Have We Made ANY Progress on Climate Change? Here's The Data, You Decide 

Agreed...we tend to only focus on the most immediate and closest to understand interactions and not how we are tied to even that of a native mosquito or the health of an underground ecosystem...it is ALL important...not just a single species.

IT would cause massive human starvation as well.

AMEN!!

Denying the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex won't help...

That loss of biodiversity could also collapse economies causing more damage to humans than we can considerably project.

Read MERCHANTS OF DOUBT to find out.

The entire basis of modern industrial society is predicated on putting that carbon in the air. It’s not just pollution, it’s a way of life at this point.

​@@cdub9923 That's true and that makes the pollution an incredibly difficult problem to solve but still no less dangerous to humanity. When you raise the human population to a staggering 8+ billion..... all depending on a certain stable norm.... then perform what can only be described a reckless experiment with our climate by raising the average temperatures worldwide relentlessly. It seems the dumbest thing ever would be to just pretend nothing is happening. Its hard enough to deal with without so many drinking in the band room while the Titanic sinks, as it were. I don't know how else to describe what the deniers are doing. Though they were definitely primed in denial by the oil companies that started it.

@@cdub9923 bitnof a stretch to call CO2 as a Pollutant Maybe 'distortion' Can call water vapor a Pollutant too, why not? We don't attempt to control CO2 in airplane until 5000ppm. Our membranes evolved to be bathed in it same as Nitrogen Oxygen iirc is more irritating material than CO2.

Agreed. It's murdering their own and us all.

what are talking about… you haven’t heard endless European and American politicians grift off of the climate hoax ?

True. We are in a terrible state and I don't think this video is being alarmed enough. We can not talk about cause to celebrate before wars STOP and politicians and corporate leaders spend more money on saving the planet, than they do on war.

I like this thinking!

Realistically speaking, the covid lockdowns are likely the largest reduction in human in output we will ever see. So where is all the knowledge gained from the global lockdowns of 2020. It was a chance to find out exactly what a 30% lock down of humanity does for the environment. I have looked all over and found very little. I’m trying to find answers to the following. 1. Could a covid level lockdown drastically reduce CO2 if maintained for long period of time? 2. Was there a change in temperature during 20,21, or 22 resulting directly from the lockdowns? 3. Did the climate science community recognize the lockdowns as chance to acquire invaluable data? All the responses to questions like mine have been very uninformative.

Depends on your ability to pay the costs, and for poor people to suffer energy deprivation, while hoping nothing else really bad happens.

OK chicken little, you live your life how you want ill live mine

The problem is "preparing for the worst" often causes mass starvation and other calamities.

Okay this is now the third comment I've seen on this specific issue. PBS viewers are seriously astute. PBS, come on guys, you gotta follow up on this.

To be more precise, the issue is that modeling tipping points is not profitable: there's no significant shareholder equity to be made on a risk-adjusted basis (as the risk is not precisely quantifiable or known and cannot be by the nature of tipping points *being qualitative* tipping points), and so there's no reason within a capitalist economy for anybody to put serious effort into investing or innovating *for* or *against* the reality of tipping points, not without government subsidies and state-direction ensuring that such research and investments would occur. No individual capitalist or group of capitalists will under any conditions be able to leverage capital toward actually ameliorating the issue: it is far, far more profitable to sell therapeutics that require consistent re-purchase on a subscription schedule, for hiked prices, than it is to sell a one-off, cheap cure intended for mass consumption. The same capitalist logic that ensures our medical industry *does not* search for actual cures (or, when cures are found, they are priced according to "what would a life-time of therapeutic surgeries and treatments and medications have costed otherwise, both directly and in terms of labour for care aids and medical practicioners, for this one individual in a nominal case without the advent of a cure?" Such that any cure -- an analogue for a direct solution to a problem -- is not economically feasible unless priced to be consumed only by those already with immense wealth, or through state-directed insurance systems that effectively subsidize access to solutions by bending to the capitalist profit motive of the "innovators". TL;DR: Capitalism is the problem, and ain't shit being done about that problem by anybody other than China. Any optimism pertaining to the climate crisis is therefore entirely inept unless it's predicated almost solely on an understanding that Chinese socialism is an infinitely superior socioeconomic system in every measurable way relevant to this -- and functionally every other -- issue; real or potential.

The climate has tipped many times and the earth has been fine. Calm down, Malcolm Gladwell lol

@@RosscoAW Hello chinesse suporter

@@mateobareo4229 the earth will be fine. Humans and other life on it might not be.

This is also a way too optimistic video. For when you look at the war in Ukraine and Palestine is there anything to suggest that leaders are really trying to cut Co2 emissions? If we can not even prevent war to cut Co2 emissions how can we expect we can or will make much of a dent in emissions in other areas other than by lots and lots of people dying?

@@Nihilism4U yep and on top of that look at all of us, looking at them saying oh you want us to cut back as you prepare for not one, not two, but maybe three wars?

We've taken three steps in a ten mile hike. We plunged head first into this mess. Making a U-turn will be in slow motion at best.

@@davidsalo8397 ok doomer

If you don't mention that we have been working for about 30 years on reducing emissions and yet co2 ppm continues to rise as rapidly as ever then you are ignoring the most important point. Pretty pathetic I would say.

and better fast. the video says we reached +1.1 degrees 1 year ago. but 2023 was already 1,45 degrees. and 2024 was already hitting 1,52 degrees in the first 2 month. so i think, the 2 degree target is already lost.

