What is the cheapest way to beat climate change?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 03. 2024
- Which climate solution gives us the most bang for buck? Use code simonclark at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/simonclark
There are lots of ways we are tackling the climate crisis, bringing down emissions and sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. But which method is the most cost-effective? For a given investment, which draws down the most carbon emissions? In this video I answer that question... and then talk about why that answer doesn't necessarily mean much.
Miriam's channel: @zentouro
Project Drawdown: www.drawdown.org/
REFERENCES
1. ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissi...
2. www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2...
3. www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
4. www.carbonbrief.org/qa-social...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.net/@simonoxfphys
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
What is the most cost effective way to lower emissions? What is the most cost effective way to beat climate change? Which climate solution saves the most carbon for the lowest price? I tackle these questions and more in this video essay about the cheapest way to lower carbon emissions.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
Norm Zemke, Whitefang, Cemre D., David Mann, Jilbin George, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, Cifer, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, bitreign33.
Lucas Johnston, Jeffry., Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Pawel Piwek, Matze, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Dan Sherman, Peter Reid, Andy Hartley.
Guy Markey, Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Felipe Gutierrez, Faficzek, Tobias Ahsbahs, Stansky, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Josh Müller, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Nico Casal, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Philip Sullivan, Joseph , Ben Smith, Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Jens , Knut Nesheim, Issy Merritt, Dajeni, AYS , Adam Fairris, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, Duncan Robertson, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Alexander Johnston, Tom Painter, Phil Saici, Tom Marsh, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Oriol MP, Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Clemens, Andy Giesen, Vernon Swanepoel, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Felix Winkler, CC, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Ivari Tölp, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, Trevor Berninger, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, ST0RMW1NG, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Thusto , Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering. - Věda a technologie
On the individual level, voting for politicians that aren't climate change denialists is totally free and make a big difference too
One interesting, but probably hard to answer, question is how does spending money and/or time on political activism compare in efficiency to direct action to reduce emissions. E.g., is it better to donate money to effective green lobbying groups or reforestation efforts?
But it's a pretty safe bet that voting is an excellent use of time.
Why would I vote to be made poorer?
@Dinawartotem Spot the person who didn't bother to watch the video before commenting...
@@gregarmstrong2500 Except i did watch the video.
Let's take the flawed assumption that solar kicks coals ass. Because that's easy.
Solar is intermittent energy, so even though the panels and installation are cheaper than coal. You still need a baseload energy for when it's not sun outside (usually gas or coal, but here in norway we have hydro-electric).
You'll be paying out the nose for it because they wouldn't be able to charge for sunny days so the price when the sun is up will be negative, but the price when it's not sun outside will be a buyers market.
That's assuming the government won't tax everyone for the use of and expansion of the electrical grid, so more people will adopt solar panels either by government fiat (taxes and force) or me and my city invest in a voluntary fashion. I'm still the one getting screwed.
Because the cost-benefit of the solar farm would not accrue to me (I still have to recoup my investment either way), and the benefit of any supposed house-based solar panel solution, while it could recoup its costs after I retire, is not going to happen because in this situation, when everyone has solar panels, nobody gets paid for the energy.
@@DinawartotemSolar with enough batteries to act as a baseload power source is still cheaper than coal.
"We can't afford to do renewables" crowd dismantled by FACTS and FLOWERS
"Facts and Flowers" needs to be a slogan. I feel like it's everything we're fighting for.
So you like facts eh? Well then start considering _all_ of the relevant facts. This video makes a completely unsubstantiated claim within the first 10 seconds. The fact of the matter is that the reduction in economic activity associated with the COVID lockdowns is claimed by the UN to have significantly reduced CO2 production for that period of time (yay! right?), however the global CO2 level dataset that the UN relies on, the Keeling Curve, does not contain a corresponding signal. Yep, even a change in our activities of 10% cannot be shown to match a correlation in the dataset, and that is without looking at the difficulty in attributing causation to that missing correlation. Yes the Keeling Curve data is showing the global CO2 levels rising, but we simply can't demonstrate that human activities are driving that.
All that aside, all we need to do is sit tight, be productive and generate the wealth needed to afford a rapid rollout of fusion technology once it is commercialised, not other fuss and bother is needed or justified, in fact anything that slows down economic activity and wealth creation is in the long term counter productive regardless of if you believe the stories about CO2 and its impact on the biosphere.
So why are people still pushing these climate stories? Because somebody is paying them in some way to spread fear so as to manipulate _you_ in a way that will profit _them._
There is no climate crisis, there is a crisis in honesty and integrity. 😐
So what happens if you run your civilization mostly on solar power, it can't do any harm to try anyway , right? WRONG, you will die a slow cold death when the next global scale volcanic winter hits, which really is just a matter of when, not if. I'm not kidding, go and research those topics yourself, then when your eyes are open ask why these things are not talked about given their implications.
The petrol industry generates $10 Billion in profits per DAY and receives $11 Million per Minute in subsidies (that's $5,78 Trillion a year) ... all of that out of our pockets and taxes... while at the same time slowly killing all living beings. All that for the past 100 years.
- 7-8 million deaths per year due to air pollution.
- Exponential increase in lung diseases and cancer cases in large cities.
- Plastics that never fully degrade and are already filling our oceans.
- Unreported gas flares and around 11% of all methane ("natural" gas) leaking out of pipes.
- Oil spills, deforestation and poisoning of ground water due to fracking and chemicals.
- Refineries consuming 20% of a country's yearly energy usage. Polluting air and water.
- and so on...
But we "can't afford" to rely on endless clean and cheap energy? Why... because someone can't afford to loose all those billions mentioned above.
We can't afford NOT to do renewables, actually
@@MirdjanHyle Look up "volcanic winter" then explain to me how you will survive the next one if your civilisation is run mostly on solar power. This is what people like Simon are hiding from you.
