As a economics bachelor myself, I hate how economists just tries to get into literally every field and "valuates" everything only to be used as a "see, climate change isn't *that* bad, forget about the potential millions of dead rampant starvation, our model here just showed that will cost the equivalent of 4 trillions of dollars, as a result we shouldn't really expend that much money on mitigation since adaptation is cheaper" (this really just means "fck the planet, let's keep producing non stop in order keep the ecnomy going since we cannot fanthom a reality where we produce less and keeps with the needs and wants of people, God forbid we end up tainting capitalism").
Yes. The only reason flood insurance even exists in Florida is because of massive federal flood insurance subsidy. the private sector has found no way to make money providing actual insurance. Meanwhile the state of Florida is ripping away building requirements like insurance for construction as a way to entice people into that state. @@Sekir80
@Sekir80 Lots of companies have pulled out of the state. Others seriously limit what they will cover (having the insurance company tell you that you need a new roof or they will drop you is quite common). And prices have shot up, while the chances of a company actually paying claims has gone way down.
@@Sekir80 Florida has private insurers, who are pulling out and raising premiums, and a public insurer, which is (effectively) subsidising the risk from living in a place likely to flood in a storm, at ever greater cost to the taxpayer. More Perfect Union has a video on this.
On a very small scale, our family's preparations for climate change have made us remarkably more financially resilient than we would've been otherwise. By improving insulation in our house, only having one small vehicle and prioritizing non-car transportation options, cooking mostly vegetarian, developing repair and mending skills, and choosing to live in a less desirable neighborhood that was not prone to wildfires, we have been far less affected by the price shocks over the last five years in gasoline, natural gas, food costs, insurance premiums, or general inflation. We just dropped a chunk of money to have a heat pump system properly sized, designed, and installed before we potentially lose the tax credits when T**** is inaugurated and we are already so so happy with the results. We have never regretted any money we've spent to make ourselves more energy efficient, less consumptive, or more climate resilient.
While this specific example is nice, it isn't simply enough for individual people to be more environmentally friendly. It's the companies at the end of the day who are responsible for climate change and the government subsidies that help them. It is just more useful to focus your energy on them.
@@autosneeze7425 My point was not that individual action is the solution to reducing greenhouse gases. My point ws that acknowledging and preparing and reacting to climate change has made my family more resilient and better off financially than we would've been otherwise, which was the thesis of Simon's video. In the same way we actively chose not to live in a wildfire prone area, California should stop allowing development of homes into wild and brush areas. Large-scale investment making homes more resilient (e.g., improving insulation, switching appliances, etc.) would make communities less prone to fossil fuel price shocks for heating or cooling and reduce the likelihood of blackouts. Transit options outside of cars would make sudden jumps in gasoline prices less devastating to low and middle income folks. That was my point.
absolutely not. OP is talking about individual independence. If all people would do the same, big corporations would bankrupt, because people would need to buy only 20% of what they currently buy. It's degrowth strategy that makes everything better for everyone.
It is so horrifyinh that as a species we have become so warped by capitalism that our own survival does not seem worth it unless it is profitable to a tiny group of already extraordinarily rich and powerful people.
It's moreso that we gave too much power to psychopaths (the only people who could morally justify themselves being billionaires) and so now we're all at their mercy.
Very clearly explained. As for your "digression", the loss in natural wealth is absolutely insane and likely to cost us more than anything else: it's turning carbon sinks into carbon sources and further pushing the water cycle out of balance, increasing extreme weather events and creating a positive feedback loop of desertification. We must protect nature by all means.
Ditto on this. Biodiversity loss is a huge loss of wealth. Clean air also. Not just GHGs dirty up the air. It is not really measurable like money in the bank....
Somehow, even though I've been taught about climate change since I was little in the '00s, it still somehow always felt like climate change was something in the future. I think this video finally made the click happen in my brain to realise that climate change really is now and those weird things that happen with the weather aren't "lol imagine if it's due to climate change", no, it is. And that everything we do to mitigate it limits negative effects now, not just in the future.
I remember when it first made all the head lines. I remember it being the distant future, only starting to get significant in the late 2020s. Hah. 2020s. The distant fut- oh, wait. When did that happen?
I'm an early millennial, from The Netherlands. Since I was born, the average temperature in The Netherlands rose with 1.9 °C (3.5 F). Since my mother's birth, 2.4 °C (4.3 F) and since my grandmother's birth 2.6 °C (4.7 F). A few weeks ago, there was 40 cm (15.7 inch) rainfall in a few hours in parts of Spain. Climate change is NOW! We need to act fast, we're already 40 years late!
@@annekekramer3835 I'm a boomer and have let myself be fooled the first few years of adulthood. Although, as you say "climate change is now and we're already 40 years late" action is definitely saving greatly increased trouble. This includes actions against authoritarian governments that support petroleum industries as well as improving personal housing, diet and transport to require little or no fossil fuel. As Simon says, doing nothing is the most expensive action.
Despite all the consequences we are living for decades, humanity still keep on applying adaptive solutions because it is unable to voluntary keep its consumption habits under the regenerative capacity of Earth. Unfortunately we have to realize that the human brain is connected in such a way that it wants all and right away so humanity is doomed to adapt until it will not be possible anymore and it will be the final collapse. When we look at the history, humans change only under unavoidable constraints. The transition to a very more simple life will happen but only after many dramatical events and rapide hundred of millions of death. And at that moment, will we still be adapted to the new environment we will have contributed to create? It could be the human extinction. We may be intelligent but we are unfortunately not wise.
"In the civilized world" *cries*. It's sad I think the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than most of Europe but just doesn't deliver it for free
You'd think since they knew about the problem before anyone else, they'd have seen the opportunity to make more money by offering solutions, as well as pollution, right?
Amusingly during the olive oil point your choice of oil is actually an olive oil blended with other cheaper oils presumably because real olive oil is so damn pricey 😭
Well except you live in a country where the ingredients have to be listed. In that case u can simply just read the list of ingredients and check if its a blend of oils or not.
They don't want ppl spending less money. "They" (the capitalists who did all this) would rather perpetuate and utilise risk as the means by which you are forced to spend more money, with a secret desire that you go into debt.
@@Zabzim > The problem is that the bold solution aren’t palatable _to big fossil fuel companies_ FTFY. 99% of what we need to do wouldn't impact consumers a single bit. "We" are just mad because people like Trump and Fox News tell us to be mad. We don't even know what we're mad about most of the time.
@ Okay let’s go on a thought experiment. Say you want end big oil, that means sorting transportation. As oil is used to make petrol and diesel but I’m sure you’ll reply something on the line of going electric which is a great idea but how are we to get the electric vehicles to the consumer (provided we can even make them in the first place) without using an oil based product? The sorry answer is that we can’t but let’s move on. Oil is also used to make plastic the most used product in existent. So we’ll need a solution to that as well for plant based polymers are useable in some case but not all cases so that’s another issue to add to the pile. Not mention how we’re supposed to even transport the polymers with oil based fuels to transport them. Oh and then we have the problem of gather the organic material to make those polymers, after all I’ve yet to see an electric chainsaw so how on earth would we cut down the trees to process into plant based polymers without oil based fuels to facilitate it all. Look if you want to speed up the change then there are way but they not the nonsense talked about in this video! Instead you want to focus more on producing the most bang for your buck, like dynamic pricing structure that reward sourcing from a low carbon source, Welsh lamb should be cheaper than Spanish tomatoes as that lamb can graze upon the inhospitable countryside of wales which is only fit for growing grass. Tomatoes on the other hand will only grow in Britain for about 3 months of the year and certainly not in the highlands of wales. Want another solution? Let’s mandate glass as to be the only way drinks can be sold in shops because glass is highly recyclable and unlike other drink containers doesn’t require any plastic. For the lining of fizzy drink cans is plastic as is the waxy glaze on the side of disposable coffee cups.
My provincial government officially denies climate change, but has approved significant increases in insurance premiums since we have had record claims because of hail caused by extreme weather.
lol, bad choice of words he meant industrialized but a slip none the less also As a citizen of the "west" trust me, we are the most uncivilized, brutal and cowardly people on earth. I am still working on trying to figure out how to break the brainwashing the west has installed into my neighbors, but this is herculean task. Just watch the reactive comments that will come into this thread
@@sohybali2696yemen having weaker healthcare isnt due to being "uncivilized" lmao what kidn of colonial perception is that... the constant "having collective punishment sanctions" and "being bombarded endlessly by the imperial core for not capitulating to them" might have something to do with it.
4 hurricanes have hit this Philippines in November 2024 already (and it's only the 22nd when I'm writing this). There has been so much flooding that a good percentage of their crop this year has literally been washed away. (This year, the damage is completely out of the ordinary)
We don't often hear about the cost of losing biodiversity. Related to that, I cringe when I hear people listing more AC as a solution against global warming. It obviously exhacerbates the problem, but also, it's a non-solution for me. What kind of life is it when we can't enjoy being outside?
