Definitely worth the watch.<p>here are my cliff notes:<p>> human energy consumption, by means of burning fossil fuels, is the reason for green house gases, that in turn trap more heat, then our environment can sustain.<p>> technology to reduce CO2 emission, assuming the same level of electricity consumption -- is far from being available.
They had talked about Nuclear, sun, geo, nuclear fusion.<p>>more efficient means to convert to electricity:<p>>35% of coal energy is transformed to electricity<p>> incandescent light bulb converts only 5% to light
If larger city (NY, Moscow, Bombay etc) switch to better light bulb, 1 million ton of C02 emissions every year, each.<p>> simply changing from coal to gas cuts carbon emission by 40%<p>>half of worlds oil is used by 500mln road vehicles. 400 mln of those are private cars. each producing 4 times its weight in CO2, each year. Internal com engine is only 20% efficient. Cars can improve by 3 times (not clear, if they assumed electric only or not).<p>> when gas is not available option, coal can be gasified<p>>
>Taxation can work both ways, already there is a talk of carbon tax. But how to achieve compliance across national borders.<p>>Global warming calls for global response. but world is not a common market.
Examples they used is Easter Europe, other developing regions.<p>>How could this countries advance, but leap-frog energy developments?<p>Future must be different, developing countries cannot take the same path as the developed countries in the past.
Sadly, this is the norm & the way the current system works...if you can profit now & collect a huge bonus now, your incentive is to do that no matter what happens to the future. Cigarette companies knew of the harms of their product for decades. Bankers knew many of their home loans and other products would fail (but it would be after they got paid massive bonuses...insane speculation didn't happen when investment banks were partnerships and bonuses could be clawed back). Dupont knew PFOAs were harmful for more than half a century and a decade into a massive lawsuit before they finally stopped producing them.
Need systematic change - example - Kickstarter becoming public benefic corporation - <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation" rel="nofollow">https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefi...</a><p>Otherwise the goal of the company is to make profit for shareholders - anything else would be illegal (against the law)<p>Need to change the "operating system of economy" to that environment is included in the balance sheets: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Bottom_Line" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Bottom_Line</a>
The 'greenhouse effect' (which was the umbrella term for what is now called climate change) was widely discussed in the 80s and 90s and taught in schools, at least in Australia.<p>As a child I learned that many metropolitan cities would be underwater by the year 2000.
This is why you should, if possible, refuel at Statoil/Circle K. Statoil is (partly?) owned by the norwegian government and is basically the only oil giant that try to preserve the environment and to reduce it's impact.<p>Please support companies like that.
Some other industry players also made a movie about climate change at about the same time, but their conclusion was basically, "Don't worry about it, because plants will just love all the excess CO2." I remember this film because of an otherwise good, but somewhat dogmatic conservative high school physics teacher.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greening_of_Planet_Earth" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greening_of_Planet_Earth</a>
Nothing new, we all knew about it as students back in the early 80's. The denial came much later, climate change is not a new issue, but we have been incredibly slow to react to it.
Isn't it the same motivation as ExxonMobil supporting a carbon tax? I.e., "buy natural gas from us to replace the coal furnaces" I wouldn't be surprised if before putting out this film they the relative difficulty/cost of displacing coal vs gasoline/diesel<p>Edit: XOM stance: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/exxon-s-new-chief-endorses-carbon-tax-to-combat-climate-change" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/exxon-s-n...</a>