I like to call it efficiency. like bicycles are a more efficient way of getting around, better insulation is more efficient etc etc
Being a technical/industrial packaging engineer, my mindset of efficiency really pays off, both financially and environmentally!
And highlighting the efficiency part might help to bring people who are less concerned about climate change on board with some of the changes. After all, who doesn’t love to save money?
Yeah, but the concept of degrowth is important. Because it points how GDP should not be the focus. Otherwise, you'll get countries that properly achieve "efficiency"-"degrowth", or get close to it, i.e., that get more well-being, better health, less work time, better life balance, etc, and that are compared on a gdp basis to other countries. For example, what has happened between the US and the EU for 30 years: GDP per capita difference is higher and higher, and neoliberal economists and politicians use it to discredit the european model (which is not perfect OFC) over the american one, when if you look at lçrelevant data, life expectancy continues to increase in the EU and decreases in the US, inequality is growing more in the US, violence has grown much more in the US, medical costs, drug use, overall dissatisfaction, anxiety, stress, higher in the US, work hours have reduced much more in the EU (maternity paid leave, holidays, sick days...), and overall GHG emissions and thus impact on climate and biodiversity has been reduced much faster in the EU.
But if we don't fight to shift the paradigm of GDP-ism, which is the main goal of the degrowth movement, to change the overton window, then politicians will be continually bound to build and destroy more and more.
@@asier_getxoThat really needs to rebrand itself. Degrowth sounds like something that will lower quality of life, which is politically impossible.
@@tristanridley1601It had a brief moment in the sun as "slow living" almost accidentally
@@asier_getxoSwitch from GDP to capability and wealth. We must be able to produce X in order to maintain the society we want. We would also like to build up wealth for the future, such as infrastructure that will last for generations.
The problem with degrowth in the context of "cost effectiveness" is that it fundamentally redefines the word "cost". You cannot evaluate it in the context of our current economic structures.
Exactly. Who cares about GDP? I care about overall happiness, life expectancy, literacy, health outcomes, wellbeing...
It's still entirely possible to analyze impacts on quality of life.
Degrowth is one of those terms with a variety of definitions, some of which are entirely unacceptable to most people (including me).
Obviously capitalistic exponential growth is unsustainable. On the other hand, we can maintain our quality of life in sustainable ways so there's no way to justify taking that away. Never mind the politics of it.
@@tristanridley1601 tbh, degrowth is basically just recognising that GDP is not a valid measurement, and that nowadays, especially in developed countries, we produce way too many stuff that we don't need and don't make us happier or healthier, and even the other way around. Then many people that defend this can have maaany different views, related to degrowth (like anarcho primitivism), but are not degrowth. Just like defending slave trade was not by itself defending capitalism.
But we do. We have the statistical tools to analyse access to education, healthcare, nutritious food, and more. Why do you think that we wouldn't be able to evaluate projects in a different framework even in our current economic system?
This is a moderate view of degrowth to just call it efficiency. The more radical part genuinely believe theres sacrifice required.
Rewiring Aotearoa has just released a report that says New Zealand has reached a tipping point where for the average household going electric right now is immediately the cheapest option.
Amazing! Are most NZ homes using fossil fuels directly? (Here in Canada most homes use electricity for everything but heat).
@@tristanridley1601 Here in NZ (especially where I live) we're already mostly on renewables as far as I know. I live in a town famous for its wind power production so at least here the energy front seems to be mostly fine. I can't cite sources but I recall a lot of our climate change output is from the agriculture sector.
Yep! It is amazing that New Zealanders, Japanese, Mongolian, and other people who live in countries that don’t have oil are still exporting and wasting such a high percentage of your wealth to buy oil!
Mongolians, please pardon the typo.
I know that in real estate adverts "heat pump" is mentioned prominently while "coal burner" is not, but you can often see them in the corner of photos.
You should've drilled down more on why bicycle infrastructure is a climate solution. Bicycle infrastructure (aka NOT USING CARS) reduces emissions, promotes energy efficiency, and mitigates urban heat island effects. Additionally, it improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and fosters healthier communities. Beyond environmental benefits, it enhances accessibility, social cohesion, and economic growth.
Car company employ a lot of people, those people get to vote more car
Car company lobby/bribe a lot, politicians lobby for more car
Car company also produce some military gear, they get to rub shoulders with the guy who holds the pointiest and biggest stick. Suddenly climate protesters get beaten more harshly by sticks because they are evils.
Pure coincidence the car company pays a lot of money for stealth advertising vilify the protesters.
I really like videos that concentrate on solutions and not on the problem itself. It just seems so much more positive and calms my nerves. I wish there were more videos like this one!
Genuinely love the climate optimism this channel is bringing right now. We're still in a dire situation, but there is reason to hope and to keep trying! 😊
If we need 'Hope' to be motivated to save our lives....
something essential is wrong
I agree! I think cultivating realistic optimism can have a hugely positive effect! It also helps get people excited and feeling good about what they're doing right, rather than feeling guilty about their bad habits
One of the best climate change videos I watched in 2024. Well done!
Rewiring Aotearoa has just released a report that says New Zealand has reached a tipping point where for the average household going electric right now is immediately the cheapest option.
This is an excellent conversation between 2 climate scientists and presently the most famous mathematician on the planet
czcams.com/video/bD-szQI_MhQ/video.htmlsi=wGlcCgh9VFB-R24p
Brainwash. Climate data sets dont agree. Do your own research
Politicians continue to fail us. We need scientifically literate systems thinkers to lead humanity forward.
I would like to put myself forward as our one benevolent leader x
100% agree
unfortunately, the current system of choosing politicians is the best we have. modifying it in such a way puts democracy at stake.
@@pedanticknight What a ridiculously silly statement.
You've got no democracy now so how is anything at stake?
@@kristoffer3000 we kinda do have democracy. it is not perfect by any means, but it is still democracy.
Simon, thank you for addressing degrowth! As a degrowther, I agree we need to tackle climate change on many fronts, including what's cheap and pragmatic now. A "degrowthy" note about "efficiency": Efficiency often causes rebound effects. When something is more efficient (cheaper/saves energy), more of it is used because more = better in a growth economy; this, then, eclipses the savings. Economically, saying, "Let's be more efficient" easily translates into "Let's pay less to produce a greater stockpile of goods (and the same/more emissions)." Politically, appeals to "efficiency" are easily co-opted.
As an (aspiring, in uni) environmental physicist I would like to avoid having 'a very bad time'. Thank you for the informative video, Simon! I love the collaborative approach :)
Always so appreciative that you put the references in the description! So many bits of content online now either don’t use references - horrifying - or don’t list them! Great effort to keep up with it, it’s much appreciated and great to be sure it’s all accurate information!
The most amazing thing to me is always just how much of a positive it is to improve these sources of emissions. As you pointed out, most of them have multiple benefits; reducing fossil fuels saves on carbon but also saves millions of lives.
We could all wonder then why we haven't done these good things 50 years ago - when it was about time. Now it is to late.
@gehwissen3975 It's never too late, if a basement had a cm of water in it from a visible hole in the wall, would you just say "oh well, there's already water so why bother?" Or plug the hole to prevent worse damage? Stopping the damage, no matter how much has already been done, is always worthwhile.
@@definitelynotacrab7651 "No Limits" The mental state of the oil area.
If we have had a problem in those times - we burn faster. "Solved!! - Moon today, Mars tomorrow"
'Tipping Points' is the physical concepts that proves 'No Limits' wrong.
"The West" is responsible for 80% of all GHG emissions so far and says we have a global problem. After pleasing the earth with colonialism.
These Christians have to go down on their knees - for peace.
Finally:
Global Dimming is the thing, that makes any action senseless.
You are just not well informed.
@@definitelynotacrab7651what if you know you can't stop the water before it fills up the entire house, you can only get it to slow down a bit?
I think this is the view of the doomers, they believe it's too late to stop the entire house from flooding because there's not enough time to plug all leaks when half the planet is trying to keep the water flooding in.
Sadly for many people, until they see their own personal bills going down they just don't understand these sorts of analyses. They also don't understand why governments won't do it automatically if it saves so much money. They don't see how some of these gains are long term or why fossil fuel interests keep stifling progress. Perhaps there is scope for a video just on this point and how it could be overcome.
Yup, exactly. Well said.
Love how at first there is a clear answer and it gets more and more nuanced but still remains very understandable.
"economic growth" is one of those dubious things where you can't really tell if things are growing because of new innovations or because everything is being made worse and the consequences of that are getting monetized.
Like you could look at a business that sells you dozens of phones a year and say its grown like crazy, or you could look at it and see that the only way they can possibly sell you a dozen phones a year is by making phones that are so shitty they break every couple of weeks.
The prospect of infinite economic growth is kind of a delusion. There is no infinity in a finite world with finite amounts of space and people. There is a point where things must stabelize. (or, well they'll catastrophically crash)
We are already in the process of harvesting asteroids, though. I refuse to accept that humanitys development is finite. Yes, earth needs tonbe protected but the universe holds so much untaped potential and hopefully we will use some of it one day.
@@Marvin-ii7bhThe accelerationist in me agrees. But it shouldn't be our #1 priority anymore.
Yes and no. We can certainly grow our energy production a lot, by harnessing the power of the sun. We can grow our recycling and waste-management sectors, by developing better systems to do that and being willing to pay more for it.
We can grow out nature by putting a price on every plantes tree, or every hectare of wildland.
Switching from coal to solar as an energy source, or from landfilling to recycling, or from useless call-advertising jobs to useful tree-planting jobs, none of these make your GDP go down. No de-growth happens, merely some resources, industries and jobs become replaced with others.
In a capitalist framework, anything anyone is willing to do conyributes to the economy, and if they get paid, that contributes to GDP and growth. Changing what people do does not reduce growth.
Growth is near infinite. Until we collect the energy from all the stars in the universe, the economy will be able to grow.
"Economic growth" is only beneficial to the "sellers".
Common people live with the illusion that a "good economy" is where we have increasing variety and quantity of products from those... "sellers".
"Economic growth" = People spending more money... to pay for the "seller's" goods.
The realpolitik of the next 20 years consists of potentially 4 more years of Trump, at least 5 more years of Putin, and plenty of other world leaders who would very simply exploit any "degrowth" straegies in, for example, Europe. Therefore we absolutely have to find the solutions that work with today's economics. In many ways we already have those solutions but not the poltical will and/or political capital to implement them. Therefore the best thing to do over the next few years is to give governments the poltical capital, and therefore the political will, to implement solutions that will make the most difference, and the best way to do that in the current economy is to find the solutions with the cheapest implementation cost vs impact. I know the takeaway here is more cycling infrastructure literally saves you money, but I think the easiest solution for governments is electrification of existing railways because hardly anyone will complain about it, and it will have a lot of benifets - and we know how to do it right now!
I don't see how a degrowth-based policy framework would interfere with security policy. Degrowth is all about how you define economic growth. Instead of focusing on GDP, you would focus on the well-being of your citizens, access to health care, education, nutritious food, housing and so on. As a result of these policies, you might cause 'degrowth' in the sense that you lower your country's GDP, but in all the measures that really matter, you would have achieved growth. A military conflict would threaten all these things, thus justifying spending on defence contracts. - If you want to learn more about degrowth I recommend to lookup Jason Hickel. He has done multiple interviews, books, and papers on this topic.
