No financial incentive for companies to put scrubbers in smokestacks… hence, carbon tax.

This takes the cake. We capture carbon at VAST expense to all of us, instead of slowing the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere now, costing most of us nothing, but resulting in less profit for a few.

Great production, but hey, would you listen to this critique? I percieve you have become 100% renewable proponents rather than 100% zero-carbon proponents in your communication. And the goal me and IPCC have is zero carbon really. Im saying this seeing two things: 1. Examplify nuclear along with wind solar, all of these can be built out to a laege degree and all of them are close to zero carbon. IPCC claims we need nuclear, and its nuclear who struggles the most with public support, not solar/wind, so it matters more to examplify with nuclear yet it is not included at all... 2. Make it clear that direct carbon capture requires serious energy, and put this in perspective. If not, you are creating oversimplified models that needs to be replaced for making educated choises about energy questions, such as how much energy demand we need to plan for.

Your videos are very helpful, clear and up to the point. Thank you so much for uploading informative videos.

This video is excellent! Wonderful overview and great visuals, thank you!

Good video. Beautiful editing.

Fossil fuels companys "look im not getting payed to save the planet so im just gonna keep killing it k?"

If it doesnt cost companys anything to put carbon in the air. Just make it cost more than to use these machines and put it underground. Bit less cash for the company but better overall in the long run.

Finally a video from the best host Joe! I not saying that the other hosts on this channel are cool. They are on average standard Joe being EXCELLENT.

3:46 yeah, I'm pretty sure co2 scrubbers on spaceships creak like that

2:20 "Growing food for our food" would be more precise.

Nice animations! I'm not hearing as much as I should about the dangers of planting trees. I'm a tree and forest lover. But with a dryer hotter planet coming our way, we have to plan for forests in dry areas to end up as forest fires. A lot of our forests are going to become dry savannahs or deserts. If we plant those places full of trees first, they'll grow for a few years, then ultimately burn, making the problem worse. I like the mangrove planting initiatives because they grow in mud along the coast where they don't catch on fire. I didn't know the algae were such a failure, or that grasses could be good like that. Thanks for the info. And please make the case for modern nuclear, it's honestly our only hope.

Could you do an episode on the Jevons Paradox? I think it’s something to relevant to discuss as to our capacity to reduce actual CO2 emissions. I do think the Jevons Paradox exists and we need to account for it in policy making.

What about using an "All the above" approach. Making CO2 sinks more efficient, Re-Forestation, panting more CO2 absorbing plans (like Hemp), placing more efficient scrubbers on power plants and refineries and reducing the overall release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Just doing one wont be enough, but combine them and we could make a measurable difference.

I wish you would have talked about certain grazing systems that speed up the process of returning carbon into the soil and promoting healthy grasslands. With the amount of land dedicated to grazing animals, if it is managed properly, it could remove more carbon more economically than any of your mentioned options.

Could you please do research on Allan Savory and capturing co2 in grasslands

It sounds like an interesting and promising idea to me! I'm excited to see if people end up trying this. We'll be in trouble if we don't do something useful soon. I want to be able to enjoy my adulthood, because I was planning on becoming one soon, which I don't think that's too much to ask for personally. 😂

Finally, an episode that looks at more alternatives without trying to trash them all. My biggest hope are things that massively change the incentive system and let capitalism do its work. I like the revenue neutral carbon tax idea myself.

What do you use to make the videos carbon neutral? There are some services for that, but it's hard to know who can be trusted to actually use the money you give them to capture carbon. Could you make a video about that?

The Video Editor like "Ah, the requested video is easy af!"

This was far more nuanced than I expected. Great video as usual!

"putting it back in the air, basically all at once"

I feel like Direct Carbon Capture from the atmosphere and even Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is just a waste of energy to capture the CO2 being emitted from using fossil fuels to produce that energy in the first place! We should be investing more in renewable energy to eventually replace fossil fuels instead.

