💡 How what climate actions have you been taking lately? 👍 Consider commenting and liking the video!!! It really helps this video beat the pesky algorithm! 🔗 If you want to read more about ecomodernism check out these resources: fascinated-soccer-ac0.notion.site/Eco-modernism-Resources-78c47b9e6dfd408fbf59b786b0d7fb30
Today not much. But I started being a vegetarian since a year. It was hard and I fail all the time but it keeps getting better. I also want to do something with the biodiversity in my region. Helping the butterflies and bee's and let people be aware about the beauty and diversity of the natural world.
I'm tending to 4 acres to turn it into a biodiverse jungle. I'm documenting this on youtube to show how humans can become part of nature for the benefit of all species in their local ecosystems.
As I quote from one of my teachers: "It is easier to imagine putting people on Mars than it is to imagine an end to capitalism. That is why eco-modernism is such an alluring idea.
@Shimmy Shai by using a scapegoat, a "greater evil" that is communism, politicians have successfully fool people to believe there's nothing wrong with the current system of capitalism. Now if someone dare criticizing the "perfect system" they'll be accused of being a communist. It's easier to judge and labeling other people than facing the flaws of our own beliefs.
Kind of ripping of Zizek’s quote "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism". Unless your teacher is Zizek which would be pretty cool.
To all of you, including Erik's teacher, please read *1984* by _George Orwell_ (or listen in YT). The end of capitalism and a "perfect system" is not far fetched... The question is, would you prefer to live in that society?
Agreed! However, I think there is an excellent case to be made for setting up permanent Lunar or Martian colonies. Even if Anthropogenic Climate Change is averted then resource depletion, nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or other threats that could put humanity and human civilization at risk. Having all our eggs in one basket is a dangerous thing to do, especially as we now have the technology to start off-world colonisation. What we lack is the political will and the necessary investment. Edited to correct over generalisation.
Life will always continue to live to earth (until its destroyed). Humans cant end life on earth (luckily) and we will always lose and for sure go extinct its just a fact, no species lasts forever and few last even thousands of years.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Multiple government space agencies are planning moon colonies by 2030. Lets let the rocket scientists do the rocket science and get to saving the planet ourselves. th-cam.com/video/-HGm2SSRaDs/w-d-xo.html
@@thekingoffailure9967 I never said people should not try to save the planet or attempt to prevent anthropogenic climate change. I plant trees in developing countries and protect forests. I am also a vegan and have never owned a car. My point was there are other threats to human life and civilization on this planet. Also, I think having multiple colonies increases their chance of success.
Here’s a manufacturing example of how constant growth is bad: my old company won a contract for a new product which was going to launch in Target. We had huge orders from our customer and a tight deadline so we pushed to achieve this. This involved buying a second machine and working immediately on quotes for robotic upgrades to these machines. We worked like crazy and eventually met the goal…then orders promptly went to 0! This huge order was only so they could STOCK THE SHELVES and not force customers to wait. So we consumed tons of energy building machines and parts that weren’t even needed. In my opinion: shifting our economy to focus on emissions rather than dollars would have a huge impact. I’m sure there’s still tech that we’ll need to invent and build, but it’s no where near as much as companies want us to believe.
This has nothing to do with capitalism imo. Your company should have taken a second to think whether a) will more orders come ? b) for what reason did that company order so much in such a small time frame c) it seems like your company is managed by some pretty naive and inexperience individuals.
@@alexandervlaescu9901 I forgot to explicitly mention it but we were profitable the whole time and the project was largely seen as a success by everyone. And that’s why it has everything to do with capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t care what your emissions is as long as you continue making money. So we generate huge amounts of emissions and don’t see a problem because we keep making money.
You can also make dollars more equivalent to emissions. Tax companies dramatically in proportion with the amount of emissions involved with production, then let capitalism do its thing. Though of course this requires government regulation, which in turn requires a government that isn't owned by corporate interests.
@@RialuCaos oh absolutely! I’m a part of my local Citizens Climate Lobby and email/call my politicians regularly to say that they need to put a carbon tax in place. Getting closer but I think we’re still a few years out from making it a reality unfortunately :-( For perspective, I researched the numbers on my wife driving her Corolla to work and found that it accounted for 12% of our emissions and 1.2% of our budgeted expenses. Jack that price up and a guarantee that many more people will immediately start cutting their emissions!
@@Jack13001 That's a good step, but it still won't be nearly enough. Not even close. Everything that we can do that will reverse the trend is directly contrary to everything we want to keep doing, starting with making more people. People are the primary source of all the activities that have already caused so much harm to our one and only home.
Not that simple. Technological innovation is essential to stopping destroying the olanet. For example one tanker ship emits as much as 50million cars in co2. Our only solution to reducing these tankers’ emissions are either to stop the shipping industry or to power these boats using different tech. Its impossible to stop the shipping industry in such a globalized world so we have to develop technology to keep tankers but also make them sustainable. Tech innovation combined w political innovation is what is going to solve our climate problem.
@@rickb3650 ofc it won’t be enough, but that’s no excuse not to make a change. Nothing you do as an individual will make a difference, but you have to decide that even if your own actions are a drop in the bucket, it is your moral prerogative to reduce your own consumption.
The answer is simple: we need to produce less. We need to consume less. Corporate capitalism will not allow for that. Capitalism is the cause, it will never provide a solution.
Agreed. I saw an article the other day about how our emissions dropped in 2020 cause of the shutdowns for the virus. Tons of people were saying “but the supply chain issues! This obviously means that we can’t just shut down to combat climate change.” But I gotta honestly wonder what many of these people were purchasing and if they truly needed it. Cause I purchase very little and ran into 0 supply chain issues throughs the whole year. So yea, I’m all for figuring our ways to provide people with homes and food while shutting down industries en masse.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet you don't represent the masses. What works for you may not work with your neighbor. Whether you like it or not, capitalism needs to be included in our future as to convince the maximum volume of humans to a more responsible way if life. If you keep assuming that you'll convince an entire system to simply stop innovating and making money, we won't make it.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I don‘t know where you live, but here we even struggled for flour, toilet paper, yeast, … If I cannot buy BASIC items this truly is a big issue. And now most food costs 1.5 to 2x as much as before. And what benefit? -1% CO2 emissions? Great trade off!
The amount of anguish I feel for the exploited regions of the world is indescribable. They will take the hit of climate disaster the worst, meanwhile the ones who caused this mess will get off free and move on, as well as sink us down further to increase profit.
There are many issues with exploitation of "the third world". Unfortunately people usually focuses on one case of exploitation, which really isn't correct. I'm talking about sweat shops and hard/dangerous jobs for low pay. As long as nobody FORCES people to do such things (like in slavery), I don't think it is actually bad. If people are not forced to do that, they CHOOSE to do that because alternative is even worse for them.
@Mia Krunic What is then? See I get up every morning and make my kids breakfast and then I go to work. I could sleep in, or abandon my family or quit my job or whatever. I chose this, as it is a better alternative for me.
@@Staremperor Yours is an apples to oranges comparison. Let me change your scenario for you. You're a dirt poor man from east java, you can get up, make your children breakfast, with the limited food that you have, and then go to work. For work you'll walk up a mountain (with 2 buckets hanging off each end of a pole on your back) then make your way into an active volcano. From here you'll walk around a large lake nestled in a steaming, yellow crater and use a metal stick to hack off massive pieces of sulfur. After that you'll take 200lbs of the stuff seven miles down the mountain to the weighing station, you'll make three to seven trips a day before your shift is over. I forgot to mention, the "steaming" gases coming out of that crater are concentrated hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide gases that burn your eyes and lungs and are strong enough to even dissolve your teeth. The crater’s sides are also steep, jagged and slippery. The volcano itself has the capacity to erupt unexpectedly. That "lake" you walk around, has the pH of battery acid and parts of it are boiling hot meaning it splutters and spits while you're walking around its incredibly slippery edge. You will have a scarred or disfigured shoulders and back due to the weight you're carrying all day. Your PPE will consist of of some tattered rags, with one across your face to "help" you breathe, they get burned by the gases btw. You'll also be working in the tropical midday sun. There is no social safety net, you have no formal education (no you don't make enough to get one), this is the only place that'll pay you enough of a pittance to feed your family, and keep whatever ramshackle domicile you live in over your head. Don't work, you and every one that depends on you is dead. Now your situation is like theirs. When the only other option is to literally die, whatever else you've been offered, it's not a choice. In this scenario you wouldn't be choosing to work there, you'd work there *because there is no where else to work.*
Innovation is not inherently dependent on Capitalism, that's what a lot of people fail to understand on both sides, and many go as far to consider "anarcho-primitivism" (technological regression and degrowth across the board. "return to monke") as a valid option. Technological advancement cannot be the sole solution to the problems we face, I agree, but it still has a fairly large role for our future as a species.
Innovation dies under capitalisms I see it in games all the time that why you get 10,000 of the same game with small changes, Capitalist don't innovate they assemble.
In fact, Capitalism kills innovation more often than not. Innovation means taking risks, especially financial risks. Capitalism is about making save money. Even if innovations are made, they are often simply bpught and put away to protect existing market positions that roll in the money. If you know where to look, you will find that all over the research world. In every single (real) science that exists. Ah yes: economy is *not* a science, but an ideology based on pretty much religous believes.
I agree. I would argue that innovation is most dependent on what you’re measuring. If your measuring profit of a device then you’ll innovate something which is cheaper to make. If you’re measuring emissions of a device then you’ll innovate something that’s more eco friendly. Since we’re human we’ll always be trying to innovate and optimize our situations. So we need to setup our society in a way that people are encouraged to innovate in the RIGHT ways. Capitalism currently fails to do that.
The only thing I would take issue with is about vertical farming, which it looks like we’ll need. Purely because of the extreme weather and unpredictable seasons making it almost impossible to grow anything outside. So that’s one thing where we will just have to accept that we need to spend the energy on it. But otherwise it was perfect in explaining why green growth is a fantasy.
@@chalichaligha3234 I think covered farming is going to explode on places like desserts and cold climates. Cold climates will use greenhouses to capture heat and make the climate warm enough to grow veggies, berries and grains.. and the deserts I think will utilize large swaths of land covered by white tarps that let light through but try to keep water loss at an absolute minimum and lessen the extreme heat.
@@chalichaligha3234 singapore would beg to differ. 5.6million pop in an island you could spit across, we need vertical farming to even have a hope of eating local produce. I think other densely populated cities, especially if distanced from their agricultural hinterland, would face the same problem. Food transport emits carbon too.
Absolutely, I can agree with most of the video but the farming takes are pretty hot. Very few traditional low intensity famring methods make a huge difference to emissions because if their incredibly low density outcome (we need food forests and similar infrastructure that produce multiple yields in the same space) but forms of aquaculture with greenhouses can be converted to fairly low energy vertical farms as long as you are not trying to make a completely insulated, lightless warehouse into a farm
Technology still depends a lot on labor exploitation. Kids are still digging in mines for minerals that go in our computers and phones. Working class people in Chinese and Korean factories work at breakneck speeds to create small in parts. We could build more low tech climate solutions and kinder societies that are far more sustainable in rural areas, rather than trying to urbanize every area possible. People also just like being near nature. Doing outdoor simple things as a peaceful renewal away from technology's constant encroachment on our psyche.
The main reason tech is dependent of exploitation is because of the profit motive. Cheap labor means you'll get higher profits, hence the oppression of the global south. I think we should fully utilize the tech we have to improve. Like you said we shouldn't try to urbanize every single town.
Technology is a double-edged sword. When electronics became a part of our lives, there were both benefits and harms. It made our lives easier, it created jobs, it boosted the economy and it connected the world. On the other hand, it caused the issues you mentioned: sweatshops, child labor, pollution, etc. There are both sides to a story, always look on the bright-and dark side
I am not so sure about the rural part or perhaps it depend on how you define rural. An over reliance on car as a method of transportation is quite polluting. and the best way to get rid of cars is building more walkable/bikable/public transport. And the best way to do that is well to build more densely not to the point of building high rises everywhere but at least to the point that single detached family home with big yard ample parking space are way rarer. And I am not sure everyone would consider that to going back to a more rural living even though it would free much more land for nature and agricultural use, and that it doesn't mean everyone living in cities.
@@alwynwatson6119 well. The first part is to reduce consumerism. Before we think of decarbonizing our activities, think about dropping useless consumption.
I want to figure out how to have this conversation with my capitalist-apologist friends and acquaintances. The jump from technomodernism to solarpunk/connected-with-the-land ideology is a huge culture shift, and requires a lot of concession about a person's worldview. I know *I'm* on board with everything touched on here, but I'm afraid sharing this video outright will have them go immediately into defense mode.
As the outspoken communist at my work, it's a rough time but you kind of just have to accept that you have to be the annoying repetitive "it's capitalism's fault" guy. I've found it's best to wait for them to talk about an issue their having with work, finances, legality, etc and be educated enough on the issues to be able to explain the root causes of their struggles and what we as a species have to do.
most of my friends like that are fully dogmatic and will never listen to anything. These people venerate The Market like nothing else and piercing through their neoliberal indoctrination is almost impossible. I'm still friends with them, but I've accepted that they're too far gone and have stopped pushing the issue.
Maybe dig deep and show them a world without colonial industrialization,how balanced everything was before capitalism murdered nations to build other nations. If they still ignore you, get better friends.
It's always easier to judge and labeling other people than facing the flaws of our own beliefs. That's what's happening with your friends, they can't face the harsh truth yet.
As an Asian I try to look at this in a different angle: 1. The region was never "developed" until recently. Many believed their hard-earned wealth is a result of diligence, and feel like degrowth or forced ecolism in general is a betryal from the West. In our defense, many aren't really live in a wasteful life. Its unethical to stop growth in Asia and later on Africa just because the West damaged the environment during their growth. So there has to be some ways to grow better. 2. Many countries have high population densities, that megacity is almost unavoidable. Tokyo, for example, has grown into the largest on the planet in last century, but pre-industrialised Edo had never been small, either. At least here in Tokyo is not too inefficient. Is it better to urbanize Jakarta and Bangkok, and keep the rest innocent and untouced, or is it better to sprawl across the rainforest, and educate the residents how to coexist with the nature? I've no idea, but I don't think there's adequate research either. 3. "Sustainable technology" that feeds the mass often doesn't exist. Nor it's easy to dramatically reduce consumption when the economy is in fast growth, unlike mature developed countries. While I agree we can't save the world by relying on new toys and business as usual, "green growth" is not as useless as you think, at least in some parts of the world.
Of course the true intention behind is for the West to ease its ego while becoming the loser. They also would like to shame Asia for becoming the dominant Economy and Culture. Don't waste your time, this channel is an echo chamber of radical eco-marxists. Also don't worry, they are insignificant and no one care about them. They're just noisy on the Internet.
I think the best way is to reduce the purchasing power of western countries and pay proper wage to developing countries for their resource (pay them 1000-1500 USD per month instead of the 'Fairtrade' pay of perhaps 300 USD). Basically stop capitalising on the fruit of colonialism and start treating commodity as valuable as knowledge (which is all western countries have). This would take a total global revolution which is impossible other than a war.
Megacities all the way. It's far more resource-effective to live in cities, and honestly, nature is best left mostly untouched. It's possible to make cities that people want to stay in forever
Good video. Nice description of the issue and what's wrong with it. As always, excellent production values. The only criticism I would have is that the phrasing lends itself to binary thinking. Technical innovation *alone* won't save us. We need technical innovation. New tools and better versions of the tools we have. But we also need political innovation, social innovation and organizational innovation. Better tools to make things and do things yes, but just as important better tools to make decisions, to distribute resources and too resolve disputes. We need *all* of these things.
Yes, he said in another video (I think it was the solarpunk video) that a combination of high-tech and low-tech solution which respects everybody needs to be chosen democratically by the working class and all the oppressed.
the root of these problems that I seldom see people talk about is the extremely low value people assign to commodity and resources. There is a fundamental belief (advocated by rich western countries) that a person and country with higher knowledge power should be paid way more and deserve to have a much better lifestyle than countries that mainly produce resource. That is how excessive consumption and extreme poverty will always exist together, when the disparity in purchasing power between countries is so insurmountable. Result of capitalism, colonialism and imperialism.
couldnt the 7% living in megacities using 9% of electricity and fuel consumption could just be because these cities tend to be richer? like if we compared a megacity and rural population at the same standard of living, which would be more efficient?
