♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: th-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/w-d-xo.html
it's funny how we needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 350ppm but now (10 years later) we're sitting at about 415ppm and are seeing the beginning of some of the worst climate disasters
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think many people really understand what the Cap & Trade really means, your explanation is simple enough for everyone to understand and clearly show us what is the problem of it.
Yikes! Thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. It is important information that everyone needs to know. Climate change is a ticking bomb and needs proper solutions to correct the damage we have done and prevent more damage. I want a healthy environment for my grandchildren and I will to all I can to insure that. Thank you for all the good you do Annie!
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 th-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/w-d-xo.html
This video is very well composed to address issues with a global cap and trade but it considers a very specific set of assumptions for the set up: 1. The cap & trade system applies to the entire globe. 2. A cap & giveaway scheme is enacted. 3. Offsets occur in 3rd world countries where corrupt practices will lead to meaningless offsets. The first assumption makes any policy option pretty much impossible to get everyone on board. Each nation faces its own abatement costs, has a unique government/industry interface, and has its own sovereignty (usually). No single target will work at that scale and no tax/subsidy scheme is possible due to logistics and sovereignty issues. A regional cap & trade policy would more accurately reflect local abatement costs, be more enforceable and avoid sovereignty issues. The second assumption of a cap and giveaway is just one scheme for intial distribution of permits. Using an auction scheme to distribute permits forces the firms that pollute the most to buy the most permits at higher costs according to their willingness (and ability) to pay. The firms effectively reveal their emission levels and abatement costs in the auction. The proceeds from the auction can go into addressing the ecological debt that was mentioned in the video. The third assumption is that offsets occur in 3rd world countries. Offsets can also take place in the country where the pollution originates. If the country isn't very corrupt, offset projects can be properly vetted and monitored, with fines and conditions for violations. This also allows for more citizen whistleblowers as people who live in that region are more likely to see something is up and to say something as they are more invested in the place they live (ostensibly). Offsets are still problematic as measuring their true impact is difficult and some measure of cheating is to be expected, but they can be a lot more legitimate than descibed and cheating happens pretty much everywhere in any system. I feel like this video should be edited to address the specific set of assumptions and and exceptions it employs to make its points in the interest of clarity and fairness to the cap & trade system If you made it this far, thank you for reading
Yea. It's foolish to say 'stop' climate change, a natural phenomenon. However, we can slow it down by changing our actions. Sadly 'climate change' has also become a distraction from the real problem (it is a symptom - not the problem). Certain human actions/behaviour negatively impact eco-systems and life forms on Earth. There is NO QUESTION about that. Industry dictates what consumers demand. We need to change our ways. Well done Annie, for another enlightening vid.
Ya ....by my personal view.. im also agreed that this whole video is regarding exceptions but it can help us also in many ways... For this really I want to know good vibes regarding this system......
they don't let folks that they don't own run for president. They own the TV networks you need to get noticed nationally and we have seen time and time again that they simply don't give you time if they don't want you
To be honest, in my opinion none of your arguments against cap and trade really make any sense (sorry this got so long): 1. First argument (somewhat implicit): "Cap and trade is bad because some of the people trading the certificates would speculate and make money/get rich in the process". Well, speculators do not always get rich, sometimes they also lose money (e.g. when a bubble bursts). More importantly, if cap and trade is both effective in achieving its goal (reducing carbon emissions and thus helping solve the climate crisis) and also cost-effective (able to achieve this goal at lower cost to society compared to alternative ways like regulation), does it really matter if some people make a living trading those certificates? The amount of money traders or speculators make would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the main effects of cap and trade (making goods more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emission their production creates and therefore giving companies a real incentive to reduce those emissions). 2. "Cap and trade is bad because big polluters (companies that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases) are getting certificates for free". Well guess what, without cap and trade (e.g. right now), big polluters are already getting the right to pollute for free, since they do not have to buy any certificates at all (since certificates do not exist). So even if you were to give all the certificates out for free, it would not be worse than the situation right now. More importantly, this is not really an argument against cap and trade *itself* - it is an argument against a certain *way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works just as well if all certificates are auctioned off, so every company would have to buy the certificates corresponding to its emissions. This also would (obviously) create additional government revenue - which could be used to lower other taxes (for example), so that the total burden for producers and consumers would remain the same. 3. "Cap and trade is bad, because climate change will have very serious consequences for the people living in poor countries that did not contribute to the problem" That (the negative consequences of global warming) is actually not an argument *against*, but *for* cap and trade. Economists have argued for years that market based schemes (like a carbon tax or cap and trade) are able to achieve the goal (reducing the emission of greenhouse gases) at lower cost to society (less loss of individual freedom and monetary wealth) compared to more conventional policy instruments (e.g. the government passing strict regulations regarding those emissions). The corresponding argument is covered in advanced economics classes in college, and it is not overly hard to understand for someone with some intermediate knowledge in economics, but admittedly most people will not be willing to invest the time necessary to educate themselves enough to understand it. However, I would argue that it is better to trust experts if they *are truly experts in their respective field* and *agree* on something, rather than just ignore what scientists have to say. And while the main economic argument for cap and trade is theoretical (e.g. relies on logical arguments), several empirical studies (e.g. about the emission trading scheme in Europe and those of some US-states) have confirmed that the predicted effects are indeed realized in the real world. Cap and trade is a real solution to the problem of global warming, it is the best solution we currently have, because it reduces emissions in the best way (where it can be reduced at the lowest cost to society). 4. "Cap and trade is bad because some offset credits would be created fraudulently (without really offsetting pollution)." Again, like (2), this is *not* an argument against cap and trade in general, but against a *specific way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works perfectly fine without any offset credits. 5. "Cap and trade is bad because we cannot agree on a global cap". Granted, the ideal solution to global warming would be to have all countries participate in one large cap and trade system. But that is also true for any other solution to global warming (e.g. regulations) - it is a global problem, so no country can solve it on its own. That, however, is not a (good) argument for doing nothing until some "global deal" is achieved - especially rich countries (e.g. members of the OECD) can do a lot by themselves. If all members of the OECD would have functioning cap and trade systems, with a reasonably ambitious path of reducing emission certificates over the years, this would have a large positive impact with regards to reducing global emissions. 6. "Cap and trade is bad because it creates a false sense of security, so less other action will be taken to really reduce emissions" This argument relies on the assumption that cap and trade does not really work - which is a false premise. It does work, it reduces emissions, and it does so at a lower cost to consumers, producers, society, than any other policy tool we know (e.g. traditional regulation). If you do not like a certain *way* in which cap and trade is/was introduced in form of a law, support the introduction/expansion of it in a better way (e.g. without giving away certificates to companies and without credits for offsetting emissions). Since global warming is a problem which involves a long time horizon and the cooperation of a lot of countries, it is already really difficult to fix it. Ignoring science (in this case, economics) about how best to achieve it will just make it even more difficult.
