Climate change: is capitalism the problem?

Is capitalism the problem? And if that's the case, what should we do instead?
This is a guest video by Hazel Thayer as I have taken July off to work on my new studio. Please do give her a warm welcome and if you like this video introducing climate economics, please check out her channels!
Check Hazel out on...
KZbin: ‪@hazelisonline‬
TikTok: / hazelisonline
Instagram: / hazelisonline
Her website: hazelthayer.com
REFERENCES
Externalities without math: www.iisd.org/s...
We can measure GDP and include the environment as to include negative externalities in our calculations (green GDP) seea.un.org/ne...
Capitalist-adjacent or reformist degrowth books
Less is More by Jason Hickel
Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth
Prosperity Without Growth by Tim Jackson
Anti-capitalist degrowth books/articles
Slow Down by Kohei Saito
Timothee Parrique’s work
Inequality is increasing rapidly news.un.org/en...
Inequality makes climate change worse www.oxfamameri...
Increasing inequality increases emissions www.tandfonlin...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfph...
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.ne...
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
Is capitalism bad for the environment? And if it is, what are the alternatives anyway? In this video about climate change and capitalism, economist Hazel Thayer aka hazelisonline talks about what capitalism is, why it might not be working great, and what we can do to fix capitalism so that it doesn't trash the planet.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
Norm Zemke, I want to roll down a hill into a river of beans, David Mann, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, Peter Reid, bitreign33.
Jacob, Bastian Pranzas, Lucas Johnston, Jeffry ., Whitefang, Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Andy Hartley.
Duffman, Claudia Kapp, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Baerbel Winkler, OldGreyWolf, Oscar Hoffmann, Steamrollerman , Andy Parr, Ricky Jones, Guy Markey, Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Tobias Ahsbahs, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Nico Casal, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, Tyler Schwartz, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Joseph , Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Knut Nesheim, Dajeni, AYS , Forever Bulking, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Pawel Piwek, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Tom Painter, Phil Saici, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Eddy Torres, Clemens, Andy Giesen, Jacob Speelman, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Cifer, Felix Winkler, Christian Weckner, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, Trevor Berninger, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, Dan Sherman, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Thusto , Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering.

[@Fuego065]

I'm not a fan of saying that some countries are "more on the socialist side", as to e it falls straight into the usuall "socialism is when the government does stuff". State regulation is not socialism, even the most neoliberal person wants some state regulation (In fucked up ways obviously to maintain a "free market"). There are and were many countries with a very dirigist economy that were nowhere near socialism (and would put you to jail for having said that). That being said, you can also very easily imagine a non-capitalist system where degrowth is as much of an insult as under the current system. For instance a company democratically owned by its workers by itself has no reason to think about lowering production, the concept of externalities still can exist and regulation needs to come from the state (Or the wider community if you are an anarchist but at this point I don't really see the difference with a state, may be I lack imagination) which would also need to be actually democratic in order to care about that.

[@spacedonut8157]

This is an important distinction. Saudi Arabia isn't doing socialism because the state owns Saudi Aramco. You see the same flavor of argument from bozos who say fascism is actually a left wing ideology because the fascists want more state control.

[@rbgerald2469]

The state is part of the public sector, socialism is where workers and the public own the means of production, hence it naturally falls that in socialism, the state takes the role. Even if the state is in the form of trade unions, it is still a state.

[@XMysticHerox]

You say that. But it does make sense to a degree. Obviously these countries are still very much capitalist. However when you consider that these governments are democratic eg elected by the people eg largely the workers (yes yes I know flawed democracy) then those representatives of the people controlling the actions of private business to some degree is in a way socialist. I do not think it is entirely ridiculous to treat it as a spectrum. And hey rethorically if it normalizes the term socialism I am all for it.

[@michaelgoetze2103]

Even Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism, believed the state needed to play a roll in regulating markets lest businesses colluded to create monopolies.

[@rbgerald2469]

@@michaelgoetze2103 ...The central idea of Keynesian economics (Keynes' belief) is that free markets alone cannot always be relied upon to ensure full employment, stable prices, and economic growth. As a result, Keynesians believe that government regulation and intervention are sometimes necessary to correct market failures and stabilize the economy.

[@ErikLevin]

So... - Is capitalism the problem? - Is sustainability impossible under capitalism? - What would it mean to abolish capitalism? - What are the alternatives? - What even is capitalism to begin with? I didn't learn the answers to these excellent questions that were posited in the beginning. I'm sorry but I found this video a bit aimless and superficial.

[@eges72]

It is more of a 'gotcha' for me. He can't get out of the bubble of the myth that Capitalism being the sole successful economic ideology. Socialism has been successful numerous times in different ways and all of them helped the impoverished significantly, and they are the main reason modern Western Europe is social democratic in the first place. The USSR was literally right around the corner.

[@coolshiz7319]

@@eges72 The USSR was right around the corner of what? More ethnic cleansing in the name of the motherland? Even if the USSR was in the territory of socialism, you do know that their sights were set on communism, right? And modern Western Europe isn't social democratic, they're capitalist countries with more social programs.

[@InternetDarkLord]

@@eges72 Western Europe is capitalist welfare state. The money still comes from the private sector. And the USSR was never democratic.

[@Aendavenau]

@@InternetDarkLord its a mixed economy, heavily regulated capitalism. Heck the Sovietunionen was a badly runned state owned capitalist system. Didnt work very well, but then capitalism doesnt work very well in Russia either.

[@InternetDarkLord]

@@Aendavenau How is state-owned capitalism different from socialism?

[@gregorynuttall]

I may be wrong, but my understanding is: more government does not a Socialist country make. Which is what seemed to be implied later in the video. One "solution" I've heard floated around is actually making more workplaces more democratic. Like a worker owned co-op. Let the employees decide what to do with their time, profits and resources, not a few corporate executives. I would imagine if the majority were given a democratic voice in the way their businesses were run, we might see a lot more environmental responsibility.

[@shivammahajan303]

Go read "Critique of the Gotha program" By Marx. It's like 1 hour long read. The closest explanation of socialism you would get. Also, Read "People's republic of walmart" it's basically how Walmart is a secret commie plot and quite good.

[@michaelgoetze2103]

You are assuming that the majority of employees would prefer to be shareholders. You may get to decide what to do with the profits but you are also liable for any losses the company makes. Not everybody would like that level of financial responsibility.

[@Leftistattheparty]

​@michaelgoetze2103 capitalists aren't typically financially liable for bad business decisions. Especially when they build the business as an LLC. Remember that when a capitalist goes down a class, they become a worker. When a worker goes down a class, they become homeless or die.

[@della.4593]

Cooperatives are inherently flawed and do not solve any fundamental issues with the capitalist mode of productions. "Co-operatives - especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange." "But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital - that is, pitiless exploitation - becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur - a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving." - Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution. A real life example of this is Yugoslavia, which heavily leaned into this hybrid cooperative system. What happened was that none of the issues of capitalism was solved, sure there weren't the massive billionaires, but Yugoslavian society despite calling itself socialist had to live with the same economic pressures and overwork work as you see in capitalism, in addition to the drive for constant growth. This made Yugoslavia perform better on capitalist-centric metrics such as GDP where more useless production is rewarded, but actual living conditions after the massive spike after World War 2 were stagnant from the 70s until Yugoslavia's demise.

[@sebucwerd]

remember: under capitalism, you are free to structure your company as you see fit. One of the largest companies in the world is in Spain works that way. However, the executive led company is more productive and efficient, so it dominates, giving us cheaper goods and services.

[@4m0d]

I know saying this to a video by an economist is kind of audacious on my part, but I feel the difference between government regulation/control and socialism was not made clear enough in my opinion

[@JohnDoe-ht2bd]

She said "in theory capitalism should be perfectly efficient". In whose theory?

[@JohnDoe-ht2bd]

@EndDims So I'm from outside of the US. I'm absolutely flabbergasted practically routinely by how poor the quality of US colleges are when it comes to NON-STEM subjects, and sometimes STEM disciplines. All while brandishing world's most expensive price tag.

[@KarlSnarks]

It's even misrepresented, like when she says about governments giving corporations money "is that even capitalism?" like yeah obviously that's still capitalism

[@InternetDarkLord]

Economic Socialism means that the government owns the means of production. Almost everyone who advocates socialism uses capitalist welfare states as examples of socialism. But that means a capitalist country can be socialist, so why argue?

[@InternetDarkLord]

@EndDims What is the difference between socialism and communism?

[@xway2]

I suppose it's true that Scandinavia is "on the more socialist side" of economics, but we're still firmly capitalist. We've been ruled by social democratic parties (want to take the best parts of socialism and incorporate into a capitalist system) for the largest part of the last century, and lately have been turning more liberal (want more freedom, including economic freedom). What's happening now here in Sweden at least is that we're actively encouraging companies to become more environmentally friendly with various incentives. We're big producers of steel, which releases a lot of CO2, but we're starting to replace a lot of the coal in that process with electricity, for example. But notably no one is trying to limit economic growth. We're looking to keep growing by pioneering green technologies and then profit from the green wave that we hope is coming globally as well.

