How America can leave fossil fuels behind, in one chart | 2020 Election
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2024
- And what the US election means for climate change.
Watch more 2020 election explainers at vox.com/ElectionVideos
All of recorded human history has happened during a period in which the average global temperature didn’t change by more than 1 degree Celsius. But the burning of fossil fuels has triggered a temperature rise projected to exceed 3 degrees by the end of the century. It will be catastrophic. But it can be avoided if we massively scale back the burning of fossil fuels.
The US isn’t the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, but it's emitted more carbon dioxide in total than any other country. So the US has an important role to play in global decarbonization; the world basically can’t get there without the US’s full participation. But the current US president doesn’t have any plans to do that. His Democratic challenger in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, does.
Biden’s plan is ambitious: Its goal is to completely transition the US to clean energy by 2050. But his plan doesn’t get into the details of exactly how that will happen. For that, we talked to physicist and engineer Saul Griffith, who took us through his incredibly detailed road map for how the US could actually walk away from fossil fuels in the next 30 years.
This was the first in our series of 2020 election explainers, all based on viewer suggestions. Watch the others, which cover the stakes of the election on:
1) Climate change: • How America can leave ...
2) Voting rights: • What long voting lines...
3) Reproductive health: • How US abortion policy...
4) Public schools: • How US schools punish ...
5) Police reform: • How the next president...
6) America’s role in the world: • How America could lose...
7) Transportation: • Why American public tr...
8) LGBTQ rights: • Why LGBTQ rights hinge...
9) The eviction crisis: • Millions of Americans ...
You can check out Saul Griffith’s report on decarbonizing the US through electrification at Rewiring America:
www.rewiringamerica.org/handbook
And explore his Sankey diagram of the US energy economy in detail here: energyliteracy.com/
To read more about the fluctuations in Earth’s global average temperature and why the current spike is so dangerous, check these sources:
www.climate.gov/news-features...
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gr...
climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-...
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploa...
Read more about why carbon dioxide is so problematic for climate change here: www.ucsusa.org/resources/why-...
You can dig into historic carbon emissions by country or region at Our World in Data:
ourworldindata.org/grapher/an...
The impact of the Trump administration on climate change is covered in more depth on our website:
www.vox.com/energy-and-enviro...
www.vox.com/energy-and-enviro...
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
This was the first episode of our series on the 2020 election. Over 15,000 of you told us which issues mattered the most to you, and we made 9 episodes explaining what the election meant for those issues:
1) Climate change: ua-cam.com/video/QfAXbGInwno/v-deo.html
2) Voting rights: ua-cam.com/video/al3qY8ZMHEc/v-deo.html
3) Reproductive health: ua-cam.com/video/Bzuk13Ftxgo/v-deo.html
4) Public schools: ua-cam.com/video/lFJ37ri-Saw/v-deo.html
5) Police reform: ua-cam.com/video/SHePglP28CM/v-deo.html
6) America’s role in the world: ua-cam.com/video/S5LrQv496Iw/v-deo.html
7) Transportation: ua-cam.com/video/-ZDZtBRTyeI/v-deo.html
8) LGBTQ rights: ua-cam.com/video/xRnpUptf7E0/v-deo.html
9) The eviction crisis: ua-cam.com/video/F07yTI0J3Qk/v-deo.html
Thanks to everyone who responded to the callout and took the time to help make our reporting and our videos stronger.
Police accountability
Should you have to turn your cameras on in Zoom.
Look at carbon sequestration, rewilding and stage 0 river restoration
I think the candle should be discussing Decriminalization of cannabis for both recreational and medicinal uses.
Hey Vox, if possible could you share the link of the sankey diagram?
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” - Greek Proverb.
i disagree due to history. augustus saw the empire he created and his achievements. albert einstein saw his success, albeit later in life.
My dad has planted a mini woods on his property. He's still planting and enjoying the extra shade from the ones he has always planted. He has 7 acres
Evil Spatula I think you missed the point
@@evilspatula6450 lol whooosh
This is beautiful
This reminds me of when in like grade three the teacher would say if everyone does silent reading without talking for 10 minutes, everyone gets to go outside. Everyone wanted to go outside, everyone knew the best option was to just be quite for ten minutes, but we couldn't do it. there would always be someone who tried to be funny and get attention at the expense of everyone else's fun.
Ouch, this is so real a perfect metaphor
F
What an amazing metaphor
Prisioners dilemma
@@kjl3080 this have nothing to do with prisoner dillema
It sounds like everybody cares but nobody makes the move.
This comment aged well
I like dat bobux pfp
You have Elon and Tesla but they can't do it alone
@@La-Illaha-Illa-Allah true
Think about the economy! /s Also, one thing that is not in this carbon footprint: a lot of energy intensive products are made offshore in where labour is cheap and laws lax. They are made for us, bought by us, used by us, but all the CO2 is produced elsewhere. It's easily about the same size as the in-country emissions. And what most people don't want to hear - methane is also a greenhouse gas. Gas drilling, pipelines all leak methane, and not even in small quantities. And then there's the part noone wants to hear: industrial meat production, with beef being the biggest contributor.
Humans: don’t react to climate change on time
Climate change: approaches
Humans: oh no itwould be to difficult and radical to react now, lets not do it
Then life just continues and future generations don’t even think about it because they realize how obviously ridiculous that notion is.
that's a lie media keeps pushing to people
Kinda like Covid, if you got what i mean!
if you didn't, we were warned that such thing could happen but neglected that see bill gates on TED 7 years ago and bunch of other sources.
We are now taking actions on problems . I donot mean we are only great . Animal and Plants are also great . Why not I say Earth is great
@@1158supersiri 😂 which is why glaciers are melting faster, and storms have gotten worse? Explain that.
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" - Albert Einstein
Dann Nyiam 💯
So what are you going to do?
Nah. The number of people responsible for the energy decisions that cause most of the world's warming can be counted on-hand.
