It was a very impressive lecture. Recently, many factors have caused environmental pollution. Until recently, many people suffered from fine dust in Korea. As such, environmental damage has side effects. I think we should all work hard to protect the environment from getting worse in the future. In particular, in the video, I came to my heart by saying, "The environment has changed from being good to being a must." I also sympathize greatly with this sentence. We feel that preserving the environment has become essential, not optional.
John, You're right. We have been growing food without soil for decades. We will be able to achieve this. The question is, how soon? It looks to me like society is getting closer and closer to collapse. Like I said before, even If we start working on this ASAP it will be a century before we move any substantial amount of the population into space. Wouldn't it be responsible to achieve a level of sustainability, efficiency, and reduction of scarcity here on earth before we start moving to space?
you can find all that on Wikipedia. 17% of Germany's electricity production is created through renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and tidal). Peak production is exported. And this is Germany, which is overcast most of the time. If you put a similar program in a place like Arizona or Nevada or outback Australia, where very little grows, there would be HUGE gains over even that. And this is done with no cost to the taxpayer.
I don't have anything against renewables but I suggest you take a look at the amount of concrete needed to secure a wind farm, and how much CO2 emission in creating that concrete base. Not the mention the economic factors including maintenance.
You also are forgetting one more important factor. Management positions are often filled by some of the most senior employees within the company. Women are more likely to leave the workforce to have children, and thus have a few years less experience on average than men. This must add to the inequalities seen when comparing men and women on paper.
Sustainable products used to suck, and suck hard. But you know what? Cars sucked a hundred years ago, they were noisier, smellier, and far more dangerous than horses. But what happened when people started buying them? They got quieter, cleaner and safer. Same with environmentally sustainable devices and processes, they will exceed the potential of the old technology, and these new technologies are still in their infancy.
They don't have to store the energy, they can simply pump it straight to the grid, and, during times of surplus, i.e. a nice sunny day,they can simply compensate for the extra power by turning down the amount of power emitted through other means, like shutting off a dynamo or two at the hydro plant, or they can export the excess power.The energy generated by solar power contributes to daytime peak loads.No need for batteries (although batteries and capacitors are getting more and more efficient)
I find this lecture very much interesting, but at the same time there's a comercial side of it, "We Ikea are sustainable" "Buy from us" "We're saving the planet"..... not sure if I like that side! I'm pretty sure he's also telling other businesses how sustainability can also be profitable... =p
+Miguel Camel I do think that having more businesses be focused on sustainability is at least a step forward. But besides the side of it that makes people buy from businesses, we need to concentrate on ourselves and make change in our own daily lives. He says at 3:21 that people want the transition to a more sustainable world to be "easy." This is where we are wrong. We must sacrifice some comforts and our daily routine, or we will get be nowhere at the end of the day. If we do not limit our consumption, we will overtax our planet.
no, the stuff under unused land is already GONE. That is the stuff they dig up FIRST. Then comes the stuff that is harder to get. What do you have against using renewables anyway? Solar panels are getting more and more efficient every day, taking in greater proportions of energy from wider portions of the spectrum, and there is none of the risk of spillage. Wind turbines are also getting more efficient, and storage options are getting far more efficient too, while fossil fuels? not so much.
It is done with no cost to the taxpayers, it's done through electricity bills. The power distribution firms have to pay the people with the solar panels the same rate as they pay to other generators. And the solar panels have a limited lifespan, yes, but the infrastructure to support them don't, and they are not hard to recycle. And when they are replaced, new coatings and materials will mean that they are more efficient and cheaper.
$33 billion in oil subsidies per year. over $70 billion can be saved by ending the subsidies on both coal and gas. (those companies would still make a profit regardless). 10,000-40,000 birds killed per year by wind turbines (this number is dropping as engineers are working out ways to avoid birdstrike) as opposed to 150 - 170 million killed by powerlines and approx. 82,000 killed in the BP deep water horizon blowout.
a few tonnes. Once. Whereas every tonne of coal is a couple of tonnes of co2. Maintenance of windfarms is pretty negligible too, compared to constantly feeding an ongoing stream of coal into a powerplant. THAT is high maintenance, And you can actually USE the land between the towers on a windfarm, you can grow crops, while opencut coal mining leaves the land sterile.
I like your points here john, i would say have a look at the ted talk about new battery designs. In terms of progress, i think the question is, progress towards what?
Except they are gaining in efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness every year, particularly solar, with the coating technology getting so sophisticated that more and more wavelengths of light are being captured. It has already surpassed nuclear (Germany, for the cost of a new nuclear plant, was able to build the equivalent in solar instead) and the ongoing production costs after installation are minimal, because no fuel is required.
