A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere | Jennifer Wilcox

A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere | Jennifer Wilcox

Four hundred parts per million: that’s the approximate concentration
of CO2 in the air today. What does this even mean? For every 400 molecules of carbon dioxide, we have another million molecules
of oxygen and nitrogen. In this room today,
there are about 1,800 of us. Imagine just one of us
was wearing a green shirt, and you’re asked to find
that single person. That’s the challenge we’re facing
when capturing CO2 directly out of the air. Sounds pretty easy, pulling CO2 out of the air. It’s actually really difficult. But I’ll tell you what is easy: avoiding CO2 emissions to begin with. But we’re not doing that. So now what we have to think
about is going back; pulling CO2 back out of the air. Even though it’s difficult,
it’s actually possible to do this. And I’m going to share with you today
where this technology is at and where it just may be heading
in the near future. Now, the earth naturally
removes CO2 from the air by seawater, soils, plants and even rocks. And although engineers and scientists
are doing the invaluable work to accelerate these natural processes, it simply won’t be enough. The good news is, we have more. Thanks to human ingenuity,
we have the technology today to remove CO2 out of the air using a chemically manufactured approach. I like to think of this
as a synthetic forest. There are two basic approaches
to growing or building such a forest. One is using CO2-grabbing chemicals
dissolved in water. Another is using solid materials
with CO2-grabbing chemicals. No matter which approach you choose,
they basically look the same. So what I’m showing you here
is what a system might look like to do just this. This is called an air contactor. You can see it has to be
really, really wide in order to have
a high enough surface area to process all of the air required, because remember, we’re trying to capture
just 400 molecules out of a million. Using the liquid-based
approach to do this, you take this high surface area
packing material, you fill the contactor
with the packing material, you use pumps to distribute liquid
across the packing material, and you can use fans,
as you can see in the front, to bubble the air through the liquid. The CO2 in the air
is separated [by] the liquid by reacting with the really strong-binding
CO2 molecules in solution. And in order to capture a lot of CO2, you have to make this contactor deeper. But there’s an optimization, because the deeper
you make that contactor, the more energy you’re spending
on bubbling all that air through. So air contactors for direct air capture
have this unique characteristic design, where they have this huge surface area,
but a relatively thin thickness. And now once you’ve captured the CO2, you have to be able to recycle
that material that you used to capture it, over and over again. The scale of carbon capture is so enormous that the capture process
must be sustainable, and you can’t use a material just once. And so recycling the material requires
an enormous amount of heat, because think about it:
CO2 is so dilute in the air, that material is binding it really strong, and so you need a lot of heat
in order to recycle the material. And to recycle the material
with that heat, what happens is that concentrated CO2
that you got from dilute CO2 in the air is now released, and you produce high-purity CO2. And that’s really important, because high-purity CO2
is easier to liquify, easier to transport, whether
it’s in a pipeline or a truck, or even easier to use directly, say, as a fuel or a chemical. So I want to talk a little bit more
about that energy. The heat required to regenerate
or recycle these materials absolutely dictates the energy
and the subsequent cost of doing this. So I ask a question: How much energy do you think it takes to remove a million tons
of CO2 from the air in a given year? The answer is: a power plant. It takes a power plant
to capture CO2 directly from the air. Depending on which approach you choose, the power plant could be on the order
of 300 to 500 megawatts. And you have to be careful about
what kind of power plant you choose. If you choose coal, you end up emitting more CO2
than you capture. Now let’s talk about costs. An energy-intensive version
of this technology could cost you as much
as $1,000 a ton just to capture it. Let’s translate that. If you were to take that very expensive
CO2 and convert it to a liquid fuel, that comes out to 50 dollars a gallon. That’s way too expensive;
it’s not feasible. So how could we bring these costs down? That’s, in part, the work that I do. There’s a company today,
a commercial-scale company, that can do this as low
as 600 dollars a ton. There are several other companies
that are developing technologies that can do this even cheaper than that. I’m going to talk to you a little bit about a few of these different companies. One is called Carbon Engineering. They’re based out of Canada. They use a liquid-based
approach for separation combined with burning
super-abundant, cheap natural gas to supply the heat required. They have a clever approach that allows them to co-capture
the CO2 from the air and the CO2 that they generate
from burning the natural gas. And so by doing this, they offset excess pollution
and they reduce costs. Switzerland-based Climeworks
and US-based Global Thermostat use a different approach. They use solid materials for capture. Climeworks uses heat from the earth, or geothermal, or even excess steam
from other industrial processes to cut down on pollution and costs. Global Thermostat
takes a different approach. They focus on the heat required and the speed in which it moves
through the material so that they’re able to release
and produce that CO2 at a really fast rate, which allows them to have
