First and foremost, plenty of renewables everywhere. Then, insulate homes, electrify everything, ride bikes, e-bikes and public transport, especially trains.
I’d actually put “reduce” as the first thing - reduce consumption, reduce travel, reduce energy usage. Of course if everybody does that then we start having issues with economic downturn, so this consumer economy is another thing we have to figure out how to change.
@@webx135 "In 2022 aviation accounted for 2% of global energy-related CO2 emissions." "In 2022, international shipping alone accounted for nearly 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions." "The carbon footprint of a domestic flight (flights less than 1,000 kilometers) was the highest of all transport modes, with 225 grams of CO2 emitted per passenger kilometer. However, the carbon footprint of short-haul and long haul economy flights were considerably less." In 2018, the emissions from transportation sector (worldwide )were due to: light duty vehicles 47% medium and heavy duty 30% aviation and marine 10% each rail 3% The only thing you got right is that shipping is among the most efficient means of transportation per mile and freight ton; it is comparable to electric trains. I honestly don't understand why people don't check even such simple numbers. We can't start every time from scratch, as if there were no IPCC reports spanning last 30 years of scientific research.
@@trevinbeattie4888 You said correctly "I'd". There are billions of people that still don't own a car or a refrigerator, we can't tell them to reduce consumption. Also, we need to figure out an economic system that can service the existing debt and doesn't cripple young generations' aspirations without constant monetary expansion. I don't know if it is even possible. In other words, "no growth" currently implies "no money lending". How do we solve this problem?
IIRC, the Princeton Zero Lab project argues that even if decarbonization effort's only impact was to improve respiratory health across the population, it would be worth the investment in terms of lives saved and healthcare costs averted. Following energy policy people on socials is a bright spot in the news cycle for me. It gives me hope when I see people so doggedly tackling such a big problem. It compelled me to do my own small part; trading my gas car for a used EV, using an e-bike as much as I can, and most recently replacing a gas water heater with a heat pumped electric one.
Man, I wish I could get a ground-source heat pump (-30 to -35 C relly sucks 😅). There's not even any company that sells or installs them here in Saskatoon. I found one a few years ago, but they only did ground-source on new installs, and I can't seem to find them anymore.
I always wonder about people that want to engineer future technologies to fix a problem that has a simple solution. There are a lot of methods to reduce carbon emissions but until there are financial incentives or advantages to use those methods, cheaper fossil fuels win. Just look at the USA with the lowest gas prices in the industrialised world and the hugely inefficient vehicles that are the top sellers. But still pickup truck owners (owned only for their vanity) complain about fueling their huge inefficient vehicle.
Those fossil fuels are so cheap because of the incentives they enjoy. Dismantling those incentives would also allow faster adoption of methods to reduce carbon emissions.
@@SocialDownclimber exactly. Not only do governments subsidize fossil fuels (tax breaks, military spending to insure supply, etc.) but the cost of atmospheric carbon is not factored in. Only now are insurance companies not willing to insure climate vulnerable property from repeated destruction but even the US Navy is including climate models in long term planning.
🤔@@tiacho2893 I think the easiest subsidy to explain is the US (and Canada) highway system(s) and streets in cities. It'd be politically difficult to change, but if you shifted some of those funds to rail, either between or within cities, you could make some substantial improvements. You'd also have to change zoning, to discourage having so many detached homes, large lawns, or other things that increase travel distance.
@@oldineamiller9007 Maybe check how the predictions of climate scientists are going. They have all eventuated exactly as they said so far. That's worthy of trust.
How is Apple supposed to stay one of the richest company's on Earth if they don't intentionally designed phones that you have to replace every few years?!? Honestly. How could you so selfishly put something as trivial as the literal stability of the biosphere over what's really important. Making a few already wealthy ghouls slightly richer.
