The true cost of stopping fossil fuels. Can we afford to? Can we afford not to?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 гру 2021
- Fossil fuels are inextricably linked to our everyday lives and it'll be impossible to phase them out in the next three decades. At least that's what the fossil fuel industry would have you believe. But new studies have looked at precisely what we DO need to do to rapidly rid ourselves of the largest historical, and current, cause of the global climate emergency.
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos? Check out the FREE Dive Deeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Check out other UA-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Research links
International Monetary Fund report Sep 2021
www.imf.org/en/Publications/W...
World Economic Forum Insight Report Nov 2021
www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/su...
RethinkX Fossil Fuel blog Nov 2021
rethinkdisruption.com/carbon-...
Guardian article on fossil fuel subsidies
www.theguardian.com/environme...
George Monbiot - Full clip
• Climate Change : What ...
IPCC SR15 Report
www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summar...
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa...
Engineering With Rosie had an interview with a gentleman named Paul Martin who very cleverly worded the problem as "Our values tell us that the atmosphere is what we depend on to live, our economics tell us that the atmosphere is a free public sewer."
*Tragedy of the Commons* is the old name for that. It has been a recognized problem since pre-industrial times. Kinda makes ya wonder how the world was taken by surprise about Global Warming, eh?
@@YodaWhat It wasn't. The warming effect has been known by science for 140 years. Nobody wanted to listen...
Nobody listened to Alvin Weinberg. If they did, they would've lost all that fossil fuel money to safe meltdown proof molten salt nuclear.
Now, we have the Biden administration going against the very thing needed to make solar work 24/7... Mining for battery raw materials! Yep, his advisors are just fake enviros, as if a hole in the ground is worse than global warming!
@@fireofenergy let's go to space and mine them there
@@esajpsasipes2822
Too expensive. Will have to perfect the heat tiles on the Starship first, and I hear the engines aren't as good as what Elon wants. After these problems are solved, then we can focus on getting a lot of space based infrastructure built up. Maybe in a few decades, we'll have space mining but for now, a few large holes ain't nothing compared to foolishly burning the remainder of the fossil fuels. Besides, the Earth is the largest rocky body, it has vastly more resources _under_ the fragile biosphere.
All of this has been known and discussed since 2010, if not before. Including the mentioned carbon prices. The fact that it's still being discussed, rather than being done, should tell you all you need to know. Our leaders are choosing to fail.
I think leaders don't have the power to lead anymore.
Kapitalisme has favored the 'psychopath ' business men so much that it destroyed the authority of leaders , by gaining to much kapital .
The biggest disadvantage of this system is the lack of moderatisme.
So , prepare for a not so happy ending.
@ger du Well said. I have held these same views for about three years now, and every passing year does nothing but harden my opinion. Seneca was right.
I think most people are surprised to hear that a carbon tax was first proposed in 1973; for almost 50 years we have rejected the idea. Economics says yes; politics says no, fat chance getting re-elected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
Our leaders are doing what the donor class, i.e. FF shareholders and others, want them to do. If they don't, they lose their leadership job.
Not just our “leaders” the entire one percent headed by the propaganda machine known as YT is to blame. Evil platform this one…
Other items not accounted for include:
• Decreased lifespans and lives lost due to resulting illnesses.
• Healthcare costs to treat those illnesses.
• Other forms of pollution and environmental damage, such as from oil spills on both land and water, water table contamination from fracking, creek/stream/river contamination from run-off, soil contamination from industrial chemical spillage, industry practices, inadequate disposal or abandonment. Even acid rain. The list goes on and on.
And the practice of "leasing" public lands to energy companies comes with an absolutely incalculable cost.
So you want pension annuities to degrade further???
@@terencefield3204 That's possibly the dumbest reply possible.
@@terencefield3204 if that's needed to save the rest of the biosphere: Yes.
@@terencefield3204 What good would a stable pension annuity do you, if there were far less agricultural produce due to increasing natural disasters from climate change? If there is a lot less food produced, you will then need a lot more money to buy that shortened supply of available food.
@@terencefield3204 You're going to survive what's coming and make it to retirement?....God Bless the Optimism.
One of the greatest ethical hurdles of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is similar to, at least in the US, removing food subsidies to reveal the true cost of food. Ultimately removing them burdens the poor far far more than the rich. That was touched on in the IMF report about redistributing funds to kickstart green energy in poorer nations, but in places like the US which are -heavily- dependent on cars an increase in gas prices means people may not be able to afford to go to work. The ideal solution is public transit that doesn't suck, but in most places in the US it doesn't even exist
as a low income individual in a deeply conservative place in the united states, the culture shock will be even worse than the mask mandates. but if we don't do it? the death tolls will make Covid look like a December cough. we must rip off the Band-Aid now and invest in making our cities Bikable and walkable now, because when shit hits the fan, we'll just be treading water keeping critical infrastructure like hospitals open. however, i have no confidence that politicians will all stop taking oil money at the same time. and as JFK once famously said, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
@@ethanstump Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry controls the U.S government, so much so that West Virginia senator Joe Mancin told the White House that he would not back the Build Back Better initiative if it hurt big coal.
The rich don't think they have any responsibility to the poor. When they "provide jobs" they do so on the condition that they get the profits.
Public transport equals easy transmission of viruses, government public
transport also makes it easier for governments to shut down or limit public protest just by not sending out the buses trains and so on.
Being poor is no excuse for polluting. Yes higher cost of fossil fuel hurts, but that is the point... to use less of it. If the consequence is that low income workers become less mobile, it means wages go up! Certain types of food should be subsidized not to put anyone in an existential crisis, but burning a gallon of gasoline in a Bentley is as bad as in a moped.
I just keep thinking that if we here in the States had that subsidy money better applied, for instance, a national health care system and a renewed rail system that every one could afford to use, then there would be far more incentive for making the necessary transitions.
Yea, I’d love to see that subsidy money turned into a “transportation subsidy” which is paid directly to each citizen every month.
Sure, you’ll see some people just keep spending it on gas, but you’ll also see a good number get a metro pass instead, or use it to make monthly payments on an EV, etc.
In the end, it makes the system a lot more flexible rather than being “we’re always going to use gas because we always used to use gas”.
In the 70's I first ran my house on batteries with wind and diesel backup and it was amazing and an obviously efficient move. No longer starting a 3 KW generator in the night for a light in the bathroom. Ive been running my getaway cabin on solar and wind with an inverter for 25+ years with two sets of batteries and again, it works fine. We just need to learn a slightly better way of organizing tasks to take full advantage of the available power. In many 'western democracies' we take the right to use as much as we want whenever we want as an inalienable right, without thought for the consequences, and furthermore we are bombarded with images of automated cupboard doors and other such unnecessary wasteful technology presented as 'normal and desirable'. We do collectively need to look at all this and re-examine our priorities. Well done this channel for examining some of these issues without fear or favor. The whole fossil fuel subsidy racket is a bit like the mafia offering you the opportunity not to die tomorrow providing you pay the levy. Its time we had a good look at that.
Access to disposable income and the energy required to manufacture and sustain off-grid housing are not issues easily addressed in the lives of average people, especially those in poverty or in dense population centers. I applaud that you have done what you could, but wide spread prosperity is generally the best long term solution for economic challenges.
Most people don't consider it a 'right' to use as much as they want, whenever. They consider it a service, for which they pay a price, and they assume that there are regulations and laws that make sure that service can be supplied for as long as it is needed. Mostly, they pay the bill and don't think about it.
It frustrates me that so much time is wasted calculating the effects of utterly impossible international agreements. Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the recent bunfight in Glasgow will recall how hard nations like India fought to water down references to phasing out coal; how much harder would they fight against a hypothetical carbon pricing scheme with actual enforcement mechanisms? John Kerry thinks fossil fuel subsidies are crazy? Has his boss got the memo? Not noticing the US rushing to put taxes in place on gasoline to capture some of those implicit subsidies from pollution. Rolling back in place tax benefits even on a national level is incredibly hard. The fossil fuel uses we have today got there not because people love to burn fossil fuels, but because they provide benefits to people in the form of mobility, comfort and consumer goods. Wind and solar show great potential to back out fossil fuels in major markets, but by themselves are not enough, Much more investment in clean technologies that can back out fossil fuels in tougher cases like steel is required - we may not find solutions in time to give people all the benefits they enjoy today , but unless we back clean tech with everything we’ve got, and that right soon, we don’t have a prayer .
