Dr. Rupert Read on Climate Catastrophe | UEA, UK | January 2019 | Extinction Rebellion UK
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 фев 2019
- Dr Rupert Read is giving a talk on climate catastrophe and the need to act now at the University of East Anglia.
Extinction Rebellion's demand to Act Now.
"We are unprepared for the danger our future holds. We face floods, wildfires, extreme weather, crop failure, mass displacement and the breakdown of society. The time for denial is over. It is time to act.
Conventional approaches of voting, lobbying, petitions and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change. Our strategy is therefore one of non-violent, disruptive civil disobedience - a rebellion.
Historical evidence shows that we need the involvement of 3.5% of the population to succeed - in the UK that’s about 2 million people."
Filmed at the University of East Anglia [06.02.2019]
Help XR mobilise and donate: extinctionrebellion.uk/donate/
Extinction Rebellion UK: extinctionrebellion.uk/
International: rebellion.global/
Twitter: / extinctionr
Facebook: / xrebellionuk
1. Tell The Truth
2. Act Now
3. Beyond Politics
World Map of Extinction Rebellion Groups: rebellion.global/branches/
#extinctionrebellion
#climatechange
#globalwarming
The fastest and best action at an individual level : become minimalist, and become a "nightmare" for economists, i.e. for those who push us to believe that the more stuff we possess, the happier we are… Become local when it comes to food, have as little cloths as possible, walk, walk, walk… Become rich with time, not with stuff… I did not believe in this, but I decided to force myself to try it anyway… And I will never regret this shift ! Absolute wealth and happiness are the results...
I've lived the time-rich lifestyle for the past 25 years. Never owned a car or a television. Each person changes the world in a small, but appreciable way. I don't preach it, I live it, and I've noticed that the world will do a subtle bend to the reality I create. However there are more violent and ignorant people in the world than enlightened, which makes me believe that this place is actually hell. Only way out for each individual is to cultivate positive energy.
@@704studio Indeed. Tragedy of the commons. We have to share the Planet with a MAJORITY of stupid people who are either unwilling or unable to behave reasonably. Would it be ethical to neutralise those people altogether if this allows us to save the Planet ? Or is it more ethical to "do what we can to educate" and probably let all humans live and destroy our only spaceship, Earth ? Should we rebell against the stupid crowd who is driving us straight against an asteroid by KILLING THEM before they KILL US and the entire LIVING ECOSYSTEM on Earth ? If killing is unacceptable, is it more ethical to go the way of an authoritarian / oppressive society to FORCE people to behave in an ecological way that will save them (and all other living beings) ? Just like a psy doctor prevents a suicidary person from hurting himself/herself ?
I am an ecologist and I have been telling people this for decades.
People are so upset that the government hasn't done anything (which is not true, most of our restoration work is by the council) but they haven't done anything!
The biggest driver of species extinction is not actually climate change, it is habitat loss and fragmentation from farming.
It has nothing to do with people being stupid, i think. It has more to do with our current culture, if you ask me.
Clearly there have been sustainable cultures in the world. Societies with positive, non-destructive values. And even in todays society this comment section alone proves that there are many people, who have a value system that is non-destructive. What we need to do now is connect and grow this movement. And this could be possible, because we are right and the problems that are caused by the current, dominating value systems are becoming obvious.
It may have to do with people being uninformed and not giving a damn, but that to me is cultural as well. We could live in a society where it's seen as wrong or negative to be uninformed (and of course it is negative). We could live in a society where people are shamed, who don't care about the negative consequences of their actions.
But culture is like a heavy ship and it will take a lot of force to make this ship turn. We currently live in a degenerative, destructive society. We do still have positive values but they are overshadowed by the dishonesty with which they are applied. We live in a society of contradictions. It will take quite a bit of effort to turn this thing around, to reestablish values, to shame those, who act like jerks and to value those who act in a responsible, non-destructive, creative manner. We need non-destructive, creative narratives to prevail. Narratives that make the evil of being passive, not informing oneself, being apathetic and being passive obvious.
And we might be already seeing signs that the narratives are shifting. And those who are parasitic, asocial and apathetic don't like it. That may be why we're seeing this outcry amongst asocial people (bankers, the superrich, the economic elite, the oil industry, racists, selfish people, apathetic people, mindless consumers etc.). They are loud because they feel that their asocial livestyle and their mindless, selfish consumption of junk is endangered.
@Dana Lissy absolutely right--our materialism is DESTROYING the planet!
End Stage Capitalism, end stage consumerism. As a society, we must eschew the disposable nature of everything. As a society we must raise the level of education, stop the lying to one another. We are one people; we are one. Too much pandering to the lowest common denominator among us, playing these people for fools, the rest of us need to raise the standard.
We are one species, indeed. We must insist on that.
What about scapegoats ? The ultra-rich have put us in this position, with our zombified complicity it is true.
But what about the possibility of an "age of wrath" as Christine Lagarde called it recently ?
Eschew Great word. Very well put my brother. I am afraid words can't save us. It will all have to go and mother earth will go one alone again.
One? We are about 7 billion with all of us having different interests and believes.
Capitalism isn't the issue here.
The free market allows people to own their own businesses.
Otherwise, the government will own everything. People like Donald trump.
The beautiful thing about capitalism is that you have many options and you can choose where you spend your money.
Businesses that want to make profit follow trends of the people.
If people stop buying junk and started supporting sustainable products then big businesses will have to change.
Socialism doesn't allow us to vote with our money.
Capitalism is not bad, it is just not used properly.
Too many people not putting their money in the right place.
@@drrd4127 sorry but trump didnt invent the world bank, IMF, the petro dollar or alliances with saudi arabia, israel, fascist ukraine, etc. it is a system of exploitation and profit, it cannot be reformed
I've watched the slowly growing awareness of impending climate catastrophe for years, always with a feeling of utter helplessness and hopelessness for the future. I'm encouraged to see capable people thinking deeply and even starting to take action to stop the madness and turn things around. This is a start... thank you.
Power down is not an option without poverty. There is a correlation between human life index and energy use.
Well death is worse.
What you call poverty is to a great extent the unability to step back from a consumerist model of living. Also we have to check the validity of human life indices. If they do not include items like happiness, quality of relations, meaning, enjoying unaffected nature they are just not adequate.
Rupert, you look very tired. Please look after yourself - if even just a little bit. We need your voice and your leadership to continue.
Last time I checked they were expanding airports and adding flights! At lease they no longer serve plastic straws-LOL so sad-especially for the children.
Yes tired, sleep old man. Don't worry, lay your head down.
Thanks Dr Read for your talk, it was extremely helpful in understanding not only the severity of the crisis, but with some solutions. We will surely need them. Keep up the great work. Cheers, from Down Under.
Our society needs to change fast. I hope it does
So much irony. Deniers will scream "Why didnt' you tell us?!?"
What if "the deniers" are right? Amongst 1000s of scientists too that state there is no emergency? Then what? Trillions later?
No one is going to change anything.
One very important action we can all take right away is to stop eating meat.
Yes! And stop having kids! But the latter is a very unpopular notion - and NO ONE talks about it!!
We can address the "9 Billion human overpopulation problem" right after we solve the overpopulation problem of 70 BILLION nonhuman animals we annually raise as livestock. Think about it, we are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people.
I don't know about you, but I don't eat 10 cattle or sheep (or a mix of both) a year, nothing like. And I'm a meat eater.. but I very rarely eat poultry. If I eat two pounds of meat in a week, that's a very unusual week. A bullock might weigh 600lb or more.
Multiply 7.4Billion by 1.4 because we throw away or waste about 40% of what we produce. So we produce now food for 10.36B, and most of it is plants. wheat, oats and corn, carrots, potatoes, cabbages, yams
Excellent perspective
We've tried to solve the problem of starvation by creating more food, ecology 101: more food -> more people. We are bacteria on a petri dish.
Does not everybody know that agriculture is and has always been unsustainable by now? Soil is gone this century...
Thanks for all the supportive and interesting comments! Check out my RUclips channel for more talks about the climate and ecological crises, and interviews that I have been doing about the vitally important global Extinction Rebellion protests.
"How do you stop people wanting to consume?" That's easy, you convince people that they have been lied to all their lives. You've been told that to obtain happiness, you need something, and it just happens to be what they're selling. It's bullshit and you know it. What you are looking for is inside you, and all you need to do is realize it.
Useful presentation. Like to see a discussion about global dimming in the context for example, of carbon zero by 2025. How then, will the loss of global cooling from removal of the aerosol masking effect which is a fast feedback & has been offsetting global temperature rise to date, then play into the successor civilisation strategy? Almost nobody talks about global dimming loss when suggesting carbon reductions. And the single biggest polluter on the planet is the US Dept of Defence; yet hardly see a discussion about the need to end the war economy - not just the industrial economy, & the opportunity to then repurpose the war machinery into tools for ecological restoration.
Ron Maimon Look at what happened straight after 9/11 when America grounded its commercial aircraft. Watch the BBC documentary.
Yeah-Guy McPherson has been raising the issue for several years now-but they shot the messenger.
There will be no global cooling because of the aerosol by science what is very clear, because you will 1st reach up to about 300C degree surface temp or more before this effect does take place and you can not call this cooling at all - you can see this on Venus for example or earth history by a part also when not so hot but still much hotter temps then atm and there was no cooling by the aerosol at all more the contrary there was a not a limit in the past of earth history warming reached also not with an atmosphere and the aerosol.
danbayasi - you're talking about the Mcphearson paradox - RUclips Professor Guy Mcphearson, we're done !
橋本絵莉子 You could be right. Aerosol alone does not cool the planet. The diminished temperature comes from the lessened amounts of sunlight that reaches the earth because the aerosols and other particulates emitted from the burning of fossil fuels create an ‘umbrella’ that reflects the incoming solar radiation back into space. Diminished sunlight = diminished warming = cooler temperatures than what they otherwise might have been.
dr. guy mcpherson talks on these issues and should be listened to!
The penultimate questioner mentioned lack of street lights, but during the war there was enforced blackout, so no street lighting, no headlights on cars or bikes and so on. I think this shows that when there is a dedicated re for change in a hurry, it can be brought about. We just have become too comfortable to suffer any reduction in that comfort. Many towns already put street lights out at midnight on side roads to reduce their energy costs. The "Dig for Victory" campaign is another wart initiative it wouldn't hurt to copy.
And why couldn't we walk more? The irony of people driving to the gym a mile or so away, working out for an hour, then driving home has always bothered and amused me. There's much we can do really without even having to think too hard about it.
Theresa Munson . During the blackout there was a rise in burglaries and assaults, it just wasn’t reported as the government didn’t want to lower morale. Fact.
I've had a silly dream for years about organizing and scheduling those people-powered pubs on wheels that cater to tourists, but on city-wide levels for everyday commutes/use...
