All videos pertaining to the subject of "net zero" should start with the fact that US does not have a target date for net zero.

I love how almost everyone talking about emissions shows stock images of cooling towers 🤣

Man made options are too small. We must use grasslands, forests, and kelp beds and plankton to remove carbon for us. They work 24/7/365 and don't ask for raises or need vacations. Nature: use it or lose.

My company says it "aspires to net zero by 2050", but has net zero plans to get there.

net zero was the free dial up internet when I was in high school. lol

I find this video misleading: 95% of emissions have to be cut. Carbon capture will be very expensive and can thus be only used for the last 5% of emissions we can't prevent. We can't simply carbon capture ourselves out of climate change.

You might need to explain Carbon Neutrality as well, because some sources are saying they are different

We're not on path to either aspect of net zero

What if we treat climate change like how we treat the covid pandemic?

Stop denying historic emmisions.. it's at the root of all forms of inequality across the world

for the average American or Western European to get to the COP21 targets, they'd need to cut their 10 ton emissions per year to just 2 tons. that doesn't go through radical lifestyle and system changes such as degrowth or collapse. but the Economist won't tell you that.

Planting trees everywhere may not reduce the earth's temperature. Like if we plant trees in the sahara desert, there will be no rains in the Amazon forest and Indian subcontinent... There has to be deserts in that region to make the air flow. . We don't know what works for the Nature, and what does not. . All we can do is, not do too muchh carbonn emissions, and make life multi-planetary.

I discovered Mr. Vaitheeswaran on a DVD from the PBS series e² -- the economies of being environmentally conscious. The program makes me hopeful about countering global warming.

It's unfeasible for the aviation industry to switch from jet fuel to renewables. But renewables can offset those emissions in the long run.

What about nuclear? I didn't hear mention of that and from what I've researched it seems like a very viable option to drastically cut carbon emissions. The Gates foundation has been investing in this for years and are onto some really big things

No, never. That's the realistic outlook.

Any discussion on emissions without the mentioning of animal farming is incomplete. I'm disappointed with The Economist. Moreover, countries like India, even though they justify their emissions with "rich country, poor country" argument, they invest must more effort in climate initiatives than for example US does.

I'm sorry, the map at the beginning doesn't say what the red or the grey countries are, net zero or no? Can someone explain? Thank you.

Net zero is when an airport plants trees to offset their emissions, then the forest the tree is in dries up due to climate change, and burns down, and then becomes a grassland or a desert. But the airport keeps the tree on its ledger still, it has "offset" the emissions.

"Greed" play a big role ....

Net zero heat in your house, net zero food on the table. That's what net zero means.

we may find it hard to get net zero immediately but one fine day definitely.lets begin whatever comes will be taken care 👍 we don't know so let's give our best on the journey other things will be taken care 👍

If we live in the stone ages then yes

Why make rockets to land on the moon? We can not even solve the problems on the earth.😂

The Economicist need to talk about ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

India and US announced a programme called TECHNOLOGY BASED ENERGY SOLUTIONS: INNOVATION FOR NET ZERO.

Net zero is a way for corporations to not do anything until 29/12/2049 and then just move the date back

The Paris climate accords was a joke, a country could write what every they wanted on the piece of paper without any reproductions , and get participation brownie points,

The Last Statement sums it up for the world and it's net zero ambitions. Unless everyone can change their mindset, it'll remain an uphill battle.

It's going really well in Sri Lanka! Who needs fertilizer? 😆 Feeding a country is a little bit different than feeding a family of 3.

Which ever is the Most Profitable process will win.

Het bouw structuur moet altijd verkleint ontwikkelt worden om zo verder in ontwikkeling kan gaan met fabrikanten om zo een computer te laten lopen heten lucht hebben we al voor onze was

The aspect that seems the most neglected in the mainstream debate, is improving the hydrological cycle with appropriate watershed patterning and constructed features. This helps with defending against flooding and preventing drought and more rampant wildfires at the same time as improving the health and stability of ecological biomes/agricultural areas as such sequestration of more soil carbon with better optimised hydration. It also helps mitigate various other pollutions with better filtration. More hydro power without directly damming rivers also.

Economist by choice 💸 Ecologist by nature 🌱

We need a revolution alright....

who is the guy in the little car holding the big magnet in front of him? so funny!