Most of the so called 'experts' on climate change are completely ignoring the actual cause of man-made climate change; instead, they will make the problem much worse with new technologies that will double or triple the damage we have already done to our environment. So now let's address the real problem. We all live by a false definition of profit. "profit = income - expenses" treats all of us and the entire environment as nothing more that expenses. As we all should know, businesses must avoid and or eliminate as many expenses as possible. This old profit model is the reason that it is too expensive to protect and enrich our environment. How ironic! All of our actual gains come to us from our environment, yet our old profit model requires us to treat the entire environment like garbage. It's no wonder then, that there is so much homelessness and the planet is on fire. Fortunately, there is a simple way to correct our behavior: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". This new profit model instructs us that it is too expensive to ignore the health of our only source of actual gains, namely our environment. The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers of the Environment will be divided into many specialized subcategories: (1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment. (2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment. (3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products. (4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children. Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers. This new profit model would reverse most ill effects we have had on our environment and, as an added bonus, it would virtually put an end to homelessness because it creates so many new jobs. p.s. What do you think about this idea, and what are it's pitfalls?
I mostly agree - I use an ebike and local rail as much as I can - but public transport isn't a silver bullet either. Here in Seattle we have robust public transit, but there's still plenty of trips that aren't well served by busses and trains. My old job took 22 minutes by car and over an hour and a half by bus, even though start and end locations were next to major transit corridors.
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.” - Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
Why just mitigate the Carbon Crisis when it would be so cheap and easy to end it? You do understand that Industrial Agriculture has a much larger footprint than the Energy Industry right? And if we repair the global Rhizosphere in an effort to re-wild as much land as we possibly can over the next 25 years that will move thousands of gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere into the soil, just through processing 25% of the organic waste we already produce? Oh you don't have any data on that? No estimation of how much carbon industrial agriculture put into the atmosphere by digesting a large majority of global biomass to make way for cash crops and making sure the land is poisoned to prevent the recovery of the Rhizosphere, the largest concentration of terrestrial biomass, which also happens to be a natural globally scaled carbon sync that is no longer operational. I guess that means all your conclusions are wrong by exactly how much carbon was contained in the BILLIONS of hectare Industrial Agriculture dug up, burned away, and kept poisoned for the last century. And maybe you should gather some more data before trying to spread blatantly false information.
EVs absolutely cannot be supported by our current grid supply. We need vastly more distribution infrastructure as well as generation to support enough to be useful. Useful transport options for urban dwellers but still not practical for us farmers. Excuse my cynicism when I saw all the activists marching against climate change, then going home to their air-conditioned homes (in the high density, concrete, heat islands)
EVs are much easier to accommodate on the grid than air conditioners. Aircon is only a problem because everyone wants to use it at the same time. EVs can charge in off-peak times and not require much additional infrastructure. EVs are still of limited use in rural areas though, you are absolutely right about that. Do you think this is more to do with the type of models that are available, or with the capability of those models?
@SocialDownclimber partly capability (I need something with heavy towing capacity) as well as range (nearest decent shopping/medical is 1.5hrs drive away). I'd hate to be doing the 7hr drive to Melbourne and HOPING to be able to recharge along the way. Also folks seem to expect to live in climate controlled splendour these days and, by AC, I don't just mean cooling. In this (and many) climate, heating/cooling are likely to be run both day and night. EVs being charged at night have already 'blown' domestic power supplies when several tried to charge at once. The infrastructure just isn't built for it.
Expanding the grid and electrification is the cornerstone of the IRA. I'm cautiously optimistic we can do it, and EVs form a perfect load for that kind of system, since they can be charged dynamically.
Most of the so called 'experts' on climate change are completely ignoring the actual cause of man-made climate change; instead, they will make the problem much worse with new technologies that will double or triple the damage we have already done to our environment. So now let's address the real problem. We all live by a false definition of profit. "profit = income - expenses" treats all of us and the entire environment as nothing more that expenses. As we all should know, businesses must avoid and or eliminate as many expenses as possible. This old profit model is the reason that it is too expensive to protect and enrich our environment. How ironic! All of our actual gains come to us from our environment, yet our old profit model requires us to treat the entire environment like garbage. It's no wonder then, that there is so much homelessness and the planet is on fire. Fortunately, there is a simple way to correct our behavior: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". This new profit model instructs us that it is too expensive to ignore the health of our only source of actual gains, namely our environment. The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers of the Environment will be divided into many specialized subcategories: (1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment. (2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment. (3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products. (4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children. Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers. This new profit model would reverse most ill effects we have had on our environment and, as an added bonus, it would virtually put an end to homelessness because it creates so many new jobs. p.s. What do you think about this idea, and what are it's pitfalls?
Demand-pull policies to encourage plant-based dietary choices would help reduce ~20% GHG and make those negative emissions technologies (eg afforestation & reforestation) much more achievable. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation and uses massive amounts of water, which could be better used towards climate change mitigation. Why this never seems to come up as a HUGE and relatively achievable option in the climate discourse is baffling.
It's less baffling when you learn that cheap meat is one of the best ways to keep a populace complacent and some of the largest private corporations on Earth make their money from meat consumption.
Taxes aren’t demand-pull policies, and conflating them as such is a red herring. I’m responding to the demand-pull recommendations in point number two of the video. Our current food systems are set up with demand-pull subsidies that incentivize corporations AND individuals to choose high-climate impact dietary choices. I’m suggesting I’m frustrated at a lack of serious discussion of those policies being reprioritized on climate mitigating systems (eg subsidize plant-based diets). It’s too huge an impact for us to make meaningful climate progress without constantly excluding from discussion. And to suggest the US economy - 70% of which is driven on behalf of unsocial consumers - should not consider incentives to modify individual behaviors as a part of climate mitigation strategies is a very unserious suggestion indeed.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
First and foremost, plenty of renewables everywhere. Then, insulate homes, electrify everything, ride bikes, e-bikes and public transport, especially trains.
I’d actually put “reduce” as the first thing - reduce consumption, reduce travel, reduce energy usage. Of course if everybody does that then we start having issues with economic downturn, so this consumer economy is another thing we have to figure out how to change.
@@webx135 "In 2022 aviation accounted for 2% of global energy-related CO2 emissions."
"In 2022, international shipping alone accounted for nearly 3% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions."
"The carbon footprint of a domestic flight (flights less than 1,000 kilometers) was the highest of all transport modes, with 225 grams of CO2 emitted per passenger kilometer. However, the carbon footprint of short-haul and long haul economy flights were considerably less."
In 2018, the emissions from transportation sector (worldwide )were due to:
light duty vehicles 47%
medium and heavy duty 30%
aviation and marine 10% each
rail 3%
The only thing you got right is that shipping is among the most efficient means of transportation per mile and freight ton; it is comparable to electric trains.
I honestly don't understand why people don't check even such simple numbers. We can't start every time from scratch, as if there were no IPCC reports spanning last 30 years of scientific research.
@@webx135 PS carbon capture doesn't work
@@trevinbeattie4888 You said correctly "I'd". There are billions of people that still don't own a car or a refrigerator, we can't tell them to reduce consumption. Also, we need to figure out an economic system that can service the existing debt and doesn't cripple young generations' aspirations without constant monetary expansion. I don't know if it is even possible. In other words, "no growth" currently implies "no money lending". How do we solve this problem?
@@markotrieste Glad to admit i was wrong here. Ditched my original comment.
In that case, I like the EV push even more.
IIRC, the Princeton Zero Lab project argues that even if decarbonization effort's only impact was to improve respiratory health across the population, it would be worth the investment in terms of lives saved and healthcare costs averted.
Following energy policy people on socials is a bright spot in the news cycle for me. It gives me hope when I see people so doggedly tackling such a big problem. It compelled me to do my own small part; trading my gas car for a used EV, using an e-bike as much as I can, and most recently replacing a gas water heater with a heat pumped electric one.
Man, I wish I could get a ground-source heat pump (-30 to -35 C relly sucks 😅). There's not even any company that sells or installs them here in Saskatoon. I found one a few years ago, but they only did ground-source on new installs, and I can't seem to find them anymore.
I always wonder about people that want to engineer future technologies to fix a problem that has a simple solution. There are a lot of methods to reduce carbon emissions but until there are financial incentives or advantages to use those methods, cheaper fossil fuels win. Just look at the USA with the lowest gas prices in the industrialised world and the hugely inefficient vehicles that are the top sellers. But still pickup truck owners (owned only for their vanity) complain about fueling their huge inefficient vehicle.
