Do We Even Need Fossil Fuels? Jon w/ Kendra Pierre-Louis | The Problem With Jon Stewart Podcast 

Very well said! I was wondering why I enjoyed the "arguments" this time unlike in other interviews/debates, and that is the reason.

It sometimes seems like because Jon is has been comedian for most of his life and he’s very sharp, he resorts to a reductive, humorous comment when he is speaking with people like that Shell executive that most of us don’t see as “one of the good guys.” Whereas many will see Kendra as an ally, Jon had an interesting conversation with her. Not to be reductive myself, but it’s analogous to late night show host VS podcast host. The better of the latter group develop informative, insightful conversations. Yet Jon sometimes reverts to the former when he’s talking with a person in power that’s likely part of the problem being discussed.

Jon’s always been this way though even back when he did interviews on the daily show. It’s not that late night shows can’t have a conversation like this one is just that reductive arguments and flippant comebacks make for more “dynamic” and “engaging” TV. Or at least that’s what the networks seem to think. We can only hope that Jon’s example starts to change the current paradigm of late night tv discourse

@@felixborges7440 It would be nice, but it won't happen. Major print and TV publications were saying Jon had redefined the landscape of "late night TV", and news programs, twenty years ago. Clearly, it wasn't true, because both have moved in the opposite direction, at and exponentially increasing rate, over the last 5-10 years. Take Colbert for example - He certainly understands nuance, and has the awareness and capacity to have genuine discussions and more nuanced perspectives, if he so chose. Yet, like almost all other major media, he has leaned fully into pandering to the lowest resolution ideologies. Even the comedy has suffered greatly, because he plays for applause rather than laughter.

Well if the end goal we’re seeking is to see a complete 180 from the current state of the news and information media then no it’s not gonna happen. But I think that just getting people to understand how the news is fundamentally broken as Jon has done is enough. The truth is that he or anyone else can come along and say all these things and point all these issues out but ultimately it’s up to us to be discerning enough to demand a more nuanced and fuller understanding of the world around us. The media will only ever reflect back to us what we as a culture chose to value and as long as we chose to be entertained rather than informed we will get the kind of media that reflect just that.. we’ve done this to ourselves

Just listening to her, I feel like I'm able to breathe deeper. She sees past the cynicism to what should have been obvious.

Indeed! I really enjoyed listen to points of views!

She mentioned subsidies: i'm an instant fan for life.

Democrats are frauds and everyone knows it. All of the Dems have been proven liars for years. Time to expose that they traffick children. They're going to own it.

@@mg-Q17 hilarious considering Republicans keep getting caught up in human trafficking and relations with minors

Agree

this one is a smart cookie.

​@M W What are you talking about? Public-private enterprises have nothing to do with what OP's saying. The point that OP is making is that roads are viewed as something that should be paid for by the government, whereas public transport is viewed as something that must pay for itself. That is a double-standard. Besides, I don't see how your conclusion follows from what you were discussing. You say at the end: "You'd have less infrastructure, massive decay and upkeep costs and taxes so high you couldn't sustain them." I think you've got unstated assumptions in there, namely: 1. that state-owned enterprises are inherently not cost-effective, 2. that state-owned enterprises inherently can't maintain infrastructure, and 3. that state-owned enterprises are inherently limited in how much infrastructure they can support. Those assumptions are something you have to prove, not something you can simply assert.

@@releasethebogus8581 I can give you an example of state-owned enterprises not being cost-effective and are extremely limited in how much infrastructure they can support: The NJ Turnpike. I tell my friends that it's the only portion of Interstate 95 that drivers have to pay money in order to use. I could add that there are several bridges and expressways that are in the same boat but that only adds to my point that not all roadways are being paid for by taxpayer money. Interesting discussion but Ms. Pierre-Louis came off to me as a wide-eyed idealist who sees US bigotry and isolationism as an excuse for our problems instead of good old fashioned laziness and xenophobia on the part of the average American.

@@DavidTSmith-jn5bs To clarify, are you referring to the NJ Turnpike as a positive example, or a negative example? I live in Australia, so I've never used it.

yes yes yes!

There is a great book about humanity called The Dawn Of Everything - A New History Of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wengrow

It's the bad side of individualism.

Why don't people look at how China and Vietnam and Japan build their cities for scooters or ebikes rather than cars, or how instead of using air conditioning they use "localized" heating/cooling like the kotatsu. We should build new cities in unused land based on ebikes where everything is close together and people have ear plugs that selective get rid of noise.

WEIRD: Western Educated Industrialized Rich Developed countries. That is going to stick with me.

I’ve noticed that people who desire for collective action desire being dependent on government systems to take care of them. In rural communities you take care of your self because there are near zero support systems. I can see why collectivism would make sense in some urban areas. Public Transport is a nice idea until you notice that people don’t take very good care of things that don’t belong to them personally. People trash public transportation and it smells like a mixture between an armpit and vomit. American culture doesn’t only exist on the same 3 city blocks some people were born on and never left. If you look at the majority of the US it is not densely populated. Another problem with being dependent upon government systems to care for you is politicians tend to make promises they don’t keep and say whatever they need to say in order to get voted. You can blame American culture but really if you put your self into a place of dependency upon a government system to take care of you then there is a good chance you will be exploited used and destroyed for the political and financial gain of politicians, government, and private corporate interests.

