I don't feel doomed be because these problems are unsolvable. I feel doomed because the people in charge refuse to solve them and people are disenfranchised and powerless to hold the people in charge accountable.
It helps to do what we can, like changing our diets and realizing we vote with our wallets. Not EVERYONE can immediately do this, but many of us can. Those of us that can, should, else we shouldn't be passing the blame up the chain til we have done our part FIRST. Then if we've justifiably passed the blame along by doing our part, and things still don't progress, there's always less peaceful solutions if necessary.
@@ncedwards1234 It doesn't help to "do what we can" if all we do just in the end leads to more emissions. Vote against fossil wallets. Campaign against fossil appetites. Have an actual effect.
@@bartroberts1514I agree this is what we need to do to go the extra mile and get to a healthier future faster. Accountability is key, and corporations need to be SHOUTED at, boycotted, and made an example of to become accountable.
@@neonchronicles Corporations? They just react to the playing field given them by governments and public servants. SHOUT at the people who issue the fossil trade licenses to explore, extract, export, import, trade and exploit the bitumen, coal, gas and oil that makes up the bulk of the cause of climate crisis.
Global warming and climate change is far more demanding because that is a explosive phenomenon that any sudden moment in time if unattended will grow out of control.
99 percent (and more) of everything that ever lives, dies out. It's part of the process of nature called entropy. It seems to apply to everything in the universe. Everything that becomes ordered and structured like organisms eventually breaks down and is recycled or otherwise disordered....
I think the only reason people are pessimistic is because not much is being done. This would change very quickly is there was a real interest in making things better.
Why is the burden of reducing emissions on the average citizen when the majority of the pollution is created by energy generation, industry, and manufacturing? We have all been recycling for years only to find out that almost none of it is recycled. This is a governance issue...
Because citizens work for corporations. Citizens change at home, then take those philosophies to the workplace and drive change there too. Maybe even use consumer pressure for companies to do better, though actively making environmental factors part of our buying decisions, at home and at work, and in investing. This is a market economy. Changes like this need to come from the demand side. Not one person, billions of people. All of us. There is no way in this economic system that a company can make the change out of some kind of altruistic benevolence. We can not expect oil companies to stop making fuel if we are demanding fuel. We can not expect grocery stores to stop stocking foreign foods and carbon intense foods if we are demanding those foods. We cannot expect car companies to stop making fuel vehicles if we are demanding fuel vehicles. We cannot reduce global shipping if we are demanding foreign products. And we cannot expect out representatives in government to make any changes if we are not telling them how we want to be represented and how we want our tax dollars spent. Recycling is high risk and low profit, so it is not likely that the private sector will spring up a lot of new facilities anytime soon. If you want to recycle more of our waste, we the citizens need to tell our government representatives to fund recycling facilities. If we the citizens want factory emissions reduced by regulations, we need to tell our representatives to regulate factory emissions. Yes, telling one person to make lifestyle changes will not solve anything. Billions of us need to make lifestyle changes to reduce/solve this problem.
Oil companies have bought up and closed tram lines, spend billions on lobbying (against solar for example) and on PR campaigns for among other things recycling and to blame the people or "the consumer". The power is distributed as asymmetrical as it can be. We must regulate industries much harder, and redistribute much more wealth to avoid revolts. I know, this is very unpopular among the "conservatives", but it must happen if we want to beat this.
I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.
The carbon dioxide emissions have the net beneficial effects of greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields, reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum. Climate action is an extremely costly and wasteful folly. Tremendous amounts of fossil fuels and capital are being wasted on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects.
Ah yes, Du Pont. They *strongly opposed* the Montreal Protocol - until they snagged a global patent estate for "high-value HFC" production, after which time they supported it. They have several large settlements for infringements. We need a similar business case for eliminating oil and, if it eventuates, oil will go like steam engines. The trouble is, as George Bus said "America is addicted to oil" - meaning oil is priced in dollars and any country that wants to industrialise (and therefore to buy oil) is forced to buy USD first, which they give to SA, who recycle it by buying US treasuries. This is the problem that needs to be fixed. Silly answer - maybe just USA default? Otherwise, something everybody needs has to be priced in USD. I don't know the answer, but *your generation* has to find it.
The reason we could do that was because it didn't effect the general populace at all. You weren't prohibited from buying any product but rather to industries found a replacement. Problem now is that every solution that will mitigate climate change requires people change habits, habits they like. As greatly reducing (and preferably stopping) their consumption of meat, to stop using a car and use public transport, to greatly reduce/stop flying, to not buy and consume stuff willy nilly. Properly handling climate change is going to get really uncomfortable for a lot of people in a way that it hasn't before. That's why I don't think we will be able to do it. People rather have their niceties and comforts now and doom their future than maybe have 50% of their comfort and niceties and ensure we can keep that going forever.
@@flammungous3068 It is a change of methodology rather than reducing quality of life. The latter assumption hasn't held, and for the most part is unlikely to hold in the future either. We are happier and healthier after than we were before. EVs are quieter and less polluting than ICEVs. Cars can be useful, but car dependence is not freedom. Cities with good public transport and bike-friendly are more attractive than cities that aren't. Stuff is getting better and easier to use. Unless that stuff is big, heavy and made of steel, concrete or glass, it's unlikely to do much to the climate. There are some things that are hard to abate, like meat and flights. But it is possible to reduce those emissions greatly without forcing people to become vegetarians. Most flights are done by frequent fliers, to whom flying is not much of a luxury. Reducing and offsetting (i.e. taxing) is unlikely to be much of a burden.
@@fargoththemoonsugarmaniac Biodiversity is a technology. It happens to be one that humans did not invent, rather, we're currently destroying it. But, we can adapt it to solve the problems that we have created. The problems that it's been solving all along, until we razed it to the ground.
@@amosbackstrom5366 no, it is not 😅 stop rebranding the meaning of words and check a dictionary or wikipedia. also you really don't have to explain biodiversity (loss) to me.
Not factoring in the structural forces of capitalism as a source of overproduction and overexploitation of human and nature is really a big shortcoming of videos like these.
Capitalism does no such thing. Capitalism is an economic mechanism that ensures supply meets demand. Period. If you truly cared about the environment you'd be advocating for less people. Over population is at the foundation of every single threat facing humanity and nature.
@@Praisethesunson Everybody benefits from the corporate world. They're the entities that hire countless millions of people and provide the products and services you want and need. Where do you think you got the device you're posting with right now that you happily purchased? Where do you think the platform you're happily posting on came from? "Corporate overlords" is hyperbole.
@@anthonymorris5084 Corporations are why the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S is medical debt and why you will never have guaranteed access to basic shelter.
If the solutions arent profitable, all you're doing is hurting the poor to implement them, and making more poor in the process. Welcome to socialism 101. It's a feature, not a bug.
