as long as our economic system is heavily dependant on consumerism, people will always produce something cheap without caring about the waste since our economic system is profit oriented.
Nope. Even in countries that did very little about Corona, they acted very quickly. We've hardly acted on climate change for over 50 years and it's now causing death, plagues and locusts. It's becoming biblical.
@just another human I'd say its not a hoax. I'd say that the data suggests there has been some warming from humans burning fossil fuels. Of course how much warming is very debatable? What I'd say is a hoax is the doom and gloom scenario's we have been bombarded with. We know that satellites are reporting a greening of the earth because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. We know that crop yields are up globally, partly because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. The "greens" never mention these positives. Why? Because it appears that that wouldn't bring the wedge flooding in. The greens are a business, and doing well out of an imagined crisis! Just look at how many companies sell the green slant now, because it attracts more consumers, sells more products, and ultimately makes them more money.
@@andrewcheadle948 it definitely isn't a hoax. A proof is that the smartest people on earth agree on it happening. This is enough proof for me ;) only those who may lose money of having to stop their polluting activities are negating the CC.
Syd, The exact opposite is true as well, tell someone their paycheck depends upon them supporting a idea and they will. Like give scientists Billions annually and they will produce ‘research’ which implies we are all going to die unless politicians take our freedom away.
The IPCC are paid to tell you that you must be taxed on all your activities to save the world! What do you think the 'I' in IPCC stands for? Who do you think gets to change and amend the IPCC media statements before release to the world press? Think about it....its not rocket science...its political discourse.
@@Memoiana well you can be democratic and orliarchy at the same time. The orligarchy use media to create manufactured consent within the population, then having the people to vote against their own interest - which is what the US have been doing since the 60s.
iHaveGrudgeAgainstUT Scandinavian countries (Norway, Iceland, Denmark) and Finland are very egalitarian and the closest thing to ideal democracies. New Zealand and Ireland aren’t too bad either.
Humans are reactive and rarely proactive. Just like the boiling frog analogy, we only respond to immediate visible threats. Just look at how some countries handled this pandemic, despite warnings from intelligence and health officials. We like all the tech and advances that science brings us, but not the bigger questions it asks or the facts that challenge our ideologies, beliefs, or economic models.
Phrancis5 yeah! Then when it happens to them, they don solve it, but rather blame and then threaten war while the problem continues and take innocent lives.
Humans are very gullible. They will believe anything a "expect" claims. Then they will pay whatever is asked. SHEEP, scientist and politicians know it.
Phrancis5 Yes that is true we only respond to something when it is getting worse but when it is doing nothing but a harm in the future we ignore it only it starts to pose a treat
Actually I reckon it will take about 50 years. The rivers are all polluted right now, the Amazon is being deforested, the changing climate will irreparably damage our oceans and food supply. The rich will be living amazing lives in Singapore-like fortress bubbles looking out at the laboring dimwits who thought it would all be ok for 3000 years.
@@colinfwalters Your arguments were created in the 1970's and is based on the false theory of a population bomb. According to the theory, the earth would be so polluted by 2005 that half the creatures of the earth would be gone. The population would be so great that food supplies would result in food riots by 2010. By 2015, the population would be reduced to 4 billion people wearing mask and oxygen systems because the air would be too polluted. A large cause of the reduction would be the rampant cannibalism going on. Wars would rage over whose population would eat whose. It is now 2020 and none of this has even come close to happening.
robert hicks Nice piece of science fiction. But who cares if one obscure theory did not come to pass. Doesn’t mean that the situation is not really bad. If not for humans(not yet), definitely for the rest of the ecosystems and animals. Did you see the state of the planet? Coral bleaching? the tropical rainforests being cut down? More cows and pigs than any other mammal on earth? Sharks (essential to life in the oceans) are endangered? Then we can talk about how sustainable a global society that is based on oil is.. we are going to run out of it, but not before we have destabilized the global climate.. So yeah maybe we will be 10 billion in 2050. But maybe a lot less in 2100..
@@Memoiana Why does it matter? Because its the same theory your are pushing. You are using the same data, the same theory and the same outcome, just with different dates. They have discovered WITH LAB TEST that the bleaching of the corals is due to pollution, not co2. Most of the rain forest that is being cut down is actually trees PLANTED so they can be harvested. Sharks are endangered by pollution, fishing and because they are getting caught in fishing gear. Sharks "job" is to remove the weak fish. Which also happens with fishing. There are already alternations of how to produce oil without fossil fuels. So if we run out of fossil fuels we will be able to make it ourselves.
For those who are coming to this world just now: When it comes to global issues it is easier to ask to name one thing politicians have actually succeeded to tackle while having promised for decades. Eradication of poverty? End of wars and conflicts? End of discrimination? End of water pollution? Full protection of extinction of endangered species? End of hunger? End of slavery? ...and the list goes on and on. So what makes you think politicians will work to solve climate change exclusively this time?
Here’s the thing. We developed countries benefit more from historical emissions while developing countries have less emissions at that time.Its unfair to require developing countries to emit greenhouse gases equally as same as us! It just like a zero-sum game!
Then do not expect global emissions to go down. The industrialized west is only 25% of global emissions; the other 75% is what is currently controlling ghg emission growth. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. So another solution is required because this one ain’t working.
Mark Dawson In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
*It will only happen when the damage it causes is too costly to deny* some may say that point has already been reached, but like in insurance you get the money today but pay the cost at some undetermined time in the future, consequently, they may think they've done well only to pay the price of their "mal-judgement" later
Sorry to tell you this, that point passed over a half century ago. They were pushing this agenda in the 1930's and said the tipping point would happen in the 1950's.
But your title is "why" and you didn't get to the why, just a small history lesson of what everyone else already knows. This was a weak peace compared to your other works.
It answered it: Big polluting developed nations like the US don't want to cut emissions because it will cost them money. It's the same cause for pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today - Short sighted unfettered capitalism.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
@@trevorjonathan4405 sorry to say Nabhanyu has just committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 46 times and if you don't stop this thread right now you are next -friendly neighborhood clown
Some countries discontinued their support on the paris agreement since the start of the pandemic. This means funds that are supposed to be allocated to climate change has been used for covid responses.
Kenneth Tougaw Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
@@djtdjt8921 Man made Climate Change denial might make you sleep better at night, but that doesn't change reality. The fact that you think I would listen to you lecturing me online instead of the climate science I studied in graduate school shows how little respect you have for my opinion. I will repay the kindness with the same amount of respect.
Kenneth Tougaw firstly, if questioning your view in open debate is an offense to you, then probably you would feel more comfortable in communist China 😉 When it comes to you as a somebody that have studied the issue, here is what I don’t understand, what happened to the ice age? Why did it disappear? And why was the temperature during Roman times slightly higher than it is now?
@@djtdjt8921 this isn't a debate. All of those questions have been answered by science for centuries. This is you asking me to educate you by you tube comments. That is why I don't respect your opinion, or the way you intend to communicate. If you want to know the answer I suggest you type the questions into another website. The website is called Google. If that is to difficult perhaps consider paying tuition to get the answers. It worked for me.
@@KTougaw sounded a bit like debate, must be great to be omniscient. So sure that mankind's 3.86% contribution to annual co2 emissions, and co2 being just 0.041% of our atmosphere is warming the planet. Our 0.002% co2 contribution to earth's atmosphere . I'm not alone in thinking that that % is statistically insignificant, happy for you not to reply as this isn't a debate,
@Dark Horse Actually I did had a look at the history of communism and socialism, better yet I didn't look at it under the glasses of the major centers of propaganda - the U.S and U.S.S.R which seem to be how you learned about the subject like most people. Just to demonstrate how brainwashed you are I would like to ask a simple question: Give me one example of a socialist / communist society that was very bad in your opinion. Prediction: you are going to fail this question. Secondly, I'm not saying that in a socialist / communist society we won't be burning co2, the difference is that in such a society the power is in the hands of the people and so society operates according to the interest of the people. That means that in such a society it would be very easy to transition to green energy because it is in the interest of the people and the people are in control as oppose to capitalism where the small minority elite who are profiting from the burning of co2 are in control of society and so they have no interest in transitioning to green energy. Moreover , it is perfectly clear that any viable solution to the crisis would require public investment and actions, which while not necessarily means socialism it does mean at least some version of social democracy, in other words it require actions that are heavily anti-capitalist in nature.
@@michaelnovak9412 It was capitalism that has reduced worldwide emissions. The socialist countries are behind the capitalist countries in reducing emissions and developing the technology to do so. The usa is ahead of Europe and Africa and Asia in reducing emissions! Nice try! lol
Even this report is blaming somebody else the politicians need to solve it not us. Answer me this how do I heat my home without oil or gas? I live in Massachusetts. Give me a technology and a price point and a company to contact.
The US is actively shutting down coal plants. China is actively opening them. China's per capita emissions will also continue to increase as incomes increase.
@Stanley Goddard Yeah, nobody had any clue about climate change 100 years ago. And nobody is using China as an excuse in American to not fight climate change...? Not sure what you're even arguing
@@roberthicks1612 yes, why should even be think of that situation ? if Im dead, that means I'm not alive , and how can I worry, if I'm dead ? his reasoning doesnt make sense at all.
@@ramakanthrama8578 Another point is, if no human is around to bury us, nature will do so, they way she has buried so many other species. Unless of course the planet is actually destroyed, and then we will all be star dust
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
HEY EVERYONE I feel obligated by the responsibility of understanding to implore you, whoever you are, to GROW YOUR OWN FOOD INDOORS RIGHT NOW! And get everyone u can to do the same. U can grow any kind of plant in a 5 gallon bucket with drainge holes. Use half topsoil half sand mixture for soil. Or use all topsoil with some rocks at the bottom. Use mirrors to direct sunlight from windows. Its not that hard u dont need to starve. Do it. GROW YOUR OWN FOOD TODAY! LETTS GOOO!!!! And raise some chickens they eat bugs and grass. Plant two or 3 plants per CROP variety every week. THERE IS literally no choice .
Stefan Herzog Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
Stefan Herzog if you google “total emotions of the planet” you will se that the human is responsible for only less than 1% of the worlds emissions.. you know who’s the biggest contributor? Ocean! When sun heats it up, it creates words suggest emotions (over 95% of worlds total) that rises up.. heat pulls emotion up until they reach a freezings temperature.. what is the temperature at the level that airplanes fly? -40C to -57C (-40F to -70F) Globally, volcanos contributes to more emotions than we humans combined
@@djtdjt8921 yeah and cattle contribute more too. So what do you think when countless the environmental scholars have reached the conclusion that we need to cut back on emissions?
Stefan Herzog we can cut all the emotions in the world to total 0. Set ourselves back to a stone ages & it would creat any reasonable impact to the planet.. It is that human arrogance to always regulate, oversee & manage everything..
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
@Nyasha is the A.I. the youtube channel implemented will suggest you ads based on your browser search or youtube search. For me it happened when i was looking for some stuff on amazon and when i opened the youtube it appeared more adds suggestions regarding wot i was looking for on browser
Hi guys! if u care for the environment, please use Ecosia as your search engine. For every 45 searches u make, a tree will be planted somewhere. If you think this is fake, u can always check out their TH-cam channel. Stay safe guys :) bai bai
Because in democracy... Leaders are chosen based on how big their mouths are... Hope one day human race would be intelligent enough to be able to self govern himself...
Not to belittle activists who are rightfully fighting for their future, but the message never focuses on how appropriate climate action will affect the daily lives of people in both developed and developing countries. If governments could (and wanted to) curb back emissions, how would that affect travel? Our food supply? Access to clothes, appliances, and household goods? COVID-19 has given us a taste of what happens when we don't have ready and easy access to these luxuries. Cutting them back will become necessary, but we've also seen how unwilling most people will be in accepting it.
The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.
The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.
The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.
@@klzeccwozi1290 I certainly don't disagree with that. Obviously, we need to scale back now, not later when we are physically no longer able to produce and consume at these levels. My point is just that to properly tackle climate change means no more fast food, fast fashion, or fast travel (unless you could do so sustainably...unlikely). Most people accept the overall climate message, but that's a much harder sell.
It seems the activists try to get around the hard questions by just focusing on a message of 'fear'. Basically, scare people into action, which makes it less likely that questions will be asked in any direction. This might be a feasible strategy, if they did not have a sizable portion of the population that did not buy, and often outright rejects, their message.
Think of all the years of evolution into the human brain. These last few decades are but a "pale blue dot" compared to all the years where humans have never faced a problem similar. The collective brain has to quickly adapt to this threat even though their is no immediate threat of life (for those in power that is)
@@berkilhan4727 Yes we can, go vegan. Animal agriculture is actually a major contributor to world hunger. Because of animal agriculture, we keep feeding nutritious grains to farmed animals that we breed instead of humans. Veganism is better for animals,humans, and the environment.
I am starting to think that nothing significant can be done. The economic benefits from producing CO2 are still far too advantageous. Basic game theory like the prisoner's dilemma suggest that short term gains will topple the precarious cooperation required for things like global carbon taxes.
ramakanth rama do you know how ridiculous you sound citizens are the victims here we are the consumers la politicians are the ones who make these laws so in reality it’s on them
Politicians gets money from big auto, oil, gas, coals every year. They have not fail the people, is the people who failed by voting for the same politicians
Scientist get grant money, published papers, and tenure for claiming alarming disasters from climate change. Your statement sounds like a big conspiracy theory. Mine statement sounds like peer preassure for personal success.
Here in the United States, people may say that they care about climate change, but most of the people that I talk to are mostly concerned with their jobs, their income, their mortgages or rent, their bills and their retirement.
Jason Martinez Okay, what about their children? And it’s not just about the superficial concerning, it is about the fact that it’ll affect billions of people.
@@etiennelamole9565 They care about their children... so much that they think about their income, their mortgage or rent and their bills... for their children... today. Mortgage reminders come in the mail on a monthly basis. Bills come due monthly. Companies layoff people every few years. TV commercials are constantly reminding people of their retirement years. Ha ha, I once knew someone who was a total save-the-planet guy. After he and his wife had a kid, he bought her a new car; it was an SUV. I was like, "Ahhhh! C'mon, Dude, think of the gas mileage. Save the planet!" He said, "Dude, I have a kid. I gotta protect the kid." He felt that SUVs were safer. :P
Covid-19 leads to a momentary drop of GHG emissions, but in the longer term the emissions are going to rise again as every country tries to catch up with increased economic output.. In fact we would need an additional Covid every year to hope to keep below 2 degrees global temperature increase (so 1 month lockdown in year 1, 2 months in year 2, .... 12 months in year 12.. Because all the emissions that are already in the atmosphere guarantee us 1.5 degrees, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels right now. That’s how bad the situation is.
One way to think of climate change is, it's no danger to the world but rather danger to humans. Nature will always find a way to thrive. It's the humans that are counting their final hours into hardship.
The harsh truth of the climate change is not that we don't have ways to control it. Talking from the perspective of science we do have ideas in both theory and practice to take necessary measures. The real and the most vital problem is the system we have adopted to meet our day to day needs.And it's kind of hypocritical to say that the crowd we are used seeing to in such kind of rallies are also working in some way or the other to (in an chemical or a polymer industry) fuel this climate change problems. I would like to conclude that unless we don't develop the correct economic system we would never be able to address this problem. And believe me this same people would be seen in rallies for joblessness if the governments just go according to their say on this topic.
Dylan Liu Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
How can a reporter make a story about the history of climate change politics and totally miss the central issues that 50 years ago they said it was going to be a new iceage and we only had 10 years to act, and now its the opposite but still 10 years to act?
"Something cannot be political and scientific at the same time." That's too vague a statement to possibly hold any water. Scientifically, it is a scientific fact that humans caused all recent global warming and it poses a threat to our future and is already damaging our present. All of those are scientific facts, but there is strong POLITICAL opposition to doing the things we must do to fix the climate crisis.
Wellllll, when your poster child looks like the Grinch, it's hard to get people on your side. 😂 maybe if they got Scarlett Johansson to talk about climate change it would get more people's attention. Sadly this is how you have to get through to people.
The biggest reason for failure is that when Nuclear Reactors were built the idea was the bigger the better and that BAD decision made them overly complex, dangerous and uneconomical businesses such that you guaranteed failure. Instead of building bombs, the world could have build Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that could be built in numbers as high quality, uniform, VERY safe, and efficient CLEAN power generation that works 24/7. The large reactors that had accidents caused public backlash that blew away the only possible solution because solar and wind comes up with their own pollution that includes destruction of large areas of land that these so called "green" solutions take up. The environmental activists opposing nuclear power because of the lousy design of oversize reactors that are never fail-safe shut the door on the real solution. It all leads back to the erroneous mentality that bigger is better. This mentality is making solar panels and wind not environmentally sound as well. Wind and solar would be much more effective if the "farm" idea was eliminated. Likewise large animal farming operations cause more pollution than most other activities as well. BOTTOM LINE - transform everything to smaller is better and less is more, then you will solve the problem forever. The oligarchs do NOT want this because this would put power back into the hands of small businesses and the people. Getting away from the bigger is better and consumerist, gotta grow, mentality would eliminate oligarchs and firmly establish real democracy. Think about what I am saying.
Exactly! It’s because the status quo serves and benefits a very few who want to keep their position above everyone else... the reality is that consumer capitalism is not freedom...it is divine and conquer at its best! ... it is the motivation for slaves to go to work and pay their bills!
They are already listening. They are listening to the majority of scientist that say this is a scam. They are listening to the majority of their people that say to ignore the scammers.
@@roberthicks1612 Please can you provide links to any resepectable scientific organsation anywhere in the world that supports you view..... The science goes back 200 years and the act that C02 is a warming gas can be demostrated in any high school lab....
@@stephensharp975 Thats the point isnt it? IF it doesnt agree with you, its not respectable. If its something you consider respectable, it agrees with you. Thats the way alarmist work. One person at an organization can agree and everyone else disagrees, and its reported that the entire organization supports. NOT ONE of those organizations can show that all or even most of their people they represent support agw. Yes, you can prove that co2 can causes a warming IN A PROPERLY BUILT ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT. The problems is, those CONDITIONS do not exist in the atmosphere. All of them require water vapor, which does not exist in the majority of the atmosphere. They also require a material that blocks some if not all of the infrared. Something most alarmist will never admit is that co2 has also been demonstrated as being able to kick a lot of energy out of the earths atmosphere.
regardless weather human population makes the earth's climate change, the Paris Accords Agreement is a construct to create more wealth and power for the already extremely wealthy. The ability to pollute the air is monetized by the means of "carbon credits" which are a commodity sold similarly to stocks. It will actually create more air pollution and make prices rise for consumers as producers offset the costs caused by their need to buy carbon credits in order to produce. This guy explains the process quite well: @ in s 12 minute presentation.
Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
In today’s world, human race is prepared for everything, technologically. But when it involves money, especially when there’s chance of free riders, nobody will literally do anything about anything. And secondly, currently policy only involves tax, but nothing on technology advancement. Again, politicians want more money but less long term real solution, for me it would be technology solving the problem, never money itself.
zeze popio Considering the inertia of the GHG in the atmosphere (several decades for methane, several centuries die carbone dioxide) we should really be looking at the total emissions in each country over the last century..
@Stanley Goddard sure, but it is also able to send energy out of the atmosphere, something people deny when they want to blame it on us so they can dictate socialist agenda to us.
@Stanley Goddard Real scientist know that as co2 increases the amount of energy that leave the planet in infrared radiation increases correspondingly. People like you deny that proven facts are proven. You say we deny the basic. You cant get any more basic than infrared radiation being the only way the planet can cool down and co2 is the main emitter of infrared in the atmosphere.
The changes might be possible if these people start to have realistic ideas. They always come up with radical ideas such as installing solar panels in the North Pole.
Politicians want to personally do something about climate as much as they want to spend their own money. They want other people to do things and spend their money. These people all live like royalty (especially Prince Charles) while they publicly ask others to do something. Did you watch the Climate Conference in Scotland? What do you think was the average carbon footprint at that meeting?
The main problem is that most politician and scientist seems to think that when a technology is selected, everything fixes itself afterwards. But that is not so. E.g. Nuclear is unavoidable. Exercise : Explain why. Nobody understands that the treaties are completely unecessary. The underlying broken understanding is that energy prices have to rise when the reality is that they will go down. Think half. Why ??? Fossil free can be significantly cheaper than anything which uses fossil power. Is 40% cheaper than coal cheap enough? The real problem is that people love to talk, but does not want to do anything. Very few nations have actually investigated the fossil fuel alternatives; they have started their efforts based on assumptions which do not hold water. The main problem with fossil power was demonstrated solved between 1965 and 1969. If that work had continued there would be no fossil powered powerstations now. They would be too expensive. I believe that the EU beuracracy and the IEA is horriffied by the lack of understanding of the future needs of fossil free power. The deficiencies of wind and solar is hidden by the existing fossil fueled energy providers. And there is simply no understanding of the need for industrial heat. If China follows their plans, they will have built at least 300 1GW nuclear power stations based on Thorium by 2030. Those who do not understand that this is likely to change many industries that depends on industrial heat, will get a big surprise. Countries like China and India know that the treaties are no longer useful for them since they are heading for cheap nuclear.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
Virus has 3 meanings that was most important .so .it is difficult to stop everything Power Money Eco nomika Economika is eco Omika is matetial energy Om.omika small .low energy before Highs.Gods.
Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
We really need to be promoting the economic benefit of a transition to clean energy and innovation. Oftentimes people focus on the negative or moral aspects, where here in the US especially you get into arguments with climate deniers or people who think they'll have to sacrifice a lot of their livelihood. But talk about the millions of jobs that will be created and lower energy prices and it's harder to disagree. And investment in clean energy will help developing countries with their emissions too and lift people out of energy poverty.
ForOne814 Renewables can compete with fossil fuels atm without subsidies. But if you included environmental and health into the equation there would be no competition. We should make the transition regardless of climate change.
I'm not sure who the target audience of this is. Possibly the elderly who do not fear the damage they have done. Please don't blame the Chinese. Alot that you own is made by them. You paid for their pollution. This is really important, please vote for the politicians that are focused on this problem.
I don't like how this video is blaming China. For a developing country, let's just say that climate problems are not their priority when they need get their own citizens out of poverty. China is a wealthy country now, but it wasn't the case back then. Making sure their people don't starve seems like a more important task.
The climate change policy is much like the coronavirus response.. "Everyone agrees that everyone else should do more"
as long as our economic system is heavily dependant on consumerism, people will always produce something cheap without caring about the waste since our economic system is profit oriented.
Nope. Even in countries that did very little about Corona, they acted very quickly. We've hardly acted on climate change for over 50 years and it's now causing death, plagues and locusts. It's becoming biblical.
@just another human I'd say its not a hoax. I'd say that the data suggests there has been some warming from humans burning fossil fuels. Of course how much warming is very debatable?
What I'd say is a hoax is the doom and gloom scenario's we have been bombarded with.
We know that satellites are reporting a greening of the earth because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. We know that crop yields are up globally, partly because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. The "greens" never mention these positives.
Why? Because it appears that that wouldn't bring the wedge flooding in. The greens are a business, and doing well out of an imagined crisis!
Just look at how many companies sell the green slant now, because it attracts more consumers, sells more products, and ultimately makes them more money.
@@andrewcheadle948 it definitely isn't a hoax. A proof is that the smartest people on earth agree on it happening. This is enough proof for me ;) only those who may lose money of having to stop their polluting activities are negating the CC.
@just another human Yep the GSM is never mention as we WARM but is all over the Fossil Fuel funded blogs. Go figure.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
It is difficult to get a policy past if politicians gain power for not having that policy.
Syd,
The exact opposite is true as well, tell someone their paycheck depends upon them supporting a idea and they will. Like give scientists Billions annually and they will produce ‘research’ which implies we are all going to die unless politicians take our freedom away.
The IPCC are paid to tell you that you must be taxed on all your activities to save the world! What do you think the 'I' in IPCC stands for? Who do you think gets to change and amend the IPCC media statements before release to the world press? Think about it....its not rocket science...its political discourse.
@@michaelnice93 you make 0 sense. Nobody gives billions to scientists to come to a certain conclusion.
I remember a time where climit change was about the ice age and not politics.
Just to show you democracy doesnt give people the power, wealth does.
Then we are not in a democracy but an oligarchy.
@@Memoiana well you can be democratic and orliarchy at the same time. The orligarchy use media to create manufactured consent within the population, then having the people to vote against their own interest - which is what the US have been doing since the 60s.
It depends where you live
@@etiennelamole9565 Name me one country where wealth and social connections doesnt give you an advantage in voicing political agenda
iHaveGrudgeAgainstUT
Scandinavian countries (Norway, Iceland, Denmark) and Finland are very egalitarian and the closest thing to ideal democracies. New Zealand and Ireland aren’t too bad either.
Humans are reactive and rarely proactive. Just like the boiling frog analogy, we only respond to immediate visible threats. Just look at how some countries handled this pandemic, despite warnings from intelligence and health officials. We like all the tech and advances that science brings us, but not the bigger questions it asks or the facts that challenge our ideologies, beliefs, or economic models.
In short most people are ignorant and irresponsible.
Phrancis5 yeah! Then when it happens to them, they don solve it, but rather blame and then threaten war while the problem continues and take innocent lives.
Yes
Humans are very gullible. They will believe anything a "expect" claims. Then they will pay whatever is asked. SHEEP, scientist and politicians know it.
Phrancis5 Yes that is true we only respond to something when it is getting worse but when it is doing nothing but a harm in the future we ignore it only it starts to pose a treat
The "It don't effect Me Syndrome" in full effect.
Politicians work in 5 years cycle, fighting climate change needs 20 years.
@Donald Kasper just wait another decade and you will see some big changes
You cant fight or stop climate change!!
Kind of suggests we in the UK need to make House of Lords have priority over House of Commons.
Only when the last tree is cut down, the last river is polluted, and the air we breath is toxic. Will man realize they can not eat money...
Fortunately, that will take about 3000 years and by then we will be living in space stations.
Actually I reckon it will take about 50 years. The rivers are all polluted right now, the Amazon is being deforested, the changing climate will irreparably damage our oceans and food supply. The rich will be living amazing lives in Singapore-like fortress bubbles looking out at the laboring dimwits who thought it would all be ok for 3000 years.
@@colinfwalters Your arguments were created in the 1970's and is based on the false theory of a population bomb. According to the theory, the earth would be so polluted by 2005 that half the creatures of the earth would be gone. The population would be so great that food supplies would result in food riots by 2010. By 2015, the population would be reduced to 4 billion people wearing mask and oxygen systems because the air would be too polluted. A large cause of the reduction would be the rampant cannibalism going on. Wars would rage over whose population would eat whose.
It is now 2020 and none of this has even come close to happening.
robert hicks
Nice piece of science fiction. But who cares if one obscure theory did not come to pass.
Doesn’t mean that the situation is not really bad. If not for humans(not yet), definitely for the rest of the ecosystems and animals.
Did you see the state of the planet? Coral bleaching? the tropical rainforests being cut down? More cows and pigs than any other mammal on earth? Sharks (essential to life in the oceans) are endangered?
Then we can talk about how sustainable a global society that is based on oil is.. we are going to run out of it, but not before we have destabilized the global climate..
So yeah maybe we will be 10 billion in 2050. But maybe a lot less in 2100..
@@Memoiana Why does it matter? Because its the same theory your are pushing. You are using the same data, the same theory and the same outcome, just with different dates.
They have discovered WITH LAB TEST that the bleaching of the corals is due to pollution, not co2.
Most of the rain forest that is being cut down is actually trees PLANTED so they can be harvested. Sharks are endangered by pollution, fishing and because they are getting caught in fishing gear. Sharks "job" is to remove the weak fish. Which also happens with fishing.
There are already alternations of how to produce oil without fossil fuels. So if we run out of fossil fuels we will be able to make it ourselves.
Is nobody gonna talk about that guy's badass wolverine beard? 😂
When you watch "how to shave" video upside down...
the video is about why our world is dying, so his beard is irrelevant
Poul Eichel
Our global society is going to die. But the planet will be fine.
@@Gamer2347 you made my day
For those who are coming to this world just now: When it comes to global issues it is easier to ask to name one thing politicians have actually succeeded to tackle while having promised for decades.
Eradication of poverty?
End of wars and conflicts?
End of discrimination?
End of water pollution?
Full protection of extinction of endangered species?
End of hunger?
End of slavery?
...and the list goes on and on.
So what makes you think politicians will work to solve climate change exclusively this time?
Politicians are as they were.
The job of a politician is to get re-elected, not to solve problems.
Here’s the thing. We developed countries benefit more from historical emissions while developing countries have less emissions at that time.Its unfair to require developing countries to emit greenhouse gases equally as same as us! It just like a zero-sum game!
So true.
Then do not expect global emissions to go down. The industrialized west is only 25% of global emissions; the other 75% is what is currently controlling ghg emission growth. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. So another solution is required because this one ain’t working.
The more accurate title should be:
"WHY POLITICIANS HAVE FAILED TO TACKLE ANYTHING"...
I want to tackle you.
@@markdawson9094 😆😆😆
@James Adams I believe in free speech... except on TH-cam
PIXEL POTATO you’re starchy name will keep me warm from this Solar Minimum.
Mark Dawson In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
*It will only happen when the damage it causes is too costly to deny*
some may say that point has already been reached, but like in insurance you get the money today but pay the cost at some undetermined time in the future, consequently, they may think they've done well only to pay the price of their "mal-judgement" later
People are slow to react. When they finally do its often panic
@@jbw6823 i agree
Sorry to tell you this, that point passed over a half century ago. They were pushing this agenda in the 1930's and said the tipping point would happen in the 1950's.
@@jbw6823 Yea, seriously, people are slow to react. Its been almost a century and still not one is responding to the threats from the 1930's.
@@Je.rone_ Re Robert Hicks and the posted paper: You agree also?
Because tackling climate change is like the prisoner's dilemma
Why?
No it really isn't. At this point, we literally need to combat climate change at all costs.
@@samuelforesta That reply doesn't make sense. Search up what it means
@@samuelforesta NO
But your title is "why" and you didn't get to the why, just a small history lesson of what everyone else already knows. This was a weak peace compared to your other works.
It answered it: Big polluting developed nations like the US don't want to cut emissions because it will cost them money. It's the same cause for pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today - Short sighted unfettered capitalism.
@@nova_kane US emissions have remained stable for the last 30 years. None of the countries crying about America have managed to do even that much.
A weak 'peace.'
Hmm... I wonder what's wrong with that?
I actually agree with you. This 9 minutes is all about basic fact that everyone knows. I think I would be more interested in “how”
@@fusion9619 If you look at total emissions, America is by FAR the highest.
If we want to protect environment we should protect it without delay..
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
Yeah, and how do you convince all these minions to get off of capitalism? Ive been trying for decades.
You cant protect the environment.
pandemic beards be like.... look above
In a fight between nature and civilization, money always wins
No civilisation without nature. If our ecosystem collapses, so will our civilisation. Money will then be totally obsolete
@@lorenzoblum868 The ecosystem is improved every year. No collapse coming anytime or anywhere!
@@5rings16 it happened before and will happen again.
@@lorenzoblum868 Not for millions of years, and mankind is great at adapting!! The human race is too strong.
Carbon Tax.
Demand a carbon tax, demand something quantifiable.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
@@trevorjonathan4405 hey did you forget about cattle farming
Nabhanyu Shetti We are not allowed to talk about that. McDonald’s controls the beef market 🤫
@@trevorjonathan4405 Do you really think anything would be different if industries were not 'elite owned'?
@@trevorjonathan4405 sorry to say Nabhanyu has just committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 46 times and if you don't stop this thread right now you are next -friendly neighborhood clown
Some countries discontinued their support on the paris agreement since the start of the pandemic. This means funds that are supposed to be allocated to climate change has been used for covid responses.
This video should be labeled how politicians ignored climate change.
Kenneth Tougaw Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
@@djtdjt8921 Man made Climate Change denial might make you sleep better at night, but that doesn't change reality. The fact that you think I would listen to you lecturing me online instead of the climate science I studied in graduate school shows how little respect you have for my opinion. I will repay the kindness with the same amount of respect.
Kenneth Tougaw firstly, if questioning your view in open debate is an offense to you, then probably you would feel more comfortable in communist China 😉
When it comes to you as a somebody that have studied the issue, here is what I don’t understand, what happened to the ice age? Why did it disappear? And why was the temperature during Roman times slightly higher than it is now?
@@djtdjt8921 this isn't a debate. All of those questions have been answered by science for centuries. This is you asking me to educate you by you tube comments. That is why I don't respect your opinion, or the way you intend to communicate. If you want to know the answer I suggest you type the questions into another website. The website is called Google. If that is to difficult perhaps consider paying tuition to get the answers. It worked for me.
@@KTougaw sounded a bit like debate, must be great to be omniscient. So sure that mankind's 3.86% contribution to annual co2 emissions, and co2 being just 0.041% of our atmosphere is warming the planet. Our 0.002% co2 contribution to earth's atmosphere . I'm not alone in thinking that that % is statistically insignificant, happy for you not to reply as this isn't a debate,
The reason is very simple: Capitalism.
@Dark Horse Actually I did had a look at the history of communism and socialism, better yet I didn't look at it under the glasses of the major centers of propaganda - the U.S and U.S.S.R which seem to be how you learned about the subject like most people. Just to demonstrate how brainwashed you are I would like to ask a simple question: Give me one example of a socialist / communist society that was very bad in your opinion. Prediction: you are going to fail this question. Secondly, I'm not saying that in a socialist / communist society we won't be burning co2, the difference is that in such a society the power is in the hands of the people and so society operates according to the interest of the people. That means that in such a society it would be very easy to transition to green energy because it is in the interest of the people and the people are in control as oppose to capitalism where the small minority elite who are profiting from the burning of co2 are in control of society and so they have no interest in transitioning to green energy. Moreover , it is perfectly clear that any viable solution to the crisis would require public investment and actions, which while not necessarily means socialism it does mean at least some version of social democracy, in other words it require actions that are heavily anti-capitalist in nature.
@@michaelnovak9412 It was capitalism that has reduced worldwide emissions.
The socialist countries are behind the capitalist countries in reducing emissions and developing the technology to do so.
The usa is ahead of Europe and Africa and Asia in reducing emissions! Nice try! lol
Only for the vested interests of few people,companies and countries, the whole world will suffer.
Even this report is blaming somebody else the politicians need to solve it not us. Answer me this how do I heat my home without oil or gas? I live in Massachusetts. Give me a technology and a price point and a company to contact.
Politicians have the influence to force corporations to cut their emissions.
While blaming China, China's CO2 emission per capita is still only half of US.
The US is actively shutting down coal plants. China is actively opening them. China's per capita emissions will also continue to increase as incomes increase.
@Stanley Goddard Yeah, nobody had any clue about climate change 100 years ago. And nobody is using China as an excuse in American to not fight climate change...? Not sure what you're even arguing
There will be no one left to bury us 😭
Here is a question for you. IF there is an aircraft crash on the border, where are the survivors buried?
@@roberthicks1612 why will the survivors be buried ? lol
@@ramakanthrama8578 Thats the entire point. He says no one will there to bury us, but if we are survivors, we dont need burying.
@@roberthicks1612 yes, why should even be think of that situation ? if Im dead, that means I'm not alive , and how can I worry, if I'm dead ?
his reasoning doesnt make sense at all.
@@ramakanthrama8578 Another point is, if no human is around to bury us, nature will do so, they way she has buried so many other species. Unless of course the planet is actually destroyed, and then we will all be star dust
This is exactly the sort of video we need to be watching and learning from.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
HEY EVERYONE I feel obligated by the responsibility of understanding to implore you, whoever you are, to GROW YOUR OWN FOOD INDOORS RIGHT NOW! And get everyone u can to do the same. U can grow any kind of plant in a 5 gallon bucket with drainge holes. Use half topsoil half sand mixture for soil. Or use all topsoil with some rocks at the bottom. Use mirrors to direct sunlight from windows. Its not that hard u dont need to starve. Do it. GROW YOUR OWN FOOD TODAY! LETTS GOOO!!!! And raise some chickens they eat bugs and grass. Plant two or 3 plants per CROP variety every week. THERE IS literally no choice .
It makes me mad that the government aren't taking a serious situation seriously 😡
probably because guns cant shoot gas
Excellent. Look forward to further releases.
Stefan Herzog Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
@@djtdjt8921 so do you think it's in no one's best interest to cut back on emissions and cleaning up the planet?
Stefan Herzog if you google “total emotions of the planet” you will se that the human is responsible for only less than 1% of the worlds emissions.. you know who’s the biggest contributor? Ocean! When sun heats it up, it creates words suggest emotions (over 95% of worlds total) that rises up.. heat pulls emotion up until they reach a freezings temperature.. what is the temperature at the level that airplanes fly? -40C to -57C (-40F to -70F)
Globally, volcanos contributes to more emotions than we humans combined
@@djtdjt8921 yeah and cattle contribute more too. So what do you think when countless the environmental scholars have reached the conclusion that we need to cut back on emissions?
Stefan Herzog we can cut all the emotions in the world to total 0. Set ourselves back to a stone ages & it would creat any reasonable impact to the planet..
It is that human arrogance to always regulate, oversee & manage everything..
I got a Greta vegan ad and thought it was part of the video 🤦🏾♀️
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
@@trevorjonathan4405 😂
Billy Fox Fake account found.
@Nyasha is the A.I. the youtube channel implemented will suggest you ads based on your browser search or youtube search. For me it happened when i was looking for some stuff on amazon and when i opened the youtube it appeared more adds suggestions regarding wot i was looking for on browser
Are we not going to talk about how messed up this guy's beard is?
I can answer this question in one word without even looking at the video.
GREED.
did I get it?
there is more money in pollution.
Money is not everything
Hi guys! if u care for the environment, please use Ecosia as your search engine. For every 45 searches u make, a tree will be planted somewhere. If you think this is fake, u can always check out their TH-cam channel. Stay safe guys :) bai bai
Because of capitalism. Big corporations _want_ the climate to change, otherwise they would lose a _lot_ of profit.
Because in democracy... Leaders are chosen based on how big their mouths are...
Hope one day human race would be intelligent enough to be able to self govern himself...
Yes we are ruled by primates and Trudeau
Not to belittle activists who are rightfully fighting for their future, but the message never focuses on how appropriate climate action will affect the daily lives of people in both developed and developing countries. If governments could (and wanted to) curb back emissions, how would that affect travel? Our food supply? Access to clothes, appliances, and household goods?
COVID-19 has given us a taste of what happens when we don't have ready and easy access to these luxuries. Cutting them back will become necessary, but we've also seen how unwilling most people will be in accepting it.
The basic question.....how
A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere)
The planet is literally starved for carbon.
Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened.
Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields.
Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low.
Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon?
The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take.
Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years.
Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year.
No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made.
Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt.
The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations"
Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires.
The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet.
A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who?
Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy.
This is a scam on a monumental scale.
The basic question.....how
A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere)
The planet is literally starved for carbon.
Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened.
Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields.
Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low.
Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon?
The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take.
Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years.
Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year.
No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made.
Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt.
The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations"
Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires.
The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet.
A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who?
Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy.
This is a scam on a monumental scale.
The basic question.....how
A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere)
The planet is literally starved for carbon.
Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened.
Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields.
Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low.
Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon?
The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take.
Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years.
Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year.
No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made.
Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt.
The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations"
Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires.
The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet.
A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who?
Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy.
This is a scam on a monumental scale.
@@klzeccwozi1290 I certainly don't disagree with that. Obviously, we need to scale back now, not later when we are physically no longer able to produce and consume at these levels. My point is just that to properly tackle climate change means no more fast food, fast fashion, or fast travel (unless you could do so sustainably...unlikely). Most people accept the overall climate message, but that's a much harder sell.
It seems the activists try to get around the hard questions by just focusing on a message of 'fear'. Basically, scare people into action, which makes it less likely that questions will be asked in any direction. This might be a feasible strategy, if they did not have a sizable portion of the population that did not buy, and often outright rejects, their message.
Video about Climate change..
Comment section
lets talk about his beard 🧔...
Yess
Think of all the years of evolution into the human brain. These last few decades are but a "pale blue dot" compared to all the years where humans have never faced a problem similar. The collective brain has to quickly adapt to this threat even though their is no immediate threat of life (for those in power that is)
If I am a politician, do you think I have the power to help the world without corporations and people bringing me down.
What about animal agriculture?
Without animal agriculture you cant feed people.
@@berkilhan4727 Yes we can, go vegan. Animal agriculture is actually a major contributor to world hunger. Because of animal agriculture, we keep feeding nutritious grains to farmed animals that we breed instead of humans. Veganism is better for animals,humans, and the environment.
I am starting to think that nothing significant can be done. The economic benefits from producing CO2 are still far too advantageous. Basic game theory like the prisoner's dilemma suggest that short term gains will topple the precarious cooperation required for things like global carbon taxes.
Why did we expect politicians to tackle any problem of scientific nature
Its not the politicians, its the capitalists that are to be blamed.
@@nevadataylor Its the people and citizens that are to be blamed.
ramakanth rama do you know how ridiculous you sound citizens are the victims here we are the consumers la politicians are the ones who make these laws so in reality it’s on them
@@Master-kh6ww it's just my point...
@@Master-kh6ww Who voted the politicians ? We the citizens did. So we are to be blamed.
Greta Thunberg to Economist after seeing this video "How dare you"
let us secure the future of our children
When it comes to profit making capitalism, your children are already considered dead.
Politicians gets money from big auto, oil, gas, coals every year. They have not fail the people, is the people who failed by voting for the same politicians
Scientist get grant money, published papers, and tenure for claiming alarming disasters from climate change. Your statement sounds like a big conspiracy theory. Mine statement sounds like peer preassure for personal success.
Small businesses can be sustainable, big business can't. Herein lies the real answer.
Here in the United States, people may say that they care about climate change, but most of the people that I talk to are mostly concerned with their jobs, their income, their mortgages or rent, their bills and their retirement.
Jason Martinez Okay, what about their children? And it’s not just about the superficial concerning, it is about the fact that it’ll affect billions of people.
@@etiennelamole9565 They care about their children... so much that they think about their income, their mortgage or rent and their bills... for their children... today. Mortgage reminders come in the mail on a monthly basis. Bills come due monthly. Companies layoff people every few years. TV commercials are constantly reminding people of their retirement years. Ha ha, I once knew someone who was a total save-the-planet guy. After he and his wife had a kid, he bought her a new car; it was an SUV. I was like, "Ahhhh! C'mon, Dude, think of the gas mileage. Save the planet!" He said, "Dude, I have a kid. I gotta protect the kid." He felt that SUVs were safer. :P
One country cannot bear 95% of the entire BURDEN.
The premise of the question is faulty.
Oh dude what type sideburn you have? 😂
No one wants to pay a carbon TAX. that's the reality. It's not very popular amongst voters to agree to paying more & being worse off.
Politics can not help. It will continue to cater to those it answers to. The people must take control. Only the people can make it happen.
No worries at all,Corona virus is taking care of business.
not really :/
Covid-19 leads to a momentary drop of GHG emissions, but in the longer term the emissions are going to rise again as every country tries to catch up with increased economic output..
In fact we would need an additional Covid every year to hope to keep below 2 degrees global temperature increase (so 1 month lockdown in year 1, 2 months in year 2, .... 12 months in year 12..
Because all the emissions that are already in the atmosphere guarantee us 1.5 degrees, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels right now.
That’s how bad the situation is.
@@Memoiana Unfortunately,you're right!
Memoiana so do you think climate change is gonna end in the next 12 years??
@@daijahshaw5470 Of course not.
One way to think of climate change is, it's no danger to the world but rather danger to humans. Nature will always find a way to thrive. It's the humans that are counting their final hours into hardship.
Young heroes
The harsh truth of the climate change is not that we don't have ways to control it. Talking from the perspective of science we do have ideas in both theory and practice to take necessary measures. The real and the most vital problem is the system we have adopted to meet our day to day needs.And it's kind of hypocritical to say that the crowd we are used seeing to in such kind of rallies are also working in some way or the other to (in an chemical or a polymer industry) fuel this climate change problems. I would like to conclude that unless we don't develop the correct economic system we would never be able to address this problem. And believe me this same people would be seen in rallies for joblessness if the governments just go according to their say on this topic.
he is the inspiration for my next beard shape
Although the Economist editor’s sideburns caught me off guard, l do think he was able to explain the climate situation very well.
Why has The Economist failed to tackle this guy's beard?
Because they don’t really care about the climate, everything is just political.
Dylan Liu Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!
Environmentalists are back to nature luddites.
How is 159% nearly tripled..??
50 years...
Interesting that there is no mention at all in this video of the Covid-19 crisis and its potential implications for the climate change movement
How can a reporter make a story about the history of climate change politics and totally miss the central issues that 50 years ago they said it was going to be a new iceage and we only had 10 years to act, and now its the opposite but still 10 years to act?
We deserve better! Keep fighting!!
Something cannot be political and scientific at the same time.
"Something cannot be political and scientific at the same time." That's too vague a statement to possibly hold any water. Scientifically, it is a scientific fact that humans caused all recent global warming and it poses a threat to our future and is already damaging our present. All of those are scientific facts, but there is strong POLITICAL opposition to doing the things we must do to fix the climate crisis.
Wellllll, when your poster child looks like the Grinch, it's hard to get people on your side. 😂 maybe if they got Scarlett Johansson to talk about climate change it would get more people's attention. Sadly this is how you have to get through to people.
The biggest reason for failure is that when Nuclear Reactors were built the idea was the bigger the better and that BAD decision made them overly complex, dangerous and uneconomical businesses such that you guaranteed failure. Instead of building bombs, the world could have build Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that could be built in numbers as high quality, uniform, VERY safe, and efficient CLEAN power generation that works 24/7. The large reactors that had accidents caused public backlash that blew away the only possible solution because solar and wind comes up with their own pollution that includes destruction of large areas of land that these so called "green" solutions take up. The environmental activists opposing nuclear power because of the lousy design of oversize reactors that are never fail-safe shut the door on the real solution. It all leads back to the erroneous mentality that bigger is better. This mentality is making solar panels and wind not environmentally sound as well. Wind and solar would be much more effective if the "farm" idea was eliminated. Likewise large animal farming operations cause more pollution than most other activities as well. BOTTOM LINE - transform everything to smaller is better and less is more, then you will solve the problem forever. The oligarchs do NOT want this because this would put power back into the hands of small businesses and the people. Getting away from the bigger is better and consumerist, gotta grow, mentality would eliminate oligarchs and firmly establish real democracy. Think about what I am saying.
Exactly! It’s because the status quo serves and benefits a very few who want to keep their position above everyone else... the reality is that consumer capitalism is not freedom...it is divine and conquer at its best! ... it is the motivation for slaves to go to work and pay their bills!
when our leaders fail, the people must act, when people stop consuming the leaders will listen
They are already listening. They are listening to the majority of scientist that say this is a scam. They are listening to the majority of their people that say to ignore the scammers.
people will never stop consuming. It's why were in this mess in the first place.
@@roberthicks1612 Please can you provide links to any resepectable scientific organsation anywhere in the world that supports you view..... The science goes back 200 years and the act that C02 is a warming gas can be demostrated in any high school lab....
@ As with most, you ask for ever peice of science ever written. As for something specific. What do you want to hear.
@@stephensharp975 Thats the point isnt it? IF it doesnt agree with you, its not respectable. If its something you consider respectable, it agrees with you. Thats the way alarmist work. One person at an organization can agree and everyone else disagrees, and its reported that the entire organization supports. NOT ONE of those organizations can show that all or even most of their people they represent support agw.
Yes, you can prove that co2 can causes a warming IN A PROPERLY BUILT ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT. The problems is, those CONDITIONS do not exist in the atmosphere. All of them require water vapor, which does not exist in the majority of the atmosphere. They also require a material that blocks some if not all of the infrared.
Something most alarmist will never admit is that co2 has also been demonstrated as being able to kick a lot of energy out of the earths atmosphere.
regardless weather human population makes the earth's climate change, the Paris Accords Agreement is a construct to create more wealth and power for the already extremely wealthy. The ability to pollute the air is monetized by the means of "carbon credits" which are a commodity sold similarly to stocks. It will actually create more air pollution and make prices rise for consumers as producers offset the costs caused by their need to buy carbon credits in order to produce. This guy explains the process quite well: @ in s 12 minute presentation.
NATURE ALLWAYS WINS.
US！
That haircut is wild.
Do you mean the guy at 1.33?
Yup he is the only one with unusual hair in the whole vid!
Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
most of these girls are just VSCO girls who are tryna catch a Starbucks Frappuccino while tryna win a vivavida bracket in a giveaway
In today’s world, human race is prepared for everything, technologically. But when it involves money, especially when there’s chance of free riders, nobody will literally do anything about anything. And secondly, currently policy only involves tax, but nothing on technology advancement. Again, politicians want more money but less long term real solution, for me it would be technology solving the problem, never money itself.
This report was uploaded in May, 2020. Conspicuous by its absence is the greatest pushback against climate change in recent history.
Ya as in millions doing their homework and waking up to the scam. Stop depending on proxy sense makers and do some research.
Solar and Wind can be Sustainable if it is Efficiently Implemented ...
cause delusions are not real.
Maybe because the problem isn't a political one, but an economic problem?
Is there a problem?
What is the background theme music
At 2.13, the guys is wrong, in 1997 China was at least second producer of C02 and methane of the world
zeze popio
Considering the inertia of the GHG in the atmosphere (several decades for methane, several centuries die carbone dioxide) we should really be looking at the total emissions in each country over the last century..
It's a lost battle already 😥
finally, someone realizes that the earth is too big for us to have done anything about in the first place.
@Stanley Goddard sure, but it is also able to send energy out of the atmosphere, something people deny when they want to blame it on us so they can dictate socialist agenda to us.
@Stanley Goddard Real scientist know that as co2 increases the amount of energy that leave the planet in infrared radiation increases correspondingly. People like you deny that proven facts are proven.
You say we deny the basic. You cant get any more basic than infrared radiation being the only way the planet can cool down and co2 is the main emitter of infrared in the atmosphere.
Well who is paying for the politicans? Why do you need 10 minutes to think of that. Politicans are owned by corporations. That's simple.
The changes might be possible if these people start to have realistic ideas. They always come up with radical ideas such as installing solar panels in the North Pole.
rip
Politicians want to personally do something about climate as much as they want to spend their own money. They want other people to do things and spend their money. These people all live like royalty (especially Prince Charles) while they publicly ask others to do something. Did you watch the Climate Conference in Scotland? What do you think was the average carbon footprint at that meeting?
0:45 Not PLANET but our CIVILIZATION. _Please_ learn that. Wording has a lot of power subconsciously.
That’s why you need the leadership from China.
Hmmmm more pollution
Megatron -chan or more clean energy
The main problem is that most politician and scientist seems to think that when a technology is selected, everything fixes itself afterwards. But that is not so. E.g. Nuclear is unavoidable. Exercise : Explain why.
Nobody understands that the treaties are completely unecessary. The underlying broken understanding is that energy prices have to rise when the reality is that they will go down. Think half.
Why ??? Fossil free can be significantly cheaper than anything which uses fossil power. Is 40% cheaper than coal cheap enough?
The real problem is that people love to talk, but does not want to do anything. Very few nations have actually investigated the fossil fuel alternatives; they have started their efforts based on assumptions which do not hold water.
The main problem with fossil power was demonstrated solved between 1965 and 1969. If that work had continued there would be no fossil powered powerstations now. They would be too expensive.
I believe that the EU beuracracy and the IEA is horriffied by the lack of understanding of the future needs of fossil free power. The deficiencies of wind and solar is hidden by the existing fossil fueled energy providers. And there is simply no understanding of the need for industrial heat.
If China follows their plans, they will have built at least 300 1GW nuclear power stations based on Thorium by 2030. Those who do not understand that this is likely to change many industries that depends on industrial heat, will get a big surprise.
Countries like China and India know that the treaties are no longer useful for them since they are heading for cheap nuclear.
In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
Virus has 3 meanings that was most important .so .it is difficult to stop everything Power Money Eco nomika
Economika is eco Omika is matetial energy Om.omika small .low energy before Highs.Gods.
Please find a better expression to use than "here's the thing".
Yes! 🤣
Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.
Heres the thing, it's a useful phrase.
@@jbw6823 It is used too frequently and often not required at all.
@@sampaonni7592 i make joke
Because Earth is not a legal entity.
We really need to be promoting the economic benefit of a transition to clean energy and innovation. Oftentimes people focus on the negative or moral aspects, where here in the US especially you get into arguments with climate deniers or people who think they'll have to sacrifice a lot of their livelihood. But talk about the millions of jobs that will be created and lower energy prices and it's harder to disagree. And investment in clean energy will help developing countries with their emissions too and lift people out of energy poverty.
If there was an economic benefit it'd be done pretty much everywhere. But there isn't one.
ForOne814 Renewables can compete with fossil fuels atm without subsidies. But if you included environmental and health into the equation there would be no competition. We should make the transition regardless of climate change.
@@vitaeschola 1st question: where? 2nd question: why don't they compete then, if it's more profitable?
Just assuming CAGW as a premises, even the economist has fallen deep.
I'm not sure who the target audience of this is. Possibly the elderly who do not fear the damage they have done. Please don't blame the Chinese. Alot that you own is made by them. You paid for their pollution. This is really important, please vote for the politicians that are focused on this problem.
I don't like how this video is blaming China. For a developing country, let's just say that climate problems are not their priority when they need get their own citizens out of poverty. China is a wealthy country now, but it wasn't the case back then. Making sure their people don't starve seems like a more important task.
Young people rise up!
Dump politicians🤢, save our🥀🌏 🌍🌎🌹beautiful planet!