Science & Technology
Where does all the carbon we release go? | Kristen Bell + Giant Ant
Take action on climate change at . A brief answer to one of the key questions about climate change: Where does all the carbon we release go? (Written by Myles Allen, David Biello and George Zaidan) This animation was part of the Countdown Global Launch on 10.10.2020. (Watch the full event: .) Countdown is TED’s…
Science & Technology
Meta claims Llama 3 is the most advanced open source AI yet l TechCrunch Minute
Meta is advancing its AI, and putting AI products in more and more places across Facebook and Instagram. Meta has added two more models into their generative AI family: Llama 3 8B and Llama 3 70B. These generative AI models are notable because they are trained on a massive data set which should make them…
Science & Technology
The Secret to Making New Friends as an Adult (part 2) | Marisa G. Franco @TED #ted #tedtalks
Marisa G. Franco is an expert on friendship, sharing the secrets to making (and keeping) great friends. Watch her full TED Talk:
CNET
CNET Flashback – The Dawn of Online Dating
Meet you on the message board. XOXOXOXO -CNET #dating #relationships #throwback #retro #90s #relationships
Netflix’s Earnings and Ramp’s Fundraise | Bloomberg Technology
Maven Ventures Looking at Consumer Applications for AI
Netflix Shares Tumble the Most in Nine Months
-
Science & Technology4 years agoNitya Subramanian: Products and Protocol
-
Wired5 years agoHow This Guy Became a World Champion Boomerang Thrower | WIRED
-
CNET4 years agoWays you can help Black Lives Matter movement (links, orgs, and more) 👈🏽
-
Wired5 years agoNeuroscientist Explains ASMR’s Effects on the Brain & The Body | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoWhy It’s Almost Impossible to Solve a Rubik’s Cube in Under 3 Seconds | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoFormer FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED
-
People & Blogs2 years agoSleep Expert Answers Questions From Twitter 💤 | Tech Support | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoJessica Alba & Gabrielle Union Answer the Web’s Most Searched Questions | WIRED
George Kar
October 13, 2020 at 6:16 pm
The carbon goes to the ocean 😥
Richard L
October 13, 2020 at 6:24 pm
WHAT ! –60X more carbon than volcanos –rubbish—
more CO2 is produced by ——-volcanoes —–insects ———- rotting leaves——– Oceans——– than any human can make
Traubengott
October 14, 2020 at 12:50 am
Got any scientific sources?
Richard L
October 13, 2020 at 6:25 pm
what — who has crossed out my statement !!!!!!!
C Tak
October 13, 2020 at 6:32 pm
carbon is mostly released by agricultural north hemisphere industry. stop finance incentives to wrong procedures.
Bijen Atom
October 13, 2020 at 6:43 pm
Let me ask you a question. If a child is raised without ever letting it know or see that man can walk on two feet, will he ever go on to walk on his two feet at some point of his life?
Are you threatening me, Master Jedi?
October 13, 2020 at 6:50 pm
It’s not just about Carbon. It’s all greenhouse gasses. Animal agriculture is just as responsible for global warming as legacy energy, and all it requires is that we change the way we eat and produce thjngs. We don’t need animal agriculture at all, and, unlike unseating energy oligarchs and changing laws, ALL IT TAKES IS TO CHANGE YOUR CONSUMPTION HABITS. It isn’t your fault where the power from your power outlet comes from (well, actually it _is_ your fault if you’re a Boomer) but it is entirely on you what you put in your mouth.
Sebastian Elytron
October 13, 2020 at 7:00 pm
Two guys walk into a bar and both ask for carbon dioxide. One dies. Why?
The first says, “I’ll have CO!” The second one says, “I’ll have CO, too!”
الطيب عيسي
October 13, 2020 at 7:15 pm
Hahaha lol
Arcux
October 13, 2020 at 10:38 pm
Two guys order carbon monoxide…the second lives….
You- know-who
October 13, 2020 at 7:05 pm
One thing for sure. Here most of us are concerned about this topic right. And I bet we’re also concerned that literally no world leader,not even a single one is really gonna take any initiatives. So the only hope is WE. Yes WE. Those who really understand. So why don’t we just unite together like I’m not asking for money donation or something hard. All we got to do is open a group chat as a first step. Believe me if we try we can do it. You don’t have to give hours after hours. Just share your thoughts there. A great step for sure. Being a nature lover is the best thing that can happen to a person as a human being. So please please please consider this. What do you all think?
Aylbdr Madison
October 14, 2020 at 5:10 am
Thank you! ^-^
To love nature is to love humanity. To destroy nature is to destroy humanity.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 5:15 am
You-know-Who, I’m all for it! The comments above are articulate, meaningful, and knowledgeable. Thank you for voicing your ideas. So many people are unaware of the condition of our planet! This is the 1st problem. Nature is in trouble, how do we fix it?
