Confessions of an Environmentalist | 5-Minute Videos
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- Imagine you dedicated your life to environmentalism and all of its assumptions. Then imagine you realize those assumptions are all wrong. What would you do? Entrepreneur Brian Gitt tells his personal story and where it led him.
SUBSCRIBE 👉 www.prageru.co...
#environment #environmental #prageru
Script:
Just because you feel like you’re doing the right thing doesn’t mean you are. I have dedicated most of my life to protecting the environment. But I went about it the wrong way. I thought I was acting morally, protecting the well-being of people and the planet. In fact, I was harming both.
I believed solar and wind power were the future-our only hope of avoiding environmental catastrophe. Fossil fuels were the enemy, extracted from the earth by greedy companies plundering the land, polluting the air, and destroying ecosystems.
Keeping the wilderness as pristine as possible was my passion.
Ever since I was a teenager, I loved the outdoors. I led mountaineering expeditions in Alaska, spent months backpacking in the Rockies, and climbed the highest peaks in national parks. I only took jobs that I thought would protect the environment.
I started a company that built composting systems for cities and businesses.
I served as executive director of an organization that championed green construction policies.
And then I became CEO of a consulting firm that worked on making homes more energy efficient.
At that time, the Obama administration had earmarked billions of dollars in federal funding to create jobs in the energy sector, and my company won multi-year contracts valued at over $60 million.
I thought I was making a real difference in the world. I was surrounded by smart, successful, ambitious people who shared my beliefs and my heartfelt desire to change things. And my company had lots of money and lots of government support.
There was only one problem: our project to build more energy-efficient homes was an utter failure.
Making home energy improvements was much too expensive for middle-class families-even with generous government subsidies. Wealthy families, by contrast, loved the program. They got subsidies they didn’t need and the environmental cred they craved. In reality, though, we weren’t achieving much of anything-except wasting taxpayer money.
That’s not how the government saw it. The government celebrated the project as a big win.
It was a great photo op for politicians. But I knew the program didn’t deliver the jobs and energy savings we had promised.
Maybe I should have accepted the props and kept doing what I was doing.
But I couldn’t.
I began re-examining everything I had believed about energy and the environment.
It didn’t take me long to realize that I had been living in a fantasy world: perfectly fine for making me feel good about myself and my mission, but perfectly useless for making real environmental change.
The more research I did, the more I realized that my project was just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
We’re wasting trillions of dollars on the false hope that wind and solar power are going to replace fossil fuels-oil, coal, and natural gas. Yet over the last 20 years, the world’s dependence on these fuels has declined by only three percentage points-from 87% to 84%.
That’s a pathetic return on our “investment.”
If we’re serious about confronting climate change, protecting the environment, and helping people climb out of energy poverty around the world, we need to stop chasing fantasies. Instead, it’s time to honestly examine all the costs and all the benefits of every energy source-wind, solar, oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.
Greenhouse gas emissions are a concern but not the only thing we need to consider when discussing energy and the environment. Here are five principles to help us evaluate the best energy options to protect both people and the planet.
One. Reliability: A reliable energy source provides power 24/7/365. States and countries that have doubled down on renewable sources face energy rationing and power blackouts.
Two. Affordability: The cost of energy affects the cost of everything else. If energy isn’t affordable, ordinary people can’t heat and cool their homes, and businesses can’t make the products we want and need.
For the full script, visit: www.prageru.co...
I am on my last year of my bachelor's degree in renewable energy, and I have come to the same conclusion as this gentleman. I was chasing solar and wind unicorns when I first began on my bachelor. I gradually realized that total reliance on renewables is next to impossible. This man is correct in stating that we should consider both renewable and non-renewable energy when expanding the energy sector. We shouldn't be tunnel visioned on emissions alone. There are many factors to consider, and simple solutions are rare.
What makes it impossible?
Well, emissions are kinda important given that climate change is a disaster scenario.
That said, nuclear power checks all of this guy's boxes while also having next to no emissions. Although he won't say this, because PragerU is funded by fracking billionaires.
@@brttbrntt Intermittent sources of energy, the overwhelming cost to produce required infrastructure, the massive space requirements, the "hidden" long-term costs of maintaining the sheer quantity of wind and solar necessary to meet not only current but future demand, the fact that not enough lithium exists on the planet to build a large enough battery to provide the backup energy for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun's not shining.... The technology isn't ready and never will be. It simply can't meet the energy-density necessary to compete with hydrocarbons. The only thing that can is nuclear.
@@brttbrntt Common sense.
@@Blackwarrior2003 oh ok. I prefer evidence-backed approaches, though. Last thing I want is the government building stuff based on nothing but “common sense”
“Realistic and practical”. What a concept!
4:46 The more land we need to generate power, *_*the more wildlife habitat we lose.*_* A 1,000MW Nuclear power plant would need approximate 1 sq mile; Solar farms need 75x more land to produce the same energy; wind need 360x more land(!).
Jaw dropping.
Well said. I work in the energy sector, and this is a great synopsis of real-life energy challenges. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "There are no perfect solutions--only trade-offs."
Thomas Sowell is an obfuscating shill
Thank you for breaking out of your box and asking questions. Conservation needs to be taught as well. Buying a car every two years, or upgrading your phone every year, always getting the newest tech only adds to the waste and environmental problems we have today. Keep your car until it dies. Keeping your electronic devices as long as they work is a way everyone can contribute. Great Video! Thank you for sharing,
No humans deserve to be pampered and live a life of luxury. All of them all 9 billion… im trying to leave the lower 48 to get away from this keeping up with the jones attitudea
If no one sells their car or phone after 1-2 years, then where will I buy my next car or phone?
I would agree with you if anyone threw their car away after 2 years rather than putting it back into the market for resale. Phones are also usually sold back if they are replaced every year. Those cars and phones will be used until the very end of their life. It is okay if there is a transfer of ownership. If I had to buy a new car, I'd be stuck with one car and a lot of debt instead of two vehicles for my family and no debt. I appreciate those people who buy new every year or two.
@@NoelFallstromgreat point. Just another example of the free market providing a solution, even for environmental conservation.
@@jasonhutchins9239 9 Billion?? Stopping consumption for all - combined with the current lowering of the worlds populations can have a devastating effect economically, usually hurting the poorest first!! Do we need to waste less - Absolutely!! Do we need to recycle more- absolutely!! We have the ability to produce clean safe nuclear energy, develop less environmentally damaging products, and re-use the raw materials more often! We must all educate ourselves to the TRUTH and begin making the steps to develop a sustainable planet together!!
Electric cars are not a good solution. The lastest statistic is that you have to drive a typical electric car 60K miles before it overtakes the pollution effect of a 'typical' gas car. That is not comparing to very efficient 4 cylinder cars or hybrids that get 35 to 55 MPG. Then you have the massive inefficiencies of the electric car as far as range and charge time etc. Now, I am all for the education of society to really drive home that any 2 car family should consider an electric car, but they really need to come down in price, which, with the Tesla price change recently, that may be happening. We will see
The real problem is environmentalists are more interested in feeling like they’re doing good than they are in actually doing good
I find that many of them are more interested in saying "See! I'm a better person then you for having done this. *PRAISE ME FOR THAT, NOW!* "
@@davegreenlaw5654 actually all marxists are interested in that.
That’s true but also they are believing a total lie to begin with. Man is not changing the climate.
"Higher education is not necessarily a guarantee of higher virtue." - Aldous Huxley
IDK. The real problem is that environmental extremism has become the new secular religion.
There are 2 inputs into the cost of anything: labor and energy. If renewable energy were cheaper, we would already be using it, and no subsidies would be needed. The very fact that it requires subsidies to get people to use it means that it takes more resources to produce.
Then why does coal need to have so many subsidies?
@hawks9142 it doesn't, but because there is a lot of money in it, politicians regulate it so they can extort bribes. The coal companies expect a return on investment, so they get subsidies from tax payers for their bribes. This is the general way things work, but you have to be more specific about what subsidies they are getting. In most cases, people say that without any real information. Sometimes, the subsidies are to offset the effects of onerous regulation. I would be fine with removing all subsidies from every energy source and letting the market decide which is best.
@@michaellowe3665 no, In order to keep coal operating at a reasonable cost it needs subsidies, it isn't just money hungry investors(though it may still be to an extent) that use it to keep profits up. Even without strict regulations in a state that is friendly to coal, such as ky, subsidies are still needed because coal is a very expensive form of electricity. I can't post a link but if you go to a channel called "climate town" their newest video gives an easily digestible look at the problem and you can follow his sources that's on his website if you want a more academic take on the issue
@hawks9142 do you think a website called "climate town" may be a little biased? When you read something like that, it's best to be skeptical. If you want to know for sure, look up their source data. What exact subsidies does the coal industry get. When did they start, were they in response to regulation? Are they just a kickback from an energy tax they put on consumers. No one has time for this, and you would likely never find all of the costs if you tried. I feel the same way about coal as I do wind or solar. Take away the subsidies and see where we are. You can't say it's unaffordable without subsidies since we pay the taxes that provide the subsidies. If we don't have to pay the subsidies through taxes, but we have to pay more for energy, we would, at minimum, still save the administration costs that government uses to collect the taxes and distribute the subsidies. It would cost less overall to the taxpayers/energy consumers. In reality, the government administration of this nonsense probably costs taxpayers more than the energy. The US government crossed the threshold long ago from providing necessary services to an organized crime ring, taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to wealthy people and corporations in exchange for bribes.
@@michaellowe3665 of course a place called climate town would be biased. That's why I said it's an easily digestible source. There are hard sources to back it up but by nature it's simplified.
The old saying is, "If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you have no brain." My life has followed the same path as yours, Brian.
Winston Churchill I think.
I disagree with that old saying. Maybe some twenty year olds are smart and can figure out the truth early, it doesn’t mean they have no heart, or don’t care. They just don’t believe in unicorns.
@@jasonborne5724 That's true. I look back at my 25 year old self and to be honest - I'm kind of embarrassed. I wish I had been more of a free thinker back then, but I pretty much followed the pack.
Me too.
'Brian the Brain'. 😆
Thank you, Brian for coming out in public like this. It takes genuine courage to admit you were mistaken, and to risk the wrath of your former colleagues, who still cannot accept they have been conned.
Now if he would just admit he’s mistaken about the entire global warming hoax altogether.
Well said.
BRAVO! An honest, thoughtful person from the environmental side of the equation! Most of those folks are all too happy to take the $$$ and run... (like the IPCC and the UN)
If only our illustrious leaders would listen to the wisdom of this Scientist.
Don't Worry. Our illustrious leaders are working on thinning out the population. Problem solved!!!
He's not saying anything new. We've been saying the same thing for 30 years now.
@@dkail08 They many people will call all this heresy.
They wont. They're too busy squeezing cash out of us.
Including through the actual conspiracies explained in "why we can't have nice things"
They already know all this. It's not about the environment for them, it's about money and control.
Environmentalism -- The protection and purification of the environment - - is a good thing. But to do this effectively we have to rely on rational, objective science. Brian's presentation is a good explanation of how we need to keep everything in perspective and be practical about the ways to go about improving the environment for everyone.
For far too many Environmentalism is a religious "ism" complete with its own mythology and morality. It's not about science.
Yes! It is much more complicated than people realize
That was a perfect summary of all the perspectives and scientist interviews I've heard. Meaning people who care more about improving results vs care about ideology and politics
It takes character to admit that you were wrong when that cause previously paid your bills.
environmentalists : we need to kill all lifeforms to protect this cold rock.
how about the millions of lifeless planets look after themselves, and we treat this planet like god says, as our domain.
PragerU pays these morons to lie to you.
@@sentientflower7891 I am sure that he was earning far more for less effort and thought by simply broadcasting what the mouth breathing mob (you) wanted to hear. You can go to nearly any other outlet for your mind candy. But the one health food store in town just irritates you to no end. That says a lot about the likes of you.
@UCc3rwrbeWaA691lODchMOIw Why must you refuse to think critically? Are you incapable?
@@willelliott5052 you aren't thinking at all. PragerU ain't a University.
Let's hope that those fixated on wind and solar as the only solution wake up before there is a lot of economic devastation. You can't fix much of anything when you are poor, cold, and hungry. Prosperity and solving environmental problems go hand-in-hand. Lose the prosperity and you can forget about all else, except trying to stay alive.
Don't forget hydro. It's the cheapest method of electric power generation - even cheaper than nuclear. The environmental impacts area not zero, but they're a lot less severe than people say. Those who want to tear down dams are threatening energy independence and will drive costs up significantly.
That's exactly what I've said for twenty plus years: Being "Green" is a luxury of being "Rich". If anyone doesn't believe that go visit Haiti (or any other third world country) and see how much they care about their environment. Everything gets ravaged in the interest of survival. If anyone wants to "Save the Planet" they need to keep as much cheap energy flowing as possible. BTW, CO2 is a net BENEFIT in that regard, allowing us to feed even more people.
We have had the answer to our energy problems for a long time and everyone seems to dismiss it! If you want zero emission cheap power, it’s nuclear. People are just afraid of it!
It is politically (and economically) expedient to deny developing countries their uranium, coal, lithium and other minerals, by way of economic hits being perpetrated, massive debt due to corruption... The ailments of this spans pages and industries. Zero energy source can ever be clean, but the damage can be reduced to be almost insignificant.
“We don’t want another Chernobyl or Fukushima disaster!”
“What do we do with the spent fuel though?”
“I don’t want to get cancer from all that radiation!”
Just some the most overused and frankly the weakest arguments have for opposing nuclear power.
imagine if we spent more money for research and development nuclear power plant instead, we already have advance nuclear power plant decades ago
The research is done, the new reactors they are building in Europe are incredibly safe and all the spent waste is stored deep underground on site
@@raisaapriliani2717 we already have them! Almost our entire naval fleet has been powered by nuclear reactors for decades! But as you said, just think how much better we could make them if we used all the money we have spent on “green” energy!
You awesome, and rare. People dont like admitting being offbase. That you were able to course correct shows growth, I hope that is the part people take from your experience too, is that Its ok to change and develop your ideas, and many times shows growth.
agree, its not like we hate people do mistakes, if they learn from it.
You are to be commended for your ability to self-reflect and honestly evaluate an issue. The problem with the energy debate is that half of the developed world is delusional. If you expect "climate change deniers" to open their eyes, you gotta start with yourself and understand that you've been lied to about the capabilities of wind and solar.
Finally someone who knows the truth and can convey it with intelligence.
Kudos to him to reflect and think about his thinking.
Brian needs to become our next US secretary of energy. I'd love to see the government invest in R&D for wave energy, geothermal, etc to optimize these methods - if so, maybe over next 20 years we could make these methods affordable and efficient enough to be suitable replacements
These methods are already being used elsewhere and they are a complete failure. There is no making these things better. We need to focus on burning things better and employing more nuclear and hydro plants.
