We do need more people like Hannah Ritchie and Greta Thunberg. Both of them are vegan for the environment. It is the single best way to reduce your impact on the environment. They talk the talk, and walk the walk!
@@toadster_strudel Not sure if this is the root motivation for Hannah in particular, but for many others nowadays who are similar, this is absolutely on point. Also: _convincing_ themselves. From any individual's standpoint, all that's needed for the world to get better is to _believe_ that it's getting better, especially if you can support that belief with thousands of pretty and seemingly easy-to-comprehend charts and graphs and datasets and whatnot.
Thank you so much for sharing your data in such a compelling way. The hope you have shared brought a tear to my eye. As a lifelong environmentalist it's so wonderful to hear some optimism for a change. Be well.
The massive elephant in the room is inequality, *today* which is a barrier to reaching human well being more than anything else. You cannot tackle a political subject like sustainability but shy away from inequality. As a data scientist you will sure appreciate Thomas Piketty's work,( Capital in the Twenty-First Century) as he assembled virually unassailable data-based evidence on the increase in inequality. So, no not all trends improve. And the consequence is that the world could already have been a better place. And it will be a real struggle to improve it, if most of the money keeps going to a tiny minority interested in keeping the status quo. So if we don;t tackle this problem I fear that the things you advocate for will not happen. If you ever expand the book you have written, my suggestion would be to include inequality and its consequences. Thanks to Picketty you would have lots of data to draw from.
I recently read Hannah's book 'Not the End of the World' and found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament). She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible. I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem. It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect. I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
I don't think you understand her main argument, she never said business as usual. There won't be a world where you can convince the majority of people to live with fewer resources (big change happens through policies and it would die politically). She is saying we have to push as fast as possible towards a future without fossil fuels because we already have the technology to do it and the resources. There IS a great deal of hope because of that fact. The challenge now is building out the technologies as fast as possible. I don't think you have any reason to be a doomer, keeping people from panicking I think IS a better alternative. What is going to make the average person do their best to live in a more sustainable world and push for climate action: causing them to panic and see the situation as doomed? OR telling them that there is hope and inspiring them to make the most positive change they can in the world? That is her message and I 100% stand behind it.
It rhymes well with the ending "we need to do it bigger and much, much faster" that the example of the multistory bike rack in Amsterdam is already obsolete. It was too small, so it has been closed and replaced with a super fresh underground manned bike garage with the capacity of 7,000 bikes (and a smaller one for 4,000 bikes on the other side of the train station).
@@danielfoley9364 Our bike racks were built too small and we've replaced them with bigger bike racks in some Dutch cities, not just Amsterdam. Our country is built on cycling and walking infrastructure so if you're in a small town or a big city you can get to most places on bike or by foot safely and easily.
It's odd that she cites increasing crop yields as that has come only through the ubiquitous use of fossil based fertilizer, pesticides, and a whole host of damaging agricultural techniques that have degraded the soil and environment to dangerous levels. Furthermore, the mining necessary for the renewables and electric cars she advocates come with their own strong dose of environmental destruction and human oppression. Optimism is so alluring but is it based in reality? The only hope is for widespread acceptance of the need for dramatic lifestyle change away from consumption, extraction, and exploitation of animals.
Read her book - full of facts. It’s the best book on climate change that I’ve ever read. Nb. She is an environmental scientist and has a whole team working on data etc. Her bio is incredible. She a force for change - and a necessary fresh communicator.
but land use is the most detrimental of all. There are no solution in agriculture, only trade offs. Four times as much organism are threathened by land use change then by ag pollution (pesticides, excess nitrogen). (I made a film about it Paved Paradise)
I appreciate her rosy outlook, but the data points she chose are very selective and really do not encompass the big picture. I’d recommend taking a look at Nate Hagens podcast for a far far more complete summary through a realist lens.
"I appreciate her rosy outlook, but the data points she chose are very selective and really do not encompass the big picture." I really love some of her work on Our World in Data, but she seems to be engaged in some self-delusion here. First, there WERE tribes who lived sustainably in the same area for thousands of years. Second, the changes needed are bigger than she says--people in wealthy nations must shrink our footprints down to the levels of people in Malawi, or we're still in overshoot and millions of species go extinct and billions of people die.
@@HealingLifeKwikly definitely , claiming no historical humans lived "sustainably" is subjective based on how we define sustainability, directly comparing their impact to ours does not take into account the 1000x "biophysical overshoot" we have been perpetuating since the advent of fossil hydrocarbon extraction.Applying a modern definition to historical societies is an anachronistic comparison , which does not factor population size, technological advancements, and cultural norms we have today, which significantly impact sustainability within a given context. So, if biophysical overshoot is a measurement of sustainability, past civilizations were not remotely close breaching the limits we are today which rises about 3% per year even with an annual 3% gain in efficiency.... Ironically, technology, which is what she mainly suggests as a solution to an unrealistic optimistic rate of warming, , tends to amplify overshoot even further...historically. She seems to conveniently ignore the work of William Stanley Jevons in her sweeping technocratic solutions, although ... I am certain she is aware of his findings that improved efficiency in resource usage... paradoxically can lead to increased overall consumption of that resource...which makes me question her research funding and promotion of her book, partially funded and largely promoted by The ( Bill) Gates Foundation....the epitome of technocracy.. The Gates foundation funds some good research, but in general, most of their research and technology is focused on linear, centralized and dystopian solutions that over ride nature .
@@SumFugaziSalt Thanks for your reply. The techno-utopians rarely seem aware of Jevons Paradox (or assume we'll magically dodge it "this time"), and more deeply, don't face the fact that almost everything humans make harms the web of life, so to be sustainable, we need to live with less man-made stuff, and make it out of truly biodegradable materials or almost-infinitely recyclable materials. Thanks for the tip on the Gates funding of the book. I didn't know that. I skimmed his climate book and it was siloed techno-solutions that ignore the big picture. I'm in teacher education, and Gates and his fellow billionaires and CEOs played central roles in remaking American schools in the image of corporations and assembly lines. The rhetoric of the standards and accountability movement was brilliantly framed (albeit Orwellian... "higher standards" that dumbed down curriculum), but the substance of it forced educators to do roughly the opposite of of what works best for the dreams we cherish most for children and the world. He's really a left-brain thinker who doesn't know what he doesn't know and thus arrogantly runs around making a number of critical things worse. Take care.
What do you consider the "big picture?" Her point is that we're not doomed, and we still have time to create a better future. She chose data points that should motivate people to move forward rather than giving up. That's her big picture. We all know about the negative data points; one only has to look around to see polluted air and water, vanishing open space, diminishing numbers of birds and wildlife, etc. Her big picture doesn't ignore that. It merely says that if we want something better, we can't focus on the negative. You can't build something better if you're immobilized by doom.
Great video but it's a bit scewed in terms of what information gets presented. An example would be the fact that there are lines, which ones crossed start feeding into themselves in terms of global warming, such as greenlands ice having trapped methane gas in its ice as well as all glaciers acting as reflecting surfaces that cool down the earth by not absorbing as much solar energy. The more of them that melt the faster everything else starts heating up. Another would be the fact that electric cars are worse for the enviroment unless each unit is used for a significant amount of time, (I do not remember the exact amount but it was somewhere between 6-10 years if memory serves) due to the increased emissions when producing and assembling everything for an electric car compared to a combustion based one. Something which the current use and replace mindset of our economy doesn't encourage. A third would be the fact that a very large part of the earths populace lives in said developing countries. One example being india, which last time I checked contained slightly more than 20% of the worlds population. It's great that things are changing and the human race probably won't go extingt at this point, after all we're resilient bastards as a species. But it's a bit of a too little too late situation from what I have gathered. For everyone who've read this far: Thank you for reading my needlessly long message and remember to do your own research, don't trust anything I or anyone else says without fact checking it. My information could very well be outdated or sttaight up wrong, or I could've missed a vital new factor which this talk didn't mention.
You raise some good points. She is a data scientist, and we know data can be interpreted in various ways depending on your priors. She sketched around the cost of externalities in production of batteries, wind and solar. (Gigantic mining operations etc). When anyone says that have simple solutions, I always think - there are no simple solutions.
"Electric cars are worse for the environment", maybe I didn't know about that, but I would take your word, but it will improve just like everything. And the example you took of India, which is also true, but it's because of our population, per capita us Indians and Asians in general we use consume pretty less resources compared to the western counterparts. And It's a fact and I'm an Indian. One more thing is that In India we are already producing 43.0% of electricity through non-Fossil fuels. I'm saying all this is because to make you a little optimistic just a little bit, we are doing right, and we will deal with this climate change just like we did with every other problem. We do have a deadline just like you explained really well with your glaciers example, but the thing is our problem-solving capability is also improving exponentially. So, I do believe we will be just fine.
It wasn't needlessly long - it could easily have been a lot longer. She emphasised her qualifications to establish herself as An Authority, then spoke so authoritatively that very few people stopped to analyse what she was saying, or what she *wasn't* saying - as witness the almost universally approving comments. I thought she left a lot of unasked question unanswered.
For your comment on electric cars, that is wrong/outdated information: look it up yourself and you will find that "It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months."
This is correct, but it fails to take into account the amount of environmental damage in terms of land use change it requires to have even 10% of all global (future) cars be EV, as well as the 're'cycling @@kingviking41
Your opinion only helps validate that the way we see solutions or problems is (generational). I hear her speak and present founded data and I feel optimistic. Hope you will eventually feel that way too.
@@Sentrme "She HAS to be right. It's the only way we succeed. Failure to leave a world for future generations isn't an option." Unfortunately, she's presenting the wrong image of the future: Worsening ecological and societal breakdown is underway now and will get worse before it gets better. We CAN create a nice future, but first we must shrink the global economy ~50% shrink the ecological impacts of individuals in wealthy nations 60-99+%, de-industrialize economies and make them more local, circular, and based more on using natural materials and more manual labor. To feed 8 billion people while not causing ecological collapse (which would cause societal collapse), that's the only escape route.
Love this! Incredibly refreshing and I’m currently reading her book. My only query I have is about crop yields… the higher production from crops means that the soil takes a massive hit and it reduces its quality, no? The way we treat the soil is reprehensible. We need diversity within soil to store carbon and to rewild the land. But maybe she discusses this further in her book and I’m yet to read it!
A lot of people have ideas on things we should do, but I've never heard how to realistically do them. It's always a lot of "we need to do this" and "we need to stop doing that". OK, great! Let's get started!
A really inspiring and well-researched presentation, Hannah. Thank you 🙏. I’d be interested to know what stats you have on the state of biodiversity over the same time frames. You mentioned an increase in trees and an increase in agricultural production that potentially means less land needed for our species. Do you have any stats on how other species are doing?
Speaking about sustainability in product design and development many forgot that before the plastic era most of products were almost completely sustainable. Today we have opportunity to innovate by relying on the very same materials and manufacturing processes and complement them with new technologies. The challenge is to convince global corporation and brands because they want people to believe that the plastic is the only solution. With technology, science and resources that we have today we could build a heaven on Earth, but unfortunately all are democracy, freedom and human rights are not as important as interest of politicians, corporations and their investors. We are the first generation but we must fight for generations to come, because we have horrible history and truth to face, but amazing opportunity to shape the future in our own way.
I cant believe it took me a year to find this ted talk. It’s so nice to see that we have made progress. We do still have lots to do but this Ted talk really helped me feel optimistic and excited to continue making the world a better place. 😊
Bamboo is a really exceptional green building material. It is a sustainable material that requires very little energy to nurture, restrains soil erosion, supplies biofuel, extends wildlife refuge, and manufactures a wholesome food source for both humans and wildlife.
Three obvious issues: 1. No mention of the use of resources. We can't have a sustainable world when we continue to overuse our material resources. 2. The optimistic interpretation of carbon emission trends does not answer why the end result - global temperatures continue to rise at a frightening rate. 3. Even if we accept that there are some grounds for optimism, the precautionary principle surely holds. We cannot continue to place our hopes on analyses such as these and risk our existence.
This is definitely motivational! I'm reading her book as well, and it's significantly lowered my Climate Anxiety. My only qualms are that I wish she'd talk about people just using/buying less! It's frustrating that we can make all these tech advancements, but a lot folks just refuse to live with even a *little bit* less. Also, I would have liked to have heard more about our impact on animal species. I am more worried about my animal friends going extinct than I am about our sometimes toxic species! All in all, great talk, amazing woman.
Nice job Hannah. Everyone, remember it's okay to not be perfect, but don't be a prig just because you're exhausted or think no one is watching. The next generation is watching.
Thanks so much, Hannah! We have to be the first sustainable generation, and I know we can do it!. I came across an interesting article in the New York Times this week. It was called "Why Is the Oil Industry Booming?"( 2024/07/16). It made me think about how much US oil and gas production has increased recently. It seems that oil CEOs are expecting their companies to keep growing until at least 2040! It's a bit of a puzzle, isn't it? The thing is, both types of energy are connected financially. How can we work through this together? I think your colleague Tim Jackson, the author of the book "The Prosperity without Growth," has a more realistic and optimistic view. He says we need to cut down on our emissions by 80% by 2050, which I think is totally doable! On the other hand, we need a lot of innovations to help our global society become more eco-friendly. We also need to embrace a new way of thinking about our economy, one that's focused on knowledge, learning, art, science, public health, and other important areas. These are the sectors that have always been decarbonized, so they're a great place to start. This new Cinderella economy will rely less on carbon emissions, giving the global economy what it needs most: new ideas!
The First Sustainable One! We keep pusing we keep working we keep changing minds! Let us grow a beautiful healthy world! People WE HAVE THE POWER TO FUEL CHANGE....
So many flaws. “Renewables” are heavily dependent on mined minerals. Mines are not sustainable. That high yield American agriculture is dependent on GMOs, fertilizer, and glyphosate. Also not sustainable. Many of those new forests are single specie monocultures slated to be cut. Absent some miraculous technological innovation, we can not buy or grow our way out of this. The best we can do right now is to shrink our population and consumption as gracefully as we can to buy time for new technologies. Hope is important, without it we die. However, this presentation is so naive that it comes off as deceptive.
Still feel we all know this for many years. In stead of monologues we need more Dialogue. Debates. Especially with the people who don’t agree or rather ignore the Hannah Ritchie’s of this🌎
For anyone who's annoyed with the push for more EV's because of toxic chemicals used in lithium batteries. The push for EV's is NOT a push to replace fossil fuels with lithium batteries. It's a push to replace things that run on fossil fuels with things that run on electricity. An electric vehicle can run off anything the produces electricity, it can be lithium batteries today and more green batteries tech tomorrow. It can change instantly as soon as new battery tech comes to market. Just build next years model with different battery cells and you're done. What we CANNOT change instantly is all the infrastructure required to support EV's. That takes a lot of time, many 10's of years. Building massive charging networks, Expanding the national grid to support all the people needing to charge, Understanding all the technical challengers of building EV's. etc... The EV push is to get all that done now to save time later. It doesn't matter if an EV today is just as polluting as a fossil fuel car. It maters that we make the change now so we're ready for all the new battery technologies that will occur over the next 30 years.
There's not enough lithium - or any other element required for EVs - in the world for more than a few people to have EVs. So we'll be back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, when only a few very rich people could afford travel.
Have to say I was overjoyed to see a solar farm being installed on the drive over to visit my daughter's family recently! My wish is that they would plant wildflowers in between the panels, or at least by the roadside.
@@Sentrme "Technology is a more efficient usage of space & resources." Unfortunately. "efficiency" isn't one of the top ten values we must embody to have a healthy, just, and sustainable society. Although industrialized capitalism is obsessed with efficiency, more efficiency has just accelerated our destruction of the planet. The more man-made objects and chemicals we make, the faster we destroy the ecosystems that our lives and societies depend on. Those are just the laws of nature. Making man-made stuff increases the level of entropy on the planet, so to prevent catastrophic ecological and societal collapse (which we are heading towards right now), we will have to shrink the economies of wealthy nations substantially, simplify our lifestyles, ban many inventions of the last century, and live lower-tech lives with more manual labor. The math just doesn't work any other way.
Completely with you; I call it progressive environmentalism. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren. I’m working on a project in Denmark, 100% carbon neutral cereal production, I think you may be interested, do you have an e-mail I may forward to? Kind regards, Les Mills.
I believe there's still more generations to come. We're currently in Gen Alpha, and maybe someday we'd even get something far more superior compared to what we have now.
Where do you get the materials plus no one seems to want to talk about replacement. Our Solar system has a big impact also. We overrate our importance and we are parasitic in our nature, so do we deserve our place in nature or are we going to delude ourselves and keep on trying to control it. Perhaps if we were a class one civilisation but that is a long way off.
A lot of very good points and admirable aims, but I have a few questions. I wonder why converting forests to farm land is presented as a bad thing, but converting farmland to wind installations isn't? How has the USA made maize production skyrocket without an increase in farmland? What "modern technology" is being used? And is her brother as pleased with his electric car after this winter, as he was when he bought it last Spring? Sales of EVs have peaked, and EV manufacturers are beginning to close, or "delaying" investment in new factories or new EV models.
Electric cars are better cars but still have significant impacts on the environment. Crop yields have increased - but not without increased fertiliser usage which causes big problems with nitrogen and phosphorus cycle. Solar panels and wind energy isn't exactly clean. What about plastic pollution? What about climate tipping points? We are FAR from being sustainable. We need to change our lifestyles.
Agree apart from the bit about electric cars being better. Are they better when it's your land being poisoned by lithium excavation, or your family doing the excavating? Are they better when you can't move because snow and ice have drained your battery? or when you spend ages finding somewhere to recharge, and then have to plug it in for at least half an hour, by contrast with two minutes plugged in to a petrol pump? When there's an ever-present fire risk, and your car insurance costs half as much again as insurance on a petrol car?
More than anything, the economic system needs to change. Solar and wind are actually already quite cheap. Literally _too_ cheap for oil companies, who have stated - on record - that solar and wind are "too cheap to economically exploit". They want "at least 12% profit margins, whereas solar and wind only reach up to 9%". This is what I mean with a new economic system: one focused on people, rather than the rich and their profits.
@@Celis.C Sounds right. Tesco's gross profit margin is around 6.5% and its operating margin (whatever that is) is around 1.5%. I imagine the supermarkets would be very happy with 1.5-6.5% of something, rather than 9% of nothing.
Hello? Your saying that global north countries are reducing their emissions? Which consists of 75% of the global emissions?. Global north can do that because they have the resources while global south who contribute so little to none cant even feed their people and you expect them to transition to renewable without any help.. cool story.. rich countries kickstart this climate catastrophe and poor countries are the one suffering... Coal are declining but oil and gas company from the west and middle east are still continuing their greediness
0:31: 🌍 Young people today feel crippled with anxiety about the future of humanity due to climate change. 2:40: 🌍 The world has made significant progress in improving human wellbeing, but at the cost of the environment. 5:50: 🌍 Global CO2 emissions have peaked and are falling due to technological advancements and the decline of coal. 8:24: ! Technology and innovation have decoupled human progress from environmental impact, allowing us to end global poverty and reduce CO2 emissions. 11:06: 🌍 The video discusses the importance of sustainability in various aspects of our lives. Recap by Tammy AI
Developed countries have come through the period that their carbon production was rising in the last century and already caused huge pollution. They now have the capacity to reduce their carbon because of their abundant cumulated capital. This scenario is ubiquitous across nations. But developing countries started the technology development in a more slower pace. And they are required to reduce their carbon emissions to cleanse a world previously polluted by the most developed nations. That is a rather ironic logic.
I'm missing nuclear in this talk ... in her book she got anry about environmentalists, who insisted on 100% renewables and opposed nuclear. We need all carbon-free energy solutions!
Check out Paul Hawken's book "The Ecology of Commerce" for a great read on how businesses large and small can change their business practices to align with sustainable practices. It's a great read!
My dad was Catholic and Republican all of his adult life so I was exposed to a lot of that kind of thinking. I wouldn't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. Mostly I'm very disappointed in this barely working binary political system that I find myself in, in the US. The biggest factor that influenced my political beliefs was when I would see coverage of candidates that once publically supported something but then when the political landscape changed they no longer supported that topic simply because it's now inconvenient. That makes me insane. I was angry at conservatives for a long time but now I believe that most people in the world want a better world. I've never met someone that didn't want a better world for their children. I can't explain why so many conservatives are climate denyers. Seeing anyone deny factual evidence is a red flag for me. The data that shows some young people don't want to have kids is depressing. Here in Florida it's not just future climate uncertainty but houses are so expensive whether you buy or rent. Even for kids that can afford a 4+ year college education there really doesn't exist any entry-level housing. Also, interest rates are very high and the cost of transportation is very high. If our young people are depressed and have no hope what do you think's going to happen in this country? Everyday we don't work together brings the US closer to a possible communist future. Depressed low intelligence people with no hope have a much higher chance to vote for someone who says they are goung to put a billion dollars in everyone's account even though that would destroy our entire Financial system. But it sounds good right? I cannot change the world with wishful thinking but I can change the world with my two hands.
This all seems extremely biased to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a relentless pessimist, but Dr. Ritchie's presentation only brings up European/North American data. Sure, life might be getting better there (as it has been for the past two centuries, sustainably or not), but the global south is no where near these rates of carbon independence. Commercial exploitation, political interventionism, industrial dependence and all sorts of other factors continue to hinder the development of these countries towards a sustainable society. Every time I hear someone mention how great electric cars are and how much more common place they are becoming, I recall that I have never seen one driving around in the city I live. Not only because the necessary infrastructure doesn't exist here, but because their so-called "affordability" is no where near to being affordable for the common folk in the global south. Search up what a FIAT Uno 1998 is. That is still the most common affordable every-man car in my country.
"Sure, life might be getting better there (as it has been for the past two centuries, sustainably or not), but the global south is no where near these rates of carbon independence." Right, and we don;'t just face a climate crisis: the global north's overall ecological footprint is 4-5X what is sustainable, and the partial decoupling from carbon was accompanied by increasing coupling with land use, new mines, etc. Industrialized civilization as we know it is unsustainable.
With the amount of Cluster B personality types in power we’re likely doomed if we can’t articulate a way to make sustainability ‘profitable’. I’ve been working on creating a profitable model for carbon capture and I’ve posted this preliminary idea online but it’s as if nobody cares to admit money, and ROI is at the forefront of change…
Okay, so we're just gonna pretend like indigenous people don't live sustainably... securing future generations AND living happy fulfilled lives? I'm on board with what she's saying, but I disagree strongly with her assessment that sustainable people have never inhabited this planet.
@@andrewthomas695 I'll take that critique. Perhaps I just didn't see that as a negative, rather just an aspect contributing to said sustainability. I knew not reproducing was the best possible carbon impact I could make for the planet, so that's what I chose.
Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs? Or do we want a sustainable generation where true environmental care is the effect of prosperity, prosperity is the effect of the absence of oligarchy and presence of economic liberty and egalitarianism, egalitarianism is the effect of absence of monopoly granted by government, and market competition is the effect of decentralized government or the absence of big government or total absence of state/government?
"Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs?" Clearly we don't. "Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs?" Our ecological overshoot is currently around 75%, and to be sustainable, the size, material throughput, and energy throughput of the global economy. So we will need a different definition of "prosperity" because large industrialized capitalism economies and consumerist lifestyles are hopelessly UNsustainable.
Excellent. We need more strong speakers like her in Humanity, that face facts directly and seek realistic solutions. Despair is not an option.
We do need more people like Hannah Ritchie and Greta Thunberg.
Both of them are vegan for the environment.
It is the single best way to reduce your impact on the environment.
They talk the talk, and walk the walk!
@someguy2135 don't forget about selling books and promoting themselves.
@@toadster_strudel Not sure if this is the root motivation for Hannah in particular, but for many others nowadays who are similar, this is absolutely on point. Also: _convincing_ themselves. From any individual's standpoint, all that's needed for the world to get better is to _believe_ that it's getting better, especially if you can support that belief with thousands of pretty and seemingly easy-to-comprehend charts and graphs and datasets and whatnot.
Thank you so much for sharing your data in such a compelling way. The hope you have shared brought a tear to my eye. As a lifelong environmentalist it's so wonderful to hear some optimism for a change. Be well.
The massive elephant in the room is inequality, *today* which is a barrier to reaching human well being more than anything else. You cannot tackle a political subject like sustainability but shy away from inequality. As a data scientist you will sure appreciate Thomas Piketty's work,( Capital in the Twenty-First Century) as he assembled virually unassailable data-based evidence on the increase in inequality. So, no not all trends improve. And the consequence is that the world could already have been a better place. And it will be a real struggle to improve it, if most of the money keeps going to a tiny minority interested in keeping the status quo. So if we don;t tackle this problem I fear that the things you advocate for will not happen. If you ever expand the book you have written, my suggestion would be to include inequality and its consequences. Thanks to Picketty you would have lots of data to draw from.
The intro says a lot about why Generalized anxiety has become more and more prominent.
legit.
true
Yes. That and the state of the job market, cost of living, lack of perspective in general...
No that's just because you're gay.
It shows that people don't read climate change reports and get caught up in falsehoods through hysteria.
I recently read Hannah's book 'Not the End of the World' and found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament).
She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible.
I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem.
It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect.
I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
❤
Thank you, I have also been immensely irritated by how Hannah Ritchie has gone viral as well as the multitude of flaws in her arguments
Thanks for the comment!
I don't think you understand her main argument, she never said business as usual. There won't be a world where you can convince the majority of people to live with fewer resources (big change happens through policies and it would die politically). She is saying we have to push as fast as possible towards a future without fossil fuels because we already have the technology to do it and the resources. There IS a great deal of hope because of that fact. The challenge now is building out the technologies as fast as possible. I don't think you have any reason to be a doomer, keeping people from panicking I think IS a better alternative.
What is going to make the average person do their best to live in a more sustainable world and push for climate action: causing them to panic and see the situation as doomed? OR telling them that there is hope and inspiring them to make the most positive change they can in the world? That is her message and I 100% stand behind it.
@@kingviking41 Listen to her interview with Rachel Donald on Mongabay. Ritchie is eviscerated. It's quite embarrassing.
It rhymes well with the ending "we need to do it bigger and much, much faster" that the example of the multistory bike rack in Amsterdam is already obsolete. It was too small, so it has been closed and replaced with a super fresh underground manned bike garage with the capacity of 7,000 bikes (and a smaller one for 4,000 bikes on the other side of the train station).
What?
@@danielfoley9364 Our bike racks were built too small and we've replaced them with bigger bike racks in some Dutch cities, not just Amsterdam. Our country is built on cycling and walking infrastructure so if you're in a small town or a big city you can get to most places on bike or by foot safely and easily.
Thank you TED for getting back on track with an excelent talk, which is properly data driven and rational. Great job mrs. Ritchie, we need you!
Reduce animal suffering is required to achieve sustainability.
It's odd that she cites increasing crop yields as that has come only through the ubiquitous use of fossil based fertilizer, pesticides, and a whole host of damaging agricultural techniques that have degraded the soil and environment to dangerous levels. Furthermore, the mining necessary for the renewables and electric cars she advocates come with their own strong dose of environmental destruction and human oppression. Optimism is so alluring but is it based in reality? The only hope is for widespread acceptance of the need for dramatic lifestyle change away from consumption, extraction, and exploitation of animals.
Read her book - full of facts. It’s the best book on climate change that I’ve ever read. Nb. She is an environmental scientist and has a whole team working on data etc. Her bio is incredible. She a force for change - and a necessary fresh communicator.
I thought the same re fertilisers
@@kiwiopklompenso laughable
Read her book, she explains it all in there.
but land use is the most detrimental of all. There are no solution in agriculture, only trade offs. Four times as much organism are threathened by land use change then by ag pollution (pesticides, excess nitrogen). (I made a film about it Paved Paradise)
This is one of the best TED talks and best approaches towards sustainability that I have heard in a very long time. Thank you
New narrative needed. Hannah Ritchie delivers an optimistic and datarich perspective to current and new generations to come. Kudos!
This was brilliant! Thank you for all the work that you do, Hannah 👏👏👏
I dream of living in complete sustainable and eco-friendly environment!
I appreciate her rosy outlook, but the data points she chose are very selective and really do not encompass the big picture. I’d recommend taking a look at Nate Hagens podcast for a far far more complete summary through a realist lens.
"I appreciate her rosy outlook, but the data points she chose are very selective and really do not encompass the big picture." I really love some of her work on Our World in Data, but she seems to be engaged in some self-delusion here. First, there WERE tribes who lived sustainably in the same area for thousands of years. Second, the changes needed are bigger than she says--people in wealthy nations must shrink our footprints down to the levels of people in Malawi, or we're still in overshoot and millions of species go extinct and billions of people die.
Agreed. She spoke confidently, but conveniently skirted round explaining anything that might be a bit ...inconvenient.
@@HealingLifeKwikly definitely , claiming no historical humans lived "sustainably" is subjective based on how we define sustainability, directly comparing their impact to ours does not take into account the 1000x "biophysical overshoot" we have been perpetuating since the advent of fossil hydrocarbon extraction.Applying a modern definition to historical societies is an anachronistic comparison , which does not factor population size, technological advancements, and cultural norms we have today, which significantly impact sustainability within a given context.
So, if biophysical overshoot is a measurement of sustainability, past civilizations were not remotely close breaching the limits we are today which rises about 3% per year even with an annual 3% gain in efficiency.... Ironically, technology, which is what she mainly suggests as a solution to an unrealistic optimistic rate of warming, , tends to amplify overshoot even further...historically. She seems to conveniently ignore the work of William Stanley Jevons in her sweeping technocratic solutions, although ...
I am certain she is aware of his findings that improved efficiency in resource usage... paradoxically can lead to increased overall consumption of that resource...which makes me question her research funding and promotion of her book, partially funded and largely promoted by The ( Bill) Gates Foundation....the epitome of technocracy.. The Gates foundation funds some good research, but in general, most of their research and technology is focused on linear, centralized and dystopian solutions that over ride nature .
@@SumFugaziSalt Thanks for your reply. The techno-utopians rarely seem aware of Jevons Paradox (or assume we'll magically dodge it "this time"), and more deeply, don't face the fact that almost everything humans make harms the web of life, so to be sustainable, we need to live with less man-made stuff, and make it out of truly biodegradable materials or almost-infinitely recyclable materials. Thanks for the tip on the Gates funding of the book. I didn't know that. I skimmed his climate book and it was siloed techno-solutions that ignore the big picture.
I'm in teacher education, and Gates and his fellow billionaires and CEOs played central roles in remaking American schools in the image of corporations and assembly lines. The rhetoric of the standards and accountability movement was brilliantly framed (albeit Orwellian... "higher standards" that dumbed down curriculum), but the substance of it forced educators to do roughly the opposite of of what works best for the dreams we cherish most for children and the world. He's really a left-brain thinker who doesn't know what he doesn't know and thus arrogantly runs around making a number of critical things worse.
Take care.
What do you consider the "big picture?" Her point is that we're not doomed, and we still have time to create a better future. She chose data points that should motivate people to move forward rather than giving up. That's her big picture. We all know about the negative data points; one only has to look around to see polluted air and water, vanishing open space, diminishing numbers of birds and wildlife, etc. Her big picture doesn't ignore that. It merely says that if we want something better, we can't focus on the negative. You can't build something better if you're immobilized by doom.
Great video but it's a bit scewed in terms of what information gets presented.
An example would be the fact that there are lines, which ones crossed start feeding into themselves in terms of global warming, such as greenlands ice having trapped methane gas in its ice as well as all glaciers acting as reflecting surfaces that cool down the earth by not absorbing as much solar energy. The more of them that melt the faster everything else starts heating up.
Another would be the fact that electric cars are worse for the enviroment unless each unit is used for a significant amount of time, (I do not remember the exact amount but it was somewhere between 6-10 years if memory serves) due to the increased emissions when producing and assembling everything for an electric car compared to a combustion based one. Something which the current use and replace mindset of our economy doesn't encourage.
A third would be the fact that a very large part of the earths populace lives in said developing countries. One example being india, which last time I checked contained slightly more than 20% of the worlds population.
It's great that things are changing and the human race probably won't go extingt at this point, after all we're resilient bastards as a species. But it's a bit of a too little too late situation from what I have gathered.
For everyone who've read this far:
Thank you for reading my needlessly long message and remember to do your own research, don't trust anything I or anyone else says without fact checking it. My information could very well be outdated or sttaight up wrong, or I could've missed a vital new factor which this talk didn't mention.
You raise some good points. She is a data scientist, and we know data can be interpreted in various ways depending on your priors. She sketched around the cost of externalities in production of batteries, wind and solar. (Gigantic mining operations etc).
When anyone says that have simple solutions, I always think - there are no simple solutions.
"Electric cars are worse for the environment", maybe I didn't know about that, but I would take your word, but it will improve just like everything.
And the example you took of India, which is also true, but it's because of our population, per capita us Indians and Asians in general we use consume pretty less resources compared to the western counterparts. And It's a fact and I'm an Indian.
One more thing is that In India we are already producing 43.0% of electricity through non-Fossil fuels.
I'm saying all this is because to make you a little optimistic just a little bit, we are doing right, and we will deal with this climate change just like we did with every other problem.
We do have a deadline just like you explained really well with your glaciers example, but the thing is our problem-solving capability is also improving exponentially. So, I do believe we will be just fine.
It wasn't needlessly long - it could easily have been a lot longer. She emphasised her qualifications to establish herself as An Authority, then spoke so authoritatively that very few people stopped to analyse what she was saying, or what she *wasn't* saying - as witness the almost universally approving comments.
I thought she left a lot of unasked question unanswered.
For your comment on electric cars, that is wrong/outdated information: look it up yourself and you will find that "It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months."
This is correct, but it fails to take into account the amount of environmental damage in terms of land use change it requires to have even 10% of all global (future) cars be EV, as well as the 're'cycling @@kingviking41
Whatever happens most people are just along for the ride. It seems like most fail to learn basic scientific literacy.
If she is half right, then she is ten times more hopeful than I am.
Your opinion only helps validate that the way we see solutions or problems is (generational). I hear her speak and present founded data and I feel optimistic. Hope you will eventually feel that way too.
She HAS to be right. It's the only way we succeed. Failure to leave a world for future generations isn't an option.
@@Sentrme "She HAS to be right. It's the only way we succeed. Failure to leave a world for future generations isn't an option."
Unfortunately, she's presenting the wrong image of the future: Worsening ecological and societal breakdown is underway now and will get worse before it gets better.
We CAN create a nice future, but first we must shrink the global economy ~50% shrink the ecological impacts of individuals in wealthy nations 60-99+%, de-industrialize economies and make them more local, circular, and based more on using natural materials and more manual labor. To feed 8 billion people while not causing ecological collapse (which would cause societal collapse), that's the only escape route.
“stopping people from dying is never a sacrifice” what a word
This is inspirational! Hope this trend increases in the future
Love this! Incredibly refreshing and I’m currently reading her book.
My only query I have is about crop yields… the higher production from crops means that the soil takes a massive hit and it reduces its quality, no? The way we treat the soil is reprehensible. We need diversity within soil to store carbon and to rewild the land.
But maybe she discusses this further in her book and I’m yet to read it!
Great stuff. Vital to see evidence of progress and that this is a winnable fight. Momentum is building, and I’m optimistic. Thank you!
Thank you for all your work in creating awareness. This is what we all have to do in order to transform the mindset of upcoming generations.
A lot of people have ideas on things we should do, but I've never heard how to realistically do them. It's always a lot of "we need to do this" and "we need to stop doing that". OK, great! Let's get started!
I'm grateful for the hope. Thank you for your work. I look forward to read your book.
Hannah Ritchie sells great storylines. But we should really keep being more frightened, please refer to Johann Rockström
Would recommend this to everyone.
A really inspiring and well-researched presentation, Hannah. Thank you 🙏. I’d be interested to know what stats you have on the state of biodiversity over the same time frames. You mentioned an increase in trees and an increase in agricultural production that potentially means less land needed for our species. Do you have any stats on how other species are doing?
Speaking about sustainability in product design and development many forgot that before the plastic era most of products were almost completely sustainable.
Today we have opportunity to innovate by relying on the very same materials and manufacturing processes and complement them with new technologies.
The challenge is to convince global corporation and brands because they want people to believe that the plastic is the only solution.
With technology, science and resources that we have today we could build a heaven on Earth, but unfortunately all are democracy, freedom and human rights are not as important as interest of politicians, corporations and their investors.
We are the first generation but we must fight for generations to come, because we have horrible history and truth to face, but amazing opportunity to shape the future in our own way.
like what? Burning coal? Destroying forests in England for paper? Maybe elephant bones for billiard was more sustainable? Or whales oil?
I cant believe it took me a year to find this ted talk. It’s so nice to see that we have made progress. We do still have lots to do but this Ted talk really helped me feel optimistic and excited to continue making the world a better place. 😊
Fantastic presentation! Thank you for all the work you do ❤
This is a great optimistic view of the future. The data says it all.
Bravo, Hannah Ritchie!
🇧🇮from BURUNDI,i do appreciate your speech
World’s most important message of the moment.
Thank you for this Speech Hannah . I got vision for my new company from your speech
Bamboo is a really exceptional green building material. It is a sustainable material that requires very little energy to nurture, restrains soil erosion, supplies biofuel, extends wildlife refuge, and manufactures a wholesome food source for both humans and wildlife.
Three obvious issues:
1. No mention of the use of resources. We can't have a sustainable world when we continue to overuse our material resources.
2. The optimistic interpretation of carbon emission trends does not answer why the end result - global temperatures continue to rise at a frightening rate.
3. Even if we accept that there are some grounds for optimism, the precautionary principle surely holds. We cannot continue to place our hopes on analyses such as these and risk our existence.
This is definitely motivational! I'm reading her book as well, and it's significantly lowered my Climate Anxiety. My only qualms are that I wish she'd talk about people just using/buying less! It's frustrating that we can make all these tech advancements, but a lot folks just refuse to live with even a *little bit* less. Also, I would have liked to have heard more about our impact on animal species. I am more worried about my animal friends going extinct than I am about our sometimes toxic species! All in all, great talk, amazing woman.
Thank you! Spread the optimistic message..
Great talk and presentation ❤
Nice job Hannah. Everyone, remember it's okay to not be perfect, but don't be a prig just because you're exhausted or think no one is watching. The next generation is watching.
I like following her blog called "Sustainability by numbers"
Man, I want to be like her
Thanks so much, Hannah! We have to be the first sustainable generation, and I know we can do it!. I came across an interesting article in the New York Times this week. It was called "Why Is the Oil Industry Booming?"( 2024/07/16). It made me think about how much US oil and gas production has increased recently. It seems that oil CEOs are expecting their companies to keep growing until at least 2040! It's a bit of a puzzle, isn't it? The thing is, both types of energy are connected financially. How can we work through this together? I think your colleague Tim Jackson, the author of the book "The Prosperity without Growth," has a more realistic and optimistic view. He says we need to cut down on our emissions by 80% by 2050, which I think is totally doable! On the other hand, we need a lot of innovations to help our global society become more eco-friendly. We also need to embrace a new way of thinking about our economy, one that's focused on knowledge, learning, art, science, public health, and other important areas. These are the sectors that have always been decarbonized, so they're a great place to start. This new Cinderella economy will rely less on carbon emissions, giving the global economy what it needs most: new ideas!
The First Sustainable One! We keep pusing we keep working we keep changing minds! Let us grow a beautiful healthy world! People WE HAVE THE POWER TO FUEL CHANGE....
lol. if you really believe this you are incredibly naïve
So many flaws. “Renewables” are heavily dependent on mined minerals. Mines are not sustainable. That high yield American agriculture is dependent on GMOs, fertilizer, and glyphosate. Also not sustainable. Many of those new forests are single specie monocultures slated to be cut.
Absent some miraculous technological innovation, we can not buy or grow our way out of this. The best we can do right now is to shrink our population and consumption as gracefully as we can to buy time for new technologies. Hope is important, without it we die. However, this presentation is so naive that it comes off as deceptive.
I agree.
absolutely fucking brilliant and unashamedly optimistic! I love it!
Great speech….thanks Ted… Don’t agree on deforestation stats …the forests are going off still at alarming rates …
Still feel we all know this for many years. In stead of monologues we need more Dialogue. Debates. Especially with the people who don’t agree or rather ignore the Hannah Ritchie’s of this🌎
Amazing presentation!
Wonderful presentation
Fantastic presentation. Thank you.
😂
👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️
For anyone who's annoyed with the push for more EV's because of toxic chemicals used in lithium batteries. The push for EV's is NOT a push to replace fossil fuels with lithium batteries.
It's a push to replace things that run on fossil fuels with things that run on electricity. An electric vehicle can run off anything the produces electricity, it can be lithium batteries today and more green batteries tech tomorrow. It can change instantly as soon as new battery tech comes to market. Just build next years model with different battery cells and you're done. What we CANNOT change instantly is all the infrastructure required to support EV's. That takes a lot of time, many 10's of years. Building massive charging networks, Expanding the national grid to support all the people needing to charge, Understanding all the technical challengers of building EV's. etc... The EV push is to get all that done now to save time later. It doesn't matter if an EV today is just as polluting as a fossil fuel car. It maters that we make the change now so we're ready for all the new battery technologies that will occur over the next 30 years.
There's not enough lithium - or any other element required for EVs - in the world for more than a few people to have EVs.
So we'll be back to the days of horse-drawn carriages, when only a few very rich people could afford travel.
@@lesleyvivien2876 Do you have any source to back this up?
Have to say I was overjoyed to see a solar farm being installed on the drive over to visit my daughter's family recently! My wish is that they would plant wildflowers in between the panels, or at least by the roadside.
@@Jonathan-yr3soTechnology is a more efficient usage of space & resources. Not wasteless. Technology is only wasteful if it's created as such.
@@Sentrme "Technology is a more efficient usage of space & resources." Unfortunately. "efficiency" isn't one of the top ten values we must embody to have a healthy, just, and sustainable society. Although industrialized capitalism is obsessed with efficiency, more efficiency has just accelerated our destruction of the planet.
The more man-made objects and chemicals we make, the faster we destroy the ecosystems that our lives and societies depend on. Those are just the laws of nature. Making man-made stuff increases the level of entropy on the planet, so to prevent catastrophic ecological and societal collapse (which we are heading towards right now), we will have to shrink the economies of wealthy nations substantially, simplify our lifestyles, ban many inventions of the last century, and live lower-tech lives with more manual labor. The math just doesn't work any other way.
Completely with you; I call it progressive environmentalism. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren. I’m working on a project in Denmark, 100% carbon neutral cereal production, I think you may be interested, do you have an e-mail I may forward to? Kind regards, Les Mills.
Wow! The best data-backed vision for the future I have seen! I'm a believer!
I believe there's still more generations to come. We're currently in Gen Alpha, and maybe someday we'd even get something far more superior compared to what we have now.
What a great talk!
With the way we want to just point fingers, this is neither the last nor the first generation of anything.
This Ted is reminding me of the Kate Raworths Tedtalk
She should say that to Mrs Sunack who is slowing the renewable energies and restart the exploration for oil and gas in the north sea
Nice positive presentation for a change ... but you can find dozens of data points that don't support a positive outlook.
Where do you get the materials plus no one seems to want to talk about replacement. Our Solar system has a big impact also. We overrate our importance and we are parasitic in our nature, so do we deserve our place in nature or are we going to delude ourselves and keep on trying to control it. Perhaps if we were a class one civilisation but that is a long way off.
A lot of very good points and admirable aims, but I have a few questions.
I wonder why converting forests to farm land is presented as a bad thing, but converting farmland to wind installations isn't?
How has the USA made maize production skyrocket without an increase in farmland? What "modern technology" is being used?
And is her brother as pleased with his electric car after this winter, as he was when he bought it last Spring? Sales of EVs have peaked, and EV manufacturers are beginning to close, or "delaying" investment in new factories or new EV models.
Superb! thank you for the enlightement... Very good job Hannah Ritchie!
The video content is very engaging. Thank you, I really like your video.🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
Electric cars are better cars but still have significant impacts on the environment.
Crop yields have increased - but not without increased fertiliser usage which causes big problems with nitrogen and phosphorus cycle.
Solar panels and wind energy isn't exactly clean.
What about plastic pollution?
What about climate tipping points?
We are FAR from being sustainable.
We need to change our lifestyles.
Agree apart from the bit about electric cars being better. Are they better when it's your land being poisoned by lithium excavation, or your family doing the excavating? Are they better when you can't move because snow and ice have drained your battery? or when you spend ages finding somewhere to recharge, and then have to plug it in for at least half an hour, by contrast with two minutes plugged in to a petrol pump? When there's an ever-present fire risk, and your car insurance costs half as much again as insurance on a petrol car?
We shouldn't blame countries who are catching up, we should blame those who did it first and didn't do anything about it for decades! 5:23
More than anything, the economic system needs to change.
Solar and wind are actually already quite cheap. Literally _too_ cheap for oil companies, who have stated - on record - that solar and wind are "too cheap to economically exploit". They want "at least 12% profit margins, whereas solar and wind only reach up to 9%". This is what I mean with a new economic system: one focused on people, rather than the rich and their profits.
"Only" 9%? 😯
@@lesleyvivien2876 Quite literally "not _enough_ profits", according to said oil companies. Their words.
@@Celis.C Sounds right. Tesco's gross profit margin is around 6.5% and its operating margin (whatever that is) is around 1.5%. I imagine the supermarkets would be very happy with 1.5-6.5% of something, rather than 9% of nothing.
Now graph this against the material economy, rates of addiction, anxiety, depression, sense of meaning and purpose.
Great talk. Hopium emissions rising to unprecedented levels!
She needs to learn about Australian Aboriginal lived in balance
Hello? Your saying that global north countries are reducing their emissions? Which consists of 75% of the global emissions?. Global north can do that because they have the resources while global south who contribute so little to none cant even feed their people and you expect them to transition to renewable without any help.. cool story.. rich countries kickstart this climate catastrophe and poor countries are the one suffering... Coal are declining but oil and gas company from the west and middle east are still continuing their greediness
Save the trees as much as possible
0:31: 🌍 Young people today feel crippled with anxiety about the future of humanity due to climate change.
2:40: 🌍 The world has made significant progress in improving human wellbeing, but at the cost of the environment.
5:50: 🌍 Global CO2 emissions have peaked and are falling due to technological advancements and the decline of coal.
8:24: ! Technology and innovation have decoupled human progress from environmental impact, allowing us to end global poverty and reduce CO2 emissions.
11:06: 🌍 The video discusses the importance of sustainability in various aspects of our lives.
Recap by Tammy AI
If thw "greatest power" of this world will gifting me an electric car i will be glad to accept it, with an sustainable one lifestyle indeed...
Developed countries have come through the period that their carbon production was rising in the last century and already caused huge pollution. They now have the capacity to reduce their carbon because of their abundant cumulated capital. This scenario is ubiquitous across nations. But developing countries started the technology development in a more slower pace. And they are required to reduce their carbon emissions to cleanse a world previously polluted by the most developed nations. That is a rather ironic logic.
I want to believe.... but bigger and faster GDP growth is not the solution to an economy in overshoot.
I'm missing nuclear in this talk ... in her book she got anry about environmentalists, who insisted on 100% renewables and opposed nuclear. We need all carbon-free energy solutions!
Check out Paul Hawken's book "The Ecology of Commerce" for a great read on how businesses large and small can change their business practices to align with sustainable practices. It's a great read!
Amazing!!!! 👏👏👏
Very good speech very good presentation very good accent
🤣
My dad was Catholic and Republican all of his adult life so I was exposed to a lot of that kind of thinking. I wouldn't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. Mostly I'm very disappointed in this barely working binary political system that I find myself in, in the US. The biggest factor that influenced my political beliefs was when I would see coverage of candidates that once publically supported something but then when the political landscape changed they no longer supported that topic simply because it's now inconvenient. That makes me insane.
I was angry at conservatives for a long time but now I believe that most people in the world want a better world. I've never met someone that didn't want a better world for their children. I can't explain why so many conservatives are climate denyers. Seeing anyone deny factual evidence is a red flag for me.
The data that shows some young people don't want to have kids is depressing. Here in Florida it's not just future climate uncertainty but houses are so expensive whether you buy or rent. Even for kids that can afford a 4+ year college education there really doesn't exist any entry-level housing. Also, interest rates are very high and the cost of transportation is very high. If our young people are depressed and have no hope what do you think's going to happen in this country? Everyday we don't work together brings the US closer to a possible communist future. Depressed low intelligence people with no hope have a much higher chance to vote for someone who says they are goung to put a billion dollars in everyone's account even though that would destroy our entire Financial system. But it sounds good right? I cannot change the world with wishful thinking but I can change the world with my two hands.
Not just a regular education, children deserve a business and financial education in high school at a minimum
Employees are not capitalists.
Perhaps integrating better availability of college level courses into highschools would help with that.
if we live in a capitalist society, then we are all capitalist, if not then we are just then next generation of slaves@@DangerAmbrose
Sounds nice but the keeling curve is still accelerating.
I think I'll continue to interact with nature....she's been doing that groovy thing for a long,long time.
Very selective and manipulative use of data. That said I agree with quite a few points she makes.
Shared on Mastodon ClimateJustice by JdeB
This all seems extremely biased to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a relentless pessimist, but Dr. Ritchie's presentation only brings up European/North American data. Sure, life might be getting better there (as it has been for the past two centuries, sustainably or not), but the global south is no where near these rates of carbon independence. Commercial exploitation, political interventionism, industrial dependence and all sorts of other factors continue to hinder the development of these countries towards a sustainable society. Every time I hear someone mention how great electric cars are and how much more common place they are becoming, I recall that I have never seen one driving around in the city I live. Not only because the necessary infrastructure doesn't exist here, but because their so-called "affordability" is no where near to being affordable for the common folk in the global south. Search up what a FIAT Uno 1998 is. That is still the most common affordable every-man car in my country.
"Sure, life might be getting better there (as it has been for the past two centuries, sustainably or not), but the global south is no where near these rates of carbon independence." Right, and we don;'t just face a climate crisis: the global north's overall ecological footprint is 4-5X what is sustainable, and the partial decoupling from carbon was accompanied by increasing coupling with land use, new mines, etc. Industrialized civilization as we know it is unsustainable.
Hi absolutely true state
With the amount of Cluster B personality types in power we’re likely doomed if we can’t articulate a way to make sustainability ‘profitable’. I’ve been working on creating a profitable model for carbon capture and I’ve posted this preliminary idea online but it’s as if nobody cares to admit money, and ROI is at the forefront of change…
Thank you for that realistic viewpoint. The book of Genesis may just be as much a warning to our future as it is a biblical text of the past.
why are there no English subtitles?
The day passable lab grown meat comes out, I will never buy animal meat again.
Don't hold your breath. And that's certainly not "sustainable" Ruminants are good for their ecosystems
Electric cars are not sustainable, individual responses to collective problems are not sustainable.
Oh boy. Look at you. Completely right. Now what?
If the source electricity is renewable this statistic is wrong. Collectively we need to change how we create and distribute energy.
Hear, hear!
Okay, so we're just gonna pretend like indigenous people don't live sustainably... securing future generations AND living happy fulfilled lives? I'm on board with what she's saying, but I disagree strongly with her assessment that sustainable people have never inhabited this planet.
I don't think you listened. She said that from an environmental perspective they did, but they paid a heavy price in child mortality.
@@andrewthomas695 I'll take that critique. Perhaps I just didn't see that as a negative, rather just an aspect contributing to said sustainability. I knew not reproducing was the best possible carbon impact I could make for the planet, so that's what I chose.
Go listen to her interview with Rachel Donald. Hannah is very naive. Blind faith that things will be okay is not optimism, it's wishful thinking.
Ok, that's "inspiring".
But that's say nothing about the rare earth we need to get to reach this kind of world. That's the only part missing.
Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs? Or do we want a sustainable generation where true environmental care is the effect of prosperity, prosperity is the effect of the absence of oligarchy and presence of economic liberty and egalitarianism, egalitarianism is the effect of absence of monopoly granted by government, and market competition is the effect of decentralized government or the absence of big government or total absence of state/government?
"Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs?" Clearly we don't.
"Do we want a sustainable generation where people are under the oppressive one-world government controlled by oligarchs?" Our ecological overshoot is currently around 75%, and to be sustainable, the size, material throughput, and energy throughput of the global economy. So we will need a different definition of "prosperity" because large industrialized capitalism economies and consumerist lifestyles are hopelessly UNsustainable.