Very interesting discussion, thanks Rachel. You facilitate these conversations extremely well- asking for expansion, clarification and justification at exactly the right times, but allow your guests the space to talk. Great journalistic instincts!
I thought I would hate Nafeez Ahmed based on his debate but I don't as his enthusiasm is contagious. That said he come off as a dreamer that is off by total orders of magnitude of what is possible. Given the lag time in industry and building capital projects and the deteriorating world we can envision the world in 10-30 years.
Unfortunately, it seems we are low on politicians that would bother addressing concerns of the average person, or the planet. All about money and power /:
Those finance dudes Nafeez was discussing climate outcomes to that were so shocked, they would have gone back to their desks and the extractivist paradigm they inhabit and forgotten those discussions in a few days. It's too inconvenient to their comfortable lives to leave the denial zone.
There are many channels that interview leading thinkers with many of the same names appearing but this remains, for me, the most accessible one. There is a flow, a warmth and a desire to understand that (usually!) draws me in and keep watching to the end. Except it isn't the end because I always end up turning it over in my mind and asking myself questions about it. There was a moment when you referred to Ian Edwards' idea of using pension funds to (for example) buy up an oil company and it occurred to me that this doesn't often happen - that other interviewees' ideas and visions are referenced. Perhaps this is deliberate but I wondered if it might also help us make sense of all these different viewpoints and bring them together to form a sort of whole. There would be tensions as well as synergies but this how the world works. Each one has a great perspective on the landscape but we never get the arial view! The one-to-one format is to my mind the best way to compare alternative perspectives being the least confrontational format. I also wonder how much interviewees are aware of these other perspectives. The best interviews are when everyone comes away with something to think about!
You can't eat money! Drought is spreading fast. Thursday, October 12, 2023 Amid worsening drought conditions in Alabama, farmers in the state now have access to vital resources to help combat the challenges they are facing. In the past several weeks, the lack of rain has accelerated conditions in the central and southern parts of the state. Hassey Brooks, deputy commissioner of the Alabama Department of Agriculture, said it is getting harder for farmers to produce and prepare for the rest of the year. "This does put a strain on our producers, particularly our cattle producers who are looking to plant, winter grazing," Brooks explained. "The late drought has impacted the cotton crop for the most part across the state and our soybean crops." Efforts are being made in Alabama to mitigate the effects of the drought. Five counties in the state have been declared secretarial disaster counties by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Can't imagine how it must feel to have the bedrock of your lives crumbling away. The causes of this are largely global and as a world we must wake up to the need to share resources and support each other in times of need. Where we live is a matter of chance and it won't do for those of us who happen to be currently better off to pocket our luck and shut the doors on the rest of world.
@@richardbergson1047 Of course - I worked for half a dozen nonprofits - mainly environmental and I donated to Earth First! - was listed as a contact in their newspaper - and then I ate out of dumpsters for ten years while I rode a British 3 speed internal hub bicycle. hahahaha. So I can relate to the underclass of the world for sure. I have lived off donations - going door to door or even on the interwebs. I also got arrested eight times doing activism and got some policy changes done.
Some places have issues with too much water while some other places severely lack water. The root cause isn't about availability, but it has everything to do with logistics..
@@mohd.saifullahmajid6029 You must not have read my University op-ed from 24 years ago. I'll post it for you. April, 2000 MN Daily staff op-ed, drew hempel The Great Lakes will be at record lows because of lack of snow that feeds 40 percent of their annual water supply. This disturbing situation has been attributed to global warming, and according to the United Nations, the influence of major transnational corporations extends over about 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. What's received less attention is that large corporations are also attempting to raid the Great Lakes. One government agency already gave permission for 600 million liters of Great Lakes water to be filled into tankers and sent to Asia over the next five years. A temporary moratorium was achieved, but the move to conserve water will be brought to the World Trade Organization as a violation of the supposed rights of corporate rule. Through Reaganite corporate-state subsidies, California ironically has become the new dairy state at the expense of rural Wisconsin family livelihood -- including their future ability to drink water. California recently attempted to pipe water from Wisconsin. According to the Worldwatch Institute, agriculture accounts for two-thirds of all irrigated fresh water use while industrial production in general accounts for 50 to 80 percent of fresh water demand. But it's not just corporate-state water use in California; it's also the corporate pollution of water. Silicon "computer" Valley has more Superfund sites -- most of them affecting groundwater -- than any other area its size in the country. And 60 percent of the United States' liquid hazardous wastes -- 34 billion liters of solvents, heavy metals and radioactive materials -- is directly injected into the ground, the main source for fresh water. In 1996, the journal Science reported that the global supply of fresh water will be used up in 30 years at current usage rates. According to the Stanford researchers who authored the study, there is no "hidden water," and current foreseeable technologies, like desalinization, were factored into their findings. But greed-driven corporations are tapping into that grim projection to maximize profits for their own pea-brained drive to extinction. In just a few short years, through more than 130 acquisitions, American Toxic Control has been transformed into U.S. Filter Inc., with $5 billion in annual revenues, making it 10 times the size of its nearest competitor. As controller at U.S. Filter, Richard Heckmann states, "How could it be that there is no Intel, I.B.M., General Motors or Toys 'R' Us in the water business?" he asked. "You can live without all those things. Five days without water, you're dead." Apparently Dan Quayle agrees since he sits on the U.S. Filter Inc. board, joined by the Bass brother finance speculators who threw in a cool, refreshing $250 million. The time is right to create a giant corporation that transforms the public right to water into a scarce luxury item for those privy to the secret magic of money. Based on a 1998 water study by Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, "To avoid catastrophe ... it is important to act now." Our clear answer to the water crisis, according to the scientific researchers, can be summed up in one word: conservation. Secret global corporate rule, though, blocks environmental issues, labeling them barriers to corporate WTO trade. U.S. corporate-state rule has been consistent in its priorities ever since the founding aristocrats, like John Jay, planned to keep the rich in power against the threat of democracy. George Kennan, as head of the State Department, authored a top-secret document that reflects these elite goals on a global scale: "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We should cease to talk about vague and -- for the Far East -- unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization ... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." Similarly, now declassified U.S. National Security Council documents clearly outline policies to support destructive regimes in order to maintain wealth for the corporate-state elite. In fact, after World War II, the U.S. corporate-state elite attacked democracy movements worldwide and reinstated fascist regimes, brutally promoting power to a few. There's an interesting hidden history to undemocratic, destructive corporate rule. Did colonists plead for a more "socially responsible" king? The colonists demanded their inalienable, natural right to sovereignty. The king, though, was the only sovereign of the land and the king was also the only source of corporate charters. Most of the 13 colonies were actually crown charters (i.e. the Massachusetts Bay Trading Company). The list of grievances attached to the Declaration of Independence stemmed from the corporate rule of the king. After democracy was achieved, corporate charters were deliberately put into the hands of the state legislatures, were issued for only special purposes and had extremely limited powers. Corporate charters were routinely revoked and the corporate assets reinvested by the public. President Lincoln warned, though, shortly after the Civil War, that the growing threat of corporate rule was worse than the war and would, unless stopped, destroy the republic. Just as he predicted in 1886, a bought-out robber-baron judge declared that corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights and have legal "personhood" -- thus subverting our democracy. That same year 230 state laws controlling corporations were overturned in district courts. Between 1890 and 1910, 307 cases went to the Supreme Court based on the anti-slavery 14th Amendment. But only 19 cases were from African-Americans, while 288 were corporations seeking their new constitutional personhood "right to due process." The Bill of Rights ironically continues to be the main vehicle for destructive undemocratic corporate rule. Most state constitutions still require the attorney general to revoke the charter of any corporation that continuously violates the public good. With the knowledge of this hidden history exposed, in the last few years the public has rescinded two corporate charters. The global sovereignty movement grows increasingly thirsty for democratic revolution. The future of water depends on declaring independence from corporate rule.
Yes, the situation of human industrial civilization on Earth IS very much critical. Sadly, most of the attention is going to the LEAST dangerous aspect of it - increasing CO2. The CRITICAL parts are population and greed, i.e. how many humans we need to provide resources for, and what level of resources go to each individual. Currently, there is no plan to even attempt to handle either problem. Without very serious efforts in both these areas, global warfare born of corruption will eat away at our remaining time before total global economic collapse - in which "money" becomes meaningless and energy is only available to those with military might.
I think your observation is correct. This system runs on fear. Fear of failure at school, at work. Fear of death. The venus project sounds like the best possible future for average humans, not for the supersuccessfull business boys and girls
Apparently 15 trillion dollars found its way to the 1% during the pandemic. Yet according to data from our world and data countries outside the purview of pfizerland did better. So West money well spent?
The last time someone tried to micromanage resource allocations to that level led to millions starved to death. Holodomor in Soviet Union during 1920s and Great Leap Forward in China during 1950s
These back of the napkin conversations are fun. Totally ignoring present reality, human nature, the complexity of economics, power, greed, politics, etc, can allow the painting of pretty nice pictures for the future, seeds for further thought. Hope. 100% would love to hear from Ugo again 👍
There is a profit in it for those doing it, and most of the costs can be externalised to others. Usually those with less power and influence, or the activity would be stopped by their peers. This is essentially the framework of the incentive scheme that has facilitated the growth of our system.
I have concerns about Micheaux's work as it stands (which has not survived well under peer review). He is a charismatic character and it seems like he wants to challenge the consensus to inject some much-needed realism. It is a reasonable goal and he has some great ideas for it. There are undoubtedly limits in a finite system that we cannot ignore. However, his work has been latched onto by the fossil fuel lobby who see it as another way to sow doubt and slow down the move away from fossil fuels towards renewables, and he seems to have courted the attention with his framing. Those promoting it in bad faith realise that most people won't bother reading the paper. All they really want is for the party to keep going and for renewables to go away until they've run out of all the fossil fuels. Sadly, this is not compatible with the climate that 8bn humans need to live in. Michaux is correct to raise concern about depletion of resources under the current paradigm, but his broad-brush back-of-beermat calculations definitely need more work. I can't work from his projections. His paper is far too narrow in scope currently. In all fairness, it seems like a good starting point. But, he really needs to work with more people to improve the quality on the detail, and to keep developing it as the landscape changes. It doesn't work for my sector at the moment as it is far too simplistic and not reflective of the real world as I find it. Nevertheless, it is still a fantastic piece of work for one person to put together. What do you think when you read it? Here is the paper: www.gtk.fi/en/current/a-bottom-up-insight-reveals-replacing-fossil-fuels-is-even-more-enormous-task-than-thought/ tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf. If we look at human history, and biological organisms in general, when we run out of one resource we normally move onto the next best thing, or stop doing the activity that needed it. This behaviour seems likely to continue. Likewise, when fossil fuels are no longer used, at least 20% of our current global primary energy requirements will no longer be needed as we move to more efficient electric tech (around 70% of the energy in an ICE vehicle is wasted in heat and noise, whereas loss is significantly lower for EVs). The 10-15% of primary energy going towards FF exploration, production and transportation systems can instead be redirected towards building and refurbishing renewable tech. This is broadly in line with the average of their EROEIs if we look at new tech rather than old tech. This should offset some of the energy reduction Michaux expects as we transition. Michaux makes a number of broad assumptions without adequate justification or qualification around needed battery capacity and choice of battery for each application. He seems to forget we can connect cables together and batteries won't necessarily be needed for everything fossil fuels currently do. With them we can connect towns, countries and contintents so that intermittency can be managed through live redistribution of surplus without the need to store it all to redistribute it. There are limits and losses involved in this, but it is already established practice happening today and we can continue to improve it as we go. The wind can slow for periods of time in one location while increasing in another. It is always blowing somewhere. The flipside to this is that such tech tends to be sited in the best spots first, so we can expect dimishing returns beyond a certain point, the same as for any other tech. A plateau will be reached, so planetary limits must be acknowledged in the design. -Winter only affects one side of the planet at a time (which we connect together with HVAC). -E vehicles can double up as grid storage when they are not in use, unlike ICE vehicles which can't share their fuel as easily. -Trains can use overhead lines and/or conductor rails to draw power and return power when braking. They don't need batteries. - There is nothing in the report to account for the removal of all activities associated with fossil fuel production. These will all reduce the battery and mining requirements relative to that shown in Michaux's paper. The devil is in the detail Battery tech is moving fast, and the assumptions made in the paper are already falling down in some areas. We won't stick with hard to acquire resources like lithium and cobalt when there are alternatives that use much more abundant materials as their source, like iron or salt. Less abundant materials will be quickly outpriced by cheaper alternatives. There are already hundreds of other options being explored, many of which look more sustainable and efficient than those presently on the market. These are good-faith criticisms because I'd like to see Michaux improve upon his work. He did a great job building a framework, but the knowledge gaps are letting his model down and the sums need to add up for a bottom-up output to be credible. The assumptions for the calculations and the weakness of the base data may have resulted in an overly pessimistic final output. This seems to be impacting the way Michaux is framing the issue, even though the assumptions seem to have come from him based on some patchy data he could piece together, rather than from relevant specialists with accurate up-to-date data. While he seems to be on the ball in some areas, there seems to me a bigger picture out there that Michaux needs to take on board to complete his assessment. If assumptions are made in good faith, they should be open to change following new information. We should always challenge our own assumptions and conclusions through engagement with alternative viewpoints. It's the only way to make them stronger. One person cannot know it all. Michaux must have thought so too in order to have had the discussion with Nafeez. A great starting point. Together we can reach a more complete understanding. With love. x
6th mass extinction has begon it could speed up in a new York minute. Nothing survives we just don't have a clue mother earth can wipe the cancer out at any given time.that cancer is humans
Energy losses from Greece to Scotland is pretty high. But of course you are not actually transferring electricity that long, but have neaerst local demands satified and then you transfer the electricity from plants that are nearer to the destination and so on. Like, from Greece to Germany, Germany to Belgia, Belgia to Scotland... In this way system balances itself over large distances. Also Scotland should have wave power, tidal power, solar, wind (expanding from Iceland to Northern sea plus land), geothermal, ... Plus many storaging alternatives from water to sand, salt, some potential energy storages (weight lifting), some hydrogen (produced when there is excessive amounts of energy), and so on. No expensive batteries needed.
All amazing until the end. There’s no possible ‘circular economy’ with a population of >8bn people. Our only options are variations on ‘what is the best way for the population to decrease?’
Well there isn’t a cure. The only way would’ve been in the 70s when MIT did a study that predicted exactly what’s happening now. Limit how many children have, discourage materialism, focus on repairing/updating goods as opposed to discarding and buying new, give people a ‘carbon passport’ which limits luxuries such as flights, how much meat to consume etc. Unfortunately that would never have happened. Any politician who would suggest any of these potential solutions would not have been voted in. There weren’t enough people aware about climate change at the time, mainly due to disinformation campaigns from oil companies. At this point, save a mass culling of the human race, any changes we make are too little too late. Edit: 1972 MIT study, The Limits to Growth
@@SamWilkinsonn i was ZPG or NPG as teen (fun kid) when we hit 6b 2b more souls now and nothing structurally much degraded to such a scale. Societies weaker in West but that is elites decision not true ' brass tacks ' hope not too late for a family for me. Club for Rome doesnt know when to stop. They used Climate Doom, I posit essentially false fear, to get the better educsted and self sacrificing to avoid kids at highest rate. Selfish ignorant indifferent kept doing as pleased for most part. Pakistani women produce sons, not going to Tuscany. Nothing appears to be getting worse. No more Live Aid Concerts for food relief to Africa. Melting ice is the ace up sleeve. Lubricates the forcing
An interesting conversation, thank you. It got me thinking... where are there potential risks with an interconnected global grid? We have such fractured politics. Could such a grid be weaponised? Might withdrawal of power be used as a weapon by regions with high levels of surplus against those with less? While we are saying here that the power would be produced locally in communities, there would still need to be a grid connecting it that would need to be maintained and managed. How would this be funded and controlled? Might this be another avenue for oligarchal control under the guise of efficient management of the system? How do we keep a check on the allocation of resource and political power over it? How transparent can it be, and how do we avoid gamefication? I do wonder if some countries might exploit others. Left to the markets, we've already seen a few colonial-sounding schemes popping up that aim to deliver power from the deserts of Africa, where energy supplies to locals are limited, to Europe that already has more energy than the place it is coming from. How do we ensure the total supply is shared fairly - and what does fair look like? How do we determine what is surplus and what isn't? Who determines it? A bunch of rich people in the global north? What about Jevons Paradox? This paradox tells us that if we build out the capacity to provide a surplus, we will soon find ways to use it all up, doing thing we find perfectly valid and valuable at the time, but it means we lose the advantage of not needing so many batteries - or we'll need to expand the fleet of panels and turbines further to rebuild it. Or stop doing stuff (which is often deeply unpopular). As it seems to be a collective human trait, how do we prevent this from happening in a way that people will accept? Is it a cap on surplus use, or multiple caps for different purposes? We're going to need a lot of panels and turbines to fulfil all of those objectives, while eliminating fossil fuels like coking coal from the production process at the same time. We can use hydrogen potentially for steel, but this has its own problems, most notably the lack of renewable surplus to produce it at the moment and leakage risks. Lower coking coal = lower efficiency with current solar tech. Alternatives haven't come close to market yet. What is the energy, materials and carbon footprint likely to be for phase 1 if we build it out 5 times so we can supply basic needs + plus transition + surplus sharing + spare capacity to reduce storage requirements? How much spare capacity is needed to hit the 90% battery reduction figure? I liked the positive story Nafeez tells. We must also find effective ways to disincentivise exploitation of the system and ground it within planetary limits, bearing in mind how all the incentives and misincentives are laid out before us, so it can stay a positive story. It feels like we'll need to build an alternative politics or it won't work as we'd like it to. The stewardship element reminds me of the Ella Saltmarsh episode that I liked. I agree that finding ways to get the stewardship message out with good stories could be one way to help the needed politics to emerge.
Minute mark 31:00: Ahmed: “tar sands: costs have gone up, returns have gone down, companies have had to borrow excessively to keep business going, and it’s turning into a total mess inside the tar sands industry”. Reality: Canadian oil sands is more efficient today after mergers/acquisitions and remodeling business to operate in a low oil price environment over the last 10 years. Companies have been buying back stock at an unheard of rate (hundreds of millions of dollars each month) due to ungodly profits at $80 WTI. Balance sheets are in such phenomenal shape that many Canadian oil sands companies are now returning 100% of free cash flow to shareholders. Nafeez Ahmed is not living in reality. He’s just saying what the listener want to hear. The oil industry is in the best final shape it has ever been in the history of time. That is the real challenge. How can things be expected to change when these companies are making such great profits since oil supplies are dwindling leading to excessively high oil prices?
Hey you guys will know this answer but can anyone tell me the name of an environmental film/doc from the 90’s that begins with the narrator sitting in a drive through saying to himself that he never thought that this is how it would end for him as he watched from the inside of the car a mushroom cloud forming in front of him. The doc was made by this individual that made his own music score that played throughout the movie that was just an electric guitar sounding a lot like Slint. That was the best environmental doc I’ve ever seen. It leaves you convinced that we are screwed and with no hope of changing things in time. This fellow above was in Obsolete I believe. Another environmental doc created around the same time. Can anyone tell Me the name of that doc with the bomb in the beginning? I’ve been trying to remember the name of that for a few years now.
I am largely in agreement with Nafeez. My, one issue so far is: Regarding comments at, roughly the 38 minute mark. I really disagree that animal protean cloning, or whatever you want to call it, is a seriously viable solution. Its ability to scale is severely limited, and its drawbacks are huge. Maybe, one day the technology will get there, and that is fine. But, I expect that is decades and decades away. The bioreactors are like pharmaceutical and beer makers on steroids. The chemical inputs needed are expensive, with no sign of improvement, there is energy and space demands, and toxic cellular waste that has to be handled by artificial livers -You know, the thing animals are born with. The end product is 100 times more expensive than the natural product. It creates slurry, that if you are to somehow modify to better replicate the animal product, will again cost more. It is, at best an expensive alternative for people who want meat, but do not want to slaughter an animal. I respect that, part. But, the notion that this is a practical solution for things like replacing the entire meant industry, I seriously doubt it. Is it going to free land? Probably not, and again this reveals a serious misunderstanding of the way animals and land work. 80% of the arable land in North America is only really suitable as grasslands. And takes serious intervention to turn into high yield farm land. Which in turn, makes that land non arable, over time. However, letting ruminating animals do there thing, is a regenerative system. It promotes a healthy ecosystem, with a rich biodiverse soil, that can sequester, minimally the carbon the animals produce, retain more water - instead of generate waste water run off and pull water reserves. All while growing healthier animals that in turn make healthier humans. Humans, that are properly nourished to face hard challenges. Instead of being burdened, will the diseases of industrial processed foods. It is a mistake to think that removing animals from the food production is the answer. Ending, concentrated industrial production, using mono-crops, absolutely needs to stop. But, it you put ruminating animals back out on the land in mass, they will not just take care of themselves, they will help us fight our greater climate and health challenges. Ruminating animals, are natures terraforming machines. Lets, use them properly. At Roughly the 48 minute mark, Nafeez is talking about the ways to optimize the system and address the buffer. I am curious as to how viable geo-thermal options are. There was a study and pilot case of using exhausted oil wells for geo-thermal energy storage. Essentially, the idea would be, use cheap clean energy to heat water and store in an exhausted oil well. Cap the well, and add a heat pump, to draw the energy out. The case study, showed very promising results for the wells ability to store geo-thermal energy for long periods of time, and can draw decent amounts of energy back out. Naturally, this would only work where there are appropriate wells and other underground equivalents. But, there are many such sites it places all over the world. Not by itself the game changer, of course. But another arrow in the quill, so to speak. All in all. Great interview. I enjoyed it, thank you.
Great interview and great talk guys. This is the most important conversation we can be having: what is the next system, civilization going to be and how will we all bring it about. I’ve got a lot of thoughts on this myself. Not very cheerful though. But realistic and viable.
What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods, like automobiles, since Sputnik? Economists do not talk about NDP, Net Domestic Product. The depreciation in that equation is for Capital Goods only. The Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between capital goods and durable consumer goods. Economists treat all consumer goods the same. Can they tell a banana from an air conditioner?
Economics is a total scam as a "science" - Professor Jeremy Walker's recent book is an excellent expose on economics. More Heat than Life: the Tangled Roots of Ecology, Energy and Economics 21 Jul 2020I-379 (386 pages)Palgrave Macmillian He is largely reiterating Hazel Henderson's classic economics criticism book, "Politics of the Solar Age." He doesn't cite Henderson and her book was published by a small press. So her book was from the 1980s. hahahaha.
Also one thing to consider... Change our holidays to wintertime. In summer we have loads of energy from the sun, so we have loads of excessive energy. Using this and using less during winter is just a wise choice.
Limits to growth is playing out exactly. The crisis began about 2020, since then it’s been increasingly evident that the system is in real trouble. The rest of the 2020’s will see the pattern become undeniable. My view is the 2030’s will be grim, that’s when the decline really will set in. It’ll be rapid and unevenly distributed, but things could get ugly quickly by 2040 ish, then all bets are off…four horsemen territory. So, we have about 15 years left approximately. Approximately!
We spend an awful lot of time talking about 'fixing the system' as if a clearly articulated enough vision of the future will galvanise people to be better and give up their sinful ways, but until we start talking about 'breaking the system' there will never be the necessity for us to really use our imaginations, and accept the sacrifices needed for a truely new world to emerge.
My God Rachel!! at 10:15 "How do we change a system when the people with their hands on the levers also have their heads up there ar$es? This needs a youtube short/tiktok or meme/gig (I'd be happy to make a gif for you if you give me permission). This is kinda THE question. Well done on all you do. I'm only a recent viewer, but I've known Nafeez for 20+ years. Thanks and please keep going!
@@PlanetCritical - Done... I've taken the 10 seconds, added subtitles, made a gif and a small mkv. Want me to just publish a link here? As it's your content, I'd like you to be in charge of where it goes...
Why bother changing the system? Just make your own system that runs in parallel to the existing one that's rotting and decaying. Prove to everyone else that yours is still working fine when others are collapsing. By then you've to be ready for violence since the authority will see you as an existential threat to their power
From a political standpoint, which is probably the most important aspect, at a minimum humanity has to cede power to a global entity, such as a beefed up UN that actually has power over economics, trade and taxation. (The same could be said for other global organizations like the World Bank, IMF, ...) Then a global carbon tax. Anyone talking about lowering emissions, and especially about carbon capture, MUST include carbon taxes or they might as well be discussing rainbows & unicorns.
Yes. What we really need is smart enough people that will calculate how we embed the whole natural systems and harm that we do to it, in to our economy. And then we need actors that force that change. There is lot of talks about it, but really no real examples how we could do this. Most of our current problems with nature is related to this issue. This task could also be so large, that we simply does not have enough tiem to do it, before our current nature destroying system ends us all.
Separated from natural world. Yeah, look behind you, is there anything living in that room? Or appartment? Or building? Or street? Or even in the entire city you are living in? Even our growing fields are forced under one specie, so these fields are also death zones for all other species. We like our death zones. And that's what we are doing to the remaining nature too.
I can't say but, BS. All the good things we have done with... Nothing compares to what we have done to all ecosystems on this planet. 10 000 years ago we were less than 1% of the mass of mammals, now we with our livestock and pets are 99% of the mammals. Huge difference and huge devastation on all other species. More than half of the insects have died due to our actions. And the list goes on. We can and should do much better. But historically we are not doing these things. We love dead things too. We are talking over a dead system. We live inside a dead system (look around you and open your eyes). We are a death cult for most living things on this planet. We have an option for change and we have some individuals that are doing that chance. But in large, in next 30 years, we have to alter everything to even survive in a very hostile world we have created.
The ongoing war in Gaza is a sign of a fatigue in the social system of that nation - being dependant on oil tankers arrive and unload their massive cargos by the day - or everything comes to a grinding halt. Are oil tankers required to unload their cargo only in Israel, or China, the US, Europe, Asia and others, too? Depopulating children, young men and women to cap the consumption of fossil fuels in a nation - by the agency of war, civil war or other manufactured atrocities - is no other than a people-recycling process - an effect of the-peak-oil-musical-chairs™-calculator . Nafeez Ahmed says 20 years, blah blah - BAU - while the breakdown in the core of the fossil fuels age - is already here - strong. The Magna Carta requires now overhauling - adding to it the right for humans to understand what Energy really is; "In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
Agreed. Musk wants to have Robotaxis and FSD to reduce the need for everyone to own a car. He is also reducing emissions in freight via e-Semis. That all seems sane and reasonable to me. We do need more e-trains and e-buses. BYD is making e-buses.
Hi, dear host of THIS episode of PC, please consider placing your camera just a wee bit further back from your face and head 🗣️. It's just not 🚫 working great especially on the larger flat screens with you so close to the camera 📸 📽️🎥. Otherwise, strong work. Cheers 💐🥂 Luck ☘️ Peace 🕊️ Gaia ♾️✨🪄☯️🌞🔵🌌🚀
Nafeez is correct that countries need to share excess energy via a world-wide grid. I know currently Africa will be selling electric energy to the UK and India will be selling electric energy to African countries. I believe this exchange will be via underground cables under the Oceans but I forget the details.
How come these smart experts never ever speak of Population? The Acceleration of Population. Which always most often leads to Collapse. Instead a lot of panic, fear and in the end always hopium. This circle is perfect to feel good for now... Drink COffee and Zoom!
Very interesting discussion, thanks Rachel. You facilitate these conversations extremely well- asking for expansion, clarification and justification at exactly the right times, but allow your guests the space to talk. Great journalistic instincts!
I thought I would hate Nafeez Ahmed based on his debate but I don't as his enthusiasm is contagious. That said he come off as a dreamer that is off by total orders of magnitude of what is possible. Given the lag time in industry and building capital projects and the deteriorating world we can envision the world in 10-30 years.
Unfortunately, it seems we are low on politicians that would bother addressing concerns of the average person, or the planet. All about money and power /:
The time is now to make peace with mother nature. We must begin the grieving process like mature adults & end this hopium nonsense!
Thanks Rachel!
Those finance dudes Nafeez was discussing climate outcomes to that were so shocked, they would have gone back to their desks and the extractivist paradigm they inhabit and forgotten those discussions in a few days. It's too inconvenient to their comfortable lives to leave the denial zone.
There are many channels that interview leading thinkers with many of the same names appearing but this remains, for me, the most accessible one. There is a flow, a warmth and a desire to understand that (usually!) draws me in and keep watching to the end. Except it isn't the end because I always end up turning it over in my mind and asking myself questions about it. There was a moment when you referred to Ian Edwards' idea of using pension funds to (for example) buy up an oil company and it occurred to me that this doesn't often happen - that other interviewees' ideas and visions are referenced. Perhaps this is deliberate but I wondered if it might also help us make sense of all these different viewpoints and bring them together to form a sort of whole. There would be tensions as well as synergies but this how the world works. Each one has a great perspective on the landscape but we never get the arial view! The one-to-one format is to my mind the best way to compare alternative perspectives being the least confrontational format. I also wonder how much interviewees are aware of these other perspectives. The best interviews are when everyone comes away with something to think about!
You can't eat money! Drought is spreading fast. Thursday, October 12, 2023
Amid worsening drought conditions in Alabama, farmers in the state now have access to vital resources to help combat the challenges they are facing.
In the past several weeks, the lack of rain has accelerated conditions in the central and southern parts of the state.
Hassey Brooks, deputy commissioner of the Alabama Department of Agriculture, said it is getting harder for farmers to produce and prepare for the rest of the year.
"This does put a strain on our producers, particularly our cattle producers who are looking to plant, winter grazing," Brooks explained. "The late drought has impacted the cotton crop for the most part across the state and our soybean crops."
Efforts are being made in Alabama to mitigate the effects of the drought. Five counties in the state have been declared secretarial disaster counties by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Can't imagine how it must feel to have the bedrock of your lives crumbling away. The causes of this are largely global and as a world we must wake up to the need to share resources and support each other in times of need. Where we live is a matter of chance and it won't do for those of us who happen to be currently better off to pocket our luck and shut the doors on the rest of world.
@@richardbergson1047 Of course - I worked for half a dozen nonprofits - mainly environmental and I donated to Earth First! - was listed as a contact in their newspaper - and then I ate out of dumpsters for ten years while I rode a British 3 speed internal hub bicycle. hahahaha. So I can relate to the underclass of the world for sure. I have lived off donations - going door to door or even on the interwebs. I also got arrested eight times doing activism and got some policy changes done.
Some places have issues with too much water while some other places severely lack water. The root cause isn't about availability, but it has everything to do with logistics..
@@mohd.saifullahmajid6029 You must not have read my University op-ed from 24 years ago. I'll post it for you. April, 2000 MN Daily staff op-ed, drew hempel
The Great Lakes will be at record lows because of lack of snow that feeds 40 percent of their annual water supply. This disturbing situation has been attributed to global warming, and according to the United Nations, the influence of major transnational corporations extends over about 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. What's received less attention is that large corporations are also attempting to raid the Great Lakes. One government agency already gave permission for 600 million liters of Great Lakes water to be filled into tankers and sent to Asia over the next five years. A temporary moratorium was achieved, but the move to conserve water will be brought to the World Trade Organization as a violation of the supposed rights of corporate rule.
Through Reaganite corporate-state subsidies, California ironically has become the new dairy state at the expense of rural Wisconsin family livelihood -- including their future ability to drink water. California recently attempted to pipe water from Wisconsin. According to the Worldwatch Institute, agriculture accounts for two-thirds of all irrigated fresh water use while industrial production in general accounts for 50 to 80 percent of fresh water demand. But it's not just corporate-state water use in California; it's also the corporate pollution of water. Silicon "computer" Valley has more Superfund sites -- most of them affecting groundwater -- than any other area its size in the country. And 60 percent of the United States' liquid hazardous wastes -- 34 billion liters of solvents, heavy metals and radioactive materials -- is directly injected into the ground, the main source for fresh water.
In 1996, the journal Science reported that the global supply of fresh water will be used up in 30 years at current usage rates. According to the Stanford researchers who authored the study, there is no "hidden water," and current foreseeable technologies, like desalinization, were factored into their findings. But greed-driven corporations are tapping into that grim projection to maximize profits for their own pea-brained drive to extinction. In just a few short years, through more than 130 acquisitions, American Toxic Control has been transformed into U.S. Filter Inc., with $5 billion in annual revenues, making it 10 times the size of its nearest competitor.
As controller at U.S. Filter, Richard Heckmann states, "How could it be that there is no Intel, I.B.M., General Motors or Toys 'R' Us in the water business?" he asked. "You can live without all those things. Five days without water, you're dead." Apparently Dan Quayle agrees since he sits on the U.S. Filter Inc. board, joined by the Bass brother finance speculators who threw in a cool, refreshing $250 million. The time is right to create a giant corporation that transforms the public right to water into a scarce luxury item for those privy to the secret magic of money. Based on a 1998 water study by Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, "To avoid catastrophe ... it is important to act now."
Our clear answer to the water crisis, according to the scientific researchers, can be summed up in one word: conservation.
Secret global corporate rule, though, blocks environmental issues, labeling them barriers to corporate WTO trade. U.S. corporate-state rule has been consistent in its priorities ever since the founding aristocrats, like John Jay, planned to keep the rich in power against the threat of democracy. George Kennan, as head of the State Department, authored a top-secret document that reflects these elite goals on a global scale: "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We should cease to talk about vague and -- for the Far East -- unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization ... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." Similarly, now declassified U.S. National Security Council documents clearly outline policies to support destructive regimes in order to maintain wealth for the corporate-state elite. In fact, after World War II, the U.S. corporate-state elite attacked democracy movements worldwide and reinstated fascist regimes, brutally promoting power to a few.
There's an interesting hidden history to undemocratic, destructive corporate rule. Did colonists plead for a more "socially responsible" king? The colonists demanded their inalienable, natural right to sovereignty. The king, though, was the only sovereign of the land and the king was also the only source of corporate charters. Most of the 13 colonies were actually crown charters (i.e. the Massachusetts Bay Trading Company). The list of grievances attached to the Declaration of Independence stemmed from the corporate rule of the king.
After democracy was achieved, corporate charters were deliberately put into the hands of the state legislatures, were issued for only special purposes and had extremely limited powers. Corporate charters were routinely revoked and the corporate assets reinvested by the public. President Lincoln warned, though, shortly after the Civil War, that the growing threat of corporate rule was worse than the war and would, unless stopped, destroy the republic. Just as he predicted in 1886, a bought-out robber-baron judge declared that corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights and have legal "personhood" -- thus subverting our democracy. That same year 230 state laws controlling corporations were overturned in district courts. Between 1890 and 1910, 307 cases went to the Supreme Court based on the anti-slavery 14th Amendment. But only 19 cases were from African-Americans, while 288 were corporations seeking their new constitutional personhood "right to due process."
The Bill of Rights ironically continues to be the main vehicle for destructive undemocratic corporate rule. Most state constitutions still require the attorney general to revoke the charter of any corporation that continuously violates the public good. With the knowledge of this hidden history exposed, in the last few years the public has rescinded two corporate charters. The global sovereignty movement grows increasingly thirsty for democratic revolution. The future of water depends on declaring independence from corporate rule.
Yes, the situation of human industrial civilization on Earth IS very much critical. Sadly, most of the attention is going to the LEAST dangerous aspect of it - increasing CO2.
The CRITICAL parts are population and greed, i.e. how many humans we need to provide resources for, and what level of resources go to each individual. Currently, there is no plan to even attempt to handle either problem.
Without very serious efforts in both these areas, global warfare born of corruption will eat away at our remaining time before total global economic collapse - in which "money" becomes meaningless and energy is only available to those with military might.
I think your observation is correct. This system runs on fear. Fear of failure at school, at work. Fear of death. The venus project sounds like the best possible future for average humans, not for the supersuccessfull business boys and girls
❤
This sounds realistic. But I'd put "energy and resources" and "military might and economic wealth" in the final sentence.
Apparently 15 trillion dollars found its way to the 1% during the pandemic. Yet according to data from our world and data countries outside the purview of pfizerland did better. So West money well spent?
The last time someone tried to micromanage resource allocations to that level led to millions starved to death. Holodomor in Soviet Union during 1920s and Great Leap Forward in China during 1950s
These back of the napkin conversations are fun.
Totally ignoring present reality, human nature, the complexity of economics, power, greed, politics, etc, can allow the painting of pretty nice pictures for the future, seeds for further thought. Hope.
100% would love to hear from Ugo again 👍
Why are we filling the sky with aluminium? Cutting down trees? Spraying poisons?
There is a profit in it for those doing it, and most of the costs can be externalised to others. Usually those with less power and influence, or the activity would be stopped by their peers. This is essentially the framework of the incentive scheme that has facilitated the growth of our system.
heard an interview with him and Dr Micheaux, and Nafeez Ahmed had no clue what he was talking about..
I have concerns about Micheaux's work as it stands (which has not survived well under peer review). He is a charismatic character and it seems like he wants to challenge the consensus to inject some much-needed realism. It is a reasonable goal and he has some great ideas for it. There are undoubtedly limits in a finite system that we cannot ignore. However, his work has been latched onto by the fossil fuel lobby who see it as another way to sow doubt and slow down the move away from fossil fuels towards renewables, and he seems to have courted the attention with his framing. Those promoting it in bad faith realise that most people won't bother reading the paper. All they really want is for the party to keep going and for renewables to go away until they've run out of all the fossil fuels. Sadly, this is not compatible with the climate that 8bn humans need to live in.
Michaux is correct to raise concern about depletion of resources under the current paradigm, but his broad-brush back-of-beermat calculations definitely need more work. I can't work from his projections. His paper is far too narrow in scope currently. In all fairness, it seems like a good starting point. But, he really needs to work with more people to improve the quality on the detail, and to keep developing it as the landscape changes. It doesn't work for my sector at the moment as it is far too simplistic and not reflective of the real world as I find it. Nevertheless, it is still a fantastic piece of work for one person to put together. What do you think when you read it? Here is the paper:
www.gtk.fi/en/current/a-bottom-up-insight-reveals-replacing-fossil-fuels-is-even-more-enormous-task-than-thought/
tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf.
If we look at human history, and biological organisms in general, when we run out of one resource we normally move onto the next best thing, or stop doing the activity that needed it. This behaviour seems likely to continue. Likewise, when fossil fuels are no longer used, at least 20% of our current global primary energy requirements will no longer be needed as we move to more efficient electric tech (around 70% of the energy in an ICE vehicle is wasted in heat and noise, whereas loss is significantly lower for EVs). The 10-15% of primary energy going towards FF exploration, production and transportation systems can instead be redirected towards building and refurbishing renewable tech. This is broadly in line with the average of their EROEIs if we look at new tech rather than old tech. This should offset some of the energy reduction Michaux expects as we transition.
Michaux makes a number of broad assumptions without adequate justification or qualification around needed battery capacity and choice of battery for each application. He seems to forget we can connect cables together and batteries won't necessarily be needed for everything fossil fuels currently do. With them we can connect towns, countries and contintents so that intermittency can be managed through live redistribution of surplus without the need to store it all to redistribute it. There are limits and losses involved in this, but it is already established practice happening today and we can continue to improve it as we go. The wind can slow for periods of time in one location while increasing in another. It is always blowing somewhere. The flipside to this is that such tech tends to be sited in the best spots first, so we can expect dimishing returns beyond a certain point, the same as for any other tech. A plateau will be reached, so planetary limits must be acknowledged in the design.
-Winter only affects one side of the planet at a time (which we connect together with HVAC).
-E vehicles can double up as grid storage when they are not in use, unlike ICE vehicles which can't share their fuel as easily.
-Trains can use overhead lines and/or conductor rails to draw power and return power when braking. They don't need batteries.
- There is nothing in the report to account for the removal of all activities associated with fossil fuel production.
These will all reduce the battery and mining requirements relative to that shown in Michaux's paper. The devil is in the detail
Battery tech is moving fast, and the assumptions made in the paper are already falling down in some areas. We won't stick with hard to acquire resources like lithium and cobalt when there are alternatives that use much more abundant materials as their source, like iron or salt. Less abundant materials will be quickly outpriced by cheaper alternatives. There are already hundreds of other options being explored, many of which look more sustainable and efficient than those presently on the market.
These are good-faith criticisms because I'd like to see Michaux improve upon his work. He did a great job building a framework, but the knowledge gaps are letting his model down and the sums need to add up for a bottom-up output to be credible. The assumptions for the calculations and the weakness of the base data may have resulted in an overly pessimistic final output. This seems to be impacting the way Michaux is framing the issue, even though the assumptions seem to have come from him based on some patchy data he could piece together, rather than from relevant specialists with accurate up-to-date data. While he seems to be on the ball in some areas, there seems to me a bigger picture out there that Michaux needs to take on board to complete his assessment.
If assumptions are made in good faith, they should be open to change following new information. We should always challenge our own assumptions and conclusions through engagement with alternative viewpoints. It's the only way to make them stronger. One person cannot know it all. Michaux must have thought so too in order to have had the discussion with Nafeez. A great starting point. Together we can reach a more complete understanding. With love. x
I heard that one too. As with this interview he just says a bunch of totally vague, nonspecific things that don't gel with reality.
ua-cam.com/video/2-Ga3UNp3vE/v-deo.html
6th mass extinction has begon it could speed up in a new York minute. Nothing survives we just don't have a clue mother earth can wipe the cancer out at any given time.that cancer is humans
why not just go to his website to read his published articles? Nafeez Ahmed has been doing awesome research for a long time - ten years?
Energy losses from Greece to Scotland is pretty high. But of course you are not actually transferring electricity that long, but have neaerst local demands satified and then you transfer the electricity from plants that are nearer to the destination and so on. Like, from Greece to Germany, Germany to Belgia, Belgia to Scotland... In this way system balances itself over large distances.
Also Scotland should have wave power, tidal power, solar, wind (expanding from Iceland to Northern sea plus land), geothermal, ... Plus many storaging alternatives from water to sand, salt, some potential energy storages (weight lifting), some hydrogen (produced when there is excessive amounts of energy), and so on. No expensive batteries needed.
Thanks for adding this info 😊 I kept wondering about transmission losses while listening the ideas.
All amazing until the end. There’s no possible ‘circular economy’ with a population of >8bn people. Our only options are variations on ‘what is the best way for the population to decrease?’
What are your top ways?
Well there isn’t a cure. The only way would’ve been in the 70s when MIT did a study that predicted exactly what’s happening now. Limit how many children have, discourage materialism, focus on repairing/updating goods as opposed to discarding and buying new, give people a ‘carbon passport’ which limits luxuries such as flights, how much meat to consume etc.
Unfortunately that would never have happened. Any politician who would suggest any of these potential solutions would not have been voted in. There weren’t enough people aware about climate change at the time, mainly due to disinformation campaigns from oil companies. At this point, save a mass culling of the human race, any changes we make are too little too late.
Edit: 1972 MIT study, The Limits to Growth
@@SamWilkinsonn i was ZPG or NPG as teen (fun kid) when we hit 6b
2b more souls now and nothing structurally much degraded to such a scale. Societies weaker in West but that is elites decision not true ' brass tacks ' hope not too late for a family for me.
Club for Rome doesnt know when to stop. They used Climate Doom, I posit essentially false fear, to get the better educsted and self sacrificing to avoid kids at highest rate.
Selfish ignorant indifferent kept doing as pleased for most part. Pakistani women produce sons, not going to Tuscany.
Nothing appears to be getting worse. No more Live Aid Concerts for food relief to Africa. Melting ice is the ace up sleeve. Lubricates the forcing
An interesting conversation, thank you.
It got me thinking... where are there potential risks with an interconnected global grid? We have such fractured politics. Could such a grid be weaponised? Might withdrawal of power be used as a weapon by regions with high levels of surplus against those with less? While we are saying here that the power would be produced locally in communities, there would still need to be a grid connecting it that would need to be maintained and managed. How would this be funded and controlled? Might this be another avenue for oligarchal control under the guise of efficient management of the system? How do we keep a check on the allocation of resource and political power over it? How transparent can it be, and how do we avoid gamefication?
I do wonder if some countries might exploit others. Left to the markets, we've already seen a few colonial-sounding schemes popping up that aim to deliver power from the deserts of Africa, where energy supplies to locals are limited, to Europe that already has more energy than the place it is coming from. How do we ensure the total supply is shared fairly - and what does fair look like? How do we determine what is surplus and what isn't? Who determines it? A bunch of rich people in the global north?
What about Jevons Paradox? This paradox tells us that if we build out the capacity to provide a surplus, we will soon find ways to use it all up, doing thing we find perfectly valid and valuable at the time, but it means we lose the advantage of not needing so many batteries - or we'll need to expand the fleet of panels and turbines further to rebuild it. Or stop doing stuff (which is often deeply unpopular). As it seems to be a collective human trait, how do we prevent this from happening in a way that people will accept? Is it a cap on surplus use, or multiple caps for different purposes?
We're going to need a lot of panels and turbines to fulfil all of those objectives, while eliminating fossil fuels like coking coal from the production process at the same time. We can use hydrogen potentially for steel, but this has its own problems, most notably the lack of renewable surplus to produce it at the moment and leakage risks. Lower coking coal = lower efficiency with current solar tech. Alternatives haven't come close to market yet. What is the energy, materials and carbon footprint likely to be for phase 1 if we build it out 5 times so we can supply basic needs + plus transition + surplus sharing + spare capacity to reduce storage requirements? How much spare capacity is needed to hit the 90% battery reduction figure?
I liked the positive story Nafeez tells. We must also find effective ways to disincentivise exploitation of the system and ground it within planetary limits, bearing in mind how all the incentives and misincentives are laid out before us, so it can stay a positive story. It feels like we'll need to build an alternative politics or it won't work as we'd like it to. The stewardship element reminds me of the Ella Saltmarsh episode that I liked. I agree that finding ways to get the stewardship message out with good stories could be one way to help the needed politics to emerge.
Rachel, I concur, addressing fears of stranded assets is key. Thank you for this content.
Minute mark 31:00:
Ahmed: “tar sands: costs have gone up, returns have gone down, companies have had to borrow excessively to keep business going, and it’s turning into a total mess inside the tar sands industry”.
Reality: Canadian oil sands is more efficient today after mergers/acquisitions and remodeling business to operate in a low oil price environment over the last 10 years. Companies have been buying back stock at an unheard of rate (hundreds of millions of dollars each month) due to ungodly profits at $80 WTI. Balance sheets are in such phenomenal shape that many Canadian oil sands companies are now returning 100% of free cash flow to shareholders.
Nafeez Ahmed is not living in reality. He’s just saying what the listener want to hear. The oil industry is in the best final shape it has ever been in the history of time. That is the real challenge. How can things be expected to change when these companies are making such great profits since oil supplies are dwindling leading to excessively high oil prices?
if the subsidies to oil got stopped that would be a good first step.
What about the refining facility? Different crude type, different refining process. Retooling existing refineries is very very very expensive
Hey you guys will know this answer but can anyone tell me the name of an environmental film/doc from the 90’s that begins with the narrator sitting in a drive through saying to himself that he never thought that this is how it would end for him as he watched from the inside of the car a mushroom cloud forming in front of him. The doc was made by this individual that made his own music score that played throughout the movie that was just an electric guitar sounding a lot like Slint. That was the best environmental doc I’ve ever seen. It leaves you convinced that we are screwed and with no hope of changing things in time. This fellow above was in Obsolete I believe. Another environmental doc created around the same time. Can anyone tell
Me the name of that doc with the bomb in the beginning? I’ve been trying to remember the name of that for a few years now.
I am largely in agreement with Nafeez. My, one issue so far is:
Regarding comments at, roughly the 38 minute mark. I really disagree that animal protean cloning, or whatever you want to call it, is a seriously viable solution. Its ability to scale is severely limited, and its drawbacks are huge. Maybe, one day the technology will get there, and that is fine. But, I expect that is decades and decades away. The bioreactors are like pharmaceutical and beer makers on steroids. The chemical inputs needed are expensive, with no sign of improvement, there is energy and space demands, and toxic cellular waste that has to be handled by artificial livers -You know, the thing animals are born with. The end product is 100 times more expensive than the natural product. It creates slurry, that if you are to somehow modify to better replicate the animal product, will again cost more. It is, at best an expensive alternative for people who want meat, but do not want to slaughter an animal.
I respect that, part. But, the notion that this is a practical solution for things like replacing the entire meant industry, I seriously doubt it. Is it going to free land? Probably not, and again this reveals a serious misunderstanding of the way animals and land work. 80% of the arable land in North America is only really suitable as grasslands. And takes serious intervention to turn into high yield farm land. Which in turn, makes that land non arable, over time. However, letting ruminating animals do there thing, is a regenerative system. It promotes a healthy ecosystem, with a rich biodiverse soil, that can sequester, minimally the carbon the animals produce, retain more water - instead of generate waste water run off and pull water reserves. All while growing healthier animals that in turn make healthier humans.
Humans, that are properly nourished to face hard challenges. Instead of being burdened, will the diseases of industrial processed foods. It is a mistake to think that removing animals from the food production is the answer. Ending, concentrated industrial production, using mono-crops, absolutely needs to stop. But, it you put ruminating animals back out on the land in mass, they will not just take care of themselves, they will help us fight our greater climate and health challenges. Ruminating animals, are natures terraforming machines. Lets, use them properly.
At Roughly the 48 minute mark, Nafeez is talking about the ways to optimize the system and address the buffer. I am curious as to how viable geo-thermal options are. There was a study and pilot case of using exhausted oil wells for geo-thermal energy storage. Essentially, the idea would be, use cheap clean energy to heat water and store in an exhausted oil well. Cap the well, and add a heat pump, to draw the energy out. The case study, showed very promising results for the wells ability to store geo-thermal energy for long periods of time, and can draw decent amounts of energy back out. Naturally, this would only work where there are appropriate wells and other underground equivalents. But, there are many such sites it places all over the world. Not by itself the game changer, of course. But another arrow in the quill, so to speak.
All in all. Great interview. I enjoyed it, thank you.
Regenerative farming is the way to go. That and decentralised energy grid
Great interview and great talk guys. This is the most important conversation we can be having: what is the next system, civilization going to be and how will we all bring it about. I’ve got a lot of thoughts on this myself. Not very cheerful though. But realistic and viable.
What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods, like automobiles, since Sputnik?
Economists do not talk about NDP, Net Domestic Product. The depreciation in that equation is for Capital Goods only. The Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between capital goods and durable consumer goods. Economists treat all consumer goods the same. Can they tell a banana from an air conditioner?
Not when the banana is in their ear.
Economics is a total scam as a "science" - Professor Jeremy Walker's recent book is an excellent expose on economics. More Heat than Life: the Tangled Roots of Ecology, Energy and Economics
21 Jul 2020I-379 (386 pages)Palgrave Macmillian
He is largely reiterating Hazel Henderson's classic economics criticism book, "Politics of the Solar Age." He doesn't cite Henderson and her book was published by a small press. So her book was from the 1980s. hahahaha.
This is our last decade.
Also one thing to consider... Change our holidays to wintertime. In summer we have loads of energy from the sun, so we have loads of excessive energy. Using this and using less during winter is just a wise choice.
Limits to growth is playing out exactly. The crisis began about 2020, since then it’s been increasingly evident that the system is in real trouble. The rest of the 2020’s will see the pattern become undeniable. My view is the 2030’s will be grim, that’s when the decline really will set in. It’ll be rapid and unevenly distributed, but things could get ugly quickly by 2040 ish, then all bets are off…four horsemen territory. So, we have about 15 years left approximately. Approximately!
We spend an awful lot of time talking about 'fixing the system' as if a clearly articulated enough vision of the future will galvanise people to be better and give up their sinful ways, but until we start talking about 'breaking the system' there will never be the necessity for us to really use our imaginations, and accept the sacrifices needed for a truely new world to emerge.
Can you interview Peter Joseph?
Take out 2C dangerzone? WITH WHAT?
I'd like to see how we could avoid 2C. Or even 3C.
Emissions are still growing. Not declining.
My God Rachel!! at 10:15 "How do we change a system when the people with their hands on the levers also have their heads up there ar$es?
This needs a youtube short/tiktok or meme/gig (I'd be happy to make a gif for you if you give me permission). This is kinda THE question. Well done on all you do. I'm only a recent viewer, but I've known Nafeez for 20+ years. Thanks and please keep going!
Go for it!
@@PlanetCritical - Done... I've taken the 10 seconds, added subtitles, made a gif and a small mkv. Want me to just publish a link here? As it's your content, I'd like you to be in charge of where it goes...
Why bother changing the system? Just make your own system that runs in parallel to the existing one that's rotting and decaying. Prove to everyone else that yours is still working fine when others are collapsing. By then you've to be ready for violence since the authority will see you as an existential threat to their power
From a political standpoint, which is probably the most important aspect, at a minimum humanity has to cede power to a global entity, such as a beefed up UN that actually has power over economics, trade and taxation. (The same could be said for other global organizations like the World Bank, IMF, ...)
Then a global carbon tax.
Anyone talking about lowering emissions, and especially about carbon capture, MUST include carbon taxes or they might as well be discussing rainbows & unicorns.
That's already incorporated in CBDC in the form of carbon quota
Yes. What we really need is smart enough people that will calculate how we embed the whole natural systems and harm that we do to it, in to our economy.
And then we need actors that force that change.
There is lot of talks about it, but really no real examples how we could do this.
Most of our current problems with nature is related to this issue.
This task could also be so large, that we simply does not have enough tiem to do it, before our current nature destroying system ends us all.
Separated from natural world. Yeah, look behind you, is there anything living in that room? Or appartment? Or building? Or street? Or even in the entire city you are living in? Even our growing fields are forced under one specie, so these fields are also death zones for all other species.
We like our death zones.
And that's what we are doing to the remaining nature too.
@microsoftpain4934 "Progressing toward our death."
- Martiansoon
8:00 Not just a new system... A new system built upon a ‘ foundation of limited global resource ‘
I can't say but, BS. All the good things we have done with... Nothing compares to what we have done to all ecosystems on this planet. 10 000 years ago we were less than 1% of the mass of mammals, now we with our livestock and pets are 99% of the mammals. Huge difference and huge devastation on all other species. More than half of the insects have died due to our actions. And the list goes on.
We can and should do much better. But historically we are not doing these things.
We love dead things too. We are talking over a dead system. We live inside a dead system (look around you and open your eyes). We are a death cult for most living things on this planet.
We have an option for change and we have some individuals that are doing that chance. But in large, in next 30 years, we have to alter everything to even survive in a very hostile world we have created.
At Covid crisis, most of the people were caring and so on, but some, like Trump were just making more havoc.
The ongoing war in Gaza is a sign of a fatigue in the social system of that nation - being dependant on oil tankers arrive and unload their massive cargos by the day - or everything comes to a grinding halt.
Are oil tankers required to unload their cargo only in Israel, or China, the US, Europe, Asia and others, too?
Depopulating children, young men and women to cap the consumption of fossil fuels in a nation - by the agency of war, civil war or other manufactured atrocities - is no other than a people-recycling process - an effect of the-peak-oil-musical-chairs™-calculator .
Nafeez Ahmed says 20 years, blah blah - BAU - while the breakdown in the core of the fossil fuels age - is already here - strong.
The Magna Carta requires now overhauling - adding to it the right for humans to understand what Energy really is;
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future" (2017).
I would draw your attention to Dr. Patrick T Brown.
25:56 why do you think "most sane" people should hate on Elon Musk?
Agreed. Musk wants to have Robotaxis and FSD to reduce the need for everyone to own a car. He is also reducing emissions in freight via e-Semis. That all seems sane and reasonable to me. We do need more e-trains and e-buses. BYD is making e-buses.
Hi, dear host of THIS episode of PC, please consider placing your camera just a wee bit further back from your face and head 🗣️. It's just not 🚫 working great especially on the larger flat screens with you so close to the camera 📸 📽️🎥. Otherwise, strong work. Cheers 💐🥂 Luck ☘️ Peace 🕊️ Gaia ♾️✨🪄☯️🌞🔵🌌🚀
The UAE make their own rain they are doing fine.
Nafeez is correct that countries need to share excess energy via a world-wide grid. I know currently Africa will be selling electric energy to the UK and India will be selling electric energy to African countries. I believe this exchange will be via underground cables under the Oceans but I forget the details.
How come these smart experts never ever speak of Population? The Acceleration of Population. Which always most often leads to Collapse.
Instead a lot of panic, fear and in the end always hopium. This circle is perfect to feel good for now... Drink COffee and Zoom!
When will you interview Alex Epstein?
Stewardship has never received the attention it has always deserved.
What a load of nonsense
What part was nonsense?
The part that came out of his mouth.
Go vegan