[@plebjames]

Sweden is also becoming more unequal very fast and, as a result, is starting to slide down the league tables for health and wellbeing (which is very sad)

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

​@EndDimsprobably using solar, wind and geothermal power?

[@yoyoyoyo-qv5hu]

@EndDims initially yes, but isn't it the point that eventually the renewable energy will be used to create the solar panels etc?

[@Ralzone]

@EndDims Have you ever heared about our lord and savior nuclear energy?

[@ellsworthm.toohey7657]

Cut the crap , Scandinave is becoming a third world cess pool ! Keep in mind that it could afford to be socialist because of natural ressources .... Same for Norway ! For how long ?

[@FatherDraven]

"What is capitalism anyways?" There wasn't a lot of talk about the ownership of the means of production in this video, and you seem to refer to the government doing stuff and social safety nets as "socialism" instead of talking about the workers instead of individuals or corporations owning the businesses they perform labor for.

[@rmac3217]

That's just 1 fringe idea that also is ridiculous / also proven in practice to fail. Who pays the debts if a workers co op company shuts down or gets massive fines?

[@rmac3217]

Also if the company is losing money, the workers don't get paid and pay their share of the losses?

[@FatherDraven]

@@rmac3217 this doesn't have anything to do with the ownership structure? What are you talking about? Also there are plenty of Worker owned cooperatives right now.

[@rmac3217]

@@FatherDraven The workers co op structure is the workers share the profit right? Do they share the losses? If not, who is paying?

[@FatherDraven]

@@rmac3217 they collectively own the business. The exact structure differs depending on the specific co-op but typically the co-op has a bank account like any business and takes out loans if they need to and profits are distributed based on how the workers decide. Generally there is some paid out to the workers and some reinvested into the business.

[@husktran]

As a Norwegian I feel the need to point out that we were Not on that list of nice countries of yours and that I think that is well deserved. The government keeps refusing to let go of its oil-based, well, everyhing, and the people in general seem completely blinded by the promise of some new and revolutionary technological solution which will let us keep trucking along while changing nothing. No more pretending that we are the good guys

[@SimonClark]

Yep this was precisely why Hazel didn't include Norway!

[@sirmclovin9184]

Well, Norwegian Black Metal doesn't pretend to be the good guys either...

[@anonxnor]

Fellow Norwegian here. What do you mean by "oil-based, well, everything"? Our electricity is like 99% from hydropower. Yes, we extract and export fossil fuels (oil and gas) but isn't blaming Norway for the emissions from those fossil fuels like a fat person blaming McDonald's for them being overweight? I think the countries that import and actually USE the fossil fuels need to take the responsibility for the emissions. If there was lower demand, Norway would produce less. If there was no demand, Norway would produce nothing. For example, the green party in Norway wants to phase out oil and gas production over 10 years. Do we really expect that the countries we sell the oil and gas to (top 5 are United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and Sweden) will have transitioned to green energy and not need that oil and gas in 10 years? Or that we ourselves won't need it? Phasing out of oil and gas production has to be done in cooperation with the countries that are dependent on our exports, otherwise the only result of Norway stopping fossil fuel production is that these countries have to buy the fossil fuels somewhere else. The DEMAND for fossil fuels is the core of the problem; the supply is only there to meet the demand. It's super super easy to eat meat, fly on planes, drive gasoline-powered cars, etc. etc. and then blame the providers of all the things you enjoy for all the harm that comes from it. But I think it's very lazy and unfair.

[@rfldss89]

​​@@anonxnornorway is pumping co2 into oil and gas wells to increase pressure and allow them to extract every drop of it. That is part of their green initiative, because the co2 will (probably) stay there indefinitely and never escape, and it allows them to get more oil without drilling as much. That is all greenwashing. Norway has enough green resources to let go of their oil reserves, and stop pumping more and more out. Because lest I remind you, that is the same argument that OPEC countries use: "we're just pumping out oil to sell it and fund our transition into more sustainable and eco-friendly industries and energy sources 😇". That's why they're being lumped into the same group as the countries that don't produce any oil themselves but still consume a ton of it (like those you pointed out), and not with those who have made steps to stop their reliance on fossil fuels. (Btw, hydropower isn't the most green of energy sources either, because it disrupts waterways immensely and contributes to the collapse of whole species and food chains).

[@simonabunker]

​@@anonxnorthat's the drug dealer excuse - if we don't provide it, someone else will. I am in Australia and we have exactly the same excuses - just about coal and oil. The fact is that it's just too profitable to leave in the ground right now. Yes there does need to be a transition, but if you set out a long term plan with targets to reduce over time, then that will force your "customers" to prepare. They won't do it if the oil keeps flowing.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

Actual death by tornado: Kalm Slightly less money: Panik!

[@samwright6850]

We should abolish the letter c 😂

[@WMfin]

World burning around us: I sleep Getting 4% behind from annual growth goals: Real shit

[@nacicomi]

​@@samwright6850the issue is more that english uses c wrong.

[@AnymMusic]

as a Dutchie, I've never understood the hatred for social safety nets. Especially since, at least here, even if you are an entrepreneur you can have a social safety net. And what this causes is more people willing to take risks on their own little company. Which then means more possible competition, more people willing to find/try out their green ideas, and eventually more possible work opportunities for others. (also, the Netherlands is absolutely not perfect here for bribery (lobbying), etc. shit, we're one of the biggest tax haven on earth. AND to add insult to injury, we're having a massive PFAS issue rn which apparently was already known SINCE THE 90s, and nothing was done about it, afaik, even to this day)

[@t5kcannon1]

Orthodox Marxists tend to hate social security systems: slows down the speed at which the inevitable revolution will occur.

[@Stupidityindex]

We are already extinct, says the arctic sea ice extent plot. Guy McPherson was reading the peer-reviews right, 2026.

[@Benja.____]

You say it, is good for litttle companies, not the few that control the 90% of the global market. They run in opposite direction when hear regulation, quality standars or workers rights.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

Why should capitalism exlude socialism? Why should capitalism be the devil and communism the holy grail? We have communists in some cities here in the middle of Europe and they do a very good job in their local area. Which does not mean they fit everywhere for everyone. We have arch capitalsts in oher areas and socialists in others. None of them make any difference for the climate catastrophe one way or another.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

@@Benja.____ You can give us at least one example. I am sure.

[@danilooliveira6580]

you forgot to mention that if you do a cost benefit analysis, it's better to polute even if it's illegal. because fines tend to be smaller than what those companies will save by polluting. meaning the punishment has to be much harsher. however the saddest part, is that if it's a publicly traded company, they don't care about these scandals, because the shareholders already got paid, the CEO got his quarterly bonus and will just resign and find another company to ruin, and and the stock price dropping is just an opportunity to make money. meaning capitalism incentivize companies to grow unsustainably until they explode even if they make the worst decisions possible... just look at boeing.

[@orionbetelgeuse1937]

we have such good records of communist regimes fighting pollution like the ussr when they managed to cover the explosion of chernobyl even from their own citizens

[@foremanhaste5464]

I have a really simple solution to this. Make the C-Suite CRIMINALLY liable for such offenses rather than just giving companies a fine. Being rich does not mean anything if you are in federal prison. Sure, the rich will fight it really hard in court, but if government makes it a priority to stop people from destroying the world the offenders will go to jail and would-be offenders would reconsider their planned actions. The hard part would be getting the government to pass it into law (as they profit from the current system too) and getting the justice system to prosecute offenders effectively.

[@XOPOIIIO]

What a bunch of nonsense. CEO is not a capitalist, he's an employee. Capitalists are those who own the company, that is shareholders, and they are not interested in hiring a bad CEO.

[@danilooliveira6580]

@@XOPOIIIO CEOs can also be capitalist, it's not a narrow definition. and shareholders usually don't care if the company breaks as long as they make enough money before. again, just look at Boeing, do you think the board didn't know EXACTLY what Dave Calhoun was about when they hired him ? he is directly responsible for all the problems with the company, but they made them MILLIONS before everything fell apart. but does that mean after everything that happened he is ruined ? no, he got 22 million as a gold parachute when he left the company and already have job offers lining up. wrecking companies is good for business in capitalism, actual good service and financial success doesn't matter, only stock prices.

[@danilooliveira6580]

@@XOPOIIIO CEOs can be capitalists, it's not a narrow definition. and shareholders don't care if a company makes good products or have financial success, the only thing that matters is the stock prices. look at Boeing, do you think when the board hired Dave Calhoun to run Boeing they didn't know what he was about ? he is directly responsible for everything that happened. so does that mean after cutting costs and focusing on shareholder profits he ended up ruined after the accidents ? no, he made 22 million with a golden parachute when he resigned and already have job offers lining up. destroying companies is profitable in capitalism, because no one has any real stake in a publicly traded company when they can just sell everything and bail.

[@olafzalm]

As a Dutchie. I do not at all recognize us to be a model country. Much of what I hear overhere is people distrusting our government, voting for more inequality and big companies and organizations lobbying against climate policy. I feel that we are heading in the wrong way.

