Environmental Econ: Crash Course Economics #22

Is there going to be more in this series?

Pollution isn't a by product of human existence... indigenous people have been living waste free for millennia.

His AC/DC belt buckles are kinda silly

Well, in hindsight, it seems that cap & trade, were not a solution, in fact they are incentives to move pollution and corruption… 😢

It was already so bad 6 years ago, if only they knew how bad it is today :"))))

You were outdated at the time of the video, 6 years on it looks awful.

"Kick over a barrel of oil and light it on fire". Sounds like a plan to me

Trinidad and Tobago 🇹🇹

Reminder Germany hasn't helped nuclear energy only helped traditional fossil fuels

Here are some notes, hope they are helpful:
Economic solutions:
1. Identify the sources of the most air pollution (factories that burn fossil fuels for energy; industries that use oil and coal to produce things; vehicles with internal combustion engines)
2. Decrease the supply of these technologies and products or decrease the demand for them
There is a certain imbalance that comes with this. Some counties will harm the environment as there is no way to police every country, already established resources will be hard to demolish as people already got used to them and they are cheaper. That is until a new technology comes that is both effective and cheap. Or manipulating the markets with government subsidies, taxes, and regulations.

Pollution represents a market failure – a situation where markets fail to produce the amount the society wants.
Government interventions are advised. Another way to encourage people to pollute less is by providing price incentives (taxes, subsidies). Those incentives can encourage individuals to make choices that are better for the environment.
Permit market – Setting a limit how much firms can pollute and allowing those firms to buy and sell pollution permits (Cap and Trade)
Alternative energy sources usage is growing, but for the most part, they aren’t cheap enough yet, so the majority of our energy is likely to continue to come from non-renewable sources, at least for now.
Since there is no time, efficiency with the usage of fossils is advised, but still unsure. The rebound effect says the benefits of energy efficiency might be reduced as people change their behavior. Leading to more usage and more pollution.
There is still hope as there are constant ongoing discussions about this matter. Private companies and governments are also funding research into green technology. In the U.S. the American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 allocated billions to fund renewable energy. China is also participating, being among the leading countries in renewable energy investments.
Companies, as well as consumers, need to be mindful to reach an effective solution.

I'm now beginning to view this pandemic as global environmental police punishing countries in the order they cause pollution. #2020

Yall forgot dairy farming and raising livestock, cows produce more carbon dioxide than cars.

Environmental economics - how do we best deal with our natural resources?

I. what can the government do?
1. enforce specific rules outside the market (just limit how much firms can pollute)
2. influence the market through price incentives
a. add tax on products that cause pollution. (gasoline)
b. subsidize products that reduce pollution (electric cars, renewable energy)

1 and 2 example: permit market such as cap and trade which set limits on how much firms can pollute and allow them to buy and sell permits (money goes from heavy polluters to lighter polluters)

II. how can technology help?
-since our current technology doesn't provide cheaper renewable energy, we can maximize the use of non renewable energy (energy-efficient cars)
- hindrances:
rebound effect - efforts to increase energy efficiency creates more available energy that only gets spent into something MORE and MORE.

III. what actions are the world taking?
1. International treatys in which countries commit on reducing greenhouse gases emission. (UN negotiations)
2. funding "green" research into renewable energy.
3. changes can be brought by individual consumers, along with changes by the government and producers. (turn the lights off when not in use! and other small things).

Who is watching in 2020?
⬇️

The nature just beat the system for us.

"I'll just ignore this entire video."
-Both Trump and AOC

You forgot the # 1 REASON FOR POLLUTION...ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

and then comes donald trump

I think the idea that the world should have internationally environmental police in charge of monitoring factoriies' activities of discharging waste and punishing them if there's a problem emerging is really interesting. The United Nations could make the idea into action.

We all agree the trash islands, smog cities and toxic waters are an issue, yet not everyone agrees on climate change (even scientists and supporters of/on both sides can disagree on details or misunderstand each other or misrepresent their own view); so, focusing on overall environmental concerns (which climate change also is based on anyway) is ideal. Rather than have mediocre change, or no changes at all, by focusing on the hot-topic / trigger-word / controversial term [climate change], we can simply focus on the overall environmental concerns, so we can accomplish more than the mediocre change, or no change at all, that a schismatic approach yields. The reasonable people among those who support, are unsure and/or are against climate change, all three groups, should work together on a general environment focus, where we all agree, and then we'll all accomplish mutual goals (primarily the betterment of the entire environment).

hLOOOOOO

china is one of the most polluted country in the world
and yet the CCP do not care about the environment

wow amazing material!

Environmental Econ : Finding the right incentive that can make market do something good or at least not doing something bad for the environment.

Damm China...always want to be first!..=P

Pretty shameful what the human race has become tbh

For anyone actually interested in this topic I recommend reading an article in ecological economics (2015) “In Markets We Trust? Setting the Boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in Ecosystem Services Governance” by Erik Gómez-Baggethum and Roldan Muradian

Nice

thanks

15% by 2040 is very conservative. I think it'll be much higher. Maybe upwards of 30%. There's simply so much investment into green tech going around and we're drastically accelerating all the time. It has simply gained a massive momentum.

The future is nuclear

Hula Hank is now my favorite thing.

This discussion is very limited. It does not address built in dynamics of capitalism such as the requirement for growth. Growth requires that we consume more and more every year, including finite resources. To this end we are emptying our oceans and pumping toxic liguids into the ground (with the risk of polluting our water supply) to get energy. Second, capitalism pushes costs onto the public which we pay for in health costs and on ogin damage to our environment. We have made some laws about air and water pollution but what if the oil industry had to pay for remediating climate change? What is Monsanto had to pay to remediate the damage to butterflies and other insects due to their pesticides (Roundup). Europe has seem a 75% decrease in insect life which is a fracturing of the ecosystem that we rely on. What if the oil companies had to really remediate after the massive oil spill in the gulf, not merely disperse the oil. What is the companies were completely responsible for the plastic they use in packaging on both human health and waste. If companies were completely responsible they would go bankrupt or they would scream and demand that they not be held responsible because it would collapse the economy. Capitalism worked when the population was much lower but now the impact is to great to sustain.

nice job tackling such a sensitive topic and educate people. We can not develop policies to combat environmental challenges without considering economics.

Hello Adriene and Jacob! I’ve been watching the entire course. Everything totally awesome! I own a permaculture farming business. I would love to hear your thoughts on this concept and the multiplier effect it could have:

In climate change there are two sides: pollution, and the degeneration of the biological systems that act as buffers, filters, and fertility regenerators.

Focus could be drawn to:
1. The potential of carbon sequestration through permaculture style grazing and no till farming as a means to lower CO2. (Adds valuable externalities like nutritious food and fertile soil and less disease)
2. Small local waste treatment for biological residues and add value through compost and/or insect farm (adds value through organic fertilizers and insects for animal feeds) mainly to prevent water pollution
3. If polluting company serves a social goal (i.e: fossil fuels for energy), maybe taxing only the company for all the externalities isnt the best choice. We could debate cases in which the expense is passed to the consumer in the form of taxes so the company doesnt need to raise prices for their goods, yet the externalities were accounted for.
4. Government organized transition plan with support and subsidies for farmers transitioning away from chemical conventional farming.

I really enjoy your course and am aching of doing thought bubbles too 🙂

I have a degree in Engineering focusing on atmospheric sciences. Often people who don't know anything about the atmosphere automatically assume that humans cause climate change. This is not true. The normally cited proof that the world is warming is the correlation between the increase in human caused Carbon Dioxide emissions and warming temperatures. That is an incorrect conclusion. Most of the Carbon Dioxide on earth is dissolved in the oceans' waters. The sun's output over the last century has been steadily increasing. Even a small increase in ocean temperature caused by the sun can release a great deal of Carbon Dioxide that is dissolved in the oceans. This amount of CO2 released by mother nature greatly exceeds what humans produce by industry and cars. Even though humans don't cause the majority of CO2 emissions we can still reduce emissions by switching to electric vehicles. Switching to solar or wind isn't the answer since they increase the cost of energy. A 1% increase in the world wide cost of energy causes an additional 2 million people in the world to starve to death due to the increase cost of food production. The real answer is to increase the use of nuclear generators. Nuclear produces no greenhouse gases at all and the waste products can be put back in the ground because we got the fuel from the ground in the first place. In the energy production industry on average there is one death per every 2000 man-years worked. The nuclear industry has a safety record a lot better than that.

Least favorite episode, it doesn’t get into the pollution produced from creating these “green” solutions. Solar panels, batteries, waste from these product and every other solution has research that’s been more focused on the pollution over its useful life not it full life span starting from manufacturing. It’s shortsighted to make knee jerk reactions, and as this channel has done so well up until this episode it has shown what happens when we do this.

Nuclear power + electric vehicles = saving our planet <3

just use nuclear fission

what about the cracking?

Why is this channel taking a democrat approach on an undecided topic as global warming? Well knowing that supporting democrats will cause other problems beyond the scope of the climate such as socialism, increased crime rate, and the collapse of economy? These things must be thought of together and not separated.

What about Ecological Economics?

Scotland just recently hit 98% of its electricity consumption is renewable energy from wind farms, demand is 1.85 TWh and wind farms generate 1.82TWh. It’s aim is 100% by 2020 smashing its target in comparison to its British counterparts

Let's talk about lessening demand. What are the biggest polluters. Industry, oil production. What are the biggest demands, cars. What schooling do people receive while in school, STEM. So people go into these fields. Why do people need cars. The nonavailability of the things they need where they are. Local economy. Drive to work, then drive to grocery store, drive to clothing retailer, and then home. Drive to the bank to pay mortgage, and taxes. In all of that gasoline is used. Huge demand. In all of that no one could work on their own land growing a portion of the food they use. Or start sustainable agriculture to produce clothing where they are. Much of the clothing that is sold is made out of country, and is synthetic (made from oil), and out of country(no accountability on what is produced). Need to get people back to farming, producing what is needed where it's needed. Start new businesses that produce sustainable products. Get away from cheap fashion.

Please, consider doing a video on stock market