Elon Musk's Unbelievably Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ค. 2016
- Elon Musk breaks down climate change for students at The Sorbonne in Paris (France's Harvard) right before the historic COP21 climate change conference in which all nations signed the now historic Paris Agreement in 2015 to reduce carbon emissions below 2C, and preferably under 1.5C.
This channel believes that this is one of the best basic explanations on climate change ever given in a short amount of time. Enjoy!
English subtitles provided for non-native English speakers.
Thanks to Elon Musk and his passion for helping humanity to transition to a 100% clean renewable energy economy!
Edited and subtitled by Greg Brooks-English at yonseienglish.com.
To add subtitles in other languages, add your own here: tiny.cc/9jxu5y
For more videos like this, visit TH-cam Channel 'yonseienglish'.
Twitter: @gbrooksenglish
Elon isn't nervous, he talks like this literally every interview or talk he gives. He just talks that way. This man is a genius and I completely agree with his ideas
To me he seems nervous, though.
He acts the same way speaking to his brother!
Just sounds a little anxious what's the big deal?
+HigherPlanes no he's not
HigherPlanes Musk has never been tested officially (or at least the results weren't publicized), but it's evident from the somewhat awkward and detached way he handles himself, his sincerity (especially in the way he sets his goals), his abnormal learning capability, and his personal history that suggests him being a social outcast from back in early childhood. To elaborate on the goals part: one would expect a person so caring for humanity as to risk jeopardizing his own and his family's well-being to be very emotionally-driven, which typically entails being soft-hearted and compassionate (think Buddhist monks), but Musk is able to, eg., severe long-standing relationships on the spot if they don't contribute to his goals. HFAs are known to be hyperrational and think in fundamental terms which inform their life decisions and goal setting practices. This is the most likely thing to explain the seeming discrepancy.
That said, his condition, if it exists at all, has to be relatively mild. I've know some full-blown aspies, and they can (and do) have way more significant disbalance between different brain functions (such as being able to recite a hundred jokes in a row without understanding what makes any of them funny). At least Musk can look people in the eyes and joke a little bit.
Nothing as good as watching one of the smartest men on earth break down one of the most complex and urgent problems on earth....and all for free. ain't the internet grand?
Smartest men on earth? Most complex and urgent problems on earth? What the fuck are you talking about? :DDDDDDDDD omfg... The only thing carbon does to earth is it makes plants grow faster... What a fool... :(
yes, mr weed ball
Adrian Kiambati
I use CO2 to grow my plants faster... What are you talking about?...... o_O
Robertas Ciparis Carbon, in certain forms, makes plants grow faster. That's one (not the "only") thing it does. It also makes temperatures in a grow area rise...whether that's a grow tent or earth's atmosphere. And what? You don't think Elon Musk is one of the smartest men on earth? His endless list of accomplishments not long enough for you?
Lex Blazer
You mean Tesla nad his patents? :D oh boy... You think Musk came up with any of that? cha... Good luck... Keep following half truthers...
Elon is a an incredible human being. The problem that is happening in 2022 at least in the County i’m living in is, they have introduced the Carbon tax on people , so gas / food / utilities are now 10-15% more expensive , but no break in taxes / costs to investing into clean energy , the majority of people on Earth can not afford these technologies or the increase in the cost of living . So what the leaders basically done with climate change is they increased the cost of living for everyone with carbon tax, but that money is mostly going into their pockets and not the transition. this is why humanity doomed because money rules most people not common sense .
I only watched this video today and i must say i m quite disappointed at Elon in the sense that he completely overlooked the inherent corruption of the government and the politicians. It’s absolutely obvious that you are mentioning, would inevitably happen. Calling out for taxation is completely naive and we all need to repeal carbon taxation and together come up with more creative and responsible individual approaches or free market solutions. Calling for taxation just means giving more power to politicians to do whatever they want while at the same time, increasing corruption… It’s simply too naive! I am sure Elon changed his mind… 100%. Elon is now seeing how corrupt the governments and politicians are, they simply cannot be reformed into something good and they are utterly incompetent. Politicians cannot do anything about carbon emissions without significantly punishing the working class and the poor. It’s not something to leave in the hands of politicians. Politicians need to be phased out.
Absolutely, you nailed it.
Not true. There are tax breaks on purchasing electric vehicles. Although I agree that it would be better if it were offset by a tax break that is less "lumpy", like sales tax.
If we invest all money that we are investing in weapons, into science and new energy sources, we would solve almost all of the World problems that exist.
So dumb, yeah tax the common people more, that MOSTLY solved the problem, just like how the money is MOSTLY going to clean energy, which is not at all feasible btw
Agree except does anyone really believe a carbon tax would lead to other taxes being lower? Politicians will simply waste that new revenue stream. Or cook the books to look like it is revenue neutral.
Dammit. He seemed disappointed from the lack of response to "turd in the punch bowl" I know I was
I guess this one was beyond the mostly french speaking people in the audience at the Sorbonne..
Rockefeller, the "Fossil Fuel" hoax and Oil. Rockefellers "fossil fuel" ain't that cute! LoooooooooL! th-cam.com/video/o6vVbz7Epsg/w-d-xo.html
french people don't know english. They probably understood nothing at all
Plenty of French people speak English, around 40%, and students at the Sorbonne come from all over the globe. They probably understood all of it.
French people know english much better than english/american people know french.
Yet you don't hear them talk trash about it.
It’s amazing to watch someone, who is obviously NOT a gifted speaker, be a great communicator! Go, Elon!
which by definition, makes him a great speaker.
Feralz gifted and great are different buddy
Yeah sometimes I see Neil deGrasse Tyson & think how great of a Orator he is.
When you have that much ideas... you can hardly be a Great speaker, I think
My understanding is that English isn’t his first language. Pretty sure he grew up speaking Afrikaans in SA.
The current virus situation is a good example of how people will believe whatever they want to no matter what or how much logic is presented to them.
So how you feel about the C vax now? With all the new things like sudden death, myocarditis, blood clots in people causing them to loose limbs.
@@ChrisMontgomery-xtrmagamr and that the virus was created by the same people profiting from the vaccine.
If everyone on earth had your carbon footprint Elon, earth would be like Venus in 30 years.
If all on earth have your minimum carbone footprint we would all sitting on trees again like in further times...
I would like to see a revisit on this subject. 5 years should be a good enough time to analyze where we are moving now.
We have carbon tax in Germany.
Let's hope the rest of the world will start taxing co2 also.
Agreed!
I don't think tax is a solution for this. There are a lot of variables not included in old clima models.
@@DerMitDemMojito explain how taxes fix this? All you leftards think Gov. and taxes fix everything all your doing is helping the elites launder money. Wake the fook up
@@ropedb Elon explains it in the video.
CO2 tax helps because it raises the long term cost of investments that are bad for the climate.
Therefore more expensive newer technologies become the financially and environmentally better investments for the companies.
"Fook" that few euros I have to pay extra for gas now, if companies use their billions to get away from fossil fuels.
@Alexandro Monteiro Now you got me curious. What is your proposal for a better solution?
3:33 r/mapswithoutnewzealand
It disappeared because of climate change!
@@kael7953 it's pretty mountainous so it wouldn't all go
Shamic Entertainment Wanna test that?
Very simplistic speech. There is no climate crisis. This was a sales pitch for Tesla.
Does flying in private jets multiple times a day add to this or is that fine
Check out commercial vs private miles flown. And be careful, somebody installed a mind virus into you causing you to repeat possibly incorrect data that serves somebody's else's purpose.
Nice whataboutism
@@user-eb1zv6sr9e it's not a whataboutism when it's the same person doing both
Elon Musk will be the subject of a great film one day.
catastrophic! Maybe that depends on the efficiency and effectiveness of your particular government. Catastrophic isn't a carbon tax, a catastrophe to the economy is climate change.
***** I wasn't certain before but now I know. Are you an anti government zealot? Then this is the website for you! www.governmentisgood.com/
Oh and don't get your science from Al Gore. climate change wasn't conspired by him, the notion was advertised long before he was around. The scientific majority has always been for the warming of the planet.
You mean "Who saved the Electric car?"
+The libcontarian btw that's a real movie with musk
Are you referring to the upcoming documentary where he figured out how to fuel the space-x rockets with good intentions and hemp hearts? Instead of talking about technology that is needed to replace carbon energy, his only answer is governments stealing more from citizens. Does that make sense to you?