Those fossil fuels are so cheap because of the incentives they enjoy. Dismantling those incentives would also allow faster adoption of methods to reduce carbon emissions.
@@SocialDownclimber exactly. Not only do governments subsidize fossil fuels (tax breaks, military spending to insure supply, etc.) but the cost of atmospheric carbon is not factored in. Only now are insurance companies not willing to insure climate vulnerable property from repeated destruction but even the US Navy is including climate models in long term planning.
🤔@@tiacho2893 I think the easiest subsidy to explain is the US (and Canada) highway system(s) and streets in cities. It'd be politically difficult to change, but if you shifted some of those funds to rail, either between or within cities, you could make some substantial improvements. You'd also have to change zoning, to discourage having so many detached homes, large lawns, or other things that increase travel distance.
So you want to fix a problem that doesn't even exist? Good luck with that!
@@oldineamiller9007 Maybe check how the predictions of climate scientists are going. They have all eventuated exactly as they said so far. That's worthy of trust.
I feel we are growing old together. Here is to growing in knowledge and in age.
❤ thanks for covering this!
Reducing consumerism would do wonders for the climate, it doesn't matter what solutions we apply if the root of the problem is not taken care of
How is Apple supposed to stay one of the richest company's on Earth if they don't intentionally designed phones that you have to replace every few years?!?
Honestly. How could you so selfishly put something as trivial as the literal stability of the biosphere over what's really important. Making a few already wealthy ghouls slightly richer.
@@Praisethesunson exactly, that's late stage capitalism for ya
Most of the so called 'experts' on climate change are completely ignoring the actual cause of man-made climate change; instead, they will make the problem much worse with new
technologies that will double or triple the damage we have already done to our environment. So now let's address the real problem.
We all live by a false definition of profit. "profit = income - expenses" treats all of us and the entire environment as nothing more that expenses. As we all should know, businesses must
avoid and or eliminate as many expenses as possible. This old profit model is the reason that it is too expensive to protect and enrich our environment. How ironic! All of our actual gains
come to us from our environment, yet our old profit model requires us to treat the entire environment like garbage. It's no wonder then, that there is so much homelessness and
the planet is on fire. Fortunately, there is a simple way to correct our behavior: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us".
This new profit model instructs us that it is too expensive to ignore the health of our only source of actual gains, namely our environment.
The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment".
Caretakers of the Environment will be divided into many specialized subcategories:
(1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment.
(2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment.
(3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products.
(4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children.
Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers.
This new profit model would reverse most ill effects we have had on our environment and, as an added bonus, it would virtually put an end to homelessness because it creates so many new jobs.
p.s. What do you think about this idea, and what are it's pitfalls?
the best strategy is not to burn in the first palce
leave it in the ground
The answer: trains, bikes and smart urban planning. There’s will always be cars, and ev’s aren’t the silver bullet solution.
I mostly agree - I use an ebike and local rail as much as I can - but public transport isn't a silver bullet either. Here in Seattle we have robust public transit, but there's still plenty of trips that aren't well served by busses and trains. My old job took 22 minutes by car and over an hour and a half by bus, even though start and end locations were next to major transit corridors.
NUCLEAR
Thank you very much for your valuable information ♥👍👍
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
- Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
I’ll pity you instead, and work hard for future generations, tyvm
Liar, that pun was totally intended
Just vote #MarianneWilliamson2024. Simple.
Why just mitigate the Carbon Crisis when it would be so cheap and easy to end it? You do understand that Industrial Agriculture has a much larger footprint than the Energy Industry right? And if we repair the global Rhizosphere in an effort to re-wild as much land as we possibly can over the next 25 years that will move thousands of gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere into the soil, just through processing 25% of the organic waste we already produce?
Oh you don't have any data on that? No estimation of how much carbon industrial agriculture put into the atmosphere by digesting a large majority of global biomass to make way for cash crops and making sure the land is poisoned to prevent the recovery of the Rhizosphere, the largest concentration of terrestrial biomass, which also happens to be a natural globally scaled carbon sync that is no longer operational.