@@_yonas It's nothing to do with security. The problem is you end up with governments with less money meaning they are less able to invest in other high impact solutions. Doing less would work partly, but it actively hampers the investment we'll need to rapidly remove carbon from the stuff we will still be doing.
I see where you're coming from. Youre right that we cant fit the round peg of degrowth into the square hole of maintaining investment rates. Ultimately we need a circular economy. No clue how to get there, but I am convinced that removing or restricting the profit motive will need to be an aspect of the solution.
Yeah, so many advocate exclusively for solutions that cannot be implemented in a short time span, like outright banning cars. Yes, this would take out a large chunk of carbon emissions but there is no way in hell that this policy would ever pass. We need actually workable solutions not misguided idealism
Trump and Putin certainly are not likely to help things, in fact, likely to hurt. But change is happening and will accelerate simply due to market forces.
Electricity from new, unsubsidized wind and solar farms is cheaper than buying fuel for paid off coal and natural gas plants.
EVs are at the cusp of being cheaper to purchase than ICEVs. They are already significantly cheaper to operate per mile.
People in highly democratic and highly authoritarian countries will spend their money on the least expensive solution for their needs.
Voting is the cheapest way - For politicians who at least recognize the problem, support science, and want to do something about it.
Voting is good, but it doesn't work halfway, and it takes a long time for it to put money back in your pocket. One person reducing their meat consumption is guaranteed to cut emissions, even if just a tiny amount, and it saves you money on groceries immediately. As a bonus, any individual action you take is going to make you psychologically more invested so that you're more energized to vote and organize.
organizing politically is even better, voting can only get you so far, and even if you always get the candidate you want (from the pool of choices you have) you will only have some small reforms and small legal changes, just so the industries don't get mad at them. we need a different political system altogether, one in which people can rule and the scientists can science.
@@DiceMaster740 We are way past the point where individual actions will turn this boat around, although I encourage everyone to do it because every little bit counts.
Your point about how we don't have the time to wait for a revolution in our economy is incredibly spot on. I feel that those who advocate for ecosocialism, while admirable in their vision, are unaware of how dire the situation has become. When need solutions that we can start implementing today.
Waiting for a revolution presents a massive opportunity cost. We need to do as much as possible at once
It's not an either or situation! Ecosocialists with a nuanced worldview will be doing things like participating in mutual aid and direct action, not just talking about how it's a good idea.
Do you really think that more of neoliberal capitalism is going to save us?
@@qbas81 He's saying that we have to work with what we've got.
I love this video! Everything from the pacing, to the subject, and the approachability! Well done! I'm going to share the heck out of it!
environmental economist here, just to say this video is incredibly well done and it's clear a huge amount of work has gone into it. Great work.
if anyone wants further reading on the topic, look into 'marginal abatement cost curves'. That's what the video is discussing
Most of these solutions will just solve other problems as well, as you pointed out. Thank you for talking realistically about these issues and potential practical responses.
Most of these proposed solutions will create other problems. In reality there are no solutions. Only tradeoffs.
@@Dinawartotem Yes but see every other problem besides the greenhouse gas effect is easier to solve. And none of use will solve any problems if we are fighting wars over water
As Simon pointed out in the video, many of these little solutions do indeed SAVE MONEY, and that's something
both housewives, and CEOs can understand.
The thing that wows me is that a person, a single person, deciding that they can walk, or bike, for an errand instead of using a combustion vehicle, save a lot of carbon.
Many of those people who do such things don't think their little contribution matters much, but they do "their little bit" anyway.
The flip side is if even just a few million (out of billions) do just that one little thing it saves a surprising amount of pollution.
I realized that one of my biggest emissions was my work. Driving a vehicle for hours a day can put a lot of pollution in the air.
So my little change was changing my mode of transportation to an EV. The bonus was that I am saving a lot of money too.
This scales up too, the more people that do just one little thing, the bigger the amount of pollution we don't have to breathe.
Once you get into the billions of people doing just one little thing, the results become staggering.
Now let's look at people who do more than just one little thing.
People who say, modify their transportation, AND add a heat pump system to their dwelling.
(Remember, not everyone can do such things, and that's okay.)
When the people who can do that, add it to the other thing they are doing, they can, in numbers, really make a difference.
In the end making a difference, even a small difference is a great feeling.
Excellent video, Simon. I applaud wholeheartedly. Packed with great info and far more important, the right questions and a really fun editing style. This one is going into my "Remember" list for sure.
Good to know that my advocacy for cycling infrastrucutre is not misplaced.
I think degrowth for my personal life has a meaningful distinction from efficiency - efficiency is getting a heat pump and insulation where I previously had a gas heater and holes in the wall, but degrowth is not having a heap of plastic junk around the house, a bunch of stuff in the garage that I used once and 'plan' to use again, etc. I might just be mixing it up with minimalism and mindfulness and similar concepts, but I don't think they can quite be substituted for each other.
I think you make great points about how practical certain steps we can take are - I have certainly felt overwhelmed by how big the "correct" thing is, and how impossible it seems to get there. But there are certainly practical steps that we *can* take, that are effective *now*.
Loving your hopeful content lately!
AEROSPACE ENGINEER here
Love your channel Simon but there is something missing from this conversation that also has to be addressed.
*The 2.5 trillion tons of ADDITIONAL CO2 already in the atmosphere which in the next few years will become 3 Trillion tons.*
Have you considered what that basic task is?
Most of that CO2 is within 2km of the earths surface. Remember CO2 is heavier than both Oxygen and Nitrogen the main gases of the Earths Atmosphere. So it doesn't float very high like methane and other gases do. It tends to stay close to Earth's surface. The volume of air in the first 2km above the Earths Surface is just over 1 Billion cubic kilometers.
So to actually reverse or undo what we have done we need to think in terms of processing around 1 Billion cubic kilometers of air and extract from it about 3 Trillion tons of CO2.
As an engineer if you or anyone else sees that as just something engineers will have to work out you are living in a fantasy. THERE IS NO ENGINEERING SOLUTION for this. The amount of materials and energy required are just to great. We simply have to plant enough trees to do the job, because trees are quite simply cheap, low maintenance, solar powered carbon pumps.
The question really is how to we plant around 1,000 trees for every person on the planet. Yes that's 8 Trillion trees, but if 1 or 2 in every 8 grow and trap about 1 ton each of carbon then we'll get there.
Loving the new pacing and editing style. Some really interesting info I'd never heard anywhere before. Keep it up!!
I love the term 'silver buckshot'. masse action in basically every single sector needs to be taken, at scale if we are to actually make it out of the crisis. there won't be one single blanket solution, but a multitude of them
I really like this framework of listing as many solutions as we can and then figuring out what works best. I think this gives some unique insight, like, I've already paid a lot of attention to bike infrastructure, but I'm just now discovering the power of simply stopping water leaks.
I like the sound of negative costing solutions
Great analysis. I think there’s a real set of misconceptions about the costs and sacrifices of fighting climate change but in a lot of cases the ‘sacrifices’ give us choices and save money and lives.
Madness.
Do a video on the scale of fossil fuel subsidies!!
14:40 "the faster you can implement a solution, the greater the time integrated effect is". I have been looking for a lay-comprehensible phrase to talk about the area under the curve of the usual carbon transition graphs. I think "time integrated effect" is a great way to argue against procrastinating or letting the special interests of incumbents be an obstacle. If that single number, the area under the curve, could be matched by the cost of catching up later, I think you can mobilize more people to support an aggressive, but cheaper for us and our grandchildren, carbon transition.
Great video, I hope it gets enough views to achieve this channels mission and keep you making more. A nice counter to the doom-focused content out there.
1) Go Vegetarian. Or at the very least reduce your beef consumption.
2) Insulate your home. Windows. Doors. Walls.
3) If you can, cycle.
4) Don't drive a car if you don't have to.
Note: be careful when increasing plants in your diet, as they tend to cost more city water rather than rainwater, especially in places with high drought. (At least compared to grazing animals)
@@renderproductions1032 But the kinds of vegetable protein sources people would use to displace meat (eg. beans) are commodity products that likely won't come from the immediate environments of your city.
All things equal; meat will still consume way more water, simply because you are also watering the crops that your livestock consume. And the efficiency losses you get each time you go up the food chain.
By less cheap crap from china. China produces 44% of worlds CO2.
@@renderproductions1032 Per calorie animal products are generally much more water intensive.
@@renderproductions1032Animals grazing and regenerating natural meadows and grasslands is not the norm though, so by switching to more plants you are more likely to be moving away from factory farmed animals rather than free range, sustainably managed animals. It really depends specifically where your meat comes from. If you buy from supermarkets or fast food restaurants then it's certainly more sustainable to eat plants instead.
really interesting video! Also, I dig this style of video with different locations, expert interviews, and animations. Keep up the good work!
Great video, thanks so much for researching, writing, filming, and editing it
This was fantastic Simon! It's so refreshing to hear that climate change remediation and the economic incentives we currently have aren't always 100% misaligned (like they sometimes seem to be!). Keep up the great work 😄
Degrowth may be a difficult word for some, but it is also about efficiency and not at all about eating less enjoyable meals. It's addresses inefficiency related to excessive car ownership and use, systematic food waste, destructive resource extraction, exploitative use of labor, exploitative use of housing and real estate as investment commodities, etc. These things should be calculated too, the returns would be extraordinarily high. The effort to bring about cultural and political change is very high of course, but you won't do it by saying degrowth sounds scary or is about eating less well.
That update to drawdown to be location specific and a shorter timeframe sounds amazing! Seems like the perfect tool for getting politicians to actually listen. It’ll be show the positive effect the solutions will have on their voters and how much it will affect them before the next election. It can’t come soon enough!
This was an amazing video. Awesome work Simon! You are on a roll with these recent videos!
For sustainability, objectives and solutions should be SMART. No reallly:
S-pecific
M-easurable
A-ttainable
R-ealistic
T-emporally defined
go vegan, your choice, your power to refuse to abuse their bodies, to question the fallacies spun by the industries ... bonus effects to follow; for your mind, your body, the planet's ability to support life, and obvs our fellow sentient earthlings.
I love this video, learning about climate solutions always gives me a lot of hope and gives me more direction. Also, I appreciate the degrowth mention. I think it's inarguable that we need to consume less. I disagree that it's a "bad term," I think a softer term will be misused. It's "efficient" to use a pipeline to deliver gasoline rather than a truck, but does that mean it's better? Wouldn't it be better to stop using so much gasoline? Also efficiency doesn't suggest that any practices need to end. It's arguable whether celebrities using private jets is more efficient because of the time factors, but its pretty clear that it causes unnecessary emissions and should be phased out.
Excellent video, thank you! I've been wondering about the complexities of this question for years and it's great to have such a concise and detailed video about this.
These videos are just so well made! Thank you, Simon.
Woah! A climate video that mentions Degrowth without completely scoffing at the idea!? I'm impressed.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a city where it is possible to get around with a bike and live on a purely plant-based diet. While everyone around me agrees we need to do more to mitigate climate change, they own at least one vehicle (if not more), don't bike, eat plenty of meat, and aren't mindful about packaging and purchasing decisions, etc. Based on this discrepancy, it seems like the vast majority of us have convinced ourselves we wouldn't be comfortable without all this material abundance and excess, and/or social norms and (capitalist-driven) marketing have been very successful in keeping things the way they are. **Sigh** In any case, I'm grateful for informative videos like this. Thanks for making it!