I actually agree with most of this comment. But there are some problems. Apart from the lack of reliable emission data that come with cap and trade solutions, there are also many other methodological problems that occur. It has been working in California and parts of Europe, but that doesn't mean it will keep working. In any case, it's still valuable for reducing emissions even if it may or may not be able to outright stop them. It stopped acid-rain globally, but the pollutants that cause acid rain aren't fundamentally important to our economy like fossil fuels. In conclusion, when used to limit carbon dioxide emissions, cap and trade works best as a piecemeal solution, best tested and implemented regionally. But sooner or later, we may have to implement more holistic solutions. Also, cap and trade is a little bit smoother than regional regulations and costs some personal freedom, but it's also a lot slower too and a lot less efficient per administrative costs than outright regulation. Both have a place in our diversity of tactics.
Annie, for the first time in any of her videos, does an excellent job of describing a problem (cap & trade) with actual factual data. And for as much of the video as she is directly talking about cap & trade, she's being honest and educational. It's once she starts talking about other stuff that it becomes dangerous propaganda. Search "Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique" for an explanation of what she says that's wrong.
Thanks for this video - I always had a feeling that there's something fishy with cap&trade, seeing that it is being misused all the time. Your video gave me much more clarity on what's really wrong with it. Goes to my favorites.
This video is highly misleading. Do not listen to this woman. The video portrays Cap & Trade as though it is a program that benefits polluters. It does not. It literally sets a limit, or more appropriately a "cap", on what they can produce. What used to be a free commodity to polluters is now a limited resource, which in effect means the externalities it causes now has a price. The cap is then reduced every year by governments, thus making the permit more expensive and incentivizing polluters to find clean alternatives to their means of operations. It has been successful in addressing other externalities that markets can produce. The video closes with a preposterous claim that Cap & Trade "protects businesses as usual" and that it gives us a false sense of progress by convincing us to drive less, change our bulbs, "while they take care of the rest" - implying they will continue to pollute at increasing levels, which they won't because they are literally capped from doing so. I am going to correct what this video gets egregiously wrong on this point. Cap & Trade makes carbon a limited commodity, like most other things in this world. As a result, it causes the ENTIRE economy to reorganize itself to adjust to this new reality, all through the efficient means of price signals. Cap & Trade, or even a carbon tax, will allow us to consume any good or service without having to think about what is most ecologically friendly (in terms of carbon emissions). Why? Because they entire supply chain behind that good or service has been readjusted accordingly to the new price of carbon. It effectively targets the source of the problem. And no, this does not "strengthen the case for utilities to continue to use coal", as it does precisely the opposite, especially since coal is the greatest contributor of carbon. I suggest listening to a resource more creditable and in touch with the realities of economics, such as the works of Professor William Nordhaus from Yale University, whom won the Nobel prize recently in this field of study. Economists are generally in favor of a Cap & Trade or Carbon Tax.
Okay, so, apart from the lack of reliable emission data there are also many other methodological problems that occur. It has been working in California and parts of Europe, but that doesn't mean it will keep working. In any case, it's still valuable for reducing emissions even if it may or may not be able to outright stop them. There are exceptions to the global consensus issues that I mentioned though. It stopped acid-rain globally, but the pollutants that cause acid rain aren't fundamentally important to our economy like fossil fuels. In conclusion, when used to limit carbon dioxide emissions, cap and trade works best as a piecemeal solution best tested and implemented recently. But sooner or later, we may have to implement more holistic solutions. Both have a place in our diversity of tactics.
lmao William Nordhaus, the same guy that thinks climate change will barely affect the economy because most jobs are indoors? The same guy who claims 3-4C of warming will be "optimal" for the economy? The same guy who thinks regional temperature change will be the only factor by which global warming affects economies? THAT guy? "Credible and in touch with the realities of economics" that's the funniest thing I've read in months
I really like the videos but I think the woman is still a bit naive. She's talking about 'our governments', the rich and powerful 1% who run big corporations have governments in their POCKETS...
This video has a lot of flaw and is very one sided to "cap and trade = bad". If it wasn't for collecting carbon credits by carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into the ground) or planting trees then these would not be profitable at all and no one would have much incentive to spend money to do it in the first place. Also, completely killing the coal industry is a bad things since local economies would entirely collapse without coal, so weening off coal and increasing jobs in other sectors that don't require degrees is the only way to do it without sky rocketing unemployment. Coal power also gets dirt cheap power rates where renewable energy get premium price power rates. This leaves coal plants having to pay for extremely high regulations, lots of operation costs and return has to sell their power for dirt cheap, a lot of times this puts coal plants out of business. I'm all for cap and trade and slowly moving towards more renewable sources, nuclear is probably the most reasonable option since renewables make shit energy/acre compared to nuclear power.
Annie Leonard, I like you videos, even though over a decade has passed, they are still relevant. Here in Canada, everyone is just stupid over Canada being net zero, like Canada not emitting any greenhouse gas is actually a finish line to saving the planet. Meanwhile 75% of our consumer goods that we purchase come from China that is ramping up emissions with more coal. Citizens in every wealthy country need to see their consumerism as the problem, greenhouse gas and plastic pollution are not the problem, they are symptoms and results of overconsumption by people who would rather leave it to big business to fix the problem without taking any ownership or responsibility for their own actions. Be the change you want to see people!
Cap-and-trade is complicated. After all, it worked when it came time to fix acid rain and even other environmental problems. The reason it worked for acid rain was because the pollutant chemicals that lead to acid rain weren't tied to the prosperity of the economy at large like natural gas and other fossil fuels. It may fuel investment in green energy, but then again it may not because fossil fuel companies have lots of money and have consistently shown that they'd rather spend it on corporate lobbying to stop environmental progress than they would spend it to transition to renewable energy.
@fizzingwhizbeee Um, I think she might be referring to how much total money is spent on subsidies for each industry. The rate per watthour can be swamped by the number of watthours subsidized. Do you have those figures?
This is the right attitude of Lie-berals. You do realize that bowels move for a very good reason. Conservatives will show you in the next election what has to happen in order for the country to be healthy again ! Can you imagine putting a picture of an iceberg on TV and then telling everyone it is caused by global warming. This was off the coast of Nfld. You know where the Titanic went down in the spring of the year when weather normally gets warm. The funny part was it happened way back when. The turn of the century. Long before global warming scheme was cooked up by Al Gore and his buddies. You know the ones who make over six figures every time they speak on it. Now you know where the snakeoil salesmen came from in the U.S. Come to Calgary and do some research on the weather patterns over the last ten years, then go and tell the world about all the inconsistent weather patterns. But no consistent warming happening. It's there, do your research !
This really helped me understand what's been going on under our noses. Get informed folks, we may need you to vote wiser from now on. We need leaders who'll do the right thing for everyone and for now on.
I'm not understanding how the first loop hole is an issue.. "all of the allowances are going to the major industries who were polluting in the first place. It's like they get rewarded for polluting" if the cap is set and met by these industries why does it matter? Smaller companies that don't pollute as much can make due with a smaller amount of allowances and as long as all companies abide by the limit there shouldn't be a problem. As the cap reduces over the years, the companies won't even need to be distributed all those free allowances as they've gotten on board on cleaner energy. The only problem I see with this is the offsetting.
I like how she blamed Western countries for the problems. So let me get this straight, I'm from a Western country now I'm being punished for things that happened upwards to over a 100 years ago. Very interesting thought process, a little hyperbolic, and for the record I think we should clean up the The world. When China gets on board and India who are the 2 biggest polluters in the world I think the cap and trade could be useful. I don't need a guilt trip from anybody.
This video is innocently (?) based on misunderstandings. 1 - Cap and Trade is meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL mesure to combat Climate C 2 - The purpose of C&T is to reduce the costs for private entities through the market 3 - Carbon credits given from the government are not an additional asset given the fact that the polluter HAS TO GIVE THEM BK EVERY YEAR to the authority. 4 - In EU CO2 pollution has been REDUCED even more than the Kyoto Protocol Committment: see Eu Env Agency reports
As someone who has persistently despaired about the liberal/left's ability to come up with arguments that will appeal to voters other than themselves, that draws in outsiders rather than repelling them, this is the most hopeful series of presentations I've ever seen. Well done.
The two problems she addresses can be dealt by 1. auctioning permits and 2. establishing rigid criteria for offsets. The number 3 disappears since the system works.
i just meant to change the subscript for simplicity when you are counting, you can keep it o2 if you want just make your coefficient 7 not 14 or else you are misrepresenting the equation. really this is getting off topic though. my point is that your assertion regarding 6H2O+7C02 is wrong.
@survivalpodcasting However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase. In facts this is stated in the conclusion where Bounoua writes, "the feedback slows but dose not alleviate the projected warming" However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
This ‘surplus right’ is then sold to a high-polluting firm which gives it the right to pollute the same amount of the ‘surplus right’. Hence, no additional permits are given, just transferred to another party through the market. Emission levels do not increase because the sum of permits equal the cap.
Exactly. And see this is where the problem lies doesn't it? How exactly do you prevent a company from doing this? Free Market Economics dictates that this problem will take care of itself. But as you clearly showed, it does not. So obviously some regulation is needed. Not a boatload of inefficient, counter-effective regulations and bureaucracies like we have, but rather efficient, carefully managed ones.
Don't agree with much of what you said here, but I really like how you said it. I think the critics at least owe you the courtesy of making a more persuasive cartoon for their point of view.
Annie goes back to basic principles to help us think clearly about this complex issue. A definite 'must see' for anyone who cares about our planet. Thank you!
Also, in Yala (Thialand) a Japanese power company (EGCO) is offsetting its carbon emissions by building a power plant fueled by rubber, wood and waste (carbon neutral stuff). This plant is causing other types of pollution to the surrounding area's air, land and water. Although there is an ongoing dispute over this with the locals in Yala, the focus is on carbon efficiency rather than broader environmental issues concerning all types of pollution.
majority of people in this world wouldn't bother to tree-hug unless they are going to die tomorrow for not doing it that is why cap and trade is the only way which might prevent such scenario from happening in the first place, it creates incentives cap and trade works, and this video is outdated
Not outdated, still stands. The UN is sticking to this plan. And this women would have changed, or corrected this if it had changed. She keeps up on this, she believes 100 % in climate change and wants a solution, and this system only makes it worse.
lancetonsow it works to fill government coffers with more tax money. catholicism, marxism etc -all claim that most people are evil and have to be controlled, manipulated by fear or outright intimidated. i say corporatism both within government and some corporations themselves distorts our free market with bailouts and legislative intervention which then prevents consumers from having healthier and more responsible options. the biggest examples are the former and present communist bloc nations themselves-which through state owned or controlled entities are the worst polluters and human rights violators on earth. we have social media. we have purchasing power. there's way enough influence to be collectively wielded to create unbearable societal pressure on those who selfishly abuse the ecology. Taxation schemes are actually ineffective in comparison because the biggest polluters find ways to avoid the tax while those who don't pollute are forced to pay most the cost. activists only need to get the word out on which entities pollute so making them less attractive to investors and customers alike.
Hey Lance ! You took it hook line and sinker. Do more research on the weather patterns over the last 10 years. You can start with here in Calgary. See if you can find consistent patterns of warming in our city over that period of time. Just to save you some time. It doesn't exist. But if you want to waste your valuable time on more nonsense. Knock yourself out ! Conservatives can use another good laugh !!
@@bademoxyMarxism actually makes as few moral claims as possible. It's less about controlling and more about limiting undue control. Also, past communist-striving nations weren't the worst emitters, nor the worst human rights violators, they were certainly bad, but some (like Vietnam, some African domains, and many Latin American domains) were not bad at all. If you compare the levels of pollution and rights violations from before the revolutions to after, with the exception of certain parts of the USSR and in China where in some cases it was actually far worse. Also modern China isn't really even communist-striving, they just call themselves communist the same way the Nazis called themselves socialists. North Korea likewise has never been communist-striving. They literally have three classes (arguably four) and are a caste system
It seems to me that this system takes advantage of the situation rather than solving it. We would be much better off changing our way's. For example, we should use; solar power, bio fuel, wind power, harness the power of the sea etc... There are loads of other options, infact the deisil engine was built to run on veg oil. We need to replace petrol and deisil with boi feul, which can be made from all kinds of different things, of which 'algie' is one of the most efficient (so I believe).
It makes no sence that so many scientists are lying!! Besides, climatic changes are evident and dramatic if you visit Latino America, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, etc. Good iniciative Story of Staff
#4 Company razes a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees and they get offset permits. How is that relevant to cap and trade policy? Sin embargo, if supplanting a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees provide net benefits to a sovereign country like Indonesia, then why not do it?
Exactly this type of videos is not making you any less blind... not to say that it's pure propaganda. Cap and trade is the closest thing to a solution that we have right now
The video does a good job of explaining how C&T is abused. But that doesn't mean the abuses are part and parcel of C&T. C&T is currently in use in the U.S. to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and it works very well. The video claims that approach can't be applied to carbon emissions. Why not? Why can't we enact safeguards to prevent giveaways, bogus projects, and other abuses under C&T?
What did you want to happen when the system itself rewards people to cheat and be dishonest? the problem is not laws or regulations, the problem is the system itself, as long as there is money for someone iin the process, it doesnt matter if its for killing babies, someone will do it... Its pure logic... thevenusproject dotcom
Excellent VIDEO. I will be showing this in my art/technology class when we get back from break! I'm planning a lesson plan around it. As I can see from the other comments here it is really hard to convince adults...so I'm going to start with their children!
Just to clarify I don't disagree with your proposal, I support regulation to prevent Monopolization. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy/circular logic in deregulating (nearly) everything like so many libertarians/conservatives claim to want, then turning around and claiming regulation as an answer to preventing monopolization.
Prior to humans, the ozone layer actually had holes, albeit smaller ones. Before that, there was actually no ozone layer at all. There were many periods of time when the ozone layer was almost obliterated while life was still on this planet before humans. This happens because of geological events such as major volcanoes. In fact, one single volcano emits more pollutants when it's active than most of the world's factories combined.
If we respected people's individual rights and actually had real arbitrators to protect these rights, there is no way polluters could get away with polluting anyone's air or property.
Actually, cap and trade did not fail in Europe, it is an extremely effective and cost-efficient tool to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. No major political parties are against it at this point. Yes, some of the details of the initial setup were not perfect (e.g. giving major producers of greenhouse gases those rights for free, or not reducing the total number of emission certificates fast enough leading to low prices), but they are fixed for the most part. Economists (especially those specializing in environmental problems) have been arguing for many years that a cap and trade system is the most efficient way (greatest reduction in greenhouse gases at the lowest cost to society), so it is honestly quite frustrating to me if some people who mean well but just do not understand enough (about how societies work) are against them ("Oh, you are creating the right to pollute and let brokers trade those rights on markets - of course of you are just evil capitalists and not some smart people who found a viable solution to a serious global problem").
No permits are created, only transferred. Low-polluting firms are rewarded in terms of profits and high-polluting firms get punished in terms of higher costs. Therefore it would be best for high-polluting firms to seek for low-pollution technologies and take advantage of the permit market.
#2Yes it is highly-recommendable to sell permits and fund a clean energy economy or compensate those harmed by climate change but to give a “dividend” or put rebates to fuel prices “while we transition to that clean energy economy” means to lower prices of oil and to increase its use which also means increasing the use of a pollution-generating substance.
DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. Currently, prices are $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline and $3.04 for jet fuel. Avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles, is sold for $13.61 a gallon. The military consumes about 1.2 million barrels of fuel each month in Iraq at $127.68 a barrel, a price that reflects crude oil refined into usable fuel. cont...
Cap and Trade is market based, relies on the market, markets are generally more efficient than the government in getting things done. But I have to agree with the free permits, the offset and distraction points. I don't believe we should rely on the government as well, it should be the government and the market.
No seriously, how do you meet these solid caps and pay for these carbon fees? Unless everyone on this website is tired of low costs and wants higher prices and higher taxes, we need something much more concrete than "solid caps, strong laws, citizen actions, and carbon fees."
additionally, though neither of us is an expert on the matter im sure you would agree that as i stated above to "wolfknows" the greenhouse effect is not up for debate, that is a universally acknowledged phenomenon. the debate is over to what degree our various emissions influence that effect. my thoughts are that we do have an impact on temperature and though its likely not as high as alarmists claim we dont know enough about climate systems to say how much change is safe change.
I have a solar array! I am pondering the addition of a second array- giving up many things I would like to afford the array. I want to do what I can do to help this planet more than I want new clothes, new shoes, boose, cigarettes, soda pop, vacations..... I say no to lots of THINGS so I can say yes to the planet. WHY- I love my grandson and granddaughters and want them to have a cleaner- better world! Everyone should try to do something to say this planet. Something beats nothing every time.
I have to plead ignorance from a total lack of time to research this topic thoroughly. My only thoughts on the matter are that I think far too many people are simply taking what others say as hard fact. Regardless of which side you're on, it is ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS to simply believe it because somebody says it. Just because somebody claiming to be an expert says something either for or against something, that doesn't make it true. Don't be sheep to be lead to the slaughter
This video is only helping you understand that cap and trade in the form it is now is not a sufficient solution for the problems we are facing. And by the way, stopping to think in absolutes would help you understand those kind of things a little better.
it does this by undercutting company D in any way it can think of, buys it out, or even goes as far as corporate sabotage. And thats not discounting regionalizing or whatnot (IE cable companies) Whatever the method, Company D is now out of business. Company A is now the last one standing, it has a monopoly. Which means it doesn't need to compete with anybody. Which means it can jack its prices though the roof unopposed, which means we're back with the exact same problem we started out with.
Mixed feelings about clip. Agree that Cap and trade or Offsets are scams or ineffective. Do not agree with the idea that global warming is imminent BUT should be addressed just for the fact that pollution is bad for everyone's health. If the clip was edited for the global warming, I'd give it a thumb up.
The Cap&Trade system works perfectly as long as it isn't watered down by weak and corrupt governments. U can impose a fixed cap on carbon emissions and let the market determine where reducing emissions is most efficient. What's the alternative? Some government bureaucrat deciding on who is allowed to pollute and who isn't?
@TheSAMathematician ... won't be enough to combat this. We will be digging a hole for ourselves to fix a problem, and we won't remotely fix said problem. Before we commit ourselves to a course of action, we should ask our selves what the costs of these actions would be, and what the costs of not undergoing these actions would be. If climate change is to be fought, a global consensus is required. Creating markets is the most efficient way to fight climate change.
This video goes under false premises: #1 “Cap and Giveaway”/”Free permits! The more they pollute, the more they get!” Well that is untrue. Initially, firms will be given permits which allow them to pollute the same emission levels for all firms. Firms who pollute less than the amount specified in their permits can sell those ‘surplus rights’ to high-polluting firms.
if plants took up whatever co2 was in the atmosphere they would never have the ratio in the proper equation. they perform specific processes and only use whats necessary. by your logic the plants could also use 8co2 or even 100co2 based on what was available. but the amt of co2 used is not dependent on ambient concentrations. also hydrogen monoxide is water, the di in front specifying two hydrogen is not necessary,if you meant OH- you mean hydroxide or a hydroxyl group depending on context.
The U.S. consumes about 21 million of the 86 million barrels of oil per day demanded on the global market. While the Defense Department is as the nation’s single largest user of energy, its 1.6 million gallons a day in Iraq is small relative to the total market. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per service member was about 1.67 gallons a day. In Iraq, it’s 27.3 gallons. cont...
♻️ The plastic crisis gets a lot of attention as pollution, but the environmental impact of plastic’s life cycle starts long before it ends up in our waterways and ecosystems. Watch our latest animation, The Story of Plastic: th-cam.com/video/iO3SA4YyEYU/w-d-xo.html
This is really helpful for my economics essay :).
thats why im here tooooo
it's funny how we needed to reduce CO2 emissions to 350ppm but now (10 years later) we're sitting at about 415ppm and are seeing the beginning of some of the worst climate disasters
Like what climate disasters?
@@thomaspopescu9952 *gestures at australia, puerto rico, houston, etc*
@jaredknight8838 you're using hurricanes as an example? Really?
You can really see now wild fires and floods rising sea levels
We never will change we just won’t 😢
Just wondering...where are you getting your resources from????
It's right in the description but I think the page isn't there anymore.
Very interesting explanation! You made the topic feel fun
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think many people really understand what the Cap & Trade really means, your explanation is simple enough for everyone to understand and clearly show us what is the problem of it.
Yikes! Thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. It is important information that everyone needs to know. Climate change is a ticking bomb and needs proper solutions to correct the damage we have done and prevent more damage. I want a healthy environment for my grandchildren and I will to all I can to insure that. Thank you for all the good you do Annie!
What could go wrong if profit-driven corporations gained control your city's public water systems? Watch our latest animation, The Story of Water! 👉🏽 th-cam.com/video/04jTleV0gK0/w-d-xo.html
This video is very well composed to address issues with a global cap and trade but it considers a very specific set of assumptions for the set up:
1. The cap & trade system applies to the entire globe.
2. A cap & giveaway scheme is enacted.
3. Offsets occur in 3rd world countries where corrupt practices will lead to meaningless offsets.
The first assumption makes any policy option pretty much impossible to get everyone on board. Each nation faces its own abatement costs, has a unique government/industry interface, and has its own sovereignty (usually). No single target will work at that scale and no tax/subsidy scheme is possible due to logistics and sovereignty issues. A regional cap & trade policy would more accurately reflect local abatement costs, be more enforceable and avoid sovereignty issues.
The second assumption of a cap and giveaway is just one scheme for intial distribution of permits. Using an auction scheme to distribute permits forces the firms that pollute the most to buy the most permits at higher costs according to their willingness (and ability) to pay. The firms effectively reveal their emission levels and abatement costs in the auction. The proceeds from the auction can go into addressing the ecological debt that was mentioned in the video.
The third assumption is that offsets occur in 3rd world countries. Offsets can also take place in the country where the pollution originates. If the country isn't very corrupt, offset projects can be properly vetted and monitored, with fines and conditions for violations. This also allows for more citizen whistleblowers as people who live in that region are more likely to see something is up and to say something as they are more invested in the place they live (ostensibly). Offsets are still problematic as measuring their true impact is difficult and some measure of cheating is to be expected, but they can be a lot more legitimate than descibed and cheating happens pretty much everywhere in any system.
I feel like this video should be edited to address the specific set of assumptions and and exceptions it employs to make its points in the interest of clarity and fairness to the cap & trade system
If you made it this far, thank you for reading
Yea. It's foolish to say 'stop' climate change, a natural phenomenon. However, we can slow it down by changing our actions. Sadly 'climate change' has also become a distraction from the real problem (it is a symptom - not the problem). Certain human actions/behaviour negatively impact eco-systems and life forms on Earth. There is NO QUESTION about that. Industry dictates what consumers demand. We need to change our ways. Well done Annie, for another enlightening vid.
Simple solutions: set a limit, no exceptions!
This whole video was about exceptions. If there are none then cap and trade would work great.
Ya ....by my personal view.. im also agreed that this whole video is regarding exceptions but it can help us also in many ways... For this really I want to know good vibes regarding this system......
How come we don't see her in the presidential candidates?
they don't let folks that they don't own run for president. They own the TV networks you need to get noticed nationally and we have seen time and time again that they simply don't give you time if they don't want you
Yeah, I'd vote for her!
she gave up
To be honest, in my opinion none of your arguments against cap and trade really make any sense (sorry this got so long):
1. First argument (somewhat implicit): "Cap and trade is bad because some of the people trading the certificates would speculate and make money/get rich in the process".
Well, speculators do not always get rich, sometimes they also lose money (e.g. when a bubble bursts).
More importantly, if cap and trade is both effective in achieving its goal (reducing carbon emissions and thus helping solve the climate crisis) and also cost-effective (able to achieve this goal at lower cost to society compared to alternative ways like regulation), does it really matter if some people make a living trading those certificates? The amount of money traders or speculators make would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the main effects of cap and trade (making goods more expensive in proportion to the amount of carbon emission their production creates and therefore giving companies a real incentive to reduce those emissions).
2. "Cap and trade is bad because big polluters (companies that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases) are getting certificates for free".
Well guess what, without cap and trade (e.g. right now), big polluters are already getting the right to pollute for free, since they do not have to buy any certificates at all (since certificates do not exist). So even if you were to give all the certificates out for free, it would not be worse than the situation right now.
More importantly, this is not really an argument against cap and trade *itself* - it is an argument against a certain *way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works just as well if all certificates are auctioned off, so every company would have to buy the certificates corresponding to its emissions. This also would (obviously) create additional government revenue - which could be used to lower other taxes (for example), so that the total burden for producers and consumers would remain the same.
3. "Cap and trade is bad, because climate change will have very serious consequences for the people living in poor countries that did not contribute to the problem"
That (the negative consequences of global warming) is actually not an argument *against*, but *for* cap and trade. Economists have argued for years that market based schemes (like a carbon tax or cap and trade) are able to achieve the goal (reducing the emission of greenhouse gases) at lower cost to society (less loss of individual freedom and monetary wealth) compared to more conventional policy instruments (e.g. the government passing strict regulations regarding those emissions).
The corresponding argument is covered in advanced economics classes in college, and it is not overly hard to understand for someone with some intermediate knowledge in economics, but admittedly most people will not be willing to invest the time necessary to educate themselves enough to understand it. However, I would argue that it is better to trust experts if they *are truly experts in their respective field* and *agree* on something, rather than just ignore what scientists have to say.
And while the main economic argument for cap and trade is theoretical (e.g. relies on logical arguments), several empirical studies (e.g. about the emission trading scheme in Europe and those of some US-states) have confirmed that the predicted effects are indeed realized in the real world.
Cap and trade is a real solution to the problem of global warming, it is the best solution we currently have, because it reduces emissions in the best way (where it can be reduced at the lowest cost to society).
4. "Cap and trade is bad because some offset credits would be created fraudulently (without really offsetting pollution)."
Again, like (2), this is *not* an argument against cap and trade in general, but against a *specific way of implementing* cap and trade. Cap and trade works perfectly fine without any offset credits.
5. "Cap and trade is bad because we cannot agree on a global cap".
Granted, the ideal solution to global warming would be to have all countries participate in one large cap and trade system.
But that is also true for any other solution to global warming (e.g. regulations) - it is a global problem, so no country can solve it on its own. That, however, is not a (good) argument for doing nothing until some "global deal" is achieved - especially rich countries (e.g. members of the OECD) can do a lot by themselves. If all members of the OECD would have functioning cap and trade systems, with a reasonably ambitious path of reducing emission certificates over the years, this would have a large positive impact with regards to reducing global emissions.
6. "Cap and trade is bad because it creates a false sense of security, so less other action will be taken to really reduce emissions"
This argument relies on the assumption that cap and trade does not really work - which is a false premise. It does work, it reduces emissions, and it does so at a lower cost to consumers, producers, society, than any other policy tool we know (e.g. traditional regulation). If you do not like a certain *way* in which cap and trade is/was introduced in form of a law, support the introduction/expansion of it in a better way (e.g. without giving away certificates to companies and without credits for offsetting emissions).
Since global warming is a problem which involves a long time horizon and the cooperation of a lot of countries, it is already really difficult to fix it. Ignoring science (in this case, economics) about how best to achieve it will just make it even more difficult.
I actually agree with most of this comment. But there are some problems.
Apart from the lack of reliable emission data that come with cap and trade solutions, there are also many other methodological problems that occur. It has been working in California and parts of Europe, but that doesn't mean it will keep working. In any case, it's still valuable for reducing emissions even if it may or may not be able to outright stop them. It stopped acid-rain globally, but the pollutants that cause acid rain aren't fundamentally important to our economy like fossil fuels.
In conclusion, when used to limit carbon dioxide emissions, cap and trade works best as a piecemeal solution, best tested and implemented regionally. But sooner or later, we may have to implement more holistic solutions. Also, cap and trade is a little bit smoother than regional regulations and costs some personal freedom, but it's also a lot slower too and a lot less efficient per administrative costs than outright regulation. Both have a place in our diversity of tactics.
How do you put a meter on carbon ?
Annie, for the first time in any of her videos, does an excellent job of describing a problem (cap & trade) with actual factual data. And for as much of the video as she is directly talking about cap & trade, she's being honest and educational. It's once she starts talking about other stuff that it becomes dangerous propaganda. Search "Story of Cap & Trade, The Critique" for an explanation of what she says that's wrong.
Thanks for this video - I always had a feeling that there's something fishy with cap&trade, seeing that it is being misused all the time. Your video gave me much more clarity on what's really wrong with it. Goes to my favorites.
nearly 10 years later, Trump pulls from the Paris Agreement
and that's a good thing
@@elpeopuru3003 Amen!
@@MJTXAZ Amen!