@@LimitedWard which makes everything even more absurd. what matters in capitalism, if not how profitable something is. Here its ignorance and the wish everything stays the same in a world that literally lives through change. (yes, I'm an entropy enjoyer)
First of all, the majority of wealthy people do care about the future of humanity. They have families and children just like everyone else. But you're right, if it's not profitable it is, by definition, not sustainable. The entire point of making a profit is so that businesses can continue to operate. It is not possible to solve climate change on hope alone. It requires a tremendous amount of resources and those resources must be paid for. And if that funding doesn't come from the private sector it'll come from your taxes. And if the government has to pay for it you can be sure of one thing, that'll be the least efficient solution, so be careful what you wish for.
2:50 very misleading chart. It ignores: a) the RATE at which those minerals have been mined in the past, which implies that it will take hundreds of years to extract the amounts needed b) the increasing difficulty and energy costs of extraction of minerals from their base ores (all the easy stuff has been extracted already), c) the tiny little issue of these being the requirements for a single generation of "renewables", with a typical current lifespan of 20 years, and materials recycling rates well below 50% d) very dodgy assumptions of just how much power is needed to replace current fossil fuel use, especially on a seasonal basis (focusing just on electricity demand ignores all the other needs) e) materials costs of the electric-only transportation switch (cars, trucks, trains, ships etc.) and electricity transmission and grid battery backup infrastructure (all enormous in their own rights), i.e. the demand side (focusing only on the energy production side ignores most of the materials requirements) f) the environmental impacts of trying to mine all those resources, which typically require shifting TONS of rock to extract tiny amounts of useful minerals g) the growing social resistance to solar and wind farms in every part of the world, simply because of the large area of land required (let's hope Geothermal does not have this issue)
Thank you so much for this comment, I was super surprised as well seeing this graph without any more explanation. The video is unfortunately a bit too optimistic. Concerning the problem of rare earth materials, I can recommend a book from Guillaume Pitron, "The Rare Earth Materials War : the secret part of the energetic transition" (best economic book of 2018)
@@louison4975 How do we increase CO2 to 1000 - 1500ppm as used in commercial greenhouses. No CO 2 no plant life and so we have a desert a barren planet, no humans, animals birds fish. Look up photosynthesis, water, CO2, oxygen, almost a closed system. CO2 is not responsible for global warming if there is any. My waterfront property property was supposed to be flooded 15 years ago, no signs yet. Gigantic SCAM.
Wait until you read about geothermal causing earthquakes... One plant affects a whole region... In France we had multiple earthquakes in Alsace demonstrated to be due to an experimental geothermal plant.
I’ve planted at least 100 large trees in my life so far, and intend to plant thousands more once I can buy some land to regenerate. Figured that’s about the best thing I could do.
Trees aren't necessary that good, plankton from what I understand is much better (remember the massive misinformation about how much oxygen Amazon forests produced, by high level individuals? claiming it was science when the science showed more like the opposite of what they wanted to say; plankton is a star in producing oxygen and trapping carbon dioxide). While you might not wanna preoccupy yourself with plankton, you could have snake plants and such (NASA research says they are good for cleaning the air), or I would assume research which trees are better to be planted. P.S.: Fighting global warming is an ideology now, they don't care much what works, they care to sound smart and good and get power. As I mentioned plankton, I don't remember seeing anywhere that they focus on how to use it, they care about what their leaders say, not what is best. Like how much money do they poor in solar panels, think about why, and how much do they look into trapping carbon technologies? Or since she mentions EVs, oh, carbon footprint, blah blah, ok, let's dismiss the environmental damage necessary to make an EV, how can you (the thought leaders of climate change fight) care so much about EVs and TESLA was not worthy to be in ESG stocks, I wonder why? Could it be cause the boss is not part of the progressives? But oil companies can be esg compliant, go figure. They just buy the carbon credits and make sure to be in good standing with the leaders that decide what is good and what is not.
@@judithmcdonald9001 and water is wet. Both statements have the same degree of relevance to the topic, in my unmeasurable opinion. But thanks for bringing nothing to the conversation.
I can't help thinking this is missing the actual problem. No one with any understanding of science believes climate change is unsolvable. It's HOW we get there and what we need to change/give up along the way, and perhaps most, how to do it within the constraints of a free market economy and a popularity-driven political system that is also pro free market to the point where it doesn't want to regulate anything. When you look at most "recycling" and green initiatives, it quickly becomes clear that they do little to stop businesses from polluting, rather they push the cost of dealing with the consequences of bad product choices to the consumer, where it has almost no real effect. Like shopping bags. We used to have free paper bags. Then businesses switched to plastic because they were cheaper per bag, but they were will free to the consumer. Then the gov stepped in and levied a nickel per bag - which the store kept. So it wasn't an incentive to stop using bags for the store - in fact, it was an incentive for the store to KEEP offering them - and since most people didn't bring bags with them, they still used bags., Next the gov banned them but allowed paper bags back in (a dodgy decision since paper has issues in land fills too) but the stores started charging as much as 25c a bag when it used to be free., That pushed the cost to the consumer either by buying paper bags or buying reusable ones - which ALSO had environmental issues (and people will still buy paper if they forget their cloth bags). Sliced cheese is another great example: single slice wrapped cheese is very efficient for the producer and the consumer, but generates tons of plastic. But it's what the consumer likes and regular sliced cheeses either sticks together, or you have to put paper between the slices, either way, wasteful and more expensive. So again, there's no incentive for the producer to find a better way. THEY don't pay for the recycling of all that plastic. The consumer does. EV cars are clearly a better option, but... ICE cars are easier to operate - they take 6 minutes to refill, there are gas stations everywhere and while they are more complicated, the reality is that most modern cars are really well built. Worse, EVs are hard to get - there's a chronic shortage and the base price is almost double that of the ICE cars. These are the actual kinds of problems that need to be solved. Good luck with that.
we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
I tend to agree with this. I didn't see any real improvement solutions in the video. Platitudes and lectures on what can be done is a far cry from implementation. I am not against EVs but I don't have one for the reasons you mentioned. I can't stop by a station and recharge an EV in a timely manner. How about transitional phases like improvements in the hybrid market while infrastructure catches up. Toyota seems to make almost all of their models in a hybrid version, for example. The cost is also not double the regular model.
@@TheoWerewolf wow interesting your comment gets through with all those “facts” but when someone tries to comment on a “factual” comment and give you sense of it from an economic stand point, it gets deleted. That says a lot about the publisher who doesn’t allow their audience to debate
I am truly proud being one of the people that does not believe in climate change. I deserve to live a good life with the heather on and meat on my table. Everyone who tries to take that a way from me and my family is an terrible human.
Right, on the bright side of life, she speaks correctly about solutions. Doubt everyone will remember all she said, but she is correct. Problem is that that we are not in any way keeping up with the problem side of things. Forests shrink, deserts increase, population grows, GHGs increase at much faster rates these days, and misinformation is almost everywhere. This is not easy, will be the challenge of all time to keep things livable over the next few decades.