This, thank you. The only reason average person in a city consumes more is because of inequality, they're simply richer on average. Try spreading all these relatively 'well off' people to rural areas and see how much electricity/fuel they'll consume because of complexities of logistics alone. I'm living in an apartment building with 30 other flats, neighboured by similar apartment buildings around me, thousands of people. All shopping for groceries in the same store that's walking distance, commuting to office buildings not so far away using mass transit, shared heating of the apartment I'm living in instead of individual small houses. It's extremely efficient. Even a badly designed city is so much much more efficient than suburbs or rural spaces.
@@DriantX Ding ding ding THIS comment right here Edit: Rural populations also have soft impacts that are less measurable, wealthy or not. Such as hunting, manipulation of areas, pesticides...etc. The mere existance of humans in some areas can disrupt the flow of things
I am literally currently wrirting a university assessment on the question: can economic development be achieved without further contributing towards climate change? - this video couldn't have come at a better time !!
It's not possible. One simple fact: we have already consumed ALL of earth's ressources by august (even though there are some gaps in the method, the numbers are still telling). Most of these ressources are consumed by rich countries. ALL inhabitants of these rich countries have annual emissions above 2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, simply by the government's sending in institutions such as army, schools, hospitals. So not even counting yout personnal lifestyle and emissions. (Look up emissions of co2eq per capita and countries, you'll see that there is a LOOOONG way to go.) The 2Tonnes of CO2eq per capita is the threshold if we want to attain carbon neutrality. So if you wanted all emerging countries to reach the same level of development as rich countries have, you will surpass that threshold, even with "green" technologies or less emitting technologies. We are slowly entering an era of shortages, bc most of global ressources have been exploited. By 2100, most of the critical minerals exploitation will start to drop/ will have already reduce. This will cause an Increasing in price, or since most of the mines are located in China, will benefits to the country that has them. If you want development today, you would have to reduce rich countries ressources & consumption, which is incompatible with our capitalist & consumerist societies, to give more 'carbon capital' to emerging nations. Honnestly, I believe that a reflexion on this subject from the money/currency only point of view is a fallacy. You need to quantify emissions if you are talking about sustainability and climate change. Also dont forget, + development = + consumption = + waste, which is incompatible with climate change :).
@@TrungNguyen-uf8cv even if carbon neutral could be a thing (which it can’t) still doesn’t solve a number of problems and contradiction inherent in capitalism.
This is a really great video, but I got say, it’s somewhat unfulfilling. I notice that channels like this and Second Thought always stop short of discussing possible alternatives to the ideology they are attacking/deconstructing, instead choosing to just focus on what we shouldn’t do. So I gotta ask: what are the actual alternatives to ecomodernism? I genuinely want to know, where can I go to learn more about a better way forward?
That’s my problem too. OCC comes up with so many videos telling us what the problems are, but he’s very vague about the solutions. If anything, OCC makes my eco-anxiety worse because he makes it seem like the only solutions to these problems are nearly impossible to achieve. In my view, eco-modernism is the first phase. Then after a decade or two, when new technology and renewables grow a substantial amount, the richer countries will become more progressive thanks to increased immigration and conservatives dying off from old age. Then the millennials will take over leadership and start a major cultural shift thus transitioning from eco-modernism to solarpunk.
Our solutions must ultimately be a combination of several philosophies. For example, while not everyone will be able to have their own 400 mile electric car, advances in technology will allow the proliferation of electric bikes. Not everyone will be able to have a 4000 sq ft house, but advances in heat pump tech will allow everyone to heat and cool their home fossil fuel free.
And like it or not, social-capitalism is the only way to enable those things while retaining current income freedoms. Unless we see an overnight shift back to extremely localized government which could be accountable enough to manage something otherwise.
I am handicapped. I can't ride a bike, and I can't afford an electric car. Can't we just have good public transport, instead of investing in tech that is made to be used individually.
The fundamental problem here is that the more efficient or cost saving we are able to be with our resources, the more we will shift them elsewhere. There is no end to growth unless humanity as a whole decides it so. There's is no such thing as "sustainable growth". It's purely growth. If there's room to grow, we will continue growing and consuming until there's nothing left.
Its a step in the right direction, but it wont solve the problem. The solution is, not having that electric bike at all. And yes, the brainwashed think they will save the world by buying an electric car and throw some solar panels on the roof. What is needed, is to question everything in your modern capitalistic perspective. Everything in your life has to be questioned, its whole existance has to be questioned. School, work, holidays, values, meaning, medicare, ethics, everything.. even democracy. I highly believe humans can not handle democracy, we have simply not evolved that far. Democracy is heaven for companies and growth. You can basicly make humans believe in anything without questioning. Companies will paint that dream for you, for personal gain that is. The dream that will make you go to work every single day What you are saying, is that you want everything to remain as it is right now. With some minor tweaks to exploit and consume less energy. But the ideaology still remains. It is that modern eco capitalism he is talking about, you take that electric bike to your work where you produce eco clothing and ship it overseas with sailboats. You eat your green meal with beans and some colorful veggies. And you earn your sallary to pay your rent in that co-living aparttment that are built entirely with wood and a grass-roof, and life goes on. This is a capitalistic mindset, we are all brainwashed to be cogs in this machinery. Id say the solution would be, aristocracy with an elite ruling without personal gain. Based on wisdom and logic. An elite that put nature and humans beside eachother. Where mental health and wellbeing is a priority. A more philosophic way. Im not promoting oligarchy or dictators. We do not use electric bikes, we live in smaller communities, more selfsustainable, self reliant. We grow new ethics and values. Greed, power and desire goes down the drain, and we promote sharing, equal rights and inner well being. We live our lives , with less, without stress. It is not communsim, but an ism where we all share the same equal right and value nature above everything else. A more primitive life , but a life with more meaning. I give humanity 150 years if we choose the greenwashed capitalistic way, after that we are all gone. Unless we all choose to wake up.. We are living in a sci-fi world, it is just hard to see with the wrong glasses.
Love the bit where combined imports and domestic production shows no change in emissions, changing the carbon sources location doesn't mean you've eliminated it
In my opinion, to tackle climate change different approaches are needed: ecosystem restoration, decarbonization, bringing nature to cities rather than separate it, manage waste, produce locally, reduce inequality...and education, a lot of education!! That's why videos like this are important, wood work!
The profit motive must be abolished. That's one of the key factors as to why we're in this mess to begin with. Planned obsolescence needs to go too. It's the reason why we have so much waste. Rather than focusing education on ways to make money, it needs to be focused on creating the most efficient technology. Society needs to be restructured and re-educated. There's tons of work to do 😕
@@ANTH0NY.VII. I agree with you! It's really overwhelming, and a lot needs to be done! But, to be (sadly) honest I wonder how can a sistem that's been working for so long and it's so immersed in our lives be transformed? It's a political issue? It's social? Or cultural? Also How long it will take to be there?
@Lucia Moreira Demarco there's hope, humans have always been able to overcome hurdles in tough times, I'm sure we can do it again. As for when it happens, I think sooner than we might think. There's protests, civil unrest, organizing, etc being done all over the planet as we speak. Mutual aid groups are helping each other in populated cities, young generations are demanding better infrastructure (high speed trains, green cities, renewable energy, etc) Personally I think in the next decade we will begin to see massive changes, after all many people want change
@@Srijit1946 Interesting video, although It has some ideological bias, it helps me understand a process from a more social point of view (I'm from the natural sciences group) thanks for sharing!
Couple of thoughts: 1.) Life isn’t “better” with technology if we can’t even drink rainwater or don’t have access to land for food. You may have “things” but the basic necessities are adulterated. Many people would rather live a simple lifestyle in pristine nature than have a fancy wardrobe and A.C. but the former has been stolen as an option. 2.) Greater life expectancy is often mistaken for prolonging life for many people when a major factor is actually lessening infant death rates, so not necessarily more people living longer but less people dying as infants.
I suspect there’s some straw-man arguments in this video but I’m waiting on a Michael schellenberger book from the library so I’ll have to investigate myself.
The largest strawmen in this video is the claim that eco-modernists see the not ready yet IV generation and thorium nuclear reactors as the solution. The III generation reactors are ready for deployment (a number of them has already been built) and could drastically reduce the carbon footprint of electricity for decades/centuries to come.
Ok so I just finished Apocalypse Never and I gotta say that yeah, Michael Schellenberger is the embodiment of the “this is fine” dog. Starts off with good premises and comes to utterly bizarre conclusions like “fast fashion is good actually”. I still think that this video makes them seem scarier than necessary but yeah, don’t think these guys are helping (beyond their championing of nuclear)
For further evidence, if you look at the few photographs taken inside of many of the largest sweatshops where clothes are made the seamstresses are using sewing machines, often not industrial sewing machines that I would place at a glance between 30 and 80 years old. Particularly among women doing piecework at home you often see photographs of women using the mass produced black singer sewing machines that are upwards of 50 years old, some maybe ad old as 100. Sewing and weaving are faster than ever, but much of the machinery and technology is essentially Victorian. This should tell us two things. One: we can make useful machines that are sustainable because they do not break and can be recycled and will frankly outlast any human life time (my sewing machine is nearly 100 years old and doesn’t need any work other than oiling). Two: while a certain level of technology does increase our productivity, most increased “productivity” is the product of simple exploitation.
I must say, as a supporter of ‘eco modernism’, that I think capitalism is a good medium for gradual systematic change as it takes into account the opinions and motivations of the population, which in my opinion government policies and incentives have to stimulate in the direction of long term goals. Decisions and changed that would be sustainable, but would have no support of the population (like taking away everyone’s car for an extreme example), would never yield good results. A change that is absolutely required for a strong free market system to function AND be sustainable is transparency of corporate practices, so that people have influence over what developments are stimulated.
You know what would really make corporate practices transparent? Worker ownership, at the very least in the form of Cooperatives. They still have the hierarchy and Boss style organization you liberals love, but no shady bureaucrats in a board room 100 floors up. Its democracy in the workplace, with the ability to vote out people you hate. Since its a much smaller scale and each co-op has its own system it will be much harder to corrupt, unlike centrally planned state economies. You can keep your markets too, as a treat.
@Arjen Smetsers To add on to what you just stated, I think that the rhetoric in this video expresses a distrust in companies which use bad business practices to artificially reduce the pollution of rich countries by outsourcing it to poorer ones. Innovation by its very nature is disruptive and the free market provides the opportunity to disrupt those bad business practices by creating an incentive to outperform them by efficiency and and price of production. What I don't understand about the video's closing statements is that those goals are literally not possible without the incentives capitalism produces which are needed to outcompete the old ways of manufacturing. At the moment, the science is still optimizing and new research is coming out every month. What else is there to do? Keep doing what we're doing? Rely on the government to close up those stores with no back-up and put people out of work? We have no other choice but to replace the old with the new if those companies won't do it themselves. You can't rely on anyone else to do it. We need to make new companies to outperform the old ones and disrupt the economy in a way that makes it cheaper, makes it better for the environment, and gives power to a new generation of business entrepreneurs to operate in a way that doesn't exploit it's workers or the environment. All these people complaining fail to realise that they have they have it within themselves to change the world to make it the way they want it to be if they are willing to be clever enough and work hard enough.
@@thekingoffailure9967 yes I agree, a really good ted talk on co-ops was posted a few days ago. I think you’ve seen it too. Maybe a more fundamental question that I still haven’t really figured out form myself and you might be able to answer (also related to the democratic workspace) is: What is the best way to deal with large scale conflict of interests and complexity in a democracy? Do you or maybe some else too have any thoughts on this? I’m curious to hear.
Well this video is wrong on so many levels. The fundamental problem of switching to a sustainable lifestyle is that if we are not very careful it might stop the motor that has lifted billions out of poverty while knowing that if we won't do it, it will be even worse. Pretending that everything is bad right now due to capitalism is ridicolous because if it were so, there would be no trade off and therefor no problem. Not seeing that fossil captialism has consitently improved the lives of the world population sets you up for the completely wrong discussion - not seeing the true problem (i.e. trade-off here). Citing low life expectency in some part of town (btw. just relative life expectancy. I am sure even there the absolute life expectancy and child mortality rate has improved) only shows how US-centric you can be. A little decline in the west pales to the average improvement of lives in China, South East Asia and Africa in the same time. All measurable indices of human flourishing have pointed upwards for the past 200 years. The risk of stopping this constant improvement accidentally, to prevent an even bigger disaster is at the core of the climate discussion. Pretending that this trade off isn't real, will only damage the cause.
I agree, this discussion very naively ignores the developing world. They will carry on doing what they are doing, regardless of what we preach, because at the moment it's working for them. The only way they will change this course is if the developed nations can show them a way to do this better, at lower cost and without damaging the planet. And there may be a thing or two that the developing nations can find to lead the way with too.
I'd be interested to hear more about the different footprints between cities and megacities. Is the larger footprint in megacities inherent or would better design improve them?
Interesting thoughts. I would say that a better design would definitely improve the footprint. If car-based infrastructure would be replaced by electricity-powered, free public transportation, I'm sure that this would make a major difference. Another problem is the waste. A great deal is plastic waste resulting from packaging. This however cannot be solved by better city design but only by a fundamental change of the production system. In the end, it comes down to one thing: to end capitalism and to destroy capital relations.
@@chrisbe4655 Exactly. Cities actually have lower emissions per capita because of walking, biking, and public transit. Rural towns might have low emissions, but only because of a low quality of life and low wages. The suburbs are the worst, where they consume even more than people living in cites (larger houses means more things bought to fill it), and they require the use of a car.
To build on this a bit, I'm wondering if the video overlooks the fact that while cities might not be huge improvements today from a carbon perspective, that the pathways for radical decarbonization are much more feasible at large/megacities. Electrified transit is much more feasible, building efficiency and energy use is a lot more efficient when everyone isn't in an oversized single family home, etc. It's also strange to me to criticize megacities as leading to a disconnect from the land, that's characteristic doesn't seem to be inherent a megacity but rather how it's implemented. At the end of the day, it felt like a strange angle to take against megacities, when the carbon intensity of putting everyone in sprawling suburbia has to be at least as bad.
@@Jason-sp5yc There is something to be said actually about modern development in cities being primarily made out of steel, concrete and glass. Its actually very carbon intensive and not very efficient for energy use. The large glass windows trap more heat in the building in the summer, requiring more AC use, and are less insulating than solid wall, requiring more heating in the winter. The concrete and steel use is also less efficient with each additional story. Buildings over 10 stories tall are actually more carbon intensive per unit. Ideally we would have lots of medium density spread out across the whole city, with a good mix of uses and frequent, fast public transit. But the NIMBY pushback to any but single family homes, has required us to put all of our density into these huge glass towers in a very small area of the city.
@@adamt195 Right, full agreement on the medium density, mid-rise etc. But by many definitions that would still be considered a megacity, as I think the term refers to total population vs. some level of density. Ultimately, it seems like a strange criticism to target megacities when rural/suburban sprawl are also incredibly inefficient in how they are implemented currently.
Ide love to hear your thoughts on Ulrick Beck's 'Risk Society' theory, in particular his production of a Cosmopolitan moment, where we all unite against climat crises
@10:12: "If we are serious about climate change, if we are serious about action, eco-modernism is not the path forward." What is the path forward? How can we achieve net-zero (followed by net-negative) emissions by mid-century -- as the IPCC says we must, to avoid intolerable climate change -- while maintaining economic survival. Not "growth". Just survival.
We could shift to permaculture and regenerative agroforestry, live and operate more communally (i.e. have "libraries of things" for stuff like tools, vehicles, recreational items, etc. that are currently individually-owned but spend most of their time not being used), shift to an economic system that centers on sufficiency, rather than growth, develop "cradle-to-cradle" manufacturing, industrial ecosystems, etc.. The problem is that none of that is "politically realistic" in a culture that can't be arsed to wear masks in a pandemic. Unfortunately, the realm of the "politically realistic" and the realm of the physically and ecologically realistic don't have any overlap, and the latter bats last.