"Over 10 years later, and there's still no sign of world ending climate change."
There fixed it. ;)
good. we decreased emissions more because of it. but libs will lib...
Thank you for these inspiring videos! I'll be showing them to my children and friends.
Is there a translation program for adding a subtitle for this video ? How can i do that ?
Go to www.Amara.org
Thank you for continuing to create enlightening videos for the world to watch, Annie!!
This video is highly misleading. Do not listen to this woman. The video portrays Cap & Trade as though it is a program that benefits polluters. It does not. It literally sets a limit, or more appropriately a "cap", on what they can produce. What used to be a free commodity to polluters is now a limited resource, which in effect means the externalities it causes now has a price. The cap is then reduced every year by governments, thus making the permit more expensive and incentivizing polluters to find clean alternatives to their means of operations. It has been successful in addressing other externalities that markets can produce.
The video closes with a preposterous claim that Cap & Trade "protects businesses as usual" and that it gives us a false sense of progress by convincing us to drive less, change our bulbs, "while they take care of the rest" - implying they will continue to pollute at increasing levels, which they won't because they are literally capped from doing so. I am going to correct what this video gets egregiously wrong on this point. Cap & Trade makes carbon a limited commodity, like most other things in this world. As a result, it causes the ENTIRE economy to reorganize itself to adjust to this new reality, all through the efficient means of price signals. Cap & Trade, or even a carbon tax, will allow us to consume any good or service without having to think about what is most ecologically friendly (in terms of carbon emissions). Why? Because they entire supply chain behind that good or service has been readjusted accordingly to the new price of carbon. It effectively targets the source of the problem. And no, this does not "strengthen the case for utilities to continue to use coal", as it does precisely the opposite, especially since coal is the greatest contributor of carbon.
I suggest listening to a resource more creditable and in touch with the realities of economics, such as the works of Professor William Nordhaus from Yale University, whom won the Nobel prize recently in this field of study. Economists are generally in favor of a Cap & Trade or Carbon Tax.
Okay, so, apart from the lack of reliable emission data there are also many other methodological problems that occur. It has been working in California and parts of Europe, but that doesn't mean it will keep working. In any case, it's still valuable for reducing emissions even if it may or may not be able to outright stop them. There are exceptions to the global consensus issues that I mentioned though. It stopped acid-rain globally, but the pollutants that cause acid rain aren't fundamentally important to our economy like fossil fuels.
In conclusion, when used to limit carbon dioxide emissions, cap and trade works best as a piecemeal solution best tested and implemented recently. But sooner or later, we may have to implement more holistic solutions. Both have a place in our diversity of tactics.
lmao William Nordhaus, the same guy that thinks climate change will barely affect the economy because most jobs are indoors? The same guy who claims 3-4C of warming will be "optimal" for the economy? The same guy who thinks regional temperature change will be the only factor by which global warming affects economies? THAT guy? "Credible and in touch with the realities of economics" that's the funniest thing I've read in months
@@corvid8461 Clock that tea!
I really like the videos but I think the woman is still a bit naive. She's talking about 'our governments', the rich and powerful 1% who run big corporations have governments in their POCKETS...
This video has a lot of flaw and is very one sided to "cap and trade = bad". If it wasn't for collecting carbon credits by carbon sequestration (pumping CO2 into the ground) or planting trees then these would not be profitable at all and no one would have much incentive to spend money to do it in the first place. Also, completely killing the coal industry is a bad things since local economies would entirely collapse without coal, so weening off coal and increasing jobs in other sectors that don't require degrees is the only way to do it without sky rocketing unemployment. Coal power also gets dirt cheap power rates where renewable energy get premium price power rates. This leaves coal plants having to pay for extremely high regulations, lots of operation costs and return has to sell their power for dirt cheap, a lot of times this puts coal plants out of business. I'm all for cap and trade and slowly moving towards more renewable sources, nuclear is probably the most reasonable option since renewables make shit energy/acre compared to nuclear power.
I could not agree more. Overall, this video is quite confusing and illogical with so many unsubstantiated claims in it.
No what she's saying is don't subsidize the coal industry because it incentivizes the coal industry to find smarter and better alternatives.
there is video im just not sure where you can find it
Annie Leonard, I like you videos, even though over a decade has passed, they are still relevant. Here in Canada, everyone is just stupid over Canada being net zero, like Canada not emitting any greenhouse gas is actually a finish line to saving the planet. Meanwhile 75% of our consumer goods that we purchase come from China that is ramping up emissions with more coal. Citizens in every wealthy country need to see their consumerism as the problem, greenhouse gas and plastic pollution are not the problem, they are symptoms and results of overconsumption by people who would rather leave it to big business to fix the problem without taking any ownership or responsibility for their own actions. Be the change you want to see people!
When a man with power allows his greed to prevail over his conscience...the world is screwed.
Lets all switch to nuclear energy folks; it's the greenest energy available today in these times of energy crises.
Oh PLEASE!
It's about CARBON CREDITS and MONEY. Period.
Stop being so gullible.
Cap-and-trade is complicated. After all, it worked when it came time to fix acid rain and even other environmental problems. The reason it worked for acid rain was because the pollutant chemicals that lead to acid rain weren't tied to the prosperity of the economy at large like natural gas and other fossil fuels. It may fuel investment in green energy, but then again it may not because fossil fuel companies have lots of money and have consistently shown that they'd rather spend it on corporate lobbying to stop environmental progress than they would spend it to transition to renewable energy.
@fizzingwhizbeee Um, I think she might be referring to how much total money is spent on subsidies for each industry. The rate per watthour can be swamped by the number of watthours subsidized. Do you have those figures?
let's tax the air.
Fun fact that's already a thing it's called Carbon Tax
This is incredibly liberal, but I think this is very moving and everyone should see it.
This is the right attitude of Lie-berals. You do realize that bowels move for a very good reason. Conservatives will show you in the next election what has to happen in order for the country to be healthy again ! Can you imagine putting a picture of an iceberg on TV and then telling everyone it is caused by global warming. This was off the coast of Nfld. You know where the Titanic went down in the spring of the year when weather normally gets warm. The funny part was it happened way back when. The turn of the century. Long before global warming scheme was cooked up by Al Gore and his buddies. You know the ones who make over six figures every time they speak on it. Now you know where the snakeoil salesmen came from in the U.S. Come to Calgary and do some research on the weather patterns over the last ten years, then go and tell the world about all the inconsistent weather patterns. But no consistent warming happening. It's there, do your research !
@@empoleon7750 I am now a communist
i know this isnt important but... why 360p? can you upload in 720 or something?
This really helped me understand what's been going on under our noses. Get informed folks, we may need you to vote wiser from now on. We need leaders who'll do the right thing for everyone and for now on.
I'm not understanding how the first loop hole is an issue.. "all of the allowances are going to the major industries who were polluting in the first place. It's like they get rewarded for polluting" if the cap is set and met by these industries why does it matter? Smaller companies that don't pollute as much can make due with a smaller amount of allowances and as long as all companies abide by the limit there shouldn't be a problem. As the cap reduces over the years, the companies won't even need to be distributed all those free allowances as they've gotten on board on cleaner energy. The only problem I see with this is the offsetting.
this is "maximize profit regardless of the social and environmental cost"
at its finest
I like how she blamed Western countries for the problems. So let me get this straight, I'm from a Western country now I'm being punished for things that happened upwards to over a 100 years ago. Very interesting thought process, a little hyperbolic, and for the record I think we should clean up the The world. When China gets on board and India who are the 2 biggest polluters in the world I think the cap and trade could be useful. I don't need a guilt trip from anybody.
i dont understand the offsetting thing... how can u sell ur cap if you already sold it in the first place?
