I couldn't make videos like this without incredible patrons like james harley gorrell & Noa Lago Bea. if you want to be awesome like james & noa, head over here: www.patreon.com/climateadam
It seems pretty obvious that our international corporate "deciders" have few qualms about throwing at least 50% of the human population "under the bus", as long as their own viability is maintained. If THAT is the collective "heartbeat" of humanity, I am evermore ecstatic to be an old man on his way out!
The 1.5 so called limit, isn't a limit, but a negotiating tactic that is scientifically meaningless. It isn't even a legal limit because the negotiations have been so weak that there is no significant penalty for anyone even if we agree we've passed the "limit." And, no one is ever going to agree that we passed any limit. What matters for climate change is the trend which is currently following the worst case scenario. That is the scenario where we've done nothing to rectify the situation. So, while people will say we're doing all sorts of things to try and stop climate change, the actual changes in the climate indicate that whatever we are doing isn't working at all and may be making it worse. Meanwhile, COP has devolved into a front for an oil producers networking meeting.
I think it would be extremely unwise to stop discussing our climate conundrum, however it would be equally unwise to ignore the speciousness of that discussion in its current iteration. Corporate control of EVERYTHING from grotesque income inequalities to genuinely democratic electoral representation to the very air we breathe is in the hands of the monied few.
According to Chomsky, the Paris 2015 COP would have produced a binding agreement with an enforcement mechanism, instead of the system of voluntary promises that we got, but for the U.S. Congress signaling that they would never ratify such an agreement. They regarded an agreement like that as an unacceptable infringement of U.S. sovereignty. So that's why the world didn't get an effective treaty on greenhouse gases, as was done for ozone-depleting refrigerant gases.
Going to watch your video, but after Paris I wrote an article about this. Of course we should continue, as climate solutions are and + and + and... BUT, I think countries should look for other countries that think alike to form an organization to tariff products that are bad for the climate, so making them can be done in a better way. The EU springs to mind in this, but they should be open for others to do the same.
Yes, there's a way to fix how we approach climate change. COPs are a bunch of biased adults fighting over who gets out less affected by any agreements. How to Fix it: 1.) teach climate science in high school. 2.) advertise "solutions" and climate change threats on all advertising media. 3.) restrict advertising of fossil fuel driven equipment 4.) offer rebates for equipment that reduces demand for fossil fuels.
Cool, and none of those biased adults would be the ones we would need to convince to do those things, right? Like even assuming they'd work, and work fast enough to make an actual difference, which is questionable at best, most of that stuff would require direct action from the government on climate change. The thing governments have been refusing point blank to do for 40 years.
@Bogwedgle none of them, no. The heads of the associated agencies need convincing. #3 is the hardest one. We are trying to cut fossil fuel use, but the makers of combustion engine driven products are advertising like crazy.
From what I saw, the richest nations were opposing any significant change (and some even wanted to walk back the previous progress), while poorer (aka "developing") nations wanted to go a lot harder and were even willing to cover a good chunk of the bill. I think at this point the nations that actually want to make a change should make their own COP (and United Nations now that we are at it) where they can negotiate with less resistance and come out of it with at least SOME progress. At least we know India and China have some level of concern and most of the manufacturing countries are in this "developing" cathegory. It would be basically the US, Europe, the middle East and some *special* (as in stupid) cases like Argentina that would be left out.
nonono, we can maintain course! Continue growing our corporations, letting them have the bigger proportion of the capital. Then when physic is weakened, we can buy out the physic, change the law, and BAM, climate problem solved along with things like FTL travel. ...not sure if this needs a /s tag or not
Let me spell out the cost to all you young people. In 2023 the CO2 emissions increased by 0.5 billion tonnes. If we can reduce the cost of Direct Carbon Capture to the best case scenario of $150 per tonne then for just the extra CO2 emissions alone have cost $75,000,000,000. Remember this cost does nothing to reduce our CO2 levels in the atmosphere from the previous year. Of course, at some point, we will need to remove all of the CO2 emissions from 2023 so lets be really generous and say we reduce the costs to $100 per tonne then the cost just for 2023 will be $3,779,000,000,000. I haven't included all the R and D costs that we have already started to contribute towards through various Government schemes.
I think it's time we explain the political process and the polluting companies have failed us in our time of need. That mitigation efforts have failed entirely. That we are no longer able to prevent the destruction but rather our job is to prepare. Solving the problem of our economic choices is never going to be solved by continuing such economic practices. Without teeth to the boundaries (for example 50% world climate relief fund tax on GDP of any nation not shutting down their polluters and reducing emissions significantly which would mean 30% reductions yearly). Essentially, if this were Star Trek, the ship is on fire, the crews already dying, the life support system is about to shut down and ejecting the warp core (fossil fuels and polluters) must be done immediately.
How many years do we need to be at 1.5 to admit that it is so? We have arrived at 1.5 and are racing toward 2.0: perhaps when we reach 2.0 we might admit that we have passed 1.5.
We wouldn't have reached 1.5 without the combo of El nino and hunga tonga, maybe in 2035 we will reach 1,5c for good or we might cool down to 1950-levels with the grand modern solar minimum kicking in by 2030 lasting until 2053.
2024 is going to come in at a bit more than 1.5C over the nominal pre-industrial (1850 - 1900) baseline, but that temperature has been inflated a few tenths of a degree by the recent moderate El Nino. However, the Paris agreements to keep warming below 2C, (and below 1.5C if possible), were made relative to a different baseline, the real, (pre - 1750), pre-industrial temperature. That temperature is estimated to be a few tenths of a degree colder than the commonly used baseline, so 2024 may well be at the 1.5C Paris guidepost. Now, because of weather variability, it's scientifically prudent, when measuring a climate, to average the temperature, etc., over a number of years. I believe the customary number is 30. But that is when you're dealing with a climate that is presumed to be approximately stable. We know our present climate(s) are rapidly changing, so that a 30-year period for measurement would lose an excessive amount of resolution. Does anyone know what period of measurement would be appropriate under the present circumstances? So far, all I've heard is the vague statement that measurements have to be "averaged over many years." This seems like a straightforward math-and-statistics question. C'mon, ClimateAdam! Enquiring minds want to know. And we're too lazy, and too scientifically illiterate, to do a deep dive into the (for us) murky waters of scientific papers.
There should be a clear plan that is advertise and helps a country to just copy paste the solution. For example my country will never put forward a good plan evan if 70% of the population wants this and protest in the street they are not capable of making a good plan.
Can you do a video on how trumps tax on shipping from other countries will reduce co2 even if that wasn't his intention. 1 buy making local jobs and shorting the distance to get the goods to the store. 2 big ships trains and plans will transport good to and from usa 🇺🇸. 3 less cheap goods from poor or rich but crupt countries will reduce pollution as there is less bad/cheap goods being made. 4 the new infrastructure being made for the new local jobs can be fitted with cleaner energy and have more efficient stuff to reduce its consumption. Lots more thoughts on this being a potential video
Sure, a global economic collapse will reduce emissions. But only for awhile as eventually Trump will be out of office and the world economy will adjust. And given the vast fossil fuel resources within the US borders, spinning up more industry in the US will also increase US use of those fossil fuel resources.
The problem this video is grappling with is that Climate Change, like all international issues, falls prey to geopolitics. COPS as a concept is unfortunately the best international effort we can muster without trying to step outside of the bounds of what an international effort can reasonably effect. Every country views Climate Change negotiations as leverage to position themselves best for their own geopolitical goals and aims. So the natural next question, is how do we effect individual countries geopolitical goals and interest - and the main answer there is attempted grassroots change in governments at those levels - which unfortunately is not a reasonable options for those nations that have no democratic grassroots mechanism for populations to effect meaningful policy change - which includes some of the biggest polluters falling behind stated targets the most. The only other option is for nations with governments most driven to effect change with regards to Climate Change to obtain as much leverage they can over nations that are not - but when you consider that those nations with the most vested interest in Climate Change are those who are either small island nations, or nations which themselves are choosing to stagnate or shrink their own economies relative to the biggest polluters... you can see why very little real change gets effected.
Hi Dr. Levy! The Climate Action Tracker puts expected warming at 2.7 degrees by the end of the century, while certain individuals claim we'll be lucky to keep warming below 10 or 15 degrees decades sooner than that. Is the tracker wrong? Are they wrong?
climate action tracker bases its calculations on our best understanding of climate sensitivity based on all lines of evidence. I would be very wary of individuals claiming numbers way higher or way lower (because there are both), though of course I can't comment without actually knowing methodologies.
I don't think 2024 was a "freakishly hot year", when 2016 was the warmest year, it only took 4 years before it was reached again. Mark my words, the next ENSO neutral or El Nino year will be warmer
Is there a possibility to calculate how many CO2 pollution are additionally caused by COPS (e.g. participants come by plane) and on the other side how many climate benefits they have created? If they cause significantly more damage than benefit…
I couldn't make videos like this without incredible patrons like james harley gorrell & Noa Lago Bea. if you want to be awesome like james & noa, head over here: www.patreon.com/climateadam
We won't know. We have terminally passed 1.5 c until years after we already have
It seems pretty obvious that our international corporate "deciders" have few qualms about throwing at least 50% of the human population "under the bus", as long as their own viability is maintained. If THAT is the collective "heartbeat" of humanity, I am evermore ecstatic to be an old man on his way out!
The challenge for those "deciders" is that they need the poor to keep them rich. If population starts to decline, their empire starts to crumble.
Hahaha! I hear you! Keeping misanthropy at bay is increasingly hard.
The 1.5 so called limit, isn't a limit, but a negotiating tactic that is scientifically meaningless. It isn't even a legal limit because the negotiations have been so weak that there is no significant penalty for anyone even if we agree we've passed the "limit." And, no one is ever going to agree that we passed any limit. What matters for climate change is the trend which is currently following the worst case scenario. That is the scenario where we've done nothing to rectify the situation. So, while people will say we're doing all sorts of things to try and stop climate change, the actual changes in the climate indicate that whatever we are doing isn't working at all and may be making it worse. Meanwhile, COP has devolved into a front for an oil producers networking meeting.
I think it would be extremely unwise to stop discussing our climate conundrum, however it would be equally unwise to ignore the speciousness of that discussion in its current iteration. Corporate control of EVERYTHING from grotesque income inequalities to genuinely democratic electoral representation to the very air we breathe is in the hands of the monied few.
According to Chomsky, the Paris 2015 COP would have produced a binding agreement with an enforcement mechanism, instead of the system of voluntary promises that we got, but for the U.S. Congress signaling that they would never ratify such an agreement. They regarded an agreement like that as an unacceptable infringement of U.S. sovereignty. So that's why the world didn't get an effective treaty on greenhouse gases, as was done for ozone-depleting refrigerant gases.
Going to watch your video, but after Paris I wrote an article about this. Of course we should continue, as climate solutions are and + and + and... BUT, I think countries should look for other countries that think alike to form an organization to tariff products that are bad for the climate, so making them can be done in a better way. The EU springs to mind in this, but they should be open for others to do the same.
Enough talking, time for action!
Later...
Looking forward to your future video on the recent temperature!
i think we need them, they just need to buck their ideas up.
Yes, there's a way to fix how we approach climate change. COPs are a bunch of biased adults fighting over who gets out less affected by any agreements.
How to Fix it:
1.) teach climate science in high school.
2.) advertise "solutions" and climate change threats on all advertising media.
3.) restrict advertising of fossil fuel driven equipment
4.) offer rebates for equipment that reduces demand for fossil fuels.
Cool, and none of those biased adults would be the ones we would need to convince to do those things, right? Like even assuming they'd work, and work fast enough to make an actual difference, which is questionable at best, most of that stuff would require direct action from the government on climate change. The thing governments have been refusing point blank to do for 40 years.
@Bogwedgle none of them, no.
The heads of the associated agencies need convincing.
#3 is the hardest one. We are trying to cut fossil fuel use, but the makers of combustion engine driven products are advertising like crazy.
From what I saw, the richest nations were opposing any significant change (and some even wanted to walk back the previous progress), while poorer (aka "developing") nations wanted to go a lot harder and were even willing to cover a good chunk of the bill.
I think at this point the nations that actually want to make a change should make their own COP (and United Nations now that we are at it) where they can negotiate with less resistance and come out of it with at least SOME progress.
At least we know India and China have some level of concern and most of the manufacturing countries are in this "developing" cathegory. It would be basically the US, Europe, the middle East and some *special* (as in stupid) cases like Argentina that would be left out.
what people don't get is that there is no such thing as climate negotiations. You cannot negotiate with the laws of physic. 😄
nonono, we can maintain course!
Continue growing our corporations, letting them have the bigger proportion of the capital. Then when physic is weakened, we can buy out the physic, change the law, and BAM, climate problem solved along with things like FTL travel.
...not sure if this needs a /s tag or not
Let me spell out the cost to all you young people. In 2023 the CO2 emissions increased by 0.5 billion tonnes. If we can reduce the cost of Direct Carbon Capture to the best case scenario of $150 per tonne then for just the extra CO2 emissions alone have cost $75,000,000,000. Remember this cost does nothing to reduce our CO2 levels in the atmosphere from the previous year. Of course, at some point, we will need to remove all of the CO2 emissions from 2023 so lets be really generous and say we reduce the costs to $100 per tonne then the cost just for 2023 will be $3,779,000,000,000. I haven't included all the R and D costs that we have already started to contribute towards through various Government schemes.
What costs do we have without the CO2 taxes: Everything.
Cutting co2 emissions shouldn’t be this hard smh
We did it with CFCs, why not CO2?
I actually made a video all about why we haven't solved this yet..!
ruclips.net/video/cdSb1uDatzo/видео.html
@@chriscastagnetta Agreed ❗️
was eagerly waiting for this one ❤
glad I didn't disappoint! honestly felt a bit despondent making a video about the negotiations this year... but that's kinda the point!
I think it's time we explain the political process and the polluting companies have failed us in our time of need. That mitigation efforts have failed entirely. That we are no longer able to prevent the destruction but rather our job is to prepare. Solving the problem of our economic choices is never going to be solved by continuing such economic practices. Without teeth to the boundaries (for example 50% world climate relief fund tax on GDP of any nation not shutting down their polluters and reducing emissions significantly which would mean 30% reductions yearly).
Essentially, if this were Star Trek, the ship is on fire, the crews already dying, the life support system is about to shut down and ejecting the warp core (fossil fuels and polluters) must be done immediately.
How many years do we need to be at 1.5 to admit that it is so? We have arrived at 1.5 and are racing toward 2.0: perhaps when we reach 2.0 we might admit that we have passed 1.5.
We wouldn't have reached 1.5 without the combo of El nino and hunga tonga, maybe in 2035 we will reach 1,5c for good or we might cool down to 1950-levels with the grand modern solar minimum kicking in by 2030 lasting until 2053.
@@albin4323 Citations required.
2024 is going to come in at a bit more than 1.5C over the nominal pre-industrial (1850 - 1900) baseline, but that temperature has been inflated a few tenths of a degree by the recent moderate El Nino. However, the Paris agreements to keep warming below 2C, (and below 1.5C if possible), were made relative to a different baseline, the real, (pre - 1750), pre-industrial temperature. That temperature is estimated to be a few tenths of a degree colder than the commonly used baseline, so 2024 may well be at the 1.5C Paris guidepost. Now, because of weather variability, it's scientifically prudent, when measuring a climate, to average the temperature, etc., over a number of years. I believe the customary number is 30. But that is when you're dealing with a climate that is presumed to be approximately stable. We know our present climate(s) are rapidly changing, so that a 30-year period for measurement would lose an excessive amount of resolution. Does anyone know what period of measurement would be appropriate under the present circumstances? So far, all I've heard is the vague statement that measurements have to be "averaged over many years." This seems like a straightforward math-and-statistics question. C'mon, ClimateAdam! Enquiring minds want to know. And we're too lazy, and too scientifically illiterate, to do a deep dive into the (for us) murky waters of scientific papers.
Great content as always, very informative.
thanks so much for watching, Harry, as always!
There should be a clear plan that is advertise and helps a country to just copy paste the solution. For example my country will never put forward a good plan evan if 70% of the population wants this and protest in the street they are not capable of making a good plan.
Can you do a video on how trumps tax on shipping from other countries will reduce co2 even if that wasn't his intention.
1 buy making local jobs and shorting the distance to get the goods to the store.
2 big ships trains and plans will transport good to and from usa 🇺🇸.
3 less cheap goods from poor or rich but crupt countries will reduce pollution as there is less bad/cheap goods being made.
4 the new infrastructure being made for the new local jobs can be fitted with cleaner energy and have more efficient stuff to reduce its consumption.
Lots more thoughts on this being a potential video
Sure, a global economic collapse will reduce emissions. But only for awhile as eventually Trump will be out of office and the world economy will adjust. And given the vast fossil fuel resources within the US borders, spinning up more industry in the US will also increase US use of those fossil fuel resources.
The problem this video is grappling with is that Climate Change, like all international issues, falls prey to geopolitics. COPS as a concept is unfortunately the best international effort we can muster without trying to step outside of the bounds of what an international effort can reasonably effect. Every country views Climate Change negotiations as leverage to position themselves best for their own geopolitical goals and aims. So the natural next question, is how do we effect individual countries geopolitical goals and interest - and the main answer there is attempted grassroots change in governments at those levels - which unfortunately is not a reasonable options for those nations that have no democratic grassroots mechanism for populations to effect meaningful policy change - which includes some of the biggest polluters falling behind stated targets the most. The only other option is for nations with governments most driven to effect change with regards to Climate Change to obtain as much leverage they can over nations that are not - but when you consider that those nations with the most vested interest in Climate Change are those who are either small island nations, or nations which themselves are choosing to stagnate or shrink their own economies relative to the biggest polluters... you can see why very little real change gets effected.
Hi Dr. Levy!
The Climate Action Tracker puts expected warming at 2.7 degrees by the end of the century, while certain individuals claim we'll be lucky to keep warming below 10 or 15 degrees decades sooner than that. Is the tracker wrong? Are they wrong?
climate action tracker bases its calculations on our best understanding of climate sensitivity based on all lines of evidence. I would be very wary of individuals claiming numbers way higher or way lower (because there are both), though of course I can't comment without actually knowing methodologies.
The whole issue needs to be taken up by the UN 🎉Security Council.
Love your work Adam , but gotta get used to the fact they are not gonna do enough to change the disaster that awaits us all ...
Mis-naming Greta Thunberg?
I spotted twice...
I pronounced it as closely as I could to her (Swedish) pronunciation, but I'm sure that I still butchered it!
You were pretty close.
Greetings from Sweden!
'The Next President'
🎵🎶 a 47 years old song from
Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi
More direct action after the pattern of a recent event? Not merely annoying commuters.
Oil companies keep getting subsidies and don't pay tax. (should pay carbon tax for mining oil nd coal)
Loved this video, thanks for a great analysis on the topic and for saying there's more than one side to the question, unlike many youtubers :)
ah I'm so glad to read comments like this - really do try and capture as much nuance as I (sanely) can!
Look at the trend between 2023 and 2024 it's only going up project it forward
I don't think 2024 was a "freakishly hot year", when 2016 was the warmest year, it only took 4 years before it was reached again.
Mark my words, the next ENSO neutral or El Nino year will be warmer
Is there a possibility to calculate how many CO2 pollution are additionally caused by COPS (e.g. participants come by plane) and on the other side how many climate benefits they have created?
If they cause significantly more damage than benefit…
great vid!
Why do you repeatedly say "Greta Tuneberry"?
that's as close as I can manage to her pronunciation
whats the problem ?