Here are some notes, hope they are helpful: Economic solutions: 1. Identify the sources of the most air pollution (factories that burn fossil fuels for energy; industries that use oil and coal to produce things; vehicles with internal combustion engines) 2. Decrease the supply of these technologies and products or decrease the demand for them There is a certain imbalance that comes with this. Some counties will harm the environment as there is no way to police every country, already established resources will be hard to demolish as people already got used to them and they are cheaper. That is until a new technology comes that is both effective and cheap. Or manipulating the markets with government subsidies, taxes, and regulations. Pollution represents a market failure - a situation where markets fail to produce the amount the society wants. Government interventions are advised. Another way to encourage people to pollute less is by providing price incentives (taxes, subsidies). Those incentives can encourage individuals to make choices that are better for the environment. Permit market - Setting a limit how much firms can pollute and allowing those firms to buy and sell pollution permits (Cap and Trade) Alternative energy sources usage is growing, but for the most part, they aren’t cheap enough yet, so the majority of our energy is likely to continue to come from non-renewable sources, at least for now. Since there is no time, efficiency with the usage of fossils is advised, but still unsure. The rebound effect says the benefits of energy efficiency might be reduced as people change their behavior. Leading to more usage and more pollution. There is still hope as there are constant ongoing discussions about this matter. Private companies and governments are also funding research into green technology. In the U.S. the American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 allocated billions to fund renewable energy. China is also participating, being among the leading countries in renewable energy investments. Companies, as well as consumers, need to be mindful to reach an effective solution.
This is why I wasn't 100% sold on the 5p charge for supermarket plastic bags. They ARE a way to reduce our impact on the environment, but this policy is being used merely as a political strategy: one year after the legislation was effective, politicians can point at graphs showing a huge decline in the use of plastic bags, which is a good thing. What they might not show you is the tiny dent this has made on the country's environmental impact. Reducing the use of supermarket plastic bags is a good thing, but when you are a government, with the power to make policies that will have a very large positive impact, shifting the brunt of the burden to consumers seems like the safest and least effective course of action.
Though there are examples of industries and government using "green washing" policies and marketing (ex: clean coal), let's not discredit moves to lower environmental impact we can. The City of San Jose California did an Environmental Impact Report (as required under CEQA) and did a formal study of the results of the policy change and have found significant improvements in the local bodies of water and water ways (One of the main objectives the city initially sought to accomplish). Though it may not have created a significant impact on CO2 emissions, it's has improve the quality locally scarce resource: water.
+E “Anonymous Nerdfighter” Hernandez Don't forget that it a makes people feel that they are entitled to use the bag as they paid for it and they perceive that the 5cents pay for dealing with the environmental impacts (despite it not)..
Environmental economics - how do we best deal with our natural resources? I. what can the government do? 1. enforce specific rules outside the market (just limit how much firms can pollute) 2. influence the market through price incentives a. add tax on products that cause pollution. (gasoline) b. subsidize products that reduce pollution (electric cars, renewable energy) 1 and 2 example: permit market such as cap and trade which set limits on how much firms can pollute and allow them to buy and sell permits (money goes from heavy polluters to lighter polluters) II. how can technology help? -since our current technology doesn't provide cheaper renewable energy, we can maximize the use of non renewable energy (energy-efficient cars) - hindrances: rebound effect - efforts to increase energy efficiency creates more available energy that only gets spent into something MORE and MORE. III. what actions are the world taking? 1. International treatys in which countries commit on reducing greenhouse gases emission. (UN negotiations) 2. funding "green" research into renewable energy. 3. changes can be brought by individual consumers, along with changes by the government and producers. (turn the lights off when not in use! and other small things).
I just finished off a dual masters program in environmental policy and environmental science out of IU and I just wanted to say awesome job! This was my focus in grad school and you nailed it. The only thing I would have added was a discussion on discount rates. I now have something fun I can show my family when they asked what I did in grad school.
