What do we want?: A plan to dramatically reduce carbon emissions to keep atmospheric concentrations under 335 PPM to prevent run away climate change. When do we want it?: 1975
Inaction costs money, too. Poverty and pollution are costing us increasingly devastating sums while we argue over the cost of taking action. There's much we can do for less than the long term cost of doing nothing.
@@hoodedferret but the poles are included in the calculation of the average. Also, that's interesting chart, but with out context, it doesn't actually tell us anything. What are RCP's? Considering the Y axis is labeled anomalies, this doesn't seem to be talking about the average temperatures. Thanks for sharing though, every little bit helps understanding.
The videos with this host are so boring. The information is there, but I honestly have a hard time getting to the end of the video. She's extremely monotone and imo comes across like she's extremely bored. I guess "robotic" would be a good word to describe it. Everything from the set, props, background, everything really just feels super up-tight. I much prefer the feel of the other segment with Lou. With that said I understand not wanting to have 2 of the same segments. I guess if I could change anything, the delivery of the information would be number 1 and that TV wall background would be number 2 (I find it really distracting). I hope you guys keep up the overall great work.
No, you misunderstood that. If we don't do something against climate change, there will not be enough physical space, food and so on for all humans, we'll fight for it. Hence: a human race!
No, government is *not* the _only_ problem. I don't disagree with the idea that government doesn't solve every problem and even sometimes supports them. They get created by society though. And in a country where Trump gets elected, most of flat earthers live, and with so called christians (not what I, as a christian, understand that term though), one is better off with not letting them decide on their own.
Admin Dragon-Map Yes government is the only problem here, the free market will shift to green energy because the free market the producers and consumers are made up of people and they will do what people want which is to use more renewable forms of energy and production the government is a leech and can only spend others money.
I guess it depends on the carbon emissions a company creates for the production of a good. The higher the emissions, the higher the price of that product will be, so people will tend to buy less expensive ones therefore companies won't make a good profit so they'll need to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But still, almost every price would be higher. In my opinion, there should be a carbon tax in all those countries that produce the most co2, it will benefit everyone(not the oil companies of course).
@@wesalois basically broils down to the conservative party wanting to please their donor base, which consists of corporations. The tax is pretty effective at lowering emissions too,.
Why are we not hitting the streets complaining against every attempt of corporate lobbying? Are we all believing collectively it wouldn't change things?
Well. Pretty much. Yes. In my country this is the big reason why the current political has been in power for 8 years - there is no coherent opposition and the general public thinks that their thought doesn't count and why bother voting when it would change nothing. This is partially why Brexit was voted - a lot of people who would've voted to stay didn't go to vote because why bother. As far as I can see there is a general feeling of learned helplessness and hopelessness.
@@MishaFlower Yes, even if it's not obvious at first. It's more about the awakening of people demanding actual democracy. Even if it doesn't stop any bribe the change in attitude of the people would already be a very big step forward. It's the only way things can change for real. It's how we got the 40 hours a week, social security, unions, etc. Thanks to the socialists and communists before the Red Scare and McCarthyism. And since then things have not changed. Except unions are smaller and less powerful. It's not a coincidence.
The Libertarisn Party would shrink the size of Federal government to a point where the profession of Lobbying becomes obsolete, as politicians would not have the power to do what the lobbyists want them to do.
Too many sound effects and the “rabbit hole” and “that’s another video are unnecessary”. The “that’s more than you probably wanted to know” discredits it. Other than that, I did enjoy the information. Keep it simple.
go read this book it will explain why reach company fight this type of ideas *Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right* *Book by Jane Mayer*
Ok we install solar to every home and poof problems solved right? Well no actually, because you can actually calculate about how much energy such a plan would create, and it’s not enough in fact it’s only about 36%. A great step (depending on how much time it would actually take), but it’s not a full solution.
Where are you going to get the money for any of these ideas. No one has managed to give me a good answer on this. All Ides I have heard like taxing the rich or carbon tax won't raise anywhere near enough money given realistic estimates for these new taxes.
I've said this before... in my state I don't even have the right as a home owner to install solar on my own home without getting permission from my home owners association (which isn't likely to agree to it as no one in my neighborhood has solar installed...)
@@MarcWenningIf the state would pass Access Laws for solar then they couldn't deny it here either but alas we only have easement laws. I'm sure if they ever do pass access laws here then it will have some sort of crony requirement included.
