The Fairy Tales of the Fossil Fuel Industry - and a Better Climate Story | Luisa Neubauer | TED 

You can't solve complex socio-econommic problems based on simplistic analysis.

Excellent analogy.

You’re right I diversified my $350k portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment coach, I have been able to generate a little bit above 1.2m in net profits across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds during this red season.

How can I reach out to this coach? Because I’m seeking for a more effective investment approach how good is this person at portfolio diversification, particularly with regards to digital assets?

Jessica Chiara Russell is actually the one that guides me

Look up her name on Google and reach out through her page.she understands the job perfectly

Most of her life is a secret because she is coming out of a multi billionaires family(Reemtsma)! Last weeks she was on a event with her grandmother, Dagmar Reemtsma! 4 years ago she lied about this, its only around 4 corners and she had no contact with this family. 2023 she goes to events with her grandmum and talk about the love for her. Info: Reemtsma is the Number 1 manufacture of cigarettes in germany! This family/company grow up huge because of the deep contacts/connection to highest NS Groups in worldwar2! In 2023 one of the largest manufacture family of cigarettes will tell us we have to be careful with climate/Co2??? Also for info from this event: Dagmar Reemtsma next to Luisa was telling that she is frustrated that nobody whats to give up the drug called prosperity! Drug? called prosperity? Cigarettes manufacture making billions of billions with drugs but telling us now we have to give away the drug called prosperity??? Closing all of their manufactures, giving away all the billions they made and put into climate projects must be the first step, or not???

roger revelle , al gores climate guru , and a genuine scientist urged cautious climate action until the data was more certain

Spock did a documentary on an upcoming ICE AGE but here we are looking at warming... Dan Pena makes some good points about the subject too, makes one think a little bit.

So many people believe that technology brings salvation. I was troubled when I saw that the glaciers were melting because of climate change. When I brought it to table for discussion I had so many people say that 'nature can take care of herself and there's nothing to worry about' If nature is going to care for herself then we need to help her do it , but where do we start from? What do we do? How do we build a community of people that really care about the earth and not just lying to themselves? These are just my thoughts

@@Noranene_ These are good questions. Marshall Vian Summers teaches that living with the big questions of life is how the answers present themselves over time. Perhaps check out some of his books for inspiration and fresh perspective. They are all free online.

And what is your solution? Because you are only complaining, technology took us to the coming 4th generation of nuclear plans, the fusion energy is coming thanks to new technologies, catalytic convertors in cars reduce the pollution of O2 in 95%!

Thank you!

it will bring salvation but not at the scale necessary, you can imagine even in the worst case scenario like nuclear Armageddon there will be a few people surviving in bunkers, like most things in this world that dream is only for the rich.

And what about fossil fuels? What about fertilizers and diesel fuel in agriculture? We need them and they are awesome.

@@lorenzmuller3542 Hundreds of farmers are showing you wrong right now. Farming without diesel, without artificial - soil-poisoning - fertilizers, without pesticides, and in the end even an increase in profits. We are now putting more energy into the ground with our huge machines than we ultimately harvest from it. It used to be different and things are about to change again - either by voluntarily evolving or by fate forcing us back into the Stone Age. It's our choice.

@@VascarVanVamp It cannot be enough farmers to feed the world. We need oil and gas.

@@lorenzmuller3542 No, we don't need it. On the contrary, oil and gas are destroying farmland. Also, it's not the amount of farmers that's the problem, it's our wasteful use of it. If we didn't throw away more than half of the food that can still be eaten, we could easily feed the entire world.

@@VascarVanVamp - Stone Age? Nah... we won't even get to that point, we kill this planet way before it. Just check what is going on with dying of plankton around the planet (it produces almost 50% of oxygen - but nobody is giving a crap about it). The same with microplastic which is already present in whole ecosystem, including the... rains. And that is just a tip of larger issues.

In Norway the oil industry pay 78% tax, and have done this for decades. I only wish we would have used a lot more of this money to debelop the «green shift». But free education, free medical, one year paid maternity leave, to name a few benefits, is of course nice. Tony Seba. Love his vision for the near future.

Solar takes up a lot of space, is expensive compared to ff energy generation, and can easily be damaged by wind/hail or shut down by the shadow of a cloud. Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energies are all location dependent; in some countries/places they aren't practical or even possible. If you think that greenhouse gasses are environmentally bad, nuclear energy produces wastes that will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years, so nobody wants it near them even if they are in relatively small quantities as everybody agrees they are dangerous to life, but nobody can predict all the how's. Every country in the world can easily burn ff and they have for a century before feeling long term effects of the pollution which at this point are in the form of temporary and extreme weather patters and increased extinction of species. If there is a better way, I'd like to know it. Otherwise, could you buy me an electric car so I can junk my gasoline car?

Honestly, we've all heard the message a zillion times before. We know the specifics. This was just another reminder that we can't hold off on it..

How is a big question. They have all the weapons against us, first off all they use elections to get the right to beat us.

Yes, and no. While people think some places won't be affected by this, the world is a closed system. No matter where you go change is coming. This is why we need to dump fossil fuels, because there is nowhere "safe".

people over profit is a nice concept. but its not her concept. in circles of german activists, she is not very popular, because of her focus on self-promotion.

@@wurstfinger3289 She doesn't claim that it's her concept, it would be hard to fight for a sustainable world if everyone could only talk about concepts they come up with themselves, wouldn't it? She is raising a lot of awareness and I applaud her for doing that and am deeply thankful, as a fellow german activist, as there can never be enough people to fight for a sustainable development :)

@@Maria27033 she is raising awareness for herself as a person.

People over profit? What will happen to 'people' if you remove cheap, reliable, abundant energy?

What is her solution to not use fossil fuels? Did she stand up to complain and talk about conspiracy? Why Germany turn off the nuclear plants? Ooo I know, some activist pushed the government to do it without real science comparing fossil to nuclear! Stop crying about it and study and do research in new energies. These kids are so unrealistic, go to Africa an experience a poor life and then find a solution for African countries not cooking with wood and coal! Oooo I found it! Helping them to have gas! And maybe after they eat better their kids can do better in schools and in one moment on time they will use electricity if they can afford it!

Transition is the key word.

How can we? I’ve yet to hear a good answer in these talks.

@@Libertarian_Neighbor You build a Windmill.

Lmao

@@Libertarian_Neighbor Nuclear

Yes, and how can we stop them? Make your own energy for yourself and don‘t depend on others.

...and idiocracy which they call democracy

But it doesn't care for us either. World will survive one way or the other, only rhing threatened one way or the other, is our way of life.

@@thespalek1 We developed great technologies to make life easier, but we failed to develop a Zeitgeist to guide us about life with each other and life on a living planet.

luisa neubauer? nein.

Guter und berechtigter Kommentar. So schwer ist das mit dem Solar übrigens nicht, preisintensiv jedoch schon. :D

Natürlich kann jeder entscheiden, nachhaltiger zu leben (weniger heizen, Fleisch essen, Auto fahren etc.), aber darum geht es eben nicht. Einzelpersonen können das Problem nicht lösen. Wir brauchen politische Lösungen, die starke Anreize sowohl Konsument:innen als auch Unternehmen schaffen, nachhaltiger zu wirtschaften. Moral alleine wird uns nicht retten

Der einzig effektive Weg als Einzelperson etwas zu verändern, ist politisch aktiv zu werden, sich bilden ins Gespräch mit anderen Menschen zu kommen, ein Bewusstsein für die Katastrophe in der Gesellschaft zu schaffen und das Thema wieder auf die alltägliche Agenda zu holen. Also go for it! Let us change something.

Macht euch doch nichts vor, natürlich könnt ihr euch z.B. als Mieter ein Balkonkraftwerk anschaffen. Die Verantwortung auf andere schieben ist billig, jeder kann etwas tun. Den Staat vorschieben ist bequem, bringt aber nichts. Jeder kann auf seiner Ebene Verantwortung übernehmen…That’s the way

@@dunundancer Da gabs mal so einen Spruch "Wir sind das Volk". WIR sind der Staat. Wenn die von mir gewählten (!) Politiker nicht das halten, was sie versprechen, kann man schon zu Recht ungehalten werden. Das Argument des freien Marktes und des mündigen Verbrauchers ist im übrigen genauso vorgeschoben. Da wären wir dann bei diesen bescheuerten Aussagen wie, "man kann auch mal einen Waschlappen benutzen". Aber hier gehts nicht um einmal weniger Duschen pro Woche, oder dass ich fein meinen Jutebeutel mit zum Bioladen nehme, es geht um Klimagerechtigkeit. Das kann ich nicht als einzelner Bürger verändern.

*people, no plural

How is the big question. They have all the weapons against us, first of all they use the elections to get the right to beat us by their idiocracy.

Perfect English.. Your comment touches upon the core of the problem.

30 years and yet renewables (which are really "unreliables") represent only 3% of global electricity use. And even this achievement was the result of subsidies, mandates and the demonization of fossil fuels.

@@anthonymorris5084 Just not true: Based on REN21's 2020 report, renewables contributed 19.2% to humans' global energy consumption and 23.7% to their generation of electricity in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Just wait until that inevitable terminal diagnosis, then take action. One last gift to the future. Their side already does this, just not effectively... because their target is basically all of humanity. Our targets have names, googleable net worth, company titles, addresses and blueprints. We don't know what it'll take to shake them out from under the spell of profit, nor prophet... they're more tenacious than Japan in WWII, so it'll need to be a big wakeup call. It might not even be possible. They've weaponized apocalyptic religions around the globe to stand encircling them as human shields, in an axis of extinction. Evolution is still in play here, just much higher up on the house of cards.

@@AndreasDelleske You are being fallacious and including hydro. There is very little room for hydro growth and what could be capitalized upon is vociferously blocked by environmental zealotry. There are numerous places where hydro isn't even an option. Wind and solar globally represent about 3% and will never replace fossil fuels. Even where they exist today, they have to be backed by another source which is almost exclusively coal, nat gas and oil.

@@anthonymorris5084 What would you actually want to do if you were in charge of the decisions here?

Well said.

Life in most countries gets better year after year.

I find most of the fossil fuel fanboy right wing nutbars also have solar panels on their cabins to be "off grid" libertarians. Like really pick a lane here people, do you support the global oligopoly or would you like the citizens to have their own independence?

@@5353Jumper I find most climate fanboy Left wing zealots so frequently hurl insults and demeaning stereotypes instead of a coherent argument.

Totally agree! I am also missing a clear set of data. I keep myself lost due all the existing biases explanations on the topic.

​@@ruiveiga8380 I think the most informative thing for me was some college courses I took like environmental science and ecology. Since many people can't do that, I there are a lot of lectures freely available online, some form prestigious universities like MIT with their Opencourseware RU-vid channel. Yale has a channel with an instructor teaching climatology. With the video format you can pause, skip and go back.

This is a clueless climate activist. She has no specifics. It's an agitprop. She has no idea about how a functioning economy works. A fair tale is what she is saying, not the fossil fuel industry.

What makes me laugh is 40,000 people flying to a COP meeting to tell everyone else not to fly. It’s comedy gold.

Ole Bill is a Priveleged Establishment Person.

@@palmharbor6317 the thing is I like a lot of his social commentary. There seems to be a real pushback against Greta and taking personal responsibility for climate change

@@deejay7648 Change starts somewhere. How do you expect them to fly with 0 emissions when there are almost No electric plane reliable enough? The transition will get to the plane industry eventually. We barely even started with cars and here you are criticizing those who need to use planes. The only air travel users that are wasteful are those who arent willing to drive even 2h away or take a train. But billionaires know they wouldn’t like being in traffic or a train like Us the working class.

@@Power_to_the_people567 somehow you missed the point entirely. It wasn’t about flying with zero emissions, it was the fact that all the “greenies” flying to Davos did so on private jets when they could have easily done some commercially. On an individual basis flying a private jet has an exponentially bigger carbon footprint vs mass transportation, and these are the people telling us regular folks we consume too much. The old proverb “practice what you preach” definitely comes to mind.

Obvious but very good point. Also think of how our world is built on oil. We need it to produce fertilizer to feed the world! We need it to move heavy machinery etc. She is... I am sorry to say just a dumb girl.

"If the renewable energies resources were cheap": indeed the issue AS USUAL is this one: what is cheap has strong drawbacks (fossil fuels), and the more virtuous alternative (renewable energy) is more expensive. So what to do? Make the cheap one less attractive. The option: tax it and with the money you fund the nicer (but more expensive) alternative (at least until the alternative has reached a minimum level of development so its costs have reduced).

So what?

@@goodguygollum6791 Instead of "Tu-qouque"- and "Whataboutism"-fallcies... if I were you, I would reflect my ideology critically!

@@thegoatmaster9444 If everyone of us would behave like this, not using any of the methods (in that case vehicles) we criticize, then progress in all would take too long. If everyone of us would only then be allowed to point on issues, when being perfectly a role model in every kind of perspective, then nobody could say anything anymore. You understand what i mean? In reasoning theory, that style of argumentation you use is called "argumentum ad hominem". It´s not valid.

@@goodguygollum6791 Specific it is a "TU-QUOQUE"-Argument and in its validity disputable as a fallacy in reasoning theory but strong non-deductive. In kind of your second paragraph you're right, but she always trapped - in Germany like US - into the moralistic fallacy. She only lives and arguments in prohibition answers and the irrational green-neomarxistic policy that is rejected in a free democratic society. Working with democratic structures brings better outcomes for all, so even activists should work together with democratic structures. So all should work in democratic structures against climate change.

Thanks for giving more evidence that the climate movement was never an environmental movement. It's an ideological movement.

Du kannst es automatisch von RU-vid übersetzen lassen

Tue dir das nicht an, die sind ecofaschisten, Ökonazis. Und diese Kreaturen fliegen unbeschränkt viel mit Flugzeugen überall hin. Nicht mit Fahrrad!!! Lüge ist ihr ganzes Leben.

Simple minded person

No mention of climate SCIENCE what so ever?? Actual science, not clickbait media driven hyperbolic headlines and numbers you don't know where they came from.

meistens ist es personalisierte Werbung.... ich sehe keine Autos, weil ich sie langweilig finde

@@jonasrademacher211 wenn RU-vid Gedanken lesen könnte ... personalisierte Werbung ist eh sonderbar

@@dubtube6691 war auch mehr spass, du hast ja absolut recht. Jedes unternehmen und (fast) jede person ist teil des problems, aber auch teil der lösung.

Easier after some wine 🍷

The Fairytale is people like this believing that our society can run without fossil fuels. Wind/solar "renewables" only produce electricity, they don't produce any products. There are thousands of products that are produced from the derivatives of crude oil/petroleum. From electronics to medical devices, telecommunications equipment, airplane and aerospace, asphalt and many many more things that give us the modern society we have today. And yes, most of the components from windmills and solar panels are... you guessed it... made from petroleum based products. Are you ready to give up your cell phone? I don't think this woman is! We will always need these things, so a combination of energy forms are what is necessary. Zero emissions is the Fairytale people. I want to fix many things in our environment too... but narrow vision and well wished speeches are not what will get us there. Knowledge and innovation is the key to our future.

she is adipoes

take the movement as inspiration, but please not her!

I’m sorry, but there’s nothing courageous above going along with the agenda of all les bien pensants....

@@peterforsythe3643 Your sentence lacks a coherent point.

Courageous? What was so courageous? There are far more negative consequences endured by standing up to the authoritarian climate movement. Spewing fear hardly takes courage.

What ideas? I only heard blame.

The Fairytale is people like this believing that our society can run without fossil fuels. Wind/solar "renewables" only produce electricity, they don't produce any products. There are thousands of products that are produced from the derivatives of crude oil/petroleum. From electronics to medical devices, telecommunications equipment, airplane and aerospace, asphalt and many many more things that give us the modern society we have today. And yes, most of the components from windmills and solar panels are... you guessed it... made from petroleum based products. Are you ready to give up your cell phone? I don't think this woman is! We will always need these things, so a combination of energy forms are what is necessary. Zero emissions is the Fairytale people. I want to fix many things in our environment too... but narrow vision and well wished speeches are not what will get us there. Knowledge and innovation is the key to our future.

@@chadmelton7198 Yep. Absolutism is a fool's errand. Burning coal for energy is an absurdity, but it is still critical for the manufacture of steel. Our society, 8 bn peasants, supporting a few in a gilded aristocrats, is unsustainable.

Really! Fossil fuel industry working to make the whole world 'third world'? Are you serious? Considering fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, and pulled millions of people out of abject poverty. Every nation able to exploit the cheap, abundant, reliable energy that fossil fuel provides, is now a first world nation. Denying the third world, or developing nations access to this energy source is basically genocide at the hands of the 'adorable' Green movement.

Old Scientist, in a previous exchange I already caught you cherry-picking data (which means strongly distorting reality) to support your claim that "We are not in a climate crisis". So for the benefit of readers, I am taking some examples extracted from the IPCC report AR6, WG1. Let's see if really nothing is happening: It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5. It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes. The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased since the 1950s over most land area for which observational data are sufficient for trend analysis (high confidence), and human-induced climate change is likely the main driver. Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions due to increased land evapotranspiration (medium confidence). Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence), fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence), and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will continue to rise over the 21st century. Relative to 1995-2014, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.28-0.55 m under the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9); 0.32-0.62 m under the low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6); 0.44-0.76 m under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5); and 0.63-1.01 m under the very high GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5) ....... and so on. For the full report, easy to find, just ggle: "IPCC 6th report", go for the WG1, full report. All above extracts are from the beginning of the report (2400 pages in total).

@Franck R Sorry was my cherry-picking data too global for you. I know I quoted the IPCC but it's reports are novels really. This is how it works: The world's leading climate scientists are given that title by cynical politicians. They do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC report. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. The IPCC was set up to find man-made global warming and when you look for something you find it, and indeed they have on the face of it, but when you look deeper you find a dearth of real evidence. Take AR5, that says all observed warming (0.66°C) since 1950 is due to combined anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 10.5, IPCC core writing team, page 6). This relies upon modelling, or rather multi-modelling. In fact when you lift the curtain it relies on 15 models (Fig. 10.4, page 882). These models are all over the place. The models' results are not consistent with the assumption that there is a clear connection between GHGs and warming. GISS-EH-2 is particularly 'not well constrained' as the terminology goes. "Scaling factors" then have to be applied so things fit with the HadCRUT dataset. Some of the scaling factors are even negative! Explain why that has to be done!

@@OldScientist So you are stating that the science behind the IPCC reports is not from « world's leading climate scientists », and that « cynical politicians » then completely modify the scientists conclusions. In short : a report written by incompetent people and modified by crooks. But all this just does not make sense ! The IPCC report AR6 WG1 is based on 14,000 scientific publications, from 234 authors from 65 countries. What IPCC publishes is nothing scientifically new, but this is a critical summary (hence an important work) of these scientific papers. And the politicians impact on global warming communication is in fact rather to make it appear milder than it is in reality ! One point I really don’t get, except if you enter in the equation a strong ideological bias, is how some people (dumb ones aside) are able to state that « politicians are inventing man-made global warming ». For everyone and for politicians included, global warming is a F….. BAD NEWS ! Ecology in general, and climate change in particular, is a NEW CONSTRAINT, and guess what, nobody likes constraints. Why on earth would governments, including some heavily using home-made fossil fuels, would support « a lie » imposing them to reshape entirely their energy production, their transportation model, their industry, their economy, their ways of living ? It just does NOT make sense ! « Because of money » ? But the rich people (able to influence/corrupt politicians) are precisely the fossil fuel corporations, not renewables ! (and btw fossil fuel corporations, Exxon, Koch Brothers, do influence (directly fund) a handful of scientists to spread misinformation and create doubt on AGW). « Because politicians want to control people » ? But to control what, for God’s sake ! Politicians already struggle to get their policies in place, and they would add to their own society a new and very heavy burden, something silly and counter-productive for their OWN economy, but for which f… reason ?? Only people IDEOLOGICALLY BIAISED can believe this nonsense !

@@franckr6159 Please just try to explain what I asked you to explain. Enlighten me.

@@OldScientist So you are asking me to find an old report, undig specific data (you would have to be clearer on where to find the data first) and explain why there seem to be inconsistencies. Nice one ! Do you really believe I could readily have an answer? Of course you don't ;-) Two things you could do on your side: ask IPCC directly. Or also check in AR6 if this time models look more consistent (as new data has been used). And btw, as you love cherry-picking (!), did you check the rest of the AR5 report ? Do all the other technical elements look as dodgy to you ?? My point anyway is this one (as detailed in my previous comment), so could you answer (logically) this question ? : Why on earth would governments (all of them !) try to twist science (dangerous as it can easily backfire) in order to make life very difficult for everyone, THEMSELVES included ? To me this is pure nonsense. So let me know please.

Right we all can make speeches about how there’s a problem. But, if you don’t have a solution why are these people on TED talk and they all sound the same 😳

What’s the plan.

What are you doing? Probably nothing like everyone else.

What are the viable alternatives? I keep hearing “we need to act” and “we are out of time” but what is the alternative?

@@Libertarian_Neighbor Nuclear power plants or a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Other than that absolutely nothing.

Our first plan is to ignore BS arguments like these and just move forward with adopting the many proven alternatives already developed. Convincing the willfully ignorant is just an energy sink.

There is no such thing as "clean" energy. This is pure language manipulation. To live in the modern world there is no free lunch.

Klimasekte

And it's really complex and mysterious if you can't be bothered to figure it out. Remember, the "Middle Way" is not moderation, moderation is Confucian. The Middle Way is living with one mind that knows this is Maya, and living in a world-mind we play with between the maternity ward and the crematorium.