No, it's government that can't even do the simple thing of taxing negative externalities in order to get less of it; instead they transfer wealth to those big industries, give them legal protections, and even goes to war on their behalf.
The rich stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then the poor stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich.
@@seanwhitmore2163 Anyone who is not investing now is missing a great opportunity, i really fear for a future without an investment. It's just like a hopeless future.
The person who starts simply with the idea of getting rich will succeed also you must have a larger ambition,every once in a while, the market does something so stupid it scares you away.
@@alexabills2004 A friend suggested i should invest for the long haul, i shouldn't get too greedy and don't get too scared, but the problem is that i don't really have any clue on investing.
@@laurier3348 what is your point? It's a comment about how the guy doesn't blink... besides, I would argue it's not crap. Not the most effective solution sure (or even the most likely one). But it's creative, simple, and cost-effective and that is what we need right now.
@@eliasostby7127 Bro, why you worried ? Climate alarmists all gonna die in 12 years. Oh wait, its already down to 9 years. Good. Why you believe their lies ?
@@orca._. I aint reading leftish crap, but wait its already down to 8 years that climate hoaxers all gonna die, Nice Try to enjoy those years luv-2-read, keep reading dumb political crap
We need to move past the idea companies can use and destroy public, common externalities like the environment. They need to at least clean up what they hurt, and ideally leave everything better than they found
He talks about fossil fuels and oil as if their only downside is CO2 emissions. His proposal to keep using oil and just fix it on the other end ignores the dangerous effects of fossil pollution on our health and the environment. How do you de-cancer lungs, de-soot cities, de-stink diesel, de-plastic oceans?
If you can filter CO2 out of factory waste you can surely filter other nasty stuff as well. The point is just to not give industry free reign to dump any exhaust into the atmosphere. Doesn't sound like a bad idea, does it?
Not to mention that carbon capture is a very expensive and unproven fig leaf of the oil industry that diverts interest and development funds away from underfunded existing CO2 reducing alternatives.
There's still a fossil fuel market where competition drives down the prices. He's saying that the cost of de-carbonisinng fossil fuel will increase the cost to the producers
You guys act like you are even a part of the equation. Private sales of fuel, is such a little drop in the ocean. Big companies who transport your new phone, or the computer you are writing this from, is the biggest customer. And THEY won't accept higher prices, or they'll just start buying fuel from Saudi Arabia or China.
Solar/Wind is already the cheapest energy source, it's that the energy companies get govt grants for using fossil fuel energy sources because the fossil fuel companies lobby(BRIBE) govt officials with millions and billions of $s.
Clearly, decarbonization will not stop the planet from continuing to heat. We are at 407 ppm of CO2. We need to get back down to about 350 ppm to prevent the oceans from rising. this means some sort of energy source of magnitude far greater than solar panels and windmills. Only one source is presently known to get the job done, molten salt reactors. The quicker we make the switch, the less nuclear energy will be required for the removal of excess carbon in the atmosphere.
Really? Why? I ask as I've been involved in nuclear fusion research and fission liquidation and have four decades of familiarity with the topic, and MSRs are not what you pretend and cannot be ready in time, nor will they serve for very long before they run out, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste for hundreds of years, and residues for tens of thousands. Right now, and since 2018, over 70,000 increasingly efficient solar panels an hour have been produced, not as some wartime effort to solve climate change but simply as business response to solar being the cheapest energy in history. Grid battery storage pays for itself with ancillary services like FCAS in under two years, so are essentially free. By 2030, triple the total energy humans use today will come from solar; sooner and more if the world decides it is worth the effort. As for removing carbon from the atmosphere, terra preta is far cheaper than nuclear for that, and produces net carbon negative liquid biofuels to replace fossil in aviation, marine and other uses, cheaply.
If the fossil fuel companies don't comply with this suggestion, make them pay a tax for how much it would cost to capture the CO2. They will quickly realize that they should capture it closer to the source. If money is the problem, solve the problem with money...
Why go extraordinary lengths to decarbonize fossil fuels when you can just leave them in the ground?! It's not like it's impossible to run society and industry with renewable energy only.
@@niarudle He deemed it impossible if they use extreme means such as directly imposing a ban on it instead of reducing it gradually. He also mentioned that developing nations have no choice but to use fossil fuel.
@@AvatarOfBhaal He means a channel paying money to promote his videos in recommendations. That's a thing as well. Mostly because some channels only produce ads (like brand account) so they pay money to get their videos trending on the frontpage.
Unless large scale cheap simple tech production of fusion energy implemented in all countries of the world, we will never ditch the fossil fuel industry.
Just want to add that we are talking here about climate or respective geo engineering, wich is not as easy or risk free as you might think after this video. Don't get me wrong. The man got a point and states it, but climate engeneering is a field wich is highly complex and fragile. There is a huge scientific debate going on how and if we should use ist at all. Just mind that there are a whole more technologys discussed right now than CO2 storage (CCS in this video if I am right) and I don't want to go too far here. As fore example a leaking CO2 storage could have devestating effects on ecosystems and groundwater. Nevertheless I am glad he brought that topic into a wider range of an audience. This should be discussed and can only be done responsibly on a transnational level. Thanks for your attention reader. :)
I was worried about that as well, but I looked into it and this is what convinced me: We know of places where CO2 could be stored for thousands of years harmlessly. We know of geologically stable, underground structures that could store our carbon for millenia to come. Where is this? Where the fossil fuels used to be! By definition, fossil fuels exist is remarkably stable geological spaces where they can get to their useful form during millions of years. The are hundreds to thousands of meters deep and do not interfere with the water cycle on the surface. We've dried these places up, now we can fill them back up. I'm obviously simplifying the problem but the solution is a lot more feasible than I originally thought!