I guess that means all your conclusions are wrong by exactly how much carbon was contained in the BILLIONS of hectare Industrial Agriculture dug up, burned away, and kept poisoned for the last century. And maybe you should gather some more data before trying to spread blatantly false information.
EVs absolutely cannot be supported by our current grid supply. We need vastly more distribution infrastructure as well as generation to support enough to be useful. Useful transport options for urban dwellers but still not practical for us farmers. Excuse my cynicism when I saw all the activists marching against climate change, then going home to their air-conditioned homes (in the high density, concrete, heat islands)
EVs are much easier to accommodate on the grid than air conditioners. Aircon is only a problem because everyone wants to use it at the same time. EVs can charge in off-peak times and not require much additional infrastructure. EVs are still of limited use in rural areas though, you are absolutely right about that. Do you think this is more to do with the type of models that are available, or with the capability of those models?
@SocialDownclimber partly capability (I need something with heavy towing capacity) as well as range (nearest decent shopping/medical is 1.5hrs drive away). I'd hate to be doing the 7hr drive to Melbourne and HOPING to be able to recharge along the way. Also folks seem to expect to live in climate controlled splendour these days and, by AC, I don't just mean cooling. In this (and many) climate, heating/cooling are likely to be run both day and night. EVs being charged at night have already 'blown' domestic power supplies when several tried to charge at once. The infrastructure just isn't built for it.
Expanding the grid and electrification is the cornerstone of the IRA. I'm cautiously optimistic we can do it, and EVs form a perfect load for that kind of system, since they can be charged dynamically.
Most of the so called 'experts' on climate change are completely ignoring the actual cause of man-made climate change; instead, they will make the problem much worse with new
technologies that will double or triple the damage we have already done to our environment. So now let's address the real problem.
We all live by a false definition of profit. "profit = income - expenses" treats all of us and the entire environment as nothing more that expenses. As we all should know, businesses must
avoid and or eliminate as many expenses as possible. This old profit model is the reason that it is too expensive to protect and enrich our environment. How ironic! All of our actual gains
come to us from our environment, yet our old profit model requires us to treat the entire environment like garbage. It's no wonder then, that there is so much homelessness and
the planet is on fire. Fortunately, there is a simple way to correct our behavior: "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us".
This new profit model instructs us that it is too expensive to ignore the health of our only source of actual gains, namely our environment.
The new profit model requires us to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment".
Caretakers of the Environment will be divided into many specialized subcategories:
(1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment.
(2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment.
(3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products.
(4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children.
Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers.
This new profit model would reverse most ill effects we have had on our environment and, as an added bonus, it would virtually put an end to homelessness because it creates so many new jobs.
p.s. What do you think about this idea, and what are it's pitfalls?
Demand-pull policies to encourage plant-based dietary choices would help reduce ~20% GHG and make those negative emissions technologies (eg afforestation & reforestation) much more achievable. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation and uses massive amounts of water, which could be better used towards climate change mitigation. Why this never seems to come up as a HUGE and relatively achievable option in the climate discourse is baffling.
It's less baffling when you learn that cheap meat is one of the best ways to keep a populace complacent and some of the largest private corporations on Earth make their money from meat consumption.
becuse causing indevidial change on a population scale is hard and doing it thro taxes is vastly unpopular.
Taxes aren’t demand-pull policies, and conflating them as such is a red herring.
I’m responding to the demand-pull recommendations in point number two of the video. Our current food systems are set up with demand-pull subsidies that incentivize corporations AND individuals to choose high-climate impact dietary choices. I’m suggesting I’m frustrated at a lack of serious discussion of those policies being reprioritized on climate mitigating systems (eg subsidize plant-based diets). It’s too huge an impact for us to make meaningful climate progress without constantly excluding from discussion. And to suggest the US economy - 70% of which is driven on behalf of unsocial consumers - should not consider incentives to modify individual behaviors as a part of climate mitigation strategies is a very unserious suggestion indeed.
There is no climate crisis and therefore there is nothing to mitigate.
😂😂😂