Thank you for patching the hole in MinuteEarth's ozone layer with your support! Want to become our Patreon or member on TH-cam? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 I don't see how. You need the scientific community to understand the problem, not every single human on the planet. Hell, I have no idea _how_ chlorine kills off ozone, but I'm confident there are scientists who know how this works. (And the scientific community in the US is as upright as anywhere else.) Same goes for climate change. It would definitely help if more people understood how it works, but it's not necessarily required.
Clearly Reagen has taught us a valuable lesson. We must inflict out governing leaders with what we hope to avoid with regulations to get them to agree to it.
That's why I think it's important for people to somehow learn a bit of empathy and care about problems that don't directly affect themselves. Then we wouldn't need to rely so much on luck.
Not rlly. There's a number of factors affecting it, and as someone in the reply of another comment said "it isn't rlly abt *having* luck, it's more abt *exploiting* luck based on whtvr the current situation is"
That's one possibility. Another, is the desperate minutes-to-midnight awareness of their mortality by these same leaders, leads to a quasi-successful campaign at a later date. The recovery period will be far extended. Of course, there are less misinformation and less people buying into them in the past. That is one thing this video did not discuss.
Right. Because I'm sure the big businesses that hold a lot of sway and power, were *THRILLED* about having to put their manufacturing procedures on hold and pay a lot of money to convert to using a different kind of gas. As everyone knows, big business *HATES* it when they make lots of money without needing to implement expensive changes.
@@fireaza but as consumers, we can force their hand by not buying their products. We did that to the Tuna industry in the 90s. They were catching millions of dolphin in their nets, and people protested by not buying tune. They were hit so hard that they created a net that minimized the amount of dolphin caught every day and made a real impact.
Ozone was a lot simpler. And then there is the fact that bad faith actors keep using climate change to push bullshit instead of solving the problem. Ignore nuclear power guys! Let's ban plastic straws instead!
Fixing a fridge is possible. Stopping the military industrial complex and global paranoia following decades of brainwashing might be a much harder task.
@@l0lLorenzol0l You mention plastic straws, but they make up only a super small part of all the world's plastic garbage. Banning straws to stop global warming or pollution would be like banning toothpicks to save the Amazon rainforests.
Funny how step 3 which doesn't really require anything but people agreeing on having to solve the problem is the biggest blocker on most of the current global issues
I'm pretty sure there's a step 4.3 before it, which is "try not to make the problem politically contreversial" Then 4.4, which is "try not to let the media distort it"
@@admiral_waffles533 Republicans seem to be able to turn literally everything into a deep political division these days so that's basically impossible sadly.
@@pyriticbatman88-Really? Ussualy is only the republicans who complain about global warming being fake and refuse to take vaccines just because they can!
When even the science is heavily infected by bad politics, step 2 gets quite hard to do. We probably need to solve the "political bubbles" problem that internet caused to be able to effectively do the other ones.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Indeed. But many still pretend to be listening when it's convenient. But the worst part of modern politics is the "all or nothing" that many follow. There's no compromise. It would be like if there was a side that "wants to ban all the refrigerators", and another that "wants to keep it as it is", and they never sit in the same table and come with the solution of replacing CFC with something else and everything burns.
@@dan_loup Honestly, I used to be in that "all or nothing" group until I realized one important fact: Liberals are still better than fascists, even if they still suck. And if you disagree, then hopefully you still at least believe liberals are better than socialists. I think the first step towards solving our problems is to put media literacy in the national curriculum.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Fascists are mostly half dozen idiots that get amplified by the far left to make any position but the far left sound dangerous. the far right does pretty much the same trick. When you have a bunch of isolated bubbles with no actual discussion, it's pretty easy to sell extreme politics. I think there should be some sort of "arena" on the internet where you can have actual debates etc..
The thing is, both of those things were actually pretty easy to solve (compared to the current problems we are facing). Smallpox remains the only viral disease we’ve eradicated, and the ozone crisis is a much more simple and straightforward issue compared to human induced climate change. So the fact that luck was important (even if it might not have been absolutely necessary) in our success at solving those problems doesn’t make me optimistic about our future.
So we're screwed? Relying on 1: A common understanding of accurate information about the problem has been increasingly become harder as our new problems become more complex. 2: Science a plan, how do we follow through when ecomomies don't have cheaper easy to adapt and profitable solutions for say, Global Warming? 3: Getting leaders to agree... need I cite more then these last few years, since 2019 leaders have not cooperated with one another to solve our basic issues. 4: Luck's a terrible step. An important one sure but we've increasingly have had bad luck.
We're certainly screwed with that attitude. 1. Our problems have become more complex, as they always have since the beginning of time. We've risen to the challenge for millenia, we can do it again. 2. Science can find a way to produce green, cost effective alternatives to the compounds and processes we use today. 3. That's a 2 year sample size compared to humanity's history of cooperating when it really matters. 4. Luck cannot increase or decrease, it's just luck. Have a little faith.
I see similar comments in this section. I share a deep anxiety about humanity not being able to fix its issues, because I am not confident that humanity can be wise enough. However,.... .... this video does not exist to reassure us. If problems are real, you must adress them. You cannot ignore them because you know you can fix it, you must still actually fix it. And if you need to be aware of what happens when the problem isn't fixed, if you need to see it as something that won't fix itself,... well, so be it. There will be time to be reassured when problems are fixed.
how to solve literally any problem ever: step 1: dont do that thing that would make you slighly more/cost you slightly less money step 2: do the thing that needs to be done to not fek stuff up
"Get leaders to agree" becomes more and more difficult as power and money get more and more concentrated, and both the media and the political process are more and more heavily influenced by few interests. Social media companies make more money by giving visibility to the more batshit insane ideas; the result is that some politicians have found that outright rejecting scientific consensus is a quick way to popularity and power... I wish I could share your optimism.
The politics of reducing global warming are harder than for ozone depletion because the cost of shifting to the replacements or cutting industrial production are much greater than the cost was for CFCs. There had and has to be a lot more technical progress made and a lot more willingness by decision-makers at all levels to choose options that were less convenient or more expensive if we are to get to the level of progress seen with Ozone. And the people affected by those decision makers need to do more to let them know with their votes and money they prefer the options that reduce global warming.
"News networks: Everything is bad, and you should feel bad!" Inexplicably those news networks suffer from steadily declining viewership and trust rating. Those networks also demand prime spots in algorithms of main platforms (absolutely not about their bottom line, it's to defend people from misinformation) as in spite of generous budgets their product was deemed inferior to what tiny teams of enthusiasts were able to produce, but it must clearly only speak poorly about viewers not those outlets.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Not for nothing, but misinformation isn't exactly something mainstream outlets are against spreading. Remember how everyone and their mother knew that Einstein defined insanity as repeating something while expecting different results? It wasn't the internet that spread that little lie, it was the internet that killed it.
they left out the part where at least 4 countries (and likely more) maintain a supply of viable smallpox for reasons and several times people have found small pox skin scabs tucked away in a book or a drawer, saved for future research and forgotten, that could contain viable small pox. the "luck" part is on going with small pox.
It’s kind of messed up that we had to depend on the president listening to reason. I feel like there should be some kind of safe guard or balance against that.
Your chronology about CFCs and the ozone layer is a bit off, or maybe oversimplified. The video starts with the problem being first discovered in 1985. But when I took a refrigeration course in 1981, people in the industry were already worrying about the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer. I recall the instructor imitating a sloppy repairman letting freon out of an air conditioner: "Whoosh! Into the ozone!"
We don't have to rely on luck if we understand the problem well. The first thing that is not discussed in the video and that is a central point to all of this is short term profit. The reason we did something about coronavirus and not about climate change is because it was profitable to solve the first problem, and not the second. Same for CFCs, where scientists managed to find alternative molecules that didn't mean massive profit losses for private companies. There is also the proximity of the consequences of the problems, as many pointed out with Reagan's cancer. Climate change involves complex interactions and mechanisms and has long term consequences, which our brains are not good at comprehending deeply. The fear response so critical to action is not well triggered and so action has been very slow. I believe those are important aspects to consider if we want to be able to not rely on luck.
the future of life award should go to Vasili Arkhipov. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he was the guy that decided to not fire the nuke in the submarine, saving all of us from nuclear war. A true hero if there is one.
Step 1: whip out the guillotines Step 2: Announce a special party only for senators and large corporate boards and ceos Step 3: *[REDACTED]* Step 4: 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Problem is even after ousting all the leaders we'd be left with a political system in total disarray, power vacuums to be filled by even more ruthless despots, and it would take decades to get back to a point where the replacements could do anything about climate change effectively.
@@consciouscode8150 I'm was joking lol just killing all the people at the top wouldn't change the system that makes them so horrible. Now if we changed the system and then ousted them all from power we could actually make some good change.
Fixing the ozon crisis didn't require breaking down economies, try to convince china to throttle down their industry and emissions and then we'll talk again. Atm, preparing for the consequences is more promising than attempting to stop it.
The thing with the Ozone hole was that we just had to replace one group of compounds with another group. While the people that were making the old compounds weren't that happy about it, they could simply create one of the new ones, patent it and earn just as much if not more money. With climate change, we have to use another energy source than fossil fuels, which our entire civilization is built on since the industrial revolution. Also unlike the chemical companies that were making the CFCs and could just switch to HFCs, the fossil fuels company can't simply change their business model that easily.
@@Ninjaeule97 I mean yeah but also you're ignoring the fact that there actually were several points in history where a switch to renewables was a perfectly rational decision and often in those situation we only didn't make the switch because of business interests. At the turn of the century when electricity was first invented and cars were just becoming a thing the majority of people thought that electric cars and hydro power was the obvious way forward, even Thomas Edison believed that hydro power would be the way of the future. Gas cars and oil power plants only won out because of historical coincidences and sexism weirdly enough (gas cars got associated with masculinity by advertising and that meant that the men who generally completely controlled the family started only buying gas powered cars). During the oil crisis the west was once again primed to make a switch away from fossil fuels, the current power supply had been cut off and society had already been shut down for weeks, countries could have made a switch to renewables at this point simply out of economic necessity but instead conservatism meant that most European countries switched to coal and the entrenched power of oil companies meant that gas cars stayed. Since then US foreign policy has focused on preventing such a scenario from ever happening again.
@@hedgehog3180 I might be wrong though but I think oil-powered cars and especially trucks won because of the much higher energy density of gasoline and diesel compared to batteries. Solar panels and wind turbines in the 70s also were much less efficient and more expensive so switching to coal was just cheaper. I do not doubt that business interest played a role in the fact that we didn't invest more into research for renewable energy sources and their use.
what do you mean?, it's estimated 100 million people died in world war 1 and 2 combined, ..and do you think people who giving order to soldiers to kill each other on battle field are not politicians?.....and none of those 100 million people come back alive after the war over
The problem with this analysis is that cost-benefit ratio for the solved problems were clear, non-controversial, and small. Doesn't apply to the the other global issues.
The first electric cars sold in California were sold after California passed a mandate that required manufacturers to have 2% of their car sales be electric. It worked, the car companies were able to create a somewhat functioning electric car. This goes to show that companies have the power to innovate, if it’s clearly in their interest. This is why we need the CO2-Cap and trade market. It will solve climate change from a governmental point of view and is the single most effective governmental policy to fight climate change.
Scientist: Okay so there is renewable and nuclear energy. Also we are developing fusion energy which is super effective, uses sea water, doesn't produce waste and doesn't explode Governments: Hmmmmmmm, coal
First myth of fusion enegry is that it doesn't produce waste. In fact it produces huge amounts of radioactive waste as the reactor becomes irradiated from the reactions.
@@danielskinner1796 When I looked I saw that it does produce gamma rays, but no radioactive materials. The only thing left from the reaction is helium, which is also used to cool the reactor And btw I was not talking about uranium spliting. I meant hydrogen fusion
@@destroyer1667 Just saying, neutrons do not create radioactive material out of nothing, if that was the case, most of the universe would be radioactive.
The hardest part of this plan these days is getting political leaders to agree to be helpful. More and more of them are seeing the ill effects of what's going on and instead of trying to make things better for future generations they instead spit upon us with contempt. A "why help others when we can make them suffer for our amusement instead" mentality that's only growing stronger as time goes on.
I would argue it also has to be a problem that affects rich people/nations just as much as poor ones. Not being able to grow food anywhere on your planet certainly fits that bill. Disease outbreaks certainly fit that bill. Now, what about rising temperatures and sea levels when rich nations can just spend the money to install more air conditioners, build seawalls/elevate cities, and just buy their food products from wherever is not currently being impacted by climate breakdown?
Exactly, poor nations and people are already struggling massively due to the global economic structure and climate change is going to hit the hardest in the global south because of it. America and it's allies will continue to exploit the nations wholesale while everyone continues to burn, sink, starve, and die from lack of access to water. The rich want to be the last ones standing on the great pacific garbage patch as the world lies dead around them.
rather than disloyal AI, we should be more scared of incompetent AI trusted with a task too big because the decision makers simply hate having to pay for more humans in the process
It takes time for the ozone to regenerate, but the main thing that the video is speaking about is that we've stopped the cause of ozone deterioration. 1:58
@@trevorh6438 The Sun breaks up ozone sure, but the oxygen radical that is produced can pretty quickly react with an oxygen molecule to form ozone again. This is creates thermal energy heating up the stratosphere. It's literally the reason why ozone is able to absorb much of the Sun's harmful UV rays. When a chlorine radical from a CFC for example, reacts with ozone, the result is a chlorine monoxide radical which reacts with an oxygen radical to form a oxygen molecule and the chlorine radical is released to react many more times. This has the effect of turning ozone molecules and oxygen radicals into oxygen molecules, which is what is meant when people talk about ozone depletion. TL;DR: The Sun definitely can break up ozone, but that isn't the same thing as the depletion that occurs from CFCs (the Sun can't currently create an ozone hole or else we'd all be pretty screwed)
@@tonydai782 if you had been paying attention to the ozone these days you would know that the sun is indeed creating ozone hole and its increased size. You are excused for not knowing that however because its not widely talked about.
This implies/states that the same formula can be applied to other things, but it's the material conditions which allowed for each those solutions to work -- even scientists are so caught up in Capitalist Realism that they can't see they're describing everything BUT the solution to the problems we currently face. If these formulas "just worked" the decades of effort we put into climate change would have "just worked"... The problem is that not every solution can satisfy the capitalists (before accelerationism "wins"), and thus they actively engage in making the problem worse, so long as it produces profits.... Technology isn't the only thing in society that can evolve (e.g. wft about social relations?), it's just the only evolution which produces profit.
This doesn't take in account that getting leaders to agree can be impossible for some problems. Ozone layer destruction actually had localised effects, so each contry had incentives to reduce emissions in its own territory. Same for epidemics, which can spread through the borders but mostly spread inside densly populated areas such as cities and communication hubs. Climate change is a whole different mess. Carbon emissions anywhere impact the whole earth, so no one country feels responsible, its a prisoner's dilemma, as the solutions would cost the countries who implement them. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. 75% of energy production right now is fossil fuels. In years of ecological speeches and renewable energy deployment, that has NOT changed. Renewables have only added more energy, not replaced carbon-based production. Machines spend this energy to work for us and the actual human work right now that doesn't completely depend on machines is completely negligible. So reducing this energy production will mean crippling the economy. The peak of production for all fossil fuels world wide has passed. That is fundamentally why the whole world is in a never ending economic crisis since more than a decade. The problem will only get worse, we will go through recession, maybe in part chosen by us and organized somewhat with the reduction of consumerism and energy consumption to reduce the negative effects of climate change, but mainly through the negative effects of climate change (extreme weather, agriculture coping with unreliable climate, rising seas and regions becoming inhospitable forcing people to move in masses never seen before...) in the next 30 years which we CANT affect in any way right now! The change to come in the next decades is already on its way, and we can ONLY try to avoid that it will get even worse after that. All this means even more tensions in societies that are already on the brink of collapsing because of the raising inequalities due to late-stage capitalism. Mass starvation and War are coming our way, no matter what we do. We can only try and make it possible for the survivors to rebuild after that... but those who chose to do so put in jeopardy their chances of being part of said survivors. Who has the willingness to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the world? And which leader can chose that as a policy for their people?
You don't need the third step. Reagan agreed with removing the CFCs because he saw that there was an alternative. Often, step 3 shuts down step 2 because fear makes politicians trigger happy to shut down something useful before an alternative can be developed.
The first two steps are perfectly fine, but "Get leaders to agree" is where everything falls apart. Nothing any of us regular people can do but ride this roller coaster all the way off the tracks...
The true barrier has always been capitalism: if the solution is not *economically* viable, it will not be implemented. I have no doubt that if a replacement refrigerant couldn't be developed then the ozone would have depleted as predicted until it was too late
People kept undereducated is a strategic decision. Easier to brainwash in order to have plenty of low wage workers and soldiers available. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
okay. so, in regards to the climate crisis: 1. we understood the problem in the mid 60ies to late 80ies. 2. we formulated plans from the 90ies to today. 3. we got our leaders to agree in 1988 (IPCC founded), 1998 (kyoto protocol), 2015 (paris agreement). 4. luck? what luck? i think point 3,5 is missing - getting our leaders to actually do the things they've agreed upon!
"3. Get leaders to agree" **Looks at both US government, Canadian government and media as the whole during the last 5 years** Yeah, we're screwed. Oh, well... At least I don't need to try anymore.
Admittedly not always easy, maybe more often than not, but as shown in the video has been succesfully done on several issues. Society and science just need to step up and make their voices heard, then there are viable chances to tackle global problems.
It isn't just getting them to agree but some of those leaders are actively trying to not understand the problem. Like blaming severe flooding on the gays and not that the area has bad drainage, and then act indignant about told that's the actual issue.
How to not destroy entire planet: Hope authorities are somehow affected directly and immediately otherwise their tiny monkey brains will not understand the importance. Also figure out how to pitch it as a money maker otherwise every tiny monkey brain involved will not understand the importance.
you could theoretically mitigate some reliance on "luck" by educating the volatile wildcards so they would actually pick the rational route instead of... randomly becoming anti-science.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +2
How did we we manage to do this? It sounds completely impossible nowadays
Wrong. We don't need more science, we need more ethics. If we get both, we're blessed. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@lorenzoblum868 What's with people saying stupid stuff like the Carbon Footprint of the military industrial complex when most of the CO2 released is from private corporations? Seriously, most of the stuff that militaries make aren't a lot compared to the private sector in many, many countries.
It's so sad to see all the 'kill all humans' comments. It's so sad (that due to abysmal socio-economic mobility); they will likely forever remain Edge-peasants.
Los retos siempre tendrán sus propias complicaciones, pero la desesperanza nunca será el camino. Challenges will always have their own caveats, but hopelessness will never be the way.
да, только уже и так понятно, что одного лишь вакцинирования недостаточно, чтобы избавиться от коронавируса. необходимы комплексные меры, жёсткие комплексные меры, профилактика и следование всем предостережениям. в каждой стране, каждому жителю необходимо это понять. и сейчас мы как раз находимся на стадии, когда учёные уже обозначили проблему, остаётся теперь только правильно популяризировать выводы на уровне правительств всех стран. выводы о том, что нам необходыми все меры борьбы, а не только вакцинация, на которую все так безрассудно полагаются, считая, что больше ничего не придётся делать.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for patching the hole in MinuteEarth's ozone layer with your support! Want to become our Patreon or member on TH-cam? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
hi
How to protect us from a robot uprising
Make a failsafe for all AI that turns on when they try to take over the world
The State Policy Network is well-known for its objection to climate related legislations in the US and Canada
Happy ozone day
Haha just watch the world burn
The fact that the plan relies on both "get leaders to agree" AND "luck" isn't super reassuring.
Of those two, the luck is the easy part.
Notice how they skim over teh fact that China does not care about Step 3....
@@ChillstoneBlakeBlast Or a fairly vocal portion of the US fwiw.
one formula to solve them all as scientific solution, is also very questionable
After watching world leaders try to tackle a pandemic, it's certain nothing meaningful will be done about Climate Change.
Step 3 is getting harder and harder each year that goes by
step 1, too, thanks to the US
@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 I don't see how. You need the scientific community to understand the problem, not every single human on the planet. Hell, I have no idea _how_ chlorine kills off ozone, but I'm confident there are scientists who know how this works. (And the scientific community in the US is as upright as anywhere else.)
Same goes for climate change. It would definitely help if more people understood how it works, but it's not necessarily required.
@@jonasmejerpedersen4847 China: am I a joke to you?
We just have to treat step 3 like a problem on its own and use the steps here to start fixing it.
Step 4 seems pretty stable
Clearly Reagen has taught us a valuable lesson. We must inflict out governing leaders with what we hope to avoid with regulations to get them to agree to it.
Reagan was good at telling jokes. Brought him back to his prior job. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Trump got Covid, but it didn't help
Flood government buildings now!
@@raffaelevalente7811
He endorsed the vaccine tho... And got boo'd.
@@fluffynator6222 American "hesitating" people is like the creature of Trumpenstein :)
So you're telling me. That if Reagan hadn't had skin cancer. We might not have an ozone layer today.
...That is terrifying
That's why I think it's important for people to somehow learn a bit of empathy and care about problems that don't directly affect themselves. Then we wouldn't need to rely so much on luck.
Not rlly. There's a number of factors affecting it, and as someone in the reply of another comment said "it isn't rlly abt *having* luck, it's more abt *exploiting* luck based on whtvr the current situation is"
Probably we would still have it, the world doesn't depend on R.R. to evolve and he was just a president that got replaced years later. Hold on
The world would be a better place if people realize that we do not depend on politicians
That's one possibility. Another, is the desperate minutes-to-midnight awareness of their mortality by these same leaders, leads to a quasi-successful campaign at a later date. The recovery period will be far extended. Of course, there are less misinformation and less people buying into them in the past. That is one thing this video did not discuss.
"How to not destroy the planet: ... get lucky"
Welp I'll switch my retirement plan to seasteading or something, I guess.
Actually a good place to start for a whole lot of reasons.
@trevor h why?
I'm going to move to Canada to be a pineapple farmer.
Well actually getting countries to agree is harder
The carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
"Get leaders to agree and also get lucky"
Well, we're fucked
Alternative solution: kill them.
@@lucariobtuse395 10000 iq
Yea
@@lucariobtuse395 based
🤣🤣🤣🤣
“As the size of the explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.” -Vaarsuvius
Science advances one funeral at a time.
there cant be any social problems if there's no society
Um... Didn't Vaarsuvius do a literal genocide?
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 I think he preferred the term “solving social situations”
@@captainlandalien9921 "The final solution"
Ive got an uncle who claims the ozone thing was a scam. I'm not joking. he's very vocal about it.
Yeah. I've seen that. We averted disaster and now people are using it as a "cried wolf" example. *angry smiley*
Let me guess, he's a climate change deniar and an anti vaxxer too?
Right. Because I'm sure the big businesses that hold a lot of sway and power, were *THRILLED* about having to put their manufacturing procedures on hold and pay a lot of money to convert to using a different kind of gas. As everyone knows, big business *HATES* it when they make lots of money without needing to implement expensive changes.
I met several people who accuse that government is lying about covid existence
@@fireaza but as consumers, we can force their hand by not buying their products. We did that to the Tuna industry in the 90s. They were catching millions of dolphin in their nets, and people protested by not buying tune. They were hit so hard that they created a net that minimized the amount of dolphin caught every day and made a real impact.
Ah man, imagine if the global warming crisis had been attacked as efficiently as the ozone layer crisis!
Ozone was a lot simpler. And then there is the fact that bad faith actors keep using climate change to push bullshit instead of solving the problem. Ignore nuclear power guys! Let's ban plastic straws instead!
@@l0lLorenzol0l The Eu is already doing it.
Fixing a fridge is possible. Stopping the military industrial complex and global paranoia following decades of brainwashing might be a much harder task.
then those billionaires are not doing their job properly of increasing their wealth
@@l0lLorenzol0l You mention plastic straws, but they make up only a super small part of all the world's plastic garbage. Banning straws to stop global warming or pollution would be like banning toothpicks to save the Amazon rainforests.
Interesting how all effective solutions were implemented before the internet era
If you're having ozone problems I feel bad for your sun
@White wolf politics ruined politics. Lmao. The vast majority of dictators came before the internet was a thing.
@White wolf politics was broken well before the internet
It was before pirate of the carribean came out as well so there's Surely a connection.
The internet is a propagandist wet dream
Funny how step 3 which doesn't really require anything but people agreeing on having to solve the problem is the biggest blocker on most of the current global issues
*If only the government watched this video*
Even if they did they wouldn't do anything
@just do it shut up bot
Even then, there is a not so small chance that the gov wont fuck shit up.
@@junkoenoshima2756 true
The government is responsible for a major carbon footprint : the military industrial complex.
Now we also need a step 4.5: Try to stop those conspiracy theorists trying to destroy your career just because you are more successful than them.
I'm pretty sure there's a step 4.3 before it, which is "try not to make the problem politically contreversial"
Then 4.4, which is "try not to let the media distort it"
@@admiral_waffles533 So basically impossible, got it.
@@admiral_waffles533 Republicans seem to be able to turn literally everything into a deep political division these days so that's basically impossible sadly.
Step 4.4.1 don’t rely on the US to help in anyway.
@@pyriticbatman88-Really?
Ussualy is only the republicans who complain about global warming being fake and refuse to take vaccines just because they can!
When even the science is heavily infected by bad politics, step 2 gets quite hard to do.
We probably need to solve the "political bubbles" problem that internet caused to be able to effectively do the other ones.
Step 2 is already done!
Step 3 is the real problem,were politics ruin it!!
It's less that the science is being infected, and more that the state has essentially stopped listening to them.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Indeed.
But many still pretend to be listening when it's convenient.
But the worst part of modern politics is the "all or nothing" that many follow. There's no compromise.
It would be like if there was a side that "wants to ban all the refrigerators", and another that "wants to keep it as it is", and they never sit in the same table and come with the solution of replacing CFC with something else and everything burns.
@@dan_loup Honestly, I used to be in that "all or nothing" group until I realized one important fact:
Liberals are still better than fascists, even if they still suck. And if you disagree, then hopefully you still at least believe liberals are better than socialists.
I think the first step towards solving our problems is to put media literacy in the national curriculum.
@@luciferkotsutempchannel Fascists are mostly half dozen idiots that get amplified by the far left to make any position but the far left sound dangerous. the far right does pretty much the same trick.
When you have a bunch of isolated bubbles with no actual discussion, it's pretty easy to sell extreme politics.
I think there should be some sort of "arena" on the internet where you can have actual debates etc..
Step 3 has been borderline impossible for the past few decades. I really hope we can get past it but I dunno...
step 3 (modified): become a world leader so you can start making some change
The thing is, both of those things were actually pretty easy to solve (compared to the current problems we are facing). Smallpox remains the only viral disease we’ve eradicated, and the ozone crisis is a much more simple and straightforward issue compared to human induced climate change.
So the fact that luck was important (even if it might not have been absolutely necessary) in our success at solving those problems doesn’t make me optimistic about our future.
So we're screwed? Relying on 1: A common understanding of accurate information about the problem has been increasingly become harder as our new problems become more complex. 2: Science a plan, how do we follow through when ecomomies don't have cheaper easy to adapt and profitable solutions for say, Global Warming? 3: Getting leaders to agree... need I cite more then these last few years, since 2019 leaders have not cooperated with one another to solve our basic issues. 4: Luck's a terrible step. An important one sure but we've increasingly have had bad luck.
Now we also need a step 0.5: Try to stop those conspiracy theorists trying to destroy your career just because you are more successful than them.
We're certainly screwed with that attitude.
1. Our problems have become more complex, as they always have since the beginning of time. We've risen to the challenge for millenia, we can do it again.
2. Science can find a way to produce green, cost effective alternatives to the compounds and processes we use today.
3. That's a 2 year sample size compared to humanity's history of cooperating when it really matters.
4. Luck cannot increase or decrease, it's just luck. Have a little faith.
I see similar comments in this section. I share a deep anxiety about humanity not being able to fix its issues, because I am not confident that humanity can be wise enough.
However,....
.... this video does not exist to reassure us. If problems are real, you must adress them. You cannot ignore them because you know you can fix it, you must still actually fix it. And if you need to be aware of what happens when the problem isn't fixed, if you need to see it as something that won't fix itself,... well, so be it.
There will be time to be reassured when problems are fixed.
@@AndyHappyGuy science advances one funeral at a time.
Good luck sciencing your way out of the natural cycles of galactic catastrophe.
We're just gonna have to science the sh*t out of this
Indeed, science ks what matters at the ome of the day, everyone else are kist chit chat
I want that sentence to be a trending hashtag, a political agenda and the text on any merch item you can think of
feels like a line coming from dr stone lmao
@@lostcoretv3831 or from Matt Damon
@@axelaguirre5014 ohh thats why its kinda familiar lmao I forgot the movie name
Basically:
Step one: problem
Step two: science the shit out of it
Step three: release solution to problem
Step four: watch everyone reject the solution while continuing to complain about said problem
step four: watch the end of the world happen because they are arguing if your solution is good
Hot take: science cannot solve nuclear war, because science cannot answer questions of morality
Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody
@@Lavasparked that's clearly not true, because we are not in a nuclear war right now.
Honestly, why can't the scientists make such decisions instead of politicians? I've wondered about this for my whole life.
scientists are terrible politicians, politicians are terrible scientists.
UNESCO be like: 😐
It should be WHO😑
@@dancemantra. WHO is for health care, not for world problems
All of them are just showpieces, be it WHO, UN, UNESCO 🥴
@@hike6608 talking abt current situation dude😑
@@hike6608 WHO = World Health Organisation
how to solve literally any problem ever:
step 1: dont do that thing that would make you slighly more/cost you slightly less money
step 2: do the thing that needs to be done to not fek stuff up
What if step 1 and 2 contradict eachother?
Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Any contradiction would mean that either there wasn't a problem, or you have the wrong solution.
"Get leaders to agree" becomes more and more difficult as power and money get more and more concentrated, and both the media and the political process are more and more heavily influenced by few interests.
Social media companies make more money by giving visibility to the more batshit insane ideas; the result is that some politicians have found that outright rejecting scientific consensus is a quick way to popularity and power...
I wish I could share your optimism.
They only agree to disagree. Very profitable to the mic. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
this solution only view human as intellectual being, and seriously reject the part of why we kill each other brutally in world war
I could never have thought that solving a problem makes it go away. Now all we need to do is solve all of our problems and create utopia
It's almost like prioritizing profit over human lives is a bad thing
The politics of reducing global warming are harder than for ozone depletion because the cost of shifting to the replacements or cutting industrial production are much greater than the cost was for CFCs. There had and has to be a lot more technical progress made and a lot more willingness by decision-makers at all levels to choose options that were less convenient or more expensive if we are to get to the level of progress seen with Ozone. And the people affected by those decision makers need to do more to let them know with their votes and money they prefer the options that reduce global warming.
News networks:
Everything is bad, and you should feel bad!
MinuteEarth:
Actually...
"News networks: Everything is bad, and you should feel bad!" Inexplicably those news networks suffer from steadily declining viewership and trust rating. Those networks also demand prime spots in algorithms of main platforms (absolutely not about their bottom line, it's to defend people from misinformation) as in spite of generous budgets their product was deemed inferior to what tiny teams of enthusiasts were able to produce, but it must clearly only speak poorly about viewers not those outlets.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450
Not for nothing, but misinformation isn't exactly something mainstream outlets are against spreading.
Remember how everyone and their mother knew that Einstein defined insanity as repeating something while expecting different results? It wasn't the internet that spread that little lie, it was the internet that killed it.
Step 5: people who weren’t paying attention to the solution ask “why were you all hysterical about this non-issue?”
Thanks. I needed a little more hope, and this helped.
Hope and guns don't match. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex Bugs?
they left out the part where at least 4 countries (and likely more) maintain a supply of viable smallpox for reasons and several times people have found small pox skin scabs tucked away in a book or a drawer, saved for future research and forgotten, that could contain viable small pox. the "luck" part is on going with small pox.
the “luck” part is not going too well right now, monkey pox (a variation of smallpox) is now spreading (ITS LESS DEADLY DW)
It’s kind of messed up that we had to depend on the president listening to reason. I feel like there should be some kind of safe guard or balance against that.
Like not having a president that you need to worry if they're going to listen to reason?
Clearly you've not read the US Constitution. Nor the declaration of independence.
don't all solutions to all problems depend on humans listening to reason?
Your chronology about CFCs and the ozone layer is a bit off, or maybe oversimplified. The video starts with the problem being first discovered in 1985. But when I took a refrigeration course in 1981, people in the industry were already worrying about the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer. I recall the instructor imitating a sloppy repairman letting freon out of an air conditioner: "Whoosh! Into the ozone!"
I like how they said “Global” crisis and not “every” crisis because otherwise someone would bring up the heat death
The heat death of the universe?
@@fluffynator6222 yes
This never ceases to amaze me.
The definition of easier said than done
We don't have to rely on luck if we understand the problem well.
The first thing that is not discussed in the video and that is a central point to all of this is short term profit. The reason we did something about coronavirus and not about climate change is because it was profitable to solve the first problem, and not the second. Same for CFCs, where scientists managed to find alternative molecules that didn't mean massive profit losses for private companies.
There is also the proximity of the consequences of the problems, as many pointed out with Reagan's cancer. Climate change involves complex interactions and mechanisms and has long term consequences, which our brains are not good at comprehending deeply. The fear response so critical to action is not well triggered and so action has been very slow.
I believe those are important aspects to consider if we want to be able to not rely on luck.
the future of life award should go to Vasili Arkhipov. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he was the guy that decided to not fire the nuke in the submarine, saving all of us from nuclear war. A true hero if there is one.
loved this kind of animation
keep it up
keep doing the great work ^-^
This channel is really going to save lives
Step 1: whip out the guillotines
Step 2: Announce a special party only for senators and large corporate boards and ceos
Step 3: *[REDACTED]*
Step 4: 🎉🎉🎉🎉
Problem is even after ousting all the leaders we'd be left with a political system in total disarray, power vacuums to be filled by even more ruthless despots, and it would take decades to get back to a point where the replacements could do anything about climate change effectively.
@@consciouscode8150 I'm was joking lol just killing all the people at the top wouldn't change the system that makes them so horrible. Now if we changed the system and then ousted them all from power we could actually make some good change.
@@vontrances4667 Y-yeah I was joking too haha, don't want to kill the capitalist pigs comrade...
Step 4: the new people in charge become worse the the people who were outed, and repeat step 1 all over again.
Based.
How to fix any problem in 2 steps:
1: understand whats happening
2: solve it
Imagine we had the same behavior about climate change if we treated it like the ozone layer crisis
The difference is that the ozone hole was proven.
Fixing the ozon crisis didn't require breaking down economies, try to convince china to throttle down their industry and emissions and then we'll talk again.
Atm, preparing for the consequences is more promising than attempting to stop it.
The thing with the Ozone hole was that we just had to replace one group of compounds with another group. While the people that were making the old compounds weren't that happy about it, they could simply create one of the new ones, patent it and earn just as much if not more money. With climate change, we have to use another energy source than fossil fuels, which our entire civilization is built on since the industrial revolution. Also unlike the chemical companies that were making the CFCs and could just switch to HFCs, the fossil fuels company can't simply change their business model that easily.
@@Ninjaeule97 I mean yeah but also you're ignoring the fact that there actually were several points in history where a switch to renewables was a perfectly rational decision and often in those situation we only didn't make the switch because of business interests. At the turn of the century when electricity was first invented and cars were just becoming a thing the majority of people thought that electric cars and hydro power was the obvious way forward, even Thomas Edison believed that hydro power would be the way of the future. Gas cars and oil power plants only won out because of historical coincidences and sexism weirdly enough (gas cars got associated with masculinity by advertising and that meant that the men who generally completely controlled the family started only buying gas powered cars). During the oil crisis the west was once again primed to make a switch away from fossil fuels, the current power supply had been cut off and society had already been shut down for weeks, countries could have made a switch to renewables at this point simply out of economic necessity but instead conservatism meant that most European countries switched to coal and the entrenched power of oil companies meant that gas cars stayed. Since then US foreign policy has focused on preventing such a scenario from ever happening again.
@@hedgehog3180 I might be wrong though but I think oil-powered cars and especially trucks won because of the much higher energy density of gasoline and diesel compared to batteries. Solar panels and wind turbines in the 70s also were much less efficient and more expensive so switching to coal was just cheaper. I do not doubt that business interest played a role in the fact that we didn't invest more into research for renewable energy sources and their use.
and the greatest hurdle is step 3
When the plan relies on luck, and the luck isn't the biggest weakness in the plan....
A lot of world problems could be solved if the politicians weren't so crazy....
Politicians are given power by the people. They have no power if their orders aren't obeyed.
@@jobansand Yeah it's revolution time
They aren't crazy, people who elect them are.
what do you mean?, it's estimated 100 million people died in world war 1 and 2 combined, ..and do you think people who giving order to soldiers to kill each other on battle field are not politicians?.....and none of those 100 million people come back alive after the war over
Politicians aren't crazy. They rationally follow the paths incentivized for them.
The formula IS simple, but it takes a long time or it’s very hard to follow
Not only that, but also thank goodness that Reagan was an amid outdoorsman, and understood the importance of protecting it!
The problem with this analysis is that cost-benefit ratio for the solved problems were clear, non-controversial, and small. Doesn't apply to the the other global issues.
"Get leaders to agree and also get lucky"
*Well, we're screwed*
The first electric cars sold in California were sold after California passed a mandate that required manufacturers to have 2% of their car sales be electric.
It worked, the car companies were able to create a somewhat functioning electric car. This goes to show that companies have the power to innovate, if it’s clearly in their interest. This is why we need the CO2-Cap and trade market. It will solve climate change from a governmental point of view and is the single most effective governmental policy to fight climate change.
Scientist: Okay so there is renewable and nuclear energy. Also we are developing fusion energy which is super effective, uses sea water, doesn't produce waste and doesn't explode
Governments: Hmmmmmmm, coal
Australia right wing politicans... ahem CLEAN COAL, unironically.
First myth of fusion enegry is that it doesn't produce waste. In fact it produces huge amounts of radioactive waste as the reactor becomes irradiated from the reactions.
@@danielskinner1796 When I looked I saw that it does produce gamma rays, but no radioactive materials.
The only thing left from the reaction is helium, which is also used to cool the reactor
And btw I was not talking about uranium spliting. I meant hydrogen fusion
@@scoutgaming737 it produces a ton of neutrons which turns the reactor walls into radioactive waste
@@destroyer1667 Just saying, neutrons do not create radioactive material out of nothing, if that was the case, most of the universe would be radioactive.
It seems so easy presented like that!! Thank you Future of Life institute and Minute Earth!
The hardest part of this plan these days is getting political leaders to agree to be helpful. More and more of them are seeing the ill effects of what's going on and instead of trying to make things better for future generations they instead spit upon us with contempt. A "why help others when we can make them suffer for our amusement instead" mentality that's only growing stronger as time goes on.
I would argue it also has to be a problem that affects rich people/nations just as much as poor ones. Not being able to grow food anywhere on your planet certainly fits that bill. Disease outbreaks certainly fit that bill. Now, what about rising temperatures and sea levels when rich nations can just spend the money to install more air conditioners, build seawalls/elevate cities, and just buy their food products from wherever is not currently being impacted by climate breakdown?
Exactly, poor nations and people are already struggling massively due to the global economic structure and climate change is going to hit the hardest in the global south because of it. America and it's allies will continue to exploit the nations wholesale while everyone continues to burn, sink, starve, and die from lack of access to water. The rich want to be the last ones standing on the great pacific garbage patch as the world lies dead around them.
step 1 : can be done quickly!
step 2 : may take some time but very doable with modern tech
step 3 : uhm... maybe?
step 4 : ???
step 5 : profit
Step 0 : stop financing greatest polluter on earth, the military industrial complex.
rather than disloyal AI, we should be more scared of incompetent AI trusted with a task too big because the decision makers simply hate having to pay for more humans in the process
This video makes it sound like we recovered from the ozone layer problem, when we've barely begun to recover.
It takes time for the ozone to regenerate, but the main thing that the video is speaking about is that we've stopped the cause of ozone deterioration.
1:58
1:58
The sun is causing ozone breakup these days. What has politics been teaching you when you should have been studying actual science.
@@trevorh6438 The Sun breaks up ozone sure, but the oxygen radical that is produced can pretty quickly react with an oxygen molecule to form ozone again. This is creates thermal energy heating up the stratosphere. It's literally the reason why ozone is able to absorb much of the Sun's harmful UV rays.
When a chlorine radical from a CFC for example, reacts with ozone, the result is a chlorine monoxide radical which reacts with an oxygen radical to form a oxygen molecule and the chlorine radical is released to react many more times. This has the effect of turning ozone molecules and oxygen radicals into oxygen molecules, which is what is meant when people talk about ozone depletion.
TL;DR: The Sun definitely can break up ozone, but that isn't the same thing as the depletion that occurs from CFCs (the Sun can't currently create an ozone hole or else we'd all be pretty screwed)
@@tonydai782 if you had been paying attention to the ozone these days you would know that the sun is indeed creating ozone hole and its increased size. You are excused for not knowing that however because its not widely talked about.
This implies/states that the same formula can be applied to other things, but it's the material conditions which allowed for each those solutions to work -- even scientists are so caught up in Capitalist Realism that they can't see they're describing everything BUT the solution to the problems we currently face. If these formulas "just worked" the decades of effort we put into climate change would have "just worked"... The problem is that not every solution can satisfy the capitalists (before accelerationism "wins"), and thus they actively engage in making the problem worse, so long as it produces profits.... Technology isn't the only thing in society that can evolve (e.g. wft about social relations?), it's just the only evolution which produces profit.
Is minuteearth giving out hearts again I love it when someone notices me
Damn that was fast
Here's a heart back ❤
The military industrial complex does not love to be noticed regarding their carbon footprint.
@@lorenzoblum868 I think so too
This doesn't take in account that getting leaders to agree can be impossible for some problems.
Ozone layer destruction actually had localised effects, so each contry had incentives to reduce emissions in its own territory. Same for epidemics, which can spread through the borders but mostly spread inside densly populated areas such as cities and communication hubs.
Climate change is a whole different mess. Carbon emissions anywhere impact the whole earth, so no one country feels responsible, its a prisoner's dilemma, as the solutions would cost the countries who implement them.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
75% of energy production right now is fossil fuels. In years of ecological speeches and renewable energy deployment, that has NOT changed. Renewables have only added more energy, not replaced carbon-based production.
Machines spend this energy to work for us and the actual human work right now that doesn't completely depend on machines is completely negligible. So reducing this energy production will mean crippling the economy.
The peak of production for all fossil fuels world wide has passed. That is fundamentally why the whole world is in a never ending economic crisis since more than a decade.
The problem will only get worse, we will go through recession, maybe in part chosen by us and organized somewhat with the reduction of consumerism and energy consumption to reduce the negative effects of climate change, but mainly through the negative effects of climate change (extreme weather, agriculture coping with unreliable climate, rising seas and regions becoming inhospitable forcing people to move in masses never seen before...) in the next 30 years which we CANT affect in any way right now!
The change to come in the next decades is already on its way, and we can ONLY try to avoid that it will get even worse after that.
All this means even more tensions in societies that are already on the brink of collapsing because of the raising inequalities due to late-stage capitalism.
Mass starvation and War are coming our way, no matter what we do. We can only try and make it possible for the survivors to rebuild after that... but those who chose to do so put in jeopardy their chances of being part of said survivors. Who has the willingness to sacrifice themselves for the rest of the world? And which leader can chose that as a policy for their people?
You don't need the third step. Reagan agreed with removing the CFCs because he saw that there was an alternative. Often, step 3 shuts down step 2 because fear makes politicians trigger happy to shut down something useful before an alternative can be developed.
As quoted by Mark Watney, 'We have to science the shit out of this'
The first two steps are perfectly fine, but "Get leaders to agree" is where everything falls apart. Nothing any of us regular people can do but ride this roller coaster all the way off the tracks...
MinuteEarth x Kurgezagt = *Perfect video in the entire world*
The true barrier has always been capitalism: if the solution is not *economically* viable, it will not be implemented. I have no doubt that if a replacement refrigerant couldn't be developed then the ozone would have depleted as predicted until it was too late
I think we need to implement this process on step 3.
ya no humans as a whole are some how becoming more uneducated we are collectively doomed
Humans were a mistake
People kept undereducated is a strategic decision. Easier to brainwash in order to have plenty of low wage workers and soldiers available. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
The issue is people who think anyone who disagrees with them is "uneducated".
okay. so, in regards to the climate crisis:
1. we understood the problem in the mid 60ies to late 80ies.
2. we formulated plans from the 90ies to today.
3. we got our leaders to agree in 1988 (IPCC founded), 1998 (kyoto protocol), 2015 (paris agreement).
4. luck? what luck? i think point 3,5 is missing - getting our leaders to actually do the things they've agreed upon!
well, we're out of 3 and 4 for climate change and pandemics, soooo....
Good thing that world leaders like Brian Mulroney did the right thing back then. 🇨🇦
We need a cure/vaccine/miracle to rid us of willful ignorance.
Thanks MinuteEarth... hopefully, there's still hope... thanks folks. ✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾
Also, don't forget to thank the military industrial complex for its carbon footprint.
@@lorenzoblum868 Dude. What can we do? Live your life. Who knows how long we have until this place sinks.
@@SkoolieBoyQue I think you might just be right. I'm 58 and I'm so fed up worrying...
Restoring my faith humanity thanks!
What makes sense is just about the last thing we might maybe do.
"3. Get leaders to agree"
**Looks at both US government, Canadian government and media as the whole during the last 5 years**
Yeah, we're screwed. Oh, well... At least I don't need to try anymore.
"3) Get leaders to agree"
Like that's ever gonna happen
Admittedly not always easy, maybe more often than not, but as shown in the video has been succesfully done on several issues. Society and science just need to step up and make their voices heard, then there are viable chances to tackle global problems.
It isn't just getting them to agree but some of those leaders are actively trying to not understand the problem. Like blaming severe flooding on the gays and not that the area has bad drainage, and then act indignant about told that's the actual issue.
click JOIN so your comment can travel in time
lol
Lol
ok
First comment bro congratulations!
No
Minutesgesagt
best science combination
How to not destroy entire planet:
Hope authorities are somehow affected directly and immediately otherwise their tiny monkey brains will not understand the importance.
Also figure out how to pitch it as a money maker otherwise every tiny monkey brain involved will not understand the importance.
Damn this video just made a world peace idea
feel like #3 is missing a big substep "end capitalism so we don't have to justify saving the world by also making it profitable"
Thanks for the video.
Politics are big part of to take action and have solutions be done.
We need new political system
Nice and very well-done video!
you could theoretically mitigate some reliance on "luck" by educating the volatile wildcards so they would actually pick the rational route instead of... randomly becoming anti-science.
How did we we manage to do this? It sounds completely impossible nowadays
step 5: public education
step 6: self-evaluation
Good luck on that 4 step process you talk about
I feel like if Trump would of gotten covid a lot earlier he might of endorse vaccination more likely... And more people would of been on board
What about stopping destroying forests? Like Amazon rain forest.
Give scientist full hold of a country's government and we'll have everything solved
Wrong. We don't need more science, we need more ethics. If we get both, we're blessed. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@lorenzoblum868 What's with people saying stupid stuff like the Carbon Footprint of the military industrial complex when most of the CO2 released is from private corporations?
Seriously, most of the stuff that militaries make aren't a lot compared to the private sector in many, many countries.
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO SHARE THIS VIDEO RIGHT THIS INSTANT YA HEAR ME?
It's so sad to see all the 'kill all humans' comments.
It's so sad (that due to abysmal socio-economic mobility); they will likely forever remain Edge-peasants.
Los retos siempre tendrán sus propias complicaciones, pero la desesperanza nunca será el camino.
Challenges will always have their own caveats, but hopelessness will never be the way.
Where's 3. Destroy capitalism?
@Tafari Nicholas That happened because Stalin was an asshole, not because he was a Communist.
I mean sure killing people is a way to decrease their emissions.
Not sure if mass genocide is a popular choice, however.
This is some really unwarranted optimism.
Good lesson to learn.
да, только уже и так понятно, что одного лишь вакцинирования недостаточно, чтобы избавиться от коронавируса. необходимы комплексные меры, жёсткие комплексные меры, профилактика и следование всем предостережениям. в каждой стране, каждому жителю необходимо это понять. и сейчас мы как раз находимся на стадии, когда учёные уже обозначили проблему, остаётся теперь только правильно популяризировать выводы на уровне правительств всех стран. выводы о том, что нам необходыми все меры борьбы, а не только вакцинация, на которую все так безрассудно полагаются, считая, что больше ничего не придётся делать.