Elon talks this way because his mind works faster then he can talk.
The man is a Genius.
I agree,This Man is a Genius.
ABSOLUTELY !!! I HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT FOR THIS GREAT MAN!!!!
Elon is a normal human being which grew up to be a clever salesman and manager. He speaks this way because he tries to remember what is experts gave to him to talk about ca. 1h before and hopes he makes no mistake. He is no super human of some kind... just a bit nervous.
I wonder if he has worked out that his EVs are mostly charged by the grid-->you know,the power that comes from the carbon producing power stations.
Every second is new. He is a efficient thinking person. Many are but his scale is huge, from being less selfish than most?
Remember, Elon has an awful lot invested in electric vehicles, which are waning in sales. He knows full well that despite the increase in C02 it plays a miniscule role in the climate.
Elon is more interested in humans than money! And Tesla is doing very well. It is the other producers who are having troubles. Get your info straight.
@unknownknown2776 No doubt you concluded in your own head that because CO2 has such a small concentration in the atmosphere (about0.04%), then "C02 must play a miniscule role in the climate".
@@jumboegg5845 now turn it around and see if it sounds truer-no doubt you concluded in your own head that CO2 that has such a small concentration in the atmosphere ( about 0.04%) that CO2 must be playing a catastrophic role in climate change . Sounds Kinda funny 😂
@@vikkiiam3083 You proved my point by saying "now turn it around and see if it sounds truer.........sounds kinda funny".
Its in your head, you can't just rely on your logic to draw conclusions in science, no matter how intelligent you are. You also need a lot of knowledge and understanding in chemistry, physics and everything in between when it comes to the climate. Then you can apply your logic to your sound understanding of the subject. Can't just rely on what some scientist said either, especially if he or she is among the minority, but if the vast majority of scientists concur on something, and you don't know much about it, then you have to accept what the majority of professionals agree on. This is not the 16th century, there is no conspiracy, science theory is based on knowledge and consensus. When you have good knowledge on the subject, then you may have good reason to question or criticize something a scientist is saying. I have been involved and researched widely in the sciences for over 40 years, and do pick up on a few things that I dont agree on, but I do generally agree with the protaganists of climate change. Basically in my view its ball park figures and perhaps it may take another 50 - 100 years before we have very accurate data (because climate is always varable from year to year and decade to decade). But of course by then it may be way too late if their predictions of rates of change are reasonably close.
Statistical analysis is amazingly quite robust. Often when you collect more and more data, the predicted mean value doesn't change very much over time, the main thing that changes is the size of the error bars. When you collect more and more data, if the error continues to become smaller, then this means you are on the money, if the error becomes larger then it means your intial predcitions were not accurate. However everything I read coming from the naysayers seems like its coming from someone who has the knowledge of a primary school child. To question how small concentrations of C02 (and hydrocarbons) can possibly affect global temperature tells me you are not far from this level of understanding. Study the subject intensively for 10-20 years then you may have enough understanding to question its validity.
When you prepare a killer presentation as part of a group project and the guy who volunteered to present it messes it up 😃
what is wrong with you?
"Whatever you incent will happen." - Elon Musk
Nature abhors a vacuum
That is why drug cartels have more money than some countries.
that's exactly how elon got so rich lol
Which is why I'm disappointed he mentioned doing a "revenue neutral carbon tax" by decreasing taxes elsewhere. The better solution is to distribute all (or perhaps 90%) of carbon tax funds collected as a dividend to every citizen in the country. Typical American Joe Schmoe who has an F-150, whose wife has an SUV or van, whose family eats meat for the majority of their meals (maybe even has steak or burgers once a week), etc. would still probably break about even--because celebrity millionaires like Leonardo DiCaprio and tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos who fly private are emitting SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE CARBON and creating much much much more physical waste than even the most oblivious good ol' boy. The staunchest hippies of the world may profit, but who cares--the important part is that the very rich (including Elon) should be paying their fair share in carbon taxes and the revenue should go back as dividends to everyone.
Scary but true. Most people are cattle.
1:48 Elon predicts Tesla’s stock graph in 2019.
Im long in TSLA too. My investment in this brilliant mind, gets me closer to my dream, the Model 3 Standard range every day. Thank you Elon for trying to save the world.
@@factfulness-perleth7764 97% of scientists agree.
Hah
Scientists predict Kessler Syndrome by (a.o.) Elon Musk's commercial satellites.
Indeed. It’s tautological.
1) so use a stick instead of a carrot
2) we now have carbon tax, but that doesn't mean our politicians are using the tax effectively
There is lot of scientist who aren't corrompt who says that we can't value the carbon with the climate change. The hottest period was is in 1970 for exemple... And if you compare per 100 years or 1000, you'll see the same change in the climate at period there werent industry. We should be careful about it
Hottest period was the early to mid 1930s
I see a lot of jealous people in the comments. To those saying he is only promoting Tesla... WHY DO YOU THINK HE CHOSE TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
And so what if he's a bad public speaker? The fact that he's making tons of money off of trying to benefit others and also run a business is great! I wish there were more people like him.
The thing I like about this talk is, he could have made this a sales pitch for Tesla/Solar City... But he didn't. He genuinely cares!!
I know.. but wouldn’t an increased carbon tax push consumers away from traditional automobiles and move them towards purchasing electric vehicles.. say.. A Tesla? Maybe he’s genuine, maybe he’s incentivized to take out the competition at the root, maybe it’s the truth, and maybe it’s a combination of all of the above. Interested in your feedback
I’m sure he does care… But the obvious message is : slap large taxes on my competitors
@@Tcarney1995 That's exactly his plan, to catalyse the transition to electric vehicles, for the good of humanity. And this will benefit Tesla the most, coz their cars have set a new benchmark that competition is unable to touch. Tesla has open sourced their electric drivetrain designs just so that the competition can try to catch up. Healthy competition will lead to a quicker transition to sustainable energy, and Elon has pointed that out many times.
@@Tcarney1995
Yes he want consumers to move to electric bt the thing is not just Tesla, due to its increasing demand for electric vehicles, every major company now investing in electric cars R&D, all the Tesla's findings, research & it's technology is open for anyone to use to build their own vehicles and improve on.
The only thing he need is push towards lowering carbon footprint. That is why Boring (Musk's another company) only gave permission to access their tunnels for electric vehicles in LA I guess.
Tommy Carney to be completely honest, it’s a combination. Here’s why. Elon musk, does genuinely care about the environment, because he wouldn’t of made the Tesla and push solar so hard. He also shows he cares because he wants a second option like mars, incase earth doesn’t make it. He wants to stop this from happening tho. But on the flip side, what mad wouldn’t discreetly and slyly say “hey! My car is better for the environment, and solar energy isn’t taxed! He would be stupid not to! It’s a win win for him.
The problem with the spike climb graph around 1:46 is that it doesn't show that it also plateaus as time goes on.
Meaning that we cant possibly add more than we already have and currently are.
And over time we will steadily fall down from that level with more efficient engineering and inventions.
There is no plateau of CO2 content in the atmosphere in sight. What has plateaued is the yearly emission rate. In mathematical terms, the first derivative is now constant; which means we were able to go from an exponential growth in CO2 content to a linear increase over the last 20 years. That's all.
Tell that to the planet Venus
Does someone knows who prepares Elon's PowerPoint presentations please ? I'm in this business and it would be great for me to know .
He appears very awkward as a public speaker, yet does well in face to face interviews. I suspect he's on the spectrum, extremely high functioning, brilliant and able to focus and channel the abundance of ideas he has at any given point in time. Once in a generation genius who will do what governments the world over have consistently failed to do.
If I was one to one, I'd be more comfortable than talking to 300 faces!
Audience doesn't match elon's humour
Or elon's humour doesn't match the audience
Yeah how did no one laugh at the turd in the punchbowl joke?
Because there’s only 200 year old farts sitting there
@@homiixide Because the subject matter is the disembowelment of our species
Foe real right!! I was like am I in a better mood than most people or they don’t get the jokes lol.
From what I understand, the co2 makeup of the atmosphere is less than half a percent. Am I wrong?
Yeah that’s true. So what? It doesn’t make any difference in the fact that the climate is so sensitive. If you would eat 0,00001g of botulotoxin, you would die. If your internal body temperature goes 1 degree up, you are probably sick.