@@derk.ex.machina that's not the point. The point is your (well not you personally) biggest contribution against climate change was leaving an inspirational/woke quote on a video. And considering the quote's message, it's pretty hypocritical do literally be the person you are talking about. Yes billionaire stipulated the use of fossil fuel, but was it you that decided "you know, I'm actually going to make an impact." Yes billionaire in the end produce more carbon dioxide that most of us, and yes they own companies that do so, but it's us that sit silently as they do it. Yes the system is rigid against us, but what stops you from organizing an actual protest, or start lobbying, and instead you chose to do nothing, like a comment making fun of people you despise, without realizing that you also fall into that category. I know I am doing almost the same thing, and you can never change anyone's opinion, especially on the internet, but I have a good excuse. I can't vote. Period. I have school work I need to do, which at this point is a bigger priority for me and the world, as it will hopefully make me a net positive later. Sorta rant over.
@@jasoncola6071you don't know what I do in my free time
The point I wanted to make is that corporations have succeeded in shifting responsibility onto YOU, and you're just as complacent in it as I am, whether or not you or I protest and are proactive, since again, we aren't the ones at greater fault here
"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." -Plato
XtarShoter true but sad
Plato is the best
Then you all better become Christ followers. He is the light. Not bogus science
Those diagrams are so beautiful, the reality they depict so scary.
Its so depressing that there are a bunch of people in the USA that either don't care about this or have been tricked into believing that it isn't real. :(
Or what if you were tricked into believing it’s real? Hmmm
@@alexrivera4598 global warming is real theres all the evidence in the world.
Let's suppose it is real. What are we going to do about it? The USA is only 15% of worldwide CO2 emissions. I recommend bringing the climate protest to China, India, and Russia. We may as well throw Mexico and Venezuela in there as well.
Well the 60 years of telling up we are going in 20 years gets old
Wow People really don’t get that it’s real
Everyone does their own work
The USA has a responsibility to decrease Emissions
And they can put pressure on the EU and China and India
Chernobyl was a tragedy not only because of the event itself, but also about how much damage it's done to peoples' perception of nuclear power :( .
And three mile island, and Fukushima. Nuclear power is the best power source we currently have for the demand we need. But people think it's nothing but a radioactive disaster.
Gary Gruvman Need to reduce demand. Do we want the companies lobbying governments to keep their carbon intensive industries intact and profitable in charge of nuclear energy? No.
In hindsight, look at the figures, all these nuclear disasters prove how safe it is
It's a good job that Bill Gates decided to do some R&D to make nuclear power safer. I'm sure in good time the world will come to accept nuclear power as the new equilibrium energy source.
@@IndigoIndustrial demand will never decrease. With more and more people coming into the world and wanting comforts that's a fools dream. We haven't even seen the real big hits yet. That's why China and India are ramping up power with more coal plants because people are demanding more. While they have a lack of infrastructure it would be perfect to utilize newer "cleaner" energy sources but they have found that it would cost them far too much which is why they are going with coal.
This is what happens when you elect politicians who don't believe in science
Financial Shinanigan 💯
Why hasn’t Joe done anything yet? He’s been in politics a long time.
Renewable energy is not reliable, and expensive, so I am suggesting nuclear energy
Samuel T Oh the whataboutism really shows now huh, joe this democrat that what has the GOP done about it, oh idk continually bashed science, defund education, and actively kept the government from working.
My senator brought in a snowball to disprove climate change
Politicians: We need to take care of our Environment for the good future of mankind
Also Politicians: Ha Ha, Missile Go Boom!
Also Politicians Again: Ha ha, A10 go brrrrtttttt
Also politicians: and since this will help the future, make the future pay for it..
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺
@@tripanzo Each one is better than the previous!
@@therealgadielsepulveda yes trump was so great!
1:44 "You have to start now." Yeah, now is too late, really. Old Chinese proverb: "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."
This is why the Chinese are beating us
@@Evili555 in what? Starting up coal power plants?
@@nolkerss making money which includes coal power plants
Well, we have a best time for now, we can't go back to 2000 because it just doesn't exist for now, and situation will get worse if we don't act now, so relatively to the future, now is the best time for action
@@chingis1154 no it’s not, the us treasury is poor
The best time to have done something about fossil fuels was 30 years ago, the 2nd best time is now.
🌲
And there will be no 3rd best time.
@vinks You could be technical and say that every year since 30 years ago was the second best time, and then third best time, and then fourth, etc. But the idea is to motivate people to make a change right now. We should have taken action before today, that would have been best, but the best option remaining so move right tf now
No, the best time to do it is the present. Yeah overall the best time was to actually start doing it 50 years ago, but now is the best time. When I say now I mean the relative present, so in 5 years the best time would be in 5 years time. My point is there is no moment in the future where we can just quit, there's always a chance to fix things.
global warming and co2 raised the first suspicions between 1850 and 1950, in 1970 it was already a thing. The '30 years ago' mark just serves to show up how little do we really care
Not gonna lie, this makes me nervous like nothing else
same
Same
@@Cytoplasm4508 Exactly. Liberals are nothing by terrorists that use psychological warfare. A fairly large chunk of kids have nightmares about climate change. I personally have nightmares about my guns being took away but I know how that would end.
@@Cytoplasm4508 you trumpanzees are really ignorant 😒 you always wanna politicize everything & blame it on "liberals & the left"
You and me both
So it's 100% not going to happen
As much as I wish it were, America is hopeless
well atm china and india are the main polluters and that is not going to stop , even if the us is 0 emissions tomorrow those 2 will simply pollute enough to the point it does not really matter that much
Not with the Republican Party holding power.
@@sanjikaneki6226 China is leading development of green technology and planting huge forests to help. Meanwhile, a huge portion of their CO2 production is to produce cheap, disposable consumer goods for the US.
I think China is awful. I want to be better than China, but we're not, so we need to spend less time finger pointing and more time getting our own house in order.
@@sanjikaneki6226 The US and other Western countries offset their own carbon footprint by making their products in China and India.
America? What about China? They're the largest producers of greenhouse gasses.
Politicians after finally listening to the people: so when would we start decarbonising?