Jon & Kendra agree with each other. There’s no disagreement here.

@@JC_inc did you watch the entire video?

Why wasn’t this done with Covid ? Who prohibited it ? Why ?

@@gherieg.1091 Because "I aint wearing no face diaper" isnt civil discourse.

@@patreekotime4578 That’s all that was said in opposition of Fauci tyranny ? Are you serious ?

they agreed mostly, just Jon didn't think we're capable of doing it.

It makes me sad seeing him react so defensively to what she's suggesting. It's like I can see he wants to help but has trouble moving from "searching desperately for solutions" to "trying something new".

@@doubtingtom92 What are you talking about exactly? They are having conversation and asking her questions. Thats what people do during an interview. Get off your biases and keep an open mind! Not everyone has to agree. That why we live in a democracy.

@@abiolajaja6856 Democracy in the United States? Lolololololololol good one!

It doesn't give me any hope at all. No one ever listens to the smart ones, especially when the dumbest and most corrupt are in charge.

I don't know how old she is but she needs to slow down and reduce her upspeak style somewhat. She's well informed and intelligent 👍

Wow really cool to run into you here Peter! And yes, Kendra really moved this conversation forward in important ways that can hopefully get us out of this rut. And I was surprised at how defensive Jon was getting about the American ethos at the end despite all of his self-derogatory talk about it (usually as jokes though)

@@nicholasdyee Yes, Jon always tries to hide that he has a rigid ideology based on belief not anything factual. He maintains ideas that are not true. There are many people he can have on to challenge his assertion that mankind has always been violent and exploitative. The data proves that's not true. It's always the same people (a very small group) causing all the suffering. The majority of us are very cooperative and peaceful. Only 2% of the world are psychopaths and not all psychopaths embrace their desire to exploit humanity or commit violence because they're trying to fit in. They basically fake being normal. It's that less than 2% who manipulates the situation.

Omg so defensive!! 🙄

@@robertnicholls9917 I think Jon is coming from an angle that sees large leaps forward in societal growth and how we got there. All of them were at the expense of some group of people. You can look at things like the American industrial revolution and see that all of that growth (in all senses of the word) was largely on the backs of slaves and low wage laborers. Plantations exploited slaves. Corporations abused their labor forces. It all lead to the societal growth that we have the luxury of enjoying today, but it was at the expense of others. Even today, businesses exploit their labor forces for profit. Even if you go back to ancient humans and observe that people survived and flourished when they came together as a community, there are still exploitative practices within those communities. But even if we say that it was primarily cooperation, rather than exploitation, that saw a community grow, it will inevitably end up with a controlling power that exploits others. If a community can remain small, cooperation is hugely successful. But once a group of people get large enough and/or come across another, separate, group of people then there will be exploitative practices. I think cooperation helped us survive to a point of thriving, but it's exploitation that has brought us to the point we are now. Within that exploitation, there is still cooperation, but we wouldn't have reached this point on cooperation alone. That being said, it's not right, but that is the reality none the less.

@@adidas2684 See, that's what I've been studying, to check if it's true. It's only in the last 500 years we have been fed this model by the ones who benefit from the exploitation. To this day, we believe in another idea that accompanied this line of thinking, race. Race never existed before European conquest. But, try telling anyone this fact, they'll refuse to believe it because we've been successfully indoctrinated. Huge, successful empires existed for the 200k years modern man came into being. I would argue, much of the technology today is just an evolution of ideas laid out over the last 12k years. The wheel, mathematics, astrology, the battery, farming and large cities/beautiful architecture were all ideas we copy today. And, from a lot of my research, I would argue, they did a lot of it better. The adobe mud huts laughed at in the West was genius technology, so was bamboo; 2 materials we are finally starting to explore again. Greece, Africa, Persia, Asia, the Middle East and the indigenous in North & South America/Caribbean left us a lot to work with. And, those 200k years were not full of violence or exploitation; it was mostly cooperation. The violence and exploitation we do read about are blips. The majority of humanity was very peaceful, we remain so to this day. It's less than 2% causing all the suffering. People like to use the excuse, there were less humans during those times but I think that's another fake metric to justify that we need suffering, violence and exploitation to advance. There is a great book I'm reading that does a deep dive into these questions and it pushes back on this corporate/capitalist created notion (The Dawn Of Everything A New History Of Humanity by David Graeber & David Wengrow). Even I would push back because the most growth we saw was after the New Deal and Keynesian Economics, which was largely socialist, lots of cooperation/community, involved immense capital controls and wealth distribution (extremely high taxes). During The Gilded Age that people glorify, there was mostly, destruction, pollution and poverty. Only the psychopaths prospered but not much REAL growth. Trust me, I once believed this notion that human advancement was due to exploitation until I started researching that argument. My research has led to facts that dispute this notion. Today, I believe it's mostly propaganda by 2% of psychopaths who exist in society. That said, I'm still trying to figure out what argument is the most true. I'm skeptical of the one you point to because the people who created that argument are the psychopaths.