For anyone actually interested in this topic I recommend reading an article in ecological economics (2015) “In Markets We Trust? Setting the Boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in Ecosystem Services Governance” by Erik Gómez-Baggethum and Roldan Muradian
Renewables not cheap enough is a half truth. In countries such as Chile and India, solar out competes coal/natgas. Areas such as Texas see wind power far cheaper than fossil fuels. Even the German government just said a few days ago that renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. It's just a matter of internalizing the externalities to such a point where the *real* cost of fossil fuels is fully realized in the price. As the price of renewables continues to drop and the price of fossil fuel regulations increase, more and more places around the world will see renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels. 2014/15 was the time when renewables started being cost effective in select markets. Soon, it will be all markets.
+Nolan Thiessen It's pretty damned cheap, if I'm being entirely honest. You can find solar panels that cost roughly 1 dollar per watt rating, which at the texas average of 0.11 dollars per kilowatt hour, that's about 1 to 2 years for it to pay back its cost, depending on how you calculate it. And those same solar panels often have double digit years of warranties - as in guarantees by the company that if they stop working, or produce dramatically less than stated, they will replace it. That's kinda an incredible, easy, and safe return on investment, even if it's slow. And then if you want to make your own solar panels, you can find a 10 watts per dollar solar cells. You don't get the same type of warranties, and it takes a bunch of time to make the panel yourself, but it's incredibly cost efficient.
+Nolan Thiessen once the appropriate systems are set up, it's cheaper, but i imagine that the reason we're not seeing a rush towards renewable energy right now is that building and installing the equipment to generate and use renewable energy is a hefty initial costs. sure, once they're set up, people will be saving money, but corporations have quite visibly shown that they prioritise short-term gains over long-term ...anything (see: the housing market crash), and most sociologists will be quick to point out that the majority of individuals have that shortcoming, too.
Diana, the Inorganic Vegan Oh, I agree. I even wrote quite the dull paper on overregulation of the nuclear industry in university. The economics are a little more favourable in countries like India where there is less regulation, but even there new nuclear is quite expensive.
David L. Yeah. But there are quite a few financing options available for microgeneration, including simply leasing it out from someone else. Sure you don't own it directly, but the leases are virtually universally less than what you are saving, and there's no upfront cost. So, from there, calculate how much your panel is saving you minus the cost of the loan and just toss the amount you save every [time interval] in to a jar (a savings account would technically give you a tiny bit of interest, but it takes more effort). By the time the lease is up, you'd have enough in your jar to just straight up buy your own generators.
I would look into alternative ways of producing meat, since agriculture is one of the biggest culprits in regards to climate change. The fossil fuel industry needs to go to.
+William “will” Shanks meet is needed. Vegan diets are much harder for the body and more expensive (for the lower classes who cannot afford it. Hence they buy Mcdonalds and other shit)
Hello Adriene and Jacob! I’ve been watching the entire course. Everything totally awesome! I own a permaculture farming business. I would love to hear your thoughts on this concept and the multiplier effect it could have: In climate change there are two sides: pollution, and the degeneration of the biological systems that act as buffers, filters, and fertility regenerators. Focus could be drawn to: 1. The potential of carbon sequestration through permaculture style grazing and no till farming as a means to lower CO2. (Adds valuable externalities like nutritious food and fertile soil and less disease) 2. Small local waste treatment for biological residues and add value through compost and/or insect farm (adds value through organic fertilizers and insects for animal feeds) mainly to prevent water pollution 3. If polluting company serves a social goal (i.e: fossil fuels for energy), maybe taxing only the company for all the externalities isnt the best choice. We could debate cases in which the expense is passed to the consumer in the form of taxes so the company doesnt need to raise prices for their goods, yet the externalities were accounted for. 4. Government organized transition plan with support and subsidies for farmers transitioning away from chemical conventional farming. I really enjoy your course and am aching of doing thought bubbles too 🙂
What's wrong with nuclear energy??? I think the best case scenario is to switch to nuclear short term, and have a long term plan to switch to renewable energy(solar, wind, hydro, wave, etc.)
Nuclear energy isn't really usable for vehicles. And even that is a moot point. Someone mentioned that most of our emissions come from the meat industry. I don't know if that's strictly true but well, the meat industry isn't going to disappear. Ever.
