The Haber-Bosch process is not dependent on natural gas (methane). It is possible to produce ammonia using renewable energy entirely. Nitric acid can also be made in the same way. So it’s possible to feed the world using ammonium nitrate without the fossil fuel bit. No one needs to starve. It is true that we are the children of capitalism and its use of fossil fuel energy, but the point of a transition away is from fossil fuels, is to feed the world in a different way.
All you said is not done at scale at the moment, and you forgot the price. things don’t just happen, who’s going to pay for that transition and for how long until it matures.
Unlike Ed, I actually was educated as an economist. I found him absolutely fascinating. I loved his geeky enthusiasm for his subject. Fascinating. I'm buying and reading the book.
Interesting discussion here, thanks! It is worth mentioning that a significant amount of cobalt is used in the refining process of Diesel too and quite a few EV batteries are moving away from using cobalt in newer battery chemistries. Also the processes to recycle of batteries are massively ramping up, which will hugely reduce the amount of materials needing to be mined.
The material recovery process for spent batteries is itself a 'dirty' process. Just saying 'recycle' doesn't magic away the problems (I wish it did). Also, battery recycling still isn't an economically attractive proposition. It's dirty, energy intensive and the useable metals recovered after processing is frustratingly small.
Very important conversation. People do take for granted that the things around them all had to come from somewhere. Personally I believe we need completely reorient our economies away from growth for growth's sake into investing in quality not quantity. So we can all live lives that are spent well not running on a hamster wheel, doing bullshit jobs and staring at screens for escapism leaving us miserable and alienated.
11:14 surely, this is even more of an argument not to waste the finite resource that is fossil fuel in mundane everyday applications such as heating homes, cooking food and moving vehicles for which we can easily use alternatives and save it for more important things like not killing half the human beings alive in the world...
Years ago I was talking to someone who worked in Geo Survey they had been out in Af rica Surveying mines. Due to some restrictions about what they were allowed to mine anything other than tin and possibly copper went into the waste shaft including Cobalt, and other precious metals, however it would sometimes include radioactive ore which also went in the shaft making it all unusable.
This is useful to know. Now interview Jason Hickel on Degrowth to understand what we do about our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
@martinjohnson1534 says the guy who says it's impossible to not be on the internet and has gone out of his way to comment on a UA-cam video when he could very easily be doing something else.
Well that's pretty stupid. Trades people likely don't know much more about it, and I doubt the average factory worker is entirely clued in. The proportion of people who understand even a portion of the problem is vanishingly small, and that is often the entire object of their profession.
If it weren't for slave labour, all of us would be dead (or not born). We now recognise slave labour as abhorrent, the same is slowly starting to apply to burning fossil fuels. The folks selling horses really didn't like the new automobile, the same is true for the folks selling fossil fuels - they just have vastly more power.
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy...wow that is quite something to say. Elements of capitalism are awful yes. Slavery was somewhat different. Arguments like that make it impossible to have a real conversation. I do see a movement within the US to bring slavery back though.
@@MrFinbarz You have a point, i better wrote wage slavery. In capitalism money needs to go around to keep the system working and give participants a good and meaningfull life. Workers aswell as entrepreneurs. Butt money and wealth is horded by a verry small group of humanity and ordinary people need multiple jobs to get by, becouse the politicians are rigged and bought. The taxes are payed by the poor and not ( in proportion) by the wealthy. So ordinairy people are still ( kind of ) slaves. They think they are free, untill they stop paying taxes. Look what to them then. 😊 ( i have my own business btw, so that you dont think i react like this out of anger or rage against the system) 😁
@The.world.has.gone.crazy... I think you are talking about velocity of money which has indeed become a problem. Capitalism needs alot more rules for it to work for business. Public services however should be run on a more socialist model. This mix ensures the best outcome for the most people.
I haven't fully listened to the whole podcast so forgive me because I had to rush out, but from the 15 minutes I've listened so far I have a problem Yes energy underpins everything, but arguing that half of us would be dead without fossil fuels is a gross exaggeration. As is always the case in economics, people adapt. The tomato example ignores that the majority of fertilisers are used for livestock feed, a process which is very energy inefficient. We will eventually adapt to this new reality, but we won't need fossil fuels as consumers and producers will adapt to both supply changes in meat, and increased demand for non-natural gas fertilisers If anything, it'll be much harder to adapt to the degraded state of agriculture if we don't significantly cut emissions by 2050
I wish the world's intellectuals would get together and come up with a system that doesn't absolutely demand growth for the system to 'work' ..all our problems could start being solved once you don't need growth.
That means a different form of money, without debt attached to it. At the moment money in circulation comes into an economy from private banks in the form of loans, with interest added. That’s where the growth imperative comes from.
The problem is inflation. Growth is the solution to that. The only alternative is to stop using money, stop buying things, and then when there is no demand there's no inflation. You can trade goods/services for other goods/services directly, without any money. Your friend cuts your hair in exchange for you painting their hallway, or whatever. If a service you want isn't accepting anything you can offer, then you can't get your hair cut. So we instead invented money. Now it doesn't matter if someone has something you want but doesn't want anything you can offer, you can instead use the money from painting someone else's house last week to get your hair cut today, even though the hair dresser doesn't want their house painted. So if you want an economy which doesn't require continual growth, continual wage increases etc then you simply need to stop buying things and give up using money, because every penny you spend on goods or services increases demand for it, hence the demand-pull of inflation. The target of 2% inflation per year keeps it manageable and predictable while accepting that it is a flaw of using money, because the alternative is terrible - you can only get a hair cut when the hair dresser wants her house painted, so you might have a 10 year wait between each cut, but at least you don't have to worry about that pesky 2%.. Now, you tell me which of those is the worse system. There isn't a 3rd option.
@@NeonVisual No disrespect intended. But, do you understand what continued ‘growth’ means for the planet? More resource use, more wars for said resources, more pollution (plastic in oceans, micro plastics, CO2 increasing, more acidic ocean leading to destruction of most aquatic life by mid 40’s etc…) If there is to be ‘growth’ then it needs to be redefined to so that it accounts for things which actually matter in the real world, rather than a mere abstract measure of financial profit. This means deep system change, of course, otherwise we are screwed.
Ive watched a load of videos recently on finance, economy and net zero. What ive gathered is we are not investing in ourselves enough and need to put more into the country simple as that, well... 'Simple' only 4% of pensions are invested in UK companies as a example compared to a lot of other countries up to 30/60%. It seems we invest in other countries and rely on them to invest in us seems bizarre.
Ed isn't really saying that consumer capitalism is hypocritical. He's saying that he's smarter than you, by noticing we're utterly dependent on oil, and that he's not going to do anything about it, other than engage in the same consumerism without the hypocrisy or guilt.
Wrote a book encouraging public knowledge of issues associated with what he raised. Guess Marx did nothing for communism because all he did was write and talk about it, not do it.
@@recreationalelmersglue6053 "Ed Conway is the Economics Editor of Sky News... He is a former correspondent for the Daily Mail newspaper and the Economics Editor of The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph newspapers." Sky, is owned by Murdoch. You have to be incredibly naive to not know what this book is about.
This was a great, when you have someone that is very passionate about a subject just letting them talk makes it a far more interesting interview to listen to. I will be ordering a copy of his book.
This is the level of detail I find *incredibly* dull and unnecessary, but someone has to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff we already vaguely knew. So thanks for that.
I just found out my partner has been subbed to you for years but refuses to accept your name is not Joe! 😂 Thanks for the great content. Enjoyed this especially.
@@user-fn4qw8yk6y I totally agree with that. It was just a gut feeling. Was expecting the interviewer to have a more critical approach to do the work for us, but alas no.
Human population size is very much artificial within nature. We are feed from poisoned industrial growing systems, and the subsequent illnesses treated through other huge industrial pharmaceutical industries. Oil has been the driver behind it all. It is still keeping our population artificially high.
Believing a huge unproductive public is a locomotive for growth is right up there with believing your new lead shoes will make you run faster than your old lightweight ones .... In 1996 we were spending £250bn a year with 57million people and getting better results by far on nearly every yardstick than spending £1 trillion ++ for 70million people today ..... The government needs to start eliminating waste instead of asking us for more money the whole time .....
The waste is in the percentage of the economy wrapped up doing “financial instruments” moving money around rather than doing real things. The financial sector is an invisible tax mining wealth from the rest of us
Thanks for the healthy dollop of reality here. Sadly, there is no magical solution to these issues and we need to have our over-inflated balloons deflated occasionally.
