The huge question which is never answered is "how can we restructure society to consume less?" The rich fight against change. The middle class is largely complacent. The poor are too busy scrambling to make ends meet.
Reducing consumption is a good way to reduce your environmental footprint. Greta Thunberg has said in an interview that she sometimes reminds her parents not to buy things that they don't really need. The most effective way to reduce consumption for the environment would be to stop buying animal products. Not surprising that she is vegan. Animal agriculture is an extremely inefficient way to produce nutrients in terms of resources, and produces more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined! It is also the top cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. The burning of the Amazon rain forest is an example.
Our modern perception of a healthy economy is inherently skewed. A stagnating economy is considered unhealthy. Considering that we already use 70% more than is regenerated globally, the global economy needs to shrink by over one third to become sustainable. If we now also want to distribute Planetary resources fairly, we are talking shrinking the economy of western countries by anywhere from 65-75 percent, since countries like for example the US already consume more than 3 times of what is regenerated. In the end this would mean that our entire credit based financial system including the stock market will have to collapse, because those institutions are only profitable in a world where "line go up".
True, but it doesn't solve the problem, specially when you are incentivised to buy buy buy. Capitalism needs it, otherwise we enter recessions, it's a systemic problem @@someguy2135
The problem is that equilibrium is seen as stagnation or failure in capitalist economies. All these MBAs who have been advocating for growth every quarter since the 1980s have ignored one of the basic lessons in high school economics: the law of diminishing returns. Unrestricted growth is the modus operandi of cancer cells.
You need at least some GDP growth for two reasons: 1. If GDP growth is not more than inflation then Real GDP is negative which means you have a falling standard of living. 2. If Real GDP growth is not large enough to keep up with population growth then you have a shrinking GDP/Capita - which again means a falling standard of living. Falling GDP doesn't just mean less TVs and Phones, it means less doctors visits, less education, no improvements to infrastructure, less food, etc... it's an overall contraction in the standard of living. If you want to see what that looks like, go look at Japan, Italy, Greece, Venezuela, Russia, Brazil, etc... all face issues with high unemployment, reduced real wages, increased debt levels, social and political instability, etc... The solution isn't to shrink GDP, the solution is to actually price into the system the things that matter - tax carbon emissions, methane emissions, ecological destruction, allow tax deductions for carbon sequestration, and projects which improve ecological bio-diversity. Anything that actually has a cost (usually burdened by the entire planet and at a later date) needs to be included into the price of the product. Properly pricing this would get rid of greenwashing, if you have three products A,B and C and A and B say they are green, but B is the same cost as C ... B probably isn't that green. [also law of diminishing returns isn't really applicable to GDP growth due to technological advancements/innovation and to a lesser extent capital deepening - most GDP growth over the last 40ish years has been from technological advancements not capital deepening (which would be more raw materials, more machines, etc..), you are correct though, from a purely capital deepening perspective there is a very clear law of diminishing returns, eventually the amount of capital that needs to be replaced every year is equal to the total output of new capital in a year and growth stagnates - but most developed countries derive their gdp growth primarily from innovation now.]
You should look up how fiat money works. Inflation is built into our system, so a certain amount of numerical growth is needed to achieve stagnation. When inflation in Europe hovered around 2 %, the standard of living was pretty much constant for most people.
@@MH-kj9hh that’s only true by the standards of capitalism. Growth for the sake of profit is destructive, as shown by even just the last 4 decades. Growth for the sake of humanity’s welfare is key!
@@dazey8706 everything I said can be reasoned out with logic and it doesn't matter what economic system you subscribe to, if gdp is value and value goes up less than inflation and population growth then there is less value available per-person. How you define value is up to you, like I said, I think we need to properly tax externialites, that would make the cost of carbon emission, plastic waste, etc... all reflected in GDP. This same concept would apply to communism and socialism, it is economic system agnostic.
There is a reason why the 3 R's began with reduce and reuse. Recycling is dependent on economic factors outside the typical consumer's control, but consuming less, repairing what can be repaired, and repurposing things that can't be fully repaired (e.g. torn jeans into shorts or cleaning rags or pieces for a denim quilt) goes much farther toward doing some good. My individual contribution is minuscule, but it does help a little--especially if it catches on. Of course the big policy decisions will make the biggest difference, but I don't have much influence over them!
Recycling is something that becomes easier over time, because as raw materials become harder to find and produce, the demand for recycling will naturally increase. It is a problem that solves itself.
Yep. That was the depression era mantra that GM had to counter with "planned obsolescence" for the good of the economy. It's been leading us down this road ever since.
Repair or buy used and do it again. Especially buying used or old is not only saving a lot of money and resources, but since some old things you can get were produced without planned obsolescence, they will even last longer then new products.
Many forgot what quality actually means. My old chemistry and physics teachers teached us much about production methods and how things got cheaper and less durable and how things used to be build. My parents ingrained the saying "Wer billig kauft, kauft zweimal" (Who buys cheap, buys twice) Most of my childhood I was wearing good clothes from high end brands, all bought from fleamarkets, so despite not being rich, I fit right in my snobbish rich environment at that time. So it is a big misconseption, that cutting down on stupid consumerism actually reduces quality of life or the ability to own good things.
1. Refuse: Don’t buy things you don’t need. 2. Reduce: Buy less of the products you do need. 3. Reuse: Buy used products and give them a new life. 4. Repurpose: Find creative ways to use the products you already have. 5. Recycle: Contribute to the circular economy. Donate, sell, or recycle what you can’t use.
Second hand stores are another good way to reduce emissions and packaging. The products are already there looking for another home, so checking their first before buying something that came off a truck would be better
All of which depends upon everyone doing it. Don't hold your breath. Being ultraistic when the majority of people won't, just means you've got the back seat on the bus going off the cliff. Without governments and corporations actually becoming ethical, and the majority of the world's population suddenly and actively caring, this is wasted effort.
@@samhavoc1066most of these points can also make your life better, as they save tons of money which you can use on other things that aren’t stupid consumption .
@@Flewty Yes, but this is the only one that comes right out and clearly states that it will keep getting worse under our current system of hyper-consuming capitalism.
PBS is a national treasure. It is no coincidence that conservatives constantly try to defund the programming. They are one of the few educational spheres that speaks truth to the reality of our damaged system.
@@opossumboyo Sadly, in the 21st century they have become highly dependent on the support of the people who run the corporations that are destroying our world. I was shocked to see them finally state the truth about hyper-consumption here, but PBS Terra does not reach a huge audience, and the top executives at PBS may not know about this video.
Agree with the central point. But it’s frustrating to hear the repeated “we” …when citizens have been calling for systemic change for years and decision makers refuse to listen, or green-wash at best.
Where I live our local representatives are Green Party - the area is strongly pro-green- but people's actions show their hypocrisy and they are not bothered.
I hear that "we" disease a LOT when it comes to large scale problems. "We didn't seem to want to change it", they say. Who is we? The wealthy and powerful who are making the decisioons? The people who so often force change on us in the name of their own goals? Stop saying "we", there is no "we". Stop socializing the blame for decisions that got made by people I'm not allowed to question.
Sorry, but the majority of consumers are just as bad. You and I recycle, cut back on purchases, etc., but the other 8 out of 10 just keep doing what they are doing, or worse. Corporations lie about recycling, labeling items with the triangle when they are actually not recyclable. They've bought the politicians, so nothing will change that way. Mankind is a blight and mother nature will eventually deal with it in its own way.
@@samhavoc1066 I absolutely agree that nature will enforce limits. I just hope there are enough survivors to learn and build a new way of living. Well, I see it that way when I think of symphonies, scientific exploration and artwork. But if I think about the worst of humanity, extremism, organised crime, child exploitation… I do wonder whether our species should continue.
I feel like the "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" really stuck with me as a kid. I'll wear my shoes til they have holes in the sole because ... why would I buy new ones before these ones are used up? Also, super un-popular with the older generations, but my wife and I opted out of having kids along these reasons. You wanna save the planet, stop creating a demand for all this garbage.
Okay so why is it then that countries with the highest birth rates consume the least resources and those with negative birth rates consume the most? It’s almost as if population isn’t actually a meaningful driver of overproduction.
@@saoirsecameroncorrelation =\= causation. I could make up any plausible reason for that being the case. The most likely one being that Birth rate has little to nothing to do with consumption of luxuries and more so to do with income. Just because the newest warring micronation of Africa is growing fast doesn’t mean you’d be expecting them to consume more than Americans of similar pop density.
And the "buy green" marketing once again places all the onus on the consumer to change the world, whilst the folks actually responsible for wreaking destruction continue to sip mimosas in their nice penthouses. As has been said before in this series, we gotta use the power we do have. Buy carefully, research companies and products if you can. And vote.
Seems that this video was about not buying anything at all. Curious, which corporation and which CEO does not buying stuff benefit exactly? The oil industry? Coal? Natural Gas? Auto companies? Airlines? C'mon, buddy, inform us. CEOs and corporations wouldn't be a bane on the globe if we consumers didn't continuously buy their stuff! What next, are we gonna blame advertising agencies for giving consumers no choice but to buy all the things with their unavoidable temptation? Seems to me this idea that we should just keep consuming and continuously funding corporations and CEOs and giving them more power and voice in our government... and waiting for the government to do something doesn't actually change anything. It doesn't give voters ownership of the issue. It create greed and lust; wanting what others have. It creates materialism. It creates peer pressure to buy more stuff to be part of the group. Buy all the newest clothes, and newest cars. Materialism = happiness. It doesn't solve anything. The only thing the governmental could possibly do to fix this is to pass laws that restrict consumption. Basically doing the same thing individuals do by choosing to consume less. The difference is, when consumers choose this, they're happy to do so, they take ownership, and they may vote for politicians that will actually do more. OTOH, when people are told what they can or cannot buy, they tend to get defensive and vote against anyone who might try to stop their consumption.
The flip side ! Why am I scratching my head: concerned HOW to change MY behavior. The market is [in]famously the Demand AND Supply side working in concert. Or The 'Marshallian Scissors". 'No Show without Punch' ?
@@stephenduncan8292 A very good point, but I feel like some of our demand is shaped by habit if that makes sense? We've got so used to "how it is" that we forget it wasn't always like this. Something that has just recently been hammered home to me VERY personally because our house plumbing is borked :( So I've had to wash dishes like it's 1924 for several days while the landlord attempts to get a plumber. And I never thought about how just that simple task is SO different between now and a hundred years ago - or between here in the US and say, parts of India where water is scarce. It's very sobering to understand just how much resources I use, and I'm not wealthy by any definition. Changing these things is gonna require a lot of effort and time, I guess. I sure don't have answers, I'm just trying to do what I can, teach my kid to do better than his elders.
Agree: the classic perception problem of 'being Beings' within a given system of reality. Not able to step outside: look insightfully at a 'whole way of life' we grew up over five decades. Or six decades. Some point to 'Silent Spring' [Carson] 1962. An alarm bell sounded with 'The Limits to Growth' 1972 (+ 50) = 2022. Widely read, it was a computer- modeled 'experimental world economic forecast'. Not a climate change thesis. Could be discussed as unfounded 'doomism'. It was. Then came the Rio Earth Summit 1998 and the Kyoto protocol 2015. Only 8 years ago but 'assuming a timeline out to 2100. Now a 'deadline' of 2033 (one decade) down from 2050, is operative. Perhaps the skepticism of critics of UNIPCC and 'refusal' by others can be understood. Acceptance that We Have A Problem (WHAP) is dependent on writing-off all that has 'improved since 1800 ?
I feel like, sometimes, we are just too tired, overworked, exhausted, burnt out and depressed to really face these predicaments, but simply yearning and seeking temporary relieves and comforts from consumption. In some correlation to this, I agree completely that it's not individual decisions but on larger scales of the living space, the city, the country we're living in.
In an individualistic consumer society you are told to be your authentic self - most people don't know what that is anyway but feel they have to be it so they "achieve" this by buying pointless stuff that advertisers have shown will fill that gap - it doesn't and we need to realise that.
The greenwashing is what ticks me off. As an amateur bookbinder, I haven't bought or used any newly made paper, cardstock, or leather for my works; all of them are purchased from thrift stores and salvaged from garbage piles. Most of the pages I used for my works are either very old stock that even the stores themselves don't have inventory of or used paper like paper bags or discarded thesis papers. Looking at the "green" options like journals made with bamboo covers (while being spiral bound), it just reeks of PR speak trying to spin barely revised products like it's a trendsetter for sustainability. There is nothing "green" about journals with wooden covers and are spiral bound, it's just a lazy reskin...
I accidentally do consume less. Don’t have a car, because I like to read. And you can’t read while driving. Don’t like meat or fish, always loved beans and vegetables more. Don’t go in Hollidays anymore, because it’s to stressful.
Has the atmosphere stop heating up exponential? What individuals do makes no impact on the global warming crisis. I have solar panels and drive an EUV and haven't made one iota difference. Humans are self-destructive and they dont even know it.
That's my lifestyle too. I ditched my car because it was too expensive and I didn't really need it. Stop eating meat 25 years ago to be healthier and it worked great! I live in a beautiful part of Canada that's so I really don't have to travel anywhere. People can have a great simple life if they examine their life carefully and get rid of the things that they don't need.
That to me is one of the funny things about environmentalism. I don't care too much about the whole thing, I don't have children, so I don't need this planet after about 2060. But just out of habit I have a much smaller carbon footprint than most of my coworkers. Also worth remembering: the price of a product is, in the first iteration, a good measure for how much energy went into making it.
@@Jeff.55649 The OP got likes and people responded positively to the OP so some people do care. I thought the OP's comment was cool. The OP's comment related to the video. Idk why you had to say a negative put down to the OP.
A lot of good info in this video but it makes the classic mistake of mentioning cobalt in EVs. The newer batteries don't use cobalt and the biggest demand for its' use is in processing petroleum.
"The newer batteries don't use cobalt" that was very misleading. The only EV batteries that don't use cobalt are Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. The only EVs currently sold in the US that have these batteries are the base models of the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y (which do make up 50% of their sales). The only other LFP EVs are the base model Ford Mustang Mach-E, the base model Fisker Ocean. Around the world there are alot more LFP cars to choose from that aren't sold in the US. Many automakers selling in they US say they will offer LFP cars in the next couple of years. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is most new EV batteries in the US still use cobalt, but not all. How about some legislation?
@@alterbr33d I haven't heard that the sodium batteries being developed are going to use cobalt. I agree with legislation. The biggest use of cobalt is in taking the sulphur out of petroleum. So we'll just ban oil.
