To save the climate, we have to reimagine capitalism | Rebecca Henderson

Take action on climate change at countdown.ted.com.
"Business is screwed if we don't fix climate change," says economist Rebecca Henderson. In this bold talk, she describes how unchecked capitalism destabilizes the environment and harms human health -- and makes the case for companies to step up and help fix the climate crisis they're causing. Hear what a reimagined capitalism, in which companies pay for the climate damage they cause, could look like.
This talk was part of the Countdown Global Launch on 10.10.2020. (Watch the full event here: • [Replay] Watch the Cou... .) Countdown is TED's global initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. The goal: to build a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world. Get involved at countdown.ted.com/sign-up
Follow Countdown on Twitter: / tedcountdown
Follow Countdown on Instagram: / tedcountdown
Subscribe to our channel: / ted
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com

[@yagruumbagaarn]

A system that relies on infinite growth is bound to collapse when reaching the boundaries of a finite system. Capitalist apologists can't see what is blindingly obvious.

[@awesomeant9509]

That's the point of economics. Humans have infinite wants but finite resources. That's true no matter what system. The assumption that the system has to run off of infinity while remaining within a finite setting stems from the view that ideas and innovation are also finite, which is not true. We've created ideas which take lots of actions into smaller convenient contraptions like a phone.

[@alestevez950]

100% right. People need to watch Zeitgeist Addendum and follow the works of Peter Joseph and The Venus Project.

[@Hooman88634]

if the world leaders wont realize it now, it would be too late!

[@alestevez950]

@@awesomeant9509 our material wants are a direct consequence of a market economy. It’s all superficial. We should live in accordance to the carrying capacity of the earth.

[@awesomeant9509]

@Knut Farestveit then that's a fatal conceit. Most people tell themselves "once I have this, I won't have anymore wants. I especially won't want any more luxuries." In reality, most people don't stop. Not only that, but to those supplies that you want, there's billions on coordinating people involved. For example, a pencil requires wood. To get the wood you need chainsaws. To get chainsaws you need oil from oil refinery. To get the metals you need to have mines. So on and so forth.

[@nowisgood4me]

Sorry TED but you missed the mark with this one. The 100 companies that create the majority of our pollution worldwide do not care about environmental impact - I think looking at practices like greenwashing and lack of actual implementation in the last 50 years makes that blatantly obvious. Additionally, governments worldwide will not implement policies that harm companies who give them money so they can stay in power - it's just a vicious circle. And I'm very happy that she has a friend who has a moral conscience but unfortunately, he is the exception, not the rule.

[@danielsykes7558]

@nowisgood4me Thank you!

[@greggary7217]

I think you are correct. The alternative is what?

[@nowisgood4me]

@@greggary7217 I would say a complex solution is necessary. Because, and I didn't point that out in my first comment, many can't afford to make climate-friendly choices and there are no incentives to make hard choices - but most importantly I think it can't be on the head of individuals to make climate-friendly choices - the collective needs to create a frame. In my opinion actual regulations and clear incentives, investment in renewables, comprehensive life-cycle analysis of products - and I think most importantly clear regulations against tax shelters - billions are lost in revenue there each year, billions that the collective could choose to invest.

[@faisal1582]

@@nowisgood4me There is an alternative. We need Carbon Negative companies. This means from a technological point of view, they would implement BAT in their production for sustainability, and anything leftover GHG that has not been accounted for, they would have to plant enough trees and / or have some form of GHG absorption tech that will create an overall negative balance for carbon emission. In all honesty, we broke the carbon ceiling 20 years earlier than we should have, and even if (hypothetically) companies had really good intentions, being just zero will do nothing.

[@expertshopxsupport2684]

What do you mean by, "clear regulations against tax shelters"@@nowisgood4me

[@roadhunter72]

Capitalism isn’t the problem. The problem is that we have capitalism for the poor; but socialism for the rich. The poor are expected to “lift themselves by their bootstraps” (a physical impossibility) and the Rich, Powerful, and corporations are bailed out by our tax dollars.

[@Garminrules]

Thats an excellent perspective....I been bitchin about corporate welfare for years.

[@oscardelajara7644]

that´s exactly how free market capitalism is supposed to work

[@bartroberts1514]

@@oscardelajara7644 You may be thinking of opportunism, privateering, piracy, plutocracy or mercantilism. Free Market Capitalism refers to the freedom of individual buyers and sellers from external non-market influences like bailouts.

[@peter-klausnikolaus4823]

That's not socialism if it's for the rich. I get your point though. Big companies get bailed out if they're in trouble, while the rest gets evicted.

capitalism is the problem

[@sierragreen]

Appealing to the moral conscience of greedy business people -- works great on KZbin.

[@ape72patch1]

Hahah yup....they are all here watching for tips on how to help us !

[@80yen]

And to think I was expecting something more than "let's count on companies to see the light and work with the future of mankind in mind"...

[@XnaugahydeX]

ah yes we must appeal to the conscious of our corporate overlords. only they can save us.

[@yujinnya]

Er... You really think that? It is like expecting for conscious of a thief to make him(her) stop while they are filling their pockets with no-one to stop them. Why would they do that?

[@bilalthefighter829]

@@yujinnya The original comment was being sarcastic

[@yujinnya]

@@bilalthefighter829 Sorry, my bad)

[@bilalthefighter829]

@@yujinnya no need to appologize

[@sustainableslate]

we will bend them to our will

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

The root of our societies problems is greed. If corporate persons can, they will. Greed doesn't care about it's country and how it hurts others. Greed doesn't care about mother earth and her destruction. Greed only cares about the greedy. "Progress" They told my ancestors, this was. Look how much the world has progressed now. "Civilized" they called themselves and declared us "savages". Look what so called "civilization" has done now. This is where supremacy leads you. We must restore the circle of life once again. You can hear these truths being told from the waters, the trees, the ancestors in the stars. You only need to learn how to listen. Msit No'Kmaq - All My Relations (you and all life).

[@manuelb1255]

Greed is the expression of alienation within the capitalists.