You- know-who
October 14, 2020 at 5:18 am
Thanks for everything ^^ but what about group chat? Wanna open one if we can gather more members there?
You- know-who
October 14, 2020 at 5:50 am
@Kirstin Strand creating awareness! That’s why I’m asking for a group chat where those who are already a lit bit more conscious, only a little can discuss this so that we can end up with some gold ideas. But how can we gather more members?😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 6:02 am
You-know-who, you might approach Kevin who has the Black Bear News channel. He’s on daily, 11 am. He has a number of loyal followers interested in climate changes.
dark dr
October 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm
Hi my name is haseeb I’m form India .
Last 2 year I’m busy to find answers of same question
Q.
1. What is univers stretcher?
2. How univers expanding ?
3. Earth expanding ?
And more
In my research. I find same socking result
My research not finishe
I need some help in my in research please help me
Your lost car keys
October 14, 2020 at 3:26 am
Dear haseeb,
Ted will not answer your questions, you’re just a random person; and not to mention you’re asking a question irrelevant to this video, but don’t worry, I’ll answer your questions.
Your question: (your English is not that good, but I think you’re trying to say) Is the universe stretching?
Answer: Yes, the universe is stretching, by stretching; I mean that galaxies are not getting bigger or smaller, more planets aren’t getting created, they’re just moving farther apart and getting stretched, just like clay.
Your question: How is the universe expanding?
Answer: scientists are not sure as to why the universe is stretching, but a theory states that the vacuum of space may have something to do with anti gravity galactic migrations, also every second new planets and stars are being created by atomic collisions.
Your question: Is earth expanding?
Answer: No, earth is not expanding; to me this is kind of a stupid question, because earth is a solid object with mass; asking if earth is expanding is like asking if your sofa is expanding, or your table, no objects don’t expand, they don’t get bigger.
If you are having trouble with understanding my English, feel free to use google translate.
I hope my answers helped you, you may have some trouble with your “research” because of your rusty English, unfortunately everything runs on English nowadays.
Have a nice day haseeb, I hope I helped you. Oh, and please don’t put your real name on the internet, it’s dangerous.
DankTendencies
October 13, 2020 at 7:51 pm
Probably somewhere in New Jersey.
Paras Govind
October 13, 2020 at 8:08 pm
Amazing animation!
R Dafé
October 13, 2020 at 8:29 pm
It goes to our lungs and brains 🧠 then we keep making stupid decisions for our planet 🌏
Charlie KING
October 13, 2020 at 8:35 pm
Gaint fart
question ade
October 13, 2020 at 9:35 pm
Termites produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Without carbon we’d all be dead, plants absorb it, the more they absorb the bigger they grow, producing more and more oxygen and this is some how a bad thing. For some unkown reason the BBC who always present both sides of the argument except on climate bs, plandemic bs, 9/11 7/7 bs or the holocaust bs don’t want to defend their position. They proclaim it’s now either ‘settled science or history’ and therefore does not merit futher discussion. Possibly because they haven’t got ‘experts’ stupid enough to argue in public some of the utter nonsense the BBC, a supposed news channel, preach.
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 2:26 pm
There’s too much fossil emission for our good. I’ve seen these wrong termite views on the Idsos “CO2 Science” propaganda sites for years, and I think they don’t deserve an answer, they’re so absurd, but willful deception needs calling out.
How do we know there’s too much fossil emission for our good? Scientists have known since our understanding of molecules began that CO2 molecules hold and scatter heat, and that scattering and backscattering sum up to warm the Earth near the surface. We have such mountains of data that more than 6,000 new peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change are published every month by hundreds of thousands of professional scientists, the kids who got the top marks in classes while the rest of us were goofing off, and who have devoted whole careers to understanding this in ways that can’t just be gotten in a couple of minutes, pointing to the harms of CO2 more clearly than perhaps any other finding in all of science. Black holes, extrasolar planets, gravity waves and the Higgs boson combined don’t have a tenth as much evidence.
One study, by ice core expert Mauro Rubino and his team in 2013 proved that only fossil emissions raise CO2 baseline levels — termites need not apply — and it’s easy to see why: carbon is taken from underground and put into the air by fossil emitting fuels and processes.
So when someone Ignoratio Elenchi (that’s Latin for “purposely takes the wrong lesson from the facts”) promotes harms to us all, we can see through their facade to their wicked intent.
