How Do We Get the World Off Fossil Fuels Quickly and Fairly? | TED Countdown Dilemma Series
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- What are the realistic pathways off of fossil fuels and towards a world of abundant clean energy? TED Countdown gathered for its second Dilemma Series -- events designed to look at some of the tricky challenges of climate change, where diverging positions have stalled progress -- to answer this core question of the climate crisis. Through TED Talks and conversations with experts, activists and leading voices in the space, this film delves into the tension between the necessity to extricate ourselves from fossil fuels, which endanger our collective future, and the equally paramount necessity of a stable and secure supply of energy for everyone. (Featuring, in order of appearance: Catherine Abreu, Tessa Khan, Laurence Tubiana, Hisham Mundol, Hongqiao Liu, Rebekah Shirley, Vijaya Ramachandran, Zoë Knight, Mary Robinson, Lindsay Levin, David Biello, Adair Turner, Jérôme Schmitt, Ramez Naam, Tzeporah Berman, Luisa Neubauer, Emily Grubert and Jade Begay)
Countdown is TED's global initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. The goal: to build a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world. Get involved at countdown.ted.com/sign-up
Learn more about #TEDCountdown:
Twitter: / tedcountdown
Instagram: / tedcountdown
Facebook: / ted
Website: countdown.ted.com
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
• How Do We Get the Worl...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TEDCountdown #climatechange #fossilfuels - Věda a technologie
Why was nuclear energy not mentioned once?
because it has been demonized since it was turned into a weapon and now it is nothing but fear in peoples minds
Because we're supposed to starve.
That would prevent us from all starving.
They put 110 billion dollars cover on chernobyl reactor just to keep the radiation contained.
That is a temporary solution, only for 100 years or so...
Because it terrifies so many people!
we should have been producing 50+% of our power using nuclear at this point, as usual, stupidity caused this crisis.
Oil and food are linked 3 ways.
Agricultural chemicals that enhance food production that are made from oil and gas.
Farm machinery powered by diesel.
Transport to shops in trucks powered by diesel.
An oil crisis means a food crisis.
Oil is linked to nearly everything in our lives right now
@Chelsea Shurmantine
That is correct Chelsea
Cheers Gray
these are all things we can make without diesel, oil, & gas though
although ethanol might not work for diesel engines, biofuels still are an option if we ramp up production & invest in them, you can also use vegtable oils although they're not good for long-term durability of the engine.
as for agricultural chemicals, we can make farms organic or,
in smaller applications plant plants that support each other (think corn, beans, & squash being planted together as a good example) i think its called permaculture if you want to learn more
although harder to harvest in some cases permaculture would reduce the need for chemicals because it mimics the stability of a natural environment
edit: the point im trying to make is that we dont n e e d these fossil fuels, the fossil fuels industry needs us to believe we do.
@@galacticpotato607
You are correct.
But do we have enough time to transition?
@@grahammewburn we don't have to transition for these things slowly
1: pre existing farms can be converted to organic fairly quickly.
2; Biofuels are an option for long-term BUT in the meantime, vegetable oils can work just fine for short-term until biofuels can be mass produced at a wider scale
we already have copious amounts of vegetable oil & a proven way to cheaply (relative to biofuel) mass produce it, it works with
*pre-existing engines* (so we wont have to retrofit/replace vehicles) & if demand becomes an issue we already know how to build more production of vegetable oil
Imo, the transition times could be relatively fast compared to what we've been doing
(thanks for taking the time to read this)
If you hear yourself saying “I will do something“, try substituting it with “I am doing it“ and see if the task doesn’t just get done. These little wins will fortify your sense of self-efficacy… that is, your belief in your own abilities to follow through.
And as you tend to each pending item on your to-do list, let go of the “I have to’s.” Substitute them with:
I can do it.
I will do it.
I am already doing it.
such a good advice!
Does anyone really think solar and wind is going to replace the current power plants any time soon? We need an "AND" solution to this. We need to use all green energy sources, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear.
Often times, when there are several competing technologies, one turns out to be just best, and is the main tech used everywhere.
The main issue is that there’s no other effective alternative source of energy other then fossil fuels ( and nuclear but no one wants to talk about nuclear anymore). Wind and solar are not efficient enough.