0:55 The so called "extra carbon" was once part of the carbon cycle. The CEO of the largest electric car company, talking about the dangers of fosil fuels. No conflict of interest!
But Elon started Tesla because no one else would take electric seriously as a carbon reducing method. If he was just your typical business man then yes i would agree that there is a conflict in interest but in Elon's case no his interest is in the better future for mankind
People build companies to address problems. They naturally therefore point out how bad the problem is and how they plan to solve it.
Why did Elon get involved in Tesla? Because there was, and still is, a big problem with climate change.
This is not a "conflict of interest". It is an alignment of interest.
Find a need, fill a need.
People build companies to make money. Time to grow up.@@markgemmell3769
@@markgemmell3769 People build companies to make a profit.
Long term, of course profit is necessary, but that isn't where businesses start, and it isn't what gets people out of bed in the morning when the going gets tough (and it always does).
Of all his suggestions, Nuclear energy is the most sustainable, cleanest, safest, etc etc. Yet somehow, politicians have convinced people that it's incredibly dangerous, super "dirty" energy. Even the protagonist's admit it's sustainable. It's also light years cheaper then any of the other methods. Finally, batteries, which all of his other methods require are so grossly underplayed in their destruction to our planet that it's criminal not to point a bigger spot light at it.
Politicians did not ! they been backing nuclear with its forever increasing budgets and time schedules for `new` reactors and the problems with old reactors . What could possibly go wrong with 1000`s more ?
I am all for the development of small localized Thorium plants, but your statement about the price of nuclear power is not true. Nuclear power runs 25 cents per kwh, where hydro is 5 cents per kwh and even photovoltaic is down to around 6-7 cent per kwh, yet all cheaper than fossil sources once you factor in the trillions of dollars to be lost in the near future by losses thru natural disasters, crop failures, real estate devaluements, and costs of migrating billions of people which will precipitate wars. America is not immune. We suffer higher surge flooding, more powerful hurricanes, more tornados, more floods, more droughts. The Colorado River basin is done for. Cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are doomed and California cities will have to desalinate seawater to survive. The migration of the west has already begun as people show intense dislike towards drinking recycled sewage water. At some point when the constant air conditioning overloads the grid, people may warm up to nuclear again.
here’s a question : In the last diagram, he showed the possible slowing of the increase in carbon if the carbon tax was put in place. It was a very small effect. But the real issue is that Elon forgets to mention that this action does not only need to take place in the U.S but in the whole world.
So imagine that the US and say, a few European countries follow that plan. You still have the rest of the world to deal with (Russia China India being the main problems).
Now if they don’t play ball, go back to that diagram and imagine how minimal the change would be.
Not to mention, we will have slowed down our economy when the other countries will have flourished (dominated) in the meantime.
I would honestly be happy to be proven wrong on this issue.
Lucky for humans, China and India are taking strong actions to mitigate emissions despite US inaction recently, but I think with the new US administration everyone will be more likely to play ball. That being said, we are still so far from real action that will **dramatically reduce** carbon emissions.
Switching our energy sources doesn’t entail slowing of the economy. If anything, since more of our energy will come from within our own country as opposed to fossil fuel imports, more jobs and industry will be created. I’d like to know what specifically people are envisioning when they say that efforts to address climate change will slow the economy
@@yonseienglish except they aren't, go back and look at the data. They continuously delay their promises to way into the future and they never meet them. Meanwhile, the US has done much much more without the promises being given
@@Alex-rt3po I believe that what most people mean when talking about slowing the economy is that the implementation of a new carbon tax, whether on industry or individuals, is that existing revenue streams will produce less “disposable income” since a new cost, the carbon tax, has been added. Therefore, corporations will have less money to invest in their businesses or to pay higher wages and if imposed on individuals we will have less money for food, clothing and shelter. IMHO, he makes a huge quantum leap that because no carbon tax exists today it is equivalent to a subsidy. Additionally, adding a tax may not reduce carbon emissions but instead just represent a new higher cost of operations which businesses just pass on to consumers. I doubt that a new tax would necessarily lead to the anticipated change in behavior.
Great point here. However...to know Elon is to know that he is a global thinker. This is to say that whenever he delivers thoughts ideas and concepts that his message speaks, in most cases, to the global level. Everything be has accomplished so far, and everything he is currently working on has an impact on mankind as a whole. He's a world thinker in that his pursuits and aspirations have no national boundaries. Suffice to say...we need [many] more thinkers in the world like Musk.
The problem with the carbon tax idea is the Government doesn't use that extra revenue wisely. They'll spend it on all kinds of destructive things-wars, socially catastrophic things, giveaways to their big donors, etc.. IF a carbon tax was GUARANTEED to be used for good, ecological purposes I would have no problem with it. We've been lied to, too many times by our bureaucrats.
How much as changed for the better as a percentage since we started using renewables , assuming its working and how can use measure this and the metric used , how much as a percentage , simple question ?
Money people blind to anything but profit. Source of all profit is by effort of managed humanity. Their IOU is the ball and chains of the total Earth “ Economy “ . A hypothetically used word for a greedy lot of humanity. Want more wealth to hell with Earths health. Money was handy to get an incentive rolling, now it is lost in mire corruption and greed. We all need more ? No we need release from its Holding value. We own nothing, we need what we have to have . Food, shelter, and respect for the masses. The total wealth makers of the tool that controls them. A rod for our own backs. Unite and be one on Earth , not just for us, for all living creatures on Earth , but first every time , home EARTH.
A problem with his solution, from what I see, is that the carbon tax is not being imposed on the carbon producers but the carbon consumers. The producer still gets a break while the consumer pays the price. Regardless of your personal carbon footprint, you were taxed. Punitive action rarely incentives change. People will do what they want but real change will happen when people find more benefit in the alternative.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would happen at the source of entry of fuels and ideally be redistributed to every American equally or below a maximum threshold. Or, it could be used to fund scalable sustainable solutions to decarbonize respective national economies by giving, for example, subsidies to buy electric vehicles, build charging infrastructure, build transmission lines to distribute renewable energy across state lines, and do building energy retrofits for all, including low-income citizens.
@@yonseienglish if mammal population decreases then carbon will decrease significantly , the number of trees should be equal to number of mammals , so now the number of mammals is higher , I will support Bill gates' plan of depopulation XD
Elon: "Turd in the punch bowl"
Me: "Ahh I get it now"
Stolen from south park
So, carbon (dioxide) has been low (~300 - 400 PPM) for 10 million years. What else kept happening during that time? Answer: ICE AGES!!! What was the air like during the time of dinosaurs, when there was abundant life from pole to pole, and NO ICE AGES? Answer: CO2 was FOUR TIMES HIGHER: ~1,200 PPM. Conclusion: WARMTH is GOOD.
Now, we know that Elon Musk is one of them. We must think for ourselves and not be brain washed.
One of who?
You must be for the oil or coal and other carbon polluting industries so you are the one who is a brainwashed unless you are for reducing carbon.
He is referring to a group of GLOBALISTS, CABAL or DEEP STATE. Obviously, Elon Musk is not part of them. In fact, the Globalists are making pressure on him and his businesses a hard time! You are one of the illegal immigrants TROLL or part of the DEMICRAT demolition job against ELON MUSK!!! Indeed, TRUMP was right!!! The DEEP STATE is so deeeeep and have a lot of TENTACLES!!! They are a CLUSTER of EVIL people BONDED together for one COMMON CAUSE!!! SELF-INTERESTS!!!
@@ICEV One of the Chicken Littles who've bought into the absurd climate fear-mongering. Who else?
That carbon he's so concerned about? Yeah, that is arguably the single most essential compound to ALL life. It is a WHOPPING .046% of the atmosphere.
Stop believing this nonsense, and stop scaring the children with it.
There have been times in the past according to geological records were the C02 level was higher than today but the temperature of the environment was lower, answer me this. No one talks of the issue of deforestation and concentrated farming methods as being major contributors to a change in the atmosphere, perhaps more so than our use of fossil fuels. Also why was the world hotter in the 1930's than now? There are many other factors in play here.
I was hoping someone would mention this. Also volcanism is a contributor which may explain the high levels in the past. I still believe we need to be good stewards and get away from fossil fuels and polluting the Earth in general.