@@feynstein1004 if cultured meat technology becomes possible, companies will be incentivized to switch to cultured meat because its cheaper, more expandable.
@Parasitic Angel I guess that is true. Lol this comment thread is so old I have no idea what your comment is a reply to. I mean, I have read my comment but I don't see its point.
Great contribution to Crash Course you guys! But on the subject of environmental economics and externalities, I was sort of hoping to hear a little about value engineering and planned obsolescence. Also, I imagine it may be a little controversial to mention much about human rights violations as a tactic used by some large companies to exploit resources in developing nations and to discourage protesting by indigenous people. But those instances are very real and a major part of globalization and the growing economic inequalities you mention in some of the earlier episodes, which sadly do not often get enough media attention for most people to ever hear or even believe they are happening. Crash Course isn't exactly the news though, and even though it is part of the modern world's economic challenge, it would be pretty hard for you guys to cover something like that without getting sucked into some pretty heavy ideological debate. Either way, you're both doing a great job, and btw I dig the AC/DC belt buckles.
William Freeman Capitalism in its purest form is a fairly good idea. Problem is that there can never be a truly perfect market because a perfect free market assumes things such as perfect knowledge (consumers know that their iPhones are built using blood minerals from the DRC, etc), no externalities, etc. When there is a market failure, government must step in to regulate the market. At the end of the day, big business is just as, if not more, dangerous as big government and it needs to be kept in check.
William Freeman Yeah, sure. Just know that I have a Bachelor of Environmental Science and Bachelor of Science in Geography, so I come at the discussion from a very environment/human health point of view rather than a pure value=money POV.
are you guys planning to cover geographical, urban and regional economics anytime soon? because those are highly neglected parts of economics though have amazing insight into development and institutions. also it will help me get through my course
Picking CO2 wasn't a great example. Should have stuck with SO2 emissions and the Clear Air Act since there have been a lot of economic analysis of it done.
Collin Bruce Yes. It's a byproduct of fossil fuel burning (fossil fuels have sulphur impurities) and a major component of acid rain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
+Lumamaster I guess this shows that the episodes of each CrashCourse series were recorded in advance; that's probably more efficient than, say, asking Hill and Clifford to travel all the way to the Emigholz studio every week.
A question about the rebound effect: why would the consumer increase consumption as a result? I don't understand why purchasing a fuel efficient car would lead to something like a trip to Hawaii. Also, why would fuel efficiency saving money lead to the purchase of combustion engine ran cars?
+Samiur Khan Perhaps not a trip to Hawaii, but lower fuel prices generally leads to people driving more. As one of my friends put it recently "gas is now cheap enough that I can drive for fun, not just to get to work".
+Samiur Khan It's more or less a hypothesis created to tell people that average consumers suck at managing money so we should all just give our money to the almighty government so all problems will be solved. Government finds ways to raise tax, this is just one of them.
Nolan Thiessen So just to clarify, because the consumer saved money on a fuel efficient vehicle, the price of fuel decreases? How did the fuel efficient market decrease the demand of gas market? I'd assume the effect on the gas-related markets would be uncertain because consumers preference for alternative sources means the demand curve for alternative energy sources shifts right, increasing the equilibrium cost of the alternative source. The increase in equilibrium cost means companies that are using non-alternatives like gas are facing an increasing opportunity cost. Thus, energy producers will defer to producing renewables. I see the gas price decreasing but I can see that consumption patterns (based on tastes of consumers) are unclear for us to say for certain that consumers or producers will use gas more.
Samiur Khan Instead of 100 people requiring 100L of fuel per day to drive 100km using old cars, they only require 50L per day in new cars. Supply and demand curves tell us that the prices go down when demand drops (if supply stays the same). So now gas is cheap, so those 100 people now drive 150km per day. They're still using less gas overall, but not the 'half' which you would expect by just looking at the fuel efficiency.