@@JT-zy2ft Why do you think that? We would only need to cover a few percent of the worlds deserts in solar, and solar has been getting cheap recently. How efficient does solar need to be? And what is the limiting factor, cost of solar panel, cost of land? What?
Solar panels are all over roofs in Australia, in businesses and houses everywhere. They are getting cheaper and more and more efficient with storage batteries.
The world does not amount to Australia.
And this was when the government were incredibly anti-renewables! Unfortunately the whole planet does not have the sun or the links with China that Australia has 😞
When feelings only matter and not the grim reality that netzero is impossible at this stage.
I often have those worries. At this point net zero wouldn't be enough. We need CO2 literally being taken from the air in order for us to go back to normal. We need to go net negative in CO2 outputs somehow.
It always seems impossible until it's done.
@@TRINI333you’re insane
I totally agree with all the intentions and plans being put forward, let that be clear. I live in the Netherlands you would think that most citizens in my country would be able too afford making this transition from fossil too renewable energy sources but that is not true at all. The plans put forward by our politicians include electric cars, better isolation of our homes and replacing our gas fueled heating system to an electric heating system to begin with. The total cost for each home is in range from 40.000 to well over 100.000 euro (if it includes better isolation and replacing the gas fueled heating systems). This is not the case for the homes that have been build in the last 10-20 years but the houses owned or rented by the lower income class in my country have that price tag and in some cases a lot higher. If i include replacing our fossil fuel cars for electric cars the total cost in a worse case scenario can be around 200.000 euro. A lot of people are not capable in making this transition if the price tag is like this, they want too be part of the transition and see the urgency in making the transition but they simply can not afford it. I am speaking off one of the richest countries of the world where at least 50% of all citizens are able too carry the cost of this transition but the other halve will go into a debt situation or even worse they can not afford it all.
We can talk all we want about the urgency in making this transition and we fully understand that in the Netherlands, there is a small minority which does not see the need for this but that group will only grow if the cost of this transition is kept this high. The radical changes we need too make this transition are far bigger then only stop using this or that machine. Climate change is worth making sacrifices for but if that means you are forced being put in a debt situation you are not able to pay off during your own lifetime then the motivation will drop. For me this is the biggest problem for my country and why i believe only 50% of dutch citizens can make this transition.
Yes, put another way it is how we measure value. Economic cost is a cost of capital, which is an artificial legal abstraction that intrinsically refers to itself - it is meaningless in reality. The cost to the viability of life and human well-being is real, and relying on markets which do not value them to determine their survival is flawed and irrational.
@@Rnankn but it is the reality of here and now, we all want to achieve the climate goals but if we can not because of economic value then the climate revolution is linked to far more then just eclogical idealism.
Lowered out emissions over last 15 years by minimum of 50,000 pounds. Did so incrementally. Remodeling projects on our 72 year old house each have a climate objective. Easier and lower cost to upgrade insulation etc etc. As our appliances fail we replace with more efficient equipment. As vehicles retire added used EVs. Small solar on our garage produces more energy than EVs use. Replacement electric drier uses heat pump and 110v no vent. Ditto heat pump water heater. 20 year old HVAC in process of being replaced by heat pump. At that point we're 100% electric. Yard tools etc electric. Lowered meat consumption. None of this was overly complicated or too much money. Gotta start somewhere! Most important action??? We stopped talking and started doing. Good luck to all on their journey!
Wonderful! If only it were down to these enlightened people.
Mr Naam troubled me a little when he said that green energy technologies were technologies and fossil fuels are commodities or words to that effect. The supply of energy requires it to become a commodity and markets will be controlled and prices fluctuate. One of the great stumbling blocks in this green future is the market strangle hold fossil fuels and their capitalist influencers in government have over the energy supply. Even if we have a huge network of independent providers, the oil and gas industry will control investment and energy prices for decades.
What I would like to know is, why is our electricity charges still going up when so many people have attached their solar panels to the mains. The cost should be going down for all. It's not coming out of the ground, we should all be winning.
We need to do this so that we can go beyond climate change anxiety and worry and be much closer to solving the problem in general.
What are batteries made from and how do we get the materials?
Various materials from various places. Perfect? No. Better than coal/gas? Yes.
