The US isn't the problem. China is the problem. By the way, they put together a carbon climate market, and gave away billions in carbon credits. It didn't take off.
@@BruceCSnow Living in the US I can attest to our appetite for oil and gas, but yes China is outpacing all the world with coal burning! So what you are saying is that China passed up billions in carbon credits vying instead for massive coal combustion? Or did China then sell carbon credits? So how is US involvement capable of persuading China to take another course?
What would we use instead of stickers? There must be a way to code them somehow for transport/trade. Wouldn't it be easier to make every label recyclable instead?
@@tonyulriksen6532 - lol, I had that thought about 6 seconds after I left the comment. So I researched the prospect of bringing an edible one to market. I didn't find the one you mention, but I found a system that is beyond the scope of such a small contributor to gain any respectable entry. There is a patent ofc, but I figure it's too easy to get around. Such as your gelatin info, I would patent a glucose one and they would invent the gelatin one. Oh wait, they already did.... See that's why I opted out, the future came quick, and I was still poor in it;) Peace
I couldn't agree more....no more political funding of science. This will put the nail in the coffin of "government funded science" and restore its once good name.
Thing is, most of the solutions are political. They require people to make a material sacrifice today for a material benefit, or at least less material sacrifice, sometime in the future. And since the climate change problem is incremental, it is easy for people to go on as usual and avoid the problem today.
I live in British Columbia, Canada. Our province has been using carbon tax for over 10 years. the tax collected was used to provide money incentives for residents to make improvements on their homes that make them more energy efficient... windows, doors, insulation, furnaces, roofs and even window coverings that provide insulation... and yup gas is high, so we bought a hybrid, choose to walk or bike and reduce the number of trips to get things.... YES IT WORKS!
@@MsMadajo I think a better method, my own, harks back to the oil crisis when we reduced speed limits. Except this time do it like this: Start with Hwys. Reduce the 100 kph speed to 90. On an hourly basis, all else like gearing equal, you reduce fuel consumption 19%. Now you go less far per hour at 90, but you only have so much time, so it isn't quite 19%. What is different this time is you make it voluntary. You can buy a license that only allows you to do 90, an eco license. You can still drive 100, but you don't get the license. Funnily enough, I base this idea on the conservation fishing license that only allows you to catch so many fish, or keep so many fish. In Toronto where I live a lot of people vote for climate change parties like the Lib., but a ton drive 120 rather than 100. That takes 44% more gas. But they still get to go to cocktail parties and talk up their virtue. Well if you pull up in a regular license, good luck with that. There are other advantages: 1) Rich people do not care about extra fuel costs, this puts everyone on an equal footing; 2) There is a lot more pollution than just co2 coming out of your tailpipe, cutting that back helps a lot also; 3) The eco license should be cheaper, because it is good, but also because you will tear up roads to similar lessor degrees. That 44% more gas you burn to do 120, rather than 100 is 44% more impact energy, and moment of compliance as you flex roads, and hit minor and major ripples in the road; 4) You also hit with 44% more energy when you have a crash at 120, rather than 100 KPH. And there are more reasons, and ideas related to this proposal, but this is enough for now.
By the way. I don't say this is a climate change solution. I just say it is an all around better way of reducing emissions and carnage on the Hwys. I think it has plenty of advantages even if one is not amped up about climate change.
Thank you Dan for continuing your talk! You came to my college my sophomore year and I heard you give this talk. Due to your talk you spurred me to take up a minor in economics and concentrated many of my paper in college about combating climate change. I have completed several paper and have found some interesting economic facts that has interested facility about this topic. I am currently in grad school and I am currently talking to tax professors about proposing a research study on the tax implementation in the U.S.
Andrew: Congratulations on focusing on this. You may be interested in the REMI report that I reference in the talk: www.dropbox.com/s/22lrokkdaf4a8fh/The-Economic-Climate-Fiscal-Power-and-Demographic-Impact-of-a-National-Fee-and-Dividend-Carbon-Tax-6.9.14.pdf?dl=0
Australia’s national carbon tax came into effect July 1, 2012, and was repealed on July 17, 2014. It was a complicated story, and I concede it was mismanaged, but in summary, Australia's economy took a hit and voters demanded it to be repealed. While Trump is in office, there will be no "price" on carbon in the US. I wonder if Dan has an update since giving the original talk.
Andrew Wenman well your education is very poor. CO2 is essential for life. It is not harmful. It is good for the planet. This man has is own interests in play. It is all propaganda
Thank you. I once stood too close to the edge -- and a single hand grabed my coat and pulled me away -- I have no idea who it was. But it shocke me into realizing that I can be clueless to real dangers.
It's pretty amazing to read the comments that are full of negativity and resistance. How can we hope for change when we poo poo everyone with a brain? Excellent idea. We need to support this kind of thinking and get behind it. How 'bout a simple thing like hitting the 'Share' button? Passing this kind of thing on is going to help us hit 'critical mass,' which changes the consciousness of the planet. That's how change is created, isn't it?
Nepal: A Tourist's Manual Uhm, because there is nothing to change in regards to climate, its all fine as it is. Even if you try, theres no way we can influence it. CO² increases follow after temerature rises, as ice-drilling data clearly shows. Which means that more CO² is just a byproduct of climate change not its cause. What you and this fearmonger in the video are trying to promote is politicaly instumented pseudoscience. Sadly, science, due to capitalism, has become a business too. :(
Honesty would he a big step in the right direction. However, with all the lies coming from the alarmists' side how can you have an honest discussion. and without an honest discussion, can you find an honest direction in which to move. and without an honest direction in which to move you are just part of the herd,,,, and the herd usually gets slaughtered
I support the carbon tax, but I'm tired of people pretending that this won't increase the price of exactly everything. Climate change mitigation is incompatible with people using the amount of energy and resources they do today.
I want anyone reading this to remember that we still have the opportunity to prevent the worst of climate catastrophe if we, as a society, act in time. In the USA, where our per-capita emissions are among the highest in the world, even if it's hard and impractical to live a zero-emissions lifestyle, you can still get involved in several different organizations which are working to lower everyone's emissions through policy changes, and make a huge difference in the grand scheme. Among them are several political flavors to choose from. There's: Citizens' Climate Lobby (personal favorite) 350 Extinction Rebellion Sunrise Movement RepublicEN American Conservation Coalition Climate Leadership Council and literally dozens more, which you can find by Googling "American climate organizations" Also, check out the Podcasts "How to Save a Planet", "No Place Like Home", "A Matter of Degrees", "Outside/In" and more, available on Spotify, if this is really your beat! We can do this! We must.
Analyze the co2 measurements, what you see is a seasaw curve, with a mean increase, the seasaw period is one year, the sharply declining side coincides with the northern spring and summer, the plants growing season drawing a very large amount of co2 out of the atmosphere and converting it into glucose. In winter the vegetation decays by action of bakteria, releasing co2 at a much higher rate than the mean> steep increase. Analyse this ,in view that the satellite images show a greening of mostly semi arid areas all over the world. Draw your own conclusions! Think about this carefully.
This talk was given before the Santa Rosa, Thomas, Mendocino Complex, Paradise and Malibu Fires all happening within the last 3 years of writing this (2019)
there is a 95% reduction in acreage burnt in the US since the 1920's. It is laughable how LITTLE acreage burns down now compared to 80 years ago. Its hilarious how you guys use every damn weather event or human event to pretend that humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere is causing it. Meanwhile its NOT HARD TO LOOK UP ACTUAL WEATHER AND CLIMATE DATA to confirm whether or not things are getting worse or not. I just looked it up. This summer is the coolest summer we've had in over 30 years. There is no INCREASE in sea level changes. Drought, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods are NOT increasing at all and actually show a decrease in the last 60 years. Also we have cooled about half a degree since the early 1900's. Its sad how little people like you actually know about these things. I bet you have never watched lectures from scientists on the opposing sides actually taking out charts and breaking it down without hte propaganda and lies. Nasa itself was caught LYING over 50 times in the last few years alone tampering data. They literally got rid of the 1930's record heat that was HORRIFIC compared to anything today to try and play the fact that we have been cooling. They even tried to just get rid of the medival warming period. LMAO. If you had any semblance of truth and integrity you would have an open mind, allow the debate to actually happen and actually start watching hours of Tim Ball, Tony Heller, Lord Monckton, Alex Epstein, Judith Curry and so on. These are brilliant minds and its hilarious when they show you how charts were totally forged every year to keep deleting the past so they can pretend that we are all going to die! It's amazing. fossil fuels have SAVED HUMANITY and have solved more environmental issues caused by man than any other source of energy. Welcome to the 21st century where we now know that CO2 is harmless and does nothing to the climate.
Ironically, the Biggest Oil Rockefeller climate change scam is seductively distracting people from the real facts. Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. You, in Sweden, should be more critically aware of the implications of this. Sweden used to be buried under a mountain of ice. But we're still in an Ice Age as long as those 2 little white things persist at the poles. Thirty million years ago, CO2 levels plummeted down to 800 ppm (twice today's levels), and plants freaked out, evolving C4 species to cope with the CO2 starvation. Think about that fact long and hard and then understand the pseudo-science and anti-science being promoted by the "climate change" Warming Alarmists. Alarm is good only when it's true. Since we live in an ongoing Ice Age with the Holocene interglacial overdue to end (Ref: W.S. Broecker, 1998), warming is the solution! And since human production of extra CO2 is greening the Earth, those who truly care about our planet should be applauding our CO2 increases. Oceans? Warming forces CO2 out. Sea level rise? Moving is far easier than surviving 90,000 years without summer (glacial period). Check your luck. Your missing a big chunk through willful ignorance. Study the science more carefully. See how you're being lied to.
Good, solid explanation of climate change. And a very nice, clear explanation of the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment and its political viability. Thanks!
Who guarantees prices won't increase for an amount which is higher than the dividend people get? And, assuming there will be any money left for them after paying higher prices for goods and services, the second question would be: who assures that people will use the dividend to reduce their carbon footprint (e.g. better insulation for their homes, buying solar panels and electric cars), instead of using it for other purposes?
Claire Cohen-Norris oh boy, you need an education, and not from this propaganda lying actor. CO2 is good for the planet, and climate change is natural. Anyone with half a brain knows that. This talk is a lie .
Chris Thompson see Patrick Moore, or William Happer, and many more.... you have been lied to from this propaganda talk. He’s trying to sale his agenda.
@@juliamarple3058 i suggest you familiarise yourself with how milankovitch cycles normally work, as well as glacial and interglacial periods, and then do some actual research on the very evident anthropogenic climate change that is occurring. good luck!
@@outpostone-oh-five8529 I'll give you an analogy: imagine the earth is a person, and a person needs water, but constantly guzzling large amounts of water is pretty deadly.
@@outpostone-oh-five8529 First, 400ppm has been roughly the ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, I don't think it's drought, the minimum for a plant to grow 200ppm. But outside of figures, plants have existed on this planet for over 1000mil years without us, so why would cutting down on co2 emissions kill them? And there is harm in producing co2. The icecaps are melting and huge droughts, floods, fires, etc are already happening. Stop denying it. Your facts aren't facts.
Excellent cogent and compelling presentation Dan! Especially enjoyed the slides on psycho/sociological cultural reasons for denial. Knew some, but was not aware of all, the subliminal forces at work against taking action. The only thing I would add is that in addition to asking people to talk to family, friends, etc. we need a strong presence in mainstream broadcast media (Radio/TV - my professional background) to discuss all the issues, urgency and solutions. Currently the ONLY dedicated programming on mass media outlets is from those working actively AGAINST progress -- Fox TV and radio hosts, backed by Koch and company (fossil fuel money), etc. As long as we don't have the other side on as regularly -- five days a week, several hours a day, we will never win this battle. I am willing to bet my life, money and career on this, and in fact have. The missing media piece is a BIG part of the problem and I wish more could see that!! Thx.
Is the increase of CO2 good or bad? It is great for plants. Is warming good or bad? More rain in California and South Africa to help with the water shortage. Warming means more crops to feed the world. Look into it Even the founder of green peace has problems with this
@@johnmcclain5972 My car would get great gas mileage going over a cliff. Is going over a cliff good or bad? If I get shot in the head with a shotgun, my food bill is lowered DRAMATICALLY! Is getting shot in the head good or bad? CO2 being great for plants doesn't help if there is a massive drought. I haven't seen any predictions of more rain overall, but more droughts overall. When you say "look into it," do you mean watch a few youtube videos, or do you mean to actually read the primary sources? (The primary sources seem to disagree with you)
Orion Red Your statement makes no logic. The earth has been much warmer in the past and life boomed. CO2 is extremely important for life on earth just as oxygen. Plants are how all life gets food in one way or other. All life on the earth is carbon based and this carbon comes from CO2. This bond with life and CO2 is a fact.