Are you really saying that you want to bury staggering amounts of CO2 ? Future generations will surely say " Was that the best you could come up with ... dumping CO2 ? "
Great video! Well done. Just a constructive advice. Agree that decarbonization is central to stop the global warming problem....but that is not enough. People need education to enforce law changes towards deployment of clean methods (cradle to grave). There have been plenty of propaganda about renewables - and some can be far worse than fossil fuels (e.g., large wind farms, hydro, geothermal EGS, etc.)
Short answer: money Longer answer: think of alternative and renewable energy as a disruptive innovation. There is still money to be made with Fossil fuels before the switch. Think of it like a digital camera relative to a traditional one.
"Decarbonizing your portfolio helps no one but your conscience". That's just simply untrue. If you're one person, then yes, it's for your conscience. However, if you're a large, respected organization like a public university or a bank, divesting sends a message to the industry that their current practices are unacceptable. Large institutions don't divest for their conscience, they divest to make a point and force change. I think you missed that nuance.
Fossil companies generate fossil emitting substances entirely in reaction to the sign off by public servants of auctions, leases, licenses, loans, permits, procurement, projects, regulatory gifts, subsidy, trade, treaty and use. Is it impossible for public servants to "effectively ban" all fossil emission? Not at all. From ASHRAE through ZETA, the world's technology leaders have set out paths to replace fossil entirely with sustainable alternatives by 2030. By coincidence, 2030 is the last year we can emit fossil fumes if we hope to avoid chain reaction runaway to Hothouse Earth and the loss of our farms, fisheries and forestry worldwide. Sadly, drawdown is more nuanced than some suggest. 25 times as much carbon flux is from natural as from fossil sources, and ice core export Mauro Rubino in 2013 proved only fossil emissions raise equilibrium GHE. If taken from air, or reduced meat consumption, or sequestering biochar as terra preta, it takes more than two dozen times the volume to have the effect of suppressing one tonne of CO2 from fossil. Are such fossil industry initiatives as CCI or "blue" H2 worthwhile? On the whole, no. These processes are so leaky that it is likely they emit far more CO2e than even conventional oil producing the same amount of energy. The volume of such leaks is habitually underreported by industry at least 50%. Moreover, these activities are marginal business activities that make practical more extraction and lower fossil prices through economies of scale. Especially, because these 'green' initiatives are invariably subsidized, your tax dollars to to line the pockets of the fossil industry as it dumps more and more fossil fume wastes into your air, damaging your farms, fisheries, forests and more. Would it be easier with the fossil fuel industry helping? Absolutely. However, the track record of greenwashing, misdirection, reallocation of funds from government meant for green alternatives and so forth makes the fossil sector inherently impossible to trust without the deepest levels of transparency and scrutiny by the most zealously suspicious auditors keeping in mind either actual zero, or zero reached by 25 times drawdown of GHE credits as fossil debits is the target. Cap through the public service fossil emissions relative to 2019 levels below 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 steadily in 10% nominal steps per year to 0% in 2030, and not only will agencies like ASHRAE and ZETA as private actors have their way paved to replace fossil with cheaper, cleaner, more plentiful alternatives, but also the fossil industry itself will follow or will divest. Write your government representatives explaining this, showing them also that economic collapse is inevitable even without figuring for climate change -- bitumen has been functionally bankrupt worldwide since 2015 held on the market by government imposed barriers to exit -- and that collapse will make 2008 look like a picnic, and reminding them sometimes their job is to say no to new requests for use of resources. Today, that "sometimes" is always, for fossil, until we get CO2 levels back below 350 ppm.
I would certainly be willing to pay more to have the fuel I use decarbonized. And it'd be nice to actually see that money used for that purpose, and not just reassigned elsewhere. Maybe that can be an amendment to the Paris Climate Accord when we rejoin. Plus remove the stipulation we can exit it (if for example, we wind up electing another science-denying nitwit).
These are the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. How is it "dangerous optimism" to expect the phase out of fossil fuels using technologies like wind and solar which have decades of large scale use, versus carbon capture that currently deals with 0.1% of global emissions? Not to mention direct air capture which is barely a proven technology at scale? It sounds easy when you emphasise 1 tonne of CO2, we have 36 billion a year to deal with. The ship is sinking and you want to buy more buckets instead of fixing the leak.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Pie in the sky. Polluting companies don't care. And it's not plausible to store that much carbon deep in the earth. Leaks will occur. It doesn't seem practical. Respect nevertheless to those who continue to seek solutions.
The big corps will do it when forced to. If their cost to do it is 50% more, our cost will be 100%. They will not accept the loss, they will use it as a justification to raise the price to an even larger degree. So if we do it this way, you can be sure your power bill will be at least as large as your rent, your travel and delivery costs will skyrocket.
Why rejecting a tax on oil & gaz companies to finance a public companies to capture CO2? I don't know why our best hope would be oil & gaz companies. They will never change. They'll die before, that's why divestement is an effective way to decarbonate
@Jack yes, global warming suggests only an increase in temperature. Climate change is more accurate because while the average temp does rise the increased carbon dioxide can make winters colder.
@@elaineholmes7861 all the experts, who put their whole lives into studying meteorology and climate science agree the climate is changing. But a few keyboard warriors online say it's a hoax. Guess it makes sense to listen to the keyboard warriors.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Removing the carbon dioxide via large-scale atmospheric “scrubbing” facilities or capturing apparatuses at the source (I.e. a vehicle’s exhaust stream)
And that says nothing about the other pollutants that enter the atmosphere when they get spewed out of the exhaust ports of cars and the towers of chemical plants and whatever else...