People always seem to forget that the phrase is "_REDUCE_, Reuse, Recycle." Yes, if you're going to buy a brand new car, buying an EV will be better for the environment than a gasoline vehicle, long term. Buying a used EV is even better. Continuing to use an older, efficient gas car is even better than that. But best of all is - drive less. If you live in a city that has reliable public transit, use that! Walk! Bicycle! (All that said, I'm disappointed at PBS for pushing the FUD statement that EV batteries are "waste" at the end of a vehicle's life - batteries are some of the *MOST* recycled/recyclable materials we use. That Tesla battery won't just be thrown in a landfill. It will be used in stationary power systems, then rebuilt, then finally all its components recycled. Almost none of it will end up in a landfill.)
Making products that lasts longer and are not built to wear out intentionally should be the goal. Things that can be serviced, like your phone, need to be able to be able use third party parts, like a phone battery or a simple universal cable, looking at you Apple.
@@flufffycow Firstly: You're not wrong. There is however a limit beyond which it isn't sustainable to keep repairing some things. For many things that limit is somewhat pliable, and adjustments come in many forms-yet there are hard limits on things like how many times a knife can be sharpened.
AnonymousFreakYT I gave you a 👍🏻, but there's some assumptions embedded in your statement worthy of unpacking. (1) The "efficient gas car" myth: The reality is that most people already drive their cars until parts are falling off that cannot be replaced or they are unrepairable. It doesn't make any sense to encourage them to keep something they can barely envision replacing. Additionally, many of those vehicles use more resources over a three to five year period just to stay on the road than would be expended to build a new equivalently functional EV (or even a hybrid in many cases) and drive it a similar number of miles. This of course touches on the next presumption, (2) That driving less is always meaningfully possible-which it isn't. While some organizations like the MBTA (Boston Massachusetts region transit authority) have made great strides melding public transit and housing realities, they are generally the exception. Unfortunately, even a system as good as the MBTA (AKA "the T") often still leaves poorer workers with four hour round trip commutes each day. This means they are likely to eat less healthy food each day, lacking time to prepare it-so even if bicycling the "last mile" were an option they'd not be able to do it. (3) There is, in a huge amount of this flavor of "Solutions" media, an embedded assumption that not only are cities more affordable to live in but that they are more environmentally sustainable and closer to climate neutral. Unfortunately, at least in the USA & Canada, this just is not true. Cities are, in general, more expensive and less equitable places to live-leading to more renters over time spending a larger share of their income on housing that is steadily becoming less environmentally efficient. The landowners don't pay for the energy costs of their developments (that gets billed to the tenants) so they are not incentivized to do efficiency upgrades. To add insult to that injury, most cities in the USA and Canada lack functional public transit and are too diffuse and oddly structured to be meaningfully walkable or cyclist-safe. (4) Finally there's the usually unspoken political dimension: Driving Progressives into increasingly dense cities only exacerbates the problem of government not taking the necessary actions to improve climate stability by empowering Revertatives & Rethuglicans to take over districts in the USA (and similar for people around the world). So yeah, what was that "simple" answer again?
while it is true that a lot of battery parts CAN be recycled, unfortunately that doesnt really say the total reality of global situations, while science is getting good at recycling, a lot of parts will still need fresh material to seed it, and also a lot of car manufacturers (tesla included) see this as less profitable and would prefer to keep daddy's old cobalt mine open, this has already resulted in extremely large lots of returned cars with damage that sit in deserts on a concrete heat sink waiting for elon to pick the more environmentally concision decision instead of the cheaper economics of continuing to profit off of enslaved child labor like he did when he was a kid.
@@AnthemUnanthemed Elon's father owned a diamond mine in South Africa, not the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire, what Elon's father would have called it). There were shitty labor conditions, but Apartheid and slavery are very different in meaningfully insidious ways. As for the preference to use new materials, that is dropping over time as the price for recovered materials (via recycling) drops. That said, demand for materials will exceed supply (freshly mined and recycled) for some time yet. Many newer cars are also being made with non-cobalt Li-ion chemistry batteries.
At 1:55, they use less or no cobalt. Lithium is made the same way salt is evaporated out of pools of water in salt flats... Can you cite this claim? Did you know cobalt is used in oil refinement, where is the outrage?
Yes, also lithium is not rare earth element or toxic as they pointed out. You are righ lifepo4 batteries do not use cobalt or expensive nickel but iron. Those batteries last much longer and have up to 10 000 cycles and more than 10 years life span and are not prone to catch fire when penetrated. Major drawbach is that they are heavier 10 to 20%, all else is awesome
@@markhivin8670 LiFePo4 are my general purposes favorite. Another consideration is that "lifespan" cycles are only once capacity drops to 80% of original... But for many applications that's still acceptable. In a 300mile BEV that's still 240miles of range, it might still be useful for a second "lifetime" down to 60% capacity, or 192miles. Perhaps a third lifecycle down to 40% or 153miles is still acceptable, or perhaps a second service role in stationary storage. And then, finally, all the original elements remain and are already highly refined, so will be recycled as new feedstock, thus eliminating that quantity of material virgin mining needs. Many decade old Tesla batteries remain at above 80% capacity and are losing more at a more shallow rate. The first 5~10% of capacity loss occurs fast, but then it tapers off to very gradual loss. Projections look like many may already last a million miles. And these are NMC with "less cycle life" vs LiFePo4... PBS should do a better job, it seems they just parroted FUD talking points or "common knowledge" which isn't proving to be true.
Iron Phosphate batteries don't use any cobalt. 50% of Tesla sold use these batteries, these batteries are on the base model of the Model 3 and Model Y. The base model Ford Mach-E is also LFP Cobalt free. Most EV manufacturers selling in the US plan to offer cobalt free LFP batteries within a few months to a few years from now. She didn't even mention LFP batteries.
Amazing how she is so calm and composed as she narrates all this. I’d be swinging between crushing grief and depression, anxiety and racing thoughts, and angry, bitter curse -word filled ranting. Kudos to her
It is well established that an EVs have a higher upfront CO2 footprint when compared to ICE vehicles. However EV vehicle lifetime emissions (factored) are much less than ICE (obviously).
Yeah plus that batteries often can be recycled at the end of their life time in an EV. It is a shame that the video dismisses some information about the total lifecycle emissions, which for an EV are much lower than an ICE. Furthermore the emission for EVs keeps dropping as the electric grids get more and more renewables.
@@cannotgetstartedYea seems like more of a tesla hit piece in some ways. Def an anti ev bias here. No mention of the need for robust public transit. Just "EVs are bad"
PBS has reached the core of the problem. This is the reason I have no hope for a transition to an ecologically-friendly world without a massive catastrophe or a drastic shift in culture. Nate Hagen’s podcast “The Great Simplification”, which I have been following religiously since it started, is one of the best sources for content on the true problems facing our species. I highly recommend it for any environmentalist today, especially ones feeling the same despair I do.
Nobody is trying to fix the root problems we have in this country. Everyone is stuck focusing on making enough money so that the problems don't apply to them anymore.
One simple semi solution for this problem is to stop buying and learn to live with what you already own. Here in Finland, you can hear this advice many times. For example, many have said that they haven't bought new clothes in almost 20 years and they are still using the same phone as 10 years ago. And the only thing they take from the store is only food because they don't need anything else from the store. However, I have no idea how they make this work in practice and whether it is accepted if you buy used ones from a thrift shops or a secondhand stores.
the idea of endless growth on a finite planet with limited resources, on which our current hyper-consumerist system depends, has been doomed to fail from the start. we need to be better stewards of this planet if we're to survive (and also not take all complex life with us)
From most important to least, there's a reason why we say reduce first in "reduce, reuse, recycle." The climate crisis is a result of the consumption crisis, the problem is needless consumption, not strategical use of resources.
This video is very good except for one thing. The reason the economy has to grow and we have to consume more and more stuff, is that our currency is based on debt. In order for the currency to be stable the debt has to be paid with real resources from the environment, and human labor. Shrinking economic activity without addressing the currency problem will make our economy unstable, perhaps catastrophically so. Shrinking the economy by consuming less stuff absolutely must happen to stop climate change!!! But we need to change the basis of our money system to prevent economic collapse first.
Do you think that if "our currency" wasn't "based on debt," then humans would consume significantly less resources? As in, is the currency the driver of much of the consumption? I'm thinking "no."
@@synupps877 the video suggests that we should consume less. I tried, in my response to the video, to point out the danger of reducing consumption in an economy that has to grow to remain stable. I believe that the makers of the video are CORRECT and we do need to reduce consumption, as infinite growth on a finite planet is not possible. Whether we are CAPABLE of that remains to be seen. But my point was that reducing consumption without fixing the structural basis of our economic system, the debt at the center of it, is likely to cause collapse of the system.
@@joannemason262 Very well put. I think many people don't understand the relationship between reducing consumption and the need for the growth of our economy. Do we need to consume less, yes. do we need to save more and pay off the debt, yes. Unfortunately our culture and our politicans have their head up their anal spincters.
@synupps877 It's not just the money. It's the system of private capital as a whole that is the problem. The primary driver of our society is the profit motive. The accumulation of wealth. This system creates an incentive to continually extract and consume resources at an ever increasing rate. To continue to increase profit for ever. What we need is a centrally planned economy where things are produced and distributed based on need, and not profit. There are a lot of different models for how this system could work, but we can be sure that capitalism won't work for much longer.
As I've worked to radically reduce my consumption over the years, I can't stop thinking of the personal psychological aspects of it. Buying new things is equivalent to addiction for many of us. And especially as the world becomes more frightening and unstable, I can't help but wonder if consumption will increase out of grasping for familiarity/comfort, without some sort therapeutic behavioral intervention. It's such a conundrum, but I choose to believe not impossible to shift.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I'm not OP, but in my case, I save it up. As a result, I haven't worked in months. I just take long breaks from working every so often, and take time to enjoy my life. It's like a temporary mini-retirement.
My first car is an EV and I live in car-centric suburbia. It would take decades of rebuilding to make living car free viable where I live so I have no realistic choice but to own a car. Even if my EV isn't truely carbon zero it still consumes far less CO2 than a comparable gas only vehicle. Is public transit better for the environment than EVs? Yes, absolutely. But the majority of Americans live in places where cars are the only realistic option for transportation.
There's nothing wrong with your need as an individual. This was the point in the video. What you can do is advocacy and participate in local government. That's the most effective way to change things. Not things like trying to recycle everything when they're thrown in the landfill anyway.
You should do an episode about what we actually can do! Eating less meat, better urban planning, buying second hand things and only when necessary and of course do everything we can to change the system! Depending on your field of works it's also possible to have a huge impact
@@hisvinConsumption at the current level in global north is not the result of some abstract cultural phenomenon. Products that are produced need to be sold, in order that they be sold, they need to be bought, this is a fundamental part of capitalism. Reduction of production, economic degrowth, under capitalism is catastrophic, it means economic recession which at a degree that would be enough to actually have an impact on climate crisis would mean a catastrophic economic crisis. So no, problem is capitalism.
Seems the main problem with most things is capitalism. Biomass for example... Sustainable in small amounts, not sustainable once capitalists exploit it for profit.
Global gangster capitalists and their evil ideology are gleefully and intentionally destroying the only home we will ever have for their exclusive benefit. Understanding this truth is the first step towards re-imagining our economies and societies.
@@jacobedward2401 See "Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered" by E. F. Schumacher, written over fifty years ago. The SCALE of global gangster capitalism is the problem, not the idea of exchanging goods and services.
This is the closest I think I've ever seen PBS come to outright questioning the sanity/validity of capitalism. Good job! More of this kind of brutal honesty 👏👏👏👍
The video spent more time pointing out the wrong things to do than actual solutions being done right now. A couple of channels that show solutions and not just wishful thinking are Bicycle Dutch and Not Just Bikes.
I just want to point out that, to my understanding, this series is about pointing out the wrong things we're doing instead of the actual solutions because a lot of the solutions that are being presented now either don't work or are somewhat problematic. Personally, I think it's a good thing in some sense because it questions whether or not our solutions are effective or not. Proposition actual solutions is still important, of course, I just think they're just trying to tell us that if we're gonna try to solve this problem, we have to do it right.
Thank you! I've been saying this for years. You can't consume your way out of a consumption problem! What we want is a magic bullet where we can have our modern luxuries and disposable society but none of the consequences. Just like the diet industry. We want to eat cake every day and lose weight. God forbid we change our lifestyles and expect change, rather we want to ramp up our indulgences and expect change. It's not a surprise that we eat up corporate messaging that sells that idea. In the 70s, we were convinced that plastic litter was our problem to solve by recycling (later revealed as a lie) which allowed the plastic industry to continue pumping out plastic bottles. Same tactic, bigger scale. Make pollution a consumer problem, not an industry problem. It's so utterly obvious but it feeds the desire to have it all, so we collectively ignore it. Worse, we crap on those who call it out. Maybe now that PBS is calling it out, I won't be looked at like the crazy person on the street corner who doesn't like the smell of Elon's musk.
6:27 This is one of the dumbest segments in this video. "Most of the electricity powering electric vehicles is generated by dirty fuel anyway" then goes on to show the potential for a solar powered future, which would then power electric vehicles. PBS Terra pushing oil industry talking points by saying EVs are dirty. smh
Indeed, vehicles powered by fossil fuels can never be sustainable, whilst BEVs can be. And another thing, while human rights abuse exists and is abhorrent in the supply chain for EVs, the fossil fuel industry is built on slave labour directly or indirectly, even today. Now I'm going on a tirade but.. Not even mentioning that many of the same materials are used in combustion vehicles, not mentioning the externalities of polluting cities with exhaust, etc
I'm no Tesla fanboy, but it's a bit disingenuous to mention construction CO2 of an electric car without referencing that most of the savings are down it's (lack of) fuel use. Admittedly, that's dependent on the generation mix, but we're going to have to go renewable anyway (and 'last mile' is the hardest problem). Saying we should build everything differently is great, but hardly helpful given the lifespan of existing infrastructure. 'Reduce' is certainly better than any of the other options, but replacing 'dirty' tech seems to be the thing that will actually help, given current society.
The purpose of the daily practice of doing something when you can is that it will become a habit and make you think about your action in terms of climate change. So that if you are in the position of power, you will steer correctly. Don't stop doing the little things.
this is a good little vid. I'll certainly share it around. The point about the environmental costs of manufacturing new 'green' goods is particularly important. Often, the greenest choice is to keep using the old one. The economic problem is that 70% of the US economy is household consumption. And much of that is either disposables (single use plastics etc) , or goods that we buy again and again because they are built to break, (shoes, clothes, appliances) or they go obsolete (anything electronic) or our tastes are manipulated by fashion. Or we simply overbuy. Our closets and cupboards and garages are stuffed. Its a cult of shopping - 'when the going gets tough the tough go shopping' as they (used to) say.
