Note - I do make a mistake saying a 1.8% increase in CO2 leads to 1.5% decrease crop yield. It's actually a 1C increase leads to a 3-8% reduction in crop yield from 1980-2008 (same reference). Rather we'll still see around 1.8% increases in global crop growth driven by technology but that's significantly dampend by climate change which leads to higher prices. References: 1. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Which countries have put a price on carbon? Our World in Data (2024). 2. Metcalf, G. E. & Stock, J. H. Measuring the Macroeconomic Impact of Carbon Taxes. AEA Papers and Proceedings 110, 101-106 (2020). 3. European power price tracker. Ember ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/europe-power-prices/. 4. Consumer Energy Prices in Europe. Qery qery.no/consumer-energy-prices-in-europe/ (2024). 5. What German households pay for electricity. Clean Energy Wire www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-electricity (2022). 6. Renewable energy. www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/renewable-energy (2023). 7. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022. www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Aug/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2022. 8. Electricity market reform aims to ensure affordable prices for European citizens. Electricity market reform aims to ensure affordable prices for European citizens spanish-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/news/electricity-market-reform-aims-ensure-affordable-prices-european-citizens/ (2023). 9. Spain on a clean power roll as wind output swells | Reuters. www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/spain-clean-power-roll-wind-output-swells-2024-02-07/. 10. Ritchie, H., Roser, M. & Rosado, P. CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data (2020). 11. Chapter 9: Africa. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-9/. 12. Dellink, R., Lanzi, E. & Chateau, J. The Sectoral and Regional Economic Consequences of Climate Change to 2060. Environmental and Resource Economics 72, (2019). 13. 2023 Levelized Cost Of Energy+. www.lazard.com www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/. 14. Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON CROP YIELDS: THE IMPORTANCE OF NONLINEAR TEMPERATURE EFFECTS. www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13799/w13799.pdf (2008). 15. Lobell, D. B. & Gourdji, S. M. The Influence of Climate Change on Global Crop Productivity. Plant Physiology 160, 1686-1697 (2012). 16. Economists’ Statement | Climate Leadership Council. clcouncil.org/economists-statement/. 17. harrisson, thomas. Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? Carbon Brief www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ (2017). 18. Nordhaus, W. D. To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of The Greenhouse Effect. The Economic Journal 101, 920 (1991). 19. Barrage, L. & Nordhaus, W. POLICIES, PROJECTIONS, AND THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON: RESULTS FROM THE DICE-2023 MODEL. (2023). 20. Howard, P. H. & Sterner, T. Few and Not So Far Between: A Meta-analysis of Climate Damage Estimates. Environ Resource Econ 68, 197-225 (2017). 21. Brandl, P., Bui, M., Hallett, J. P. & Mac Dowell, N. Beyond 90% capture: Possible, but at what cost? International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 105, 103239 (2021). 22. Global GDP over the long run. Our World in Data ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run. 23. 2023 confirmed as world’s hottest year on record. (2024). 24. Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide. science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/. 25. Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C., Garcia-Gorriz, E. & Liang, X. S. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). 26. Change, N. G. C. Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature?intent=121. 27. Canadian writer Mark Steyn ordered to pay climate scientist $1M US after defamation trial. CBC News (2024). 28. admin. Who invented the thermometer? Brannan www.brannan.co.uk/who-invented-the-thermometer/ (2021). 29. curryja. A buoy-only sea surface temperature record. Climate Etc. judithcurry.com/2015/11/22/a-buoy-only-sea-surface-temperature-record/ (2015). 30. harrisson, thomas. Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998. Carbon Brief www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998/ (2017). 31. Chapter 5: Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-5/. 32. Vilà, M. et al. Understanding the combined impacts of weeds and climate change on crops. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034043 (2021). 33. World Bank Open to Support Mozambican Gas to Spur Energy Access. Bloomberg.com (2023). 34. Aghahosseini, A., Bogdanov, D., Barbosa, L. S. N. S. & Breyer, C. Analysing the feasibility of powering the Americas with renewable energy and inter-regional grid interconnections by 2030. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 105, 187-205 (2019). 35. Steinke, F., Wolfrum, P. & Hoffmann, C. Grid vs. storage in a 100% renewable Europe. Renewable Energy 50, 826-832 (2013). 36. House, T. W. Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal. The White House www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/ (2021). 37. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 - Analysis. IEA www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020. 38. Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? Our World in Data (2023). 39. Eldardiry, H. & Habib, E. Carbon capture and sequestration in power generation: review of impacts and opportunities for water sustainability. Energy, Sustainability and Society 8, 6 (2018). 40. Insights, F. B. Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Market Size [2023-2030] worth USD 14.89 Billion, Globally, by 2030 at 21.6% CAGR | Industry Trends, Growth, Share, Manufacturers, Demand, Revenue, And Forecast Analysis. GlobeNewswire News Room www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/09/18/2744752/0/en/Lithium-ion-Battery-Recycling-Market-Size-2023-2030-worth-USD-14-89-Billion-Globally-by-2030-at-21-6-CAGR-Industry-Trends-Growth-Share-Manufacturers-Demand-Revenue-And-Forecast-Ana.html (2023). 41. Minerals used in clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources - Charts - Data & Statistics. IEA www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/minerals-used-in-clean-energy-technologies-compared-to-other-power-generation-sources 42. A Caldera in Nevada Now Has the Most Lithium in the World. Let the Gold Rush Begin. Popular Mechanics www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a45086253/worlds-largest-lithium-deposit-found-in-nevada/ (2023). 43. Canada, N. R. Photovoltaic potential and solar resource maps of Canada. natural-resources.canada.ca/energy/energy-sources-distribution/renewables/solar-photovoltaic-energy/tools-solar-photovoltaic-energy/photovoltaic-and-solar-resource-maps/18366 (2016). 44. California regulators extend the life of aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant another 5 years as Gavin Newsom says it’s needed to prevent blackouts. Fortune fortune.com/2023/12/15/california-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plan-extend-operations-2030/. 45. A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book. Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/. 46. White, C. Environmentalist accused of scientific dishonesty. BMJ 326, 120 (2003). 47. Chou, M.-D., Lindzen, R. S. & Hou, A. Y. Comments on “The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?” J. Climate 15, 2713-2715 (2002). 48. Richard Lindzen. DeSmog www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/. 49. Weather Insider: Why the Discredited Cloud Theory of Global Warming Won’t Die | Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/idUS4286044821/.
@@reweiv strange. This is the actual reference. www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/minerals-used-in-clean-energy-technologies-compared-to-other-power-generation-sources
You can't be serious? It would take volumes to show how you cherry picked the internet (which leads me to believe you are a bot), to support the "Climate Crisis" scam, I'm not going to do that in the comments. Once again....... debate me! There has not been a 1°C rise in temperature since 1980, and there has not been a 3-8% reduction in crop yields, crop yields have increased since 1980 year by year. Food production may be in part driven by technological advances, but those advances are null and void without more CO2. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you are an engineer. An educated person with a background in science, wouldn't have posted what you did. Once again, prove me wrong and give specific sources. You know as well as I do, that this video hosting platform will not let me post comments with out side links that challenge the "Climate Crisis" scam, but I'm still willing to try to have a debate. CO2 is good, wind farms and solar panels are bad, depriving developing countries of cheap fuel condemns them to endless poverty and disease as the burn dung and hazardous materials to heat, cook, and have light. You can't really be an educated person. All of this was recorded :)
As a German, I want to clarify a few things that I find very misrepresented in this discussion by Peterson (and Destiny): To summarize 1) Shutting down nuclear power plants in Germany was not a decision by the radical left or radical greens 2) Shutting down nuclear barely affected the electricity costs in Germany in 2023 (5x cheaper claim is absolutely ridiculous) 3) Germany does not NEED foreign electricity (it can produce all its needs) but choses to because of pricing. And renewable energy is the winner here. 4) The net important from France in 2023 was 0,4 TwH whereas for Denmark (78% renewable) and Norway (110% renewable) it was over 15 TwH, which is more than the overall net import (12,6 TwH). So no, Germany is not reliant on France's nuclear power, but takes advantage of cheap renewable energy from the Scandinavian countries. 5) German CO2 emissions in 2023 were the lowest in 70 years. To be fair, it was in part due to a less active industrial sector, but still renewables helped. 