The abject failure to move to sustainable energy is costing Millennials and gen Z dearly. Have labour commissioned any turbines, solar farms, or battery storage yet? And if not, why? What's the holdup? We're all just going to stop paying if nothing changes soon, don't for a second think that's an idle threat.
Putting my tinfoil hat on... Isn't it a bit suspicious that successive governments simultaneously bang on about the threat of climate change whilst doing relatively nothing at all about it?
Since when could they store the energy from wind or solar. "Battery storage" that don't exist yet. Even when it does who gets the minerals out the ground? Britain has done more than any country despite only producing 1 percent of emissions. The only way forward is nuclear.
@@Norfolkandchance886 Don’t look up how much battery storage is getting installed in peoples home over the last few years. You outsource your emissions, they’re all produced in China, Americas and far east, just like the device you wrote this message on. Congrats being gaslit.
@@nicksimmons7234 I don't use any of those services. I'm a 42 yearold vegan living in Brighton who hasn't stepped foot in an aircraft since 2008, and ditched 24 years of motoring to switch to an eBike. My flat has no gas and outside my window is the Rampion wind farm. Don't lecture me son, get your own house in order.
Haha the example he gave was primary school stuff, based on the most harmful way to farm, I guess he made it simple for a reason looking at the comments, for the people he's trying to inform he should have stuck to a cartoon!
I really dislike this. If we didn't have this or that, so-and-so many people would die. We can't do this because we have no infrastructure. We can't do that because it's hard. It's impossible because it costs a lot. Can't be done because the process relies on this-and that. First of all, we're not all that easy to kill. How much resources we use has no bearing on how much resources we need to stay alive. Secondly, yeah, it's not easy, cheap or convenient. WE'VE NOTICED! Otherwise, we would be doing it already. People always think they're hellishly smart when they start calculating the grid capacity required if we were all to switch to electric cars, and conclude that it is not possible, because there is not enough capacity. Or the geniuses who insist that we can't drive electric cars because we don't have enough grid capacity, and we also can't have solar panels because we have no use for the electricity, and also the grid won't be able to accept it. Come on! The fact that we don't have infrastructure means we have to build it. The fact that we don't have technology means we have to develop it. The fact that there is no money for that means that we must make it profitable. And the fact that we need oil for some really REALLY critical applications is all the more reason not wo waste it on inefficient heating, transportation etc. Unfortunately, humans are the most inventive and efficient when they get a kick up their arse and are faced with a deadly threat. Horrible things like war always also boost our research and economies. We went into WWII with biplanes, listening tubes, bolt action rifles, paper and pencil and came out of it - only 4 years or so later - with blooming jet aircraft, missiles, radar, sonar, computers, assault rifles and nuclear weapons... There was a period of unprecedented wealth and development, and now everything is going back to crap. A disruption like the climate catastrophe could be just what we needed (if we survive at all, which doesn't seem all that likely).
Even the US have had 50 Years of time to solve this problem But they are lost with their wars. All they follow, too.....😮 Good Night Europe, Good night "America", Good Night GB. ...
Rachel Reeves is not an economist. If I go to medical school and then decide to become a car mechanic that doesn’t mean I’m a doctor!!! Not even a car doctor! Silly man.
Economist isn't a qualification, it's based on experience in the relevant industry. You've disproven your own argument by casually claiming to be a mechanic just because you dropped out of med school and now want to fix cars instead. You can call yourself a mechanic if you want, there's no qualification needed other than the ability and experience to diagnose and repair cars. To be an economist one does exactly the same, but with economics instead of vehicle repairs. Comparing both of those to an actual qualification such as a doctorate, of course you're not a doctor until you have achieved the qualification of a doctorate in the relevant educational pathway. Are you thick or something fella?
Make sure to check out Nate Hagens (amazing podcast "The Great Simplification") and people like Simon Michaux, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Art Berman, Bill Rees or Steve Keen or books by Vaclav Smil "How the World really works" etc.
Well done - people are living in a digutal world are entirely blind to the fact that we are entirely dependent on the analog world.because we arw anog. He nearly went as far as saying we need to balance our move towards net zero, but sideswerved. Fossil fuel co sumption is still 85% of.glo al energy prkduction. The shift will be slow and we need scientific progress to get there (battery storage, etc). Without compromuse we won't make it. The extreme right and left are both wrong ... slow and sready as we go, flexibility until the science has caught up.
Most of this is and has been known for decades. I myself think we are going in the wrong direction toward a greener world. Wind turbines and solar will not save us, not unless we produce them at home. We have strict laws which ironically are preventing us from having the industry here. I would rather our CO2 emissions doubled if it meant that the world is better off overall, why are relying so heavily on two nations who produce half the worlds CO2 emissions?
We engineers have known this stuff for years. The 'intellectuals' 😂😂😂 and politicians are to far up themselves to listen to people with real-world experiences but instead believe they can change reality with sound bites and propaganda.
I'm an Engineer and couldn't disagree more. The UK has everything it needs for a fair transition: Maritime Heavy Manufacturing, Domestic Steel Production, Deep drilling expertise, Deep water structure deployment. All of these ingredients could provide a range of renewables with baseload capacity or extremely predictable generation (e.g. geothermal, tidal stream). But we're letting foreign interests do as they please with our manufacturing capabilities and the fossil fuel companies lobbying to the extent that no political party can expect to get in to power without getting in to their pockets. There are alternatives for nearly everything produced by fossil fuels and the small amount that remains does not need to be combusted, and therefore add to climate change. The UK, and the rest of the Western World, are hampered by the promotion of old solutions that are still tied to the vastly wealthy companies that have been categorically proven to be acting against the interests of humanity.
@@turbokadett Ok you are only talking about the energy production then. But you stated that the UK has everything it needs for a fair transition in a podcast entirely about resources and where they come from. So where will the mining come from? And how is it a fair transition if they come from outside the UK? Do you know how the places where mining takes place look and the ecological consequences of the surrounding systems?
It's crazy that we need a book to find this out, next they'll be telling us that children mine cobalt by hand that is used in our mobiles & books are printed on trees😒🤯
The Haber-Bosch process is not dependent on natural gas (methane).
It is possible to produce ammonia using renewable energy entirely.
Nitric acid can also be made in the same way.
So it’s possible to feed the world using ammonium nitrate without the fossil fuel bit. No one needs to starve.
It is true that we are the children of capitalism and its use of fossil fuel energy, but the point of a transition away is from fossil fuels, is to feed the world in a different way.
All you said is not done at scale at the moment, and you forgot the price. things don’t just happen, who’s going to pay for that transition and for how long until it matures.
Unlike Ed, I actually was educated as an economist. I found him absolutely fascinating. I loved his geeky enthusiasm for his subject. Fascinating. I'm buying and reading the book.
@@MichaelSpencePhilippines I will also. Another whose work runs in a similar vein, is Simon Michaux. He’s worth a look.
Interesting discussion here, thanks!
It is worth mentioning that a significant amount of cobalt is used in the refining process of Diesel too and quite a few EV batteries are moving away from using cobalt in newer battery chemistries. Also the processes to recycle of batteries are massively ramping up, which will hugely reduce the amount of materials needing to be mined.
No Problem, If the US have lot's of Cobalt in their own Country's soil....😊
The material recovery process for spent batteries is itself a 'dirty' process. Just saying 'recycle' doesn't magic away the problems (I wish it did). Also, battery recycling still isn't an economically attractive proposition. It's dirty, energy intensive and the useable metals recovered after processing is frustratingly small.
We will be in the post fossil fuel era when we say one thing...
"How foolish we were to burn it all."
Barely anyone will understand this.
and what will you say when you realise fossil fuels are allways being created by the earth
@robbie609 lol, ok you're right. But you don't seem to understand why it's irrelevant.
Very important conversation. People do take for granted that the things around them all had to come from somewhere. Personally I believe we need completely reorient our economies away from growth for growth's sake into investing in quality not quantity. So we can all live lives that are spent well not running on a hamster wheel, doing bullshit jobs and staring at screens for escapism leaving us miserable and alienated.
That was a great one! More guests like Ed please…or get him in again soon
11:14 surely, this is even more of an argument not to waste the finite resource that is fossil fuel in mundane everyday applications such as heating homes, cooking food and moving vehicles for which we can easily use alternatives and save it for more important things like not killing half the human beings alive in the world...
It's a weird thing isn't it. Does this mean half of us die out whenever the fossil fuels do?
Years ago I was talking to someone who worked in Geo Survey they had been out in Af rica Surveying mines. Due to some restrictions about what they were allowed to mine anything other than tin and possibly copper went into the waste shaft including Cobalt, and other precious metals, however it would sometimes include radioactive ore which also went in the shaft making it all unusable.
This is useful to know.
Now interview Jason Hickel on Degrowth to understand what we do about our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
Classic - "Let's talk about your book that I haven't read." Independent journalism at it's best!
"Without fossil fuels, there's no Facebook, there's no internet, there are no smart phones."
Sounds good to me.
Says the guy on the internet
Says the guy who is grudgingly on the internet, because it's impossible not to be.
@martinjohnson1534 says the guy who says it's impossible to not be on the internet and has gone out of his way to comment on a UA-cam video when he could very easily be doing something else.
@@supercadcc who cares if he's on the internet - it's possible to hate the current state of things while complaining in or on it galaxy brain.
@@Morning404 fair point
I feel fairly confident in saying only the people working in the service industries are unaware of the physical stuff.
Well that's pretty stupid. Trades people likely don't know much more about it, and I doubt the average factory worker is entirely clued in. The proportion of people who understand even a portion of the problem is vanishingly small, and that is often the entire object of their profession.
If it weren't for slave labour, all of us would be dead (or not born). We now recognise slave labour as abhorrent, the same is slowly starting to apply to burning fossil fuels. The folks selling horses really didn't like the new automobile, the same is true for the folks selling fossil fuels - they just have vastly more power.
Slavery has never stopped, it's now called capitalism. 😅
@@The.world.has.gone.crazy...wow that is quite something to say. Elements of capitalism are awful yes. Slavery was somewhat different. Arguments like that make it impossible to have a real conversation. I do see a movement within the US to bring slavery back though.
@@MrFinbarz
Go to Dubai to see modern slavery. Or Saudi Arabia.
@@MrFinbarz You have a point, i better wrote wage slavery. In capitalism money needs to go around to keep the system working and give participants a good and meaningfull life. Workers aswell as entrepreneurs. Butt money and wealth is horded by a verry small group of humanity and ordinary people need multiple jobs to get by, becouse the politicians are rigged and bought. The taxes are payed by the poor and not ( in proportion) by the wealthy. So ordinairy people are still ( kind of ) slaves. They think they are free, untill they stop paying taxes. Look what to them then. 😊 ( i have my own business btw, so that you dont think i react like this out of anger or rage against the system) 😁
@The.world.has.gone.crazy... I think you are talking about velocity of money which has indeed become a problem. Capitalism needs alot more rules for it to work for business. Public services however should be run on a more socialist model. This mix ensures the best outcome for the most people.
Everything physcial we have has either been mined, grown or fished.
I haven't fully listened to the whole podcast so forgive me because I had to rush out, but from the 15 minutes I've listened so far I have a problem
Yes energy underpins everything, but arguing that half of us would be dead without fossil fuels is a gross exaggeration.
As is always the case in economics, people adapt. The tomato example ignores that the majority of fertilisers are used for livestock feed, a process which is very energy inefficient.
We will eventually adapt to this new reality, but we won't need fossil fuels as consumers and producers will adapt to both supply changes in meat, and increased demand for non-natural gas fertilisers
If anything, it'll be much harder to adapt to the degraded state of agriculture if we don't significantly cut emissions by 2050
It irked me when he said that too, he later says it again but adds "would not be alive" which is more reasonable.
The majority of people are not going to adapt to the point that they stop eating animals. Even with meat free alternatives
Animals produce fertiliser😊. We are introducing livestock on our farm to be less reliant on ammonium nitrate and mined phosphate and potash
I ve corrected Ed on twitter many times, he never takes it well and never corrects himself ...
I wish the world's intellectuals would get together and come up with a system that doesn't absolutely demand growth for the system to 'work' ..all our problems could start being solved once you don't need growth.
That means a different form of money, without debt attached to it. At the moment money in circulation comes into an economy from private banks in the form of loans, with interest added. That’s where the growth imperative comes from.