@@Drakelett Take it from an engineer who works on these chemical plants. Lithium is not the green saviour, it's just good marketing. Hydrogen is the real thing, batteries in EVERYTHING is not.
Privatize the Department of Energy so it becomes its own profit center and earns royalties from its patents to fund more research and blend it so it becomes this quasi government and quasi private type organization where it continues to do a lot of good work with research while also earns a profit or royalties based on all the patents that it creates or holds. The profit motive would drive efficiency and a kind of speed towards more and more energy projects from forming in general. The National Institute of Health operates kind of like this as well where they do health research yet earn royalties too.
If each major country around the world were to privatize their Department of Energy government organizations then there would be a huge rush towards the energy of the future just in general.
How do we learn yo use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently. Should be the question.
the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, which was constructed but never turned on; the Superconducting Super Collider, which cost $2 billion before its cancellation; and ITER, the international fusion experiment in France that the United States has alternately supported and opposed, and to which it has threatened withdrawal, cut funding, and increased funding over the decades.[9]
Demon of bureaucratic chaos - Relates to the phenomenon that "blocks good things from happening" at the United States Department of Energy. This hypothesized entity makes it extremely difficult to complete complex projects - by frequently changing mission requirements, funding, and strategic direction. Examples include the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, which was constructed but never turned on; the Superconducting Super Collider, which cost $2 billion before its cancellation; and ITER, the international fusion experiment in France that the United States has alternately supported and opposed, and to which it has threatened withdrawal, cut funding, and increased funding over the decades.[9]
Insistence on a normative right to industrial development only entrenches the core problems to overcome. The key is to achieve a high standard of living without overconsumption and high energy use - to adopt a sufficiency model. Less-developed countries are already at or near their fair per capita emission limits, and should focus on qualitative improvements. Developed countries need to learn from the global south and rapidly reduce energy consumption and industrial throughput; climate justice is deindustrialization. The fundamental barrier is the primacy of capital, and the artificial separation of economy from ecology. It is a fatal flaw to determine the trajectory of humans civilization and the biosphere on the basis of supply and demand, which correspond to the value of capital, and exclude the intrinsic value of living communities and ecologies. The price mechanism sends the wrong signals, and in fact encourages, even requires, worsening the problem. Its chief omission is energy itself, valued at about 10% of global GDP has been strategically undervalued, to enable capital to appropriate value and power, by creating a societal dependence that is a literal ‘dead-end’, through allocation imbalance. Why do we reward an industry with profits that externalizes costs, because it can provide something at low cost that it argues is, paradoxically, of fundamental importance? A failure to recognize the undeniable market failure of climate change as anything but a failure of markets makes the energy transition nothing but a band-aid solution to conceal symptoms. The Economic systems and economists whose advice and models have put at risk planetary survival must be regarded as undeniably failed and invalidated. Neo-classical economics is unable to plan, engenders recurring crises, commodifies nature, and cannot protect earth systems as it creates private wealth by destroying public and natural wealth. It creates poverty, while claiming to solve it. We cannot change everything, by changing nothing. There is too much at stake to get it wrong.
"We know with certainty..."
⚠️
What is lacking all along 34.57 minutes is that WE HAVE TO CONSUME LESS. Reducing energy consumption is the first and immediate thing any of us can do.
nope, not consume less, consume with a better energy density ratio.
Consume less was invented by some "green" whom have no idea on how energy is created and distributed.
Falacies.
The point is we need to get off fossil fuels and create more and more energy projects that can totally change the future as we know it. Even if it disrupts old business models it will totally be worth it.
YOU SHOULD’VE ASKED YOURSELF THIS 20 YEARS AGO AND TAKEN HEED TO THE EARLY DISTANT WARNINGS
From a medical ethics standpoint, the use of fossil fuels has significant implications for our health. Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels contributes to a range of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, including asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease. The health impacts of fossil fuels are disproportionately felt by marginalized communities, such as low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, who often live near fossil fuel infrastructure and are exposed to higher levels of pollution.
The ethical principles of non-maleficence and beneficence are particularly relevant here. We have a duty to prevent harm and promote the well-being of all individuals, including those who are most vulnerable to the health impacts of fossil fuels. By transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy sources, we can protect public health and promote equity and justice in healthcare.
The transition away from fossil fuels must also be approached in a just and equitable manner. The principle of distributive justice is relevant here, as it highlights the importance of fair distribution of benefits and burdens in society. The burden of transitioning away from fossil fuels should not fall disproportionately on marginalized communities, who may have fewer resources to adapt to changes in the energy system. Rather, we must ensure that the benefits of clean energy are shared equitably across all communities.
This talk offers valuable insights into how we can achieve a rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. The speakers highlight the importance of systemic change, such as transitioning to a circular economy and rethinking our approach to transportation. These changes can help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and promote a more sustainable and just society.
In conclusion, the transition away from fossil fuels is a crucial ethical issue with significant implications for public health. As we work towards a more sustainable and just society, we must prioritize the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, and distributive justice. By transitioning to clean energy sources in a just and equitable manner, we can protect public health and promote a more sustainable and equitable future for all.
Give me numbers. How many acres of solar panels, how many wind turbines, how much storage? What do we do with old panels and old turbines and old batteries? How much land do we need to dig up to be able to build the batteries to store the energy?
There used to be a fear that we would run out of oil. What about running out of battery resources? Can we get 100% recycling on batteries? Where does the glass for solar panels come from?
Wind can be non existent for days on end. If we have a days worth of battery storage to cover one cloudy day then the next day of sun has to go to recharging the batteries. A second cloudy day means no power and empty batteries.
We need 100% of the power 100% of the time. That is not something that can be achieved by some fickle green dream. In Hawaii the wind can die for days. A storm can cover the whole state for days.
I'm not against any renewable energy but I want real numbers. Real reliability numbers. How do we power a blast furnace in a steel mill? How do we power the kilns for concrete?
This is just fear mongering and vague dreams posing as an answer.
USA is over 200 trillion in debt I always laugh when people call it rich.
If there was a effective or more effective form of energy then fossil fuels the transition would be easy. However the technology on a large scale is not there.
Normally i would post a sizeable reply in support of such a message. Sadly I can't this time, because I know catastrophic loss of life, famine and war are right around the corner. Mankind failed a very long time ago. I hope I'm wrong, doubt I am.
So Renewables cost nothing for the resource just maintenance once built. So energy companies, assuming they don't drop their prices to customers by a whole lot would end up making even more money than they already do, in theory. Considering how money hungry the people running those companies are why would you not?? You can even justify not dropping prices for money for development and maintenance and to increase the plants and power network, and still be making money hand over fist........ Also put solar panels on the roof of EVERY BUILDING. The size of them Amazon Wearhouses and motor company factories would take a crap tone of solar panels and provide a significant amount of power if not all and more those buildings need themselves
I don't think we can solve this, this world is too greedy for that.. imagine 24 COP's and still nothing
Personally couldn't care less about the planet Earth.
The feelings mutual
Bug farms are already going up so you have to ask how much do you loose to satisfy the WEF?
To answer your question..
WE DON'T
The terms 'Climate Change' makes people think it is evolutionary vs man made. We need to address this as a need for 'Clean Energy' and let innovation lead the demand not governments that rule over subjective research that greatly handcuffs industries such as farming. Let's focus on the airline industry as a major contributor to air pollution as evidenced by the clear skies after the grounding of planes after 9/11 and during the pandemic in 2020. Why don't hear any talk about new safer fusion nuclear energy during this talk? Why? It's always phasing out, phasing out without real implementation and it's a natural phase out because it just makes the most sense. Do you leave a job before you have a new job? No. I think the governments are pushing too hard on phasing out, when they need to be talking about innovation and funding for new solutions, especially for air pollution which blocks the sun and reduces the effectiveness of solar. Another thing not mentioned here.
Fusion energy is not there yet. We need something that is ready NOW.
The agricultur and meat sector is also a major contributor. Don't let them mislead you.
"Do you leave a job before you have a new job? No"
- I would try to get a nnew job. But what is currently the state is that people activly refuse to search for the new job. The fosisl fuel industry activly fights against it since 50 years. 50 years..... 50! How long do you believe them?
I am not going to HOPE for innovation. I want a concrete transformation based on what works and not absed on HOPE.
@@Rithmy I hear you. I was referring to nuclear fission as we have it now, but in the future it will be more Nuclear Fusion. It will take years - and possibly decades - before fusion can be able to produce unlimited amounts of clean energy, and scientists are on a race against the clock to fight climate change. For now we can expand and do better with safer nuclear power production from the lessons learned at Fukushima. Nuclear energy’s share of global electricity production also ticked up slightly in 2019, to 10.4%, while generating almost one third of the world’s low carbon power. And in 2020, during the pandemic lockdowns, nuclear power played an important part in providing secure, flexible and stable generation in markets characterized by significant drops in electricity demand and large shares of variable generation. Decarbonizing electricity production through greater use of nuclear power, hydro, wind and solar is only the first step. Clean energy is also needed by sectors such as industry, transport - airlines as I said, and buildings if the world is to achieve net zero by 2050. While nuclear power’s role on climate change and sustainable development has become better known since the Fukushima Daiichi accident, public acceptance and policy uncertainty still constitute hurdles to the nuclear renaissance once envisaged-but they can be overcome by better communicating the scientific facts. “Nuclear energy is not a promise in terms of low carbon energy, it is already today contributing massively to a low carbon economy” by having avoided the equivalent of 74 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the last 50 years
Privatize the Department of Energy. We need to get off fossil fuels.
Watch this. Feel good (or bad). Do nothing. Sigh.
South Africa is onestep ahead, we are destroying our power plants and implement loadshedding for up to 8 hours a day. We have no choice to go solar
Nonsense. It will take an enormous amount of fossil fuels to produce the devices that will deliver “renewable” power, and competition for more and more power will be insurmountable and rationalized. Urging, shaming, anxiety are ineffective tactics for persuasion at this point…
Hi, I'm from São Paulo!
They don't ever once say what we're going to use instead. Just saying renewable energy; well what is that exactly and how is that going to be better than fossil fuels. What do you use in super cold environments where the battery, as they are trying to push doesn't work well in negative degree areas. They also don't tell you how much energy it takes to create these so-called renewable energy things that they're using to replace fossil fuels. So tell me what's truly better than fossil fuels exactly.
You’re not listening. The giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky creates more energy than we’ll ever need
@@stevenhill3136 . You still have to use fossil fuels to build things to capture that energy. Those products wear out over time. Then you gotta make it again. We will always be using some form of fossil fuel till the end of time unless they find a magical other fuel. I don't think there's any way to become completely. If you know of one or have heard let me know.
I'm pretty sure that they mentioned that fossil fuels would not be completely gone because there is still a use for them in various parts of the world. They used developing nations as an example but this would also apply to places with subzero or cold temperatures as well.
I see where you are coming from with the cost of creating these renewable resources. We would probably use our current technology to produce the green energy tech. They explicitly said multiple times in the video that solar, wind, water, and geothermal, (they didnt mention nuclear for some reason), create greater amounts of power in specific parts of the world and the tech to transport that energy across continents exists right now and is being used already.
The reason green energy is better than fossil fuels is literally the damage it is doing to the environment as all the science in the world is saying. It might not be as efficient as burning fossil fuels at first but technology always progresses.
Everything is oil dependent.
All raw materials are gouged from the Earth using machines powered by diesel.
Не надо избавлять мир ни от чего, моя ВАЗ 21099 хочет кушать, и предпочитает она исключительно бензин - ископаемое топливо. Из-за этого я запрещаю вам избавлять мир от ископаемого топлива!
There is no need to rid the world of anything, my VAZ 21099 wants to eat, and prefers exclusively gasoline - fossil fuels. Because of this, I forbid you to rid the world of fossil fuels!
Go tell it to Chiiiiiina.
Just read this comment section and you know why it's impossible. The overwhelming ignorance by choice is astounding.
Not everybody will give up gasoline. I won't.
I want cows, steers, goats..
Get over it..
Ya want to see serious smog??
Go to union Pacific railroad yard..
They sit and idle up the locomotives 24/7 365. they burn diesel and have big electric generators that power them as well.
They are really big big smog machines, trust me.
I worked for the railroad, I know..
My solar system has saved 42,247.5lbs of CO2 from going in to the air.
Our GDP is nearly 100% correlated with fossil fuels use. Our lives built on fossil fuels. Fertilizer ALONE uses vast quantities of fossil fuels. In our world of 8 billion precious humans with 80 million net new precious humans joining us annually that fertilizer is the difference between life and death for humanity. Nearly all of the nitrogen needed by our bodies is man made. Our precarious situation is more complicated than any one individual can imagine. No number of slogans, videos, propaganda can undo this. We must change the game of civilization built over last 15,000 years. Step one? Spending $7.5 trillion annually on ways to commit atrocities against our neighbors, our enemies dujour must end. Clinging to ancient *culture* as an excuse no longer works. DNA science shows us we're not only related to each other but to the entire DNA based biosphere. The money and intelligence spent on ridiculous wars is plenty to get moving on greenhouse gases pollution.
What ARE "renewables"? How do we create "renewables" without using fossil fuels? Or how do we create "renewables" without creating more CO2 than we would if we just used fossil fuels.
The problem has been evident for 50+ years with no real action, solution. Your video is a knee jerk panic scream without any real thought or planning. The engineer touched the real problem. A tiny touch. Infrastructure that will be needed will be an astronomically effort. If we have a fossil fuel budget, that if we exceed, will tip us over the climate change cliff, then it may already be to late.
Shut down commercials, billboard lighted signs, neon signs, magazine ads on non recyclable plastic coated paper,... advertising is using so much of our energy & other resources 😢
mining bitcoin
Robert Kiyosaki , insert
Come on!! Stop these hyprocasies... US and EU can waste instantanously more than $200 billion in a non-sense war in Ukraine, but can`t invest the same amount in clean energy infrastructure without a debate? Where is really your interest??
Talk and do nothing
Awesome topic!!
The discovery of oil peaked in 1964.
Since then, discoveries have declined each decade.
Currently, discoveries are below 10 billion barrels PA.
Mankind consumes 36 billion barrels PA.
This is unsustainable.
The effects of supply & demand cause prices to escalate.
Mankind will cease using oil when it becomes too expensive.
History is a series of civilisations coming and going.
Our civilisation will collapse.
Thousands of people, including children, are dying in mines trying to get the amount cobalt needed for these large rechargeable car batteries.
The batteries are an issue regardless of how they are powered.
Today is one of the saddest day of my life my cat lily passed away she was less than 7 months old i just can't deal with this loss been crying for the whole day what should i do
Remember the good times you had with her and all the love she had with you, lily will send someone to you soon.
@@punyansh all the good times are what is coming to my mind and also the image of the lifeless body of my cat when it passed away that is all what's in my head for the whole day and all the tears
Sorry to hear about your little kitten. I just got a puppy and would feel awful if anything happened to him that was bad. Just remember Uzair there is a lot of beauty to life. Hope you get feeling better and your kitten rests in peace
@@Uzair__Khan_ be strong and take care❤️
@@tylermalone4768 thank you for your comment Tyler, it will take some time for me to move on from this
The thing is, you don't take fossil fuels away at all... from anybody!
Yea I don't think most want to take away. Rather invent better ways
Exactly. You let the markets decide! Not rule with government special interest or non elected organizations such as the World Economic Forum.
@Rian Silverstein Fossil fuels are an issue because they create costs/harm OUTSIDE the market. Of course the market would choose to keep going because any side effects of extreme weather and famine aren't something they will have to pay for themselves.
@@mlgtactics9911 So do lithium Ion batteries used to power cars and many other things. According to a report by Friends of the Earth (FoE), lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination. As demand rises, the mining impacts are “increasingly affecting communities where this harmful extraction takes place, jeopardising their access to water,” says the report. A 2019 study shows that 40% of the total climate impact caused by the production of lithium-ion batteries comes from the mining process itself - a process that Hausfather views as problematic. “As with any mining processes, there is disruption to the landscape,” states Hausfather. “There’s emissions associated with the processes of mining like CO2 emissions creating sulfuric acid and other things used in the mining process - the life cycle of all of these things involves some environmental impact.” The disposal of these batteries also poses a threat to the climate. Though these batteries contain less toxic waste than other kinds of batteries, a study from Australia found that 98.3% of lithium-ion batteries, not exclusively car batteries, end up in landfills.
@@mlgtactics9911 It’s a relatively cheap and effective process to mine lithium for batteries, but it uses a lot of water - approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining activities consumed 65 per cent of the region’s water. That is having a big impact on local farmers - who grow quinoa and herd llamas - in an area where some communities already have to get water driven in from elsewhere.
There’s also the potential - as occurred in Tibet - for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply. These include chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, which are used in the processing of lithium into a form that can be sold, as well as those waste products that are filtered out of the brine at each stage. In Australia and North America, lithium is mined from rock using more traditional methods, but still requires the use of chemicals in order to extract it in a useful form. Research in Nevada found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation. So, at some point we have so many new problems just when everyone things we are going green and leaders can sit back claiming victory. Makes fossil fuels not seem so bad, so we have a long way to go before we are done with fossil fuels folks!
How about we don't. We don't remove reliable resources from the population until we find something just as, if not more efficient, effective, and reliable. We didn't move off of coal until we found natural gas burned cleaner, cheaper, more effective, and more reliably. We can't force the world into utopia when we don't have the means to make utopia a reality yet. Also, outsourcing our pollution off continent to make this unreliable sources of energy that globally and long-term net more carbon emissions than natural gas doesn't somehow make it better. If we're concerned about the health of our globe, we can't neglect the horrible things we have to do in other countries to make ours "more green".
P.S. We are leading the world with the lowest carbon footprint so according to this alarmism, we don't need to move off fossil fuels anytime soon. Stop buying this climate crisis hysteria. The future of the globe doesn't matter if we aren't around to enjoy it. We are not separate from nature. We are nature. We cannot expunge ourselves from the equation.
Elon Musk uses natural gas and kerosene for SpaceX launches because it's feasible and works. Right now!
‘There is not a creature that moves on earth whose provision is not His concern. He knows where it lives and its [final] resting place: it is all [there] in a clear record.’
*-📖The Holy Quran,* surah: Hud, chapter11, verse6
_Abdul Haleem✍🏻_
How about thinking about how we save the world from Nuclear Holocaust?????
Is this video about that?
We can not think about one problem at the time , multiple threats out there.
Yea, but the topic here is the environment before any nuclear wars. Do a video if you want.
@@rickdeckardbladerunner2049 Wouldn't you think in the current situation time and energy would be better spent on bringing the world back from the brink of Nuclear Holocaust and then working on eliminating fossil fuels?
@@peace20231 No. Modern tech has made it much safer. We are more at threat from war and nuclear missiles. If we take our eyes off the air, soil, and water supply just to satisfy a dream of no fossil fuels, we create even greater problems. Governments can lend a hand to speed innovation and reward successes, but to have a hard stop one size fits all mandate to stop using fossil fuels before it makes sense is crazy!
I love that these types of climate propaganda videos are still getting almost as many downvotes as upvotes even after CZcams hid the downvote counter specifically because of these kinds of garbage videos getting correctly downvoted.
So you don't like the message and therefore choose to kill the messenger as a solution?
@@krux02 the message is pure propaganda and the messenger is complicit.
‘There is no creature on earth whose sustenance is not undertaken by Allah. He knows its permanent and its temporary place. Everything is in a clear book.’
*-📖The Holy Quran,* surah: Hud, chapter11, verse6
_Mufti Taqi Usmani✍🏻_
The best solution is to significantly reduce the human population, resulting in less competition for resources.
Or more people who can change the resource market. Innovation in food growth, product replacement, and how we use the air and the space on earth
To reduce the population to a manageable level, I recommend we legalize cannibalism. As the most worthy of being cannibalized, oil company executives would make a good start, those who have grown rich on exploitation of our carbon resources. Then we can eat our way through Congress.
We can already see them moving in that direction. Limiting nitrogen fetilizers will greatly help. Less food=less people. Next step a new worldwide economic crysis, already started. Third - totac control over people's movement and finances - think of individual carbon print, digital identity and cbdc's all of them pushed from the same people those hired climate activists have employeed the wef.
Right! You work for the WEF? People who say stuff like that are channeling Hitler.
There is no overtpopulation. We have enough resources. Its just that some people are hoarding 100000000x more resources than the average. Think abhout that. Its a 1 with 8 zeros....
Hahaha. The dishonesty and idiocy is spilling over. The truth: you got nothing, nada, zilch to replace the fossil fuel with.