@@victorviereck4117 When a business have to pay more in carbon emission, they will have to increase prices on their products. If poor people want to buy that product, they will have to pay more for the product. A rich person won't be bothered because he is rich, but it will be hard for a poor person.
@@Bill-zp2mt Oh you silly goose. People have already thought of that and the solution was the taxes won't be federal but rather'll get fed back to those same communities
yes but tax carbon affect products coming from far. So if poor people consume local products then it would be fine for them, local product won't have the carbon tax
The issue with AOC's green new deal is throughout the 15 page plan, she identifies issues and then calls for them to be remedied by "clean, renewable, and zero emission energy sources". However, there are currently no clean, renewable, and zero emission energy sources that can be used for large scale integration in the US (at least none that I'm aware of). Also she wants to pull the money for this from the public sector which is concerning.
Either way we will end up paying the price. Carbon tax the companies that pollute and we pay the upcharge for their services. So you might as well keep shifting the tax bracket so we pay more taxes without actually changing the percentage. Like this administration did last year.
@@pedrolima79 Oh haha my apologizes I stumble on too many chauvinistic comments and misread the word "teleprompter" as telecommunicator or some shit idk my break was almost over and I was skimming through comments, forgive me m'lawrd. But my misinterpretation seemed plausible cuz I swear internet anonymity has people commenting their most backwards thoughts, y'feel?
An easy, healthy, cost-effective way to combat climate change is by going vegan to stop supporting one of the most carbon emitting industries. You may think: just changing my own diet won't make a dent! The more vegans there are, the more demand there is for plant-based meats, which enables other people to go vegan even easier.
scur 'wolfpackin or just reduce your meat intake and become a flexitarian - only eat it 2 or 3 days per week. It’s a much easier step for the average person and avoids the unfortunate stigma around veganism
I really hope the united states adopts the green new deal. It will be so cool when 327 million people save the planet for the other 7.53 BILLION people.
Taking climate change seriously != supporting The Green New Deal. I think it would be great if only money was not a problem.. not a single effective way of funding these plans has been suggested yet (I may be wrong in this, please correct me). I would also prefer it if the social help was targeted at the most deprived instead focusing on race/gender. EDIT: for more effective spending, my opinion is to invest into Fusion technology and electric transport.
How is it a serious idea when: 1. It’s timeframe is not consistent with any published scientific study on energy transitions and existing feasibility analysis on scientific energy transitions can prove that its projected production rates are not feasible? 2. It doesn’t provide any calculated information of any kind. How do you possibly claim that millions of jobs will be created, when you don’t even know how many units need to be manufactured? 3. It discusses massive increases in renewable technology, yet includes zero language about transmission infrastructure. How do you possibly imagine connecting utility scale wind farms to major cities without transmission line? This question isn’t just about distance. Utility scale generates such a high amount of energy that we require very high voltage line (50,000 to 800,0000 volts) to transfer this energy. Distribution line isn’t rated this high, and trying to use it will literally burn line. 4. The GND requires massive construction, yet also describes increasing environmental and labor regulations. Of course we need the EPA and OSHA, but increasing regulation will force construction to cost more and take longer, which the complete opposite objective of the plan for the GND. The entire section about reducing eminent domain, access to public lands, waterways, oceans and increased regulations make zero sense from a constructibility perspective. 5. The GND calls for massive scale up of high speed rail, even though high speed rail is typically designed for use in monocentric cities and the majority of US cities are polycentric. From an urban planning perspective this aspect of the plan doesn’t make sense. 6. The overall plan lacks a great deal of specifics about just about everything. And most disturbing is the fact that the resolution does not draw any evidence or plans from published scientific studies that have already calculated extremely complex plans. It seems as though this resolution was made before talking or researching with any engineers, scientists, contractors, unions or major institutions. That’s a very significant problem.
Very interested in a follow up on the lobbying fight. That tends to be the core of the issue. When elected officials can't listen to their voters cus of lobbying influence nothing productive can get done. Just a bunch of fighting for the status quo
Hey, it's Lou, and there's some wild shit going down on planet Earth.
I've been going thru the Beme videos, and I ALWAYS look for this comment now.
What do we want?: A plan to dramatically reduce carbon emissions to keep atmospheric concentrations under 335 PPM to prevent run away climate change.
When do we want it?: 1975
Ha! Haha! Hahaha! 😅
I wish youtube likes were karma points
I think people are too critical for anyone who isn't lou
But lou is lou.