During WWII governments and industries pumped out more carbon to make weapons than present-day western carbon conscious industries do, so I wouldn’t use that time period as an example of what societies are capable of
There will be an upsurge in crime with or without streetlights. They will go out eventually though and a shortage of energy will jeopardise the water supply into your home as well. In many towns and villages in the UK right now street lights go out at midnight.
However, my point about the war was also that the government wanted blackout, rationing, food growing and put policies in place to make sure it happened and happened quickly. But the current government doesn't have the desire to tell the truth about the severity of the situation and therefore there is no will to take drastic measures. We can all speculate on why that might be. They don't have the desire for transitioning or deep adaptation or anything useful. So we either agitate in whatever way we can to accelerate their activities in this direction, or we put the seat belts on and brace ourselves for the inevitable impact. So we can make decisions in advance about what we are prepared to give up, in order to start shifting down the energy decent ladder intentionally.
Unfortunately councils and governments everywhere only like ideas that increase spending rather than reduce spending (on business). Our council in a rural town has spent 100s of 1000s of dollars on 'energy efficient' street lighting but put it in places where it wasn't needed or wasn't previously. It is always about supporting business activity rather than efficiency or conservation. (i'm in Australia btw). Geosequestrate the rich. @@treesagreen4191
Great news! the current government has tackled over-consumption, unfortunately only for those who are already too poor to consume very much, still it's a start.
Very simply: thank you. Thank you very much.
You can only be an "agent" rather than a "spectator", unfortunately, if the feedback mechanisms (and there are many)have not already run out of control. There are several factors that are already "baked in". Sea level rises, based on analysis of CO2 levels in previous geological eras, of tens of meters. CO2 levels themselves are baked in for a rise in temperatures far beyond 2 degrees even if all emissions ended today! (there is long lead time before releases from decades ago maximize their warming effects). Of course this should not preclude our actions to mitigate the worst...but it should focus our minds on the slim possibility of significant success.
' You are not a kook, this is Real! ' A great line, I'll print it on my t shirts. Cheers from New Zealand.
!!! REBEL FOR LIFE !!!
Step One: Determine the cause of the problem, and alter it. Step Two: Repeat step one as necessary.
Love your handle
we need less of us. why on earth are people having children given the facts.
HOPIUM for the people.
i really like these videos. complete unedited presentations
I think the nuclear power argument is mostly overblown. Very little of the waste is particularly dangerous, and the majority can simply be reprocessed, with only small amounts having to be buried in long term storage. While there is a legitimate fear about a facility totally failing, newer designs are built with a tremendous amount of safe guard against that. That seems more like an argument for standardizing on modern designs like CANDUs than just abandoning the tech.
Basically, if you want lots of fairly low carbon base-load energy, it is one of the better choices we have available. Phasing nuclear out once we have something better makes sense, but it seems counterproductive to focus on one of current energy sources that is frankly less carbon intensive. We simply can't feasibly switch to an all renewable grid in most of the world in the timescales that are necessary without relying on nuclear for at least some stretch of time. Unless you are willing to tell people that they can deal with intermittent power losses because there is not enough wind or sun that particular day.
We need to lower the voting age to entry to secondary school, at puberty. There needs to be reform at a political level
Karen Dahl The Problem is that democracy doesn’t exist anywhere. Democracy means power belongs to the people. In Reality the USA and Germany, for example, are oligarchies. Politics is the representation of interest. A small group of people are able to prioritize their interests. The more money an interest group has, the more influence they have in politics. Elitist lobby groups controle politics and are able to implement whatever they need economically. It’s all about making profit. The brilliant thing about this is that these structures are basically invisible to the masses, because all they can see are politicians, who aren’t the ones making decisions. The real decision makers and the structures they operate faceless in the back, so the anger and disappointment of the people will always run into nowhere and can’t be directed at the ones responsible.
Won't help sorry too late for that.
Tax us was their first agreement
I hope the growing of hemp on an industrial scale is part of the peoples assembly plans....
this is a very precious speech, it must be translated in all the languages, on my channel you can find a short résumé about the first assembly in Italy
Has the pandemic produced the "stop" that Read advocates or has it been a huge distraction? I think the later is true and most individuals cannot wait for business as usual to return. Given that last year's global energy use decreased by only 4% while emissions decreased an estimated 5.6% we can only conclude that as the pandemic subsides and pent up demand manifest we are likely to see a continuing state of consumer zombification. Dr. Read has made an important contribution to the debate but I'm afraid much of this will fall on deaf ears. Living in the Philippines gives me an intimate understanding of what the so called Asian Tigers and the Indian Subcontinent has in mind for it's societies and it's anything but conservation and temperance- growth + growth + growth is all that is known. Ignorance sustains optimism. This is a roller coaster we are all on, you've bought a ticket and now are on the final downward harrowing decline after reaching the peak. What lies below is a brick wall not a safe and comfortable stop. Do everything Dr. Read suggests but be prepared for the worst.
I think capitalism and competition can stay but there is intense global cooperation needed and enlightened leadership of the USA to correct the system.
rebel today!
Yes. 💚
I'm in Tasmania. I want to apply pressure for a solidarity with Gretta #SchoolStrike and I want it to happen under the umbrella of the XR movement.
Please respond and direct me to the campaign so I can do work here.
Great talk. Thank you,
TWS 🤘💚🤘
#BoycottMeat and all other animal products of cruelty and exploitation in any way possible!
