The Global Thermostat - A Crazy Megaproject That Just Might Work

foreign oh no it is hot in here I should turn the temperature down oh look now I feel better [Music] [Applause] throughout the history of this planet there have been countless natural disasters that have changed the climate super volcanoes asteroid impacts disrupted ocean cycles and now humans ooh Edge Lord saying that humans are a natural disaster well yeah I mean from the 4.5 billion year perspective of Earth we are just another thing that happened we are just another in a long string of events that upset the bounds in the atmosphere and caused it to change we didn't mean to do it any more than a volcano meant to do it and if it wasn't us it would probably be something else so we really want to survive long term on this planet and I mean long term it seems like it would be Hooves to find a way to you know stabilize things so what if we could regulate the climate it's just like a thermostat on your wall you know just imagine a big dial that you could just turn to raise and lower the CO2 level in the atmosphere we always keep it at just the right temperature what would that look like how would that work exactly what would it take to create a true Global thermostat so if we're going to create this whole system to keep the CO2 levels of the atmosphere in an optimal range we need to First decide on what that optimal range is so whenever they talk about CO2 levels they always compare it to pre-industrial levels because that was before we started you know digging stuff out of the ground and burning it and putting it up in the atmosphere to run everything granted yes we had been burning stuff to heat our homes and buildings and stuff for a long time but it was the Industrial Age that really kicked it into overdrive and they consider the Industrial Age to be between 1760 and 1840 so basically before the mid 1700s and that level is 280 parts per million although the argument could be made that there's a better number I mean just because that's where it was before it doesn't mean it's actually the best optimal thing for you know giving us better crop yields and better efficiencies and whatnot I mean one could argue that if we made it way lower than you know the poles might freeze over causing more ice to go up to the poles causing the ocean levels to go down and create all kinds of new real estate property and in a few hundred thousand years at least of course that also means that those massive ass sheets would cover up a large part of you know North America and Europe and stuff so that would probably take away as much land as it creates anyway scratch that we know that 280 parts per million did as well for a long time it kept the climate stable we did well in it um you know it keeps the ocean levels where we want them we could probably even go up to 300 310 or so and be okay so for the purposes of this thought experiment slash megaproject idea thing that's our thermostat setting that's what we're going for so that means we're gonna have to pull a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere so how are we going to do that so I've covered carbon sequestration methods before I'll link to the video here there's a lot of different ways of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere everything from planting forests to regenerative agriculture to construction materials that absorb CO2 out of the air to seeding oceans with minerals to algae and seaweed all a bunch of things we should be doing most of it anyway but for the purposes of this video I'm talking about carbon capture so yeah okay here we go here's the deal look a lot of people really don't like the idea of carbon capture and for some very valid reasons so let's just talk about those reasons real quick just get it out of the way just right off the bat first of all there's a couple of different things that get conflated quite a bit there's direct air capture and carbon capture and sequestration or CCS CCS collects carbon capture at the source so like a coal plant instead of just pumping that smoke up into the smokestack and into the air they feed it through you know basically a carbon dioxide filter and then that CO2 is sequestered in some way maybe pumped underground or liquefied into tanks all that kind of stuff so CCS doesn't reduce the carbon that's already in the air it's an emissions mitigation strategy and the fossil fuel companies love this because it means that they can just keep on burning fossil fuels they've been lobbying hard for it it's a nice little loophole so they can keep making as much money as possible but for something they love so much um you do a really crappy job with it yeah climate town did a video about this recently it's worth a watch it's actually a great video but they point out how they um they put we threw all this tax money at these coal companies and only one out of eight projects worked like at all and even that just barely if you haven't heard of climate town you should check it out it's a it's a good it's a good show the only problem I have with it is he's way funnier than me and how dare he turns out and nobody could have predicted this but you can't rely on the fossil fuel companies to do the right thing they're just not going to was that smarmy enough I think that nailed it yeah so rightfully climate change activists hate this