Climate Change: Accelerating Progress in a World That Is Out of Time with Chris Field
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 янв 2022
- As the impacts of climate change become more severe, widespread, and costly, the need for accelerated deployment of solutions is clear. Professor Chris Field explores the landscape of progress to date and commitments for the future. He offers options for implementing solutions that will both limit warming and help people and ecosystems cope with its effects.
Chris Field, PhD '81, is the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies. His research focuses on climate change, especially solutions that improve lives now, decrease the amount of future warming and support vibrant economies.
Loss of arctic sea ice and thawing permafrost/methane release have gone beyond an irreversible tipping point. Warming is unstoppable, and we are toast. I fear for my children, and as for my grandkids...I can't let myself think about it.
What's to fear, we all die. Sooner or later.
that is your problem. Instead of doing research, and comparing views of different climate scientists,
who disagree, you listen to the loudest voice without critical thinking.
You need to. Imagine you or someone in your family has a terminal illness and your family decides not to tell you. How do you like that? You couldn't use your last few weeks to do what you still want to do, couldn't say goodbye properly, wouldn't enjoy every day because it's your last days. Is it really love, not telling you the truth?
@@richardscathouse yes, but if you know this and most of your family is not aware of this? Let them sleep on?
@@echelonrank3927 Scientists that disagree are the key problem and responsible for misinformations spread by oil, coal companies, sugercoating of the situation for purely selfish reasons etc. and main reason why humans DID NOT take actions since 1970, when this problem was already known, 1988 when it was brought again by NASA and repeated reporting on the topic since then, starting with IPCC 1990 and 1992 of which 1992 conatains a SPOT ON prediction of what we have meassurements today. We had well over 30 years to do something about it in reasonable way and instead didn't give a damn until the situation is already very bad, all that just because this was uncomfortable for few people's wallets, sir... The current effects already taking place were avoidable and current situation today is still nowhere near 0 emissions and nowhere near any reasonable technology "in place" for NET solutions at all. So far oil companies, Shell for example, instead of taking any actions they greenwashing, aka "talking" about green and that's it, still avoiding any severe actions to mitigate. More they do it, harder it will be to do anything reasonable about it. These are facts. Already sugercoated, by scientific consensus and following "politicial review" (another significant sugarcoating), last IPCC report is no joke and is a result of all scientific experts on the subject, anyone who says in any significant way otherwise is mildly said "suspicious" at best, that's critical thinking. What you are doing is critical self-delusion. If you are so sure that those "scientists" of yours are right, please link the sources from where you derive conclusions, so everyone can see where you coming from and can review and properly critique, instead of this empty message of yours that says literally nothing - thanks
If, it was clear carbon thresholds were in fact already well beyond 1.5 c levels....does anyone really believe the Governments of the world would admit that fact to the public?
Does anyone believe all of the governments of the world are savvy and organized enough to coordinate a vast cover-up, but not address the problem meaningfully? Rather than assuming we are all victims of malicious intent, isn’t it more likely governments are fumbling along, doing their best, and probably don’t know anymore than others if thresholds have been crossed, or not? I’m sure, much like elsewhere, some people in government suspect, others don’t care, and some are deeply hopeful. I agree, it would be nice to just decide conclusively as a society, where we stand and what we will do.
@@Rnankn yeah I agree, there's no way that every single politician would knowingly remain silent to a reality that would harm their children, they're not demons, they're undisciplined, unprepared, flawed human beings that, like everyone me and you included, are susceptible to arrogance and deep seated denial and willful ignorance.
Govts need clear goals to work towards to, and some optimistic outlook that targets can be met. That's what they have these carbon budgets for.
It's up to us, realists (or the non optimistic fact-seekers) to see that the budgets are actually done for and we may have gone triggered some tipping points already.
Yet every tenths of a degree we can the temp from rising by trying to keep to those carbon targets, will be a big win in the end, coz the less heat we get, the better our chances to retain some kind of civilization and well being after climate balance has tipped
We've waited too long to begin any solutions. The focus needs be on mitigation and survival now which will get more difficult in an exponential manner.
100yrs ago was too late
@@richardscathouse i'm pretty sure it's only since the 90s (1990-2022) that we put out the same amount of greenhouse gases that we achieved from 1880-1990
I believe that we, most people, are still dramatically underestimating just how difficult it will be to change human behavior, at scale, in such a way as needed if goals are to be met. Is this just a refusal, or denial, of most people to see the reality of our predicament?
Absolutely - looks like globally Governments’ commitments to Net Zero economies lack delivery plans - in terms of projects and programmes. They have been made in theory and have not tested by planning specific annual build out rates for both new green energy capacity and new site specific plant and grid infrastructure.
This could be highlighted and exemplified in delivery planning terms by universities like Stanford !
Exactly
Its lifestyle. People will not give up driving or fling. SO many examples of the rich not bending to have less and do less. Made possible by fossil fuels. The top 10 or 20 % have done most of the damage and will continue. I see not way out. We are out of time!
@@aland5478 I don't think that having a fling will do much to harm the environment. Take your mind off the coming disaster for a bit.
The Great Waves of Change are here. I read this free book online years ago, now I'm watching it happen in real time. We have solutions, but lack the political will. If human civilization is to survive we need many more people to see through the confusion and respond.
Congratulations for Wonderful Presentation
Way too optimistic
They all think they can fix the disaster. The only one who WILL fix it permanently is Jesus.
@@j.ochsenreiter [Citation needed ]
What about self reinforcing feedback loops that have been and will be initiated?
the calm before The Storm
Forget SLR and glacier melt
Decreased plant DIF will destroy crop production any year now
It’s happening regionally now. Only a few too warm nights will halt crop production
This is what is meant by habitat loss and it is occurring now
-54yo horticulturist
It's been happening, for decades now
Thumb down just for very annoying background noisoes. Still, very informative.
Similar to a lecture in linear algebra; Solution spaces, solution portfolios, patterns of denial, etc
For a poor country without energy infrastructure and no electric grid it doesn't make sense to invest in fossil fuels. Solar power can deliver energy decentralized without a need of a big electric grid.
Fossil fuels are required for the mining, refining, transportation, manufacturing, installation. Then the solar panels need replacement after 20 years, and it the process happens again.
37:56 "technological know how to save ourselves" - no. We must reduce population.
38:06 "biggest problem governance" - yes, but women dominate voting, so no discuss population.
So what do they do at night when they need power? Maybe ride a bike with a generator on it?
@-GinΠΓ Τάο
True. No such thing, all are fossil fuel derivatives.
@@vsstdtbs3705
Yep. Population overshoot is the cause period. Everything else from habitat death, ocean death, warming etcetera are merely symptoms.
@@vsstdtbs3705 Women dominant as voters, the cause for no population control ?
What total BS. Most countries aren't even real democracies, it's all controlled voting like in Russia and China, most of Africa and Asia.
Then, it is tradition and religion deciding there should be no checks on having as many kids as ppl like - women are always subservient in family traditions.
Finally, it's man making women pregnant, quite often not just their partners, but all over town, if they get the chance. If you'd ask the girls, they'd say 2-3 kids is max for nice family life. But nearly everywhere, it's not women who have last words in this. If they speak out, they get their faces slapped - or worse.
the tone is very good. very comforting all about governance and policy, as if corporate corruption isnt the problem driving inaction denial and goverment lies
I agree. Back in the 1950's fossil fuel companies KNEW their products were a civilization ending commodity. They chose profits over everyone else's great grandchildren.
Forget Hitler rich people ever since have become history's most despicable criminals.
The relevance of adaptation is obvious, and very simple: Even in the absence of AGW, natural disasters have always done a lot of damage, and there is every reason to keep working to minimize those effects.
What an enlightened and fair society we would be if we nurtured this concept 200 years ago long before the effects of climate change :/
Biochar, iron seeding oceans, cloud whitening, exciting the ionosphere with specific frequencies satellite array, or even radiation in the ionosphere by other mechanics. But its to late for much but living underground
Norway seed Bank....🤔
RIP Dr Tim Ball. Fought and won case against one warming alarmist. Michael 'climategate' Mann never paid the court costs (Tim's life savings). Hopefully some other warming alarmasist can persuade Mann to pay the $700k to Tim's wife. It would be good to see Mann face Mark Steyne. He won't though as a weasel liar and lawfare keeps his lies going. Tim said Mann should be state pen and not Penn State. I agree. The court thought also in BC.
Move to Florida or California
Mirrors, thorium, earth sheltered homes and cheese ?
Sticking with capitalism and the profit motive is not an option. In fact, Capitalism and the profit motive is THE MAIN OBSTACLE standing in the way of making any progress at all.
100%, well.... let me correct that... 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% correct
Writen on his $2000 Apple while driving his EV to buy a Starbucks on there way seaside 2nd home.
@@davidtison8771lol
Talk solutions all you want, but I've been hearing about solutions for over 60 years and it 'aint happening.
Quit it already.
Fossil fuel companies get credibility and acceptabilty through their University funding though. The respectability that fossil fuel companies get from Universities like Stanford is more than worth a few million in 'donations' to them. Disappointed to hear the answer that was given here
"How we deliver progress..." in reversing climate change: CONTRACEPTION. Questions? Stress R Us
Are you volunteering. Because usually when people talk about population control, they mean someone else needs to control their population.
The IPCC continues to lie about end game. 🖕 and our ability to effect the ending
Easy to talk about but impossible to do.
I disagree. I think we can move to wind, solar, geothermal and other non-emitting sources and can change our industry to stop emitting carbon and methane! We just need leadership like the overdue Inflation Reduction Act!
Go back 200ys maybe 🥱🤭🤭🤭
@@JW4REnvironment Building windmills and trash emits all on it's own.
How's American Universities doing with their human experiments???? 😱
It's too late.
It was too late in the 80s
Real people will die this winter of cold and hunger in Germany and England because of mistaken reliance on renewables and destruction of the energy systems that brought wealth and prosperity to so many .
No energy systems have been destroyed.
We´ve killed our children.
We are only animals. Our responsability Is relative.
The model of a fixed carbon budget is just wrong and by a lot. The oceans and land are currently and will continue to absorb large amounts of ghg each year. To try to take time out of the equation is a blunder albeit a commonplace one.
Wanna make progress on Co2 shut these eggheads up. Stop cutting the millions of trees for paper to print these useless reports
too late☠
Regenerative agriculture
Yet we'd rather play games with Russia. A distraction at best
Make all the roofs white . BY MANDATE
Too many stupid people to enforce that
Funny you say that, just last week Victoria in Australia had a motion to try and do exactly that. Guess who influened this legislation to not go through? Property developers. Insane. The world is done for.
Yes, this is so easy to do in short time, no reason not to do it. Every BIT helps long term. not only that it will lower a bit heat in the cities as well
In order to repair and nurture our environment, the first step that we must take is to correct our behavior. Our behavior is the direct cause of climate change. Technology is the indirect
cause of climate change. To use an analogy, "guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Our behavior is driven by two motives: our need for sustenance and our desire to Profit. We can't live without sustenance, so this is a required behavior. I believe that
"Profit = income - expenses" is an erroneous definition of Profit and this is the equation that describes our misconduct, because it doesn't address the substance of our actual gain which
is sustenance. Any major technological change that we employ, under the guidelines of our current definition of Profit will certainly lead to the same wrong behavior towards each other
and our Environment. "Profit = income - expenses" is a tried-and-true recipe for the destruction of the Environment, and oddly enough, the Environment is the only source of our actual Profit.
We don't burn our paycheck. We provide the highest possible protection for our Profit. What a happy coincidence. We want to provide the highest possible protection for our sustenance, and
it just happens to be our actual Profit; without which, we can't live. I am proposing that our only first step to saving ourselves from complete disaster is to correct our dictionary definition of
Profit, and create a worldwide economy that is well suited for the correct Profit definition. The following definition of Profit may serve as the way to correct our behavior:
Profit = our gratefulness and loving care, for the Environment, and the sustenance it provides to all of us.
I understand that defining Profit in this way and working out a suitable worldwide economy is a Herculean task; however, shooting that same gun i.e., switching technologies without
first correcting our behavior will guarantee our demise. It may already be too late, but it is never too late to try.
I agree, technology is not the cause of climate change; it's the way it is used. But that also means that technology in itself can not be the solution. A shift in mindset is needed. The result of my 44 years of observing the human species is that, as a collective, it's infinitely greedy, and insanely overconfident to the level of collective narcissism. I don't see any sign of this changing soon enough, especially not at a global scale. I just sometimes hope the climate change deniers were right.. unfortunately, facts suggest otherwise.
Is technology going to save us from destruction or is it the reason why we’re facing catastrophic consequences?
It’s the reason.
We're toast, that's the bottom line
Localize agriculture....localize ALL food source. Own a cow. Raise chickens.
"Forever budget" -- CO2 is plant food. Therefore "Forever budget" is just hyperbole.
The myth that poor countries may need to expand their fossil fuel use, has already been thoroughly addressed. It is much cleaner cheaper and more efficient for them to leap frog to sustainable energy, bypassing the fossil fuel stage entirely. This also helps to keep them out of debt, freeing them from control by the fossil fuel industry and the world Bank
At 27:21
They be burning their own future if they expand thru increasing fossil use. The most heat-susceptible countries are nearly all poor countries in the South -especially, the (slightly) richer ones in SE Asia will be feeling the brunt of the heat.
Sure, their pro person emission is lots and lots less than western ppl, but they do make up in (increasing) numbers, and high economic growth numbers. If poor countries wait for the rich to initiate action, they be waiting a long time - mostly democracies that have to compromise with a large non-climate sensitive/ or denying share of population
And I have called this genocidal. 10 million people die every every year from NOT using fossile fuels. (from cooking with dung, as an example).
you say this, but coal power plants remain the go to for power generation among the third and second world, solar just doesnt provide effective baseline and cannot be installed fast enough to meet the demand caused by industrialization and urbanization, not to mention the space constraints of solar making it not feasible to provide for any significant amount of the power requirements, sustainable energy that is dense enough to sustain large human settlements with high living standards can only come from nuclear, and nuclear is absolutely out of reach for nearly every country which is looking toward coal for primary power generation, china is an exception, they're just bastards who think they can escape the consequences of their actions.
@@zachheisen5022 I do agree, that switch to nuclear seems to be a way to go "quickly" to significantly less emissions of C02, the problem is it's expensive, it will produce significantly more nuclear waste which needs to be taken seriously and any installation of nuclear power "quickly" in 3rd world has a potencial of Chernobyl results - however If the whole world in cooperation does it right now, it's doable to get more time and cut most emissions reasonably quick. It's a BIG IF though, we are getting back to "economy" BS, which should NOT be an obstacle in current situation, all should be a question of "resources", not their cost. Until we change to that view of reality, humanity won't make it