I know lots of people in the comments believe that “talking” doesn’t provide any solutions but there’s no way to get to a solution if people don’t believe in the problem. She’s trying to get people to believe there’s a problem so that they want to accomplish a solution. The talk is about changing people’s minds and providing evidence to those who may not be aware of environmental issues and debates in the political spectrum. If she listed a bunch of solutions on how to become more sustainable do you think everybody would immediately drop their current lifestyle and change? You have to encourage and promote people to accept these ideologies before they WANT to make a change in their personal life.
Exactly. It's actually very simple. Do we fix a problem when nobody talks about it? No, then we wouldn't even know about the problem, we wouldn't know about th science. So obviously the solution can't be not talking about the problem, despite the backfire effect (which isn't as relevant as most people think it is) and all those other issues. You contribute to solving a problem exactly how you think you would: -Talking to people -Spreading information -Leading by example -Getting involved politically
I absolutely agree, also even people who believe in climate change can benefit from talking about it as they might share a good change they have made like moving to an energy provider who uses exclusively renewable sources or recommend an electric vehicle they have. The more people talk and understand how to help they faster we will see the benefits.
@@daltonnelson94 So what’s partisan about talking about a problem that you obviously don’t believe is a problem? So if you don’t believe there’s a problem, then there is no problem for you, until it becomes a problem! Moreover, are you likely to be the one to solve a problem that you didn’t believe existed in the 1st place? Yeah! I doubt that you will be the problem solver! So let’s say that this particular person is incorrect, but the vast majority of us overwhelmingly decided to support, not just what she’s talking about, but what everyone who believes there’s a problem, recommends that we all do & so the solution that you claim she doesn’t have, yet we all believe there’s a problem with the exception of a few, that carbon capture as well as eliminating our use of burning fossil fuels as we do today, if we went down that track versus continuing to burn fossil fuels that produces the greenhouse affects scientist have been warning us about & that in 100 years from now, humans wake up to a planet that is greener, cleaner in terms of air quality & water & soil that actually allows us to produce wholesome, healthy, food that we all rely on to sustain life as we know it, not on mars or some distant galaxy, but on the only planet that we actually live on, mother earth! So explain to me how that would be a bad thing?
As I read all the comments below, I am blown away by the sheer ignorance of many, and the hostile attitude to the subject without any proper discussion or consideration of the subject. Ignorance is bliss, and there are obviously a lot of blissful people out there. If they had carefully examined the facts, discussed it in a polite and objective manner, they would have made their point better. Sad. These comments are more about human nature, than climate change.
The Earth is actually in an ice age right now. Once the Oxone layer has burned away, we will enter the fifth ice age this Earth is yet to take on. Plastic is probably the most dangerous thing in this whole argument
You lambaste the other posters for not "properly" discussing the subject, yet you call them hostile, ignorant, etc... You are no better, you just believe you have the moral high-ground since you go along with the narrative pushed by climate change activists. Of course the climate is changing, it always is, we can see from ice-core samples from Greenland, the planet's temperature and CO2 levels have fluctuated MUCH more than it currently is now. Of course we should transition to green energy, but this alarmist attitude of the world coming to an end has been perpetrated since the 60's with prediction after prediction being wrong. People like Al Gore and Obama saying coastlines will be underwater within a decade only to spend MILLIONS of dollars on beach front property. People often repeat "97% of climate scientists agree", well actually look into it. Many of those scientists have come forward and said their work was deliberately misinterpreted. I can go on and on. As a biologist/ecologist, I care about the planet and every organism that inhabits it. And I have the same goals as you to stop fossil fuel use and transition to green energy. But giving the government unlimited power and upending the economy in the name of climate change is just a ploy for power. Let's have actual debates instead of one side screaming "the sky is falling" and the other side saying "yeah we've heard this before".
@@laurier3348 CO2 can green the plant up to a certain point. I say up to a certain point because CO2 also heats the planet. And once plants lack water or live in an enviroment that is too hot then the positive effects of more CO2 will be counter acted. Look, you won't get far by simply looking at things you think are positive about global warming (cherry picking) and ignoring the whole picture. You also won't get far because you're an amateur and chances are always high that you lack certain pieces of information and certain skills to actually interpret the whole situation correctly. That's why people with a background in natural sciences are working full time on those problems. If you care about truth then you'll look to the scientific community as a whole and listen to them and not cherry pick a few dissenting voices.
@@kja6336 There's no science to back up your point. The earth will continue to warm if we continue to burn fossil fuels and therfore release more CO2, which will in turn lead to more backradiation and a higher surface temperature. You may feel that way, but climate science is based on physics and measurements - not feelings. There's no mechanism to make the earth cool if we continue to burn fossil fuels (unless something unpredictable happens like a volcanic erruption, metorite etc.).
Talking with everyone you know of climate change AND do what can minimize your own carbonfootprint in the world. That is the key. Thanks for the video!
I like your positivity bro but the sad fact is here we are in 2020 with Bailouts happening for fossil fuel, Fossil fuel receiving higher subsidies than clean energy (it sounds almost impossible right? but here it is www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-cash-pay-green-energy-transition ) Our individual actions will be far too little, when the world operates like this. It gets away with operating like that because people are unaware. Hence why Scientists started supporting distruptive action “We believe that the continued governmental inaction over the climate and ecological crisis now justifies peaceful and non-violent protest and direct action, even if this goes beyond the bounds of the current law,” Emily Grossman, the first signatory of the declaration and a science broadcaster with a PhD in molecular biology, announced www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/hundreds-of-scientists-declare-support-for-extinction-rebellion-66572 We need to stand together in solidarity if we are to even have a chance, Cuz we don't have till 2050 anymore to hit net zero emissions, and with the current relaxations going on that time is going to come down really really fast) instagram.com/p/B_kcugpnVVB/ So yeah, think about it. Got to band together and demand for changes, or it will be wayy too late. I joined Extinction Rebellion cuz they seem to be the the ones who are expanding fast worldwide and have the support of scientists^ And here's a post i made with some more mind-boggling facts (with links to the proof in em). Read if you are still undecided facebook.com/notes/rajitha-gamalath/by-2030-we-will-either-be-the-generations-that-averted-the-climate-crisis-or-tho/2718675641587788/
You're not correct about this - it will not accomplish what you alleged. The key isn't "average Joe" "reducing their carbon foot print" and never was. This is part of the lies being told. The key is to reign in the big polluters and contributers - industry and many aspects of our civilization. What individuals do (or do not do) has very little impact upon rising temperatures and greenhouse gas contributions, but it is just the opposite for industry (and the military) which has enormous footprints and contributions. These need to be stopped asap. Hayhoe is preaching to the wrong crowd and does not properly understand the issue, despite being a scientist herself. That doesn't mean anything in actuality, science is badly letting us down by failing to declare a climate emergency years ago and then rallying around this proof and concept. It is governments, industry and big businesses that must be made to "cooperate" with mitigation efforts the most (by far) - not individuals who have little impact anyway.
Tired of people and media telling us that the responsibility lays with each consumer and his decisions while big companies destroy the environment on a whole different scale without consequences.
Companies are people and there are consequences to polluting. However, a smaller government would help keep companies from bribing politicians so they can get away with stuff.
Dean the responsibility does not lay with any single person. There are over 8 billion people on earth and a simple non life changing action performed by everyone goes a huge way. Nobody is asking you to change your life because of this, just try to perform small little actions or as she said: just talk about it.
I added this speech as my concluding video for my Climate Change Unit (which I teach every year in Social Studies) because it ends with a positive message. Educate.
I'm working on a project about climate change right now. I was hoping to find recent material, but I didn't expect to find something from 25 minutes ago.
The one true root cause of climate change is overpopulation. People need to stop having so many kids. We can solve so much of the world's issues if couples limited themselves to one child.
10:28 I especially resonated with Dr. Hayhoe's perspectives on fear - "Fear is designed for us to run away from the bear...or run faster than the person beside us." The joke seems to be that the slowest will be the bear's victim, but I wonder if she realizes what a powerful metaphor that is for the economic and industrial obstacles that she faces when she tries to get people to care about climate change. Economic horizons have been always way too short for authentic concerns -- resulting in a dominance of greenwashed solutions that pander to capitalist fears that only need their greenness to outpace the bear of irrelevancy. There are no silver bullet solutions, but as a spokesperson for the mainstream climate movement, Does Dr. Hayhoe properly acknowledge agricultural solutions in the "silver buckshot?" Talking is important but language is just as critical -- if an environmentalist can speak of the planned obsolescence of fossil fuels, why not the beef industry? Certainly the *fear* of multi-industrial opposition -- BigOil AND BigBeef -- is profound to climate activists, and perhaps defocusing to a scientific base that asks everything about atmosphere and next to nothing about soil. The IPCC actually says a lot about AFOLU -- Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, including the dangers that climate change represent to these industries, which gets a lot of conversation, and solutions to their emissions, which does not.
you mentioned dietary choices. one of the most important things we can do is eat less meat. to those who can go vegan, you are doing something meaningful for the climate and all of us, not to mention acting ethically and with compassion.
