What is the cheapest way to beat climate change?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Which climate solution gives us the most bang for buck? Use code simonclark at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/si...
There are lots of ways we are tackling the climate crisis, bringing down emissions and sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. But which method is the most cost-effective? For a given investment, which draws down the most carbon emissions? In this video I answer that question... and then talk about why that answer doesn't necessarily mean much.
Miriam's channel: @zentouro
Project Drawdown: www.drawdown.org/
REFERENCES
1. ourworldindata...
2. www.bmj.com/co...
3. www.nature.com...
4. www.carbonbrie...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfph...
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.ne...
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
What is the most cost effective way to lower emissions? What is the most cost effective way to beat climate change? Which climate solution saves the most carbon for the lowest price? I tackle these questions and more in this video essay about the cheapest way to lower carbon emissions.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
Norm Zemke, Whitefang, Cemre D., David Mann, Jilbin George, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, Cifer, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, bitreign33.
Lucas Johnston, Jeffry., Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Pawel Piwek, Matze, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Dan Sherman, Peter Reid, Andy Hartley.
Guy Markey, Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Felipe Gutierrez, Faficzek, Tobias Ahsbahs, Stansky, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Josh Müller, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Nico Casal, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Philip Sullivan, Joseph , Ben Smith, Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Jens , Knut Nesheim, Issy Merritt, Dajeni, AYS , Adam Fairris, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, Duncan Robertson, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Alexander Johnston, Tom Painter, Phil Saici, Tom Marsh, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Oriol MP, Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Clemens, Andy Giesen, Vernon Swanepoel, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Felix Winkler, CC, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Ivari Tölp, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, Trevor Berninger, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, ST0RMW1NG, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Thusto , Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering.
I really like videos that concentrate on solutions and not on the problem itself. It just seems so much more positive and calms my nerves. I wish there were more videos like this one!
"We can't afford to do renewables" crowd dismantled by FACTS and FLOWERS
"Facts and Flowers" needs to be a slogan. I feel like it's everything we're fighting for.
So you like facts eh? Well then start considering _all_ of the relevant facts. This video makes a completely unsubstantiated claim within the first 10 seconds. The fact of the matter is that the reduction in economic activity associated with the COVID lockdowns is claimed by the UN to have significantly reduced CO2 production for that period of time (yay! right?), however the global CO2 level dataset that the UN relies on, the Keeling Curve, does not contain a corresponding signal. Yep, even a change in our activities of 10% cannot be shown to match a correlation in the dataset, and that is without looking at the difficulty in attributing causation to that missing correlation. Yes the Keeling Curve data is showing the global CO2 levels rising, but we simply can't demonstrate that human activities are driving that.
All that aside, all we need to do is sit tight, be productive and generate the wealth needed to afford a rapid rollout of fusion technology once it is commercialised, not other fuss and bother is needed or justified, in fact anything that slows down economic activity and wealth creation is in the long term counter productive regardless of if you believe the stories about CO2 and its impact on the biosphere.
So why are people still pushing these climate stories? Because somebody is paying them in some way to spread fear so as to manipulate _you_ in a way that will profit _them._
There is no climate crisis, there is a crisis in honesty and integrity. 😐
So what happens if you run your civilization mostly on solar power, it can't do any harm to try anyway , right? WRONG, you will die a slow cold death when the next global scale volcanic winter hits, which really is just a matter of when, not if. I'm not kidding, go and research those topics yourself, then when your eyes are open ask why these things are not talked about given their implications.
The petrol industry generates $10 Billion in profits per DAY and receives $11 Million per Minute in subsidies (that's $5,78 Trillion a year) ... all of that out of our pockets and taxes... while at the same time slowly killing all living beings. All that for the past 100 years.
- 7-8 million deaths per year due to air pollution.
- Exponential increase in lung diseases and cancer cases in large cities.
- Plastics that never fully degrade and are already filling our oceans.
- Unreported gas flares and around 11% of all methane ("natural" gas) leaking out of pipes.
- Oil spills, deforestation and poisoning of ground water due to fracking and chemicals.
- Refineries consuming 20% of a country's yearly energy usage. Polluting air and water.
- and so on...
But we "can't afford" to rely on endless clean and cheap energy? Why... because someone can't afford to loose all those billions mentioned above.
We can't afford NOT to do renewables, actually
@@MirdjanHyle Look up "volcanic winter" then explain to me how you will survive the next one if your civilisation is run mostly on solar power. This is what people like Simon are hiding from you.
Genuinely love the climate optimism this channel is bringing right now. We're still in a dire situation, but there is reason to hope and to keep trying! 😊
If we need 'Hope' to be motivated to save our lives....
something essential is wrong
I agree! I think cultivating realistic optimism can have a hugely positive effect! It also helps get people excited and feeling good about what they're doing right, rather than feeling guilty about their bad habits
The problem with degrowth in the context of "cost effectiveness" is that it fundamentally redefines the word "cost". You cannot evaluate it in the context of our current economic structures.
Exactly. Who cares about GDP? I care about overall happiness, life expectancy, literacy, health outcomes, wellbeing...
It's still entirely possible to analyze impacts on quality of life.
Degrowth is one of those terms with a variety of definitions, some of which are entirely unacceptable to most people (including me).
Obviously capitalistic exponential growth is unsustainable. On the other hand, we can maintain our quality of life in sustainable ways so there's no way to justify taking that away. Never mind the politics of it.
@@tristanridley1601 tbh, degrowth is basically just recognising that GDP is not a valid measurement, and that nowadays, especially in developed countries, we produce way too many stuff that we don't need and don't make us happier or healthier, and even the other way around. Then many people that defend this can have maaany different views, related to degrowth (like anarcho primitivism), but are not degrowth. Just like defending slave trade was not by itself defending capitalism.
But we do. We have the statistical tools to analyse access to education, healthcare, nutritious food, and more. Why do you think that we wouldn't be able to evaluate projects in a different framework even in our current economic system?
This is a moderate view of degrowth to just call it efficiency. The more radical part genuinely believe theres sacrifice required.
You should've drilled down more on why bicycle infrastructure is a climate solution. Bicycle infrastructure (aka NOT USING CARS) reduces emissions, promotes energy efficiency, and mitigates urban heat island effects. Additionally, it improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and fosters healthier communities. Beyond environmental benefits, it enhances accessibility, social cohesion, and economic growth.
