'Green' tech can’t save us from climate change | All Hail The Planet
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 ноя 2022
- “Earth’s resources are limited - but human ingenuity is infinite!” That's the belief at the heart of the techno-optimist view that technology and innovation can provide solutions to the ecological breakdown. But are tech innovations actually delaying the most crucial climate action of all - slashing emissions?
Join Ali in the second episode of #AllHailThePlanet - a series delving into the social, economic and political forces undermining meaningful global action on climate change.
In this episode, Ali Rae speaks with Professor of Energy and Climate Change, Kevin Anderson, environmentalist and co-founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, writer and energy analyst Ketan Joshi and Åsa Larsson Blind, Vice President of the Saami Council in Finland.
Subscribe to our channel bit.ly/AJSubscribe
Follow us on Twitter / ajenglish
Find us on Facebook / aljazeera
Check our website: www.aljazeera.com/
@AljazeeraEnglish
#Aljazeeraenglish
#aljazeeradigitalseries
#climatechange #climatecrisis #weather #allhailtheplanet #allhail
"There is the problem with the assumption that technology equals salvation. This is becoming a modern religion in many cultures in the world. Developed nations increasingly believe that technology really is their salvation now. There is a problem? Well, technology will solve it. There is something we cannot understand? Well, technology will overcome it. There is a situation that could arise for which we are unprepared? Well, technology will meet the challenge.
“We will meet the challenge with our technology in the eleventh hour.” There is a sort of unquestioned belief that technology is going to save you, regardless of what might happen-technology mixed with human ingenuity, that is. And no matter how overwhelming a situation might be, well, ingenuity plus technology will win the day in the final moments.
Can you see that this is all part of the denial? Wishful thinking is what it is."
A quote from a book by Marshall Vian Summers. I highly recommend checking out his two books on the subject - *_The New World_* and *_The Great Waves of Change_* - which are free online along with all his other work.
Anyone familiar with Bjørn Lomborg can see this is what he uses for his denialism. He keeps claiming that the technology isn't here yet, but technological advances will save us with the addition of "if climate change is real" spoken or unspoken.
It's like i say:
The narrative of what i call "Cornucopian Pollyannas" has done more for inaction in regards to ecological problems like AGW than whatever climate change deniers could ever possibly come up with.
"someone will just invent something that will make the problem go away" is the new "god will fix it"
What gets me about all this technology business is that the technology itself often creates more problems, such as the demand for lithium in the electric car batteries. I have read most of Marshall Vian Summers books and think they hold the true key to humanities ability to survive in the next stage of our evolution. We must find a way to live with nature in a sustainable way, caring for and about one another. Being of service to the earth, each other and life itself. thank you for mentioning Marshall's work here Ivan, the world needs to be more aware of the power and wisdom it contains.
@@alwalw9237 Sorry, lithium isn't worse than fossil fuels.
What you're using is called a Nirvana Fallacy where any solution has to be perfect. Lithium is a stop gap on the way to other technologies. It's not the end result. It's not perfect but it's still far better than fossil fuels, for now.
Thanks Ivan, I am appreciating Marshall Vian Summers' books more than ever today, as his warnings are proven to be quite accurate.
Great video that spells out the problem so clearly. Such an important statement from Dr. Kevin Anderson: "We like their view of the future (big tech leaders) because it means we haven't got to change the present." Wise words regarding taking action now and not waiting for a tech solution in the future. Imagine all of the resources being used for what could be done in the future were used now to address immediate problems. The world would look very different. It can be done but the will to do it must be there.
Very true! Let's hope that people will garner enough vision to see what needs to be done clearly.
Thank you
It's not so much the will to do it. It's more so the "What's in it for me?" or "How can I take advantage of this?" mentalities behind it all.
It's not just businesses that think this way though. Those same environmentalists, climate alarmists, etc, likely had those same thoughts.
Go vegan!
The best way I've seen in said is "you cannot consume your way out of overconsumption." "Green tech" is just a bandaid. The production of these techs is not green at all.