Certainly reduce. But acknowledge that’s there’s already been trillions of subsidies for the oil industry. And if people are going to spend (which they were going to anyway) then encourage an industry that grows an energy that can be used from the sun. Yea, mining can be bad but there’s harmful materials being mined for ICE cars as well. And EV batteries are just getting started. The materials in a battery are very much recyclable but the energy in an ICE is used and gone forever.
Robert F Kennedy Junior is an environmental lawyer, not politician. He has real answers. I am 63 and he’s the best candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime, since his father and uncle.
6:30 "We can electrify the entire grid." ??? It's already electrified. That's what it is. AND - you can charge an EV with power generated from the dirtiest coal power plant and it will still have a smaller CO2 footprint than an ICE vehicle when you consider the energy/emissions it takes to; find the oil, drill and pump the oil, transport the oil, store the oil, refine the oil (POP QUIZ - What industry sector buys the most electricity for the manufacturing of its product in the US? Fossil fuel. Most of that power is generated using fossil fuel), store the product, transport and distribute the product, then fill up the fuel tanks of ICE vehicles and burn the fuel in an engine that is only 20 to 36% efficient in converting the chemical potential energy of the fuel THAT THEY SPENT ALL THAT ENERGY MAKING into motion, and then to top it off, you send all that fossil Carbon into the atmosphere. Yeah. So @PBSTerra I think next year I will remember this video when PBS wants to know what channels to prioritize...
Buy, reuse, repair and use until they're completely broken. Only when products have finally reached their end should new be bought, and when buying new then, it's better to but the "green" alternatives. Buying green is valid, but only as long as it's something which you otherwise can't make do without. If it's something that you need for your home, identity, style, hobbies and personality it may be worth considering buying the green products, but one should always try and ask oneself: "Is this actually something I need in my life? Or is that just what I'm telling myself to justify the purchase?" If the former, get the best option you can afford, if the latter just don't get it.
While I think that a rethinking of the endless growth of the economy is worthwhile, there are technologies we should adopt for their sustainability. Ebikes, public transit, and infrastructure are great. If people still need a car where they live an EV is going to be better than an internal combustion engine. Gasoline, or diesel, requires continual oil extraction which has all of the problems listed in this video but to a higher degree for longer. The carbon pay off period of EVs is 2-5 years depending on your grid. The electrical grid is also getting less carbon intense every year. Electrification of all technology is a major step in addressing climate change
They need to correct the part about electric car batteries being junked after their use. "According to Tesla, 100% of their lithium-ion batteries are recycled, and they cannot be sent to landfills. In fact, CleanTechnica says that Tesla batteries are 92% recyclable, and that the materials are almost 92% reused".
@@DrizzyB Did you watch the video? It's pretty self explanatory. They said "junking the battery after its use" in reference to EV batteries. That is false, EV batteries are not junked after they are used.
Yes, exactly. There are more companies bidding for batteries to recycle and repurpose than there are batteries. Horrible take. They can be used for back up storage for solar arrays or portable charging, for instance.
Reminds me a lot of the high time of instagram minimalism, when everyone suddenly bought "minimalist" stuff like boxes and beige couches and neutral-coloured throw pillows, instead of just getting rid of the stuff they didn't use and continue using the stuff they already had.
While I agree with a lot of points in this video, it's too bad that other points are inaccurate or miss the point. 1) Lithium is not a rare earth material. 2) A lot of batteries in EVs do not contain Cobalt as they are LFP (lithium iron phosphate) batteries. 3) Several studies have shown that overall EVs pollute less than ICE cars. 4) Vegan products are way better for the environment than animal products since animal agriculture is a leading pollution emitter sector (more than the entire transport industry globally) and one of the main causes of dead zones and loss of biodiversity. 5) The province I live in is powered 100% by renewable energy. Assuming that most people's electricity comes from fossil fuels is an inaccurate assumption.
You make some good points, however for (5) considering ~60% of electricity produced world wide comes from fossil fuels, I think assuming that most people get at least some of their power from fossil fuels is very accurate. I recognize that you might be the exception, but for most countries a large portion of the electric output still comes from fossil fuels.
@@johnsbirthdayinapril4197 It is true that in some countries fossil fuels are used to make electricity. But, first of all, that is changing towards renewables every year and, due to how much more efficient EVs are, it is still better for the environment to use electric mobility even factoring in the fossil fuels. If you're interested, I can send you some studies that have looked at this.
@sebastian.tristan very excellent points! I'll add that only a very small fraction of a percentage of batteries are "junked" after the life of the car, as suggested in the video. It's a real disservice and disappointment that they parrot such awful fossil fuel industry generated untruths.
I agree with the general tone of this video - that consumption of goods that are labeled as green is not the answer and in fact contributes to the problem, even if it’s a slower rate than the non renewable or ethically sourced products. Consuming less in general is the answer. I am curious about your statement in regards to the “junking” of electric vehicle batteries. This isn’t the standard practice with electric car batteries. The batteries are largely recycled, which does come at an energy cost. I’d be curious on the basis of that claim and the overall impact in an electric vehicles life you projected. Sounds an awful lot like info coming out of fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Whining about consumption isn't working. People are still consuming more globally no matter how much we point this out. The only thing this does is take the momentum out of the emission free switch over in our consumption. It justifies people buying more ICE vehicles. If we want Teslas to be made with low emissions, we need to advance batteries, charging and renewable energy production. EVs seem to be the only way the general public gets excited about green technology. We have to be pragmatic about things that get us moving in the right direction right now. We can then pressure industry to make the production of everything less carbon intensive. Perfectionism is truly the enemy of the good here.
I've been loving this series this week! Reduce, Reuse and Recycle is listed in order of importance! 1. Reduce - less consumption 2. Reuse - buy used products from places like FB Martketplace instead of buying brand new 3. THEN Recycle - recycling is the last stage, not the first!! Happy Earth Week. I hope our kids live to see this beautiful earth
This is a hit and distraction piece. Most cobalt is used by the oil industry, not in EV manufacture. Car batteries aren't dumped at end of life, they're recycled. It also ignores the fact that you can buy solar panels, buy insulation, buy a heat pump, buy triple glazing, buy an EV. All of these things cost co2 in production but what the alternative. Continue burning gas, oil and coal to heat and cool your home and get to work?
I'm noticing some bias/incorrect/incomplete information in the "Tesla section" of this video. I agree with many of the points made throughout the overall video, but this section conflates lithium and cobalt, uses the 2020 impact report instead of the more up to date 2022 impact report, doesn't account for EV vs fossil fuel emissions over time, makes a glaring mistake when stating that batteries are "junked after use" (e.g. Redwood Materials specializes in exactly this kind of recycling. Not to mention downsizing EV batteries into stationary storage etc). Many take issue with the human rights abuses of cobalt mining, and I wholeheartedly agree. But the industry has been phasing out cobalt for a long while now. And I can think of another substance that's extraction is famously tied to extreme human rights/indigenous land abuses: it's called oil (which is one-and-done burned rather than used to build a sustainable battery). Elon drives me crazy too. But something tells me there is a reason that Tesla is specifically namechecked over and over again, instead of referring to EVs in general.
I can see where ur coming from, but tesla has billed itself as one of the leading drivers of the us economy and has been on the top of investment lists for a long time now, with the unfair sales practices in the US making cheaper evs from non american companies not really worth it, and the fact that tesla is trying to be an apple like company with a weird walled garden and pricing structures, I think its ok to do this and question all EVs considering that under capitalism companies and processes like the ones enforced by elon are fairly standard and have been for a while. Anyways elon could have make bike infrastructure instead of buying twitter and done more for the globe than tesla ever could but, capitalism
@CoreyBoling Thank you! I almost stopped watching when she parroted those terrible untruths generated by the fossil fuel industry. Gas-powered vehicles' pollution footprint surpasses an equivalent EV in under 3 years now, some shorter than 1 year! In general, the whole video was extremely negative about any individual trying to do anything to promote positive change. Really disheartening!
This is one of the first time when I hear "we need to DESIGN where we live for better public transport", which is an actual good take on public transport. A lot of people who think banning cars alone will solve environmental issues are ignorant to the needs of people that do not live in metropolitan areas and think you can just slap public transport anytime, anywhere.
2:00 No source cited. Huh. Also, lithium is NOT a rare earth mineral. Also, lithium batteries are recyclable (see Redwood Materials). Also, not all EV models use cobalt. There are other chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate.
@@Mr2Reviews It is not a Tesla hit piece lmao. It is just basic degrowth bs. The green movement needs to kick out the kind of thinking much of this video pushes. Reduce and reuse absolutely! Stoping economic growth is not how you solve climate change.
I really don't think you should be telling people that the nice water bottle or other infinitely reusable items aren't going help anything. I really don't care if it adds more CO2 to make it if it will keep even just a little bit of plastic out of our waterways.... I've been badgering everyone in the factory i work at to stop using Styrofoam cups and buying bottled water. It's mostly worked.
I agree with you. The video misses the fact that even if we fix the climate crisis tomorrow, we are heading over the edge of the cliff unless we also solve the pollution crisis, biodiversity crisis, and ecosystem crisis. I've got an stainless steel water bottle I've probably used 3000 times, and I could probably use it 30,000 more if I lived that long.
No matter how many technological solutions are invented to our problems, capitalism will always use technology to extract even more resources from our finite world. We cannot survive by simply changing how we produce what we consume and then going right back to consuming more and more every year. Great video!
Thank you, for being one of the first big platforms, to critically look at EVs. They are better for the environment on paper, but in practice only give buyers a "world-saving" feeling instead of really reducing emissions that much. It's a marketing strategy to keep on consuming and polluting.
OMG if you go through the COMPLETE supply chain for making ICEV vs. BEV, they're about the same. But this is ONLY for the vehicle itself. The issue is manufacturing the vehicle itself for ICEV is only a TINY DROPLET in what's required to make an ICEV go vs. making a BEV go, IF powered by solar panels. Next, IF a BEV is powered by something like solar panels, meaning buying a BEV in some places is better than others (where solar panels make sense), then the environmental cost to power the vehicle swings WAY IN FAVOR of the BEV and it's not even CLOSE. The thing about a natural gas plant is you keep having to pipe natural gas to it. That's an entire chain not needed for solar panels, getting the energy and building all the infrastructure to do that. And making the millions of parts required for THAT function. Solar panels magically have their energy source delivered to them, by solar radiation. With solar panels you are skipping ANOTHER complete step in manufacturing, or millions of parts. I don't need to build this huge power plant. I need to install metal framing. I don't need to install the millions of different parts that all come together to make up the internals of a natural gas power plant. I don't even need to manufacture the millions of parts that go into making all the parts to go into the natural gas plant. You know, because I have to manufacture all the plants that make the parts that go into making a power plants. This is a HUGE world of difference. Next, if you want to talk about how you POWER an ICEV, what is all the infrastructure? Building the machines that are used to explore for oil and running them. OK so now I have millions of parts involved in JUST the exploration for oil. In the case of ocean exploration, that means building ships. These units consume a lot of energy to do this. When I FIND oil, now I have all the infrastructure needed to get that deposit fixed for extraction. In the case of offshore oil, we need ships again, VERY specialized ships. Anyone remember the explosion of one of these rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Those highly specialized city like drilling units, like the Deepwater Horizon that exploded in the Gulf? So, we need millions of parts to build THOSE machines. These units consume a lot of energy to do this. But we're not done. Those small cities only get a well set up. Once that's done THEN you have to build a rig to pump the oil. Millions more parts. These units also consume a bit of energy. But we're STILL not done. We need even MORE ships, ships that will transport oil from the rigs to refineries on the coast. Yes, millions more parts. These units ALSO consume a bit of energy But we're STILL not done. We have to refine. So once again, millions of parts needed to build refineries. We also have to use chemicals in the refining process. We also have to consume a bit of energy in refining. But we're STILL not done. We have to build the infrastructure, often trucks to take the refined gasoline to stations. So, millions of parts to make the trucks, millions of parts to make the gasoline stations and all of this consumes a bit of energy. Now, what I DIDN'T do is mention all the mining, because unlike what has been said about mining for materials for batteries, the mining required to make ALL that infrastructure I mentioned above DWARFS the infrastructure needed to make a solar panel. And I'm not at the vehicles yet, because manufacturing either is about the same, which ALSO means the mining to get the materials to MAKE the vehicles is about the same. See? The actual vehicles only come up at the very end of all this. It forgets about the HUGE HUGE HUGE difference of making the infrastructure to fuel an ICEV vs. a BEV. It forgets about not having to drill for sunlight. It forgets SO many things that this point being made is LAUGHABLE. And if you want to talk about expanding the power grid to deal with the extra electricity to power BEV, yes this is true. Mind you in many cases you don't have to remove what's already there, in some cases you do. Often you can run more electric cable into areas and leave a good chunk of the existing structure. But if you want to talk about that we need to talk about roads, because delivering gasoline to gas stations is constantly ruining roads. This infrastructure is ALSO expensive to maintain. Sorry PBS Terra, you used information handed to you instead of using a big brain and doing REAL investigative work to make a brief documentary. There's a reason why it takes a person like Ken Burns years to make a single documentary. I realize you can't do that for a YT video, but in that case there are topics that are too big for a YT video, or you need a person with a REALLY BIG BRAIN who has done years of research into a topic and rely on them to show what's flawed in the talking points that get made today. When BEV is powered in specific by solar panels, this LAYS WASTE to ICEV in terms of energy consumption, MINING, and environmental impact and a MASSIVE reduction of infrastructure needed. It's so VASTLY better it's hard for me to fathom the small brained people that can pass on the propaganda the energy companies publish.
I think you made some good points. I'm working on adding some very important points, but I'm not going to struggle with adding conclusions (especially consequences) for those points. Recently, the Russo-Ukrainian war (which is a US-NATO proxy war in many ways) has resulted in Russian natural gas pipelines to be destroyed. At least some of the natural gas that was to be delivered to other parts of Europe by those pipelines is going to be delivered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships from the US. US militarism, which dominates Earth, is overwhelmingly powered by burning fossil fuels.
Sad that few people have read your careful explanation of what’s really going on. Most people hear the talking point they already have had their mind, made up by horror stories from the fossil fuel companies and get reinforced. Sadly PBS had their logo on this; I don’t know how they got away with that. as you stated this is clearly fossil fuel propaganda and talking points that cannot be supported.
