Rethinking Climate Change. The path to a 90% emissions reduction by 2035.

[@Baekstrom]

No other channel manages to make me lose hope for the future one week and then make me bubble with exuberant hope the next, like this one does.

[@stevedowning3892]

Well put!

[@vildemare]

I share that feeling

[@MrVaticanRag]

So depressing that he won't speak out for Walk-away safe high temperature near ambient pressure molten salt reactors kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2TZZH9re7aGgKs

[@steve-o6413]

Are you saying the internet gives you problems to solve, then gives you the solution for solving the problems. Kind of like TV commercials giving you a disease and a cure all in the same commercial...

[@williamrbuchanan4153]

Remove cost? Simple , remove Money, anything is possible without it. Get on board for world unity.

[@aleehy]

I watch most of the videos you post, and am a fairly well educated person in the science fields. I really appreciate your level of research and pleasant manner of presentation. With all of the junk on KZbin and the internet in general, JHAT is one of the few channels that I really enjoy. It's educational, interesting and always well presented. Kudos for a job well done! Thank you!

[@tennisbum3686]

Well put, I agree with you, a quality video with information without all the stupid whistles and bells the typical videos with music Etc. This is a breath of fresh air

[@BsktImp]

04:22 Just a minor but not insignificant point: a linear graph on a semi-log (log-linear) plot does indeed represent an exponential change.

[@Trainguy9000]

Massively important point!! Good for bringing it up.

[@Paul_]

The original IPCC line was exponential, and the actual performance line is even more exponential. It's counter-intuitive for most people, but a very slow increase over many years can be exponential. The term 'exponential' is almost as over-used as 'meteoric rise' (meteors don't rise, they fall...)

[@fractalnomics]

Don't spoil the story with facts. Damn man.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Yes it does, that's true, but for the sake of brevity and simplicity I used simplified language.

[@jonnafry]

Thanks for confirming my hunch .. couldn't be bothered further investigating.

[@thomasalbrecht5914]

Some aspects of this report sound extremely technocratic and remind of 1950s sci-fi, that predicted we would all be eating astronaut food from tubes, and fly around in nuclear-powered flying saucers by the year 2000. I acknowledge past exploits of the authors concerning renewables, but neither autonomous road vehicles, nor forest regrowth on damaged soils, nor food from bioreactors replacing current culturally informed nutritional habits, look anywhere near likely to happen at the suggested speed.

[@ThePsicocat101]

Food im general maybe on 2100 2030 no way and having some company have monopol on food production is extremly bad idea

[@jackson8085]

Well if you say so.... Just realize people have been talking like this, and have been proven wrong, throughout history. People ALWAYS underestimate technological change, and overestimate political change.

[@thomasalbrecht5914]

@@jackson8085 you can tell by the predictions on food that this study was conducted by British/American think tanks. People who might as well fuel up instead of having meals. No Italian or French scientist would seriously suggest eating sludge made from yeast bacteria in a tank and 3D-printed into burger shapes. Technology is one thing, culture and society is another. The amount of social engineering necessary to effectively implement the suggested technologies without causing mayhem on unprecedented scale is staggering. The authors should stick to ways of generating electricity.

[@block3732]

@@jackson8085 "People ALWAYS underestimate technological change, and overestimate political change." That's not true. Throughout the XX century people and even nowadays people predict and believe in countless futuristic scenarios previously mentioned in OP's comment that didn't happen nor is ever likely to happen Either way, even if what you said was true, it is not a good argument at all. "People laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

[@jackson8085]

@@thomasalbrecht5914 It may not become a choice. Eat this meat or carbon tax like climate change policy will price you out of the market. That's if there is even a market based solution. There may not be. Honestly, people said the same thing about beyond meat,etc. and those products are selling perfectly well.

[@HonestSonics]

You've helped articulate a process I've been aware of without fully being able to explain - the disruption and cascading effect of new technologies responding to demand/necessity, leading to big breakthroughs which advance these sustainable industries in short spaces of time once investment and resource input reach a critical level. Thank you for another clear, digestible and interesting presentation!

[@squamish4244]

Nearly everyone underestimates these trends, and always have. Like today's complaining about "Why is medicine still so primitive?" But if you just look around, you see things like vaccines developed in 8 months or people with Stage 4 cancer getting vaccinated and instantly going into remission (like my father's friend). Or psychedelic therapy, brain stimulation etc. for mental health. The future is now.

[@marcdefaoite]

An uncharacteristically optimistic 'think' today. Thanks Dave.

[@squamish4244]

The comment section is not for once full of eco-nihilists channelling their unresolved personal problems through climate doomsday scenarios.

[@kimweaver3323]

@@squamish4244 You spoke too soon. We of the non-Pollyanna cohort are alive and well, so far.

[@squamish4244]

​@@kimweaver3323 If you think I'm Pollyanish it's too bad I can't show you a recording of my thinking for the last 30 years. But a lot of people DO use eco-nihilism to avoid dealing with their personal problems. I used to. Maybe you do, too!

[@kimweaver3323]

@@squamish4244 Nope. I'm over seventy and won't have to deal with it. No children, no legacy for me to preserve. Just watching the inevitable trends and am surprised that I may well be the final generation of humans which won't be completely ravaged by habitat collapse. The last line in the superb Clarke novel "Childhood's End"........"Well, someone has to turn out the lights."

[@squamish4244]

@@kimweaver3323 Interestingly, the majority of nihilistic people who comment turn out to be old and have no children when you directly ask them. Very odd.

[@olivercannady]

With all of the junk on KZbin and the internet in general, JHAT is one of the few channels that I really enjoy. It's educational, interesting and always well presented. Kudos for a job well done! Thank you!

[@isidoreaerys8745]

If you think KZbin is full of junk you’re on the wrong side of KZbin! kzbin.info This is a good place to start

[@olivercannady]

@@isidoreaerys8745 I checked out your link. You proved my point, and thanks for wasting 60 seconds of my life! :(

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@olivercannady claims modern Entertainment is Junk Has a 60 second attention span.

[@olivercannady]

@@isidoreaerys8745 my attention span is less than 60 seconds for crap.

[@keithc5729]

@@isidoreaerys8745 You tube has many good channels. But I don't think ContraPoints is a good place to start. ContraPoints is a good channel, but it is not a good place to start. Maybe try Beau of the fifth Column.

[@Parazeta]

Cats doing silly things and humans doing naughty things is the best summary of the internet I have ever heard :D

[@andywomack3414]

Only if your internet habits are random, not selective. I don't get that stuff in my KZbin feed.

[@querch1066]

And cathumans doing naughty things.

[@hammerdon1962]

@@andywomack3414 it's amazing how the algorithm eventually always leads to MSM

[@AlRoderick]

If spam and scams count as "naughty" then you've pretty much got it.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

Sometimes watching cats and dogs doing silly things is a great stress reliever

[@DrJohnnyJ]

"Tree farms" such as those in Ireland and the US do not capture much carbon. We need old forests with undergrowth, insects, fungi, etc. to capture carbon.

[@Les_S537]

We need to mine the atmosphere... literally

[@timbucknall7074]

Natural rewilding is a good way to get this, as it allows a full ecosystem to develop.

[@PhilipNessel4121]

@@timbucknall7074 Hey Tim, I agree and wonder if perhaps you are doing some form of rewilding or regenerative ag?

[@timbucknall7074]

@@PhilipNessel4121 Sadly I don't have any opportunity to do so, but I'm very excited by projects such as Knepp estate, and others in the pipeline.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

We need old forests, yes, but we also need new forests.

[@martynparish2294]

Another great video! Thank you for being one of very few sources of unbiased information. One small point of contention, the best way to rewild is not to "do nothing". Land post-agriculture is in shock and stress. Careful and timely inverventions, reintroducing key species appropriately, is what rewilding is all about. Trees are essential to human flourishing is a long held idea

[@cherylreid2964]

Land healing Starts with rest/de-contaminating with Fungi and various plants like Hemp and Sunflower in my humble opinion. Although just rest is So good for land🙌

[@sylphe18]

Agree. I saw some regenerative and permaculture techniques that can hasten this process. Start with regenerating wetlands!

[@sylphe18]

@@cherylreid2964 depends what you want to "decontaminate" or bioremediate. Bioremediation can take decades to do. Once you rewild, some of these plants already take on the role of bioremediating the area.

[@davidpriddis]

I honestly hope this report is right in the cascade effects it describes from disrupting technologies. As we need this speed of shift in carbon production to stand a chance of re-balancing the climate. Its the best bit of climate/technology related news I've heard in a long time.

[@Timeisaflat_O]

@Kelly Smunt Lmao. Tell me you don’t understand science without expressly stating you don’t understand science.

[@rimabotulinumb9096]

@@Timeisaflat_O and he liked his own comment :D

[@banditthedog6268]

@Kelly Smunt you're out to lunch....

