Everything You’re Told About Green Capitalism is Wrong | Brett Christophers talks to Aaron Bastani

Рет қаралды 76,582

Күн бұрын

The costs of green electricity are plummeting and renewable technology is only getting cheaper. For optimists, this means that a world of abundant, clean energy is just around the corner.
And yet the share of global energy coming from non-carbon sources is broadly the same as it was two decades ago. If falling prices were all that mattered, surely that wouldn’t be the case? For the optimists to be right, things would have to look different.
According to this week’s guest, Brett Christophers, there is a straightforward explanation for this seeming paradox - of cheaper green energy but incredibly slow adoption. For Christophers it isn’t just prices that matter, but profits too. And profitability for green energy projects remains well below those of oil and gas. The incentives are simply not there for market actors to take us rapidly beyond oil, gas and coal.
So if capitalism can address the climate crisis, what would that look like? Or does the state need to play a decisive role? How is it possible that China is both a global leader and a laggard in greenhouse gas emissions? And is Europe over?
You can buy Brett’s book, “The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism Won't Save the Planet”,
here: www.versobooks.com/en-gb/prod...
00:00 Intro
02:35 Is Net Zero Bullsh*t?
10:15 Why Electrification Matters
16:17 What do the Next Two Decades Look Like?
24:14 What is China Doing?
35:24 What are Europe and the US Doing?
47:40 Why Privatisation Doesn’t Work
1:02:06 What are the Solutions?
1:16:30 Why Publicly Owned Energy Matters
1:22:27 The Obstacles to Renewable Energy
1:31:05 Is Nuclear the Answer?
Novara Live broadcasts every weekday from 6PM on KZfaq and Twitch.
Episodes of Downstream are released Sundays at 3PM on KZfaq.
__________________________
Support our journalism by buying Novara Media merch:
shop.novaramedia.com
Donate one hour’s wage per month, or whatever you can afford:
novara.media/support

Пікірлер: 579

@FkSeditiousChristofascists Ай бұрын

The capitalist system is simply diametrically opposed to thinking about the future

@Rnankn Ай бұрын

It has no correspondence to reality outside of its own model, so it can only optimize for capital. No other goal can be set under those conditions. So it devalues nature and communities to value itself on a relative basis. Capital doesn’t actually ‘grow’ because it is not alive, so it literally sucks the life out of the living world. The richer some become, the more death they cause. The only discipline capitalist economics has is mathematics, which is an abstract quantitative unit devoid of subjectivity, history, essence, identity, or morality. Numbers grow logarithmically, which is why they think they can get richer. But nature cannot regenerate that quickly, and so many crucial resources are finite. So all those dollars are claims on future resources which will not even exist. They are more worthless with the passage of time, hence inflation. Capitalism is a totalitarian nightmare, which not only denies basic freedom to most humans, it eviscerates the biological basis of their existence.

@infosuge Ай бұрын

@@Rnankn agree. Society has been brainwashed walking towards its demise as the market creates maximum profit at the detriment of our species. I was making the argument for longer maternity and they came back with “fine as long as when the mother medically able- she return to work immediatel” Surely you want more productive and mentally stable workers in the future? it would probably be best if the mother stays with the child for long as possible in formative years. But no never mind our mammalian evolution over millions of years, since the late 70s the market demands women return to work asap because of profitability this quarter and that is all that matters.

@aaronogden9900 Ай бұрын

Exactly. If a method of clean energy was made available tomorrow to completely replace oil capitalism would just use that as well as the oil. It would probably have us use that renewable energy to work out how to extract even more fossil fuels.

@user-xu5vl5th9n Ай бұрын

The doom Goblin and other eco cultists are the ones stuck in the past. Anti-modernists harking back to a pre-capitalist, pre-Enlightenment utopia where humans were more at harmony with nature. We have always had these doomsday cultists, the difference now is those ideas are mainstream in radicalised capitalist elites.

@billybaab73 Ай бұрын

So which system is better? China? Russia?

@JasonAtlas Ай бұрын

I do not want a car. I do not want the newest phone. I do not want to fly abroad. I do not want the newest clothes. I want a home, I want a future and I want the world to be a better place for my friends and family. Although it means less because I have less, I would happily have less if it meant everyone could enjoy that standard of living.

@MLF-kq8ut Ай бұрын

Amen brutha

@goonerbish Ай бұрын

You better not want meat either. It's not all about cars, mobile phone (?) and flying or cruising. And you might not want the sun in its current cycle....

@JasonAtlas Ай бұрын

@@goonerbish I work in specialist cleaning. I was put off meat a long time ago.

@rdklkje13 Ай бұрын

@@goonerbish Why try to derail the conversation?

@PauloAdriano-zo2ng Ай бұрын

@@rdklkje13 Exactly! It's not like not having the latest wasteful tech or vacations abroad are linked to eating meat. It's like saying if you enjoy eating meat, then you should also buy the latest phone, the newest car, and force yourself to vacation abroad.

@snoogles007 Ай бұрын

I lived in Sweden. It's huge! Population density is one twentieth of the UK. Most of their electricity comes from hydropower, installed on rivers flowing down from mountains. This wouldn't go far if the population increased 20-fold. So it's not a feasible model for the UK to follow!

@bawbagindustries Ай бұрын

Population density *where people actually live* in Sweden is comparable to the UK. - ie. Everyone lives in Greater Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö and the rest is desert.

@snoogles007 29 күн бұрын

@@bawbagindustries but that's not the point. The point is that they have a huge land area full of rivers and can use that to support a small population. If Britain's population dropped by 95%, you could generate all the power everyone needs just from renewables, because you could use all the rivers for hydro and all the land you wanted for solar, without running into geographical limits or competition from other uses of that land or rivers. If Sweden's population increased 20-fold they would reach the limit of the power they could generate using renewables (e.g. they would run out of rivers for hydropower) and would then have to add fossil or nuclear to make up the difference.

@Stoddardian 29 күн бұрын

@@bawbagindustries Desert?

@kated3165 27 күн бұрын

@@snoogles007 Yup, we need to drastically reduce our use of energy and restructure all societies around maximizing energy conservation. This means drastically cutting down on production, resource exploitation, and consumption... which is the direct opposite of what Capitalism demands.