So long as you intend to drive the same vehicle for a while, an electric vehicle will ALWAYS be better than a gas car, even if powered by a dirty grid, because they are zero emissions. A used Prius has small upfront impact and a relatively small ongoing impact from burning gasoline efficiently, but it still burns fossil fuel and will continue to pollute and increase its impact the longer it's on the road. A new EV, on the other hand, has a larger upfront impact from production, but its ongoing emissions from the generation of electricity are miniscule by comparison. If you buy a new EV and drive it for even a couple years, you will have easily made up the difference in lifetime emissions and continue to be even less impactful compared to a gas car the longer you drive it. That difference is only made wider the cleaner the electricity you have. That's why we should be electrifying everything in our homes and infrastructure, because they're usually more efficient and will only become less polluting over time as the grid transitions to cleaner power generation. Better yet, get solar panels for your home and now running your appliances and cars will have zero impact other than the initial emissions from their production. But enough can't be said for undoing the social programming of capitalism to overconsume and demand new things. Use less, buy secondhand, repair what you have, and give back when you're done. In other words, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE! Oh yeah, and VOTE!
It seems like the video was counting the cost of production for the EV, and comparing it to a gas car without factoring in production, which is not fair. Also I thought you CAN reuse or recycle EV batteries now?
is it really zero emissions if a dirty grid powers the battery? Sure, it is zero emissions at the tailpipe, because those emissions were transferred to that coal fired power plant.
@@zimmejoc good point. Yes EVs powered by a dirty grid have emissions, but still less than gas. ICE cars burn fossil fuels not only at the tailpipe, but also during extraction, refinement, transportation, and distribution. Not to mention that half of the energy burned from fuel in a car is wasted as heat, so there's additional emissions there as well. Electrifying everything makes sense because electric alternatives are usually 90-100% efficient and only burn fossil fuels once at the point of generation, if at all.
The biggest issue in America is that those who want a continued cycle of consumerism are the ones in control. Companies don't want people to be able to fix their products, they'd rather sell a new product, and they would rather design for planned obsolescence because of this. Americans love to complain about how much better products were from the 1950's, but the reality is that American companies today in 2024 design products that will break within a few years, because that means a future income stream for the company. If we want to change that, then we really need to change how we vote, in the ballot box and with our wallets. Simply buying American isn't going to fix that problem, instead we need to replace those who would keep us trapped in consumerism.
buying american has never really been about quality, it was about pride in your country, until all the funds from slavery got stuck into manufacturing and big business then, they took that money and found new slaves elsewhere that were cheaper. American made on a product was never better except in specific industries. Capitalism must end eventually, and regulations need to be better enforced and designed
The other day, I watched a video in which a scientist said that 25% of the causes of the rapid rise in ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean are not understood. If you think about it in terms of calories, it would take a huge amount of energy to raise seawater temperature, but we still don't know what causes it. In Japan, the output of mega solar power plants is limited during sunny days, and there are plans that offer discounts to households that charge their EVs during the day. If global warming is going to cause various economic losses in the near future, it might be wise to ban night-time production in factories.
Conservation came early by way of hand-me-downs with three older sibs. Seeing how creative one could be making great use of used items still etched in our DNA. Thanks to generations encounters with suffering, leading to lessons of learning from the land. Nature is abundant with solutions! Grateful for their wisdom and ingenuity😊
At 2:25 who is "junking the battery"? None of the valuable materials is consumed, it is highly recyclable, and the materials are already highly refined, so it will be better quality feedstock for new batteries. It's probably difficult to find high volumes of retired BEV batteries, especially from Tesla, because even decade old batteries are still in service with low capacity loss... Unlike fossil fuels, batteries are storage assets for renewables that last many decades and will be recycled... They are displacing the fossil fuels which are extracted at many orders of magnitude higher quantities for single use when burned for energy. FF is ancient solar energy. Please be sure your sources are valid before proclaiming that BEV batteries will end up in landfills. There are numerous companies which are focused on making batteries a circular resource. Maybe consider covering that instead of the fossil fuels misinformation of batteries in the garbage?
At least the batteries made from these toxic materials will be functional for years. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, must be continuously replaced as they are burned to extract their energy.
This video's attacks on EVs are dangerous and result in this video doing more harm than good. The oil industry thanks you for doing their work for them.
Fermi paradox is answered here. We are intelligent enough to industrialize and consume all natural resources but not intelligent enough to prevent ecological catastrophe.
Our competitive nature allowed us to become the first self aware life on the planet. Unfortunately, that same competitive nature prevents us from the collectivism needed to endure to a spacefaring species. On a super earth near a long lived star somewhere else in the Galaxy or the next one there is a colonial species that after billions of years may evolve progressively enough to reach that goal. Who knows if we're among the first intelligent life, but we certainly will not be the last.
@@sethsevaroth humans have always collectivized, early humans were even egalitarian across biological sexes with equal amounts of hunters having either chromosomes or other biomarkers showing that things were normally pretty equal, that equity started societies, it was the inception of societies and groups that separated themselves, often to aid their own group. Humans ARE collective creatures, a lot of primates are actually. It was other collectives, and it was colonization on top of the other collectives that was the issue. For as long as a species requires, or enforces, or is colonial, it will never be a success out in space without so much either luck I might start believing in a god that only cares about those aliens, or so much destruction that we would only know about it for a few seconds before our entire planet gets destroyed and we all get enslaved for like water or something.
@@AnthemUnanthemed To steelman the person you responded to: One might argue that humans have effectively collectivised, but that the effectiveness of it has always had a problematic ceiling created by the appeal of corruption and selfish short-term planning, which get more appealing as the systems get bigger. However, I actually agree with you that a competitiveness versus collectivisation isn't the main problem. The first deficiency is just a refusal of planning at scale, and with the future in mind. Part of the cause there is that individualism standing in the way of making initial investments as a group, but I think just a sheer lack of perspective and intellectual capacity is just as much of a problem. Which you really can't blame a civilisation of manual labourers and farmers for, but now that we've left those origins behind us, the question is if we'll adjust in time.
@@TheHadMatters I dont agree with the idea that we collectivized effectively as it has typically been over the threat of death for the past potentially several hundred if not thousands of years, it still means theres no one to blame, and the way forward is still for the most part the same, I just think we also do need to listen to individuals and understand and accept their distrust of others due to the way society has been operating, including world powers (america) denying war crimes (their own genocides against multiple peoples and hiding japan's actions during ww2 as best they could). I think we have a fundamental difference on the way we view this topic though, I honestly dont think the ceiling has gotten that much higher, I think there has just been an illusion of that while the foundations of society remain workers (or slaves) who struggle and fight for survival, now for healthcare or welfare rather than food, or water, while its become impossible to actually pay or deal with any of that, its more like partying on the top floor while the ground floor floods with lots more people, and the top floor is busy doing the accounting of how many people from the bottom floor they can let up so they all drown before any of them are actually let up. It would cost less than 17% of Google's revenue a year to make up for (ontop of current assistance by other states) and solve world hunger by 2030, but the rich have been told if their companies dont make as much income as possible year over year, thats bad, so they let people die because "its bad for business" to help them, even tho all that would change is google wouldnt grow as quickly, and Google isnt even the richest company on the planet. For all of colonial history we have paved over people "for the good of the group" even when it was wrong, we cant keep doing the same thing to fix this, we need to be on a more individual level to make sure people stop falling through these cracks, what good is a society if when u are born u have a 1/100 chance to live in agony do nothing and die alone because of genetic variability that has increased specifically in places that have been screwed by colonialism due to becoming carcinogenic dumping grounds by colonial powers, who is supposed to guide the group the "freedom loving americans" that fund commit and deny genocide throughout their entire existence?
@@AnthemUnanthemed I don't think "typically over the threat of death" is a sufficiently thorough perspective. So much success, and arguably most progress, has been the result of villages working together by natural necessity (sharing food, shelter, labour) or simply out of a care for the community. I don't think we have that much of a different perspective, I would prefer your path too (essentially make the needs of the many individuals the first priority of all rules and labour/production processes; make everyone care, and don't let anyone's power outgrow other people), I just don't think it's the only one. I think there are ways of accepting that capitalism will still be here to stay for a while, and encourage gradual change from within. I'd rather have that than try and revolutionise everything, fail miserably, and start from scratch as we pick up the pieces again.
Put a national cap on highway speeds. It was done in '73 during the OPEC embargo to drastically reduce energy consumption on the roads. The same used today would have an immediate reduction of vehicle emissions.
We need to stop/reduce buying all together. Reduce and re-use thinks we have. Buying anything just creates more demand. Not creating more demand is the way to go 👌
GDP is not a great determination of a thriving country. Other noted mentions is the increase in these 3rd party groups that for a fee and some mild oversight over agricultural workers get to place a label on grocery goods that may have used child labor to harvest the ingredients in our food. Taking out the value of labor has long lasting effects and impacts on communities and our green sphere. Particularly when you talk about right to education and building infrastructure to support a manufacturing site rather than making access to utilities or clean water to communities around the factory or those folks working inside it. Thx PBS for reminding us that working together to prepare for the challenges of climate change is how we can truly make a difference.
Electric cars are more expensive to make, but that’s mainly because they haven’t been around long so there is still a lot of research to do. At least the fuel is less polluting.
Have you ever seen the places in China where the batteries are made? One of the worlds largest lakes turned into a toxic waste dump. Lithium, Cobalt, and other exotic rare earth metals make it extremely toxic. It's not better, it's just different. Electric cars are more expensive not because of a lack of understanding, but because of a lack of material. If we take the global supply of lithium and used ALL production it'd take about seventy years just for the USA to go fully electric. That's excluding the fact your power company still burns hydrocarbons to make the power.
In many cases, it's better to keep using what you have until you can't anymore. That's why right to repair is a big deal from an environmental standpoint: it help keeps stuff out of the landfill and saves you money.
The shade on Tesla is only coming from hate as it might need a mention but picking on them instead of the oil companies and ice cars is frankly just stupid
1) Buy solar for your cottage, home, parents' place --> reduce need for electricity from 30-100% 2) If you have the budget, buy enough solar to have excess to charge your electric car 3) Buy home battery storage after you paid off more than 50% of you solar (home battery storage gets cheaper every year, so might be good idea to wait for couple years still) You are now very close to off grid and removed your foot print that comes from burning coal/oil etc and reduced the strain on your local grid as you consume the electricity you generate.
If we really want to tackle climate change then we need to all make changes in our lives. The #1 contributor to climate change is animal agriculture. If you haven’t already gone vegan, now is the time. If not for the planet then do it for your own health, and the innocent animals. Next, reduce consumption, cook at home, ride bike or walk or use public transport when you can. Keep your car for 15-20 years. (I can tell I’ve lost everyone by this point, no one wants to actually do all this, and that’s the problem)
Yes and... It looks different for everyone. Unfortunately a lot of cities in America are not walking friendly, much less bike friendly... And as a pescatarian and aspiring vegetarian, I recognize that a lot of towns are food deserts with few to no ethical/sustainable options at your local Walmart/dollar general. We need large scale policy changes
@@jldstuff393 it’s hard to imagine not being able to get your hands on some rice and beans and a few veggies. 99% of Americans should be able to do that
The really annoying part is that nearly all vegan leather is plastic, all affordable is at any rate and it doesn't last meaning more shoes, more pollution and animals getting killed with it, cutting animals out of eating is the obvious and rather easy one but currently... Shoes made with real leather can last a decade of constant use as long as you maintain it meanwhile any plastic will degrade and make more microplastics, before secondhand became so expensive I would get leather boots from there
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
The huge question which is never answered is "how can we restructure society to consume less?" The rich fight against change. The middle class is largely complacent. The poor are too busy scrambling to make ends meet.
Right
Degrowth
@@Modus_Pwninbut how though?
Do one on getting the fracked fuel for gas and diesel vehicles. And the deaths related to the air pollution.
Give it 20 years and that will change, because there won't be a middle class.
Thank you! Unending consumerism feels more like a disease, than a measure of a healthy economy.
Reducing consumption is a good way to reduce your environmental footprint. Greta Thunberg has said in an interview that she sometimes reminds her parents not to buy things that they don't really need. The most effective way to reduce consumption for the environment would be to stop buying animal products. Not surprising that she is vegan. Animal agriculture is an extremely inefficient way to produce nutrients in terms of resources, and produces more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined! It is also the top cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. The burning of the Amazon rain forest is an example.
The phrase is Cancer Capitalism, and it is perfectly accurate.
@@someguy2135 shut up vegan
Our modern perception of a healthy economy is inherently skewed. A stagnating economy is considered unhealthy. Considering that we already use 70% more than is regenerated globally, the global economy needs to shrink by over one third to become sustainable.
If we now also want to distribute Planetary resources fairly, we are talking shrinking the economy of western countries by anywhere from 65-75 percent, since countries like for example the US already consume more than 3 times of what is regenerated.
In the end this would mean that our entire credit based financial system including the stock market will have to collapse, because those institutions are only profitable in a world where "line go up".
True, but it doesn't solve the problem, specially when you are incentivised to buy buy buy. Capitalism needs it, otherwise we enter recessions, it's a systemic problem @@someguy2135
The problem is that equilibrium is seen as stagnation or failure in capitalist economies. All these MBAs who have been advocating for growth every quarter since the 1980s have ignored one of the basic lessons in high school economics: the law of diminishing returns.
Unrestricted growth is the modus operandi of cancer cells.
You need at least some GDP growth for two reasons:
1. If GDP growth is not more than inflation then Real GDP is negative which means you have a falling standard of living.
2. If Real GDP growth is not large enough to keep up with population growth then you have a shrinking GDP/Capita - which again means a falling standard of living.
Falling GDP doesn't just mean less TVs and Phones, it means less doctors visits, less education, no improvements to infrastructure, less food, etc... it's an overall contraction in the standard of living. If you want to see what that looks like, go look at Japan, Italy, Greece, Venezuela, Russia, Brazil, etc... all face issues with high unemployment, reduced real wages, increased debt levels, social and political instability, etc...
The solution isn't to shrink GDP, the solution is to actually price into the system the things that matter - tax carbon emissions, methane emissions, ecological destruction, allow tax deductions for carbon sequestration, and projects which improve ecological bio-diversity. Anything that actually has a cost (usually burdened by the entire planet and at a later date) needs to be included into the price of the product. Properly pricing this would get rid of greenwashing, if you have three products A,B and C and A and B say they are green, but B is the same cost as C ... B probably isn't that green.
[also law of diminishing returns isn't really applicable to GDP growth due to technological advancements/innovation and to a lesser extent capital deepening - most GDP growth over the last 40ish years has been from technological advancements not capital deepening (which would be more raw materials, more machines, etc..), you are correct though, from a purely capital deepening perspective there is a very clear law of diminishing returns, eventually the amount of capital that needs to be replaced every year is equal to the total output of new capital in a year and growth stagnates - but most developed countries derive their gdp growth primarily from innovation now.]