idea because the fossil fuel companies use it as a get out of jail free card I think it's the right idea I mean obviously it's better to capture it than just releasing it like how we're just pumping this stuff into the atmosphere still is is just beyond me but I get the argument but either way that's not what we're talking about today because that just prevents the carbon dioxide from getting into the air if it works at all if we want to actually pull carbon out of the air that's already up there we need to talk about the other option direct air capture this is where they collect the air in these giant fans and actually remove the CO2 from the air and this isn't exactly universally beloved either some use the same argument against this as they use against CCS that it just gives fossil fuel companies permission to just keep you know pumping more into the air and plus a lot of companies pay carbon credits to direct air capture companies is a bit of a smoke screen to just prevent themselves from you know transitioning to cleaner Technologies plus a lot of these capture methods are very very energy intensive which that itself could leave a carbon footprint all Valley criticisms and I totally get that but there is one really good counter argument which is um we don't [ __ ] up earlier I mentioned that 280 to 300 parts per million goal that we're going for here well in case you're wondering what it is now it averaged at 417.2 this last year peaked at 421 that is 50 higher than pre-industrial levels even scarier though is that it was higher than last year's which was higher than the years before that and for that and the year before that and it's not just getting higher it's getting higher in increasingly larger amounts when they first started tracking CO2 levels in 1958 it was climbing about one part per million per year did that gets closer to two per year in other words rco2 emissions have not only not gone down or even flattened out they're still going up and they're going up at accelerating levels for all the Greening we've done we are nowhere near handling this don't get me wrong we've made a lot of progress in cleaning up our energy infrastructure and that's great but in the words of Winston wolf well let's not start sucking each other's dicks quite yet we've got a long way to go in fact we are currently going in the wrong direction and we just keep pressing the gas harder this idea that I'm proposing this whole Global thermostat thing it's absurd I'll be the first to say it it's totally absurd but what we're doing right now is every bit is absurd I'll tell you what's absurd spending millions of dollars on giant machines to take carbon out of the air when you could just use trees it's like that time when NASA spent millions of dollars on a zero g pen and then the Russians just used a pencil okay that pencil thing that was a total fabrication that actually never happened but the trees thing I'm actually glad you said no it's made out of trees pencils so here's the deal with trees trees are great we should be planting them and yes they take in CO2 but they also need water and some places are a little low on water these days forests take up land and resources away from agriculture which we're going to need to feed 8 billion people in the coming years forests need to be managed to prevent forest fires and when trees die which they will eventually die the wood releases CO2 when it rots or catches fire and burns down your hometown not to mention that when we plant trees we tend to plant rows upon rows of single varieties of trees which creates a monoculture that's extremely vulnerable to fungal infections and disease and blight all of which is to say yes of course we need to be planting trees but they aren't a Panacea and besides they're a one-way street it's not like a dial you can turn to adjust the climate when things go sideways which is kind of the whole point of this thought experiment is there any other place you can be buddy fine I guess I'll go Draw Something you do that with my Russian space pen they didn't use a pencil the shavings floated around I got nothing short of whatever he's gone anyway there are three major players in the director of capture space carbon engineering out of Canada climb Works in Switzerland and a company out of Colorado named um Global thermostat bastard stole my title all of these companies use a similar process to capture carbon out of the air first air is pulled in by giant fans that air then flows through a carbon dioxide absorbent material that material has been processed the CO2 is removed and it's either stored away or used in various products or Industries so I don't want to get too much in the Weeds on how all these companies do what they do they're all kind of variations on a theme what really matters is the price per ton of CO2 that they remove and then what they do with it so let's start with climb works so climb works is headquartered in Switzerland but they've been building plants in Iceland to take advantage of geothermal energy there which is something that does need to be talked about a little bit here because these plants are going to need to be powered by renewable energy otherwise they're basically just going to be burning so much fuel to power this that it's going to defeat the purpose we'll get back to that in a minute climb Works pumps the CO2 