@JohanNordin-bq4tz 24 күн бұрын

Sweden sells alot of electricity to Germany, so we are producing alot more than we need. Uk has tide, massive once. They can be predicted thousands of years ahead. But for some reason every tide project gets shut down 🤔🤔🤔

@johnmoorefilm Ай бұрын

If you beamed down from Mars (or Hertfordshire) you’d be forgiven for thinking “Why doesn’t everyone do it like the Chinese…?” Then there would be a looooooong conversation….

@happymusicschool-it1qc Ай бұрын

Yep ❤❤❤❤❤

@KevenHutchinson-gt1nn 21 күн бұрын

Whats a bar of chocolate got to do with it.

@michaelrch Ай бұрын

Awesome content. Fascinating and informative. More on climate and energy please!

@Hexanitrobenzene 27 күн бұрын

They should invite Nate Hagens.

@chad9017 Ай бұрын

This was outstanding. Most intelligent convo I've ever heard on all these issues put together.

@mattliamjack3293 Ай бұрын

Mangrove and kelp forests ...keep up...tree planting good but privateers doing it for profit fckit up....like everything else 🙄

@Adamb87 Ай бұрын

Capitalism could fuck anything up including any green strategy . Eco socialist & science based governance is the way to go, I like doughnut economics as an idea Love to you

@TheWizardOfTeaIsMe Ай бұрын

I'm just going to hse your comment thread to post some academic reading suggestions in the hope that others will add to it: Is green growth happening - Jefim Vöfel & Jason Hickle Not directly climate related but an interesting idea for reducing the political lobbying power of capitalists: Limitarianism - Ingrid Robeyns Any post-humanist/more-than-human philosophy is also valluable in our approach to climate change. I was quite inspired reading some Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour. There is also a bunch if non-western explicitly anti-colonial thinkers that have relevant insights about the climate crisis; although shamefully I have to admit that I can't remember any names right now, hopefully someone else will comment some suggestions.

@BanacaNation 28 күн бұрын

Kohei Saito for some more degrowth communism, Matthew Huber for a different socialist approach to climate change.

@mr.makeit4037 20 күн бұрын

Your comment takes me to the election of a new President in Mexico. She's a Scientist and PhD, specializing in sustainability. I wonder if and how she will make a difference in that country?

@m9017t Ай бұрын

If the energy price guarantee money instead had been used to put home batteries and solar on every house in the UK we would be well on our way

@Gunni1972 25 күн бұрын

Well, one village per year would be a pretty doable scenario. Cities make no sense as the houses throw shadows, and the consumption is higher, (Infrastructure considered) Certain spots can, others can't be used. That's just a fact. Offshore windmills are a possibility, but you need spots with steady winds. Hydro power works in mountainous terrain. I also thought about Piezo-electric "sails" for gusty areas. Or atleast along highways, where the moving vehicles like trucks create the wind. (Should work well in Tunnels too, like a liner). Question is: Would somebody actually test such ideas?

@thedarkknightReturns Ай бұрын

does anyone talk about ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry or the tax advantages they enjoy anymore?

@alan2102X Ай бұрын

HUGELY IMPORTANT POINT. AARON, ARE YOU LISTENING? Pardon the all caps but this guy (above) just pointed to the elephant in the room. According to IMF (!), subsidies to big fossil amount to $7 TRILLION PER YEAR. Gee, I wonder if that would finance a solar farm or three? Ya think? lol

@riderpaul 26 күн бұрын

You mean end socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor? What? Are you a Russian bot? I wish that was funny.

@metsfanal 18 күн бұрын

Gas prices would go up and the president would lose. Therefore not happening in a democracy until a huge majority is driving electric cars. I can see China doing that.

@dwwolf4636 12 күн бұрын

Yes make everything more expensive so everyone including governments can do less. Good idea. That'll help the poor.

@jonathanrabbitt 11 күн бұрын

Why don't you identify what those purported subsidies are so we can campaign to get them removed. Nebulous virtue-signalling statements become very tedious.

@connerblank5069 Ай бұрын

I do kind of wonder if the hesitance to invest in renewables is that they _are_ constantly falling in price. There's a reason deflation is universally agreed to depress economic activity.

@Stuz359 29 күн бұрын

The economic case for private companies to invest in renewables sure. But if industry is collapsing in Germany due to prohibitively expensive energy costs, we can flip it on it's head. If you had the state investing in energy, no profit motive, to supply energy at the lowest prices possible, you could say to any companies wanting to invest, 'hey, if you invest here your energy costs are going to be really low.' You also have the added benefit of ordinary people having way more money in their pocket due to lower bills. If the investment in energy is state led, without the profit motive, it would actually create more economic activity. Just not in the energy sector.

@Gunni1972 25 күн бұрын

I don't know about your Bill, but mine just says "Partially out of renewables". Price stays the same or goes up slightly.

@24killsequalMOAB 12 күн бұрын

Renewables will never be a reality simply due to how unreliable it is.

@johnmoorefilm Ай бұрын

Love Brett…he said “It’s pretty simple..” after an unbroken sentence that had 16 commas and 11 caveats…😂❤

@Lukesmithbrfc Ай бұрын

I had to stop half way through. This "oh 100%" expression of agreement, that has made the journey over from America, seriously irks me to no end. It's one of those phrases that just cuts deep over and over again.

@ab8682 Ай бұрын

@@Lukesmithbrfc just wait until expressing agreement with "right..?" enters common use here. Then we're doomed.

@lsobrien 29 күн бұрын

@@LukesmithbrfcWhy do you write like that?

@Lukesmithbrfc 29 күн бұрын

@@lsobrien Like what exactly?

@lsobrien 28 күн бұрын

@@Lukesmithbrfc Exactly? Like a poster on r/Atheism having a stroke.

@morganarenewed 29 күн бұрын

Great interview. Fascinating interviewee! We should do everything. Carbon tax, subsidies, planning reform & public energy generation. Also do international connections like AQUIND. Then if we make "too much" electricity we can have cheap local supply and export it to other countries that do less.

@tommysjoberg1268 Ай бұрын

I mean how about nationalise energyproduction and distribution?

@Gunni1972 25 күн бұрын

OMG, Don't mention the N-word. You have no idea how fast the US NAVY knocks on your door. With a CIA Operator just to circumvent laws.

@Human_Herbivore Ай бұрын

Planting trees is not getting anywhere near the nearly 1 million trees we cut down every half hour.

