Does "Every Little Thing" REALLY Stop Climate Change?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 апр 2024
- Recycling, planting trees, and going vegan are just a handful of the many ways to reduce our carbon footprint. Companies and countries do it too, performing small individual tasks anywhere at any time to “save the planet.” But these small actions have little impact when compared to the vast polluting and emissions-intensive systems that underpin modern society. In this episode, join Dr. Rae Wynn-Grant to explore how making individuals fully responsible for reducing emissions can be counterproductive to combat climate change.
Based on the Jenny Price book, "Stop Saving the Planet!"
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateTerra
*****
"Stop Saving the Planet" is part of PBS' Earth Month celebration. Check out more videos about our planet here: • Earth Month from PBS
Subscribe to PBS Terra so you never miss an episode! bit.ly/3mOfd77
And keep up with PBS Terra on:
Facebook: / pbsdigitalstudios
Tiktok: / pbsterra
Instagram: / pbsterra
Lobbying is just a fancy word for bribery lol
But bribery is illegal, so they invented a new word for the same thing.
Orwellian doublespeak is not only here it's BIG F'ing BUSINESS!
Donations *
You have 3rd world countries, run by dictators, who don't legalize lobbying because even THEY know how bad it would make them look...
We are certain that isn't true and would give you 500 currency units to take down the comment....
It was Big Oil (BP) that coined the term 'carbon footprint', trying to put it as an everyday person's responsibility rather than theirs.
That's precisely what it was. They just needed to divert attention onto us, with our tiny carbon emissions, while they have have carbon emissions thousands of times bigger.
How is nobody discussing the us military?
The same British Petroleum who is somehow very linked to the establishment of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and a lot more. Same can be said about ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, Valero, Eni, ConocoPhillips....
I'm disgusted with YT. Free speech is a scam. Most of my comments get erased especially when I point out the criminal behaviour of Big Oil 🤮
@@Joe-Przybranowski The elephant is the room, the military industrial complex WORLDWIDE.
The US is huge but don't forget Europe, Russia, Asia.
A very important point, but it is still wise for people to not freaking waste stuff. I see too many cars idling in a parking lot, too many people throw away perfectly good food, or perfectly good clothes, and so on.
As sinful as it seems -- in aggregate, all that waste is trivial in comparison to titanic waste by the megacorps, which we can't see because they are typically locked away. Idle that car or waste that food, in an open pit mine or monoculture of corn... and your perspective changes real quick.
@@BrandanLee Nope. It doesn't change. Things like open pit mines, and corn monoculture, among many other things, are immense problems. But that does not mean that wasting things on a personal level is acceptable. If nothing else, remember that in many cases you paid for that stuff - you are essentially throwing away money. Additionally, we have an innate obligation to use resources responsibly (across the world and across time there are a lot of people to share with), the fact that many large corporations are horribly violating that obligation does not exempt individuals from their obligation to not waste things. It is simple ethics and efficiency.
Naa people buying things they don't need is a huge part of manufacturing, stupid trinkits around the house and new clothes every month is an enormous waste of fuel, not enough people realize that manufacturing is paid for by the consumer
@@damianfitzpatrick3465 And those are all things that should stop. You can live a wonderful life while wasting much less stuff.
@@BrandanLee
6 billion people idling their cars will create as much pollution as some of those mega corps you're complaining about.
It's not a one or the other, it IS both, at the same time.
WE need to do our bit AND the big governments, and corporations need to do their bit.
Some of these corporations are beginning to get it.
They are starting to realize that if we lose civilization, NO ONE makes money, and the money anyone has is worthless!
Once we collectively realize that the threat isn't to the planet, but to civilization, the one thing that supports ALL of us,
then the greedy thing to do is to save civilization, because without it we are done.
We need trains, trams, subways and bikes lanes everywhere
We need decisions that are based on more than just satellite imagery to be in paperwork. I hypothesize that such would go a long way toward better infrastructure.
And airships for mass cargo with almost no need for fuel (especially in regions with a "Mediterranean climate")
We also need rich people to stop polluting by taking private jets, and influence politics to keep their heavily polluting industries well-protected...
no
@@TimBorg yes
I think a reason why many people go with the "what can I do as an individual", is also 'cause while already trying to steer the ship towards better climate solutions on a national scale, it's a lot harder for an individual to effect this. So if you want to do anything as an individual, you may have to fall back on the smaller initiatives, because while not big and statistically significant solutions, they are something.
I will also argue that they are valuable, not in the sense of actual carbon reduction, but rather in changing the mental framework of yourself, and those around you. If you as an individual don't care about your own footprint in any way shape or form, I find it highly unlikely that you'll be someone who'll push for the larger decisions needed to right the ship when in a company, or in an election.
That's how you start a religion. Personal feel good decisions and beliefs in making a real impact while actually affecting nothing, because evidence is less valued than them feel good personal absolutions.
@@BrandanLee If your argument is that one should not follow up on an ideal that oneself believes in. Then I must say I disagree heavily, and if you actually read my comment you'd see that I didn't say not to do things that actually make a difference, I said to do both. Not one or the other, but both.
If I am to be believeable as a person arguing for climate friendliness, and act in a way that runs complete counter to that, then people are not going to neither trust, nor listen to me. Be the change you want to see in the world, and others will follow.
And yes, in this same framework people start religions too, but it's also the framework of action in which people start meaningful change, it's the framework in which any and all movements of change happen. If you yourself don't believe in what you're saying, then why should anyone else?
I'm glad there's at least one environmentalist who sees the value of leading from the front! On top of that, I think it's nonsense to believe that individual changes won't add up. But we won't get a lot of individuals changing if the leaders don't lead.
Why did you erase my comment which was not offensive in any way? Are you against free speech (free thinking)?
@@lorenzoblum868 Sorry, I must have clicked the wrong button.
There is nothing more powerful than people demanding system change who also practice what they preach. Eventually everything draws down to a complete change of our individual lifestyle.
Yeah, I thought the video was lacking a lot of understanding in the importance of individual and community responsibility. It has a point about the need for system change, but what we do counts as well! It’s both! For example we are not going to change the food system by sitting on the couch; it takes gardening and community organizing!
While the actual impact happens on big scale, individuals have the power to move markets.
If we all stopped consuming beef & dairy, the largest global driver for methane emissions and destruction of forests in agriculture is significantly down. There are fantastic other sources protein and calcium for you. Favouring electric trains over cars for local and regional transport drops the direct energy emissions to a fraction. etc, etc...
With these kinds of actions, we can move markets and steer the economy to a much greener future.
The economy is steered by those with the most money. We cannot change the market effectively without also dismantling capitalism. We need a centrally planned economy.
And here I was thinking banning plastic straws was going to save the world. 🙂 Really, the shifting of blame to the consumer is intentional, so companies can say they're just responding to the market. After CAFE fuel standards were raised car manufacturers started pushing Crossover SUVs because "those are the cars that Americans want" when really, these vehicles are classified as light trucks and therefore have lower fuel standards but can be sold for more profit. Now energy companies are pushing stories about "how green energy is destructive to our heartlands" because they don't want people to build solar and wind, and instead want us to rely on coal and natural gas
Mainstream Media PBS included is almost always used as a propaganda tool for someone else's entrenched interests and I say that as a Journalism school grad... Who owns what and who advertises is always the #1 thing people should be looking at, just like product placements aka "considerations" in film. Almost everything you see is basically a corporate write off based on these rather benign looking credits tacked onto the very tend of films. Ironically THESE are the most important credits because it gives you an idea of what the REAL message of the film is...