Colorado solar plants will kill the pronghorn that have survived since the Pleistocene as German energy giant RWE's Texas subsidiary leases public lands to sell power for AC, AI, EVs, and BitCoin miners in Arizona or New Mexico.
I'm so frustrated with the way the world works. I want to change it for the better, but I don't know what I can do. At the moment, just trying to understand everything around me is debilitating. I am exhausted every day. I've tried eating healthier, exercising, getting more sleep, being more social, and more. The USA is destroying itself (and the world) and I'm caught in the middle of it. I am very average at a lot of things, just a normal person. I guess my best skill is being able to be average at everything I do. Thank you Dr. Simon Clark for posting these videos, they help me learn and I try to remember to pass them along to my friends and family.
I feel sooo similar and am, too, very average in everything I do. Knowing that other people feel the same way, but do their bit and we’re doing stuff together (in my local climate change group) helps me to not feel as frustrated or powerless as I would otherwise feel. :)
You can't fix the world on your own. All you can do it vote, and use your understanding of what's likely to happen to try to avoid some of the worst effects. Move somewhere that you don't have to worry about flooding or other extreme weather, and prepare for higher energy costs and power cuts.
I'm right there with you. Deep frustration with so so many things around me and the way the world is set up and works and who has the decision making power... and feeling like I can do nothing really about it. It's a really hopeless feeling. But I am trying to take steps forward every day, starting to volunteer more, and have conversations about it whenever I see a decent opportunity to gradually try to inform people. Unfortunately humans take a long ass time to change and we don't have that kind of time, but yelling in people's faces about how urgent things are (while in many cases it can be justified) simply does not help in changing people's minds, it just sinks them deeper into their habits if they feel like they're being antagonized.. It's a difficult balance to strike
A comment on the use of numbers in statistics: the news, articles constantly use numbers out of context without explaining what it means in practice, making them borderline useless, reducing the power if the argument their trying to make. 12% of global GDP - thats an equivalent of the US disappearing. Ok, what does that mean in practice? What does that mean for me? Most people cannot envision whatsoever what this mean, rendering the number useless. I've learnt that as an engineer communicating with teams other than my own - you have to ground the numbers in peoples realities. Connect it to things that matter for the people listening.
Conservatives are supposed to be the people who conserve resources. These are the people who should be PUSHING action against climate change. So why aren't they doing that? As a conservative by nature, I'm frustrated at the lack of action by these governments.
I think you misunderstand what conservatism is about, then. Being a "conservative" in this sense just means preserving the status quo (or sometimes, returning to an older status quo). Climate change and preserving resources or the environment hasn't been a topic in the past, and so it's not what conservatives stand for.
a) these companies fund our political system. b) the technology wasn't there. c) the technology still isn't there. d) the real world is not so flexible and quick to change - nor should it be.
Because what people name things like political parties and government systems they flat out lie. Globally the title "Conservative" actually means "Socially regressive and economically growing the wealth gap". The most fiscally conservative parties out there are the ones that do not label themselves as "Conservative".
@@ssword123 So we should keep chugging pollution, and keep making multinational corporations rich, while making ourselves sick and poor. That sounds super smart. Too many conservatives look at the past through rose colored glasses. Seeing what you want to see, not what was is dangerous.
You should be the governments science advisor, talk on major TV channels and such. Like, if you tell people that “5 species gets extinct every decade” you get “oh that’s bad”. But if you tell them this info about climate changes effect on the economy….BAM!
10:30 really blew my mind 🤯 How are governments and businesses not doing everything they can NOW so they can save money later!? We could already be finished transitioning, if they wouldn't be so fixated on short term gains.
a) these companies fund our political system. b) the technology wasn't there. c) the technology still isn't there. d) the real world is not so flexible and quick to change - nor should it be.
@@samwood4733that's obviously not true considering China has built more electrical capacity in renewables than the entire United States generates. If the technology isn't there, how is that possible?
There is just no way that any actions we can take to reduce our individual climate impact will offset the climate damage unfolding in front of us…because that damage is accelerating.
8:15 it’s already happening. My father works in insurance and there’s a lot of stuff that they’re not going to insure anymore, especially related to flooding and forest fires
The thing is we cannot profit out of our way to stop climate change nor capitalism will save us or the free market As a socialist it's a big thing we need to do or else risk extinction
We are **in** the risk of extinction. We just not speak about - avoiding 'mass hysteria' - you know. "This is by far the fastest climate change in earth history" IPCC 2018
@@12pentaborane Save..._whom_ exactly? A free market is fantastic for ammo manufacturers and potentially large tech companies assuming they can keep their systems running (these days data is extremely valuable) but about no one else. Free market says there's no reason to set up social systems to help those fucked over by natural disasters. Free market says it's great to take advantage of desperate human beings in whatever way you see fit. A free market if it persists will accelerate the collapse of large-scale society.
Our family's climate change adaptations have made us remarkably more financially resilient than we would've been otherwise, similar to another commenter. Adaptions include heat pump water heater, high efficiency heat pump HVAC, 2 PHEVs, solar panels, working at home (no commute), extra insulation in the attic, high efficiency windows, and insulating window blinds. We have a few lifestyle adaptions also, organic food, reduced meat consumption, we grow some of our own food. Ordinary people have made personal choices to take personal action, which will lower their climate change induced cost increases. I also try to do things to counteract the bad moves our leaders make and to encourage the other leaders good moves. For Simon, you have a good, hopeful message and the message has helped to maintain hope. Thank you so much, you are making a difference.
Great as Simon's work is with others I grow more frustrated that almost nobody is focusing on the damage & dangers of how much we are losing our wild life. Born in 42 I've seen 99% of our insects destroyed 95% of our small birds 90% our large birds--with a couple of exceptions--80 to 90% of all land & sea creatures then 80 to 90% of our wild places with a film of filth layered on so much of our world. I support wild life organisations fighting this but it is minimal what is being done. We are losing our world.
What's crazy is the generations who lived through this are already forgetting. I'm 24, and when I was little we would drive to my grandparents' house in the countryside, all corn and soy fields with the occasional forest breaking up the monotony. Your windshield and grill of the car would be absolutely caked with insects you hit while driving at night. Nowadays it's surprising if you even notice any on the windshield after a night drive in July. When I bring this up to my parents, they shrug it off as if I'm exaggerating it.
The world is about to realise the destruction of everything we've ever known possible and you are frustrated, well imagine how a climate scientist might see you donating to a wildlife fund thinking, what a complete waste of time even complaining about it is a waste, if we are talking the loss of 90% of all life for thousands of years and you thinking nobody is focused on the wild life, might in fact be part of the problem. Yes people know we are losing and in fact have lost our world, you may as well donate to a lifeguard organisation while travelling on the titanic for all the good it will do.
@@sappereaude no, they're absolutely not correct. There's roughly 8 million species of eukaryotes currently alive, are you telling me the number was 800 million 40 years ago ? Or was it 8 million and now it's 80 thousand? Maybe 1 million species are threatened with extinction, this idiot claims we have already exterminated 80-99%. It's a mind-bogglingly false number
Hi ! 2 Degree Celsius will be hit in the cumming Decade ! Not in 2100 ! The tipping Points will make all the bad things tripple bad ! And they will NOT stop going bad. If you worrie about money ! Good luck to you ! War , a safe place to live and food and fresh water might be difficult to get. Stay healthy !
It's not really about costs or not. For the Capitalists it's all abour what is profitable. Is it more costly to perpetuate climate change? Undoubtedly? But is it profitable? Naturally! You kind of got to the point at the end there. We need to stop wating for the next miracle technology, or for Capital to solve the problem for us. The truth of the matter is that fossil Capital would never undermine their own profits to avoid disaster in the future. They profit, and us ordnary people take the full price. We need to work toward true change if this is ever going to happen. Politicians, mainstream economists and companies will never work to make this change. We have to.
Which resources? Assuming you’re talking about metals like lithium and nickel, here’s something very important that “run out of resources” doesn’t think about - they are almost 100% recyclable. So once we have enough mined/refined for all the batteries etc we will need, we won’t need to mine any more. We’ll just recycle what wears out. This will increase in power once the human population stops growing and starts shrinking (which will happen in about 25-30 years). This is different from fossil fuel, where the value of what we mine is in the chemical bonds, not the raw elements. Burned gasoline cannot be recycled, not in an energy-positive way - it’s just waste CO2+H2O once we’ve burned it. But metals? They can be used forever. Already, 70% of the steel used in manufacturing in the US comes from recycling. Everything else will head the same way.