The problem is inflation. Growth is the solution to that. The only alternative is to stop using money, stop buying things, and then when there is no demand there's no inflation. You can trade goods/services for other goods/services directly, without any money. Your friend cuts your hair in exchange for you painting their hallway, or whatever. If a service you want isn't accepting anything you can offer, then you can't get your hair cut.
So we instead invented money. Now it doesn't matter if someone has something you want but doesn't want anything you can offer, you can instead use the money from painting someone else's house last week to get your hair cut today, even though the hair dresser doesn't want their house painted.
So if you want an economy which doesn't require continual growth, continual wage increases etc then you simply need to stop buying things and give up using money, because every penny you spend on goods or services increases demand for it, hence the demand-pull of inflation.
The target of 2% inflation per year keeps it manageable and predictable while accepting that it is a flaw of using money, because the alternative is terrible - you can only get a hair cut when the hair dresser wants her house painted, so you might have a 10 year wait between each cut, but at least you don't have to worry about that pesky 2%..
Now, you tell me which of those is the worse system. There isn't a 3rd option.
@@NeonVisual No disrespect intended. But, do you understand what continued ‘growth’ means for the planet?
More resource use, more wars for said resources, more pollution (plastic in oceans, micro plastics, CO2 increasing, more acidic ocean leading to destruction of most aquatic life by mid 40’s etc…)
If there is to be ‘growth’ then it needs to be redefined to so that it accounts for things which actually matter in the real world, rather than a mere abstract measure of financial profit. This means deep system change, of course, otherwise we are screwed.
@@NeonVisual I can supplies sources for the above claims if interested.
Ive watched a load of videos recently on finance, economy and net zero.
What ive gathered is we are not investing in ourselves enough and need to put more into the country simple as that, well... 'Simple' only 4% of pensions are invested in UK companies as a example compared to a lot of other countries up to 30/60%.
It seems we invest in other countries and rely on them to invest in us seems bizarre.
You’ve watched Andrew Craig interviews as well?
@bengraham878 unsure watch loads 😂 got hyper focused on it all. But will have a look
Ed isn't really saying that consumer capitalism is hypocritical. He's saying that he's smarter than you, by noticing we're utterly dependent on oil, and that he's not going to do anything about it, other than engage in the same consumerism without the hypocrisy or guilt.
Wrote a book encouraging public knowledge of issues associated with what he raised.
Guess Marx did nothing for communism because all he did was write and talk about it, not do it.
@@recreationalelmersglue6053 "Ed Conway is the Economics Editor of Sky News... He is a former correspondent for the Daily Mail newspaper and the Economics Editor of The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph newspapers."
Sky, is owned by Murdoch. You have to be incredibly naive to not know what this book is about.
@@FrankReif Naive cynic
Is it still worth watching this interview? You've really put me off!
This was a big miss.
Good interview and totally agree with the overall premise - for too long we've pandered to the simple solutions to complex problems narrative.
This was a great, when you have someone that is very passionate about a subject just letting them talk makes it a far more interesting interview to listen to. I will be ordering a copy of his book.
This is the level of detail I find *incredibly* dull and unnecessary, but someone has to get into the nitty gritty of this stuff we already vaguely knew. So thanks for that.
This is just so accurate and informative. Money is like water.
I just found out my partner has been subbed to you for years but refuses to accept your name is not Joe! 😂 Thanks for the great content. Enjoyed this especially.
He seems a bit thick. Does he think that net zero means zero fossil fuel usage?!
Surely he can't be that misinformed?
Maybe you think he thinks things that he doesn't think making you a bit thick.
@@CityOfTinyLines Pop your teeth back in boomer and try again
I don’t know, sounds like he’s a shill…. I really think that
I guess the thing to do would be fact check what he's saying.
@@user-fn4qw8yk6y I totally agree with that. It was just a gut feeling. Was expecting the interviewer to have a more critical approach to do the work for us, but alas no.
Human population size is very much artificial within nature. We are feed from poisoned industrial growing systems, and the subsequent illnesses treated through other huge industrial pharmaceutical industries. Oil has been the driver behind it all. It is still keeping our population artificially high.
Is this some kind of false equivalence interview? Joe have interviewed a few experts on climate change, now for a total numpty.
I never see the point of reading the book after I've seen the author talk about whats in it.
Thanks for the precis.
Cuba is still sanctioned.
Fascinating. Ed should write a book.
Teh Indian sun has really risen over the empire in the sense that Britain has to buy energy from the middle man.
Great Interview and Book Idea.
Believing a huge unproductive public is a locomotive for growth is right up there with believing your new lead shoes will make you run faster than your old lightweight ones .... In 1996 we were spending £250bn a year with 57million people and getting better results by far on nearly every yardstick than spending £1 trillion ++ for 70million people today ..... The government needs to start eliminating waste instead of asking us for more money the whole time .....
The waste is in the percentage of the economy wrapped up doing “financial instruments” moving money around rather than doing real things.
The financial sector is an invisible tax mining wealth from the rest of us
Brilliant interview 🙏
I do love a Joe Politics interview they're so interesting
Fascinating. Look forward to teading
Thanks for the healthy dollop of reality here. Sadly, there is no magical solution to these issues and we need to have our over-inflated balloons deflated occasionally.
Love a bit of Ed.
Ed Book is great.
Some of his reporting on Sky, not so much.
So is he actually saying that if I charge my phone to 30%, I can access my phone in skinny jeans?
Thank you for sharing 🙏 good info 👍
The abject failure to move to sustainable energy is costing Millennials and gen Z dearly.
Have labour commissioned any turbines, solar farms, or battery storage yet? And if not, why? What's the holdup? We're all just going to stop paying if nothing changes soon, don't for a second think that's an idle threat.
How much have you ordered on Amazon this year?
How much deliveroo delivery’s?
Putting my tinfoil hat on... Isn't it a bit suspicious that successive governments simultaneously bang on about the threat of climate change whilst doing relatively nothing at all about it?
Since when could they store the energy from wind or solar.
"Battery storage" that don't exist yet. Even when it does who gets the minerals out the ground?
Britain has done more than any country despite only producing 1 percent of emissions.
The only way forward is nuclear.
@@Norfolkandchance886 Don’t look up how much battery storage is getting installed in peoples home over the last few years.
You outsource your emissions, they’re all produced in China, Americas and far east, just like the device you wrote this message on.
Congrats being gaslit.
@@nicksimmons7234 I don't use any of those services. I'm a 42 yearold vegan living in Brighton who hasn't stepped foot in an aircraft since 2008, and ditched 24 years of motoring to switch to an eBike. My flat has no gas and outside my window is the Rampion wind farm.
Don't lecture me son, get your own house in order.
Main substance along with the six he mentioned.... Fresh Water.
Haha the example he gave was primary school stuff, based on the most harmful way to farm, I guess he made it simple for a reason looking at the comments, for the people he's trying to inform he should have stuck to a cartoon!
I really dislike this. If we didn't have this or that, so-and-so many people would die. We can't do this because we have no infrastructure. We can't do that because it's hard. It's impossible because it costs a lot. Can't be done because the process relies on this-and that.
First of all, we're not all that easy to kill. How much resources we use has no bearing on how much resources we need to stay alive.
Secondly, yeah, it's not easy, cheap or convenient. WE'VE NOTICED! Otherwise, we would be doing it already. People always think they're hellishly smart when they start calculating the grid capacity required if we were all to switch to electric cars, and conclude that it is not possible, because there is not enough capacity. Or the geniuses who insist that we can't drive electric cars because we don't have enough grid capacity, and we also can't have solar panels because we have no use for the electricity, and also the grid won't be able to accept it. Come on!
The fact that we don't have infrastructure means we have to build it. The fact that we don't have technology means we have to develop it. The fact that there is no money for that means that we must make it profitable. And the fact that we need oil for some really REALLY critical applications is all the more reason not wo waste it on inefficient heating, transportation etc.
Unfortunately, humans are the most inventive and efficient when they get a kick up their arse and are faced with a deadly threat. Horrible things like war always also boost our research and economies. We went into WWII with biplanes, listening tubes, bolt action rifles, paper and pencil and came out of it - only 4 years or so later - with blooming jet aircraft, missiles, radar, sonar, computers, assault rifles and nuclear weapons... There was a period of unprecedented wealth and development, and now everything is going back to crap. A disruption like the climate catastrophe could be just what we needed (if we survive at all, which doesn't seem all that likely).
Even the US have had 50 Years of time to solve this problem
But they are lost with their wars.
All they follow, too.....😮
Good Night Europe,
Good night "America",
Good Night GB. ...
And goodnight world. 😊
Rachel Reeves is not an economist. If I go to medical school and then decide to become a car mechanic that doesn’t mean I’m a doctor!!! Not even a car doctor! Silly man.
Economist isn't a qualification, it's based on experience in the relevant industry.
You've disproven your own argument by casually claiming to be a mechanic just because you dropped out of med school and now want to fix cars instead. You can call yourself a mechanic if you want, there's no qualification needed other than the ability and experience to diagnose and repair cars.
To be an economist one does exactly the same, but with economics instead of vehicle repairs.
Comparing both of those to an actual qualification such as a doctorate, of course you're not a doctor until you have achieved the qualification of a doctorate in the relevant educational pathway. Are you thick or something fella?
But then his broadcaster platforms the likes of Kay Burley peddling the belief that everything is so very, very simple and binary.
It's funny that the western audience needs a book to realise what this world is made of 😅 Dah...
What about animal feed, surely they eat more than us eating tomatoes!
Make sure to check out Nate Hagens (amazing podcast "The Great Simplification") and people like Simon Michaux, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Art Berman, Bill Rees or Steve Keen or books by Vaclav Smil "How the World really works" etc.
Well done - people are living in a digutal world are entirely blind to the fact that we are entirely dependent on the analog world.because we arw anog. He nearly went as far as saying we need to balance our move towards net zero, but sideswerved. Fossil fuel co sumption is still 85% of.glo al energy prkduction. The shift will be slow and we need scientific progress to get there (battery storage, etc). Without compromuse we won't make it. The extreme right and left are both wrong ... slow and sready as we go, flexibility until the science has caught up.
I love to start my podcasts with listening to wet polyester.
Most of this is and has been known for decades. I myself think we are going in the wrong direction toward a greener world. Wind turbines and solar will not save us, not unless we produce them at home. We have strict laws which ironically are preventing us from having the industry here. I would rather our CO2 emissions doubled if it meant that the world is better off overall, why are relying so heavily on two nations who produce half the worlds CO2 emissions?
Oli to lazy to read the book.
An insult to his guest. A job at the BBC awaits you Ollie.
He should have got Joe to read it.
nope the awakening .. if it happening is in the foolish woke.
We engineers have known this stuff for years. The 'intellectuals' 😂😂😂 and politicians are to far up themselves to listen to people with real-world experiences but instead believe they can change reality with sound bites and propaganda.
I'm an Engineer and couldn't disagree more.
The UK has everything it needs for a fair transition: Maritime Heavy Manufacturing, Domestic Steel Production, Deep drilling expertise, Deep water structure deployment. All of these ingredients could provide a range of renewables with baseload capacity or extremely predictable generation (e.g. geothermal, tidal stream).
But we're letting foreign interests do as they please with our manufacturing capabilities and the fossil fuel companies lobbying to the extent that no political party can expect to get in to power without getting in to their pockets.
There are alternatives for nearly everything produced by fossil fuels and the small amount that remains does not need to be combusted, and therefore add to climate change.
The UK, and the rest of the Western World, are hampered by the promotion of old solutions that are still tied to the vastly wealthy companies that have been categorically proven to be acting against the interests of humanity.
@@turbokadett Ah yeah expensive and energy intensive ocean mining surely will save us from this. The technophilia is getting religious.
@@DrDanQ92 Nowhere do I mention Ocean Mining, which I disagree with entirely, where exactly did you draw that conclusion from?
@@turbokadett Ok you are only talking about the energy production then. But you stated that the UK has everything it needs for a fair transition in a podcast entirely about resources and where they come from. So where will the mining come from? And how is it a fair transition if they come from outside the UK? Do you know how the places where mining takes place look and the ecological consequences of the surrounding systems?
I read this book on a flight to China to meet battery producers. Suddely everything made sense. Great book. Read it ASAP
What is this a bunch of tanky stuff?
It's crazy that we need a book to find this out, next they'll be telling us that children mine cobalt by hand that is used in our mobiles & books are printed on trees😒🤯