Unfortunately Biden cannot unilaterally and permanently put a gas tax on the US (while reducing other taxes to make it revenue neutral), because he and Democrats generally will get booted out and Republicans will water things down even further.
On the plus side, this implies the US is not a dictatorship -- even though we got close this year due to Jan 6th and Trump's effort to maintain power and overturn our democracy (after doing all he could during his term to undermine efforts to combat global warming).
We must be aware that countries like India and China, and much of Africa etc feel shafted when we demand they buy expensive green tech to fix the problems WE caused. Places like for example Senegal look upon oil & gas as a blessing that will lift their people out of poverty and deprivation (at last) and provide desperately needed export revenue. How will they afford offshore wind farms and solar farms etc. they’ve got no dough..!
This is not a lot of time. The problem is lack of attention and resources for real social solutions.
Yeah bruh india, china and other developing countries should rather buy expensive tech from devloped countries to fight climate change which was caused by devloped countries. Totally fair.
India is anyway investing heavily in green energy. India has low or no amount of fossil fuel and has to import with steep price. There are no lobbies for fossil fuel in the parliament as well. The top industrialists are also investing in solar and hydrogen alternative. Because the West and China won't let us use nuclear energy.
India needs to use coal for now to keep the country running until we can phase out to green energy.
By the way, isn't it a nursery logic that if India is not participating in phase out of coal, none of the other countries can. Does everyone need a treaty to do the commonsensical thing? We need to work together instead to throwing mud on each others face.
Watch Tony Seba's latest pronouncements. The cheapest energy system is a combination of solar/wind and grid scale batteries. Nothing else comes close including maintaining existing fossil fuel plants. But the cheapest system provides a super abundance of energy, far beyond what we use today. So we will have an enormous amount of extra energy. There are all kinds of things we could do with that including desalinating seawater and pumping it upstream where it is desperately needed.
Oh please. As the economists say Ceteris Paribus. And all else is NOT the same!!!!
Electricity production provides about a quarter of our total energy needs and causes a slightly higher proportion of carbon emissions.
Can Tony Seba's system power ships, planes, trains, farm equipment, and mining equipment? Can it be used to make steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizer, and paper? Can it heat buildings in winter? Can it do all of those things by 2030?
The problem is a hard one. Tony Seba's system is welcome but it is not "the answer".
@@gregvanpaassen
A lot of farming and mine equipment is already diesel electric, so it's not a big stretch to make it battery electric or powered by a catenary wire (in fact it's already happening).
Ships can be powered by renewable ammonia, and there are other approaches (e.g. wind powered sailing may make a comeback).
I think hydrogen upgraded biomass will be the way forward for jet fuel, but there's other proposed approaches. It's probably the most difficult to decarbonise use of fossil fuels but we'll get there.
You can heat buildings with heat pumps, make steel and fertiliser with hydrogen. Paper can be carbon neutral depending on how you gather the biomass. Aluminium is made with electricity. Anything that requires high temperature process heat, hydrogen can deliver it, but there may be other solutions too. Plus don't forget recycling.
Anyway, don't give up.
You'd do better to plant trees wherever possible, up to the tree line. They'll do their job, and have babies too.
@@gregvanpaassen *lol* You need a lot of electricity to make aluminium... why do you think is big portion of the production happening in Island where electricity is cheap?
In Sweden there is a plant which uses hydrogen instead of coal to make steel. And you can make hydrogen per electrolyse with electricity.
This is an area where those who make their money in oil have so much political influence that getting them to let go is next to impossible.
It’ll likely take the Universe itself flicking a cosmic marble into our pile to level the table again…
And neither the democrats or republicans will allow legislation that deal with money in politics to even be voted on. Kim Iversen had a good video on how they also prevent a 3rd party from even being an option. We were lied into numerous wars. They constantly use demonization of the other side as a tool to maintain the duopoly.
And thats the problem with Capitalism - everything is for sale! Even your political leaders.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket You have a point. The suffragette movement utilized a similar tactic, and won women the vote.
@@anarchisttechsupport6644 That is not fundamental to capitalism. That's like saying trade is bad because everything can be traded. All we need is people to stop watching mainstream news and being brainwashed to have political change.
Will point out that the current UK "road tax" laws encourages buying new cars rather than using cars less - actually increasing CO2 emissions and discrimination.
How do you plan to do your social economic qnd cultural business? Buses? Trams? Bikes? In dreadfully disordered vastly overpopulated ridiculously geographically de-constructed Britian????? LOL. Back to groats, cabbages rotten carrots and the odd roast hegehog ( if any still exist in the ecological desert that is your countryside) in winter is it?????
@@terencefield3204 my personal ideas can be found on my later existing and future videos on my channel (inspired by those I have subscribed to and current UK/US events)
@@elephantintheroom5678 Holland is a postage stamp nation try living 50 kilometers away from everything some time.
@@Barskor1 and relatively flat too!
@@terencefield3204 ...back to poaching, no?
9:48 Mmm. Yes. Could also just... stop biofuel subsidies, which are using up farm land and valuable fertilizer, and avoid the food shortages that way...
Could just switch to algae and fertilize it with city sewage for free as well.
@@Barskor1 Let's just ignore the assumption that, where viable, that isn't already done... And it's not free. You can't just directly dump sewage into a field. Even if you ignore contaminants like toilet paper, or people who are sick, such as having cholera.
Also just ignores the entire point.
Farmers are currently being paid to not plant fields under a federal subsidy. There is no lack of farmland in the USA.
@@rcpmac That actually maintains the health of the soil, and doesn't use up resources on inefficient, dirty fuel.
"...approximately zero chance...", that about sums it up. Great presentation as always, thank you.
Particularly as we've actually passed 1.5 above preindustrial a month or three every year but one since Paris. But as we live in a post factual society, that's simply ignored.
Cheers Jimmy
cameo from the juice media would have been spot on
Went to an interesting talk last week by Kevin Anderson who is a professor of climate change at Manchester University. What he said was that we can't continue to look at the problem from what can be achieved within the current economic model, but look at it from a physics perspective and what is required to achieve zero (not net zero) emissions by 2030 at the latest. Clearly this is going to have massive economic impact, but not a great as that if we don't act.
Hw whines on abour social fairness. An irrelevance when it comes to policy to slow the advancing disaster. He is VERY English Northern Political. As well as being a scientist of quality. The one obscures the other IMO.
Human C02 output is barely noticeable. The vast majority of C02 comes from the ocean. Besides recent scientific reports prove that the main source of warming is the sun. Without C02 we all die.
Human C02 output is barely noticeable. The vast majority of C02 comes from the ocean. Besides recent scientific reports prove that the main source of warming is the sun. Without C02 we all die.
@@jacquilayton2557 source please, all the claims you are making are not supported by any of the studies done to date.
@@jacquilayton2557 your spreading FUD.
It's Reported.
Thank you for an excellent analysis of the idea of removing subsidies from big polluters. It’s good to see people are thinking about the total cost of persevering with them.
Cheers Peter.
Not happening. Carbon tax was tried in US and democrats lost both chambers of Congress and the Presidency to Republicans who opposed it. Same thing will happen if tried globally. Basically, the kids can sweat the heat and swim the rising sea. Our generation has no morals.
In Australia I calculated that it would cost about $100 billion to replace fossil fuel generation with solar wind and battery. That works out at $16,000 per family of 4/ household. That sounds a lot but you get 20 years of free electricity generation for that $100 billion which means the cost of generation is $800 per family of four per year. However, this generation is not just for your household it is also for all of industry. Industry accounts for 36% of all electricity consumption so that $800 is reduced by 36% to $512. As the average electricity bill per year for a family of 4 in Australia is $2048 there is plenty of margin for wholesalers and retailers to keep prices the same or lower. The bottom line is it actually costs nothing to transition to renewables. But there is more. Because of the intermittent nature of solar and wind I have allowed for an overbuild. This means that much more electricity would be generated on days with favourable conditions than could be stored by grid batteries. That electricity could be offered for free to anyone that wants it, like say people who would like to fill up their electric vehicle battery or an aluminium smelter or a green hydrogen producer. This why Australia's pro coal federal government can't get anyone to build a new coal fired power station. Not only is it cheaper now, to take this new path, over the next 10 years prices for wind, solar and grid batteries are projected to reduce by 80%. In fact the price of renewable electricity generation will be so cheap is will allow governments to apply taxation to it without the consumer feeling a price rise. Aside from climate change, renewable energy combined with electric vehicles will reduce pollution and the cost of living significantly. There is great hope.