Literally every Climate change activist:NOW,NOW,NOW,NOW,NOW
@@nathanielholmes79 Trump:
no, a century.
"Maybe once i'm out of the house, better yet, when i'm dead."
Not going to happen in our lifetime! Maybe, 300 years from now when fusion reactors are mainstream!
So you are against fossil fuels?
Sounds like this all could create lots of jobs. Why don’t politicians take that angle?
@Powaup, Money!!!!!!!!
Biden is pushing this argument yes
It costs a helluva lot to do, and it would also cost a lot of jobs and end a lot of businesses. FDR's mobilization for war was not without controversy - some companies actually sued over being repurposed this way - and you'd see an even greater pushback today. FDR presided over a communitarian decade and had an extremely friendly Congress as well as the very real, literal enemies of the Axis powers. We have none of these factors at work. Mobilizing a federal effort that will fundamentally change the fabric of American life without those factors will be next to impossible.
I think people will be unemployed, because they don't have the knowledge to work in this Sector, so this is a problem, which have to get away from the way of clean future.
And yes this isn't severe like the climate change, but Politians focuse more on short term problems, then long term problems, because they want to get more power through voters and they don't get the Idea, that if they solve a long term problem they get more reputation.
Alexandria ocasio-cortez and the green New deal which Biden will not adopt in his platform
Countries be like WE NEED TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!
Also countries: After you
Coronavirus: hold my beer bro!
💯
Tragedy of the commons at the world level. Each individual country benefits by using as much fossil fuels to prop itself up since they are cheap and available but when everybody uses them the entire world will suffer, some more than others but there is only one earth.
*a country does it*
The USA: "But they're smaller than us!!!!"
*another country*
The USA: "BUT WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE!!!"
*another one*
The USA: "BUT-"
you get the idea
@ oddysey , yes
Sooner or later we're gonna have to fall back on nuclear, this dude admitted it.
No, with the invention of Nuclear *FUSION* (not fission which is what we currently use), scientists and earth as a whole is practically going to have unlimited energy that is 100% clean and cheap, the only problem is scientists don't know how to make it _yet_
@@tylerswint2695 The ITER is still about 5 years from switching on, and there’s no guarantee it will produce more power than it uses to keep the plasma from fizzling. Plus it’s costing billions of Euros, so it not only has to work right, but be scalable to the point that it’s cheaper to build.
@@tylerswint2695 ahh yes, the myth of fusion not producing waste... what happens to the radioactive heavier than helium isotopes which are a neutron you intended for your lithium blanket to produce more tritium? Ohh hey, yeah, tritium is the thing anti nukes complain the most about current plants "leaking" into water sources, and you want a reactor which intentionally produces it? What about the metals which absorb neurons during operation which become radioactive?
There is plenty of waste in fusion that will need storage, just like fission.
Given fusion's perpetual "a decade away", fission represents an easy way to decarbonize the grid and fast. France did it in about 15 years by using a standardized plant design. The US could probably do it quicker given our construction prowess.
@@tylerswint2695 We don't know if it'll work, but they are starting construction!
What gonna happen to all the nuclear waste? it will not magically vanish
this man singlehandedly did more work than the EPA 😭😭
America just needs to install the green energy DLC
If only things were that simple
If only that wouldn't cause everything to light on fire like California.
What's AOC? A pre-release trial?
But seriously. The issue is congress.
Vote, ain't nobody gonna convince a 50 year old stubborn right-wing boomer, we have to vote them out and vote in intelligent leadership.
@@joshlanders I'm not from America but yeah please vote.
@@joshlanders yes but Republicans mostly see Democrats as enemies and not colleagues so they just use the filibuster and stop everything in it's tracks
Back in 2000, my parents laughed at me for being concerned about the climate. SMH.
What is the point if you are not alive right?!
Considering how none of the catastrophes that were prophesized since then have even remotely manifested, I't say they were right to do so...
@@Alexander_Kale the west coast is literally on fire
@@papaspooks8531 Whenever someone says "These are the worst fires since Y years", what that actually means is there have been worse fires Y+1 years ago. Meaning such fires are possible without man's interference in the climate. Meaning you cannot attribute these fires to man either, without some serious evidence, and that evidence does not exist.
There is no global trend in droughts currently. There is no global trend in extreme weather events either.
The west coast is on fire rght now. It has been on fire in the past. Even if we stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, it will be on fire again some time in the future. Forest fires happen.
@@papaspooks8531 Isn't climate change global? If so why aren't there fires all over the place?
TL;DR: america could save the planet but they don’t want to because a group of old guys don’t like it
TLDR America wants to fight climate change but a corrupt election system led to someone who lose the vote becoming president and denying science
I’m 11 but I still want more fossil fuel
Good one Kayla 😁
@@mateuszdziewierz2938 it’s probably because your parents want it
@@joselira9342 It's probably his family's way of life, as they work in the industry, so it is only natural. The big question is what are we going to do with the people who need those jobs?
"It's really about how fast you build machines"
Tesla has entered the chat.
I hope that getting everyone to agree with this is not like trying to get everyone to wear masks
Way harder since oil and other natural gas companies have way too much power in the government.
It will be infinitely harder.
It HAS been harder
Except this time the problem isn’t the people, it’s the companies.
@@MathGPT we at least should try
Everyone: stop using fossil fuel!
Usa: No that’s socialism!
Well, they aren't wrong. It will take us collectively pooling our resources to do a massive energy change. The problem is we shouldn't be stigmatizing Socialism & realize the evils of Capitalism are the very reasons we're in this situation in the first place.
When you give the government power to decide what energy we're using and what cars we drive that's a big step towards socialism.
@@bobohunter1776 I would argue there's not too much wrong of that. Unless they abuse such power towards it's people. Our constitution says the government can make laws in order to protect the country from real threats. If there needs to be a change, laws must be drafted.
G.A.B.E 708 that’s a pretty ignorant viewpoint considering the history of socialism and its inherent economic flaws
@@CPubi And it's pretty ignorant to ignore what capitalism has caused as well. You can't argue against one side without mentioning the other.
