Decarbonisation in the USA : New report says "SLOW DOWN!"

[@hornetobiker]

The cost is irrelevant considering the alternative.

[@aycc-nbh7289]

Paul hornet But an inability to pay the cost would mean that global stock markets fall and multiple countries enter recessions. These energy and auto corporations will need to get their money from somewhere, although a "revenue-neutral" carbon tax could be implemented to raise funds for these corporations, provided that the government does not use this money for its own nefarious purposes.

[@chrissscottt]

One of the things I like about this channel is the use of specific data and and statistics which greatly enhances the plausibility of the arguments presented.

[@xyzsame4081]

you will also like the channel of potholer 54 - he reads the studies. For instance: top 10 climate changemyths. Or the conservative solution to climate change. - It is a "go to recommendation" for "sceptics" if they are not beyond hope. Short (5 - 15 minutes) and understandable, but excellently sourced and based on science.

[@chrissscottt]

@@xyzsame4081 Thanks, yes I watch potholer and enjoy his content. One point of contention I have with him though is his blind faith that the 'invisible hand' will step up and fix climate change.

[@voiceforjusticeandproporti5543]

Agreed. He's doing a good job. Just be careful. Data can be manipulatively presented.

[@ashsmitty2244]

A calculator is always right, but it’s answers are not. You have to trust their data first. Humans are flawed and we think we know all the answers to all the problems. I’m concerned we are wasting our money and time.

[@jeffgold3091]

@@xyzsame4081 Tony Heller is the best researcher when it comes to presenting climate data . he challenged potholer to a debate but potholer refused

[@guriinii]

11 years is incredibly optimistic considering how much faster things seem to be speeding up.

[@renegade4dio]

@Kyle Erasmus Oh, my. The stupid. It burns. If you'd been actually paying attention to what the scientists have actually been saying for the last 50 years, you'd have found one thing consistently: The predictions of the climate models have been consistently conservative, under predicting the changes. As time has passed, the actual results show consistently more warming and sea level rise than predicted by the models on average. Saying otherwise is clear evidence that you don't actually know shit about science or how it works.

[@renegade4dio]

@Kyle Erasmus It's amazing to me the Bizarro-World you "conservatives" inhabit. You spend all your time imbibing the kool-aid, and never exit long enough to realize that you're being consistently lied to. Reality always seems to be diametrically opposed to what you think. In this case your glaring ignorance is displayed when you say "...ask yourself why Africa, China, India, Russia and most Asian countries which have somewhere between 65 and 70% of the global population are ignoring the Western climate Alarmism bullshit." That is exactly the opposite of reality. They are doing MORE to reduce carbon emissions than we are, except maybe African countries and they can be excused here because they are responsible for very little of the current situation, having only relatively recently begun developing into modern countries. What they are ignoring is the anti-science bullshit spouted by fossil fuel shills and the ignorant propagandized like you. And claiming that the only data is Mann's "hockey stick" proves that you either are a liar or that you haven't even scratched the surface of the actual science, relying instead of Fox and other propaganda outlets to supply all your information.

[@richjnev70]

@Kyle Erasmus Wanker

[@Peter-nv3wu]

Once the Arctic sea ice has gone, it's going to get very hot extremely quickly and I believe everything is going to change very quickly, I believe that we have 15 to 20 years maximum left at the very best before the planet becomes uninhabitable !

[@michaelberger6699]

​@Kyle Erasmus "Adjusted" is in essence calibrated.

[@samlair3342]

Search: “If fossil fuels are problematic, then why are we subsidizing them.” You’ll get some good information.

[@andreleblanc7616]

2008 financial crisis...well, that's not a lot....war on terror...doesn't cost anything...climate mitigation projects...holy cow that a lot of money!

[@simon6071]

Did AOC who created the so-called Green New Deal ever called for Mexico and other South American countries with large oil resources such as Venezuela to do their part in "preventing the end of the world" by stopping the use and sales of fossil fuel? No, she did not?

[@simon6071]

Did Ilhan Omar who supports AOC's so-called Green New Deal ever called for the oil rich country of Saudi Arabic to "help save planet earth from "climate change" "(camouflage for global warming BS) by stopping the use and sales of fossil fuel? No, she did not?

[@simon6071]

Did any leftist US politician of Chinese descent supporting AOC's so-called Green New Deal ever called for China, the No.1 emitter of CO2 on earth, to "help save planet earth" by stopping the import and use of all fossil fuel? No, none of them did.

[@simon6071]

Did any leftist US politician of Asian Indian descent supporting AOC's so-called Green New Deal ever called for India, the No.3 CO2 emitter on earth, to "help save planet earth" by stopping the import and use of all fossil fuel? No, none of them did.

[@simon6071]

The picture is clear. Those leftist politicians in the US only want to ban the USA from using fossil fuel under false excuse of wanting to save planet earth while they turn a blind eye to countries of their ancestry emitting large quantity of CO2 or selling large quantity of fossil fuel to countries emitting CO2. There is no way fossil fuel dependent countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia and Russia will follow suit if the leftist US politicians are able to ban the use and sales of fossil fuel in the USA. The USA will be worst than a third world country while the other countries will continue to prosper under a fossil fuel economy if their insidious plot becomes reality. .

[@spijkerpoes]

Nobody complained about the cost of the war on terror. Nobody complained about the cost of the financial crisis. Both completely pointless projects. We should have already payed and solved this climate stuff.

[@p.brooksmcginnis1749]

Hi Spike; I complained on both the war on terror & bailing out Wall street & the 100% EVIL central fiat world banks and still am complaining.

[@spijkerpoes]

@@p.brooksmcginnis1749 ok? Not loud enough! 🤨 hehe.. oh well, same here though... Such a shame.. frustrating shame.

[@jamespilcher5287]

Lots of people complained but ultimately the moneyed interests are the ones who decide what does and doesn't happen. Until climate change threatens their bottom line, nothing will change.

[@Lorne.Mccuaig]

People complained but the policy makers did what they thought was best for the strength of the U.S. dollar (petrol dollar, also supported by real estate, mortgage back securities and bond markets). Because of Republican choices to force oil export nations to trade in U.S. dollars, we've seen the U.S. engineer coup's, overthrow regimes's, enforce trade embargoes and make war with all dissidents who try to trade in a different currency. Iran began trading in the euro a little over a year ago, won't be long now. Real Estate was run up for the wealth effect and strengthening effects it had on the dollar and FIRE. It's an empire coming to an end though, as surely as light crude consumption wanes in the wake of electric cars as well as staggering combined national, state and municipal debt, with corporations writing their own regulations, imploding on their own greed to the cost of the rest. The greater question is, will the modern world as we know it, survive? I doubt it. Too much corruption, too much self interest top down, too much immorality, overpopulation, pollution and waste, it will not end well nor should it when one considers the needed karmic consequences to our actions. At least we have the freedom to complain.

[@scorpio6587]

Wrong. A great many people have complained, and both leading parties have contually ignored their constituents.

[@texicaliblues]

$4.5 trillion dollars over 11 years sounds like a lot until you realize that US GDP likely will be more than $200 trillion over the same span.

[@kenjohnson6101]

Maybe more than $204.5 trillion when you add in the economic stimulus of energy restructuring.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Not even as much as the ~$7 trillion the US is likely to spend on the military over 11 years, presuming they don't see a hefty budget boost.

[@kenjohnson6101]

@@CarFreeSegnitz And what do we get for our $7 trillion? Decarbonization is "National Defense" properly belongs in the defense budget.

[@davidcwitkin6729]

We'll spend 7 times that on Health Care

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Imagine of all of those moneys go to the greening of Sahara...our LAST resort!

[@jamesgjackson]

The transfer tax would also be a tax on speculation. Day traders would be taxed and long term investors almost not at all.

[@linmal2242]

Tell that to Mr Buffet, smartarse, He is the champion of long-term investing. So you don't think America has a long term future? @Kyle Erasmus

[@linmal2242]

A tax on speculation; what a wonderful idea. Cull them day-traders! It wouldn't even make them blink to pay this fee.

[@AZOffRoadster]

@@linmal2242 Retail day traders wouldn't even notice. It's the high volume traders that will complain.

[@AZOffRoadster]

@Kyle Erasmus The corporate neoliberal Dems (aka Republican lite)? No. Progressives like Sanders? Yes.

[@dansanger5340]

@Kyle Erasmus Does the fabric of norms include having affairs with porn actresses, paying hush money to cover it up, and lying about it when you're caught?