I thinks she is excited about the wrong things and is disingenuous about the effectiveness of the solutions she posed. I think like all great communists she thinks people are blank slates that can easily be changed, good luck. We need to look different forms of nuclear which she suggest we should look at in 2050, probably when all the rare earths for renewables becomes prohibitively expensive and we just have a bunch of broken panels and squeaky windmills. We need to be doing that now so we can successfully support EV infrastructure instead of forcing tax payers to make buses free so they can drive vast distances in rural areas all day to pick up a handful of passengers, that's just going to piss people off.

@@nashton9964 You are just one of those who believes that any attempt at addressing the problem is a waste of time. Everything Ms Pierre-Louis said is infinitely possible, but you are simply to wrapped up in your own Negativity to admit it.

@@davidhouston4810 that's not true at all, you can project whatever you want on me, but once you been studying climate change solutions and human behavior long enough you start to realize there are solutions that just won't work politically (at least democratically), and some that will. Jon realizes this which is where his pushback comes in the video. Yeah mass transit is effective, but it depends on the area, Massachusetts sure, Wyoming, no. "Infinitely possible" Listen man, that's a dreamy sentiment but not a realistic one, sorry one of your sacred cows does not have the best solutions in my opinion. She's trying the same line of thinking the oil companies are, "change your behavior, not the fundamental infrastructure". Oil companies know they will always be needed alongside solar and wind because those passive energy sources are not always active enough to support the grid. So guess what, burn more coal or dam up a river, and then since coal doesn't have regulations on cleaning radioactive pollution from trace elements in the coal, then you end up with more radiation spewed into the air over the life of a plant than nuclear which is highly regulated. Listen, I only seem wrapped up in negativity because it's frustrating how misled well meaning people are in this country from fossil fuel propaganda in Hollywood, which is built on oil money by the way.

He does not agree there is nothing wrong with that period! He's not being cynical. He's being realistic.

@@abiolajaja6856 I tend to agree. But reality can be very bleak and unmotivating. This person seems resilient enough to orient her mind and attitude toward a positive direction, something I think realists could potentially get hung up on

@@chea7z913 True.

@-GinΠΓ Τάο put the pipe down man and get some help 🙄

Once "the problem" is identified and understood, naturally, we want to know what are the possible solutions. I agree. We need more of that. As important as the discussion on the problems are, it is equally, if not more important to talk about viable solutions because that is what gives people some meaningful purpose, hope and slight optimism about the future, rather than a constant bleak outlook. A good source of problem solving is looking at the system itself, and finding fundamental changes we can make in our own communities to make them efficient, sustainable and self-sufficient to the point that most essentials are free and we really don't even need an overarching elected (and usually corrupted) political class. In reality, our guide should be Natural Law, because that is something unavoidable. If we actually oriented our society to Natural Law resource based economies, we would see a great deal of health and well-being upgrades and a new sense of vitality among our people.

Her ability for systemic thinking and communication of those ideas is unparalleled in today's media. I'm simply stunned.

She reminds me of Glen Greenwald. I have the responses in my head, but I have to grope around in there to find them. It might take me a few seconds or a few days. Not so, these two. I envy that.

@@johnsparks007 so then what is the answer?

She's frequently on a podcast called "How to Save a Planet", that's where you can find her.

@@johnsparks007 There will always be a government of one kind or another.

She should be an advisor to Congress and the President. She doesn't present lofty ideas, presents solutions that have been executed and can be evaluated with data.

Gibraltar has a free bus service for the Gibraltarian population and what about LFTR reactors?

@Steve Sherman You must have been listening in a coma.

@@nedludd7622 Imagine being as delusional as Steve

@@plomby24 You're saying reactors twice with your use of that acronym. LFTRs are cool but not feasible enough in the short term (10 years).

@@IizUname Check that you’re not the delusional ones. For example, do you believe that science is behind Covid Fauci shutdowns ? If so, then how do you explain persistent and ham fisted Censorship of dissenting opinions by tenured experts in relevant fields ?

So let's just put drunks on the same bus with kids. Brilliant. SMH at how truly scary that is.

@@survivormary1126 if you're so worried, don't have your kids out at 2 am when the bars close 🤷

@@guamae Your delusional if you think DRUNKS are only out at 2am. I NYC the bars stop serving at 4am, then empty, people go to after parties or dinners bombed out of their minds, so just when the kid is going to school about 6 am, maybe having a transfer...whoop der it is. Also DRUNKS don't have a time schedule :) Check when buses run as well. They don't run all night. The bus stops are worse. I personally know someone who was shot in Cleveland at a bus stop and a fellow student of my uncles shot at a mass transit in Cleveland. Long way to go before CHILDREN should be able to travel alone that way. Even on a plane, the child is appointed an attendee and that is so very contained.

@@guamae bars close? Lol

@@ziggy7077 bars close every day 🤪

She is excellent! So much clarity and positivity and detail in her suggestions

She does the opposite of give me hope, to me she symbolizes a movement that pushes idealism rather than realism in . There's a distinct lack of knowlege about the history of energy and why a thing like nuclear power became prohibitively expensive because of fossil fuel lobbying outrageous regulations that would hurt their own industry if applied to themselves. Also, all her ideas would be a nightmare for rural communities and are regressive for poor people.

@@nashton9964 Your point is 100% oil industries’ perspective.

@@nashton9964 that's all climate activist's do tho. They're all about ideas but have no real plausible solution.

@@JC_inc You mean calling out fossil fuel for making nuclear energy a boogeyman because it directly competes with them? How is that flattering or "100% oil industry perspective"? Screw fossil fuels, more nuclear is my position, take time to absorb information, sir. Or is your position that poor and rural people dont matter in terms of collateral damage? This lady isnt going to ride her bike to the store in rural Vermont, it's just disingenuous as well as her comment on the NY subway. Sounds like lying in an "ends justify the means" sort of way.

Agreed. This was one of the best interviews I’ve watched in a long time.

As an engineer who's sick and tired of idiots in the media, I am utterly surprised how well she understands the nuances of the subject. Normally STEM people are furious with these people because they leave us having to explain everything the next day. Of the non-STEM people in the media she's incredibly good at the details compared to so many others in the media including Jon. But she has one huge fault, which Jon exposes around 32:00 when he tries to explain to her that a massive chunk of the population are reactionary and not forward thinking. Sadly I have to agree with John on this part. What she's saying simply doesn't gel with historical fact. If humans were forward thinking climate change would have been dealt with decades ago.

She’s nuts

@@tonywilson4713 not only that, her idea about army public transit is really not tought out and norway is country of 5400000 people, so you cant compare usa and norway

@@bezimeni2000 She's very typical of what I call "Kumbaya Lefties." Just as there are varieties of right wingers there are varieties of left wingers too. I'm an engineer so I'm also quite pragmatic about solutions. My mother was a lefty school teacher and her mother was a card carrying right winger. So I got both sides growing up and BOTH warned me about people from their OWN side driven by unrealistic ideologies. My mother in particular hated feminists and yet she fought for equal pay for women teachers. My grandmother was devoutly Christian but had not time for loud mouth fundamentalists. Both were pragmatic about solving problems. This whole "we'll just do this and that and sing Kumbaya" and things will magically fix themselves is what ruins the left the time. They are really good at ideas for WHAT society should do but absolutely hopeless about HOW to do those things. As a result the moment they start talking about HOW to do things they look and sound like idiots. Case in point her public transport solution.

@@tonywilson4713 If you being an engineer is the solution to this problem, then why aren't more engineers contributing to the solution? At this point we can blame her lack of understanding all we want, but none of us seem to be working together to even try to make the idea viable and moving forward with a solution.

If she comes back, she kinda snubbed the invite with her response to Jon's hope to see her again...

Yeah, nuclear is too hard. But what we are going to do is decarbonize our society in 8 years. Totally congruent. /s

I’m glad that nuclear was only a footnote in this conversation /s. Nuclear power needs to be put back on the table. We could transition entirely to clean energy in the next 2 decades but the powers that be won’t let it happen.

Clearly nuclear power is not clean energy (yet), but I can see how it might be possible to supplement other renewable energy sources to drastically reduce or eliminate fossil fuel dependence. As an aside, I hope for a day when every fossil fuel company CEO is forced to do something worthwhile for humanity to feed themselves, like donating their extra organs, participatation in medical trials or sex work. You know -- a good, honest side-hustle.

Yeah that's the biggest thing I was skeptical of. Like, how long does it take to build a new plant? A few years at most, and I think we have that long. China is currently testing thorium reactors. Assuming no major issues arise, I see no reason we can't build 1-2 of those in every state / country / territory / etc. Yeah as I understand the fuel could be weaponized, but it's still 1000x cleaner than any other energy option. It's worth the risk, and it's the best option we've got.

My senior feeling as well, though I do not have much hope because of the powers that be.

A senior and a leftist…someone never grew a brain lol

That the future will be just as divisive, misguided, and racist as it is now? Gotcha

@@nedludd7622 if you’re not a leftist as a child you have no heart…if you’re not conservative when by the time you get old you’re fucking broken…look at you

@@nedludd7622 I have beliefs and hope because I want to and need to.

She’s clearly informed/educated on the issues. But as usual, Stewart is not. Ppl seem forget he’s an entertainer. Just check the comments on his vids.

@@newagain9964 Unfortunately I would say that Stewart has a much better understanding of how people feel and the political difficulties that need to be addressed.

Jon has been involved for decades and has experienced our governments unwillingness to move on things first hand on something as simple as extending medical Benefits to the 911 first responders.. being younger has the benefits of energy and hopefulness. But this world grinds you to dust.. America isn’t like the rest of the world. I remember the pushback in the 80’s just trying to get Americans on the metric system. The guest was awesome but in the end sadly naive about how the world is here. The Problem has been a showcase of wonderful ideas and potential solutions to our current woes.. none of which will see the light of day.. we aren’t a country of patriots, we are a country of individuals looking out for numero uno. Apathy will be our downfall in a nation where the majority of us have no interest in making personal sacrifices

@@senorelroboto2 huh? Stewart…whose been a millionaire for decades has a better understanding of the wants and needs of the plebs? Ooookkkkk

@@newagain9964 Jon Stewart is just another leftist celebrity pushing something that doesn't exist.

I could not have said this better...I think you nailed it with this comment. I can identify both with what Jon feels about the essentially exploitative nature of humans and with what Kendra says about that being a result not of our nature but with the dominant Western mode of thought. That mode of thought came about because we're capable of it but it doesn't represent _all_ that we're capable of. It's hard sometimes to push back the bleak despair and get some perspective when the scope of these problems are so big but I know there are kind and compassionate people all over the world showing that it's possible to be better than we are. I'm with Kendra that if we want change we have to hold our politicians accountable and make sure that the people have a voice, because the less we have a voice and the will to make it meaningful the more we're just a resource to the ones who hold power.

Well said

In some ways Japan provides a bit of a roadmap. They still have an understanding of their relationship to nature as organisms and it shows in a lot of their design principles. Now socio-culturally they are having different problems but in terms of industry and design and food there is a little to learn there. We fundamentally have to understand that we know no other way to sustain populations of our sort, but we do need to start pursuing alternatives and respecting all perspectives: this does still mean not dismissing any perspectives regardless of prejudices well meaning or otherwise.

STEWART / ROGAN 2024 PEOPLE'S PARTY TICKET Kendra Pierre-Louis for Interior Secretary. Tulsi for Secretary of State.

WORLDWIDE GENERAL STRIKE AND CEASE FIRE! 2022!

She's got a broad set of knowledge and is well spoken. Also calm and funny. I really enjoyed her as a guest.

Sorry. Thought you were being disingenuous.

I make less money than you so venmo me please

@@ojstwitteraccount9912 If you'd ever experienced hardship you would not say such things.

absolutely. I have studied economic history of 20th Century North America - the dismantling of the mid-20th century welfare state and the transition to neoliberal "free market" economics, beginning in the 70s - and never really considered that relationship between race, desegregation and the subsequent dissolution of social supports. But, the idea of cutting a check to the poor has been around for quite some time and has been gaining momentum lately: Basic Income - all those below a certain income threshold get a monthly payment - it's a perfectly simple solution to help people survive, and they are just going to spend the money on meeting basic needs and this keeps the economy going. Easy peasy. Although to get the political will to achieve this we need to dispel the notion of poor people taking advantage of the government and getting free handouts. Interestingly, this relates to the racist relationship of the dismantling of social programs to begin with. It was in the 70s where media propaganda started pushing the narrative of "Welfare Queens", who were described as, typically black african american single women somehow living large off of income assistance and working the system. The idea of the poor taking advantage of government handouts in ludicrous when we can all see the way that the super rich and big corporations have been made wealthy by government handouts, subsidies, bailouts and tax loopholes etc. We need to change the narrative in order to create change. Extreme wealth inequality is already well known - with help from movements like occupy Wall Street shining a light on it. We need to do the same on changing the narrative around government support systems - that all people, regardless of their job(s) or employment status, deserve the right to participate in the economy, - or else we are going to have a growing homeless population and more and more tent cities

How To Save A Planet is a great podcast!

As long as the people in power are old white guys like cruz and graham and trump we are in trouble.

We need people like jon stewart and kendra Pierre louis in power

I hope not. She is too arrogant and only speaks from a Cosmopolitan point of view like many liberals. A lack of sympathy towards people from rural areas as Jon pointed out by making the case gas prices would go up. She said - so what...

Same here. I was super impressed by her. I’ll have to look up her program and tune in a couple of times.

She said it with a massive smile on her face, but lets not pretend like the people at the top care about poor white people any more than a poor PoC. Were all just grunts at the bottom, the racism card is just there to help keep us divided further. Jon knows this, the people at the top just want more, they don't care who they take it from.

Resource hoarding a la racism, they can both be right, one of them just isn't saying the quiet part out loud

@@madisondampier3389 Racism is never the quiet part, it is the first thing people yell as loud as they can, and it just makes it PoC vs whites for no reason. Every social program around is based on propping up women and PoCs, hiring and school admissions are blatantly biased against white and asian males. We need to increase support to ALL people, and treat ALL people as equals.

@@CampbellMC90 I agree, this is the highest ideal. Absolutely, yes, I'm here for all the egalitarianism. However when women and Africans were considered property not people in our not-too-distant past, one could say we're experiencing a type of moral hangover. Our treatment of Native Americans to this day is unlawful based on the very treaties we've signed and agreed to. So needless to say, there's a long road ahead of racial justice and healing, but we have to be able to talk about the hard stuff while being solution-oriented. IMHO this must precede addressing climate change, basically due to Maslow's Hierarchy. It is near impossible for those that lack their basic needs like food and safety, to be able to think and act with long term intentions for the greater good...OR is this precisely what Kendra was arguing, was that is a belief that prevails only in the American mindset??

Real solutions ? U mean UNrealist solutions

@@drwalka10 Point out what you thought was unrealistic.

@@robertnicholls9917 tell me the most Realistic idea she had and i'll be glad to tell u why it's not feasible

@@drwalka10 Lol, you're the one complaining not me. Just say you can't refute her points, it's fine. It's on you not me.

@@robertnicholls9917 I ask you to point out something you consider her most reasonable idea regarding climate change, because im not going to type a counterarguments for EVERYTHING I found unrealistic or non-factual. Understand ?