Well, there is the big one in the suburb of Mayflower, Arkansas,(same pipeline also ruptured in Ripley county Missouri), the one in North Dakota that the oil company neglected to report for 11 days, there were ten spills directly related to the Colorado floods, those are some of the major ones. And getting off of oil will mean that there would be no NEED to drill in Ecuador, Nigeria or the Caspian Sea, and therefore no spills there.
this is a good speech and the man has a lot of good points. However, I don't think that sustainability in the world can truly be attained while working within the current monetary system.
Why do coffee companies continue putting 12,000 to 15,000 tons of burlap bags from the green coffee beans in landfills. My husband figured out how to convert the bags into paper with a sister company picking up the bags and companies buying the paper. Caribou Coffee is doing it. They are using KONA PAPER in a variety of applications with plans to expand. I can't understand why other coffee companies speak about how great they are by recycling by just putting bins in front of their stores, why not do something that really helps the environment. Please encourage coffee companies to check into KONA PAPER to be better stewards.
I was pointing out that even at the rate of 40,000 birds killed annually, it does not come close to the number of birds killed by the transmission lines. And oil spills are NOT rare. Within thirty days (april 11-may 10 2013) there were 13 major oil spills in Nigeria, Canada, Ecuador and the US. 1.3 million gallons, mostly crude oil and tarsand diluted bitumen (which is even harder to clean up). This month, there have been spills in India and North Dakota, fire in the Caspian Sea, and far more.
Dr Warren Farrell - Why men earn more do a TH-cam search for that video, it explains why men make more and have the higher paying function, put short, it has to do with them caring more about what they make and women caring more about enjoying the job they do. Also, i would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and i believe this desire ( which i think many men do have deep deep inside, it has merely been stomped out since day one ) should have always been clear during the whole feminist revolution.
You actually be surprised at how well we actually can recycle our products, most IKEA stores themselves throw very little away nearly everything is recycled from wardrobes to mattresses. Still it can be done better and that is one of the things that as an IKEA co-worker annoys me for on top they do a lot, but on the store based level these things are HUGELY undervalued as it is all about saving costs and that hurts the real focus on sustainability at a store based level which is just sad :/
CharKueyTeow, I have a thought exercise for you. Say most of the engineers working for the fossil fuel industry, over the course of a few months, gradually started devoting themselves to renewable energy. How long would it take for it to become the economical choice? For the most part, engineers are just designing BETTER ways to get the stuff out of the ground. So when we eventually run out, all that effort was for nothing. We're on borrowed time here. Let's be responsible, and forget profit.
and that is where recyclability comes in. When they build recyclability into their products, they will find that it will be far cheaper to simply feed their old used products back into the chipper to be remoulded into new products.
John, part 2 Fine, lets roll with the idea of us becoming Independent from the earth in space. Unless we invent warp drives, the solar system is STILL a closed system, because the nearest star is over 4 light years away, and it would take hundreds of years to get there with conventional methods. I'm not implying that space is a waste of time, I just think that we are at least a hundred years from becoming entirely Independent of the earth. And that's if we try to achieve it ASAP.
Yes agreed. All you can do is create an equal playing field so men and women equally have a fair chance. If it turned out 90% women and men or whatever then so be it. Providing an equal playing field though is obviously rife with all kinds of problems - political, favoritism based on commonality, etc.
I know of two ways to lower Co2 to pre-industrial levels, The first is permaculture, the second is NAWAPA. Why would you think there was a point of no return? Every living and complex system I know of has a Homeostasis. Modern science cannot predict the temperature, because it models the planet, like one would a car. The planet it's dying, it just needs to go on a diet. Mankind is part of the environment and how we treat each other is how we treat the environment.
My friend bought a lot led lightbulbs when he was finishing his house. He throw away receipts as he did not care because they suppose to last so long. Unfortunately most of them start breaking faster than old "short lasting" classic lightbulbs. Think there are two possibilities: electric grid must be prepared for this type of light or "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" is good and working fine, doesn't matter it's led, it's designed to break fast :/
Forcing 50% women into the management is not how you achieve equality. If a less meritorious woman is selected just for the sake of statistical equality, it would actually ruin her career as she fails to perform on par with her peers. Tackling the root problem, like making sure women aren't discriminated against in interviews, motivating women to take STEM and business courses at school etc. is the right way to go.
I would like to hear precisely how Ikea helps children other than ensuring they aren't working. Many children work because an income is a necessity for them, and while child labour is en evil, it may be a necessary one until the larger problems of widespread poverty can be properly sorted out.
pt.1 John, I agree with you, it is a lie saying those things cost the tax payers nothing. You know what else is a lie? Saying that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. For major issues, only creditable persons can be editors of a page. Go ahead, go edit something non-trivial and see how fast it gets changed back. Also, they list sources at the bottom of every page, so you're not just taking the word of whoever the has the editing privileges.
