What is LMG doing to combat climate change?

[GodAtum]

I've been very concerned that LMG have not covered climate change in their videos, especially those of Linus's new house. With all the work going on at his house, what is he doing to combat climate change ... is he turning it into a low-carbon sustainable home to set an example to this large community?

[Biohazard777]

 

[Tamesh16]

Linus had mostly upkept the idea of being reasonable with being environmentally conscious, I dont think He has made sole videos to Climate change.

I honestly dont think there is much value and I am sure he does as well. Other channels cover this well and specific things like excessive crypto mining is not something their content might solve. 

But he does mention every now and again when applicable, about waste like through Right to repair or Carbon emissions from efficient power supplies and so on when it is necessary

[Sauron]

The idea of "low carbon sustainable homes" is a red herring, to fix climate change we need to go after the companies that are responsible for over 70% of emissions.

[thekingofmonks]

“Boohoo! They don’t ever mention climate change and environmentalism in their videos!

Cancel! CANCEL!!! CANCEL!!!!!!!”

 

(do not reply)

[Moonzy]

Quote

What is LMG doing to combat climate change?

by promoting consumerism?

[jaslion]

52 minutes ago, GodAtum said:

I've been very concerned that LMG have not covered climate change in their videos, especially those of Linus's new house. With all the work going on at his house, what is he doing to combat climate change ... is he turning it into a low-carbon sustainable home to set an example to this large community?

We can all literally stop using water, electricity, whatever right now of this moment and the top 100 companies would still be wrecking the climate. That is how bad it is.

 

It's an issue you can't fix going from the bottom to the top. You need to go from top to bottom to fix it.

[Middcore]

[Kadzo]

Ah i remember the times i thought that individuals can change the world and make a difference. It was nice back then. 

[DavidKalinowski]

19 minutes ago, Kadzo said:

Ah i remember the times i thought that individuals can change the world and make a difference. It was nice back then. 

We're the Planeteers, you can be one too! Because saving our planet is the thing to do!

I used to get so mad at my parents for not recycling our stuff, didn't dawn on me that our town of 260 people in the middle of mid-Missouri did not have a recycling program. (granted I was like 7)

[tkitch]

11 minutes ago, DavidKalinowski said:

We're the Planeteers, you can be one too! Because saving our planet is the thing to do!

I used to get so mad at my parents for not recycling our stuff, didn't dawn on me that our town of 260 people in the middle of mid-Missouri did not have a recycling program. (granted I was like 7)

Looting and polluting is not the way! 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Moonzy said:

by promoting consumerism?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too.

Linus, if anyone, is contributing a massive amount to the destruction of our environment. His entire job is basically to get people to buy stuff they don't actually need, and it is working very well judging by how many sponsors he gets and how many threads on this forum we get like "what screwdriver does Linus use", "where can I get this thing Linus talked about", and how much crap they sell their fans like lanyards, water bottles, pillows, plushies, etc.

 

People can go on about how "it's companies that are doing all the damage!" but at the end of the day, those companies exists because we consumers want them to exist, and it's people like Linus who encourage consumers to buy more and more stuff.

 

 

In before people jump on me for daring to say something bad about Linus. I think you need to listen to the man himself, who agrees with me:

Quote

I'm not manufacturing and dealing meth obviously but sometimes I do wonder about the wider impact that I am having on the world and whether it's a legacy I am going to be proud of. Those of you who know me personally, which is very few of you probably, know that while I do have a studio full of flashy toys and cool gear, those are not the sorts of things that I would actually buy for myself.

-snip-

As I grow older I'm finding the kind of mindless consumerism that our videos, whether I like to or not, end up promoting, more and more troubling.

 

[Montana One-Six]

As someone who knows a bit more about climate since I studied it in University for a few semesters for my degree I can tell you a few things:

We are too late to change anything of significance at this point. We should have started about 30 or 40 years ago because whatever you do now will most likely only take effect in about 30 years as climate is a slow and very complex system and changing or influencing that is not as easy as pressing a button. Yes we can change the outcome maybe a little but the majority of things are going to happen regardless (collapse of the gulf stream, rising sea levels, more extreme weather phenomenons, higher average temps, ...).

To make an actual impact you have to start where the most pollution comes from (which means factories, like coal power plants, cement and steel factories, ...). Yes the individual certainly can contribute to that but selling that as a way to change climate is not very truthful.

I mean if you sit in a boat with a hole in it, it is probably a good idea to use a bucket instead of a spoon to get the water out.

 

We as humans fucked up royally and we will have to live with the consequences and there is no way around it.

[OneOfYas]

It would be best to do nothing, the climate is going to change if we like it or not and sorry but the world don't revolve around humans.

[tkitch]

1 hour ago, OneOfYas said:

It would be best to do nothing, the climate is going to change if we like it or not and sorry but the world don't revolve around humans.

... *sigh* that's a dumb attitude.

 

What we want to fight are the human additions to climate change.  As early as the late 1800's, there were scientists who were pointing out that "Uhhh, too much carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere is gonna mess up things for us."

Little did they realize how much more CO2 we'd be producing within a mere century.

 

That's what we want to fix.  Nobody thinks we're going to stop evolutionary climate change, but we can slow down / stop the human additions to it.  

 

< removed by moderation >

Edited October 18, 2021 by LogicalDrm

[OneOfYas]

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

... *sigh* that's a dumb attitude.

 

What we want to fight are the human additions to climate change.  As early as the late 1800's, there were scientists who were pointing out that "Uhhh, too much carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere is gonna mess up things for us."

Little did they realize how much more CO2 we'd be producing within a mere century.

 

That's what we want to fix.  Nobody thinks we're going to stop evolutionary climate change, but we can slow down / stop the human additions to it.  

 

 

We can, but governing all humans is impossible without force and significant changes to the western world.

Good luck making the self entitled change, they rather point and blame.

People will be forced if it truly matters without questions.

Humans will form groups.. wars will happen.

Nothing really achieved other than ego vs ego and the climate problem gradually fades as war is now paramount all the whilst achieving nothing.

 

You can have the most perfect of ideals and thoughts and plans.

Humans are the real and true enemy in all ventures.

 

The difference in intellect from the average person is shocking, but it also matters how the vast majority of people trend, which for the most part, it is trendy to be your own individual... so how do you ask them to be something opposite of what the western world preaches? Oh right.

 

Selfishness and the traps of the ego and self-awareness is not something easily taught, it is mostly how people are brought up from their parents and also their surroundings and experiences. Life is far more complex than the simple "Perfected" route you have in your head.

 

 

Climate change is the least of our worries.

We as humans are not that evolved from animals at all, we just have the capacity to think and be creative, be it for a purposeful goal or for selfish reasons... you name it.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by LogicalDrm
Quoted part

[JZStudios]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

The idea of "low carbon sustainable homes" is a red herring, to fix climate change we need to go after the companies that are responsible for over 70% of emissions.

And by that you mean China.

All of the current "green energy" options are a scam, meanwhile things like Nuclear that are far more sustainable and produce more power with less emissions are being banned. Ever heard of biofuel plants? They make more emissions, even incredibly toxic ones, by burning freshly cut trees and tires to make a less efficient power supply than coal or gas. But because they burn trees, it's sustainable and eco-friendly.

 

The bigger issue is the sheer volume of trash people produce in this modern age of disposable everything.

[LogicalDrm]

Does shooting trees into ground while driving huge SUV count?

 

[LogicalDrm]

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

And by that you mean China.

Yet China believes climate change to be real, unlike some other large polluter-nations in the world...

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

All of the current "green energy" options are a scam,

Citation needed. I would agree on some of your points, but not all.

1 minute ago, JZStudios said:

meanwhile things like Nuclear that are far more sustainable and produce more power with less emissions are being banned.

Because statements like this. Nuclear is being replaced for other reasons than emissions. Its being banned because of danger each plant is even when active, and the radioactive waste produced. That waste is about as bad as climate change, and there are no methods of disposing it faster than natural half-life. Only storage options are even looked at, and even those are sketchy at best.

 

I don't get into biofuel as you are correct on that one. Its not solution, its stepping stone. Mainly because of regenerating of the fuel is quicker than waiting bio-material to degrade into oil and gas, or solidify into coal. In time scale of millions of years quicker. Hydro is tricky also as it disrupts natural flows of rivers, affecting both ecosystems and human life (fresh water, farming).

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Because statements like this. Nuclear is being replaced for other reasons than emissions. Its being banned because of danger each plant is even when active, and the radioactive waste produced. That waste is about as bad as climate change, and there are no methods of disposing it faster than natural half-life. Only storage options are even looked at, and even those are sketchy at best.

Yes, but the amount we actually need to put in long-term storage is very, very small. 

The US has only produced 83K tons of nuclear waste since the 50's. If you are wondering how much that is, it's about one football field worth. 

 

One football field, to power 1/5 of the US for the last 70 years... That's not counting the fuel that could have been refused in the newer types of reactors either, which would further cut down on the amount that need long-term storage. More than 90% of the spent nuclear waste can be refused if we want to. The US currently don't recycle their nuclear fuel.

 

Source: Energy.gov

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, but the amount we actually need to put in long-term storage is very, very small. 

The US has only produced 83K tons of nuclear waste since the 50's. If you are wondering how much that is, it's about one football field worth. 

 

One football field, to power 1/5 of the US for the last 70 years... That's not counting the fuel that could have been refused in the newer types of reactors either, which would further cut down on the amount that need long-term storage. More than 90% of the spent nuclear waste can be refused if we want to. The US currently don't recycle their nuclear fuel.