@Someideasandstuff And what would you propose we do to fix these "problems"?
This video is innocently (?) based on misunderstandings.
1 - Cap and Trade is meant to be a SUPPLEMENTAL mesure to combat Climate C
2 - The purpose of C&T is to reduce the costs for private entities through the market
3 - Carbon credits given from the government are not an additional asset given the fact that the polluter HAS TO GIVE THEM BK EVERY YEAR to the authority.
4 - In EU CO2 pollution has been REDUCED even more than the Kyoto Protocol Committment: see Eu Env Agency reports
this video is 1000x better than my lecturer
As someone who has persistently despaired about the liberal/left's ability to come up with arguments that will appeal to voters other than themselves, that draws in outsiders rather than repelling them, this is the most hopeful series of presentations I've ever seen. Well done.
The two problems she addresses can be dealt by 1. auctioning permits and 2. establishing rigid criteria for offsets. The number 3 disappears since the system works.
You explained the concept pretty well. Thank you
i just meant to change the subscript for simplicity when you are counting, you can keep it o2 if you want just make your coefficient 7 not 14 or else you are misrepresenting the equation. really this is getting off topic though. my point is that your assertion regarding 6H2O+7C02 is wrong.
@survivalpodcasting
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
In facts this is stated in the conclusion where Bounoua writes, "the feedback slows but dose not alleviate the projected warming"
However 1.94C is at the lower end of the IPCC estimates. So if we used the same cal for the high estimate of 4.5C there is still be an unacceptable temp increase.
This ‘surplus right’ is then sold to a high-polluting firm which gives it the right to pollute the same amount of the ‘surplus right’. Hence, no additional permits are given, just transferred to another party through the market. Emission levels do not increase because the sum of permits equal the cap.
Exactly. And see this is where the problem lies doesn't it? How exactly do you prevent a company from doing this?
Free Market Economics dictates that this problem will take care of itself. But as you clearly showed, it does not.
So obviously some regulation is needed. Not a boatload of inefficient, counter-effective regulations and bureaucracies like we have, but rather efficient, carefully managed ones.
Don't agree with much of what you said here, but I really like how you said it. I think the critics at least owe you the courtesy of making a more persuasive cartoon for their point of view.
Annie goes back to basic principles to help us think clearly about this complex issue. A definite 'must see' for anyone who cares about our planet. Thank you!
Your voice is amazing!
Do you have data on this? How do you define "The Military Industrial Complex?"
@Pat9201 Any citations?
Also, in Yala (Thialand) a Japanese power company (EGCO) is offsetting its carbon emissions by building a power plant fueled by rubber, wood and waste (carbon neutral stuff). This plant is causing other types of pollution to the surrounding area's air, land and water. Although there is an ongoing dispute over this with the locals in Yala, the focus is on carbon efficiency rather than broader environmental issues concerning all types of pollution.
majority of people in this world wouldn't bother to tree-hug unless they are going to die tomorrow for not doing it
that is why cap and trade is the only way which might prevent such scenario from happening in the first place, it creates incentives
cap and trade works, and this video is outdated
Not outdated, still stands. The UN is sticking to this plan. And this women would have changed, or corrected this if it had changed. She keeps up on this, she believes 100 % in climate change and wants a solution, and this system only makes it worse.
lancetonsow it works to fill government coffers with more tax money.
catholicism, marxism etc -all claim that most people are evil and have to be controlled, manipulated by fear or outright intimidated.
i say corporatism both within government and some corporations themselves distorts our free market with bailouts and legislative intervention which then prevents consumers from having healthier and more responsible options.
the biggest examples are the former and present communist bloc nations themselves-which through state owned or controlled entities are the worst polluters and human rights violators on earth.
we have social media. we have purchasing power. there's way enough influence to be collectively wielded to create unbearable societal pressure on those who selfishly abuse the ecology. Taxation schemes are actually ineffective in comparison because the biggest polluters find ways to avoid the tax while those who don't pollute are forced to pay most the cost.
activists only need to get the word out on which entities pollute so making them less attractive to investors and customers alike.
Hey Lance ! You took it hook line and sinker. Do more research on the weather patterns over the last 10 years. You can start with here in Calgary. See if you can find consistent patterns of warming in our city over that period of time. Just to save you some time. It doesn't exist. But if you want to waste your valuable time on more nonsense. Knock yourself out ! Conservatives can use another good laugh !!
@@bademoxyMarxism actually makes as few moral claims as possible. It's less about controlling and more about limiting undue control.
Also, past communist-striving nations weren't the worst emitters, nor the worst human rights violators, they were certainly bad, but some (like Vietnam, some African domains, and many Latin American domains) were not bad at all. If you compare the levels of pollution and rights violations from before the revolutions to after, with the exception of certain parts of the USSR and in China where in some cases it was actually far worse. Also modern China isn't really even communist-striving, they just call themselves communist the same way the Nazis called themselves socialists. North Korea likewise has never been communist-striving. They literally have three classes (arguably four) and are a caste system
why Isn't this on all televisions?
@mirandalouis Could you enlighten me with what data and facts were wrong?
Please give the references of the facts you quoted.
Great video. Everybody should watch it.
It seems to me that this system takes advantage of the situation rather than solving it.
We would be much better off changing our way's.
For example, we should use; solar power, bio fuel, wind power, harness the power of the sea etc...
There are loads of other options, infact the deisil engine was built to run on veg oil. We need to replace petrol and deisil with boi feul, which can be made from all kinds of different things, of which 'algie' is one of the most efficient (so I believe).
It makes no sence that so many scientists are lying!! Besides, climatic changes are evident and dramatic if you visit Latino America, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, etc. Good iniciative Story of Staff
@pgdevil
OK maybe not made by the BBC.. And please tell me how the scientists in the film are not creditable?
Watching from India
#4 Company razes a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees and they get offset permits. How is that relevant to cap and trade policy? Sin embargo, if supplanting a virgin forest to plant palm oil trees provide net benefits to a sovereign country like Indonesia, then why not do it?
Exactly this type of videos is not making you any less blind... not to say that it's pure propaganda. Cap and trade is the closest thing to a solution that we have right now
The video does a good job of explaining how C&T is abused. But that doesn't mean the abuses are part and parcel of C&T. C&T is currently in use in the U.S. to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and it works very well. The video claims that approach can't be applied to carbon emissions. Why not? Why can't we enact safeguards to prevent giveaways, bogus projects, and other abuses under C&T?
What did you want to happen when the system itself rewards people to cheat and be dishonest? the problem is not laws or regulations, the problem is the system itself, as long as there is money for someone iin the process, it doesnt matter if its for killing babies, someone will do it... Its pure logic...
thevenusproject dotcom
Can somebody explain to me the math of 387 - 37 = -80%? I'm honestly not understanding...
Excellent VIDEO. I will be showing this in my art/technology class when we get back from break! I'm planning a lesson plan around it. As I can see from the other comments here it is really hard to convince adults...so I'm going to start with their children!
Just to clarify I don't disagree with your proposal, I support regulation to prevent Monopolization. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy/circular logic in deregulating (nearly) everything like so many libertarians/conservatives claim to want, then turning around and claiming regulation as an answer to preventing monopolization.
great video but your fact-check page is down
Murat was here. TSF (Thanks For Sharing)
Sorry. My first post was inaccurate. It was the EDF, not the WWF, that first proposed the Cap and Trade concept.
Prior to humans, the ozone layer actually had holes, albeit smaller ones. Before that, there was actually no ozone layer at all. There were many periods of time when the ozone layer was almost obliterated while life was still on this planet before humans. This happens because of geological events such as major volcanoes. In fact, one single volcano emits more pollutants when it's active than most of the world's factories combined.
Yes. Leave everything to the big companies that caused our misfortunes in the first place. BRILLIANT strategy.
Worth every minute
If we respected people's individual rights and actually had real arbitrators to protect these rights, there is no way polluters could get away with polluting anyone's air or property.
Is there an article I can read to learn more about how cap and trade failed in Europe? I wish the media hear had reported that story. It's news to me!
Actually, cap and trade did not fail in Europe, it is an extremely effective and cost-efficient tool to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. No major political parties are against it at this point.
Yes, some of the details of the initial setup were not perfect (e.g. giving major producers of greenhouse gases those rights for free, or not reducing the total number of emission certificates fast enough leading to low prices), but they are fixed for the most part.
Economists (especially those specializing in environmental problems) have been arguing for many years that a cap and trade system is the most efficient way (greatest reduction in greenhouse gases at the lowest cost to society), so it is honestly quite frustrating to me if some people who mean well but just do not understand enough (about how societies work) are against them ("Oh, you are creating the right to pollute and let brokers trade those rights on markets - of course of you are just evil capitalists and not some smart people who found a viable solution to a serious global problem").
No permits are created, only transferred. Low-polluting firms are rewarded in terms of profits and high-polluting firms get punished in terms of higher costs. Therefore it would be best for high-polluting firms to seek for low-pollution technologies and take advantage of the permit market.
#2Yes it is highly-recommendable to sell permits and fund a clean energy economy or compensate those harmed by climate change but to give a “dividend” or put rebates to fuel prices “while we transition to that clean energy economy” means to lower prices of oil and to increase its use which also means increasing the use of a pollution-generating substance.
DESC sets fuel rates paid by military units. Currently, prices are $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline and $3.04 for jet fuel. Avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles, is sold for $13.61 a gallon.
The military consumes about 1.2 million barrels of fuel each month in Iraq at $127.68 a barrel, a price that reflects crude oil refined into usable fuel.
cont...
Cap and Trade is market based, relies on the market, markets are generally more efficient than the government in getting things done. But I have to agree with the free permits, the offset and distraction points. I don't believe we should rely on the government as well, it should be the government and the market.
No seriously, how do you meet these solid caps and pay for these carbon fees?
Unless everyone on this website is tired of low costs and wants higher prices and higher taxes, we need something much more concrete than "solid caps, strong laws, citizen actions, and carbon fees."
additionally, though neither of us is an expert on the matter im sure you would agree that as i stated above to "wolfknows" the greenhouse effect is not up for debate, that is a universally acknowledged phenomenon. the debate is over to what degree our various emissions influence that effect. my thoughts are that we do have an impact on temperature and though its likely not as high as alarmists claim we dont know enough about climate systems to say how much change is safe change.
I have a solar array! I am pondering the addition of a second array- giving up many things I would like to afford the array. I want to do what I can do to help this planet more than I want new clothes, new shoes, boose, cigarettes, soda pop, vacations..... I say no to lots of THINGS so I can say yes to the planet. WHY- I love my grandson and granddaughters and want them to have a cleaner- better world! Everyone should try to do something to say this planet. Something beats nothing every time.
I have to plead ignorance from a total lack of time to research this topic thoroughly.
My only thoughts on the matter are that I think far too many people are simply taking what others say as hard fact. Regardless of which side you're on, it is ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS to simply believe it because somebody says it.
Just because somebody claiming to be an expert says something either for or against something, that doesn't make it true.
Don't be sheep to be lead to the slaughter
This video is only helping you understand that cap and trade in the form it is now is not a sufficient solution for the problems we are facing. And by the way, stopping to think in absolutes would help you understand those kind of things a little better.
it does this by undercutting company D in any way it can think of, buys it out, or even goes as far as corporate sabotage. And thats not discounting regionalizing or whatnot (IE cable companies) Whatever the method, Company D is now out of business. Company A is now the last one standing, it has a monopoly. Which means it doesn't need to compete with anybody. Which means it can jack its prices though the roof unopposed, which means we're back with the exact same problem we started out with.
Where does the 350 ppm number come from? Who says 350 is desirable?
Uh... I didn't understand it... Could anyone explain it to me???
mistake: Basic chemistry says that carbon dioxide is the main reason for the existance of the greenhouse effect, and in fact isnt an air pollutant
Mixed feelings about clip. Agree that Cap and trade or Offsets are scams or ineffective. Do not agree with the idea that global warming is imminent BUT should be addressed just for the fact that pollution is bad for everyone's health. If the clip was edited for the global warming, I'd give it a thumb up.
The Cap&Trade system works perfectly as long as it isn't watered down by weak and corrupt governments.
U can impose a fixed cap on carbon emissions and let the market determine where reducing emissions is most efficient.
What's the alternative? Some government bureaucrat deciding on who is allowed to pollute and who isn't?
@TheSAMathematician ... won't be enough to combat this. We will be digging a hole for ourselves to fix a problem, and we won't remotely fix said problem.
Before we commit ourselves to a course of action, we should ask our selves what the costs of these actions would be, and what the costs of not undergoing these actions would be.
If climate change is to be fought, a global consensus is required. Creating markets is the most efficient way to fight climate change.
This video goes under false premises: #1 “Cap and Giveaway”/”Free permits! The more they pollute, the more they get!” Well that is untrue. Initially, firms will be given permits which allow them to pollute the same emission levels for all firms. Firms who pollute less than the amount specified in their permits can sell those ‘surplus rights’ to high-polluting firms.
if plants took up whatever co2 was in the atmosphere they would never have the ratio in the proper equation. they perform specific processes and only use whats necessary. by your logic the plants could also use 8co2 or even 100co2 based on what was available. but the amt of co2 used is not dependent on ambient concentrations. also hydrogen monoxide is water, the di in front specifying two hydrogen is not necessary,if you meant OH- you mean hydroxide or a hydroxyl group depending on context.
@wildcat236 who do you work for?
@aphoxema I think that is because the spanish subtitles are wrong and the reading is very annoying
Actually, this is one of the few generally well-founded videos released by this channel. Thank you.
The U.S. consumes about 21 million of the 86 million barrels of oil per day demanded on the global market. While the Defense Department is as the nation’s single largest user of energy, its 1.6 million gallons a day in Iraq is small relative to the total market.
In World War II, the average fuel consumption per service member was about 1.67 gallons a day. In Iraq, it’s 27.3 gallons.
cont...