Comments by "blank" (@_blank-_) on "DW Planet A" channel.

We should have went nuclear and anti-car in the 1970s. Yes, it would have been better to start decades ago but the best moment is now.
6
@davidwarland2680 What's so obvious? Most of oil doesn't come from trees but ancient algae. However, this isn't the point. Most importantly, oil and other fossil fuels such as coal and gas are trapped carbon. Carbon that was removed from the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle is a very fine balance between carbon emissions (mainly animal and plant respiration and CO2 release from the oceans) and carbon absorption (photosynthesis from plants and CO2 dissolution into the oceans). This cycle has worked very well for millions of years. Well, it has been working very well until us humans started releasing more and more carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This is quickly tipping the balance as we emit more CO2 than what the planet can absorb. CO2 as you should know is a greenhouse gas which warms the atmosphere. This has many dangerous consequences for both the environment and mankind. We are talking about droughts, extreme heatwaves, destroyed harvests, ice caps melting, sea level rise, disturbed weather and wind patterns, destruction of habitats, stronger hurricanes, millions of displaced people and so on. This is going to make our lives and the lives of our children way less enjoyable. Anyway, I hope this is what you called obvious.
4
@gvi341984 That is true but suburbs are still not efficient for other activities. Many people cannot work at home (even though I agree it should be strongly encouraged if possible) and we need to think about schools, grocery shopping and many other needs.
3
@AKumar528 The general public is also responsible (especially in rich developed countries). We need to stop shifting the blame to other people/institutions and act at EVERY level possible.
3
@maxiumlin6705 Except we're in dire need or cultural changes otherwise we're just buying time. Even your two proposals rely on one major paradigm shift: no more cheap energy.
2
@guillermoelnino I love being stuck in traffic 😍
2
@btudrus The vast majority (90%) of beef doesn't come from grazing cows. Want to reduce the surface of land dedicated to grow crops? Well, 30% of the world's grain production goes to livestock. Even among grazing cattle, some of them graze on land gained from deforestation like in the Amazon rainforest. Note that these ecosystems functions as carbon wells. So no, the meat industry is not carbon neutral. Add to that the pollution created by manure, the fact that we need to preserve and restore as much wild land as possible (this includes reverting pastures to forests) or the ethics of killing animals.
2
@vikingrasarya5792 Hats off to you for all your efforts! I agree that car sharing/renting is part of the answer.
2
This is on a much bigger scale. Back when the US and Europe had very polluting industries on their soil, they produced for way less people. Therefore it produced lesser amounts of pollution compared to India and China that produce goods for billions of people. And the industrial revolution happened at the start of the chemical revolution whereas today, there are way more chemicals being used, in much larger quantities.
1
NOT ME, I LOVE MY CORPORATE OVERLORDS 😍
1
I don't aspire to ever have a car, public transportation in my city is good enough 🤷‍♂️
1
The carbon footprint is a great metric to see what sectors are the most carbon intensive in our lifestyles. This makes us push for changes in these crucial sectors instead of falling for the greenwashing marketing of big companies.
1
Then we must change the economy.
1
So that shareholders can be happy.
1
We should have an international organization/fund focused on environmental issues to implement waste management infrastructure among other things in poorer nations.
1
Every of their proposals is a train with extra (unnecessary) steps.
1
Can you do the same type of videos on Germany's decision to shut down nuclear power plants?
1
Get ready for your daily 9/11 😂
1
Who creates the waste in the first place?
1
@KateeAngel Then you still need to pressure them.
1
Not until they will destroy everything.
1
Most trips are daily commutes to work/school and grocery shopping. Bikes and public transportation are incredibly efficient for this type of travels. Trains also solve "18 wheelers" issues.
1
@palarious Why do you need to travel across the country every single day? People need to realize that we should live a little bit slower instead of searching for never ending speed.
1
@jaredhill8721 Yes we should worry about carbon footprint even with nuclear power. Nuclear energy is not a magic wand. You can't make planes go nuclear. You can't make concrete go nuclear. You can't make agriculture go nuclear. You can't make the whole industry sector go nuclear. Nuclear power is a great step towards reducing carbon emissions but it won't be enough. We need to fundamentally change our lifestyles focused on consumerism towards degrowth.
1
@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Organizations like Greenpeace sell fossil fuels in their energy mixes. Green Parties worldwide (especially in Germany) oppose nuclear power which greatly benefits coal and gas producers. While I don't believe DW Planet is the media outlet of the Green Party, let's not forget that many Green organizations can be counterproductive if not downright harmful to the environment.
1
@vikingrasarya5792 No the solution is definitely not a car, whether eletric, hybrid, hydrogen powered or whatever. It's bikes, walkable cities and public transportation. Cars are literally the least efficient mean of transportation out there.
1
@penguinuprighter6231 People in the west are the richest on Earth and also overconsume even those who aren't insanely rich. I agree that millionaires and billionaires should make the greatest effort but we aren't innocent either.
1