Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "TED"
channel.
-
1
-
And here comes the biased comment, and the jab at vegans, it is a free country everyone can eat what they like. - HE can be right AND the vegan / vegetarian crowd as well. - We eat much more meat NOW than can be produced in a sustainable way = cattle eating GRASS and pork and chickens not fed by monocultures (in the land of the FORMER moving grazers, in buffalo land).
Cows also produce less methane when they eat grass than than when they get soy etc.)
In many regions there is not enough rain to sustain other farming than moving herds of cattle, goats, sheep._
(It is different in Australia and NZ - the vegetation threre has NOT evolved with the hooves and weight of cattle or sheep. So what works in Europe, Africa, the American continent, might not be applicable there).
It seems Savory improved the traditional knowledge of herders with finding out the specifics, using scientific method to gain indepth knowledge. (That is what the traditional herders lacked, they could for instance not measure the rain in the rainy saison to PLAN exactely. Of course they KNEW if it had not rained enough. But that did not help them to adapt to the ideal number of lifestock. Or pattern of grazing.
And even IF they had known - they could not afford to. Short term survival over long term SUSTAINABILITY.
1
-
1
-
+bakedbean 37 agree with everthing else - but: There is - credible - talk of the "Methane bomb". Methane has 28 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 over 100 years. - So when the warming caused by CO2 gets beyond a certain point and thawing swamps or methane ice deep in the oceans releases Methane into the atmosphere - we will have a runaway climate change. That for sure will put us beyond the point of return.
We know that has happened in the past. Methane can be the turbo boost. - we want to avoid to release of it like the plague.
so THAT argument may not be a "Yeah, but..." of Nay-sayers.
Sources of methane:
unburnt ! fossil gas leaking from pipelines and depots, or gas released by burping and farting cows - yes !!, from thawing swamps, thawing methane ice form the oceans, organic matter rotting in landfills.
If we replace coal with gas - (for the time being) we should make sure there are as little leakages as possible (pipelines -or the huge leak of the depot in Californa).
Cut down on meat consumption (cows are also huge in methane output,
Industrial agriculture is a huge contributor to the release of all sorts of greenhouse gases. Fodder use vs. beef - the ratio is 1 : 7, so going vegan, vegetarian or at least avoiding beef helps a lot.
And a lot of cotton is grown for throw away fashion. Another contributor (synthetic fertilizers need lot of energy for their production).
Organic agriculture is much, much better with the greenhouse gas impact.
Where I live the waste is sorted. That includes biogenic materials. There are "green" waste tons. Home owners often do composting.
The waste (ideally: no metalls, no dangerous waste, no glass, no aluminium, no paper, no or little plastic) is burned ! That is why they do not want organic material in it, it is usually wet and requires more energy.
The burning produces electricity plus warm water - I read they would like to have more plastics in the waste it would mean LESS use of fossil fuel to burn it.
I assume they announced that in the newspaper for some reason - so that citizens react and get slighly less meticulous regarding sorting that class of waste.
The ashes use up much less space, and do not rot away producing more methane or endangering the aquifers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for debt based money - I think it is crucial to spread awareness - you obviously agree with that ;). It is "only" money and most of the government debt (bonds) is held by affluent or rich people (or insurance and other funds investing it for the wealthy). As long as we have functioning eco systems, water, energy, scientists, patents, manufacturing plants, the workforce, peace ! ..... money is easy to create.
Maybe creating money for the benefit of the population, for a change
Money, banking, interest, the stock exchange ... have been the tools of the rich and powerful for centuries.
Most of us were fooled in 2008 / 2009 - and the elites / ruling class - quick, quick - bailed out the banksters and later they showered them with money in form of QE.
I heard recently (Jimmy Dore show, it was footage of one of his tour events, one man of his panel explained it) that the Fed has now the authority to create money w/o needing the consent of Congress for large "interventions".
When the legislators were confronted with the inconvenient task (and angry voters) in 2008 / 2009 they made sure they would never again have to do an open bailout again (after all most of them are financed by the banksters). If I remember correctly (from the video by Jimmy Dore) that is included in Dodd Frank "regulation".
* They discussed a recent intervention of the Fed in fall 2019
the Fed had to step in, the banks usually lend each other money "over night" (literally over night, at very low interest rates, they do it to conform to the requirements of having enough liquidty). This fall banks would not lend money to each other, resp. the interests rates were very high. In other words a situation like that after the collapse of Lehman, and the Fed had to create billions to "solve" the problem (not sure if it was more than one day, probably a few days until the "market" calmed down again.
It was reported, but downplayed as one-off, nothing to see here, move on ....
Yes, and Deutsche Bank ADMITS that they have to "restructure" - so the reality is even worse of course. When they admit that they have to eliminate 20 % of the workforce .....
1
-
1
-
@patricklincoln5942 When trees decompose they emit the same amount of CO2 which they fished out of the air when growing (maybe a little bit more is stored in soil but over the centuries that is more or less a zero sum game).
The way to go would be of course to grow more trees (or plants like hemp maybe even bamboo, or other C4 plants) in the MODERATE climate zone (and leave the rainforest and boreal forests alone for crying out loud).
That could BUY TIME - and for cheap. for 100 or 200 years.
It is possible that grass (or similar plants in agriculture like hemp) is using up more carbon - the cycles are much faster than with forests. In which case there would be the possibility to grow such plants and use them for production of construction materials. Insulation is certainly possible. Maybe even making boards with a bonding agent.
Things that are DURABLE.
Europe was once all woods - a lot could be replanted.
Forest cannot take up as much as is put out currently - BUT EVERYTHING HELPS .
Fossil fuel is the plants and organisms that were removed from the carbon cycle over the course of hundreds of millions of year !!
Maybe we could also grow algae in tanks. A tree has to "invest" in wood, reproduction, leaves, roots, protection, bark, resin, is not productive in the cold season, .... .... Humans might beat them them by providing tanks for algae to grow (CO2 capturing per space).
Of course trees have plenty of other advantages. the soil in a natural forest acts like a sponge, it can soak up downpours and release them slowly. Also holds top soil together.
The soil in the moderate climate zone is fertile enough (in tropical areas the huge amount of rain washes out nutrients). There is enough ! rain. Because it is warmer trees grow faster than in the Northern boreal forests (Siberia, Scandinavia, Canada).
Last but not least the population is wealthy and there are settlements everywhere - the devastation like with the "harvesting" of Northern forests would not be tolerated there. (it is ground zero - a wildfire is not nearly as devastating for the ECOSYSTEM of the FOREST. Those harvesting machines compress the soil - after a wildfire the forest can recover).
And then those plants (trees, hemp, ...) would need to be SEQUESTERED by makeing DURABLE QUALITY buildings, particle boards and insulation of them. The point being durable. That way carbon is sequestered away.
As many point out: MATURE forests do not take up much more carbon - when when you take out continually trees out of the system (to make it more like in a natural wood meaning it would be an eco system not a tree plantation), the space will be filled by the next carbon catcher.
That should give us time - 100 to 200 years.
Wood (and particle boards) can replace concrete (cement must be burnt at high temperatures and the pebbles and sand are heavy - so a lot of energy for transport). Multi storey buildings are possbile (up to 6 -8 floors are already built. No high rises, but at that level).
In warm areas brick and mortar buildings have advantages (the high MASS does not overheat as easily when the building gets a lot of sun rays through the window). That is already an issue in Germany for instance with lightweight well insulated house constructions. They do just fine in the cold season - but with record summers and more "tropical nights" not so much. (so reflective shading, special glass in the windows, etc.)
Insulation would save fossil fuel for heating - and if you want to use renewable energy for heating it is essential that the house is reasonably insulated. - I would say that mineral wool may have advantages regarding being water resistant - think flooding or bursting installation pipes. Insulation does not work when it is not dry and hemp based might get mould after such accidents - while mineral wool might be "salvageble" by drying it out.
1
-
@patricklincoln5942 just checked out the site - some remarks on GDP ("growth" is the comparsion between GDP from one year to the next). GDP and growth have become a fetish in the discourse. it is one of the few economic term that the masses get seved all the time (not that the politicians or most of the economists or the media deal rationally with it).
GDP calculation has been manipulated anyway - the number used to include at least productive industries (as opposed to "finance" now - a good chunk of it is speculation in the countries with a strong financial sector - U.K., the U.S. , see Dr. Richard Werner under the title The Finance Curse, the format is Renegade Inc. on RT)
And even in the past GDP wasn't a valid way to measure the wealth of the population in general. (Then the population got their fair share of the improving ecconomy / productivity so then it correlated with the well being of the population - kind of).
GDP will also grow (or remain at least the same) if expenditures for cars will be replaced by expenditures for PV panels and batteries. When the state invests into mass transportation instead of building new highways.
If money is put into a well functioning public health or childcare education system.
We will need to squander less resources when buying consumer goods, throw away items, fast fashion all the time. Have more durable goods, and instead spend our money on HUMAN SERVICES.
Switching to EXPERIENCING WEALTH and less to HAVING WEALTH.
Eating much less meat - but dining out or purchasing highy quality food (good food cannot be cheap, not when it is sustainably produced).
Having quality devices repaired.
The luxury of having time * - also to have the time to consume the services provided by other people (think seamstresses, styling advice, hairdressers instead of paying for fast fashion). Paying people for delivery of bulky goods or using taxi (or a kind of public uber) while going w/o a car.
* more TIME - productivity wins paid out in form of time, not in wages - well, since the advent of neoliberalism - in the 80s in the U.S. and U.K. and mid 90s in continental Europe the productivity wins are not paid out at all if the employers can avoid it.
I know the U.S. numbers by heart - the situation was the same in post war Europe - a few years later and if anything the increase of purchasing power was even more impressive.
Until the 1970s the U.S. workers got the lion's share of productivity gains in form of more wages. Real hourly average wages (real means adjusted for inflation) almost doubled between 1947 and 1970, plus 97 % while productivity rose by 112 %. (so the shareholders, owners, entrepreneurs got "only" 15 % - which is still nice when it is 15 % of the massively expanding U.S. economy and that the 15 % went to a small number of people.
1970 - 2013 plus 69 % for productivity - but only plus 9 % in real wages. So the EVER INCREASING output was not matched anymore by the wages of employees = disposable income of consumers. (that discrepancy was "solved" with consumer debt on the credit card.)
- and the output / sales problem was also met with consumerism, marketing and planned obsolescence.
The crises throughout the 1970s lead to then unusually high unemployment rates (and they stayed up for longer). That insecurity (and frankly economic illiteracy of the citizens who had become complacent) allowed the oligarchs to hit back against the New Deal or Social Contracts - with Reagan & Thatcher it started for real.
the rational thing would have been to keep real wages (purchasing power) steady and give the continued increases of productivity (automation, computer use, new means of communication, better trained workforce, .... ) in MORE FREE TIME.
That would mean the ever more efficient production (in shorter work weeks) would still have the same output (not more and more) at the same costs for businesses with the same number of workers. (so everyone keeps their job - which also guarantees the negotiation power of the workforce).
the workers / consumers have the same disposable income (so the companies can SELL their products and services) and more free time on top. (In reality the industries that have much more labor costs and cannnot as easily automate - service sector - would need some transfers to find a fair solution. Could be UBI - or wages are raised nontheless - but that is a disadvantage in tourism for instance).
Giving more free time would at least have partially solved the problem of consumerism and the throw away culture. We have globally over capacities in industrial production. And there are fewer and fewer companies (now multinationals) that dominate every niche.
Household appliances: national comapnies went bankrupt or were bought up. Same with car manufacturing, TV, computers, tires, retail, even construction materials. - the concentration processes are everywhere. On stereoides with Amazon and everything to do with Silicon Valley
it is easily possible to make a washing machine that lasts at least 10 years. (15 years with a lot of use were not uncommon). With all the automation going on, the machines could offer more features (electronics) and be as durable as they used to be. That ALSO means repairs MAKE SENSE IF the owner is unlucky and has a problem after 5 or 8 years. Plus they could be slightly cheaper.