+Nolan Thiessen... Only so many hours in a day. The Hank story does not consider that more individuals driving farther on cheaper and less fuel waste more time in traffic. Just because you have made the inputs into transit more plentiful does not mean that the roads correspondingly get bigger when the price of gas goes down. Travel lanes don't rebound with price changes. Fixed infrastructure imposes limits on the notion of rebound effect.
Let's talk about lessening demand. What are the biggest polluters. Industry, oil production. What are the biggest demands, cars. What schooling do people receive while in school, STEM. So people go into these fields. Why do people need cars. The nonavailability of the things they need where they are. Local economy. Drive to work, then drive to grocery store, drive to clothing retailer, and then home. Drive to the bank to pay mortgage, and taxes. In all of that gasoline is used. Huge demand. In all of that no one could work on their own land growing a portion of the food they use. Or start sustainable agriculture to produce clothing where they are. Much of the clothing that is sold is made out of country, and is synthetic (made from oil), and out of country(no accountability on what is produced). Need to get people back to farming, producing what is needed where it's needed. Start new businesses that produce sustainable products. Get away from cheap fashion.
nice job tackling such a sensitive topic and educate people. We can not develop policies to combat environmental challenges without considering economics.
The primary cause of high greenhouse gases isn't factories or oil usage, it's the byproducts of animal agriculture. Not only is it responsible for air pollution, but it's also the cause of desertification, deforestation, and water pollution.
The environmental police that punishes countries who pollute more might come from developed countries like US, Canada & UK. They might impose trade barriers or other obstructions to countries that don't take measures to reduce their pollution.
No mention of public transportation? There are things like buses and even newer model electric trains that can cut down on pollution by allowing people to use the same vehicle and put less pollution into the atmosphere. As we switch to electric solutions and make our electricity generators cleaner, everyone benefits.
glad that you mentioned how it isn't just up to the individual, but also markets and governments to solve this, as I've been saying this for awhile. Vegetarians, for example, are always trying to convert everyone to their diet and acting like they're saving the world (or at least, the animals), but the truth is, as far as I'm concerned, it's not necessary to go to such lengths when what we should be focusing on is how those markets are run.
@@professional_silent_trumpe1540 In the green new deal she calls for "retrofitting every building in America, with state of the art energy efficient." "EVERY BUILDING" "Eliminating 99% combustion engines" in cars, trucks, boats, and building electric car "charging stations everywhere." But never states where those power plants are supposed to get the funds to do that. Completely eliminate Nuclear energy which is relatively affordable and cheap and provides almost 19% of all American energy and completely eliminating Fossil Fuels energy, the lifeblood of the American Industry, both within 12 years. Entirely eliminating the the Airline industry and replacing it with railways, like the California HS Railway System which is $106 billion dollars in debt or the Amtrak which has never turned a profit in a fiscal year. But you never know about that because of course trains that run on fossil fuels will have to be scrapped as well. And all those people who lost their jobs because of this "massive" overhaul, (massive was used in the bill 13 times!) They don't have to worry because the federal government will magically pull jobs out of thin air to give to which will be entirely funded by what little the private sector has left. And if they can't find you a job they will provide "economic security" for anyone "unable or unwilling to work." I am all for protecting our environmental, I even see it as one of the few places capitalism really falls short and we need some regulation. But this ain't it.
Connor Plankey multiple points: the GND doesn’t say where the funds come from because that isn’t the point of the GND. It’s not concrete legislation, but instead is a guideline that shows the goals that they want achieve (passing it was never going to be truly possible, it was just putting their goals down in writing). They planned on making up the lost jobs in the new markets created by the expansion into new technology and renewable energy. Amtrak doesn’t need to turn a profit, it’s a government institution, which really shouldn’t be profiting. Also, fossil fuels are a terrible “lifeblood of the economy”, seeing as the US government spends about $20 billion on direct subsidies for fossil fuels each year, which is even more when considering indirect subsidies through things like Last In, First Out Accounting, in order to prop it up.
I know that you have the best intentions, but what about agriculture? It's known that agriculture has one of the biggest effects on greenhouse gases emissions. Thanks Crash Course.