Thank you for another great film, but reminds me of a previous documentary on AJ "the dark side of green energy", showing how renewables & electric vehicles also have a huge carbon & waste footprint to deal with. Please include about this and how circular design is so essential to reduce emissions & waste in your next videos.
Thank you for the subtitles! Accurate (human-generated) and readable (contrasted with changing background).
This is an awesome series you're making and I hope to see more of it soon. It helps to confirm a lot of concerns with these supposed solutions being sold to us.
I think, the technologies will not save us in time, and due to our human behaviors, we will also not make the changes required (like consuming less) to save ourselves.
The movie Don't Look Up exposes the situation so well! The billionaires who claim to have the solution will doom us all because we have no guarantee that they are gonna succeed in the timeframe needed! We have to do what is necessary, now! And that starts with re-evaluating how we live our life and ask for political changes to facilitate our way into reducing our consumption
You have created an amazing Climate movement here on digital media 🙏. The content is intriguing and the way you present it is simply awesome. Looking forward to more engaging programs on the subject. 👍
Degrowth is what is needed. Less energy use, whether clean, dirty, finite or renewable, less economic activity and a lower population. Everything is tecno bargaining as in the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross 5 stages of grief.
You missed the fundamental up stream change we need. You said it repeatedly, but even your wonderful show did not just say directly, "Rapacious Profiteering is Killing the Planet. And the Business Model of the Rich and POWERFUL, Needs to be Eliminated!" Less carbon emissions, reigning in ocean and forest destruction, everything all hinges on the Real Change of unseating our bad leadership.
This was an excellent piece of work! Thank you
I liked the video, but it doesn’t really tackle the fundamental bottom line questions the video itself is almost suggesting, (but it doesn't) so it end up being a bit shallow and a bit more of the same surface analysis that doesn’t really say much, good intentions but not much critical thinking.
The main difficulty towards avoiding the use of fossil fuels is the entanglement of the economic and political systems, which are one and the same, they're all unsustainable.
It is quite clear that the winners of the current economic and political system are the ones molding and directing the policies all around the globe, also the ones that don’t what anything to be changed, also the ones that (apparently have the solutions). So the discussion is about changing the political and economical system, not so much about technologies or individual consumption. What we need is collective action at a scale never seen before, and that in other words is called a revolution. The capitalist class will never give up their throne even if that means the destruction of everyone else, cos apparently they 're shooting themselves to mars.
2 things; one, we keep multiplying with no end on sight and two, as the covid showed, many among us are irrational and if a little virus couldnt be understood and properly reacted to, neither will a gigantic all encompassing catastrophe.
Yes we are toasted.
Technology can help of course, but not within the parameters of the market-system, while being applied primarily to help increase profits at the expense of our ecosystem.
Wealthy nations are proven to be the greater stewards of the environment. The most polluted rivers and air exist in the developing world. Profit is not some avarice objective. It's the incentive and the reward for risk taking. It's how innovation and technological advancements are achieved.
@@anthonymorris5084 Wealthy nations are responsible for the majority of anthropogenic co2, but in the last few decades we have off-shored much of our co2 production to other countries, chief amongst them China.
@@christinearmington Wealthy nations are responsible for the modern world, rising longevity, disease eradication, medical advancements, unimaginable food production, recycling programs, environmental laws and stewardship, human rights advocacy, advancing technologies, scientific breakthroughs, higher education, economic growth, poverty reduction, foreign aid and on and on and on, all brought to you by inexpensive reliable fossil fuel energy.
How does planned obsolescence affect CO2 production?
Ask economists about the depreciation of durable consumer goods and Net Domestic Product.
Thank-you all involved for this excellent episode. With so much misinformation in the MSM, it's so heartening to find these snippets of truth and sanity.
Remember it's the original big technological breakthrough--agriculture--that got us into this mess. Subsequent ones (Haber-Bosch ammonia synthesis, computing revolution, fossil fuel mining and exploitation) have only accelerated ecological collapse and climate change, despite being hailed at the time as the solutions to humanity's problems. More tech is seductively attractive, but history shows it won't get us out of this jam.
@3:08: Exactly! All we need to do is preface products with "smart" and BAM, problem solved! Somebody pay this man!
Beautiful program
great series, keep up the good work!