It would be great to start with using less plastic on EVERYTHING in the supermarket and remove single-use items for drinks/food in restaurants. Why not ban drive thrus while you're at it and get lazy people to actually order their food inside instead of idling in their car for 10+ minutes
I agree with plastics. It's shocking how many products are unnecessary wrapped in the stuff. Industrial waste is rampant with it too, my work doesn't even have a place to recycle plastic so I take some home. Banning drive-thrus is a bit extreme, what about the increasing number of electric cars, would that encourage building more parking?
@@tirvine9102 definitely making it harder to recycle by not having bins at home or work. My workplace does have shared trash/recycling bins, but they just throw the whole bag in the garbage because they are too lazy to separate the recyclables... Electric cars keep basically all the problems except gas emissions. Everything driving electric cars will incur the same demand for parking like always. Apparently Minneapolis actually ban any new permitting for drive thrus, so that could be a starting point.
@GirtonOramsay Plastics is the key to everything.. We would help the planet but absolutely help us health wise. It's disgustingly dangerous to us. The corporations started using it in the 70s because it's cheaper and they can use it for everything. It has made us sick in every way. And the planet sick. WIN WIN🎉💯 IF WE GO STOP USING PLASTIC AND BACK TO GLASS!!!
Plastics are the plague on us and the planet. STOP MASS PRODUCING PLASTICS GO BACK TO GLASS AND WE WOULD SOLVE SO MANY AILMENTS for US, THE PLANET, LAND AND SEA, PLANTS AND ANIMALS. PLASTICS HAVE BEEN THE DOWNFALL SINCE THE 70'S. TELL THE CORPORATIONS~~~ STOP PRODUCING PLASTICS~~~ TAKE A STAND AND SAY WE WILL NOT BUY THEM ANYMORE!!! ~IT IS OVER~
and you replace plastics by…? wood? in few years that will a crisis of deforestation because of it. Plastics is not the culprit. But its easy to understand and medias culpabilise the population with that. Smoke screen.
Electricity costs don't get higher because of transitioning. They get higher because there is less profit in transitioning and profits must never go down. It's the same with maintaining infrastructure, product safety, plastic disposal and labor These things are approached as an expense, not a responsibility.
@@breft3416most electrical systems are no longer public utilities but have been privatized and are now profit generating corporations. Any service that is privatized will see prices going up, services going down and decent jobs being replaced by low paying, dead end jobs with few benefits and high turnover as wealth is further turned over to the 0.1%
we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
The problem with electric cars is 2 fold. First, most people who need transportation and don't have access to mass transit, can't afford electric cars. Next, after 10 years, the car battery has to be replaced and the spent batteries are dumped in landfills. Further more, Toyota has said they won't invest any more into electric cars because the economics are not good. Other car companies are taking notice as well.
Lithium is expensive to refine. Is obviously goung to be well received for recycling. Toyota is on the way of becoming the Kodak of cars. Japanese are clever, but Toyota is not gonna make me depend on an ever scarcer fuel that will be even harder to obtain for regular people. I cannot make or store fuel, hydrogen or oil based. I can charge at home with my own power. Only a dimwit would think about dumping a massive lithium battery into a landfill.
Also, a second battery resets the energy footprint, Furthermore, electric cars, at this point, cannot replace the ICE. While electric vehicles may be ideal in and around major cities, they are from ideal in remote areas; especially in the colder areas of the world. Not too mention, the long-haul transport industry.
Oh geez...This "the battery has to be replaced every 10 years" it getting quite old already and it's been debunked a million times already. The batteries will probably last longer than the car around it. We already have plenty of cars that are over 10 years old and they are running perfectly fine. And that's 10 years old technology. Modern batteries are even better.
The military isn’t mentioned in the video or in these comments. That’s too bad since war and the military have destroyed much of the lands that can be used for sustainable growth as well as much of the economic energy of human creativity. Destroying (entropy) materials versus designing and building the future answers to huge questions will be the factor that either leads to a positive future or a terrible dystopia
You can actually use the land under solar panels for farming too. They just need to be mounted higher so you can grow crops underneath -- the solar panels protect plants from the heat of the midday sun. There's already solar farms where animals graze underneath and around the solar panels -- it's not wasted land if we do it right. The untapped roofs, canals, etc. which can be used for solar power -- without taking away agricultural land -- is huge.
@@johnharrison2511 I notice you put “huge” resources in scare quotes, as well you might. A solar panel does not take markedly more in resources to manufacture than the glazing in the large buildings all around you. Indeed, much building cladding, and some glazing could actually BE solar glazing instead.
Quotation marks they are called, because I was quoting the last word of the original post. Quotation marks being used to mark a quotation. Just now my comprehensive response got erased in front of me so I give up 'discussing things'. RU-vid waste of my time.
I do question this though and maybe it depends on the climate one lives in. Where I'm at in the southeast it very hot under our solar array during the summer months.
@@Ry-lx2klfrom what I have seen command economies do in the past,resource deprivation for targeted groups have been used to eliminate dissent from regimes. The perception of a crisis is exactly what governments use to seize inordinate levels of power over their citizens. The death toll from starvation is a benefit to the Stalins and Hitlers of the 21rst century. All Klaus Scwab needs is a pencil mustache......
@@Ry-lx2kl what’s the acceptable price you’re putting on life as we know it on your planet? We are in the midst of a mass extinction event caused by us…you want number of deaths? Just wait. Energy prices and inflation won’t mean anything in comparison.
The whole transport section of the video is quite poor. As an environmentally concerned gearhead (there are many of us) the EV section was paper thin relying on the most superficial, one dimensional measures. EVs are dead on infrastructure alone. The economics kill them. The energy mix kills them. The evidence is more like we are past the peak electrification of cars. Peter Zeihan concisely lays out why EVs are, and always have been, a non runner on infrastructure alone
@@CamiloSalvadorMP It's also a massive investment opportunity for new entrepreneurs. These Fossil fuel companies are desperately trying to hold on to the last vestiges of power they can while they exploit consumers with record profits.
2:40 She left out 🧂🔋 salt battery* as its abundance would dwarf entire chart, lol! * Same energy density as LFP, plus greener, nonexplosive, faster charging, fast chargeable to 100% and far better in extreme temps.
@@danguee1 Just the opposite; they're only putting salt batteries in ultra cheap models like VW/JAC E10x & BYD Seagull rn to protect LFP investment. NMC is otw out.
There is already a lot of change because renewable technologies are (getting) cheaper. PV and wind turbines are already the cheapest to generate electricity. Batteries are getting much cheaper making large scale electricity storage compatible and electric cars cheaper than cars with a combustion engine.
@@Phantom-mg5cg The problem is that consumption is increasing, while it should be decreasing. Just Read the comment section. People blame the government for the problem and then go on with their life and don't change anything to it. They'll still drive their 4x4 SUV, they'll still Buy plane tickets, they'll still buy tons of cheap imported stuff on Amazon, and so on.
Worldwide, over 10 trillion US dollars have already been spent on climate action and carbon dioxide emissions are continuing to increase. The widespread inappropriate and uneconomical use of renewable energy equipment (wind turbines and solar panels) is actually increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The big issue is that the current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the current mean annual surface temperature of Earth are suboptimal. The carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have the net beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields, reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum. Climate action is an extremely costly and wasteful folly. The massive misappropriation of taxpayers money and resources needs to be stopped.
