Exactly. The climate change industry is huge and powerful and there are numerous of people world wide dependent on it staying afloat, thanks to massive funding funneled into by the UN. No way they are going to let that cash cow go because of something as silly as scientific truth/observation. Entire careers are built on the scam, as transparently obvious and easily debunked as it is (and has been by numerous scientists world wide for decades now).
Believing in climate science is much like still believing the covid injections are "safe and effective", it takes a whole lot of ignorance of some very basic facts.
@@armynyus9123 I agree. But many people, especially those who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, meat&dairy, gun, and/or sugar industries, refuse to "believe" the science or statistics proving the harm of their products.
When I was a child, I read about Kryptonians arguing with scientist Jor-El about their planet blowing up. Back then I couldn't believe adults could be so stupid and insane.
When I was a teenager, I played Fate of the World. It's an old game about climate change and its challenges. The aim is to keep manmade temperature rises below 3 degrees Celsius until the year 2100 as the Global Climate Organization. Besides managing temperature, you can't let the Human Development Index (HDI) fall below 0.6 globally or be banned from 7 regions. Most times, I failed. But the few times I did win, I caused huge population declines due to widespread famines. Most of the time, I had to ignore Africa and India and just fund security for most of the game, avoiding development in those regions because it would drastically increase emissions. I never played the "ban coal globally" card because unfulfilled energy demand would crater the HDI worldwide. Truly speaking, I was never particularly green in my outlook on climate change-not because I don't believe it’s happening or that "it won't be so bad". Rather, it's because the greenhouse gases we've released so far will pale in comparison to what impoverished, overpopulated nations will emit if their quality of life improves even moderately. The sad truth is that we need industrialized farming to keep the 8 billion of us fed. We need medicine, sanitation, clothing, heat, and so much more just to survive. And then there’s what we want: leisure, computers, tasty food, and an innumerable number of other things to avoid lives of simple drudgery. Right now, the choices seem to be: violently reduce population, impose poverty on everyone, do nothing (and destroy the planet), or keep moving steadily and find a way out without resorting to the other three. The holy grail would be nuclear fusion reactors, but that's still a pipe dream. More realistically, we need a method of energy storage that allows us to fully decarbonize energy. My view on the climate emergency and environmentalism is quite simple: "Do not defecate where you sleep." We're saving the planet not because it's the right thing to do, but because we live on it. Sacrifices must not be imposed but agreed to. and most importently we cannot flail like headless chickens, taking on green projects that only make sense from an emissions reduction point of view.
I am an engineer and what I feel it most disheartening is that, technically, I KNOW we have the solution to almost all the problems (with the exception of some hard-to-abate sectors). But people without technical knowledge are convinced that there is no other way. The problem I see is psychological and political, and on that point I can do very little and I feel overwhelmed by stupidity and groupthink.
Ditto. From a science and technical standpoint I would be optimistic (we definitely have solutions even if we don't know all the answers), but I have nearly 0 hope on the political front. Many people try their best, but we have empires of wealth built into political systems serving the latter, IMO creating the symptoms listed by Mark above, and a myriad of societal hardships as a consequence. Put otherwise, political systems are seemingly undoing themselves through misery, misinformation and fear, at the time we need the greatest unity to band against an existential threat. The scientist in me screams at it all.
Yeah. I'm a scientist. I follow energy and clean tech. We HAVE the solutions. Even the hard-to-abate sectors are starting to look promising. The problem is political. There's a lot of stupidity and mendacity out there. There are things you can do: Tell people about the solutions, and vote for the side that is willing to do something about climate change.
I'm right there with you. We have the solutions if we just have the political will to do it. Meanwhile we are starting new wars, which are fueled with oil. That to me is just incredibly dumb.
An example of this: if we paint an area similar in size to the state of Texas with barium sulfate microspheres, we can plunge the earth into another glacial period due to the amount of light that's reflected into space. Basically, paint every roof and parking lot with the stuff.
@@incognitotorpedo42 there isn’t a side like that in America. Don’t get me wrong,im voting Dem but when push comes to shove Dems are just republican lite. They dont want to force the poor billionaires to spend money on changing the way they do things. They dont want to demonize the poor oil companies. The pretend to the public they care about these issues while not doing a damn thing about them. And they know they dont have to do anything, with the radicalization of the right, they know we have a choice of either no change or change in the wrong direction. Im so tired.
Once met a student who quit their geology degree because their dissertation on some interesting history of a local region got them legal threats by real estate companies. In short: real estate wanted them to shut up about exposing potential local phenomena in our new climate that might make housing prices in that area drop.
Yes it is not convenient to admit climate does change. That is the problem with geology. Well lets reverse this warm change thing. It should be convenient to stick my hand out the window and chip some ice for my rye whiskey. But to think that we as humans have control over the sun? It after all is a unregulated nuclear fusion furnace and a source of most of the heat and light. Then there is physical chemistry. Let us ignore that too. Really? A 0.03 to 0.04% increase in Carbon Dioxide will do what to plant life? After all that is 25% increase. Oh and how does that CO2 get high in the atmosphere enough to make a difference? Why does hydrogen hydroxide make a greater difference. Is it relative to specific gravity? Maybe the problem is Russia may end being a better place to grow crops. Those same crops that presently grow better in Georgia and Alabama. Like Gates and Steve Wozniak I dropped out of engineering. I got offered jobs before I graduated. But there is not room for all of us to make billions. I am happy I don't have to hire full time security. My Mutzhus do that just fine. So many questions and illogical answers. Time for someone else to deal with it. Oh & there is another way of putting it. One person's Mead is another person's Poisson. That is transforming. I remember Mead from somewhere in my probability math. Also do not be surprised if reality is somewhere in the outlying probability functions..
Tactics first set out by Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister 40 years ago to ensure that no action is taken: Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen. Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do. Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it's too late now.
There was more honesty int that silly TV show, than there is in ALL of politics today sadly. Thankfully since we live in a capitalist society if the majority of us do something to limit our fossil fuels use, we deny the enemy what they most want: money. Enough people deny them one pence each, and they lose billions!
The path of denial sounds a lot like the narcissist's prayer. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, then that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
Oh, so it's almost as if some of these influential people who denied it was real and now think it's TOO real to do anything about have ulterior motives? 🧐
Simon Clark certainly has ulterior motives. Anybody with some knowledge of who these "influential people" are cannot seriously confuse them with a buch of people generally living somwhat off-grid with very simple means. This video is as close as you can get as payed-for disinformation by these (very rich and profiting) influencal people who are killing us while lining they pockets.
I’ll say this, I feel like we are doomed not because we ‘can’t’ but because we ‘won’t’. My response though to that is, we MUST do something and even IF we are doomed and we can’t fix this even with monumental efforts, there is nothing more human than trying in the face of doom. We must try.
I don’t know how… I can’t even talk about climate change in a bar in my state without the boomer tending bar jumping to tell me I’m the one that needs to do more research. How do you talk to an idiot that thinks they know it all? You can’t tell them shit. You can’t even talk about it
this is right, i dont know when people started claiminig a doomer was someone who was going around with a bunch of misinformation and agit prop to pacify people, it was just people with a very pessimistic outlook because why would they have a optimistic one?
I met a guy the other day who believed that we should accelerate climate change because it's God's will that we die a fiery death. This was not a local loon, but a influential person…
yeah, apocalypse accelerationists are a pretty powerful force in evangelical Christianity these days. They also believe Jews need to be ruling over the whole of historical Jewdia for the biblical prophecies to come about and enable the end of the world to happen. So they are big supporters of the Israeli far right and extremist settlers, even though a lot of them are also antisemitic. It's scary that such crazy people have soo much influence in our modern world
Lots of Christian fundies in the US hoping that Megiddo gets used as the final battlefield that leads to apocalypse. 2,000 years of waiting for something that will never happen has become boring so they want to hurry it along any way they can.
End Timers are gonna fight tooth and nail to get their wish. The end of the world is allegedly A Good Thing(tm) because that's when [god of choice] returns and [does god stuff to good guys] while also [doing god stuff to bad guys] and hey, what reasonable person wouldn't want that?
Exactly. Being a single citizen of a small european country, what the hell can I do that would matter? My actions alone won't change anything, my pig-headed government (no matter which party controls it at the moment, to be honest) doesn't give a shit and even if they did, what we produce is fucking miniscule compared to what China pours out daily, and they definately do not give half a shit. And don't get me started on the EVs craze, if anyone truly cared instead of just wanting to be "eco" for fame, they'd have already pushed hydrogen fuel cells to commercial viability.
Yep that and abandoning strategies that allows us to put pressure on companies and state agents that simply do not care otherwise. The climate accords for instance allows the world to put at least a minimum amount of pressure on state agents like China and other producers, that also allows us to put sanctions on our own corporations without simply putting them out of business due to foreign competition (from producing nations like china, taiwan etc.).
We should challenge Jordan Peterson (and others interested in honest communication) to say what policy they would favor for taking account of externalities (making prices more honestly show costs, including costs to the environment). If prices show true costs, profit will align with sustainability. Asking businesses to disregard profit is like asking consumers to not look for the low price when they go shopping. The fact that we think that would be necessary is a *symptom* of a dishonest system. If we charge environmental impact fees, we can limit impacts. If we share proceeds from fees, we will end abject poverty and give workers more latitude in deciding what job to take.
No, we are in any situation because people didn't know any better. F.e When plastic was invented people thought it's literally a god send. Also, "pulling up a ladder" is also a thing which terribly harms normal people.
I think the reason many of us gen z think that there's no reason in altering our individual behavior as it won't make any difference for climate change, is because we know that the biggest offenders in this issue are large scale companies. What we need is a legislative change within these companies to actually make a difference.
I understand that view, but large scale companies ultimately are in the hands of consumers and shareholders. When enough individual consumers stop buying their products, or shareholders demand action, they have no choice but to change, even though they will fight and obfuscate every step of the way.
@@Tannhauser62 Well yeah what you're describing is a boycott, and good luck organizing that against Chinese and Indian companies that mainly deal in coal and oil. Look up the top companies responsible for the most CO2 emissions and you'll see what I mean.
@@KuratCTA Thing is, those companies enable our lifestyles. Just blaming them without doing anything ourselves are what keeps them going ironically. Its the same as when the west blame India and China for their high co2 releases without admitting that their high emissions are due to our consumption of goods that they produce. To solve the crisis, we AND the large companies need to change. We must consume less and demand companies become sustainable. We must support sustainable infrastructure, companies, governments and practices. Its also sad that people think that their happiness depends on being able to purchase mostly garbage. We need food, water, shelter, clothes and each other but we have forgotten.
@@elateride I live in Norway, which is considered a world leader in the use of renewable energy, green technologies, and sustainable resource handling. We're all already doing everything we can here.
@@KuratCTA Is this the same Norway that's the world's largest exporter of petroleum gas? Where the government owns a majority stake in one of the world's largest oil and gas companies? Which has among the world's highest GDP per capita entirely due to North Sea oil and gas? Or is there a different country with the same name?
A thought that scares me: In a society that worships strength and competition, some people may have lost perspective to a point where they think a societal collapse will benefit them, because "they are the survivors" and "they got this" and all the "losers and weak people" will perish and hence make the society stronger.
I call that attitude Individualist Madness... preference to be "One eyed King of blinds" instead an average person in a better and susteinable society🤦🏽
After 4 years of seeing how effective my little 2kw solar/9kw battery system is it blows my mind that solar isn't on every roof available, it has slashed my power bill by easily 80% and I think its wild that my friends talk about being hot but not wanting to turn on the ac because of how high their power bills are when summer makes so much power for me I can't use it all. It falls out of the sky for free yet stupidity and greed is making most pay top dollar for it, our system is seriously sick.
I always wonder why the US isn't massively invested in solar yet. They have half a contintent worth of deserts and solar doesn't even need any government subsidies anymore to be profitable. Like cities in texas, arizona, california etc. should be covered in solar panels right now, they could easily be energy independent.
If those individuals (friends) were really greedy, theyd put solar RIGHT NOW. Mine paid for itself in 3 or 4 years. Absurdly good investment. Real roi of 15% to 25% per year.
@@lb2791from what I've seen, it is the result of energy companies having their talons in media and legislation that has kept the USA away from widespread solar panel use
The biggest thing for people to grasp is this is not pass/fail. We can still influence how quickly things get worse, and we can still plan and prepare for the effects that are headed our way. Even if we're past the point of no return we can still decide how many chapters are left in the book and what those chapters contain.
I mean, the earth can heal. There is no point where we're truly past the point of no return; it's just a matter of how extreme the solution needs to be. Realistically humanity isn't doomed; climate change will make environments harsher until enough people have died that their impact doesn't outpace the healing. Seems like a good bet that when 80% of the human population is dead that those remaining agree to stop excessive polluting. Or no longer have the collective knowledge to keep those systems running.
I am an electrical engineer specialised on electro optics with focus on laser technology. As young Engineer I worked with co2 gas lasers an learned very detailed how co2 interacts with infrared radiation. I can only tell to everyone the climate scientists are totally correct in their forecasts and reasoning. With renewables and storages we can build up a bright sustainable future...no need for doomers
🤯🤯🤯😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫 stimulated emissiin in CO2 laser at 10um is telling you something about spontaneous emission in CO2 gas with central walength around 14um. And also somehow informs you about CO2 gas absorption in low concentration. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Not funny
@@dmitryisakov8769 So many don't have any understanding of resonance and it is the mechanism for transferring energy by radiation. It must be a shortage of resonant photons reacting with CO2 . That will explain the log reduction in warming after the first 20ppm. As CO2 increases there is no shortages on CO2 molecules. Water is also reacting up these photons. Secondary radiation photons are never more energy than the emitting surface. These can not transfer energy to CO2 unless you consider remote harmonics of limited energy? Now if anyone has a better explanation please tell me.
@@BrinJay-s4v Humans had reduced then removed one of the precursors to the Keremt/AEW chain reaction, with a result that there is less solar reflective cloud at the equator, ensuring the oceans absorb more solar heat. This is compatable with Goode et al 2021 which demonstrated the the planet was reflecting away less incoming solar energy. The resultant equatorial ocean heating effect can easily be calculated and be compared almost perfectly to the published data for global warming. There is no space in the the narrative or conclusion to account for the 0.02% CO2 contribution to make any effect.
@@BrinJay-s4v and @dmitryisakov8769 It is amazing that there are CO2 climate deniers deniers that know more than Carl Sagan. Impressive stuff! ruclips.net/video/Wp-WiNXH6hI/видео.html
I think there’s a difference between “we’re doomed, let’s do nothing” and “we’re doomed, better start doing something now and I don’t care if it’s costly or inconvenient. We need to be more aggressive”. I count myself in the latter “doomer” camp
I'm with you! Climate anxiety and pessimism in the current structures of power but I gotta live here a fair while longer and I'm not interested in the apocalypse thanks 😅
Yeah but, since simon used jordan's picture and what the report said about him, i'm not quite sure i'd like for people who have it bad to have it worse... i'm not on board on the "lesser of two evils thing"
@@emd4682climate pessimism isn’t a “lesser of two evils”. Doing absolutely everything in your power to prevent climate catastrophe is a positive thing. Doing nothing because you’ve fallen for disinformation about the point of no return spread by right wing propagandists who actively deny that climate change even exists is an absolute moral failure.
It's a simple case of mathematics. India, China, etc. You know that "factories of the world" where we explored all of our manufacturing. The are only increasing their emission and that'll offset any Greening of our western economies. Not to mention our diminished industrial capacity will hamper our construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants that can help us deal with the effects of the Ice Age Termination Event we recently entered. So even if we when back to the stone age in the west it wouldn't make a dent. It never had anything to do with the climate. Its power and control. It always was.
@@vi6ddarkking/videos this ignores the massive leaps "the east" has made, see previous videos on this very channel. China has had huge rollout of solar, for example, the largest of any other country
Its not only happening to the climate debate. Debates of human rights, social trends, democracy or other very important discussions are driven by people who have given up on the thought that we could overcome those obstacles hindering us to live as a species in better conditions. Maybe it is not on the climate debate but on how hopeless a lot of humans feel when they see injustice, corruption, war and consumerism every day.
Yes, and while it's understandable given how interrelated and challenging those issues are, doomism is not only incredibly detrimental to those causes, it's also ahistorical. There have been massive positive alterations to entrenched power structures in the past, such as the abolition of slavery and the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Although a confluence of factors led to the ending of those systems, in both cases committed groups of people (activists, politicians, lawyers, etc.) played a critical role in realising a better society. It's worth remembering that the rights and freedoms we enjoy today (although limited) were not freely given, but hard fought for by ordinary people who believed that achieving a more just and equitable society was possible. Imagine they hadn't.
Its hard to not be pessimistic about our chances of reaching any of the lofty climate goals. Im a swede and our total share of the Co2 emissions is 0.13% meaning that even if Sweden somehow reaches 0% Co2 emissions It wont change anything and we already are doing more then most. I think rather then countries doing whats needed this whole issue is going to solve itself as the world population crashes once baby boomers and gen X starts dying off given how low our birth rates are. Wouldnt at all be surprised if birth rates would become a much more serious issue over climate change in a few decades
One of the biggest hurdles to conquer is the lobbing in the US. Politicians get millions donated to their campaign by many of the companies that are the worst offenders such as big oil.
and here you are, talking and talking by what? a computer or a smartphone .... made of plastic which comes from ... OIL. Ergo, you are no better than those politicians. Any person that really cares about the environment and critizes the convenience of oil and other commodities and yet uses them, then that person is an hypocrite. This is a capitalistic society, which mean, YOU have the power, not the companies. There are no excuses for your hypocrisy.
@@johndoe2-ns6tf There's a difference between having a device, buying a new one every year, and making its production pollute tons more to scrape a dollar on it. But I agree that the list of the biggest corporate culprits needs to be better known.
In Turkey there is a saying that goes like this: "The house is burning. The crazy person is combing his hair." That's what often comes to my mind when I see how grown-ups rather chop off the branch on which they're sitting instead of accepting responsibility....
It's like if you are driving and suddenly there is an object blocking the street, shouldn't you brake? And even if you know that a collsion is inevitable shouldn't you still brake as hard as possible to make the impact less forceful and severe? Noone would think: "ach, I can't avoid a collision. I won't brake and will just slam into that car/rock/tree/whatever with every kmh/mph I can get."
@@CaffeineConnoisseur Let the owner sort it out after you died in the crash. But I think I know what you mean: There are some drivers that die before the car crash anyway.
@ULTRAOutdoorsmanThe hypocrisy of people like you is palpable. If you resent the use of fules and petrochemicals and the technologies that are built by them, stop using them yourself. Otherwise your position is one of pure hypocrisy.
Exactly. In Canada, we have lots of environmental policies and many of our electricity is from non-polluting sources. That's great right? But it hasn't made a difference because one greedy politician can decide to burn down the Amazon Rainforest, because our actions won't influence China or Russia's quest for power. Even here, the common right-wing movement that is rising is "Axe the tax" (Carbon tax), which is (oversimplified) a tax imposed on things that would be bad for the climate, this tax is here to reduce consuming of polluting things and the tax money is reinvested into social programs. Yet still, Canadians hate having to pay more, they don't even consider consuming less, and extremely polluting factories are being built and deforestation is at an all-time high. All because of greed and money.
Exactly! We have the answers but with an economic system built to greedily exploit every resource in the world to make the most money tomorrow with no care for next week that people have to ask how do we begin? We can’t get economists to look beyond their charts to see the wage gap let alone the overshoot they are lauding as “good business .” In fact, we have built an economy of death. The better it performs the weaker every other factor becomes. That can’t be changed because we don’t have unlimited resources. The US appears to have perfected this economic terrorism but it’s been exported globally. That’s why people are doomers. It’s a parasitical system of economic governance. I still think we should go down fighting but that takes courage and unity in a world griped by fear, poverty, and derision. You can’t convince a person to fight for much when they are distracted and that is a side benefit of suppressing wages - you have to keep so busy just surviving that you can’t even try to improve your situation. That’s by design. What we would ALL have to do is take away the bourgeoisie economy. And people would die if the flow of goods stopped. I heard a statistic yesterday in “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” that hit home. In America 5% of the population uses 25% of the world’s resources. It’s not up to us to change; it’s up to the corporatocracy to decide they are going to stop wasting resources for profits. We have to make them curb their excesses by not buying their unnecessary shit. Just go without. I’m learning to forage for example, and how to find edible invasive species and how to seed wild plants to ensure my actions don’t cause a plant to go extinct in my area and how to forage sustainably. Do what you can to buy less goods but understand the “carbon footprint” is a marketing tool to make us take personal responsibility for a mess we didn’t make. It’s corporations and governments who make most of the world’s worst pollution. For right now there is a boycott of Kellogg’s products for 3 months to show the CEO how callous his response was to American hunger; essentially, eat cereal for dinner. We need to make people with vast amounts of wealth feel scared. Here is my totally not comprehensive list of observations: we are getting poorer as the economy booms, inflation is inflating the homeless population, many many states are making or have made homelessness illegal, the thirteenth amendment makes prison inmates legally slaves under the constitution, that means you don’t have to pay them a minimum wage (think less than .50 cents an hour), corporations need to show profits every quarter, corporations will, have, and always are cutting out whatever they can to ensure they make those profits because they depend on those profits. Corporations are major investors in the 69 cop cities being built and the mega prisons going in around the country. Our laws are becoming more draconian every day. This one will be controversial but it’s true; religion is being used like a weapon to ensure the maximum amount of people conform to extremely distressing suppressive laws which will and are resulting in making some people less valuable and less worthy of human rights. ALEC is wining and dining our elected leaders and greasing them up so the laws they pass will go down more easily (it helps that it’s hard to hear constituents when you have money shoved into your ears). The food industry already depends heavily on prison labor to survive. So, I deduce that we ARE heading to an even more heavily imprisoned slave population and the middle class is “dying” (can we just define what income bracket is middle class and base that decision off the buying power within our current inflation rate so we can stop lying to ourselves about who actually IS middle class?). The only way that I can think of to get ahead of this is to get there first; on our terms. Corporations will bite back with layoffs and cutting benefits and pay. People will suffer a LOT before any Billionaire CEO ever sees his own pay and benefits be touched. In fact, many would drive the most popular companies into the ground before they ever see themselves hurt financially (remember how Toys’R’Us closed and we were all surprised?). For example; people were boycotting Christmas this year and just before the holiday Hasbro laid off a bunch of employees. It was a way to make boycotters feel bad for what “they” did by not spending the money they wanted them to spend. But the one thing the wealthy want is more money. They don’t want to lose future earnings. It will be hard to hit back because they’ve had decades to block every loophole we can manipulate. They can’t make us spend money. I mean, within reason. I’ve heard someone suggest everyone stop paying rent and utilities and that sounds like it would work but I don’t think it would. We’ll never convince enough people to participate to not have that slap us in the face. No, we have to keep choosing companies that have hurt us financially and we have to kick them where they will feel it. I heard all about how money moves around between Wall Street and Hong Kong and the rich will come up with some kind of plan to try and make us do what they want but they are also stupid enough to overshoot the planet by 2.5 Earth’s worth of resources every year. These are very manipulative people and if this doesn’t work we’ll just learn by doing and find something else. We have to start buying local even though it’s expensive. That’s just the sad fact. We don’t get paid enough to go local but we have to. That hurtle has always been the problem. “That’s how they getcha” But as corporations try to decimate and enslave the population we have to make co-ops a priority. They fail because they aren’t competitive because they put the needs of people first rather than profit at any cost first. We need that kind of business. People first green-minded co-ops. We want large greedy robber barrens to die off so we have to starve their fix. It won’t solve everything. Even co-ops need resources and getting them ethically and environmentally sourced is another huge hurtle. Look to the past; before the Luddites needed to kill the machine and see what we can use that’s been suppressed by greed. We can do this. And while we fight we can also plant trees further north; just in case we don’t make it. Try and minimize our damage for the species who will survive the Anthropocene. I might even try and plant a few PawPaw’s because my USDA zone just changed due to climate change & I’m right above the boarder.
We could get rid of over 25% of all ghg emissions in the US within a decade just by switching to nuclear, and some renewables. There are still many issues with this including how to store renewable energy, but it would objectively be so much better. There are many more problems with electric cars, but if we could develop better batteries we could replace all cars with electric and get rid of over 28% of all ghg emissions in the US. The rest is even more difficult to fix, but we've already reduced over 50% from doing this.
To me it's horrifying to know that some people are pushing others into literal despair, for their own benefit. Despair is a mindnumbingly horrifying mental state to be in, and a precurser for so much suffering, so to think that some people are willing to push people into that, is something I cannot consider to be anything but an act of evil. I sincerely hope that those fallen into this despair can get back out of it, because that is not a mental state to be in that people deserve.
despair is necessary to understand reality. our civilisation will not be going further than this century for many reasons beyond climate change. before we can move on from this, we should despair and grieve, or we will be trapped in delusion.
@@op4000exe what a meaningless truism. can you point to the institutions of the roman empire today? what happened to 90% of the incan and aztec empires? why is the forbidden city of beijing a tourist attraction? i specifically said, our civilisation: global, western, dependent on fossil fuels. that will end this century and i dont need a religious explanation for it. you put quotation marks, who are are you quoting?
I'm a chemistry undergraduate, and I've even heard this sentiment echoed by my lecturers - albeit more climate pessimism than doomism. His feeling was that the British gov doesnt think things will be that bad for us, in spite of the evidence. He believed we wouldnt succeed not because it wasnt possible, but because he couldnt see the political will to do something about it changing fast enough. He still emphasised that we should try, but still it's not a great thing to hear from your renewable energy professor 😅. Here's hoping hes wrong!
That’s right up there with “Y2K was gonna collapse everything” SMH. Correct , it was !! But we paid a bunch of programmers to change computers and add digits so it didn’t screw everything up, JFC these people are so stupid and annoying.
@@tristanridley1601The problem is that CFCs weren't nearly as central to civilization as, for better or worse, fossil fuel combustion currently is. And because DuPont's CFC patents had expired. :P
The likes of BP introducing terms like our own "carbon footprint", has muddied the waters by successfully switching our attention away from big oil and fossil fuel industry, towards our personal impact. THAT is what makes no difference. Until the global energy industry is largely green, the climate crisis will only get exponentially worse. To put that into perspective. 100% of the emissions from a single person over a 70 year lifespan equates to ONE SECOND worth of the emissions of the global energy industry! 1 individuals lifetime = 1 second of yearly fossil fuel extraction and use. And so for that reason, I am pessimistic, when we have a party in charge who are still granting new exploration licenses in the North Sea. It's just madness!
Well, that's not their point- they aren't saying that SUVs are good, or that your personal carbon footprint should be ignored- rather that it's a distraction tactic, so that we don't attempt to stop the companies mentioned.
I agree that collective action is needed and opponents to collective action should be criticized or ignored, but I want to emphasize that there are a lot of reasons that individual action is still better than no action. 1. **Psychology** -- planting a tree, buying an electric car, or putting solar panels on your roof helps build your identity as a person who takes care of the environment, and increases the likelihood that you get involved politically in favor of environmental action. It also soothes climate anxiety. 2. **Economics** -- certain emmission-reducing actions save you money, which your friends will hear you brag about and want to join the bandwagon (eg. solar). Other actions may not save you money, but put money in the hands of companies that have already committed to positive action, or take money away from companies that harm the environment and lobby to continue doing so. Your green purchases may fund more R&D or industrial streamlining that could make green tech cheaper for future customers; at the bare minimum, you will send a small signal to companies that green policies get rewarded. 3. **Cumulative impact** -- this is last because it probably sounds hippy-dippy, but the combination of lots of individual action *is* collective action. One person putting solar panels on their roof won't put a dent in climate change, but a million people is a start. One tree won't make much difference, but a few billion will. At the very least, individual action can delay climate change until the opponents of collective action get old and die.
I wonder how many of the statistically analyzed comments included anti-capitalist and anti-corporate language. Quite a bit the mindset I have witnessed and subscribe to is very aware of what you describe and thus pessimistic because they know that it is extremely hard to overthrow such a power. We hate the system that has put us here and know it needs to fall, but we don't know how to topple it without crushing ourselves in the process. Doomism has a branch of young people that fail to realize that they can do things together, effectively eliminating much of the collective risk of doing radical things. They think it's impossible because the task at hand is monumentally larger than any individual, and yet is caused by individuals at the basic level. They forget that the collective is what makes the world go round and give in to the paradoxical nature of doomist thinking. In other words, "they're cowards."
Ah yes, the "energy industry"! What are they doing with that energy? Could it be that WE ALL USE IT? Like, you and I, we buy it, and then use it? Or buy products made with that energy? It's not some sort of mystical cabal just wasting energy creating CO2 for no reason. That energy is the basis of our wealth. Where I live you can absolutely choose what sort of energy to buy. I could buy only renewable energy, the only issue is that it's more expensive, even with government subsidies. I don't disagree completely tho, your car isn't the biggest cause here. The biggest cause is your desire for wealth and luxury. You complain when luxury items are slightly more expensive than usual. And with "you" I mean us. We all do it. We would rather see the world burn than not have an iPhone, or three jackets, or eat McDonald's regularly, etc etc. The harsh truth is that in order to change this, we need to accept human nature and act accordingly. we need to work to make clean alternatives economical. That's the only way. When clean alternatives to fossil fuel become economically viable, we will automatically move away from fossil fuels. The issue is that they are easy to gather, transport, adapt and use. You can use them anywhere, they are a great energy storage medium. Eventually we will figure it out.
I think a scientific view of the situation is that we’re doomed. I sympathize with you guys. I hope you can accomplish something, but you’ve got a daunting challenge in front of you.
@@peterwilson8039 naah, i'd just keep the effort on my own individual and not worry too much about it. whatever comes, let it come. not going to waste my time being depressed, it's unproductive.
@@peterwilson8039 Classic "Doomer Boomer" rhetoric. "Sorry we broke the world, but I'm gonna die soon so it's your problem... I'm not gonna bother using my last decade or so of life to do anything to fix it". For anyone feeling hopeless: spite is a good motivator. There isn't any point in giving up. Fixing some of what was damaged is better than fixing none of it due to inaction. Humans are like cockroaches, we'll live. So let's not repeat the mistakes of our forefathers and make a world worth living in for our children instead of giving them something even worse off than we got it.
@@maxixe3143It's difficult to hold out much hope for the future, when about half the voting population of the U.S. is going to vote for Trump in November. The future is going to be far grimmer than the world I was fortunate enough to spend most of my life in. I admit that my generation was initially to blame for starting the problem, but it was the Reagan and later, far-right Republicans who deliberately set out to foil any attempts to deal with it. Unfortunately my generation was, and still is, stupid enough to believe them. Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss climate change. It's going to be very bad, and it will probably stay really bad for a really long time.
You've hit on the truth with one word: cowards. Only cowards deny the obvious, painful truth, and only cowards deliberately fail to do anything positive about it.
When I was a petulant teenager, I used to ignore chores and homework until it was too late to do them. Either because someone else had done the chores out of annoyance, or because the homework due date had passed. Yes, parents and teachers got angry, but I didn't have to get off my ass and do something. It seems to me that some adults still operate on that level. "This problem doesn't exist, no need to do anything." A few years later: "Whoops, guess it does exist, but now it's too late to fix it, no need to do anything."
The person on the thumbnail literally said once "There is no such thing as climate. 'Climate' and 'everything' are the same word." to an audience of millions. Yes, climate change denial can be that dull.
You have one. Grow up and when you're 80 you will come to your senses and realize that the climate is OK and the real threat are the people in this comment section and the media that deludes them.
Too bad, you won't have one because the ultra-rich will hide in bunkers, on yachts, or even outside of the Earth's atmosphere instead of doing shit that works.
If you live in a rich country, you'll almost certainly have a world to grow up in. The world won't end, it will just be more unstable, unpleasant, and unfair.
I am a climate pessimist. I am a biologist and I despair for the natural world and the destruction that is already happening. But to give up hope entirely and advocate NO mitigating action is not only insane, but as this video says ... cowardly. It is spineless. The people who think this way should have no influence over our future, since they don't care about any of it.
There's also a recent paper published showing that we probably will not meet the challenge of global climate change because of "evolutionary ratchets" "Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions" (Waring et al, 2024)
This video really doesn't do credit to to doomers' arguments. It's not could mitigating actions work if they were implemented on a massive scale, it's just that given the evidence and human dynamics they won't and haven't been so far. The mitigating actions typically undertaken by individuals (recycling, electric cars, paper straws, etc) are so pathetic their only real purpose is to make the person doing them feel better. We've known about the climate crisis for 50+ years but emissions keep going up.
I agree that measures could be taken. But all of the steps taken so far don't really do anything. EV's haven proven to be a complete failure. Even if the infrastructure was there, generating the energy is still done by plants that run on coal. It just takes polution away from one place and puts it in another. Not to mention mining lithium only adds to the "polution" because in reality there's not really a CO2 problem. You see, CO2 is converted into oxygen by plants and trees. Reducing the CO2 level takes away the thing that plants live off of and we need plants because we need oxygen. The only thing that we could do to reduce heat on our planet is spraying alluminum very high in the atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight back into space. Yes, that will cost human lives. But hey. We're the problem right? So, win win.
I think the real problem with all of this is that: Even in the developed world, many people are struggling, and prospects for the future looking bleak. They see rich people and politicians flying to climate conferences, poor countries having to open dirty power stations and feel patronized by being asked "What's your carbon footprint?" by an oil company. Schemes like carbon capture and carbon credits and just ways to funnel more money into billionaires pockets. All these "solutions" come with a caveat. They really did nail human nature in "don't look up". That's why Gen Z is fatalistic it's that the people trying to fix the climate are just lining their own pockets and pointing fingers at the public.
@@zawbones5198 Carbon capture plants take allocated green funds, and achieve nothing (just google their efficacy). The carbon credit industry is laughable. There's a very well researched "Last week tonight" segment on it. Using money to offset emissions does nothing to reduce the actual carbon going into the atmosphere, but does allow it to be traded, and profit can be made.
@@zawbones5198artificial Carbon capture is wildly inefficient, requires us to mine and manufacture the materials to make the machines, and also pull significantly less carbon than natural systems like forests, bogs, and phytoplankton colonies. Carbon credits are a way for major organizations to change essentially nothing about their production while providing money to systems that “help”, many of which are already working anyways. Even worse, it’s a market based system which means it is likely to become exploitative, as most markets do under capitalism.
I remember my father would always deny climate change despite all of the evidence we had. Now, he no longer denies it but blames it on the cabal and geoengineering. It's amazing to me that he had to find a conspiracy theory that conveniently fit into his worldview in order to believe it rather than the plain evidence and adjusting his worldview to that.
@@soyboymotivation Every civilization has claimed the end of the world. And guess what, every civilization has died in some way. We are no different. Our technology, are cultural norms, our capitalistic way of life will return to dust. It’s silly to think we are special. I don’t care how it will end, I’m just enjoying the show.
@@playlistofthegods My elders taught me to hate anyone who isn’t white or straight so, no I don’t think I’ll be listening to them. Also, these few comments saying “he’s right!” make it seem like you didn’t actually read my comment but latched onto some buzzwords you recognized.
I'm a techno-optimistic, I believe with technologies and education, and the correct incentives, the emissions can be reduced. But cutting corners and go to extremes like high-carbon taxes to make small farmers out of business is NOT the solution. That will cause more people to get angry and fight against the cause.
Similar here. The problem I see is that the prposed solutions don't want to change anything about the capitalist world order. And I think this will make them ineffective and harmful. The changes we need are far deeper than electric cars and solar panels on farmland. We need next to zero cars and solar panels on parking lots. We need to overhaul global production and consumption and even decrease technology in a few places, like for example industrialized farming and animal keeping. That has to be deindustrialized to a certain extent. Finally, if the climate protection measures are not made socially consciently, then we'll get what you already predicted: That people will resist them.
Great, what did he, or you the students, do to make that NOT happen? We all have agency, we can always do something, even if we don't think it will have any effect, it IS still worth doing.
@@jimthain8777 It's not hard to predict, it's essentialy the stages of grief. And you could also look to the handling of lungcancer through smoking, and how compagnies denied that.
@@jimthain8777 He's published many books and been on national TV many times. Many of his students have contributed to research and outreach. Unfortunately a portion of society being fatalistic seems to be is well fate...
It's the classic 4 stage strategy, as a brit you should be familiar with it: In stage 1, we say nothing is going to happen. In stage 2, we say something is maybe going to happen, but we should do nothing about it. In stage 3, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we CAN do.
Stage 4 denialism is what I personally predict is what is going to fuel further inequality, militancy and instability in the 2050's/60s. It might even bring rise to an even bigger generational divide between boomer-age millennials who think the world has already ended and are pissing the rest of their lives away hedonistically on their inherited wealth and the younger generations trying to scrape by on what's left trying to fix things and forever resentful that the millennials/doomer generation gave up on them.
This is straight up the four stage strategy in play, again: 1. Claim nothing is happening. (not happening) 2. Claim something is happening, but we should worry or do anything. (not important or pressing) 3. Claim that we need to do something, but there's nothing we can do. (not preventable) 4. Say there might have been something to do, but it's too late now. (not effective) It's all done in the name of moeny - Allow people to profit some more before things hit the fan.
This is not just shifting the goalposts, this is going off of the entire football field. FIRST they say that climate change isn't real, and THEN they say that it's so catastrophic that we can do literally nothing to stop it. Can we find a middle way, please? That yes, it is real, and that, yes, we CAN do something about it?
The main takeaway is that climate change "skeptics" aren't arguing in good faith. The arguments don't have to be consistent as long as they serve the goal to stifle any action.
The claim of man made global warming has been wrought with goalpost moving and it isn't real. We literally moved from calling it global warming to climate change because there has been no real GLOBAL WARMING trend.
It was simply built into the American Dream. Who could have resisted this? We are all to blame, therefore, no one is to blame. This is how I have resolved the reality of the inevitable Climate Collapse. When will it happen? No one knows for certain. Will everyone perish, including the oligarchs? My guess is that the oligarchs will not, but some hard core peppers/survivalists might, unless Nukes take out mankind - which is a solid possibility.
Planet survival or extending life could be happen if everyone would return to previous eras of our, or our parents, lives. Yet, it's difficult to believe that everyone would be on board with such a lifestyle.
@@kevinh6008 "Yes they are the problem, but we bought stuff from them because the alternative is living in a cabin in the sticks so that makes us complicit!" is not a compelling argument.
@@kevinh6008 There is no other choice??? You know capitalism forces everyone around to participate on it, either through literal force (cops, military industrial complex) or through manufactured consent
I am Zambian. My poor African country is responsible for 0.19% of global GHG emissions. I've always been environmentally conscious and acknowledged climate change as a threat. However, my reset pessimism towards climate change came after the Pakistan floods of 2023. The floods were obviously an effect of climate change and yet Pakistan only contributes 0.9% of global GHG. I realised the heavy disproportionate effect of climate change on deveped and developing countries. And yet both are expected to make the same sacrifices even though the former is much more responsible for the climate effects, is impacted less economically by climate cautious economic policy, and is in a much better position to mitigate against the effects of climate change on their nations. My attitude now leans towards doing everything possible to develop my country so it too can be more economic equiped to respond to the crisis regardless of the climate effect these efforts may have because we can't afford to reduce our insignificant emission at the expense of development especially when the more responsible nations aren't making any significant efforts to reduce their own emissions.
Hey, I am from Germany. One of the biggest polluters in history. You're right about poor countries like India being affected a lot, while not contributing. But the reason is not the development status, instead it's about the geographical position (near the equator and with a big coastal line etc.) Part of the current German government is a green party. There are many tries to change energy and heat production here for the better. Yet there are many opposing forces, mainly right wing politics. Still, many people change their lifestyles and are actively trying to have a positive impact. My biggest concern is the artificial car dependence of many people (they claim they need one, while they don't). But I am still optimistic, that we will not turn back and every day is a step in the right direction.
Why do you think the more responsible nations aren't making a significant effort? Right now, 24.7% of the UK's energy is coming from fossil fuels, 23.6% gas.
I've seen research showing that a reduced workweek could reduce pollution. It's something I think we'll be hearing about more and more. Bernie Sanders just proposed a 32hr workweek without a reduction in pay. It could help the environment, help mental health, and increase freedom and free time, as well as allow us to more fully embrace automation and AI as we continue to reduce the workweek as those technologies continue to advance.
What's disturbing is how many people think it's more important to beat deniers into submission than to focus on what we're actually going to do to deal with climate change. We don't need unanimity to take action.
You kinda need enough unanimity to create a global democratic mandate. Arguing loudly with people who won't change their mind isn't necessarily the way, but combating mis- and disinformation is very important.
@@K3zster Ah yes, "global democratic mandate" with wide reaching Powers and autonomy, made up of people who have only the best for Humanity in Mind.... What could go wrong ? Dont you think creating something like that isnt the only reason for all of this ?
Want something bipartisan? Better urban design that requires less driving, and backing off of electric cars which contribute to further lithium waste we're going to have to deal with.
Virtually no snow in Minnesota this year, I could shore fish lakes and take a boat ride on Christmas Day. Warmest winter on record in most of the state and it hit 70 in February. We are sliding into a worse drought than last year where wildfires blotted out the sun for weeks and we were told not to breathe outside, even in pristine wilderness. It’s kind of hard to deny when you’re actively being flooded or smoked out or cooked.
Seeing the same in central Illinois.nwe had a total of three inches of snow all winter.while we don't get as much as you do in Minnesota, we're still supposed to get more than that. And we've seen the impact. Do you remember the dust storm we had here last year? Because farmland was so dry that when farmers plowed, it blew away. Right across the main route between Chicago and St Louis. I think 10 people died in the 49 car pile up the dust storm caused.
Gamer, similar in our stretch of the California mountains. This has been a freakishly warm winter. Only trace snow at our elevation and only a handful of frosty mornings. If next summer is similarly warm, there will be fires.
That is not climate change. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a climate change denier, but just some weird weather somewhere isn't evidence for climate change. Saying "see, climate change" because it's warm is the same as saying "see, no climate change" because it's cold somewhere. Draughts and weather anomalies aren't rare or special. Climate change is only visible in the "average temperature anomaly" across the whole globe, compared to the "average temperature anomaly" of some period in the past. It's a crazy big project to gather the data and calculate that. Just saying "last couple years were a little warmer than usual here." isn't enough. A great argument for that is that northern Europe and Asia were considerably more cold and wet this winter than the last couple years. This doesn't mean climate change ain't real, it means that our climate is a complex chaotic system. Read about the medieval warming period. Weird shit happens sometimes.
@@juskahusk2247 Realistic in that its likely to come to pass? yes. Realistic in that there is nothing that can actually be done about it? no. The problem is that fixing the problem requires taking power away from the rich, and ignoring profits for the sake of the future of humanity. The rich REALLLLYYY dont want that to happen.
The point in my teenage years where I saw professionals being talked over and ignored by idiots who didn't agree personally was the moment I realised we don't have a chance. Without serious legislative change. Small parts of the world might make the moves, but there are larger parts I just can't see changing their ways.
I think there are so many doomers because we see so many depressing news nowadays, that many young people just feel like living their life in their own way, not caring about anything, because if they were to care it would be overwhelmingly depressing. I kinda get that people strive to just chill and be isolated from all that crap
@@DarthChrisB yea like the heatwaves in spain or wildfires in fucking greece thats normal. also brazil and half of the us is constantly burning away in 2024 butbthats normal (never seen before)
@@DarthChrisB Most people over a certain age who work outside, from roofers to naturalists, can tell you from their own lived experience how much the climate has changed in an unbelievably short span of time.
@@DarthChrisB I live somewhere that used to have snowy winters and where we could go ice skating on the local lake 25 years ago and I can tell you that's definitely not the case anymore and hasn't been for the last 10 years.
Important to note that another reason why people might not want to change their behaviour because it "won't make a difference" is because most of the pollution is not caused by individual consumer action it is caused by a tiny number of massive companies. Individual decisions are not going to change that. It's a poorly phrased question that make zoomers sound like doomers; when they might actually just have a clearer idea of who the real source of the problem is. And it isn't them.
It's actually caused by government regulations. Either by allowing companies to greenwash (Look up Carbon certificates) or by enforcing costly yet ineffective solutions. We can, by this logic alone, assume that efforts to protect the climate would be more efficient without those regulations. Would they be perfect? No, of course not. The amount of evironmental protection that would be done is equal to the cumulative demand for environmental protection, with every single person on the earth contributing to that demand. The problem with that is that poor people literally cannot afford to vote for evironmental protection with their wallet (literally forcing companies to adapt and adopt more sustainable practices by not giving them money until they do so). The wealthier the people, the more climate and environmental protection they can afford and are willing to afford. The key to fighting climate change is therefore: Make everyone as rich as possible, as fast as possible. Degrowth or more regulations instead make it harder for people to become wealthier. Production costs are driven up, prices increase, everyone has less wealth. Government regulation does exactly the opposite of what it tries to achieve.
@@ThePhilosophermaking everyone as wealthy as possible is literally the basis of capitalism. It is the only method we know that does that. Capitalism has proven however that it doesnt achieve that aim without regulation. So you have literally just started the doomer argument without saying it's impossible, by defining the only solution (regulation) as ineffective. It isn't ineffective, it has merely been sabotaged by climate denialism like your own. Regulation works. When it is based in science. Regulation doesn't work when it is based in feelings. Fix how you create and apply regulation, and you create regulation that works. Zero regulation unrestrained capitalism does not address climate change. Wanna know how I can. Prove it? Simple. Without regulation a company can simply lie about it's green credentials. So even rich people will think they are addressing climate change, when they are not in fact. All to raise profits. You need regulation there's no way around it.
@@ThePhilosopher Ah, but I want the products I buy to be made cheap and dirty, but the products you buy to be expensive and green. Also, it is in practice too hard to tell which products are green when faced with endless options in the shops. Carbon tax.
Think back to the money that big tobacco spent denying that smoking had anything to do with cancer.. And transfer that to the Billions, (that's with a B) of dollars that big oil has spent on dis- information. And it's not a stretch as to why people don't know what to believe.
These folks by nature would never EVER admit to having been bamboozled by the oil companies. Exxon's CEO even ADMITTED that the oil industry had been creating and spreading misinformation to conservative 'news' outlets, but it makes no difference to these people.
The thing is, cancer related to smoking was an actual real thing. Climate-change is a real thing too, but yes scientists are still not sure about what the effect really are, it is hard to predict the future. All we know is, Co2 seems to warm the climate, trees ''eat'' Co2. So we should really plant more trees, it is the easiest and least expensive thing we can do. But in my area, i unfortunately see them cutting trees instead of planting them.. But yea.. People need to live somewhere i guess..
@@MarshallMathersthe7th But scientists are sure of certain consequences. If anything, you can usually estimate that those consequences they talk about are much worse than what they actually say
I am environmental science major. And I am ashamed to admit yhat in the past my Christian extremist upbringing made me a climate denier. But I am also happy it did because I am a researcher at heart. This made me research climate change and radically changed bot only my mind but my whole world. Thank you for this video. I hope more do the research. Because time is getting short for us to change.
Renewables are not getting cheap. They are the most expensive of all. The calculations are wrong and don’t forget capitalism is not making rare goods cheap. The more Green energy we have in the mix the more money it costs. If we would like to have cheap energy we have to change the economical system first. But not back to feudalism as the elites try now, also not to so called communism which is not working. But to co-operative systems that have well being as goal instead of profit. Green parties of today are undermined by lobbyists. Poor world, stupidly blind people believing the mass media owned by the wrong.
Why is Jordan Peterson the thumbnail. Literal clickbait. Misinformation. Deformation of image. Shit like this is harmful but people don't care because it supports their agenda.
Not cheap enough as of yet. Also storage is not cheap enough yet. If 4kw solar panel + 100 kWh battery cost less than $10k installation included and has at least 20 year life time, you will see a lot of US families owning those systems.
I just love how fans of R1 zoning, parking minimums, outlawing bikes on some/all roads, and putting as much money as possible into highways are "anti-regulation".
If Humanity was willing to give up we wouldn't be here now, the problem is that nowadays people are bombarded with bad news and develop this "Doomer" Mentality, we just gotta spread to everyone that it's far from over while still rising awareness of climate change AND work on solutions, it's a lot of work for a lot of problems
@@scarousingpeach88you both are so naive it’s frightening. And we all know you both manage nothing of significance in the world and yet you magically have the solution to a problem you can’t even measure with solutions you haven’t even formed and tested.
It appears that humanity has given up. Humanity is just not under enough pressure to change. Everybody just wants a happy and prosperous life just like the previous generation had.
@@marrs1013 This couldn't be more far from reality, there are Millions of people working every single day to make things better, more than ever had, the latest example we had was COVID, we made a Vaccine in record time, there has never bven more people aware of climate change than now and the amount of activists nowadays is higher than it have ever been, yeah a lot of people gave up, but Humanity as a whole didnt, far from it, Humanity never truly gives up
My problem with climate policies is that they seem to be uneffective when we can use nuclear power. Honestly we just need to do more devlopment in nuclear to be carbon neutral, instead people keep shuting down nuclear power plants to put coal in place.
That used to be the case among environmentalists, but not for much longer. Government policies are starting to turn back to nuclear, like in Illinois. This shift will accelerate as the climate crisis becomes more urgent.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 as well as taking much time for planning + building, inflexibility in energy output and nuclear waste. So it is actually more like 5 problems
@@charlotteschnook1351 then again in the long run chernobyl became a natural park devoid of human activity. Animals still die due to cell mutations because of the radiation but human activity is more lethal so there is an abudance of dif. species in very healthy populations. That means Humans are worse than radiation. j.k.
You're equating 2 different types of "doomers". Some are deniers who are saying "oh those renewables are worse anyway" and some do come from groups that were trying to get something done about it, but ended up giving up.
agreed, my peers and me are very open about system reform to solve the problem, but most have given up since the realisation that there won't be any meaningful reforms due to corrupt politicians and big companies has set in.
And having to argue with people who are convinced that people who fight against climate change are the problem. Apparently protester are hypocrites who pollute more than anyone else and anyone working green technology are just in it for money, and all politicians who tries to do something about it are corrupt. It does make me feel hopeless. I had nothing but those discussion last year and just had one on Wednesday.
There's a third subgroup of "doomer" as well, like myself--I don't think we should give up trying to mitigate. It's not that I think we *couldn't* make it better, but that humans simply won't, for political and economic reasons. It's more of a "human psychology" sort of reason that I'm a doomer.
Then there's those of us who haven't given up, but are looking at the odds and trying to make sure that our families and communities have a decent chance of surviving the crash anyway. If the world suddenly comes to its senses we haven't lost anything by living off-grid and as self sufficient as we can, after all.
I’m a millennial and in my experience, most people that have become climate doomers have done so because of their mistrust of politics. I personally just feel as though greenwashing and the general state of geo politics makes me feel as though we can’t reach our targets.
There are a lot of rotten apples in the politics/government basket, so get rid of the rotten apples! Those rotten apples stay there because of a lack of good democracy. And the rotten apples are made rotten by corporates and individuals who are too rich and too self-centered.
tombradshaw5164: "CO2 has never been used by any national weather office in the world for weather/climate purposes. The only gas that's used is water vapour. CO2 plays no role. The following are the factors that influence the world's different climates: Latitude Elevation Proximity to large bodies of water Ocean currents Topographical features (the shape of the land, if you prefer) Vegetation Prevailing and seasonal winds. CO2 counts for nothing; never has, and never will. That's the science which is taught and practised in meteorology/climatology." CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that, nature 97%. The 3% club could go back to horse and cart tomorrow and have no effect on climate.
Or they move the issue elsewhere so it isn't their problem, see manufacturing and China. Rather than the West cleaning up industry and investing in cleaner energy, it was just moved 'outside the environment' to places like China or India. Now politicians here can crow about being net zero while importing ship loads of dirty goods from abroad that they don't have to declare emmissions on, the Drax wood pellets being the worst example of this
As opposed to science channels which never reveal their revenue streams? Anyone who is serious about making an argument from authority should make public where every last cent they make comes from. Funny how they never do that, and no, patrons are usually a minority stream of revenue.
The ecofascist plan: Step one: Find a problem. Step two: Demand more government control to fix the issue. Step three: Issue is not fixed, blame everyone esle but those responsible for solving the issue, demand more government control. Repeat step three ad infinitum.
@@adriadelafuente3648So the sum total of climate scientists are in fact not scientists just going about their job but "ecofascists"? If no, then good job you are correct. But that also raises the question, did someone "find a problem" or was a problem discovered by said scientists? If no efforts to fix said problem are made because of science denialism what are we to blame other than science denialism?
The idea that if we are not at fault for climate changing therefore we should do nothing is ludicrous. "The storm is coming, but its not our fault, lets sunbath"
A big issue that I also saw with Covid is that people tend to believe politicians and randoms online when it comes to big and complex topics instead of the actual science. Usually because they confirm people's biases and it's a lot easier to just believe some who agrees with you then to actually sit down and learn about the topic.
@@Optimistprime. A lot of people who respect science seems to mysteriously not apply scientific analysis when it comes to politics, economics, and history. Oh right, because Marxism is pure evil and ideologically extreme. Scary communism. Even though China is leading in green energy today, and Cuba in pro-LGBT laws, and healthcare in the 3rd world. I would say a bigger issue is that the west isn't actually democratic. The majority of people want to fix climate change, but unfortunately, the west are actually elective 4 year dictatorships. And the ruling dictators don't care about fixing the climate. This is not going to improve any time soon, when people think that directly voting for policies and decisions is "one party totalitarianism." There's a reason why China does capitalism better than capitalists. Why China has had a "failing economy" since the 1950s but they've been skyrocketing as a superpower until this day. Because they actually apply scientific analysis into their understanding of economics, politics, and social developments. And unlike the dictatorial west, they follow the will of the people.
It's unfortunate that they, the least culpable, the global poor, the southern hemisphere, animal life, nature itself will continue to bear the brunt of our leaders and our selfish countrymen too ignorant and heartless to care about them until it's at our own front door. Until it's your family, your friends, your parents.
It is even more unfortunate that the believers are too short sighted to see the reality. Climate change is just a symptom of an unsustainable economy. Half a century ago the club of Rome presented a report stating the obvious. Unlimited growth in a limited world is not possible. The climate believers refuse to address this root cause and just talk about combating the symptom that the 1 percenters have made into a profitable business opportunity, something they can't do when the root cause is addressed. So the root cause is ignored and it is just a matter of time till the next crisis. Actually they are already here, nitrogen, pfas, microplastics, etc etc. The only long term solution is to transform to a sustainable economy, one based on maximizing quality of life instead of material wealth, one that stays within the regenerative capacity of earth.
I have been listening to your predictions all my life and none of them came true. Never ever did I see anyone take responsibility. So excuse me but your crap is a bit worn out and tired by now,
What we must admit to ourselves is is that the people pushing denialism, doomerism, etc know this and that seeing the global poor die because of climate change is their goal. The right wing doesn't mind coastal cities suffering either.
@@TheCatherineCC Yes, the very very rich understand that resources are going to quickly diminish, and depopulating the planet is their goal. And it's not even a new idea. The eugenics movement, for example is a century old.
Its so crazy how close idiocracy is to RL right now, I've been thinking this stuff for years and have come across many reputable sources making similar claims about the future of our climate and economy but if you try to talk to the average person about it they think you sound gay and retarded for even thinking about an issue that could inconvenience them in the slightest or that requires a tiny bit of wisdom to see the bigger picture.
Doomerism in gen z is not because the small changes won't matter but because govts and companies won't try/even oppose to changes for their personal gain. Also a lot of us love meat, exotic foods from across the global and getting a lots of electronics cheaper etc.
I'm a conservative, "far right" if you will, I am also an engineer in the gas industry, but I do believe in climate change. Id vote for pro-nuclear politicians in my country.
Nah, it's possible for your vote to actually be pointless and make zero difference to the outcome of an election. Whereas every tiny bit of greenhouse gas emissions avoided will make the upcoming catastrophe slightly less catastrophic.
@@ArgumentumAdHominemAgreed. While Trump is obviously worse than Biden when it comes to dealing with climate change, Biden isn't good. In the US, you are forced to choose between two candidates that have no serious interest in dealing with the problem. What little Biden has done is pitiful in comparison to what is needed, and the same criticism applies to nearly all democrats. They, just like the republicans, are bought and paid for by corporations that make money in ways that make the climate crises worse. Voters aren't ever given a good choice.
While at this point it's impossible to prevent climate change (because it already happened, can't turn back the clock) we can still slow it down and mitigate the consequences. And that is the case even if the well is poisoned, it's still possible to make things not as bad as they could be. And even if we fail, good things can come from bad situations, there is always hope.
@@echelonrank3927 Well thats the thing, there are catastrophic things already happening, you just dont realize it living in first world country. Massive immigration waves are not just because of war.... a tiny bit less food production means food prices goes up, not by much for you but massively for poorer people, causing them to migrate. Medicine is going to be more expensive, you will say its because of big pharma, but we actually need a lot of plants to make drungs. Few flood and droughts here and there and it will cost more, but you wouldnt realize the connection.
Hi, from Vermont here. This won’t add much, but in the past 10 years we have gotten over 2 feet of snow atleast three times in December. So far, we haven’t gotten over 2 inches.
To move beyond the doom I felt about climate change about a decade ago, I studied sustainability focusing on climate adaptation, and over time I have gained enough experience to be in a position in a career field where I, as an individual and working on a team, can make a difference in policies around climate change in government at a regional scale. I know everyone worries about individual climate friendly choices, but I would encourage younger people (I'm in my early 30s) to get jobs in government or private industry or nonprofits working on climate mitigation and adaptation. Fighting this fight while earning enough to sustain your own life is what eases burnout and eventual feelings of doom.
Yes, funny how no politician wants to take about 'climate change mitigation or adaption'. It's obvious that fossil fuels are here to stay. Maybe time to make preparations for this 'inevitable future'.
Hi, can you say what subject you studied specifically? I'm interested in studying at sustainability related subject but feeling confused since there's a lot of options
@saraf5414 Hello! In undergrad my major was sustainability with a minor in environmental science. I had to tailor that program to meet my needs of focusing on climate adaptation and not green energy or climate mitigation. Then I worked for a few years in environmental nonprofits, and found I needed to go to grad school to rise up the career ladder, so I went to Duke Nicholas School for masters of environmental management, focusing on coastal management. I highly recommend that program. Good luck!
This is the attitude my generation (late 20s) and later need. We are still in the fight and no matter what, we inherit an earth for better or for worse. What we do today, will show itself in 20 years time, so there is no time like the present!
I was probably seven or eight, and California was drowning in the El Niño. Even the wealthy areas where we lived, it was bad. I want to ask my mom after I got home from school with my literal boots full of water because the water got pretty hot, even in the streets, and I asked her why is it raining so much and are we just going to be washed away. She taught me about the climate, as simply as she could get a nine-year-old would understand. I asked her how did she know about the climate when she was a cardiac surgeon, and her expertise were on the heart. She told me, the only way to solve problems is to study how the situation works and what happens when the process that makes the situation work becomes corrupted. She taught me that just because someone has an expertise in one thing, doesn’t mean they can’t study and learn about the other, because the fundamentals of science is all about exploring and learning relationships between one thing and another. But the most important she told me was that, if we want to make a difference, we have to be willing to learn, and if we want to survive, we have to be willing to make a difference. Just like how, in order to become the species, we are today, we had to risk learning how to farm instead of following the animals, and there were times when farming went bad, and we had no crops. Just look at what happened to Ireland in the potato famine. But learning how to raise crops was what allowed us to ultimately become of the species that we are now. She told me she wasn’t sure what would happen since the rain could continue, or it could shift, and we could end up in a drought, which is literally what happened, or something completely different but she knew if we try to make a change, based on what we’ve learned, we can prevent the worst from happening. Because that is our job as people. To make sure that lives that are born after us, have a good chance. That was what she taught me when I was nine. I still carry that With me. That no matter what my own personal moods and emotions are, whether I even care to live to see tomorrow, I owe it to the next generation, just as my mothers generation owed it to me, to take what is been learned and use it to make a better world as long as I exist within it. Because the more people stop trying, the chances raise higher for worse to happen.
Your mother is a TERRIBLE scientist and mathematician. Absolutely terrible I’m sure she’s a fine doctor. If this is what she taught you, she’s an ignoramus on climate. News flash: she doesn’t have the data, she hasn’t vetted the models.
In the US this is the same tactic used by the Right to oppose any and all gun control legislation for decades. 1. Suppress analysis of the problem by prohibiting the CDC to research gun deaths, and then 2. when there is another mass shooting that affects people directly, loudly proclaim that since no law conceived by man can prevent gun crime, we shouldn't act at all. Oh, and 3. "making criminals of law-abiding citizens" is the cherry on top. That one is working its way into the climate debate as well.
My own personal "climate doomism" isn't based on the idea that it's impossible for us to save ourselves, or to improve the situation. My climate doomism is based on the idea that we just won't. People are too unwilling to change. They are unwilling to give up even the smallest conveniences to save a future that they have no certain date for. They refuse to accept it's really happening, even if they know, logically, that it is. And so we will just go on destroying the planet and ourselves, until it becomes too obvious to deny anymore. That's the only point we will truly change. I hope it's not too late by then.
I’m of a similar mind, will we give up enough comforts for it to do anything, not everyone says don’t try, but it doesn’t mean that you believe it will do anything
I had to laugh out loud when you said "...successful channels too" @3:00. You're producing great content, Simon, and I hope you will be able to keep doing this.
So, an important thing to note about the survey at 10:45 is that it focuses far too much on individual action. Changing one person's behavior really doesn't make a meaningful difference when it comes to climate change, and it is a myth that was perpetuated by big business for the benefit of big business. The changes that need to be made are on a systemic level, law and policy for countries rather than the actions of individuals. An example of what I am talking about is recycling. When concerns were originally raised as to pollution issues to do with plastics, recycling was created as a way to shunt the responsibility from the companies to the consumer. Plastic was cheaper for the companies, so they wanted to keep using plastic. The problem with that is that (aside from just shifting the blame) plastic isn't even good for recycling like metal or glass is, you can't melt a water bottle and turn it into the same kind of water bottle, it turns into a different kind of plastic. The solution to the problem is reducing single use plastic to only things that are absolutely necessary, but that would be more expensive for businesses.
05:52 there’s a little truth in there…..there are only 2 countries in the entire world that run entirely on renewable energy- they are Iceland and Lesotho (a small African nation). But in both cases they don’t get their energy from renewables like wind and solar. In Lesotho’s case the majority of their power comes from hydroelectric sources (dams). Whereas in Iceland’s case the majority comes from geothermal energy (85%) and the rest coming from, again, hydroelectric. And in both cases the countries are much smaller than the average country and their power demands are lower than say the UK’s. The idea that the U.K. could just switch to renewable sources like wind or solar and be fine is laughable. They are both intermittent sources of energy and constantly need to be backed up by other sources of power. With the UKs power requirement and it’s limitations on geothermal and hydroelectric sources, nuclear is actually the most environmentally friendly option for us, short of significantly reducing our power requirements. To be clear I am not a climate change denier. It is clearly happening. But equally I’m not naive enough to believe that wind and solar power is gonna save us.
@@scorpionjaxxer339 One can say nuclear is the only way, but I believe, that we can put around 50% of our energy production into renewables, and the rest in hydro powered energy storages, plus nuclear to stabilise the energy peaks and dips that happen throughout the day
Hydro power _is_ a renewable source in exactly the same sense solar and wind are (i.e. it's ultimately driven by the Sun which, at least on a human timescale, will never run out). Not sure if you intended it but your implication is otherwise. (but in general I agree - short of some big advance in storage technology or perhaps fairly radical global energy sharing, nuclear power seems the best bet. Of course the way we currently run things in the UK, it likely won't happen quickly enough - Hinkley C for instance has been in the works since 2008 and won't start producing power until _at least_ 2029)
but there are more and more countries that run more and more and even mostly on renewables and considering that the technology is so new thats impressive as hell.
If you go nuclear you are still dependent on mostly autocratic regimes. You can see in the case of Germany where that can lead to. But even if thats none of your concern. Look at the building times and cost estimations of current nuclear power plants. They are all much more expensive and take way too long to build. Just look at Hinkley Point C if you need a close example. And this is not only the case for the large plants like the one mentioned, but the smaller versions like SMRs all mirror the issues of their bigger brothers. This will ulitmately result in very expensive electricity costs. A fully renewable system can work if you not only factor in the production side of things, but also the grid, flexibilities (storage and management) as well as demand as many studies have shown (even for the UK), it just requires investment and political will for change. But as we all know, change is scary (but necessary).
Unfortunately most of the time it’s a mix of “I grew up believing this thing that I can not observe, thus this has become part of my foundation of who I am as a person” “That this thing that I believe in has my best interest at heart even when it doesn’t feel like it” “Science doesn’t believe this thing that I believe in so why should I trust them” “This person I trust confirms my biases” Essentially getting influenced at a young age to not only believe something that they can’t observe but make it part of their identity, thus any attack on this thing is viewed as an attack at the person, causing them to go on the defensive with no critical thinking.
@@typemasters2871 Very well put. A lot of people are maybe not even influenced since their childhood, they just adopt these simple explanatory models because they can't or simply don't want to deal with the complexity of reality and problems - so if somebody then challenges their narrow and dumbed-down worldview , they feel threatened in their very existence. So their reaction is filled with hatred, denial and aggression towards the people who try to point out other possible perspectives. It's silly and scary at the same time - because these people can vote and often they are the most active voters.
@@adambazso9207 The unfortunate reality that religions that try to promote positive social traits (being truthful, being kind, showing empathy, etc) end up attracting people who want to use it for personal gain (to be in a position of power, to become rich, as an excuse for their hate, to ignore what’s happening on earth) and/or people who have a tendency to cherry pick the parts they like and ignore the parts they don’t whilst (either willingly or unconsciously) ignoring any of their own hypocrisy.
My heart goes out to the desperately poor of Africa, who are being denied loans for power plants, because the Europeans don't want to lend money to anyone who's not doing renewables. It's absolutely cruel and inhumane to deny people the most basic of things, like not having to burn wood and dung in their homes, because climate change. And this is being done by people like the Germans, who are importing coal at the exact same time because they won't allow their standard of living to drop even a little bit. They are monsters.
The NEXT step is to SUE the shit out of the fossil fuel companies for harming the planet in order to get the FUNDS needed to FIX this fucking fossil fuel world. All Clear?
True, but not in the way you think. The establishment is pushing the 'climate change' agenda for all it's worth - and that's not because they care so much about the planet, or anything else except their power and wealth. Open your eyes.
"Lobbyists, corporations and politicians are murdering us." Are you speaking about the big food and big agro-bussines corporations which are pushing the vegan agenda and the anti-meat narrative and are actively trying to discredit people who engage in regenerative animal agriculture like Allan Savory?
@@PeterChoyce most of us have "top comments" sorted by default and that makes it look like there's a healthy debate, but if you (re-)sort by "Newest comments first", there's a tendency to get cynical 'doomer' comments. They don't get voted up, won't appear at the top comments by default, but can become a steady stream of gloom. just continuing wails of despair into the intellectual vacuum that is the RUclips comment section.
My brother in law is a doomist of the new variety. He is a physics Prof at a prestigious University, he thinks we can do nothing and has infected me with this thinking and I really want to not believe it.
Even if it's true do you want to sit on your hands and wait for it to happen? Or do you want to do everything in your power to do as much as you can.... Even in the end, if the worst comes to pass at least you tried. And that effort can bring you some modicum of peace and agency now, to make your current day to day life better, knowing you are fighting for a better future, even if your efforts are doomed. After all, even if we solve climate change, one day this Earth will be gone for one reason or another. That's no reason to give up today.
Your brother in law may know physics, but he doesn't know energy technology. We have the solutions. He's just wrong. Ignore him, be happy, and vote for people who are willing to do something about climate change.
There are individuals out there doing things to help. I quit my job in the city to get a slightly less good job 2 miles from home. The wife and I drive smart cars, from 2009 and 2013. We try to not fly places when possible. We vote for people who want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and who will work with foreign nations towards that goal. It is not that hard.
I’ve recently started to see an even stranger kind of denial. That “The ocean temperature is warming but it’s due to increased heat coming from the earths core” I think this was as a response due to the unexpectedly high sea temperature in the North Atlantic last year.
I think that would be classified under the 'old denial' discussed in this video. The old denial is still very much around, and the wackadoo stuff they come up with would be fascinating if it weren't so exasperating. One 'theory' that emerged around 2010 and is still bandied about in the most extreme circles today is that the sun is made of electricity ('the electric universe') and that the GHG effect isn't real because thermodynamics is wrong - yes, denialists would rather believe batshit so crazy it undermines all of physics just to avoid the conclusion that our CO2 is causing heating of the Earth/atmosphere. That is how desperate they are, it is insane.
But just because I don’t think there is much I PERSONALLY can do about it doesn’t mean I don’t think governments can effect change much more efficiently. The best thing we can do personally is support our government policies that help to address this issue.
You can stop consuming anything that involves oil. No more car, or train, or bus or plane. No more compluter, no more food from the supermarket, no more heating your home.
@@Nehes.6743 Yet 71% of emissions come from 100 companies. Objectively, if you are only focussing on reducing your own carbon footprint (and note the problematic history of this term), you are doing nothing effective. Political action is the most important thing that you can do. In terms of ordering of effectiveness it is: political action and change to individual practices, political action and no change to individual practices, change to individual practices, and lastly, nothing.
If it's a terrestrial government it has this thing where it wants population to increase because it's a nation, and then they make the people they incentivized into existence become consumers (because all economic activity is in fact consumption, strictly speaking), and the waste generated wrecks the planet we live on-because it's toxic stuff spewed out of machines that organisms can't deal with. The government may speak well about our concerns for ecological sustainability and the justness of new and more efficient killing machines and why we can't have nice things, but it's just monkey jaw flapping. We're an evolutionary catastrophe. A trainwreck. Consciousness is an aberration worse than any meteor strike, and the limit of our social imagination is our doom. Feel good about it if you like. I think people would have to recognize how deeply and fully out of whack our whole being as a species is to start doing anything about it, but that wouldn't put a big toothy grin on everybody's face.
You don't give the government money, the government is where money comes from. What is your alternative, and don't say the invisible hand of free market capitalism
Deniers 30 years ago: Climate change isn't real. Deniers now: Climate change is real but it's natural, it's not man-made. Deniers 30 years from now: Climate change is real, it's not natural, it's man-made... but we can't do anything anymore so we might as well just keep going.
No climate deniers would survive spending two days in the southern hemisphere during the summer. Despite having many conservatives who are anti-vax and things of the sort in tropical countries. It is simply undeniable that each new summer is simply less bearable than the last. We feel the difference in our very skin. Every single summer, all of our news channels warn us that "the current summer is the hottest in recorded history." Not to mention rising tides and islands simply dissappearing. Denying climate change is basically saying, "If it doesn't affect me, then it must not exist."
We just suffered through a record high tide that caused over $100 million in damages. There were a lot of naysayers here before it happened. Not so many now. I think you're exactly right about public perception. If it doesn't affect people personally, it simply doesn't exist.
I grew up on the equator and it still doesn't feel any warmer now than when I was little. I am against the whole climate change science because I don't believe their data. I think the whole climate change crisis just like covid(nurse now who worked the covid units) is being exaggerated to control society.
We were in Bali last summer, nobody we talked to said it was getting worst. They say is hot, and they have to work outside for farming, construction etc., but none of them mentioned is getting worst each year, or that the plants were burning up from heat. That is just one data point. Southern hemisphere is very big. What is hot in one region may not be the same in another region that you are in. Here in the northern hemisphere, we had an unusual long winter lasting all the way into June last year. This year we just had an unusual snow storm in the spring. Summers are hot in the dessert for sure, but don't remember it being worst than previous ones. Lakes were getting very small. That was a scare. Now the lakes are getting back to size again. I can't make a definite conclusion.
@@benmlee I don't mean to be rude, but you were a visitor. I'm a native to an equatorial country, and let me tell you: it IS getting hotter and worse. I'm not just talking about the sensation on the skin but actual data, reliable news media constantly showing that the last few summers were the hottest in recorded history according to research. I'm not sure if you heard, but the heat waves were so serious earlier this year during the peak of the current summer that Taylor Swift had to cancel and postpone her shows in Brazil, and people even died *during* the event as a result of that. This happened in Rio, which is waaaay south of the equator and not one of the hottest regions of the country. Summer is almost over now, so things are a bit better, but we can't just invalidate the data and these people's experiences.
I saw how quickly the environment changed just from some months of covid lockdowns causing overall lesser carbon footprints. I believe in the possibility of change.
Right, if we put all of society in a cage forever, destroy all industry and technological progress, and revert back to the stone age, yes, our carbon footprint stops existing. But you recognize what you're asking for, right? For some people, those months/years were the worst time of their life, because of those actions.
Ok I get what they are trying to say, I think what they mean is that the climate can go back to normal, obviously we aren’t going back to lockdown but making climate friendly decisions can actually help
@@LoganChristiansonthat’s ignorant of their point; the point is there is still hope and it is possible to save the climate. Yes, that includes without shutting down the world. We have the technology to do so
@@Potato_the_third You're not seeing my point: to the degree you turn off the CO2 production, you cause suffering in humanity. We shut down almost everything, and nature quickly began to snap back. Are you able to recognize the cost of doing that, though? What did that do to people?
It saddens me that people that go from climate change denial to doomist actually exist. I feel slightly disgusted by it. But i console myself with the fact that accepting theres a problem is the first step towards fixing that problem.
denialism to doomerism makes sense when you understand that such people aren't at all motivated by a desire to find truth, but instead only seek to justify the desire to minimise (or reverse) change. they don't really care about whether _climate change is happening_ or not; they care about whether or not _they might be asked to do/stop doing anything._
The deniers never actually believed their nonsense, it's always been a grift to keep things from changing, or in the case of fossil fuel industry, to keep making money. This is the natural evolution of the grift, if your aim is to make sure nothing has to change, and you can keep making money. Instead of denying the problem, you say its pointless to even try to solve it.
@@bipolarminddroppings Find me a substitute for fossil fuel, and then we might talk. Until then, our way of life is so inextricably linked to those, you might as well ask people to stop eating entirely.
@@adriadelafuente3648 you are an example of exactly the attitude the video is about. You’re setting the narrative so high it’s unachievable. Won’t you consider some kind of personal and societal change in behaviour? Take responsibility, stop being so silly.
i live in europe and the EU is very focused on the climate change, but i hear a lot of people saying "what is the difference if we are driving electric or diesel cars while china is opening new coal powered power plants and they are making X times more CO2 than us?" how to adress it?
China and India were offered fewer requirements in the Paris agreements for very sound reasons. CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries, which means that the lion’s share of the current accumulation came from the United States and Europe, both of which industrialized 200 years ago. China only began to modernize 40 years ago and has emitted nowhere near the CO2 that we have in the United States and Europe. Who but the lion should clean up the lion’s share of the mess? Per capita, the Chinese spew HALF as much CO2 per year as Americans do. Most Chinese adults don’t even own cars yet, while Americans drive the world’s largest gas hogs. Per capita, the Chinese use HALF as much electricity as we do. They also lead the world in the development of clean energy. EVs there have exploded in popularity and many cost LESS than traditional ICE cars. 90% of China’s buses are electric. China added more solar panels to its infrastructure in 2023 than the U.S.has done in its entire history, according to a report in Bloomberg. Finally, 80% of Wal-Mart’s merchandise is manufactured in China. China makes hundreds of products for American companies, so that factory pollution is partly due to our insatiable demand and conspicuous consumption. Who exactly should be responsible for such downstream emissions? The United States was unfettered by CO2 and pollution restrictions as it modernized. China and India naturally want the same freedom to grow. Yes, China and India burn a lot of coal, but they are also making steady progress toward transitioning to clean energy. These are big ships to turn around. It's not going to happen overnight.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 None of that justifies imposing draconian measures on western citizens to decrease CO2 EMISSIONS, especially when said measures are known to stunt growth as well as make countries poorer. How much poorer? We dont exactly know, but its not like the politicians in charge of this actually care. You can do whatever you want in the West, the most obvious truth is that if China doesn't stop doing what they're doing, most of our efforts will be made useless. This isn't a matter of fairness, this is an obvious matter of political convenience. If the West tries to impose anything, China will simply say no. So they get to keep their supply chains intact while we cant even drive our cars anymore. And again, our politicians dont give a damn because they are still flying around in their private jets.
They are so focused on climate change that they are perfectly fine with supporting an endless war in ukraine which produces god knows how many emissions
EU is contributes a lot to climate change, even if US and China do effect it more. We can't just deny that this is also our fault (to be fair industrialization and globalization started with us). Also taking action against global warming would also improve the environment we live in. For example: protecting and improving forests would mean a better water and air quality; Circular economy would make us less dependant on global trading; Renewable energy could reduce gas and oil usage, meaning we won't have to buy it from other countries (see all the debate about Russian gas). Acting on climate change is not just about ethics, is to improve our lives and economy.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes, CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries... but the cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 still put China in second place, at about half that of the USA (Russia is third). So that argument does work for India, but definitely not China. China is _way_ over-emitting, even on a per-capita basis. Yes, USA produces more per-capita, but China's production is still way too high even in reasonably short-term (a decade or two). It's perfectly fair for India to grow their emissions; but China should already be hard into reducing theirs. Europe is already below the per-capita emission of China, and still trending way down. Yes, part of that is importing goods that were produced in Asia and Africa - but a much smaller part than you probably think. For example, Germany (already way above average per-capita CO2 in Europe) had some 8t CO2 per capita in 2020 locally... and imported some 1.5t CO2 per capita from abroad. Some of the lowest local emissions are clearly subsidized by shifting production abroad - e.g. Switzerland got nice 4t/cap in 2020... but imported mind-blowing 8.3t/cap. Properly accounting for everything shows a very different picture from the politics speech; Germany is often shown as a green success story, but compare Germany's real 9.2t/cap to "dirty" UK's 7t/cap. Czech Republic is fairly dirty at 8.7t/cap, but only imports 0.7t/cap. And of course, just looking at the trade emissions isn't enough - e.g. Russia is a net exporter of CO2 at -1.8t/cap... but still manages a total of 9.3t/cap (at a fairly low life quality by European standards). France, with its nuclear power, sits at 5.8t/cap (including the 1.5t from net imported goods). Heck, Norway has 8.7t/cap! How about that Africa and Asia we "clearly" export our emissions to? Yep, most of them are near neutral or net exporters in trade. But it's severely overblown, and the others (like South Korea and Japan or even Cambodia and Botswana) are enough to sway the pendulum the other way. India is a net exporter... at about -0.12t/cap (though poor as the country is, the native emissions are at just 1.6t/cap - clearly a place that can fairly ask for a bit of a boost). China? Not a chance. Yes, net exporter at -0.65t/cap, but native emissions are already at 7t/cap. For fun, Kuwait stands at -0.65t/cap, so a net exporter (oil exports tend to do that!)... but has native emissions at absolutely staggering 22.2t/cap. Looking at the data, it seems that by far the biggest impact on those "exported" emissions is the fossil fuel industry. The net exporters are almost invariably exporters of coal, oil and gas. Manufacturing is not insignificant, but is dwarfed by the fossil fuels, and always has been. And of course, while most industries are getting ever cleaner and more efficient, the exact opposite is true of fossil fuel industries - they emit more every year. Per-region the numbers are quite telling. The world average is 4.5t/cap. Africa is at 1t/cap. Asia at 4.1t/cap. Europe has 7.3t/cap (EU is slightly lower at 7.1t/cap). North America has 10.5t/cap, overwhelmingly due to the US (NA without USA is just 4.1t/cap). Oceania is at 9t/cap. South America just 2.2t/cap. Of course, 7.3t/cap in Europe doesn't produce the same living standards as 7.3t/cap in Asia - it took a lot of investment to make the incredibly high living standards so "cheap" in Europe; and we want to push it much lower anyway. Though of course, a lot of that effort is something that Asia and Africa get for "free" now - they already have access to all that research and advanced technology, as well as the industrial bases that make it practical to use. It's clear enough that this "they are making X times more CO2 than us" is pure rhetoric by populist (and greedy) politics and businessmen, and clearly enough promoted by fossil and car industries. It's clear that politicians do what they always do - lie, lie and then lie some more. It's fairly clear that it's still mainly the fossil and car industries that we have to fight at every turn. The amount of damage they do to the environment and human lives in general is massively disproportional to their benefits. And it's not just about pollution and CO2 emissions. And they've known this for sure for almost a century now - but decided to just make more money instead. After all, it's cheaper to pay for advertising than to find actual solutions. None of this is any new science (global warming due to CO2 emissions is a concept that predates _computers_ ; it's nothing new, we're just getting better and better at modelling the impact and scope) - the only thing that is slowly changing is that we're slowly gaining the strength and will to fight them. And no, that doesn't mean there will be no car or no fossil fuels. It just means that we need to stop building everything around the two, and treat them as just the minor conveniences that they are. We can do better. We _did_ do better, and we're getting better again. We just need to keep fighting. In just 30 years, Europe went from 10.7t/cap (and being a net exporter) to 7.2t/cap, while living conditions generally improved. Much of that comes from rejecting car-centric life. Even the USA, as horrible as they are, went from 20.3t/cap to 15.5t/cap; there's absolutely no technical reason why they couldn't match Europe - just build more like Europe, and get rid of the residential suburbs (while we need to keep pushing against the sprawl in Europe, Asia and Africa).
If it is so urgent, all options should be on the table. That includes nuclear power. It's hard to take climate change advocates seriously when they are also anti-nuclear.
Yes... They are... and it is. I'm not against nukes in principle but nuclear is not without problems renewables don't have like cost, time, safety, security, and mostly now...They lose a lot of money so it's hard to get and keep investors.
Nuclear should have been incorporated 20 years ago. I don't think pro green energy advocates are anti-nuclear energy. I think at this point it's whether Nuclear is more cost effective that other renewables form. But it if it gets both sides agreement, then yes we should just go for it. And it would be alongside other renewables of course.
The biggest problem with nuclear power is that it positions itself as an alternative to sustainable energy production. The second biggest problem is that there's enough fuel to last about ten years at scale.
Yeah just like the people who said we would run out of oil in 10 years or would reach peak oil by 1971. In one region of Canada, or one region of China, there is enough COAL (ignoring gas or oil) to run the world at current levels for the next thousand years possibly longer. Anyone who says we are running out of hydro carbons any time soon is not living in reality. And you can say humans shouldn't use them cause they damage the Earth. I would simply ask how many underground fires are currently burning through millions of tons of coal every year? 100? A thousand? That coal will eventually burn whether humans do it or not. And no humanity doesn't have the power to put these fires out. We have tried flooding the areas with constant water for years and years. The fires still burn.
Someone once said, "You can't get someone to believe something if their salary depends on them not believing it."
Upton Sinclair. True for feelings and prejudices too, it seems.
Exactly. The climate change industry is huge and powerful and there are numerous of people world wide dependent on it staying afloat, thanks to massive funding funneled into by the UN. No way they are going to let that cash cow go because of something as silly as scientific truth/observation. Entire careers are built on the scam, as transparently obvious and easily debunked as it is (and has been by numerous scientists world wide for decades now).
science is not about believing.
Believing in climate science is much like still believing the covid injections are "safe and effective", it takes a whole lot of ignorance of some very basic facts.
@@armynyus9123 I agree. But many people, especially those who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, meat&dairy, gun, and/or sugar industries, refuse to "believe" the science or statistics proving the harm of their products.
When I was a child, I read about Kryptonians arguing with scientist Jor-El about their planet blowing up. Back then I couldn't believe adults could be so stupid and insane.
whenever i read or watch those stories they feel disturbingly close to reality nowadays, it's depressing
When I was a teenager, I played Fate of the World. It's an old game about climate change and its challenges. The aim is to keep manmade temperature rises below 3 degrees Celsius until the year 2100 as the Global Climate Organization. Besides managing temperature, you can't let the Human Development Index (HDI) fall below 0.6 globally or be banned from 7 regions. Most times, I failed. But the few times I did win, I caused huge population declines due to widespread famines.
Most of the time, I had to ignore Africa and India and just fund security for most of the game, avoiding development in those regions because it would drastically increase emissions. I never played the "ban coal globally" card because unfulfilled energy demand would crater the HDI worldwide.
Truly speaking, I was never particularly green in my outlook on climate change-not because I don't believe it’s happening or that "it won't be so bad". Rather, it's because the greenhouse gases we've released so far will pale in comparison to what impoverished, overpopulated nations will emit if their quality of life improves even moderately.
The sad truth is that we need industrialized farming to keep the 8 billion of us fed. We need medicine, sanitation, clothing, heat, and so much more just to survive. And then there’s what we want: leisure, computers, tasty food, and an innumerable number of other things to avoid lives of simple drudgery.
Right now, the choices seem to be: violently reduce population, impose poverty on everyone, do nothing (and destroy the planet), or keep moving steadily and find a way out without resorting to the other three. The holy grail would be nuclear fusion reactors, but that's still a pipe dream. More realistically, we need a method of energy storage that allows us to fully decarbonize energy.
My view on the climate emergency and environmentalism is quite simple: "Do not defecate where you sleep." We're saving the planet not because it's the right thing to do, but because we live on it. Sacrifices must not be imposed but agreed to. and most importently we cannot flail like headless chickens, taking on green projects that only make sense from an emissions reduction point of view.
I am an engineer and what I feel it most disheartening is that, technically, I KNOW we have the solution to almost all the problems (with the exception of some hard-to-abate sectors). But people without technical knowledge are convinced that there is no other way. The problem I see is psychological and political, and on that point I can do very little and I feel overwhelmed by stupidity and groupthink.
Ditto. From a science and technical standpoint I would be optimistic (we definitely have solutions even if we don't know all the answers), but I have nearly 0 hope on the political front. Many people try their best, but we have empires of wealth built into political systems serving the latter, IMO creating the symptoms listed by Mark above, and a myriad of societal hardships as a consequence.
Put otherwise, political systems are seemingly undoing themselves through misery, misinformation and fear, at the time we need the greatest unity to band against an existential threat. The scientist in me screams at it all.
Yeah. I'm a scientist. I follow energy and clean tech. We HAVE the solutions. Even the hard-to-abate sectors are starting to look promising. The problem is political. There's a lot of stupidity and mendacity out there. There are things you can do: Tell people about the solutions, and vote for the side that is willing to do something about climate change.
I'm right there with you. We have the solutions if we just have the political will to do it. Meanwhile we are starting new wars, which are fueled with oil. That to me is just incredibly dumb.
An example of this: if we paint an area similar in size to the state of Texas with barium sulfate microspheres, we can plunge the earth into another glacial period due to the amount of light that's reflected into space.
Basically, paint every roof and parking lot with the stuff.
@@incognitotorpedo42 there isn’t a side like that in America. Don’t get me wrong,im voting Dem but when push comes to shove Dems are just republican lite. They dont want to force the poor billionaires to spend money on changing the way they do things. They dont want to demonize the poor oil companies. The pretend to the public they care about these issues while not doing a damn thing about them. And they know they dont have to do anything, with the radicalization of the right, they know we have a choice of either no change or change in the wrong direction.
Im so tired.
Once met a student who quit their geology degree because their dissertation on some interesting history of a local region got them legal threats by real estate companies. In short: real estate wanted them to shut up about exposing potential local phenomena in our new climate that might make housing prices in that area drop.
Yes Barak Obama still buys seaside property.
sure this happened. sure
Legal threats on what basis? What would they have against her that could make them win in court?
What a cool drop out story, I'm unemployed because of legal threats, they said I can't smoke meth at work and will call the police.
Yes it is not convenient to admit climate does change. That is the problem with geology.
Well lets reverse this warm change thing. It should be convenient to stick my hand out the window and chip some ice for my rye whiskey.
But to think that we as humans have control over the sun? It after all is a unregulated nuclear fusion furnace and a source of most of the heat and light.
Then there is physical chemistry. Let us ignore that too. Really? A 0.03 to 0.04% increase in Carbon Dioxide will do what to plant life? After all that is 25% increase.
Oh and how does that CO2 get high in the atmosphere enough to make a difference? Why does hydrogen hydroxide make a greater difference. Is it relative to specific gravity?
Maybe the problem is Russia may end being a better place to grow crops. Those same crops that presently grow better in Georgia and Alabama.
Like Gates and Steve Wozniak I dropped out of engineering. I got offered jobs before I graduated. But there is not room for all of us to make billions.
I am happy I don't have to hire full time security. My Mutzhus do that just fine.
So many questions and illogical answers. Time for someone else to deal with it.
Oh & there is another way of putting it.
One person's Mead is another person's Poisson. That is transforming. I remember Mead from somewhere in my probability math.
Also do not be surprised if reality is somewhere in the outlying probability functions..
Tactics first set out by Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister 40 years ago to ensure that no action is taken:
Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it's too late now.
There was more honesty int that silly TV show, than there is in ALL of politics today sadly.
Thankfully since we live in a capitalist society if the majority of us do something to limit our fossil fuels use, we deny the enemy what they most want: money.
Enough people deny them one pence each, and they lose billions!
Very droll Bernhard
Great show
o.o
nothing will happen
The path of denial sounds a lot like the narcissist's prayer.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, then that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it."
Paleontology calls climate change NORMAL and COMMON dummy..sooo much so its teh ONLY driver of evolution:) Astronomy,y knows why :)
Do you think Simon intentionally phrased it that way in order to purposefully draw parallels to the "Narcissist's Prayer"?
@@LoganChristianson idk Who Simon is
The climate cult are the ones claiming to be able to control the entire planets temperature and weather so who's really the narsasist???
@@Voting-does-nothing the guy who's going to save the planet.
Oh, so it's almost as if some of these influential people who denied it was real and now think it's TOO real to do anything about have ulterior motives? 🧐
They do, money. It's literally all about money, over everything else.
That's the thing with capitalists and right-wingers: what they say publicly is virtually never what they actually have in mind.
@@jimthain8777 Yeah, that's what I was hinting at 😂
@@lonestarr1490 100% 😭
Simon Clark certainly has ulterior motives. Anybody with some knowledge of who these "influential people" are cannot seriously confuse them with a buch of people generally living somwhat off-grid with very simple means. This video is as close as you can get as payed-for disinformation by these (very rich and profiting) influencal people who are killing us while lining they pockets.
I’ll say this, I feel like we are doomed not because we ‘can’t’ but because we ‘won’t’.
My response though to that is, we MUST do something and even IF we are doomed and we can’t fix this even with monumental efforts, there is nothing more human than trying in the face of doom.
We must try.
I don’t know how… I can’t even talk about climate change in a bar in my state without the boomer tending bar jumping to tell me I’m the one that needs to do more research. How do you talk to an idiot that thinks they know it all? You can’t tell them shit. You can’t even talk about it
Nah, We are doomed
this is right, i dont know when people started claiminig a doomer was someone who was going around with a bunch of misinformation and agit prop to pacify people, it was just people with a very pessimistic outlook because why would they have a optimistic one?
What must we try?
@@deydraniadiancecht8298everything, including punishing corporations who doesn't comply with the laws
I met a guy the other day who believed that we should accelerate climate change because it's God's will that we die a fiery death. This was not a local loon, but a influential person…
yeah, apocalypse accelerationists are a pretty powerful force in evangelical Christianity these days. They also believe Jews need to be ruling over the whole of historical Jewdia for the biblical prophecies to come about and enable the end of the world to happen. So they are big supporters of the Israeli far right and extremist settlers, even though a lot of them are also antisemitic. It's scary that such crazy people have soo much influence in our modern world
Lots of Christian fundies in the US hoping that Megiddo gets used as the final battlefield that leads to apocalypse. 2,000 years of waiting for something that will never happen has become boring so they want to hurry it along any way they can.
it's already happening
End Timers are gonna fight tooth and nail to get their wish. The end of the world is allegedly A Good Thing(tm) because that's when [god of choice] returns and [does god stuff to good guys] while also [doing god stuff to bad guys] and hey, what reasonable person wouldn't want that?
@@You-Know-Youre-RightIt doesn't exist.
In a way they're spot on. Doing nothing will doom us. If they get their way, the future they expect will happen.
Something something horus heresy something something
the worst kind of self fulfilling prophecy
We need to sabotage pipelines, private jets, SUVs, huge cruise ships etc. This can't go on. We're on the verge of collapse.
A predictable future is more profitable.
I mean... it's basic depressive behaviour. I'm confident noone can sustainably hold such positions seriously and be mentally healthy.
Hoping a company would willining do something that hurts its profits for the benefit of society is ignoring WHY we are in the current situation.
Exactly. Being a single citizen of a small european country, what the hell can I do that would matter? My actions alone won't change anything, my pig-headed government (no matter which party controls it at the moment, to be honest) doesn't give a shit and even if they did, what we produce is fucking miniscule compared to what China pours out daily, and they definately do not give half a shit. And don't get me started on the EVs craze, if anyone truly cared instead of just wanting to be "eco" for fame, they'd have already pushed hydrogen fuel cells to commercial viability.
Yep that and abandoning strategies that allows us to put pressure on companies and state agents that simply do not care otherwise. The climate accords for instance allows the world to put at least a minimum amount of pressure on state agents like China and other producers, that also allows us to put sanctions on our own corporations without simply putting them out of business due to foreign competition (from producing nations like china, taiwan etc.).
A company that consistently did that would be outfunded and outcompeted by a company that maximizes shareholder return.
We should challenge Jordan Peterson (and others interested in honest communication) to say what policy they would favor for taking account of externalities (making prices more honestly show costs, including costs to the environment). If prices show true costs, profit will align with sustainability. Asking businesses to disregard profit is like asking consumers to not look for the low price when they go shopping. The fact that we think that would be necessary is a *symptom* of a dishonest system. If we charge environmental impact fees, we can limit impacts. If we share proceeds from fees, we will end abject poverty and give workers more latitude in deciding what job to take.
No, we are in any situation because people didn't know any better. F.e When plastic was invented people thought it's literally a god send. Also, "pulling up a ladder" is also a thing which terribly harms normal people.
I think the reason many of us gen z think that there's no reason in altering our individual behavior as it won't make any difference for climate change, is because we know that the biggest offenders in this issue are large scale companies. What we need is a legislative change within these companies to actually make a difference.
I understand that view, but large scale companies ultimately are in the hands of consumers and shareholders. When enough individual consumers stop buying their products, or shareholders demand action, they have no choice but to change, even though they will fight and obfuscate every step of the way.
@@Tannhauser62 Well yeah what you're describing is a boycott, and good luck organizing that against Chinese and Indian companies that mainly deal in coal and oil. Look up the top companies responsible for the most CO2 emissions and you'll see what I mean.
@@KuratCTA Thing is, those companies enable our lifestyles. Just blaming them without doing anything ourselves are what keeps them going ironically. Its the same as when the west blame India and China for their high co2 releases without admitting that their high emissions are due to our consumption of goods that they produce. To solve the crisis, we AND the large companies need to change. We must consume less and demand companies become sustainable. We must support sustainable infrastructure, companies, governments and practices. Its also sad that people think that their happiness depends on being able to purchase mostly garbage. We need food, water, shelter, clothes and each other but we have forgotten.
@@elateride I live in Norway, which is considered a world leader in the use of renewable energy, green technologies, and sustainable resource handling. We're all already doing everything we can here.
@@KuratCTA Is this the same Norway that's the world's largest exporter of petroleum gas? Where the government owns a majority stake in one of the world's largest oil and gas companies? Which has among the world's highest GDP per capita entirely due to North Sea oil and gas? Or is there a different country with the same name?
A thought that scares me: In a society that worships strength and competition, some people may have lost perspective to a point where they think a societal collapse will benefit them, because "they are the survivors" and "they got this" and all the "losers and weak people" will perish and hence make the society stronger.
Strong people who can survive a major disaster like, oh, say a deadly virus, a major war or a fundamental change in how the local economy works?
I've heard that before, always sounds like there one line away from endorsing eugenics
Not an exaggeration, they are for Eugenics
This kind of thinking tends to be comorbid with fascism.
I call that attitude Individualist Madness... preference to be "One eyed King of blinds" instead an average person in a better and susteinable society🤦🏽
After 4 years of seeing how effective my little 2kw solar/9kw battery system is it blows my mind that solar isn't on every roof available, it has slashed my power bill by easily 80% and I think its wild that my friends talk about being hot but not wanting to turn on the ac because of how high their power bills are when summer makes so much power for me I can't use it all. It falls out of the sky for free yet stupidity and greed is making most pay top dollar for it, our system is seriously sick.
I always wonder why the US isn't massively invested in solar yet. They have half a contintent worth of deserts and solar doesn't even need any government subsidies anymore to be profitable. Like cities in texas, arizona, california etc. should be covered in solar panels right now, they could easily be energy independent.
Unfortunately oil industry is trying everything to keep their profits going up
If those individuals (friends) were really greedy, theyd put solar RIGHT NOW. Mine paid for itself in 3 or 4 years. Absurdly good investment. Real roi of 15% to 25% per year.
@@lb2791from what I've seen, it is the result of energy companies having their talons in media and legislation that has kept the USA away from widespread solar panel use
@@lb2791it’s because of legal bribery called “lobbying”
The biggest thing for people to grasp is this is not pass/fail. We can still influence how quickly things get worse, and we can still plan and prepare for the effects that are headed our way. Even if we're past the point of no return we can still decide how many chapters are left in the book and what those chapters contain.
sure man. don't use plastic straws and all will be fine.
How bad do you think it will get?
I mean, the earth can heal. There is no point where we're truly past the point of no return; it's just a matter of how extreme the solution needs to be. Realistically humanity isn't doomed; climate change will make environments harsher until enough people have died that their impact doesn't outpace the healing.
Seems like a good bet that when 80% of the human population is dead that those remaining agree to stop excessive polluting. Or no longer have the collective knowledge to keep those systems running.
@@splijterYour ignorance incredible.
@@trillex1861
time will tell you little fool. u on the wrong side of history. but go ahead. use your paper bag instead of plastic and save the planet.
I am an electrical engineer specialised on electro optics with focus on laser technology. As young Engineer I worked with co2 gas lasers an learned very detailed how co2 interacts with infrared radiation. I can only tell to everyone the climate scientists are totally correct in their forecasts and reasoning. With renewables and storages we can build up a bright sustainable future...no need for doomers
🤯🤯🤯😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫 stimulated emissiin in CO2 laser at 10um is telling you something about spontaneous emission in CO2 gas with central walength around 14um. And also somehow informs you about CO2 gas absorption in low concentration. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Not funny
@@dmitryisakov8769 So many don't have any understanding of resonance and it is the mechanism for transferring energy by radiation. It must be a shortage of resonant photons reacting with CO2 . That will explain the log reduction in warming after the first 20ppm. As CO2 increases there is no shortages on CO2 molecules. Water is also reacting up these photons. Secondary radiation photons are never more energy than the emitting surface. These can not transfer energy to CO2 unless you consider remote harmonics of limited energy? Now if anyone has a better explanation please tell me.
@@dmitryisakov8769 Hi 5 emoji
@@BrinJay-s4v Humans had reduced then removed one of the precursors to the Keremt/AEW chain reaction, with a result that there is less solar reflective cloud at the equator, ensuring the oceans absorb more solar heat. This is compatable with Goode et al 2021 which demonstrated the the planet was reflecting away less incoming solar energy. The resultant equatorial ocean heating effect can easily be calculated and be compared almost perfectly to the published data for global warming. There is no space in the the narrative or conclusion to account for the 0.02% CO2 contribution to make any effect.
@@BrinJay-s4v and @dmitryisakov8769 It is amazing that there are CO2 climate deniers deniers that know more than Carl Sagan. Impressive stuff!
ruclips.net/video/Wp-WiNXH6hI/видео.html
I think there’s a difference between “we’re doomed, let’s do nothing” and “we’re doomed, better start doing something now and I don’t care if it’s costly or inconvenient. We need to be more aggressive”. I count myself in the latter “doomer” camp
I'm with you! Climate anxiety and pessimism in the current structures of power but I gotta live here a fair while longer and I'm not interested in the apocalypse thanks 😅
Yeah but, since simon used jordan's picture and what the report said about him, i'm not quite sure i'd like for people who have it bad to have it worse... i'm not on board on the "lesser of two evils thing"
@@emd4682climate pessimism isn’t a “lesser of two evils”. Doing absolutely everything in your power to prevent climate catastrophe is a positive thing. Doing nothing because you’ve fallen for disinformation about the point of no return spread by right wing propagandists who actively deny that climate change even exists is an absolute moral failure.
It's a simple case of mathematics.
India, China, etc. You know that "factories of the world" where we explored all of our manufacturing.
The are only increasing their emission and that'll offset any Greening of our western economies.
Not to mention our diminished industrial capacity will hamper our construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants that can help us deal with the effects of the Ice Age Termination Event we recently entered.
So even if we when back to the stone age in the west it wouldn't make a dent.
It never had anything to do with the climate.
Its power and control. It always was.
@@vi6ddarkking/videos this ignores the massive leaps "the east" has made, see previous videos on this very channel. China has had huge rollout of solar, for example, the largest of any other country
Its not only happening to the climate debate. Debates of human rights, social trends, democracy or other very important discussions are driven by people who have given up on the thought that we could overcome those obstacles hindering us to live as a species in better conditions. Maybe it is not on the climate debate but on how hopeless a lot of humans feel when they see injustice, corruption, war and consumerism every day.
It's funny, because people who agree with the global warming message usually are against human rights and democracy.
The doomer movement is growing, and It makes sense.
Yes, and while it's understandable given how interrelated and challenging those issues are, doomism is not only incredibly detrimental to those causes, it's also ahistorical. There have been massive positive alterations to entrenched power structures in the past, such as the abolition of slavery and the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Although a confluence of factors led to the ending of those systems, in both cases committed groups of people (activists, politicians, lawyers, etc.) played a critical role in realising a better society. It's worth remembering that the rights and freedoms we enjoy today (although limited) were not freely given, but hard fought for by ordinary people who believed that achieving a more just and equitable society was possible. Imagine they hadn't.
@@nicvdb4669 Slavery was never abolished though.
Its hard to not be pessimistic about our chances of reaching any of the lofty climate goals. Im a swede and our total share of the Co2 emissions is 0.13% meaning that even if Sweden somehow reaches 0% Co2 emissions It wont change anything and we already are doing more then most.
I think rather then countries doing whats needed this whole issue is going to solve itself as the world population crashes once baby boomers and gen X starts dying off given how low our birth rates are. Wouldnt at all be surprised if birth rates would become a much more serious issue over climate change in a few decades
One of the biggest hurdles to conquer is the lobbing in the US. Politicians get millions donated to their campaign by many of the companies that are the worst offenders such as big oil.
It's almost like legalized corruption :3
@@gangstadrz9326 They'll go broke anyway, and on a side note, elections on a weekday are a travesty, lol.
and here you are, talking and talking by what? a computer or a smartphone .... made of plastic which comes from ... OIL. Ergo, you are no better than those politicians.
Any person that really cares about the environment and critizes the convenience of oil and other commodities and yet uses them, then that person is an hypocrite.
This is a capitalistic society, which mean, YOU have the power, not the companies. There are no excuses for your hypocrisy.
@@johndoe2-ns6tf There's a difference between having a device, buying a new one every year, and making its production pollute tons more to scrape a dollar on it.
But I agree that the list of the biggest corporate culprits needs to be better known.
@@johndoe2-ns6tf I saw you commented this on a completely unrelated comment that was about oil companies specifically :/
In Turkey there is a saying that goes like this: "The house is burning. The crazy person is combing his hair."
That's what often comes to my mind when I see how grown-ups rather chop off the branch on which they're sitting instead of accepting responsibility....
It's like if you are driving and suddenly there is an object blocking the street, shouldn't you brake? And even if you know that a collsion is inevitable shouldn't you still brake as hard as possible to make the impact less forceful and severe? Noone would think: "ach, I can't avoid a collision. I won't brake and will just slam into that car/rock/tree/whatever with every kmh/mph I can get."
Great analogy
Sometimes the better option is to swerve.
This is the perfect analogy!
You don't have to break, because it isn't your car. Let the owner sort it out after you give it back.
@@CaffeineConnoisseur Let the owner sort it out after you died in the crash. But I think I know what you mean: There are some drivers that die before the car crash anyway.
I'm not pessimistic about what *can* be done, but instead about what *will* be done.
This is pretty much exactly what I think
@ULTRAOutdoorsmanThe hypocrisy of people like you is palpable. If you resent the use of fules and petrochemicals and the technologies that are built by them, stop using them yourself. Otherwise your position is one of pure hypocrisy.
Exactly. In Canada, we have lots of environmental policies and many of our electricity is from non-polluting sources.
That's great right? But it hasn't made a difference because one greedy politician can decide to burn down the Amazon Rainforest, because our actions won't influence China or Russia's quest for power.
Even here, the common right-wing movement that is rising is "Axe the tax" (Carbon tax), which is (oversimplified) a tax imposed on things that would be bad for the climate, this tax is here to reduce consuming of polluting things and the tax money is reinvested into social programs. Yet still, Canadians hate having to pay more, they don't even consider consuming less, and extremely polluting factories are being built and deforestation is at an all-time high.
All because of greed and money.
Exactly!
We have the answers but with an economic system built to greedily exploit every resource in the world to make the most money tomorrow with no care for next week that people have to ask how do we begin? We can’t get economists to look beyond their charts to see the wage gap let alone the overshoot they are lauding as “good business .”
In fact, we have built an economy of death. The better it performs the weaker every other factor becomes. That can’t be changed because we don’t have unlimited resources. The US appears to have perfected this economic terrorism but it’s been exported globally. That’s why people are doomers. It’s a parasitical system of economic governance.
I still think we should go down fighting but that takes courage and unity in a world griped by fear, poverty, and derision. You can’t convince a person to fight for much when they are distracted and that is a side benefit of suppressing wages - you have to keep so busy just surviving that you can’t even try to improve your situation. That’s by design.
What we would ALL have to do is take away the bourgeoisie
economy. And people would die if the flow of goods stopped. I heard a statistic yesterday in “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” that hit home. In America 5% of the population uses 25% of the world’s resources. It’s not up to us to change; it’s up to the corporatocracy to decide they are going to stop wasting resources for profits. We have to make them curb their excesses by not buying their unnecessary shit. Just go without.
I’m learning to forage for example, and how to find edible invasive species and how to seed wild plants to ensure my actions don’t cause a plant to go extinct in my area and how to forage sustainably. Do what you can to buy less goods but understand the “carbon footprint” is a marketing tool to make us take personal responsibility for a mess we didn’t make. It’s corporations and governments who make most of the world’s worst pollution.
For right now there is a boycott of Kellogg’s products for 3 months to show the CEO how callous his response was to American hunger; essentially, eat cereal for dinner. We need to make people with vast amounts of wealth feel scared.
Here is my totally not comprehensive list of observations: we are getting poorer as the economy booms, inflation is inflating the homeless population, many many states are making or have made homelessness illegal, the thirteenth amendment makes prison inmates legally slaves under the constitution, that means you don’t have to pay them a minimum wage (think less than .50 cents an hour), corporations need to show profits every quarter, corporations will, have, and always are cutting out whatever they can to ensure they make those profits because they depend on those profits. Corporations are major investors in the 69 cop cities being built and the mega prisons going in around the country. Our laws are becoming more draconian every day. This one will be controversial but it’s true; religion is being used like a weapon to ensure the maximum amount of people conform to extremely distressing suppressive laws which will and are resulting in making some people less valuable and less worthy of human rights. ALEC is wining and dining our elected leaders and greasing them up so the laws they pass will go down more easily (it helps that it’s hard to hear constituents when you have money shoved into your ears). The food industry already depends heavily on prison labor to survive.
So, I deduce that we ARE heading to an even more heavily imprisoned slave population and the middle class is “dying” (can we just define what income bracket is middle class and base that decision off the buying power within our current inflation rate so we can stop lying to ourselves about who actually IS middle class?).
The only way that I can think of to get ahead of this is to get there first; on our terms. Corporations will bite back with layoffs and cutting benefits and pay. People will suffer a LOT before any Billionaire CEO ever sees his own pay and benefits be touched. In fact, many would drive the most popular companies into the ground before they ever see themselves hurt financially (remember how Toys’R’Us closed and we were all surprised?). For example; people were boycotting Christmas this year and just before the holiday Hasbro laid off a bunch of employees. It was a way to make boycotters feel bad for what “they” did by not spending the money they wanted them to spend. But the one thing the wealthy want is more money. They don’t want to lose future earnings.
It will be hard to hit back because they’ve had decades to block every loophole we can manipulate. They can’t make us spend money. I mean, within reason. I’ve heard someone suggest everyone stop paying rent and utilities and that sounds like it would work but I don’t think it would. We’ll never convince enough people to participate to not have that slap us in the face. No, we have to keep choosing companies that have hurt us financially and we have to kick them where they will feel it.
I heard all about how money moves around between Wall Street and Hong Kong and the rich will come up with some kind of plan to try and make us do what they want but they are also stupid enough to overshoot the planet by 2.5 Earth’s worth of resources every year. These are very manipulative people and if this doesn’t work we’ll just learn by doing and find something else.
We have to start buying local even though it’s expensive. That’s just the sad fact. We don’t get paid enough to go local but we have to. That hurtle has always been the problem. “That’s how they getcha”
But as corporations try to decimate and enslave the population we have to make co-ops a priority. They fail because they aren’t competitive because they put the needs of people first rather than profit at any cost first. We need that kind of business. People first green-minded co-ops. We want large greedy robber barrens to die off so we have to starve their fix. It won’t solve everything. Even co-ops need resources and getting them ethically and environmentally sourced is another huge hurtle.
Look to the past; before the Luddites needed to kill the machine and see what we can use that’s been suppressed by greed. We can do this.
And while we fight we can also plant trees further north; just in case we don’t make it. Try and minimize our damage for the species who will survive the Anthropocene. I might even try and plant a few PawPaw’s because my USDA zone just changed due to climate change & I’m right above the boarder.
We could get rid of over 25% of all ghg emissions in the US within a decade just by switching to nuclear, and some renewables. There are still many issues with this including how to store renewable energy, but it would objectively be so much better. There are many more problems with electric cars, but if we could develop better batteries we could replace all cars with electric and get rid of over 28% of all ghg emissions in the US. The rest is even more difficult to fix, but we've already reduced over 50% from doing this.
To me it's horrifying to know that some people are pushing others into literal despair, for their own benefit. Despair is a mindnumbingly horrifying mental state to be in, and a precurser for so much suffering, so to think that some people are willing to push people into that, is something I cannot consider to be anything but an act of evil.
I sincerely hope that those fallen into this despair can get back out of it, because that is not a mental state to be in that people deserve.
despair is necessary to understand reality.
our civilisation will not be going further than this century for many reasons beyond climate change.
before we can move on from this, we should despair and grieve, or we will be trapped in delusion.
There's a lot of sociopaths about these days.
@@op4000exe what a meaningless truism. can you point to the institutions of the roman empire today? what happened to 90% of the incan and aztec empires? why is the forbidden city of beijing a tourist attraction? i specifically said, our civilisation: global, western, dependent on fossil fuels. that will end this century and i dont need a religious explanation for it.
you put quotation marks, who are are you quoting?
What if despair is the correct reaction?
@@ysf-psfxIt can be. But staying in despair is not going to change the situation. It’s a ‘Do what you can because doing nothing is always worse!’
I'm a chemistry undergraduate, and I've even heard this sentiment echoed by my lecturers - albeit more climate pessimism than doomism. His feeling was that the British gov doesnt think things will be that bad for us, in spite of the evidence. He believed we wouldnt succeed not because it wasnt possible, but because he couldnt see the political will to do something about it changing fast enough. He still emphasised that we should try, but still it's not a great thing to hear from your renewable energy professor 😅. Here's hoping hes wrong!
My favourite is when sceptics say, "We didn't all die in the 80s when the ozone layer was supposed to be destroyed". 🤦
I know you know this but I have to scream "THAT'S BECAUSE WE GOT TOGETHER AS A SPECIES AND FIXED IT!!!!!!!!!"
Thanks for tolerating my reply. Lol
@@tristanridley1601nah its good that you said it
@@tristanridley1601 Exactly Tristan. Nice one.
That’s right up there with “Y2K was gonna collapse everything”
SMH. Correct , it was !!
But we paid a bunch of programmers to change computers and add digits so it didn’t screw everything up, JFC these people are so stupid and annoying.
@@tristanridley1601The problem is that CFCs weren't nearly as central to civilization as, for better or worse, fossil fuel combustion currently is. And because DuPont's CFC patents had expired. :P
The likes of BP introducing terms like our own "carbon footprint", has muddied the waters by successfully switching our attention away from big oil and fossil fuel industry, towards our personal impact. THAT is what makes no difference. Until the global energy industry is largely green, the climate crisis will only get exponentially worse. To put that into perspective. 100% of the emissions from a single person over a 70 year lifespan equates to ONE SECOND worth of the emissions of the global energy industry! 1 individuals lifetime = 1 second of yearly fossil fuel extraction and use. And so for that reason, I am pessimistic, when we have a party in charge who are still granting new exploration licenses in the North Sea. It's just madness!
Damn, i didn't know that. I guess i will be buying that oversized SUV after all! :D
Well, that's not their point- they aren't saying that SUVs are good, or that your personal carbon footprint should be ignored- rather that it's a distraction tactic, so that we don't attempt to stop the companies mentioned.
I agree that collective action is needed and opponents to collective action should be criticized or ignored, but I want to emphasize that there are a lot of reasons that individual action is still better than no action. 1. **Psychology** -- planting a tree, buying an electric car, or putting solar panels on your roof helps build your identity as a person who takes care of the environment, and increases the likelihood that you get involved politically in favor of environmental action. It also soothes climate anxiety. 2. **Economics** -- certain emmission-reducing actions save you money, which your friends will hear you brag about and want to join the bandwagon (eg. solar). Other actions may not save you money, but put money in the hands of companies that have already committed to positive action, or take money away from companies that harm the environment and lobby to continue doing so. Your green purchases may fund more R&D or industrial streamlining that could make green tech cheaper for future customers; at the bare minimum, you will send a small signal to companies that green policies get rewarded. 3. **Cumulative impact** -- this is last because it probably sounds hippy-dippy, but the combination of lots of individual action *is* collective action. One person putting solar panels on their roof won't put a dent in climate change, but a million people is a start. One tree won't make much difference, but a few billion will. At the very least, individual action can delay climate change until the opponents of collective action get old and die.
I wonder how many of the statistically analyzed comments included anti-capitalist and anti-corporate language. Quite a bit the mindset I have witnessed and subscribe to is very aware of what you describe and thus pessimistic because they know that it is extremely hard to overthrow such a power. We hate the system that has put us here and know it needs to fall, but we don't know how to topple it without crushing ourselves in the process. Doomism has a branch of young people that fail to realize that they can do things together, effectively eliminating much of the collective risk of doing radical things. They think it's impossible because the task at hand is monumentally larger than any individual, and yet is caused by individuals at the basic level. They forget that the collective is what makes the world go round and give in to the paradoxical nature of doomist thinking.
In other words, "they're cowards."
Ah yes, the "energy industry"!
What are they doing with that energy?
Could it be that WE ALL USE IT?
Like, you and I, we buy it, and then use it? Or buy products made with that energy?
It's not some sort of mystical cabal just wasting energy creating CO2 for no reason. That energy is the basis of our wealth.
Where I live you can absolutely choose what sort of energy to buy. I could buy only renewable energy, the only issue is that it's more expensive, even with government subsidies.
I don't disagree completely tho, your car isn't the biggest cause here. The biggest cause is your desire for wealth and luxury. You complain when luxury items are slightly more expensive than usual.
And with "you" I mean us. We all do it. We would rather see the world burn than not have an iPhone, or three jackets, or eat McDonald's regularly, etc etc.
The harsh truth is that in order to change this, we need to accept human nature and act accordingly.
we need to work to make clean alternatives economical.
That's the only way.
When clean alternatives to fossil fuel become economically viable, we will automatically move away from fossil fuels.
The issue is that they are easy to gather, transport, adapt and use.
You can use them anywhere, they are a great energy storage medium.
Eventually we will figure it out.
Ah, the classic "first they don't believe, then they think it's too late".
Both are wrong. It's, all the times "I won't move a finger". The excuse changes depending on the argument.
I think a scientific view of the situation is that we’re doomed. I sympathize with you guys. I hope you can accomplish something, but you’ve got a daunting challenge in front of you.
@@peterwilson8039 naah, i'd just keep the effort on my own individual and not worry too much about it. whatever comes, let it come. not going to waste my time being depressed, it's unproductive.
@@peterwilson8039 Classic "Doomer Boomer" rhetoric. "Sorry we broke the world, but I'm gonna die soon so it's your problem... I'm not gonna bother using my last decade or so of life to do anything to fix it".
For anyone feeling hopeless: spite is a good motivator. There isn't any point in giving up. Fixing some of what was damaged is better than fixing none of it due to inaction. Humans are like cockroaches, we'll live. So let's not repeat the mistakes of our forefathers and make a world worth living in for our children instead of giving them something even worse off than we got it.
@@maxixe3143It's difficult to hold out much hope for the future, when about half the voting population of the U.S. is going to vote for Trump in November. The future is going to be far grimmer than the world I was fortunate enough to spend most of my life in. I admit that my generation was initially to blame for starting the problem, but it was the Reagan and later, far-right Republicans who deliberately set out to foil any attempts to deal with it. Unfortunately my generation was, and still is, stupid enough to believe them. Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss climate change. It's going to be very bad, and it will probably stay really bad for a really long time.
You've hit on the truth with one word: cowards. Only cowards deny the obvious, painful truth, and only cowards deliberately fail to do anything positive about it.
Could anyone here explain, why getting warmer is a problem , let alone a big problem, let alone a crisis? Anyone?
Goverments going after consumers instead of corporations is like deleting text files on a hard drive instead of 100 gb games.
yep, we're fucked
Great comparison 😢
Both needs to be done. Are you suggesting that consumers should just give up?
@@FOATE Doomer argument. Well done for missing the point entirely.
@@neilwilson5785 It's not an arguement, it's a statement.
When I was a petulant teenager, I used to ignore chores and homework until it was too late to do them. Either because someone else had done the chores out of annoyance, or because the homework due date had passed.
Yes, parents and teachers got angry, but I didn't have to get off my ass and do something.
It seems to me that some adults still operate on that level.
"This problem doesn't exist, no need to do anything."
A few years later:
"Whoops, guess it does exist, but now it's too late to fix it, no need to do anything."
wow. proFOUND
Yes, this is the MAGA crowd in a nutshell
Yes, it's all about TDS, on every nation across the globe, Trump is King Kong.
@MyynMyyn
Honestly, feel like this is a good example of how inevitable growing out of bad habits _isn't,_ at times regardless of intelligence...
ruclips.net/video/oYhCQv5tNsQ/видео.html
wait wait wait.....there are people who say there is no climate?????
What does that argument even look like? O_o
Flat earthers exist. It probably looks similar
The person on the thumbnail literally said once "There is no such thing as climate. 'Climate' and 'everything' are the same word." to an audience of millions. Yes, climate change denial can be that dull.
@@_yonas Jordan Peterson? Yeah i guess he would say something like that (sigh)
@@stiimuli Yep, he said it on Joe Roegan's podcast.
@@_yonasand that also tracks (double sigh)
I’m only 20.. so sick and tired of hearing about all the bad news about climate change… just want a world to grow up in….. 😢
You have one. Grow up and when you're 80 you will come to your senses and realize that the climate is OK and the real threat are the people in this comment section and the media that deludes them.
Too bad, you won't have one because the ultra-rich will hide in bunkers, on yachts, or even outside of the Earth's atmosphere instead of doing shit that works.
If you live in a rich country, you'll almost certainly have a world to grow up in. The world won't end, it will just be more unstable, unpleasant, and unfair.
I am a climate pessimist. I am a biologist and I despair for the natural world and the destruction that is already happening. But to give up hope entirely and advocate NO mitigating action is not only insane, but as this video says ... cowardly. It is spineless. The people who think this way should have no influence over our future, since they don't care about any of it.
We are in the 6th mass extinction event, and this time humans are the cause.
It’s probably time to relax and eat a pickle.
There's also a recent paper published showing that we probably will not meet the challenge of global climate change because of "evolutionary ratchets"
"Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions" (Waring et al, 2024)
This video really doesn't do credit to to doomers' arguments. It's not could mitigating actions work if they were implemented on a massive scale, it's just that given the evidence and human dynamics they won't and haven't been so far. The mitigating actions typically undertaken by individuals (recycling, electric cars, paper straws, etc) are so pathetic their only real purpose is to make the person doing them feel better. We've known about the climate crisis for 50+ years but emissions keep going up.
I agree that measures could be taken. But all of the steps taken so far don't really do anything. EV's haven proven to be a complete failure. Even if the infrastructure was there, generating the energy is still done by plants that run on coal. It just takes polution away from one place and puts it in another. Not to mention mining lithium only adds to the "polution" because in reality there's not really a CO2 problem. You see, CO2 is converted into oxygen by plants and trees. Reducing the CO2 level takes away the thing that plants live off of and we need plants because we need oxygen.
The only thing that we could do to reduce heat on our planet is spraying alluminum very high in the atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight back into space. Yes, that will cost human lives. But hey. We're the problem right? So, win win.
I think the real problem with all of this is that: Even in the developed world, many people are struggling, and prospects for the future looking bleak. They see rich people and politicians flying to climate conferences, poor countries having to open dirty power stations and feel patronized by being asked "What's your carbon footprint?" by an oil company. Schemes like carbon capture and carbon credits and just ways to funnel more money into billionaires pockets. All these "solutions" come with a caveat. They really did nail human nature in "don't look up". That's why Gen Z is fatalistic it's that the people trying to fix the climate are just lining their own pockets and pointing fingers at the public.
You fell for the lies.
How are carbon capture and carbon credits “just ways to funnel more money into billionaires pockets”?
There are also some sad loser divorcees with nothing in their lives except for trolling online and simping for billionaires and private corporations.
@@zawbones5198 Carbon capture plants take allocated green funds, and achieve nothing (just google their efficacy). The carbon credit industry is laughable. There's a very well researched "Last week tonight" segment on it. Using money to offset emissions does nothing to reduce the actual carbon going into the atmosphere, but does allow it to be traded, and profit can be made.
@@zawbones5198artificial Carbon capture is wildly inefficient, requires us to mine and manufacture the materials to make the machines, and also pull significantly less carbon than natural systems like forests, bogs, and phytoplankton colonies.
Carbon credits are a way for major organizations to change essentially nothing about their production while providing money to systems that “help”, many of which are already working anyways. Even worse, it’s a market based system which means it is likely to become exploitative, as most markets do under capitalism.
I remember my father would always deny climate change despite all of the evidence we had. Now, he no longer denies it but blames it on the cabal and geoengineering. It's amazing to me that he had to find a conspiracy theory that conveniently fit into his worldview in order to believe it rather than the plain evidence and adjusting his worldview to that.
Your father is right.
Wake up.
@@soyboymotivation Every civilization has claimed the end of the world. And guess what, every civilization has died in some way. We are no different. Our technology, are cultural norms, our capitalistic way of life will return to dust. It’s silly to think we are special. I don’t care how it will end, I’m just enjoying the show.
yes your father is correct
@@playlistofthegods My elders taught me to hate anyone who isn’t white or straight so, no I don’t think I’ll be listening to them.
Also, these few comments saying “he’s right!” make it seem like you didn’t actually read my comment but latched onto some buzzwords you recognized.
you and your father's beliefs are meaningless
I'm a techno-optimistic, I believe with technologies and education, and the correct incentives, the emissions can be reduced. But cutting corners and go to extremes like high-carbon taxes to make small farmers out of business is NOT the solution. That will cause more people to get angry and fight against the cause.
Similar here. The problem I see is that the prposed solutions don't want to change anything about the capitalist world order. And I think this will make them ineffective and harmful.
The changes we need are far deeper than electric cars and solar panels on farmland. We need next to zero cars and solar panels on parking lots. We need to overhaul global production and consumption and even decrease technology in a few places, like for example industrialized farming and animal keeping. That has to be deindustrialized to a certain extent.
Finally, if the climate protection measures are not made socially consciently, then we'll get what you already predicted: That people will resist them.
My lecturer at UCL, Mark Maslin predicted in 2001 that this shift towards fatalism would eventually happen.
Great, what did he, or you the students, do to make that NOT happen?
We all have agency, we can always do something, even if we don't think it will have any effect, it IS still worth doing.
@@jimthain8777 It's not hard to predict, it's essentialy the stages of grief. And you could also look to the handling of lungcancer through smoking, and how compagnies denied that.
@@MPostma72
Yeah, the parallels are frightening aren't they?
It's almost like they have the same spin doctors working for them...
@@jimthain8777 He's published many books and been on national TV many times. Many of his students have contributed to research and outreach. Unfortunately a portion of society being fatalistic seems to be is well fate...
@@jimthain8777 They really do. The history of cigarette filters highlight how much these dishonest criminals are in league with one another.
It's the classic 4 stage strategy, as a brit you should be familiar with it:
In stage 1, we say nothing is going to happen.
In stage 2, we say something is maybe going to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
In stage 3, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we CAN do.
Stage 4 denialism is what I personally predict is what is going to fuel further inequality, militancy and instability in the 2050's/60s.
It might even bring rise to an even bigger generational divide between boomer-age millennials who think the world has already ended and are pissing the rest of their lives away hedonistically on their inherited wealth and the younger generations trying to scrape by on what's left trying to fix things and forever resentful that the millennials/doomer generation gave up on them.
Sir Humphrey is smiling.
Does this work for chores around the house as well?
Stage 5: Why didn't you warn us before?
they'll probably be right by stage 4
This is straight up the four stage strategy in play, again:
1. Claim nothing is happening. (not happening)
2. Claim something is happening, but we should worry or do anything. (not important or pressing)
3. Claim that we need to do something, but there's nothing we can do. (not preventable)
4. Say there might have been something to do, but it's too late now. (not effective)
It's all done in the name of moeny - Allow people to profit some more before things hit the fan.
The objections haven't changed over entire 40 years of this scare. They are based on the science being fraudulent.
Hello Sir Humphrey. Not denying and in full agreeance with you but that is a word for word quote and tickles me on transferability of context😂
It’s the narcissist prayer
Ooooh, that is almost like an organisational grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
Gullible AGW believers = gullible vax takers.
But wont someone think of the poor billionaire and beautiful share holders??
After all, money is going to matter when we're all dead
This is not just shifting the goalposts, this is going off of the entire football field. FIRST they say that climate change isn't real, and THEN they say that it's so catastrophic that we can do literally nothing to stop it. Can we find a middle way, please? That yes, it is real, and that, yes, we CAN do something about it?
The main takeaway is that climate change "skeptics" aren't arguing in good faith. The arguments don't have to be consistent as long as they serve the goal to stifle any action.
But then we would have to do something about it. Preventing this is the sole reason people come up with excuses.
this! It's like our world (or at least the west) is so dimwitted that solutions outside of both extremes are impossible. There's shit in the middle!
The claim of man made global warming has been wrought with goalpost moving and it isn't real. We literally moved from calling it global warming to climate change because there has been no real GLOBAL WARMING trend.
@@AnymMusicyes, western first world liberal climate activists are 100% dimwitted
Sure, corporations did it, it was not us.
I often say, we are not the problem, but it is our problem.
It was simply built into the American Dream. Who could have resisted this? We are all to blame, therefore, no one is to blame.
This is how I have resolved the reality of the inevitable Climate Collapse. When will it happen? No one knows for certain. Will everyone perish, including the oligarchs? My guess is that the oligarchs will not, but some hard core peppers/survivalists might, unless Nukes take out mankind - which is a solid possibility.
Planet survival or extending life could be happen if everyone would return to previous eras of our, or our parents, lives.
Yet, it's difficult to believe that everyone would be on board with such a lifestyle.
I don't see the point here. We but their products. We are complicit.
@@kevinh6008
"Yes they are the problem, but we bought stuff from them because the alternative is living in a cabin in the sticks so that makes us complicit!" is not a compelling argument.
@@kevinh6008 There is no other choice??? You know capitalism forces everyone around to participate on it, either through literal force (cops, military industrial complex) or through manufactured consent
I am Zambian. My poor African country is responsible for 0.19% of global GHG emissions. I've always been environmentally conscious and acknowledged climate change as a threat. However, my reset pessimism towards climate change came after the Pakistan floods of 2023. The floods were obviously an effect of climate change and yet Pakistan only contributes 0.9% of global GHG. I realised the heavy disproportionate effect of climate change on deveped and developing countries. And yet both are expected to make the same sacrifices even though the former is much more responsible for the climate effects, is impacted less economically by climate cautious economic policy, and is in a much better position to mitigate against the effects of climate change on their nations. My attitude now leans towards doing everything possible to develop my country so it too can be more economic equiped to respond to the crisis regardless of the climate effect these efforts may have because we can't afford to reduce our insignificant emission at the expense of development especially when the more responsible nations aren't making any significant efforts to reduce their own emissions.
Hey, I am from Germany. One of the biggest polluters in history. You're right about poor countries like India being affected a lot, while not contributing. But the reason is not the development status, instead it's about the geographical position (near the equator and with a big coastal line etc.)
Part of the current German government is a green party. There are many tries to change energy and heat production here for the better. Yet there are many opposing forces, mainly right wing politics. Still, many people change their lifestyles and are actively trying to have a positive impact. My biggest concern is the artificial car dependence of many people (they claim they need one, while they don't). But I am still optimistic, that we will not turn back and every day is a step in the right direction.
Why do you think the more responsible nations aren't making a significant effort? Right now, 24.7% of the UK's energy is coming from fossil fuels, 23.6% gas.
as if poor countries like india with its 1.4 billion people are not contributing to pollutant output@@thirdeye4654
@@Richard482 Because they are not and historically haven't. One country doing relatively well does not discredit the overall point.
@@thirdeye4654you people have literally reopened coal plants...
I've seen research showing that a reduced workweek could reduce pollution. It's something I think we'll be hearing about more and more. Bernie Sanders just proposed a 32hr workweek without a reduction in pay. It could help the environment, help mental health, and increase freedom and free time, as well as allow us to more fully embrace automation and AI as we continue to reduce the workweek as those technologies continue to advance.
What's disturbing is how many people think it's more important to beat deniers into submission than to focus on what we're actually going to do to deal with climate change. We don't need unanimity to take action.
Yep. As the ancient adage goes, don't feed the trolls.
You kinda need enough unanimity to create a global democratic mandate. Arguing loudly with people who won't change their mind isn't necessarily the way, but combating mis- and disinformation is very important.
@@K3zster
Ah yes, "global democratic mandate" with wide reaching Powers and autonomy,
made up of people who have only the best for Humanity in Mind....
What could go wrong ?
Dont you think creating something like that isnt the only reason for all of this ?
You need to suck it up and be a man. You don't control the climate. It controls you.
Want something bipartisan? Better urban design that requires less driving, and backing off of electric cars which contribute to further lithium waste we're going to have to deal with.
Virtually no snow in Minnesota this year, I could shore fish lakes and take a boat ride on Christmas Day. Warmest winter on record in most of the state and it hit 70 in February. We are sliding into a worse drought than last year where wildfires blotted out the sun for weeks and we were told not to breathe outside, even in pristine wilderness. It’s kind of hard to deny when you’re actively being flooded or smoked out or cooked.
A lot of "end of the worlds" for many people already.
Seeing the same in central Illinois.nwe had a total of three inches of snow all winter.while we don't get as much as you do in Minnesota, we're still supposed to get more than that.
And we've seen the impact. Do you remember the dust storm we had here last year? Because farmland was so dry that when farmers plowed, it blew away. Right across the main route between Chicago and St Louis. I think 10 people died in the 49 car pile up the dust storm caused.
Gamer, similar in our stretch of the California mountains. This has been a freakishly warm winter. Only trace snow at our elevation and only a handful of frosty mornings. If next summer is similarly warm, there will be fires.
That is not climate change.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a climate change denier, but just some weird weather somewhere isn't evidence for climate change.
Saying "see, climate change" because it's warm is the same as saying "see, no climate change" because it's cold somewhere.
Draughts and weather anomalies aren't rare or special.
Climate change is only visible in the "average temperature anomaly" across the whole globe, compared to the "average temperature anomaly" of some period in the past.
It's a crazy big project to gather the data and calculate that. Just saying "last couple years were a little warmer than usual here." isn't enough.
A great argument for that is that northern Europe and Asia were considerably more cold and wet this winter than the last couple years.
This doesn't mean climate change ain't real, it means that our climate is a complex chaotic system. Read about the medieval warming period. Weird shit happens sometimes.
isn't texas also battling it's largest wildfire on record while it's still winter?
the worst kind of self-fulfilling prophecy....
The kind that not only affects you, but everyone around you as well...
It's just being realistic.
and one most of these idiots wont live to see come true! [the doomers/deniers]
@@juskahusk2247 No, it's being willfully ignorant in the face of evidence. You are just the ohter side of the climate change denier.
@@juskahusk2247 Realistic in that its likely to come to pass? yes. Realistic in that there is nothing that can actually be done about it? no. The problem is that fixing the problem requires taking power away from the rich, and ignoring profits for the sake of the future of humanity. The rich REALLLLYYY dont want that to happen.
The point in my teenage years where I saw professionals being talked over and ignored by idiots who didn't agree personally was the moment I realised we don't have a chance. Without serious legislative change. Small parts of the world might make the moves, but there are larger parts I just can't see changing their ways.
I think there are so many doomers because we see so many depressing news nowadays, that many young people just feel like living their life in their own way, not caring about anything, because if they were to care it would be overwhelmingly depressing. I kinda get that people strive to just chill and be isolated from all that crap
No no weren't you watching the video? We're apparently cowards for not taking on the big polluting industries. Boeing literally just killed a guy.
Have you ever looked outside? The climate is still the same it was 50 years ago! And it will looks the same 50 years from now!
@@DarthChrisB yea like the heatwaves in spain or wildfires in fucking greece thats normal. also brazil and half of the us is constantly burning away in 2024 butbthats normal (never seen before)
@@DarthChrisB Most people over a certain age who work outside, from roofers to naturalists, can tell you from their own lived experience how much the climate has changed in an unbelievably short span of time.
@@DarthChrisB I live somewhere that used to have snowy winters and where we could go ice skating on the local lake 25 years ago and I can tell you that's definitely not the case anymore and hasn't been for the last 10 years.
Important to note that another reason why people might not want to change their behaviour because it "won't make a difference" is because most of the pollution is not caused by individual consumer action it is caused by a tiny number of massive companies. Individual decisions are not going to change that. It's a poorly phrased question that make zoomers sound like doomers; when they might actually just have a clearer idea of who the real source of the problem is. And it isn't them.
it is also often used by individuals to blame other individuals, leading to subcultures that act in cultist ways
It's actually caused by government regulations. Either by allowing companies to greenwash (Look up Carbon certificates) or by enforcing costly yet ineffective solutions.
We can, by this logic alone, assume that efforts to protect the climate would be more efficient without those regulations. Would they be perfect? No, of course not. The amount of evironmental protection that would be done is equal to the cumulative demand for environmental protection, with every single person on the earth contributing to that demand. The problem with that is that poor people literally cannot afford to vote for evironmental protection with their wallet (literally forcing companies to adapt and adopt more sustainable practices by not giving them money until they do so). The wealthier the people, the more climate and environmental protection they can afford and are willing to afford.
The key to fighting climate change is therefore: Make everyone as rich as possible, as fast as possible. Degrowth or more regulations instead make it harder for people to become wealthier. Production costs are driven up, prices increase, everyone has less wealth. Government regulation does exactly the opposite of what it tries to achieve.
@@ThePhilosophermaking everyone as wealthy as possible is literally the basis of capitalism.
It is the only method we know that does that.
Capitalism has proven however that it doesnt achieve that aim without regulation.
So you have literally just started the doomer argument without saying it's impossible, by defining the only solution (regulation) as ineffective.
It isn't ineffective, it has merely been sabotaged by climate denialism like your own.
Regulation works. When it is based in science.
Regulation doesn't work when it is based in feelings.
Fix how you create and apply regulation, and you create regulation that works.
Zero regulation unrestrained capitalism does not address climate change.
Wanna know how I can. Prove it? Simple. Without regulation a company can simply lie about it's green credentials. So even rich people will think they are addressing climate change, when they are not in fact. All to raise profits.
You need regulation there's no way around it.
@@ThePhilosopher
Ah, but I want the products I buy to be made cheap and dirty, but the products you buy to be expensive and green.
Also, it is in practice too hard to tell which products are green when faced with endless options in the shops.
Carbon tax.
Nope, this is still doomerism, just shifting the blame. Who buys from the companies? Individuals. You still have agency.
Think back to the money that big tobacco spent denying that smoking had anything to do with cancer.. And transfer that to the Billions, (that's with a B) of dollars that big oil has spent on dis- information. And it's not a stretch as to why people don't know what to believe.
These folks by nature would never EVER admit to having been bamboozled by the oil companies. Exxon's CEO even ADMITTED that the oil industry had been creating and spreading misinformation to conservative 'news' outlets, but it makes no difference to these people.
The thing is, cancer related to smoking was an actual real thing. Climate-change is a real thing too, but yes scientists are still not sure about what the effect really are, it is hard to predict the future. All we know is, Co2 seems to warm the climate, trees ''eat'' Co2. So we should really plant more trees, it is the easiest and least expensive thing we can do. But in my area, i unfortunately see them cutting trees instead of planting them..
But yea.. People need to live somewhere i guess..
@@MarshallMathersthe7th But scientists are sure of certain consequences. If anything, you can usually estimate that those consequences they talk about are much worse than what they actually say
@@MarshallMathersthe7th Scientists are PLENTY sure that the effects are somewhere between "bad" and "terrible". Is that not enough for you?
You can quit smoking and not freeze to death
I am environmental science major. And I am ashamed to admit yhat in the past my Christian extremist upbringing made me a climate denier. But I am also happy it did because I am a researcher at heart. This made me research climate change and radically changed bot only my mind but my whole world. Thank you for this video. I hope more do the research. Because time is getting short for us to change.
Let’s not give up right when renewables have gotten cheap.
Renewables are not getting cheap. They are the most expensive of all. The calculations are wrong and don’t forget capitalism is not making rare goods cheap. The more Green energy we have in the mix the more money it costs. If we would like to have cheap energy we have to change the economical system first. But not back to feudalism as the elites try now, also not to so called communism which is not working. But to co-operative systems that have well being as goal instead of profit. Green parties of today are undermined by lobbyists. Poor world, stupidly blind people believing the mass media owned by the wrong.
Hahahahahahahahaha
In what world?
Why is Jordan Peterson the thumbnail. Literal clickbait. Misinformation. Deformation of image. Shit like this is harmful but people don't care because it supports their agenda.
Not cheap enough as of yet. Also storage is not cheap enough yet. If 4kw solar panel + 100 kWh battery cost less than $10k installation included and has at least 20 year life time, you will see a lot of US families owning those systems.
I just love how fans of R1 zoning, parking minimums, outlawing bikes on some/all roads, and putting as much money as possible into highways are "anti-regulation".
cope
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 Yes we get that people like you are coping. Thank you.
Alberta for the win. until wildfires get too big.
Obviously, we need government regulations to stop the people who want government regulations.
So you dont see the hypocrisy?@@golagiswatchingyou2966
I think the most disturbing thing is that it shows how willing humanity is to just give up
the most disturbing thing is how uneducated people like you are and your cohort
If Humanity was willing to give up we wouldn't be here now, the problem is that nowadays people are bombarded with bad news and develop this "Doomer" Mentality, we just gotta spread to everyone that it's far from over while still rising awareness of climate change AND work on solutions, it's a lot of work for a lot of problems
@@scarousingpeach88you both are so naive it’s frightening. And we all know you both manage nothing of significance in the world and yet you magically have the solution to a problem you can’t even measure with solutions you haven’t even formed and tested.
It appears that humanity has given up. Humanity is just not under enough pressure to change. Everybody just wants a happy and prosperous life just like the previous generation had.
@@marrs1013 This couldn't be more far from reality, there are Millions of people working every single day to make things better, more than ever had, the latest example we had was COVID, we made a Vaccine in record time, there has never bven more people aware of climate change than now and the amount of activists nowadays is higher than it have ever been, yeah a lot of people gave up, but Humanity as a whole didnt, far from it, Humanity never truly gives up
this is my kind of pessimism.
not "the glass is half empty"
but "catch it before it falls over!"
My problem with climate policies is that they seem to be uneffective when we can use nuclear power. Honestly we just need to do more devlopment in nuclear to be carbon neutral, instead people keep shuting down nuclear power plants to put coal in place.
Nuclear has two problems: Public fear and prohibitive expense.
That used to be the case among environmentalists, but not for much longer. Government policies are starting to turn back to nuclear, like in Illinois. This shift will accelerate as the climate crisis becomes more urgent.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 as well as taking much time for planning + building, inflexibility in energy output and nuclear waste. So it is actually more like 5 problems
The risks are too great
Cherynobl proved the land loss with failure.
@@charlotteschnook1351 then again in the long run chernobyl became a natural park devoid of human activity. Animals still die due to cell mutations because of the radiation but human activity is more lethal so there is an abudance of dif. species in very healthy populations. That means Humans are worse than radiation. j.k.
You're equating 2 different types of "doomers". Some are deniers who are saying "oh those renewables are worse anyway" and some do come from groups that were trying to get something done about it, but ended up giving up.
agreed, my peers and me are very open about system reform to solve the problem, but most have given up since the realisation that there won't be any meaningful reforms due to corrupt politicians and big companies has set in.
And having to argue with people who are convinced that people who fight against climate change are the problem. Apparently protester are hypocrites who pollute more than anyone else and anyone working green technology are just in it for money, and all politicians who tries to do something about it are corrupt. It does make me feel hopeless. I had nothing but those discussion last year and just had one on Wednesday.
There's a third subgroup of "doomer" as well, like myself--I don't think we should give up trying to mitigate. It's not that I think we *couldn't* make it better, but that humans simply won't, for political and economic reasons. It's more of a "human psychology" sort of reason that I'm a doomer.
@@gasparmeco7445 I haven't said I'm one of them. I only said there's more than one type.
Then there's those of us who haven't given up, but are looking at the odds and trying to make sure that our families and communities have a decent chance of surviving the crash anyway. If the world suddenly comes to its senses we haven't lost anything by living off-grid and as self sufficient as we can, after all.
I’m a millennial and in my experience, most people that have become climate doomers have done so because of their mistrust of politics. I personally just feel as though greenwashing and the general state of geo politics makes me feel as though we can’t reach our targets.
I'd say the blanket mistrust of elected officials and cynicism about them achieving anything is even more dangerous than blind trust.
There are a lot of rotten apples in the politics/government basket, so get rid of the rotten apples! Those rotten apples stay there because of a lack of good democracy. And the rotten apples are made rotten by corporates and individuals who are too rich and too self-centered.
Here's a guy who shops at Target! U Simp!
@@Tannhauser62 Blind trust led to mistrust, so isn't blind trust worse?
They deny blame for their own actions
It is worth fiighting, but politicians make it harder and harder to remain optimistic
It's not about politicians. They're just the hired help.
tombradshaw5164:
"CO2 has never been used by any national weather office in the world for weather/climate purposes. The only gas that's used is water vapour. CO2 plays no role.
The following are the factors that influence the world's different climates:
Latitude
Elevation
Proximity to large bodies of water
Ocean currents
Topographical features (the shape of the land, if you prefer)
Vegetation
Prevailing and seasonal winds.
CO2 counts for nothing; never has, and never will.
That's the science which is taught and practised in meteorology/climatology."
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that, nature 97%. The 3% club could go back to horse and cart tomorrow and have no effect on climate.
It is frustrating to see head of states reversing from climate actions while yourself are trying even more.
Or they move the issue elsewhere so it isn't their problem, see manufacturing and China. Rather than the West cleaning up industry and investing in cleaner energy, it was just moved 'outside the environment' to places like China or India. Now politicians here can crow about being net zero while importing ship loads of dirty goods from abroad that they don't have to declare emmissions on, the Drax wood pellets being the worst example of this
As opposed to science channels which never reveal their revenue streams? Anyone who is serious about making an argument from authority should make public where every last cent they make comes from. Funny how they never do that, and no, patrons are usually a minority stream of revenue.
They’ll pretend they were always on the right side of things when it’s all said and done.
Oh yes and they will still find a way to say they are better than the climate change advocates.
These are the people that will 100% be like this.
They already do it in other ways.
like COVID?
and time after time, we will let this societal cancer make that claim instead of relentlessly hounding them with their own words
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late
The ecofascist plan:
Step one: Find a problem.
Step two: Demand more government control to fix the issue.
Step three: Issue is not fixed, blame everyone esle but those responsible for solving the issue, demand more government control.
Repeat step three ad infinitum.
One thing every doomsayer like you have in common throughout all of human history: You've always been wrong.
Step 6: Geoengineering
Step 7: Escape Vault 101
@@adriadelafuente3648So the sum total of climate scientists are in fact not scientists just going about their job but "ecofascists"?
If no, then good job you are correct. But that also raises the question, did someone "find a problem" or was a problem discovered by said scientists?
If no efforts to fix said problem are made because of science denialism what are we to blame other than science denialism?
@@adriadelafuente3648The question is: Are you really this stupid, or are you paid to post this?
The idea that if we are not at fault for climate changing therefore we should do nothing is ludicrous. "The storm is coming, but its not our fault, lets sunbath"
A big issue that I also saw with Covid is that people tend to believe politicians and randoms online when it comes to big and complex topics instead of the actual science. Usually because they confirm people's biases and it's a lot easier to just believe some who agrees with you then to actually sit down and learn about the topic.
I would say that this is a large part of the problem. People have their own bias and strengthen them online.
@@travellingtom6091 people also don't understand science or how it's done.
@@Optimistprime. A lot of people who respect science seems to mysteriously not apply scientific analysis when it comes to politics, economics, and history.
Oh right, because Marxism is pure evil and ideologically extreme. Scary communism. Even though China is leading in green energy today, and Cuba in pro-LGBT laws, and healthcare in the 3rd world.
I would say a bigger issue is that the west isn't actually democratic. The majority of people want to fix climate change, but unfortunately, the west are actually elective 4 year dictatorships. And the ruling dictators don't care about fixing the climate. This is not going to improve any time soon, when people think that directly voting for policies and decisions is "one party totalitarianism."
There's a reason why China does capitalism better than capitalists. Why China has had a "failing economy" since the 1950s but they've been skyrocketing as a superpower until this day. Because they actually apply scientific analysis into their understanding of economics, politics, and social developments. And unlike the dictatorial west, they follow the will of the people.
There is a lot of bias in academia.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF let me guess. The internet told you that lol
It's unfortunate that they, the least culpable, the global poor, the southern hemisphere, animal life, nature itself will continue to bear the brunt of our leaders and our selfish countrymen too ignorant and heartless to care about them until it's at our own front door. Until it's your family, your friends, your parents.
It is even more unfortunate that the believers are too short sighted to see the reality. Climate change is just a symptom of an unsustainable economy. Half a century ago the club of Rome presented a report stating the obvious. Unlimited growth in a limited world is not possible. The climate believers refuse to address this root cause and just talk about combating the symptom that the 1 percenters have made into a profitable business opportunity, something they can't do when the root cause is addressed. So the root cause is ignored and it is just a matter of time till the next crisis. Actually they are already here, nitrogen, pfas, microplastics, etc etc. The only long term solution is to transform to a sustainable economy, one based on maximizing quality of life instead of material wealth, one that stays within the regenerative capacity of earth.
I have been listening to your predictions all my life and none of them came true. Never ever did I see anyone take responsibility. So excuse me but your crap is a bit worn out and tired by now,
What we must admit to ourselves is is that the people pushing denialism, doomerism, etc know this and that seeing the global poor die because of climate change is their goal.
The right wing doesn't mind coastal cities suffering either.
@@TheCatherineCC Yes, the very very rich understand that resources are going to quickly diminish, and depopulating the planet is their goal. And it's not even a new idea. The eugenics movement, for example is a century old.
Its so crazy how close idiocracy is to RL right now, I've been thinking this stuff for years and have come across many reputable sources making similar claims about the future of our climate and economy but if you try to talk to the average person about it they think you sound gay and retarded for even thinking about an issue that could inconvenience them in the slightest or that requires a tiny bit of wisdom to see the bigger picture.
Doomerism in gen z is not because the small changes won't matter but because govts and companies won't try/even oppose to changes for their personal gain. Also a lot of us love meat, exotic foods from across the global and getting a lots of electronics cheaper etc.
I'm a conservative, "far right" if you will, I am also an engineer in the gas industry, but I do believe in climate change. Id vote for pro-nuclear politicians in my country.
Chicken Run NOT the best stop-motion animation ever made??!! Now THAT is a serious issue. Hmmmmm.... but then there's Wallace and Grommit.
Um, Shaun the Sheep?
@@nimroderyClearly the best answer for this is A close shave since it has both Shaun the sheep AND Wallace and Grommet
Coraline?
Flushed away?
Box trolls?
Monkeybone.
Oh, no, I'm not at all suggesting it's the best stop motion movie ever made. I just think it's a good word to post in RUclips comments.
Curse of the Wererabbit!
Drawing parallels to "what's the point of voting, the guy I want won't win anyways"
Its even worse. Its more like "What's the point of anyone voting, when my vote won't ensure the guy I want will win?"
Nah, it's possible for your vote to actually be pointless and make zero difference to the outcome of an election. Whereas every tiny bit of greenhouse gas emissions avoided will make the upcoming catastrophe slightly less catastrophic.
@anonyomous150Good point
If your choice is between Biden and Trump, it is not unreasonable to ask how we got here and whether we can get out of here by voting.
@@ArgumentumAdHominemAgreed. While Trump is obviously worse than Biden when it comes to dealing with climate change, Biden isn't good. In the US, you are forced to choose between two candidates that have no serious interest in dealing with the problem. What little Biden has done is pitiful in comparison to what is needed, and the same criticism applies to nearly all democrats. They, just like the republicans, are bought and paid for by corporations that make money in ways that make the climate crises worse. Voters aren't ever given a good choice.
While at this point it's impossible to prevent climate change (because it already happened, can't turn back the clock) we can still slow it down and mitigate the consequences. And that is the case even if the well is poisoned, it's still possible to make things not as bad as they could be. And even if we fail, good things can come from bad situations, there is always hope.
considering the "extreme catastrophic consequences" we had over the past 20 years, looks like its not going to be a problem
Well said.
@@echelonrank3927 You know, if you wanted to go be an edgelord, you could just learn to play Mortal Kombat.
@@neoqwerty no i can only afford street combat
@@echelonrank3927 Well thats the thing, there are catastrophic things already happening, you just dont realize it living in first world country. Massive immigration waves are not just because of war.... a tiny bit less food production means food prices goes up, not by much for you but massively for poorer people, causing them to migrate. Medicine is going to be more expensive, you will say its because of big pharma, but we actually need a lot of plants to make drungs. Few flood and droughts here and there and it will cost more, but you wouldnt realize the connection.
Hi, from Vermont here. This won’t add much, but in the past 10 years we have gotten over 2 feet of snow atleast three times in December. So far, we haven’t gotten over 2 inches.
To move beyond the doom I felt about climate change about a decade ago, I studied sustainability focusing on climate adaptation, and over time I have gained enough experience to be in a position in a career field where I, as an individual and working on a team, can make a difference in policies around climate change in government at a regional scale. I know everyone worries about individual climate friendly choices, but I would encourage younger people (I'm in my early 30s) to get jobs in government or private industry or nonprofits working on climate mitigation and adaptation. Fighting this fight while earning enough to sustain your own life is what eases burnout and eventual feelings of doom.
I feel like this was a wise move and good advice
Yes, funny how no politician wants to take about 'climate change mitigation or adaption'. It's obvious that fossil fuels are here to stay. Maybe time to make preparations for this 'inevitable future'.
Hi, can you say what subject you studied specifically? I'm interested in studying at sustainability related subject but feeling confused since there's a lot of options
@saraf5414 Hello! In undergrad my major was sustainability with a minor in environmental science. I had to tailor that program to meet my needs of focusing on climate adaptation and not green energy or climate mitigation. Then I worked for a few years in environmental nonprofits, and found I needed to go to grad school to rise up the career ladder, so I went to Duke Nicholas School for masters of environmental management, focusing on coastal management. I highly recommend that program. Good luck!
This is the attitude my generation (late 20s) and later need. We are still in the fight and no matter what, we inherit an earth for better or for worse. What we do today, will show itself in 20 years time, so there is no time like the present!
I was probably seven or eight, and California was drowning in the El Niño. Even the wealthy areas where we lived, it was bad. I want to ask my mom after I got home from school with my literal boots full of water because the water got pretty hot, even in the streets, and I asked her why is it raining so much and are we just going to be washed away. She taught me about the climate, as simply as she could get a nine-year-old would understand. I asked her how did she know about the climate when she was a cardiac surgeon, and her expertise were on the heart. She told me, the only way to solve problems is to study how the situation works and what happens when the process that makes the situation work becomes corrupted. She taught me that just because someone has an expertise in one thing, doesn’t mean they can’t study and learn about the other, because the fundamentals of science is all about exploring and learning relationships between one thing and another. But the most important she told me was that, if we want to make a difference, we have to be willing to learn, and if we want to survive, we have to be willing to make a difference. Just like how, in order to become the species, we are today, we had to risk learning how to farm instead of following the animals, and there were times when farming went bad, and we had no crops. Just look at what happened to Ireland in the potato famine. But learning how to raise crops was what allowed us to ultimately become of the species that we are now. She told me she wasn’t sure what would happen since the rain could continue, or it could shift, and we could end up in a drought, which is literally what happened, or something completely different but she knew if we try to make a change, based on what we’ve learned, we can prevent the worst from happening. Because that is our job as people. To make sure that lives that are born after us, have a good chance. That was what she taught me when I was nine. I still carry that With me. That no matter what my own personal moods and emotions are, whether I even care to live to see tomorrow, I owe it to the next generation, just as my mothers generation owed it to me, to take what is been learned and use it to make a better world as long as I exist within it. Because the more people stop trying, the chances raise higher for worse to happen.
@@RobertMJohnson so you think our climate science is wrong? Then what’s your answer?
@@foxdavani4091of course it’s wrong. Good lord.
Why do you think it’s right? Because you believe everything you hear from people you don’t know.
@@RobertMJohnsonI don’t know you. As such, I don’t believe you.
@@purplejay8030stop ACTING like you have been formally educated in non-linear models.
You and I BOTH know you have not.
Your mother is a TERRIBLE scientist and mathematician. Absolutely terrible
I’m sure she’s a fine doctor. If this is what she taught you, she’s an ignoramus on climate.
News flash: she doesn’t have the data, she hasn’t vetted the models.
In the US this is the same tactic used by the Right to oppose any and all gun control legislation for decades. 1. Suppress analysis of the problem by prohibiting the CDC to research gun deaths, and then 2. when there is another mass shooting that affects people directly, loudly proclaim that since no law conceived by man can prevent gun crime, we shouldn't act at all. Oh, and 3. "making criminals of law-abiding citizens" is the cherry on top. That one is working its way into the climate debate as well.
We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of hopelessness. We must fight for every tenth of a degree
My own personal "climate doomism" isn't based on the idea that it's impossible for us to save ourselves, or to improve the situation. My climate doomism is based on the idea that we just won't. People are too unwilling to change. They are unwilling to give up even the smallest conveniences to save a future that they have no certain date for. They refuse to accept it's really happening, even if they know, logically, that it is. And so we will just go on destroying the planet and ourselves, until it becomes too obvious to deny anymore. That's the only point we will truly change. I hope it's not too late by then.
You’re a federal agent stop talking
@@draco_1876 lmao what
@@draco_1876What?
I’m of a similar mind, will we give up enough comforts for it to do anything, not everyone says don’t try, but it doesn’t mean that you believe it will do anything
I had to laugh out loud when you said "...successful channels too" @3:00. You're producing great content, Simon, and I hope you will be able to keep doing this.
So, an important thing to note about the survey at 10:45 is that it focuses far too much on individual action. Changing one person's behavior really doesn't make a meaningful difference when it comes to climate change, and it is a myth that was perpetuated by big business for the benefit of big business. The changes that need to be made are on a systemic level, law and policy for countries rather than the actions of individuals.
An example of what I am talking about is recycling. When concerns were originally raised as to pollution issues to do with plastics, recycling was created as a way to shunt the responsibility from the companies to the consumer. Plastic was cheaper for the companies, so they wanted to keep using plastic. The problem with that is that (aside from just shifting the blame) plastic isn't even good for recycling like metal or glass is, you can't melt a water bottle and turn it into the same kind of water bottle, it turns into a different kind of plastic. The solution to the problem is reducing single use plastic to only things that are absolutely necessary, but that would be more expensive for businesses.
"and it is a myth that was perpetuated by big business for the benefit of big business. "
Garbage In Garbage Out
05:52 there’s a little truth in there…..there are only 2 countries in the entire world that run entirely on renewable energy- they are Iceland and Lesotho (a small African nation). But in both cases they don’t get their energy from renewables like wind and solar. In Lesotho’s case the majority of their power comes from hydroelectric sources (dams). Whereas in Iceland’s case the majority comes from geothermal energy (85%) and the rest coming from, again, hydroelectric. And in both cases the countries are much smaller than the average country and their power demands are lower than say the UK’s.
The idea that the U.K. could just switch to renewable sources like wind or solar and be fine is laughable. They are both intermittent sources of energy and constantly need to be backed up by other sources of power. With the UKs power requirement and it’s limitations on geothermal and hydroelectric sources, nuclear is actually the most environmentally friendly option for us, short of significantly reducing our power requirements.
To be clear I am not a climate change denier. It is clearly happening. But equally I’m not naive enough to believe that wind and solar power is gonna save us.
Exactly, I’m a conservative who isn’t a climate change denier, and Nuclear is the way!
@@scorpionjaxxer339
One can say nuclear is the only way, but I believe, that we can put around 50% of our energy production into renewables, and the rest in hydro powered energy storages, plus nuclear to stabilise the energy peaks and dips that happen throughout the day
Hydro power _is_ a renewable source in exactly the same sense solar and wind are (i.e. it's ultimately driven by the Sun which, at least on a human timescale, will never run out). Not sure if you intended it but your implication is otherwise.
(but in general I agree - short of some big advance in storage technology or perhaps fairly radical global energy sharing, nuclear power seems the best bet. Of course the way we currently run things in the UK, it likely won't happen quickly enough - Hinkley C for instance has been in the works since 2008 and won't start producing power until _at least_ 2029)
but there are more and more countries that run more and more and even mostly on renewables and considering that the technology is so new thats impressive as hell.
If you go nuclear you are still dependent on mostly autocratic regimes. You can see in the case of Germany where that can lead to. But even if thats none of your concern. Look at the building times and cost estimations of current nuclear power plants. They are all much more expensive and take way too long to build. Just look at Hinkley Point C if you need a close example. And this is not only the case for the large plants like the one mentioned, but the smaller versions like SMRs all mirror the issues of their bigger brothers. This will ulitmately result in very expensive electricity costs.
A fully renewable system can work if you not only factor in the production side of things, but also the grid, flexibilities (storage and management) as well as demand as many studies have shown (even for the UK), it just requires investment and political will for change. But as we all know, change is scary (but necessary).
They believe in something they can’t see with maximum devotion but they refuse to believe what is clearly laid out in front if them.
Unfortunately most of the time it’s a mix of
“I grew up believing this thing that I can not observe, thus this has become part of my foundation of who I am as a person”
“That this thing that I believe in has my best interest at heart even when it doesn’t feel like it”
“Science doesn’t believe this thing that I believe in so why should I trust them”
“This person I trust confirms my biases”
Essentially getting influenced at a young age to not only believe something that they can’t observe but make it part of their identity, thus any attack on this thing is viewed as an attack at the person, causing them to go on the defensive with no critical thinking.
They're so focused on their eternal life that they're not caring about the life that any of us are living right now
@@typemasters2871 Very well put. A lot of people are maybe not even influenced since their childhood, they just adopt these simple explanatory models because they can't or simply don't want to deal with the complexity of reality and problems - so if somebody then challenges their narrow and dumbed-down worldview , they feel threatened in their very existence. So their reaction is filled with hatred, denial and aggression towards the people who try to point out other possible perspectives. It's silly and scary at the same time - because these people can vote and often they are the most active voters.
@@adambazso9207 Exactly.
@@adambazso9207
The unfortunate reality that religions that try to promote positive social traits (being truthful, being kind, showing empathy, etc) end up attracting people who want to use it for personal gain (to be in a position of power, to become rich, as an excuse for their hate, to ignore what’s happening on earth) and/or people who have a tendency to cherry pick the parts they like and ignore the parts they don’t whilst (either willingly or unconsciously) ignoring any of their own hypocrisy.
I can’t afford to worry about climate. Food and shelter are my priorities. This is a wealthy person problem, I’ll be dead soon.
My heart goes out to the desperately poor of Africa, who are being denied loans for power plants, because the Europeans don't want to lend money to anyone who's not doing renewables. It's absolutely cruel and inhumane to deny people the most basic of things, like not having to burn wood and dung in their homes, because climate change. And this is being done by people like the Germans, who are importing coal at the exact same time because they won't allow their standard of living to drop even a little bit. They are monsters.
The next step is blaming everyone else for not stopping them.
The NEXT step is to SUE the shit out of the fossil fuel companies for harming the planet in order to get the FUNDS needed to FIX this fucking fossil fuel world.
All Clear?
Humans are terminal.
Lobbyists, corporations and politicians are murdering us. And the poorest amongst us seem to think this is all hot air.
True, but not in the way you think. The establishment is pushing the 'climate change' agenda for all it's worth - and that's not because they care so much about the planet, or anything else except their power and wealth. Open your eyes.
Paleontology calls climate change NORMAL and COMMON dummy..sooo much so its teh ONLY driver of evolution:) Astronomy,y knows why :)
"Lobbyists, corporations and politicians are murdering us."
Are you speaking about the big food and big agro-bussines corporations which are pushing the vegan agenda and the anti-meat narrative and are actively trying to discredit people who engage in regenerative animal agriculture like Allan Savory?
leftwing
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 And? You keep leaving these dumb, one word comments as if they're saying anything or making some kind of point.
0:18 How filtering comments by newest feels like:
what?
@@PeterChoyce most of us have "top comments" sorted by default and that makes it look like there's a healthy debate, but if you (re-)sort by "Newest comments first", there's a tendency to get cynical 'doomer' comments. They don't get voted up, won't appear at the top comments by default, but can become a steady stream of gloom. just continuing wails of despair into the intellectual vacuum that is the RUclips comment section.
@@PeterChoyce They are saying if you filter comments by new you see a lot of the overly toxic, climate denial doomers.
this is a widely used censorship method to filter out the opposing point of view. Facebook does it too.
aka the people the elites don't want you to hear because they could actually inform you.@@esar96
My brother in law is a doomist of the new variety. He is a physics Prof at a prestigious University, he thinks we can do nothing and has infected me with this thinking and I really want to not believe it.
Even if it's true do you want to sit on your hands and wait for it to happen? Or do you want to do everything in your power to do as much as you can.... Even in the end, if the worst comes to pass at least you tried. And that effort can bring you some modicum of peace and agency now, to make your current day to day life better, knowing you are fighting for a better future, even if your efforts are doomed.
After all, even if we solve climate change, one day this Earth will be gone for one reason or another. That's no reason to give up today.
Don't, then. Stay stubborn. Even if all is doomed, it's better to go out fighting than not.
Humanity made it through an ice age with a stick and two rocks. We'll be OK.
Your brother in law may know physics, but he doesn't know energy technology. We have the solutions. He's just wrong. Ignore him, be happy, and vote for people who are willing to do something about climate change.
I really don't want to believe it either, who does? It sucks on a literal global scale.
There are individuals out there doing things to help. I quit my job in the city to get a slightly less good job 2 miles from home. The wife and I drive smart cars, from 2009 and 2013. We try to not fly places when possible. We vote for people who want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and who will work with foreign nations towards that goal. It is not that hard.
I’ve recently started to see an even stranger kind of denial.
That “The ocean temperature is warming but it’s due to increased heat coming from the earths core”
I think this was as a response due to the unexpectedly high sea temperature in the North Atlantic last year.
Maybe they are wrong maybe not
Creative Society mathematical model, 22 November 2022 'our survival is in unity' (first hour video)
pls no :'(
I think that would be classified under the 'old denial' discussed in this video. The old denial is still very much around, and the wackadoo stuff they come up with would be fascinating if it weren't so exasperating. One 'theory' that emerged around 2010 and is still bandied about in the most extreme circles today is that the sun is made of electricity ('the electric universe') and that the GHG effect isn't real because thermodynamics is wrong - yes, denialists would rather believe batshit so crazy it undermines all of physics just to avoid the conclusion that our CO2 is causing heating of the Earth/atmosphere. That is how desperate they are, it is insane.
Douglas Vogt was a great scientist
and he did quite a lot of studies about the 12.000 years cycles
@@jacobcoburn7634
Few months ago Ben (Suspicious Observer) said:
the climate war is started
scientists vs scientists 😲
But just because I don’t think there is much I PERSONALLY can do about it doesn’t mean I don’t think governments can effect change much more efficiently. The best thing we can do personally is support our government policies that help to address this issue.
Saying that (as a consumer) you cant do anything is so pathetic…
You can stop consuming anything that involves oil. No more car, or train, or bus or plane. No more compluter, no more food from the supermarket, no more heating your home.
Depends on if you are willing to do any sacrifices. And governmental policies will also have an effect on your life.
@@Nehes.6743 Yet 71% of emissions come from 100 companies. Objectively, if you are only focussing on reducing your own carbon footprint (and note the problematic history of this term), you are doing nothing effective. Political action is the most important thing that you can do. In terms of ordering of effectiveness it is: political action and change to individual practices, political action and no change to individual practices, change to individual practices, and lastly, nothing.
If it's a terrestrial government it has this thing where it wants population to increase because it's a nation, and then they make the people they incentivized into existence become consumers (because all economic activity is in fact consumption, strictly speaking), and the waste generated wrecks the planet we live on-because it's toxic stuff spewed out of machines that organisms can't deal with. The government may speak well about our concerns for ecological sustainability and the justness of new and more efficient killing machines and why we can't have nice things, but it's just monkey jaw flapping. We're an evolutionary catastrophe. A trainwreck. Consciousness is an aberration worse than any meteor strike, and the limit of our social imagination is our doom. Feel good about it if you like. I think people would have to recognize how deeply and fully out of whack our whole being as a species is to start doing anything about it, but that wouldn't put a big toothy grin on everybody's face.
It's not that I don't believe I just don't think giving the government more money and power will fix the problem
They don't need more money or power. They need more PRESSURE to do the right thing with that power or be replaced.
Well, it usually fixes the problem for most existential threats like war and plagues
@augusthoglund6053 You're glowing dude
You don't give the government money, the government is where money comes from.
What is your alternative, and don't say the invisible hand of free market capitalism
I feel like these people are testing were they can go without backlash, until they can level up their discourse
Deniers 30 years ago: Climate change isn't real.
Deniers now: Climate change is real but it's natural, it's not man-made.
Deniers 30 years from now: Climate change is real, it's not natural, it's man-made... but we can't do anything anymore so we might as well just keep going.
Answer my question in the general comments.
@@johnsergei YOu aren't near smart enough to understand any answers to questions and that is a fact unless you can prove not. smh
@@johnsergei Fix my breakfast.
@@dougcard5241 I don't bother with ego flogs on you tube.
@@dougcard5241 Why did temperature fall during the early 1940s?
No climate deniers would survive spending two days in the southern hemisphere during the summer.
Despite having many conservatives who are anti-vax and things of the sort in tropical countries. It is simply undeniable that each new summer is simply less bearable than the last. We feel the difference in our very skin. Every single summer, all of our news channels warn us that "the current summer is the hottest in recorded history." Not to mention rising tides and islands simply dissappearing. Denying climate change is basically saying, "If it doesn't affect me, then it must not exist."
We just suffered through a record high tide that caused over $100 million in damages. There were a lot of naysayers here before it happened. Not so many now. I think you're exactly right about public perception. If it doesn't affect people personally, it simply doesn't exist.
I grew up on the equator and it still doesn't feel any warmer now than when I was little. I am against the whole climate change science because I don't believe their data. I think the whole climate change crisis just like covid(nurse now who worked the covid units) is being exaggerated to control society.
We had a guy in Rotterdam claim the floodings in Maastricht were not real. That's 170 kilometers away and both cities are on the same river.
We were in Bali last summer, nobody we talked to said it was getting worst. They say is hot, and they have to work outside for farming, construction etc., but none of them mentioned is getting worst each year, or that the plants were burning up from heat. That is just one data point.
Southern hemisphere is very big. What is hot in one region may not be the same in another region that you are in.
Here in the northern hemisphere, we had an unusual long winter lasting all the way into June last year. This year we just had an unusual snow storm in the spring. Summers are hot in the dessert for sure, but don't remember it being worst than previous ones.
Lakes were getting very small. That was a scare. Now the lakes are getting back to size again. I can't make a definite conclusion.
@@benmlee I don't mean to be rude, but you were a visitor. I'm a native to an equatorial country, and let me tell you: it IS getting hotter and worse. I'm not just talking about the sensation on the skin but actual data, reliable news media constantly showing that the last few summers were the hottest in recorded history according to research. I'm not sure if you heard, but the heat waves were so serious earlier this year during the peak of the current summer that Taylor Swift had to cancel and postpone her shows in Brazil, and people even died *during* the event as a result of that. This happened in Rio, which is waaaay south of the equator and not one of the hottest regions of the country. Summer is almost over now, so things are a bit better, but we can't just invalidate the data and these people's experiences.
I saw how quickly the environment changed just from some months of covid lockdowns causing overall lesser carbon footprints. I believe in the possibility of change.
Youre tripping
Right, if we put all of society in a cage forever, destroy all industry and technological progress, and revert back to the stone age, yes, our carbon footprint stops existing.
But you recognize what you're asking for, right?
For some people, those months/years were the worst time of their life, because of those actions.
Ok I get what they are trying to say, I think what they mean is that the climate can go back to normal, obviously we aren’t going back to lockdown but making climate friendly decisions can actually help
@@LoganChristiansonthat’s ignorant of their point; the point is there is still hope and it is possible to save the climate.
Yes, that includes without shutting down the world.
We have the technology to do so
@@Potato_the_third You're not seeing my point: to the degree you turn off the CO2 production, you cause suffering in humanity. We shut down almost everything, and nature quickly began to snap back. Are you able to recognize the cost of doing that, though? What did that do to people?
Few things are certain, but it IS certain that the planet's future depends on what humans do next.
It saddens me that people that go from climate change denial to doomist actually exist. I feel slightly disgusted by it. But i console myself with the fact that accepting theres a problem is the first step towards fixing that problem.
denialism to doomerism makes sense when you understand that such people aren't at all motivated by a desire to find truth, but instead only seek to justify the desire to minimise (or reverse) change. they don't really care about whether _climate change is happening_ or not; they care about whether or not _they might be asked to do/stop doing anything._
But they would say that it can't be fixed by humans because it wasn't caused by humans - it's just a natural cycle 😂
The deniers never actually believed their nonsense, it's always been a grift to keep things from changing, or in the case of fossil fuel industry, to keep making money.
This is the natural evolution of the grift, if your aim is to make sure nothing has to change, and you can keep making money.
Instead of denying the problem, you say its pointless to even try to solve it.
@@bipolarminddroppings Find me a substitute for fossil fuel, and then we might talk.
Until then, our way of life is so inextricably linked to those, you might as well ask people to stop eating entirely.
@@adriadelafuente3648 you are an example of exactly the attitude the video is about. You’re setting the narrative so high it’s unachievable. Won’t you consider some kind of personal and societal change in behaviour?
Take responsibility, stop being so silly.
i live in europe and the EU is very focused on the climate change, but i hear a lot of people saying "what is the difference if we are driving electric or diesel cars while china is opening new coal powered power plants and they are making X times more CO2 than us?" how to adress it?
China and India were offered fewer requirements in the Paris agreements for very sound reasons. CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries, which means that the lion’s share of the current accumulation came from the United States and Europe, both of which industrialized 200 years ago. China only began to modernize 40 years ago and has emitted nowhere near the CO2 that we have in the United States and Europe. Who but the lion should clean up the lion’s share of the mess?
Per capita, the Chinese spew HALF as much CO2 per year as Americans do. Most Chinese adults don’t even own cars yet, while Americans drive the world’s largest gas hogs. Per capita, the Chinese use HALF as much electricity as we do. They also lead the world in the development of clean energy. EVs there have exploded in popularity and many cost LESS than traditional ICE cars. 90% of China’s buses are electric.
China added more solar panels to its infrastructure in 2023 than the U.S.has done in its entire history, according to a report in Bloomberg.
Finally, 80% of Wal-Mart’s merchandise is manufactured in China. China makes hundreds of products for American companies, so that factory pollution is partly due to our insatiable demand and conspicuous consumption. Who exactly should be responsible for such downstream emissions?
The United States was unfettered by CO2 and pollution restrictions as it modernized. China and India naturally want the same freedom to grow. Yes, China and India burn a lot of coal, but they are also making steady progress toward transitioning to clean energy. These are big ships to turn around. It's not going to happen overnight.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 None of that justifies imposing draconian measures on western citizens to decrease CO2 EMISSIONS, especially when said measures are known to stunt growth as well as make countries poorer. How much poorer? We dont exactly know, but its not like the politicians in charge of this actually care.
You can do whatever you want in the West, the most obvious truth is that if China doesn't stop doing what they're doing, most of our efforts will be made useless. This isn't a matter of fairness, this is an obvious matter of political convenience. If the West tries to impose anything, China will simply say no. So they get to keep their supply chains intact while we cant even drive our cars anymore. And again, our politicians dont give a damn because they are still flying around in their private jets.
They are so focused on climate change that they are perfectly fine with supporting an endless war in ukraine which produces god knows how many emissions
EU is contributes a lot to climate change, even if US and China do effect it more.
We can't just deny that this is also our fault (to be fair industrialization and globalization started with us). Also taking action against global warming would also improve the environment we live in. For example: protecting and improving forests would mean a better water and air quality; Circular economy would make us less dependant on global trading; Renewable energy could reduce gas and oil usage, meaning we won't have to buy it from other countries (see all the debate about Russian gas).
Acting on climate change is not just about ethics, is to improve our lives and economy.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes, CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries... but the cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 still put China in second place, at about half that of the USA (Russia is third). So that argument does work for India, but definitely not China. China is _way_ over-emitting, even on a per-capita basis. Yes, USA produces more per-capita, but China's production is still way too high even in reasonably short-term (a decade or two). It's perfectly fair for India to grow their emissions; but China should already be hard into reducing theirs.
Europe is already below the per-capita emission of China, and still trending way down. Yes, part of that is importing goods that were produced in Asia and Africa - but a much smaller part than you probably think. For example, Germany (already way above average per-capita CO2 in Europe) had some 8t CO2 per capita in 2020 locally... and imported some 1.5t CO2 per capita from abroad. Some of the lowest local emissions are clearly subsidized by shifting production abroad - e.g. Switzerland got nice 4t/cap in 2020... but imported mind-blowing 8.3t/cap. Properly accounting for everything shows a very different picture from the politics speech; Germany is often shown as a green success story, but compare Germany's real 9.2t/cap to "dirty" UK's 7t/cap. Czech Republic is fairly dirty at 8.7t/cap, but only imports 0.7t/cap. And of course, just looking at the trade emissions isn't enough - e.g. Russia is a net exporter of CO2 at -1.8t/cap... but still manages a total of 9.3t/cap (at a fairly low life quality by European standards). France, with its nuclear power, sits at 5.8t/cap (including the 1.5t from net imported goods). Heck, Norway has 8.7t/cap!
How about that Africa and Asia we "clearly" export our emissions to? Yep, most of them are near neutral or net exporters in trade. But it's severely overblown, and the others (like South Korea and Japan or even Cambodia and Botswana) are enough to sway the pendulum the other way. India is a net exporter... at about -0.12t/cap (though poor as the country is, the native emissions are at just 1.6t/cap - clearly a place that can fairly ask for a bit of a boost). China? Not a chance. Yes, net exporter at -0.65t/cap, but native emissions are already at 7t/cap. For fun, Kuwait stands at -0.65t/cap, so a net exporter (oil exports tend to do that!)... but has native emissions at absolutely staggering 22.2t/cap.
Looking at the data, it seems that by far the biggest impact on those "exported" emissions is the fossil fuel industry. The net exporters are almost invariably exporters of coal, oil and gas. Manufacturing is not insignificant, but is dwarfed by the fossil fuels, and always has been. And of course, while most industries are getting ever cleaner and more efficient, the exact opposite is true of fossil fuel industries - they emit more every year.
Per-region the numbers are quite telling. The world average is 4.5t/cap. Africa is at 1t/cap. Asia at 4.1t/cap. Europe has 7.3t/cap (EU is slightly lower at 7.1t/cap). North America has 10.5t/cap, overwhelmingly due to the US (NA without USA is just 4.1t/cap). Oceania is at 9t/cap. South America just 2.2t/cap. Of course, 7.3t/cap in Europe doesn't produce the same living standards as 7.3t/cap in Asia - it took a lot of investment to make the incredibly high living standards so "cheap" in Europe; and we want to push it much lower anyway. Though of course, a lot of that effort is something that Asia and Africa get for "free" now - they already have access to all that research and advanced technology, as well as the industrial bases that make it practical to use.
It's clear enough that this "they are making X times more CO2 than us" is pure rhetoric by populist (and greedy) politics and businessmen, and clearly enough promoted by fossil and car industries. It's clear that politicians do what they always do - lie, lie and then lie some more. It's fairly clear that it's still mainly the fossil and car industries that we have to fight at every turn. The amount of damage they do to the environment and human lives in general is massively disproportional to their benefits. And it's not just about pollution and CO2 emissions. And they've known this for sure for almost a century now - but decided to just make more money instead. After all, it's cheaper to pay for advertising than to find actual solutions. None of this is any new science (global warming due to CO2 emissions is a concept that predates _computers_ ; it's nothing new, we're just getting better and better at modelling the impact and scope) - the only thing that is slowly changing is that we're slowly gaining the strength and will to fight them.
And no, that doesn't mean there will be no car or no fossil fuels. It just means that we need to stop building everything around the two, and treat them as just the minor conveniences that they are. We can do better. We _did_ do better, and we're getting better again. We just need to keep fighting. In just 30 years, Europe went from 10.7t/cap (and being a net exporter) to 7.2t/cap, while living conditions generally improved. Much of that comes from rejecting car-centric life. Even the USA, as horrible as they are, went from 20.3t/cap to 15.5t/cap; there's absolutely no technical reason why they couldn't match Europe - just build more like Europe, and get rid of the residential suburbs (while we need to keep pushing against the sprawl in Europe, Asia and Africa).
If it is so urgent, all options should be on the table. That includes nuclear power. It's hard to take climate change advocates seriously when they are also anti-nuclear.
Yes... They are... and it is. I'm not against nukes in principle but nuclear is not without problems renewables don't have like cost, time, safety, security, and mostly now...They lose a lot of money so it's hard to get and keep investors.
Nuclear should have been incorporated 20 years ago. I don't think pro green energy advocates are anti-nuclear energy. I think at this point it's whether Nuclear is more cost effective that other renewables form. But it if it gets both sides agreement, then yes we should just go for it. And it would be alongside other renewables of course.
The biggest problem with nuclear power is that it positions itself as an alternative to sustainable energy production. The second biggest problem is that there's enough fuel to last about ten years at scale.
Yeah just like the people who said we would run out of oil in 10 years or would reach peak oil by 1971.
In one region of Canada, or one region of China, there is enough COAL (ignoring gas or oil) to run the world at current levels for the next thousand years possibly longer.
Anyone who says we are running out of hydro carbons any time soon is not living in reality.
And you can say humans shouldn't use them cause they damage the Earth. I would simply ask how many underground fires are currently burning through millions of tons of coal every year? 100? A thousand?
That coal will eventually burn whether humans do it or not.
And no humanity doesn't have the power to put these fires out. We have tried flooding the areas with constant water for years and years. The fires still burn.
@@blueatlas5021 they pretty much are anti nuclear energy bc they think every reactor is Chernobyl
Bloody brilliant! Cheers Simon