC 609 certification, the intro of your video didn't have me thinking about carbon capture, instead I was concerned about where the heat from the back side of a giant air conditioner for Earth would get dumped (Space?) because that's how most household air conditioners work, by displacing the heat inside your house out the back of the unit.
Then I was wondering about how much energy would be required to power something of that kind of scale. Then I was relieved you were not talking about an actual giant air conditioner... 😂😂🤦♀️
Joe on fire with the Pulp Fiction, Southpark, Montell Jordan, 8-Mile, references!