@@davestagner Bold of you to assume humanity will just "stop mining once we have enough". Also, while some metals may be much more recyclable than like plastics for instance, nothing is infinitely recyclable. Everything will gradually decay if it gets reheated and reformed over and over and over again
@@davestagner You make excellent points. This is concrete and asphalt I was discussing; I ought have been more clear. Sea walls against storm surge. Raised highways against sea level rise. Hurricane-resistant buildings. Lithium's irrelevant to that. Nickel's fairly irrelevant to that. Sand is running out, though, and that affects concrete, not batteries. Absolutely, metals are generally far more repurpose-able, reusable, recyclable than fossil stock, cermets and cements.
@@deadlyshizzno Is it? WHY do we constantly need more? Not in an existential sense, but in what drives that growth today? The two biggest drivers of such resource consumption have been a rapidly growing population (quadrupled in a single century), and lifting billions out of poverty. But population is leveling off and will go into decline in a few decades (look up the demographics if you don’t believe me), and eventually, almost everyone will be lifted out of poverty. Here’s an example to think about. I have a dining room table with four chairs. I probably won’t need a new table or dining chairs for the rest of my life. I could easily afford another table and chairs, but I have no reason to get them. My house is over 100 years old and has many decades left in it. I don’t need another house. I drive about 15k miles a year. I could easily afford to drive more, but I don’t, because I don’t have any reason to do so. Etc. There are real limits to the value of additional resource consumption. Assuming endless growth forever even when there’s no demand is an emotional reaction, not one driven by facts or reasoning.
How we can force ExxonMobil, BP, Saudi Aramco, RossNeft, Equinor, Total, Shell etc to change? Activists are trying - but it's against billions of $ and cohorts of politicians owned by these companies...
AH LADS, how is it that people from the UK keep putting the Republic of Ireland in the UK? You would think that educated people such as himself wouldn't make such a basic mistake. People have died over this.
I'm so ashamed of America bro. Our national pastimes are Football and Nascar but we don't know how to tackle and we don't know how to turn left. Pathetic
This was a *great* presentation on what I think is an important Climate ‘argument’…. Specifically, for the *reasonable* conservatives who actually believe in science, but (because they don’t value the environment, the bio-sphere, etc) don’t believe/understand the economic investment is actually worthwhile. While I find it so disheartening that some intellectuals are so short-sighted to actually think this way… you should be willing to present the argument anyway possible to bridge this ultra-divided world.
Im just entering my twenties. Its possibe, if unlikely, that I will actually live to see 2100. However, the people that are shaping that future (old guys in government) will most likely not even see the end of this decade.
great video! feels like a lot of the discourse recently has been joking about voters only caring about food prices so glad you rounded up the studies to show how everything's connected
The per capita CO2 emissions in the U.S. are significantly higher than in European countries or Japan. A significant factor is urban sprawl in the U.S. It would be nice if that could be reversed but I think it's largely too late.
I think this type of communication is kind of the reason why we are stuck in a loop of inaction. We keep hammering on about how mitigating climate change makes sense economically because it is CHEAPER. That is not how our current systems work. We don't arrange production in a way that lowers input costs above all, we arrange production in away that is the most PROFITABLE. Existing infrastructure, government subsidies, and high margins because of demand inelasticity just make it makes sense for individual actors to invest in fossil over renewable. We will keep spinning our wheels if we don't find more direct means of influencing production policy. This is to say nothing of the mitigation vs adaptation finance gap which I find the biggest problem with our current approach. Climate change solutions are fundamentally about reducing the harm that will come to human beings caused by changing environments. In this world where we have already committed to significant overshoot, building up infrastructure to help with adaptation and resilience in vulnerable areas is an ethical no-brainer. Compare the floods in Western Germany or Spain with floods in Sudan for example. Food & energy sovereignty is still woeful in many global South countries and we not only benefit from that, we keep it artificially in place.
problem is that doing nothing is cheaper today. and as long as our world is dictated by the whims of short term profit it will continue. even though long term it is obviously better to invest in the climate
Voting for the correct policies? Really? As though that ever changed 'Business as usual'! The real question is - how do you change the trend away from Business As Usual? Seriously, noting calm and quite comes to mind.
I remember how shocked I was when my biology teacher casually dropped that climate change would be solved today if we just stopped extracting fules from underground. Basically, “just stop digging” would be the solution.
Simon has a major blind spot on this issue. Weird to mention food without mentioning meat and dairy subsidies while mentioning subsidies for fossil fuels. 🤔 In the EU alone, more than a FIFTH of the budget goes to livestock farming. Plant-based foods are more efficient in terms of resources and finances. Imagine what would happen if we redirected all of that money to supporting food production for humans instead of cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens... In the US between 60-90% of all corn and soy grown are grown to feed livestock. Think of all that land and fertilizer that could go into growing human foods instead.
I eat meat and will not stop eat it. I think cutting subsidies may not be the right thing but higher regulations. I worked with a milk farmer in the mountains for 1 month in the high seasons, I saw the work that he had and would love if meat was this quality (quality of live for cows and minimal env impact due to all being fresh and enough space), but with the minimal regulations for animals this is not possible. and farmers cannot support an animal lifestyle like this due to economics.
@@falsificationism my two main points are space and food and I only speak for cows. space, so they have enough space outside to rotate the fields(allow grass to regrow) and indoors enough to lie confortably. for food (this comes also with the first one), cows should eat grass and hay. this is a low emition product. even with these two changes meat price will go way up and production will be limited, so less emition. the issue with cutting subsidies, atm they support farmers and help biodiversity. the farmer I worked with explained to me, with all the documents so I can see it myself. he hated the subsidies and thought he would like higher food prices. But what he didnt see, if food prices go up, everyone will produce more and we have over abundance -> price drops.. what I saw with the subcidies, they mostly supported biodiversity and the landscape. he would get more money if he had trees and rock piles (for small animals) spread through out his fields. also the appliance of fertilizer on the field in certain forms and so on. it was NO FREE MONEY! he had to work hard for it. I know this, because I worked hard with him on these issues.
@@falsificationism so, you tell someone else has a blind spot, but refuse to interact with a possible blindspot yourself? kinda ignorant isnt it? but only for you I keep it short: read about subsidies, what they go into, you may change your mind(blindspot)
🤣crossing out "exact" 🤣🤣 Shout out to Prof Steve Keen {Rebel economist} vs William Nordhaus {so called economist}. Steve says if you want to understand the economy DONT study economics - study system dynamics
I was at the bakery this morning. 1other bike, 5 cars. There's many bakeries here. I know for a fact none of these people had to drive. Im annoyed by that.
Insurance costs in Florida is being blamed for a property sell off currently ongoing. Insurance Rates now indicate that insurance companies currently expect a property to be completely destroyed sometime within the next 12 to 15 years.
I agree with other commenters that your brief digression about being made poorer in biodiversity is very important. If you don't have one already, a video on this would be very important and I'd forward it to all my friends.
Another fun crisis we'll inevitably have to tackle: Debt-to-GDP Most developed nations hold a huge amount of debt that is meant to be paid off through future production. If GDP stagnates or falls, the nations capacity to service its debts also slip away. The probability that GDP peaks this century is nearly 100%, and when that happens, there will be a cascade of nations falling into insolvency. In fact, we've already seen the beginnings of this happening. Regardless of our actions this century, the next is guaranteed to look very, very different indeed.
13:44 - "... if we don't force them to change." I think that the methodology of "forcing" people is the main reason why stopping climate change is such a slow process. People who live in functional democracies have learned from many times in history to rebel against authoritarian measures that limit their income and their freedoms. A far better way to motivate people is to _incentivize_ them to _freely choose_ the _financially beneficial_ green options that are available. We should concentrate on creating better options instead of compelling people to choose expensive, inefficient ones.
"16 million dollar per hour" (~2:27) - a deliberately obfuscated style statistic beloved of the red top newspapers. Using per person per day might be a better more understandable /your calculator can do the maths/ :wink: Still, that value is gone, and continues to 'go', and will need either making up with harder work, or a harder life.
Least effective? How about "electrifying the off shore oil installations" - i.e. pulling under-sea power-cables from the hydro power plants on the mainland out to the platforms in order to stop them from burning gas to generate their electrical power to turn the oil and gas production "green". What do I "win" for the right answer?
"The thing" at 9:55, arguably the answer to the question in the video title, reminds me a lot of the answer to "What's the biggest mistake you can make as a first-reponder to an unconscious person?" (talking about calling an ambulance, resuscitation, CPR).