I'm talking about the end consumer.. As long as the infrastructure remains inadequate and the price of renewable energy remains more expensive, consumers wont' choose renewable energy over fossil fuels. Eg: How could you drive an electric car long distance without readily accessible charging stations along the way. And I don't think the petroleum and mining engineers have the necessary skills to develop alternative energy sources, it is the other branches of engineering that are more qualified.
We can create debt free money in every country to produce sustainable systems that work with the environment, ecosystem, and humanity to optimize efficiency, labor, resources, recycling, equality, and the use of money itself.
He's just saying that women should retain the right and whatever to get any job. But it shouldn't be mandatory for any business to employ women in certain positions when there are men who would do a better job to employ. Just like he says: "meritocracy".
"The 'Middle Class' is not hurt in any way, shape or form by regulation" Then who do you think pays the cost of the regulations? "That 3billion u speak of isn't poor due to regulation(ask Chinese citizens)" China is reducing regulation, and their economy is improving, raising people out of poverty and into the "middle class". When China was very tightly regulated, almost everyone was "poor". Your example proves my point.
John, Resources may not be strained, but the allocation of resources is definitely skewed. Why would we try to go to space when we won't even feed everyone on the planet right now? It's like paying for Internet without owning a computer. It's just irresponsible.
I think he was showing that it may look like a big number but there are large numbers of birds killed by power production already they just aren't talked about. Perhaps one could relate it to how flying is safer per mile traveled than driving but plane crashes get news coverage and some people feel flying is more dangerous.
pt.2 John, Fine, Wikipedia isn't reliable, I can deal with that. The fact of the matter is we have created an infinite growth economy in a world of limited resources. Either we keep taking steps toward sustainability and efficiency or we live in a constant battle for resources. Fossil fuels are becoming more and more obsolete as technology is increasing at an exponential rate. I say we kick start our natural evolution by striving for sustainability rather than being forced by laws of nature.
Since we're on the subject of equality, I want to know how come we still have hereditary monarchies and titles all over the developed world? If we need someone for ceremonial roles, why can't we have an elected monarchy?
Most of the slanderous edits on Republican (and Democratic) Wikipedia pages were quickly taken down, and those pages locked off, and when pages are locked off for the general public, any edits (and their references) get thoroughly checked.
Well put. Do you think that we will ever reach a 50/50 gender distribution in management? I have always been under the impression that men have a somewhat greater tendency to seek managerial positions and that more women than men desire to stay home with their children (if that's a financial possibility of course), which seems like it may skew the hiring figures. Obviously these aren't very scientific conclusions, so feel free to enlighten me.
We have the tech to make fossil fuels obsolete but NOT LESS economical than renewable energy. When prices are lower and the infrastructure is there to support sustainable living, only then will renewable energy be used. The ugly truth is that sustainable living is good to do but not a need. As long as renewable energy remains more expensive than fossil fuels, there won't be any meaningful change.
The IPCC gives a whole range of scenarios. The upper one was a 6 Celsius rise but the lower one was only 1.5 Celsius rise by 2100. For the last 15 years there has only been a 0.06 Celsius rise which could indicate a trend towards the lower scenarios. Try reading " The rational optimist " by Matt Ridley or see climatologist Judith Curry's website
What % of world population already chronically/seriously dis-eased with Environmental Illnesses? May those in good health and the most compassionate hearts manage and lead. Look into the work of Theo Colborn, Claudia Miller, and others.
Cason Huffman Space-Exploration and the Images of earth made through that has done more for humanities awareness about the fragile nature of our planet, than any earth-based project ever could have.
Wikipedia is a starting point, and you will find all the sources you need down the bottom of the page. To simply declare "it's on Wikipedia, therefore it is a lie" is simply a ad hominem fallacy.
A "point of no return" is when you have destroyed so much in the 200 years we have lived on this planet, it can never be recovered in time." I certainly do believe we have reached that point. I agree the planet is dying and it needs a diet - a diet free of human beings. A time to renew itself. It has happened before and will happen again - only we are too stupid and arrogant to accept our own extinction. It won't be in our lifetimes, but it will be. We don't realize how large our footprint is.
This guy is funny, after the day to day issues, then they care about the BIG issues. Let's all be more sustainable and stop caring if we can put food on the table tonight!
I almost agree with the speaker... until he quoted other Good Company like 'Nike' , 'Timberland'...Those are for rich only, so I just can't appreciate what had they done that's good to environment....Speaking of IKEA, only visited 2 or 3 times in my life so far, actually it has not much to do with my life and people around me, how ever green are their product, it is not green to bring it to my part of the world, when we have even greener local products,with more efficient distribution (carbon foot print) after retail. IKEA is selling green product to the 'middle class' and most of the time they buy more than what they need, that's not green.
Aa a matter of fact 'climate change' instead of global warming is already the alternativie labelling introduced by those that disagree with the theory.
I'm all for it but I am already reminded of how its slightly too late in lieu of the global warming. I mean they say GW is unstoppable and the real issue is coming from industrial plants refineries and vehicles. Not much can be done with these two in a rapid sense.
