For the start we need a crackdown on planned obsolescence. Just produce more good stuff and significantly less crap. It would greatly reduce consumption of all kinds of raw materials and fuels.
This is so true. Looking at an electric for my next vehicle. But I look at the carbon offset of my 20 & 30 year old vehicle and see they have saved the carbon offset of a new vehicle every 5 years or so many times over. And they still can't be replaced in capabilities or features with any electric on the market.
producing good stuff that lasts will ultimately lead to producing and selling less. And thats why the idea that we need more growth is plain wrong. We need to spread the wealth more fairly even though we sell and produce less stuff because it lasts longer and people dont get manipulated to buy more stuff even though they have enough already. We *have* all the material stuff to feed everyone, we just need to use our super smart brains to develop a fair system how to share it properly so nobody needs to starve. but the food, the clothing, everything is actually there. too much of it, even.
Top1% account for 15% of total CO2 emission. Whereas Bottom50% only account for 7%. There are a lot that established countries can do if they consider it seriously.
...at a UN climate summit in Copenhagen, rich nations made a significant pledge. They promised to channel US$100 billion a year to less wealthy nations by 2020, to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate further rises in temperature. That promise was broken. Figures for 2020 are not yet in, and those who negotiated the pledge don’t agree on accounting methods, but a report last year for the UN concluded that “the only realistic scenarios” showed the $100-billion target was out of reach. “We are not there yet,” conceded UN secretary-general António Guterres. ...Frustratingly, fossil fuels are still being subsidized, receiving some $554 billion per year between 2017 and 2019, by one estimate. And in 2020, annual global military spending reached $2 trillion. [Nature, Jocelyn Timperley, 2021]
One point missed in this video is the fossil fuel subsidies that currently exist. Coal plants exempt from disposing of nuclear waste in their waste stream, oil and gas wells that only pay tax after all costs for a well have been paid. Low cost leases on government land. Limits on holding companies accountable to the distruction of land during exploration, or exploitation.
There is a tremendous amount of magical thinking in this video. Degrowth without destroying our lifestyles is simply not possible by 2050 let alone 2030!
@@aminulhussain2277 improving your personal life sure. But if enough people start to follow the example the economy gets "destroyed". Also our current lifestyle includes a lot of flying and plains will never be sustainable. Even with 100% co2 neutral fuel (and we have no idea how to get there) the climate impact would only be reduced by around 33%
And because hydroelectricity (and geothermal and nuclear) are the few carbon-free source so of energy with an Energy-Return-On-Energy-Investment that is capable of supporting industrial civilization.
It's not just about carbon in the air. We consume 1.7 earth's worth of resources a year. We are pushing through our planetary boundaries at an increasing rate. The whole definition of growth needs to be looked at. We need to be happy with steady state in the developed world i.e. no growth and use the efficiencies created by use of green tech to lift those in the developing world to our level.
cant help but notice that all the utopian talk is coming out of nice kitchens, private gardens or rooftop London apartments. Not to mention how reliant it all is on innovation that hasn't happened yet. Just look at any '40 years in the future ' illustration to see how wrong those predictions turn out. Also the war can just as easily show countries that they've been too quick to dismantle and offshore their carbon infrastructure.
@@markwalshopoulos Yes their impact in europe has been high energy prices and an energy and fertilizer crisis. soon we will have another 2008 financial crisis except this time it will not be houses were all the malinvestment too place but energy. The very basis of modern civilization. one thing is fore this insanity delusion called global warming will finally be thrown away when people have empty bellies.
@@markwalshopoulos that shows the difference between prudent predictions made with the environment in mind vs predictions used by business to keep us consuming and them rich
This misses many points... Society is broken in so many ways, we should be looking to change the way we live for reasons equally as important as reducing carbon
@@zzxap17 We are completely disconnected from the land, each other and ourselves, this type of 'plan' just maintains the status quo. Look at what's going on everywhere, the current systems are failing the majority of the population.
@@freetimefoster so you missed the the point of the video. If you want to change things for the better you have to offer positivity. Wanting everything to change will cause people to resist
@@zzxap17 I guess it depends on your view of positive. If we use EVs as an example, replacing the cars on our roads with EVs isn't particularly positive. It still means our roads and city centres are unfriendly for people and cyclists, it means traffic jams wasted space for car parks, somehow putting in place charging stations for all properties. This isn't positive for me (ignoring all the current issues with production etc) Technology of course is required and essential, but for wider issues other than carbon we also need to change our habits.
"degrowth" isnt what you describe at all. Growth for the poor and regression for the wealthy... No. Degrowth... as a concept, should mean an end to the economic model of perpetual growth. Moves toward a CIRCULAR economy are the only way to manage "degrowth"... also known as "Shrinkage".
Big problems need complex solutions. This challenge involve technical approaches and behavioral ones. We need new ways to generate energy and new consumptions behaviors. There’s no single solution.
Actions that would have the greatest impact on individual’s GHG emissions : 1. Having fewer children (childless if possible) 2. Walk & bike short journeys instead of driving car 3. Reducing air travel 4. Reducing meat intake (especially beef)
also switching to solar/renewables. switch out natural gas stoves for induction. reduce consumption of animal-based food products. switch to an electric car. put your 401(k) into funds that exclude fossil fuels and push companies to reduce their environmental impact. donate to environmental groups
@@kenlandon6130 It's awesome if you're able to implement all of those solutions immediately, since not everyone is able or willing to change their daily activities or habits to reduce their own carbon footprints. In fact, most people around me tend to be oblivious about climate change & individual carbon footprints.
You want people to be childless and deny themselves the most intimate experience that life offers. What's the point of life. And it's only developed countries that over consume per capita. Presumably only developed countries should stop producing children...
@@Skoda130 The financial system can be re-tooled to provide funding for all types of renewables. This do not need to lead to collapse, but can provide HUGE job creation. Unfortunately, it also means major losses for the one percent, witch make it almost impossible to implement as those people will fight to keep what they have. Cheers.
Talking about Norway decarbonizing while it at the same time indirectly produces in the vicinity of 100 ton per citizen per year seems a bit weird. 100 ton is roughly 10 times as much as their Scandinavian neighbors.
This video doesn't put too much emphasis on the meat and deary industry. Also electric cars won't help much if we use cars the way we use them now. In cities we need massive investment in public transport. Trains, trams, metros and buses with a high enough frequancy that people don't need to check the timetable. They should always have priority and dedicated lanes to not get bogged down in traffic which is 70% cars with 1 occupant. Encourage active travel and make it expensive to use your car in the city while making public transport cheap, reliable and frequent. A modal shift from cars to public and active ways of transport is going to give you much greater results. Also domestic flights should not be a thing if there's a train alternative within a reasonable time travel. Invest in public transport! Also the fact that we should continue to consume as we do is just silly and dangerous. We need political will. In the UK, the current goverment is useless on climate change. Please vote for anyone that removes the Conserviteves from goverment.
I am short term de-growth long term techno optimist. I just hope civilisation can survive the next few decades without doing too much damage to the planets habitability.
It's the de-growth I worry about, we still seem to be a world where people want to carry on buying Chinese and Indonesian crap using the world's resources, and governments around the world see GDP growth as good, even though resources are not infinite!
@@gamingtonight1526 No, I acknowledge climates can deviate from the average and even change. I don't believe any mortal has the ability to influence or control it.
There's a reason why the fossil fuel companies are lobbying for Carbon Capture and Storage in combination with Hydrogen production. They make H with gas. They pump CC into oil wells, which releases further locked away fossil. We really need to make them pay, at the moment at least 95% of their investment is spent on business as usual, and some of the 5% is simply greenwashing.
The thing is while cutting CO2 is important, there are a lot of other unsustainable or harmful things. Yes cutting CO2 will reduce them too, but shouldn’t the imperative be to be sustainable? Sustainable, like cutting CO2, doesn’t mean a loss of quality in live, but a increase in valuing things. I’d say a smart growth would be best. Less poverty (less children and population), smarter use of things (e.g. shared mobility) an thus more for our money, and of course lowering the impact of consumption.
I think net zero is part of a larger problem of how to convert our linear extractive economies into circular sustainable ones. Recycling materials, especially plastics, will surely be a major component of that. When one thinks about it, this implies a root and branch transformation of our industrial systems. Possibly invention of new chemical and industrial processes, artificial intelligence to sort recycling materials etc. The technical scale of the challenge is multiple Manhattan projects worth. We also need to think about geopolitics. Petrostates need a life after fossil fuels. China and the US could get together and fund "Marshall Plans" to petrostates to make the transition.
Petrostates have all the wealth Norway has to change tack. Probably the least deserving of consideration in this transformation. They have all the tools they need and indeed should be investing in the green transition with their wealth. Plus the technological challenges are not equivalent to several Manhattan projects. What gives you that view. Most of the solutions are already with us and simply being tweaked for improved efficiency
@@uniteddreamer I'm not sure Norway needs the help, wasn't the sort of country I had in mind. Russia on the other hand... I think the challenges are enormous. Desalination, mass recycling of plastic, sustainable agriculture, and on and on. This is a root and branch transformation of the global economy and depends on major scientific and engineering advances.
Circular economy is religious nonsense. Circular economy just substitutes even more energy in place of raw ores. There are many materials where incineration and landfilling with production of new materials from virgin ores is less energy intensive than trying to recycle it. Recycling in these cases actually increases energy consumption and carbon emissions. This is an even worse problem when the proposed solution is wind and solar, forms of energy whose Energy-Return-On-Energy-Invested number is far lower than fossil fuels. Human civilization is headed for an energy-negative death-spiral.
Capturing carbon dioxide from the ocean is also a very important topic that is not being talked about enough. It's in early stages but pilot projects are already in the works. If it works, not only it's possible to capture carbon dioxide in a useful way, but the byproducts could offset the costs to the point of making it profitable. Carbon capture from seawater with electrolysis can separate carbon chemically, releasing 3 main byproducts: 1- hydrogen (this alone can offset it's costs by around half) 2- Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate. This is where the magic happens, because you are solving 2 issues. Capturing and storage. It's much more difficult to storage carbon dioxide with the current suggested methods proposed by direct air capture advocates. With this method you sequester carbon in mineral form, so it doesnt become a problem. Actually, calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate have multiple applications: soil regenaration, cosmetics, pills, paint and even in construction, since its basically limestone. So imagine that! by producing this minerals, you can essencially also reduce the carbon footprint in other businesses like the construction industry, so it has a double effect, by sequestering carbon in buildings themselves. Oh! and also, the resulting water that was processed by this technique can be then used as preprocessed water to ease the water desalination process that is already energy intensive. So this sort of electrolysis plants would fit perfectly next to desalination plants, also helping reduce the carbon footprint there, making it even more economical. It just makes me so anxious that this is not being implemented world wide. Serious capital should be invested in this.
