The Invisible NOW Problem And How Different Countries Are Fighting It…

The Invisible NOW Problem And How Different Countries Are Fighting It…

Thanks for tuning in! Watch Yesterday’s PDS:
Watch The Previous Morning Deep Dive:
Support this content w/ a Paid subscription @
Latest PDS:
Watch the Morning Shows:
Follow Me On
Sources/Important Links:
Wanna send us stuff?
ATTN: Philip DeFranco – Rogue Rocket
4804 Laurel Canyon Blvd. Box – 760
Valley Village, CA 91607
Wanna listen on the go?
Edited by: Jason Mayer, James Girardier
Produced by: Amanda Morones
Art Director: Brian Borst
Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Dylan Siegel
#DeFranco, #ClimateChange, #GlobalWarming

You may also like...

92 Responses

  1. Hazin says:

    If the USA gets 100% renewable what are the chances China and India lower their rate of increasing emissions even 1%?? I have seen arguments here that we need to lead by example and the world will follow but isn’t that the same kind of argument for why doesn’t China just become democratic or adopt the same exact capitalist economy as the USA? Face it, leading by example is not the way to lower emissions, there will still be climate deniers in these up and coming countries. Why would they lower their rate of growth to invest trillions into renewable energy? We are just going to have to wait and see the real effects of climate change (the ones that affect every person on earth directly more than just a slight change in weather) before everyone has the cultural change needed to adopt full scale sustainability fever.

    • Pip Yorkie says:

      +Merry Machiavelli I am aware of china’s birth rate, however I’m putting this down to women joining the work force like never before in China therefore they’re putting off relationships and having kids for longer now. However I do hope for China its birth rate always stays lower. But it’s a long way to go in decreasing its population. Plus I’ll question how many people leave China over the next 100 years.

    • Dylan McClantoc says:

      If you can’t do it out of optimism, so it out of spite. We might all be fucked, but if that’s the case we can still make life difficult for those who put us here so we’re *all* in hell.

    • Jutland Angel says:

      You know when that change comes it will be too late.

    • Merry Machiavelli says:

      ​+Pip Yorkie The reasons for China’s declining birth rate aren’t exactly mysterious – all countries seem to go through a similar trend at this stage in their development (it’s known as the Demographic Transition). I mean, I agree with you, women are choosing to have fewer children, but those choices are informed by structural factors e.g. the costs of educating and raising children tending to be higher in industrialised societies. Which is why I’m skeptical that the Chinese government will really be able to reverse the trend – even if ‘subsidising families to raise kids’ _would_ work, there is no way the Chinese state could afford it on the necessary scale.

      An interesting question I often think about is what the Chinese governments perspective on immigration will be in 20 years. First, because China is _so_ big and still so middle income that I doubt simply opening the doors to whoever wants to immigrate (which is what US, Europe and Japan can do) would work. What might conceivably would be large scale state-supported immigration from Africa, but then, would the Chinese government/people ever be willing to accept that? Like Japan, China is a pretty ethnically homogenous country (yes, people bring up the Hui, Uighurs…etc. all the time, but Han Chinese make up like 90%+) and doesn’t have the same history of mass immigration as the US and to a lesser extent Europe…I honestly don’t know.

      China’s population transition is already having effects. 2018 was a turning point, because it marks the high-point in China’s working age population (i.e. 15-64). China’s growth up to this point has been bolstered by the never-to-be-repeated combination of having few old people at the same time as few children, that is now starting to pass. Personally, I’m particularly interested/worried about what this will do to China’s western/central regions. China’s going to have all the same problems as Japan with entire villages full of old people, only worse because China is still significantly poorer in per capita terms and I believe internal migration happened on a larger scale. But hey, maybe robots will save the day?

    • Maltose says:

      +Tails Clock Wrong on all accounts.

      China’s pollution rate is set to grow by 4% at the start of this year, the fastest its grown in 7 years.

      It has nearly twice the co2 pollution rate of America, and although they have less per capita, that is only due to their massive number of high-density impoverished living spaces. They are still, as a country, contributing the most to climate change, by far.

      From what sources I can find, which I will site at the end of this comment, America’s co2 emissions dropped by .9% in 2017, on a constant 4 year decline from 2014.

      Now what you were mistakenly asserting was that America’s co2 production was increasing, which is not the case. The amount of co2 generated by fossil fuels specifically though, is increasing. That may have been what you were thinking of. Other sources of co2 are however, decreasing. Enough so to decrease the total emission percentage.

      So to summarize:

      China has the fastest growing co2 rate in the world as of 2017 (The most up to date information I could find, correct me if its changed since then) –

      Chinas emissions rate is projected to be the fastest its been in 7 years as of Q1 2019 –

      The US was at its lowest emissions rate in 4 years as of 2017 –

      Please correct me if you have data saying otherwise. And please provide sources.

  2. Humanoid25 says:

    A professor at my university (along with people around the globe) has been doing R&D on something called artificial photosynthesis. Basically what this could end up being is panels (much like solar ones) that have chemicals inside that are almost identical to those found in plants that would take water, sunlight and CO2 to help produce power, oxygen and even natural gases like butane. So not only will they help reduce emissions but actively reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. AND on top of that they will be a lot more efficient than solar panels. I am not far from graduating with an engineering degree and artificial photosynthesis is something I want to be a part of. As well as lab grown meat and renewable energy cars

    • Lee Cason says:

      Everything sounds cool, but I’d rather hunt than eat farm or lab grown Meat.

    • OPrincessXJasmineO says:

      +Tdwt18 I recognize all the points you make and to that my response: a more sustainable alternative is to be vegetarian/vegan. E. Coli outbreaks aren’t caused by cows, they’re a direct result of drug resistance due to liberal use of antibiotics in live stock.

    • OPrincessXJasmineO says:

      +Wizmo whose population are you talking about?? ?

    • deathless12345678 says:

      I have wondered for a long time why this approach was not more sought after. Any reading i can find on it?

    • rugg1999 says:

      +OPrincessXJasmineO farm fresh meat is disgusting to most people. The reason we love meat is due to the processing and artificial flavoring. At that point, might as well just eat lab grown. Then no animals have to die.

  3. PKTEK says:

    While most of our atmospheric issues come from cows farting.

    • Antony Borlase says:

      Rose E Whereas they number you give may sound high to most I do believe you have the right number. However that is only half the the truth, as I believe it is the total for the sheep, cow, pig and chicken industries which not only includes the animals, but the fuels and energy used in processing and delivering the products to markets around the world.

    • Cheshire Kitten says:

      Rather than shut down heavily polluting factories, youd rather say “go vegan?”
      Newsflash. Not everyone can afford that. Check your privilige.

    • PlayaSinNombre says:

      It will be okay… I will eat the cows!

    • Trinidad Collier says:

      jonokai where the HELL did you get your sources??? Arctic ice is NOT growing, it is shrinking rapidly (unless you’re talking about the small uptick BECAUSE IT’S WINTER). Also, I don’t know what you mean by “we’re already at an increased 1.8 degree average increase. Crop yields in the US may be going up (I didn’t fact check that one but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s false too considering the rest of your facts) but that’s only because we are using more land to farm them as well as creating GMOs that resist harmful stuff better. We are not the only ones who are meeting the climate accord, although there are many countries that aren’t. We are currently meeting it, but it isn’t because of our president. It’s because of local governments and leaders who’ve taken it upon themselves to ramp up climate efforts. The craziness that you described earlier in your comment is a total nonsequitor, and has nothing to do with anything posted here. There are no proposals that say to do that stuff and no one in their right mind would want to. Come on.

    • Trinidad Collier says:

      jonokai it’s true that the increase in temps in the last 150 years has been 1.8° Fahrenheit. However that’s also the temp increase in the last 48 years. The climate is warming alarmingly quickly and steadily. And it’s getting even faster. It isn’t the fact that the climate is warming that’s scary. It’s how fast that’s happening. No one is asking you to go vegan. I’m a huge fan of beef myself, but there’s a lot of other ways to reduce your carbon footprint and pressure companies to do the same.

  4. Keoki johnson says:

    Honestly, the only way we’re going renewable is if companies like Tesla start rolling it out.

    The problem with the American political system is the money in politics and (in this case) the oil and gas lobby.

    The quickest and probably only way to get the ball rolling is to have a company do it. In.America, computes can wrong.

    I picked Tesla because they took the electric car from sci-fi to reality… In some places they’re getting more and more common.

    Plus Tesla offers PowerWall and solar roofed making them like a utility

    • Christopher Jolliffe says:

      The only problem with the statement is, electric cars been around since the 1900s

    • Christopher Jolliffe says:

      “Collapse” with Michael Ruppert and, “Who killed the electric car” are good docs.

    • Jac K says:

      What we NEED is to figure out nuclear fission as the current calculations have one reactor making 200Mwh per reaction and running a reaction every second

    • Jac K says:

      Asa Sherman also wind energy will drive many birds extinct if used on a international scale

    • John Daly says:

      The electricity used to charge ur Tesla is most likely from Fossil Fuel. Hydrogen car is the future. Electric is just temporary solution.

  5. Erik C 'Piano Man' says:

    So you’re saying we have to rely on these CEO’s and heads of big Oil companies to choose longterm future benefits with expensive upfront costs, over immediate profit? Yup we’re doomed.

    • Syed I. Ahmed says:

      Yugi Muto that’s the point behind man made climate change. We are illogical at times. But we have the ability to make logical choices. We have to come together and realize that to make future generations suffer less from the effects of climate change it’ll take unified action now to save our future. There’s no question that we can do this. It’s only a matter of when.

    • شيخ جوجل says:

      Long term future benefits also means less $$$ spent and more $$$ saved for those companies, so I doubt they won’t. Big oil, maybe not, but for electric generators probably.

    • boostgearXD says:

      +Drunk Pharaoh Yeah your right. However, when it comes to big companies they really only care about their financials and earnings. I highly doubt they care about the individual or the planet as a whole. Otherwise they would had done something about it by now. Its not like we are still in the industrial age.

    • Dylan McClantoc says:

      +Drunk Pharaoh So the rampant wildfires in California, the hurricanes and monsoons ravaging the coasts of every inhabited continent, the rapid and unpredictable fluctuations in polar air, and the receding of the ice caps (all of which was predicted back in the 70’s) aren’t effects of global warming? Huh, fancy that.

    • blueph03n1Xx says:

      +Drunk Pharaoh the rich don’t give a fuck because at the end of the day when we are drinking shit water they will still be fine and drinking clean water

  6. Rachel Kidwell says:

    I feel a little bit like a downer saying this, but I truly don’t believe America’s government will EVER “get it together” to introduce renewable energy. I mean, there are SOOO MANY areas in the U.S. with absolutely HORRIBLE infrastructure that has been falling apart more and more every single day, and it’s been that way for years–with NO action from state representatives or the Feds, no matter how much local residents or others protest. If the government can’t even spend their money to provide functional, modern infrastructure to its own residents/cities right now, the chance that they would spend the billions needed to integrate renewable energy into the country is close is practically nonexistent.

    • ZIROS says:

      TheTiminator Exactly, the US has some of the lowest emissions compared to other countries. China needs to do better or we all will be wearing masks on the way to work…

    • Solidsilenceful says:

      +ZIROS LOL you’re absolutely kidding right? Your country alone has one of the highest; but not only that, the factories and industries abroad are ones owned by YOU! they simply exist in these countries because they lowered their regulations for the US.

    • Thrifty Freebies says:

      Perhaps they could spend all that wall money on something to address the renewable energy problem? A giant solar panel wall??

    • SPZ Aruba says:

      Every time we get a bump up in cash we put it in social programs. We can maybe afford the Green New Deal or Medicare For All. Definitely not both.

    • Lycanwolf Gaming says:

      +ZIROS America is so bad with pollution that we send acid rain to Canada, we can do better than that, America was supposed to be a shining example instead of say others are worse we should do all that we can do and set a example so we do become that shining example we claim to be

  7. Alex D says:

    As someone who has been dedicating their life to renewable tech, I have a few comments. First, while the potential for renewables are high, the intermitency of solar, wind, and hydro (as seen in brazil) means that we need to develop better methods for energy storage. Current methods hold minimalistic amounts and without a substantial investment in research and development, renewables will never be a primary energy source. Second, developments such as smart grids need to be implemented. With our current power grid, all renewable tech is spread out providing a tiny amount compared to other sources. By implementing smaller and more complex grids, we can reduce the losses of transmission allowing for renewables to have a higher chance of success. Lastly, we need to develop better control algorithms for power electronics. While developments such as predictive current control (PCC) are accelerating, it only increases efficiencies by a small amount. We need to develop better MPPT (maximum power point tracking) algorithms for PV (photovoltaic) tech. So in my opinion, even though it pains me to say this, we need to currently develop an infrastructure focused on nuclear power for the time being (while we develop better renewable systems) and as the nuclear systems get older, we phase shift over to renewables.

    • VIRTUAL REALMS says:

      Absolutely Jayson. I presume you’ll be the first one to pay the $49 a gallon carbon tax on your gasoline that the Paris Accords call for by 2030… or will you have given up your car by then as the new Green Deal dictates? Don’t worry, you won’t even notice after the necessary MASSIVE increase in taxes takes effect. You’ll be more worried about getting enough government provided food to stay healthy, because government provided health care sure won’t.

    • Alex D says:

      +IizUname , while Nuclear has the largest upfront cost, it’s also the cleanest form of energy thay we have readily available. If we want to stop reaching the temperature point by 2030, we need to act. And what I mean with MPPT algorithms being inefficient, sure they do help right now. But current methods such as P&O include heavy oscillations that reduce efficiency. I’m currently involved in research to create a more efficient predictive MPPT algorithm thay would reduce the losses of other methods.

    • Pudding says:

      +Jayson Huckaby Idealistic phrasing doesn’t help in this debate. We all are debating the arguments made for and against a renewable energy shift. Elon Musk is a salesman not a physicist. His scientists are doing the job and they are pretty on-par with their rivals they just do a better job at selling it.

    • hootenfish says:

      We need to quit arguing over moot points which the media forces in our face to keep us divided. We cannot come together in America if we are always being divided on things like race, gender, politics. We need to form communities and work together. America is suposed to be a melting pot. Have local fod and produce, improve local economies and relationship. Our tech has great potential but we must not let it control us. Government loves big tech as they have tools to keep the masses divided or occupied as they consolidate more power. We need to improve with renewables but we cannot let it be used as a weapon to attack portions of society.

    • LordKite says:

      I agree. Developing nuclear power to carry us until the new, reliable generation technology is developed and ready would be the ideal circumstance. It won’t happen, at leaat in the USA, but it really is the best choice. Second best would probably be focusing on converting coal to natural gas plants, at least natural gas is a much more efficient and clean method. It buys us more time, if nothing else.

  8. Tsar_Maple says:

    Why. Is. Nuclear. Always. On. The. Backburner.

    Literally one of the safest and most efficient forms of energy production for nations like the US. Nuclear and fusion are the future.

    • LordKite says:

      Its almost like France, South Korea, and Japan had a good idea. France is majority nuclear, and yet you haven’t heard of an incident for them, have you? Its much more feasible than large scale hydro for a country like the USA. Wind and Solar and batteries don’t supply enough power reliably enough to support our countries, not alone.

    • Cheshire Kitten says:

      Because nuclear is unsafe. There is radioactive waste that is leftover from using this energy. And it needs to be buried away for millions of years before its safe to handle again. If affects animals and plants around it of it spills. How is THAT safe.

    • WhyteLis21 says:

      Unless we including animals and plants become immune to high radioactive waste, nuclear power isn’t the best source of energy. The unsafe waste would just cause cancer to its surrounding for thousands of years to come.

    • Steel598 says:

      Finally someone says something! I had a class discussion and one of the students said that the water is contaminated when it is used. wat? but even with the two accidents, they purposely took off their safety mechanisms and with all the fatalities that come with it, it is still the safest form of energy we can get. And one of the most efficient!

    • ViciousProphet says:

      Actually, despite the cleanliness of the power, the heat and chemicals that are emitted from nuclear cooling towers are the issue. Also, most plants dump their tank waters into local water sources which increases water temperatures and damages ecosystems. Nuclear IS NOT perfect or “safe” by any measure.

  9. Grass Hopper says:

    I live in Australia. Every single study that has been conducted into what our electricity production needs to be at in order to supply current demand, and also keep up the extra supply for future demand. Shows that we have *no* excuse not to be on 100% renewable energies.

    Geothermal, Solar, Tidal and Wind powers are readily and massively abundant, would be relatively easy to install and to carry that electricity to where it’s needed most. And yet we rely on our vast amount of energies being produced by coal fired power stations. And we seem to be stuck on that. Why?

    Because our two leading governmental bodies are either bought and owned by large scale mining companies (I am looking at you Liberal party of Australia) **Quick note, Australia’s version of Liberal is the same as your Republicans in the states** or their too cowardly to make the appropriate government mandates that are required to get us to take renewables seriously (I am looking at you Labor party of Australia)

    The whole world is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to global warming, and it’s all thanks to politicians and moronic climate change deniers the world over. What we need is a more cohesive WORLD government talking about Climate change, and how to tackle it.

    • Skyler Hesseltine says:

      +Grass Hopper “Sentient cheeto!” ???

    • FlamingTiger says:

      +Grass Hopper Look how many Countries are following the Paris accords. Look what it did for France and emissions haven’t gone down. Also if you looked deep into he is saying that its “fake news” because he doesn’t think humans are causing it. Earth goes through hot and cold periods. Also Flint wasn’t Trumps fault it didn’t even happen in his presidency so don’t talk about shit you don’t know. When Trump talked about “grabbing woman by the pussy” it was locker talk and he didn’t know he was being taped. Explain how Hillary didn’t give out private emails and then delete them and explain how he lied about Stormy Daniels and how he Racially Profiles anyone who wasn’t white? Who hated black people in the 1930’s-60’s the KKK which was founded by Democrats.

    • Dakota Moore says:

      +The Fox Yes, but the problem is, you’re not going to sway them without throwing money at them. Money that would be better used in other markets, like solar or wind, or anything other than lining some rich old cunt’s pockets.They have a big impact, yes. But if they don’t care, then that’s it. You’re not going to sway them.

    • The Fox says:

      +Dakota Moore I mean I’m not donating money at all, I’ll just give my vote in the future and that’s all… its a bummer this is the way things are with our greedy, unconvincable politicians.

    • The Fox says:

      +FlamingTiger Chill dude.

      This ain’t about political parties.

  10. William Chilton says:

    Are you ever going to talk about China being the only leading nation not doing it’s part to curb global warming, or how they burn as much coal as the whole rest of the world combined with a large percent of China’s coal being brown coal, a type of coal which is seven times as “dirty” as standard coal. Maybe talk about how they claimed they were a third world country so they wouldn’t have to reduce their footprint all while claiming to be ready to lead the world in pollution reduction.

    • bob jones says:

      They contribute the most in total, but they are also at the forefront of renewable tech and have invested far more than any other country into green solutions. To say they aren’t doing their part is pretty disengenuous. In fact, ever since Xi Jinping came into power they have made moves to further the development and implementation of a green growth plan. They aren’t great with environmental solutions in all facets of their government and industry, and they may not be there in terms of where they need to be right now, but you can no longer use China as an excuse for other nations (specifically, the US) not doing their part. Also, most countries use brown coal more than black coal since there is much more of it. No country would choose to use a less efficient energy source. By the way, per capita, America is still by far the largest pollutor, China’s pollution has mostly come from their weak labour laws and role as the worl’d factory. They’ve made moves to curb that recently. They aren’t perfect, but it’s better than places like the US which do barely anything on a national level.

    • Pip Yorkie says:

      Close trade with China!!!

    • Ares says:

      China has 1.4 billion ish people. Of course they’d be the largest producer of GHGs, but Americans (and the vast majority of “western” countries) produce 2-4 times as many per person. For example, China produces about 7 tonnes of co2 per person whereas the US and Canada each produce 20 tonnes of co2 per person. You’re also forgetting that China is one of the leading countries in terms of production and consumption of renewable energies like solar.

    • CoqPwner says:

      They’re honestly making more than the US at this point to get into renewable energies and whatnot.

    • Aye Jaye says:

      +VIRTUAL REALMS Your fun facts aren’t very fun…

  11. Bob Pickleson says:

    The fact y’all didn’t talk about Thorium makes me sad. Way better than renewable energy for a country of our size.

    Wind mills kill. I’ve seen so many videos of workers dying on them during maintenance. And hydro stuff obviously messes up that river’s ecosystem.

    Thorium is perfect. Has more or equal power to uranium nuclear reactors and yet is nowhere near as dangerous and is cheaper to keep up. The only issue is that thorium reactors are initially more expensive, so business dudes choose the cheaper option.

    • Elizabeth Hasseries says:

      I live in wind turbine country. I have yet to hear anyone local talk about dead birds, bats , or people. Most farmers are happy to lease some land to wind turbines because it’s a guaranteed constant income – unlike farm prices. They have to go around their property to see if there are problems before, during, and after harvest. None find more dead animals than normal.

    • Ridnaw says:

      Thorium powered car?!!!!! No need to refuel for a century?!!!!! Sign me in, please.

    • Cheshire Kitten says:

      Wind mills are fine. But if you insist they “kill” i would like to see the peer reviewed article you drew your conclusions from.

    • Cheshire Kitten says:

      +Pluto : peer reviewed article, please?

    • TheGamerContainer says:

      +Kisai The waste is harder to handle as compared with U-232. U-233 requires an 8kg safeguard whereas U-232 requires a 32kg safeguard. This does make transporting waste to deep underground disposal locations easier though. But there’s no CO_2 emissions. Using thorium would require plutonium or U-232–a waste product of using U-235/8, and recycling current waste at the expense of less. Thorium is more efficient (U-235/8 about 4%, thorium about 91%).

  12. Andrew says:

    I love how narrow minded this discussion is from people who do not have a background in science, how political it’s become, it needs to stop. Geo scientists are very divided on this topic, I know, I am one, and so are my colleagues. The issue of climate change on our planet is much more complex than simply what we are contributing to the change. The earth’s heat and cooling as far as we understand it is cyclical, dynamic and there are periods of cooling we have determined in our past, as well as a lot of unknowns due to our lack of historical data. The amount accurate of temperature data we have, a few hundred years versus the age of the planet (4.5billion years). This disparity makes drawing conclusions based on a few hundred years of change absolutely frivolous. One hypothesis is that like the ice age, in a dynamic environment there may also be heating events. Another hypothesis suggests that our sun burns more or less hydrogen in events we don’t fully understand that impact our temperature. Another involves our orbit, axis and tilt. Another still has to do with how every several thousand of years our planet experiences polar shifts due to a geo-magnetic reversal (one that we are CURRENTLY in the process of going through)
    All of these factors, unknowns and hypothesis, and yet we have people commenting, politicians and the like promoting ideas to which they have no solid evidence.
    If we want to be responsible, we not only need to reduce our contributions to the changes in environment, but we also more importantly need to prepare for all eventualities. For example, another ice age may be just as catastrophic.
    Its dangerous for those who no nothing of the science to simply add their opinions to the discussion, as we should not be making decisions based on opinions. If scientists and mathematicians made decisions based on opinions, we would have a lot of dead people from bridge collapses and misdiagnoses.

    • Jayson Huckaby says:

      VIRTUAL REALMS so you are denying the fact that we have cause the next mass extinction? You are denying the facts that our CO2 emissions are not resulting in catastrophe? Are you denying the facts that green renewable energy is not good for us or the planet? You can’t refer to any books without giving names…

    • Ga Biv says:

      +Andrew keep encouraging dialogue. It’s a bad when dialogue is disregarded and shamed and you’re labeled a “climate change denier”. Most “climate change deniers” I’ve met are just people who seek more evidence. People are gonna insult you and I wouldnt bother giving them the time of day.

    • K M says:

      Look big guy. If you really are as scientifically backed as you claim to be, you’d understand why it’s irresponsible to give credence to the idea that climate change isn’t happening. You obviously don’t work in a relevant field, or you wouldn’t even be casting doubt on the verifiably accepted conclusion that climate change is happening and is proven to be directly linked to carbon emissions. That should be the end of the discussion. It’s responsible to be prepared for all outcomes, yes, but it’s completely irresponsible to spin on and on about how “we don’t know anything for sure” because that’s exactly what an oil shill will use to convince someone who isn’t very bright

    • Andrew says:

      Thanks Ga Biv, I just muted and ignored that individual, as he clearly has no interest in anything other than opinons.

    • Andrew says:

      +K M Good lord, you didn’t even read my post! I never denied climate change, just the opposite. Unbelievable.

  13. Sarah Green says:

    We’ve been discussing renewable energy in my economic geology class. One thing that was talked about was the fact that renewable energy technology uses Rare Earth Elements. In short, there aren’t enough REEs in the world to build 100% renewable energy systems in every society. Not only that, but mining the ore and extracting the elements that are necessary for renewable energy technology to work takes a lot of energy; energy that comes from oil, gas, and coal. Not mention that mining releases toxic materials into the environment and our water systems. I could go on for days. I don’t know everything there is to know about this topic, but reaching 100% renewable energy is going to take a looooooooong time. Especially, for it to be done in a “clean” and ethical way.

    • Noah Namey says:

      And as I mentioned earlier in a sub-thread, solar panel manufacturing is extremely polluting.
      Not only is the solar panel industry exempt from laws prohibiting the use of heavy metals in “consumer” electronics (it uses tons of lead and cadmium), it also releases nitrogen-triflouride during the process, which is 1000’s of times as potent a GHG.
      But were being sold a lie, that there’s an answer.
      The only answer I see coming is Mad Max for most of us, while a select group of billionaires while away the end times on islands.
      Their AI butlers attending to any need

  14. Minh Nguyen-Ba says:

    Climate change deniers are like anti-vaxxers and flat earthers. Valuing ignorance over education and making the future dumber.

    • The Cashier says:

      +VIRTUAL REALMS I don’t. It’s absolutley immaterial to the question of spending money on this tech.

    • bob jones says:

      +supposetobenick How do you justify not murdering someone when people get murdered every day? To seriously address your point though,
      1. Having carbon taxes doesn’t mean you will necessarily pay more taxes, just different ones. It is easy to offset a carbon tax by reducing another form of taxation, like income tax.
      2. China has actually been making an effort to promote green growth since Xi Jinping came into power, and environmental costs is actually a pretty big issue there. People legit protest in the streets against carbon emissions, and as a result they have invested more into renewable tech than any other country to date.
      3. Their economy has been growing at a superb rate over the last 20 years but that growth has been slowing as of late and doesn’t look to be picking up anytime soon. While you are right that a lot of it has to do with shady business practices, the bulk of it was due to low cost of labour and loose regulations making them ideal as a manufacturing industry.

    • L42yB says:

      +Merrik Watson No, you can’t just indefinitely give more. If you gave away too much of your salary, you would not be able to eat or pay rent, which could cause you to lose your job and become homeless – preventing you from donating any more. There is a Goldilocks zone and exceeding it will result in you being less able to help others. And it isn’t even that simple. Maybe by not donating at all, you are able to invest in your own business and eventually be in a position to donate millions more than you otherwise would have been able to.

      Oversimplifications are innacurate and stupid. Don’t try and support your argument with them.

    • Pip Yorkie says:

      +supposetobenick goverment has nothing to do with US looking at screens all day haha. When I was growing up you had 4 people around 1 t.v. and one light on in the house, today everyone is in a different room, looking at two screens and lights on everywhere. Population increase is the biggest cause if climate change, and the number one policy of the left is mass population increase. Climate change in never going anywhere. Most western nations have a 1.8 birth rate, this means population decreasing and staying the same long term. However due to SOCIALISM we have to increase the population to keep paying for more and more and more public spending lol. I repeat climate change isn’t going nowhere

    • Dragoner Productions says:

      And our president is one of them! Good fucking lord….

  15. Zane Andersen says:

    Nuclear power is incredibly clean, has become super safe, and should be used a lot more. Until we can get fusion power up and running, we need to put more development into creating nuclear power stations, and recycling its fuel.

  16. Austin says:

    Unfortunately you missed the mark on this one Phil. You’re viewing this through the eyes of government, which is the wrong approach.

    I’ve spent the last five years studying civil engineering and most of these “renewable” resources rely heavily on fossil fuels still.

    For example, look at the raw material to production process of wind. First you have to rip the iron ore out of the ground. Then you need to mine coal to be made into coke for the steel refining process. Then the steel must be made. Then you have to reheat the steel billets to be able to fabricate all of the parts for the turbine. Then you need to transport all of this steel. Then you need to erect the structure. You have to lubricate all of the loving parts, using you guessed it, petroleum products. And *then* you can start producing power. How much energy has been put into the creation of the structure from mining the materials all the way to production? Let me tell you this, it will *never* fully recoup all of that carbon over the course of its lifespan.

    We need long term solutions with a low embodied energy. We have auto-off nuclear reactors which do not take nearly as much embodied energy. Why wasn’t this stressed more?

    Please Phil, on topics of this magnitude, you need to look at the optics of many different disciplines rather than a regulatory viewpoint.

  17. Oh yeah Yea says:

    I don’t see the U.S. changing with trump as president. Global warming to him is a lie and all this is fake news.

  18. Schlong Goblin says:


  19. Typhlosion Br says:

    I am from Brazil, and it’s really really really weird for me to see my country as an exemple of something good… wtf

  20. AirShark95 says:

    There is NO way we are getting under 2°C, even with this “revolution” idea people keep throwing out. We are heading to 3 – 4°C warming no matter what we do. We are at the threshold where natural feedback loops will kick in and accelerate climate change and global warming. Once those feedback loops (i.e. Clathrate Gun) go off, no human imput will be needed to push our biosphere to a total collapse.

    Oh and Climate Change is just one issue. We’ve also got:
    – Overfishing
    – Pollution
    – Ocean acidification
    – Phytoplankton die-off
    – Insect die-off (populations down 80% in some areas)
    – Antibotic resistance
    – Anti-vax movement
    – Loss of top-soil for agriculture
    – Fresh water depletion
    – Proliferation of WMDs
    – Increasing Socio-Political and Socio-Economic unrest
    – Ongoing and worsening Magnetic Pole Reversal and Magnetic Field weakening
    – Overpopulation

    …and etc. A lot of these issues are interconnected and will start to make each other worse the longer we wait to stop them and reverse them. There’s no way our society in its current state can address these issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *