Would your house not burn down if you had renewable energy? Your state contributes a miniscule amount of global carbon, so it is not likely to affect trends.
What certainly doesn't help either is the election _system_ stopping small parties like the Greens with a much stronger focus on single topics (like the climate crisis) from even getting seats in the opposition, so they could needle the government with petitions for new laws.
Agreed the 2 party system does not allow for Greens or Libertarians/Tea Party candidates to win and messes up the major Dem/Rep candidates. The US political system does not work well but what can you do? Its better than most. I'm not moving. 350 million humans in the US; 8 billion humans on Earth. Making the sausage can get messy.
@@dianewallace6064 "Better than most"? What? The only countries with less choice in their elections are straight-up dictatorships that only hold pretend elections with a single option on the ballot.
@@rolfs2165 I believe you. A choice of two old men is not much of a good choice. Oh well. Understood-just trying to make lemonade out of lemons, I guess.
It took me years to realize why the parliamentary system is so much better than whatever TF the American system is. It’s the fact that so many parties are able to get seats in parliament and prevent any one single party from forming the executive branch. It prevents extremism, particularly right wing extremism. The system in the US seems to promote right wing extremism. In fact, I read recently that the American political system is like a ratchet. The Republican’s job is simple; they’re the wheel that moves the country to the right. The Democrat’s job is less obvious; they’re the pawl that stops the country from moving left.
Must be pretty frustrating to be as knowledgeable about human nature and climate change as you are and see how nobody actually cares. Nobody that matters that is.
Ah yes. Climate and elections. We voted for Trudeau in Canada and he did exactly the opposite of what he had told us. "If voting would change anything, the would make it illegal" Coluche (French comedian) from decades ago,
Agreed-all politicians are the same. They do what is best for them. I am for finding common ground (rare for politicians) and cost-effective initiatives because it is hard to be against cheaper costs.
Try Minute Earth or Veritasium for a bit more of a global view. It's true that a lot of the good YT channels are understandably US focussed and I can't see that changing much in the short term.
With the upcoming presidential election being probably the most closely watched election in the entire world, it obviously makes sense they're putting a stronger focus on that, as opposed to e.g. the EU election which won't happen until 2024 and where we also have much more choice than just two parties. But it's not always this US-centric, no.
• 0:27 - Wait, so 16% of Americans _want_ global warming? 🤨 🤦 It's pretty hard to interpret that any other way. 🤷 • 1:50 - You forgot the other half. The American west is on fire burning up and down the coast while the American east is trashed by so many hurricanes that they ran out of English letters and had to blast through Greek ones. 😕 • 1:58 - The hurricanes have never happened before either, there have now been more hurricanes this year than ever before. • 4:50 - Choose between a meaningless, artificial, extrinsic piece of paper (or bits in a computer database) that our cavemen ancestors managed to survived hundreds of thousands of years without just fine, or… _the friggin' WORLD‽_ Which to choose? 🤔 • 6:22 - In 2018, a lot of people sweated their butts off. People only do stuff when they're personally affected. ¬_¬
If you don't allow companies to aquire fuel from US sources....1 that will mean the jobs that revolve around extracting and transporting, refining, and storing that fuel won't exist. I don't see the lie there. Also not producing our own fuel just means we end up getting it elsewhere....usually from nations who have a history of treating the US as an economic rival...as much as a consumer. I'd like to see us switch to renewable sources but, solutions must be just as systemic as the consumption. Alternate training and jobs need to be right there the day the initial changes occur. Or people that need homes and food aren't likely to vote away their jobs.
I think a lot of people forget that carbon is just half the issue, because we have an international market based around mass production and consumption of cheap single use goods, we're extracting resources from the environment far faster than it can replenish them. We need to implement degrowth policies and use that surplus to enable previously colonised countries to develop their green energy infrastructure instead of condemning them to technological obsolescence through denying them industrialisation.
true... a lot more people need to understand that voting against regulations etc. to tackle climate crisis does not mean voting for "things will stay as cozy for me as they are". There is this strong believe that political changes to slow down global warming will have a stronger and more uncomfortable impact on their lives than the actual problem. Things will get worse for everyone sooner or later.
I have been voting for the one party here in Canada that I know of that has been really focused on the betterment of climate and certain other issues that the other parties will make promises about change but usually the platform of these other parties are empty of anything that is substantial. I have been voting since I was 18 in every election and constantly discuss voting not for the people who "are more likely to win" and just vote for the party that actually represents the interest of the people the best.
0:28 That is the problem. Ppl. do not take ANY responsibilities if it means life style change. Technology + politics never will solve the issues... And most of "actions" what have been done so far and heavily advertised they are not solution at all... 7:02 The listed values are simply laughable and impossible.
Corporations have the means, money, and motivation to ensure absolute freedom of business (at the cost of the rest of us) Old Man Malarkey (Biden) as the democrat nominee, over anyone else more substantial, is proof of that
@@dianewallace6064 They really do and the fossil fuel lobby is the most blatant have you seen the scathing report the rolling stones published on what the fossil fuel lobby has gotten to get away with under the lack of oversight of radiation containment for those concentrated salt dome brine's which tend to be so concentrated in heavy salts that they reach thousands of picocuries largely from radium salts left behind by the decay of Uranium oxide salts. These brines literally are hundreds of times more concentrated than nuclear reactor fuel of peak contamination of Chernobyl. Yet while they helped use public fear of radiation to put tight regulations on nuclear power they themselves dump radioactive brines with complete disregard for worker safety with the excuse that just because it is "naturally concentrated" it doesn't count. They even sell the radioactive brine as deicing road salts... Compare that natural bullshit argument with Asbestos that people worked to finally ban clearly the public doesn't share the fossil fuel lobby's argument. And the worst bit of it? They have gotten laws passed that make oversight and testing of these brines in general illegal. Then there is big pharma the chemical industry as a whole and those synthetic fertilizers that waste precious phosphorus reserves in large amounts... It is absurd how much control big business has and it is all because you have to go through the lobbyists to even have a chance to win a primary election. Nothing barring the reversal of the supreme court's absurd claim that corporations are citizens and or the complete dismantling of the two party system will probably have any chance of changing this... sigh.
@@Dragrath1 Agreed about reversing corps being citizens and dismantling the 2 party system. I did not know about the radioactive salt dome brines. Thanks for telling me. I will research that. Terrible.
Don’t expect too much from Biden. I expect that, if he’s elected, he will pull the usual 180 pivot on those GND “elements” like any other Dem. Just look at Obama and his banker and health care pivots.
Turned out to be an election political broadcast in the end. The upbeat message was lost on me. but then I have been a Green Party member in the UK off and on since the 1980s, so it wouldn't be hard for me to say vote conscientiously for whatever third party candidate means most to you, and forget about the generated political polarisation of the parties that institutionally don't care about anything other than holding onto their stranglehold over the public consciousness, and working for the bottom line of their friends. Most people will vote for either party and get nothing because they lack real political challenge to make them take up the issue, as anything more than that, an 'issue' on which to bolt on a policy here and there., without seeing the problem as the underpinning of everything else. That is a failure of ballot access and Usanian 'democracy' and many other actions and actors in the media and corporate life.
The stock photo used in the video has this description: SEVILLE, SPAIN - NOVEMBER 03: Jamie Margolin attends the MTV EMAs 2019 at FIBES Conference and Exhibition Centre on November 03, 2019 in Seville, Spain. (Photo by Dave Hogan/MTV 2019/Getty Images for MTV)
Nothing will change until the pitchforks come out. People are just too easy to manipulate. They have all the best PR firms and smartest idiots to make people believe whatever they want.
Voters elect president and governers they need to take tough informed division. General public is not informed and does not understand large scale problems facing society.
@ajspades19 For the party or the representative as such? How does this help? It is never the representative as such who makes the decisions, but the plutocrats (form of aristocracy) who buys the parties made up of aristocrats. One way or another, we are giving political power, by electoral method, to an aristocracy which judges that the people are too stupid to rule themselves. A horizontal direct democracy rather than a vertical one (the majority of political powers are at the local / institutional rather than at the upper stratum) would perhaps be a potential solution.
@ajspades19 You kind a prove my point that it does'nt remove the aristocracy but just the individual. Who cares about the individual . They don't do sht unless there partie tell them to do it. It's the parties of aristocrate serving aristocrate the problem.
@ajspades19 That's oddly optimistic. You din't really reduce the organization, you only change the covert of the book. I believe the aristocracy is simply going to replace a pupet for a other. It's like the tail of lizard. But I guess that's the problem with political science , it's not a science. We can't repeat a experiment with controled variable to test are hypothesis .
@ajspades19 I never lived in the USA, so I'm sorry if this is'nt precise.There's 33,284,020 republican member and 45,715,952 democrat . There's 535 voting members in your congress. Congressional and presidential elections take place simultaneously every four years. That's mean that ,if member of these partie stay fixe, for your theory to work it would take 147663,4991 election or 590653,9963 year .
Why did you start the video saying "more americans than ever belive that climate change is happening" instead of saying that they "understand" or "know" ?
It's not a attitude to say "yea I'll me a good boy" and then go straight back to whatever you actually want to do. It just means that you are nagging them, and they want you to STFU.
When the problem gets bad enough, people will vote for climate action. I live about 10 miles from Galveston Bay in Texas and had 2 near misses with hurricanes this year (that both hit Louisiana instead). I'm planning to move further inland because you can only get lucky so many times. The long-term solution is that humanity needs to migrate out into the solar system and beyond. Climate change is only one extinction event out of many and it's going to happen one way or another sooner or later. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are developing rockets because they know what's up.
I don't think the "tech" to terraform or colonize will occur fast enough. The climate change extinction event (probably 200 years away when the atmosphere will become too oxygen poor to support large mammals) is outpacing colonization. Also, how will we move all the animals to other planets/moons?
@@dianewallace6064 I don't know how the future will play out. The pace of technological innovation is increasing, so our capabilities in 100 or 200 years will probably be beyond what we would predict. I don't know how we will do it, but me not knowing doesn't constitute evidence that it can't be done. At a minimum, we only need to save genetic information, assuming that we will someday be able to recreate the animals (and plants and other life forms). The goal is not to save lives. The goal is to save life -- especially intelligent life. All life being on Earth is like putting all your eggs in one basket. We need more baskets.
@@ndunham Well respected scientists that don't agree that climate change is predominantly human caused aren't illiterate simply because they disagree with liberal scientists who have an agenda.
My house just burned down
Chance to vote for renewable energy: +5%
Well it’s not that their house burned down, but that they were close to fires. Also, there are many other factors.
@@HelloHamburger they? He or she said my house....jeez you're cold, man.
Would your house not burn down if you had renewable energy? Your state contributes a miniscule amount of global carbon, so it is not likely to affect trends.
What certainly doesn't help either is the election _system_ stopping small parties like the Greens with a much stronger focus on single topics (like the climate crisis) from even getting seats in the opposition, so they could needle the government with petitions for new laws.
Agreed the 2 party system does not allow for Greens or Libertarians/Tea Party candidates to win and messes up the major Dem/Rep candidates. The US political system does not work well but what can you do? Its better than most. I'm not moving. 350 million humans in the US; 8 billion humans on Earth. Making the sausage can get messy.
@@dianewallace6064 "Better than most"? What? The only countries with less choice in their elections are straight-up dictatorships that only hold pretend elections with a single option on the ballot.
@@rolfs2165 I believe you. A choice of two old men is not much of a good choice. Oh well. Understood-just trying to make lemonade out of lemons, I guess.
It took me years to realize why the parliamentary system is so much better than whatever TF the American system is. It’s the fact that so many parties are able to get seats in parliament and prevent any one single party from forming the executive branch. It prevents extremism, particularly right wing extremism. The system in the US seems to promote right wing extremism. In fact, I read recently that the American political system is like a ratchet. The Republican’s job is simple; they’re the wheel that moves the country to the right. The Democrat’s job is less obvious; they’re the pawl that stops the country from moving left.
No one is gonna point out the stock photo couple from the "jealous girlfriend/looking boyfriend" meme at 1:25 ?
Must be pretty frustrating to be as knowledgeable about human nature and climate change as you are and see how nobody actually cares. Nobody that matters that is.
I'm in Colorado and I voted for it and I was shocked it failed. It seemed like everyone I knew was gonna support it.
The best example of living in a progressive bubble :)
I really hope you are right. Crossing my fingers for you Americans.
Ah yes. Climate and elections. We voted for Trudeau in Canada and he did exactly the opposite of what he had told us.
"If voting would change anything, the would make it illegal" Coluche (French comedian) from decades ago,
RIP Coluche.
Agreed-all politicians are the same. They do what is best for them. I am for finding common ground (rare for politicians) and cost-effective initiatives because it is hard to be against cheaper costs.
@@dianewallace6064 People in Canada and the U.S. require some evidence, not just it is man stupid.
@@jmuld1 There are 8 billion humans on Earth, there are less than 1 billion dogs, half a billion cats. Just google population clock.
@@dianewallace6064 And the people say, so what.
I'm just new to this channel. Is this always so US-centric? I'd be keen on more global information
Try Minute Earth or Veritasium for a bit more of a global view. It's true that a lot of the good YT channels are understandably US focussed and I can't see that changing much in the short term.
try "Just Have a Think" also. Its great.
With the upcoming presidential election being probably the most closely watched election in the entire world, it obviously makes sense they're putting a stronger focus on that, as opposed to e.g. the EU election which won't happen until 2024 and where we also have much more choice than just two parties. But it's not always this US-centric, no.
@@rolfs2165 You are correct. The video is appropriate for now with the US election coming up.
Don't worry, climate change is global.
I vote early and hope we can face Climate Change. Amazing!
• 0:27 - Wait, so 16% of Americans _want_ global warming? 🤨 🤦 It's pretty hard to interpret that any other way. 🤷
• 1:50 - You forgot the other half. The American west is on fire burning up and down the coast while the American east is trashed by so many hurricanes that they ran out of English letters and had to blast through Greek ones. 😕
• 1:58 - The hurricanes have never happened before either, there have now been more hurricanes this year than ever before.
• 4:50 - Choose between a meaningless, artificial, extrinsic piece of paper (or bits in a computer database) that our cavemen ancestors managed to survived hundreds of thousands of years without just fine, or… _the friggin' WORLD‽_ Which to choose? 🤔
• 6:22 - In 2018, a lot of people sweated their butts off. People only do stuff when they're personally affected. ¬_¬
This year is a great year to vote
+
For Biden
Lol, i got a greenpeace ad about forest fires before this video :(
If you don't allow companies to aquire fuel from US sources....1 that will mean the jobs that revolve around extracting and transporting, refining, and storing that fuel won't exist. I don't see the lie there. Also not producing our own fuel just means we end up getting it elsewhere....usually from nations who have a history of treating the US as an economic rival...as much as a consumer. I'd like to see us switch to renewable sources but, solutions must be just as systemic as the consumption. Alternate training and jobs need to be right there the day the initial changes occur. Or people that need homes and food aren't likely to vote away their jobs.
I think a lot of people forget that carbon is just half the issue, because we have an international market based around mass production and consumption of cheap single use goods, we're extracting resources from the environment far faster than it can replenish them.
We need to implement degrowth policies and use that surplus to enable previously colonised countries to develop their green energy infrastructure instead of condemning them to technological obsolescence through denying them industrialisation.
true... a lot more people need to understand that voting against regulations etc. to tackle climate crisis does not mean voting for "things will stay as cozy for me as they are". There is this strong believe that political changes to slow down global warming will have a stronger and more uncomfortable impact on their lives than the actual problem. Things will get worse for everyone sooner or later.
I have been voting for the one party here in Canada that I know of that has been really focused on the betterment of climate and certain other issues that the other parties will make promises about change but usually the platform of these other parties are empty of anything that is substantial.
I have been voting since I was 18 in every election and constantly discuss voting not for the people who "are more likely to win" and just vote for the party that actually represents the interest of the people the best.
NEED!…
…the future our country AND our planet need!
I am studying to become an environmentalist, and this channel is so informative. Love it, keep going.
Awesome
I wish you luck in all you do!
0:28
That is the problem. Ppl. do not take ANY responsibilities if it means life style change. Technology + politics never will solve the issues...
And most of "actions" what have been done so far and heavily advertised they are not solution at all...
7:02
The listed values are simply laughable and impossible.
Corporations have the means, money, and motivation to ensure absolute freedom of business (at the cost of the rest of us)
Old Man Malarkey (Biden) as the democrat nominee, over anyone else more substantial, is proof of that
Old Man Malarkey (Biden). I love that. So true. Agreed- Corporates run America.
@@dianewallace6064 They really do and the fossil fuel lobby is the most blatant have you seen the scathing report the rolling stones published on what the fossil fuel lobby has gotten to get away with under the lack of oversight of radiation containment for those concentrated salt dome brine's which tend to be so concentrated in heavy salts that they reach thousands of picocuries largely from radium salts left behind by the decay of Uranium oxide salts. These brines literally are hundreds of times more concentrated than nuclear reactor fuel of peak contamination of Chernobyl. Yet while they helped use public fear of radiation to put tight regulations on nuclear power they themselves dump radioactive brines with complete disregard for worker safety with the excuse that just because it is "naturally concentrated" it doesn't count. They even sell the radioactive brine as deicing road salts...
Compare that natural bullshit argument with Asbestos that people worked to finally ban clearly the public doesn't share the fossil fuel lobby's argument.
And the worst bit of it? They have gotten laws passed that make oversight and testing of these brines in general illegal.
Then there is big pharma the chemical industry as a whole and those synthetic fertilizers that waste precious phosphorus reserves in large amounts... It is absurd how much control big business has and it is all because you have to go through the lobbyists to even have a chance to win a primary election. Nothing barring the reversal of the supreme court's absurd claim that corporations are citizens and or the complete dismantling of the two party system will probably have any chance of changing this... sigh.
@@Dragrath1 Agreed about reversing corps being citizens and dismantling the 2 party system. I did not know about the radioactive salt dome brines. Thanks for telling me. I will research that. Terrible.
I'll be 63 by the time the Earth runs out of fossil fuels, if I live to be that old
This was discouraging but not unforeseen.
Thank you
I’ve never had so many stakes in an election like I do this year. It has me horrified at the possible outcomes.
Don’t expect too much from Biden. I expect that, if he’s elected, he will pull the usual 180 pivot on those GND “elements” like any other Dem. Just look at Obama and his banker and health care pivots.
4:00 they are pretty dumb to some degree
Ha, that stock photo of the married couple was the couple from the "unfaithful boyfriend" meme!
Turned out to be an election political broadcast in the end. The upbeat message was lost on me. but then I have been a Green Party member in the UK off and on since the 1980s, so it wouldn't be hard for me to say vote conscientiously for whatever third party candidate means most to you, and forget about the generated political polarisation of the parties that institutionally don't care about anything other than holding onto their stranglehold over the public consciousness, and working for the bottom line of their friends. Most people will vote for either party and get nothing because they lack real political challenge to make them take up the issue, as anything more than that, an 'issue' on which to bolt on a policy here and there., without seeing the problem as the underpinning of everything else. That is a failure of ballot access and Usanian 'democracy' and many other actions and actors in the media and corporate life.
Long live the petro-dollar! both parties intone as one.
6:38 who is the one on the right, beside Greta?
The stock photo used in the video has this description:
SEVILLE, SPAIN - NOVEMBER 03: Jamie Margolin attends the MTV EMAs 2019 at FIBES Conference and Exhibition Centre on November 03, 2019 in Seville, Spain. (Photo by Dave Hogan/MTV 2019/Getty Images for MTV)
Nothing will change until the pitchforks come out. People are just too easy to manipulate. They have all the best PR firms and smartest idiots to make people believe whatever they want.
Do you think americans are bad? Brazilians elected Bolsonaro.
Who do we accept people who deny climate change?
We didn't vote on the ozone hole.
Because ageism among boomers is rampant.
Voters elect president and governers they need to take tough informed division. General public is not informed and does not understand large scale problems facing society.
Very nice 👌
Vote low impact please.
If you are looking for a way to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
inb4 "why did you get political tho" comments.
Although I guess there should be less of those on a channel dedicated to covering climate change
Why does this have a thumbs down and its only been 7 mins since its upload.
AGW denying trolls, who else?
Now it has four.
Why is the no . Of views is just a 10% of the no. Of subscribers 😔
Another great video
For the algorithm. ✊️
Representative democracy = elective aristocracy
@ajspades19
For the party or the representative as such? How does this help? It is never the representative as such who makes the decisions, but the plutocrats (form of aristocracy) who buys the parties made up of aristocrats. One way or another, we are giving political power, by electoral method, to an aristocracy which judges that the people are too stupid to rule themselves. A horizontal direct democracy rather than a vertical one (the majority of political powers are at the local / institutional rather than at the upper stratum) would perhaps be a potential solution.
@ajspades19 You kind a prove my point that it does'nt remove the aristocracy but just the individual. Who cares about the individual . They don't do sht unless there partie tell them to do it. It's the parties of aristocrate serving aristocrate the problem.
@ajspades19 That's oddly optimistic. You din't really reduce the organization, you only change the covert of the book. I believe the aristocracy is simply going to replace a pupet for a other. It's like the tail of lizard. But I guess that's the problem with political science , it's not a science. We can't repeat a experiment with controled variable to test are hypothesis .
@ajspades19 I never lived in the USA, so I'm sorry if this is'nt precise.There's 33,284,020 republican member and 45,715,952 democrat . There's 535 voting members in your congress. Congressional and presidential elections take place simultaneously every four years. That's mean that ,if member of these partie stay fixe, for your theory to work it would take 147663,4991 election or 590653,9963 year .
Nice videos
Why did you start the video saying "more americans than ever belive that climate change is happening" instead of saying that they "understand" or "know"
?
there is a beautiful video of the channel "after skool" called: "Why No One Cares About Climate Change"
You should check it
You see, some actually do care
It's not a attitude to say "yea I'll me a good boy" and then go straight back to whatever you actually want to do. It just means that you are nagging them, and they want you to STFU.
If you're going to make a point, at least write it in understandable English.
@@Ratigan2
Yea I'll be good, now STFU
Just because they're nagging, doesn't mean they're wrong
@@chrishaven1489
Sorry I'll stfu now
@@olemlund Don't have to. But you do you man
And not rigged voting?
Epic
When the problem gets bad enough, people will vote for climate action. I live about 10 miles from Galveston Bay in Texas and had 2 near misses with hurricanes this year (that both hit Louisiana instead). I'm planning to move further inland because you can only get lucky so many times. The long-term solution is that humanity needs to migrate out into the solar system and beyond. Climate change is only one extinction event out of many and it's going to happen one way or another sooner or later. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are developing rockets because they know what's up.
I don't think the "tech" to terraform or colonize will occur fast enough. The climate change extinction event (probably 200 years away when the atmosphere will become too oxygen poor to support large mammals) is outpacing colonization. Also, how will we move all the animals to other planets/moons?
It will get better by itself. The year 2030 will be 0.5 degrees cooler than today.
@@dianewallace6064 I don't know how the future will play out. The pace of technological innovation is increasing, so our capabilities in 100 or 200 years will probably be beyond what we would predict. I don't know how we will do it, but me not knowing doesn't constitute evidence that it can't be done. At a minimum, we only need to save genetic information, assuming that we will someday be able to recreate the animals (and plants and other life forms). The goal is not to save lives. The goal is to save life -- especially intelligent life. All life being on Earth is like putting all your eggs in one basket. We need more baskets.
Billionaire space cowboys won't save us. When the problem gets "bad enough" it will already be too late.
@@LisaBeergutHolst
Read my post above.
You want the red pill or the blue pill?
Either way, your 😶
Because it isn't proven fact.
It is to literate people
@@ndunham Well respected scientists that don't agree that climate change is predominantly human caused aren't illiterate simply because they disagree with liberal scientists who have an agenda.