Yes, thank you! I'm not confident we'll be able to make this shift, but it's worth pushing for anyways.

Most intelligent comment I've seen, congratulations. Tesla's aren't the future they are the same shit with a different colour

This is super important, similar to diet change.

Yes Fast, easily accessible for all, efficient, safe and affordable public transport is one of the solutions to global warming. Unfortunately the push to EV's both skewers government focus with subsidies to companies and and Tax incentives to consumers, that money available for PT will be even less. And of course, EV's are not the great savior of our planet, but are marketed (sadly albeit brilliantly) as just that.

A lot of spoiled people that will hold onto their private transportation until someone pries it from their cold hands. Same with firearms. A society of entitlement. That attitude is starting to really catch up to us now.

It's because they want to make money through co2. It's just that.

also the continuous genocide of indigenous ppl. they not only take good care of the ecosystems in their territory but they also take from the land most of what they need. they dont require as much industrialized way of living. big companies realize that and theyre always pushing to steal their natural resources and make their way of living impossible so they go to the cities and become consumers

@@user-jd3pr8bm1p Right on - and they want to distract you from the disastrous emissions of the nuclear industry, which emits radioactive gases, liquids, particulates and solids all the time it generates. Gases and particulates up the chimneys, radioactive coolant and other fluids/radioactive suspensions down the pipes to rivers, lakes and seas. Truly, the even care of the environment is not a single-gas issue. As CO2 is necessary for all life on earth to continue, clearly its management cannot just come down to collecting as much as we can and hiding it away - pretty much all we hear about from climate alarm believers.

100% Amen. Emissions are only 1/2 of the equation. But maybe that's where the good news really lies. So many people get it now and are making changes on their farms, ranches, and even in their back yards. We are watching the rivers run dry, the fields burn, and the floods take people's homes away. We see it, we're on it. We just need more people, more awareness, more conversation, more changes.

I don't mind slashing and burning agriculture, but I do mind burying EV's battery in the soil. One can resolved by just stopping the practice. EV battery?...once it dies, what do you do with it? So the solution needs to be safe for future generation, not just to make you feel good about yourself. I still say the best solution is to recycle, reduce and reuse. And If you push too far and start teaching kids that carbon is creating problem for the planet, people might misinterpret it and might mandate the world to take a drug that "safe and effective" to save the planet.

Mars or bust ! Humanity has hoisted itself by its petards! The Earth will be fine it’s the people who are screwed!

we are hopeless and should embrace climate accelerationism

it will take a global catastrophe for countries to pull their heads in and work together to fix things. Humanity united could easily solve all these issues but it will not happen unless something causes the need for humans to unite

They ought to be held criminally liable for their contribution.

big oil is now big wind . it’s all big business

This video contains significant positive developments as far as humanity’s emissions trajectory is concerned. And it does say there’s a lot we still need to do. Why isn’t there cause for some level of positivity? And what alternative rhetorical strategy would be more psychology motivating for normal people who aren’t constantly in a mental space that includes tipping points, climate refugees, estimated numbers of lives lost (non-linearly) increasing with fractions of degrees of warming, etc.?

its bullshit...the whole damn climate thing

@@ULTRAOutdoorsman Those aren't *rhetorical* strategies. Those are things you could influence using government policy certainly, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the video we're commenting on.

@@davidlovesyeshua​right. The point of the video is to show the positive changes. It’s honest and useful.

Yes, this is the #1 worry for me as well. AAG use 83% of our AG lands, while only bring 18% of our consumed calories to the table, injustice and animal cruelty aside - it's EXTREMELY cost ineffective. Flipping it around, 82% of our consumed calories comes from only 17% of land usage from vegetables. The whole AAG system is flawed overall, subsidized from the government making it unfair and upholds an otherwise truly unsustainable system, it gets harder for the consumer to make a viable decisions with this which pushes it further. The answer is not to stick with our current habits of animal protein, waiting for some green wash technology which gives us the illusion that we're moving forward. It's take a step back, review our self and make better more sustainable choices from the bottom up. Times change and so must we, this is in the power of every consumer.

we needed to be in the streets demanding change 20 years ago

It's funny in grotesque way that at the end of the video scientists says that currently we are going to future we don't want to leave for future generations and heading toward a pretty bad outcome, but it's overlayed with propagandist happy/hopeful music. The only thing that would make it even better is using this music when showing videos currently from Bangladesh were millions of people are still displaced and could never return after the massive floods that happened over 3 months ago. If millions of people suffering every year is the optimistic future... fear for the realistic outcome.

@@natalia499 PBS!

Optimist and pessimist are always right, temporarily. I grew up under threat of nuclear war. I'm optimistic that we are still all going to die that way.

@@timeenoughforart not “all”, just the majority

@@timeenoughforart Actually, I ran the numbers. Even GTNW cannot wipe 8 billion people off the planet. There are just too many of us.

Really? I can't help thinking this is just fuelling climate alarmism.

@@jamesgreig5168 I'm glad that you feel it's alarming really.

​@@jamesgreig5168If you're not alarmes you're quite ill informed.