Hello form Colombia! I really wanted to thank the Financial Times for making this great and thoroughly researched videos available to the public for free. I've learned a lot from this kind of videos. Now, in regards to the points you make i have to say that I agree with most of them. When it comes to the Kaya Identity, I don't necessarily agree with the argument that reducing population is bad. It is not only feasible, but right and morally acceptable. You just have to do it the right way. More education and opportunities for women, effective and comprehensive Sex Ed from a young age and access to contraception. As anything to do with sex (and I suppose that population growth or lack thereof has to do with it) the Key is consent. I get it. After all, it's the Financial Times and not the Feminist Times, but if we want to stop (or even reverse) climate change, we have to take action from all the different perspectives possible. I personally believe that the argument that says that green growth and degrowth are at odds with each other, although intuitively right, it can be misleading. Degrowth is not about negative GDP figures. It is more of a mindset. Taking economics and money out of the pedestal they have been in since the industrial revolution, and putting them at the service of the people, no the other way around. I think that there are millions of people willing to cut their consumption (again, it's all about consent. People must be able to decide wether to do so by themselves). The great challenge is to help them do it while keeping their sanity. Ecoanxiety is a great problem for my generation. Anyways, the argument that it is hypocritical asking developing nations to cut emissions, I agree. Specially if we keep in mind that there are 100 companies (mostly from developed countries) who bare the most responsibility for climate change. All in all, great video. I think you should make a video about Climate Change in collaboration with The Economist 🤣
Hi from Spain. Degrowth is about lower GDP figures. Reduced consumption => reduced profit => reduces GDP. Yes quantity can be replaced with quality combined with a higher price. However producing cheap garbage and then trying to sell it as much of it as possible is ususally the more successfull buisness model in most industries. Just look at fashion 4 ex. Less profits => less GDP. Green growth is just a pipedream. I honestly do not see how it is supposed to work in long term. How are we supposed to grow profits infinetly and at the same time sustainably? The current GDP figures are bloated because they rely on the constant accumulation of climate debt by pushing the external costs onto future generations. ________________________________ The overpopulation is not as much of a problem as many seem to believe. Let me just borrow a quote from you "although intuitively right, it can be misleading". (= More people => emissions so wee need to reduce the number of people to reduce emissions. But the thing is that the overwhelming majority of the issue comes from countries that already have an aging population. 10% richest part of ww population = 50% of global emissions. Ww population could double and we might only see an increase of around 6,1%, if this population growth happens only in low income countries. ________________________ Last but not least I think if the last 50 years have shown us anything it is that urging people to reduce their climate impact by their own free will is not going to work. We need to internalise the external costs. In short: The price of a product should include all the damage the product causes to the enviroment. This would incentivise the companies to reduce the harmful impact a product and the consumer to choose a more eco friendly option. Example: tak the train or a ship instead of an airplane.
I live in the US Southwest which has the worst cities as far as environmentally friendly in any way goes. It is discouraging and NO ONE seems to be doing anything about it. 😣
I think some regions just need to start the ball rolling. It mightn't necessary be an opposition to climate change as a reluctance to change, or simply price. As the tech becomes cheaper & better, and people see it take off elsewhere I'm sure things will change. Although city/town planning does need to improve in a lot of the world tbh
9:30 Yes, unrealistic is the real point to be made. This is clear when you consider that, from 1962 to 2015, the global fertility rate dropped from about 4.9 to 2.4-a radical change, in a couple of generatios. How are you ever going to speed that shift up without truly draconian measures, and without drastic side effects?
There is nothing immoral with trying to reduce wold's population because the number of kids per women is correlated with their level of education. Suggesting poor people should have less kids is immoral. But investing in women's education in regions where they have a limited access to it is actually at the same time moral, a matter of justice AND something that will reduce population growth really fast. So totally disagree with your view the "population lever" should be ignored.
The claim that we know how to produce green electricity is a little overstated because wind and solar are not reliable enough when we need them most (hottest and coldest days), but also we're not making anywhere near enough electricity if we want to heat our homes with it. So nuclear power needs to be greatly expanded and not enough is being done politically (to prepare the public) on that front.
The "when the sun don't shine and wind don't blow" meme is wrong, this problem is technically solved, only politics remains. That doesn't mean nuclear R&D should halt, nuclear has a role.
The thing is not if people in Norway are switching to EV's. The question is if within the next 27 years a truck driver in Ghana sees moving to an EV as the best choice. I highly doubt this, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Can’t we let go of the imperative of scale? Should we keep developing technologies tucked away in labs until they can be rolled out on a massive scale? Why not deploy them right away, on a smaller scale, in a decentralised fashion?
I think many of these technologies still in labs are very expensive. There are many technologies easily available to us which are ready to roll out, but which we are not deploying quickly enough. Heat pumps are a prime example of this. There are not enough trained technicians, and many of those who install the systems are under-trained and install systems that cannot achieve their full potential. We also need proper financing for low-income households to adopt these technologies.
@@julmaass agree with all of that, and also add that often the reason things that aren't mass produced yet aren't released to the gen. public, isn't just how expensive it is to produce, but also the quality itself can be more variable than a standardized & repeatable process that proper tooling & assembly lines have by necessity
Scale = return on investment. The people investing in the research companies won't do so if they can't net a return. Would you pour your own money into green tech companies if you knew you weren't getting it back?
@@discofrancais I would gladly pay some more taxes to help fund a collection of small-scale pilot projects. Taxes are being paid to the government. The government (I’m talking Europe, here) does not expect a financial return on investment, but expect a return in the form of research data that may lead to sustainable practical results, directly or indirectly. Unlike lab research, pilot projects are larger in scale, and serve and actual but small-scale clientele. Nuclear energy started that way, back in the early fifties, in various European countries. Each pilot plant had a different type of reactor, and a different design of cooling system. After a decade or so, the experience gained with some of those designs led to a the first large scale PWR reactor that didn’t use graphite as a moderator. There weren’t any such pilot projects done in the USSR, … so Chernobyl happened. Already on paper, the full scale design promised an economically viable yield from day one, which it delivered. But it also meant that any safety issues would manifest themselves at full scale, to the detriment of a large swathe of the surrounding population. Another example would be military aviation in Britain and in Germany during WW2: for every successful aircraft design that made large scale production, there had been five to eight pilot projects started from designs that didn’t make it. If there hadn’t been an energy crisis combined with a climate crisis going on, I wouldn’t have suggested starting up multiple taxpayer-funded pilot projects. It’s costly, but it saves time, and makes catastrophic failures further down the road less likely.
The largest single issue is that in order to transition away from carbon based fuels is the need to increase the amount of minerals mined by low end estimates of 400 times and some minerals 7000 times current mined minerals... that would be the largest increase in mining the world will have ever witnessed. It takes an avg of 14 years from mine permitting to the production of finished processed minerals. ALSO We are rapidly approaching if we have not passed the point where copper demand is going to far outpace current mined capacity, EXISTING. To make the conversion away from Carbon it will require IIRC an additional 700times the amount of copper currently mined. IF you doubled the power generation of the entire planet, APPLIED 100% of the increase to additional mining, you would have 1.4 times more minerals.
I'm most optimistic when not approaching it as Earth Centric. There is opportunity for exponetial growth while learning how to terraform this planet as well as others.
We've already 'terraformed' this planet...it's called the Anthropocene. 60% of wildlife has disappeared in my lifetime. Vertebrate biomass sits at 97% human and our livestock, 3% wild animals. What's your vision for 'exponential growth' in an already radically transformed world?
2050 target for net zero is too late. Using the cfc and ozone hole example to suggest we can solve climate change is naive in the he extreme. When we focus on technological innovation, or techno-optimism, we always only consider what we have invented, not what we haven’t. So we are always over optimistic. On electric cars, building them emits carbon. We can’t afford to make millions and millions that would be needed for a worldwide roll out. The emissions would be too high. Cutting consumption applies to high to income countries. Trying to suggest we wish to apply it too poor counties is highly misleading. Poor country emissions are low, the vast majority of carbon emissions are emitted by the high income countries. We will still trade with poor countries. Just sustainable stuff. Green growth won’t work, absolute decoupling is not possible at the rate needed. Relative decoupling, which is what is happening and that won’t be enough. Green growth, as the video does say, depends on things yet to invented. This is an unacceptable risk. We may fail. Being more efficient on things we can’t decarbonise, still adds to emissions. We won’t get to net zero. Yes, planting trees helps, but their isn’t enough land. Direct air capture pilots are not working. And if they finally do, the cost and scale will be immense. This video is of course an attempt to keep capitalism alive. We need to face up to the fact that we have already missed the 1.5 degree limit to global warming. We now need to fight to prevent each 0.1 degree increase. This will require lower consumption. Don’t be misled. The rich don’t want to give up their wealth. So they, including this video, are trying to delay action!
Ultimately what matters is incentivization in favor of desired outcome. Not patriotism, not romanticizing issues, not unnecessary drama - plain and simple economic incentivization!. Of course you don't introduce an element of greed (well, in some ways you do - by incentivising in terms of investment returns or cheaper / subsidised goods, etc) at a huge scale but you do have to incentivize and start forming policies towards the desired behaviour.
I question your claim that countries can grow while reducing emissions because they may be exporting heavy industry but still consuming products (like cement and steel) that are generating emissions elsewhere.
I think people see the "eating less meat" and "not driving a car" as giving up on something. While it really might not be. This is why I think we DO need to give up on something to hit zero emissions. Also NET zero is just an excuse to continue as before. We need to stop consumerism. We need to consume less way less. Maybe use money on services rather than things to throw away.
exactly, own nothing and be happy, WEF is actively turning the world into a single global government. They will starve the poor so that there will be fewer people who consume. You will own nothing as well, live will be tougher for you and for us all but as long as we can have less impact on the planet, it's worth the sacrifice. The elites will own everything and decide all our fates, but it's okay because I guess you don't have faith in humanity anyway.
Great video, good summary. There won't be a worldwide consensus on which path is the best and how to get there. However, countries shouldn't wait for the consensus to act and incentivize other countries to find their own way to reach net zero. While doing so the technology will improve and more decarbonated solutions will appear, at a more affordable price tag, enabling countries with lower GDP to join the virtuous path. Downside : it may take longer than 2050, but Rome wasn't built in one day.
Nuclear, thorium, fusion. At least one we can use now, others in the future, hopefully. Planes and heavy transport (especially cargo ships) account very little compared to animal farming and other heavy industry. So they should be low priority. Everything should be electric so that people would pick that by default, of course electricity should not be generated from oil, gas and coal.
