Take action on climate change at .
“The good news is it’s now clearly cheaper to save the planet than to ruin it,” says engineer and investor John Doerr. “The bad news is: we are fast running out of time.” In this conversation with climate policy expert Hal Harvey, the two sustainability leaders discuss why humanity has to act globally, at speed and at scale, to meet the staggering challenge of decarbonizing the global economy (which has only ever increased emissions throughout history) — and share helpful examples of promising energy solutions from around the world.
This conversation was part of the Countdown Global Launch on 10.10.2020. (Watch the full event here: .) Countdown is TED’s global initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. The goal: to build a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world. Get involved at
TED’s videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (). For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at
Alexis DouFlo
December 6, 2020 at 3:51 pm
How about all the info that was suppressed regarding free energy that people like Tesla and many others worked on?
Greg Warner
December 6, 2020 at 4:40 pm
Liquid Cooled Thorium Reactors.
Bob Wallace
December 9, 2020 at 6:45 am
Too expensive.
Greg Warner
December 9, 2020 at 11:01 am
@Bob Wallace way more expensive not to. What is too expensive is war.
Bob Wallace
December 9, 2020 at 4:02 pm
@Greg Warner I don’t understand how war fits in the discussion but I do agree. Switching from fossil fuels to nuclear would cost less than a major war.
But let’s look at what we are facing. The cost of climate change is growing and will become extremely expensive if we don’t limit the potential damage. Think about the cost of building seawalls to protect our coastal cities, the loss of the lower part of Florida, and replacing all our port facilities including all navy facilities. It would be cheaper to move to nuclear energy than to suffer all that loss and cost. And that’s just the rising sea level problems.
But we have two routes to avoiding extreme climate change when it comes to removing fossil fuels from our grids. We can turn to nuclear energy or renewable energy. Which we choose is going to be based on cost. People will highly resist any abandonment of fossil fuels if it causes their utility bills to increase.
Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy would make electricity more expensive.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would make electricity cheaper.
Greg Warner
December 9, 2020 at 5:04 pm
@Bob Wallace Current renewables only seem less expensive than thorium based nuclear power because the renewables are heavily subsidized for mostly emotional reasons. They let the upper middle class feel less guilty about operating their excessive McMansions.
Ideally the Thorium reactors would produce base load electricity while solar and wind would store the energy to be used at high demand times. You can consider LFTR (Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors) to be both green, no high level nuclear waste, and creates more fissionable fuel than it creates. This fuel cannot be used in nuclear weapons.
The greatest opposition to this technology are the owners of the current fossile fuel plants and the petroleum infrastructure that supports them. They are not about to put their money at risk until they have another place to invest. Thorium fueled energy is that place.
Bob Wallace
December 9, 2020 at 5:34 pm
@Greg Warner Let’s start with the cost of nuclear fuel. The cost of currently being built reactors (Hinkley Point and Vogtle) will mean electricity costing about $0.15/kWh. Of that the cost of uranium fuel will be less than $0.01/kWh. Even if thorium was free it would not make electricity from those four reactors affordable.
Now, subsidies. New nuclear in the US will receive the same subsidies as wind and solar.
Subsidies serve two purposes. Either to assist a new technology/service to grow large enough to stand on its own or to increase consumption of a product/service that is considered to be for the common good. Nuclear energy was highly subsidized during its initial phase.
Between 1947 and 1999 nuclear received average annual subsidies of $3.50 billion. (53 x $3.50 billion = $185.6 billion).
Between 1994 and 2009 wind and solar received average annual subsidies of $0.37 billion. (15 x $0.37 = $5.6 billion)
$185.6 billion / $5.6 billion = 33x. We spent vastly more to help nuclear get out of the starting blocks than we’ve spent for wind and solar.
We’re on track to phasing out wind and solar subsidies. We have recently started subsidizing existing paid off nuclear plants. For the common good of avoiding extreme climate change it is probably wise to subsidize low carbon electricity in order to make fossil fuel produced electricity less competitive and coal/gas plants to shut down sooner. IMO, we need a price on carbon. The market will then pick the most affordable low carbon technologies.
Non-subsidized wind and solar are now massively less expensive than non-subsidized nuclear.
I used to support nuclear energy as our best way to quit fossil fuels and avoid extreme climate change. But that was when solar and wind were massively more expensive than they now are. Back then solar panels cost over $10/watt but now they are $0.17/watt, a 58x drop in price. Wind was around $0.30/kWh but is now approaching $0.02/kWh, a 15x decrease.
Stealth Hunter997
December 6, 2020 at 4:43 pm
China and India first there top chart and us isn’t top 5
motofunk
December 6, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Do we have a carbon credit type structure between nations? High carbon footprint countries should pay low carbon footprint countries on a per capita scale. This might drive high footprint countries to prioritize carbon reduction. For underdeveloped and low footprint countries they would receive funds to prepare for climate changes, while also incentivizing them to keep their footprint low as they develop (ie not repeating the mistakes of other developed nations).
Kai Elvin
December 6, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Where are the microphones?
Kai Elvin
December 6, 2020 at 7:29 pm
I’m assuming wireless behind the shirts.
bmarquis3500
December 6, 2020 at 8:19 pm
Takes a lot of balls to talk about energy for 20 minutes without mentioning nuclear once.
Lightning Rod
December 14, 2020 at 5:57 am
too expensive
NihlusGreen
December 17, 2020 at 9:22 am
Too expensive, not renewable, and leaves waste for many thousands of years. Plus with many nuclear plants, we will have another “incident”.
Tiffany Huddleston
December 7, 2020 at 5:28 am
The Venus Project offers a systems approach to intelligently manage Earth’s resources for all inhabitants, human and otherwise.
Daniel Sayre
December 7, 2020 at 6:03 am
Helpful
Matt Strickland
December 7, 2020 at 10:21 pm
Elon’s gonna be rich
F Ar
December 8, 2020 at 1:56 am
12:11
Antony Denahy
December 8, 2020 at 3:44 am
Pretty good stuff, but it seems to assume everything we currently do needs to stay the same. Rampant consumerism live on! I think we should be moving towards the Wellbeing Economy, where the priority is the wellbeing of people and the planet – before profit. No, that does not mean you can’t make a profit. It is just a change of priorities, and timescale.
Bob Wallace
December 9, 2020 at 6:47 am
Looks like Tesla has solved the battery problem. They’re cutting the cost by more than 50% and their lithium iron phosphate tabless batteries use no cobalt, only highly available materials.
SC
December 9, 2020 at 5:43 pm
they seem so sympathetic and intelligent 🙂
Derek Tynan
December 10, 2020 at 12:34 am
Where are they getting this notion that solar and wind are the most cost effective forms of energy? Please elaborate on that with citations. I’m listening.
Francisco Haya de la Torre
December 10, 2020 at 6:26 am
Great topics but….why is the conversation scripted?
Louis Brown
December 10, 2020 at 6:36 am
I have been following this stuff for decades…I can’t imagine ‘Green Hydrogen’ being a real thing, except to rescue Natural Gas miners…it’s where they actually get their hydrogen from; use the sebatier process instead to make denser carbon fuels if you have to. The felating of Capitalism is also a non-starter; capitalism is to an economy as Diabetes is to healthy gut…commerce out of whack.
Voting? Vote ONLY for Small Donation Only Candidates. then the powers that be will actually start to move.
Maxim Mozayev
December 10, 2020 at 8:52 am
For everyone advocating for nuclear. Unfortunately, nuclear is quite expensive, a lot of money and expertise is required to build, maintain and decommission a nuclear power plant. There are a lot of safety and location requirements, plus it’s a big chunk of generation in one place (up to 3000MW an equivalent of 1000-2000 wind turbines), so a powerful distribution grid is needed.
Kevin Dotson
December 12, 2020 at 10:42 pm
Hmmm zero carbon technology we don’t have the tech. Nuclear maybe just a thought. SMR
Canvideo
December 13, 2020 at 3:56 am
Who cares about insulation in California. It’s warm there. Not a peep about how solar panels disproportionately heat the air causing global warming. Not a peep about nitrogen dioxides, which the experts claim is far worse than carbon. Not a peep about climates in most parts of the world that don’t have enough solar energy or wind just to heat hot water, let alone all other needs.
If they sanitized their hands, wouldn’t it be OK to shake hands?
Tenzin Legtsok
December 13, 2020 at 12:48 pm
Excellent content TED. Please keep making more in depth conversations about climate change like this. It would be great to hear from some scientists, policy makers, and entrepreneurs in the field.
james white
December 14, 2020 at 2:49 pm
TOTAL BS
Kōun
December 15, 2020 at 5:38 am
Atoms not bits
Words of absolute wonder 🌹
NihlusGreen
December 17, 2020 at 9:20 am
Well-spoken and very promising.
Tony Holguin
December 18, 2020 at 8:56 am
Why can’t we just run everything on high fructose corn syrup? That stuff is in everything!
Murtaza Topiwala
December 19, 2020 at 12:30 pm
Fun fact and irony: The green background is not real, its a green screen and they’ve done VFX
Amos Soma
December 22, 2020 at 5:40 pm
It’s good that you did the research to tell us that the city in China has 18,000 electric buses. I wish you had carried your research a bit further to tell us how many coal fired electrical generating plants they built to charge those buses.
Helen Sanchez
December 30, 2020 at 8:58 am
100% reliability on electricity is a risky strategy. Even if you were able to generate enough power for the whole world using solar and wind, the electrical grid is still vulnerable to EMPs! If you get rid of everything else that is causing the rise in Co2, you are choosing a source of energy that is vulnerable to hacking and EMPs. Thats dangerous!!!
1984itsover
January 1, 2021 at 7:55 pm
More b.s.