What more docos? To add to the thousands already made? Do you buy a newspaper, read it, then go back to the newsagent buy another paper to check if the first one is true?

This is a real concern. Hopefully that’s not what leaders takeaway from this data.

I can assure you that this is not the case at least in India. India was the only G20 member to meet its Paris Climate Deal goals. And one such goal, that of having 40% of its installed electric capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030, was achieved 7 years ahead of schedule. We met our Paris Climate Deal goal of having 175GW installed renewable electricity capacity by 2022. But instead of saying we've done enough, our government simply tripled the target to 500 GW of installed renewable capacity by 2030. Another Paris Climate Deal target was reducing Carbon Emissions intensity by 33% over 2005 levels by 2030. India already achieved 28% in that and therefore has revised that goal upwards to 45% by 2030. So contrary to putting it on the back burner, we are achieving our climate goals ahead of time and then revising the goals upwards to do even better. Since 2015, 92% of the Coal Power Plants proposed to be built in India have been cancelled. Indian Railways is on its way to become net zero by 2030. Which is important because we are the fourth largest rail network in the world and about to become to the third largest at the current pace of expansion. In terms of ridership, we are already the largest by far. Moreover, we are on track to make 100% of our Railways electric within next two years (started from 38% in 2014 to 85% now and 100% by 2024). No G20 member is even close to this. At the same time Indian Government is aiming to increase India's share of rail freight from 27% now to 45% by 2030. This, along with the massive investment in waterways will ensure that majority of Indian freight movement that is currently done through the inefficient and fossil fuel dependent roads network will happen through green electricity powered and more energy efficient railways and waterways, massively cutting down on potential emissions. Other than that, there has been a massive reduction in emissions of vehicles due to India adopting BS VI norms which are the Indian equivalent of Euro Stage 6. On top of that, there is government subsidy, corporations and startups jumping into making and government organizations (like State Bus Transport Corporations and the military) and corporations buying up Electric Vehicles. And India's largest private conglomerates are announcing their plans for massive investment in Green Hydrogen and Electrolyzers with a target to drive Green Hydrogen costs down to $1/kg by 2030 and make India the electrolyzer manufacturing hub of the world. Mind you this goal was set by a private corporation that is among the largest oil and gas conglomerates in the world. There is so much else happening in India like Green Steel, Green Methane, Roads made of plastic waste, reforestation, biofuels, etc. And at the same time as India is doing this, India lifted a population the size of European Union from Multidimensional Poverty in the last 15 years. Point is, despite the massive challenges India faces, India is lifting hundreds of millions from extreme poverty while also fighting climate change and China and Pakistan and Terrorism. India at least, is doing its part and plans to do it irrespective of the good news.

@@maiyamay_ Only if people get loud and try to get them to smarten up

Nobody in charge is hoping the problem will work out, they’re just hoping for more profits this quarter.

We are not screwd. We only have a lot of propaganda going on.

Like I always say, we are smart enough to mess up the planet, but not smart enough to fix it.

@@jazzypoo7960 exactly! We messed up, we have no choice but to take the responsibility and fix it.

Yeah when it comes to EVs I don't understand why company fleets and government fleets dont go first. That's a huge number of cars. They should require these companies to foot the bill before us consumers. Make them go full EV. Now if there actually is a law coming up doing this than just ignore my ignorance.

@@baronvonjo1929 I always thought EV's were the way to go too. Except the process of mining the rare metals needed for those vehicles is actually just as environmentally damaging as our gas-powered cars. So strip mining becomes acceptable, so more and more pollution and land destruction. Plus too many people don't look closer to see how their electricity is generated,and oops! Coal fired power plant.

@Toni Atchison And then I personally don't like how they are tablets on wheels. Everything is done through a screen and trying to be high tech. And then how the battery ages. My car is older than me currently. If a EV battery can't last 25 years without a replacement it's not a consideration. Then i wodner about people who live in apartments and stuff without a driveway. How do they charge these? I am completely certain EVs will improve. But I won't be getting a EV or hybrid anytime soon. I cant afford to pay thousands for a broken battery.

Solar panels are a great example, the government is trying to encourage their use by offering a tax credit, but the companies that do the installations want to suck up all the tax credit money and twice as much. Greed in the solar industry isn’t helping anything move along there.

So you've been saving the planet by buying more stuff.... lol, humans don't stand a chance.

I would suggest watching the video: "Why I Don't Care About Your Flight Emissions" by Our Changing Climate It talks about climate hypocrisy and carbon guilt and how our attention to individual carbon footprints and worries about being seen as hypocritical distract from the task of dismantling the fossil fuel industry. Pls at least check it out :)

Solar wind and hydro are pointless, if you really cared about clean energy you'd be advocating for nuclear fusion, its the most efficient and the cleanest energy there is

@@MikeBrownRehobothBeach You litterally used a cellphone and electricity to type that comment 🤦‍♂️ I don't think anyone is willing to reject every single thing modern societies provided us, you included. However, we must eliminate everything that's not truly useful and when we have to replace something, then it's better to choose the things that will help us to reduce our impact on the environment on the long run, like solar panels if electricity in your region is currently generated with fossil fuel.

Hope will be that easy! Make a Global Society works is far more complex than build bridges and both are Technical!

Bruh. Have you seen humanity lately? We're fucked.