What is the most cost effective solution? - becoming vegan. Poore and Nemecek (2018)
It's not only about CO2
Your choice, your power to refuse to abuse their bodies, to question the fallacies spun by the industries ... bonus effects to follow; for your mind, your body, the planet's ability to support life, and obvs for our fellow sentient earthlings.
I’ve already shared this video with several people. It’s so good!!
Also, I think it would be great to see this video advertised through community posts.
Very important point you share at the end with playing the hand we have. Thank you for bringing that
Great video dr. SImon. Kinda both encouraging yet disheartening to see how economically "easy" many climate solutions are to implement yet so few have actually been used.
Your "graphs" at 9:08 are kinda confusing, e.x. how offshore wind turbines have a smaller number than say utility scale solar PV yet have a larger column, or at least what looks to be a column. I think it would look better if the columns were proportionally sized or have the numbers lined up so the columns look less like columns if that makes sense.
Its amazing to me how many people want a singluar solution. "just dont eat meat" "just dont drill oil" "just stop consuming" "just wipe out humanity".
All of these need to happen people, we need to reduce animal agriculture, we need to cut oil out of everything we can, we need to reduce pointless consumption (think mass produced low quality clothes that last a very insignificant time), we need to stop car dependency, and fill the grid with renewables and nuclear. It also doesnt need to come at a cost to quality of life or through unethical means (like wiping humanity out), which is where I think stuff like Degrowth gets murky.
Degrowth is not a concrete thing, its supporters dont all believe in the same solution, in this very comment section you can see some people arguing its to reduce focus on profit and focus on quality of life and efficency and other comments I saw talked about everyone growing their own food and not paying for things one does not need. Everyone having the space to grow their own food means requiring car dependency or foregoing a lot of amenities because modern car dependent suburbs dont even have enough space to feed their residents and living with the space needed would result in needing multitudes more hospitals and needing cars to access them reliably, or foregoing accessible medical care and that is only the tip of the iceberg when you start realizing you either need absolutely massive electrical grids and water grids or you also forgeo them. Also what qualifies as things one doesn't need, are we talking about a singing fish, are we talking about a music album, somewhere in between?
Mind you I agree fully with the common definition that Wikipedia has "Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development." from the perspective of a Democratic Socialist thats part of what I believe and it's ultimately a good thing, society and its systems should be there for the betterment of society, not to support a measurment of one economic systems success regardless of whether it helps people.
Thanks for organizing all these complex arguments and thoughts, loved it! Really looking forward to the project drawdown update! Please do a video about it when it comes out
How crazy is it that the solutions to the climate crisis ate most often literally win win in every sense, yet to actually begin to implement change requires so much effort from people like Simon. Love your stuff man, youre videos are so important! Thank you
"But what if climate change is fake and we improve the world for no reason?"
It's pretty cool how many of these are net negative cost. I thought plant-based eating might have been alone on those lists, but it's just one thing mentioned.
I am not an economist, and I agree we should evaluate income inequality,life expectancy, literacy, and health outcomes when evaluating an economy. But I just do not agree that we have to reduce GDP or standards of living to solve climate change. As many climate solutions will create new industries and jobs which can grow the economys. Having more efficient pipes, homes, and grids provides the same level of value with less resource usage. Those resources could then be saved for future generations or used for other activities that grow the economy or benefit people.
I think Degrowth is not a great name in terms of marketing, regardless of its ideas. To solve a big social issue you idea needs to be marketable I would say.
You had me at Project Drawdown. One of the most important projects out there.
Great video Simon. Your videos lately have singlehandedly got me more interested in learning about climate change.
I feel there's a strong mischaracterisation of what degrowth is and looks for. The concept of degrowth is in itself important, because it's not a series of measures, it looks to change a mental paradigm. Because it points how GDP should not be the focus.
Otherwise, you'll get countries that properly achieve "efficiency"-"degrowth", or get close to it (i.e., that get more well-being, better health, less work time, better life balance, etc) and that are compared on a GDP basis to other countries that don't.
A perfect example is what happens between the US and the EU (and has been for 30 years): GDP per capita difference is higher and higher, and neoliberal economists and politicians use it to discredit the european model (which is not perfect OFC, in fact ii's still horrible, just slightly less) over the american one. But if you look at relevant data (or what should be relevant): life expectancy continues to increase in the EU and decreases in the US, inequality is growing more in the US, violence has grown much more in the US, medical costs, drug use, overall dissatisfaction, anxiety, stress, obesity, diabetes, higher in the US. Work hours have reduced much more in the EU (maternity paid leave, holidays, sick days...), and overall GHG emissions and thus impact on climate and biodiversity has been reduced much faster in the EU.
And ofc, you can technically say that these changes were in themselves a higher efficiency (if you look at GDP per hour worked, the difference is not that stark with the most developed european countries), but that way you're not fighting the cultural message. You're still playing in their field. Every movement in history have always needed their Malcolm Xs, and Black Panthers (radicals that criticise the system itself and are thus completelly vilinised by the system and the overall public that benifits from it or are allienated by it, but that VITAL to push the overton window and open the path to the next ones), their Marthin Luther Kings (more charismatic and amenable leaders, that still defend their claims on principle, but that are more ready to tame them in quest for concrete gains) and their Lyndon B. Johnsons (people with power that may share some of the core beliefs, or maybe not, but are able to see the writing on the wall and break the molds of the system that benefiteted them until now to seize the opportunity to further their interests, while helping the cause).
Toussaint, Nat Turner/Solomon Northup/Lincoln, Grant. Steve Biko/Mandela/de Klerk. Thje Muslim League/Ghandi/UK government. Pankhurst and the suffragettes/the NUWSS/the conservative government that passed the act. And almost any fight for increasing rights we can think of.
So, if at least some don't fight to shift the paradigm of GDP-ism, which is the main goal of the degrowth movement, to change the overton window, then politicians will be continually bound to build and destroy more and more. The movement needs a counterbalance.
Good post. Just don't call it "degrowth". The name is toxic.
@@incognitotorpedo42 Lol, you completely missed the point. Are you aware in the slightest about how Malcom X, Pankhurst or Biko were perceived at their times? The fact that mainstream media and "common sense" population see it as toxic is what makes it so important to defend. That's how change is achieved, by moving the overton window.
Everyone living in tropical and subtropical climates: insulation what? You trying to kill me?
Disagree, insulation can keep heat out if done properly
@@murphy7801 you'll find out those climates aren't that hot. It's the humidity that makes you feel hot. Insulation makes it worse.
@@globalist1990I am aware, why in those climates just the root to be insulated to prevent the roof transfering heat in. Then want to transfer humidity out.
You're going to use air conditioning in hot/humid climates, so good insulation will keep the space cool and dehumidified longer, reducing costs. I'm shocked that I have to explain this.
@@radishpineapple74 lol you need ac? 🤣💀
This video is timed super well!! My chemistry students need to do a presentation about climate solutions real soon and this video is perfect to help them select one from the number of solutions they have to come up with.
Definitely going to have this video as source material
Great job with this, really think this is one of your best videos. Great to see that youve taken the challenge to heart and, in my opinion, have started producing some of your best videos. Fantastic job
Can you go into more detail about the bamboo production thing?
I have seen some excellent videos by producers that would suit.
No idea what the channels were.
I think willow and hemp cropping are some interesting options you may appreciate too.
Wishing you well.
There's a massive carbon opportunity cost from land use from animal agriculture. Not only would you reduce emissions by 75% by removing animal agriculture, the land freed up could be rewilded into natural carbon sinks
Great video as always dude! I love the discussion on the need for buckshot and the nuance you manage to get into
The solutions are beautiful. Glad you decided to stick with it Simon, thank you.
Degrowth is NOT efficiency - efficiency often leads to rebound effect because of Jevon's Paradox.
Improved efficiency often results in higher consumption - or at least not as good as initially assumed.
Degrowth focused on removing unnecessary activities not just making them more efficient (for instance - remove much of driving and replace by cycling or public transport), reduce working hours etc.
Don't count with underdeveloped countries to talk about "degrowth"... it is even an insult. Obviously, there are better paths to growth (ones not taken by the richest countries)...
Consider also that the richest countries are increasing their military spenditure and are ansking for the poorer ones to "stop doing this and that".
Where are the compensations??
It is even hard to win the local debate against the killers of the forests, because they offer jobs. Bad jobs, sure, but what are the immediate offers.
And don't come with "in the future" perspectives... that's for urban middle-class people.
How is discussing the improvement of healthcare, education access, nutritious food, clean energy, and cities built for humans an insult to underdeveloped countries? It seems that you may have misunderstood the concept of degrowth and taken the term at face value. I recommend that you research Jason Hickel for more information. Developing countries technically speaking at a very high GDP during colonial times but that was obviously incredibly harmful to the humans living there. Degrowth is about redefining economic growth in a meaningful way for humans, and not to blindly chase a basically meaningless number.
@@_yonas And here you see the problem with the term "degrowth".
@@incognitotorpedo42 I wish more people were curious about what it actually means. The definition given in this video was unfortunately severely lacking, imho.
The amount of work drawdown puts into their work is amazing! Looking through the various strategies is always interesting even as someone who doesn't have any (or much) influence over the implementation of them on a large scale. Climate related strategies has always felt almost like near-science fiction to me, not in that it's a fools errand or not achieveable, but that it invokes that sense of wonder over imagining a world with all these strategies implemented, green urban areas, clean transport, and energy methods that revolutionise how society runs.
Hoping they are able to keep to timescale as it'll be an amazing and very powerful resource!!
You continue to deliver incredible climate related content like no one else. Stay strong!
Achievable climate solutions?
Which have immediate impact?
And have negative cost??
This video is the opposite of Click Bait!
Also aren’t more advanced economies actually lower CO2 producers?
Like shouldn’t we be encouraging economic growth for developing nations?
@@seanm7445 We should absolutely encourage smart economic growth for developing countries, and make sure they don't make the mistakes we made. They went directly to cell phones without doing land lines. We need to help them go directly to renewable energy without going through coal & gas.
In answer to your first question - by stopping their exploitation, stop eating them, stop using up land and potable water to feed and hydrate the billions we eat, stop allowing their excrement to create river eutrophication and ocean dead zones, stop their production that needs the rain forest to be burned to allow for grazing or feed production, that's right ... end animal agriculture/all forms of animal exploitation and abuse.
This would have the side effects of enough land for real wilderness regeneration, would prevent further zoonotic disease, would alleviate the cause of antibiotic resistance and would eliminate a fundamental cognitive dissonance (love animals/hate cruelty yet pay for cruelty to occur) and reduce the major killers of people worldwide - heart disease and some forms of cancer.
The main issue with degrowth (because its not about efficiency, it is about fully getting rid of shit that hurts us, like the majority of consumption that makes up modern nations GDP) as a climate solution is time, as you correctly pointed out.
And if you go a little bit deeper, the time issue is one of comfort ... too many people are too comfortable to actually change the system in a fast and radical way, even though it would be better for them as well as the species.
Yeah, for most rich countries, the situation seems quite complicated, but for emerging ones, there is a ton of poor people willing to fight for radical change, we can hope there is some pressure towards the richest countries as well.
