The Geopolitics of Climate Change

[fruitsofnews]

you're wrong... in a candid way how ever.. IT IS! advantageaous to pollute. Otherwise it wouldn't be common practice. key concept here: short term mental framing.

[SpidermanPro]

Your fucked in the head! Ya, I'm just going to give you everything I owned and worked for just because your culture is too stupid to fiquer it out. What a goof!

[sociallyineptguy]

I am 100% for renewable energy and living cleaner.

The earth has always undergone temperature changes; it's a natural occurrence in the universe. Mars is heating up too, is our pollution causing that too?

Co2 is what plants breathe and turn into oxygen for humans and many animals to breathe, so carbon dioxide isn't as bad as you think; it's part of the cycle of life.

Recycle, use wind and solar energy, compost, conserve water & outlaw Styrofoam...but a carbon tax is not the answer.

[scarletletterman84]

kindly watch this series- its very equinanimous info in any sense of the word, fankly the guy is far more patient at this point than I am with the established facts. Its all about self education at this point, because there's so much intentional misinformation thru every media outlet. Cheers man.

watch?v=-OvMZb1J3kc

[Insomnium2188]

whats also important in doing something about is, is doing it the right way. Not the marketing approach of appealing to our eco guilt like it is being done now with for example, recycling paper which causes more harm to the environment then it "saves".

[christo930]

I am definitely for saving the planet, but I am also for saving the human race in the short run. You can't even begin to imagine the dangers we face right now and creating situations that could start wars is pretty bad for both us and the environment.

[Plomomedia]

you're talking about nukes and Iran?

[christo930]

No. Wars over energy resources, economic destruction and things like that. A world in economic disarray is a very dangerous world. A world with dwindling energy resources is also a dangerous world. What you are talking about is a world with religion, which is also a dangerous world!

[Plomomedia]

I'm not talking about a world with religion. I'm not sure where you got that from.

[christo930]

Well, the whole iran nuclear thing is about the hostility between Israel and Iran who hate each other because they are religious states who's religious beliefs conflict.

[Plomomedia]

i'm making a distinction between first and third world. I know there's all that mess in the mideast, and hopefully nuclear wont be part of the renewable energy portfolio so that it wont enter into the environmental issue.

[christo930]

Another HUGE danger is peak oil. Many petro-geologists are in agreement that the peak was may 2005 and we have been on a plateau and will start declining, and the initial declines will be high. We are going to use enormous amounts of FF implementing renewable energy generation. Thermal solar uses HUGE amounts of aluminum and steel which are made and transported by FF, same with wind etc... Energy shortages could be worse than co2 emissions. We are in a bad situation, I hope it gets better.

[Plomomedia]

this is why conservation is so important. that theme will be in a near-future video.

[christo930]

A huge number of our office workers could easily work from home better than 80% of the time. This would actually multiply the savings by increasing the gas mileage of commuters because they won't be sitting in as much traffic getting 0mpg idling in traffic jams. it would also give us all a better quality of life.

Please promise me you won't mention compact florescent lights though!

[Plomomedia]

well, i've heard mixed things about the CFLs. I have them installed, but how much of a difference they make, who really knows. but your idea of people staying home is a good idea. there needs to be economic incentive behind all of these ideas, because money is what drives people.

[christo930]

I use them too. They are especially good when you need more light than the socket is rated for. For energy purposes, they are useless. First of all, the components are made all over, assembled in China and then shipped here. Much of the electricity generated at night is lost to ground. The generators are too big to slow down at night, so there is excess electricity at night. Since CFL's are meant for homes and most home lighting is at night, any electricity savings are just lost to ground.

[Plomomedia]

yes, we are talking serious incentive. let's posture... half of one's monthly rent. for the average modestly living renter, say 300 dollars /month. But it would not be a fixed sum; the less you use, the more you get. For half my month's rent, I might give up my refrigerator.

too face paced to let go of electricity? I agree. I also think we've become too fast paced to know what's good for ourselves.