"Let's be responsible, and forget profit." Forgetting profit means forgetting efficency. It means using more resources the exact opposite of what we all want. If renewables ever become more efficient then our current sources of energy (and our future sources) then people seeking profit will switch to them in droves to increase thier profits. If they remain less efficient and as such less profitable then it would be a waste of resources to switch to them.
So if you can pull 100 units out of a market, for 10 years before you run out forever, it's more efficient in your eyes, than pulling out 50 for all eternity? "If I can get 100.000.000x what I need now, why should I care if my grandchildren have enough to survive". That's what you are saying.
liquidminds A: Your math does not work. B: Humans are quite addaptive creatures. They find new ways to do things when neccessary. We will come up with new eneregy sources. Not using those things available to us now simply because some day in the future they will run out is foolish. Would you not eat corn now just because someday in the future there will be no corn? What are you saving tings for? The day when they become obsolete due to other advances? Then you wasted those resrouces. I want to live both now and in the future. You want to kill ourselvse off to save the future?!?!? If we don't make it through today we will never see tomorrow.
acvarthered what can I say. There are intelligent people who understand sustainability. And there are people like you. Sad fact of life. Can't change anything about it.
Then in this world, in which one's time is precious, how do you accommodate services with a resource-based economy? We started with bartering and moved to fiat money because services became valuable. It won't go the other way around again because it can't.
This is the case for sustainability: when it makes solid economic and business sense. We are approaching that where sustainable technologies produce savings that justify their investment. This is far more of a convincing argument than some fanciful hysteria over the potential results of supposed climate change.
Investing into something that does not produce the best return will leave any company to be destroyed by the competition. Be that incandescent light bulbs, or people unworthy of reaching high management levels by themselves and needing an extra hand. I said 'people'.
I have a grip with IKEA, they place there stores in high density urban areas like Dublin to maximize profit, understandable. Where do they put their wind farm so they look good, you guessed it, not close to their store where land is expensive but where land is cheap and not enough people to object, so there are four blots on the beautiful landscape in county Sligo so that IKEA Dublin can say they are heading for carbon neutral. IKEA you disgust me, never again will you get one cent of my money.
A definitive change into new human direction but there's one key point "Ikea " missed.Sure they could achieve all of their sustainability targets but again- would Ikea share 20 % of its annual profits with all its total employees ? This would complete the sustainability cycle.
I got to thinking about future generations and how our decisions now will undoubtedly impact them and I just want to leave this Earth in better condition than when I found it.
Anybody got the real numbers for this fella? Unfortunately for IKEA, they are like a speck of sand on the beach. I admire their determination, but it is not enough. When all the humans are gone one day, then I would say their approach might work.
Why should having an equal share of women be part of a sustainability or any business need beyond the marketing and PR department? The end ratio of men to women is irrelevant. Regardless of gender, religion, race, it should be about enforcing a level playing field instead of insisting by force on a predetermined ratio of exactly 1:1. Insistence of gender equality will just mean weaker performance which hurts the very people that the company is supposedly trying to protect.
I believe in equality but Paternity is a major factor which misrepresents SOME of the sexism in the workforce. Let’s assume 25% of ALL women take 5 years to have kids in their 30’s. By removing these women from the equation, a huge % of the most suitable female candidates has dropped. While women are at home raising our future leaders other candidates are working their way up the ladder to senior management. Upon returning to work, women need to catch up whilst maintaining family commitments.☮
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
And as of 2018, 70% of Ikea's products were either renewable or recycled. Excellent work!
It was a very impressive lecture. Recently, many factors have caused environmental pollution. Until recently, many people suffered from fine dust in Korea. As such, environmental damage has side effects. I think we should all work hard to protect the environment from getting worse in the future. In particular, in the video, I came to my heart by saying, "The environment has changed from being good to being a must." I also sympathize greatly with this sentence. We feel that preserving the environment has become essential, not optional.
I'm only commenting to raise the search ranking. We need more of this as a planet.
And here I was thinking this guy would get a standing ovation! What's wrong with you TED! You stand for pretty much everyone why not this guy?
People need to accept the fact that women are better are some tasks, while men are better at others. Let things work themselves out naturally.
Love that corporations are working towards sustainability, because in my view; governments are led by corporations.
John,
You're right. We have been growing food without soil for decades. We will be able to achieve this. The question is, how soon? It looks to me like society is getting closer and closer to collapse. Like I said before, even If we start working on this ASAP it will be a century before we move any substantial amount of the population into space. Wouldn't it be responsible to achieve a level of sustainability, efficiency, and reduction of scarcity here on earth before we start moving to space?
The most important message: be discerning consumers!
you can find all that on Wikipedia. 17% of Germany's electricity production is created through renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and tidal). Peak production is exported. And this is Germany, which is overcast most of the time. If you put a similar program in a place like Arizona or Nevada or outback Australia, where very little grows, there would be HUGE gains over even that. And this is done with no cost to the taxpayer.
I don't have anything against renewables but I suggest you take a look at the amount of concrete needed to secure a wind farm, and how much CO2 emission in creating that concrete base. Not the mention the economic factors including maintenance.
well nice, but... isn't most sustainable thing to do is not to buy new furniture unless we have to.
You also are forgetting one more important factor. Management positions are often filled by some of the most senior employees within the company. Women are more likely to leave the workforce to have children, and thus have a few years less experience on average than men. This must add to the inequalities seen when comparing men and women on paper.
Hmmm.....sustainability, not just a to do idea but now a must to do idea. Applaude
Sustainable products used to suck, and suck hard. But you know what? Cars sucked a hundred years ago, they were noisier, smellier, and far more dangerous than horses. But what happened when people started buying them? They got quieter, cleaner and safer. Same with environmentally sustainable devices and processes, they will exceed the potential of the old technology, and these new technologies are still in their infancy.
They don't have to store the energy, they can simply pump it straight to the grid, and, during times of surplus, i.e. a nice sunny day,they can simply compensate for the extra power by turning down the amount of power emitted through other means, like shutting off a dynamo or two at the hydro plant, or they can export the excess power.The energy generated by solar power contributes to daytime peak loads.No need for batteries (although batteries and capacitors are getting more and more efficient)
I find this lecture very much interesting, but at the same time there's a comercial side of it, "We Ikea are sustainable" "Buy from us" "We're saving the planet"..... not sure if I like that side!
I'm pretty sure he's also telling other businesses how sustainability can also be profitable... =p
+Miguel Camel I do think that having more businesses be focused on sustainability is at least a step forward. But besides the side of it that makes people buy from businesses, we need to concentrate on ourselves and make change in our own daily lives. He says at 3:21 that people want the transition to a more sustainable world to be "easy." This is where we are wrong. We must sacrifice some comforts and our daily routine, or we will get be nowhere at the end of the day. If we do not limit our consumption, we will overtax our planet.
no, the stuff under unused land is already GONE. That is the stuff they dig up FIRST. Then comes the stuff that is harder to get.
What do you have against using renewables anyway? Solar panels are getting more and more efficient every day, taking in greater proportions of energy from wider portions of the spectrum, and there is none of the risk of spillage. Wind turbines are also getting more efficient, and storage options are getting far more efficient too, while fossil fuels? not so much.
It is done with no cost to the taxpayers, it's done through electricity bills. The power distribution firms have to pay the people with the solar panels the same rate as they pay to other generators. And the solar panels have a limited lifespan, yes, but the infrastructure to support them don't, and they are not hard to recycle. And when they are replaced, new coatings and materials will mean that they are more efficient and cheaper.
$33 billion in oil subsidies per year. over $70 billion can be saved by ending the subsidies on both coal and gas. (those companies would still make a profit regardless). 10,000-40,000 birds killed per year by wind turbines (this number is dropping as engineers are working out ways to avoid birdstrike) as opposed to 150 - 170 million killed by powerlines and approx. 82,000 killed in the BP deep water horizon blowout.
a few tonnes. Once. Whereas every tonne of coal is a couple of tonnes of co2. Maintenance of windfarms is pretty negligible too, compared to constantly feeding an ongoing stream of coal into a powerplant. THAT is high maintenance, And you can actually USE the land between the towers on a windfarm, you can grow crops, while opencut coal mining leaves the land sterile.
I like your points here john, i would say have a look at the ted talk about new battery designs. In terms of progress, i think the question is, progress towards what?
sustainability=kesinambungan,keberlanjutan. jual sesuatu yang bagus atau cantik,harga terjangkau,kesinambungan produk
Except they are gaining in efficiency, reliability and cost effectiveness every year, particularly solar, with the coating technology getting so sophisticated that more and more wavelengths of light are being captured. It has already surpassed nuclear (Germany, for the cost of a new nuclear plant, was able to build the equivalent in solar instead) and the ongoing production costs after installation are minimal, because no fuel is required.
Well, there is the big one in the suburb of Mayflower, Arkansas,(same pipeline also ruptured in Ripley county Missouri), the one in North Dakota that the oil company neglected to report for 11 days, there were ten spills directly related to the Colorado floods, those are some of the major ones. And getting off of oil will mean that there would be no NEED to drill in Ecuador, Nigeria or the Caspian Sea, and therefore no spills there.
this is a good speech and the man has a lot of good points. However, I don't think that sustainability in the world can truly be attained while working within the current monetary system.