[@alestevez950]

The root of our problems is MONEY.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@alestevez950 Nah I disagree with that. There has to be some sort of universal trading note, because not everyone we do business with have something we need or want in trade. There isn't anything wrong with currency. It the desire to want more of it than you need and longing for materialist items as if it's your life's purpose.

[@alestevez950]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism watch Zeitgeist Addendum and follow the work of Peter Joseph and The Venus Project.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@alestevez950 I'll check it out. If you're against currency for goods and services, then how would you propose to be payed for the work you do for others or goods you would sell them if they didn't have something you wanted or needed in trade of equal value?

[@BobQuigley]

what's so frustrating is the public pays regardless of who generates the damage. So adjust the price to reflect total life cycle costs. in so doing new businesses will spring up. we went through this with autos! it created whole new industries....

[@greggary7217]

The number of replies here that either entirely misunderstand the talk, are stuck in soundbite slogans, have no idea what Capitalism is or isn’t, have no idea what socialism is or isn’t or just plain didn’t even watch the talk - is absolutely astounding. I’m increasingly tending to agree with Isaac Asimov when he said that there is a trend to think that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your education. It’s no effing wonder we are in trouble.

[@tmcche7881]

How many more times do we have to keep tossing these POS leftists back onto the dung pile of history.

[@chuckleberrypi]

@@tmcche7881 leftist are behind every historical step forward

[@InnuendoXP]

@@tmcche7881 You're the kind of person this comment was addressing as much as the people who have no idea what capitalism is if your take is "leftists bad!".

[@InnuendoXP]

@@chuckleberrypi I'd say leftists are behind every social step forward, while markets (and sometimes governments) are behind technological steps forward - which allows the social steps to be made. Too much of one would stifle the other. A monopolistic consolidated corporate-driven technologically empowered system of small tyrannies with cartels of corporations cooperating for mutual benefit at the expense of the majority is as much a possibility as a technologically regressive impoverished over-regulated, oppressive & endlessly stagnant communist failure state.

[@chuckleberrypi]

@@InnuendoXP authoritarian ≠ Communism. George washington was a leftist during the revolution and a conservative after. Left is forward.

[@NutsTesticles]

That’s one way to say “eat the rich and start a commune”

[@kevinmertel6108]

That's one way to say "screw you as long as I get mine"

[@PBrofaith]

What they really want is to kill everyone who is not rich! They even have come up with the number of five hundred million as the desired number of people on earth

[@cla99009]

@@PBrofaith Who's "they"?

[@PBrofaith]

@@cla99009 The same group JFK was talking about in his last speech a few days before he was assassinated. There are a lot of subsidiary groups. Your question is like asking who owns the Reserve Banking System and the Bank of International Settlements, its a secret that none dare share unless they are suicidal. Have a look at the big names who went on camera to promote ''The Great Reset'' recently, and know that they are not at the top of the food chain. lol

[@tavi_chocochip]

@NutsTesticles Wrong. This is, in fact, about capitalism and smaller government. And it’s true that in a free market the current situation would be untenable. What governments are currently doing by heavily subsidising fossil fuels and covering the costs of the damage resulting from exploitation of those fuels is actually closer to the concept of socialism than what’s proposed in the video. Look up uncosted externalities.

[@VincoMalus]

Breathtakingly beautiful analysis/&dissection👑📽

[@joaopinto415]

Really interesting topic!

[@FrederickDunn]

It is so soooo hard to impact and re-direct the thinking of people everywhere. When it comes to green spaces and preserving natural settings, it's a very hard sell. IF we could just simply reduce recreational use of internal combustion engines, not to mention the massive pollution caused by luxury liners (all in the name of recreation)... we saw that true impact when they were shut down during COVID-19 (the waters had never been cleaner). We are on a life-raft (earth) and I completely agree with this presentation. Companies always declare that they have to protect the investment of their shareholders. THAT is at the very core. Those who control refuse services, as well stated here, are powerful beyond trash collection... I hope Eric's Company practices will spread VERY soon, and become the standard of ethical businesses around the world. Thank you for this Ted Talk, I wish you all the best and hope that a wider population will simply care. Thumbs UP. May there be many more along this line...

[@PierreEpage]

the key is how much we care about ourselves vs how much we care about others... especially future others

[@hunting4honeys]

Hearing so many Americanisms come out of a Brit's mouth is weird lol

"to save the hostage, we have to reimagine the kidnapper"

[@danielsykes7558]

AMEN, ughghgh.

[@justoneman3916]

Working from home to greatly deduce current carbon footprint while investing in research and development of advances in battery technologies is the most effective strategy to address climate change. Providing tax incentives for these and other carbon reduction measures would engage instead of alienating businesses. All other options on the table are economy killers and will be met with tremendous resistance.

[@Rnankn]

Any changes will be met with resistance. Engaging in an deliberate campaign to sabotage solutions, and then denouncing those solutions as too difficult because of the resistance is deepening the problem. Batteries are not going to stop climate change. Reducing consumption of GHG by curbing economic activity and energy use is a real solution, and it could happen almost immediately. The longer we wait the more painful with less of an impact it becomes.

[@gysgijsbers4202]

Not everyone can work from home, not everyone works on a computer all day...

[@justoneman3916]

@@gysgijsbers4202 you’re absolutely right, but enough do work via computer to make a much more meaningful difference than many of the nonsensical solutions being proposed.

[@atenamansoori2651]

Its been always hard to face government wishes 😔

[@ingridacosta911]

This video is realistic and inspiring.

[@stefannikola]

Voracious egos ruin everything.

[@paulbrooks4395]

I know we can’t pass costs onto most of us, because we can’t afford it. One of the major solutions to climate change is reducing poverty, and one of the main failures of capitalism is how price gouging is rampant and money goes to the wealthiest. Many companies can get away with predatory pricing that keeps us poor and unable to do anything other than buy what’s cheapest while hoping to get by. Rent is probably the prime example for us in California, where we pay half or more than half of our salaries for crappy, run down, and poorly insulated housing. Further, electric cars are too expensive, and public transport is limited and incredibly slow, and often late. We need infrastructure like transit that supports people like Europe has, we need to stop the car culture and car requirements, and we need to make building high rises affordable so we can live vertically rather than sprawl forever.

[@ShujoySinha]

Good point some cases increasing price isn’t an option but I disagree electric cars can’t be cheaper it’s about economy of scale - the more people asking for it will give car companies better ability to bargain and source cheaper. I do agree part of the solution is behaviour and infrastructure change. Good point

[@tuxuhds6955]

Reducing poverty for western nations, you mean. :) Capitalism isn't being practiced on earth, there's an unregulated plutocratic syndication and that's about it. An entire continent named africa is being refused when it comes to grants from the same nations that've abused it when they want to build energy infrastructure. And that's from the sons and daughters of slavers and colonialists who are systematically neglecting to reduce their own nations' carbon footprint. The whole "green effort" has been hijacked into a state of diplomatic-economical siege and warfare but if you'd try to bring up the need in regulatory yools and establishments you'd end up having alot of indignant white folks in suites.

[@paulbrooks4395]

@@tuxuhds6955 Everything I said applies to all nations, but the effects are exacerbated in places where "green" technology is even more unaffordable. Developing nations are often sold cars as a "solution" to transportation, and infrastructure is impossible for these countries to build. Predatory pricing is at its worst in poor nations, because they are often charged what Western countries are charged. I think what's most heinous is that the environmental damage being done *the most* has been done by developed countries, because of the disproportionate reliance on cars and cheap electricity. Wealthy countries are also the ones paying the outrageous prices and consuming things created in the rain forests, and it's well known that wealthy Chinese buyers are why poaching is so rampant, because the demand for rare animal parts hasn't been outlawed. Lastly, corruption by wealth is a huge problem in countries like China that consume vast amounts of coal. Their pollution is terrible and they dump so much waste into their water. So many companies can't compete if they want to be even somewhat green, and it's a race to the bottom to out-exploit the competition and circumvent the laws. It's common practice in China to bribe government officials to get them to look the other way with environmental policy. While we could say "the problem is capitalism", that's not the problem. The problem is a lack of regulation and enforcement, and when there is regulation, it's often vastly different between countries. There needs to be a global standard and global buy-in, along with fair wages and affordable green tech in *all* countries if we are going to make headway in addressing this *global* issue. The problems in the US are just an example of the larger problems faced by 99% of the population.

[@paulbrooks4395]

@@ShujoySinha I completely agree, it's just that electric cars aren't cheap enough compared to gas cars. They just aren't there yet. To get an electric vehicle that can carry 4 people and a pet, that's not realistic in the US. The US is terribly dependent on vehicles because of the awful public transit, and because the US is designed so badly, I have no doubt we are contributing more to global warming that other countries that aren't in the same situation. The point remains, though, that affordable services, alternatives, and good wages almost guarantee that people will be able to adopt the latest green tech without being financially unstable. These effects are further exacerbated in poorer countries, where investing in green tech is disproportionately expensive.

[@ShujoySinha]

@@paulbrooks4395 well put! And agreed. Hope green tech is subsidized like oil is to make it affordable and viable alternative

[@dribrom]

We don't have to reimagine capitalism we just have to go back to the original idea of capitalism as described by Adam Smith. The problem is that we don't even have capitalism even though we call it that. A true capitalist hates monopolies but todays capitalism is focused on big international conglomerate companies. Also we have to also acknowledge that capitalism only works in a combination with a culture of moral similar to Protestant Christianity. Capitalism did not work until there was a culture that promoted honesty, responsibility, and loyalty to a higher ideal then yourself. Kenneth J. Barnes writes in his book, Redeeming Capitalism: “that capitalism, once rooted in a particular religious ethic, long since lost to the moral relativism of the modern era, need not be replaced, but needs instead to be redeemed.” He examines how the theology of Augustine, Aquinas, and John Calvin has contributed to the development of economic virtue. Barnes argues that, when taken together, the biblical theology of these church fathers gives us a “motif that is remarkably universal in its application,” that will provide a useful framework for redeeming our current economic system.

[@kriteshag003]

Wow! I was waiting for this!

[@YouAndImpact]

Great video 👍

[@gustavofigueiredo1798]

We are doomed.

[@187mrsmith]

Save the climate

[@benisjamin6583]

HEY TED, HOW BOUT SOME STUFF ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, I HAVENT SEEN ANY OF THAT!

[@theforcefor]

Vaush talks about how can we save the climate using economy

[@13atkind]

Capitalism has been so refined that its emphasis on individualism does not allow business leaders to make hard choices to preserve the future of their own businesses. The entrenched corporations can not change because doing so would harm their stock value. Climate change is the largest tragedy of the commons issue humans have ever encountered and capitalism is incapable of effectively dealing with it in a timely manner. Why should corporations reduce their stock value to attempt to save their industry if their competitors don't do the same? If they're the only ones that try, they lose money now and when the industry collapses. By design, no one is in charge under capitalism. Not business leaders, not government, not the consumer. We all share responsibility, but the individualism fostered under capitalism encourages everyone to take the least amount of responsibility as possible. It's like we're on a train headed for a cliff with no conductor. In order to stop the train, enough of us have to decide to leave the buffet car together, but whoever stays in the buffet car gets more food.

[@Cybernaut551]

Good theory, I respectively suggest Farmers' Markets, Solarpunk, & Green Civil Engineering.

[@imjapanese2298]

0:40 0:43

[@ritira20mila]

Rebecca, you missed the central point on why businesses do not internalize even if they would lose if they do not: SHORT-TERMISM. Short-termism of KPIs adopted by executives and some investors. (Let alone short-termism of politicians on a few years mandates). Fixing THAT would solve the problem.

[@akash_goel]

"How did we get here?" Well, for starters, how about the fact that we shifted the production of manufacturing products (and their associated inputs) to developing countries that use coal and other forms of cheap+dirty technologies to satisfy the insatiable consumerism culture of developed nations?

[@AdamGreen1]

Markets are a great tool but they're not good at pricing negative externalities. That's why we need regulation. It's not a dirty word. It's what keeps us from selling plutonium to North Korea even though they'd pay handsomely for it.

[@CrisisGarden]

Pure World Economic Forum.

