Climate SOLUTION super tipping points.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 фев 2023
- We hear a lot about climate tipping points in the news these days, and sure enough they are a very real threat. But according to analysis published during the recent World Economic Forum, there are also tipping points in the deployment of sustainable technology that are already disrupting existing markets. So, are they real, and can they make a genuine difference in a short enough time window?
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos? Check out the FREE Dive Deeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Research Links
Systemiq Paper Link
www.systemiq.earth/wp-content...
Check out other RUclips Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karvner:
/ @sarahkarver
Rollie Williams / ClimateTown: / @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere: / @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Engineering With Rosie
/ engineeringwithrosie
Ella Gilbert
/ drgilbzhelp support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Planet Proof
/ @planetproofofficial 
Наука
How about *_not_* giving Exxon Mobil and other serial polluters billions of dollars in subsidies every year???
Just stop driving your car, quit using plastic, and other petroleum based products. That's doing your part right there.
@@christoney2491 Interesting that he is "Seeing the Forest" but doesn't see the tree that is oneself.
Got your petro trolls responding in
@@christoney2491
How about not subsidizing the extreme pollution technologies but rather support cleaner disruptive technologies.
@@christoney2491 I drive EV or public transport as often possible, (EV charged with our solar panels), use less and less plastic (plastics free shopping) and try to buy less stuff and more wood, etc. Don't eat meat and less milk, etc.
So I am doing that; so I also want that my government stops these subsidies.
Why do you assume I only want the latter and don't do the first part?
I always enjoy your videos! I think the content has always been great. But I feel that your humor has been turned up a couple of notches this year and it's been absolutely fantastic!
Cheers Jeff. I really appreciate that feedback :-)
Do we really need humor when the topic is whether our species will die out?
@@teddybearroosevelt1847 yes, considering the alternative being despair
Not to worry. We’re going to invent really cool techno shit that will save us. Eventually. Maybe. 🌀
@@christinearmington
"Don't look up!"?
The tech solution was a major plot point in that movie and we can be pretty sure the result will the same IRL.
Grand tech solutions needs to be scrutinized extra carefully as it is going to be a scammers paradise: A *_lot_* of extremely hungry marks out there :-(
Very little mention in the report of adding organic matter to the Soil which really does sequester carbon and reduce and eventually eliminate the need for nitrate fertilizer. Or the new research into endophytic bacteria and their amazing relationship with plants that will lead to massive changes in agricultural methods.
@@veramae4098 yes,its terra preta,
Dunite for example added to fertiliser or water. 'Enhanced weathering ' and will lower the acidity of coastal waters.
@johnfowler4820 There is zero need to sequester carbon.🤦♂️🤡🤷♂️
Regenerative agriculture works this way. There are a lot of examples of success stories, particularly in the US (one among others: Gabe Brown, which runs his farm with regenerative systems since 1995, without using any fertilizers or pesticides at all, and with the same production of conventional agriculture). These are examples that works today, in this market system, with higher profits for the farmer itself, eliminating the need for fertilizers. (On this topic there are also many video on youtube: watch for example Ray Archuleta, and also the Netflix documentary "Kiss the Ground").
Wow, thank you for your comments. I'm very keen to learn more about it. Reading about ecologists digging in dirt is the second best thing after doing it. Exciting!
Yours are clearly some of the best presentations on the internet. I’ve learned something I didn’t know on every one. New, informative, and as in this case, even hopeful about our future, a rare commodity in today’s world. Keep doin’ what you’re doin’. And thanks.
We rely on you being you all along the line! You got one content and willing listener over here (or maybe down here) in Australia. Keep it up!
You have another content and willing listener in Minnesota.
We need more regular updates with similar information. I've watched many of your videos on changes and improvements, this video brings everything together in one place, lets us know how much time we have left.
The scientist's predictive models were deeply flawed and did not include the exponential function of multiple cascading tipping points. Phenomena predicted to occur in 2100 is happening now, except with much more rapidity and severity than predicted. The Titanic already struck the ice berg an hour ago, and people still lack the awareness that right now they and everyone they know are dying. People feel it underneath their awareness. However, most people lack the courage and integrity to face the god awful truth. Truth is, several tipping points have long been breached and humanity is going extinct. There won't be a single human being standing on Earth by 2030.
I'm in Australia on a few acres, we are planting as much trees as we can afford, trying to cut the hot winds & mini tornados that we get now.
It may be too little too late but at least I 'feel' proactive & the bugs & animals & us are enjoying it.
UN says 2030 for 1.5 degrees, but lately I've read that will reach that number sooner.
@@bjb7587 nothing gets done till the running & screaming 😱 & dying part ... Oh the humanity, oh the curuption & greed.
If you go back to old IPCC reports, and look at their predictions, given "best case....worst case", we've basically followed the trajectory of the worst case in every category. I guarantee you we're going to cross the 2C mark. (Some of their metrics, like tracking temperature change from 1850 is pretty misleading also - as there's some latency between emission and effect)
This is a political problem not a technological one. It will not be changed until people who take climate change seriously (i.e., in the US our domestically freely-allocatable budget was ~1.8 trillion for 2023- over half of that went to the US military.) are voted into office (both parties are captured, as are most of our regulatory bodies). This means we have to wait for all the octogenarians to die, so those who realize how fundamentally important the climate crisis really is. It's more about age than it is about party, when it comes to implementing policy changes. That is, millennials (democrats and republicans alike) recognize this threat (new blood always brings in new ideas-- this is to be expected).
