The trillion dollar paradox - George Zaidan
video description
Date: 2025-05-31
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
ronnieolden
The conclusion reached at the end of this video bears no relation to the rest of it. The video lists a variety of potential benefits and costs, with no verifiable data whatsoever, on what the costs and benefits are. All we have are bald statements of what some unnamed economists 'believe'. That's no basis on which to arrive at as serious a global decision as this. Economists are wrong all the time. And who's 'we' in all this
The analogy of the well is completely false. The building contractor can estimate the cost of building the well and how much interest is required to pay the loans required to pay for it, and how much he'll have to charge for the water when its' built. If the village is paying cash up front for the well, it can also estimate the opportunity cost of not investing the cash somewhere else. The village can also have a very good idea of how much they'll save in water deliveries and in roads crumbling. They can then decide whether to build it.
Such a calculation is impossible on a global scale with so many known, and unknown unknowns. Even if the calculation was made, it would require some sort of World Government to enforce the same project on every country, otherwise some countries would bear all the costs and others reap all the climate benefits (if any, without paying anything,
The video is political propaganda dressed up as 'education'.
reply
The conclusion reached at the end of this video bears no relation to the rest of it. The video lists a variety of potential benefits and costs, with no verifiable data whatsoever, on what the costs and benefits are. All we have are bald statements of what some unnamed economists 'believe'. That's no basis on which to arrive at as serious a global decision as this. Economists are wrong all the time. And who's 'we' in all this
The analogy of the well is completely false. The building contractor can estimate the cost of building the well and how much interest is required to pay the loans required to pay for it, and how much he'll have to charge for the water when its' built. If the village is paying cash up front for the well, it can also estimate the opportunity cost of not investing the cash somewhere else. The village can also have a very good idea of how much they'll save in water deliveries and in roads crumbling. They can then decide whether to build it.
Such a calculation is impossible on a global scale with so many known, and unknown unknowns. Even if the calculation was made, it would require some sort of World Government to enforce the same project on every country, otherwise some countries would bear all the costs and others reap all the climate benefits (if any, without paying anything,
The video is political propaganda dressed up as 'education'.
reply
Ziggletooth
Nuclear is the only technology capable of saving the environment. The energy output is extraordinary, it has been shown to be as safe as wind, nuclear waste is minimal and can now be reused in subsidiary reactors and the technology has room for further improvements unlike windmills where we have the optimal form.
The only problem is human conception. The impressive safety record is a surprise to some because the human brain will value 100 casualties on one day to be a disaster but 100 casualties spread out over 100 days to be insignificant. If a reactor fails it is a significant event that sticks in the minds of people.
The minimal waste may also be a surprise to some because of how scary green barrels of florescent material has been depicted in cartoons and such.
But all the numbers are there for nuclear to those that can see the bigger picture.
It's like how people who buy organic food also tend to be big supporters of the environment yet organic crops require 4x the amount of water and ridiculous amounts of ineffective natural pesticide, not to mention the transport of all this additional material on big trucks.
If you want to kill the planet buy organic.
Also if you want to kill the planet protest nuclear.
This is just reality.
reply
Nuclear is the only technology capable of saving the environment. The energy output is extraordinary, it has been shown to be as safe as wind, nuclear waste is minimal and can now be reused in subsidiary reactors and the technology has room for further improvements unlike windmills where we have the optimal form.
The only problem is human conception. The impressive safety record is a surprise to some because the human brain will value 100 casualties on one day to be a disaster but 100 casualties spread out over 100 days to be insignificant. If a reactor fails it is a significant event that sticks in the minds of people.
The minimal waste may also be a surprise to some because of how scary green barrels of florescent material has been depicted in cartoons and such.
But all the numbers are there for nuclear to those that can see the bigger picture.
It's like how people who buy organic food also tend to be big supporters of the environment yet organic crops require 4x the amount of water and ridiculous amounts of ineffective natural pesticide, not to mention the transport of all this additional material on big trucks.
If you want to kill the planet buy organic.
Also if you want to kill the planet protest nuclear.
This is just reality.
reply
Robbstark2024
Humanity has a tough time thinking about the world its future generations will inhabit, given how much we struggle to manage things on a day by day basis. However, it seems like the advancements in the cost efficiency of renewables came from people asking themselves how do we make things better than they currently are rather than how do we fix the world for ourselves and our posterity Improving clean energy technology and integrating it in our society is not going to happen overnight unless the effects of climate change immediately threaten the existence of society as we know it, but what seems like little stuff (building more renewable power plants, improving battery and energy storage technology, etc) really does add up to make substantial progress and, at the very least, begin to normalize renewable energy to facilitate larger transitions if/when they are needed. Essentially, nobody wants to pay a trillion dollars up front, but if you start making payments now, then it’s easier to increase the existing payments as needed as opposed to avoiding the cost entirely and being screwed if you need to pay now because the water trucks can no longer make it to your town.
reply
Humanity has a tough time thinking about the world its future generations will inhabit, given how much we struggle to manage things on a day by day basis. However, it seems like the advancements in the cost efficiency of renewables came from people asking themselves how do we make things better than they currently are rather than how do we fix the world for ourselves and our posterity Improving clean energy technology and integrating it in our society is not going to happen overnight unless the effects of climate change immediately threaten the existence of society as we know it, but what seems like little stuff (building more renewable power plants, improving battery and energy storage technology, etc) really does add up to make substantial progress and, at the very least, begin to normalize renewable energy to facilitate larger transitions if/when they are needed. Essentially, nobody wants to pay a trillion dollars up front, but if you start making payments now, then it’s easier to increase the existing payments as needed as opposed to avoiding the cost entirely and being screwed if you need to pay now because the water trucks can no longer make it to your town.
reply
Davyzepusanbu
The core challenge with renewable energy is that it all depends on electricity, which is a secondary energy source. We still need to generate it through methods like solar, wind, hydro, or even coal, and then find ways to store it. That process often involves extracting raw materials from one part of the world in order to provide clean energy access in another. As a result, one region ends up bearing the environmental and social costs, while another enjoys the benefits.
This is not simply a financial issue. It is a systemic one. Wealthier regions and individuals can afford to remain energy pure, while poorer communities are left to deal with pollution, labor exploitation, and the long-term consequences of resource depletion. These impacts leave future generations in those areas with fewer opportunities, trapping them in a cycle of environmental and economic hardship.
Although the video suggests that money can solve everything, it fails to consider the broader sustainability equation and the unequal burdens built into the system.
reply
The core challenge with renewable energy is that it all depends on electricity, which is a secondary energy source. We still need to generate it through methods like solar, wind, hydro, or even coal, and then find ways to store it. That process often involves extracting raw materials from one part of the world in order to provide clean energy access in another. As a result, one region ends up bearing the environmental and social costs, while another enjoys the benefits.
This is not simply a financial issue. It is a systemic one. Wealthier regions and individuals can afford to remain energy pure, while poorer communities are left to deal with pollution, labor exploitation, and the long-term consequences of resource depletion. These impacts leave future generations in those areas with fewer opportunities, trapping them in a cycle of environmental and economic hardship.
Although the video suggests that money can solve everything, it fails to consider the broader sustainability equation and the unequal burdens built into the system.
reply
ted_ed
And the cost of maintenance and installation of renewable energies is not considered For example, solar panels and wind power plants require specific construction sites, which are usually far away from the place of consumption. Do you not consider this cost in your comparison These lines must be taken care of and maintained, as well as the elements that produce the energy. They are not eternal elements. Doesn't friction wear out wind generators Solar panels are not victims of erosion and dust and must be kept clean (they are usually installed in deserts as they do not produce the same if the day is cloudy. On the other hand, these energies are not usually constant. They do not produce in a sustained way. They are very fluctuating to meet the demand. (Less wind, less energy)
The comparison made in the video, therefore, is not fair. It leaves out many problematic aspects of alternative energies. It is a biased comparison.
reply
And the cost of maintenance and installation of renewable energies is not considered For example, solar panels and wind power plants require specific construction sites, which are usually far away from the place of consumption. Do you not consider this cost in your comparison These lines must be taken care of and maintained, as well as the elements that produce the energy. They are not eternal elements. Doesn't friction wear out wind generators Solar panels are not victims of erosion and dust and must be kept clean (they are usually installed in deserts as they do not produce the same if the day is cloudy. On the other hand, these energies are not usually constant. They do not produce in a sustained way. They are very fluctuating to meet the demand. (Less wind, less energy)
The comparison made in the video, therefore, is not fair. It leaves out many problematic aspects of alternative energies. It is a biased comparison.
reply
jp4431
People aren't long term thinkers. Benefits to future generations that don't directly affect the people in charge of making those decisions and people voting in those in charge cannot be appreciated. On top of that, elected officials will try to create the most impact (e. g. earn the most money, small projects that have immediate impacts to the community, etc) while they are in office, whether it's 4 years, 5 years, 8 years, whatever it is. Anything beyond that, they don't care.
Say what you will about a country like China, but if China wants something done, it will be done. The high speed rail network even extends into less populated and poorer provinces for the sake of connecting everyone in the country. It has the political will. China may be heavy polluters, but they are investing heavily into green tech.
reply
People aren't long term thinkers. Benefits to future generations that don't directly affect the people in charge of making those decisions and people voting in those in charge cannot be appreciated. On top of that, elected officials will try to create the most impact (e. g. earn the most money, small projects that have immediate impacts to the community, etc) while they are in office, whether it's 4 years, 5 years, 8 years, whatever it is. Anything beyond that, they don't care.
Say what you will about a country like China, but if China wants something done, it will be done. The high speed rail network even extends into less populated and poorer provinces for the sake of connecting everyone in the country. It has the political will. China may be heavy polluters, but they are investing heavily into green tech.
reply
talongreenlee7704
This is a false comparison. It’s not that wind and solar would just be more expensive because they are, it’d be more expensive because there would be less energy. A more accurate comparison would be something like, you can build a well that will give you free water, but you can only pull a couple buckets of water out of it each day, which would be a fraction of the water needed to be used in that time. Or you could continue trucking water in and continue to have all the water that you need. Even if you built the well, you’d still have to truck water into the town in order to have the same amount of water. Even if we did all we could to develop green energy, we’d still have to burn fossil fuels to sustain our current quality of life.
reply
This is a false comparison. It’s not that wind and solar would just be more expensive because they are, it’d be more expensive because there would be less energy. A more accurate comparison would be something like, you can build a well that will give you free water, but you can only pull a couple buckets of water out of it each day, which would be a fraction of the water needed to be used in that time. Or you could continue trucking water in and continue to have all the water that you need. Even if you built the well, you’d still have to truck water into the town in order to have the same amount of water. Even if we did all we could to develop green energy, we’d still have to burn fossil fuels to sustain our current quality of life.
reply
gimmethegepgun
The low cost of fossil fuels is essentially just a lie. It's kept low by inflicting its costs on the entire world with its pollution. To those who don't know, this is known as an externalized cost.
And, another thing, if they had to pay the cost of cleaning it up, it would be literally impossible for it to make money with current technology, as carbon capture from the atmosphere takes more energy than is produced by fossil fuels. We literally can't fix it until the technology improves or we stop burning fossil fuels and use renewables/nuclear. And no, using Iceland's geothermal doesn't make the technology workable. You'd be better off moving things that use energy there to save on fossil fuel burning.
reply
The low cost of fossil fuels is essentially just a lie. It's kept low by inflicting its costs on the entire world with its pollution. To those who don't know, this is known as an externalized cost.
And, another thing, if they had to pay the cost of cleaning it up, it would be literally impossible for it to make money with current technology, as carbon capture from the atmosphere takes more energy than is produced by fossil fuels. We literally can't fix it until the technology improves or we stop burning fossil fuels and use renewables/nuclear. And no, using Iceland's geothermal doesn't make the technology workable. You'd be better off moving things that use energy there to save on fossil fuel burning.
reply
balduran2003
This is a false comparison. The video says that once you build the well, you have free water for generations. However, once you build out a renewable energy infrastructure, it has to be maintained and the energy generating components have to be replaced often. Solar panels and wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years; batteries, 5 to 15 years. Electrical components for synchronizing the power output from those sources to the grid have to be replaced even more often than that. On the other hand a nuclear power-plant can go for 40 to 60 years before needing to be shutdown for refurbishment, and it only has to be refueled every 20 years or so. So, the very first comparison in the video is a lie.
reply
This is a false comparison. The video says that once you build the well, you have free water for generations. However, once you build out a renewable energy infrastructure, it has to be maintained and the energy generating components have to be replaced often. Solar panels and wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years; batteries, 5 to 15 years. Electrical components for synchronizing the power output from those sources to the grid have to be replaced even more often than that. On the other hand a nuclear power-plant can go for 40 to 60 years before needing to be shutdown for refurbishment, and it only has to be refueled every 20 years or so. So, the very first comparison in the video is a lie.
reply
naryanr
Yet another video which talks about clean energy,
but which refuses to mention the objectively best one: nuclear.
And another video which mentions Germany specifically as a country which invested heavily in clean energy,
but which completely ignores what a disaster Germany's energy situation is currently.
Also doesn't mention at all how it might be a hit for us now (the middle class)
but how it will kill off hundreds of thousands if not millions of the poorest people around the world.
I'm starting to trust TED-Ed less and less.
If they're responsible for presenting a relatively balanced picture of things, this video is a total failure.
This just feels like propaganda.
reply
Yet another video which talks about clean energy,
but which refuses to mention the objectively best one: nuclear.
And another video which mentions Germany specifically as a country which invested heavily in clean energy,
but which completely ignores what a disaster Germany's energy situation is currently.
Also doesn't mention at all how it might be a hit for us now (the middle class)
but how it will kill off hundreds of thousands if not millions of the poorest people around the world.
I'm starting to trust TED-Ed less and less.
If they're responsible for presenting a relatively balanced picture of things, this video is a total failure.
This just feels like propaganda.
reply
robertwhite3247
I think some information got missed in this video. There is heaps of evidence out there that outlines that investments in resilience to things like climate change and disaster preparedness saves lots of money longer term in terms of emergency response and recovery costs. It can be savings of up to $13 for every $1 invested in resilience. Yes things like technology advancements do help with this. So the question nowadays is are we prepared to make a significant investment to save us money longer term and what are our priorities to invest in. It's a difficult perspective to educate people to have as typically people write off ideas that have a high cost to undertake or implement.
reply
I think some information got missed in this video. There is heaps of evidence out there that outlines that investments in resilience to things like climate change and disaster preparedness saves lots of money longer term in terms of emergency response and recovery costs. It can be savings of up to $13 for every $1 invested in resilience. Yes things like technology advancements do help with this. So the question nowadays is are we prepared to make a significant investment to save us money longer term and what are our priorities to invest in. It's a difficult perspective to educate people to have as typically people write off ideas that have a high cost to undertake or implement.
reply
naryanr
Yet another video which talks about clean energy,
but which refuses to mention the best one: nuclear.
And another video which mentions Germany specifically as a country which invested heavily in clean energy,
but which completely ignores what a disaster Germany's energy situation is currently.
Also doesn't mention at all how it might be a hit for us now (the middle class)
but how it will kill off hundreds of thousands if not millions of the poorest people around the world.
I'm starting to trust TED-Ed less and less.
If they're responsible for giving a relatively balaned picture of things, this video is a total failure.
This just feels like propaganda.
reply
Yet another video which talks about clean energy,
but which refuses to mention the best one: nuclear.
And another video which mentions Germany specifically as a country which invested heavily in clean energy,
but which completely ignores what a disaster Germany's energy situation is currently.
Also doesn't mention at all how it might be a hit for us now (the middle class)
but how it will kill off hundreds of thousands if not millions of the poorest people around the world.
I'm starting to trust TED-Ed less and less.
If they're responsible for giving a relatively balaned picture of things, this video is a total failure.
This just feels like propaganda.
reply
backpacker3421
At the end of the day, the real reason we run into resistance moving to green energy is because of what you say at 1: 17. Solar and wind in particular are abundant, and most importantly, you cannot own the sunshine or the wind. Anybody who can put up the equipment to harness them can make their own energy.
Whereas. you can own a coal mine or an oil well and thereby ensure that everybody MUST pay you for their energy.
And so, the people who control the energy expend their massive financial resources to ensure that their monopoly on energy remains intact as long as humanly possible. And they simply do not care if the world burns as a result.
reply
At the end of the day, the real reason we run into resistance moving to green energy is because of what you say at 1: 17. Solar and wind in particular are abundant, and most importantly, you cannot own the sunshine or the wind. Anybody who can put up the equipment to harness them can make their own energy.
Whereas. you can own a coal mine or an oil well and thereby ensure that everybody MUST pay you for their energy.
And so, the people who control the energy expend their massive financial resources to ensure that their monopoly on energy remains intact as long as humanly possible. And they simply do not care if the world burns as a result.
reply
David. 77
I feel that companies not investing in electric infrastructure or just reducing pollution can be broken down into simple game theory.
A company whose job it is to maximize profit will not divert funds unless it makes money right now. This is mainly due to this hypothetical company must compete with other companies that think the same. So the only reason they would divert funds to reduce pollution is if they were forced to. An industry will only adjust if more stringent regulations are passed into law.
Put simply, if playing a game, what incentive do you have to change your strategy if it's working or at the very least not harming you
reply
I feel that companies not investing in electric infrastructure or just reducing pollution can be broken down into simple game theory.
A company whose job it is to maximize profit will not divert funds unless it makes money right now. This is mainly due to this hypothetical company must compete with other companies that think the same. So the only reason they would divert funds to reduce pollution is if they were forced to. An industry will only adjust if more stringent regulations are passed into law.
Put simply, if playing a game, what incentive do you have to change your strategy if it's working or at the very least not harming you
reply
joegagliardi3984
There’s no way that the world’s wealthiest oil companies, like Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, PetroChina, Shell, TotalEnergies, and other giants, are rooting for the success of clean or green energy. In Saudi Arabia, oil sales account for nearly 50% of their GDP; it’s a similar situation in many of the world’s leading oil-producing countries. The spread, or success, of clean energy would force dozens of countries back into the Stone Age. In the West, the use of renewable energy is growing, but as long as crude oil, and natural gas, can be pumped out of the ground, it’s going to be. Therein lies the paradox.
reply
There’s no way that the world’s wealthiest oil companies, like Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, PetroChina, Shell, TotalEnergies, and other giants, are rooting for the success of clean or green energy. In Saudi Arabia, oil sales account for nearly 50% of their GDP; it’s a similar situation in many of the world’s leading oil-producing countries. The spread, or success, of clean energy would force dozens of countries back into the Stone Age. In the West, the use of renewable energy is growing, but as long as crude oil, and natural gas, can be pumped out of the ground, it’s going to be. Therein lies the paradox.
reply
formsMostBeautiful
1: 27
These are not free. And you don't have to only pay upfront. Solar panels and wind blades only have a 25 year lifespan. Solar has gotten a lot better tech wise so they are worth it but wind does not return net energy for the amount it takes to setup and replace. We've been using water for over 100 years but it's very restricted to only certain locations. Wind and solar only produce power during certain times and our battery tech is just not capable enough to store the energy we need for non producing times. The only way to replace fossil fuels is nuclear. Why don't you mention it
reply
1: 27
These are not free. And you don't have to only pay upfront. Solar panels and wind blades only have a 25 year lifespan. Solar has gotten a lot better tech wise so they are worth it but wind does not return net energy for the amount it takes to setup and replace. We've been using water for over 100 years but it's very restricted to only certain locations. Wind and solar only produce power during certain times and our battery tech is just not capable enough to store the energy we need for non producing times. The only way to replace fossil fuels is nuclear. Why don't you mention it
reply
johnchessant3012
Unfortunately, in the water truck scenario, even though it is optimal for the village as a whole to start digging the well immediately, each person who shares the upfront cost today only personally sees the benefits for the remainder of their lifespan, so if everyone just looked out for their own selfish interests, then the older you are the less likely you will be to support it. In particular, if a society's decision-makers are mostly selfish and elderly (like we have here in America, then they will prefer to kick the can down the road, leaving larger costs for the rest of us after they're gone.
reply
Unfortunately, in the water truck scenario, even though it is optimal for the village as a whole to start digging the well immediately, each person who shares the upfront cost today only personally sees the benefits for the remainder of their lifespan, so if everyone just looked out for their own selfish interests, then the older you are the less likely you will be to support it. In particular, if a society's decision-makers are mostly selfish and elderly (like we have here in America, then they will prefer to kick the can down the road, leaving larger costs for the rest of us after they're gone.
reply
jaspermcjasper3672
1: 00 - How can it possibly be true that the price of fossil fuels has risen ONLY by the general level of inflation in the past 140 years Demand has exploded, and supply has been diminished by whatever we've burned off in 140 years. It's not like any of that has been replaced by ADDITIONAL dinosaurs being compressed by geologic forces. The remaining petroleum and natural gas is now much harder, and much more expensive, to get out of the ground. It seems to me to be impossible that fossil fuel prices haven't gone up way past inflation in 140 years.
reply
1: 00 - How can it possibly be true that the price of fossil fuels has risen ONLY by the general level of inflation in the past 140 years Demand has exploded, and supply has been diminished by whatever we've burned off in 140 years. It's not like any of that has been replaced by ADDITIONAL dinosaurs being compressed by geologic forces. The remaining petroleum and natural gas is now much harder, and much more expensive, to get out of the ground. It seems to me to be impossible that fossil fuel prices haven't gone up way past inflation in 140 years.
reply
davidroullierm
Stunning visuals and a saintly soundtrack don’t make a prophecy true.
Yes, we once overstated renewable costsbut we’ve also swung wildly on climate forecasts (70s iceage scare, 90s NYC underwater by now. The pattern isn’t malice; it’s the researcher’s impulse to make every study earthshattering and the media’s thirst for headline drama.
The result Doomladen certainties drown out nuanced, middleoftheroad findings. Let’s keep the urgency but drop the hypeand stay suspicious of any endofdays narrative wrapped in cinematic glow.
reply
Stunning visuals and a saintly soundtrack don’t make a prophecy true.
Yes, we once overstated renewable costsbut we’ve also swung wildly on climate forecasts (70s iceage scare, 90s NYC underwater by now. The pattern isn’t malice; it’s the researcher’s impulse to make every study earthshattering and the media’s thirst for headline drama.
The result Doomladen certainties drown out nuanced, middleoftheroad findings. Let’s keep the urgency but drop the hypeand stay suspicious of any endofdays narrative wrapped in cinematic glow.
reply
kevinfrushour
A big problem is not that companies want to pollute the land, it's that companies don't want some snot-nosed startup getting all the profit and their own company taking a financial hit or dying like a dinosaur. The fossil fuel companies want to make sure THEY are the ones making money off the new green tech, but they have to put down their toys to pick up the new ones and they don't want to do that. It's much more cost efficient keeping the competition down than to fix things for the better.
reply
A big problem is not that companies want to pollute the land, it's that companies don't want some snot-nosed startup getting all the profit and their own company taking a financial hit or dying like a dinosaur. The fossil fuel companies want to make sure THEY are the ones making money off the new green tech, but they have to put down their toys to pick up the new ones and they don't want to do that. It's much more cost efficient keeping the competition down than to fix things for the better.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