[@sdrc92126]

Inequality is a religious topic. All of the -isms are an old religion rebranded.

[@etijls4677]

I did leave in the Netherlands for 2 years (I'm French), and even from my vision (from a country which inhabits some of the most ferocious capitalist of the planet), I was really shocked by how much Netherlands fit so much in the capitalism paradigm, I mean it is so impregnated everywhere, most people I met couldn't even start to imagine anything slightly different, and where so horrified that any public organisation could have a slight control on production, and if it had, it was of the highest priority to abolish it and give it back to private companies, where it should of course belong. Of course, I met some more reasonable people in the lot but the general opinion amongst them was quite terrifying

[@olafzalm]

@@etijls4677 which is why I don't feel that The Netherlands is moving in the right direction (well..to the right is exactly where it is moving). Up to the the point I might have to learn French again or move north. We have grown far to individualistic.

[@KarlSnarks]

@@sdrc92126 inequality is sociological topic and a philosophical one, it has real effects on the way we organize society and in the way people relate to themselves, others, and life.

[@AnymMusic]

"to regulate properly" meanwhile our pesticide control agency greenlit glyphosate for another fcking decade after using a study made by a guy who worked for one of the biggest glyphosate manufacturers in the world. also, PFAS (god plz let the PVV fail so hard atp cause who knows wth's gonna happen)

[@Kedai610]

I took a course on market failures and it taught me that perfect competition was as much of a fiction as full communism.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

It absolutely is. The latest public statements from Exxon Mobil's CEO kinda say it all, it my opinion.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

You want to tellme one single man tells 10 billion people how to behave? Not even one of our gods is mighty and powerful enough.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@wolfgangpreier9160 That was not my point.

[@twistedsteeltv6130]

​@@wolfgangpreier9160 it's one super wealthy, CEO that runs one of the companies in the world that has caused massive pollution, covered up that their exploits cause climate change and damage to the environment. Several other billionaires have come out and said similar things. They won't change and must be made to change by legislation and legal action. Failing that we should seize their assets and spend it fixing their mess.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

@@twistedsteeltv6130 How do you force the Wahabits, the Kasachs, Vladimir Putin or Nicolas Maduro with a "change by legislation" to stop polluting their countries? " it's one super wealthy, CEO that runs one of the companies in the world that has caused massive pollution, covered up that their exploits cause climate change and damage to the environment." I do not know which one you are talking about. I guess some US entrepreneur which i do not know about.

[@wolfgangpreier9160]

@@InfiniteDeckhand Then whhat is your point?

[@saipremkumar4787]

This video (and Hazel's content in general) is like a Stand Up Comedian teaching us about Climate Economics and Policies. I Hope you do more collaboration with her❤

[@mh1593]

female John Oliver

[@saipremkumar4787]

@@mh1593 and that's what I was thinking about. Didn't type because I felt like it'll be Cringe

[@speters17]

Strong Rollie Williams (Climate Town) vibes.

[@inactive-r5w]

Such a vibe and i love it

[@AlessandroRodriguez]

maybe if where worded the other way around it will sound less insulting, maybe "a climate expert teaching like if was a stand up comedy" I Hope Simon do less collaboration with her

[@SMorales851]

A bit of tangent, but I feel the need to remind people that socialism is not, in fact, "when the government does stuff". Historically, the common thread between all socialist movements is the idea that "the economy" should be handled democratically. The "government doing stuff" is a misconception that probably comes from bad faith arguments that sneakily swap out "democracy" with "government", since most people strongly associate the two concepts.

[@neptunianman]

Tell me how a 'democratically run' economy manifests itself if it's not through state ownership?

[@npacebg]

Very important to make a distinction between socialist and communist countries, as communism replaces democracy with authoritarianism every time.

[@lynallott3404]

@@npacebg That's, no, no, not how that works. Authority tends to propagate yes, when you let people have power they have a habit of trying to keep that power, but that's not intrinsic to communism. Anarcho-communists exist, people fighting for both the dissolution of hierarchy, and the establishment of communism, they are often co-operative things.

[@npacebg]

@@lynallott3404 Fun fact from my own country's history (Bulgaria): when the communists took power in a violent coup, they threw their former allies the anarcho-communists in concentration camps and carried on with their dictatorship. AFAIK similar stuff happened in _every_ communist rule that managed to establish itself in history. Please give me an example of an actual large-scale peaceful communist society if you have one. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that humans are intrinsically hierarchical creatures, so abolishing one hierarchy just leads to a power vacuum, a power struggle, and finally a new hierarchy. I think the real question is how do you make hierarchies fairer, e.g. like in the Nordic model of social democracy.

[@blinkingmanchannel]

@@SMorales851 I love this kind of debate. I suggest for discussion that our post industrial surplus is the ONLY thing standing between us and a ZERO SUM GAME. To put that differently, until we had a societal surplus, we had kings to decide who gets what, since giving TO anybody meant taking FROM somebody. And most people would rather die than give up their wealth. People would happily trade their daughters to get more wealth! Why would a woman need rights?! Farmers saw children as a surplus! Dynastic estate enlargement was almost the whole game… Make sure you marry well …and suck up to the priest, whose dad is a noble…. All the modern “-ism” stuff is just lipstick on the pig. Wolves cooperate much better than humans!

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Awesome presentation! Substitute teachers can be hit or miss, but this was a home run. I’m impressed how you staved off some of the more common capitalist talking points I’ve heard. (Though I’m still eager to see Simon again in his new studio.)

[@Skip6235]

Short answer: “Yes” Long answer: “Yyyeeeeesssssssssssssssssss”

[@korpzmarcelfranca6825]

Longer answer: YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[@BaynexoMusicOfficial]

longest awnser: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[@TheAledoPro]

Why does she say socialist when she means social democratic?

[@jessl1934]

Because she's an economist and every economist is trained in how to distort socialism in order to support liberalism.

[@jenniferlevine5406]

Great video! I agree completely with your comments. Unfortunately so many(most/all) politicians are very very wealthy and their interests seem not to correspond with the interests of the populations they serve. They have been getting away with this for decades. If only there was some way to actually make the beholden to the people's well being.

[@Yesus-z7b]

Politicians dont need to be wealthy. Any human is vulnarable to the influence of capital, and people in positions of power are more likely to be targeted. Therefore, even if such politicians were initially interested in serving the people they're suppose to represent, they often end up representing the interests of capital. Representative democracy is when the people can choose someone to pretend to represent them from a pool of preselected candidates. It is not true democracy.

[@xxdr34m5xx_4]

Great great video, thank you 😊 I'm a Geoscientist but the more i watch your videos the more i realize that i need more knowledge in economy to really help the transformation as good as i can

[@sirianrune198]

It's important to remember that Socialism isn't when the government does stuff. It's worker control of the means of production (which would effectively ameliorate environmental issues, mind you). No country "mixes" Capitalism and Socialism. You can't mix private and worker ownership of the means of production. You have one or the other, and no country does or has ever had worker control of the means of production.

[@ThePhilosopher]

The government represents the workers, thus, socialism literally is when it the government does stuff. A group cannot collectively own something. To own something means to control it, to control what it is used for and what happens to it. But groups are just multiple individuals. Let's say we have a stick, it's a bad stick, but it's all we got. I could use the stick for spearfishing, and let's say the stick breaks after I do so. OR you could use the stick to stoke the fire, and burn it in the process. Both of our ideas how to use the stick are mutually exclusive. Therefore, only one of us can get their way, only one of us can own the stick. Therefore, to have at least "something" that resembles collective ownership, we declare someone to represent us all and make one final decision in how the means of production are used. We can all contribute our ideas on how it should be used, and the authority has the job of making the best, most well informed decision on how to proceed. This is literally what the "council" is - council, meaning sowjet, sowjet republic. It's literally in the name.

[@shezario]

Well done ! Under 14 min to get through the most important points. This should be mandatory for all to watch... Externalities and incentives is the most crucial concept people seem to misunderstand.

[@GustavoLadeira42]

Yes, it most certainly is. Next question please!

[@SigFigNewton]

Functional capitalism in which externalities are priced in = steep carbon tax

[@kaz_asaoka]

I've been waiting for Simon (well, at least his channel lol) to cover this for so long, bravo!

[@bennybennerson7728]

yes it absolutely is

[@AcidCommunistAachen]

Wait, is your definition of Socialism unironically "when the government does stuff"?

[@sirmclovin9184]

It's supposed to be friendly towards an US audience

[@ummdustry5718]

Of course not! If it does a *real* lot of stuff, then that's communism.

[@danilooliveira6580]

I think she was pretty clear she was refering to countries with safety nets, capital redistribution strategies, regulated economy.

[@malgos6532]

Yeah, as a swedish socialist it physically hurt to hear that we were "more socialist"

[@abody499]

i sighed there as well. this is the problem with purple/blue/green/pink hair

[@ClimateAdam]

omg awesome to see Hazel on your channel. and an excellent presentation on a thorny topic!

