Is carbon dioxide removal - aka "negative emissions" - going to save us from climate change? Or is it just a dangerous distraction from the action we need - cutting fossil fuels and building renewables? The truth is somewhere in between - we're going to need to remove some amounts of carbon dioxide, but we can't rely on negative emissions to solve all our climate change problems. So what are the technologies behind the headlines, and what do they mean for our future?
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: [ Ссылка ]
#ClimateChange
twitter: [ Ссылка ]
instagram: [ Ссылка ]
==MORE INFO==
Why residual emissions matter right now [ Ссылка ] IEA overview of negative emissions [ Ссылка ] zero of fossil fuel companies’ land requirements [ Ссылка ] Can farming create negative emissions? [ Ссылка ] On nature-based negative emissions [ Ссылка ] Nature can’t handle all this negative emissions:[ Ссылка ] Is BECCS negative emissions? [ Ссылка ]
==THANKS==
Filming by Tamy Beyrouti
Warming map from NASA Climate Change
Can we really suck up Carbon Dioxide?
Теги
climatescienceclimate changeglobal warmingenvironmentworldearthcarbon dioxideclimateadamadamadam levyco2greenfunnycomedydenialskepticscepticfuturetechnologyclimate crisisclimate breakdowngreen energysustainablerenewablesolarwindscientistscicommcarbon dioxide removalnegative emissionsplanting treesteam treescarbon capture and storagepollutionclimate solutionsrenewable energy