Vegan will threaten the survival of our domesticated animals. Is that ethical? On the other hand the means to grow real meat in factories is being developed. BTW in 1850 & earlier it was colder, there were summers the snow never melted, famine was common. Starvation & freezing cold drove the colorization of North America..Many reputable scientists speculate the warm inter glacial was ending and only the buildup of GHG's is preventing the return to another ice locked world.
@@bluskies1000 - prioritizing wild animals over the unnatural breeding of domesticated animals is absolutely ethically sound. 1.5 billion cows outconsume 8 billion people, and 77% of arable land is used for animals to produce only 8% of global protein. You are wildly misinterpreting William F. Ruddiman's Early Anthropocene hypothesis that identifies 10,000 years of poor agricultural practices like slash and burn deforestation and overgrazing/overcropping that desertified land. We ACCIDENTALLY eliminated an ice age that Milankovitch cycles predict would have happened 5000 years ago. This knowledge reveals to us a fantastic insight into climate solutions -- reversing the carbon depletion to regrow forests is a powerful solution once we navigate the intense food politics that limits Dr. Hayhoe to mutterings about consuming local food ("food miles" are an extremely weak proposition, mathematically) and "eat lower on the food chain" (an arbitrary reducitarian non-agenda which could mean anything and is therefore scientifically unmeasurable).
You do realize that bovine livestock have a rumninant that oxygenated the vegetation that they eat that allows them to digest it arobicly, reducing methain production. We don't! So if we eat more vegetation we will produce far more methane! Do you remember your grade physics? We exposed methane and air to ultraviolet, and in minutes, it became CO2 and water vapor!
You don’t have to be a hardcore vegan either just cutting down on meat is amazing as the average American consumes 225 lbs of meat a year and it takes over 1500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef meaning over 415,000 gallons of water are put into it not only that but meat production is horrible for the enviorment.
I was waiting for her to speak about it for the whole video as well... Going vegan (or mostly) is probably the single biggest step one can do to reduce its negative impact. Funny how nobody speak about it
"The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: Speak about it*" *but only when it's convenient and doesn't intervene with our food preferences/selfish pleasure
@anatoli p both are serious threats. I don't understand why you doubt climate scientists - there have been years of research and background, evidence proving that our greenhouse gas emissions heat up the planet. Let's admit it and act. I hope you help in both areas.
Lets talk about it. Yes the climate is changing and has always been changing. In the judgement of the IPCC humans are the main cause of the current changing climate and it's dangerous, but what do they really know? According to the IPCC the climate sensitivity (how much the temperature rises for each doubling of CO2) is between 1.5 and 4.5. If it's in the lower range, there's nothing to worry, if it's high then we are in trouble. The empirical evidence (journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1) shows a probably value of 1.5 and that suggests we have very little to be concerned about. On the value of judgement of experts. Philip E. Tetlock has done studies on how accurate the judgement of experts are. He found that expert opinions are almost worthless. My point is, the IPCC use models and their reports rely very much on expert opinions. But, empirical evidence do not support a very crucial component of the IPCC narrative, the climate sensitivity. My conclusion is - yes the climate is changing and CO2 is increasing and CO2 does contribute to the recent temperature increase (to the tune of 1.5 deg C per doubling of CO2). But, the climate has always changed without humans so there are other factors causing the climate to change. With the empirical evidence not supporting the IPCC narrative, I reject it. Based on the work of Philip Tetlock it's not unreasonable to reject the opinion of experts when empirical evidence do not support the expert's opinion.
I think the doubling is BS. In fact, there is a better theory that the climate pushes back against changes and suppresses heat increases. They won't talk about CO2 saturation. CO2 only absorbs a narrow band of radiation. When that band is used up, which it may be by now, no more heat can be attributed to CO2.
I have been researching this for over 50 years now. She has her facts correct. One point that is often referred to, but never quantified is that the amount of moisture held in air, increases by 7 % for every degree Celsius 1.6 degrees F . It compounds, thus with a 3 degree temperature increase, air holds 22 % more moisture. With oceans 3 degrees warmer, they will evaporate 22 % more moisture, which will condense as even heavier rains, in cooler areas. Desert areas will dry 22 % faster, and marginal areas will dry out below the amount required for agriculture. Hurricanes are powered by condensing moisture giving off heat, and thus will be 22 % more powerful. We have lots of examples of that, and that is our future. But, if you are a Republican, science is all fiction, we just cannot explain it to you any better.
Thank you very much, dear Ms Hayhoe, you've reinforced my conviction that it's crucial and urgent to react to the climate change. Now I need to elaborate a strategy of sustainable lifestyle that I could practice myself and propagate around my acquaintances. Where could I find guidelines on what our most damaging habits are and how we could change them in our day-to-day life? Really, I am desperate to save this planet, by I am sincerely lost among the para-scientific articles. Wo could help me find a trustworthy resource?
To me, the thing I think about is waste/resources. For instance, solar and wind require finite resources to produce and maintain. And what happens when they need to be replaced? What waste do they create at the end of their lifecycle? Similarly, we are developing new cars. But what are the impacts of mining to get the resources needed to produce those cars and what are the lifecycles of the cars? We need to produce with a circular lifecycle in mind. We need to change our consciousness. Otherwise we are just switching out products with slightly better versions with the same, wasteful linear thinking. We need to become conscious creators, including procreation. We really need to put all of our energy into changing the current system. That's difficult to do while raising children. 💖🙏🦋
Forget about talking to climate skeptics. Start by changing your own consumptions and lifestyles. It's going to make an impact in every sectors of societies if enough of us do that. Your choices influence businesses, governments and other people.
Science is skepticism. Skeptics are the real scientists by definition. But go ahead and listen to the propaganda from the non-scientists like Al Gore and AOC.
Great talk and it offers the simplest solution that is by all means necessary to battle the problem. Spreading the knowledge that scientists have acquired to society is very important, because we need the whole planet to act on this. The disastrous consequences are not beaten in one or few years, it will take couple of decades to put us on the right track. It's ultimately the only way to guarantee a habitable future for this planet.
Talking does NOT help. You will connect with people if you practice your listening skills and just listen. You will also learn lots of things you would not learn while "preaching" about climate change. The religious angle does not help. Learn to listen and hear the truth.
I believe teleworking will contribute greatly towards reducing our environmental footprint; and alternative energy sources will compensate for the energy demand spike.
In India railway electrification going at huge rate to reduce it's carbon footprint, which carries 25 million people everyday. 65% good transportation and 55% of passenger using electric traction. Also investing in wind and solar energy to power the station.
TedTalk is inspirational to many people. I hope we will take climate change seriously. In today's business we need leaders who care about earnings as much as the place we live called Earth. I talked about this on my channel.
They make up this bullshit so they can tax us to death and make us poor, that is the only agenda of the political left. See the yellow vest protests in France, Macron increased gas taxes by 50%, people are taxed to death, and this new tax hike was to battle climate change but people don't have money to buy food.
The best way to solve climate change is actually to consume less meat.... The livestock industry contributes the most (18%) of greenhouse gases, much more than transportation.
John Baugh Almost everyone gets meat from stores where everything comes from factory farms. a giant majority. good for you, but her point 100% still stands for everyone else. try again 😂
I am from a small village in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Because of global warming our crops are dying. Famine is killing my people. Global warming is real.
I often do wonder about this. We have textbooks about math, about physics, but why not talking to people? Turns out we do. A lot of this can be found in Carnegie's *How to Win Friends and Influence People*, and the core message boils down to: be a genuine person who cares about other people. It's good life advice.
Talking is fine, though many people are angry and against the science. It's hard to overcome anger, but we have to find the right forum where we do not engage their defensiveness.
She speaks for her own self interest, she is a CEO of ATMOS Research and Consulting and the Government is her largest client, so notice her only "real" solution is Government intervention through Taxation as stated in minute 2.
One question. If the the weather is getting hotter, in order to have hurricanes you need a stronger difference in temperature between the North Pole and the Ecuator. Does it mean the Equator is not warming or warming much less then the poles? If it is real so where is the problem?!
Love this. Everyone laughs at me when I say the climate change is causing issues for us. It rained for like a month in Ohio. That id NOT normal for us. Agriculture is failing because farmers can't plant. Something needs to change.
The scientific literature would happen to disagree. If you stand by your claim, prove it. prove that co2 is NOT causing warming. www.nature.com/articles/342758a0 www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327
@@Stwinge44 Claiming CO2, a gas that is .04% of air, is capable of changing the climate is an extraordinary claim. Quoting Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You are the one that needs to prove CO2 can and is warming the planet and changing the climate. The climate is always changing and we know what typically causes it, the Sun, the tilt and wobble of the planet and the pull of the other planets in the solar system. My proof is business as usual, what is yours? Before you say "the scientific literature" let me tell you most does not support CO2 changing the climate. The talking heads cherry-pick, lie, and use incidental evidence instead of real data to push this scam to further their globalist agendas. (And to make a buck.)
@@gbuz5789 The evidence is mountainous and has been for thirty years - simply check the peer-reviewed literature in the leading journals (eg. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0)
@@gbuz5789 - Did your stomach control your fingers and type that response without intervention of your brain? Neat! Michael Pollan said in The Omnivore's Dilemma that our stomach often overrides our cognitive processes...
@JonasHolzer - Excellent! Where can Dr. Hayhoe and I 😜see your presentation? (I hope you don't use her "local food" arguments as it is well known that food production averages about 96% of energy use, leaving only 4% for "post-farmgate emissions" which includes all transportation to and from stores, storage, cooking, etc. "Local meat" arguments are even worse -- around 0.1% of total emissions are in transportation. Also, "eat lower on the food chain" is accurate enough, when a vegan diet is 1/16 the ecological impact of the Standard American Diet (SAD) the baseline is set...all the rest are weak "comparative sustainability" arguments, magical thinking, and defending indulgent, meaty privileges.
Actually India has already replaced millions of incandescent, halogen and fluorescent lights in its streets, offices and houses through the UJALA program. It did it by lending LED bulbs and battens at very cheap price to individual consumers( I am one of them), partnering up with rural and municipal bodies to replace all street lights and partnering up with corporate houses and residential societies to replace their lighting. This venture forced all LED manufacturers to bring their price down and as a result India is now home to the cheapest LED lighting, also this has further brought down the LED lighting price across the world. Also, like China , India too is betting big on Solar and the solar growth rate is already higher than US and second only to china. In terms of total solar too, India is 3rd right after China and US. And guess what the per capita energy consumption of India is one of the lowest in the world, orders of magnitude lower than that of US and other developed countries and China.
India is a poor country, that is why their energy consumption is low per capita. They will be a leader in overall energy consumption (currently 5th in the world) and in CO2 emissions (currently 3rd). So India and China will be for decades the biggest users of energy and CO2 producers.
Didn’t even mention nuclear energy. I doubt she is serious about reducing climate change if she is not supporting increasing energy from nuclear, the greenest of all energy sources
I am a long-time liberal and my skepticism has everything to do with the science. The notion that drastically cutting back on fossil fuels is just a matter of giving up our "comfortable life styles" is beyond perverse. No I do not want to freeze on winter nights. No I do not want to starve because trucks are no longer able to transport food to the stores. No I do not want to junk my car because fanatics like yourself don't approve of gasoline. No I do not want to stand by while millions of innocent, poverty stricken third world peoples are denied the opportunity to improve their lot through economic development.
The worst is, people are silent about the "real" biggest polluter, which is the meat industry (mostly cow and lamb). The meat industry is litterly silencing critics who talk about this problem. Cowspiracy on the other hand explains how the industry pollutes and silences very well. Please look into it and think about your diet.
If everyone who wants climate change will make a tick-tock video or choose a day for us all to post on social media about Global warming and positive changes, I believe it will be effective in bringing attention and positive changes toward saving our planet.
*** PART 3 OF 3 *** The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect". The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres ---> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called "downwelling LWR radiation at the surface" and I've explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface. That's the lower end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works. --------- Note 1: I haven't yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don't know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn't find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2. Note 2: Removed because I've gotten confirmation. Note 3: 80% of Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The "greenhouse effect" warming can only happen in Earth's troposphere, there's no effect in Earth's tropopause and the effect is "backwards" in Earth's stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that's how it's known with total certainty that it's increased "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there's no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you'll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That's the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it's a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there's only 0.4% of Earth's atmosphere's molecules above, negligible. Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
When religion comes in I am out. *Contradictio in terminis* The creator have creating "things" without asking first if the "things" would like to be created. Therefore the creator is responsible for every thing, what is created by it, is doing.
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of ALL pollution. Let's put less of the onus on the average citizen and more on where it belongs. Companies have to change.
Okay, climate is changing. Human innovation has an impact. Doesn't mean you should ruin your financial stability or the nation's to fix a problem with conflicting research. Wouldn't do much good anyway, most countries residing outside the west won't be curbing emissions till 2030.
Took like five pages of comments to get to a sensible comment. There is no real problem. There is no solution to the non-problem. Get back to work on something important.
@@gladonos3384 Third world countries can't afford expensive solar, wind, and other renewables. Mandating that they use those energy sources means they will have to do without and so many will suffer.
The thruth Is that the bad guys are those who finance her university (as well as most of the other universities) and who own thousands of cargo ships (one of which pollute as 15 millions cars) to transport goods manufactured in their polluting factories in China and India, and who also own thousands of cruise ships (one of which pollute as 5 millions cars), which are really useless polluters, and own airline companies, oil refiners, chemical industries, pfas industries, pesticides industries, herbicides industries, chemical fertilizers industries, and so on, and who pay people like her to say that global warming is fault of the average western citizen who owns a car.
"If the thermometer tells us the temperature is rising, humans are the cause of it, and the only thing we can do is wean off fossil fuels". I hate to break it to you, but thermometers don't do the last part, and fossil fuels being used in Africa would be better long term for the climate right now
@@Nognamogo Think what in particular? Fossil fuels would spur economic development, Africa is already behind, and caring about the climate is a luxury of the rich. The best thing to do with our money is to empower and educate African and middle eastern women, and give them access to preventative birth controls
Its like this. Your better of treating it as real. If its NOT real what harm can be done by poluting less? If it IS real then we could avoid global death and famin. Your action could save millions if not billions of lives!
Honestly, this is literally pascals wager... ...Which as an atheist i find to be a terrible argument... We need to be convincing people with evidence and statistics. There is tons of data that proves climate change, just use that. I mean sure, if it works, fine, but this certainly has never convinced me so i don't see why it would work for climate change deniers.
Thank you thank you Dr Hayhoe for your integrity, dedication to the truth, and perhaps most especially for enduring the myriad challenges of bringing your message into the mainstream of society
This woman typifies the major problem the western world is facing right now and the main reason why our adversaries (Russia and China) are seeking to exploit their newfound supremacy. Particularly with (left leaning, weak) governments that feel obliged to appease alarmists like Ms. Hayhoe (and others) for the sake of the potential of a vote in their direction. In the meantime, I can assure her and any others that think the world will end through lack of action, that my great, great grandchildren will do just fine on this planet that is now significantly "greener" and more bountiful then it was when I was born. My only wish is that she can have a long life so that she and her peers can get to see firsthand, the ridiculous stance that they took in crying about absolutely nothing.
@@nitrofreak67 - She's neither a Democrat nor a Republican -- she's Canadian. And pointing out that folks can't talk about science because they only hear politics -- thanks for demonstrating that so cleanly.
Her advice to talk about the issue is not that it directly removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Climate change needs to be discussed by liberals and conservatives alike to form educated and informed opinions. Democracy only works when we have a set of facts we can all agree on or at least acknowledge. Right now most people in the comments are just using straw man arguments to demonize the other side. If we can learn to discuss climate change in a helpful manner, it will help us vote on better policy and make positive steps for the future.
Within walking distance of my front door there are three massive layers of glacier moraine deposited millions of years apart. There is an earthquake fault 400' deep with a clear geological record of the eruption, 1000 times larger than St. Helens, that created the caldera where I live. None of these events had anything to do with anthropomorphic influences. OF COURSE...climate changes, every day, every year and every epoch. If we are going to "talk" we need to talk about sensible conservation and alternative energy, but we need to comprehend the cataclysmic effects of Geo Engineering, Stratospheric Aerosol Injections, Fukushima, Nuclear Testing, Depleted Uranium weapons and an outdated nuclear infrastructure. All of these factors are massively influencing global weather, and they are virtually ignored in every publication of record. Fukushima and Geo Engineering are gigantic influences, yet are the third rail in these "discussions". Of course, following the pedigree of this PHD it becomes quite obvious that the discussion is already a settled matter.
King James Bible While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night ... Here's your climate change right here.
If only we could cancel the cancel culture. If we cannot cancel climate change, why should we cancel everyone who has different opinion, experiences, life styles?
Fix is directly related to the number of humans using the earth's resources. One individual has a huge impact on the depletion of earth's resources over a 70-90 year lifetime. With a projected global population expected to reach 10+ billion by 2050, I predict a catastropic outcome.
Dear like-minded viewers, I beg you to share with me links to some peer-reviewed scientific articles proving that the human activity DOES exacerbate the climate change. My father is very stubborn; he won't change his lifestyle or let my mom do so unless he's provided with some scientific evidence. He won't even read it, since he doesn't speak English, yet the very existence of such research will be a great tool for convincing him. I've been trying to find something of the kind on my own, yet I'm not a scientist, so I get drowned in the abundance of information and don't know how to proceed in my searches. So I'm turning to those who are more experienced and informed in this field for help.
Im fed up with conversations, we talk about it almost a century and yet failing to resolve it. The most important thing you can do to fight climate change is going VEGAN!!!! Believe me, conversation will start right away.
@@wayalternative1160 But I'm mostly talking about having our clothes, shoes, cushions, etc (every things of the life) becoming vegan Ps : sorry for my english😅
LOL, and the Vegan chimes in. Nothing wrong with eating some meat. We probably eat too much but Veganism is stupid. I mean do it if you want but I will never. Climate change from CO@ is bogus and so is Vegan.
@@wayalternative1160 Land that is suitable for animals isn't always suitable for crops and cows actually eat inedible crops. While what you are saying may be true on some level it is no where near as cut and dry as you think.
Experts have known for decades about climate change, peak oil and diminishing resources, but big business has chosen instead to continue on as usual in the name of profits, further using up what's left of our natural resources. It's mind blowing to me that big manufacturing is not asking to change how they do things or take any responsibility whatsoever for the situation they are in large part responsible for. An example is after we reached peak oil about a decade ago, the oil and car manufacturing industry has brainwashed the men of the United States they aren't real men if they don't drive the largest, most polluting pickup truck they can get their hands on. Go to Europe, Asia or down under and observe practically no pickups on the road at all. How to they manage without them? If you asked the average male to give up his pickup, you'd get rage and declarations of how much they need this pickup which is used just about never. This goes for a whole range of other commodities too, like single serve water bottles, plastic grocery bags, air conditioners, oversized homes and flying all over the world in jets. As long as business supports climate change via their products and advertising, little will change. These people pay little to no taxes in addition to this. We as consumers should change our lifestyles and buying habits and perhaps those who must not be named will at some point get the message.
Katharine, the conversations are already occurring and I believe more people are listening. I get frustrated that it is not happening fast enough. We are going to be like the person treading water with the sharks circling who says “I guess I should have listened when they said my boat was leaking”.
the argument is not about climate change per se, because the real reason people object to the theory is that to agree with it means to accept a one world government run by experts who will tell you how to run your life.
I know lots of people in the comments believe that “talking” doesn’t provide any solutions but there’s no way to get to a solution if people don’t believe in the problem. She’s trying to get people to believe there’s a problem so that they want to accomplish a solution. The talk is about changing people’s minds and providing evidence to those who may not be aware of environmental issues and debates in the political spectrum. If she listed a bunch of solutions on how to become more sustainable do you think everybody would immediately drop their current lifestyle and change? You have to encourage and promote people to accept these ideologies before they WANT to make a change in their personal life.
Exactly. It's actually very simple. Do we fix a problem when nobody talks about it? No, then we wouldn't even know about the problem, we wouldn't know about th science. So obviously the solution can't be not talking about the problem, despite the backfire effect (which isn't as relevant as most people think it is) and all those other issues. You contribute to solving a problem exactly how you think you would:
-Talking to people
-Spreading information
-Leading by example
-Getting involved politically
So karen has no solution. Lol. Why should we listen to thos partisan hack.
I absolutely agree, also even people who believe in climate change can benefit from talking about it as they might share a good change they have made like moving to an energy provider who uses exclusively renewable sources or recommend an electric vehicle they have. The more people talk and understand how to help they faster we will see the benefits.
@@daltonnelson94 So what’s partisan about talking about a problem that you obviously don’t believe is a problem? So if you don’t believe there’s a problem, then there is no problem for you, until it becomes a problem! Moreover, are you likely to be the one to solve a problem that you didn’t believe existed in the 1st place? Yeah! I doubt that you will be the problem solver!
So let’s say that this particular person is incorrect, but the vast majority of us overwhelmingly decided to support, not just what she’s talking about, but what everyone who believes there’s a problem, recommends that we all do & so the solution that you claim she doesn’t have, yet we all believe there’s a problem with the exception of a few, that carbon capture as well as eliminating our use of burning fossil fuels as we do today, if we went down that track versus continuing to burn fossil fuels that produces the greenhouse affects scientist have been warning us about & that in 100 years from now, humans wake up to a planet that is greener, cleaner in terms of air quality & water & soil that actually allows us to produce wholesome, healthy, food that we all rely on to sustain life as we know it, not on mars or some distant galaxy, but on the only planet that we actually live on, mother earth! So explain to me how that would be a bad thing?
@@theodorehaskins3756Cleaner and greener comes from wealth, and wealth doesn't come from eliminating fossil fuels.
As I read all the comments below, I am blown away by the sheer ignorance of many, and the hostile attitude to the subject without any proper discussion or consideration of the subject. Ignorance is bliss, and there are obviously a lot of blissful people out there. If they had carefully examined the facts, discussed it in a polite and objective manner, they would have made their point better. Sad. These comments are more about human nature, than climate change.
Climate hoaxers are wrong about the future,
higher CO2 greens the planet.
The Earth is actually in an ice age right now. Once the Oxone layer has burned away, we will enter the fifth ice age this Earth is yet to take on. Plastic is probably the most dangerous thing in this whole argument
You lambaste the other posters for not "properly" discussing the subject, yet you call them hostile, ignorant, etc... You are no better, you just believe you have the moral high-ground since you go along with the narrative pushed by climate change activists. Of course the climate is changing, it always is, we can see from ice-core samples from Greenland, the planet's temperature and CO2 levels have fluctuated MUCH more than it currently is now. Of course we should transition to green energy, but this alarmist attitude of the world coming to an end has been perpetrated since the 60's with prediction after prediction being wrong. People like Al Gore and Obama saying coastlines will be underwater within a decade only to spend MILLIONS of dollars on beach front property. People often repeat "97% of climate scientists agree", well actually look into it. Many of those scientists have come forward and said their work was deliberately misinterpreted. I can go on and on. As a biologist/ecologist, I care about the planet and every organism that inhabits it. And I have the same goals as you to stop fossil fuel use and transition to green energy. But giving the government unlimited power and upending the economy in the name of climate change is just a ploy for power. Let's have actual debates instead of one side screaming "the sky is falling" and the other side saying "yeah we've heard this before".
@@laurier3348
CO2 can green the plant up to a certain point. I say up to a certain point because CO2 also heats the planet. And once plants lack water or live in an enviroment that is too hot then the positive effects of more CO2 will be counter acted.
Look, you won't get far by simply looking at things you think are positive about global warming (cherry picking) and ignoring the whole picture. You also won't get far because you're an amateur and chances are always high that you lack certain pieces of information and certain skills to actually interpret the whole situation correctly. That's why people with a background in natural sciences are working full time on those problems.
If you care about truth then you'll look to the scientific community as a whole and listen to them and not cherry pick a few dissenting voices.
@@kja6336
There's no science to back up your point. The earth will continue to warm if we continue to burn fossil fuels and therfore release more CO2, which will in turn lead to more backradiation and a higher surface temperature.
You may feel that way, but climate science is based on physics and measurements - not feelings. There's no mechanism to make the earth cool if we continue to burn fossil fuels (unless something unpredictable happens like a volcanic erruption, metorite etc.).
Talking with everyone you know of climate change AND do what can minimize your own carbonfootprint in the world. That is the key. Thanks for the video!
Bullshit. Stop talking about this bullshit. It is just as likely to be colder in 50 years as hotter and CO2 has nothing to do with it.
G Buz it’s a cult mate. They need their street preachers to frighten people.
Do you mean to say carbon dioxide footprint? There's a difference in case you don't know.
I like your positivity bro but the sad fact is here we are in 2020 with Bailouts happening for fossil fuel, Fossil fuel receiving higher subsidies than clean energy (it sounds almost impossible right? but here it is www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-cash-pay-green-energy-transition )
Our individual actions will be far too little, when the world operates like this. It gets away with operating like that because people are unaware. Hence why Scientists started supporting distruptive action “We believe that the continued governmental inaction over the climate and ecological crisis now justifies peaceful and non-violent protest and direct action, even if this goes beyond the bounds of the current law,” Emily Grossman, the first signatory of the declaration and a science broadcaster with a PhD in molecular biology, announced
www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/hundreds-of-scientists-declare-support-for-extinction-rebellion-66572
We need to stand together in solidarity if we are to even have a chance, Cuz we don't have till 2050 anymore to hit net zero emissions, and with the current relaxations going on that time is going to come down really really fast)
instagram.com/p/B_kcugpnVVB/
So yeah, think about it. Got to band together and demand for changes, or it will be wayy too late. I joined Extinction Rebellion cuz they seem to be the the ones who are expanding fast worldwide and have the support of scientists^
And here's a post i made with some more mind-boggling facts (with links to the proof in em). Read if you are still undecided facebook.com/notes/rajitha-gamalath/by-2030-we-will-either-be-the-generations-that-averted-the-climate-crisis-or-tho/2718675641587788/
You're not correct about this - it will not accomplish what you alleged. The key isn't "average Joe" "reducing their carbon foot print" and never was. This is part of the lies being told. The key is to reign in the big polluters and contributers - industry and many aspects of our civilization. What individuals do (or do not do) has very little impact upon rising temperatures and greenhouse gas contributions, but it is just the opposite for industry (and the military) which has enormous footprints and contributions. These need to be stopped asap. Hayhoe is preaching to the wrong crowd and does not properly understand the issue, despite being a scientist herself. That doesn't mean anything in actuality, science is badly letting us down by failing to declare a climate emergency years ago and then rallying around this proof and concept. It is governments, industry and big businesses that must be made to "cooperate" with mitigation efforts the most (by far) - not individuals who have little impact anyway.
Tired of people and media telling us that the responsibility lays with each consumer and his decisions while big companies destroy the environment on a whole different scale without consequences.
Cup Cookie ha and environmental engineers are getting paid by the big companies to do it
Companies are people and there are consequences to polluting. However, a smaller government would help keep companies from bribing politicians so they can get away with stuff.
Dean the responsibility does not lay with any single person. There are over 8 billion people on earth and a simple non life changing action performed by everyone goes a huge way. Nobody is asking you to change your life because of this, just try to perform small little actions or as she said: just talk about it.
I added this speech as my concluding video for my Climate Change Unit (which I teach every year in Social Studies) because it ends with a positive message. Educate.
Hayhoe is clearly an angel sent from heaven to talk calmly and in a kind manner to all of us. Bless her.
I'm working on a project about climate change right now. I was hoping to find recent material, but I didn't expect to find something from 25 minutes ago.
Marvel Scarlet Spider How about Geo Engineering? Do you think it has any impact on enviroment?
@@AM-fh7ek I didn't think of that.
I didn't watch the video yet but I hope you will make this works a better place to live
Guy McPherson
Paul Beckwith
The one true root cause of climate change is overpopulation. People need to stop having so many kids. We can solve so much of the world's issues if couples limited themselves to one child.
10:28 I especially resonated with Dr. Hayhoe's perspectives on fear - "Fear is designed for us to run away from the bear...or run faster than the person beside us."
The joke seems to be that the slowest will be the bear's victim, but I wonder if she realizes what a powerful metaphor that is for the economic and industrial obstacles that she faces when she tries to get people to care about climate change.
Economic horizons have been always way too short for authentic concerns -- resulting in a dominance of greenwashed solutions that pander to capitalist fears that only need their greenness to outpace the bear of irrelevancy.
There are no silver bullet solutions, but as a spokesperson for the mainstream climate movement, Does Dr. Hayhoe properly acknowledge agricultural solutions in the "silver buckshot?"
Talking is important but language is just as critical -- if an environmentalist can speak of the planned obsolescence of fossil fuels, why not the beef industry? Certainly the *fear* of multi-industrial opposition -- BigOil AND BigBeef -- is profound to climate activists, and perhaps defocusing to a scientific base that asks everything about atmosphere and next to nothing about soil.
The IPCC actually says a lot about AFOLU -- Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use, including the dangers that climate change represent to these industries, which gets a lot of conversation, and solutions to their emissions, which does not.
One of the clearest and most engaging talks on climate change I’ve seen that connects the big picture to practical, effective action. Thank you 🙏🏽
Fully agree that we really do need to talk to others about it and take baby steps each day! Many of the solutions you say i agree with
She is fabulous! Connecting the dots and showing the alignment of authentic Christianity, Climate Science and taking action to reduce Climate Change
you mentioned dietary choices. one of the most important things we can do is eat less meat. to those who can go vegan, you are doing something meaningful for the climate and all of us, not to mention acting ethically and with compassion.
MORON
Vegan will threaten the survival of our domesticated animals. Is that ethical?
On the other hand the means to grow real meat in factories is being developed.
BTW in 1850 & earlier it was colder, there were summers the snow never melted, famine was common. Starvation & freezing cold drove the colorization of North America..Many reputable scientists speculate the warm inter glacial was ending and only the buildup of GHG's is preventing the return to another ice locked world.
@@bluskies1000 - prioritizing wild animals over the unnatural breeding of domesticated animals is absolutely ethically sound. 1.5 billion cows outconsume 8 billion people, and 77% of arable land is used for animals to produce only 8% of global protein.
You are wildly misinterpreting William F. Ruddiman's Early Anthropocene hypothesis that identifies 10,000 years of poor agricultural practices like slash and burn deforestation and overgrazing/overcropping that desertified land. We ACCIDENTALLY eliminated an ice age that Milankovitch cycles predict would have happened 5000 years ago.
This knowledge reveals to us a fantastic insight into climate solutions -- reversing the carbon depletion to regrow forests is a powerful solution once we navigate the intense food politics that limits Dr. Hayhoe to mutterings about consuming local food ("food miles" are an extremely weak proposition, mathematically) and "eat lower on the food chain" (an arbitrary reducitarian non-agenda which could mean anything and is therefore scientifically unmeasurable).
You do realize that bovine livestock have a rumninant that oxygenated the vegetation that they eat that allows them to digest it arobicly, reducing methain production. We don't! So if we eat more vegetation we will produce far more methane! Do you remember your grade physics? We exposed methane and air to ultraviolet, and in minutes, it became CO2 and water vapor!
You don’t have to be a hardcore vegan either just cutting down on meat is amazing as the average American consumes 225 lbs of meat a year and it takes over 1500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef meaning over 415,000 gallons of water are put into it not only that but meat production is horrible for the enviorment.
I wish all Christians care for creation as she does!!!
Uhhh what about the consumption of meat and dairy?
I was waiting for her to speak about it for the whole video as well... Going vegan (or mostly) is probably the single biggest step one can do to reduce its negative impact. Funny how nobody speak about it
"The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: Speak about it*"
*but only when it's convenient and doesn't intervene with our food preferences/selfish pleasure
Vegans farts a lot more and they're even more stinky
@@zabelzarock4606 speak logic and science and not triggered bs
ok so i'll skip the entire video then ! Thanks my friend for saving me 15 minutes ahah
We also need to talk about how we're drowning in plastic
That's a much more serious issue
@anatoli p both are serious threats. I don't understand why you doubt climate scientists - there have been years of research and background, evidence proving that our greenhouse gas emissions heat up the planet. Let's admit it and act. I hope you help in both areas.
No. China is drowning in plastic.
@@Stwinge44 Yes, greenhouse gases may heat of the atmosphere but so what?
Most of it is deliberate ocean DUMPING in Asia.
I kind of remember that 40 years ago they were doing this also from NY and NJ.
Lets talk about it. Yes the climate is changing and has always been changing. In the judgement of the IPCC humans are the main cause of the current changing climate and it's dangerous, but what do they really know?
According to the IPCC the climate sensitivity (how much the temperature rises for each doubling of CO2) is between 1.5 and 4.5. If it's in the lower range, there's nothing to worry, if it's high then we are in trouble.
The empirical evidence (journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1) shows a probably value of 1.5 and that suggests we have very little to be concerned about.
On the value of judgement of experts. Philip E. Tetlock has done studies on how accurate the judgement of experts are. He found that expert opinions are almost worthless.
My point is, the IPCC use models and their reports rely very much on expert opinions.
But, empirical evidence do not support a very crucial component of the IPCC narrative, the climate sensitivity.
My conclusion is - yes the climate is changing and CO2 is increasing and CO2 does contribute to the recent temperature increase (to the tune of 1.5 deg C per doubling of CO2). But, the climate has always changed without humans so there are other factors causing the climate to change. With the empirical evidence not supporting the IPCC narrative, I reject it. Based on the work of Philip Tetlock it's not unreasonable to reject the opinion of experts when empirical evidence do not support the expert's opinion.
I think the doubling is BS. In fact, there is a better theory that the climate pushes back against changes and suppresses heat increases. They won't talk about CO2 saturation. CO2 only absorbs a narrow band of radiation. When that band is used up, which it may be by now, no more heat can be attributed to CO2.
I have been researching this for over 50 years now. She has her facts correct. One point that is often referred to, but never quantified is that the amount of moisture held in air, increases by 7 % for every degree Celsius 1.6 degrees F . It compounds, thus with a 3 degree temperature increase, air holds 22 % more moisture. With oceans 3 degrees warmer, they will evaporate 22 % more moisture, which will condense as even heavier rains, in cooler areas. Desert areas will dry 22 % faster, and marginal areas will dry out below the amount required for agriculture. Hurricanes are powered by condensing moisture giving off heat, and thus will be 22 % more powerful. We have lots of examples of that, and that is our future. But, if you are a Republican, science is all fiction, we just cannot explain it to you any better.
Thank you very much, dear Ms Hayhoe, you've reinforced my conviction that it's crucial and urgent to react to the climate change. Now I need to elaborate a strategy of sustainable lifestyle that I could practice myself and propagate around my acquaintances. Where could I find guidelines on what our most damaging habits are and how we could change them in our day-to-day life? Really, I am desperate to save this planet, by I am sincerely lost among the para-scientific articles. Wo could help me find a trustworthy resource?
One of the best on Climate change topic! Thanks Madam 🙏
To me, the thing I think about is waste/resources. For instance, solar and wind require finite resources to produce and maintain. And what happens when they need to be replaced? What waste do they create at the end of their lifecycle? Similarly, we are developing new cars. But what are the impacts of mining to get the resources needed to produce those cars and what are the lifecycles of the cars? We need to produce with a circular lifecycle in mind. We need to change our consciousness. Otherwise we are just switching out products with slightly better versions with the same, wasteful linear thinking. We need to become conscious creators, including procreation. We really need to put all of our energy into changing the current system. That's difficult to do while raising children. 💖🙏🦋
Forget about talking to climate skeptics. Start by changing your own consumptions and lifestyles. It's going to make an impact in every sectors of societies if enough of us do that. Your choices influence businesses, governments and other people.
We need both, imo.
Science is skepticism. Skeptics are the real scientists by definition. But go ahead and listen to the propaganda from the non-scientists like Al Gore and AOC.
Thanks a lot madam for upholding India's current effort in conservation of energy....
She's fantastic! Excellent presenter!
Saw her speak in Berkeley recently .. she's logical AND passionate.
I pee in the shower and bathe once a week. I am saving so much water
Good for you and kudos!
Or just drink and shower in your own urine just like the president does .The yellow hair is evidence.
Water is eternal there's a thing called a water cycle we Brits know that
@@billblair7273 umm fresh water is limited
Z
Then, do you pee once a week?
Great talk and it offers the simplest solution that is by all means necessary to battle the problem. Spreading the knowledge that scientists have acquired to society is very important, because we need the whole planet to act on this. The disastrous consequences are not beaten in one or few years, it will take couple of decades to put us on the right track. It's ultimately the only way to guarantee a habitable future for this planet.
Talking does NOT help. You will connect with people if you practice your listening skills and just listen. You will also learn lots of things you would not learn while "preaching" about climate change. The religious angle does not help. Learn to listen and hear the truth.
I believe teleworking will contribute greatly towards reducing our environmental footprint; and alternative energy sources will compensate for the energy demand spike.
In India railway electrification going at huge rate to reduce it's carbon footprint, which carries 25 million people everyday. 65% good transportation and 55% of passenger using electric traction. Also investing in wind and solar energy to power the station.
To produce electric power, must mostly burn fossil fuel generators...daahhh. Solar and wind power are very expensive and unpredictable.
TedTalk is inspirational to many people. I hope we will take climate change seriously. In today's business we need leaders who care about earnings as much as the place we live called Earth. I talked about this on my channel.
They make up this bullshit so they can tax us to death and make us poor, that is the only agenda of the political left. See the yellow vest protests in France, Macron increased gas taxes by 50%, people are taxed to death, and this new tax hike was to battle climate change but people don't have money to buy food.
Stop eating beef. Most important thing you can do.
Chicken and pig ok?
@@gbuz5789 Hur hur so funny.
I didn't hear an efficient solution.
She doesn't have anything to say. Her talk boils down to "WhY DonT YoU CaRE MoAR"
She is paid by government to spread fear. Do not listen.
@@brianboru175 For all we know you're paid by the oil lobby. We shouldn't listen to you.
there's no problem to begin with
#DriveElectric and #GoSolar 😀
The best way to solve climate change is actually to consume less meat.... The livestock industry contributes the most (18%) of greenhouse gases, much more than transportation.
Yeah, we should tax meat. And anything else that creates greenhouse gases.
Um..... Just no. I consume plenty of meat. Most of it is wild game. Better meat, keeps populations balanced, and no environmental impact. Try again.
@Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ god your not thinking this through
Co2 is a greenhouse gas. And cause warming
Meat is delicious! Find other ways! :)
John Baugh Almost everyone gets meat from stores where everything comes from factory farms. a giant majority. good for you, but her point 100% still stands for everyone else. try again 😂
This is one of the dialogs I've listened to on climate change. Katharine is my cousin
Talk is cheap. I remember when Harrison Ford flew his private jet to the Middle East for a climate change seminar. Brilliant idea.
Katharine Hayhoe, why don't you debate Tony Heller? Scared of facts are we?
Thank you.. Gives me hope
I am from a small village in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Because of global warming our crops are dying. Famine is killing my people. Global warming is real.
I often do wonder about this. We have textbooks about math, about physics, but why not talking to people? Turns out we do.
A lot of this can be found in Carnegie's *How to Win Friends and Influence People*, and the core message boils down to: be a genuine person who cares about other people. It's good life advice.
Important topics and find inspiration for my channel and videos thankful for this channel!
Talking is fine, though many people are angry and against the science. It's hard to overcome anger, but we have to find the right forum where we do not engage their defensiveness.
She speaks for her own self interest, she is a CEO of ATMOS Research and Consulting and the Government is her largest client, so notice her only "real" solution is Government intervention through Taxation as stated in minute 2.
She didn't even mention taxation troll.
@@Nognamogo She says it at 2 minutes, and with the four way test.
@@zannez.zixt9771 He's a troll, ignore.
Ok, Zanne. You can go back to Moscow now.
@Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ
TH-cam scientists showed up immediately. :-)
One question. If the the weather is getting hotter, in order to have hurricanes you need a stronger difference in temperature between the North Pole and the Ecuator. Does it mean the Equator is not warming or warming much less then the poles? If it is real so where is the problem?!
Love this. Everyone laughs at me when I say the climate change is causing issues for us. It rained for like a month in Ohio. That id NOT normal for us. Agriculture is failing because farmers can't plant. Something needs to change.
Anctedals are meaningless. Agriculture is up and increasing all over the world. That is real data, not anctedal.
I hate being patronized.
Climate fear is real, climate change from CO2 is not real. The solution to the fake problem is the real problem.
The scientific literature would happen to disagree. If you stand by your claim, prove it. prove that co2 is NOT causing warming.
www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327
@@Stwinge44 Claiming CO2, a gas that is .04% of air, is capable of changing the climate is an extraordinary claim. Quoting Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You are the one that needs to prove CO2 can and is warming the planet and changing the climate. The climate is always changing and we know what typically causes it, the Sun, the tilt and wobble of the planet and the pull of the other planets in the solar system. My proof is business as usual, what is yours?
Before you say "the scientific literature" let me tell you most does not support CO2 changing the climate. The talking heads cherry-pick, lie, and use incidental evidence instead of real data to push this scam to further their globalist agendas. (And to make a buck.)
@@gbuz5789 The evidence is mountainous and has been for thirty years - simply check the peer-reviewed literature in the leading journals (eg. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0)
I am working on a presentation, about the impact of meat consumption on nature. I hope this will change at least some minds.
Nope.
@@gbuz5789 - Did your stomach control your fingers and type that response without intervention of your brain? Neat! Michael Pollan said in The Omnivore's Dilemma that our stomach often overrides our cognitive processes...
@JonasHolzer - Excellent! Where can Dr. Hayhoe and I 😜see your presentation?
(I hope you don't use her "local food" arguments as it is well known that food production averages about 96% of energy use, leaving only 4% for "post-farmgate emissions" which includes all transportation to and from stores, storage, cooking, etc. "Local meat" arguments are even worse -- around 0.1% of total emissions are in transportation.
Also, "eat lower on the food chain" is accurate enough, when a vegan diet is 1/16 the ecological impact of the Standard American Diet (SAD) the baseline is set...all the rest are weak "comparative sustainability" arguments, magical thinking, and defending indulgent, meaty privileges.
If human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere what would CO2 ppm be and by how much would global temperature drop?
Actually India has already replaced millions of incandescent, halogen and fluorescent lights in its streets, offices and houses through the UJALA program. It did it by lending LED bulbs and battens at very cheap price to individual consumers( I am one of them), partnering up with rural and municipal bodies to replace all street lights and partnering up with corporate houses and residential societies to replace their lighting. This venture forced all LED manufacturers to bring their price down and as a result India is now home to the cheapest LED lighting, also this has further brought down the LED lighting price across the world. Also, like China , India too is betting big on Solar and the solar growth rate is already higher than US and second only to china. In terms of total solar too, India is 3rd right after China and US. And guess what the per capita energy consumption of India is one of the lowest in the world, orders of magnitude lower than that of US and other developed countries and China.
India is a poor country, that is why their energy consumption is low per capita. They will be a leader in overall energy consumption (currently 5th in the world) and in CO2 emissions (currently 3rd). So India and China will be for decades the biggest users of energy and CO2 producers.
Well done , wonderful topic.
Loved this
3:07 so we looked at the data.....
quoting the most influential ted talk ever I see.
I’m glad the most important thing we can do about climate change is talk about it.
*throws gas on a tire fire
No we only write even do not talk
Dack Hacksaw 10 degrees is a lot! Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Sorry Dack Hacksaw. I’m stupid.
Finally Explained True, the latter
Now lets start to talk on climate change...
Didn’t even mention nuclear energy. I doubt she is serious about reducing climate change if she is not supporting increasing energy from nuclear, the greenest of all energy sources
Solar is cheaper than nuclear. And arguably less toxic.
@@biggav7434There are 1 million factories on Earth. Name one powered off-grid by its own solar PV, since it's so cheap.
Amazing talk!
How can survival be a political issue like I can't comprehend this???
Great talk
Veganism is the first best way to combat climate change. Hands down
I am a long-time liberal and my skepticism has everything to do with the science. The notion that drastically cutting back on fossil fuels is just a matter of giving up our "comfortable life styles" is beyond perverse. No I do not want to freeze on winter nights. No I do not want to starve because trucks are no longer able to transport food to the stores. No I do not want to junk my car because fanatics like yourself don't approve of gasoline. No I do not want to stand by while millions of innocent, poverty stricken third world peoples are denied the opportunity to improve their lot through economic development.
It hasn't been and won't be a catastrophe. People need some Paleoclimatology in their lives for a little perspective.
What you want people to learn the truth? Then they won't be afraid and cough up money and control.
It is a catastrophe right now - come to Australia to see for yourself.
right, everything is changing very fast
hello everyone, I came to this video from the suggestion in an English teacher video. She is Trang.
The worst is, people are silent about the "real" biggest polluter, which is the meat industry (mostly cow and lamb). The meat industry is litterly silencing critics who talk about this problem. Cowspiracy on the other hand explains how the industry pollutes and silences very well. Please look into it and think about your diet.
Thank you , it is time to talk ... now !
If everyone who wants climate change will make a tick-tock video or choose a day for us all to post on social media about Global warming and positive changes, I believe it will be effective in bringing attention and positive changes toward saving our planet.
*** PART 3 OF 3 ***
The tropospheric temperature lapse rate is required to cause the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect".
The average altitude for LWR to ocean and land got lower (1,650 metres ---> 1,550 metres in my example) which means LWR to the surface of the ocean and land is from warmer (faster) molecules on average because tropospheric temperature decreases with altitude and LWR to ocean/land is from lower-down-than-before molecules on average, so there are more GHG molecular collisions / second which leads to more MVE which leads to more LWR production. The quantity of LWR energy (power flux) provided by a mass of gas is proportional to its temperature(Kelvin)**4 (to the fourth power) so, as explained in detail above, the increasing of tropospheric GHGs ==must== cause more LWR than before to be passing downwards to the surface of the ocean and land. This latter is called "downwelling LWR radiation at the surface" and I've explained why it must increase and this must, of course, warm the land and ocean surface.
That's the lower end of how the so-called "enhanced greenhouse effect" works.
---------
Note 1: I haven't yet found the collision MVE production & destruction spectra so I don't know what %age make MVE and what %age destroy MVE. I looked a few hours 4 years ago but couldn't find it (not for free anyway). It makes no difference to the description of the mechanism above but it would be needed to confirm the quantity of effect for doubling CO2.
Note 2: Removed because I've gotten confirmation.
Note 3: 80% of Earth's atmosphere is in the troposphere (the top of which is 16 km in the tropics and 9 km in the polar regions, averaging ~12,000 metres). The "greenhouse effect" warming can only happen in Earth's troposphere, there's no effect in Earth's tropopause and the effect is "backwards" in Earth's stratosphere with =increased= stratospheric GHG gases causing =cooling= of the stratosphere because the stratospheric temperature lapse rate has temperature increasing with altitude (that's how it's known with total certainty that it's increased "greenhouse gases (GHGs)" doing the global warming for the last several decades). Since there's no temperature lapse rate in the tropopause then any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect on the tropopause or the entire atmosphere, ocean or land. No effect at all. If you follow my description of the effect above for the troposphere but apply it to the tropopause then you'll clearly see that any change in the quantity/type of GHGs in the tropopause cannot have any warming or cooling effect That's the reality. The increasing GHGs in the stratosphere are a slight -ve feedback to global warming because downwelling LWR radiation from the stratosphere decreases with increased GHGs, but it's a very slight -ve feedback because only 6.3% of the well-mixed GHGs (and all molecules) are above the tropopause and they are initially colder than the average of the troposphere so they make even less LWR than the 6.3% factor. By the time the stratosphere warms more than the average of the troposphere there's only 0.4% of Earth's atmosphere's molecules above, negligible.
Note 4: FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra recorded by the instrument on a satellite show which wave-lengths of LWR heading to space past the satellite came from the surface of the ocean and land and which wave-lengths came, on average, from the GHG molecules and surfaces of solid particles and water droplets in the atmosphere. From this atmospheric physicists have calculated the 83% of the LWR that Earth sends to space that is emitted by the atmosphere rather than by the surface of the ocean and land. Also, the MODTRAN tool on the internet can be used to play with a theoretical calculation of the FTIR power flux vs wave-length spectra by adjusting GHGs.
Progress is the best advantage you can have
... is to support safe nuclear.
Agreed! Nuclear is awesome. Anti nuclear snakes are pawns of the fossil fuel industry.
When religion comes in I am out.
*Contradictio in terminis*
The creator have creating "things" without asking first if the "things" would like to be created.
Therefore the creator is responsible for every thing, what is created by it, is doing.
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of ALL pollution. Let's put less of the onus on the average citizen and more on where it belongs. Companies have to change.
Brilliant talk!
Okay, climate is changing. Human innovation has an impact. Doesn't mean you should ruin your financial stability or the nation's to fix a problem with conflicting research. Wouldn't do much good anyway, most countries residing outside the west won't be curbing emissions till 2030.
Took like five pages of comments to get to a sensible comment. There is no real problem. There is no solution to the non-problem. Get back to work on something important.
3rd world countries can't afford to do as much. Gee, i wonder why.
@@gladonos3384 Third world countries can't afford expensive solar, wind, and other renewables. Mandating that they use those energy sources means they will have to do without and so many will suffer.
The thruth Is that the bad guys are those who finance her university (as well as most of the other universities) and who own thousands of cargo ships (one of which pollute as 15 millions cars) to transport goods manufactured in their polluting factories in China and India, and who also own thousands of cruise ships (one of which pollute as 5 millions cars), which are really useless polluters, and own airline companies, oil refiners, chemical industries, pfas industries, pesticides industries, herbicides industries, chemical fertilizers industries, and so on, and who pay people like her to say that global warming is fault of the average western citizen who owns a car.
"If the thermometer tells us the temperature is rising, humans are the cause of it, and the only thing we can do is wean off fossil fuels". I hate to break it to you, but thermometers don't do the last part, and fossil fuels being used in Africa would be better long term for the climate right now
Explain why you think that.
@Awakened2Truth - Disciple of Jesus the Christ who said he was smart? You?
@@Nognamogo Think what in particular? Fossil fuels would spur economic development, Africa is already behind, and caring about the climate is a luxury of the rich. The best thing to do with our money is to empower and educate African and middle eastern women, and give them access to preventative birth controls
Its like this. Your better of treating it as real. If its NOT real what harm can be done by poluting less? If it IS real then we could avoid global death and famin. Your action could save millions if not billions of lives!
Honestly, this is literally pascals wager...
...Which as an atheist i find to be a terrible argument... We need to be convincing people with evidence and statistics. There is tons of data that proves climate change, just use that. I mean sure, if it works, fine, but this certainly has never convinced me so i don't see why it would work for climate change deniers.
The best thing that we could do would be to be quit eating beef
You can and I will take your portion.
@@gbuz5789 He is obviously a vegan and therefore does not have beef. So this makes no sense.
Thank you thank you Dr Hayhoe for your integrity, dedication to the truth, and perhaps most especially for enduring the myriad challenges of bringing your message into the mainstream of society
You sound like a politician
This woman typifies the major problem the western world is facing right now and the main reason why our adversaries (Russia and China) are seeking to exploit their newfound supremacy. Particularly with (left leaning, weak) governments that feel obliged to appease alarmists like Ms. Hayhoe (and others) for the sake of the potential of a vote in their direction. In the meantime, I can assure her and any others that think the world will end through lack of action, that my great, great grandchildren will do just fine on this planet that is now significantly "greener" and more bountiful then it was when I was born. My only wish is that she can have a long life so that she and her peers can get to see firsthand, the ridiculous stance that they took in crying about absolutely nothing.
@@nitrofreak67 - She's neither a Democrat nor a Republican -- she's Canadian. And pointing out that folks can't talk about science because they only hear politics -- thanks for demonstrating that so cleanly.
Her advice to talk about the issue is not that it directly removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Climate change needs to be discussed by liberals and conservatives alike to form educated and informed opinions. Democracy only works when we have a set of facts we can all agree on or at least acknowledge. Right now most people in the comments are just using straw man arguments to demonize the other side. If we can learn to discuss climate change in a helpful manner, it will help us vote on better policy and make positive steps for the future.
Dangerous climate change from CO2 is not a real thing. Why would we talk about it? Seriously?
Within walking distance of my front door there are three massive layers of glacier moraine deposited millions of years apart. There is an earthquake fault 400' deep with a clear geological record of the eruption, 1000 times larger than St. Helens, that created the caldera where I live. None of these events had anything to do with anthropomorphic influences. OF COURSE...climate changes, every day, every year and every epoch. If we are going to "talk" we need to talk about sensible conservation and alternative energy, but we need to comprehend the cataclysmic effects of Geo Engineering, Stratospheric Aerosol Injections, Fukushima, Nuclear Testing, Depleted Uranium weapons and an outdated nuclear infrastructure. All of these factors are massively influencing global weather, and they are virtually ignored in every publication of record. Fukushima and Geo Engineering are gigantic influences, yet are the third rail in these "discussions". Of course, following the pedigree of this PHD it becomes quite obvious that the discussion is already a settled matter.
A thermometer tells the temperature, and that’s all. It doesn’t not tell us what is causing climate change.
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/greenland-ice-melt-1.5233597
jail the corrupt politicians
amazing solution, I would say
incredible!!
King James Bible While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night ... Here's your climate change right here.
And the religious chimes in.
If only we could cancel the cancel culture. If we cannot cancel climate change, why should we cancel everyone who has different opinion, experiences, life styles?
Wemust need to use public vehicle more and less private one.
Oh man, while scrolling through the comments I just realized how many trolls there are spreading their personal conspiracy theories.
What do you expect the video is a conspiracy theory.
Lefties are now ARSON DENIERS. SAD
Fix is directly related to the number of humans using the earth's resources. One individual has a huge impact on the depletion of earth's resources over a 70-90 year lifetime. With a projected global population expected to reach 10+ billion by 2050, I predict a catastropic outcome.
Yea, talking will fix it! Businesses and countries need to make economic sacrifices, and the talking ends..
Businesses and countries are full of people. You mean people need to make sacrifices. You go first, don't wait for though.
Dear like-minded viewers, I beg you to share with me links to some peer-reviewed scientific articles proving that the human activity DOES exacerbate the climate change. My father is very stubborn; he won't change his lifestyle or let my mom do so unless he's provided with some scientific evidence. He won't even read it, since he doesn't speak English, yet the very existence of such research will be a great tool for convincing him. I've been trying to find something of the kind on my own, yet I'm not a scientist, so I get drowned in the abundance of information and don't know how to proceed in my searches. So I'm turning to those who are more experienced and informed in this field for help.
UPD:
I've found a link to a UN article in the video description and am already studying it in my mother tongue :) Other resources are still welcome :)
Im fed up with conversations, we talk about it almost a century and yet failing to resolve it. The most important thing you can do to fight climate change is going VEGAN!!!! Believe me, conversation will start right away.
I'm not sure that our planet is big enough for everything to be vegan...
Nora I. We can actually feed people a vegan diet and use less land than an omnivorous diet requires
@@wayalternative1160 But I'm mostly talking about having our clothes, shoes, cushions, etc (every things of the life) becoming vegan
Ps : sorry for my english😅
LOL, and the Vegan chimes in. Nothing wrong with eating some meat. We probably eat too much but Veganism is stupid. I mean do it if you want but I will never.
Climate change from CO@ is bogus and so is Vegan.
@@wayalternative1160 Land that is suitable for animals isn't always suitable for crops and cows actually eat inedible crops. While what you are saying may be true on some level it is no where near as cut and dry as you think.
The two biggeest things you can do in your personal life to fight climate change:
1) adopt a plantbased diet
2) don't bring more humans into the world
Exactly
We need to talk about Manbearpig...
Al Gore fan I see.
Experts have known for decades about climate change, peak oil and diminishing resources, but big business has chosen instead to continue on as usual in the name of profits, further using up what's left of our natural resources. It's mind blowing to me that big manufacturing is not asking to change how they do things or take any responsibility whatsoever for the situation they are in large part responsible for. An example is after we reached peak oil about a decade ago, the oil and car manufacturing industry has brainwashed the men of the United States they aren't real men if they don't drive the largest, most polluting pickup truck they can get their hands on. Go to Europe, Asia or down under and observe practically no pickups on the road at all. How to they manage without them? If you asked the average male to give up his pickup, you'd get rage and declarations of how much they need this pickup which is used just about never. This goes for a whole range of other commodities too, like single serve water bottles, plastic grocery bags, air conditioners, oversized homes and flying all over the world in jets. As long as business supports climate change via their products and advertising, little will change. These people pay little to no taxes in addition to this. We as consumers should change our lifestyles and buying habits and perhaps those who must not be named will at some point get the message.
Katharine, the conversations are already occurring and I believe more people are listening. I get frustrated that it is not happening fast enough. We are going to be like the person treading water with the sharks circling who says “I guess I should have listened when they said my boat was leaking”.
the argument is not about climate change per se, because the real reason people object to the theory is that to agree with it means to accept a one world government run by experts who will tell you how to run your life.
It is a globalist scam so you are half right.
how can people talk about it if most are ignorant or being fed lies?
Yes talk about it while I eat this delicious piece of steak.
lol!
Less people is the only real solution.
Yes Shannon, now you get it! That is the real plan. Wait for the apocalypse to decimate world population.
12:25 Yeah okay good luck with stopping climate change.
Actually, the most important thing you can do is EAT LESS MEAT. Simple as that.
No.