a more compact design and overall cheaper costs. And there’s more still. A synthetic forest has a significant
advantage over a real forest: size. This next image that I’m showing you
is a map of the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon is capable of capturing
1.6 billion tons of CO2 each year. This is the equivalent
of roughly 25 percent of our annual emissions in the US. The land area required
for a synthetic forest or a manufactured direct air capture plant to capture the same is 500 times smaller. In addition, for a synthetic forest, you don’t have to build it on arable land, so there’s no competition
with farmland or food, and there’s also no reason
to have to cut down any real trees to do this. I want to step back, and I want to bring up the concept
of negative emissions again. Negative emissions require
that the CO2 separated be permanently removed
from the atmosphere forever, which means putting it back underground, where it came from in the first place. But let’s face it, nobody
gets paid to do that today — at least not enough. So the companies that are developing
these technologies are actually interested in taking the CO2 and making something useful
out of it, a marketable product. It could be liquid fuels, plastics or even synthetic gravel. And don’t get me wrong —
these carbon markets are great. But I also don’t want you
to be disillusioned. These are not large enough
to solve our climate crisis, and so what we need to do
is we need to actually think about what it could take. One thing I’ll absolutely say
is positive about the carbon markets is that they allow for new
capture plants to be built, and with every capture plant built, we learn more. And when we learn more, we have an opportunity
to bring costs down. But we also need to be willing to invest as a global society. We could have all of the clever thinking
and technology in the world, but it’s not going to be enough in order for this technology
to have a significant impact on climate. We really need regulation, we need subsidies, taxes on carbon. There are a few of us that would
absolutely be willing to pay more, but what will be required is for carbon-neutral,
carbon-negative paths to be affordable for
the majority of society in order to impact climate. In addition to those kinds of investments, we also need investments
in research and development. So what might that look like? In 1966, the US invested about
a half a percent of gross domestic product in the Apollo program. It got people safely to the moon and back to the earth. Half a percent of GDP today
is about 100 billion dollars. So knowing that direct air capture is one front in our fight
against climate change, imagine that we could invest
20 percent, 20 billion dollars. Further, let’s imagine
that we could get the costs down to a 100 dollars a ton. That’s going to be hard,
but it’s part of what makes my job fun. And so what does that look like, 20 billion dollars,100 dollars a ton? That requires us to build
200 synthetic forests, each capable of capturing
a million tons of CO2 per year. That adds up to about five percent
of US annual emissions. It doesn’t sound like much. Turns out, it’s actually significant. If you look at the emissions
associated with long-haul trucking and commercial aircraft, they add up to about five percent. Our dependence on liquid fuels
makes these emissions really difficult to avoid. So this investment
could absolutely be significant. Now, what would it take
in terms of land area to do this, 200 plants? It turns out that they would take up
about half the land area of Vancouver. That’s if they were fueled by natural gas. But remember the downside
of natural gas — it also emits CO2. So if you use natural gas
to do direct air capture, you only end up capturing
about a third of what’s intended, unless you have that
clever approach of co-capture that Carbon Engineering does. And so if we had an alternative approach and used wind or solar to do this, the land area would be
about 15 times larger, looking at the state of New Jersey now. One of the things that I think about
in my work and my research is optimizing and figuring out
where we should put these plants and think about
the local resources available — whether it’s land, water,
cheap and clean electricity — because, for instance,
you can use clean electricity to split water to produce hydrogen, which is an excellent, carbon-free
replacement for natural gas, to supply the heat required. But I want us to reflect a little bit
again on negative emissions. Negative emissions should not be
considered a silver bullet, but they may help us
if we continue to stall at cutting down on CO2
pollution worldwide. But that’s also why we have to be careful. This approach is so alluring
that it can even be risky, as some may cling onto it as some kind
of total solution to our climate crisis. It may tempt people to continue
to burn fossil fuels 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I argue that we should not
see negative emissions as a replacement for stopping pollution, but rather, as an addition to an existing
portfolio that includes everything, from increased energy efficiency to low-energy carbon to improved farming — will all collectively get us on a path
to net-zero emissions one day. A little bit of self-reflection: my husband is an emergency physician. And I find myself amazed
by the lifesaving work that he and his colleagues
do each and every day. Yet when I talk to them
about my work on carbon capture, I find that they’re equally amazed, and that’s because combatting
climate change by capturing carbon isn’t just about saving a polar bear or a glacier. It’s about saving human lives. A synthetic forest may not ever be
as pretty as a real one, but it could just enable us
to preserve not only the Amazon, but all of the people that we love and cherish, as well as all of our future generations and modern civilization. Thank you. (Applause)


