Good for slightly cooling heat islands (cities) a tiny bit, but unless they require it on every house, building, parking lot, road, anything else dark…it won’t do much even locally. The thought that they could paint 1% of the planet is absolutely insanity. Have they even been to earth? It’s huge, and mostly unpaintable. (and I have serious doubts about that number since way more than 1% of the earth WAS covered with white ice that’s now dark ocean or exposed permafrost, and that has to be replaced before we are back to the earth’s normal reflective value, they’re talking about making it more reflective than it was naturally to reduce average temperatures…good luck).

They seem to completely ignore that it’s only that reflective when brand new, are we going to pressure wash 1% of the earth twice a week to keep it reflecting? I think not, so within two weeks, it won’t be any better than 80% regular paint. What a waste of time and energy.

I’m sure there are excellent applications for such a reflective paint, combating climate change is absolutely not one. Wishful thinking at best.

"You are not a person, you are a planet, made of roughly 40 trillion cells. There is so much of you, that if your cells were human-sized, you would be as big as 20 Mount Everests."

Oh! Like I haven't heard that before. Do your worst.

I'm not falling for your trick to make me inhale the scent of your book to contract a new man made disease that will make my nuts dry up. Nice try.

With the infinite possibilities of life in the universe we could be just a "video game" where some 427 year old child living on a far distant planet or space station is just being entertained with his, her or AI bot choices. Hope this helps.

Nonsense. Pre industrial agriculture wasn’t very damaging in most cases…and when it was it was on a minuscule scale compared to industrial agriculture.
Pre industrial building wasn’t excessively environmentally damaging in most cases, certainly not to the point where it endangered the planet or it’s atmosphere.

It's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to say we have to be cavemen to not destroy our environment. We don't even have to revert to pre industrial methods, we just have to be responsible with our actions and lower the population massively. With minor exceptions, pre industrial farming caused little to no permanent damage, and it was almost all easily repairable damage. (With a few exceptions like Rapa Nui that may not have been over farming but cultural damage, we aren't exactly certain what happened there).

I eat berries now, don't you? I grow raspberries, blackberries, black raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, and Tay berries myself. People would be healthier if they ate berries, and they're tasty too. What?!

Yes, around 7 billion need to die (without procreating first). Better than all 9 billion.

There’s a huge difference between being occasionally deadly and so insanely toxic we destroy our own planet in under 200 years to the point where our own existence is seriously threatened.
Edit: toxicity levels matter as much as exposure levels. Cavemen impacted their environment at levels well below sustainability (mostly….the idea they killed the mammoths or mastodons off by hunting is, I believe, a myth….natural environmental changes seem much more likely to be the major influence in their extinction.). Per capita, modern humans have a much larger, more detrimental footprint than premodern humans, exponentially larger….and there’s like a hundred thousand times as many of us (or more) too. We need to reverse both those trends drastically if we are to survive long term.

Yes, progress includes risk, but risk can be managed, minimized, and not taken when it’s a risk of total destruction. We totally ignore risk if there’s profit involved.

This is a night time comedy show, not a science class. I think you expect WAY too much. It points out that there is a problem, it doesn’t have the time, or the audience to delve into the intricate chemical processes involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of them. It touched on them, and more importantly pointed out how they’ve been flushed into the environment Willy nilly by almost everyone who manufacturers with them.

By that logic, Newt, its back to caves and eating berries for everyone. And 7 billion people need to die to make planet Earth sustainable.

Everything civilization does is toxic in some way. Even living in caves was deadly, ask the Mammoths.

I like how youre taking everything responsibly but in this case you might be lumping too many things into one problem. If we strive for any progress at all we have to take risks.

Maybe the consensus will be that we cant handle the production problems and need to ban the poly stuff, but this video was not the compelling analysis that would even push me in that direction.

Actually it’s both. The final forms aren’t stable in the real world, they shed particles that are ingested, vapors inhaled, who knows, they are likely absorbed through the skin from many products.

Assume they aren’t actually toxic, functioning as designed they coat digestive systems and, if the report is to be believed, individual cells in extreme cases, leading to things like digestive issues and vaccinations not working. In developing children, it sounds disastrous…and it’s everywhere and in everyone….often in high levels.