I think you CrashCourse guys need to watch a documentary on netflix called 'Cowspiracy' - there is a very strong case for cattle agriculture resulting in far more pollution than any of this.
+Elizabeth Crowe Cowspiracy got a LOT wrong including using inflated numbers for methane and double/tripple counting certain emissions. Here is the accepted values: tcktcktck.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-GHG-Emissions-Ecofys-2013.jpg
Nolan Thiessen Thanks! Still pretty scary though - especially about the ocean dead zones, activist murders and lobbying power. Its still a massive issue even with the exaggeration - I don't think most of it is bogus
I'm experiencing UNNATURAL cold climates in my home country, it never went below 26 degrees Celsius before, although i do love it~ but now i fear for summer.
animal farming is responsible for twice the carbon emission than fossil fuel here in the US. In CA, agriculture also uses up to 80% of its water supply. While greenhouse gas from cars and factories is a problem, the way we produce food is a bigger one.
The video suggests carbon dioxide emissions = carbon dioxide pollution, however that doesn't seem to be accurate. Merriam-Webster online: 'the action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use' Cambridge online: 'damage caused to water, air, etc. by harmful substances or waste ' Oxford Learners online: 'the process of making air, water, soil, etc. dirty; the state of being dirty"
+Coookiejar Pollution is also commonly considered increasing the concentration of naturally occurring substances to unnatural or harmful levels. Which is how something like 'heat pollution' can be a thing in an environment over 0K.
I was just listening to green funds topic, it is a good program once implemented , but I think we have to be quick to give out resources to rural communities because they are among the people who are most affected by climate change. It is too much of negotiations without action.
+HoldDaRoot It's also wrong. Cowspiracy used inflated numbers for methane and double/tripple counting certain emissions. Here is the accepted values: tcktcktck.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/World-GHG-Emissions-Ecofys-2013.jpg
HoldDaRoot Not that I can find. The EPA website is as current as 2015 but still uses a lot of 2010 data. It takes a lot of effort to put these sorts of global accounting, so they aren't done often. www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
I know this is an economic series, but it would have been nice to mention nuclear energy in the mix of alternative energy sources. Getting that idea out there is a step in getting us off fossil fuels completely in a reasonable time frame.
Scotland just recently hit 98% of its electricity consumption is renewable energy from wind farms, demand is 1.85 TWh and wind farms generate 1.82TWh. It’s aim is 100% by 2020 smashing its target in comparison to its British counterparts
I have been very impressed with this crash course so far but I often find myself frustrated with the lack of updates. I hope this will improve this year.
One of the things that need to be addressed the most is cities. Cities are planned and build around the idea that everyone owns a car, and thus everyone must own a car in order to get around because the distribution of essential services and workplaces is made for cars. We build everything important within the downtown area where few homes are available, but lots of stores and offices, and then we spread the homes in a 20-30 km circle around this downtown area. That's way too huge. Cities need more common transportation services and more cellular layouts. In the ideal city, everything you need in order to live should be available to you within a 15 minute walk away from your home. So instead of having one big downtown for every city, we have 20 micro downtowns surrounded by homes and everyone can just walk to their neighborhood's centralized service and work area. This would alleviate the need for vehicles in our everyday life. You would still need a car every now a then to go see your parents that live in the next city, but that can be easily solved by renting one. Or you could still own a car but just not use it as much. I've made the relatively annoying sacrifice of not wanting a car in my life. That means I have to use the bus, the only common transport available in my city, to get around. That means when I go grocery shopping, I can't hop between 5 different grocery stores to get the best deals. I just have to go to the nearest one (30 minute away by foot) and go back with a light enough haul to carry by hand (30 minutes back uphill with food bags, great exercise actually.) And when I need to go all the way to the end of town to visit a friend or get an item from a store that's not available anywhere else, I have to plan around the idea of spending 1-4 hours just moving towards and back from those places. Distances matter. Not having a car sucks a lot, but I save a lot on the costs of owning one and my conscience is cleaner. It wouldn't be as annoying if the city I live in had a more thoughtful distribution of services and my employer didn't build the freaking building where I work 5 mins outside of the actual limits of the city (by car, which would take me 1 and half hour to reach on foot, thankfully there's one bus line that goes there.) The assumption that everyone has access, by means and choice, to a motorized vehicle makes it REALLY HARD to backpedal to a day an age where such luxuries wouldn't feel mandatory, but we somehow HAVE to. Also we need to eat less meat and look at alternative means of producing it that pollutes less and we need to rely as much as humanly possible on local economies. Global markets require global transportation of shit tons of stuff. Again, distances matter and moving all this around is incredibly wasteful. Yet we are still, to this day, pushing the markets into that direction. Because cheap labor is awesome for profits and consumers! Yay for suicidal capitalism philosophy!