@@stickynorth I remember watching "This Week" with David Brinkley on ABC decades ago. Every commercial break was an Arthur Daniels Midland ad. Then Brinkley retired and soon after filmed a commercial for ADM. He caught so much flack for that he had to end his contract with ADM--and the whole time I was like "C'mon you guys, do you think there wasn't already a deep relationship between the show and ADM?" There's no way that they'd run a story critical of Big Agriculture with that kind of sponsorship on the line.
The same goes for PBS, or Fox or CNN, etc. They'll never bite the hand that feeds them.
bullshit everything she said is WRONG
this video is a disgrace and should be removed
it is full of lies like a republican making up excuses for not taking personal climate action
I will unsub all PBS and thumbs down from now on because of this
boycott USA and PBS
Plastic straws only distract from the larger issues if you waste mental capacity on it. Paper straws require no effort or brain space on the part of the consumer, if all of us are just a little smarter we wouldn't even think about it. It's everyone's own responsibility to never think about straws and instead think about the things we buy or the policies we vote for.
@@IAmebAdgerI would kindly argue, the use of Straws , either plastic or paper, is damaging to the brain for anyone over 16
So, this is partially correct, but it misses the point of mass changes in behavior based on enough people having made that change which for the life of me I can't remember the term for that, oh yes, critical mass.
So, if I live in a sunny area and install solar panels and it works well for me and I tell others about it, more people do the same. Now, this is a big cost factor, installing solar panels so what if there are enough people wanting to install panels but the cost is high. Can the group of people learn to install panels, bypassing the installation costs by having a group of people share in this work? Yes, yes you can. It used to be common in society. Can you help bring down costs for materials if installations are happening all over the country or world? Yes, yes you can, because of economics of scale. I remember that term.
In fact solar panels are now pretty cheap compared to 15 years ago. Can enough people installing solar panels on their roofs affect the power producers? Why yes they can, but at the same time you can't let the govt. try to punish the people for it and reward power companies allowing them to keep doing what they're doing.
because you can't achieve critical mass when the vast majority of the population either can't change or are not interested. so your individual effort is worthless besides making you feel better about yourself. and even if everyone become as "green" as they can, they would still represent only a fraction of CO2 emissions, since most of it is completely outside our control. the only way to achieve meaningful progress is to force politicians to rule in ways that will force companies to become less poluting and make it easier AND more enticing for people to change their way of life.
Firstly, Solar Panels will work to some capacity in California, but not Germany where it is dull and grey most of the year. Secondly - how do you think solar panels are made? Out of thin air? Solar panels are made by burning fossil fuels. Who makes solar panels? Mostly China - one of the biggest users of fossil fuels in the world. I could go on, such as advising you on how much wildlife is killed and affected ongoing by vast swathes of land as solar panel fields.....
@@junk_rig_sailor1698 doesn't matter that solar panels also release CO2 to produce, the fact they are zero emissions mean the break even point is around a year or so. in it's entire lifecycle a gas power plant will produce 40x more CO2 than a equivalent solar panel array. it's the same logic with EVs, yes, they are a bit more poluting than an ICE ground-to-wheel, but they are so much more efficient that they will break even in emissions in a few years, even if your power grid is mostly dirty, it will still break even long before the battery needs to be replaced.
@@junk_rig_sailor1698
Whats your solution for the world reaching 0 emissions?
The tipping point will be when home buyers refuse to purchase a home that doesn't have solar already installed or is solar ready. After installing solar on our home in NH, I can't imagine living without it.
Opening line reminds me a quote
If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little - David MacKay - RIP (former Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, United Kingdom - RIP )
8 minutes of absolute smackdown packed into a polite presentation of facts. None of what was said can be disputed. It's time people organized to actually drain this swamp. Thank you for informing the public.
Only, it doesn't offer any solutions. Just one side blaming the other. Again!
Only when most everybody has taken steps and made any kind of sacrifice to reduce their emissions can corporations employ people who have mostly made an effort. Exactly the same argument for investors. Making it personal makes a difference.
@@ronvandereerden4714 I mean... you're kind of just too lazy to go that one more step to figure it out on your own. They are pretty clearly implying that nationwide action is necessary. Not sure, if that is enough for you to figure it out but I'm gonna help you out here anyway.
It's organization and voting. It might not be fancy but it's pretty obviously the only way to get this shit under control.
@@worschtebrot Nope, my argument holds true for voting and activism too. Working for/toward, investing in, and voting for real change is more likely to occur if people have already taken some personal responsibility - whether that personal sacrifice has actually accomplished anything or not.
#846 When every YT video begins with a Climate Catholic banner "UN Climate change is caused by human activity," then you are being gaslighted and fatwahs into Mandatory Energy Austerity for YOU but not for unelected self-appointed Mil.Gov Elites. Every time they raise a new Carbon tax, their government union _gives them a matching salary increase!_ *How could you not understand being fleeced!?*
@@worschtebrot
What difference does voting make if the politicians all get their campaign funds from the same fossil fuel source?
Your Democrats talk but talk is cheap.
How many politicians of any stripe do you see doing anything, I mean anything at all to reduce THEIR consumption?
It just isn't happening.
Why?
Simple they know who holds the purse stings and calls the tune.
The USA is the biggest petroleum state on the planet today.
My country, Canada is 4th.
Our politicians in both countries have a vested interest in doing as little as politically feasible about the problem.
So we hear nice words but see little if any real action.
Now maybe if a HUGE majority of us found a way to make it POLITICALLY FEASIBLE for them to do something, then they might do it.
This is where DIVISION comes in.
Fossil Fuels works tirelessly to DIVIDE us.
Imagine the uproar in either of our countries if 2/3, that's two thirds, of the population voted for the Green Party in the next election.
If the result was allowed to stand, that would give us a Green Party government.
Would it make a difference?
Yes.
It would show those traditional parties that if they aren't really doing what we need, that we CAN, and WILL throw them both to the curb.
So even if the Green Party didn't accomplish much, it would still send a strong signal that politicians can be held accountable.
This is what Ive been trying to tell my students for years now.
I will say there are a few things individuals can do, mainly take advantage of policy changes/subsidies when governments actually implement them (See the inflation reduction act in the USA). Let others know about those policies and vote for and demand good climate policy.
US viewers, go get a subsidized heat pump or heat pump water heater, upgrade your electrical panel, its paid for (depending on your income) and necessary to get to net zero.
Will the government allow you to mention to your pupils the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?
@@lorenzoblum868 currently I am at a private institution so probably. ;)
@@Biophile23 lets hope you don't have the sons and daughters of defense contractors among them...
@@lorenzoblum868how is that the elephant in the room lmao
The presence of Big Oil money in every branch of government is the real elephant.
I'm curious about your list of individual choices worth making. Mine is a list of don'ts: Eat beef (or all meat), drive a gas car, buy new fossil fuel based systems (usually furnace or stove), or fly unneccesarily.
Here's my problem with this message - it leads to climate "apathy" ("who cares what I do, it's the government's/corporation's fault!" - even though those govs' decisions and those corps' profits are driven by our consumption patterns and voting), and entrenches lifestyles that lead people to oppose systemic changes that could make a difference. E.g. - funding public transit rather than roadways, reallocating road space for bus and bike lanes and better sidewalks, and increasing fees on cars and gas would all reduce our transportation emissions. But they also all make it harder to drive, and so people who drive oppose them! If we encourage people (who are able to) to make better decisions, we are building a constituency that also supports policy that makes those lifestyle changes easier for others. That's how we get these things up to scale.
people who walk / ride the bus are more likely to vote for other people who also walk / ride the bus
A little louder for the people in the back, please! ☺️
@@Lildizzle420 no, because people that walk/ride the bus are more likely to be only doing it because they can't afford a car, and are more likely to vote for whowever promises that they will be able to buy one. all they have to do is make sure the infrastructure is hostile to anyone that is not driving a car. instead you demand your government to make riding a bus so much better than driving that people won't need to drive a car. if all you do is shame people to take the bus instead of driving in the confort of their car they will just call you names and buy a even bigger car just to spite you.
and that is the point of the video. "personal responsibility" for climate change just put people against each other, when most people can't even change their ways to be more sustainable, or straight up just don't want becuse they like the confort. instead you fight the root cause, the companies that bought the government, vote better, make noise, that is how we change things, not shaming your neighbour for not sorting out the trash.
You nailed it. Couldn't have said it better myself
They literally said we need to make systemic changes, and your reading was "they are going to make people think they don't need to do anything"
It's always easiest to blame those with no control and pretend they're the ones with the agency to fix things. Abusers do this all the time--It's just a larger version of it that encompasses millions.
The Global North consumers are the abusers, of the exploited Global South.
26 percent of your graph was listed as “spending”. I can only conclude that it refers to the rampant wasteful consumption of nonessential junk. Yet personally cutting out the junk won’t do anything? Everyone needs to do everything they can. Blaming oil companies, the rich, or useless politicians only hurts the effort. Little personal gains keep us focused on the issue daily. Keeping focused helps put more pressure on those companies and politicians. Same goes for recycling. Don’t blame the companies for your personal choice to buy disposable garbage when you can get anything you need not wrapped in plastic. Some of us can hold more than one idea or opinion in our head at the same time.
Exactly. Every little thing we mere individuals do ADDS heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, so we each need to reconsider every little choice we have to add less. If we aren't thinking about these "little" daily things, (carpooling once a week or eating vegan), why would we make the big lifestyle changes necessary?
It doesn't hurt the effort. What's hurting the effort is accepting the blame being shifted onto you by corporate propaganda
Good point, just dont believe too seriously that our actions can make any significant change
A lot of that useless junk is mass manufactured in China. And China contributes a third of the global emissions per year. So re-shoring with modern cleaner methods can have a big impact
I can't change public policy, either.
Yes, by recycling and composting my food I am not really stopping climate change.
But I'd rather do that than throw my hands up and benefit the landfill owners with the recyclable materials they call "waste".
This video isnt telling you to throw your hands up. Its telling you there is a malicious force responsible for the continuation of this issue. The more people realize capitalism wont save us the better.
@@ElectricAlien577
Thank you, i do realize that.
You can still for example contribute a few dollars to organizations that can flight climate change. There are non-profits protecting rainforests, pushing for better environmental laws etc.
What is important to keep in mind is: the chance that we have on mitigating climate change in a way that lets humanity survive the next couple of millennia starts with people doing what they can do about the problem! If you try and recycle your trash, mend your clothes and ride your bike to work, you will not single handedly mitigate climate change, that’s true. What is also true is that not doing these things will not only not mitigate climate Change, it will make it worse. The kind people of people who think that they can have an impact will also be the ones who will hopefully vote like they can create an impact. The cumulated consumer decisions (or better still: decisions not to consume some goods) of millions of people can have an impact on the decisions of the bosses of industries that do have an impact on climate change! While it is true that we need big societal changes it is the wrong message to say that what we can do as individuals doesn’t count!
I disagree about the thesis of this video, because I think it misunderstands what "do every little thing" is really about.
It's not really about getting individuals to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions because we think individuals will make a difference. We know they won't for the reasons you cited.
It's about getting people to care about the whole picture.
Individuals who are willing to do "every little thing" in their own lives, even though individually they don't have much impact on greenhouse gas emissions, are also willing to vote for politicians who *will* put in place the laws and regulations that force corporations, whether Big Oil or Big Ag, to do what they need to do to reduce their industrial emissions so big impacts will be made.
People who don't care about their own GHG emissions are not going to care about whether the politicians they're voting in want to crack down on corporate environmental damage. And too many of that kind of voter are going to mean that politicians aren't going to care about the environment, the corporations won't be forced to clean up their act, and no big impacts will be made.
and I think you are missing the issue the video is presenting. the idea of carbon footprint was invented by BP and Shell spent millions with "personal responsibilty" propaganda. the "do every little thing" idea was carefuly crafted to distract us from the real culprits and make us fight each other by acusing our neighbours for not carring about the environment just because they are eating barbecue or didn't sort their trash.
If a large enough number of people cut their greenhouse gas emissions every way they can, it will make a difference.
The reverse of that is individuals who, seeing how much of a pain in the butt it would be to make environmentally friendly changes in their personal lives, assume it would be an equal pain to make systemic changes. I don't think that's true, but that is the message a lot of people get.
I agree, it helps build awareness, send signals to the market, and is a way to start exploring the new world we want to create. As for getting the message that it's "a pain in the butt", while that's a risk, I think the opposite tends to be the case: if you see people bring their own containers to the takeaway, or harvest rain water, you tend to at least consider whether you could do the same. In many cases it is not a pain, but a saving that only takes a small change of habit.
That does not deny the fact that we absolutely need decisive collective action.
If we take our consumer choices seriously, we can force big multinationals to change.
I live in France and run an EV, where 70% of my electricity comes from nuclear or green energy sources. It's a small drop, but assuming we all move to EV's in the future, and force more green energy production, it will reduce the negative impact of fossil fuels.
Let's hope there is time for that kind of transformation, it may be too late already to reduce the economic hit coming?
No, we cant. There are people with a lot of money who have spent a lot of it making sure people have no choice but to use fossil fuels. Without dismantling capitalism, we cannot win this fight. Corporations control the world.
PBS Terra dipping their toes into anti-capitalism more and more, hopefully new videos can expand on how this will help climate initiatives more in the future!
Also very pleasantly surprised about that, didn't think they would go there when I clicked on this video
That's where the future is. Millennials and Generation Z already support socialism more than capitalism and demographics and time are on our side. Late-stage IV capitalism? Nearly dead... Just look at the meteoric rise and fall of Tesla... ;-)
Degrowth manifesto, Kohei Sato
So are you saying communism is green? Stop blaming "ism" and get straight to the point : G R E E D.
Capitalism is the root cause of this. It drives the profit incentive, the desire for infinite growth on a finite planet. If we can dismantle capitalism, we can start making genuine progress towards a more eco-friendly future.
My concern about this video is the focus on “every little thing.“ We need to take the word “little“ out of that. We need to focus on “every thing.“ That certainly does include our small individual changes, but it also suggests that when we are committed to small individual changes, we are more likely to be committed to voting in ways that will bring larger systemic changes. To see this as either/or is inadequate. It needs to be both/😢
Yes! While big actions are necessary, small actions do accumulate. My favorite example: one drop cannot fill a bucket, but many drops can.
I disagree about it meaning you're more likely to vote in ways that bring larger systemic changes. Plenty of people participate in recycling or have reusable bottles and so on, but a huge number of Americans DON'T vote.
It does need both. But without sweeping systemic change, over which the average person has no power, there is little chance of winning this battle. We cant fix this while maintaining capitalism.
As individual, we are doomed to fail. As a society, we can still act. Let's remember this when we'll get to vote, whether in June or November.
Ironically, voting Green is a waste of paper.
Quite the opposite. An individual is a free thinker. A "society" is an indoctrinated flock of sheep.
As long as politicians are not held accountable for the future consequences of today's inaction, nothing will change.
You're right, but I don't think they are not aware of what the cost of inaction is. They mostly belong to an older generation who will not be there when things will get really spicy, so, why bother? And that's why we have to carefully choice politicians, and take collective actions if possible.
