Should We Abandon Climate Negotiations?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- Climate negotiations are notoriously messy - they promise too little and then fail to live up to their promises. But the last two climate talks - COP28 in the UAE & COP29 in Azerbaijan - were even worse than usual. They were mired in controversy - from underhand fossil fuel deals to the countries' histories of profound human rights violations. And now experts and activists, from the United Nations to Greta Thunberg, are calling out the climate talks. So is it time to scrap the negotiations? Or can we turn the talks into action?
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#ClimateChange #cop29 #climateaction
twitter: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam
==MORE INFO==
Greta Tunberg on COP www.theguardia...
www.transitmag...
Letter on COP’s need to reform www.clubofrome...
Discussion of letter www.bbc.com/ne...
Fossil fuel deals at COP28 www.euronews.c... and COP29 www.bbc.com/ne...
COP28 Renewables goal www.climatecha...
COP28 Climate fund, funding gas www.climatecha...
COP29 avoids fossil fuel mention www.wri.org/in...
Summary of everything at COP29 www.carbonbrie...
Climate debts www.france24.c...
2024 record emissions www.carbonbrie...
==THANKS==
Helene footage from Johnson City Aerial Photography LLC
COP clips from Narendra Modi, COP28 UAE
COP protest clips from ReelNews
CO2 emissions visual from NASA Goddard
I couldn't make videos like this without incredible patrons like james harley gorrell & Noa Lago Bea. if you want to be awesome like james & noa, head over here: www.patreon.com/climateadam
We won't know. We have terminally passed 1.5 c until years after we already have
Fair reminder as someone who has been on the wagon twenty years. We don't need dramatic self talk. We're losing 3300 feet of atmosphere a year. Cop is a cop-out. We need to act together now.
If stopping Fossil fuel is such hassle, way not stop emissions to the atmosphere?
@@youkofoxy because you can't even get to net zero carbon capture. Carbon capture is a slight of hand trick in most cases. Where you are capturing this small amount and admitting a bunch more via electric production
@@oleonard7319 True, I just wanna to try it to show how ridiculous and futile is.
Less stop fossil fuels, more stop all CO2.
what people don't get is that there is no such thing as climate negotiations. You cannot negotiate with the laws of physic. 😄
nonono, we can maintain course!
Continue growing our corporations, letting them have the bigger proportion of the capital. Then when physic is weakened, we can buy out the physic, change the law, and BAM, climate problem solved along with things like FTL travel.
...not sure if this needs a /s tag or not
Silent ?
Neither can they negotiate with progress.
@alwynwatson6119 well in that case it's a 3 way thug of war between entropy , progress and humanity not going extinct ...
As a fan of the humanity not going extinct part , wich looks like the weakest team to be honest,
I think it's best to side with the hardest party to move and start tugging with them so we may not go extinct thank you very much
If we keep trusting Cop negotiators and they keep failing we are pretty much letting the laws of physics to screw us over
We may continue assisting in them because they help although we shouldn’t we putting everything in them
It seems pretty obvious that our international corporate "deciders" have few qualms about throwing at least 50% of the human population "under the bus", as long as their own viability is maintained. If THAT is the collective "heartbeat" of humanity, I am evermore ecstatic to be an old man on his way out!
The challenge for those "deciders" is that they need the poor to keep them rich. If population starts to decline, their empire starts to crumble.
Hahaha! I hear you! Keeping misanthropy at bay is increasingly hard.
Just over 6 years now untill runaway climate change, no pressure then.
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 What do you think the push for AI and automation is really about? They don't need us "deplorables" any more.
It's not just to 'maintain their own viability' and more to squeeze excessive amounts of profits
There's a petition you can sign to ban oil lobbyists from attending COPs. Not sure how much good it'll do, but it's worth a try anyway.
a petition is basically beggint the elite to listen, good luck with that
The 1.5 so called limit, isn't a limit, but a negotiating tactic that is scientifically meaningless. It isn't even a legal limit because the negotiations have been so weak that there is no significant penalty for anyone even if we agree we've passed the "limit." And, no one is ever going to agree that we passed any limit. What matters for climate change is the trend which is currently following the worst case scenario. That is the scenario where we've done nothing to rectify the situation. So, while people will say we're doing all sorts of things to try and stop climate change, the actual changes in the climate indicate that whatever we are doing isn't working at all and may be making it worse. Meanwhile, COP has devolved into a front for an oil producers networking meeting.
And, 1.5 is dead.
@@mattockman It was never alive.
@@kimwelch4652it was back in 2016
The 1.5 degrees goalpost was constantly moved. Initially pre-industrial was meant to be pre-1750, now it's 1850-1900. And it was changed from a measurement (single event) to an averaged measurement (over a period of time that was increased from 10 years to 20 - 30). It's all political, for negotiations as you said.
It's a huge real life lab we're in.
just us destroying nature and testing its limits until we find out its too late to even regret.
Fossil fuel lobbyists at a climate conference is like drug dealers attending a meeting for people who want to overcome drug addiction.
Have more money than all the drug dealers in the world, they have a golden goose laying many golden eggs so why would they want it to slow down? Reckless consumerism, endless capitalist wars, Imperialism needs fossil fuels. Who cares when the rich have Musk to save them.
or a cancer conference being hosted by the tobacco industry in the 80's
not quite, since the green energy industry is dependent on the sale of oil to a degree. When oil supply is cut back, the price of oil goes up causing the price of everything to go up including green energy.
@@4713Caine true, but that happens now anyway, also global pricing means you can be paying over the odds anyway even if your own supply is plentiful, the Russian gas supply issue when the Russian/Ukraine war started was proof of that, even though in the UK we use very little if any Russian gas, our prices tripled in some cases.
Yes, there's a way to fix how we approach climate change. COPs are a bunch of biased adults fighting over who gets out less affected by any agreements.
How to Fix it:
1.) teach climate science in high school.
2.) advertise "solutions" and climate change threats on all advertising media.
3.) restrict advertising of fossil fuel driven equipment
4.) offer rebates for equipment that reduces demand for fossil fuels.
Cool, and none of those biased adults would be the ones we would need to convince to do those things, right? Like even assuming they'd work, and work fast enough to make an actual difference, which is questionable at best, most of that stuff would require direct action from the government on climate change. The thing governments have been refusing point blank to do for 40 years.
@Bogwedgle none of them, no.
The heads of the associated agencies need convincing.
#3 is the hardest one. We are trying to cut fossil fuel use, but the makers of combustion engine driven products are advertising like crazy.
COPs are just governments doing everything in the power to protect the fossil fuel industry. This is way the soulting must be kept top secret not advertised. That way the government won't be able to stop them untill it's too late.
"Global Communism will work this time, if I can just be the one to make the decisions!"
And 40 years from now when those climate-educated kids walk the halls of power, they'll keep us from passing 1.5 degrees by 2026.
They should hold COP's but set the heating in the building to get hotter and hotter as the conference progresses, flood the bathrooms, have all the vendors run out of food, and introduce a steady stream of refugees! See how they like it!
You mean base everything off crazy scare stories that never happen in the real world?
@@old_toucs6283 If the published science hasn't convinced you, then I'm not able to do that here. Too much time has been wasted debating those who are not open to being convinced. The question now is what to do about climate change; not whether climate change is a genuine threat.
@@karlstone6011 Not very good at reading actual published science then? Crazy scare stories are more your thing? Tiny changes are not a threat.
Prof. Edenhofer (MCC and PIK) “The climate summit in Baku was not a success, but at best the avoidance of a diplomatic disaster. It is now abundantly clear that we need additional negotiation formats for the global fight against the climate crisis. Not all of the almost 200 signatory states to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change necessarily have to sit around the same table for progress to be made. It is now important to link climate financing for the Global South, which was the main topic of discussion in Baku, to emissions reduction in two ways. First, donor states in the wealthy North should mobilise the funds by pricing oil, coal and gas. Second, the money should ideally only flow if the recipient country demonstrably reduces their greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps such a system can be established at future climate summits, but it is more likely to happen through smaller groups, in so-called climate clubs.”
i think we need them, they just need to buck their ideas up.
The problem this video is grappling with is that Climate Change, like all international issues, falls prey to geopolitics. COPS as a concept is unfortunately the best international effort we can muster without trying to step outside of the bounds of what an international effort can reasonably effect. Every country views Climate Change negotiations as leverage to position themselves best for their own geopolitical goals and aims. So the natural next question, is how do we effect individual countries geopolitical goals and interest - and the main answer there is attempted grassroots change in governments at those levels - which unfortunately is not a reasonable options for those nations that have no democratic grassroots mechanism for populations to effect meaningful policy change - which includes some of the biggest polluters falling behind stated targets the most. The only other option is for nations with governments most driven to effect change with regards to Climate Change to obtain as much leverage they can over nations that are not - but when you consider that those nations with the most vested interest in Climate Change are those who are either small island nations, or nations which themselves are choosing to stagnate or shrink their own economies relative to the biggest polluters... you can see why very little real change gets effected.
So rather the solution is to abolish geopolitics, which can thusly be achieved by abolishing nations which those geopolitics form out of and then implement a system that doesn't require a form of centralising power that could tyrannise over the united humanity but would still allow for many different levels cooperation from various sizes of groups of people, - so syndicalism.
@@owenbelezos8369 Assuming you're genuinely suggesting this, then you're suggesting that we need to wait until the entire world rises up and overthrows hierarchical systems in each and every major polluting nation before we can tackle climate change. That seems like an even taller order.
Not to even approach the fantasy that geopolitics doesn't exist in an anarcho-syndicalists utopia.
Looking forward to your future video on the recent temperature!
From what I saw, the richest nations were opposing any significant change (and some even wanted to walk back the previous progress), while poorer (aka "developing") nations wanted to go a lot harder and were even willing to cover a good chunk of the bill.
I think at this point the nations that actually want to make a change should make their own COP (and United Nations now that we are at it) where they can negotiate with less resistance and come out of it with at least SOME progress.
At least we know India and China have some level of concern and most of the manufacturing countries are in this "developing" cathegory. It would be basically the US, Europe, the middle East and some *special* (as in stupid) cases like Argentina that would be left out.
Enough talking, time for action!
Later...
Cutting co2 emissions shouldn’t be this hard smh
We did it with CFCs, why not CO2?
I actually made a video all about why we haven't solved this yet..!
th-cam.com/video/cdSb1uDatzo/w-d-xo.html
@@chriscastagnetta Agreed ❗️
Ask the Fossil Fuels lobby
@@chriscastagnetta it's always "they" but in truth it's us. We choose a modern lifestyle that is very energy intensive, this comes at a cost. I don't think anyone would throw all this away for a little warming of the planet. We sacrifice the distant future by allowing us to pursue prosperity now. CO2 isn't a problem right now, yes it probably will be decades from now by which stage technology will be able to separate out the extremely dilute concentration so we can keep it safely below 600 ppm. Methane and synthetic gases on the other hand might be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak but that's a fair time away and mostly depends on us grappling with this first.
@ when has anyone suggested us getting rid of modern life to stop global warming?
Lets COP-OUT of COP.
I think it would be extremely unwise to stop discussing our climate conundrum, however it would be equally unwise to ignore the speciousness of that discussion in its current iteration. Corporate control of EVERYTHING from grotesque income inequalities to genuinely democratic electoral representation to the very air we breathe is in the hands of the monied few.
Since so many people think that climate disasters is just god punishing certain people for their existence, and not driven by emissions from burning of fossil fuels, I am fearful that we may never stop burning fossil fuels. I want to see radical action. Like turning 50% of roads into bike lanes.
What a year this has been 😬
I got a bit optimistic in September and October but it just seems the bottom 95% just can't have good things 😒
I feel like we are used to saying "so much progress has been made" because we're used to using such a low standard most of the time. But the climate isn't interested in what "significant progress" means to humans. If it's not enough to address the problem, then it's meaningless (at best) to say we've "made great progress." No, we haven't. When the Keeling Curve starts trending downward, THEN we've made ANY progress worth mentioning.
Things could not be more troubling in the climate realm, as an increasing number of leading scientists break ranks to present us with the startling, though perhaps unsurprising, truth: We've left it far too late to avoid the worst climate impacts, and must now simply focus on adapting to what will likely be a very difficult and increasingly challenging future.
For years, we've been hurtling towards a cliff edge, and rather than applying the brakes, took the decision to accelerate instead. We're now so close to the cliff edge, and travelling at such velocity, that any dramatic evasive manoeuvrers would likely cause untold damage, so we've decided to take our chances with the drop.
We simply weren't prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to put us back into balance with the biosphere upon which we depend for our survival. We barely hear mention of climate change anymore. No troubling headlines, no documentaries warning that we 'must act now', no televised debates or discussions. We appear to have quietly accepted our fate and will now hand an utterly dystopian future to our children and grandchildren, who will come to regard ours, and previous generations as utterly selfish and reckless. I couldn't be more ashamed to be human at this stage.
We had a destructive tornado in the Santa Cruz mountains recently! Totally unheard of!
Glad to hear you'll be addressing the latest temperature news as I'm finding it very confusing and contradictory and it feels almost like a cover up. I'd really love to see you address the issue of the melting permafrost and explain to me how we're not already screwed there. Because from what I can find it's being treated very similar to temperature; a small number are sounding the alarm and saying it's too late and everyone else is just ignoring it or acting like it's nbd without any explanation.
Those responsible for not taking any action to mitigate the worst havoc caused by accelerated CC will find ways to profit from human kinds downfall as they are now, to the very end. they don't care at all.
The reason why it's so much more difficult to deal with climate change than hole in the ozone layer refrigerant crisis, is because fixing climate involves NUKING tt least one industry and possibly more, and said industry is 30 times larger than the HVAC industry, 230 times larger than the refrigerant industry, with several whole countries relying on the fossil fuel industries success, while also requiring huge changes to almost every other industry.
that previous climate crisis was over a thousand times smaller.
So much talk about fossil fuels but what about animal agriculture? I feel like we're missing the mark here... I know you have made a video about it but why only focus on it once? We make climate change votes every day through what we eat, we have the power to shape supply and demand. Not eveyone can afford electric cars, solar roofs etc, but everyone has to eat. 80 billion land animals slaugthered for food. Only 18% of calories are obtained from meat and dairy. But those 18% require 77% of the agricultural land. And this 77% accounts for 35% of the total habitable land area. There is almost as much land used for animal feed as the percentage of land covered by forests. Voting for politicains and policy makers who do not feel the urgency of the climate crisis due to their wealth and waiting for the rich and powerful to make decisions out of their kindness of their heart for the betterment of everyone is just.... not the way to go.
Correct, we can't save ecosystems from worsening breakdown unless we adopt more plant-based diets, and more plant-based diets are the most potent solution we have for sequestering CO2 in the ground.
Going to watch your video, but after Paris I wrote an article about this. Of course we should continue, as climate solutions are and + and + and... BUT, I think countries should look for other countries that think alike to form an organization to tariff products that are bad for the climate, so making them can be done in a better way. The EU springs to mind in this, but they should be open for others to do the same.
So I watched it, and I agree completely! We should kick countries dragging their feet out!
Thank you Adam!
Great content as always, very informative.
thanks so much for watching, Harry, as always!
Humans aren't going to slow down voluntarily. Our systems won't allow it. And we haven't gotten to the involuntary stage yet. So there is nothing to negotiate. The COPs are better thought of as a way to keep official PR channels open.
8:55 I wouldn’t say we are that far off from tripling renewables. I’m not saying we are on track but I think it is certainly a significant possibility with the way renewables are exponentially expanding.
I also wouldn't rule it out. but the progress isn't tracking as we'd want it to yet.
The more I think about this the more I conclude that we're not going to solve climate change principally by political leaders coming to agreements. The solutions are nearly all going to be technological, because forced changes of the market that reduce quality of life will ultimately be rejected by voters, and we'll end up at less than square 1. Some climate activists think they can stop it by suing fossil fuel companies into oblivion. But if these companies went away, people would still need fuel! So, we have to replace the fuels!
was eagerly waiting for this one ❤
glad I didn't disappoint! honestly felt a bit despondent making a video about the negotiations this year... but that's kinda the point!
I think it's time we explain the political process and the polluting companies have failed us in our time of need. That mitigation efforts have failed entirely. That we are no longer able to prevent the destruction but rather our job is to prepare. Solving the problem of our economic choices is never going to be solved by continuing such economic practices. Without teeth to the boundaries (for example 50% world climate relief fund tax on GDP of any nation not shutting down their polluters and reducing emissions significantly which would mean 30% reductions yearly).
Essentially, if this were Star Trek, the ship is on fire, the crews already dying, the life support system is about to shut down and ejecting the warp core (fossil fuels and polluters) must be done immediately.
What if some Luigis unalived big oil billionaires 🤔
So far the "rich" world thinks they won't be hurt as much as the poor world.
Well, it's a single planet, and while we might not be hurt the same way the poorer world will, we WILL be hurt.
I expect us in the richer world to be hurt in ways we haven't anticipated.
We might just find the poorer world saying " We told you to take it seriously, but you thought you wouldn't be hurt so bad."
Adam thank you so much for sharing with us. Science communicators like you are absolutely essential in these trying times as humanity attempts to navigate our changing climate. I can't imagine how it feels to be so well versed on these subjects but still not being able to see the changes in the world that are required for everyone to be able to live a prosperous life in the future. Thank you for doing what you do
Hi Dr. Levy!
The Climate Action Tracker puts expected warming at 2.7 degrees by the end of the century, while certain individuals claim we'll be lucky to keep warming below 10 or 15 degrees decades sooner than that. Is the tracker wrong? Are they wrong?
climate action tracker bases its calculations on our best understanding of climate sensitivity based on all lines of evidence. I would be very wary of individuals claiming numbers way higher or way lower (because there are both), though of course I can't comment without actually knowing methodologies.
As far as I can tell, the low estimates assume that CO2 emissions fall, that sinks keep being sinks and don't saturate (both methane and CO2), and that permafrost doesn't melt.
I can't see any evidence that would make me think any of those will turn out to be true.
How can the people who majorly do the problem happen try to solve this problem in the field that's also making this happen?
_WE MAKE OUR OWN CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS_
Dont let oil corpos lobbyists in any climate conference ever
There is so much these wealthy and powerful could do to prepare to best manage/ make contingencies for what will be more severe and ever increasing natural disasters, but they won't, they already have their luxury bunkers and their man working on colonizing the red planet.
As long as negotiations have to reach unanimity, they are practically useless because the most resisting determine the results. Scientists have to define thresholds, and countries which don't accept these have to get thrown out of the negotiations, and these countries have to be blocked from getting any help in the future from the countries remaining in the negotiations, and blocked for all trade (import and export). The blocking countries have to be virtually expelled from Earth.
Love your work Adam , but gotta get used to the fact they are not gonna do enough to change the disaster that awaits us all ...
Excellent video as always! Lots of food for thought here. Thank you for presenting the issues so clearly.
That's the one thing different sides could agree upon.
Anyways: The developed countries should negotiate between themselves. Then make clear that they will only cut down on the emissions, if the other countries are not using this cheap fossil fuels not for themselves. This might include sanctions. If this is not possible or too difficult, then we just go on and wait. We also state that this makes us not responsible for any future problems.
The next point should be that biodiversity needs to have a higher priority than human lifes in poor countries.
COPs are terrible, but they’re the best thing we’ve got and we should fight to make sure they can get something at least half decent done.
Or we could make new ones at the local level
@@20-Foot-Anacondalocal action is great, but that’s not going to stop the big companies that have been causing the majority of the problems causing climate change.
They all have zoom. Why do they need to fly? Are they not serious about the climate emergency?
No, they are not, the only purpose of COP is to move vast sums of money around the world to "help" the climate.
I believe the market cap, of a crypto coin, represents the amount of energy it took to create it. So it pretty much is tied to already used energy. It's kind of hard, to set monetary policy, on an idea that represents more or less, individual intelligence.
Oil companies keep getting subsidies and don't pay tax. (should pay carbon tax for mining oil nd coal)
2024 is going to come in at a bit more than 1.5C over the nominal pre-industrial (1850 - 1900) baseline, but that temperature has been inflated a few tenths of a degree by the recent moderate El Nino. However, the Paris agreements to keep warming below 2C, (and below 1.5C if possible), were made relative to a different baseline, the real, (pre - 1750), pre-industrial temperature. That temperature is estimated to be a few tenths of a degree colder than the commonly used baseline, so 2024 may well be at the 1.5C Paris guidepost. Now, because of weather variability, it's scientifically prudent, when measuring a climate, to average the temperature, etc., over a number of years. I believe the customary number is 30. But that is when you're dealing with a climate that is presumed to be approximately stable. We know our present climate(s) are rapidly changing, so that a 30-year period for measurement would lose an excessive amount of resolution. Does anyone know what period of measurement would be appropriate under the present circumstances? So far, all I've heard is the vague statement that measurements have to be "averaged over many years." This seems like a straightforward math-and-statistics question. C'mon, ClimateAdam! Enquiring minds want to know. And we're too lazy, and too scientifically illiterate, to do a deep dive into the (for us) murky waters of scientific papers.
How's that private control of capital working out for us?
Evidently the bourgeoisie would rather keeps profiting off of oil. It would be less profitable to build the world of tomorrow. Plus that would shake things up. Maybe the current oligarchs would lose their place. Best to stick to what's currently working for them. They will be the last to suffer from it.
If capital was democratically controlled, we would not be in this mess.
What's the carbon footprint of the Military Industrial Complex, or the Internet of Things, or the multi-millionair/billionair lifestyles? If the global elite were really concerned about the climate they would go after the worst offenders, and invest in nuclear power. It seems to me they are more concerned with maintaining their hegemony and keeping the global poor in perpetual "climate" poverty.
How many years do we need to be at 1.5 to admit that it is so? We have arrived at 1.5 and are racing toward 2.0: perhaps when we reach 2.0 we might admit that we have passed 1.5.
We wouldn't have reached 1.5 without the combo of El nino and hunga tonga, maybe in 2035 we will reach 1,5c for good or we might cool down to 1950-levels with the grand modern solar minimum kicking in by 2030 lasting until 2053.
@@albin4323 Citations required.
@@albin4323 Who?
@@toadvine9264 Who what? After all el nino's the global temperature returns to the previous value it was around before, jan 2023 had a global temp of -0,02 1991-2020 and now it's around 0,67c so a cooling of 0,6c is expected in 2025-2026.
1:00 "generally understood"
Of course there's no evidence for this. Indeed AR6 notes that the Agreement is a legally binding treaty between states, and that its provisions, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, are to be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with their ordinary meaning as distilled from reading the relevant provisions in their context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose.
The ordinary meaning of "global average" is the instantaneous value. If they'd meant the average over many years, they would have said how many or even something vague like "long term average". But they didn't.
And they said above pre-industrial, and the ordinary meaning of pre-industrial is before 1760 (or sometimes before 1750). And while the 1850-1900 average is often used as a baseline, so is the 1981-2010 period.
Now exactly what the difference between pre-industrial and 1850-1900 actually is, is certainly debated, with some saying more than 0.5, and others saying 0.2, there's no one saying that there isn't a difference.
And it's not like it's just one exceptionally hot year either. The average over the last 27 months (two and a quarter years) has been more than 1.5 above 1850-1900 (so two and a quarter years of more than 1.7 above pre-industrial)
Drill baby drill !!
We are screwed.
👍 Whole food plant based _for the environment_ and health; vegan for the victims!
*Ask your city government to sign the Plant Based Treaty!* 🖖
I have noticed many alarmist use climate to push their own agenda
@@kmoses582 There is overwhelming scientific evidence that plant-based diets are far better for the planet than American-style omnivorous diets, with vegan diets reducing land use by 80-88%, reducing water use by more than 50%, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from one's diet by over 50%. Those facts are well-established and have nothing to do with "agendas."
Mis-naming Greta Thunberg?
I spotted twice...
I pronounced it as closely as I could to her (Swedish) pronunciation, but I'm sure that I still butchered it!
You were pretty close.
Greetings from Sweden!
@@ClimateAdam Greta Thunberry sounds like someone decided to add a female character to the Lord of the Rings.
we need to cop on...
'The Next President'
🎵🎶 a 47 years old song from
Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi
2:42 I'm colour blind, I'm going to assume there's some greens that I can't see there
...is that the reason why that chart uses light green -> red(?), so it's harder to see for some people.
Is some prominent environmentalist at COP known to be red green colour blind?
ah sorry to hear it wasn't visible to you, but sadly no country is coloured green. I wonder whether climate action tracker provides the map in different colours - I'll look into it if/when I refer to it again!
Yes, we should abandon negotiations and start revolutions.
Loved this video, thanks for a great analysis on the topic and for saying there's more than one side to the question, unlike many youtubers :)
ah I'm so glad to read comments like this - really do try and capture as much nuance as I (sanely) can!
Good faith discussion is positive. However there is no good faith in paid lobbying. Remove the lobbying and then we can have a sensible discussion.
Can you do a video on how trumps tax on shipping from other countries will reduce co2 even if that wasn't his intention.
1 buy making local jobs and shorting the distance to get the goods to the store.
2 big ships trains and plans will transport good to and from usa 🇺🇸.
3 less cheap goods from poor or rich but crupt countries will reduce pollution as there is less bad/cheap goods being made.
4 the new infrastructure being made for the new local jobs can be fitted with cleaner energy and have more efficient stuff to reduce its consumption.
Lots more thoughts on this being a potential video
Sure, a global economic collapse will reduce emissions. But only for awhile as eventually Trump will be out of office and the world economy will adjust. And given the vast fossil fuel resources within the US borders, spinning up more industry in the US will also increase US use of those fossil fuel resources.
Thanks! Congratulations for your Italian! It sounds good.
Grazie mille!
When even the most hardheaded currupt oil. Exec wants action it's too late to change course my thought is cops are kind of Cynical pr
Cop:
Capitalists
Owning
People
Coal, Oil, Precious metals.
There should be a clear plan that is advertise and helps a country to just copy paste the solution. For example my country will never put forward a good plan evan if 70% of the population wants this and protest in the street they are not capable of making a good plan.
Your hair is pretty bro
pretty easy to extend the trend, to the increasing probability we will Not 'solve' the climate problem
The ones who have the power to something don't care to, if their international flights are getting a little more bumpy they can sleep in first class anyway.the always have Mars as an option.
We should abandon the idea where all countries has to agree on what to do in climate negotiations. Most of the countries can make their own deal and sanction all who wont agree with them. In this way Saudies or whom ever has the bs role at that COP cannot ruin the deal, but face the consequeces. If oil producer does not agree the deal, then simply STOP BUYING their products.
But yea, in real world, the country leaders are too greedy and bought by fossil burners to make any real progress. And our armies ensures high emissions for decades to come. Humanity is too greedy to survive. Topping 2C is ensured by last US election and most likely well above 3C warming, before the CC itself makes enough damage and begins to limit all production and emissions. 5C by 2100 is likely with current trend (still at rcp8.5).
According to Chomsky, the Paris 2015 COP would have produced a binding agreement with an enforcement mechanism, instead of the system of voluntary promises that we got, but for the U.S. Congress signaling that they would never ratify such an agreement. They regarded an agreement like that as an unacceptable infringement of U.S. sovereignty, I presume because of the influence of the fossil-fuel lobby. So that's why the world didn't get an effective treaty on greenhouse gases, as was done for ozone-depleting refrigerant gases.
More direct action after the pattern of a recent event? Not merely annoying commuters.
Just call it CAP from now on 😂
No,but we should ban religions involved in the discussion
True, they are also big part of the problem, believe everything that happens is it's will so will just carry on business as usual.Those with power should be working out contingencies so we all don't end up becoming climate refugees in our own countries. Obviously we are all doomed eventually.
TH-cam sneakily unscribed me from 4 climate change related channels, including yours, I realized. (I just re-subscribed.)
how bizarre! but welcome back, CliMate!
The whole issue needs to be taken up by the UN 🎉Security Council.
Vetoed
Look at the trend between 2023 and 2024 it's only going up project it forward
It's obvious extinction. No big deal. This planet does not need a primate adapted to fire. The other creatures would be better off.
Obvious alarmism, we survived the Ice Age and Younger Dryas period, we will easily survive a warm period. Worst case global population may fall significantly but we will easily adapt and survive. No big deal.
@@mrnice752 This isn't simply "a warm period," our emissions, other pollution, direct killing of species, and other destruction of ecosystems are pushing the whole web of life toward collapse.
@@HealingLifeKwikly I do mostly agree with you.. We are trying our best to destroy our ecosystems with chemical fertilizers, pest/herbicides, over fishing, plastics, PFCs, other endocrine disruptors, rare earth mineral extraction, deforestation/habitat destruction etc.
Shockingly these are all societally accepted things. Though the idea that a few degrees of warming will cause human extinction is laughable, and in my opinion many of the proposed solutions are far more harmful to us and the environment than elevated CO2 and slightly warmer temperatures.
The younger dryas period did not affect the entire world as does co2 and chemical contamination. Denial is not a solution. It's just another problem distracting from a solution.
@@Geo123-q2s Right, we're warming the planet ~20 times faster than it usually warms when coming out of an "ice age" and increasing global CO2 levels 10 times faster than they increased before the worst mass extinction in earth's history.
We did it, climate change is over
🎉❤
Why do you mention that useless media pawn?
ye we ded
We have high expectations of government to do meaningful action on climate change and rightly so, but what are we doing as individuals to limit our fossil fuel use? I'm not seeing individuals change their lifestyles to meet the challenges of of climate change.
I just lowered my space heater while watching this, and ok, it’s now off. Why don’t we all boycott fossil fuels, what would happen? I wonder. It would be radical. Very radical. I need some solar panels.
CO2 was dangerously low. It was a good thing that humans put back into the air what plants have been storing for eons. Had CO2 gone below 200 ppm's, all life would have begun to die.
Looks like this one fell off the turnip truck
@@toadvine9264 Maybe the reason that COPs are failing to encourage action against co2 emissions is that there is now a significant quantity of high quality research concluding that anthropological Co2 is not the driving force behind warming.
The existence of this data which comes from expert sources may at the very least introduced an element of caution into the plans of some nations.
Search Google scholar for W Happer 2020 onwards for examples of the research papers that are provoking debate and hesitation.
Our ancestors got through the last glacial maximum when it went down to about 190ppm.
@mawkernewek Localised, maybe. Not everywhere.
@@sychodefender "Maybe the reason that COPs are failing to encourage action against co2 emissions is that there is now a significant quantity of high quality research concluding that anthropological Co2 is not the driving force behind warming." Speaking as a senior university professor, that's laughably false. Thousands of research studies and 40+ years of quite accurate climate models prove that our emissions caused ~98% of all global warming since 1900. The evidence on that is so strong that every nation on Earth signed off in agreement on that fact years ago.
Someone is misleading you, ah I see, it's Happer, one of the more notorious sources of climate misinformation... a chap who was actually caught in a sting operation accepting $$$ for writing things he admitted would not pass peer review (which is code for saying that what he is writing is misleading/false).
Be we
I don't think 2024 was a "freakishly hot year", when 2016 was the warmest year, it only took 4 years before it was reached again.
Mark my words, the next ENSO neutral or El Nino year will be warmer
Let me spell out the cost to all you young people. In 2023 the CO2 emissions increased by 0.5 billion tonnes. If we can reduce the cost of Direct Carbon Capture to the best case scenario of $150 per tonne then for just the extra CO2 emissions alone have cost $75,000,000,000. Remember this cost does nothing to reduce our CO2 levels in the atmosphere from the previous year. Of course, at some point, we will need to remove all of the CO2 emissions from 2023 so lets be really generous and say we reduce the costs to $100 per tonne then the cost just for 2023 will be $3,779,000,000,000. I haven't included all the R and D costs that we have already started to contribute towards through various Government schemes.
What costs do we have without the CO2 taxes: Everything.
@@proffessorclueless tv evangelists and climate changers have one thing in common. They both want all your money for something they have absolutely zero control over.
Wow, both kinds of cops suck!
😀
negotiations ?? Haaaaaaaa just BS
Is there a possibility to calculate how many CO2 pollution are additionally caused by COPS (e.g. participants come by plane) and on the other side how many climate benefits they have created?
If they cause significantly more damage than benefit…
Right now at 430ppm CO2 increasing at 4-5 ppm per year and accelerating from 280 highest during preindustrial age, climate talk will be fine for picturial purposes. They can stop at 500ppm when it's too hot to go outside.
Rubbish.
Use actual numbers and maths. The IPCC human caused temperature rise is 1.1C over 150 years caused by an increase in CO2 of circa 140ppm. That gives a sensitivity of less than 2C per doubling. So doing everything we have done again, all of it, would give about 0.8C more. No one will notice 0.8C. But that does not fit the doomsday narrative that keeps the bandwagon going.
We're actually at 520 ppm CO2 equivalent when you count other gases like methane and nitrous oxide. We are screwed.
@@old_toucs6283 I'm unsure where you came up with 140ppm. At no time in the Holocene were CO2 levels that low. Just before the advent of industrialization (~1850 CE), the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was approximately 280ppm.
@@Skyhawk1480 The rise in the last 150 years is circa 140ppm.
@@old_toucs6283but this was not a linear development.
And the world population since then is about 8 times as big and is still growing. Since 1950 it tripled.
And not to forget: the warming causes the earth to release even more gases which affect climate change.
Are you a Droid?
Yeah; we should. It's a pointless waste of ressources. We should focus on forecasting, adapting to an increasingly inhospitable world and rapid development to eliminate illiteracy, extreme poverty, unemployment, child mortality, mass migrations, etc., worldwide as fast as possible.
Instead of climate change let’s talk about weather manipulation!!
Do some Americans really believe that Democrats have created hurricanes to hurt Republican areas? I know that education is seriously lacking in the US, but frankly I find it hard to believe that any population could be that stupid.
🤪🤡
great vid!
whats the problem ?
Dec. 13, 2024 424.86 ppm
Dec. 13, 2023 421.78 ppm Expediential increase.
Last year 80 million barrows of oil a day.This year 100 mill. next year 120 mill.a day.ans so on .
Oh what a bunch of bull! You need to take a deep breath and take a long look at the Central England Temperature Record that goes back to the year 1659. On that graph you'll see that theres a one degree C or so increase in temperatures over the past 150 years... and the 150 years or so before that temperatures went down by about the same amount. Whoop-de-doo. Stop wringing your hands and get on with your life!
@@babybearsporridge and if you extend the graph a bit you'll find out that we surpassed the warm period already... You assume the warming trend, the current kind of exponential trend, stops dead in its tracks and goes down again...
But yes, if we ignore everything we know and can measure then there is nothing to see
Central England temperature you say..? www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
@@spanke2999 Remember Al Gore having to raise his skyjack to show how present warming is going off the chart? "exponential trend"... it is YOU, not me, projecting certainty and climate catastrophe!
@@babybearsporridge funny how guys like you always bring up Al Gore, or some news article, or just 'I've heard...'
You guys never ever interact with actual science. So no... it is not me who says anything about a catastrophe. I just can read! You should read some papers too. you know... the actual science, physics and such. It helps a lot!
So yes, the temperature increase is speeding up and so far, it hasn't slowed down or stopped! It has surpassed earlier warm periods in less then a decade and doesn't seems to slow down any time soon.
And why should it, we kind of understand the physic behind it. The only people who have problems with this are those who claim that everything will be fine because... reasons. That's funny.