Constant growth is a property of life, not just cancer.
You should look up how fiat money works. Inflation is built into our system, so a certain amount of numerical growth is needed to achieve stagnation. When inflation in Europe hovered around 2 %, the standard of living was pretty much constant for most people.
@@MH-kj9hh that’s only true by the standards of capitalism. Growth for the sake of profit is destructive, as shown by even just the last 4 decades. Growth for the sake of humanity’s welfare is key!
@@dazey8706 everything I said can be reasoned out with logic and it doesn't matter what economic system you subscribe to, if gdp is value and value goes up less than inflation and population growth then there is less value available per-person. How you define value is up to you, like I said, I think we need to properly tax externialites, that would make the cost of carbon emission, plastic waste, etc... all reflected in GDP. This same concept would apply to communism and socialism, it is economic system agnostic.
There is a reason why the 3 R's began with reduce and reuse. Recycling is dependent on economic factors outside the typical consumer's control, but consuming less, repairing what can be repaired, and repurposing things that can't be fully repaired (e.g. torn jeans into shorts or cleaning rags or pieces for a denim quilt) goes much farther toward doing some good. My individual contribution is minuscule, but it does help a little--especially if it catches on. Of course the big policy decisions will make the biggest difference, but I don't have much influence over them!
But how do you make a quilt?
Recycling is something that becomes easier over time, because as raw materials become harder to find and produce, the demand for recycling will naturally increase. It is a problem that solves itself.
@@MegaLokopothat's some wishful thinking that isn't even that wishful since it relies on everything getting much worse
“Use it up, wear it out, make it do, do without”
Yep. That was the depression era mantra that GM had to counter with "planned obsolescence" for the good of the economy. It's been leading us down this road ever since.
I just saw a little hand printed picture of this at Goodwill yesterday. Interesting how it ended up in a thrift shop.
Repair or buy used and do it again.
Especially buying used or old is not only saving a lot of money and resources, but since some old things you can get were produced without planned obsolescence, they will even last longer then new products.
Many forgot what quality actually means.
My old chemistry and physics teachers teached us much about production methods and how things got cheaper and less durable and how things used to be build.
My parents ingrained the saying "Wer billig kauft, kauft zweimal" (Who buys cheap, buys twice)
Most of my childhood I was wearing good clothes from high end brands, all bought from fleamarkets, so despite not being rich, I fit right in my snobbish rich environment at that time.
So it is a big misconseption, that cutting down on stupid consumerism actually reduces quality of life or the ability to own good things.
Learn how to mend your clothes! And live in a walkable neighborhood. Today when I go out for milk I just walk
1. Refuse: Don’t buy things you don’t need.
2. Reduce: Buy less of the products you do need.
3. Reuse: Buy used products and give them a new life.
4. Repurpose: Find creative ways to use the products you already have.
5. Recycle: Contribute to the circular economy. Donate, sell, or recycle what you can’t use.
Also like to add
6. Repair: Fixing your products where you can. For instance, mending tears in your clothes.
7. Rot: Composting your food waste.
Second hand stores are another good way to reduce emissions and packaging. The products are already there looking for another home, so checking their first before buying something that came off a truck would be better
All of which depends upon everyone doing it. Don't hold your breath. Being ultraistic when the majority of people won't, just means you've got the back seat on the bus going off the cliff. Without governments and corporations actually becoming ethical, and the majority of the world's population suddenly and actively caring, this is wasted effort.
Welcome to my student life...
@@samhavoc1066most of these points can also make your life better, as they save tons of money which you can use on other things that aren’t stupid consumption .
Finally, a US public service media source reports the unvarnished truth . . . well done PBS!
Agree.
PBS Terras has made a lot of important videos on climate change lately!
@@Flewty Yes, but this is the only one that comes right out and clearly states that it will keep getting worse under our current system of hyper-consuming capitalism.
Watch Planet of the Humans@@patrickfitzgerald2861
PBS is a national treasure.
It is no coincidence that conservatives constantly try to defund the programming. They are one of the few educational spheres that speaks truth to the reality of our damaged system.
@@opossumboyo Sadly, in the 21st century they have become highly dependent on the support of the people who run the corporations that are destroying our world. I was shocked to see them finally state the truth about hyper-consumption here, but PBS Terra does not reach a huge audience, and the top executives at PBS may not know about this video.
Agree with the central point. But it’s frustrating to hear the repeated “we” …when citizens have been calling for systemic change for years and decision makers refuse to listen, or green-wash at best.
Where I live our local representatives are Green Party - the area is strongly pro-green- but people's actions show their hypocrisy and they are not bothered.
I hear that "we" disease a LOT when it comes to large scale problems. "We didn't seem to want to change it", they say. Who is we? The wealthy and powerful who are making the decisioons? The people who so often force change on us in the name of their own goals? Stop saying "we", there is no "we". Stop socializing the blame for decisions that got made by people I'm not allowed to question.
"We" need to stop electing republicans. It won't solve "our" problems but it's a start.
Sorry, but the majority of consumers are just as bad. You and I recycle, cut back on purchases, etc., but the other 8 out of 10 just keep doing what they are doing, or worse. Corporations lie about recycling, labeling items with the triangle when they are actually not recyclable. They've bought the politicians, so nothing will change that way. Mankind is a blight and mother nature will eventually deal with it in its own way.
@@samhavoc1066 I absolutely agree that nature will enforce limits. I just hope there are enough survivors to learn and build a new way of living. Well, I see it that way when I think of symphonies, scientific exploration and artwork. But if I think about the worst of humanity, extremism, organised crime, child exploitation… I do wonder whether our species should continue.
This product is great for the environment!
-the company that makes the product.
I feel like the "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" really stuck with me as a kid. I'll wear my shoes til they have holes in the sole because ... why would I buy new ones before these ones are used up?
Also, super un-popular with the older generations, but my wife and I opted out of having kids along these reasons. You wanna save the planet, stop creating a demand for all this garbage.
No one actually wants to save the planet; we want to save future generations of humans, so thanks for making room for my kids.
We just don't want our descendants curse on us, do we?
Okay so why is it then that countries with the highest birth rates consume the least resources and those with negative birth rates consume the most?
It’s almost as if population isn’t actually a meaningful driver of overproduction.
@@saoirsecameroncorrelation =\= causation.
I could make up any plausible reason for that being the case. The most likely one being that Birth rate has little to nothing to do with consumption of luxuries and more so to do with income.
Just because the newest warring micronation of Africa is growing fast doesn’t mean you’d be expecting them to consume more than Americans of similar pop density.
@@brockwilson4108 that’s literally what I’m saying. There is no clear causal relationship between population and consumption.
And the "buy green" marketing once again places all the onus on the consumer to change the world, whilst the folks actually responsible for wreaking destruction continue to sip mimosas in their nice penthouses.
As has been said before in this series, we gotta use the power we do have. Buy carefully, research companies and products if you can. And vote.
Seems that this video was about not buying anything at all. Curious, which corporation and which CEO does not buying stuff benefit exactly? The oil industry? Coal? Natural Gas? Auto companies? Airlines? C'mon, buddy, inform us. CEOs and corporations wouldn't be a bane on the globe if we consumers didn't continuously buy their stuff! What next, are we gonna blame advertising agencies for giving consumers no choice but to buy all the things with their unavoidable temptation? Seems to me this idea that we should just keep consuming and continuously funding corporations and CEOs and giving them more power and voice in our government... and waiting for the government to do something doesn't actually change anything. It doesn't give voters ownership of the issue. It create greed and lust; wanting what others have. It creates materialism. It creates peer pressure to buy more stuff to be part of the group. Buy all the newest clothes, and newest cars. Materialism = happiness. It doesn't solve anything.
The only thing the governmental could possibly do to fix this is to pass laws that restrict consumption. Basically doing the same thing individuals do by choosing to consume less. The difference is, when consumers choose this, they're happy to do so, they take ownership, and they may vote for politicians that will actually do more. OTOH, when people are told what they can or cannot buy, they tend to get defensive and vote against anyone who might try to stop their consumption.
The flip side ! Why am I scratching my head: concerned HOW to change MY behavior. The market is [in]famously the Demand AND Supply side working in concert. Or The 'Marshallian Scissors". 'No Show without Punch' ?
@@stephenduncan8292 A very good point, but I feel like some of our demand is shaped by habit if that makes sense? We've got so used to "how it is" that we forget it wasn't always like this. Something that has just recently been hammered home to me VERY personally because our house plumbing is borked :(
So I've had to wash dishes like it's 1924 for several days while the landlord attempts to get a plumber. And I never thought about how just that simple task is SO different between now and a hundred years ago - or between here in the US and say, parts of India where water is scarce. It's very sobering to understand just how much resources I use, and I'm not wealthy by any definition.
Changing these things is gonna require a lot of effort and time, I guess. I sure don't have answers, I'm just trying to do what I can, teach my kid to do better than his elders.
Agree: the classic perception problem of 'being Beings' within a given system of reality. Not able to step outside: look insightfully at a 'whole way of life' we grew up over five decades. Or six decades. Some point to 'Silent Spring' [Carson] 1962.
An alarm bell sounded with 'The Limits to Growth' 1972 (+ 50) = 2022. Widely read, it was a computer- modeled 'experimental world economic forecast'. Not a climate change thesis. Could be discussed as unfounded 'doomism'. It was. Then came the Rio Earth Summit 1998 and the Kyoto protocol 2015. Only 8 years ago but 'assuming a timeline out to 2100. Now a 'deadline' of 2033 (one decade) down from 2050, is operative.
Perhaps the skepticism of critics of UNIPCC and 'refusal' by others can be understood. Acceptance that We Have A Problem (WHAP) is dependent on writing-off all that has 'improved since 1800 ?
I feel like, sometimes, we are just too tired, overworked, exhausted, burnt out and depressed to really face these predicaments, but simply yearning and seeking temporary relieves and comforts from consumption. In some correlation to this, I agree completely that it's not individual decisions but on larger scales of the living space, the city, the country we're living in.
In an individualistic consumer society you are told to be your authentic self - most people don't know what that is anyway but feel they have to be it so they "achieve" this by buying pointless stuff that advertisers have shown will fill that gap - it doesn't and we need to realise that.
The greenwashing is what ticks me off. As an amateur bookbinder, I haven't bought or used any newly made paper, cardstock, or leather for my works; all of them are purchased from thrift stores and salvaged from garbage piles. Most of the pages I used for my works are either very old stock that even the stores themselves don't have inventory of or used paper like paper bags or discarded thesis papers.
Looking at the "green" options like journals made with bamboo covers (while being spiral bound), it just reeks of PR speak trying to spin barely revised products like it's a trendsetter for sustainability. There is nothing "green" about journals with wooden covers and are spiral bound, it's just a lazy reskin...
I accidentally do consume less. Don’t have a car, because I like to read. And you can’t read while driving. Don’t like meat or fish, always loved beans and vegetables more. Don’t go in Hollidays anymore, because it’s to stressful.
Has the atmosphere stop heating up exponential? What individuals do makes no impact on the global warming crisis. I have solar panels and drive an EUV and haven't made one iota difference. Humans are self-destructive and they dont even know it.
That's my lifestyle too. I ditched my car because it was too expensive and I didn't really need it. Stop eating meat 25 years ago to be healthier and it worked great!
I live in a beautiful part of Canada that's so I really don't have to travel anywhere.
People can have a great simple life if they examine their life carefully and get rid of the things that they don't need.
That to me is one of the funny things about environmentalism. I don't care too much about the whole thing, I don't have children, so I don't need this planet after about 2060. But just out of habit I have a much smaller carbon footprint than most of my coworkers. Also worth remembering: the price of a product is, in the first iteration, a good measure for how much energy went into making it.
Waow no one cares
@@Jeff.55649 The OP got likes and people responded positively to the OP so some people do care. I thought the OP's comment was cool. The OP's comment related to the video. Idk why you had to say a negative put down to the OP.
Clarification: cobalt and lithium are not Rare Earth Elements (those include lantanides +/- Scandium and Yttrium), but critical metals.
A lot of good info in this video but it makes the classic mistake of mentioning cobalt in EVs. The newer batteries don't use cobalt and the biggest demand for its' use is in processing petroleum.
"The newer batteries don't use cobalt" that was very misleading. The only EV batteries that don't use cobalt are Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. The only EVs currently sold in the US that have these batteries are the base models of the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y (which do make up 50% of their sales). The only other LFP EVs are the base model Ford Mustang Mach-E, the base model Fisker Ocean. Around the world there are alot more LFP cars to choose from that aren't sold in the US. Many automakers selling in they US say they will offer LFP cars in the next couple of years. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is most new EV batteries in the US still use cobalt, but not all. How about some legislation?
@@alterbr33d I haven't heard that the sodium batteries being developed are going to use cobalt. I agree with legislation. The biggest use of cobalt is in taking the sulphur out of petroleum. So we'll just ban oil.
People always seem to forget that the phrase is "_REDUCE_, Reuse, Recycle."
Yes, if you're going to buy a brand new car, buying an EV will be better for the environment than a gasoline vehicle, long term.
Buying a used EV is even better.
Continuing to use an older, efficient gas car is even better than that.
But best of all is - drive less. If you live in a city that has reliable public transit, use that! Walk! Bicycle!
(All that said, I'm disappointed at PBS for pushing the FUD statement that EV batteries are "waste" at the end of a vehicle's life - batteries are some of the *MOST* recycled/recyclable materials we use. That Tesla battery won't just be thrown in a landfill. It will be used in stationary power systems, then rebuilt, then finally all its components recycled. Almost none of it will end up in a landfill.)
Making products that lasts longer and are not built to wear out intentionally should be the goal. Things that can be serviced, like your phone, need to be able to be able use third party parts, like a phone battery or a simple universal cable, looking at you Apple.
@@flufffycow Firstly: You're not wrong.
There is however a limit beyond which it isn't sustainable to keep repairing some things. For many things that limit is somewhat pliable, and adjustments come in many forms-yet there are hard limits on things like how many times a knife can be sharpened.
AnonymousFreakYT I gave you a 👍🏻, but there's some assumptions embedded in your statement worthy of unpacking.
(1) The "efficient gas car" myth: The reality is that most people already drive their cars until parts are falling off that cannot be replaced or they are unrepairable. It doesn't make any sense to encourage them to keep something they can barely envision replacing. Additionally, many of those vehicles use more resources over a three to five year period just to stay on the road than would be expended to build a new equivalently functional EV (or even a hybrid in many cases) and drive it a similar number of miles. This of course touches on the next presumption,
(2) That driving less is always meaningfully possible-which it isn't. While some organizations like the MBTA (Boston Massachusetts region transit authority) have made great strides melding public transit and housing realities, they are generally the exception. Unfortunately, even a system as good as the MBTA (AKA "the T") often still leaves poorer workers with four hour round trip commutes each day. This means they are likely to eat less healthy food each day, lacking time to prepare it-so even if bicycling the "last mile" were an option they'd not be able to do it.
(3) There is, in a huge amount of this flavor of "Solutions" media, an embedded assumption that not only are cities more affordable to live in but that they are more environmentally sustainable and closer to climate neutral. Unfortunately, at least in the USA & Canada, this just is not true. Cities are, in general, more expensive and less equitable places to live-leading to more renters over time spending a larger share of their income on housing that is steadily becoming less environmentally efficient. The landowners don't pay for the energy costs of their developments (that gets billed to the tenants) so they are not incentivized to do efficiency upgrades. To add insult to that injury, most cities in the USA and Canada lack functional public transit and are too diffuse and oddly structured to be meaningfully walkable or cyclist-safe.
(4) Finally there's the usually unspoken political dimension: Driving Progressives into increasingly dense cities only exacerbates the problem of government not taking the necessary actions to improve climate stability by empowering Revertatives & Rethuglicans to take over districts in the USA (and similar for people around the world).
So yeah, what was that "simple" answer again?
while it is true that a lot of battery parts CAN be recycled, unfortunately that doesnt really say the total reality of global situations, while science is getting good at recycling, a lot of parts will still need fresh material to seed it, and also a lot of car manufacturers (tesla included) see this as less profitable and would prefer to keep daddy's old cobalt mine open, this has already resulted in extremely large lots of returned cars with damage that sit in deserts on a concrete heat sink waiting for elon to pick the more environmentally concision decision instead of the cheaper economics of continuing to profit off of enslaved child labor like he did when he was a kid.
@@AnthemUnanthemed Elon's father owned a diamond mine in South Africa, not the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire, what Elon's father would have called it). There were shitty labor conditions, but Apartheid and slavery are very different in meaningfully insidious ways.
As for the preference to use new materials, that is dropping over time as the price for recovered materials (via recycling) drops. That said, demand for materials will exceed supply (freshly mined and recycled) for some time yet. Many newer cars are also being made with non-cobalt Li-ion chemistry batteries.
pleasantly surprised to see something like this coming from somewhere like pbs
At 1:55, they use less or no cobalt. Lithium is made the same way salt is evaporated out of pools of water in salt flats... Can you cite this claim?
Did you know cobalt is used in oil refinement, where is the outrage?
Yes, also lithium is not rare earth element or toxic as they pointed out. You are righ lifepo4 batteries do not use cobalt or expensive nickel but iron. Those batteries last much longer and have up to 10 000 cycles and more than 10 years life span and are not prone to catch fire when penetrated. Major drawbach is that they are heavier 10 to 20%, all else is awesome
@@markhivin8670 LiFePo4 are my general purposes favorite. Another consideration is that "lifespan" cycles are only once capacity drops to 80% of original... But for many applications that's still acceptable. In a 300mile BEV that's still 240miles of range, it might still be useful for a second "lifetime" down to 60% capacity, or 192miles. Perhaps a third lifecycle down to 40% or 153miles is still acceptable, or perhaps a second service role in stationary storage.
And then, finally, all the original elements remain and are already highly refined, so will be recycled as new feedstock, thus eliminating that quantity of material virgin mining needs.
Many decade old Tesla batteries remain at above 80% capacity and are losing more at a more shallow rate. The first 5~10% of capacity loss occurs fast, but then it tapers off to very gradual loss. Projections look like many may already last a million miles. And these are NMC with "less cycle life" vs LiFePo4...
PBS should do a better job, it seems they just parroted FUD talking points or "common knowledge" which isn't proving to be true.
Lookup what lithium extraction has done to water polution in south america...
Iron Phosphate batteries don't use any cobalt. 50% of Tesla sold use these batteries, these batteries are on the base model of the Model 3 and Model Y. The base model Ford Mach-E is also LFP Cobalt free. Most EV manufacturers selling in the US plan to offer cobalt free LFP batteries within a few months to a few years from now. She didn't even mention LFP batteries.
@@alterbr33d Apparently talking about lithium water pollution get me censored and deleted. But those "iron batteries" do make use of lithium...
Amazing how she is so calm and composed as she narrates all this.
I’d be swinging between crushing grief and depression, anxiety and racing thoughts, and angry, bitter curse -word filled ranting.
Kudos to her
It is well established that an EVs have a higher upfront CO2 footprint when compared to ICE vehicles. However EV vehicle lifetime emissions (factored) are much less than ICE (obviously).
Yeah plus that batteries often can be recycled at the end of their life time in an EV. It is a shame that the video dismisses some information about the total lifecycle emissions, which for an EV are much lower than an ICE. Furthermore the emission for EVs keeps dropping as the electric grids get more and more renewables.
Not defending Musk, but it seems fitting that they use "Tesla" instead of any other EV for the argument. PBS can do better on the impartiality front.
@@cannotgetstartedYea seems like more of a tesla hit piece in some ways. Def an anti ev bias here. No mention of the need for robust public transit. Just "EVs are bad"
German ICEs are much better for the environment than EVs because the ICE stands for Inter City Express and is a train
Obviously ? Heh most of our electricity still comes from coal so ?
PBS has reached the core of the problem. This is the reason I have no hope for a transition to an ecologically-friendly world without a massive catastrophe or a drastic shift in culture.
Nate Hagen’s podcast “The Great Simplification”, which I have been following religiously since it started, is one of the best sources for content on the true problems facing our species. I highly recommend it for any environmentalist today, especially ones feeling the same despair I do.
Thank you for the suggestion! Only listened to one yet, but sounds promising so far :)
Nobody is trying to fix the root problems we have in this country. Everyone is stuck focusing on making enough money so that the problems don't apply to them anymore.
One simple semi solution for this problem is to stop buying and learn to live with what you already own. Here in Finland, you can hear this advice many times. For example, many have said that they haven't bought new clothes in almost 20 years and they are still using the same phone as 10 years ago. And the only thing they take from the store is only food because they don't need anything else from the store. However, I have no idea how they make this work in practice and whether it is accepted if you buy used ones from a thrift shops or a secondhand stores.
the idea of endless growth on a finite planet with limited resources, on which our current hyper-consumerist system depends, has been doomed to fail from the start. we need to be better stewards of this planet if we're to survive (and also not take all complex life with us)
inb4 we got space mining and space-based solar power
Or really embrace the principle of a circular economy - people like new stuff - just make it out of old stuff and you are part way there.
From most important to least, there's a reason why we say reduce first in "reduce, reuse, recycle." The climate crisis is a result of the consumption crisis, the problem is needless consumption, not strategical use of resources.
This video is very good except for one thing. The reason the economy has to grow and we have to consume more and more stuff, is that our currency is based on debt. In order for the currency to be stable the debt has to be paid with real resources from the environment, and human labor. Shrinking economic activity without addressing the currency problem will make our economy unstable, perhaps catastrophically so. Shrinking the economy by consuming less stuff absolutely must happen to stop climate change!!! But we need to change the basis of our money system to prevent economic collapse first.
Do you think that if "our currency" wasn't "based on debt," then humans would consume significantly less resources? As in, is the currency the driver of much of the consumption? I'm thinking "no."
@@synupps877 the video suggests that we should consume less. I tried, in my response to the video, to point out the danger of reducing consumption in an economy that has to grow to remain stable. I believe that the makers of the video are CORRECT and we do need to reduce consumption, as infinite growth on a finite planet is not possible. Whether we are CAPABLE of that remains to be seen. But my point was that reducing consumption without fixing the structural basis of our economic system, the debt at the center of it, is likely to cause collapse of the system.
@@joannemason262 Very well put. I think many people don't understand the relationship between reducing consumption and the need for the growth of our economy. Do we need to consume less, yes. do we need to save more and pay off the debt, yes. Unfortunately our culture and our politicans have their head up their anal spincters.
@synupps877
It's not just the money. It's the system of private capital as a whole that is the problem. The primary driver of our society is the profit motive. The accumulation of wealth. This system creates an incentive to continually extract and consume resources at an ever increasing rate. To continue to increase profit for ever.
What we need is a centrally planned economy where things are produced and distributed based on need, and not profit. There are a lot of different models for how this system could work, but we can be sure that capitalism won't work for much longer.
@@ElectricAlien577 So, with a "planned economy" we'll just destroy what remains of Earth's ecosystems a little slower.
We need a planet economy.
This is so spot on!!! I'm super impressed with how the video managed to clearly and succinctly explain in only 7 minutes 🔥
PBS has become so brave over the years.
I hope the US comes around, but I'm still shopping around for jobs outside here.
Great video! This is the content the world needs. PBS Terra, keep up the amazing work!
As I've worked to radically reduce my consumption over the years, I can't stop thinking of the personal psychological aspects of it. Buying new things is equivalent to addiction for many of us. And especially as the world becomes more frightening and unstable, I can't help but wonder if consumption will increase out of grasping for familiarity/comfort, without some sort therapeutic behavioral intervention. It's such a conundrum, but I choose to believe not impossible to shift.
What do you do with all the money you save from avoided consumption?
@@gregorymalchuk272 I'm not OP, but in my case, I save it up. As a result, I haven't worked in months. I just take long breaks from working every so often, and take time to enjoy my life. It's like a temporary mini-retirement.
My first car is an EV and I live in car-centric suburbia. It would take decades of rebuilding to make living car free viable where I live so I have no realistic choice but to own a car. Even if my EV isn't truely carbon zero it still consumes far less CO2 than a comparable gas only vehicle. Is public transit better for the environment than EVs? Yes, absolutely. But the majority of Americans live in places where cars are the only realistic option for transportation.
Car share - most cars sit doing nothing for most of the time - this makes the car more analogous to public transport
There's nothing wrong with your need as an individual. This was the point in the video. What you can do is advocacy and participate in local government. That's the most effective way to change things. Not things like trying to recycle everything when they're thrown in the landfill anyway.
Excellent, intelligent video.
This is the best PBS produced environmental video I’ve ever seen. Thank you!
agreed!!
@@_drian Absolutely !
2:49 The fact that "vegan" (i.e. plastic) fake leather was ever allowed to be marketed as a green alternative to real leather is beyond idiotic...
You should do an episode about what we actually can do! Eating less meat, better urban planning, buying second hand things and only when necessary and of course do everything we can to change the system!
Depending on your field of works it's also possible to have a huge impact
Restructuring societal values is tricky, but possible. Keep shouting the truth, PBS!
The main problem here is capitalism. Something of which we can't get rid off overnight, sadly.
Consumerism, not capitalism.
@@hisvinConsumption at the current level in global north is not the result of some abstract cultural phenomenon. Products that are produced need to be sold, in order that they be sold, they need to be bought, this is a fundamental part of capitalism. Reduction of production, economic degrowth, under capitalism is catastrophic, it means economic recession which at a degree that would be enough to actually have an impact on climate crisis would mean a catastrophic economic crisis. So no, problem is capitalism.
Seems the main problem with most things is capitalism. Biomass for example... Sustainable in small amounts, not sustainable once capitalists exploit it for profit.
Global gangster capitalists and their evil ideology are gleefully and intentionally destroying the only home we will ever have for their exclusive benefit. Understanding this truth is the first step towards re-imagining our economies and societies.
@@jacobedward2401 See "Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered" by E. F. Schumacher, written over fifty years ago. The SCALE of global gangster capitalism is the problem, not the idea of exchanging goods and services.
This is an incredible series. Thanks, PBS!
This is the closest I think I've ever seen PBS come to outright questioning the sanity/validity of capitalism. Good job! More of this kind of brutal honesty 👏👏👏👍
Commies lol
THANK YOU. Louder for those in the back!!
Fast fashion is pure evil
The video spent more time pointing out the wrong things to do than actual solutions being done right now. A couple of channels that show solutions and not just wishful thinking are Bicycle Dutch and Not Just Bikes.
I just want to point out that, to my understanding, this series is about pointing out the wrong things we're doing instead of the actual solutions because a lot of the solutions that are being presented now either don't work or are somewhat problematic. Personally, I think it's a good thing in some sense because it questions whether or not our solutions are effective or not.
Proposition actual solutions is still important, of course, I just think they're just trying to tell us that if we're gonna try to solve this problem, we have to do it right.
Thank you! I've been saying this for years. You can't consume your way out of a consumption problem! What we want is a magic bullet where we can have our modern luxuries and disposable society but none of the consequences. Just like the diet industry. We want to eat cake every day and lose weight. God forbid we change our lifestyles and expect change, rather we want to ramp up our indulgences and expect change. It's not a surprise that we eat up corporate messaging that sells that idea. In the 70s, we were convinced that plastic litter was our problem to solve by recycling (later revealed as a lie) which allowed the plastic industry to continue pumping out plastic bottles. Same tactic, bigger scale. Make pollution a consumer problem, not an industry problem. It's so utterly obvious but it feeds the desire to have it all, so we collectively ignore it. Worse, we crap on those who call it out. Maybe now that PBS is calling it out, I won't be looked at like the crazy person on the street corner who doesn't like the smell of Elon's musk.
6:27 This is one of the dumbest segments in this video. "Most of the electricity powering electric vehicles is generated by dirty fuel anyway" then goes on to show the potential for a solar powered future, which would then power electric vehicles. PBS Terra pushing oil industry talking points by saying EVs are dirty. smh
Indeed, vehicles powered by fossil fuels can never be sustainable, whilst BEVs can be. And another thing, while human rights abuse exists and is abhorrent in the supply chain for EVs, the fossil fuel industry is built on slave labour directly or indirectly, even today.
Now I'm going on a tirade but.. Not even mentioning that many of the same materials are used in combustion vehicles, not mentioning the externalities of polluting cities with exhaust, etc
Yeah... If only there was a solution... Let's see... Nuclear pow... heh nevermind it's like too expensive to run because of greed
I'm no Tesla fanboy, but it's a bit disingenuous to mention construction CO2 of an electric car without referencing that most of the savings are down it's (lack of) fuel use. Admittedly, that's dependent on the generation mix, but we're going to have to go renewable anyway (and 'last mile' is the hardest problem). Saying we should build everything differently is great, but hardly helpful given the lifespan of existing infrastructure. 'Reduce' is certainly better than any of the other options, but replacing 'dirty' tech seems to be the thing that will actually help, given current society.
The purpose of the daily practice of doing something when you can is that it will become a habit and make you think about your action in terms of climate change. So that if you are in the position of power, you will steer correctly. Don't stop doing the little things.
Buy used, repair your own
this is a good little vid. I'll certainly share it around.