In answer to the question, "what about the right?": when our march across the U.S. went through the northeastern corner of Arizona into New Mexico, we came across people who lived in earthships and domes scattered throughout the region. A lot of these people didn't know each other until they came out to see this march of crazies. Their reasons for living the way they did ranged the gamut from extreme distrust of the government (typically right wing) to communal socialism ideals and hippies. One guy showed up, his gun holstered, and he was a raw milk aficionado, and 'we should go to D.C. fully armed,' blah, blah... okay, a prepper in the mold of preppers. Others, flowers in their hair... okay, stark contrasts in political views. Guess what they all had in common. They all grew their own vegetables and liked to party and were comparing notes and tips about their tomatoes and favorite marijuana strains and having a high old time by the end of the day. And they were all zero to negative carbon in their lifestyle. Moral of the story... There is no dichotomy. In our nature, there is no dichotomy. TY
Wonderful Talk, Rupert. Let's do it!! And good luck to all of us.
Strikes me as manipulative to mention Mr. Read having a Doctors Degree but leaving out that he is just a Philosopher.
One of the great lessons to learn from this crisis is that there is no single profession or even group of professions to get us out of this mess. We need them, we need us all, natural scientists, workers, politicians, journalists, scholars from the humanities (like Rupert) etc. Stating that he is „just“ a philosopher is just arrogant bullshit, to be polite. Greta Thunberg, one of the most remarkable persons to walk on earth, is „just“ a student, and yet she is contributing a great deal to our endeavour to save humanity and our most precious biosphere.
Its only manipulative if you have no idea what 'doctor' actually means.
@@behemoththekitty it's manipulative if you have to go out of your way to find out. Mentioning it in the title suggests relevance to the topic at hand. If that does not strike you as manipulative try and imagine your political opponents acting in this manner.
He mentions ocean heat at 4:25. So, how much heat? The oceans adsorb 93.4% of the heat, so...
*According to one estimate, the top 2000 m of the ocean took up 240 ZJ of heat energy between 1955 and 2010, but only increased in temperature by about 0.09°C due to its high heat capacity14. If the lower 10 km of the atmosphere were able to absorb this same quantity of heat it would warm by 36°C*
Source: www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Ocean-heat-uptake---Grantham-BP-15.pdf
Climate change unstoppable, the snow rolling down the hill the faster it rolls the more snow it collects, the more snow it collects the faster it rolls, on and on.
There appears to be some slightly subtle misconceptions being pushed in this talk. Do not take it as literally correct statement of scientific fact without verification. Particularily, be aware of the state of uncertainty in the scientific knowledge.
A lot of what the speaker says is a factual statement as I understand it, however.
Non-violent action is a wonderful ideal, but Gandhi, King and most peaceful voices of movements from over the years have other militant parts of their larger activist community that scare the hell out of the established order. Violence is not the solution but it is often part of the conversation and will help but make the authorities more willing and/or able to work with the non-violent factions of the movements and enact change.
Common sense would tell me to hope for the best, fear the worst, and expect the reality will fall somewhere between the two. With lesser issues it's a good basic rule, but the environmental collapse/population growth combo of problems has always made me lean more towards the reality trending to the worst and more than just a bit. It's probably all the post-apocalypse books, television and movies from over the years, but I suspect we will probably end up closest to a Soylent Green future. I'm still hoping we can Trek it though, but when the light dies and night comes you best be in a locked bunker or with well-armed and otherwise equipped friends for at least the first few weeks while shit starts to sort itself out. Good luck, brothers and sisters. Se ya in the wastelands!
What about geo-engineering? Who is responsible for it, and what is its purpose?
Geo-engineering has its own complications. SRM solar radiation management in the form of aerosols can degrade the ozone layer and have adverse affects on weather causing droughts or floods it also is poison pill as it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gases and only allows the excuse to do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases also it has to be done on continuous bases , fail to maintain it and you get massive spike in temperature in a week.
Carbon capture is expensive and slow and does nothing to cool the planet and would take 20 to 30 years to scale up which would be about 10 to 20 years to late.
Basically it’s to late to save this civilization at best and possibly to late to save humanity.
Ideally there will be a last minute attempt at SRM and carbon capture but there are no guarantees and likely a lot of people will starve and life will be extremely difficult for survivors.
What about global dimming ?
Excellent talk by Rupert and always good to have a Q & A. I have just 1 point of improvement. The megafauna extinction by hunter-gatherers is unproven and looking less likely all the time. It probably reflects more on industrial people how they want to ascribe a similar level of destruction to other societies as their own. But likely their were a multitude of factors besides just a few people hunting, including climate. An impact from space is a likely candidate for the North American extinction and they actually just found a huge crater to match.
Interesting; thanks. Can you give me a recent reference?
@@RupertReadClimate Antonio Zamora has a few RUclips videos on Younger Dryas Impact quantification. Very informative.
@@jackspratt2001 Cheers. Will check 'em out.
OK, I've now watched the main Zamora video. Seems convincing; but is only a modification of my picture, right? Because the Younger Dryas impact in no way explains in particular the megafauna extinctions in Asia and Australasia, which are much more widely distributed over time and which we still have good reason to believe were primarily anthropogenic. No?
I don't fancy his chances of getting any British politician thinking of anything but Brexit into the foreseeable future.
lets do math. Co2 is increasing about 2 parts per million each year (ppm) . Humans produce about 25% of that. So humans introduce about 1/2 of a ppm per year. The UK produces about 1% of the worlds Co2. So the UK produces .005 of a part per million, or about 1 part per 200 million. You could eliminate the UK from the earth and it would have no effect on climate whatsoever. Before you plunge 10s of millions of people into poverty by wasting 10s of billions of pounds, give it some more thought.