6) In 2023, Germany lowered their use of coal and lignite significantly. A little in depth extra info: Regarding 1) The decision to slowly fade out nuclear power in Germany started in 2002, by the government that (back then for the first time) was a coalition of the 'green party' and the social democrats. This was by no means a radical government, but a reaction to a somewhat critical view of the technology because of its big drawbacks: the lack of a secure long term storage of nuclear waste and the potential disaster from a malfunction (as Germans first hand experienced with Tchernobyl). In 2010, the more conservative government decided to slow the process of phasing out nuclear and give more time to strengthen renewable energy first. In 2011, Fukushima happened and the parliament agreed unanimously to shut down 8 of it's old power plants more or less immediately. Until 2019 they shut down 3 more nuclear power plants. In 2023 only two remaining power plants were running and were ultimately shut down, having added only 6% to the total energy production in 2022 anyway. Leaving these old power plants running would have also meant considerable costs in maintenance and upgrading equipment. Regarding 2) It's already mentioned in the video, so I'll keep it short. Some people like to cite exploding gas prices, which did happen. This was due to the fact that Germany decided to not buy Russian gas and oil directly anymore. It was less a problem for electricity production, but a problem for households which are 71% reliant on gas and oil for heating as well as the industrial sector using gas a lot. More cheap energy from nuclear power plants would have only helped marginally in reducing the overall gas price, but not considerable. 3) The whole reason Germany imports electricity from Denmark and Norway is because it's cheaper (despite being renewable). Germany exported almost as much energy in 2023 as it imported. It's a price game like trading stocks. A higher amount of import just says which country has more affordable energy. 4) This is a interesting document: www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf It shows that the concept of building more and more renewable energy works in Europe and is economically competitive and even beneficial. 5) www.agora-energiewende.org/news-events/germanys-co2-emissions-drop-to-record-low-but-reveal-gaps-in-countrys-climate-policies#:~:text=Germany's%20CO%E2%82%82%20emissions%20fell%20to,prompted%20a%20drop%20in%20production. 6) www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/downloads/electricity_generation_germany_2023.pdf
@@halfgraincinematography I really appreciate the time you took the write this!! I'll be sure to provide more nuance when discussing Germany in any future videos. I guess the single retort I'd have is on total CO2 emissions it looks like German energy from coal and natural gas is around the same total as nuclear in 2000. So usually the argument posed is that it would was reduced emissions even more. However I understand that the plants were quite old. ember-climate.org/countries-and-regions/countries/germany/
@@DDDecarbon Thank you! I really appreciate you putting so much work into your video as well. Yes I totally agree that provided the power plants were in good shape, a disaster would be impossible and the german public would have supported having them running, it would be better to have them in the mix. One thought though: We never know when a disaster might happen and factoring the costs of those into the equation would make nuclear power basically uneconomical. That's one of the big gripes Germans started to have after Chernobyl. It became apparent that accidents CAN happen (eventually even in Japan, which has a reputation for being very professional and high quality in what they do) and that the costs then will be horrendous (roughly 200bn $ for Fukushima). The only way nuclear power plants can even run is because the government signs a contract, that they will cover 95% (or so, I'm not quite sure) of the costs associated with a disaster. Without this piece of paper, no private company would ever take the risk to have a nuclear power plant running an being responsible for an accident. That should make us all think a little, in my opinion.
Really liked the video. Suscribed ! Small note to contribute to the discussion: As an engineer I like to nuance the claim that Renewable energy are cheaper than fossile fuel. I understand the arguments, but I think people forget about infrastructure cost. for example solar panels are indeed producing energy at a cheaper rate than fossile fuel. But they produce 50% of the time. Therefore we need store energy in day for the night. This creates a energy storage problem which drastically increase the project cost.
I hope the irony of a dude who follows and promotes a carnivore diet virtue signalling about poor people starving due to carbon taxes isn't lost on anyone.
How are canadian conservatives radicalized... of course there are going to be the odd far right, but other than that, how are conservatives radicalized, all they want is a tax on energy to go away. I'm just curious
@@mutedmicrophonethe issue is that the tax just prices in the cost of damage. So what they want is to pollute for free. I don't think you should cause economic harm to others with compensation. A libertarian principle.
You didn't use enough large fancy sounding words to convince JP fans, you need to ameliorate your vocabulary sir. The pivots in popular anti-climate reality activists from the original "climate change isn't real" to "climate change isn't caused by people" to "climate change might not be bad" to "we can't measure climate things" makes me wonder what the next dissociation from reality will be.