The point about the environmental costs of manufacturing new 'green' goods is particularly important. Often, the greenest choice is to keep using the old one.
The economic problem is that 70% of the US economy is household consumption. And much of that is either disposables (single use plastics etc) , or goods that we buy again and again because they are built to break, (shoes, clothes, appliances) or they go obsolete (anything electronic) or our tastes are manipulated by fashion. Or we simply overbuy. Our closets and cupboards and garages are stuffed. Its a cult of shopping - 'when the going gets tough the tough go shopping' as they (used to) say.
Certainly reduce. But acknowledge that’s there’s already been trillions of subsidies for the oil industry. And if people are going to spend (which they were going to anyway) then encourage an industry that grows an energy that can be used from the sun. Yea, mining can be bad but there’s harmful materials being mined for ICE cars as well. And EV batteries are just getting started. The materials in a battery are very much recyclable but the energy in an ICE is used and gone forever.
Messaging on point. Thank You!
Great vid! Just noting that "electrifying the grid" has already been achieved.
Was looking for this lol
Robert F Kennedy Junior is an environmental lawyer, not politician. He has real answers. I am 63 and he’s the best candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime, since his father and uncle.
6:30 "We can electrify the entire grid." ??? It's already electrified. That's what it is. AND - you can charge an EV with power generated from the dirtiest coal power plant and it will still have a smaller CO2 footprint than an ICE vehicle when you consider the energy/emissions it takes to; find the oil, drill and pump the oil, transport the oil, store the oil, refine the oil (POP QUIZ - What industry sector buys the most electricity for the manufacturing of its product in the US? Fossil fuel. Most of that power is generated using fossil fuel), store the product, transport and distribute the product, then fill up the fuel tanks of ICE vehicles and burn the fuel in an engine that is only 20 to 36% efficient in converting the chemical potential energy of the fuel THAT THEY SPENT ALL THAT ENERGY MAKING into motion, and then to top it off, you send all that fossil Carbon into the atmosphere. Yeah. So @PBSTerra I think next year I will remember this video when PBS wants to know what channels to prioritize...
How did they get the PBS logo for such an anti EV pro Fossil Fuel disinformation?
Great video with lots to reflect on. Thank you!
This has been a great series of videos. I’m loving it and I hope it continues.
I've been trying to find the words for these thoughts for quite a while. Thank you!
Buy, reuse, repair and use until they're completely broken. Only when products have finally reached their end should new be bought, and when buying new then, it's better to but the "green" alternatives.
Buying green is valid, but only as long as it's something which you otherwise can't make do without. If it's something that you need for your home, identity, style, hobbies and personality it may be worth considering buying the green products, but one should always try and ask oneself: "Is this actually something I need in my life? Or is that just what I'm telling myself to justify the purchase?" If the former, get the best option you can afford, if the latter just don't get it.
While I think that a rethinking of the endless growth of the economy is worthwhile, there are technologies we should adopt for their sustainability. Ebikes, public transit, and infrastructure are great. If people still need a car where they live an EV is going to be better than an internal combustion engine. Gasoline, or diesel, requires continual oil extraction which has all of the problems listed in this video but to a higher degree for longer. The carbon pay off period of EVs is 2-5 years depending on your grid. The electrical grid is also getting less carbon intense every year. Electrification of all technology is a major step in addressing climate change
They need to correct the part about electric car batteries being junked after their use. "According to Tesla, 100% of their lithium-ion batteries are recycled, and they cannot be sent to landfills. In fact, CleanTechnica says that Tesla batteries are 92% recyclable, and that the materials are almost 92% reused".
What are they supposed to correct and how??
@@DrizzyB Did you watch the video? It's pretty self explanatory. They said "junking the battery after its use" in reference to EV batteries. That is false, EV batteries are not junked after they are used.
Yes, exactly. There are more companies bidding for batteries to recycle and repurpose than there are batteries. Horrible take. They can be used for back up storage for solar arrays or portable charging, for instance.
Reminds me a lot of the high time of instagram minimalism, when everyone suddenly bought "minimalist" stuff like boxes and beige couches and neutral-coloured throw pillows, instead of just getting rid of the stuff they didn't use and continue using the stuff they already had.
While I agree with a lot of points in this video, it's too bad that other points are inaccurate or miss the point. 1) Lithium is not a rare earth material. 2) A lot of batteries in EVs do not contain Cobalt as they are LFP (lithium iron phosphate) batteries. 3) Several studies have shown that overall EVs pollute less than ICE cars. 4) Vegan products are way better for the environment than animal products since animal agriculture is a leading pollution emitter sector (more than the entire transport industry globally) and one of the main causes of dead zones and loss of biodiversity. 5) The province I live in is powered 100% by renewable energy. Assuming that most people's electricity comes from fossil fuels is an inaccurate assumption.
Thank you.
Those are all fair points but it's I think the main point of the video still stands.
You make some good points, however for (5) considering ~60% of electricity produced world wide comes from fossil fuels, I think assuming that most people get at least some of their power from fossil fuels is very accurate. I recognize that you might be the exception, but for most countries a large portion of the electric output still comes from fossil fuels.
@@johnsbirthdayinapril4197 It is true that in some countries fossil fuels are used to make electricity. But, first of all, that is changing towards renewables every year and, due to how much more efficient EVs are, it is still better for the environment to use electric mobility even factoring in the fossil fuels. If you're interested, I can send you some studies that have looked at this.
@sebastian.tristan very excellent points! I'll add that only a very small fraction of a percentage of batteries are "junked" after the life of the car, as suggested in the video. It's a real disservice and disappointment that they parrot such awful fossil fuel industry generated untruths.
It’s better if you just don’t buy new unless you absolutely need something. What you already have is more green than any NEW product
I agree with the general tone of this video - that consumption of goods that are labeled as green is not the answer and in fact contributes to the problem, even if it’s a slower rate than the non renewable or ethically sourced products. Consuming less in general is the answer.
I am curious about your statement in regards to the “junking” of electric vehicle batteries. This isn’t the standard practice with electric car batteries. The batteries are largely recycled, which does come at an energy cost. I’d be curious on the basis of that claim and the overall impact in an electric vehicles life you projected. Sounds an awful lot like info coming out of fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Agreed. They state EV batteries are NOT recycled When Tesla guarantees they are 100%.
How did these FUD distributors get the PBS logo?
lifespan of tesla isn't 17 years, it's way less
this is not car, but trash on wheels
Whining about consumption isn't working. People are still consuming more globally no matter how much we point this out. The only thing this does is take the momentum out of the emission free switch over in our consumption. It justifies people buying more ICE vehicles.
If we want Teslas to be made with low emissions, we need to advance batteries, charging and renewable energy production. EVs seem to be the only way the general public gets excited about green technology. We have to be pragmatic about things that get us moving in the right direction right now. We can then pressure industry to make the production of everything less carbon intensive.
Perfectionism is truly the enemy of the good here.
Kinda true, but consider that we're destroying our ecosystems in far more ways than just CO2 emissions.
I've been loving this series this week! Reduce, Reuse and Recycle is listed in order of importance!
1. Reduce - less consumption
2. Reuse - buy used products from places like FB Martketplace instead of buying brand new
3. THEN Recycle - recycling is the last stage, not the first!!
Happy Earth Week. I hope our kids live to see this beautiful earth
This is a hit and distraction piece.
Most cobalt is used by the oil industry, not in EV manufacture.
Car batteries aren't dumped at end of life, they're recycled.
It also ignores the fact that you can buy solar panels, buy insulation, buy a heat pump, buy triple glazing, buy an EV. All of these things cost co2 in production but what the alternative. Continue burning gas, oil and coal to heat and cool your home and get to work?
Source?
@@DrizzyB The internet, mostly Google.
I'm noticing some bias/incorrect/incomplete information in the "Tesla section" of this video. I agree with many of the points made throughout the overall video, but this section conflates lithium and cobalt, uses the 2020 impact report instead of the more up to date 2022 impact report, doesn't account for EV vs fossil fuel emissions over time, makes a glaring mistake when stating that batteries are "junked after use" (e.g. Redwood Materials specializes in exactly this kind of recycling. Not to mention downsizing EV batteries into stationary storage etc). Many take issue with the human rights abuses of cobalt mining, and I wholeheartedly agree. But the industry has been phasing out cobalt for a long while now. And I can think of another substance that's extraction is famously tied to extreme human rights/indigenous land abuses: it's called oil (which is one-and-done burned rather than used to build a sustainable battery). Elon drives me crazy too. But something tells me there is a reason that Tesla is specifically namechecked over and over again, instead of referring to EVs in general.
Yeah, don't have to make these cherry picked points to make a case against Musk.
I can see where ur coming from, but tesla has billed itself as one of the leading drivers of the us economy and has been on the top of investment lists for a long time now, with the unfair sales practices in the US making cheaper evs from non american companies not really worth it, and the fact that tesla is trying to be an apple like company with a weird walled garden and pricing structures, I think its ok to do this and question all EVs considering that under capitalism companies and processes like the ones enforced by elon are fairly standard and have been for a while.
Anyways elon could have make bike infrastructure instead of buying twitter and done more for the globe than tesla ever could but, capitalism
@CoreyBoling Thank you! I almost stopped watching when she parroted those terrible untruths generated by the fossil fuel industry. Gas-powered vehicles' pollution footprint surpasses an equivalent EV in under 3 years now, some shorter than 1 year! In general, the whole video was extremely negative about any individual trying to do anything to promote positive change. Really disheartening!
This is one of the first time when I hear "we need to DESIGN where we live for better public transport", which is an actual good take on public transport. A lot of people who think banning cars alone will solve environmental issues are ignorant to the needs of people that do not live in metropolitan areas and think you can just slap public transport anytime, anywhere.
Finally!!! Someone spoke up against electric cars and lithium batteries!
I'm loving these last few videos that are realistic about climate change.
2:00 No source cited. Huh.
Also, lithium is NOT a rare earth mineral.
Also, lithium batteries are recyclable (see Redwood Materials).
Also, not all EV models use cobalt. There are other chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate.
This is a Tesla hit piece.
Tesla gets most of its Lithium from Australia and soon from Canada and US.
@@Mr2Reviews It is not a Tesla hit piece lmao. It is just basic degrowth bs. The green movement needs to kick out the kind of thinking much of this video pushes. Reduce and reuse absolutely! Stoping economic growth is not how you solve climate change.
I find it is easier to just NOT buy stuff unless it is absolutely needed.
I really don't think you should be telling people that the nice water bottle or other infinitely reusable items aren't going help anything. I really don't care if it adds more CO2 to make it if it will keep even just a little bit of plastic out of our waterways.... I've been badgering everyone in the factory i work at to stop using Styrofoam cups and buying bottled water. It's mostly worked.
I agree with you. The video misses the fact that even if we fix the climate crisis tomorrow, we are heading over the edge of the cliff unless we also solve the pollution crisis, biodiversity crisis, and ecosystem crisis. I've got an stainless steel water bottle I've probably used 3000 times, and I could probably use it 30,000 more if I lived that long.
I think you have to focus on cost saving and with postive environmental effects a convenient by product
Degrowth, babyyyyyy! Love to see PBS Terra championing this 💪💪💪
Degrowthers are insane, you people are the modern day malthusians. You actively make progress harder.
No matter how many technological solutions are invented to our problems, capitalism will always use technology to extract even more resources from our finite world. We cannot survive by simply changing how we produce what we consume and then going right back to consuming more and more every year. Great video!
Thank you, for being one of the first big platforms, to critically look at EVs. They are better for the environment on paper, but in practice only give buyers a "world-saving" feeling instead of really reducing emissions that much. It's a marketing strategy to keep on consuming and polluting.
OMG if you go through the COMPLETE supply chain for making ICEV vs. BEV, they're about the same. But this is ONLY for the vehicle itself.
The issue is manufacturing the vehicle itself for ICEV is only a TINY DROPLET in what's required to make an ICEV go vs. making a BEV go, IF powered by solar panels.
Next, IF
a BEV is powered by something like solar panels, meaning buying a BEV in some places is better than others (where solar panels make sense), then the environmental cost to power the vehicle swings WAY IN FAVOR of the BEV and it's not even CLOSE. The thing about a natural gas plant is you keep having to pipe natural gas to it. That's an entire chain not needed for solar panels, getting the energy and building all the infrastructure to do that. And making the millions of parts required for THAT function. Solar panels magically have their energy source delivered to them, by solar radiation.
With solar panels you are skipping ANOTHER complete step in manufacturing, or millions of parts. I don't need to build this huge power plant. I need to install metal framing. I don't need to install the millions of different parts that all come together to make up the internals of a natural gas power plant. I don't even need to manufacture the millions of parts that go into making all the parts to go into the natural gas plant. You know, because I have to manufacture all the plants that make the parts that go into making a power plants.
This is a HUGE world of difference.
Next, if you want to talk about how you POWER an ICEV, what is all the infrastructure?
Building the machines that are used to explore for oil and running them. OK so now I have millions of parts involved in JUST the exploration for oil. In the case of ocean exploration, that means building ships. These units consume a lot of energy to do this.
When I FIND oil, now I have all the infrastructure needed to get that deposit fixed for extraction. In the case of offshore oil, we need ships again, VERY specialized ships. Anyone remember the explosion of one of these rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Those highly specialized city like drilling units, like the Deepwater Horizon that exploded in the Gulf? So, we need millions of parts to build THOSE machines. These units consume a lot of energy to do this.
But we're not done. Those small cities only get a well set up. Once that's done THEN you have to build a rig to pump the oil. Millions more parts. These units also consume a bit of energy.
But we're STILL not done. We need even MORE ships, ships that will transport oil from the rigs to refineries on the coast. Yes, millions more parts. These units ALSO consume a bit of energy
But we're STILL not done. We have to refine. So once again, millions of parts needed to build refineries. We also have to use chemicals in the refining process. We also have to consume a bit of energy in refining.
But we're STILL not done. We have to build the infrastructure, often trucks to take the refined gasoline to stations. So, millions of parts to make the trucks, millions of parts to make the gasoline stations and all of this consumes a bit of energy.
Now, what I DIDN'T do is mention all the mining, because unlike what has been said about mining for materials for batteries, the mining required to make ALL that infrastructure I mentioned above DWARFS the infrastructure needed to make a solar panel. And I'm not at the vehicles yet, because manufacturing either is about the same, which ALSO means the mining to get the materials to MAKE the vehicles is about the same.
See? The actual vehicles only come up at the very end of all this. It forgets about the HUGE HUGE HUGE difference of making the infrastructure to fuel an ICEV vs. a BEV. It forgets about not having to drill for sunlight. It forgets SO many things that this point being made is LAUGHABLE.
And if you want to talk about expanding the power grid to deal with the extra electricity to power BEV, yes this is true. Mind you in many cases you don't have to remove what's already there, in some cases you do. Often you can run more electric cable into areas and leave a good chunk of the existing structure.
But if you want to talk about that we need to talk about roads, because delivering gasoline to gas stations is constantly ruining roads. This infrastructure is ALSO expensive to maintain.
Sorry PBS Terra, you used information handed to you instead of using a big brain and doing REAL investigative work to make a brief documentary. There's a reason why it takes a person like Ken Burns years to make a single documentary. I realize you can't do that for a YT video, but in that case there are topics that are too big for a YT video, or you need a person with a REALLY BIG BRAIN who has done years of research into a topic and rely on them to show what's flawed in the talking points that get made today.
When BEV is powered in specific by solar panels, this LAYS WASTE to ICEV in terms of energy consumption, MINING, and environmental impact and a MASSIVE reduction of infrastructure needed. It's so VASTLY better it's hard for me to fathom the small brained people that can pass on the propaganda the energy companies publish.
I think you made some good points. I'm working on adding some very important points, but I'm not going to struggle with adding conclusions (especially consequences) for those points.
Recently, the Russo-Ukrainian war (which is a US-NATO proxy war in many ways) has resulted in Russian natural gas pipelines to be destroyed. At least some of the natural gas that was to be delivered to other parts of Europe by those pipelines is going to be delivered by liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships from the US.
US militarism, which dominates Earth, is overwhelmingly powered by burning fossil fuels.
Sad that few people have read your careful explanation of what’s really going on. Most people hear the talking point they already have had their mind, made up by horror stories from the fossil fuel companies and get reinforced. Sadly PBS had their logo on this; I don’t know how they got away with that. as you stated this is clearly fossil fuel propaganda and talking points that cannot be supported.
We can't have infinite economic growth on a planet with finite resources.
We need a colossal change in our economic systems to fix the climate.
So long as you intend to drive the same vehicle for a while, an electric vehicle will ALWAYS be better than a gas car, even if powered by a dirty grid, because they are zero emissions. A used Prius has small upfront impact and a relatively small ongoing impact from burning gasoline efficiently, but it still burns fossil fuel and will continue to pollute and increase its impact the longer it's on the road. A new EV, on the other hand, has a larger upfront impact from production, but its ongoing emissions from the generation of electricity are miniscule by comparison. If you buy a new EV and drive it for even a couple years, you will have easily made up the difference in lifetime emissions and continue to be even less impactful compared to a gas car the longer you drive it. That difference is only made wider the cleaner the electricity you have. That's why we should be electrifying everything in our homes and infrastructure, because they're usually more efficient and will only become less polluting over time as the grid transitions to cleaner power generation. Better yet, get solar panels for your home and now running your appliances and cars will have zero impact other than the initial emissions from their production.
But enough can't be said for undoing the social programming of capitalism to overconsume and demand new things. Use less, buy secondhand, repair what you have, and give back when you're done. In other words, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE! Oh yeah, and VOTE!
It seems like the video was counting the cost of production for the EV, and comparing it to a gas car without factoring in production, which is not fair.
Also I thought you CAN reuse or recycle EV batteries now?
@@mcv2178 Yes you can! And solar panels! It's a really young industry though
Gas jumps from deep under the ground just right into your gas tank.
is it really zero emissions if a dirty grid powers the battery? Sure, it is zero emissions at the tailpipe, because those emissions were transferred to that coal fired power plant.
@@zimmejoc good point. Yes EVs powered by a dirty grid have emissions, but still less than gas. ICE cars burn fossil fuels not only at the tailpipe, but also during extraction, refinement, transportation, and distribution. Not to mention that half of the energy burned from fuel in a car is wasted as heat, so there's additional emissions there as well. Electrifying everything makes sense because electric alternatives are usually 90-100% efficient and only burn fossil fuels once at the point of generation, if at all.
The biggest issue in America is that those who want a continued cycle of consumerism are the ones in control. Companies don't want people to be able to fix their products, they'd rather sell a new product, and they would rather design for planned obsolescence because of this. Americans love to complain about how much better products were from the 1950's, but the reality is that American companies today in 2024 design products that will break within a few years, because that means a future income stream for the company. If we want to change that, then we really need to change how we vote, in the ballot box and with our wallets. Simply buying American isn't going to fix that problem, instead we need to replace those who would keep us trapped in consumerism.
in other words: Capitalism it's going to fix what Capitalism created
buying american has never really been about quality, it was about pride in your country, until all the funds from slavery got stuck into manufacturing and big business then, they took that money and found new slaves elsewhere that were cheaper. American made on a product was never better except in specific industries. Capitalism must end eventually, and regulations need to be better enforced and designed
The other day, I watched a video in which a scientist said that 25% of the causes of the rapid rise in ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean are not understood.
If you think about it in terms of calories, it would take a huge amount of energy to raise seawater temperature, but we still don't know what causes it.
In Japan, the output of mega solar power plants is limited during sunny days, and there are plans that offer discounts to households that charge their EVs during the day.
If global warming is going to cause various economic losses in the near future, it might be wise to ban night-time production in factories.
Marketing will use ANYTHING to sell products.
Buy stuff to last.
Conservation came early by way of hand-me-downs with three older sibs. Seeing how creative one could be making great use of used items still etched in our DNA. Thanks to generations encounters with suffering, leading to lessons of learning from the land. Nature is abundant with solutions! Grateful for their wisdom and ingenuity😊
At 2:25 who is "junking the battery"? None of the valuable materials is consumed, it is highly recyclable, and the materials are already highly refined, so it will be better quality feedstock for new batteries. It's probably difficult to find high volumes of retired BEV batteries, especially from Tesla, because even decade old batteries are still in service with low capacity loss...
Unlike fossil fuels, batteries are storage assets for renewables that last many decades and will be recycled... They are displacing the fossil fuels which are extracted at many orders of magnitude higher quantities for single use when burned for energy. FF is ancient solar energy.
Please be sure your sources are valid before proclaiming that BEV batteries will end up in landfills. There are numerous companies which are focused on making batteries a circular resource. Maybe consider covering that instead of the fossil fuels misinformation of batteries in the garbage?
👍
At least the batteries made from these toxic materials will be functional for years. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, must be continuously replaced as they are burned to extract their energy.
This video's attacks on EVs are dangerous and result in this video doing more harm than good. The oil industry thanks you for doing their work for them.
I'm thinking this was on purpose. This is all the FUD talking points wrapped up into a "Consume Less" video.
Super perspectives and analysis. Well the video made a lot of resonance.
Fermi paradox is answered here. We are intelligent enough to industrialize and consume all natural resources but not intelligent enough to prevent ecological catastrophe.
Our competitive nature allowed us to become the first self aware life on the planet. Unfortunately, that same competitive nature prevents us from the collectivism needed to endure to a spacefaring species.
On a super earth near a long lived star somewhere else in the Galaxy or the next one there is a colonial species that after billions of years may evolve progressively enough to reach that goal.
Who knows if we're among the first intelligent life, but we certainly will not be the last.
@@sethsevaroth humans have always collectivized, early humans were even egalitarian across biological sexes with equal amounts of hunters having either chromosomes or other biomarkers showing that things were normally pretty equal, that equity started societies, it was the inception of societies and groups that separated themselves, often to aid their own group. Humans ARE collective creatures, a lot of primates are actually. It was other collectives, and it was colonization on top of the other collectives that was the issue. For as long as a species requires, or enforces, or is colonial, it will never be a success out in space without so much either luck I might start believing in a god that only cares about those aliens, or so much destruction that we would only know about it for a few seconds before our entire planet gets destroyed and we all get enslaved for like water or something.
@@AnthemUnanthemed To steelman the person you responded to: One might argue that humans have effectively collectivised, but that the effectiveness of it has always had a problematic ceiling created by the appeal of corruption and selfish short-term planning, which get more appealing as the systems get bigger.
However, I actually agree with you that a competitiveness versus collectivisation isn't the main problem. The first deficiency is just a refusal of planning at scale, and with the future in mind. Part of the cause there is that individualism standing in the way of making initial investments as a group, but I think just a sheer lack of perspective and intellectual capacity is just as much of a problem. Which you really can't blame a civilisation of manual labourers and farmers for, but now that we've left those origins behind us, the question is if we'll adjust in time.
@@TheHadMatters I dont agree with the idea that we collectivized effectively as it has typically been over the threat of death for the past potentially several hundred if not thousands of years, it still means theres no one to blame, and the way forward is still for the most part the same, I just think we also do need to listen to individuals and understand and accept their distrust of others due to the way society has been operating, including world powers (america) denying war crimes (their own genocides against multiple peoples and hiding japan's actions during ww2 as best they could).
I think we have a fundamental difference on the way we view this topic though, I honestly dont think the ceiling has gotten that much higher, I think there has just been an illusion of that while the foundations of society remain workers (or slaves) who struggle and fight for survival, now for healthcare or welfare rather than food, or water, while its become impossible to actually pay or deal with any of that, its more like partying on the top floor while the ground floor floods with lots more people, and the top floor is busy doing the accounting of how many people from the bottom floor they can let up so they all drown before any of them are actually let up. It would cost less than 17% of Google's revenue a year to make up for (ontop of current assistance by other states) and solve world hunger by 2030, but the rich have been told if their companies dont make as much income as possible year over year, thats bad, so they let people die because "its bad for business" to help them, even tho all that would change is google wouldnt grow as quickly, and Google isnt even the richest company on the planet.
For all of colonial history we have paved over people "for the good of the group" even when it was wrong, we cant keep doing the same thing to fix this, we need to be on a more individual level to make sure people stop falling through these cracks, what good is a society if when u are born u have a 1/100 chance to live in agony do nothing and die alone because of genetic variability that has increased specifically in places that have been screwed by colonialism due to becoming carcinogenic dumping grounds by colonial powers, who is supposed to guide the group the "freedom loving americans" that fund commit and deny genocide throughout their entire existence?
@@AnthemUnanthemed I don't think "typically over the threat of death" is a sufficiently thorough perspective. So much success, and arguably most progress, has been the result of villages working together by natural necessity (sharing food, shelter, labour) or simply out of a care for the community.
I don't think we have that much of a different perspective, I would prefer your path too (essentially make the needs of the many individuals the first priority of all rules and labour/production processes; make everyone care, and don't let anyone's power outgrow other people), I just don't think it's the only one. I think there are ways of accepting that capitalism will still be here to stay for a while, and encourage gradual change from within. I'd rather have that than try and revolutionise everything, fail miserably, and start from scratch as we pick up the pieces again.
Put a national cap on highway speeds. It was done in '73 during the OPEC embargo to drastically reduce energy consumption on the roads. The same used today would have an immediate reduction of vehicle emissions.
We need to stop/reduce buying all together. Reduce and re-use thinks we have. Buying anything just creates more demand. Not creating more demand is the way to go 👌
Thank you!
the first step is Reduce, then Reuse, then Recycle. buy less stuff! and buy used if possible, and yes, better public transportation!
GDP is not a great determination of a thriving country. Other noted mentions is the increase in these 3rd party groups that for a fee and some mild oversight over agricultural workers get to place a label on grocery goods that may have used child labor to harvest the ingredients in our food. Taking out the value of labor has long lasting effects and impacts on communities and our green sphere. Particularly when you talk about right to education and building infrastructure to support a manufacturing site rather than making access to utilities or clean water to communities around the factory or those folks working inside it. Thx PBS for reminding us that working together to prepare for the challenges of climate change is how we can truly make a difference.
Electric cars are more expensive to make, but that’s mainly because they haven’t been around long so there is still a lot of research to do. At least the fuel is less polluting.
Have you ever seen the places in China where the batteries are made? One of the worlds largest lakes turned into a toxic waste dump. Lithium, Cobalt, and other exotic rare earth metals make it extremely toxic. It's not better, it's just different. Electric cars are more expensive not because of a lack of understanding, but because of a lack of material. If we take the global supply of lithium and used ALL production it'd take about seventy years just for the USA to go fully electric.
That's excluding the fact your power company still burns hydrocarbons to make the power.
It's not, a very small fraction of electricity is produced through renewable means, and most is from coal or natural gas
There isn't enough lithium in the Earth's crust to supply the transition to EVs. Until EVs don't rely on lithium batteries, they're only a stopgap.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket I’m not saying it’s not bad, it’s terrible, but it’s better than fossil fuels.
@@Anton-V I know but it’s less wasteful to use it to charge a reusable battery than to process it and burn it in cars.
In many cases, it's better to keep using what you have until you can't anymore. That's why right to repair is a big deal from an environmental standpoint: it help keeps stuff out of the landfill and saves you money.
The shade on Tesla is only coming from hate as it might need a mention but picking on them instead of the oil companies and ice cars is frankly just stupid
Probably this black witch getting paid by oil companies she's talking about climate change and she's being a hypocrite
1) Buy solar for your cottage, home, parents' place --> reduce need for electricity from 30-100%
2) If you have the budget, buy enough solar to have excess to charge your electric car
3) Buy home battery storage after you paid off more than 50% of you solar (home battery storage gets cheaper every year, so might be good idea to wait for couple years still)
You are now very close to off grid and removed your foot print that comes from burning coal/oil etc and reduced the strain on your local grid as you consume the electricity you generate.
If we really want to tackle climate change then we need to all make changes in our lives. The #1 contributor to climate change is animal agriculture. If you haven’t already gone vegan, now is the time. If not for the planet then do it for your own health, and the innocent animals.
Next, reduce consumption, cook at home, ride bike or walk or use public transport when you can. Keep your car for 15-20 years. (I can tell I’ve lost everyone by this point, no one wants to actually do all this, and that’s the problem)
I do 🥺…
Yes and... It looks different for everyone. Unfortunately a lot of cities in America are not walking friendly, much less bike friendly... And as a pescatarian and aspiring vegetarian, I recognize that a lot of towns are food deserts with few to no ethical/sustainable options at your local Walmart/dollar general.
We need large scale policy changes
🤣🤣🤣
Hahahahahahahahahahah
Yeah..... No.
@@jldstuff393 it’s hard to imagine not being able to get your hands on some rice and beans and a few veggies. 99% of Americans should be able to do that
The really annoying part is that nearly all vegan leather is plastic, all affordable is at any rate and it doesn't last meaning more shoes, more pollution and animals getting killed with it, cutting animals out of eating is the obvious and rather easy one but currently... Shoes made with real leather can last a decade of constant use as long as you maintain it meanwhile any plastic will degrade and make more microplastics, before secondhand became so expensive I would get leather boots from there