Youtube and You ... what about CO2?

@stk40m (1119)
Koeln, Germany
April 25, 2013 4:54am CST
have you ever wondered how much CO2 is produced by watching Youtube videos? It's amazing. If you take a popular video with millions of views it has already produced loads of that greenhouse gas. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=544xgaeMar8 calculates how much Co2 Psy's channel produces. I guess everyone knows Psy. If you don't google gangnam style or psy gentleman.
1 response
@veganbliss (3895)
• Adelaide, Australia
27 Apr 13
Well, yes, but just think of all the greenhouse gases you're not producing by being vegetarian! CO2 traps hardly any heat at all compared to methane which traps heat 72 times more effectively than CO2 & nitrous oxides that does so about 300 times more! And don't even get me started on all the others like ammonia & all the acid rain that was known to dissolve all those forests in Germany years ago now. Either way, I think I'll limit my Youtube viewing now.
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
27 Apr 13
CO2 may initiate/ accelerate the release of huge amounts of methane in the permafrost areas of the world though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release . More importantly much of our energy consumption relies on fossil fuel. In order to obtain that nature is being destroyed (deforestation, oil disasters etc). I think that fossil fuel resources should be mined at a much lower pace and with much more care. Not using them at all is perhaps an unnecessary approach but if we would use them only when really needed they would probably be useful to us ''forever'', i.e. as long as the planet is inhabitable anyway (until the Sun becomes a red giant) because this would always allow nature to keep pace with fossil fuel consumption by producing fossil fuels anew. It would be a real cycle, not a cascadic disaster. Same with the internet. It's a fossil fuel devourer. Everyone wants to use it and things get easier each day by using it. But it only gets easier with increased energy consumption and the energy must be obtained somewhere, usually that ''somewhere'' is out of sight and suffering occurs somewhere else - therefore most people don't care. But it will get back at us all ... sooner or later.
• Adelaide, Australia
27 Apr 13
Interesting... but I disagree! There were TV adverts some time ago saying that if we halted all modes of transportation & all heavy industry, this would do absolutely nothing to stop or reverse Global Warming. The reasons? CO2 has a life in our atmosphere of thousands of years whereas methane has a life of only seven to ten years. Eliminating livestock production will therefore make the greatest difference the soonest. These industries also produce refrigerants released into the atmosphere which have been measured to completely cancel out the effects of CO2's heat trapping ability. There's another reason, but I've forgotten it due to my slow typing speed! Also, the earth, as of this moment, will now last for another 16.3 million years plus, so we don't need to worry about this at all. Soon we will have the whole world sustaining themselves on a plant-based diet, through a natural selection screening process & have lasting peace. No Church-style armaggedon to worry about. Technology & alternative energy sources are moving along at a rapid pace. We no longer need to use fossil fuels for our energy needs. Fully sustainable renewable energy technology is here & now & available to everyone for an extremely low parts outlay. I've built quite a bit myself already & hope to go completely off-grid soon.
• Adelaide, Australia
28 Apr 13
I disagree at the first point & thereafter! If CO2 has a much longer retention period, & fixing it costs $$$, it would be wasteful to try to get rid of the stuff that's been up there for the last thousand years that's acting as an ineffective heat-trap when we're daily supporting an industry that's pumping out truck-loads of methane & nitrous oxide each day which are much more effective heat-traps. CO2 is also produced in huge quantities by this same industry. No refrigerants are released by this industry to counter the effects. The net side-effects of halting the livestock industry are immediate good ones, whereas halting CO2 shuts down our economies & we need to wait 1000 years to see much improvement. I dunno about you, but I can't wait that long! I do agree, however, that established alternative energies are terrible. They're rubbish, from an engineering perspective & sincerely hope they never get implemented large-scale. Much, much better is available here & now. Over - unity or "Uber-power" as our German experimenters call it, has been done for many years already. We need to give up our wasteful way of living, but the good news is that we can, using this, have everything we ever wished for from proper sustainable alternative energy sources in even more abundance than ever before. Have you seen the latest studies of the tests done on wind farms? They put out a low frequency sound in the order of 1Hz or less which makes anyone in the vincinity feel really terrible & get all sorts of bodily ailments from that frequency. It was exactly the same as what happened at those massive rallies at Hitler's speeches in Germany before the war. They would play a 1Hz tone to the crowds just before his speech, then just before he started talking, they'd turn it off & all the people would feel so much better!