The energy returned on energy invested of a coal plant with CCS is 1/1 so the answer is no.

When capture carbon dioxide, can it be mixed or reacted with some other elements or molecules to break down carbon dioxide and use the resulting oxygen and carbon in ecologically sound way?

Direct ,more like directly put that co2 capturing on cars

Sadly the only way any group, corporation or government will employ such methods is IF there is a way to incentivize or monetize, such a process. It needs to be lucrative and massively profitable before it gets any serious consideration. Such a process needs to make someone really rich like right now! Then it will start happening fast.

Grasses? Grow hemp, then make hempcrete building materials. Crop turn around time is 120 days.

Why is the only solution to store it in the ground? I saw a video on turning it into fuel. Just wondering how feasible that is.

I would like to hear more about this shoving it underground. Can that actually contain a gas long term?

Is skyline gardens efficient or counterproductive?

Nice video!

4:45 Just finished watching Beme video about carbon tax, would recommend for anybody who's interested.

Biochar is the best way of sequestering carbon. It’s also a way of improving soil and reducing the need for artificial fertilizer (nitrous oxide). Another farming technique is to immediately til the stalks of corn etcetera back into the ground after harvest.

You can also do carbon capture from bio sources. Say the methane and co2 produced from decomposition of garbage and organic materials. The methane can be burned for energy and the CO2 can be captured. This removes co2 from the biogenic carbon cycle and gives use a biofuel for energy. Wood waste can theoretically be used for this as well, with the additional benefit of creating biochar. The problem is that there isn't enough material for this. Biomass energy from waste products is probably only 5% of our energy consumption. But the benefit of this approach is co2 capture from the air, without needing to bring more land under cultivation.

Where are we going to get the energy to suck the carbon back into sinks? I mean... seriously: nearly all the energy we generate increases the CO2 in the atmosphere so anything that spends energy is not going to work at all, unless first we make sure that the energy we generate is 100% renewable, something that is already technically and even economically viable. The problem with all this "we" is that the actual decisory power is not in "us" but in a bunch of oligarchs with vested interests in keeping the emissions, because it's the way they control the economy (concentrated energy generation, sophisticated propietary engine designs, even the Saudi oil-backing of the US dollar that allows the USA to borrow in the very currency it prints at will). Two days ago I was watching this car expert explaining why the electric car transition is so slow: because the car industry oligopoly wants it to be that way. What can we do about that? Well, we can become aware of the vested interests that are blocking change first of all, because the first thing when we have a problem is to properly diagnose it and there is no global warming diagnose without diagnosing capitalist economy as it is, without diagnosing who has the power to make decisions and why do they make them or not (i.e. they make negative and destructive decisions). Then and only then, when we know who is that "they", and not "we", in charge, causing the problem, we can either exert pressure on them or remove them from power altogether. But first we must stop pretending we can do anything without identifying the power resorts and their vested interests and their stratagemes to keep change not happening.

The molar fraction of CO2 to air is 408e-6 and the molar weights are 44 and 26 respectively so in 1kg of air you have 0.00069kg of CO2. If the decarbonising process is 100% effective, to get 1Kg of C02 one would need to pump 1448Kg or 1200m3 of air through the machine. Doing all that pumping, even if the pressure drop is very small, would take a lot of energy compared to the CO2 recovered. There are lower hanging fruit, like coal power plants (cough China).

It hope this would not lead to a ecological catastrophe but I believe every cm should be covered with very fast growing plants. Then next the biomass must be converted to biochar while delivering some energy. (yes, yes, avoiding dirty smoke of course :-) ) That biochar doesn't come easily back in the CO2 cycle and so storage is easy. Perhaps it can be useful in deserts to improve the soil and so grow more plants there then too. Another possibility is to do more with bamboo, hemp, elephant grass etc.. I think the Chinese look for new building materials based on bamboo.

Hopes for easy coordination frameworks in chemistry permitting ready carbon sequestration are now but a vestige in the chemists' mind.

Should be able bank by bank and best used at a genetating station for re-use where it may be constantly monitored for efficiency.

A humble request to the programmers over at youtube, please add a few changes in the algorithm so these vides are seen in recommended more.

still we need to learn how to use it otherwise it will be to difficult pay for itself in the short run to do reliably fix carbon

Seaweed , algae , kelp , it’s faster than regular tree/grass

Actually, making woodgas that is mainly Methane and Hydrogen and CO as fuel and saving the tar and charcoal for burial, would be a low tech way to extract Carbon from the cycle while getting a substitute for fossil fuels. Other hi-tech ways of pulling it out of air are bad: If you use Sodium hydroxide, you'll need 45 pounds for each gallon of fuel burned. This can be regenerated by heating it up to 350F, but this is not viable before we have a surplus of clean energy, which at the moment is better used to substitute fossil fuels directly.

But limestone scrubbers produce calcium carbonate as a byproduct of clean air, which has a TON of uses. I don't understand why we aren't putting scrubbers EVERYWHERE, like not only on smokestacks, but on every major building that can house one. Not only would it produce tons of calcium carbonate to sell and use, it would create tons of maintenance jobs, as well as obviously clean air.

Okay video... I will answer the question the title raises before I watch it at all. Yes. It depends on how much is truly necessary, and how difficult it is to employ. "Truly Necessary" would mean science done without poltics in control.... which is what we have now on this topic.

Could you please make a video addressing the consequences of meat consumption and the environmental impact of changing into a vegan lifestyle??? It's something that more people should know!!!

Would barried CO2 become carbonic acid when in comes in contact with the water table?

Put the carbon scrubbers on the market and even if it is a lose there are companies that will still put them in willingly, some will do it so they can sell those co2 credits to other companies or just because they want to make the world better.

Can I buy the collected carbon dioxide? Because I need it for increased plant growth.

Hello! Do you mind investigating marine cloud brightening? Stephen Salter believe that a few of his autonomous ships, over a few years, could reverse the amount of warming that we've created so far.

Is the underground storing of co2 dangerous?

I think the energy required to capture CO2 using the atmosphere filtering method would generate more CO2 on the ground than it actually captures, especially if the electricity that is being used has been produced by burning gas or coal. Also, given the volume of air that needs to be filtered, it would probably take centuries before reaching any noticable result.

Weathering rocks? How do those pull carbon out of the air?

Another thing we can do is to educate people. For example in cities where you are able to walk or use a bicycle, is double gain, you exercise and you don’t use a car (so you save money and carbon emissions). Right now I share apartment with this guy that every day and every time leave the lights and the fan on the whole day, even when he’s not at home, so I talked to him.

Can we charge the oxygen in carbon dioxide negative to make it Repelle from carbon???

I also wantto have solar panels or something to watch more videos and pollute less. I spend hours watching videos, I learn a lot and I have larned enough to understand I should do my part to help the world.

Ok this will be hard but plant trees, start growing plants in the ocean, make renewable energy like Nuclear and thats a big start. What if we also I don't know used things like the rooftop of buildings and put a few plants up there. I know this video says thats difficult but we just have to.

Collecting all that CO2 from powerplants is good but makes no sense if the idea is to just bury it. Instead, we could use it: scientists have discovered a process where you can take that CO2 from powerplants and use a fraction (around 10% if I remember correctly) of the electricity that was made creating that CO2 to turn it into carbon nanotubes which can be sold for 100x the price of that electricity you used to create them. This process makes it economically viable to collect the CO2 instead of releasing it into the atmosphere even when carbon nanotubes price lowers thanks to that process

Last Carbon capture I read about used a lot more energy than was used in fossil fuels.

Dumping tons of crushed olivine in the oceans could also do the trick. More magnesium ions available to boost the oceans' ability to absorb co2.

The only way I could see this happening is if we someone genetically engineer some kind of kelp or plant that grows in the oceans and are specifically engineered to not be highly efficient for sequestering carbon. Meaning not be eaten by fish or microorganisms and encapsulating the harvested carbon in something that won't get released by microorganisms on the sea floor. A solution that doesn't require massive work or money on our behalf. You'd just spread some kind of seedlings all over the oceans and the rest happens automatically. Of course this would have massive effects on the biodiversity of the oceans. Of course pretty much everything does at this point in time.

You know a way to incentivise carbon catchers? Tax cuts to companies that have the catchers. But of course politicians would never do that since taxes from big companies are what gives them a paycheck.

Does burnt grass become pure carbon, or just carbon dioxide? Burn it in a restricted oxygen atmosphere (as in making charcoal). No need to bury it.

Coal... I'm starting to hate it So much 😤

Probably should have touched upon extracting carbon directly out of the Ocean too, since CO2 + Carbonic acid levels in the ocean mirror CO2 levels in the air.

Can a small carbon capture fan be put on every roof to of every house with a carbon capture replacement canister, i don't think that should be too expensive to run it, plus we all have to pay.

Live in a house? Paint your roof white. If enough households do this, it will more than offset the melting of both polar ice caps in terms of reflecting solar radiation back into space and reducing the chances of a runaway greenhouse effect. It''ll also make your roof last longer and help keep your house cool in the hotter climates, reducing energy costs. Paint your roof white. Simple and effective.

Fortunately artificial carbon capture and storage is too costly and hopefully will remain uneconomical. Vegetation put there by nature removes most of the carbon dioxide. Ask the inhabitants of Oymyakon if it is too hot in the Winter.

To power carbon scrubbing devices we will need nuclear power in the short term. Storing CO2 underground is also tricky. If you have a leak it can become catastrophic.

Carbon sequestration will be needed but trapping carbon as CO2 is likely a mistake as gases have a tendency to leak out via cracks while lubricating rocks in a way that promotes earthquakes. if the goal is to remove carbon longer term rocks are the most effective sink due to stability over longer periods of time but the creation of rocks will cost energy on a timescale that renewable sources like sunlight can't provide. In the end we will likely need to find a way to make this happen and only legal measures that enforce the true long term cost of human activities economically will likely create the conditions for this to happen. Sadly the world has been failing to meet the promised standards of the Paris Accords so we as a species really need to step up our game while making short sighted greedy corporate snobs pay their dues. Perhaps in addition to carbon taxes we will need to enforce some type of carbon interest on society where past emissions will have to be repaid through investing in sustainable and or renewable developments?

How does the carbon dioxide get into the upper atmosphere when it is heavier than air

Idea for a novel. Invisible people are planting fake cocktail molotovs at gs stations to pressure gvts to have electric cars made. They also block train tracks.

so, will Hot Mess cover the anti-nuclear controversy surrounding the latest ipcc report or are they gonna ignore it?

you can also turn the carbon you capture into rock, source: carbfix

What if we use trees to generate food for us like apples, oranges, and mangoes instead of small crop plants like grains, tomatoes, watermelons, etc.?

This is a radical idea, but I feel like its one of the best solutions in the long term, which would be to have a limit put on having kids. This would help massively to decrease the human population in an ethical way. It seems like no one mentions this, but it's honestly the best and most long term solution because there are just too many people and eventually there won't be enough resources on this planet to sustain us additionally we'll continue to pollute, deforest for land, ruing the biodiversity, and much more just to try and survive as a race when the solution is simple to LOWER THE NUMBER OF HUMANS.

What I see a technology that is not used is to transmute Carbon to something like Boron.