I agree with the premise of the video - capitalism most certainly wont "save us". But there is an underlying assumption here that *something* can. I don't see that. Our population is too large and urbanised to support without mechanised agriculture and supply chains. We have devastated the biosphere and the biodiversity that we depend upon for the next "stem rust resistant wheat"/corn/soy/rice etc (despite what people like to think about our ability to exist outside of nature). We have pumped enough heat into the oceans that we are committed to significant sea level rise regardless of what we do in the future. And the effects of the inevitable total loss of Acrtic sea ice will likely be catastrophic, sooner or later from disrupted climate and the release of even part of the Arctic's methane stores. We are committed to an industrialised civilisation - at the very least - until we have dealt with the worlds nuclear power plants and waste. Those things can't simply be abandoned and will poison the planet unless they are tended 24 hours a day until the day they are full decommissioned and disposed of. And then there's the aerosol masking effect. Our constant emissions from fossil fuels, while increasing atmospheric CO2 also put sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere increasing earth's albedo and reducing the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses. Stop the fossil fuel emissions and you add potentially a degree or more of warming very rapidly. The reality is that we are caught in a box of our own making. From which there is no escape - certainly for the vast majority of us, and probably in reality for all of us, and most life on the planet. That so many people still want's to believe that there are solutions out there "if we could just..." is no better or worse than techno-utopianism, eco-modernism, or whatever you want to call it. None of it acknowledges the reality of our dilemma which is way worse than this video is ready to admit.
Lack of hope and pessimism (which pessimists ALWAYS call "realism" for some reason) for sure isn't something that will bring any improvement. If anything, it will make the damage worse. If the worst happens, it's largely because of people spreading messages such as this one and people turning to apathy and denial because "there's nothing that can be done, we're doomed". What's the good in saying "there's no hope"? What makes you think you're wiser than those scientists that say that there are ways to improve? Sounds like an excuse for inaction and actively working against the cause by instilling pessimism in people.
@@agatazietek9098 ah yes "hope"... That thing that has lead to no action for decades while we all "hoped" that someone else would fix climate change and environmental destruction. Well they didn't. And now here we are. Every new report on climate change, it turns out it's worse than predicted. Nothing is improving, it just gets worse. You know what might actually help? Fear. That thing that drove our grandparents to fight for their lives and countries against fascism. That might actually help. It won't change the outcome. The *science* says that's locked in. Even the IPCC the most conservative organisation in the world says that climate change is abrupt and irreversible - which means loss of habitat for life on earth (that includes us). So the outcome isn't up for debate. The only question now is how it ends. And in that you're right - there are many things that could be done that might slow the consequences of industrial civilisation. But no one will do them. Because the rich and powerful don't understand or don't care if they do. So I live my life making every day count. Looking after the people around me. Trying to be a decent human being in the face of a world that has given up on science, logic, and reason. I make art. I build and plant and explore and savour as much of the beauty of the world as I can. If your response to the inevitably of the consequences of our actions is to give up and be apathetic then that on you and anyone else who refuses to be a grown up. I am a realist and I've accepted the consequences of our collective actions against the natural world. And whatever happens in the future I will be making the most of my time and encouraging others to do the same. Good luck. I hope you are making the most of every day. We all should be.
@@langdons2848 watch the new video from this channel, the discussion is pointless. And no, fear with no belief in other possibility isn't productive and it never was. And I haven't really heard about "loss of the majority of life including humans" is THE consensus, unless that's how you interpret the statements which are much more general. Doomerism never helped anyone. And by spreading such message, you're actively doing harm and contributing to even more death and suffering.
@@agatazietek9098 "doomerism" helped me realise the pointlessness of consumer capitalism and I have a much better life because of that. So yes, it really can. The vast majority of people can't or won't consider the consequences of every trend in the natural world but it doesn't take a genius to join the dots. Scientists are conservative by nature so that community is highly unlikely to ever say anything so definitive. As for "harming" people - endocrine disruptor from plastics and chemicals causing a global drop in fertility is harming people. Wet bulb temperatures reaching lethal levels more and more frequently in tropical regions is harming people. Living sedentary lives eating junk food is harming people. And even you wanting people to close their eyes and "hope" of a miracle is harming people. The list goes on endlessly. Me? Talking about the reality of what we are doing to the world? No. That might upset some people - like you - and make some people uncomfortable, but it's not harming anyone. Because my message isn't "don't act". It's "act now - but be realistic and concentrate on making the most of what we have while we have it".
@@langdons2848 whoever said my message is to close eyes and hope for a miracle? That's just a massive misconstruction of my argument, if nothing else. I don't know how this work, but I'm pretty sure you can be critical of capitalism and consumerism without engaging in doomerist thinking. Plus, calling people "not really adults" if they succumb to apathy isn't really it, given how reliant on mental health the reaction is
A couple of things that don't fit into the narrative of either side. 1. Automation will replace offshore labor. The question is then what? Lack of exploitation doesn't automatically make things fair. 2. The lightbulb lead to women's liberation. The lightbulb didn't intent for this to happen nor did women's liberation ask for it. It was simply coincidence. A new tech got used in a new way. Housewives in the west 100 years ago began to read at night after their chores were done by lightbulb. They weren't reading women liberation just becoming more knowledgeable and confident which in turn raised expectations of treatment.
It is extremely arrogant to believe that we can seperate ourselves from and master nature. Technology has its role to play in making life better while minimizing environmental impact, but it isn't the end-all be-all
I disagree, innovation is key for helping us get off fossil fuels. Nobody wants to pay higher energy prices for green energy. If we invest in innovation we can lower the green premiums and so every country will switch. The points out why the world has struggled to reduce emissions
No. There are other alternatives, such as permaculture, regenerative design, and Murray Bookchin's Democratic Confederalism (in short: Solarpunk). Technology as such isn't really the issue. It's the social and economic assumptions under which technologies are developed, which determine which ones get deployed, and Capitalism's requirement for endless economic growth, which would devour any efficiency gains made by technology.
Some good points made here, but I have a couple of my own to make: 1. Technology comes in many forms and trying to suggest that it can be lumped in one category ignores the difference between those which have demonstrable large environmental impacts, such as lithium-cobalt batteries, and those which are oriented at lower consumption of resources such as limiting devices on gas supply pipes to houses to avoid over-indulgent high interior temperatures. (might need that one quite soon in the EU). 2. If Capitalism is to be abandoned rather than modified, then a data-backed blueprint of an alternative system and a demonstrably successful small pilot scheme should be cited to prove that the alternative system will not fail in the same way a number of communal living experiments in the 1960s did. It might actually be discovered that a heavily-regulated form of capitalism, coupled with an enlightened form of materialism is the solution, with desirable status symbols shifting from pointlessly large, resource-hungry houses towards beautifully-crafted low-carbon pieces of art and sculpture etc.
On urban development, it's also important to remember that megacities tend to be hubs of some of the most industrially intensive manufacturing processes and house wealthier and higher consuming members of their societies. So that probably contributes a fair bit to their higher rate of pollution rather than it being innate to large conurbations simply existing. They're the imperial centers of the imperial centers, so to speak. That said . . . Those supersized conurbations are only possible, much less practical, due to modern transportation technology, and the way modern transportation technology has been implemented to allow them to supersize. In an ecologically balanced world . . . cities would certainly still exist. But they're likely revert to something resembling their pre 20th century pattern of development. It's really weird to look back at cities even a century ago and realize that they used to be rather intuitively constructed simply by necessity. A dense and interconnected downtown that tapered into middle rise and then suburban peripheries connected to the inner hub by public transit. The city quickly gave way to farms, country sides, and the surroundings towns and villages until one reached the edge of the next urban area of influence. Now, however, the urban area, especially of my own home region of Southern California, is wall to wall urban/suburban development across the entire LA Basin region.
Not another environmentalist video that criticizes without solutions! All they do is list a few alternatives but don't explain how to achieve this. Sustainability needs a combination of both community and technological solutions, because improving our quality of life is just as human as caring for one another.
There is a huge problem with your conclusion. People are used to live with the comforts that the industry provides. People won’t give that up. So unless the government take that decision for us, this will never happen. Ecomodernism is the only shot we have to have both prosperity and sustainability. People won’t start sleeping outside 24/7 because having a heated indoor climate for resting takes too much carbon footprint to sustain.
If you want to turn your back on new ideas, that's fine, but don't go crying in a few years when nothing has changed. Just put yourself at the place of government officials and try to bring actual change without crashing the economy. You can't just declare to your people they now have to grow their food and stop using their car. Sure, scaling down would be great, but it would be difficult to maintain while your power comes crashing down at the next election. Shifting the economy towards new technologies has to be part of the solution, just as changing our consumption habits. Rejecting other ideas on the basis it would only delay real change is a bad way to put it. Oil companies keep pumping out carbon as I enjoy my home grown tomatoes. Does my garden offers polluters a chance to continue business as usual? Depends on who's asked. All ideas can bring something positive to this equation.
Further reading-- ecomodernism: origins and evolution of a strange idea. Breakthrough Institute does the same thing as organized climate change denial, but with different content for a different target demographic, if anything they might be more insidious than the climate change denialists who are only fooling the hopeless. I say this as someone who has watchdogged both groups since i was a kid, for about a decade in earnest. And it took me a while to see clearly through the spin: so once again I thank you for coming in with the message the people need to hear. Breakthrough has done some incredible damage to the climate left, and thus the climate itself. nordhaus and schellenberger were pollsters who constructed industry-friendly environmental talking points that appeal to wealthy liberals from University towns and got alot of powerful academics on board and subsequently have fooled many if not most climate activists in some part. Imagination has been replaced by policy-wonks. Also Dont Look Up was a critique of ecomodernist technological fixes that basically amount to covert industrial welfare for mining and manufacturing and the powers behind them who see the end of the world as a golden opportunity to liquidate surplus. I'm surprised Hollywood got away with that much but i worry people might not get that hidden critique.
Oh which reminds me about don't look up, some cuckold from Breakthrough was on decouple podcast in a TH-cam clip titled "is an asteroid a bad metaphor for climate change?" Coping
I recently started watchdogging markets and have been listening to a podcast episode on TH-cam "smarter markets episode 1 with Jeff Currie Goldman Sachs global head of commodities research" it's blowing my mind, really
Watch it if you want to understand the problem through its own eyes, see just who climate-smart ecomodernism is for and why anti-consumerism just might be more important than anti-capitalism. By the way did you know the entire world industrial order would just fall apart without the American consumer base? Millennial consumers have already saved investors from two industrial recessions. Denying consumerism is austerity for the rich, populist policies that aim to increase the dollars poor people spend will invariably be captured by capital and are really just welfare for commodities investors in practice. we don't need money, we need space to breathe.
Just commenting for the algorithm. This one must be shared widely--this is such a pervasive, insidious issue in most of my social circles (primarily academics...social and biological scientists).
@@jeremyg9323 definitely. I’ve got plenty of those in my social circle as well. The biggest Elon Musk stans. I’ll add the personal finance gurus in here too.
Hey, interesting video :) I think this video is very helpful in explaining why the climate crisis can not be solved with Tech alone. We need more "aggressive" regulations, laws and programms to really start fighting this crisis. There are very effective measures that have to be taken, that are not in the interest of an economy (replantation of forrests, Emmisions-Tax, ...). On the other hand I feel this video does not cover the power and positive impact that eco-modernism has. The semtement is shifting from pure modernism, to include ecological goals. This is most likely one of the most important parts to create a growing force transforming our infrastructure and behavior. We could now start discussing over Greenwashing or social injustice (and i think we also should), but that we are getting to a point were companies need to react on the emerging crisis, is a amazing and important achievement not to underestimate.
Hey, what do you think of the fact that on one side Elon Musk was elected Time's Person of the Year 2021 and on the other side he was bitterly scoffed in the movie "Don't Look Up"? Maybe people are starting to see through the appearences?
Taking climate change seriously means giving up a large part of our consumeristic lifestyle. Consume drastically less energy, less products and live a more frugal life. Our economy will suffer dramatically but I think it's the only way. It's almost like we need to voluntarily go back in time 120 years to make a real impact on emissions so that 2 degrees celsius of global warming can be mitigated. I hope that there is an alternative but eco-modernism definitely isn't it. It indeed sounds like a greenwashing idea, meant to propagate the status-quo while making the population feel good about the action being taken (irrespective of the actual result) It sounds way too optimistic.
@CYANOSNAKE nature will do that. Our own tech is incompatible to our current sensitive biological systems which is why fertility rate is dropping faster than ever and we should increase this loss and nor wanting them in the first place by thhw same modern environment. Then technical and natural limits, which will do the job once the system breaks
@CYANOSNAKE Big problem with that: who gets to do the decreasing, and who gets to be decreased? We can decrease population over the long term by liberating and educating girls/women and moving beyond patriarchal "family values" (which drops birth rates to replacement level and below) but if you want a steeper/faster population decrease than that, it gets nasty.
Yeah some amongst us believe that technology could save us it could save us if we were trying to make technology to do that we're trying to make technology to make money those are two entirely different things
Around the start of 2020 I got obsessed with digging into Ecomodernism as a philosophy and a movement; its claims and contradictions; and ended up making (and shelving) a 5 hour long deep dive into the topic alongside the weird evolution of Shellenberger's third-way ecomodernism to climate denialism. And you've done so eloquently in 15 minutes what my 5 hour deep dive couldn't. Great work!
Unequality of the society is not objectively a bad thing. It can be seen as such, but opposite of equal - diversity, difference and uniqueness are also a good things. The reason why capitalists don't speak about "problem of unequality" is because we do not see it as aproblem at all, rather as a neutral characteristic. Second thing is that in 9:27 you pointed out that we should "decrease electricity demand". This is also something that I totally disagree with - electricity is purest form of the energy that we can use - better than chemical energy, mechanical energy etc.We should by all means increase the amount of people that have access to it and rebild all our devices to use electricity. The only thing that we should consider is energy efficiency of those devices, and sources of the energy to be green. But electricity should exist, it should make world better and leverage more of us out of poverty.
As much as I agree with everything, I can't see a world where the vast majority of people in capitalist and consumerist cultures to gain a consciousness and are fine giving up both the materialism and ideals. It feels like the only choice we have is to play their game.
People will give up that if the alternative is destroying everything. They do not have a choice: they WILL give up those comforts either forcibly or by choice.
Wow! Thank you for the rock hard evidence for such fantastic videos! The amount of work, humility, and dedication you put into being a spokesperson for the climate is clearly visible.
Recently I haven’t been watching your videos because the titles are just too negative, I don’t want to know about things that wont work, i want to hear about things that will, I don’t know if the video has that i just thought a bit of feedback would be nice.
OCC honestly makes my Eco-anxiety worse because his solutions are vague and nearly impossible to achieve. Sure eco-modernism isn’t the best solution, but I see it as a transition. Once we get more renewables and more efficient resource generators like vertical Farming, we can transition to a less profit driven society once the old conservatives die off and younger progressives take control. OCC’s solutions is basically trying to break through the wall, while ecomodernism is going around if we manage to make a detour down the line.
Hey! I've been a viewer of yours for a long time and I'm so impressed by your graphics and style in general. Would you consider making a video where you go into detail about how you make your videos?
What about the idea that instead of innovation driving further inequality, it could ideally lead to production of affordable goods and services that are sustainable/carbon neutral/regenerative, and also disruptive to fossil fuel industries, ultimately catalyzing degrowth/decommission of carbon heavy industries (energy, food, transportation, clothing, etc). Note, I'm aware of the utopian/idealism of this position, but it wasn't clear to me in this video upon first watch how "green" innovation necessarily would lead to inequality/exploitation, unless I spaced out at some point. Cheers
Also, this train of thought is very much informed by the Kurzgesagt video about climate change...Which is sponsored by the Gates Foundation. But let's set that aside for now and discuss the ideas!