[@greggary7217]

And this is bad because ?

[@alienm2554]

Yep... Trojan horse.

[@greggary7217]

I’ll add one more comment here / actually it’s not if not in other aspects then in one fundamental way - WEF is calling for carbon neutral by 2050. Many including me believe that is too late. This talk was part of the TED “launch to 2030” which not surprisingly believed we have until that date.

[@joanahuaman6375]

I love this video!! Bravo Rebecca!!

[@gamingtonight1526]

That's why humanity is doomed. Because Capitalism will never change.

[@danielsykes7558]

Hope comes from action. Learn what it takes to unionize. Learn what it takes to vote. Get involved. Change is the only constant in the universe, shape it. If we do this, we will have hope.

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet

[@imjapanese2298]

0:16 0:19 0:25 0:28 0:37

[@thecharliegeorge2151]

with al the money corps make we'll pay

[@JustSomeApparition]

I haven't even watched this yet but I have a very sneaking suspicion that this is essentially going to be the very same topics that Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai had been speaking on for decades. "The way in which we can promote peace, is by promoting sustainable management of our resources, equitable distribution of these resources, and that the only way you can actually do that, is that then you have to have a political, economic system that facilitates that. And then you get into the issues of human rights, justice, economic justice, social justice, and good governance or democratic governance. That's how it ties up." - Wangari Maathai

[@brenttesterman1198]

Yep, SOCIALISM!

[@brenttesterman1198]

@cruggle cruggle No, just aware.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@brenttesterman1198 You're aware that Adam Smith's premise for Capitalism was promoting sustainable management of resources, equitable distribution of these resources, and the one economic system that most efficiently provides that?

[@24killsequalMOAB]

Equity promotes mediocrity as humans are innately comparitive creatures, thus getting in the way of true progress.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@24killsequalMOAB You may be thinking of "subsidy" when you say equity. See, a level playing field is equitable, as horses run fastest and most safely on a level field. Humans who are cheated by unfair ground pick up their ball and go home. And fossil is the most subsidized market in history.

[@frostgiant6006]

The comment section. A home of the true experts with better answers

[@gustavofigueiredo1798]

"Money, so they say / Is the root of all evil today" - Money, by Pink Floyd.

[@eliasmerki3845]

Wtf

[@user-wr9hc6gf2n]

We need to fix the governments first, this should be priority number one. Better supervision on our representatives, more power to the people with direct democracy, regulation on political donations....

[@jameskulevich8907]

That’s called communism.

[@kari548]

@@jameskulevich8907 It could work but people need incentive to actually do anything if it's not a passion

[@24killsequalMOAB]

There should be no allowance on political donations.

[@user-wr9hc6gf2n]

@@jameskulevich8907 Nuh uh, thats called social democracy. Its actually far better than the current capitalist dictatorship we have around the world.

[@chapter4travels]

Never let a crisis (real or imagined) go to waste.

[@peter-klausnikolaus4823]

I like the comments here :)

[@user-xp8nq5mf9y]

Why not just end it?

[@charlietube7165]

How?

[@Sean-yc2ji]

Sieze the means of production

[@user-xp8nq5mf9y]

@@charlietube7165 Alot of Firepower

[@charlietube7165]

@@user-xp8nq5mf9y WWIII yeah

[@ln3578]

to whom personally companies will pay for the climate damage they cause?

[@riyabaruah6571]

Its the carbon tax concept, the companies who dump carbon into the atmosphere will have to pay tax on that to the government (as an incentive to lower their emissions or pay more tax)

[@ln3578]

@@riyabaruah6571 in other words- everything will be paid by consumers

[@crusaderknight2891]

bro i get hydroelectric power idk what you’re talking about

[@nthperson]

The economic system we call capitalism is really the latest stage of landlordism. The world started with agrarian landlordism. Peasants were removed from the land to make room for sheep, cattle and then the extraction of coal and other minerals. The world moved into agrarian-commercial and industrial landlordism. Share markets and banks turned the system global, and the world entered the era of agrarian-commercial-industrial- and financial landlordism. A massive and accelerated redistribution of wealth from producers to non-producing "rentier" interests occurred, the cause of which escaped some of the best minds devoted to the study of political economy between the 17th and 19th centuries. This redistribution of wealth continues because "rents" are either untaxed or lightly taxed. The small number of economists who have studied and understand land markets have been arguing ever since Henry George's writings circulated around the world in the late 19th century that IF the rent of land was collected to pay for public goods and services this would lead to lead being brought into its highest, best use; and would no longer be a disposable asset; and, no longer would those who controlled land be in a financial position to extract and move on, leaving environmental destruction. If we want to fix "capitalism" we need to change the way governments raise revenue. We need to collect land rent and stop taxing earned income flows, stop taxing tangible capital goods and stop taxing commerce. In short, we need to follow the course set for by Henry George so long ago.

[@SvetlanaZ-60]

Но высокие цены лягут на плечи простых граждан, обычных налогоплательщиков. Вы же экономист и понимаете ...

[@derekheckley9447]

Trillions has been spent on solar and wind for little return. We now have a real opportunity to actually take control of the carbon cycle with carbon capture and storage, and keep the technologies we have used for the last hundred years by converting that CO2 into renewable fuels. Still people fight to keep their blinders on to protect their fragile egos.

[@juradecanoa]

Polution is always locally ! An strong volcan cleans the earth with his side effects and give us life for our plants, water ,agriculture etc.. industries just need start some rules to sell some products with less plastics, and our logistical garbish still not perfect ,and we need start to educate better the new consumers.

[@user-je8wh9ww3m]

I wish I could speak like she do. So rich and stunning language!!! Great respect 🤤

[@charlietube7165]

I think you already can

[@ape72patch1]

Not really my friend....it’s pretty standard English.

[@yujinnya]

Read books, watch movies with subtitles and without translation, practice speech and use English for more than comments on KZbin and you will be astonished with how irrelevant that would be...

[@charlietube7165]

But now it's not Important, we need energy renewal for the world, carbon neutral!

[@giuseppeh.robalino5769]

I do give credence to bonafide economists empirically determining the costs of externalities, so long as they are conservative estimates and grounded on direct negative effects rather than obscure, what-if scenarios. The cost of coal that she walked us through in the video makes sense to me, though I'm sure there must be valid counterarguments to the methodology that are not covered in the video. She is from Harvard? I'd like to see UChicago's take on this. On the broader scheme, I reject the premise that capitalism or the invisible hand is flawed or at fault here. The fault lies with systems of government worldwide, not markets. Markets only respond organically to the constraints or incentives with which they are provided. And, on the broader scheme of things, I also reject notions of "stakeholder" over shareholder capitalism, which is nothing more than pandering to social justice activists who are misguided in trying to capture any and all externalities imaginable across as many industries as possible. Milton Friedman has pointed out that corporate boards unwisely choose emotion over the stewardship of shareholder capital, which is what they are actually tasked with, when they co-opt their equity dollars for initiatives that don't contribute to the bottom line. A large, Chicago-based private bank and trust company has already predicted that this focus on "stakeholder" capitalism, should it take root, will actually depress equity returns in the foreseeable future. That being said, it is probably easy to quantify externalities in the energy sector than any other sector, and if we do, I'd be inclined to limit it just to that sector. Back to the video, asking corporations to voluntarily work together to change their practices is going to be hit-or-miss. Since no market forces will be driving that decision, you would essentially be forming a "cartel." Econ 101- cartels always break down. All it takes is one party to pull out when it realizes the opportunity cost of its participation is too high. She also mentioned poor enforcement of regulation and too much lobby power. I am in favor of enforcing existing laws on the books; and politically, that has always been a talking point, in lieu of expanding government to create new agencies and new regulations. I am also in favor of, instead of reimagining capitalism, reimagining how we regulate lobbying (but within reason). She proposed the government have companies pay for the damage they caused. Ok--but to what end? Where will those penalties or taxes go? How will the funds be managed? Will we have to create more government bureaucracy to administer those funds now? She also mentioned illegal dumping. I don't know anyone who actually condones illegal dumping. What she is referencing here is the "tragedy of the commons," which is also an econ 101 concept and it is easily resolved. By privatizing otherwise public lands and bodies of water, it becomes in the best interest of the business to actually take care of what it owns. And, if runoff damage reaches land or water it does not own, the affected party (a distinct private owner) can sue. Notice that these are not novel ideas. There is no reimagining here. The classical system already has all the answers, we are simply ignoring them for what is in vogue. Also it seems she has a book out about her views, so funny enough--she has a very capitalist profit motive in riding this bandwagon ;)

[@Rnankn]

This is the default conservative position that brought on this dilemma. The problem is neo-classical economics and the capitalism it enables, justifies and plans. Markets impose a price on the priceless, violating environment, people, and life, turning them into commodities, which they are not. Markets also violate themselves, through finance artificially putting a price on prices forcing rapid growth of new commodification with regular destructive breakdown. The priceless, having lost their value are disposed of as worthless. This is a downward spiral, evidenced by nearly every measurement except the one we are forced to create our lives and societies around, price. Prices insidiously appeals to human ego in a sort of abusive relationship that feeds off insecurity, fosters dependence, and requires obedience. The evidence is clear, we face overlapping terminal crises in politics, economics, society, environment not because prices are wrong, but because of the price system.

[@ericackerman7447]

Some Fortune 500 companies want to be green. But the real solution is to tax carbon and use the proceeds to buy directly captured carbon. That's the way to get the economy (and our life styles) to change.

[@Avishek_Pooja]

The students you teach are very lucky to have you as their teacher.. what great ideology

[@rdhamapurkar93]

Dear all, I was wondering when we talk about today's money and also about Climate change as big problems. we say money is created from thin air. There is no backing like gold for this money. I was thinking the money printing is done by cutting trees, why don't we have a system, where the entire money supply is backed by valuable trees which have value and usability, plus they are life force on this planet. This way we will value the trees plus we will save the planet and stop Govts to print money as and when they want it. Please share your thought and if someone from Economics can explain about it, whether it is possible or not.

[@Find-Jesus]

Impressive talk

[@XnaugahydeX]

You misspelled 'destroy'

[@vzzy2502]

I thought Trees are immortal but after all they're dying...😢 🙏 SAVE TREE N SAVE LIFE

[@brennanwn]

So sad

[@thetruthwithproof8802]

Christians Are Celebrating Jesus dying For their Sins 🕺😊🕺😊🕺😊🕺😊🕺 & the Christians are also preaching we must REPENT for 0ur $ins 🤭 😂 Christians EXPLAIN How Can it be Both ❓

[@andrewthompson5728]

To save the planet and society, we first need to ensure businesses and interest groups on all sides ACTUALLY answer all the hard questions and abide by them. Greenpeace is now a corporation, as are all the cancer research industries - no one wants success in handling the environment any more than corporations want a cure for cancer, as they would immediately become irrelevant. The same goes for those paid to travel around and preach about the environment or religion. When I hear of poor people doing this for free, then I will listen - the rich do this to promote their own self-gratitude and social status.

[@carseat1921]

Sorry to burst your Bubble but greed goes faaar longer than good heart. All of us want to live in rainbow and cookie land, but as long as there is money to be made people will use the dirtier options. If companies use the more expensive, cleaner, fossil free options for their production, they will go bankrupt first while the competition will continue as always. CEO's could choose to hire people instead of installing automated robots, but the increased expenses will steamroll them in the long run. And tell me, where can I buy a wheel loader that runs on batteries? Unless EVERY SINGLE ONE agrees to eco friendly options, we will only cripple our own economies instead. If you cut down your fishing 50% then the neighbour country will increase their fishing by 50%, wheather you like it or not. And even if a universal eco agreement was magically possible, the black market would flourish and continue their cheaper production. Money is EVERYTHING in this day and age and you need to research a less expensive eco friendly alternative before anyone will change. Not strangling the companies that already exists. What you will end up with are those companies moving to more leaniently eco ruled countries with cheaper labor and more pullution. Congrats! Your country now has less jobs and higher unemployment, then you can live your broke hippie lives while the other countries blow their smoke over to you.

[@greggary7217]

It’s not up to the companies it’s up to us.

[@shad0wrune]

Well that looks like a US (of A), Indian and Chinese problem, don't bother the small countries of the world with that. We will all do our part, but the biggest polluters need to do more.

[@BarbarossaAB]

I closed this video after hearing “I am a treehuger”

[@habjuandiego]

lmfao

[@lorez6063]

Thank you, very well said.

[@anthonycadman7185]

Two minds on this. To change capitalism is a short, hop, and a jump from the so- called Neoliberalism to some sort of oen market, environmental, climate sensitive capitalist model. However, We got to this by maximising profit and relentless need for growth. We need to be rid both of these, and resurrect the idea of public service and public services. We actually need far more Socialism.

[@DRcrimeinvestigate]

That title is what I have been saying people we have to reimagine capitalism but some people call it communism eg former President TRUMP

[@user-zt2pw8bw2w]

sabscreab me

[@ratratrat59]

Addicts have a better chance at recovery after hitting rock bottom. If climate change is due to human activities, then we are not going to solve this problem until we hit rock bottom. Climate change is likely only partially due to human activities. Climate change has been happening long before the human race. Our species will not change. A few will talk and recycle to make themselves feel better and spread hope. Hope is a good thing. So as we have done throughout human history we will continue to hope while taking no any real action.

[@pietpanzerpanzer5335]

Well, reactionairy, counterrevolutionism, and revisionnism ist the awnser

[@privatprivat7279]

Can we just call it what it is that we are trying to achieve here? We simply need a SOCIAL REVOLUTION!not by violance! not my force...! But uniting on the streets demanding change (climate change)take matters into our own hands! By uniting our money!banks from the people! For the people! owned by the people!(voting for projects to support build and prioratise first in your community) Not wasting the money ofcors...(but supporting good and preferably profitable projects) also not focusing only on making huge profits(if it does its for the people)... thinking of ways how to encourage eachother to change our economys and community's in a positive way... feeding and freeing our minds for those willing to think and allow us to think in this way.... just businesses that dont go just for profit but think of projects to enhance! the community's and ur surroundings! Imagine, windmills in your town owned by the people,imagine a slaughterhousse owned by the people allowing farmers to get better prices...WE Can take control over whatever we need control over to make it fair. And even bankrupt the indivudual kapilists that take high profits if we wanted to do so. Dont expect ur money on that bank to make u rich! Just know that it will change ur surroundings and ur community for the good of Evryone.

[@fpwu]

"Imagine a slaughterhousse owned by the people allowing farmers to get better prices..." - yeah! Imagine even a farm owned by the animals themselves. Oh, wait...

[@privatprivat7279]

@@fpwu hey i am a vegetarian.. i dont force other people to do the same...if someone like to eat meat they can eat meat....it wasse only an example...(the first thing that came to mind from the town were i live) love from belgium

[@ozzyfromspace]

Creating industry-redefining businesses is like creating Tesla Inc. to force automakers like Ford and GM to go green with EVs. Obviously you can do it, but if Elon Musk is any indication, it’s very hard to find success. Further, at scale, this is ultimately a regulatory problem. Say you wanna be an eco friendly company, then you have to compete with established firms that set their prices way below yours, simply because they don’t account for their externalities. Of course people should try to create successful green companies, but also, at some point our governments need adults that can ignore the BS and make the hard regulatory calls.

[@danreach]

The trees are not dying due to climate change. They are growing faster and better over recent decades.

[@nobody-ft7vg]

THIS IS AMAZING!!

[@MediQate]

I thought this was NFKRZ..

[@lobo7361]

I think she has it backwards. Bjorn Lomborg, "False Alarm" has an insight much more realistic and reasonable,

[@bartroberts1514]

I break out laughing every time I see Bjorn Lomborg reel in another one. The guy is one of the best propagandists in the business, a true con artist. Don't be Bjorn's korisne budale, led around by the brass ring through your snout.

[@InnuendoXP]

You could've just written "That sounds too hard & radical. I prefer the imaginary solution that means things don't have to change much."

[@Hooman88634]

thats the reason that i want to believe in flat earth, so that we could feel the urge to take the best care for this earth, because if we know and think that theres no way out, we could care about it more!

[@TheTeaParty320]

The people who contribute the least to the human species, want to have the most power to decide the future of the species. That’s disgusting.

[@TheHydrogenBoy]

Amazing video, I will probably look for professor Henderson’s other works

[@bartroberts1514]

Business makes over 70,000 increasingly efficient solar panels an hour. By 2030, those panels will make three times the total energy used today. No nation can afford to lose the solar panel race: manufacturing and transportation power are too key to nations. By 2028 energy economics will be inverted for many consumers, who will be given electricity free the way online services are "free", paid for by advertising or information collection. Fossil is dead. Also, Market economists who talk about damage functions have misunderstood the real problem with fossil emissions. Fossil emissions are waste dumping, and that waste goes not only to the common air but through the air to lands and waters. All the world's lands and waters are owned by nations or their citizens, in a way air is not, as public or private lands or waters. Intrinsic in land and water is the service of returning fossil carbon from air to mineral form. That service is scarce, and it is imposed on by fossil waste dumping. So, the Market issue with fossil waste emission -- leaks from processes, fugitive emissions, and intentional exhausts -- is that owners of lands and waters are not demanding payment from fossil waste dumpers. The scarcity price of fossil waste disposal would be something over $500/tonne, on a Market that excludes fossil waste dumping without payment at Market rate. Still, we're far too late in the game to quibble over efficient Markets. We have only a decade to bring fossil emission to zero. We're helped in that by the solar race, but we're also facing a fossil calamity, the greatest Market crash of all time, where substitute goods will be driving producers bankrupt but government leases, permits and subsidies are such barriers to exit that the bankrupts cannot leave the Market to invest in substitutes. Fossil mania, the hot potato, the game of musical chairs, is running into inevitability. Unless governments cap fossil emitting activities relative to 2019 below 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022, 70% in 2023 steadily down to 0% in 2030, we'll have an immense, unparalleled, global economic collapse just as we begin to feel the real fury of the chain reaction of runaway to Hothouse in climate.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

Solar is not a viable solution. How are you going to solve the intermitency of the sun?

[@bartroberts1514]

@@24killsequalMOAB I think it's great when someone's bold enough to make blandly ignorant claims so publicly to allow clear responses that crush their irrational conduct like worms under work boots. Solar is a viable option, of course. The price of solar drops 23% per doubling of installed capacity, and there are many doublings left to go for what is already the cheapest energy in history. Storage using hydro, geothermal, compressed air, power-to-fuel and of course batteries have many advantages over fossil, separate and apart from the fact we have only until 2030 to end fossil emission or face likely runaway to Hothouse. We need water management because precipitation changes require flood control, irrigation and stable domestic drinking water reservoirs; 40% of water management is suited to hydroelectric generation, yet less than a quarter of that is actually tapped for generation. Even without pumped hydro, the mere abeyance of using hydro while solar is peaking stores potential energy. Oh, and hydro is 25% cheaper than fossil. Geothermal can store electricity as heat in dry rock at 100% efficiency, returning it to electric form at over 70% efficiency even before tapping the heat of the dry rock bed. There's enough geothermal reserve to supply ten times the need for base load uninterrupted power, 40% cheaper than any form of fossil, before we add storage through heat elements. Compressed air storage supports compressed gas industry which has many beneficial byproducts. Power-to-fuel disposes of biomass wastes, like the slash from forestry that makes wildfires even worse even while climate change makes extreme wildfire weather more intense; besides disposing waste, power-to-fuel makes fuel, like high-grade aviation biofuel, biodiesel and drop-in replacement for gasoline without any of the scam of ethanol, all cheaper than fossil from bitumen, all without making climate change worse.. and net carbon negative as we sequester biochar from the process as soil amendment to reduce need for high-nitrogen fertilizers and their NOx emissions. Batteries provide FCAS, and solar inverters provide AIM, two grid services that reduce the strain on grid equipment, making grids more efficient, stable and far, far cheaper to run and maintain. It's fossil that isn't the viable solution.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

@@bartroberts1514 when did I say that fossil is viable? How are you going to solve the intermittency of the sun? Solar is terrible at efficiently converting energy and you have the problem of their impact on the planet with all the rare earth metals and toxins released from their manufacture.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@24killsequalMOAB Read harder. Move your goalposts less. Lifecycle efficiency of solar to electricity commercially is around 23% today, and instantaneous. Lifecycle efficiency of energy through fossil is around 3% starting with sunlight from millions of years ago and takes geological ages to produce. And what's with the scare words? Rare earth metals aren't innately evil, and they are not necessary for solar power generation, and every new step of innovation that increases panel efficiency also removes toxins from the production process. Comparing "impact on the planet" of solar panels and fossil -- the choices present to us, as nuclear is a non-starter -- is the question at hand. You asked how the intermittency "problem" is solved. I gave you seven paragraphs detailing the solution. I guess I should have known fact and reason would not penetrate, and should have just stuck with the work boots and the stomping.

[@24killsequalMOAB]

@@bartroberts1514 The intermittency is not solved, as solar panels only Produce power when there is adequate sunlight. Compare that with Nuclear power? Nuclear plants produce power 24/7 at the rate that the grid needs. You need all these excessive contingencies to contend with solar power being inconsistent in it's power delivery, which just seems like a big waste of resources, land, and money.

[@user-gq3qb4ll1o]

من يتابع مثلي من اجل اللغة والاستماع

[@Hooman88634]

even if you reach your dreams, if earth is already on the brink, everything is useless.

[@Murphinator-gx5on]

I highly doubt anything we can do can overcome the greed of politicians and company owners, but sure why not try

[@kari548]

It's because we're too comfy, like with most things like this, we have to wait till the world is at its absolute worst.

[@TehGoddamnBatman]

Including the ones promoting this global climate change "movement". They want YOU to do something about it while actually it's their fault and responsibility.

[@mistercohaagen]

We could get rid of them... physically. Maybe they'd stop if a bunch of them just started disappearing, and Anonymous kept putting out videos explaining exactly why it's happening and under exactly what conditions it'll stop.

[@Libertarian_Neighbor]

There are two sides to that coin. I am not for destroying the Earth. However, I recognize that we don’t have sufficient technology yet to produce the amount of energy we need and there are millions of employees working in the energy industries who would lose their homes, their means of income, if we “cancel” traditional means of energy production. So the flip side to the “greed” is that there are millions of workers who depend on those jobs. Managing an ineffective wind farm is not going to replace those jobs. It’s easy for us, with good stable jobs, to say get rid of all the jobs.

[@Hakasedess]

I mean, instead of trying something we know will fail, we could... like, try abandoning the system that's destroying the planet as a result of its own internal mechanisms.

[@lololol112]

you spelt "abolish" wrong

[@GuitarZombie]

Agenda 2021.....Agenda 2030

[@bartroberts1514]

QAnon much?

[@GuitarZombie]

IT IS ON LINE FOR ALL TO SEE. NO CONSPIRACY..... NO INVENTING STUFF

[@bartroberts1514]

@@HiAdrian That's the best you've got? If we have to drop 2021 -- by the way, 2020 is 91.2% of the emissions of 2019, very nearly to the 2021 target -- because it's missed, then yes, we'll need to make 2022 tighter, and if we miss 2022, 2023 will need an even lower cap, and if we miss 2024, we'll need a 50% drop in 2025, which will hurt people a lot, but nowhere near as much as what happens when fossil runs into the bankruptcy wall and climate change launches into runaway to Hothouse.

[@HiAdrian]

@@bartroberts1514 I stand corrected. I assumed there were made up _secret_ agendas by conspiracy theorists.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@HiAdrian Wasn't it a much better world when only conspirators made up secret agendas, and conspiracy theorists were just known as paranoid delusionals? I'm not injured by secrets. The things that harm me are hurtful actions and negligent inaction. My defense from fossil harms would be to see public servants do their FREAKING jobs and cap relative to 2019 levels fossil emission activity licenses and permits below 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022, 70% in 2023 steadily down to 0% in 2030.

[@XnaugahydeX]

markets have never been free or fair.

[@SchgurmTewehr]

Just the Voice my tired body and brain 🧠 needed!

[@tiavor]

The fires in the West of the US are mostly caused by bad forest management. In the EU we have a carbon tax. it worked pretty good at start but got into a stall even with increasing prices each year.

[@christophergruenwald5054]

The deeper cause is just poor management of all land by humans. Most of our agricultural lands don’t grow any plants throughout the majority of the year and tillage is used extensively in most regions. We have capped our soils and broken the water cycle. Rains run off into the steams instead of soak into the land and carry with it our top soil. Living soil is converted to dead dirt through tillage and solarization. Then rains fail, and the rain that we do get just runs off the land. Then fires. Then exasperates the situation worse because there are less plants. You need plants to make rain. There is a fix though, we can heal our lands by planting cover crops between cash crops. Eliminate tillage. Always keep an armor on the soil and a live root in the ground as long as possible. Then we can also use perennial plants and ruminating animals with proper management to grow a healthy protein, while putting carbon back into the soil, capturing solar energy through photosynthesis, capturing rainfall and reducing run off. We can fix it all if we just mimic nature instead of trying to force our will upon it.

[@Q269]

That's a very concise, and compelling argument.

[@yujinnya]

... that we should not try to restrain big businesses with petty regulations and "caring for environment", and let them mess up the world until clean air becomes marketable product.

[@cosmosstas]

This Madam is from HBS. Very encouraging

[@zeek1dr]

🖤💛❤

[@thatboii3094]

thank technological progress for that it give human power after all in 2021 the rus-usa neclar arm deal from 1991 will end so no need to care on the nature even when all philosophers spend most of their time there

[@michaelcayce4729]

We need to make green energy a priority, not charging more for dirty energy. Unless those funds will be used to finance conversion to green energy or research to make it practical. Here are the facts: The only reliable source of renewable energy at this time is nuclear. And even though the technology exists to dispose its waste safely, we refuse to develope it. To make wind and solar practical we need better batteries, which we are very close to. But the bottom line is this: The energy sources we are using now "fossil fuels" are going to run out. And where will we be then?

[@IGqy]

What the enforced tariffs potentially could do, is to steer the market another direction, because it is no longer viable to many people to use such expensive forms of energy, thus looking towards cheeper (and then by definition greener) alternatives. IMO capitalism is not going to do the job in the long run, but this kind of tariff system can help to turn tendencies in a different direction - I would say, however, that it would come from the government side of things, not the companies

[@QarthCEO]

Go into your local grocery and look at the eggs section. See all your choices for more ethical eggs? There are multiple price levels and at each price point, hens are treated just a little bit better, until you get to the most ethically sourced, local pasture raised eggs that are still only 6 dollars a dozen. Affordable and available to all. That is just one example. You can find ethical and environmental choices of many products all around you in your local store. Did that happen because of some government regulations? Did it happen because of some tree hugger reimagining capitalism? No, it happened BECAUSE of capitalism. The demand arose for more ethical eggs, so the market supplied them. The market right now is demanding renewable energy and carbon capturing technology. The market is also going to demand technology to actually change the weather, and thus the climate. It's not science fiction, it is in development right now. Capitalism is the only thing that will SAVE the climate. Capitalism is what drives innovation to meet market demands. If you tamper with the market, you are digging your own grave.

[@pri.sci.lla.]

The hens aren’t actually treated much better. It’s a marketing ploy and people get rich off of peoples naivety. I’m an animal science student and I’ve seen the truth, idle someone cares about ethics the best thing would be to get from a local farm or even better not eat them at all.

[@myryder29]

@@pri.sci.lla. key word "student" i live in the country and stop at any number of farms who have free rang chickens and see were my eggs come from. you have not seen the world, your still learning. these are not all Marketing ploys.

[@dl7767]

More people need to read this comment.

[@myryder29]

bottom line its another ploy to redistribute wealth. yes do we need to do better as a species with the environment. we only have one. but the far left believes they can spend the money better than the people who make it after they take their cut of course. what we need is to reward green (economically viable) ideas. KISS..... "keep it simple stupid". works best. look at the The Ocean Cleanup group. its simple, works wonders and is easy to use in most locations.

[@QarthCEO]

@@pri.sci.lla. Uhm, yes, they are. If you don't think pasture raised is a million times more ethical than standard battery cages, then you are one piss poor student.

[@chrisaustin8442]

And no discussion on reimagining socialism?? The next talk will cover that, right???

[@andrewsork4897]

There's really only so many ways you can imagine famine

[@charlietube7165]

Nope, because socialism only limited in few countries, unlike capital all over the world and it's a mess!

[@chrisaustin8442]

@@charlietube7165 So socialist countries are exempt from combatting climate change?

[@charlietube7165]

@@chrisaustin8442 they're the leading countries in fact, because they get things done much faster than others with their policy

[@chrisaustin8442]

@@charlietube7165 You're hilarious

[@Libertarian_Neighbor]

For everything there is a give and take. It is easy for comfortable, well-payed intellectuals to say that we need to destroy millions of jobs in the near term, and drive energy prices through the roof for impoverished people, for long term environmental benefits. The “hidden cost” is absorbed by taxes, which come mostly from people who are getting by, not those barely surviving on their meager hourly wage. I want to slow climate change, but this fantasy that we can just delete an entire industry and pivot to entirely ineffective, nearly worthless, technologies like wind and solar is a pipe dream. Studies out of UC Berkeley have shown that we should invest in weatherizing existing homes through tax payer funded programs to have the biggest impact on reducing energy production and usage. Indeed, there are modest programs like this here in California already, but they are not widely distributed or utilized.

[@pernus5856]

Not reimagine. Abolish.

[@micpic119]

Nothing up my sleeve...

[@brianscates5225]

I have a 5 year old cousin and she realises the value of her future life - I bought her a green coloured cotton T-shirt and I had printed on it 'I Recycle Today for Tomorrow' - and she wears it knowing that your today is her tomorrow; do you?