Shut down the airports .Essential flights only
rick martyn where will the influencers and instagram people make their beach photos then? It’s very important.
Hi Rick, Here is something to think about. Co2 is increasing about 2 parts per million each year (ppm) . Humans produce about 25% of that. So humans introduce about 1/2 of a ppm per year. The UK produces about 1% of the worlds Co2. So the UK produces .005 of a part per million, or about 1 part per 200 million. You could eliminate the UK from the earth and it would have no effect on climate whatsoever. Before you plunge 10s of millions of people into poverty by wasting 10s of billions of pounds, give it some more thought.
yup, no more cheap trinkets from overseas from the likes of eBay and Amazon etc
@@waswaswad
lol
Also when World Wide Transport is one of the greatest issures, it is mostly Transport by shipping and Products that makes the difference, not so much Air Planes.
But it is true that Air Traffic is growing and they got in the atmosphere a direct influence on the climate and these are greenhouse gases which are not by a part transformed by nature.
The more less you buy products the better, the more less using energy the better, the less your products needs transport the better, the less components/complexity your product got the better, also on your working place apart of that it is more relative and not so much important anymore, that is why science disagree with politics wanna change by you private car and heating, argiculture, meat eating - your emission fingerprint when it does NOT make much a difference at all, also not in poor countries like Africa, Africa does not make a difference at all.
Because over 80% of all emissions are coming from ...
1. Sad to say but popullation increasing - do not make babies in the 1st place
2. Energy Production and Consume
3. Transport Production and Consume mostly shipping but also the global usage of transport daily
4. Industrial Production and Consume
5. Building New Land Argiculture or Housing .... Urban and economical growth
To think of geoengineering as dangerous is kind of missing the point a little bit... It could prevent us from extinction. Maybe it can stop certain worst case runaway scenarios, with very severe side effects. So these technologies should be looked into, because if we going to end up trying stuff out as a last resort, it's going to be worse than if we already have some idea what to do.
Citizens Assemblies sounds really unworkable.but everything else great stuff
rick martyn they only sound unworkable here because nobody's ever tried. In the last few years they got major pieces of controversial legislation through the Irish Parliament in exactly that way...same sex marriage and abortion. Consensual politics is miles from what we are used to but has necessarily to be the way forward, unless we want to carry on with this broken system
Move to higher ground. Move north. Problem solved.
I don't agree with your view on nuclear power as there is hundreds of ways to do nuclear. MSR's and modular reactors look like a safer options. Then again its probably to late!
Why are people pushing nuclear so weird about it? 52:40
LiberaLib I agree, the questioner is totally unaware of the situation we're in, totally in denial about the near terminal situation of the life we've taken for granted.
why? because if you don't support fission you don't support carbon free energy
I suggest videos on molten salt reactors by Kirk Sorensen and Frank Shu.
Treesa Green
because wind, solar and battery with energy conservation will be enough, if we commit to rapid weaning off fossil fuels.
The reason I don’t want a major push for nuclear power is that I don’t want to live within 50Km of a nuclear plant. Who would? France is covered in them, and they’re all getting older.
Absolutely :)
Pyramids were built for millenia. Building a 1 meter sea wall is just a joke when you expect 75 meters total over 800 years sea level rise, even if in 100 years you get only one meter who want to build a major job for only one century ?? Just move to higher ground, loose your house worth nothing. Commerce, currency, banks, advertising must be killed now. Money is the knife that is killing us. We must evolve over that. Work only on common goals. True needs are water, food, shelter, and love and hope. I need to feel useful, we each need to work saving our habitat. Even in space programs we DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPORT AN HABITAT.
Still trying to wake up people
Excellent presentation Dr Read. It is my estimation that a very dicey transition period towards some sort of ruined collapsed state of civilisation is preparing to begin. This inevitable state of instability and chaos will be very much helped with enough electrical power to be able to provide industrial capacity that the emergency "transition" will require. For example there are millions of things that are really useful to insure the future "saved" state of the post carbon society. An example would be the very technologies that can allow us to survive such as wind turbines, electric trains and other vehicles, vast insulation of buildings, even the act of reforesting and recreating agriculture would require or at least be vastly assisted if we had a lot of electrical energy. For this reason we need to seriously put into place systems of perpetual management and protection to all of the present day nuclear plants.. across the world. That done, it is obvious that a vast amount of electrical energy would be lacking were we to stop fossil fuelled electricity. This would mean that an all-out push in research and development of thorium molten salt reactors that we know can work to provide huge amounts of electricity in a very safe and quite inexpensive way. So it's sort of like we must be able to maintain some scientific and industrial (commercial?) capacity and as much electrical power during the transition period in order to give us the best chance of survival.
The Arctic is already in a state of runaway warming, the Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral along with the permafrost only a full blown ice age could stop it from all thawing out its only a question of how soon. Once the Arctic Ocean reaches open blue water conditions the atmospheric conditions will change over the Arctic regions and moist warm air will be drawn from the south over the Arctic further accelerating the permafrost thaw and the warming of the Arctic in general we have about 2 to 3 years before this is irreversible at which point you have a powerful positive feedback thawing all the permafrost along with the rest of the Arctic.
It’s simply to late to stop runaway warming and the hot house effect for the planet.
@silvercountry That has to be a BAZZINGA!!
You simply don't know that it's too late. I put it to you that it is more comfortable to believe that it is too late - which would absolve you from any responsibility to act - than to recognise that we just don't know - which means that we need to act, to try.
@@RupertReadClimate It's like jumping off a 10 meter platform to a pool. You don't know exactly where you're going to land, but it will be on the water and there's only enough time on your way down to regret not having learned to swim.
Rupert, you know enough to be pretty sure you will land on the water. You also know that planning for the after collapse will never be a priority and as the collapse approaches, it will be less and less of a priotity.
We can't know for sure how fast the climate, ecological and financial systems will degrade, these systems are too complex. But the arctic is just one cyclone away from desintegrating during summer. I don't expect it to be a dramatic event though, it will refreeze as usual quite quickly.
That being said, the weather paterns will continue to be more and more erratic. Right now it's mainly during winter and summer that it seems to be more noticeable, but as soon as spring and autumn become more unstable in the northern hemisphere, it's time to panic.
No matter how you turn the thing around, there is no future in it.
Permaculture is the answer
Permaculture to feed 7 billion? A global technology revolution is the only solution. Not us and them. All of us.
Part of the answer. An important part, but not all.
Permaculture Food Forests woven through Human Settlements, Some vegetable growing in backyards/ closer to home, Regenerative/Sustainable and Ancient Culture's Farming for Staple Production and Meat Farming...Industries converting to low/no waste and non toxic production...Reduction of workloads, exploration of alternative work structures, or some alternatives, less products/better products...Restructuring regular life to be slower...reduction of cost of living via lower consumption being emphasised as the new normal...Exploration of Alternative Energy and implementation of as much safe albeit still flawed alternatives...Huge reduction of Plastic production...or just recycle what has been created...
I'm trying to create a list...;D And rehash what I keep re-reading as Solutions...
everyone needs food, clothing and thus money??? how can we give sustenance to everyone if we revolt against industry?
Prof. Kevin Anderson: The current 400 atompower-plants produce only 2,5 % per cent of worlds total energy: in order to cover only 25 % of worlds energy consumption we would prontoquickly build a couple of thousand (around 4000 big sized) new atom energy plants(hopefully not near the coast;), but: they build only 70 at the moment, worldwide, and still taking decades to being completed... so : its not possible to go nuclear, think alone of the vast amounts of cement.... no, most current plants even will have to be dismantled , which takes decades itself, as we see in germany right now, and built up again, if ever affordable, further inlandwards;?(away from the coastline. Besides: How much are thousands of nuclear-plants? too expensive for most. And how about the statistics of a major failure like chernoblyfukushima etc.pp. with such an increase in new atompowerstations? I did sympathise with the idea, esp. if they are those alternative stations with less waste and shorter radiation duration, .but the pure scale and the timeline makes me doubt the nuclear option.. but I am still a bit agnostic about it. If the rich countries were to pay for the poor countries` nuclear-stations and hand them over for free around the so called third world, I would be all in for it.. but it would be a huge surprise to me if that ever happens
The answer to the global South question... needs to be changed.
Nope. The status quo assumption of developmentality needs to be changed. Do have a read of Debal Deb, Helena Norbert-Hodge, etc etc.
Too late
Who will be manning the nuclear power plants after a collapse of civilization? That is the number one problem for all life. 450+ power plants spread nicely around the planet will melt down and THAT will be the real problem. Those with bunkers or submarines will survive a little longer than everyone else, and just about all other carbon-based life. I envy those who aren't paying attention.
All of Humanity, including ALL the organizations and 99.999% of the scientists, whistling past the graveyard: “Tell me there’s still time Daddy. Tell me there’s still time.”
The McPherson Paradox: “Hold my beer.”
Personally, I look at everything that I do and try to find the most environmentally sound way in which to do it with an emphasis on simply reducing my consumption to a minimum. But, when you have nearly 8 billion people on the planet, most of whom just don’t give a fuck, my personal efforts become insignificant
BTW, it’s not a question of IF civilization collapses but WHEN
Yeah, building hundreds of nuclear power plants across the planet was just about the dumbest thing we’ve done
Reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2021--wow, really dreaming with that one!
I am thoroughly convinced that, if we just stopped wasting energy, we could reduce our energy consumption by more than 50%
LOL-that woman questioner in the audience sounded like a plant from the nuclear power industry
Also, I need to say, this is an absolutely brilliant speech by Read
That guy in the audience talking about how many people are alive because industrial civilization and modern medicine-yes, and how many more have been made sick and killed by it. There are places where you can’t even breathe the air because of human caused pollution
So which countries are leading the way? We know the problem countries. Which people are leading by example? We know who are the problem people who just are self-serving living a life of consumerism and travel and unsustainable investments. So the problem is being discussed often but the solution ie getting rid of the problem people and countries isn't. Transformation is?
180 degree turn around..less polite chat...mostly life is doomed
Capitalism is the Great Filter.
In a way, J. Posadas was right.
"Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, is a good start to understanding nuclear power's role in the climate change debate.. Then you will see why James Lovelock , James Hanson, Stewart Brand, and other prominent environmentalists think nuclear power is the realistic answer to the climate crisis. Anti-nuclear power people keep conflating the 1950's legacy systems with newer developments, thus showing their ignorance on the subject.
You mean 'legacy' systems like the very systems that are being built right now in the UK, unlike any other magical new systems?...