Funny how you're attempting to correct psychologist on food prices. Also what you fail to understand is the price the carbon tax costs to bring that food to market. Yes you made a video about the cost peaches, running numbers. Meanwhile in the land of real time and reality.
I actually made two videos on it. The second being more comprehensive covering most types of food. My analysis was aligned with economists. I trust them much more than psychologists on knowing the economy. What reality are you talking about then?
@DDDecarbon real life and not one made up by analysis from economists. You seem to be a privileged, wealthy city dweller that doesn't have a grasp on how people are struggling.
@@SuperCody888 you have to provide evidence that the carbon tax is increasing these costs. All you've said is prices go up therefor carbon tax. Do you understand the error you're making? I am privileged to have access to things like transit and bike lanes. That's why the rural premium just increased from 10% to 20%. I also hate that people are struggling, we should do everything we can do reduce housing prices by building more to alleviate that concern. It's not one or the other. In fact the solutions to affordability are about progressing low carbon initiatives. Since renewable power is so cheap.
@@DDDecarbon As I m,mentioned in your previous videos. I live in BC where theres been a carbon tax since 2008. I see this directly on my monthly gas bill to heat my house, and at the pump to drive to work everyday. I have never seen any carbon rebate cheque in the mailbox. Ive asked friends if they have ever received a carbon tax rebate cheque in the mail and their answer is no as well. Not sure what you would considered proof of evidence that the carbon tax does increase costs. Its there, maybe you need to get out of data, and analyzing bubble and go talk to real everyday people. You keep pushing renewables solar and wind thats fine but what you fail to understand is that those will only do so much. Solar and wind will not be sufficient enough to power the trucking industry alone. Think about other industrys such as forestry, construction, and farming. There is no way that solar and wind could provide the necessary energy for those industries.
@@SuperCody888 if you don't like the way BC does it then call your MP and complain. This won't change regardless of the federal government. But the reason you don't get a rebate is cause you make too much money. So good on ya! When I say proof I mean you don't know how much inflation is related to the carbon tax. That's where studies come in. And across the board the carbon tax effect is tiny. Solar, wind and hydro can replace power systems. Other industries are harder to change hence why the tax increases over time. And there's different solutions to different problems. Carbon capture for steel and cement probably. Ammonia from green or pink hydrogen for transportation to name a few.
Your comments about the Carbon Tax in Canada is flawed, Freeland was just questioned about this and there is money from it that isn't going back to the people, atleast 10% or 2 billion dollars is unaccounted for and not being given back to people. Government is profiting off of the carbon tax.
This guy is a rich liberal snob who doesn't understand the average Canadian can't afford rent! Why would we care about climate change at a time like this?
What do you mean the "government is profiting"? The government isn't a for-profit institution, the money that it makes through taxes gets spent on things like infrastructure, social services and investments to correct for market anomalies. So even if it wasn't directly given back to the people, it would be spent in some way to help the population of the country. Now, we could argue about how the government is inefficient and could save a lot of money through decresing bureaucracy and streamlining processes, but that is a different discussion. Your comment implies that the politicians are pocketing the 2 Billion themselvse which is utterly ridiculous.
no, for example the EU electricity prices are heavily influenced by the Frankfurt exchange, so in the end the CZ (nuclear/coal) has to pay the same price + we subsidy their energy grid... dozens of points like that. Problematic video.
So you cherry picked data, and taken stuff out of context to support your bias leftists ideology. Who's the guy debating JP in this? Hes rather annoying as well. Side note interesting to see what his notebook looks like after this, he keeps scribbling in it through out the debate.
Can you specifically point out where I cherry picked or took something out of context? I tried to keep as much of JP and Destiny's comments as possible.
@@DDDecarbon For example, you say that solar + winds are arleady the cheapest sources of ENERGY. you surely know that industrial economy runs on 80 % heat/20 % of electricity and that most of USA/EU used to spend 5 % of GDP on oil, coal, uranium to run all of this. Show me how you can get on less than 5 % HDP - that means heat, electricity and STORAGE. I know you can't because spring 2024 offers to the german industry of bulk green hydrogen were 8× the cost of fossil fuel derived hydrogen!