Please... Forget about economics figures and base your study on physical laws. Economic model has already done too much for the climate change... Technology has never reversed/contributed to lower our CO2e emissions. It only added more services, and deleted old ones at the margin. Use datas... Moreover, I am very affraid by some comments. It reinforce my doubts about our capacities to meet climate challenge... We are far from a good understanding of how big the problem is... And far from efforts required
The r134a that replaced much of the cfcs is a very high greenhouse gas. That also leads to the astronomical cost of yf1234. A $50 container of refrigerant now is more than $1k. Plus it's flammable. So every time you smash the condenser in the front of the car. Flammable pressurized gas is released.
Broad carbon tax is foolish. It is unmanageable. If governments invest heavily in their infrastructure, including the power grids and renewables, battery technology etc. To drive down the cost of electricity, the growth in innovation will solve the other problems. Also promoting education to reduce population growth in poor countries will solve the other problems.
I Live in the Uk. If you co online for used cars in the local news paper and you could buy a pretty beat up car for £1200.00 and it will get you around for 6 -12 months. The poor will be priced out of used cars and getting to work. All electric cars are so expensive and in my city of Carlisle, we have not had 1 extra charging station in the city in over 1 year. I cant see the EV rev happening for quite awhile.
What is "Growth"? Though never defined in this video, it's about Capitalism. Growth of Profits. The idea that industries, extraction, consumption "grow". It's forced at the root of our economic system by loans, "printing" the money then and there, asking for interest. To pay back that interest, the Capitalist has to increase their operations, translating by more natural extractions. Is "growth" absolutely necessary for a good life? No, growth is a very new concept, as economies were managed differently before. Many sectors were more circular in nature, and national economies were not dependent on growth (which is absolutely necessary now, the stock market and investments depend on the growth on a company). This is reflected in the obsession we now have with GDP, a measure invented to estimate the quantity of economic activity in a country, not its usefulness or the improvement it bring to quality of life. If you read "Doughnut Economics", you'll see that we could have a much more regenerative system, one that respects the ecoligical boundaries of our bioslpere. In "Less is More", Jason Hickel also mentions how impossible it is to continue growing our economy infinitely (this is our system, infinite growth), on our very finite and straining planet. It prescribes a few of the elements mentioned in this video, like pricing carbon, although it's just used as a license to pollute. It also suggest ending planned obsolescence, advertisement (manifactured obsolescence), increasing the Commons (public transport, walkable cities, etc.). Permaculture on a massive scale, instead of factory farms (increased zoonotic diseases + destruction of ecosystems). There is indeed technological fixes for many issues, but it's either gatekept behind company doors, slightly more expensive, or would require an industrial vision spanning more than a few quarters. But overall, the real way we can obtain all that, and a lot more, is the end of Capitalism. To truly have a rational ecological production plan, to have the power to phase out polluting options, even if it cost more, we need worker democracy, for which we need to own the workplaces, currently only geared to maximise profits for their owners. If some ecological aim is obtained as a by-product, great, but the first and only primary aim is to make money, both to survive in the economical war between companies, to secure financement for next quarter, and to line the pockets of individuals that now own so much, that the society thus created is the most unequal in human history. We will hit +1.5 degree Celcius in 2026, in some places. There is 2.4 Billions facing chronic food insecurity. Biodiversity is falling at unprecedented rates. Many ecological tipping points are failing, cascading in uncontrollable disasters. We have no time to lose. The logic of profit at all cost for a tiny minority is murderous in our current context. We have both the technology, the know how, the resources to transition to a much more sustainable model, while improving our quality of life. Full employment, massive reduction of work time, more free goods. And more importantly, a voice. A way to control our story. Direct democracy. It's that, or increased droughts, famines, mass migrations, wars, ecosystem collapse, irreversible climate feedback loops worsening... All to "grow" the profits of CEOs and Board of Directors. Let's overthrow this violent system, which kills millions every year. We have only our chains to lose, and a World to Win.
@@CoolGirl007 very true. My problem with "what if" is it implies that unless it can be applied to everyone, it should not be done at all. And by doing that, nothing changes.
Of course. The carbon price would never be subject to corruption. No one can or should point out or stop the multi-billion dollar companies that continue to manufacture totally unnecessary products like Coca-Cola or Sabritas, or the millions of dollars that Disney uses on new Marvel movies and series, or the millions that rich countries invest in the military sector every year. Also, what promotion is “I want to continue living the way I live”?
I think it is immoral not to talk about population. The problems in the world are not just carbon, which is the easiest to fix. It doesn't matter how efficient we get if we keep growing the population eventually the problem becomes too large to fix. If we had half the population, the problems we face would almost not exist. If I had the power of Thanos, I would snap my fingers.
"I fear we won't get there at all" - sums up my concern especially when you say we do "need to accept fundamental change in our political" ... I do see fundamental change in politics alright, but not in any way that brings me hope for the future :(
The industrialisation of the world enabled an unchecked and irresponsible growth in population. It is not immoral to take steps to reduce population a managed way. There is this misplaced sense of entitlement that humanity seems to have to expect endless growth and reproduction, at the expense of the climate and other species. The idea that technology will save us is speculative and irresponsible, many of these technologies have significant down sides and trade offs, many of which include the inefficient conversion of energy and / or the use of fossil fuels to create them at scale. We are in a slow death spiral but, ultimately the problem with the plane will resolve itself when we, humanity are no longer here.
The obsession with energy-negative wind and solar are what are putting the world in danger of an energy-negative "death spiral". We need to start using nuclear energy sooner rather than later.
15:00 Planes, trucks, and ships can all be electrified to a great extent, with advantages that will make it worthwhile to make the shift. For the largest loads, a limited amount of biofuels, combined with limited amount of air capture of CO2, will be a reasonable choice, unless and until some more fundamental breakthrough comes along.
@@thekkidd3d Come on. You have more brain cells available than that. I'm no fan of biofuels generally, but you can't just dismiss all uses of them without evidence. Understand, I'm not talking corn ethanol here, or palm oil from plantations. There are other possibilities.
Among carbon free sources of energy, only hydroelectricity, geothermal, and nuclear energy have a sufficiently high energy-return-on-investment to enable them to power industrial civilization. And even then, I have no idea how to decarbonize agricultural equipment and mobile industrial equipment.
This handwaves the political challenges of degrowth too much, while ignoring how decoupling success stories rely precisely on maintaining the inequalities that make degrowth challenging to begin with. If poor countries are shackled to fossils because they rely on rich countries to be export markets, then the solution is to combine cuts in consumption by the rich with redistribution of economic resources to the poor.
That being said, getting rid of plastic waste and designing cities to be like Amsterdam instead of Houston are obviously still good ideas. The real solution is all of the above--but the emphasis should be on improving conditions for the poor, not preserving those of the rich. The implication that the rich MUST consume more or else the poor are fucked is just obscene.
The thing that the decoupling "success stores" have in common is a preceding abundance of fossil fuels (especially Norway) and the presence of hydroelectricity, geothermal, and nuclear energy. Only those three energy sources have an energy return on investment capable of powering industrial civilization.
This is pure hopium! The economists of FT still believe in the obviously unsustainable "growth" mantra. Only economists can continue to resist the mathematical law that exponential growth is possible where resources and boundaries are constrained absolutely. If FT is to lead the way then they need to seriously get to grips with De-Growth and Prosperity without growth instead of offering all this nonsensical optimism. Here in New Zealand our government had decided that carbon neutrality will be achieved for our country by paying someone else to plant trees. We intended to do almost nothing. We are back to full steam promoting dairy with it's double whammy of agricultural methane and huge carbon based water evaporation system for milk powder, and a tourism industry 100% based on long haul jet transport. The current irony is that the Aluminium smelter in the south island is 100% hydro powered but the owners are black mailing the country by threatening to shut it down. The idea that nothing needs to change as suggested by these FT dreamers needs to be seriously challenged. The level of entitlement pouring out is frankly disgusting.
This is complete nonsense, more and more of our economies depend less on manufactured goods and instead are based around services. We are not going to run out of major resources any time soon and renewables have made a lot of gains, Britain no longer uses coal because of renewables
We can't plant trees as fast as our forests are burning. We need to do many things to fight climate change. One thing we need to do is solve the problem of flooding, drought, and fresh water. This will allow us to create more rain forests, and fight wild fires, and provide fresh water to places where there is drought, and divert flood water to places where there is drought. The people who have the most money and power will be effected the most. This is why it is so hard to change .
Some great technologies out there. The problem is Time. By the time we build the infrastructure to sustain our Western lifestyles on zero carbon (which could be well into the 2050s) we will have triggered so many adverse feedback loops in the climate that large-scale catastrophe may become inevitable, regardless of what we think of (de)growth. It think we should consume drastically less whilst throwing the kitchen sink at green innovation. Also, we should get rid of all fossil fuel subsidies immediately in order to stand a chance.
"the grid" hasn't "the" anything since it was first built... it has since been patched and extended so many times that it is only about 54% efficient. We new NEW electric infrastructure...from the ground up. All of it replaced...with room for expansion, better transmission efficiency and better aesthetic appeal perhaps designed in a way that it is near invisible in the landscape... no more pylons.
There is so much that is disingenuous, omitted or pro- corporate in this video. Not impartial at all. We need to change, and rapidly, but by placing most of the emphasis on individuals and consumers is not how the step change will occur. Aggressive control of rampant globalised corporates will achieve the change in supply and energy chains that we require.
We are addicted to oil and the luxuries given by it. World was much simpler 15 years back, we have to start de addiction immediately. But, it will take time to getting used to. Earth can provide for our needs, not our greed. But, unfortunately today's world is too greedy.
i’m only 3 minutes in but i just fundamentally disagree. infinite growth is what got us here in the first place. the notion that we should look for alternatives that don’t structurally change the way we live and look at the world is just flawed and disgusting imo
Packaging has very little to do with climate change. Climate change is almost entirely to do with CO2 emissions coming from fossil fuel use. Talking about packaging is little more than a distraction.
Thank you so much for this video really a great way to see into the future, as people need to understand that a net zero carbon emissions will be the best for everyone. The only problem will be trying to get everyone on board as most people enjoy the aspect’s of having more than less..
fuel cells will change energy, the latest is up to 1750hp/1.3mw of generating power, the problem is to get enough hydrogen to feed them (too much is not enough)
This video only considers CO2 pollution and climate collapse, but six of nine ecological planetary boundaries have already been blown. Capitalism produced the Sixth Extinction and only world socialism, a workers' democracy over the means of global production, can safely transition us through the coming storms. De-globalization along with pricing pollution will likely produce negative GDP growth rates and capitalists will discover that there are limits to their austerity schemes as you can't squeeze blood from a rock. This class-struggle (capitalists' austerity to pay for Green New Deals vs workers fight to defend or increase our living standards) will produce shifts in the consciousness of the masses. Socialism will win.
I believe battery electric cars are an intermediate technology. There remain questions about the availability of lithium, can something else replace it, how to deal with spent batteries so they don't add to environmental problems.
