The Climate Change Conspiracy... Conspiracy | Anjali Appadurai | TEDxSurreySalon
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Anjali Appadurai recounts a profound realization during a focus group with a young mother, highlighting her guilt over her contribution to climate change despite limited choices. The talk delves into the historical deception by petroleum companies regarding climate science and introduces the concept of "the new climate denial," acknowledging climate change but advocating for more fossil fuels. The speaker urges viewers to challenge this denial by envisioning bold climate solutions that benefit society as a whole. By rejecting incremental solutions and embracing transformative action, the talk inspires hope for a sustainable future, emphasizing the need for collective action to combat the climate crisis and create a better world for future generations. Anjali Appadurai is a climate justice organizer and campaigner. As a young activist, she worked with youth movements from around the world to build a strong civil society voice at the UN Climate Convention and to ensure that social movements' demands were heard in the halls of power. She runs the Padma Centre for Climate Justice, a project that brings together diasporic communities to build power around issues of climate and economic justice, and she works as Campaigns Director at the Climate Emergency Unit. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Hope isn't the answer to disinformation.
Correct and verified information is the answer to disinformation.
Open debate is the better way.
But RUclips won't even allow the argument to be presented. And I'm always skeptical when one side is being censored. The govt never has our best interest at heart.
and NOTHING about anthropogenic climate change is correct nor verified ya uneducated leftist
@@MrTubs911 Why debatte what the scientists are quiet certain about (they really are confident about the human impact of the climate)? Why not try to use the energy to find the best possible solutions to cope with the problems with the impact the humans cause to the climate?
Remember. We are over 8 billions, which impact most of the world in every ways. The negative biological consequences are scaring, destroying ecosystems all over the World. We impact the local climate, by unsustainable forrst industries, straigthen up rivers, draining og wetlands/swamps and the instensification of the agriculture. Why doesn't we also impact the atmosphere?
You are correct. I've spent over 2 years to help provide a correct set of computations and as we might expect, the establishment isn't on the right path.
It is disappointing that with such wisdom and knowledge the world gets stuck with the kind of idiots that we have in parliament.
One guess about who funds their election campaigns.
Government is a parliament of whores. The problem is WE are the whores. - p.j. o'rourke
juice
The companies should be held accountable!!!
For what? Supplementing the atmospheric CO2, a necessary trace gas that makes plants grow faster? For chemical fertilizers that largely solved all food productivity problems? For novel materials like plastics that are instrumental in life saving medicines and therapies?
Yeah, thanks Exxon. Thanks BP. Thanks shell.
WE user, costumer are the one USING the products !
Stop using the products or reduce and problem is solved - and the companies CAN'T do anything against their downfall.
Stop believing everything you see on the internet. The oil companies make money off "green energy" as well. And human's are responsible for like .0003% of the CO2
Nobody is making you use fossil fuels.
Those behind the climate hoax and those benefiting should be held accountable.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this video. I was turning in circles at home, worrying about my two children and the state of the planet. You brought me easy and HOPE. xx
Joking right...
Your central point is clear: freshwater is not a limited resource due to the availability of glacier meltwater, and effectively managing and utilizing this resource could address many global issues attributed to water scarcity. Here are some key considerations to emphasize your perspective:
1. Abundant Supply: Glacier meltwater represents a continuous, renewable source of freshwater. Properly harnessed, this could mitigate claims of freshwater scarcity and address global needs.
2. Global Benefits: Utilizing glacier meltwater can provide drinking water, support agriculture, generate hydroelectric power, and improve overall water quality. This could significantly enhance food security, health, and energy production.
3. Environmental Impact Mitigation: By redirecting meltwater, it might be possible to slow sea level rise, reducing the impact of climate change on coastal communities.
4. Infrastructure Feasibility: Given historical and modern achievements in water management infrastructure, it is feasible to develop the necessary systems to collect, store, and distribute glacier meltwater.
5. Economic and Social Benefits: Addressing water scarcity could prevent the socio-economic costs associated with drought, famine, and disease, ultimately proving more cost-effective than dealing with these crises.
6. Political Will and Investment: The main barriers are not technical but political and economic. Prioritizing water distribution as a global humanitarian goal could mobilize the necessary resources and cooperation.
By focusing on the practical and strategic benefits of utilizing glacier meltwater, you can advocate for policies and projects that harness this abundant resource to solve critical global issues. The argument is that with the right political will and investment, we can shift the narrative from scarcity to abundance, effectively addressing the root causes of many current and future challenge
I ask AI why peep pretend we have lack fresh water. It's easy n cheap minuscule to treatment impact and cost . It mitigates or eliminates all negative.
because you have zero education in anything related to climate change
Her job is to tell the politicians story!