Added to my subscription list. You guys really go into detail about this kind of stuff and actually make me want to stick around to see the end of the video. There are few other channels that keep me engaged with would would normally be boring topics if taught in school or in any other scenerio. Keep up the good work,Vox!👍
The saddest part is good economics and ecology is bad politics
I don't think that's the case. I think the issue is more that most societies have groups of vehemently self-interested people.
@@TheJerbol True, but that's what capitalism is all about. People in power have to attempt to change that attitude but what they focus on changing is their Votebank count
"How is the US supposed to do that?"
It'd help if we stopped reopening coal mines
But the jobs and their way of living! They been doing coal mining for generations! They even have black lungs to show for it...
Victor Hinojos well it’s time to stop things change
@@Master-kh6ww Time for things to change, alright explain how are you going shift hundered's of thousands of coal miners, to go from coal mines, to other lines of work, especially with little funding, take example West Virginia, has very little money to help those coal miners, get into other jobs, and West Virginia, does not seem to be the best place for White Collar jobs. Now there is blue collar job's, but that would also take quite a chunk of money to retrain them to those job's. However yes I do agree with, a change needs to happen.
@@themidnightracer9937 there are just about 50k coal miners in the entire country. They earn, on average, $60k/year. Are you saying our 21 trillion dollar economy can't solve a $3bn problem?
California wildfires in 2018 cost $400bn.
Both presidential candidates, combined, may approach $2bn spent on campaign related expenses.
I don't think the coal miners' salaries are the problem...
@@eljorgetmf I'm not talking salaries, I'm talking retraining coal miners, into different lines of work, which can up add quite the bill, especially in poor states. Now if there was federal funding, then yes it can be done. Since if you shut down all coal mines, people are going into debt, loose houses, and go homeless which will not be good.
We're currently on track for 4.3C
Nice I don't like snow anyways.
Not considering positive feedback loops or increased emissions by eg perma frost.
tigerkill420 I guess you don’t like living either
sounds nice
$400 trillion dollar in damages if we get to that treshold.
It’s the most unhappy people who most fear change - Mignon McLaughlin
This shouldn't be political. This is about the whole human race. We need to vote for Biden whether you Republican or Democrat. Or else we don't have a future. I am mostly conservative. But we need to change before it's too late!
Thank you for your vote 💕
Don't forget to continue voting for politicians who support climate change even after Biden!
Nope
We need people in India who care about enviroment as our politics. Ebikes galore
democracy is SO outdated it needs a refresh.
As a European, the idea that my future and the future of the humanity on Earth is in the hands of the Americans and Trump.. this is rather saddening :(
Keith Walker We are are also a huge factor. Don’t look away and blame others when we are nearly just as responsible
EU has been spitroasted between China and the U.S. for years. If we stopped bickering among each other and started working together, we could actually do something about this.
America emitted most in total. But right now it's China that's emitting the most per year.
We can ALL do something, every, single, person.
@@hugodeandres1497 c02 emissions in europe per person are less than half of that of the US and we invest way more to further lower it
“The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago, the second best time is now”
-Kurzgesagt
What about 9 years ago?
Also that's not originally from Kurzgesagt anyway
I'm pretty sure that's a proverb.
Mr beast: *advertises website that will plant 20 Million trees*
@@georgesamuelson4003 It's credited to an old Chinese proverb.
planting trees doesnt work though, doubling all trees on earth will net you a mere 10 years of emissions and your never allowed to cut them down again. theres not enough space on the planet for this. only nuclear power works but people just dont care enough about the environment quite yet to implement working solutions..
Al Gore was an environmentalist. Literally 500 votes in Florida separated us from a Clean Energy World and an Industrialized Coal/Gas Powered World.
This is one of the best videos I've ever seen. Thank you.
We have the tech and the resources, just not the common sense.
And also rich people concerned only with money and oil.
@Derick Fang, humans will be the ultimate downfall of human kind.
Greed is a big barrier too
Well can we make the creation of renewable energy producers less expensive and more efficient??
This is literally the most complex and largest scale problem ever encountered in human history, so “common sense” - eh not exactly....
I'm out here on team nuclear. Ironically the safest energy source
By far the best safety record of any form of energy production. Nuclear would be the logical choice given the supposed problem, yet it has been shunned and litterally regulated to death. It seems the climate changers arent very concerned about less C02 emissions.
And we have the technology to build ultra-safe Generation IV nuclear power plants fueled by commonly-available thorium-232.
its sad that people view it as dangerous. Think about how much more efficient and safe nuclear reactors have become.
Have you heard the good news about NuScale? They're part of the Gen 4 nuclear program, and they just got authorized to enter production this year. They'll have a reactor power station running in Ohio by '23. Terrapower's not far behind, and they're using a molten salt heat reservoir attached to their reactor as a grid battery, they can boost their 300 MW reactor to 500 peak for demand spikes. Once they blaze the path, MSRs should start moving along fast. We're on the edge of glory, folks!
Nucular is a fossel fule
Imagine a world one day where all those beautiful cars you know are illegal, but replaced with other beautiful cars
a beautiful futur it would be
A V8 electric (Dodge Ram will find a way to get this )
Unlikely to happen
Our inaction really is criminal negligence.
You can't expect everyone to care about 'saving the world' or the environment. With some people I think you'll get further by pitching the other benefits of this technology like - portability, efficiency, economy, safety, quieter, less stinky, etc.
People won't care until we see consequences. By then hopefully we moved out of earth lol.
Yeah, I wonder what the cost is of all the health issues caused by burning fuels.
Do you mean like the fluorescent light bulb compared to incandescent? Remember what that transition was like? People were hoarding the old light bulbs because they couldn't take the change.
Another big one is your electric/utility bill will be cheaper.
Which is why carbon taxes and subsidies work: the government just makes clean technology cheaper, and the free market does the work.
It makes me sad how many people are careless about climate change
Not everyone lives a good life to think about this.
they just don't think its a problem, the Sahara desert was green 10k years ago so why is climate change all of the sudden caused by humans, that's the ideology.