@bartroberts1514 Ай бұрын

It's true, the world needs to plant trees so fast that it hits the equivalent of a trillion new trees worth of biomass by 2060. The most efficient ways to go about this include Miyawaki forests and unconventional harvesting practices such as lollipopping, festooning, and like methods that harvest branches while leaving trunks intact. But at most 6% of CO2 can be got by direct air drawdown, by all means combined, so cap and trade, carbon trading, and other actions that tie up that 6% propping up fossil enterprises as "net zero" is a deception and a dead end.

@Zabuzakashi Ай бұрын

But how many of those are immediately re-planted as part of managed timber production? Your framing seems disingenuous

@Human_Herbivore Ай бұрын

@@Zabuzakashi I'd say it's comparatively far, far fewer, given that an estimated 7 million hectares are lost every year. In fact what I can make out, upto 2 billion are planted versus 15 billion cut down yearly.

@Ouroboros542 Ай бұрын

Planting trees is not the answer. Ecosystems cannot be replaced by replanting trees.

@Human_Herbivore Ай бұрын

@@Ouroboros542 exactly, it is nothing more than a sticking plaster on a broken leg. Not only that but we are choosing to break our legs on purpose.

@AdamCiernicki 25 күн бұрын

Great conversation but disappointed by the omissions around nuclear play against Renewables, and their mad financial risks. In fact nuclear is a great example of why large infrastructure HAVE to be owned by governments as the risks involved with current “private” projects blow the costs by hundreds of percentage points.

@saddemgargouri 10 күн бұрын

if Henkley point was financed by sovereign loans at 1 % interest rate , it would cost 60 % less , Nuclear benefits a lot of State planning and finances , and economy of repetition to bring the cost down look at UAE nuclear reactor to see how proper nuclear projects are made the main difference nuclear works in decarbonization , the only thing wind and solar are profession at is wealth redistribution to middle class , fossil interests and financial interests from the poorest in society

@kevinmckay1955 Ай бұрын

You should also interview Nate Hagens. There are three major problems with what we call renewables 1. They require carbon based manufacturing 2. They require replacement, so are better called replaceables. 3. To replace carbon would require a massive lift in scale - we do not have the resources (metals etc)and the mines. To lift the scale and intensity of mining (extracting less from more) would be destructive to our environment. Replacing one ecological disaster with another. Economists have focused on growth and politicians have kicked the can on the environment too far. And too add to this is that “price” does not reflect the long term availability of resources. This neoclassical idea that price reflects everything is BS.

@alan2102X Ай бұрын

Hagens is problematic. His views on renewables are... well, ignorant to put it politely. Yes they require replacement, EVENTUALLY, but solar panels 45 years old are still grinding out power (albeit somewhat less than when new), with no end in sight. And newer tech to cool panels greatly reduces degradation. 100-year solar panels are in view. The metals issue is mostly bullshit. Michaux has been soundly debunked several times; his "analyses" are based on crazy assumptions that guarantee a negative conclusion. Not worth any further attention. Above, some guy suggested that Aaron interivew Nate Hagens, Art Berman, and William E Rees. Here was my reply: I agree with the spirit of your comment, but the specific names you mention... not so much. Those guys are missing (deliberately? or is it blindness? IDK) key aspects of the situation -- such as for example the phenomenal developments in renewable energy in recent years. Yes, our problems are an integrated whole and should be addressed as such (at least some of the time; there's also a place for narrower channels of discussion). But it should be addressed by people whose views include a grasp of all key relevant aspects of the situation. I am not seeing that in the names you mention. For example, Nate Hagens has a fixed negative position on renewables, and is now platforming nuclear advocates! He recognizes that an energy transition MUST happen, but since (only in his mind) renewables are off the table, then it has to be nuclear. A terrible, terrible mistake, and (strangely, paradoxically) wildly inconsistent with his whole "great simplification" idea.

@Stoddardian 29 күн бұрын

@@alan2102X You people are a joke.

@jonathanhoskins4034 29 күн бұрын

@@alan2102XLOL problematic?? By exchange ideas and talking we learn more. We need to be careful about activism over analysis.

@alan2102X 29 күн бұрын

@@Stoddardian Thank you! Your very intelligent and superbly-informed response has compelled me to rethink and reverse my views. Oh btw, when can we expect a new and revised edition of "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy"? lol

@alan2102X 29 күн бұрын

@@jonathanhoskins4034 How very strange! My reply to you has now been deleted several times. I have no idea why. KZfaq just does not like what I have to say, I guess. lol

@noelburke9845 Ай бұрын

Dear Novara Media. It is better, has more substance, to talk about human over-reach and ecological collapse with climate change being merely one sympton than only climate change within the hamster wheel of our current economic paradigm which will self-terminate. What is driving this? How to change direction? What if we don't? There are loads of podcasts and good literature about this systems perspective on where we are headed. Please interview Nate Hagens, Art Berman, William E Rees for starters. This would be helpful. Thank you.

@cheweperro Ай бұрын

100%, let's talk about the cause not the symptoms

@alan2102X Ай бұрын

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but the specific names you mention... not so much. Those guys are missing (deliberately? or is it blindness? IDK) key aspects of the situation -- such as for example the phenomenal developments in renewable energy in recent years. Yes, our problems are an integrated whole and should be addressed as such (at least some of the time; there's also a place for narrower channels of discussion). But it should be addressed by people whose views include a grasp of all key relevant aspects of the situation. I am not seeing that in the names you mention. For example, Nate Hagens has a fixed negative position on renewables, and is now platforming nuclear advocates! He recognizes that an energy transition MUST happen, but since (only in his mind) renewables are off the table, then it has to be nuclear. A terrible, terrible mistake, and (strangely, paradoxically) wildly inconsistent with his whole "great simplification" idea.

@TheJev25 Ай бұрын

@@alan2102X No, they all realise that the root problem is ecological overshoot not climate change. All the energy transitions in the world will not solve this. If we had a completely 'clean' and free source of energy we would use it to crash the global ecosphere even faster.

@alan2102X Ай бұрын

@@TheJev25 "If we had a completely 'clean' and free source of energy we would use it to crash the global ecosphere even faster." I am familiar with that point of view. It is ugly and toxic and misanthropic AF. It bespeaks a hatred of humanity and a denial of human potentials. It is fundamentally Malthusian and, if pursued to logical ends, would result in the death of billions.