[@steve-o6413]

@Kelly Smunt any concerns that plant and animal life are extinct from that time period..?

[@enerjohnsavior3227]

Depends on how successful we are at eliminating crutches and bailouts for incumbent dirty industries.

[@blakduk]

The most extraordinary thing I noticed after reading the Rethink-X report is reading that the Australian federal government is pushing to get subsidies for fossil fuel power companies and investing tax payer money into new coal and gas fired power plants- because private investors won’t. It’s playing out exactly as the Rethink-X report warned was possible when incumbent industries can effect policy makers and will lead to huge losses in stranded asset write-downs in the near future.

[@NaumRusomarov]

It’s not just the Australians though. Plenty of other countries are still aggressively pushing for more fossil fuel exploration and exploitation. All of these projects put the risk of these assets becoming stranded onto the taxpayer.

[@fionaottley4976]

Yes, our incumbent government is horribly corrupt. Here's hoping they get tossed out at the next election, but I am not confident.

[@absalomdraconis]

Gas fired plants are a decent choice (you can shift them to synthetic methane later, which is usually going to be more practical than hydrogen, since you can build it up for most of the year to have a big backstock for the winter), but the only new subsidization coal should get is to buy out the production.

[@Natabus]

@@absalomdraconis I've wondered about the production of green methane from green hydrogen via the Sabatier process, but haven't found anything about the energy turnaround cost (kWh out for kWh in) in real world applications. Any thing you can point me at? It seems like a good way to store hydrogen long term without the same pressure and embrittlement issues, while taking advantage of existing natural gas infrastructure.

[@RedBatteryHead]

See the "honest coverment adds" channel. Those Aussies are really sad on environmental policy.

[@michealoflaherty1265]

My daughter uses an autonomous vehicle system. It responds to voice commands, takes her anywhere she wants to go, at any time and it's free. It's me!! 😁

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@jahjah7495 oh boy, do you take applications for new users? I like this system. :D

[@douglaswerts4936]

I had one of those! Love her to bits. 😀🤗

[@michealoflaherty1265]

@Greg Gardiner Don't worry. I have a full time job where I go to get a break 😁

[@georgelinker2408]

It matters not what kind of vehicle is being driven. All are equally bad for the environment. Science knew this when the designed and forced the catalytic converter to create more co2 in the 1970's. Now they spring the trap.

[@tomboushel2357]

Thank you for promoting ReThink-X and Tony Saba’s wonderful S Curve and Disruptive Technologies. If the Luddites in the oil, fossil fuel and ICE auto and truck industries don’t block and delay the introduction of these marvellous new technologies and the benefits that all of humanity will experience when we clean our air, cleanup our monocultured lands and introduce new ways to feed the world locally., we will end up with a significantly better future for our children and grandchildren.

[@terrysullivan1992]

Not so much Luddites than entrenched self interest and greed. I know; mostly the same but slightly different motivations for some. Result is the same.

[@Juliankirby]

This has got to be one of the most important and under watched videos of KZbin. I keep watching and sharing it. So many great themes that we can begin to navigate in our lives today. Thanks for the inspiration ❤️

[@TheNanoNinja]

In Perth Western Australia. Solar panels on private housing is at about 25%. I did read somewhere that a new suburb in northern Perth use solar and battery and is not connected to the state power grid because it was cheaper. So it seems to be happening in some places.

[@mjmdiver1137]

California now requires solar on every new residence built in the state, and has required them to be solar-ready (have the basic infrastructure to easily accommodate solar) since 2016. This goes to what he was saying about solar overproduction because we are already generating more energy from solar during the day to eliminate the need for other sources. What is now needed is inexpensive storage so that this will work 24/7. This overgeneration of solar is a source of the "duck curve" problem that the electrical grid has to deal with. In short, it is a very low demand during the day and a high peak just after dark when several thigns are happening: cooking dinner, heating the home (winter), TVs and other appliance use, charging EVs, still high commercial energy use. It all combines, especially in the winter in California because of the typical sunset timing, to cause a very high difference between the low and the peak. Large scale storage will help with this considerably.

[@dave_h_8742]

That should be happening on every industrial estate in every country and every new house too. PS. In the UK.

[@mjmdiver1137]

@@dave_h_8742 Yes. California leads the country on this, and other states are sure to follow. As it currently stands, CA uses 1/2 the energy percapita of the rest of the country and that is improving as the residential energy code is now at a pseudo-ZNE level that can easily be covered by a reasonable amount of solar on the roof... I have worked on this process in CA for the past 20 years or so and there is a lot to feel good about the work that we have accomplished. Lots more still to do, though.

[@chichestermaritime8174]

I have lived on solar with no grid tie for 25 years. To run a modern house you need a large battery. You also need an inverter to deliver A/C - minimum 3KW otherwise you can't run more than a washing machine and a fridge at any one time. You also need controllers to stop the batteries from over-charging. You need a back-up power source for cloudy periods that is capable of recharging the battery to full charge. All this kit requires space and money. Technology will help deliver better batteries, better inverters etc but these are all the things no-one ever mentions.

[@2x6x250ml]

@@chichestermaritime8174 How often do you have to run the generator ? And how often to replace the batteries ? You should be getting close to needing new panels now, too.

[@slartibartfast7921]

I’m a newcomer to this channel, it’s absolutely fantastic. When I’m bombarded by doom everywhere else, there is an opportunity to both learn about something, and hope for something. Cheers mate 👊🏻

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Mark. Thanks for the feedback. Glad you found the channel :-)

[@longnewton1]

@@JustHaveaThink I would argue you solution are overly optimistic on timescales. See my separate comment.

[@LeonGalindoStenutz]

@@JustHaveaThink Your work truly is commendable and appreciated. Was having a very dark and gloomy day; cannot share, but there is strong backstory regarding a front-line view on some aspects of how BigOil operates... leading me at times to feel extra pessimistic. But this video was particularly hopeful. Whatever the outcome, we are in for a bumpy ride, at best, in the years & decades ahead. Thank you dearly JHAT. Please keep it up :) Blessings.

[@rcarlyle]

Love your show Dave. This episode, as usual, well researched, well reasoned, and delivered in a friendly and understandable way. Thanks for all of your hard work and passion for the planet earth. You are an inspiration.

[@bobbresnahan8397]

I'm so pleased that you are making use of the Seba disruption analysis. Seba to some extent relies on historical data based on market-driven technology disruptions. The biggest danger in my opinion is that the fossil fuel, auto, and utility industries will obstruct the market and delay the adoption of the new technologies. They will use every method at their disposal including FUD (fear-uncertainty-doubt) in an attempt to dissuade consumers from switching to cheaper and cleaner technology. Vested interests will also get the government to continue public support for fossil fuels and obstruct adoption of clean energy. For example, the Trump administration blocked purchase of EVs by the Postal Service. Few if any of the government incentives for fossil fuel production have been withdrawn.

[@johnaph]

Thank you! I fully support your thinking. I did not know about the freeing up of land. That is exciting. I shared this with all my family and on Facebook and also sent via Messenger to Greta Thunberg. It could ease her mind. She often says not much is being done. Clearly there is a huge wave of action that not everybody can see. You are providing a very valuable service to us all. Your voice and ideas deserve to be heard around the world. That way we can all get with the program in our own way.

[@marcel3045]

Absolutely agreed. I hope that many folks see the rationale and truth behind this, rapidly switch to these new technologies thereby helping them to generate their positive effects!

[@wlhgmk]

Interesting that soils are such a small part of the equation in their estimate. Presumably this is what they estimate will actually happen rather than the potential, if a large part of our chemical agriculture sector adopted regenerative practices. Some estimates I have seen suggest that soils could be the most significant carbon absorbers and, as a very nice by product, make fertile soils such as we haven't seen since the first sods were turned.

[@timfarley1793]

This is very true. Just read an article in The Weekly Times.. Australia… about a regenerative practicing farmer. Carrying capacity gone from 8000 dse to 20000 dse. Fertiliser and chemical use cut to zero over 30 years. Wool strength stronger by 20% shearing 3 Times in 2 years v 2 times before price received for wool at 20% premium soils containing more water and carbon than before. But as usual the farming community generally very slow to adapt although gaining more followers

[@tryplot]

soils are a small amount, because most of them would be reclaimed in the passive reforestation.