[AcryllicWonder]

I agree, something needs to be done. But it's not as easy as saying "Stop using coal and crude oil" because that would leave us with methods that are, at best, dismal substitutes in small areas around the world. Nuclear steam power results in nuclear waste that takes at least 1000 years to give off the remainder of it's "ineffcient radioactive properties". We have a lot of thinking to do. I was in SF for 5 days this week, you guys are at least doing your part with the buses and more.

[Plomomedia]

AcryllicWonder, good to hear from you. Tell me what you think of this: What if there were economic incentive for individuals to use less energy? I dont think conservation can be marketed or branded in a way to effectively reduce energy consumption in our daily lives. But economic incentive could.

[Plomomedia]

Considering how much each of us is worth in terms of energy, we would be doing a huge favor to the entirety of the effort to reduce carbon emission by being incentivized to retailor our lifestyles around non-energy consuming products. At least in the short term.

[Plomomedia]

What if, say, an agreement were had between the individual and his govt. such that if, in the measure of his residential energy consumption, there were a dramatic reduction (translating to less or none of: tv, computer, radio, appliances, etc.) then he would receive a check in the mail. In short, being paid to not use electricity. I think it's a good idea, but am I missing important factors? I want to do a video on this, but i need to think it out some more.

[AcryllicWonder]

It's kinda cool to know you remember me! As for your idea, I think it's a good one. Rarely you will find anyone who won't do anything without some sort of incentive, even blood donors have incentive of some sort (or plasma donators). Perhaps a tax break or just less money to pay at the end of the month for linking your partially solar home to the power grid. We've got a community like that being built here in Florida. You are right that it's a mindset we need to adopt, or we're fucked.

[Plomomedia]

but the mindset wont be adopted soon enough. If it were going to happen, it would have happened on large scale already as a result of Inconvenient Truth, because that particular media release really got the ball rolling. Maybe in a subtle way it has had impact on many consumers, but not to the depth that I think necessary.

[Plomomedia]

Personally, I know i would be online a lot less if I knew i was getting paid to curtail that particular behavior - or - I would abstain from using the food processor, instead chopping and mushing by hand. So many things...

i remember you because your responses have been articulate and inspiring.

[AcryllicWonder]

That would be The Unfortunate Truth to go alongside that. But everywhere I go (Maybe it's just that Florida is a rotten cesspool) people don't seem to give a shit. The other problem is that alternative energy solutions are either still inefficient, ridiculously expensive or simply out of reach for some people. A *lot* needs to be changed. Hybrids do more damage than a regular car with their batteries, and our consumption of fuel is only going higher."E-waste" is a big problem.

[Plomomedia]

true, and because people largely dont care, new rules need to be implemented. but in the end i'm also convinced that there are millions like myself who need money, care about the environment, and simply need a little incentive to get off the electricity, the result of which would reduce me from an individual consuming 339 mllion Btu per year to, idk, something much leaner.

[Plomomedia]

I dont see how becoming less of a consumer would help the economy, but ultimately in the cap and trade scheme it may indeed help.

[AcryllicWonder]

Becoming less of a fuel consumer would help if done in large numbers, but for people living in non-SanFran like areas, it's not much of an option. The main problem is nobody cares, nobody realizes that this is our only home. Maybe not necessarily get off the electricity, but find ways to be self sufficient to gain that electricity. Our future is based in technological advances. Lets get out there and develop efficient plasma-fusion reactors!

[Plomomedia]

it's not only a fuel problem, it's an electricity problem too, which IS an option for everyone. people can make the choice not to use a hair dryer, an electric shaver, even a microwave (I lived without one for 3 years), and i argue that they WOULD opt for it, if there were money involved [for more essential things].

[Plomomedia]

Hell, if enough money were involved, I would even stop using a refrigerator. I'd simply make walking to the market a daily routine.

[AcryllicWonder]

Opt to not use electricity? We're talking some serious incentive here! :P I don't know if leaving electricity in the dust is even a viable option for America at this point. We've become too fast-paced to let that go. Too much of the country is caught up in it and dependant on it, and unwilling to change. (this could be said about the country in MANY different ways)

I get the pessimism from my father, if you were curious.

[chrisstratford]

agree with you mate.

i think its great that you're so focused on the real world. i hope there are more people out there that share your thoughts - people up high in places that can make a change.

as history has proven over and over, we (society) dont make change happen before a issues arise - we always wait for the issues corner us before make the changes.

[fliggahj]

more people need to see the big picture like you do.

[iamacyborg]

Maybe instead of making pretentious videos with ridiculous production values you should invent cold fusion.

Just a suggestion.

[Plomomedia]

please explain cyborg. what is pretentious about it? what production values are you referring to, those of this video? how is that relevant to the topic? i get the feeling you dont really understand what i'm talking about.

[iamacyborg]

Nope.

[iamacyborg]

Maybe you should tell the developing countries about your idea for electricity generating gym equipment.

[seraphim9669]

many people have contemplated that idea.

[howi]

Stephen,

Hi, while I agree with many points you have brought up - in this and many other videos of yours, you seem to miss one thing...

Brazil. I think Brazil is more self-reliant in terms of utilizing renewable resources than the so-called "rich" countries. It has got the world's biggest sugar-cane based ethanol production, third highest production of hydroelectricity, for example.

[Plomomedia]

all fine and good, but TT is still crucial. The CDM funds more than 3,000 projects (~100 billion dollars), 39% of which is specifically technology transfer, from developed to developing nations (Brazil included among the developing)

[Plomomedia]

also, google search:

interview minc brazil technology transfer

(I would post the link but YT apparently does not allow)

[howi]

Stephen,

Thank you for your reply and further insights. Regardless, we are indeed f*cking ourselves with the imbalance in allocation of sustainable technologies. I am going to check out more.

Thank you once again.

[fauxkamie]

hear hear

[ironclad452]

This is what I thought of when I watched your video.

/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g&feature=s­ub

[catherineme03]

also it reminds me of those animal rights people who wouldn't eat meat because they don't like the way the animals slaughtered. well from my point of view, it is just wrong. how could you know the feelings of animals when you don't even understand how your fellow human beings feel?

[vshjaar]

Woah horsey!!! You are assuming way too much.

That piece uses "gutter-press" tactics by saying that "this is what they think" rather than showing the real arguments and quotes.

Environmentalists want the environment to be looked after by us - not to get rid of us! I'm sure there are loads of misanthropic environmentalists, but regardless. the issues they raise are real.

Let's have a sustainable, ecological way of living, so we don't destroy ourselves or the planet in the process.

[ironclad452]

vshjaar. The recent (not sure if it's still going on) man made water shortage in California is a perfect example of environmentalism gone wild. The delta smelt (a minnow) is an alleged endangered species that resulted in an INTENTIONAL water shut down that is causing a MAN MADE drought that is destroying farms and putting the livelihood and lives of thousands of farmers in danger. Google it.

But ya .. it's just an assumption.

[vshjaar]

Yeah I read about that - I guess you have to look at the wider issues on occasion and realise that by destroying the wildlife in one part you can destabilise the whole eco-system and thus lose all of it.

The problem here is that instead of humans living in harmony with our environment we just rape it and move on when it shrivels up. By losing the wildlife in the water it may well become toxic and thus dangerous for humans and useless for farming without filtering it at massive cost.

[vshjaar]

If the water had been used more responsibly in the first place the fragile eco-system that kept it in check wouldn't have been so disrupted leading to the severe back-peddling on the use of the water.

Intensive farming is responsible for much of the problem in the first place and American farmers (less than 0.1% of the US population) get massive subsidies AND have made massive profits in recent years.

[vshjaar]

Not to mention the pollution of groundwater by fertiliser or the overproduction of food which sits and rots, or the $75 billion of waste food that costs an extra $1 billion per annum to dispose of! So less farming actually could be a good thing, instead of farming for food they could shift and use the land for eco-energy generation - depending on the elements available to be harnessed of course.

[vshjaar]

Its all extremely complex (and don't get me wrong) I do feel for those people who are in a situation where they may have to change where they live or the type of work they do. But the first thing you should look at preserving is the eco-system that sustains you. By not producing more than demand and living a balanced life where you don't take more than you give back, this way there is no need of drastic measures later when you essentially reap what you sow.

[vshjaar]

We all need to do our bit by cutting down on waste and taking responsibility for everything we do.

Thats not an assumption - thats the way it was supposed to be - whether you believe in God or Nature or both. If you are religious then maybe Genesis 2:15 might make you stop and think what you are arguing about.

[ironclad452]

I'm not arguing against taking care of the planet. lol .. I'm arguing against the fantasy that we're actually destroying it. The data tends to prove otherwise. Check out these sites -- If it is truth that you seek, that is.

globalwarmin gisafarce (dot) co m/

john-da ly (dot) co m/

warm ingscaretactics (dot) co m/

(reformat them of course)

[ironclad452]

"instead of farming for food they could shift and use the land for eco-energy generation"

ya .. food is overrated.

"we just rape [the environment] and move on when it shrivels up"

ya .. loggers don't plant trees or anything! We're so evil .. us humans aren't even part of the environment. We're a plague -- a cancer on the earth.

Right?

[vshjaar]

"ya .. food is overrated."

Are you mad?... what part of $75 BILLION dollars in waste food for the USA don't you get?

America grows and makes more food than it consumes - WAY more! And it goes to waste even before the waste you and your family create everyday by not storing correctly or consuming all of the food you buy.

If this issue affected ALL the farmers, then sure you may have a point - but right now I think you are one sandwich short of a picnic...

[vshjaar]

"loggers don't plant trees or anything!"

I really don't see your pointless argument - some logging firms are trying to be eco-friendly of course - but take a look at the rain-forests and the fact that they will likely never recover as they were.

You can't simply say that because a few people are doing good things that it means they are all good. Stop and actually read all the aspects of the subject before firing off.

[ironclad452]

And how much of that goes to hungry nations? Perhaps we waste a lot of it, but isn't it wonderful that we live in such an abundant nation rather than a starving poor nation? I think so. Can something be done about it? Sure. But does destroying the livelihood of thousands of families have to happen? I don't think so.

I think your hatred of humanity is blinding you to the goodness of humanity.

[vshjaar]

Did I imply that?

Did the video you posted have an actual environmentalist say or imply that?

No

So what is your point that you are trying to make so ineffectively?

[vshjaar]

That we should fuck the environment for future generations so we can support a few people who shouldn't be destroying the natural habitat?

Oh yeah that a good one - so what are their children and children's children supposed to do with the dead land that their grandparents fucked up?

Notice I said support their in context of screwing the environment - what they ARE doing is supporting the people by saving their environment from a bigger disaster than a few farms producing less.

[ironclad452]

Seems to me the evidence doesn't support your claim that we're actually destroying the natural habitat (did you visit the links I provided?)

But stay asleep and wait for your ideological utopia that will never come.

[vshjaar]

"I think your hatred of humanity is blinding you to the goodness of humanity."

Yeah thats right - me wanting to look after future generations is hatred of the current humans...

Clearly you are a passionate guy and thats admirable judging by the insults, but let me retort your rather presumptuous psychoanalysis:

I think you are going to stick to your argument without reading the full story from any other source and that means we are going nowhere by talking about it.

[ironclad452]

So for you to believe that environmentalism is getting out of hand, you need one to explicitly state they hate humans.

Results don't matter, it's the words they use, huh? If they destroy families and lives for a small percentage of fish which they claim are endangered but aren't, that isn't evidence enough. If they destroy the economy thru capntrade for a politically manufactured crisis (like global cooling and ozone scare of days gone by), that's not evidence. 