Why do coffee companies continue putting 12,000 to 15,000 tons of burlap bags from the green coffee beans in landfills. My husband figured out how to convert the bags into paper with a sister company picking up the bags and companies buying the paper. Caribou Coffee is doing it. They are using KONA PAPER in a variety of applications with plans to expand. I can't understand why other coffee companies speak about how great they are by recycling by just putting bins in front of their stores, why not do something that really helps the environment. Please encourage coffee companies to check into KONA PAPER to be better stewards.
I was pointing out that even at the rate of 40,000 birds killed annually, it does not come close to the number of birds killed by the transmission lines. And oil spills are NOT rare. Within thirty days (april 11-may 10 2013) there were 13 major oil spills in Nigeria, Canada, Ecuador and the US. 1.3 million gallons, mostly crude oil and tarsand diluted bitumen (which is even harder to clean up). This month, there have been spills in India and North Dakota, fire in the Caspian Sea, and far more.
Things are getting done. I'm glad to see so.
Dr Warren Farrell - Why men earn more
do a TH-cam search for that video, it explains why men make more and have the higher paying function, put short, it has to do with them caring more about what they make and women caring more about enjoying the job they do.
Also, i would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and i believe this desire ( which i think many men do have deep deep inside, it has merely been stomped out since day one ) should have always been clear during the whole feminist revolution.
You actually be surprised at how well we actually can recycle our products, most IKEA stores themselves throw very little away nearly everything is recycled from wardrobes to mattresses. Still it can be done better and that is one of the things that as an IKEA co-worker annoys me for on top they do a lot, but on the store based level these things are HUGELY undervalued as it is all about saving costs and that hurts the real focus on sustainability at a store based level which is just sad :/
CharKueyTeow,
I have a thought exercise for you. Say most of the engineers working for the fossil fuel industry, over the course of a few months, gradually started devoting themselves to renewable energy. How long would it take for it to become the economical choice?
For the most part, engineers are just designing BETTER ways to get the stuff out of the ground. So when we eventually run out, all that effort was for nothing. We're on borrowed time here. Let's be responsible, and forget profit.
and that is where recyclability comes in. When they build recyclability into their products, they will find that it will be far cheaper to simply feed their old used products back into the chipper to be remoulded into new products.
Thanks teacher for helping me with this video!!
John, part 2
Fine, lets roll with the idea of us becoming Independent from the earth in space. Unless we invent warp drives, the solar system is STILL a closed system, because the nearest star is over 4 light years away, and it would take hundreds of years to get there with conventional methods. I'm not implying that space is a waste of time, I just think that we are at least a hundred years from becoming entirely Independent of the earth. And that's if we try to achieve it ASAP.
9 out of 10 don't see the lies
Yes agreed. All you can do is create an equal playing field so men and women equally have a fair chance. If it turned out 90% women and men or whatever then so be it. Providing an equal playing field though is obviously rife with all kinds of problems - political, favoritism based on commonality, etc.
I know of two ways to lower Co2 to pre-industrial levels, The first is permaculture, the second is NAWAPA.
Why would you think there was a point of no return? Every living and complex system I know of has a Homeostasis. Modern science cannot predict the temperature, because it models the planet, like one would a car. The planet it's dying, it just needs to go on a diet.
Mankind is part of the environment and how we treat each other is how we treat the environment.
My friend bought a lot led lightbulbs when he was finishing his house. He throw away receipts as he did not care because they suppose to last so long. Unfortunately most of them start breaking faster than old "short lasting" classic lightbulbs. Think there are two possibilities: electric grid must be prepared for this type of light or "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" is good and working fine, doesn't matter it's led, it's designed to break fast :/
Forcing 50% women into the management is not how you achieve equality. If a less meritorious woman is selected just for the sake of statistical equality, it would actually ruin her career as she fails to perform on par with her peers.
Tackling the root problem, like making sure women aren't discriminated against in interviews, motivating women to take STEM and business courses at school etc. is the right way to go.
I would like to hear precisely how Ikea helps children other than ensuring they aren't working. Many children work because an income is a necessity for them, and while child labour is en evil, it may be a necessary one until the larger problems of widespread poverty can be properly sorted out.
my favorite person!
María Medusa s yoo
pt.1 John,
I agree with you, it is a lie saying those things cost the tax payers nothing. You know what else is a lie? Saying that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. For major issues, only creditable persons can be editors of a page. Go ahead, go edit something non-trivial and see how fast it gets changed back. Also, they list sources at the bottom of every page, so you're not just taking the word of whoever the has the editing privileges.
I'm talking about the end consumer.. As long as the infrastructure remains inadequate and the price of renewable energy remains more expensive, consumers wont' choose renewable energy over fossil fuels. Eg: How could you drive an electric car long distance without readily accessible charging stations along the way. And I don't think the petroleum and mining engineers have the necessary skills to develop alternative energy sources, it is the other branches of engineering that are more qualified.
We can create debt free money in every country to produce sustainable systems that work with the environment, ecosystem, and humanity to optimize efficiency, labor, resources, recycling, equality, and the use of money itself.
He pulled so many 'facts' out of his arse in the first few minutes, you can make solid judgements about the video
He's just saying that women should retain the right and whatever to get any job. But it shouldn't be mandatory for any business to employ women in certain positions when there are men who would do a better job to employ. Just like he says: "meritocracy".
They are very inefficient at producing heat, too. The glass insulates it.
"The 'Middle Class' is not hurt in any way, shape or form by regulation"
Then who do you think pays the cost of the regulations?
"That 3billion u speak of isn't poor due to regulation(ask Chinese citizens)"
China is reducing regulation, and their economy is improving, raising people out of poverty and into the "middle class".
When China was very tightly regulated, almost everyone was "poor".
Your example proves my point.
John,
Resources may not be strained, but the allocation of resources is definitely skewed. Why would we try to go to space when we won't even feed everyone on the planet right now? It's like paying for Internet without owning a computer. It's just irresponsible.
I think he was showing that it may look like a big number but there are large numbers of birds killed by power production already they just aren't talked about. Perhaps one could relate it to how flying is safer per mile traveled than driving but plane crashes get news coverage and some people feel flying is more dangerous.
yes, your comment is an advertisement for a hangover movie. good job.
pt.2 John,
Fine, Wikipedia isn't reliable, I can deal with that. The fact of the matter is we have created an infinite growth economy in a world of limited resources. Either we keep taking steps toward sustainability and efficiency or we live in a constant battle for resources. Fossil fuels are becoming more and more obsolete as technology is increasing at an exponential rate. I say we kick start our natural evolution by striving for sustainability rather than being forced by laws of nature.
You will never get the Ayn Rand crowd on board with this. Selfishness is a virtue in their world.
Since we're on the subject of equality, I want to know how come we still have hereditary monarchies and titles all over the developed world? If we need someone for ceremonial roles, why can't we have an elected monarchy?
Most of the slanderous edits on Republican (and Democratic) Wikipedia pages were quickly taken down, and those pages locked off, and when pages are locked off for the general public, any edits (and their references) get thoroughly checked.
i trust this guy
Well put. Do you think that we will ever reach a 50/50 gender distribution in management? I have always been under the impression that men have a somewhat greater tendency to seek managerial positions and that more women than men desire to stay home with their children (if that's a financial possibility of course), which seems like it may skew the hiring figures. Obviously these aren't very scientific conclusions, so feel free to enlighten me.
Absolutely true! But you can not say it out loud :)
Well said.
Great message
Great talk !! ;-)
We have the tech to make fossil fuels obsolete but NOT LESS economical than renewable energy. When prices are lower and the infrastructure is there to support sustainable living, only then will renewable energy be used. The ugly truth is that sustainable living is good to do but not a need. As long as renewable energy remains more expensive than fossil fuels, there won't be any meaningful change.
How can I skip this 13 minutes commercial?
The IPCC gives a whole range of scenarios. The upper one was a 6 Celsius rise but the lower one was only 1.5 Celsius rise by 2100. For the last 15 years there has only been a 0.06 Celsius rise which could indicate a trend towards the lower scenarios. Try reading " The rational optimist " by Matt Ridley or see climatologist Judith Curry's website
What % of world population already chronically/seriously dis-eased with Environmental Illnesses? May those in good health and the most compassionate hearts manage and lead.
Look into the work of Theo Colborn, Claudia Miller, and others.
Cason Huffman Space-Exploration and the Images of earth made through that has done more for humanities awareness about the fragile nature of our planet, than any earth-based project ever could have.
Wikipedia is a starting point, and you will find all the sources you need down the bottom of the page. To simply declare "it's on Wikipedia, therefore it is a lie" is simply a ad hominem fallacy.
A "point of no return" is when you have destroyed so much in the 200 years we have lived on this planet, it can never be recovered in time." I certainly do believe we have reached that point. I agree the planet is dying and it needs a diet - a diet free of human beings. A time to renew itself. It has happened before and will happen again - only we are too stupid and arrogant to accept our own extinction. It won't be in our lifetimes, but it will be. We don't realize how large our footprint is.
This guy is funny, after the day to day issues, then they care about the BIG issues. Let's all be more sustainable and stop caring if we can put food on the table tonight!
I almost agree with the speaker... until he quoted other Good Company like 'Nike' , 'Timberland'...Those are for rich only, so I just can't appreciate what had they done that's good to environment....Speaking of IKEA, only visited 2 or 3 times in my life so far, actually it has not much to do with my life and people around me, how ever green are their product, it is not green to bring it to my part of the world, when we have even greener local products,with more efficient distribution (carbon foot print) after retail. IKEA is selling green product to the 'middle class' and most of the time they buy more than what they need, that's not green.
But but, I like my heaters that produce light on the side. Its fucking cold!
Aa a matter of fact 'climate change' instead of global warming is already the alternativie labelling introduced by those that disagree with the theory.
I'm all for it but I am already reminded of how its slightly too late in lieu of the global warming. I mean they say GW is unstoppable and the real issue is coming from industrial plants refineries and vehicles. Not much can be done with these two in a rapid sense.
"Let's be responsible, and forget profit."
Forgetting profit means forgetting efficency. It means using more resources the exact opposite of what we all want. If renewables ever become more efficient then our current sources of energy (and our future sources) then people seeking profit will switch to them in droves to increase thier profits. If they remain less efficient and as such less profitable then it would be a waste of resources to switch to them.
So if you can pull 100 units out of a market, for 10 years before you run out forever, it's more efficient in your eyes, than pulling out 50 for all eternity?
"If I can get 100.000.000x what I need now, why should I care if my grandchildren have enough to survive". That's what you are saying.
liquidminds A: Your math does not work.
B: Humans are quite addaptive creatures. They find new ways to do things when neccessary. We will come up with new eneregy sources. Not using those things available to us now simply because some day in the future they will run out is foolish. Would you not eat corn now just because someday in the future there will be no corn? What are you saving tings for? The day when they become obsolete due to other advances? Then you wasted those resrouces.
I want to live both now and in the future. You want to kill ourselvse off to save the future?!?!? If we don't make it through today we will never see tomorrow.
acvarthered what can I say. There are intelligent people who understand sustainability. And there are people like you. Sad fact of life. Can't change anything about it.
what an inspiration :)
Then in this world, in which one's time is precious, how do you accommodate services with a resource-based economy?
We started with bartering and moved to fiat money because services became valuable. It won't go the other way around again because it can't.
This is the case for sustainability: when it makes solid economic and business sense. We are approaching that where sustainable technologies produce savings that justify their investment. This is far more of a convincing argument than some fanciful hysteria over the potential results of supposed climate change.
Investing into something that does not produce the best return will leave any company to be destroyed by the competition. Be that incandescent light bulbs, or people unworthy of reaching high management levels by themselves and needing an extra hand.
I said 'people'.
if there's not enough women capable to capable to outcompete men as a CEO, one shouldn't force it
Love it! I'm learning. :-)
LED will last 25 years until the manufacturers find a way, as they did for the incandescent light bulb, to make them last 1000 hours.
You should watch the whole thing before you start judging.
3 billion people coming out of poverty and into middle class??? What planet are you living on because I'd like to go there...
I have a grip with IKEA, they place there stores in high density urban areas like Dublin to maximize profit, understandable. Where do they put their wind farm so they look good, you guessed it, not close to their store where land is expensive but where land is cheap and not enough people to object, so there are four blots on the beautiful landscape in county Sligo so that IKEA Dublin can say they are heading for carbon neutral. IKEA you disgust me, never again will you get one cent of my money.
Dude, you're part of the problem. congrats.
"we will ban the halogens and the CFLs"-stop telling businesses what to do, they know it better
A definitive change into new human direction but there's one key point "Ikea " missed.Sure they could achieve all of their sustainability targets but again- would Ikea share 20 % of its annual profits with all its total employees ? This would complete the sustainability cycle.
I got to thinking about future generations and how our decisions now will undoubtedly impact them and I just want to leave this Earth in better condition than when I found it.
Yes I know that but what's that. Your point is?
Anybody got the real numbers for this fella? Unfortunately for IKEA, they are like a speck of sand on the beach. I admire their determination, but it is not enough. When all the humans are gone one day, then I would say their approach might work.
If only energy companies would go "all in".
Why should having an equal share of women be part of a sustainability or any business need beyond the marketing and PR department? The end ratio of men to women is irrelevant. Regardless of gender, religion, race, it should be about enforcing a level playing field instead of insisting by force on a predetermined ratio of exactly 1:1. Insistence of gender equality will just mean weaker performance which hurts the very people that the company is supposedly trying to protect.
Solving that problem too quickly will not be a very good option.
Bravo Ikea:) Could you please think about having your meals in the restaurant's be Sustainable? 100km challenge?
there are more men than women who want to be managers in the first place
Also I find the man is selling Ikea a little more than he is actually selling sustainability :S
I believe in equality but Paternity is a major factor which misrepresents SOME of the sexism in the workforce.
Let’s assume 25% of ALL women take 5 years to have kids in their 30’s.
By removing these women from the equation, a huge % of the most suitable female candidates has dropped.
While women are at home raising our future leaders other candidates are working their way up the ladder to senior management.
Upon returning to work, women need to catch up whilst maintaining family commitments.☮
It would be nice if governments would take the initiative on steps like this rather than giving billions in subsidies to the oil industry.
Feminism is special rights and privileges for women.
First half is excellent, but the second half is out of the topic.
IKEA started off by building flatpack furniture, now everybody does it... They lead the way...
You have never heard of storing energy in batteries and transmitting it???