When we look at the total energy mix, an increased absolute amount of renewable energy sources is currently only adding to our rapidly growing energy consumption, rather than replacing fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy sources still require large amounts of resources, for instance in the form or rare earth metals that are often extracted under very unsustainable conditions. For both of these points, the source of the problem lies not in the technologies we have, but in the rate of economic growth that is still overshadowing any progress we make on the sustainability front.
You literally cite figures that contradict your point. 200 years ago the average life expectancy was 30, nowadays its 50 in poor neiborhoods - thats still an increase, thats excluding the fact that the poor in the US die of obesity. The initial comperison of people starving is so out of touch with reality. Todays reality allows us to feed 8 billion people - sure a billion are undernourished, but thats about 7 billion people that wouldn't be able to exist at all, compared to 90% being clinically undernourished 200 years ago. Let me repeat this *we can feed 7 billion people now* as opposed to just 100 million. Is this unequal? Sure, but "neoliberalism" and the free market doesn't guarantee equality, just a raise in prosperity for all, in an unequal fashion. you really think miners and factory workers have better options? the only other option they usually have is back breaking unreliable farming, scavanging, or 12 hour shifts with a reliable pay. They are choosing reliable pay over unreliable farming, the west isnt forcing them to work in factories instead of living in a Marxist utopia or anything. Trying to strive for equal prosperity for all, usually by force, ends up with no prosperity for anyone - just look at the failed experiments out there, let alone the environmental impact they left on the planet. The basic idea behind this eco-modernism is simple. People who own capital, in a free market will always try to compete by offering lower prices to consumers. You have a myriad of ways to accomplish this, one of them is cutting costs on energy use and materials. If we can make energy cheep (like nuclear and renewables are) or sell pricer products that are more durable and in the long run save the consumer money, you automatically force the economy to be greener. Urbanisation in this idea, is the most economically efficient way to group people together and distiribute resources and services among the population - ideally, the poorest can still get good services and goods on the cheep, and benefit from economic growth. As evidence, please look at any city built or areas developed before the 1940s - walkable, dense neighborhoods, where you have everything you need at a walking distance, no need for car use, and heavy reliance on public transportation (that is also more efficient if private, but that's besides the point). Efficiency is the only way we can reduce human impact on the earth - and the free market is the only proven way to do it, any other way *necessitates* inefficiency or human suffering (that can be avoided). Give up on the idea of equality, or forever be disappointed by the implementations it brings forth.
There's an amazing natural "machine" that absorbs CO2 produces O2, improves biodiversity, controls floods, reduces heat, filters water, controls water cycles, improves soil fertility and so on... I'm not only talking about trees I'm talking about healthy and functional ecosystems, we can restore them strategically. Also we can consume less , and manage waste properly... but for all that we might rely on innovation too, but as a tool not the only solution.
While decoupling is often overexaggerated when evaluating consumption based imports, we have seen a real decrease in emissions, especially in the European union. 2012 is old for a study when it comes to decoupling. Although a large portion of the relative decoupling is due to the transition from Coal powered electricity to natural gas powered electricity.
Because the manufacturing is moved overseas, to places like Bangladesh and China. This makes the emissions appear to go down in places like Germany, but it’s just a misleading statistic, as our Earth is still being polluted just as much (or even more, because of transportation).
I actually focus my channel on that so you might want to check it out. I release monthly videos on various topics and discuss the science behind them, what long term solutions this means we need to support, and suggestions of what you can change immediately in order to reduce your emissions. Check it out if you’re interested!
This is a nice indirect response to that one environmental youtuber who thinks anyone clamoring that ending capitalism will solve climate change is delusional.
This video is excellent, and put rather eloquently. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Deep Adaptation and the works of Jem Bendell, since a lot of its critiques revolve around the futility and failure of Ecomodernist ideals.
I have a master's in environmental policy and ten years after graduating, I finally came to this conclusion too myself. So I started to look up stuff to see if anyone else thought the way I did, and of course they do. But this is a SMALL minority so it's hard to find much research on it. Most people who are against environmentalism are climate change deniers. I'm not. I just don't think more of the same this (capitalism and exponential growth) is the answer. So thank you for this video. Another good report done by some EU folks is called "Decoupling Debunked". Check it out.
Well, regardless of whether that theory works or not, how about we get emissions to zero and fix inequality *first* and *then* we can see if economic growth can be a thing? Priorities eh. That thinktank sounds like they're spending all their time pouring over which colour curtains to pick when there's not even a blueprint for the house yet. Great video! Is there a threshold for which population size is the most efficient for a town/city? I always thought dense cities were more efficient as well, that'd be something I'd be interested in hearing more on!
Quite manipulative use of stats in this. I'd like to see you properly address the claim that the past 200 years have marked flourishing. You say the poor have been 'left to drown', yet immediately cite a life expectancy stat for the poor which is 30 years higher than the previous average. Seems like on this analysis you've demonstrated exactly the point you propose to refute.
Demand for electricity will increase greatly. If you do not have enough nuclear power then coal will be used and the transition to clean energy will take longer. Why? Renewables are not keeping up with demand because it is difficult to build the energy storage capacity that it will require.
The problem is that you are asking a world of people who hate each other to entirely change their way of life. To surrender advantages they have, the ease of life they enjoy, and to agree to endure harder conditions to save the planet. In a world where those who refuse to do this will continue to advance. You can say eco modernism isn't good enough or really won't save the world but the problem is that at the end of the day getting people to drastically change in a short amount of time is less likely to occur than technology somehow saving us.
I see a lot of critics of capitalism lately, which is good. But still nobody talks about the only alternative: Socialism. The means of production have to be democratically managed.
I don't know what you mean by "nobody". The channel that you are currently commenting on has a video where they recommend ecosocialism. Second Thought is an explicitly socialist channel with more than a million subscribers & he has a podcast with Yugopnik and Hakim, two other socialist channels. Philosophy Tube is another 1 million+ sub overtly socialist channel. Richard Wolff has a whole organization called "Democracy at Work" which advocates for socialism & produces a regular economic update from a socialist perspective. In addition to that, the Gravel Institute was founded to be a socialist counter to PragerU. Hasan Piker is one of the biggest Twitch streamer & he's a socialist political commentator. And those are just the biggest ones from off the top of my head (shout out to smaller guys like Marxist Paul, Viki1999, & Saint Andrewism). It's true that capitalism is falling in popularity in the US faster than socialism is growing, but socialism _is_ growing -- & there's a lot of educational/entertainment socialist content out there for people who are curious.
@@helpiamstuckonthismanshead3385 I'm talking about socialist channels, not social democratic (progressive liberal) ones. All of the channels I listed are socialist ones spanning across the leftist spectrum from Marxist-Leninist to anarchist.
@@abelabel3664 Sorry in advance for the long reply... However, if you really want an answer to your question, I've tried my best to provide one. It's not the only alternative... Of course, there are many ways to organize an economy & government... But socialism, we can say, is the only "solution" to class society in general & capitalism in particular. See, the core problem of capitalism (we say the core "contradiction") is the eternal conflict of interests between the labor force & owners... If you like, employees and employers (we say workers and capitalists). The employer wants to harvest the maximum "surplus value" from the employee's labor: they want to maximize their own profits. On the other hand, the employee would like to keep that surplus value in the form of higher wages, better benefits, paid time off, etc. As long as there is an employer & an employee, this conflict of interests will be there, & it's why the capitalist class fights so hard to keep democracy under control... After all "power to the people" is no good when you're a tiny ruling class with interests in opposition to the vast majority of the population. The socialist recognizes this & asks the question "Why do the employer & the employee have to be different people?" Why not, instead of having an elite class that owns all the "means of production" (the offices, factories, machines, tools, etc.) & harvests value from the workers, why not have the workers own all that stuff & decide how production is done democratically? That way, we no longer have two conflicting classes who have different incentive structures because they relate to production differently. That's socialism. And there are many different ideas on how to achieve something like that. In fact, you might even say that schools of socialism are even more diverse than capitalist schools of thought: ranging from Marxist-Leninism & Maoism to anarchism & democratic socialism... even to market socialism. And many more besides. But in general, they all agree that our problem is rooted in the "material dialectic"... that is, the fact that we have a separate elite class of owners who have opposing interests to everyone else.
It's quite refreshing to occasionally see a well done presentation that deals with reality, rather than a sales pitch. It wasn't that long ago that anyone that passed a statistics class could reasonably be expected to see the lie buried in the popularized narrative. The con men will slit their own throats before they will ever admit the inescapable, incontrovertible truth that physics dictates the only way to avert disaster is to drastically reduce production, period. IOW, either capitalism dies or we all die. Capitalism cannot exist without constant growth. Constant growth in any finite system will inevitably overwhelm that system. The system being overwhelmed is the biosphere upon which every living thing depends. There's no fantasy escape to Mars or the Moon. Mad Max is fiction. If we allow the ecosystem to collapse it won't make any difference if you're in Bangladesh, alone on the desert, on your own private island, buried in a secret underground vault, or on a giant yacht with it's own yacht. The variable possibilities of what happens when and the manner in which the collapse manifests don't really matter as the only end to the story is that we all die, period. Everyone and everything more complex than algae.
It all boils down to energy use. Lets say we need 200 000 TWh worth of electricity per year. Thats about 10x from todays electricity use but today we use energy in other forms. Per capita for a world with 9 billion people that is 22 222 kWh/year. To supply that amount of electricity a small city of 600 000 people they would need ONE big nuclear reactor (1600 MWe). Is that feasible? I think so. To verify those numbers, take my country Sweden as a reference. A net zero future scenario says we require 300 TWh/yr of electricity to make steel and e-fuels. Divided amongst our 10 million gives 30 000 kWh/year and capita. But then you have to remember we are a heavy industry country with colder than average climate.
@@XiaosChannel yes, I'm simply saying that the people who live IN the cities are generally very poor, the rich people tend to live in gated communities in nearby suburbs
Hi, thank you for your informative videos. :) It is helpful and important that you point out the things going wrong. On the other hand, criticizing is a lot easier than presenting solutions. (More) videos on actual climate change solutions (even if potentially less views) would be more helpful though.
Respect the constant uploads. I agree mostly, but usually hate Absolutes. Because these ideas need to be tested in the real contemporary world, and many will fail and many will have sparks of progress. So it’s hard to claim one man (you) has all the answers on this hyper complex problem. But keep it up 💪
Capitalism is fundamentally an ideology reliant on exploitation, both of resource and people, it is inherently unsustainable. But innovation and capitalism are not the same, to the contrary, capitalism stands in the way of true innovation and progress, as it encourages monopolies, copy right, and patents, thereby limiting what others can do to improve on previous designs and even if someone managed to come up with something new and good its success is not determined by how good it is but whether the rich can profit from it. We need to reduce our energy consumption. We need to decarbonise the energy we do still use. We need to recapture carbon. Technology can help, dismissing that is foolish, but relying on technology alone is equally foolish. We need to be pragmatic and truly look at how we can best acchieve these goals, and not let some naturophilic or modernistic idealism get in the way of dealing with this crisis, and we need to get people on board if we want any chance of succeeding.
It baffles me. Even tho Society is struggling, We are yet to even attempt to implement: The concept around: "The better off the lowest income people are doing; The better the entire rest of our countries economy could be doing." -Think of it like a ecosystem in nature. The least important little things might seem meaningless and insignificant yet, if they crumbled away, the entire ecosystem would crumble. The last things remaining would be the top diverse predators that eat everything else.. until they eat each other.. leaving just a few top sharks in the ecosystem.. the whales would all be gone once the plankton crumble away, the sharks would eat the whales. Then once all that's left is sharks, the sharks would eat the sharks. *(Think of this but as a analogy for our economy and our modern day society..) If we instead decided to support the lowest people in the ecosystem, there would be a beneficial systematic dispersion towards other aspects of society benefiting. All because the lowest people would be flourishing. I say flourish but I really just mean, able to obtain the most basic essential living standards... Yet even that would Vastly improve our current state of our economy & society *Also imagine this analogy in our economy. The more help we invest in the lowest level people, the more it would trickle into every facet of our economy. If poor people can pay their rent & not go homeless: landlords would get $, businesses would get $, banks would get $, local small shops would get $, mortgages & bills could be paid, insurance companies would get $, Taxes would get $, So essentially that $ would go out & filter right back in to improve our Country while simultaneously improving our quality of Life. Every bit of the economy would somehow find a way to benefit off of this situation... I don't get why we haven't even Given it a chance?? If it doesn't help? Then by all means stop it and figure out what problems we could be facing might be one's that run way deeper than expected and that would take drastic changes to improve that situation... (I hope we TRY something soon, before things get any more unstable. The worst thing we could do is continue on doing exactly what we are currently doing. It might get to a point where overcoming our struggles could simply become a pipedream. I don't want it to get to that)
💡 How what climate actions have you been taking lately?
👍 Consider commenting and liking the video!!! It really helps this video beat the pesky algorithm!
🔗 If you want to read more about ecomodernism check out these resources: fascinated-soccer-ac0.notion.site/Eco-modernism-Resources-78c47b9e6dfd408fbf59b786b0d7fb30
I think a colab with PLN is on order to uplift us all.
Today not much. But I started being a vegetarian since a year. It was hard and I fail all the time but it keeps getting better. I also want to do something with the biodiversity in my region. Helping the butterflies and bee's and let people be aware about the beauty and diversity of the natural world.
I Joined a environmental collective. Inspired by your videos
I'm tending to 4 acres to turn it into a biodiverse jungle. I'm documenting this on youtube to show how humans can become part of nature for the benefit of all species in their local ecosystems.
Installed solar panels and demonstrated for the continued operation of six nuclear power plants. #SaveGER6
As I quote from one of my teachers: "It is easier to imagine putting people on Mars than it is to imagine an end to capitalism. That is why eco-modernism is such an alluring idea.
And it’s only made easier when you’ve spent 95% of your life being told that capitalism is the thing that makes your life amazing.
I didn't think of connecting those two dots before. Your teacher needs a raise.
@Shimmy Shai by using a scapegoat, a "greater evil" that is communism, politicians have successfully fool people to believe there's nothing wrong with the current system of capitalism. Now if someone dare criticizing the "perfect system" they'll be accused of being a communist. It's easier to judge and labeling other people than facing the flaws of our own beliefs.
Kind of ripping of Zizek’s quote "it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism". Unless your teacher is Zizek which would be pretty cool.
To all of you, including Erik's teacher, please read *1984* by _George Orwell_ (or listen in YT). The end of capitalism and a "perfect system" is not far fetched... The question is, would you prefer to live in that society?
I can't help but laugh at people thinking Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos will save the planet with their evacuation ships!
Agreed! However, I think there is an excellent case to be made for setting up permanent Lunar or Martian colonies. Even if Anthropogenic Climate Change is averted then resource depletion, nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or other threats that could put humanity and human civilization at risk.
Having all our eggs in one basket is a dangerous thing to do, especially as we now have the technology to start off-world colonisation. What we lack is the political will and the necessary investment.
Edited to correct over generalisation.
Life will always continue to live to earth (until its destroyed). Humans cant end life on earth (luckily) and we will always lose and for sure go extinct its just a fact, no species lasts forever and few last even thousands of years.
@@karigrandii thanks, I have edited my last post.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 Multiple government space agencies are planning moon colonies by 2030. Lets let the rocket scientists do the rocket science and get to saving the planet ourselves. th-cam.com/video/-HGm2SSRaDs/w-d-xo.html
@@thekingoffailure9967 I never said people should not try to save the planet or attempt to prevent anthropogenic climate change. I plant trees in developing countries and protect forests. I am also a vegan and have never owned a car.
My point was there are other threats to human life and civilization on this planet. Also, I think having multiple colonies increases their chance of success.
Here’s a manufacturing example of how constant growth is bad: my old company won a contract for a new product which was going to launch in Target. We had huge orders from our customer and a tight deadline so we pushed to achieve this.
This involved buying a second machine and working immediately on quotes for robotic upgrades to these machines. We worked like crazy and eventually met the goal…then orders promptly went to 0!
This huge order was only so they could STOCK THE SHELVES and not force customers to wait. So we consumed tons of energy building machines and parts that weren’t even needed.
In my opinion: shifting our economy to focus on emissions rather than dollars would have a huge impact. I’m sure there’s still tech that we’ll need to invent and build, but it’s no where near as much as companies want us to believe.
Well the ONLY thing that matters under capitalism is making money. So good luck with that.
This has nothing to do with capitalism imo. Your company should have taken a second to think whether a) will more orders come ? b) for what reason did that company order so much in such a small time frame c) it seems like your company is managed by some pretty naive and inexperience individuals.
@@alexandervlaescu9901 I forgot to explicitly mention it but we were profitable the whole time and the project was largely seen as a success by everyone. And that’s why it has everything to do with capitalism.
Capitalism doesn’t care what your emissions is as long as you continue making money. So we generate huge amounts of emissions and don’t see a problem because we keep making money.
You can also make dollars more equivalent to emissions. Tax companies dramatically in proportion with the amount of emissions involved with production, then let capitalism do its thing.
Though of course this requires government regulation, which in turn requires a government that isn't owned by corporate interests.
@@RialuCaos oh absolutely! I’m a part of my local Citizens Climate Lobby and email/call my politicians regularly to say that they need to put a carbon tax in place. Getting closer but I think we’re still a few years out from making it a reality unfortunately :-(
For perspective, I researched the numbers on my wife driving her Corolla to work and found that it accounted for 12% of our emissions and 1.2% of our budgeted expenses. Jack that price up and a guarantee that many more people will immediately start cutting their emissions!
Fantastic work, as always. It can't be stressed enough that the best way to stop destroying the planet is to *stop doing it.* No caveats.
Going vegan is one of the single most effective methods of lowering carbon output
@@Jack13001 That's a good step, but it still won't be nearly enough. Not even close.
Everything that we can do that will reverse the trend is directly contrary to everything we want to keep doing, starting with making more people. People are the primary source of all the activities that have already caused so much harm to our one and only home.
@@rickb3650 so leagueie weaguies from Futurama were right with their slogan?
Not that simple. Technological innovation is essential to stopping destroying the olanet. For example one tanker ship emits as much as 50million cars in co2. Our only solution to reducing these tankers’ emissions are either to stop the shipping industry or to power these boats using different tech. Its impossible to stop the shipping industry in such a globalized world so we have to develop technology to keep tankers but also make them sustainable. Tech innovation combined w political innovation is what is going to solve our climate problem.
@@rickb3650 ofc it won’t be enough, but that’s no excuse not to make a change. Nothing you do as an individual will make a difference, but you have to decide that even if your own actions are a drop in the bucket, it is your moral prerogative to reduce your own consumption.
Don't worry, guys! We can CAPITALISM our way out of it!
wat
"Yes, lets pay the climat not to change.
Because that will work."
@@pebblehopper7534 SARCASM
@@N0Xa880iUL yes but is it implying that capitalism isn't our way out im not sure
@@pebblehopper7534 because it's not our way out since it got us here in the first place
The answer is simple: we need to produce less. We need to consume less. Corporate capitalism will not allow for that. Capitalism is the cause, it will never provide a solution.
Agreed. I saw an article the other day about how our emissions dropped in 2020 cause of the shutdowns for the virus. Tons of people were saying “but the supply chain issues! This obviously means that we can’t just shut down to combat climate change.”
But I gotta honestly wonder what many of these people were purchasing and if they truly needed it. Cause I purchase very little and ran into 0 supply chain issues throughs the whole year.
So yea, I’m all for figuring our ways to provide people with homes and food while shutting down industries en masse.
You can thank "The Reagan Revolution" for completely dooming us all! ^_^
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet you don't represent the masses. What works for you may not work with your neighbor. Whether you like it or not, capitalism needs to be included in our future as to convince the maximum volume of humans to a more responsible way if life. If you keep assuming that you'll convince an entire system to simply stop innovating and making money, we won't make it.
This video forgot to mention that you could pull off you can modernism with technology that is over 100 years old.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet I don‘t know where you live, but here we even struggled for flour, toilet paper, yeast, …
If I cannot buy BASIC items this truly is a big issue.
And now most food costs 1.5 to 2x as much as before.
And what benefit? -1% CO2 emissions? Great trade off!
The amount of anguish I feel for the exploited regions of the world is indescribable.
They will take the hit of climate disaster the worst, meanwhile the ones who caused this mess will get off free and move on, as well as sink us down further to increase profit.
There are some that are doing their utmost to prepare their communities. Look up the Songhaï Centre.
Yeah. It makes my insides hot and sore. I can’t quite explain the feeling, but it’s almost a full body rage that can’t be sated.
There are many issues with exploitation of "the third world".
Unfortunately people usually focuses on one case of exploitation, which really isn't correct.
I'm talking about sweat shops and hard/dangerous jobs for low pay.
As long as nobody FORCES people to do such things (like in slavery), I don't think it is actually bad. If people are not forced to do that, they CHOOSE to do that because alternative is even worse for them.
@Mia Krunic What is then?
See I get up every morning and make my kids breakfast and then I go to work.
I could sleep in, or abandon my family or quit my job or whatever.
I chose this, as it is a better alternative for me.
@@Staremperor Yours is an apples to oranges comparison. Let me change your scenario for you.
You're a dirt poor man from east java, you can get up, make your children breakfast, with the limited food that you have, and then go to work. For work you'll walk up a mountain (with 2 buckets hanging off each end of a pole on your back) then make your way into an active volcano. From here you'll walk around a large lake nestled in a steaming, yellow crater and use a metal stick to hack off massive pieces of sulfur. After that you'll take 200lbs of the stuff seven miles down the mountain to the weighing station, you'll make three to seven trips a day before your shift is over.
I forgot to mention, the "steaming" gases coming out of that crater are concentrated hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide gases that burn your eyes and lungs and are strong enough to even dissolve your teeth. The crater’s sides are also steep, jagged and slippery. The volcano itself has the capacity to erupt unexpectedly. That "lake" you walk around, has the pH of battery acid and parts of it are boiling hot meaning it splutters and spits while you're walking around its incredibly slippery edge. You will have a scarred or disfigured shoulders and back due to the weight you're carrying all day. Your PPE will consist of of some tattered rags, with one across your face to "help" you breathe, they get burned by the gases btw. You'll also be working in the tropical midday sun.
There is no social safety net, you have no formal education (no you don't make enough to get one), this is the only place that'll pay you enough of a pittance to feed your family, and keep whatever ramshackle domicile you live in over your head. Don't work, you and every one that depends on you is dead.
Now your situation is like theirs. When the only other option is to literally die, whatever else you've been offered, it's not a choice.
In this scenario you wouldn't be choosing to work there, you'd work there *because there is no where else to work.*
Innovation is not inherently dependent on Capitalism, that's what a lot of people fail to understand on both sides, and many go as far to consider "anarcho-primitivism" (technological regression and degrowth across the board. "return to monke") as a valid option.
Technological advancement cannot be the sole solution to the problems we face, I agree, but it still has a fairly large role for our future as a species.
Innovation dies under capitalisms I see it in games all the time that why you get 10,000 of the same game with small changes, Capitalist don't innovate they assemble.
In fact, Capitalism kills innovation more often than not. Innovation means taking risks, especially financial risks. Capitalism is about making save money. Even if innovations are made, they are often simply bpught and put away to protect existing market positions that roll in the money. If you know where to look, you will find that all over the research world. In every single (real) science that exists.
Ah yes: economy is *not* a science, but an ideology based on pretty much religous believes.
that's not the point of the video
Unfortunately it is not as simple as it seems because there is alot of factors to consider
I agree. I would argue that innovation is most dependent on what you’re measuring. If your measuring profit of a device then you’ll innovate something which is cheaper to make. If you’re measuring emissions of a device then you’ll innovate something that’s more eco friendly.
Since we’re human we’ll always be trying to innovate and optimize our situations. So we need to setup our society in a way that people are encouraged to innovate in the RIGHT ways. Capitalism currently fails to do that.
The only thing I would take issue with is about vertical farming, which it looks like we’ll need. Purely because of the extreme weather and unpredictable seasons making it almost impossible to grow anything outside. So that’s one thing where we will just have to accept that we need to spend the energy on it. But otherwise it was perfect in explaining why green growth is a fantasy.
I would think that covered farming either with glass or plastic glazing, and is already in commercial use, would be more cost and energy effective.
@@chalichaligha3234 Yeah I guess we use a lot of greenhouse type buildings now.
@@chalichaligha3234 I think covered farming is going to explode on places like desserts and cold climates. Cold climates will use greenhouses to capture heat and make the climate warm enough to grow veggies, berries and grains.. and the deserts I think will utilize large swaths of land covered by white tarps that let light through but try to keep water loss at an absolute minimum and lessen the extreme heat.
@@chalichaligha3234 singapore would beg to differ. 5.6million pop in an island you could spit across, we need vertical farming to even have a hope of eating local produce. I think other densely populated cities, especially if distanced from their agricultural hinterland, would face the same problem. Food transport emits carbon too.
Absolutely, I can agree with most of the video but the farming takes are pretty hot. Very few traditional low intensity famring methods make a huge difference to emissions because if their incredibly low density outcome (we need food forests and similar infrastructure that produce multiple yields in the same space) but forms of aquaculture with greenhouses can be converted to fairly low energy vertical farms as long as you are not trying to make a completely insulated, lightless warehouse into a farm
Technology still depends a lot on labor exploitation. Kids are still digging in mines for minerals that go in our computers and phones. Working class people in Chinese and Korean factories work at breakneck speeds to create small in parts. We could build more low tech climate solutions and kinder societies that are far more sustainable in rural areas, rather than trying to urbanize every area possible. People also just like being near nature. Doing outdoor simple things as a peaceful renewal away from technology's constant encroachment on our psyche.
The main reason tech is dependent of exploitation is because of the profit motive.
Cheap labor means you'll get higher profits, hence the oppression of the global south.
I think we should fully utilize the tech we have to improve. Like you said we shouldn't try to urbanize every single town.
Technology is a double-edged sword. When electronics became a part of our lives, there were both benefits and harms. It made our lives easier, it created jobs, it boosted the economy and it connected the world. On the other hand, it caused the issues you mentioned: sweatshops, child labor, pollution, etc. There are both sides to a story, always look on the bright-and dark side
ruralize > urbanize
We will never be free until the system collapses
I am not so sure about the rural part or perhaps it depend on how you define rural. An over reliance on car as a method of transportation is quite polluting. and the best way to get rid of cars is building more walkable/bikable/public transport. And the best way to do that is well to build more densely not to the point of building high rises everywhere but at least to the point that single detached family home with big yard ample parking space are way rarer. And I am not sure everyone would consider that to going back to a more rural living even though it would free much more land for nature and agricultural use, and that it doesn't mean everyone living in cities.
"Economic growth" huh? You can't solve a problem by approaching it with the same attitude that got you there in the first place.
EXACTLY!
There is one small problem with that decarbonisation causes economic growth. I’m not sure how you intend to prevent it from doing that.
@@alwynwatson6119 well. The first part is to reduce consumerism. Before we think of decarbonizing our activities, think about dropping useless consumption.
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 Relay not both at the same time?
@@alwynwatson6119 humans are not smart enough to do both at the same time.
I want to figure out how to have this conversation with my capitalist-apologist friends and acquaintances. The jump from technomodernism to solarpunk/connected-with-the-land ideology is a huge culture shift, and requires a lot of concession about a person's worldview. I know *I'm* on board with everything touched on here, but I'm afraid sharing this video outright will have them go immediately into defense mode.
As the outspoken communist at my work, it's a rough time but you kind of just have to accept that you have to be the annoying repetitive "it's capitalism's fault" guy. I've found it's best to wait for them to talk about an issue their having with work, finances, legality, etc and be educated enough on the issues to be able to explain the root causes of their struggles and what we as a species have to do.
most of my friends like that are fully dogmatic and will never listen to anything. These people venerate The Market like nothing else and piercing through their neoliberal indoctrination is almost impossible. I'm still friends with them, but I've accepted that they're too far gone and have stopped pushing the issue.
Maybe dig deep and show them a world without colonial industrialization,how balanced everything was before capitalism murdered nations to build other nations.
If they still ignore you, get better friends.
It's always easier to judge and labeling other people than facing the flaws of our own beliefs. That's what's happening with your friends, they can't face the harsh truth yet.
@@amarula7589 before capitalism there was mongol empire. surely a great time to live
As an Asian I try to look at this in a different angle:
1. The region was never "developed" until recently. Many believed their hard-earned wealth is a result of diligence, and feel like degrowth or forced ecolism in general is a betryal from the West. In our defense, many aren't really live in a wasteful life.
Its unethical to stop growth in Asia and later on Africa just because the West damaged the environment during their growth. So there has to be some ways to grow better.
2. Many countries have high population densities, that megacity is almost unavoidable. Tokyo, for example, has grown into the largest on the planet in last century, but pre-industrialised Edo had never been small, either. At least here in Tokyo is not too inefficient.
Is it better to urbanize Jakarta and Bangkok, and keep the rest innocent and untouced, or is it better to sprawl across the rainforest, and educate the residents how to coexist with the nature? I've no idea, but I don't think there's adequate research either.
3. "Sustainable technology" that feeds the mass often doesn't exist. Nor it's easy to dramatically reduce consumption when the economy is in fast growth, unlike mature developed countries.
While I agree we can't save the world by relying on new toys and business as usual, "green growth" is not as useless as you think, at least in some parts of the world.
Of course the true intention behind is for the West to ease its ego while becoming the loser. They also would like to shame Asia for becoming the dominant Economy and Culture.
Don't waste your time, this channel is an echo chamber of radical eco-marxists. Also don't worry, they are insignificant and no one care about them. They're just noisy on the Internet.
I think the best way is to reduce the purchasing power of western countries and pay proper wage to developing countries for their resource (pay them 1000-1500 USD per month instead of the 'Fairtrade' pay of perhaps 300 USD). Basically stop capitalising on the fruit of colonialism and start treating commodity as valuable as knowledge (which is all western countries have). This would take a total global revolution which is impossible other than a war.
Megacities all the way. It's far more resource-effective to live in cities, and honestly, nature is best left mostly untouched. It's possible to make cities that people want to stay in forever
@@planefan082 Nah dude, I am good in my lil farm. Do not want to live in a place where the rent of even a 3x3x3 cubic meter "house" is $2000 a month.
@@sirnikkel6746 The entire point is that you get a tiny place and then enjoy most of the day out and about, but you do you
Good video. Nice description of the issue and what's wrong with it. As always, excellent production values. The only criticism I would have is that the phrasing lends itself to binary thinking.
Technical innovation *alone* won't save us.
We need technical innovation. New tools and better versions of the tools we have.
But we also need political innovation, social innovation and organizational innovation.
Better tools to make things and do things yes, but just as important better tools to make decisions, to distribute resources and too resolve disputes.
We need *all* of these things.
Exactly what I thought
Perfectly said
Yes, he said in another video (I think it was the solarpunk video) that a combination of high-tech and low-tech solution which respects everybody needs to be chosen democratically by the working class and all the oppressed.
the root of these problems that I seldom see people talk about is the extremely low value people assign to commodity and resources. There is a fundamental belief (advocated by rich western countries) that a person and country with higher knowledge power should be paid way more and deserve to have a much better lifestyle than countries that mainly produce resource. That is how excessive consumption and extreme poverty will always exist together, when the disparity in purchasing power between countries is so insurmountable. Result of capitalism, colonialism and imperialism.
shut up 😂😂😂
Countries who don't share resources will be made to share resources.
it's capitalism. it's unfettered private use of natural resources. and human nature, which is to seek power.
couldnt the 7% living in megacities using 9% of electricity and fuel consumption could just be because these cities tend to be richer? like if we compared a megacity and rural population at the same standard of living, which would be more efficient?
This, thank you. The only reason average person in a city consumes more is because of inequality, they're simply richer on average. Try spreading all these relatively 'well off' people to rural areas and see how much electricity/fuel they'll consume because of complexities of logistics alone. I'm living in an apartment building with 30 other flats, neighboured by similar apartment buildings around me, thousands of people. All shopping for groceries in the same store that's walking distance, commuting to office buildings not so far away using mass transit, shared heating of the apartment I'm living in instead of individual small houses. It's extremely efficient. Even a badly designed city is so much much more efficient than suburbs or rural spaces.