  • Ramakrishnan Meenakshi says:

    She doing sales for Direct Capture

  • Tyrone Flaucher says:

    You watched the movie "The Happening", haven't you? You know, that movie about the plants stealing our oxygen and making us suicidal. Did you think I wouldn't notice what you're doing? You've found a way to do it back to the plants. You sick, twisted, and diabolical fiends. You leave those plants alone, right now.

  • yousername78 says:

    If you take Co2 out of the air how will the plants grow?
    Why do greenhouse operations pump Co2 into their greenhouses to grow greener bigger plants and the plants use less water?
    Seems we are missing what's going on in front of our faces but believe the world is going to end in 12years by some act of man. Like so many other scare campaigns, see level prediction in the 90s will be 40feet Higher by 2000 well that didn't happen, so see you all in 12 & a half years.

  • Amit Carbyne says:

    This has to be government funded

  • Amit Carbyne says:

    Thorium Molten salt reactors will be able to provide energy for these forests.

  • Joost mag 't weten says:

    Engineering something that does the same thing as a tree but without the added benefits of a tree. This sounds like angreat Idea 🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • Steve Koschella says:

    Why remove it? The welcome increase in CO2 is having the effect of regenerating forests and marine vegetation worldwide at a fantastic rate, and is yet to show any proven negative consequences.

  • Jaded Cynic says:

    Hey dumbass….The plants are growing faster and doing a fine job of cleaning CO2. SO WELL IN FACT WE NEED MORE OF IT. So quit parroting the same ole garbage information cuz it fits your agenda.

  • Jim Cummings says:

    used to be 2300ppm and plants were thriving, now we're down to 450ppm and it's mass social hysteria — these people are so full of themselves…

  • Jim Cummings says:

    plants will thrive as CO2 rises, and the world isn't warming at all here in northern AB where it's going to be 40C again this winter — sick to death of dire predictions never matching what's in front of my eyes — now every time the wind blows it's from "climate change"… sounds more like a religion to me…

  • Adam Bram says:

    To fund DAC, we need a worldwide taxing entity that can tax global corporations that escape taxes via shell companies. A carbon tax can help reduce emissions, but it cannot fund the cleanup because tax revenue goes down as CO2 emissions decline. That's good, but revenue is needed to fund the cost of DAC. Global corporations should be the main source of that revenue. https://youtu.be/wxW8GP59Sq8

  • Smacko Wacko says:

    Plant Trees

  • GeneralWig says:

    What absolute crap!!!! Very disappointed TED. I thought you were a platform for educating people, not promoting pseudoscience and filling the pockets of manipulative psychopaths.

  • Saurabh Gupta says:

    Plants grow faster with higher C02 concentrations. It is a self balancing system. The only problem is human greed and the desire to have a new global tax.

  • Patrik Lindholm says:

    Oh, please. As if it was anyway new as an idea. If we all stopped breathing we wouldn't emit CO2 either.

  • Ezekiel James says:

    Humans are the problem. Rich people and governments with their money and greed prevent the good things we need to save the world from happening. We can have all the technology to make these changes but its not going to help when governments just sit on their butts and watch the destruction of great forests and the natural places that are left..

    Whats our solution, tax people for the problem we didnt create..

    Whats the point.. our world is tickets and only God can fix this mess..

  • danni says:

    This is just another case of humans f**** with Mother Nature. Why don't you just rebuild natural forests. We should repair the damages that we have done not create more crap that doesn't belong on the surface or the interior of the planet. Clean up the oceans plant trees where they have been removed the re-greening of the planet is what's needed. And nature will take care of itself

  • L4SERB0Y says:

    What an insane waste of time and money. Plants will absorb co2 far more efficiently and in a natural negative feedback.

  • Laura Sarahs - Music Filter says:

    "A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere"… wow how stupid can one be.
    Remove from the atmosphere? And make the entire eco system collabs? We have a CO2 drought if anything. History shows that.

  • Laura Sarahs - Music Filter says:

    "A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere"… wow how stupid can one be.
    Can anyone here tell me what is one of the ONLY two elements that make life possible on this planet?

  • Truth Seekers says:

    "A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere"…
    I hope everyone here knows that CO2 IS one of the ONLY two things that make life possible on this planet?
    CO2 is as much a "pollution" and as much a "climate killer" as water (wich is the other element). CO2 plays only a small part in the atmospheric aspekt in the earth's climate system (which is a chaotic system meaning a UNPREDICTABLE system (even according to the IPCC)). And by the wey ALL the climate (predicting) models working with the CO2 theorie have been wrong and continue without exception to be wrong. And not just wrong but are (in the majority) weeeeeeey off. That is the only reliable thing about them.
    Think about that for a while.

  • Milo X says:

    I've not been sure what to believe with respect to CO2 since this whole thing started. Of late I've started reading and watching more scientific content. And I've learned some interesting and potent facts that are not being discussed in the mainstream. And while they are reported on, they don't get the headlines and generally have disclaimers assigned to them which seems odd given observations supporting anthropogenic warming never do. First is that the earth is greening. Over the past 35 years the earth has added enough leaf content to nearly equal the surface are of the continental United States, twice. It is estimated that over 70% of this is due to the increase in CO2. Although we are sitting at 400ppm right now, green house growers find the optimal percentage of CO2 is somewhere between 1000 and 2000ppm. And while I'm not advocating this, the evidence suggest more C02 would result in an increasingly productive ecosystem. The second fact which I've checked with independent sources is that the ability for CO2 to act as green house gas will diminish with increasing quantity. It will need to accumulate logarithmically from the current level to maintain the warming rate. It's been estimated that it will not be able to contribute more than a .25 degree even with much higher quantities. If these things are true, I don't want to remove CO2. If someone asked me if I'd be willing to take a browner earth for more temperate weather I'd never say yes. But I would agree to stronger weather if it left the planet greener and capable of sustaining more robust ecosystems. Still not sure and still learning but facts are fun.

  • Proinnsias O'Dubhlaoich says:


  • Roman Korvinus says:

    CO2 is not a pollutant. And if it was all the plant life would be DEAD. But its not. Its thriving.

  • A G Sergio says:

    What's the point of this. Is this not already known information?

  • fred blogs says:

    idiouts, they,l tip the planet into an earley ice age

  • Kirk kirk12755 says:

    So she does not want to breath…..funny….2 parts oxygen belongs to CO2

  • Philip Pilipi says:

    “A new way to remove CO2 from the atmophere”..
    1. Plant more 🌲
    2. Stop breathing
    If CO2 now down to 30ppm all tress will die, all life will follow.
    CO2 had nothing to do with climate change.

  • spikedpsycho says:

    We have a CO2 problem, we've been in a CO2 drought for a while now. 280 parts per million is the near minimum of good plant growth.

  • Pamplemoose says:

    This woman is an idiot. If anything we need to be putting more C02 into the atmosphere not removing it. Plants are at their best when C02 is at 1000 to 2000 ppm. She is right in that it is at 400ppm. Plants need more. The more we put in, the greener the planet. The greener the planet the longer it will survive. The basis of all life is the plant. As long as plants exist we will exist.

  • doug pug says:

    nuclear power is the answer

  • TOP KEK says:

    To all the ones that say "plant trees"
    I may ask "where?"

  • Edward Hunt says:

    CO2 is not the problem….

