Lol.
Reasontv, the network of the insanity from Stossel, with the stated position that “free market and deregulation is the solution to any and every problem imaginable”. That’s the best you’ve got!?! Then you’ve got NOTHING. You actually complain that CNN isn’t trustworthy, then you post from Reasontv!?! Er mer gerd! 🤦‍♂️ why not just post Beck or Jones?

They completely misrepresent what the report, and climate activists, and politicians have said with bad editing and lies here, no surprise, you posted it, it was guaranteed to be DISHONEST nonsense propaganda.

Land temperatures reached 1.3C above pre industrial norms in 2020. Every prediction made has come true well ahead of schedule. Temperature rise is accelerating, it’s not the flat straight line nor a slowing rate like they showed but an increasing curve. The last 7 years were all in the top 10 hottest ever, the last decade had 9 of the hottest ever, and we are experiencing a global drought never seen by modern man….but according to you, nothing burger, totally normal, chicken little.

https://www.iflscience.com/nine-of-the-top-10-hottest-years-ever-all-occurred-in-the-last-decade-62232

There is one thing I agree with, the “12 years to stop climate disaster” notion (not what the science says btw) is wrong. We have -20 years +-. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere today will effect climate for hundreds to a thousand years, the nitrous oxide for about 120, methane around 10. We have reached the point where natural emissions will soon take over, adding more than humans ever did. Scientists estimate that’s at 1.5C, but every estimate they’ve made public has turned out to be optimistic in the extreme, so 1.5C is almost certainly wishful thinking and 1.25C is more likely the threshold. We can both mitigate the effects and slow the rate of change, but at this point staying below 1.5C is a pipe dream no one is actually even working towards.

I think the reality is that, using current models, assuming no surprises or feedback loops, we have (now 8 ) years before the adding these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will carry us well beyond 1.5C above “normal” with no additional emissions needed….not that we will definitely hit 1.5 by 2030 but we will be able to coast there even with zero emissions.
I know, math and science together, way too hard, better to just listen to the oil spokesmen who say “it’s a hoax, pay no attention to the cities reaching 130F, the unprecedented heat globally, the rapidly melting (or melted) glaciers that historically provide drinking water for 1.9 BILLION people, or the never before seen by man extreme global droughts, they’re all normal and natural and why are you still talking about it?”.

No surprise, one more undeniable, in your face disaster you simply deny exists….like Covid, Jan 6, Russian election interference, -3.5%gdp, Trump terrorism, etc.
Can we have your name so when the global food supply is insufficient we know who’s family to deny food?

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

Finger-pointing's great and all, but I'm just optimistic about the future.

California passed a law that only zero-emission vehicles can be sold as of 2035, the same year GM vows to be selling only zero-emission vehicles.

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

@newtboy
I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic!
If you'd read my post I didn't claim the people of Kiribati weren't in a position to panic. I actually went further in agreeing with you, to the point that they should have been panicked a hundred years ago in 1914 already. The distinction being that what ever the climate does wasn't going to save them. 200 hundred years of cooling and sea level decline from 1914 would still have them on an island a few feet on average above sea level and still a disaster waiting to happen.

California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food,
Here we do have a difference of fact. I don't know what measure you've imagined up, but the cattle in texas alone are more than double the food produced in California. The corn and other crops in any number of prairie states to the same. You can't just invent numbers. Yields across crops have been increasing steadily year on year in North America for decades.

The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so.
I'm sorry, read more history, you are just wrong on this. 10 guys with guns against 10 farmers with food and the farmers lose every time. The guys with guns eat for the year. The farmers maybe even are able to beg or slave for scraps that year. The next year maybe only 5 farmers bother to grow anything, and next harvest there are 15 guys with guns. Look at the Russian revolution and that's exactly the road that led to Stalin's mass starvations and lack of food. It's actually why I am a Canadian as my grandfather's family left their farm in Russia with the clothes on his back after the his neighbours farm was razed to the ground enough times.

The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear
Food doesn't create itself as noted above. The cycle is less and less food as the thugs destroy all incentive to bother trying to grow something.

adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon
I agree. I hadn't realized that adoption of new tech was that simple. I was under the impression one also had to take the time to, you know, invent it. The existing technology for replacing oil and coal cost effectively doesn't exist yet. Electric cars and nuclear power are the closest thing. The market will adopt electric cars without us doing a thing. Switching from coal to nuclear though, even if universally agreed and adopted yesterday, would still take decades for a conversion. Those decades are enough that even if we got to zero emissions by then(~2050), the sea level and temperature at 2100 aren't going to look much if any different(by IPCC best estimates).
So I repeat, if you want meaningful emission reductions, you have no other option but restricting consumption across the globe. That hasn't been accomplished in the past without setting of wars, so I keep my vote as cure is worse than disease.