 

Source: Energy.gov

Yep nuclear power is clearly needed for the base load with other sources and storage covering peaks

 

Linus is using heat pumps instead of traditional AC, the whole house seems pretty well insulated, moving to room by room temp control not whole house.

now as for LMG we don't know a lot about their buildings but they've insulated them pretty well

[JZStudios]

4 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Yet China believes climate change to be real, unlike some other large polluter-nations in the world...

China says whatever it thinks will make the other nations happy and leave them alone. Meanwhile they make environment destroying dams while building cheap infrastructure they later flood with said dams and ramp up coal plant productions while saying they won't. China is not at all invested in lowering pollution, nor do they even attempt to anything to lower it.

I can only assume you're implying the US, which has pollution levels on par with the European countries, unlike China which produces more than the US and Europe combined. It's not like the US doesn't have emissions controls and taxes.

 

4 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Citation needed. I would agree on some of your points, but not all.

Here's a documentary produced by Michael Moore. It doesn't really reveal anything anyone paying attention didn't already know. Some people argue about more minor points like the claim that solar panels only last a decade, and they say they now are insured for 20 years, but they miss everything else surrounding it.

 

4 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Because statements like this. Nuclear is being replaced for other reasons than emissions. Its being banned because of danger each plant is even when active, and the radioactive waste produced. That waste is about as bad as climate change, and there are no methods of disposing it faster than natural half-life. Only storage options are even looked at, and even those are sketchy at best.

 

I don't get into biofuel as you are correct on that one. Its not solution, its stepping stone. Mainly because of regenerating of the fuel is quicker than waiting bio-material to degrade into oil and gas, or solidify into coal. In time scale of millions of years quicker. Hydro is tricky also as it disrupts natural flows of rivers, affecting both ecosystems and human life (fresh water, farming).

It's still a better solution in areas that aren't prone to natural disasters, like most of the internal continents. No earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc. and there's no real harm done. Japan uses them and they only had a problem when a massive tsunami hit. Meanwhile California is super strict about emissions and power production and has constant rolling brown outs where the mayors and governor tell people to shut off their ac and lights.

 

Biofuel isn't even a stepping stone. It just straight shouldn't be done.

 

Green energy is too expensive for it's low efficiency right now, and there's other drawbacks with each of them that produce a negative environmental impact. Especially cutting down trees for biofuel. I'm less worried about that and more about dumping toxic materials.

[Guest]

I think humans should start getting crafty with creating energy.

 

IE: Regenerative braking, how about regenerative gaming?

 

The more you move the joysticks, the more you charge the batteries. 

 

Mechanical keyboard regenerative buttons!!!

 

Bicycle charging, stationary or other.

 

How can we harness just movement. maybe a little generator on a hamster's wheel for example. Which could be a viable solution as we curve deeper into an age of very efficient computing and lighting methods. 

 

How long do we really need to lean on power companies for? We (at our house) use half the energy we where using say just 30 years ago in the average household. All the appliances are much more efficient. But yet we pay a higher premium today for this luxury. Funny part is roughly half my bill is a delivery fee.

 

 

 

[crazzp]

14 hours ago, jaslion said:

We can all literally stop using water, electricity, whatever right now of this moment and the top 100 companies would still be wrecking the climate. That is how bad it is.

 

It's an issue you can't fix going from the bottom to the top. You need to go from top to bottom to fix it.

I believe we can fix it both ways, from top to bottom AND from bottom to top, it's not exclusive. 
We can start by changing our demands, with that, the profit-hungry companies will change. 
What we can do to influence companies if there's a substantial number of people doing the same:
1. Go vegetarian/vegan or eat less meat - raising animals for food is a huge environment-harming activity 

2. Avoid fast fashion - Go for good quality stuff that will last instead of cheap clothing which you will throw away quickly. 
3. REDUCE comes before REUSE and RECYCLE (Linus advocates this ALL THE TIME) - Recycling also contributes to the environment so the best is to reduce your impact.

4. Drive less, advocate for better public transport. No idea what's with USA's love for cars. The refusal to build decent public transport system is confounding. Please don't use size as an excuse (China is just slightly smaller and they have amazing train system which are cheaper and more environment friendly than planes and cars).

 

If everyone were to practice these habits, companies will definitely have to change and there help in the environment. 

[SansVarnic]

My favorite three terms growing up: /s

Global Cooling

Global Warming

Climate Change

 

All Failed and based on bad science. Dammit I was promised an Ice Age in 2001, then they changed their minds and said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010.... Now its Climate Change this and Climate Change that. Sorry but ummmmm cry wolf so many times and . . . I turn a deaf ear.

 

That said, I don't deny that pollution and production can have harmful effects and there is a degree of action that needs taken. Conservationists such as Hunters and farmers have and do the best for the environment than anyone else because they care, and the conditions are necessary for crops and game. But this is my position and what I know, what I have seen. I do not expect anyone to accept it but its more accurate than any "inconvenient truth" garbage science that has been pushed for the last 40 years.