Well put. It can work if we all want it to.
Imagine taxing fuel, beef, and palm oil to fully fund actual carbon sequestration processes (e.g. crops that can be proven to be carbon absorbers). This is the intent of so-called "carbon credits" ... Unfortunately, too many projects that claim net sequestration, turn out to be scams. Also, giving an industry a "license to pollute" whose revenues go into the general fund strikes me as likely to be counter-productive due to the moral hazards involved.
Were carbon credits included in this presentation? I may have to rewatch.
Taxing beef isn't the right answer. Beef help with the soil health so the farmer can use less water. Any animals help with the health of the soil. dumpy u don't know much about farming do u.
@@corrieduvall9901 "Beef help with the soil health..... so the farmer can use less water. " How does having cattle result in a farmer using less water? I searched for information on cattle and their impact and found a lot of info on how they can help improve soil but the majority of the information comes from sources related to the meat industry so they may be biased. I understand the concern that Vegans would also be biased so their promotion of anything critical of meat production would be suspect to those who love their beef. What I am curious about is what percentage of cattle spend their lives roaming green fields and what percentage spend their lives in cages/pens? Also curious about the ratio often sighted about the amount of energy, land and water required to raise food for cattle plus the energy, land and water required to raise the cattle themselves vs if all that land/energy and water were used to produce food directly for people? Would, as is claimed, a significant amount of the currently used land be available to return to wild lands? Wild lands would sequester significant amounts of carbon. Someone else inferred that the herds of bison that roamed the midwest would have caused climate change if what is being said about cattle were true but he is conveniently ignoring the fact that humans have destroyed the majority of the forests and carbon absorbing plants not to mention the impact from the way we are abusing our oceans...but that is another discussion. By the way, who is dumpy?
@@richardlangley90 all cattle spend at least 75% of their life on grass. Only the last few months they are fed grains, if it is grain finished.
@@Gengh13 ?????
There is no way to fundamentally change human greed. This is especially true when the manner to do that includes using the most greedy to self-regulate their greed.
People that are overweight have a hard time changing eating habits just to loose weight, and they have some great tools and alternatives to bad foods.
Humans won’t be able to make the necessary changes on their own.
very little natural about human society
Weight has nothing to do with greed. If your arguments made the slightest bit of sense, there there would have been no fat people before fast food.
If you look at pre-capitalistic societies, greed does not dominate. For most "ordinary" people, greed does not dominate. Greed is the great myth perpetuated by the few, to suport the consumer economy, and perpetuated by Thatcher, Regan et.al. (the few). The work of Citizens' assemblies, and the many Intentional Communities demonstrates this. People who work in public servies such as care and teaching for example, aren't motivated by greed. We all want a reasonably comfortable life, but greed is not a universal or dominant human trait. If human kindness were not dominant, the human race would long ago have destroyed itself, but "much evil is accomplished while [ordinary] good people do nothing."
@@williammeek4078 calorie-dense food still existed. My point is humans are creatures of habit and luxury (when they can get it). Change won’t just happen.
@@theotherandrew5540 I agree that some are more caring than others. However greed is a fundamental human quality. When we are surround by abundance, it is muted slightly. However, when scarcity exists, humans will care for their own needs first before others almost in ever occasion.
This is the fundamental portion of “fundamental greed” I am speaking about.
You have to look no further than industrial society to see this example. If we weren’t fundamentally greed, greed wouldn’t dominate like it does.
Logic, no matter how good, will never persuade those who value money more than life to change their ways.
ask that of the old people who will freeze in winter
I feel (so not sure if it's true) there is also something in American business ethics where the CEO has the moral duty to lie and cheat if that is better for the interests of the shareholders. A factory can emit some new molecule and the CEO knows already it might cause cancer in the neighborhood but as long as the government has not yet regulated it, then it's just fine. Now, I can't proof it, but I think those managers really do believe they are morally right while we think they live in an alternate psychopath reality. I am not saying we are holy in Europe but I think here people would immediately admit they were wrong.
It’s more about lack of wisdom and foresight of our practiced capitalism than anything else. The quarterly benchmarks prevents long term planning and are blind to indirect effects. Imagine a CEO going to the investors with a proposal to reduce growth by some percent for the next quarters, with plans to recuperate that in 10years. They will laugh him/her out of the room.
Bean counter blindness
Incentives are proven to work. Once the incentives are bedded down they will be happy with them. The problem is the transition. The transition can be forced with international effort - you basically put export and import sanctions on any country that does not implement the incentives. Those who 'love money' will then face the choice of losing a little or a lot - an easy decision for them. You need an alliance of political force between important countries to get the transition done - it would have to include the US, Western Europe, Japan and the UK.
there is no reason why a sustainable and stable system can't be done. Expecting infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is insane.
So you support the vision of Jeff bezos ? Good
So you accept the sun will kill earth and we need to build a way to alpha centuri?
@@TheMagicJIZZ Where do you get nonsense like this?
@Pumpkin Panda, you're right. There is no reason we can't have sustainability. There is nothing inherent in capitalism that requires infinite growth.
The Earth simply cannot support 7+billion humans all wanting to live the throw away lifestyle of the West.
There are many cases where it is possible to reduce fossil fuel consumption considerably without an increase in cost. About 18months ago I installed solar on my roof, got a battery made out of recycled cells and about 9 months ago I got an EV.
After looking at where the energy goes and how much comes out of the solar panels I have come to the conclusion that it is not unreasonable to run most domestic energy needs from solar. Every time I see a roof without solar I see a big waste. I live in a town house which doesn't have much roof space but I have reduced my direct use of fossil fuels to almost zero. I did not do this because of the environment. My main motivation was to save money. So far renewables have been cheaper than using fossil fuel. There are other houses around me with far more roof space than I have. They would have no trouble running on solar for most of their energy needs.
I live in Australia and we have lots of sun.
Solar may not work everywhere but it will make a difference.
I have been a Patreon of this channel for about a year now. And so far it has been money well spent.
On our current crisis. I have no hope left to be honest. We are really screwed. It's not just CO2, it is massive loss of biodiversity and the general degradation of global systems. We keep decreasing the planets carrying capacity while increasing the load.
So even though there is no hope, we got to keep on fighting.
If there has everbeen a lost cause worth fighting for, it is now.
Not to mention when the shooting starts as democracies are replaced by populist and isolationist autocracies.
@@jedi_mapperp4073 True, I worry this is what we have been going through. It is like a global Khmer Rouge movement guided by bad actors who enjoy the chaos and don’t care about the future.
Action is definitely needed but we all know we won't see it.
We are condemning future generations to a terrible time as our destruction of the environment rebalances and millions perish like lemmings.
@@danburnes722 unfortunately we know this is just the beginning.
Elon Musk is making a difference. Love him or hate him there’s no denying he’s broken the old automobile and energy industries. All the environmental protesters, lobbyists, and NGOs won’t come close to making the difference Elon Musk and Tesla will achieve simply by designing and aggressively and tenaciously pushing forward.. almost single-handedly killing the gas-fueled ICE. He’s just getting started.
In America, in keeping with our seeming inability to process rational thought, a small rise in fuel prices threatens “economic collapse”. Offset carbon…lol! These people eat McDonald’s 5 times a week and can’t figure why they’re fat.
We’re screwed if the US continues to control the world economy.
These people love their guns, but can't stop shooting eachother. And I'm not blaming guns, Thailand has one of the highest gun ownership of the world. They don't seem to be killing eachother every day though. Perhaps the western way of wealth accumulation and defending that is a root cause.
Yes, lets let China manage the world, they have a great record for pollution control...
You are screwed whatever happens. China will soon dominate - hard, educated, purposeful, more intelligent, a ruthless meritocracy, you in contrast an autocracy with gerrymandered political rot everywhere, and in the not too distant future, climate catastrophe will do for China, You, all of us.
