5 Bad Reasons to Ditch the Paris Climate Agreement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2017
- I've heard a lot of reasons for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement but none of them makes sense to me.
Here are some links that support my thinking:
BC Carbon tax and impact:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...
Popular opinion about the Paris Climate Agreement:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/...
climatecommunication.yale.edu/...
India and China pledges:
www.climatechangenews.com/2017...
Exxon Mobil support for Paris Agreement:
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
I skipped the 'bad' when I read the title and thought wtf didn't expect this from this channel
I just did that too and was expecting pure bullshit lmao
Derek be careful. Nowadays, protecting literacy and scientific facts is considered "politics" and you might be insulted or hated just for stating facts.
Facts? He has no facts in this video. Everything he says is "I think, I believe, We assume". Just look at the last point he makes.
The Earth Is a Cylinder!! That's cool. I'm ok with that
Erik Brandt yeah the last point is not a fact, but the rest of the video is loaded with them. Rewatch in case you missed them and links in the description if you want to follow up.
Erik Brandt You may have forgotten what humility looks like since you support that unrespectful dumb fat fuck
Yeah for example talking about Chromosomes pisses off radical leftists.
How many natural (and precious) resources need to be mined to make solar panels, batteries, wind turbines, etc. and how much fossil fuel needs to be used in order to create that supply chain (from end to end)? Also: What is the ecological effect of having a world full of used batteries that are the size of a car? How do we deal with that waste?
You need to read the latest book written by Bill Gates
I agree with one thing, that in the U.S., we need to be responsible for reducing emissions for ourselves before pointing fingers at anyone else. We don't need a non-binding contract that takes an annual cut to be in a club that we don't need to be a part of.
If the companies in the U.S. want to induce more cleaner and sustainable energies, they don't need to force any other company to do so until they've done it themselves, without the subsidies that the government gives for such things. They could make a newer and better alternative to solve the problems of renewable energy and allow progression to take its natural course.
This Paris Climate Agreement can be looked at for guidelines, but it makes no substantial changes either way, which is why Nicaragua didn't even bother looking into it, since they may already be looking for better alternatives on their side. The U.S. can do the same thing, and it doesn't need to have to be forced to do it, so it can come more naturally, like how Tesla won over the U.S. with a great electric car.
Rikorage yea it’s like playing a board game with an end goal or a way to win, with no rules...If I pass go when going to jail I don’t get $200...but if someone else passes go on the way to jail they might get $200...that’s crazy
What would you propose then? Do you think the Paris agreement can write binding resolutions? I'm quite sure they don't have that authority. That kind of binding resolution is more like a trade agreement, complicated stuff, and that may be necessary at some point, but the participants of climate summits don't have that ability.
Republican Congressman "We need to cut all subsidies to green energy to let the market decide."
Same Republican Congressman "We need to increase subsidies to the coal and oil industry so we can generate more jobs."
Green Energy Industry employs 769,000 Americans
Coal Industry employs 53,420 Americans
Decreasing subsidies to green energy and increasing to coal is a sure way to get more people unemployed and hurt the economy. Unfortunate... 98% of people, and 100% of people in the White House, don't know basic economics.
I don't give too shits about the Paris agreement, but the US really should do their best to move towards clean energy with the way green tech is advancing. If you want to make America great again, you should get ahead of the curve and make this country a green superpower when oil finally collapses.
Democratic Congressman, "If we don't do something about green house emissions the world will face a cataclysm of the likes not seen since the moon was torn from the Earth!"
Same Democratic Congressman, "we need to ban nuclear power".
Louis Vetter then why does the oil and gas industries need the multi billions in subsidies
more like make sure the free market can move to green energy that is efficient and sustainable, while at the same time, the dummies who stay in coal can keep the country supplied with energy until such a time until we can fully switch over to green and the coal and LPG industries can have subsidies cut off, like whats happening in Australia, where coal and LPG is being subsidized while there is still a clear market movement towards renewable, with major market leaders changing their plans to go 100% renewable in the next 20 years.
John Cullen sources? Some people, incredibly talented people, people who are the best experts in the world support what he is saying.
this is why America needs a better education system.
Yes, then maybe people like this won't actually be seen as intellectuals and rather random people speaking a bunch of shit wrapped in well articulated words to make them sound smarter than they actually are.
Please enlighten the rest of us. Until then, you are the moron in the room.
Senor Studly well the U.S. should really reduce their CO2 emmisions. their cars use so much gas its insane, using european cars would be so much smarter for the environment, but americans like their giant cars.
Senor Studly And by 'this' you mean yourself, I assume?
So much hate. Keep it going. It makes me stronger.
wait what, even somalia agreed? i don't think they have any factories to begin with.
As we all know, Somalia are the greenest country on the planet. And we all know its because of Pirates.
MajorLeague Marketer ah i see
so doesn't that mean that North Korea recognized South Korea in the agreement?
Pffft... Typical American viewpoint. Somalia is a country with a population over 10 MILLION. Of course they have factories, you muppet. I bet you think that it's always Winter in Russia too, JUST LIKE IN THE MOVIES. Durrr...
nagualdesign Not sure if troll or an actual opinion
If it is non binding then why join at all?
It's all about political posturing.
to,.... help save earth?
@@kemcolian2001 Again if it is non binding and not making people accountable then why have it?
Facts are out of fashion, haven't you heard?
Kalon LOL
100 TRILLION DOLLARS. That's their price to Possibly lower global temperatures by A Few Degrees over the course of Decades. How about spending even a fraction of that towards funding practical alternative energy sources? To, you know, actually cut the amount of CO2 being put in the atmosphere?
(Time to destroy my youtube inbox)
backonstudios, where did you get this $100T figure from? Are they just burning this money and not using it at all? From what I've seen, most of the money that would cause the US to meet the climate agreement *was* going towards implementing renewable energy sources, which was estimated to be $3.3T to $7.3T back in august of 2016.
I've seen this $100T figure come up a lot, and I'd really like to know where it originated from and who's paying it. Is it the entirety of every country who is in the Paris agreement? Is it just the US? Where is that money *actually* going? This could be a mis-attributed figure, as I saw this quote from an NPR story about it:
"To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide *$100 billion a year*," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports."
My source for costs: www.eenews.net/stories/1060042242
My source of the quote: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord
TOTAL HUMAN EXTINCTION. That's the price to be paid if we *don't* fix our planet. Does *any* dollar amount matter at that point?
Lmao what do you think the money is going towards? It is going towards alternative energy sources by increasing the amount of renewable energy the world uses, using different polymers like PLA and many more things in order to make the world more green!
"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man how to fish, he will eat forever."
RUclips's "up next" feature is displaying PragerU arguing #4. RUclips is bad at this.
@Filip Martin PragerU is so biased I would rather watch 100 of these factual videos instead of that bs
@@ricardoespana4164 so your saying only what you want to watch is unbiased?
RUclips thinking that ppl want to learn about both sides of an arguement is bad? Enjoy that echo chamber.
Man, that shirt looks mad comfortable
Why isn't this on the main channel?
Diego Borin Because he doesn't want to associate political views with his main channel.
"because there are emostional arguments and they make him look a fool"
Care to venture an argument yourself or are you sticking with the assertion.
"Emotional".
Diego Borin Too many conservatives there, just watch the comments of NASA video on which he mentions Bill Nye.
There are only two options here: You didn't watch this video, or you're the one being controlled by emotion.
TRUMP NO ted cruz The only thing with your comment that bugs me is your grammar; it's knew!!!!!
It seemed sensible sort of right until he said China and India aren’t contributing to the problem.
He needs to read this: thefederalist.com/2021/02/01/the-real-greenhouse-gas-problem-polluter-isnt-the-united-states-its-china/
@@davidvbobb7785 They don't care about that. As long as they feel better themselves and sounds pretty it's okey. Doesn't matter if is not gonna fix anything at all or isn't the nut of the problem itself. If they take climate change seriously will start spending on nuclear. Take care David.
Great content. One question for you though - Why no 4k versions?
Shit costs dude.
What is the distance from the surface of the matter causing a blackhole to its own event horizon? Does this gap increase as the radius increases?
If the agreement is non binding and each country decides its own goal which could be to do nothing, what's the point of being in it to begin with? Trump could have stayed in the agreement but agree to do nothing, how is that any better? Staying in the agreement probably wouldn't have done any harm but removing from the United States from some meaningless agreement doesn't hurt the environment either.
Great video! Super informative and something all people need to hear.
Yes
ANTS CANADA?
Hello AC!
What is the music in the last few seconds! I know I know it, but cannot remember where I heard it, and it is killing me! =D
Good job, Derek. I don't believe that CO2 is contributing to global warming to the extent that many people do, but I still enjoyed this video, because with the whole climate change debate that is going on today, it seems like nobody is bothering to be respectful to those who hold opposing views. Again, I don't believe that climate change is a very big problem like many people, but that doesn't mean I'm justified in yelling my point to them and trying to force them to my point of view, and it doesn't make anybody else justified to dismiss me as a crazy climate change denier. This doesn't just apply to climate change debate: it's something that's impossible to not see in any political debate.
The reason why I enjoyed this video, even if I didn't agree with it, is because you clearly and coolly stated your stance on the issue and didn't force it down my throat. Even if we can't come to an agreement of climate change, I hope that everyone reading this can agree with me that in any debate, it is important to remember to be respectful and not dismiss the opposition with name-calling and shouting.
Thanks for reading this comment, (I know it's pretty long) and I hope you have a great day!
It's tough to argue about other countries living up to commitments, when you back out of commitments.
The reason Trump did this is because he has friends in the fossil fuels industry.
Same reaosn he made the arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the country that supports ISIS.
So your children, spouses and parents die so Trump and his friends can make money.
Saying it like this makes me realize nothing really changes here. Turbo-capitalism in the US has always been founded on that sentiment.
Namely Vladimir Putin.
But even a large part of the fossil fuels industry is for the paris agreement ^^
The arms deal was drafted by Obama, though Trump signing it does show he is a regular politician and not "draining the swamp".
The reality is Saudi Arabia is an awful horrific country, but they are very stable and we need allies that are stable in the Middle East- the military dosen't care about human rights, really.
RV no the reason is because the IS would have to cut carbon emissions by 26% and give 3 billion dollars to help developing countries do the same while bigger countries like China and India wouldn't have to do any of that, have you actually even read the agreement?
great video - an intelligent and non-insultive debate to the topic.
Number 4 is a great argument! Well thought out, well articulated
why can't we just switch to salt nuclear power plants???
DrunkenDonuts ^^^^this^^^^^
DrunkenDonuts Those salt nuclear reactors are extremely corrosive, therefore the reaction can't be easily contained for a long period of time.
Seriously! Molten salt reactors (and/or thorium reactors) are a fantastic potential energy source. Unfortunately, despite the great work and research companies like Transatomic Power are putting into it, there is still a ways to go before we can create a functioning reactor. That's why we should be investing more time and funding into these reactors, instead of trying to find the next way to squeeze just a little more oil out of the ocean...
yeah, liquid salt reactors and fusion reactors are really interesting, if we can get fusion to work it would change a lot
I wouldn't bank any money on fusion saving us from global warming. Unlike stage 4 generation nuclear power plants like thorium, gas, and molten salt reactors, all of which have some level of success proven and just need kinks ironed out, fusion reactors have not even been proven to work, except on a theoretical level. They are currently about as far fetched as intergalactic travel. We know that it is theoretically possible, but we have yet to create even a working prototype. All fusion reactors currently require way more energy than they produce, making them useless. Maybe in 100 years we will get near unlimited energy from fusion reactors, but we can't wait 100 years to find a clean energy source. Fusion is a great idea and we know it is possible to harness, but so far it isn't much more than a concept.
i respect you alot, your so lvl headed
Like his participation with Bill Nye in the genders are willforce constructs, if you feel it you are it, disregard reality
@@phaerion9142 lol that kinda reduces his credibility in my eyes.
I have no idea how to direct message you on yt but can you tell me a way to contact you?
I need help in my project for time dialation
Indeed. I might as well send in my piece of personal stationary proclaiming what i might do to reduce carbon emissions in the future. We'll see, maybe i change my mind and do something completely different when the time approaches.
Dirty energy privatizes the profits, socializes the cost!
GlobalGaming101 and provide jobs
My city is doing fine without coal. We use solar and natural gas. Natural gas isn't the cleanest, but it's sure a lot better than coal.
GlobalGaming101 China has been building thousands of dirty coal plants (US and Western europeans) have cleaner coal plants and China are not stopping building dirty coal plants. This Paris agreement do not tie China and India (two most populous nation) from building more dirty coal plants. China alone wipes out any saving all western savings of co2. US present emissions places in comparison to China emissions. China have in the last few decades have pumped out far more pollution than US historically have.
GlobalGaming101 China always socialiszes the costs. Have you not seen the dirty smog air that makes historical L.A. smog looks like Beijing tiny brother.
It's true that they have. But the FACT remains that they pollute far less on an individual level and consume less as well. Many of the products that YOU consume and demand (same thing), are made over there. So they are really living inside the pollution you have made a great contribution to. Having this kind of attitude on top of your intentional stupidity and arrogance is hilariously tragic. Can't wait until the Chinese start to take over global affairs.
Good video Derek, thanks. I've never been a big fan of the free-market argument, it's so obvious that there's an externality that's being suffered by a third party which is not imposed no either the buyer or seller of the energy. For a free market to price an externality, either the seller or the majority of the buyers need to genuinely care enough to pay more, buyers need to be informed on what they're buying and what impact they're having, and there needs to be a genuine choice between energy alternatives.
very nice, i think this is an oportunity for going to the goal in a more realistic way. thanks for your opinion, it's very helpfull
So if you somehow flew around The Earth towards the west at the same speed of The Earths rotation (so you will always stay facing the sun), at what point will it become the next day? I would assume it is the time once you reach the initial starting point but It is still confusing to me, can someone please explain?
I live in Vancouver, the carbon tax goes into a general slush fund for subsidizing LNG initiatives, which in turn will end up contributing to the total CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Any data that points to the contrary is likely due to higher efficiency building construction mandates, and new vehicles on the roadways that are also much more efficient in the consumption of fossil fuels. By no means is this a "green" city however, because there are blocks of houses that were built in the 90's that are demolished every day here. Developers are replacing them with high density condominiums, whose building materials are sourced through countries like China, and I will argue that Vancouver itself is contributing much more CO2 into the atmosphere through proxy due to this reason. We are not a green city. The carbon tax is simply a tax, it has not stopped me or anyone else from driving in our cars. It's a punitive tax, nothing more.
With the density of the forests in Canada you would think that what ever CO2 that Canadians produce would only help the forests recover from things like logging and forest fires and would be welcome considering that two of Canada's biggest exports are lumber and maple syrup. Both would benefit from increased levels of CO2.
“He’s not gonna be the president in 2025 anyway”
I’ll be back to see how this comment ages
You better be, although I hope he doesn't run. (He slandered his name and it's be better to have someone who beleive similarly to him but without the name)
It depends. If he looses the impeachment he won't.
@BL4ZE ITruclips.net/video/n4Bq6ADEaBk/видео.html
@BL4ZE IT If you saw the whole video he says "peacefully". And it's curious the exoneration Dems get when justifying and even encouraging violent protests or judgement toward Trump supporters.
@BL4ZE IT But you need to understand Trump is very anti system, that's why most Republicans hate him too. They know if Trump runs again he may win and this means a threat to the broken system US has. Impeachment is a way for them to avoid such headache. Also, some of his lawyers has left him. Through that I don't think he is gonna loose, but most likely cuz the government hates him.
well said and a nice simple video pointing out some talking points.
Is Unequal financial contributions considered? Or who the financial beneficiaries are considering no action is required...?
Why would we pay for a nonbinding agreement?
For people who say derek shouldnt upload this kind of videos:
-Climate change is about destroying the world. It shouldn't be politics.
-It is his second channel so, he can upload whatever he wants.
the first channel is also his, and he can upload whatever he wants.
*unless its against youtube rules.
David Brayman you are right xD
Climate change is destroying the world, but the response to it by our country is politics.
Gordon Tendick our response is continuing to give 10 billion in subsidies to the oil industry, after we just promised to give the oil rich Saudi Arabia 400 billion.
It's almost as if wealthy businesses are offering politicians financial incentives for favorable policy decisions.
"This person shouldn't be talking about politics because he is unqualified" - Unqualified people who talk about politics all the time.
My wife says, "This video needs graphics..."
Well I heard that it cost around 400k jobs which 200k jobs are manufacturing. However, I'm not sure if that's true.
The video says that even though BC implements a carbon tax, the economy still performs equally well than the rest of Canada. However, if there is no carbon tax in BC, I suspect that the economy would be actually performing better.
Just using Ontario as an example, as the Wynne government puts all of these environmental hindrances to their economy, Ontario starts to do poor. It's actually one of the provinces that receive payment through equalization.
Please don't reference the polls. Haven't we learnt anything from the polls and the result of the presidential election?
Yes but the polls did correspond to the popular vote
The electoral college is what screwed them over
Who needs a planet when you can have a growing economy?
the argument is not pro or against climate change. pay attention.
How can we have a planet without the economy? An economy isn’t just dollars and capital. It’s you and I. It’s our ability to trade and cooperate. It’s our ability to generate solar panels and nuclear plants that will power the homes of people currently in the dark.
As a species, we cooperate on levels unseen by any other. That isn’t by accident. Our societies grew beyond anything our primate ancestors had because of our ability to work together. While Neanderthals and other homo genus, chimps, etc., were warring with neighbouring tribes over territory, we traded...even when warring. The commonality of price is what brings two people who would otherwise hate each other together, to achieve a common good that benefits all humanity.
I didn't really have an opinion one way or the other. But these are some excellent points.
lmao that ending killed it. Right on!
Hey Derek, I've seen you read and answered to comments at the moment, so I just wanted to ask when we can expect more content from the sciencium channel.
Also, well put together video, man
Cobalt Hello Dan
Oh hey, it's bootleg Dan G!
Cobalt let's goo
Cobalt so... Sciencium is something I'm working on. I haven't found a way to make it sustainable yet (obviously) but I'm working on it. I have done 10 videos in the last 8 weeks so I'm working but not necessarily making the progress I'd like on Sciencium
Why didn't you talk about how much it cost?
That’s a big part about it being bad for the economy. Not surprised he skipped it at all.
Now biden came back into the deal which is bad for the economy >:(
because you cant put a cost on saving our planet. its our home and we need to protect it
Your explanation in #1 is exactly why backing out doesn't even matter. It's a non-binding agreement. It's meaningless and gives a false sense of accomplishment. If we want to act, we need to act, not just say we're going to.
Labeling China as a developing country to reduce the required standards is only palpable to those who don't see the politics behind it; you don't blackmail one of your biggest enemies with an agreement that's not legally binding by any means. Just like the US is not really adamant about women's rights in Arab countries (unlike elsewhere) since they need their oil. But I'm sure no one will dare to adress that.
If the paris agreement doesn't enforce its points, then what's the use of it?
It’s better than nothing, most countries will try to achieve their goals.
I don’t think a binding agreement would never be possible so it’s good they got at least this thing
Where are all these climate change deniers coming from? How can you be a climate change denier and follow a science channel at the same time?
How about because "climate change deniers" is just your straw-man name for those who are actually the ones following the scientific method instead of blindly following the religion of catastrophic climate change...
Exactly.
Bruce J. Wilde Except they deny what the scientific method has proved...
55avenger well, it's good that the echo chamber isn't absolute.
lmfao, these comments just prove your points. Climate science isn't about stupid opinions like the ones above, it's about search and experiment. There's plenty of evidence that global warming is a thing and is increased by human activity. The unique way you can "deny" it is by proving your hypothesis via scientific method -- thing that you can't, cause you are a middle-class conservative who doesn't have money to pay "scientists" to lie about climate change, neither is the chairman of Big Oil which needs to fuck out the environment to maximize its profit.
This same thing happened too during cigarrete controversy: companies hired "scientists" to lie about cigarretes being linked to lung cancer. And delayed the effective aprovement of anti-tobacco laws from 1940 to 1970. And now we all know cigarretes cause cancer.
Hello i want to translate it in French any tips or links please?
RUclips do it already alone, good job NERDS RUclips guys
But not on Smartphone APP or Smartphone youtube web page, pleae do it
Where do you get these numbers from? Point 3 you said the US emits more C02 than India and China? That's BS.
Meanwhile, more than 500 Belgian climatologists are denying Trump's existence...
Genius.
Who is this Trump you speak of?
Swaggrid What exactly are you talking about?
Spinning off that fake reality show into an HBO comedy/drama was a brilliant move. More entertaining than Veep, House of Cards and That's my Bush combined. Be glad it's not real.
I deny that (voluntarily) extorting money from Americans to pay businesses in other countries will make the Earth cooler. Does that make me a blasphemer and heretic?
+Patrick Dukemajian - Nope. It just makes you smarter than the straw man you invented, and it makes you look whiny.
Sorry but logic, facts, and common sense are not allowed in this discussion.
Logic and reason have no place in their hearts
Common sense is allowed in this discussion, and exactly what's causing the issue, since common sense doesn't amount to much with the average people.
facts are of no value on their own, you analyse facts with a point of view. I agree with the fact that we need to do an ecological transition but you have to accept that is is an ideological point of view
I would like to discuss it because it´s interesting, but it´s so pointless... If I say something, anyone who don´t agree with me will just twist what I said or just insult me, so... what´s the point?
And this will remain this way until the next World War, I fear.
How can we talk about facts when expressing any doubt gets you labelled a heretic?
Great Video!
the last statement is gold. kudos.
Sorry, Derek. The first thing I though when I read the title was "Oh no! Now Veritasium is making click bait list videos too!". Thanks for the video. I thought your explanations were very well articulated.
Make our planet great again!
Virtualmix Macron ?
+ajen003 stevie wonder
fss1704 Mickaël Jackson
Virtualmix Only if The Human Race no longer resides here. lol
C Kobe ... that's your solution?...lol.
great analysis
2:52 The salt lmao XD
Cue the Climate Change deniers.
_Climate can't change if the Earth is flat!_
Oh FFS. If you want to be taken seriously stop name-calling like a 6 year old. It IS possible to agree that climate is changing but think that torching the economy chasing one snake-oil scheme after another in the name of "green" is a stupid fucking idea.
Was it Weird Cernovich or that crazy Alex Jones guy who told you that this would torch the economy?
He literally gave an example of a Candian Province that had climate change policies and absolutely nothing happened to the Province's GDP.
Show me the study that shows *statistically significant* anthropogenic effects on climate and I'll stop "denying" the "science".
Why the Paris Accord doesn't work:
It would reduce temperatures by 0.3 farenheit in a century, while costing a fortune. So, what would happen at the end of the century? Well, the temperature would be reduced by about 0.3 farenheit, and would put many countries into debt and the US into even more debt. Sooner or later, these countries would not be able to afford the Paris Agreement, and then would drop out. In order to recover economic devastation, they would take faster ways (gas, powerplants, coal burning), and the tiny impacts the Paris Agreement would have made would be overturned by the new processes.
A better to approach climate change is deeper research. Before we should consider making changes, we should actually have knowledge about what we are going to do. All the good changes made to the world happened with knowledge of the problems. Making changes without knowledge is insanity.
What will make the Paris agreement that costly?
@@miaalmanza5344 go to the official united nations climate change website, and find the paris accord.
@@bicksins9574 i agree with it not working, just want to get more informed without all the bias
You gave the best reason to get out within the first two minutes. Individuals can still do what they think is right. It isn't the responsibility of the federal government to tell you how much of your money should go to green tech or any environmental policy.
a) your last comment and the way you put it is priceless,
b) on your 3rd point, I think that there is a factor as important here as what you mentioned. When something that is needed in Europe or the U.S. is manufactured in China or India or any other country, is that CO2 produced there really part of the quota of that country? Isn't this a bit like me cooking my diner in the neighbors house throwing my garbage in their trash can and then saying that they polluted and that they used the energy?
7:38
Is probably the most important point of this video. If only certain people realized this.
“Make him feel small” lol
2veritasium, the argument that you made against free market thing is called tragedy of the commons
Excellent! I've always known that as a species we did not evolve to solve these kind of global existential problems. The economy also fails, because the causers of global warming today do not have to pay for making their grandchildren's world a shittier place. If an asteroid heads toward Earth right now and requires everyone donate 10% of their net worth to stop it we'd just all die. Now I finally have a name for this concept.
You're awesome. Your shirt. Where do I get
i agree but you are saying in #2 that not signing is advantageous to the economy. you can go and pollute the world and not care and this will be cheaper. so what now? hurts the economy or not?
I can't agree with you any more... this video is great.
Itz Mac why did you agree with him in the first place
i believe he meant that he couldn't agree more :P
Odobenidae translation of itz comment, 'I'm at the maximum level of agreement with you. It is impossible to agree further'.
Odobenidae reread his comment, don't think he meant what you think.
..again
screw the deal, each country invest in your clean enegy
Why screw it? It's nonbinding. It's like a promise of good faith, you don't actually have to do anything. Why not show good faith?
Hi, you state that the US produced about 30% of the CO2. What are these numbers based on?
If it's just "goals", and there's actually no repercussions, then what's the point?
I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to. Does it cost anything to join, (take part in), the Paris Climate Agreement? I mean, like it cost the U.S. billions of $ to join in the World Health Organization.
A poltical video from Veritasium. Personally I think its a very important one.
Reading some of the comments here make me really angry
Paul Liu same
Greatly put Derek :) Wherever we are from we should do our best to reduce the carbon footprints.
Are there also good reasons?
My opinion is, that in the end this will work even better than Paris agreement. States and cities are going to work together, to proove him wrong and with more enthusiasm.
I hope :)
Love your videos my man. It's a shame there's so many fools in these comments.
Derek Cliff Crane the world needs to move away from the dollar standard. America only care for themselves. The dollar as a result shouldn't be the standard for international trade.
I appreciate you taking time to show that you like Derek's videos. I agree with everything that is said in the video. However, calling the "other side" fools will *never* get you anywhere. Everyone is just trying to make the world a better place in the best way they know how. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a fool. And you are allowed to disagree with them! Just please do it respectfully. Thank you.
+ThePlyb
Disagreeing with a position doesn't make someone a fool, true. However, when all of the facts point in the direction of a certain position, disagreeing with that position *after* being presented with those facts *does* make one a fool.
Or at least a philosopher ; )
because he is drinking #covefefe
TheMain Man #covfefe. You misspelled covfefe? That is some real irony right there.
Covfefe*
*Coventry
TheMain Man already old meme
found DJTs editor in chief
Hey well said. This should be on the main Channel
Well he's probably nervous about alienating an unknown percentage of his audience. Letting politics get in the way of mutual interest in science isn't a choice I would opt to do either, considering this is a science channel and not really known for political analysis.
Excuse me , what did you say about CHINA ?
"It all burns as long as I'm elected" that's all they care about.
You seem to be upset. I once had the dream to maybe move to the USA but with what is happening there I don't think it fits my moral values. America first should mean to be the first and best in the world with morals, democracy and technology, like it used to be and not pure egoism.
america is hollywood, thick layer of inequality with a veneer of glamor...
It probably never did. As bad as things are now, they were worse in the past. Fun fact "America First" has been used by American fascists since the 1930s.
The point I'm struggling with regarding the political way of America is not their egoism (of course every country wants the best best for themselves), but doing bad decisions due to short-minded or plain wrong reasoning.
I don't fear America getting too powerful or anything, I fear the instability and damage the government does to the world. I guess it's rather obvious that the US will be in a weaker position in four years than they were before.
That's fine, they brought this on themselves. But their allies might suffer too due to their bad decisionmaking.
It would still be a good idea to move there. Just because you don't agree with everything the president is doing doesn't mean you shouldn't move. Most everything the government does has little effect on your well being.
America has accumulated a lot of fundamental problems for a long time and is heading in a very uncertain future. The society is growing apart and a lot of parts of the system needs to be replaced or renewed. Trump is merely the cream on top of it, something like sand in the gears. I would love to see them find their way back on the track.
It is the best discussion on this topic I have seen. I'm laughing at the sparse comments.
If the agreement means nothing for the economy, due to it being non-binding, then why should we agree to it? If it's completely non-binding, then it's just a "goal" like you said. Why does america need to agree to reach a goal, when being apart of that agreement heavily implies they should pay money to other countries, with no actual agreement that those countries will actually reduce emissions?
I don't see how you can argue that staying in this agreement is the right option, when you yourself said the whole thing was just a "goal".
i guess Uncle Sam already had enough Money, don't you think? what's the matter in spending a part of it to such a noble agrément? -speaking from a fucked op colony of yours
I really liked the tone of the argument here!
Derek! We know the comments section is garbage; don't spend an ounce of effort on them. *Don't just "stick to science".* We need thoughtful, fact-based *opinions* from people like you! Don't let this get you down or discourage you!
People who loudly and publicly announce they're unsubbing are not the kind of people you want here, anyway. More likely, they were troll accounts, or just rallied here by some subreddit to do exactly what you said in Point #6 - to piss off the opposition.
SPEAK YOUR MIND - it's a good mind, Derek, and we need to hear what it has to say.
Torgie Madison Where are the facts?
Staring you right in the face. www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ But you aren't here to have your opinion changed, you're here to confront, aggravate, and troll. You'll get no further responses from me.
Chill bro... great response with the link but not so great attitude with the latter sentences. Never forget: Attacking the other side is *scientifically proven* to make them even more convinced of their beliefs, and is probably what got Trump elected in the first place. That includes you "Vendicar Decarian" what the fuck is that "only good Republican is a dead Republican" are you being fucking serious?
If you can't even listen or empathize, then you are part of the problem. Not to mention, these comments of yours are helping build a world with more of those narrow-minded people you despise so much.
Vendicar Decarian Do you need a dog to pet and a safe space? Maybe hot chocolate and to speak to a counselor?
We needed it here in California. Global warming is helping the wildfires and making the wildfire season here worse. Several states, including California, formed a coalition where they align with the Paris Climate Accord.
Wildfire were started by poor forest management. Cali ignored the many many MANY regulations that were made to avoid this. Texas is doing fine because the actual follow regulations.
@@shadowbanned3136 and dont forget arson!
If its non-binding then whats the point? Like you say, efforts can be made without actually signing the agreement. It seems to me to be more a gesture of intent to do something rather than an actual move to fix the problem. Talking about doing something is surely less important than actually doing it.
"It's bad for the economy, because if we force people to use a less efficient means of production, we'll be forced to innovate." Logic...
It's bad for the economy because that's not how innovation works
Let it be forever remembered that when faced with the greatest challenge for humankind, the United States chickened out.
SAD, very SAD !
No we didnt. We're just no longer being a sucka to the whole world.
*One person* chickened out, not the United States. Still, it's sad enough that this person was elected by almost half of the US citizens.
Trump's base is actually convinced the world is out to get the USA, and think that justifies denying man-made climate change. Meaning, a significant proportion of Americans are completely detached from reality, and will believe anything a blatantly clueless and narcissistic man says. That's the main thing I'm getting out of this. The USA has some serious fucking problems, and that means the world has a serious problem. =/
Yeah, I especially didn't understand Trump's comment about the world "laughing at America". International support is staggeringly high for obama and abysmally low for Trump. The U.S. has remarkably high support for Trump (about 40%) compared to the rest of the world; we're "special". And yeah, the world has definitely been laughing at (and crying for) America... EVER SINCE TRUMP GOT ELECTED.
You are so right. Paris agreement is ramping up resources to reduce CO2. But of each resource it uses, additional resources have to be created to satisfy demand. That means people have to work extra hard, dig more minerals from the earth, travel more, burn more fuel to replenish the resources spent on "combating climate change". Because the methods to reduce emissions are so inefficient, it results in a net positive change in CO2 emissions. That's why US is the only country that has emissions growing slower than GDP after its exit.
Costs money, does nothing to actual climate, money goes to some random agencies.
Canadas GDP would have probably grew even more if they were to drop this shitty agreement.
Sorry for grammar mistakes this is my 4th language.
China is biggest polluter now by the way.
Lets think about the population of The USA and EU, in the EU are 500mil humas and usa 323.
And both got 30%
Historically, though, so all people over time.
this is the first veritasium video with more disliked ratio.. well played Trump supporters.. just disliking for not having a valid argument.
All of Veritasiums climate change videos have a lot of dislikes. It's just that this is a topic that many americans have a strong oppinion about. And science is only cool as long as it aligns with your oppinion.
That burn just raised the temperature of the planet by 0.3 degrees
Zwiebel4
That's such a low way of thinking tbh; science really isn't shaped by human belief because it's how the world and universe works.
It brings so much lame reasoning and arguments that shouldn't even exist.
Gullible and willfully ignorant people are the problem. George Carlin said it right: "If you have selfish and ignorant people you will have selfish and ignorant leaders."
matt blackburn Dying under what corruption? We're finding exoplanets every single day, detecting gravitational waves, finding water and organic molecules every where. And even more biological science, like from where I'm from, Singapore, we have the lowest death rate on the planet because we have world leading medical science. If there's so much corruption, how are human lifespans increasing every year?
Eagerly awaiting the fusion revolution...
very well said
Would you consider having a debate with Alex Epstein?
Doesn't your first point explanation also defend the idea that this agreement was just symbolic and doesn't really matter? If the only policy change from the last administration is that we left the agreement, but don't change any pollution regulations, the outcome will be the same.
The Agreement wàs symbolic. And Trump pulling the US out is just as symbolic. Nothing will actually change if everyone just keeps going regardless of what Trump wants or says. Which is why this whole Paris-thing is mostly Trump trying to act important where in the end it won't really matter. The train is leaving the station and Trump has jumped off. Big deal, the train will keep going.
Unknown User at least us the taxpayers wont be funding the bullshit "green fund" which china and india contribute precisely 0 dollars to. So at least that changes
Egad, man, we're not GIVING any money to anyone. We are agreeing to work in concert with others to solve a global problem in the making. This mean we are coordinating efforts, not putting tax money into a communal pot. What we are sharing are IDEAS aka answers to the questions like "how can we do this most effectively?". US tax money may go to support US innovators to develop technologies and build businesses which will provide US jobs for US citizens but isn't that what you want?
Kay Allen we don't need an agreement to invest in innovation. We already do that and have been effective in decreasing our emission with fracking and new tech.
Part of the agreement required us to provide aid to india and china before they would make any changes. Besides, any treaty with the us has to pass through congress, president doesn't have that power. Nothing is stopping the states from following the agreement in the local level.
Trump tried to open negotiations but the other counties wouldn't agree to meet us at the table. I don't like trump but this was actually a good move.
+aoe0711 Except that at the pace we are investing in innovation, the planet will be warmer by +3°C by 2050 or before and we will be basically fucked. I've yet to see a president, be it american or any other nationality, prevent tornadoes, droughts and floods. Capitalism doesn't know how to deal with natural catastrophies.
So the agreement is more than symbolic, it says that global warming is probably the number one problem humanity is facing and that it's time to actually work together on limiting the problem to something we can deal with. Because "fixing" the economy today to make it much worse for the next generation isn't fixing the economy, it's fucking it up to the point it's no longer fixable.
And renegociating is absolutely out of question because it would have meant lowering the goal, which would make it pointless. You don't negociate with mother nature.
I'm the biggest environmentalist I know and we should be doing all we can WITHIN our boarders ("Be the change you wish to see in the world") but binding formal alliances with other countries and international governing bodies WITHOUT A DOUBT makes the individual people's voices who live in this world severely marginalized. We only have 435 representatives in America as it is, I sure don't want 12 or less people "representing" me on the international stage. It would be as if we are all forced to live in a coast to coast HOA where people as far as Bangladesh decide what I can do in my home town.... it's insane when you think about how crippling this is to individual freedoms around the world.
I have one question for you. What would decreasing emmisons do? What evidence is there that there will be an effect. Also I was a finalist at the Intel ISEF 2017 and I am disaponted in you for making statements without conclusive evidence.
Two questions