[@AlexRetsam]

@@tryplot Very true, although I would think re-wilding 80% of farmland would sequester similar amounts of carbon as regenerative practices, if not more so. I'm actually really sceptical that precision biology will be able to provide the nutrition that the report predicts. Regenerative agriculture really highlights the fact that biological systems are so immensely complex and when we try and impose our will on to them we end up with a much less healthy result, for us and the planet. If vat meat and veggies will be as good for us as food raised in healthy soils I'll be pleasantly surprised. Think of all those wild lands! It would be amazing

[@bookingsessential]

Love your work. And today… straight into it. Good job. Always great reliable, with reserved opinion, facts only content. 👍👍

[@JustHaveaThink]

Cheers Stan. Much appreciated

[@richardjohnson7624]

We ALL need to change NOW and stop procrastinating. Schools need to add to curriculum too. The earth is not a linear algorithm that needs more data, it's common sense that needs to happen. Thanks again, you are doing good work

[@jusidit]

I really appreciate you doing these videos without ads. It means I watch the full length without muting like I do in other channels. Thanks again.

[@nedterry]

Dave, thanks, that was very positive. Keep reporting on how we can succeed in saving the environment, create more jobs and have a better future.

[@PaleGhost69]

We have multiple different paths to Get Serious. Almost all of them revolve around changing how we get our food. One of the ways that you can personally help and actually make a difference is through permaculture gardening and urban food forests. Please consider having a think about it.

[@bocadelcieloplaya3852]

What do think about those indoor grow systems for spinach, strawberry, tomatoes, bell peppers, zucchini. I've tried plans bell peppers outside, but bugs always eat all the leaves up.

[@jimurrata6785]

I think it's great if you live on a farm. But intensive mono-crop gmo agriculture, the fertilizer and pesticides that go along with it are the only way we can keep 7.8 billion people fed. Cropland needs to _decrease_ if we are to protect biodiversity and the ecosystem we want to sustain. Cities would have to cease to exist and current population would need to be one quarter the present. I'm not opposed to either of those.

[@PaleGhost69]

@@jimurrata6785 Permaculture can produce more food per acre than monoculture. 60,000 lbs of a variety of food throughout the year vs 42,000 strawberries all at once. (monoculture's top producer). That's enough to feed everyone just on the area we use for lawns. Replacing lawns with free healthy food would fix so many problems and eliminate a huge amount of pollution, waste and toxic runoff while reducing the pressure on cropland and allowing it to go wild. Do you have any sources for your claim that permaculture and urban food forests would require 1/4 the population and a extinction of cities to work? Because it contradicts literally everything I've seen in all research, observations and reported experiences.

[@PaleGhost69]

@@bocadelcieloplaya3852 I think they are a good resource for areas at the start of ecological succession into a fertile landscape. Try growing a decoy plant like sunflowers away from the peppers and have an aromatic herb planted near to confuse the bugs. Also make habitat for beneficial insects and predators.

[@TheLosamatic]

@Jim Urrata vertical farming is the only way to feed the world. It is indoors away from insects and weeds

[@Charhuzoor]

after discovering this channel only a few weeks ago and devouring alot of its content, I have to admit it is a complete gem. After being thoroughly depressed by the recently released IPCC report ist videos like this that really improve my outlook.

[@TheDoomWizard]

You might like my channel too where I talk about this constantly :)

[@JustHaveaThink]

Cheers Rasnip. I really appreciate your feedback :-)

[@luddity]

Regenerative Agriculture can be a huge factor in carbon sequestration and soil retention on grasslands and water protection, as well as rewilding & reforestation. Veganism is not required, but getting rid of feedlots is.

[@danielcobb5441]

How do we get rid of feedlots? Stop eating meat. :)

[@Calzadar]

Forest is better for carbon sequestration than land for grazing by the way, don't believe the creative accounting that says that cows on regenerative agriculture can be carbon negative, it's marketing.

[@breannaholt6600]

@@Calzadar actually it's not nessasarily, forests reach a point of maturity where they meet an equilibrium. This is where there is no more or less carbon absorbed by the forest. Even if the forest is harvest and replanted it will still reach the same point in the equilibrium. So it therefore is only a temporary fix without continuingly adding more and more land into forest. The grazing of stock technically with regenerative methods is a carbon cycle as the carbon emissions are equivalent to those absorbed by the plant and the soil. Our soils are the key to locking away carbon and to do so you have to keep the plants constantly regenerating. They can't reach an equilibrium which is where proper grazing rotation and with correct stock numbers can have a huge impact. I do agree however that number of stock is an issue, and needs to be reduced to be sustainable for the land type. However also worth noting the cultivation of soils to grow food such as crops and vegetables is one of the largest emitters of GHG emissions as well is detemental to soil health. Regenerative practices are important here as well, not just for livestock but for vegetable/crop growing. In New Zealand we have a certified net carbon zero sheep and beef farm which was achieved through regenerative agricultural practices and the planting of marginal areas, they are also on track to becoming carbon negative. So it is quite possible, and something that is growing in New Zealand as well as other countries around the world.

[@peterbelanger4094]

That's where things will go off the tracks. When you mess with people's food, there WILL be problems. MANY will NOT go along voluntarily with this plan to re-train the world what to eat. You folks can just go **** off with your vegan BS. This will be the seeds of war! Carnivores unite!!!

[@Roxor128]

@@peterbelanger4094 Vegan is too hard. Lab-grown meat is the way of the future. Same taste, same nutrition, no waste.

[@oscar_eslava_]

Your channel is not only thorough and based in sound information and a good digest of different sources, but also a beacon of hope without the usual blindfold of wishful thinking. Thank you!

[@joaovicente575]

The only thing that seems to be missing is some information about recycling all these new technologies and creating a circular economy.

[@itekani]

As long as we don't burn stuff we dig up from the ground chances are good that it can be recycled.

[@TheWSCCHEMISTRY]

And if that is built into the economy. If you sell water in a bottle you must offer a return for reuse to you system. If you make cars you are responsible for oil or battery recycling.

[@joaovicente575]

There's still a big distance between "can" and "has to" @@itekani. It should be a requirement of any new product that the recycling be determined to a very high standard and the market release be conditional on the recycling being already in place. The problem is overcoming the political barriers to getting there.

[@BlueScreenCorp]

@@joaovicente575 Currently the cost of disposal is something that is passed onto consumers, it would take some huge political might to start having companies start A: Disclosing how much energy it actually takes to dispose of and/or recycle their products B: Require companies and corporations to be responsible for the waste post consumer. So many of these reports are only focused on the part of the product life cycles that corporations are currently "Responsible for", if we required companies to be responsible for the disposal and recycling of the products that they create most products would be unreasonably expensive, and is likely why the idea of the "Circular" economy was overlooked in this video (I haven't read this particular report, but its likely not something that was included)

[@steve-o6413]

With run away inflation how can you even think of stabilizing the economy...

[@very_tall_dude]

This is now my favorite channel on KZbin. Thank you for your research, explanation, and reasonable/mild presentations!

[@JustHaveaThink]

Wow, thank you!

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@JustHaveaThink Same here, only found you this month n been consuming all ur previous vids you've reignited my hope

[@simon7790]

Scenario planning is underrated. I think they present an achievable future. It's up to each of us to help make it happen, to push for political and economic change and use our votes, voices and wallets to make that happen.

[@mikehawk8685]

it lays out a road that we already have the tools to pave!

[@kerynadcock2226]

Tony Seba (with his colleagues) has been a LION on the issues of addressing climate change by looking at possible innovation, technology and societal disruptive improvement trends. Such an important piece of work this, and for me the prospects of returning millions of km2 of agriculture back to nature is mind-bendingly positive, as we stand over the brink of human caused biodiversity and ecosystem function devastation.

[@davidallyn1818]

I love this bump in hope!! Thank you sir! I can see this scenario playing out fast, and I find it hopeful that we could create a carbon negative environment within decades. You have to wonder what the horse-and-buggy industry thought about cars at the beginning, but it only took 10 to 20 years until they were virtually gone -- along with the horse manure in the streets. And, with all of the stopping blocks that oil, gas, and auto industry have put in place, the electrification is still happening!

[@mikehawk8685]

it's great to see but we the people must continue to scream for this to be implemented and have the governments incentivize the hell out of all these new technologies!

[@sfmc3000]

interestingly there were any EV's before petrol cars took over!

[@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270]

Tony Seba is a founder of Rethink X and has a good track record of predicting the effects of disruptive technologies. The dis-economies of scale predicted for the traditional car makers is already kicking in with ICE powered vehicles well past their sales peak. The only growth is in EVs. Another well produced and balanced précis of this complex subject.

[@Natabus]

I enjoyed Mr. Seba's thoughts on the disruptive protentional of autonomous driving, but I believe his time scale is too optimistic by far. IIRC back in 2018 he was predicting the beginning of adoption of level 4 autonomous fleets taking over the ride hailing services in 2021. That hasn't happened yet, and is, I believe, years, perhaps decades away. That disruption is the stepping off point for many of the other disruptions he was predicting. Such an increase in the time scale of that precursor, leads to an increase in the time scale of all the post-cursors, such as the adoption by the urban public of transportation as a service and the death of individual car ownership, and the total change in urban land use. I hope he's right, and just got the time frame wrong.