I think things have now changed and it's clear renewables will become very cheap. As we know anything can come down close to the cost of materials and solar panels can be made with 20x less materials. By 2030 they might be cheaper than the paint on your roof, with improvements still to be had.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
This is stupid as the cost would be astronomical. Any additional cost to oil companies will be passed on to their customers. Folks don't understand the oil industry. Most think there are only a few oil companies. Actually there are around 9,000 in the US.
@Jack That would require the vast majority of the people to unite behind the idea, which is unlikely to happen. Let me remind you that half of the USA voted for Trump. A few European countries have far right governments, and a few more are heading that way. Australia has a coal worshiping prime minister. China and Russia are totalitarian dictatorships. And half of the remaining countries around the world are in a chaos limbo.
Solar and onshore wind are already the two cheapest energy sources, the cost of solar has dropped by over 80% in 10 years, it still hasn't stopped energy companies from investing in fossil fuel sources instead of them. If you want to make fossil fuels irrelevant and economically unviable then you need to cut off the government subsidies that go to the energy companies that harvest and use them, that's what's making the positive change criminally slow.
We're probably never going to completely cut off fossil fuels, not until we can make hydrogen power safe and viable anyway. But we absolutely can remove fossil fuels from our energy production and the vast majority of our travel which is where the majority of emissions come from. That said, removing fossil fuels is not the only solution required. We need mass reforesting campaigns, a fundamental rethink of how we grow food and raise animals, a major change to plastic use (as most plastics are made from petrochemical byproducts), and a serious think about population control (this is the one that's going to get me shouted at).
Myles claims here that this is purely a question of forcing fossil fuel companies to capture the CO2 that their profucts emit. There is a big assumption here that the energy that it takes to extract the fossil fuel and then capture the CO2 from burning it will be less than the energy provided by the fossil fuel. To me that is not obvious, particularly when you look at hard to extract fuels like oil from tar sands. If that assumption does not hold then fossil fuel comanies would have to buy renewable energy in order to sell their product. Surely that will only make sense for a few really high value applications. It makes no sense at all for cars where the renewable energy can be used directly in EVs.
I suspect the energy required to do this would be greater than the energy produced by using the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place. A chemical engineer would know.
I think asking the companies to decarbonise is a great start. But ultimately it comes down to supply and demand. If we as a populous demand less pollution by boycotting the big Co2 contributors, we get less pollution the big Co2 contributors.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
So what you're saying is we shouldn't simply tax CO2 emission . We should enforce companies to *not emit* more CO2, which they are perfectly capable of, and the cost of carbon sourced products will naturally adjust to their new responsibilities. This does not sound like a controversial change, tbh. There are already rules against pollution. Why isn't CO2 emissions counted among them? Use whatever fuel you want, but if you knowingly and intentionally pollute you can kiss your company bye bye.
Healthy scepticism can be a good thing, and might even be vital. It's the root to asking the right questions when problem solving. You need sceptics and advocates to come together so a solution has been thought out thoroughly.
Here's the problem--stopping the rise of global warming, as described in this talk, is not enough to avoid catastrophe. Decarbonizing fossil fuels will only leave us at the current level of climate change, or slightly worse. We need to remove MORE carbon dioxide than what we are putting in, or we will only keep accelerating global warming. The horrific effects we are seeing today will continue to get worse if we leave all the CO2 in the atmosphere that has accumulated over the past 2 centuries. This is why we need decarbonization combined with a steep drop in the USE of fossil fuels so that over time more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere than is put in.
okay... what about the transportation that use fossil fuel, how will decarbonize them..? I mean sure the energy sector is the largest greenhouse emitter, but the transportation sector is a close 2nd. and right we cannot electrify them yet (maybe cars and trucks but not planes and ships).
@@AvatarOfBhaal People rather look away when the answer to the problem is inconvenient for them and their day-to-day lives. I live in Norway and it's embarrassing that we don't invest the fortune we have made on oil and gas on green solutions😔 I feel we have a responsibility to the future generations to do something. If you ask me we've gotten addicted to it...
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO + 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1 Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
If we were ALL serious about getting rid of reliance on foreign crude oil, there's a solution that's already somewhat been put to the test that worked brilliantly in the US, but needs to be done on a larger scale, with more immediacy! "The First Test! Look around today! We started with money back incentives on hybrid and electric cars when they were finally ready, sales were slow(the cars were slow), but increased as the cars got better, we can skip that step, because what I'm talking about is already "better", we've at it for a decade, and we even race them! People were timid at first and needed encouragement, and it worked!...We see Tesla's and Prius', etc everywhere these days, that incentive WORKED! Now we have even more incentive, moving from reliance on Russian/foreign fuels, we CAN do this! at least to a degree that it massively changes how things are now, and turbocharges a movement that's ALREADY in motion! :D 1- The incredible amount of electric 2 wheeled vehicles, scooters, bikes, etc has drastically increased, and the technology is everywhere! There are incredible examples out there! average price around $1700 (a little too much for people that are timid about the technology still, but they know it works.) The rides we're mainly talking about are the higher end models in the $3k range. 2- ranges and speeds(from 20mph to 45mph) have been increased to the point where they can take the place of gas powered scooters, and small cycles. easily handling 20-70 mile round trips on a single charge.(depending on options weight, quality of bike, etc)..you can also plug them in while at work or wherever you're heading, no special equipment needed(BIG PLUS!) 3- prices range between $800(mostly for teens) to $3000(daily riders, and reliable) for very decent examples. Even if we were given a coupon or certificate for $2000 towards an E-bike, scooter, etc, we could probably make up the difference and buy a quality product easily. 4- pathways need to be created, min 2 foot wide along major roads, and commuter areas, we can share with bicycles! THIS is job creation! Not to mention the development of the bikes themselves :) 5- It would cost literally nothing relative to the benefits, to give people certificates to obtain one vehicle, or partial payment of 1 vehicle per household, example: gift every citizen with $2-3000 certificates used ONLY towards an electric vehicle, this money would be returned within weeks, or months on fuel savings, and lives saved cutting Russia off more and more. As people started using them, and seeing the massive benefits of low maintenance, worry free tech that is electric cycling! 6- it would allow us to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by a small percentage, but only at first, as the trend continues, and advancement moves towards electric commuting anyway, this would only increase dramatically, even exponentially over a short period of time! 7- There are already service centers in most cities, multiples of them, some selling their very own products. Helping out Mom and Pop stores that grew their business from regular bikes to E-bikes, what's not great about that?! 8- life enhancements, they're fun, seriously fun! I suggest riding one if you haven't! halved, or more fuel costs per family alone would spur the economy, gradually increasing over time, this would be the perfect opportunity, and with the most honorable reasons to start the E-bike revolution. meaning savings, job, transportation, less traffic, and we haven't even mentioned the Green effect it would have on the planet! Better economy, Better world! EVERYTHING about this makes sense, we're not talking cars, but we could! we're just talking about basic ways to commute that don't rely on fossil fuels, and would help everyone. ----------------------------------------------------- If you read that, thank you, and please consider pushing to someone that can do something with it, we need to do this!
