Why have the Tories given up on climate change?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2025
- Climate change is the biggest challenge we have. It’s bigger than. Any war we’ve ever fought. It’s bigger than any political crisis we’ve ever had. That’s because it’s existential. Now, the Tories are in denial about it and are withdrawing their support from government policy on the issue. Why? What are they playing at?
#uk #money #economy #politics #government #tax #labour #starmer #keirstarmer #old #health #life #climatechange #kemibadenoch #conservative
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE WORK WE DO, PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING:
ko-fi.com/taxr...
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch...
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
Big problem with Net Zero...the technology to replace fossil fuels doesn't exist.
You are way behind.
@@alayneperrott9693 Nope. Fossils fuels are still the energy source of choice.
That’s just not true. Renewables are cheaper, less exposed to geopolitics, and potentially much more robust. The problem is that we have listened to the fossil fuel industry propaganda for too long and they have an obvious vested interest. And yes it will cost us, but that’s because we haven’t taken action for what has been obvious since the 1980s.
@@richnovi 1. No effective energy storage solution. 2. Solar panels manufactured in China. High geopolitical risks. 3. Solar panels, wind turbines, EV's all manufactured by burning fossil fuels. 4. No economical EV solution to powering heavy vehicles such as tractors and trucks. 5. No economical EV solution to powering cargo ships. 6. No green solution to powering heavy industrial equipment in factories. 7. Insufficient capacity in the electricity grid. 8. No sun, no solar power, no wind, no wind power. 9. Nuclear politically and militarily sensitive. 10. Heat pumps more expensive to install and operate in houses.
@@stevo728822 yes it’s going to cost because we’ve been listening to the wrong people for too long.
1. Storage is available but we have to pay for it
2. True but just needs to change
3. Nuclear until we have renewables
4. Trucks should be on rail with local deliveries but I would say this is a niche hydrogen could fill
5. Same as above but how about more local manufacturing
6. See above
7. Well we can fix that
8. Storage as above
9. Need to start getting real with our alternatives and decide which is the worse evil
10. Only because the tariffs are on electricity and installation is getting a lot cheaper
Look I realize this is not easy but if we follow your approach we just say oh well let’s carry on and hope for the best. Hey maybe you’re right but the weight of evidence is against you. We need to change and look how we can benefit from investments in the future rather than support an industry that is by definition finite.
Badenoch can't acknowledge it as it undercuts the basis of capitalism i.e market driven growth.
She is an utter menace.
@@rogermanvell4693 Not really. Capitalism favours capital over labour. People often think that capitalism also favours free markets, but that’s not true either, manipulated and/or regulated markets are also fine as long as the capital is rewarded. Growth (whether market driven or otherwise) is an ideology and is attractive to capitalism, socialism - any other ism you care to name. It is also a fools errand as it is just not sustainable.
@@branduusituuli return on capital implies growth ? capitalists seek to maximise return on capital as such limits on growth brings into question their whole ideology.
@ Return on capital = income. A increasing income, year on year (or whatever cycle you measure) = growth.
What about carbon markets and new innovations like green tech and green AI?
Always follow the money with the tories.
Always follow the money with the whole political class.
Funded by oil and oligarchs
Exactly! If there was a real climate emergency, there are countless beneficial things we could implement fairly swiftly at minimum or no cost, but we haven't. We've actually gone for all the high cost options that will profit the rich highly, while impoverishing the rest of us & restricting our freedoms. But maybe that's just a coincidence that was never intended?
@@michaelrch Starmer's Tories are included with 'the tories'
@@andycooper6085 agreed. thanks for the clarification :)
I'm 51yrs old. $40,000 weekly and *I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways that I remember my past of how I struggled with many things in life to be where I am today!!!!* ❤️
Yeah, 253k from Maria Frances Hanlon, looking up to acquire a new House, blessings.
Bad Enoch is there for a reason. If her views and plans were any different, she wouldnt be.
Most people just aren't up for neo-communism. Which is the unspoken end goal of the climate project.
You think ~15,000 scientists in well over 100 countries who signed the "Scientists' Warning to Mankind" declaration are all part of a sinister neo-communist plot?
Science is never settled, the climate has always changed, history matters, to make assumptions based on 200 years or so is ludicrous,it’s not even a blink of an eye in the history of this planet and it’s climate
People back action against climate change provided they can drive their cars and fly off around the world and keep endlessly buying things ?
Indeed. See my answer to @vilhelmgrasbonde
Apart from flying, clean energy would address all the other issues. But the fossil fuel energy industries have slowed down and blocked progress. They are strategically tied in with governments.
People have been persuaded it's not in their interest to do anything. It's not in the interests of the rich and the state has been protecting their assets. Criminal charges for washable mustard but people's lives and homes and food production are all at risk with zero action. Remember Insulate Britain? Whatever happened to that and how was it stifled?
Always surprises me to see bumper to bumper cars at rush hour with only one occupant yet everybody seems so concerned about climate change. I guess they must be a different bunch of people...
@@tarquin161234 So no different to the elite such as Gates flying all over the world telling people to curb their lifestyles!! Cheeky Bar steward.
Cycle of ice ages anyone? I mean there have been many in Earths history. Last century there was a huge scientific concern that we were due one any time. Temperature increase since records began (not that long ago, relatively) have not increased above those that geological records can show did occur prior to “records began” - ie, medieval times in the UK were warmer than our current summers apparently. Do any of the current climate catastrophe experts give any credence to Malkovitch cycles?
I’m a nonbeliever.
Tories have not thought about the 2 billion climate refugees that will be created.
There are no "climate refugees"...
@@manoo422your powers of denial are impressive.
The arms industry can handle that.
@@mjl1958 b
How funny, economic migrants you mean.
@@teryd5672n People unable to live in their own countries because they are too hot or lacking in water. They will be refugees, not economic migrants.
Are they not just trying to appeal to Reform voters?
Any reform voters left who have not realised they are not genuine about stopping boats. 😂 an are really just Torys stealing votes.
In the UK we need energy. Old power stations closing each year.
We need new power stations which can be the back bone/core power.
Wind/solar can't do the job and only so many rivers for hydro.
So you want to go net zero? Gas is cleaner than coal, but nuclear is the only green option.
Sadly it costs money and if you're in power for 4 years, why build for the opposite party to have a win after that cash can be used to win the next election.
I just find it so tragic that peoples general mistrust of elites is what keeps them from taking action on adapting their neighborhoods and local communities for the better. Climate action should not be about reducing peoples quality of life, but instead rediscover new ways and strategies to create well-being that will also benefit future generations. I mean really, anybody who eats food should at least start thinking about what they might be eating in the future, as climate change is already disrupting many previously suitable places for agriculture.
But just like with most issues, unfortunately humans tend to see a problem in binary terms, it’s either we or them. And so locking themselves into a box that we don’t even know we are in.
Thankfully, there are a lot of people who are busy laying the groundwork for more resilient societies, so even the deniers and skeptics and their children will be able to reap the benefits. But we need everyone’s help in order for transitions to be successful.
"Climate action should not be about reducing peoples quality of life" - indeed but who defines "quality of life"? As someone put it: "To lead sustainable lives, we should go back to the living standards of the 70s and looking back, we were not really unhappy during the 70s but were actually living good lives and had more time on our hands than we do nowadays."
That is a discussion worth having in my view.
I see the millions spent on propaganda really worked on you.🐑🐑🐑🐑
@@PEdulisyea couldn’t agree more. Where I live in Sweden there was a conference recently organized by the transition movement themed around this very topic. What does it mean to live a good life and how can we manifest it where we live?
It’s a difficult discussion to have since everyone’s spent so much time on the hedonistic treadmill we’ve forgotten that we can be happy and fulfilled with less. But as you say, an important discussion for neighbors and communities to gather around and discuss.
Why do people see this in binary terms? Two party system, first past the post.
Materialistic people cannot solve climate change. The only solution is for everyone to convert to Islam, preferably Twelver Jafari Islam, but that's not going to happen what with all the new human rights which have been invented since the 1990s specifically to make people hate Islam and hate family and hate Christianity as well.
Have you not done any research about the cost of affecting climate change? And the science based figures that shows we cannot impact it no matter howmuch money we throw at the problem, attempting net zero is physicaly and financially impossible, and it will cripple the country
When governments decided to bail out the banks and corporations in 2008, the amount of money suddenly available dwarfed the supposed cost of achieving net zero. Its all about collective will
@@shinywarm6906You really don't get it do you there are thermodynamic problems with trying go net zero. It's literally impossible. You can throw all the money in the world at it, it wouldn't change a thing.
"They think it's about the present and making money".
This sounds like me and many struggling dieters, all too often immediate gratification takes precedence over long term benefit and well being.
I believe this is a common behaviour with humans so we shouldn't be too surprised.
The planet will be different but will carry on without us.
Reading some of the comments on here shows there are many people who don't believe that climate change is real or a problem, it's amazing that they know better than the vast majority of scientists and our leading universities. We live in a world where facts and evidence don't matter anymore, some people will just believe what they want to be true and will cling on to any narrative that supports their views.
Vast majority 😮..hmmmm
Feelings of distrust and opinions don't beat facts, unfortunately that is a fact..
I don’t get why it would be a conspiracy theory. Who’s going to gain from net zero? Who’s making the big bucks? What, the scientists lol?
@@Jaymark-gk4liname a single scientist not funded by the fossil fuel industry who doesn’t believe climate change is a serious threat. Just one. I’ll be genuinely grateful.
It takes about 5 minutes to debunk "climate change".
People deny climate change because recognition and action costs the money. The Tories see votes in greed and self interest.
People deny man-made climate change because it is political jerrymandering masquerading as science!!!
The problem with the tories is that their owners, who benefit greatly from the status quo, need our society to continue to operate the way it is
Given up? They have never accepted Climaye Change. Whats that song they sing? When the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow we can depend on Fossil Fuel dont you know!
A species that can elect climate denier and criminal Trump to the most powerful office in the world at this most crucial time does not give me much hope. We need to find our better and more cooperative nature and fast.
An alien space craft flew over an maga gathering and tried to scan for intelligent life.lt found no signs.
You've got the extreme left woke pushers to thank for the Trump victory. If the democrats could have just stayed neutral, Trump would never have got. I am a practising environmentalist but am still glad Trump got in.
@tarquin161234 Harris was very careful to remain neutral and ran a centrist campaign. The Republicans were the ones who were falsely portraying it as woke.
How can you be an environmentalist and be happy that Trump got in when he thinks the climate crisis is a hoax? This might have been our last chance to stop the worst effects from happening.
Modern life relies 100% on fossil fuel. It feeds us, moves us and houses us. Technology will not change this and in fact maintains our need for fossil fuels. EVs are not made by fairies at the bottom of the garden.
All politicians are unable to see this and imo don't care because there is nothing in it for them.
Is climate science and the climate emergency up for scrutiny and debate ?
I’m always curious when we state climate science is settled 🤔
Clear evidence
Droughts
More evidence
97% consensus
All makes me very very suspicious
So go research the subject. For someone who's "always curious" about it, you don't seem to have much to say. It's because you're not serious
You should give some credit to Mrs Thatcher (not my favourite PM!) who trained as an industrial chemist and understood the science. A colleague of mine from the Met Office took part in a special briefing at No.10 and was dismayed when she insisted on "borrowing" one of his slides which had clearly made an impact on her.
Mrs May, of course, read Geography (not PPE) at Oxford, in which introductory climatology and human impacts on the planet were compulsory elements of the course.
It's well beyond the cognitive abilities of Truss and co.
Because Britain is now a poor country, partially thanks to them. Also, Reform is ahead of Tories.
Reform is not. They are in third place by a large margin.
It's the same party from the same think tank.
@@paulgibbons2320correct
I’m the same age as Richard. When I was at school we were taught that the planets climate changes all the time, the geological record shows that, and right now we are in the early stages of an interglacial period. So, the planets climate was heating up. We were also taught that human activity contributed to the overall result, but not enough to mean that we could make any significant difference by changing what we do. That being the case it was accepted then that what we should do was recognise this and take steps to deal with what was inevitable - such as not build infrastructure in places that would be affected by it. New housing developments on flood plains anyone ?
Indeed but hey, they claim 'the science' is settled, then unsettle it because of failed predictions, then settle it again to make more predictions based on an assumed linear process which is clearly wrong and unscientific. None of which matters to the alarmists who live in their own fossilized reality of ' in 10 years time...etc'.
We are not at the beginning of an interglacial - we're over 10,000 years into one. Interglacial are short interludes compared to glacials, and we should be at the beginning of a long, slow decline in temperature as the milankovitch cycles drive us into another glacial.
Human activity isn't exacerbating a natural change in the climate - it's actively working against that change and pushing the Earth into a new climate regime.
@ Yes, true, the last Glacial is believed to have ended over 11,000 years ago. Means we are currently somewhere nearer the middle rather than the early stages of the interglacial period. My point still stands though, seeing as the industrial revolution only started around 250 - 300 years ago. Human activity is not responsible for the climate warming in the 11,000 odd years prior to that.
Because change of society completely to a controlled low consumption model is the only way to impact the climate in a positive way.
Yes, but implementing it will be hard and starts with convincing people (particularly those with power) of the need.
We should perhaps be discussing alternatives more to get the possibility of doing things differently into the public consciousness?
@@JLSMaytham They say for any social change the bourgeois need to be on board first. The general public are largely kept unaware to the severity because of the media bubble we live under and then the goal is to me, to do less than more, we could literally stop what we are doing and the affect would be instantaneous, we need people on the streets and not moving en masse now, we need social change where work and money are almost things of the past.\I think we will end up living like the 1800;s but with electricity, which of course means the collapse of the debt based system we have but hey, it's a start.
This is true, but climate change is actually a toxic weaponised environmental scam with which to mug us & continue to trash the planet. If there was a real climate emergency, there are countless beneficial things we could implement fairly swiftly at minimum or no cost, but we haven't. We've actually gone for all the high cost options that will profit the rich highly, while impoverishing the rest of us & restricting our freedoms. But maybe that's just a coincidence that was never intended?
@@JLSMaythamWhat is this “need” you speak of ?
Sure, the warming is real enough but the ‘crisis’ is a scam … There is no crisis. If there was then every roof on every house in every street in every town across all of Europe would have solar panels installed … But they don’t.
The ‘crisis’ is synthesised to advance geopolitical power, to control the serfs, through unwarranted fear, and to justify, and rationalise, uncontrolled, ever increasing debt.
@@Hickalumactually no thats what they told you as they control you.
The best thing is to clean the environment with accumulation of the waist and to convert into a useful material will most likely efficiency.
Gone with the wind.
Kemi Badenoch is very bad at identifying what she doesn't understand or is completely ignorant about.
She is like someone in the early 19th C arguing that the UK should stick to canals and not waste money on railways, because they are not affordable.
Wasn't London supposed to be underwater by now? I'm far more concerned about our war mongering politicians starting WW3.
"Wasn't London supposed to be underwater by now?" No, it wasn't. But human activity now can lock in changes that will cause sea level rise and lose us territory, including a lot of central London.
@@MartinPoulter The climate has been constantly changing throughout all of Earths history. It's the absolute norm. The time to start worrying is when it stops changing. You people are trying to sell snow to Eskimos.
@@Pauli-tm2ztproof?
@@Redf322 But the sea levels are rising - and London is at sea level. So where is this proof of sea level rises?
Answer = Non existent.
Tories look after themselves and their sponsors
This was to be expected. Tories will do everything that will make costs go up. Even if you ignore the destruction of our climate, why be against cheap green energy lowering energy bills? Maybe they know that so many people are very ...........
[Way over] time to decouple the price of energy from barrels of oil, methinks.
Green energy is not cheap.
@@Withnail1969 Green energy is the cheapest. It promises abundant, almost free energy. It just requires investment. We don't do investment. We do speculating and financialization. Where China sees an opportunity to profit from investment in innovation and manufacturing, UK sees a cost. 'First we're gonna have to take out huge loans from private banks; then we're gonna have to pay China for the solar panels....' 😹 No macro-economic social vision
'We don't like 'costs'' [proceed to be pound foolish and penny wise, driving up costs]
'We don't like refugees' [proceed to drive billions of climate refugees to UK]
Too many people see a problem and a cost rather than a solution and an opportunity. This seems due to a lack of Keynesian, state-driven, macroeconomic planning and investment. In China the stae is massively investing and innovating in green energy, revolutionizing society, lifting people out of poverty and into the future. We got Kid Starver.
(I saw a self-driving, flying car today. It's like a smart drone scaled up to the size of a car. I trust the Ai navigation more because there are fewer obstacles, but it could also just drop you like a stone!!!🥺 Xiaomi SU7 is more my style. And my price range)
@@WarrenPeaceOG The problem is it doesn't work all of the time and requires major additions to the grid infrastructure which makes it expensive not cheap.
In the 1970's I was in my teens we were being warned about an impending ice age. What happened to that I ask myself. Maybe global warming came along and stopped it.
Very boring comment
UK is not going to get much hotter. Oh do not get me wrong, I am probably the biggest doomer/deep adapter in the room.
The AMOC is done for. It is going to take decades to hit its full impact, but we are looking at local cooling of up to -10c for western Europe and us.
This is even as the equator boils.
It could take 50-100 years for the AMOC to fully collapse and it will take about 2000 years for it to reboot, should the conditions be favourable.
But in those 50 years, we will have to face 'the border' where the heat from the south and the cold from the north meet and create EPIC storms for us.
This way of life is already over.
Maybe its more support of human flourishing.
Its not rocket science.
I also first became aware of climate change in 1974 and the was from a BBC Horizon program about the fuel crisis at that time!
You never had a political consensus.
The Tories play lip service to some topics when politically advantageous.
The new leader is just being honest with torie opinion.
Dear Richard, at 0:55 2C not 2%. It think is going to be more than that though.
The cause was Johnson's 'government', she has been promoted way beyond her capabilities, and something to do with Dunning - Kruger!
We need to focus on mitigation rather than prevention. This is not a problem we can solve alone and one that we are a very small player. Fighting against it is, unfortunately, futile. We need a cohesive plan to counter its most damaging effects.
Mitigation itself will be highly complicated and expensive. It could involve moving hundreds of thousands out of flood zones. We don’t have the money to fix RAAC in schools, let alone build new flood defences and the mass movement of people to higher ground, which is what will need to happen.
I think Kemi Badenoch's time as leader will be limited, for many reasons.
Taxation.
A man made disaster, inside a man made disaster. A reactionary.
A fabricated story for profit
@@cjedd2312i think you will find that fossil fuels are behind your argument. They seem very worried about their profit. You seem to have things the wrong way round as usual.
Because people don’t like change.
Hence we’re all more conservative with age and some are Conservative.
I was taught about the Greenhouse Effect at university in 1973.
The course was Environmental Science within an Architecture degree.
You mean when the climate was cooling rapidly...
It's been known since the 1960's and the idiots who glorify in being innumerate and scientifically illiterate couldn't care less. It's selfishness and greed.
@@manoo422
The Northern Hemisphere used to be cooling because of coal ash covering the sky, while the CO2 from the same coal made the South warmer, if I remember correctly from a Simon Clark video. When oil and gas and nuclear energy replaced coal for economic reasons, the North started warming as the south bad been.
@@G_C340They serve the rich.
Not so much 70+ yr old Tory voters Bad Enoch is appealing to deny human made climate change they think they wont be around when things become intollerable. Like Mr Murphy, I too was 13 in 1971. In 1970-71 TV series Timeslip had two time travelling teenagers end up in the future where human made global warming made life in Britain almost unlivable, rising sea levels had flooded coastal cities such as Liverpool, crops could no longer be grown, and a beauracratic govt had become increasingly authoritarian to maintain order. The youngsters mission, get back to the present of 1970 to warn of the impending catastrophe & change the potential future. Of course that was just science fiction.
Gilbert White's, The Natural History of Selbourne, first published in 1789, is worth reading, and gives an insight into nature and the natural changes in weather conditions
In my view, net zero and electric EV utopia is ridiculous.
The truth is that that it's better to use a less energy dense battery (reduces the risk of thermal runaway) coupled with solar to meet domestic needs, than a depreciating pile of junk like the Tesler.
Moreover, many in Scandinavia are taking this view, as it makes more sense to generate locally, and contribute to the grid, which reduces the need for power lines which can be brought down in winter.
Furthermore, more investment needs to be made regarding energy generation in all its forms, the concept of CHP needs further examination although in many Scandinavian towns of any size, it's a no brainer.
However, there are no quick solutions, just a lot of research, investment and will to make the environment a cleaner more inhabitable place to live.
NetZero is a solution invented by Giant Corporations for a problem invented by Giant Corporations that will empty the jar marked ‘Environment’ into the coffers of Giant Corporations.
Something is persuading us that either the poor and the middle pays or nothing will be done.
@@unatwomey7112But why does something have to be done ?
The warming is real enough but the ‘crisis’ is a scam … There is no crisis. If there was then every roof on every house in every town across all of Europe would have solar panels installed … But they don’t.
The ‘crisis’ is synthesised to advance geopolitical power, to control the serfs, through unwarranted fear, and to justify and rationalise uncontrolled, ever increasing debt.
The solution is always to restrict and tax the poor, the fact that carbon offsetting even exists and they want more and more carbon tax tells us it’s all about control and the money and nothing else.
I don't know what to make of climate change. I've also heard other sides of the arguments saying that rivers like the Euphrates are drying up due to dams, flooding is occuring due to houses being built on flood plains (i.e along the river Thames in 2014), floods occuring due to the cutting down of trees on a massives scale. I've also heard that climate changes naturally irrespective of man or industry. There have been at least 11 interglacial periods during the Ice Age and this could be the 12th. There have also been a hot Roman Period and a cold Roman period and a hot climate during the Middle Ages and a cold climate during the Middle Ages. Hunger stones have been revealed in recent years saying that if the you see this stone then prepare for famine. This implies that there have been dry and hot periods throughout history.
It will be the speed this time, we are warmer than all interglacials and warm weather isn't climate, an average of 14 degrees raising to an average 10-15 degrees above that isn't something any Roman has seen. This is accelerated climate change and nothing of the last 15,000 years are valid as a base for the future, we are now warmer than any time in 3 million years and getting warmer, what's to make of a complete change of every thing you've known?
@@antonyjh1234 Many thanks. I'm not an expert by any means.
@@Freesurfer688 I wrote this to a couple of other people, I think it explains it clearly
99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere.
In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air.
Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open.
Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30.
As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it.
The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why, imo.
You're absolutely right about the rivers and floods. It's nothing to do with climate change.
You need to go back to school. Oh wait, better not. Do your own research and look at the total climate system. Start w fundamental physics. You will eventually have to admit there is ZERO reason for alarm. You have been lied to.
We a well past the point whereby significant genuinely effective action is likely to be taken. We are in the early stages of WWIII and the international cooperation that would be needed to bring about real change no longer exists. Net zero was more of an accounting trick than any real push towards sustainability, so don't worry nothing really has changed.
the climate has always changed and always will no matter what man does , we are probably still coming out of the ice age
You don't think humans pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere changes anything?
Climate change is ever present but politicians are hijacking it at the bidding of the globalists. It’s all part of removing the autonomy of individuals.
Said no scientist ever
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
@@laravonstaden1838conspiracy shit. It’s you who have been hi jacked.
There is no climate crisis. Of all the IPCC’s 33 climate impact drivers there are only 5 in which they have high confidence that they have already occurred in the historical period. See the first column of Table 12.12 in Chapter 12 AR6 page 1856 “Already Emerged in Historical Period”. Three of these relate to temperature and one to CO2 (which of course we know). The fifth relates to a decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no discernible trend in extreme weather events in the last 20 years. The worst year for weather disasters in the last 25 years was 2005 when there were over 400 such disasters. The next is 2007 when there were about 390. The average since then is about 350. On any metric, deaths, economic losses, number of events, the impact of climate is falling not rising.
Who told you that GB news? Funded by fossil fuel companies
great work as usual
The U.K. has done more to reduce emissions than most countries. The proportion of emissions that the U.K. produces is minuscule compared to other developed and developing countries. I am not saying that we should stop doing the right things, but we should also be aware that crippling the country in the pursuit of a goal that is severely undermined by factors out of our control is a fruitless pursuit. We will be the most compliant third world country, with no future ourselves if we are the only ones pursuing Net Zero.
As a physicist, my opinion is that this is all way overblown and we are very very lucky that the climate may be warming at the moment because the equally likely alternative (cooling) would be a disaster. We may eventually get to the levels of warmth of Roman and Medieval times!
I agree, and think we should be more worried about the nuclear war Starmer and the western warmongers are pushing us into.
As a physicist you have a very poor understanding of the effect of global warming.
Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one, yours should not be seen.
@@antonyjh1234 ..... and yet you seem happy to act like one - you know, the arseholes who think anyone who disagrees with them should be bad mouthed and put down rather than considered.......
@@MentalLentil-ev9jr but he has history on his side.......
Up to now Richard I was a follower but now you are advancing this climate change bullshit! I’m unsubscribing from your channel.
美国是follow money 中国是follow people
If there was a real climate emergency, there are countless beneficial things we could implement fairly swiftly at minimum or no cost, but we haven't. We've actually gone for all the high cost options that will profit the rich highly, while impoverishing the rest of us & restricting our freedoms. But maybe that's just a coincidence that was never intended?
Exactly. If there really was a climate emergency then every roof, in every street, in every town across the whole of Europe would have solar panels fitted. I don’t see them.
Its all energy efficiency at the end of the day so its benefited me. Having good insulation , having solar panels , scrapping gas , swapping to electric cars. Gone from 40000kwh equivalent energy usage to 12000kwh. Did you know a litre of petrol is 9.5kwh , my EV can do 30miles on that many kwhs
@@Hickalumwhy when you have climate denying fossil fuel companies? I’m tired of your daft arguments.
@@waynecartwright-js8twhow much to charge over night? £1.50 for 200 miles im hearing.
@@waynecartwright-js8tw at the end of the day climate change is another fabricated threat used by globalists to instill fear & guilt so they can tax, regulate, & remove our freedoms while pretending to be saving the planet.
BS
Climate change is normal and making ourselves poor with renewables will achieve little benefits. Sensible to invest in base load such as nuclear with just marginal renewables. Baseload provides system resilience, renewables can’t do that without huge back up. But why pay twice for same power?
It's normal over millions of years NOT DECADES
You have to protect the rich and make sure they have subsidies like for nuclear. It's already too expensive and impractical to save you from completely normal extreme events like Valencia, Libya or Greece. The rich won't pay and you need to protect them. It's sensible to take zero measures while normality ramps up and normal people are washed away in their cars.
@ there’s been no meaningful change over decades. Just a steady warming from mid 1800’s when there was a mini ice age.
@@unatwomey7112 there’s been floods since start of time. Valencia was a man made disaster after removing water catchment
@@teryd5672nok then i will forget what 90% of world scientists agree on and listen to you. Not . We are already benefitting from new tech.
Maybe because it's unpopular and highly expensive. Also maybe people are fed up of every storm blamed on climate change.
I'm 67 and will resist with every fibre Ev Cars ( milk floats ) and heat source pumps
Heat pumps are useless for most UK houses. Only a modern highly insulated house can get by with one, just.
@@Withnail1969 This is completely untrue, sorry but it is easy to disprove this just by looking at people on RUclips who have installed heat pumps and posted videos. I myself in my 1960s ex council house are saving money running a heat pump.
Try being less selfish and think of those younger than yourself. Your irrational hatred and fear of change hurts others.
not saying ev's are the answer but on one hand we have change or the other hand we have the chance of 90% of all species dying out like the last time the earth went to the temps we are going too. Are you sure you are being as flexible as you can to resist a heat pump that might have a 600% efficiency rating...? 3..2...1.".heat pumps can't be 600% efficient ", "that's impossible" well, because of the gas exchange they use one unit of electricity and give out 6 units of heating or cooling energy. Saying heat can only work in a highly insulated house has to be the dumbest thing I have heard yet..edit : as electricity is mostly gas, the efficiency rating shouldn't be taken as the final rating.
But are you sure you are 67, you sound as though you are younger but acting old
@@Withnail1969 You are trolling and posting so many comments in the negative, little comments that can easily be disproven, why, what goal are you achieving, considering you are able to be wrong?
The 3rd world wants £1.3T. Per year. Is that on top of reparations?
If, as a Nigerian, KB wants to say no, who are we to disagree?
I was taught as a child that I want never gets, maybe they should get their own act together instead of constantly holding their hands out.
@@witlesswonderthe2nd883 They already get much of substance. The transfer of science and technology, wrested from nature at great cost, is theirs to take. Medical advances, law, standards, all available at no R&D cost. Not to mention considerable aid.
Please present all your evidence to support your assertions.
Please present your evidence that they are assertions. Oh? What's that you are a troll with no evidence except make copy & paste from a "debunking" website with opaque funding.
@@zetectic7968they are the do-your-own-research crowd, ie just disruptive. They have no functionality except to keep anyone from saying that the rich need to pay. If the rich can't be obscenely rich then no one can have anything.
Unfortunately there has been no change in the trajectory of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the entire history of the COP process.
It will be increasingly harder to sell the 'climate crisis' and 'global boiling' narrative to those living in the west, countries which have already seen substantial cuts in C02 emissions and whose living standards are about to be seriously impacted by efforts at 'decarbonisation, whilst the worlds largest emitters including China and India are given licence to continue to increase emissions for several more decades.
Either there is a crisis and all must contribute to rapid cuts, or there isn't.
The myth about China and India is SO out of date!
Try educating yourself with up to date data.
Yes, except that our living standards may actually improve by “decarbonising”. Cheaper electricity and no dependence on importing oil would benefit us. Similarly with transition to electric vehicles, forget the CO2, we may get better health by reducing emissions. It’s obviously not that straightforward but even if you totally ignore climate change change it’s still beneficial for us to transition.
Imagine if we could replace the £54 bln we spent on importing oil last year with other investments. The net cost of transitioning before 2050 is estimated at £10bln a year but every year after that we would be saving (or investing locally) most of that 50 bln.
Forget the climate change, do it for the economy.
BTW as you pointed out correctly that largest emitters like China must also make the same changes. China has committed to stop increasing emissions by 2030 so it lags behind the Europe, but they’re actually on track to have lower emissions this year than 2023 and they do make very big investments into nuclear and solar power, their cities are filling up with EVs, and they also ban sales of ICE cars in a couple of years. Better than that, almost all non hybrid ICE car sales will be banned in China in 2026.
So the narrative that we’re somehow hurting our economy while other countries do nothing is incorrect. They are behind but some of them are about to outrun us.
And again, it’s not just the climate, it makes economical sense to do it.
@@zlamanit UK electricity prices are among the highest in Europe! We also rely on interconnects from the Continent at times of high demand and during so-called dark Doldrums when wind and solar are completely inadequate. This has serious implications for energy security. We must start to invest in our own generation capacity with reliable sources for when wind and solar are not providing what is required. Small modular nuclear is perhaps the best option. Onshore wind and solar is simply not worth it and causes significant negative environmental effects.
I should perhaps mention that I have a really low carbon footprint due to my own solar PV array and battery plus a solar hot water unit which helps in the summer. I have a wood pellet boiler as no mains gas in my village and I replaced an oil system.
I switched to a hybrid car 2 years ago and drastically cut my petrol consumption.
However I am not a climate alarmist.
@@JLSMaytham Wrong. China on its own emits 32.88% of total annual anthropogenic C02 and hence if you really wanted to cut atmospheric levels you would get the biggest effect starting with them. US is second but already falling and committed to reduce further whereas India is allowed to increase.
The UK is 0.88% and hence our whole net zero drive to poverty is actually a virtue signalling irrelevance.
Source: Worldometers.
Why 1.5C? What measurement proves that climate change is man-made? Where's the corealation between CO2 level and temperature? Which drives which?
You are a tax guy. What the hell do you know about climate science? Apocalyptic climate thinking is juvenile. But, if you are so afraid, then I will expect that you will not drive a car, fly in a plane, or eat any food (all of which require energy from fossil fuels). Good luck.
I watched a programme last night about the great flood of 1607, entire villages wiped out in the uk west country....and not a car in sight!!!
That doesnt mean anything. Yes floods do and have happened. But climate change is real.
Because it doesn't exist
Climate change is real. Many climate taxes governments impose on their citizens is a scam.
Proof? Oh that's right you have none 🤣
The best thing big tobacco could do to slow down the decline in sales was to create doubt, big oil took over the same tactics and advertisers, you are the epitome of all that is needed these days, zero proof, just a wrong opinion is all it takes and people who do this should be ashamed. The science is well past proven so hopefully all you are doing is trying to drive comments..
According to Murphy you don't exist!
But we can't afford to be wrong!
I thought at first this was a parody channel. But nah. This fool actually believes what he is saying!
It is like death. People know it is true at an intellectual level. But everyone is in denial about it on an emotional level. All climate estimates are averages of various kinds, in reality is much worse and in some places much much worse. Behaviour change is slow. There was massive propaganda against Nuclear Energy from decades ago, which is only now very slowly ebbing away. We need geo-engineering, nuclear energy rollout, HVEC transmission lines, storage technologies and renewables. As the great Lovelock tried effortlessly but little success in trying to convince people. But the world runs on cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia. These require petrochemical and we have no way to make them otherwise. (Read Vaclav Smil) There are ideas, but research is lacking. We should boost technological research into tackling this. There is always been zero chance the hair shirt approach was going to work, especially without having developed solutions that work first. Economist has an article that economies of scale for renewables and nuclear renewal can help hit 2C but 1.5C is a lost cause. COP was always BS, no agreement was ever met and always reset.
Climate change and automation are the two biggest issues going forward.
You might want to add the removal of oil from your life to that list.
Don't forget water from that list..
I thought we needed to keep it under 1ºC. Didn’t politicians negotiate against science and invent 1.5ºC? But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1.5 is gone and no Paris agreements are being kept.
They just made it up. At the end of the 70s global temps had dropped over 1.5C so we are only just getting back to where we where in the 40s i.e no change.
@@manoo422liar
@@manoo422 you can use the internet, because you’re posting here. I don’t understand comments like this. Google “global average temperature” then hit [images] and look at any graph. All of them show your statement to be false.
@@manoo422who are they ?
Climate change is now about how much money developing countries can get !
stopit, you don't know what you are talking about and are now spamming
Climate change is about you keeping your head in the sand while the rich coincidentally get richer and there are no mitigations to reduce the impacts on you or anyone in the third world. It's already been 50 degrees Celsius in India, Central America and western Canada. Then think about what is being done to keep any of us safe. That's right, we're expendable.
Yes, the science is settled
ruclips.net/video/TwYVyU_q9Uo/видео.html
Stick to accountancy.
...because it would bankrupt working people.
There's a profound truth in the way pictures and museums were protected but people in Valencia, Greece and Libya could just drown in their cars. This year bad weather affected UK food production by 10%. Pakistan - 30% of the entire country, 2 years ago & still affecting their economy. India - temps of 50 degrees Celsius. It cooked animals lungs. But criminal charges for washable mustard. It wouldn't bankrupt the rich. They couldn't take it psychologically.
So what do you want us to do? All you’re doing is blaming the tories but you don’t actually talk about how you’d fix the problem. How many scientists and engineers have you spoken to so that you can discuss the wider problems and the actually cost of climate change? I understand you’re trying to make money from putting up videos but you’re telling us there’s a problem, blaming a few people and then not really telling us how you’d like us (the world) to move forward. Have you considered that some of the solutions that the governments have implemented are actually the problems, check out recycling plants, burning plastics and the problem it’s created. Ask why we haven’t decarbonised fuel. Find out why diesel isn’t as bad as you think. What about E fuels? Why do we think going electric is the answer, surely having options is the answer? People, do we have too many? Giga factories, look at their pollution. Please do a video on the science and engineering rather than playing the blame game. We all know you don’t like the tories. And let’s not pretend that government is really going to sort out climate change, when there’s no money to be made from it they’re not interested. If they believed in it we’d have all been given an electric car, our homes would be built to the highest standard, our use of concrete would be minimal, we’d have nuclear power running along side wind and solar power, they’d be CO2 extraction. we’d be so green that we’d all be living for ever but we’re not. One final point, tell me why our Labour Prime minister can stand there and say we’re cutting emissions by 81% when he isn’t qualified in that field, oh yeah I forgot, he’s seen a money making opportunity paid for by tax payers and anyone rich enough who have fingers in pies!!
The rate of climate change has very little to do with the UK. The solution lies elsewhere in the world in the alleged developing countries (China, India)
China, USA, India, Russia in order.
It being Global, it doesn't care for geography or fairness. Neither do the wealthy who have persuaded many that they have to pay. Climate change will devalue assets (and thus the rich). Or they pay for mitigations and decarbonization. The rate of climate change already reduced UK food production by 10% this year.
@@chriswills9437China is already racing ahead in technology. The rest of us think that shareholder value comes first, and food and safety comes last.
@@unatwomey7112 Yes, true. We outsourced our production to them too.
The only thing climate alarmists are good for is pushing nuclear power higher up the agenda ( unintended consequence) So..thanks. You at least caused 1 (unintended) positive..😊
You're underplaying the destructive potential of nuclear war.
and a CME.
Because climate change in the current political climate is utter bollocks
Another new troll account 🙄 Joined 13 Jul 2024
If you were honest about the causes and the solutions, instead more corrupt and contrived methods that only punish regular humanity, you might see a genuine successes.
I can agree that instead of stopping a few big corporations who are producing huge amounts of emissions, they ask you to not drive in town this is obviously wrong. But what obvious solutions do you mean.
Glaringly obvious! Are you real?
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore who co-founded Greenpeace.
The total majority of world scientists disagree with the astronomer.
@Redf322 I wasn't referring to the astrominer. I was referring to a Canadian of the same name.
@@AndrewMSmith130they disagree with him too
@@Redf322 Your source of information?
Weather is not climate.
True but accelerated climate change means we will have different weather.
@@antonyjh1234 But weather events are not and cannot be evidence of climate change.
Climate change is something thats ONLY visible on the scale of thousands of years. Everything else is just weather.
@@Withnail1969the first definition of climate from a dictionary:
“the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”
The weather today says nothing about the climate, but long term weather patterns is by definition climate.
Separately consider local versus global climate, because even long term climate change in one place doesn’t say anything about the global climate.
@@zlamanit It's about temperature over a long period, indeed. We don't have enough data to say if it's happening or not though in theory it should happen.
More climate alarmist nonsense….
But just think of all the punitive stealth tax opportunities it creates ....loadsamoney💰💰💰💲
So the planet isn't heating up rapidly?
99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere.
In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air.
Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open.
Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30.
As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it.
The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why, imo.
I think if you really want to get into this topic, and I hope you will, you need to engage with the degrowth movement and their logic for why their prescriptions are necessary.
@@howardosborne8647 Most of the money goes into fossil fuels, the subsidies given to that industry far exceed those given to renewables. The one big spend Labour are currently pushing is the £22b for the carbon capture and storage, this is a direct subsidy of fossil fuels.
Google "Meltwater Pulse 1B" and why the cavemen still owe carbon taxes. 😊
Cycles, we are currently in a cooling cycle which governments are using to profit.
We are in a cooling cycle? The ten hottest years on record are all in the last 15 years. You are daft.
How does the govt benefit off tax if tax doesn't pay for anything?
I will repost what I said to another denier below, if you have any questions please ask.
99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere.
In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air.
Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open.
Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30.
As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it.
The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why.
We are not in a cooling cycle if the melt is quicker and sea level rise is increasing in speed, if the sea level rise is increasing as it is a cooling cycle must be impossible. I understand because of the age of Richard he might have an older crowd but to say all satellites are lying must mean you aren't serious in your comment or uninformed correctly.
@@antonyjh1234Look at the thumbnail. He does it for a living. It's either that or the front.
@@someguy-g4rlook at the thumbnail. Then recall every troll since at least 2015.
@@unatwomey7112 You're correct, I see this Chadimir Putin troll everywhere, always spamming right-wing demagoguery.