New innovations, technology, and tools are not the problems. The problem is mass production and consumption without any understanding of its consequence to life and the planet.
Thank you.
Excellent work.
Can't we do geo-engineering and work on reducing emissions at the same time?! They don't seem like mutually exclusive plans of action.
Well, problem with geo engineering is : What if we mess up trying to explicitly geo engineer our planet on a large scale then we set into chain of events that's makes our current scenario seem like a fairytale?
Thing is, There are soo many variables (some we know and some we don't) that need to be taken into account. Let's just say that we can try this when we cna perfectly predict all occurrences on Earth so that we can produce prefect models to simulate a world where such geo-engineered solutions are deployed
I love this series, thanks!
Please do more videos, relating it with poverty, population control politics, hunger, disaster, philanthrocapitalism, research, geopolitical dimension etc
Well Done !!
Fabulous work! Should be required viewing
Very insightful!
very informative and well produced content. I'm surprise by the relatively low number of views/likes
Outstanding 👍🤩
@0:10: The gibberish is strong with this one. He could be a politician.
The misspelling at 20:25, where the only words on the screen, in large capital letters, are "RENEWABLE ENERY" (sic) could be seen as symbolizing the sloppy nature of this video. Nowhere do you mention:
accessible fossil fuels are being rapidly depleted;
"renewables" depend on (depleting) fossil fuels for their production (mining, mineral processing, transport, construction, replacement); at 2019 mining rates it would take hundreds or thousands of years to obtain some of the materials for even one generation of "renewables";
the daily and, more importantly, seasonal intermittency of "renewables" and the lack of battery technology coming anywhere close to addressing this;
"renewables" produce electricity, but most of the energy an industrial economy uses comes from fossil fuels, especially oil; the video equates electricity with total energy used.
There will be much less energy in the future (in addition to climate change). We can try to adapt with degrowth and a much reduced population, or wait for both to be inflicted on us. They will happen either way.
Excellent video. The fight against denial of climate change is won, the fight against green growth and other forms of unwillingness to eliminate root causes is not.
In all this opposing, it still remains important and a task for media to showcase the complete concepts how these root causes can get eliminated. There isn't just electricity producion which relies on fossil fuels, but also heating and traffic. Renewables don't just have to replace non-renewable electricity production, but also non-renewable heat and fuels.
How does a hydrogen economy function?
How is the storage problem of green electricity generation dampened by hydrogen production?
How do we prevent solutions to climate change from worsening the other ecological problems like biodiversity loss and pollution?
How to reduce the energy demand of traffic?
How to reduce the energy demand of heating? Do we have labour and production capacity to install heat pumps in all buildings until 2029?
How much capacity for renewable electrcicity is added every year and how much would be needed to also replace fossil demand for heat, mobility?
Explaining why something is the wrong path is important, but nothing prevents the next distraction better than presenting a comprehensive outline for a sustainable adaptation strategy.
Well explained
21:05 ‼️‼️
imho, economists need to keep explaining how our market system will confront climate change. remember also that for some, challenging our economy is akin to treason.
Technology that helps humanity is technology that's not privately owned for market competition and profit.
I am happy to see the primary point of getting out of this problem of the climate crisis by not technological advancement, it can be done by addressing the problem and standing to change the system to save the earth, not arguing to go on another planet😂 as Elon musk said. We will save the earth because we love it.
13:50 wait a second, which technology is that?
I think it is a stretch to compare lacing our atmosphere with sulphur to the Chernobyl Disaster is a bit of a stretch! I think we have to be try everything... but cautiously.
11:20
Waaaaait a second. Are you telling me that some people are so cynical as to tell me lies that buttress both my indignation *and* self-righteousness just so they can be billionaires? It can't be. Surely that would be illegal and "the market" itself would protect against it.
Wait you are saying that that green techno capitalist crack is just plain capitalist crack.... Ok...but it's less filling right? Lol
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences ....
As long as the elephant in the room (human overpopulation) is ignored, the argument about climate change is moot. Human population growth correlates a whole lot with acceleration of species extinction, topsoil loss, lack of clean air, clean water, deforestation, etc. As long as people want to keep the blame solely on big corporations (who are really only in business because their business never stops booming) the argument is moot.
Agreed,when it comes to overpopulation suddenly all math and simple common sense is gone
yes..... I can see a worldwide movement of people cutting their consumption.... not gonna happen
Cut the 80 million new souls we get each year so we can keep having steak and drive a v8
Very informative . It seems to me that we have to find a way where those involved in fossil fuels industry can benefit from renewable technologies .
The fossil fuels industry needs to stay as far away as possible from anything "green". Improving that industry is pure stupidity at best, a waste of time, money, skills and materials at worst keeping us from doing other things that would actually solve the problem.
Petroleum companies all over the world are doing huge hydrogen, carbon capture, solar, EVs, wind projects to improve their own production and it is a scam which is dooming humanity. They get grants and loans and funding and hire all the best people and use all of the materials so there is nothing left for the other industries to make their changes. If we take that same effort and apply it to any other industries on the planet it will actually solve this problem, but instead the petroleum industry is stealing all that potential so we all keep burning their products with higher and higher demand.
The only support anyone in the petroleum industry needs from us is help retraining to get employment in any other industry when global demand for fuels starts falling.
Technology can only support development and evolution. it is not an end onto itself.
Why no discussion of public transport or multi-family housing or switching to forage fed animal products. Those are the easiest changes we could make that would have the biggest impact for the smallest investment. We don't even talk about how bad a greenhouse gas that hydrogen is! Who is avoiding the real issues now?
Maybe because every country has it's own needs.There's not one solution: while US and Canada might benefit a lot from what you are saying Japan or some European countries less so because they already have a good public transport or multi-family housing.
It’s good to understand the financial incentives of the incumbent energy companies and why they do all they can to impede and distract from accelerating consumption reduction (via efficiency improvements and infrastructure and lifestyle changes) and renewable energy production.
Best thing I’ve done for the climate is addition by subtraction. No kids! And a few bodies I buried in a Florida swamp…
ali is hotness can make climate change 🔥, insta?
Seems like our own humanly efforts aren't exactly enough to let our climate issues be put to a stop. We will always encounter problems along the way that normally don't have any solid solutions.
Indonesia our country also our allies thailand vietnam was strong because our three countries is the one that has a relation to the I lluminati
imagine we do block enough sunlight to hold steady the rate of warming (already causing a reduction in global food production) now let's add in a largish volcano eruption. How many 12 month winters do you think the human race would survive? & if some make it, how many plant & animal species will they have left to work with?
Look up the Kaya Identity. A simple tool that cuts through all the climate confusion.
Good video. But I think people are not being told that it doesn't matter at this point where the energy comes from. The problem is that we are using energy at all. What are we doing with that energy? We are destroying our planet and we will not survive this.
Civilization is a heat engine. 🔥💥
People really thing billionaires are trying to save the world by launching new products... Sigh
Modern civilization is built on the foundation of endless, cheap fossil fuels and 2/3 of humanity is just now getting their first big taste of homegrown industrialization & advertising-stimulated consumption.
The finger wagging lectures & documentaries on climate change are mostly created by people living comfortably in the most polluting 1/3 of advanced countries whose per capita carbon pollution and resource consumption footprints are off the chart.
As pointed out in yet another well-meaning documentary, the problem is our modern lifestyle, and very few want to discuss any proactive reduction in their profligate contemporary lifestyles in order to forestall a crisis that doesn't seem as imminent as their need to drive to work tomorrow in order to make money.
Therefore, it is easy to predict the near future and the necessity for repeated shocks to "human life as usual" to get humanity to finally get serious about sustainable lifestyles that allow the Earth's ecosphere to regenerate and, hopefully, return to a stable, healthy equilibrium that is conducive to restoring the biodiversity that we humans are carelessly destroying.
In other words, the many negative feedback loops that modern human civilization is causing will become the drivers of the substantive changes that we need to make in order to pull back from becoming collateral casualties in our own human-caused 6th mass extinction. When it is "change or perish" THEN we will see the correct changes in earnest. (Let's hope that that existential moment will not come too late in the climate crisis for humanity to recover.)
