Let's transform this example into a more real life example. -Coca-cola builds a factory next to a small town because of the river that flows close to it -Coca-cola factory creates job oportunities for the locals, giving them training/education and improves the infrastructure with roads and electricity -Coca-cola factory starts polluting the water -Locals complain but the government does nothing -Coca-cola starts selling its products locally at extremely cheap prices, killing the competition locally and abroad -Water becomes expensive while soft drinks become cheaper. -There is an extreme increase in diabetes cases -Locals complain but the government does nothing -People can't afford to pay all the medications, follow ups and surgical procedures due to this chronic disease -Death rates and disabilities increases related to this disease -People complain but the government does nothing -Welcome to Mexico In summary: Weak, corrupt and negligent government are the businessmen favorite governments.
Looking at Little Hocking where DuPont had factory. The lawyer who went against the company was actually critisized by the people of the town who were afraid they gonna all lose their jobs...
what a nice little piece of neoliberal propaganda. capitalism will never remove negative externalities bc it is inherently exploitative, there will always be a third party that is negatively affected.
Well, in the bay area California where I live the amount of electric cars is great, but the electricity they use is produced mostly with Coal, which makes them coal cars. Like a diesel train uses diesel to generate electricity to move the wheels. The lack of clarity with the end user can change and therefore people would have the right information to make decisions. For example, a person should be informed the fossil fuel cost of their rooftop solar array. And the amount of carbon released to make it vs the carbon it supposedly saves us from making. In other words, fist law of thermodynamics, but using fossil vs renewable input cost vs marketed benefits
@@imacrostutorial yes. But it would be so much better if there were enough panels to replace the gasoline. That way, clean energy will be used to make more clean energy.
I have something better than electric cars: electric bikes and an electrified and robust public transit system accompanied by a greater proportion of mix usage zoning so that people DON’T depend upon transportation as much in order to live a fulfilling life.
The thing is restoring woods and marshes is far more effective and way cheaper than buying new cars. Just like building back all those highways in the US in favor of walkways, public transport and local parks would be better than cars. Right now electric cars only solve the problem of local pollution that has an impact on health. It will take many years until they have a minimal impact on climate. Especially when we just drive more electric cars.
There is a very glaring problem with public transportation: vandalism and misuse. In a perfect world public transportation seems wonderful, but smashed signage and gummed-up card readers (just for example) can make the process nearly unusable for everyone. Policing that will be expensive, but essential. Yet another cost to consider, right alongside the social negative externality of not being able to get where you need to be if someone does something to the transportation that makes it inaccessible to you. That's not something you can easily put a monetary cost on. This is a good example of a problem that is both logistical and social in nature. Keeping public transportation up and running is almost concretely logistical in nature. A good budget can be formalized to ensure it's smooth and predictable operation. Removing the desire for people to vandalize public property, on the other hand, is mostly a social problem. You really can't predict when a person will want to destroy something just because they feel like doing it. And what is there to prevent a person from doing such a thing? The presence of law enforcement? A robotic AI trained to detect and report the activity? Severe penalties if caught? All of those solutions to that problem aren't really solutions, but rather potential parts to a solution that may work some of the time. They also each introduce their own set of positive and negative externalities. And this is just one aspect of implementing widely-used public transportation. There are many many others before and after you even get to the point where vandalism and sabotage becomes a potential problem. There is no simple solution that just works. Whatever solutions we choose are likely to change things in perhaps unforeseen ways that introduce other inconveniences to us. It will be up to us to explore new ways of doing things and find a 'middle ground' approach that will best address the original concerns without introducing new ones that are every bit as problematic.
By restoring wood, do you mean planting trees and expanding the forest? Because that definitely won’t help climat change. The problem of industrial era is that we extracted oil and coal from underground and set these carbon atoms to run free in the ecosystem. For each carbon atom we set free, we get a fixed amount of energy. And with all that energy, we increased our yearly needs for energy. The problem isn’t the quantity of carbon atoms in itself, it’s the fact that this number keeps growing and grows at an increasing rate at the moment. Planting one tree store carbon atoms until it dies. To keep storing the same amount of carbon, you need to keep the same size of forest. Tree planting carbon absorption is counted as the first tree is planted, but it doesn’t account for the fact that the piece of land this tree is on will have to be left there forever only to not release the carbon it is currently storing. Solving fossil fuels with tree planting basically requires to plan large amounts of forest, yearly, and protect these forest to the end of humanity to not reemit the carbon it absorbed. Rather than planting tree on the surface, I would recommend buying coal and burying it were industrial cant find it. It requires less land to store carbon this way, is not vulnerable to wildfire, and requires less work. And of course not extracting coal would be the most efficient way of storing this carbon. Much more efficient than storing carbon on large surfaces of land, leaving them vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters, in a world where climate is changing faster than the rate at which nature could adapt. Planting a tree doesn’t eliminate carbon. Keeping the tree there forever does, as this carbon wont warm the planet. The benefit definitely isn’t worth the expense though.