they capture underground where it mineralizes with basalt rock they do this through a partnership with a company called carb fix and it's paid for by companies governments and individuals purchasing carbon credits so if say you had an international flight and you wanted to offset the emissions from that flight you could just pay climb works and they would just pull it out of air and pump it Underground just saying they opened their first commercial DAC plant in Iceland in September of 2021 it's able to remove 4 000 tons of CO2 per year they're currently building a new plant that will be able to remove 36 000 tons per year they plan to get that number up into the millions by 2030 and get up to a billion per year by 2050. price wise climb works is in the 600 per ton range they're projecting they could get it down to 200 per ton by the mid-2030s as they scale up carbon engineering is based out of Squamish British Columbia Canada they first started capturing in 2015 they have two pilot plants in BC currently capturing around 2 000 tons per year they sell carbon offsets like climb works and store that underground but they also sell their CO2 on the market to places like soda companies as well as to make synthetic fuel those of course wind up going back into the atmosphere eventually making them more carbon neutral than carbon Negative they also have a giant plant in the works here at the Permian Basin in Texas that's expected to pull about a million tons per year out of the air which sounds great but one of the uses they have for that CO2 is enhanced oil recovery yeah this is where they pump CO2 into oil reservoirs and then use that to force more oil out of the ground which will then be burned and put into the atmosphere they also use natural gas as an energy source which isn't great right now they're operating also at around 600 per ton but they've been on record saying that they think they could get it down to 100 per ton as for Global thermostat they built a few pilot plants for direct air capture in California and Chile they've got two commercial plants under construction in Oklahoma right now but all these are in the very early stages they've actually hit some business and legal snags along the way I don't need to get into the details but they just had a bit of a rough start these two Oklahoma plants are also going to be powered on natural gas and are expected to pull 2 000 tons per year each so 4 000 total and it looks like they plan on selling their CO2 to create CO2 based Fuel and also for agricultural purposes greenhouses and such I couldn't find their current cost per ton but they advertise they'll eventually be able to get it to a hundred dollars per ton maybe even fifty dollars at scale I have a skeptical of these three I think the climb Works model is really the only one that'll serve the purposes of this thought experiment slash Mega project because it is 100 powered by renewable energy it's the questions away 100 of the carbon it captures and it doesn't put it back into the atmosphere or use it to dig more oil out of the ground but with new climate policies and pressure on organizations that offset their carbon emissions a ton of money is flowing into this space which is of course bred a lot of new startup companies with their own takes on direct air capture including heirloom carbon Mission zero sostera Noya and carbon Infinity these companies all have different ways of absorbing the CO2 for example there's a company that's creatively called carbon capture that's trying to lower costs by using molecular sieves others are focusing on manufacturing small modular and easily Deployable DAC units which can maybe bring down the cost for the end users one company it's kind of interesting it's called carbon collect they're building what they call mechanical trees that passively pull carbon from the air with no need for pumps or fans it was developed at Arizona State University and they just basically stack hundreds of thin plates with absorbent material on it and then just let air flow over it for several hours and then they pull the plates back down and then pull the CO2 off of it somehow they call this passive direct air capture or pdac and it should greatly reduce the amount of energy needed to do this which is a good thing um they say that a cluster of 12 Trees could remove one ton of CO2 per day but the one I've been excited about for a while now is a company called verdox which was spun off from an MIT lab that developed this technology that they call electro swing they basically run air over plates coated with nanotubes that when you run a specific current through it it attracts CO2 molecules once you've captured all of it that you can capture all you have to do to release the CO2 is turn off the current and then you pump that CO2 Out start the process all over again this works at ambient temperature no need to heat it to several hundred degrees and there's no moving Parts outside the air pump in April of last year they were one of 15 participants in the carbon capture X prize to win the one million dollar Milestone award I think that was out of like 1300 entries or something like that but anyway the winner will be picked this year and they'll get an 80 million grand prize the only real caveat with this technology is that the nanotubes are still expensive to produce but they believe that at scale they'll be looking at about 50 per ton and I'm more likely to believe these guys on that price point I think this technology could pull that off especially once things scale up and especially especially as is carbon markets mature so when I say carbon markets there's a couple of things I'm talking about here one is the carbon credits and carbon offsets like climb Works deals with I was talking about a second ago the other is actually selling carbon dioxide to Industries for use and products as governments around the world are trying to stick to the various climate agreements like the Paris Accords they have begun incentivizing Industries to reduce their carbon emissions this can be through carrots or sticks depending on the country so the businesses have a choice they can either reduce the amount of missions they release which requires a lot of retooling and adaptation and you know effort or they can just pay a carbon offset to a carbon friendly company and yes this is something that Tesla benefited from for quite some time it's kind of like how for years there the car companies got around fuel efficiency standards by creating one half-assed electric compliance model instead of you know actually making their cars more efficient the interesting thing about that analogy is that eventually electric cars became popular and it hit a Tipping Point now it's kind of taking over the industry maybe we'll see a similar thing in carbon capture who knows what we're seeing right now in carbon capture is definitely analogous to the lame half-assed electric cars in the past that's for sure but anyway the trend of offsetting emissions through carbon capture is only accelerating which is why you're starting to see so many startups getting into the space now the other side of the carbon markets the bottling of CO2 and selling it to Industries this is all over the map in terms of locking down CO2 and taking it out of the atmosphere the worst of these options are the enhanced oil recovery I just talked about a second ago because it's actually enabling more CO2 to go into the atmosphere not quite as bad are things like syn fuels and carbonation for sodas again these will go right back into the atmosphere at some point but it's still more mitigation than sequestration then you've got CO2 for agricultural use and greenhouses to grow food and trees and stuff like that this relies on a lot of factors including what happens with the plants when they're that are grown with it how the waste from the people and the animals who consume it is handled how tightly the CO2 is managed there's a lot of escaping into the air again that kind of thing there's also CO2 for algae growth in production which could be used for fuels or Plastics or all the stuff that we you know normally use oil for maybe the best use in my mind I like this anyway is using CO2 to cure certain types of concrete so you're essentially just locking the CO2 down in our homes and buildings the problem with all these Solutions is that it's just not economically feasible not when you know using CO2 from fossil fuel extraction is order of magnitude less expensive so until we find some kind of killer application of CO2 some some new application that makes it actually cheaper to use the stuff that's captured from the air this will remain relatively Niche now having said that there are a lot of research facilities and startups working on new applications of CO2 in fact there's a whole different X prize that's set up around it so maybe in the next decade or so maybe there's hope that this could become a major way to offset the cost of direct air capture make the whole thing cheaper but in the meantime I think we're just going to have to rely on the capture of CO2 as a publicly funded government incentivized program yeah I don't I don't like it either regardless tons of money is flowing into the carbon capture space in April of last year payment processor stripe Google parent alphabet meta Shopify and McKenzie announced that they were teaming up to commit to purchase almost 1 billion dollars worth of carbon dioxide removal from companies that are developing this technology a couple days later Chris Sac as climate Investment Company low carbon Capital announced a 350 million dollar fund to invest in carbon removal startups as well so with all of that in mind for the purposes of this video I'm going to be somewhat optimistic and use the long-term cost per ton of CO2 capture at 50 and just to get ahead of the naysayers here um what we're talking about here is a very long-term multi-generational Mega project yes it will take some time maybe decades to get down to 50 but at this scale I think you'd actually see it go down below that in the long run so for our purposes here I'm going with it that's my rationale so finally let's run the numbers first let's figure out how much carbon we need to take out of the atmosphere now according to a couple of references I found links down below of course every part per million of Earth's atmosphere is 7.81 gigatons or 7.81 billion tons so if we're currently averaging around 417 parts per million of CO2 and we want to get that down to let's just say an even 300. that's 117 parts per million times 7.81 which gives us 913.77 gigatons or 913.77 billion tons we need to remove and our 50 per time price point that's 45.68 trillion for