5:18. After 2 years driving an EV,, you’ve paid off their carbon debt. How long do you have to drive to work to pay off the car debt and your carbon debt for charging the EV ?
@@oceanmangg in the early 1960s in Chelsea, Boston, Massachusetts area, they had electric buses ( overhead wire). It cost 20 cents to ride and that’s with transfers to the subways of Boston with all its extensions. As long as you stay under ground, you could ride all day. That was one of our play grounds as a kid in 4th grade, that’s how I learned how to get to those museums. 20 cents, $0.20. Even as a young kid,, I could afford that. Later in life, early 1970s, I visited Florida and went to Disney World and for $13 ,you got a day pass and ride on the monorail,,, now that was amazing, beautiful and clean. It took up no land to speak of and you rode above everything, taking in the beautiful greenery below. What happened, I thought that was our future. And that was from a man named Walt and a mouse named Mickey, Hal Holden and Bombadier , Canada
The real issue isn’t people not doing enough, there are a lot of good people stressing and doing everything they can to help. The problem is the fundamental way our societies are built. We require people to make decisions that aren’t the best for our planet. Driving - most of North America is built for cars, and for getting to work, people need to drive. Public transit either isn’t available or is terrible. Garbage - recycling is a lie. Most items are landfill. I was and still do my best to reduce my consumption but at the end of the day, we don’t have systems in place to recycle or reuse our waste Animal products - unfortunately most the world loves meat, and that’s not gonna change any time soon. It’s built in us from our ancestral past. With the amount of people that are on the planet, it takes a big toll. So what can be done? Unfortunately not much. This planet is resilient and will exterminate us eventually. If you’re thinking about having children, think really hard about what kind of life they will have, and not about what you want. Do you best to live modestly, buy used whenever you can, reduce your waste and know that you’ve done everything in your power to make a difference.
@seekthetruth336 - related to one of the domains; Animal Products... There is a grassroots movement gaining traction all around the world that alters the way ruminants are raised for meat production. The method is not only sustainable, but is being proven to be a powerful CO2 sink, as well as rebuilding top soils, increasing nutrient density in the meat, requiring little to no pharmaceutical interventions, improving insect, bird and other wildlife habitat, lowering or eliminating synthetic fertilizer, herbicide and fungicide use and drastically inproving water infiltration and the overall water cycle. It's called regenerative grazing. And I know for certain that it works, because I myself am a regenerative grazer of cattle.
You do realise that the more "modestly" you live, it only makes way for more and more people, and they consume a lot and have major impacts on everything. Live large and take up as much space as you can.
5:12 Carbon Brief is not a world recognized science fact based entity. They are a newspaper at best. Their graph is not backed by any solid information outside of their lens
Most of her comments have the macro view and are somewhat overly simplistic, while many are not realistic regarding actual implementation. For example, expecting people to give up meat and dairy products in order to prevent something bad from happening in 50 to 100 years from now is not realistic. Besides, beef and dairy per capita consumption is already declining anyway in developed world due to health concerns which is a more immediate and relatable concern. Also, her comment about reducing land use for agriculture is myopic. In fact, agricultural research has already made great strides in improving yields and more improvements are on the way.
The problem with solar and wind is NOT having enough windmills or solar panels to generate energy. It's batteries and transmission, and the rare minerals those require.
THAT and the fact we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
One important point the video points out is that inexpensive will always have an appeal, regardless of what it is. One of the greatest powers of persuasion is the "power of the purse" showing people they can get the same thing at a lower cost if only they switch to some other brand, or technology.
This video is great. I love that they show CO2 emissions per 100 grams of protein. I've seen so many studies talk about CO2 emissions per kilogram of weight, which makes no goddamn sense. No one eats a pound of broccoli, but people regularly eat 16 ounces of steak. But they have comparable protein/calorie ratios, so this is a way to actually directly compare them.
Well there's a couple of issues, she uses worldwide figures of 24%, the people who use cows to pull ploughs, use them for transport, dried dung for fuel will have to have alternatives. In USA all animals are 5%, cows are 65% of that at 3.25%. It is very hard to replace all that we get which isn't just food, it's activated carbon to filter water, gelatine to hold toilet paper together, fats that go into devices like the one you are using, medicines, asphalt, there's leather, wool, fish bladders to fine wines, rendered meat for pet food, collagen, the list goes on. It all needs a grown source to replace what is mostly fed on grass, on land we don't put any sprays etc onto. The way it is worked out is what is edible that goes to market, it ignores all the waste of crops and puts all the emissions onto just the edible, that goes for sale, considering we get much more than food from animals and there is so much crop waste, this in incredibly deceptive to the general public. The issue here is she is comparing protein of say tofu as a standalone product, ignoring that animals take all the waste, we put the waste through them and then blame them for it. Soy is great example, 82% of the human usable part of soy is taken by humans, all animals take 7% of whole bean and 1% of the oil but they take 99% of the waste, then people will say they take 87% of soy, yes they do but by weight of the total grown product, of which we can't eat. She's very misleading and whether intentionally or unintentionally, very wrong, not sure which. If oranges, grapes, any crop that doesn't make it to market then it's not calculated but all the sprays, fertilisers, irrigation still happen, just not calculated. This is of course an unfair comparison. Saying getting higher yields means using synthetic fertilisers which is where the nitrous oxide comes into play, the gas that is emitted is 300 times worse than co2 and methane is only 26. She is using her own source as in our world in data, so she is biased in this way and is funded by bill gates the largest private landholder in USA, and considering we give more of out waste to animals from crops than food we grow for them, plant based directly subsidises caged animal rearing the most.
@@antonyjh1234I like how you start with a sensible story but then can't contain yourself anf have to dive into the bill gates conspiracy, which just takes away from the rest of your comment
@antonyjh1234 I've been googling for an hour here and can't find any of your numbers used anywhere. It seems that livestock eat both whole soybeans and soybean meal after the oil is extracted but the majority of value in that is from the animal feed so it's more like the soybean oil is a byproduct of the feed industry rather than the feed being the byproduct. Out of the soybean 70% of the value is animal feed and only 30% is the oil so if it weren't for animal feed they wouldn't grow soy just for oil because theres not enough value there. I also found numbers that animals eat 86% food that is inedible to humans but they calculate grass in that equation. That's disengenuine because grass isn't grown for human consumption anyway and that land could grow something else. If you take grass out of the equation then animals eat 26% food that is edible to humans. But they also include crops grown specifically for animals only like alfalfa. That's crop land that could be used for something else. So that's another disengenuous portion. That's an additional 15% where something else could be grown instead. So now your looking at animals eating 41% of their diet consisting of food that could go to humans. If you take the feed conversion ratios of an average of 10:1 that means animals are eating 41% of their diet as human edible crops or land that could be used to create human edible crops but only produce about 10% back as human edible meat. This is on a calorie for calorie basis. If you look at cattle where the feed conversion is closer to 25:1 that means they'd only produce 4 calories back from that. Even if you take their disengenuous numbers at face value and don't remove grass or purpose grown crops you still are left with a deficit. Animals eat 14% of their diet from human edible crops yet only produce 10 calories for every 14 they eat of ours or cattle only producing 4 calories for every 14 eaten in the case of cattle. It's not as bad when you take disengenuous numbers but still a deficit nonetheless.
@@BM1982.V2 Your opinion that grass is disingenuous is in my opinion incorrect and you seem to be missing the point of it, that we get something in return for doing nothing basically. As most grass is from non arable land meaning it can't be farmed you can see the difference in inputs that are needed. Sayings 86% of their diet is from stuff we can't eat and then having to grow something on land that isn't possible is of course the wrong way to look at things, environmentally. As far as soy, 6% whole bean goes to humans,7% to all animals, cows the least amount as it goes towards other animals more, half the worlds fish is raised fish, actually figures aren't taking into account wild caught fish but that's another story, 87% is processed into oil of which animals take 1% so we are back to the 82% is used for humans. Palm or Soy oil is in everything these days. The rest of your figures then become meaningless, the point though is it's not just diet, half the animal is used for more than food, saying we can grow what needs replacing when we don't put a lot of inputs in now means we would have to put in sprays of all sorts, fertiliser, irrigation and where I am half the land is grazing land, that doesn't get sprayed, get's irrigated from weather and gets naturally fertilised, if looking at it as energy returned, we get a massive amount back. We grow far more tonnage of crops for humans, all this waste could be composted but it then would still emit to the atmosphere, we currently pass it through animals and blame them, unfairly I think. Saying disingenuous, doesn't make it so just because you remove 86% of their diet that isn't edible to us, that's not the point, the point is they can digest it.
Electric cars are nowhere near as green as passenger trains. No one talks about that though. Y'all are still in the pocket of the auto industry 😂 Not comfortable sitting on a train with strangers? Well, when the food systems collapse those strangers are going to be breaking into your house to steal your food, which do you prefer :)
@@fatbobe1986 brother what? Of course it's not, in the US. our whole infrastructure is built around the car so of course most journeys will be done with the car.
Urban and suburban rail can be very effective and desirable. However it does need a fairly high density, is very expensive and time consuming to build, and short-term will even increase emissions, as they need a lot of steel and cement to build, and that takes decades to recover.
Extensive rail is only possible in authoritarian countries where land rights are held by the State. Try building 100 miles of rail in the US and you’ll spend 20 years in court fighting land owners along the route.
AGREED!!!!! we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
Another problem is we are reactive to global warming instead of being proactive. There are things we can do to lower the effects of somethings that have changed. Like altering the albedo of land revealed by glacier melting. Putting solar panels over parking lots to lower the heat island effect of the pavement, bonus cars parked there are cooler and electricity generated using wasted space. Large buildings such as warehouses factories and shopping centers should have solar panels mounted a few feet above their roofs to shade the roof lowering cooling costs in the warmer areas and summer. As air flow underneath will help keep it cooler in addition to the shade effect.
Did i miss the part where she talked about the impact on the people doing the mining for all the required minerals? Cause from what I've heard out of Congo, it's horrific. And those horrors seem to be part of what enables the current "cost effectiveness" of green tech. Those gains are coming soaked in blood. There MUST be better ways of saving the planet.
That’s why at the zoo I volunteer at we talk about how zoos have played key roles in returning species back to the wild from only existing in captivity. Not only do we know how to do it, we can do it, we have done it, we continue to learn how to do it better. Probably why the environmental benefits take a year or two to start kicking, but when they kick in, it’s huge! One long term conservation project, Cairngorms Connect, is over 200 years. In the past it’s been about instant return. We understand it’s about long term cumulative effect. We can do it, it can be done, we have proven methods, let’s do it!
The Georgia Aquarium worked with a Florida group to run gardens of heat-resistant corals. Unfortunately, 2023 the 100+F temps of shallow Florida ocean areas resulted in 100% fatality of garden corals. Haven't heard if they are going on with the program, but it is likely that much of Florida will be lost due to rising sea levels.
3:16 disingenuous that: 1) only coal counts as 'digging'. Extraction of natural gas and oil leave little scar behind 2) many of the metals/minerals for renewables are in tiny concentrations - you need to dig cubic metres to get grams. Whereas, for coal, you literally just dig the coal. If you're going to claim you're data-driven - use the right data, don't cherry-pick it and don't manipulate it......
What about transportation? And i the case of gas, all the leaks that are happening everywhere. Don't forget methane is a much more potent global warming gas than CO2.
Really good video, going through each source and putting forward a solution. One thing I wanted to elaborate on is the less cement in buildings. The way to solve it is to build more traditional architecture, which uses arches as supports. Then you can just build out of rocks, chiseled into regular sized blocks. Modern architecture requires long, straight, load-bearing structures that can only be achieved by using steel or reinforced concrete. Arches also make it so you don't need as much rebar throughout the building, which in turn allows the building to theoretically last thousands of years.
It will be require more workers - that are also more skilled. I do love older houses - renovating them might be another way. Or using other recyable materials that also last a long time. I love wood houses - or timber-framed with rammed earth. The waste from buildings we tear down and can't use again, but won't disintegrate is also worrying. In urban areas - houses with good noise canceling might be preferable, but we can also think about buildings that can withstand extreme heat or have good ventilation and shade for windows.
You hit the nail right on the head. I know how to fix what is in here for all, or at least most, of mankind. We need a new profit behavior model. Profit equals protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides for all of us. Our current profit behavior model is profit equals income minus expenses. This erroneous behavior model requires us to ignore the damages that we cause to the environment and it requires us to minimize our workforce in order to maximize profit. It's no wonder then that the earth is on fire and there is so much homelessness. Is this idea close to the kind of fix that you have in mind?
Agreed! we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
Have you ever wasted a thought on the problem that while reserves of materials like lithium increase initially (but invariably decrease to the end) the first reserves to get depleted are those easiest to mine. That means, over time the price for the material will go up and/or the energy needed to mine will increase. I reasd somewhere that there is a huge quatity of lithium and gold "solved" in the ocean water. If so, why no one has ever taken up the hassle to extract the gold?
China just started the worlds first Thorium Reactor. What the "News" wont tell you about thorium. An appropriate sized TMS Reactor can be made in a factory, shipped by truck and erected to directly replace the coal end of a power plant. It can use the coal ash as a resource of the Thorium. I think the reason it has not been used or even researched, is because of the lobbying power of the huge Uranium and weapons industry.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
Yes, smaller stomata are evolving as it becomes easier to access CO2 meaning less water loss and therefore greater drought resistance increasing growth.
4:00 "cost of solar and wind is cost competitive" ... and yet, increasing their share of the grid power has made electricity grids more fragile and expensive in EVERY jurisdiction that has gone down this route. There is a certain threshold percentage of "renewable" (Solar/wind) power (maybe 20-30%?), beyond which it is simply not economically viable to safely and cheaply add more, at least not with today's grid power storage technologies and economic models. "Renewables" are actually only cheap as long as someone else pays to provide the battery or peaker power backup to cover fluctuations in production. (Nuclear isn't without challenges in this area too, mainly because it has difficulties ramping production up and down to meet demand requirements, which is why it was often paired with Hydroelectric power facilities when the original generations of nuclear power plants were built.)
The fact that we can change and adapt has never been the issue. It's the fact that we cannot make as much money off it yet than oil and gas. It doesn't matter that it works, it does matter that its cheaper as there is less profit.
Yes, but as any business company has seen the potential and that's why so many projects have advanced the technology, it isn't "too expensive, let's wait" it's "too expensive, let's make it cheaper to earn more".
we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
One of the worst emitters of carbon in the world is the Industrial military complex; especially in the USA. One solution which has been around for the last 10 years or so, is the Dearman engine which runs on air,, and emits no carbon at all. A traditional combustian engine is only around 30% efficient, 70% lost to heat, a Dearman engine is something like 80% efficient. “And if that’s not enough, it also works for air conditioning - and as a battery that never loses capacity and is completely non-toxic. Potentially an answer to the final stumbling block for how renewable energy can power the world.”
we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
Saying transport takes up 1/5th of the energy needs (edit:Co2 emissions), when the percentage shown on screen is 14%, is at best confusing. 14% is actually closer to 1/7
I think she was approximating to make it easier to understand. It's also worth noting that there are several ways to approach how we measure and attribute emissions. For example, quite a large part of fuel-related emissions are the "well to tank" processes (i.e. the mining, refining, transport, and leaks of the fuel system) - are these transport-related, because it's cars using the fuel at the end, or industry, because it's the fuel industry generating them? Depending on how you approach these "upstream" supply chain sources, you can get very different results for each sector. Similarly, would the energy needed to build a car be transport or industry? Hope this helps.
Isn't it 1/5th of the energy needs and it produces 14% of our emissions. Those 2 figures are separate numbers and are both accurate. The pie chart is showing emissions while she was speaking energy usage.
I for one enjoyed what she had to say. The comments section is saying “How can we with public policies and the general public not caring?” But as with anything, if we care enough, we’ll make positive changes. I guarantee everyone in the comments saying nothing will ever change have ever even donated a lick of time to environmental causes but I digress. Fact is, if we want the change, we can make it, our work individually may not make a dent in it, but as a majority it sure as hell will
There are also quite a few of us who have been slogging for decades and are pretty burned out. We keep hearing the same excuses and the same "but here's the cause for optimism!" platitudes over and over. My personal bet is that it's going to be really fucking bad - but also that this is no reason to give up the work. If only out of sheer cussedness and spite towards the people and systems who have caused and are going to cause so much avoidable suffering.
we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
I just had this come up in my algorithm, I'm blown away by the production quality and attention to detail in the information presented. Instant subscribe!
4:50 "Is an electric car better (than ICE)? Yes". Unfortunately, EVs only reduce lifetime CO2 emissions by about 20%. They are NOT going to work if you actually want to decarbonize or reach "Net zero". (Bicycle, train, and transit-oriented systems are MUCH better for CO2 reduction as a solution.) The challenge is even harder for the other 80% of road transportation emissions too, i.e. the trucking industry. Focusing on electric cars as a "solution" is like trimming a nose hair and saying that you've had a haircut.
Why not both? We can increase the infrastructure and incentives for public transit but at the same time recognize that there will always be a need for personal transit so both are needed and both are helpful.
I think EVs, in the near term, have a greater potential to reduce CO2 waste, and of course pub trans is the long-term solution. But people won't just jump to pub trans, it has to be made available and cost-competitive. Given how the U.S. turned its back on pub trans decades ago, that investment will take a long time. Meantime, we need to reduce CO2 emissions ASAP and EVs are the way to do that.
At least in the US, trying to rework the entire country's infrastructure for mass public transit will be drastically more expensive than incentivizing electric vehicles, and would therefore require a much bigger political push. So it's less feasible. Not to mention the challenges that come with America's significantly lower population density than other places where mass transit is more prevalent.
@Bertinator-nm9ld it's all about where the money is spent, not how much. Money is literally given in tax breaks, then loaned back by buying bonds. Or loaned to a country to buy stuff, very often weapons and bombs. It doesn't matter if the currency is in gold, paper or a key stroke on a computer. It's all make believe or be forced to believe. The math is very incongruous and easily manipulated to create or destroy beliefs by merely talking about it. "It costs too much, we can't afford it, giving free money to the unemployed is inflationary, giving subsidies to big oil keeps gas cheap, the rich don't have enough money to buy down the national debt, Social Security will be bankrupt" are all bs phrases that can be proved or disproved mathematically and with or without reason. The only tangible is where the money is spent.
@@breft3416 Ok, but you're going to have to spend a LOT of political capital in order to redirect all the funds for those expenses to your project. Do you have a rough idea how many trillions of dollars your plan will cost? How extensive is it? How much funding can you realistically pull away from other projects, without losing all political support for your plan? How much are you ultimately going to fund by issuing new debt? The financial aspects of such a project are not sexy to talk about, and they're easy to ignore, but they will also stop you dead in your tracks if you don't have a plan!
Change is possible, it is already happening and everyone can contribute. Reduce, reuse, recycle; bank ethically; eat less meat; choose sustainable travel when possible...
There are no solutions, only trade offs. Why is it that every good idea needs to be funded with money taken by force? Most of the noise comes from the same academic halls that less than a hundred years ago told us about the enlightenment and urgency of action concerning eugenics.
A question about CO2. the world's oceans contain huge quantities of CO2, warming the water releases the absorbed gases. How do we tell whether rising CO2 trails or leads warming?
What's so bad about producing more of the life giving gas CO2? If CO2 is that bad, why do farmers who grow crops in massive green houses pump on 800-1000 ppm of CO2 into them?
Electrical engineer in the solar industry here.. its not low carbon.. its terrible for the planet and the modules are only good for around 20 years.. then you need to "recycle" them.. which is a whole new mess
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 Sustainable Development Engineer here...solar panels could be considered "low-carbon" if compared to energy production from fossil fuels, but the process of producing a solar panel still consumes a considerable amount of CO2. Furthermore, it's true that the panels are good for only 20 - 25 years, which will cause a huge problem in the near future. Circular economy is starting to tackle this issue, but it will be quite challenging to implement a large scale recycling program. But hey, there are some of us studying the issue holistically with some hope that the effects of everything can be mitigated or avoided. As for references, I have been studying this for 6+ years. A quick google search will back what we are saying, it should take about 5 minutes of your day.
Thats why electricity should be dumped and used solar thermal instead to cook, heat, or melt metals. And the same with mechanical devices powered by wind or water turbine shafts just as old grain mills
@@blastermckasternot very convincing and 6+ years is not a reference and co2 is not consumed it is produced. Sounds like poor quality AI. For any humans reading this, pvcycle was around before you started studying . Panrls are glass and aluminium easy to recycle , doped silicon probably a bit more difficult but not difficult. Energy payback is in the order of a year so well worth it.