What was *not* expected was, as you track a generation, as they age, they typically become more conservative. At 20 you'll have a lot of liberal policy support-- that same generation will age +10 years and generally the policy support will move into a more conservative fashion. For the first time in the history of polling, we're not seeing this. In fact, we're seeing the millennials get *more liberal*. This is good. In addition to this, the unelected government military apparatus (specifically the navy), has for the first time elevated climate change to the #1 threat the US faces. Like, four star generals are saying this. You would think this means they'd immediately divert funding to the appropriate institutions (DARPA and EPA can collab or something, who knows[1]).
Interestingly, this is also a political problem. In the past, generals have had more than enough armaments in stock, but since General Dynamics and all make sure that every single district makes a little bit of that missile, they're important employers for the constitutents, so the congressional members of those districts will allocate the money to make more tanks and shit even if we don't need it. This has the unfortunate byproduct of giving us surplus arms, which can go to Ukraine to prolong conflicts, or, arguably worse, go to police departments in the suburbs (see: the APC's that were roaming around Boston during the Marathon tragedy.)
Carbon sequestration and technologies of that sort are decades out. Policy changes that would immediately assist us
a) get rid of corn farmer subsidies, replace the lost income for family farms with a variety of species of botanicals and the like. If properly chosen (select from the species which were native to the region previously?), you can make a very *very* resilient ecosystem in 10 years (see: the "Miyawaki method" which has a corpus of about 20 years of academic research behind it)
b) get rid of oil subsidies, offer feed-in tarriffs at massive premiums for baseload regularization. That Tesla in your garage that still has 60% charge? It can go down to 15% without impacting the number of charge-cycles of your batteries life. Then you can resume charging at 1am or whenever. Double win, because you're also covering transmission losses by letting your neighbors take your joulezz
c) if possible, purchasing from local farms (though perhaps a little more pricey) will not only support the 'little guy' but the carbon footprint for transport will be reduced significantly.
The problem is, even if we do all of this, there is so much latent energy in the oceans alone that haven't really made themselves manifest (i.e., if we go to zero emissions, the grounding lines of glaciers will continue to recede, we'll still see a blue ocean event within a decade, there's a good chance the 3 major jet streams will have been borked, the albedo issue will remain, there's a good chance of Bromidification from the troposphere into the stratosphere which isn't good for those of you without much melanin and don't like skin cancer, ...)
Carl Sagan in 1989 testified before Congress. It was maybe half an hour long, but Id imagine it was one of the most prescient oratory performance those hallowed halls have had.
[`]Or at least fast track some nuclear power plants since that's basically the only zero-carbon mass energy source out there, see "Illinois EnergyProf"s lectures as to why modern fission plants are inherently safe, there is no risk of proliferation as long as you add U233, and high level wastes can be contained easily. This, again, is not a technical problem, but rather a political one. Being afraid of modern nuclear power is like being afraid of modern Boeing 737X's because you have this image of wood-and-cloth Wright Brother planes crashing off cliffs. 4th gen plants fail safe inherently-- like-- the neutron moderators will fall in on errors. Gravity would literally have to fail for the plants to fail.
Companies caught selling bogus carbon "credits" should be forced to return all the money to the government, with interest.
Yes, it is all a massive scam.
We have land in Australia being locked up and claimed for carbon credits.
Net result, no management, overrun with weeds and feral animals, totally changed ecosystems and habitat loss,
all just waiting to go up in smoke and spew all the so called stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
I am always interested in exactly who has paid for these various studies to be done. 👀
EVERY video you do is better and better! Good show! And Thank You!
I am absolutely dying to know how you do the video effect where you put a piece of paper on a desk, and then draw stuff on it. I've been drooling over it for years.
Same here, very curious what software is used for these effects.
Hi Grant. It's done in Adobe After Effects. The software allows me to animate 2D objects in a 3D space, and it has a virtual camera that can move around that space.
@@JustHaveaThink Witchcraft! Witchcraft I say!!
@@JustHaveaThink Thank you so much. Now I'll have to see if I can replicate that in Davinci Resolve or Blender. I don't have the big Adobe bucks. 😋
@@JustHaveaThink Again, thank you. Just the way you described it have me a different set of words to search for (I was previously searching for things like "transform" and "page" and "paper"), and I found a tutorial for what I need almost instantly.
For others, I just searched for "davinci resolve transform clip in 3d." Who knows why I wasn't thinking to add "3d" to my search. But that worked.
Using the language of cascading tipping points within the context of machine environmentalism is just so devious. The active ecological tipping points just don’t care about our methods of producing energy and fertiliser.
Well said
Very nice presentation of your subject. Let's hope it's spot on. Peace.
Cheers Bill.
Nice shoutout to Rosie, she does rock!
I'm sure everybody enjoyed their stay in Davos. That's what's important to them.
The month they fly into Davos in their private jets they emit more carbon in one journey than the average person in a lifetime, and sit down in front of four inch thick steaks and talk about how "we will eat ze bugs and we'll manage ze future" and all this sort of stuff. This is not just hypocrisy. This is something deeper than hypocrisy.
It is a double blind study and we are the unwitting ppt's in this psychological experiment. Don't acquiesce.
Reportedly, they had many ladies of the night to choose from as well.
@@RussCR5187 They're jealous of Musk, who is planning to impregnate every woman on Earth.
Did I miss it or was cement production missing from this
Great video
Its on the report but I did not cover it in the video
@@JustHaveaThink
What do you think of GE’s plan for using shredded wind turbine blades as cement feedstock?
Thank You for the reply
thanks for this. good news on the topic of climate change is hard to find. i'll take all of it you can give me.