Car company employ a lot of people, those people get to vote more car
Car company lobby/bribe a lot, politicians lobby for more car
Car company also produce some military gear, they get to rub shoulders with the guy who holds the pointiest and biggest stick. Suddenly climate protesters get beaten more harshly by sticks because they are evils.
Pure coincidence the car company pays a lot of money for stealth advertising vilify the protesters.
I think he has a few videos about biking and transport more generally! Definitely appreciated those
Yes, they should certainly implement more bicycle friendly areas in towns!
My son wants to use a bicycle to get to work, but our town is lethal.
Hardly anyone bothers with indication any more. Drivers ignore the new 20mph zones. A few months ago - a motorcyclist roared through town without a crash helmet on. That's how bad it's got around here. And yet we have not one, but 'two' police stations.
Where the hell are they all?
(Btw... My son either gets a lift to work or goes by bus, so he isn't adding another car to the current traffic problem. But, bus fares are getting ridiculously expensive around here, now increasing more than once a year.
We're not being encouraged to take alternative forms of transport. Quite the opposite, in fact.).
Cycling infrastructure doesn’t automatically create a corresponding adoption. In warmer cities especially those built in the last century, few will pivot from cars to bicycles. And that isn’t just a theory but rather realized in many examples.
@@HoustonTompeople will opt for whatever method of transportation is the most convenient.
On the individual level, voting for politicians that aren't climate change denialists is totally free and make a big difference too
One interesting, but probably hard to answer, question is how does spending money and/or time on political activism compare in efficiency to direct action to reduce emissions. E.g., is it better to donate money to effective green lobbying groups or reforestation efforts?
But it's a pretty safe bet that voting is an excellent use of time.
Why would I vote to be made poorer?
@Dinawartotem Spot the person who didn't bother to watch the video before commenting...
@@gregarmstrong2500 Except i did watch the video.
Let's take the flawed assumption that solar kicks coals ass. Because that's easy.
Solar is intermittent energy, so even though the panels and installation are cheaper than coal. You still need a baseload energy for when it's not sun outside (usually gas or coal, but here in norway we have hydro-electric).
You'll be paying out the nose for it because they wouldn't be able to charge for sunny days so the price when the sun is up will be negative, but the price when it's not sun outside will be a buyers market.
That's assuming the government won't tax everyone for the use of and expansion of the electrical grid, so more people will adopt solar panels either by government fiat (taxes and force) or me and my city invest in a voluntary fashion. I'm still the one getting screwed.
Because the cost-benefit of the solar farm would not accrue to me (I still have to recoup my investment either way), and the benefit of any supposed house-based solar panel solution, while it could recoup its costs after I retire, is not going to happen because in this situation, when everyone has solar panels, nobody gets paid for the energy.
@@DinawartotemSolar with enough batteries to act as a baseload power source is still cheaper than coal.
I like to call it efficiency. like bicycles are a more efficient way of getting around, better insulation is more efficient etc etc
Being a technical/industrial packaging engineer, my mindset of efficiency really pays off, both financially and environmentally!
And highlighting the efficiency part might help to bring people who are less concerned about climate change on board with some of the changes. After all, who doesn’t love to save money?
Yeah, but the concept of degrowth is important. Because it points how GDP should not be the focus. Otherwise, you'll get countries that properly achieve "efficiency"-"degrowth", or get close to it, i.e., that get more well-being, better health, less work time, better life balance, etc, and that are compared on a gdp basis to other countries. For example, what has happened between the US and the EU for 30 years: GDP per capita difference is higher and higher, and neoliberal economists and politicians use it to discredit the european model (which is not perfect OFC) over the american one, when if you look at lçrelevant data, life expectancy continues to increase in the EU and decreases in the US, inequality is growing more in the US, violence has grown much more in the US, medical costs, drug use, overall dissatisfaction, anxiety, stress, higher in the US, work hours have reduced much more in the EU (maternity paid leave, holidays, sick days...), and overall GHG emissions and thus impact on climate and biodiversity has been reduced much faster in the EU.
But if we don't fight to shift the paradigm of GDP-ism, which is the main goal of the degrowth movement, to change the overton window, then politicians will be continually bound to build and destroy more and more.
@@asier_getxoThat really needs to rebrand itself. Degrowth sounds like something that will lower quality of life, which is politically impossible.
@@tristanridley1601It had a brief moment in the sun as "slow living" almost accidentally
@@asier_getxoSwitch from GDP to capability and wealth. We must be able to produce X in order to maintain the society we want. We would also like to build up wealth for the future, such as infrastructure that will last for generations.
As an (aspiring, in uni) environmental physicist I would like to avoid having 'a very bad time'. Thank you for the informative video, Simon! I love the collaborative approach :)
Why not studying old fashioned physics. Then you could laugh at green woke amageddon phantasy stories.
Sadly for many people, until they see their own personal bills going down they just don't understand these sorts of analyses. They also don't understand why governments won't do it automatically if it saves so much money. They don't see how some of these gains are long term or why fossil fuel interests keep stifling progress. Perhaps there is scope for a video just on this point and how it could be overcome.
Yup, exactly. Well said.
Politicians continue to fail us. We need scientifically literate systems thinkers to lead humanity forward.
I would like to put myself forward as our one benevolent leader x
100% agree
unfortunately, the current system of choosing politicians is the best we have. modifying it in such a way puts democracy at stake.
@@pedanticknight What a ridiculously silly statement.
You've got no democracy now so how is anything at stake?
@@kristoffer3000 we kinda do have democracy. it is not perfect by any means, but it is still democracy.
Always so appreciative that you put the references in the description! So many bits of content online now either don’t use references - horrifying - or don’t list them! Great effort to keep up with it, it’s much appreciated and great to be sure it’s all accurate information!
Simon, thank you for addressing degrowth! As a degrowther, I agree we need to tackle climate change on many fronts, including what's cheap and pragmatic now. A "degrowthy" note about "efficiency": Efficiency often causes rebound effects. When something is more efficient (cheaper/saves energy), more of it is used because more = better in a growth economy; this, then, eclipses the savings. Economically, saying, "Let's be more efficient" easily translates into "Let's pay less to produce a greater stockpile of goods (and the same/more emissions)." Politically, appeals to "efficiency" are easily co-opted.
"economic growth" is one of those dubious things where you can't really tell if things are growing because of new innovations or because everything is being made worse and the consequences of that are getting monetized.
Like you could look at a business that sells you dozens of phones a year and say its grown like crazy, or you could look at it and see that the only way they can possibly sell you a dozen phones a year is by making phones that are so shitty they break every couple of weeks.
The prospect of infinite economic growth is kind of a delusion. There is no infinity in a finite world with finite amounts of space and people. There is a point where things must stabelize. (or, well they'll catastrophically crash)
We are already in the process of harvesting asteroids, though. I refuse to accept that humanitys development is finite. Yes, earth needs tonbe protected but the universe holds so much untaped potential and hopefully we will use some of it one day.
@@Marvin-ii7bhThe accelerationist in me agrees. But it shouldn't be our #1 priority anymore.
Yes and no. We can certainly grow our energy production a lot, by harnessing the power of the sun. We can grow our recycling and waste-management sectors, by developing better systems to do that and being willing to pay more for it.
We can grow out nature by putting a price on every plantes tree, or every hectare of wildland.
Switching from coal to solar as an energy source, or from landfilling to recycling, or from useless call-advertising jobs to useful tree-planting jobs, none of these make your GDP go down. No de-growth happens, merely some resources, industries and jobs become replaced with others.
In a capitalist framework, anything anyone is willing to do conyributes to the economy, and if they get paid, that contributes to GDP and growth. Changing what people do does not reduce growth.
Growth is near infinite. Until we collect the energy from all the stars in the universe, the economy will be able to grow.
"Economic growth" is only beneficial to the "sellers".
Common people live with the illusion that a "good economy" is where we have increasing variety and quantity of products from those... "sellers".
"Economic growth" = People spending more money... to pay for the "seller's" goods.
Most of these solutions will just solve other problems as well, as you pointed out. Thank you for talking realistically about these issues and potential practical responses.
Most of these proposed solutions will create other problems. In reality there are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.
@@Dinawartotem Yes but see every other problem besides the greenhouse gas effect is easier to solve. And none of use will solve any problems if we are fighting wars over water
I love this video! Everything from the pacing, to the subject, and the approachability! Well done! I'm going to share the heck out of it!
Your point about how we don't have the time to wait for a revolution in our economy is incredibly spot on. I feel that those who advocate for ecosocialism, while admirable in their vision, are unaware of how dire the situation has become. When need solutions that we can start implementing today.
Waiting for a revolution presents a massive opportunity cost. We need to do as much as possible at once
It's not an either or situation! Ecosocialists with a nuanced worldview will be doing things like participating in mutual aid and direct action, not just talking about how it's a good idea.
Do you really think that more of neoliberal capitalism is going to save us?
@@qbas81 He's saying that we have to work with what we've got.
As Simon pointed out in the video, many of these little solutions do indeed SAVE MONEY, and that's something
both housewives, and CEOs can understand.
The thing that wows me is that a person, a single person, deciding that they can walk, or bike, for an errand instead of using a combustion vehicle, save a lot of carbon.
Many of those people who do such things don't think their little contribution matters much, but they do "their little bit" anyway.
The flip side is if even just a few million (out of billions) do just that one little thing it saves a surprising amount of pollution.
I realized that one of my biggest emissions was my work. Driving a vehicle for hours a day can put a lot of pollution in the air.
So my little change was changing my mode of transportation to an EV. The bonus was that I am saving a lot of money too.
This scales up too, the more people that do just one little thing, the bigger the amount of pollution we don't have to breathe.
Once you get into the billions of people doing just one little thing, the results become staggering.
Now let's look at people who do more than just one little thing.
People who say, modify their transportation, AND add a heat pump system to their dwelling.
(Remember, not everyone can do such things, and that's okay.)
When the people who can do that, add it to the other thing they are doing, they can, in numbers, really make a difference.
In the end making a difference, even a small difference is a great feeling.
I really like this framework of listing as many solutions as we can and then figuring out what works best. I think this gives some unique insight, like, I've already paid a lot of attention to bike infrastructure, but I'm just now discovering the power of simply stopping water leaks.
Voting is the cheapest way - For politicians who at least recognize the problem, support science, and want to do something about it.
Voting is good, but it doesn't work halfway, and it takes a long time for it to put money back in your pocket. One person reducing their meat consumption is guaranteed to cut emissions, even if just a tiny amount, and it saves you money on groceries immediately. As a bonus, any individual action you take is going to make you psychologically more invested so that you're more energized to vote and organize.
organizing politically is even better, voting can only get you so far, and even if you always get the candidate you want (from the pool of choices you have) you will only have some small reforms and small legal changes, just so the industries don't get mad at them. we need a different political system altogether, one in which people can rule and the scientists can science.
@@DiceMaster740 We are way past the point where individual actions will turn this boat around, although I encourage everyone to do it because every little bit counts.
Loving the new pacing and editing style. Some really interesting info I'd never heard anywhere before. Keep it up!!
Degrowth is NOT efficiency - efficiency often leads to rebound effect because of Jevon's Paradox.
Improved efficiency often results in higher consumption - or at least not as good as initially assumed.
Degrowth focused on removing unnecessary activities not just making them more efficient (for instance - remove much of driving and replace by cycling or public transport), reduce working hours etc.
14:40 "the faster you can implement a solution, the greater the time integrated effect is". I have been looking for a lay-comprehensible phrase to talk about the area under the curve of the usual carbon transition graphs. I think "time integrated effect" is a great way to argue against procrastinating or letting the special interests of incumbents be an obstacle. If that single number, the area under the curve, could be matched by the cost of catching up later, I think you can mobilize more people to support an aggressive, but cheaper for us and our grandchildren, carbon transition.
Great video, I hope it gets enough views to achieve this channels mission and keep you making more. A nice counter to the doom-focused content out there.
Great analysis. I think there’s a real set of misconceptions about the costs and sacrifices of fighting climate change but in a lot of cases the ‘sacrifices’ give us choices and save money and lives.