Yes, his assertion that CO2 levels have been sitting at about 300 ppm for the last 10 million years is totally false. Proven false. I won’t even go into the fallatiously inflated 10 million years figure. Oh, and the 97% number - totally debunked. This seems like a talk someone on his staff prepared for him that he doesn’t really totally believe in, nor perhaps even understand. If you analyze his stuttering, the repetitions increase when he is trying to read the most controversial numbers, especially those that have been totally disproven. Don’t get me wrong, I can’t help admiring Musk for his many accomplishments, but this talk can only to lower my esteem for his academic integrity. Need I mention also that the faster fossil fuels are phased out, the faster the way is paved for mandated all-electric vehicles. I wonder who would benefit financially from that?
Dude sells electric devices.
Thanks for a few sane people here. Life (especially plants) flourished at higher CO2 levels in the past. After giving off oxygen, those plants died and their carbon went into the Earth, which we now use. What those arguing over CO2 levels don't know is the level that is the best for us. They keep going on about people eventually losing beach front property. People have survived in all kinds of climates throughout our history, and will continue to do so. Clean drinking water is of more import.
Those high levels of co2 occured during thousands of years not a 70 year period as we are experiencing. Also we do not know if humans can live in an environment of higher co2. The agriculture and food we grow is highly based off of a certain amount of co2 which we have changed and increased. We cannot say for certain humans can live in that environment.
Not only he presents the problem, he also give us the solution to the problem in details. What have we done? FKING NOTHING…
We have achieved tremendous goals as a society. Some of them are truly remarkable and seemed unrealistic when people first talked about them. But we have never before tried to pursue something like saving climate. It's the most uniquely difficult vision, especially because it is long term. But mostly because the consequences of polluting the environment are not direct and intuitive. Our preventive actions and their benefits are not direct and intuitive. Every other kind of progress society has made didn't have the same problems to the same extent.
An airplane crash is awful. So they built better systems and regulations.
Murdering people is awful. So the law had no problem making it illegal.
Infection from germs and sickness and death is awful. So the hospitals had some very strict and meticulous practices for hygiene.
Car accidents are awful. The seat belt law was implemented eventually.
But how are we going to work on climate change? Government changes every 4 or 5 years. People who make laws lose their power every few years or so. Who is really gonna pursuit the climate change regulations with genuine concern about it? Sure, they can do a few things here and there to get the applause from the public to get them on their side for the next election. Even at best, people do bring change because of some ego-boost or to feel good or for some sort of personal satisfaction. But the whole political system and people who govern and make laws do so because it gets them re-elected. It has worked so far because if they don't make things better for all, they might lose votes or power. And for most of our goals can be resolved in a few years or so, at most, within a decade. So the incentive for government and policy makers is there to do what's good.
But how are we ever going to create an incentive system that can help us progress with the climate change situation? Taxing coal industry is only gonna make those rich people mad and only a handful of common people (and environmentalists) just mildly satisfied.
I am not cynical. I know what we have accomplished in the past, despite all opposing forces. But stopping and reversing climate change does not seem to fit anywhere in the current system.
There was a research recently done, carbon taxes do a lot more then you might think.
You said it all. I'm just gonna copy pasta this everywhere
There are hundreds of incentive systems being tested. One that’s particularly cool is the carbon coin. In theory if the world’s major national banks credited fossil fuel producers for the reserves that they do not mine, and rewarded people and entities that sequester carbon or reduce consumption, that can be represented as a currency which eventually wipes out crypto - a currency that today dumps a significant percentage of carbon into the atmosphere.
That’s just one idea with serious research.
We also have to abandon traditional economics which is built on consumption principles, rather than the value of conservation. Reduce, reuse, recycle, is directly opposed to this theory.
@@joelongtin7532Good Morning, you might want to check this out. A fossil has never made a drop of oil.
@@roostercogburn3771 Yes, it is a misnomer! I suspect we use the term "fossil fuel" because it's easier to say, and the coal, gas, and oil deposits sometimes exist adjacent to fossils. But if you have a better term, I think people would be interested to know it.
What's most important is that we can't cost-effectively replicate the heat and extreme pressure over millions of years that create oil, gas, and coal. We'd burn more energy to produce them than they would generate. And the production would most likely use fossil fuels which compounds the problem.
Also, that 2 degree increase would not be unusual at all. It would be in line with the last 5 interglacials. Your "hockey stick" chart is misleading. It should represent the the same time frame as the those interglacials, since that would make it comparable to the last 5 cooling / warming data.
I’ve identified a problem that few have discussed: In the state of Texas, solar panels count as a real-estate improvement, thus adding taxes to the homeowner. This taxation does not encourage solar panel purchases in a struggling economy. In addition, we lack a proper recycling program for the solar panels and wind turbine blades. They can be recycled, but for some reason we are not. Furthermore, new housing developments are being put in place without incorporating solar into their roofing, which seems like a no-brainer for a place where it is 100 degrees for a month lol.
At the same time you claim like 26% of that cost on your fed taxes. As a home improvement, that's valid because it is. I strap 40k worth of solar onto my house you bet, I just gained 80k plus on the sale of my home.
I believe solar panels have lead in them too. They are considered hazardous materials once they've been junked. So not exactly viable long term either.
Geo-thermal needs to be more standardized in homes I think than Solar. That shit is amazing.
Sounds like an easy fix. Give subsedies for solar pannels, remove solar pannels from the list of 'Real estate improvement' and actively Establish Infrastructure to recycle.
So in clear terms stop arguing about republican and democrats. Two sides of the same coin. none of them make meaningful changes.
This is a Systematic issue. Personal decision won't solve it.
Yeah and Elon wants to move there with his friend Bezos???
@@johnsieglaff6217 "Geothermal plants can release small amounts of greenhouse gases such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. Water that flows through underground reservoirs can pick up trace amounts of toxic elements such as arsenic, mercury, and selenium"
So it's not much different from saying solar panels are bad when discarded. The thing is that it's not necessary to discard them but if we need to, we could implement a special way of disposing. We do that anyway already.
Obviously youre motivated about this. Have you already thought about a solution?
I'd like him to address the question of how you match the overall amount of energy produced with fossil fuel currently with sustainable alternatives. How many solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal or hydraulic energy powerplants, nuclear powerplants are needed to replace fossil fuels... How much does it cost and how long does it take to produce all those devices and powerplants. Because right now I suspect we fail to communicate properly in the "scale" of the problem. Nothing we are doing today is fast enough or on a big enough scale.
Easiest solution? Quit using throw away items (paper towels, brown shopping bags, or clothes that you only wear once)
Elon Musk's analysis is flawed in a number of ways. It's like setting up a straw man and then knocking it down. First: There is no sign that we will ever run out of raw materials used for energy. Known oil, natural gas and coal supplies are good for at least 200 more years. That's just known sources. They are finding more new locations every year. Then, we can easily design methods to clean the emissions from their use that are far cheaper than trying to use wind and solar. Second: He listed five sustainable energy sources: hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, and nuclear. Of the five, two are already in use: hydro and nuclear. Both are very clean and we already have sufficient supplies in storage for nuclear that would sustain us for more than 500 years by itself. Geothermal might find a few places where it could be successfully used but would never be useful for large populations. Wind and solar present all kinds of environmental problems more severe than carbon will ever be. Yet, governments are wasting enormous tax subsidies on them. Wind turbines are very dangerous to migrating birds and have a lifespan of only 20 years before needing replacement. It takes more energy to build and install them that they reproduce. Solar panels use an enormous amount of rare earth elements that are hard to find and very expensive. These panels have a lifespan of only about 20 years and create all kinds of environmental problems in their disposal. Far worse that disposing nuclear waste, which by the way is negated by using nuclear waste in nuclear power applications until depleted. And neither wind or solar are useful by themselves because they do not produce power all the time. They require some other form of power production that is available all the time greatly reducing their real efficiency. And any idea that batteries to store excess energy is going to save them is subject to the same problems of production, useful life and disposal problems. Third: A carbon tax should never be needed to produce change. Until recently, the transitions from wood to peat moss to oil, then gas, and finally nuclear never required any tax or subsidy. So why now? Those changes took place because the new forms of energy were better, cheaper, and more useful than the previous form. I would suggest the tax is not to change fuels but to implement other socio-political change that has nothing to do with sustainable energy or climate change. I think you are smart enough to figure that out.
@@whfowle come on cite your sources.. we are good for 200 years for fossil fuels, spread the word where did you read that?