Clear, calm and concise as usual. Keep being yourself, it's your USP on RUclips.
Thank you Siri. I will do my best :-)
I'm not sure what this video is trying to show.. It seems to suggest that there is no doubt that the dangers facing us are so great that any solution no matter how expensive ir impractical is better than simply dealing with the issues as they arise, without panic measures.
Those who have either scepticism about the actual doomsday scenario or indeed scepticism that the enormous effect on poor or middle income people in actually in denying them the energy they desperately need is ethically justifiable, are simply ignored. Will denying Africa fossil fuel allow them to survive, let alone prosper? Let's have a think about that.
@@davidlawrenson2103 Doesn't appear to me as you describe, but simply/rather that we need -lawmakers- like yourself😎Appears to me though as if they are setting targets with a hail Mary approach to make as much money as possible. I think we're going to be OK eitherway - this video gives me a sense of optimism about the future to be honest... I'm recalling how Elon Musk said how life has become much better for humans in most regards in comparison to the past... If I may say, I think we can dare/to imagine even greater possibilities for the (maybe, just a little more distant) future given the rate of technological advances that might change things even faster... hopefully🙏
I'm also skeptical of the global warming bandwagon even after watching Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation of it yesterday(Greenhouse effect) but with so many smart people doing the numbers it has to be true. The people in "charge" who think they are better than everyone will naturally make the rest of us feel guilty for not being able to pull ourselves up by our own shoelaces like they apparently are able to 💵to exert themselves. Jordan Peterson is pretty #d hard on them for it and calling them out on it. As usual, often the truth lies somewhere🌈 in the middle. I think it is also true for global warming.
@@jdubruyn Dear Johan. Thank you for your considered reply. I'm glad to see you refer to Sabine and Jordan, both very thought provoking people. . They and their eminent guest speakers with their very different analysis of the figures quoted by the IPCC don't seem to get a mention on Just Have a Think Why? Is it that they think no more debate should be allowed. Is Beorn Lomberg talking rubbish? Is so, in what regard. When Jordan says cheap fossill fuel has been the basis of our transformed lives and we cannot deny it even if we wanted to, I can't argue with that. Just have a think seems to ignore it.
Your reply makes me feel more confidence that life may go on. Thank you, David
@@JustHaveaThink Please edit your video as there is a flaw or error in the graphic and narrative around 8:10. For over 20 years the proces of the fertilizer production at Yara in Sluiskil (Netherlands) captures the CO2 and it is sold to the food- and beverage industry. It is not released in the atmosphere.
Always educational and thought-provoking, thank you
Cheers Robert. Much appreciated
Can I speak up on behalf of annual performance reviews. A few years ago we implemented a process called 360 Appraisals where you were appraised by a number of your peers across the organisation, a sample of your subordinates and ofcourse your manager/team leader. It absolutely transformed not just the review process but the whole management ethos of the company and its employees. Just have a read and see what you think. No more internal interviews for jobs, everybody knew who were the next ups. Dead wood exposed and rotated to new jobs or out the door after a couple of moves. No favouritism. No bullying. It truly is a brave move but boy does it bring about change.
One has to puzzle over why, as a greater and greater proportion of our electricity is generated by renewables which is cheaper than Fossil fuel generation, our price of electricity just keeps going up. It seems pretty clear that the power companies are pocketing the difference to the benefit of the salaries of its executives and perhaps the returns to share holders.
Yep, capitalism is the problem no matter the form.
We are at the behest of Share holders everywhere it seems.
Baseload power is still required, something no renewable technology can overcome. Nuclear can solve this issue at significant investment costs, but not quickly. The far greater subsidies to oil companies compared to renewable energy is also a factor, although oil subsidies benefit us more than just at the pump prices.
@@donkey1271 Not really true - renewable energy + ongoing work in storage solutions can overcome, and will eventually. But it needs to go faster. I do agree nuclear would be a solution - if it had started 10 years ago with the newer, less waste technologies.
I love Rosie's channel.
Came here to say that. I loved seeing a shout out to Rosie on this channel
For the land use aspect there are some organizations that do good work with their project in terms of measuring results and followup. WeForest is one of them. I'm all for land restoration, there should be, in this age, at least 150% required restoration for all new projects proposed. We won't be sustainable if we keep destroying more than we're restoring.
As usual, love the humor. :)
Very informative mate...thank you.
No problem 👍
Man, even if it's not amazing news, it's still great someone was able to figure out what the positive tipping points are so we can make real progress.
Excellent video. Of course loads of "experts"will disagree with this or that, but discussion is healthy. The point from me is that your video advances my understanding. And the financial world is ready to make profits however it all pans out. Thanks again.
Thanks Richard. Much appreciated
I think that there is a relatively minor but quite significant move that would accelerate the road to these tipping points. Namely the adoption of non Li technologies for batteries used in grid storage. First it would bring down the price of Li batteries for cars and hence the price of EVs as the demand for Li decreased. Some economists estimate that for a linear decrease in the price of EVs, you get an exponential increase in the market share. As your article indicates, the greater adoption of EVs feeds into all the other tipping points. What is of interest is that most of these alternate battery chemistries use cheap, readily available elements and it is likely that all they need is market share to out compete Li batteries for price. They also have some interesting characteristics. For instance, very long life, ability to cycle between 0 and 100% with no damage, simple recycling if you ever need to recycle them, and safer than Li batteries and hence no problem shipping them. There are the liquid metal batteries based on Sb and Ca and now on Al and S, the Zn Br plating or gel batteries, a range of redox batteries based on Fe or V and perhaps the up and coming Na batteries. This is just a sample.
Lithium batteries for stationary grid power has always irked me. Lithium is light and energy-dense: two things stationary batteries do not need to be.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 Exactly, even excluding current technological improvements, lead-acid batteries are a 100+ year old technology that is still in use today because it is incredibly robust and very recyclable. Their size, weight and relatively low energy density (by Li-ion standards) is of zero concern in terms of grid storage, whether it's at individual house level or grid level.
@@donkey1271 I am hoping Na batteries are viable soon also. But we even have large thermal batteries that can work. Pb-Acid and Br are usable too. Lors of options beyond lithium, which is best utilized for portability and light weight.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 Na is showing a lot of promise, if the likes of CATL are betting so big on it one can only assume it has a future in the world.
I can agree Li-ion is very useful in some cases, although even in the world of modern electronics with everything becoming increasingly efficient energy density may not be the primary concern it once was.
Lithium Ion batteries are currently used for load balancing, which requires a rapid response time to fluctuating power generation from green energy to stabilise the grid. It does not provide power when green energy is not available. For that we will need much cheaper batteries that can store 100s of times more energy. Such batteries are still largely under development though.
I really like your presentation style!
And the content of your video's is very good. Keep them coming 🙂
Greetings from the Netherlands.
Bloody brilliant as always and I’m loving the injected humour
It's a pleasure getting the real state of the renewable universe!
Living with Nature is easy, living without is impossible. MJS
Ask not what Earth can do for you, but what you can do for Earth.
At least we can finally see some glimmers of hope. Renewable energy, heat pumps and BEV's are going to really enhance our quality of life. Imagine clean air in the cities.
I am not at all convinced that we need to go to alternative proteins. Livestock, done in conjunction with regenerative agriculture can help restore carbon in our soils. On our small 2 acre property, we have plans for raising pasture raised chickens. We are going to have a portable pens allowing fresh forage everyday in the summer. As they move across the landscape, we will follow along planting seed to enhance the diversity and quality of forage in the landscape. We will be building soils. They will also fertilise our gardens, fruit trees and well as doing some pest control. They will also happily utilize the waste from our garden and microgreen production. Not to mention the benefits to our personal nutrition for both eggs and meat. They should be happy chickens.
Ecologically mixed farming makes so much sense. Compare the biological activity in pasture land with a monocrop desert with depleted soils and it is no contest. Luckily the world's population is going to peak relatively soon. We need to hang to our biological diversity until that point then start rehabbing land use with nature in mind.
A well grounded review and conclusion yet again. Thanks
This video makes clear how complex the issue of energy production is. Compromises and trade-offs abound. There is no silver bullet. As you said, though, the major hurdle to reaching a sustainable future based on renewables is the government. Since the politicians do the bidding of their corporate masters, that means the hurdle really is the weight of powerful entrenched interests in the oil, coal, and gas industries. One might add the utilities into that mix.
Great, as always 👏
Thank you! Cheers!
As a fellow Brit, could you please do a video looking at what home kits are available to allow people to potentially go off grid for power, using solar panels & batteries? Two bit d's Vinci just did a video looking at Ecoflow, & I found they have a UK division, with products like "EcoFlow DELTA Pro + 400W Rigid Solar Panel" designed for people to setup themselves; they can put the panels anywhere, even just on the floor. I think a video looking at DIY kits like this, when having "professionals" do it costs a fortune, would be VERY useful for your viewer's. If you included UK available suppliers focus, as there's no-one really doing that, it would be especially amazing!
Thank you for the video , now to read the report that I would otherwise not known about.
Thank you for putting the video together and for keeping us informationally afloat in this ocean of despair. In a situation where we weren't heading towards Armageddon, I'd probably agree with this assessment. Sadly, we don't even need climate change to ruin us, the loss of arable land and the declining population will destroy our economy - and much of human life. Nothing flimsy about the assessment, either, since it's all in the math; we know these two things will happen. We've entered into the century of societal collapse and chaos, and there's nothing we can do to maintain things as they are. We will have to adapt as a species, but it's going to be ugly.
It's not climate change - that changes constantly - but rather self destruction and self flagellation that might cause your armaggedon.
Here in the US, there’s some interesting rewilding proposals about restoring wolf and beaver populations in corridors between existing protected areas, on what is already public land. Unfortunately, that public land is often currently leased (at considerable loss to the taxpayer) to the cattle ranching industry, which the great John Muir described as “hoofed locusts”. And, since the “cowboys” are the Americanist of all Americans, and also have incredible political power within their own states, these proposals are facing massive political resistance. Of course, all that public land leased to ranchers for open grazing accounts for, oh, 2% of America’s beef, but it’s unfortunately the most politically appealing and powerful part of that industry.
That’s why we need a political revolution from the bottom up. No other way.
My partner and I love all your videos. Thank you
Great video, as usual! 🙏👌
Thanks for the shout-out to Australia's Rosie - she's great value!
Thank you for reviewing this interesting study.
It's funny, I was thinking on similar lines just a few days ago... except I was thinking of a puzzle. The more governments, cities, businesses & people do on climate action and the ecological & biodiversity crisis, the more we complete the picture on a sustainable future for everyone. But the puzzle is big and there are many pieces. And, of course, there are those that are either trying to stop the puzzle being completed (they have selfish puzzles of their own) or actively removing puzzle pieces... three steps forward, two steps back, one step forward, one step back etc. Progress is slow so the question is whether we can build the puzzle in time (we may not like the picture once its finished if we delay any further).
Great shoutout to engineering with Rosie
I must say Dave, it is a very pretty little video :D 👍
Thanks Rob. Glad you liked it :-)
Always well put together information. Is it possible you could see that promoting central government is akin to hiring a sex offender to babysit? Being as that central government is at least half to blame, if not majority, for the problems our species is faced with?
Do you have an idea for a workable alternative form of government that would not be worse?
@@incognitotorpedo42 Of course. But this is the comments section, not a comprehensive repository of all my fabulous ideas.😆💩
This is fascinating & somewhat hopeful, though I'm not sure we should count on it. Your discussion about the electric power industry jives with my experience working 40 years as an engineer & project manager.
as long as most of our, united states, politicians are owned by the corporations doing most of the polluting, fixing climate change will only happen after a lot of pain and suffering.
Organic agriculture does not need industrial nitrogen. I have farmed organically for 40 years. I never used conventional fertiliser, or,
Soluble plant food as some call it.
To be honest, I am fed up with words. Spoken or written. Not even 1% seems to be turned into action!
It’s more like the 0.01%, but they’re the one causing the problem so of course they don’t care.
@Fen nope! ThTs buying into their narrative. Victory is on a spectrum, we don’t currently live in totalitarian fascist dictatorships because of victories won by people organizing on the ground throughout history. They’ve won a lot and killed a lot that can’t be returned, but there’s still so much left worth fighting for.
Great video, enjoyed the humour too!
You are a champion! Thank you for these cleansing, sanity inducing breaths of fresh empirical science and environmental awareness ✨🦋🎍
We should have better insulation in are homes and buildings to reduce energy demand in citys by 30 to 40%.
So put in place if any renovation to the home you half to replace the insulation to new standards.
Hell we should put in place remove the gas stove as well with electric or induction.
"electric or induction" at 3 time the running cost...no thanks.
We already have this. Nuclear is cheap, carbon-free.
@@manoo422 The running cost of an induction stove is negligible in comparison to other household energy uses. Induction is more powerful and more efficient than gas. I've used all three kinds of stoves and induction is the best.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 And your definition of "cheap" is "More expensive than any other kind of electric power."?
@@incognitotorpedo42 I have an induction stove...but thats no the point. This is about cutting off the consumers gas supply, which should never be allowed to happen.
This document does give statistical proof that changing our methods and technologies is possible. That alone gives me hope for the future, the only question the world needs to answer, Do we sacrifice a lot of money and effort now and never pay the price again, or do we pay for it when it suits the interests of those with the means? The former is the logical answer, but it's an unpopular.
Videos like this are very important to finding solutions and sharing for the world. Please keep up to date on this info, this very special news to share.
The only people that want to go green are the ones that won't have to pay anything to watch it happen. The entire elite group who discuss climate change fly around on their private jets every year and spew more gasses than any other people. The poor peasants are usually not smart enough to realize that.
@@funveeable There is a way that both poor and elite can continue to do as they please... Transition to nuclear from fossil fuels, and we can all continue as we are.
@@Les_S537 we shouldn’t want to do as we please because the economic system we’re living under is literally the problem causing mass environmental death. Capitalism needs to go to solve the environmental crisis and to free humanity.
@@kx7500 Your argument boils down to guns ki|| people when in reality it is the people who use guns to ki|| people who are the problem. Capitalism is not the problem, it is the people within capitalism that are the problem.
The solution is not to get rid of guns or capitalism, the solution is to raise better humans.
@@Les_S537 nope, it’s the system. Thinking that people can just with no organizational shift just be better people is delusional, it’s a systemic problem creating bad people. Capitalism is that system which incentivized people to be bad and oppress each other and the environment. It’s like saying fascism isn’t a problem, it’s just people being bad people for no reason who need to be taught better. Good luck with that lol, you’ll get somewhere with a few individuals but on a systemic scale systemic solutions are required.
Thank you
An excellent podcast as usual and would like to add a couple of points as well. Firstly the political ramp up renewables, particularly the installation of major solar and wind farms at the expense of degrading fossil fuel generation is having a huge impact on cost to communities by increased power bills due to lack of interim maintenance of fossil energy systems but also the cost of renewable startups and fossil generated energy required to make the renewables in the first place.
Once the direction of renewable reliance has been specified by a country's government there is almost no incentive for owners of the fossil fuel generating system to continue to maintain, research or build new infrastructure because such governments no longer provide support for such projects. In addition the over gearing of installations of renewable plants and infrastructure has manically over burdened energy retailers who are passing on 50-100% increases to the consumer especially low income customers who can't afford to feed this technological impact.
All of this covered in your section of S curves economic changes but what is not specified is the change in technology of say a stove to microwave oven usage only affects the appliance, you still need electricity, cabling etc usually already installed.The S curve of the renewables did include the cost of the fossil wind back but does not take into account the cost of making the renewable product, the cost of the infrastructure of the plant, the cost of the grid feed system to get it to where it needs to go to feed into the national grid, the cost of maintenance of the plant and the cost to the local community that the renewable system has been imposed upon.
I am somewhat confused by your use of extensive and thorough in representing support for this document as power and transport costs of conversion have major impacts not no impacts and thus find the presented documentation misleading. The same with the cost parity expected in the next couple of years as the data in this projection does not include the fossil fuel costs of production of the renewable plant equipment for the new infrastructure requirements to get it to market or grid. This includes the fossil fuel requirements for the manufacture and installation of hydrogen plants in whatever generation format is deemed necessary or possible for the next twenty years or so and until renewable generation starts running at more than 50% in every country around the world. This percentage of uptake is not going to happen in industrial emerging countries nor anywhere near the present for countries like China who runs fossil fuels at over 90% of generation.
So yes to let's move down this path to less reliance on fossil fueled energy generation and to a lessor extent other uses for the coal and gas but let us do so in a managed and mean to lower cost implementation rather than the 'who cares what it costs, let's do it program' that is good for the major industrial players in the construction, maintenance and operation, not to forget the governments but what care should be taken for the minimum impact, especially financial on the middle to low income sections of society and this report does not sufficiently cater for this.
What better, more humane and practical project management can achieve is certainly a complete conversion to renewable for general usage power in lower than expected cost to most the consumers at the lower economic end of the market with no less that modern or upgrade battery storage systems to manage the base power when there is no wind at night. The project must include and correct low impact de-continuation or lowering power generation of fossil fuels but also the probably implementation of the odd nuclear plant to assist in supplementing base power usage, even using new technology of molten salt Thorium as base power and in future backup of base power because batteries are too expensive and if over-cycled (as most likely requirement) will have a shelf life and cost that will further double the cost of using renewables.
All technology change in the last two hundred years have been a boom for everyone in any country is has been implemented as no impact to society and lower income end because nearly all of this introduction has been at market, including workers, and consumable time frames to allow for retraining of the workers at any level that is required. This renewable conversion is being forced at a rate beyond the capacity and cost to allow natural migration and its impact will be felt for decades to come.
In this podcast you still maintain the use of CO2 as a bad component of the current output of many industries but the grasslands, trees and crops would most forcibly disagree with you as they all need CO2 levels for growth and the production of food for human consumption. Luckily CO2 is too heavy to rise into the troposphere or stratosphere to have any affect on global warming so the ground natural growth products will be safe while we adapt to the Sun's magnetic cycles that govern the weather and global warming over 1400 year cycles as it has in the past...see 17 century minimum and 10th century maximum historical changes.
We will get to renewables as a major contributor to grid energy feed as some time in the future, possibly fifty years from now and if we can remove the politics and the push by the industrial sector that stands to make an enormous amount of money on this, we could do well towards making it happen without impacting the people it currently is impacting and in the meantime the sun will go on keeping us warm and providing for the cyclic weather patterns to keep us on our toes as it has done for the last million years or so.
To the degree that humanity takes information such as you provide seriously, we have a good chance to prevent the worst case scenarios from unfolding.
Nup. Not a hope in hell. Sorry. 🥵
@@margrietoregan828 Ahhh, how lovely! A fellow Doomer. Much Love, and enjoy it while you can!!
you must not be from the USA
Impossible burgers were the first meatless thing I thought "I was as satisfied with that as I would have been with any other meat based burger" they're just pretty expensive. But they've become a staple in my house
And can be full of chemicals, and not as good environmentally as regular beef!
Where I am the beyond meat burgers are actually cheaper than meat by a good margin. And honestly I prefer them.
@@gamingtonight1526 How are you measuring “not as good environmentally” compared to beef?
@@gamingtonight1526 everything is chemicals... It's the specific chemicals that matter. Moreover it's hard to be worse than meat in many places because the soy that is used to make the impossible burgers just gets fed to the cattle.
I love the burger a lot. Tastes delicious
Thank you.
You're welcome!
Great video
Our power grid in the States cannot handle shifting our heating sector to heat pumps. How on Earth can it handle shifting the transportation sector to electric?
By putting it on rails, conveyor belt, pipes or ship running on biofuel from plants bred in underground greenhouses? (Main reason for underground is to keep those ships pure electric.)
Well, we have to update energy obviously. Solar and wind primarily
@@Apollorion Agreed, this is a good plan - plant fuels (hemp comes to mind) and algal fuels are a good fit for shipping, but we Americans are used to the convenience (and inefficiency) of having personal vehicles for everyone. I would love to see more rail and mass conveyance systems built here!
Along side of that, we desperately need to update and decentralize our power grid to use rooftop solar, wind and batteries in homes and cars to offset dangerous peak loads. Best to you!
@@belalugrisi1614 sounds terrible, allows for too much government control
@@jimp5133 You can (according to your local regulations) go off grid. I definitely see your point. Best to you!
Sooo it's a race between tipping points. Not sure I am going to hang my hat on this.
Another great video
This guy is such a climate comedian. His climate spin of and if maybe possibly could reminds me of the saying “IF my Auntie had balls she would be my Uncle”😂
We need to (continue to) support progressive politicians who will aggressively fight the neoliberals, neocons and neofascists! ✌
Bingo
But also politics within the current system isn’t enough either, most political action is done outside the system and leveraging our power to force it to adept to our demands. We have to organize, unionize, and build solidarity to force tyrants to give up their power.
What wonderfully mindless sheep like thinking.
Rethink X on the other hand is alot more optimistic about alternative meat and dairy taking over traditional meat and dairy industry. They think alternative meat would gain 100% of the market share bu 2035 and not merely 20%. Their main argument is land mass the size of India, china and Australia combined would be freed from animal agriculture by 2035. This would lead to a massive carbon sink at gigatons scale.
That’s delusional to think people aren’t gonna be eating animals by then. It just needs to be a lot less.
I would like to see some information on the tidal power upon which Scotland has engaged.
The description of the S curve and disruptive cascade remind me of of Tony Seba conferences
I think the report is too pessimistic. From what David described it seems that it doesn't really look at how the various tipping points can reinforce each other. It's like it only considers each one in isolation. Even the moderate movement towards the various goals that we are currently seeing will be pushing all the others in a positive feedback loop.
Nuclear.
I believe it did but the 5 year timeline is quite a short one.
It still annoys me that rich people still put a price on our existence. "we could save humanity but I wont be rich"... I don't matter how rich you are if you are dead.
Capitalism!
Nuclear is the answer to all of this.
It's not just rich people who put a price on our existence. Poor people don't want to pay a lot for a car, or a heater, so they use technology that costs less up front but creates CO2 for its entire life.
@@kx7500 The problem isn't Capitalism. Resources are not infinite. Everyone wants to do what costs them the least resources in the near term. So the problem is really short-term thinking.
@@incognitotorpedo42 poor people are crushed into having to make such a choice for survival.
Nations should be held responsible for their cumulative per capita emissions.
Fantastic well balanced, well researched info, as always,
Like many others, I suspect, I paused your video at the relevant point to watch the 'Engineering With Rosie' video - and that was tremendously information dense! It took me a couple of watches to get my head around the methods, information, implications etc and then look at the Lazard data to apply it to UK conditions - ie offshore wind generation rather than onshore - to come up with comparative results ...
Excellent point: trees are NOT forests.
You can plant trees and _HOPE_ a forest develops in 50 years, but you cannot "replant forests".
Forests are complex interconnected ecosystems of mushrooms and trees and plants and bacteria and animals. You can't just "plant one".
(And we don't even know how at this point. In fact, it's somewhat startling we possess such arrogance to believe we can simply conjure a forest at will out of our imagination.)
OK Mr. Pedantic. You have to start with planting the trees though don't you?
@@rockdinosaur8619 Well, as it happens you don't start with trees. You have to start with soil bacteria and mycelium; they are the essential base ecology of a forest. Particularly mycelium which is foundation for communication between trees. You CANNOT just plant trees and get a forest. Such naive thinking was around in the 1950's, and many replanting efforts never developed into a forest. Rather a lot of ecology knowledge has been gained since then. Unfortunately, some people just can't learn to accept these complicated factors, and lash out at those who elucidate them. So we have the same people blurting out "Just plant trees", and sidestepping their ignorance to placate their egos; no additional thought needed.
As a result, we have acres and acres of trees by the hundreds and thousands which never developed into forests. A forest is not simply a grove of trees, that is rather the point.
Is that "pedantic"? I don't know. Did your parents teach you that? Then perhaps. If not, then perhaps not.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 Fixed my typo - my English professor father would have been pissed. Anyway, I understand your point, and Dave even mentioned that planting single trees that could die quickly does not solve anything. But just scoffing at 'part' of the solution does not change the intent - we have removed forest, wetlands and jungle to the breaking points, are we going to continue to do that or try to find some way to recover some of that loss? My parents and I planted hundreds of trees at the edge of our 'forest' which became part of the 'forest' eventually. What have you done besides these oh-so-superior comments?
@@rockdinosaur8619 Perhaps trees you plant will eventually become a forest, and perhaps not. Time will tell. It can take 200 years for a forest to be established, but not less than 50 years minimum. Trees are not forests, and forests are not trees. Forests cannot be planted. This should bring to mind 2 obvious facts:
1) It is easier to destroy than to create.
2) Humans know how to kill, but not bring back to life. This includes forests and barrier reefs.
Planting trees is analogous to giving a cadaver an organ transplant: sure, the organ is "alive", but the system is not. It's the same with trying to resurrect forests by planting trees.
It would be nice if you could plant a forest, but you can't. You can only hope the trees become a forest in 50 to 200 years: that's how long it takes. You don't know if it worked before then. Forests are a complicated system better left undisturbed and intact wherever possible. Removing forests can be an irreversible act. (This is something most people do not understand.)
Forests are not "re-plantable", just as you cannot bring a corpse back to life by giving it organ transplants, Dr. Frankenstein.
this is what makes me such a doomer: not that we *can't* fix the problems, but that society at large just *chooses* not to.
More like the problem is not a problem and that too many people are trying to solve it resulting in making a problem. More people have died from mining cobalt and making the supply chain the makes electric cars than those who have died from climate related problems.
Yep it's called the human condition ( with the negative aspects at least )👍 and has always been a thorn in the side of real change and progress.
@@funveeable cobalt mining is not a climate solution in the first place. Electrification of transport, as you point out, only increases emissions at a time when drastic reduction is necessary to prevent the occurrence of irreversible climate tipping points. Electrification of transport only serves to save the automobile industry... in other words, its a ploy for capitalists to maintain profits. An actual solution to transport emissions (mass public transport and dense, sprawl free building orientation) is not profitable for these capitalists, thus it is not implemented.
@@funveeable Do you have arrogant EV drivers near you?
Or do you have a lot of problems of your own?
It's simply not in human nature at large.
Only a super intelligent AI that is put in charge can save us now. Assuming it doesn't just kill us.
Great video, Dave!
Cheers Martin
Thanks!
Thanks for your support. Much appreciated 😀
We are already in overshoot with the economy and biosphere ggas we approach and go past it major tipping points already how can we ever prevent a hot house earth when the Davos club for growth keeps meeting and doing nothing
We've been in overshoot for decades .
Earth is alive it will take care .. with or without us …
@@sudeeptaghosh I agree 👍
I am optimistic about the ability of humans to survive and the "desire" of the Earth to facilitate, in whatever capacity, that survival.
I think that is why "spiritual connection" is a common thread with the Destruction/Rebuilding if the "world."
🤔
You are the carbon they want to reduce
Your paranoid conspiracy theorizing is not helpful.
How many human beings do you think Earth can sustain?