@@johnmcclain5972 Your statement makes sense only if you discount the importance of having a climate in which humans can live. Sorry, but you're just whistling pas the grave yard with your "CO2 is good" bullcrap.
This video was published in 2014 and now in 2019 the Federal Government of Canada has implemented this policy on provinces that have no Price-on-carbon Climate policy.
@@MatiasKiviniemi lol, search Alberta, Carbon Tax, Trudeau..... Cz Alberta is about to start talking seperation over carbon tax and Trudeau, I'd like to say he is the goat but he does it to himself. Terrible leader. Peace Oh, p.s., carbon credits and tax won't do anything for the planet.... except drive up prices. Rich, fossil fuel burners are going to say, "Oh, I guess we better find another way.", I don't think so, they are going to balance their books and keep truckin' until somebody comes with a court order to shut down the furnace. That will probably happen in about....... umm.......... mmh ............... uh............ hmmmm
Water is also a key to life on Earth, but too much of it (e.g., in your body or in your house) is not a good thing. I don't understand why that is a difficult concept to understand. The right amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere is great, but too much leads to global warming, sea level rise, etc. That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a key to life. But too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good thing.
Dan Miller I thought that there was no such thing as a perfect ‘equilibrium’. Here’s a thought, would a higher co2 count in the atmosphere further promote the growth of forests?
@@andrew-mew The higher CO2 would promote more growth, but the increased heat, wildfires, droughts, and floods would destroy forests more than the CO2 would help.
There is only so much carbon a forest can store be before it has reached it's capacity. Burning fossil fuels is like pumping millionaire of dead forests worth of carbon into the atmosphere causing the carbon cycle to be well and truly out of balance. You may as well debate, is there such thing as a greenhouse affect? Which is a pretty simple theory to understand. You put a blanket over something and it is going to heat up.
Does anyone realize how small .0038% is? That’s what portion of the atmosphere CO2 is. If we burned all the known fossil fuels, it will still never reach .004% Historical evidence proves more CO2 equals more O2, equals more life on Earth. Humans are merely another species on this rock. We’ve come and gone more times than any other species, and never has man been able to add anything to the planet, the planet itself hasn’t ridden itself of.
This is the best presentation on climate change that I have ever seen. Thank Dan! Citizens Climate Lobby is trying to make this happen but needs help working this through Congress. See www.citizensclimatelobby.org for the full study that Dan references on creating jobs, etc. The idea of going from impossible to inevitable is right on. Great job.
@@irchristo According to climate scientist James Hansen, the maximum safe level is 350 ppm, though it may be lower. We are currently at 410 ppm and it's going up 2~3 ppm/year. The last time (millions of years ago) that CO2 levels were 410 ppm, sea levels were about 75 feet higher than today. It takes a while to melt that much ice, but that's where we are currently headed.
@@dannyastroYT Two things that concern me are 1. That plant life only benefits by higher CO2 concentration, (below 150 ppm, plants die) and, 2. That it is argued that warming earth and water releases CO2 rather than the other way around. (Plotting 410 ppm on a graph is so small - .04% - as to seem an inconsequential proportion of our atmosphere) How, as a serious and thinking person do I resolve these inconsistencies?
I few short years from now we might look back on this talk and with wistfulness and sorrow to think that such an intelligent plan was not implemented. It certainly is not the whole solution to the connected tragedy of the irreversible damage we humans are doing to the planet, but it could (have?) possibly made an important difference.
nah we dead, you may as well just give up all your plans now... Or you can realize this all a hoax and they have been wrong now for over 150 years pushing all these climate hoaxes. Watch a dozen tony heller videos and you'll see they have you totally fooled. Just do it! You won't die listening to the other side that calls out BS on all of this. I laughed throughout just how wrong this guy is.
Whenever I hear the idea of tax & dividend, the folk song 'This Land is Your Land' plays in the back of my head….. It's beautifully elegant: Each citizen is treated as an equal shareholder in the atmosphere, mirroring the fact that every citizen is already equal stakeholders in the atmosphere. AND it's already been done in the US by that bastion of socialism, Alaska: The Alaska Permanent Fund reinvests taxes on oil and returns an annual dividend to each citizen of the state. In recent years it's been between $900 and $1800 per person.
Moron he is talking about the survival of the world through collective action and you associate it with socialism. It is as we were all in a swimming pool and you say he is peeing in the pool so am I. If he were taking about a Cheese threat with new weapons and they said taxes must be raised to confront this threat then your would not label it socialist/communist etc you would label it patriotism.
@@irchristo, the correct amount of CO2 is a minimum of 1600 ppm and a maximum of 10,000 ppm. Below 1600 ppm plants are starved. Above 1%, or 10,000 ppm, humans with compromised respiratory systems may have trouble breathing.
@@Ron_the_Skeptic "the correct amount of CO2 is a minimum of 1600 ppm and a maximum of 10,000 ppm. Below 1600 ppm plants are starved. Above 1%, or 10,000 ppm, humans with compromised respiratory systems may have trouble breathing. "..........How did you arrive at these numbers?
This is such a strange (and common) denier talking point. It's like saying that people can't start wildfires because there have been wildfires since before humans walked the planet.
@@dannyastroYT talk about wildfires did you know that 183 climat activists have been arrested in Australia for starting at least 205 of the aprox. 250 fires .
let each one of us take our responsibility in living/acting the best way we can to help nature because actually we are nature. There is no separation. When we help and love nature we nuture ourselves
"Action on climate change will go from 'impossible' to 'inevitable', without ever going through 'probable'. The tipping point needs to be real soon. Great talk.
I'm sure the action tipping point will happen, though I'm not sure that it will happen in time. See my post on "Is Climate Going Off the Rails?": climateplace.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/is-climate-going-off-the-rails/
why do you want to ban "deniers"? I don't really care to ban alarmists. I'm actually waiting for someone to give me some actual proof that we are doomed instead of propaganda bs and fear peddling. I listened to this guy speak, and I'm pretty skeptical about human caused climate change, but I wanted to see if this guy had some actual data... didn't see much. maybe the people he was speaking to understood his graphs, but I was wishing he could explain them in more detail...
Rachel Williams So basically you are saying that we shouldn't do something until we have certain proof. I can see what you mean but why wait when we can just help. It's for free, it will harm no one so what's the problem. Also by the time it is clear (there is evidence) climate change is caused by us, won't it be too late too still do something about it. As NASA said we have passed the tipping point. Let me ask you a question, do comments like, "Climate change is fake we should use more coal." Help anyone? It is promoting an idea that contradicts everything I have learned in school about gasses, the earth, atmosphere and so on. Also why don't you give me data to prove climate change wrong.
@@dannyastroYT "climate science" is flawed and corrupt. A "science" that demonises THE most important molecule on the planet is more than corrupt. nothing wrong with investing in clean technologies.... pushing flawed and corrupt info to financially benefit from said "science" is immoral.
The tricky part is moving our government. Perhaps you've noticed that our politicians are the best that money can buy, doing the bidding of exploitative corporations that don't share our priorities. While I support a revenue neutral carbon tax, I'm not going to wait for the US government. Perhaps my state government will move in that direction, but even they are beholden to fossil fuel donors. Meanwhile, my community is moving toward a fossil fuel free future. We're getting out of cars, consuming a lot less, and building up a local democracy to protect our right to choose a sensible life without corporate influence. We're learning to grow our own food, pedal our own bikes, and care for our neighbors.
Spoken like a true socialist! So you're amish then? Also was just released by hundreds of scientists doing a major study that humanity has ZERO effect on the climate at all. so the issue is OVER. you can drop it now and start building coal plants again so poor people don't freeze to death during the winter and food production can go up and energy prices down. The issue is SETTTLED. there is no such thing as man made climate change. So you can stop pretending that socialism is good. You will never stop until you can control who is allowed to be born and who can eat etc. Good luck dude.
@@waskele.wabbit717 That's your response? So you'd rather go along with government narratives that use any excuse to gain more power? When you don't believe in God you have to create one. That's all this rubbish is. Its incredible there has been ZERO shred of evidence to show that humanity has any effect on the climate or temperature. Not only that it has been cooler in the last 30 years. I like to actually look at data and go through it than believe in politically driven narratives by people who are usually godless, pro socialist and pro-UN etc. Instead of calling me "one sick puppy" I CHALLENGE you to start watching some Tony Heller videos for the sake of your own integrity. I'm not saying agree with him but I'm saying that you should at least look at the ACTUAL data and numbers. By ALL metrics things are better today than they have been in the last 150 years since "science" began to record numbers and temperatures etc. The 1930's were FAR WORSE in every way than they are today. hurricanes, forest fires and so on are much less extreme and in number than they were. There is no global sea level rise that in any way has increased in the last 100 years. Glaciers are not melting to any higher degree, all of it is rubbish you believe in. Go do some actual research.
Two major fundamental measures to settle climate change; (1) Respect orders of universe, how? Whatever to be done,climate change will never be solved unless human human principles of desire balance with climate change orders. They will always remain in friction. (2) Solve a problem without causing a problem. For example; plastic industries solved problems while causing problems.
Good on you. Once over the shock of this report we can get proactive. I could live in a locaction where I can walk everywhere. I live 8 kms from the nearest town.
This is right on target. The Fee and Dividend, as proposed by Dr. James Hansen and promoted by the hard-working Citizens' Climate Lobby, is the one and only way to stop the bus quickly enough. Virtually all economists, from the most liberal to the most conservative, strongly agree. Only those who are deeply invested in the fossil fuel status quo (and don't care what happens to their offspring), or those who have been bamboozled by the professional deniers, remain opposed. As the speaker says, citizens have to go straight to their lawmakers and demand it. Numbers, numbers, numbers..
Rick Knight I disagree, the way to fight this as proposed by this video would not work and it is certainly not upheld by "most economists" as an economist myself from the UK, I can tell you this strategy holds absolutely no value in economic theory. As you tax the corporations, they pass that tax onto the consumer (as identified by the gentlemen). However if you then subsidise that consumer then demand goes up and becomes less elastic ( meaning people's demand will respond less than proportionally to a change in price). As the corporations will not feel the burn of the tax, And demand increases, profit for the firms will likely increase as well as demand, a new market equilibrium will be reached with a greater price and demand and supply. The burning of fossil fuels will only increase with this strategy. My next reply will contain my own view on how we solve this issue.
Rick Knight As identified in my first comment, I believe there is a better and more efficient way to protect and conserve the environment. It takes shape in the expansion, development and implementation of property rights. When someone owns something, they have a high incentive to look after it, the best example of this would be the comparison between public and private industries, be it education, healthcare etc. In these circumstances the private alternative is almost always more efficient, better quality and thus looked after better. If property rights were developed in such a way that you didn't just own your house, But the air around it to, and the local lake was not public, But someone owned that to, then pollution becomes impossible without suffering a law suit. If you pollute the air around my house, and I fall I'll as a result, then I have a pretty strong case against you the polluter. If you dump toxic waste in a stream that leads to my owned section of the river and incidentally my fish die and my water becomes useless, then I can sue you the polluter for damages. In this system, pollution would become extremely inefficient for businesses, therefore the continuation of such pollution would be considerably less likely.
Great piece! Take powerful action on this: join your local Citizens Climate Lobby group. CitizensClimateLobby.org . CCL commissioned the study Dan discusses, and CCL volunteers (like you) work closely with all US members of Congress. Also Canadian parliament, and the World Bank, IMF and UN. CCL will train you to present this material powerfully. Sorry about the pitch--it's for exactly what Dan Miller is talking about.
The peoples' love affair with cars is one of the main problems. In many major cities there is great transportation; trains, buses, underground railways, and yet people insist on owning cars.
It.s not cars, but corporate amerikka and the military industrial complex that is ruining our environment and historically defeating all who have come up with the solutions to environmental problems.
the main problem is that changing from a car based transport system would mean a major infrastructure overhaul which would cost billions and billions of dollars. It would be ideal to increase public transportation but in the day and age of covid 19 and other diseases making a comeback (not to mention antibiotic resistance which is another issue entirely), we have to wonder if it is the best idea?
Thank you, Dan! What a no-brainer the revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend is, and it's exactly what Citizens' Climate Lobby is working towards. Their proposal just won the popular choice award at MIT's contest for a US Carbon Price. Learn more at climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/planId/2802
are you going to have to wear a co2 monitor all the time and be charged a monthly fee for how much co2 you exhale? that's not fair to athletes. they undergo more physical exertion which causes a higher metabolic rate which expels more co2. maybe we should all just hold our breath until we suffocate to death. problem solved!