[@hazelisonline]

Hi Adam!!! Big fan thanks for watching etc :)

[@cl8804]

@@hazelisonline you may wanna read the definition of "socialism". you stand to learn something from it

[@ThylineTheGay]

yes. yes it is.

[@Kuatier]

so simple yet so correct

[@rafaelcpatrao]

Great video! I'm just wondering how much you can compare the Netherlands with the Scandinavians. As someone who lives in the Netherlands, I think that the "flavour" of capitalism here (which is very much represented in its society) is way more liberal than in Scandinavian countries. Also, I am not sure that the government does a good job in controlling corporate externalities either, I mean, letting people in Groningen suffer with earthquakes for 30+ years because Shell really wanted natural gas sounds a bit harsh for me. Nevertheless, the Dutch are very good in leaving below sea level, so I am sure they are prepared for the future 😅

[@swiftdragonrider]

They have a unique feature of not being car dependent and not having a strong auto sector which lets them be green that way which is so big it eats a lot of other problems

[@jimthain8777]

You might want to take a deeper look at those Scandinavian countries. They are just as capitalist and market economy as most places. What's different is HOW they do it. (Remember Norway is one of the world's big oil producers)

[@swiftdragonrider]

@@jimthain8777 which is why it is not on the list

[@rolandxb3581]

​@@swiftdragonriderWell it's not as perfect as you think unfortunately. The Netherlands still has 588 cars per 1000 people, while the US has 850. 70% of commuters drive their car to work. The average distance to work is quite low, but we are still highly dependent on cars, specifically for commutes.

[@alyeanna]

I'm so happy to see Hazel on this channel!!!!

[@arlowho3844]

As a New Zealander it’s nice to be on that list however the current government is very much not that. They’ve suggested a policy for mining companies to start craving up land without any consolation from locals and local iwi, not helping public transport/networks by cancelling new climate friendly ferries to be built because it’s too expensive and then spending money else where like the prime ministers house. And then one of the ferry’s crashed so now they’re kind of in discussions to renew it but don’t want it to be rail accessible which is dumb, and conservation minister saying that we can’t save all the endangered species cause it’s too expensive, etc

[@decofmanythings]

As an Aussie, I'm really hoping the damage they do is limited and you guys survive this. National seems like a foul group.

[@arlowho3844]

@@decofmanythings yeah national + act and nz first probably one of the most right-wing coalitions in nz history

[@copper3821]

Was looking for this before I commented the same thing. We aren’t on the list of wonder countries at the end of the vid which, at the moment, I think we shouldn’t be on.

[@chumley307]

As always, well said, Hazel. 😊 So informative! For others seeing Hazel for the first time, definitely check out her channel. She's great.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

High GDP means more stuff, not more _wealth._ Wealth is the actual payoff to producing material things: if you have ten cars, you can still only drive one of them at a time so the amount of wealth you've gain is tiny compared to the amount of productivity you flshed down the toilet and the amount of damage you've done to the climate. This isn't "degrowth" it's reorganization i.e _pruning._

[@ummdustry5718]

But the ten car demographic isn't the one highlighted in the video. Rather it's the "top 10%" producing 50% of emissions. About 15% of people worldwide own a car, so it's mostly the *one car* demographic that would need to be targeted to eliminate those emissions. Which brings us to the issue: who decides what is 'legitimate wealth' and what are bourgeois luxuries in need of pruning? You might feel you have a good idea of the distinction, routed in common sense. Whoever winds up implienting these policies is likely to have a very different idea. This is why supply-side climate action will always be more effective than demand side, it's not the governments buisness weather straws should be plastic or paper, only how much oil or old-growth woodland is being used to meet the total needs of their citizens.

[@xfom4008]

A car you don't drive doesn't produce emissions m8, besides the initial cost in them during production, which is negligible over the total lifetime of the car, provided you don't fucking total them every year.

[@danilooliveira6580]

while I get what you are saying, I'm not sure if you are using the correct semantics. I would conflate wealth with capital, it is the value of the things you own that can be traded for more things, because wealth doesn't necessarily need to be liquid. so GDP is not stuff, it's the numerical value of capital, as in, how much money you would have if you sold everything you own (but for an entire country). I think what you are talking about is the difference between capital assets and essential/luxury/comfort/lifestyle assets. for the first one the only use those assets have is their capital value, while the second are things that improve the quality of life of the owner. what you want is for capital assets to be distributed and turned into "quality of life" assets. so basically wealth redistribution.

[@texanplayer7651]

​@@xfom4008The initial CO2 footprint of a car is far from negligible. It's 4 tons for ICE cars and 7 for EVs. The average consumer then generated 2 to 3 tons of pollution every year with ICE cars. For EVs it depends on the grid of course, can be almost 0 in a mostly green country like Iceland or France, can be more if you drive it in Poland where electricity comes from coal.

[@xfom4008]

@@texanplayer7651 He then proceeded to do continue generating pollution for 5-30 years, making the majority of his emissions come from fuel. He is also highly unlikely to actually have 10 cars that do nothing in his garage, he is likely renting them out or eventually selling them. In reality it makes the most sense for most people in most of the world to have a few vehicles per household - 2 or 3 usually. One for the city, one for hauling shit around and something like a bike for fun. Same carries over into most industries. Running costs matter the most, they absolutely are what kills you.

[@hendrixinfinity3992]

I preferred this video when the thumbnail just said "yes"

[@jmmypaddy]

Funny enough, I am a Masters student in social research and just completed an essay on this topic of capitalism and climate change. One thing that people need to factor in is the psychological context of capitalism, where it abuses people's psyche of having a need for the what's next. Lacan talked about the lost object, not a physical object, but a psychological object that we all strive to obtain to achieve contentment. Within capitalism, the physical object gets inserted and positioned as that psychological object we need to obtain, which is troubling when you consider that capitalism is predicated on objects not be valuable based on their use value, as well as our needs for living, but on their exchangeable nature. This then makes physical objects less tangible and more easy to be replaced and felt meaningfully by people, which then makes people go onto the next object. This basically means that the climate suffers as the demand for things to be made and consumed gets raised to satisfy an illusion of need. To reverse this, we need people to consume things based on their use and need values. So, not buying the latest phones or shirts and use them till their function is not possible any more.

[@ummdustry5718]

So, ban advertising?

[@danilooliveira6580]

the problem is that technology evolve extremely fast, so even if we minimize planed obsolence, people will still buy new things because it's the better thing. this however could be solved if devices were produced with easy upgradability in mind. if Apple releases a better PC with better graphis, you have no option but to buy an entirely new PC, but my PC if nvidia releases a better GPU, I can upgrade it without replacing the whole thing.

[@t5kcannon1]

@@jmmypaddy In a nutshell, you do not understand much about the interplay between capitalism and human nature.

[@connieh.4212]

1. People in America are forced to work so much that they need an instant gratification through buying. Otherwise, they realize they have no joy in life. 2. Companies are quick to sell you dreams of better versions of yourself. “If only you had that suit…” “If only you had that car…”. 3. People who never had things before will wonder, what is it like to have x? Why can other people have it but I can’t? I deserve to experience owning it just like anyone else.

[@mariomario2642]

Further this vibe with: Infinite Greed by Adrian Johnston & Future of Denial by Tad Delay

[@inactive-r5w]

So pleasantly surprised by someone else popping up and substituting simon clark! You are so fun :))

[@Bretout]

Trust towards politicians has dropped in recent years in sweden from it's citizen. Such as allowing 2770 ton of poisonus chemicals released through air. For a manyfacturing company in Eskilstuna. The previous used amount of said chemicals was 10 ton. There is more reasons to why public trust is dropping but thats one i remember in more recent memory. There are more. Though it all needs a proper study once the year is over.

[@Wilson84KS]

It didn't at all, the value of money is defined by the trust of the masses to banks and politicians and people believe in the value of this absurd token and agree to pay for the product of their own work, so nothing has changed about the status quo.

[@Bretout]

@@Wilson84KS i never mentioned money or the economy. My comment solely reflect about trust for the politicians to do what their constitutes want. Which has eroded in recent years. Since Sweden was mentioned as a country where a lot of it's constitutes trust their political leaders.

[@Wilson84KS]

@@Bretout Well, there you got it in a context, politics only exists in the (monetary) market system, which is not an economy but the exact opposite, an anti-economy, in a real socioeconomic system there is no politics, only governing by a highly educated and responsible society in a truly democratic way, based on natural laws, science and engineering.

[@Atchikaru]

Such an awesome presentation of the topic!! I love Hazel's personality, made it very interesting to follow the video. Thank you for the educational content, as always!

[@weirdslime262]

Regarding New Zealand, I highly recommend the documentary series "Milk and Money" on our government-funded youth-aimed news KZbin channel Re: News that goes into what is by far the biggest problem in our country climate change-wise, namely our unsustainable dairy industry. New Zealand looks real green but a large part of that is due to all of the fertilizer we dump on our fields of grass that ends up in our rivers and streams. I do, however, have faith that this will actually get fixed at some point, eventually, since our political system does actually work. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[@CplusO2]

Precision fermentation will alter NZ dairy forever.