Ok. Stay asleep. niteynite

[vshjaar]

I happen to subscribe to the current official and open scientific studies rather than the unsubstantiated references you posted as at least more reliable source for my argument. However at least I will agree they all could be wrong.

Ok well we'll have to just agree to disagree - hopefully you'll be proved right and there won't be a great problem with climate change and all those fish and farmers will live happily ever after.

[ironclad452]

Like I said, I think we should be responsible stewards of our environment. I just don't think the way the gov is going about it with capntrade and other regulations to destroy the economy are the right way. For them, it's about power and money.

If we let ingenuity prosper, clean energy will be inevitable. We could start with nuclear ... just sayin'

Nice talkin' with ya.

[AndrewLisac]

Have you seen the movie "the great global warming swindle?"

It's a movie I feel everyone needs to watch. I will certainly still follow the Copenhagen Climate Conference, but I think we need to spend less time worrying about that and more time worrying about G20 summits and NWO.

[Plomomedia]

please, elaborate. why are G20 summits a problem? why is a new world order problematic?

[vshjaar]

That programme was a work of fiction based on out-dated data, mis-represented and mis-quoted interviewees.

Read more about it's breaches and inaccuracy on wikipedia, google it or write to Ofcom and ask for their report.

Andrew, may I suggest you check the validity of the references you cite before using them in an argument. Especially if the topic is one so serious.

I watched the programme and laughed so hard when all the advertising with it, was for oil companies and car manufacturers!

[aletoledo1]

It's rather ironic that you say its "politics" stifling progress, while it's the same "politics" that is diverting resources into inefficient programs to halt climate change. Do you realize that 1/3 of the world is without electricity? Is it more important in your mind to stop the world from getting 1 degree hotter than it is to give people electricity?

[aletoledo1]

How about the fact that a warmer world will result in fewer death and suffering? It's hard to conceptualize that people die and suffer in the cold in our modern existence, but it's true and a warmer climate would actually help more than it hurts.

[Plomomedia]

hello aletoledo. Yes, I do realize that a majority of the world is without the resources that we, the golden billion, take for granted every day. climate change legislation and third world modernization is not mutually exclusive. that's the POINT of this video! that is the point of tech transfer!!!

[Plomomedia]

Also, i must say that your claim that a warmer world resulting in fewer deaths is based on absolutely ZERO science. a warmer climate will NOT help more than it hurts, in EVERY sector of society.

[aletoledo1]

Plomomedia, my claim of reduced deaths is pure science. First you need to recognize that warming occurs greatest nearer to the poles, which are the colder regions of the world. The science shows that the equatorial regions aren't going to be experiencing as much of a rise, so heat deaths aren't going to go up by very much. Therefore the cold death decrease will outweigh the heat death increase due to this pattern.

Just look at the IPCC predictions for yourself and see that they show this.

[Plomomedia]

forward me the page in the IPCC literature that says this. also, provide the statistic that shows just how much of an epidemic death from cold weather is.

I've read the IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports, in addition to the EPA literature published in 2007, and papers published by James Hansen, former head of NASA who was censored by the Bush administration.

[sandricdoliba]

"The IPCC estimates that flooding will affect the homes of two to seven million people in coastal areas by 2080. More than 1 billion people will lack drinking water, and 200 to 600 million will be threatened by hunger. Estimates of migrant numbers today and projections for the future are controversial. Serious experts reckon there will be 25 to 50 million more by the year 2010, and almost 700 million by 2050." But at least there wont be as many cold related deaths, right?

[sandricdoliba]

Climate change has already caused migrations, including the "Inuit people on the small barrier island of Shishmaref, off the coast of Alaska," "small island states like Tuvalu and Kiribati," and soon the Maldives archipelago. This is migration due solely to increasing water levels, if you include desertification and loss of water sources the number is vastly higher as stated in my previous comment.

[aletoledo1]

sandricdoliba, claiming that making people relocate is some disaster ignores the root of the problem. We can relocate these people for a lot less cost than we can stop the earth from rotating. It's an issue of cost control and despite what some people claim, we can't do everything at once. We can't give free health care, free food, free security, free housing and free electricity to everyone in the world, we can't afford it. Therefore spendingmoney to move people is a workable solution.

[sandricdoliba]

I'm losing you, are you suggesting it would be cheaper to relocate ~700 million, feed ~600 million and find fresh water for 1 billion rather than give then the means to develop clean energy and industrialize themselves as well as cap our own carbon and other greenhouse gas production? Because it sounds like you're the one suggesting we should give them all free food and water and relocate them rather than deal with the root of the problem.

[aletoledo1]

You're trying to confuse the differences here. People starve already today and your position is to divert money away from feeding them to develop cool new toys to play with. Having some people migrate a few miles inland 50 years from now isn't the same as spending trillions of dollars to develop an electric car today. Your claims may or may not come true, while my claims of 1/3 of the world lives without electricity is fact....today. We have people to feed today, we can't be spending recklessly

[Plomomedia]

"cool new toys" ??? I dont think you understand what this is all about.

[sandricdoliba]

What money to develop new toys? What's being advocated in the video is giving developing countries green technology in order to allow them to industrialize without all of the environmental damage typically associated with it. You are not only ignoring the fact that the 1/3 of the population that you mention are actively trying to get electricity through any means including unsustainable ones, you ignore the main issue, irreversible climate change furthered by human activity and its effects.

[Plomomedia]

sandri, I think you should make a video yourself! you are very articulate, and thank you for helping to explain what Tech Transfer is all about.

[sandricdoliba]

Don't have a webcam and wouldn't know how to go about it anyways, I'm frigging terrible with computers. Also, it's easier to take shots from the sidelines and you can do it at work too.

[sandricdoliba]

That's ridiculous. A warmer climate would result in higher sea levels meaning any low lying settlements would become floodplains forcing millions to relocate. More importantly climate change would cause a huge disruption among ecosystems resulting in the loss of many species, the homogenization of other climates increasing the likelihood of foreign species invading and the loss of many flowering crops which would increase the risk of famine, especially in developing nations.

[Plomomedia]

well put sandricdoliba. infectious disease, ecosystem upset, mass population migrations, to name a few.

[aletoledo1]

You have to get the science straight. Sea levels rise is estimated by the UN to rise by about 1 foot in the next century. In fact over the past 150 years we have already experienced about a 1 foot rise in sea levels, yet the mass devastation you claim hasn't been experienced. So why is it that we adapted to sea level rises in our past, yet we can't adapt in the future?

The problem with the climate change politics is people want to spend money in exotic solutions rather than proven solutions.

[Marteerevik]

The newest raport from the UNs klimateboard says that the enviorment has segnificantly reduces the amount off CO2 it used to consume. It seems we can look forward to an increese of 4oC instead of 2. This will according to the UN result in watershortage for 3 billion people, 70 % of animals and plants will dissapear, crops will drop drastically and within 2100 the ocean will rise one meter. We really don't have any time to lose! If the 20 richest countries in the world help the poorest reduse

[Plomomedia]

did you hear Obama's address to the UN this morning? I was encouraged by his words. He said exactly what i wanted to hear - technologically advanced countries taking responsibility for the environmental devastation it produced in the 20th century, and helping developing countries in the 21st century modernize cleanly.

[Marteerevik]

No I didn't hear that.. but it sounds great!

[Marteerevik]

sounds perfect.. I am very impressed by your "new" president, must say... :) yei

[Marteerevik]

their polution problems and help find new solutions, then the richest country (like mine, Norway) would hopefully happily pay the bill that ends up at about 1,6 billion dollars a year.

That's my hopes for december and copenhagen.

[Plomomedia]

i will try to make a music track to showcase some of the things said this morning by Obama and other leaders.

[kylmrtn]

My grandfather was named Reppenhagen