Have you finished your beef burger yet? :-)
Seeing how many people believe this nonsene is what makes me sad.
@@happypt2929 The positives of fossil fuel use far outweight the negatives.The consequences of the projections on temperature and sea level rise are being highly exaggerated by the media and politicians, anyone willing to read the actual IPCC reports can see their current projections. These changes will be slow and we will adapt. Thats a much more prudent solution then completely transforming civilization. There is also the fact that people have never lived longer, safer and more prosperous lives. Average life expectancy is rising and so is average income per capita. All of this is a result of reliable energy sources most of which are fossil fuels.
Also an important thing to consider, doing this would isolate a lot of countries that get their money from gas/natural oil so we'll need to reshape our foreign policy a lot as well.
Absolutely loved this video and the simple and logical breakdown of key points throughout! Thanks
How about don’t spend 600 billion on the military but rather on renewable energy sources. Also give a bit more to space exploration.
Aienbalos Aienbalos spend 100-200 billion less. That’s still an enormous amount compared to a country like Russia. Their military spending is about 70 billion.
We should spend more on nuclear
The US Spends that money to make sure the world is safer. If Russia or China controlled what we control, the world would be WAY worse. Ever think why Covid 19 come from China? Bcuz they have no safety standards.
They could start with simply not spending $20bn to subsidize fossil fuel companies. Imagine where we'd be if that amount of subsidy had gone to green energy instead over the past 10 years.
Heh, you're delusional if you think the US would spend less money on the military. The US's military is way more globally important than you likely realize. It's not as simple as just slashing spending by 30-50%.
Please do a video about the clothing industry and what are the current available resources that we can use to lessen plastic use in the clothing industry.
The Government needs to do a huge transformation on how we all live.
The world needs change in a positive direction and RIGHT NOW.
Let's be the change we seek
2 Trillion $ Climate plan go brrrr
@Tessellation yup
@white That is true in an economic system that does not consider the planet we live in and the future generations that would suffer and curse their ancestors for doing nothing.
@white you are by defenition evil....
Everyone:
Physicist's kid: AaAaAhhh (while dad's saving the world)
Guillermo Hernandez why are you yelling?
i was looking for this comment lol
@@guillermohernandez4000 This comment had nothing to do with politics. That was just a funny moment.
I'm not even american
@@guillermohernandez4000 so we should vote for Republicans and make climate change worse?
@JoJo Reference He's certainly not trying to destroy it
This is so big. Big ups to that guy who compiled this data. He should be hired at the energy department as a consultant
The energy department can not afford him Nor his level of expertise.
3:23 I was drinking water and this made me laugh... I haven’t choked this intense in a while lol
Maybe instead of just replacing the source, people could also start needing less energy. The US could invest in a proper public transit system for example. You need fewer planes if you can hop on a decently priced high-speed train to at least every major city in the US. For example, in the Netherlands, the entire railway system is powered by wind energy and has been for years. A decent railway network could also reduce the reliance on trucks. Next to that, just think of the amount of emissions and toxic chemicals required to make the batteries.
It has been priced out previously and deemed impractically expensive due to a number of factors like scale, geography, legal barriers, etc. Quite simply, it could be done, but the savings, at least in regards to the carbon emissions, would likely be better achieved through another project.
@@pepps779 I wonder who priced it out? Since you provide no evidence I can only guess as to the interests involved...
The one reason why we are no longer living in caves is because we can harvest and utilize larger amounts of energy than our ancestors. There is a very small amount of energy you can save by optimizing the system, but making sure the door of your fridge is always closed will not even remotely impact the incredible amount of power needed to produce steel or ceramics, to create ammonia or pharmaceutics or to pasteurize a gazillion liters of milk every day. Those are expenditures that will always be there, and need to be there to uphold civilization.
You do not save the world by consuming less energy. You save it by finding a way to produce more. Nuclear might be that way. Solar and wind are almost certainly not.
@@pascalsmit8739 I recall it being the department of transportation, and that they requested such analysis twice during different decades. Feel free to disregard me if you wish, as I was only attempting to be of assistance with some relevant information.
@@Alexander_Kale I completely agree with you that lowering our energy usage is the wrong approach. If anything, we will want to continue to increase our energy usage as we advance technologically, and that is a good thing. As technology advances, we discover more options of dealing with the problems of today. The only part I disagree with you on is that solar isn't the way to produce more energy (I do agree with you about wind energy. It's too volatile and doesn't scale well). I think there is a lot of room for growth for solar power, including efficiency, scale, and location.
Constantly left out of the conversation: public transit. Electric cars will help, but they're not the answer. Less cars, less resources. Which has to work in tandem with tweaking our cities to be livable for people instead of cars.
Public transit is a list cause for much of the US. You can't easily repair the errors of 1950's urbanists.
Completely agree. The UA-cam channel "not just bikes" has a lot of interesting videos on this topic. He explains how the infrastructure in Dutch cities is redesigned to make public transit just as fast and comfortable as taking a car.
This 100%. We badly need to start transition our cities to be more public transportation oriented.
It's another aspect but one far more removed in North America since the entire continent was developed around the car. It's doable, but renewable and more efficient energy sources are likely more easy to achieve (less red tape to work around, less inter-government bodies needed to collaborate etc.). Outside the major cities, North America lacks the density needed to make anything beyond inner city public transit a viable option and most of those cities have options. They could be better mind you, but they're there.
Inter-city travel is another ballgame altogether. The United States alone has almost twice the landmass of the entire European Union, but "only" 330M people inside it (compared to 500M+ in EU). How do you convince everyone that there is a viable high speed train solution that can connect so few people (relatively speaking) across such large distances?
@@christodang I completely understand why you think this, but just watch one video on the 'not just bikes' yt channel and you might change your mind a little. He's an American that also lived in Canada and some other countries before he moved to The Netherlands and he is a great observer on this topic.
I've watched Vox for 2hours in a row and I've learnt so much.
I do think the "electric cars replacing gas-powered cars" parts were shortsighted. We can't just switch them out. We need to reduce car-use in general, both for climate reasons and for other forms of health, safety, etc. Cars take up a lot of space and money and infrastructure, and they don't carry enough people all at once. They're also very dangerous to pedestrians. Any switching to electric cars MUST be as a compliment to better walkability, bikeability, and public transit. Which means we also need to work on zoning, street, and urban planning to make our country friendly to a wider variation of transportation modes.
yes
New generation nuclear really has the most promise even over solar/wind
This is big facts
IMO I highly doubt we can jump onto renewables quick enough. We should transition to nuclear to buy ourselves at least millennium and in the meantime transition to renewables.
without nuclear decarbinzation is impossible period, unless ofocurse a new revolutionary battery technology which is several fold better is discovered
It's not a zero sum game. We don't have to choose between nuclear and solar/wind. We can do both. We should do both.
1 - To meet our energy needs without carbon sources, we will need solar, wind, hydro, biomass AND nuclear. There's no reason to view it as a fight between these.
2 - Nuclear power is also a fossil fuel. If you transition a majority of electricity production to nuclear power, you will hit peak extraction of uranium in about 15-20 years. It's important now, but long term it will need to be replaced.
Now for a minute imagine being part of the rest of the world. Being from Costa Rica or Iceland where electricity comes 100% from renewable sources, or any other country. For us, it doesn’t matter how much our countries do to combat climate change, as long as the US continues their own path, we are all doomed. Just thinking about it makes me so angry and so impotent. So, from someone who cannot vote in the US, please don’t let Trump be president for four more years!
Haha Louis Dejoy go brrrrr
And make sure Biden does his worth
You basically wrote what any Vegan feels like.
flutee 616 this is as much as important. Definitely Biden is not the ideal candidate, not for a pretty long shot. However, the rest of the world can’t under any circumstances stand four more years of Trump, and getting him out its the first step.
What about China?
Really impressive. Glad to have that data available to future discussions. Thanks!
*biden* "let's reach net zero emmisions by 2050!"
*me* "sounds good but how?"
*biden has left the chat*
Just commenting to help the algorithm share this to more.
I'll chip in!
You guys should watch Michael Moore's documentary. The process of making wind turbines and solar panels generates close to the same amount of emissions that they will save by collecting clean energy (digging for solar panel metals, transporting/constructing wind turbines). The only real green energy is actually nuclear power
I disagree with your comment because conflict also boosts exposure.
@@Chelm9 I beg to differ
No
Another important issue is the amount of people who still deny this issue
We dont deny the issue. We deny your ability to fix it. You people live in fairy tail land.
@@kyleayres5397 if a doctor didn't have the facilities to save your life, would you invest in it or would you shut them down as a lost cause?
Basically every trump supporter ever
@@kyleayres5397 "You people live in fairy tail land" - said every anti-progress, pessimistic cynic ever.
A more important issue is that around 3 billion people have limited or no access to energy. The world bank and other entities are denying loans for coal and gas fired power plants to third world countries because of this climate hysteria being propagated by priviliged first worlders like you.
Thank you Vox! We appreciate the knowledge that you present so well.
Just discovered this channel. What a great one!
I think that one of the smartest things I ever read regarding "going green" (credit to Reddit) was "we don't need a few people doing it perfectly, we need everyone doing it imperfectly' they were talking in particular about going plastic free, but I think it's a smart philosophy for anything along this line. Imagine if all countries focused to have 100% green electricity and heating. Airplanes, a few cars etc could be future goals. Break it into realistic, achievable parts and do those achievable parts asap instead of delaying and focusing on the parts we can't yet achieve.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
YES! That is what we in Scandinavia have been doing for decades, slowly transitioning to green energy, from energy production, to environmental protection, to policies regarding electric vehicles, to green home heating and cooling and now the electrification of the railways! Everything broken up into smaller bits, into different departments, all working towards a common goal.
“Temperatures have risen 1 Degree Celsius since pre-industrial times”
Americans: Is that good?
"What's that in freedoms per bullet?"
Have I seen you somewhere before? Haha I feel like I have
thatguy 00 there isn’t a spit valve on an alto saxophone my guy
thatguy 00 that was a horrible joke..
@@warweasel2832 Great, just great. I’m probably gonna use that
Electrification requires lots of baseload electricity. A great source of that with a great capacity factor is nuclear fission. Renewables should be implemented where it makes sense, but they do require massive amounts of land if we are to scale them up to the extent suggested by this video.
Nuclear is just the future. The technology has progressed so much, and we can make it even better with fusion in the future.
What I would like to see is a breakdown of the cost to the environment of the shift to electric (e.g. mining for elements for batteries)
Not to bad compared to the mining already going on in general. And once enough batteries are in circulation recycling them will bring the necessary materials for new batteries (except for the increasing demand ofcourse).
So sorry for our children. We have to secure their future.
It's called school choice but democrats love keeping the poor kids poor wake up.
@@jeffreysmith4196 no
@@jeffreysmith4196 no
Jeffrey Smith why are you talking about schools? there wont be a school to choose if theyre underwater or in an equatorial zone. This is obviously a bigger issue
@@jeffreysmith4196 Explain?
I live in Costa Rica here we’ve almost accomplished leaving fossil fuels behind, the only problem are cars, normal ones are way easier to get than electric cars, the u.s does have tons of electric cars and if they focus on de carbonizing they could do a great job
Research about how much energy you use to build green generators then you'll understand why fossil is still used
Andrew Biller nope in 2016 we used 100% renewable electricity, but we only used 40 % of renewable energy this was because of cars, cars are literally the only thing stooping us from being carbon neutral. Plus theres no oil here
@@emndz9995 You didn't understand: to create a wind generator it will use more energy than it will ever deliver by using it. Multiply this to change to alternate energies, then it's clear that you're not solving any problem, but increasing it. That aplies to others renewable sources of energy.
@@axetroll Not entirely true but not entirely wrong. Wind turbines do recover their energy fairly well, they just have massive intermittency problems. Solar can as well provided the last the desire life time and you do BOT attach batteries. The big problem is there are not enough rare earth materials to build them out to the scale desired.
@@axetroll that's because supply chains still rely on fossil fuels. Once more renewable sources become active and industrial supply chains shift to mainly renewables, the manufacturing of renewable sources themselves will vanish in carbon footprint
Great vid, greetings from the Netherlands!
This will take a carrot and stick approach. For the stick the US needs to:
- Implement a carbon tax that scales quickly over the next decade or so
- Add a tax to gas/diesel vehicles based on CO2 efficiency as well as drastically increase taxes on the gas/diesel. It's important to do both to encourage more efficient vehicles for the future while also disincentivizing consumption for existing vehicles
For the carrot these taxes should be pumped into subsidies. Making the taxes revenue neutral could help to sell the idea to the public (e.g. the federal carbon tax in Canada).
- Subsidies for non-CO2 energy production and/or consumption (solar, wind, nuclear, etc)
- Subsidies for non-CO2 emitting vehicles
- Subsidies for residential/commercial heating
Basically the idea is to disincentivize the CO2 producing activities while using those funds to incentivize the corresponding non-CO2 producing activities. It's not even that difficult to do. Most wealthier countries around the world have been implementing these solutions (and others) for 10+ years now. There is even an economic incentive to do this as the countries that can be the leaders in the new industries will certainly have massive benefits.
🤣🤣🤣
Yup, that's what we did here in France - alongside mass rollout of Nuclear Energy. And we now sit comfortable in having ~30% of our power being green. *Not a direct number, I'm too tired to find an article, but I remember talking to a friend about it the other day*
Honestly, Arizona has so much sun throughout the year that a good enough solar plant there could make a lot of electricity.
And eventually give people free constant energy!! Which will make some particular billionaires lose a few millions so they aren't letting it happen
Sounds like we need to call up Mr. Beast and have him plant more trees.
unfortunately, planting trees isn't enough anymore...
hehehehehehe
Guess what they use for biomass.
get mrbeast to fix all world problems with a fundraiser
Around 40 million trees is cut down DAILY, him planting 20 million makes up for 12h...
Can I download the chart anywhere? Thanks a lot. Great vid
Thankyou for this video
US government: Nah
You mean trump
@@Master-kh6ww oil companies: nah
China :nah
There people who have jobs in these industries no one talks about that
SACC you know Biden doesn’t support oil companies
The worst part is that this affect the whole world. And we all depend on a couple people in some swing states to make the right choice
@@nickarjoma5350 While it still has a long way to go, China is doing a lot more than the US to curb it's carbon emissions
Nick Arjomand You seem to be ignorant of the fact that China has an energy policy to decarbonize by 2050 included in their major party plan called One Belt One Road
Nick Arjomand Well if you ever bothered to actually read the plan it is extremely clear why this is the case and what their plan is moving forward. Now there is legitimate discussion on whether or not this is an effective strategy but you clearly have never even heard of their plan....
@@nickarjoma5350 exactly. if America did all of this, it wouldnt even matter until the biggest threats stop their carbon emissions too
@@TheNtg3399 per capita the US is the worst. All countries need to take action and assume responsibility!! The air does not stay at a fixed point above ground.
this is such a well made video, nice job vox
If Al Gore won in 2000 we wouldn’t be talking about this now
“We’re in the endgame now.”
and were gonna lose
You voted for a clown? Expect a circus.
well said
Global warming isn’t the USA fault it’s the worlds fault
@@nogg735 ?
@@nogg735 its china's faut.
No GG and the usa its in it.... and considering that your country is even actively denying climate change makes your position even worst
Great stuff! Thank You! Subscribed
This series is awesome!
This scares me:(
Same bro, same.
It’s meant to do that. It’s the depressing truth and we have to accept it
it should, you have to do your part in helping the fight against climate change
@@Dommy521 i know, i try my best, but still, im just a teen, and its dipressing:(
It bothers me so much all the technology already exists...we just have to act.
A lot of the technology doesn't exist yet, is not affordable enough yet or is less clean then people think. Still more could be done, but i'd recommend looking at where you buy your stuff rather than the politicans you vote bcs it's no doubt both are heavily influenced by sponsors and influential people behind the screens.
I'm definitely onboard that we need to switch to 100% renewable, but to say we have ALL the technology is not 100% accurate. We do not have the technology to properly store power in batteries or some other form when generating it. The crux of the energy industry is that you MUST use electricity when it's generated. You cannot generate electricity at a cheaper time (say the middle of the night in the US), then use it later when everyone needs it. We are working on making this possible, but we are not even close to having a grid level solution to this problem yet. California is a great example. California switched to a lot of renewable energy (solar and wind). When the wind isn't blowing on extremely hot days, and at night, California resorts to buying power from states that use fossil fuels, due to renewable energy not being consistent in generation. We need to get there, but we don't have the technology to support it yet.
Source: Working in SCADA/EMS industry and am a NERC/CIP auditor
@@ElliotWeishaar Wow thank you for your very informative reply. Could you explain more how we cannot store generated electricity in batteries? Also aren't there other alternatives for when renewables aren't consistent yet such as nuclear or natural gas extracted from landfills?
@@elowatchesvideos Nuclear is a good example of a renewable energy source that has consistent output. Nuclear plants and coal/gas plants operate the exact same way. How the heat is produced is the only difference. It's not that we can't store power in batteries, it's that we don't have the technology yet. Tesla is investing tons of money into this area currently, and we're making good headway, but we just aren't there yet. Just the scale of electricity that you would need to store, and then release on demand, on a grid sized level is massive. Having a battery that won't wear out under these conditions is going to require a lot of clever engineering and some new technologies or applications of materials that haven't been discovered yet. Take your cell phone for example. How long does your cell phone battery last you before it quits holding a charge? It wears out due to constant charging/discharging of the battery (as well as other factors like temperature, etc.). That battery holds such a miniscule amount of energy compared to what we would need for the power grid, but no matter the battery size, all batteries have this problem currently. I am hopeful that battery / electrical storage technology makes some big improvements in the near future. If we can solve this problem, I guarantee you every company in the world will be jumping ship to renewable energy
@@ElliotWeishaar And once the chemicals in that battery wear out it cannot be efficiently recycled and will end up in a landfill.