It goes beyond voting, especially when voting power in the US is minimal. Community action is a necessity
The "do anything approach" appears to me to be the first step to raise and spread consciousness about environmental issues in society, and then lead to the bigger political changes you mentioned. Although, you are right to say that this approach seems to be backed by lobbyists to avoid addressing the big problems.
That doesn’t mean we should give up on being clean and dump all the thrash in the yard. Or that it’s ok te cut all the trees and let the animals die. The way I see it the planet doesn’t need to be saved since it has existed way before we ever existed, we can’t stop what will happen, but we can minimize our impact. We need to find ways to do it together and most importantly to not give up on ourselves because doing so would mean letting the worst to happen in despair.
This video gives a clear exemple of what we can do.
Personally I don’t think that planting trees to be a bad thing you love doing it. Or cleaning a beach or roadside if that’s what you like to do even if it doesn’t do much or anything it’s not a bad thing to hope or wanting to do good in a giant world. It may not save the planet but im not gonna stop doing what i can to make a difference, because it is our home after all and if we cant save it, we can still find ways to live in it.
I hope this video make people think about the things we can do to save as much lives we can so we can still live in this world that is our home to all.
Do anything, do whatever, no matter how small. it'll always help, at the very least it will convey to the politicians in power that their voters care about this so they would choose the better, bigger, more impactfull options
It is actually BOTH that must happen: A change in lifestyles on the micro level and serious change on the industrial policy level. Because, it’s really not about simply changing the lightbulbs or going to solar panels or buying an electric car (if you can afford it - the majority still can’t). It is absolutely about a plethora of policy changes. But, it is also about fundamental paradigm change by people.
You can’t just wait until the political leaders finally succeed at lowering carbon emissions, this will never occur. It must be accompanied by a special formula of change on the individual level.
Radical change in how you live - you can’t do the things the commercial industry says to do (buying your way into “doing the right way”) - because that’s through the same mindset that keeps things the same.
People don’t want to believe they can change that much, you’re stuck in a world where your choices are limited. This is not true. You can radically change your lifestyle - while, at the same time radically change government (that also requires you to leap out of old political paradigm restraints).
Why? Because domestic and international policy will not change as it is currently implemented. The two-party electoral regime is set up to resist real change.
Fact is, we can not change enough to stop worst case scenarios unless we do break out of the current regime - it will not let us. And, the amount energy consumed (resulting in fossil fuel emissions) to change to an all-electric infrastructure off of renewable energy ends up negating the needed change that’s the goal. The amount of fossil fuel needed to mine the needed to transition to the type of materials needed - negates that change. Wars fought over mineral sources - negates that change (not to mention wars fought for any reason).
There is the need for us to change drastically enough on the micro level while effectively changing governance over the macro level - to create the proper level of demand. You can not think that either is enough on its own.
It may not have a big impact now, but it is an important step for the future. We need to change our habits and way of life, be more sustainable and responsible. This can help us when things go wrong are resources diminish due to the climate change. We need to adapt.. Not to mention that even if there are no big issues in the future, its just smarter, more humble and responsible for us to learn how to value the things that we have and use, and how they interact in the grand scheme with nature.
As individuals we have very little choice on where we get our energy from. We can't tell the power plant to not give us fossil fuel energy but we do have a choice when it comes to food. We can choose to avoid the worst emitting food choices. This is the one area where consumers have the most power.
We can reduce energy usage but we all still need energy for society to function so that needs a top down approach. But food choices are easy to make at the consumer level and on mass would make a big difference without any regulatory change as its a supply and demand industry. And most of the lower carbon items in the grocery store are also cheaper than the things they replace so we can save money at the same time.
Everything said here is true, but I think it should be said that just because individual action won't solve the crisis, that does not mean that our individual lives won't be affected by policy changes.
The simplest example is gas prices. We need to stop pumping so much oil, but if we do, gas prices will go up. If we reflexively vote in the pro oil candidate in the next election cycle just because of high gas prices, we won't get anywhere.
Don't drive. Take the bus (less carbon emissions per person overall) or bike to work. Just don't drive. Don't give them the satisfaction of filling up your car with their carbon emissions.
Great work on this. Keep up the good work
I agree that "small" changes can be an important distraction from the bigger issues. However, we need to avoid the temptation here to simply shift the blame / responsibility solely onto corporations and governments to fix climate problems. We can share what we learn trying to change our lifestyles and help others do the same. This is an avenue to reduce our dependence on misguided corporate/governmental priorities, which could really help pressure change in these sectors. Essentially, change has to happen both from the bottom up (individuals) and the top down (organizations). It would be nice to see a video giving treatment to how top-down and bottom-up changes could take place simultaneously to solve climate issues.
I came back to this 13 days after watching just to comment, because it's still under my skin. "Thanks" PBS Terra for this message. I've been driving Civics for almost 30 years, but my next car is going to be a Ford Expedition, because why the heck not, right?
We have to do both. When millions do their "little thing" the impact IS significant. We just must not forget the big things.
No, it's not. You've just watched a video about why. It's just not feasible for everyone to "choose" the most enviromentally friendly option, but even if it was, it wouldn't make much of a difference in most cases, because most emissions and contamination come from stages in the productive chain that are completely out of the control (and out of sight) of the final consumer. The ONLY real solution is for us to COLLECTIVELY force these decisisions onto the production chains; the individual lifestyle changes will come downstream from that as the whole economy adjusts.
@SMorales851 To me, it seems less likely that people who don't care individually about the environment will make a collective effort to force our governments to change. Even more, they will be less open to listen.
We blame the consumers & not the producers in most cases... Metaphor: We have to stop the leak before we mop it up, otherwise we'll just have to continuously bail faster than the leak to have any "false" change.
Stop production, by reducing consumption. Minimalism is a cost most of us aren't willing to "pay" & healthy alternatives are to expensive & time consuming when compared to today's "American Dream" of paying someone else to do our chores so we can enjoy the fruits of our ""labor"", sitting in an office for a few hours, & not helping humanity survive, but scheming profits from those who do the necessary chores. Takes money to make money: by raising the "cost" of the American Dream so only a few can afford it, they can dangle it in front of the necessary laborer every day convincing them to continue driving them to do the chores for those who can "afford" their labor. IMO
Thanks, but we have to do both. the problem is not somewhere else, it is everywhere. It is too easy to blame only oil companies when we demand plentiful and cheap gas and beef steaks. We have to both change our lifestyles and ask our politicians to act.
Yes!
Without the politicians acting part, there is absolutely zero chance we fix this. We all need to do our part, but we all also need to recongize that the reason we havent made more sustemic progress is due to malice. People with power using that power to prevent change, and maximize profits.
We need to realize that the enemy is capitalism.
As many has stated much better than I, for me, growing up hearing that my actions matter was not received as the blame being put on me but the fact that I have agency to impact change. I think that cultural shift of responsibility and care about the issue helps Create the environment where people who care Can become the decision makers, The activist, The politician and perhaps those ideals will also put economic pressure on the individuals who run companies. There is some benefit to the Domino effect. Even if it's Way too slow on its own, It can be running in parallel to large systemic change And reinforcing that change.
two things can be true. we as individuals need to help cut our carbon footprint. we as individuals need to elect politicians who don't suck up to polluting companies, subsidies, deregulations, tax cuts....Vote Blue! donate to progressive candidates.
And yes electric cars and heat pumps are the answer! Just as much as closing down coal and natural gas plants are in exchange for renewables and nuclear!
@@stickynorthless electric cars, more electric trains, buses, and bikes.
Voting blue (and red) is exactly the problem. You only ever think about it in terms of left vs right, not authoritarian vs. libertatian or rich vs poor. Democrats and Republicans all want the same things, money and power.
Vote 3rd party or if you must vote left or right, don't just do it because of their political affiliation. Actually do a background check
So we actually CAN stop climate change
Only if we eat the rich
@@Frankoman64that's a good idea. I would like to gather up all the richest with the biggest of yachts and feed em to the fishes, bear sharks and hippos big cats anyone think 🤔 of anymore
@@Frankoman64 And the future generation might be able to do just that
If you fly 6 times a year or more, you are the problem. If you have an SUV that gets 20-ish MPG? You are the problem. Live in a house with more than 1300 sq ft? You are the problem... What PBS glosses over is that Americans are 5% of the global population yet consume 25% of its resources. And of course that differs largely from class to class. The top 1% but also the next 14% are the problem. Upper middle class "aspiring" luxury is the second biggest overall energy hog demographic after the T-Swift set!
@@stickynorth I fly maybe once every 5 years, I bike instead of drive, I recycle, I don't eat red meat, I work from home, my roof is covered in solar panels, and no I don't waste money on Taylor swift but nice try with the strawman argument
What's so frustrating is a lot of the green efforts that we see companies present are just really greenwashing, and the supposedly environmentally friendly options that previously existed are now villainized, resulting in classist and ableist outcomes.
I don’t see how we can undo threshold’s
we can't undo anything, it's been decades, we can only prevent the worst case scenario
@@AmonTheWitchPeople collectively preventing something? Never in the history of mankind. Our brains aren't big enough or developed for that large of a group burden.
@@thatguy5801 the only real problem is big corporations don't like losing money
@@AmonTheWitch and as far as companies are concerned, "not making the absolute maximum profits" = "losing money" 🥴
So in short, we need the work together instead of individually.
My efforts on their own may make little to no difference, but my drop along with the drops of 100s & thousands of all of us changing our attitudes, supporting/encouraging larger efforts, discouraging numerous negative practices, & so on, matters.
Our awareness, knowledge, mind-frame, & the impact that THOSE have overall, matter. People who do not participate or set an example, even if small, do not garner the same effects on global attitude & practice.
So actually, yes. Our dismissed efforts Do matter.
There's more to it than mathematical stats & crapping on the "little people" as if we're at fault for the wealthy using terms, loopholes, etc. to get public opinion points for low efforts.
Educate.
Wonderful video. 100% correct, no notes
100% ineffective too. Just blame the other side because the other side is blaming you. If everybody is making personal sacrifices it becomes harder to invest in, or work for, companies that won't also take similar steps.
there are literally studies have it DOES have an impact, especially when you lead by example. also its unrealistic to think that we don't have an impact, if you walk to work you're more likely to vote for people who also walk to work
Bingo! WTF is PBS doing?
Yeah, just not a meaningful one. Doomed a few years later is still doomed
@@JOlivier2011 we're doing more than anyone, I take it you do nothing
@@Lildizzle420 Oh wow. How amazing you must feel. Whatever I do or don't do has essentially an identical effect to your efforts.
I support degrowth. People don't understand how painful meaningful change would be. Virtually no meat consumption, Very limited daily energy use, no flying, no long daily commutes, no new clothes, no youtube etc. etc. on and on.
And I just don't see my fellow selfish American's getting onboard with the project, heck, we can't even get like 40% of them to believe there's a problem.
Everything else short of fairly extreme measures or some sort of fusion miracle is just shifting deck chairs around on the Titanic. The human population and our energy and natural world consumptions just keeps going up when to even plateau would be catastrophic
@@JOlivier2011 that's a very weird and extremist view and goes beyond climate change.
But again even degrowth requires public participation. You can't even degrow the oil industry because you're still buying gas and funding oil lobbying that secures oil subsidies
The fact that we absolutely need collective action doesn't mean that our individual action is worthless. It helps send signals to the market, makes us focus on the problems of our system, and help us create healthy habits and set an example of where we want to go, all while we demand more decisive collective action from our governments!
Glad somebody has finally said it aloud: one's climate contribution is so negligible, it's practically pointless, given that climate change is a time sensitive issue. It just makes the person feel better about themselves. Sadly, in my experience, people don't wanna hear that and get agitated when I try to tell them that.
Another issue is that pretty much all climate speakers use words like "unimaginable", "unthinkable", "disastrous", "catastrophic" etc. Help people imagine the consequences it's going to have on their everyday life. Tell them how crops may fail and food prices will skyrocket, that is if any food is available. Tell people how intense floods may affect production or delivery routes, resulting in goods shortages. Explain to people how a 2.5° difference may cause our cities to overheat, leading to faster evaporation, thus effectively increasing relative humidity, making it harder for the old, the ill, but possibly even the young to exist, let alone work. Do put a price tag on that because people ultimately don't care about the millions if not hundreds of millions of people from some backwater on the other side of the world. People ultimately only care about their own well-being, wealth and comfort. So, if they can't imagine or think of the impact of climate change on their mundane tasks, how could anybody expect them to care about somebody else's backyard?
Everyone needs to see these videos. They are INCREDIBLE. Well done PBS Terra team!!
"Stop Saving The Planet" has been one of the best PBS Terra series ever!!
Stop installing solar panels so that we can buy emissions free electricity doesn't add up. If no one installs emissions free electrical generation then where do we get the emissions free electricity? Government subsidies to encourage solar installation and electric vehicle adoption have meaningfully driven down emissions and provide money for research and development of better, cheaper emissions free technologies. We do need prohibitions against emissions, but we also need society to get to the point where there is enough buy in and ability to make the switch.
Good point! The video's logic is internally incoherent.
@@evanmeszaros352 1000% Thank You! For a second I thought this video was an April Fool's prank or I was having a stroke... It's 100% garbage content meant to drive eco-anxiety which is already widespread enough and yet still people don't act!
If you won't stop industry from overproduction nothing going to change.
@@karendarrenmclaren And the best way to do that is to stop demanding the things that are overproduced. I won't say that producers aren't guilty - far from it! - but consumers really are the ones who are in control here.
@@evanmeszaros352 you living in fantasy world. Producers produce to sell more. And pushing people to buy more. We not demanding even half of what they producing. That's why there is constant flip products.
Will we buy or not, they will produce.
Especially birds problem with cars. We can be not living in car dependent world. But they forced us
Excellent summation! I work in turtle conservation and I have been trying to cut through this noise on a number of fronts for decades. Now let us add the latest light and mirrors, song and dance routine...cutting emissions and stopping climate change. The possible checkpoints long ago passed us by....most of the world spends most of the year well past the 1.5 c mark already. Cutting emissions completely immediately would not stop the changes already locked in. We should of course continue to try but our main focus needs to shift away from that paradigm to the more prominent one facing the whole globe.....how to prepare both people and the environment for the massive changes we are already experiencing and will be exponentially intensifying each year for the foreseeable future. Cluelessness as demonstrated by our feckless political and socio-economic systems is definitively not a luxury we can afford any more in this accelerating global catastrophe. And hitting the recycling can as you clearly demonstrated is mere feel good smokescreen that actually undercuts the urgency of what is facing us.....total institutional change across the board for all peoples everywhere all at once!
Heads up the captions are incorrect starting at around 8 minute mark, great video!
I have to disagree with your premises. In a market economy players will continue to do what makes them profits and politicians will continue to do what gets them votes. Individual actions acumulate into the data that allows big players to make decisions. Locally, a demand for big heavy cars means that parking will take precidence over bike lanes, and nationally it means that automakers will build them bigger and heavier, and continued demand for fossil fuels will enable more oil exploration. Individuals must make tough choices for themselves to set the example and the market conditions for politicians and corporations.
I am portuguese, we now reached over 90% of nacional electricity production from green sources because companies found "your electricity comes from renewable sources" to be a good PR move... It took a few years, but it did change things because people actually started choosing those "green" companies, which in turn, made all of them move in that direction, so, yes, individual actions actually matter and every action counts, no matter how small, it becomes a group effort and affects policies.
It does take policy change too though. People buy the big heavy cars because you need a car because there isn't any public transit option. Somewhere along the way, a policy choice was made to prioritize people driving big heavy cars over other forms of transit, so people started buying cars as a reflection of that policy. People buying big heavy cars also starts a kind of arms race, because being in or on anything less than another big, heavy car when the person next to you is in a big, heavy car- even if it is still a big heavy car but not as big or as heavy, feels (and is) extremely unsafe. If policies were put in place to incentivize public transit and bike lanes, then the cycle would happen in reverse: people would start to feel their big heavy cars are annoying, because it's quicker to take public transit or bike. They stop taking their big heavy car. Public transit and biking expands again due to increased demand. more people get fed up with trying to drive big heavy cars, etc.
And in the case of "shopping around" for greener energy companies as the person in Portugal has suggested, that's often not possible in the US. Energy in the US is controlled by regional monopolies. So you have 3 options: pay your bill, find the money and the time to pull your house off the grid with renewables, or move somewhere where you can have a gas stove for cooking (which is a bit counterproductive) and learn to enjoy sitting in a candlelit house like it's the 1700s. No refrigerator, computers, or other appliances. Maybe you think that's totally doable. For most people, it isn't. And until there is policy change that FORCES the regional monopolies to change, you can yell at them yourself about how they need to change how they source their energy, their response is likely going to be something along the lines of - 🤷♀️ enjoy sitting in the dark.
@@amberallen7809 you make it out like its impossible for ordinary people to cycle or use transit, which it isn't or it shouldn't be. Certainly its currently easier to drive a car, and there are many places unserved by transit. But it is far from impossible to bike for just 1 trip per week, and that should be enough to show demand for better cycling connections. Someone has to take the first step towards deescalating the auto arms race, and you know for godsdamned sure it isn't going to be a politician, an automaker, or an energy company.
And as for regional energy monopolies, they do have a monopoly on transmission, but not on generation. By us federal law, anyone with the resources to do so may start a power company and provide power into the grid. They have to make agreements with housholds to purchase that energy, but they're allowed to do that, and the transmission company can still charge a fee, but many many people do buy into green power. And households with home solar or wind or something can sell excess power back to the grid, essentially winding their power meter backwards (because most solar homes don't just completely disconnect, that would be stupid).
I know its all possible because I live it myself. I bike or take septa everywhere I need to go. I don't even have a car anymore, no car payments, parking fees, surprise maintenance, it saves me a boat load of money. I live in a condo, so most of my walls are shared with other units saving a boat load on heating (and I have through the wall heat pumps). And there's a small grocer in the lobby, so if I run out of milk or something, it's just an elevator ride away.
"Stopping climate change" is jargon that no climate scientist uses. There is no way we are going to mitigate and adapt to climate change without individual action.
Individual actions without a doubt but let's not forget the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex.
@@lorenzoblum868 As well as the fossil fuel and oil giants!
Finally someone mentions the.number one polluter on earth!!
@@lorenzoblum868 That's a myth. The military is probably responsible for less than 1% of emissions.
@@DrizzyBBig Oil ❤ MIC
OMG! By the one-minute point, I Loved you. I'm a retired environmental engineer. I became a walking zombie with the futility I saw everywhere. I didn't feel we weren't doing enough, it was because we're doing stupid things; EVEN BAD THINGS. I strongly believe the secret purpose of the EPA is to help the "right" people get Rich.
-- I'VE NOTICED PBS IS STARTING TO PROCLAIM THIS -- THANK YOU!
You know what, I can change my lightbulbs but I can't make policy changes. We can barely keep a democratic government going in the U.S., and most of us (you know, the same people who can't afford an electric car and who work for a living) have a limited amount of time & energy for engaging in politics, beyond voting and writing letters to elected officials. I agree that we need massive policy changes so this was a pretty good pep talk for that. However, if everyone in the developed world works hard on cutting their emissions and consuming less, it will have an effect. My goal is to get my emissions down to 5 tonnes/year.
Change "Do Anything" to "Do Everything" otherwise its just industry blaming people and people blaming industry. Industry needs to change AND we need to change. EVERYONE needs to take responsibility.
I've been saying this from the start lol It's part of the reason I haven't stopped eating meat (the other is health, of course). I will always bring it up when I can. The sky in my area was clear and the air was clean for the first time in a long time when the COVID lockdown happened *because no one was driving.* Full stop. It was like a micro climate cleanse that visually proved big oil is responsible for this whole thing.
The USA needs to build cities that are walking friendly. Right now, everything is all spread out and you literally have no choice but to drive if you even want to go to the store from your house. BUILD RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS. Make people WALK (or ride a bike). That will 100% lower carbon emissions because no one will be driving regardless of the vehicle (electric vehicles are still iffy because unless you know where your electricity is coming from, it could very well have been generated via big oil's bs. It's better than a gas powered car but still not as good as walking or biking) and the #1 largest money-maker for big oil will be eliminated. If people aren't using their vehicles at all, they aren't buying gas.
Perfection is the enemy of good. When I tell people how much I love my rooftop solar the first thing they focus on is if it covers my entire electric bill. Even it it only covered half wouldn't that be a positive step? As it is, it covers about 90% of my electricity costs and that even with moving my hot water off the propane boiler and on to a heat pump hot water heater - electric lawn mower and other power tools, hot tub, heat pump for AC and heat etc.
I'll add that as an individual I can influence others by being an example as well as educating. I've had two neighbors install solar after seeing my results.
I remember laughing out loud when I first saw that Exxon “climate heroes” ad. Ive lived in the same town as one of their refineries and the was black dust EVERYWHERE (and this was in California, a state with some of the most extreme pollution laws!)
The reason many of us feel compelled to the "do anything" approach is because our lawmakers seem only to be interested in the "do nothing" approach.
And they will continue to "do nothing" so long as the behaviour of the population resembles "do nothing." We absolutely need individual actions of all types.
No changes as long as greed rules.
This is the cold hard truth right here
I see it like this; if a large company in your neighborhood would dump all their trash right on the street, would it mean you can just throw your trash on that same pile too? And then complain about what the company is doing??
We all play our part, little or small. The biggest responsibility is on governments and polluting companies, but individuals still have their own (granted, small) responsibility too!
The plastic industry has put the burden of disposing their single use products (in an environmentally safe way) on the consumer when it should be their burden to solve. In systems engineering, part of the curriculum teaches that when you're creating a product you should also have a plan of how to dispose them in the most effective and least costly way (cost here doesn't have to mean money, could also be time, or other resources).
This messaging needs to be spread more. The ones at the top are hanging us out to dry while charging us for the (dis)pleasure. Either we force corporations to be more ecologically friendly now while we can make deliberate and meaningful planned changes or Mother nature will put us all in our place with no recourse.
I don't agree with the initial premise: what we do as individuals adds up to nothing. The same could be said about taxes, a typical individual contribution is so tiny, why bother? But if we all decided not to pay our taxes, the cumulative impact would be huge. If the average individual cuts their energy usage by 30% (which is pretty easy), the cumulative impact would be huge.