@@DriantX Ding ding ding THIS comment right here
Edit: Rural populations also have soft impacts that are less measurable, wealthy or not. Such as hunting, manipulation of areas, pesticides...etc. The mere existance of humans in some areas can disrupt the flow of things
I am literally currently wrirting a university assessment on the question: can economic development be achieved without further contributing towards climate change? - this video couldn't have come at a better time !!
I guess you have to imagine an economy that is 100% carbon neutral eh?
Make sure you credit your sources😏😏
It's not possible. One simple fact: we have already consumed ALL of earth's ressources by august (even though there are some gaps in the method, the numbers are still telling). Most of these ressources are consumed by rich countries. ALL inhabitants of these rich countries have annual emissions above 2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, simply by the government's sending in institutions such as army, schools, hospitals. So not even counting yout personnal lifestyle and emissions. (Look up emissions of co2eq per capita and countries, you'll see that there is a LOOOONG way to go.) The 2Tonnes of CO2eq per capita is the threshold if we want to attain carbon neutrality.
So if you wanted all emerging countries to reach the same level of development as rich countries have, you will surpass that threshold, even with "green" technologies or less emitting technologies. We are slowly entering an era of shortages, bc most of global ressources have been exploited. By 2100, most of the critical minerals exploitation will start to drop/ will have already reduce. This will cause an Increasing in price, or since most of the mines are located in China, will benefits to the country that has them.
If you want development today, you would have to reduce rich countries ressources & consumption, which is incompatible with our capitalist & consumerist societies, to give more 'carbon capital' to emerging nations.
Honnestly, I believe that a reflexion on this subject from the money/currency only point of view is a fallacy. You need to quantify emissions if you are talking about sustainability and climate change.
Also dont forget, + development = + consumption = + waste, which is incompatible with climate change :).
@@TrungNguyen-uf8cv even if carbon neutral could be a thing (which it can’t) still doesn’t solve a number of problems and contradiction inherent in capitalism.
This is a really great video, but I got say, it’s somewhat unfulfilling. I notice that channels like this and Second Thought always stop short of discussing possible alternatives to the ideology they are attacking/deconstructing, instead choosing to just focus on what we shouldn’t do. So I gotta ask: what are the actual alternatives to ecomodernism? I genuinely want to know, where can I go to learn more about a better way forward?
That’s my problem too. OCC comes up with so many videos telling us what the problems are, but he’s very vague about the solutions. If anything, OCC makes my eco-anxiety worse because he makes it seem like the only solutions to these problems are nearly impossible to achieve.
In my view, eco-modernism is the first phase. Then after a decade or two, when new technology and renewables grow a substantial amount, the richer countries will become more progressive thanks to increased immigration and conservatives dying off from old age. Then the millennials will take over leadership and start a major cultural shift thus transitioning from eco-modernism to solarpunk.
@@Rainbowhawk1993 That's because he has no solutions. All he does is tell tell us what we are doing wrong which is utterly unhelpful.
Its so good to see quality videos about what regular environmentalism often gets wrong.
Our solutions must ultimately be a combination of several philosophies. For example, while not everyone will be able to have their own 400 mile electric car, advances in technology will allow the proliferation of electric bikes. Not everyone will be able to have a 4000 sq ft house, but advances in heat pump tech will allow everyone to heat and cool their home fossil fuel free.
And like it or not, social-capitalism is the only way to enable those things while retaining current income freedoms. Unless we see an overnight shift back to extremely localized government which could be accountable enough to manage something otherwise.
The solution is for people to not NEED to have 400 mi range EVs to run their lives
I am handicapped. I can't ride a bike, and I can't afford an electric car. Can't we just have good public transport, instead of investing in tech that is made to be used individually.
The fundamental problem here is that the more efficient or cost saving we are able to be with our resources, the more we will shift them elsewhere. There is no end to growth unless humanity as a whole decides it so. There's is no such thing as "sustainable growth". It's purely growth. If there's room to grow, we will continue growing and consuming until there's nothing left.
Its a step in the right direction, but it wont solve the problem. The solution is, not having that electric bike at all.
And yes, the brainwashed think they will save the world by buying an electric car and throw some solar panels on the roof.
What is needed, is to question everything in your modern capitalistic perspective.
Everything in your life has to be questioned, its whole existance has to be questioned.
School, work, holidays, values, meaning, medicare, ethics, everything.. even democracy.
I highly believe humans can not handle democracy, we have simply not evolved that far.
Democracy is heaven for companies and growth. You can basicly make humans believe in anything without questioning. Companies will paint that dream for you, for personal gain that is. The dream that will make you go to work every single day
What you are saying, is that you want everything to remain as it is right now.
With some minor tweaks to exploit and consume less energy. But the ideaology still remains.
It is that modern eco capitalism he is talking about, you take that electric bike to your work where you produce eco clothing and ship it overseas with sailboats. You eat your green meal with beans and some colorful veggies.
And you earn your sallary to pay your rent in that co-living aparttment that are built entirely with wood and a grass-roof, and life goes on.
This is a capitalistic mindset, we are all brainwashed to be cogs in this machinery.
Id say the solution would be, aristocracy with an elite ruling without personal gain. Based on wisdom and logic. An elite that put nature and humans beside eachother. Where mental health and wellbeing is a priority.
A more philosophic way.
Im not promoting oligarchy or dictators.
We do not use electric bikes, we live in smaller communities, more selfsustainable, self reliant.
We grow new ethics and values. Greed, power and desire goes down the drain, and we promote sharing, equal rights and inner well being. We live our lives , with less, without stress. It is not communsim, but an ism where we all share the same equal right and value nature above everything else.
A more primitive life , but a life with more meaning.
I give humanity 150 years if we choose the greenwashed capitalistic way, after that we are all gone.
Unless we all choose to wake up..
We are living in a sci-fi world, it is just hard to see with the wrong glasses.
Love the bit where combined imports and domestic production shows no change in emissions, changing the carbon sources location doesn't mean you've eliminated it
In my opinion, to tackle climate change different approaches are needed: ecosystem restoration, decarbonization, bringing nature to cities rather than separate it, manage waste, produce locally, reduce inequality...and education, a lot of education!! That's why videos like this are important, wood work!
The profit motive must be abolished. That's one of the key factors as to why we're in this mess to begin with.
Planned obsolescence needs to go too. It's the reason why we have so much waste.
Rather than focusing education on ways to make money, it needs to be focused on creating the most efficient technology. Society needs to be restructured and re-educated.
There's tons of work to do 😕
@@ANTH0NY.VII. I agree with you! It's really overwhelming, and a lot needs to be done! But, to be (sadly) honest I wonder how can a sistem that's been working for so long and it's so immersed in our lives be transformed? It's a political issue? It's social? Or cultural? Also How long it will take to be there?
@Lucia Moreira Demarco there's hope, humans have always been able to overcome hurdles in tough times, I'm sure we can do it again.
As for when it happens, I think sooner than we might think. There's protests, civil unrest, organizing, etc being done all over the planet as we speak.
Mutual aid groups are helping each other in populated cities, young generations are demanding better infrastructure (high speed trains, green cities, renewable energy, etc)
Personally I think in the next decade we will begin to see massive changes, after all many people want change
@@luciamoreirademarco1404 th-cam.com/video/lVWwwfcQ5FA/w-d-xo.html
@@Srijit1946 Interesting video, although It has some ideological bias, it helps me understand a process from a more social point of view (I'm from the natural sciences group) thanks for sharing!
Couple of thoughts:
1.) Life isn’t “better” with technology if we can’t even drink rainwater or don’t have access to land for food. You may have “things” but the basic necessities are adulterated. Many people would rather live a simple lifestyle in pristine nature than have a fancy wardrobe and A.C. but the former has been stolen as an option.
2.) Greater life expectancy is often mistaken for prolonging life for many people when a major factor is actually lessening infant death rates, so not necessarily more people living longer but less people dying as infants.
I suspect there’s some straw-man arguments in this video but I’m waiting on a Michael schellenberger book from the library so I’ll have to investigate myself.
The largest strawmen in this video is the claim that eco-modernists see the not ready yet IV generation and thorium nuclear reactors as the solution. The III generation reactors are ready for deployment (a number of them has already been built) and could drastically reduce the carbon footprint of electricity for decades/centuries to come.
Ok so I just finished Apocalypse Never and I gotta say that yeah, Michael Schellenberger is the embodiment of the “this is fine” dog. Starts off with good premises and comes to utterly bizarre conclusions like “fast fashion is good actually”.
I still think that this video makes them seem scarier than necessary but yeah, don’t think these guys are helping (beyond their championing of nuclear)
For further evidence, if you look at the few photographs taken inside of many of the largest sweatshops where clothes are made the seamstresses are using sewing machines, often not industrial sewing machines that I would place at a glance between 30 and 80 years old. Particularly among women doing piecework at home you often see photographs of women using the mass produced black singer sewing machines that are upwards of 50 years old, some maybe ad old as 100. Sewing and weaving are faster than ever, but much of the machinery and technology is essentially Victorian. This should tell us two things. One: we can make useful machines that are sustainable because they do not break and can be recycled and will frankly outlast any human life time (my sewing machine is nearly 100 years old and doesn’t need any work other than oiling). Two: while a certain level of technology does increase our productivity, most increased “productivity” is the product of simple exploitation.
"Humanity has flourished over the past two centuries"
Me, a South African: "..."
I didn't know people actually thought new tech will save the planet rather than reducing emissions. Very nicely eplained
But that new tech would be reducing emissions though.
I must say, as a supporter of ‘eco modernism’, that I think capitalism is a good medium for gradual systematic change as it takes into account the opinions and motivations of the population, which in my opinion government policies and incentives have to stimulate in the direction of long term goals. Decisions and changed that would be sustainable, but would have no support of the population (like taking away everyone’s car for an extreme example), would never yield good results. A change that is absolutely required for a strong free market system to function AND be sustainable is transparency of corporate practices, so that people have influence over what developments are stimulated.
Finlly, a good liberal argument
You know what would really make corporate practices transparent? Worker ownership, at the very least in the form of Cooperatives. They still have the hierarchy and Boss style organization you liberals love, but no shady bureaucrats in a board room 100 floors up. Its democracy in the workplace, with the ability to vote out people you hate. Since its a much smaller scale and each co-op has its own system it will be much harder to corrupt, unlike centrally planned state economies. You can keep your markets too, as a treat.
@Arjen Smetsers To add on to what you just stated, I think that the rhetoric in this video expresses a distrust in companies which use bad business practices to artificially reduce the pollution of rich countries by outsourcing it to poorer ones. Innovation by its very nature is disruptive and the free market provides the opportunity to disrupt those bad business practices by creating an incentive to outperform them by efficiency and and price of production.
What I don't understand about the video's closing statements is that those goals are literally not possible without the incentives capitalism produces which are needed to outcompete the old ways of manufacturing. At the moment, the science is still optimizing and new research is coming out every month. What else is there to do? Keep doing what we're doing? Rely on the government to close up those stores with no back-up and put people out of work?
We have no other choice but to replace the old with the new if those companies won't do it themselves. You can't rely on anyone else to do it. We need to make new companies to outperform the old ones and disrupt the economy in a way that makes it cheaper, makes it better for the environment, and gives power to a new generation of business entrepreneurs to operate in a way that doesn't exploit it's workers or the environment. All these people complaining fail to realise that they have they have it within themselves to change the world to make it the way they want it to be if they are willing to be clever enough and work hard enough.
L
@@thekingoffailure9967 yes I agree, a really good ted talk on co-ops was posted a few days ago. I think you’ve seen it too.
Maybe a more fundamental question that I still haven’t really figured out form myself and you might be able to answer (also related to the democratic workspace) is: What is the best way to deal with large scale conflict of interests and complexity in a democracy?
Do you or maybe some else too have any thoughts on this? I’m curious to hear.
The people who wrote the manifesto are the biggest corporate simps ever
Well, not as big as the denialists on the Right. The ecomodernists are at the "Bargaining" stage.
Well this video is wrong on so many levels. The fundamental problem of switching to a sustainable lifestyle is that if we are not very careful it might stop the motor that has lifted billions out of poverty while knowing that if we won't do it, it will be even worse. Pretending that everything is bad right now due to capitalism is ridicolous because if it were so, there would be no trade off and therefor no problem. Not seeing that fossil captialism has consitently improved the lives of the world population sets you up for the completely wrong discussion - not seeing the true problem (i.e. trade-off here). Citing low life expectency in some part of town (btw. just relative life expectancy. I am sure even there the absolute life expectancy and child mortality rate has improved) only shows how US-centric you can be. A little decline in the west pales to the average improvement of lives in China, South East Asia and Africa in the same time. All measurable indices of human flourishing have pointed upwards for the past 200 years. The risk of stopping this constant improvement accidentally, to prevent an even bigger disaster is at the core of the climate discussion. Pretending that this trade off isn't real, will only damage the cause.
Thats a lie
Nothing of what you say is true.
I agree, this discussion very naively ignores the developing world. They will carry on doing what they are doing, regardless of what we preach, because at the moment it's working for them. The only way they will change this course is if the developed nations can show them a way to do this better, at lower cost and without damaging the planet. And there may be a thing or two that the developing nations can find to lead the way with too.
I'd be interested to hear more about the different footprints between cities and megacities. Is the larger footprint in megacities inherent or would better design improve them?
Interesting thoughts. I would say that a better design would definitely improve the footprint. If car-based infrastructure would be replaced by electricity-powered, free public transportation, I'm sure that this would make a major difference. Another problem is the waste. A great deal is plastic waste resulting from packaging. This however cannot be solved by better city design but only by a fundamental change of the production system. In the end, it comes down to one thing: to end capitalism and to destroy capital relations.
@@chrisbe4655 Exactly. Cities actually have lower emissions per capita because of walking, biking, and public transit. Rural towns might have low emissions, but only because of a low quality of life and low wages. The suburbs are the worst, where they consume even more than people living in cites (larger houses means more things bought to fill it), and they require the use of a car.
To build on this a bit, I'm wondering if the video overlooks the fact that while cities might not be huge improvements today from a carbon perspective, that the pathways for radical decarbonization are much more feasible at large/megacities. Electrified transit is much more feasible, building efficiency and energy use is a lot more efficient when everyone isn't in an oversized single family home, etc. It's also strange to me to criticize megacities as leading to a disconnect from the land, that's characteristic doesn't seem to be inherent a megacity but rather how it's implemented.
At the end of the day, it felt like a strange angle to take against megacities, when the carbon intensity of putting everyone in sprawling suburbia has to be at least as bad.
@@Jason-sp5yc There is something to be said actually about modern development in cities being primarily made out of steel, concrete and glass. Its actually very carbon intensive and not very efficient for energy use. The large glass windows trap more heat in the building in the summer, requiring more AC use, and are less insulating than solid wall, requiring more heating in the winter.
The concrete and steel use is also less efficient with each additional story. Buildings over 10 stories tall are actually more carbon intensive per unit. Ideally we would have lots of medium density spread out across the whole city, with a good mix of uses and frequent, fast public transit. But the NIMBY pushback to any but single family homes, has required us to put all of our density into these huge glass towers in a very small area of the city.
@@adamt195 Right, full agreement on the medium density, mid-rise etc. But by many definitions that would still be considered a megacity, as I think the term refers to total population vs. some level of density. Ultimately, it seems like a strange criticism to target megacities when rural/suburban sprawl are also incredibly inefficient in how they are implemented currently.
Ide love to hear your thoughts on Ulrick Beck's 'Risk Society' theory, in particular his production of a Cosmopolitan moment, where we all unite against climat crises
I don't feel liberated... we just changed from slaving in the house to slaving at work, THEN in the house.
@10:12: "If we are serious about climate change, if we are serious about action, eco-modernism is not the path forward."
What is the path forward?
How can we achieve net-zero (followed by net-negative) emissions by mid-century -- as the IPCC says we must, to avoid intolerable climate change -- while maintaining economic survival. Not "growth". Just survival.
We could shift to permaculture and regenerative agroforestry, live and operate more communally (i.e. have "libraries of things" for stuff like tools, vehicles, recreational items, etc. that are currently individually-owned but spend most of their time not being used), shift to an economic system that centers on sufficiency, rather than growth, develop "cradle-to-cradle" manufacturing, industrial ecosystems, etc.. The problem is that none of that is "politically realistic" in a culture that can't be arsed to wear masks in a pandemic. Unfortunately, the realm of the "politically realistic" and the realm of the physically and ecologically realistic don't have any overlap, and the latter bats last.
I agree with the premise of the video - capitalism most certainly wont "save us". But there is an underlying assumption here that *something* can.
I don't see that.
Our population is too large and urbanised to support without mechanised agriculture and supply chains.
We have devastated the biosphere and the biodiversity that we depend upon for the next "stem rust resistant wheat"/corn/soy/rice etc (despite what people like to think about our ability to exist outside of nature).
We have pumped enough heat into the oceans that we are committed to significant sea level rise regardless of what we do in the future. And the effects of the inevitable total loss of Acrtic sea ice will likely be catastrophic, sooner or later from disrupted climate and the release of even part of the Arctic's methane stores.
We are committed to an industrialised civilisation - at the very least - until we have dealt with the worlds nuclear power plants and waste. Those things can't simply be abandoned and will poison the planet unless they are tended 24 hours a day until the day they are full decommissioned and disposed of.
And then there's the aerosol masking effect. Our constant emissions from fossil fuels, while increasing atmospheric CO2 also put sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere increasing earth's albedo and reducing the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses. Stop the fossil fuel emissions and you add potentially a degree or more of warming very rapidly.
The reality is that we are caught in a box of our own making. From which there is no escape - certainly for the vast majority of us, and probably in reality for all of us, and most life on the planet.
That so many people still want's to believe that there are solutions out there "if we could just..." is no better or worse than techno-utopianism, eco-modernism, or whatever you want to call it. None of it acknowledges the reality of our dilemma which is way worse than this video is ready to admit.
Lack of hope and pessimism (which pessimists ALWAYS call "realism" for some reason) for sure isn't something that will bring any improvement. If anything, it will make the damage worse. If the worst happens, it's largely because of people spreading messages such as this one and people turning to apathy and denial because "there's nothing that can be done, we're doomed". What's the good in saying "there's no hope"? What makes you think you're wiser than those scientists that say that there are ways to improve? Sounds like an excuse for inaction and actively working against the cause by instilling pessimism in people.
@@agatazietek9098 ah yes "hope"... That thing that has lead to no action for decades while we all "hoped" that someone else would fix climate change and environmental destruction.
Well they didn't.
And now here we are. Every new report on climate change, it turns out it's worse than predicted. Nothing is improving, it just gets worse.
You know what might actually help? Fear. That thing that drove our grandparents to fight for their lives and countries against fascism.
That might actually help.
It won't change the outcome. The *science* says that's locked in. Even the IPCC the most conservative organisation in the world says that climate change is abrupt and irreversible - which means loss of habitat for life on earth (that includes us). So the outcome isn't up for debate.
The only question now is how it ends. And in that you're right - there are many things that could be done that might slow the consequences of industrial civilisation. But no one will do them. Because the rich and powerful don't understand or don't care if they do.
So I live my life making every day count. Looking after the people around me. Trying to be a decent human being in the face of a world that has given up on science, logic, and reason. I make art. I build and plant and explore and savour as much of the beauty of the world as I can.
If your response to the inevitably of the consequences of our actions is to give up and be apathetic then that on you and anyone else who refuses to be a grown up.
I am a realist and I've accepted the consequences of our collective actions against the natural world. And whatever happens in the future I will be making the most of my time and encouraging others to do the same.
Good luck. I hope you are making the most of every day. We all should be.
@@langdons2848 watch the new video from this channel, the discussion is pointless. And no, fear with no belief in other possibility isn't productive and it never was. And I haven't really heard about "loss of the majority of life including humans" is THE consensus, unless that's how you interpret the statements which are much more general.
Doomerism never helped anyone. And by spreading such message, you're actively doing harm and contributing to even more death and suffering.
@@agatazietek9098 "doomerism" helped me realise the pointlessness of consumer capitalism and I have a much better life because of that. So yes, it really can.
The vast majority of people can't or won't consider the consequences of every trend in the natural world but it doesn't take a genius to join the dots. Scientists are conservative by nature so that community is highly unlikely to ever say anything so definitive.
As for "harming" people - endocrine disruptor from plastics and chemicals causing a global drop in fertility is harming people. Wet bulb temperatures reaching lethal levels more and more frequently in tropical regions is harming people. Living sedentary lives eating junk food is harming people. And even you wanting people to close their eyes and "hope" of a miracle is harming people. The list goes on endlessly.
Me? Talking about the reality of what we are doing to the world? No. That might upset some people - like you - and make some people uncomfortable, but it's not harming anyone.
Because my message isn't "don't act". It's "act now - but be realistic and concentrate on making the most of what we have while we have it".
@@langdons2848 whoever said my message is to close eyes and hope for a miracle? That's just a massive misconstruction of my argument, if nothing else.
I don't know how this work, but I'm pretty sure you can be critical of capitalism and consumerism without engaging in doomerist thinking.
Plus, calling people "not really adults" if they succumb to apathy isn't really it, given how reliant on mental health the reaction is
A couple of things that don't fit into the narrative of either side. 1. Automation will replace offshore labor. The question is then what? Lack of exploitation doesn't automatically make things fair. 2. The lightbulb lead to women's liberation. The lightbulb didn't intent for this to happen nor did women's liberation ask for it. It was simply coincidence. A new tech got used in a new way. Housewives in the west 100 years ago began to read at night after their chores were done by lightbulb. They weren't reading women liberation just becoming more knowledgeable and confident which in turn raised expectations of treatment.
WOW, the video is informative. This video is so well made I was gripped from the get-go something I deeply appreciate as a filmmaker.
Dude i agree i was so hooked. BTW just checked your channel you are so underrated. Best of luck.
You always explain me some of my thought, you argue them and make them more clear, thanks!
This channel needs to collaborate with Not Just Bikes. Hearing both their voices in the same video will be surreal.
It is extremely arrogant to believe that we can seperate ourselves from and master nature. Technology has its role to play in making life better while minimizing environmental impact, but it isn't the end-all be-all
ah yes, the old 'well stop capitalism with more capitalism!'
Bravo! Excellent job dispelling ecomodernism with the nuance it deserves in a concise way. This is rare.
"By signing up you support our changing climate"
Well now I'm not doing that 😂
I disagree, innovation is key for helping us get off fossil fuels. Nobody wants to pay higher energy prices for green energy. If we invest in innovation we can lower the green premiums and so every country will switch. The points out why the world has struggled to reduce emissions
So is the logical opposition to ecomodernism the philosophy of ted kaczinski?
No. There are other alternatives, such as permaculture, regenerative design, and Murray Bookchin's Democratic Confederalism (in short: Solarpunk). Technology as such isn't really the issue. It's the social and economic assumptions under which technologies are developed, which determine which ones get deployed, and Capitalism's requirement for endless economic growth, which would devour any efficiency gains made by technology.
Some good points made here, but I have a couple of my own to make:
1. Technology comes in many forms and trying to suggest that it can be lumped in one category ignores the difference between those which have demonstrable large environmental impacts, such as lithium-cobalt batteries, and those which are oriented at lower consumption of resources such as limiting devices on gas supply pipes to houses to avoid over-indulgent high interior temperatures. (might need that one quite soon in the EU).
2. If Capitalism is to be abandoned rather than modified, then a data-backed blueprint of an alternative system and a demonstrably successful small pilot scheme should be cited to prove that the alternative system will not fail in the same way a number of communal living experiments in the 1960s did. It might actually be discovered that a heavily-regulated form of capitalism, coupled with an enlightened form of materialism is the solution, with desirable status symbols shifting from pointlessly large, resource-hungry houses towards beautifully-crafted low-carbon pieces of art and sculpture etc.
"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"
On urban development, it's also important to remember that megacities tend to be hubs of some of the most industrially intensive manufacturing processes and house wealthier and higher consuming members of their societies. So that probably contributes a fair bit to their higher rate of pollution rather than it being innate to large conurbations simply existing.
They're the imperial centers of the imperial centers, so to speak.
That said . . .
Those supersized conurbations are only possible, much less practical, due to modern transportation technology, and the way modern transportation technology has been implemented to allow them to supersize.
In an ecologically balanced world . . . cities would certainly still exist. But they're likely revert to something resembling their pre 20th century pattern of development.
It's really weird to look back at cities even a century ago and realize that they used to be rather intuitively constructed simply by necessity. A dense and interconnected downtown that tapered into middle rise and then suburban peripheries connected to the inner hub by public transit.
The city quickly gave way to farms, country sides, and the surroundings towns and villages until one reached the edge of the next urban area of influence.
Now, however, the urban area, especially of my own home region of Southern California, is wall to wall urban/suburban development across the entire LA Basin region.
Why not both? What’s wrong with implementing new technology and defunding bloated and highly polluting programs?
I agree, why not take the good from both systems and dump the bad.
🎵You get the beeeeeeeeeeest, of both worlds🎶
Not another environmentalist video that criticizes without solutions! All they do is list a few alternatives but don't explain how to achieve this. Sustainability needs a combination of both community and technological solutions, because improving our quality of life is just as human as caring for one another.
There is a huge problem with your conclusion. People are used to live with the comforts that the industry provides. People won’t give that up. So unless the government take that decision for us, this will never happen.
Ecomodernism is the only shot we have to have both prosperity and sustainability. People won’t start sleeping outside 24/7 because having a heated indoor climate for resting takes too much carbon footprint to sustain.
Straw man argument. Don't be dull
If you want to turn your back on new ideas, that's fine, but don't go crying in a few years when nothing has changed. Just put yourself at the place of government officials and try to bring actual change without crashing the economy. You can't just declare to your people they now have to grow their food and stop using their car. Sure, scaling down would be great, but it would be difficult to maintain while your power comes crashing down at the next election. Shifting the economy towards new technologies has to be part of the solution, just as changing our consumption habits. Rejecting other ideas on the basis it would only delay real change is a bad way to put it. Oil companies keep pumping out carbon as I enjoy my home grown tomatoes. Does my garden offers polluters a chance to continue business as usual? Depends on who's asked. All ideas can bring something positive to this equation.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Further reading-- ecomodernism: origins and evolution of a strange idea. Breakthrough Institute does the same thing as organized climate change denial, but with different content for a different target demographic, if anything they might be more insidious than the climate change denialists who are only fooling the hopeless. I say this as someone who has watchdogged both groups since i was a kid, for about a decade in earnest. And it took me a while to see clearly through the spin: so once again I thank you for coming in with the message the people need to hear. Breakthrough has done some incredible damage to the climate left, and thus the climate itself. nordhaus and schellenberger were pollsters who constructed industry-friendly environmental talking points that appeal to wealthy liberals from University towns and got alot of powerful academics on board and subsequently have fooled many if not most climate activists in some part. Imagination has been replaced by policy-wonks.
Also Dont Look Up was a critique of ecomodernist technological fixes that basically amount to covert industrial welfare for mining and manufacturing and the powers behind them who see the end of the world as a golden opportunity to liquidate surplus. I'm surprised Hollywood got away with that much but i worry people might not get that hidden critique.
Oh which reminds me about don't look up, some cuckold from Breakthrough was on decouple podcast in a TH-cam clip titled "is an asteroid a bad metaphor for climate change?" Coping
I recently started watchdogging markets and have been listening to a podcast episode on TH-cam "smarter markets episode 1 with Jeff Currie Goldman Sachs global head of commodities research" it's blowing my mind, really
Watch it if you want to understand the problem through its own eyes, see just who climate-smart ecomodernism is for and why anti-consumerism just might be more important than anti-capitalism.
By the way did you know the entire world industrial order would just fall apart without the American consumer base? Millennial consumers have already saved investors from two industrial recessions. Denying consumerism is austerity for the rich, populist policies that aim to increase the dollars poor people spend will invariably be captured by capital and are really just welfare for commodities investors in practice. we don't need money, we need space to breathe.
Just commenting for the algorithm. This one must be shared widely--this is such a pervasive, insidious issue in most of my social circles (primarily academics...social and biological scientists).
Also a deep rooted philosophy in engineering students and professionals
@@jeremyg9323 definitely. I’ve got plenty of those in my social circle as well. The biggest Elon Musk stans. I’ll add the personal finance gurus in here too.
Hey, interesting video :)
I think this video is very helpful in explaining why the climate crisis can not be solved with Tech alone.
We need more "aggressive" regulations, laws and programms to really start fighting this crisis. There are very effective measures that have to be taken, that are not in the interest of an economy (replantation of forrests, Emmisions-Tax, ...).
On the other hand I feel this video does not cover the power and positive impact that eco-modernism has.
The semtement is shifting from pure modernism, to include ecological goals. This is most likely one of the most important parts to create a growing force transforming our infrastructure and behavior.
We could now start discussing over Greenwashing or social injustice (and i think we also should), but that we are getting to a point were companies need to react on the emerging crisis, is a amazing and important achievement not to underestimate.
Hey, what do you think of the fact that on one side Elon Musk was elected Time's Person of the Year 2021 and on the other side he was bitterly scoffed in the movie "Don't Look Up"?
Maybe people are starting to see through the appearences?
Person of the year just means most influential. Elon just knows how to use his cash.
Taking climate change seriously means giving up a large part of our consumeristic lifestyle. Consume drastically less energy, less products and live a more frugal life. Our economy will suffer dramatically but I think it's the only way. It's almost like we need to voluntarily go back in time 120 years to make a real impact on emissions so that 2 degrees celsius of global warming can be mitigated. I hope that there is an alternative but eco-modernism definitely isn't it. It indeed sounds like a greenwashing idea, meant to propagate the status-quo while making the population feel good about the action being taken (irrespective of the actual result) It sounds way too optimistic.
@CYANOSNAKE nature will do that. Our own tech is incompatible to our current sensitive biological systems which is why fertility rate is dropping faster than ever and we should increase this loss and nor wanting them in the first place by thhw same modern environment. Then technical and natural limits, which will do the job once the system breaks
@CYANOSNAKE Big problem with that: who gets to do the decreasing, and who gets to be decreased? We can decrease population over the long term by liberating and educating girls/women and moving beyond patriarchal "family values" (which drops birth rates to replacement level and below) but if you want a steeper/faster population decrease than that, it gets nasty.
Collapse is the only way this will end unfortunately.
Yeah some amongst us believe that technology could save us it could save us if we were trying to make technology to do that we're trying to make technology to make money those are two entirely different things
You are absolutely killing it! Thank you for your continued hard work.
Around the start of 2020 I got obsessed with digging into Ecomodernism as a philosophy and a movement; its claims and contradictions; and ended up making (and shelving) a 5 hour long deep dive into the topic alongside the weird evolution of Shellenberger's third-way ecomodernism to climate denialism. And you've done so eloquently in 15 minutes what my 5 hour deep dive couldn't. Great work!
Unequality of the society is not objectively a bad thing. It can be seen as such, but opposite of equal - diversity, difference and uniqueness are also a good things. The reason why capitalists don't speak about "problem of unequality" is because we do not see it as aproblem at all, rather as a neutral characteristic. Second thing is that in 9:27 you pointed out that we should "decrease electricity demand". This is also something that I totally disagree with - electricity is purest form of the energy that we can use - better than chemical energy, mechanical energy etc.We should by all means increase the amount of people that have access to it and rebild all our devices to use electricity. The only thing that we should consider is energy efficiency of those devices, and sources of the energy to be green. But electricity should exist, it should make world better and leverage more of us out of poverty.
As much as I agree with everything, I can't see a world where the vast majority of people in capitalist and consumerist cultures to gain a consciousness and are fine giving up both the materialism and ideals. It feels like the only choice we have is to play their game.
The main problem I see is how you are going to convince people in the first world on this. Any concessions to quality of life is unacceptable to most.
People will give up that if the alternative is destroying everything. They do not have a choice: they WILL give up those comforts either forcibly or by choice.
@@abelabel3664 How so? I live in Norway and with the current trajectory, we are going to be somewhat fine.
@@Thelango99 Until the climate refugees start arriving en masse, and the real effects of climate disruption hit.
Wow! Thank you for the rock hard evidence for such fantastic videos! The amount of work, humility, and dedication you put into being a spokesperson for the climate is clearly visible.
You always explain things so well, thank you!
This was very well done! Thank You!
Recently I haven’t been watching your videos because the titles are just too negative, I don’t want to know about things that wont work, i want to hear about things that will, I don’t know if the video has that i just thought a bit of feedback would be nice.
OCC honestly makes my Eco-anxiety worse because his solutions are vague and nearly impossible to achieve. Sure eco-modernism isn’t the best solution, but I see it as a transition. Once we get more renewables and more efficient resource generators like vertical Farming, we can transition to a less profit driven society once the old conservatives die off and younger progressives take control.
OCC’s solutions is basically trying to break through the wall, while ecomodernism is going around if we manage to make a detour down the line.
Is it ironic that an ad selling a "tabletop composter that will fix the environment" popped up right before this?
Hey! I've been a viewer of yours for a long time and I'm so impressed by your graphics and style in general. Would you consider making a video where you go into detail about how you make your videos?
What about the idea that instead of innovation driving further inequality, it could ideally lead to production of affordable goods and services that are sustainable/carbon neutral/regenerative, and also disruptive to fossil fuel industries, ultimately catalyzing degrowth/decommission of carbon heavy industries (energy, food, transportation, clothing, etc). Note, I'm aware of the utopian/idealism of this position, but it wasn't clear to me in this video upon first watch how "green" innovation necessarily would lead to inequality/exploitation, unless I spaced out at some point. Cheers
Also, this train of thought is very much informed by the Kurzgesagt video about climate change...Which is sponsored by the Gates Foundation. But let's set that aside for now and discuss the ideas!
When we look at the total energy mix, an increased absolute amount of renewable energy sources is currently only adding to our rapidly growing energy consumption, rather than replacing fossil fuels. Also, renewable energy sources still require large amounts of resources, for instance in the form or rare earth metals that are often extracted under very unsustainable conditions. For both of these points, the source of the problem lies not in the technologies we have, but in the rate of economic growth that is still overshadowing any progress we make on the sustainability front.
You literally cite figures that contradict your point. 200 years ago the average life expectancy was 30, nowadays its 50 in poor neiborhoods - thats still an increase, thats excluding the fact that the poor in the US die of obesity. The initial comperison of people starving is so out of touch with reality. Todays reality allows us to feed 8 billion people - sure a billion are undernourished, but thats about 7 billion people that wouldn't be able to exist at all, compared to 90% being clinically undernourished 200 years ago. Let me repeat this *we can feed 7 billion people now* as opposed to just 100 million. Is this unequal? Sure, but "neoliberalism" and the free market doesn't guarantee equality, just a raise in prosperity for all, in an unequal fashion. you really think miners and factory workers have better options? the only other option they usually have is back breaking unreliable farming, scavanging, or 12 hour shifts with a reliable pay. They are choosing reliable pay over unreliable farming, the west isnt forcing them to work in factories instead of living in a Marxist utopia or anything. Trying to strive for equal prosperity for all, usually by force, ends up with no prosperity for anyone - just look at the failed experiments out there, let alone the environmental impact they left on the planet.
The basic idea behind this eco-modernism is simple. People who own capital, in a free market will always try to compete by offering lower prices to consumers. You have a myriad of ways to accomplish this, one of them is cutting costs on energy use and materials. If we can make energy cheep (like nuclear and renewables are) or sell pricer products that are more durable and in the long run save the consumer money, you automatically force the economy to be greener. Urbanisation in this idea, is the most economically efficient way to group people together and distiribute resources and services among the population - ideally, the poorest can still get good services and goods on the cheep, and benefit from economic growth. As evidence, please look at any city built or areas developed before the 1940s - walkable, dense neighborhoods, where you have everything you need at a walking distance, no need for car use, and heavy reliance on public transportation (that is also more efficient if private, but that's besides the point).
Efficiency is the only way we can reduce human impact on the earth - and the free market is the only proven way to do it, any other way *necessitates* inefficiency or human suffering (that can be avoided). Give up on the idea of equality, or forever be disappointed by the implementations it brings forth.
"band aids on a festering wound"
so what actions do we take to cure or amputate that festering wound?
I'd like to hear your suggestion for a solution to climate change that doesn't involve innovation
There's an amazing natural "machine" that absorbs CO2 produces O2, improves biodiversity, controls floods, reduces heat, filters water, controls water cycles, improves soil fertility and so on... I'm not only talking about trees I'm talking about healthy and functional ecosystems, we can restore them strategically. Also we can consume less , and manage waste properly... but for all that we might rely on innovation too, but as a tool not the only solution.
The issue isn't "innovation," it's Capitalism, i.e. the attempt to have endless exponential economic growth on a finite planet.
Your titles should just be "Why Nothing Will Save Us" at this point
Hey what about the Venus Project?? Is there hope in that?
While decoupling is often overexaggerated when evaluating consumption based imports, we have seen a real decrease in emissions, especially in the European union. 2012 is old for a study when it comes to decoupling. Although a large portion of the relative decoupling is due to the transition from Coal powered electricity to natural gas powered electricity.
As he said in the video: a lot of the EU's economy relies on producing and consuming stuff at and from other places.
Because the manufacturing is moved overseas, to places like Bangladesh and China. This makes the emissions appear to go down in places like Germany, but it’s just a misleading statistic, as our Earth is still being polluted just as much (or even more, because of transportation).
You should make a video about how average people can change their mindsets to focus on environmental issues
I actually focus my channel on that so you might want to check it out. I release monthly videos on various topics and discuss the science behind them, what long term solutions this means we need to support, and suggestions of what you can change immediately in order to reduce your emissions.
Check it out if you’re interested!
This is a really important video. Keep up the good work!
This is a nice indirect response to that one environmental youtuber who thinks anyone clamoring that ending capitalism will solve climate change is delusional.
Glad you shared about Boston openly like that.
This video is excellent, and put rather eloquently. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Deep Adaptation and the works of Jem Bendell, since a lot of its critiques revolve around the futility and failure of Ecomodernist ideals.
I have a master's in environmental policy and ten years after graduating, I finally came to this conclusion too myself. So I started to look up stuff to see if anyone else thought the way I did, and of course they do. But this is a SMALL minority so it's hard to find much research on it. Most people who are against environmentalism are climate change deniers. I'm not. I just don't think more of the same this (capitalism and exponential growth) is the answer.
So thank you for this video. Another good report done by some EU folks is called "Decoupling Debunked". Check it out.
Well, regardless of whether that theory works or not, how about we get emissions to zero and fix inequality *first* and *then* we can see if economic growth can be a thing? Priorities eh. That thinktank sounds like they're spending all their time pouring over which colour curtains to pick when there's not even a blueprint for the house yet.
Great video!
Is there a threshold for which population size is the most efficient for a town/city? I always thought dense cities were more efficient as well, that'd be something I'd be interested in hearing more on!
Quite manipulative use of stats in this.
I'd like to see you properly address the claim that the past 200 years have marked flourishing.
You say the poor have been 'left to drown', yet immediately cite a life expectancy stat for the poor which is 30 years higher than the previous average.
Seems like on this analysis you've demonstrated exactly the point you propose to refute.
Demand for electricity will increase greatly. If you do not have enough nuclear power then coal will be used and the transition to clean energy will take longer. Why? Renewables are not keeping up with demand because it is difficult to build the energy storage capacity that it will require.
I know I'm late but congrats on 400k.
i agree, but even in a world like that, tecnological innovation still will be needed
The problem is that you are asking a world of people who hate each other to entirely change their way of life. To surrender advantages they have, the ease of life they enjoy, and to agree to endure harder conditions to save the planet. In a world where those who refuse to do this will continue to advance. You can say eco modernism isn't good enough or really won't save the world but the problem is that at the end of the day getting people to drastically change in a short amount of time is less likely to occur than technology somehow saving us.
I see a lot of critics of capitalism lately, which is good. But still nobody talks about the only alternative: Socialism. The means of production have to be democratically managed.
I don't know what you mean by "nobody".
The channel that you are currently commenting on has a video where they recommend ecosocialism. Second Thought is an explicitly socialist channel with more than a million subscribers & he has a podcast with Yugopnik and Hakim, two other socialist channels.
Philosophy Tube is another 1 million+ sub overtly socialist channel.
Richard Wolff has a whole organization called "Democracy at Work" which advocates for socialism & produces a regular economic update from a socialist perspective. In addition to that, the Gravel Institute was founded to be a socialist counter to PragerU.
Hasan Piker is one of the biggest Twitch streamer & he's a socialist political commentator.
And those are just the biggest ones from off the top of my head (shout out to smaller guys like Marxist Paul, Viki1999, & Saint Andrewism). It's true that capitalism is falling in popularity in the US faster than socialism is growing, but socialism _is_ growing -- & there's a lot of educational/entertainment socialist content out there for people who are curious.
Why is the "only" alternative though?
Are you talking about social democracy or the one marx and ingels described in the communsit manifesto where it is a transition phase to communism?
@@helpiamstuckonthismanshead3385 I'm talking about socialist channels, not social democratic (progressive liberal) ones.
All of the channels I listed are socialist ones spanning across the leftist spectrum from Marxist-Leninist to anarchist.
@@abelabel3664 Sorry in advance for the long reply... However, if you really want an answer to your question, I've tried my best to provide one.
It's not the only alternative... Of course, there are many ways to organize an economy & government...
But socialism, we can say, is the only "solution" to class society in general & capitalism in particular.
See, the core problem of capitalism (we say the core "contradiction") is the eternal conflict of interests between the labor force & owners... If you like, employees and employers (we say workers and capitalists).
The employer wants to harvest the maximum "surplus value" from the employee's labor: they want to maximize their own profits. On the other hand, the employee would like to keep that surplus value in the form of higher wages, better benefits, paid time off, etc.
As long as there is an employer & an employee, this conflict of interests will be there, & it's why the capitalist class fights so hard to keep democracy under control... After all "power to the people" is no good when you're a tiny ruling class with interests in opposition to the vast majority of the population.
The socialist recognizes this & asks the question "Why do the employer & the employee have to be different people?" Why not, instead of having an elite class that owns all the "means of production" (the offices, factories, machines, tools, etc.) & harvests value from the workers, why not have the workers own all that stuff & decide how production is done democratically? That way, we no longer have two conflicting classes who have different incentive structures because they relate to production differently.
That's socialism.
And there are many different ideas on how to achieve something like that. In fact, you might even say that schools of socialism are even more diverse than capitalist schools of thought: ranging from Marxist-Leninism & Maoism to anarchism & democratic socialism... even to market socialism. And many more besides.
But in general, they all agree that our problem is rooted in the "material dialectic"... that is, the fact that we have a separate elite class of owners who have opposing interests to everyone else.
It's quite refreshing to occasionally see a well done presentation that deals with reality, rather than a sales pitch.
It wasn't that long ago that anyone that passed a statistics class could reasonably be expected to see the lie buried in the popularized narrative.
The con men will slit their own throats before they will ever admit the inescapable, incontrovertible truth that physics dictates the only way to avert disaster is to drastically reduce production, period. IOW, either capitalism dies or we all die.
Capitalism cannot exist without constant growth. Constant growth in any finite system will inevitably overwhelm that system. The system being overwhelmed is the biosphere upon which every living thing depends.
There's no fantasy escape to Mars or the Moon. Mad Max is fiction. If we allow the ecosystem to collapse it won't make any difference if you're in Bangladesh, alone on the desert, on your own private island, buried in a secret underground vault, or on a giant yacht with it's own yacht. The variable possibilities of what happens when and the manner in which the collapse manifests don't really matter as the only end to the story is that we all die, period. Everyone and everything more complex than algae.
It all boils down to energy use.
Lets say we need 200 000 TWh worth of electricity per year. Thats about 10x from todays electricity use but today we use energy in other forms. Per capita for a world with 9 billion people that is 22 222 kWh/year. To supply that amount of electricity a small city of 600 000 people they would need ONE big nuclear reactor (1600 MWe). Is that feasible? I think so.
To verify those numbers, take my country Sweden as a reference. A net zero future scenario says we require 300 TWh/yr of electricity to make steel and e-fuels. Divided amongst our 10 million gives 30 000 kWh/year and capita. But then you have to remember we are a heavy industry country with colder than average climate.
10:08 this argument is deceptive as people who lives in larger cities tend to be richer, arent they?
Not always, often people living in the cities themselves are very poor, the rich ones live in the suburbs.
@@rowbot5555 you understand what "tend to" means?
@@XiaosChannel yes, I'm simply saying that the people who live IN the cities are generally very poor, the rich people tend to live in gated communities in nearby suburbs
Hi,
thank you for your informative videos. :)
It is helpful and important that you point out the things going wrong.
On the other hand, criticizing is a lot easier than presenting solutions.
(More) videos on actual climate change solutions (even if potentially less views) would be more helpful though.
Respect the constant uploads. I agree mostly, but usually hate Absolutes. Because these ideas need to be tested in the real contemporary world, and many will fail and many will have sparks of progress. So it’s hard to claim one man (you) has all the answers on this hyper complex problem.
But keep it up 💪
I have subscribed and been unsubscribed from your channel at least five times, and I will continue to resubscribe!!! Keep doing this work
Capitalism is fundamentally an ideology reliant on exploitation, both of resource and people, it is inherently unsustainable.
But innovation and capitalism are not the same, to the contrary, capitalism stands in the way of true innovation and progress, as it encourages monopolies, copy right, and patents, thereby limiting what others can do to improve on previous designs and even if someone managed to come up with something new and good its success is not determined by how good it is but whether the rich can profit from it.
We need to reduce our energy consumption.
We need to decarbonise the energy we do still use.
We need to recapture carbon.
Technology can help, dismissing that is foolish, but relying on technology alone is equally foolish.
We need to be pragmatic and truly look at how we can best acchieve these goals, and not let some naturophilic or modernistic idealism get in the way of dealing with this crisis, and we need to get people on board if we want any chance of succeeding.
It baffles me. Even tho Society is struggling, We are yet to even attempt to implement: The concept around: "The better off the lowest income people are doing; The better the entire rest of our countries economy could be doing." -Think of it like a ecosystem in nature. The least important little things might seem meaningless and insignificant yet, if they crumbled away, the entire ecosystem would crumble. The last things remaining would be the top diverse predators that eat everything else.. until they eat each other.. leaving just a few top sharks in the ecosystem.. the whales would all be gone once the plankton crumble away, the sharks would eat the whales. Then once all that's left is sharks, the sharks would eat the sharks. *(Think of this but as a analogy for our economy and our modern day society..)
If we instead decided to support the lowest people in the ecosystem, there would be a beneficial systematic dispersion towards other aspects of society benefiting. All because the lowest people would be flourishing. I say flourish but I really just mean, able to obtain the most basic essential living standards... Yet even that would Vastly improve our current state of our economy & society *Also imagine this analogy in our economy. The more help we invest in the lowest level people, the more it would trickle into every facet of our economy. If poor people can pay their rent & not go homeless: landlords would get $, businesses would get $, banks would get $, local small shops would get $, mortgages & bills could be paid, insurance companies would get $, Taxes would get $, So essentially that $ would go out & filter right back in to improve our Country while simultaneously improving our quality of Life. Every bit of the economy would somehow find a way to benefit off of this situation... I don't get why we haven't even Given it a chance?? If it doesn't help? Then by all means stop it and figure out what problems we could be facing might be one's that run way deeper than expected and that would take drastic changes to improve that situation... (I hope we TRY something soon, before things get any more unstable. The worst thing we could do is continue on doing exactly what we are currently doing. It might get to a point where overcoming our struggles could simply become a pipedream. I don't want it to get to that)