Great information as always 🙏🏽
When my dad is whopping me with the belt: 3:22
Trump has to protect his billionaire buddies in the Oil Industry lol
@Some Person Hahahha. Gooood one
just like Reagan before him. All republicans are about Money.
Also the us citizens who work in the oil industry no one talk about that
@@nogg735 No one talked about us citizens that worked in the typewriter industry, and yet here we are
Joe people worked on type writing just changed over that’s definitely 2 totally different things type writing industry improved the oil,coal,gasoline car industry won’t improve it will vanish
"The US is no longer the biggest co2 emitter" is a strange way of saying they're the second biggest in the world. If they didn't make all their stuff in China they'd still be number one and China has for times the population aqq
Also “over time it is the biggest polluter” even though if you don’t separate the EU from the rest of Europe it’s clearly been a bigger polluter
Pointing fingers isn’t going to do anything, we either all nail this or we don’t. So please don’t act like 8 year olds on a playground.
@@paytick9034 your people are the one pointing fingers thats why nothings going to happen
@@JohnSmith-ou5un The EU doesn't have as much direct control over individual European nations as the American federal government has over individual states. If the US hasn't been able to make laws to decarbonize what makes you think the EU can ?
@@JohnSmith-ou5un They don't give the data to make that conclusion. If, for some reason, you combined the EU and the rest of Europe it'd only be slightly higher than the US despite having a population of around 869M vs only 362M in the US
A study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were “consistently higher” than temperatures during the 20th century.
I love this video. It makes it very clear what it would take and how it could be done. so cool!
One the best ways to decrease the use of oil in transportation is promoting Public Transport, as this would be completely regulated by the government and would pave the way for electric use Public Transport or even better, city planning to encourage short distance transportation and thusly promote walking and the use of bicycles.
City planning and social programs are really one of the biggest ways to reduce it, we didn’t choose to use fossils fuels and oil, the market did, but now we have a government and the technology to stop this.
The problem with American cites (and one of the reasons US is such a big carbon emitter) is that all of the cites are new and were thus built for cars, as opposed to the old world where the cites were meant to be walked on.
You will lose of America at "this would be completely regulated by the government"
bublitrubli Yeah, cause leaving it to the market has worked so well.
bublitrubli I won’t lose all of America, but I’ll lose most of the people who don’t even care compromising the environment for profit.
10:03
I like how someone there made a sign against nuclear energy when its considered one of the most efficient and cleanest energy sources that we have today
How can it be the most efficient when it is the most expensive? And that is with just the first 10 to 100 years of nuclear waste handling included in the price. Include millions of years of waste handling and even electricity from human powered treadmills would be cheaper. It is also not sustainable since we have already run out of high-concentration Uranium sources.
@Nathanael Marco Hartanto It is not that simple. Solar and wind efficiency is directly affected by where you are, and their energy output varies a lot during the day (day/night cycle) and the year (seasons). You cant run a grid only on them.
Hydro and geothermal you need to specific conditions to be met, and specially hydro is not nearly as safe as you think. It is also not so clean (here in Brazil we use it a lot, but comes at a price of huge forested areas getting flooded to make the resevoir. It also damages the fauna)
The new generation nuclear reactors are indeed the safest, most reliable and stable power source that there is. And you can build those almost anywhere you like
rodrigopaim82 finally a person with a brain
@@rodrigopaim82 do you have some sources? I would love to believe that nuclear is the ultimate solution, and of course, the *risk* of nuclear meltdown is still better than the *certainty* of climate change. But let's just start with the "safest" part, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very real things, how can we be sure that they would not happen again (or worse), also considering that they were "not supposed to" happen in the first place? You also didn't answer the concern about nuclear waste. And *even then*, how would it be *safer* than, let's say, solar?
UA-cam needs to put these type of videos on the top of trending
it would take a really long period of time to fully achieve this.
„how come you dont want to have any children“
True
after 4 years as an environmental science undergrad, now a couple months into my masters, nothing is more depressing than climate change professors who had kids in ~2010-2015 thinking things would get better by now. I'm glad that my growing up happened to align well with this moment. I have the luxury of being able to wait until the late 2020s-early 2030s until I really have to decide on that one, and by then we'll know if there's any point. It's heartbreaking to watch old-guard climate scientists talk about their children. They almost never do. They rarely seem joyful about their kids, and what joy they have is tinged with a deep-seated angst about the future.
If things are still bad by the 30s I'm planning to adopt from somewhere of high-impact like the US Gulf Coast or SE Asia, where at least I can tell my kid "You and I might not have chosen to alive at this moment in history, but we're both on this world together, and I'm working on it, and I'm going to give you the best life you can have." Then you avoid the baggage of having caused someone to exist at this time, while still sharing the world with a young person and passing on your love and knowledge. In the same way that you and I might lose our desire to have biological children because of the real dangers of climate change, there are children who are going to be displaced or whose parents won't be able to care for them because of it. There needs to be someone raising the next generation of environmentalists. Young people like us and our descendants will be working on this for the lifetime of carbon emissions: ten thousand years.
"Again last night I had that strange dream
Where everything was exactly how it seemed
No concerns about the world getting warmer
People thought that they were just being rewarded
For treating others as they'd like to be treated
For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
For mailing letters with the address of the sender.
Now we can swim any day in November.
Don't wake me I plan on sleeping
(now we can swim any day in November)
Don't wake me I plan on sleeping in"
-Excerpt from 'Sleeping In' by Postal Service
I love this.
Another thing we can do is stop having so many kids.
You serious?
@@DonniVich ever heard of a thing called overpopulation?
and that’s the reason why i would adopt a kid if i wanted one!
Oddly enough, growth rates across the world are a lot lower than historically, we just have such a high population that even like a 0.2% growth rate is millions of people. But yeah, we need a better system for this.
5:04 We need to change the way we live not only change energy sources