Not everyone can be Lou! And thank goodness for that!
@@LouisFoglia It's true that I cannot grow a beard as well as Lou... or at all...
Iou or no lou non lous are too polished and arent as genuine. So far at least.
Who let Lou shave again ?
And made his voice deeper 😂😂😂
Inaction costs money, too. Poverty and pollution are costing us increasingly devastating sums while we argue over the cost of taking action. There's much we can do for less than the long term cost of doing nothing.
0:52 Last i checked, 2030 was the point as which we had to reduce carbon emissions to prevent the 2.7 degree temperature rise... in a hundred years.
@@hoodedferret but the poles are included in the calculation of the average. Also, that's interesting chart, but with out context, it doesn't actually tell us anything. What are RCP's? Considering the Y axis is labeled anomalies, this doesn't seem to be talking about the average temperatures. Thanks for sharing though, every little bit helps understanding.
The videos with this host are so boring. The information is there, but I honestly have a hard time getting to the end of the video. She's extremely monotone and imo comes across like she's extremely bored. I guess "robotic" would be a good word to describe it. Everything from the set, props, background, everything really just feels super up-tight. I much prefer the feel of the other segment with Lou. With that said I understand not wanting to have 2 of the same segments. I guess if I could change anything, the delivery of the information would be number 1 and that TV wall background would be number 2 (I find it really distracting).
I hope you guys keep up the overall great work.
We are a species, not a race. Why everyone says "human race" is beyond me.
who cares...
@@legendarylitening Me, obviously.
No, you misunderstood that. If we don't do something against climate change, there will not be enough physical space, food and so on for all humans, we'll fight for it. Hence: a human race!
@@officialDragonMap nice pun lol
@@officialDragonMap it's not a race. Also it will effect different nations differently.
Poor people will suffer the rich will get along fine.
WHere's Lou and his wiLd sHit?!1
Lou and his wild shit are still around!
@@noraneus9054great job on this video nora!
What about the Green party platform in 2016 under Jill Stein? And what about the OFF act introduced by Tulsi Gabbard?
Consider This agreed!
Big government is not the only answer. The problems we’re experiencing are only because government has been involved in the first place.
No, government is *not* the _only_ problem. I don't disagree with the idea that government doesn't solve every problem and even sometimes supports them. They get created by society though. And in a country where Trump gets elected, most of flat earthers live, and with so called christians (not what I, as a christian, understand that term though), one is better off with not letting them decide on their own.
Admin Dragon-Map Yes government is the only problem here, the free market will shift to green energy because the free market the producers and consumers are made up of people and they will do what people want which is to use more renewable forms of energy and production the government is a leech and can only spend others money.
Where is Lou?
If a CARBON TAX is introduced, won't that drive up the cost of goods in stores?
Either way, We damned if we do & damned if we don't.
I guess it depends on the carbon emissions a company creates for the production of a good. The higher the emissions, the higher the price of that product will be, so people will tend to buy less expensive ones therefore companies won't make a good profit so they'll need to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But still, almost every price would be higher.
In my opinion, there should be a carbon tax in all those countries that produce the most co2, it will benefit everyone(not the oil companies of course).
We had a carbon tax in Australia before our Conservative party got rid of it and it did little to inflate goods prices very much
@@euphyllia6590 Why did they get rid of it. Were manufactures threatening to exit Australia?
@@wesalois basically broils down to the conservative party wanting to please their donor base, which consists of corporations. The tax is pretty effective at lowering emissions too,.
@@euphyllia6590 that is very sad.
NORA ISSSSS BACKKKKK
Haha yes!!! That's nice to hear. Thanks!
Why are we not hitting the streets complaining against every attempt of corporate lobbying?
Are we all believing collectively it wouldn't change things?
Well. Pretty much. Yes.
In my country this is the big reason why the current political has been in power for 8 years - there is no coherent opposition and the general public thinks that their thought doesn't count and why bother voting when it would change nothing.
This is partially why Brexit was voted - a lot of people who would've voted to stay didn't go to vote because why bother.
As far as I can see there is a general feeling of learned helplessness and hopelessness.
You think protesting and rioting would some how stop politicans from accept bribes?
@@MishaFlower Yes, even if it's not obvious at first. It's more about the awakening of people demanding actual democracy. Even if it doesn't stop any bribe the change in attitude of the people would already be a very big step forward.
