Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of...

mzjacobson's profile picture

Mark Z. Jacobson

46,594 subscribers

12,201 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Pallone: Trump keeps saying, “Well, I don’t like the way solar panels look. I don’t like the way windmills look.” What the hell does that have to do with what we need to do in an energy crisis? The price of electricity keeps going up. And so they’ve taken the position—because of Trump—that they’re either going to eliminate renewables like solar or wind altogether, or they’re going to make them not a priority. That’s not based on what’s important for the American people—keeping energy affordable. If you don’t have an all-of-the-above energy policy that says, “Look, we need more energy, and we’re going to use nuclear, we’re going to use renewables, we’re going to use fossil fuels,” then you’re cutting off major sources of new energy generation, and prices are going to go through the roof. And then there’s the environmental aspect, because renewables don’t create the kinds of environmental problems that burning oil, gas, or coal does. I mean, one of the bills yesterday was to try to bring back coal in all its glory. Well, the price of coal is already so high that it would send electricity bills through the roof if you had to buy and burn it—not to mention the environmental damage.
2:13

Pallone: Trump keeps saying, “Well, I don’t like the way solar panels look. I don’t like the way windmills look.” What the hell does that have to do with what we need to do in an energy crisis? The price of electricity keeps going up. And so they’ve taken the position—because of Trump—that they’re either going to eliminate renewables like solar or wind altogether, or they’re going to make them not a priority. That’s not based on what’s important for the American people—keeping energy affordable. If you don’t have an all-of-the-above energy policy that says, “Look, we need more energy, and we’re going to use nuclear, we’re going to use renewables, we’re going to use fossil fuels,” then you’re cutting off major sources of new energy generation, and prices are going to go through the roof. And then there’s the environmental aspect, because renewables don’t create the kinds of environmental problems that burning oil, gas, or coal does. I mean, one of the bills yesterday was to try to bring back coal in all its glory. Well, the price of coal is already so high that it would send electricity bills through the roof if you had to buy and burn it—not to mention the environmental damage.

Acyn

128,629 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
8:27

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

It is now the seventh day – something that has never happened before – of an emergency situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Because of Russian shelling, the plant has been cut off from power, disconnected from the electrical grid, and is being supplied with electricity by diesel generators. This is extraordinary. The generators and the plant were not designed for this, have never operated in this mode for long, and we already have information that one generator has failed. It is Russian shelling that prevents repair of the power lines to the plant and the restoration of basic safety. This is a threat to everyone – no terrorist in the world has ever dared to do to a nuclear plant what Russia is doing. And it is right that the world does not stay silent.
5:47

It is now the seventh day – something that has never happened before – of an emergency situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Because of Russian shelling, the plant has been cut off from power, disconnected from the electrical grid, and is being supplied with electricity by diesel generators. This is extraordinary. The generators and the plant were not designed for this, have never operated in this mode for long, and we already have information that one generator has failed. It is Russian shelling that prevents repair of the power lines to the plant and the restoration of basic safety. This is a threat to everyone – no terrorist in the world has ever dared to do to a nuclear plant what Russia is doing. And it is right that the world does not stay silent.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

971,400 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

We believe that there’s no future without nuclear energy. We support the goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 to get to net-zero emissions. However, we can’t achieve this goal without addressing these two things: 1 - 𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲-𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀: Over and over again we’ve witnessed a troubling pattern: when nuclear power plants are shut down, they’re replaced by fossil fuels. This transition not only makes governments more reliant on polluting energy imports, but also makes it lot harder to reduce our greenhouse gas emission. Given the urgency of the climate and energy crisis we face today, both of these outcomes are unacceptable. For these reasons we strongly condemn nuclear energy phase-outs and instead advocate for countries to extend the life of their existing nuclear reactors. By doing so, nations can decrease their dependence on fossil fuels, maintain a more sustainable energy mix, and make substantial progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2 - 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: The WorldBank extends grants for low and middle-income countries to fund various initiatives, including clean energy projects. The last time it approved a nuclear energy project was six decades ago. Since then, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks have completely stopped supporting nuclear power. Not only do they refuse to provide financial support, they also refrain from offering any strategic planning guidance to countries looking to build nuclear power plants. It’s a de facto ban on nuclear energy, since these projects tend to be expensive and beyond the means of low to middle-income countries. We urge the World Bank and other similar financing institutions to update their stance on this matter and hire the necessary staff to assess nuclear energy projects. Me, Stand Up for Nuclear and WePlanet joined forces ahead of the first every nuclear energy summit held in Brussels, to make our voices heard through art. We’re ready to turn the world Inside Out and step into our clean energy future! Let’s go ⚡️ Learn more at:
1:52