@@williamwaugh8670 a lot more than now, everyone could live inside Texas with a quarter acre. Have you ever driven across the us and seen all the wide open never ending space. Overpopulation is a myth
G’day Dave, have you done any videos that explore regenerative agriculture at all. In my opinion, it has massive potential to not only offset the CO2 and methane production of a farm, but to sequester more than it produces.
Though methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than plain old CO2, it breaks down in the atmosphere in about 12 years. The resultant carbon dioxide is then taken up by plants and the whole process starts again. Properly managed regenerative grazing can actually reduce the methane produced by cattle, as some herbages have been shown to have enzymes that assist with the breaking down of cellulose more readily with smaller amounts of methane produced in the process. Meaning that the methane is being produced less quickly than it is being broken down.
Thank you for unpicking this.
Cheers Andy
i firmly believe that we WILL achieve an energy surplus by 2035.
That will likely mark the end of the economic recession we're in today. I hope your prediction comes true.
@@ziarasekhi6238 Lol, this recession will end a lot sooner than that. Look at the history of economics for the past 150 years.
@@ziarasekhi6238 i think we will get out of this recession by the 4th quarter of this year unless Israel decides to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
Hi
Hello
Awesome
More renewables will help spark an exponential rise in fossil fuel use. - William Stanley Jevons
True. The world needs MORE energy for the population we have (that wants a western lifestyle), so more renewables won't replace fossil fuels.
Only humanity changing its ways, its priorities, can save us. And that's not going to happen.
???
@@EmeraldView Overpopulation is the problem. “We are in a state of dangerous ‘overshoot’ or ‘gross ecological dysfunction’.
‘Overshoot’ means that the human enterprise is consuming natural capital faster than ecosystems can regenerate and filling natural waste sinks to overflowing.. “ - Dr. William E. Rees ~ Best to you!
Literally rtarded.
By how many degrees is the globe going to cool from a 1 trillion dollar investment into solar? 0.00000 degrees?
Nuclear clean, safe, carbon-free
It can be calculated, and it's a lot more than zero.
Thanks for the video. May I call out that just the tile of the video sounds like language elements from narratives our economy is putting together to mirror and neutralize actual and scientifically demonstrated facts about our climate? Thank you for taking on this topic :)
That's a nice little overview, and I agree with the final point, it's not really all that encouraging a report. But if it's not taken as how the title seems to want it to be taken (aka as a "the private sector has this handled we'll be green soon and won't need more icky government" document) but instead as a guide of where to focus more advocacy and research effort on, that's pretty useful! And it sadly fails to surprise me that one of the areas of least focus is land use changes. Planting a few trees is a common way to show environmental support but there's way too little focus on not cutting down the trees we've already got!
What an utterly useless pseudoscientific report. It co-opts scientific terminology (e.g., "tipping-points") to sound serious. The only purpose it serves is to muddy the water on the scientific consensus regarding climate collapse.
An *actual* scientific report, the IPCC, has made it abundantly clear that renewables have BEEN more economically viable. The IPCC has also said, as close to explicitly as possible, that climate change is a symptom of a *systemic* illness (i.e., the capitalist framework). As such, its cure, is *systemic change* (i.e., overthrow of capitalism).
Even under capitalist market-driven logic (which has been disproven countless times - remember, economics is not a hard science as imperialist economists make it out to be, it's a social science), renewables should have far surpassed fossil fuels by now.
So why haven't they? Because capital prevents it from occurring. This is why Mark Fisher says "it's easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism".
If you cared about the climate at all you'd be calling on the Americans to stop blowing up pipelines.
Hahatrue that . Insanity that they got away with that..we are fataly flawed as a species.
America has a lot of issues, pretty massive tumour on the planet politically overall. Not sure why you’re assuming people are American nationalists here
@@kx7500 a large part of the american population are extreem nationalists .the delusional blind belief in american exceptionaism is proof of that fact. Delusional because nothing could be further from the truth .
@@rickydee5863 that’s true, but we can influence those who have open minds and incentives to change for the better, which dwarf them by a long shot.
Excuse me, Woody, but *what* pipelines are you talking about? Nordstream? That wasn't done by Americans. The consensus is that it was the Russians.
Good one Dave..thank you.
I rate this video 100% green!
Thx
I donot need some Scientists predicting temp changes and future collapse…been alive 75 years and you see how crazy the Weather is getting….Tip Point has to be Near.
Everyone should watch this video 😊
One problem with this "S" curve. It assumes demand elasticity. It doesn't even mention inelastic demand, which the strategic materials, such as Lithium, neodymium, and copper, are almost certain to experience. This inelastic demand can drive the price of these new marvels to the point of unaffordability.
Imagine having to heat your house, in the northern temperate region, with ever more expensive electricity.
Thanks
Thanks for your support. Much appreciated 😀
That "Green" hydrogen site in Western Australia, where do they get their water from?
Ocean and reverse osmosis
You’re great at using the reports in your videos. Great job in annotating them throughout the video.
Thank you for sharing this amazing information. The tipping point that interests me is for more people watching this type of video and fewer watching mindless TikTok
Report sounds fair enough.
I would like to say it here once again. The threshold value of 1.5° C has already been exceeded! Furthermore, the CO2 content in the air should not be greater than 350ppm. However, it is at present already at 420ppm! Only because the Earth system reacts slowly by our human standards (which is not true, because the changes have a breathtaking speed and only the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was faster). The effects may not be felt strongly at the moment, but will become violent very soon (ask the Pakistanis, the Californians, or the Australians). It would be necessary to actively take the CO2 out of the air with huge industries and at the same time not emit anything.
IMPOSSIBLE! We can not even all agree that we have a problem. (Well done, oil/coal industry!)