It's the only way things can change for real. It's how we got the 40 hours a week, social security, unions, etc. Thanks to the socialists and communists before the Red Scare and McCarthyism. And since then things have not changed. Except unions are smaller and less powerful. It's not a coincidence.
The Libertarisn Party would shrink the size of Federal government to a point where the profession of Lobbying becomes obsolete, as politicians would not have the power to do what the lobbyists want them to do.
“Rabbit hole” keep it coming Beme. Stories are getting better and better every day.
Wtf why does she look like the female version of Ben Shapiro?
The background is so cool, I like how it changes. Keep it up Beme!
It was pretty sweet. Parts reminded me of the Architect's room in Matrix II.
Too many sound effects and the “rabbit hole” and “that’s another video are unnecessary”. The “that’s more than you probably wanted to know” discredits it. Other than that, I did enjoy the information. Keep it simple.
I'm 100% with you. I love the Vice style of news they deliver but the "trying to be trendy" catch phrases don't really work.
I agree. The info is fine but 5yat stuff seems forced and trendy. It honestly annoys me
go read this book it will explain why reach company fight this type of ideas
*Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right* *Book by Jane Mayer*
Ok we install solar to every home and poof problems solved right? Well no actually, because you can actually calculate about how much energy such a plan would create, and it’s not enough in fact it’s only about 36%.
A great step (depending on how much time it would actually take), but it’s not a full solution.
But where is Lou with the thing?
07:10 Believe in a science. Hahaha. That`s a good one
this format is GREAT! keep up the good stuff!
Where are you going to get the money for any of these ideas. No one has managed to give me a good answer on this. All Ides I have heard like taxing the rich or carbon tax won't raise anywhere near enough money given realistic estimates for these new taxes.
Great content guys, loving the Nora segments
Thanks! Appreciate it!!
Best video on the idea of green new deal
AOC’s eyes on trump’s face might be the scariest thing I have ever seen
Finally YT notifocation seems to work...
Liberal news source.
I've said this before... in my state I don't even have the right as a home owner to install solar on my own home without getting permission from my home owners association (which isn't likely to agree to it as no one in my neighborhood has solar installed...)
that is about the only thing the HOA cant deny here in AZ, we can install solar and they cant stop us
@@MarcWenningIf the state would pass Access Laws for solar then they couldn't deny it here either but alas we only have easement laws. I'm sure if they ever do pass access laws here then it will have some sort of crony requirement included.
I like this format except for "rabbit hole." Just jump into the details.
Carbon emission taxes will effect the consumer, and so it will effect the poor consumers disproportionately.
No it wont, its like saying income taxes rising for the rich will disapropiatly affect the history.
@@victorviereck4117 When a business have to pay more in carbon emission, they will have to increase prices on their products. If poor people want to buy that product, they will have to pay more for the product. A rich person won't be bothered because he is rich, but it will be hard for a poor person.
@@victorviereck4117 If a business can't compete globally, and goes bankrupt because of carbon emission taxes, where will these workers find jobs ?
@@Bill-zp2mt Oh you silly goose. People have already thought of that and the solution was the taxes won't be federal but rather'll get fed back to those same communities
yes but tax carbon affect products coming from far. So if poor people consume local products then it would be fine for them, local product won't have the carbon tax
Thank you discount Audrey Plaza
Is that Poppy Gloria?
Did they give Lou some prozac and a wig? I need some more frantic Lou.
At this rate procrastination will be the end of the human race 😏
It won't be the first time, just think about all those Veg eating, methane gas producing Dino's. They were wiped out.
I like this new format better.
The issue with AOC's green new deal is throughout the 15 page plan, she identifies issues and then calls for them to be remedied by "clean, renewable, and zero emission energy sources". However, there are currently no clean, renewable, and zero emission energy sources that can be used for large scale integration in the US (at least none that I'm aware of). Also she wants to pull the money for this from the public sector which is concerning.
oh Lou, stop playing hooky and get back to work, before the channel dies...
I LOVE THIS VIDEO. PROGRESS IS REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL
Thank you!!! I appreciate it!
The format is different but the way of presenting the news is still the same
Where's lou??
Bye Bye Luo!
Either way we will end up paying the price. Carbon tax the companies that pollute and we pay the upcharge for their services. So you might as well keep shifting the tax bracket so we pay more taxes without actually changing the percentage. Like this administration did last year.
A reasonable news short..... but not very “different”. Where’s Lou?
Too many people didn't actually read the green new deal...
y u no Lou?
Pay of the this by legalizing marijuana and investments in hemp industry
Hey lou where are you? I like your Holi shit.
We need Lou back.
cap & trade...
Whats this overly produced stuffy crap?
i does not mater what everybody proposed till they get ride of money in politic
Cows farting
Rabbit hole
Please stop saying "Rabbit Hole".
Not much of a deal either
shes cool and all but we want Lou
Woah, Beme news, you got this one way wrong.
i call bullshit on green new deal
Great video guys, but get the teleprompter to look bettter someway
Yeah like show some more cleavage or have her strip a garment every minute. Huzzah objectification!
@@ChangeUrAtOnYT.comSlashHandle wtf m'dude. Im only talking that the text she is reading is a bit misplaced. What did you thought?
@@pedrolima79 Oh haha my apologizes I stumble on too many chauvinistic comments and misread the word "teleprompter" as telecommunicator or some shit idk my break was almost over and I was skimming through comments, forgive me m'lawrd. But my misinterpretation seemed plausible cuz I swear internet anonymity has people commenting their most backwards thoughts, y'feel?
I miss Lou...
An easy, healthy, cost-effective way to combat climate change is by going vegan to stop supporting one of the most carbon emitting industries. You may think: just changing my own diet won't make a dent! The more vegans there are, the more demand there is for plant-based meats, which enables other people to go vegan even easier.
scur 'wolfpackin or just reduce your meat intake and become a flexitarian - only eat it 2 or 3 days per week. It’s a much easier step for the average person and avoids the unfortunate stigma around veganism
I really hope the united states adopts the green new deal. It will be so cool when 327 million people save the planet for the other 7.53 BILLION people.
it won't be enough but it's a good start
It won't because Trump is getting reelected and I bet AOCs moronic constitutents won't fall for her BS again
Not gonna happen, #nounagenda2030
Uggghhhh, I’m sorry, but no more Nora plsssssss. Where’s Lou?!!!!
Taking climate change seriously != supporting The Green New Deal. I think it would be great if only money was not a problem.. not a single effective way of funding these plans has been suggested yet (I may be wrong in this, please correct me).
I would also prefer it if the social help was targeted at the most deprived instead focusing on race/gender.
EDIT: for more effective spending, my opinion is to invest into Fusion technology and electric transport.
Here's an idea: stop spending trillions of dollars on regime change and genocide :)
Fusion tech? My man!
How is it a serious idea when:
1. It’s timeframe is not consistent with any published scientific study on energy transitions and existing feasibility analysis on scientific energy transitions can prove that its projected production rates are not feasible?
2. It doesn’t provide any calculated information of any kind.
How do you possibly claim that millions of jobs will be created, when you don’t even know how many units need to be manufactured?
3. It discusses massive increases in renewable technology, yet includes zero language about transmission infrastructure.
How do you possibly imagine connecting utility scale wind farms to major cities without transmission line? This question isn’t just about distance. Utility scale generates such a high amount of energy that we require very high voltage line (50,000 to 800,0000 volts) to transfer this energy. Distribution line isn’t rated this high, and trying to use it will literally burn line.
4. The GND requires massive construction, yet also describes increasing environmental and labor regulations. Of course we need the EPA and OSHA, but increasing regulation will force construction to cost more and take longer, which the complete opposite objective of the plan for the GND.
The entire section about reducing eminent domain, access to public lands, waterways, oceans and increased regulations make zero sense from a constructibility perspective.
5. The GND calls for massive scale up of high speed rail, even though high speed rail is typically designed for use in monocentric cities and the majority of US cities are polycentric. From an urban planning perspective this aspect of the plan doesn’t make sense.
6. The overall plan lacks a great deal of specifics about just about everything. And most disturbing is the fact that the resolution does not draw any evidence or plans from published scientific studies that have already calculated extremely complex plans.
It seems as though this resolution was made before talking or researching with any engineers, scientists, contractors, unions or major institutions.
That’s a very significant problem.
Nora kills this shit FR tho
I love this information 🧡
Haha I like how you didn’t have time to talk about how to pay for it
When you are so stupid yoy dont realize that a government can type money.
Very interested in a follow up on the lobbying fight. That tends to be the core of the issue. When elected officials can't listen to their voters cus of lobbying influence nothing productive can get done. Just a bunch of fighting for the status quo
I miss the casualness of the format before