[@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270]

@@Natabus I tend to agree with you on autonomous driving, although given that 55% of humanity now live in cities and cities is where most car use is concentrated we could see those services have an impact there first. Seba talks about total miles driven and the fact that most cars spend most of the time (96%) not moving..it’s more about utilisation of assets whereby a relatively small number of cars can provide a relatively high proportion of journeys. For me the biggest disrupter is in the food industry where synthetic meat has the potential to free up vast areas of land. Electrification of transport is a done deal, it’s just a question now of expanding the battery supply to meet demand. What I find interesting is the ‘mini disruptive effects’ such as ‘no more oil changes’...the UK for example spends £4 billion a year changing the oil and filter on 35 million cars (materials + labour) average cost £114/car...that’s a good thing environmentally but lost revenue for thousands of businesses.

[@mishumihai223]

@@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270 Any info on the mini effects of tire wear on electric vehicles? They are heavier that ICE vehicles.

[@orhanmekic9292]

@@Natabus I do not agree. Tesla is late on its deadline by two years, but that is not unusual for Tesla, with Elon Masks over optimistic timelines. But if you ignore that and just look at where they are and what they have in the pipeline technology wise, it becomes obvious they will jump from level 2 to level 4 within a year or two and then level 5 will follow really fast as this is an typical exponential technology. Chinese Baidu already has level 4 though with geo limitations, but it will not be able to compete with Teslas AI technology as it is ahead everyone else by years, as they are only using cameras and no sensors.

[@kiae-nirodiariesencore4270]

@@mishumihai223 I haven’t noticed any difference on mine after 30 months and 30K miles. The weight is more evenly distributed on an EV and the brake dust problem in urban areas will be a lot less as most slowing down is done by the motor.

[@kylekleman]

I’ve been waiting for your take on rethink-x’s report. This was one of if not your best video yet! Great job!

[@kalicom2937]

4:41 - that "straight line" was on a log scale so was non-linear..... the actual was just a lot faster than originally predicted.

[@musaran2]

Whatever the scale, geometrically perfect projections tend to be naïve.

[@kalicom2937]

@@musaran2 Yes, but calling a straight line on a log scale linear is....

[@ecofriend93]

Glad to see that you are finally seeing the light on alternate protein production.

[@shantanubhattacharya1220]

I was already a huge fan of RethinkX and Tony Seba's work before I tuned in to this video. Many thanks for sharing their research on your platform!

[@runedahl1477]

This report looks like something bookkeepers would come up with and is colored by their personal options. The main reason why Kodak and the British motorcycle industry collapsed is that the guys sitting on the money bag held onto the past when they were dominant and believed it could last forever. These ideas might work to some extent in the western world but in the developing world want higher standards of living and a key to this is cheap energy. As per now that is coal, so that is what they go for. With 80% of the world’s population living in developing countries it is not a big mystery that things are going the wrong way. Super batteries that can provide stable energy at all times are an illusion. However the solution is just around the corner in the form of molten salt reactors. They are relative small in size, does not have the same safety challenges as traditional reactors, the resources of thorium and uranium will last thousands of years, there is no release of carbon is zero, it can be used to burn down existing nuclear waste, the most volatile nuclear waste of it is safe after only 300 years, radioactive medical isotopes can be extracted from the process, it does not have to be near large water resources, modules can be mass produced at existing shipyards, the excessive heat can be used for a number of purposes from water desalination, hydrogen production and any type of production that require heat. I believe these reactors can be fitted to existing power stations with steam turbines. China has now started up its first test reactor in the Goni desert. It will supply 1000 households with electricity. The plan is to start roll out units that can supply 100000 households from 2030. The science job with these reactors was completed in 1969, so we know that it works. It is now up to the engineering to come up with the best and cheapest designs for these reactors and their components.

[@Aermydach]

I hope this optimism comes to pass. Also, I like the idea of increased conservation and rewilding. I love doing that work.

[@dave_h_8742]

Don't know what country your in but UK Government has got it's hands in the honey pot of the building industry (see the guys vid on Co2 from concrete ) and will just build more houses on the fields for more profit even if the fields flood and could be used for flood defences (managed flooding, used to be called water meadows)

[@Aermydach]

@@dave_h_8742 I'm from Australia. I think we're worse for propping up housing bubbles down here. The main difference is that we love building shonky skyrise apartment blocks.

[@chrisbraid2907]

We have the technology currently to produce more on less land and several countries like NZ and Australia can produce much more than they can consume. The trick is getting the excess to market cheaply so needs are filled and waste is minimised …

[@dave_h_8742]

@@chrisbraid2907 So the Australian drought is over ?

[@alexeffemey3819]

Like the idea of cars becoming a service. How much resources goes into a car that many have sat idle for 20 hours a day. Better idea the car is made gets used to travel to A to B and then serves for nearly all hours of the day and lasts for "millions of miles" with servicing / checks much better use of resources

[@Roxor128]

It's a start, but it's not enough on its own. Lots of cities are very badly designed and people use cars to compensate. Fix the city design to favour people and the number of cars will go down, simply because people will be able to get where they need to go without one and will either leave it at home, or won't even bother buying one in the first place. The need for cars will never go away completely, but better city design can definitely take a big bite out of it.

[@mathieud5594]

I feel you are as devastated by this subject as I am, though you hide it well. Thank you for your videos, very instructive. We need to keep trying to change so humanity can have a future, I hope we will succeed...

[@ryanaddy1135]

Change isn't easy. In a perfectly operating world where there's no greed, no distrust, no one trying to silence each other with force and no desire to have fun behind the wheel while waiting for Christ to return, this sounds good. I love breathing clean air. When someone like you makes another like myself think outside the box, it's a bit unsettling. I love the inventions brought forth in the last couple of centuries and speaking of which could all be wiped out by a nice big fat solar flare. I know it would probably be a fantastic time to be alive during all this synthetic food and energy and not owning anything but I'm gonna keep praying for future generations and hope that nothing so dramatic as people starving or satellites falling out of the sky happens. I believe what you say is in our future is perhaps a great outline but it definitely has me uncomfortable to think I could not just sneak off on a weekend camping trip in my 4 wheel drive away from all the electronics and synthetic food. .. Cowboy coffee while watching the sun rise is one of the finer things in life in my opinion. Still, I like your presentation of the ideas you have. . Peace ✌️

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

This really makes a lot of sense. Supply/Demand is a two-way curve. VHS tapes are both rare and expensive. Few pine away for them.

[@RandyTWester]

Movie theatres, concerts, and in-person shopping spread disease, so they won't be missed, either.

[@zapfanzapfan]

I have a moving box filled with them that hasn't moved in 15 years. Been meaning to throw them away but I'm to busy watching YT :-)

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Right. Horses are still around too. And you'll still be able to buy steak if you really want to in 20 years but it will be even more of a rare luxury than it is today.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@RandyTWester People like that sort of thing. Also bars and restaurants. None of it will go away. We'll come up with other ways to avoid diseases.

[@joesterling4299]

Because they were replaced with far better technologies. You have quite the uphill battle to convince me synthetic food is better than real meat. I'm fine with EVs as the future. Eating stuff grown in a lab, not so much.

[@gr8bkset-524]

This is the most complete explanation of Tony Seba's report I've seen. Whenever I get bummed with news about how humans destroy our planet, I dig up one of RethinkX's reports and can't wait for the future to come.

[@skippyb8122]

I was a bit hopeless just recently because of all the things going on in the world. Especially Climate change. This however eleviates that somewhat, and opens my eyes for the posibility that the battle is not yet determined. Thanks as always for the great video.

[@garethbaus5471]

I think it is probably more accurate to say we are already half screwed, but have a decent chance of avoiding a complete screwing.

[@absalomdraconis]

@@garethbaus5471 : The guaranteed screwing is likely a lot lower than half, but solar & wind aren't realistic options for preventing it. We need to be putting nuclear in place as a band-aid so that we can mitigate things long enough to get long-term solutions (fusion, orbital solar, maybe geothermal variants) into place.

[@garethbaus5471]

@@absalomdraconis we could easily replace about 1/3 of our current fossil fuel plants with solar and wind(assuming you are replacing most plants as they reach their scheduled end of life) and we could do it in the time it takes to get a nuclear power plant up and running. Nuclear is a good solution after we have reached the practical limits of solar and wind but it is too expensive, too slow to implement, and too scary to the uninformed to be a practical way to initially phase out fossil fuels.

[@EggBastion]

--eleviates -- _alleviates_ had me there for a minute too

[@J4Zonian]

@@garethbaus5471 It certainly is too slow, too expensive, and getting more so as wind and solar PV and CSP (and geothermal and tidal...) are all getting cheaper. As are batteries, so they can combine with clean safe reliable renewables to be essentially dispatchable. Nukes are also too dangerous, destroy democracy and equality (or would if we had any) and have numerous other insurmountable problems. But there are no limits to wind and solar; with the rest of the renewables, a little storage, and demand response strategies in a distributed generation grid, they can provide all the energy we need. Dozens of studies and at least 65 countries getting most of their electricity from renewables (at least 25 at or near 100%) show it.

[@robinspalding5858]

Hooray, I've been enthusing about RethinkX for ages and so glad you (also who I've been enthusing about) have done this video. :)

[@alexmckenna1171]

The "hot sand" 500 degree storage idea from Finland seems very promising for winter power and heating.

[@jsin3127]

"Cats doing silly things and...humans doing naughty things." This spectrum explains everything that exists on the internet.

[@brookestephen]

Isaac Asimov suggested precision fermentation for feeding the billions on the Galactic Capital World in his Foundation series. He didn't envision Universal Basic Income, but I'm going to hope that this becomes a global human standard soon.

[@cheebawobanu]

So just how much of the fruits of my blood, sweat, and tears do you think I owe you?

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Global? Wow, don't hold your breath.

[@jpt3640]

4:40 This is a logarithmic scale, so the seemingly linear growth in truth is exponential, as is the second line. It's just steeper.

[@SeeNickView]

Exactly. Caught that too. Dave's point about thinking linearly isn't wrong though. Engineers start their careers learning about signals and systems with this one basic premise: the superposition principle. Things can be added linearly. Machine learning and optimization has been working on multilinear and nonlinear systems though, but that is quite advanced for bachelor's degrees.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Yes. There are a few jolly clever folks who have chosen to focus on that. And you are of course quite right, but my view was that in the context of the video it was too fiddly to try and explain that in 7 seconds.

[@jpt3640]

@@JustHaveaThink be careful. Giving oversimplified info is - in my opinion - the cause why we don't trust into media anymore instead we trust conspiration theories.

[@byrongsmith]

@@JustHaveaThink I am a big fan of your videos and think you do an outstanding job communicating complex concepts in ways that most people can understand. While it is frustrating to have a whole bunch of comments nitpicking a single line of text that took 7 seconds out of a 19 min video, I hope you feel encouraged that 99.4% of what you are saying is spot on and hits the sweet spot of managing to simplify without oversimplifying. This was one bit where perhaps you strayed a little too far into the latter. Take it on board but mainly take the encouragement that if *this* is the primary piece of critical feedback about this outstanding video, then overall you did a stellar job. Keep up the great work!

[@salvadorfilms]

Your videos are improving with each one. You have come so far, well done! Thanks again. This is another great one.

[@casbot71]

Another advantage of decentralization of power supply is that it's a simple ongoing task to upgrade the system. One of the issues of centralised large power stations is that working on them _while they are in use_ is difficult. And replacing the technology that it uses can be extremely difficult if the station has to be taken offline, as it still has to supply the network.

[@BlueScreenCorp]

The EV thing and the idea that automated vehicles will solve our transportation problems that we have caused our selves is just so infuriating, we already have solutions to transportation its called mass transit, you don't need to use complex AI integrated systems to move people around when we as a society can just stop designing our cities around the car and start planning cities to be traversed by people. Make it illegal for companies to require employees to commute, make city centers require tolls, and fund public transport, these strategies work and work well. Technology will certainly be helpful when it comes to making everyday transportation more effective, but we don't need AI driven technology to eliminate the personal vehicle we just need more robust, rapid and reliable transit. I have spent most of my adulthood commuting and have learned that I just prefer not to commute, and that there is realistically very little reason to do so, if we really want to improve the transportation networks we should as a society rethink what travel is actually necessary, and make mass transit more appealing. Strong towns and Not Just Bikes (kzbin.infovideos) really do outline how NA and other western countries have really messed up our culture and city planning when it comes to accessibility and healthy living.

[@Gringohuevon]

Yes, its all framed within capitalist tech wizardry..its bollocks

[@BlueScreenCorp]

​@@Gringohuevon Part of the issues here is these problems are being looked at like they are software problems, in general you want to keep your software components as small and as focused on a single purpose that way if you need more you can easily scale that specific bit. But when it comes to hardware components in the real world the waste of having units that take up 50% more space for scaling purposes makes less sense than just having different sized vehicles that can be deployed based on condition, the cost savings in production of only producing a single unit is way out weighed by the unreasonable efficiency of just having a few options that are designed for that specific task. It makes way more sense to service an area that needs to service 10s of 1000s of commuters each day with passenger rail than it would to send 10s of 1000s of single occupant vehicles (even 5 -10 occupant vehicles would be a crazy replacement for a train) when you can get the same output from like 10s of trains. By all means make the trains/busses/taxi and ride share electric and automate/centralize as much of the system as possible, but these transportation technologies are wildly under-equipped to deal with real world transportation issues that should be solved through intelligent human focused city planning and the use of transit where walking and lightweight personal vehicles (bikes) aren't feasible.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Sorry you're angry, but people really like the security of a car. What's wrong with efficient and clean electric robo-taxis? They don't consume city real estate for parking and they wouldn't produce CO2 or other air pollutants. Improved public transportation would be fantastic, but there is a major last-mile problem in much of America. We have a huge number of people who live in areas of relatively low population density where robo-taxis make a lot of sense.

[@BlueScreenCorp]

@@incognitotorpedo42 no one is angry, there are many places in the world that have figured out robust and reliable public transit, the issues with the US system isn't a "last mile problem" it's a systemic lobbying problem coupled with old crumbling infrastructure and poor city planning. I have the luxury of being able to own new vehicles, but I would rather NA city design favour livability over driveability. Personal vehicles are just all around bad and a huge misstep in NA city planning.

[@BlueScreenCorp]

@@incognitotorpedo42 sorry also to answer your question about why automated vehicles are a bad solution. They take up a lot of resources to construct, often they are not filled to capacity so you end up with 1 to 2 ton vehicles carrying around just a single person, trains and busses are just more effective space and weight wise and use way less energy to run. Also as much as I would love to have a self driving vehicle the amount of computing power required is insane all of those sensors and control units don't come cheap and you bet they would be expensive to repair or replace. Vehicles that are fixed to a schedule on dedicated tracks are way easier to automate by virtue of not having to contend with other vehicles. Finally we know that mass transit works great when your transit systems aren't lobbied into extinction (See Holland, Finland, Denmark, the NYC subway, Germany, China Japan, South Korea, etc. Just as a few examples). Self driving vehicles are a bandage solution, to problems we know public mass transit can and has solved. I like cars too but I am not naive enough to think that they are a good idea.

[@wotireckon]

Thank you for spreading Rethink X's word. There really is hope for the future. Imagine NOTHING having a carbon footprint!

[@andyl8055]

You had me on the ropes after the ipcc, and now I feel some hope. Concerning the reclamation of existing land there are some concerns based on the fact that many of them would be devoid of animals. Animals are required to properly regenerate land, so I hope there’s room for that.

[@2x6x250ml]

The area round Chernobyl was evacuated after 1986 (quite unnecessarily, in my view), and is now overrun with otherwise very rare animals, like European bison and Przewalski's horse.

[@christerdehlin8866]

Excellent video. I love how this channel keeps a balance between the obvious danger of the climate crisis, while at the same time bringing hope by pointing to new technologies. I've been advocating for the importance of market forces as a driver of change in online debates for years, so I love seeing projections like these. The far left thinks its necessary to get rid of capitalism in all conceivable forms, but the truth is that every single positive initiative would die, or at the very least slow down without effective markets to drive the necessary change. Keep up the good work!

[@OAK-808]

I don't know how you do it, but every single video you produce is a classic. Please keep ot up as long as you can. You have a strong and loyal following.

[@ChrisBigBad]

ooooh. i can already hear the chairs creaking from the fat politicians leaning back and calling it a "done job". There still must be proper laws and incentives to actually keep this ball rolling!

[@prajnaseek]

All of this sounds wonderful, except for the lab grown meat and the rejection of farming. We need to listen to Vandana Shiva, Geoff Lawton and Allan Savory: regenerative organic agriculture is the only way we are going to draw enough carbon out of the atmosphere to halt or reverse climate change. Let that sink in. It is critical for us to understand now. And it is moreover frankly foolish to think that we will replace nature's foods with lab-created food-like substances. Our knowledge may seem impressive, but geneticist and environmental scientist David Suzuki is right: our understanding of life is still extremely limited. A little humility now could save our species. Hubris got us into an environmental crisis - it will not get us out of it. As Einstein said, A problem cannot be solved with the same kind of thinking that created it; and, to repeat the same methods, expecting different results, is the very definition of insanity. Hubris is the habit that must be broken. That, and the habits of predatory wealth-extractive economics, elitism, authoritarianism, technology worship, over-complicating everything, and a social model based in domination and submission, which, of course, is also at the root of our ecological crisis. It is the farmers who will save the earth and feed humanity, not the men in lab coats and the billionaire corporatocracy.