So you know the obvious answer? well, the title has the obvious question, and the 10 minutes and 42 seconds of the video have a proposal for a more complete answer, don't judge a book by it's cover , sir "it's obvious".
Let the weekend burn, when did the earth not have fires pal? So human instigated fires are caused by global warming do they? This is why everyone's lives are going down hill because minions look at the TV and think that is the world. TURN IT OFF FOR PERSPECTIVE BUDDY!!
I completely disagree. You can’t ask a wolf to look after your sheep. When you create a mandate to store x% of carbon emissions you are saying to the fossil fuel industry ‘pollution is bad, but it’s not that bad so we’ll only phase it out gradually.’ Putting a very high and slowly increasing tax on carbon and then distributing the proceeds to citizens is the best way to really make systematic change in my opinion. This is most effective because you are sending the message that this is unacceptable, change or face oblivion.
when people say that the nuclear power industry should take care of their waste products and factor in that into their price, then the coal, oil and gas industry should do the same. the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. which one will be cheaper now? :P
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
That guy is on another level and he'd be so disappointed looking at the comments, 90% of the viewers didn't understand a word he said.
Great article sadly how can you fix the current mindset
Money. There; I've answered the title question.
You’re probably right 🥺
You beat me by 11 minutes ... such an easy question.
No, it's government that can't even do the simple thing of taxing negative externalities in order to get less of it; instead they transfer wealth to those big industries, give them legal protections, and even goes to war on their behalf.
Money that you refuse to pay for your driving privilege.
If your comment wasn't here, I was gonna say the same thing.
Wow this is not being talked about nearly enough! Very eye-opening.
*Warren Buffett once said “If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die.”*
Wise spending is part of wise investing. And it’s never too late to start.
The rich stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then the poor stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich.
@@seanwhitmore2163 Anyone who is not investing now is missing a great opportunity, i really fear for a future without an investment. It's just like a hopeless future.
The person who starts simply with the idea of getting rich will succeed also you must have a larger ambition,every once in a while, the market does something so stupid it scares you away.
@@alexabills2004 A friend suggested i should invest for the long haul, i shouldn't get too greedy and don't get too scared, but the problem is that i don't really have any clue on investing.
this guy stares into the soul of my soul
...of my soul
Poor you to fall for this crap
@@laurier3348 what is your point? It's a comment about how the guy doesn't blink...
besides, I would argue it's not crap. Not the most effective solution sure (or even the most likely one). But it's creative, simple, and cost-effective and that is what we need right now.
@@eliasostby7127 Bro, why you worried ?
Climate alarmists all gonna die in 12 years.
Oh wait, its already down to 9 years.
Good.
Why you believe their lies ?
@@laurier3348 Oh poor you who lied to you?
@@orca._. I aint reading leftish crap, but wait its already down to 8 years that climate hoaxers all gonna die, Nice
Try to enjoy those years luv-2-read, keep reading dumb political crap
We need to move past the idea companies can use and destroy public, common externalities like the environment. They need to at least clean up what they hurt, and ideally leave everything better than they found
Funny how he talks about climate change and stands in front of all these extinct species.
Funny like sad irony?
good filming choice
'I don't have to think - I only have to do it, results are always perfect, but that's old news..'
Me too
This guys is great at communicating this issue
They lose profit from the current system if they don’t have a solid back up plan
Greed is a root of all evils
Just like that
He talks about fossil fuels and oil as if their only downside is CO2 emissions.
His proposal to keep using oil and just fix it on the other end ignores the dangerous effects of fossil pollution on our health and the environment. How do you de-cancer lungs, de-soot cities, de-stink diesel, de-plastic oceans?
His solution leaves room for other solutions to develop
If you can filter CO2 out of factory waste you can surely filter other nasty stuff as well. The point is just to not give industry free reign to dump any exhaust into the atmosphere. Doesn't sound like a bad idea, does it?
Not to mention that carbon capture is a very expensive and unproven fig leaf of the oil industry that diverts interest and development funds away from underfunded existing CO2 reducing alternatives.
Make them pay. All of them? Yes? Let them increase the price? Yes. So who is actually paying?
There's still a fossil fuel market where competition drives down the prices. He's saying that the cost of de-carbonisinng fossil fuel will increase the cost to the producers
I'm willing to pay extra.