This is akin to a crop that’s mildly toxic, not one adjacent to a pre existing separate toxic weed. You can’t plant this crop without permanently contaminating the field, and adjacent fields, and the local water sources, and to lesser extent anyone who uses the crop. There’s no separate toxic weed here, just a toxic crop we keep planting in new places, making the contamination much much more widespread at constantly increasing levels with no way to clean it up and little knowledge of the long term effects of such contamination. Pretty big gamble to take with the entire planet just so your thin rain coat doesn’t leak, don’t you think? Especially with a non biodegradable easily spread but impossible to remove toxic chemical with relatively unknown cumulative effects and no method whatsoever for removing it from people or the environment….like this one.

They’re banning materials because they can’t be made without the toxic, easily spread, impossible to remove chemicals, and aren’t ever made without illegal dumping of the byproducts of their creation, according to the reporting….not simply because they share some chemistry.
Everything in the universe shares some chemistry with everything else, chemistry is the mechanism through which matter functions….it gives matter it’s properties.

Lead paint shares chemistry with other lead products….and a chemical. It’s that chemical’s toxicity that makes it appropriate to ban substances that contain it. Same thing here. These materials share a toxic substance (or toxic variant of the same substance). Less toxic substance than lead, sure, but still toxic, and much more widely spread. Contaminating the entire planet. As if we weren’t already in a mass extinction, we feel the need to create more toxic pollution for a tiny bit of convenience.

Perhaps you aren’t bothered by having every waterway near any manufacturer that uses these chemicals becoming toxic for animals and humans forever…most people are bothered by that kind of permanent environmental destruction or degradation.

That’s why humans don’t deserve to survive. As a species, we’re so irresponsibly self centered it’s going to kill the planet and us with it, all for nothing worth having.

Made me wonder, how many steps (geographically/ scale) can be made starting with the universe and ending at a residential address?

(edit)
Universe
Super Cluster
Cluster
Local Group
Solar System
Planet
Continent
Country
State
County
City
Neighborhood
address
(may not apply to everywhere i'd assume)

That's my best stab at it. Do tell if it's not correct in some way.

only morons think we shouldn't change how we treat this planet

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

And now the swarms of locusts (ok, really grasshoppers) begin.

Utah farmers, already struggling with drought and extreme heat, are being plagued by grasshoppers destroying what little crops they managed to grow. Early heat caused an early hatch, leading to swarms. Many farmers abandoned their crops rather than go through the expense of spraying a crop they have no water for, allowing a bad situation to get exponentially worse. Hay may soon be in short supply along with produce.

If it's a mild winter, expect worse next year when their eggs hatch. Without improvement in the weather, colder in winter wetter in spring and cooler in summer, farmers nationwide expect next year to be far worse than this year's disastrous growing season. Nevada and Arizona are due to lose their main water source soon, and California expects more water shortages statewide as reservoirs near empty and aquifers go dry.

Sure sounds like the climatologists were correct, if anything minimizing the effects and rate of change from climate change; heat, drought, plagues, swarms, fires. They were not exaggerating them @bobknight33. These are exactly what they predicted, just a decade early, and exactly what you denied would happen. All time high local temperatures were reached worldwide in the last month including ground temperatures of 118 F in arctic Siberia and 130 F last weekend in Death Valley, the hottest atmospheric air temperature ever seen on the planet since humans existed.

But nope, climate change is a liberal hoax, they just have the entire planet lying to support it, destroying their own crops and cooking their citizens to keep the lie going. 🤦‍♂️

I hope you live long enough for your children to accept that their disastrous future was caused by you and your ilk and abandon you to the baking streets in your old age to starve and bake. You ignorant and dishonest deniers deserve worse for decimating the only planet we have. Your children will come to that conclusion, the only question is when.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

Put your money where your mouth is.

If even half of their predictions come true by 2030, agree to donate everything you own to non right wing climate mitigation programs, publicly announce you put the planet at risk because you're an ignorant moron, then remove yourself from the equation.
If none come true by then, I'll do the same (not an issue, some predictions already happened).

You're dead certain it's all fake, what are you scared of?

Duke Nukem 3D Episode 1 Level 2
https://youtu.be/2XBQ0zi9fbg

Spent a lot of my time on this planet living and dying in that world.

Does someone have a link to the famous drunken rant Orson Wells went off on about frozen peas? It's the one Pinky and the Brain make fun of.

Also, Casey Kasem's rant about the dead dog, which almost got Negativeland sued off the planet, is golden, too.