(And if all the productivity wins went to the workers, so there is no room to give productivity wins in form of reduced sales prices for durable goods - well, then the consumers have to good income to pay the prices for better quality - it used to be like that).
The durable machines used the be the good quality segment, so when the washing machines had to be replaced it meant a higher INVESTMENT (but that paid off for longer). On the other hand there was mainly the medium (solid quality) and the high end segment (MIELE in Germany made that their niche). there were ne cheap machines that reliably have the first major repair after 6 years. They were produced in the country with high labor costs - so producing cheap quality just did not add up.
(If you take into consideration how much years of use one can squeeze out of the cheap machines and consider ALL the costs - they are not cheaper than the well made devices of the past). So WHERE have the productivity wins gone ? Not much went to the consumers and not to the workers either.
the U.S. had the 40 hour week in 1940. In Europe if was mostly wages and eventually reduction of work time in the 1960s).
That development has stopped. Germany got the 40 hour week in the late 1960s . - the 35 - 38 hour week that came in the 90s (often without pay compensation) is undermined in Germany - people work longer in reality (and often without extra pay, let alone overtime bonus).
So productivity continued to rise since the 90s - but nothing happened at the front of work time reduction.
Apart from the economic issue - that contributed also to the sustainability issue (raw materials, energy, pollution, exploitation in developing countries).
In a Capitalistic economy companies have an incentive to sell more and more, anyway. If need be with planned obsolescence. Pushing consumer debt. And massive spending on marketing.
1
-
@patricklincoln5942 Another aspect is of course the MONEY system. "Money/currency" - how it is used or abused shows also up in GDP. - Or when the economists in the U.K. must "estimate" the contribution of Finance to GDP - unlike with other PRODUCTIVE industries the "contribution to the economy" by creating (also a lot of) speculation is not self-evident. And those "services" were not covered under the old rules of calculating GDP.
When under Thatcher manufacturing was slashed and the economy was "financialized" - the logical consquence would have been a drop of GDP. Now that would not have looked good - so something had to be done about it.
I recommend to check out MMT - Dr. Stephanie Kelton Deficit Owl video. Or Dr. Richard Werner on Debt and Interest Free Money.
In general the site of positve money uk is good. And as for FIAT money and QE (only for the Banks) the Bank of England pdf: Money Creation in a Modern Economy. The Bank of England just stops short of mentioning that Quantitative Easing could not only be done for the banks.
(it was done to the tune of trillions of USD / Pound / Euro - literally trillions)
QE could also be done for the citizens and for a Green New Deal.
One thing you always hear with the use of renewables is that they are allgedly too expensive. MONEY is at the center of it.
And if the governments could have been bothered to generously fund all kinds of battery / storage research (money again) - we already would be in the middle of the transition. Plus at least one of the countries would have an export hit.
Instead we did austerity after the global crisis caused by the banksters. Production costs (wind, PV) are already low if conditions are good (and are expected to drop more - at least for PV).
But with the fluctuations (day/night - saisons) STORAGE is still the issue. (saw a presentaton of the former head of the solar division of the Fraunhofer institute - from March 2017 - it looks good. Production costs for solar and batteries will continue to drop, and lots of developments for storage in the pipeline).
A breakthrough for batteries is not wanted at all by the central large energy providers (cheaper storage promotes local, decentral production).
that is the reason not much was done regarding battery research (not much considerng how central the issue is).
Lower costs for batteries would deal with the issue of throwaway electricity (peak production) and the whole system would be more stable, predictable. The ROI for renewables would increase.
The German initiative Energiewende = Energy Switch was far from perfect (very far indeed) but triggered at least more installed solar panel surface, which led to price drops for PV, which made battery storage an interesting issue even though politicians still where asleep at the wheel. (That - and Tesla deserves a lot of credit as well).
For the first time the INDUSTRY was afraid they could be left behind. So they finally could be bothered to invest massively in research. (that includes the car industry).
MMT (QE for the People, Sovereign money, etc.) - these terms refers to direct money creation by the state - which could be used to push the switch to renewable energy. That spending would of course show up in GDP (spending by consumers or the government makes up GDP - well and then some other expenditures under the newer rules to make GDP look better)
Investment in research (the wages for scientists) would shop up in GDP when spent.
Giving subisdies for PV or batteries or wind turbines. When households get their own energy production it would show up in GDP. Same with insulation, ...
On the other hand if the created money was in form of an alternative currency (maybe accepted for tax payments with makes it as good as the official currency at least within the country) government could control in WHAT AREAS the directely created purchasing power would be spent.
Spending of such an alternative currency would not show up in GDP numbers (that is calculated in Euro, DEK, SEK, etc.) not that it matters (except that economists and politicians thinking only in the status quo framework would get nervous. and big finance would get ballistic).
Such an alternative currency would not be spent for cheap throwaway stuff from China but for things (AND SERVICES) created in Denmark for instance.
Even if it has no direct relationship with the transformation of the energy system it would be very beneficial - the service sector would profit and like it - so that would increase general knowledge and acceptance of such concepts.
Or the alnternative / complimentary currency could be earmarked to be used for renewable investments.
Or the government could create money directly in order to jumpstart a kind of public, non-profit Uber (that would be money well spent if a government invested to set up such a system. Integrating taxi, some private contributors for the rush hours and the mass transportation with fixed schedules. the drivers would be well paid - all of them. And when there is MORE business for Taxi as well they have no reason to complain.
Or support for a car sharing system.
Or citizens could have a yearly budget they can spend on all mass transportation - public and private (for free). That would mean more use, which would warrant more routes and better services and higher frequency, which would make it faster and more practical ....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 of 2) Once MONEY becomes the main motivator, overpowering every other motivation in the job, things are getting toxic.
Before (with low to medium pay) you had the whole person (their skills, loyalty, resourcefulness) to getting the job done, to make the customer happy, etc. Pay is of course important, but the joy of doing the work is important as well. That means you do not need to micromanage or constantly monitor the people. They will give their best voluntarily and seek for good solutions on their own.
With too high pay. they direct their talents towards extracting as much money as they can, and towards playing the system.
Real life example: In the 1970s a CEO of a major company earned 30 times the average wage in his company. Now it is more than 300 times the average wage (these are U.S. numbers).
So are the CEOs of large companies NOW 100 times better on average than they are in the 1970s ( let alone in the 1950s and 60s) ?
That reminds me of the Deutsche Bank Chef Joseph Ackermann (leading the company for many years, until it got caught up in the financial crisis, Deutsche Bank was saved by the fact that the US government rescued AIG - DB on the surface seemed to be O.K. in 2007 and 2008 but they were already set up for severe problems - the long term effects of the Ackermann reign). Of course any other manager in his position and under the neoliberal derulation would likely have produced the same dysfunction.
Martin Winterkorn was the CEO of Volkswagen (one of the most successful car manufacturers worldwide). Under his leadership the VW diesel scandal developed. Both CEOs were known for their extremely high pay (especially outstanding for German standards). Both CEOs quietly left after the crisis (well the VW boss couldn't keep it so quiet - maybe he will get his day in court).
So they cash in big time as long as the going is fine (or as long as thing appear to be fine), when things detoriate, they resign. They are not crushed by the weight of responsibilities for the losses they caused. That they both maneuvered a prime company into a dead end (or at least into a very difficult situation). So in hindsight - their excessive pay was by no means "justified".
Compare that to former VW CEOs - some of them being ENGINEERS. But they could not "walk on water" like the CELEBRATED top managers these days (most of them are lawyers, and MBAs; especially in the financial "industry" - they are really money shufflers, not people who know how to BUILD or CREATE things) - so even though former more modestly paid CEOs lead the enterprises when the German economy was rebuilt from scratch after WW2 - they clearly deserved only a few % of the pay which Winterkorn, Ackermann and the like are getting.
[Edit: Winterkorn has a Dr. rer nat in metallurgy from Max Planck institute - like a PhD in a STEM area, so his credentials are excellent]
1