It’s so unbelievable that this information does not reach all people that would like to know more about it and that’s because the fossil fuel exploration industry has control over this kind of information, keeping the belief that billionaires will save the planet.
yes.... let's ask people who have no idea what they are talking about
It’s karma, many countries are still
using plastic bottles, sachet and etc. Then, throw these in the river or sea…😢
Have they solved how to recycle solar panels when they die? I guess this is a real problem!
There are multiple companies and methods for recycling some of them. Governments and the "market" need to prioritize it and fund it.
Solar is bad
Oil is stupid. Oil in the soil the planet will boil.
@@davidzz4307 Solar is bad? Interesting claim with no evidence.
The panels are mostly glass and aluminium. Easily recycled, once you have enough of them reaching end-of-life to pay for the bulk processing.
I am with McKibben, those other commentators are unnecessarily cynical, its a problem of planetary governance and global systemic change that necessarily includes but excels the important but less consequential social aspects of renewable energy. Furthermore, the whole geoenigneering angle is so over-blown, it is not a serious intervention at this point and only serves as critique of technological interventions. Total red herring.
One thing you could learn from the techno optimists is the importance of a vision. The vision may never materialize, but the important thing is to gather people behind a goal.
In this film, half the time could have been spent explaining the problem, the other half could have been spent trying to describe what the alternative to techno-optimism could be. After 25 minutes you are completely mentally exhausted.
I am fully aware that formulating a vision is not easy but this focus on what is wrong will drive away more people than they catch.
Capitalism is the cause not the cure..
0:27 Tell us you're Dutch without telling us you're Dutch lmao
The term "subsidies" is completely misleading. The oil companies net pay money to the governments, the "subsidies" are tax breaks for investing in infrastructure. Whereas renewable energy subsidies are payments from the government.
I don't think any one group should be targeted. Billionaires, government and small and large companies as well as individuals all have roles to play.
no... you are missing the point... if we blame billionaires and government then we don't have to do anything
To address crime we shouldn't target criminals, we all have a role to play.
Indonesia our country also our allies thailand vietnam was strong because our three countries is the one that has a relation to the I lluminati
We are just not going to win people over by asking them to take a step backwards and lower their quality of life! while most of the planet doesn't even enjoy a basic quality of life, tech optimism is our only hope, yes huge change is needed of our current dysfunctional self destructive lifestyle's but it must be a beneficial improvement that can be shared more equitably around the world.
"We are just not going to win people over by asking them to take a step backwards and lower their quality of life! " Eventually people will figure it out: To avoid worsening ecological breakdown and thus societal breakdown, humanity must reduce its collective ecological footprint by 50% which means people in wealthy nations (who cause most of the harm) must shrink their footprints 60-99+%. The only way to do requires much smaller economies, simpler lifestyles, much less meat/beef consumption, much less airplane travel, and more manual labor. Those are just the facts on the ground--only developing countries have average lifestyles that are sustainable on a small planet with eight billion people. So either we downshift our materials standard of living or billions of people and millions of species will pay the price. The laws of nature always bat last.
Why does this video not explain why inovation can't replace life style change
"Why does this video not explain why inovation can't replace life style change" The more man-made stuff we build, the more it hurts the planet, so a growing industrialized capitalist economy is a self-terminating system. We must live simpler and lower-tech lives to bring our ecological footprints withon Earth's sustainable carrying capacity.
@karlwheatley1244 You're still not explaining it, though. You're just aserting it. And it's not as obvious to me as it apparently seems to you. It's not that I'm denying it, I just need more arguments.
@@nomoresunforever3695 Thanks for your reply. It may have been brief, but I WAS attempting to explain it. Every man-made thing we make harms the Earth, and if we keep making more and more of them, we harm the ecosystems that support all life on Earth faster than they can heal and regenerate. That's called ecological overshoot, and humanity hit overshoot sometime around 1970 and the degree to which we are overshooting Earth's sustainable carrying capacity has been increasing ever since then (currently at about 70% per year). ALL technological innovations use energy and materials, but what we have to do to avoid worsening ecological breakdown is use about 50% less energy and materials--which will require shrinking our economies and simpler lifestyles (plus rationing and tough regulations). More technology has just allowed us to devour and destroy the planet faster.