However, I agree with the larger premise that systemic change is much more effective. The underlying reason is that it's hard to encourage and maintain individual action, not that the individual action is meaningless. In our household, after a bill shock, I checked all the energy consumption carefully, and found heaps of simple changes that could reduce our energy bill by as much as 50%. But it was hard to get my family to get on board, and tiring for me to constantly check and adjust. I still do it now a year later, but not with as much enthusiasm. As an electrical engineer, I can see lots of ways the design of our house and appliances could save a lot without having the individual constant check and adjust their actions. For example, boiling the jug for a cup of tea or coffee typically uses 3-4 times more electricity than is actually needed, and this affects the peak demand as well which one of the reasons quoted for why we need to keep coal/gas plants running.
I really liked Hannah Ritchie's book "Not the End of the World." It talks about the biggest actions that we can take (as countries, companies, and individuals) to move the needle on climate change. Yes, it's true that the actions of any one individual probably aren't going to help very much. But the *right* actions by *millions* of individuals can indeed make an impact. (Alongside policy changes, of course, but those are a lot harder to enact as a private individual.)
Can make an impact, not gonna do enough impact if big stakeholders not gonna change attitude. This is what this video is about. Also respect to Hannah, I heard her interview, and I like her positivity, but it is pretty much attuned to "previous data might be so disastrous", while she admitted herself that even with a bit more optimistic approach we look at 2.5 - 3C increment at best. And she admitted that lot of her assumptions is based on good will.
So stoked you guys made this video, there isn’t enough education in this department. Keep up the great work!
I kinda disagree with this. I recently bought an Ebike. That ebike released 700 lbs of CO2 in the manufacturing and shipment process. In the year of taking this bike to work I have reduced my greenhouse gas footprint by 4 tons. I know this is not a huge amount, but this is a really big change in my footprint in 1 year. This one action was enough to reduce my entire carbon footprint by about 30%. If we can clean up the grid and I can install a heat pump there goes another 1/3 of my carbon footprint. These are massive massive changes. People taking actions is a major way we can reduce emissions, but people just don't want to take any actions that actually do something.
This video is claiming that we need government action to reduce carbon emissions (Which is true), but this will just entail pushing people into decisions that will reduce emissions (Such as heat pumps and ebikes). This just shifts the blame from individual actions, to societal actions to reduce our guilt. It doesn't actually solve anything.
I guess I'm just jaded by the amount of people who want action on stopping climate change, but still want a gas furnace and to drive to work from their large house in the suburbs. People are unwilling to have an honest conversation about what stopping climate change actually means, and this video would fall into that category.
this is important because there aren't many levers that can change it with out your support. we all have to limit our footprints and its not like the government is going to limit your driving
It's a both/and I think. Like you, I ride my bicycle everywhere and work to limit my impact. But while that does reduce my impact, my reduction is dwarfed by all my neighbors that don't care and companies that blow away my impact with their emissions. So my impact is not enough on it's own. Additionally, without collective action it's not comfortable or convenient for me to do things like ride my bike. That's why we need widespread policy change to truly have an impact and change the impact of the majority.
@@een_schildpad those changes don't happen until a bunch of people like you show up to the city council meetings
The problem is riding that bike isn't an option for most people because of systemic issues like lack of protected bike lanes and everything being super spread out in the suburbs. You have to change the roads before most people will adopt bikes, even if bikes are a thing most people want.
I get the idea of reframing energy questions, but this whole piece was basically saying: you can’t do anything, and the actual factors that alter carbon emissions, you can’t affect…unless ‘we all’ act. Very surprised to see this writing on PBS, could have been written by the fossil fuel lobby.🤨
Lol you didn't really understand what she was saying or didn't bother to watch to the end.
Small changes done by all can lead to a synergistic effect that can lead to a bigger effect. We don’t know exactly how big but yes big oil and ag are the two most obvious major contributors to this warming. How about taking more accountability in what we buy as well. A lot of the crap we buy is from monopolies that don’t care about us or the planet. A lot of the chemicals in those products can end back up in the environment causes a cascade of events that lead to more warming. Regenerative agriculture and hydrogen for energy are the solution for the major causes of this issue. Regenerative ag can also reverse some of the damage done to the soil.
With a food impact of 1/3 of total emissions we can definitely make a huge impact by switching to plant based diets. I agree that system change is inevitable to bring down the whole picture. But in the food sector it’s not Exxon and co who decide what we eat but us as individuals who, as a unity can change the whole market.
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
- Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Mukhtar Babayev will be the president for COP 29; he is also a former executive of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijian Republic.
Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
I say fight for every single fraction of a degree change reduction possible. Don't just give up 'cause things are going bad and make it even worse for those very same future generations. This is not a "either we win or lose scenario", it's a either it gets bad, or it gets worse. But if we just give up, then it definitely will get worse, and not better.
I wonder if he has a vested interest in promoting fossil fuels. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Lemme think for a hot second... ;-)
@@op4000exe Agreed. You get what you give in this world. Want a better one? Work for it! Sitting on the sidelines does nothing...
"enjoy what you can while you can, pity the generations to come" is the mentality that got us here
The single greatest way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce car dependency, yet not a single word about it in this video. It is the easiest to achieve because it can be done locally through city planning and since cars are so expensive it can save people money too. It's a complete no-brainer and IS something individuals can change. Biking cuts my transportation emissions to zero which is unthinkable in every other pollution sector.
This kind of video demoralizes people into thinking they don't have any way to have an impact and makes them feel comfortable with doing nothing. Please use this platform to inform and encourage people to take action, not discourage them and make them complacent with the status quo until someone at the top fixes it for them.
Bingo!
Never heard of the us military?
@@Joe-Przybranowski Ever heard of the military industrial complex? It's about a billion times easier to build a grocery store within walking distance to my house than to dismantle that mess
There are 3 ways individuals can "save the world"
- career (are the companies we work for becoming carbon negative & sustainable via strategies such as crardle-2-cradle design, 6Sigma, ISO9000 & 14000 etc)
- consumer (where we spend our money signals to the economy where change needs to occur)
- citizen (who we vote for signals gov where to prioritize resources & investment)
But I agree 100% with you re by focussing overly much on individual choices has been a distraction to allow big business etc to continue "business as usual". But we must also be aware that via our actions (what we do / don't do) signals to politicians, policy & decisions makers awa big business whether making the effort to be sustainable will be profitable for them. Making large systems changes takes effort, money & reources. If society doesn't care (not really), why should they? If only a small portion of the population care about the planet then there is no incentive for change; if 90% of the population cares about the planet then there is an incentive to change. For example, if consumers cared enough about their health & safety, tobacco (& vapes) & alcohol companies would go out of business - but there are enough consumers of these products to keep these industries in business. Similarly if enough consumers, communities & cities choose renewable energy then demand for oil & gas will decrease; profits will decrease; making investment in renewables more attractive. But we're not, so they are not.
I think it’s a social question, one can’t really on the government. But if one debate this open and ask people to listen to the debates, to understand what is happening the change should follow. I want to understand more about climate change and what is what in this question. Also how much and what pollution are we spreading in having nuclear power or how much pollution is created when we build solar panels.
I was excited by the subtitle of the video at 1:06 that said "Start Changing the World" because I thought that the video would talk about the need for us all to change the way that we value our lives based on material consumption, alas there actually was not a single mention of needing to shift away from consumerism, which is what drives manufacturing and pollution. I think it is equally unhelpful to blame "big business" when they exist because our culture thinks that happiness can be purchased through buying the newest product.
Isn't looking to fossil fuel companies to change their behavior a version of this same fallacy? It is up to legislature to set the rules on emissions and technology to give us economical alternatives to fossil fuels. At least the individual adopters of solar panels and electric cars help make the technology more robust and affordable to future individuals. I agree with the larger point though, efforts should be focused on areas that will produce large-scale change.
Especially when they are only giving the public what they want. Don't want Exxon to thrive? Boycott oil! Simple as that! Walk, bike, use transit, carshare with EV's powered by renewables their are always better alternatives to private car ownership... I personally car-share and haven't owned my own vehicle since 2018. I only started driving in 2013 when I lived in a rural part of the continent without transit or even taxi's. It was that or become Amish... And even then I drove a 50 mpg 2-seater to save $ and fuel use...
Nice little consumerist irony here.
Them not spelling out the conclusion does not mean there isn't one or that people are unable to find it. Sometimes it's a good idea to go that last step yourself. You know, think.
Spoiler: The solution is "organize and vote". Individualism is a fairy tale spread by capitalists to keep people from banding together.
Honestly this is the best video you've made on the topic
so basically i been wasting my mc time for the past 10/ 15/ 20 years... this is sickening cuz almost NONE of these bigger entities and companies are going to make the major changes needed that they very well know that they need to in order for us to survive... BUT then again i don't fool myself at the end of the day, all they care about is profits no matter how many have to suffer and perish in the future once they meet their quotas and beyond while they stay protected up on high and down below with their back up plans... every time i see this it sickens me, the rest of us are just all waiting to be wiped tf out... imma still live in my bubble n do the right thing til that time comes
But everything little thing ……..helps.
You’re welcome.
so you would also choose to spit on a burning house instead of calling the fire brigade?
@@tru7hhimself
Wow aren’t you a wee prig…..
Only if it was your house…..😉
@@tru7hhimself
So youre comfortable with your head up your backside?
Almost like you're saying we've been lied to... as we watch private jets fly overhead.
But surely my soggy wet paper straw is the answer, right?
You know that's the problem when T-Swift and Musk want their public flying records erased from the record... You know because of "security" risks... Aka the risk that their cult members will find out they are both total eco-frauds?
Because not everyone has the ability to attend physical protests or write letters to policymakers, joining boycotts for sustainable change and human rights causes is a pretty helpful tool. If a company refuses to adopt more sustainable production methods, well, I guess they’ll lose consumers, which severely impacts their profits. Boycotting shows companies they will continue to lose money and power unless they give in to the demands of protestors.
Love the Keith Mccoy clip, always a classic
You don't have to diss individual choices so much to make the point that large scale political change is necessary. We need many different kinds of action from many people in many aspects of their lives; people have to factor in the environmental impacts of their decisions AND support political and economic change. And isn't supporting political and economic change ultimately.... an individual decision/action? Anything anyone does is always an individual action!
Ever heard of the logical argument against voting? Voting as an individual makes no sense, you'll never make a difference on your own, so don't vote. I'm sure you can see the irony in a video encouraging large scale societal change that tries to argue against taking individual actions because your impact alone is too small.
"i put my recycling in the blue bin. i got solar panels. i carpool to work."
same as
"I'll pray for your health."
same as
"it makes me feel good to think I'm helping 🥰"
In most cases recycling is just religion, more about feelings than results
In most cases recycling is just religion, more about feelings than results
Thanks for your hard work producing this amazing content. It is the first time I've seen this key insight needed to survive the changing climate delivered publicly
Native edible food in gardens or farms stop use of grass as it's very water intensive.
Mybe require better insulation standards have more green spaces in towns and cities.
How many people bought new internal combustion engine vehicles last year?
That’s not Exxon’s fault.
We’re the demand; they’re the supply.
I drive a fuel efficient second hand Japanese hatch. As far as I am concerned its strides more eco than any new EV. Reuse recycle.
Most people barely make ends meet, if "going green" was going to happen then governments and corporations would have to make it happen and make it competitive in price for the average people to also go green. But they do not do this because maintaining the status quo for billionaires is all that matters lol. The environment is fucked and change will not happen fast enough to change this...
We need to do both as best as we can. A lot of humanity's environmental impact is the result of industries that are supported by the end consumers. If we, as consumers, make better choices and use less, that will reduce the impact all the way up the chain. As we support better companies and boycott worse ones, we can force companies to behave in a way that is better for the environment. So as individuals, we can make a significant difference if enough of us try.
And yet, there is no way that will be enough on its own, unless basically everyone abandons modernity immediately, which we know won't happen. So we have to force systemic change.
But doing both things at the same time helps. If individual actions managed to reduce our species' environmental impact by even 5% or 10%, well, that will buy us a little bit more time, and might save a few species or ecosystems that wouldn't have lasted long enough to be saved by systemic change otherwise.
The main reason I put solar on my roof was to cut bills and it worked. I always knew it wouldn't make any difference to carbon emissions but it does make me feel good. I live in the flight path of an airport that has a stream of private jets coming and going. I imagine their emissions are large but tiny on a global scale.
It cut your bills, but on expense of huge investment, that will need more maintenance in the future. So at the end its possible you made your situation worse. Maybe it makes you feel good and definitely it made solar panel producers feel good. To produce something, anything new actually, takes a lot out of our environment. Your panels probalby were produced at the other side of the world and were shipped over by causing more harm to environment. Didn't you build them by yourself? Better grow some trees.
Sure, a single person doesn't have the ability to personally reduce more than they emit, which is a tiny fraction of the whole, but a single person doesn't have the ability to influence politics very much either. You are acting as if the effect of one person on the globe is what determines whether or not one person should do something. The fact is that everyone can significantly reduce their personal emissions, and by doing so, they reduce the amount of harm they're doing to the world. If 10 people are kicking someone to death, is one of those people not morally responsible even if that one person is only a tiny percentage of the deaths that happen in a year and that one person is only a small part of that death? I also don't know anyone who actually cares about reducing their personal emissions who isn't highly political about climate change, you can do both and should do both. You say that personal action is a distraction from political action, but it also works the other way. If you don't lead by example, you can't influence others either.
In before the people who are waiting for the government to make them stop eating beef.
100% Agreed! What is PBS thinking?
Tokenism vs real substantial change.
While I agree the BAU (business as usual) reality behind marketing of small individual efforts but I did not understand last minute or so of the video that talks about what we can do - would be nice to have an elaborate discussion on this.
Truth . Maybe at best it keeps people from feeling hopeless about the situation .
Really really disagree. Small incremental changes by people add up, it takes both government and individual action. IMHO, without the individual action we will not achieve the willpower to do big things as a society that really need to be made. Sure, what you change makes no real difference because you are just one among billions, but if a third of the world started doing that does make a difference.
Bingo! FUD doomerism does nobody any favors! The longest march starts with a single step after all!
While I understand and appreciate the message, I did not appreciate the "kick in the nads" for telling me that my efforts for the last 15+ years are meaningless. Thanks for that!
I don't find that to be an attack. I find it to be a call to arms to actually do what counts in addition to what I have been doing for decades. Get involved in politics that supports real change. Vote. Invest in businesses that are actually green, rather than the ones that spend millions telling us they are green. Those personal changes don't matter as much as we hoped, but they keep climate change front and center where it belongs.
I am getting tired of people minimizing individual contributions. If we get as many people as possible to make positive climate choices, we will a) be shifting the market for what is available and b) make that "individual" contribution proportion a lot bigger. Yes, putting the whole onus on individuals originated with fossil fuel companies and keeps focus on the larger structures, but that does not negate that large groups of individuals have a valid part to play.
Captions in the last minute need editing, though imho you should have left that stuff in. It's good
Can we get 3 cheers for Late-stage capitalism?!
No.