We believe that there’s no future without nuclear energy. We support the goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 to get to net-zero emissions. However, we can’t achieve this goal without addressing these two things: 1 - 𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲-𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀: Over and over again we’ve witnessed a troubling pattern: when nuclear power plants are shut down, they’re replaced by fossil fuels. This transition not only makes governments more reliant on polluting energy imports, but also makes it lot harder to reduce our greenhouse gas emission. Given the urgency of the climate and energy crisis we face today, both of these outcomes are unacceptable. For these reasons we strongly condemn nuclear energy phase-outs and instead advocate for countries to extend the life of their existing nuclear reactors. By doing so, nations can decrease their dependence on fossil fuels, maintain a more sustainable energy mix, and make substantial progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2 - 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: The WorldBank extends grants for low and middle-income countries to fund various initiatives, including clean energy projects. The last time it approved a nuclear energy project was six decades ago. Since then, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks have completely stopped supporting nuclear power. Not only do they refuse to provide financial support, they also refrain from offering any strategic planning guidance to countries looking to build nuclear power plants. It’s a de facto ban on nuclear energy, since these projects tend to be expensive and beyond the means of low to middle-income countries. We urge the World Bank and other similar financing institutions to update their stance on this matter and hire the necessary staff to assess nuclear energy projects. Me, Stand Up for Nuclear and WePlanet joined forces ahead of the first every nuclear energy summit held in Brussels, to make our voices heard through art. We’re ready to turn the world Inside Out and step into our clean energy future! Let’s go ⚡️ Learn more at:

isabelle 🪐

109,407 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."
1:37

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."

Steve Guest

150,924 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."
2:36

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

Wide Awake Media

191,036 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

“We are an energy powerhouse. We are. It has brought us tremendous problems because, as you know, the energy voracity of the North wants our country's resources. And we had denounced all the falsehoods that drug trafficking, democracy, and human rights were not the issue. They were excuses. Because throughout it all, they always wanted Venezuela's oil to be delivered to the global North. And we here have taken a very clear stance that Venezuela is open to energy relations where all parties benefit, where economic cooperation is clearly defined in commercial contracts. That is our position. And the diversity of our energy relations. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. It also has one of the largest gas reserves. These resources must be at the service of national development and must also be at the service of the development of other countries around the world. That is how our oil industry was born, with an export vocation.”
1:27

“We are an energy powerhouse. We are. It has brought us tremendous problems because, as you know, the energy voracity of the North wants our country's resources. And we had denounced all the falsehoods that drug trafficking, democracy, and human rights were not the issue. They were excuses. Because throughout it all, they always wanted Venezuela's oil to be delivered to the global North. And we here have taken a very clear stance that Venezuela is open to energy relations where all parties benefit, where economic cooperation is clearly defined in commercial contracts. That is our position. And the diversity of our energy relations. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. It also has one of the largest gas reserves. These resources must be at the service of national development and must also be at the service of the development of other countries around the world. That is how our oil industry was born, with an export vocation.”

Camila

47,376 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

"If you can control energy, you can control human beings." A flawless one minute summary of the underlying agenda beneath the climate scam. "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics... Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that's 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." – Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute.
1:11

"If you can control energy, you can control human beings." A flawless one minute summary of the underlying agenda beneath the climate scam. "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics... Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that's 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." – Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute.

Wide Awake Media

213,063 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the International Energy Agency for focusing on Net Zero 2050: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. Wright also says: "This organization has been pushed off course, and for 5 years, published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics." "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system, or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives." Wright: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. .... The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed, in reasonable penetration rates, it's developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the U.S. Every state within a renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity prices then the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish people. We don't want to have 2 million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's what we want the IEA to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate, hat's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives." Wright: "Together, we could move the organization and must move the organization back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory."
2:43

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the International Energy Agency for focusing on Net Zero 2050: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. Wright also says: "This organization has been pushed off course, and for 5 years, published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics." "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system, or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives." Wright: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. .... The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed, in reasonable penetration rates, it's developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the U.S. Every state within a renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity prices then the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish people. We don't want to have 2 million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's what we want the IEA to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate, hat's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives." Wright: "Together, we could move the organization and must move the organization back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory."

Steve Guest

16,860 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"
2:35

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"

Farrukh

523,197 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, perfectly summarises the underlying agenda of the #ClimateScam: "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics… Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that’s 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero
1:19

Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, perfectly summarises the underlying agenda of the #ClimateScam: "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics… Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that’s 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

514,361 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Gavin Newsom, "Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid" "California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Reagan" "In 1967 Reagan established the first tail pipe emissions in the USA, created the California Air Resources Board" "Three years later, Nixon codified California's leadership in the Clean Air Act" "Never before in the history of the US has there been a more destructive President than the current occupant in the White House" "Trump is trying to recreate the 19th century" "He's a wholly owned subsidiary of oil, gas and coal" "He's re-opening coal plants in the USA" "He's received half a billion in campaign contributions" "It is code red for American leadership in this space" "I run the 4th largest economy in terms of GDP, in the world" "We ran the 4th largest economy, 9 out of 10 days, on clean energy" "2/3 renewable energy" "We have 7x more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs" "We're proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, we can dominate" "But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock" "Donald Trump is temporary, he'll be gone in three years" "California is a stable and reliable partner in this clean energy space" "It's important for folks to understand this temporary nature of this current administration in relation to this issue of climate change and climate policy"
2:22

Gavin Newsom, "Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid" "California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Reagan" "In 1967 Reagan established the first tail pipe emissions in the USA, created the California Air Resources Board" "Three years later, Nixon codified California's leadership in the Clean Air Act" "Never before in the history of the US has there been a more destructive President than the current occupant in the White House" "Trump is trying to recreate the 19th century" "He's a wholly owned subsidiary of oil, gas and coal" "He's re-opening coal plants in the USA" "He's received half a billion in campaign contributions" "It is code red for American leadership in this space" "I run the 4th largest economy in terms of GDP, in the world" "We ran the 4th largest economy, 9 out of 10 days, on clean energy" "2/3 renewable energy" "We have 7x more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs" "We're proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, we can dominate" "But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock" "Donald Trump is temporary, he'll be gone in three years" "California is a stable and reliable partner in this clean energy space" "It's important for folks to understand this temporary nature of this current administration in relation to this issue of climate change and climate policy"

Farrukh

42,679 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike - between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we've been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up! I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning - they recently added "emissions reduction" to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn't have been approved before - they couldn't name a single one! The truth is clear: We've gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren't accidents - they're the direct result of failed green energy policies. Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signaling that drives up costs for families and businesses. #Electricity #CostOfLiving #MalcolmRoberts #OneNation
6:13

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike - between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we've been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up! I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning - they recently added "emissions reduction" to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn't have been approved before - they couldn't name a single one! The truth is clear: We've gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren't accidents - they're the direct result of failed green energy policies. Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signaling that drives up costs for families and businesses. #Electricity #CostOfLiving #MalcolmRoberts #OneNation

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

30,199 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Zack Polanski, "Why is what's happening in Iran, affecting our energy bills?" Tessa Khan, "This is the second time it's happened in four years, we've been at the mercy of the oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere, or an autocrat that has decided to go to war" "The UK is dependent on oil and gas, but the price we pay are set by international markets" "While we produce our own gas in the North Sea, we don't make enough of it to influence ho wmuch we end up paying for it" "What happened in 2022, and what we're seeing happening now, is a squeeze on gas, and now gas and oil" "The Strait of Hormuz has shut down, major LNG facilities have been destroyed in the Gulf, so there's a spike" "We're in unchartered territory because there is no pretext for the war beyond whatever the Trump administration and the Israeli government decide on the day" "But also, if you listen to the experts, such as the head of the international energy agency, they say this could be worse than the two 1970s oil crisis in terms of its impact on energy markets" Zack Polanski, "What do we do about being in unchartered territory?" Tessa Khan, "Look after people. People are still reeling with prices going through the roof in 2022" "In the UK we have millions of households in energy debt, that can't afford to pay their energy bills" "Fuel poverty has increased significantly. From kids not being able to do their homework, to people with health conditions suffering even worse circumstances" "Priority is looking after people and making sure that support goes to them" "And then we have to address the root cause of this" "Half of the recessions the UK has faced since the 1970s has been because of fossil fuel price shocks, we've got to get off of fossil fuels" "We have transition to the technologies we have in the UK that will protect us from this insane fossil fuel rollercoaster and also help the climate crisis"
3:24