Growing food? Also the food apsorbs the co2

The point is that any man-made, large-scale method of trapping carbon produces more carbon than it traps, so the only thing that makes sense is to use less-carbon produced energy. Even nuclear, solar, and wind power require fossil fuels for construction and maintenance. The fuel for nuclear power is produced by burning fossil fuels. The materials for batteries for cell phones and electric cars are mined and assembled by burning fossil fuels. All of that CO2 is extremely hard to track, so legislation to tax carbon emissions is going to be just as convoluted. On a parallel topic, developed countries have already decreased their carbon emissions, while developing countries are still increasing in their CO2 output. Developing countries want developed countries to pay for their advancement into the developed world. Who will pay the carbon taxes of Indochina, the Middle East, and Africa? Whom will the taxes be paid to, and what will be done with the money? Taxes are meant to assign responsibility "fairly" for the benefit of the society. Where do we draw the line of responsibility against environmental justice?

Carbon capture makes as much sense as lining up jumbo jets to cause the earth to tilt, ( Limbaugh remedy) Trees won’t be capable of producing oxygen, camel breath.

CO2 Scrubbers???? Really!!!!! Can you realistically imagine the volume of air that would have to be processed every year.

dam sized co2 filtering facilities all around the world is probably the best option

This is a brilliant idea. If I had millions I'd spent it all deploying every method of carbon remission possible...too bad I'm broke. Corporate greed has gone so far its gonna destroy the world.

Ok, I live in the mountains and a good percentage of the people, including me, are burning wood. There's not really enough room for _solar_ (tree shadows everywhere when it's sunny) and it's definitely not a _wind_ area, recently (except during the snowstorms). So now, we're having downdraft problems (first time in the two months of periodically burning wood. It's very inefficient despite being an airtight, because we need a hotter fire to prevent the downdrafts, so we can't close the vent more to make the wood last much longer) and the smoke in the house is _definitely driving me to say, WE NEED NUCLEAR!_ Preferably, molten salt nuclear. Could be cheap, and definitely safe and reliable! How freaking else are we to save the biosphere and not burn fossil fuels (and not have smoke in the houses, lol, though CO is not funny).

Why "plant plants harvest them and burn them to store the captured CO2"? Gases are kinda hard to store... Why not "plant plants, harvest them and store them or use them to build houses instead of CO2 heavy Concrete"?

Kelp! Don't forget oceans! Kelp can help!

Kirby sucking sound at 2:00

vertical farming uses co2. So sell it to them.

Why don't we convert CO2 into fuel ? Is it will be a problem ? Or conversion of all CO2 will maybe take long time ?

Collecting the pollutant from factories and pumping it back in the ground won't that contaminate the water

if you take the carbon out of the sky , what about the other toxic harmful gases ? Also removing the carbon from the air will it not lower the oxygen output enabling things to breathe such as ourselves ?. would it not be better to remove the carbon creating entities.

What if people just collected and buried grass clippings for their lawns, they're mowing anyways?

I would like to thank the 4 people that disliked a video that is trying to save the world. Big applause for you guys.

Don't worry about it, it's not a problem. Let the Nature solve something sometimes

But what happens if we accidentally take too much out of the atmosphere and the earth gets too cold.

"Can we capture all that carbon before the Earth becomes too hot for us?"..... It is not too hot for us now (how could it be with 7 billion plus of us currently?), especially considering how prosperpus and popular the equatorial region is.... we still have quite a long way to go before we even come close to a limit. Sadly, reality and human nature... are blind spots to his.

Honestly Corporations have profit and tax breaks how about a little cartel investment into cleaning up your industry

Easy, don't worry about it.....u feel batter

The oil industry already pumps some 20 million tons of CO2 into the ground per year for enhanced oil recovery! The oil industry needs a vent recovery system to recapture C02 that is vented into the atmospere when lines have to be blown down to zero pressure to repair injection line leaks! This could help some! Also, the destruction of rain forests needs to stop! We have more than any 12 years in which to solve this problem and the oil industry is working on this everyday! AOC, has no idea of what she is talking about!