Don't consume
You guys act like you are even a part of the equation.
Private sales of fuel, is such a little drop in the ocean.
Big companies who transport your new phone, or the computer you are writing this from, is the biggest customer. And THEY won't accept higher prices, or they'll just start buying fuel from Saudi Arabia or China.
Solar/Wind is already the cheapest energy source, it's that the energy companies get govt grants for using fossil fuel energy sources because the fossil fuel companies lobby(BRIBE) govt officials with millions and billions of $s.
Clearly, decarbonization will not stop the planet from continuing to heat. We are at 407 ppm of CO2. We need to get back down to about 350 ppm to prevent the oceans from rising. this means some sort of energy source of magnitude far greater than solar panels and windmills. Only one source is presently known to get the job done, molten salt reactors. The quicker we make the switch, the less nuclear energy will be required for the removal of excess carbon in the atmosphere.
Really? Why? I ask as I've been involved in nuclear fusion research and fission liquidation and have four decades of familiarity with the topic, and MSRs are not what you pretend and cannot be ready in time, nor will they serve for very long before they run out, leaving a legacy of hazardous waste for hundreds of years, and residues for tens of thousands.
Right now, and since 2018, over 70,000 increasingly efficient solar panels an hour have been produced, not as some wartime effort to solve climate change but simply as business response to solar being the cheapest energy in history. Grid battery storage pays for itself with ancillary services like FCAS in under two years, so are essentially free. By 2030, triple the total energy humans use today will come from solar; sooner and more if the world decides it is worth the effort.
As for removing carbon from the atmosphere, terra preta is far cheaper than nuclear for that, and produces net carbon negative liquid biofuels to replace fossil in aviation, marine and other uses, cheaply.
Short answer: It costs them a lot.
Long answer: it costs the consumer a lot more
Yeah and Every year we don't do it it gets even more expensive for everyone. Did you see hurricanes this year?
@@theinternaut1991 wdy mean?
If the fossil fuel companies don't comply with this suggestion, make them pay a tax for how much it would cost to capture the CO2. They will quickly realize that they should capture it closer to the source. If money is the problem, solve the problem with money...
Fossil Fuel Industry: "Meh ... lobbyism is still cheaper"
Yeah if someone questions them they'll just lobby against that guy with all their cash.
Why go extraordinary lengths to decarbonize fossil fuels when you can just leave them in the ground?! It's not like it's impossible to run society and industry with renewable energy only.
I don't even get 24x7 electricity here...
This dude explained why, just play it again.
@@songofthetrees579 No, he didn't. He just deemed a world without fossil fuel usage impossible without further explanation.
@@niarudle He deemed it impossible if they use extreme means such as directly imposing a ban on it instead of reducing it gradually. He also mentioned that developing nations have no choice but to use fossil fuel.
But at least it will buy us more time to make that complete switch to renewables...
I’ve never seen a video get recommended whilst being posted for several seconds before.
Advertising money will do that
Stranger things have happened 🙂
@@AvatarOfBhaal He means a channel paying money to promote his videos in recommendations. That's a thing as well. Mostly because some channels only produce ads (like brand account) so they pay money to get their videos trending on the frontpage.
Propaganda
CO2, what plants need for life?
Thank you for sharing
K I know that at this point its a huge meme but I genuinely want to know if Ted has ever done a Ted Talk?
Unless large scale cheap simple tech production of fusion energy implemented in all countries of the world, we will never ditch the fossil fuel industry.
Just want to add that we are talking here about climate or respective geo engineering, wich is not as easy or risk free as you might think after this video. Don't get me wrong. The man got a point and states it, but climate engeneering is a field wich is highly complex and fragile. There is a huge scientific debate going on how and if we should use ist at all. Just mind that there are a whole more technologys discussed right now than CO2 storage (CCS in this video if I am right) and I don't want to go too far here.
As fore example a leaking CO2 storage could have devestating effects on ecosystems and groundwater.
Nevertheless I am glad he brought that topic into a wider range of an audience. This should be discussed and can only be done responsibly on a transnational level.
Thanks for your attention reader. :)
I was worried about that as well, but I looked into it and this is what convinced me:
We know of places where CO2 could be stored for thousands of years harmlessly. We know of geologically stable, underground structures that could store our carbon for millenia to come.
Where is this?
Where the fossil fuels used to be!
By definition, fossil fuels exist is remarkably stable geological spaces where they can get to their useful form during millions of years. The are hundreds to thousands of meters deep and do not interfere with the water cycle on the surface.
We've dried these places up, now we can fill them back up.
I'm obviously simplifying the problem but the solution is a lot more feasible than I originally thought!
This guy just added to my belief that Tedx Talks is just another avenue where the controllers spew more propaganda.
Excellent. Very diffent cut, very sensibile and compelling.
Are you really saying that you want to bury staggering amounts of CO2 ? Future generations will surely say " Was that the best you could come up with ... dumping CO2 ? "
Storing it for 10,000 years is awfully better than extinction if you ask me.
So with plate tectonics, can we dump excess carbon into subductive regions?
The problem is not carbon per se, it's carbon dioxide / monoxide, a gas emitted when solid and liquid forms of carbon are burned.
Great video. Smart guy.
Sound like they had the opportunity during the pandemic when everyone wasn’t driving 🤦🏽♀️
Really good thoughts, thank you!! Hope, many right and relevant people get the idea 🤔💪😎
Great video! Well done. Just a constructive advice. Agree that decarbonization is central to stop the global warming problem....but that is not enough. People need education to enforce law changes towards deployment of clean methods (cradle to grave). There have been plenty of propaganda about renewables - and some can be far worse than fossil fuels (e.g., large wind farms, hydro, geothermal EGS, etc.)