We should use more public transports and human propelled vehicles (bikes, skateboards, rollerskates, etc.) in any scenario. Also towns need less wide roads and more planted areas and walking districts.
Few scientists see a 1.5°C increase as an emergency. Few even see 2°C as an emergency. A problem, but not the only problem the world faces. Those *all* need to be looked at and priorities set for what our necessarily limited resources can achieve and where what we have can do the most overall good. Getting rid of CFCs wasn't free. It increased the cost of aerosol products and of refrigeration equipment and lowered their efficiencies. The fact that the increases in prices happened over several years so they weren't imposed all at once where people would be more aware of the increase doesn't mean those increased costs didn't exist. We're already running into limitations on even just *building* electric cars. We don't have enough of what it takes to build them and their batteries. Deliveries are currently running a year or more out and some have stopped even taking orders. Plus, the fact that they are electric means nothing if the electricity to power them is still coming from the same old sources or if there's even enough electricity to power them at all. You can't take long trips with electric cars. You can't just pull up to a pump (available within a few miles drive of almost everywhere) and refuel them in a matter of minutes. Norway has fortuitous sources of electricity that are available in few other places, so it's not an example as what can be done elsewhere. People who can't afford to "upgrade" to electric are being penalized for those who can afford to do so. The poor subsidising the rich, as happens all too often. Different places in the world are just that. Different. If you don't have a lot of sunlight or wind, which is a lot of places, then you have to go with whatever else is actually available. That doesn't break down into neat per person or per income segments. When solar or wind (plus the needed batteries and backup power sources) is actually cheaper then it shouldn't need subsidies - pure economics will drive the change. Pretending it's cheaper by hiding the actual costs by government subsidy doesn't change the facts on the ground. Plus, you wind up back with the poor, who don't have the political pull to get the subsidies, subsidizing the rich, who do. You say that no changes need to be made and then immediately follow it up with a person who talks about many of the changes we would have to make the transition to the vision of a "green" lifestyle. They can't both be true. A well off scientist with her own home and backyard and able to afford more expensive foods and cars and the like has no business preaching to a person living on the edge in a small apartment even in a "rich" country. Nor does she have any business *dictating* what another person *should* consider to be a "fulfilling" lifestyle. Each individual decides that for themself. We're all different and we all value different things at different costs. Great. We can take care of this sector at this cost (and at least you think nuclear is an appropriate option, which many, if not most, greens oppose), but at a cost nonetheless and one that will have to be paid. Again, there *is* a cost. It's not *free*. Who gets hurt the most with those costs? Again, as usual, the poor. A middle class person will grouse about his electric bill doubling, but a poor person has to decide what food they have to give up to keep their place how warm. Yet you just pass that all off as not important. Hydrogen conversion isn't cheap. Nor is it as safe as fossil fuels. When you use more expensive steel and concrete, costs go up. Things that look good in the lab rarely wind up working well in the real world where costs have to be paid. Don't count on one of them panning out by any time. Eventually we may find less expensive ways of doing things, but five years from now is a lot different from fifty years from now as to when something becomes available. No way of knowing what will be found when, yet still counting on them showing up to solve a problem by X date is a fool's errand. Right - straw as a substitute for steel and concrete in places that don't have wood? Sorry, but making that jump as an argument is ludicrous. We cannot feed the current population of the world without large scale production and use of fertilization. Biodiversity sounds all warm and fuzzy. But starvation doesn't. One will cause the other. Look at Sri Lanka today for a case in point where they tried to implement mandating organic farming. The country can't even feed itself after just one year of it. Oh, but we can turn down (or up) thermostats. We can switch to heat pumps. We can ban cars. All at no cost, just a "little" inconvenience. But it *is* at a cost. For some, at a great cost. You can't have the same access to mobility if you ban certain types of mobility. I'm glad you can bicycle wherever you want to go, but that's not true for most of us. We *do* have to change our lifestyles. Again, great to hear from some well off scientist, but not from someone in a different location or income level. You keep trying to say that nothing really has to change and then keep running down all the ways that we will need to change. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Planting trees is turning out to be not so useful after all, according to recent research. Then you have the insanity of a country like Germany burning wood and getting to count that as a renewable plus saying they're helping things by planting trees that are destined to be burnt. Carbon taxes. Again, soak the poor to make the rich feel better. Then we wonder why there's so much inequality whenever the government gets involved with anything. Bottom line, there no such thing as a free lunch. Never has been and never will be. You tony middle and upper classes may be able to afford the changes you want to impose on everyone else and feel all virtuous while doing it, but you're just doing what you always do. Trying to force your ideas of how to live, and the costs for doing so, on those who neither desire nor can afford those costs.
Have you citations regarding most scientists who don't regard 1.5 or 2 degrees temperature rise as an emergency? That sounds dubious. Also relatively low cost technological solutions have already given the poorest people improvements in lifestyle at no cost and improved environmental impact as well if you look at low end solar panel solutions, the uptake has been sizeable, restricted only by investment levels. That is a free lunch... More than a few lunch, everyone is benefiting.
Also your notion that transferring from pump to charge is supposedly impossible because it's too inconvenient is also incorrect. Most people, the vast majority, don't need more than a full charge of the average ev on a daily basis. And if you have a driveway, or even access to roadside, that means you never need to use a charging station reducing the burden on publicly available refueling/recharging stations altogether. Solutions need to be found for those living in blocks but that will be who the public infrastructure needs to address and should receive priority needs (if they have a car). But there is no reason why developers of new builds should not be also required to producing charging stations with every parking spot they provide.
The title of the video is just a simple lie. "oh, massively reducing the access to cheap energy that powers our entire civilization won't change the way we live! Right, that's like saying if I reduce your income by 90% it won't change the way you live lol.
That such a lot of thinking has gone into the making of this video is obvious! But there's nothing the common persons could do even if they understood the theme. Consultations with those in power, the well educated and the scientific community respectfully, and truthfully could do much more! As reported the reduction of the ozone hole is just good news. Consider what comfort cooling meant to airconditioner manufacturers 40 years ago! What was that temperature. That meant that is was not a luxury, like a holiday in the Alps. Yet the cost was great! Calling those complaining about the heat as wingers or defeatists is ruthlessness. Politics is now taboo, and activists have arisen, those outside this circle of influence can only comfort each other in whatever way they can! That's what can be done for now.
Don’t you know that the ocean absorb more carbon than all the forest combined??? Even if you plant trees at all the open spaces, the ocean will still absorb more. Based on the studies
Neither trees nor the ocean can resolve climate change. Yeah, the ocean absorbs around 30-50% of CO2. It dissolves in the water. As the ocean temperature increases, CO2 absorption decreases. Either way, it's not sequestering the CO2. It's not taking it out of the ocean-atmosphere system. The atmosphere's carbon keeps going up and up. We live in unprecedented times. CO2 has not been this high for millions of years. No human (as we know them) have lived with the massive quantity of 420ppm CO2 as we do today. We walk into the unknown, and disaster.
While the ability of the ocean to capture and store carbon has helped to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 - and, hence, the pace of global warming - it has come at a cost. Increasing CO2 in the ocean alters the chemistry of seawater - an effect known as ocean acidification - which has negative impacts on marine life. [Carbon Brief, WEF, Dr Jamie Shutler, Prof Andy Watson, 2020]
Nice to see the FT addressing this topic. I think we need to pull all the levers we can and fast. Politics and society at large has been far too slow to drive for these mainly positive changes.
Build good and safe cycle tracks and give incentives to buy e bikes and see the magic your local transportation emissions can be reduced a lot.....after I bought an ebike been delaying buying a car for ever now because of my over enthusiastic biking sprit ...ohhh god save me
For the start we need a crackdown on planned obsolescence. Just produce more good stuff and significantly less crap. It would greatly reduce consumption of all kinds of raw materials and fuels.
This is so true. Looking at an electric for my next vehicle. But I look at the carbon offset of my 20 & 30 year old vehicle and see they have saved the carbon offset of a new vehicle every 5 years or so many times over. And they still can't be replaced in capabilities or features with any electric on the market.
@RN G Or shipping being mentioned, which is used to ship 90% of all goods.
We could do this without releasing bioweapons or weather modification. But I guess terrorism and genocide is the only way to achieve your goals.
And circular design. Designing the product with recycling in mind.
producing good stuff that lasts will ultimately lead to producing and selling less. And thats why the idea that we need more growth is plain wrong. We need to spread the wealth more fairly even though we sell and produce less stuff because it lasts longer and people dont get manipulated to buy more stuff even though they have enough already. We *have* all the material stuff to feed everyone, we just need to use our super smart brains to develop a fair system how to share it properly so nobody needs to starve. but the food, the clothing, everything is actually there. too much of it, even.
Top1% account for 15% of total CO2 emission. Whereas Bottom50% only account for 7%. There are a lot that established countries can do if they consider it seriously.
Who cares?!
...at a UN climate summit in Copenhagen, rich nations made a significant pledge. They promised to channel US$100 billion a year to less wealthy nations by 2020, to help them adapt to climate change and mitigate further rises in temperature.
That promise was broken. Figures for 2020 are not yet in, and those who negotiated the pledge don’t agree on accounting methods, but a report last year for the UN concluded that “the only realistic scenarios” showed the $100-billion target was out of reach. “We are not there yet,” conceded UN secretary-general António Guterres.
...Frustratingly, fossil fuels are still being subsidized, receiving some $554 billion per year between 2017 and 2019, by one estimate. And in 2020, annual global military spending reached $2 trillion.
[Nature, Jocelyn Timperley, 2021]
@@wolfiestreet6899 Anyone with a functioning brain.
One point missed in this video is the fossil fuel subsidies that currently exist. Coal plants exempt from disposing of nuclear waste in their waste stream, oil and gas wells that only pay tax after all costs for a well have been paid. Low cost leases on government land. Limits on holding companies accountable to the distruction of land during exploration, or exploitation.
There is a tremendous amount of magical thinking in this video. Degrowth without destroying our lifestyles is simply not possible by 2050 let alone 2030!
You'd be rid of a lot waste in your life. That's improving it, not destroying it.
@@aminulhussain2277 improving your personal life sure. But if enough people start to follow the example the economy gets "destroyed". Also our current lifestyle includes a lot of flying and plains will never be sustainable. Even with 100% co2 neutral fuel (and we have no idea how to get there) the climate impact would only be reduced by around 33%
It worked for Norway because they had a big windfall from the North sea oil and gas extraction.
norway was blessed with massive hydropower. wind and solar do not work.
And because hydroelectricity (and geothermal and nuclear) are the few carbon-free source so of energy with an Energy-Return-On-Energy-Investment that is capable of supporting industrial civilization.