Cap relative to 2019 levels fossil emissions at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030.
watercup123456
October 13, 2020 at 9:42 pm
IT TAKES 20 YEARS FOR A CO2 MOLECULE TO ABSORB ENOUGH INFRARED RADIATION TO THEN RE-EMIT THAT RADIATION AS HEAT LATER, YET CARBON IN THE ATMOSPHERE ONLY STAYS AROUND FOR ON AVERAGE 6 YEARS BEFORE IT MOVES SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CARBON CYCLE >> NOT ENOUGH TIME EVER TO EVER ABSORB ANY HEAT AND CAUSE ANY GLOBAL WARMING.
The very physics of CO2 CANNOT ALLOW for global warming..> The entire hypothesis of human caused global warming via CO2 IS A FAKE HOAX AND A FALSIFIED HYPOTHESIS!
Otopon
October 14, 2020 at 2:26 pm
Source?
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 3:08 pm
What a nutty rant. “Thermodynamics of Optical Etendue”. Look it up.
watercup123456
October 15, 2020 at 12:29 am
@Bart Roberts Thermodynamics bro! Physics! LEARN IT!
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 12:36 am
@watercup123456 Yes. That’s what I said to you.
Global warming is an inevitable outcome of the thermodynamic principles of optical etendue. You can’t increase CO2 without increasing tropospheric heat, ceteris paribus.
Your rambling nonsense? Not Physics.
watercup123456
October 15, 2020 at 12:53 am
@Bart Roberts Yeah.. WRONG… You REALLY need to learn thermodynamics, physics, and really, you need to figure out reality in general. NOTHING you said makes any sense. Increasing CO2 doesn’t increase heat, there are numerous mechanisms at play preventing this.
CO2 doesn’t remain in the system long enough to trap heat at all… WHAT ABOUT THE CARBON CYCLE DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST EXPLAINED LOLololoLOLoololoL 😀
Nothing you said even works >>> Cloud cover over dominates ALL effects from all greenhouse gasses, including CO2. You’re not only wrong, youre fucking wrong 😀
What about another FACT, that it is TEMPERATURE that goes up or down FIRST, AND THEN CO2 (since increased warmth leads to increased biomass and CO2 offgassing from the oceans, which in turn leads to more biomass and more CO2, and thus, more NEED for CO2 as well)……
CO2 going up or down IS A CONSEQUENCE OF TEMPS GOING UP OR DOWN… IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONTROL TEMPERATURE.
We could suck out all the human made CO2 to 250 PPMS AND THE EARTH WOULD STILL BE WARMING AND WARMING AT THE SAME RATE AS TODAY (and this is true REGARDLESS of whether a CO2 warming hypothesis is correct or not).
It has been warming, and warming at faster rates, since the end of the ice age around 13k years ago.
Co2 is NEEDED by plants >> More CO2 means plants grow bigger, faster, and yield more. The only thing you will do by reducing CO2 will be to KILL BILLIONS of people who have benefited for 15-30% INCREASES ON ALL CROPS WORLDWIDE thanks to the extra CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere…
And that’s not just crop plants but ALL plants have benefited.. Nasa has called this “the greening of the earth” 😀
You literally have no fucking clue what you are babbling about and are trying to argue your misunderstandings of thermodynamics with a plant biologist 😀
Verena Satriani
October 13, 2020 at 10:39 pm
I have a simple question: how to lower the carbon from the vehicle, while everyday most people want to have their own new car? Have a blissful day to all my friends here.
Your lost car keys
October 14, 2020 at 9:50 am
@Aylbdr Madison . I can certainly agree with one thing though, trump is in fact, *an idiot*
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 6:05 pm
@Your lost car keys Grids can be fossil free. Canada, for example, is over 80% fossil free. Many US states are moving to wind energy more and more, plus hydro, geothermal and solar. It’s entirely practical, as TheSolutionsProject shows, to have entirely renewable grids that are cheaper and more stable than fossil.
Electric vehicles are so much cheaper to run and maintain, and coming down so rapidly in price, that they’ve been cheaper than driving fossil cars for years now.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 11:55 pm
@The power of Books HaHa…what about all the obese people? Not to mention all the other Health Problems. Only the fit want to ride bicycles; most people are inherently lazy!
Maybe the survivors will ride bikes.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 11:59 pm
@Aylbdr Madison what happened? Exercise is SO important; I hope you have a new form of exercise, now. Believe me, I can relate. Take care.
Kirstin Strand
October 15, 2020 at 12:12 am
@Your lost car keys I understand what you are saying, and agree with many of your thoughts. This is what makes everything so complicated, because creativity makes the world go around. However, it’s a matter of VALUES. You are lying to yourself by believing advertising has nothing to do with our decisions. Essentially, lost people strive to look whole – they strive to fit in, be accepted, therefore, they become Materialistic and do their best to KEEP UP WITH THE JONES’S.
People who have an identity and personal goals are not necessarily tuned into Materialism. There are many worth while individuals in this world; and there are many lost, floundering souls roaming around, too.
Arcux
October 13, 2020 at 10:42 pm
When skepticism and dissent are stifled, when the proponents of a position behave contrary to their own predictions, when panic-inducing predictions fail to materialize, when the solution is more control of individual lives, expect there to be a healthy dose of resistance to your movement.
Aylbdr Madison
October 14, 2020 at 4:23 am
Compassion = strength. This is easily proven by the fact that all heroes endeavor to selflessly help others and or to defend those less able to defend themselves.
With freedom comes an equal amount of responsibility for the freedom of others. In your attempt to cause more harm to the planet’s ecosystems and atmosphere, you are infringing on the freedom of others to live a healthy life.
Arcux
October 14, 2020 at 2:54 pm
@Aylbdr Madison Are you seriously reducing this discussion to the traits of comic book characters? That’s not even the actual definition of “hero.”
You haven’t even attempted to address the points:
1) Dissent or skepticism is met with mockery, disdain, or silencing, rather than additional evidence. For example, you’ve already begun that road yourself in this thread. You begin by suggesting that there is a correlation between believing in climate alarmism and the virtue of compassion. The logical conclusion of which is anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be “uncompassionate.” Thus supposing yourself on a higher moral plane than the person with whom you are conversing. Try this on for size: what if I see compassion as the not hobbling the world economy and allowing developing nations to continue to advance, thus sustainably elevating them out of poverty? Crippling the world’s economy hurts the poorest and developing nations the most and first. Where’s your compassion now?
2) Climate alarmists consistently continue to be responsible for more greenhouse gas emission than the average citizen, casting reasonable doubt on their actual belief in the crisis they promote.
3) The nature of the “climate crisis” changes from time to time (look up “global cooling” from the 70’s-80’s), and eminent catastrophic predictions have yet to materialize.
4) The proposed solution is governing body control and regulation of economies, industry, and personal liberty to a scale that would have given Marx a hard-on.
Also, what attempts have I made to “cause more harm to the planet’s ecosystems and atmosphere”?
wquon2007
October 13, 2020 at 10:51 pm
yea… CO2 in the atmosphere is at a low (historically), the shrinking number of stoma on trees and plants attest to this (and most the ancient atmosphere testing). another witness to this is the short amount of time that the world slowed for the “pandemic” the air was noticeably cleaner in less than a month.
few things;
A) the climate is always changing
B) shoving money and freedoms to governments (which is usually what it boils down to) is not going to make a large enough environmental difference, but it will ruin us in many other ways.
C) once people get out of “survival poverty” (i dont recall the source of the exact amount at moment. somewhere between 1.5-5k annually i think) they care more about theyre surroundings, aka environment. what has been the best tool for raising people out of the poverty level? capitalism/free trade.
D) as far as green house gases go, CO2 has one of the weakest effects.
due to the oceans rising acidity (because of the reaction of CO2 with the growing mineralization of the ocean) the ocean, as we know it, is changing in many ways. this could be fixed (along with many other things) by retaining water on the landmasses & slowing the movement of waterways, aka permaculture principles.
alright peoples, continue learning and affecting your communities with positive change!
Psalm One
October 13, 2020 at 10:58 pm
Oh yeah, she forgot the crap sprayed by jets aka chemtrails that crap up the beautiful blue skies and turn them into a sick white greenhouse gas…I think we know who the (real) culprits are and they need to be dealt with accordingly, if we want to really save the planet and humanity.
Aylbdr Madison
October 14, 2020 at 3:56 am
Why are people saying “she forgot” this and that? She laid the basics just fine. Those of us who don’t immediately deny science for political reasons already know the rest. Let her appeal to the deniers gently, they seriously need the coddling.
Symphony Of Destruction
October 13, 2020 at 11:27 pm
youtu.be/7VnQpbUD2vI TRAITORS HERES THE PROOF
MrRotv
October 13, 2020 at 11:38 pm
I like this new foormat… But it needs more polishment
MrRotv
October 13, 2020 at 11:38 pm
I like this new format… But it needs more polishment
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 1:46 am
MrRoTv, so does your spelling.
MrRotv
October 14, 2020 at 9:29 am
@Kirstin Strand Yes, it needs… I’m not a native speaker… And I learned everything I know by myself… So I have really trouble with spelling or grammar…
But the “foormat” was just putting an extra “o” by accident…
Njul
October 13, 2020 at 11:47 pm
Is this Kristen Bell the actress who did the Anna’s voice in Disney’s Frozen?
Sujan Chowdhury
October 14, 2020 at 2:20 am
Sounds like it!
7duke77
October 14, 2020 at 12:22 am
So now TED is becoming a propaganda channel? smh
Traubengott
October 14, 2020 at 12:52 am
Seems like you’re just stupid
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 1:44 am
@Traubengott at the least, just uneducated.
Chris
October 14, 2020 at 12:24 am
someone needs to blow the whistle on compost, which in farming context reduces fertilizer run off but in every case is a fast tracked way to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. the tiny percentage of humus and temporary soil tilth improvement is far outweighed by the volumes of wood degraded and released as CO2 into the atmosphere within a single warm growing season.
it is not “green” at all, but it’s big business, and gardeners are made to believe in magical pixies singing when compost is applied, in stark contrast to reality of how it works.
Chris
October 14, 2020 at 11:49 pm
@Bart Roberts : nothing short of massive scale and risky geo-engineering can save us. they’re still not doing nearly enough and fossil fuel industry and governments that support them are not accountable to the people.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 12:05 am
@Chris In ten years time, we won’t be able to stop anyone with the capital a Patreon campaign could raise from massive risky geoengineering. One more reason to focus on getting public servants to cap fossil activity relative to 2019 at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030.
Reasonable public servants are persuadable to do what’s in the public interest, and that is ending fossil emissions.
Is that alone enough? No, we’ll still need Drawdown, but Drawdown requires ending fossil emissions rapidly before it can have much effect.
Chris
October 15, 2020 at 12:38 am
@Bart Roberts : For purposes of having significant sway with people, who can influence govt, I think people have to come to the right conclusions that are desired, i.e. the two pronged overall solution we aspire to. “Selling” even the best solutions available is a hard slog, with so many mired in religious and other dogma (includes organic snakeoil.) Have to get people using more critical thinking.
Should have a call in show about climate change, just like Atheist Experience to help people think their way out of religion. Currently it’s all one way street.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 12:51 am
@Chris Distractions and diversions, bandwagon jumps and irrelevancies. Just have an honest conversation about capping fossil emissions relative to 2019 levels at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030, with as many people as are willing to understand the public interest served by pruning the deadwood of fossil from the economy.
Chris
October 15, 2020 at 1:12 am
@Bart Roberts : I dont think it’s possible for more people to come together to the same conclusions without fixing the thinking. When people have faulty thinking processes they cannot evaluate properly and put themselves behind a solution set. You cannot (in my opinion) get the people to agree on targets and solutions, no matter how well thought out the solution, without teaching sceptical thinking. It’s all too easy for the industries to subvert the cause, as they have. You cannot drag the people along to the solution. Need a Matt Dillahunty show for climate change specifically. Scientists and other people that mean well are not that good at changing minds. All the single way videos, no matter how well presented and which personality, can do what a two way conversation can. Things like any tv station doing “debates” whilst being an “impartial” third party are woefully inadequate.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 3:41 am
@Chris And still you dodge the topic at hand: act to cap relative to 2019 fossil emissions at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030.
Why won’t you apply your critical thinking to that?
Chris
October 15, 2020 at 4:18 am
@Bart Roberts : there’s really nothing to reply to that. unless it’s seriously undertaken and carried out, even the most perfect solution is useless. like i said, you cant drag along or use authoritarian style unilateral methods to get there. Needs critical mass of public to understand, so they all join in the same solution. When you have many agreeing on climate change but they’re easily swayed towards detractions that do not work, nothing happens.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 1:20 pm
@Chris Okay, so your reason for not discussing what it appears you agree is the most perfect solution is.. people are dumb?
Or is it that the method involves changing the minds of authorities, and you’re anti-authority? A revolution against all authority is a bandwagon jump we don’t have time for.
The public do understand, and have for years, that cheaper is better, cleaner is smarter, fossil is dirty energy and climate change is real and serious. If the public didn’t understand that to make room for better living you have to toss out old crap, then Marie Kondo would go broke. It’s past time the hoarder mentality that you can keep fossil around while piling up shiny new renewables is faced, if you’re right.
And if you have a solution to the problem of detractions [sic] better than talking about the most perfect solution, I’m all ears.
Chris
October 15, 2020 at 6:31 pm
@Bart Roberts : the dishonest politics of economy vs unsettled [sic] science is far from settled when the current president of the biggest economies is winding back environment protections.
extinction rebellion initially had public support but got found out for being yet another group of baby boomers on the nose.
if you think you can get agreement on targets when trump pulled out of paris agreement, whilst helping fossil fuel industry pollute the discorse, wreck the environment more than ever and count their profits.
Far from it, the work is still ahead of us.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 7:02 pm
@Chris So.. your argument is now that .. um.. it’s hard to tell. Let me paraphrase what I read. Wafflewafflewafflewaffle bafflegab trump baby auld acquaintance butthurt.
Mine remains cap fossil emissions relative to 2019 at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030.
That’s unilateral. No agreement necessary. Just a few public servants acting in the public interest. The handful who control 10% of permits for fossil extraction or trade, in the next year. Another handful the year after.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 1:42 am
Who is psychologically prepared to turn our clocks back to the 19th Century? If yes, our cultures would carry on another 100 years. If not, hopefully at least another 10-20. Think about it, eh?
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 5:39 pm
@Kirstin Strand Absolutely!
You and I doing this are part of that public pressure, but it needs to be focused on them, the public servants and policy deciders through the pressure of good information and good cases made to them to support their changing their minds.
Only about 20% of the public is in denial. Most of the public are mostly on board. The weakness we have is that we go off in so many directions, rather than focus precisely on that one point: cap relative to 2019 levels fossil emission at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030.
That’s the precise and clear message we the public must deliver to they our public servants, and no other.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 7:30 pm
@Bart Roberts precisely!
I love your thinking, but the 20% deniers? I read that 52% are aware of Climate issues. That makes 48% are Deniers. What are the accurate percentages of INTERNET USERS? Both aware and not aware?
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 9:15 pm
@Kirstin Strand Thank you. I’m generally suspicious of my own thinking, and welcome discussion that helps correct my oversights and errors.
When I see statistics, I like to ask what they mean at a deeper level. Deniers aren’t all the same: some core will never be persuaded, and they are the 20% or so (I hope it is lower) fraction we just can’t be delayed by any more.
Of those who remain, awareness isn’t the issue, I’m convinced: focus is.
All fossil emission begins with extraction and spreads through trade. All extraction starts with an OK by some public servant. All trade has some license or permit OK’d by some public servant. Where the public servants are in the 20% unpersuadable, they need to be moved out of the way. Where they are persuadable, they need us to focus our persuasion on education, information, and options. I’m convinced there’s no situation where any public servant in full grasp of facts and alternatives would OK fossil emission, because the business case, the public interest case, even setting aside the most important issue — climate change — are so against fossil compared to alternatives.
So focus on decision-makers messages on capping relative to 2019 fossil emissions at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030 to clear the deadweight loss of fossil and open up the economy to innovative, clean, proven, better, cheaper options.
Kirstin Strand
October 14, 2020 at 11:45 pm
Unfortunately, clean energy, green energy will not be adequate to keep the living standard to which we have all become accustomed. Moreover, as far as trying to righteously convince the petition voters to change their belief system, they have families to support and financial responsibilities. Do you expect them to jeopardize their family’s health and well being for the betterment of mankind?
Nothing can be undone easily. We, here, cannot simply gather viewers and wave a magic wand to change the massive power structure in Western Cultures.
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 11:55 pm
@Kirstin Strand I like your points, but I’ve read these doubts before from other sincere people of good mind and heart, and just disagree, because the facts and trends disagree.
Clean energy technology is ready to flood the market, held back only by barriers to entry that are there only because fossil is stubbornly not exiting as it ought to have been since 2015 at least, when fossil ceased to be a viable going concern.
Standard of living is hurt, not helped, by keeping fossil going past its best before date. Renewables are cheaper, cleaner, provide better and more jobs closer to community, home and family.
Cap fossil activity 10% in 2021, and you’ll see far more than that 10% come onto the Market in the order that makes most economic sense everywhere affected by the cap. Assure investors of that same amount of cut, that same cap lowering to 80%, then 70% year by year, and innovation and investment will not just maintain, but improve standard of living.
It can be unnerving to take the first step into an unknown, but either we step off the fossil Titanic to renewable rescue, or we are all sunk.
Kirstin Strand
October 15, 2020 at 1:40 am
@Bart Roberts We will need to agree to disagree. I, too, have heard all the arguments for renewable energy. I support it, yet the engineers and scientists I read say it is a pipe dream.
I also follow several Climatologists who point out the barriers at this stage of climate problems.
I believe you are not aware of the realities of CORPORATE POWER.
Corptracracy is making the WORLD’S decisions; not the 99 percent. Do you not understand the influence these Oil Companies have?
Please study harder; you are too good hearted and naive.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 1:59 am
@Kirstin Strand As it happens, I’d be happy to set out where the engineers and scientists you’ve read are incorrect or outdated. Having worked as a consultant at the headquarters of some companies you’ve heard of, I’m used to what it takes to persuade corporate power to make better decisions. I’d like the opportunity to help you make better engineering decisions than what you’ve read so far has led you to.
By all means, tell me what you’ve read, what’s formed in your mind the barrier to renewable to “pipe dream” level?
State by state, country by country, TheSolutionsProject has documented paths to fossil free based on old technology. That technology is now far enough along to get us there in half the time TheSolutionsProject estimated. With fossil pruned, investment will get innovation the other half within the decade. Ask me any specific question you have about the technology. If it’s in my scope, I’ll gladly discuss.
Kirstin Strand
October 15, 2020 at 4:34 am
@Bart Roberts share your knowledge here. I’m not against green energy; I’m not an engineer, if you are a Consultant, find people to back your expertise and pull people along by sharing what you believe to be workable in order to move to renewable energy.
You seem to have the answers. Convince the Public. I listen to varying professionals, and if you are one, too. I’m all ears. How can we dissolve the Lobbyists who are paid by the Oil Industries? How do we get people out of their cars, how do we get people to move out of AZ and other hot states so Air Conditioning is not running 24/7. Must we all move into earth homes to conserve energy during cold months? If renewable energy is ready to GO BIG, everyone would be excited; not only those waiting to profit handsomely. Show us, tell us, please, since everyone wants to maintain our creature comforts. You say it begins with the Bureaucrats; we need to get them on the Renewable Energy side. And why is Trump not committed to the world’s endeavor to reduce CO2? And from 1st impressions, neither is Biden. Convince us that your expertise is realistic.
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 1:52 pm
@Kirstin Strand If I seem to have “the answers” it’s because I’ve looked for answers, and I’ve made a good career of seeking smarter people’s knowledge to present where it is more needed.
TheSolutionsProject furnished much of the information I started from, (Project Drawdown ought be mentioned too), but in drilling down to the details of the engineering and economics and watching the technology adaptation trends with an economist’s eye as well as an engineering point of view, it occurred, and the evidence backs this up, that even the most optimistic-sounding estimates understate how fast we can defossilize.
Renewable technology, like computer technology, comes down in price the more it is deployed and is across the board on the steeply falling side of the long run cost curve. And while fossil extraction has come down in revenues in the last 12 years 80%-90% per barrel inflation-adjusted, effective consumer cost for end users has only grown, between unyielding pump prices and increasing taxpayer subsidy, even as jobs are lost in the sector.
Fossil lobbyists outnumber every other type of lobbyist combined, and overwhelm their opponents by a ratio of fifty or a hundred to one. They’re likely too big to fight head on in time, so must instead be co-opted by pointing out to them that the current fracking-caused glut has dumped fossil prices so low the entire industry has been functionally bankrupt since 2015, coasting on subsidy and tax allocation and gifts from politicians; lobbyists know this well, they made it happen.
Anyone with business sense knows that fossil is a sinking ship, and it is time for lobbyists to abandon it. There’s far more demonstrable profit margin in renewables, the growth sector of energy, and renewables will need lobbyists to contend among its many alternatives — a situation where lobbyists can demand a premium.
People will have to make their own decisions about what works in their own lives, as individuals. It’s the economy’s job to inform them how costly to their budgets each decision is. Cap fossil extraction relative to 2019 levels at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030 — what science tells us are the facts of how scarce our resource of absorbing fossil emission into air is — and the scarcity price signal will quickly inform consumers how to budget.
It begins with public servants, who at one point in their careers chose to work to serve the public’s best interest, and now are lost from that goal. Shine a light. Show that fossil is not okay to OK. Show that the public interest is best served by pruning the deadweight loss of fossil to make room for better alternatives. Convince them that 10% isn’t such a huge experiment for a year, given that the world has just done 5% in one year as a side effect of other factors. Show them the growth of TSLA and of public opinion backing EVs.
More, open up to them the secret good electrical engineers know, that ancillary grid services inherent in renewable power help stabilize grids. FCAS supplied by grid scale battery backup for intermittents, when not used as backup makes the grid more efficient and reduces brownouts and blackouts while making grid equipment last longer. Auxiliary Impedance Matching, a service inverters in solar collectors furnish when the sun doesn’t shine, reduces how much power generation is needed. Arbitrage by multiple alternatives means the lowest cost mix can always be chosen by grid managers. UHVDC, a backbone through the hinterlands of Canada across the continent to move electricity moment-to-moment coast-to-coast will mean solar from California can light up New York’s night life and ocean breezes from Maine can keep A/C running in AZ 24/7.
I can’t answer for the two particular public servants you mentioned. There are 50 states in the USA. To get 10% cut in 2021 only needs 5 of them. Seeing their success, five more should be convinced to follow in 2022. Three years of proof (counting 2020’s 5% cut) ought be enough for the next five. And if I’m wrong, there will be time to maneuver and fix this part of the package of solutions.
To cap fossil emissions relative to 2019 levels at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030 won’t be enough alone, and won’t just happen by magic. It’s a rough idea, and needs help to get started.
Thank you for being interested. That helps.
TJ C.O.D.
October 14, 2020 at 2:18 am
I would care if I didn’t pay tax you goofs.
The power of Books
October 14, 2020 at 3:12 am
Good information .Thanks for sharing
Anonymous Dude
October 14, 2020 at 3:39 am
Would anyone tell in brief what’s net carbon zero? I’ve heard this term in countdown video.
Aylbdr Madison
October 14, 2020 at 4:31 am
Copy pasted half of your question _”what’s net carbon zero”_ into my search engine and in less than a second came up with your answer.
Just a suggestion: you could have gotten your answer in a couple of seconds too, rather than wait for some random comment reader like me to maybe see and answer your question. Just saying.
Anonymous Dude
October 14, 2020 at 4:39 am
@Aylbdr Madison whatever you may think but thanks u anyway.
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 2:15 pm
Thank you for your question; it’s a good one. I’ll ask you a better question: How to net carbon zero?
My answer is to cap relative to 2019 fossil emissions at 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 down to 0% in 2030; only fossil emissions count toward the bloat side of net carbon increase, and every bit of fossil extracted in the world starts with some public servant by policy approving a license or permit; every bit of fossil traded starts with some public servant by policy approving export, import, leases, procurement or tenders. That focuses cause of fossil emission in a very tiny few hands of policy deciders.
Focus on those policy deciders everywhere to get them to see the benefit of pruning the deadweight loss of fossil — effectively bankrupt since 2015 and running on fumes and subsidies and sunk cost thinking ever since — to open up their economy to renewable growth.
That’s how I think we get to net carbon zero.
Your thoughts?
Anonymous Dude
October 14, 2020 at 7:12 pm
@Bart Roberts TBH I’ve read your reply 4hrs before I’m writing this but I wanted to answer you in free time for free mind, it’s now 00.33 here but I’m happy to see that people are getting aware and have solutions in mind.
Regarding your question, I agree with your points. They are very much real in country like India. But the corruption, negligence towards nature, current economic condition, mass job losses and proposals like ammendment in Environmental Impact Assessment which enable the industries to exploit nature more & more…. All this has bad impact in Environment and plans like net zero carbon are much more successful in developed countries, but India and China are the major ones who are responsible for all this.
However, this model should be applied in USA, EU, ASEAN countries and oriental countries.
Developing countries needs much more time unless external help comes.
Bart Roberts
October 14, 2020 at 9:08 pm
@Anonymous Dude Thank you again for your thoughtful and interesting reply. I’m a little familiar with India, where Gautam Adani has made your same argument for decades, while increasing coal use not just in India but through his expanding international trade worldwide, even as coal becomes more and more uneconomical and bankrupt. The truth is, coal last was actually profitable anywhere in the world over a dozen years ago, and has survived on subsidy and government favors, sunk cost thinking and lack of analysis only. India could be a solar paradise, has in places such ample geothermal and hydro it could build one of the world’s lowest cost power grids with plenty of jobs close to community, home and family. Electric vehicles fit the various cultures of India much better than gas vehicles, as Tata is discovering. For speed of technology change, electric is much faster than gas.
Like with cellular phone technology the leapfrog effect where a country can skip the backwards technology of others and get ahead without being mired in waste is very attractive.
A tree grows as it is bent. Bend toward fossil, the pruning that must come will be more costly in the future.
Anonymous Dude
October 15, 2020 at 8:18 am
@Bart Roberts We both knew that we all have many similar problems in our environment. Not only Gautam Adani is the cause but ideologies like him are the majority of causes.
I’ve some plans for the Sustainable Development and I require support from people belonging to scientific background.
Million Roots
October 14, 2020 at 3:54 am
that’s why I invite you to join the #MillionRoots movement, where we are taking monthly actions towards planting new healthy roots which are not only help local communities and the planet, it will help us to be more aware.
first seeds being sown at :
I don’t like social media but yes need to go through this hard first difiicult promotinal steps. so yes I ask you to give like and go and read what I offer in the event. you have nothing to waste
I dare you to stop complaining and demanding, take actions!
Georg Plaz
October 14, 2020 at 2:30 pm
gogo CO2 labels
question ade
October 14, 2020 at 3:56 pm
Propaganda bullshit. TED is laying it on thick today on YouTube, this is the 3rd mini video spewing crap about the climate scam.
Eric In Thailand
October 15, 2020 at 3:09 am
SO STOP earing at McDonald’s !!
I support you
October 15, 2020 at 3:58 am
Everyone know about it, but no government is willing to harm its economy.
MikeDD86
October 15, 2020 at 1:41 pm
so planting trees won’t do anything and the only solution is to stop producing carbon… just say we are screwed lol
Bart Roberts
October 15, 2020 at 3:44 pm
Important to know:
Travel with E
October 15, 2020 at 9:08 pm
Your a great narrator
Yojiv Iriak
October 16, 2020 at 4:34 pm
Nothing she said is new