  • evolunter says:

    Nobody went to the moon, lady.

  • Blackgeoff1 says:

    The scary thing here is that people take this seriously. A chemical engineer who's basically a twit.
    So once having "scrubbed CO2 from the air", what do they propose humans and animals will eat? Or breathe…

    What other geniuses air their idiocy on these TED talks?

  • Martin A says:

    Silly silly, as she says it's so slight it's hard to extract. Yet she still wants us to believe it's nessesary. We'll it's not co2 is not causing climate change, how much is she paid for this nonsence.

  • Brett Moore says:

    Empress tree farms

  • kalle stropp says:

    Wy remove something that is good for us and the whole world?

  • Xavier says:

    A synthetic forest is 500x smaller than a real one for the same result !!
    For sure it will be 500 x more interesting in term of investments and profits than a real forest. 😊What about biodiversity, cloud generation, soil quality, human quality of life offered by trees and forests ?
    36 billions tonnes of Co2 have been emitted in 2015. I let you do the calculation of how many plants (synthetical forest) we should produce in order to have something more than a marginal impact (not speaking on some banks account, that might be considerably bigger if these ideas are implemented) on the planet. Do the calculation guys..
    This idea is just a flight forward.

  • Steven Perry says:

    Climate change should be looked into as an oxygen issue because that is what we breathe. We already have oxygen dead zones in our oceans. That's where most of our oxygen comes from. It's no secret that deforestation has been taking place rapidly for a long time now. And sadly we have forgotten that burning fossil fuels requires oxygen. Lots of it. What we really need to do is look for oxygen neutral ways to create energy like wind and solar. And look for ways to unbond the oxygen from the carbon so it is in a breathable form again. Capturing carbon from the atmosphere does little to nothing to restore the oxygen to a breathable form. Thank you.

  • mac lee says:

    Australia has a huge outback that is both barren and dry. problem is the availability of fresh water. but if you can plant 10% of the place, you would have a forest the size of italy. de-desertification must be a priority for all nations.

  • Darrylle Sunderland says:

    And why would you lower the gas of life? Oh my – the screaming far-left think they know something. 😉

  • jadewombat says:

    Maybe use the heat generated from liquid metal batteries? I saw another Ted talk about liquid metal batteries being developed for wind power surges.

  • Adrien Bougassov says:

    One way, stop it all.

  • Aaron Sze says:

    0:52, but ill tell you what is easy

    downloading honey!


  • Ju Ge says:

    Algae takes CO2 from the atmosphere using the power of the sun, the captured CO2 can be converted into carbon fiber thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere permanently.


  • MrJohndl says:

    The planet is in CO2 starvation…..400ppm is nothing. We should be putting MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. Who is this moronic female? What an embarrassment she is.

  • Qishi Li says:

    Yeah, I will do you one better. Plant more trees.

  • Hal Moore says:

    the plants are living on a starvation diet at 400 ppm, This like the misconstrued history that has been shoved down the throats of humanity is just as false, it's hard to say which is worse the lies or repeating them

  • Shera Klassen says:

    But of course you know better than Mother Nature!
    And you want taxpayers to pay for this crazy experiment.
    Climate change is not driven by CO2. Go back and review the data rather than putting faith in spin doctors like Al Gore and this fictional 97% consensus.
    Leave Mother Nature alone. She knows better than you.

  • John Diaz says:

    Yeah, I unsubscribed. It's time to do real homework myself.

  • jan simonides says:

    Don't do it idiots! The plants need the CO2! Plankton need it! More CO2 leads to more Plankton in the oceans and it leads to more oxygen!

  • Robert Merkel says:


  • Emill Road says:

    Don't remove co2,we are all going to die.

  • lifewatchgroup says:

    This is a revolutionary way to avoid the United N'ations IPCC warning that we only have 10 years before conciliation is irreparably damaged: @

  • lifewatchgroup says:

    This is a revolutionary way to avoid the United N'ations IPCC warning that we only have 10 years before conciliation is irreparably damaged: @

  • lifewatchgroup says:

    This is a revolutionary way to avoid the United N'ations IPCC warning that we only have 10 years before conciliation is irreparably damaged: @

  • Ant Ash says:

    My god why don't you just plant trees, they do it for free.