Zack Polanski, "Why is what's happening in Iran, affecting our energy bills?" Tessa Khan, "This is the second time it's happened in four years, we've been at the mercy of the oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere, or an autocrat that has decided to go to war" "The UK is dependent on oil and gas, but the price we pay are set by international markets" "While we produce our own gas in the North Sea, we don't make enough of it to influence ho wmuch we end up paying for it" "What happened in 2022, and what we're seeing happening now, is a squeeze on gas, and now gas and oil" "The Strait of Hormuz has shut down, major LNG facilities have been destroyed in the Gulf, so there's a spike" "We're in unchartered territory because there is no pretext for the war beyond whatever the Trump administration and the Israeli government decide on the day" "But also, if you listen to the experts, such as the head of the international energy agency, they say this could be worse than the two 1970s oil crisis in terms of its impact on energy markets" Zack Polanski, "What do we do about being in unchartered territory?" Tessa Khan, "Look after people. People are still reeling with prices going through the roof in 2022" "In the UK we have millions of households in energy debt, that can't afford to pay their energy bills" "Fuel poverty has increased significantly. From kids not being able to do their homework, to people with health conditions suffering even worse circumstances" "Priority is looking after people and making sure that support goes to them" "And then we have to address the root cause of this" "Half of the recessions the UK has faced since the 1970s has been because of fossil fuel price shocks, we've got to get off of fossil fuels" "We have transition to the technologies we have in the UK that will protect us from this insane fossil fuel rollercoaster and also help the climate crisis"

Farrukh

50,138 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

VIDEO | May-Elin Stener (Ambassador May-Elin Stener), the Ambassador of Norway to India says, "Well, in Norway, we are quite a small country, but we are energy superpower, we've had oil and gas since early 70's, we've had the hydropower for about 100 years, and Norway electricity is almost based on hydropower, and the oil and gas adventure has also made us look at what could be the new solutions for the energy transition, and for the future, so this means we have companies which provide hi-tech and very good solutions, that they are looking to scale up here in India, and they are looking for partners to scale up with." #Norway
1:05

VIDEO | May-Elin Stener (Ambassador May-Elin Stener), the Ambassador of Norway to India says, "Well, in Norway, we are quite a small country, but we are energy superpower, we've had oil and gas since early 70's, we've had the hydropower for about 100 years, and Norway electricity is almost based on hydropower, and the oil and gas adventure has also made us look at what could be the new solutions for the energy transition, and for the future, so this means we have companies which provide hi-tech and very good solutions, that they are looking to scale up here in India, and they are looking for partners to scale up with." #Norway

Press Trust of India

68,489 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

.Donald J. Trump on AI's energy needs and a nuclear solution: "To be successful, to be a leader in AI, the amount of electricity they need, it's like double and even triple what we have right now." "It's incredible how much they need to be the leader, and we're going to have to be able to do that." summary: -- to be the world leader in AI, the US has to 2-3x its energy capacity -- in order to do that, we need to rethink our energy strategy -- plan: spend less on "artificial, weak energy", spend more on firing up our plants, clean coal, and nuclear -- re: nuclear, need a better strategy than massive $20B+ projects that waste billions + years -- idea: build smaller, less expensive reactors that can be up and running faster
2:31

.Donald J. Trump on AI's energy needs and a nuclear solution: "To be successful, to be a leader in AI, the amount of electricity they need, it's like double and even triple what we have right now." "It's incredible how much they need to be the leader, and we're going to have to be able to do that." summary: -- to be the world leader in AI, the US has to 2-3x its energy capacity -- in order to do that, we need to rethink our energy strategy -- plan: spend less on "artificial, weak energy", spend more on firing up our plants, clean coal, and nuclear -- re: nuclear, need a better strategy than massive $20B+ projects that waste billions + years -- idea: build smaller, less expensive reactors that can be up and running faster

The All-In Podcast

123,080 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

🚨 WATCH: Energy Secretary Chris Wright tells the International Energy Agency gathering: IEA Must Focus on #Energy, not impossible net-zero goals. Some highlights: ⚡️ Speaking before a scowling IEA Chief Fatih Birol, Secretary Chris Wright called out the organization to its face at its annual gathering on Wednesday, saying "we need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives" instead of pushing an energy transition that is not happening. ⚡️ "I commend Director Birol, after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality, to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again," Wright said. ⚡️ In an interview with Bloomberg prior to the event, Wright said the IEA will either continue to reform itself in the right direction, or the US will end its membership. That repeated a threat he made last summer, after which Birol and his team moved to reform its modeling process. ⚡️ Wright also laid out a firm warning to leaders of European nations, saying, "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives." This is what firm leadership looks like. Here's the full text of Wright's remarks in the video clip below: This organization has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a net zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting net zero 2050. 0.00%, and the attempt to do it, so we shouldn't worry about it, it's not going to happen. The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar, batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed in reasonable penetration rates is developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the US, every state within the renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity price than the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish our people. We don't want to have two million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's we want the IE to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate. That's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives. I commend Director Birol after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again. But together, we can move the organization and must move the organizations back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory. We are driving the growth of every affordable, reliable, secure energy source we can. For ourselves, for our allies, for friends, we want to partner with you to do all the same. Greatness. Watch:
2:43

🚨 WATCH: Energy Secretary Chris Wright tells the International Energy Agency gathering: IEA Must Focus on #Energy, not impossible net-zero goals. Some highlights: ⚡️ Speaking before a scowling IEA Chief Fatih Birol, Secretary Chris Wright called out the organization to its face at its annual gathering on Wednesday, saying "we need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives" instead of pushing an energy transition that is not happening. ⚡️ "I commend Director Birol, after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality, to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again," Wright said. ⚡️ In an interview with Bloomberg prior to the event, Wright said the IEA will either continue to reform itself in the right direction, or the US will end its membership. That repeated a threat he made last summer, after which Birol and his team moved to reform its modeling process. ⚡️ Wright also laid out a firm warning to leaders of European nations, saying, "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives." This is what firm leadership looks like. Here's the full text of Wright's remarks in the video clip below: This organization has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a net zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting net zero 2050. 0.00%, and the attempt to do it, so we shouldn't worry about it, it's not going to happen. The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar, batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed in reasonable penetration rates is developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the US, every state within the renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity price than the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish our people. We don't want to have two million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's we want the IE to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate. That's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives. I commend Director Birol after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again. But together, we can move the organization and must move the organizations back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory. We are driving the growth of every affordable, reliable, secure energy source we can. For ourselves, for our allies, for friends, we want to partner with you to do all the same. Greatness. Watch:

⚡️David Blackmon⚡️

27,322 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

The Liberal Party’s Green Delusionist can’t help himself… Mr. Guilbeault can’t seem to let go. The global facts on energy consumption, human development economics, population, and the environmental impact of Canada’s cleaner natural gas on the global coal-fired grid make his falsehoods on peak oil and pipeline capacity obvious. His years in Environment featured a 90% miss on emissions reduction, the burning down of Jasper after years of warnings to his failed Parks team, and the end of his punitive, hated carbon tax by a PM desperate to win an election by running as a conservative. So Mr. Guilbeault is lashing out. It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious but given the lazy press - and the fact that this climate fraud remains in this Cabinet full of the usual suspects that killed our economy for a decade, here is global energy in three simple charts: 1. FACT: Global energy demand and fossil fuel use is relentlessly rising. The world is using more of every form of energy including coal, oil and gas. 2. WHY? Because the greatest humanitarian human development moment in world history has been the energy intensive promotion of 1 billion people out of grinding poverty into the middle class in China, India and across Asia the past three decades. This is what is causing vastly higher energy consumption and rising global emissions. 3. HOW IS CANADA RELEVANT IN THE PLANET? With only 0.5% of global population and vast land and energy resources, what can we do to impact global emissions? - Alberta has more oil than the USA, Russia and China combined. We have more than enough gas to supply the needs of 4 billion people in India, China, Indonesia and across Asia. - We have the capacity and economic and proximity advantages to structurally displace a large amount of the dependence on thermal coal on the electrical grid across Asia - Because the retrofit of coal to gas is straightforward, our clean gas can cut the global emissions off the electrical grid of 4 billion people, at a scale equivalent to 2-3 times our entire national carbon footprint. Canada has been so blessed with so much. We have in front of us one of the biggest opportunities in history: To enhance human economic development commercially, environmentally, and diplomatically with trillions of dollars in trade and the soft power of becoming a critical part of global energy security. While cutting global emissions at scale. So why are green ideologues like Steven Guilbeault so angry? Because it must be killing him softly that the #1 climate action and most profound impact of Canada on global emissions in the coming decade will be trade from Alberta to Asia by the very same entrepreneurs and builders whose only request for a decade is that Stephen Guilbeault and his sad dystopian punitive green worldview just get out of the way.
2:16

The Liberal Party’s Green Delusionist can’t help himself… Mr. Guilbeault can’t seem to let go. The global facts on energy consumption, human development economics, population, and the environmental impact of Canada’s cleaner natural gas on the global coal-fired grid make his falsehoods on peak oil and pipeline capacity obvious. His years in Environment featured a 90% miss on emissions reduction, the burning down of Jasper after years of warnings to his failed Parks team, and the end of his punitive, hated carbon tax by a PM desperate to win an election by running as a conservative. So Mr. Guilbeault is lashing out. It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious but given the lazy press - and the fact that this climate fraud remains in this Cabinet full of the usual suspects that killed our economy for a decade, here is global energy in three simple charts: 1. FACT: Global energy demand and fossil fuel use is relentlessly rising. The world is using more of every form of energy including coal, oil and gas. 2. WHY? Because the greatest humanitarian human development moment in world history has been the energy intensive promotion of 1 billion people out of grinding poverty into the middle class in China, India and across Asia the past three decades. This is what is causing vastly higher energy consumption and rising global emissions. 3. HOW IS CANADA RELEVANT IN THE PLANET? With only 0.5% of global population and vast land and energy resources, what can we do to impact global emissions? - Alberta has more oil than the USA, Russia and China combined. We have more than enough gas to supply the needs of 4 billion people in India, China, Indonesia and across Asia. - We have the capacity and economic and proximity advantages to structurally displace a large amount of the dependence on thermal coal on the electrical grid across Asia - Because the retrofit of coal to gas is straightforward, our clean gas can cut the global emissions off the electrical grid of 4 billion people, at a scale equivalent to 2-3 times our entire national carbon footprint. Canada has been so blessed with so much. We have in front of us one of the biggest opportunities in history: To enhance human economic development commercially, environmentally, and diplomatically with trillions of dollars in trade and the soft power of becoming a critical part of global energy security. While cutting global emissions at scale. So why are green ideologues like Steven Guilbeault so angry? Because it must be killing him softly that the #1 climate action and most profound impact of Canada on global emissions in the coming decade will be trade from Alberta to Asia by the very same entrepreneurs and builders whose only request for a decade is that Stephen Guilbeault and his sad dystopian punitive green worldview just get out of the way.

David Knight Legg

36,518 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Does the world have enough lithium to power all the electric vehicles and stationary batteries needed to transition the world to 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything? The answer is yes. In 2025, the USGS increased its estimate of world lithium resources over land by 30%, to 150 million tons, with the U.S. having the largest resource, 30 million tons, followed by Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Australia, and China. How much lithium is this? The world has 1.1 billion passenger cars and 375 million trucks and buses. Replacing these requires about 47 million tons of lithium -- 9 million tons for the cars and 38 million tons for the trucks and buses. That’s only 31 percent of the 2025 known lithium resources, and keep in mind, the known resources grow each year as people look for more lithium. What is more, lithium stays in a vehicle during a battery’s 15 to 25-year life. At the end of the battery’s life, the battery is recycled or re-used for stationary electricity storage, so the mining is one-time. For stationary electricity storage itself, less than one-tenth the lithium, 2 to 4 million tons, is needed worldwide than is needed for vehicles. As such, current lithium resources are over three times those needed for vehicles plus storage. Also, many other battery types now exist that don’t use lithium. In sum, there is no shortage of lithium to transition the world to 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything. More info Video:
1:38

Does the world have enough lithium to power all the electric vehicles and stationary batteries needed to transition the world to 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything? The answer is yes. In 2025, the USGS increased its estimate of world lithium resources over land by 30%, to 150 million tons, with the U.S. having the largest resource, 30 million tons, followed by Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Australia, and China. How much lithium is this? The world has 1.1 billion passenger cars and 375 million trucks and buses. Replacing these requires about 47 million tons of lithium -- 9 million tons for the cars and 38 million tons for the trucks and buses. That’s only 31 percent of the 2025 known lithium resources, and keep in mind, the known resources grow each year as people look for more lithium. What is more, lithium stays in a vehicle during a battery’s 15 to 25-year life. At the end of the battery’s life, the battery is recycled or re-used for stationary electricity storage, so the mining is one-time. For stationary electricity storage itself, less than one-tenth the lithium, 2 to 4 million tons, is needed worldwide than is needed for vehicles. As such, current lithium resources are over three times those needed for vehicles plus storage. Also, many other battery types now exist that don’t use lithium. In sum, there is no shortage of lithium to transition the world to 100% clean, renewable energy and storage for everything. More info Video:

Mark Z. Jacobson

13,096 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce