That is a really really dumb question that stems from a lack of understanding of economics and physics. How come very complicated questions are always approached with this very simple childish mindset? I mean can't these interviewers grow up?
Thanks for your comment. This is in fact *the* point of the conversation/interview. I don't think it is a stupid question, but I do think it is a bit of a red herring. This is clarified throughout the interview. Like it or not this IS a question that people ask and are interested in. People use capitalism/socialism/etc (pick your boogeyman) as a catchall for the problems in the world. This blocks analysis of the deeper underlying issues and stops us moving forward. This interview gives opportunity for the question to be answered in a clear and concise format without shouting or tribalizing.
I will admit its a simplified and vague question, but also a question the normal person like myself would ask if the opportunity to speak to Sachs. His response which described physical and engineering tools, then socioeconomic tools is brilliant, and shows his genuine understanding of the problem at hand. These are the conversations we need the general public to hear to create actual change.
@@EscapedSapiensCapitalism has created it's own problems with greed. The need for profits at any cost, now appear to have driven debt beyond the ability of profits to repay. The need to overcome other Nations and take their resources, causes the USA to spend more than they produce. The $700+ billion military budget, is provided to produce a threat, that insures the entire world is afraid of the USA. The threat appears to be lacking in effective strength, due to corruption. The Pentagon Audits reveal a major portion of the Taxpayers Dollars, went to undisclosed locations. The desire for profits now makes the NATO Threat seem like more Bluff, and less actual ability to be ruthless. The employment of subcontractors like Israel are now costing too much. The Middle Eastern Investors are no longer buying Treasury Paper. The Currency has no actual support.
That's because there is no solution beyond using less energy, and that solution will be forced on us as fossil fuel supplies dwindle. No country and virtually no person will agree to volunteer to become poorer and weaker.
Great conversation! No disrespect to the interviewer, he did a great job and I am grateful for the interview, but I find it absolutely insane that we have to go to small independent youtube channels to hear someone so influential and globally renowned speak. Jeffery Sachs has such a deep understanding of global and social systems, and his background speaks for itself. Why are people like this not being aired to the mainstream? Maybe we're a little more censured than we'd like to believe.
No disrespect taken. I think it has a lot to do with attention. You can help make the content you find valuable more mainstream by supporting the people who are getting the message out. Writing comments like yours, or liking a video, or sharing really helps the little guy one day become more mainstream... Thanks for listening!
If you give him only a hundred million budget, then the best way of spending it is going to these conferences to convince people to put more money in because that's not enough. It's very important how much money you have because that you decide your entire strategy. That's like asking if you want to buy a car, and you only have 100 dollars, which part of the car will you buy, it doesn't matter because after you spend 100 dollars, you still don't have a working car.
Here is the point of my question: If I have limited budget, then where does a dollar go furthest? For that 100 dollars can I buy more/better car parts in Dubai or Ethiopia? What I wanted to know is: Should I spend budget replacing a reasonably good coal fired plant in Germany with some hydro/wind/solar, or should I rather spend that same dollar replacing dilapidated infrastructure that is potentially far more polluting elsewhere in the world? In this case the spirit of the question was not well conveyed to my guest, and so he answers along different lines. Time limitations on the interview meant that I was not able to course correct or dive deeper into the question. Cheers.
@@EscapedSapiens Again, it doesn't matter, because 100 dollars ain't enough. If you want a realistic answer that represent the realistic solution to the real problem, you need to work with a realistic budget. It doesn't matter if you "go furthest" somewhere, if you don't reach the finish line everywhere you spend it.
Realistic agents have budgets. Norway isn't going to solve the climate crisis on its own, but what are the `pain points'? I think it does matter if Norway spends its entire resource budget looking epsilon more green at home if the rest of the world is burning. Collectively, where should the world be allocating its resources? What is the leakiest pipe that is easiest to fix right now? That is the heart of my question.
@@EscapedSapiens I think correct question would be "What amount of resourses would be enough to start fixing the climate?". Because what is being done now resembles attempt to fix a castle on a middle-class wage - you can ask what would be the most efficient way to start, but it will never be possible to actually acchive the goal.
Sachs defines capitalism as a profit-driven market system where private property predominates. I respectfully disagree. As described in my book, "The Economics of Needs and Limits", the system is defined its economic logic. This includes its goal, production criterion, and assumptions about humans and nature. Capitalism's goal is profits and growth, as Sachs indicates. What he ignores are the production criterion (affordable desire), the assumptions about human beings (workers and consumers only, not workers/consumers AND people, and the assumptions about nature (infinite sources and sinks). Without this broader definition a meaningful discussion about capitalism's environmental impact is impossible.
Sachs gets confused when he ventures beyond the obvious. to synthesize any solutions is beyond his abilities this takes the clear grasp to string a series of logic to its end i am not fooled by his smug demeanor
People have been existing for a couple hundred thousand years without effecting climate and without capitalism. Sure we may destroy the environment but through these capitalist systems and mindset. We have the potential to destroy but this doesn't mean we have to, therefore we should avoid systems and mechanisms that promote harmful behavior such as untethered consumption.
Big power "understanding" isn't the problem. It's all about will. The U.S. is a great military machine. We need "adversaries". Where will the cooperation start, given this sad reality?
WERE THOSE WHO LOST THE CIVIL WAR THAT MUCH MORE DETERMINED TO SHOW THEIR DISSENT IN TBE OUTCOME? THERE ARE SOME NASTY PEOPLE OUT THERE, TOO WILLING TO HAVE THEIR OWN WAY...
This is an excellent interview. I'm surprised there are not more views. This is basic stuff that should be circulated far and wide. I'll do my part, starting now.
Great talk. And we must remember that Communism is thought as the next step after Capitalism once a nation has reached a fully developed technological industrial peak. Such was the case of the UK at the times of Karl Marx. Marx never thought of Communism in backwards Russia. Marx thought Communism only possible in the UK, perhaps even France and just maybe, maybe in Germany. Those were the most technological industrial developed countries at the time. The idea of Communism in backwards Russia or Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela could have never occured to Marx.
Thank you for your ending. I have long ago felt that all warring is incredibly stupid and that we will not be a civilized species until we can solve our problems without this stupid behavior,
I like the professor for foreign relations, but on renewables and replacing fossil fuels he's not credible. All you have to do is calculate how much total energy is used today and you will find that without fossil fuels we would go back to how people lived in pre industrial times and have as many people alive. Of course this by itself would solve the climate change problem.
That is just plain wrong. There is so much energy in sunlight a tiny fraction of the surface of earth covered with PV is enough to easily replace all current energy use in terms of total energy. Also you need about 1/3 as much primary energy if it is electricity because it can be turned into work almost 1:1 as opposed to fossile fuels.
@pagclaud That's actually the reason why we have the climate crisis to begin with right? There is so much radiant energy coming in from the sun that if we just trap a slightly higher fraction of it we end up warming the planet. I wonder what the additional trapped energy would be when expressed in megatonnes of dynamite. - Would be an interesting numbers game to play.
No buddy, you need to go study real physics and mathematics. The energy used today can easily be replaced by a combination of sustainable energy and more efficient energy management. Here's a clue, US ranks number 1 on the wasteful energy consumption. Because your entire country is horribly, horribly planned out. How about you catch up with civilization?
There is no Fossil Fuels Fairy refilling the holes. We're going through 100 billion barrels and still growing of oil equivalent fossil fuels energy annually. We must find 100 billion replacement barrels every year.
The writing is on the wall because we aren't finding enough new oil to keep up, so we can expect a scramble to secure the remaining supplies by the strongest nations. Expect chaos and mayhem.
Love Jeffrey Sachs but having been on the front lines of this for decades I see no other solution than rationing. This will have to be a topdown process. as in WWII, when people happily reduced their consumption to save their way of life. Our economy rewards consumption of energy-intensive things we don't need. This is the problem. Replacing fossil fuels with "renewables" won't work, unless we're prepared to lose billions of people. Which is it? Allow the rich to get richer and consume an insane portion of our limited resources, or change our economic system from me-first to the greater good?
