He is right. Changes in the market are the only thing that actually changed the world. You can prohibit things by law but if people are still willing to pay for it, then it won't really matter.
Both of them are so annoying. She asks stupid questions and he banters. The basic answer should be that they use foreign technology to make GAS and we need to spread awareness to make money. That's it, none of this 5 minute dribble.
Ok, sorry to cause such a buzz. First off I would like to say that over 80% of our greenhouse gases are water vapor, as opposed to 26% of our greenhouse gases are CO2. And methane is a mere 4 to 9%. This means that trying to affect the amount of CO2 emissions and methane emissions will only fractionally affect the global temperature. As many of you have stated, are water cycle is obviously natural. Meaning that over 80% of them greenhouse gases are natural. Also The idea that water vapor is significantly affected by the amount of CO2 doesn't make sense, That's like saying if we somehow prevent water vapor as much as we can it will lower the amount of CO2, preventing something only prevents as much as you can prevent it specifically. Naturally it will affect other things like CO2 but not as efficiently as it would be to directly prevent CO2.
Solution is to disgorge profits from investors in businesses that accelerate climate change and compensate those who've suffered most from climate change for no fault of theirs
I understand incentives and Powerful but it's just like Americans can't be bothered to do the right thing unless there's a profit motive I think that's going to kill our country in the long run
@Thomas Headley personally I just think this does damage to confidence in the free markets and capitalism and after a while people aren't going to listen to folks doing well financially about what should happen people are going to take action because they are in pain or ignorant of economics unfortunately the rich in this country do want to continue the status quo and that's a small amount of people on a most of the well I don't know how sustainable that is
Money makes the world go ‘round. So we have to figure out a way to make money off of helping the world go ‘round. This man knows how to MAKE money. Most humans only know how to take money.
@@garysarela4431 Define clean energy. Wind and solar energy is creating more problems than it's solving. They are both low energy density sources that require massive amounts of inefficient use of resources to collect energy. Then there's the problem of storing the energy and the fact that the energy sources they collect only are available 10-40% of the year. The understanding that these energy sources are unreliable, inefficient, and not sustainable has been realized. High density energy is the future. Trash is clean energy 🤯.
@@yourtube540 Fuel from rubbish is a great idea, but the video was very brief on details. Anyway, fuel from rubbish will not replace all of the worlds energy needs so where is the rest coming from? Fossil fuels must be replaced with clean energy. That means hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, wave, nuclear. A combination of all of these will be needed in the future.
It will never be profitable because making a systemic or social problem needs based is not profitable. It’s like saying let’s provide public transportation for everyone. That’s something we need and could make our lives better. Will it ever happen? No because the profit motive in capitalism doesn’t regard providing for human need, it only does so when there happens to be an intersection of greed and need. Also why the film industry produces so many garbage movies. Because the profit motive ruins art. We would have many many more good movies if they were publicly funded and well publicly funded. Instead we have 20 people who own more wealth than thd bottom half of humanity and people think it’s normal. You fools wake up captialism is a disease
My Idea to capture or retain water when it rains. My idea is the inflateable plastic water reservoir lake that inflates large enough for the USA CITIES water supply. Be placed where it rains alot like the dysart or mountain anywhere the rain pours dwn alot. When it reachs full you close the top electronic or remote. Let me have some profit please. @ JESUS COUNTRY USA
Climate change and profitability should not be in the same statement, the survival of the human species is at stake. Why everything has to be based on profitability if we want to make it work, we already monetizing on clean water to people, what is next clean air monetization?
It's good to be able to recycle waste but businesses and customers should focus on creating less waste to begin with. Also, this process must still produce toxic by-waste?
A significant step we could take, that is feasible, costs nothing, would have a huge impact and can start immediately is working from home - if possible. 7.7 billion people on the planet. If you can get 1 billion to work remotely, you don't have to be a scientist to see the impact on emissions, even for people using mass transit, which still pollutes.
Many (and I mean a lot) of jobs can't be done from home. I don't thin 1 billion would be a realistic number, plus it's no garanty that those people working from home won't go out at all during the day.
In other breaking news: Water is Wet! Omg, what a breakthrough. This guy is a visionary. Why is it when a rich dude repeats what scientists have been saying then all of a sudden people start to listen?
What does the option without debt actually mean? Equity providers surely won't be able to take full exposure to the risk of the firms success, or am I missing something here?
This is why environmental incentives will take forever to happen- because people will argue the money side vs the actual life degression that impacts our race of people & the animals/planet itself.
I do hope that this man can figure out something to drastically improve the enviroment. We need to do something ASAP. Time really is the thing that we're lacking. We can't go around arguing and debating things like this. We need to get things done.
Yeah I just dont think developing countries are going to go for this as opposed to dumping in the ocean. Why would they when its cheaper to do that and already developed nations are doing the leg work on the climate change? Developing nations have little incentive for this imo
Developing countries have a huge incentive. They can extract biofuel from the trash they make which in turn they won't have to import as much oil. The trash can also be turned into more plastics, which since is now an endless cycle wont have to import oil for making more plastics. I see this as an absolute win on everyone's side. No need for oil no more once we start juicing our trash
Just clarify the people that meat and dairy is unhealthy and unnecessary for you. The demand will decrease and less CO2 emissions will happen. For anyone wondering what I am talking about, the agriculture uses 1/3 of the habitable land and has higher CO2 emissions than all airplanes, cars, trucks, boats COMBINED
Yeah definitely. We need to both be more sustainable as individuals and as corporations. The corporations bear the brunt of the responsibility though as they produce the vast majority of waste