  • john kosowski says:

    Why in the world would anyone want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? The Earth is flourishing as a result of that CO2. More plants including more trees.

  • inlovewithliberty says:

    I'd like someone to prove scientifically how much of the 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere has been produced by mankind.
    I've never seen the number and therefore am skeptical because this climate change hysteria has so much money and power behind it.

  • Modin Photos says:

    Sounds likebullshit.

  • Modin Photos says:

    Let's just face it, this BS idea won't work and humanity is doomed… unless we ignore the laws of nature that is…

  • Didivs Ivlianvs says:

    Instead of cutting CO2 in half, let's just double the oxygen and nitrogen and dilute it back to 200ppm. Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • Didivs Ivlianvs says:

    Instead of cutting CO2 in half, let's just double the oxygen and nitrogen and dilute it back to 200ppm. Yeah, that's the ticket.

  • ernest denney says:

    scientist are so stupid use soil and nature to capture co2

  • doghouseclassics says:

    This might sound very radical, how about we all go out and Plant trees,or am i just being stupid, why do we need to use chemicals. Is the chemical alternative just so we can be taxed more, just saying.

  • nigilo onigiri says:


  • John Jauregui says:

    My gift to Greta Thunberg.  

    Dear Greta, what they have not told you in school is that 99.96% of our atmosphere is NOT carbon dioxide. 

    We know this from basic elementary and secondary school curriculum which teaches all of us a few simple facts and math principles.  Simple facts like 99% of our atmosphere is composed of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%).  Math:  78% plus (+) 21% equals (=) 99% .   This means that at most carbon dioxide would only make up the other 1%.   But it does not.  A large number of trace gases make up this remaining 1% of our atmosphere.  Water vapor, the most powerful global warming gas in our atmosphere, makes up most of this 1%.  Carbon dioxide contributes only .04% to our atmosphere.  How do we know this?  Well, Al Gore told us so in his award winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".  He said scientific measurements show CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere run about 400 parts per million (PPM).  PPM is a simple ratio fraction where 400 is divided by 1,000,000 like so 400/1,000,000.  Using our elementary school math principles we can reduce and transform this fraction into a percentage (%), like so 400/1,000,000 = 40/100,000 = 4/10,000 = .4/1000 = .04/100 = .04%.  When we subtract this tiny percentage from 100%, like so, 100% minus (-) .04% equals (=) 99.96%.  This is how we know 99.96% of our atmosphere is NOT carbon dioxide. This also shows us that this tiny percentage of carbon dioxide cannot possibly cause run away global warming. 

    So, Greta, you DO have a future!  Explain these simple facts and math principles to your parents and other confused and frightened adults.  It will make their day.  This little math and science exercise would make a great school science fair project.  You should "give it a go" and see how it is received by your science teacher, fellow students, teachers and parents.  Let us all know how it goes. 

    By the way, search the NASA website for “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth” to see verification that NASA and NOAA satellite data confirms nothing has done more to green  mother earth than elevated carbon dioxide levels together with a moderately warmer climate.   This is your gift, Greta, —- a richer, greener, more productive earth which can feed everyone and all things, and the bright future for everyone that goes with it.  Just as God promised!

  • Tybats 76 says:

    let's get together people!! let's starve plants, trees… green beings!! Plants and trees don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere… well… they do… as FOOD!!!!

  • Bernardas Maksimavicius says:

    Mor stupid nolage never seen kill trees buld sintetic trees for what for profit, when trees helping more then sum other bulding ….

  • Viking says:

    What bunk! Plants thrive at triple current co2 levels… we thrive on plants. Plants start dying at about 350ppm of CO2 or just 50ppm from current levels. Anyless co2 and we start dying also. Great mind control presentation for the zealots of ignorance! Imagine the synthetic forest eliminating our oxygen what a brilliantly stupid idea…. suicide on a global scale….aka genocide! Just check out the NASA photos showing the increase of forest land over the last few decades. But who wants a green planet? Amazing that this is called science.

  • Martin Tessler says:

    She did not once say the obvious carbon free power supply to run these…Nuclear. Has she not heard of this technology? Wrong classes in university maybe?