[@Solstice261]

Or just the inevitable moment when young people get tired of so much money being spent subsidizing dairy, once that tap is closed the absolutely over inflated dairy industry in NZ will collapse due to how much the actually spend on fertilizer

[@aim-at-me]

Also, we're currently looking at opening up to oil exploration (fucking emabrrassing). All our hydro is at least 50 years old. Our energy market is broken. We're under funding our health system like an early 2010's tory. We increasing inequality through tax cuts for the landed gentry. We have the highest car ownership rates in the world. And our favourite vehicle is a light truck. We've basically gone backwards.

[@Baekstrom]

The KZbin channel Economics Explained described externalities as "biproducts with negative value". I liked that, because it is both a less abstract concept than "externalities", and it is clear that it covers things other than pollution, such as worker exploitation, overload on infrastructure, inequality, and so on.

[@niamhleeson3522]

Leaving China out of this video makes this analysis incomplete. China is a special case and deserves to be part of the analysis. What makes China different? First, there is no issue with the regulatory capture of the government. The government controls the markets and the economy, not the other way around, like we have in the US and arguably in the Nordic countries. This allows them to set goals and make sweeping changes in the economy when needed. Second, China is a country that hosts a huge portion of heavy and light industry. They make a lot of stuff there and export it to countries like the Nordic ones on your list. So, while emissions from the Nordic countries themselves are low, emissions produced making the things they consume in other countries are not part of this analysis. You could see manufacturing in other countries as an externality that produces carbon emissions. Third, the Chinese government has been taking steps to quickly draw down carbon emissions, including state-of-the-art mass manufacturing of solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, and grid equipment like transformers. They have made such high quality products at such economies of scale that Western countries have placed huge tariffs on these goods even though they are necessary to mitigating the climate crisis. What's going on here is that our governments in Western countries are frantically trying to keep markets open, even though they're harmful to the environment and using Chinese goods would accelerate drawdown and save lives. This is in fact the main role of Western governments that are beholden to companies and the economy, instead of the other way around. China installed more renewable energy in solar panels last year than the US has in its entire history. Given this contrast, it's clear that capitalism is not equally up to the challenge of mitigating climate change.

[@niamhleeson3522]

By the way, to get progress like this in countries like the US, you would need a revolution, because processes of reform are insufficient to end companies' control and capture of the government. You guys should really get on that ASAP.

[@PowersOfDarkness]

Came her wanting to say the same thing but without the energy to write it out, thank you, sometimes it feels like China is the only major economy that is acting serious about climate change, and that is with them in the economic state of development they are currently in, countries like the nordics have so many more resources they could be putting to the problem, its if not for the even greater incompetency of their neighbors and the US, then it would feel unimpressive.

[@Richard482]

Very true. One of the factors preventing people from buying an EV is the price. Europe decided to address this problem by placing tariffs on Chinese EVs 😅

[@enjoysilence4146]

Isnt China one of the worst polluters and polluting more than ever?

[@sebucwerd]

We need more energy, not less. Wholesome hydrocarbons are a human right.

[@davidrowewtl6811]

If we all acted like exemplars such as Finland, Sweden, Uruguay, Costa Rica, New Zealand etc would we be doing enough to avert the climate catastrophe? My understanding is we wouldn't. We would be far better than we are but still not enough. Therefore, playing in the variability of our current socio economic capitalist system we are doomed to fail and die miserably. Such a shame given we knew what to do. :-(

[@TheDanEdwards]

You're spot on, even acting like a low-ish emitting nation is not going to be enough. There are deep existential issues at play here and many climate change channels and videos, like this one, are afraid of really playing out all their scenarios.

[@Tinyflower1]

no we would not because social democracy works only with unequal exchange, basically exporting the exploitation to somewhere else, it is still capitalist. And since climate crisis is global, and we do not have another planet to export the exploitation to, we can't fix it by expecting everyone to just be like sweden.

[@shivammahajan303]

@@robertmarmaduke186 How does the boot taste?

[@XMysticHerox]

Well we are well past the point of averting it so no. Of course all of those countries are also still entirely capitalist. Just with some social systems. Something people also seem to not understand is that every bit helps. Climate change is not some "either it happens or it does not" thing. The less we emit the less worse it'll be. The faster we get emmissions way down the faster we can start reverting it.

[@rmac3217]

What I don't get is how it's a wild conspiracy theory that COVID was used as a method of global control by elites, and a trial run for Agenda30. But the same elites want to end humanity including their own children = not a conspiracy theory.

[@Petch85]

6:04 I think that graph is wrong. I don't think happiness converges towards a maximum happiness as GDP goes up. I think it goes back down after reaching a maximum happiness level. E.g. If people work more say 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year GDP would be higher but people would not be happier, even though they lived in a nicer place, only used their clothing one time, so no laundry and eat out every day, so no dishwashing. But would you be happier?

[@victoralessandro2972]

Nice to see Uruguay on the list. As a Brazilian, I see our friends from the south as exemplary in many ways. It's worthy of note how they've achieved remarkable results despite not being a rich country at all.

[@peterryrfeldt8568]

Hey scandinavian here, you might wanna say nordics if you put iceland on the top of the list (and finland 3rd) ❤

[@transsexual_computer_faery]

iceland is scandinavia

[@supermanifolds]

@@transsexual_computer_faeryit literally isn’t

[@rishithakur7186]

I don’t know about capitalism but you made me change my opinions on people who colour their hairs… All this time there was the rhetoric that loud woke people, this people and that people… I couldn’t agree more on the way you presented your analysis… Great sense of humor and well reasoned your points to the audiences… .

[@Yesus-z7b]

I'm disappointed with the video. It's a little boring. For example when she asks if government handounts to fossil fuel is real capitalism: Yes! Yes it is! And believing it is not is part of the myth of capitalism. Capital accumulation generates influence wich can be leveraged for further capital accumulation, and on and on and on, ad infinitum, or at least untli the world ends. The misunderstanding that we dont live in a fully capitalist system, that the nordic countries are half capitalist half socialist and we just need to find a middle term (when they are fully capitalist under its proper difinition: remember social democracies with safety nets are not economically socialist) is an old boring and dispointing misconceptin coming from an economist. Social democracies still exploit the workers and mother earth, they're just better at not overly doing it in their own countries and in front of its own poplulation. Instead do it to the global south. Inequality still exists globally even if it doesnt in your own country. Where does the cobalt and lithium and plastics come from? Does sweden produce its own iphones and laptops and teslas and cheap fashion with their locally harvested and refined rare metals and polyester, worked by exploited sweedens?

[@bartroberts1514]

You've confused capitalism with mercantilism. Talking about capitalism before talking about all 100 items on Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 Roadmap is hijacking the agenda of climate solution and imposing drag and distraction when we most need focus and action. Only 1,200 rent seekers worldwide issue all the fossil trade licenses responsible for fossil emissions, and those people are not making their money through the Free Market, but by government salary. Price 'externalities' appropriately, and capitalism is suddenly an effective solution. Mercantilist influence prevents that price mechanism being imposed.

[@Solstice261]

While I agree you have to remember that most people really tip toe around the topic of actual socialism because somehow after more than half a century we are still afraid that the reds will come and take away our houses or whatever, it's so bad that you literally can't explain socialism properly if you don't want the people who the message has to arrive to (not us) to stop listening so a lot of people choose to do this sory of thing, specially when talking to a American audience, let me remind that a lot of people in the US think the democrats are socialist and nearly communist economically, i think they've done it wrong but I see how trying to explain something like that in a video specially while trying to make it sound interesting and such id very hard

[@bartroberts1514]

@@Solstice261 That reaction has been cultivated on purpose, though. So much of the inertia on climate action comes out of focus groups and organizational psychology research in the 1960s and 1970s. Hard to fix something so ingrained in the psyche of people who don't realize how doublethinked they've been.

[@Megaghost_]

@@Solstice261 This approach contributes to maintain the misconception about what socialism actually is, I don't agree that there is any good excuse to portray the government doing stuff as socialism as they did here, that's just wrong and confuses people. This video could have been an opportunity to contribute to the creation a very needed space where we can challenge the misconceptions like that which makes people believe that the democratic party of USA is somehow "left wing socialism", for example. Is it hard? Yes, but at least people are not being lied, they should have made the effort if they really wanted instead of doing this. But I doubt the author is anticapitalist so asking her to do that is useless. For many westerners it is hard to think outside of their liberal box, any anti-capitalist or post-capitalist alternative doesn't align with their idealist worldview (as opposed to a material analysis like those of Marxism and other ideologies). The "good green capitalism with a human face" is a scam.

[@cristinaflora373]

O M G THANK YOU! Thanks Simon for having Hazel here for this! I feel like I finally have a "climate change vs the economy 101" to share with my US friends. The amount of skepticism and rooted fear of safety nets and even the word "socialism" is astonishing as a European. Sure, the video doesn't present the full picture of what socialism is -- but this was not the point. Great condensation of valid points to change our system more equitably 🔥🔥🔥

[@ПавелКим-й1ш]

The first half of the video talks about how government is unable to regulate rich people, but the conclusion is we need more regulation? How would it help if they don't work, as you said? Probably, we need simpler government which is more transparent and easier to for regular people to understand?

[@GusOfTheDorks]

Oh thank God a sane person. 100% agree. If the gov doesnt work, adding more isnt going to help.

[@danilooliveira6580]

yes ? that is exactly the problem. the government is unable to regulate rich people, so we need a government that CAN regulate rich people. the conclusion to "government is unable to regulate rich people" isn't "then we should get rid of government".

[@GusOfTheDorks]

@@danilooliveira6580 See, I'd agree if the gov was able to regulate anything effectively. But it's not. The only thing it seems to be really good at is beating up poor people and taking their money.

[@ПавелКим-й1ш]

​​​​@@danilooliveira6580 can you please tell me what you mean by regulating the rich? I don't really see a way to do that. Rich people have a lot of influence, so it's much easier for them to avoid or even alter government regulations, which would control them. And also, what is the relationship between regulating the rich and improving the climate? It's not really straightforward for me. The author of the video didn't tell us to go and regulate the rich, she implied to improve climate regulations.

[@danilooliveira6580]

@@GusOfTheDorks because the US is basically an oligarchy, companies dictate policies. and still the government still somehow manage to keep it from getting worse thanks to some politicians still needing to answer to public outrage. removing the government intervention in the economy won't magically make companies behave thanks to the whins of the invisible hand of the free market, it will just allow them to do even more damage, but now unimpeded. there are plenty of countries out there that keep a tight grip on companies with much tighter regulation that work, their main difference is a population that don't say "the government doesn't work, let's just give up", they have people that actually bother with voting and keeping their government accontable.

[@LCTesla]

Its more like climate change turns the argument that an economic system raises economic growth (in the purely indiscriminate sense) into a negative factor, since its nearly impossible to invert the climate footprint of any dollar spent. So from this point on the emphasis should be more on equitable increases in human wellbeing without necessarily raising growth commensurably.

[@johannesswillery7855]

Do you support the mass increase of population in the world's largest consumer society?

[@hazelisonline]

Simon! thank you so much for having me on here. I'm a big fan and it's a true honour so have my silly fake-science (economics) featured on here alongside all your amazing science comms.

[@kaz_asaoka]

Great video Hazel! Subbed 👍

[@ElectricAlien577]

You should really look more into marx and lennin. Liberal democracy will never allow us the progress we need to make. Second Thought, and Our Changing Climate are great resources.

[@ElectricAlien577]

And we will never stop sploitin' the global south while we maintain this kind of economic system. "Your democracy is a sham and here's why" by halim alrah is a great video describing why.

[@ElectricAlien577]

Also, socialism is not when the government does stuff, as you seem to imply. Those are not wonder countries, and malicious forces are pushing them back in the wrong direction.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Appreciate the quality your aiming to achieve, and the intent, of this video, but I find it lacking. It's also a bit insulting, as if you're trying to teach youngsters. The hard issue with climate change is one of ethics, and we need adult discussions of such.

[@Astarael2]

Huge props for Lazer Kiwi! We really dropped the ball by not picking that one. 😂

[@fredrikapelgren5830]

As a Swede I would say we no longer deserve to be mentioned among the "good" countries. Our current government is reversing progress on all these areas

[@raining4065]

The problem when living in one of the good countries is that you look around and think "it surely ain't that great". The catch is that it is clearly just much worse in most other places. If you want to pick 5-10 "good" countries from the world, what would you pick instead of Sweden? Where these things are better handled? Nowhere (that is not already on the list).

[@fredrikapelgren5830]

@@raining4065 My point is that Sweden is going in the wrong direction, (increasing emissions, dismantling welfare state) and therefore serves as a poor example for other countries as a source of inspiration. Sweden could be a leader in the project to stop climate change but we have abdicaterd that role in favor of old fashioned nationalism and right wing free market fundamentalism

[@Solstice261]

I hate that because at least I am wrong the centre left party still managed to get a very sizeable amount of the vote yet it seems the coalition is moved by the far right, I wish you luck and hopefully things will improve for swedes after this government runs is course I am obviously not from Sweden so sorry if I got something wrong, not many news about there get over here

[@itetecnun]

I really like the video. You don't find that many people talking about this in a reasonable way so thanks for treating this topic in the way you do it. I will check your channel, it looks very interesting.

[@SwordQuake2]

yes

[@DDDecarbon]

Providing social welfare isn't socialism. Nordic countries have low business regulations and business taxes to incentivize growth. It's silly to call them socialist.

[@Raggart]

Well done, Hazel! When I first saw the video's title in my feed, I was... doubtful of how Simon would tackle the subject. But passing the ball to an economist was the right move. Even if I do NOT agree with the definition of socialism that was used ;) Oh, and I can't wait to see the new studio in all its glory!

[@WMfin]

Seen some of Hazel's videos on Instagram and I quite like her content. Nice to see her on your channel.

[@codedGiraffe]

The bottom line of capitalism is profit. That means making more than what it cost in resources and labor. The fundamental incentive is to extract exponentially more resources and to pay those actually making it as little as possible (increasing inequality). These are base features of capitalism that will always be dealt with until the motivation for our economics moves beyond profit. I wish there was more coverage on workplace democracy or labor movements as involvement in these corporations’ actions to stop this is a tangible way of making change. Socialism isn’t when the government does things, it’s when labor and not capitalists have a voice and just share of the companies and other means of production.

[@jessl1934]

Oh no, you almost got to the point but you got lost when you were right at the finish line. Workplace democracy isn't the solution you think it is

[@codedGiraffe]

@@jessl1934 Thanks for the input, but not offering any points or alternatives isn’t helpful. Labor movements and transitioning the ownership and decision making power of capital to labor, the people actually making the things and experiencing the environmental injustice, seems to me the best solution. Seems preferable rather than burning everything down in some sort of revolution or making an authoritarian regulatory state to check corporate power all the time since capitalist profit incentives aren’t changing

[@jessl1934]

@@codedGiraffe So what's your best example of workplace democracy achieving the necessary level of political change to address systemic issues? If anything, in Yugoslavia it was a major hurdle that to a significant extent hampered what was necessary to overcome the divisions that existed along roughly ethno-economic lines. But maybe there's a better example of workplace democracy that I'm not aware of, idk.

[@RileyMcGreevy]

Fun fact in Bhutan they measure GNH(gross national happiness). Maybe we should do that instead of worrying about GDP having to constantly go up by mass producing more things we don’t need which is literally killing us.

[@mattburrito]

we live a type 0 civilization

[@sebucwerd]

You say this as someone who consumes tens of kWhs of power/day. Check your privilege and reflect on the fact that this is why you have access to thousands of lifesaving pharmaceuticals that third worlders can only dream of, or only have access because of charity.

[@della.4593]

Absolutely dropped the ball at the end, the Nordic countries are Neoliberal hellscapes just like the rest of the west with similar economic policy (and welfare slashing) that you see. They do not represent an alternative, instead Nordic Model "social democracy" was a compromise that arose due to worker's demands and has since the 80s slowly been eroded and gutted. Not to mention the economic domination that firms in these countries have over other countries, facilitating imperialism leading to the average person being poorer. For every rich Swede, there are 5 Bengalis making their commodities in horrifying conditions.

[@ElectricAlien577]

Absolutely this. Long term change in the right direction cannot be achieved from within a liberal democracy. Malicious actors will always push things back in the wrong direction. Democratising the economy is the only option.

[@Solstice261]

Nordic countries is the literal mid point, could be worse ( whatever circle of hell the USA is turning into) needs to be better, can easily get worse

[@ElectricAlien577]

@@Solstice261 There is not mid point between capitalism and socialism. All liberal democracy will be slowly chipped away at my malicious actors unless it is entirely dismantled and replaced.

[@Solstice261]

@@ElectricAlien577 that is sort of what I meant

[@gljames24]

Actually, many of the Nordic Countries have aspects of Syndicalism and have Mutualist housing cooperatives make up a significant portion of their housing market.

[@pjaworek6793]

Wow, thank you, Hazel and Simon!What a surprise and excellent summary of the situation.

[@mrgrumpy888]

Yeah, but shareholders.

[@texanplayer7651]

Some day we need to ban the concept of shareholders and come back to the good old days where companies made money by selling good products at optimal price. Now it's all about pleasing people with money who have no idea of running the business they own shares of.

[@MrDesmondPot]

It definitely isn’t the solution. We may have got here regardless but it would be easier to change trajectory under almost any other system.

[@myaltaccount1]

Watch Second Thought. He goes into even more depth on this topic.

[@kingofthend]

The dude is also openly pro russian. A country that would most certainly never extract fossil fuels.

[@ElectricAlien577]

Our Changing Climate, and Halim Alrah are also great.

[@cl8804]

he also knows absolutely elementary, fundamental definitions

[@juandelacruzdc]

I'm subscribed to both and I was so confused when the video started, thinking that KZbin had a glitch or something 😅

[@zafiroshin]

I started watching this video thinking it was a serious video about economics. Then at some point it starts promoting "degrowth". LOL. What did I do to deserve this?

[@AnymMusic]

because we can't grow forever. Yknow what we call a system of uncapped growth? Cancer

[@mathyeuxsommet3119]

So I just discovered Simon’s channel I was impressed by the his neutrality and his ability to stick to the evidence and scientific consensus but this video apparently nothing to do with his usual content. There are a lot of claims made in this video that feel more ideological then factual, not the ideology of the person making the video necessarily, she seems to understand economics sufficient to be able to explain a market economy(although her understanding of it seems to be limited to a primitive understanding of Adam smith)and the concept of externality which she should have focus more on. But the big problems come in her framing of an ‘economy’. She only talk about the action of evil greedy corporations(which some times are evil) and never about where does their profit come from, which is equally greedy consumers, it’s not a specific feature of capitalism that people want to eat meat, drive big cars and heat themselves with gas, and hiding yourself under the idea that rich people are doing all the co2 intensive consumption is wrong, the average American drive their heavy car from their large suburbanite house to eat meat and those people are way more numerous and important then the few billionaires, and asking them to collectively vote with their money for more climate action is not more crazy then asking them to vote in elections for the same cause. The second point is that she seems to be under the assumption that growth in developed countries comes from natural resources extraction you can ask any economists it’s factually wrong It’s actually mostly a poor country thing not letting them extract any of their resources is robbing them from not been in poverty, so I agree that rich countries should pays way more for green transition. BUT DEGROWTH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Any consideration of degrowth should make someone’s opinion invalid because not growing an economy means destroying the tools we have to fight climate change, we are not going to have any weight internationally to advocate for any of climate goals, we won’t be able to innovate and make things like renewable cheaper if we are knee caping our economies. And the third point is that I agree that the Nordic model is the way to fight climate change but if anything, they are some of the most capitalist countries in the world by her definition, the world ease of doing business index rank most of them higher then America and they have very correct GDP growth and capital formation, these countries are not ‘socialist‘(which she didn’t define so who knows what it means) they just have a smarter government, the same way a capitalist country but with a terrible government would have dumb policies like tariffs it can also have dumb policies like subsidizing oil, none of these are good for capital.

[@VgnTeupo]

so bevor i watch it, this is a "FKN YES, change my mind" situation

[@VgnTeupo]

my opinion remains unchanged, but i don't think that was the goal.

[@AustinPerdue]

I moved to New Zealand from the US. My quality of life improved dramatically, but it's clear to me that there's still a lot New Zealand can improve. EDIT: I guess what I mean to say is, if the bar is set here, it's still a pretty low bar.

[@loungelizard3922]

I'm a NZer and yes, we have plenty of our own problems. Our taxes benefit the rich to an absurd degree, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax, there is a huge amount of wealth locked up in housing that is unavailable to businesses and our social safety nets like healthcare are massively underfunded because of this. We have low wages and average income taxation, there's not enough taxes to run the system through income tax alone. It's a great place for elites to park their wealth, but the average kiwi is struggling. I currently pay 3/5ths of my income towards housing and consider myself a lucky millennial to have squeaked in to a house after 15 years of saving.

[@ben_retrop5179]

Whoever wrote this doesn't know what Socialism is

[@paulv8773]

Love how this video is like "The Netherlands is great on climate change because it has a strong democracy and a strong social safety net". Because what I'm seeing living here is a government that barely does anything for the climate, industries that are fighting what little climate action there is is tooth and nail, politicians completely ignoring climate activists, the police brutalizing those same climate activists, bureaucracies (including those responsible for social safety) treating people in need with cruelty and indifference rather than care and attention. That "strong democracy" just voted in a literal fascist government, so all this is very likely to get a lot worse. If the Netherlands is the bar to aspire to, we're not going to make it as a species.

[@nickbakker2200]

It's getting very tiring how the Netherlands and the Nordic model are portrayed as economies with a particular focus on social safety nets as if they had been completely inoculated from the developments in global capitalism over the past decades broadly bracketed under the name of neoliberalism. On top of that, the problems of the Dutch agricultural sector are a perfect case of the tendencies of what's called the 'petite-bourgeoisie' in Marxian terms as well as how capitalism undermines the reproductive basis of our ecology.

[@Bangilnel]

I guess Netherlands mainly does so well due to its great city design public transport and simply an efficient way to take care and responsibility of accessibility of the things the citizens need

[@tobiascornille]

Well compared to other countries the NL is not doing bad. Almost half of electricity in 2023 was renewable, while it was only 12% in 2013

[@s.g.standard6700]

Growth is the problem. Infinite growth is impossible in a finitie system and inevitably leads to a crash. Since our system is global, the crash will be global.

[@Tuljalan]

Exactly, any system which has growth as an imperative is responsible for getting us up to planet's boundaries (which climate change is one of many). Even communism was growth based system of an industrial scale, so in terms of enviromental impact not much better than capitalism.

[@s.g.standard6700]

@valcaron That is true, but there is a rock solid argument as to why capitalism is the problem in the reply above yours.

[@Tuljalan]

@valcaron what arguments do you need? GDP growth is tightly coupled with growth in energy and materials usage, which both contribute in a different way to the destruction of the natural world and the increase in GHG emissions.

[@kiwitrainguy]

Growth for the sake of growth, is the ideology of the cancer cell. - Edward Abbey

[@aguBert90]

For me, we don't have to think this in terms of "capitalism" vs "socialism" but in a dicotomy between concentration+acceleration versus distribution+sustainability.

[@t5kcannon1]

The question is what kind of capitalism do we want; not if we should replace capitalism with a different system. The history of the 20th century is littered with the corpses of tens of millions of innocents who were murdered by different systems.

[@rappakalja5295]

Including capitalism. Every other economic system was demolished. Why not capitalism?

[@TheFabledSCP7000]

Many of the main authors have refuted the book and exposed how they literally made people up to inflate numbers

[@TAP7a]

The history of the 21st century continues to be littered with the corpses of millions who died to capitalism, but who never have their stories told. Every person who dies from lack of access to a home, to clean water and to food in the richest nations. Every person in every nation who dies in the pursuit of extraction of natural resources for the profits of the owning class. Every American whose money-restricted access to healthcare shortens their life and takes their quality of life. Every death caused by diminishing climate resilience as a result of building on floodplains because it's cheap, clearing woodlands for farms, polluting water sources because it's cheaper than dealing with the waste. Tens of millions every year just ignored as though their suffering and death were just a perfectly natural result of the only way the world can work. The Black Book of Communism is, first and foremost, a direct lie. Scientifically, statistically and morally bankrupt by every dimension. But the inverse, the complete lack of a Black Book of Capitalism, is a lie by omission and a poisoning of the well, blinding people to the avoidable, preventable consequences of the incentives created when the means of production and distribution are owned privately.

[@t5kcannon1]

@@rappakalja5295 Try to understand the history of man's attempts to replace capitalism: mass murder and human rights abuses on a horrible scale. Do you want that?

[@shivammahajan303]

Go read peoples republic of Walmart

[@tgypoi]

I think the most important point is right at the end of the video: there's no such thing as a "capitalist" or "socialist" country. There are countries that do things and labels that people like to apply. Saying something like "we should do this because it's capitalist," or, "we shouldn't do this because it's socialist," really just dodges the real question of, "is thing and good and helpful thing to do?"

[@daytonabeachUSA]

Capitalism is always the problem.

[@123Voynich]

Now now lets be intersectional, hierarchy is the problem, and often times that means capitalism is one of the problems, alongside others like sexism and racism and so on, all of which overlap and intertwine.

[@FelipeKana1]

This war a great video, with a great summary of the problem and some possible pathways. Whoever this stumbles us to a deeper issue: how to fix the bad democracies? Changing things in dysfunctioning democracies is like trying to take down a building with a kitchen knife.

[@AlessandroRodriguez]

Simon: is this kind kind of patronizing guest that make climate change unsolvable

[@MetaverseAdventures]

For sure business and government are a big part of the problem, but I feel at the core of the climate crisis is our desire for MORE for less. Nearly everyone wants more of whatever it is, for less and it is this dynamic that ultimately fuels whatever economic or political system in place as if it is not meeting this desire, people get restless. We can point our finger at business and government as yes they are a massive part of the problem, but all of us have to recognize we are driving it that way. If green solutions provided more for less, we would not have the problem we have today and of course those who provide more for less do not want things to change to greener solutions so we are in an utter stalemate. I suspect we will all be more motivated to switch to green and accept it will cost more for less initially, but the pain and cost to not switch will eventually outweigh and the drive will change as a result and the change really does have to come from all of us as that is what is ultimately driving the entire system.

[@joshmastiff1128]

Um. You just described every flaw of capitalism

[@somerandomguy___]

Short answer: yes Slightly less shorter answer: yes because green growth doesn't exist and capitalism can't exist without emmiting CO2 and extracting more and more resources at an exponential rate.

[@ummdustry5718]

Capitalism predates the exploitation of fossil fuels in europe, socialism does not.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@ummdustry5718 Capitalism enabled grand-scale exploitation. Socialism was the response to said exploitation.

[@GusOfTheDorks]

Capitalism isnt real and you should stop agreeing to use made up definitons created by out right commies. Their solution is always going to be forcing people to do things they dont want to do under threat of violence so why woukdnt they lie to you about literaly everything else. If you want to do more to stop CO2 emissions over night then whats been done in close to a century, abolish property taxes.

[@madeline6951]

@@ummdustry5718 how does the length of time in which a concept has existed affect its relevance and effectiveness? Capitalism being old can even be a downside, since it can be argued that it fails to satisfy modern needs.

[@biggerdoofus]

Humans can't exist without emitting CO2.

[@jortand]

Good video, I don't know if the title is gonna pull in people who don't already agree with it, but it's a funny title and really sets up the "shock, shock!" the video in general is a pretty good introduction into regulation and socialism-lite for climate change benefits. Tho I would say please do look at your audio, the biggest thing that turn people away from videos especially if they are on the edge of an issue is audio issues with the spikes in the audio it's not a good viewing experience. Writing was good, like the visuals and editing, please keep it up!

[@ratoh1710]

My answer to this question has always been, "Eeeh kinda sorta but not exactly..." A certain form of capitalism is definitely a big driver of climate change but it isn't the only economic system that drives it. Its opposite communism can do it too, see every communist state ever being focused heavily on industry and the energy sector, the biggest consumer drivers of climate change. Capitalism is the driver not because climate change is inherent to the economic system, but because climate concerns are not inherent to any economic system. Neither capitalism nor communism nor any secret third thing. The reason why capitalism kinda is responsible in a way is simply because it is the most common economic system. This does mean that simply switching to a different economic system won't magically solve climate change, rather we should heavily regulate the processes that are causing the problems. Ideally, regulate them until they stop causing issues or if that isn't possible until they stop existing. I have always thought of Capitalism as a wild beast. We can harness its power to become productive and improve the lives of everyone. But if not tamed properly it will run wild and cause immense damage to anyone near it.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

There has never been communism on a nationwide scale. What you think were communist countries were in fact state-capitalist countries.

[@AnymMusic]

@@InfiniteDeckhand Imma be honest, I'm not sure if "true" communism could even work on a scale larger than, well, a small community. A governmentless society of hundreds of thousands to millions of people, all working together? That just seems too complex of an issue for such a large amount of peopl

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@AnymMusic Which is why I'm personally just a socialist and not a communist. The state needs to be kept in some form in order to facilitate management.

[@ummdustry5718]

@@InfiniteDeckhand but if there was, would there be any reason to assume it would have fewer emissions than a capitalist society of equivalent wealth/size?

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@ummdustry5718 I don't know. If the constant thirst for profit and blind growth can be successfully eliminated, then probably.

[@sebucwerd]

You should also take into account the positive externalities of CO2 emissions. A study published in "Nature Climate Change" in 2016 found that between 1982 and 2009, about 25% to 50% of the Earth's vegetated land experienced increased greening, while only 4% experienced browning (a decrease in vegetation). CO2 is a fertilizing gas.

[@rappakalja5295]

This is the first sentence and summary of that study: "Carbon dioxide and nitrogen fertilization effects on ecosystem carbon sequestration may slow down in the future because of emerging nutrient constraints, climate change reducing the effect of fertilization, and expanding land use change and land management and disturbances. Further, record high temperatures and droughts are leading to negative impacts on carbon sinks. We suggest that, together, these two phenomena might drive a shift from a period dominated by the positive effects of fertilization to a period characterized by the saturation of the positive effects of fertilization on carbon sinks and the rise of negative impacts of climate change. We discuss the evidence and processes likely leading to this shift." Very dishonest to misrepresent their findings like this.

[@sebucwerd]

@@rappakalja5295 they have to say those things to get grant money

[@rappakalja5295]

@@sebucwerd They have to make conclusions which gives actual context to your cherry picked data? 😂 Looks like you don't understand what scientific research is, Rockefeller.

[@quincypurcell5222]

Ah yes, socialism when government does stuff

[@Enhancedlies]

the issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution...

[@BaynexoMusicOfficial]

The thing about capitalism and green growth, is that we cannot just settle for a “maybe.” We need to shift to a different and more democratic system, (like socialism.)Capitalism doesn’t just cause climate change, but inequality, war, and poverty as well. We NEED to get rid of capitalism.

[@TheDigitalZero]

Or rather, we need stronger enforcement against lobbying.

[@joansparky4439]

capitalism is an ECONOMIC system, NOT A POLITICAL one. The political system that controls the economic sphere is some form of REPRESENTATIVE democracy, where 1 in ~500k get to become the makers and maintainers of the rules that CAN (and do) benefit a few at the cost of the rest - AGAINST CAPITALIST ideology!!

[@johnnytownsend4204]

Absolutely!

[@ElectricAlien577]

​​@TheDigitalZero Any ground we gain in this area will always be chipped away by malicious actors. The system must be done away with entirely. "Your democracy is a sham and heres why" by halim alrah does a great job of explaining why.

[@SigFigNewton]

Forcing a functional version of capitalism would go a long way toward fixing stuff. Pricing in externalities looks like a carbon tax etc

[@dandantheideasman]

Really enjoyed this spin on how we can take on the most important issue in humankind's history. Kudos 🙏

[@GusOfTheDorks]

Remeber, when the title is a question, the awnser is always no. Even if the video creator is full of it.

[@rappakalja5295]

You're just flatout wrong, kid.

[@CraftyF0X]

Remember, anything overly generalised is automatically wrong :D

[@GusOfTheDorks]

@@CraftyF0X Yeah, I thought the video title was way too overly broad too.

[@CraftyF0X]

@@GusOfTheDorks Which is kinda unavoidable if as a simple title don't you think ?

[@GusOfTheDorks]

@@CraftyF0X I dont think so. The problem is the video is just wrong on all accounts to start with. So the title has to be overly broad to pass the sniff test. For example a better title would be "Why capitalism is bad." But like I said, everyone would hate that.

[@Praechaox]

Great video! Glad to have a guest host- I'd never heard of Hazel before and now I have a whole new youtube channel of content to check out.

[@johnnytownsend4204]

I recommend the channel "Second Thought" for more accurate info on capitalism and socialism.

[@ElectricAlien577]

I second this. Our changing climate is also good.

[@Solstice261]

I agree with this, maybe not capitalism but certainly socialism, capitalism is usually simplified in second thought for obvious reasons, but hey just read the theory, basic economics is not that hard

[@evanfreund5651]

Unlearning Economics is better than

[@ElectricAlien577]

@evanfreund5651 Unlearning economics is decent, but i dont think he's quite accepted that liberal democracy needs to be dismantled in its entirety. And he has some misguided ideas about planned economies.

[@Anon1776_]

Bro is tankie lol

[@nagabro5770]

The irony of getting a temu ad under this video

[@GregorMcIntosh]

Yes.

[@LordLemming47]

Capitalism is great. Allowing for the creation of individual wealth is nothing to do with a problem created by government intervention.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Why champion Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Bhutan? Tourism makes up 8.2% of *Costa Rica's* GDP, and many of those visitors will be from high-emitting nations, emitting even more CO2 to get to Costa Rica and back. *Bhutan's* (median) life expectancy is noticeably lower than that of the US, already among the lowest in the developed world. Bhutan is also is made up of very few (around 700k) people and cannot be a good example for the rest of the world. And *Uruguay* is a bit of a tax haven, and civil-rights watchers have noted a decrease in adherence to rights in that nation.

[@teknophyle1]

Hazel is amazing at this. I get the feeling she's gonna be huge soon.

[@ericdanielski4802]

No.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

Yes.

[@ericdanielski4802]

@@InfiniteDeckhand Thanks you.

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@ericdanielski4802 And you didn't? Please.

[@jimthain8777]

Sorry you're going to need to qualify that statement. Just so you understand shareholders (I"m one) are going to suffer a lot from climate change.

[@evanfreund5651]

Nes.

[@nathanlee6654]

That was a good video! Good job Hazel! I like what you said and how you said it.

[@harrycopley855]

This video is very misleading. There is no such thing as half capitalism half socialist countries. Socialism isnt just when the government does stuff. I think its very poor to discuss capitalism and socialism in a video without ever using the correct definition of these terms or even defining what you think these terms mean. The nordic countries are still capitalist states and they still require infinite growth and profit. They simply provide safety nets to their own people through the exploration of developing world countires through unequal exchange and economic Imperialism.

[@JohnBaran-kw5jf]

_"Why I changed my mind about nuclear power | Michael Shellenberger"_ is worth watching. Shellenberger is one of the more objective commentators on this issue. He does no belong to either side of the debate and he makes excellent points.