Agreed. Although I wasn’t surprised to scroll down to the comments and find the usual bickering…one step at a time I guess…

he already has done that as far as burn pits, referencing his clout, but he's not an expert, he's a comedian who I suspect tests at a higher percentile than most, but he can only do so much, until we get money out of politics, nothing will change and that's the drum he has been beating for years

I think there is a fair disagreement to make and it centers around "time". We're already long past the point of no return for climate change. So it is worth having the discusson: what gets us onto renewable energy faster and cutting down our emissions significantly? 1) Removing incentives already in place and creating new ones to get a deeply entrenched industry to convert their product or 2) Annihilating that industry while simultaneously building another I also think there's a bit of a flaw to what you're saying. Corporations aren't people. I keep hearing this same argument and then from the same people I hear about how the CEOs don't give a shit, just want a fat paycheck and will move on. ... Well so will any corporation. Why does the company names actually matter? If we're agreeing that human nature is generally predictable, why avoid abusing it then? I'm not fully convinced this counter-narrative is all that much more than a sentiment for revenge. That's not what you would get. Even if you rebuilt the industry, nothing stops the same investors and others from going over there. So what does your solution actually accomplish? And how does it accomplish it better than Jon's?

@@MrSen4lifE Exactly. While I appreciate the views of his guest. She's coming from a far less realistic set of Ideas and John is more pessimistic. So somewhere in between is probably the optimal.

He's not "unable to imagine how that applies the same or worse" to fossil fuel companies/their owners/their shareholders; he's *RELYING* on it. Companies have a greedy, selfish, reactionary throughline, but it's a *VERY* predictable one: they're after profit. If you offer them a way to increase their profit by doing the right thing, the vast majority will do it if they genuinely stand to gain more money (after costs and risks are factored in). The issue for getting people to collectively do the right thing is that it's much harder by orders of magnitude to rally millions and millions of people to agree on a cause, and you don't have the same capacity to offer them profits to do it- additionally because they're not corporations, many don't use the same logic to go from point A to point B. Some people think fossil fuels should stay in use solely because that's what they grew up on. They don't have the cold calculous of a company that seeks to make the most money possible for the least effort, so it's far far far harder to predict them (and then capitalize on that predictability for public good). The bigger problem here is that doing what Pierre-Louis says (just fixing the media to accurately report on policy, fixing the electorate to actually stay informed, and fixing the legislature to focus on doing what's best for society) is *way harder* than you or she thinks it is, in no small part because all of these problems are connected and have become tangled. Like a box of Christmas lights, you can't just rip one out; it doesn't work that way (for example, if we could snap our fingers and suddenly make all reporting objective, it wouldn't take long for profits to dip for that industry. Clickbait works, sensationalism works, etc. After profits dip, those companies would eventually return to sensationalism, so you can't just fix that problem in isolation). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to do nothing, but if we wanted to do this right to *actually* solve the problem, we would need to get money out of politics first and foremost, and we would probably have to fundamentally change the judiciary (at least the supreme court) to make sure that the money doesn't just start flowing back in. That alone is a MONUMENTAL task that requires a bold president, 50+ bold senators who all agree on those two points (and the method to solving them), and for them to carry out the plan before the intense rhetoric destroys them in the midterms. From there, they would need to make heavy changes to voting rights and likely PR/DC statehood to ensure republicans don't take back the senate. You feel me? We haven't even come close to starting on energy yet. This is all foundational work that could take a decade or more to fully iron out, and *everything* has to go right along the way to avoid republicans taking it all back halfway through. In Jon's estimate, using fossil fuel companies' greed to get them on the healthier track is literally just more plausible and faster. And I think it's inarguable that he's right. It's not ideal, but if climate change needs handled yesterday (which it does), we can't afford to do this the most optimal way (which is what I outlined above). We have to employ jury-rigged fixes that get the job done NOW, and reapproach structurally in the near future.

@@MrSen4lifE WE have one or two points of disagreement: 1. I'm not saying that people are scummy and untrustworthy, Jon is. My view is more neutral, though I generally expect owners and senior management of fossil companies to behave worse than average, based on decades of real-world experience. (I think people like to have a quick, pithy notion of human nature, just because it's comforting and convenient to believe it's all that simple. In reality, society is just plain complicated, and there are no easy shortcuts around us.) 2. I think you are mistaken to say that "Removing incentives already in place" is not exactly the same thing, practically speaking, as "Annihilating that industry". Either way, totally annihilating fossil fuels IS the urgent goal. With my side hopefully a bit clearer, I hope it's obvious that I'm not remotely interested in revenge. The bad guys of this story can live happily ever after, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they stop getting in the way of necessary progress. But the status quo clearly isn't making them get out of the way, and I can't see Jon's simplistic idea making them change enough either. Given the choice, they WILL drag their feet, they WILL try to squeaze out every last cent from fossil fuels that they can, in addition to anything else we compell them to do, and it'll all just slow the process down unnecessarily. They will do this for exactly the reason Jon suggests: To get even richer. I think it's wishful thinking to believe that surviving global heating will be anything other than hugely difficult and expensive. And I think the fossil companies know that. There will be no real profit in saving the world until decades (even centuries?) later. So surrendering the reins to them is very unlikely to see them rushing to do the right thing on their own. You might be imagining keeping them on a much shorter leash, forcing them to do things right. But if you have the power, authority and organisational capacity to really ensure that, then why not skip out the middle men? Once you have an oversight organisation of that level, you basically already have the necessary replacement for the fossil companies, and so have no need for them. And if you lack such an organisation, then how the hell do you make sure this idea actually works?

Greed!!!

That's reductive and also you cannot change human nature

Sometimes humans coopt but more often slaver types usurp the land and people like Ukraine as we speak.

@@dying_allthetime _"That's reductive and also you cannot change human nature"_ Okay. Define it for me. What is "human nature"? What is immutable, unchangable in "human nature". Tell us. BTW, where is the "reductive" part of what I wrote?

@@f3lcrow IDK...cooperative and social, sure. *Every human civilization that has ever existed, particularly the more successful ones were cooperative in nature.* But we still prioritize ourselves and our comforts. *This is something that almost every social species does. But, most individuals prioritizes the comfort and survival of others. Children, for example. People will sacrifice themselves to preserve the life of a child.* *The elderly or infirm is another example. Surely it would be easier to just chuck them in the oceans, then forget about 'em. Why do we let them live?* *Maybe your assertion is myopic?* Maybe it's just the area I live in (S. Florida) and my perception of its general public. *The woman in this video pointed out the differences in the behaviors exhibited around the world and how the US is an anomaly. I haven't checked to verify the things she said, but to me it rings true.*

@@scottparr5606 Ukraine is a complex issue. One that arose because the of the individual greed/stupidity/neglect of players in that game. In the early 90s as the USSR fell, negotiations with the US and Western economic and military powers, made a verbal agreement with Russia that NATO would not expand. For the next 30 years, despite their verbal agreement, they did just that. Expand right up to the borders of Russia. The Russians for 30 years said that was their red line. In 2014 or so, the Obama administration, did a coup in Ukraine. They took advantage of an unpopular (and corrupt) leader and the protests against him and his power structure. We sided with neo-Nazis. Some members of the Obama administration (notably Joe Biden) personally profited from that coup. See Burisma. This Ukrainian crisis has been brewing for 30 years. Warnings were issued by Russia and more importantly to us in the US, by learned foreign policy watchers and diplomatic experts, that was ignored or sidelined by people with power. If your neighbor is warned not to put a gun range in their back yard as it endangers you and yours, and they do it anyway, there will be repercussions. Law may be called in to stop it. If nation states hold monopoly on violence, then guess what they'll do? They will do violence if threatened. Even the perception of threat will trigger this violence. This Ukraine thing was predictable. In fact, it was predicted for 30 years. Ukraine isn't a good example of _"human nature."_ Its an example of the incompetence/malevolence of our "leaders" and national security apparatus.

+

OMG, you are 100% dead on right!

Because they're terrified of "socialism" without have the first clue about what it really is.

Nationalize energy production (as you say), and let us include warfare material as well.. Just to see what happens, when profit is removed.. I am very curious.. And let's end planned obsolescence, and allow unrestricted right to repair..

@@larshassing3938 and cell towers and start exercising the Sherman antitrust act. Need to keep the bills away from special interest groups until after the vote or lobbyists would kill it.

@@SilentBob731 , socialism hasn’t worked right before; but you’ll get it right this time huh?….

Exactly! Probably the best way to a solution is to open a civil dialog with someone who has a different veiw

Still no mention of *Hemp For Victory,* so it's just whispering in a hurricane.

@@shmarts8469 This is true. I could tell Kendra wanted to go in way harder on Jon, but I believe then you take away from the whole conversation. Nothing wrong with heated discussions, but it's often difficult to keep it civil once the balance of emotion vs logic get out of balance. I enjoyed the conversation. I do wish we could see more discussions like this from other individuals.

It seems Jon is more comfortable pushing back against an activist than a bank CEO. Honestly think he should take a stern look at his biases based on this interview. Some introspection required.

@@ShishakliAus I don't think that's Jon so much. I think activists are more willing to spar with Jon. The interview he just did with the Disney CEO is a good example. The CEO is giving edited responses to control investor perception, and not tank market values. Activists tend to be more honestly concerned about the actual issue at hand. If Jon pressed that CEO harder, he would never be able to get corporations involved in the discussions. Honestly, interviews like this are not in a corporation's best interest. They really don't have to do this level of communication at all in order to be profitable at this point.

There is a reason media never platforms people like her.

Yea, I found this incredibly refreshing to listen to!

she said that that transition would take too long to raise capital, change sentiment, and develope nuclear infrastructure in countries without much nuclear already. Drinking water walking is better than milk running.

@@sauravayyagari7606 and she is wrong

Not in many parts of the world, it isn't: there was a massive political debate in Italy years ago and seemed like many were agreeing to take up building nuclear power plants as a step forward. Then Fukushima happened and everyone was like: "oh shit, we are an active volcanic nation built on a major earthquake fault line, just like Japan", and suddenly everything was brushed under the carpet. Nuclear might be safer if you are in safe grounds but if you rely on hope that a volcano or massive earthquake won't hit nearby unannounced anytime , that's not a risk that anyone wants to remotely take no matter how safer those power plants claim to be, just ask anyone within 100 miles of Fukushima or Chernobyl.

