At what sort of pressure?
1 atmosphere, so sea level pressure, per Diána Ürge-Vorsatz
1 atm.
If it weighs that much why did they have to strap it down. Huh….. Huh /s
If we jump in there can we have a really really good nap?
Wait?! Is this what they mean by carbon capture?
Next step is interrogation
Well, not in such cubes, but I have heard the plan of piping the CO2 into underground caverns.
Expected it to be bigger, still terrifying
My brain is not wrapping around this so well.
The co2 in that cube at normal air pressure would weigh 1000 kg?
Doesn't air only weigh a kilogram per cubic meter?
I know co2 is heavier, but is co2 that much heavier?
Like 20 times heavier?
No, I just looked it up, air is 1.2 kg per cubic meter and CO2 is 1.8 kg per cubic meter.
Someone set me straight, I don't get it.
At standard temperature and pressure (STP) it looks like CO2 has a density of 1.96 kg/m^3. 1 tonne = 1000 kg, so a tonne of CO2 has a volume of (1000 kg)/(1.96 kg/m^3) = 510 m^3 at STP. A cube of that volume would have side length (510 m3)(1/3) = 7.99 m, so roughly 8 meters per side.
I don't know how tall that person is, but if we assume around 1.6 m (5' 3") then the cube side length should be about 5 of her. Seems pretty accurate to me.
Thank you, this helps, brain wrapping successfully now.
Not sure it actually demonstrates the extend of the issue. My favourite way to look at it (via ThunderF00t@youtube I believe):
- dry ice is essentially frozen CO2 ( CO2 in solid form)
- cca 40 billion tuns per year (cca 5t per person / year, 8 billion people)
- 1km side cube of dry ice weights cca 1.5 billion tuns (1.560 kg/m3 says wiki)
=> Burj Khalifa has 830 m - imagine huge cube of dry ice 20% taller ( or 3x eifell tower)- all that CO2 boiling off in massive clouds - than add 25 of them - each year. We've been doing this at some scale for decades....
I guess I'm confused on the definition of a "tonne" of CO2. Am I to believe that if that cube was completely full of CO2 that volume of CO2 would weigh 1000kg?
Nevermind, just looked it up. It's actually a measure of volume, just 1000 cubic meters, which makes perfect sense.
Edit: it was actually the first one, although a "tonne" as a measure of volume does exist.
You had it right the first time, 1 tonne (1000 kg) of CO2 at standard temperature and pressure would have a volume equivalent to that cube.
Confirmed with this MIT page: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-ton-carbon-dioxide
I probably make that much in my life. Billionaire make it in an hour, but environmentalists are still blaming me and the plastic straw I used last week
While plastic products do contribute to CO2 emissions, and billionaires do contribute a significant amount of their own CO2 emissions, plastic straws are terrible for wildlife and the environment altogether and should have been banned long ago for reasons completely separate from the CO2 emissions.
I know you write that to debunk the blame-shifting BS from the person above you and thank you for that. I would like to make a different point though: Plastic straws would have never become an issue if companies like McDonald's hadn't started to hand them out with every single drink for absolutely no reason. If they'd instead been used to allow disabled people to drink more comfortably, all would have been good. But consumers want, and in some cases, expect certain conveniences and companies are more than happy to feed our overconsumption.
Currently about 4.7 tonnes per year is the global average, for americans I found a figure of about 16 tonnes per year. But the second number is probably a few years old.
The average billionaire was estimated at about 8,194 tonnes per year. Or 512 americans. It sucks, but remember that there are way more than 512 americans per billionaire. We all need to change, it's just more extreme of a change the more money you have.
Same with companies. Instead of both sides shifting blame to each other, companies and consumers have to change.
While I agree with your general point I'd like to say that the relation of company emissions with consumer emissions is a bit different, ultimately what we consider consumer emissions are the company emissions of what the consumers buy.
But that still means we need to change both consumer behaviour and laws restricting companies, reducing consumption is important but so is reducing the pollution involved in producing what we do consume.
environmentalists are still blaming me and the plastic straw I used last week
Do they really? Are these people here in this room? I know literally 0 environmentalist that would blame you for the plastic straw.
And there's a difference between "HOW DARE YOU USE A PLASTIC STRAW, YOU EVIL FILTH??" which is what this person probably hears though the filter of their own subconscious guilt and insecurity, versus "Hey folks, we should really consider whether we actually need all these plastic straws, because even the little improvements in our consumption habits can add up to valuable impacts," which is what's actually being said.
HE USED A PLASTIC STRAW!!! GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!!!!
BUT THE BIODEGRADABLE KIND, WE'RE NOT THE MONSTERS HERE!!!!
just use no straw and drink straight from the cup, the way you would any drink at home
Nah, that's what the billionaires tell you that environmentalists want, so that you rally against the environmentalists rather than the billionaires.
Divide and conquer is so terribly effective.
Lol, I'm glad they're using electricity and some variation of plastic to show us - since that stuff doesn't usually add any toxins to the environment
Classic concern trolling.
I think the people who show us how bad it is probably already have changed their lifestyles to be net carbon sinks. They're just throwing your dumbass a bone trying to teach you.
