These Countries Are Cheating
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 чер 2023
- Learn more at www.naturecanada.ca/lostinthe...
By overcounting how much carbon their forests suck up, and undercounting how much carbon their industries release, countries undercount their total carbon emissions.
LEARN MORE
**************
To learn more about this topic, start your googling with these keywords:
- Paris Agreement: a 2015 treaty negotiated by 196 parties that aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
- Carbon emissions: the release of carbon compounds into the atmosphere, mostly in the form of CO2.
- Carbon sink: anything - like a forest - that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.
- Flaring: the process of burning off excess gas from an oil or gas well or refinery.
- Climate TRACE: a nonprofit that uses satellite data to project emissions.
SUPPORT MINUTEEARTH
**************************
If you like what we do, you can help us!:
- Become our patron: / minuteearth
- Our merch: dftba.com/minuteearth
- Our book: minuteearth.com/books
- Share this video with your friends and family
- Leave us a comment (we read them!)
CREDITS
*********
David Goldenberg | Script Writer, Narrator and Director
Lizah van der Aart | Illustration, Video Editing and Animation
Nathaniel Schroeder | Music
MinuteEarth is produced by Neptune Studios LLC
neptunestudios.info
OUR STAFF
************
Lizah van der Aart • Sarah Berman • Cameron Duke
Arcadi Garcia i Rius • David Goldenberg • Melissa Hayes
Alex Reich • Henry Reich • Peter Reich
Ever Salazar • Leonardo Souza • Kate Yoshida
OUR LINKS
************
UA-cam | / minuteearth
TikTok | / minuteearth
Twitter | / minuteearth
Instagram | / minute_earth
Facebook | / minuteearth
Website | minuteearth.com
Apple Podcasts| podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
REFERENCES
**************
Mooney, C., Eilperin, J., Butler, D., Muyskens, J., Narayanswamy, A., and Ahmed, N. (2021). Countries’ climate pledges built on flawed data, Post investigation finds. Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/climat...
Grassi, G., Stehfest, E., Rogelj, J. et al. Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries’ climate progress. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 425-434 (2021). doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01...
Zhong, R. (2022). Who’s Driving Climate Change? New Data Catalogs 72,000 Polluters and Counting. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/cl...
Bramley, M. and Saul, G. (2022). What Are The Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Logging In Canada? Nature Canada. naturecanada.ca/wp-content/up...
Skene, J. and Polanyi, M. (2022). