Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? 

Hello

Beans

sus

Beans

pigpie

Simpsons did it

Not gonna lie, I would watch that

@@martiddy same

That would be a good influence for kids to support renewable energy, like how the government influences kids to go into the military

A better version of Captain Planet? I'M IN!

yes

This is interesting as it appears to follow intended route of the mind when listening to duke saying this. Allow me to elaborate duke here is implied to have some kind of knowledge that we ourselves our withheld further implying that we don't ourselves know because of the phrase "but I won't tell you" This is an act often replicated by people in the 1st - 4th grade as they have had less experience and are more likely to tell lies about their knowledge. This is humorous because the final implication is that duke nukem is a child. Over all this comment is funny for explaining the joke just like the comment above which explains the joke to the audience who can almost certainly see fot themselves.

Yeah.

Ikr

This is so reletable

And now we can use that waste! What a waste.

THe thing about the nuclear is waste is a potential reusabilty, and the fact that theyre also solid makes it easier to control

Honestly, the toxic waste created from TikTok has far more devastating effect on people than the waste created from nuclear power plants.

@@cat.in.2020 Still not as dangerous as the byproducts that burning coal produces.

Waste? Use fast reactors and all of it is either toxic as a heavy metal (Lead), or usable as a radiation source. Unprocessed SNF-HLW is a mess because it has a weird af decay schedule. Processed SNF-HLW is basically depleted uranium... Fuel for breeder reactors. Caesium-137, Cobalt-60,and Iodine-131 in MLW/LLW can be used as radiotherapy sources, as well as some other isotopes.

Dream life

@@LineOfThy chernobyl

@@averageracistperson525 it still is

@@LineOfThy chernobyl

@@averageracistperson525 uh huh. and?

Very well put

Very true.

And nuclear, like airplanes, is safer than the rest.

This is a great comparison. So many people are excessively scared of "what if?" scenarios, but the truth is that they're so well regulated and contained that they're far safer than anything else we have.

The only accidents happened in like the 1970's and thats only because we didnt give a shit then

What about Japan, they reduced their nuclear to 20%, Germany only 50%

@@klokoloko2114 Japan's starting to put theirs back online 👍

Don't stress, Germany is buying electricity from french nuclear reactor thanks to the european inter connected grid ... So Germany still kind of is a nuclear power 😂

And in France Ecologists that grow in popularity want to shut down our nuclear centrals... perhaps there is other priorities right now. And batteries used for renewal energy isn't eco friendly.

@@woodenfishes just so so stupid, and such a waste of relatively new power plants they won't even let them have there life time

Indeed. Thw green budget should include nuclear.

Is that the fear of radiation? Which radiation? Solar radiation? Nuclear radiation? Ultra Violet radiation? All those other radiations I don't know about?

@@toddboyce3599 nuclear radiation

Seems far more likely to be cost and time constraints.

No, the biggest threats are special interest groups and oil companies that are paying off politicians to have regulation and zoning laws changed to make it harder for nuclear and renewable to be built.

Well, some people are also more afraid of taking flight by airplane than walking on the street. Extremely low chance of accidents, but that one accident might be enormous, so they are more exaggerated than they should be.

@@rpdlatk like for instance chernoblyl it was big but they already made a housing around the reactor and i think imo if they have good maintenece(dono how to spel) it sould be good and have fail switches

The thing is, while walking across the street I have some sort of control about the situation and can watch for myself. Also a reactor meltdown causes much bigger problems for a lot more people. I live in the most dense populated area of europe and if this area became uninhabitable by a nuclear failure, there would be somewhere between 6 and 8 million people loosing their homes.

@@walterwhite415 well, wait till you find out how many people died because of fossil fuels consequences compared to nuclear accidents

No. It's more like walking across a minefield. You might be lucky, but then again, you might not. You want to mock people that don't want to join you in your juvenile folly.

The green party was the main proponent of shutting down nuclear energy. Ironic.

let's use snow to cook hot dogs

LMFAO

Just a feeling I guess, like something is about to happen, but I don't know what it means.

The main reason Germany is getting rid of their nuclear power is to not repeat Japan's Fukishima disaster. They announced getting rid of them about a month after that happened.

5 stars would hear again

Except their channel name

@@nathnolt it says “cursed cargo”

pretty sure they typed the captions

@@a4dtesseract408 no

What sucks is that despite being the smartest species on the planet we still have those living in ignorance either by choice or lack of schooling

The problem is that we have constructed this idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything and that their opinion is just as valuable as that of the experts.

​@@demoniack81 The problem is that as soon as you make the opinions of the experts so valuable that the common man has no input, well, the position of the 'expert' becomes compromised. It becomes a position that people pursue (or PURCHASE) in order to gain power, rather than just to contribute to the world and society. Suddenly the 'experts' are a de facto dictatorship. The more centralized the power, the faster that power becomes corrupted. But even if power in society isn't centralized at first, it WILL become centralized, whether the general populace knows about it or not.

I know the perfect solution to this problem, make me a dictator

@@demoniack81 that is the problem with democracy.

Let's just hope things like Chernobyl and Fukushima don't happen twice more often while doing this...

@@lunny3715 In the many years that nuclear energy has been a thing only those two exceptions are ever named. The Ukrainians actively wanted to develop nuclear weapons which is why Chernobyl failed, Japan is one of the worst places to place nuclear reactors but still only 1 person directly died from the Fukushima disaster. More people die daily from coal plants.

@@-haclong2366 Which is why nuclear reactors it it'self are very few in numbers across the world, there's only 440 across the world to be exact. Safety measures of local governments would not allow such hazards to be placed around local infrastructure. The problem is, accidents could happen, but the last we'd need is a nuclear accident happening in local cities.

@@lunny3715 nuclear energy is the safest energy source per TWh. That includes Chernobyl (and it also includes the 0 people that were killed by Fukushima disaster). Fossil fuels kill 5 million people a year. Chernobyl killed between 50 and 4,000. In other words - if we replace all coal and gas plants with nuclear it would be safer even if we had 1000 Chernobyls EVERY YEAR.

@@igorbednarski8048 A new age would mean new problems. And we can't forget about the socioeconomic issues that would come with.

No. You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces currently existing in XY DNA template bodies) come up with the strangest notions.

Loooong answer: 0:03-9:03

Hey look, the inverse of a TERF. I thought it was only theoretical.

@Dana Durnford Try checking out the modern, more compact reactor designs that can't meltdown in big cataclysmic fashion, unlike the older plants of yesteryear that we mostly have employed

Long Answer: Yes but not solely reliant on one source of energy.

It works in France because France is connected by land to the whole of Eurasia and can flexibly transmit electricity in and out the country. It is still cool though:)

We are proud of our country !🇫🇷🇫🇷

Well they were not built for this purpose at all, but thanks to them we are indeed one of the cleanest country and people start to slowly realize it. Unfortunately there is our retarded """"ecologist"""" party, which spreads anti-scientific bullshit on nuclear energy. They weigh only 5%, but this is enough leverage for politicians who don't care about science or long term (so all of them, Hollande, Macron, Mélenchon...) to try and reduce the share of nuclear in our electrical mix in order to grab those 5%. Sad to see, although it's starting to very slowly move in the right direction (for example Mélenchon was heavily criticized when he told that he would close nuclear plants and invent some magical science-fiction energy to replace it).

@@Eldor503 yep, green parties are usually the most stupid and un-nature friendly, and very political

@Ej Dempsey nuclear weapons isnt nuclear energy

To be fair the sun is not fission it’s fusion

@@Somespacestuff I mean his point still stands it's still radiation

@@The_Oddon The sun does not create hundreds of radioactive isotopes and put them into the food chain. Radioactivity causes cancer and birth defects. Don't pee in the gene pool.

@@Somespacestuff and they are busy i think making fusion reactors or i just misread it

But the fucking sun is out there giving me a fucking sunburn 😤

and 100% less pollution

Well, 99.999% less greenhouse gas (we mostly cant dispose that) And 100% more solid waste (which we can dispose)

Quick, shut down the reactors! They won't be safer than coal tomorrow!

@@asheep7797 Bruh.

@@nicefloweytheoverseer7632 What do ya think abt nuclear recycling?

Hell i wouldnt even get mad or sad if he scolded me

18 years* Edit: Proud to be one of the first to reply to this comment. I will always have a space to edit my reply once again and anyone who clicks reply will see it. That’s a cool thing to think about.

Same

Double or nothing

It's a team of people not one guy

True.

Indeed, This is currently happening here in the Philippines

He mentioned loss of knowledge which is a big one. Seems like since the west stopped building reactors in the 80s we have forgotten how to do then. Construction of Vogtle in Georgia is a complete shit show

Isn't your job as a politician to represent your voter base though? I mean I agree that nuclear is likely the way to go but i feel like that's how democracy works.

​@@BusBusII Exactly. The fault lies with the citizenry in this case, not the politicians. People have the right to govern themselves, and if the majority want to offline nuclear power plants, we shouldn't yearn for a nuclear dictatorship to impose low carbon energy on the population. Instead, we should go out and argue and change minds and convince people nuclear is a safe and effective energy source.

@@user-uj7zb7hw3x shut up

@@user-uj7zb7hw3x you have to be famous to be the most hated

the truest words I've ever heard

True

👄👅🧠💖💕💔💓❤💘💋💗💢💌❣💟💞💝💫💥👘🎒👜👚👝💄📿⛑👠

@ĶévïņBB Přõďùçţìőñş you clearly haven't heard of MaximilianMus

I'm sorry for asking, but can you clarify the metaphor please?

It's funny though those other solutions are alot cheaper in my state we have a huge over budget over time nuclear plant idk why we don't switch to solar completely considering they have gotten so cheap

@@olegoleg258 in the debate between renewables v fossil fuels, Nuclear energy is often left out of the debate due to the past fears of the technology, the metaphor shows that nuclear energy working in tandem with the other renewables, climate change would be pushed back by their combined effort.

@@olegoleg258 A House divided cannot stand.

But the idea isn’t original, fallout invented nuclear enegry, do u know that awesome game called fallout: иеш Vegas?

The fossil record versus fossil fuels- Are they the same?

@@user-uj7zb7hw3x you got it

👄💟👜

@@user-uj7zb7hw3x just give u reports to yt

@@user-uj7zb7hw3x stfu bot

Hi there.. Please visit my channel if you love science and general knowledge

They really put a ton of research in their content. They actually inspired me for my channeI.The information they produce is really accurate because they know that even the slight incorrection can lead to millions of people being misinformed. Wish I could be as good as them one day

@@DyslexicMitochondria Clicked on ur channeI cuz I was curious. Brooo youre soo underrated

*press f to pay reapect*

I got the Challender this year and last year. both look amazing.

We should invest more in space technology as it might be the only solution for finding alternative source of energy in the future. Space researched could help a lot in the prospects. There's already a nagging idea of propelling Helium-3 which could honestly a good replacement of fossil fuels. This energy resource could be found on the Moon. Another idea is getting unlimited energy from the Sun using satellite panels and could remotely send energy back to Earth. There was something that Nikolas Tesla proposed to get electricity as safe and cleaner but he died before his idea was struck on the next generations. Either way, mankind should really get their heads out of the ground and look for ways as not doing anything would turn out future into the stuff of nightmare for our future generations to experienced.

Because they do this shits complicated af idk how these gods wrap their heads around it

Well...it is complicated.

true

@Arun Kumaresan evdfttt try EF

The real world is complicated. People have a bad habit of oversimplifying to suit their biases.

so let's call nuclear energy magic energy instead :D

@@The360MlgNoscoper that would be probably helpful xd

Wtf

In the characterization of molecules, we still call it nMRI.

In US? Not in my country (non EN)

same here. Fully functional power plant got 40y.o., and because of protests saying "end of life" it has been shut down. Absolutely speechless. For those unaware, picture this: would you throw you TV away because the warranty expired? No, of course not! Same thing, except that power plants keep up with regulations and are constantly being made safer, repaired and checked. So, it would be like having a TV, having a repairman over every 3months, after 2y he tells you it's in perfect condition but you still trash it because the warranty expired.

@chief Are you by chance from "Zwentendorf"?

@@LilliHerveau And add on a billion dollar price tag. I talk to my parents about nuclear, and they're convinced that Nuclear isn't good because it's "not safe." Nuclear is literally the safest energy source currently.

Think of how many extra fingers you could have had though.

@@user-uw8si1zn2n who cares

Ratioed the comment above

they keep getting better!

Exactly!

They must have taken the Kurzgesagt animation lesson on Skillshare.

🔫Always has been

they're safe until subjected to the fullness of human depravity, that is to say, not safe.

@@scottmatheson3346 Still safer than something that isn't safe and can be made worse by being subjected to the fullness of human depravity (cough, that one dude who decided to add lead into fuel).

It's populism and politics coming from a place of ignorance. It's the same thing with GMOs, for instance. People look at the words "genetic" or "nuclear" and understandably have their concerns, we can't reasonably expect the average person to be knowledgeable about advanced scientific topics. Politicians will either blindly pander to these concerns or have them themselves. The difference is that a politician should be knowledgeable about a topic if they are to give their opinion and vote on it, and always regard scientific evidence over their own premade opinions. And that's not even going into the subject of lobbies. It's unfortunate how leaders worldwide are so easily swayed and corrupted and it's no wonder people are feeling ever more sepparated from politics.

@@john_john_john Or "radiation"

@@ciarfah wait until they realize that their body is releasing radiation lmao

Actually there are members of such organisations who are now advocating the use of nuclear, for precisely the reasons shown in this video. Including an ex-leader of one.

@@jeffjests2764 wait until they realize that coal plants expose people to more radiation than nuclear power plants do, and that a banana will give you more radiation than a power plant will in a year. No joke, a nuclear power plant’s radiation release rate is about 0.9 bananas/year.

This channeI is the pinacle of youtube. Without a doubt its simply the best

@@DyslexicMitochondria Omg Hi I watch your videos. Love your channeI bro

The best thing about them is that they DONT simplify. They compromise.

Lately they've done some clickbaity titles, but surely it's for a good cause. Take as examples the 'nuclear deaths' video or the vaccines one.

Yeah cuz they spended 100 hours every videos

timestamp? :0

We need more Sekiro!

@@rompicoglioni8573 1:44

Kursgesagt is based

He should sell stuffies-merch of the birds.

Please do so.

Consider the following thought experiment: You have two technologies. Technology (A) costs 100 € for every MWh it produces. Technology (B) costs 150 € for every MWh produced. For every unit of technology you construct you can decide whether you use (A) or (B). Is there any scenario where you would use a mix of both technologies? EDIT: regarding lordcirth's comment: I assume that you agree with me, that anybody would choose technology (A). Now, you're rightfully said so, that if we add new constraints to these technologies we might decide differently. We have now two other technologies: A grid powered by Nuclear power, which costs today around 100 €/MWh* and the other one is a grid that is powered by wind, solar, power-to-gas, batteries and pump-storage, which will costs around 60 €/MWh by 2050**. Both technologies are similarly reliable, though nuclear has still the (very) small risk to cause significant harm. You can combine these technologies, but they don't complete each other. Would you rather choose technology (A) or technology (B)? * Lazard LCOE 2020 ** Bogdanov et al. "Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps"

@@dariusduesentrieb if there is no advantage to B, why would u use it?

@@dariusduesentrieb When A only produces MWh at random times, and B produces at a fixed rate for 30 years with a few days of downtime per decade?

what nobody talks about is waste heat. nuclear is one of the least thermally efficient method of power production. if we keep increasing our electricity consumption then we are going to keep increasing our thermal output. aside from solar all forms of generating electricity produce waste heat. all forms of consuming electricity produce waste heat. you can equate watts to BTU/hr. it would probably be more wise to look at efficiencies, on both the generation and consumption sides rather than the source of generation.

It's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Fissionable material pollutes the world from the moment it is mined till the radioactivity of the waste has died down to safe levels. We're talking millions of years. Only in the short period of time when nuclear fuel is burned inside a reactor does it not pollute our environment.

I blame The Simpsons

I blame Chernobyl.

It's definitely not the opposite. Nuclear fuel pollutes the world from start to finish, from the moment it is mined to the end of time when the waste is buried. There is no end to the pollution and it has been proved time and again. So I really do not understand what you are talking about?

@@adbogo and what does it do that pollutes the world so badly?

Actually last year both political parties became pro nuclear

many of these problems can be solved if renewables and nuclear produces a LOT of money and cheap

isn't that true for everything out there ?

Somebody has gotta be paid, and Somebody has gotta stop somebody from getting paid

underrated comment

Japan: progress towards sci-fi utopia America: ...regressing to dieselpunk

How long will the new reactors take to build?

@@tanimation7289 Knowing Japan, they will be able to build them in some 5 year periods

@@AileTheAlien Well if the activists wouldn't scream wolf about nuklear meltdowns and tragedies in a country where there was only one case in wich no one died or got heavily injured, they might be able to build more nuklear. And no, renewable energy in a country wich has earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis with heavy spikes in temperature each year are not an good option. You need a backup plan, look at Texas this winter.

@@zUJ7EjVD The Wind turbines also froze, making them unable to move. The Nuklear power plant was shut off for security reasons and online in unter one hour, wich can't be said for other power sources. And I agree that not all places in the US are subject to the same environmental threat, but you would still have to destroy a metric fuckton of land to make it usable for solar, had a lot of land disfigured by Wind Turbines and would threaten the living space of a lot of animals. Nevermind that an interconnected power grid within the US is a mammoth project wich will, again, destroy a lot of land and would take more years to finish then building Nuklear plants would. Nevermind that if one of these lines would get damaged, thud cutting the connection or leaking electricity, good luck finding that spot.

It’s going to take everyone.

Go ahead. All cool innovations were made by dudes who just got interested and wanted to try something.

Go ahead bro

B.e.S.T f'u"l'l D.a.T.i.n.G -L-o-V-e-S-e-X-----۞------------ livegirls19. com 》》 𝙊𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝘼𝙙𝙪𝙡𝙩 《《 !❤️ 在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。 說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品市場上被忽略的部分家用蔬菜和肉類，並且學會了使用芳香的木煙（如山核桃，山核桃和豆科灌木 來調味食物煮的時候 1618745910

They always outdo themselves

without a doubt

yeeeeeep

up there right next to _"or is it?"_ -michael please come back to making big videos, i miss them-

mhm

Oh, right. I forgot how human humans tend to be.

This is one of the wisest things ever said. Humanity really does tend to make things harder than necessary.

We are humans nothing is perfect for us...

Me: **takes their beer and throws it at their face** “How ‘bout no?”

We have humans are greedy

Lol I am testing right now.

It’s also good because we can learn with our own FREE WILL! Plus when you want to learn something, you learn it with care while schools shove it down and lessen the fun with homework, tests, and essays

Big brain birds

Idk what school you go to but here they teach us about nuclear power

It’s probably because they care more about it than the governments of the world.

yes i love this, it can be so easy to deduce something down in a b&w way but nothing is ever that simple all sides need consideration

then so yeah dream keep going strutucture

Because it is

how rational is this?? How about the REALITY for the last 4 state of the art ADVANCED new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

what's actually irrational is the refusal of nuclear advocates to be realistic about human irrationality.

@@scottmatheson3346 Do you want a localized disaster every few decades? Or would you like a major mass extinction bad enough to make the space rock that murked the dinos look like a pinprick? Yes, we're in the kind of situation where we have to make this choice. I choose option one.

Climate change has and always will exist. The whole AGW narrative is absolute horse shit. We had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years and life flourished and the Earth was green and temperate from pole to pole. Isn't it strange that suddenly we are in a century out of billions of years where the Earth climate is supposedly at absolute optimum with polar ice caps in an interglacial period? Who decided that the 21st century out of thousands of life giving centuries was the perfect one for Earth climate that needed to be preserved for evermore? It is one big joke when you look into it properly but it gets much worse when you look into the agenda behind it. Despite the fact warmest were claiming the Earth will die within a decade because of runaway warming, the same people who said the Arctic sea ice would have melted by the end of the last decade, the UN never saw fit to put restraints on the worlds biggest polluter China and left them exempt of all the industry busting carbon taxes and economy busting green regulations they put on Western nations. Now China accounts for more Co2 emissions than the whole of Europe and US put together and while the West suffered the preplanned UN agenda 21 deindustrialisation, China boomed as the global elite who fund the UN think tanks that come up with these agendas all moved their finance and industry there and made trillions from using cheap dirty energy and child labour. That made just a handful of people responsible so much money that they now own almost 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth between them (Oxfam 2017 report) So when I see poor puppet Greta and extinction rebellion demanding zero emissions in London and Bozo the globalist stooge obliging even as the UK economy reels under his nefarious lockdown policies I have to laugh because Co2 makes up just 0.035% of atmosphere and of that only about 3% is man made (0.001%) and Britain's contribution to that just 1% of that which is 0.00001% of atmosphere. That means if Britain had zero emissions tomorrow atmospheric Co2 would be reduced from 0.035% to 0.03499% or by 100/1000th of 1% over decades if not centuries.

@@Muckylittleme The whole idea that what is happening is “normal” is absolute horse shit. What you’re talking about is the earth’s climate naturally changing over millions of years, this is happening over a few decades. Also, what you talk about with there having been “better climates” before this current one is complete nonsense. I don’t know if it escaped your notice, but humans weren’t alive in the time of the dinosaurs. We are adapted to live in our current climate, and not just biologically but socially as well. As a species we can only cope with so much flooding, so much drought. We can’t just continue destroying the planet and convince ourselves it’s not our fault.

​ @Dan Brown Oh dear, there is so much here that I hardly know where to begin. Has climate change always existed? Yes, of course it has. Nobody is suggesting that the climate is stationary. Has atmospheric conditions and the climate ever changed this rapidly and continuously in recent history? Not as far as I know, and we're going to continue suffering as a result. Every time earth has faced sudden climate changes in the past, be it from large asteroids or volcanic eruptions, mass death followed. Earth will obviously continue to be fine, but life will definitely be less enjoyable and more full of suffering if we continue on this path of self-indulgence without care for what we do to the world. Of course the climate is changing, but when it's changing this rapidly things don't adapt well. Is China producing a lot of CO2? Yes, and they should be doing their best to limit it. But, like videos this channel has covered in the pass on who is responsible, the west has also polluted more if you look at history. Overall, it should be irrelevant who gets the blame because blaming people will get us nowhere. Everyone should be doing the best they can to prevent further damage. China is definitely far from perfect, from their pollution to disregard for freedoms, but pointing to them and saying "we should be polluting to" is a terrible mindset. Everyone should be striving to be better. And then there's this weird idea of some globalist conspiracy about climate change... what? Ah yes, large fossil fuel producing countries and extremely large and wealthy oil companies couldn't have been contributing to any kind of conspiracy against the idea of global warming, it must be those thousands of scientists and activists who want to destroy us, that definitely makes sense... No matter how you look at it, it makes sense to strive for a future where we mitigate extreme climate change. The overwhelming majority of economists agree that investing in a zero carbon future makes sense given the extreme costs in damages we would face in the future if we don't. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that rapid climate change is an issue. Has there been hyperbole in the past? Yes. Have there been incorrect predictions made in the past? Also yes. We need to keep researching and discovering more about how everything is being affected. The entire globe is an extremely complicated ecosystem and when something as big as these atmospheric changes we've been inducing these centuries comes along the effects on the system are numerous in ways that we may not know yet. TL:DR: Yes, modern western countries like those in Europe are not contributing as much CO2 in the present as more developing countries, but they have historically contributed more. Does this really matter at the moment? I don't think so. We should all be striving to be better, not worse. The world's ecosystem is extremely complicated with everything interacting with everything else that we might not know what the effects are yet. A global conspiracy that climate change is fake makes literally no sense and is like saying that the moon landing was faked. Even if you ignore climate change, going neutral means less pollution in the places that we live, and I like not breathing in poison. Mitigating extreme climate change is in our own best interests in terms of economics and our future well-being. It's cheaper to put out the stove fire than letting it burn down the entire house.

@@Zosu22 ya know, on a platform where its so easy to just insult someone you disagree with, i really appreciate the calm and collected response. i applaud you, whoever you may be.

@@henrybarber288 But it isn't happening over a few decades, that is the debunked hockey stick. You have to look at all the data not just cherry pick the data that pushes your agenda. And regardless there have been bigger changes over shorter periods both warming and cooling. It has clearly escaped your notice that Earth climate is no the same around the globe and mankind survives perfectly well from Africa to Arctic. The Cambrian period had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere than now and it was Earths most productive time for diversity of life because it was temperate from pole to pole as I said. And what makes you think this climate is more suitable to man that that? Much more of the Earth is inhospitable now and it is far less green. But then we all know the AGW agenda is anti human not pro human though they do rather favour polar bears for some reason, which by the way are thriving. Listen, environmentalism is no bad thing so long as it is based in reality and actually about the environment. Anti pollution benefits plant and animal alike. But that is not what AGW policies are about as I explained. They are about making very rich and powerful people even richer and more powerful while their puppet celebrities parade around telling you not to eat meat to save the planet while they fly their private and collect mansions and live in opulence with a carbon footprint that is a thousand times higher than yours or mine. So how about, if you really believe this is a crisis, you get all the richest people in the world who are behind the agenda to give up all their luxuries before we start eating insects to save the planet? Surely they would have no issue with it given they are the ones who tell us the Earth is on fire. And "we" are not destroying the planet, at least I know I'm not, I don't even drive a car. The people doing any damage and polluting are the same people behind the AGW agenda, the same people who made trillions in China and had them build thousands of new dirty coal plants to fuel their industry while our clean burning plants were shutdown by their mandates. If nothing else, take a look at the hypocrisy of those who fund the eco-fascists and anarcho-communists and ask how their AGW policies make any sense except for keeping us poor while they get to mop the last remaining wealth.

Solar: * Exists * Texas snowstorm: *"Hold my beer"*

And then clearly declared when they were going to begin sharing their opinion after presenting the evidence-based section.

What is nuance?

@@Coconut-219 Solar:*Still exists because solar wasn't the main cause of the outages*

People like to think in absolutes now. If you’re not this thing, you’re that thing

Wait a fee days, it always comes a bit late.

Community subtitles are sadly dead. RU-vid killed them. Translators and Kurzgesagt now need to manually work together for the translations. This will, of course, take longer this way.

yos

s

Sadly RU-vid killed an incredibly useful accessibility tool.

Ya he is legitimately trying to convince woke activists to change their minds about something, an absolute mad lad.

Polarization is a dangerous thing and ideology is one hell of a drug. I'm happy to see there are still at least a few people that know that everything doesn't have to be black or white

@@KrookedKookie ... is that your takeaway from this?

Sounds like you just agree with his side.

@@KrookedKookie And you just proved how "In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that..." exists.

they do that in most of their videos actually, but this time was far more explicit then usual. most of the time they have the duck in the corner holding an 'opinion' sign or just show to title slide more briefly.

Hahaha nice. When your powers combine I am captaaaain planet

🤣🤣🤣🤣 I love that!

Lady hydro kinda bad tho ngl 😳

@@TheKhashix please go outside and touch grass...

And he has 4 of the stones already...

Comment 10 times

Well right now it 13 on trending

@@chandarasoth2219 Yes.

@Dana Durnford ah yes nuclear tests are definitely the same thing as nuclear power plants

@Free Speech Bot i meant the whole channel. like every video it posts

It’s the British accent

Ikr

ikr

I swear

same

Thanks for your comment, you make so much sense & with data & computations --- so much better than these climate nuts running around screaming "we need renewables" which don't exist in reality. Nuclear is the only way to go & not for trying to change the climate, it just makes so much sense since it will take much pressure off oil & gas on which the world runs.

And then we will try to use nuclear fusion as our energy.

@@jorgeluiscontrerac Sure or whatever it takes when fossil fuel runs out in a coupla 100 years.

The animated graphics really help to show how they work. They're more pleasing to the eye than most technical illustrtations.

Yeahh ! These are so good

I mean, does anyone not though, that is the real question

100 %

That ICE tho ... 👌

Because it is, but nuclear is the best solution, and has been for decades.

Hi there.. Please visit my channel if you love science and general knowledge

Kurzgesagt in a nutshell

@F*СК MЕ - СНЕCK МY РR0FILЕ stfu bot

@@DarrensGeneralInfo no lmao make actual content and not spam garbage

Not just my (and everyone else's) lungs, but also the entire damn atmosphere.

@@bartholomewdan true

and the waste to be reused again

I prefer my waste be contained in a metal cube capable of withstanding rocket powered freight trains that in the air.

not to mention the waste eventually becomes safe. Fossil Fuels' Pollution has no half-life, it's in the environment FOREVER. not just a really long time, but ALL OF ETERNITY.

More quality: better

No

@@DyslexicMitochondria your video quality is very good as it is right now

@@DyslexicMitochondria we believe in you! You can do it :D

Hahahahahhahahaha

Nuclear energy was a legitimate threat to the fossil fuel industry so companies campaigned hard to make it look like the most horrible thing ever, taking advantage of the fact that the most common nuclear reactor designs produce materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. Combine that with what happened at Chernobyl and it wasn't very difficult to convince the population that nuclear energy is too dangerous. Younger generations are more willing to give nuclear energy a chance, but the older generations which lived through the Cold War are still clinging to the idea that nuclear must be avoided at all costs.

@@filipwolffs I’m guessing the anti-nuclear propaganda started after chernyobl

@@filipwolffs funny thing is this isn’t the only propaganda and lobbying. all sorts of companies of every sector which has caused a regression in the progression of humanity and all sorts of funny quirks like why Americas infrastructure is all car based and built around cars instead of people causing a nice twisted knife into its back from its dependence on such inefficient paradigms like suburban sprawl.

Stupidity. People look at objectively the safest, cleanest and most reliable form of energy and somehow convince themselves it is the opposite of those things. sometimes we just need to plow forward regardless of who is in the way, because the alternative is allowing tens of millions of people to die.

@@cageybee7221 nuclear waste is actually a good thing because while other energy sources pollute into the atmosphere (fossil fuel) or Solar the supposedly “clean energy source” which generates thousands of tons of waste that’s just shipped to Africa because it’s to expensive to recycle and then there’s nuclear which can easily be contained in hyper protected barrels

Payed for by the German people. Thank us later. (It belongs to the German Public Broadcasting.)

@@hape3862 Well, 53 minutes is later so... Thanks Germans!

@@hape3862 really? They have a patreon so it seems unlikely that they would be a government payed channel

@@hape3862 Doesn't matter. They could be funded by any source but didn't have to put a deliberate opinion section. What does being funded by anyone have anything to do with that?

mh

compliacaded

"complicaded

Alway has been

YESS Every video from now on must start with that

Power plants still use oil based products

You have to understand that election campaigns need a lot of money and energy companies are the major funders. It's a sad reality but energy companies literally control the world and they would do anything to hinder legislations that puts them under threat. I am actually currently making a video about this very topic. Its the grim reality

@@DyslexicMitochondria sad truth

You need to understand that democracy is the ad populum fallacy made into a political system

@@tomasbeltran04050 yeah... its quite depressing 😓

It IS important

same

Same

Reforcing your undertanding of actually important things in the world rather than wasting time learning very likely pointless things which you will also likely forget is way more important.

@@tumei1851 then why did you comment

144hz...

@Hamdika Hamdika Bot

@Hamdika Hamdika Hello, bot. How did you get past ReCAPTCHA verfications?

then if you like it so much make it a science show!

I realy need this as a show on HBO, Netflix, or whatever!

Disney will eventually by kurgezart just hope they don’t ruin them too

Or the magnemites in the background

I enjoyed the Wilhelm Scream

@@louismirone31 dayum

Anyone else see the Sekiro one

Like what?

6 likes on verfied cool

@@boysetstudios7932 only 9 now feeling bad tho

Fun fact: behind this videos are a team of 43 german crew memebers

@@mvrtinmadethebeat u counting the narrator (1) and the musical composers (2) in there?

Mantul