💡How can we and governments stop funding fossil fuels 🗞Feel free to comment other topics that are interesting 🎁 Consider subscribing, liking and commenting!
Getting out of fossil fuels seems impossible to me. I don’t mean the burning of fossil fuels, I mean the general use of them, for instance I’ve been told any electical wiring has a coating made from an oil-derivative. I also understand oil derivatives are used in certain medicines (or equipment?). I’d see this as different to burning FFs for transport - what do you think?
@@julkkis666 wouldn’t that be mistaking the goal of reducing carbon emission with getting out of fossil fuels? My understanding is the vast majority of damage is done by burning oil to create power, which doesn’t include broader uses (such as those mentioned above in medicine, as coating for wiring, lubricant in machines, etc). Why should alternatives be found for those when there is an excellent resource currently available? I understand and support the need to eliminate the burning of oil and FFs, but haven’t understood the benefit of stopping their use altogether. Could it be that some people confuse “stop burning fossil fuels” for “stop using fossil fuels”? Perhaps I also don’t know enough about the process, happy to be educated more on it :)
@@DarceG-jh1ik from what i understand, when processing crude oil, you get essentually a fixed ratio of all types of oil products, such as gasoline, diesel, etc. I personally believe that if the need for burning oil products goes down, the cost of the other products will go up. My belief is that the system will correct for that, by making traditional alternatives and new products more viable. If the phasing out of gasoline/diesel/burning oil is done at a slow enough (but not too slow) pase, alternatives will naturually be found for all those things. For example by using other sources such as wood.
Be cautious of all-or-nothing thinking. Most people recognize the value of petroleum products-they are foundational to the modern world, serving as the starting point for countless manufactured goods. The real problem isn’t their existence but the reckless overuse that’s destroying the planet. As this video points out, at the very least, we should demand that the fossil fuel industry operate within a truly free market. Ironically, many of the same individuals who loudly champion free-market principles are quick to support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. These subsidies come directly from taxes, which means the same people complaining about taxes are often fine with handing those funds over to oil companies. Here’s the reality: When you fill up at the gas station, you’re paying, say, $4.50 per gallon-a price that feels manageable but is fundamentally misleading. The actual cost of that gallon, factoring in subsidies and external damages, is closer to $6.50. That hidden $2 difference is paid through your taxes. Because you don’t directly see this hidden cost, you drive more than you might if the full cost were reflected at the pump. At the very least, we should eliminate these subsidies to make the market reflect the true cost of gasoline. Beyond that, we should also consider adding taxes to account for the future environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. This approach would make prices transparent and align them with their real economic and environmental impact.
In Australia the grid is 1million km total length. Transmission towers across open areas, distribution lines, and poles and wires in congested streets and suburbs. To millions and millions and millions of buildings, 20million buildings. The millions and millions of customers customers. Grid electricity energy is only 15% of all energy used. No CO2 emissions means 7 times more electricity AND grid capacity. New grid capcity is $1million per km. So 7 x 1million km x $ 1 million = $7 trillion Plus clean central generation =$1trillion Australian GDP = $ 1.5 trillion. The new 7 x grid capacity is stupendously expensive. 100years to build the grid. 7 x 100years = building new grid capacity, impossible. In future Australia 20million EVs and 20million buildings rooftop solar PV and no grid expansion. EVs big battery parked 23hrs every day and drive building to building is an investment that must be utilised for maximum return. Nuclear electricity claims maximum UTILIZATION FACTOR, but EV UTILIZATION FACTOR is a dirt cheap priority that does not need a new grid demanding maximum it's UTILIZATION FACTOR. Nobody can see the connection between the central generation and the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of customers. It is the $TRILLIONS and $TRILLIONS and.... grid connection. Do the maths.
If only governments would stick to their core mandates of National defence, a legal system, national infrastructure (roads, ports, airports), law enforcement, and boarder control, then perhaps we could stop this insanity of using state power to pursue ideological aims.
But that is ideological, it would make the rich richer, and the poor even poorer. It would mean that anything which is in the group interest but not the individual interest wouldn't happen. Poor kids wouldn't get any education, so there wouldn't be educated workers and the whole economy would suffer. There are arguments that governments do things the shouldn't because it looks good in the news, and that they are producing too much bad legislation, but that doesn't mean that we want to live in a libertarian hell hole.
@@daveansell1970 A Libertarian Hell hole. That's a interesting concept. Perhaps you could tell me how much government is enough? Better yet, how much government is enough if it's the opposite ideology you subscribe to? Graphing out the current trajectory, where every year we have a plethora of new regulations and laws from multiple levels of government, decade after decade, and with very few to none being rescinded, and you find the inevitable result must be absolute authoritarianism. I have no problem with this, so long as I get to be a senior member of the ruling politbureau.
@@daveansell1970 A Libertarian Hell hole. That's a interesting concept. Perhaps you could tell me how much government is enough? Better yet, how much government is enough if it's the opposite ideology you subscribe to? Graphing out the current trajectory, where every year we have a plethora of new regulations and laws from multiple levels of government, decade after decade, and with very few to none being rescinded, and you find the inevitable result must be absolute authoritarianism. I have no problem with this, so long as I get to be a senior member of the ruling politbureau.
💡How can we and governments stop funding fossil fuels
🗞Feel free to comment other topics that are interesting
🎁 Consider subscribing, liking and commenting!
what a great video! so much data to confront this idea that oil and gas are just cheap because they are, when they're not... keep the great work! ♥
Thank you so much!❤
keep making videos and improving, this stuff is important thank you
Thank you!
huge improvement in the video quality!! - Jean
Thanks!
Love the new format
Thank you
great vid bro
🙏
Amazing video - this should be shown to all governments!
Thank you Guillermo
Getting out of fossil fuels seems impossible to me. I don’t mean the burning of fossil fuels, I mean the general use of them, for instance I’ve been told any electical wiring has a coating made from an oil-derivative. I also understand oil derivatives are used in certain medicines (or equipment?). I’d see this as different to burning FFs for transport - what do you think?
Tyres are burnt as biomas non of this matters the previous generations realised nd just chewed on
technically, if oil usage was more expencive, alternatives for oil derivitives would in theory be found faster.
@@julkkis666 wouldn’t that be mistaking the goal of reducing carbon emission with getting out of fossil fuels? My understanding is the vast majority of damage is done by burning oil to create power, which doesn’t include broader uses (such as those mentioned above in medicine, as coating for wiring, lubricant in machines, etc). Why should alternatives be found for those when there is an excellent resource currently available? I understand and support the need to eliminate the burning of oil and FFs, but haven’t understood the benefit of stopping their use altogether. Could it be that some people confuse “stop burning fossil fuels” for “stop using fossil fuels”? Perhaps I also don’t know enough about the process, happy to be educated more on it :)
@@DarceG-jh1ik from what i understand, when processing crude oil, you get essentually a fixed ratio of all types of oil products, such as gasoline, diesel, etc. I personally believe that if the need for burning oil products goes down, the cost of the other products will go up. My belief is that the system will correct for that, by making traditional alternatives and new products more viable. If the phasing out of gasoline/diesel/burning oil is done at a slow enough (but not too slow) pase, alternatives will naturually be found for all those things. For example by using other sources such as wood.
Be cautious of all-or-nothing thinking. Most people recognize the value of petroleum products-they are foundational to the modern world, serving as the starting point for countless manufactured goods. The real problem isn’t their existence but the reckless overuse that’s destroying the planet.
As this video points out, at the very least, we should demand that the fossil fuel industry operate within a truly free market. Ironically, many of the same individuals who loudly champion free-market principles are quick to support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. These subsidies come directly from taxes, which means the same people complaining about taxes are often fine with handing those funds over to oil companies.
Here’s the reality: When you fill up at the gas station, you’re paying, say, $4.50 per gallon-a price that feels manageable but is fundamentally misleading. The actual cost of that gallon, factoring in subsidies and external damages, is closer to $6.50. That hidden $2 difference is paid through your taxes.
Because you don’t directly see this hidden cost, you drive more than you might if the full cost were reflected at the pump. At the very least, we should eliminate these subsidies to make the market reflect the true cost of gasoline. Beyond that, we should also consider adding taxes to account for the future environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. This approach would make prices transparent and align them with their real economic and environmental impact.
Good video 👍
Thanks!
🙌🙌🙌
Love going to bed after hearing Andreas calling the World economic forum dumbasses 😂
Didn't exactly call them dumbasses, just the article😅. However...
Vamos ❤
Leo😍😍
In Australia the grid is 1million km total length.
Transmission towers across open areas, distribution lines, and poles and wires in congested streets and suburbs.
To millions and millions and millions of buildings, 20million buildings.
The millions and millions of customers customers.
Grid electricity energy is only 15% of all energy used.
No CO2 emissions means 7 times more electricity AND grid capacity.
New grid capcity is $1million per km.
So 7 x 1million km x $ 1 million
= $7 trillion
Plus clean central generation
=$1trillion
Australian GDP = $ 1.5 trillion.
The new 7 x grid capacity is stupendously expensive.
100years to build the grid.
7 x 100years = building new grid capacity, impossible.
In future Australia 20million EVs and 20million buildings rooftop solar PV and no grid expansion.
EVs big battery parked 23hrs every day and drive building to building is an investment that must be utilised for maximum return.
Nuclear electricity claims maximum UTILIZATION FACTOR,
but EV UTILIZATION FACTOR is a dirt cheap priority that does not need a new grid demanding maximum it's UTILIZATION FACTOR.
Nobody can see the connection between the central generation and the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of customers.
It is the $TRILLIONS and $TRILLIONS and.... grid connection.
Do the maths.
If only governments would stick to their core mandates of National defence, a legal system, national infrastructure (roads, ports, airports), law enforcement, and boarder control, then perhaps we could stop this insanity of using state power to pursue ideological aims.
But that is ideological, it would make the rich richer, and the poor even poorer. It would mean that anything which is in the group interest but not the individual interest wouldn't happen.
Poor kids wouldn't get any education, so there wouldn't be educated workers and the whole economy would suffer.
There are arguments that governments do things the shouldn't because it looks good in the news, and that they are producing too much bad legislation, but that doesn't mean that we want to live in a libertarian hell hole.
@@daveansell1970 A Libertarian Hell hole. That's a interesting concept. Perhaps you could tell me how much government is enough? Better yet, how much government is enough if it's the opposite ideology you subscribe to? Graphing out the current trajectory, where every year we have a plethora of new regulations and laws from multiple levels of government, decade after decade, and with very few to none being rescinded, and you find the inevitable result must be absolute authoritarianism. I have no problem with this, so long as I get to be a senior member of the ruling politbureau.
@@daveansell1970 A Libertarian Hell hole. That's a interesting concept. Perhaps you could tell me how much government is enough? Better yet, how much government is enough if it's the opposite ideology you subscribe to? Graphing out the current trajectory, where every year we have a plethora of new regulations and laws from multiple levels of government, decade after decade, and with very few to none being rescinded, and you find the inevitable result must be absolute authoritarianism. I have no problem with this, so long as I get to be a senior member of the ruling politbureau.