@marxagarden 28 күн бұрын

@@alan2102X I stopped listening to Nate for these reasons too. He seems so out of touch with what is happening. However, at one point I did appreciate his perspective.

@IIC-GusBadran Ай бұрын

1. Wright’s Law - Output vs Cost not linked to time period though you can incorporate time if duration is known (Theodore Wright in 1936, Wright’s Law aims to provide a reliable framework for forecasting cost declines as a function of cumulative production. Specifically, it states that for every cumulative doubling of units produced, costs will fall by a constant percentage). 2. Moor's Law in computing processing power and Half Life in radioactivity degradation/decline are similar to Wrights Law with time period is known/incorporated for the specific product/material - Output vs Time

@jonbo6988 27 күн бұрын

Great interview. I've been hearing for some time that Renewables don't make a lot of profit but not understood why. Now I do. I also know understand why many people say that capitalism can't solve the climate crisis. Thanks Novara.

@sascharambeaud1609 Ай бұрын

Green transition is not happening over here in Germany, because we DON'T have a green+red coalition, we also have the ultra capitalist yellow party in there, which twists every attempt at transition in a way that it either doesn't happen or predominately benefits the handful of rich people they represent.

@pzagorski 20 күн бұрын

Why it isn't? You closed all nuclear plants and forged methane emissions from lignite.

@quantummotion 20 күн бұрын

The Energiewende is not happening because the underlying assumptions are wrong. Germany has spent nearly 2 TRILLION Euro over the lifetime of the program to build out 200% nameplate capacity of wind and solar based on peak usage, only to get 49% actual coverage. Germany essentially overbuilt to compensate for lack of energy storage, only to get half of what it needs. In Ontario, Canada, we mimicked the German feed in tariff system. We spent over $60 billion in incentives to build wind, only to get 1.5% coverage, while we spent $55 billion on our entire nuclear fleet which gives us 65% coverage. Renewable energy costs NEVER INCLUDE the cost of storage to mitigate Dunkleflaute, or, the parallel "generate on demand" infrastructure needed to start up when it's cold, dark, and no wind. Renewables at their current state, DO NOT BELONG ON THE GRID. The economics only worsk at the scale of an individual building. The concepts of baseload power, seasonal power, and daily peak power are real phenomena that are satisfied by specific energy generation types. Wind and solar are not technologies that can satisfy the energy demand types to full scale. It's not even clear that going full solar and wind can generate enough excess energy to top up energy storage to cover long stretches of cold, dark, and still days. Modern economies need to be able to generate energy ON DEMAND, not at the whim of weather, nor when the Sun goes down.

@sascharambeaud1609 20 күн бұрын

@@quantummotion Thanks for reminding us that the fossil fuel complex has enough spare change lying around to pay for a forum troll here and there. Nice made up numbers, btw.

@quantummotion 13 күн бұрын

@@sascharambeaud1609I identified that I'm in a place that's 65% plus nuclear generation, shown that NUCLEAR is cheaper than solar and wind, provided no numbers on gas fired plants and I'm a fossil fuel shill? You could have called me a nuclear industry shill, but then, nuclear is HEAVILY regulated/government controlled, so it's hard to argue that now isn't it? If you want to argue about what's the best way to clean up our air, water, make stable our environment without crashing our economy - you have an obligation to yourself and your fellow citizens to educate yourself and point out what's true and what's BS. It's clear all you've done is echo assumptions and apply labels. Easier than searching, knowing something about electrical grids, understanding the costs, and paying attention to rates, incentives and percentages, I guess.

@sascharambeaud1609 13 күн бұрын

@@quantummotion Nuclear is part of the fossil fuel complex. You're turning bonding energy into heat which is used to generate elecricity. While nuclear bonding energy doesn't cause CO2 issues, it has its own problems that have been discussed at length elsewhere. It's a bit ridiculous that you're trying to sell us the energy source universally identified as one of the most expensive, if all hidden costs are factured in, as cheaper than renewables. When I'm looking at Canada's electricity generation, I'm seeing 13% from nuclear, which isn't even in the same ballpark as your 65%. And I'm not even beginning to see your numbers for storing nuclear waste safely from terrorist access for the next 20.000 years in that imaginary number you gave us as the cost of your '65% coverage'.

@toyotaprius79 22 күн бұрын

If the systems we live be strive to deny, destroy and pollute our futures - why are we criminally held liable to stop them?

@gilesbrown9361 Ай бұрын

Too vague, not enough concrete examples. One huge contradiction I hear is that renewables have huge costs cos of transmission being far away from end use. But nuclear is ok

@nemesis3255 26 күн бұрын

I mean that's not an inherent contradiction necessarily. They're talking about land cost and how it relates to transmission costs. Renewables require much more land and so to be done for cheap are placed in areas where land is cheap (far away from people). Nuclear by contrast doesn't require as much land and so can in theory be placed closer to population centres more affordably reducing the transmission costs.

@dwwolf4636 12 күн бұрын

@@nemesis3255there's also less labor and material involved in transmitting power from one concentrated source. Those pylons arent cheap.

@saddemgargouri 10 күн бұрын

renewables are ''cheap'' because they fleece the public 3 or 4 times during their life cycle Production done in china , so no accountability for pollution or decent labor standards heavy subsidy to install extremely unreliable , so massively increases system cost , and dump the cost of back up on the public heavy transmission costs , and refitting , also dumped on the public then ''expert'' , making money out of renewable , show up telling us how ''cheap'' wind and solar are anybody serious about CO2 emission free electricity should look at public nuclear roll out in the 70ies , the main difference is it actually works , even with 80 years old tech

@happymusicschool-it1qc Ай бұрын

Thank you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

@PauloAdriano-zo2ng Ай бұрын

Never Forget that BP (British Petroleum), used to be the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It was rotten back in the 1950s and it's still rotten now.

@TheSpoovy Ай бұрын

I'm all for electrification of transport -- of trams, bicycles etc. Electric cars however make no sense at all. Two tonnes of steel, plastic, destructively mined rare metals etc to carry one ~70kg person around is insanely inefficient. EV policy is a distraction at best, a sleight of hand to keep us buying shiny new things while pretending it's helping.

@thomassutherland409 29 күн бұрын

40% of shipping world wide is simply shipping oil around it is a problem.

@dangriff12 28 күн бұрын

Lifetime emissions of electric cars are much lower than combustion engines. Yes you need to make public transport much better to encourage people to use cars less. However to just give up on electric is a recipe for disaster.

@dangriff12 28 күн бұрын

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

@Hexanitrobenzene 27 күн бұрын

In the ideal world, you would be right. However, once people have convenience, most will not give it up willingly...

@TheSpoovy 27 күн бұрын

@@dangriff12 "Lifetime emissions" calcs are always deliberately misleading in my experience. Crucial factors are always left out such as battery replacement costs, electricity generation methods etc. Other inputs are usually cherry-picked to suit the writer. For example the point (miles travelled) at which overall emissions begin to be lower for EVs than ICEs can be as high as 100k miles. In some countries cars may be expected to be scrapped before they even reach this number. Compare reports in the Guardian and the Telegraph -- neither will lie, but they'll come to completely different conclusions.

@clivepierce1816 Ай бұрын

An interesting discussion but since much of this was centred around climate change mitigation and the author is not a climate scientist, some of the discussion points were not as well informed as they might have been. Kevin Anderson would be a good follow-up interviewee. Humanity has left it too late to avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. Whether we like it or not, we are now committed to solar radiation management or some other form of geoengineering. It’s either that, or spend trillions of dollars annually on making carbon capture and storage work at the billion tonne scale. BAU is not an option.

@happymusicschool-it1qc Ай бұрын

What is bau ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

@TheWizardOfTeaIsMe Ай бұрын

Solar radiation management would have horrible environmental consequenses as well as geopolitical instability, and without really strong international cooperation will do far more harm than good in terms of preventing global warming. Since we live in somewhat of a capitalist dystopia, I don't think you're wrong about it being likely to happen, but it is very unlikely to have a possitive outcome. Direct carbon air capture isn't going to happen at scale. As you mentioned, it costs way too much. There are also massive technological, geological and political challenges that realistically make it impossible to do at any meaningfull scale. Emmisions capture in polluting industries can mitigate warming a little bit. Natural forms of carbon sequestration, mostly ecosystems restoration, are more likely to be effective than air capture technology, but also unlikely to be more than a small part of climate sollutions.

@josephineh6154 Ай бұрын

Another great interview! 👏👏👏

@robertlucero7644 Ай бұрын

Lol you waited till the last 30 seconds to answer the dilemma. Then ended it. I can't stand renewable advocates, they tie themselves in knots trying to ignore nuclear

@saddemgargouri 10 күн бұрын

The difference is 70 years old nuclear tech can de-carbonize electricity , but ofc if you're a rotten green , making money out of wind and solar , or ideologically captured , you can't mention that

@AndreasDelleske 22 күн бұрын

It's just not true that electricity in Germany for the industry is six times more expensive than in the US. See energy charts info.

@Human_Herbivore Ай бұрын

Please have a discussion like this about animal agriculture which is responsible for at least one third of emissions. Mainstream media doesn't talk about it, independent media is free to do better.

@chad9017 Ай бұрын

No doubt. Hopefully with this same dude if he knows as much about that as he did about this. Have to admit I spaced some of it thinking about what he had just said.

@yufers Ай бұрын

They did touch on it I think in an interview with George Monbiot, it was more about the impact on land on rivers etc though. It was about a year ago.

@JustinHalliday Ай бұрын

No; animal agriculture is 14% to 17% of emissions.

@Human_Herbivore Ай бұрын

@@JustinHalliday absolutely not, much more but the industry keeps putting legal challenges because it can by force of money. Even if it were 17%, that would still make it the single biggest impact.

@junk_rig_sailor1698 16 күн бұрын

The problem the Green movement need to solve is that currently Green energy lowers your standard of living and costs more. There is also growing evidence the, for example, the 'carbon footprint' of things like EV's are a lot more than people think (thanks to the batteries needed for long range). The other issue is the super power western nations are saying to the likes of China and India - "Hey you are not allowed to pollute the world with fossil fuels to grow your economies and raise your standard of living like we did". They are not going to listen, and can you blame them?

@jamesdunn8968 Ай бұрын

Starmer and his so called Labour party are not going to change anything. Vote Green Brits!!!!❎

@chester6343 29 күн бұрын

Problem with the green party is they literally oppose every single housing development, especially where I live (south east) they will not accept housing being built anywhere near their sanctuary. I'm sorry but houses need to be built and that does mean being built attached to local community that has all the amenities.

@harryg6895 26 күн бұрын

@@chester6343They have also opposed a heck of a lot of solar and wind farms. It's baffling

@Gunni1972 25 күн бұрын

The important bit here is: Vote Green, if YOU care for the environment. Don't settle for Conservative-Green Liberals or "Compromises" of that sort. They 'll just watch the world through a champaign bottle, and claim it to be green now.

@nothereandthereanywhere 23 күн бұрын

@@chester6343 Single housing development is ineffective use of the land. It would be more beneficial to have block of flats with great green spaces. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but eventually - they would be right on in. UK needs to build more affordable housing and a new house isn't it.

@rogerphelps9939 17 күн бұрын

The best that the greens can do is to agitate for their policies tto be adopted by the bigger parties.

@limeyjoe1632 Ай бұрын

I'd like to see Novara talk to Stephanie Kelton author of The Deficit Myth. So frequently we hear in political debates the phrase "how can we afford ...X " The book completely changed my perspective about what is economically possible for countries like the UK and USA.

@billybaab73 Ай бұрын

MMT is quackery.

@jimgraham6722 25 күн бұрын

Carbon tax in conjunction with a personal income tax reduction is the only public policy that makes sense.

@chad9017 Ай бұрын

Thanks! great conversation.

@cougar1861 24 күн бұрын

Re "green" capitalism. Einstein said: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." In our situation the "thinking" is "capitalism."

@TheRustyLM 24 күн бұрын

Ain’t near enough copper, Mate. And what copper there is only gets out of the ground and smelted with diesel/nat gas/coal.

@jawedz 5 күн бұрын

Falling price of one thing like a solar panel does *not* necessarily mean deflation. Deflation is macro economic phenomenon. People will redirect the saving from falling price of one thing to other things, if the macro environment is not deflationary like in Japan from 1997 to about 2012.

@philipoakley5498 28 күн бұрын

~24:00 State projects for roll out. Older watchers will remember when the UK rolled out the 'clean' North Sea natural gas to replace the old town coal gas supplies - a similar state project (well before the "Tell Sid" Thatcher years;-)

@Sissyphussy Ай бұрын

Brett is absolutely one of my favourite academics at the minute, grateful for NM for introducing me to him. I am using his work in my dissertation too and discovered he actually wrote a book with my diss advisor! Very exciting to see Marxist political economy applied realistically to modern politics - himself and Aaron are both great at this. Questioning the nationalisation arguments was very interesting, and I've been thinking this for some time in respect to investment. Lots of great stuff in this, excited to listen again already. Wish Brett had a regular podcast or something, a blog maybe because his perspecttive is always so fantastic.

@brettricia1 27 күн бұрын

Private Equity (PE) is interested in capturing Rents supported by monopoly or near monopoly by using their vast capital reserves to own and control the entire renewable value chain (recycling, project development, utilities) guaranteeing returns of +8% year over year (in addition to normal expenses) effectively privatizing electricity and using their capital + market power to secure mark to market wall street returns in the U.S. with almost zero risk.

@harrietwindebank6051 Ай бұрын

Need to change the market so we pay for kW power instead of kWh energy. Cheaper for all, incentive to provide secure capacity (rather then intermittent generation), more certainty of profits (which is important unless we nationalise the energy companies), the lowest consumers pay the least and the largest consumers pay the most. Instant market mechanism to drive demand smoothing and storage.

@happymusicschool-it1qc Ай бұрын

Interesting..❤❤❤❤❤

@Harrier_DuBois Ай бұрын

Thanks for covering this Aaron.

@AndrogyneMichinaga Ай бұрын

Isn't it a curious situation that this guy wrote a whole book on energy markets and Aaron is also knowledgeable, yet neither knew that Labour's GB Energy is not even going to be an energy generator. Labour has allowed people to think that it's project is something that it is not.

@Nodzor01 28 күн бұрын

Yes it is unclear, but using it for (co)OWNING energy assets and especially inmore emerging markets such as floating wind so not directly competing does sound like what this interview was saying IS a a good idea!?

@Jeremy-WC 24 күн бұрын

What is talked about in the first 20 minutes is key and massively understates the problem. 20% of our energy usage is electricity and getting that 20% off fossil fuels is a massive challenge let alone growing it to make up that 80% of everything else. So scale it up say we can do 60% of our current economy on electricity. That will require scaling back what we do today by at least 50% as alot of industry like steel require more electricity to produce then just using coal. There is no way to get off fossil fuels without scaling the economy down. What green energy is doing is keeping the system going as it is what is allowing the energy system to grow. Fossil fuel use is not really growing, we are playing with numbers and the degrading EROI of it means more is needed just to maintain current consumption as more goes to extracting itself.

@joelpettlon9650 23 күн бұрын

The USA still uses more fossil fuel and carbon per person than China does, even with China having so much exported industry. He emphasizes coal, but "natural gas" also produces carbon and that is what the USA is using.

@dwwolf4636 12 күн бұрын

Taxing energy is a zero sum game. It's literally the basis of everything we do. And it's cost is further multiplied by every step on the production rung via VAT.

@critiqueofthegothgf 17 күн бұрын

Aaron Bastani, you are an incredible interviewer. the questions themselves, the way you phrase them, they're perfect

@garethatkinson2549 2 күн бұрын

You get such great guests on here. I feel cleverer. So good to hear such a balanced and nuanced expert on this...

@user-ep4tk4bv7b 5 күн бұрын

They've had plenty of time to get the 'truth' out and sort any anomalies to convince the public. The public, overwhelmingly, remain unconvinced.

@chriskshaw7601 8 күн бұрын

Electricity accounts for 20% of all energy used (per MWID). Decarbonizing the electric generation is the easiest first step but as said we are barely transitioning. Most success has been the replacement of coal with gas in the OECD’s. The next 2 decades will be similar to the last 2; namely that the renewables will barely keep up with growth let alone result in fewer HC’s being burned.

@Jeffberg42 Ай бұрын

I founded Post Carbon Toronto in 2003. After 20 years of study here's the order of operations. Peace Water Agriculture Mobility Prosperity Solves Climate change And addresses Resource constraints

@flannel2699 Ай бұрын

Pity we fall at the 1st hurdle.. :(

@critiqueofthegothgf 17 күн бұрын

glad he focused so much on Kevin Anderson's rhetoric; we need to be preventing emissions, not offsetting them, not beating around the bush and trying to have our cake and eat it. prevention. nothing else matters as much as prevention

@Mashbass1 Ай бұрын

Haven't watched the full show... just opend the video. But on the topic of energy, oil, ressources etc. I suggest watching and reading people like Art Berman, Simon Michaux, Nate Hagens (Great Simplificaion podcast) or Vaclav Smil (How the world really works).

@jonathanhoskins4034 29 күн бұрын

Also look for Doomberg. The green chicken is one of the best energy analysts out there.

@odetocycling 10 күн бұрын

Fascinating discussion as always. A fourth model (not mentioed) is community co-operative wind and solar projects. One great example is EGNI is Wales. In addition, there are companies such as Ripple Energy which allow people to buy shares in future wind farms which, in longer term, will come off energy bills (or those of inheritors). So people power does have a significant part to play in decarbonising our electricity. No mention of your ideas in Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Aaron

@zeddybear257 13 күн бұрын

I’m such a fan of Novara, you always deliver quality conversations. Thank you so much!

@mirosawurbaniak5577 26 күн бұрын

"Managed competition" was a system in Japan when it was taking over the world. And before USA financiers decided it's a tasty piece to swallow. And they pushed Japan into 30 years of crisis and deflation. Let's hear what free market can tell us about what's good for the World.

@aryaman05 17 күн бұрын

What's heroic about states like Vietnam going solar and wind ? It's economics, it's cheaper !

@heatherabrc5998 29 күн бұрын

brilliant podcast, very informative and plenty of food for thought

@mattliamjack3293 Ай бұрын

Btw, were already past 1.5 and looking at 3°° keep up.🙄this guy is already out of date.

@jonathanhoskins4034 29 күн бұрын

Great to have the conversation. Thank you so much. I am struggling with the cost of energy from renewables being cheaper than fossil fuels. I appreciate his argument is nuanced but There is so much evidence and research publicly available demonstrating that it’s not. Anyway still great to have the dialogue thank you so much. If possible would you be able to get Doomberg (green chicken Substack) on. I think they are coming out with the most interesting analysis on the energy market at the moment. He would add a lot of value to the debate for your viewers. Best of luck and thank you so much

@rogerphelps9939 17 күн бұрын

Your evidence is wrong. Probably originating from fossil fuel interests.