[@TixNBurrsRanch]

Your analysis of what diet is good for us is no doubt correct. The problem before us, however, is accomplishing world-saving change with the human wants and desires extant. Frankly, we don't have time to reprogram 8 billion tastes and beliefs. The promise of Rethinking Humanity is that the dynamics of technological disruption seems capable of saving our species and the biosphere from the worst outcomes without FIRST reworking us. That provides the long future in which we can further evolve.

[@joelthomastr]

It's the technological bs asymmetry principle: The amount of technology needed to solve a pollution problem is an order of magnitude greater than the technology that caused it

[@adolfodef]

99% transpiration... or something.

[@Calligraphybooster]

Absolutely right sir.

[@Apjooz]

Good thing that these technologies are 2 or 3 orders of magnitude better than the previous one then.

[@GustafB]

Thanks for pushing the RethinkX report on the spotlight, very interesting.

[@armandozanini803]

Finally.. a calm, thoughtful review that doesn't concentrate only on gloom and doom but on the fact we already undertook a virtuous path. Loved the example of how a discovery isn't just self-sufficient but always a bridge to a greater and better one. The engine invented to substitute horses brought humanity to the moon. Global economy down to every small market is eager to replace fossil fuels and ready or not is ferrying us to sustainability.. But we have to believe in and follow the change

[@gaetansimard1594]

Ships and plane will never get electric. The amounts of energy required is just not in the same range of the batteries capability.

[@peglor]

Depends how the electricity is stored really - fuel cells or better battery chemistry might still solve the problem. More likely is using renewable energy to capture carbon dioxide and make fuel - this is a massive potential application for the vast overproduction of energy predicted in the summer months from mature solar power.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Short haul planes and even some boats will be possible in the near term. Ocean-going vessels and long haul planes will probably need completely new energy technology. Biofuels could be a temporary solution for some applications.

[@boerderijkorenblik7426]

Do we not run out of materials, iron, lithium, other metals etc, when we still need more and more in future. Our consumption niveau has to decrease also a lot i think

[@Ubya_]

this is pretty scifi, but seeing how space exploration is improving in the last few years asteroid mining could support our whole need for metals, just a few asteroids could give all the iron, gold, platinum and palladium to make now very expensive processes nearly dirt cheap

[@boerderijkorenblik7426]

@@Ubya_ Do we have the time for these space exploroation? and costs also a hole lot of energie and materials before we get the benefits

[@williamrbuchanan4153]

Cosmos, greed has escaped from Earth . Everything they see is to be converted to dollars, is the any way you can stop the World can get this mindset deleted? They blindly go to making everything into profit from. As they have done on their own species and Planet , for how many millions of years of greed and destroy.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@Ubya_ Recycling is vastly less expensive and easier. We have plenty of some materials, like iron, aluminum, or silicon. We aren't going to run out of those. More valuable metals like lithium will be recycled. We already have the technology to recycle Li-ion battery packs, and it works very well.

[@Ubya_]

@@incognitotorpedo42 yes, i'm aware of that, you are totally right. My idea was more about making currently expensive metals pretty much dirt cheap. For example hydrogen fuel cells need platinum, which increases costs for each unit, even recycling it, you still need a lot. A small asteroid could have many thousand tons of the metal, lowering global prices and making it possible to use it freely

[@SolaceEasy]

AS IF it's possible to get everyone on the planet on the same page. Hopefulness should be tempered with recognition of ingrained human fallibility.

[@freakshow1997]

I have some serious criticism on several of the points here. 1. Reforestation is laudable but will not cut down emissions. After all, what happens if a tree dies? it rots, and all the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Thus, the Amazon forest is a net zero carbon sink. 2. The growth of solar and wind may have exceeded earlier predictions by the IPCC, but this in itself is meaningless. the real issue at hand is, did solar and wind in the past decades grow hard enough to displace fossil fuels? The answer to that is a solid no. Fossil fuel consumption is still strongly growing. Remember also that solar panels and wind turbines have a limited life times, so that if you install a billion solar panels, then they need to be replaced evry 20 years, which means about 150.000 panels per day. 3. A very worrying parameter in the industrial (=fossil) production of solar panels and wind turbines is the EROEI, Energy Return On Energy Invested. There are multiple peer reviewed scientific publications that claim that this is in fact lower than one, if all the additional system cost is taken into account. It gets worse if hydrogen is produced from this electricity. Production of solar panels and wind turbines is fully fossil driven. 4. Lithium ion batteries can never support a large grid. the scales are just orders of magnitude to small. This is a fundamental given. You simply cannot store a TWh of electricity in them. 5. Although electric drivetrains are indeed very robust and durable, the lithium-ion battery is far from that. Electric car manufacturers have to install a huge overcapacity of the batteries in order to ensure that the "wear" (heavily dependent on cycles) is moderated. 6. We cannot make the fatal mistake of turning our backs on nuclear power. It is the only way out if really serious amounts of energy must be generated without CO2 emissions.

[@yfarrell]

Thank you so much for your channel and your research. I very much appreciate these quick summaries on subjects to update me on the research and work I’ve done over a life time. I’m a green architect. This source is especially useful. When I started out many years ago it was impossible to get the heads of firms to even offer green alternatives to clients. Their excuses were that it was so much more expensive. That didn’t change until they saw it as a marketing possibility, then everyone was a green architect all of a sudden. That’s why these ‘market disruptions’ are so important.

[@KeepItSimpleSailor]

All I am hearing is another case of the continuing delusion that we can consume our way out of this mess, just with supposedly greener tech.

[@sentientflower7891]

Honestly in the wrong hands this report will easily justify burning another $trillion of fossil fuels, not that the fossil fuels industry doesn't already have a $trillion argument to offer politicians.

[@Mathis218337]

It’s just a look at the future. Whether fossil fuels get another 5 or 10 years depends on governments. Ideally we would stop subsidizing them and subsidize these technologies to move quicker.

[@snowstrobe]

Normally this is a fair criticism, but the three things mentioned here... energy, food and transport are all essentials to any community.

[@harrybarrow6222]

@@sentientflower7891 it does not need to be a trillion. Just one million to each politician should fix it.🙁

[@sentientflower7891]

@@harrybarrow6222 politicians are a lot cheaper than that, actually. The $1 trillion is money flowing into the economy and there isn't a politician from either party that would sacrifice it. Nor would the Supreme Court tolerate any restriction on private property even if the consumption thereof means extinction for humankind.

[@legitpancake4276]

“80% disruption of farm and livestock land use” sounds like millions and millions of impoverished farmers. Even if what they grow is no longer economical, how do you incentivize farmers to just allow their privately-owned land to be reclaimed by the wild?

[@ChrisBigBad]

can't farm if you're broke. nature does her thing.

[@ProbeGT2]

well i don't think lab will replace plant cultures. All those massive farms can still generate corn, soybean or other culture. I think there will always be a place for real meat, as a luxury food, in the future, but from small farms.

[@imacmill]

_how do you incentivize _ The new economics will force them to sell their land to Bill Gates at pennies on the dollar. He's already been snapping up land at a rapid pace.

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

they can farm oxygen

[@harrybarrow6222]

@@troywalkertheprogressivean8433 This is actually a good point. Rewilding actually does benefit us all.

[@TL-xv9of]

Money and survival are the most powerful drivers for change in our world.

[@lot110]

Dropped on a deserted island what good is money? It's a constrict that is not important! FOOD WATER SHELTER WARMTH SOCIAL INTERACTION

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@lot110 We aren't on a deserted island. We all live in societies.

[@greggilmore2766]

Your content is really helping to give me hope and inspiration even as relative panic threatens to set in. Thank you!

[@lonewolfmtnz]

Throwing (up) my breakfast at the screen. Actually repairing the damage done to the biosphere by misery monkeys is an abject fairytale. Postponing humanities meritorious near-term extinction .. PRICELESS!

[@5353Jumper]

Recently my favorite beneficial feedback loop is electrifying transportation, particularly commercial fleets and cargo. Opponents of bEV and solar/wind always state that producing batteries and windmills and solar panels requires mining and transportation and production that all has a carbon footprint, so green power and batteries are a terrible idea. Of course they have to conveniently forget that coal, petroleum, traditional power plants and ICE vehicles also require an equal amount of mining, transportation and production so their point is pretty much null. We could do one carbon emitting thing that leads to a carbon emitting thing, or we can do a carbon emitting thing that leads to a non-carbon emitting thing, the second option sounds better to me. But also once we have electrification of cargo transportation, and some industrial processes through the use of batteries, and green generation methods; then the carbon footprint of batteries, solar panels and windmills also greatly decreases making them even better and cleaner through their entire lifecycle. Better green tech improves the greenness of green tech.

[@jimurrata6785]

Thank you Dave for producing such important and thought provoking content each week. While I don't always share your optimism, because of my experience with human nature, I _am_ grateful that you are spreading the word.

[@boncholio]

I can relate. I recently have read an excellent book on the misconceptions that we have on "human nature". Its called "Humankind" by Rutger Bregman. I can only recommend it. 👌🙂

[@jimurrata6785]

@@boncholio I'm looking for a book now, titled 'Greedy Monkeys'. 😆

[@boncholio]

@@jimurrata6785 haha, well oke the echochamber is comfortable I guess. 😛

[@jimurrata6785]

@@boncholio I _do_ appreciate your book suggestion. Sorry I seem so jaded about human behavior.

[@mute1085]

But for every "disruptor" technology that ended up working there were dozens that flopped. Assuming, as they do, that everything will work out great and in a span of a decade is unreasonable. Oh, and as for "transport as a service", it's called public transportation. And those "autonomous pods" would never be even one tenth as efficient as a bus or a train.

[@adamlytle2615]

Yep, I'm very skeptical claims of Autonomous vehicles as a panacea to transport problems. My understanding is that the current ride sharing trend has *increased* the number of car rides. I can't see how an autonomous vehicle would be any different in that regard. I do wonder if *maybe* we could see see improvements by somehow merging ride sharing (not necessarily autonomous) with public transit in low density cities where it is impractical to have frequent surface routes all over the place. People book the trip online, a vehicle comes and gets them and any others in the area, and delivers them to an LRT or bus route that would be too far to walk to.

[@bocadelcieloplaya3852]

True, pods aren't as energy efficient as a bus, but peeps ain't gonna wait around waiting for a bus trying to get to work or bring home groceries. For adoption by the masses, pods will be the way

[@jacquesrosondil]

I think the idea is that pods replace car ownership, not public transport trips. It’s unlikely that pod hailing services can become consistently cheaper than public transport. Pods can also make public transport more accessible by offering a solution for the last mile problem. Sure these things aren’t yet concrete enough for us to know for certain, but there is promise there.

[@adamlytle2615]

@Shane Yorgensen I've often wondered what it would take to modify a modern metro/subway to be kind of like this. Switch out trains for slimmer pods thats could fit side-by-side in the tunnel, and have a way to switch over to the platform side when it gets to the station. That way you'd enter your destination you got to the station, wait for the designated pod, and then that pod would only carry passengers to the specific station they're all going to. Every "train" is an express. I don't think this is something that would be practical, but it's fun to think about.

[@LamarreAlexandre]

We have started using 100% electric buses in Montreal. The pilot project being successful, the city bought 200 buses. They are not autonomous vehicles, but the important thing is that the vehicle does not produce CO2. I have doubts about the feasibility of autonomous EVs in the snow, but I have no doubts about the feasibility of 100% electric buses. We now have thousands of electric cars in Montreal, and it works well.

[@longnewton1]

I would add to my previous comment. The problem with the optimism about future roll out of technology so solve climate change, is people want to believe it. It means they don’t have to make other changes. And, then if the technical solutions do’t work (fast enough), we get catastrophic climate change the pat could have been avoided. So, we act now and then reap the benefits of technology as fast as we can realize them. Your example of the internal combustion engine/automobile as a disrupted is an illustration. It took decades to develop and become widely affordable. We don’t have decades!

[@davidwuhrer6704]

Interesting take. Most people don't have many options for chainging anything. They live in substandard housing, eat what food they can afford, and take whatever mode of transportation is available to them to get to work. The changes have to be political. For example: I take the bus to work. That bus burns diesel. It is still the most environment-friendly choice I have. I'd love for that bus to be electric, or a train, or a cable train, but that is not my decision. It is the decision of the company that operates that line, and maybe the government of the area where it operates in. And I don't get to vote on the policies, only for parties; I'm lucky enough to be allowed to vote at all. I do sign petitions, maybe that will make a difference. If not going by plane is a decision, I am already helping save the world, but that is ridiculous. I don't understand how airlines are still a thing. They were struggling to pay their workers already before the pandemic. Even though their fuel was subsidised. I don't understand why telecommuting has to stop being normal. These are political decisions that are being made for us, without asking us, which affect everyone.

[@longnewton1]

@@davidwuhrer6704 I agree, we need political change. And we need a new style iof economics. Watch Kate Raworth videos on Doighnut Economics where the goal is to ensure we don’t overshoot planetary limits and at the same time ensue that we also protect those with less. People who consume the most, that is richer people, need to reduce their consumption. The poor need to consume a bit more, but this needs to be sustainable. So not more meat, flights etc. I’m not sure where you are, but in the UK the Green Party combines protecting the planet with social justice.

[@adamspencer5097]

Thank you for the optimism today. Looking forward to some of those technologies and/or price reductions!

[@jamesbrown99991]

4:35 Shows IPCC chart with exponential growth prediction... then says "but in reality tech. like wind and solar have had exponential growth", and plots a super-exponential trace of wind & solar.

[@markusjohansson4949]

Yes I also notice this. It is just a minor mistake.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

Yeah, they're both exponential. Just different exponents. How 'bout that?

[@JustHaveaThink]

A little pedantic, don't you think??

[@jamesbrown99991]

@@JustHaveaThink I don't think that.

[@matthewsaxe6383]

I'd prefer to see a regenerative agriculture future to a soilent green one.

[@TheThirdRail]

I think soilent meat and natural greens/fruits will be the standard for a while.

[@matthewsaxe6383]

@@TheThirdRail how many of these same corporations thought factory farming and roundup was a good idea?

[@dave_h_8742]

I don't want to eat your processed dead granny thanks.

[@joesterling4299]

Aha! I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one to think of the soylent-green analogy. It's one thing to push EVs and green energy. It's quite another to expect support for synthetic food over the real stuff. Not me. Sorry.

[@matthewsaxe6383]

@@dave_h_8742 but in the natural world our shells play a part in the exchange of nutrients and energy.

[@drewcipher896]

I hope autonomous fleet vehicles don't become a big thing, and governments invest in more light rail and passenger rail projects. We need to get the majority of cars off the roads. It's a waste of resources. Cars should only be common outside of cities.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

We have mass transit in many places where it makes sense, and it will be improved in those places. In areas where mass transit doesn't make sense, robo-taxis will be common.

[@adamt195]

Seriously. The report says that A-EVs will cut costs per mile tenfold. And then just completely ignore the implications of that. Sure people might give up owning personal cars and just use ride hailing, but a 10x cost reduction likely means a lot more miles are driven. Cities will sprawl out more and traffic in urban centers will get worse. And all the people that say AVs solve traffic are completely ignoring that pedestrians exist.

[@autohmae]

@@adamt195 You ignore the amount of land which is currently in use for parking cars. Some of which can be used for building wider roads.

[@adamt195]

@@autohmae Except wider roads do actually improve traffic flow. Let alone the fact that parking lots are often not the choke point in widen roads. Maybe in some suburbs, where all buildings have massive parking lots on all sides, but thats really bad urban design in the first place. In urban areas and many suburban areas, buildings are the choke point from widening roads. So society needs to accept that cars are an inefficient way of moving people through urban areas and embrace walking, cycling and mass transit.

[@john1boggity56]

I've never heard anything so positive in this space...brilliant !!! I'm going to follow up on that report and find others to discuss it with. It needs as broad an audience as possible.

[@jamaus555]

Best video you've ever done! Decentralization through disruptive technology will change the economy and civilization as we know it. Thank you sooo much for your dedication to enlightening people. Seriously thank you. Peace be with you.

[@AlexandreLollini]

As we know the endpoint in a lot of domains (like for example Internal Combustion Engines) why and how dumb is it to continue producing those ? As soon as we know things are absolutely dead, it's better to kill immediately it to avoid suffering.

[@RandyTWester]

Guess what fuel source the Vestas wind turbine service truck fleet runs on? It's as premature to stop making new, more efficient fossil vehicles for rural use, as it it is long overdue to ban combustion cars within cities.

[@absalomdraconis]

@@RandyTWester : It's premature (by decades most likely) to ban combustion vehicles in cities, though some areas within specific cities may be able to justify it.

[@AlexandreLollini]

@Hans Dampf choose your suffering : there will be more suffering both ways. We predict nothing, it's just fact.

[@AlexandreLollini]

@@absalomdraconis we are 130 years late on the ban of fossil fuel cars. EVs were working back in the day. And about climate change we are at least 40 years late. Fossil vehicle ban everywhere along with boats and airplanes, are a yesterday deadline.

[@itekani]

So if 90% by 2035 is just from effects of technology disruptions, can we get there by 2030 with some additional changes? And would that be enough? The bad thing about news like this is that the bottom line can be summed up as "technology will fix it somehow", so we can just relax... Not that easy, I'm afraid, but it's a good start.

[@jhunt5578]

The market will want to make money and so will adapt to the new green tech. Unfortunately the incumbent market forces won't go down without a fight which is why we won't get there by 2030. Think about the false scientific reports from exon mobil, the VW diesel scandal, meat companies creating pseudo health claims and paying tools like Allan Savoury to make out cattle farming is good for the environment, all of them lobby governments and try to trick the dumb money in the market to keep investing in their dying trades.

[@saritsotangkur2438]

The effects of technological change are nothing without the people to adopt them. So the “doing your part” is in accepting and using that tech. I wouldn’t dismiss that as a given either. Scientists made a Covid vaccine in record time, yet ppl are still reluctant to take it.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@saritsotangkur2438 When all the petrol stations are shut, it will be a lot easier to get people to stop using ICE vehicles. Realistically, while there will be some hold-outs, it won't be enough to matter. Most people will prefer the convenience of home charging, vastly lower operating cost, and more enjoyable operation of EVs compared to ICE, and will transition naturally. Other technological change will be similar. It won't require forcing people to do things against their will.

[@Nerd3927]

@@incognitotorpedo42 Some people live in flats and high rise buildings with outside parking. No possibility to home charge. Not even an electric push bike. Lots of people who drive a 1000,- euro cars will have no options in cheap housing will have few options.

[@dalstein3708]

The technology disruptions do not happen all by themselves. Quite often, they are started with the help of government stimulus (research grants, tax breaks, etc.) When the change has gained some momentum, the private sector can take over, because there is money to be made. So we can't just sit back and relax. We need to pressure elected officials to provide the right kinds of stimulus (and to stop supporting the incumbents).

[@pfschuyler]

I'm a firm believer that international agreements, strengthened governments, & peer pressure campaigns are impotent strategies. We need technological and market solutions. How else are you going to get China, India, and Russia to participate?

[@narsimhas1360]

International agreements are a good strategy in my books, stopping cfcs is the reason we at least have a chance at having a non apocalyptical future (but I agree that market solutions are a big part of the solution)

[@robertlloyd2436]

China is actually the worlds leading green energy producers in technology and innovation, you should visit, and feel the indoctrination and propaganda drain from your body...Sure they don't elect their national leaders, (for good reason)and I would argue that our freedom to chose our leaders is an illusion...We can't chose a leader that will represent the interests of the common person, but China has enabled 800 million people to rise from poverty in thirty years, they do represent the interests of the common citizen, above all else, there are no homeless people in China, and I looked, pretty damn hard..The west has become homeless producing factories, with corruption being the leading cause...And corruption and the systems of power are what this video does not acknowledge..I realize I'm wasting my time, but what the heck...

[@duckpotat9818]

Because India is gonna sink and starve if we don't

[@itekani]

@@robertlloyd2436 Not wasted time m8, very interesting points you got. Still, china is opening new coal powerplants weekly (I hear) and CO² per capita (even adjusted for trade) is higher than in Europe (I checked). So are they going to turn that around?

[@someonejustsomeone1469]

Definitely impotent strategies.

[@robertpawley5715]

Just watched Tony Seba on same issues. The future looks good, thanks to science and technology

[@lukasholecek5911]

Hello, thank you for this hopeful video! Just what I needed to continue my efforts. Your content is brilliant...in fact, I can't think of a better YT channel personally. Please, keep up the great work :)

[@Seriouspatt]

The new technologies will be (or are already in some cases) better and cheaper than the old ones. That's clear. The argument that's brought forwards in the report and this video is, that market mechanisms will take care of the situation and we can just lean back and let it play out. It's a nice thought which has one major caveat: There's still no market mechanism to incentivize reforestation (that I know of). So we better make sure to develop one that every country can and will agree with.

[@Zak437]

To my knowledge the reforestation in the report, is actually concerning natural reforestation rather than human assisted. There may also be a tourism angle to that as well, similar to Yellowstone after re-introducing wolves and such, restoring habitats and ecosystems that were once great could be a huge boon to local economies in those areas, particularly if done well.

[@lokensga]

Timing is important. Brazil is burning off the Amazon to create cattle ranches and grow soy to sell to China. Will lab-grown meat take hold fast enough to hold down the demand for animal beef? If not, we've lost the Amazon and its powerful self-generated, self-sustaining weather system.

[@petermacfarlane4388]

For years, I've had the attitude that we've fouled our nest and there was no way to recover from it. This report gives me hope.

[@scottlarue5304]

Excellent video as always. Not within the scope of this video but there’s a huge risk for companies who no longer need as much human labor to take all of the new profit and write off the people out of work as an expense that was shed. We need the people who are out of a job over this to be given technology rights so they can profit as well. More a criticism of capitalism than the actual technology. If everything was distributed evenly, we could work 3 days a week and give 90% of Americans a pay raise.

[@robertwendell1556]

The vast majority of popular political opinion is conservative or moderate, BUT- 1. Conservatives' projections are static and often even retrospective. 2. Moderates' projections are linear. 3. The reality of technological growth is exponential. So political thinking is almost always wrong. That's a major problem! Fortunately, the economics of technological growth tends to overpower political tendencies in the long run, but not without having to deal with political barriers that mindlessly force an extremely rocky path.

[@tonykeith7523]

I would be interested to know if the possibility of planting more trees along the margins of trunk roads and motorways has been investigated. Existing planting is in clumps leaving gaps, I presume, to give variety and interest, but the location of them indicates where more trees could be planted. I appreciate that the presence of underground services, the need for sight lines, poor ground conditions and the need to keep the roots away from undermining the road are some of the reasons to preclude some locations. But the advantages are strong: the land is already in public ownership and is accessible; the management organisation is already in place to undertake the work and manage; trees would need less management than grassed areas; the trees would deal with the pollution at source and screen the road visually and to some extent acoustically. Although the gaps are small I suspect they could add up to thousands of hectares. The biggest advantage is it could be done now- no land purchases; no planning permission needed. Maybe local volunteers could be mobilised in some locations

[@HolgerNestmann]

Excellent video, as always. One „risk“ is that the new gains in energy and food production will allow humanity to support more humans and therefore increase it‘s land use vs reforestation. In Bill Gates book one can read about the inventions in crop and argriculture that happened in the last decades and it didn‘t create much land availability

[@mihaschrott6510]

Jevons paradox

[@very_tall_dude]

While true, aren’t there also social changes that have been happening in many cultures of not having children which is a big problem in some countries? Like Japan for example

[@SeeNickView]

Well don't forget about education. Less time worrying about where your next meal is coming from and greater access to transportation and the internet will allow other groups around the world to strive for some of the activities western societies are used to. Education among girls is especially important, and I believe that there is evidence out there to show that greater education in girls leads to less births. I would check out Project Drawdown with Jon Foley for more information here. I do agree that it's a risk though. If these disruptive technologies aren't distributed well, then some lopsided effects like what you describe could end up happening.

[@Paul_]

Population is a skewed emitter of carbon. The richest few emit far more than the poorest. But, as Greta Thunberg points out, when people complain about population size they're usually not thinking of killing Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other multi-billionaires to save the planet!

[@HeLpLOstGOdAny1]

​@@Paul_ Is that a quote that can be referenced or something you just embellished by adding imagination? Doesn't sound like something a child would say . ..

[@davidblewer754]

No one is talking about one of the biggest emitters the worlds military and the industries that support them. The biggest is the US military.

[@joesterling4299]

No military force comes close to the greenhouse emissions of an entire major nation, let alone the world. That would be like saying that one Humvee is responsible for a major part of the carbon footprint of an entire neighborhood that drives small ICE cars like the Toyota Corolla. Yes, it pollutes more than any other local vehicle, but it's only a small fraction of the overall output.

[@grahamwalker2312]

Very intriguing and providing much hope for the future. If there's a hurdle it's us. People resist change. I'm thinking of the closure of coal fields in the 80's and it's unavoidable impact in those communities, which some would say reverberate today. These changes do need managing as carefully. This means we need politicians who have the vision to sign up to these things. One more thought, the areas of highest sunshine, like Africa, are also places where there is often a need for considerable improvements in political stability and security,. Tough challengers ahead.

[@heinuchung8680]

Africa has one of the fastest solar markets in the world precisely due to that instability mainly in the grid .

[@Music5362]

Politicians and vision in the same sentence .. :D - you never know, it might happen.

[@dfishpool7052]

Thank you for your presentation - very thought provoking; having just become a grandfather for the 7th time and being worried for the future of my grandchildren and all the other children it was good to see the slim glimmer of hope presented in the report BUT will the politicians take note?

[@barbaralewis1977]

Thank you for sharing 'Rethinking Climate Change. The path to a 90% emissions reduction by 2035.' It lifted my little green heart enormously.