Wave energy is flawed in many ways. Previous large investments in wave energy in the UK have practically nothing to better wave energy. A majority of that happened within & after the oil crisis of the 1970s. This resulted in many different WECs (wave energy converters) but none of them succeeded for many reasons. Bad efficiency, high upfront cost, unreliable and constant breaking to name a few. The government needs to put more investment into high-efficiency heat pumps (geothermal and air) this is because more than 1/3rd of America's energy goes into heating. And also into nuclear, wind, hydropower and a little bit of solar in texas for example. Also into battery technologies. However, there is no big rush for all of this. The environmentalists exaggerate a little about the impacts in near future. We've got to remember it took 100 years to get from wood to coal then another 100 to gas. It'll take a while but it needs to happen.
The DOE is actually investing a ton into these projects. Check out the water power report from April of last year to see some really cool buoyancy-powered wave and in-river turbine solutions under development.
Adulting. The act of admitting you were wrong even if it makes you feel like an idiot. Bravo sir for growing up and congrats for joining our little exclusive club.
This is as concise and honest of an environmental video you'll find. No propaganda, just common sense.
I was passively sold on the climate change narrative for a while (what did I know?), until a few years ago I encountered two narrative ideas that were literally impossible to both be true at the same time. At that point I decided it was time to drill down and do a deep dive. The first question I asked and investigated? "How does CO2 cause temps to rise?" Funny thing is, that is the very question that Destroys the climate change narrative, and I went nuts on the subject and fight back now any way I can.
I very quickly realized there is naturally a max amount of energy a CO2 molecule can absorb, before it splits into carbon and oxygen. And I learned that our sun only emits a certain amount of energy on the spectrum CO2 absorbs, and that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, meaning that the more you add, the less it affects temp, with rapidly declining effect. There is so much more than that, but I dove into the issue in teh exact right spot.
I can't agree with this more. Jo Nova (among others) has been talking about this for a long time. More people would know about this if they weren't suppressed and demonized.
Thank you! Most the comments are conceding the false premise that global warming is happening and that we just need to manage it better. Reality is it’s not happening. It’s a total lie. I’ve watched this all go down for the last 40 years. I remember the ice age supposedly coming. Every prediction has failed. It’s all lies.
Was much hotter in the 1930’s. Cooled until around the 70’s and then started back up until around 2000. Been cooling again which is why they switch from global warming to climate change.
After Hurricane Katrina Al gore said there would be more storms and they would be stronger but the following 15 years we barely had any at all. Hurricanes are not stronger. The strongest ones are all long ago.
Top comment here in my opinion. I always argue that CO2 is not a pollution. Neither is Carbon or Nitrogen. I don’t understand this war on basic elements that are necessary for life on Earth.
Good start. The CO2 density atmospheric heating effect is essentially saturated so density changes up or down will have very little effect on atmospheric or surface temperature.
You're on the right idea regarding CO2 radiant heat response is only within certain frequency bands.
Perhaps I can shed some light on some issues to help your discoveries along.
Most people have trouble grasping several of these concepts. The sun transfers heat to the Earth and its atmosphere via radiative heat transfer. The Sun's radiation is not within CO2s resonant bands. The effect is actually that the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, which then radiates heat toward space. This heat is at a much lower frequency because the surface temperature is much lower than the Suns. The emission from Earth's surface radiance actually peaks right in CO2's "sweet spot" aka it's resonant band. CO2 is resonant at 667 waves / cm, and some higher frequencies. The band at 667 is the only relevant one because there is heat radiated from the surface to match that frequency.
You've likely read all that before. Here's something many websites and papers are very wrong about. So the CO2 in the atmosphere heats due to radiation from the surface but the that heat is then transferred via conduction to other air molecules. CO2 actually provides one pathway for the radiated heat from the surface to warm all the air in the atmosphere. There are several pathways of heat transfer from the surface to air, CO2 is one.
Some sites depict and describe that CO2 receives then retransmits radiative heat. This idea is barely correct but substantially incorrect. Because the CO2 molecule that collected heat will always be cooler than the earths surface, it's radiation transmission is at a lower frequency and much lower radiance intensity than it received. Also, conductive heat transfer is much more efficient than radiative transfer; so nearly all the heat energy received will conduct to colliding air molecules. Heat radiated from a CO2 molecule cannot be collected by another CO2 molecule because it is at a much lower frequency, outside of the resonant band.
The then warmer atmosphere is better at radiating heat out to space which provides a natural stability to our atmosphere. Oh, radiative illuminance increases to the 4th power relative to temperature.
So the idea that CO2 will heat enough to be reduced to elements cannot occur.
CO2 will instead split into Carbon and O2 in the photosynthesis processes.
Congratulations on your entry into Physics. Enjoy the journey
@@CycleWerkz good breakdown, but these are all things I'm already familiar with.
"Congratulations on your entry into Physics. Enjoy the journey" don't make assumptions, not wise. Everything else is great, until you go around acting like people have no clue. I'm a Mechanical Engineer, thermodynamics, heat transfer, chemistry, physics, etc. are all part of the job. I design cooling systems, including dealing with radiation cooling, and hold patents for cooling systems. I'm not a rookie. I'm just not a climate scientist. But I'm well versed in science. I put off doing a climate specific deep dive until the contradictions finally provided my inciting moment.
Glad to see prageru start to include nuclear as an option for comparison in these videos now. It has its pros and cons, and should be considered!
I admire that he took a real look at the facts.
All I know is that when the timber companies did controlled harvesting of National Forests they rarely got burned up. Now only 8 years of hands off approach and we have wild fires a few per year now. As a side note the timber companies had to ‘clean p’ the harvest area removing deadfall and highly burnable shrubbery.
I've never liked the idea of enriching myself at my neighbor's expense.
Maybe the guilt was too much for this guy as well.
battery cars. save white americas environment while destroying black africas environment with mining
The media and educational institutions don't frame it that way. Government spending is depicted as for the common good while and more taxes are for everyone's betterment. I agree with you. I would prefer that taxes not go to these programs and stay in our pockets.
I bet he’s set for life. I think he said he got $60 million dollars of free tax payer money. I’m sure his salary during that time wiped out a few million of it.
Reliability is everything
Many housing regulations and building discourage small solar projects, that would make the most sense for the most people, from being installed.
Love all videos but this is my favorite cause on a smaller scale this is exactly what happened with me thru my environmental business.
Its so obvious and always has been. The only nuclear scares seem to be extreme human negligence and at least in one case, building the nuclear facility where it was susceptible to a natural disasters.
Brian is a traitor to everything he once stood for, because he got slapped by reality. That means everything he stood for was built on lies. Glad to see Brian is still committed to noble goals while using reality to achieve them.
Brian is not a traitor; he just learned the hard way that putting all the eggs into one basket is not just idiotic but fatalistic.
He still seems to think that climate change is a thing and carbon is a pollutant .
The cost of producing electric vehicles (and their batteries) and windmills and solar panels includes the cost of using fossil fuels to produce all that junk. The same can be said about recycling paper and plastics. Without subsidies, the "programs" don't work. That's enough reason to think twice about them.
Not to mention the rough and dangerous human labor of mining the materials used to make the batteries.
As you say, it’s important to consider all the costs related to renewable energy. In addition, I’m sure there’s some additional costs you didn’t even mention.
On the other hand, fossil fuels also has various costs. There are fossil fuels burned in order to pump oil out of the ground, in order to ship it to refineries, in order to refine it (refining oil is extremely energy intensive), and trucking the gasoline to the gas stations. And then your car’s engine is only 25 to 30% efficient.
It’s hard to keep track of all the variables on both sides of the debate. And on top of that the environmental and oil lobbies are pouring in money to convince you their side is correct. It’s hard to know what to believe.
Just cause a program doesnt work without outside funding doesnt mean it's a bad solution. The free market doesnt give a shit about the environment or workers.
EVs run on coal.
@@smetana3933 wrong.
If you get someone telling you their direct experiences with something and you see that little blue "oh no this is actually what you need to know", then you know the person speaking in the video is spot on. I'd ask how we got here, but I already know.
I am retired and on fixed income, I am helping the PragerU group reach guys and girls like Dresendrei to show them they don't need to rely on school to Know how to get informed. Thanks PragerU
We need more co2 if anything. During these droughts & man made food shortages it'd be nice to have more co2. It's all about control.
That's so dumb.
@@sentientflower7891 That's your "intelligent" response? Lol. Ok. Everything I said is factual.
@@vashmatrix5769 nope. You are just a liar.
@@sentientflower7891 Lol. How old are you?
More co2 leads to a warmer climate which leads to more draughts and also more floods. This is however really bad. When both extremes become more common it poses way more difficulties to grow crops.
100%. The biggest problem most initiatives have is that they fail to do a complete cost vs. benefit analysis. They cherry pick the things they want to weigh, because the other things are "too complex,", too hard to measure or just don't support their agenda. As a data analyst and as someone who cares deeply about our planet, this offends me; it's literally why we are still where we are. If it was simple, it would have already been solved. Let's do our best work, let's think deeply, and let's properly analyze ALL the inputs and outputs so we can arrive at real decisions and make a much better long term plan for how we'll manage energy consumption AND production.
The more I learn about nuclear energy, the more I become a fan of it. Just keep it out of the hands of the government, yikes!
Thanks for this. A small dose of honesty goes a long way.
I knew a woman, a few years ago, who voted for Biden, for reasons having to do with education, but when I told her that she actually made a mistake and that Biden was against the thing she supported, she responded to me by saying, "I don't care if I'm wrong, I just want to feel like I did the right thing." It legit scared me to hear someone actually tell me that.
And then you woke up with common sense and then were blessed with discernment. A gift beyond a gift. Thank you God 😊 and God bless Brian. Amen
God said that Jesus lied.
Wow, this was a very good video. I am impressed that someone actually has a thought process when coming up with ways to help the planet. Everywhere else on the internet people have no common sense!
It's only half of the red pill. The other half involves questioning the core assumptions of the climate change theory. The science is far from settled on that matter. When you take a sober look at the actual theory, not just Svante Arrhenius' 1896 experiment, but the greenhouse gas theory in the context of the large and complex world we live in, we get a very different picture. The models never match measurements from actual observation of the real world. The theory itself is wrong, and we're making policy based on that wrong theory. It's a dangerously stupid thing to do for man to think he can control the world's energy floes and force the climate to maintain some optimum arbitrarily chosen at the year 1700. The Earth's climate has been changing, sometimes unbelievably rapidly, for 4.6 billion years. Humans aren't going to stop that.
It is only reasonable to control that which is within our power to control. Things like deforestation/reforestation, industrial pollution, management of nuclear material, irrigation and water management systems, city building and the urban heat island effects, etc are all within our control. We can influence regional change, sometimes with disastrous results (ex. the former Aral Sea). Beyond that, we must adapt. And good news is that our species is phenomenally good at adapting.
@@kma3647
The models made 20 years ago, with their predictions on global warming and the correlation to the green house gases, matches perfectly.
@@yikwanwong8267 They show that the co2 % follows the temperature, not the other way around. But that was a too inconvenient truth to publish.
@@tim1polman
Maybe you should read the actual academic papers and not spend your life on UA-cam and some obscure blogs. Show me any peer reviewed paper substantiating your claim, or accept that you have been taken for a ride.
@@yikwanwong8267 This is where you go off the rails! The term "peer reviewed" is a meaningless term. It has been corrupted by the politicians just like everything else. The recent pandemic should prove this to you. If I promise to spend billions funding research on the dangers of co2 to the climate then that is what I'm going to get! The "studies" are going to naturally lean into the narrative in order to get their piece of the pie. There have been "peer reviewed" papers on EVERY debunked scientific claim in human history! I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when Al Gore said that our children would not even know what snow looked like in just 10 years! He actually said that! It was ALL based on models and peer reviewed studies! Now everytime we get a big snow storm they cry "climate change" as though we don't remember what they said 10 and 20 years ago. Follow the money, power and control and you will then know if you should be "trusting the science".
I've been saying this for years. i wrote a college thesis in a science class about how solar and wind are worse for the environment than nuclear and far less efficient. I'm glad to see that nothing has changed in 13 years.
Thank You, this was a good video to give people a perspective on views of environmental protection. Making homes more energy efficient, if it is through better insulation and reduced air infiltration also makes them nearly draft free, adding great comfort in sub freezing temperatures. That is highly noticeable to more sensitive people typically better educated people in higher incomes. Other people may not recognize the higher comfort.
In the 1980s with large improvements available in home internal environmental isolation, real estate agents would say people want higher insulated homes, but are not willing to pay for them. There is reason to believe that for house buyers without some better educated home knowledge, builders don't care about making homes tight or energy efficient even if building codes are meant to ensure that.
I'm living it what is called a custom house as the second owner, my sister was also in that same situation. Both houses are remarkably tight and relatively draft free. My sister moved to a new production house as first owner and doesn't feel very comfortable. She's concluded it is because it isn't draft free and the care for making a hospitable environment of her previous custom house is missing.
------
Climate Change based on noncondensing greenhouse gasses is a pseudo science
You probably know this, but Climate Change based on noncondensing greenhouse gasses is a pseudo science the same as astrology, in that they both make precise calculations and use scientific sounding language, but lack a provable underlining scientific mechanism. Earth's greenhouse effect is due to tropospheric water vapor at over 99% to a lower estimate of 97%. The dominance of water vapor in the earth's greenhouse effect makes it impossible for the noncondensing greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide and methane, to significantly change the greenhouse effect even if all their concentrations were cut in half or doubled or more.
A reasonable estimate for increased average global temperatures from human caused carbon dioxide emissions reported in the early 1990s from a study funded by large oil and chemical corporations was 1/100°C at which time global warming was being reported at 1.1°C. That incredibly small amount of temperature forcing from human caused carbon dioxide emissions means it is impossible for them to be the cause of global warming as it was known at 1.1°C. Over a quarter century later in 2022 global warming is still being reported at 1.1°C showing no correlation with increased levels of human caused carbon dioxide levels in earth's atmosphere.
The means by which the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change reports make it appear noncondensing gasses have a significant share in earth's greenhouse effect is clearly and transparently stated in the reports by listing the greenhouse gas samples were taken at an altitude of 20,000 meters above the troposphere where earth's greenhouse effect takes place due to water vapor and way into the stratosphere where water vapor is near zero. By taking the greenhouse gas samples in the stratosphere water vapor's share of greenhouse gas temperature forcing was reduced from 99% to just 60%. At this extremely low level of greenhouse gas concentration there is virtually no temperature forcing greenhouse gas effect. It makes no difference to earth's greenhouse effect in the stratosphere anyway. The IPCC reports only discuss greenhouse gasses as cause for global warming and only sample those gases outside the zone of earth's atmosphere where earth's greenhouse effect takes place. This makes the IPCC reports on no particular value for the discussion of global warming.
How did this "tipping point" description start.
After global warming was increasing in tenths of a degree Celsius per decade through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, to the early 1990s when it hit 1.1°C there was a great deal of concern that those increases through the 1990s would cross a tipping point causing stronger hurricanes and other global changes making it more than just an academic interest to the science and engineering audience. If the world would have hit 1.3°C of global warming by circa 1998 there should have been more spectacular hurricanes around the USA, not monsters, but scientists needed to make people aware of being prepared for larger storms. Then it never happened. Global warming stayed at just 1.1°C of the early 1990s and remained significantly unchanged to still being reported at 1.1°C in 2022. Scientists were taking a risk of being shown to be fools with no underling scientific mechanism for justifying continued global warming, but the trending was obvious. With over 30 years of increasing average global temperatures and the belief as those continue through the 1990s a tipping point will be crossed causing stronger hurricanes in the USA the right thing to do is to notify the public and governments that they should be preparing for stronger storms.
33°C of greenhouse effect reported in 2022 is different from earth science of the 1970s reporting it as 10°F or 5.55°C.
When I studied earth science in early high school with my personal interest at that time with clouds I paid particular attention to weather creation. One of the earth's atmospheric features that I was suspicious of its actual value was the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was described to raise earth's average temperature 10°F due to water vapor. The number seemed too high because water vapor more commonly called humidity varied greatly with weather and temperature. Water vapor's changing concentration should cause variations in temperatures that would be observable in some situations and I couldn't think of any after thing about the questions for days. It was likely water vapor as an insulator became less and less effective with higher and higher levels of water vapor, but even so there should be some observable change in temperature retention based on large difference in water vapor. I suspected with no better explication the 10°F attributed to earth's greenhouse effect could include an atmosphere heat retention constant scientists didn't have a better explanation for. There was no mention of any other gasses involved in earth's greenhouse effect. I remember the 10°F of increase average global temperatures attributed to earth's greenhouse effect very well because I was frustrated and thought about it for a considerable amount of time keeping my curiously up for years waiting for an explanation.
Oh well, can some of you bulldozer guys oxy-cut my chain and me off this tree now please???
It's not a matter of higher income people being more sensitive to their comfort level, moron. It's a matter of AFFORDABILITY. Most middle income people can't afford $30000 for a geothermal heating/cooling system, or $12,000+ for a solar system, etc..... Tax breaks are useless if you don'unaffordable
An "estimate for increased average global temperatures from human caused carbon dioxide emissions reported in the early 1990s from a study funded by large oil and chemical corporations was 1/100°C " So, a study funded by oil interests over 30 years rumps all the work done by climate scientists around the world which is published in peer reviewed journals?
I certainly commend you for your course correction.
I too had to adjust but it was fortunately years ago. When I first received hockey stick graphic I was shocked, so began taking action. However, I analyze performance data and graphs often for my job. I tried to get the data for the graph but it was not available, which disqualified the depiction. I did my own research over the next two years to well understand this issue.
I want to share this information to help you avoid future confessions and wasted efforts. I'm sorry to say that it is not only a financial catastrophe but rather completely false premises.
Here are my findings;
The demonization of CO2 emissions contradicts nature. CO2 emissions IMPROVE the climate as evidenced by the massive expansion of green plants.
The EPA tracks about 130 pollutants, but CO2 is not on their list. Because it is not a pollutant.
2x atmospheric CO2 density increase would increase the "greenhouse" effect but the incremental change cannot be sufficient to measure. The CO2 greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is a logarithmic function. The effect is very nearly fully saturated at the existing density so there is almost no room left for any additional heat capture by CO2, regardless of density increase.
The CO2 greenhouse effect has been massively exaggerated with statements that may be true, but misleading. One needs to well understand that IR band is very, very wide. CO2 is only resonant at a few wavelengths. So it can only absorb radiated heat within those bands. The heat from the Earth does not span the entire IR band, and if varies substantially across the band. There is really only one area centered at 667CM-1 where the heat from the Earth and CO2 match up well. CO2 does help heat the atmosphere due to this effect, but as I mentioned, that effect is well saturated.
Methane gas cannot heat the atmosphere beyond todays effect, which is almost none, regardless of its density. The reason is that the Earth emits very little radiated heat within Methane's resonant bands. A decent analogy I use is; If you have a rain bucket in your garage it will not capture much rain. The garage roof is already capturing it all. So if you double the size of the bucket, it'll not capture any more rain. The garage roof is water vapor. Within Methane's resonant band, first there's little radiant heat emitted, and water vapor is very effective within the same band, and there's lots of water vapor so it wins every time.
The CO2 greening effect can no longer be denied. NASA observations and measurements provided by their NEO satellite system indicate increased leaf area density and expansion of leafy plant area. This global greening effect has increased plant life and leaf density between 20-40% all around the globe. Even the Amazon Rain Forest has increased by 20% despite rogue deforestation efforts to grow corn.
Sequestered Carbon limits life on Earth. All the oil, natural gas, coal, and concrete material were either once alive or were made by living organisms. The Carbon has to be returned to the atmosphere so it can be returned to living organisms.
I wish we could increase atmospheric CO2 but the evidence that our emissions do not affect atmospheric CO2 density enough to measure. You can observe it yourself by checking the COVID 19 shutdown when gasoline vehicle operation was substantially reduced. Then check CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa at the same time. I was surprised but there was no change at all. Check EIA.gov for liquid fuel consumption to see the significant reduction of fuel burn.
If CO2 density increases, many more plants with more leaves will appear. This is a stability component; one of several.
I found the polar ice melting reports were massive exaggerations where they show a very small area receding but didn't talk about the overwhelming area not receding or growing. Then I discovered the area receding was due to an under water volcano. I've dug into every claim from Polar Bears to Great Barrier Reef, and Kilimanjaro only to discover the claims were not true, misleading via omission, or other causes which ARE proven, not speculated.
I know it's a lot to choke down. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like to see data or my resources.
Well done. You've laid out clearly the base of the great fabrication. Widespread understanding of this would save such a lot of unnecessary debate. Unfortunately people believe whatever will keep the approval of their peers. The vested interests know this, and in thirty years have spread their lies too well, so that now the economic ruin inevitable from their ideology is fast approaching. How this era of history will end I don't know, but I suspect it will not be pleasant.
I would very much like to see the resources.
This is an honest question because I don't know. Why are we not allowed to consider nuclear energy? Isn't it much safer now?
@@kieran3541 I'm happy to share. I do not know how to contact you through youtube. If you know of some way for us to connect, please let me know
@@CycleWerkz A reference list on this comment thread would suffice - that would also allow others to see these references.
I would remind this guy that C02 is plant food. I mean really how do you think those giant redwood trees out in California grew so big is a relatively short period of time? C02 baby!!
producing more CO2 while deforesting which releases MORE CO2? great idea.
@@kartofelus
Back when a lightening strike could cause a forest fire that burned a forest the size of Rhode Island, there were fewer trees than there are today.
Thanks to environmentalist getting the harvesting of trees from the forest banned ,we are starting to get back to the way it was in the past with huge fires that can not be stopped until the weather changes to colder or a large rainstorm happens.
@@kartofelus How uninformed you are. The earth is actually greening. More trees now than 100 years ago. Why?? We are burning natural gas for heat and not trees. We are developing different building materials for homes and businesses. Humans adapt. We are demonizing the very thing that is saving the environment and saving millions of lives yearly by conquering climate. Yes!! heating homes in winter and cooling homes in summer saves lives. I tell my tree hugging lefty older sister until she disconnects the gas meter from her home she has no business telling anyone anything about the climate. Practice what you preach before you go spouting off about something you know nothing about.
And those plant emit oxygen, which I really like.
Sewage is also plant food so please don't complain if your yard is filled with sewage.
The "renewables" hypothesis is a catastrophe because it only ticks a few minor boxes and no, I am not against renewables.
Fossil and nuclear generation must remain the primary energy sources.
Thank you Brian for being honest.
Yup... that's why we see all the subsidized Teslas on "Millionaire's Hill" and not in the middle-class neighborhoods - which is actually a good thing, considering their large CO2 footprint compared to, say, a small turbo-diesel sedan and the environmental devastation caused by mining rare earth elements for their hi-torque electric motors...
Right. Nobody wants to talk about the other costs associated with these so called "green" energy sources. Mining in 3rd world countries of the backs of 10 year olds bring paid almost nothing so an entire "green" industry can be forged to accomplish little more than shifting the pockets being lined from one group of wealthy folks to another. Of course we should be good stewards of the Earth. But that has little nothing to do with the push for green energy, nor does the administration honestly give a crap about the environment. It's all such a joke. I definitely think we can always continue to learn and evolve how we generate energy for the modern world. But I also think the 1% has no interest in anything not specifically for themselves. We are all just used as pawns, slaves to a society made to tax and cost us into poverty so our little bits of money can be accrued to fill already overflowing pockets... Small businesses used to be encouraged and now are priced out of existence. Affordable reliable energy lifts people out of poverty. But when you are as far from poverty as is possible, apparently you stop giving a crap about the people actually burdened with living within their meager means and the law.
@@kashq502 Totally agree. You are describing it exactly as it is.
I just watched a video that said those wind mills use LOTS of oil. I had no idea. Also, since they have started the process of offshore wind farms that many whales have died from the sonic waves.
You should also know that those giant turbine blades have a finite lifespan and can't be recycled. They're just dumped into landfills. Not really worth it for the meager amount of power a windmill produces.
@@senordataanalyst460 thanks for the info. I had no idea!
UA-cam: "We're committed in fighting mis/disinformation."
Also UA-cam: puts mis/disinformation in the form of context under video.
PragerU knows that its fan base is uneducated dimwits.
The nature of information is that it's malleable under difference in context.
I too was like this man. Since my teens I’ve thought solar was the answer. Then realty hit and knowledge was needed.
Just curious....what happens in a green house that's so bad? Seems to me that's where things grow so we can feed other people.
green house effect is not the actual green house
The temperature will go up a small bit. We will adapt.
@@raisaapriliani2717 that's why he said "in" a green house. the greenhouse effect is, indeed, what goes on inside a greenhouse.
Make America Engery Independent again !
There's a difference between taking care of what God has created and worshiping nature as god the apostle Paul said fools worship the created and not the creators
There is one mechanism that always, almost always, works and that is the free market. If an energy source can not find a market without the need for subsidies, then it should be abandoned as impractical. Many bad ideas could be eliminated if they were forced to compete in the free market. If the public is willing to spend their own money on a product that is the definition of a winner.
That is utterly moronic. There are big projects that can take decades to reach any sort of commercial viability. We wouldn't have a single satellite in orbit today if the free market had to invent spaceflight from scratch.
@@Meirstein But isn’t that what Space X is all about? Just asking.
@@tanimation7289 SpaceX didn't invent spaceflight. They are building on top of 70 years of government-funded work laying down virtually all the infrastructure to make it possible.
@@Meirstein Yes but I was also asking if they where funded by a free market?
@@tanimation7289 Not really. Virtually all their money comes from NASA contracts.
Brother: "Green, green, green, let's go green"
Me: "well, do you think any human impact on the environment can ever be good? Or is everything we ever do always bad?"
Come on, people never talk about the benefits. They make a god out of nature by thinking any change is bad.
Brought to you by a civil engineer (myself), a profession described by a former lecturer as a profession for "rapists of the environment".
Live downwind a coal power plant and enjoy getting cancer for free!
Few notice that increased warmth is actually better for most life, whether plant or animal.
It also means less energy used for heating.
@@sanniepstein4835 nope, that's a lie.
@@sanniepstein4835 Yep. Plants have trouble using water when it's frozen
Investing in the global economy is not a security risk, it’s actually more economical than isolating the country.
It's worth noting that the chief vendor(s) for wind turbines build them in one way. The design is the same for all of them. This is crazy. Moreover, they're monstrously large and unsightly. How about turbines whose blade rotate around a central vertical axis? I've seen these, but no one seems to build them. Also, there is nowhere near the electrical grid capacity to run all these electric cars being mandated, and no plans to augment it to the necessary level. And somehow, environmentalists believe that the "pollution" from gas powered automobiles is much greater than the pollution from power plants it will take to power all the electric cars. I like this guy's points about the staggering land use needed for wind and solar. Let's have more environmentalists thinking critically. Because at this point, if an environmentalist says X, I automatically discount it as an example muddled thinking. I would even argue that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global climate change. CO2 is not the issue it is claimed to be, and climate has and always will change. It's the Sun, stupid!
Finally someone who makes sense! I love the environment & believe we should take care of it, but many of these so called "green" policies are ludicrous & impractical. That's why I like this 5 principles are practical.
Fossil fuels = awesome.
Nice to see that someone finally realize that renewables are not THE answer. They are very expensive and in 20 years you need to replace them again.
Everyone please hit the 3-dots on the context add on provided by google, hit send feedback, and kindly tell them to shut up.
Kudos to him for being humble enough to examine *_SOME_* of his beliefs. But is Global Warming really bad in an ongoing Ice Age? Think about that for a moment!
Good for you.
It’s always puzzled me right from the start that if we assume global warming is happening, whether natural or not, it MUST have ONLY bad effects, rather than a MIX of good and bad ones.
The best recent explanation of what is going on here can be found in Alex Epstein's Fossil Future or in his long-form interviews.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Thanks. Yes, I'm familiar with Epstein's work. Bjorn Lomborg has some good things to say. And I'm partial to my own books on the subject.
As a former environmentalist that has a susceptibility to the truth I realized long ago that many things activists support really aren't that important and the hue and cry is more about keeping their jobs than actually fixing anything. I cheer when I see obsolete dams being removed in the Pacific northwest so salmon can migrate to their spawning grounds. I'd rather see a vista or look at the sky on a clear day than a hazy day. I love to be in places where the only sign of humans is the thin track I'm standing on. I also like being able to get to the trailhead in a matter of hours in a motor vehicle instead of waking or riding a horse for days so I can just walk for more days. I like being warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Those competing goals must exist in compromise. That said, reducing greenhouse emissions is not an area where compromise is necessary. The claims that weather is hotter and storms more intense now than 100 years ago is patently false. If anything our greenhouse gas emissions are preventing the next ice age.
Go visit the oil sands in Canada and swim in the toxic ponds that kill thousands of birds.
@@sentientflower7891 No. That would be dumb. Now tear down all the windmills. Those kill birds too.
Tf are you saying. The weather is scientifically proven to be hotter thats just straight up false.
@@moabfool
Toxic emissions from fossile fuels kill more animals and people than renewables.
@@smetana3933 we have been coming out of an ice age for 20 thousand years.
I never went to university and I knew this stuff already.
I like it but I wished it focused more on debunking claims. I think a lot of your stats are accurate or in the right direction, but by not having more evidence based powerful arguments and instead very high level it's not likely to really convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you. And I think you could do that in 10-15 minutes, providing detailed but succinct arguments that identify hard to refute sources which debunk common urban legends.
As he said in the video; he did the research. The information is freely and readily available for anyone with the desire to seek it out. I have found, through long and painful experience, that the only dependable way to change someone's mind is to encourage them to seek out their own information sources. Attempting to spoon-feed it to them generally results in defensiveness.
@@scottyoung6709 This does nothing to counter my point. There's so much conflicting info, much of it nonsense, to anything like climate change and energy that it's improbable people can or will take enough time to find the counter arguments, and the sides he takes get drowned out by most of media being on the opposite side of his points. So if his goal is to convince, it wasn't done right.
@@gameenders5017 And what conflicting information are you talking about? So far I have never seen a single graph or report suggesting solar and wind have ever done any good in generating energy. Personally, I would have loved to see him show you the costs to dispose of all the solar equipment, as well as the amount of land for the temporary solar farms.
@@scottyoung6709
Let me guess, you graduated from the UA-cam university and now you are an expert on climate change and energy generation.
@@nickjean3350
You probably do not know how to interpret the graphs. Let me give you a practical example and I am quite familiar with this one, as it is my house. The house is 246 m2 and the overall PV area is 146 m2. The household contains of 4 people and all is electric, including heating/ cooling and two cars (11,000 km and 6,500 km/ year). The overall investment, including battery storage, was Euro 142,000 and after subsidies net Euro 126,000. The generating capacity exceeds the usage, so from April - October there is an average revenue generated of Euro 320/ month. In Europe the gas and electricity prices have exploded, so this is the cost we would have had to carry, if we would not have changed:
- Gas heating (including hot water) around Euro 9,600/ year
- Household Electricity Euro 2,400/ year
- Charging the cars, Euro 1,700/ year
- Earning Euro 2,240/ year due overproduction
Per year, if we would not have invested in PV, our annual cost would have been Euro 13,700 and in addition we generate Euro 2,240 revenue, making the total Euro 15,940/ year. Which means that we will have a payback in 7.9 years and with guarantees of 10 and 15 years. That does not mean that the PV will not work after 15 years, but the capacity might only be 70%. To that comes inflation and increasing energy prices, so in reality, a realistic ROI is around 7 years. As for CO2 emissions, there is an increase when we installed the PV system, but as we get our electricity from a coal plant and the heating was natural gas, it is balanced in around 3.5 years and from then on we heat and drive with basically zero CO2 emissions.
I feel terrible for the those who get fooled into buying solar panels, who don’t realize the cost, and they may not realize how complicated and expensive it’s going to be to replace their roof shingles when the time comes.
Excellent
Thank you Brian for taking the time to provide this information.
Practicality is a B. What certain environmentalists don't get is that the arguments presented simply means that we have to continue to look for something better. If nuclear isn't, then what is? How about we continue to search? Is that so wrong?
Don't forget hydro. It's the cheapest method of electric power generation - even cheaper than nuclear. The environmental impacts area not zero, but they're a lot less severe than people say. Those who want to tear down dams are threatening energy independence and will drive costs up significantly.
@@blackjay5338 I haven't forgotten. I actually brought it up before, but also shot it down. Because the one thing that ran through my mind still is whether it can generate enough power around the clock to sustain whatever is plugged into it. And that whatever is pretty much a city or so. How much equipment is needed and how much area?
Better ways to use oil that’s what and I support this.
@@tanimation7289 until something actually better comes along. And better has to be sustainable in the ways that count.
It's funny. For all their "supposed intelligence", they couldn't think to try to continue to look for new alternatives. And they're supposed to be the ones who are more innovative.
@@JiraiyaSama86 yes, it can power a city. A huge portion of the power in the PACNW is hydro from dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, and much is transmitted long distances, across state lines, like to California. The rivers always flow, and in fact the dams help to regulate the flow, so it's even more reliable. They also assist in navigation making shipping cheaper, and they provide lots of recreational opportunities adding to the local economies.
The big question is fish health. Much has been made of how they impact salmon and stealhead runs, and whenever there's a low year the environmentalists cry their brains out. But then when strong runs occur it's all crickets.
Overall, hydro is one of the best renewable resources.
I'm glad people are waking up to the mess that Watermelons are making of our world. Every time someone tells me we need more solar and wind farms, I think of ST:TNG First Contact and the image of the earth after it was taken over by the Borg. If we cover all our farmland with wind and solar, where will our food come from?
My colleagues are completely brainwashed by renewables. When I question them about land use, wild-life displacement, developing countries still building coal fired power stations they just stare at me. Nothing can get in the way of their cult life belief in climate change and renewable energy.
Well the globalists want to, and are working towards, getting rid of 95% of the humans on the planet. They will be happy if we all starved to death.
The nature has more influence than human activities as my understanding.
At least in terms of climate change anyway.
We need to explore wind, solar and nuclear, of course, but we should not be abandoning fossil fuels. Only idiots would do that!
Excellent PragerU.
Another example of someone born a socialist, became a liberal in early adulthood and then smartened up through experience and became a conservative. The important part is that his eyes are open and realizes that the Green religion doesn't take into account the reality that it is not a simple formula.
Omg finally someone using common sense
Since others countries have largely moved to predominantly renewable energy sources, I think the common sense conclusion is that the US can probably do it, too. To write it off as an impossible “unicorn” when other countries are doing it doesn’t seem to make sense at all.
@@brttbrntt Other countries with miniscule economies perhaps not large modern/industrial economies.
I’ve always had questions about the amount of land used for solar panels. Why aren’t we putting the solar panels on top of buildings instead or finding some other alternative to solar farms taking up more land?
we have a shitton of empty land, its really not a problem. Also, we are putting solar panels on roofs.
This comment is interesting because it assumes there are no other species or ecosystems on earth but ours. “Empty” land has an ecosystem, it just might not include humans. Why take more land for solar panels and mess with more ecosystems when we can utilize the buildings and areas we have already taken over?
@@sarahk5276
I'm really not assuming that. Were just doing way worse things currently than building solar power plants. With responsible planning we could make sure to use land that isn't very important to anyone and wont negatively affect animals etc.
Compared to wind and water solar is definitely the safest and least intrusive power source there is, and all of these are better than any fossile fuel sources when it comes to the environment.
@@smetana3933 Such a shit ton of "empty land" that CA has to kill endangered tortoises out in the desert for their solar farms? Cuz that is what they are doing... willfully and with full knowledge they are killing endangered tortoises. Empty land.... really isn't that empty if you consider the animals living there.
@@smetana3933 Solar is not sustainable, not energy efficient and produces some of the most toxic waste on the planet... AND it's unreliable in inclement weather which is when you need electricity the most.
Yea, those Europeans who blindly jumped on the solar and wind bandwagon, now are wishing differant they were more realistic!
This man is MY HERO!!
Excellent, well done as usual, and the perspective is important. A few things to fix:
1. No problem with greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is coming out of your nose right now. For reference, see this Prager U video: ua-cam.com/video/OwqIy8Ikv-c/v-deo.html
2. The word "nuclear" has the word "clear" in it. That helps remember how to pronounce it properly.
3. You show use of fossil fuels declining by 3 percent, but that's on a relative basis. On an absolute basis, fossil fuels, especially coal, are all up significantly. That's not a problem. It's fine for the environment. But it's better to understand the full context. Not sure your figure constitutes a return on the investment - need a better calculation for that.
4. Not good enough on the downside of renewables, which other Prager U videos do better.
Overall, another good project, but a few misses.
You are truly confused, or dishonest. A human on average exhales around 380 kg of CO2 per year. If the same person drives 15,000 km in the year with a petrol car the CO2 emission is around 7,000 kg. If the person eat 100 kg meat in the same year then the CO2 emission is around 3,500 kg. If the person get the electricity from a carbon plant then it is around 3,200 kg CO2 emissions. If the person heats the house in central Europe then the CO2 emission is around 2,100 kg CO2. The list goes on and and on. Obviously there can be two people travelling in the car and more people living in the house etc., but you trying to brush off the problem of CO2 emissions, just because human breathing generates 380 kg of emissions a year, compared with the thousands of kg per person, is silly at best. Another aspect is that we have to breathe to live, but we can decrease the CO2 emissions by having better insulated houses, drive cars with lower consumption etc.
@@yikwanwong8267 I think he is trying to say CO2 hasn't shown to be a problem since we also breathe it out. In fact, having more has shown to be more in line with the past shown in the ice cores - back when Antarctica was green, and we are still not near those levels. The earth warming isn't dangerous, but what is dangerous too cold.
@@PeaceIntheValley
It is like saying that fire can not be harmful, as we cook with it.
Nature can adapt, but the problem is the 8 billion humans. The increased heat has lead to less area is suitable for agriculture and a vast majority of the world's population live in these areas. The rising seas is a problem, even if we are far from the poles completely melting. If that would happen, humanity would lose around 30% of the agricultural land. There are obviously opportunities with rising temperatures, as e.g. Siberia and northern Canada would be less hostile. Still, it would be a disaster for humanity if the temperatures continue to increase.
@@yikwanwong8267 the sea's been rising for the last 30000 years.
@Jed Jones
Apart from the fact that the sea levels were almost static from the year 0 to 1900 and from 1900 to 2022, the sea levels have risen 130 mm to 200 mm. The speed is increasing.
This man needs to speak to the Australian government.
Wait til Brian finds out that CO2 doesn't change the temperature or weather...
Right? That evil CO2 gas that...makes life possible..... GRRRR
It has an effect. The greenhouse gas effect is real and measurable in a lab. The question is what is the magnitude of that effect of a greenhouse gas when in an atmosphere that is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and the rest is trace gases? What is the effect of CO2 when so much of the UV spectrum it absorbs is also absorbed by water vapor which is present in much higher quantities in the atmosphere? CO2 has an effect, but it is grossly overstated. And the same can be said of methane (cow farts) and NO2, which is the current bogeyman they're pushing in order to seize farmland in Europe.
@@kma3647 For sure. But even more importantly. It's an insulator. Meaning that it traps and spreads energy across the earth's surface. Without it we are potentially facing an ice age.
Personally I don't think sea level rise is so much of an issue compared to potentially going back to snowball earth.
Heating up the planet might've saved all life bigger than a single celled organism.
@@kma3647 It has not been measured in a lab. The greenhouse effect is not a thing. We have an insulative layer that slows the transfer of heat, but nothing gets trapped.
@@dk-bw4gk ofc nothing gets trapped, the earth isn't a closed system, overall however more energy is present in the system at any given time due to greenhouse gases.
At 3:30 you omitted hydro as an energy source.
Great work Brian! Scooby snacks for you.
Oh to show this to those committed to renewables without consequences...
I suspect he'll have lost a lot of friends saying this.
That's because he's now a racist, homophobic, ultra maga misogynist. 🤣
worth it tho, he stop having idiot friends
This video started out good. Brian stated his life long endeavor to protecting the environment. As everyone on this planet SHOULD be thinking about. And, his five principles for determining the best energy options is spot on!!
Here's where Brian lost focus, in my view. When list his "If we're serious about" Confronting Climate change, Protecting the Environment and Helping people get out of energy poverty.
The middle one, of course, is always the priority. Period.
However, climate change and energy poverty are both, to use his word, "fantasies".
1) There is no actual, empirical evidence that our increased CO2 emissions of the modern industrial age have any more than a nominal contribution to the greenhouse effect. The predictions are all based on computer models. And, those models are - less than accurate.
Why? To test a models efficacy, the programmers put in all of the variables and constants they have gleaned from observation and enter the prevailing proposed theory. Then, they have the model look backwards. Yes. That's right. If it can predict what HAS happened, there is a greater probability it can see what will happen. The truth - Not a single model, since the first one used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, has "predicted" the climate past. AND we know what happened! We lived through it, right? Anthropomorphic Climate Change has not been proven.
2) Energy poverty is a new term. Conceived by the drafters of the Paris Climate Agreement.
The Agreement mentions "Energy Poverty" 5 times in reference to nations who are not "First World" energy users. It is defined as lack of access to modern energy services. So, the first monies to be paid out from the "Green Climate Fund" (the part of the Agreement we, the US, must contribute to) will go to bringing those nations, 103 of them, to a standard level of access. In other words - global wealth distribution. Think about that.
Impeach Brandon ✔️
I recently watched a video on the environmental impact of today's electric vehicles and in their studies. You need to put over 400,000 miles on it to break even with a petrol vehicle when you dig deep into all of the manufacturering and mining. That still doesn't address the current inability to recycle EV batteries. I believe that today's EVs are capable of upto a million miles on the original batteries. But most of the current buyers don't and will not keep them that long.
I’m glad he finally saw the reality of silly programs it only took him until after he made 10’s of millions of dollars before he realized he was wrong. I wish I could be wrong and correct my mistake after I made tens of millions. He is correct with his facts and change of mind I only wish it was before the tax payers were bilked out of millions of dollars.
I am a Swiss engineer and I came to the same conclusion after working many years in the (alternative) energy field.
*Nice video and thank you for breaking it down!! Even with the current dip, I'm still glad 😊 I can smile back at my portfolio of $66,700 made from my weekly trade within a short period,all thanks to Mrs Laura Ashley White*
Her good reputation already speaks for her last month i invested over $100,000 with her and I've already made over $190,000 profit.
I got Laura's Goad recommendations on ABC News in December 2021 and started following her lead and made $23,450 in two week. Lost my job in January 2022 and right now I'm back on top again and I always win with her guidance.
After watching so many UA-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mrs Laura Ashley started managing my investments now I make huge weekly. God bless Mrs Laura Ashley White she's been a blessing to my family.
Wow wow please is there a way to reach there services, I work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my students loan for a while now!! Please help me
@@douglasklein4764
Here👇
People might find Alan Savory's story really interesting, along with his presentations on reversing desertification. He has many naysayers among the environmentalist left, since they apparently don't actually want real, proven, workable solutions - either at all or if they involve things they've demonized, like cattle, ranching and farming, etc. . So, eat the beef and watch Alan Savory's presentation at Harvard U ( had a nugget the other videos didn't, that I saw). Then, watch Sheldon Frith's rebuttal to Mike the Vegan's critique of Savory's method/info. Really thoroughly done, & politely crushed it !
This is what happens when people are bought on emotion and pseudo-crisis mentality, unless they have the fortitude to actually seek out the truth. But the truth unfortunately does not weigh well with emotionally driven people. This is what the left is comprised of and why they exclusively appeal to emotion when it comes to such issues (or any issues for that matter). Regarding environmental issues, the use of wind, solar, and biofuels are the worst forms of functional alternative energy. Simple calculator can sum up a lot of this. Got to hand it to the apostate leftist in the video. Congrats and welcome to the table of sanity.
Why is it that people fail to listen to reason and common sense? We the people control "the purse"! The information you presented is "common knowledge". Every point you have made is true and is old news. 50 years ago I began my career in nuclear energy. At that time, 80% of the electricity generated in the US was needed to support industry, and only 20% for "domestic" or household needs. Things have changed, but the truth is our society is lost without a stabile and reliable source of electricity. Solar, wind and hydro power are perfect for some localized needs, but cannot be considered stabile and reliable because those are dependent on unreliable sources, clouds, drought - weather, and humans can't change that!
I’m idling watching this 😂
Thank you Brian for your honest assessment into this controversial and very under researched topic.
Other than Climate Change being complete nonsense, this was a great video.
Add to that the destruction of natural landscapes and rivers in the mining of lithium.
Must of been a tough awakening for this fellow, but I’m glad he’s seen the truth