The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (Agreement) at the WTO Ministerial meeting 2022, to prohibit subsidies from being provided for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and overfished stocks. The Agreement also prohibits providing subsidies for fishing on high seas. But those WTO Members who have provided huge subsidies in the past, and engaged in large-scale industrial fishing, which is responsible for the depletion of fish stocks, should take more obligations to prohibit subsidies based on the ‘polluter pay principle’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.
The problem with electric cars at the moment and why the government subsidies for them are a terrible idea is that a car would have to be on the road for 22 years to make up for the emissions it takes to mine the lithium batteries. Cars should be running on ethanol but that is another story. I assume no one wants to run a car on nuclear energy but that is our cleanest most efficient source of sustainable energy at the moment though there are of course ramifications if disasters strike. Thank you for the videos. I find them very insightful.
At the bedrock of all of this is personal responsibility. You can argue back and forth about capitalism, communism, law, corruption, etc, but all of those are completely empty arguments that never lead anywhere. They are distractions. What REALLY matters is personal responsibility. The tourists could have taken their time to think about how they handle their garbage, planning ahead, packing things in reusable containers, leaving garbage in appropriate garbage disposal areas, etc. The hotel planners and staff could have thought about their affect on the local environment and planned accordingly - maybe strategically placing some garbage and recycling bins. Building a hotel somewhere else maybe even. The fishermen could have went on a protest sooner or taken their time to bring their concerns to the appropriate people sooner. The paper company executives could have taken personal responsibility and thought about the sustainability and process of their business. As a business, by definition, they serve the people, and by extension, part of serving the people is not trashing their home - aka nature. Maybe use the profits they were making to research better processes. The paper company employees could have taken their time to see how their place of employment could have improved and pushed the executives to take action. The coffee shop management could have taken a minute to think about their cup situation. Maybe place some benches around so that people can sit down and enjoy the view of nature and make a policy to have the patrons either leave their cups on the said benches or just return the cups. The point is - it is super easy to point at the big corporations and just blame them for everything when literally every single person involved could have AND SHOULD HAVE done something differently or better. Let's say for a second that the business shuts down. That's less people making less money. That's less people being able to buy food, like, say, fish from the local fishermen. We dont save the world by making one or two people face personal responsibility. We all need to do our part.
@@horrificpancake2000 If they had the foresight to consider the cost of their contributions to pollution, they would then be in failure to their shareholders, which is ultimately the only reason a corporation exists. Selling a pollution prevention system to them before they've even created any pollution probably wouldn't go over so well once they see the cost.
What this theory fails to take into account is potential positive social impacts of cheap stuff sold through polluting processes. Pollution may outweigh any such benefits due to long term impacts, but there is a danger of overestimating such impacts, and thereby causing needless suffering or economic slowdown, which might paradoxically harm the environment more due to social desperation.
This is true. When you are poor, you don't get the options other people recieve. Example. one can walk to help the environment, or buy a cheap gas car to get to work and do errands.
did you notice how all the action after the fact doesn't bring back the dead fish or the lost resources , including health ? attempts to regulate the large company will certainly be met with "p.r." and lobbying , if not more unsavory tactics . the assumption that all externalities can be internalized leads to discussing fair market compensation if your kid gets sick from the pollution and i think an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure here , and real world examples of this are tragic . also in the section re EVs i notice the focus on personal rather than public transportation . busses are a pain to use compared to owning private transportation but they are necessary and the ones where i live run mostly on corn ethanol .
Now throw in the trade off between electric cars, hybrids, fossil fuel cars - turns out electric cars aren’t that impressive from an emissions/global warming pov if we don’t use power sources like hydro/geo thermal/nuclear
I agree whet the 1st part, but when It comes to CO2 and how costly for humanity EV's are you are way off, your own video "Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity" comes to mind.
In the real world the fishery collapses from the untreated sewage from the hotel and the paper plant. The owners of the hotel and the paper mill make large campaign contributions to the elected officials who in turn ignore the fishermens protests. The fishermen lose their boats to foreclosure and die early from pollution exposure. Capitalism always internalizes profits and externalizes debt.
Ideally you would use contracts and private property but there will always be gray areas courts and disbute resolution providers could mitigate a lot of the issues. Incentivising electric cars over gasoline or disel as they use to do is a bit dangerush since the evidence that electric cars are that much greener is really a matter on what envirmental concerns you favour. If roads were privateley owned they would likley have to ask for a polution fee in highly dense areas the money could then go to the people living in the city especially were the polution from the road is the worst. That way fees could be used to incentivise trafik at certain times and in certain areas. Some roads would however likley be free since lokal buisness or parkinglots might be intrested in subsidizing the increased trafik it brings
"Using" their $hit is gonna get y'all in deep trouble with those CITIZENS that have infiltrated the U.S. Government. CXITIZENS are all traitors of the U.S. Government and the penalty is death. Y'all GFY.
Ooops. I'm a new subscriber to Sprouts. But regurgitating the myth that CO2 emissions cause the dreaded "climate change" is where I jump out the window.
4:09 The biggest threat to the environment is not individuals and their gas guzzling cars. It's corporations. We should be spotlighting the evils of the construction, fashion, and agricultural industries. We should be coming up with ideas to reduce emissions and waste in these industries as well. We should be pushing for more rail infrastructure to minimize the number of freight trucks. You know we wouldn't need to repave our roads if it weren't for the heavy freight traffic? It costs at least a million dollars to repave a mile of road?
Well, you also need to weigh the external costs of electric vehicles. Where does the energy for powering the vehicle come from? Maybe someday we'll have enough durable solar panels that you'll be able to charge it off your own grid, but for most people, that energy is generated by coal or some other fossil fuel at a big steel power generation plant in the distance. The infrastructure to reliably ferry that power to your outlet costs money to maintain, and no energy relay system is 100% efficient, so some energy is lost to heat and entropy on the way. Then how is that energy stored? Liquid gas can sit in a tank, losing little energy potential over time. On the other hand, even the best batteries can lose their electron charge in the cold. In addition, high capacity batteries have to be manufactured from lithium, which has to be mined out of the Earth with huge machines, then processed at huge factories. Even batteries that can be recharged have a life-time, as well, and will eventually need to be replaced when the chemicals within them lose the ability to store charge. When that happens, the dead battery has to be discarded at a hazardous waste disposal site, and will likely never bio-degrade. A similar thing happens to solar panels when they break or wear out-- very difficult to recycle. Which one really has a worse overall impact on the environment, and which is just more easy to convince people it's bad because you can smell the nasty smoke coming out of it right there?
That last case isn't hypothetical. Its was tried in US in 2009. Here are the results: ruclips.net/video/TBksRp0Io5g/видео.html . TLDR: Arrogance led market manipulation leads to disaster, e.g. the death of Aral sea.
LOve that video series and you are correct. The Cash for Clunkers has been tried in many different countries and all have varying levels of bad results.
Since I am 10 or so I have the feeling the "what happens next machine" is utterly broken in most humans.. I guess half the time you spend at school one should be taught about consequences and (real) respect and some collectivism without loosing individuality. Also I was thinking about porcelain- soap- and dishwasher-factories .. might be even worse than paper cups. And communism didn't really work, so maybe legalise cannabis ? If the paperfactory guy was high he may not have built the factory in the first place, maybe even had found a way to make zero emission hemp cups, or the people would drink out of cups they had to carve themselves out of stone or wood.. then you _really_ respect and value your cup... on the other hand there might not be coffee, because the coffeeshop guy was high too, so the people drink river water or spruce tea, but that water would be really clean at least with healthy fish in it, and healthy spruces and maybe some hemp growing around... just entertaining a thought here.. :D
Simple: make it favorable for everyone to ride bikes, and increase the capacity of them for groceries, make the seats more comfortable, and make clever design choices to make them potenially faster, potentially provide go-kart like options that are like cars but using pedals instead. Decrease in c02 emissions, decrease in electric use, increase in health, happiness, exposure to nature, an increase in bike prices due to demand that wouldn't be too bad since it would take a lot less to make them, decrease in mortality and injuries from biking, etc.
The answer to your question at the end is the implementation of a social credit system with a carbon pass tied to digital currency. This is ultimately the goal of the power hungry, greedy, crony capitalists who will assure you that it is for your own good every step of the way.