That's true, but interest in Fee and Dividend is growing. Even ExxonMobile came out in support of it last year, albeit a dumbed down version. As I said, it will happen, but when it happens is up to us.
Thank you for the reply. After 4+ years I didn't think anyone would actually see this. Every effort is making a difference and it's good to hear what you put forward isn't dead in the water and proving me wrong. I appreciate that you didn't treat what I stated it as an off the cuff comment. For a time I was more active in spreading the word of those that I believed would make a difference; John Lott for one. Lately, all that's left for me after 30 years of care taking for my wife and her sever TBI is trying to make intelligent(?) comments and sending letters where I can. The above you replied to not was not an example. You obviously put a great deal of time and effort into the system you proposed. Every effort, like yours, Allen Savory and others, will make the difference. I on the other hand can only share, in what I hope is in an intelligent manor, with people about people that have what in my opinion are either possible or proven methods. Thank you again.
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Not true. 2020 was a record warm year & 2022 was 6th warmest during a cooling La Niña and likely to be the coolest year for evermore.
This may be the best presentation on a version of the carbon tax and it's potential benefits that I've every heard. It's way simpler than cap and trade and pretty direct across the global economy as well. I very much liked the inclusion of the Bell Lab science series with Baxter and Carlson. I had forgotten that but I did watch it at the time, a long time ago.
I'm mostly worried about all the animals, they are completely vulnerable and there's nothing they can do. It's all our fault that these innocent creatures are dying but yet we keep producing plastic and driving petrol cars
Reduce planet overpopulation, better waste management by building incineration plant stations on the ocean away from the coastlines, eliminate fossil fuel usage for transportation & home usage, using renewable energy that is managed & sustained such as solar energy & forrestry usage, electric capability products & better recycling laws to reduce & reuse waste products & prohibiting landfill usage.
To fight the impact of droughts, it is important to find ways to produce stark based energy available not through the growth of plants but via industrial production. Protein the same. Minerals and vitamins added and there you go hanging on to dear life with a daily ration of what you might almost call 'soilent green'..
It is all about you, your loved ones and your offspring who exist in reality and in manifestations of your dreams. I am aware this talk was given out by Dan Miller with a deep concern that he took the initiative to share more than five years ago. Thanks Dan for breaking out of the waiting queue. Five years is like 5 minutes when it comes to the subject of Global Warming. That's not a joke, trust me! We may not feel the difference over our entire life time and not realize our due role to save the planet for our future generations at the moment of our death. The solution of TAX to Dividend proposed by him can be one of several solutions. The less we depend on the government that has many more past and current problems as a bigger burden, the better pragmatic solutions we can devise. It is our joint responsibility as a human team including people old, young, children, male female, rich, poor etc, from the global nation to listen, understand, ponder over, evaluate the situation by a process in our left brain, right brain and heart with due respect to the concern originating people like Dan who have taken the pains to bring out a concern with the genuine quest for a solution. The national boundaries we perceive are not real. Not in the case of Global Warming. Covid-19 has proved this point. Global Warming will not be impacted by social distancing. So we need to put our heads and hearts together to focus on topics like: minimize deforestation, transition to electric vehicles, encourage or actively take up research and development on hybrid power generation from solar, wind and hydro energy apart from moth-balling all nuclear plants. Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 but these plants produce pollutants heavier than CO2 in effective damage. Trust me, I have performed the lead role as Station Engineer, in a nuclear plant operation crew in the 80s. Focus on evolving deserts into forests! It is possible!! We just need to trust and inspire the young potential heroes and experts among us who love to prove their talents in saving the planet - our Mother Earth. I strongly urge and love to invite all concerned on this subject, in the age group of 11 to 111 years, purely for the joy of life on Mother Earth who loves to take care of our offspring, to participate in a brainstorming session some time. It is forthcoming soon after we see your responses to this comment. Enjoy life! Thank you.
I just came upon this wonderful, hopeful comment, thank you. Going to copy and keep. Liked seeing here, especially, each of 3 parts in this section of what you said 1)"Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 but these plants produce pollutants heavier than CO2 in effective damage." { I did not know this} "Trust me, I have performed the lead role as Station Engineer, in a nuclear plant operation crew in the 80s." 2) "Focus on evolving deserts into forests! It is possible!!" and 3) "We just need to trust and inspire the young potential heroes and experts among us who love to prove their talents in saving the planet - our Mother Earth" I was currently feeling so hopeless about our Earth's biological "breakdown", but this helped a bit.
I love it! We also need to act FAST about reducing meat consumption, which is a HUGE contributor to global warming, deforestation and the extinction of species via destruction of their habitat.
animals can eat between trees, it's only the american corporations' intensive farming practices of animal agriculture that causes this. mono crops are actually the biggest cause of deforestation, again, mostly an american led form of agriculture, mostly for soya in borneo. so these 'do-gooder' vegans arent doing much better than meat eaters re environmental destruction. in fact, they usually think LESS about where their food comes from in general. nor dot hey realise how the oestrogen in soya disrupts their endocrine system, making them more vulnerable to illnesses n stressors. those who traditionally eat soya, eat it once it's fermented for this reason. There is also the concern of reduced soil fertility. uk has lost 40% of it's soil fertility since WW2. not even organic farming puts back the nutrients it extracts from the soil. We need to go back to sustainable farming practices, food forests etc. everyone who has a garden should be growing part of their own consumption of food. food shortages will increase n growing ur own food will make one less dependant on the current systems n increase food security
I think I'll make a steak after reading your ridiculous statement! lol Meat is not destroying the planet silly - governments destroy the planet, not people and certainly not fossil fuels.
The Answer is Holistic land management with combined herds of cattle flattening the grassland thus protecting the soil from drying out and preventing desertification see Allan Savory.
6:19 "So one of the biggest impacts of this CENTURY is going to be extreme drought and famine". He didn't say that the decade long mega-drought would occur from 2014 to 2024. He was talking about the probabilities of it occurring prior to 2100.
haha, NO. Not sure where you are looking but droughts are NOT increasing. They have levels off to usual levels. Not a single person died of drought in the US in over 15 years! Its not hard to read an actual chart that shows drought levels. Meanwhile we have more rainfall than every before - thank you sun! I love the "some for where I live in CA" as though CA is the metric for global drought data. lol. Again, look this stuff up. I date you to spend a few weeks watching as many Tony Heller videos as you can. You won't die, you may actually learn something, especially how long they have been pushing these climate myths.
Russell Moore that is bs. Ours is a land of drought and flooding rains and most of the current problems are policy not drought. Rivers are full but because of policy of dividing land from water ownership we have farmers unable to access full rivers running past their farms owned by overseas companies. Please don’t confuse policy with actual drought.
@@deepthought5459 Tell me where in New South Wales and Queensland are these full rivers? You do know that only 5% of tilled farms in Australia are irrigated don't you? The rest are dry land farms that rely on rainfall, rainfall that is far below average and has been for years in a lot of places. 100% of NSW is drought declared, almost every regional city in NSW is under extreme water restrictions. Bushfires are ravaging areas in NE NSW and SE QLD as I type this. But of cause it is policy that is causing this...
Dealing with climate change, while it would be beneficial in the long run, would require tremendous economic sacrifice in the short term. In an economy where increasing numbers of people are in economic distress, they are reluctant to make that sacrifice. I'm not sure if people believe it is as straight forward as this gentleman asserts. I'm not sure we're up to the challenge.
I am going to tell my classmates no matter what. Those Guys in the class who think they're cool are mostly dumb and dont care at all. And i know from Some people that they really do care, but they are just too affraid to say so. And If i bring the subject to the conversation, they Will probably "come out" as Well.
Your friends don’t need your sympathy, they need you to pick a side, and have empathy for them, and everyone and everything on this planet. You get up every day knowing your going to die one day. Take action to build a world you want to see. We all have too much to lose.
Not unless we "the people" do it deliberately and pass multiple alternative options for the public. But more often than not, people will vote for the Trump in the room, rather than the one with the better policies and rules like Bernie.
yeah brilliant ,...the working man will pay and when carbon based energy costs more ,the renewabels companys he has invested in become competitive,GeNIUS
Actually, the "working man" will make more on the dividend than they pay in higher prices caused by the carbon fee, so low and middle class people make money on the deal! Genius!
The “single biggest way” for individuals to take action against climate change is to become vegan according to Oxford University study of 40,000 farms in 119 countries. United Nations also called to tax meat to save the environment but meat and dairy industry that is bigger than oil industry and has a stronghold on governments. Harvard University study “eating away climate change” proposes switching entire U.K. over to plant based agriculture and part reforestation in order to meet Paris agreement and avoid 1.5 degree rise. Check NHS (UK national health service) website for safe qualified advice on nutrition for vegans - advice for all ages from pregnancy to infants to adults. (Avoid relying social media for health/nutrition advice). Greta Thunberg is vegan, David Attenborough doesn’t eat meat. To check the huge climate savings based on food choices check “BBC climate change food calculator” and punch in some of your favourite foods to see the impact.
Thanks for your contribution, Dan. I'll use some points in a talk I'm preparing. I think that the "impoliteness" point you make is more central than you give it credit. My reasoning is tied to the point about "there's no enemy." We are deeply programmed to group expectation (the bystander effect being an example) and ALWAYS about that first. So naming and busting that tendency is job #1 imho. It's so deep in us we can't "believe" we do it . . . even when we hear about it! Love your clarity around Fee and Dividend!
Dan, I tried reading it, twice. I just could not read that thing. I found the pixillated detail frustratingly devoid of a narrative to tie it together. To take notes I'd have to write the book again. Nothing sticks, for me anyway. I also enjoyed your longer youtube talk on all this.
Check out the book What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming by Per Espen Stoknes, a Norwegian economist and psychologist. He lays out the psychological pitfalls behind climate communications and then how to step around those pitfalls to effectively communicate.
Great talk with excellent points on why we ignore climate change and what we can do to address it. I am working in Asia on this and trying to inspire people, systems and governments to address it - are there any plans for you Dan to visit South East Asia in the near future ?
Dan Miller this is great - thanks Dan - how to interpret non commercial use ? I give a lot of green talks based on my passion to mobilize others - some free, some for a small fee, some for a bigger fee ..... in practical terms overall I am not making money with this if I take my cost into consideration .... so is that considered non commercial ?
Matthias Gelber There are images and videos in my presentation that fall under the Creative Commons license or Fair Use statutes. You need to determine yourself whether your use of these items is allowed in the country you are using them or whether you need to ask for further permission. I would think if you are using them for educational use and are not making a profit on these presentations, then you may be OK.
Economic growth channeled into renewables will not be enough because growth promotes business competition, which results in development activities that maintain and accelerate deforestation patterns. Reforestation has to be a strong, maybe the strongest, component of economic reforms. This is because the CO2 that's already been released has to be reabsorbed and sequestered and only living, growing wood absorbs carbon and buries it underground as root growth. Unless economic activities actively work to increase the land-area covered by thriving tree canopy throughout deforested areas, including cities and other human developments, CO2 will have nowhere to go and the deforested areas will absorb and release sunlight as heat that builds up due to CO2 blanketing. Reforestation is a double-edged sword to reduce CO2 climate effects because it both absorbs CO2 and buries it underground as root growth AND tree canopies shade the ground, buildings, and pavements from sunlight that gets absorbed and released into the air as heat and humidity, another greenhouse gas. If trees are cut, their wood dies and decays into CO2 and the area they once shaded becomes a solar heater that absorbs sunlight and heats up. So while stimulating economic reform with fee-and-dividend stimulus may help advance cleaner energies and technologies, it may also support continuing development and deforestation, which is currently not conscientious enough to fit buildings between trees instead of clearing land and replacing trees with buildings.
Deforestation is a big problem that must be addressed. Fee and Dividend does not address the problem but you could imagine putting a fee on deforestation. Reforestation is a good thing but it is not a long-term solution to climate change since the carbon in the trees is still in the biosphere so when the trees die (due to drought, wildfire, bark beetle, or natural causes) most of the CO2 will be returned to the atmosphere. It is possible to inject CO2 far underground (back where it came from) or inject it into to certain rock formations that will turn it into a solid (carbonate) in a decade or so. You're correct that the economic stimulus caused by Fee and Dividend will have some negative environmental consequences. More draconian policies might reduce emissions while driving down the economy, but I can't imagine those policies being adopted until things get much worse (though we might not need to wait long for that).