If you truly want to wake up you must face the truth of your own money addiction. We need to face the truth of our MONEY CONSCIOUSNESS which teaches us that "push button reality" is a good thing. It is not. We must replace this evil consciousness with a good one,
He clearly doesn't know about molten salt reactors. There are alternative forms of nuclear that look like very promising alternatives.
Yes I agree, there should be an all out effort on molten salt reactors, it's also a viable way of ridding ourselves of nuclear wastes from conventional reactors.
Promising- like nuclear did 75 years ago??? Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
@@mypetcrow9873 It's an old technology that was not adopted because you can't make nukes from it easily.
In Christ we can stop this but where are Christians
There has been many times in history and prehistory, where the climate has been a lot more severe than today. Ice ages, volcanic eruptions, eg the Toba Volcanic eruptions, erupted around Indonesia around 70.000 years ago. Additionally, there has been numerous meteor strikes, etc... Etc.. Etc... And we survived...and we survived.
early stages ?...you say he is honest ? (as soon as I heard him say that, I left..I'm leaving now.,,back to Guy McPherson and Dane Wigington.
Dane, Guy, Paul and the others base their forecasts on the chemistry, geology, glaciology, etc., that's taught in mainstream ( low level ) institutions. Their forecasts have been repeatedly wrong - for years - because their chemistry, geology, glaciology, etc., are a fraud, intentional disinfo, a lunatic's psy-op upon the public.
Yes, hell on Earth is coming - but not in the way that they think - yes, most humans will soon be dead - but not in the way they think. Those who want to survive have already packed, relocated, stocked up and prepared - the other 99.999% have little chance of survival - this includes those that think underground survival facilities will save them. Listening to Guy, Dane, Paul, etc., will only lead to death because their forecasts are wrong.
Could have done without the hippy, spiritual mumbo jumbo at the end of his talk. Otherwise, time to invest in those solar panels for my boat. Good luck everyone!!
I think it is clear that we are in the midst of a spiritual crisis. This goes deeper than politics. It is about our whole approach to living itself.
Just going vegan is the no-brainer start.
I support James Lovelocks belief that Nuclear power is the only way to massively reduce carbon emissions.
Welcome to the Church of Climatology... All praise the Great Model (shh... It doesn't actually fit the reality hey? but don't let that stop us.. It's all gravy on this train)
You can't blame the government if society invented it.We are the government.We need to look at ourselves individually and how we have contributed in our own life time to what we have created both personally and professionally in our everyday lives.i.e employment/jobs are part of the capitalistic society we are experiencing both "extreme" diversity and consumption.To continue having children(part 100years) in unstable conditions doesn't fix the problems of said society either.
OPINIONS>>>The 5% of world population will live and grow food indoors with air conditioning powered by nuke plants.While building more underground cities.Today there are sufficient underground structures to support a few million in perpetuity with spirulina and hydroponics. I say 5% , but maybe more like 2%.
Unlikely that that will ever happen. Do you want to eat green slime and live in a cave?
no one has ever lived like that for even a single year. All those isolation experiments collapse.
DONT comment on this , with your friendly cooing and awwing with your like minded folk , start watching the likes of tony heller and attack their point of view instead , you might change a few minds
This is all far too late. Points that need emphasising are (1) we are ALREADY at 1.73 degrees above pre-industrial levels (2) We are ALREADY in runaway climate change (3) At 3 degrees above pre-industrial level human habitat will perish (that's by 2030) even if we stop CO2 emissions NOW (4) civilisation as we know it IS doomed. Of the three scenarios you present the one that will play out is #1 or the complete collapse of civilisation. My view is that the collective consciousness, the dominant narrative of infinite economic growth will not be changed quickly enough (and probably never) because people are too slow to react, to wake up, and don't like change. As you say, at 21:18 "the situation is very grim we are facing massive forces of ignorance, massive forces of vested interests ...". Jem Bendell has got it right: ruclips.net/video/DAZJtFZZYmM/видео.html Most beautiful video, love the original black and white. Bless all.
Human extinction is here in 3-5 years RUclips Professor Guy Mcphearson. So just try to be nice to each other for the next few years.
Always amuses me how these activists can be so eschatological and utopian at the same time.
I totally disagree that we are with to much people. We consume to much , that is a fact and one of those products is meat, 70 billion animals which you have to water and feed, 60% of all live now on this planet to feat 6 billion people. We all have to downsize. Every buy is a political one. Take responsability now. And polyculture on those cropfields will give abundance for everyone.Land plenty if used well. Not like today, cutting down, exploiting, raping and dumping wasteland. Time to change your appetite. No sorrow for me, you agree? Got plenty to tell, not in a nutshell. Greetings
1:08:25 This also raises the question - how many are dead, or dying, because of the level of industrialization?. They who are dependent on industrialized medicine.
The warning, preparation and blessing has been given to the world. Can you receive it? Look for the Great Waves of Change by Marshall Vian Summers.
Retarded comment.
Post apocalyptic waste land.
14:00 minutes in "how many summers like the summer of 2018 can we last through" well this summer is showing us that we wont last through many more summers anyone who thinks this is still preventable or that we wont go extinct in the near future is lying to themselves
Are you aware that the IPPC report states no connection between extreme weather and man made C02?
I think exstiction should be banned crazy people
I suggest skipping to minute 52+ the young woman in the audience who actually offers a solution, even if it may only be an interim solution. It doesn't appear that this speaker is interested in or much less is capable of offering a solution but is rather addicted to his own theatrics of doom. He seems to have thoughtlessly joined his scientist community just like accepting material to pass an exam so one day everyone would call him "dr" and not challenge him. The woman is right "his belief in irresponsibility is his reality".
David, if you want to survive, pack, relocate and stock up - whevever you are, you will probably die there - since some locations offer an increased chance of survival, then if you want to survive, you will pack and relocate to a region that's more conducive to survival.
We could...start witj.... ask jm ng what people plan for Christmas....Same ol' same ol'??? Or will people not only stop with the consumerist mind set...but with the decorations e lights..decoemrations in general....JUST STOP....
Data proves that humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history, by any measurement you care to examine.
Over population e.g. making babies is what's heating up the climate.
I wonder what Rupert Read's answer is to the toxic waste generated by the creation of solar PV and wind (including the percentage of it that is radioactive)? Nuclear waste doesn't exist in a vacuum, and Nuclear energy production is currently the only method of energy generation where the waste of the industry is actually expected to be dealt with. The lakes of toxic waste in places like Baotou - where Solar PV panels are manufactured - are far more susceptible to a 'Climate Event' than a facility designed specifically to contain radioactive waste throughout such an event, but it seems like Rupert wants to act as if Solar and Wind don't produce any waste at all. Per TWh of energy generated, Nuclear is far less pollutant than any of the renewable energy sources, generating up to 300x less toxic waste than Solar PV, and humanity's ability to store radioactive waste is far better than is presented here. All of the nuclear waste generated in the history of humanity could fit inside a large warehouse, and could even be diposed of in certain types of reactor, if the need arised. Most of it will be safe within decades of it leaving the reactor, with less than 1% being dangerous for thousands of years. The main problem with storing nuclear waste is NIMBY-ism spread by people with half an idea of what they're talking about, which has prevented the construction of storage facilities.
It's disappointing to hear him be so dismissive of the question on nuclear near the end, and blind to his privilege that the lady was trying to point out to him, but it seems like cognitive dissonance took over when he sensed a decent point being fired back at him. It's a reminder of why I left the Green Party, as nobody was really willing to question what they thought they already knew about Nuclear power. I don't see a way out of the climate problem without it, and I winced a bit when Rupert first started talking about it on this video.
The gentleman in the audience's point about Nuclear power taking too long to implement is more a story about the speed of British construction contractors than about Nuclear itself - most of the reactors in France were functional within a decade of construction, some in as little as 8 years - and we've achieved far more 'unachieveable' aims in this country during wartime, if we actually treat this problem as the emergency that it is then we will find a way.
Credit to you for not editing out that part of the Q&A though. Hopefully I'll see you in London in April :)
Reading that back I almost sound like I work for the nuclear industry, lol - I don't - but I did start from an anti-nuclear position and I had to change my mind as the evidence didn't support my view.
"When the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?"
thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality
Thanks Andrew. I don’t think you have let the argument that Jem Bendell and I are making about the vast danger of nuclear in the case of collapse sink in fully. I’d urge you to do so. However, in relation to renewables, I disagree with you less than you think. You are quite right that renewable energy is NOT at present carbon-free, let alone toxin-free. This is one key reason why transformation requires the end of industrial-growthism; there is no renewables-only-based way of keeping us living in the kind of economics/economy that we are supposedly living in.
Gosh, there are some big erroneous assumptions in your analysis; & projections of your own cognitive dissonance & half-ideas onto others. It would have to be a pretty big warehouse for 250,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel, and 2 billion tons of uranium mill tailings phys.org/news/2019-01-storage-nuclear-global-crisis.html Assuming all corporations will act responsibly in containing radioactive waste from nuclear sites impacted by climate events is naïve. Fukushima alone is a disaster. Humanity's ability to store nuclear waste is "far better"? So, one example - the Hanford Site clean-up is just an anomaly then... yep, 200 square miles of contaminated ground water, & millions of cubic feet of solid radioactive waste, in storage facilities plagued by construction flaws, is just NIMBY-ism.
This year and the next >> its highly likely the UK EU and Globe in general will spend far more money(Global Green Budget - Local National & International) on research and development for the environment/climate change and revolutionising the way we view and produce energy. I firmly believe certain hypothesised technology's like cold fusion - and others - will become a reality and soon. The beautiful thing about potential technology's like cold fusion is - as a bi-product it neutralises waste as part of its process. This Earth can ill afford another chernobyl and fukushima. There are a lot of extremely bright people out there.. I look to them.
The discoverers of cold fusion were Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann in 1989..
@Andrew Todd What about the people who operate the nuclear power plants? If there are no (not enough) people to operate them and fix problems when needed, what then? Nuclear disaster like Fukushima x 450 plus (the number of nuclear power plants around the world). I think that you have swallowed the propoganda put out by the nuclear power industry hook, line and sinker! As has the writer of the blog you referenced. And remember - all of the scientific stuff that has been written about nuclear contamination, etc. was written by scientists being CONSERVATIVE (and political! I.e. - Don't say anything dramatic or tell the truth because the public might panic) ... like the scientists writing about climate change were being CONSERVATIVE (and PC - politically correct). Like the IPCC reports are CONSERVATIVE (and political!).
Dr Read you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are such a lier and your scaremongering of our children is shameful.
If a catastrophist doesn't propose nuclear as a solution, all their words are hollow.
Silly doomsayerism. We will build fusion reactors. If needed, we suck out some CO2 from the air. Everything will be fine.
Fusion is still 20 years away just like it was 20 years away 40 years ago. Sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere is not something that we are capable of and the crisis is now.
B.S.