Madness.
Do a video on the scale of fossil fuel subsidies!!
1) Go Vegetarian. Or at the very least reduce your beef consumption.
2) Insulate your home. Windows. Doors. Walls.
3) If you can, cycle.
4) Don't drive a car if you don't have to.
Note: be careful when increasing plants in your diet, as they tend to cost more city water rather than rainwater, especially in places with high drought. (At least compared to grazing animals)
@@renderproductions1032 But the kinds of vegetable protein sources people would use to displace meat (eg. beans) are commodity products that likely won't come from the immediate environments of your city.
All things equal; meat will still consume way more water, simply because you are also watering the crops that your livestock consume. And the efficiency losses you get each time you go up the food chain.
By less cheap crap from china. China produces 44% of worlds CO2.
@@renderproductions1032 Per calorie animal products are generally much more water intensive.
@@renderproductions1032Animals grazing and regenerating natural meadows and grasslands is not the norm though, so by switching to more plants you are more likely to be moving away from factory farmed animals rather than free range, sustainably managed animals. It really depends specifically where your meat comes from. If you buy from supermarkets or fast food restaurants then it's certainly more sustainable to eat plants instead.
I love this video, learning about climate solutions always gives me a lot of hope and gives me more direction. Also, I appreciate the degrowth mention. I think it's inarguable that we need to consume less. I disagree that it's a "bad term," I think a softer term will be misused. It's "efficient" to use a pipeline to deliver gasoline rather than a truck, but does that mean it's better? Wouldn't it be better to stop using so much gasoline? Also efficiency doesn't suggest that any practices need to end. It's arguable whether celebrities using private jets is more efficient because of the time factors, but its pretty clear that it causes unnecessary emissions and should be phased out.
Woah! A climate video that mentions Degrowth without completely scoffing at the idea!? I'm impressed.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a city where it is possible to get around with a bike and live on a purely plant-based diet. While everyone around me agrees we need to do more to mitigate climate change, they own at least one vehicle (if not more), don't bike, eat plenty of meat, and aren't mindful about packaging and purchasing decisions, etc. Based on this discrepancy, it seems like the vast majority of us have convinced ourselves we wouldn't be comfortable without all this material abundance and excess, and/or social norms and (capitalist-driven) marketing have been very successful in keeping things the way they are. **Sigh** In any case, I'm grateful for informative videos like this. Thanks for making it!
It's surprising just how lackadaisical water companies are about water leaks.
The one pipe that led from the main road up our short lane to 4 households would break and spring a leak at least a couple, sometimes a few, times a year.
It would take the water company approximately 3-4 days to come and fix it, once making us wait 2 weeks. During that time, we had to buy bottled water, while countless gallons gushed uselessly down the road.
Now, I don't know how long this had been going on for historically, but it had been continuing for 15 years with regard to our own experience of this pipe.
The water company engineers used to 'joke' to us about it being more a line of repairs than a line of pipe.
Eventually, the company grew tired of my letters, emails and phone calls, swapping this brittle piece of copper for a plastic pipe.
It took them 2 days to fit it, and it has been no trouble in 5 years of use.
So, you can see from this single example, that water companies would save themselves fortunes by just fixing the flaming pipes properly, replacing old, leaky, frequently mended pipes with brand spanking new ones. It's in their best interests to maintain their systems, but they prefer not to do it until you're practically 'screaming' down the phone at them and threatening to take court action for failures in supply.
Between the water company, problems with energy companies, and issues with phone/internet companies, I wonder I've not punched anyone.
Oh, and if you eant to know a couple of good ways that 'everyone' with a garden can sequester carbon?
1) Join Plantlife UK's 'No Mow Summer.'
By not using the mower, you don't create any carbon dioxide fuelling it.
Also, you don't wear the mower out so quickly, thus you don't need to replace it so quickly.
A lawn left to grow naturally, attract wildlife to go through its lifecycles in the sward, enhancing it with wild flowers, naturally sequesters more carbon than a trimmed, lifeless one.
A strimmer used to cut down a long lawn at the end of summer will ease the mower's job.
Indeed, if the 'No Mow' concept became commonplace, homeowners could get rid of their mowers altogether (more shed space, guys), and employ a landscape gardener to come in on one day in Autumn, cut the lot professionally with a more effective mower. Job done and no one is sweltering all summer long, pushing a mower when they could be enjoying the garden.
A lawn is frequently trimmed with the excuse of it being a place for kids to play. Really? I don't remember the last time I saw or heard kids playing on a lawn. They find much more entertainment and education looking for bugs and stuff in woods and meadows.
2) If you have room - get a shrub/small tree/ bamboo for coppicing/pollarding.
For a long time now, I have been experimenting on my small piece of a field (2 acres), working out how to build soil depths.
My ground, when I first moved here, was a very exhausted piece of ex-pasture, worn to bare rick in many places, a mere inch thick slab of turf in others.
Since I wanted to have a permaculture/rewilding combination garden, but had very little money of my own, I could not buy in topdoil, bags of cimpost, woodchips or anything like that.
I had to use what I had got access to, right here - so, I was effectively in the same position as all these farmers and countries with degraded land totalling 1 billion acres, as mentioned in the video.
I have seen studies that say agricultural land in Europe only has an average of 30 harvests left in it. So this degradation will become a fast increasing trend.
I began to try all sorts of things to attempt to build more soil.
Left the land for several years so that weeds, and then grasses, could finally cover the bare rocks. This was actually quite a bit more difficult than it sounds, as all ground slopes, generally, and heavy rains would often wash new plants and soils away.
Finally, once the land was covered, I began to plant a hedgerow to help prevent erosion. It took 5 attempts to finally get a full line of hedgerow (mixed plants to encourage most wildlife, more wildlife does enrich areas quicker).
I thought that the hedgerow's fallen Autumn leaves would help deepen the soil quite quickly.
Wrong.
It's too little a quantity of organic material. I needed something that would produce a greater amount.
That's when I considered coppicing and pollarding as a way to produce the excess of material I needed.
Since my garden soil was still thin, I had to start very small - and began with raspberries, thornless blackberries, loganberries and tayberries. They survive okay in shallow soils.
Every year I would cut off spent canes, cut them up and use them as a mulch (a lot of winter evenings spent cutting up sticks in front of a dvd).
This began to work with surprising speed. The following years, I began to grow seedlngs of small trees - Hazel, Birch, alpine Eucalyptus species, Alders for the damp spots in the garden.
Plus, from a local supermarket, I bought some very cheap, commonplace, nectar rich shrubs that I knew grew fast, were very hardy, took easily from cuttings, and would also produce lots of organic 'waste' (tall hybrids of Spiraea, Symphoricarpus, Weigela, Cornus alba, Salix alba, Buddleias, and Japanese Quince isn't bad after a few years establishing).
Waste material gleaned from these plants either through tidying or propagating was chopped up and scattered as mulch or stacked into brash piles.
While they remain as brash, they are excellent for attracting wildlife. I have several brash heaps and a brash hedge that provide homes for numerous birds - including pheasants, frogs, toads, insects, and small mammals.
These brash heaps, since they are composed of as many small twigs as larger ones, quickly break down to produce soil. Add specific fungi to the heaps, and they break down even faster.
(Learning more about fungi has been a great help in restoring this land. Paul Stamets has a great book called Mycelium Running for the interested).
With the success of these ornamental shrubs, the small tree seedlings began to prosper too, and I have been coppicing these Hazels and Birch for a few years now.
The latest additions to the garden have been 3 bamboos, still establishing really, but the first cuttable canes will be available later this year.
Ferns are excellent soil builders too. Non invasive, easily removed when necessary, their leaves greatly improving soil texture.
Spring bulbs are another surprising soil builder. Hadn't expected that and wish I had known sooner. Great understorey plants along with ferns.
Nowadays, I have a wide range of plants selected for simply producing an excess of material, to dump in stacks and leave to rot into soil.
I'm perfectly aware that 90% of any woody material returns to the atmosphere, and 10% to the soil. To many this seems too measly an amount to be worthwhile.
However, that all takes time.
It can take a few years for a raspberry cane to break down under the right conditions, up to a couple of decades just with a stick you'd use for a country walk. A tree trunk can take several decades, even a century to completely rot down - during which time, you've harvested that same plant a few to many times since, each harvest in a different state of decay, 10% of each harvest destined for soil building.
That's why I believe coppicing/pollarding is seriously underrated. I think it has enormous potential as both carbon fixer and soil restorer.
Coppicing is easy, within everyone's abilities with just a little basic instruction, sequesters carbon, and would help turn more gardens into better environments for wildlife.
I like the sound of negative costing solutions
Degrowth may be a difficult word for some, but it is also about efficiency and not at all about eating less enjoyable meals. It's addresses inefficiency related to excessive car ownership and use, systematic food waste, destructive resource extraction, exploitative use of labor, exploitative use of housing and real estate as investment commodities, etc. These things should be calculated too, the returns would be extraordinarily high. The effort to bring about cultural and political change is very high of course, but you won't do it by saying degrowth sounds scary or is about eating less well.
How crazy is it that the solutions to the climate crisis ate most often literally win win in every sense, yet to actually begin to implement change requires so much effort from people like Simon. Love your stuff man, youre videos are so important! Thank you
"But what if climate change is fake and we improve the world for no reason?"
It has always baffled me that the methane from landfills isn't sold. A massive landfill I drove by on a regular basis smelled awful until they started catching it. Unfortunately they just flared it off rather than selling it to use as fuel.
For sustainability, objectives and solutions should be SMART. No reallly:
S-pecific
M-easurable
A-ttainable
R-ealistic
T-emporally defined
go vegan, your choice, your power to refuse to abuse their bodies, to question the fallacies spun by the industries ... bonus effects to follow; for your mind, your body, the planet's ability to support life, and obvs our fellow sentient earthlings.
The main issue with degrowth (because its not about efficiency, it is about fully getting rid of shit that hurts us, like the majority of consumption that makes up modern nations GDP) as a climate solution is time, as you correctly pointed out.
And if you go a little bit deeper, the time issue is one of comfort ... too many people are too comfortable to actually change the system in a fast and radical way, even though it would be better for them as well as the species.
Yeah, for most rich countries, the situation seems quite complicated, but for emerging ones, there is a ton of poor people willing to fight for radical change, we can hope there is some pressure towards the richest countries as well.
Its amazing to me how many people want a singluar solution. "just dont eat meat" "just dont drill oil" "just stop consuming" "just wipe out humanity".
All of these need to happen people, we need to reduce animal agriculture, we need to cut oil out of everything we can, we need to reduce pointless consumption (think mass produced low quality clothes that last a very insignificant time), we need to stop car dependency, and fill the grid with renewables and nuclear. It also doesnt need to come at a cost to quality of life or through unethical means (like wiping humanity out), which is where I think stuff like Degrowth gets murky.
Degrowth is not a concrete thing, its supporters dont all believe in the same solution, in this very comment section you can see some people arguing its to reduce focus on profit and focus on quality of life and efficency and other comments I saw talked about everyone growing their own food and not paying for things one does not need. Everyone having the space to grow their own food means requiring car dependency or foregoing a lot of amenities because modern car dependent suburbs dont even have enough space to feed their residents and living with the space needed would result in needing multitudes more hospitals and needing cars to access them reliably, or foregoing accessible medical care and that is only the tip of the iceberg when you start realizing you either need absolutely massive electrical grids and water grids or you also forgeo them. Also what qualifies as things one doesn't need, are we talking about a singing fish, are we talking about a music album, somewhere in between?
Mind you I agree fully with the common definition that Wikipedia has "Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development." from the perspective of a Democratic Socialist thats part of what I believe and it's ultimately a good thing, society and its systems should be there for the betterment of society, not to support a measurment of one economic systems success regardless of whether it helps people.
Great video Simon. Your videos lately have singlehandedly got me more interested in learning about climate change.
You continue to deliver incredible climate related content like no one else. Stay strong!
I feel there's a strong mischaracterisation of what degrowth is and looks for. The concept of degrowth is in itself important, because it's not a series of measures, it looks to change a mental paradigm. Because it points how GDP should not be the focus.
Otherwise, you'll get countries that properly achieve "efficiency"-"degrowth", or get close to it (i.e., that get more well-being, better health, less work time, better life balance, etc) and that are compared on a GDP basis to other countries that don't.
A perfect example is what happens between the US and the EU (and has been for 30 years): GDP per capita difference is higher and higher, and neoliberal economists and politicians use it to discredit the european model (which is not perfect OFC, in fact ii's still horrible, just slightly less) over the american one. But if you look at relevant data (or what should be relevant): life expectancy continues to increase in the EU and decreases in the US, inequality is growing more in the US, violence has grown much more in the US, medical costs, drug use, overall dissatisfaction, anxiety, stress, obesity, diabetes, higher in the US. Work hours have reduced much more in the EU (maternity paid leave, holidays, sick days...), and overall GHG emissions and thus impact on climate and biodiversity has been reduced much faster in the EU.
And ofc, you can technically say that these changes were in themselves a higher efficiency (if you look at GDP per hour worked, the difference is not that stark with the most developed european countries), but that way you're not fighting the cultural message. You're still playing in their field. Every movement in history have always needed their Malcolm Xs, and Black Panthers (radicals that criticise the system itself and are thus completelly vilinised by the system and the overall public that benifits from it or are allienated by it, but that VITAL to push the overton window and open the path to the next ones), their Marthin Luther Kings (more charismatic and amenable leaders, that still defend their claims on principle, but that are more ready to tame them in quest for concrete gains) and their Lyndon B. Johnsons (people with power that may share some of the core beliefs, or maybe not, but are able to see the writing on the wall and break the molds of the system that benefiteted them until now to seize the opportunity to further their interests, while helping the cause).
Toussaint, Nat Turner/Solomon Northup/Lincoln, Grant. Steve Biko/Mandela/de Klerk. Thje Muslim League/Ghandi/UK government. Pankhurst and the suffragettes/the NUWSS/the conservative government that passed the act. And almost any fight for increasing rights we can think of.
So, if at least some don't fight to shift the paradigm of GDP-ism, which is the main goal of the degrowth movement, to change the overton window, then politicians will be continually bound to build and destroy more and more. The movement needs a counterbalance.
Good post. Just don't call it "degrowth". The name is toxic.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Lol, you completely missed the point. Are you aware in the slightest about how Malcom X, Pankhurst or Biko were perceived at their times? The fact that mainstream media and "common sense" population see it as toxic is what makes it so important to defend. That's how change is achieved, by moving the overton window.
Working from home (for those who could) was one of the silver linings during the pandemic. Remember how smoggy cities started clearing up because people were driving less? It's a small step, but Big Business™ doesn't like losing control over its workers.
It's pretty cool how many of these are net negative cost. I thought plant-based eating might have been alone on those lists, but it's just one thing mentioned.
Great video! I totally agree that we gotta focus more on the most actionable and effective solutions in this critical time
Simon I am currently watching though some of your recent videos I had not seen yet, and their quality and in this one especially realism is very much appreciated 👏
I am not an economist, and I agree we should evaluate income inequality,life expectancy, literacy, and health outcomes when evaluating an economy. But I just do not agree that we have to reduce GDP or standards of living to solve climate change. As many climate solutions will create new industries and jobs which can grow the economys. Having more efficient pipes, homes, and grids provides the same level of value with less resource usage. Those resources could then be saved for future generations or used for other activities that grow the economy or benefit people.
I think Degrowth is not a great name in terms of marketing, regardless of its ideas. To solve a big social issue you idea needs to be marketable I would say.
I really enjoyed this video, I’d love a deeper dive into some of these potential solutions, and how we can help make them happen.
What is the most cost effective solution? - becoming vegan. Poore and Nemecek (2018)
It's not only about CO2
Your choice, your power to refuse to abuse their bodies, to question the fallacies spun by the industries ... bonus effects to follow; for your mind, your body, the planet's ability to support life, and obvs for our fellow sentient earthlings.
The problem with the argument 'You can call it degrowth, I call it efficiency' is that no amount of efficient technology can outpace a wasteful usage of resources. The rebound effect is real and will nullify any gains if we are running after 'efficiency' instead of drawing red lines and saying enough is enough. The term degrowth is important because it hammers in the point that we cannot keep going at the current rate, no matter how efficient our technologies are. No amount of green technologies/energies will make the AI race, the race to Mars or the insatiable lust for upward trending stock prices more sustainable than just not doing it.
Nitpicking about the word 'sacrifice' isn't helping anyone. We need to be clear about the fact that caring about our planet requires sacrifices. It is up to us ensure those sacrifices are justly distributed in our societies, but thinking there will be none is just lying at this point.
Everyone living in tropical and subtropical climates: insulation what? You trying to kill me?
Disagree, insulation can keep heat out if done properly
@@murphy7801 you'll find out those climates aren't that hot. It's the humidity that makes you feel hot. Insulation makes it worse.
@@globalist1990I am aware, why in those climates just the root to be insulated to prevent the roof transfering heat in. Then want to transfer humidity out.
You're going to use air conditioning in hot/humid climates, so good insulation will keep the space cool and dehumidified longer, reducing costs. I'm shocked that I have to explain this.
@@radishpineapple74 lol you need ac? 🤣💀
Comment for the algorithm god, engagement for the engagement throne! Seriously, though I smiled so wide when I heard about how Drawdown are in the process of offering more localised information and shorter timespans - Whilst from a climate point of view we need to be thinking in terms of >20 years, when it comes to politics we need to be able to discuss results in terms of less than four years, and this could be a really powerful resource for driving change!
An important question. In theory pricing carbon (and methane etc.) should incentivise people properly. And ideally it would be set at the cost of abating emissions (which is going to rise very quickly as the cheaper options get maxed out). But that is an unpopular policy so governments are subsidising both pollution and less polluting forms of energy, meaning there is LESS incentive for people to be efficient. So it falls on us as responsible individuals to improve our energy efficiency, and to offset our remaining emissions, while demanding the imposition of pollution taxes and infrastructure (mostly grid-based) to give us an option to avoid those taxes without sitting in our homes doing nothing.
You had me at Project Drawdown. One of the most important projects out there.
I'm surprised that shifting to a more plant based diet wasn't mentioned at all here.
The livestock (& seafood) industry is the #1 cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss and one of the major emitters of CO2 & methane.