Dan Miller Living trees sequester carbon, energy, and water both above ground in their trunks and limbs as well as underground in their root systems. Water vapor in the atmosphere also blankets heat so sequestering carbon alone doesn't prevent unsequestered sunlight from causing evaporation that blankets heat. The living biosphere, through its trees and other water-based ecological forms channels energy through systems that slow dissipation of energy as heat and prevent evaporation and blanketing of heat by water. There's nothing draconian about reforesting human developments, except to the extent that many people aesthetically prefer to remove trees from developed areas. Aesthetic preference is not a good excuse for poor management of planetary energy, however. Life evolved to thrive between the ground and the top of the canopy, for the most part. The canopy is Earth's mechanism for absorbing sunlight and transfering the energy underground, where it sinks, fossilizes, and get gradually released as heat that keeps underground water warm enough to keep trees alive in winter. We tend to think of underground temperatures as being due to primordial radioactivity stored within the core, but in all likelihood, sunken biomass plays a roll since the core would have cooled faster if it was isolated from any form of energy-input since the formation of the solar system.
@Pistol Pete actually I play it up the middle here. I don't brush off climate change at all yet I feel that it's not as dire as it's made out in some " circles"
Amazing that he was allowed to talk that way in Orange County. I only wish he had the courage to include the fossil fuel industry's behavior in his talk, so that people would begin to understand how we got to this unthinkable point in our specie's history.
Some town managers are now reporting that the recycling process is proving too expensive to recycle. As I said you can't get to zero. There will be some waste. A move away from certain plastics that do end up in the ocean would be helpful. Hemp products can be used to act as containers.
Now if you actually looked tuff up, reclining cause more CO2 emissions than if you just threw it out into a landfill and used new plastics from drilling. You guys are wrong on EVERYTHING its not even funny.
Climate change " ok we got it " Particulate pollutants causing disease thats contaminated all life on earth and in the sea " we never hear about that " - silent spring was published by an American author 70 years ago and were still just talking about these issues today in America. We deserve whats coming to us and what weve allowed to happen.
Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" who was a marine biologist and was called every name in the book including a communist because she was destroying American Industry and our way of life. She died the year I graduated high school 1964. Sounds just like those that are advocating we don't deal with climate change as that is a hoax. And, then those who were against the EPA which was going to destroy American Industry but saved countless lives. You can fix ignorance but you can't fix stupidity.
Gee! I don't see why we don't do it! This is so simple! And so is he. Two things: one; re climate change we are pretty sure that some stuff will happen - we don't really know what - witness that we don't call it global warming anymore; two; stopping causing a CO footprint is going to be expensive, and hard to do, with many bumps along the way. "May you live in interesting times"....
A couple of points: It will be much, much more expensive to NOT lower our carbon footprint compared to lowering it. It has always been called "climate change". The first papers in the 1950's called it that and the UN bogy formed in the 1980's) is call the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
If people could just wrap their heads that change is always hard in the beginning, but it gets oh so much easier later on. "The hardest part of space exploration is the liftoff, but it'll be smooth from hereon out".
6:19 "So one of the biggest impacts of this CENTURY is going to be extreme drought and famine". He didn't say that the decade-long mega-drought would occur from 2014 to 2024. He was talking about the probabilities of it occurring prior to 2100.
Dave Hill if you choose chicken over meat you would be making a bigger impact, and if you gave up meat and dairy completely, you would be making a profound impact.
Meanwhile 98% of rest of the world burns fossil fuels. The only real solution us to stop our consumption of all things material. Dont hold your breath waiting for that to happen
What an example it really touched my heart. Even i beleive that we always go for things which causes threat immediately. We never think about the future outcomes
"the fossil fuel companies pay that fee (which is ultimately paid by the consumer) ... then we take that money and dividend it out to everyone so they can pay that cost (fee), but also so you can buy a fuel efficient car and other things..." Hmmmmm....apparently economics was not a course he took in college.
Yes it was. Wealthy people use far more CO2 than the average person and governments generate about 30% of the CO2 but don't get a dividend. Therefore, most households (the bottom 70%) make more on the dividend than they pay in higher prices due to the fee (according the US Treasury). The wealthy pay more but it only a small amount to them. And note that it is not necessary for people to spend their dividends on clean energy for the policy to work. The purpose of the policy is to raise the cost of fossil fuels so that the price of fossil fuels more closely reflects its true cost to society. This will make clean energy alternatives more competitive.
Great talk but talking about money as the solution will keep the arguement in status quo and nothing will happen. It's better to just clean up the planet, plant more trees, incentivise corporations to reduce rather than tax, ban the chopping down of the rainforests, and actually invest in adding more oxygen and clean energy technology.
While we need to reforest the planet, invest in cleantech R&D, and do similar things, they won't be enough as long as we let fossil fuels pollute the atmosphere for free. You can think of that as an enormous subsidy for fossil fuels so the clean technologies cannot compete on a level playing field. As far as climate change is concerned, the only thing that matters is total cumulative global emissions, so it's not enough to only increase clean energy production. We need to also rapidly decrease dirty energy production. The best way to do that is to make it more expensive.
Dan Miller ... and Fee & Dividend and Border fees on CO2, no matter how effective, won't prevent at least another 0.6 C temperature rise. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere can do that, at least in part, which is why a massive effort to regenerate landscapes with more biomass and soil carbon in the form of topsoil is necessary. This will also aid in halting desertification and biodiversity loss/extinction, which are threatening us as well. Other important benefits include the ability to increase soil moisture, and generate albedo producing clouds and much needed raindrops through nucleation from trees, both of which are cooling effects. Maybe this critical and necessary work can be integrated and pad for somehow within the Fee & Dividend and CO2 Tariff mechanisms.
Dan Miller Fee & Dividend sounds too good to be true, and I fear it is. Developing and scaling up clean-energy technology will require the use of fossil fuels (that will be increasingly expensive because of both depletion and Fee & Dividend). It's hard to see how CO2 emissions can be reduced by 52% while simultaneously growing GDP. That's leaving aside the continuing dependence of renewable energy sources on fossil fuels for construction and maintenance. The future is one of less energy and negative growth, and presumably the end of growth-dependent capitalism. There may be a role for some form of Fee & Dividend, but it cannot be simply grafted onto BAU.
klondike444 You should remember that the "external" costs of fossil fuels are real and must be paid by you, me, and the rest of society. This means that fossil fuels are not as cheap as they appear and our economy is running inefficiently. By putting a price on fossil fuels, we will use fossil fuels and renewable energy more efficiently and our economy will run more efficiently. Most European nations have much higher taxes on fossil fuels and their carbon footprint is about half of ours in the U.S., even though most of them have a very high standard of living. So you can view Fee and Dividend as helping to correct what Sir Nicholas Stern calls "the biggest market failure in history".
Dan Miller Fossil fuels were cheap but are becoming more expensive - hence the ongoing economic problems. It is a mistake to think in terms of money rather than energy return on investment (EROI). Using energy more efficiently means you run into the Jevons Paradox, and are likely to use more of it, and more of other depleting resources, increasing the impact on the environment overall. That applies to all economies, and the US is just one of the major players. Again, renewable energy sources turn out to need a large fossil fuel input, and mostly produce electricity, but industrial civilization is very dependent on liquid fuels: it will take an enormous investment of energy, including fossil fuels, and other resources to change that situation. Conventional (cheap) oil peaked in 2005, fracking will soon start to peter out, and the oil exported by producing nations is falling each year, faster than conventional output. Energy availability is going to fall. Current input from renewables, not counting hydroelectric, is tiny. Climate change is not going to wait for us to gradually modify our behavior via financial policies. I do not think you have the solution to our self-created crisis. ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/18/eight-pitfalls-in-evaluating-green-energy-solutions/ www.truth-out.org/news/item/27392-abundant-clean-renewables-think-again ourfiniteworld.com/2014/01/21/ten-reasons-intermittent-renewables-wind-and-solar-pv-are-a-problem/
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish we started doing this back when this guy recommended doing this.
Well I actually wish we started doing this 20years ago...
Wishing is what got us here. There is another ted talk by Allen Savory that addresses another way to help capture carbon in our grasslands
We need you America, we can't do this without you!
Greetings from Switzerland, Europe :-)
We need your type of government Switzerland. Could you please arrange a transfer of brain waves to get us back on track with a real honest Democracy!
Greetings from these United States in America.:-)
The US isn't the problem. China is the problem. By the way, they put together a carbon climate market, and gave away billions in carbon credits. It didn't take off.
@@BruceCSnow Living in the US I can attest to our appetite for oil and gas, but yes China is outpacing all the world with coal burning! So what you are saying is that China passed up billions in carbon credits vying instead for massive coal combustion? Or did China then sell carbon credits? So how is US involvement capable of persuading China to take another course?
@@chuckkottke Sorry, basically the EU tried to set up cc trading market
Can you get them to stop putting stickers on edible skin fruits, please? Less plastic, better plums. tx
What would we use instead of stickers?
There must be a way to code them somehow for transport/trade. Wouldn't it be easier to make every label recyclable instead?
@@ryanfoltz1276 what did we use before we started putting stickers on everything? can we do that again?
I've been told the stickers are edible too, made not of plastic but a gelatin
@@tonyulriksen6532 odd... but i don't think that includes the glue they use.
@@tonyulriksen6532 - lol, I had that thought about 6 seconds after I left the comment. So I researched the prospect of bringing an edible one to market. I didn't find the one you mention, but I found a system that is beyond the scope of such a small contributor to gain any respectable entry. There is a patent ofc, but I figure it's too easy to get around. Such as your gelatin info, I would patent a glucose one and they would invent the gelatin one. Oh wait, they already did.... See that's why I opted out, the future came quick, and I was still poor in it;)
Peace
This talk was given 5 years ago! We are in 2019 ☹️
I know, the entire state of Georgia now is under water! Didn't you hear?
Andrew yang stole this guys idea
@@z17seattle I don't know about you but I like it when politicians take great ideas and implement them
Ya, it was bs then, and it's BS now.
Itzahk Pearlman jc Penny ain’t even a penny
I know how to fix the climate mess, get the POLITICS OUT OF SCIENCE! Ya hear ‘dat
I couldn't agree more....no more political funding of science. This will put the nail in the coffin of "government funded science" and restore its once good name.
Politics out of science, and the money out of politics.
But put science into politics ;D
How to solve global warming:winter
Thing is, most of the solutions are political. They require people to make a material sacrifice today for a material benefit, or at least less material sacrifice, sometime in the future. And since the climate change problem is incremental, it is easy for people to go on as usual and avoid the problem today.
I live in British Columbia, Canada. Our province has been using carbon tax for over 10 years. the tax collected was used to provide money incentives for residents to make improvements on their homes that make them more energy efficient... windows, doors, insulation, furnaces, roofs and even window coverings that provide insulation... and yup gas is high, so we bought a hybrid, choose to walk or bike and reduce the number of trips to get things.... YES IT WORKS!
sadly will not work at stopping our extinction but I'm glad you feel better about being less of the problem.
@@trendyasdabbers I admit, you are right...got any ideas how to accomplish that?
@@MsMadajo walk into the offices of big oil companies and murder the CEO's. Until they are out of power, nothing will be solved.
@@MsMadajo I think a better method, my own, harks back to the oil crisis when we reduced speed limits. Except this time do it like this:
Start with Hwys. Reduce the 100 kph speed to 90. On an hourly basis, all else like gearing equal, you reduce fuel consumption 19%. Now you go less far per hour at 90, but you only have so much time, so it isn't quite 19%. What is different this time is you make it voluntary. You can buy a license that only allows you to do 90, an eco license. You can still drive 100, but you don't get the license. Funnily enough, I base this idea on the conservation fishing license that only allows you to catch so many fish, or keep so many fish.
In Toronto where I live a lot of people vote for climate change parties like the Lib., but a ton drive 120 rather than 100. That takes 44% more gas. But they still get to go to cocktail parties and talk up their virtue. Well if you pull up in a regular license, good luck with that.
There are other advantages:
1) Rich people do not care about extra fuel costs, this puts everyone on an equal footing;
2) There is a lot more pollution than just co2 coming out of your tailpipe, cutting that back helps a lot also;
3) The eco license should be cheaper, because it is good, but also because you will tear up roads to similar lessor degrees. That 44% more gas you burn to do 120, rather than 100 is 44% more impact energy, and moment of compliance as you flex roads, and hit minor and major ripples in the road;
4) You also hit with 44% more energy when you have a crash at 120, rather than 100 KPH.
And there are more reasons, and ideas related to this proposal, but this is enough for now.
By the way. I don't say this is a climate change solution. I just say it is an all around better way of reducing emissions and carnage on the Hwys. I think it has plenty of advantages even if one is not amped up about climate change.
Great job Dan...you've brilliantly distilled many years of your work into a very concise and compelling presentation.
BUT ITS BOLLOCKS
Thank you Dan for continuing your talk! You came to my college my sophomore year and I heard you give this talk. Due to your talk you spurred me to take up a minor in economics and concentrated many of my paper in college about combating climate change. I have completed several paper and have found some interesting economic facts that has interested facility about this topic. I am currently in grad school and I am currently talking to tax professors about proposing a research study on the tax implementation in the U.S.
Andrew: Congratulations on focusing on this. You may be interested in the REMI report that I reference in the talk:
www.dropbox.com/s/22lrokkdaf4a8fh/The-Economic-Climate-Fiscal-Power-and-Demographic-Impact-of-a-National-Fee-and-Dividend-Carbon-Tax-6.9.14.pdf?dl=0
Australia’s national carbon tax came into effect July 1, 2012, and was repealed on July 17, 2014. It was a complicated story, and I concede it was mismanaged, but in summary, Australia's economy took a hit and voters demanded it to be repealed. While Trump is in office, there will be no "price" on carbon in the US. I wonder if Dan has an update since giving the original talk.
All this $$$ wasted by your parents to educate you and still you can't write proper, basic, coherent English !?! WOW ...
Andrew Wenman well your education is very poor. CO2 is essential for life. It is not harmful. It is good for the planet. This man has is own interests in play. It is all propaganda
Thank you. I once stood too close to the edge -- and a single hand grabed my coat and pulled me away -- I have no idea who it was. But it shocke me into realizing that I can be clueless to real dangers.
This talk needs to have been watched by everyone on the planet, 8 years ago
It's pretty amazing to read the comments that are full of negativity and resistance. How can we hope for change when we poo poo everyone with a brain?
Excellent idea. We need to support this kind of thinking and get behind it. How 'bout a simple thing like hitting the 'Share' button? Passing this kind of thing on is going to help us hit 'critical mass,' which changes the consciousness of the planet. That's how change is created, isn't it?
Nepal: A Tourist's Manual Uhm, because there is nothing to change in regards to climate, its all fine as it is. Even if you try, theres no way we can influence it.
CO² increases follow after temerature rises, as ice-drilling data clearly shows. Which means that more CO² is just a byproduct of climate change not its cause.
What you and this fearmonger in the video are trying to promote is politicaly instumented pseudoscience. Sadly, science, due to capitalism, has become a business too. :(
Honesty would he a big step in the right direction.
However, with all the lies coming from the alarmists' side how can you have an honest discussion.
and without an honest discussion, can you find an honest direction in which to move. and without an honest direction in which to move you are just part of the herd,,,, and the herd usually gets slaughtered
one line of evidence, which you don't actually understand, makes you feel able to deny thousands of others. . . Ever hear of occam's razor?
As long as there are gas station in the world. Nothing I do is ever going to matter.
I support the carbon tax, but I'm tired of people pretending that this won't increase the price of exactly everything. Climate change mitigation is incompatible with people using the amount of energy and resources they do today.
I want anyone reading this to remember that we still have the opportunity to prevent the worst of climate catastrophe if we, as a society, act in time. In the USA, where our per-capita emissions are among the highest in the world, even if it's hard and impractical to live a zero-emissions lifestyle, you can still get involved in several different organizations which are working to lower everyone's emissions through policy changes, and make a huge difference in the grand scheme. Among them are several political flavors to choose from.
There's:
Citizens' Climate Lobby (personal favorite)
350
Extinction Rebellion
Sunrise Movement
RepublicEN
American Conservation Coalition
Climate Leadership Council
and literally dozens more, which you can find by Googling "American climate organizations"
Also, check out the Podcasts "How to Save a Planet", "No Place Like Home", "A Matter of Degrees", "Outside/In" and more, available on Spotify, if this is really your beat!
We can do this! We must.
Analyze the co2 measurements, what you see is a seasaw curve, with a mean increase, the seasaw period is one year, the sharply declining side coincides with the northern spring and summer, the plants growing season drawing a very large amount of co2 out of the atmosphere and converting it into glucose. In winter the vegetation decays by action of bakteria, releasing co2 at a much higher rate than the mean> steep increase. Analyse this ,in view that the satellite images show a
greening of mostly semi arid areas all over the world.
Draw your own conclusions! Think about this carefully.
@Kyle Beauchamp: Very helpful, thank you
This talk was given before the Santa Rosa, Thomas, Mendocino Complex, Paradise and Malibu Fires all happening within the last 3 years of writing this (2019)
there is a 95% reduction in acreage burnt in the US since the 1920's. It is laughable how LITTLE acreage burns down now compared to 80 years ago. Its hilarious how you guys use every damn weather event or human event to pretend that humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere is causing it. Meanwhile its NOT HARD TO LOOK UP ACTUAL WEATHER AND CLIMATE DATA to confirm whether or not things are getting worse or not. I just looked it up. This summer is the coolest summer we've had in over 30 years. There is no INCREASE in sea level changes. Drought, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods are NOT increasing at all and actually show a decrease in the last 60 years. Also we have cooled about half a degree since the early 1900's.
Its sad how little people like you actually know about these things. I bet you have never watched lectures from scientists on the opposing sides actually taking out charts and breaking it down without hte propaganda and lies. Nasa itself was caught LYING over 50 times in the last few years alone tampering data. They literally got rid of the 1930's record heat that was HORRIFIC compared to anything today to try and play the fact that we have been cooling. They even tried to just get rid of the medival warming period. LMAO.
If you had any semblance of truth and integrity you would have an open mind, allow the debate to actually happen and actually start watching hours of Tim Ball, Tony Heller, Lord Monckton, Alex Epstein, Judith Curry and so on. These are brilliant minds and its hilarious when they show you how charts were totally forged every year to keep deleting the past so they can pretend that we are all going to die! It's amazing. fossil fuels have SAVED HUMANITY and have solved more environmental issues caused by man than any other source of energy. Welcome to the 21st century where we now know that CO2 is harmless and does nothing to the climate.
Raffi Liberty no place for oil and cole lobbyists!
Thank you Dan! Working on implementing Fee and Dividend in Sweden, in the Swedish branch of CCL. Good luck to all of us! :)
Ironically, the Biggest Oil Rockefeller climate change scam is seductively distracting people from the real facts.
Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. You, in Sweden, should be more critically aware of the implications of this. Sweden used to be buried under a mountain of ice. But we're still in an Ice Age as long as those 2 little white things persist at the poles.
Thirty million years ago, CO2 levels plummeted down to 800 ppm (twice today's levels), and plants freaked out, evolving C4 species to cope with the CO2 starvation. Think about that fact long and hard and then understand the pseudo-science and anti-science being promoted by the "climate change" Warming Alarmists.
Alarm is good only when it's true. Since we live in an ongoing Ice Age with the Holocene interglacial overdue to end (Ref: W.S. Broecker, 1998), warming is the solution!
And since human production of extra CO2 is greening the Earth, those who truly care about our planet should be applauding our CO2 increases. Oceans? Warming forces CO2 out. Sea level rise? Moving is far easier than surviving 90,000 years without summer (glacial period).
Check your luck. Your missing a big chunk through willful ignorance. Study the science more carefully. See how you're being lied to.
Good, solid explanation of climate change. And a very nice, clear explanation of the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment and its political viability. Thanks!
I would like to know What is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Who guarantees prices won't increase for an amount which is higher than the dividend people get?
And, assuming there will be any money left for them after paying higher prices for goods and services, the second question would be: who assures that people will use the dividend to reduce their carbon footprint (e.g. better insulation for their homes, buying solar panels and electric cars), instead of using it for other purposes?
Claire Cohen-Norris oh boy, you need an education, and not from this propaganda lying actor. CO2 is good for the planet, and climate change is natural. Anyone with half a brain knows that. This talk is a lie .
Chris Thompson see Patrick Moore, or William Happer, and many more.... you have been lied to from this propaganda talk. He’s trying to sale his agenda.
@@juliamarple3058 i suggest you familiarise yourself with how milankovitch cycles normally work, as well as glacial and interglacial periods, and then do some actual research on the very evident anthropogenic climate change that is occurring. good luck!
If this was shot 5 years ago, it's unsettling to see the little effort that has gone into this project. I think it's very relevant to this day.
I don't use this word a lot but this is BRILLIANT! This needs to go viral.
and what is BRILLIANT! about demonising the most important life giving molecule on this Planet into a pollutant?... SMH
Dead poolz
I think a video on the internet is a good start
@@outpostone-oh-five8529 I'll give you an analogy: imagine the earth is a person, and a person needs water, but constantly guzzling large amounts of water is pretty deadly.
@@svendinsvinderlin4569 400 ppm of co2 is drought for plants... that's fact... not a silly analogy
@@outpostone-oh-five8529 First, 400ppm has been roughly the ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, I don't think it's drought, the minimum for a plant to grow 200ppm.
But outside of figures, plants have existed on this planet for over 1000mil years without us, so why would cutting down on co2 emissions kill them?
And there is harm in producing co2.
The icecaps are melting and huge droughts, floods, fires, etc are already happening. Stop denying it.
Your facts aren't facts.
I'm ready, let's do it. What's the next step putting this plan in action?
Vote for the party which will support a similar plan.
Plant a tree...
number one, outlaw hamburgers !!! The cows are killing us with their CO2 emissions. Number two, no more fossil fuel. That should do it.
keep investigating about how you can take action in the community around you
Excellent cogent and compelling presentation Dan! Especially enjoyed the slides on psycho/sociological cultural reasons for denial. Knew some, but was not aware of all, the subliminal forces at work against taking action. The only thing I would add is that in addition to asking people to talk to family, friends, etc. we need a strong presence in mainstream broadcast media (Radio/TV - my professional background) to discuss all the issues, urgency and solutions. Currently the ONLY dedicated programming on mass media outlets is from those working actively AGAINST progress -- Fox TV and radio hosts, backed by Koch and company (fossil fuel money), etc. As long as we don't have the other side on as regularly -- five days a week, several hours a day, we will never win this battle. I am willing to bet my life, money and career on this, and in fact have. The missing media piece is a BIG part of the problem and I wish more could see that!! Thx.
For this to be possible, first you have to elect an administration
that puts global warming solutions as its primary policy.
Or one that doesn't falsely believe it to be a Chinese hoax.
Is the increase of CO2 good or bad?
It is great for plants.
Is warming good or bad?
More rain in California and South Africa to help with the water shortage.
Warming means more crops to feed the world.
Look into it
Even the founder of green peace has problems with this
@@johnmcclain5972 My car would get great gas mileage going over a cliff. Is going over a cliff good or bad? If I get shot in the head with a shotgun, my food bill is lowered DRAMATICALLY! Is getting shot in the head good or bad?
CO2 being great for plants doesn't help if there is a massive drought. I haven't seen any predictions of more rain overall, but more droughts overall.
When you say "look into it," do you mean watch a few youtube videos, or do you mean to actually read the primary sources? (The primary sources seem to disagree with you)
Orion Red
Your statement makes no logic.
The earth has been much warmer in the past and life boomed.
CO2 is extremely important for life on earth just as oxygen. Plants are how all life gets food in one way or other.
All life on the earth is carbon based and this carbon comes from CO2.
This bond with life and CO2 is a fact.
@@johnmcclain5972 Your statement makes sense only if you discount the importance of having a climate in which humans can live. Sorry, but you're just whistling pas the grave yard with your "CO2 is good" bullcrap.
This video was published in 2014 and now in 2019 the Federal Government of Canada has implemented this policy on provinces that have no Price-on-carbon Climate policy.
Do you have a link on something informative on how it was done, sounds interesting.
@@MatiasKiviniemi lol, search Alberta, Carbon Tax, Trudeau..... Cz Alberta is about to start talking seperation over carbon tax and Trudeau, I'd like to say he is the goat but he does it to himself. Terrible leader. Peace
Oh, p.s., carbon credits and tax won't do anything for the planet.... except drive up prices.
Rich, fossil fuel burners are going to say, "Oh, I guess we better find another way.", I don't think so, they are going to balance their books and keep truckin' until somebody comes with a court order to shut down the furnace. That will probably happen in about....... umm.......... mmh ............... uh............ hmmmm
“Co2 lasts forever”. He lost me there. It’s literally the key to life on earth.
Water is also a key to life on Earth, but too much of it (e.g., in your body or in your house) is not a good thing. I don't understand why that is a difficult concept to understand. The right amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere is great, but too much leads to global warming, sea level rise, etc. That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a key to life. But too much CO2 in the atmosphere is not a good thing.
Dan Miller I thought that there was no such thing as a perfect ‘equilibrium’.
Here’s a thought, would a higher co2 count in the atmosphere further promote the growth of forests?
@@andrew-mew The higher CO2 would promote more growth, but the increased heat, wildfires, droughts, and floods would destroy forests more than the CO2 would help.
There is only so much carbon a forest can store be before it has reached it's capacity.
Burning fossil fuels is like pumping millionaire of dead forests worth of carbon into the atmosphere causing the carbon cycle to be well and truly out of balance. You may as well debate, is there such thing as a greenhouse affect? Which is a pretty simple theory to understand. You put a blanket over something and it is going to heat up.
Does anyone realize how small .0038% is? That’s what portion of the atmosphere CO2 is. If we burned all the known fossil fuels, it will still never reach .004%
Historical evidence proves more CO2 equals more O2, equals more life on Earth. Humans are merely another species on this rock. We’ve come and gone more times than any other species, and never has man been able to add anything to the planet, the planet itself hasn’t ridden itself of.
This is the best presentation on climate change that I have ever seen. Thank Dan! Citizens Climate Lobby is trying to make this happen but needs help working this through Congress. See www.citizensclimatelobby.org for the full study that Dan references on creating jobs, etc. The idea of going from impossible to inevitable is right on. Great job.
What is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
@@irchristo According to climate scientist James Hansen, the maximum safe level is 350 ppm, though it may be lower. We are currently at 410 ppm and it's going up 2~3 ppm/year. The last time (millions of years ago) that CO2 levels were 410 ppm, sea levels were about 75 feet higher than today. It takes a while to melt that much ice, but that's where we are currently headed.
@@dannyastroYT Two things that concern me are 1. That plant life only benefits by higher CO2 concentration, (below 150 ppm, plants die) and, 2. That it is argued that warming earth and water releases CO2 rather than the other way around. (Plotting 410 ppm on a graph is so small - .04% - as to seem an inconsequential proportion of our atmosphere)
How, as a serious and thinking person do I resolve these inconsistencies?
I few short years from now we might look back on this talk and with wistfulness and sorrow to think that such an intelligent plan was not implemented. It certainly is not the whole solution to the connected tragedy of the irreversible damage we humans are doing to the planet, but it could (have?) possibly made an important difference.
nah we dead, you may as well just give up all your plans now... Or you can realize this all a hoax and they have been wrong now for over 150 years pushing all these climate hoaxes. Watch a dozen tony heller videos and you'll see they have you totally fooled. Just do it! You won't die listening to the other side that calls out BS on all of this. I laughed throughout just how wrong this guy is.
Whenever I hear the idea of tax & dividend, the folk song 'This Land is Your Land' plays in the back of my head…..
It's beautifully elegant: Each citizen is treated as an equal shareholder in the atmosphere, mirroring the fact that every citizen is already equal stakeholders in the atmosphere.
AND it's already been done in the US by that bastion of socialism, Alaska: The Alaska Permanent Fund reinvests taxes on oil and returns an annual dividend to each citizen of the state. In recent years it's been between $900 and $1800 per person.
Moron he is talking about the survival of the world through collective action and you associate it with socialism. It is as we were all in a swimming pool and you say he is peeing in the pool so am I. If he were taking about a Cheese threat with new weapons and they said taxes must be raised to confront this threat then your would not label it socialist/communist etc you would label it patriotism.
What is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Or stop buying oil-consuming toys like jet skis, motorhomes, snowmobiles, etc.
@@irchristo, the correct amount of CO2 is a minimum of 1600 ppm and a maximum of 10,000 ppm. Below 1600 ppm plants are starved. Above 1%, or 10,000 ppm, humans with compromised respiratory systems may have trouble breathing.
@@Ron_the_Skeptic "the correct amount of CO2 is a minimum of 1600 ppm and a maximum of 10,000 ppm. Below 1600 ppm plants are starved. Above 1%, or 10,000 ppm, humans with compromised respiratory systems may have trouble breathing.
"..........How did you arrive at these numbers?
Wow! Scaremongering in 1896, 1956, 2019.
The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, it ain't gonna stop now or tomorrow.
This is such a strange (and common) denier talking point. It's like saying that people can't start wildfires because there have been wildfires since before humans walked the planet.
@@dannyastroYT stop wf's!? Indeed Americans do not care whether '' starp" or "start", phonetically.
@Pistol Pete not half it is 90% look Georgia Guidestones
@@dannyastroYT talk about wildfires did you know that 183 climat activists have been arrested in Australia for starting at least 205 of the aprox. 250 fires .
@@richarddesbiens796 ... citations please.
If this fee and dividend were implemented, you know darn we will never see the dividend.
He is 100% right, putting a price on CO2 and the fee and dividend plan is the way to go. Cap and trade won't work at all.
let each one of us take our responsibility in living/acting the best way we can to help nature because actually we are nature. There is no separation. When we help and love nature we nuture ourselves
"Action on climate change will go from 'impossible' to 'inevitable', without ever going through 'probable'. The tipping point needs to be real soon. Great talk.
I'm sure the action tipping point will happen, though I'm not sure that it will happen in time. See my post on "Is Climate Going Off the Rails?": climateplace.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/is-climate-going-off-the-rails/
No one's talking about Animal Agriculture is responsible for at least half of climate change...
Craliney what’s that
@@JMTVRUclips its all agriculture having to do with animals (milk, meat, eggs, etc)
Craliney but how does that effect
@@JMTVRUclips Watch the documentary "Cowspiracy"
Craliney nah I’m good
I wish we could report comments (saying global warming isn't real) about being stupid.
why do you want to ban "deniers"? I don't really care to ban alarmists. I'm actually waiting for someone to give me some actual proof that we are doomed instead of propaganda bs and fear peddling. I listened to this guy speak, and I'm pretty skeptical about human caused climate change, but I wanted to see if this guy had some actual data... didn't see much. maybe the people he was speaking to understood his graphs, but I was wishing he could explain them in more detail...
Rachel Williams So basically you are saying that we shouldn't do something until we have certain proof. I can see what you mean but why wait when we can just help. It's for free, it will harm no one so what's the problem. Also by the time it is clear (there is evidence) climate change is caused by us, won't it be too late too still do something about it. As NASA said we have passed the tipping point.
Let me ask you a question, do comments like, "Climate change is fake we should use more coal." Help anyone? It is promoting an idea that contradicts everything I have learned in school about gasses, the earth, atmosphere and so on. Also why don't you give me data to prove climate change wrong.
Z3R0-P01nt [GD] "why wait when we can just help" help?? Help who? In what way? Wtf are you talking about??
The lion vs climate change comparison at 9:00. An amazingly simple and brutal assessment, especially the Al-Qaeda scenario.
WHY HAS THIS NOT GONE VIRAL? This is what the climate change protest needs to promote. Action needs to be taken and it needs to be taken NOW
the speaker Dan is a member of the board of carbon capture company Inventys Thermal Technologies.... he and his wallet thanks you for your support
@@outpostone-oh-five8529 I invest in clean technologies because I believe the scientists, not the other way way around.
@@dannyastroYT "climate science" is flawed and corrupt. A "science" that demonises THE most important molecule on the planet is more than corrupt. nothing wrong with investing in clean technologies.... pushing flawed and corrupt info to financially benefit from said "science" is immoral.
Crystal clear. U r very good at orating.
Everyone should pay close attention to this lecture.
The tricky part is moving our government. Perhaps you've noticed that our politicians are the best that money can buy, doing the bidding of exploitative corporations that don't share our priorities. While I support a revenue neutral carbon tax, I'm not going to wait for the US government. Perhaps my state government will move in that direction, but even they are beholden to fossil fuel donors.
Meanwhile, my community is moving toward a fossil fuel free future. We're getting out of cars, consuming a lot less, and building up a local democracy to protect our right to choose a sensible life without corporate influence. We're learning to grow our own food, pedal our own bikes, and care for our neighbors.
Where is this city?
Where are you?
Spoken like a true socialist! So you're amish then?
Also was just released by hundreds of scientists doing a major study that humanity has ZERO effect on the climate at all. so the issue is OVER. you can drop it now and start building coal plants again so poor people don't freeze to death during the winter and food production can go up and energy prices down. The issue is SETTTLED. there is no such thing as man made climate change.
So you can stop pretending that socialism is good. You will never stop until you can control who is allowed to be born and who can eat etc. Good luck dude.
@@raffiliberty5722 you're one sick puppy
@@waskele.wabbit717 That's your response? So you'd rather go along with government narratives that use any excuse to gain more power? When you don't believe in God you have to create one. That's all this rubbish is. Its incredible there has been ZERO shred of evidence to show that humanity has any effect on the climate or temperature. Not only that it has been cooler in the last 30 years. I like to actually look at data and go through it than believe in politically driven narratives by people who are usually godless, pro socialist and pro-UN etc.
Instead of calling me "one sick puppy" I CHALLENGE you to start watching some Tony Heller videos for the sake of your own integrity. I'm not saying agree with him but I'm saying that you should at least look at the ACTUAL data and numbers. By ALL metrics things are better today than they have been in the last 150 years since "science" began to record numbers and temperatures etc. The 1930's were FAR WORSE in every way than they are today. hurricanes, forest fires and so on are much less extreme and in number than they were. There is no global sea level rise that in any way has increased in the last 100 years. Glaciers are not melting to any higher degree, all of it is rubbish you believe in. Go do some actual research.
Best environment, social and economical solution I have ever heard off.
Two major fundamental measures to settle climate change;
(1) Respect orders of universe, how? Whatever to be done,climate change will never be solved unless human human principles of desire balance with climate change orders. They will always remain in friction.
(2) Solve a problem without causing a problem. For example; plastic industries solved problems while causing problems.
Good on you. Once over the shock of this report we can get proactive. I could live in a locaction where I can walk everywhere. I live 8 kms from the nearest town.
This is right on target. The Fee and Dividend, as proposed by Dr. James Hansen and promoted by the hard-working Citizens' Climate Lobby, is the one and only way to stop the bus quickly enough. Virtually all economists, from the most liberal to the most conservative, strongly agree. Only those who are deeply invested in the fossil fuel status quo (and don't care what happens to their offspring), or those who have been bamboozled by the professional deniers, remain opposed. As the speaker says, citizens have to go straight to their lawmakers and demand it. Numbers, numbers, numbers..
this guy has no idea who runs this country.
Rick Knight I disagree, the way to fight this as proposed by this video would not work and it is certainly not upheld by "most economists" as an economist myself from the UK, I can tell you this strategy holds absolutely no value in economic theory. As you tax the corporations, they pass that tax onto the consumer (as identified by the gentlemen). However if you then subsidise that consumer then demand goes up and becomes less elastic ( meaning people's demand will respond less than proportionally to a change in price). As the corporations will not feel the burn of the tax, And demand increases, profit for the firms will likely increase as well as demand, a new market equilibrium will be reached with a greater price and demand and supply. The burning of fossil fuels will only increase with this strategy. My next reply will contain my own view on how we solve this issue.
Rick Knight As identified in my first comment, I believe there is a better and more efficient way to protect and conserve the environment. It takes shape in the expansion, development and implementation of property rights. When someone owns something, they have a high incentive to look after it, the best example of this would be the comparison between public and private industries, be it education, healthcare etc. In these circumstances the private alternative is almost always more efficient, better quality and thus looked after better. If property rights were developed in such a way that you didn't just own your house, But the air around it to, and the local lake was not public, But someone owned that to, then pollution becomes impossible without suffering a law suit. If you pollute the air around my house, and I fall I'll as a result, then I have a pretty strong case against you the polluter. If you dump toxic waste in a stream that leads to my owned section of the river and incidentally my fish die and my water becomes useless, then I can sue you the polluter for damages. In this system, pollution would become extremely inefficient for businesses, therefore the continuation of such pollution would be considerably less likely.
Yeah right. More taxes are always the answer to every problem.
What is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Great piece! Take powerful action on this: join your local Citizens Climate Lobby group. CitizensClimateLobby.org . CCL commissioned the study Dan discusses, and CCL volunteers (like you) work closely with all US members of Congress. Also Canadian parliament, and the World Bank, IMF and UN. CCL will train you to present this material powerfully. Sorry about the pitch--it's for exactly what Dan Miller is talking about.
The peoples' love affair with cars is one of the main problems. In many major cities there is great transportation; trains, buses, underground railways, and yet people insist on owning cars.
Cars are not the problem. The problem is what drives them
It.s not cars, but corporate amerikka and the military industrial complex that is ruining our environment and historically defeating all who have come up with the solutions to environmental problems.
the main problem is that changing from a car based transport system would mean a major infrastructure overhaul which would cost billions and billions of dollars. It would be ideal to increase public transportation but in the day and age of covid 19 and other diseases making a comeback (not to mention antibiotic resistance which is another issue entirely), we have to wonder if it is the best idea?