To be sure, if we had an entirely different set of cultural values in place, then some new technologies could help us achieve sustainability but with our current values--which crave bigger profits and more economic growth--more efficiency just increases total consumption and ecological destruction.
Put differently, only nature battles entropy effectively: Creating our man-made stuff just increases the amount of entropy or disorder on Earth.
@karlwheatley1244 okay, but two things: first of all, you say anything man-made harms nature. Don't you mean anything man-made transforms nature? This is obviously true because we take things from nature and turn them into something else. But why is this a problem? Aren't we a beautiful part of nature? Aren't human cities a beautiful part of nature? Second of all, you say that we should use 50% less energy, but isn't the problem just that when we use fossil fuels we put carbon back into the Atmosphere that used to be there, and we don't want to do that because that would too rapidly change the ecosystem. But there is an abundance of energy on earth in the form of non fossil fuels, like solar and wind. Way way more than we need. If we use innovation to harness this energy, can we not just have enough so that we do not have to go back to simpler lifestyles?
Thanks for your reply. "Don't you mean anything man-made transforms nature? This is obviously true because we take things from nature and turn them into something else."
No, I meant it harms it or destroys it. Linguistically, it is accurate to say that that turning a forest into a city is a "transformation," but from the perspective of most living things there--and the larger wellbeing of the web of life--it is a destructive change. From the perspective of nature, most of humans' economic development just means destruction and death. Humans have already destroyed roughly half the biomass that used to exist on Earth.
"But why is this a problem? Aren't we a beautiful part of nature? Aren't human cities a beautiful part of nature?" No, human cities and concrete and plastic chairs and laptops are not natural, they are artificial man-made objects. They are part of the world, but they are certainly not part of the natural world. Cities may be beautiful to one of the 5-10 million species living on Earth, but for the other 5-10 million species, they made life worse. And because our lives are totally dependent on the health of Earth's ecosystems (and species within it), the more we harm other species and ecosystems in the short run, the more we erode Earth's ability to support life, including human life.
"But there is an abundance of energy on earth in the form of non fossil fuels, like solar and wind. Way way more than we need." Absolutely true.
"If we use innovation to harness this energy, can we not just have enough so that we do not have to go back to simpler lifestyles?"
This goes back to the problem that every man-made object we make reduces Earth's ability to support life by a tiny amount.
There's an "earth budget" we must live within if we want to prevent catastrophic ecological and societal collapse. To simplify a bit, humans get our needs met mostly through resources from Earth's ~32 billion habitable acres, plus some fish from the ocean and metals and minerals from under both the habitable and uninhabitable land (and sometimes from under Earth's waters). To avoid worsening ecosystem breakdown due to loss of habitat and ecosystem resilience, roughly half of that must remain as wilderness forever (and possibly more than half). That leaves 16 billion acres of habitable land to provide for most of the direct needs of 8 billion people, so your and my fair and sustainable share of Earth's bounty is roughly what the average 2 acres of habitable land can sustainably provide per year. Then we can emit wastes up to what 1-1.5 acres of habitable land can absorb and detoxify per year. So the only "sustainable" lifestyles on an Earth with 8 billion people and the current level of biomass are those that use ~3-3.5 acres of resources per year. The average Americans footprint is ~21 acres per year. I assume you can see the problem. Even with the most efficiently and carefully placed renewable energy sources, we won't get anywhere close to 3.5 acres of resources & impact per year. Only smaller and more local economies coupled with much simpler lifestyles can get us to sustainable footprints. Here's one example: Even if Americans decided to live in mud huts and wear animal skins, just our diet puts us beyond 2.0 acres of direct consumption per person per year (largely because of our high-consumption of meat/beef, which is an incredibly land-inefficient way to get nutrients and calories. So just one of the MANY things we must do to achieve sustainable lifestyles--with or without renewable energy--is cut our consumption of meat (but especially beef) by about 60-80%. The math doesn't work otherwise.
Take care.