Living in Germany here. USA did warned Germany on depending Russia for Energy. Most of my friends that don't have that much money suffered. They told me that they were scared of turning on the heater and were hanging around with jackets and blankets. They still got hit with a massive bill. You can put all the charts you want. Once you experience it, let's talk about it. USA lowered emissions without Tax. You hate freedom
Yeah, Germany should have never shut down nuclear or relied on Russia. That doesn't change how cheap renewables are. I don't hate freedom. In practice the carbon tax is libertarian as it works on the harm principle. And yeah it's amazing how the US has done it with a tax imagine how much more they could do with one
And the point of the German example wasn't to say there's no issues. Just that the issues can't be blamed on renewables. As I showed with my Spain example. In terms of freedom them imparting government regulations made their energy cheaper.
@@DDDecarbonJordan promotes nuclear as a good step toward a cleaner energy future. He mostly disparages certain greens orgs phobia of nuclear. Why cant we also use some natural gas, with carbon capture technologies? Surely there is a steady middle ground that wouldn't be as intense as the plans proposed by the "renewables only" crowd.
@@TheBigHugh In the video I show the economics. You could promote nuclear or natural gas, but renewables with storage and transmission will always be cheaper. This is the opposition parties plan in Canada and my video here shows why it's a more costly endeavor: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GoEmFlJF8j0.htmlsi=O--rP5AaPgCz_ZXq
@@DDDecarbonthis commenter is right. I live in South Australia, the state of Australia that took up and relied on renewables first, and we have had the highest power prices in the country for a decade. At times we have been a laughing stock during higher load periods experiencing many black outs and load shedding operations. We've consistently had to buy 'dirty' energy from other states to fill the gap. We also have a de-sal plant that to this day is not a popular nor economically efficient option in the public's view. I'm all about advancing energy tech (had solar panels for 12 years), however not at the expense of keeping the power on or paying through the teeth which is our experience here in SA. People that approach this issue with rose coloured glasses and a bunch of graphs in the face of the lived experience are as detrimental to real progress as the "deniers". If you insist that someone is paying less when their experience is paying more, then your argument is completely null, you need to be careful of that. I agree with a few of your points though like battery storage being essential to solar infrastructure. BTW, I distinctly remember a popular lefty/ hippie scientist named Dr Carl who was doing the media rounds proclaiming that solar would never work because it doesn't produce enough and that "the entire state of Victoria would need to be covered in solar panels" to reach the country's needs. I argued against this nonsense at the time (roughly around 2010) so I don't believe this issue was political, or a left/ right issue at the time. I despise the fact that it's become political and I automatically switch off if the framing turns political. A lot of the shift to renewables is happening now anyway and it's now just being used as a cudgel for moral grandstanding. I suggest that an emerging industrialisation of Africa, with at least 5 cities projected to reach 100 million in population by 2050, IS A CATASTROPHIC PROBLEM in terms of carbon emissions not to mention China's continued building of coal fired plants. The west is doing fine with renewables and will continue on that path with technology, Africa is a gigantic emerging problem.
If global net emissions were entirely ceased, the warming we’ve caused would gradually reverse but other climate-induced changes would continue for decades if not centuries. For example, sea level rise would probably take millennia to reverse its course
I have a question is wind and solar viable? Let's start with Ontario now just its location....so windy days and calm days then average hours of sunshine in Ontario south and north... Tell me where you getting your information?
Models do have problems because that is a definition of model it is not perfectly accurate...but argue that they are close enough to change human behavior and clean the air
Solar and wind is great, but like I said here and in my other videos you need transmission. For Ontario I'd start here: www.ieso.ca/localContent/map/default.htm But honestly the Canadian data is hard to get any finer than monthly. Alberta does it pretty well though.www.aeso.ca/grid/grid-planning/forecasting/wind-and-solar-power-forecasting/
@@ardentenquirer8573 the other 10% is meant to be utilized for renewable energy development. There's an argument to be made that giving less back would make us decarbonize faster
There's a lot of info to get through. And I tried to line it up with their speaking. So when JP said something wrong the relevant chart would be up. Just give it a pause if ya like. Sorry for the inconvenience though.
Thanks for this debunk! I watched this debate and my eyes were literally rolling over for the amount of times JP said something wrong about renewables and the accuracy of climate models. How'd you do the fairly accurate prediction for global gdp btw? And if you can, could you explain how climate economists predict economic costs of climate change?