The 78% glacial mass loss was worst case if CO2 emissions are still accelerating in 2100. The mountains with the glaciers will still be bulking each winter and running off each summer, just to a 78% smaller size in the depth of summer. As in, absolutely not 78% less run off. And they are not 'my' numbers as you wish to refer, but the IPCC's numbers. Your effort to somehow leave question to their veracity is the very campaign of 'doubt' in the science the video is talking about.

wiki says

"In the early 21st century, the premier TT racing bikes complete the Snaefell course at an average speed exceeding 120 mph (190 km/h). Record holders include David Jefferies who set a lap record of 127.29 mph (204.85 km/h) in 2002. This was surpassed by John McGuinness during the 2004 TT on a Yamaha R1 setting a time of 17 min 43.8 s; an average lap speed of 127.68 mph (205.48 km/h). McGuinness lowered this even further at the 2007 TT, setting a time of 17:21.99 for an average speed of 130.354 mph (209.784 km/h) becoming the first rider to break the 130 mph limit on the Snaefell Mountain circuit. The most successful rider was Joey Dunlop who won 26 times in various classes from 1977 to 2000. For 2009, the Manx government added a new event to the June race schedule. The Time Trial eXtreme Grand Prix (TTXGP) was billed as the first zero-emissions motorcycle race. While any technology could enter, as a practical matter zero emissions means electric.[34]"

Zero Emissions?

Where do they get the H2?

@dag
I'd rather be doing more to capture the mercury, sulfur and other toxins coming out of the smoke stacks. Better still, I'd rather turn them off and turn on a series of nuclear plants in their stead and go to zero emission power.

@NetRunner,

The difference is I stated that we don't have a high confidence in projections of temperature change due to increased CO2 when all other factors are taken into account. The research done either ignores all other factors but CO2, or lacks a high confidence level, in no small part owing to a lack of quality long term data and understanding of H2O's role.

Translating that to what should we do means we don't have a good idea how much lowering CO2 emissions will help, what we do know is it will be expensive to do it on a large scale today. Hence my recommendation is battery powered cars and nuclear delivered electricity, as those are things we really should be doing anyways. We should additionally be spending money adapting to a warmer world, again because I believe if you are already living within a foot of being below sea level adaptations are already long overdue.

I suppose I could be biased, I grew up on a grain farm in Canada and so we only stand to profit in a warming world, but I'd like to think I value the plight of the whole of humanity more highly.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by gwiz665.

yeah, i was just perusing the unsifted and noticed arvana's.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Bill-Gates-TED-Talk-innovating-energy-to-zero-emissions

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by my15minutes. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

doh, dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Bill-Gates-TED-Talk-innovating-energy-to-zero-emissions

>> ^dag:
Great post. All Green-minded activists should get behind this zero emission technology. We need to get over our cold war era phobias around nuclear. It's the future.


First, @demon_ix - thanks for posting this. Very interesting and informative video. This summation will cause me to seek out the full talks.

@dag - I think the major issue is the lack of information; although, some people have a completely closed minds to nuclear solutions. The "zero emission" descriptor seems a little disingenuous. The issue has never been the emissions, but all the other waste products. Well Chernobyl has emission issues. But they ran with a positive temperature coefficient, had horrendous maintenance practices, and bypassed safety values for a test... and meltdown.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Great post. All Green-minded activists should get behind this zero emission technology. We need to get over our cold war era phobias around nuclear. It's the future.

I want to add to Lies channel for the assertion that this is a zero emissions car, but he did correct himself, so I won't. This car is quite absolutely not a zero emissions car.

As EDD linked and mentioned, yes. The car is RATED at 230 mpg, but that's only assuming you rarely pass the distance your battery allows you to travel and doesn't actually take into account the coal/gas/petrol/uranium used to generate the electricity you'll be using.

The problem with the Volt, is the Battery. It lasts for 40 miles or so. After that you go on your normal engine, which only charges the battery, but is still converting gas into electricity in an inefficient car motor.

But batteries have a nature of being less and less effective over time. So your Volt battery might have the capacity to go only 30 miles after a year of use. And 20 or so after two.
DISCLAIMER: The numbers I just quoted are wholly made up. I have no idea how the Volt's battery will behave after a year of use. I just know it can only go down.

How much does a battery cost? Where can you get it replaced? Is it a simple process, requiring only one mechanic, a spare battery and 15 minutes of work? Or is it a complex procedure involving taking apart some of the outer casing of the car to get to where the battery is stored? How often are you expected to replace the battery?

Your car is an asset, whether you treat it as one or not. A car that is supposed to use an electric motor for 40 miles, but runs out of juice after 20 will depreciate significantly. How are you ever going to get rid of it?

There were a few sifts about Better Place and their whole business model regarding electric cars and replaceable batteries, which I feel is a much better solution than the plug-in hybrids. Time will tell however.