Short answer: money
Longer answer: think of alternative and renewable energy as a disruptive innovation. There is still money to be made with Fossil fuels before the switch. Think of it like a digital camera relative to a traditional one.
Yes l uphold your opinion these days global warming is the most important problem. We have to overcome this disaster.
Did you know Disney World is actually larger than 17 other countries?
😦😦
How was the 1.5 degree calculated?
This video doesn’t have nearly enough views 😭
They’ve known for decades.... I am enraged beyond belief.
"Decarbonizing your portfolio helps no one but your conscience". That's just simply untrue. If you're one person, then yes, it's for your conscience. However, if you're a large, respected organization like a public university or a bank, divesting sends a message to the industry that their current practices are unacceptable. Large institutions don't divest for their conscience, they divest to make a point and force change. I think you missed that nuance.
Back to the roots. Taking the problem at the source instead of taxes
Fossil companies generate fossil emitting substances entirely in reaction to the sign off by public servants of auctions, leases, licenses, loans, permits, procurement, projects, regulatory gifts, subsidy, trade, treaty and use. Is it impossible for public servants to "effectively ban" all fossil emission?
Not at all.
From ASHRAE through ZETA, the world's technology leaders have set out paths to replace fossil entirely with sustainable alternatives by 2030. By coincidence, 2030 is the last year we can emit fossil fumes if we hope to avoid chain reaction runaway to Hothouse Earth and the loss of our farms, fisheries and forestry worldwide.
Sadly, drawdown is more nuanced than some suggest. 25 times as much carbon flux is from natural as from fossil sources, and ice core export Mauro Rubino in 2013 proved only fossil emissions raise equilibrium GHE. If taken from air, or reduced meat consumption, or sequestering biochar as terra preta, it takes more than two dozen times the volume to have the effect of suppressing one tonne of CO2 from fossil.
Are such fossil industry initiatives as CCI or "blue" H2 worthwhile? On the whole, no. These processes are so leaky that it is likely they emit far more CO2e than even conventional oil producing the same amount of energy. The volume of such leaks is habitually underreported by industry at least 50%. Moreover, these activities are marginal business activities that make practical more extraction and lower fossil prices through economies of scale. Especially, because these 'green' initiatives are invariably subsidized, your tax dollars to to line the pockets of the fossil industry as it dumps more and more fossil fume wastes into your air, damaging your farms, fisheries, forests and more.
Would it be easier with the fossil fuel industry helping? Absolutely. However, the track record of greenwashing, misdirection, reallocation of funds from government meant for green alternatives and so forth makes the fossil sector inherently impossible to trust without the deepest levels of transparency and scrutiny by the most zealously suspicious auditors keeping in mind either actual zero, or zero reached by 25 times drawdown of GHE credits as fossil debits is the target.
Cap through the public service fossil emissions relative to 2019 levels below 90% in 2021, 80% in 2022 steadily in 10% nominal steps per year to 0% in 2030, and not only will agencies like ASHRAE and ZETA as private actors have their way paved to replace fossil with cheaper, cleaner, more plentiful alternatives, but also the fossil industry itself will follow or will divest.
Write your government representatives explaining this, showing them also that economic collapse is inevitable even without figuring for climate change -- bitumen has been functionally bankrupt worldwide since 2015 held on the market by government imposed barriers to exit -- and that collapse will make 2008 look like a picnic, and reminding them sometimes their job is to say no to new requests for use of resources. Today, that "sometimes" is always, for fossil, until we get CO2 levels back below 350 ppm.
I would certainly be willing to pay more to have the fuel I use decarbonized. And it'd be nice to actually see that money used for that purpose, and not just reassigned elsewhere. Maybe that can be an amendment to the Paris Climate Accord when we rejoin. Plus remove the stipulation we can exit it (if for example, we wind up electing another science-denying nitwit).
These are the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. How is it "dangerous optimism" to expect the phase out of fossil fuels using technologies like wind and solar which have decades of large scale use, versus carbon capture that currently deals with 0.1% of global emissions? Not to mention direct air capture which is barely a proven technology at scale? It sounds easy when you emphasise 1 tonne of CO2, we have 36 billion a year to deal with. The ship is sinking and you want to buy more buckets instead of fixing the leak.
Yeah lmao this video is a cope shame for TED-Ed giving this guy a platform
Yet as much as I want to fight the people responsible. It’s sad to learn there is nothing we can do to be honest.
Why are there no Turkish subtitles..?
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
do they control space weather?
What an intelligent man, great speech!
"So, here's a thought" that's one way to casualise one of the largest problems of the modern world
But what about the energy required to bury it
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Pie in the sky. Polluting companies don't care. And it's not plausible to store that much carbon deep in the earth. Leaks will occur. It doesn't seem practical. Respect nevertheless to those who continue to seek solutions.
The big corps will do it when forced to. If their cost to do it is 50% more, our cost will be 100%. They will not accept the loss, they will use it as a justification to raise the price to an even larger degree. So if we do it this way, you can be sure your power bill will be at least as large as your rent, your travel and delivery costs will skyrocket.
I would urge people read the reports themselves, too!
Why rejecting a tax on oil & gaz companies to finance a public companies to capture CO2? I don't know why our best hope would be oil & gaz companies. They will never change. They'll die before, that's why divestement is an effective way to decarbonate
Simple answer - 1:21
Someone should tell him that it is now called "climate change" not "global warming"
BACK IN THE DAY IT WAS CALL GLOBAL COOLING , ITS ALL A LIE..
@Jack yes, global warming suggests only an increase in temperature. Climate change is more accurate because while the average temp does rise the increased carbon dioxide can make winters colder.
@@elaineholmes7861 no, you are wrong
@@nickalvarez8790 You are wrong, and they are liars. .don't be deceived. .
@@elaineholmes7861 all the experts, who put their whole lives into studying meteorology and climate science agree the climate is changing. But a few keyboard warriors online say it's a hoax. Guess it makes sense to listen to the keyboard warriors.
In my small town town ~74 covid (or just record, can be), ~1200 traffic, ban bloody personal cars. >_>
Thank you IPCC!!
I hope I can help just by sharing this video.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Decarbonising fossil fuels? I thought that, because of the very nature of fossil fuels, that such a thing was an absolute impossibility.
Removing the carbon dioxide via large-scale atmospheric “scrubbing” facilities or capturing apparatuses at the source (I.e. a vehicle’s exhaust stream)
And that says nothing about the other pollutants that enter the atmosphere when they get spewed out of the exhaust ports of cars and the towers of chemical plants and whatever else...
I think things have now changed and it's clear renewables will become very cheap. As we know anything can come down close to the cost of materials and solar panels can be made with 20x less materials. By 2030 they might be cheaper than the paint on your roof, with improvements still to be had.
I emit a lot of gas when I eat certain vegetables.
Who knows 💖
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Why not use iron to fertilize the oceans instead?
It's time to get another culture that doesn't rely on the constant growth of the economi. The growth economy as it is can not be saved.
Because the world demands it.
This is stupid as the cost would be astronomical. Any additional cost to oil companies will be passed on to their customers. Folks don't understand the oil industry. Most think there are only a few oil companies. Actually there are around 9,000 in the US.
Optimistic and unlikely. No one, NO ONE is willing to do the hard work. We see it currently playing on a smaller scale with the virus.
@Jack That would require the vast majority of the people to unite behind the idea, which is unlikely to happen. Let me remind you that half of the USA voted for Trump. A few European countries have far right governments, and a few more are heading that way. Australia has a coal worshiping prime minister. China and Russia are totalitarian dictatorships. And half of the remaining countries around the world are in a chaos limbo.
By 2050?! At the current rate we are heading, I think the planet will be on its knees.
Solar and onshore wind are already the two cheapest energy sources, the cost of solar has dropped by over 80% in 10 years, it still hasn't stopped energy companies from investing in fossil fuel sources instead of them. If you want to make fossil fuels irrelevant and economically unviable then you need to cut off the government subsidies that go to the energy companies that harvest and use them, that's what's making the positive change criminally slow.
We're probably never going to completely cut off fossil fuels, not until we can make hydrogen power safe and viable anyway. But we absolutely can remove fossil fuels from our energy production and the vast majority of our travel which is where the majority of emissions come from. That said, removing fossil fuels is not the only solution required. We need mass reforesting campaigns, a fundamental rethink of how we grow food and raise animals, a major change to plastic use (as most plastics are made from petrochemical byproducts), and a serious think about population control (this is the one that's going to get me shouted at).
Money and profits.
Myles claims here that this is purely a question of forcing fossil fuel companies to capture the CO2 that their profucts emit. There is a big assumption here that the energy that it takes to extract the fossil fuel and then capture the CO2 from burning it will be less than the energy provided by the fossil fuel. To me that is not obvious, particularly when you look at hard to extract fuels like oil from tar sands.
If that assumption does not hold then fossil fuel comanies would have to buy renewable energy in order to sell their product. Surely that will only make sense for a few really high value applications. It makes no sense at all for cars where the renewable energy can be used directly in EVs.
Ive always wondered why we can't just convert the carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen.
I suspect the energy required to do this would be greater than the energy produced by using the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place. A chemical engineer would know.
I think asking the companies to decarbonise is a great start. But ultimately it comes down to supply and demand. If we as a populous demand less pollution by boycotting the big Co2 contributors, we get less pollution the big Co2 contributors.
consumption is not always a choice but rather a necessity.. they can control what they supply
Yes!
Nobody sees bio char as option.
Wow I have never been this early to a Ted video
They are doing this on purpose. Look up The Great Reset. This is all part of it.
Stop the monetary system. Transition to a Resource based economy. Done...
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
Money and the Earth will be soon eliminated
So what you're saying is we shouldn't simply tax CO2 emission . We should enforce companies to *not emit* more CO2, which they are perfectly capable of, and the cost of carbon sourced products will naturally adjust to their new responsibilities.
This does not sound like a controversial change, tbh. There are already rules against pollution. Why isn't CO2 emissions counted among them? Use whatever fuel you want, but if you knowingly and intentionally pollute you can kiss your company bye bye.
Fossil fuel companies famously don't have reputations for being trustworthy. What oversight would this plan have?
I have a response to Myles Allen. I don;t know how to say it in Yiddish, but in English it's "Smart, smart, stupid,"
Man who does paid talks for Fossil fuel companies says dont divest from fossil fuel companies... I think i have seen this ad before
keep on spittin my good samaritan
I am skeptical but willing to read and listen to more on this idea.
Healthy scepticism can be a good thing, and might even be vital. It's the root to asking the right questions when problem solving. You need sceptics and advocates to come together so a solution has been thought out thoroughly.
Here's the problem--stopping the rise of global warming, as described in this talk, is not enough to avoid catastrophe. Decarbonizing fossil fuels will only leave us at the current level of climate change, or slightly worse. We need to remove MORE carbon dioxide than what we are putting in, or we will only keep accelerating global warming. The horrific effects we are seeing today will continue to get worse if we leave all the CO2 in the atmosphere that has accumulated over the past 2 centuries. This is why we need decarbonization combined with a steep drop in the USE of fossil fuels so that over time more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere than is put in.
okay... what about the transportation that use fossil fuel, how will decarbonize them..?
I mean sure the energy sector is the largest greenhouse emitter, but the transportation sector is a close 2nd. and right we cannot electrify them yet (maybe cars and trucks but not planes and ships).
Lets go!
you cannot stop global warming whatever we do until the next ice period.
When is Ted going to talk. He has all these people talk but he never does
This is a joke btw
Really?! Is this question actually being posed?! Unbelievable...
I guess the masses are still ignorant AF these days...
Well, I think you’re right. 🥺 probably it won’t change
@@AvatarOfBhaal People rather look away when the answer to the problem is inconvenient for them and their day-to-day lives. I live in Norway and it's embarrassing that we don't invest the fortune we have made on oil and gas on green solutions😔 I feel we have a responsibility to the future generations to do something. If you ask me we've gotten addicted to it...
@@AvatarOfBhaal Stick to your bliss and your ignorance it appears to be serving you well thus far...
Fossil Fuel Industry Shares - Interesting perspective - Own them and then REALLY own them.
Money. Fossil fuel is easier and cheaper to convert and sell
i miss the stage...
M O N E Y
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
They should pay, anagolous to volkswagen and dieselgate.
WRITE MY MANAGER MR HENRY MICHAEL ON WHAT SAPP TO MAKE GREAT PROFIT IN CRYPTO
+ 1 4 4. 2 2. 4. 4. 7 8. 8 1
Do well to tell him I reffered you to him his strategies are top notch 🇱🇷🇱🇷☑️
If we were ALL serious about getting rid of reliance on foreign crude oil, there's a solution that's already somewhat been put to the test that worked brilliantly in the US, but needs to be done on a larger scale, with more immediacy! "The First Test! Look around today! We started with money back incentives on hybrid and electric cars when they were finally ready, sales were slow(the cars were slow), but increased as the cars got better, we can skip that step, because what I'm talking about is already "better", we've at it for a decade, and we even race them! People were timid at first and needed encouragement, and it worked!...We see Tesla's and Prius', etc everywhere these days, that incentive WORKED! Now we have even more incentive, moving from reliance on Russian/foreign fuels, we CAN do this! at least to a degree that it massively changes how things are now, and turbocharges a movement that's ALREADY in motion! :D
1- The incredible amount of electric 2 wheeled vehicles, scooters, bikes, etc has drastically increased, and the technology is everywhere! There are incredible examples out there! average price around $1700 (a little too much for people that are timid about the technology still, but they know it works.) The rides we're mainly talking about are the higher end models in the $3k range.
2- ranges and speeds(from 20mph to 45mph) have been increased to the point where they can take the place of gas powered scooters, and small cycles. easily handling 20-70 mile round trips on a single charge.(depending on options weight, quality of bike, etc)..you can also plug them in while at work or wherever you're heading, no special equipment needed(BIG PLUS!)
3- prices range between $800(mostly for teens) to $3000(daily riders, and reliable) for very decent examples. Even if we were given a coupon or certificate for $2000 towards an E-bike, scooter, etc, we could probably make up the difference and buy a quality product easily.
4- pathways need to be created, min 2 foot wide along major roads, and commuter areas, we can share with bicycles! THIS is job creation! Not to mention the development of the bikes themselves :)
5- It would cost literally nothing relative to the benefits, to give people certificates to obtain one vehicle, or partial payment of 1 vehicle per household, example: gift every citizen with $2-3000 certificates used ONLY towards an electric vehicle, this money would be returned within weeks, or months on fuel savings, and lives saved cutting Russia off more and more. As people started using them, and seeing the massive benefits of low maintenance, worry free tech that is electric cycling!
6- it would allow us to lessen our dependence on foreign oil by a small percentage, but only at first, as the trend continues, and advancement moves towards electric commuting anyway, this would only increase dramatically, even exponentially over a short period of time!
7- There are already service centers in most cities, multiples of them, some selling their very own products. Helping out Mom and Pop stores that grew their business from regular bikes to E-bikes, what's not great about that?!
8- life enhancements, they're fun, seriously fun! I suggest riding one if you haven't! halved, or more fuel costs per family alone would spur the economy, gradually increasing over time, this would be the perfect opportunity, and with the most honorable reasons to start the E-bike revolution. meaning savings, job, transportation, less traffic, and we haven't even mentioned the Green effect it would have on the planet! Better economy, Better world!
EVERYTHING about this makes sense, we're not talking cars, but we could! we're just talking about basic ways to commute that don't rely on fossil fuels, and would help everyone.
-----------------------------------------------------
If you read that, thank you, and please consider pushing to someone that can do something with it, we need to do this!
So you know the obvious answer? well, the title has the obvious question, and the 10 minutes and 42 seconds of the video have a proposal for a more complete answer, don't judge a book by it's cover , sir "it's obvious".
Great insights. At the end of the day as long as money is involved ,one would rather let the world burn.
Let the weekend burn, when did the earth not have fires pal?
So human instigated fires are caused by global warming do they?
This is why everyone's lives are going down hill because minions look at the TV and think that is the world. TURN IT OFF FOR PERSPECTIVE BUDDY!!
I completely disagree. You can’t ask a wolf to look after your sheep.
When you create a mandate to store x% of carbon emissions you are saying to the fossil fuel industry ‘pollution is bad, but it’s not that bad so we’ll only phase it out gradually.’
Putting a very high and slowly increasing tax on carbon and then distributing the proceeds to citizens is the best way to really make systematic change in my opinion.
This is most effective because you are sending the message that this is unacceptable, change or face oblivion.
when people say that the nuclear power industry should take care of their waste products and factor in that into their price, then the coal, oil and gas industry should do the same. the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. which one will be cheaper now? :P