I literally used a power curve from 1920 to 1980 to predict all the other points. As I said, it did it in 5 mins, I'm pretty sure economists are capable of a bit more. The economic question warrants a whole video. But there's a bunch of different ways. I'd say nordhaus does a good start point of what's directly affected. Like forestry. Then you get knowns like if food production is harder how much will tech cost, how much does desalination cost. Social costs get more hairy cause it's like what's the value of you being able to Hunt deer or if your parks dry up. High level view but basically that. So there's certainly error but it's more than zero and I'd use Nordhaus as the minimum.
“German wholesale energy prices are in line with the rest of Europe” that’s not surprising considering Germany imports 68% of its energy. and literally doesn’t conflict with what JP said. JP said their energy costs would be less if they kept their nuclear energy. Which you agreed with so, how could “basically everything jordans said about German energy” be wrong? Also, Germany is only close to 50% renewable because the eu recently reclassified natural gas and nuclear to be considered renewable, Germany imports a significant amount of nuclear energy from France, and if you exclude natural gas only 20% of germanys energy is renewable. You should really write a course about how to lie with statistics. It if utterly inarguable that Germany would have less carbon emissions and cheaper energy (particularly on the individual citizens bill) if they kept their nuclear power. Which is what Jp was talking about.
Basically everything is not the same as everything. If you finished the video I say that Germany was stupid to shut down nuclear. What stats am I lying about? Jordan said energy is higher cause of renewables. I showed Spain has high renewables and low cost. That's the crux of the claim.
the lie is that everything Jordan said about Germany energy is wrong, literally directly after you agreed with what he said and your agreeing with it here: that Germany moving away from Nuclear was bad both economically and in terms of co2 emissions. So how could Jp be wrong about Germany abandoning nuclear being bad for co2, but also you agree that it was bad for co2? Just because it’s still going down doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be lower. As for Spain, Spain gets a lot of its energy from nuclear (which is considered renewable now) and wind, I haven’t done any research but it seams like Spain might be a sort of ideal country for wind power, not all countries can replicate that based on geography but I could be wrong about that.
@@BeyondTilted sure so we're in agreement. Germany moving from nuclear is wrong but renewables aren't to blame. JP put emphasis on renewables being to blame, 5x the price cause of renewables. Sorry I said basically everything. But the issues with Germany is bad policy not what JP stated..... You seem to be being pedantic on one term I used. When overall JP is incorrect. I explain the nuclear position later in the vid.....
@@DDDecarbon ah I see. I think you may not have realized the contraction of saying that Germany actually has cheap energy while also saying that renewables are cheaper, Germany gets 50% of its energy from coal and oil and 25% through natural gas. So if their energy is cheap it’s not because of renewables. I think you were conflating Jp’s critique of Germany with his critique of renewables as a whole. I wont argue against the claim that renewables are great for developed countries switching to them, but the question is can developing countries in Africa implement renewables as easily as they can fossile fuels? JP argued that countries couldn’t get loans from the world bank for non renewables, In your citation of 33 you show an example of Mozambique getting a loan for natural gas. Natural gas is now considered a renewable source. So your citation doesn’t disprove the claim. I feel like you are needlessly opposed to Jp for tribal reasons and looking to argue against everything he says and not fully understanding what he’s arguing. When he argues that carbon tax will hurt the poor he means the global poor not the poor of Canada or Germany, (carbon tax hurts the middle class not the poor) If countries switch to renewables and it causes them to buy less oil from places like Nigeria that will hurt the Nigerian economy if consumers can’t buy goods from countries because of a tax, that hurts the economy of those countries.
@@BeyondTilted I've literally never heard anyone call natural gas renewable. You will need to provide a reference for that cause the references I showed only included wind, solar and hydro. I'm not opposed to JP for tribal reasons. He just gets almost everything wrong. I'm for nuclear if it's already built but new nuclear is too expensive compared to new renewables. I understand you have a problem with some of the words I used. But to overall claims JP made are just wrong. I think you're giving him way too much benefit of the doubt where you'd probably argue I'm not giving enough. But if you don't harm on pedantic terms I use I hope you can see the overall claim I make is directly contradictory to the claims JP makes. Again the nat gas claim you are making is new to me. So I'm going to need some evidence.
Yep, incredibly, the "Climate Crisis" Comments by me have been deleted. There is no such thing as "green energy" ...... why have my comments disappeared?