A social credit system introduces a glaring negative externality because it disparages people based on a set of rules that not all will agree with. In extreme cases it can become oppressive. I think that possibility outweighs whatever benefit a social credit system could have for the average individual. Not talking about governments and corporations, because they benefit from social credit systems in very different ways than individuals. They are also far more likely to directly benefit from aspects of social credit that cause harm to individuals, than those individuals could benefit from the aspects that negatively impact the government and corporations. It is a bad idea in anything but a perfect world.
Well, electric cars are not really a solution... solution is in public transport and less transport. But I would make a special tax of the fossil fuels engines for both the car company and the driver. I would give free parking in the city for electric cars and I would make the public transport free or as cheap as possible
This only works if the same government does something to restrict the flow of paper products from countries that have no environmental regulations. People buy more of the cheap products, making the polluting countries produce more, polute more while the clean producers get squeezed from the market because of higher production costs. Vietnam puts more gross tonnage of plastic into the oceans than the US. Yet consumers buy the cheap product. The world uses so much oil each year. The US produces the cleanest oil products on the planet. Yet our policies promote the dirtiest production and restrict the cleanest. To paraphrase John Kerry: If the US was at 0 carbon output it would have no global effect on climate change. So as long as we feel good about ourselves let's praise the 400 private jets that fly to the Climate Change Conferences while we continue to support the economies that show no stewardship. Hopefully the world converts to renewable energy. I want the oil produced in the interim to be as clean as possible.
A simple way to discourage the use of petrol burning cars would be to increase the cost of gasoline and diesel through taxes. This would also increase tax revenue.
It would also increase the costs of food and any other products delivered by trucks. driving inflation and hurting those on fixed incomes. the solution might be simple, but the consequences of that solution is not. maybe convince people to voluntarily make the change. Many people have. and you are not starving retirees to death with your simplicity. 🤷♂🤷♂
Go aggressive on renewal energy manufacturing, make it cheaper than oil. Building big battery storage, Regulation for every one who pollute to invest in green bonds ( for green energy investment and very low or no internet rates) Heavy polluters should also invest in filtering the pollution ( investing in new technology resarch) again we can't kill something that we are growing for decades in years
I support the encouragement of people to buy electric vehicles especially for use in the cities to minimise pollution. however minimising CO2 I do not see as a problem, there is no evidence humans are affecting the climate. People are becoming frightened of weather hyped up by the media.
Leninism promulgates industrial communism, the difference being the proletariat have the power instead of wealthy psychopaths. Civilization is an Heat engine no matter how it is powered this is proven scientifically by 6 peer reviewed papers authored by prof Tim Garret who’s a physicist. Industrial civilization is what’s killing the planet, Leninism at best would slow it down at best but would still overheat the planet.
![The Psychology of Excuses [How People Justify Hurting Others]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MSZR82W4lKI/mqdefault.jpg)
Support us to make more economic videos at www.patreon.com/sprouts!
Let's transform this example into a more real life example.
-Coca-cola builds a factory next to a small town because of the river that flows close to it
-Coca-cola factory creates job oportunities for the locals, giving them training/education and improves the infrastructure with roads and electricity
-Coca-cola factory starts polluting the water
-Locals complain but the government does nothing
-Coca-cola starts selling its products locally at extremely cheap prices, killing the competition locally and abroad
-Water becomes expensive while soft drinks become cheaper.
-There is an extreme increase in diabetes cases
-Locals complain but the government does nothing
-People can't afford to pay all the medications, follow ups and surgical procedures due to this chronic disease
-Death rates and disabilities increases related to this disease
-People complain but the government does nothing
-Welcome to Mexico
In summary: Weak, corrupt and negligent government are the businessmen favorite governments.
+1
Nestle too
@@josephdavis1704 If i had to give the most destructive example it would be Shell and Nigeria.
Looking at Little Hocking where DuPont had factory. The lawyer who went against the company was actually critisized by the people of the town who were afraid they gonna all lose their jobs...
what a nice little piece of neoliberal propaganda. capitalism will never remove negative externalities bc it is inherently exploitative, there will always be a third party that is negatively affected.
So what is your suggestion?
Well, in the bay area California where I live the amount of electric cars is great, but the electricity they use is produced mostly with Coal, which makes them coal cars. Like a diesel train uses diesel to generate electricity to move the wheels.
The lack of clarity with the end user can change and therefore people would have the right information to make decisions.