You in the USA could easily put more taxes on fossil fules or gas. It's not like it costs much right now. Other countrys could do the same.(the USA was only an example, couse of the cheap gas prices.)
Short term solution nuclear energy. Long term solution innovation and technological advancement to make fuel use (nuclear, solar, wind, water) as efficient as possible
We all agree the trash islands, smog cities and toxic waters are an issue, yet not everyone agrees on climate change (even scientists and supporters of/on both sides can disagree on details or misunderstand each other or misrepresent their own view); so, focusing on overall environmental concerns (which climate change also is based on anyway) is ideal. Rather than have mediocre change, or no changes at all, by focusing on the hot-topic / trigger-word / controversial term [climate change], we can simply focus on the overall environmental concerns, so we can accomplish more than the mediocre change, or no change at all, that a schismatic approach yields. The reasonable people among those who support, are unsure and/or are against climate change, all three groups, should work together on a general environment focus, where we all agree, and then we'll all accomplish mutual goals (primarily the betterment of the entire environment).
+Nash Winston (Nashwins) That's a coal plant. Cooling towers are found on all thermal plants, including both coal and nuclear. You can tell from the adjacent smoke stacks that it's a coal plant.
Good video ! However please consider using something else than pictures of nuclear power plant when mentionning CO2 emissions (@1'10) since what's coming out of the huge tower is water vapor. Those facilities pollutes via solid radioactiv waste, but there's no CO2 emissions there. Doing this helps spreading wrong idea about the type of pollution involved :/
***** The solar energy captured in space is hundreds of times more powerful than when captured here, in the atmosphere. If we captured the energy in space, to use it here, we would need space elevator technology to transmit the energy through a giant cable.
It'd suck if those renewable grocery bags ended up causing more pollution than the regular cheap grocery bags, but when has recycling EVER backfired on us? :^)
while having one person bring a reusable bag to the grocery store doesn't make much of an effect having MILLIONS of people bring reusable bags that makes a difference. A good reusable bag can save the use of 3 plastic / 2 paper bags (coming from experience). I think encouraging consumers to make small adjustments can have a big impact.
Also with hybrid cars, that's the problem with the waste in both the old and new car. Electric cars result in batteries that are hard to recycle (after they permanently die).
How to address the inequality issue between emerging economies and/or or southern nations which seem to take the brunt of the climate change damages? And adding insult to injury, how could anyone argue for grandfathering policies when the west is responsible not only for most of the emissions but aim to give themselves special exemptions because of it?
15% of energy consumption being renewable energy in 2040 is a gross underestimate - as is often the case, we largely underestimate what can happen in the next 10 years. Not to mention that 2040 is more than 20 years away, and solar energy just this year is almost catching up to fossil fuels in cost efficiency...
The problem with solar/wind is not whether or not it's cheap or not. Its that you cannot save any of the energy in a meaningful way and therefor your would only have energy if there is daylight and/or wind.
+DaJan1509 There are storage solutions available. Also, grid tied systems allow you to use electricity from other sources such as hydro when your PV isn't working. On the grid scale, over 70% penetration by PV/wind is possible without backup.
+Nolan Thiessen Hi Nolan, Yes there are some possibilities, but the costs of storage are either astromically high (lithium batteries, pump water storage systems) or the storage is cheap but the re-conversion factoris super ineffectice (25%-30% on methane storage). If you are working with 70% penetration, you need a complete second back up grid for the same amount of energy produced by renewable energy sources, that can jump in when the power availability hits near 0% (at night with low winds). We are trying 80% until 2050 here in Germany as the world leading government for renewable technology and are currently failing on every conveivable threshold because we're trying to shut down nuclear power at the same time ("Energiewende"). At the current projection, Germanys energy consumers have already spent over 500 billion EURO into the Energiewende (approx. 10 times the German economic damage that was done in WW2 when adjusting for inflation.) We are completely overproducing Energy on some days and have to import heavily on others. No solution in sight and the German Center for Air and Space (DLR) is predicting heavy Energy shortages starting 2021. In addition, due to the above mentioned back up grid, we are now spewing more CO2 Equivalent than before. None of the Government officials did the math correctly and no economists or nuclear experts were asked. The Energiewende is a product of mass hysteria and misinformation. Very sad :(
thorium reactors seem to be good, and hydro electric, solar&wind(to a lesser extent, hopefully) could also help. and for industries like mining, logging, and farming they can use bio-diesel&motorsport vehicles can be the only source of carbon until batteries are powerful&light enough to naturally replace gas. I also hope we'll invest in quality mass-transit, cause I personally don't enjoy driving, and bullet trains are awesome.
yes we need nuclear because the extent of ecological destruction correlates to the size of the economy and the size of the economy corrolates to the EROEI of the energy sources use by said economy, and because ecological destruction isn't currently risking rendering large chunks of this planet uninhabitable within 50 years (not to mention wars, genocide and famine at scales not before seen), we need higher EROEI.
There is one big thing consumers can do: Don't fly! Flying is one of the environmentally worst things one can do. Sadly, it's subsidised, which is why it's so cheap. But if we care about the environment, we'll still try to find other ways or have our holidays somewhere nearby. I'm a little sad you didn't mention this, it's such an important thing and few people know about it.
I think the idea that the world should have internationally environmental police in charge of monitoring factoriies' activities of discharging waste and punishing them if there's a problem emerging is really interesting. The United Nations could make the idea into action.
Nice course. I would have a remark though, I dont think its proper used the phrase "save the planet" since the planet was just fine before humans were here and will probably be as fine after we get extinct (there is quite a difference in the life spawn of a planet and of a single specie). But going back I would better use "save humankind" because we are the ones who suffer if the climate on this planet will change, not the planet itself.
15% by 2040 is very conservative. I think it'll be much higher. Maybe upwards of 30%. There's simply so much investment into green tech going around and we're drastically accelerating all the time. It has simply gained a massive momentum.
D- please resubmit. I was generous because at least you tried. Published Jan 27th 2016 but states an event in Dec 2015 in the future tense? (6:49) No mention of Energy Return on Energy Invested. (Seriously, didn't cross your mind?) No mention of Fiat Currency or Austrian vs Keynesian models. I like the other series produced by Crash Course, but these economic pieces just reinforce the perception that Economics is more of a religion than a science. Markets don't make a barrel of Oil cheaper than a bucket of Fried Chicken, it is the result of the unlimited amount of fiat money printing. @ 1:49 you got an F, No factories get built. No oil is drilled. No cars are driven without debt issuance. Unfettered debt issuance is the source. It won't stop until enough people realize that they will never get paid back the debt obligation. (See Abenomics) Hank got zilch for the trade in value, and is getting hosed on the car loan paying 3% or much more while the central bank handed the lender that fiat money at 0.25% but most likely at no net cost at all after they file for a tax refund because it cost them soooo much money to lend Hank a car loan and all the profits are "vacationing" in Trinidad & Tobago. Hank has no actual savings to speak of if you plan on using a real life example. By the way, Hank's old car also got exported to a developing country and spews carbon over there now, because it is so cheap to haul stuff on cargo ships it is a better profit margin than dismantling it in a first world nation that requires clean disposal. I could go on but I'll take your advice and go hug a tree for a few minutes to make myself feel better about all of this.