[@gasdive]

Sea walls for Florida... That alone shows they've lost their grip on reality. Florida is a coral reef. A giant sponge of soluble rock. Building a wall on top of a sponge and thinking it will keep the water out... It's beyond absurd to some sort of new level. They'd be better served with a prayer group. It would be cheaper and just as effective.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Almost as good as the billion dollar pumping system they've installed to pump the invading rising sea levels back into the invading rising sea. I think they might have got on well with King Canute!

[@gasdive]

@@JustHaveaThink it's like a living breathing "sunk cost fallacy". If these lands were really worth protecting against a 75m sea level rise, then all the continental shelves of the world should have been worth reclaiming with 80 metre sea walls.

[@melissab8500]

Florida is going to be like one of the ancient cities they keep finding underwater...where the coast used to be

[@tsamuel6224]

Sea walls for Florida will have coal fired pumps.

[@richdobbs6595]

Seawalls built to combat global warming won't be like those used in the Netherland to allow broad scale areas to exist below sea level. They would be localized and designed to protect against storm damage. The estimate given by the insurance industry is probably completely bonkers and probably has some political purpose. My guess is that they are trying to get some sort of government reinsurance program passed, with the idea that it will save the government from having to make this massive investment in seawalls. In the meantime, they will continue to make money from insurance premiums for areas that are probably too risky for residential construction based on historic hurricane risk.

[@ToniGlick]

As a voting US citizen (though I live in Canada) I plan to continue to cast my vote, write governing officials, lower my carbon footprint, march and lobby. But it's hard to be optimistic. Taxing the stock market is brilliant but those asshole got us into this mess and they don't care about anything but accumulating more wealth, so I doubt they'd be willing to give up one red cent of their earnings. Thanks for your wise words and informative visuals. I'll pass them along and keep hoping.

[@peripheralvisionarymedia2817]

All I will say is, your take on these issues seems a lot more well-informed than the terribly disoriented takes I hear coming from a lot of Americans.

[@kronsild]

@@8645-l4v I am glad to hear that from You. But You could drop the term 'believe' out of climate change. There is nothing to believe, when there is enough evidence.

[@8645-l4v]

kronsild you either “believe” the facts that science has provided or you don’t. “Believe” isn’t bad, more people need too!

[@kronsild]

@@8645-l4v My point was that, as long as You put the believe in science, you play to the hand of people, that claim to be able to choose whether they believe in facts, provided and proven by science, and a source, that is not held to prove anything. These people claim that this would be even, and this is how they talk about scientific matters. I can believe, that You are an honest human, trying to do the right thing. It is getting hotter every year, that is a fact and science can show pretty clear, why. To put this in the context of a believe-system makes every conversation end up in 'well You might believe in what You say, but I believe something else. Sometimes 'believe' is bad.

[@8645-l4v]

kronsild I understand what you’re saying but it still comes down to if you believe or not. There are a lot of complete morons in the US, particularly the south, that refuse to listen to real scientist because the fossil fuel industry have their own, so called, scientist disputing them. Even NASA has officially confirmed global climate change, and can prove it. It will come down to the wire to make the change needed simply because most people don’t care until they are directly effected. Unfortunately the rest of us are along for the ride. We can make our own changes even if the worlds governments don’t make an immediate change. I plan on building my own home that will be solar powered, rain catchment, and true composting of all organic waste. If enough of us do this, it will catch-on, if for no other reason than to save money. A side affect will be positive for the planet as well.

[@Energy-Americas]

Right on! this is the best series on climate change out there!

[@FPOUYOT]

Cost of dealing with natural disasters is just the tip of the iceberg. Add the cost of failed crops, starving populations unable to produce, loosing their jobs, homes, creating ripple effect in the real estate and construction, farming, and all the services that depends on healthy, thriving populations. Politicians should not expect thriving populations when the environment that supports life collapses!

[@simplethings3730]

SOMEBODY needs to wade into American domestic politics. The first thing we need to do is get corporations out of politics. Politicians are not going to pass laws that have a negative impact on their campaign contributions.

[@Son37Lumiere]

This 100%. Nothing will change and the country will go down in flames as long as corruption is legalized.

[@Lorne.Mccuaig]

Absolutely right. Corporate and private donations need to be capped, super pacs ended and votes need to be subsidized with tax payer dollars to get rid of the hold special interests have on elections. We need way stronger laws and regs on lobbyists as well. It won't be easy. Even with Democrats introducing such bills in all three houses, partisan courts will challenge in time. Its temporary but a president could introduce it through executive order, the best shot the U.S. has at righting their ship. I won't bet on it but I highly support it.

[@johnlinnus8045]

Wade into American politics. Wade. Someone with sense needs to be heard

[@Lorne.Mccuaig]

@@johnlinnus8045 Can't do, I'm an unelectable Canadian. I will be behind the scenes in the future though.

[@efermi2118]

bernie 2020!

[@therealctoo4183]

You know they're biased against renewables when they talk about the cost of adding them but forget to mention the cost savings from dropping fossil fuels.

[@wlhgmk]

There is a concept in economics called 'velocity'. It is the speed with which money circulates in the economy as opposed to the amount of money in the economy. Money circulates one way, goods and services the other. Most economists predict a great increase in velocity with the transition to renewable energy as more people are working at well paid jobs and spending their salaries. This is in contrast to, say, a coal mine and coal powered power station that is highly automated and has very few workers. Of course all these people, now in good employment, pay taxes (as opposed to the fossil fuel industry that gets subsidies from our taxes). So the economy will be booming and there will be lots of money available to the government from the very transition that is costing the money. Win win for all except for the uber rich and massive fossil fuel companies. Their money get's squirreled away in some tax haven. Money in the hands of more and more people is spent and powers the economy.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Coal kills millions every year. Nobody wants the stuff but it’s too cheap to ignore. The only solution is clean energy cheaper than coal. Renewables don’t even come close.

[@anomamos9095]

William Hughes-Games except it doesn’t really work that way. All the supposed jobs are where most of the technology is made not where it is used and except for the skeletal maintenance team and the initial installation there are no jobs in wind or solar. And currently wind and solar are subject to far greater subsidies than coal or oil. Not to mention that they are so unreliable you’d need to either keep coal etc online or cover every inch of the globe in solar and wind.

[@anomamos9095]

There are no genuine savings going to renewables unless you go off grid then you only have a maximum of twenty five years before you need to replace them . They may cover their cost in power charges but they will only just start to pay their cO2 cost deficit as they need to be replaced. Then they will add more cO2 and toxic pollution in being scrapped.

[@minnesconsinprepping7856]

You obviously fail to understand that it takes VAST amounts of fossil fuels to mine, process, manufacture, and install "renewable" energy. Do you think that solar panels and wind turbines are just grown in a field somewhere?

[@marcusbell9631]

Bravo for your mastery of understatement. To read out loud a plan that effectively rests on "but what if instead of 20 years, the climate (and the laws of chemistry and physics) let us take 50?" without laughing hysterically takes more grit than I have.

[@AZOffRoadster]

@Kyle Erasmus So what degrees do you have?

[@xyzsame4081]

@Kyle Erasmus sure, sure .... you have an engineering degree - they always do ; ). Not that such a degree would qualify you to contradict the EXPERTS on climate change (not those who estimate costs but the SCIENTISTS that work in related field and are certain that the globe is warming (as in observed evidence) and because of humans burning fossil fuels. If you think they are wrong you should whip up various rebuttal papers and publish them in the relevant magazines. Where they will have to stand the scrutiny of PEER REVIEW. There are so many studies to so many aspects that not ONE study is likely to change the assessment of the relevant experts over the whole picture). They usually narrow down on very specific questions. Extraordinary claims (against the scientific community) requires extraordinary proof. But it would make you famous, and if your work is impeccable interested industries would shower you with money - so do not waste your time in the comment sections here. Hang out where the scientists are and convince them.. anyway: thanks fr playing ! Your lively comment activities will help to promote the video. Many comments - youtube algorithm assumes the video to be interesting for viewers and recommends it more often.

[@xyzsame4081]

@Kyle Erasmus "CO2 and _sunshine_ will make the earth overheat". Yes that is fancy language like a person qualified to comment after having READ A LOT OF STUDIES would use. - Or are you dumbing it down for us mere mortals ? - instead of using the term solar irradiation or solar radiation.

[@xyzsame4081]

@Kyle Erasmus btw: it is not the "sunshine" - it is CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). If you would know your stuff youw would be aware of the fact that solar irradiation has minimally decreased over the last 40 years - while the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES have DRAMATICALLY risen. Scientists would not expect the small difference (variability of solar out put) to cause a cooling (the observeable effect of THAT factor would be within the margin of error. There is natural variance, and the climate systems can buffer a little bit) - but since temperatures have dramatically risen (not fallen) in the last 40 years it is most definitely not the because a change in solar irradiation ("sunshine"). 0,8 degree C rise is a DRAMATIC INCREASE of temperature. Not within a day or from one day to the next. But for GLOBAL yearly AVERAGE temperatures. Temperature includes the oceans: water stores a LOT of heat and the oceans cover two thirds of the planet. 4 degrees lower global average temperatures than we had in the 1950s (before we started putting out a lot of CO2 from fossil fuel) - and we would be headed for the next ice age for sure it that goes on for longer time - 4 degrees more and we are headed for runaway warming with mass extinction. Humans could stop the mass extinction we cause now (additionally to the climate change question - think big ag, plastic pollution, oil spills, cutting down rainforests, pesticides, ...industrial pollution in general, shrinking habitates for wildlife) - but we cannot control a mass extinction caused by runaway worming. Once the temperture rise is baked into the system (the oceans have absorbed a lot of heat and also a lot of CO2 - it is going to be released). Removing the CO2 from the atmosphere would be VERY costly as well (growing trees in the moderate climate zone and regrow all rainforests and boreal forests could help - it could buy us a few decades time. Young forests take up much more carbon, only mature woods are in an equilbrium) It would be much better to NOT release CO2 (especially when it stems from fossil fuel) in the first place. One penny in prevention saves one dollar in harm migitation. The U.S. squanders a LOT of energy - even copmared to other wealthy nations which are all using too much. It should be noted that the U.S. has deindustrialized (that also puts arguments like: "China should be the first to clean up their act" in perspectice. In absolute numbers they use about the same amount of fossil fuel. BUT: they are the workbench of the world AND they have 1,3 billion people - not 328 million). In the case of China (or other poor / developing nations) pollution (dirt, health hazards) are often conflated with CO2. Pollution harms the Chinese citizens - but in a weird twist those pollutions have a slightly colling effect and take an edge off the temperature rise (same with India another major polluter). I am not saying they shouldn't clean up their act (the saved costs on healthcare can be put to good use - in china that drove solar investment) - but the pollution from India and China at the moment causes global dimming (like a major volcano eruption can have an effect for a few years). The effect is not as dramatic as global warming and it vanishes when the source of pollution is removed. The temperature effects of industrial pollution from Europe and the U.S. pollution have vanished - after the 1970s / 1980s with cleaner production or deindustrialization. A temperature rise or fall by 4 degrees has happened in the past - then it was NOT caused by humans emitting CO2 - but CO2 and methane do have physical effects and start a positive or negative feedback loop. It does not matter WHY they are added / removed to the atmosphere and who / what events caused that. 0,8 degrees for the whole globe in only a few decades ! is a fucking big deal !

[@renegade4dio]

As this video started I began to think you were going to argue for the "It isn't real, it's a hoax, do nothing" approach. Instead I was treated with a well thought out attempt to face reality head on. Subbed.

[@ericjohnson6665]

I wish I knew the presenter’s name... in any case, I love how he presents his “non-endorsement” opinions clearly indicating his preferences! Bernie is the best candidate for tackling this (and other) problems/opportunities!

[@lutherburnside388]

I love this guy!! "He knows." @11:45. - One of the few people with the brains and the bollix to say it.

[@henrypotter3024]

Yeah, well if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that his connection to the Moonies is showing. (I just saw something about Eric Trump and the Moonies in a previous video)

[@wesburden6354]

Love this thoughtful reporting!! Please keep it up, and let's share!!

[@robinmaule8407]

The extent I’d estimated insurrance cost, and hopefully a carbon tax should make this sum seem rather good value. How much did it cost the taxpayer when the banks had to be saved in 2008. That was passed off as quantitive easing which is just word for taxation.

[@scorpio6587]

Yes, and it was *wrong*.

[@9squares]

The cost of saving my life is all of it, how much is your life worth? This is such a ludicrous argument. Are you planning to save money for the next generation, Ohhh wait...?.?.? Just print up enough zeros, or even better, scrap the entire monetary system for a more environmental option. No one ever asks how much is the next war going to cost but somehow it's an impediment to our survival in terms of climate change. It doesn't matter how much it costs given the alternative.

[@garyttomo2506]

That's what I've been saying for years, reset the economy bollocks and start again but I think it's too late now, their will be no fish or whales left in the sea and all of the animals and insects will be poisened or built on

[@9squares]

@@garyttomo2506 I fear your correct. All of this is just arguing over spoiled milk.

[@9squares]

The real argument is what exactly can we do to mitigate climate change in any meaningful way. Not how much it will cost.

[@flissaflissa351]

You missed the impact on food supply in the oceans disappearing, insect biomass depleted by 40% already including those pesky bees that we seem to need. Coral dying with impact on our food supply and biodiversity. Dramatic loss of forests, scorching deadly heat making venturing outdoors deadly...Farmland becoming unusable to grow our food. I could go on as there is no time to waste.

[@evacerar5758]

To summarise, not taking action now will mean catastrophic consequences for most of the humans, animals, and plants on planet earth. Compared to covering a 100% transition to a green and renewable power generation, with just a 0.5% tax on WS stock transactions. Should be a no brainer, except for the fact that the #fakepresident does not have a functioning brain.

[@flissaflissa351]

@@evacerar5758 Correct on all fronts except we are already screwed and there is not much hope for even if Europe and North America addressed it the rest of the world is not necessary capable of addressing with current technology, funding and political will. Plus any hope in the US is completely dependent on GOP disappearing

[@flissaflissa351]

@@evacerar5758 We are already at ludicrous levels with 400+ ppm and Methane is not even in the models and we have no idea how much 5 or 6 billion dead people will add to the problem in a decade or two.

[@noahsark2009]

@@flissaflissa351 thank you for raising the level of urgency. We need to move quickly to have any chance of averting a complete catastrophe as opposed to a less complete catastrophe. We have capacity to change things on a state by state level but we also need to get out the vote and organize to put in progressive leadership that we can hold accountable. Working together in groups will make more of an impact than as separate individuals. Let us each find our power and join together.

[@Elviloh]

Too late. We successfully created an artificial natural selection, and spoiler, humanity is not wired to evolve that quickly to survive. Instead of building tolerance and resistance, we've grown weak, bathing in the luxury provided by the fossil fuel, which decreased our workload tenfold. We are depending on medicine to survive, our immune system has become garbage. In the meantime, monoculture and over-consumption has created country sized petri dishes. Insane use of pesticides have broken the balance, before there was many insects eating each others, battling to survive, enriching the genetic pool. Now the natural predators of many invasive species we don't like have disappeared, and it's an all you can eat buffet for pests. Etc. The list of human failures continue to go on, as we continue to believe we can control anything, when we can't even contain a fart.

[@jamespilcher5287]

The cost of renewables drops drastically if you back them up with nuclear.

[@franklinrussell4750]

The network of LWR power plants is all getting too hot to use. Nuclear power requires large government subsidies they are not commercially viable without the government underwriting them. Insurance companies won't insure them either. We also have no place to put nuclear waste. If we had reactors that don't make waste this source for electricity might be worth doing. A hydrogen economy would be our best choice.

[@augustlandmesser1520]

Luckily nuclear energy is too cheap to meter.

[@franklinrussell4750]

I hope you are not referring to a breeder reactors France has been bemused with those but still can't deal with the nuclear waste Yucca mountain is not a solution as you still have to transport the waste there. Hydrogen has zero waste and we can use that to build a hydrogen economy.

[@9squares]

Ask the Japanese if they think nuclear is cheap, or for that mater, ask them if it's even viable.

[@jamespilcher5287]

We drastically increase the chances of having carbon neutral energy production quick enough to mitigate climate change if we don't insist on attempting to raise the staggering amount of money needed to build out enough storage to cover intermittant availability of renewables. On balance, the risk of another fukushima pales into insignificance compared to the risk of runaway global warming. We need to use every tool at our disposal to maximise our chances of preventing an existential threat to the human race.

[@valhala56]

Rest assured nothing will be none other then more talk, reports and conferences.

[@TomHarrisonJr]

There will be some event -- could be any of a lot of things -- that finally pushes our dialog past the questions "Is it real?" or "Can we just ignore it?" into something more immediately urgent. When that comes no one knows. It's already far too late. So we'll spend our time and effort cleaning up after a disaster rather than investing a tiny fraction that is needed to prevent it.

[@fighteer1]

I don't think enough people are paying attention to the economic benefits of decarbonization. If we have to spend 2 trillion, 4.5 trillion, or 10 trillion, all of that money will be paying for jobs and ultimately spent back into our economy. It would be the greatest and most ambitious revitalization program in all of history. Sure, a lot of jobs would get displaced, but that's going to happen whether we choose it or not. The ultimate losers will be the businesses, shareholders, and their paid-for politicians who don't adapt to the new energy model (whether because of ideology or sunk costs). It's not hard to figure out why they'd oppose such change.

[@SweBeach2023]

The economy doesn't work like that. If I decide to spend 50k on a boat, that money will be given to people whom in exchange spend their TIME and RESOURCES in creating said boat. Their time and resources could have been spent elsewhere, for example by building homes for homeless people. And no, we can't do both the same way you can't spend spend your free time watching TV and going hiking at the same time. It's one or the other. It's the same lazy argument as "three times as many work in the renewable energy sector as in the fossil energy sector" if the renewable energy sector only creates 10 percent of the the total energy. That means their productivity is 30 times lower than a fossil fuel worker. And having less productive workers creates less resources to spend on human needs such as food, housing, experiences, travel, education etc.

[@flissaflissa351]

The answer to the question of who paid for the WoodMac report will be enlightening.

[@jncodegen]

No one - as a consultancy, it is likely that a free public report like that is being made to suit their clients. What they say behind closed doors could potentially be completely different.

[@MsPaulathomas]

@@jncodegen No chance in this case! WoodMac don't write a word without being paid by someone!

[@zoeherriot]

@@jncodegen they are for profit - they were paid for this. Their president is ex-oil and they have had investment from oil related companies. Seems a little... on the nose.

[@KevinMartinez-nl4if]

@Kyle Erasmus Do you even know what the Paris climate climate Accords are?

[@teresapacheco63]

@Kyle Erasmus Wow someone is in a bad mood! Talk about emotion...

[@thejohnringo]

Interesting analysis. The Sanders approach does look feasible to me...

[@TomHarrisonJr]

First we'll have to rewire our American psyche that seems to have been genetically modified to despise any incumbrance laid in front of our high and mighty Free Market Enterprises. It's cult-like.

[@richdobbs6595]

Although I would like to see some level of taxation to reduce high frequency trading, I doubt that it would generate this wonderful level of easy revenue that you folks desire. If you get stock trade taxes at that level, it would drive the trades overseas. Good luck in having the political class close off loopholes faster than the financial class find them. This is going against the interests of those folks that managed to convince all of the world's central banks to bail them out in 2008.

[@Isomoar]

@@richdobbs6595 Yet all this is doable if you look at the Scandinavian countries and some European countries, among others. It's about mass organisation and participation to create the political will to achieve it.

[@richdobbs6595]

@@Isomoar I don't see how the Scandinavian countries have done what you've claimed. Sure, they've done a better job in avoiding extremes of wealth inequality, but to a large degree that has just driven the powerful overseas.

[@CarlAlex2]

@@Isomoar We didnt do any such idiotic thing as taxing stock trades here in Denmark.

[@christinearmington]

Bravo. I own stocks, and I’d vote for the Wall Street option.

[@marekspot9314]

Me too. And I´d vote as well for financing via stock exchange. But I fear many will be opposed to any such climate action because they can´t put two and two together :(

[@cawfeedawg]

Me three

[@CheapHomeTech]

I'd vote against it.

[@jamest.5001]

Sometimes you must do what's right, to survive, no matter the price! After all, its the survival you are truely paying for, keeping the lights on is a bonus!!

[@patricklincoln5942]

How much CO2 will we add to the atmosphere to change the system as described in the report he cited? I think that is an important question to answer! I didn't see a mention of it.

[@michaelhayes7849]

Great presentation. 1) going carbon negative, not carbon neutral, is needed. 2) the use of Maritime BECCS, a heavy C neg tech, helps address the full water, energy, nutrient nexus 3) the more that the re-insurers get active in a broad basket of mitigation techs the less risk they and we will have

[@nicf1555]

On your second point, CCS through marine permaculture is the single most enticing tool to address climate I've heard of so far

[@bilgyno1]

The issue is always framed completely wrong by climate inactivists. They consistently use the word 'Cost' instead of 'Investment'. Unfortunately, most in the mainstream media are too stupid to understand basic economics. If it would require an investment of $4.5T to transform the entire energy infrastructure, that represents a huge investment of which many people can make a good living: suppliers of technology, service providers, and also financial investors. Even the government could sell climate bonds to fund this at miniscule interest rates, and probably make enough in increased tax revenue to pay the interest. We are at a crossroad, where we can choose between climate and economic catastrophe or spurring a new technological revolution. In the latter case, the biggest losers will be the owners of fossil fuel assets that will be written off completely. But they've made enough profits for over a century without ever paying for the climate damage they have caused.

[@RandomGuy-nm6bm]

Wow. Never thought about it that way. That's an interesting thought.

[@oisnowy5368]

What's also hardly ever mentioned is how many new jobs a transition creates.

[@armandomercado2248]

Economic will be the driver. Coal in the US was dethroned not by environmental concerns but by natural gas fracking which is cheaper than coal. As cost of motor vehicle fuel continues rise it will be displaced by EVs.

[@lystfiskerlars]

9.15 - most trade is done by fast algorithms. They wouldn't do the trading if costs were increased.

[@MadsBoldingMusic]

When pundits rage on about the cost of climate change mitigation, what they actually are saying is: "A green transition would be too costly for the fossil fuel industry." Nothing else makes sense at this point.

[@jamesdubben3687]

Great discussion. I would add in fuel savings costs

[@io6273]

How much subsidy we pay to the fossilfuel industrie?

[@glenmccarthy8482]

The manufactured uncertainty will continue.Which will make the changes politically unpalatable.

[@dhincks1]

Why don't we just take the current 500+ billion we currently subsidize the fossil industry?

[@skipscramble5915]

I’d like to gently suggest that we suggest what you gently suggested, less gently. Great video, as usual :)

[@WakingUpToday213]

And to whom do you suggest we less-gently suggest this fine suggestion?

[@skipscramble5915]

Andrew MacDonald to the man, mannnnnn

[@malcpkim8]

It can and has to be done. We have no room to be complacent. I would pay higher bills or more tax if I knew it could make a difference. The US will start to act more quickly when the predictions become a reality.

[@aycc-nbh7289]

Malcolm Price But what the US and American citizens do can only impact our own actions. How will we encourage the rest of the world to follow suit?

[@greggm7056]

Thanks Dave, keep it!

[@TutorWindow]

You have a good show--smart, interesting, and enjoyable.

[@dfaulk2660]

I live n the USA and I would happily give extra in stock trades to get kids out of debt and make our planet safe!

[@vijaykumar-gv1dg]

appreciate your pace. You never loose the speed with which you explain. Amazing info. Thank you.

[@ronaldronald8819]

This is the second year in a row that due to higher temperatures than normal crops are growing less and in some cases must be written of. We have deficits in ground water because of les rain fall. Gues where ??? Holland. You know that small country that is half water half land, windmills and stuff. If we do not curb climate change foodproduction wil become way more expensive. Not to mention al kinds of insects that like the warmer weather and our crops .

[@argoneons]

Channel is getting excellent, keep going and thank you, the details are important.

[@peetvane]

The US power grid has a capacity of 1060 gW and is assumed to grow to 1600 gW. That is for present use of power. what will happen if we all start driving electrical, batteries charged EV’s?

[@JustHaveaThink]

You may need more. But you'll certainly need a smart grid and smart meters, and good software in each vehicle so the grid will be talking to every single "battery on wheels" in the country and it will know exactly how much charge each of them has left and what the owners requirement are for any given time on any given day. Then once the vehicle is plugged in, the grid has got access to energy into the system as well as energy coming out. Let's not forget that the average car spends 90% of it's time in a stationary position doing nothing at all.

[@lawrencetaylor4101]

We would use less electricity. The oil industry uses 43% of all electricity, and that doesn't count the energetic costs of all the chemicals used in fracking and tar sands. Fossil fuel infrastructure is heavy, extremely heavy. We go to wind & solar, and start producing our own batteries and solar panes, that would mean our industrial sector would use a lot less energy, so we wouldn't need to install as much. And if we transition away from plastic, that would be even more reduction in our present energy needs.

[@jusb1066]

Making gasoline requires a ton of electricity, a hidden fact

[@bobwallace9753]

@@lawrencetaylor4101 I don't think that is correct. Those numbers include electricity generated within refineries. A large portion is generated by burning some of the petroleum. If we stopped using oil a lot of the electricity the refineries consume would not appear on our grids, it would simply disappear. I ran the numbers for California refineries and the amount of grid-purchased electricity was very moderate.

[@evacerar5758]

@@bobwallace9753 Most of the cars have pretty good autonomy, so charging could be done at night when the power demand is low. Going green would also mean more bicycles on the road and a revamp of public transport. Each of those problems has a simple solution if the government is willing to support a bold plan to take action now and set ambitious goals to reach this in the next 10-15 years, and not "wait and see what happens.

[@bradleyp3655]

Cost should not be an issue. These billionaires must pay for it all and all industries must be democratized. The tax payer made them wealthy and it is time for them to pay their dues.

[@a.randomjack6661]

Difficult choice humanity: *your money or your life?* Your answer please... And time's... up!

[@350buttecountycalifornia3]

BigCorps money or OUR lives!

[@christopherbaker1028]

@@350buttecountycalifornia3 Yes. See Extinction Rebellion Movement

[@erNomic]

This problem is made impossible by lobbyists and wall street's control of media.

[@TCRgalaxy]

Ain’t gonna happen as long as Human overpopulation & Overconsumption continues unabated right along with business as usual. WASF

[@TCRgalaxy]

Hiro Takkan or just sterilize the human race, our fellow earthlings would be extremely overjoyed if that were to happen, but obviously neither will and the human mega cancer will carry out the program of Moloch.

[@HomesteadEngineering]

Here are some things you can do right now: 1. If your really poor: - Nothing 2. If your "middle class": a. Replace light bulbs with LED's ($200) b. Add insulation to your attic ($500) c. Put TV's and computers on power strips ($30) d. DIY solar water heater ($75): kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXazlp1nnb-gqtE e. Replace all gas yard tools with electric tools ($500) 3. If your "rich" add these to the list: f. Install solar power for your home ($18,000) g. Get an electric car (charge with home solar) ($20,000 - $55,000) You will be more self-sufficient, save money and help protect the environment

[@noahsark2009]

JHAT thank you for working at staying calm and rational while confronting the insanity of greedy business as usual though the Wood Mackenzie report is at least trying to conceptuluze a path to get carbon emissions down, given how much warming is already baked in. Very nice of you to think of putting in the effort to look at taxing Wall Street and clarifying the risks we all face which are much worse for the global south as well as those who live in the far north.

[@deathofcommonsense]

It's now accepted that even if we reduced CO2 emissions, the aerosol masking effect would actually increase the heat more than the CO2 (for a short period at least, but enough to 'finish us off' !)

[@bobwallace9753]

A couple of points: 1) If climate change was not a problem the US would be facing large costs for new electricity generation anyway. Most of our existing coal and nuclear plants are aging out and would be closed by 2040 simply because they would be too expensive to operate. This is a lot of money that needs to go into the calculation. New wind and solar are massively cheaper than new coal and nuclear. By installing renewables rather than replacing steam plants we save huge amounts of money that we would otherwise have to spend. 2) According to Epstein's 2012 study on the hidden costs of coal the US was spending between $140 billion and $242 billion annually dealing with health problems caused by coal. Add more for health problems caused by oil. WoodMac states that it would cost $225 billion to $450 billion per year to transition from a heavily fossil fuel grid to a renewable grid over an 11 to 20 year period. Take out the billions saved by replacing worn out plants with renewables and the billions saved on health costs of fossil fuels and the actual cost would be very significantly lower in terms of new spending.

[@Elviloh]

That's where it's blocking : the big finance doesn't think about long term, they want short term benefits or they don't care. We gave too much power to finance, and it only care about numbers, not consequences in reality.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@Elviloh I don't think we should expect businesses to behave ethically or with our long term interests in mind. Businesses are in business to make money and will often be owned/run by the more greedy of us. People who get into businesses to make money for themselves. I think we need to use government to regulate what businesses can do and how they do things. We need to elect officials who look out for the needs of people and for the long term good. We've failed at that to some extent. I have a very cynical view of today's Republican Party. I think we need to work hard to hand current Republican leaders a large defeat and elect some leaders who will better regulate business and work on our large long term problems like climate change, education, wealth inequality, and healthcare.

[@stevedowning3892]

Thanks for all your videos. Your calm and positive style is the only way I can digest this terrifying material

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Steve. I know it's pretty awful subject matter but I do try to put it across in a reasonably upbeat way - we do have to talk about it after all, and of course I'm British so I've been taught to 'keep my chin up!'

[@JustHaveaThink]

@Donald McCarthy Well, maybe not personally but my sister and brother in law are both NHS doctors. They will have had to deliver the sentiment you outlined above to individual patients on dozens of occasions so perhaps their calm demeanour has had an influence on me over the years.

[@itspeekaboo]

Sounds like a lot to achieve given the time frame,in fact it sounds improbable to me.Thank you.

[@derrickstableford8152]

The Voodoos Think of it as a Manhattan project, except with a lot of jobs secured for the future. Of course the Koch brothers will see it as taking away their ball, instead of an opportunity.

[@itspeekaboo]

@@derrickstableford8152 What i am thinking the Manhattan project would need to be in many places around our globe,however a reality check being that 450 ppm of atmoshiric CO2 concentrations and above is now unavoidable.

[@itspeekaboo]

@Kyle Erasmus Well its most likely large scale (SRM) will be used as a last resort,of course we could all change the way we live on this planet,IE change of land use radically reduce the livestock industry along with none essential food crops and more than double by replanting with secondary forest however that will still not get us to what is needed,the task of drawing down not just naturally but artificially would also be needed which in its self is a daunting task,i mean we are not talking about carbon reductions of some 45% next decade but rather 60% because of different factors now showing a clear signature in Earths climate systums,maybe i am just a pessimist but i would be amazed if we even archive a 20% reduction next decade,i think in hindsight we have to prepare and adapt for a warmer World,our first challenge will be people on the move even less than a further degree C could well see numbers as high as 1 in 7 and we don't even have a solution for 1 in 50, renumber some 800 850 million people are food aid dependent and many more calorie deficient and some 48% of the Worlds population exists on less than 25 dollars a week,there will also be displacement from extreme climate events not just effecting poor countries.

[@itspeekaboo]

@Kyle Erasmus "as far as the extreme climate events go, US official statistics disprove any theory of more extreme weather conditions, both in number and intensity. countries around the Wold are being impacted by climate change and those impacts will increase as our planet continues to warm. eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/29/extreme-weather-fueled-climate-change-disasters-hit-62-m-last-year/3304707002/ "going back in history to about the 1950's, and there has been a decline in the number of people killed in the US due to extreme weather conditions" Make your mind up your words " have neglected to look at the big picture, and see only the US" air pollution alone from burning carbon is killing millions climate death rate will soar by 2050 .psmag.com/environment/air-pollution-is-killing-more-people-than-smoking-and-fossil-fuels-are-largely-to-blame "As far as the climate and climate system is concerned, the fact that the sum total of all possible influences on the climate and their proportional contribution as either dependent or independent variables has not been assessed yet" So what you are saying we cannot measure mass ice loss in Greenland, Antarctica, inland glaciers,land permafrost,and subsea permafrost ESAS instability, all of which is now becoming increasing unstable and increasing in mass loss. Are you also suggesting we cannot see the vast changes within Earths circulation patterns and our planets biosphere.? "I am convinced that mankind is not powerful enough to make any significant contribution to Climate Change, that Nature is not capable of adapting to and absorbing through the various mechanisms and fundamental principles" We have already made that change and Earths biomass will decline as we continue to warm along with the food we grow to eat. "The other factor that assures me of this being true, is that we are nowhere near past heat or cold temperature limits through which man survived, proving that those were also not the Limits of man in terms of adaptability." Its not a question of limitations heat or cold temperature, but our species infrastructure once again including the crops we grow to eat declining yields on sustainable crops and across the board will be daunting if temperatures cannot be stabilized.

[@barbmoody4892]

Nuclear power needs to be phased out completely. 1) we still don’t have a way to deal with the virtually permanently dangerous waste, 2) the current plants we have are all way past their lifespan and are dangerously under-built for the threat of increasing extreme weather events and 3) nuclear power is not suited to a much warmer world where water is increasingly scarce since all plants need to be cooled with water. Nuclear power needs to be ended as soon as possible so that plants can b safely decommissioned - a decades long process.

[@MrFinlandssvensk]

See on this watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

[@webchimp]

MrFinlandssvensk "See on this watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY" You are allowed to post full links in youtube comments

[@Ocean-Mariner]

Great work Sir... Thank you

[@victorserafine5984]

I'm an American citizen and as a 70 year old man I have witnessed many changes. The fact of the matter is that while we're viewed as a democracy we actually are an empire of greed. Unless you can convince the ultra rich that its more profitable for them to pursue a course of business that will in some way benefit them your not likely to see any change in their response to climate change. I am unlikely to be around when the really horrendous changes come, but I have a deep concern for the generations who follow.

[@holographicbreathing]

Thorium energy is the only way forward and it would not cost that

[@bobwallace9753]

Thorium in only a fuel for steam plants now heated by uranium. The cost of electricity from a nuclear plant is almost all non-fuel costs. The cost of fuel, reported by the nuclear industry, is under $0.01/kWh. Even if thorium was free that < one cent savings would not make nuclear electricity affordable.

[@scorpio6587]

I agree that nuclear power is a great option. The biggest enemy is NIMBY. Bob Wallace has no clue what he is talking about.

[@bobwallace9753]

@@scorpio6587 Enlighten us. Show us an operating nuclear plant in the western hemisphere that produces cheap electricity during its pay off period. Not after the conex and finex costs have been paid which takes 20 to 30 years, but from the first year of operation. Nuclear's big enemy is its cost. That is and has always been its deadly enemy. It's the reason that the nuclear age is drawing to a close with both the US and Western Europe closing reactors and replacing them with renewable energy.

[@holographicbreathing]

@@bobwallace9753 thorium is best in molton salt reators then there is no waste or chance of melt downs .

[@bobwallace9753]

@@holographicbreathing That's great. But check to see how many molten salt reactors fueled by thorium are now operating. And if you can find one check to see if the cost of electricity produced is competitive in today's energy market. BTW, the City of Los Angeles is currently reviewing a 25 year, fixed rate PPA for solar at $0.0197/kWh. Less than two cents per kWh and the price will not rise over the length of the contract. Also offered is battery storage for an additional 1.3 cents per kWh. Electricity used directly from the solar farm would cost just under 2 cents per kWh and electricity stored for use after the Sun goes down would cost just under 3.3 cents. That will be very hard for any new nuclear to compete against. We have no recent nuclear for less than about 15 cents per kW. Big difference between 15 and 2.

[@carltaylor4942]

Thanks again - your videos are incredibly informative, well thought out and presented and provide a great deal of food for thought.

[@diamonddbw]

Sorry, but here in US, science no longer has an impact. Only trump's opinion matters. He's a genius, Right??? (Insert vomiting icon here)

[@jthadcast]

us debt at $22 trillion the cost to decarbonize a mere 20% of current debt to fix our energy grid. the horror that this bargain will be ignored completely in favor of the slow creep of climate change damage.

[@RussCR5187]

Unfortunately, we've passed the point of slow creep. Climate change damage is now an ever-accelerating process due to self-reinforcing feedback loops in the climate system. For example, as the Arctic warms (3-4 times faster than the global average at present) the Arctic Ocean's ice melts, exposing darker ocean waters, which then absorbs more heat from the sun than the ice would have, which melts the remaining ice even faster, and so on. At this point an ice-free Arctic ocean in September is just a few years away, with additional ice-free months to follow in relatively short order. At some point the permafrost that is also melting will begin giving up its methane (a greenhouse gas even more potent than CO2) in prodigious quantities--yet another self-reinforcing feedback loop. There are no words in the English language to adequately describe our current situation. We are well beyond terms like URGENT and EMERGENCY.

[@zuluflor4]

for information to a upcoming new energy storrage device watch Dr. Donald Sadoway.

[@johnbash-on-ger]

You mean Ambri's liquid metal battery technology: www.ambri.com/

[@xyzsame4081]

@@johnbash-on-ger They use Magnesium and Antimon (is that a common metal ?) From their pdf: "Ambri has a prototype manufacturing facility in Marlborough, MA set up to test equipment and processes for manufacturing the Liquid Metal Battery at scale." Excellent: if the claims regarding 15 years use, no degradation are true, that would be a game changer for homes and businesses (not sure about cars). Even and especially in the temperate climate zone (think Germany - most of the U.S. has better conditions for solar than Germany, well most of Europe except for the south of Europe). Energy used for cooling / heating is a big factor. (and cooling needs as much as heating - it is just different seasons) Especially in the moderate climate zone storage is a big issue, lower costs, better performance can change the viability of the whole system. Installing MORE panels would make sense if you have the space - in Germany costs for consumers are 26 cents per kWh and 20 - 21 for businesses. (in California peak harvest aligns at least with peak demand for A/C - so less demand for batteires, you use the energy when you produce it). Cheaper batteries (that are less complex and sensitive, no need for cooling, no fire hazard, fast charging, weight, density - see Lithium batteries especially for cars) would boost the deployment of solar power panels. the fire hazard of Lithium is an issue, those fires are hard to put out. And Lithium mining / production is problematic - not sure if Mg / Sb is better in that resepct. Also think developing countries. Areas in India or Africa never got a grid and they can skip that investment. They have plenty of reliable solar radiation though. All of that would mean lower costs for batteries: Current costs are 14 - 16 cents for every kWh that _needs_ to be stored in Germany. Average production costs of solar electricity are 4,6 cents per kWh * - these are Euro cents. So let's say a soon to come 10 % drop for solar and 20 % drop for batteries - and companies and households might consider going off the grid even in often cloudy and cool Germany. As long as you are on the grid you have extra costs, and in Gemany they are substantial. And as everywhere - now that the fringe technology becomes competition, governments protect the established providers.Companies (ideal user profile because they - unlike consumers - use more energy during day when there is production) are discouraged to install solar panels with an extra fee. Consumers can only evade the fee if they do not install more than 5 kWp (peak) - that is a small unit, especially for German production conditions (which are not ideal - so one needs a larger unit on the roof to compensate for the seasons and cloudier days). 10 - 15 kWp (that is feasable for a house - maybe also using the garage roof) would mean becoming almost independent regarding electricity. In many countries electricity providers used to be public utilities but have been privatized when neoliberalism him. Rest assured that the public will bail them out when THEY cannot compete anymore, it is only the small players (companies and workders) that have to adapt and have to suffer from change in the industry. * in Dubai they set a record of 2,7 cents per kWh in 2017, there solar plants replace gas turbines during the day. costs of 3 - 3,5 Euro cents (yearly average) are already a reality in sunny countries. In the U.S. electricity costs are 10,5 dollar cents ! on average (it is less in Euro cents) - so you can see that 20 % price drop for storage would be huge. (Production is already cheap, and will become cheaper). More batteries being sold not only means major price drops for that product - it also lower costs for solar panels (or wind) - which will also get a boost in sales. After all MORE panels would be produced and installed so _economy of scale_ applies there as well. I think having batteries that can be switched on the go would make things easier for powering cars. A cheaper, more robust battery would be helpful for such a switch and go system. One can hope it would be also have less impact on the environment to produce it. Then instead of putting gas in the tank one would fetch a charged battery from the gas station or you have one at home that uses surplus. would be suited as backup - that would also solve the range problem: most people drive short distances only occasionally they need the car for longer distances) Would be interesting also for surplus of conventional producers (like hydropower, they do not always use ALL the water - think spirng and rivers filled with meltwater). one thing I noted: is that a MIT spin-off ? Developing technology with subsidies and then they run with it when something interesting comes out of subsidized research ? I would not mind if the company stays in the U.S. and employs U.S. citizens and pays taxes (paying back for the initial boost). But under current conditions they would outsource as soon as it becomes an economic success.

[@johnbash-on-ger]

@@xyzsame4081 The Ambri battery works at high temperature so not safe enough for putting in people's houses. Also solar might drop more than 10%. Check out NovaSolix Inc: kzbin.info/door/M19er9iKLMq93OGxnikAxQvideos NovaSolix Inc website: www.novasolix.com/technology

[@tedrees5989]

Good report! Sadly, it seems to me that we are at great risk of a collapse of civilization. The storm/fire events are costly, and cause rebuild. But I expect to see food production affected as well. Already, the mid west US has had their planting timing thrown off, and a new report says to expect continued flooding all summer. We don't have a large ability to rebuild. The people employed in the trades is a small fraction of the GDP. Going fast is tough. Going slow will result in more problems over time. Emissions must be brought down to zero, just to stop temperatures from rising, and even that has a 10 year delay. The good news is that at least solar PV is so cheap that a DIY installation can pay for itself within 5-10 years. So that should be a no-brainer. But, solar needs back-up. Wind is surprisingly steady. But, it is only economical installed in windy locations. So it is mostly an opportunity for big business only.

[@jiminibops]

Bernie 2020!!! 🤗 🤗 🤗

[@MegaSnail1]

I love your reports with all of your data and share them with everyone I can. Keep up the good work. You give the most important gift of all hope supported by data.

[@MrNoName38925]

First! Great content btw.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Well done sir!! Very sharp :-)

[@ronkirk5099]

A tax on Wall street financial transactions makes a lot of sense. It could help pay for the green energy transition and more importantly, reduce the obscene profits made in the financial markets which only enrich a few without contributing anything useful to the economy.

[@raulepure9840]

Just print the money, but double the amount Regarding the climate migrants, in this moment is just bogus, they are economic migrant from overpopulation

[@gfsrow]

Cost has essentially become irrelevant. The transformation must occur, and it must occur sooner rather than later. And the reason for the elevated cost is the irresponsibility of the powers that be - including Wall Street - since at least the 1980's.

[@christinearmington]

We need to figure out a military advantage for renewable energy. If the military wants it, and it promotes military might, it’ll get done.

[@markumbers5362]

I did some back of the envelope figures for Australia and because solar/wind/battery are the cheapest form of generation it would save a lot of money to switch immediately. But, why not keep the price the same and apply a tax to the cheaper renewables to help coal miners transition to new jobs. Same with electric vehicles - they are expensive, upfront at the moment, but with break throughs in battery technology, the movement of Tesla to china, VW about to explode on to the market etc the price of EV's will be irresistible in 5 years and the running costs are 60% less than internal combustion. As the price drops on RE and EV's we will have a much better society. Less particulate pollution, less noise, cheaper electricity and running costs for our cars or an opportunity for governments to keep prices the same through consumption taxes. Taxes that can be used to fund our fire fighting services, hospitals ,schools and drought affected farmers properly in Australia. Unfortunately we have a government infested with deniers at the moment but their days are numbered.

[@JasonSmith709]

Its important to remember that electricity demand only represents about 20% of energy demand (33% if all transport and industry are electrified). The amount of renewable capacity needed to transition to zero emissions by 2050 is 2000GW a year for the next 30 years. 2019 installations equalled 160GW, we are nowhere near where we need to be.

[@curtis-hearn]

I work in financial services, but my clients aren't the "ultra rich." I wish people would stop assuming Wall St is just a bunch of billionaires. Most of it is just normal people trying to retire someday. That said, I'm not sure I'm completely against Bernie Sanders proposal to tax trades. It would encourage long-term investment strategies which research shows are better anyway.

[@xyzsame4081]

21,000 subscribers. That's quite good for a channel that stared in Feb. 2018 !

[@mondotv4216]

You don't have to tax Wall St. Just redirect all the subsidies currently going to the oil, gas and auto industries. Which actually amounts to more than the US Defence budget. Or just put a price on carbon. Let the market decide.

[@rayshepherd2479]

What subsidies? The oil and gas companies get the dame tax breaks as all other companies. In addition those tax breaks get passed on to the consumer. So taking away the tax breaks would just get passed on to the consumer.

[@TomHarrisonJr]

This is a very well done and balanced presentation. The problem with all of the economic models is that they don't really capture "tipping point" events very well, and are bound to make simple extrapolations from current trends. Tipping point events might include climate disasters, election outcomes, wars, but also the advances of technology that help clarify the costs of climate change -- any tipping point item may pave the way for dramatic policy change, but are also nearly impossible to predict. Anything incremental (Wood Mackenzie) allows business-as-usual for another few years. History will show that by around 2010 it was already too late to avoid massive impacts.

[@flamboone9727]

The cost did not go up because of the increased extreme weather events but because of the legislative incompetence and mismanagement.

[@tlgoody]

WM didn't factor in efficiency gains. A carbon fee at the well, mine and dock and paid back to the public directly would encourage the best alternatives, not just renewables. Better building design, more efficient transportation, and lifestyle changes to name a few.

[@aidymcgrath4197]

You are the best channel on KZbin. Thank you.

[@eurobratx]

They also have some good climate change scenarios linking climate change to the real economy and likely damage to financial assets and liabilities. They partnered with CISL which do a lot of interesting analysis in this area.

[@marksharman8029]

Do their figures assume centralisation of power supply, as per current systems? Would leaving centralised systems behind and going with smaller localised or even independent household collection and storage, be a better approach to the transition?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Mark. I think that will definitely need to be part of the solution. US Economist Jeremy Rifkin talks about a Third Industrial Revolution with decentralised distributed smart grids sharing renewable energy from region to region and even across time zones so that the available power from sun and wind is always being used somewhere. Here's and interesting talk he gave last year kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4mWfmuBlp6pi6M All the best. Dave

[@marksharman8029]

Yes. I see the dream in this and a small ray of hope. But have despaired over many decades, at the 1%. To get to the dream a spiritual realignment must happen. What we carry in our hearts and minds must change. This change is fundamental to replacing ignorance with understanding. You are engaged in that change, which is awesome. But the potential to blow it is so huge. I'm approaching the end of my life, so every breath is a precious opportunity of enlightenment. This aspect of the revolution needs some help, I feel.

[@kronsild]

Hi Mark. This is already on the way all over the world, specially in lower developed countrys. India has now decided to pass the step of installing centralized power supply and supports localized power generation by PV and it is growing fast. Over here the small town I live in in Germany they have installed enough windmills and PV that we are now an energy exporter. The revenues of it flows in childcare and schooling. People love it and the resistance of our conservatives dropped dead. Our school just got a new gymnasium which is even energy positiv, financed by our power-plants. There is a lot to be done and in many places it is already in process.

[@chuckkottke]

I agree wholeheartedly, we out to tax transactions on Wallstreet to pay for the upgrades! Combining energy efficiency improvements with renewable and storage, the expense to transition should be considerably less. A walk down the road here made me realize what potential we have in rooftop solar - at 100 W/M sq, there could easily be 150 kwh per day total on the commercial buildings! Add improvements in building efficiency, and the surplus could be powering cars and Mills, completing the circle of supply and demand.

[@coppice2778]

So, this large bill is only to transition electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewables? What is the bill when you try to replace all the burning of fossil fuels? Replacing just one use doesn't achieve a useful goal.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Indeed. The situation is gravely serious and extremely urgent. All angles need to be covered, but decarbonisation must be at the heart of every policy decision.

[@criticalobserver5720]

Storage should not be expressed as GW. Rather it is GW hours that is key.

[@pgantioch43]

THANK YOU for talking about the costs of NOT acting on climate change. People don't want to "pay more" to address climate change, but they forget they're paying more NOW. Fire season in the western US is more than twice as long & is more intense. Taxpayers pay fire-fighters. Property owners (& renters indirectly) pay increased fire insurance. Flood insurance premiums are rising, & it's underwritten by taxpayers. When people decide they can't afford insurance, they get caught out if a disaster happens. FEMA, funded by taxpayers, helps a little, but most people will just take the loss. People are paying more NOW for climate change. The ONLY question is whether they want to pay more irrationally, like they are now, or pay more rationally, by pushing a rapid transition to renewables.

[@FPOUYOT]

Humans have been able to raise against the tyranny of other nations (Nazis, European colonial empires..) or their own rulers (French Revolution and all the independence movements). They did that when the perception of the oppression and injustice was great enough. Climate chaos does not look as scary or as unjust, as it is more complex and takes place over a longer time, but the end result is just as bad. We need great, courageous leaders to go on the greatest war of all and to unite the world against the tyranny of what is already causing the 6th extinction. That revolution is not just about Clean Energy, as this alone will not be enough to stop the climate hell we are heading towards. The revolution needs to make us shift away from animal farming (especially farming methane producing cows), shift away from economic growth (which is tied to human population growth) and move towards a new way of thinking and living based on different values. As in all revolutions, the people who are benefiting from the status quo will fight. It will not be easy, there will be casualties, but sacrifices are required for the greater good.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Well put Frederic. That encapsulates the challenge very nicely. All the best. Dave

[@lifesign123]

We should raise our hands because nothing will be done and we're going over the top of the roller coaster.

[@NAUM1]

Some would say that investing in renewables was part of the problem for PG and E. Instead of building more nuclear and using the savings to build a better grid, instead they focused on the renewable energy installment.

[@Lokeyy1]

Your Thunder keeps scaring my dog, Lol! but will keep watching anyway since you are the best channel out there!

[@avjake]

In the short term, we seriously need to disconnect FEMA support from the requirement of rebuilding in the same location. That is like flushing money down the vortex.

[@DrRadtke]

Excelent analysis. Climate change is dramatic already and it's unbelievable that there is still ignorance. Thanks for your fantastic work and videos 👍

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

You seemed a little unclear on GW and GWh with regards to energy storage and energy production. Battery storage is in GWh and batteries are not the only storage option, with pumped storage being the most mature.

[@wesc3568]

Dave I respect your position on this topic of climate change, discussion vs debate is certainly far more productive. I have a few thoughts here : 1) First, and to be blunt ; the idea that we could shut down fossil fuel in the next 10 - 20 years is ridiculous. Keep in mind that just about everything we touch and have become accustomed to in our quality of life, is likely linked to some petrochemical process. Approx. 15% of a barrel of oil is refined for chemical use. Unfortunately, you still have to produce a barrel of oil to access that 15% , so the question is what do you do with the rest that would normally be used in combustion? 2) Within the "Crafting compromises" chart ; should we not include zero-carbon technologies within the fossil fuel industry itself? Carbon capture technology has come a long way! ALLAM CYCLE as an example. There are NG power stations that currently operate at zero - emissions. In Canada a refinery was recently completed that produces low carbon synthetic diesel. A first of its kind in the world, that produces zero emissions. 3) Taxing market trades is not a bad idea....I suspect it has never been used before because it simply opens a door nobody wants open. Otherwise it would have been used to invest in developing nations, instead of proliferating and profiting from their debt....right? 4) Has WoodMack considered the effect on GDP in this transition? When you remove the broad economic spectrum the oil industry has provided, especially in a short time period...there is only one way this can go. Coupled with the fact that a majority of global oil is still traded in USD..... it wouldn't be pretty. We will eventually transcend fossil fuels regardless. I do not believe it is imperative that it is done in such a short time frame. Technology is providing a means to capture and use carbon, while we phase into new energy platforms. Investment in windmills and solar panels coupled with battery storage will be an expense wasted IMO...thermonuclear fusion is making leaps in progress > something to keep an eye on. Another is hydrogen production.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Wes. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your concise points and measured arguments. I do however read and hear the same rhetoric that you are putting forward here from other commentators and I'm afraid (if I can also be blunt) it's just a very polite and gently presented form of the same denial, obfuscation and ambivelance that the professional deniers employ. First rule of denial propganda - always tailor your presentational style to the intellectual level of the recipient, so I suppose I should be flattered by your care and attention to detail. We will certainly have to continue drilling for oil in existing fields for some decades while we transition away from using plastics, but we can and must stop refining any of that oil into fuel by 2040 at the latest. There is absolutely no technical or societal reason why this cannot happen except the inertia of big oil and their influence over the politicians combined with their quite brilliant PR and propaganda experts who can convince gullible people of just about anything they want. After all they, and tobacco and big pharma and the agri businesses, have been doing it extremely succesfully for decades so they have had a lot of practice. The carbon capture you mention is, from what I have researched and learnt over the last two years, one of the smartest scams the fossil fuel industry has come up with in the last three decades. There are only a couple of fully functional CCS systems in existence and they add between 10% and 20% to the cost of production so there's no incentive to really ramp them up. Most of the 'bolt-on' systems only work at about 10% efficiency, so they are just a 'sop' to the regulators. The companies that have embraced CCS have done so because they have production facilities close enough to oil fields to be able to push the carbon dioxide gas at huge pressure into oil seams to dislodge the less accesible pockets of oil and therefore make significant improvements in their oil production numbers (all of which gets burned as hydrocarbon fuel to put CO2 into the atmosphere) and for this clever sleight of hand, they also get handsomely rewarded in the form of tax incentives by the US government for using what they claim to be a carbon sequestration scheme. All very clever and very cosy for the business men and lawmakers. Here's a link to a more general video I made ealrier this year on this subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4bafHihjsemrpI As for the low carbon synthetic diesel. If it's diesel, synthetic or otherwise, then it is a hydrocarbon, and when it gets burned it releases Carbon Dioxide. That's just chemistry. I wonder if you might actually be referring to a company called Carbon Engineering? They are a carbon capture company. If so then I'm afraid my view is equally sanguine. Just another smart way to recapture carbon and recycle it back into hydro carbons that can be sold as fuel. The venture is part owned by the biggest Tar Sands operator in Canada. Tax will be essential. Carbon tax, carbon pricing, carbon accounting within business P&L sheets...all of that will be common place within our lifetimes, but it needs to commmonplace now. As for GDP, that one really is where our rich western minds need to get a grip and get with the program. Just like the heavy smoker who is devastated when the doctor tells them they have terminal cancer, or the heavy drinker who dies of liver failure or the obese person who suffers heart failure in their thirties. The point being that we can always find a reason not to change our ways - that is the nature of addiction (and addicted WE ARE!). So we can either change our ways now when we just about still have time, or we can wait for Dr Nature to tell us that we no longer have the right to exist because we were unable to apply a simple set of disciplines to our lifestyle. It will of course be the latter, but that doesn't stop me trying to push for the former. All the best. Dave

[@abyssmanur3965]

Lots of talk about carbon capture technology but Trees do it best esp considering the water uptake and soil improvement, no machine is going to do all that.

[@wesc3568]

@@JustHaveaThink Thanks Dave for spending the time. :) I prefer professional skeptic ;) I am a little disappointed that you made the jump so soon into the "alarmist" climate denier rhetoric, and then the precarious political stripe on big oil. I do understand you have a job to do, and I will respect that. So I won't take up too much of your time. I understand propaganda, and with the right marketing ANYONE can be fooled. How many times have we been fooled in the past Dave? Did Tony B have you going on Iraq? How about 9/11? There is no limits on their marketing budgets, so be careful. I am from Canada, and I have seen the political propaganda campaigns on our oil sands. I have worked there myself on occasion , and I can tell you that there is probably not a more environmentally responsible project on this planet!! This is the TRUTH : www.cosia.ca/ I am not sure where you got your info on CC tech Dave....this tech has been around for a century at least, and is much more advanced than you realize. We CAN lock down carbon, we CAN recycle it and we CAN transition into renewables without driving our selves into a recession. I do agree with you , the western culture is over consuming. There is a severe imbalance in this world when 80% of us are trying to live on $10/day or less. Anyway , good luck with your channel... all differences aside , its going to get cold this winter in your neck of the woods , same here in my place.... keep some extra food and water just in case boss. Cheers! :)

[@wesc3568]

@@abyssmanur3965 Very true !! However a tree cannot be hooked up to the manufacturer / refinery / or power station.

[@chinookvalley]

Too bad Prez Reagan (1981-1989) said the US was NOT going to support Green Energy, that we were going to support the petro industry. Such ignorance! Think of where we would be today if not for his attitude?! Green auto industry, Green utilities, Green building, Green Corp and Industry. Nothing seems to have changed, and it is only getting worse with the current Trump gang. What a sad and embarrassing situation we have created.

[@Larimerst]

As always, very informative, but the logic here regarding "finding the money" and "$35,000 per household " cost is deeply flawed. On the federal level, money itself is not a scarce resource that needs to be obtained before it is spent - i.e. we create money out of nothing and can create as much or as little of it as we care to do. The real limitation in terms of government spending on items like energy infrastructure is a lack of imagination and political will and the hard limits of availability of real goods and services to consume.