Good talk. Thanks.
clear and concise
I’m fine with it’s as long as I don’t pay for it
@@dillondunning8415 Oh, you'll pay, don't worry everyone will
But my house runs on entirely solar and I have an electric car
Thank you, Dan! What a no-brainer the revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend is, and it's exactly what Citizens' Climate Lobby is working towards. Their proposal just won the popular choice award at MIT's contest for a US Carbon Price. Learn more at climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/planId/2802
are you going to have to wear a co2 monitor all the time and be charged a monthly fee for how much co2 you exhale? that's not fair to athletes. they undergo more physical exertion which causes a higher metabolic rate which expels more co2. maybe we should all just hold our breath until we suffocate to death. problem solved!
Well that was 4.5 years ago and it went nowhere. Sad.
That's true, but interest in Fee and Dividend is growing. Even ExxonMobile came out in support of it last year, albeit a dumbed down version. As I said, it will happen, but when it happens is up to us.
Thank you for the reply. After 4+ years I didn't think anyone would actually see this. Every effort is making a difference and it's good to hear what you put forward isn't dead in the water and proving me wrong. I appreciate that you didn't treat what I stated it as an off the cuff comment.
For a time I was more active in spreading the word of those that I believed would make a difference; John Lott for one. Lately, all that's left for me after 30 years of care taking for my wife and her sever TBI is trying to make intelligent(?) comments and sending letters where I can. The above you replied to not was not an example.
You obviously put a great deal of time and effort into the system you proposed. Every effort, like yours, Allen Savory and others, will make the difference. I on the other hand can only share, in what I hope is in an intelligent manor, with people about people that have what in my opinion are either possible or proven methods.
Thank you again.
Woah! This is what I call a world changing talk..👏
ahhh yes, the world has dropped 2 degrees since he did this...
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Not true. 2020 was a record warm year & 2022 was 6th warmest during a cooling La Niña and likely to be the coolest year for evermore.
@@climatechat 2020 was a record warm year? 😂🤣 the planet was warmer 1200 years ago than it is today...
Awesome Presentation
Thank you for enlightening us all.
This may be the best presentation on a version of the carbon tax and it's potential benefits that I've every heard. It's way simpler than cap and trade and pretty direct across the global economy as well. I very much liked the inclusion of the Bell Lab science series with Baxter and Carlson. I had forgotten that but I did watch it at the time, a long time ago.
Sounds like a great strategy.
Let’s do this! 👍🏻
Excellent presentation
I'm mostly worried about all the animals, they are completely vulnerable and there's nothing they can do. It's all our fault that these innocent creatures are dying but yet we keep producing plastic and driving petrol cars
Excellent talk Dan, thank you for all your hard work!
Reduce planet overpopulation, better waste management by building incineration plant stations on the ocean away from the coastlines, eliminate fossil fuel usage for transportation & home usage, using renewable energy that is managed & sustained such as solar energy & forrestry usage, electric capability products & better recycling laws to reduce & reuse waste products & prohibiting landfill usage.
In a world that is not run by greedy coporations that run our politicians.
To fight the impact of droughts, it is important
to find ways to produce stark based energy available
not through the growth of plants but via industrial
production.
Protein the same.
Minerals and vitamins added and there you go
hanging on to dear life with a daily ration of
what you might almost call 'soilent green'..
This is brilliant .
It is all about you, your loved ones and your offspring who exist in reality and in manifestations of your dreams. I am aware this talk was given out by Dan Miller with a deep concern that he took the initiative to share more than five years ago. Thanks Dan for breaking out of the waiting queue. Five years is like 5 minutes when it comes to the subject of Global Warming. That's not a joke, trust me! We may not feel the difference over our entire life time and not realize our due role to save the planet for our future generations at the moment of our death. The solution of TAX to Dividend proposed by him can be one of several solutions. The less we depend on the government that has many more past and current problems as a bigger burden, the better pragmatic solutions we can devise. It is our joint responsibility as a human team including people old, young, children, male female, rich, poor etc, from the global nation to listen, understand, ponder over, evaluate the situation by a process in our left brain, right brain and heart with due respect to the concern originating people like Dan who have taken the pains to bring out a concern with the genuine quest for a solution. The national boundaries we perceive are not real. Not in the case of Global Warming. Covid-19 has proved this point. Global Warming will not be impacted by social distancing. So we need to put our heads and hearts together to focus on topics like: minimize deforestation, transition to electric vehicles, encourage or actively take up research and development on hybrid power generation from solar, wind and hydro energy apart from moth-balling all nuclear plants. Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 but these plants produce pollutants heavier than CO2 in effective damage. Trust me, I have performed the lead role as Station Engineer, in a nuclear plant operation crew in the 80s. Focus on evolving deserts into forests! It is possible!! We just need to trust and inspire the young potential heroes and experts among us who love to prove their talents in saving the planet - our Mother Earth. I strongly urge and love to invite all concerned on this subject, in the age group of 11 to 111 years, purely for the joy of life on Mother Earth who loves to take care of our offspring, to participate in a brainstorming session some time. It is forthcoming soon after we see your responses to this comment. Enjoy life! Thank you.
I just came upon this wonderful, hopeful comment, thank you. Going to copy and keep. Liked seeing here, especially, each of 3 parts in this section of what you said 1)"Nuclear plants do not produce CO2 but these plants produce pollutants heavier than CO2 in effective damage." { I did not know this} "Trust me, I have performed the lead role as Station Engineer, in a nuclear plant operation crew in the 80s." 2) "Focus on evolving deserts into forests! It is possible!!" and 3) "We just need to trust and inspire the young potential heroes and experts among us who love to prove their talents in saving the planet - our Mother Earth"
I was currently feeling so hopeless about our Earth's biological "breakdown", but this helped a bit.
I love it! We also need to act FAST about reducing meat consumption, which is a HUGE contributor to global warming, deforestation and the extinction of species via destruction of their habitat.
animals can eat between trees, it's only the american corporations' intensive farming practices of animal agriculture that causes this. mono crops are actually the biggest cause of deforestation, again, mostly an american led form of agriculture, mostly for soya in borneo. so these 'do-gooder' vegans arent doing much better than meat eaters re environmental destruction. in fact, they usually think LESS about where their food comes from in general. nor dot hey realise how the oestrogen in soya disrupts their endocrine system, making them more vulnerable to illnesses n stressors. those who traditionally eat soya, eat it once it's fermented for this reason.
There is also the concern of reduced soil fertility. uk has lost 40% of it's soil fertility since WW2. not even organic farming puts back the nutrients it extracts from the soil. We need to go back to sustainable farming practices, food forests etc. everyone who has a garden should be growing part of their own consumption of food. food shortages will increase n growing ur own food will make one less dependant on the current systems n increase food security
Is that fair tothe livestock? Just checking.
Stop tree cutting! Deforestation = Stoopid human endeavor
I think I'll make a steak after reading your ridiculous statement! lol Meat is not destroying the planet silly - governments destroy the planet, not people and certainly not fossil fuels.
@@raffiliberty5722 Maybe... Idk, do surface-level research before you act like you're better than everyone else?
The Answer is Holistic land management with combined herds of cattle flattening the grassland thus protecting the soil from drying out and preventing desertification see Allan Savory.
thank you dan miller
Thought provoking idea.
very good presentation!
this needs more views -claps hands-
Why is this not a bigger thing???
It's now 2019. The drought predictions were certainly accurate and then some for where I live in CA.
6:19 "So one of the biggest impacts of this CENTURY is going to be extreme drought and famine". He didn't say that the decade long mega-drought would occur from 2014 to 2024. He was talking about the probabilities of it occurring prior to 2100.
haha, NO. Not sure where you are looking but droughts are NOT increasing. They have levels off to usual levels. Not a single person died of drought in the US in over 15 years! Its not hard to read an actual chart that shows drought levels. Meanwhile we have more rainfall than every before - thank you sun!
I love the "some for where I live in CA" as though CA is the metric for global drought data. lol. Again, look this stuff up. I date you to spend a few weeks watching as many Tony Heller videos as you can. You won't die, you may actually learn something, especially how long they have been pushing these climate myths.
@@raffiliberty5722 Meanwhile huge areas here in Australia are suffering from the worst drought in recorded history...
Russell Moore that is bs. Ours is a land of drought and flooding rains and most of the current problems are policy not drought. Rivers are full but because of policy of dividing land from water ownership we have farmers unable to access full rivers running past their farms owned by overseas companies. Please don’t confuse policy with actual drought.
@@deepthought5459 Tell me where in New South Wales and Queensland are these full rivers? You do know that only 5% of tilled farms in Australia are irrigated don't you? The rest are dry land farms that rely on rainfall, rainfall that is far below average and has been for years in a lot of places. 100% of NSW is drought declared, almost every regional city in NSW is under extreme water restrictions. Bushfires are ravaging areas in NE NSW and SE QLD as I type this. But of cause it is policy that is causing this...
A threat is a threat, start taking care of right away. Since climate change takes time to overcome, need to have long term approach.
Dealing with climate change, while it would be beneficial in the long run, would require tremendous economic sacrifice in the short term. In an economy where increasing numbers of people are in economic distress, they are reluctant to make that sacrifice. I'm not sure if people believe it is as straight forward as this gentleman asserts. I'm not sure we're up to the challenge.
So far, we are not up to the challenge. But this policy helps people in distress and that is one of the reasons I support it.
I am going to tell my classmates no matter what. Those Guys in the class who think they're cool are mostly
dumb and dont care at all. And i know from Some people that they really do care, but they are just too affraid to say so. And If i bring the subject to the conversation, they Will probably "come out" as Well.
Jan Abrahamse Cool is someone who cares ✅🧸
"After all, he lived in Sweden" -- and I presume didn't care about skiing.
I feel really sad for my climate change activist friends.
I can't see them winning the fight.
Well, at least your climate activist friends are trying.
we need to unite.
Your friends don’t need your sympathy, they need you to pick a side, and have empathy for them, and everyone and everything on this planet. You get up every day knowing your going to die one day. Take action to build a world you want to see. We all have too much to lose.
Do you mean the activists who are promoting climate change, or those who want to mitigate it?
I do not feel sad at all for the idiots.
Brilliant talk. So simple. We will never do it.
Not unless we "the people" do it deliberately and pass multiple alternative options for the public. But more often than not, people will vote for the Trump in the room, rather than the one with the better policies and rules like Bernie.
It hi
yeah brilliant ,...the working man will pay and when carbon based energy costs more ,the renewabels companys he has invested in become competitive,GeNIUS
Actually, the "working man" will make more on the dividend than they pay in higher prices caused by the carbon fee, so low and middle class people make money on the deal! Genius!
@@dannyastroYT Mr miller,why is my reply not visible enymore.If it,s something innacurate i could edit it for you
@@giorgiotortellini8845 TED moderates this forum, not me.
@@dannyastroYT I re edited it now,tryed to be softer ..let,s see if this is political editing by ted
@@dannyastroYT A little bit reality.
We are already living in the green U.N. nightmare in europe and with"we" i mean the low and middle class.
The “single biggest way” for individuals to take action against climate change is to become vegan according to Oxford University study of 40,000 farms in 119 countries. United Nations also called to tax meat to save the environment but meat and dairy industry that is bigger than oil industry and has a stronghold on governments. Harvard University study “eating away climate change” proposes switching entire U.K. over to plant based agriculture and part reforestation in order to meet Paris agreement and avoid 1.5 degree rise. Check NHS (UK national health service) website for safe qualified advice on nutrition for vegans - advice for all ages from pregnancy to infants to adults. (Avoid relying social media for health/nutrition advice). Greta Thunberg is vegan, David Attenborough doesn’t eat meat. To check the huge climate savings based on food choices check “BBC climate change food calculator” and punch in some of your favourite foods to see the impact.
Giles Mitchell "punch in"??? You mean type in.
COME ON PEOPLE TURN OFF LIGHT I REPEAT TURN OF LIGHTS TO STOP THIS I'M BEGGING YOU PLEASE
turning lights off ain't going to cut it.
+Aaron L well at least it's gonna do something unlike you 🙄
+Cutiepanda36 I agree, but you have no idea what I'm doing.
+Aaron L just turn of lights or look up stuff How to stop it
Cutiepanda36 I'm on it Panada.
Thanks for your contribution, Dan. I'll use some points in a talk I'm preparing. I think that the "impoliteness" point you make is more central than you give it credit. My reasoning is tied to the point about "there's no enemy." We are deeply programmed to group expectation (the bystander effect being an example) and ALWAYS about that first. So naming and busting that tendency is job #1 imho. It's so deep in us we can't "believe" we do it . . . even when we hear about it!
