When I was 12 I was very concerned with that topic, but it didn't seem to bother any other grown-ups so I let it go. Happy to see everything is fixed now.
I’ve been going on about it since I was 15, and was either dismissed as unrealistic or just laughed at. I wonder wha percentage of people have had these concerns but at then shot down
Same here, give or take a year or so, after I read The Limits to Growth. I was born in 1967. What year were you born? I'm wondering if we can collect someone who can say the same for each year since the book was published...
While attending CU in mathematics, Al Bartlett was a despised physics professor but he was right to ridicule a growth culture that works "until you think." There were 2.5 billion humans when I was born in 1950 and there are 8 billion now but the energy/resource expectations of the current humans are 10x greater. If you plot human population x per capita energy demand, the exponential chart is steep indeed. I spent a lot of time in the public sector where you learn quickly to never, ever, under any circumstance, in any company suggest that our pack of lemmings was about to find the cliff.
@@shadetreader It's worse than just capitalism. Communism is also the problem. Patriarchy of plow-based farming is the problem - humans have been around for over 100,000 years in our modern biological form as a species - well before plow-based agriculture developed.
@@marcwinkler I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying people don't see the need to make a change locally? When the world climate and food supply for 8 billion people changes, it is not likely that life in any one area of the plant will continue as usual - we are all in this together.
Yes I agree this is one of the best explanation, the most direct, clear presentation of facts, deductions and conclusions. It is really what many have been thiniking of but could have never put it so well together. Absolutely brilliant.
Excellent presentation. I learned so much more about what I already feel about what is happening in our world today. Thank you for the extreme detail of this talk.
So, the reason is not that the oil industry and the banks that finance the oil-industry have bought off the US legistlators, media and court system. And, that USA uses it's hegemonic power to protect the interests of the oil industry globally. But, rather the problem is "human nature".
@@herratossavainen9669 Your comment makes it very clear you did NOT listen to Professor Rees's talk or you failed to understand the vocabulary in his presentation. He did an amazing job of distilling an enormous amount of factual information with as few & simplest words possible to make this huge issue as clear as possible to people with average I.Q. But you chose to make a faulty judgment by simply reading the title of the talk. Please take an hour to simply LISTEN to his message. You can stop and digest the information on each slide before you proceed to the next slide. Professor Rees has gone to great lengths to make this factual info accessible to the "average Joe". Please show courtesy by listening to & contemplating the entire lecture before making a snide comment. By the way, 2 facts can be true at the same time. Your comment implies otherwise.
One of the best and most clear set reasons as to why Climate Change will be addressed only after many more climate, pandemic, and food security catastrophes happen. And those of us in the US have a front row seat to the horror show.
Yep, I worked for a number of years as a botanist, studying the distributions of rare plants. When I was asked what I did for a living, I said I documented the end of the world
Excellent video presentation! Telling the truth of the matter, the predicament we are ALL in, plain and simple. Thank you for putting this video on RUclips.
Most people I know are well aware of the climate/ecological emergency in an intellectual sense - BUT don't connect it in any way with their own lifestyle or choices. Most of them are desperate to get back to flying holidays and driving everywhere. Mention climate, and they get fidgety and seem strangely keen to change the subject. If we can't change that selfish, short-term mindset, our kids will have a miserable future.
I have to live with knowing my younger siblings face a swift path to hell on Earth it's hard not to despise the whole lot, their pathetic reticence and myopia.
From US Fish and Wildlife-"Currently, there are approximately 20,500 Plains bison in conservation herds and an additional 420,000 in commercial herds. While bison are no longer threatened with extinction, the species faces other challenges.The loss of genetic diversity, combined with the loss of natural selection forces, threatens the ecological restoration of bison as wildlife. A low level of cattle gene introgression is prevalent in most, if not all, bison herds". So they're not in the clear yet.....barely 5% of what they were 200 years ago...
Prof Rees what you say is very much as I learned it back in the early 70's as a teenage boy. I admire the way that you have been able to keep your cool and not been sucked into the alarmism and hyperbole of recent years and been able to distance yourself from the simple solutions to complex problems. In a post truth society, it can be exhausting to strip away the flannel and ignore the emotional buttons that are being perpetually pressed. It was refreshing to hear someone else who realises that so many green herrings are there to support supposedly green industries. Having said this, I think technology has advanced so far now that we may be at an era when we can support existing world population and solve the major environmental problems i.e. we can shrink the human footprint and continue to consume at a sustainable level. If anyone wishes to know more about this, or would like to help with developments, I will be pleased to hear from you.
As I viewed this great presentation on August 13th, 2022, I see that there are only 39,434 views. I contrast that with kitty RUclips videos that will attract millions of views. William Rees is quite correct in his assessment that most homo sapiens are not capable of comprehending that the current temporal and spatial exponential growth of homo sapiens is quite an anomaly from the past 10,000 years. I do see the economy crashing in the decades to come due primarily to the staggering amounts of collective debt.
True. An honest and sober consideration of human nature strongly suggests certain negative conclusions. But negativity is not healthy, so don’t go there. Let’s just all go back to our kitten videos before it is too late.
The wonderful thing about Bill's work is how very right he is about how our lives are out of control. Being right is only 5% of decision-making, though. First, you need to survey the context for what's missing, material observations other than being right. Hopefully, early on, you'll notice that the job of economies is to build and maintain lasting physical and societal structures. There are absolute right and wrong ways of building systems, and our whole movement's failure to look at what we're building. The justified emotional and social meanings need to work side by side with the basic requirements for building systems that last, ............LEARNING A BIT ABOUT HOW SYSTEMS NATURALLY BUILD AND SECURE THEMSELVES THEIR FUTURES WOULD HELP.
I could NOT AGREE MORE. Fought for renewable energies (I know, first step only) for 30 years, never drove a car, live in a passivehouse. I did no fly much but compensated all flights since 1990, will not fly anymore. My last fligt had been within EU in 2012. Trolls, save your time, I will not even read replys.
I probably drive 50 miles a day. I love driving. Never going to stop. Oil is a renewable substance. It was not created by dead dinosaurs. That's ridiculous insanity. It is created by water under high pressure in the Earth. It is a HYDROcarbon. You have been lied to and lived your life for a lie.
Excellent summary. Humans are not rational, we are just good at rationalising our irrationality, caught as we are in the jaws of the dichotomy between our need to cooperate to survive and our competitive breeding strategies.
Humans are so greedy they are destroying the very atmosphere which sustains them . The Elites only goal in life is profits and the luxury of witch they celebrate their own lives . The common people allow the Elites to control the human race offers of the luxuries which affords the Elites their wealth.
Religion &capitalism killed us my pren. Clerics preach about the prophesied apocalypse yet the Vatican had practically created the precursor , the proximate cause , for its fruition. Russia’s war has been sanctified. So, too, Ukraine. .. Clerics so eager to see the face of “God”. Please see the Papal Bull of 1430.
“H. sapiens is not primarily a rational species “. This is the key aspect in my opinion. Nor is there any other rational species. Like all species, we’re not rationally designed, not designed at all, actually. We’re an evolved species, like all other forms of life. Thus, we’re evolved firstly for personal survival, secondly for species survival. Yes, our behaviors that lend to personal survival can be seen as rational in a limited sense, but not in the platonic or mathematical sense. Putting it another way, our limited evolved rationality is inadequate in a long term planetary ecological sense. Unless humans can collectively rise to a new level of rationality, and of that I’m not optimistic, we will eventually use up, expend, all available planetary resources.
I've often thought that the only way humanity could conceivably save itself from extinction is by using technology to "reprogram" our brains to stop our animal impulse to consume everything in sight. Essentially, accelerating our "evolution." The very idea absolutely horrifies me as someone who hates technology. But the end of oil and other fossil fuels will do it for us. Not before we destroy most everything, sadly.
It is very sad to realize that, in spite of our human capacity to understand the present moment as evidenced by this thorough, well-thought-out, scientific analysis, our human proclivities are driving us in a culturally-ignorant and self-destructive direction. The undeniable conclusion is the we humans really are not worthy of this Earth/miracle.
He is right in one aspect only - We are storytellers, and we make it up as we go along. To pretend that we understand chaotic systems such as climate, economics, evolution and the biosphere is simply going along with the current narrative, and will change over time, as novel concepts are developed. Anyone with a deep understanding of their field of study knows that there is no aspect of human knowledge that will remain unchanged, as paradigms change. We do not understand mass and matter, origins of life and the universe, or what follows the end of human evolution on this planet, and those who believe that there is a man-made solution to human problems are worshipping a religion as baseless as any other religion that man has ever devised before.
"Upon the wall (earth) where angle meets side Lies a race in which my species-- the Human Being Has dominated Life, to gorge himself. So, what of species outside of me Do they not have a right to live? To Ask. To Answer. Until you recognize the Wall as your Home You will never Know Life."
I'm proud to have William Rees as one of my fellow Canadians (along with Patrick Suzuki). Makes up to, some extent, for the rank stupidity and short-sightedness of our political class.
Absolutely eye-opening, succinct and clear. The best explanation of our current catastrophic trajectory, and thoughtful but realistic conclusions for a path out of it. This talk needs to become common knowledge immediately and shape the discourse and actions moving forward.
We need to synthesize the primitive lifestyle of the ancient people who lived in adaptation to natural together with a scaled down version of modern high tech. There is much that can be gained by concentrating on conservation of energy and resources.
Very little has changed in the iteration and reiteration of the problem since I studied environmental and ecological economics in the mid-nineties. Most of this talk could have been extracted from the course material of that time. The real problem is that we, the mass, just do not give power to political types who would genuinely pursue socio-economic transformation.
That's just creepy. Push all carbon tax to go to research all 400 billion or something annually instead of environmental hazard solar panels then when something better than fossel fuels discovered economics will do the rest. No political tyranny required.
@@nikitaw1982 : political regimes that are democratically elected are not tyrannies. That's precisely why we cannot blame the current political class for its failure to halt ecological deterioration and human accelerated climate change. We are responsible because we choose to keep putting it in power.
The dominant social structure is not capitalism (free market system). The US only represents 350M out of around 6B people. The dominant social structure is and has always been feudalism (dictators, Kings,etc.). And the capitalism you are referring to has only been around for about 100 years… a small drop in a very large bucket of water. The elephant in the room that no one talks about is the spike in human population and food production for this vast population and the waste products of this vast population. That population spike was caused by technology (food production increase and medicines, and aid from developed countries to underdeveloped countries). Overpopulation and it’s resulting natural resource depletion and waste products are shutting down planet earth. Windmills and solar panels and eating insects will not and can not fix this catastrophe. But it wasn’t capitalism…. It was technology….humans always want more.