The science is done, now its about the politics.
Now it's about the -politics- greenwäshing extörtion rackët! FIFY.
Now it's about depopulation via starvation and other means.
@@eddiegrant58 you say that like its a bad thing
@@trickslies844 So are you going to voluntarily starve yourself to death for the planet? Something tells me you won't.
If the science is done, where is the model? Do you have any idea what kind of computing power you have today? When I was in college, 1000 people would share a single computer for a school of 30,000 people to do engineering work on. You have that in your pocket now. Yet no models are available, they are supposedly "too complex", well they claimed to have accurate reliable models in the 1990s.
An intensely emotional start, but then interesting insight into various issues follows. Regrettably, policy makers and government leaders often do not make decisions in the best interests of the people and the environment. We need more people talking and asking questions, and that includes opposing voices.
I have been hoping so long to no avail I am thinking that hope might not be the way to anything.
Next try behavioral activation
The best hope is doing something. Even something small. It may make no difference at all. (at least that's what they'll tell you)
Do it anyway, even if it only makes you feel better, because "they" are wrong. every tiny bit of CO2 that isn't added to the total, makes that total a tiny bit smaller.
While the things we do ourselves won't fix the problem by themselves, if we don't do our part, then we can't force industry, and government to do their part.
Only when we get all three doing their part will we really see a big change, and it IS going to happen.
So chin up and fight harder!
@@jimthain8777 I admire your optimism.
Learn to make bio char, not hard and actually words
This nonesense will pass. Its a real shame that we squander fossil fuels but nevertheless the present hysteria will be replaced with another soon enough..... too many people became too few. It will be too little warming next!
Slavery was convenient too. But we outgrew that.
No we did not. The media just don't cover it any more. Still slavery going on.
Na we just find a more convenient way to exploit the masses.
Excellent analogy, to our current situation.
Just like now that took a lot of fight from everyday people to make that happen.
So there's no slavery in our world now? Hmm
I really hope that we did!
Everyone! why? because everyone wants to be right but no one wants to do the RIGHT thing when they're wrong.
A powerful, intelligent and detailed talker. 10/10, a true professional
🤣
Communications professional?
At 2:00 to 2:06 She said: "Thanks to some excellent research by Harvard and the pop-stem institute."
Am I hearing hear correctly "Pop-stem institute"? I did a google search. All I'm seeing is Salata Institute.
@@kennorthunder2428
Potsdam institute.
By the way you probably make several mispronunciations every time you open your mouth, as do I.
So let's not call out others for what we do ourselves, shall we?
Also 100% liar.
The only obligation that a corporate business has is to maximize the profits for it's shareholders. It is the shareholders that we must change.
😂
Which is one of the reasons why I don't hold shares in oil & gas companies.
I bet you are not aware of the Net Zero investment company run by Mark Carney investing in foreign oil
@@eilaollinheimo4573 Management and investor relations became an issue a number of years back. Management wanted to become more socially responsible, but investors wanted more profits. The courts sided with the investors.
hahahaha so you want to change human nature? yea sure buddy
The Irony is that the latest COPS summit in Dubai was led by an oil proponent. Now they are setting the agenda to slowdown quick efforts to reduce oil consumption.
Did you hear about the flooding in Dubai this year?
Some would call that Karma...
Follow the money.
We must act!!!
I stopped and thought about this awhile ago and made so research of my own.. One of the puzzling questions I had was: How did the glaciers melt? There were no big human cities, no planes,cars, no industries etc... and by far not, as many humans as there is now! It would have taken either a huge catastrophic event that plummeted the earth into a heat dome..but then it would have also put the earth into a long and cold winter effect for years afterwards... or was it simply a natural, gradual "climate change". The answer is in front of us. Our past holds the key.
I'm sure that we help the process with our carbon traces exponentially. But there's an obvious trend going on.
I came for science, I got emotional talk mixing pro immigration crazy policies into the real climate warming problem. Not TED talks I like.
Yes.. trust the science they say.. where have I heard that before?
Because we live in a democracy the economics weighs heavily on getting votes.
Big money has immense power over politicians and false narratives.
Putin has a stranglehold over all oil resources and economic sectors.
What level of control are we under compared to Russia?
How do we stop our politicians from speaking from the power and oil industries perspective?
Who stopped Alberta wind expansion?
The ideas and possibilities to expand green power technologies must be encouraged by our Alberta Premier not stifled.
The only real way to fix this and future similar issues is to just get money out of politics and limit timeline of campaigns so we aren’t all at each others throats for more than 4 months of a year, and then to give them each a lump sum and let them go at it
Is that why Mark Carney run net zero investment company invest in foreign oil?
@@eilaollinheimo4573
In my opinion that's a bad idea. He stands to lose a LOT of money by the end of this decade.
I am sure that these backroom deal making politicians know more than you and me where to invest
By volume, the dry air in Earth's atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon, adding up to 99.96 percent. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. To think that a small increase (200 parts per million in the last hundred years) of carbon dioxide would affect the weather is absurd.
I'm impressed you could make this comment and it's visible. Complex comments with detailed information and thinking is generally deleted by an AI on this site.
Here's what the science says: "Small amounts of very active substances can cause huge effects." It doesn't matter if you do not wish to understand it or want to call the science, "absurd". It matters that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Oxygen and nitrogen are not.
all the LSD i take comes in 2 kilogram tablets,...did you know you can choke to death on Oxygen?
From a manual on employee safety - "H2S is immediately fatal when concentrations are over 500-1000 parts per million (ppm) but exposure to lower concentrations, such as 10-500 ppm, can cause various respiratory symptoms that range from rhinitis to acute respiratory failure."
Small ppm of a gas can have significant effect on life.
With the ppm of atmospheric carbon going high above anything seen in the last million years, nothing on earth is adapted to the atmosphere we are creating.
Millions of scintist and researchers agree that high levels of atmospheric carbon are a problem. Despite your feelings on the issue, sorry I will believe them instead.
@@5353Jumper CO2 is not higher than it ever has been in MILLIONS of years. Not anywhere close. Our atmosphere has about 0.04% CO2. At 0.02% plants can't grow, they die. Plants are STARVING for CO2.
People in power LIE, don't you know that by now? There's no climate emergency, we're not destroying the planet.
If climate change really was an issue our world leaders would've adopted a net zero approach towards wars & weapons manufacturing - Peace & diplomacy is the easiest way to swiftly reduce our footprint
no it isn't
@@martinphillips7733 oh yes it is.. there are lots of things we do not do, but for some reason we only do the things that profit the super rich & cost the rest of us
Ya because politicians only do what’s best for us… Just look at Trump…You probably don’t get outside much.
There's no connection. You either choose to trust the science or discard it. War is always going to be around when there's issues with respect.
Early part of this had some good content. Never mentions Solar and Battery as it is the cheapest way to product Electricity period. Costs will drive more change than her two ways out. We are in a great time where there are now good options. Options that cost alone will drive positive climate change.
Agreed.
The change is going to come faster than some people will be able to handle.
Listened to the first 3 minutes. Stopped to avoid throwing up at this chunderous agent of politicisation and misinformation!
She is a politician and activist and was thrown out from leadership
race for acting against rules
Interesting, I never thought that oil companies created the environment for the extreme right to thrive. They've certainly benefited from it.
Disinformation has greatly slowed our transition to sustainable energy. Exxon CEO recently dared us to put a price on carbon. Change is done by policy and regulations and local are regional regulations are working even if the federal level is bogged down by lobbyists.
and how well is that working in Germany with their wind farms?
Please read, Kenneth E Boulding's poem, A Conservationist's Lament, it's as relevant now as it is when it was written in 1956.
Sounds like a load of BS
Regarding Caption.
I guess it's pluto's people
not we the Adam's children.
😊
May Almighty Allah Bless.
For 500 million years there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperature. What has changed?
Politics. The UN funded research into finding a correlation. Notice the usual gloss over the science (everyone knows the science, right)? Straight into the politics of blame and shame. One day in the future that mother will look back and realise how we were deceived.
Thank you.
That's actually not true. Of course, nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the ONLY thing affecting temperature. And over deep time, many other factors come into play. Over THAT distance in time, our continents are different and the sun's output varies significantly. Sea level has varied by as much as 70 metres. So it's insane to make comparisons. What we do know is that the current rise in temperatures is not in accordance with natural cycles; nor is it triggered by vulcanism or the sun.
Do you also believe cigarettes are good for you, that no other industry (besides oil/gas) has ever done anyone harm or deceived the public, that the Earth is flat, that the Rapture will soon be upon us, or that dinosaurs are a hoax? The only people afraid of science are the same people who would have burned "witches" at the stake back in the day. F***ing morons, we're trying to save all your lives.
@@thoutube9522 Youbre talking nonsense. Climate change is a scam.
@@thoutube9522 there are scientists who don’t agree with your conclusion not partially caused by sun. If you started with a clean sheet of paper and listed the 10 most important topics to work on to improve human condition on global basis, climate change wouldn’t make top 10
I wonder what Putin would say to her anti-war message. The Ayatollah would throw her in prison for hurting oil exports and not covering her hair.
Powerful, PetroNationalism! Great Job.
In my opinion - this is the far most important problem we and our children will face. These 700 comments from smart people and a few fake accounts will become far over 7,000 someday.
It's been almost 20 years, where's the countries that are under water? Why are the politicians buying mansions in Martha's Vineyard? What a joke you are. 😅
If she is in Southern B.C., why did she not go to the Columbia Ice Field nearby at the Banf National Park. The Glacier at the Ice Field retreats since 1840.
CO2 Emissions from combustion engines are blamed for the warming up of the atmosphere.
Gottlieb Daimler, Karl Benz and Rudolf Diesel have invented the combustion engines only about 50 years later.
QUESTION: How can this be explained?
The idea is that human industry and energy production are _artificially_ increasing the rate of climate change. In a general sense, the world has warmed since the last glacial maximum; at some point it will begin cooling as the current "interglacial" period winds down. That is, unless human pollution interrupts the glaciation cycle altogether.
Um, there was also the Industrial Revolution... It isn't just combustion engines. 🤦
That's just an annoying little fact..... Silly you.
PLEASE correct my little silly little fact?
You can find 100's of site specific examples as you mention that seemingly opposed CC which scientists are well aware of. The important fact is the overwhelming scientific evidence collectively demonstrates that human induced climate change exists. These changes probably pre-date the Industrial Revolution as significant areas of land had been deforested prior to the IR, which also contribute to CC.
Her informed passion so well said.
Its also 100% false.
Imagine if there are easily accessible databases which show all historical weather data. The average temperature around the world has not risen, the world is not about to end, nor should we be concerned. Live in Reality
We should definitely be concerned. Not of rising sea levels or extreme weather, but of corporations who are taking control with the help of world governments. All these carbon taxes are designed to artificially prop of "green" companies while crippling our best source of cheap energy.
Oh, the climate's gonna change alright. Take a peek at 2 Peter 3:10. And guess Who's in control of it. Here's a hint: not humans.
TIME TO BE A SOLAR PUNK WARRIOR 💪
The entire SYSTEM itself MUST be changed in a way that put's an end to 'infinite growth on a finite planet' being the ONLY way the system can 'work', and the only possible way you COULD do that and still have a system that 'works' would be by making it financially worthwhile for people to SHARE the jobs we NEED to have done and working much less. A world where the human race is no longer working primarily FOR money but sharing in doing something we agree we NEED and getting paid to do it!!...An entirely different goal of the system.
how do we know what this lady is saying is true also.
Saying someting is disinformation must make it so !
Anjali Appadurai is an activist and politician. She was disqualified from BC NDP leadership race due her cheating. And you listen to this person as she was some expert.
Yet she’s right.
The summer’s are getting hotter and winters is getting warmer
What a great speaker! Well said.
Why can't we find the other side of the argument on RUclips??? I distrust any narrative where the argument is censored.
There is no lack of it out there on youtube, but it is mostly done by washouts in science that couldn't cut it in their field anymore and switched to careers in what amounts to oil industry public relations for the money or to follow their political beliefs.
The internet is awash with it! The problem is it's based on selective science. That is, trusting the geological evidence showing climate change has existed in distant past, but won't trust the same science covering human history.
For changing world to better future
You're welcome, "SENTENTIA OPTIMUM" waitng...
It's waitng for learnig, it's waiting for spreading...
The course that will inspire you...
One of your solutions to fix climate change is giving indigenous people land back??? 😂😂😂😂😂 how tf does that stop ice from melting???
Beautifully said and I hope for a future, but I know that it is too late. Our time has come and gone, while we were asleep at the wheel. It is not this planet's first mass extinction, or even its second but once we are gone nature will try again, so, there will always be a future -- just not one that Humanity will be a part of, or most of the biodiversity that currently exists.
QUE ES MAS PELIGROSO, LA SOBREPOBLACION QUE CONSUME ENERGIA O LA CODICIA DE LA ECONOMIA CAPITALISTA PIB. ENTRE LAS DOS HAN AUMENTADO "EL CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL" Y LAS SEQUIAS.
A true Goddess.
I think No Hope... nothing changes ...
Actually things are changing right now.
Keep watching and you will see change over just the next couple of years that you would not have imagined possible at all just 5 years ago.
The question no one wants to talk about is population, there are arguments it's not about population as we can still squeeze the worlds population on to say the land mass of Denmark. This is missing the point as if we had less then half the exciting population we would do half the amount of damage to our planet. There are to many of us and we are living to long. The wildlife around us is not living longer, we are a parasite on the earth and just like any parasite if there are to many of them the host dies.
We need to discuss the population issue not just the temperature of the plant.
She tries to be a Martin Luther King of our days.
This huge dose of hope is sadly a huge dose of hopium. We are locked in regardless - yes we can try SRM via cloud brightening, diamond dust, covering 1/3 the equatorial region with mirrors, but we do not have the tech for this, and the tech that we have 'sitting on a shelf' is not to scale. Right now, the money is on the war machine. What we can do is walk lightly - reduce our energy footprint and show love & compassion to all living things. Cheesy? Maybe, but the alternative offered here is to try to OD on hopium so we can continue BAU.
Fossil fuel industry, and certain powerful and ultra rich individuals whom fund the think-tanks and misinformation.
I do not want us to squander fossil fuels. And I therefore welcome the funding of alternatives by risk takers (shareholders/'capitalists').
The hysteria from the Left is required to set the ball rolling and produce the grease needed for 'progress'.
This is how we adapt to change.
Tobacco, leaded gasoline, PFAS, plastics ... the list goes on.
Good green jobs, like in the cobalt mines.
THE QUESTION SGOULD BE who is getting rich by solar and wind SO CALLED GREEN ENERGY. Billion have been given of the tax payers money to B with no results that are green or reliable. who is paying her ?
Why is it that people rally to the defence of the might hydrocarbon industry when global scientific consensus shows it is harming us?
Is this speaker a qualified Climate Scientist??! Give this talk to developing countries in Africa who still don’t have cheap reliable electricity for their homes, industries, schools and hospitals- just like we have had for decades. Temperature records are only reliable for last 100 years. Here in Australia we’re currently in the coldest winter in 30 years!!
finally a thinker
It was only 10 000 years ago that you could walk from england to denmark direct. The rising sea levels would have caused an immense catastrophy to the inhabitants of the Dogger Bank. Midway. Now there is a wind farm planted into the water called the North Sea on their farm land. All caused by global warming but it was totally natural and the only solution was retreat. Man must adapt and not try to be King Canute.
You, Madam, blew more hot air in 15 minutes than 5 major oil companies combined. Most of us have lost faith in major corps, but we have also lost faith in our politicians and their approach to the problem.
While we are taxed heavily to have the cleanest air in the world, please take a quick trip to east Asia, middle east and Africa to see what real pollution is.
I also encourage you to investigate why north America doesnt implement a more efficient recycling policy.
While you're doing that, lookup the cost on extracting precious metals to make electric vehicles.
One more thing, oil isn't just for burning in cars, look around your house and see how many items are made with the by-products of oil; what is your solution for that? What and how do you suppose the clothes, shoes, jewelery, purse, phone etc are made?
Now, who do you think is the true gullible puppet?
Add medical and health field. MRI plastic frame, syringes etc
Canada has the 6th highest co2 emissions by per capita in the world ranking above every country in the g7 and China with only the gulf states ahead of it. When you consider that the vast majority of emissions come from a select few companies that sell oil and gas it becomes even more obscene. There are plenty of alternatives to oil in many different fields and no one is saying we will get rid of oil overnight. It has always been about reduction and creating a balance so that the greenhouse effect doesn't run away on us and cause extinction level events like is has done in the past. These corporations have always privatized the profits and socialized their losses. Who is the real puppet and who is the real master?
You do not need oil to have both energy or product like plastic, you only need renewable electricity and you can do what ever you want!
@@markhivin8670 Ok, how do you propose we make anything with electricity? Let's take a very simple item like a pen; how do you make a pen with renewable electricity? Where do we get the plastic needed or the ink? Most items around us are some dervation of fossil fuel but of course, the politicians don't talk about that because there is more to the story than meets the eye.
lady, you didn't know what you are speaking, or you are bought by the 1%rich. your children will be shameful of your doing here. please correct your misleading info. look at the real science, follow the money, see if you are smart enough to know the truth.
She has a big kitty!
To bear children in this world is like carrying a wood in a burning house
### 1. Environmental Impact
- **Land Use**: Fewer people mean less demand for housing and agriculture, preserving natural habitats and reducing deforestation.
- **Water Resources**: Reduced population decreases the strain on water supplies, which is crucial as freshwater is a limited resource.
- **Air Quality**: Lower population leads to fewer vehicles and industrial activities, resulting in cleaner air and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
#### Scientific References:
- Ripple, W.J., et al. (2017). "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice." *Bioscience*.
- Pimentel, D., et al. (2010). "Global Environmental Resources versus World Population Growth." *Ecological Economics*.
### 2. Reduced Pollution
- **Lesser Pollution**: Fewer people generate less waste and pollution, reducing the burden on ecosystems and improving overall environmental health.
#### Scientific References:
- Steffen, W., et al. (2015). "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet." *Science*.
### 3. Food and Water Security
- **More Food**: Lower population pressures on food supply can lead to more abundant and cheaper food.
- **More Water**: Reduced population decreases the demand for water, ensuring more stable water resources.
#### Scientific References:
- Godfray, H.C.J., et al. (2010). "Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People." *Science*.
### 4. Health and Well-being
- **Better Health**: Reduced pollution and lower strain on healthcare systems can lead to improved public health.
- **Lesser Diseases**: Lower population densities reduce the transmission of diseases.
#### Scientific References:
- McMichael, A.J., et al. (2008). "Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses." *WHO*.
### 5. Economic Benefits
- **Lesser Poverty**: Reduced competition for jobs and resources can lower poverty rates.
- **Better Economy**: A stable or decreasing population can lead to a more balanced economy with sustainable growth.
#### Scientific References:
- Bloom, D.E., et al. (2011). "Population Dynamics and Economic Growth in Asia." *Asian Economic Policy Review*.
### 6. Natural Calamities
- **Lesser Natural Calamities**: Lower population densities reduce the impact of natural disasters on human settlements.
- **Lesser Climate Refugees**: Reduced climate change impacts due to lower emissions result in fewer displaced people.
#### Scientific References:
- Myers, N. (2002). "Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century." *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society*.
### 7. Social and Emotional Well-being
- **Better Emotional State**: Less crowded living conditions and reduced competition for resources can improve mental health.
- **Lesser Crimes**: Lower poverty and better mental health contribute to reduced crime rates.
#### Scientific References:
- Wilkinson, R.G., & Pickett, K. (2009). "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better."
### 8. Religious Perspectives
While most religions encourage procreation, there are scriptural references that emphasize the importance of responsible parenthood and stewardship of the earth:
- **Christianity**: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28) is often balanced by the call for stewardship and caring for creation (Genesis 2:15).
- **Hinduism**: The concept of "Ahimsa" (non-violence) extends to all living beings, which can be interpreted as reducing harm through lower population pressures.
- **Buddhism**: The principle of reducing suffering (Dukkha) supports the idea of having fewer children to reduce overall human suffering.
#### Scriptural References:
- Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:15 (Christianity)
- Manusmriti 5.56 (Hinduism)
- Dhammapada 1:5 (Buddhism)
### Conclusion
Not having children can significantly contribute to solving global challenges such as environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and social issues. By reducing the strain on natural resources, improving health outcomes, and fostering a more sustainable economy, antinatalism presents a compelling case for creating a better world.
That's my sisters exact story! only difference, she has 3 young kids.... oh, and works on an oil rig to support her family!
Good time for her to look for a better career then
I'm going on 60 and I don't see any climate change
Not everyone is so lucky.
I'm 61 going on 62 if anything it used to be hotter
Maybe you lucky live in an area, where local (100*100 km) in real is no change yet ... but most of us are not even able to detect the change, like 0.2 dC rise.
Some people just want to oppose I guess. I am 58 born and living in Germany. Till my age of thirteen we had snow in Düsseldorf up to 15cm snow. Then it got less and less snow and when I got twenty there was no snow at tall anymore. 2009 we had one year of snow. On the next year it disappeared again. In 2003 and from 2012 till 2020 Germany faced serious water issues the rhine had very less water. The shipping had to be reduced very much. Germany so hot and dry that it faced severe water supply issues, if someone had told me as youngster I would have laughed at him. In 2021 and this year it is pouring rain all the time with large scale flooding. In Canada last year around one billion trees were destroyed by fires and I think Canadian trees are not that small. We cannot compensate them so quickly. They are badly missing for converting co2 into o2. I don't know where you are living but even with 60 it's not too late to open your eyes and face the truth.
@@christianfaust5141 Canadian forest fires are from poor management of the resource trying to protect the lumber industry
Yup.
Trumpers .
this lady is lacking of true science knowledge. stop spreading the false info.
Where is the money going
The hoax continues.
💚
This is the kind of nonsense that develops the world backward but not in the way you think
She adduces no evidence to support her declarations of dire circumstances and nirvana.
Save tree 🌲🌴
Follow the money
The stuff about oil companies’ climate change research is not entirely accurate and actually puts a wrong emphasis. Yes, they did and some of the results appear to be shockingly correct (and some other - not) but we know this NOW. At that time, with so many variables, they couldn’t tell so it was just one of the possible outcomes.
It is important to line up facts correctly, without distortions and propagandist exaggerations.
Brings to mind that funding from the Koch Brothers and the oil industry hired a team to bust the original MBH98 and came up with the same results to their chagrin.
Who would trust the UN!???
Why not?
A reasonable person.
If I were her. I would bring a little evidence instead of using anecdotes.
Complete and utter B/S.
Doomers are pathetic drama queens
Bad scientific deductions here not to mention bad psychology of guilt trips ....accurate models ....where did ee hear that elsewhere ?....useful models ..yes.
The corporations are responsible not the average person for climate change. Ordinary people should not pay the price. I’m more than happy to do my part, but corporations need to do theirs too. I’m not saying we should wait on corporations to change, but we should not shame the average person just trying to survive. I don’t have to money for an electric vehicle. I don’t have money to buy all organic food. Right now I’m practicing harm reduction and that’s enough so I can sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Hard to believe anyone any more. 😢
If we keep wanting to believe people rather then understand them its easy to get fooled.
Well you either believe scientists or you believe uneducated idiots like Trump and his idio$ supporters...wake up...
@@Skouta007 Scientists will automatically lose their career if their research leads them to question the "official" climate change narrative. So I'm sorry to tell you the "science" is irrelevant.
@@trickslies844 Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, thankfully more and more people are realising this now and not falling for the laughable propaganda.
Try following the money. I’ve always found that to be the best path. The cigarette companies had the same disinformation campaign and it worked great for many years 😢
CO2 is Green Energy.
Is Ted Talks now the new NPR?
I’ll admit the oil companies took too long to come out, but they have also been exploring and creating alternative energy and petroleum products and clean-er solutions.
No matter how you FEEL, petroleum is in almost everything you possess or use. It will take DECADES to SLOWLY Transition.
Nope.
Green washing, that thing they accuse everyone else of doing is what they do.
You have clearly fallen for it. Many do.
Nope again.
It will take about a decade to do a lot of the transition, and once we break their back that will only speed things up.
I know that sounds crazy today, but if you told someone in 1901, that horse would disappear from the cities in about 20 years, you'd have been laughed at.
Yet that's exactly what happened.
The same happened with the industrial revolution.
The change we are experiencing is pretty much the same level as the industrial revolution.
She talks politics. She does not talk science. So I am unpersuaded.
What???
Rubbish...Trumptards talk nonsense.
Wake up idio$...stop believing idiots like Trump.
@@Skouta007 Come back once you've watched the recent documentary called "climate: the movie" - featuring scientists from Harvard, MIT, Caltech, etc. There you will hear the other side of the debate, which is normally hidden.
@@eddiegrant58 huh???
She has not looked at long-term warming and cooling cycles of the earth. We are in a warming cycle at this point.
True, earth cycles are real the problem is we accelarate the process and aggravate its effects with our current practices.
@@D.NogueraMusicWhere did you see that we accelerate the process? Graphs that correlate solar activitiws with temperatures have no place for CO2.
@@praem9597 You know what CO2 does to the ambience right? Imagine we are in full summer heat and instead of turning the AC on we turn on the heater. Thats the greenhouse effect. Temperatures rising are natural causes, but greenhouse effect is man made.. we only need to adapt to the natural cycles.
@@D.NogueraMusic You are talking complete nonsense. Why are you lying?
@@D.NogueraMusic You are talking complete nonsense.
She talks complete bollox
Home schooled, were you?
@@preimer22 indoctrinated were you?
I agree.
This comment section smells like exhaust fumes😮
Naw in India ant Road trafic wehicle rull BS6 level liked in ocean trafic heavy carrier sheeps heaving what Carbon emition limitation rull as per latest all Co2 emitions frome these seeping corporations doings ?
Try that again in english.
Hi Anjali,
Firstly, let me say that I genuinely appreciate the passion and dedication you bring to environmental issues. Your advocacy is inspiring and undoubtedly necessary. However, I believe it's crucial to examine the broader picture when discussing climate change and the proposed solutions.
I'm no fan of oil or gas, but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of windmills covering vast land masses and large-scale solar farms. While solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuels might offer solutions on a smaller scale, they come with their own set of challenges when implemented broadly.
CO2 Levels Over Time: Did you know that in the last 600 million years, the average CO2 level was about 2,600 ppm-nearly seven times higher than today’s 400 ppm? Even during the Quaternary period, CO2 levels averaged around 230 ppm and peaked at about 300 ppm some 320,000 years ago. A 300 ppm increase could actually boost plant growth by about 46% across various crops. This historical perspective challenges the dire narrative around current CO2 levels and their supposed impact.
Greenhouse Gas Theory Contradictions: The theory that greenhouse gases absorb energy and cause the Earth to warm contradicts the Earth's spectral radiation curve. According to Kirchman's interpretation of the Stolman law and Newton's law of cooling, the Earth should be radiating more energy, not less, if the greenhouse gas theory were valid. Additionally, thermal emission spectrometer data from the Mars Global Surveyor in 1996 shows a CO2 'bite' in Earth's spectrum, raising questions about where the blocked radiation by CO2 goes.
Thermodynamics and Emissivity: The sun is the primary energy source, and Earth's temperature is determined by thermodynamic equilibrium. Humans can only alter the planet's temperature by changing its emissivity, not CO2 levels. This perspective suggests that our understanding of climate dynamics might be more complex than the current narrative acknowledges.
Critique of Modern Climate Science: Many academics fail to verify their data through experiments or practical applications. The greenhouse gas theory is often used for political purposes rather than being scientifically grounded. For instance, the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated significantly over the last 110 years. Vancouver's sea level has been rising at just 0.55 millimeters per year, contrary to catastrophic predictions. Historical data also show that the Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have fluctuated naturally over millions of years.
Renewable Energy Challenges: The production of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines involves significant mining activities and generates substantial waste. Is this really the 'green' solution we’re told it is? Mining for lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, and other minerals essential for green tech is environmentally damaging and reliant on fossil fuels. For example, the carbon footprint of electric vehicles is substantial when considering the entire lifecycle-from mining to production and disposal.
Natural Climate Drivers: David Dilley argues that Earth's climate has been cooling for the past 7,000 years with short-term shifts. We’re entering a global cooling cycle expected to be noticeable by 2030. This challenges the prevailing warming narrative and suggests natural cycles play a significant role. The Earth's elliptical path around the Sun changes over a 12,000-year cycle, affecting its distance from the Sun and, consequently, climate patterns. Additionally, the Moon’s elliptical path around the Earth causes variations in gravitational pull and tidal patterns, influencing climate events like coastal flooding.
Political and Economic Influences: The push for net-zero emissions laws, like those in Delaware, and mandates for electric vehicle infrastructure may face public backlash as they begin to affect daily life. Every plant on Earth grows faster today than it would have in millions of years, with the Earth gaining 18 million square kilometers of leaf cover between 1982 and 2015. This is equivalent to adding all the plants on the continental United States multiplied by two to the planet.
Epistemology and Validation Theory: Kirchman’s theory of validation found an inverted causal relationship between temperature and CO2, suggesting the greenhouse gas theory is invalid. Furthermore, the production processes for generating electricity for electric vehicles (EVs) involve significant resources, including methane gas extraction through fracking, coal mining, and the manufacturing of batteries. These processes contribute to carbon emissions, challenging the notion that EVs are a cleaner alternative.
Microplastics and Environmental Impact: Contrary to popular belief, many microplastics found in the ocean are natural and have been there for a long time. The volume of microplastics in the ocean is only 1% of the total ocean water and weighs less than 8% of the ocean's total weight. This perspective suggests that human contribution to the microplastics problem might not be as significant as commonly thought.
Why aren’t we discussing these aspects more openly? Why does challenging the narrative often lead to being labeled a 'denier'? It’s essential to think harder and broader about these issues instead of simply blaming industry for all our woes. Governments and political agendas play significant roles, and we must critically examine their policies and motivations.
Thanks again for your perspective. While I could be wrong, and we all end up facing severe environmental consequences, it’s vital to have these discussions openly and honestly.
Many Blessings,
J W RIDDELL
Try praying
Clearly we’ve been forgotten already…
@@jhodapp Who did the forgetting?
A lot of BS here. How sad. What manipulation
A heap of claims but no facts to back them.
FOSSIL WHAT?? if you want people to listen to your ideas, rethink using terms like FOSSIL FUEL.
JURASSIC OIL, LOL..
Sad story of this young mother but ... where is her husband?
Yor lighting these on purpose..
Very well done.
This lady lives on a fantasy world of her own making! The misinformation spewed by her is remarkable.
Sounds like a bedtime story.
Rubbish
Already in the introduction this lady is talking nonsense: wildfires are not increasing, in fact they are steadily decreasing. What does increase is the amount of media-coverage of wildfires, giving people the impression wildfires are out of control (source: Bjorn Lomborg, 2023).
He's Bjorn blomborg, he would say that. Its bogus.
Bull$hit...where is your evidence...stop crapping on Trumptard...
Bjorn Lomborg is not a Source you thick c**t. A source is something we can actually verify and nothing coming out of Lomborg's mouth on climate change has ever been confirmed to be true
A fact-free ideological assertion built on forgiving oneself for not doing the hard work of becoming better minded.
Misinformation is totally acceptable and even encouraged, provided it's the right kind of misinformation.
Liar