Im watching this now in 2017 and in Australia our current government which funnily enough is known as the Liberal party but are NOT liberal at all, in fact very conservative & somewhat anti climate change. Prove this the previous government (known as the Labor party) had a carbon tax which the liberal party removed when they got in to government and the mining tax. Now they are pushing for a large coal mine to be open in QLD. The businessman from India who wants to open this mine needs more backing (i.e capital) but the public are pushing against this and in fact banks are too. Most of the banks are saying no to supporting the mine (giving him money) which makes them look great to consumers , as most Australian dont want this mine. (as meant to be one of the largest coal mines in the world and the produce of green gases will be very high -also the risk of damage to under water rivers and great barrier reef to shop the coal) but reality is banks know its a bad investment and in fact are investing in green energy. So with lack of capital the government wants to use tax payers money to fund this mine hoping to create a bundle of jobs (which has been question as well). Watching this video seems nothing change in fact the Liberal party are so in bed with the coal industry they subsidised the industry - (also so does the Labor party) - and most of these large company of these mines pay lucky 1% tax. And they did a bunch of ads telling us coal is the future and even brought one into the parliament to prove its the only way. We got a long way to go especially in Australia where coal is plentiful and one of our large exports.
+North Carpenter Yeah I was surprised by the mention of a gas tax and cap-and-trade with no mention of a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend program (see Citizens Climate Lobby) or any kind of systemic, stable, replicable carbon tax. Especially since these measures are coming to a vote soon in a couple states and being discussed at the federal level by Senator Whitehouse and others.
I find your lack of agriculture at 1:43 disturbing... The biggest sources of GHG have been identified. However, in the public debate, agriculture is usually forgotten. Everyone who wants to know about this should watch Cowspiracy. It is great docu and available on Netflix :)
Can someone please tell me if my thinking is wrong here: The majority of CO2 emissions are coming from energy usage. Only 10% comes from renewable and 15% will come from renewable in the far-flung future. We need that to be WAY higher, don't we? Also what about nuclear power?
People aren't going green because it's expensive. There needs to be a monetary incentive to lower emissions. What we need is a revenue-neutral carbon tax. This means you put a tax on fossil fuels, but all the revenue that the government gets from the tax is given back to people and corporations through broad-based tax cuts or direct government cheques. This means if an individual/corporation emits less CO2, they'll actually SAVE money.
instead of reinventing the wheel. We should focus on things that actually lower the CO2 emissions. instead of creating a whole new alternative energy. Like making cars more efficient or coal plants more efficient. Yes there is a rebound effect but it's all about trade offs. All human activity destroys the environment. The question is how much and for what price.
coal plants have the technology available to burn extremely cleanly. However it's much cheaper to build a new cleaner plant than retrofit existing ones. If only the government didn't make it nearly impossible to build a new plant through regulation.
+Chad Kamerad there is something about this I read, can't remember exactly but it is something like the amount of pollution from a ton of "clean coal" is less, but the energy it produces in excess of what is needed to make it "clean" is so much less that per net-kJ it is actually dirtier and more expensive.
Stevie Wonder You are talking about the actual coal going into the plant. You have it somewhat correct. Coal from different places have different percentages of chemical composition (due to the types of organics as well as conditions, geology, and pressure). MET coal is both the cleanest and most expensive. It is highly valued in the steel industry for its relitive impurities and it's high btu value. Burning MET and a few standards below for power isn't worth the costs assosiated with transport, price per ton, and availability. I was actually refering to available technology that our government spent billions to develop that is unused. The best way to describe it is an extremely efficient CO2 scrubber that removes an incredible ammount of pollutants before they can be released into the atmosphere. It's one of those cases of politics over reason. I'm a coal miner. I understand and support energy research. I support moving away from finite resources. It will cost my job. That's progress and it's ok. It does bother me when regulation is strangling an industry that supports a huge array of jobs when technology exists that can allow us to achieve cleaner air cheaply now. This can save taxpayers, and citizens on electricity costs as we develop better renewable technology that will be built cleaner, and run more effectively than coal can compete with in the future.