  • Charles Aragorm says:

    use all climate protecting methods simultanously, not versus. co2 removal, planting trees, using eco mobility , im using public transport all the time 🙂

  • Parul Langoo says:

    So much money wasted in this research and promotion.. better to plant trees with that money

  • SpeciamDraws says:

    I don't think this will work. How are they gonna find the money to build 16,988.49496 sqaures miles worth of these things.

  • Annes Ihoma says:

    let's start with basic knowledge:
    18% of our body weight is Carbon.
    because the majority of carbonaceous substances, with the exception of some of the carbon compounds considered to be inorganic are known as organic compounds. The enormous diversity of these compounds (carbon compounds make up about 95% of all known chemical compounds) is due to the carbon's ability to form four chemical bonds. carbon is a unique chemical element because its atom has four electron orbitals in the excited valence outer layer that have four unpaired electrons.
    it means it can form very stable bonds with lot's of other chemical elements.
    that's why carbon is essence of Life.
    and only source for that
    and the only way to get carbon for all the organic compounds in our body (proteins, fats, DNA, …) is through photosynthesis.
    and the reason why we have 0,04 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere (comparing with Venus 95%) is – is the carbon cycle:

    we exhale the CO2 released in processes of body functioning (the exhaled air contains 10,000 ppm CO2) – plants and algae utilize it in the process of photosynthesis.

    but it takes some time until those molecules reach from here to there.

    CO2 is LIFE MONEY.

    you take away all this CO2 from this circulation — you END LIFE ON THE EARTH.

    there is better way to solve this so called problem:

  • Han Can Cook says:

    You lost us when you said we went to the moon.

  • Ronald Greene says:

    Carbon dioxide is produced by thousands of tons each year to carbonate
    Coke, Pepsi and many other soft drinks world wide. So, we have yet to
    hear a word concerning this in the media. Carbon is not a problem — if
    you can look beyond mainstream corrupt sources of information. Carbon is
    one of the essential elements of life. You cannot breath and assimilate
    oxygen without CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the
    atmosphere is so little that it would have to be increased by 25 to 50
    times to begin to experience a greenhouse effect. This fraud has been
    proven over and over again, yet the media will not cover the issue
    properly when it is supported by the same corrupt interests. . Money
    rules — Are you ruled?. . or can you think independently?

  • Ronald Greene says:

    Carbon dioxide is produced by thousands of tons each year to carbonate
    Coke, Pepsi and many other soft drinks world wide. So, we have yet to
    hear a word concerning this in the media. Carbon is not a problem — if
    you can look beyond mainstream corrupt sources of information. Carbon is
    one of the essential elements of life. You cannot breath and assimilate
    oxygen without CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the
    atmosphere is so little that it would have to be increased by 25 to 50
    times to begin to experience a greenhouse effect. This fraud has been
    proven over and over again, yet the media will not cover the issue
    properly when it is supported by the same corrupt interests. . Money
    rules — Are you ruled?. . or can you think independently?

  • Ulfbeghrt says:

    These processes are highly energy intensive. It requires a ton of electrical power to drive the pumps and fans, plus a ton of process heat to release the C02 from it's carrier compound….to say nothing about sequestering it. Therefore, in order to make this solution viable, we require an energy sources that is reliable, abundant and clean……and dirt cheap would also be nice. Of the energy sources we have available today, nuclear energy is the only source that can meet even the first three requirements and, with some work, meet the fourth. I am absolutely convinced that Generation IV Molten Salt Reactors are the best answer to the energy and climate crisis. We can either let these crises over take us, and thus revert to an agrarian civilization, or we can do the cost benefit analysis and realize that global warming poses far greater a risk than nuclear ever could. Per unit of energy produced, nuclear leads to the fewest amount of premature deaths worldwide. It is in fact the safest form of energy production by the numbers. I implore you to do your research and do not let yourselves be led by fear.

  • jim morrisey says:

    CO2 is not harming the air. Is she that stupid? https://principia-scientific.org/un-climate-scientist-co2-emissions-are-making-earth-greener-more-fertile/?fbclid=IwAR2Q-jkGGsqzh9mQMBmzZoS8EL9gbdEIdkuFfrMBPHz5jeI0CwcA6qX0ZY4

  • Amit kumar says:

    The number of views on this video shows how much interested we are

  • Marsh says:

    Currently with 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere ; agriculture can sustain the world's food needs. If we scrub CO2 back to 300 ppm there will be major food shortages,, many Crops, will not reach harvest – by seasons end.
    If CO2 is reduced to 250 ppm , expect mass starvation ; crop growth would be too slow, for today's population.

    At the time of the Dinosaurs , Earth's CO2 levels were double that of today ; it provided growth for fauna & flora.
    CO2 is not a pollutant,, "we need it to survive" ; some actions like reducing CO2 , could lead to our extinction.

  • silverhairdemon says:

    Smart idea but still I rather see more tree's,green cities such as living walls,green roofs,herbs for pollinators,as well as stimulating people to grow their own food as much as possible to reduce the massive mono agriculture first than seeing all these things all over the place. If these things are around working for us,people might not be stimulated to green up their space

  • ci rob says:


  • Fireball Xl5 says:

    Why do you want to reduce a trace gas,CO2 is not pollution we all depend on it reduce it to much and plants die !

  • letsgosurfing 1 says:

    Burning natural gas to run carbon capture and then turning it back into a fuel or plastic. I think someone needs to do some thermodynamics.

  • Richard Mcginnis says:

    let me stop you at 22 seconds lady. and no i'm not gonna listen to the rest, so tell me, how is the temperature of the earth being taken? is it a giant thermometer up the antarctic? or are there thermometers every 100 feet covering land? we all know we can't use the oceans as a source because nasa even admitted to "fiddling" with the numbers, we also know there has to be carbon in the atmosphere so every living thing can use it, you take away the carbon and all plant life will die then where will we get our oxygen? now lets talk about timelines, since those who claim global warming won't tell anyone the recorded land temps over the last 100 years have only gone up 0.8 of a degree and the "warmest years" on record are from the 1930's, why don't you tell them the truth??? now before anyone of you man made climate change geeks come charging after me why not watch ivar glaever's speech's about this he is a nobel winner and a really nice guy or find the answer to illan sampson's question? after that we can talk

  • Jack Staten says:

    Without Co2 plants couldn't survive. Lower it and plants die. Check it out. Workout high levels of Co2 the snowball earth would have never defrosted and we would not be here. Hey a life and leave mother nature to mother nature. Worry about our sun burning out and it will. That's not speculation it's a fact. Yall have a nice weekend

  • Paul Starr says:



  • SamytheGreek says:

    Lets not and say we did.

  • True Grit says:

    She looks like a Frankenstein

  • Aj M says:

    OMG…..Co2 is not bad its greening the planet.

  • Aj M says:

    It's all about money $$$$$$$

  • andrew weisel says:

    Lost me when she said, collect as energy. Bullshit. Plant trees

  • italia buongiorno says:

    Janet i've enjoyed your presentation, and i applaud you on the work you are doing, I would've liked more details on the synthetic forest, however, i would like to suggest an idea that a think it may be possible to put together a team of engineers, technologist, phd's like you, to do research on removing co2 directly at the source. ( at the exhaust of cars, trucks, airplanes ) this would be a device attached to the prime mover exhaust and work like a catalytic converter. the carbon particles would be collected at the end of the day and stored and recycled. I know this is costly but it could help the problem now, thus permitting the use of fossil fuel until complete electrification of our prime movers be completed. it is just an idea/ we need to ask all these fossil fuel corporations to finance this research, therefore all of our populace should urgently apply our concern to our representatives in our governments-world wide, or else our beautiful planet is doomed.

  • Mashun Chingri Ruivah says:

    I'm late to this but; size of synthetic forests are greatly lower but we aren't thinking about the O2 replenishment from those forests.

  • Benjamin Couturier says:

    More trees, sure. But thorium reactors is an answer.

  • Tommy Mandel says:

    Thank you, Jennifer Wilcox.

  • Jim Slee says:

    This has got to be a joke. Stop eating meat and plant trees on all the farmland feeding animals. Stop subsidies to oil and gas and give subsidies to green tech. This seems much more viable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *