The New Geopolitics of Oil.

[@GoodTimesBadTimes]

🌊🦈Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code GOODTIMES for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.com/goodtimes 📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT ➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes

[@lif3andthings763]

“Gwuarantee” your accent is hilarious

[@ArmyRangerSJ]

Many of the old oil and gas wells are leaking, the one in pennsylvania is especially concentrated So much money seeping into the air every year

[@r.guerreiro140]

Please, do never again call hydroelectricity "green" Being renewable is one thing. Being green is another, and there's nothing more environmentally catastrophic than a hydroelectric plant It's a bizarre source of energy and must be banned

[@denniskrust2137]

You 'proxy war' nonsense just cost you a viewer and subscriber.

[@Microphunktv-jb3kj]

39:40 - i disagree... lithium demand will not grow 800% by mid century... japanese scientist have already solved the battery problem wich was up 40 years... new batteries will be palladium based , wich will be revolutionary tech the battery lifespan compared to lithium ... is like 3million km on cars... comparted to teslas lithium battery life span of 120 000 km but the tech is currently so large, so its not mass consumer product , they estimate it will take 15~ years to become viable mass product

[@jordibt1789]

The OPEC Oil embargo didn't happen because the 6 days war but after the yom Kippur war

[@The_ZeroLine]

The Arabs always throw tantrums after their latest attempt to “remove” Israel fails.

[@drbuckley1]

The embargo was a bonanza for domestic U.S. energy producers. Nixon had a lot of pals in the Texas oil patch.

[@Wickbam1985]

The 1973 embargo was not the first one. There was indeed an embargo organized by OPEC states in 1967 in response to the Six Day War. The 1973 embargo was also partially a response to the US leaving the gold standard. By means of a mass embargo in '73, the OPEC states sought to obtain a "true" market value for oil bought and sold in USD.

[@drbuckley1]

@@Wickbam1985 "OPEC" did not embargo oil; the Arab oil producers boycotted the West in 1973. Iran, among others, did not embargo oil and indeed sold oil to Israel during and after the Yom Kippur War.

[@shafsteryellow]

​@@drbuckley1 well israel did support them against saddam in return

[@orboakin8074]

As a Nigerian, I can't argue with your objective observations regarding my country and Africa as a whole concerning our oil sectors. It's genuinely depressing.

[@LK-jl3pc]

Yes, this is sad and frustrating to watch many countries. As for Nigeria, what would you consider the most important step(s) for them to take to improve the situation, and make them at least prosper during the end period of oil?

[@phoenixmetazoa]

​@@LK-jl3pcWithout a complete restructuring of the economy and society, that prosperity will never reach the people. Oil only benefits the oil companies and whoever they pay taxes to unless they invest the money into civil programs like Rockefeller did with schools and infrastructure, or Norway and the Saudis did with socialism

[@Microphunktv-jb3kj]

.. in africa it's always the "oil is curse" , not a boon. because very corrupt countries and socialist infrastructure sucks in africa, because people themselves literally avoid paying taxes... i dont remember wich EU study it was, but in many countries 60-70% people literlaly dont pay taxes because so widely cash ran societies...

[@orboakin8074]

@@Microphunktv-jb3kj well said, friend. It's mainly because of how broken our institutions, governments and even cultures are. Poor institutions and governments leads to lack of good leadership, corruption and policies. Our culture and tribalism hinders stability, limits trust and socioeconomic development. That is sadly why even tax collection is so pitiful. Even when we do pay taxes, hardly any of it goes towards development or infrastructure and this breeds more mistrust. The only exception I have seen in all of Africa is Botswana. The west has corruption but at least theirs works for their society and is not malignant as ours. The Dolton Mayor is a perfect recent example but at least her corruption hasn't crippled the village she was elected in and she is being prosecuted.

[@cristi1145]

funniest thing is us europeans blame africas bad situation on corrupt leaders (which is also true) but the same companies that pay off african leaders and commit atrocities there lobby our european politicians so they can keep getting away with it

[@stevendavis4116]

The idea of carbon capture machines is ridiculous. People need to quit trying to reinvent the tree.

[@yedrellow]

A tree's carbon storage potential is limited by its weight, which means you get limited by surface area. We already had geological time periods with extreme tree coverage, it's called the carboniferous. That's partly what the industrial revolution burned through when it used loads of coal. As carbon is getting pulled out of geological storage it should eventually be put back in. Otherwise there just isn't enough surface area

[@stevendavis4116]

@@yedrellow We could have a ton of tree farms and then use a lot of lumber. This obviously isn't going to be enough to stop climate change. We need to reduce our usage of stored carbon as a top priority... but for carbon capture (to the extent that that can be helpful), it's obvious that the answer lies in flora. I'm skeptical that we'll ever invent a machine that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere using less energy than was generated when we put the carbon there in the first place. Until we have totally renewable energy, carbon capture machines are like building diesel engines whose only purpose is to convert their own fuel into solid blocks.

[@jameschristophercirujano6650]

​@@stevendavis4116The answer is algae in the oceans. Water is a good way to make sure Carbon doesn't escape the surface. There's a reason why swamps, bogs, and mangroves are among the best carbon sinks. Industrial tree farms just don't do it, trees grow slower than Algae.

[@stevendavis4116]

@@jameschristophercirujano6650 I love it!

[@jimthain8777]

Actually I think that if the world really wanted to capture CO2 there is a cost effective method that does exist. It uses a simple chemical reaction. The trick is to extract and send into the oceans enough of that mineral to make a significant difference. The mineral I'm talking about is LIME. With giga-tons of lime put into the oceans, they will absorb more carbon than you can imagine. Lime turns CO2 into Calcium Carbonate, which is a very useful thing for ocean life.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Oil sanctions against Russia are effective. If they weren't, why would Russia complain so much about them?

[@KuleRucket]

Plus they could be a lot more effective if enforced properly

[@Hey1234Hey]

Russia is growing faster than EU. It's useless...... They are just saying it's annoying at best.

[@Swiplys]

India buys oil for the same price, blends it and resales to the US and Europe. We pay more, they still get their revenues. How is that effective?

[@sjoormen1]

@@Swiplys they get less. India is paying as low as it can. Small profit for russia, if any.

[@MM22966]

I am NOT an expert, but what little I do know has to do with price of extraction and transport. It is both more expensive and harder for Russia to get at its reserves and move them to market in normal times. Sanctions may be pushing these costs to uneconomic levels, or at least levels that see little return on investment...which hurts when you are also trying to fund a war.

[@amanverma7033]

Its not like that game of oil will end soon i think i will atleast take 50 years to do that

[@normieloser6969]

But we are past peak oil. That is huge

[@dominuslogik484]

​@@normieloser6969true but we really need to take our time and get off of oil dependence properly. Panicking and destroying the global economy by trying to eliminate it within 10 years like a lot of political groups push would just destroy everything for no gain.

[@normieloser6969]

@@dominuslogik484 There *is basicly no one with power that plan to just shut off oil/gas usage and production in 10 years no matter what. Most have set goals and timelines for huge investment into change of all infrastructure and thought processes to achieve as much as comfortably possible

[@dominuslogik484]

@@normieloser6969 trying to outlaw the production and sale of gasoline vehicles by 2030 was actually attempted. There are a ton of people in power trying to push these kinds of things they are more stupid than you think.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Yes, but the days of countries like the US being able to support a dozen countries’ entire economies just via energy demands are long over. Now, the only major energy importers are countries like China and India, which aren’t willing to pay much to avoid using coal.

[@righteousviking]

If any of y'all ever hear someone seriously claim that green energy can challenge "fossil fuel," and he doesn't mention nuclear, laugh in his face.

[@MM22966]

They gotta get over the regulatory hurdles and green smear campaigns first.

[@paulbo9033]

Nuclear is a tiny part of the overall GW power mix. solar and wind is many times higher. It's easy to see that nukes won't be a significant part of the mix going forward because you can just look at the number of plants in the pipeline. Even just at the proposed stage without permits, let alone financing and construction, it is no where near being a contender against solar and wind. The levelised cost of renewables as well as the cost curve drops way faster than nukes so it's basically impossible for nukes to make sense Vs solar & wind, hence so much installed capacity of the later. That said, nukes primarily compete against gas and grid scale storage as base load energy (as opposed to variable of solar & wind). In this regard, again it's not competitive Vs gas (way way way more GW of gas in the mix) and although grid scale storage is in it's infancy, the cost curve trajectory is dropping fast so will inevitably surpass nukes in GW. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

[@MM22966]

@@paulbo9033 Hmmm. I am only barely competent to debate this, but it seems like there are a lot of assumptions going into this. Things like better tech or de-regulation may make nukes more cost-effective. Solar and wind is only effective where there are good places to harvest it. Renewables also have a lot of distro/collection systems that are not always included in these cost-estimates, whereas nuclear is "power from a box". It is convenient, powerful, and localized. Places like France, for example, are heavily invested in nuclear, and do not seem planning to stop.

[@paulbo9033]

@@MM22966 like I say, let us know which are the main countries you're concerned won't meet their transition targets?

[@MM22966]

@@paulbo9033 Hmmmm. Japan and Germany? (guessing) They both want to get rid of nuclear and go green, but both are far too northerly/densely populated to make it as easy to go to renewables.

[@fenrirgg]

It should be top priority to detach economy from oil as much as possible.

[@michaels4255]

Only one way: we all have to voluntarily get a whole lot poorer. Oil is probably the single biggest factor behind the increase in both population and living standards during the last hundred years. There is no comparable substitute.

[@lipingrahman6648]

We as a species could have made oil less important maybe obsolete by now by putting more effort in nuclear power. The rest of this “green” tech will be remembered as a waste of time and money.

[@wills.5762]

We use oil for much, *much* more than fuel. Youve never gone a day without interacting with a product made with oil

[@lipingrahman6648]

@@wills.5762 there is a massive difference in use between using it as fuel as opposed to a chemical agent. Had we kept innovating and building on nuclear power the amount of oil we’d need for petrochemicals would be but a little fraction of how much we burn every hour. But due environmental superstitions we’ve kept a primitive technology that by all rights should have faded in a century like whale oil. The money wasted on this “green” junk is also just stupid.

[@duckpotat9818]

It won’t. Uranium and Thorium like oil and coal will only get more expensive to mine as we deplete the easy sources. Even if that takes a few hundred years. And remember our energy needs will only increase. They’ll never go away* but at a point you’ll be digging so deep you might as well use the geothermal energy there. I expect deep geo thermal to be next big source after nuclear fission. Solar Panels will only get cheaper and the sun won’t go out for billions of years. *if we have Nuclear Fusion then all else might become useless. Sams goes for space solar.

[@lipingrahman6648]

@@duckpotat9818 I wouldn’t hold my breath for fusion power, if we could dig that deep then for the next four billion years we would be good for power.

[@duckpotat9818]

@@lipingrahman6648 we’ve already dug experimental boreholes with near boiling or boiling temperatures. The Soviets dug one up in the 70s. And at many places this happens at shallower depths. I think we’ll have deep geothermal by the end of this century at least in suitable places (think Japan of California). And we won’t necessarily be good for billions of years. Once you’re using that much energy you have to worry about thermal pollution. Not the gases keeping Earth warmer by trapping more heat but us literally producing too much waste heat. Then we’d require some more extreme geo engineering or orbital engineering to fix that.

[@ozeeo]

notice how OPEC is a cartel, and 7 sisters is a club 😂

[@thurqs1938]

why is the western company coalition that acted indeed as a cartel not also called a cartel like the opec? weird discrepancy

[@arturasp9738]

It's stupid to forecast that Developing countries will follow the same pattern as developed countries did in 20th century. Most of developing countries didn't do horse post, or landline phones & fax, they jumped right to digital cellphone Internet & coms. Same will happen with electrification, they might even overtake usa and EU on this.

[@paulbo9033]

This. Developing countries have already proven in energy that they jump straight to adopting the latest - i.e. renewables and related tech. For the most part there is no legacy O&G industry for them to worry about and renewables is both a growth sector, and is much cheaper than building out / accomodating O&G, and renewables is also basically tech so cost curves drop fast. Put another way: why would I build high polluting, high CAPEX & OPEX LNG & oil terminals, midstream infrastructure, and gas fired power plants, when I can just build a bunch of non polluting, local job creating, low CAPEX & OPEX solar and wind capacity, and maybe even export the surplus to developed countries and neighbours. Bonus, I also don't need to worry about the next war the US foments affecting my fuel supply and energy security.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Here in the Philippines, our geothermal and hydroelectric power plants already got us mostly covered. It is truly absurd that, just because we are a Developing Nation™️, that we would go crazy for oil - that we would have to go through antiquated stages of development that the West had gone through in the past. The _Nuclear Scare_ in this country is still a big problem to deal with though...

[@zandaroos553]

@@Gelatinocyte2Coal and Oil is still over 90% of the Philippines energy consumption, and as car ownership increases that’s also going to increase demand. Yes developing countries are going to transition faster but large-scale renewables transitions are really costly to set up even though their cheap to run - so there’s a bit of a price barrier for most countries that takes until around the $10k GDP per capita mark to really get over. Like I’m an energy economist in the U.S. and we are finding it cost-ineffective to transition over what we call “low income energy deserts” (aka areas with poor renewable energy yields and relatively low household incomes) because transitioning from gas power generation to renewables would cause electricity prices to rise to a politically untenable point. A lot of parts of the world also fit the LIED bill as well. And don’t get me started on battery storage. Costs absolutely BALLOON there.

[@BramptonAnglican]

The problem is developing countries are in debt and renewable energy is expensive

[@Gelatinocyte2]

@@BramptonAnglican explain how the Philippines manages to have a bunch of wind and solar

[@ringsaphire]

Putting Russia and Australia in green? What a joke. Also half of usa is dependent on black gold, good luck converting them - not to say about Shell, BP, Total...😂 😂 Their countries might try to go green, but they will let the companies go black everywhere else.

[@ihl0700677525]

*ALL* of US used to be heavily dependent on oil just 20-25 years ago, so now that "half" is no longer so, means quite good progress.

[@ValMartinIreland]

All of America is dependent on fossil fuel.

[@bellakrinkle9381]

This world can not function only green. Oil is required to manufacture many needed products.

[@bellascythe9594]

Don't use emotes people never pay attention to you

[@death_parade]

The map is a joke. They put India in the black. India, a nation that has very low oil reserves and is leading the charge towards Green Energy Transition (rated as the best G-20 nation in the fight against climate change as per German Climate Change Performance Index). India, the nation whose entire Railways is already 100% electric and is aiming for carbon neutral Railways by 2030 and carbon neutral Steel production by 2045. Already has >40% of its installed electricity capacity from non-fossil fuel sources and is now focusing heavily on Green Hydrogen. And they put us in Black lmao.

[@ElMarcoh]

Funny they put a green leaf in australia which still uses coal

[@mcs131313]

1:09 I’d be careful calling oil a resource of the past. Oil, coal, and natural gas supply ~75% of the world energy supply (including transport etc.) at the moment it would be more accurate to call renewables the way of the future than to call fossil fuels the way of the past. And obviously we will continue to transition. Politicians have certainly penned plenty of promises. But in 2022 Europe learned the hard way that it’s a lot easier to make promises in a bull market and peacetime, than it it is to keep them in a crisis. And those are some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

[@mcs131313]

Renewables also can’t necessarily scale indefinitely with out significant tech advances. It’s easy to add wind and solar when it’s a small part of the grid and those using it can take use peaker plants and rely on the rest of the grid to help with variability. But as that goes from 10% -> even 25% of the grid, that double the variability if there aren’t significant battery advances. Let alone getting to 50+%. Additionally there are issues with minerals needed for solar. I’m sure we’ll keep making progress - but this isn’t happening overnight. If you take renewables from (5%->10%) that doubles the variability, but barely effects the portion that’s from more predictable sources that can help out in shortfalls (95%->90%) Not imagine going 10%->50%. That makes the variable part 5x, and the stable part gets cut in half. We will no doubt make advances - but the point is, that is the critical element, more than just the economics or how much we care about the environment. I.e. you could have essentially as much money as you wanted - and still wouldn’t be able to make that conversion by 2030.

[@death_parade]

@@mcs131313 Well, grid storage based on pumped hydro and later Sodium ion batteries might be a viable solution to turn intermittent renewables into baseload providers. At least that seems to be the strategy of our government in India. They do realize that Coal for baseload is difficult to replace, which is why they've put our Carbon Neutrality date at 2070. Even our Steel sector, 2nd largest in the world, will decarbonize before that thanks to GH2, they've set their target at 2047. In the future, most of the baseload will be Hydro, Nuclear and grid storage coupled with renewables like solar and wind. Interestingly, our Railways (fourth largest network in the world) has set a target for carbon neutral by 2030. They'll achieve 100% electrification this year, so the easy part is done. Now comes the hard part: ensuring clean electricity supply to the entire catenary grid. No idea how they plan to pull it off. Currently, our installed non-fossil fuel electricity capacity is upwards of 43%. Will be above 60% by 2030, but that is installed capacity. Not TWh figures.

[@mcs131313]

@@death_parade pumped hydro is super cool and mind blowingingly efficient. But is only an option in places with the right topography features.

[@mcs131313]

@@death_parade our railways being able to do this doesn’t surprise me at all. That’s an incredibly perfect / simple use case - very predictable needs, across a very defined path that doesn’t change often, and when it does is subject to massive regulation, and is run by enormous companies. The general power grid on the other hand is more like “oh it’s too hot and 3 million people just turned on their AC and tripled power usage over the course of an hour”.

[@death_parade]

@@mcs131313 India's pumped storage hydro potential is 103 GW. Not counting the Hydel power potential, which is even larger. Currently our total installed capacity is 490 GW. So a significant amount of our base load can be provided by pumped storage. As for location, does it really matter? You can distribute it to even a faraway regiional grid, especially now that we have HVDC. As for the fluctuating demand of the grid, that component is easier to fulfill with solar and wind. The problem is the base load, which is indeed a higher percentage for the Railways' load (like you said, their demand is a lot more predictable). Which is exactly why I don't know how the Railways plans to go carbon neutral by 2030, seeing as currently our baseload comes either from Coal or Hydel or rarely Nuclear.

[@Swizzlerz]

You just said like Coal did in the past. I believe the world uses more coal today than it ever did.

[@nilaychaturvedi5243]

At 25.30 minute it's wrong assertion that only USA nd China hv tendered renewable energy above 50 GW as INDIA has tendered renewable energy of 64 GW in year 2024. 👍

[@ChildovGhad]

A video like this being full of inaccuracies comes as no surprise.

[@kawo666]

The graph seems to be dated for 2023

[@asha8443]

You should do a story about the new oil discoveries including the ones in Pakistan (making it the country with the four largest reserve in the world).

[@mohmah6887]

correction: the Six-Day War is the war of 1967 not the war of 1973

[@FemboyLegendGD]

China alone does more green energy investments than EU or US, in some sectors combined. This year alone, China planted more solar panels, than US has done in its entire history.

[@134343]

Yep their goal is to be the Big Oil of Green energy and technology. They know that electrification is the future.

[@laujack24]

you forgot to mentioned they build 2 new coal facility every week, soo clean. lol

[@J_X999]

​@@laujack24it's not about clean energy. It's about reducing foreign dependency

[@laujack24]

@@J_X999 dont change anything, china still import over 70% of its energy/raw material cobalt etc from over seas namely from middle east and africa.

[@michaels4255]

It would not surprise me since the People's Republic is notorious for mega scale malinvestment.

[@jamesagerholm2034]

Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels.

[@jimthain8777]

This may come as a shock to the producers of this fine documentary, but for the first time in decades, China's fuel oil imports FELL 11%. I expect this trend to continue, and Chinese oil imports to shrink even more over the next decade. This poses a huge challenge for the oil industry which as your documentary points out expected increases in Chinese oil imports. Furthermore, Ethiopia one of the more populous countries in Africa, has now banned the import of gasoline vehicles. They produce a lot of electricity, and will for domestic political reasons be pushing electric transportation in their country. On top of all that there is a growing movement to alternative electric transportation. (Things that are not personal automobiles.) I expect other surprises that the oil giants haven't seen coming that will drastically affect their future profits, unless they choose to join the energy revolution in a meaningful way.

[@ringsaphire]

They already are well into the "revolution" as you say it, but they are slowing it down instead of speeding it up; they just plan to milk that oil cow for all that she's worth until the last second. Only then will they move on fully to other profittable pastures. They can afford it - we can't. Also, gaz might tank in the mid to far future but not in the next 5 years and in the meantime the market for plastics will soar, with 50% to 100% estimated increase in demand within the next 10 to 15 years. As well as other derived products from fossil fuel. We are playing a long game, and it's not a fun one.

[@Health-Blitz]

China's Oil Imports Probably Fell Because they imported lots of Russian Oil on the Black Market Which Isn't Accounted For in the Actual Figures. So Actually, China's Oil Imports are Still Rising Every Year

[@bristoled93]

@@ringsaphire Who's "we"?

[@michaels4255]

LOL! China's fuel imports are falling because its economy is in the crapper!

[@herrnein4164]

End? definitely not. Gradual reduction as the world continues to move in directions to find new energy sources? Probably. All energy sources only remain most relevant for so long. Someone, somewhere, who wants to be the innovator of a new age will always try to find something. Eventually one of them gets lucky and succeeds.

[@theMOCmaster]

Not half the budget deficit, half the trade deficit

[@hazemhn91]

Lies and deception are presented in this vid

[@GabrielLopes-yp7pj]

...Brazilian energy matrix, with 83.79 % of renewable sources in 2023: Am I a joke to you?

[@IagoSB__0.0]

Tell me about it, people always forget about us when talking about renewable energy. Motherfucker we been green since before we knew there was a climate crisis!

[@vitmartobby5644]

China also is the enabler of green tech, despite not being that green

[@LuisAldamiz]

Would I have any money I'd invest in Brazil based only on your comment. However I'm worried about the Bolsonarista danger and the relative lack of muscle of Lulismo, I'd like a more "nationalist" country that can defend its interests and not bow all the time to the USA particularly.

[@kiwitrainguy]

New Zealand 10th Nov 2024 at 1.30pm 97% of electricity production is by renewables.

[@The_ZeroLine]

It’s always good times when GTBT posts a new video.

[@THEJOK3R1940]

@@stillness0072 Well it really depends if it's a positive or negative subject

[@detective_solar]

@@stillness0072 nice one!

[@FOLIPE]

South America has some of the cleanest energy matrices in the world...

[@grafity1749]

But also drills really much oil and fossil gas (For example Brazil and Venezuela)

[@EsotericResearcher777]

Oil is not declining anytime soon. Most of everything in your room is made of oil. Electric cars don't have enough range yet. Oil stocks are going to keep going up for the foreseeable future, no matter what the WEF says.

[@grafity1749]

Yeah all experts are false and only you know the truth 😂

[@death_parade]

I know the WEF is a pain in the a$$. But not everything is just a WEF conspiracy. My nation and government regularly $hit on WEF plans such as kicking out Monsanto and their GMO bull$hit or openly warring with US Big Pharma in order to provide affordable medicine to the poorest places on Earth. But even then my nation and Government are working rather hard at the Green Energy transition. Ofcourse they aren't being unrealistic and have set a Carbon neutral target as late as 2070. Yet my country is rated the best among all G-20 nations by the German Climate Change Performance Index. Although I will admit that a major part of this is that my country's oil reserves are abysmally low and our government wants to energy independent for fiscal, security and strategic reasons.

[@robertab929]

You should also mentioned about Polish inventor Łukasiewicz Jan Józef Ignacy Łukasiewicz (1822 - 1882) was a Polish pharmacist, engineer, businessman, inventor, and philanthropist. He was one of the most prominent philanthropists in the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, crown land of Austria-Hungary. He was a pioneer who in 1856 built the world's FIRST MODERN OIL REFINERY. His achievements included the discovery of how to distill kerosene from seep crude oil, the invention of the modern kerosene lamp (1853), the introduction of the first modern street lamp in Europe (1853), and the construction of the world's FIRST MODERN OIL WELL (1854).

[@imcbocian]

Materiał nie jest o rozwoju przemysłu naftowego w Polsce, a Łukasiewicz miał zaledwie lokalne znaczenie w tej kwestii. W czasie gdy on pracował nad metodą destylacji ropy, w Stanach Zjednoczonych naftę pozyskiwano już na masową skalę z węgla. Jego osiągnięcia były więc udoskonaleniami, ale bez globalnego znaczenia dla sposobu w jaki przemysł się rozwijał. A o tym jest to video.

[@robertab929]

@@imcbocian Bajki opowiadasz. Doczytaj

[@imcbocian]

@@robertab929 pochodzę z Gorlic, pracowałem w lokalnej rafinerii, wiedza na temat działalności Łukasiewicza jak i historii okolicznego przemysłu to część mojej kultury i dziedzictwa. Wybacz ale nie będę traktował poważnie rad abym się w tym temacie dokształcił od randoma w sieci.

[@ekesandras1481]

@@imcbocian in the German Wikipedia article about Kerosin, his name is mentioned de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosin#Geschichte

[@michaelsheridan3717]

GWARANTEE

[@Stephen_Baker]

Just a side comment, so pls feel free to ignore - the vocabulary here is excellent. The accent is not British-English or American-English but it works just a well if not better and trumps any accent. The English language is indeed a glue that binds the world (ie., us) together. Congrats!

[@bellakrinkle9381]

Indeed. I'm becoming burned out on the accent of the Brits. This is refreshing.

[@wills.5762]

Hey my guy, the U is just there for decoration in the English pronunciation of guarantee, typically its pronounced "gare-ant-ee"

[@adetiloyecontinental1725]

Can you do Geopolitics of Food?

[@deepblueskyshine]

Replace oil with pharma in the Rockefeller's quote and you've described modern days economy.

[@EinFelsbrocken]

50min? I am going to enjoy this.

[@aryaman05]

41:00 Analyses on CN, India and SEA is wrong, this region is going whole hog on GE, they're taking a more balanced and pragmatic approach to achieve this, and are likely to achieve zero emission or go fully green just about the same time as the West - if not earlier.

[@MM22966]

Having seen pictures of New Delhi's' streets, I will believe that when I see it.

[@موسى_7]

​@@MM22966 Clean energy has nothing to do with air pollution. Energy isn't made in cities, but rather in power plants far from people.

[@MM22966]

@@موسى_7 Cars do put out a bit. When COVID lockdowns happened, parts of Europe saw noticeably clean skies because nobody was driving much (as an example)

[@ro.7427]

China saying they are going green and China actually doing so are two very different things. China is going in the wrong direction. They love lying about their progress to look good on the international stage. Go there. Look at the sky. That's not an overcast day there 365 days of the year. Thats pollution. I lived there a long time...

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Definitely earlier. Countries like Germany and USA are going backwards (or have gone backwards some time ago (hopefully not again)).

[@homatenindilula2550]

Nuanced, thoroughly researched. Well done 👌🏾

[@ViceCoin]

Post-oil, disaster insurance will be the best industry.

[@laujack24]

check out those benz ev car that burned down entire parking lot worth of cars in south korea lol.

[@ViceCoin]

@@laujack24 Coastal states like Florida and Texas have soaring insurance rates and condo HOA fees to upgrade flood protection.

[@ЛъчезарСтанев]

for energy oil replaced coal that replaced wood and so on. Replacement for energy can happen when a cheaper alternative appears like if we have better batteries. It had impact on WW2 but way smaller as Germans used coals to produce oil(there was shortage due to bombing the production sites) also this was way after it was clear who will win. Arab oil is cheapest to produce if they open up production the other producers cannot compete in market economy and that is why everyone with big stick shakes it there. The cycle is flood the market free competitors go bust, than reduce production and increase price till competition comes in again and when they do flood them again. The Ukraine war lead to decoupling Russia from the oil and gas market no one is depended on them at he moments

[@FelipevonMontfort]

Oil isn't going anywhere for a long time yet.

[@redblacktichy7713]

Oil will be over within a decade

[@ivantijerinaf1207]

Hello, im a Petroleum Engineer from Mexico, physisist and mathematician soon, Geothermal, like Eavor, Quiase, Dandelion, (companies) in my opinion is the new era fror mankind.

[@The_ZeroLine]

It’s patently absurd that most developed countries aren’t already powering at least 75% of their grid via nuclear power.

[@AL-lh2ht]

nuclear power is the most costly form of energy.

[@MM-un3ob]

​@AL-lh2ht It is not. You are lying. Cite sources when you claim such bull$H!t. That being said, aside from Ukraine, I am not aware of any source of Uranium that Europe could use without having to rely heavily on Africa.

[@simmansu]

Куда хоронить отходы? Да их немного. Да часть можно переработать. Но высокоактивные, тепловыделяющие отходы всё ещё остаются. Их нельзя захоронить - соляные, гранитные пласты пропускают воду. Их нельзя запустить в космос - каждый сотый запуск аварийный. Остаётся только складировать на поверхности дабы отходы находились под постоянным контролем и обслуживанием. Но это невероятно дорого. Ведь нам придётся обслуживать склады отходов ВЕКАМИ и ТЫСЯЧАЛЕТИЯМИ. Уж лучше сжигать газ.

[@ayathados6629]

​@simmansu this is a moot point russian bot. There are plenty of places that are unoccupied and the amount of waste produced is going to be absorbed by 30 out of the 300 potential locations. Nuclear energy is safe, the waste can and has been safely dealt with for the last 80 years. Enjoy your +1 ruble

[@effexon]

@@MM-un3ob is that nuclear supply chain one of key points .... european countries would need 50+ years of stable relations with countries having uranium mines and refineries. otherwise it is too risky and waste of building... other forms are still available shortterm much cheaper. russia was among biggest suppliers for europe both of those aspects. Kazakshtan is now for raw uranium ore. Africa is another but government coups are not good for longterm trade. of course it can be bought from global markets too.

[@knpark2025]

A lot of people say the US dollar is supported by the petrodollar system, but from a country that imports a lot of Middle Eastern fossil fuels with hard-earned dollars, I can argue that it isn't always the case. The US Dollar is just as strongly supported by its knowledge base as it is by the petrodollar scheme. Its vast intellectual property is what supports it. Oil rigs? Technology. Refineries? Technology. Even technologies to build semoconductor chips, cars, and ships that my country (South Korea) sells to import the fuel? Technology. And the United States has a firm grip on the most important, original, and fundamental technologies and intellectual properties that matters. Just like the value of a currency inside of a country can be propped up by the need to pay taxes in said currency, the same is true for high technology industry and their need to pay for their technology in US dollars. To be clear, I don't see this transaction as something intrinsically bad. Samsung pays Qualcomm so that they can sell Android phones, and everyone are better off for this relationship. And the United States will not import slave labor with their Techno-dollars to build stadiums and skyscrapers in the desert. We know it when we see a world hegemon that is a net positive to the world - we Koreans have been doing it for centuries. I've seen the political and ethical case against fossil fuels from both sides of the aisle in American politics. There is no reason America shouldn't lead the clean energy industry going forward. It can, if it wants to, render China's current lead into nothing more than the renewable energy industry's equivalent of Sputnik. A fluke in the nascency that didn't follow through to final standings.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Meh! You do buy oil in USD and not in your local currency. This strenghens the USD and weakens your currency. That's in a nutshell the petrodollar scheme. Nobody claims that the USA lacks other assets but that the USD is an oil-backed currency.

[@aaronjones8905]

The developing nations that are petroleum producers are suffering from Western nations avoiding investments in petroleum refining. They are left with the most basic extraction industries without the normal refining and efficiency developments. This is why so many petroleum nations import refined gasoline. So much of the world is still lacking full electrification, and the productive abilities of wind and solar are proving incapable of meeting the need. There simply isn't enough mining to create the batteries necessary to make wind and solar useful.

[@paulbo9033]

The last part of your statement is demonstrably wrong. Wind and Solar is already useful. It's already about a third of the power mix in GW and in some countries like Germany, Denmark, UK, there are days when the entire country is powered by Solar & Wind, so much so they export the surplus to neighbouring countries via intercontinental interconnectors. There will be more mining as demand increase, but don't forget that batteries are tech so you don't necessarily need more mining as the battery efficiency improves over time. Also pumped hydro is used to store solar & wind power. This is all to say that solar & wind is already very useful and a huge part of installed capacity. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

[@aaronjones8905]

@@paulbo9033 You are clearly aware that the fluctuating energy production of wind and solar requires storage capacity. You should be aware that battery technology has not seriously advanced past lithium batteries and the mining required for those batteries is highly toxic. The developed nations don't have enough batteries to run solely on wind and solar, and it's a complete fantasy to believe that the Global South could also run on wind and solar. The ecological damage from toxic batteries, toxic solar panels, and unrecyclable wind turbine blades alone should make you question whether or not this is a good idea even if it were possible. The only energy source that can match fossil fuels in energy density and constancy is nuclear power. Also RIP the birds of Europe thanks to wind farms.

[@paulbo9033]

@@aaronjones8905 you've basically just ignored all my points proving you wrong, and just reiterated your wrong point 🤷‍♂️

[@aaronjones8905]

@@paulbo9033 I can see why you would think that, but what I was actually doing is highlighting the very real limitations of solar and wind energy. Your only rebuttal is that they are working in some of the most highly developed and stable nations in the world as well as to vaguely hope that battery technology is going to improve. That does nothing to prove that solar and wind energy are capable of powering the entirety of the West much less the West and the Global South. You've also said nothing about the very real ecological externalities of relying on wind and solar. The math simply doesn't math for a "green" transition.

[@paulbo9033]

@@aaronjones8905the vast majority of countries will generate enough GW of capacity to meet 1.8 degrees by 2050. It's pretty easy to find the data that evidences this since both public and private sources scrutinze the validity of transition plans - but why don't you just tell me which ones you are most concerned will not be able to meet the transition?

[@amonferrari]

I really enjoy your videos, and think they are high quality. But as a brazilian, you added Br to a regional generalization that I respectfully disagree. We have many problems, and ups and down, but first, the foreign reserves question, we currently have 325b usd, and our energy matrix is already 83% renewables and increasing. We have a really tight macroeconomics control over our currency and politica hasn't changed that really much for the past decades. These facts just makes our situation a little bit different from your generalization. We produce as much oil as iran nowadays. Many thanks and cheers!

[@death_parade]

Not just Brazil, he is wrong about most of the BRICS nations. Brazil, India and China are big on green energy and Russia is big on oil. Yet they show the opposite in that ridiculous map.

[@Youralwayswhining4367]

Middle east wounld have much without oil

[@delavan9141]

I kept waiting for the title material to appear but it was just a long history recap I already well knew. Would help if there was a timestamp on when you started the "New Geopolitics."

[@-r-495]

how are the Saudis going to cool their photovoltaic modules?

[@doujinflip]

More likely they'll just install specialized high temperature models.

[@Chris-op7yt]

it's exploiting a limited source of energy that everyone is made deprndent on, that makes for our volatile world of superpowers. also keeping some others who have the resource out of the superpower monopoly market is key.

[@25Soupy]

The government and corporations love single people. Double the tax revenue, double the sales of goods and services.

[@sillymesilly]

Black gold has higher energy density than any green energy

[@yodorob]

40:50-41:30...If Argentina didn't have a chronic financial crisis for decades and remained among the richest countries in the world per capita like it was just over 100 years ago, then it and next-door Uruguay would be included in "the West" or "the Global North", not in "the developing world" or "the Global South". This would constitute a second "island" of the Global North in the Southern Hemisphere, after the one in Australia and New Zealand. Speaking of which, it's extremely unwise to equate "the West" with "the developed world" or with "the Global North", considering that a. Argentina, Uruguay, etc. are culturally in "the West" even if economically and geopolitically that's not necessarily the case and b. Japan, South Korea, and the other Asian Tigers are culturally very much not in "the West" but are quite developed nonetheless.

[@moezmedia98]

Better the oil cartel than the oil colonial companies

[@ValMartinIreland]

They cannot do without, there is no alternative. Wind farms are net consumers of electricity when measused over one year. Fossil fuel and nuclear are the only options, like it or not.

[@dominickathiravel9453]

little heads up GoodTimesBadTimes, do use the phrase "black continent" as you have in 29:17 minutes into the video again. There are many africans who call themselves as such but are not black. This is just one of several reasons not to use the phrase

[@svenrio8521]

I think they meant to say "Dark Continent" as that is what historically used to refer to Africa

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Do or don't?

[@jds1275]

There is an assumption here that this is a forgone conclusion. Electric cars are not really catching on in the US, it's a niche item that most people don't want. Also, when people catch on to how much real toxic material is produced to make the "alternatives" I am sure they will become less popular. The green transition isn't viable. It requires everyone accepting a huge decrease in the quality of life. It also requires the use of technologies that are not general purpose but have niches. Like, wind is only viable in certain places. Solar only works in certain places. It will also cost massive amounts of money that we just don't have.

[@KBergs]

EV adoption is a charging infrastructure and cost issue. We moved to electric light from whale oil due to cost and convenience and EVs are no different.

[@jds1275]

@@KBergs It is also not wanting to. I refuse to have own those pieces of garbage.

[@rogerk6180]

​@@jds1275the rest of the world doesn't care about what you want really..it will simply move on without you.

[@KBergs]

@@jds1275 Unfortunately for you the emissions from your vehicle are a public concern. They make compressed air powered cars if you're that sensitive about engine technology choice.

[@jds1275]

@@KBergs That is a really bad argument and one you wouldn't want to push. Because that bad argument could lead to ideas on limiting your ability to breath, since your breathing affects everyone. Also, I am not the only one against EVs. Most people are because they are a horrible technology.

[@taherehtalebi3931]

great video. thanks.

[@juliansebastian]

Degrowth is not about halting development but about overcoming gdp growth as our main metric of progress

[@AL-lh2ht]

why lie?

[@PapaDalbec]

Sounds sus

[@Qnexus7]

that implies a huge restructuring of the economies, institutions, politics, etc. it will hardly be a smooth or constant in development ride.

[@موسى_7]

Unlimited desire, limited planet/universe

[@juliansebastian]

@@موسى_7 Precisely! Grappling with the consequences of blindly chasing more growth will lead to much more upheaval than adjusting our economic activities to the reality of a limited planet.

[@ClaudioQuispeEspinoza]

So, according to your map, Russia wll reduce its oil production and move to "green energy"?? What a clown.

[@death_parade]

Meanwhile, he thinks India with its puny oil reserves will stick to oil. Looks like this dude doesn't read up on stuff before making videos.

[@shmokh]

Oil in particular will be almost impossible to get rid of due to its flexibility as an input into almost all aspects of modern life. Over half of the oil we use is used in products we use daily. Oil is not going away anytime soon. Everything denying this is detached from reality

[@michaels4255]

What happens when there are no net oil exporters left? Oil is a finite resource. At some point, it will be impossible to stop the annual supply from declining, and eventually it will no longer be profitable to extract from the ground in large amounts, and eventually it will not be profitable to extract at all. Coal and gas face the same problem. Uranium probably does too. The industrial revolution will be seen to be but a blip in the historical timeline, a one time aberration.

[@shmokh]

@@michaels4255 I agree, and I believe that the world will abandon oil as a source of energy not because of the depletion of oil but because of the emergence of other sources of energy, just as happened with coal, so it is necessary to focus on clean energy sources and focus on using oil only for petrochemicals.

[@michaels4255]

@@shmokh The world did not abandon coal! A huge part of the world's electricity is generated with coal, and it is also needed for certain large scale industrial processes (such as large scale steel production) that require very high heat that we don't have other means to generate at scale. And let's get something else straight: there is NO SUCH THING as "clean" energy. ALL large scale energy production is dirty! Including solar and wind. It is a necessary trade off, so please stop deluding yourself about "clean energy." And that absolutely includes solar PV and wind turbines. And batteries.Fusion? 65 years of failure. Breeders? 65 years of failure. LFTR/MSR? 65 years of failure. Some other energy sources work, but don't scale, and/or have other problems or limitations. Now what do you imagine is going to replace coal, oil, gas, and uranium235? There is nothing, or at least nothing that actually works and scales. Now, I can't prove in advance that we will not have a miracle breakthrough in some form of nuclear (not solar or wind though, they are limited by laws of physics), or that some previously unimagined energy source will not suddenly be discovered; but if so, that miracle better happen VERY SOON, because it takes a long time to build out the infrastructure, and time is running out fast. It is unavoidable that a very high throughput civilization must have a historically brief existence. It's the math.

[@michaels4255]

​@@basilmagnanimous7011 First, you can't run shipping, trucking, or the airline industry on batteries, and electricity from any source cannot generate enough heat for mass production of steel or certain other industrial processes. In addition, even the pro nuke World Nuclear Association has conceded that world uranium production will hit its all time peak circa 2035, and most geological studies have forecast an earlier peak than that. Second, CONVENTIONAL oil production (the stuff that flows out of the ground under naturally occurring pressure, at least until the well is in deep decline) already peaked about 19 years ago, although I don't think it has fallen off the plateau yet. UNCONVENTIONAL oil (which is more than 90% from fracking) has provided 100% of our increased oil production since circa 2005, and mainstream sources forecast fracking production to peak circa 2025, so global oil production from all sources should begin to decline just a few years from now. Of course, it will be longer before the world no longer produces enough oil to maintain the modern economy, but not 200 years! First, remember that a lot of oil will stay in the ground forever because the energy it provides will no longer exceed the energy necessary to extract, transport, refine, and get it to the consumer. There is no advantage in digging your energy sink deeper at that point. Tar sand oil may provide a supply of oil for a long time, but only in relatively small quantities. Only some of that oil can be extracted via an (energy intensive) steam process. Most of it is only extractable by a much slower mining process. That is why Alberta has not become the new Saudi Arabia. In addition to tar sand oil, the old conventional wells, after they are heavily depleted, should each continue to pump a few barrels a day for a long time. However, this is far short of the massive oil production that the global economy depends on today. Between 1859 and 2005, the world used approximately half the oil it is ever likely to extract. That was 146 years, but for most of that time there were very few countries that used large amounts of oil, and the net energy provided was very high. Now almost the whole world is using oil, and wants to use more, and the net energy (EROI) provided by oil is a rapidly falling percentage of gross production. If at one time we had to burn one barrel of oil to get 100 barrels, now the world probably burns five barrels to get 100 (a five fold increase in the "energy cost" of energy production), and that number is rising rapidly. "oil under the seabed" - well, we are already drilling on the continental shelf, but oil is only formed and maintained under certain rare conditions, and most of the area under the ocean, beyond the continental shelf, never had those conditions. Also, I googled this up real quick: "There isn't much oil, if any, in the “middle of the ocean”, because the rock out there is igneous right down to the mantle (that's one of the key facts that led to the formulation of the modern theory of plate tectonics). Oil is only found in sedimentary rock." Electricity cannot fuel our transportation network (it will not even fuel passenger cars on a large scale, not enough minerals), but in addition the resources we need for large scale electrical production are depleting fast and will peak not long after oil. For example, the pro nuke World Nuclear Association forecasts uranium production will peak circa 2035, and most geological studies have forecast an earlier date. Various countries have been trying to perfect alternatives (fast breeders, fusion, molten salt/liquid fluoride reactors for thorium) to replace light water reactors since the 1950s, but so far it has been 65 years of frustration. "hydrogen batteries" - again, where do you get the energy to extract hydrogen via electrolysis? That fails to grapple with the underlying problem. The expected production peaks for coal, gas, and some critical minerals such as copper are at best only a few years farther out than uranium. Production of gold, helium, rhodium, and probably silver (2018 apparently) has already peaked. Phosphate rock, which is indispensable for high yield agriculture, will also peak this century, although it is difficult to narrow down a date. The most optimistic forecast I have seen for phosphate is 2075. Innovation rates (per capita innovation) peaked in the 1880s and have been declining ever since, and soon population will be declining as well (which means the decline in innovation will become absolute and not just relative to population size). And in multiple developed countries (the sources of most of our innovation), nominal IQ scores are also dropping among people born since circa 1976, so it is not related to growing up with the internet. Most likely it means that the mysterious Flynn Effect AKA Cattell's Paradox, whatever its causes, topped out in the 1990s in the most developed countries and so can no longer mask the underlying trend in dysgenic fertility that has been in effect for approximately the last 200 years in the most "developed" parts of the world. But I do agree with you that there is no point in artificially constricting supply. We should use what we have since it would be a shame to let it go to waste. What I disagree about is that there is some Aladdin's lamp of energy out there waiting to be discovered that will grant all our energy wishes. After mankind passes through a transitional period which will be very difficult, the survivors will come out on the other end as a much smaller and poorer population. I am sure this is a very discomforting thought for many modern people, many of whom measure the significance of their earthly lives in terms of material progress.

[@doujinflip]

Burning oil as fuel makes up like 2/3 of its consumption though, and the electrification of transportation will massively cut into the overall want for petroleum.

[@Ryanrobi]

Oil isn't going anywhere anytime soon..

[@paulbo9033]

This is demonstrably and observably false. Demand for Oil is dropping, and is set to drop enormously as transportation switches from Oil to Power. This shift is already taking place. There is a reason why Saudi is scrambling to diversify their economy, and develop its gas reserves.

[@DSHK-wb5cn]

​@@paulbo9033its not

[@paulbo9033]

@@DSHK-wb5cn it is. You can literally measure output over time, there are loads of companies that do this and publish the data including Upstream companies themselves. It's dropping, is continuing to drop, and will drop further. Go and look at the published strategies of listed O&G companies and Banks - they literally tell you what they are doing to manage this transition. It's happening whether you like it or not.

[@SteveN-kp6jj]

We better hope not. The United States is the #1 oil production machine on the planet by volume and it accounts for a large part of both our exports and our ability to sustain our uniquely oil and specifically car-dependent culture. We have designed our entire infrastructure around the ownership and operation of personal automobiles and to transition away from that is going to be much more difficult than many people realize. There is a reason why America has struggled to implement rail transportation at anywhere near the level seen overseas- our geography and in fact the entire design of our urban and rural communities has been built with the culture of personal vehicle ownership in mind. It is simply not profitable or efficient enough no matter how you try to implement rail as a form of public transport here- our population centers are entirely too spread out.

[@doujinflip]

The overall want for oil though is in trouble though, and with it the economies dependent on drilling and selling petroleum.

[@dubsar]

Why is Russia inside the good place on the map?

[@Swiplys]

Cos they're profits are booming

[@dubsar]

@@Swiplys I mean, the MAP divides carbon-based energy markets from "clean" energy markets. Russia should be in the carbon-bases part of the map.

[@elinope4745]

Literally the prettiest women in the world come from there. It's the heart of human value.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

@@dubsar They just took the Global North vs Global South map and repackaged it as Green vs Black. Seems to me that part of the problem is: people think Green could only mean solar and wind, and nothing else. Here in the Philippines, we have a pretty decent geothermal and hydroelectric sector, and in the city where I live, we've just completely dismantled a fossil power plant like 5 or so years ago.

[@dubsar]

@@Gelatinocyte2 Doesn't Russia and China want a "multipolar world"? Then they should be together in a third part of the map, the losing side.

[@elinope4745]

If it's the greatest business in the world, then it makes sense why so many lies and political narratives are told about it.

[@rogerk6180]

Technology disruption never happens gradually. It follows the well known S-curve. The next 15 years are going to be very messy..

[@rogerk6180]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 energy independence mostly. Less geopolitical tension because of energy. The ability for people to provide in their own energy needs trough cheap access to energy generation amd storage. Lots of positive things will come from this. But as always also some unhappy people who profit handsomly from the current system that will lash out.

[@amirtrako7256]

There is no replacement for oil.

[@SlitchBatty]

If France's example of nuclear is so good; despite the expensive initial startup costs, then what stops the rest of the world from following suit???

[@kiwitrainguy]

France can get its Uranium cheap from its former colonies in the Sahel in Africa.

[@juliansebastian]

Renewable energies (esp. solar) are much more decentralized than oil and gas production so they offer great potential for increasing global and national equality

[@ekesandras1481]

solar panel productio is not decentralized. All of them come from two or three factories in communist China.

[@Qnexus7]

yes but what if excessive mass production eventually benefits a regime like china? that might end up causing greater problems down the line.

[@موسى_7]

​@@Qnexus7 The US regime already benefits from basically everything you own at home, so nothing has changed

[@Qnexus7]

@@موسى_7tell me you don't know what you talk about without telling me the US cannot be classified as a regime because its political power is deliberately dispersed across various branches of government and diverse factions. the separation of powers, combined with a multitude of competing interest groups, creates a dynamic environment where any attempt to push a particular agenda is met with inevitable resistance and opposition. this constant push and pull of competing interests ensures that no single entity can dominate the political landscape, which stands in stark contrast to the centralized control typical of a regime.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

When talking about Green Energy, people always forget about geothermal and hydroelectric. Nobody's gonna want to keep using oil, especially if it means economically cucking yourself to Big Oil nations.

[@mikehardwicke23]

Get real - There is no alternative!

[@pedromain]

Nuclear.

[@peterdollins3610]

The only real alternative to fossil fuels is Nuclear Power. High set up prices but long working to a hundred years & more by renewing power plants so far cheaper on the long run. An international body needs to have inspection rights for safety. Also needed is a carbon tax to be redistributed to the General Public.

[@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle]

For now, the greatest resources are purified fresh drinking water, rare earth minerals, and fossil fuels

[@alexsokhin1814]

Really love to see another big material from GTBT, thank you dude

[@calc1657]

That was a comprehensive overview.

[@hudooguru2]

Fantastic content. Thank you.

[@JonTan-z3e]

world oil consumption is at 40 billion barrels a year and has not experience a decrease in 40 years.....i dunno what the video means by oil is the energy of the past, it is still powering the worlds economy as far as i can see.

[@Zyzyx442]

Daniel Yergin the prize is very good. Also commanding heights.

[@mycellphone4437]

Yergin is the go to source for anything hydrocarbons.

[@theflexitech]

All my homies in the rust belt hate Rockefeller.

[@KlajniKleiner]

next fantastic movie, congratz

[@ikeu6433]

Imma need video segments

[@DR-iu3pe]

Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere any time soon, and it’s beyond ridiculous to artificially mandate such a transaction. Cleaner emissions thanks to better filters and reforestation are making the industry far less polluting and the global increase of prosperity due to cheap energy is more than enough of a payoff. Green energy is a rich country’s fashion, and who suffers the most when it’s imposed are the less affluent across the globe.

[@death_parade]

Well, India partially disagrees.

[@mohmah6887]

the war of 1973 is 20 days of war the war of 1967 is 6 days of war

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

Great research, Mr Knopp, and great narration, Mr Walas.

[@paulshearer9140]

Thanks

[@ClaudioQuispeEspinoza]

One thing, do you really thing oil will be phased out, since petrochemicals exists???

[@dobraizsoltlevente1623]

'absurd ideas such as degrowth' .... anyone or any narrative that coins any idea regarding the alternative management of our common wealth and of our resources iabsurd, is in fact absurd itself. growth and developmentism arent the only paradigms we can exist in....

[@Ravi9A]

powering autocratic regimes? as opposed to your clean energy out of aether?

[@doujinflip]

Petroleum-based budgets allowed autocrats to easily buy their legitimacy. Places that had to opt for cleaner energy sources also need more competent and democratized societal institutions.

[@Ravi9A]

@@doujinflip and you know, exploitative trade dominance with warlord run slave mines to source those materials that make the components of cleaner energy. Lmao.

[@mx338]

The thumbnail is so stupid, good countries = green, bad countries = black oil. Despite the USA and other western nations poluting the most per capita, while China is leading in so many aspects or green energy.

[@AdrianBoyko]

I sold all my black gold investments so I could reinvest in Texas tea.

[@BOIOLA08]

I hope it is green tea 😂😂😂

[@grafity1749]

24:38 Ambitious is something else 😂🤡

[@EsfandiarNokhodaki]

Nothing will replace oil. Imagine how many trees you have to plant in order to produce tires from tree sap or how much sugarcane you have to plant in order to produce fuel from sugarcane. Or how much cotton should you plant to produce cloth, or how many cows should you kill to make shoes and bags from cow leather? Oil makes everything easier and cheaper, so don't fool yourself. In Iran, we have stored oil in wells and fields inside the country or in the Caspian Sea for next 100 Years and we only use common fields in the Persian Gulf and near the borders !!!

[@Gelatinocyte2]

Assuming we're not going to transition away from cars as the dominant paradigm of commute. Also, it's much better to have fuel come from plants than to dig up carbon that's meant to stay underground! At least the carbon from plant fuel came from the same place as when it was growing as a crop: the atmosphere - and it can readily be assimilated by autotrophs; meanwhile, fossil carbon is of a different isotope that no plant on Earth can work with, and you're just adding it up massively to the atmosphere instead of recycling it (by growing plants, which use CO2 as food).

[@doujinflip]

Electrified transport and heating will cut over half the consumption of oil though. Producers will ultimately cut production, and that will crash the budgets of petrostates and with it the civil stability of societies who spent generations burning their way to "prosperity"... Venezuela is only the beginning.

[@ethanswanson9209]

Interesting video, but so many ad interruptions. Probably won’t look into more videos by channel

[@ChildovGhad]

Did they AI voice clone Walter Koenig's Pavel Chekov portrayal for the narration? That's exactly what it sounds like.

[@edgeldine3499]

(33:55)To be fair those countries were already autocratic for centuries if not millennia. institutional momentum and the governance culture matters. I think its explained somewhat in the book "why nations fail" I never did finish the book but the first couple of chapters were eye opening in some ways.

[@ekesandras1481]

that's true. No country with a democratic tradition and civil liberties has ever turned into a dictatorship because of oil: not Britain, not the Netherlands, not Norway, not the USA.

[@larrymorley2579]

So the "new" geopolitics of oil is basically the old geopolitics of oul?

[@luckymalaza7461]

Green energy has been subsidised

[@valentinstoyanov304]

"The Prize" is one of the most interesting (and largest) 😊 books 📚 I've ever read.

[@EsfandiarNokhodaki]

Trust me, nothing will replace oil in the next 100 years. Oil is not just fuel. Most parts of shoes, clothes, dishes, refrigerators, cars, tires, airplanes, televisions, everything is made of oil, even the food and vegetables you eat are grown with chemical fertilizers derived from oil !!

[@Gelatinocyte2]

You wish!

[@dsmogor]

@@EsfandiarNokhodaki plastics are indispensable part of modern life but they are target of green policies too due to pollution crisis. I think most bio degradable equivalents are not made from oil and this is where the money flow.

[@doujinflip]

Oil _as_ fuel though is starting on its way out though. Burning it constitutes like 2/3 of petroleum consumption, and the electrification of transport will massively cut the want for oil.

[@michaels4255]

@@doujinflip No, it won't. There are severe limitations on how much we can electrify the total transport system. You haven't looked at the math. Electricity's ability to replace liquid fuels is limited and relatively modest.

[@icmull]

You should put the books you mention in the comments so I can buy them. Might as well click your affiliate link.

[@craiggillett5985]

Fantastic report. Watching from New Zealand 🇳🇿 and I see what you did with poultry 🐔, nice work

[@electrosyzygy]

An often overlooked motivation behind the push for 'green energy' solutions has more to do with geopolitics and military concerns. For example Europe is not blessed with hydrocarbons, unlike the 2 powers it is stuck between. Militaries need oil--it is one thing to power a car with a battery, but it won't do for a tank or fighter jet. Countries that must import oil to power their war machines are not truly sovereign nor secure and incur great costs so reducing civilian and arguably frivolous uses of oil allow for a more resilient military-industrial complex and power projection.

[@MM22966]

They like green tech, right? Tell them to convert their tanks to wood-alcohol burners like the Germans tried to do in '45!

[@mishmohd]

THANK YOU. That’s what I have been saying for ages.. Europe can’t stand not being the upper hand in that economic exchange and this is all but a lash out by another name.

[@موسى_7]

​@@MM22966 Dude, they don't need clean tanks. If they have clean cars, they'll have more dirty fuel left for tanks, get it?

[@marcoliebl3715]

Well as a German I can say that even if we had a decent amount of tanks or jets, they would not work or shipped off elswhere, so I am not worried about not having enough oil to operate them xD

[@MM22966]

@@marcoliebl3715 Seem to be working fine in Ukraine!