Love your clarity around Fee and Dividend!
You will probably appreciate reading the book by George Marshall "DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change"
Dan, I tried reading it, twice. I just could not read that thing. I found the pixillated detail frustratingly devoid of a narrative to tie it together. To take notes I'd have to write the book again. Nothing sticks, for me anyway. I also enjoyed your longer youtube talk on all this.
Check out the book What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming by Per Espen Stoknes, a Norwegian economist and psychologist. He lays out the psychological pitfalls behind climate communications and then how to step around those pitfalls to effectively communicate.
Great talk with excellent points on why we ignore climate change and what we can do to address it. I am working in Asia on this and trying to inspire people, systems and governments to address it - are there any plans for you Dan to visit South East Asia in the near future ?
No plans to visit South East Asia soon, but you are welcome to download the slides and give the talk yourself! Visit ClimatePlace.org.
Dan Miller this is great - thanks Dan - how to interpret non commercial use ? I give a lot of green talks based on my passion to mobilize others - some free, some for a small fee, some for a bigger fee ..... in practical terms overall I am not making money with this if I take my cost into consideration .... so is that considered non commercial ?
Matthias Gelber There are images and videos in my presentation that fall under the Creative Commons license or Fair Use statutes. You need to determine yourself whether your use of these items is allowed in the country you are using them or whether you need to ask for further permission. I would think if you are using them for educational use and are not making a profit on these presentations, then you may be OK.
Economic growth channeled into renewables will not be enough because growth promotes business competition, which results in development activities that maintain and accelerate deforestation patterns. Reforestation has to be a strong, maybe the strongest, component of economic reforms. This is because the CO2 that's already been released has to be reabsorbed and sequestered and only living, growing wood absorbs carbon and buries it underground as root growth. Unless economic activities actively work to increase the land-area covered by thriving tree canopy throughout deforested areas, including cities and other human developments, CO2 will have nowhere to go and the deforested areas will absorb and release sunlight as heat that builds up due to CO2 blanketing.
Reforestation is a double-edged sword to reduce CO2 climate effects because it both absorbs CO2 and buries it underground as root growth AND tree canopies shade the ground, buildings, and pavements from sunlight that gets absorbed and released into the air as heat and humidity, another greenhouse gas. If trees are cut, their wood dies and decays into CO2 and the area they once shaded becomes a solar heater that absorbs sunlight and heats up. So while stimulating economic reform with fee-and-dividend stimulus may help advance cleaner energies and technologies, it may also support continuing development and deforestation, which is currently not conscientious enough to fit buildings between trees instead of clearing land and replacing trees with buildings.
Deforestation is a big problem that must be addressed. Fee and Dividend does not address the problem but you could imagine putting a fee on deforestation.
Reforestation is a good thing but it is not a long-term solution to climate change since the carbon in the trees is still in the biosphere so when the trees die (due to drought, wildfire, bark beetle, or natural causes) most of the CO2 will be returned to the atmosphere.
It is possible to inject CO2 far underground (back where it came from) or inject it into to certain rock formations that will turn it into a solid (carbonate) in a decade or so.
You're correct that the economic stimulus caused by Fee and Dividend will have some negative environmental consequences. More draconian policies might reduce emissions while driving down the economy, but I can't imagine those policies being adopted until things get much worse (though we might not need to wait long for that).
Dan Miller
Living trees sequester carbon, energy, and water both above ground in their trunks and limbs as well as underground in their root systems. Water vapor in the atmosphere also blankets heat so sequestering carbon alone doesn't prevent unsequestered sunlight from causing evaporation that blankets heat. The living biosphere, through its trees and other water-based ecological forms channels energy through systems that slow dissipation of energy as heat and prevent evaporation and blanketing of heat by water.
There's nothing draconian about reforesting human developments, except to the extent that many people aesthetically prefer to remove trees from developed areas. Aesthetic preference is not a good excuse for poor management of planetary energy, however. Life evolved to thrive between the ground and the top of the canopy, for the most part. The canopy is Earth's mechanism for absorbing sunlight and transfering the energy underground, where it sinks, fossilizes, and get gradually released as heat that keeps underground water warm enough to keep trees alive in winter. We tend to think of underground temperatures as being due to primordial radioactivity stored within the core, but in all likelihood, sunken biomass plays a roll since the core would have cooled faster if it was isolated from any form of energy-input since the formation of the solar system.
Several good suggestions!
if it's so important....HOW COME THAT IT HASN'T SUBTITLES? ...
Julian Choque that’s the reason!
Be cause the only people having difficulty hearing what he has to say are deniers 😁
@Pistol Pete actually I play it up the middle here. I don't brush off climate change at all yet I feel that it's not as dire as it's made out in some " circles"
Amazing that he was allowed to talk that way in Orange County. I only wish he had the courage to include the fossil fuel industry's behavior in his talk, so that people would begin to understand how we got to this unthinkable point in our specie's history.
Some town managers are now reporting that the recycling process is proving too expensive to recycle. As I said you can't get to zero. There will be some waste. A move away from certain plastics that do end up in the ocean would be helpful. Hemp products can be used to act as containers.
Now if you actually looked tuff up, reclining cause more CO2 emissions than if you just threw it out into a landfill and used new plastics from drilling. You guys are wrong on EVERYTHING its not even funny.
Climate change " ok we got it "
Particulate pollutants causing disease thats contaminated all life on earth and in the sea " we never hear about that "
- silent spring was published by an American author 70 years ago and were still just talking about these issues today in America. We deserve whats coming to us and what weve allowed to happen.
The man has a real plan.
Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" who was a marine biologist and was called every name in the book including a communist because she was destroying American Industry and our way of life. She died the year I graduated high school 1964. Sounds just like those that are advocating we don't deal with climate change as that is a hoax. And, then those who were against the EPA which was going to destroy American Industry but saved countless lives. You can fix ignorance but you can't fix stupidity.
we have this fee in switzerland but in my opinion you should make it wayyy higher
Ready, Aim, Firebreather how well does it seem to work
100% agree
Gee! I don't see why we don't do it! This is so simple! And so is he. Two things: one; re climate change we are pretty sure that some stuff will happen - we don't really know what - witness that we don't call it global warming anymore; two; stopping causing a CO footprint is going to be expensive, and hard to do, with many bumps along the way. "May you live in interesting times"....
A couple of points:
It will be much, much more expensive to NOT lower our carbon footprint compared to lowering it.
It has always been called "climate change". The first papers in the 1950's called it that and the UN bogy formed in the 1980's) is call the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change!
www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
If people could just wrap their heads that change is always hard in the beginning, but it gets oh so much easier later on. "The hardest part of space exploration is the liftoff, but it'll be smooth from hereon out".
Truly Great ! ! What an amazing speaker ! Why don't we have a President like him ?
Its 2019 and nothing like this has been done. Welcome to the Sixth Extinction. old geologist
6:19 "So one of the biggest impacts of this CENTURY is going to be extreme drought and famine". He didn't say that the decade-long mega-drought would occur from 2014 to 2024. He was talking about the probabilities of it occurring prior to 2100.
I’m turning off unused lights, combining driving errands, lowering the thermostat, minimizing AC.
Dave Hill if you choose chicken over meat you would be making a bigger impact, and if you gave up meat and dairy completely, you would be making a profound impact.
No if everyone did that we could delay global warming 10 whole years
Personal action doesn't scale. To survive, people need to make a social inversion.
Meanwhile 98% of rest of the world burns fossil fuels. The only real solution us to stop our consumption of all things material. Dont hold your breath waiting for that to happen
everyone support greta thunberg as much as you can
Another gullible person who is willing to let the government into our lives and give up personal freedoms for a globalist scam.
What an example it really touched my heart. Even i beleive that we always go for things which causes threat immediately. We never think about the future outcomes
Smart! Vote for change. Vote for your children's future.
Same Song an dance since 1958....with No data verification in 1958.
The World is gonna end, soon, So give me you're Money.
Except the dividend won't go towards sustainability
Exactly, you think most Americans are going to invest the money to make their property more energy efficient, yeah right.
it would still make using fossil fuels expensive, which is still a win situation
"the fossil fuel companies pay that fee (which is ultimately paid by the consumer) ... then we take that money and dividend it out to everyone so they can pay that cost (fee), but also so you can buy a fuel efficient car and other things..."
Hmmmmm....apparently economics was not a course he took in college.
Yes it was. Wealthy people use far more CO2 than the average person and governments generate about 30% of the CO2 but don't get a dividend. Therefore, most households (the bottom 70%) make more on the dividend than they pay in higher prices due to the fee (according the US Treasury). The wealthy pay more but it only a small amount to them. And note that it is not necessary for people to spend their dividends on clean energy for the policy to work. The purpose of the policy is to raise the cost of fossil fuels so that the price of fossil fuels more closely reflects its true cost to society. This will make clean energy alternatives more competitive.
We love how you explain such a complicated complex theme. We see the lion :)
Totally agree with your carbon fee and dividend system.
Great talk but talking about money as the solution will keep the arguement in status quo and nothing will happen. It's better to just clean up the planet, plant more trees, incentivise corporations to reduce rather than tax, ban the chopping down of the rainforests, and actually invest in adding more oxygen and clean energy technology.
While we need to reforest the planet, invest in cleantech R&D, and do similar things, they won't be enough as long as we let fossil fuels pollute the atmosphere for free. You can think of that as an enormous subsidy for fossil fuels so the clean technologies cannot compete on a level playing field. As far as climate change is concerned, the only thing that matters is total cumulative global emissions, so it's not enough to only increase clean energy production. We need to also rapidly decrease dirty energy production. The best way to do that is to make it more expensive.
Dan Miller ... and Fee & Dividend and Border fees on CO2, no matter how effective, won't prevent at least another 0.6 C temperature rise. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere can do that, at least in part, which is why a massive effort to regenerate landscapes with more biomass and soil carbon in the form of topsoil is necessary. This will also aid in halting desertification and biodiversity loss/extinction, which are threatening us as well. Other important benefits include the ability to increase soil moisture, and generate albedo producing clouds and much needed raindrops through nucleation from trees, both of which are cooling effects. Maybe this critical and necessary work can be integrated and pad for somehow within the Fee & Dividend and CO2 Tariff mechanisms.
Dan Miller Fee & Dividend sounds too good to be true, and I fear it is. Developing and scaling up clean-energy technology will require the use of fossil fuels (that will be increasingly expensive because of both depletion and Fee & Dividend). It's hard to see how CO2 emissions can be reduced by 52% while simultaneously growing GDP. That's leaving aside the continuing dependence of renewable energy sources on fossil fuels for construction and maintenance.
The future is one of less energy and negative growth, and presumably the end of growth-dependent capitalism. There may be a role for some form of Fee & Dividend, but it cannot be simply grafted onto BAU.
klondike444 You should remember that the "external" costs of fossil fuels are real and must be paid by you, me, and the rest of society. This means that fossil fuels are not as cheap as they appear and our economy is running inefficiently. By putting a price on fossil fuels, we will use fossil fuels and renewable energy more efficiently and our economy will run more efficiently. Most European nations have much higher taxes on fossil fuels and their carbon footprint is about half of ours in the U.S., even though most of them have a very high standard of living.
So you can view Fee and Dividend as helping to correct what Sir Nicholas Stern calls "the biggest market failure in history".
Dan Miller Fossil fuels were cheap but are becoming more expensive - hence the ongoing economic problems. It is a mistake to think in terms of money rather than energy return on investment (EROI). Using energy more efficiently means you run into the Jevons Paradox, and are likely to use more of it, and more of other depleting resources, increasing the impact on the environment overall. That applies to all economies, and the US is just one of the major players.
Again, renewable energy sources turn out to need a large fossil fuel input, and mostly produce electricity, but industrial civilization is very dependent on liquid fuels: it will take an enormous investment of energy, including fossil fuels, and other resources to change that situation. Conventional (cheap) oil peaked in 2005, fracking will soon start to peter out, and the oil exported by producing nations is falling each year, faster than conventional output.
Energy availability is going to fall. Current input from renewables, not counting hydroelectric, is tiny. Climate change is not going to wait for us to gradually modify our behavior via financial policies. I do not think you have the solution to our self-created crisis.
ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/18/eight-pitfalls-in-evaluating-green-energy-solutions/
www.truth-out.org/news/item/27392-abundant-clean-renewables-think-again
ourfiniteworld.com/2014/01/21/ten-reasons-intermittent-renewables-wind-and-solar-pv-are-a-problem/