The elephant in the room - overconsumption
Capitalism is truly the biggest killer of all time.
Yep. And not just at a consumer level. Cheaper / more efficient means that the vested interests aren't going to get as much $ thrown at them. And politicians don't have as big budgets to use for patronage/payoffs.
Indeed, but I wouldn't blame individuals overconsumption and stop there (remember the carbon footprint concept, invented by the oil industry to shift the focus and blame the individuals?). Overconsumption is needed for economy to keep thriving under Capitalism, not a feature of the human being. We have been taught to consume like this by Advertising. Consuming in moderation, to meet our needs and be happy, would mean transitioning to a Degrowth paradigm, because the financial system would surely collapse.
Overproduction may be even more accurate. Not everything produced is consumed. Marx wrote on this very problem extensively in Capital and other economic manuscripts
We'll get there. I'll accept these changes in the right direction.
Yay, bicycles!
They are why your great granny met your great grandfather and many a baby - and you - resulted. Before that, "ordinary" people only met boyfriends/girlfriends (know what I mean?) within half a day's walk - because they had to get home to daddy & mommy. Half a day out to meet one's lover, at most - half a day back ... Bicycles changed one's opportunities from 10 miles to 30 miles around
Arguably bicycles resulted in a greater birthrate than any other invention in history.
*YOU* are here because of the bicycle
Fascinating topics covered Simon. Keep it up!
this is something i've thought about in regards to car dependency. it is a necessary change, it affects so many things in a negative way, but it is also a huge undertaking. we'll have to reverse changes to where people live that have taken place over decades, and that will be hard and take a long time. but we have to do so, anything else is a bandaid on a machete wound, and while it would have been nice to start decades ago, we need to start today. we can make relatively easy changes, like requiring that any new road resurfacing in a city redesigns it with a focus on transit and/or bikes. or ending federal funding for highway expansion. or adding new regulations on housing that incentivize more density and discourage sprawl. or getting local, state, and federal governments building new housing in denser transit oriented ways. they won't have an effect right away, but will change the direction we are headed.
we need a plantbased food system ASAP
Macron said "We need a one-world government as soon as possible". That is what this is all about.
@Robbert, see what happens when you try to change people's deeply held lifestyle choices? You get the kind of conspiracy theorizing that @yasi evidences here. Be vegan if you want, but don't try to push it on people who don't want it. The political fallout will do a lot more harm than you might think.
@@incognitotorpedo42 That's a moronic statement. You seem to be badly out of touch. How is what Macron said a conspiracy theory. The WEF-UN have a signed agreement to implement said one-world government.
Yer man doesn't like the sound of "degrowth" and prefers the term "efficiency" but this ignores the Jevons paradox, which is the tendency for more efficient energy use to cause higher energy consumption. We need _both_ efficiency _and_ degrowth.
Bull, we already know we can grow the economy and cut carbon emissions at the same time
@@steffenberr6760 sounds a lot like not trying while pretending to be doing something, which has been our current strategy
@@zipWith we have hard data showing percentage of carbon emissions falling with GDP rising. Degrowth is moronic
@@steffenberr6760 rich coming from someone who apparently believes exponential growth can carry on forever in a finite world
Excellent summary of a very complex issue, and great links to more info. Thanks.
Great video! I totally agree that we gotta focus more on the most actionable and effective solutions in this critical time
Degrowth is good. Stop paying for crap you dont need, grow your own food, dont just touch the grass, cultivate different types of grasses for various reasons. Lemongrass, Wheat, Barley, Corn... you name it
Degrowth is about government policy not actions of individuals.
This but also on a societal scale
"gropw your own food" so massive land waste.
@@sovietmoose5624 depends on what you use the land for. If you just have a patch of grass doing nothing planting stuff there des not seem to be a land waste?
@@mlsasd6494 The question than is, why do you have some useless patch of grass in the first place which could be something useful, like still nature.
Interesting content and excellent elaborations. Job well done!
Love the structure of the video! Makes it very easy to follow 😅
thanks for the video. I am enjoying the new format
This is a great video. Thanks for putting this together - I will share this with whomever I can think of (re "I can't keep doing this") .
As always a really informative video that shows the complexity of some solutions well.
It has always baffled me that the methane from landfills isn't sold. A massive landfill I drove by on a regular basis smelled awful until they started catching it. Unfortunately they just flared it off rather than selling it to use as fuel.
Thank you for the information.
I love this! As a Cyclist and someone who cares for our environment with my actions I wish we would work on implementing these strategies.
Comment for the algorithm god, engagement for the engagement throne! Seriously, though I smiled so wide when I heard about how Drawdown are in the process of offering more localised information and shorter timespans - Whilst from a climate point of view we need to be thinking in terms of >20 years, when it comes to politics we need to be able to discuss results in terms of less than four years, and this could be a really powerful resource for driving change!
I would love a video doing a deep dive into some of those other highly rated climate solutions that viewers may not have heard of.
Thank you for making optomistic and actionable climate content!
Love your videos man! Keep up the good work!
Dude, your videos keep getting better and better. Congrats
Love your videos, Simon. They're really amazing. Thank you.
Excellent presentation! 100 % relevant about costs and solutions! Keep going strong, Simon! (High five!)
I'm surprised that shifting to a more plant based diet wasn't mentioned at all here.
The livestock (& seafood) industry is the #1 cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss and one of the major emitters of CO2 & methane.
Plus, for those high meat-eating countries, a shift to more fruits & veg would likely cause a significant social and financial benefit in terms of public health.
Thank you for putting in my mind the right words to use when I talk to people about nuclear fusion, or space solar generation, and other sci-fi solutions that don't exist yet. Great video!
I like the conversational tone held throughout
Great video. Thank you
Thank you!! I have come to your videos now, and they are amazing