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 Seems like you don't know what you are talking about. That's okay, your opinion is valid. Don't argue with me, do your research. Yes, there are some easily recyclable components, but we are talking about a worldwide logistic issue. Knowing the past and present of society embracing issues related to the environment, my prediction is most of these panels will end up in the ocean or just abandoned. By the way, I wrote the entire text without AI, even if it's hard to believe. I've been educated on the matter and can argue using my knowledge. Your argument is quite a poor "attack" on my stance. Can't we just have an educated argument?
When people talk about these problems, nobody ever mentions the Sun and our position around the sun or our orbit throughout space and around the sun. That in itself causes massive fluctuation and weather patterns on this planet. That is unchangeable. The gravitational pull of other planets, the moon, and a bunch of other factors that all have to do with space play a crucial role in climate change and it's a topic that nobody wants to tackle. The Earth has massive periods of cool and massive periods of warmth, and those fluctuate rapidly each period and each cycle. It is not something that we can control, nor will we ever be able to. All of these progressive minded individuals, as much as I like their ideas, are not telling you the truth when it comes to climate change. They want you to think that if you recycle, and if you change your habits and we fight for change in our factories and our industries, that we can completely defeat climate change. It does not matter what you do or what companies do. We will never be able to stop climate change fully and to a degree that will save humanity from natural disasters. Sure, we can do our part to help limit human pollution and make technological advances that keep this planet clean and liveable, which is a big ask because you have to get every single individual and country on board, which is unlikely to happen, but it will not defeat or end climate change. The sun and our position in space is THE determining factor in how the world goes through its weather patterns. It will get hot and it will get cold and that is because the sun expands and condenses, and the earth moves through space and time, getting closer to the sun and farther from the sun and the effects of gravity from our moon and other planets and objects in space is another factor that we cannot ever control.
2 comments. 1. Does a electric car battery even last 12 years? 2. You won't take my meat and dairy away. 😂 Other than that, I like the positive outlook. 👊
"The main driver of climate change are human emissions...". What, then, drove the Medieval warm period? The Little Uce Age? The Minoan Warm Period? The very warm 1930s?
This video wasn't meant to get into that, but scientists have identified various reasons for these warming periods, including changes in solar and volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation, etc. The data on current climate change makes it pretty apparent that we've been altering the planet since about the Industrial Revolution and we're changing the climate faster than any known natural cycle (assuming we aren't talking about a massive volcanic eruption, asteroid impact, etc). I mean, the oil industry has known about the warming since the 1970s, and while estimates and forecasts change with increased data collection and improved models, those initial reports were pretty spot on 50 years ago.
Comment section is teaching me something. It's not that we can't because it is impossible, but that we won't because people are convinced enough to buy into it. @BigThink any chance y'all can do more persuasive tactics to convince us that hope is reasonable. It's a little self-fulfilling after all, and the crowd just ain't sold as of yet.
@@jumboridesagain7336 No. That's only because we pssed away our power by treating each other and our children badly. When over 70 % of your population has PTSD, it's a wonder that anything still works at all...
Hope is 100% reasonable is you stop believing the fear mongers. We've been wrong over and over and over about climate. The models are spotty at best. The fear mongering is to divert capital, much of it our taxes, to their corporate cronies. A little secret about C02. It makes plants thrive. Double the C02, double the yield, and double the oxygen production. As a bonus bonus, plants can thrive at higher temps with more CO2. It's almost as if the earth is self correcting. Even without that tidbid, the margin of error on the data is greater than the catastrophic results they predict! The goals of climate change activists are admirable, their solutions are not.
It's nothing to do with convincing. What it comes down to is, will you stop driving your car and take public transport? Most people will not, and many will actually get aggressive when confronted on this, and will then turn to denialism. We need to all make personal sacrifices in the short to medium term, to get climate stability and wait for technology to sustainably give us back what we've given up. There is this whole woke idea that the carbon footprint is an evil invention of the fossil fuel companies; it isn't evil; you're the one burning the oil, so stop burning it.
Most people are like, "it's the factories and big corpos not me", ignoring that those corporations produce for average people mostly. Half the people fall for the lies that it other people who pollute the world, but not themself. Mind boggling.
What a propaganda piece. In 5 min she spit some rational information and between put some bollocks. It's hard to finish watching. I heard nothing about restructuring our cities to be less power hungry, less heat storing. Nothing about that sun and wind are not constant which demands dynamic balancing of the lack of energy generation at a constant level of network load. Big talk for children to indoctrinate further audience. Just waste of energy and time. Maybe she should talk how much she and producing crew wasted energy to produce this pamphlet. Fast forward to the end of film and i saw only npc talking about WEF propaganda.
Even thinking about climate change is a sign of privilege, education, free access to information, time to ponder, access to tech, etc. The poorest, most disenfranchised people are concerned with day to day survival & global warming doesn’t come up much. The pressing issues of food, housing, safety are what occupy the poor. They still want a BMW someday tho. Then a whole other slice of humanity just willfully disregards or politicizes the issue, despite being in the know & having the BMW. The rest of us are gonna offset the unbelievers, ignorant, compensated & uncaring portions of humanity? Sheesh, sounds a LOT like another hot button, polarizing & intractable social issue we have here in the US.. 😅
The rural community, in the US & elsewhere tend to take their ownership with out much concern for community, and the consequences of their land use in environmental and climate related matters. It makes the efforts to coordinate water management, slow deforestation for instance etc. quite difficult with this political polarization.
I guess you grow and / or raise your own food... of course not.. if you did, you might actually understand other peoples perspectives instead of insulting people you don't even know.
Interesting perspective. And a large blanket statement. I’m curious how you formed that opinion. My experience living in a rural area is that the people care deeply about their land use and impacts on that land. Many have conservation easements on their properties preventing subdivision in the future, work with foresters to ensure the health of the wooded portions of their land, are very concerned with any erosion issues as good quality top soil is very important and is a significant expense to build or repair if lost, several personal friends have their land willed to conservation organizations since no family want to continue to farm it (if the land is a farm) - one friends property isn’t a farm, just a large property, but surviving family has moved away and doesn’t want to be bothered with it in the future, all mentioned are concerned with water run off and water retention. But that land is in private ownership. Land held by large companies for corp agriculture I have not seen much commitment or environmental concern.
I live in a modest 1000 square foot home. I used to take transit and I have a hybrid car. I didnt take extravagant vacations or fly a lot. For YEARS i lived modestly not to save the planet , but because I had to live frugally. Part of that is ridiculous tax burden Canadians in the middle class pay. Part of that was circumstance. But when I see rich and powerful elites flying everywhere and lecturing me on the 15 minute city, then I call a lot of this into question. I question it when China and India, with close to a third of the planet's population are given no restrictions on growth. When China is building coal fired plants with no push back. One can argue about climate change and its causes. We are awful arrogant to pretend it is all us doing this when the Earth has had many dramatic climate swings. No, Question the true motives of governments and the elites pushing a lot of these measures when 90% is just taxing me more to live and there is no clear evidence Canada's CO2 targets are being met (My PM has zero problem flying all over the country and world at every opportunity for the silliest of pretences)
My state is actually doing pretty okay. They’re converting coal, but we don’t use much wind as we should. My state is one of the best places in the U.S for wind, and it could be done on grazing land. My state uses mostly biomass, but I think it’s mostly methane and waste, which is probably a grey area. I think burning methane actually reduces the global warming potential.
Nuclear power is clearly the best way forward. Especially because forget to mention that the mining aspect of the materials needed for solar and batteries is coupled with actual slavery in mines in places like Congo. Please read the book or the summary of Cobalt Red.
See my reply to an earlier comment, above. We can't built nukes fast enough, even if, in the future, they may well be the best possible energy source. And you're unfortunately conflating various unrelated news items: solar PV modules---the least expensive and most installed source of power on the U.S. grid for several years now---do NOT rely on rare materials. They're mostly made of aluminum (frames), silicon (cells), and conductors like copper and aluminum, maybe some silver. Battery technology is evolving so rapidly that who knows what will be most in demand in a few years? Tesla has already started making batteries without cobalt (there was such a hue and cry about it in recent years), and Apple has committed to use only recycled cobalt starting in 2025. Cobalt, once the darling for cathode construction, is being supplanted in manufacture. But anyway, it's a problem of TIMING. We can't "nuke" our way out of this, though we can and should rely on nuclear down the line.
@@bengorman5214thanks for taking the time to get back to me with a reply. However I think you focus too much on what companies plan to do in the future vs what is happening today. The big problem you seem to forget is two fold. 1) The mining of silver, copper and silicon needed for the whole world to run off of solar (not the panels itself, but the mining of the materials is not scalable to the size we need). 2) Even still, one of the biggest problems we have today is not the generation of solar power but storing & distribution for which you need better grids and say it with me: batteries. Great that some companies are reducing their need for cobalt, but this barely a dent in overall global needs. Nuclear is and remains the clear winner: given circumstances.
@@Domingos688 Again: timing. You use the mature resources & technologies that you already have to bridge the gap to what you ultimately need. We (certainly in the West) cannot build out the fleet of nuclear that we would need in time to avert the worst case warming scenarios. We CAN, however, build solar AND STORAGE BATTERIES very rapidly, almost immediately, to meet the need of present generation shortfalls, in developing & developed countries alike. Look how fast India & China are installing PV now. (Granted, they’re both building coal-fired power at a scary clip too, but that merely demonstrates the urgent need for power for their rapidly changing demographics). Do you actually believe we can expand nuclear anywhere near that rate? I don’t think even authoritarian China could manage that!
@@bengorman5214my friend, first and foremost let me say that I love this conversation where we actually are trying to (hopefully) understand each other. Second, we don’t disagree that solar and batteries are not a possible option for current energy demands and needs, as is nuclear. The reactors they built current day are much smaller, cheaper and faster to create so yes they are a viable option. Moreover lik I said in my previous comment: the global south is being too much exploited for resources to drive this big green revolution of solar and batteries. Granted you need some of their resources for nuclear as well, but much less. So it is not a matter of just can we use solar instead of nuclear, but what requires the least amount of resources especially taken into account how and where it’s mined.
How does Carbon making only 0.45% of the Atmosphere create this huge Climate Disruption? Also, why does IPCC exclude the impact of the Sun from its Data?
First, accurate measurements of temperature are extremely difficult to obtain, especially when those taking the measurements have no incentives to provide accurate results. Second, averages mean very little. Third, other factors are typically ignored, like variations of the solar constant. Also, there is a need for oversight and accountability. Allowing those who monetarily gain from policies should not be the ones making the decisions. Instead, the average person suffers to enrich others. Finally, climate change is nothing new. It is ongoing, and should be treated in a considered manner rather than in panic mode.
1% of the worlds land in solar today is gigantic. Not only do you need to upkeep that like crazy but it doesn’t account for our ever growing need for energy. So what is 1% today might not be 1% tomorrow. Hence why it would never work on its own and isn’t indefinitely scaleable
How would you like her to back this up? This is research. That is how it looks. How many studies do you think she incorporates in her numbers? Have you been on her website? No? Huh. Oh well, we can all wait for Jesus to come back down from heaven and verify….
So disappointing to see the oversimplified villification of meat production. Organic meat production in countries suited to catle farming is one of the most sustainable and climate friendly ways to feed a population. Cattle are amazing at turning grass into high quality protein with the full suite of amino acids, and with a short closed cycle of emissions (meaning no locked in carbon is released). Grain fed cattle on huge ranches cleared of flora are the actual villain, but to dismiss all meat production is like dismissing organic vegetable farming as evil because Mexican avocado production fuels the drug cartels, or being the same as huge industrial almond farms using vast quantities of water and poisoning the water table with pesticides.
I’ll never understand why anyone would think getting rid of meat is a good idea . If everyone ate plant based it seems unsustainable not to mention if something happened to crops on large scale because of weather events etc.. I mean I believe in the benefits of fasting but after a certain number of days people will be wishing for a nice juicy steak or a chicken 😂.
@@ElMatador386 errr, what do you think the animals you want to eat are fed with? If crops fail…the livestock won’t eat…I still eat meat but I try to limit. And diversify my diet.
While EVs sit rotting in US lots because the government made a big push for EVs when the infrastructure was far from ready. Also, trucks and SUVs need more like 3-5 years of driving to overcome the carbon footprint of production. Can we also talk about the excess wear to our roads with vastly heavier EVs? And when your electricity grid is dirty?
US is one of the largest polluter due to the fact not that you dont want or have EV's. It's because your cars are big, heavy and consume too much fossil fuels. How can one car consume 25 liters of gassoline? LOL like seriously.
On concrete you didn’t mention the company Silica-X or the recent breakthroughs in understanding Roman concrete. It may be used in roads, seawalls and to store nuclear waste and would last much longer than what we currently use.
Agreed!!!! we are sending 100s of BILLIONS of dollars to China to study pollution and 4 Trillion dollars all together every year until the year 2050... Is this practical? Joe Biden said this is why INFLATION will go up but don't worry folks it will go back down. Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla vehicles knows this is not practical. He could profit VERY WELL if he went along with this because EVERYONE would have to buy electrics vehicles. Elon Musk knows we cannot switch this fast and spend this much money because this is why inflation has gone up and will continue to. We do need to take CO2 emissions seriously but this is not sustainable. Many economist professionals feel this way
You didn’t take into account that the lifespan of an EV is so much worse than those which are combustion driven. If you need a new battery after five years you can’t calculate with ten or even more years🤔
A new EV comes with a battery warranty of at least seven years. The channel autotrader has several videos of a Tesla with 430,000 miles on the clock and 72% left on the battery.
