A new U.N. report found that the world is likely to surpass its most ambitious climate target - limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures - by the early 2030s.
"All we have to do is convince the people who have all the power to do something that they don't want under any circumstances, in an effort to suffer less as we all die anyways just slower."
When the richest and most powerful people control messaging that reaches millions if not billions of people, it makes it more difficult to create popular support. It's not impossible, but everyone will have more difficult times ahead while the "captains of industry" and politicians age, die, and become worm food.
Not the majority, not even the minority. It's the system. It is necessary to dismantle the structures that advantage this way of production and consumption.
So in other words… we are doomed Also a good way to get rich people to do what u want is give a reward to those who do it, not money, tax breaks, like 10% less taxes for a year or 2. Sure it could go badly but it’s the only way to get them to do what u want
No we’re really not doomed. They’ve literally been saying this for fifty years. Always pushing back the date. Young dumb idiots believe people who fly in private jets. It’s sad how stupid our youth is.
[1:01]... but we lack the power to execute that knowledge and talent. That's really what this comes down to. We're still in the convincing phase after 40+ years of knowing this was a problem.
Fr, you would think the evidence would speak for itself, rising sea levels, heat records being broken every summer, crazy droughts and fires every year that just get progressively worse. People will listen to some 2000 year old prophecy (2012 end of the world, among many others) before they listen to evidence and logic, the world is a crazy place. Humanity deserves a massive Darwin award.
"Countries just have to immediately transition away from fossil fuels" So We're Doomed. At this point not even optimists can hope for net Zero by 2050 or even a decrease in emissions. the only thing that might happen in that time is a decrease in the rate of Release of greenhouse Gases.
But they've been saying this same stuff will happen for years, yet they keep pushing back the date, not denying that it will happen eventually but everyone claims to know the year it'll happen then it passes, I think we're fine for a while
Let's start by cutting our politicians unnecessary business trips to other countries. If they said Zoom/Skype was an acceptable alternative for the citizens during covid, I'm sure they can make that sacrifice to save the planet. Right?
We’re not doomed, we are just going to die from either severe storms, flash floods, forest fires, extreme heatwaves or severe drought, all leading to massive crop failures all over the world 😂
Title is inconsistent with content. The people who are causing the problem are least likely to be affected by it, and continuing to accelerate the damage caused.
Wrong. They've been stating that we need to take action because they were trying to avoid this scenario we currentlt find ourselves in. Lemme simplify it for you, when I was in school, I was a chronic procrastinator (still am honestly), I would leave things till the very end, teacher would give us the full year for some if project? I'd pull multiple all nighters to do it in the last week. I wouldn't study till the day before the exams, I left everything till the last minute so instead of slowly getting everything done in a timely manner, I'd need to take drastic and unhealthy action to get it done fast. That is the position the world finds itself in. The climate expert are the teacher, reminding us to work on our project instead of leaving it till the end, but we ignored them, now we are in the final stretch and we have two choices, take drastic action or give up. If we had slowly cut back on fossil fuels then we wouldn't be where we are today.
Then you see the true colors of law enforcement and military leadership. If they aren't desperate too, they'll crack down and serve the interests of dying rich people and desperate politicians.
Doesn't matter. All that matters to them is the short term profit and getting as rich as possible. Capitalism doesn't worry about long term impacts, it worries about profits and lets the government worry about impacts. When things really go to hell, the CEOs will blame government officials for allowing them to doom us all. They never take accountability for their actions.
Idk if nuclear is a good long term solution but it certainly is better than what we face right now. You are right though. How many climate accords have we had? And everytime the governments renege on their promises like clockwork. If we started investing into green energy in the 80s, and actually followed through with our promises to reduce emissions slowly, we coild have bought ourselves more time to find a proper solution. We could have invested into research to find better ways to store power, but now it's too little too late. We need radical action to save us, and too many people are resistant to the radical action that is required.
That is now every summer. "This is the hottest summer I've ever seen" "and next summer will be even hotter". I tried explaining this stuff to my dad and he thinks it's impossible to transition off of oil and gas in 10 years. Like I don't disagree that it's radical change, but at this point we need radical change.
@@TheDevilslayer101 Have you pointed out to him that climate can only tip so far before crop failures become the rule rather than the exception? Ask how many failed harvests in a row he thinks the world can handle before countries are fighting over beans.
This is a radical af idea, but has anyone thought about the potential of legitimately just unaliving the rich people? No joke this could solve atleast 60% of the problem. Like no joke, we could use the riches to build green energy infrastructure and simultaneously ensure that everybody has food and clean water. Honestly it would be kind of a small price to pay imo, especially since they are dooming us all. It kinda seems like the most straightforward and realistic answer to me ngl
Pretty much, unless something crazy happens like people rising up, overthrowing their governments, and unaliving their rich people. But the majority of media propoganda is working hard to prevent that.
@@MusiKo14 why would I waste my time explaining to someone who is so clearly unreasonable? You're wrong, the top 10% is business leaders and politicians.
Man you've been saying that for 40 years, and you'll keep saying it for another 100, one day something will happen and you'll be right. A broken clock is correct at least twice day.
And on the other hand, there is no quick solution to cutting off fossil fuels. We don’t currently have the mines, production plants, or supply chains in place to switch to renewables in the next 3 decades- let alone the next 7 years to try and do this by 2030, and to try cutting it all immediately would stop or at least slow development of countries where people currently die for a lot of underdevelopment-related reasons that have nothing to do with the climate, and that would kill much fewer people if we just develop at full speed. Guyana had like $2000 gdp per capita five years ago, and it developed a ton of oil and is now one of the richest countries of South America and getting richer. Which means roads will be built stronger and safer, and more foreign investment will come in, houses will be built stronger, which is what really matters when it comes to climate change. The same Category 5 strength storms that would currently kill 50,000 people in Bangladesh but only 50 people in Florida shows that it’s not the intensity of the storm that causes civilian deaths. It’s lack of development and global poverty. The desire to blame everything on climate change, and this all the fault of the rich and the oil companies, is easy. Better to see where the actual problem rests and to develop the whole world much faster so that all buildings can be constructed stronger and with Air Conditioning.
The solution to climate change is to build more stable houses with air conditioning? What good does solid infrastructure do when the entire region will be flooded and under the sea? What good does a solid economy do when your country no longer exists because it's inhabitable. Not to even mention where do you think the energy for the AC comes from?
@@AleksiJuvakkathe answer to climate change was nuclear, but everybody was afraid of it ( despite everybody who dies from coal, its literally 1000 times more for the power produced when brown coal is involved) so climate change it is.
CO2 isn't a big deal if it's looked at the right way. We will have the technology over the next couple of decades to use CO2 the way we use oil now. Quaise Energy & GA Drilling, among others, are on the brink of transforming geothermal electricity into the cheapest form of green energy. With cheap electricity to power electro chemical manufacturing, producing the modern products we've grown used to like concrete and plastics, we can do it without the production of CO2 or by using CO2 as a raw feedstock instead of oil.
Technology isn’t going to save us because 1. It needs resources 2. The problem is of an immense scale 3. Capitalism / unnecessary stuff is the reason we find ourselves in this predicament in the first place.
@@ADP057 Yes, but I'm stating that not because I'm supposedly stating the obvious, but for two reasons, one, people are stupid and need to know that (I'm delving a little deeper into this reason in my second reason) and two, their larger predictions everyone uses as proof that climate change is the largest issue in the world today don't ever take a moment to look at them stating that it's a rather low likelihood. It's a problem, not an emergency.
You could always evaluate the evidence, like rising sea levels, or the fact that we keep having record breaking summers, or the crazy droughts year after year, or the fires. Why do you listen to the propoganda like a sheep?
Sure, today in the beautiful year of 2000 the weather was 8 degrees Celsius COLDER and the winter of 2000 compared to winter of 2022 was on average 5 degrees celsius COLDER TOO! Todays temperature is hotter both in summer and winter, at least in my city but I dont see how it matter where we are located to prove that earth is hotter than it was 22 years ago.
You will when you lose your home in massive fire like the one in Hawaii or the one in Northern Canada earlier this year (2 examples among dozens of terrible fires that are becoming more and more common). How about when the droughts get so bad that the poor and middle class Americans are unable to afford water?