@@imnotanalien7839 It is ECONOMY itself, the idea of ever growing economy (which is impossible - is what this video says), just because thanks to that some people can get rich, is the main reason. We need to change to resource based economy. In resource based economy question is "do we have resources to do A" not as is now "How much costs to do A", because not only "how much costs A" is a wrong question when it comes to important issues like climate change IS, but is a question that can be influenced, it is not hard to make sure that within the system the cost is gonna be always unreachable. "Do we have resources for A or can we get resources for A" is purely a FACT based question, either we do or we don't, either we can or can't.
The club of Rome.It's a big club and you ain't in it.“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome The First Global Revolution.
More specificaly , and taking special attention to missguided, deceived "state-industrial based education" to large portions of all globalized peoples, takin hold on top positions and trikle down the missgidance to te new generations, instead of implementing change.
An example of a socially just approach that is free-market based (pricing carbon honestly) is explained by Dr. James Hansen in his white paper Why Fee and Dividend Will Reduce Emissions Faster. A policy that drives innovation; that does not punish the victims (is just). csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Fee-and-Dividend-Miller-Hansen-20191110-1.pdf
Great presentation, but absolutely gobsmacking that you barely touched on the enormous problems of animal agriculture, which is next to fossil fuel use THE NUMBER ONE DRIVER of environmental & climate breakdown.
@@fredguntern.e.4185 Production- Consumption - Reproduction .... The holy Trinity. This narcissistic species will not willingly decrease any or either. Oh well, Evolution wins!
I do not know this man but he is now my adopted Grandfather because I never knew my biological Grandfathers. He's got everything figured out but the people who should know what he knows are intellectually deaf. Thanks Grandpa!
Very, very inciteful!!! Your PhD EDUCATION IS VERY WELL DESERVED!!! 100% in agreement! Despite being a "boomer-doomer", I am trying to point and lead by example out of the coming chaos and apocalypses. I joined the US bases Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) in early 2020. I lobbied in DC in 2020 and 2021.
One of the best commentaries I have seen. Wraps Arthur Keller and Guy McPherson and Herman Daley with added scientific support and understanding👍👍. This civilization is in deep trouble. I suspect the planet with evolve us into extinction😔
Oh maybe we'll survive, but in much smaller numbers on land inside the Arctic circle, according to James Lovelock. He thinks we will learn how to better treat Gaia, and long into the distant future the Earth will again become habitable for humans. 🌄
It is nothing less than a giant heartbreak that such a crystal clear lecture will be ignored by the great majority of the population! Cry Cry Cry for the Earth and the human race!
I'm paying attention to Prof Rees! But I still think that it's never too late to try. Rees's main point, I think, is that we've already used up too much of the energy and mass of the earth. People aren't ignoring him. They are believing him, and they are left feeling like there is no point in trying to fix a problem that they have no idea how to fix. My solution is economic. We need a completely new Globel Economic Model that will be able to support a new dictionary definition of profit. This definition, or one very similar to it, will guarantee that we will give our environment the highest possible respect and protection: "Profit = our gratefulness and loving care, for the Environment and for the sustenance that it provides for all of us". The main feature of the new Globel Economy will be the "Environmental Protection Force". It will become an enormous organization that will always need all kinds of employees. I'm seriously considering researching how to begin organizing these changes. Don't be too pessimistic about people. They're afraid and confused like a deer in the headlights.
@@stephenhall11 Stop extracting carbon sounds great, but not as our first step. Our only first step is to create a new "Global Economic Model" because the current economic model can't support any such changes without causing massive, horrible consequences. Under our current economic model which is basically "Profit = income - expenses", your idea would have the following affects. How shall we deal with: 1.) The massive number of bankruptcies around the entire world not only of industries that take carbon related stuff from the earth, but also the bankruptcies of all related industries like cars, airplanes, manufacturing in general, plus the thousands of others I haven't mentioned. 2.) Mass starvation of virtually everybody. Why everybody? Because massive starvation of all those people in 'carbon' industries will cause a massive drop in purchasing of food and clothing so all the companies that have nothing to do with fossil fuel will also go bankrupt. This is why our only first step is to create an entirely new "Global Economic Model" that will be designed to support an entirely different dictionary definition of profit. Did you read my comment to you in its entirety? "Profit = our gratefulness and loving care, for the Environment and for the sustenance that it provides for all of us". Notice I've done away with two ideas; income, and expenses. In the real "natural" economy, we have been paid in full, in advance. Our only job now is to replenish the environment as we use it. We must reduce the population of humans and that is another thing that, our present economy wouldn't be able to support. Mass murder isn't necessary. One child per family would cause the population to shrink quicky. This is another thing that the present economic model could not endure. We have to stop treating our environment like an expense, because in reality it is our only source of sustenance. Sustenance is our real Profit. Sustenance is our nature given paycheck, so let's stop burning our paycheck.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 Experience has shown that if we don't stop extracting carbon now we never will. Only necessity will coerce us to change our ways.It has to be priority One because the hour is late.
@@stephenhall11 Switching technologies is exactly the same wrong behavior that we have been doing for hundreds of years, and it never leads to less damage to the environment. Here's something they don't teach you in economics class. Profit = Extremism; in other words, "Profit = income - expenses" causes the selfish business world to over do everything. They will take the best ideas, including your idea, and turn it into our worst nightmare. Did you read my comment? Let's talk about the TOTAL global bankruptcy that your idea will cause. I understand your concern, but In this present economic model your idea really can't work. In the new global economy I wrote about, your idea makes sense to some degree but in this present economy your idea would kill most of us, and please don't even suggest that that's a good idea. I have critiqued your idea. Please read my idea and critique it. Tell me what you like and or don't like about what I wrote. Thanks in advance. Your input about my idea would be very much appreciated.
Adding some factors worth recognizing as media omissions of pertinent geophysics: To clue people in, the entire jetstream circulation has changed from oceans too warm to allow Siberian cold to cross the N.Pacific turns it north with heat & moisture near BeringStrait a low point in topography to cool and go to low latitudes ONLY over LAND to balance equatorial overheating. So, record cold winters will repeat until the ice is gone in 60yrs or less, check. Then in summer it's reversed, LAND heats quickly, oceans don't so big high-pressure domes will get hotter and last longer, check. For spice where the polar cold meets warm-moist tropical air we get floating-car sheet_runoff flooding globally, check. At 500ppm CO2eqv +3ppm/yr =750ppm by 2100 2m/6.7ft more sealevel rising at 30.5cm/1ft per decade for several centuries, check. One cannot remove CO2 below Mt.Everest air mixes too fast, and when emissions finally end, oceans outgas their excess CO2 to keep levels above 400ppm for >>120,000yrs: CO2 + CO3₌ + H2O ⇄ 2 HCO3- Our extinction 3.5ky-5ky away with BAU, unstoppably like any glacier on Earth ending below a rising sealevel cannot be stopped from quickly melting from below by warm oceans and altered jetstreams, check. Oh, we're so arrogant, the hairless apes aren't wise, check.
@timengledow904 The big deal is we've lowered oceanic pH this raised freezeup temps above saltwater's [-2C/28.4F/35‰/8.2pH] so we can't refreeze seabed methane vents nor have multiyear seaice for both poles. TheFix to grind base/alkaline rocks_to_flour into seas at rivermouths globally raises pH zooplankton growth binds CO2 into shells at_scale on a 71% water planet, nothing else affects this, shading the sun can't refeeeze seabed methane vents, dumb idea. Hth
Yeah, and what is worse is that people that deny the existence of Climate Change use the change of the polar vortex circulation and the Arctic air masses coming into continental areas as a proof of the non-existence of climate change, eventhough it is the precise consequence of it. Simple minds can only understand simple ideas, unfortunately the natural environment is so finely intertwined with itself that there are no simple mechanisms that explain how it works.
31:23 cant believe William kept us hanging and didn't say how many people were supported by the great plains that used to sustain 40-60million bison lol
Our consumption drives ecological overshoot. We all reduce our carbon and ecological footprint by adopting following simple solutions. * Eat less meat. * Cook & Eat local unprocessed food. *Ride E bikes. *Travel local places. *Fly less. *Don't be addicted to frequent shopping.
We won't be able to break out of our shared illusion until it's too late. We already know how the monkey behaves. There's no such thing as pro-activism. Just like the talk said, we look at the world through our conceptual lenses. Well, let's not. Look at the world how it really is and know that nothing on Willy's last slide is going to happen consciously. Or in time. Instead... remember: as the world as it really is... the boundary of who is doing okay (the rich) will shrink and shrink in perfect tandem with the ever-increasing concentration of wealth (a one-way dynamic process) until the poor say enough. We won't fix anything, because it's too broken. It barely worked even when it was working. And it will be an ugly mess. Money will be worth its proper amount: nothing. Bitcoin will cease because computers will cease. And people will be left to simply help each other out as best as they can (the ones that choose to cooperate, that is) will defend against the ones that choose not to cooperate, but to take. All while the planet gets hotter. And hotter. And hotter. The weather becoming more extreme. Sure, there'll be pockets of brilliance, but the ending will be the same: A 21st Century Endarkenment. A.I. won't be created to save us. The rich won't have "escaped" to Mars. Aliens won't have come to save us. Or Jesus. Or whomever you believe in. We'll simply die out. All of us. It's called extinction. It's the Mother Nature's way of rejecting us. Can you really blame her? We never got our shit together in time, and by that I mean, we never truly united as one species. We got too caught up in and corrupted by our bullshit shared illusion. What a waste...
👍🏻Well done! Thank you! Reminds me of "Bright Green Lies". We have an over-consumption problem that is causing climate change, among other things. That's what we need to fix.
@@daviddorrell8692 I am only a humble reader of Jean Adhémar, John Imbrie, James Croll, Milutin Milankovitch, I know the climat is a chaotic system. These 5 subjects above can take years to read, to discover it is only the beginning, you should add tectonics ... as for volcanic activity look what they have done in India for instance and surely they will come back. Have a nice evening!
@@jamesgrover2005 It depends when ... look at volcanic activity in geological time scale. Milankovitch cycles, Solar cycles, Ice ages and interglacial periods are the main factors.
Makes some good points, but can't get behind the fatalism and determinism of some of his argument. The only logical place that leads is nihilism. It is self defeating.
Besides being way too late (we were warned of the effects of carbon release into the atmosphere, well over a hundred years ago) all we ever do is squabble about it and do nothing. Its hard to expect much more from most people, there's very little difference between our Hunter/Gatherer Ancestors and us (well we do have Tactical Nukes, they used any object they could lay hands on to go down the road and bash them about the head and shoulders...). Their planning abilities and recognition of consequences usually went as far as "whats for dinner tomorrow", we haven't changed much.
So far the result of co2 emissions thru the use of fossil fuels has been a massive decrease in poverty and hunger, and in the industrialised west a recovery of natural habitat that was degraded because our only choice was to use renewables at a rate that was not sustainable (I.e. the forests). Our water and air are now cleaner, and the increase in co2 has resulted in a very significant greening of the planet and shrinking of some deserts and a very important increase in crop yields that has been critical in reducing global hunger. life expectancy is way up, child mortality way done, we now have time for much more than just subsidence farming to survive. Climate related deaths are down 95% over the last 100 years.
@@davidsimpson7373 When you are born and live during a phase of expansion that's all you know. Unfortunately there are limits to growth and collapse in inevitable.
@@luciusblackwood2640 humans are not on a trajectory of unlimited growth. The entire industrialized world, China, Russia and numerous other countries already have a birth rate below replace (2.1 children per couple). Population is expected to peak in the next 30 to 50 years somewhere around 9 to 10B. And then the decline in numbers will be very rapid and the biggest social, environmental and economic challenge will be a declining population.
The film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" provides the perfect metaphor. Mankind lived a sustainable lifestyle until technology (the bottle) become available. I am old enough to remember when we thought nuclear weapons would be the technology to end life as we know it, but the use of fossil fuels combined with animal agriculture will eventually produce that result.
I am with you right up until the point where you bring it all down to an issue of population. When 5% of the world is using 25% of the resources, that does not really give us the factual data we need to truly know the carrying capacity of our planet, if everyone lived in circular economies and were supplied with regenerative agriculture, and if the unnecessary manufacturing of...say... Single use plastic Happy meal toys... was dropped and stopped.
Decreasing plant DIF happening now in NWGA Okra harvest halted 2021 after only 2-4 nights warmer or as warm as the days Earthworms gone after 5 year decline…locally No pesticides or herbicides -old horticulturist
“Since the dawn of times, monetary systems have been shaping the flows of human activity in every realm of endeavor; food production, education, health, business etc., by determining how we value, apply and exchange our creativity, and the fruits of our labor. It is for this reason the most influential of all human-made systems.” -Bernhard Lietaer Search psychological consequences of money and read.
In the stone age, hunt gather.. gather metals cristals gems stones too, not just berries. PEOPLE DIDNT KNOW BETTER, now most people is not that we dont know boat loads more on what is injust and polluting, but people psicologicaly are beeing socialy engineered, like indudtry does to a car, NOT TO REACT to continue consuming, complacive, distracted, divided, etc in excess, therefor to continue to fill some limited peoples pockets, not longer gatherers, but hoarders
Perfect summation of our current, collective predicament. Which of the two final choices for the future of mankind do you think will be taken by 'world leaders'....? (Rhetorical irony).....
Great presentation, thanks Professor Rees. In future, would the Institute invite Timothée Parrique to explain his ‘Degrowth’ thesis and Prof Steve Keen to demonstrate his dynamic model ‘Minsky’ which refutes neoclassical models of the economy?
Almost the end of 2023 and emissions have not in fact dropped at all. Now need close to 12% reduction annually to reach that 2030 target. Not holding my breath.
At 39:20 "Decisive action to reduce emissions (i.e.., reduce FF use) in the absence of substitutes would result in energy shortages, job losses, economic disruption, etc." This is already happening in Europe. The energy costs are sky high with no sign of going down. Sweden tries to cut down on fossiel fuels adding more etanol to diesel and gasoline which results in higher prices per liter. France declared that it will modernize and build new nuclear powerplants wheres Germany will shut down the remaining ones by 2030. EU declared natural gas and nuclear energy as sustainable! Sustainable! We are kicking the can down the street as there is no quick fix or any fix to the mess we have created.
Reducing food waste, red meat, processed food and pleasure flights are the simple actions all of us can take right now to reduce global warming and mass extinctions. It's easy to blame the politicians, while the source of the problem is our gluttony and greed.
Is there a tipping point for consumption reduction; that is, if enough people reduced their personal carbon footprint and consumptive habits by 20%, will society's behavior respond in favorable ways? If a large enough group went vegan, bought primarily in season, local produce, stopped buying plastic crap at Walmart, stopped all unnecessary travel, reduced the temperature in the home to 16 degrees C (60 degrees F) during winter, etc., will public pressure change government/ economic policies?
52K of views after one year while the funny cat video had 2.2 million, yet, you are the only one who pointed out that a continuation of of our way of life by just switching to a clean energy is not possible. Bernie Sanders wants you to believe a that solar panels will replace oil. I do live sustainably and living of solar is very limiting. You are the first one I've listened too to put the finger on the real problem. 52k views, sad.
Considering two simple realities gives me some comfort : 1) "Life" on Earth is a reality. We know it because we have lived it; and 2) The incredible expanse of the Cosmos and the statistical probabilities that there might be other more successful "experiments" than humanity out there. I wish them all well. And I bid adieu to the rest of us.
This is a very well thought out presentation that declares uncomfortable truths that have been ignored by the climate change field. In particular the effects of overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental impacts, the low energy density of renewables and the inability of human society to respond to these threats proactively. I don't see humanity pulling it out in the 9th inning. Buckle up for rough air ahead.
But when is the ninth inning ? We may have a chance if we can , so to speak , buy time . Certainly we can’t effect our survival in just a matter of decades . Even the year 2100 does not offer enough time to find or invent, if you will , the various solutions to the various problems . The first step we must take to survive is to effect a way to get out of the HEAT . The immediate problem is just that , the HEAT . Now , contrary to part of what Mister Rees believed we MUST Geo-engineer our way out of the increasing Solar forcing . We may be able to make a reflective umbrella in the stratosphere . Sulfate particles jetted out there can keep the temperature on the surface of the planet from rising to cause an unlivable “Hot House Earth “ environment . The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 put sulfate particles in the atmosphere bringing the global temperature down by one degree Fahrenheit for a couple of years . The idea here is to , basically, ape a volcanic eruption by spreading whatever amount of sulfate particles that would be necessary to keep the global temperature from warming beyond human endurance ….. for whatever necessary amount of time until we accomplish two other processes . First here we must innovate a way to take the amounts of CO2 already emitted at scale in order to reflect very small amounts of the sun’s heat so we might continue to survive . That is step two . Step three is to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere at all . I believe that we , the human race can effect these very necessary processes if given enough time . Mister Rees does not agree with this but he offers as an alternative the immediate reduction of human consumption planet wide , relying on this as the only alternative to the warming of the planet . I am also for this type of plan to help extinguish the emissions of Greenhouse Gases. But I believe that this cannot be done at all quickly and this solution if approached quickly will fail to materialize . With time and many campaigns to condition the world population to drastically reduced consumption this approach may be promising . But I must caution that everything mentioned here will take a lot of time . Solar geo-engineering can buy the necessary time to find a way out of what could be a truly fatal impasse . I do thank Mister Rees for a brilliant description of this greatest of all problems facing humanity . But while he illuminated the insufficient capacity of solar and wind power to effectively take the place of fossil fuel energy generation he did not mention the very energy dense Carbon Free Nuclear Power which may be necessary and sufficient to substitute for fossil fuels when used in conjunction with the application of renewables . Also and most importantly Mister Rees’ solution just to wean the global population away from consumption is a good idea but an idea which won’t work in the short term but may well help mightily when combined with the aforementioned energy solutions . Human survival is tentative under the conditions which prevail but I do believe that the steps I have outlined do give us a chance .
I don’t really believe that it the inability of humans to understand the exponential function. There are quite a few who do and, even if everyone had a complete understanding of it, it wouldn’t make one iota of different In people’s behavior vis a vis our exploitation of the earth
In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs demonstrated the viability of drawing heat energy directly from magma pockets in the earth's crust. They estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads of magma energy just from the US alone. Current world energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Worldwide, the magma energy resource is effectively limitless. Heat energy is easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel; such that it can meet, and massively exceed world energy demand indefinitely. Yet this virtually limitless resource has not been exploited. Had it been exploited, there would be abundant clean energy to meet domestic and industrial energy demand carbon free, plus recycle all waste, extract carbon from the air, and crucially, desalinate sea water to irrigate currently uninhabitable land, and unproductive wastelands for agriculture and habitation. When we ask ourselves why this technology has not been applied - it's fairly easy to understand why right wing climate change deniers with political and economic interests in fossil fuels did not promote magma energy. It conflicts with their political and economic good - an altar upon which they are apparently willing to sacrifice the human species! The real puzzle is why the environmental left - like this chap here, have not demanded the application of magma energy technology. His apparent ignorance of magma energy is frankly inexcusable. One can only surmise the left are environmentalists only insofar as they would gleefully sacrifice the economic good of the right on the altar of sustainability - but cannot acknowledge that limitless clean energy from magma would transcend limits to growth. Consequently, the green left have exactly the same underlying interests as the right - their own political and economic good, an altar upon which they would willingly sacrifice the human species! 53:20 This is what makes his ignorance inexcusable; 'To act consistently with our best science may well require a planned economic and population contraction.' What this means in practice is an anti-capitalist green government, animated by the false notion that human economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fundamentally incompatible, murdering billions of people to 'save the world.' This is so horrifying a prospect; every bit as horrific as letting climate change run its course, it is incumbent upon him to be exhaustive in his efforts to avoid this conclusion - and so be aware of Nasa/Sandia Labs research: Status of the Magma Energy Project Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.) Abstract The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described. Publication: Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Then you need to watch the earth-day presentations of Nate Hagens, start with 2017 and go from there. There is one for each year. They're long, illuminating and I was able to communicate our predicament much better.
Home electricity and electric cars is perhaps a quarter of emissions. How will you get the food to stores? Ev trucks to transport food and goods? How will you EV large mining excavators and mining trucks to get all these raw materials to make the solar panels and batteries.? Batteries are needed at large scale for solar, wind and all other energy storage. The runaway heating is already past a certain tipping point for our foods soil biome to sustain billions of people.
Excellent. I like the concise format and clarity of your exposé. I can't say that all is said but the main line in there. We have to start now using our cerebrus and act.
Clear and well articulated presentation. Prof. Rees is clearly smart and thoughtful person. Unfortunately he ventures carelessly, even arrogantly, into fields he's not an expert of. In addition, he seems to be blinded by a conceptual lens of his own which predisposes him to a set of unquestioned ideological and/or idiosyncratic assumptions. Ultimately that leads him to demonstrably wrong assumptions and conclusions on so many things I cannot list all of them. 1. True, we have conceptual lenses, but we are also fully capable of changing, modifying and, if necessary, abandoning those lenses. Only those who are the most ideologically / religiously / tribally 'possessed' rarely, if ever, do so. 2. There is no such thing as natural resource. Resources are created by humans, not by nature. Because of that, it is totally wrong to say we will consume all available resources. We don't. 3. Almost every economic "truth" in this presentation is wrong one way or the other. 4. Technological / societal change is hardly every linear but follows in most cases so called S-curve. Assuming linear change (or rather, the purported lack of change) is therefore a mistake and have no predictive value what so ever. 5. And so on and so on and so on. I think most scientist who are not possessed by an ideology would say it is still very much an open question whether we will be able to prevent warming above 2.0 C. Although I think the Club of Rome has done good job in raising awareness of environmental issues, they are plagued by their ideological predispositions and because of that, their predictions have failed miserably time and time again. For the same reason, I'd be surprised if predictions / claims prof. Reese made in his presentation will turn out to correct, or even in the correct ball park.
Here's an idea. If you think you can encapsulate Professor Rees's 1 hour presentation with more accuracy & clarity, please be our guest and do that. Anyone can vandalize another's work. If you can do better, please make your 1 hour rebuttal and post it on RUclips for public scrutiny and commentary.
@@karenhertz3258 The case Rees is making rests largely on his claim that we, as humankind, won't change. Primarily, according to Rees, because of the fixed, unchangeable conceptual lenses we wear. Now, by requesting more information, you already made quite clear that you don't buy into his fixed conceptual lens argument any more than I do. If your mind is already closed in from hearing any arguments and taking in more information, such a request (or was it a demand?) makes no sense at all. So, your request is in itself a counterargument to Rees and basically undermines his case. I think that is, if not a rebuttal, at least a hint that one should apply critical thinking and not take everything Rees says as a scientific fact. In reality, the 'enigma' Rees set out to explain is obviously much much more complex than his simplistic viewpoint suggests. If you truly want to understand the current situation better (instead of imposing a preconceived explanation on it), you need to get familiar with cognitive science, economics, and many other fields. From Rees's presentation, it is clear that he has not done that. Or if he has, he has ignored (or cherry-picked) the vast amount of information and insights these fields can bring into the topic. Finally, when it comes to vandalizing, well, if you see my comment that way, there is not much I can do about it. I should say, however, that in my opinion ignoring and/or misrepresenting work done in other fields of academic endeavors, such as cognitive science and economics, as Rees does, is much more damaging and reminiscent of vandalism.
To bad nobody can debate with nature and its destruction.... but only the humanoids pilosophicaly pick each other apart, and selt aside nature, as if the orator does not belond to the natural world only stall in a debate x ideological supremacy offering no change... One day nature will add the last humanoid to its museum. And recount story of its "top wealth leaders and their bought armies" Failure to harmonize.with it. and again too bad to all that wanted change and the nots.
@ Esa Koivuniemi. Difficult to answer here with some hundret of letters only.. 1. Your right.. thats true 2. "There is no such thing as natural resource. " Nature doesnt care if resources are created by men ore if they are natural. - Well natural ressources as fresh water, air, biological sources as food. are for sure natural resources.. they are not invented ore created by men. in some cases they are changed ... so i wouldnt eat uncooced food in some cases. Yes. But what you as i think are referring to is that in the looming situation of a special ressource scarcity, humans "Invent" an alternaive ressource. And thats only true so far. Because how ever you try, the sources are limited at last by the amount of energy available for the ressource to extract it. Now you might think that human ingenuity will provide energy as much as needed if we only let our genius work on this.. But thats nothing but a meme, concentrated in our civilisation in the last 200 Years, when we saw the litterly explosion and expansion of everything.. and as rees says... we take this as " the Norm".. But it isnt. and its easyly to demonstrate why, if you dig deeper in energy knowledge. So you might read the vlog of this great guy.. dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/ and more here.. dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/.. 3. "Almost every economic "truth" in this presentation is wrong one way or the other." Which ones specialy? What do you mean.. Isnt it clear that the economical models used in Economics are in many cases so very far away from reality, they are mostly wrong? the whole economy is a subset of the environement and not the other way round.. humans doesnt beheave in many ways the way older economic models told us. So get mor specificaly . 4." Technological / societal change is hardly every linear but follows in most cases so called S-curve. " - well sure.. the whole system is a nonlinear adaptiv komplex system.. with tippingpoints and stable plateaus. Which means also technological breakthroughts can happen fast and scale up fast and explosive. But the limiting factors are still physical Laws of nature, which we cant overcome what ever we do. So the Question is, how far can we stretch the system without breaking throug big tippingpoints that undermine our very system. And the most limiting Factor - again is available Energy. Which in so many cases doesnt get understood from economic Scientists well if at all. What we need to sustain our High energy intense world are concentraded gigantic energy sources that not only are big, but more importend deliver a high enough Energy return on investment.. As fossil fules did for 200 Years. if the EROEI Drops below a certain level and without a high Quality EROEI Alternative .. Society will collaps as have done dozens of other Societys befor us. So you might read the book "Collapse of complex Societys by Joseph Tainter.. At least excuse my poor english... German would be easier for me.. But it stays there... rees is one of the best thinkers about our current situation. at time..
Thanks main message is it is complicated, mixed with politics. Yet we understand transgenderism. Missing false/fallacy targets is maybe not a bad issue.
I love how google needs to provide the context and skew us into corectthink before we can have a conclusion or idea. Thank you big brothers, much appreciated
Many of the arguments remind me of Jean-Marc Jancovici (gdp = GWatt), but a more meta format (~right side brain view in Iain McGilchrist his telling). Thanks for the syntethesis.
I think that Jean-Marc might have used the work of William E. Rees for his own presentations ans lectures, or at least has read his work to the extent that he synthesised it in his own way
Very informative and insightful. Thank you for your recommendations. I would include looking to indigenous people in their own region for solutions, for example in the Amazon.
I WOULD like to request a copy of your slides! Especially the ones at the end of your articulate talk, regarding our current choices. I'm a member of two groups with whom I'd like to share them: Portland Threshold Singers and the Red Hat Ladies club called "Don't Give a Damsels". Thank you very much.
Amazingly clear! But so sad to see that with all our natural and cultural skills and advantages we look unable to do better than any bacteria in a Petri dish 😢
World isn't ready for such advanced views - to have economy tied to biosphere where we can predict what it will do to biosphere? Nope. Maybe second evolution if there can be one, will stumble upon this idea way too early in their development.
@@ejws1575 TBH I had to look up Malthsianism. Though its not what I was referring to. It maybe part of it but I wouldn't know. I dont know anyone who knows either. So it's not cutting edge but certainly not known :) My point was just what I said - economy not only should be somehow integrated with growth but also ensure that growth is good for long run\sustainable. I have not come across that idea.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Came for climate info...left with a new outlook on the philosophy of human nature ..why I behave as i do
When I was 12 I was very concerned with that topic, but it didn't seem to bother any other grown-ups so I let it go. Happy to see everything is fixed now.
Yes!!!
I’ve been going on about it since I was 15, and was either dismissed as unrealistic or just laughed at. I wonder wha percentage of people have had these concerns but at then shot down
When I was 11 the reality made me ill. It is still hard to live. My body healed anyway.
Same here, give or take a year or so, after I read The Limits to Growth. I was born in 1967. What year were you born? I'm wondering if we can collect someone who can say the same for each year since the book was published...
Depends on how you define the term “ *fixed* ” …
While attending CU in mathematics, Al Bartlett was a despised physics professor but he was right to ridicule a growth culture that works "until you think." There were 2.5 billion humans when I was born in 1950 and there are 8 billion now but the energy/resource expectations of the current humans are 10x greater. If you plot human population x per capita energy demand, the exponential chart is steep indeed. I spent a lot of time in the public sector where you learn quickly to never, ever, under any circumstance, in any company suggest that our pack of lemmings was about to find the cliff.
yes, I commenced university in 2005 and uncovered all the inconvenient truths and became a pariah
Who was Al Bartlett despised by?
Population is NOT the problem-- capitalism is the problem.
@@shadetreader It's worse than just capitalism. Communism is also the problem. Patriarchy of plow-based farming is the problem - humans have been around for over 100,000 years in our modern biological form as a species - well before plow-based agriculture developed.
@@shadetreader Capitalism is an inevitable product of overpopulation. Stress R Us
Wow. This is one of the very best presentations I've ever come across on RUclips. Much appreciation that this was made available.
Every instant as hard hitting as the last in this expansive talk! There is so much need for this level of reality-facing.
Let's face it, BC's climat is not bad at all, no need to regulate it, in fact it is one of the best climat zones of America.
@@marcwinkler Learn to spell before you comment in the future , please .
@@steverandall3255 Some people don't have English as a first language, so please be patient and focus on the content of the statement
@@marcwinkler I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying people don't see the need to make a change locally? When the world climate and food supply for 8 billion people changes, it is not likely that life in any one area of the plant will continue as usual - we are all in this together.
Rees is an absolute genius.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Absolutely 💯
Agreed
Truly.
He's close but not quite there yet. I sent him an email to help him out.
Yes I agree this is one of the best explanation, the most direct, clear presentation of facts, deductions and conclusions. It is really what many have been thiniking of but could have never put it so well together. Absolutely brilliant.
Excellent presentation. I learned so much more about what I already feel about what is happening in our world today. Thank you for the extreme detail of this talk.
So, the reason is not that the oil industry and the banks that finance the oil-industry have bought off the US legistlators, media and court system. And, that USA uses it's hegemonic power to protect the interests of the oil industry globally. But, rather the problem is "human nature".
Yeah but she’s learned even more about what she FEELS hahaha
‘Feels already’ sorry hahaha Jesus wept
@@herratossavainen9669 Your comment makes it very clear you did NOT listen to Professor Rees's talk or you failed to understand the vocabulary in his presentation. He did an amazing job of distilling an enormous amount of factual information with as few & simplest words possible to make this huge issue as clear as possible to people with average I.Q. But you chose to make a faulty judgment by simply reading the title of the talk. Please take an hour to simply LISTEN to his message. You can stop and digest the information on each slide before you proceed to the next slide. Professor Rees has gone to great lengths to make this factual info accessible to the "average Joe". Please show courtesy by listening to & contemplating the entire lecture before making a snide comment. By the way, 2 facts can be true at the same time. Your comment implies otherwise.
@@herratossavainen9669 It's both, of course.
One of the best and most clear set reasons as to why Climate Change will be addressed only after many more climate, pandemic, and food security catastrophes happen. And those of us in the US have a front row seat to the horror show.
Solar presents present and future problems also. All your eggs in one basket is not feasible to a solution.
Imagine being on the Titanic, and the bridge is empty. Yell and scream. Do whatever you want. The ship has already contacted the iceberg.
When the aliens discover our extinct species they will be amazed at the detailed manner in which we documented our demise .
Not going to happen.
@@shawnlinnehan7349 Which part?
Yep, I worked for a number of years as a botanist, studying the distributions of rare plants. When I was asked what I did for a living, I said I documented the end of the world
🤣😂🤣 Perfact 👍
Functionally extinct. Waiting to go off
If you even hint towards population control in today's online discourse you will be instantly labeled as an eco-fascist.
Excellent video presentation! Telling the truth of the matter, the predicament we are ALL in, plain and simple. Thank you for putting this video on RUclips.
Everyone alive should view this--ASAP. Extremely important. Sincerely, Dr. f. braio, Bronx, New York
Brilliant needs wide distribution
Most people I know are well aware of the climate/ecological emergency in an intellectual sense - BUT don't connect it in any way with their own lifestyle or choices.
Most of them are desperate to get back to flying holidays and driving everywhere. Mention climate, and they get fidgety and seem strangely keen to change the subject. If we can't change that selfish, short-term mindset, our kids will have a miserable future.
I have to live with knowing my younger siblings face a swift path to hell on Earth it's hard not to despise the whole lot, their pathetic reticence and myopia.
30:56 "[American bison] are simply no more." There were 360,000 American bison in the year 2000.
From US Fish and Wildlife-"Currently, there are approximately 20,500 Plains bison in conservation herds and an additional 420,000 in commercial herds. While bison are no longer threatened with extinction, the species faces other challenges.The loss of genetic diversity, combined with the loss of natural selection forces, threatens the ecological restoration of bison as wildlife. A low level of cattle gene introgression is prevalent in most, if not all, bison herds".
So they're not in the clear yet.....barely 5% of what they were 200 years ago...
Prof Rees what you say is very much as I learned it back in the early 70's as a teenage boy. I admire the way that you have been able to keep your cool and not been sucked into the alarmism and hyperbole of recent years and been able to distance yourself from the simple solutions to complex problems. In a post truth society, it can be exhausting to strip away the flannel and ignore the emotional buttons that are being perpetually pressed. It was refreshing to hear someone else who realises that so many green herrings are there to support supposedly green industries. Having said this, I think technology has advanced so far now that we may be at an era when we can support existing world population and solve the major environmental problems i.e. we can shrink the human footprint and continue to consume at a sustainable level. If anyone wishes to know more about this, or would like to help with developments, I will be pleased to hear from you.
As I viewed this great presentation on August 13th, 2022, I see that there are only 39,434 views. I contrast that with kitty RUclips videos that will attract millions of views. William Rees is quite correct in his assessment that most homo sapiens are not capable of comprehending that the current temporal and spatial exponential growth of homo sapiens is quite an anomaly from the past 10,000 years. I do see the economy crashing in the decades to come due primarily to the staggering amounts of collective debt.
True. An honest and sober consideration of human nature strongly suggests certain negative conclusions. But negativity is not healthy, so don’t go there. Let’s just all go back to our kitten videos before it is too late.
The wonderful thing about Bill's work is how very right he is about how our lives are out of control. Being right is only 5% of decision-making, though. First, you need to survey the context for what's missing, material observations other than being right. Hopefully, early on, you'll notice that the job of economies is to build and maintain lasting physical and societal structures. There are absolute right and wrong ways of building systems, and our whole movement's failure to look at what we're building. The justified emotional and social meanings need to work side by side with the basic requirements for building systems that last, ............LEARNING A BIT ABOUT HOW SYSTEMS NATURALLY BUILD AND SECURE THEMSELVES THEIR FUTURES WOULD HELP.
Humankind's behavior is perfectly comprehensible once you recognize that human don't have free will.
I could NOT AGREE MORE. Fought for renewable energies (I know, first step only) for 30 years, never drove a car, live in a passivehouse. I did no fly much but compensated all flights since 1990, will not fly anymore. My last fligt had been within EU in 2012. Trolls, save your time, I will not even read replys.
Of course not: you're too busy polishing your halo!😇
@@gedofgont1006 Spot on. He's probably walking on water on daily basis too, but just forgot to brag about it. 😂
I probably drive 50 miles a day. I love driving. Never going to stop. Oil is a renewable substance. It was not created by dead dinosaurs. That's ridiculous insanity. It is created by water under high pressure in the Earth. It is a HYDROcarbon. You have been lied to and lived your life for a lie.
@@esakoivuniemi Yeah!🤣🤣👍
Excellent summary. Humans are not rational, we are just good at rationalising our irrationality, caught as we are in the jaws of the dichotomy between our need to cooperate to survive and our competitive breeding strategies.
Humans are so greedy they are destroying the very atmosphere which sustains them . The Elites only goal in life is profits and the luxury of witch they celebrate their own lives . The common people allow the Elites to control the human race offers of the luxuries which affords the Elites their wealth.
Religion &capitalism killed us my pren. Clerics preach about the prophesied apocalypse yet the Vatican had practically created the precursor , the proximate cause , for its fruition.
Russia’s war has been sanctified. So, too, Ukraine. .. Clerics so eager to see the face of “God”.
Please see the Papal Bull of 1430.
“H. sapiens is not primarily a rational species “.
This is the key aspect in my opinion. Nor is there any other rational species.
Like all species, we’re not rationally designed, not designed at all, actually. We’re an evolved species, like all other forms of life.
Thus, we’re evolved firstly for personal survival, secondly for species survival.
Yes, our behaviors that lend to personal survival can be seen as rational in a limited sense, but not in the platonic or mathematical sense.
Putting it another way, our limited evolved rationality is inadequate in a long term planetary ecological sense.
Unless humans can collectively rise to a new level of rationality, and of that I’m not optimistic, we will eventually use up, expend, all available planetary resources.
I've often thought that the only way humanity could conceivably save itself from extinction is by using technology to "reprogram" our brains to stop our animal impulse to consume everything in sight. Essentially, accelerating our "evolution."
The very idea absolutely horrifies me as someone who hates technology.
But the end of oil and other fossil fuels will do it for us. Not before we destroy most everything, sadly.
It is very sad to realize that, in spite of our human capacity to understand the present moment as evidenced by this thorough, well-thought-out, scientific analysis, our human proclivities are driving us in a culturally-ignorant and self-destructive direction. The undeniable conclusion is the we humans really are not worthy of this Earth/miracle.
He is right in one aspect only - We are storytellers, and we make it up as we go along. To pretend that we understand chaotic systems such as climate, economics, evolution and the biosphere is simply going along with the current narrative, and will change over time, as novel concepts are developed. Anyone with a deep understanding of their field of study knows that there is no aspect of human knowledge that will remain unchanged, as paradigms change. We do not understand mass and matter, origins of life and the universe, or what follows the end of human evolution on this planet, and those who believe that there is a man-made solution to human problems are worshipping a religion as baseless as any other religion that man has ever devised before.
Clever clogs.
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN ???
@@bencobley4929 ???
Yes, and he is quite a storyteller with what appears to be a little self-awareness.
"Upon the wall (earth) where angle meets side
Lies a race in which my species-- the Human Being
Has dominated Life, to gorge himself.
So, what of species outside of me
Do they not have a right to live?
To Ask. To Answer.
Until you recognize the Wall as your Home
You will never Know Life."
I'm proud to have William Rees as one of my fellow Canadians (along with Patrick Suzuki). Makes up to, some extent, for the rank stupidity and short-sightedness of our political class.
Well, at least you have 2 intelligent people on the right side of the planet. Not sure we in the US have as many that are that intelligent.
Only nuclear can replace carbon and maintain civilization as we know it.
Patrick?
@@oliviachipperfield6029 He means David Suzuki.
The only enigma is why we would expect action. Profit is the only factor involved.
Absolutely eye-opening, succinct and clear. The best explanation of our current catastrophic trajectory, and thoughtful but realistic conclusions for a path out of it. This talk needs to become common knowledge immediately and shape the discourse and actions moving forward.
We need to synthesize the primitive lifestyle of the ancient people who lived in adaptation to natural together with a scaled down version of modern high tech. There is much that can be gained by concentrating on conservation of energy and resources.
Very little has changed in the iteration and reiteration of the problem since I studied environmental and ecological economics in the mid-nineties. Most of this talk could have been extracted from the course material of that time. The real problem is that we, the mass, just do not give power to political types who would genuinely pursue socio-economic transformation.
That's just creepy. Push all carbon tax to go to research all 400 billion or something annually instead of environmental hazard solar panels then when something better than fossel fuels discovered economics will do the rest. No political tyranny required.
@@nikitaw1982 : political regimes that are democratically elected are not tyrannies. That's precisely why we cannot blame the current political class for its failure to halt ecological deterioration and human accelerated climate change.
We are responsible because we choose to keep putting it in power.
Nuclear is all we have right now.
The dominant social structure is not capitalism (free market system). The US only represents 350M out of around 6B people. The dominant social structure is and has always been feudalism (dictators, Kings,etc.). And the capitalism you are referring to has only been around for about 100 years… a small drop in a very large bucket of water. The elephant in the room that no one talks about is the spike in human population and food production for this vast population and the waste products of this vast population. That population spike was caused by technology (food production increase and medicines, and aid from developed countries to underdeveloped countries). Overpopulation and it’s resulting natural resource depletion and waste products are shutting down planet earth. Windmills and solar panels and eating insects will not and can not fix this catastrophe. But it wasn’t capitalism…. It was technology….humans always want more.
@@imnotanalien7839 It is ECONOMY itself, the idea of ever growing economy (which is impossible - is what this video says), just because thanks to that some people can get rich, is the main reason. We need to change to resource based economy. In resource based economy question is "do we have resources to do A" not as is now "How much costs to do A", because not only "how much costs A" is a wrong question when it comes to important issues like climate change IS, but is a question that can be influenced, it is not hard to make sure that within the system the cost is gonna be always unreachable. "Do we have resources for A or can we get resources for A" is purely a FACT based question, either we do or we don't, either we can or can't.
The club of Rome.It's a big club and you ain't in it.“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome The First Global Revolution.
More specificaly , and taking special attention to missguided, deceived "state-industrial based education" to large portions of all globalized peoples, takin hold on top positions and trikle down the missgidance to te new generations, instead of implementing change.
Well done on highlighting the Clubs intentions. Maurice Strong is the chief anti humanist and Club member.
As a citizen of former socialist country I get a warning light when I hear socially just".
Yeah justice sure is scarier than self-extinction
An example of a socially just approach that is free-market based (pricing carbon honestly) is explained by Dr. James Hansen in his white paper Why Fee and Dividend Will Reduce Emissions Faster. A policy that drives innovation; that does not punish the victims (is just). csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Fee-and-Dividend-Miller-Hansen-20191110-1.pdf
The most important 60 minutes of video that you will ever see.
What you have not looked at is that in the first world countries population growth has reduced to less than the replacement of population.
Most enjoyable review of human behavior I've seen. Wish it could be force fed to the masses.
Might as well admit it... barring a miracle, we are well and truly shafted....but didn't we have it good while it lasted guys?
Overshoot is confusing. Better word is Overuse.
Great presentation, but absolutely gobsmacking that you barely touched on the enormous problems of animal agriculture, which is next to fossil fuel use THE NUMBER ONE DRIVER of environmental & climate breakdown.
Population is #1
@@fredguntern.e.4185 Production- Consumption - Reproduction .... The holy Trinity. This narcissistic species will not willingly decrease any or either.
Oh well, Evolution wins!
Didn't you see the slide showing 1/3 of Earth's present biomass consists of domesticated cows?
He is stating what we have known for many years. He is just saying what many have been thinking. At least, now, someone is saying it.
I do not know this man but he is now my adopted Grandfather because I never knew my biological Grandfathers. He's got everything figured out but the people who should know what he knows are intellectually deaf. Thanks Grandpa!
Very, very inciteful!!! Your PhD EDUCATION IS VERY WELL DESERVED!!! 100% in agreement! Despite being a "boomer-doomer", I am trying to point and lead by example out of the coming chaos and apocalypses. I joined the US bases Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) in early 2020. I lobbied in DC in 2020 and 2021.
This is such an amazing and clear explanation!!! THANKS!
One of the best commentaries I have seen. Wraps Arthur Keller and Guy McPherson and Herman Daley with added scientific support and understanding👍👍.
This civilization is in deep trouble. I suspect the planet with evolve us into extinction😔
Oh maybe we'll survive, but in much smaller numbers on land inside the Arctic circle, according to James Lovelock. He thinks we will learn how to better treat Gaia, and long into the distant future the Earth will again become habitable for humans. 🌄
It is nothing less than a giant heartbreak that such a crystal clear lecture will be ignored by the great majority of the population! Cry Cry Cry for the Earth and the human race!
I'm paying attention to Prof Rees! But I still think that it's never too late to try.
Rees's main point, I think, is that we've already used up too much of the energy and mass of the earth. People aren't ignoring him. They are believing
him, and they are left feeling like there is no point in trying to fix a problem that they have no idea how to fix.
My solution is economic. We need a completely new Globel Economic Model that will be able to support a new dictionary definition of profit.
This definition, or one very similar to it, will guarantee that we will give our environment the highest possible respect and protection:
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care, for the Environment and for the sustenance that it provides for all of us".
The main feature of the new Globel Economy will be the "Environmental Protection Force". It will become an enormous organization that will always
need all kinds of employees.
I'm seriously considering researching how to begin organizing these changes. Don't be too pessimistic about people. They're afraid and confused
like a deer in the headlights.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 What we need to do is stop extracting carbon in all of its forms immediately and stop using carbon energy.Period!
@@stephenhall11 Stop extracting carbon sounds great, but not as our first step. Our only first step is to create a new "Global Economic Model"
because the current economic model can't support any such changes without causing massive, horrible consequences. Under our current
economic model which is basically "Profit = income - expenses", your idea would have the following affects.
How shall we deal with:
1.) The massive number of bankruptcies around the entire world not only of industries that take carbon related stuff from the earth, but also
the bankruptcies of all related industries like cars, airplanes, manufacturing in general, plus the thousands of others I haven't mentioned.
2.) Mass starvation of virtually everybody. Why everybody? Because massive starvation of all those people in 'carbon' industries will cause
a massive drop in purchasing of food and clothing so all the companies that have nothing to do with fossil fuel will also go bankrupt.
This is why our only first step is to create an entirely new "Global Economic Model" that will be designed to support an entirely different
dictionary definition of profit. Did you read my comment to you in its entirety?
"Profit = our gratefulness and loving care, for the Environment and for the sustenance that it provides for all of us". Notice I've done away
with two ideas; income, and expenses. In the real "natural" economy, we have been paid in full, in advance. Our only job now is to replenish
the environment as we use it. We must reduce the population of humans and that is another thing that, our present economy wouldn't be
able to support. Mass murder isn't necessary. One child per family would cause the population to shrink quicky. This is another thing
that the present economic model could not endure.
We have to stop treating our environment like an expense, because in reality it is our only source of sustenance. Sustenance is our real Profit.
Sustenance is our nature given paycheck, so let's stop burning our paycheck.
@@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186 Experience has shown that if we don't stop extracting carbon now we never will. Only necessity will coerce us to change our ways.It has to be priority One because the hour is late.
@@stephenhall11 Switching technologies is exactly the same wrong behavior that we have been doing for hundreds of years, and it never leads to less
damage to the environment. Here's something they don't teach you in economics class. Profit = Extremism; in other words,
"Profit = income - expenses" causes the selfish business world to over do everything. They will take the best ideas, including your idea, and turn it
into our worst nightmare. Did you read my comment? Let's talk about the TOTAL global bankruptcy that your idea will cause.
I understand your concern, but In this present economic model your idea really can't work. In the new global economy I wrote about, your idea
makes sense to some degree but in this present economy your idea would kill most of us, and please don't even suggest that that's a good idea.
I have critiqued your idea. Please read my idea and critique it. Tell me what you like and or don't like about what I wrote.
Thanks in advance. Your input about my idea would be very much appreciated.
I see this guy as a hopeless optimist. We have no solutions, yet...
Adding some factors worth recognizing as media omissions of pertinent geophysics:
To clue people in, the entire jetstream circulation has changed from oceans too warm to allow Siberian cold to cross the N.Pacific turns it north with heat & moisture near BeringStrait a low point in topography to cool and go to low latitudes ONLY over LAND to balance equatorial overheating.
So, record cold winters will repeat until the ice is gone in 60yrs or less, check.
Then in summer it's reversed, LAND heats quickly, oceans don't so big high-pressure domes will get hotter and last longer, check.
For spice where the polar cold meets warm-moist tropical air we get floating-car sheet_runoff flooding globally, check.
At 500ppm CO2eqv +3ppm/yr =750ppm by 2100 2m/6.7ft more sealevel rising at 30.5cm/1ft per decade for several centuries, check.
One cannot remove CO2 below Mt.Everest air mixes too fast, and when emissions finally end, oceans outgas their excess CO2 to keep levels above 400ppm for >>120,000yrs: CO2 + CO3₌ + H2O ⇄ 2 HCO3-
Our extinction 3.5ky-5ky away with BAU, unstoppably like any glacier on Earth ending below a rising sealevel cannot be stopped from quickly melting from below by warm oceans and altered jetstreams, check.
Oh, we're so arrogant, the hairless apes aren't wise, check.
is this a concern? The cyclical Phoenix will hit in 17 years. (2040)
@timengledow904 The big deal is we've lowered oceanic pH this raised freezeup temps above saltwater's [-2C/28.4F/35‰/8.2pH] so we can't refreeze seabed methane vents nor have multiyear seaice for both poles.
TheFix to grind base/alkaline rocks_to_flour into seas at rivermouths globally raises pH zooplankton growth binds CO2 into shells at_scale on a 71% water planet, nothing else affects this, shading the sun can't refeeeze seabed methane vents, dumb idea.
Hth
Yeah, and what is worse is that people that deny the existence of Climate Change use the change of the polar vortex circulation and the Arctic air masses coming into continental areas as a proof of the non-existence of climate change, eventhough it is the precise consequence of it.
Simple minds can only understand simple ideas, unfortunately the natural environment is so finely intertwined with itself that there are no simple mechanisms that explain how it works.
31:23 cant believe William kept us hanging and didn't say how many people were supported by the great plains that used to sustain 40-60million bison lol
Our consumption drives ecological overshoot. We all reduce our carbon and ecological footprint by adopting following simple solutions.
* Eat less meat.
* Cook & Eat local unprocessed food.
*Ride E bikes.
*Travel local places.
*Fly less.
*Don't be addicted to frequent shopping.
We won't be able to break out of our shared illusion until it's too late. We already know how the monkey behaves. There's no such thing as pro-activism. Just like the talk said, we look at the world through our conceptual lenses. Well, let's not. Look at the world how it really is and know that nothing on Willy's last slide is going to happen consciously. Or in time. Instead... remember: as the world as it really is... the boundary of who is doing okay (the rich) will shrink and shrink in perfect tandem with the ever-increasing concentration of wealth (a one-way dynamic process) until the poor say enough. We won't fix anything, because it's too broken. It barely worked even when it was working. And it will be an ugly mess. Money will be worth its proper amount: nothing. Bitcoin will cease because computers will cease. And people will be left to simply help each other out as best as they can (the ones that choose to cooperate, that is) will defend against the ones that choose not to cooperate, but to take. All while the planet gets hotter. And hotter. And hotter. The weather becoming more extreme. Sure, there'll be pockets of brilliance, but the ending will be the same: A 21st Century Endarkenment. A.I. won't be created to save us. The rich won't have "escaped" to Mars. Aliens won't have come to save us. Or Jesus. Or whomever you believe in. We'll simply die out. All of us. It's called extinction. It's the Mother Nature's way of rejecting us. Can you really blame her? We never got our shit together in time, and by that I mean, we never truly united as one species. We got too caught up in and corrupted by our bullshit shared illusion. What a waste...
👍🏻Well done! Thank you! Reminds me of "Bright Green Lies". We have an over-consumption problem that is causing climate change, among other things. That's what we need to fix.
What about fixing volcanoes ... 40, up to 80 in activity each year.
@@marcwinkler will they not be cooling agents though?
@@daviddorrell8692 I am only a humble reader of Jean Adhémar, John Imbrie,
James Croll, Milutin Milankovitch, I know the climat is a chaotic system.
These 5 subjects above can take years to read, to discover it is only the
beginning, you should add tectonics ... as for volcanic activity look what
they have done in India for instance and surely they will come back.
Have a nice evening!
@@marcwinkler Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
@@jamesgrover2005 It depends when ... look at volcanic activity in geological time scale.
Milankovitch cycles, Solar cycles, Ice ages and interglacial periods are the main factors.
Makes some good points, but can't get behind the fatalism and determinism of some of his argument. The only logical place that leads is nihilism. It is self defeating.
Besides being way too late (we were warned of the effects of carbon release into the atmosphere, well over a hundred years ago) all we ever do is squabble about it and do nothing. Its hard to expect much more from most people, there's very little difference between our Hunter/Gatherer Ancestors and us (well we do have Tactical Nukes, they used any object they could lay hands on to go down the road and bash them about the head and shoulders...). Their planning abilities and recognition of consequences usually went as far as "whats for dinner tomorrow", we haven't changed much.
So far the result of co2 emissions thru the use of fossil fuels has been a massive decrease in poverty and hunger, and in the industrialised west a recovery of natural habitat that was degraded because our only choice was to use renewables at a rate that was not sustainable (I.e. the forests). Our water and air are now cleaner, and the increase in co2 has resulted in a very significant greening of the planet and shrinking of some deserts and a very important increase in crop yields that has been critical in reducing global hunger. life expectancy is way up, child mortality way done, we now have time for much more than just subsidence farming to survive. Climate related deaths are down 95% over the last 100 years.
@@davidsimpson7373 so far...
@@davidsimpson7373 When you are born and live during a phase of expansion that's all you know. Unfortunately there are limits to growth and collapse in inevitable.
@@luciusblackwood2640 humans are not on a trajectory of unlimited growth. The entire industrialized world, China, Russia and numerous other countries already have a birth rate below replace (2.1 children per couple). Population is expected to peak in the next 30 to 50 years somewhere around 9 to 10B. And then the decline in numbers will be very rapid and the biggest social, environmental and economic challenge will be a declining population.
The film "The Gods Must Be Crazy" provides the perfect metaphor. Mankind lived a sustainable lifestyle until technology (the bottle) become available. I am old enough to remember when we thought nuclear weapons would be the technology to end life as we know it, but the use of fossil fuels combined with animal agriculture will eventually produce that result.
I am with you right up until the point where you bring it all down to an issue of population. When 5% of the world is using 25% of the resources, that does not really give us the factual data we need to truly know the carrying capacity of our planet, if everyone lived in circular economies and were supplied with regenerative agriculture, and if the unnecessary manufacturing of...say... Single use plastic Happy meal toys... was dropped and stopped.
Good one here. Rarely find this...
Decreasing plant DIF happening now in NWGA
Okra harvest halted 2021 after only 2-4 nights warmer or as warm as the days
Earthworms gone after 5 year decline…locally
No pesticides or herbicides
-old horticulturist
“Since the dawn of times, monetary systems have been shaping the flows of human activity in every realm of endeavor; food production, education, health, business etc., by determining how we value, apply and exchange our creativity, and the fruits of our labor. It is for this reason the most influential of all human-made systems.” -Bernhard Lietaer Search psychological consequences of money and read.
In the stone age, hunt gather.. gather metals cristals gems stones too, not just berries. PEOPLE DIDNT KNOW BETTER, now most people is not that we dont know boat loads more on what is injust and polluting, but people psicologicaly are beeing socialy engineered, like indudtry does to a car, NOT TO REACT to continue consuming, complacive, distracted, divided, etc in excess, therefor to continue to fill some limited peoples pockets, not longer gatherers, but hoarders
Perfect summation of our current, collective predicament. Which of the two final choices for the future of mankind do you think will be taken by 'world leaders'....? (Rhetorical irony).....
Are we ever going to stop cutting down our trees?.?..🌲❤️🌲😞
Great presentation, thanks Professor Rees. In future, would the Institute invite Timothée Parrique to explain his ‘Degrowth’ thesis and Prof Steve Keen to demonstrate his dynamic model ‘Minsky’ which refutes neoclassical models of the economy?
In this presentation may lay a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
Almost the end of 2023 and emissions have not in fact dropped at all. Now need close to 12% reduction annually to reach that 2030 target. Not holding my breath.
At 39:20 "Decisive action to reduce emissions (i.e.., reduce FF use) in the absence of substitutes would result in energy shortages, job losses, economic disruption, etc."
This is already happening in Europe. The energy costs are sky high with no sign of going down. Sweden tries to cut down on fossiel fuels adding more etanol to diesel and gasoline which results in higher prices per liter. France declared that it will modernize and build new nuclear powerplants wheres Germany will shut down the remaining ones by 2030. EU declared natural gas and nuclear energy as sustainable! Sustainable! We are kicking the can down the street as there is no quick fix or any fix to the mess we have created.
Reducing food waste, red meat, processed food and pleasure flights are the simple actions all of us can take right now to reduce global warming and mass extinctions. It's easy to blame the politicians, while the source of the problem is our gluttony and greed.
Is there a tipping point for consumption reduction; that is, if enough people reduced their personal carbon footprint and consumptive habits by 20%, will society's behavior respond in favorable ways? If a large enough group went vegan, bought primarily in season, local produce, stopped buying plastic crap at Walmart, stopped all unnecessary travel, reduced the temperature in the home to 16 degrees C (60 degrees F) during winter, etc., will public pressure change government/ economic policies?
Actions in the frontal lobe act prior to our awareness/cognition within sensory lobes.
Merci
More like
_Mercy !!_
52K of views after one year while the funny cat video had 2.2 million, yet, you are the only one who pointed out that a continuation of of our way of life by just switching to a clean energy is not possible. Bernie Sanders wants you to believe a that solar panels will replace oil. I do live sustainably and living of solar is very limiting. You are the first one I've listened too to put the finger on the real problem. 52k views, sad.
I just listened to this for the third or fourth time. It's awesome!
Considering two simple realities gives me some comfort : 1) "Life" on Earth is a reality. We know it because we have lived it; and 2) The incredible expanse of the Cosmos and the statistical probabilities that there might be other more successful "experiments" than humanity out there. I wish them all well. And I bid adieu to the rest of us.
This is a very well thought out presentation that declares uncomfortable truths that have been ignored by the climate change field. In particular the effects of overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental impacts, the low energy density of renewables and the inability of human society to respond to these threats proactively. I don't see humanity pulling it out in the 9th inning. Buckle up for rough air ahead.
you don't see a lot of things
I think it’s already started and happening faster than imagined
But when is the ninth inning ? We may have a chance if we can , so to speak , buy time . Certainly we can’t effect our survival in just a matter of decades . Even the year 2100 does not offer enough time to find or invent, if you will , the various solutions to the various problems . The first step we must take to survive is to effect a way to get out of the HEAT . The immediate problem is just that , the HEAT . Now , contrary to part of what Mister Rees believed we MUST Geo-engineer our way out of the increasing Solar forcing . We may be able to make a reflective umbrella in the stratosphere . Sulfate particles jetted out there can keep the temperature on the surface of the planet from rising to cause an unlivable “Hot House Earth “ environment . The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 put sulfate particles in the atmosphere bringing the global temperature down by one degree Fahrenheit for a couple of years . The idea here is to , basically, ape a volcanic eruption by spreading whatever amount of sulfate particles that would be necessary to keep the global temperature from warming beyond human endurance ….. for whatever necessary amount of time until we accomplish two other processes . First here we must innovate a way to take the amounts of CO2 already emitted at scale in order to reflect very small amounts of the sun’s heat so we might continue to survive . That is step two . Step three is to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere at all . I believe that we , the human race can effect these very necessary processes if given enough time . Mister Rees does not agree with this but he offers as an alternative the immediate reduction of human consumption planet wide , relying on this as the only alternative to the warming of the planet . I am also for this type of plan to help extinguish the emissions of Greenhouse Gases. But I believe that this cannot be done at all quickly and this solution if approached quickly will fail to materialize . With time and many campaigns to condition the world population to drastically reduced consumption this approach may be promising . But I must caution that everything mentioned here will take a lot of time . Solar geo-engineering can buy the necessary time to find a way out of what could be a truly fatal impasse . I do thank Mister Rees for a brilliant description of this greatest of all problems facing humanity . But while he illuminated the insufficient capacity of solar and wind power to effectively take the place of fossil fuel energy generation he did not mention the very energy dense Carbon Free Nuclear Power which may be necessary and sufficient to substitute for fossil fuels when used in conjunction with the application of renewables . Also and most importantly Mister Rees’ solution just to wean the global population away from consumption is a good idea but an idea which won’t work in the short term but may well help mightily when combined with the aforementioned energy solutions . Human survival is tentative under the conditions which prevail but I do believe that the steps I have outlined do give us a chance .
Hello. Are these slides available? I'd like to share them with businesses I'm my training.
So... nobody had any questions at the end?
39:01 we are not looking to substitute all fossils fuels for renewables..we are designing new ways to be on this planet.
it's the mechanics of the *system* - it is infantile.
That is the story.
People, learn about cybernetics, now.
and tell the others
I don’t really believe that it the inability of humans to understand the exponential function. There are quite a few who do and, even if everyone had a complete understanding of it, it wouldn’t make one iota of different In people’s behavior vis a vis our exploitation of the earth
we need socialism, unfortunately there isn't enough time left to argue for it peacefully..
The rich have it.
I think we need a full democracy more. Socialism is likely to follow naturally.
In 1982, NASA/Sandia Labs demonstrated the viability of drawing heat energy directly from magma pockets in the earth's crust. They estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads of magma energy just from the US alone. Current world energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Worldwide, the magma energy resource is effectively limitless. Heat energy is easily converted into base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel; such that it can meet, and massively exceed world energy demand indefinitely.
Yet this virtually limitless resource has not been exploited. Had it been exploited, there would be abundant clean energy to meet domestic and industrial energy demand carbon free, plus recycle all waste, extract carbon from the air, and crucially, desalinate sea water to irrigate currently uninhabitable land, and unproductive wastelands for agriculture and habitation.
When we ask ourselves why this technology has not been applied - it's fairly easy to understand why right wing climate change deniers with political and economic interests in fossil fuels did not promote magma energy. It conflicts with their political and economic good - an altar upon which they are apparently willing to sacrifice the human species!
The real puzzle is why the environmental left - like this chap here, have not demanded the application of magma energy technology. His apparent ignorance of magma energy is frankly inexcusable. One can only surmise the left are environmentalists only insofar as they would gleefully sacrifice the economic good of the right on the altar of sustainability - but cannot acknowledge that limitless clean energy from magma would transcend limits to growth. Consequently, the green left have exactly the same underlying interests as the right - their own political and economic good, an altar upon which they would willingly sacrifice the human species!
53:20 This is what makes his ignorance inexcusable; 'To act consistently with our best science may well require a planned economic and population contraction.' What this means in practice is an anti-capitalist green government, animated by the false notion that human economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are fundamentally incompatible, murdering billions of people to 'save the world.' This is so horrifying a prospect; every bit as horrific as letting climate change run its course, it is incumbent upon him to be exhaustive in his efforts to avoid this conclusion - and so be aware of Nasa/Sandia Labs research:
Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988
Thank you, this is the most profound analysis of our current predicament I have seen!
Then you need to watch the earth-day presentations of Nate Hagens, start with 2017 and go from there. There is one for each year. They're long, illuminating and I was able to communicate our predicament much better.
Ben, good answer
Harvey good poont
Home electricity and electric cars is perhaps a quarter of emissions. How will you get the food to stores? Ev trucks to transport food and goods? How will you EV large mining excavators and mining trucks to get all these raw materials to make the solar panels and batteries.? Batteries are needed at large scale for solar, wind and all other energy storage. The runaway heating is already past a certain tipping point for our foods soil biome to sustain billions of people.
Stunning! Loved it.. Nuff said!
I wish more people who spoke about climate change also addressed the collapse of natural ecosystems. They are both leading to our demise.
Excellent. I like the concise format and clarity of your exposé. I can't say that all is said but the main line in there. We have to start now using our cerebrus and act.
Clear and well articulated presentation. Prof. Rees is clearly smart and thoughtful person. Unfortunately he ventures carelessly, even arrogantly, into fields he's not an expert of. In addition, he seems to be blinded by a conceptual lens of his own which predisposes him to a set of unquestioned ideological and/or idiosyncratic assumptions. Ultimately that leads him to demonstrably wrong assumptions and conclusions on so many things I cannot list all of them.
1. True, we have conceptual lenses, but we are also fully capable of changing, modifying and, if necessary, abandoning those lenses. Only those who are the most ideologically / religiously / tribally 'possessed' rarely, if ever, do so.
2. There is no such thing as natural resource. Resources are created by humans, not by nature. Because of that, it is totally wrong to say we will consume all available resources. We don't.
3. Almost every economic "truth" in this presentation is wrong one way or the other.
4. Technological / societal change is hardly every linear but follows in most cases so called S-curve. Assuming linear change (or rather, the purported lack of change) is therefore a mistake and have no predictive value what so ever.
5. And so on and so on and so on.
I think most scientist who are not possessed by an ideology would say it is still very much an open question whether we will be able to prevent warming above 2.0 C.
Although I think the Club of Rome has done good job in raising awareness of environmental issues, they are plagued by their ideological predispositions and because of that, their predictions have failed miserably time and time again. For the same reason, I'd be surprised if predictions / claims prof. Reese made in his presentation will turn out to correct, or even in the correct ball park.
Here's an idea. If you think you can encapsulate Professor Rees's 1 hour presentation with more accuracy & clarity, please be our guest and do that. Anyone can vandalize another's work. If you can do better, please make your 1 hour rebuttal and post it on RUclips for public scrutiny and commentary.
@@karenhertz3258
The case Rees is making rests largely on his claim that we, as humankind, won't change. Primarily, according to Rees, because of the fixed, unchangeable conceptual lenses we wear.
Now, by requesting more information, you already made quite clear that you don't buy into his fixed conceptual lens argument any more than I do. If your mind is already closed in from hearing any arguments and taking in more information, such a request (or was it a demand?) makes no sense at all.
So, your request is in itself a counterargument to Rees and basically undermines his case. I think that is, if not a rebuttal, at least a hint that one should apply critical thinking and not take everything Rees says as a scientific fact.
In reality, the 'enigma' Rees set out to explain is obviously much much more complex than his simplistic viewpoint suggests. If you truly want to understand the current situation better (instead of imposing a preconceived explanation on it), you need to get familiar with cognitive science, economics, and many other fields.
From Rees's presentation, it is clear that he has not done that. Or if he has, he has ignored (or cherry-picked) the vast amount of information and insights these fields can bring into the topic.
Finally, when it comes to vandalizing, well, if you see my comment that way, there is not much I can do about it. I should say, however, that in my opinion ignoring and/or misrepresenting work done in other fields of academic endeavors, such as cognitive science and economics, as Rees does, is much more damaging and reminiscent of vandalism.
To bad nobody can debate with nature and its destruction.... but only the humanoids pilosophicaly pick each other apart, and selt aside nature, as if the orator does not belond to the natural world only stall in a debate x ideological supremacy offering no change... One day nature will add the last humanoid to its museum. And recount story of its "top wealth leaders and their bought armies" Failure to harmonize.with it. and again too bad to all that wanted change and the nots.
@ Esa Koivuniemi.
Difficult to answer here with some hundret of letters only..
1. Your right.. thats true
2. "There is no such thing as natural resource. "
Nature doesnt care if resources are created by men ore if they are natural.
- Well natural ressources as fresh water, air, biological sources as food. are for sure natural resources.. they are not invented ore created by men. in some cases they are changed ... so i wouldnt eat uncooced food in some cases. Yes.
But what you as i think are referring to is that in the looming situation of a special ressource scarcity, humans "Invent" an alternaive ressource.
And thats only true so far. Because how ever you try, the sources are limited at last by the amount of energy available for the ressource to extract it.
Now you might think that human ingenuity will provide energy as much as needed if we only let our genius work on this..
But thats nothing but a meme, concentrated in our civilisation in the last 200 Years, when we saw the litterly explosion and expansion of everything.. and as rees says... we take this as " the Norm".. But it isnt.
and its easyly to demonstrate why, if you dig deeper in energy knowledge.
So you might read the vlog of this great guy.. dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/ and more here..
dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/..
3. "Almost every economic "truth" in this presentation is wrong one way or the other."
Which ones specialy? What do you mean..
Isnt it clear that the economical models used in Economics are in many cases so very far away from reality, they are mostly wrong? the whole economy is a subset of the environement and not the other way round..
humans doesnt beheave in many ways the way older economic models told us.
So get mor specificaly .
4." Technological / societal change is hardly every linear but follows in most cases so called S-curve. "
- well sure.. the whole system is a nonlinear adaptiv komplex system.. with tippingpoints and stable plateaus. Which means also technological breakthroughts can happen fast and scale up fast and explosive.
But the limiting factors are still physical Laws of nature, which we cant overcome what ever we do.
So the Question is, how far can we stretch the system without breaking throug big tippingpoints that undermine our very system.
And the most limiting Factor - again is available Energy. Which in so many cases doesnt get understood from economic Scientists well if at all.
What we need to sustain our High energy intense world are concentraded gigantic energy sources that not only are big, but more importend deliver a high enough Energy return on investment.. As fossil fules did for 200 Years.
if the EROEI Drops below a certain level and without a high Quality EROEI Alternative .. Society will collaps as have done dozens of other Societys befor us. So you might read the book "Collapse of complex Societys by Joseph Tainter..
At least excuse my poor english... German would be easier for me..
But it stays there... rees is one of the best thinkers about our current situation. at time..
Thank you.
Thank you - this is very helpful to know, so I can at least mentally prepare for society and climate collapse.
Thanks main message is it is complicated, mixed with politics. Yet we understand transgenderism. Missing false/fallacy targets is maybe not a bad issue.
I love how google needs to provide the context and skew us into corectthink before we can have a conclusion or idea. Thank you big brothers, much appreciated
I long ago realized that their was going to be another huge challenge before the climate crises can be addressed.
Many of the arguments remind me of Jean-Marc Jancovici (gdp = GWatt), but a more meta format (~right side brain view in Iain McGilchrist his telling). Thanks for the syntethesis.
I think that Jean-Marc might have used the work of William E. Rees for his own presentations ans lectures, or at least has read his work to the extent that he synthesised it in his own way
Very informative and insightful. Thank you for your recommendations. I would include looking to indigenous people in their own region for solutions, for example in the Amazon.
That would require empowering the indigenous groups to shoot those who encroach on them, including their own governments.
The state in capitalist society is a capitalist state so is unable to save humanity from the crisis
I WOULD like to request a copy of your slides! Especially the ones at the end of your articulate talk, regarding our current choices. I'm a member of two groups with whom I'd like to share them: Portland Threshold Singers and the Red Hat Ladies club called "Don't Give a Damsels". Thank you very much.
Amazingly clear! But so sad to see that with all our natural and cultural skills and advantages we look unable to do better than any bacteria in a Petri dish 😢
Dr. Rees is my HERO!
Brilliant insight and summary of our situation. Thank you.
David. UK
World isn't ready for such advanced views - to have economy tied to biosphere where we can predict what it will do to biosphere? Nope. Maybe second evolution if there can be one, will stumble upon this idea way too early in their development.
Malthusianism lite isn’t exactly that cutting edge
@@ejws1575 TBH I had to look up Malthsianism. Though its not what I was referring to. It maybe part of it but I wouldn't know. I dont know anyone who knows either. So it's not cutting edge but certainly not known :)
My point was just what I said - economy not only should be somehow integrated with growth but also ensure that growth is good for long run\sustainable. I have not come across that idea.
🎱What do we use to nurture that does not come from nature?
Clear and concise, damning and self evident. How do we reach our politicians?
right!