Either a lot of us have to die without being replaced, or a lot of us have to go back to living like cavemen. In my opinion, there’s only one way out of this mess and it’s going to be the hard way

To clue people in, the entire jetstream circulation has changed from oceans too warm to allow Siberian cold to cross the N.Pacific turns it north with heat & moisture near BeringStrait a low point in topography to cool and go to low latitudes ONLY over LAND to balance equatorial overheating. So, record cold winters will repeat until the ice is gone in 60yrs or less, check. Then in summer it's reversed, LAND heats quickly, oceans don't so big high-pressure domes will get hotter and last longer, check. For spice where the polar cold meets warm-moist tropical air we get floating-car sheet_runoff flooding globally, check. At 500ppm CO2eqv +3ppm/yr =750ppm by 2100 2m/6.7ft more sealevel rising at 30.5cm/1ft per decade for several centuries, check. Oe cannot remove CO2 below Mt.Everest air mixes too fast, and when emissions finally end, oceans outgas their excess CO2 to keep levels above 400ppm for >>120,000yrs. Our extinction 3.5ky-5ky away with BAU, unstoppably like any glacier on Earth ending below a rising sealevel cannot be stopped from quickly melting from below by warm oceans and altered jetstreams, check. Oh, we're so arrogant, the hairless apes aren't wise, check.

Talk about greenhouse gas emissions and one of the first we see is a cooling tower. AGAIN. Do they have any idea what its is there for?

Funny thing is that these meetings release more CO2 than n entire city for a month, is really funny.

零排放非常困难，就比如我自己设计的泄漏零排放罩 也经常出问题，谢谢同仁努力

I'm sure certain countries will be able to achieve net zero for them, it will naturally involve increasing the carbon output of other countries though.

Another MAJOR reason why nations are very reluctant to achieving net zero is because we must evaluate and calculate the outcome of the forbiddance of NOT combusting 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 trillionth of a hydrocarbon atom/and/or molecule and attain, sustain, and maintain the nations' gross domestic products higher and higher every year under the demands of globalization.

Turning population growth to negative in each generation would achieve a lot without anyone being forced to change his lifestyle. If each generation is 20 percent smaller than the one before, half of the problem is gone after three generations.

Man makes something. It breaks something. Man makes something to fix the broken thing. That breaks something. Man makes something to fix the bee broken thing. That breaks something. Man makes another new thing to fix that problem. Oops, the new thing broke more things. This is an endless cycle. We just need to slowly rewind and let go of modern conveniences.

The fact is nobody wants to take responsibility for any of the greenhouse gasses that are being released in the atmosphere as log as that they must spend capital developing the negative emissions. Provided the situation doesn't change, we can kiss net zero goodbye.

Pls add subtitles

And for your amazement, Ladies & Gentlemen, we will acheive net zero, while maintaining our current lifestyles at no extra cost. PS: I walk most places I need to go, otherwise, where time, distance, or weather are a factors, it's public transport - train or boat preferably or bus, rarely by air

Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson: Someone say something?

This might be nerdy, but it’s a tad misleading to discuss pollution emissions and use stock video of nuclear plants because the stuff coming out of the stacks at those plants is water vapour, not a pollutant. However there is the storage of nuclear waste but that’s a separate issue. :)

net zero or forcing the individual governments to destroy the individual economic sectors. the middle class disappears, the working class disappears etc....

Great job

The animation at 1:00 is just wrong

Expecting a short answer and a long answer.

correct me if I'm wrong but at 2:38 you show a nuclear plant right? This is misleading because nuclear plants emit water vapor, not CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

as the Keeling curve keeps rising ...

did anyone see a 93012 at 4:03 ?

We are at the tipping point.

It’s too late and politically impossible to reduce carbon emissions to reduce warming. Our only hope is technology

Short answer - no.

Expertos de la distraccion.

Net zero refers to my bank balance

how about negative human population growth ? that would do much more than anything else

Net zero: at any level, tent, home, building, city, country. requires zero inputs... zero food, zero energy usage, zero water usage, zero outputs, and zero l*fe. understand now?

It can be done but government has to step in which will upset all the pro freedom people that are obsessed with government tyranny and big government being evil and trying to ruin their precious little life's

Nothing wrong with the climate, Considering they said my home town would be 2 metres under water in 2015...Its now 2023 and still have not bought a dinghy... The world is round the f........ G twist.... Who gives a s.. t

How simply were this all thrown on developing countries like India and China. And they say just Chinese media is biased!!!

lending against future innovation what can possibly go wrong?

The real problem is developing countries, they are polluting more than ever but they can’t be asked to lower their emissions since developed countries are not making any effort at this point.

Deep-sea fertilization is probably the best way to achieve substantive negative emissions. We could fertilize the oceans one year, and the following year we give the seas a break with no fertilization. This could also be followed up with alkali treatment if ocean acidification becomes a lingering issue. It's risky, but I don't think we have a choice.

Give thankhs for sharing this knowledge. I have been co~creating & only looking through universal law's lens to come up with positive idea to achieve the balance (net zero) this planet needs.

Perhaps the question should be what is a sustainable population? Perhaps the planet can only manage with 4 to 5 billion people. The politicians never talk about this but it is as relevant.

It's always:" we have to..". No, nobody has to do anything. You can, if you want to. Keep me out of it.

Net can and had been reached it's called vapor fuel system

What about US direct and indirect emissions? it's ridiculous.

So ,there will be no more shipping, overseas trade, air transportation, military vehicles,,( they'll go back to using horses. no manufacturing. Best of luck

Not with current technology, no. Next?

Net zero was a grabage internet company in the early 90s

why aim for net zero whynot aim for negative emissions......as per our current progress to net zero, aiming for negative emission would be best way for net zero

1:48

Nuclear should be the answer. But people are afraid of it. I can't even imagine how we could develop nuclear power with this same amount of money that was pomp into solar and wind (and power from solar increased just 2% of global power production). Also, from the beginning of nuclear, we produced 500 billion kg of atomic waste, which is 1.3 trillion kg of co2 annually in the atmosphere. Also, there is technology to recycle depleted nuclear fuel available from 1969. After a couple of cycles, the atomic waste half-life is 200 years instead of a hundred thousand.

A report from Bank of America has warned reaching net zero will cost the global economy $5 trillion annually for the next 30 years. Oct 19, 2021

We will first have to make it more affordable to go to net zero because it's expensive to get solar panels on a house and also get a electric car or a self driving car. We also have to clean out our ocean as well.

We just need more clean and cheap renewables and to stop burning stuff.

Gaslighting and crazymaking are one in the same - they are both terms to describe a person that wants you to feel like you’re losing your mind. They do that by causing you to distrust your own decisions and make you think that you are wrong about almost everything. They know how to turn you from a happy, assured individual with your own thoughts and ideas into a dependent, unsure and fragile person that can’t take any steps without checking in with them first. Emotional abuse is insidious in nature, but crazymaking is the ultimate perception destroyer. If you can’t trust your own perceptions, you don’t even know what reality is. After some time with the crazymaker, you’ll come to trust the very person causing you to distrust yourself.

Yes we need a revolution in our mindsets and system.

Abdullreamen

20 thousand years ago, before Agriculture was invented and very limited number of human beings living on earth, the sea level started to rise and it kept rising for 12 thousand years, in total for about 120 meters. All these happened under "net zero" of that age.

Physically impossible if you still want to be able to use concrete and steel.

the right to emission is the right of development and a fundamental human right. all people living in non-industrial lands should have the right to live as great as the people living in industrial lands do such as the USA, west European countries. in contrast, developed countries like the USA, the UK have emitted much more CO2 than developing countries such as CHINA, Indien in 18th, 19th century. for fairness, the sum of emissions should be accounted in the entire period from industrial innovation to today. in this case, the developing countries can get bigger parts from this sum to cover the lack of emissions in 17th and 18th centries. in the other words, how many more co2 emissions did industrial countries emit in past centries decides the rest parts of the emission made in developing countries. at the same time, a certain limit of emission is necessary for the future of human beings as well.

There's a serious inequality in climate and environmental policy making between the developed and the developing world. The developed and industrial countries can't just walk around and impose environmental laws and regulations regarding gas emissions and sustainable energy projects all over the world. Simply, the industrial countries must start in their own backyard first because they're the major polluters and contributors to gas emissions while the developing countries bear the brunt of the resulting environmental anomalies. Of course there's the option of imposing taxes on gas emissions in which every country is allocated a specific share of emissions which it pays for. Countries who don't use all their share can sell the remnants to another country that has consumed its share yet still wants to pursue further industrial activities. Still, there's no guarantee that all countries abide by this law, especially the international energy tycoons who have unimaginable resources and power to lobby against any environmental law that threatens their production and profits.

I want to ask something about the @economist. Why do you make few videos in a long period, You are the best of the channels but I rarely see the videos or documentaries so please speed up

Netzero is an ISP

Technology optimism is leading us to a hot planet. This is the path we are choosing, by delaying action to simply reduce emissions.

Read doughnut economics to learn how to actually make this happen.

As the narrator said. "Easier said then done".

04:24

What about net 10%.

Individual. May please.

There is no doubt that rich world should lead this as they want to lead in international affairs.