Texas lost dozens of hectares of solar in one storm. If they did not have fossil fuels they would have been without energy altogether for months or even years. Where does that leave those who were dependant on those solar panels for water, heating, and cooling? This is without mention of hospitals that might be dependant on consistent energy distribution to keep people alive.
This is such a silly argument. No one suggests countries should just switch to renewables, shut down all the rest and just so be able to provide the energy needed, so that whenever something unforeseen happens, people are without electricity. A slow shift to more and more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy is absolutely possible without ever risking to be out of power. This is a no brainer. There is also a world-wide net of important and export if electricity. Obviously hand in hand with more renewable energy there needs to be energy storage as well and no one has a problem with hospitals having backup generators. Sometimes I wonder where the solar and wind technology could be if all the oil lobby money (71 billion since 1998, again this is ONLY lobby money) had been used to research and develop new technologies instead of simply trying to spread doubt and advertise the oil industry.
This is a misunderstanding of direct and indirect effects. You gain biomass from increase CO2 sure. But the extra heat causes more damage. So net result is negative. I'll have a video about it out later this month.
Last week 10,000 acres of solar panels were destroyed in a hail storm in Fort Bend Texas, cleanup has not even began, now we have cadmium and lead leaching into the water table, plus millions to replace the failed experiment, if it is replaced? As a side note, the local LNG power plant was unaffected by the hail.
@@reweiv Well it's clear you know little about solar farms, or solar panels. Solar panels do not operate at almost 100% efficiency when damaged even if the photovoltaic cells aren't destroyed. Cracks in the acrylic or glass allows water in and it fries the circuitry, in addition, damaged coverings distort light reaching the PV cells, decreasing efficiency. Take two panels out of a panel row on a solar farm, and that row gets shut down, that's why you see maintenance trucks continuously running between them You also took a news story about just one solar farm of 3,300 acres and applied it to the entire area, more than one solar farm got hit by hail. Your next claim is absolutely laughable.... "probably no chemicals leaked" you don't seem to understand how toxic materials leach into the ground water, it doesn't happen overnight. I drove through the area three days ago, they've not even began to cart away the destroyed panels before trying to put new ones up..... but hey...... money before people. By the way the solar panels will never be recycled. The PV cells can't be recycled, the most you can get out of a panel if the aluminum housing and fasteners.... that's it.
Would you like to compare the environmental impact of a solar field being damaged to an oil spill? Or from belching out coal? Or are we here just to kvetch
@@marktaylor526 Oil is biodegradable, coal belching out helps bring up the CO2 level, which we need. There is a natural oil seep less than twenty miles from Leonardo DiCaprio's in Southern California which releases the equivalent of the Valdez spill every three months. Cadmium, lead, and other toxic materials from solar panel debris, leach into the ground water for decades. "kvetch" ....... I'll bet you spent an entire semester looking that one up, and got full credits🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dungeons Deadlifts and decarbonization- I sent you links backing up what I posted, you said that you see all of my comments..... then post the links I sent, back to me.
@@marktaylor526 Why should I have to send the links on another social media platform? Why don't they show up here? Let me guess..... you're vaccinated :)
Lol you want to be debated on whether Destiny got humiliated in this debate or not? No he didn't. Also if you want a debate explain your stance first, else there is nothing to debate.
@@MsRuell LOL, this idiot , destiny, has been humiliated, on facts, there have been no increases in tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires floods droughts, sea ice melting, ice sheet melting........ You are losing purple haired climate alarmists. You can look at your mercury thermometers , the heat is going down. No, food production is not going down, it is going up.... folks, someone with purple hair will never be able to provide you answers for anything.
2023 was not the hottest year on record. It was not the hottest in Japan, France, Germany, South Africa, the Arctic, the Antarctic........ where was it the hottest?
Not sure where you're getting that from. But global temperature is an aggregate so some countries may have had their 2nd or 3rd hottest years. But 77 had their hottest since 1850. berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2023/ Germany and Japan are on that list. yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/01/2023-was-earths-hottest-year-on-record/ If you have a different reference I'd love to see it. PS: I didn't delete any of your comments.
@@DDDecarbon Yep, once again, my response was deleted. They've lied to you kid, and you've bought it hook, line, and sinker, without questioning anything.