@@nomoresunforever3695
If you prefer group therapy for your guilt complex, then at least get out of the way of those of us who are actually solving the problem. You can complain the whole time and pretend you know better, or whatever else you need to amuse yourself with while tbe adults continue working.
🥱
We all need to learn how to get by on 95% less stuff.
We need a lot less people is what we need.
why don't we ever talk about hemp as a solution to climate change
Because it isn’t one.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight . As it is written : He catches the wise in their craftiness.” Lord Jesus Christ is coming soon 🙏🏼Repent, believe in the Gospel, Be Born Again
can't save us from the sun and the galactic current sheet though...
It won't happen
Smart people make the tech. Dumb people go the way of the dodo. Humans continue to evolve. So I would recommend education above all else for those who want to remain out of column B.
"...scientists and engineers have dropped the price of solar panels and wind turbines 90% in the last decade..." No, wrong. The price of solar panels and wind turbines has gone down because of economies of scale. We are producing far, far more solar panels and wind turbines, THAT is why the price has gone down.
Way to keep chorusing Exxon Mobil Shell talking points. How do we know green energy doesn't work. Is it from the many years of us using it and it not working? 🤔
How does one spell du? Maybe duhaney (short for dumb?)
@@chris4973 like your Mom... How is that for dumb Petroleum troll. 😜
Where is your scientific evidence that it doesn't work?
I wasn't the one that made the original blanket statement like I had facts.
This video explicit discredits "green" tech that companies oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Shell use.
Probably it's too late for humans but hope not for every single species on Earth. Then the planet will go rejuvenate enough to harvest another intelligent lifeform. And the cycle continuing to the end of times. Thinking like that human extinction isn't that special or unique. For now, WORLD CUP 2026 GO BRAZIL YEEEEHAAAAA!! Sorry I digressed.
just stop giving people hope......we are doomed............deal with it
I still say, the only way to get to pre-industrial emissions is to live a pre-industrial lifestyle. Get rid o anything electric powered, all motorized transport, get rid of computers and the internet and cell phones. The using electricity is just a portion of the CO2, the actual production and assembly of the components release huge amounts of CO2. You people are wasting your time trying to come up with a way to have a modern lifestyle with pre-industrial emissions.
Ali, there is no teacher or lecturer on the planet who plays background music while they are presenting a lesson. The music underlying your presentation is a distraction which makes your important message much less impactful!
The idea that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities might be the cause of global warming hit a dead end by the mid 1990s when over two years had passed since a report from a large study funded by large oil and chemical company's failed to be discredited concluded human caused carbon dioxide emissions in earth's atmosphere were non poisonous and reasonably responsible for causing 1/100°C increased average global temperatures from its weak greenhouse gas effect. This result made it impossible for human caused carbon dioxide emissions to be the cause of global warming as reported at 1.1°C from any known scientific mechanism.
Earth's greenhouse effect is due to tropospheric water vapor at over 99% to low estimate of 97%. This makes it impossible for non condensing greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane to significantly increase or decrease average global temperatures even if their concentrations were cut in half or doubled. The United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change reports are very clear and transparent that their air samples were taken at 20,000 meters altitude well into the stratosphere were water vapor is near zero and not in the troposphere where earth's greenhouse effect takes place. The educated reader will take the IPCC's report's conclusions with that in mind. They only exam global warming from the standpoint of earth's atmosphere's greenhouse gas effect and only take greenhouse gas samples from outside where earth's greenhouse effect takes place, the troposphere. They are of no particular use for the study of global warming.
I have a question. How much fossil fuel did you use to make this video? And how much energy produced from renewable solutions, and less dense forms of energy, would you need to replace the fossil fuels used….. be honest in your calculations….. also, you have to remember that solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium batteries don’t grow in trees….. be honest and realistic, please……
left wing professors knowing better what's technologically feasible than successful tech entrepreneurs. The climate would be dramatically helped if we would de-politicize the discussion rather than using climate as a carrier wave for the next communist revolution. We CAN fix this but not with all the activist distractions and academic noise.
I wonder if Al Jazeera maybe finally saw the movie Michael Moore produced, several months ago? Ironic, that.