Plus, for those high meat-eating countries, a shift to more fruits & veg would likely cause a significant social and financial benefit in terms of public health.
It's not just carbon dioxide emissions, methane emissions, especially from natural gas leaking out everywhere, are becoming a growing issue as well.
Can you share your spreadsheet?
Don't count with underdeveloped countries to talk about "degrowth"... it is even an insult. Obviously, there are better paths to growth (ones not taken by the richest countries)...
Consider also that the richest countries are increasing their military spenditure and are ansking for the poorer ones to "stop doing this and that".
Where are the compensations??
It is even hard to win the local debate against the killers of the forests, because they offer jobs. Bad jobs, sure, but what are the immediate offers.
And don't come with "in the future" perspectives... that's for urban middle-class people.
How is discussing the improvement of healthcare, education access, nutritious food, clean energy, and cities built for humans an insult to underdeveloped countries? It seems that you may have misunderstood the concept of degrowth and taken the term at face value. I recommend that you research Jason Hickel for more information. Developing countries technically speaking at a very high GDP during colonial times but that was obviously incredibly harmful to the humans living there. Degrowth is about redefining economic growth in a meaningful way for humans, and not to blindly chase a basically meaningless number.
@@_yonas And here you see the problem with the term "degrowth".
@@incognitotorpedo42 I wish more people were curious about what it actually means. The definition given in this video was unfortunately severely lacking, imho.
These videos are just so well made! Thank you, Simon.
Great job with this, really think this is one of your best videos. Great to see that youve taken the challenge to heart and, in my opinion, have started producing some of your best videos. Fantastic job
The elephant in the room - overconsumption
Capitalism is truly the biggest killer of all time.
Yep. And not just at a consumer level. Cheaper / more efficient means that the vested interests aren't going to get as much $ thrown at them. And politicians don't have as big budgets to use for patronage/payoffs.
Indeed, but I wouldn't blame individuals overconsumption and stop there (remember the carbon footprint concept, invented by the oil industry to shift the focus and blame the individuals?). Overconsumption is needed for economy to keep thriving under Capitalism, not a feature of the human being. We have been taught to consume like this by Advertising. Consuming in moderation, to meet our needs and be happy, would mean transitioning to a Degrowth paradigm, because the financial system would surely collapse.
Overproduction may be even more accurate. Not everything produced is consumed. Marx wrote on this very problem extensively in Capital and other economic manuscripts
We'll get there. I'll accept these changes in the right direction.
Yes! This is one thing I have loved for years and nobody talks about it. It's actually really profitable to extract methane from capped off landfills, and it's an incredibly simple process.
Putting my 2014 ebike back into use with a bafang kit. Wish they would do more in infrastructure here for cycling in NZ.
Could you please do a video on savings/ investments? How individuals and corporations can invest in green funds/stocks, power generation and other small things like replacing an old fridge to lower your power draw.
Something on the general theme of investing in more environmentally friendly options and how they can be better in more ways than just environmental ones.
I absolutely love this video! The one thing I really wish was mentioned is the discount rate and accounting for the time value of money
we need a plantbased food system ASAP
Macron said "We need a one-world government as soon as possible". That is what this is all about.
@Robbert, see what happens when you try to change people's deeply held lifestyle choices? You get the kind of conspiracy theorizing that @yasi evidences here. Be vegan if you want, but don't try to push it on people who don't want it. The political fallout will do a lot more harm than you might think.
@@incognitotorpedo42 That's a moronic statement. You seem to be badly out of touch. How is what Macron said a conspiracy theory. The WEF-UN have a signed agreement to implement said one-world government.
This was an amazing video. Awesome work Simon! You are on a roll with these recent videos!
The complexities of cost, social, and ecological benefits or harm are so difficult to quantify and compare like you explained in your video. I like how you presented this video, but there is so much more nuance that I hope you can dive into in future videos.
Yer man doesn't like the sound of "degrowth" and prefers the term "efficiency" but this ignores the Jevons paradox, which is the tendency for more efficient energy use to cause higher energy consumption. We need _both_ efficiency _and_ degrowth.
Bull, we already know we can grow the economy and cut carbon emissions at the same time
@@steffenberr6760 sounds a lot like not trying while pretending to be doing something, which has been our current strategy
@@zipWith we have hard data showing percentage of carbon emissions falling with GDP rising. Degrowth is moronic
@@steffenberr6760 rich coming from someone who apparently believes exponential growth can carry on forever in a finite world
i watched on nebula but i wanted to say that i found this video to be a fantastic resource for both informing the direction i focus my interests and advocacy, as well as giving me some great examples of climate solutions to suggest to and educate others on.
Really interesting video. The water infrastructure maintenance and upgrading is an interesting one. It's been know for years in most western societies that the infrastructure was crumbling but because the work isn't highly visible and the advantages easy for the public to see politics has ignored it.
Excellent presentation! 100 % relevant about costs and solutions! Keep going strong, Simon! (High five!)
Great video. Thank you
The water part of this puts the egregious waste due to water company mismanagement in the UK in a particularly bad light. So much is wasted because the money people pay to the water companies goes straight to shareholders rather than the infrastructure
Interesting content and excellent elaborations. Job well done!
I love this! As a Cyclist and someone who cares for our environment with my actions I wish we would work on implementing these strategies.
I studied this for undergrad thesis-thingy and I got an A for it. Eliminating landfill methane is truly a simple thing to do, but unfortunately even in richer developing countries (like mine) it's still not being prioritized (bcs it is still costly when you're not a developed country)
Great video on climate change solutions! Thank you. Steps that make money...yes make money. I truly hope we continue to escalate our transition to high insulation, renewably powered electricity and transport. God bless all our citizens in this work:)
A huge part of the economic activity is the production,transport,and disposal of junk related to holiday celebrations.
The guilt-trip driving to buy dead flowers in the US flown from Columbia makes me not want to get sick or die because,no matter how many times I’ve said it,we get pretty glass vases of flowers every time we go to the hospital .
The very thought of family traveling long distances and standing around drinking coffee from styrofoam cups at my funeral makes me want to get up and do something to live longer.
The first thing to do is change the fuel of large ships. Every big (container/cruise) ship pollutes as much as 50.000.000 cars. There are 20.000 of these ships.
I’d like to see a video on the carbon tax like here in Canada. I know that’s one reason that some people have with climate change solutions
Yes showing short term solutions may wake everyone up and get buy in. I listen to people losing their minds that we are near a cliff, then they say this is an emergency but the ice melt will take a very long time. Good god the sea level is going up every year and until it stops going up we have an emergency and an emergency needs current attention. Thank you very much, great video
No mention of Cap-and-Trade here, which I thought was surprising. CaT devolves the decision making to everyone who participates in the economy (so, everyone). When carbon emissions are effectively priced in to every decision, the achievable, fast and cheap options bubble to the top of the spread sheets of decision makers (along side the longer term stuff like pumped hydro projects).
UA-cam got real pushy about me watching this video. I'm glad I did.
I really liked the "degrowth" vs "efficiency". It's a nice change of discourse. But for the common folk to adopt it, I think they should see the benefits at a personal scale. If we reduce food waste but that means higher prices for the end consumer, no one would buy it (maybe literally)
Also, while talking about transportation, I was expecting to hear about remote work along with bike use. It's even more efficient while possible.
And regarding the personal vs institutional options, I think ot would have been interesting to hear some of the ones we, the people can achieve, whether personal or communal (a lot of small scale reforestation projects are volunteering work)
Maybe for a follow up video?
What an excellent, hopeful, and positive video! Thank you for this!
Regarding degrowth: we will need to change the global economic system eventually. No system based on inflation-based money supply increase and infinite growth is sustainable. However, you are right in saying that degrowth is not a direct solution to the current climate crisis. There are things we can do that are faster, easier (relatively speaking), and more efficient.
This is interesting Simon. Thank you. I'll have to finish this later as I need to leave.
Thanks for the great video!
Thank you!! I have come to your videos now, and they are amazing
VIDEO SUGGESTION:
How can I explain how important it is to tackle Climate Change in an Elevator Pitch? Most people my country doesn't take it seriously because it is complicated. Whenever I try to explain it to them, it usually takes a lot of time & it turns them off.
I myself have no problem in listening to an hour video to understand Climate Change but most people won't put that effort so an Elevator Pitch can be really helpful to spread awareness - for both the threat & it's potential solutions.
12:23 I think degrowth is the best word. The economies and expectations for economies are blown up out of proportion.
We need to get them off the steroids and shrink them down to a healthy condition. The withdrawal symptoms will be horrendous but we’ll be better off in the long run.
Brilliant work Simon! Happy to subscribe.
excellent video, signed up from project draw down newsletter
Does the plant-based solution take into account non-energy related costs/savings, eg Healthcare?
A CO2e tax going up 10% per year and pausing when one's city is CO2e negative, with tax revenue going to technologies mentioned in Project Drawdown, would be net revenue neutral and provide volununtary but not obligatory incentives (babysitting the US) to be ecologically sane on a planet of finite resources.
Big, Fast and Cheap. very much needed now.
I think the hardest nut to crack on this subject is having a societal shift. For example I see the bike idea being very difficult to implement in the US. We've foolishly built our cities outward so that anything of interest (stores, restaurants, etc) is on the outskirts. I wish we had built more like Europe; I had friend from there mention how there were lots of markets and such within walking distance.
Regardless I hope we implement some of these soon. Anything is better than nothing.
Very informational!
From what I understand, the cost of renewables has dropped below that of conventional fuels. This would make me think there is going to be a fast shift, except for the resistance that conventional fuel companies will finance. Most economics models companies follow don't take into account the cost of many of the losses we, as individuals, suffer from their models, such as treating the atmosphere as a free sewer. Or the land as a free garbage disposal. And many of us could stop paying attention to the drive of advertisers to get the latest disposable trash. We could also stop buying too much food or fulfilling fashion trends.
There are also practical problems. A lot of the energy we need is not electric. We still need solutions for many places that have that kind of energy needs.
@@YraxZovaldo Rockets? Bombs? Not sure what else can't be converted, given time.
@@RichardRoy2 Well, not everyone has the money to buy a new EV. So are you going to provide them to everyone or not? But that is a easy problem. The production of things like fertiliser and steel are really hard to produce without fossil fuels. We still need more research in how to do this and than completely change the infrastructure. An other example are boats or planes. I can go on. It simply isn’t that easy.
@@YraxZovaldo "really hard" in industry speak means less profitable. As long as they can use the environment as a free sewer, the profit is more valuable to them than the lives it costs. Once those costs get figured in, even remaining on fossil fuels will be "harder."
As to the cost of EVs, not everyone can afford an ICE either. They aren't being provided to everyone. I fail to see your point here. It's sounding like a lot of hyperbole.
@@RichardRoy2 No it means that the are real barriers in the process. And less profitable isn’t really a thing. It just that the price would drastically go up. If the prices of fertiliser would triple, the prices of food would also go up. The moment the prices of food go up, millions of people will have a hard time buying enough food.
I am convinced of degrowth. It is an indispensable and highly effective complement to all those desperate tech-fixes that are of course also necessary.
Whilst your argument against it is that it‘s not applicable I just apply it personally. Reducing my material footprint in every direction while trying to get maximum happiness out of the result. I can assure you it‘s worthwhile.
The problem is that in most cases the companies that profit from selling the less efficient/more expensive products/method of doing things have bought into the government via lobbying or otherwise have made it so that the people making the decisions on how to approach things like infrastructure and logistics aren’t the people paying but the people getting paid (or beholden to the people getting paid.) so there’s really no incentive to take the cheaper/more efficient option.
I independently came to the idea recently of an "efficiency economy" as opposed to "degrowth". Although that production (i.e. GDP) decreases isn't necessarily part of an efficiency economy. Simple things like mandating all new toilets be fitted with bidets, or banning air conditioners that aren't reverse cycle, could save a lot of resources without causing any inconvenience to ... anyone really.
Fascinating topics covered Simon. Keep it up!
Thank you so much for making videos with are both evidence-based and hopeful
Well done on such a great video! It would be great if you can attach the spreadsheets here. Pretty pretty please 🙏
No shot you got in touch with Jon Foley!!! Epic!!!!