@@Professicchio chernobyl was literally one of the first ever nuclear plants lacking the most basic shielding, which even at the time other plants got. similarly fukushima was hit by both an earthquake, which was fine and a tsunami. It was also very old and not properly secured, yet it still caused no deaths or great catastrophe. Nuclear is perfectly safe and has pretty much the lowest mortality rate per unit of power produced. We simple cannot transistion without it. We have the data from the last 10-20 years, all we end up doing is using more gas/coal. When we got rid of fossil we can work on reducing nuclear if we have to, but at least we'll have bought significant time.

Exactly. Our battery tech would have to have crazy advancements for us to be able to use only solar and wind to account for current fossil fuel usage. You would have to have days if not a weeks worth of power stored up in case of major storms.

She is young, No ring...so no family? Living all over and about means traveling light. Many of us without our vehicles would be DOA. I think we could be co-opting Solar before something like that, with neighborhood shares. I also would NEVER put a little kid on a bus alone. yikes.

@@survivormary1126 but thats her point. WE CAN MAKE public transit safe enough for kids. WE. CAN. And accepting that idea is the first hurdle to getting it done.

@@survivormary1126 I used to live in China. People there would put their kids on the bus alone frequently because the bus was good. It's the same in Japan and the Netherlands. I think we limit ourselves when we give up and say we can't do things. Sure, we might not be able to have mass transit in rural areas, but we can have much better mass transit than we currently have in cities and towns. Plus, you'd be surprised what people can fit onto bikes and buses. Families in cities often live without cars, and they still manage to get by without one. Around 50% of New Yorkers and 30% of Philadelphians don't drive, and many of them are adults with families.

@@spcglider No, You CAN"T. Let me tell you a true story of my own. I got stuck on the Queesboro Bridge with an accident to be home to pick my son up from school. First time, he was outside totally alone in a playground. NYC. I complained. It was so freightening and children were being ABDUCTED. Second time same scenario but this time I was running thru the halls of the school screaming him name as he was missing. He was founf sitting at the end of a locked enterance by himself all alone on the floor doing his homework. Third time. The bastards when I was ten minutes late had him picked up by the police. We are talking every time under 20- 30 min. I had to come over that bridge every day from work and I would nearly loose my mind trying to get home. I am one of those road rage people for a good damn reason and if a protester had got in front of me I would have given them fair warning I was choosing my son over them and ran them the hell over. It was shear terror. When the teachers can't/won't protect a child because a parent is late you think some mof fo's on a train can? Dream on.

@@karikling6751 Do whatever you want with your own kid/s. I'm not questioning at all that we should have better rail systems as ours are total crap in comparison with other countries. The moment you let a vulnerable child out of your site or your hand from theirs in a public realm you have FAILED if something happens to them and no fckn way would I trust their safety to someone else. Schools are bad enough sadly. AND guess what, if I missed the school bus at home my mohter would make me walk and it was well over 4 miles. One day I took a ride from a "nice" guy- will never forget it. He had a big yellow car, 70's maybe a Cadillac as inside was huge. He took me up a dirt road to a fielded area through some woods and proceded to attempt to rape me. I was 13. He was on floor of car trying to pull down my jeans and I just kept talking. I even asked him what birth sign he was, and he gave up and took me to school. Maybe it was me asking him that, maybe he got tired without having to stab me to death. I can tell you I was walking again and he pulled over and I got to scream and yell f u and give him the finger like I was so tough but there --was--no--one--around! That was in the 60's. That's, "back in the day" and are you so sure China values lives of Children? Lived in NYC then upstate NY.

I'd strongly recommend you look at other youtube channels like: Not Just Bikes City Beautiful City Nerd Alan Fisher The Podcast "War on Cars" Bicycle Dutch These channels (and others) help show that much of what you described can still exist, but that the US has botched transportation planning/engineering to a comically bad level. There are systemic reasons why driving seems like a cultural thing, when in only where it is today because the government decided to throw tons of money at making people (and keeping them) car dependent. I throw Bicycle Dutch in there simply because many of his videos of 'bike infrastructure heaven' don't come from dense downtown Amsterdam, they come from rural towns of a few thousand or a couple tens of thousands of people yet they have regular train service and a comprehensive bike network. We are not a car culture, we've simply thrown all other modes of transportation out the window and put all our eggs into one basket. Where that power structure has been pushed back on, you see a much more balanced mode split.

That's engineering and science. Duh

If you study human history. You would understand that’s not true at all. That mentality is more US false romanticism. Classic US EXCEPTIONALISM.

@@newagain9964 agree to disagree

@@newagain9964 On a political level certain issues that aren’t flashy enough simply do not get dealt with to the reasonable scope they should be. As soon as they create damning issues governments are forced to react.

@@TheHadi545 And isnt that stupid?

The Few. The Proud. The Cribbage League. 😉

I worked in aviation, same racket, contractor heaven alongside us. I was friends with a lot of those workers on the contractor side. They all made well above figures, not including per diem. Prices for simple screws were dollars, not pennies as it should have been. I was shocked to be a witness to all the fleecing. Americans are being played so badly. And, these same crooks will use the Ukrainian war to steal more from our society. I'm willing to bet the military budget for a single year will be close to 1 trillion.

One of my weird quirks is that I think public transportation is simply the coolest thing in the world. Los Angeles has big stuff in the works for the metro and I personally can’t wait to ditch my car forever as a result.