the record at our current rate of 600 per ton that's 548.26 trillion dollars so here's hoping all those Investments bring down that cost quickly but we don't have to spend that all at once like I said this is this is a very long-term project that will be spread out over time so with that our total of 45.68 trillion over 10 years would be 4.56 trillion dollars per year over 20 years 2.28 trillion dollars per year over 50 years 913 billion dollars a year and if we want to go full out 100 years it'd be about 456 billion dollars a year now for perspective the total world GDP in 2021 was 96.51 trillion so this would equal about one percent of global GDP every year if we do it at the 50-year level or about half a percent if we do it for the next hundred this seems surprisingly feasible like in my head I'm comparing it to the solar Shades video I did a while back where I talked about you know launching a bunch of solar Shades to the L1 LaGrange point to cool the planet and that came out to like quadrillions of dollars I I was expecting this to be something like that also that one relied on technologies that don't currently exist but this one all the Technologies do exist they're in their infancy and they need to be massively scaled but they are doable now I am leaving something out in all of those equations in math and stuff this is all to get rid of the excess CO2 that we've already put in the atmosphere but like I said before we're still putting in excess one to two parts per million of the atmosphere every year so we also need to account for that if we average that one to two parts per million to 1.5 parts per million that would equate to about 11.7 billion tons per year which at fifty dollars per ton would be about 587 billion dollars per year just a break even okay so to fill out the rest of that chart 45.68 trillion total plus 585 billion yearly for a break even over 10 years would come out to about 5.14 trillion per year or 5.3 percent of global GDP over 20 years is 2.86 trillion tons per year which equals 2.96 percent of GDP over 50 years that's 1.49 trillion per year or 1.54 percent of GDP in over 100 years that's 1.04 trillion per year or 1.07 GDP couple of pedantic caveats here that GDP number will change over time most likely go up so the percentage of GDP would actually go down or you could just Peg it to a certain percentage of GDP to account for inflation over time so it's somewhat feasible but still this is still like a trillion dollars a year right so so who's going to pay for that now I know some of you may be saying that we should make the fossil fuel companies pay for it because you know all the reasons but the fact of the matter is well actually they totally could according to World Bank data the oil industry profits roughly three billion dollars per day and is made between one to two trillion dollars a year for the last 50 years since 1970 adjusted for inflation but I mean we've seen how they handle CCS like I said earlier they're not going to do the right thing ever as much as we may want to punish them if it's going to work the only way that's going to go forward is if the governments of the world pay for it but you might say nobody's going to get behind that one or two percent of the entire Global GDP that's a massive amount of money no government is going to be okay giving away that much money to some industry right well it turns out there is precedence for this yes there's a good example a modern day example of an industry that gets subsidized to the tune of trillions of dollars every year can you guess what it is all right it's the oil industry yes according to the international monetary fund Global fossil fuels subsidies added up to 5.9 trillion dollars in 2020 accounting for 6.8 percent of GDP and expected to climb to 7.4 percent by 2025. yes this industry that has profited one to two trillion dollars per year for 50 years is currently just being given six trillion dollars a year by the governments of the world just for being such small guys so yeah the money's there if we really want to do this and I have to take a second to make the same point that I always make whenever people complain about how much money is spent on space this money isn't just thrown down a hole somewhere and disappears forever that money goes to companies who use it to pay their employees who use that money to provide for their families and they put it into the economy and so on it's just as likely that this would create an economic Boon than the opposite there's also the argument that not doing this would cost more than the long run because you know sea level rise starts ravaging coastal cities I mean really how much would it cost to move Miami and 570 other coastal cities with a combined population of over 800 million people so how do we actually do this the cool thing about these direct air capture plants is you can kind of put them anywhere but some places are better than others because like I said before it doesn't really matter where you pull the CO2 from what does matter is where you get the energy to pull the CO2 and what you do with the CO2 once you've captured it like there's a reason climb Works picked Iceland is a place to set up shop with their plants because there's a ton of geothermal energy there and volcanic activity has left plenty of underground structures to pump the CO2 and mineralize it around the world there are dozens of geothermal hot spots like Indonesia the Philippines turkey New Zealand Mexico Italy the aforementioned Iceland and believe it or not the top producer of geothermal in the world the United States geothermal is especially good for powering direct air capture plans because it's carbon free that's you know what's the point of capturing carbon if you have to make more of it to do it and you can directly use that heat in the processing of the CO2 and I don't think this gets talked about nearly enough but drilling geothermal Wells could provide jobs for dispossessed Oil Workers so as our infrastructure changes they'll be a lot less they took their gerbs and a lot more they gave me a new germ and of course you can get clean power from these plants for hydroelectric sources and there's always wind and solar the problem with wind and solar of course is it's intermittent that doesn't really matter as much in this case but it's also going to take some pretty big wind and solar Farms to power these plants um that takes up a lot of land as of the cost but it might be worth it if it's at locations with good storage potential and we are going to need to store a lot of carbon and not every geothermal source is going to have the right combination of underground spaces made up of the right kind of rock for mineralization of that carbon and so forth so we're going to need to find as many of these places as possible and build plants nearby because we certainly don't want to be transporting the CO2 all over the place in gas burning trucks and ships again defeating the purpose now there is one gigantic place where we could probably easily store all this CO2 it's not without its controversy but it absolutely could work it's the bottom of the ocean I'll talk a little while back about limnic eruptions and how if a lake is deep enough the carbon dioxide can actually get trapped and pressurized under the weight of all the water above it essentially carbonating the water and in the case of lakes like nios and manoon this pressure can overturn and all that carbon dioxide can escape in an explosion but oceans are so big that there's very little chance of that happening still it's not great for the sea creatures and ecosystems to live down there carbon dioxide once it gets carbonated it creates carbonic acid that can eat away its shells and disrupt ecosystems and stuff and this in turn could eventually affect some of the sea life that we rely on but if we're okay with it it's you know sacrificing some of that it is an intriguing idea you could create a floating plant powered by solar panels and maybe even wave power that passively or lightly fans air through the electro swing absorbers clean air gets pumped out the CO2 gets pumped way down to the bottom of the ocean where the pressure locks it away and eventually mineralizes it on the ocean floor these can be made modular and eventually autonomous so you know they can be made as big as we need them and they can be kept away from shipping lanes could work [Music] there are of course a few caveats like we can start with my little modular ocean capture idea there you know the the ocean is notoriously brutal and things like that the constant wear and tear from the waves the storms it would have to contend with not to mention ocean creatures degrading it Barnacles and whatnot it would require constant maintenance and upkeep probably pushing its cost way above that 50 or 10 figure and speaking of that 50 per ton fix it doesn't include the storage part of the equation or the transport of that CO2 around to its storage locations which also would jack up the price but the increased cost could be counterbalanced by extending out the length of the project and it can be extended out for as long as we want I mean this this is meant to be a very long-term solution this isn't something we'll be seeing the benefits from immediately in fact we might never see this fully come to fruition it would probably be a couple decades at least before we're even capturing as much as we're releasing every year there are also other questions like the Albedo has so much of the ice melted that the Earth will just continue to absorb more heat no matter how much CO2 we capture does that mean that the amount we need to capture goes up even more and there's also the dreaded unintended consequences I mean let's be honest the climate is a chaotic system and it might respond in ways we don't like kind of like plastic surgery the more you do the worse it gets in fact we could go too far with it so foreign here's the part that's going to be really controversial in order to maintain the balance long term we actually might need to keep burning fossil fuels hear me out if what we're going for here is balance so we don't get hot house Earth or snowball Earth and we need to be able when needed to put more CO2 into the atmosphere remove when we need add one we need well we can always spin up or spin down our capture machines but if we need to add more CO2 and we've totally dismantled all fossil fuel use there could be a problem there now regardless fossil fuel use is going to go down over the very long term because there's only so much of it we will eventually run out of it so maybe if we reach a point where we completely get off fossil fuels which by the way would require new technology because we don't there's no way we could currently fly a 787 going on battery power right now um you know maybe we could scale back the project and let the Earth do its thing maybe keeping a minimum amount on standby just in case just spitballing so yes there are issues but still I mean doesn't this feel like something that we're going to need eventually if we really want to survive into the far future like I said at the beginning this isn't just about fixing the problem that we cause this is a volatile planet that we live on there will always be fluctuations and spikes and perturbations messing with composition of the atmosphere and we know that the sun is going to get hotter and hotter in the millions and billions of years to come this is a way to protect ourselves from that as long as possible and before people talk about moving off of Earth to Mars or somewhere further away from the sun in the far future wherever we go we're going to have to terraform that planet to make it habitable maybe we should figure out how to do it here first because I mean that's what we're doing here we're terraforming Earth so why not start now because I mean as we all know humans are really good at planning long term which is how we got into this situation in the first place so that's the global thermostat project probably a total pipe dream that will never happen because it would require the coordination of hundreds of countries that all hate each other and can't plan past the next election but yeah but yeah the solar Shades idea that I did that was that was a total Hail Mary idea and the more I researched it the more ridiculous and impossible it was but this one is actually possibly feasible I mean technologically economically the only thing holding it back is us so what do you think you think it's worth it to really pursue this idea or should we just accept the fact that we as a species are a flash in the pan and accept our inevitable Doom I know none of you have any opinions about this I anticipate a very quiet comment section and now I'm gonna get something to eat [Music] okay so you guys know that I've done sponsorships with subscription mailboxes in the past and I will continue to do so because they're awesome my wife and I love cooking them together it's a great thing for us but sometimes when I've just spent the whole day trying to figure out how to terraform planet Earth I just want to eat something and at times like that it's really easy to just hop on the old phone and order some fast food garbage from one of those meal delivery apps I know I'm guilty of it too but it turns out it's a lot faster and easier and healthier and cheaper to just heat up one of these from Factor tastes better too because these things are actually prepared by professional chefs so yum but they also work side by side with dietitians so you can make sure you get the right number of calories and macros whatever it is that you're going for and whatever it is you're going for they have a variety of meal plans to fit your needs they've got calories smart if you're cutting calories keto if you're cutting carbs Protein Plus if you're trying to build muscle as well as veggie options oh in the shakes hold up they've got these fruit shakes that are just stupid good like it's it's actually a problem they're so good so look it's still early in the year maybe you're still working on your resolutions and whatnot this helps so much trust me and it's really good and of course they're offering you a deal for watching this video If you go to factor75.com and enter promo code Joe scott50 you'll get your first box for 50 off that's like a half price math I think you'll be surprised honestly I was I didn't think I would like it this much anyway again it's factor75.com promo code Joe Scott 50 bucks down below check it out I think you'll like it okay I'm back that was delicious big thanks to the patreon supporters who are helping keep the lights on around here being great people for me an awesome Community they actually helped out quite a bit in the researching this video which I deeply appreciate I got some new names a shout out here we've got Austin M Tabor Isaac Hutchison Marcus Dano Old Rasputin Sean Berman Ben Curtis Anthony gagaglio Gagliano uh Mike garibi noala silver Samuel French James a Higgins Adam Borton Charles Vane and King and Kellen Sutton thank you guys so much if you'd like to join them just go to patreon.com answers with Joe and uh you'll get to do all the things it'll be cool go do it have fun please do like and share this video if you liked it and if this is your first time here maybe check this one out maybe I'll link to the the solar Shades video in case you haven't seen it and you'll see a difference between that idea and this idea um or you can check out any of the videos on the sidebar if you're watching it on your browser thumbnails have my face on them please check them out and if you enjoy them and you're not subscribed described I'm invite you to subscribe I'll come back of videos every Monday but that's it for now you guys go out there and have an eye-opening rest of the week stay safe and I'll see you next Monday love you guys take care

Channel: Joe Scott

Views: 440,876

Keywords: answers with joe, joe scott

Id: wOmmKTDSWCY

Length: 33min 23sec (2003 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 06 2023