I think we are screwed if economies rule the world.
sugar is the big problem with fat
With no children or grandchildren of my own, I have been able to stomach the contempt that our leaders have shown for these vital issues simply because my three score year and ten is up in only 5 years time. I'm grateful for your diligent work and, in the way that people always enjoy listening to someone whose views correspond broadly with one's own, I draw some pleasure from your channel in spite of the dark subject matter you frequently tackle. I gave up on any hope for our species managing this situation and will not see the abominable catastrophe which brings about the necessary changes to our culture which regulation of crooks by crooks cannot achieve peacefully.
I'm 73 and I've spent the last 30 years campaigning on environmental matters and this year's COP 26 made me despair. I love your channel but I'm afraid I agree with this man's analysis completely
I'd expect no less from someone who has put a timetable on his own death.
@@kateevans4892 Thanks for trying so hard. I can't see a way out of the fall of civilisation at this point, and maybe extinction of our species. It's depressing.
Yes, and I have three little kids. They are all too young to understand the danger they face.
I have relatives who drive ridiculously polluting trucks for fun. The idea is that they may as well now as it won't be possible in a decade....
Very depressing....
As always, I am very appreciative of you making this kind of content, always well researched and unbiased presentation which is appreciated! It's great that you are making this kind of information accessible and digestable to such a large audience, keep up the great work :)
Cheers Jordan. I appreciate your feedback.
Side note, this channel really surves up a well made production. Just thought I'd throw that out there while I was contemplating our collective doom. Well done!
Australia looks like your hair in the thumbnail lol
Haha. I call it the 'Elon Mohawk' ;-)
I'm a huge fan, but this video is just outstandingly good
..."but"... it is just outstandingly good.
@@timbushell8640 “[…]’unfortunately’, this video is just outstandingly good”. There, I fixed it for you…
Perhaps we could use huge fans to generate electricity... 🤔
@@timbushell8640 Oh, come on, guys and girls…
Yes, I’m already a huge fan, so praises to this channel are expected from me, but sometimes the depth putted into 14 min. just exceeds highest expectations, so even fans are pleasantly surprised.
Agreed! Another brilliant video Dave!
5:10 To be fair, road accidents surely can not be attributed to fossil fuel production, as they would be more or less the same even with 100% EV adoption. It's about the need to travel, not about burning stuff.
Rising Complexity has no solution.
The only question that remains is what can we do without.
The last time atmospheric CO2 was as high as it is today, the world was 3°C warmer. I believe that even if we stopped net emission of any more CO2 today we are still going to warm 3°C. It's about equilibrium.
@@magiccloud3074 Quickly? CO2 lingers a long time.
Some will start to do something about it only when the rising waters hinder the company's regular operations. Thank you for your time and work.
I appreciate you keeping me updated on these issues my friend.
Great job at putting all these numbers together into a coherent whole.
Great work! You always have great information and do such a wonderful job giving it to us. Thank you
Thanks Christopher. I appreciate your feedback :-)
Back in the mid-noughties I was involved with Carbon Rationing Action Groups... the idea was that it would be fair if everyone was allowed to emit the same amount of carbon. The quota would be tradable, and this would help set a price. There's also a lovely concept called Contraction and Convergence, which would fit nicely with rationing and trading.
Sadly, humans are mostly stupid, and addicted to luxuries and increased consumption, and the idea was not implemented. Thus, we have set ourselves on the path to destruction and horror. So sad.
I'm more optimistic I think we will do too little too late, we'll finally get a majority , it will be irreversible at that point, we'll never get an international agreement on creating a nuclear winter, or similar effect, we will react and by 100 or 200 years see some improvement. yes
@@rp9674 We don't have 100 years. There are positive feedback loops at work that just keep amplifying global warming independent of human actions. If we don't stop it in the next 10 years (which is frankly impossible) we have no chance of stopping it passing the point at which human life is unsustainable. That's the reality we should be working with and the effort should be massive starting yesterday. Still, cop26 passed and 99.99% of humanity is unaware of the immensity of the problem.
It's pretty grim, there's going to be a lot of suffering & loss of life, a lot of extinctions, hopefully not humans.
@@rp9674
It already is and if the biotic suffers we do sooner and later.
The anthropogenic mass already exceeds the estimated planetary biomass.
@@raduungureanu2080
Not 99% but still far too many, the real problem is the ones who supposedly lead and serve who do know and have been shown countless times but continue to propagate the same fallacies or just hide their heads in the same old troughs.
Thanks again Dave. This is particularly in my ball park as an ex merchant banker... All I can say here is This is Why Extinction Rebellion was formed. It's why Rise Up and Occupy were formed at the time. No amount of voting, or writing and speaking eloquently and intelligently will change things. My own corner of the world, New Zealand, is a prime example of this. The Govt, the latest in a succession of centre right wing (for lack of a better description) is determined to continue business as usual. Their climate minister is himself a barrier to change, nice guy though, as is number one, the smiling and kind PM Jacinda Ardern. If we do want to change, and I have my doubts about that, we will have to have a show of numbers, a display of non-violent disobedience that causes continual economic disruption. We already have socialism for the super rich. The climate and biodiversity crises wait for no man, or woman, not even children. The GHG concentration continues to rise apace, and once 'sinks' of co2 turned to 'sources', (Arctic and Amazon). The Ice sheets are melting. what do we want, to talk forever, or act on the science?! Your choice. spoiler: it's not about economics, it's about survival as a recognisable living planet.
Many thanks to you and all the people who are helping this channel. I am not sure whether this has already been mentioned in the comments or not, but the quality of the sound recording in your videos are normally ambiguous a bit. I just wanted you to know. Thanks again.
Thank you for keeping up the amazing content. We need systemic change if we want to stand any chance of getting through this decently.
Phew, that got a bit confusing at times, I'm going to have to read the transcript to make sure I kept up!
One thing I noticed that nobody seems to be discussing, in the enthusiasm for renewables, is the fact that scaling up globally is impossible, due to a lack of resources. In fact, given the horrors of mining and ecological destruction that usually accompanies it, all that scaling up production will do is more damage. Given the futility in doing so, it's better, IMO, if we just don't. This is such an uncomfortable truth that nobody speaks it, which means when it becomes inescapably obvious, a lot of people are going to be in a world of pain.
There was a report done on converting the UK transport fleet to electric, link below. Apparently, that would take something like twice the worlds annual cobalt production, as just one material. Now remember what we look like on the world map. Then think of everyone else, also wanting to transition to an electric fleet by twenty thirty, forty, fifty whenever.... I think you can see where I'm going with this. It's 2022 next month, we don't have a lot of wriggle room left.
It's simply not possible, so we need to wrap our head round living differently and crack on with designing a way to do that as gently as we possibly can, in a way that is as equitable as possible. Alternatively, we can carry on pretending that we can switch to solar, some version of nuclear that hasn't actually been invented yet etc etc, and carry on living as we have been in this blip of human history and then act surprised when the shtf, as it eventually will. IMO, anyway.
www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html
Except lithium, iron , phosphate batteries need no cobalt. Second even those chemistries that use cobalt use so little now that if recycling begins properly it will soon be self sustaining, about five years. Next the highest use of cobalt is is gasoline and oil refinery processes, where it is burnt and destroyed, not used in a fully recyclable process. The percentage of cobalt in batteries compared to oil refining is about 5% at present. The question is do we allow the climate to become a desert for most, or a waterlogged area for many or do we die on the principles of no mining because it doesn't look nice, forgetting that whatever is dug up can be refilled. You cannot do both, so you must do the one that benefits the climate.
The best way to electrify transport is by ending personal car ownership and employing autonomous vehicles
This would only require 10% of today's fleet to provide 100% if today's mobility
Start by also mandating a remote first workplace and end pointless commuting
@@jnc1771 it is not the cobalt in the lithium that is the big problem with it. it is the horrific pollution caused by the mining of the lithium.
The thing is, the report doesn't cover the cost of educating industry leaders and the commoners about the impact of all of this. In order to enforce it without backlashes you'd need serious incentives added on top of everything.
YOu mean military police shooting the backsliders? or what????
@@terencefield3204 It is called the green energy revolution, putting the old regime against the nearest wall is how those things usually succeed...
We’re up against the old adage ‘You can’t fix stupid’.
@@AnalystPrime The investor/owners of the old regime are the same ones going for the trillions for the 'green revolution' ... it's all about money, when there's more profit from the latter then things will change, the one thing that won't change is you'll be giving the same people your money.
I think you'll find that industry leaders know more than you credit them for...a lot more in fact. It's just like the tobacco industry all over again...
Just look at yourself and say, Where can I substitute Fossil Fuels for electricity? Is it your lawn mower or car? Swap out your furnace for a heat pump? Gas hot water tank for a HPWH (Heat pump water heater)? I know we need systemic change but it does not look like my government is doing anything so I started my self .That is all I can do. Good vid .Thumbs up.
Dave, awesome video, as always, thank you. In this one, I noticed that you didn't address the 'elephant in the room' which is how a carbon tax would raise prices. That is, after all, the whole point: to make fossil fuels more expensive, and drive innovation towards renewables. While we absolutely *need* a carbon tax to fix climate change, but it's not clear whether it would work out in the long run.
One issue is politicians. On the right-wing, politicians are against the very idea of any new tax, and their Conservative stance means they are against changing the status quo, even if it's for their own good. On the left wing, politicians do understand the need for a carbon tax, but they wouldn't support it if it meant taxing everyone, and causing fuel prices to rise on everyone, especially the poor. As a result we have no carbon tax -- even though Carl Sagan testified to the US Congress in 1985 about the Greenhouse Effect, and he told them that we needed to eliminate subsidies and add a carbon tax. Now, 35 years later, nothing has changed, and it's easy to see why.
But a larger issue is that people will reject it. It's not just politicians who deny climate change is happening: their constituents follow suit, and will also reject it for the same reasons. So while it will be challenging to convince politicians to make any changes, it's far more challenging to convince people that they should bear higher costs in the name of some doctrine they don't even believe exists.
The ICPF proposal has correctly talked about what needs to happen, and the outsized effect of a broad-based push to eliminate FF subsidies. But if that doesn't convince people, what can be done? The IPCC is geared towards policy makers (politicians) who would presumably have the power to set policy. But the reality is, as we know, politicians serve at the whim of voters.
Yes, it's true that eliminating ALL these subsidies, both direct and indirect, will result in a rapid move towards carbon neutrality, but at what cost? It appears that the costs are too great to bear, so it's a stalemate.
Right on! It's March 2022 now and everybody is freaking out about rising gasoline prices.
Thank you for another great video! This one is particularly great because you take some rather complex ideas and explain them in a way that _seems_ simple. It's fun to watch someone truly talented like yourself make a difficult thing look easy.
As for the subject of the video itself... Yes, absolutely. Removing the explicit and implicit subsidies we give to fossil fuel industries (both producers and users) is absolutely necessary if we're even going to make a dent in global warming. And removing them sooner is better than later, because that will prevent new fossil fuel infrastructure from being built. (I'm thinking of those Chinese coal plants from a previous video, or new oil pipelines where I live.) It even makes sense economically if we can forgo some of the damage climate change will cause us. Removing subsidies is the sensible, sober thing to do.
But most people don't look at the big picture. They care only about their own short term welfare, and that provides an opening for political parties who oppose environmentalism in general. Conservatives absolutely hate carbon taxes, and progressive governments that institute even mild carbon pricing leave themselves open to being toppled by resurgent conservative movements powered by middle class people enraged that the government is making it more expensive to drive their SUVs. Look at the current inflation situation. Americans are mad that prices have gone up, and in response President Biden promised to release gasoline from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The arguments in your video are clear and convincing. When you look at it from global perspective, fossil fuels are an expensive drag on the economy. There are ways we can make this explicit by taxing carbon emissions (at different rates for different economies like you said), and doing so would ultimately be better for everyone. But explaining this to the average person who only cares that their individual cost of living has gone up is the real challenge.
A lot of carbon tax proposals I’ve seen redistribute the funds equally amongst the population. So the majority of citizens don’t see a price increase in the end.
Of course, this is hard to explain because people tend to only notice the price at the pump and ignore the check that arrives once a month.
Great Thumbnail Dave. I almost thought you grew a Mohawk.
This presentation struck me as different, I enjoy witnessing your outlook shift into this evolving state of awareness as we learn together. The depth of information is intriguing.
I hope when younger politicians replace the old rapid change will become easier.
Money will always tempt us as humans though
thinking money is a culprit is your mistake
Driving cars and heating buildings will always tempt us as humans.
Shell has pulled out of more drilling in the North Sea for reputational reasons - not the UK govt.
So will the UK govt sell the licences to another corporation? If they do, it will tell you all you need to know.
That the Tories are tories?
Isn't there a new coal mine in Yorkshire or Lancashire the Tories are about to allow?
@@phil2544 Cumbria. Ummm. But the Cambo oil fields would be much bigger.
@@Jay...777 OK, Cumbria
NO no. They went for far better opportunities elsewhere.
Brilliant recap analysis. Thank you for the excellent data, the clarity in thinking, the unbiased, non-politically minded look at what is arguably the most challenging problems of our time: Are we humans willing to do what it takes to save our planet? Or will we just keep arguing between ourselves, blaming each other and sticking to "reasonable" but insufficient measures to reduce the damage until it is too late? Time is of the essence.
Good piece. Good to see reference to Tony Seba. Sound chap.
Message to Dave: You are my favorite newscast of all 75 channels I follow. Thank you for giving us great relevant content without judgment and through a scientific way. 🙏🙏
So obviously the carbon price needs to be even higher, and needs to be implemented asap.
Shut up Switzerland you would pay a potato chips 50$ if they tell you is worthy....
Just kidding naivety, ingenuity aren't sins.
While Ignavia instead...
[In any case to respond seriously to your point: Also diamonds costs more because of an Economical tool, not becouse they're really this much rare to find in nature...
If you just let the Petroleum underneath the ground, you use the natural gas as burning resource, you are left with 75% Carbon..
Initially would cost less, the reasonable price to starting producing green electricity with it, afterwards it would costs more and more, it would also be the most reasonable way to store it...
Inexpensive, efficient, just stick to the Ground with Carbon...
Norway kinda did it...
Biggest Petrol Fund of the world...
Ah ha!]
LOL> It is suggested the carbon price adjustment should be over 1000 times higher to have any effect. The energy equation precludes change. You and I are dead species walking now.
The carbon price is pure distraction, thought up 30 odd years ago by the fossil industry to allow them to continue as normal, and pass the 'carbon cost' on to the consumer - continuing the 'everyone has to do their bit' narrative.
As noted in the vid - we are still using tax-payer money to fund fossil fuels - cut that to ZERO, like yesterday - then let 'the market' sort it out.
They're doing better than that in England, where one of Boris Johnson's cabinet ministers announced publicly that they will ban all personal vehicles in the future...both ICE and electric vehicles. Now that's progress! Yes , people in isolated areas will be forced to relenquish their property to the government, but that's a small price to pay.
It has been clear to me for years that any nation that can get off fossil fuels will benefit greatly.
Fossil fuel energy has developed into the biggest rat wheel in the history of the world.
It cannot be understated how much it costs all of us, every day, to keep the fires burning. Every single person in the world stand to increase their prosperity if they are not reliant on an economy that needs fossil fuels. Even nations which currently enjoy some perceived economic prosperity from the stuff. Apart may be from the miniscule minority for whom the fossil fuel industry provides income to a lesser all the way up to an astronomical extent. The benefits of a transition to a more affordable, more sustainable alternative paradigm - It ranges from greater affordability of basically everything, to even less working hours required to make a dignified living. And that's just the financial side of things. The mistake we've made is to count the global fossil fuel industry as economic activity. But it's not. All the rest, that's the true economic activity. Energy is just input. Not output. Nobody generates energy for the sake of generating energy alone.
The fossil fuel industry has developed into a giant economic tick, a parasite, that has managed to camouflage itself as economic activity.
And then let's look at the resources the fossil fuel industry consumes. Energy, minerals, human resources... Then also more abstract resources - Politics, stability, diplomacy, ecology, sustainability, human evolutionary fitness (yes. yes. no doubt on the latter. zero).