For example, a person should be informed the fossil fuel cost of their rooftop solar array. And the amount of carbon released to make it vs the carbon it supposedly saves us from making.
In other words, fist law of thermodynamics, but using fossil vs renewable input cost vs marketed benefits
Ok... The main aim should be to make enough panels so that the energy from those panels can be used to make more panels.
But electricity still have lower emission than gasoline even if it generated fror non-renewable source...
@@imacrostutorial yes. But it would be so much better if there were enough panels to replace the gasoline. That way, clean energy will be used to make more clean energy.
Excellent point
@@sprouts 😁
I have something better than electric cars: electric bikes and an electrified and robust public transit system accompanied by a greater proportion of mix usage zoning so that people DON’T depend upon transportation as much in order to live a fulfilling life.
The thing is restoring woods and marshes is far more effective and way cheaper than buying new cars. Just like building back all those highways in the US in favor of walkways, public transport and local parks would be better than cars. Right now electric cars only solve the problem of local pollution that has an impact on health. It will take many years until they have a minimal impact on climate. Especially when we just drive more electric cars.
Excellent point
There is a very glaring problem with public transportation: vandalism and misuse. In a perfect world public transportation seems wonderful, but smashed signage and gummed-up card readers (just for example) can make the process nearly unusable for everyone. Policing that will be expensive, but essential. Yet another cost to consider, right alongside the social negative externality of not being able to get where you need to be if someone does something to the transportation that makes it inaccessible to you. That's not something you can easily put a monetary cost on.
This is a good example of a problem that is both logistical and social in nature. Keeping public transportation up and running is almost concretely logistical in nature. A good budget can be formalized to ensure it's smooth and predictable operation. Removing the desire for people to vandalize public property, on the other hand, is mostly a social problem. You really can't predict when a person will want to destroy something just because they feel like doing it. And what is there to prevent a person from doing such a thing? The presence of law enforcement? A robotic AI trained to detect and report the activity? Severe penalties if caught?
All of those solutions to that problem aren't really solutions, but rather potential parts to a solution that may work some of the time. They also each introduce their own set of positive and negative externalities. And this is just one aspect of implementing widely-used public transportation. There are many many others before and after you even get to the point where vandalism and sabotage becomes a potential problem.
There is no simple solution that just works. Whatever solutions we choose are likely to change things in perhaps unforeseen ways that introduce other inconveniences to us. It will be up to us to explore new ways of doing things and find a 'middle ground' approach that will best address the original concerns without introducing new ones that are every bit as problematic.
By restoring wood, do you mean planting trees and expanding the forest?
Because that definitely won’t help climat change. The problem of industrial era is that we extracted oil and coal from underground and set these carbon atoms to run free in the ecosystem. For each carbon atom we set free, we get a fixed amount of energy. And with all that energy, we increased our yearly needs for energy. The problem isn’t the quantity of carbon atoms in itself, it’s the fact that this number keeps growing and grows at an increasing rate at the moment.
Planting one tree store carbon atoms until it dies. To keep storing the same amount of carbon, you need to keep the same size of forest. Tree planting carbon absorption is counted as the first tree is planted, but it doesn’t account for the fact that the piece of land this tree is on will have to be left there forever only to not release the carbon it is currently storing.
Solving fossil fuels with tree planting basically requires to plan large amounts of forest, yearly, and protect these forest to the end of humanity to not reemit the carbon it absorbed.
Rather than planting tree on the surface, I would recommend buying coal and burying it were industrial cant find it. It requires less land to store carbon this way, is not vulnerable to wildfire, and requires less work.
And of course not extracting coal would be the most efficient way of storing this carbon. Much more efficient than storing carbon on large surfaces of land, leaving them vulnerable to all kinds of natural disasters, in a world where climate is changing faster than the rate at which nature could adapt.
Planting a tree doesn’t eliminate carbon. Keeping the tree there forever does, as this carbon wont warm the planet. The benefit definitely isn’t worth the expense though.
Sir
Which software do u use for such a beautiful presentation?
The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (Agreement) at the WTO Ministerial meeting 2022, to prohibit subsidies from being provided for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and overfished stocks. The Agreement also prohibits providing subsidies for fishing on high seas.
But those WTO Members who have provided huge subsidies in the past, and engaged in large-scale industrial fishing, which is responsible for the depletion of fish stocks, should take more obligations to prohibit subsidies based on the ‘polluter pay principle’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.
The problem with electric cars at the moment and why the government subsidies for them are a terrible idea is that a car would have to be on the road for 22 years to make up for the emissions it takes to mine the lithium batteries. Cars should be running on ethanol but that is another story. I assume no one wants to run a car on nuclear energy but that is our cleanest most efficient source of sustainable energy at the moment though there are of course ramifications if disasters strike. Thank you for the videos. I find them very insightful.
Thanks for this insightful comment
At the bedrock of all of this is personal responsibility.
You can argue back and forth about capitalism, communism, law, corruption, etc, but all of those are completely empty arguments that never lead anywhere. They are distractions.
What REALLY matters is personal responsibility.
The tourists could have taken their time to think about how they handle their garbage, planning ahead, packing things in reusable containers, leaving garbage in appropriate garbage disposal areas, etc.
The hotel planners and staff could have thought about their affect on the local environment and planned accordingly - maybe strategically placing some garbage and recycling bins. Building a hotel somewhere else maybe even.
The fishermen could have went on a protest sooner or taken their time to bring their concerns to the appropriate people sooner.
The paper company executives could have taken personal responsibility and thought about the sustainability and process of their business. As a business, by definition, they serve the people, and by extension, part of serving the people is not trashing their home - aka nature. Maybe use the profits they were making to research better processes.
The paper company employees could have taken their time to see how their place of employment could have improved and pushed the executives to take action.
The coffee shop management could have taken a minute to think about their cup situation. Maybe place some benches around so that people can sit down and enjoy the view of nature and make a policy to have the patrons either leave their cups on the said benches or just return the cups.
The point is - it is super easy to point at the big corporations and just blame them for everything when literally every single person involved could have AND SHOULD HAVE done something differently or better.
Let's say for a second that the business shuts down.
That's less people making less money. That's less people being able to buy food, like, say, fish from the local fishermen.
We dont save the world by making one or two people face personal responsibility.
We all need to do our part.
So you agree the businesses failed to be responsible?
@@leehayes4019 The people running the businesses, employees and customers all failed to be responsible.
Agreed
Excellent point
@@horrificpancake2000 If they had the foresight to consider the cost of their contributions to pollution, they would then be in failure to their shareholders, which is ultimately the only reason a corporation exists. Selling a pollution prevention system to them before they've even created any pollution probably wouldn't go over so well once they see the cost.
I liked this channel right up to the point where they start spouting that ridiculous climate change BS. ***Blocked***
No more electric cars till we figure out a way to use them without using lithium battery packs.
What this theory fails to take into account is potential positive social impacts of cheap stuff sold through polluting processes. Pollution may outweigh any such benefits due to long term impacts, but there is a danger of overestimating such impacts, and thereby causing needless suffering or economic slowdown, which might paradoxically harm the environment more due to social desperation.
This is true. When you are poor, you don't get the options other people recieve. Example. one can walk to help the environment, or buy a cheap gas car to get to work and do errands.
did you notice how all the action after the fact doesn't bring back the dead fish or the lost resources , including health ? attempts to regulate the large company will certainly be met with "p.r." and lobbying , if not more unsavory tactics .
the assumption that all externalities can be internalized leads to discussing fair market compensation if your kid gets sick from the pollution and i think an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure here , and real world examples of this are tragic .
also in the section re EVs i notice the focus on personal rather than public transportation . busses are a pain to use compared to owning private transportation but they are necessary and the ones where i live run mostly on corn ethanol .
Now throw in the trade off between electric cars, hybrids, fossil fuel cars - turns out electric cars aren’t that impressive from an emissions/global warming pov if we don’t use power sources like hydro/geo thermal/nuclear
I agree whet the 1st part, but when It comes to CO2 and how costly for humanity EV's are you are way off, your own video "Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity" comes to mind.
In the real world the fishery collapses from the untreated sewage from the hotel and the paper plant. The owners of the hotel and the paper mill make large campaign contributions to the elected officials who in turn ignore the fishermens protests. The fishermen lose their boats to foreclosure and die early from pollution exposure.
Capitalism always internalizes profits and externalizes debt.
As a minister of transportation, I'd allow EVs to use the bus lanes to arrive faster. In effect for 1 year and to be renewed based on yearly revision.
Ideally you would use contracts and private property but there will always be gray areas courts and disbute resolution providers could mitigate a lot of the issues.
Incentivising electric cars over gasoline or disel as they use to do is a bit dangerush since the evidence that electric cars are that much greener is really a matter on what envirmental concerns you favour.
If roads were privateley owned they would likley have to ask for a polution fee in highly dense areas the money could then go to the people living in the city especially were the polution from the road is the worst. That way fees could be used to incentivise trafik at certain times and in certain areas.
Some roads would however likley be free since lokal buisness or parkinglots might be intrested in subsidizing the increased trafik it brings
Interesting
"Using" their $hit is gonna get y'all in deep trouble with those CITIZENS that have infiltrated the U.S. Government. CXITIZENS are all traitors of the U.S. Government and the penalty is death. Y'all GFY.
"There are some people who want to own the rain..."
Ooops. I'm a new subscriber to Sprouts. But regurgitating the myth that CO2 emissions cause the dreaded "climate change" is where I jump out the window.
Okay
4:09 The biggest threat to the environment is not individuals and their gas guzzling cars. It's corporations. We should be spotlighting the evils of the construction, fashion, and agricultural industries. We should be coming up with ideas to reduce emissions and waste in these industries as well. We should be pushing for more rail infrastructure to minimize the number of freight trucks. You know we wouldn't need to repave our roads if it weren't for the heavy freight traffic? It costs at least a million dollars to repave a mile of road?
Good point
Well, you also need to weigh the external costs of electric vehicles. Where does the energy for powering the vehicle come from? Maybe someday we'll have enough durable solar panels that you'll be able to charge it off your own grid, but for most people, that energy is generated by coal or some other fossil fuel at a big steel power generation plant in the distance. The infrastructure to reliably ferry that power to your outlet costs money to maintain, and no energy relay system is 100% efficient, so some energy is lost to heat and entropy on the way.
Then how is that energy stored? Liquid gas can sit in a tank, losing little energy potential over time. On the other hand, even the best batteries can lose their electron charge in the cold. In addition, high capacity batteries have to be manufactured from lithium, which has to be mined out of the Earth with huge machines, then processed at huge factories. Even batteries that can be recharged have a life-time, as well, and will eventually need to be replaced when the chemicals within them lose the ability to store charge. When that happens, the dead battery has to be discarded at a hazardous waste disposal site, and will likely never bio-degrade. A similar thing happens to solar panels when they break or wear out-- very difficult to recycle.
Which one really has a worse overall impact on the environment, and which is just more easy to convince people it's bad because you can smell the nasty smoke coming out of it right there?
That last case isn't hypothetical. Its was tried in US in 2009. Here are the results: ruclips.net/video/TBksRp0Io5g/видео.html . TLDR: Arrogance led market manipulation leads to disaster, e.g. the death of Aral sea.
LOve that video series and you are correct. The Cash for Clunkers has been tried in many different countries and all have varying levels of bad results.
Since I am 10 or so I have the feeling the "what happens next machine" is utterly broken in most humans..
I guess half the time you spend at school one should be taught about consequences and (real) respect and some collectivism without loosing individuality.
Also I was thinking about porcelain- soap- and dishwasher-factories .. might be even worse than paper cups.
And communism didn't really work, so maybe legalise cannabis ? If the paperfactory guy was high he may not have built the factory in the first place, maybe even had found a way to make zero emission hemp cups, or the people would drink out of cups they had to carve themselves out of stone or wood.. then you _really_ respect and value your cup... on the other hand there might not be coffee, because the coffeeshop guy was high too, so the people drink river water or spruce tea, but that water would be really clean at least with healthy fish in it, and healthy spruces and maybe some hemp growing around... just entertaining a thought here.. :D
Yah ok.... First- being a 10 year old, why on Earth are you talking about getting high?? And second, you're not 10 years old...
@@TheThora17 No, I am 50, so "since" means : for the last 40 years ;)
Simple: make it favorable for everyone to ride bikes, and increase the capacity of them for groceries, make the seats more comfortable, and make clever design choices to make them potenially faster, potentially provide go-kart like options that are like cars but using pedals instead. Decrease in c02 emissions, decrease in electric use, increase in health, happiness, exposure to nature, an increase in bike prices due to demand that wouldn't be too bad since it would take a lot less to make them, decrease in mortality and injuries from biking, etc.
This channel is such a gold mine
So happy you feel that way 🥰✌️
womp womp
Electric cars are no where near as efficient as Gas Cars, and they're batteries are even more hazardous to the environment
The answer to your question at the end is the implementation of a social credit system with a carbon pass tied to digital currency. This is ultimately the goal of the power hungry, greedy, crony capitalists who will assure you that it is for your own good every step of the way.
Thanks!
It's not the capitalists who want social credit systems, bud.
@@TigersandBearsOhMy I agree that it is not traditional capitalists that want this. Please look up crony capitalism and let me know if you agree.
@@TigersandBearsOhMy If capitalists discover a way to profit from social credit systems, then they will embrace it.
A social credit system introduces a glaring negative externality because it disparages people based on a set of rules that not all will agree with. In extreme cases it can become oppressive. I think that possibility outweighs whatever benefit a social credit system could have for the average individual. Not talking about governments and corporations, because they benefit from social credit systems in very different ways than individuals. They are also far more likely to directly benefit from aspects of social credit that cause harm to individuals, than those individuals could benefit from the aspects that negatively impact the government and corporations.
It is a bad idea in anything but a perfect world.
Well, electric cars are not really a solution... solution is in public transport and less transport. But I would make a special tax of the fossil fuels engines for both the car company and the driver. I would give free parking in the city for electric cars and I would make the public transport free or as cheap as possible
I don't drive so... I'm better than everyone else.
that's a joke. I am Uber Malice.
What's the "Social Cost" of producing electric car batteries?
Thank you for making this one!
Wow. I don’t see any bias here. Haha
The factory is producing garbage
This only works if the same government does something to restrict the flow of paper products from countries that have no environmental regulations. People buy more of the cheap products, making the polluting countries produce more, polute more while the clean producers get squeezed from the market because of higher production costs. Vietnam puts more gross tonnage of plastic into the oceans than the US. Yet consumers buy the cheap product. The world uses so much oil each year. The US produces the cleanest oil products on the planet. Yet our policies promote the dirtiest production and restrict the cleanest. To paraphrase John Kerry: If the US was at 0 carbon output it would have no global effect on climate change. So as long as we feel good about ourselves let's praise the 400 private jets that fly to the Climate Change Conferences while we continue to support the economies that show no stewardship. Hopefully the world converts to renewable energy. I want the oil produced in the interim to be as clean as possible.
Great point! Including the one on the jets…
Let's don't forget Rockefeller, who instead of dumping oil refinery waste into the water, found uses for the waste like petroleum jelly.
A simple way to discourage the use of petrol burning cars would be to increase the cost of gasoline and diesel through taxes. This would also increase tax revenue.
It would also increase the costs of food and any other products delivered by trucks. driving inflation and hurting those on fixed incomes.
the solution might be simple, but the consequences of that solution is not.
maybe convince people to voluntarily make the change. Many people have. and you are not starving retirees to death with your simplicity.
🤷♂🤷♂
Beautiful work
Grade A on all fronts: video, quality, subject, length, VO and ....
Great work. Thanks for uploading
Thanks Gray Mars
Please go back to sleep
We can give incentives for electric car buyer, besides provide them the supporting facilities related to the cars handling
great videos
Glad you like them!
Fabulous video!
Thanks
I got an electric phone and laptop🤣
Cool video btw, very informative👍
😆 dito
These videos are great ... thanks to the creators!
Great video!
Go aggressive on renewal energy manufacturing, make it cheaper than oil.
Building big battery storage,
Regulation for every one who pollute to invest in green bonds ( for green energy investment and very low or no internet rates)
Heavy polluters should also invest in filtering the pollution ( investing in new technology resarch) again we can't kill something that we are growing for decades in years
Invest heavily in renewables means use a lot of fossil fuels as well. We are definitely in an energy conundrum.
Nice video.
Thanks
Wow 😳
What do you mean?
Is there an externality for the burden that heavier EVs have on road surfaces compared to lighter ICE cars?
I support the encouragement of people to buy electric vehicles especially for use in the cities to minimise pollution. however minimising CO2 I do not see as a problem, there is no evidence humans are affecting the climate.
People are becoming frightened of weather hyped up by the media.
Astonishing
A nicely made video! 🙂
Glad you liked it!
RICH people are killing the planet!
If you're from a developed nation, guess what? You're also rich.
@@chetansharma6344 I agree you are right people must simplify there lives if we wish to survive at all.
Basically I’ve learnt from my 1982 geography class is null!.? 😊
How about adopting a Leninist outlook?
What do you mean?
Leninism promulgates industrial communism, the difference being the proletariat have the power instead of wealthy psychopaths. Civilization is an Heat engine no matter how it is powered this is proven scientifically by 6 peer reviewed papers authored by prof Tim Garret who’s a physicist. Industrial civilization is what’s killing the planet, Leninism at best would slow it down at best but would still overheat the planet.