If you want to immediately reduce your summer electricity bills and CO2 emissions, please refer to my icon. Seven years ago, from June to October, our electricity consumption was 1,447 kWh, but with the passive devices and heat insulation measures, we have reduced that to 764 kWh this year, which equates to a reduction of 300 kg in CO2 emissions. Heat shielding measures are also in Japanese, but they are also summarized in the video, so I think it will be helpful.(Please use UA-cam's translation function) I learned about a simulation of global warming in 2100 in a scientific magazine 40 years ago, and have been implementing energy-saving activities since quite early on. What you summarized in this video is also correct, and we are more worried about food shortages due to abnormal weather than we are about the temperature rising a little. One correction I would like to make is that last year's greenhouse gas emissions were reported to have reached an all-time high, so we have invested in a number of countermeasures, but they have not had much effect. Science also published an article titled "96% of climate policies since 1998 have failed, but only 63 of 1,500 have been successful" Each person should start doing what they can.
Don't simply retire from something; have something to retire to. Start saving, keep saving, and stick to investments. Everyone should have BTC in their portfolio
It’s really heartbreaking to see how inflation and recession impact low-income families. The cost of living keeps rising, and many struggle just to meet basic needs, let alone save or invest. It’s a reminder of the importance of finding ways to create financial opportunities. You've helped me a lot sir Brian! Imagine i invested $50,000 and received $190,500 after 14 days
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, that's why I'm lucky to have seen someone like mr Brian C Nelson.
Honestly it's hard to say if climate change will create more conflict (over scarce resources) or actually reduce conflict because it gives everyone on the planet a common cause or problem that they must work together to solve. It's like in those movies where hostile aliens show up and suddenly nations that were once bitter enemies are now working together to defeat the aliens. For all we know, the same may happen someday when it come to climate change, it's hard to how people will think 10 or 20 years in the future so it's also wrong to assume that it will increase the level of conflict rather than actually reduce it.
i did not expect that conclusion, i thought it was self evident. but a great point made nonetheless. for the answer i was expecting was: electrification. especially the type that replaces or adds to the current use. most things do not need to run on electricity or any other power. but the most insidious part of electrification is that is promoted as a solution and therefor we do not do the real things to fix everything. it is holding real change back.
Unfortunately comparing macro economic numbers with climate action that has to be enacted at the sector, company and individual government level misses the complexity of financial decision-making. One organisation investing significantly on climate solutions won't see the benefits of their investment to the wider society at large unless every other organisation does the same, which leads to wide disparity of progress and a resultant reluctance for action.
My family is doing everything they can to reduce own consumption. But every day it feels like it doesn matter. Those who are in position to make any major changes not only don't care, they want to undo what has been done already seeking short sighted personal profits.
another reason for the increase in food prices: multiple wars in major food-producing areas. and with the projected increase in conflicts, that’s just going to make it worse
Humanity: "Noo we can't invest in fire prevention systems it's too expensive" Also humanity: *pays arsonists to burn down their homes because it keeps them cozy*
I fully realize the scope of this problem, yet have fully given up the moment Trump became re-elected. I've never been more pessimistic about humanity's future.
Thank you Simon for another well-presented argument in favour of taking appropriate action. When people begin to see how very costly climate change is, I mean when it seriously hits them in the bank balance, then we might see governments implementing some real change for the better. All good wishes to you & family. ☺
But the number includes externalities, counted as subsidy, when they aren't subsidies. It makes the number much smaller. Not saying that companies shouldn't be forced to do better, much, much better.
Countries that delay climate action gain short-term economic benefits by exploiting cheap, polluting energy sources, while those that take the lead bear the immediate costs of transitioning to cleaner alternatives. When the consequences of climate change become unavoidable, the nations that acted selfishly will have profited in the meantime, leaving the proactive ones to shoulder not only the cost of their early action but also the shared fallout of global inaction. It would've been nice if you pointed this hard problem out as part of your 'YOU becoming green now is an investment for YOU in the long term' point.
It actually hid on my feed! I saw it, walked to my couch to watch it, and my phone went to sleep. When I unlocked it, the video was gone from my home screen and I had to open the channel to find it.
On another note: Kyle Hill did a video looking at the economics of nuclear power compared to the other green energies. For anyone wondering how the green energies compare to each other: They're all in line with each other, with nuclear being one of the best overall for long term economic cost and emissions. Sure, nuclear energy is an insane upfront cost, but it's overall cheaper than the other methods. With the added benefit of having more uptime than coal, and without the downside of the other green energies(limited availability, blocking rivers for hydro, batteries, etc.) nuclear is a "no brainier". So go out there and spread the knowledge that green energy is both safer, and cheaper than other methods of energy production with nuclear is by far the best in terms of cost. Probably should watch the video first though. Title because I'm not sure if links are auto blocked: Is Nuclear Power “Too Expensive”? by Kyle Hill on UA-cam.
Simon, I fucking love your work. You're great. Please never stop. Or, rather, stop when we've achieved a Solarpunk future and then just tell jokes about how insane we used to be.
What is the least effective way to tackle climate change? Changing nothing and building massive CO2 capture and storage. Then building fossil fuel power to power this. A spiral of death. It is so silly I actually wanna see this.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Hydrogen is already an essential resource used in fertilisers & other chemical processes. Replacing the current methane source of hydrogen with electrifyed systems is an essential step. Everyone focuses on cars, nobody pays attention to everything else it's needed for, like the entire petrochemical industry.
I got so distracted by how good that sick burn about economists was.
😂 me, too
Absolutely brutal (and true)
lmaoooo
As a economics bachelor myself, I hate how economists just tries to get into literally every field and "valuates" everything only to be used as a "see, climate change isn't *that* bad, forget about the potential millions of dead rampant starvation, our model here just showed that will cost the equivalent of 4 trillions of dollars, as a result we shouldn't really expend that much money on mitigation since adaptation is cheaper" (this really just means "fck the planet, let's keep producing non stop in order keep the ecnomy going since we cannot fanthom a reality where we produce less and keeps with the needs and wants of people, God forbid we end up tainting capitalism").
That and the raised rices
It's okay, when insurance companies stop providing flood insurance in high-risk areas, everybody can sell their homes to Aquaman.
HAHAHA I REMEMBER THAT MEME
iconic
"Climate Denial: A Measured Response" by HBomberguy for the uninitiated
The fish people will rise
WHO BEN?!?!
As a person with 50 years of scuba dive equipement, I can buy those houses.
Insurance companies may just stop covering certain things...
I live in Florida. There's an errant "may" in there.
You say they actually stopped insuring property in Florida?
Yes. The only reason flood insurance even exists in Florida is because of massive federal flood insurance subsidy. the private sector has found no way to make money providing actual insurance.
Meanwhile the state of Florida is ripping away building requirements like insurance for construction as a way to entice people into that state.
@@Sekir80
@Sekir80 Lots of companies have pulled out of the state. Others seriously limit what they will cover (having the insurance company tell you that you need a new roof or they will drop you is quite common). And prices have shot up, while the chances of a company actually paying claims has gone way down.
@@travcollier Thanks for the explanation!
@@Sekir80 Florida has private insurers, who are pulling out and raising premiums, and a public insurer, which is (effectively) subsidising the risk from living in a place likely to flood in a storm, at ever greater cost to the taxpayer.
More Perfect Union has a video on this.
On a very small scale, our family's preparations for climate change have made us remarkably more financially resilient than we would've been otherwise. By improving insulation in our house, only having one small vehicle and prioritizing non-car transportation options, cooking mostly vegetarian, developing repair and mending skills, and choosing to live in a less desirable neighborhood that was not prone to wildfires, we have been far less affected by the price shocks over the last five years in gasoline, natural gas, food costs, insurance premiums, or general inflation. We just dropped a chunk of money to have a heat pump system properly sized, designed, and installed before we potentially lose the tax credits when T**** is inaugurated and we are already so so happy with the results. We have never regretted any money we've spent to make ourselves more energy efficient, less consumptive, or more climate resilient.
While this specific example is nice, it isn't simply enough for individual people to be more environmentally friendly. It's the companies at the end of the day who are responsible for climate change and the government subsidies that help them. It is just more useful to focus your energy on them.
@@autosneeze7425 My point was not that individual action is the solution to reducing greenhouse gases. My point ws that acknowledging and preparing and reacting to climate change has made my family more resilient and better off financially than we would've been otherwise, which was the thesis of Simon's video. In the same way we actively chose not to live in a wildfire prone area, California should stop allowing development of homes into wild and brush areas. Large-scale investment making homes more resilient (e.g., improving insulation, switching appliances, etc.) would make communities less prone to fossil fuel price shocks for heating or cooling and reduce the likelihood of blackouts. Transit options outside of cars would make sudden jumps in gasoline prices less devastating to low and middle income folks. That was my point.
😂
absolutely not. OP is talking about individual independence. If all people would do the same, big corporations would bankrupt, because people would need to buy only 20% of what they currently buy.
It's degrowth strategy that makes everything better for everyone.
Carbon is about extraction of taxes and nothing more....
Your virtue signaling only proves you have fallen for the scam
Hi there from an English city that was flooded, where we now cannot get flood insurance. Once again, the climate crisis future is already here.
They chose to build in those places, for desired outcomes.
You mean “we.” We choose to live by water. It’s a very human thing…unfortunately, now, but it wasn’t a bad idea for 300,000 years.
If only it was predicted and people sore it coming. Oh wait...
It is so horrifyinh that as a species we have become so warped by capitalism that our own survival does not seem worth it unless it is profitable to a tiny group of already extraordinarily rich and powerful people.
It's moreso that we gave too much power to psychopaths (the only people who could morally justify themselves being billionaires) and so now we're all at their mercy.
+++
@glowerworm Did the psychopathy cause the billionaire or did the billionaire cause the psychopathy? Human behavior can be changed by the environment.
@jwolf4444 the latter. Unchecked (legalized) corruption allowed a psychopathic wall street to take control of our government
not what capitalism is.
Very clearly explained. As for your "digression", the loss in natural wealth is absolutely insane and likely to cost us more than anything else: it's turning carbon sinks into carbon sources and further pushing the water cycle out of balance, increasing extreme weather events and creating a positive feedback loop of desertification. We must protect nature by all means.
Ditto on this.
Biodiversity loss is a huge loss of wealth.
Clean air also. Not just GHGs dirty up the air. It is not really measurable like money in the bank....
Somehow, even though I've been taught about climate change since I was little in the '00s, it still somehow always felt like climate change was something in the future.
I think this video finally made the click happen in my brain to realise that climate change really is now and those weird things that happen with the weather aren't "lol imagine if it's due to climate change", no, it is.
And that everything we do to mitigate it limits negative effects now, not just in the future.
I remember when it first made all the head lines. I remember it being the distant future, only starting to get significant in the late 2020s.
Hah. 2020s. The distant fut- oh, wait. When did that happen?
Inflation: You ain’t seen nothing yet
I'm an early millennial, from The Netherlands. Since I was born, the average temperature in The Netherlands rose with 1.9 °C (3.5 F). Since my mother's birth, 2.4 °C (4.3 F) and since my grandmother's birth 2.6 °C (4.7 F).
A few weeks ago, there was 40 cm (15.7 inch) rainfall in a few hours in parts of Spain.
Climate change is NOW! We need to act fast, we're already 40 years late!
@@annekekramer3835 I'm a boomer and have let myself be fooled the first few years of adulthood. Although, as you say "climate change is now and we're already 40 years late" action is definitely saving greatly increased trouble. This includes actions against authoritarian governments that support petroleum industries as well as improving personal housing, diet and transport to require little or no fossil fuel. As Simon says, doing nothing is the most expensive action.
Despite all the consequences we are living for decades, humanity still keep on applying adaptive solutions because it is unable to voluntary keep its consumption habits under the regenerative capacity of Earth. Unfortunately we have to realize that the human brain is connected in such a way that it wants all and right away so humanity is doomed to adapt until it will not be possible anymore and it will be the final collapse. When we look at the history, humans change only under unavoidable constraints. The transition to a very more simple life will happen but only after many dramatical events and rapide hundred of millions of death. And at that moment, will we still be adapted to the new environment we will have contributed to create? It could be the human extinction. We may be intelligent but we are unfortunately not wise.
I had an Econ prof call climate change the “biggest market failure of all time”
Saying "the UK" at 1:08 with a graphic of the Union Jack over all of Great Britain and the island of Ireland is pretty bold, Simon.
He British, respecting out her countries has never been something they’re good at, same as food
"In the civilized world" *cries*. It's sad I think the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than most of Europe but just doesn't deliver it for free
And a huge chunk of this money is for private insurance policies that refuse to pay out when you actually have a medical expense
You're wrong there. It's not more than most of Europe... it's about twice the amount per capita compared to anywhere in Europe.
The best solution is, obviously, to give more money to the people that caused it in the first place.
So, we're on track to fixing it.
Your comment is super saturated with sarcasm.😂
You'd think since they knew about the problem before anyone else, they'd have seen the opportunity to make more money by offering solutions, as well as pollution, right?
Yeah but in order to do that, they would actually need to care about people and climate change in the first place, which well just look at Chevron...
Amusingly during the olive oil point your choice of oil is actually an olive oil blended with other cheaper oils presumably because real olive oil is so damn pricey 😭
Well except you live in a country where the ingredients have to be listed.
In that case u can simply just read the list of ingredients and check if its a blend of oils or not.
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 isn't that all the countries (yes, even the USA requires ingredients to be listed)
This is the right message: climate solutions make you spend less money.
Consuming less, also saves you money, and means society uses less energy, which reduces climate change.
All of this is interconnected.
They don't want ppl spending less money. "They" (the capitalists who did all this) would rather perpetuate and utilise risk as the means by which you are forced to spend more money, with a secret desire that you go into debt.
The problem is that the bold solution aren’t palatable
@@Zabzim > The problem is that the bold solution aren’t palatable _to big fossil fuel companies_
FTFY. 99% of what we need to do wouldn't impact consumers a single bit. "We" are just mad because people like Trump and Fox News tell us to be mad. We don't even know what we're mad about most of the time.
@ Okay let’s go on a thought experiment. Say you want end big oil, that means sorting transportation. As oil is used to make petrol and diesel but I’m sure you’ll reply something on the line of going electric which is a great idea but how are we to get the electric vehicles to the consumer (provided we can even make them in the first place) without using an oil based product? The sorry answer is that we can’t but let’s move on. Oil is also used to make plastic the most used product in existent. So we’ll need a solution to that as well for plant based polymers are useable in some case but not all cases so that’s another issue to add to the pile. Not mention how we’re supposed to even transport the polymers with oil based fuels to transport them. Oh and then we have the problem of gather the organic material to make those polymers, after all I’ve yet to see an electric chainsaw so how on earth would we cut down the trees to process into plant based polymers without oil based fuels to facilitate it all.
Look if you want to speed up the change then there are way but they not the nonsense talked about in this video! Instead you want to focus more on producing the most bang for your buck, like dynamic pricing structure that reward sourcing from a low carbon source, Welsh lamb should be cheaper than Spanish tomatoes as that lamb can graze upon the inhospitable countryside of wales which is only fit for growing grass. Tomatoes on the other hand will only grow in Britain for about 3 months of the year and certainly not in the highlands of wales.
Want another solution? Let’s mandate glass as to be the only way drinks can be sold in shops because glass is highly recyclable and unlike other drink containers doesn’t require any plastic. For the lining of fizzy drink cans is plastic as is the waxy glaze on the side of disposable coffee cups.
My provincial government officially denies climate change, but has approved significant increases in insurance premiums since we have had record claims because of hail caused by extreme weather.
I'm pleased to support you on Patreon because you make videos that everyone in the world should watch. This is definitely one of them.
Another Patreon supporter here - I agree 100%
5:12 “assuming you live in the civilized world, …” 😂 😭
This is exactly what I wanted to comment on since I am living in an uncivilized world 😖😖 well, in Yemen
lol, bad choice of words
he meant industrialized but a slip none the less
also
As a citizen of the "west" trust me, we are the most uncivilized, brutal and cowardly people on earth. I am still working on trying to figure out how to break the brainwashing the west has installed into my neighbors, but this is herculean task. Just watch the reactive comments that will come into this thread
@@sohybali2696yemen having weaker healthcare isnt due to being "uncivilized" lmao what kidn of colonial perception is that... the constant "having collective punishment sanctions" and "being bombarded endlessly by the imperial core for not capitulating to them" might have something to do with it.
Septics either sad or confused by this.
@@af8828 Western leftist trying to patronize someone who actually lives in the place. How typical.
4 hurricanes have hit this Philippines in November 2024 already (and it's only the 22nd when I'm writing this).
There has been so much flooding that a good percentage of their crop this year has literally been washed away.
(This year, the damage is completely out of the ordinary)
Those typhoons has been really rough compared to the past years here yeah. The entire northern and central luzon area is so badly hit.
Yeah and yet so many companies still want to quarry in sierra madre and theres little protection for the mountain range that protects us 🥲
We don't often hear about the cost of losing biodiversity. Related to that, I cringe when I hear people listing more AC as a solution against global warming. It obviously exhacerbates the problem, but also, it's a non-solution for me. What kind of life is it when we can't enjoy being outside?
I think people see it as survival technology.
Colorado solar plants will kill the pronghorn that have survived since the Pleistocene as German energy giant RWE's Texas subsidiary leases public lands to sell power for AC, AI, EVs, and BitCoin miners in Arizona or New Mexico.
I had no Idea Real Engineering was a patreon member. Birds of a feather I guess.
I'm so frustrated with the way the world works. I want to change it for the better, but I don't know what I can do. At the moment, just trying to understand everything around me is debilitating. I am exhausted every day. I've tried eating healthier, exercising, getting more sleep, being more social, and more. The USA is destroying itself (and the world) and I'm caught in the middle of it. I am very average at a lot of things, just a normal person. I guess my best skill is being able to be average at everything I do.
Thank you Dr. Simon Clark for posting these videos, they help me learn and I try to remember to pass them along to my friends and family.
i feel about the same, but i know a lot of things i should do and feel despair since i do not do them.
I feel sooo similar and am, too, very average in everything I do. Knowing that other people feel the same way, but do their bit and we’re doing stuff together (in my local climate change group) helps me to not feel as frustrated or powerless as I would otherwise feel. :)
You can't fix the world on your own. All you can do it vote, and use your understanding of what's likely to happen to try to avoid some of the worst effects. Move somewhere that you don't have to worry about flooding or other extreme weather, and prepare for higher energy costs and power cuts.
I'm right there with you. Deep frustration with so so many things around me and the way the world is set up and works and who has the decision making power... and feeling like I can do nothing really about it. It's a really hopeless feeling. But I am trying to take steps forward every day, starting to volunteer more, and have conversations about it whenever I see a decent opportunity to gradually try to inform people. Unfortunately humans take a long ass time to change and we don't have that kind of time, but yelling in people's faces about how urgent things are (while in many cases it can be justified) simply does not help in changing people's minds, it just sinks them deeper into their habits if they feel like they're being antagonized.. It's a difficult balance to strike
1:13 oooh man you had me wheezing I did not expect such a third degree burn all of a sudden
A comment on the use of numbers in statistics: the news, articles constantly use numbers out of context without explaining what it means in practice, making them borderline useless, reducing the power if the argument their trying to make. 12% of global GDP - thats an equivalent of the US disappearing. Ok, what does that mean in practice? What does that mean for me? Most people cannot envision whatsoever what this mean, rendering the number useless. I've learnt that as an engineer communicating with teams other than my own - you have to ground the numbers in peoples realities. Connect it to things that matter for the people listening.
Conservatives are supposed to be the people who conserve resources.
These are the people who should be PUSHING action against climate change.
So why aren't they doing that?
As a conservative by nature, I'm frustrated at the lack of action by these governments.
I think you misunderstand what conservatism is about, then. Being a "conservative" in this sense just means preserving the status quo (or sometimes, returning to an older status quo). Climate change and preserving resources or the environment hasn't been a topic in the past, and so it's not what conservatives stand for.
a) these companies fund our political system.
b) the technology wasn't there.
c) the technology still isn't there.
d) the real world is not so flexible and quick to change - nor should it be.
Campaigning on fear based on made up stuff instead of facts
Because what people name things like political parties and government systems they flat out lie.
Globally the title "Conservative" actually means "Socially regressive and economically growing the wealth gap".
The most fiscally conservative parties out there are the ones that do not label themselves as "Conservative".
@@ssword123
So we should keep chugging pollution, and keep making multinational corporations rich, while making ourselves sick and poor.
That sounds super smart.
Too many conservatives look at the past through rose colored glasses.
Seeing what you want to see, not what was is dangerous.
You should be the governments science advisor, talk on major TV channels and such.
Like, if you tell people that “5 species gets extinct every decade” you get “oh that’s bad”. But if you tell them this info about climate changes effect on the economy….BAM!
10:30 really blew my mind 🤯 How are governments and businesses not doing everything they can NOW so they can save money later!? We could already be finished transitioning, if they wouldn't be so fixated on short term gains.
Because it’s a lie
Oh sorry who did you think was in charge? Sorry did I hear you say something that wasn’t “billionaires”?
a) these companies fund our political system.
b) the technology wasn't there.
c) the technology still isn't there.
d) the real world is not so flexible and quick to change - nor should it be.
@@samwood4733that's obviously not true considering China has built more electrical capacity in renewables than the entire United States generates. If the technology isn't there, how is that possible?
@@ax14pz107 Because it is supported by cheap, dirty coal power.
There is just no way that any actions we can take to reduce our individual climate impact will offset the climate damage unfolding in front of us…because that damage is accelerating.
8:15 it’s already happening. My father works in insurance and there’s a lot of stuff that they’re not going to insure anymore, especially related to flooding and forest fires
Yeah I was about to leave a comment like this. I know a few people who haven't been able to get flood insurance because of this
The thing is we cannot profit out of our way to stop climate change nor capitalism will save us or the free market
As a socialist it's a big thing we need to do or else risk extinction
They will say socialism bad because soviet union bad and Stalin bad then their brains is shutdown and don't import data.
Though from what he's saying, simply ceasing to subsidize fossile fuels would already be a huge step from where we are now.
We are **in** the risk of extinction. We just not speak about - avoiding 'mass hysteria' - you know.
"This is by far the fastest climate change in earth history" IPCC 2018
I do think the free market might save us but it'll be brutal.
@@12pentaborane Save..._whom_ exactly? A free market is fantastic for ammo manufacturers and potentially large tech companies assuming they can keep their systems running (these days data is extremely valuable) but about no one else. Free market says there's no reason to set up social systems to help those fucked over by natural disasters. Free market says it's great to take advantage of desperate human beings in whatever way you see fit. A free market if it persists will accelerate the collapse of large-scale society.
1:08 you may seriously want to remind yourself that Ireland is NOT in the UK
Our family's climate change adaptations have made us remarkably more financially resilient than we would've been otherwise, similar to another commenter. Adaptions include heat pump water heater, high efficiency heat pump HVAC, 2 PHEVs, solar panels, working at home (no commute), extra insulation in the attic, high efficiency windows, and insulating window blinds. We have a few lifestyle adaptions also, organic food, reduced meat consumption, we grow some of our own food. Ordinary people have made personal choices to take personal action, which will lower their climate change induced cost increases. I also try to do things to counteract the bad moves our leaders make and to encourage the other leaders good moves. For Simon, you have a good, hopeful message and the message has helped to maintain hope. Thank you so much, you are making a difference.
Great as Simon's work is with others I grow more frustrated that almost nobody is focusing on the damage & dangers of how much we are losing our wild life. Born in 42 I've seen 99% of our insects destroyed 95% of our small birds 90% our large birds--with a couple of exceptions--80 to 90% of all land & sea creatures then 80 to 90% of our wild places with a film of filth layered on so much of our world. I support wild life organisations fighting this but it is minimal what is being done. We are losing our world.
What's crazy is the generations who lived through this are already forgetting. I'm 24, and when I was little we would drive to my grandparents' house in the countryside, all corn and soy fields with the occasional forest breaking up the monotony. Your windshield and grill of the car would be absolutely caked with insects you hit while driving at night. Nowadays it's surprising if you even notice any on the windshield after a night drive in July. When I bring this up to my parents, they shrug it off as if I'm exaggerating it.
The world is about to realise the destruction of everything we've ever known possible and you are frustrated, well imagine how a climate scientist might see you donating to a wildlife fund thinking, what a complete waste of time even complaining about it is a waste, if we are talking the loss of 90% of all life for thousands of years and you thinking nobody is focused on the wild life, might in fact be part of the problem. Yes people know we are losing and in fact have lost our world, you may as well donate to a lifeguard organisation while travelling on the titanic for all the good it will do.
@@AvoidingSpamthe source is "I made it the fuck up"
@@LudvigvanamadeusNo, you didn't, your numbers are more or less correct.
@@sappereaude no, they're absolutely not correct. There's roughly 8 million species of eukaryotes currently alive, are you telling me the number was 800 million 40 years ago ? Or was it 8 million and now it's 80 thousand?
Maybe 1 million species are threatened with extinction, this idiot claims we have already exterminated 80-99%. It's a mind-bogglingly false number
Hi ! 2 Degree Celsius will be hit in the cumming Decade ! Not in 2100 !
The tipping Points will make all the bad things tripple bad !
And they will NOT stop going bad.
If you worrie about money ! Good luck to you !
War , a safe place to live and food and fresh water might be difficult to get.
Stay healthy !
Falling for the personal carbon budget myth and letting Shell and BP distract you like some mark playing Find the Lady.
It's not really about costs or not. For the Capitalists it's all abour what is profitable. Is it more costly to perpetuate climate change? Undoubtedly? But is it profitable? Naturally! You kind of got to the point at the end there. We need to stop wating for the next miracle technology, or for Capital to solve the problem for us. The truth of the matter is that fossil Capital would never undermine their own profits to avoid disaster in the future.
They profit, and us ordnary people take the full price. We need to work toward true change if this is ever going to happen. Politicians, mainstream economists and companies will never work to make this change. We have to.
Reasons I refuse to bring a child in this world: Exhibit A
Pretty good reason
reasons children refuse to act like children and instead have to be mature: Exhibit A
If someone knows a way to tell this to our rightwing politicians I would be really happy. We are really living in the age of stupidity.
When people say "more infrastructure", they often overlook that we're running out of many key resources needed for building infrastructure.
Even ordinary sand is getting short at some regions
Which resources? Assuming you’re talking about metals like lithium and nickel, here’s something very important that “run out of resources” doesn’t think about - they are almost 100% recyclable. So once we have enough mined/refined for all the batteries etc we will need, we won’t need to mine any more. We’ll just recycle what wears out. This will increase in power once the human population stops growing and starts shrinking (which will happen in about 25-30 years). This is different from fossil fuel, where the value of what we mine is in the chemical bonds, not the raw elements. Burned gasoline cannot be recycled, not in an energy-positive way - it’s just waste CO2+H2O once we’ve burned it. But metals? They can be used forever. Already, 70% of the steel used in manufacturing in the US comes from recycling. Everything else will head the same way.
@@davestagner Bold of you to assume humanity will just "stop mining once we have enough". Also, while some metals may be much more recyclable than like plastics for instance, nothing is infinitely recyclable. Everything will gradually decay if it gets reheated and reformed over and over and over again
@@davestagner You make excellent points. This is concrete and asphalt I was discussing; I ought have been more clear. Sea walls against storm surge. Raised highways against sea level rise. Hurricane-resistant buildings. Lithium's irrelevant to that. Nickel's fairly irrelevant to that. Sand is running out, though, and that affects concrete, not batteries.
Absolutely, metals are generally far more repurpose-able, reusable, recyclable than fossil stock, cermets and cements.
@@deadlyshizzno Is it? WHY do we constantly need more? Not in an existential sense, but in what drives that growth today? The two biggest drivers of such resource consumption have been a rapidly growing population (quadrupled in a single century), and lifting billions out of poverty. But population is leveling off and will go into decline in a few decades (look up the demographics if you don’t believe me), and eventually, almost everyone will be lifted out of poverty. Here’s an example to think about. I have a dining room table with four chairs. I probably won’t need a new table or dining chairs for the rest of my life. I could easily afford another table and chairs, but I have no reason to get them. My house is over 100 years old and has many decades left in it. I don’t need another house. I drive about 15k miles a year. I could easily afford to drive more, but I don’t, because I don’t have any reason to do so. Etc. There are real limits to the value of additional resource consumption. Assuming endless growth forever even when there’s no demand is an emotional reaction, not one driven by facts or reasoning.
How we can force ExxonMobil, BP, Saudi Aramco, RossNeft, Equinor, Total, Shell etc to change?
Activists are trying - but it's against billions of $ and cohorts of politicians owned by these companies...
Revolt if necessary.
I dunno. Ask the Hudson Bay Company and the British East India Company. Ask Kodak. Ask the biggest buggy manufacturer in the world 125 years ago.
By going out there and pushing for change. Yes, it's hard. Yes, it will take time. But it is possible to have a better world than now.
9:03 i woulnt call that a minor digression, its a vital point
AH LADS, how is it that people from the UK keep putting the Republic of Ireland in the UK? You would think that educated people such as himself wouldn't make such a basic mistake. People have died over this.
I'm so ashamed of America bro. Our national pastimes are Football and Nascar but we don't know how to tackle and we don't know how to turn left. Pathetic
This is actually seriously funny. :) painful, but really funny.
I don't know..... You just went pretty far Right..... (Sorry, it was just "there")
This was a *great* presentation on what I think is an important Climate ‘argument’…. Specifically, for the *reasonable* conservatives who actually believe in science, but (because they don’t value the environment, the bio-sphere, etc) don’t believe/understand the economic investment is actually worthwhile. While I find it so disheartening that some intellectuals are so short-sighted to actually think this way… you should be willing to present the argument anyway possible to bridge this ultra-divided world.
we knew manbearpig was real and we decided to feed people to it
Im just entering my twenties. Its possibe, if unlikely, that I will actually live to see 2100. However, the people that are shaping that future (old guys in government) will most likely not even see the end of this decade.
What a Legacy, eh?
In the UK, various members of the Insurance Industry are still willingly insuring new fossil fuel resources at every level.
great video! feels like a lot of the discourse recently has been joking about voters only caring about food prices so glad you rounded up the studies to show how everything's connected
The per capita CO2 emissions in the U.S. are significantly higher than in European countries or Japan. A significant factor is urban sprawl in the U.S. It would be nice if that could be reversed but I think it's largely too late.
Oh no, the money!
Hundreds of millions of deaths, billions of people displaced, mass extinctions, etc…
I think this type of communication is kind of the reason why we are stuck in a loop of inaction. We keep hammering on about how mitigating climate change makes sense economically because it is CHEAPER. That is not how our current systems work. We don't arrange production in a way that lowers input costs above all, we arrange production in away that is the most PROFITABLE. Existing infrastructure, government subsidies, and high margins because of demand inelasticity just make it makes sense for individual actors to invest in fossil over renewable. We will keep spinning our wheels if we don't find more direct means of influencing production policy.
This is to say nothing of the mitigation vs adaptation finance gap which I find the biggest problem with our current approach. Climate change solutions are fundamentally about reducing the harm that will come to human beings caused by changing environments. In this world where we have already committed to significant overshoot, building up infrastructure to help with adaptation and resilience in vulnerable areas is an ethical no-brainer. Compare the floods in Western Germany or Spain with floods in Sudan for example. Food & energy sovereignty is still woeful in many global South countries and we not only benefit from that, we keep it artificially in place.
problem is that doing nothing is cheaper today. and as long as our world is dictated by the whims of short term profit it will continue. even though long term it is obviously better to invest in the climate
Voting for the correct policies? Really? As though that ever changed 'Business as usual'! The real question is - how do you change the trend away from Business As Usual? Seriously, noting calm and quite comes to mind.
Surprise surprise we pay for oligarhs actions while they get tax cuts
I remember how shocked I was when my biology teacher casually dropped that climate change would be solved today if we just stopped extracting fules from underground. Basically, “just stop digging” would be the solution.
Simon has a major blind spot on this issue. Weird to mention food without mentioning meat and dairy subsidies while mentioning subsidies for fossil fuels. 🤔
In the EU alone, more than a FIFTH of the budget goes to livestock farming. Plant-based foods are more efficient in terms of resources and finances. Imagine what would happen if we redirected all of that money to supporting food production for humans instead of cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens...
In the US between 60-90% of all corn and soy grown are grown to feed livestock. Think of all that land and fertilizer that could go into growing human foods instead.
I eat meat and will not stop eat it.
I think cutting subsidies may not be the right thing but higher regulations.
I worked with a milk farmer in the mountains for 1 month in the high seasons, I saw the work that he had and would love if meat was this quality (quality of live for cows and minimal env impact due to all being fresh and enough space), but with the minimal regulations for animals this is not possible. and farmers cannot support an animal lifestyle like this due to economics.
@@VinzentB Name the specific type of "regulation" you'd like to see.
@@falsificationism my two main points are space and food and I only speak for cows.
space, so they have enough space outside to rotate the fields(allow grass to regrow) and indoors enough to lie confortably.
for food (this comes also with the first one), cows should eat grass and hay. this is a low emition product.
even with these two changes meat price will go way up and production will be limited, so less emition.
the issue with cutting subsidies, atm they support farmers and help biodiversity.
the farmer I worked with explained to me, with all the documents so I can see it myself. he hated the subsidies and thought he would like higher food prices. But what he didnt see, if food prices go up, everyone will produce more and we have over abundance -> price drops..
what I saw with the subcidies, they mostly supported biodiversity and the landscape. he would get more money if he had trees and rock piles (for small animals) spread through out his fields. also the appliance of fertilizer on the field in certain forms and so on. it was NO FREE MONEY! he had to work hard for it. I know this, because I worked hard with him on these issues.
@@VinzentB Sorry, TLDR
@@falsificationism so, you tell someone else has a blind spot, but refuse to interact with a possible blindspot yourself? kinda ignorant isnt it?
but only for you I keep it short:
read about subsidies, what they go into, you may change your mind(blindspot)
🤣crossing out "exact" 🤣🤣
Shout out to Prof Steve Keen {Rebel economist} vs William Nordhaus {so called economist}. Steve says if you want to understand the economy DONT study economics - study system dynamics
I got really interested in economics as an undergrad, so I studied evolutionary biology ;)
Great insight thanks
Emphasis on the SYSTEM rather than a single point.
I wish all the global warming deniers would recognize this
What's going on with the Union Jack covering Ireland at 1:08
I was at the bakery this morning. 1other bike, 5 cars. There's many bakeries here. I know for a fact none of these people had to drive. Im annoyed by that.
Another great video Simon! Keep it up :)
Insurance costs in Florida is being blamed for a property sell off currently ongoing. Insurance Rates now indicate that insurance companies currently expect a property to be completely destroyed sometime within the next 12 to 15 years.
Dad was killed by climate change - the 2020 Oregon mega-fire smoke pushed his old body over the edge.
That's terrible!
At least there is entropy in the world and death creating evolution, without it the world would be completely static.
I agree with other commenters that your brief digression about being made poorer in biodiversity is very important. If you don't have one already, a video on this would be very important and I'd forward it to all my friends.
Starting the process of renovating our house, from insulating to install a heat pump.
12:00 .... and still subsidising car dependence.
yeah it goes hand-in-hand
Another fun crisis we'll inevitably have to tackle: Debt-to-GDP
Most developed nations hold a huge amount of debt that is meant to be paid off through future production. If GDP stagnates or falls, the nations capacity to service its debts also slip away. The probability that GDP peaks this century is nearly 100%, and when that happens, there will be a cascade of nations falling into insolvency. In fact, we've already seen the beginnings of this happening.
Regardless of our actions this century, the next is guaranteed to look very, very different indeed.
6:46 I am stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This is the best way to covey the problem of climate change to people who don't care about the environment. Talk about it in terms of economic impact
13:44 - "... if we don't force them to change."
I think that the methodology of "forcing" people is the main reason why stopping climate change is such a slow process. People who live in functional democracies have learned from many times in history to rebel against authoritarian measures that limit their income and their freedoms. A far better way to motivate people is to _incentivize_ them to _freely choose_ the _financially beneficial_ green options that are available. We should concentrate on creating better options instead of compelling people to choose expensive, inefficient ones.
1:28 It took me until this point to realize we weren’t still talking about Guy Fieri’s gut biome.
"16 million dollar per hour" (~2:27) - a deliberately obfuscated style statistic beloved of the red top newspapers.
Using per person per day might be a better more understandable /your calculator can do the maths/ :wink:
Still, that value is gone, and continues to 'go', and will need either making up with harder work, or a harder life.
Least effective? How about "electrifying the off shore oil installations" - i.e. pulling under-sea power-cables from the hydro power plants on the mainland out to the platforms in order to stop them from burning gas to generate their electrical power to turn the oil and gas production "green". What do I "win" for the right answer?
"The thing" at 9:55, arguably the answer to the question in the video title, reminds me a lot of the answer to "What's the biggest mistake you can make as a first-reponder to an unconscious person?" (talking about calling an ambulance, resuscitation, CPR).
If you want to immediately reduce your summer electricity bills and CO2 emissions, please refer to my icon.
Seven years ago, from June to October, our electricity consumption was 1,447 kWh, but with the passive devices and heat insulation measures, we have reduced that to 764 kWh this year, which equates to a reduction of 300 kg in CO2 emissions.
Heat shielding measures are also in Japanese, but they are also summarized in the video, so I think it will be helpful.(Please use UA-cam's translation function)
I learned about a simulation of global warming in 2100 in a scientific magazine 40 years ago, and have been implementing energy-saving activities since quite early on.
What you summarized in this video is also correct, and we are more worried about food shortages due to abnormal weather than we are about the temperature rising a little.
One correction I would like to make is that last year's greenhouse gas emissions were reported to have reached an all-time high, so we have invested in a number of countermeasures, but they have not had much effect.
Science also published an article titled "96% of climate policies since 1998 have failed, but only 63 of 1,500 have been successful"
Each person should start doing what they can.
Don't simply retire from something; have something to retire to. Start saving, keep saving, and stick to investments. Everyone should have BTC in their portfolio
It’s really heartbreaking to see how inflation and recession impact low-income families. The cost of living keeps rising, and many struggle just to meet basic needs, let alone save or invest. It’s a reminder of the importance of finding ways to create financial opportunities. You've helped me a lot sir Brian! Imagine i invested $50,000 and received $190,500 after 14 days
Some persons think inves'tin is all about buying stocks; I think going into the stock market without a good experience is a big risk, that's why I'm lucky to have seen someone like mr Brian C Nelson.
begone bots
Honestly it's hard to say if climate change will create more conflict (over scarce resources) or actually reduce conflict because it gives everyone on the planet a common cause or problem that they must work together to solve. It's like in those movies where hostile aliens show up and suddenly nations that were once bitter enemies are now working together to defeat the aliens. For all we know, the same may happen someday when it come to climate change, it's hard to how people will think 10 or 20 years in the future so it's also wrong to assume that it will increase the level of conflict rather than actually reduce it.
The least effective way to tackle climate change is to expect someone else to do it.
i did not expect that conclusion, i thought it was self evident. but a great point made nonetheless.
for the answer i was expecting was: electrification. especially the type that replaces or adds to the current use.
most things do not need to run on electricity or any other power.
but the most insidious part of electrification is that is promoted as a solution and therefor we do not do the real things to fix everything. it is holding real change back.
As always it comes back around to capitalism being a big problem in the way of implementing all the things we know are solutions.
You are right. Lets look at which country produces the most co2 emissions. Oh, it's the communist state of China.
Unfortunately comparing macro economic numbers with climate action that has to be enacted at the sector, company and individual government level misses the complexity of financial decision-making. One organisation investing significantly on climate solutions won't see the benefits of their investment to the wider society at large unless every other organisation does the same, which leads to wide disparity of progress and a resultant reluctance for action.
My family is doing everything they can to reduce own consumption. But every day it feels like it doesn matter. Those who are in position to make any major changes not only don't care, they want to undo what has been done already seeking short sighted personal profits.
another reason for the increase in food prices: multiple wars in major food-producing areas. and with the projected increase in conflicts, that’s just going to make it worse
At about 11:20 : costs down the line don't matter if all your concerned about is short term profit.
Humanity: "Noo we can't invest in fire prevention systems it's too expensive"
Also humanity: *pays arsonists to burn down their homes because it keeps them cozy*
I fully realize the scope of this problem, yet have fully given up the moment Trump became re-elected. I've never been more pessimistic about humanity's future.
Thank you Simon for another well-presented argument in favour of taking appropriate action. When people begin to see how very costly climate change is, I mean when it seriously hits them in the bank balance, then we might see governments implementing some real change for the better. All good wishes to you & family. ☺
Thanks Simon.
But the number includes externalities, counted as subsidy, when they aren't subsidies. It makes the number much smaller. Not saying that companies shouldn't be forced to do better, much, much better.
These hidden costs need to be considered for sure
"What is the worst way we could spend it?" followed immediately by "This video is sponsored by Brilliant" made me chuckle
Countries that delay climate action gain short-term economic benefits by exploiting cheap, polluting energy sources, while those that take the lead bear the immediate costs of transitioning to cleaner alternatives. When the consequences of climate change become unavoidable, the nations that acted selfishly will have profited in the meantime, leaving the proactive ones to shoulder not only the cost of their early action but also the shared fallout of global inaction.
It would've been nice if you pointed this hard problem out as part of your 'YOU becoming green now is an investment for YOU in the long term' point.
UA-cam ghosting this one huh
It actually hid on my feed! I saw it, walked to my couch to watch it, and my phone went to sleep. When I unlocked it, the video was gone from my home screen and I had to open the channel to find it.
You deserve way more subscribers. I just added myself to the list ;-)
On another note: Kyle Hill did a video looking at the economics of nuclear power compared to the other green energies. For anyone wondering how the green energies compare to each other: They're all in line with each other, with nuclear being one of the best overall for long term economic cost and emissions. Sure, nuclear energy is an insane upfront cost, but it's overall cheaper than the other methods. With the added benefit of having more uptime than coal, and without the downside of the other green energies(limited availability, blocking rivers for hydro, batteries, etc.) nuclear is a "no brainier". So go out there and spread the knowledge that green energy is both safer, and cheaper than other methods of energy production with nuclear is by far the best in terms of cost.
Probably should watch the video first though. Title because I'm not sure if links are auto blocked:
Is Nuclear Power “Too Expensive”?
by Kyle Hill on UA-cam.
Inserting chapter would be a good idea 🙏
'But because economics isn't an exact science... Sorry, there was a rogue "exact" in there.'
"Least effective" and "least cost-effective" are completely different things.
Simon, I fucking love your work. You're great. Please never stop.
Or, rather, stop when we've achieved a Solarpunk future and then just tell jokes about how insane we used to be.
This video should have more likes!
What is the least effective way to tackle climate change?
Changing nothing and building massive CO2 capture and storage.
Then building fossil fuel power to power this. A spiral of death.
It is so silly I actually wanna see this.
That appears to be the bloody plan so at least we will die feeling like we are in a dramatic comedy
Don't forget Hydrogen (Facepalm)
@rogerstarkey5390 and new nuclear power plants which take couple decades to go into production
@@rogerstarkey5390 Hydrogen is already an essential resource used in fertilisers & other chemical processes.
Replacing the current methane source of hydrogen with electrifyed systems is an essential step.
Everyone focuses on cars, nobody pays attention to everything else it's needed for, like the entire petrochemical industry.
@@Solstice261and take a huge amount of concrete to build which also has a significant carbon cost.