Wow... Great video piecing together the real situation and outcomes... Looking forward to the next one already...
Thanks again for a thorough, well-expressed, and inescapably disturbing report. I genuinely value your work in bringing the most credible and well-reasoned information to the general public regarding the problems, challenges, and opportunities related to the climate change emergency.
Cheers Will. I appreciate your feedback.
Are we going to cut agriculture and transportation carbon emissions by half in the next eight years? I would estimate the chance of that at just about zero percent.
We can if we want to starve.
Dirty energy should cost customers more than what it should cost... Not be subsidized to the point where it's so affordable people don't want to quit.
There is no real alternative, and that is not just on the cost side. The whole economy depends on the characteristics of fossil energy sources. Doing a 180 on that requires a very different economy and society with no roadmap of how to get there or what it really would look like. Most people don't have the energy to spare to even think about that, let alone enough buffers (mental and financial) in resources to absorb the impact that such changes bring.
I chose the only green energy supplier available back in the 90s (now known as Good Energy), but paid a premium for my choice. I didn't mind, as I thought it was worth the price, and, anyway, assumed the cost would come down as green generation became cheaper. Fast forward 25 years and I am paying a huge amount for my energy because the price of fossil fuel has gone through the roof. Meanwhile, the cost of producing green energy is at all all-time low, and getting cheaper all the time. Where the hell is the 'logic' in this??
I really do want to upvote this video, but I can't in good conscience do that now that UA-cam has hidden the downvote count. Being able to see upvotes is worthless when they won't let us see the upvote:downvote ratio.
I do like the clever slightly clickbaity title. Looks like it drew in some people who don't understand or like climate science.
The notion of implicit costs is well established in economic theory, but not everyone is familiar with it. I'd not previously heard the extended use of the idea to "implicit subsidies," although it makes perfectly good sense. I'm not an economist, but I spent a couple of decades teaching econ to high school students. So I know it's possible to convey these ideas to just about anybody who's willing to shut up and listen. Your video would have benefited from a minute or so spent explaining the fundamentals of cost theory.
I’m hoping Dave does a JHAT on the different kinds of carbon prices. Carrot and Sticks work best together.
The cost of dealing with the impact of Climate Change will be much greater than the cost of dealing with the cause.
Hello poor person!
Rich person here.
Actually no, the cost of dealing with this, will be borne by you through your taxes.
I will be fine. Because the government listens to me, not you.
I will simply use my millions to water and aircondition my home or move to a nice island, while you and yours suffer and die.
Fixing this mess would cut into my profits. Not fixing it means someone else picks up the tab. That's how capitalism has always worked.
Slaves, natives, poor countries all end up paying the extra, so that i can keep the profit.
That's how the system works.
And me and mine own the politicians, so it's never going to change.
Have a nice day!
And the reality is that we have the resources to fix it since doesn't actually take money money is a social construct use to assess value but the resources legitimate and real like climate change is. One day when the last fish is caught and the last oil is burned we will realize we can't eat money.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 capitalism has taken billions out of extreme poverty in the last century.
There are always numbers published about how many lives the industrial revolution costs every year. We never hear what the costs in lives would have been had we not had the industrial revolution. Double? Quadruple? Humans must be better off now than anytime in the past?
The problem is, no matter what we do it's going to cost the average person more. And many are barely making ends meet as it is. So for many the options are, do buy an electric car or do I eat? And you can't just say take Public Transportation because most cities don't have adequate public transit!
The thing about economic activity and growth is that it doesn't much matter WHAT you do. I once heard an economics professor say "If the whole country took up ballroom dancing, it would cause a boom. All those dancehalls to be built, all those dresses and suits, not to mention the tea and cake afterwards". You don't have to make cars or planes, you can make wind generators and heat pumps. A lot of people would get rich! The only problem is that the people who now own coal power stations and diesel engine factories would suffer. Well, let them suffer! They are rich anyway! The rest of us can earn a good living making things that don't produce CO2!!
They aren't all rich. What about the people who work in the coal plants and diesel factories? What about the people who loaned them money and expect to get paid back? I agree with you in principle, but it's not as simple as you make it out.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I realise it's not that simple, nothing is ever as simple in the execution as on the drawing board, but the principle is still valid. "It's raining soup, grab a bucket!".
we will probably need nuclear fusion and fission to replace current coal and oil burning. Humans, how did we let it get so bad. Hydrogen and electric cars needed immediately also. Thank you for your informative and ponderous video - keep up the good work.
nuclear power plants need 10 years just to be built, even if we started building them now in mass, you wound't see a single kW/h from them for 10 years, which is right by our deadline
"We" let the greeny numpties destroy our nuclear capacity.
Our political and economical systems do not favor long therm solutions when it contradicts with short therm interests of the politicians and electors. I am hopelessly pessimistic about any change in energy policy... :(
Always great info on your channel, keep it up!
With our grid already stressed, having everything run on electricity would cause catastrophic failures on a weekly basis, both economically and environmentally.
Better fix the grid then...
But the more reliant we become on the grid, the more vulnerable we become to an EMP attack that can take down the whole country.
That's not actually true. Some interesting answers came out when asked if the grid could handle the on coming demand by ev charging. The answer certainly wasn't negative.
However, the energy companies are holding back some development, such as rooftop solar which when combined with battery ev to grid systems could be a very effective source of energy along with grid scale storage systems.
@@Avarua59 ah yes, because that is the number one concern, an EMP attack
@@yodab.at1746 it may or may not be true. That is my opinion. You can't say for certain that what I say isn't true because the world has never run solely on electricity.
The collective effort required to accomplish the critical goals you have out lined is truly the linchpin for our hopes for the future. I've been wondering why nonprofits like Consumer Reports aren't offering a certification with accompanying labeling for companies who are succeeding in their goals to become carbon free. The US GDP is estimated to be driven by 75% of consumer spending and more and more citizens are accepting the fact that we can't just proceed with a business as usual attitude. I believe that companies would be motivated by consumer pressure, if a carbon free label helped them to quickly identify products that are living up to these standards. Thank you as always and be well.
I remember doing an economics 101 course in 2011, and we discussed whether it would be better to have an emissions trading scheme where credits are earned and traded between business, or a floating carbon market. The question was not "should we price carbon," but rather "what is the best way to price carbon?"
10 years on, political leaders in Australia can't even talk about either option rationally without someone shrieking "CARBON TAX!"
No one is able to say "hey we should be pricing the externalities, same with other more visibly polluting companies that need to cover costs of prevention, clean up and remediation."
That's already the case with electricity producers in the US, it's itemized on our electricity bills. The cost of decommissioning SONGS is on mine, which really pisses me off.
Great work again JHAT, so important to take stock of where we actually are and what options we actually have from here.
At the risk of sounding like a pessimist ... Perhaps we are going to have to admit that we'll never ever accomplish these goals? Once we let go of this hope, maybe we can get serious about developing a true alternative to this way of life that is creating this mess in the first place....
I agree! Eco-anxiety is high among young people and scientists. This fear can bring hopelessness and paralysis. One way to bring hope is to personally withdraw from the growth economy. Heat yourself and not the house; if you turn the heat down to 16 degrees C (60 degrees F.,) wear layers and sit with a blanket, eat less or no meat, find local farmers for some produce, buy used clothing and brag about how little you paid, stop buying plastic junk, etc. Your own actions bring confidence in the fact that you can and will live well with less; these actions help to mitigate the anxiety.
Unfortunately fools come to a different conclusion: why even try
@@bonniepoole1095 people are very egoistic, just look at the covid situation, how much struggle we had to just follow a few simple and essential rules.
now imagine telling the same people that can't care less about anyone else, that they need to lower their home heating in winter and maybe use a personal fan instead of a 10KW air conditioning system in the summer, and this is just the tip of the stuff you'd need to do to seriously lower your annual power consumption
I always hear about fossil fuel subsides in the abstract, never in the concrete. Numbers will be thrown around about how much they are subsidized, but never who is doing the subsidy, nor by what mechanism. For example, if the Saudi Arabian government spends $40 billion upgrading their own oil extraction equipment, does that get counted as a fossil fuel subsidy? The details seem to always be missing. These missing details does harm to our own case against subsidies.
No, that's a capital cost designed to increase/insure good production. It doesn't directly affect the price, which is determined by supply and demand (and production
agreements among OPEC, Russia, etc.)
@Daniel Meyers I'm looking at the IMF report. No mention of who is doing the subsidy (other than a regional breakout). No mention of an actual mechanism for an explicit subsidy (e.g. tax breaks for drilling oil).
Also, the regional breakout shows that almost no explicit subsidies are from North America or Europe. How do people living in these places end subsidies that aren't being dispersed?
@@lokensga It doesn't matter that it doesn't affect price. It could still be counted as a subsidy, as it is technically a government paying for the costs of oil extraction.
@Daniel Meyers That does no good if you live in one of the many industrialized nations whose subsidizes are the tiny fraction of the whole.
UA-cam won't let me post a link, but search for "EESI Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs". It's a really good breakdown of the fossil fuel subsidies in the US.
More importantly in your thumbnail Australia behind your head makes it look like you’re sporting a Mohawk.
Indeed. I modelled it on Elon :-)
A blue Aussie mohawk would look great on you (from thumbnail)! Thanks for your good work.
Keep fossil fuels in the ground - set a date and then that's it. The only solution that gives us any chance.
With the oil companies and their partners subsidising politicians around the world, this is a dead idea.
@@theotherandrew5540 the amount of money given to politrictions should be absolutely transparent, advertised and included in subsidies calculations.
If all the money given to fossil fuel companies was shifted to renewable energy, we'd be in a better place.
@@theotherandrew5540 It's certainly dead if it's never said. The advantage of simplicity should not be underestimated.
Corporate PR is to sow doubt and muddy the waters with complexity, to keep business going as usual. Their plan is the Great Reset - a dystopian hell sold as salvation.
@counselthyself If we set a date say 2035 then everything would swing into action to make a fossil free industrial revolution. Hopefully, an inclusive of many jobs, Green New Deal. We know how many gigatons of CO2 makes for 2C heating, so calculating the date is not difficult.
All the alternatives are confrontational barbaric failures.
@counselthyself Will do. Cheers
I'm willing to bet that 99% of people watching this video and that are complaining about our world leaders and claiming for the end of fossil fuels subsidies, aren't willing to deal with the consequences of doing what's needed to turn the ship around.
The problem is that not only are we not willing, but we are not capable of doing so. Turn the fossil fuels energy off tomorrow, and more people will die in a week than in decades of climate change induced problems. That’s the tragedy. We are trapped
We all do what we can at the time that we can. The change will happen with the masses.
As much as I would like not to agree with you, I'm afraid you are probably right.
99% of the people watching this video are probably part of the problem too, with high carbon lifestyles... Nobody knows what to do, very few are willing to downsize their lifestyle. Even every body installing solar buying EV's really doesn't solve the problem. We're doomed to some really nasty future woe and not that many people have even achieved that conclusion let alone done something about it.
I’m with you, but to understand how to end government subsidies it would be good to also know what the government royalties are. If royalties exceed subsidies how do we wean ourselves off? Does anyone know, for example, the royalty to subsidy ratio in the USA?
Hi, love your videos, i've been following you for a while. I work in the oil industry as a planner at One of the largest facilities in Europe, what frustrates me often is when I listen to people demonising oil companies, I can tell you (because I know) that only a small percentage of crude oil goes into producing fossil fuels, virtually everything in our modern day lives is produced using a raw material from oil, I don't need to list them as i'm sure you know.
In this latest video you talk about emissions from production of fossil fuels, rather than the use of them. Even if we stopped the use of them we would still need to extract and refine oil at virtually the same rate to produce all of the other products that we need during our everyday lives and of course for other industries.
Bye the way, production of other products, particularly the chemical industry is far more profitable for us, fuel is not our biggest money maker at all. Solvents, lubricants, industrial gases, plastics, synthetic rubber, bitumen and textile bases are all drawn off at various stages of the refinery process, some being cheaper to produce than others.
Yeah, that's because we are pretending that's not the other industrial substitutes for oil products like there aren't others for fuel.
You are being sensible, there is no place for that here 🙂
All measures short of fully halting and sequestering greenhouse emissions is a game of chance. A game that has a possibility of ending all known life. It's a remote possibility but not a zero possibility. Anyone who thinks that taking the bet of only partial or slow decarbonisation is either insane or at this point wilfully ignorant. Looking at you Australia. Not one honest tactician or strategist would take that bet.
Circular economy. Regenerative Agriculture.
Solar and wind generation with storage is more than capable of powering the planet and is the quickest and cheapest to deploy. This bs about waiting for some new technology is a f'ing lie, we have all we need right now... Except for the will to make fossil fuel stakeholders a little bit poorer. The already poor will be fine, they know how to be poor and in fact their lives will improve as local pollution goes away and food nutrients return to pre-industrial levels. Plus the added advantages of not being dead by events caused from run away climate change.
I believe there should be a way to package this to appeal to conservatives. The oil subsidies we have now are "big government", "crony capitalism", and "government picking winners". As long as it's not linked to new subsidies for different industries, I think the right spokesperson could get the population on board with this (convincing the corporations is a different issue).
You will have to convince the lobbyists.
Wont work. The $2.5 Trillion is a political number not an actual accounting of subsidies. The best solution is Musk's: Remove the need for fossil fuels.
@@jamesp3902 Musk's? What is his magic?
@@bill8985 Elon Musk. He's got the car industry racing to switch to EV. There is no path to significantly reducing oil consumption while it is needed for transportation and food production.
@@jamesp3902 Generally agree. But the process must include massively extensible renewable resources to displace the overall energy demand. Will solar and wind help? Yes. But will the technology development and massive-scale deployment of those resources keep up with the demand? Likely not. With ever-growing populations that are eager to achieve "western-style" living standards with 2 cars in the garage... I am far from optimistic. If the net improvement of EV over fossil fuel transportation is just 18% - well, that just ain't gonna cut it.
This is your best video in a long time. Most of the time these videos are full of dubious science that's eye-rollingly bad. This video is excellent.
Thank you for delivering important material calmly.
The assumptions that are made for carbon reductions assume the green energy alternatives have no cost to society. I doubt that would be true at all in the real world especially when considering greater worldwide demand for scarce resources at high rates of increasing demand would impact those at the lower fringes of society the most. How many individuals would suffer loss of income, loss of access to health care, and finally a chance to find and hold meaning full employment. Plus the large concentration of any energy supplier would warp government regulations to favor their industry just as is happening in the present day world. Politicians in most cases are bought and paid for by industries who can command greater and greater GNP percentages and human greed never goes away especially if capitalistic forces are decreased as the incentive to cheat and lie only goes up.
right now there won't be a solution where everyone is happy and well off. removing fossil fuels subsidies will hurt pretty much every aspect of life, oil/coal and gas are deeply rooted in our economy and society, so any real action will hurt us. it is like chemotherapy, we are trying to kill it before fossil fuels before they kills us, while also slowly killing ourselves in the process. we can see a better outcome only after we reached carbon freedom
I disagree. Alternative energy sources are more labor intensive than petroleum based sources. Demand for workers will skyrocket and the economy will flourish.
Do you want to count the economic benefits of fossil fuels in addition to its costs? For example this analysis seems to only count the negative impacts of the emissions from methane and not the benefits of heating, fertilizer manufacture and electricity.
If you want to replace methane for these purposes you also need to explore the price delta with the alternatives and multiply that across society. Everyone just glosses over these points
So if people are saying that the damage to the economy from Texas power outage was 80-120billion usd in a week can we interpret that as saying that natural gas and coal is a vital part of maintaining that economic activity since that shows the effect of an instant 25% shortfall in gas capacity?
No, the vital part is doing some realistic thinking rather than choosing options (no connection to another grid), hoping for the best (no freezes in Texas), and cutting corners.
@@lokensga what do you think the other grids run on?
This is a very timely video considering the Paid to Pollute court case is tomorrow, taking the UK government to court for exactly the reason of its continued subsidisation of fossil fuels.
David Starley How did that court case go? It would be great if you could somehow keep us in the loop. Asking as a concerned Australian!
The thumbnail is precious --- Australia makes it appear that Our Favorite Thinker has a mohawk.
2030: Every new building will not have gas, all heating will be electrical (stove, oven, water, air), meet a new energy efficiency standard, and all of them will have solar roof.
2030: Every new vehicle will be electrical or powered by a non-greenhouse fuel (like hydrogen).
2040: All electricity will come from non-greenhouse gases sources (solar, wind, geo, maritime, nuclear). Fossil fuels electric plants will be gradually decommissioned ending 2040.
2040: All industries will have reconverted to use non-greenhouse gas energy.
2040: All activities absolutely requiring a high-energy-density fuel will use closed-cycle fuels (bio fuels or carbon-capture synthetic fuels) and of course the energy required to make these fuels will come from non-greenhouses generation sources.
From here to 2040, the states will have to invest in infrastructure projects to radically transform the electrical power grid. The current grids are totally incapable of transporting all the energy used by human activity, since a good part of that currently comes in the way fossil fuels (both liquid and gas).
All of the above is technically feasible today. It just requires political decision and a ton of money, money that is available, by the way, but directed to the fossil fuels industry.
The other pending item, and it is a major one, would be how we transform our diet in a much more plant-based one. Currently about 85% of the crops go to feed live stock (animals) that we then eat, a process in which about 90% of the original calories and proteins of the plants are lost. With a population that will continue to grow, with poverty going down in a global scale, and with people going out of poverty shifting to more animal-based diets, there will be a very strong pressure in the following years to increase food production overall and animal products in particular, which simply cannot be done without increasing deforestation to use land for more crops (most of which again will end up going to feed animals and not humans directly). If by some kind of magic we would ALL become vegans overnight, the amount of agricultural land available will be enough, for the foreseeable future, to feed all humans and their population growth, all biofuels for activities that are hard to convert to electric (like aviation), and we will still have a lot land to spare that we can re-forest to repair, at least partially, the damage already caused by massive deforestation. The problem is that I don't see a viable path to make this massive veganization happen. While I think it is politically possible, and acceptable to the people, to establish regulations for example for new constructions and new cars, I don't think that regulating diet is something that politicians are willing to do or the people is willing to accept (full disclosure, I am not vegan, but I think we all should be).
They want a global totalitarian gov't by 2030. They released a paper in 2016 saying so. That is the reason they invented the climate change crisis and started hyping it in 1992...they even admitted that. That's why all these temperature lowering measures are actually designed to bring down the most powerful capitalist democracy in the world...America. For example...the IPCC has released numbers showing that Germany's 10% decrease in carbon emissions has lowered the earth's temp. by 0.0004 of a degree...so even a 100% reduction of industry in every economy in the world , would not lower the temp by even one degree. Do the math...see the lies.
@@markanthony3275 ... Please share the source of any of the lies you are telling. This is the top one: "Germany's 10% decrease in carbon emissions has lowered the earth's temp. by 0.0004 of a degree." There are so many things wrong with that. Starting with the fact that you cannon measure the effect of part of the lobe reducing the carbon emissions while the rest is not. It is a global thing, both in the cause and the effect. Then... 0.0004 of a degree? You just took that out of your arse. There is no way to measure Earth's temperature with that precision. Take into account that the Earth has different temperatures in each place an each second that vary by much more than that. The global temperature reported is an average of all the world along one full year. Do you really think that such an average can be measured with that precision as to detect such a change? There is a part of your post that is ridiculous, and that is the part between "They" and "lies".
Love your channel. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Excellent articulation and quality graphics and charts.
Excellent and informative. As always.
One would think, that puttin ALL that money to 4th gen nuclear would result in a couple of good reactors. The potential is enormous. They DO work, it's a question of maintenance requirements and reliabilty.
No, it is a question of time. We need already proven solutions now. Basically, wind and solar are it.
What about the decommisioning cost?
Way to slow. They are supposed to be ready by 2030 and current nuclear reactors take a decade to be build, so we are talking 2040. Since we need to cut emissions right now, the better way of going about it is more wind and solar and electrifying as much as we can, develop better electricity storage and add some nuclear plants, but waiting for new technologies is not necessary nor to we have the time.
@@phil2544 charge it to the Arabs!!!
@@phil2544 Yes, that is another big drawback of nuclear.
My questions are: Does the IMF really have the ability to enforce these carbon taxes on all countries? And how well can it determine the true amount of total emissions each country produces?
I suspect it can impose a tax on each country, but it will be up to each country to ensure that the responsible parties are getting taxed rather than spreading the tax equally among it's citizens. Corporations will try to evade the tax by lobbying for more subsidies etc... Governments must have the ability to resist lobbying of these carbon emitting industries, and I'm not sure how that will be possible...
Of course not. The world consists of a bunch of independent nations, along with some agreements, federations, and treaties. There is no entity that can enforce taxes on the whole world. That would require an agreement among nations.
taxes and subsidies are to a large extent responsibility of individual countries.
More nonsense. The comment does not add meaningfully to the debate. Exactly - of course NOT.
Governments can use the savings from ending fossil fuel subsidies by subsidizing green energy companies as well as building its own green energy infrastructure.
Good to keep discussing this issue, but I wish more people would distinguish BETWEEN different fossil fuels. Coal is filthy with tremendous pollution when mined and then again when burnt. Natural gas is clean, producing only CO2 and water when burnt AND the CO2 it produces is only HALF that of coal for the same amount of heat. OIl is midway in between. In discussing subsidies we shoud distinguish between subsidies for coal/oil and natural gas. To get the right incentives we need to tailor subsidies/penalties according to the actual harm of these different types of fuel.
The clip regarding the implications of 3% annual economic growth lays bare the reality. We simply cannot continue to consume and pollute at the current levels.
I can see the externalities not being included in fossil fuel pricing as leading to their under-pricing. But it seems like most of the so-called "explicit subsidies" are just what are considered normal tax deductable business expenses in other industries, or are part of the negotiation on pricing of mineral resources controlled by governments.
Extinction Rebellion will send round the agit-prop team to reform your thinking; that is all far to sensible.
Exactly!!!…
@Rich Dobbs: In most Western countries petrol and diesel fuel are heavily taxed. The governments will have to replace this lost review if they insist upon foisting battery cars upon the people.
@@johngeier8692 it will be a tax on electricity and more casino’s…
@@johngeier8692 In America, fuel is relatively lightly taxed, with the intent to be a means of paying for roads. The federal tax is a per gallon tax, which hasn't been adjusted for either inflation nor fuel efficiency. This is part of the reason for the deficiency in infrastructure here. But, there is a goodly share of good old corruption, civil engineers giving poor scores as part of union activity, and various other issues. The roads near me are in good shape, but seem incredibly inefficient in the amount of asphalt and concrete compared to road traffic, and construction projects seem to take forever. I'm sure that electric cars not paying for road maintenance will be considered an excellent way to fight climate change.
Have spread "This Just Have a THINK" as widely as I can.. Thank you for the detailed report
Your videos are always useful and of high quality.
We could in 2 years it just need to be consolidated the idea and the financial concept that Carbon is the most valuable compound we can extract from petroleum..
And they are burning it like there's no tomorrow.
Energy can be created by Carbon based technologies, from tons of Graphite to Graphene.
Graphene is by now super expensive because there isn't really anyone requiring the easily accessible compound.
There are countless of things Graphene could be applied to...
From open Sea platforms, to concrete adjuvant, to Carbonium reusable infrastructures...
They just decided to burn their most valuable asset....
It is as such from much more time than it should be...
For a brighter look on the graphene topic, look into ‘flash grahene’, they have made good progress and an added bonus it could be used to help solve our waste crisis as well. Just a start.
This could be a series of wins, if we took it seriously.
Any major shift from THIS to THAT requires a government push with government jobs/hiring, design, and subsidies. This could mean jobs from research through actual implementation with repair/maintenance. This could be quid pro quo work to erase student loan debt, a way to delay expensive grid upgrades by establishing linked microgrids attaching stand alone producers of electricity. (Wide and simple view.)
For those who doubt government shifts can do this, think back to the "war effort" governmental actions in WWII complete with childcare facilities. We can do this, except that we lack the will.
Change is hard...until not changing is harder.
Brilliant - been waiting for this! (Might take a few viewings to understand it, but thanks very much!)
Cheers Andrew :-)
You have an awesome Australian mohawk on the thumbnail! 👍🏻
I modelled it on Elon :-)