I think if you want to make Earth similar to Mars all you have to do is remove the magnetosphere. It wouldn’t take long (geologically) for solar winds to rip away the atmosphere and radiation to sterilize the surface. Perhaps a necessary first step to colonization is a foolproof synthetic magnetosphere. How else do you shield an entire planet/moon?

If I recall, the biggest failure of biosphere2 was, with all that money, planning, and brain power they forgot to factor in the oxygen the bacteria in the soil would use and factor in the formation of calcium carbonate on the exposed concrete and had to (secretly) add pure oxygen to the system at least once.

Also contributing to the failure, Steve Bannon was put in charge (despite major objections by the team) and immediately the project fell apart among allegations of abuse and safety concerns he admitted in court… “ He also testified that when the woman submitted a five-page complaint outlining safety problems at the site, he promised to shove the complaint "down her throat".”…the crew sued over this and won $600000 in compensation!

Note- it takes approximately 100 gallons of gasoline to create 1 ton of CO2, so at $475 per ton you double the cost of gas to capture it all in a best case scenario with the cheapest carbon capture systems if you could build millions of them for free. Mechanical carbon capture is not a solution.

Not mentioned here is the fact that if acidification destroys the base of the ocean food web, the resulting masses of rotting dead sea life is expected to creat massive clouds of hydrogen sulfide that will poison oceans further and spread over most land masses again.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.htm

Professional economist here (hence, perceived as right wing) who began studying economics due to concern about climate change (hence, perceived as left wing).

[1] The classic statement of when markets 'work' is the 'first fundamental theorem of welfare economics'.

[2] 'work' in this sense means 'leads to a Pareto-optimal outcome', which means an outcome in which no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. This is a low standard: an outcome in which I have everything is Pareto-optimal.

[3] the conditions for the welfare theorems are generally not satisfied in practice. Here, as alluded to in the ad, carbon emissions are 'externalities': if an oil company sells you gas, which you then use, both of you are better off, because you're assumed to have taken into account the effects of your exchange, and decided to proceed; other parties have not, so may be worse off.

[4] in general, failure of the welfare theorem conditions isn't enough to make the case for government intervention: the outcome may still be 'constrained' efficient - meaning that, given the inherent constraints in the problem (e.g. asymmetric information), the market outcome is Pareto efficient.

[5] again, even if it is, you may not like the particular constrained efficient outcome the market yields (e.g. I get everything).

[6] in the case of externalities, the theory is pretty well established - if we want efficient outcomes, we need to align the private and social costs. There are two basic market-based tools for doing that: quantity tools (e.g. carbon permits) and price tools (e.g. carbon taxes). Which performs better depends on the sort of market imperfections.

[7] obviously, we will never have a perfect estimate of the efficient price or quantity of carbon to emit in a given year. Equally obviously, to me at least, this is a classic case of an externality with a well developed body of theory pointing in the direction of some level of controls.

[8] in my experience: people familiar with the economic theory tend not to be 'pro-market' or 'anti-market': they tend to want to understand how the market can be used to deliver societal objectives and, when it can't, how to correct its imperfections.

I think the truly scary part is that our emissions today continue to have an effect on the climate for decades - centuries, so to affect today’s climate we needed to change our emissions decades ago or find feasible, economically and ecologically viable massive carbon sequestration techniques yesterday.

That’s why I believe we are locked into massive unsurvivable changes as a best case scenario, and a mass extinction of anything bigger than a large cat. Much worse if we continue the current course.

Your video, Carbon Offsets: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 73 Badge!

I have a complaint to register here, gentlemen, about a CERTAIN LACK of recognition for the single greatest accomplishment of mankind since the invention of language; the very reason carbon self-assembled; the reason a tiny speck of nothing exploded into a universe simply waiting for that golden moment on March 4 2016 when the fruition of all that is good and hopeful in the human -- nay, UNIVERSAL -- race was unveiled! How soon they forget! How soon do they receive their salvation than they turn their backs on it, forgetting the hypernova of joy and laughter that burst upon the world on that Day of Days! Such woe to thee, oh Babylon, for turning your back on the 1 hour and 48 minutes that banished all doubt of man's reason for existence! DAMNATION ON TO YOU WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE GREATNESS YOU SHOULD FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND BLIND YOURSELF LEST TO SEEK TO BEHOLD SOMETHING GREATER! ALL HELL AND TORMENT! ALL EVIL AND VILENESS FOR THOSE HORRID, HORRID SOULS WHO HAVE LEFT THIS SO-CALLED "VIDEO" INCOMPLETE! DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!

Look, I just like Zootopia a lot, alright?

DON'T JUDGE ME, YOU BASTARDS!

Vanta black isn't a paint, unless I'm mistaken. It's a material --the micro carbon tubules.

This is a water-based paint that --isn't toxic to you (Vanta is) if you touch it or ingest it.

So, it's a win of some sort.

Offset? How cute, you think they’ll try to offset their massive carbon footprint.

…and how will they get all that jet fuel to refuel those (mostly private) jets and to provide power for the resort? By barging it across that reef. No other option. There will be spills, the reef will die, then there’s no reason for it to exist at all.

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

fyi Consumer Reports found toxic PFAS chemicals in several popular water brands, especially carbonated ones
https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/whats-really-in-your-bottled-water/

*promote the end bit by Danny DeVito

A bit odd they're making an enormous concrete dam as a carbon emission offset, because cement makes .9lbs of CO2 for every lb of cement. (Cement makes up approximately 10% of concrete by weight...1 gallon of concrete weighs approximately 20 lbs, they used 21.4 million gallons) ....that's a shitload of CO2 for materials alone.
Plus big dams kill their rivers.
Hydro electric is not really green energy....not this kind of hydro electric anyway. Maybe micro hydro.

This is propaganda from an oil company. Carbon capture technology is bullshit to distract you from thinking it is okay to continue drilling oil at a rate that will cause catastrophic harm from global warming. Solar, wind, nuclear, and battery powered electric vehicles are how we get off of our addiction to oil.

Your video, Honest Government Ad | Carbon Capture and Storage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.