It's not just about carbon in the air. We consume 1.7 earth's worth of resources a year. We are pushing through our planetary boundaries at an increasing rate. The whole definition of growth needs to be looked at. We need to be happy with steady state in the developed world i.e. no growth and use the efficiencies created by use of green tech to lift those in the developing world to our level.
For me, population reduction is not only about decarbonising, it is also about diversity, handing some land space back to mother nature.
I do not envisage relinquishing our monopoly of the planet, our brains give us that, rather we learn to share better.
Climate change is a warning light, not a guiding light.
We need to administer the whole periodic table, all of its derivatives, energy & all life.
Note:- Trees are thirsty, & can change the water table. Plant with intelligent thought & planning.
No use of the phrase 'Circular Economy'?
All that said, great short documentary.
cant help but notice that all the utopian talk is coming out of nice kitchens, private gardens or rooftop London apartments.
Not to mention how reliant it all is on innovation that hasn't happened yet. Just look at any '40 years in the future ' illustration to see how wrong those predictions turn out.
Also the war can just as easily show countries that they've been too quick to dismantle and offshore their carbon infrastructure.
Climate change is obvious.
The solution is complex but we are getting there.
I'm not sure how a nice kitchen affects the science.
You might appreciate this. ruclips.net/video/r71yNnfY6ss/видео.html
Tony Seba’s forecasts have been impressive to date.
Most predictions about renewables have undersold their impact
@@markwalshopoulos Yes their impact in europe has been high energy prices and an energy and fertilizer crisis. soon we will have another 2008 financial crisis except this time it will not be houses were all the malinvestment too place but energy. The very basis of modern civilization. one thing is fore this insanity delusion called global warming will finally be thrown away when people have empty bellies.
@@markwalshopoulos that shows the difference between prudent predictions made with the environment in mind vs predictions used by business to keep us consuming and them rich
This misses many points... Society is broken in so many ways, we should be looking to change the way we live for reasons equally as important as reducing carbon
This might be a dumb question, but how is society broken? My apologies if you are posting from Ukraine.
@@zzxap17 We are completely disconnected from the land, each other and ourselves, this type of 'plan' just maintains the status quo.
Look at what's going on everywhere, the current systems are failing the majority of the population.
@@freetimefoster so you missed the the point of the video. If you want to change things for the better you have to offer positivity. Wanting everything to change will cause people to resist
@@zzxap17 I guess it depends on your view of positive. If we use EVs as an example, replacing the cars on our roads with EVs isn't particularly positive. It still means our roads and city centres are unfriendly for people and cyclists, it means traffic jams wasted space for car parks, somehow putting in place charging stations for all properties. This isn't positive for me (ignoring all the current issues with production etc)
Technology of course is required and essential, but for wider issues other than carbon we also need to change our habits.
"degrowth" isnt what you describe at all. Growth for the poor and regression for the wealthy... No.
Degrowth... as a concept, should mean an end to the economic model of perpetual growth.
Moves toward a CIRCULAR economy are the only way to manage "degrowth"... also known as "Shrinkage".
great great great depression
I got beat in a middle school student government election by a guy who promised less homework and longer recess.
Unironically, less work and more play is exactly what we need.
Big problems need complex solutions. This challenge involve technical approaches and behavioral ones. We need new ways to generate energy and new consumptions behaviors. There’s no single solution.
What problem?
@@wolfiestreet6899 the human problem
@@tuckerbugeater What problem is that?
Actions that would have the greatest impact on individual’s GHG emissions :
1. Having fewer children (childless if possible)
2. Walk & bike short journeys instead of driving car
3. Reducing air travel
4. Reducing meat intake (especially beef)
also switching to solar/renewables. switch out natural gas stoves for induction. reduce consumption of animal-based food products. switch to an electric car. put your 401(k) into funds that exclude fossil fuels and push companies to reduce their environmental impact. donate to environmental groups
@@kenlandon6130
It's awesome if you're able to implement all of those solutions immediately, since not everyone is able or willing to change their daily activities or habits to reduce their own carbon footprints.
In fact, most people around me tend to be oblivious about climate change & individual carbon footprints.
You want people to be childless and deny themselves the most intimate experience that life offers. What's the point of life. And it's only developed countries that over consume per capita. Presumably only developed countries should stop producing children...
@@uniteddreamer Reduce social pressure to have children
First we need to get rid of the financial system based on constant growth. That is unsustainable. This is the key.
It's the only way to keep financial systems more or less stable. It's either growth or collapse.
@@Skoda130 The financial system can be re-tooled to provide funding for all types of renewables. This do not need to lead to collapse, but can provide HUGE job creation. Unfortunately, it also means major losses for the one percent, witch make it almost impossible to implement as those people will fight to keep what they have. Cheers.
@@Christiane069 which implies that by any practical means, it cannot be reformed. :-(
Talking about Norway decarbonizing while it at the same time indirectly produces in the vicinity of 100 ton per citizen per year seems a bit weird. 100 ton is roughly 10 times as much as their Scandinavian neighbors.
This video doesn't put too much emphasis on the meat and deary industry. Also electric cars won't help much if we use cars the way we use them now. In cities we need massive investment in public transport. Trains, trams, metros and buses with a high enough frequancy that people don't need to check the timetable. They should always have priority and dedicated lanes to not get bogged down in traffic which is 70% cars with 1 occupant.
Encourage active travel and make it expensive to use your car in the city while making public transport cheap, reliable and frequent.
A modal shift from cars to public and active ways of transport is going to give you much greater results. Also domestic flights should not be a thing if there's a train alternative within a reasonable time travel. Invest in public transport!
Also the fact that we should continue to consume as we do is just silly and dangerous.
We need political will. In the UK, the current goverment is useless on climate change. Please vote for anyone that removes the Conserviteves from goverment.
Really important points!
I recommend a video by SciShow (Cutting beef could reduce emissions. No, like, a lot) posted on 07 May 2022
@@lijing8984 I'll watch it shortly, thanks
@@catalinvoineag6344 you're welcome
I am short term de-growth long term techno optimist. I just hope civilisation can survive the next few decades without doing too much damage to the planets habitability.
What do you know?
Nothing.
Humble yourself.
@@wolfiestreet6899 An anti-climate change believer - right?
It's the de-growth I worry about, we still seem to be a world where people want to carry on buying Chinese and Indonesian crap using the world's resources, and governments around the world see GDP growth as good, even though resources are not infinite!
@@gamingtonight1526 Resources are infinite.
@@gamingtonight1526 No, I acknowledge climates can deviate from the average and even change.
I don't believe any mortal has the ability to influence or control it.
We “saved” the oceans from plastic pollution with recycling so let’s keep changing nothing to our habits! 😅 (no)
🤣
There's a reason why the fossil fuel companies are lobbying for Carbon Capture and Storage in combination with Hydrogen production.
They make H with gas. They pump CC into oil wells, which releases further locked away fossil.
We really need to make them pay, at the moment at least 95% of their investment is spent on business as usual, and some of the 5% is simply greenwashing.
Goddammit start using nuclear power extensively.
The thing is while cutting CO2 is important, there are a lot of other unsustainable or harmful things. Yes cutting CO2 will reduce them too, but shouldn’t the imperative be to be sustainable?
Sustainable, like cutting CO2, doesn’t mean a loss of quality in live, but a increase in valuing things.
I’d say a smart growth would be best. Less poverty (less children and population), smarter use of things (e.g. shared mobility) an thus more for our money, and of course lowering the impact of consumption.
if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.
I think net zero is part of a larger problem of how to convert our linear extractive economies into circular sustainable ones. Recycling materials, especially plastics, will surely be a major component of that. When one thinks about it, this implies a root and branch transformation of our industrial systems. Possibly invention of new chemical and industrial processes, artificial intelligence to sort recycling materials etc. The technical scale of the challenge is multiple Manhattan projects worth. We also need to think about geopolitics. Petrostates need a life after fossil fuels. China and the US could get together and fund "Marshall Plans" to petrostates to make the transition.
Petrostates have all the wealth Norway has to change tack. Probably the least deserving of consideration in this transformation. They have all the tools they need and indeed should be investing in the green transition with their wealth.
Plus the technological challenges are not equivalent to several Manhattan projects. What gives you that view. Most of the solutions are already with us and simply being tweaked for improved efficiency
@@uniteddreamer I'm not sure Norway needs the help, wasn't the sort of country I had in mind. Russia on the other hand...
I think the challenges are enormous. Desalination, mass recycling of plastic, sustainable agriculture, and on and on. This is a root and branch transformation of the global economy and depends on major scientific and engineering advances.
Circular economy is religious nonsense. Circular economy just substitutes even more energy in place of raw ores. There are many materials where incineration and landfilling with production of new materials from virgin ores is less energy intensive than trying to recycle it. Recycling in these cases actually increases energy consumption and carbon emissions. This is an even worse problem when the proposed solution is wind and solar, forms of energy whose Energy-Return-On-Energy-Invested number is far lower than fossil fuels. Human civilization is headed for an energy-negative death-spiral.
The Thunberg quote was right. And this video bolsters it. It's a potential suicide mission in reluctance of abandoning perpetual growth.
Capturing carbon dioxide from the ocean is also a very important topic that is not being talked about enough. It's in early stages but pilot projects are already in the works. If it works, not only it's possible to capture carbon dioxide in a useful way, but the byproducts could offset the costs to the point of making it profitable.
Carbon capture from seawater with electrolysis can separate carbon chemically, releasing 3 main byproducts:
1- hydrogen (this alone can offset it's costs by around half)
2- Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate. This is where the magic happens, because you are solving 2 issues. Capturing and storage. It's much more difficult to storage carbon dioxide with the current suggested methods proposed by direct air capture advocates. With this method you sequester carbon in mineral form, so it doesnt become a problem. Actually, calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate have multiple applications: soil regenaration, cosmetics, pills, paint and even in construction, since its basically limestone. So imagine that! by producing this minerals, you can essencially also reduce the carbon footprint in other businesses like the construction industry, so it has a double effect, by sequestering carbon in buildings themselves.
Oh! and also, the resulting water that was processed by this technique can be then used as preprocessed water to ease the water desalination process that is already energy intensive. So this sort of electrolysis plants would fit perfectly next to desalination plants, also helping reduce the carbon footprint there, making it even more economical.
It just makes me so anxious that this is not being implemented world wide. Serious capital should be invested in this.
Hello form Colombia! I really wanted to thank the Financial Times for making this great and thoroughly researched videos available to the public for free. I've learned a lot from this kind of videos. Now, in regards to the points you make i have to say that I agree with most of them. When it comes to the Kaya Identity, I don't necessarily agree with the argument that reducing population is bad. It is not only feasible, but right and morally acceptable. You just have to do it the right way. More education and opportunities for women, effective and comprehensive Sex Ed from a young age and access to contraception. As anything to do with sex (and I suppose that population growth or lack thereof has to do with it) the Key is consent. I get it. After all, it's the Financial Times and not the Feminist Times, but if we want to stop (or even reverse) climate change, we have to take action from all the different perspectives possible.
