If we are talking about the UK, one huge hurdle is the argument that countries like Pakistan, India, China, Russia and USA are by far exceeding UK emissions and continuing to add C02 into the global atmosphere when the UK only emits shy of 1% of the global output, so why bother? After all it will initially cost huge amounts of upheaval and financial harm and any jobs created are not wealth creators but built on debt not growth.
Are you considering TOTAL emissions, or just present emissions? If you add up the total emissions of the UK over the past two centuries vs Pakistan, India, and China, things would look rather different.
@@hugo2216 They are playing catch-up, yes. But they’re not likely to go through the all-fossil all-the-time phase the UK and other wealthy western nations did. Solar is cheaper than coal now, and batteries are growing fast. For development still in their future - are they likely to be building out coal or gasoline-powered cars in ten years? I doubt it. So their procession to Western-style wealth and modernism will be MUCH cleaner than ours.
@@hugo2216 COMPARED TO FOSSIL FUEL, batteries are clean and low-resource. The batteries in EVs are typically about the equivalent of two gallons of gasoline, in energy storage. EVs are 4x more energy-efficient than equivalent cars. If we estimate the lifetime fuel footprint of a car at 5000 gallons of gasoline (30mpg/150k miles), a single EV battery prevents the impact of drilling the oil for 5000 gallons of gasoline, refininq the oil, and transporting the oil/gasoline (about 1/3 of all overseas shipping today is just oil) - not to mention the 100,000 pounds of CO2 produced by burning that gasoline. Of course, this assumes electricity sourced from clean, renewable solar/wind/etc. But even the “coal fired car” EV running on coal-sourced electricity is twice as CO2-efficient as gasoline, because coal plants are far more efficient than gasoline engines in cars. And for developing nations not sitting on large and easily accessible oil/coal deposits, energy harvested from local sun and wind is more sensible economically than capital pouring out endlessly to buy imported fossil fuels (not to mention the risks of having a nation’s economy held hostage by the likes of Putin or the Saudi royal family).
gouging out acres and acres of land for windmills and solar is not the answer do not get me wrong wind and solar have their place , but solar and wind farms take up a lot of land . what about small nuclear plants clean burning syn gas those do not take up as much room.
Just nonsense! Your video seems to suggest that renewable electrical energy will achieve net zero by 2050, when electrical energy only accounts for 20% of the global energy demand. And just where are we supposed to find the resources to achieve complete renewable electrical energy? Well, they are currently in the ground, can we use renewable electrical energy to dig them up, process them, transport them, manufacture them, distribute them, install them? I think not. The hubris involved in the title of your video, 'How to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050' and its 2:43 long! If only it were that simple.
