Usage of fossil fuels has helped billions of people around the world. More state-interventionist countries like USSR and China have also polluted a lot alongside capitalist economies. Pollution and climate change is not something that is just apart of capitalism, it is part of all economic systems as a whole.
@@ecnalms851 that might be true but not entirely .. i think it's the sudden shift of the structure of economy that inevitably causes damages.. like the rapid massive industrialization of the early soviet union .. early soviet industry like any early industry was exactly like the "dark satanic mills of manchester" ... but then capitalism is *constant shift* of the structure of the economy caused by the falling of the rate of profit ..
He could live in a communist country where he cannot criticize what the government is doing instead, surely would be better. For people that love to criticize governments, you also seem to love systems where you'd lose that ability.
The behavioural changes figure form the IEA is a mischaracterisation, since it uses a very narrow definition, mainly related to change in mode of transportantion and a very very narrow reduction of consumption especially planes. It is very clearly not stated as a achievable maximum, nor the optimum, only a potential Net Zero Emissions scenario (one that is, on the other hand, very techno-positive, precisely one aspect you yourself criticise). But on the same paragraph, they state 55% of the total reduction has to come from individual consumer choices (which is part of what many of us would consider behavioural change too): "We estimate that around 55% of the cumulative emissions reductions in the pathway are linked to consumer choices such as purchasing an EV, retrofitting a house with energy‐ efficient technologies or installing a heat pump. Behavioural changes, particularly in advanced economies - such as replacing car trips with walking, cycling or public transport, or foregoing a long‐haul flight - also provide around 4% of the cumulative emissions reductions." In fact, if you go to page 67 (section 2.5.2 Behavioural change), they clearly define what they take into account for that: "In the NZE, behavioural change refers to changes in ongoing or repeated behaviour on the part of consumers which impact energy service demand or the energy intensity of an energy‐related activity (This means, for example, that purchasing an electric heat pump instead of a gas boiler is not considered as a behavioural change, as it is both an infrequent event and does not necessarily impact energy service demand)". And later they state the very narrow measures they take into account: 1) Reducing excessive or wasteful energy use (lower thermostats, driving slower, switching off the light), 2) Transport mode switching (cycling and HSR when possible, but TBF, I doubt they were very ambitious in here either) and 3) Materials efficiency gains (more recycling and less single-use plastics). SO BASICALLY PEAK NEOLIBERAL BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES. They purposedly omit true consequential behavioural changes, such as going vegan, foregoing completely car dependency (which they consider consumer choice), buying LESS shit that we don't need (less clothes, less unhealthy food, less objects, less everything). So basically, they ignore degrowth. Their data is interesting, but with a massive cup of salt. So yeah, not sure it proves your point. It is clearly important both to push for individual responsibility AND corporate/systemic change.
Thank you for an excellent analysis 💯 Global warming is a symptom, since CO2 also acidify oceans and soils. Ocean acidification is as dangerous for life on Earth. Ocean acidification has been dubbed 'The Evil twin of climate change". If your body (mostly water btw) had acidify as much as the oceans, you'd be in an intensive care unit, or worse... Yes, warming also affects the oceans a lot as they absorb 93,4% of the warming. But, the oceans also adsorb 25%-30% of our CO2 emissions, which is the direct cause of ocean acidification.
30:57 when some RU-vid channels say, donate to so & so organization that makes your life carbon neutral by funding carbon negative projects(like a peatland in Germany or something), the donations will go to making rich country much better, but obviously at more expense to some poor country... I think you should look into entropy in economics and other thermodynamic concepts applied to economics concepts..
When the permafrost started to melt is when it became too late. Does not matter what we do now. The temp will continue to rise, ice will melt, and weather will be unpredictable. We are screwed. keep your friends and family close. Don't worry the planet will be fine.
and nobody find that there might be something fishy when capitalism tells on itself !!?... meaning corporate media reports the damages caused by corporations ... while an analysis doesn't explore that side of things it can't be thorough... ... or at least, first convince people that in the context of real and total domination of the logic of the market over all aspects of social life, corporate media somehow preserve their declared function and continue to objectively inform us about what's *really* happening in the world ...
Capitalism is the reason for this, but it’s also important to recognize that developing nations need oil and gas to develop at a rate that they can reach respectable standards of living. I’m reality, the main contributors to climate change is the West, and they should pay the heavier price for the shift.
I agree with this, I say this clearly throughout the series. Though I wouldn't separate capitalism from this issue, imperialism is the reason these countries lag behind in industrialization.
That's why degrowth is dumb af and a failed strategy and movement. And it's not just 'developing nations' that need to build up. Socialism requires massive mobilization of resources to break free from our needless dependencies and reproduction processes unnaturally shaped by capital. Best won and done sooner than later.
I am pretty sure he means ecology. Economics is just ecology dumbed down for artificial systems, it's got nothing on the complexities of natural systems.