@@yoniesharnessshopllc If we stop using toilet paper humanity will have sustainable energy for the rest of its history?
Airplane contrails do contain plenty of aerosols which deplete the ozone layer. Some planes naturally emit aerosols, other planes like C-130s intentionally spray a mix of chemicals (including aerosols) that exacerbate the problem of too much aerosols in the stratosphere.
Guess CO2 is the mean nasty strawman everyone loves to use to justify their tree burning (releasing more CO2 than cutting down dead trees) and cow killing that'll disrupt the medicine industry, food supply chain, and beauty industry (yes, even glue is made from horse/cow nails because gelatin) among others.
www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna1034521
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990304134903.htm
www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/save-forests-cut-some-trees-down-scientists-say
www.researchgate.net/publication/324110187_Deadly_Ultraviolet_UV-C_and_UV-B_Penetration_to_Earth's_Surface_Human_and_Environmental_Health_Implications
beef2live.com/story-beef-byproducts-products-beef-cattle-0-107220
www.researchgate.net/publication/340348307_Chemtrails_are_Not_Contrails_Radiometric_Evidence
skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-manipulation/
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
This guy seems smart. Maybe he should start a company
It would be nice. He seems to only be capable of stealing them, though.
From everything I have seen, nuclear is the only valid, large-scale, reliable alternative to coal right now. If we genuinely want to move into the future, step one has to be to deregulate nuclear power. I admit, in the early days I believed a lot of false things about nuclear power and was one of it's biggest critics, so perhaps step one is to educate the public about the truth of nuclear power, step two is to deregulate it, and step three is to actually build it.
Around the late '70's, the issue with nuclear power was that we could design safe reactors, but could not build them to be safe. The workmanship couldn't be trusted. France selected one or two designs, so each plant built would be better, more consistent, than the previous plant. In the US, different contractors each had a different design, therefore no consistency in design, almost re-inventing the wheel each time a plant was built.
Has any leading industrialist, or in Main media, considered using Thorium reactors instead of Uranium. Just as effective in producing power, but with far less risk. Anyone??? No I thought so.
@@ForwardPlans That is very true. Back then the biggest valid question anyone should ask before building a nuclear reactor was is this going to be another Chernobyl. Actually, back then they wouldn’t even ask that because it didn’t happen until 1986, but the sentiment is accurate.
Of course, the second valid question someone would have to ask back then was is building a nuclear reactor that really does the job going to unnecessarily escalate tensions in the nuclear arms race. The most valuable way to create nuclear energy unfortunately also opens up the possibility of refining nuclear material to weapon’s grade level. The third issue is connected to this issue. If we are going to have limits on how far we can refine the nuclear material we are going to create lots of nuclear waste. My family happens to live in a county where a lot of that nuclear waste is stored, and trust me we resent it. Of course, we also create a ton of the electric power for places like California because their regulations are so high they can’t prod their own, but their usage rates are so high someone has to produce it. As a result, our air not only contains the pollution for our state, it also is poisoned from creating all of their energy, and trust me, we resent that, too. So it doesn’t really matter what kind of energy we use, as a society we probably need to have a conversation about privileged communities sending all of their waste - coal pollution, nuclear waste, solar panel disposal, wasted land to solar panels and windmills that kill our birds, etc. - to smaller communities simply because they have both the money and national federal power to dictate that smaller communities pay a large percentage of the price of their energy consumption while they get to have a portion of the problem be “out of sight, out of mind.” But the two points are that the problem is universal no matter what energy source is used, and also that if we got rid of some of the regulations around nuclear power we could actually DECREASE the quantity of waste for awhile because all that nuclear waste that is currently being stored would suddenly have the potential to make way more energy. And if we are getting the waste anyway, personally I would prefer not to use forms of energy that are deceptive because they often take more energy to build than they create over their entire lives and/or don’t provide consistent levels of power, which also has energy usage/pollution repercussions.
I will also say this. When I used the phrase early days, I meant early days for my lifetime. I was not alive in the 70’s. I was alive in the 80’s, but I was too young to even be aware of the conversation. The first time I even heard of the discussion was probably the mid to late 90’s, and I didn’t really develop my major opposition to nuclear power until the early 2000’s. That is what early days means to me, but I admit in the relative discussion of nuclear power that is rather late to the discussion. I admit, if I went back in time to the 70’s I would never encourage that decade to adopt nuclear power both for safety reasons and for political reasons. However, technology has improved by leaps and bounds since then. Heck, even in my lifetime I remember times when we had no internet for most people and also having to use a dial-up modem to tie up your phone line for hours so you could slowly download one text article, and at the time it seemed like a miracle. I remember spending many hours daydreaming about the day when for safety reasons people would have access to a phone in their car rather than having to hike miles to the nearest pay phone. I remember watching the Berlin Wall get torn down while especially my school teacher who was born in Germany was sobbing uncontrollably. We do not live in the same world anymore, and that really does matter. Also, I should make it clear I am advocating removing SOME regulations around nuclear power, not ALL safety regulations. We are not the USSR. Whether it was nuclear reactors or the space race, the USSR was known to take extra risks to push the envelope on technology. I am definitely not advocating we do that with nuclear energy. I am merely advocating we take the safest nuclear technology, build a few reactors at first rather than tons to make sure we can become masters of the technology and really train people how to use them, and once we feel confident we know what we are doing expand the technology from there. We don’t have to be stupid in the implementation phase. Yes, if you go into the distant past of nuclear energy there were a lot of valid objections to it, but the vast majority of those objections no longer have the same validity because we have different technology, a different political climate, and a different regulatory environment than a lot of the worst disasters because our regulations tend to value safety a lot higher than those other countries did.
@@sajjie8121 To be honest, the general bias against ALL nuclear power is so strong I doubt anyone has gotten to the level of debating the specifics of which kind of nuclear power to use. Not using Uranium as the source is absolutely one of the considerations that could definitely be considered. However, if you are asking if ANYONE has considered it, I would suggest that the mere fact that you are able to even articulate the idea suggests it has been considered by people who are close to the problem and understand it well. If you are asking if it is a mainstream argument being made in the public sphere, if most of us, including me, don’t understand the issue well enough to realize that the science of nuclear reactors is different than the science of nuclear weapons, I guarantee that the specifics are not being discussed. Heck, I was briefly a Chemistry/Physics/Math major, and even I only have a very basic understanding of most of these issues. I understand the mechanism of how nuclear reactions occur and am somewhat familiar with some of the more common radioactive elements, but even I would be content to let the industry insiders use their unique understanding of the technology and risks involved to build the safest, most efficient reactors. I certainly wouldn’t support any proposal where non-scientists are dictating exactly what radioactive chemicals must be used in the process. I am fine with highly competent nuclear scientist being on the regulatory board making those kinds of arguments, but quite frankly I think it would be an extremely bad idea to have the uneducated public debating or dictating those particulars. If at some future date nuclear power en masse is a reality to the point that the public is incentivized to actually study and understand the nuances associated with the issues I would change my mind on that, but that just isn’t even remotely the reality of the situation. I am all about democracy and public debate, but I also have this weird personal belief that every right including democracy comes with a requirement to make an effort to be informed on an issue before expressing an opinion on that issue. The nuances around nuclear energy and what the safest and most efficient ways to build and run reactors absolutely need to be discussed. Later on, I could absolutely see those in the industry being incentivized to cut safety corners for the sake of profitability, and ultimately if nuclear reactors were everywhere I would consider it my duty to study those specifics in more detail so we as a public can keep the industry in check. But in the beginning I think I would be best off to trust governmental regulators and industry insiders to allow experts in their he field to make those calls at first. Personally, I believe at first the industry will be incentivized to make a good-faith effort to get it right because they know the success of the entire industry depends on building trust with the public. Perhaps I’m an optimist, but I personally trust at first that the industry will do its best to get it right. It is only later on after they have already built considerable trust with the public that they will have greater incentives to rely on that trust to allow them to cut corners to save money. At that point, it will be necessary for the public to understand the nuances of the issues better. Fortunately, at that point we should also have a lot more data and a lot more articles, etc. we can rely on to better understand the industry and what best practices should be.
@@hollybigelow5337 Your lengthy reply misses the point.
Your argument is science based, but the point is, the nuclear energy argument has been politicized a long time ago, sparked i believe to be an irrational fear of nuclear accidents a long time ago in various settings. To get to a nuclear energy state, you must first break through the political brick wall.
BTW, you need to learn to state your arguments more succinctly. Most would not bother to make an effort to read such a lengthy dialogue, and is unnecessary to make your point.
Make people pay for recycling. Then the private recycling company goes and dumps it in Asia.And the company in Asia dumps it into the sea.Who's fooling who?
Pat D, defeatism runs in your family? Terminally cynical?
Bang on comment! Thank you 👏🏻
😭
@@michaelbrickley2443 Greens have been telling US to stop coal for decades, all the while China has grown it's coal use from 5% of the world total to over 50% since the mid 1990's.....and Al Gore never told THEM to stop, why?
And, they are still building coal power plants well into the future.
And then they find virtue in making us use disgusting paper straws, as if we are dumping our straws in the ocean...
I'll say this, I have in the past been what most of you would call a global warming denier, not so much the science, but because anytime you punish the oil/coal producers, the people who really get hurt the most are the poor, energy costs directly affect the poor, but listening to Elon (who I respect immensely) break it down, he's actually changed my mind! We will one day move to renewable energy sources, we might as well expedite that day for the common good!
I was one of those, but man I can see it with my own ayes, places that supposed to be freezing cold, now not even getting snow just rain instead
Anytime a western country punishes coal producers, the producers export the coal - and many of the receiving countries have few or no environmental control mandates on coal fired plants. Like musk said, "we" can transition out of fossil fuel use, or merely wait until "we" run out of fossil fuels. The problem is he meant "we" the collective human population, not "we" in select parts of the globe.
We already have the Technology for clean energy!
Tesla the Man, showed that, more than a hundred years ago!
Big business keeps the oil and coal burners going, for Profit!
The New Tech is used by Black OPPS only!
The Democratic Green Deal, is part of Agenda 21, which is an even bigger power grab, they will use it to take our homes!
That's their plan!
Their Idea of renewable energy is burning Trees!
Stupid!
N all the while, Black Budget, Military and Space programs are using zero point infinite Energy, to do who knows what?
What I do know is,
Same. But in order for it to work it also means we cannot compromise production. What I mean is his method will obviously compromise production - easy to say you or I did not care as long as we save the climate - but nevertheless the alternative energy proposed HAVE to be MORE efficient than fossil fuels, (this means more scientists would be good to hire to work on research for such energy). My recommendation would nuclear energy - but apparently, nobody wants nuclear. Every "sustainable" energy methods have its own problems and we should take account of that too obviously. But for now, I would say nothing could go better than funding scientists to work on sustainable energy. Hmm. Elon's idea is good, but nevertheless the effect would be the same if WITHOUT people who actually are scientifcally trained to tackle the problem of too much carbon gases production. But at least, he's very clear on his "solution". My solution would be more research first to be honest. Elon is smart, I can see the topic clearly, but this solution feels a little ho-hum - but it could... be a start.
@@Exrench469 I liked these theories but... where? Where is this Tesla solution?
First and foremost the corruption in government has to be addressed before moving forward on any subject pertaining to money and/or taxes. That can be done by Total transparency to the people when it comes to spending. Too many times we hear our government say " can't find the money " or "don't know where it is ". Not acceptable. Overspending is a huge problem. Solve corruption first...then the great minds of our time can flourish ! Peace out.
We can reduce Emission: keeping the catalytic converters in vehicles, turn off vehicle when the weather is tolerable and idle is more than 10-20 min.
Every week day millions of cars are idling in line at schools for hours or more.
When he talks, it sounds like somebody is slowly stirring Mac and cheese.
Yes I came here to say that I feel like everyone of his talks are like that. There’s gotta be a way to filter that out cause I’d like to hear what he’s sayin
I hate you
Cannot unhear now, damn you 🤣
Jesus christ is Elon Musk’s mouth macaroni in a pot? WAP is taking on an entire new meaning.
I can’t find my butthole
The 2 charts in the beginning of this video at 1:30 and 1:45 conflict with each other. Is it 300ppm or 500ppm?
Silicon valley: let's reduce carbon.
Also Silicon valley: how can we add internet and electricity to opening curtains. 🤔
I always find it interesting that there’s never a discussion on the effect of mining coal or mining lithium. I also wonder how all that lithium is going to be disposed of when there’s so many batteries in cars. And another thing I wonder what the price of batteries is going to be when everything is runoff of batteries because supply and demand is real on the effect of price. I also have seen our climate restore itself very quickly after massive fires in forests that produce way more carbon than vehicles. Electric vehicles are OK but I think it is ridiculous to make all these investors so rich convincing everyone to have carbon taxes or eliminate the combustion motor.
The lithium will end up being recycled into new batteries, analogous to how lead-acid car batteries are recycled. The cost of batteries is reducing inexorably, as economy of scale ramps up.
a very rich man making his case to make him even richer. wake up fools!
BUT WE ARE LOSING oXYGEN! (4% per decade!) We need more CO2 for rapid replacement of burned forests and plant life to generate more Oxygen from the additional CO2
They don't care about forest and 🌲 they think they're superior these renewable energy can do things but it's not natural, that 🌲 were doing, they want to build more factories and industries and produce more harm and money ,cutting more tree's
Sooo...keep burning fossil fuels to save the planet!! 🤡
Lets tax the competition away. What a genius this man is.
Where's the chart of what would happen if we stopped all emissions to compare it too
1:47 and now Tesla stock looks exactly like this chart! 📈😂
And Tesla made nearly a billion dollars from carbon credits.
well tesla might look good now, but when other big car companies pick up on electric cars... tesla will be history.
@@namnami4099 I bet you a dollar you will revise that statement in 10 years
@@namnami4099 You obviously have NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. The Tesla is always ahead of the others and this is only one of the many projects he is working on.
@@edrowland4614 tesla is just the first fully electric car affordable to masses. tesla is not a great car in any aspects, other than it being fully electric ofcourse.
when car companies who know how to make great cars, join the competition fully, tesla will fall behind.,
I'm from the future, no carbon taxes have been conducted.
If you’re from the future then how come you wrote that 1 day ago hmm?
@@andrewpolakaus very fastidious smart question indeed MR. literalist.
there are a lot of hidden carbon taxes in Europe, at least. Especially when buying cars, for example. In some countries, if you get a car with an engine of over 2l the taxes go through the roof.
There aren’t enough firebreaks among many forested areas. It is more carbon friendly (and wildlife friendly) to manage forests better with more firebreaks. The ongoing recent mistakes in Canada are only one of many examples of this type of mismanagement. Also, the lithium battery being hyped as “the answer” to all problems is irrational. Lithium mining generally isn’t very environmentally friendly.
Yonsei , I'm proud of you 👏
Good old days… i remember that data from 1250 so well
Or maybe you just don't know how science works
Dunning Kruger
@@gianlucavieira5021 enough to know that you don’t have to be there around 1250 to get reasonable estimates. That tree trunks ocean floors and Arctic’s ice can tell you stories of distant past. Just like you didn’t have to be alive millions of years ago to know that dinosaurs lived or what cavemen life was like. If you know a little about science, you’ll have the humility in front of knowledge. The understanding that there’s a lot you don’t know. That others have spent lifetimes to answer small questions like the ones you’re trying to be sarcastic about. So, you’re a classic Dunning Kruger. Or like Bertrand Russel said “the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt”
It was just yesterday.. We were all like, one this one that, very singular! ✨
@@NotSoLiberal the problem with what you are saying, is everything you have said relies on carbon dating.
Carbon dating works well over the last 100 years, that is proven.
But there is no proof it can work out of that spectrum, as we speak scientist's are agreeing and disagreeing of so called confirmed dates of carbon dating, its just not reliable.
The problem with everything we know about history, is that unless it is recorded. It is based on the presumption's.
Presumption is the mother of all fuck ups!
5 years later we have these taxes in germany. But the problem is that the taxes for the companies will force the expenses down to the Consumers
Cruise ships should be forbidden first and foremost... Also, when I look at the drivers in Germany, almost everyone is sitting alone in their car. Hardly anyone is putting any effort in taking some sacrifice to a common goal. We don't need that many cars and factories.
That’s how the taxes are supposed to work, and the way to mitigate that issue is to return the revenues to consumer as uniform dividends. That way, consumers who use less or find lower-carbon alternatives are rewarded in net by the dividends. It creates an economic system that incentivizes competition and innovation in consumers and businesses to reduce carbon consumption so that they can lower costs or prices. When the dividends are uniform, the lowest-income groups who also consume less than the richest demographics will come out net-positive anyway just because of relatively low consumption, so it’s very unlikely to hurt individuals in the short run. The idea is that in the long run, businesses and society will adapt and low-carbon options will become accessible to everyone (not just people who can afford several thousand dollars to install solar panels etc.)
Saying "trust the science" has been beaten to death....Good folks who agree/disagree about global warming and climate change must start to talk in the same forum.
Leonardo DiCaprio in 90min = 🤔🤨 Elon Musk in 9min = 😳🧐
His real genius is in the fact that the complexity of this problem is an economic and social one rather than a hard science one. He's able break it down and explain it so simply.
i remember al gore doing the same
Far too simply, as it turns out. Some of the “facts” he quotes are controversial, while others are demonstrably wrong.
It's galling to hear people talking about the economic impact of trying to maintain a habitable world like there is an alternative. No one shed a tear for CDs when their obsolescence manifested - the carbon industry is in the same position
@Douglas Waterman at a temperature that yields climate fluctuations that our systems can cope with - rainfall, sunlight, storms, droughts etc
@Douglas Waterman you're down a rabbit hole, or you have your head buried dude. Is David Attenborough a globalist? We've seen from the tobacco and fracking industries that people with a vested interest in pushing a negative agenda obfuscate the facts and divert attention for as long as they can. It'd be comforting to think there's some over arcing end goal for all this, but the truth is we're sleepwalking rudderless into this catastrophe
I REALLY love the analogy he proposed in his argument regarding the carbon tax. Before watching this, I was totally against it. Now, I'm totally for it. We don't dump our trash, or let corporations dump trash, all over the streets and wilderness, for obvious reasons. Instead, they are forced by government to dispose of their garbage to companies who specialize in doing this.
Garbage isn't only in tangible materials or filth, but also excess chemicals and gases. It is waste. Therefore, it should be captured and handled, and companies should be forced to have to pay for this. If not through a tax, then at least provide an incentive for entrepreneurs to finance carbon capture methods and then charge a fee to these companies to do this.
There’s a big difference between dumping trash and CO2 emissions that, for some reason, people just can’t seem to grasp.
Guess what needs CO2 to survive? Hint: they are typically green and grow very tall.
Guess what those very tall green things give us? Hint: we breathe it in and without it we can’t survive.
Capturing CO2 is a VERY BAD idea. Plants have a symbiotic relationship with humans. We don’t need to cut carbon emissions, we need to stop deforestation. You all have your focus on the wrong thing.
@@stevesorenson892 one more option...
Making things is one of the largest emissions creators of this world. If everyone would cut their buying of excess stuff by 25%, we'd just have cut excessive emissions by 25%
@@yoniesharnessshopllc - there is no such thing as “excessive carbon emissions”. The only people who say that there are “excessive carbon emissions” are the ones who are politically and/or financially motivated and/or don’t understand how science works.
Now I grant that there may be a “not enough plants to clean the carbon out of the air” problem but it’s impossible in our ecosystem to have “excessive carbon emissions”.
@@stevesorenson892 How quickly can we plant trees to absorb the enormous amount of CO2 that is being extracted from UNDER THE SOIL? And which was not part of the CO2 cycle?
You are trying so hard to sound smart by using a different take... only problem is that its the wrong take.
@@stevesorenson892 In terms of humans' ability to survive, which is what we're talking about, there absolutely can be too much carbon in the atmosphere. I agree that deforestation is a problem that needs to be reversed to some extent. But that alone is not going to solve the climate problem.
elon makes me feel better about my public speaking skills
Hard to believe Elon is a multi billionaire. I doubt he would give this presentation today.
Still blows me away that this presentation by Elon was bloody FIVE+ years ago.
And... how much has been done by politicians and leaders? Do tell, if you know of anything significant. I sure do not.
Ah yeah dude, I'm sure YOU did your part by not buying anything carbon mass produced from Amazon the last 5 years. Right?
Right...?
Sending his rockets into space must help co2
Sending his rockets into space must help co2
Sending his rockets into space must help co2
Sending his rockets into space must help co2
Politicians will not cut taxes elsewhere, they look at carbon tax as another source of added tax revenue. Also we already tax carbon pretty heavily. Research the breakdown on the price of gasoline. Huge taxes on gasoline.
You overestimate the share that transportation has in the total carbon emission. Also, those taxes affect mostly people and not so much industry (other than transportation and indirectly automotive) so it provides very little incentive to actually come up with ways to lower carbon emissions.
It is probably a good idea though to do away with all the specific environmentally motivated taxes and fees on petrol and unite them with a general carbon tax.
Gasoline? But compagnies burning wood or coal to generated electricity are not using gasoline... So many other ways to generate carbon than gasoline.
Yes, and those gasoline taxes pay for the military we use to ensure the gasoline keeps flowing. But, the military can't fight peak oil.
Yeah. That's why we lower the other taxes, so people can still afford the gas they need as long as they're not using too much of it. Kind of like what that Elon guy said. But I'm sure he's not near as smart as all the geniuses in the comments.
True, the government won't actually do it, because they just want to sound like they care about the environment even though they don't. Just gotta say what gets you votes. Politics.
We have enormous tax breaks for buying electric vehicles in many western countries, including the US. Same goes for buying solar photovoltaic panels. So far the tax breaks are far larger than carbon taxes.
Here we are 7 years later and ... NO CHANGE.
Graph at 1.47 is inaccurate . Co2 level not this high . Manipulated for effect ? (Check it against previous graph )
I can just imagine how frustrated Elon must be to have to hedge on nuclear saying it is good for France. Nuclear is the only real option for the production of the amounts of energy we need now and in the future. There is just no question.
Lies^ nuclear power is evil!! You are a fool!
When solid-state batteries come out, rooftop solar with full battery storage for taking homes completely off the grid will be cheaper in the long run than hooking up to the grid. But they're probably not going to be out for another 10-20 years. As for the solar panels themselves, rooftop solar has a 7-10 year payback without subsidies now assuming a suitable roof orientation and climate, however without batteries it depends on the power company giving you credit for your overproduction so you don't give it away then pay them for power on cloudy days, which they're currently doing due to government pressure, but that won't last if everyone goes solar.
@@theredscourge
I am not against solar, far from it, but even with batteries ... and your claim is probably groundless ... I'll believe it when I see it, but I will also buy it. The thing is, what about when there are volcanos, fires like in CA right now, or dust storms, or some disasters? Whole states could be without power if they are not hooked up to a grid.
Also ... they talk about solar being sustainable, but there is no more real-estate being made ... solar panels and plants use a lot of ground, and they cover it and nothing lives in it our around it. So much of this is hype.
I think solar will be the temporary solution, and a permanent solution for homes ... but people with solar will want to have generator backup. Nuclear is the only completely carbon free power source.
Interesting to see the difference in language between the people seeking discourse and those just venting dogma
the issue is: people are scared of the nuclear
His style of speaking has a discrete fanbase...
I live in southwest Missouri and there are 3 wind farms within an hour of my home. I just saw a video posted about how these windmills are treated in freezing rain. I never thought about it but they fly helicopters overhead dropping chemicals on them to reduce the freezing water and allow them to work again. When are we going to wake up and come up with even more effective and efficient solutions for our needs? I can recall in 1975, flying to Canada to do icing tests on helicopters. Here we are 50 years later and still not using the most productive methods to make safe energy.
Wish we would have an energy solution First, then transition. We are not at that point yet and all of these windmills are not the answer and are harmful, look stupid ! Would love to see what a Kaku #1 civilization would look like
@@edura2188 I agree with you 100%.
The chart at 1:47 doesn't use 0 as a baseline, so the graphical representation completely overstates the actual increase. This is a common deceptive practice in graphs.
This type of tactic is mostly used when comparing two graphs, such as when you are showing how much better your product is than a competitor’s. This is not the case though.
In this case, it is just good practice to make your axis within the regular bounds +/- some distance for easy viewing (otherwise your graph would be mostly grey nothingness).
Moreover, Elon states that it has been going back and forth for millions of years around 300 ppm- paying attention to this sentence would allow for someone in the back row to interpret what the graph is saying. Finally, Elon, like many scientists, is citing the increase in the rate as what one should pay attention to on this chart.