I love you mostly for breakfast but occasionally dinner.

you don't know humans for sure you live in a cave? hahaha

"please, humanity, don’t destroy it". Too late........

Solar panels and windmills are pointless, its nuclear fusion or nothing, and you can't just stop fossil fuels over night do you know how many people would die if that happened?

the fact that you don't understand that fossil fuels are going nowhere is mind-boggling

August 12, 2022 The more trees who die, the less oxygen you will have, and the hotter the temperatures will be because there will not be leaf coverage to cover over the height of human habitation to reduce temperatures. You must remember that unlike trees, man-made objects, like metal boxes to cars to buildings, absorb solar energy and release it as heat into the air. It is not just the gases from combustion and the heat from hot motors (petroleum and HVAC motors), but ALSO the heat-radiating characteristic of man-made object surfaces that raise the temperature of the air. A great example of this are cars and trucks standing outside in the sunlight. How hot is the body surface? What about leaves and branches of a tree - are they hot to the touch?? Whatever solar energy man-made objects absorb, they will radiate it. That includes solar panels. THAT is what is happening right now. You will probably have to disassemble and destroy a lot of heat radiating technologies such as cars, trucks, buildings, AND the blacktop/sidewalk surfaces by deconstituting the elements and returning them to mine sites and reburying them, and put trees back in those places in order to bring temperatures down (and bring in rainfall). It is getting to where trees are treated as ornaments of beauty instead of living beings who provide numerous critical functions while alive - cooling the air at human height by providing shade, providing oxygen, and making rainfall more likely to happen through transpiration of water vapor during photosynthesis. Trees brings rainfall activity, while deserts take it away because there is NOTHING to contribute to the formation of rain clouds, bringing rain. Also, the presence of moisture and trees will narrow down the range of temperature fluctuations that happen over a 24-hour period. Essentially, entire cities act as small deserts, since there is relatively little vegetation/tree coverage. Cities are even worse than deserts in this regard ALSO because of man-made objects' heat-radiating characteristic. What can we do in the meantime? Can we grow trees to cover narrow roads and grow vines that grow leaves during spring to cover the roads overhead ahead of the summer months? Can we build vine structures over the majority of buildings for a similar reason? We have to have a way of bringing temperatures down by removing as many man-made objects from contact with the sun as possible in any way we can. It is ridiculous to see 115-120 degree temperatures. Kuwait is starting to become unliveable because of these temperatures. You'll see the Ethiopian Desert normally hit 122 degrees, and it has hit 140 degrees. Assuming that we have started to take apart the technologies such as cars, vehicles, etc. and started planting trees and covering up buildings and roads to shield them from the sun, how then would we deal with the nature of "green energy?" The fact is, if we carry out these actions, then solar energy could become unreliable for substantial power generation because the vegetation, including trees, would then bring on more periods of rain, which would in turn impact the number of days of availability of full sunshine. It remains to be seen what would be the impact on winds by such vegetation, even if the windmills are built with propellers far above the tree tops because of the potential for the moderation of the Earth's temperature across its surface relative to today's present scenario. We may have to examine what wind conditions were like thousands of years ago through descriptions of such in ancient writings in areas that were not yet deforested. I recognize that this might not resemble the scenario in which we regreen as much of today's deforested areas as possible. This may also have an unseen impact on wind energy as a reliable source of energy. I believe the key is reducing the level of technology we have, which can reduce the impact of mining, drilling, and harvesting on the Earth, as well as remove sources of heat generation as described earlier.

If there was ONE thing 5 billion people should do, what would that be?

@@jimthain8777 Immediately restore soil health! Soil biology retains carbon. Starting with a baseline of 1-2%, soil carbon can increase over ten years to 5-8%. While 1% of carbon in soil equals about 8.5 tons per acre, after ten years there can be 25-60 tons of carbon per acre.

@@jimthain8777 Cities need to rip up blacktop to replace with absorbent surfaces, plant foliage in all empty lots, paint ALL rooftops in reflective surfaces, encourage front yard gardens instead of lawns. Water management on hillsides to slow and soak water to restore aquifers. New policies NOW.

I agree but with a caveat, if where you live has abundant wind, hydro, or nuclear power then turning down the heat won’t really help. (Or places with district heat since that’s waste heat already.) Gas or coal grid, or local gas heat in the house, it absolutely helps a huge amount.

Events caused by magnetic poles shifting and solar flares , reducing emissions cannot stop whats happening. Stop listening to the World E C, Bill Gates and all those elites destroying the planet while they lecture you. We are headed toward a planet shift in which most will die and they cannot save you . Prepare accordingly ,Suspicious Observer.

If you're 67 then surely you're aware of the thousands of useless bomb shelters Americans put in their back yards in the 1950's. You must have lived through the 1970's energy "crisis" when "Scientists said" we were running out of oil. That crisis never materialized. Then there was the impending ice age that never happened and how we were all going to starve to death by the 1980's due to over population. 23 years ago it was Y2K and you're still listening to dooms day cultists?

Love of money will be our end.

@@Toastcat890 In that case, can I have all of yours?

I live in Canada and this is something that has been addressed years ago not only my lifetime, but my father and my grandfathers it’s been enforced by law for generations we have extremely strict laws when it comes to hunting fishing and cutting down trees so much so if you fuck one up, you have the potential to lose your license for both, if not all and also your vehicle(you’ll lose your license for good not just a temporary punishment)

@@nickosmond I visited Vancouver Island in September and old trees were being cut down left and right to build more houses.

@@joweb1320 that’s the thing I’m on the opposite side of Canada in Newfoundland here the locals are reminded that they can’t do things, but the government gets to do it. Anyway, we can’t chop down whatever trees we want but the government can pick a random location and say let’s destroy all these trees just to put a wind farm here that’ll potentially be built in the next 5 to 10 years. We locals can’t touch the trees because they’re significant, but the government can. I would honestly be shocked if the majority of the Vancouver population actually supported that like this is just common sense Vancouver’s a very beautiful place it has, hundreds if not thousands of tourist attractions some of the best in all of Canada and you’re telling me the population don’t care just by going on Facebook alone I can see that’s not the case yet alone all the other social media sites were you see people advocating for the same things

@@nickosmond Saw lots of bumper stickers saying "stop logging old growth forests" so there are people on the island that want it stopped but new housing development continues. Visited a friend's dad at his new house in a new subdivision that used to be a forest. Even a few years ago when I visited there were more trees.

@@joweb1320 yeah I’m not denying it’s happening, but I’m also questioning who is allowing it to happen Trudeau has been elected for how many years now. And maybe just maybe Vancouver needs to tell people to stop moving there because like there’s tons of places in Canada, you can move to my towns population alone has shrunk 12-16% since 2015. No one’s talking about it because they’d rather go to the big cities, but it’s because these big cities are in conjunction with the government they get to do what they want. Our Prime Minister says he cares about the environment but yet he still allows things like this to happen. It makes no sense, but yet he still telling us we need to do better for the environment instead of him, making changes that only he can make

According to volvo,and volkswagen,the carbon footprint of manufacturing an ev is more than double that of an ice

One word: EXPONENTIAL. Btw, the carbon/toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody? Edit. Three more words: KNOCK ON EFFECT.

No all climate change predictions from the past were vastly over estimated, in the early 2000s when I was in school I was told 50% of florida would be under water by 2015, in the 70a they used to say we were on the brink of another ice age, climate scientists are re tard ed

@@paddor that's exactly the rational, well thought out argument I was expecting from someone who believes in all this nonsense

Lol

The "Every new model is worse" is something that has kept me up some nights. I fear the experts writing the reports are too conservative to capture the real trends.

Great post.

This is fascinating! Any indication of the search terms I can use to find this chart?

@@jordanfarr3157 gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/ I think might be the right one. NASA has some graphs also, but I'm not sure if they should be directly compared because NOAA's is the global mean, and NASA's (that I saw) were specific sampling sites.

@@tombowen9861 thanks so much!

@@jordanfarr3157 Very welcome! I hadn't seen it before also, so thanks for asking the question!

This is ppb though. As the woman states, carbon (co2 in this case) radiates about 7 Watts. Where as the sun emits well up in the 500s. So how much impact does 7 have compared to 500?

Great point. We can't export our carbon footprint when we consume the goods that caused the emissions.

@@jodyfulford8215 Climate Change is global; it cannot be exported. It does not matter what country creates the greenhouse gases, it affects the entire world. So, this is not a problem that we can tackle one country at a time.

Bruh

Scream at politicians all you want but China, India and other developing nations don't care how loud you scream. Chinas annual carbon footprint right now is about 3x the size of the U.S. I'm sure making daily life more expensive for the average American will change that right?

​@@Bitchslapper316 some country or other ora group of countries is gonna do solar geoengineering. It's pretty much inevitable. I just hope we do sooner rather than later as 2e can save a lot more lives and biodiversity if 2e do it sooner

emissions went down , temperature went up

@@jeffgold3091 temperature has a larger hysterisis, remember it took a century of burning coal to start to see any measurable change

@@kaitlyn__L doesn’t show up in seasonal variability

@@jeffgold3091 🤦‍♀️ that’s because the tilt of the earth affects how much sun we get. Emissions affect how much of that heat the atmosphere holds onto. Slowing down the emissions doesn’t remove what already was emitted in the century-plus prior. You’re comparing apples and oranges

@@kaitlyn__L thermal inertia is contradicted not only by daily and seasonal variations but also by la ninas and events like the younger dryas

As long as we ignore the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex, fantasy it remains.

@@lorenzoblum868 A big part of why the MIC (including those of China and Russia-aligned states) exists is to protect their energy interests. The easiest way to attack the MIC is to make renewables and nuclear as cheap and as independent of global supply chains as possible.

@@lozoft9 to protect their "war treasure". The best way to "fight" the MIC is by refusing to fight. Won't happen because we're indoctrinated from early age. We're taught patriotism, chauvinism, hatred. Paranoia and greed rule. So we're doomed. Just a matter of time.

2C+ by 2040, which is when the tipping points start. All this 2100 is smoke and mirrors!

Agreed!

To my understanding, none of the tipping points is in the models.

@@PBFoote-mo2zr So are things like the war in Ukraine.

@ Jim Thain. Exactly. Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?

Methane is a greenhouse gas but it's not carbon dioxide so I'm not sure how It's part of the "carbon budget". It also doesn't interact the same as carbon does. Carbon can stay in the atmosphere from anywhere for 300-1000 years while methane stays for 9 years.

@@Bitchslapper316 you can find many papers explaining this if you Google "is methane a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide"

Nuclear

So true, although I would say electric cars are better than nothing.

@@climatedeniersbelonginasyl4191 quite. In the medium term we need to redesign our cities, in many cases just to undo a lot of the car-centric redesigns of the 30s-60s, but in the short term electric cars are better than business as usual while that redesigning occurs. Since it takes 20-40 years to build those necessary planning changes.

I'll add to this: August 12, 2022 The more trees who die, the less oxygen you will have, and the hotter the temperatures will be because there will not be leaf coverage to cover over the height of human habitation to reduce temperatures. You must remember that unlike trees, man-made objects, like metal boxes to cars to buildings, absorb solar energy and release it as heat into the air. It is not just the gases from combustion and the heat from hot motors (petroleum and HVAC motors), but ALSO the heat-radiating characteristic of man-made object surfaces that raise the temperature of the air. A great example of this are cars and trucks standing outside in the sunlight. How hot is the body surface? What about leaves and branches of a tree - are they hot to the touch?? Whatever solar energy man-made objects absorb, they will radiate it. That includes solar panels. THAT is what is happening right now. You will probably have to disassemble and destroy a lot of heat radiating technologies such as cars, trucks, buildings, AND the blacktop/sidewalk surfaces by deconstituting the elements and returning them to mine sites and reburying them, and put trees back in those places in order to bring temperatures down (and bring in rainfall). It is getting to where trees are treated as ornaments of beauty instead of living beings who provide numerous critical functions while alive - cooling the air at human height by providing shade, providing oxygen, and making rainfall more likely to happen through transpiration of water vapor during photosynthesis. Trees brings rainfall activity, while deserts take it away because there is NOTHING to contribute to the formation of rain clouds, bringing rain. Also, the presence of moisture and trees will narrow down the range of temperature fluctuations that happen over a 24-hour period. Essentially, entire cities act as small deserts, since there is relatively little vegetation/tree coverage. Cities are even worse than deserts in this regard ALSO because of man-made objects' heat-radiating characteristic. What can we do in the meantime? Can we grow trees to cover narrow roads and grow vines that grow leaves during spring to cover the roads overhead ahead of the summer months? Can we build vine structures over the majority of buildings for a similar reason? We have to have a way of bringing temperatures down by removing as many man-made objects from contact with the sun as possible in any way we can. It is ridiculous to see 115-120 degree temperatures. Kuwait is starting to become unliveable because of these temperatures. You'll see the Ethiopian Desert normally hit 122 degrees, and it has hit 140 degrees. Assuming that we have started to take apart the technologies such as cars, vehicles, etc. and started planting trees and covering up buildings and roads to shield them from the sun, how then would we deal with the nature of "green energy?" The fact is, if we carry out these actions, then solar energy could become unreliable for substantial power generation because the vegetation, including trees, would then bring on more periods of rain, which would in turn impact the number of days of availability of full sunshine. It remains to be seen what would be the impact on winds by such vegetation, even if the windmills are built with propellers far above the tree tops because of the potential for the moderation of the Earth's temperature across its surface relative to today's present scenario. We may have to examine what wind conditions were like thousands of years ago through descriptions of such in ancient writings in areas that were not yet deforested. I recognize that this might not resemble the scenario in which we regreen as much of today's deforested areas as possible. This may also have an unseen impact on wind energy as a reliable source of energy. I believe the key is reducing the level of technology we have, which can reduce the impact of mining, drilling, and harvesting on the Earth, as well as remove sources of heat generation as described earlier.

Cars, along with the subburbs they created, are not only environmentally destructive, they also economic drains on average people. Reversing the reliance on cars and subburbs would fight both environmental destruction and poverty at the same time

Oh trust me, I definitely believe the outcome isn’t going to be a good one! This data is just… interesting. We get a lot of criticism in these comment sections about us being one-sided, doom & gloom, alarmists, spreading propaganda etc. So I feel like a more optimistic climate piece was needed. We can highlight this data and still push for climate policy. Both can totally be true!

@@maiyamay_ Fair point, however, the optimism should be in the right direction, energy (renewables, decentralized if possible and insulation), transport (not cars, nor electric cars but public transport), diet (plant based), consumption (buy less, buy better) and legislation (more not less). Whereas the video was focussed mainly on feel-good low impact progress such as electric cars. Also the climate crisis is already a reality and many non global north countries are fucked as we speak.. Good intentions and I appreciate the angle, but the execution is still a bit off! Let´s go! we need you now.

I am 15 years old and can't help but be so scared about this. It keeps me up at night and eats at me. I do all I can to reduce, recycle, and reuse. Is there any hope for the future at all?

Yeah global warming was going to destroy the world in 5 years like I was told when I was 10 and again when I was 30. Five years ago Greta said she wouldn't make it to 20 because of climate change. Now shes 20 and everything is exactly the same. This is all a ridiculous exaggeration.

@@Bitchslapper316 No it wasn't. Don't be stupid.

@@dr.zoidberg8666 No what wasn't? Climate activists have been repeating the same ridiculous claim for the past 50 years. I remember back around 2005 Al Gore was selling property in Florida and claiming global warming got to a point that Washington DC would never see snow again. A few months later DC got 2 feet of snow and Gore went off the radar for months. Yeah global warming is a thing but it's being exaggerated so people can make more $$$. It's also telling that %90 of the activism is focused on the U.S and It's fossil fuels when China has an annual carbon footprint about 3x larger than the U.S.

@@Bitchslapper316 The science has been very clear for decades. The money is not in being a climate activist lmao -- yeah, let me just tell every rich & powerful person that their business model is bad & needs to be completely overhauled -- surely they'll love that & will make me rich. No, just like with leaded gasoline, just like with smoking, just like with literally every single time capitalists can make money by making your life shittier, the money is with the giant corporations -- in this case, the fossil fuel industry. Also, China still doesn't even come close to touching US per capita emissions. & they're obviously miles away from approaching our lifetime emissions. AND they produce more renewable energy than any other country on earth (& it isn't close). But nationalistic nonsense doesn't help anything. Global warming is as GLOBAL problem, which is already displacing millions of people, disrupting food supplies, etc. Using other countries as an excuse to not adapt is stupid (especially when they're adapting faster than we are).

Man certainly has an effect on the planet but at the risk of incurring wrath and spite I will say that when you look at past predictions and scenarios they never materialized. When you look at the recent spate of wildfires and floods, extremes for sure, then look at man's measures to control them (US Forest Service practice of permitting no wildfires for years creating plenty of fuel for one in a especially dry year or act of arson, urban construction and the removal of wetlands and the tiling of fields) you can find reasons for disbelief or in the case of news, gross exaggeration. No one reports on how the damming of the Mississippi River and gulf oil/gas exploration have combined to remove literally about a thousand sq. miles of tidal land. That would have made a difference for a city like New Orleans. I honestly don't know what will happen but if it truly is a nightmare why do developers still build on coastlines? I don't get it. I wouldn't.

I find it schocking how little we understand about our ecosystems in general. Most of the science was and is focused on the discovery of things that make money. And that is also how we try to fight the climate crisis aswell. By first trying to find ways to profit financially and if that is not possible then making sure that we hurt our current buisness moddel as little as possible. Even if we change the opinion of the general public there is still the issue that the opinion of the general public does not influence politics very much. There is no correlation between what the poorer 90% of the US population wants and what politcians have actually discussed or implemented in the last 20years. It is a different story for the upper 10%. So we need to fight corporate power and we need a global wealth and power redistribution if we want actual solutions. As long as we have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people who profit from the status quo nothing will change becuase the people that could change something do not profit from actual change. We need cominity managment of water resources and land because people can actually take pretty good care of commonly owned goods if there is no way they can personally profit from its destruction. Check out the economy of the commons. I think that humans should be capable of enriching the ecosystem instead of destroying it. We have the capabilities. We just have to finally understand that money is just a tool for trade and simply holds no value on its own.

From boiling it will come to frying pan . If environment was truly meant to be saved then environmental professionals must get paid more

Amazon dieback is a tipping point which could be crossed soon. It will turn the rainforest into desert.

If you've participated in "safe and effective", you have done enough. All we have to do is be a bit patience. Some things just take time.

and yet man is prospering

@@RobertMJohnson So does all the bacteria in a petri dish full off food, until they eat all the food that is, then it comes to a sudden stop and it's game over for everyone. Current prosperity is not a good measure of long term sustainability. If you're going to manage a civilization as massive, complex, and resource intensive as humanity it's a given that you'll have to think a little bit ahead and stay on top of things.

@@daniel4647 it’s comical how you think you’re an intellectual and you think you can predict the future, when you can’t, especially on top of a billion years of plants and animals prospering on Earth. And the analogy of a Petri dish akin to earth? Pathetic childish drivel.

And other life will thrive, there was more carbon in the atmosphere in the past and the planet was much hotter than it is now, it still supported life where it evolved to what we see today

who cares what life dies if we don't die?

@@unvaccinated6467 that's a common line that doesn't actually pan out... Atmospheric co2 hasn't been this high since before flowering plants evolved or the first ape existed. Also, atmospheric co2 has never accrued this quickly, changes of this magnitude take tens of thousands of years. Imagine if you tried to eat all the pizzas you've ever eaten all at once; it's not the same.

@PygmyBeardie to be honest if that's the way you think no wonder you're gullible enough to fall for this shit, please stop pushing this nonsense that will affect everyone with your renewable energy bullshit and zero emissions nonsense, if you're brain equates carbon on the earth to pizza in your stomach then you really have no clue what you're talking about and you'd probably believe any nonsense

@@unvaccinated6467 I actually have a degree in environmental science. :) Shouldn't have expected a rational response from someone named "unvaccinated" though, lol. worthy of note: the guy that came up with the line "carbon levels have been higher in the past" was author of the book Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know, Gregory Wrightstone, who was involved in tobacco PR during the 90s. The book includes this claim and other misleading interpretations of science. You'd love it.

Yaaaassss! Totally agreed. We're working on it.

@@pbsterra I love it. Y'all are doing great work. Can't wait to watch it.

Most air travel and a lot of shipping is entirely avoidable. A lot of useless junk or tourists are being transported. Ban it outright, lots of emissions saved immediately. That'll give us more time to de-carbonise what we can't do without.

Hydrogen.

Green Hydrogen. Which is where the Indian Billionaire Mukesh Ambani comes in. He just promised $1/kg Green Hydrogen by 2030 and if the Internet Revolution he created in India is anything to go by, it'll happen. Combine that with Japanese technology and Japan-India partnership and commercial shipping might be on the cusp of an EV like transformation.

@@death_parade That may work, or it may not. But in the meantime, we should still do away with what isn't necessary. Once a carbon-neutral replacement is available, we can still consider what would be nice to have back and where it's better not to get it back, as fuel cost isn't the only issue.

@@dhindaravrel8712 Agreed.

Nope.

I just asked this question! I really hope PBS follows up on this because I think it could be *critical*.

No, it's for entirely different reasons. There is overwhelming scientific evidence humans are rapidly warming the planet and that rapid warming threatens to make the Earth increasingly unable to support life, including human life.

Ecosci101 taught me this!

blah blah blah

We cannot look to the past to predict our future. We're in uncharted waters, and don't know what "icebergs" we might bump in to. We are on such a trajectory of change right now, in many aspects, the outcomes could really surprise us.

" varying research shows that scientists are no better than commoners in resisting biases." Citations, or there's no such research; and scientists are somewhat _uniquely_ trained to avoid bias (as far as possible, no-one's perfect).

From what I've seen, scientists who study anything to do with nature or the environment seem to be the most concerned about climate change and human-caused environmental damage. Scientists seem to be all but screaming that we won't be fine unless we make massive changes, but the changes are possible. Where do you get the impression that the majority of environmental scientists think we'll be fine if nothing changes?

Well said.

Consumerism is trash but let's not forget the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex...

@@lorenzoblum868 Different side of the same coin.

@@deepashtray5605 make unbiased research. You might find one side way too dark to say the least...

@@lorenzoblum868 Doesn't excuse the rest of us, though.

It is not a natural process, we have seen the fastest warming ever in history when compared to all types of records of temperature (Ice cores, tree rings, sediment etc.)

Every time I hear about "net zero" or "carbon offsets" now, I think ok, here is a corporation speaking out of its arse.

I mean, maybe but what I got out of producing this episode is that we've actually made huge progress even when it feels like we haven't at all. So I think that in some ways we are too alarmist.

​@@ElementalWildfire Yeah, I don't understand that comment. This episode was like music to my ears, and makes me excited to see how much better we can make our situation.

It's known as Betteridge's Law

@@ElementalWildfire I think the "successes" and "cause for celebration" statements are much more optimistic than there is any evidence for them to be, in fact I find it insulting to have the confetti party popper graphic going along with the guy saying well the future won't be the absolute worse possible future. RCP 4.5 is still not a future I want to experience, it is still a colossal failure. Like woo go us we did more than absolutely nothing is kind of a weird thing to celebrate.

@@seanc6128 Totally fair and apologies for being insulting. The confetti was meant to be at least a little ironic but I think if you watch the content on Weathered for 2 or more episodes, you'll see that we spend plenty of time pointing out the extreme risks of our climate future. Still, I think that leads many people believe that absolutely nothing has been accomplished, even with decades of work. That is simply not true. I worry that defeatism will be a self fulfilling prophecy if we don't celebrate the small victories when we see them.

UK faces a winter of people dieing from hypothermia because renewables have failed to provide dependable energy to power the country. they had no choice but to return to coal for any chance of surviving the winter .

Agree. This video seems to simplify our challenges to a number. While I appreciate the note of optimism, it's a bit naive to think everything will turn out fine if we only think of this very complex world in terms of one or two "accomplishments".

Stead state, that is no growth and no collapse is an incredibly unlikely balancing act. Sustainable oscillation is probably achievable but nobody wants to oversee the contractions. It is a hard problem. We'll find out if the term "intelligent" actually applies to us as a species if we crack that nut. Alternative we might have an answer to the Fermi paradox, that being that the implication of intelligence actually existing implicit in the paradox has yet to be established.

All growth becomes maintenance, and all maintenance becomes waste. The reason why any system, not just our own, depends on growth. Without growth, the cost of maintenance will catch up and remove all possibility of growth for decades to come. Instead, we’d see decline.

Probably because methane has an average life of 9 years until it's broken down in the atmosphere whereas carbon can stay in the atmosphere for 1000 years.

@@Bitchslapper316 Yeah, but, ne has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during that time. I think about 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane and that permafrost is melting.

@@richardallan2767 Yeah I'm just saying it's different and interacts differently in the atmosphere. It's funny how no one is talking about the estimated 500,000 tons of methane released by the nord stream pipeline being exploded. The largest amount of methane ever recorded being released into the atmosphere and crickets. It's also worth noting that in Siberia permafrost is being flamethrowered to get at the ground beneath.

We are still fucked.

Hope is the courtesy of despair... Btw, the carbon /toxicity boot print of military industrial complex anybody?

Climate optimism is definitely refreshing and needed.

I "hope" you don´t believe we are gonna be ok and actually start doing smt. We need your help to solve this mess, now.

Yeah made me think of the show the Newsroom where they interviewed a Climate Scientist and he was apocalyptic and they tried to downplay the fact he said it was too late. .

@@SophiaAphrodite I like that clip as well. 😁

Especially the IPCC writers, feel like they must have cherry picked their statements, I cannot believe they are incoherent with their own report that states everything short of 1.5 degrees is a complete fuckery.

Welcome to the world of hopium content, don’t let it sedate you 😕