@DivinaDeCampoTV Ай бұрын

This was super informative. Lots of stuff I hadn’t really understood ❤

@johnhoward2404 Ай бұрын

Aaron, when your guest is pushing for green electric power generation, you use the metaphor of a Lamborghini Countach for starting the election activities?! Better you suggest one of the several 1000hp+ pure electric cars I think! And no, hybrids don’t count.

@stefanbernardknauf467 20 күн бұрын

On the book part of the podcast: I think a little more solid theoretical assessment is missing on water, rail and electricity. They are not compatible with the requirements of an efficient competitive market. So shouldn't be privatised.

@jamesayres6697 29 күн бұрын

Excellent conversation

@johnwarner4809 15 күн бұрын

Even if the price of solar panels and wind turbines dropped to $0.00 , there's still the cost of the enormous swaths of land they consume. And then there's the variability and intermittency. And then there's the cost of building expensive transmission systems. After that, in order to provide for 24/7 usage, you need enormous storage facilities. Then you have to dig up 250 tons of earth for every EV you build. Then, you have to put up with the inconvenience of long charge times and continuous battery degradation. And don't forget the disposal costs of aged-out batteries and solar panels and wind turbines. Everything adds up, to the point where it's not all that easy or economical or convenient as first thought. Then you realize It's not low cost either ... but rather ... extremely expensive, a huge headache, and an enormous waste of time, money, space and resources.

@ttttxt4751 9 күн бұрын

If you had a spot electricity market for retail and industry consumers there would be an enormous incentive to use electricity when it's cheap, I.e. when the wind blows and the sun shines. On the other hand if a consumer needs electricity now and renewable aren't delivering, fossil fuels will generate the electricity but at an high price. You don't take into perspective that the market design of electricity generation and distribution can be changed

@GodsOwnPrototype77 Ай бұрын

Why is there no link or reference to the text mentioned at around 10 minutes into this video in the description? What was the name of the book? The author? Andreas Mowe? Is this just an advert for the interviewee's book? Need more reference please.

@alan2102X Ай бұрын

Name is MALM, Andreas I believe. Important author, several books.

@mrdylanhannah 26 күн бұрын

Absolutely excellent episode! Great conversation and educational on large scale topics… well done guys! Seriously, do more of this type of conversation. Perhaps Brett and George Monbiot would be a fantastic conversation!!!

@cdes68 Ай бұрын

What is energy is badly understood.

@mawhim 15 күн бұрын

No mention of batteries. Fossil fuels should be taxed, or write that tax off if they invest in renewable, if not that income should go to renewable

@MichelleL9163 Ай бұрын

That was really great ! Could you expand on the resources required for the storage of energy - mainly thinking about battery recycling and solar panel recycling, resources required for their production and large tech company’s involvement internationally thought the supply chain. Thanks!

@rusty6172 20 күн бұрын

It's more important to transition off of unsustainable power sources than it is to transition onto electrical grids which are still built with fossil fuels and require fossil fuels, for forever, to be built. People have gotten so cozy with modern niceties (of which there are actually very few) that they aren't willing to face the fact that everything we've done since the invention of the steam engine has been a complete farce, a waste of time, and is in fact the definition of what we cannot use if we want to survive more then 1-2 decades from the time of writing this comment.

@chriskshaw7601 8 күн бұрын

Copper, aluminum and silica at the right grade have gone up. How can the cost of panels be going down, unless the government is distorting the mkt (China in this case).

@willlehrfeld457 22 күн бұрын

This is a really fascinating discussion, thanks gents.

@davidanalyst671 10 күн бұрын

England needs more geenie electricity sources run by the government. Because the government has done such a good job with the NHS

@JohanNordin-bq4tz 24 күн бұрын

Why does every Tide 12:30 project gets shut down. Uk could produce more than it could ever need. Unlike wind and solar, it can be predicted so far into the future.

@michaelmullenfiddler 24 күн бұрын

There are a couple of left wing economists here in the States (Dr Richard Wolff is one) that call China's current economic structures "state capitalism"

@altrag 23 күн бұрын

1:21:30 "What is the problem?" Margaret Thatcher (and Ronald Reagan over in the US). Their brand of neoliberal capitalism asserts that private capital is not only the most efficient at absolutely everything, but is the _only_ way things can be done efficiently. Of course that is not true, but it's a lot easier to make it _appear_ true when you also happen to be the head of the public sector and can steer it toward inefficiencies through intentional underfunding, forced austerity where it's not needed, and similar tactics. Supply-side economics is a scam perpetrated by the wealthy against the common worker. They demand that we give them all the wealth and promise that it will "trickle down" to us. And they've done a bang-up job ensuring that it stays as little more than a trickle. In most cases, we'd be far better served by generating the wealth ourselves instead of handing it off to them then turning around and having to beg for every penny we get back.

@FkSeditiousChristofascists Ай бұрын

Government will be forced to be the adults in the room. There simply needs to be two markets, one for fossil and one renewable. Then there needs to be a stairstep mandated in the basket of the retail providers (which are always monopoly utilities, so they can do that)

@Rnankn Ай бұрын

Or just nationalize fossils, and make renewables a public service

@AnotherChampagneSocialist Ай бұрын

China's also retrofitting and refurbishing a lot of old buildings to make them more energy efficient, even something as simple as changing all the light bulbs can drastically reduce a building's energy consumption. Old bulbs were not only wasteful of energy, they produced a lot of heat which required constant air conditioning. The new bulbs produce the same amount of light with such low energy use that you can safely unscrew them without turning them off or letting them cool.

@goonerbish Ай бұрын

Not much AC in Scotland.

@raykirkham5357 Ай бұрын

The problem with all our environmental problems is that money sources in our nation are erecting financial barriers to completion of alternative energy collection systems. The Chinese are showing us what we should call the best approach...with resources, funding, employing researchers, constructing projects etc. Meanwhile the U.S. insults all the social democracies. If you don't care about your life (its length, its level of health, and your future comfort), you are just accepting a shorter life, chopped short by industrial chemical poisoning.. It is really the absolute saddest in the U.S. where we need to pollute to conquer the world. WE CAN'T. We are an entire species flirting with extinction while closing our ears to the lifestyle changes the entire human race must adopt if it is to continue a few more centuries. During my life as an activist, what I found is we cannot afford to continue as we have been doing and the latest wars and pollutions are the worst we have ever experienced,

@EliF-ge5bu 23 күн бұрын

what? Don't you know that the Chinese are building more than 300 coal-powered plants this year alone?

@davidkavanagh189 21 күн бұрын

@@EliF-ge5bu Source please. That's like several new coal plants per city in one year.

@bigapple0828 13 күн бұрын

Around 10:00 he speaks of preserving the natural world. The low energy density nature of wind and solar requires massive amounts of land that necessarily requires deforestation. I enjoyed the conversation and different perspective but would’ve enjoyed some more math behind the conjecture.

@carysmeredith9909 29 күн бұрын

Excellent.

@fixeroftheinternet 29 күн бұрын

Brett Christophers has some points but I don't he really understands CFD's. We have no problem getting private capital to invest as long as the floor price is above the capital costs. You can always tweak the CFD terms to get tbe private capital. The point which he does make buy maybe not enough is part of the investment should come from the state so tbe state makes more on the longer term. The biggest issue for me is tbe wholesale market still uses gas prices to determine wholesale.prices even when most of it can come from renewables

@swishpolitics 26 күн бұрын

I'd start at the point that CO2 may not be causing rising temperatures. Censorship had led to a false scientific consensus - in reality climate science is far more diverse and interesting.

@rogerphelps9939 17 күн бұрын

Wrong. It is an objecttive fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and anthropomorphic emissions are causing global warming. With business as usual we are on rack for a mean world emperature rise of 4 deg C well before the end of the centtury. We are already at 1.5 deg and each succeeding year is now a new record high. How much is the fossil fuel industry paying you to post nonsense?

@grzegorzwasik3388 29 күн бұрын

That’s why I watch Novara long interviews interesting topics, there is no such thing in mainstream media. Keep up 🤟🏻

@javierlav 25 күн бұрын

The % of Green energy in the mix is Rising in most countries. Spain has been a net seller of electricity to nuclear dominated France for the last 3 years, when previously it was the other way around

@johnyman13 24 күн бұрын

And why?

@Mattia-qu1vq 20 күн бұрын

Wondering how many of those new coal plants in China are supporting the production or EVS and solar panels for export .. I would spare some time thinking about the social AND environmental cost at which the Chinese produce the stuff they sell, rather than getting all excited about the low prices.. come on guys.

@FkSeditiousChristofascists Ай бұрын

Furthermore, as long as most people are hating the stress in their lives being on the edge of dissolution, they will never be able to budge the self interest of capitalists.

@dohminkonoha3200 25 күн бұрын

It explains fermi paradox well. Every civilizations in the galaxy failed to continue its civilization without fossil fuel.

@graemetunbridge1738 27 күн бұрын

Electricity is the easy bit - transport, building and food ( bikes, density/lightweight buildings, veg ) to do.

@frumpton_chunk 27 күн бұрын

I've never heard as much claptrap in all my life 😂😂

@TheValetPRO 25 күн бұрын

I think the labour party energy investment makes sense if they make it a community CO-OP protecting the asset from other governments selling the asset off.

@samuelrosander1048 Ай бұрын

28:36 That's why the term "state capitalism" was coined. The state takes the place of the private capitalist to control the economic system as a private capitalist would: according to the designs of the owner, with the health of the organization in mind but still with the same power dynamics. You're describing capitalism, just with different primary goals; it's not "coincidental" that there's a lot of profit to be had, or that wealth gets funneled upwards, or that those at the top (economically and politically) are protected by the state from the democratization movements of the public )like the state protecting private businesses from strikes), or that the business culture for the regular folk is just as capitalist if not more than it is in any "traditionally capitalist" country. No coincidence. Call it whatever you want, but profit is a "not insignificant" motive for what China does. Renaming it doesn't change the power dynamics, nor does it change the cut-throat culture adopted by Chinese businessmen. "They have markets but they don't allow capital to determine political priorities" does NOT mean it isn't capitalist, it just means that capitalists don't control the state's priorities. Listening to Maoists try to argue that "it's not capitalism when we do it" is like nails on a chalk board playing on a broken record. Yeah, the state is "managing competition," but that doesn't change the fact that the profit motive is a massive part of their economy. That's more than just "markets." It's really annoying hearing Aaron shill for China and his top-down Maoism, but that said there's a lot of good content in this conversation about the issues.

@lisaglaze250 Ай бұрын

You have just described what I thought Aaron said 🤔

@AlbertoGarcia-wd7sc Ай бұрын

Planned economy and degrowth as much as we can

@TheBurdenOfHope Ай бұрын

Yes! Degrowth is essential in shaping our society to meet planetary boundaries, redistribution to countries that have suffered colonial extraction for 100s of years. All of this and more

@Freedomforeverall Ай бұрын

@@TheBurdenOfHope soeak for yourself sir! My grandfather and great grandfather didn't put their ass on the line for nothing

@Rnankn Ай бұрын

@@Freedomforeverallexactly, they didn’t fight wars so capitalists could destroy the foundations of life on earth.

@RichardEnglander Ай бұрын

Planned economy always ends in food insecurity and famine. Degrowth is regression.

@RichardEnglander Ай бұрын

@@TheBurdenOfHopeso degrowth is global Marxism? The redistribution of people and capital to make global homogenisation? Is that why we Marxists are against borders and for mass immigration even though it is unsustainable?

@michaelstimpson1137 29 күн бұрын

Isn't the national grid supposed to be a controlled market because of their monopoly over power distribution? Obviously doesn't work because ofgem, the grid and power generation are all a big happy family. If the grid returned money not spent each customer would currently be over £700 better off. Ironically having spaffed £12 billion of UK customers "standing charges" on power distribution companies in the USA they're looking for £30 billion of investment to upgrade the grid.

@erikolsen6269 Ай бұрын

We wouldnt have Phones if it wasnt for taiwnese factories making certain chips

@wiltonmills Ай бұрын

Germany as a coalition of not just Green and SPD parties, there's also the "liberal" FDP. And that is also part of the problem :-(

@chriskshaw7601 8 күн бұрын

Solar and wind are not lower cost if you look at the full life cycle. The fact that there is no private pure capitalist examples tells you everything you need to know.