I personally believe that the argument that says that green growth and degrowth are at odds with each other, although intuitively right, it can be misleading. Degrowth is not about negative GDP figures. It is more of a mindset. Taking economics and money out of the pedestal they have been in since the industrial revolution, and putting them at the service of the people, no the other way around. I think that there are millions of people willing to cut their consumption (again, it's all about consent. People must be able to decide wether to do so by themselves). The great challenge is to help them do it while keeping their sanity. Ecoanxiety is a great problem for my generation. Anyways, the argument that it is hypocritical asking developing nations to cut emissions, I agree. Specially if we keep in mind that there are 100 companies (mostly from developed countries) who bare the most responsibility for climate change. All in all, great video. I think you should make a video about Climate Change in collaboration with The Economist 🤣
Hi from Spain. Degrowth is about lower GDP figures. Reduced consumption => reduced profit => reduces GDP. Yes quantity can be replaced with quality combined with a higher price. However producing cheap garbage and then trying to sell it as much of it as possible is ususally the more successfull buisness model in most industries. Just look at fashion 4 ex. Less profits => less GDP. Green growth is just a pipedream. I honestly do not see how it is supposed to work in long term. How are we supposed to grow profits infinetly and at the same time sustainably? The current GDP figures are bloated because they rely on the constant accumulation of climate debt by pushing the external costs onto future generations.
________________________________
The overpopulation is not as much of a problem as many seem to believe. Let me just borrow a quote from you "although intuitively right, it can be misleading". (= More people => emissions so wee need to reduce the number of people to reduce emissions. But the thing is that the overwhelming majority of the issue comes from countries that already have an aging population. 10% richest part of ww population = 50% of global emissions. Ww population could double and we might only see an increase of around 6,1%, if this population growth happens only in low income countries.
________________________
Last but not least I think if the last 50 years have shown us anything it is that urging people to reduce their climate impact by their own free will is not going to work. We need to internalise the external costs. In short: The price of a product should include all the damage the product causes to the enviroment. This would incentivise the companies to reduce the harmful impact a product and the consumer to choose a more eco friendly option. Example: tak the train or a ship instead of an airplane.
I live in the US Southwest which has the worst cities as far as environmentally friendly in any way goes. It is discouraging and NO ONE seems to be doing anything about it. 😣
I think some regions just need to start the ball rolling. It mightn't necessary be an opposition to climate change as a reluctance to change, or simply price. As the tech becomes cheaper & better, and people see it take off elsewhere I'm sure things will change.
Although city/town planning does need to improve in a lot of the world tbh
9:30 Yes, unrealistic is the real point to be made. This is clear when you consider that, from 1962 to 2015, the global fertility rate dropped from about 4.9 to 2.4-a radical change, in a couple of generatios. How are you ever going to speed that shift up without truly draconian measures, and without drastic side effects?
8:00 That 18% is a misleading figure. Electricity has much more utility than most energy generally. The appropriate portion is really more like 30%.
There is nothing immoral with trying to reduce wold's population because the number of kids per women is correlated with their level of education.
Suggesting poor people should have less kids is immoral. But investing in women's education in regions where they have a limited access to it is actually at the same time moral, a matter of justice AND something that will reduce population growth really fast. So totally disagree with your view the "population lever" should be ignored.
The claim that we know how to produce green electricity is a little overstated because wind and solar are not reliable enough when we need them most (hottest and coldest days), but also we're not making anywhere near enough electricity if we want to heat our homes with it. So nuclear power needs to be greatly expanded and not enough is being done politically (to prepare the public) on that front.
The "when the sun don't shine and wind don't blow" meme is wrong, this problem is technically solved, only politics remains. That doesn't mean nuclear R&D should halt, nuclear has a role.
The thing is not if people in Norway are switching to EV's. The question is if within the next 27 years a truck driver in Ghana sees moving to an EV as the best choice. I highly doubt this, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Can’t we let go of the imperative of scale? Should we keep developing technologies tucked away in labs until they can be rolled out on a massive scale? Why not deploy them right away, on a smaller scale, in a decentralised fashion?
I think many of these technologies still in labs are very expensive. There are many technologies easily available to us which are ready to roll out, but which we are not deploying quickly enough. Heat pumps are a prime example of this. There are not enough trained technicians, and many of those who install the systems are under-trained and install systems that cannot achieve their full potential. We also need proper financing for low-income households to adopt these technologies.
@@julmaass agree with all of that, and also add that often the reason things that aren't mass produced yet aren't released to the gen. public, isn't just how expensive it is to produce, but also the quality itself can be more variable than a standardized & repeatable process that proper tooling & assembly lines have by necessity
Scale = return on investment. The people investing in the research companies won't do so if they can't net a return.
Would you pour your own money into green tech companies if you knew you weren't getting it back?
@@discofrancais I would gladly pay some more taxes to help fund a collection of small-scale pilot projects. Taxes are being paid to the government. The government (I’m talking Europe, here) does not expect a financial return on investment, but expect a return in the form of research data that may lead to sustainable practical results, directly or indirectly. Unlike lab research, pilot projects are larger in scale, and serve and actual but small-scale clientele. Nuclear energy started that way, back in the early fifties, in various European countries. Each pilot plant had a different type of reactor, and a different design of cooling system. After a decade or so, the experience gained with some of those designs led to a the first large scale PWR reactor that didn’t use graphite as a moderator. There weren’t any such pilot projects done in the USSR, … so Chernobyl happened. Already on paper, the full scale design promised an economically viable yield from day one, which it delivered. But it also meant that any safety issues would manifest themselves at full scale, to the detriment of a large swathe of the surrounding population. Another example would be military aviation in Britain and in Germany during WW2: for every successful aircraft design that made large scale production, there had been five to eight pilot projects started from designs that didn’t make it. If there hadn’t been an energy crisis combined with a climate crisis going on, I wouldn’t have suggested starting up multiple taxpayer-funded pilot projects. It’s costly, but it saves time, and makes catastrophic failures further down the road less likely.
@@ronanfitzpatrick1261 Exactly, good sir.
The largest single issue is that in order to transition away from carbon based fuels is the need to increase the amount of minerals mined by low end estimates of 400 times and some minerals 7000 times current mined minerals... that would be the largest increase in mining the world will have ever witnessed.
It takes an avg of 14 years from mine permitting to the production of finished processed minerals.
ALSO We are rapidly approaching if we have not passed the point where copper demand is going to far outpace current mined capacity, EXISTING. To make the conversion away from Carbon it will require IIRC an additional 700times the amount of copper currently mined.
IF you doubled the power generation of the entire planet, APPLIED 100% of the increase to additional mining, you would have 1.4 times more minerals.
net 0 population growth
I'm most optimistic when not approaching it as Earth Centric. There is opportunity for exponetial growth while learning how to terraform this planet as well as others.
We've already 'terraformed' this planet...it's called the Anthropocene. 60% of wildlife has disappeared in my lifetime. Vertebrate biomass sits at 97% human and our livestock, 3% wild animals. What's your vision for 'exponential growth' in an already radically transformed world?
2050 target for net zero is too late.
Using the cfc and ozone hole example to suggest we can solve climate change is naive in the he extreme. When we focus on technological innovation, or techno-optimism, we always only consider what we have invented, not what we haven’t. So we are always over optimistic.
On electric cars, building them emits carbon. We can’t afford to make millions and millions that would be needed for a worldwide roll out. The emissions would be too high.
Cutting consumption applies to high to income countries. Trying to suggest we wish to apply it too poor counties is highly misleading. Poor country emissions are low, the vast majority of carbon emissions are emitted by the high income countries. We will still trade with poor countries. Just sustainable stuff.
Green growth won’t work, absolute decoupling is not possible at the rate needed. Relative decoupling, which is what is happening and that won’t be enough. Green growth, as the video does say, depends on things yet to invented. This is an unacceptable risk. We may fail. Being more efficient on things we can’t decarbonise, still adds to emissions. We won’t get to net zero. Yes, planting trees helps, but their isn’t enough land. Direct air capture pilots are not working. And if they finally do, the cost and scale will be immense.
This video is of course an attempt to keep capitalism alive. We need to face up to the fact that we have already missed the 1.5 degree limit to global warming. We now need to fight to prevent each 0.1 degree increase. This will require lower consumption.
Don’t be misled. The rich don’t want to give up their wealth. So they, including this video, are trying to delay action!
Use more Hempcrete! Legalize Cannabis :)
Ultimately what matters is incentivization in favor of desired outcome. Not patriotism, not romanticizing issues, not unnecessary drama - plain and simple economic incentivization!. Of course you don't introduce an element of greed (well, in some ways you do - by incentivising in terms of investment returns or cheaper / subsidised goods, etc) at a huge scale but you do have to incentivize and start forming policies towards the desired behaviour.
How do we avoid drama when politicians (especially conservative ones who are very close to oil industries) are living off of it?
Small, widely distributed 4th generation nuclear power needs to be adopted rapidly.
I question your claim that countries can grow while reducing emissions because they may be exporting heavy industry but still consuming products (like cement and steel) that are generating emissions elsewhere.
Its exactly like the hole in the ozone, just if 90% of the companies in the world were chemical engineering firms who specialised in CFCs..
I think people see the "eating less meat" and "not driving a car" as giving up on something. While it really might not be. This is why I think we DO need to give up on something to hit zero emissions. Also NET zero is just an excuse to continue as before. We need to stop consumerism. We need to consume less way less. Maybe use money on services rather than things to throw away.
exactly, own nothing and be happy, WEF is actively turning the world into a single global government.
They will starve the poor so that there will be fewer people who consume.
You will own nothing as well, live will be tougher for you and for us all but as long as we can have less impact on the planet, it's worth the sacrifice.
The elites will own everything and decide all our fates, but it's okay because I guess you don't have faith in humanity anyway.
Great video, good summary.
There won't be a worldwide consensus on which path is the best and how to get there.
However, countries shouldn't wait for the consensus to act and incentivize other countries to find their own way to reach net zero. While doing so the technology will improve and more decarbonated solutions will appear, at a more affordable price tag, enabling countries with lower GDP to join the virtuous path.
Downside : it may take longer than 2050, but Rome wasn't built in one day.
If net zero won't change the way we live then you need neither convince us nor even bother to tell us.
Great informational video Financial Times. Greetings from El Salvador! 🇸🇻
Meat witout meat 🙈
Nuclear, thorium, fusion. At least one we can use now, others in the future, hopefully.
Planes and heavy transport (especially cargo ships) account very little compared to animal farming and other heavy industry. So they should be low priority.
Everything should be electric so that people would pick that by default, of course electricity should not be generated from oil, gas and coal.
The ozone this is a much much simpler problem to solve than stopping fossil fuel consumption…
Yes, but he only uses it as an example of a problem that we solved. The argument is if we could do it before, why can't we do it again?
How much of the emissions come from people usage and general public lifestyles? How much is from industries?
I don't think techno optimism has a lot going for it. At all. It's time to be *realistic*
Please... Forget about economics figures and base your study on physical laws. Economic model has already done too much for the climate change... Technology has never reversed/contributed to lower our CO2e emissions. It only added more services, and deleted old ones at the margin. Use datas...
Moreover, I am very affraid by some comments. It reinforce my doubts about our capacities to meet climate challenge... We are far from a good understanding of how big the problem is... And far from efforts required
The r134a that replaced much of the cfcs is a very high greenhouse gas. That also leads to the astronomical cost of yf1234. A $50 container of refrigerant now is more than $1k. Plus it's flammable. So every time you smash the condenser in the front of the car. Flammable pressurized gas is released.
Integrity is catalyst essential to convert optimism into success. We are optimistic and require very high integrity by actions.
What if they say they don't want handouts and don't feel like going back to school for training in new skills?
Broad carbon tax is foolish. It is unmanageable. If governments invest heavily in their infrastructure, including the power grids and renewables, battery technology etc. To drive down the cost of electricity, the growth in innovation will solve the other problems. Also promoting education to reduce population growth in poor countries will solve the other problems.
You forgot about the giant roadblock to all this. It is spelled U.S.A.
I Live in the Uk. If you co online for used cars in the local news paper and you could buy a pretty beat up car for £1200.00 and it will get you around for 6 -12 months. The poor will be priced out of used cars and getting to work. All electric cars are so expensive and in my city of Carlisle, we have not had 1 extra charging station in the city in over 1 year. I cant see the EV rev happening for quite awhile.
If net Zero does not change the way we live It wont do a damn
Save Our Planet - Now
What is "Growth"?
Though never defined in this video, it's about Capitalism.
Growth of Profits.
The idea that industries, extraction, consumption "grow".
It's forced at the root of our economic system by loans, "printing" the money then and there, asking for interest.
To pay back that interest, the Capitalist has to increase their operations, translating by more natural extractions.
Is "growth" absolutely necessary for a good life?
No, growth is a very new concept, as economies were managed differently before.
Many sectors were more circular in nature, and national economies were not dependent on growth (which is absolutely necessary now, the stock market and investments depend on the growth on a company). This is reflected in the obsession we now have with GDP, a measure invented to estimate the quantity of economic activity in a country, not its usefulness or the improvement it bring to quality of life.
If you read "Doughnut Economics", you'll see that we could have a much more regenerative system, one that respects the ecoligical boundaries of our bioslpere.
In "Less is More", Jason Hickel also mentions how impossible it is to continue growing our economy infinitely (this is our system, infinite growth), on our very finite and straining planet.
It prescribes a few of the elements mentioned in this video, like pricing carbon, although it's just used as a license to pollute.
It also suggest ending planned obsolescence, advertisement (manifactured obsolescence), increasing the Commons (public transport, walkable cities, etc.).
Permaculture on a massive scale, instead of factory farms (increased zoonotic diseases + destruction of ecosystems).
There is indeed technological fixes for many issues, but it's either gatekept behind company doors, slightly more expensive, or would require an industrial vision spanning more than a few quarters.
But overall, the real way we can obtain all that, and a lot more, is the end of Capitalism.
To truly have a rational ecological production plan, to have the power to phase out polluting options, even if it cost more, we need worker democracy, for which we need to own the workplaces, currently only geared to maximise profits for their owners. If some ecological aim is obtained as a by-product, great, but the first and only primary aim is to make money, both to survive in the economical war between companies, to secure financement for next quarter, and to line the pockets of individuals that now own so much, that the society thus created is the most unequal in human history.
We will hit +1.5 degree Celcius in 2026, in some places.
There is 2.4 Billions facing chronic food insecurity.
Biodiversity is falling at unprecedented rates.
Many ecological tipping points are failing, cascading in uncontrollable disasters.
We have no time to lose.
The logic of profit at all cost for a tiny minority is murderous in our current context.
We have both the technology, the know how, the resources to transition to a much more sustainable model, while improving our quality of life.
Full employment, massive reduction of work time, more free goods.
And more importantly, a voice. A way to control our story.
Direct democracy.
It's that, or increased droughts, famines, mass migrations, wars, ecosystem collapse, irreversible climate feedback loops worsening...
All to "grow" the profits of CEOs and Board of Directors.
Let's overthrow this violent system, which kills millions every year.
We have only our chains to lose, and a World to Win.
I love the PBS series e²: the economies of being environmentally conscious. I have 4 DVDs of that happy show.
What if everyone just stay simple, happiest peoples do not have the whole world
Pathetic.
You can't expect people with a lot (ie the West) to just give it up. That's why the video talks about raising people into the middle class
@@zzxap17 this is why you got "what if " what if for unimaginable world right
@@CoolGirl007 very true. My problem with "what if" is it implies that unless it can be applied to everyone, it should not be done at all. And by doing that, nothing changes.
@@zzxap17 so take it easy don't stressing up it may cause another what if of side effects, greedy can't fix
Of course. The carbon price would never be subject to corruption.
No one can or should point out or stop the multi-billion dollar companies that continue to manufacture totally unnecessary products like Coca-Cola or Sabritas, or the millions of dollars that Disney uses on new Marvel movies and series, or the millions that rich countries invest in the military sector every year.
Also, what promotion is “I want to continue living the way I live”?
I think it is immoral not to talk about population. The problems in the world are not just carbon, which is the easiest to fix. It doesn't matter how efficient we get if we keep growing the population eventually the problem becomes too large to fix. If we had half the population, the problems we face would almost not exist. If I had the power of Thanos, I would snap my fingers.
You Forgot one point: Farming, cattel farming...
"I fear we won't get there at all" - sums up my concern especially when you say we do "need to accept fundamental change in our political" ... I do see fundamental change in politics alright, but not in any way that brings me hope for the future :(
Forget EV....hydrogen cars all the way!
i think we need more capitalism
The industrialisation of the world enabled an unchecked and irresponsible growth in population. It is not immoral to take steps to reduce population a managed way. There is this misplaced sense of entitlement that humanity seems to have to expect endless growth and reproduction, at the expense of the climate and other species. The idea that technology will save us is speculative and irresponsible, many of these technologies have significant down sides and trade offs, many of which include the inefficient conversion of energy and / or the use of fossil fuels to create them at scale. We are in a slow death spiral but, ultimately the problem with the plane will resolve itself when we, humanity are no longer here.
The obsession with energy-negative wind and solar are what are putting the world in danger of an energy-negative "death spiral". We need to start using nuclear energy sooner rather than later.
15:00 Planes, trucks, and ships can all be electrified to a great extent, with advantages that will make it worthwhile to make the shift. For the largest loads, a limited amount of biofuels, combined with limited amount of air capture of CO2, will be a reasonable choice, unless and until some more fundamental breakthrough comes along.
Biofuels are the most environmentally Unfriendly options you can possibly use.
@@thekkidd3d Come on. You have more brain cells available than that. I'm no fan of biofuels generally, but you can't just dismiss all uses of them without evidence. Understand, I'm not talking corn ethanol here, or palm oil from plantations. There are other possibilities.
Among carbon free sources of energy, only hydroelectricity, geothermal, and nuclear energy have a sufficiently high energy-return-on-investment to enable them to power industrial civilization. And even then, I have no idea how to decarbonize agricultural equipment and mobile industrial equipment.
@@gregorymalchuk272 You are totally clueless on all of those points.
This handwaves the political challenges of degrowth too much, while ignoring how decoupling success stories rely precisely on maintaining the inequalities that make degrowth challenging to begin with. If poor countries are shackled to fossils because they rely on rich countries to be export markets, then the solution is to combine cuts in consumption by the rich with redistribution of economic resources to the poor.
That being said, getting rid of plastic waste and designing cities to be like Amsterdam instead of Houston are obviously still good ideas. The real solution is all of the above--but the emphasis should be on improving conditions for the poor, not preserving those of the rich. The implication that the rich MUST consume more or else the poor are fucked is just obscene.
The thing that the decoupling "success stores" have in common is a preceding abundance of fossil fuels (especially Norway) and the presence of hydroelectricity, geothermal, and nuclear energy. Only those three energy sources have an energy return on investment capable of powering industrial civilization.
This is pure hopium! The economists of FT still believe in the obviously unsustainable "growth" mantra. Only economists can continue to resist the mathematical law that exponential growth is possible where resources and boundaries are constrained absolutely. If FT is to lead the way then they need to seriously get to grips with De-Growth and Prosperity without growth instead of offering all this nonsensical optimism. Here in New Zealand our government had decided that carbon neutrality will be achieved for our country by paying someone else to plant trees. We intended to do almost nothing. We are back to full steam promoting dairy with it's double whammy of agricultural methane and huge carbon based water evaporation system for milk powder, and a tourism industry 100% based on long haul jet transport. The current irony is that the Aluminium smelter in the south island is 100% hydro powered but the owners are black mailing the country by threatening to shut it down.
The idea that nothing needs to change as suggested by these FT dreamers needs to be seriously challenged. The level of entitlement pouring out is frankly disgusting.
Couldn't agree more. They also gloss the gross and corrosive inequalities created by business as usual.
Oh look, another malthusian fanatic death cult moron.
@@jonathanbailey1597 Oh look, another cultural Marxist subversive nob.
You are the corrosion.
This is complete nonsense, more and more of our economies depend less on manufactured goods and instead are based around services. We are not going to run out of major resources any time soon and renewables have made a lot of gains, Britain no longer uses coal because of renewables
@@markwalshopoulos Nope, because Britain imports energy from elsewhere. EDF for example.
We can't plant trees as fast as our forests are burning. We need to do many things to fight climate change.
One thing we need to do is solve the problem of flooding, drought, and fresh water. This will allow us to create more rain forests, and fight wild fires, and provide fresh water to places where there is drought, and divert flood water to places where there is drought. The people who have the most money and power will be effected the most. This is why it is so hard to change .
Some great technologies out there. The problem is Time. By the time we build the infrastructure to sustain our Western lifestyles on zero carbon (which could be well into the 2050s) we will have triggered so many adverse feedback loops in the climate that large-scale catastrophe may become inevitable, regardless of what we think of (de)growth. It think we should consume drastically less whilst throwing the kitchen sink at green innovation. Also, we should get rid of all fossil fuel subsidies immediately in order to stand a chance.
Good one FT 👍
We need to do away with the grid.
"the grid" hasn't "the" anything since it was first built... it has since been patched and extended so many times that it is only about 54% efficient. We new NEW electric infrastructure...from the ground up. All of it replaced...with room for expansion, better transmission efficiency and better aesthetic appeal perhaps designed in a way that it is near invisible in the landscape... no more pylons.
Nor will it fix the problem. Why is "net zero" still being talked about as if it means something?
There is so much that is disingenuous, omitted or pro- corporate in this video. Not impartial at all. We need to change, and rapidly, but by placing most of the emphasis on individuals and consumers is not how the step change will occur. Aggressive control of rampant globalised corporates will achieve the change in supply and energy chains that we require.
Mother earth here.. for help protect the nature, for climate crisis...
💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚💚
(deka_1311/13)...
We are addicted to oil and the luxuries given by it. World was much simpler 15 years back, we have to start de addiction immediately. But, it will take time to getting used to. Earth can provide for our needs, not our greed. But, unfortunately today's world is too greedy.
i’m only 3 minutes in but i just fundamentally disagree. infinite growth is what got us here in the first place. the notion that we should look for alternatives that don’t structurally change the way we live and look at the world is just flawed and disgusting imo
We need to stop throwing away packaging, and use reusable packaging only. This doesn't have to be difficult.
Packaging has very little to do with climate change. Climate change is almost entirely to do with CO2 emissions coming from fossil fuel use. Talking about packaging is little more than a distraction.
Thank you so much for this video really a great way to see into the future, as people need to understand that a net zero carbon emissions will be the best for everyone. The only problem will be trying to get everyone on board as most people enjoy the aspect’s of having more than less..
fuel cells will change energy, the latest is up to 1750hp/1.3mw of generating power, the problem is to get enough hydrogen to feed them (too much is not enough)
less people on earth is the solution and if you long at the term its normal cycles like season of a year
And how do you propose to achieve that? Education and emancipation of women I hope
This video only considers CO2 pollution and climate collapse, but six of nine ecological planetary boundaries have already been blown. Capitalism produced the Sixth Extinction and only world socialism, a workers' democracy over the means of global production, can safely transition us through the coming storms. De-globalization along with pricing pollution will likely produce negative GDP growth rates and capitalists will discover that there are limits to their austerity schemes as you can't squeeze blood from a rock. This class-struggle (capitalists' austerity to pay for Green New Deals vs workers fight to defend or increase our living standards) will produce shifts in the consciousness of the masses. Socialism will win.
oh well
Pretty eurocentric but good enough to give some ideas about net zero
Ft needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants tress
I believe battery electric cars are an intermediate technology. There remain questions about the availability of lithium, can something else replace it, how to deal with spent batteries so they don't add to environmental problems.
We should use more public transports and human propelled vehicles (bikes, skateboards, rollerskates, etc.) in any scenario. Also towns need less wide roads and more planted areas and walking districts.
Few scientists see a 1.5°C increase as an emergency. Few even see 2°C as an emergency. A problem, but not the only problem the world faces. Those *all* need to be looked at and priorities set for what our necessarily limited resources can achieve and where what we have can do the most overall good.
Getting rid of CFCs wasn't free. It increased the cost of aerosol products and of refrigeration equipment and lowered their efficiencies. The fact that the increases in prices happened over several years so they weren't imposed all at once where people would be more aware of the increase doesn't mean those increased costs didn't exist.
We're already running into limitations on even just *building* electric cars. We don't have enough of what it takes to build them and their batteries. Deliveries are currently running a year or more out and some have stopped even taking orders. Plus, the fact that they are electric means nothing if the electricity to power them is still coming from the same old sources or if there's even enough electricity to power them at all. You can't take long trips with electric cars. You can't just pull up to a pump (available within a few miles drive of almost everywhere) and refuel them in a matter of minutes. Norway has fortuitous sources of electricity that are available in few other places, so it's not an example as what can be done elsewhere. People who can't afford to "upgrade" to electric are being penalized for those who can afford to do so. The poor subsidising the rich, as happens all too often.
Different places in the world are just that. Different. If you don't have a lot of sunlight or wind, which is a lot of places, then you have to go with whatever else is actually available. That doesn't break down into neat per person or per income segments. When solar or wind (plus the needed batteries and backup power sources) is actually cheaper then it shouldn't need subsidies - pure economics will drive the change. Pretending it's cheaper by hiding the actual costs by government subsidy doesn't change the facts on the ground. Plus, you wind up back with the poor, who don't have the political pull to get the subsidies, subsidizing the rich, who do.
You say that no changes need to be made and then immediately follow it up with a person who talks about many of the changes we would have to make the transition to the vision of a "green" lifestyle. They can't both be true. A well off scientist with her own home and backyard and able to afford more expensive foods and cars and the like has no business preaching to a person living on the edge in a small apartment even in a "rich" country. Nor does she have any business *dictating* what another person *should* consider to be a "fulfilling" lifestyle. Each individual decides that for themself. We're all different and we all value different things at different costs.
Great. We can take care of this sector at this cost (and at least you think nuclear is an appropriate option, which many, if not most, greens oppose), but at a cost nonetheless and one that will have to be paid. Again, there *is* a cost. It's not *free*. Who gets hurt the most with those costs? Again, as usual, the poor. A middle class person will grouse about his electric bill doubling, but a poor person has to decide what food they have to give up to keep their place how warm. Yet you just pass that all off as not important.
Hydrogen conversion isn't cheap. Nor is it as safe as fossil fuels. When you use more expensive steel and concrete, costs go up. Things that look good in the lab rarely wind up working well in the real world where costs have to be paid. Don't count on one of them panning out by any time. Eventually we may find less expensive ways of doing things, but five years from now is a lot different from fifty years from now as to when something becomes available. No way of knowing what will be found when, yet still counting on them showing up to solve a problem by X date is a fool's errand.
Right - straw as a substitute for steel and concrete in places that don't have wood? Sorry, but making that jump as an argument is ludicrous.
We cannot feed the current population of the world without large scale production and use of fertilization. Biodiversity sounds all warm and fuzzy. But starvation doesn't. One will cause the other. Look at Sri Lanka today for a case in point where they tried to implement mandating organic farming. The country can't even feed itself after just one year of it.
Oh, but we can turn down (or up) thermostats. We can switch to heat pumps. We can ban cars. All at no cost, just a "little" inconvenience. But it *is* at a cost. For some, at a great cost. You can't have the same access to mobility if you ban certain types of mobility. I'm glad you can bicycle wherever you want to go, but that's not true for most of us.
We *do* have to change our lifestyles. Again, great to hear from some well off scientist, but not from someone in a different location or income level. You keep trying to say that nothing really has to change and then keep running down all the ways that we will need to change. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Planting trees is turning out to be not so useful after all, according to recent research. Then you have the insanity of a country like Germany burning wood and getting to count that as a renewable plus saying they're helping things by planting trees that are destined to be burnt.
Carbon taxes. Again, soak the poor to make the rich feel better. Then we wonder why there's so much inequality whenever the government gets involved with anything.
Bottom line, there no such thing as a free lunch. Never has been and never will be. You tony middle and upper classes may be able to afford the changes you want to impose on everyone else and feel all virtuous while doing it, but you're just doing what you always do. Trying to force your ideas of how to live, and the costs for doing so, on those who neither desire nor can afford those costs.
Have you citations regarding most scientists who don't regard 1.5 or 2 degrees temperature rise as an emergency? That sounds dubious.
Also relatively low cost technological solutions have already given the poorest people improvements in lifestyle at no cost and improved environmental impact as well if you look at low end solar panel solutions, the uptake has been sizeable, restricted only by investment levels.
That is a free lunch... More than a few lunch, everyone is benefiting.
Also your notion that transferring from pump to charge is supposedly impossible because it's too inconvenient is also incorrect. Most people, the vast majority, don't need more than a full charge of the average ev on a daily basis. And if you have a driveway, or even access to roadside, that means you never need to use a charging station reducing the burden on publicly available refueling/recharging stations altogether.
Solutions need to be found for those living in blocks but that will be who the public infrastructure needs to address and should receive priority needs (if they have a car). But there is no reason why developers of new builds should not be also required to producing charging stations with every parking spot they provide.
Whats with the gangsta music at min 2? ;)
Impossible.
The title of the video is just a simple lie. "oh, massively reducing the access to cheap energy that powers our entire civilization won't change the way we live! Right, that's like saying if I reduce your income by 90% it won't change the way you live lol.
Green energy won't reduce your income, it will make your utility bills a lot lower.
@@Wind-oh-Wishp If that were actually true, it wouldn't require compulsion
بارك الله فيكم واعانكم
لكن احزنني ثقل لسان المتحدث، لكن مانقول الا الله ينصر اخواننا العرب والسنة على الفرس الشيعة ومن شايعهم من كل عرق ودين
That such a lot of thinking has gone into the making of this video is obvious! But there's nothing the common persons could do even if they understood the theme.
Consultations with those in power, the well educated and the scientific community respectfully, and truthfully could do much more!
As reported the reduction of the ozone hole is just good news.
Consider what comfort cooling meant to airconditioner manufacturers 40 years ago!
What was that temperature.
That meant that is was not a luxury, like a holiday in the Alps.
Yet the cost was great!
Calling those complaining about the heat as wingers or defeatists is ruthlessness.
Politics is now taboo, and activists have arisen, those outside this circle of influence can only comfort each other in whatever way they can!
That's what can be done for now.
Don’t you know that the ocean absorb more carbon than all the forest combined??? Even if you plant trees at all the open spaces, the ocean will still absorb more. Based on the studies
Neither trees nor the ocean can resolve climate change. Yeah, the ocean absorbs around 30-50% of CO2. It dissolves in the water. As the ocean temperature increases, CO2 absorption decreases. Either way, it's not sequestering the CO2. It's not taking it out of the ocean-atmosphere system. The atmosphere's carbon keeps going up and up. We live in unprecedented times. CO2 has not been this high for millions of years. No human (as we know them) have lived with the massive quantity of 420ppm CO2 as we do today. We walk into the unknown, and disaster.
And oceans acidify in the process. Actions always have consequences
While the ability of the ocean to capture and store carbon has helped to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 - and, hence, the pace of global warming - it has come at a cost. Increasing CO2 in the ocean alters the chemistry of seawater - an effect known as ocean acidification - which has negative impacts on marine life.
[Carbon Brief, WEF, Dr Jamie Shutler, Prof Andy Watson, 2020]
Perspective
Nice to see the FT addressing this topic. I think we need to pull all the levers we can and fast. Politics and society at large has been far too slow to drive for these mainly positive changes.
What this video tells me is that we're doomed.
Build good and safe cycle tracks and give incentives to buy e bikes and see the magic your local transportation emissions can be reduced a lot.....after I bought an ebike been delaying buying a car for ever now because of my over enthusiastic biking sprit ...ohhh god save me
electric cars are not net zero to build and not good in autonomy to travel.