Thank you. I should have expanded on this a bit more, it's not merely about buying local, it's the whole way the supply chain is set up, what materials are being used and how they are processed. And it was also merely used as an example where consumers have no power over, it's not just about "choosing" local products, but what products are offered in the first place, etc. Though I could have worded it differently to make that clearer, will keep that in mind for the next part, thanks for the feedback.
I can understand the distaste for Elon Musk, I share it with you, but to suggest that his tunnels were ever designed to fight climate change is disingenuous ... as for the Tesla EV, now that is a different matter - the idea of using solar energy to store electricity to share with the grid and propel transportation is no small thing, but you want to discredit this technology by mocking tunnels ... you are not a serious environmentalist but you should be ...
As stated in this, and the later parts (2 and 3), it's not that technology can't assist us, or that it can't be superior in terms of energy throughput, but that in itself it can't be a solution. His tunnels are part of a broader business campaign to undermine investment in public transit and most definitely part of the notion that these new solutions can do smth to combat traffic, emissions, etc. Any "serious environmentalist" who defends the delusion that technology will fix climate change is nothing but an apologist of the capitalist class.
If you were a serious environmentalist you would understand that the issue is fundamentally tied to capitalism. Aside from the military industrial complex, the biggest Co2 emitters on the planet are billionaires. YOU are not a serious environmentalist.... but you should be.
@@BesDMarx Nobody said that technology "in itself", is a solution ... but up until now, there is no company that has had a larger impact on turning the tide of CO2 around than the various Tesla solutions. Your desire to detract from Tesla by focusing on the novelty that is the Las Vegas tunnels is shameful, and it belittles the awesome work that you have done to date, (in particular the German Revolution). Investment in public transit has in no way been undermined by Tesla, this is a common trope that is quite laughable because we all know how public transit has, and continues to be undermined by Big Oil and Legacy Auto, among many others, but how you can include Tesla in this crime is truly embarrassing. Tesla does not prevent China from building the greatest High Speed Rail Network in the world, nor does it prevent other EV manufacturers, or the various renewable energy options flourishing in that country. They do not affect each other in any way except for maybe transporting auto workers to Tesla Shanghai. I am a Democratic Socialist who supports all EVs, along with any other solution that can save the planet - of which it is already too late to save, but we must persist.
@@richardblais5232Saying elon musk isn’t undermining public transit is a lie. He literally took an 80 Scie fie “technology” the hyperloop which cannot be build because of its impracticality and pushed it forwards
Hi, i´m watching these videos... i don´t think we need Lenin´s theory though, the logic explained in Capital seems closer to modern day capitalism. Cheers.
yes it is, you cannot have communism without the objective resolution of the contradictions in the economy, which is done through the development of the productive forces, otherwise you're only larping trying to implement abstractions of communism that do not correspond to the real world we're living under
It's rich of people to talk "correspondence to the real world" if you don't want to organize production in order to stay within planetary limits. The research has been provided in the video you're free to check out what needs to be done in order to prevent the catastrophic effects of global warming This is one of *the* best opportunities for Marxists to show why the relations of production need to change An overemphasis on the "development of productive forces" amidst climate crisis and considerable capacity of the current productive forces to fulfill all people's needs is not only the pinnacle of revisionism, but deeply unmarxist and unscientific anyway
There are no planetary limits, humans have the ability to discover new ways of using resources, obviously the exploitation of resources must be done reasonably, but just look at nuclear fusion, we're near having infinite free energy. You are saying that we shouldn't expand production because you're only thinking within the limits of contemporary production, you're not considering the achievements in science that will come, and that socialism increases like in no other mode of production.
The Marxist solution to climate change is not to stop production, is to change all of the productive infraestructure to expand it, that's why China is the top country investing in green energy and most importantly on nuclear fusion
I've become more sympathetic to Marxists because of climate change. I'm lean more Democratic Socialist, but I get what you're saying. That said communists are too swerf like for me. So, I'm not identifying with that.
SocDems are the most lukewarm when it comes to take actions. They all end-up favoring capitalism and conservatives when sh*t get real. Pretty much a more "informed" way to be a liberal.
I have to only disagree in your point made about governments getting their funding through taxes. This for countries that can print their own currency is not really true
Hmm... I mean, of course it's true. Money is a fantasy we all agree on. In the U.S. the government doesn't even make the wealthiest people pay any taxes. Instead they're given money and land for free whenever they ask. In fact, they're paid to do this with proletariat money (called 'subsidies') with which they seize our land. This drives cities and towns into bankruptcy later used by elected officials to deny to us all required services like health care, food, and shelter because 'we can't afford it." .. even though it's killing us and we're miserable. But what solidifies a nation's identity with no government mandated currency delusion? For the U.S... probably nothing does... Thank you for the comment.
They still have to have taxes to not let inflation run rampant. If you apply the MMT model, you still need taxes, saying they're not explicitly funded by them is rather conceptual.
