Why politicians have failed to tackle climate change 

as long as our economic system is heavily dependant on consumerism, people will always produce something cheap without caring about the waste since our economic system is profit oriented.

Nope. Even in countries that did very little about Corona, they acted very quickly. We've hardly acted on climate change for over 50 years and it's now causing death, plagues and locusts. It's becoming biblical.

@just another human I'd say its not a hoax. I'd say that the data suggests there has been some warming from humans burning fossil fuels. Of course how much warming is very debatable? What I'd say is a hoax is the doom and gloom scenario's we have been bombarded with. We know that satellites are reporting a greening of the earth because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. We know that crop yields are up globally, partly because of slightly higher temps and co2 levels. The "greens" never mention these positives. Why? Because it appears that that wouldn't bring the wedge flooding in. The greens are a business, and doing well out of an imagined crisis! Just look at how many companies sell the green slant now, because it attracts more consumers, sells more products, and ultimately makes them more money.

@@andrewcheadle948 it definitely isn't a hoax. A proof is that the smartest people on earth agree on it happening. This is enough proof for me ;) only those who may lose money of having to stop their polluting activities are negating the CC.

@just another human Yep the GSM is never mention as we WARM but is all over the Fossil Fuel funded blogs. Go figure.

Then we are not in a democracy but an oligarchy.

@@Memoiana well you can be democratic and orliarchy at the same time. The orligarchy use media to create manufactured consent within the population, then having the people to vote against their own interest - which is what the US have been doing since the 60s.

It depends where you live

@@etiennelamole9565 Name me one country where wealth and social connections doesnt give you an advantage in voicing political agenda

iHaveGrudgeAgainstUT Scandinavian countries (Norway, Iceland, Denmark) and Finland are very egalitarian and the closest thing to ideal democracies. New Zealand and Ireland aren’t too bad either.

It is difficult to get a policy past if politicians gain power for not having that policy.

Syd, The exact opposite is true as well, tell someone their paycheck depends upon them supporting a idea and they will. Like give scientists Billions annually and they will produce ‘research’ which implies we are all going to die unless politicians take our freedom away.

The IPCC are paid to tell you that you must be taxed on all your activities to save the world! What do you think the 'I' in IPCC stands for? Who do you think gets to change and amend the IPCC media statements before release to the world press? Think about it....its not rocket science...its political discourse.

@@michaelnice93 you make 0 sense. Nobody gives billions to scientists to come to a certain conclusion.

I remember a time where climit change was about the ice age and not politics.

In short most people are ignorant and irresponsible.

Phrancis5 yeah! Then when it happens to them, they don solve it, but rather blame and then threaten war while the problem continues and take innocent lives.

Yes

Humans are very gullible. They will believe anything a "expect" claims. Then they will pay whatever is asked. SHEEP, scientist and politicians know it.

Phrancis5 Yes that is true we only respond to something when it is getting worse but when it is doing nothing but a harm in the future we ignore it only it starts to pose a treat

@Donald Kasper just wait another decade and you will see some big changes

You cant fight or stop climate change!!

Kind of suggests we in the UK need to make House of Lords have priority over House of Commons.

Fortunately, that will take about 3000 years and by then we will be living in space stations.

Actually I reckon it will take about 50 years. The rivers are all polluted right now, the Amazon is being deforested, the changing climate will irreparably damage our oceans and food supply. The rich will be living amazing lives in Singapore-like fortress bubbles looking out at the laboring dimwits who thought it would all be ok for 3000 years.

@@colinfwalters Your arguments were created in the 1970's and is based on the false theory of a population bomb. According to the theory, the earth would be so polluted by 2005 that half the creatures of the earth would be gone. The population would be so great that food supplies would result in food riots by 2010. By 2015, the population would be reduced to 4 billion people wearing mask and oxygen systems because the air would be too polluted. A large cause of the reduction would be the rampant cannibalism going on. Wars would rage over whose population would eat whose. It is now 2020 and none of this has even come close to happening.

robert hicks Nice piece of science fiction. But who cares if one obscure theory did not come to pass. Doesn’t mean that the situation is not really bad. If not for humans(not yet), definitely for the rest of the ecosystems and animals. Did you see the state of the planet? Coral bleaching? the tropical rainforests being cut down? More cows and pigs than any other mammal on earth? Sharks (essential to life in the oceans) are endangered? Then we can talk about how sustainable a global society that is based on oil is.. we are going to run out of it, but not before we have destabilized the global climate.. So yeah maybe we will be 10 billion in 2050. But maybe a lot less in 2100..

@@Memoiana Why does it matter? Because its the same theory your are pushing. You are using the same data, the same theory and the same outcome, just with different dates. They have discovered WITH LAB TEST that the bleaching of the corals is due to pollution, not co2. Most of the rain forest that is being cut down is actually trees PLANTED so they can be harvested. Sharks are endangered by pollution, fishing and because they are getting caught in fishing gear. Sharks "job" is to remove the weak fish. Which also happens with fishing. There are already alternations of how to produce oil without fossil fuels. So if we run out of fossil fuels we will be able to make it ourselves.

Politicians are as they were.

The job of a politician is to get re-elected, not to solve problems.

When you watch "how to shave" video upside down...

the video is about why our world is dying, so his beard is irrelevant

Poul Eichel Our global society is going to die. But the planet will be fine.

@@Gamer2347 you made my day

People are slow to react. When they finally do its often panic

@@jbw6823 i agree

Sorry to tell you this, that point passed over a half century ago. They were pushing this agenda in the 1930's and said the tipping point would happen in the 1950's.

@@jbw6823 Yea, seriously, people are slow to react. Its been almost a century and still not one is responding to the threats from the 1930's.

@@Je.rone_ Re Robert Hicks and the posted paper: You agree also?

So true.

Then do not expect global emissions to go down. The industrialized west is only 25% of global emissions; the other 75% is what is currently controlling ghg emission growth. It’s a fact whether you like it or not. So another solution is required because this one ain’t working.

I want to tackle you.

@@markdawson9094 😆😆😆

@James Adams I believe in free speech... except on RU-vid

PIXEL POTATO you’re starchy name will keep me warm from this Solar Minimum.

Mark Dawson In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

Why?

No it really isn't. At this point, we literally need to combat climate change at all costs.

@@samuelforesta That reply doesn't make sense. Search up what it means

@@samuelforesta NO

In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

Yeah, and how do you convince all these minions to get off of capitalism? Ive been trying for decades.

You cant protect the environment.

It answered it: Big polluting developed nations like the US don't want to cut emissions because it will cost them money. It's the same cause for pretty much everything that is wrong with the world today - Short sighted unfettered capitalism.

@@nova_kane US emissions have remained stable for the last 30 years. None of the countries crying about America have managed to do even that much.

A weak 'peace.' Hmm... I wonder what's wrong with that?

I actually agree with you. This 9 minutes is all about basic fact that everyone knows. I think I would be more interested in “how”

@@fusion9619 If you look at total emissions, America is by FAR the highest.

No civilisation without nature. If our ecosystem collapses, so will our civilisation. Money will then be totally obsolete

@@lorenzoblum868 The ecosystem is improved every year. No collapse coming anytime or anywhere!

@@5rings16 it happened before and will happen again.

@@lorenzoblum868 Not for millions of years, and mankind is great at adapting!! The human race is too strong.

In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

@@trevorjonathan4405 hey did you forget about cattle farming

Nabhanyu Shetti We are not allowed to talk about that. McDonald’s controls the beef market 🤫

@@trevorjonathan4405 Do you really think anything would be different if industries were not 'elite owned'?

@@trevorjonathan4405 sorry to say Nabhanyu has just committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 46 times and if you don't stop this thread right now you are next -friendly neighborhood clown

Here is a question for you. IF there is an aircraft crash on the border, where are the survivors buried?

@@roberthicks1612 why will the survivors be buried ? lol

@@ramakanthrama8578 Thats the entire point. He says no one will there to bury us, but if we are survivors, we dont need burying.

@@roberthicks1612 yes, why should even be think of that situation ? if Im dead, that means I'm not alive , and how can I worry, if I'm dead ? his reasoning doesnt make sense at all.

@@ramakanthrama8578 Another point is, if no human is around to bury us, nature will do so, they way she has buried so many other species. Unless of course the planet is actually destroyed, and then we will all be star dust

Christopher Haist Might as well do it while the economy is already hurt this will be one of our only chances to do something about climate change

Because the risk is not real and immediate. The virus had real risk of sickness and death.... climate change on the other hand, is predicted risk, long into the future, way after almost all current governments would have to go thru another election cycle.... these politicians aren't going to form policies today for people who cannot vote for them for the next decade or so.....

HUMANS CANNOT CONTROL CLIMATE. IT IS THE BIGGEST LIE IN HISTORY.

In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

@@trevorjonathan4405 😂

Billy Fox Fake account found.

@Nyasha is the A.I. the youtube channel implemented will suggest you ads based on your browser search or youtube search. For me it happened when i was looking for some stuff on amazon and when i opened the youtube it appeared more adds suggestions regarding wot i was looking for on browser

Yes we are ruled by primates and Trudeau

@Dark Horse Actually I did had a look at the history of communism and socialism, better yet I didn't look at it under the glasses of the major centers of propaganda - the U.S and U.S.S.R which seem to be how you learned about the subject like most people. Just to demonstrate how brainwashed you are I would like to ask a simple question: Give me one example of a socialist / communist society that was very bad in your opinion. Prediction: you are going to fail this question. Secondly, I'm not saying that in a socialist / communist society we won't be burning co2, the difference is that in such a society the power is in the hands of the people and so society operates according to the interest of the people. That means that in such a society it would be very easy to transition to green energy because it is in the interest of the people and the people are in control as oppose to capitalism where the small minority elite who are profiting from the burning of co2 are in control of society and so they have no interest in transitioning to green energy. Moreover , it is perfectly clear that any viable solution to the crisis would require public investment and actions, which while not necessarily means socialism it does mean at least some version of social democracy, in other words it require actions that are heavily anti-capitalist in nature.

@@michaelnovak9412 It was capitalism that has reduced worldwide emissions. The socialist countries are behind the capitalist countries in reducing emissions and developing the technology to do so. The usa is ahead of Europe and Africa and Asia in reducing emissions! Nice try! lol

The US is actively shutting down coal plants. China is actively opening them. China's per capita emissions will also continue to increase as incomes increase.

@Stanley Goddard Yeah, nobody had any clue about climate change 100 years ago. And nobody is using China as an excuse in American to not fight climate change...? Not sure what you're even arguing

probably because guns cant shoot gas

Kenneth Tougaw Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!

@@djtdjt8921 Man made Climate Change denial might make you sleep better at night, but that doesn't change reality. The fact that you think I would listen to you lecturing me online instead of the climate science I studied in graduate school shows how little respect you have for my opinion. I will repay the kindness with the same amount of respect.

Kenneth Tougaw firstly, if questioning your view in open debate is an offense to you, then probably you would feel more comfortable in communist China 😉 When it comes to you as a somebody that have studied the issue, here is what I don’t understand, what happened to the ice age? Why did it disappear? And why was the temperature during Roman times slightly higher than it is now?

@@djtdjt8921 this isn't a debate. All of those questions have been answered by science for centuries. This is you asking me to educate you by you tube comments. That is why I don't respect your opinion, or the way you intend to communicate. If you want to know the answer I suggest you type the questions into another website. The website is called Google. If that is to difficult perhaps consider paying tuition to get the answers. It worked for me.

@@KTougaw sounded a bit like debate, must be great to be omniscient. So sure that mankind's 3.86% contribution to annual co2 emissions, and co2 being just 0.041% of our atmosphere is warming the planet. Our 0.002% co2 contribution to earth's atmosphere . I'm not alone in thinking that that % is statistically insignificant, happy for you not to reply as this isn't a debate,

Politicians have the influence to force corporations to cut their emissions.

Yess

In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

Stefan Herzog Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!

@@djtdjt8921 so do you think it's in no one's best interest to cut back on emissions and cleaning up the planet?

Stefan Herzog if you google “total emotions of the planet” you will se that the human is responsible for only less than 1% of the worlds emissions.. you know who’s the biggest contributor? Ocean! When sun heats it up, it creates words suggest emotions (over 95% of worlds total) that rises up.. heat pulls emotion up until they reach a freezings temperature.. what is the temperature at the level that airplanes fly? -40C to -57C (-40F to -70F) Globally, volcanos contributes to more emotions than we humans combined

@@djtdjt8921 yeah and cattle contribute more too. So what do you think when countless the environmental scholars have reached the conclusion that we need to cut back on emissions?

Stefan Herzog we can cut all the emotions in the world to total 0. Set ourselves back to a stone ages & it would creat any reasonable impact to the planet.. It is that human arrogance to always regulate, oversee & manage everything..

When it comes to profit making capitalism, your children are already considered dead.

Its not the politicians, its the capitalists that are to be blamed.

@@nevadataylor Its the people and citizens that are to be blamed.

ramakanth rama do you know how ridiculous you sound citizens are the victims here we are the consumers la politicians are the ones who make these laws so in reality it’s on them

@@Master-kh6ww it's just my point...

@@Master-kh6ww Who voted the politicians ? We the citizens did. So we are to be blamed.

zeze popio Considering the inertia of the GHG in the atmosphere (several decades for methane, several centuries die carbone dioxide) we should really be looking at the total emissions in each country over the last century..

Without animal agriculture you cant feed people.

@@berkilhan4727 Yes we can, go vegan. Animal agriculture is actually a major contributor to world hunger. Because of animal agriculture, we keep feeding nutritious grains to farmed animals that we breed instead of humans. Veganism is better for animals,humans, and the environment.

Jason Martinez Okay, what about their children? And it’s not just about the superficial concerning, it is about the fact that it’ll affect billions of people.

@@etiennelamole9565 They care about their children... so much that they think about their income, their mortgage or rent and their bills... for their children... today. Mortgage reminders come in the mail on a monthly basis. Bills come due monthly. Companies layoff people every few years. TV commercials are constantly reminding people of their retirement years. Ha ha, I once knew someone who was a total save-the-planet guy. After he and his wife had a kid, he bought her a new car; it was an SUV. I was like, "Ahhhh! C'mon, Dude, think of the gas mileage. Save the planet!" He said, "Dude, I have a kid. I gotta protect the kid." He felt that SUVs were safer. :P

Scientist get grant money, published papers, and tenure for claiming alarming disasters from climate change. Your statement sounds like a big conspiracy theory. Mine statement sounds like peer preassure for personal success.

The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.

The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.

The basic question.....how A commercial greenhouse is maintained around 1200 ppm, while our atmosphere is around 415 ppm. (CO2 is 1/2200 of the atmosphere) The planet is literally starved for carbon. Experts note that since the onset of the Industrial revolution, and the burning of added fossil fuels, our planet has majorly greened. Carbon has filtered in the soil providing that which plants require to grow larger, healthier, more diverse and having larger yields. Over the last two hundred million years, only 40 million have had CO2 this low. Will a climate action include planting trees, while we remove carbon? The defunct Paris accord framework detailed some of the actions man would take. Both China and India, the two worst polluters on the planet would only be required, as "emerging nations" to meet minimum goals for a period of 13 years. Unable to afford there own cleanup, the US would be required to give each 600 million per year. No accounting of how or where they spent the money would be made. Each US household would pay ( based on a family of four) 23,000/year. Of course this would be added to the national debt. The US would largely pay, while new technologies and industry being developed would be given to, "emerging nations" Carbon credit trading markets, described as the most corrupt on the planet, riddled with Billionaires. The political and Economic power and legislation to control policy around the planet. A problem now described as a 100 trillion dollar issue, with monies held and directed by Who? Climate is changing, i believe naturally, but the issue is about legitimacy. This is a scam on a monumental scale.

@@klzeccwozi1290 I certainly don't disagree with that. Obviously, we need to scale back now, not later when we are physically no longer able to produce and consume at these levels. My point is just that to properly tackle climate change means no more fast food, fast fashion, or fast travel (unless you could do so sustainably...unlikely). Most people accept the overall climate message, but that's a much harder sell.

It seems the activists try to get around the hard questions by just focusing on a message of 'fear'. Basically, scare people into action, which makes it less likely that questions will be asked in any direction. This might be a feasible strategy, if they did not have a sizable portion of the population that did not buy, and often outright rejects, their message.

Money is not everything

"Something cannot be political and scientific at the same time." That's too vague a statement to possibly hold any water. Scientifically, it is a scientific fact that humans caused all recent global warming and it poses a threat to our future and is already damaging our present. All of those are scientific facts, but there is strong POLITICAL opposition to doing the things we must do to fix the climate crisis.

Ya as in millions doing their homework and waking up to the scam. Stop depending on proxy sense makers and do some research.

Exactly! It’s because the status quo serves and benefits a very few who want to keep their position above everyone else... the reality is that consumer capitalism is not freedom...it is divine and conquer at its best! ... it is the motivation for slaves to go to work and pay their bills!

They are already listening. They are listening to the majority of scientist that say this is a scam. They are listening to the majority of their people that say to ignore the scammers.

people will never stop consuming. It's why were in this mess in the first place.

@@roberthicks1612 Please can you provide links to any resepectable scientific organsation anywhere in the world that supports you view..... The science goes back 200 years and the act that C02 is a warming gas can be demostrated in any high school lab....

@Rutger Thyssen As with most, you ask for ever peice of science ever written. As for something specific. What do you want to hear.

@@stephensharp975 Thats the point isnt it? IF it doesnt agree with you, its not respectable. If its something you consider respectable, it agrees with you. Thats the way alarmist work. One person at an organization can agree and everyone else disagrees, and its reported that the entire organization supports. NOT ONE of those organizations can show that all or even most of their people they represent support agw. Yes, you can prove that co2 can causes a warming IN A PROPERLY BUILT ENCLOSED ENVIRONMENT. The problems is, those CONDITIONS do not exist in the atmosphere. All of them require water vapor, which does not exist in the majority of the atmosphere. They also require a material that blocks some if not all of the infrared. Something most alarmist will never admit is that co2 has also been demonstrated as being able to kick a lot of energy out of the earths atmosphere.

Is there a problem?

Do you mean the guy at 1.33?

Yup he is the only one with unusual hair in the whole vid!

Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

Dylan Liu Climate is constantly changing, as our difference between us & sun in changing up and down by 5M km, as well as the tilt in our orbit angle is virtually different every single year.. planet is changing constantly, that is the nature! One does not tackle nature!

In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

If there was an economic benefit it'd be done pretty much everywhere. But there isn't one.

ForOne814 Renewables can compete with fossil fuels atm without subsidies. But if you included environmental and health into the equation there would be no competition. We should make the transition regardless of climate change.

@@vitaeschola 1st question: where? 2nd question: why don't they compete then, if it's more profitable?

Yes! 🤣

Nyasha Chifamba In the U.S., the sectors of transportation, industry and electric power account for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, elite-owned corporations are the main polluters in the world today. They are the ones emitting tons upon tons of carbon dioxide in the air while dumping tons upon tons of toxic waste in water streams. Instead of tackling these industries head-on, the elite parades around an autistic girl, films world leaders clapping at her speeches and encourages children to be afraid.

Heres the thing, it's a useful phrase.

@@jbw6823 It is used too frequently and often not required at all.

@@sampaonni7592 i make joke

patentsvnc So if you have a leaking pipe that flooded the kitchen you let it ruin the whole house? No man, We have to minimize the damage knowing full well that even if we stopped emitting GHG today we’d still have 1.5 degrees increase in global temperatures. But we can avoid 2 degrees or more which would be truly catastrophic. We can reduce the use of fossil fuels in energy generation and the industry but also in transport and food production. We can build better housing, with better insulation requiring less heating and less air conditioning. Much cheaper to do it now, while we still have options and cheap energy to do all this work..

@@Memoiana If the plumber told you it's too late to fix it, you have passed the point of no return, you'd be a fool to fix it.