All of these points illustrate that the tactic stated is not being used.
Why do we need Elon Musk to explain these simple things ?
And why the fuck does it still get almost 10% downvotes ?
Because our universities are the 97% he speaks of.
Celebrities get attention, attention gets feelings, feelings get action.
craig foulds : "The claim that 97 percent of climate experts agree on global warming and climate
change is not true, and was based upon a study with flawed methodology.
Nevertheless, I’m quite sure a fairly large majority of climate experts believe that
recent warming is mostly man-made, and could be a potentially serious problem
in the distant future. A recent survey of members of the American Meteorological
Society found that 67 percent believe that recent warming is mostly (or completely)
human-caused. That leaves 33 percent who believe that less than half of climate
change is the fault of humans, which is a big difference from the 97 percent survey
which would suggest only a 3 percent minority opinion.
Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat,
why isn’t the agreement 100 percent? And since when is science settled by a survey
or a poll?
The hallmark of a good scientific theory is its ability to make good predictions.
From what we’ve seen, global warming theory is definitely lacking in this regard. " ~Roy Warren
Those are the oil people
+Verithiell Global warming as a theory has been able to make predictions, it's just that the general public has no idea how those predictions are made. I'm a math major, so I have a basic understanding of how climate models work. These models are stochastic: there are multiple scenarios and each scenario has an associated probability--look at the graph in this video for instance.
The problem is that alarmists focus on the worst case scenario, which usually has a very low probability associated with it. And then skeptics (like yourself) conclude that because their apocalyptic predictions didn't happen, that the science behind climate change is bunk.
But in the end, it's COMMON SENSE that pumping 10 billion metric tonnes of carbon into the air every year is going to have some kind of effect on the environment.
Wow NZ and it's costal city of Auckland with 2 million people must already be underwater in the map at 3:33 because its completely missing.
They used this fact for a tourism ad 😀
Hawaii and Antarctica too! Go visit while you still can! 😅😱
I feel like the reason Elon stutters is because he’s trying to condense the information understandable for us mere mortals
I just think it's his memory recalling all the stored info in his brain.
"Why would you do this?"
*DEAD silence*..
Tough crowd.. we are screwed folks
Big oil pays politicians to make carbon subsidies in order make more money. Why do you think Trump is always talking about the coal miners and their jobs and not about the jobs that would be created from renewable energy sources? Politicians get a fat check from big oil to make loopholes so they can pay super low taxes and continue to cause climate change and the politicians get more money. Win win for them but it's bad for everyone else.
@@drabberfrog "Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money."
@@drabberfrog and Bidens buddies in China are still building coal power plants after 2 decades of their exponential growth in coal use, and will be building coal plants into the future....and they $ billions of Brazils offshore oil leases. They went from 5% of world coal use to over 50% of world coal use.....all the while greens never told them to stop using coal.....not even Al Gore..
@@vozebeats What too many people don't realize is that it's already happening. This not something that will happen fifty years in the future. It's happening now!
@@NotNowLater yes but at least we’re finally taking steps to rectify it. Maybe not fast enough though.
His slides have two different values of CO2 ppm for 2015. The first slide show it as 350, on the next slide its almost 500 when hes trying to scare everyone and make the curve look super steep!
Even with the 400 it's still scary enough, but you are kinda right. I would say he just grapped something from the Internet and didn't check it again.
So he can make more money 💰
And how much percentage of CO2 are we lunching comparing with what already was ?
30%, we did that in 200 years, changes like that should take tens of thousands of years in normal circumstances like super volcanoes.
Taxation isn't the solution, the solution should be to create a market for removing carbon
probably one of the few renaissance men that exist in this generation.
Yes - Similar to P. T. Barnum.
Carbon tax = so obvious, its pathetic that the world resist such obviousness.
Why are there so few questions regarding the use of Nuclear power??? I have seen documentaries on just how much technical understanding has taken place regarding reusing the plutonium, which substantially lowers Nuclear waste toxicity!!!!
And to that oil lobbyism said:
Okay, but make the customers pay it.
Privatise profits, nationalise expenses.
Corrupted France in a nut shell
i wish the guy was the president instead of trump.
Nah, Musk doesn't have the musk to piss off leftards enough...
anik khan No, he has much more potential then wasting time in Washington. He's companies if successful will progress mankind.
Unlike Obama, Musk was literally born in Africa (South Africa specifically). So, unfortunately, he can't be the US president.
Kenneth Higley plus it would be a huge waste of his talents
anik khan being a president would be a waste of great mind and genious.
I wonder what the impacts are of a 15 minute rocket flight for 4 people ?
Strange
Not much honestly. If you try to fight climate change by starting with limiting space flight then good luck on actually doing something meaningful
I mean it isn't hard to research the fuel SpaceX's rockets use, and the exhaust makeup of those fuels.
@@Shin-od1ty Well you'd have to be able to manipulate the erratic energy produced by the sun to prevent the constant changes in climate the earth has experienced since its conception.
I also agree with what he says about 4 minutes into the video... I'll bet you I could tell us why our climate is so delicate without being the brightest light bulb in the package... Seriously?...
But isn't this carbon that use to be in the environment but has been sequestered in fossil fuels and limestone?? If it wasn't released and carbon continued to be sequestered, by various means, at what point would carbon levels inhibit plant growth?
Six years later…Uh yeah I think we’ll just focus our efforts on building doomsday shelters.
Correct
just dont use concrete because that produces a lot of CO2
And blasting giant fossil fuel powered rockets into space.
@@Tailspin80 Simpleton.
@@SeanONilbud Starship burns through 1,000 tonnes of methane. That’s 2,700 tonnes of CO2. Not exactly what you would expect of someone who cares about anthropogenic climate change. Still, what do I know as a mere simpleton. ☹️
Carbon tax is the next big economic bubble. Since when do corporations absorb a new tax hit without just effortlessly passing that new burden on to us. Carbon tax WILL be the next huge money grab.
It's an interesting situation. The trick is to flourish while cleaning and being clean. I think the USA is ready to do things the harder way.
The earth and the earth's atmosphere is not a unilateral system. The earth is a small planet in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe. Human activity will never overwhelm natures' control of the atmosphere. Moreover, so far, increased carbon has been a benefit, not a problem.
The new assessment says that about 16 million years ago was the last time CO2 was consistently higher than now, at about 480 ppm; and by 14 million years ago it had sunk to today’s human-induced level of 420 ppm. The decline continued, and by about 2.5 million years ago, CO2 reached about 270 or 280 ppm, kicking off a series of ice ages. It was at or below that when modern humans came into being about 400,000 years ago, and persisted there until we started messing with the atmosphere on a grand scale about 250 years ago.
It’s too bad that until a disaster happens people won’t do anything
Fortunately, slow moving disasters have never hurt humanity, only sudden ones. We've always managed to get past slow moving ones, usually by innovation.
There something wrong with the scale of the graph at 1:41
400 ppm in 2015 suddenly turned into 500.
Actually it's 2015 in the beginning to 2015 at that moment (the month this event took place)- December 2, 2015 as stated at the beginning of the video
There was a recent spike that is based on how they collect the info. I forget the detail, but there are several of these. On is the fact that historic info is very general, while measurement stations are all near big cities (biased to that), so what is really being compared is global levels to city levels in the modern day.
chart and graph visual manipulation is the only science they have mastered.
Tom Franklin
That's the trick of Conn Merchants. They slip in a phoney info. to bolster their flimsy case.
The figure is 380 ppm. It's classified as a rare gas or scientifically, a TRACE gas: there's only a trace of it.
It's too heavy to be distributed around the atmosphere and is NOT a greenhouse gas as is water vapour which IS disributed around the atmosphere and IS a greenhouse gas!
So that it's getting warmer at the same time as the c02 in the atmopshere is increasing is just a fluke?
Thank you sweetheart will do it can become very intoxicating and the damages need to be addressed ♥️
Do not all of those supposed sustainable energy products require oil derived products and/or energy to produce them?
Yes they do....most of them....but it is the combustion of oil in production process that causes the rise in carbon. What is hoped is that we can manufacture the products by using solar power and not carbon power. Most agree we have only harnessed way less than 1percent of the energy of the sun. Hopefully solar power harnessing improves every year.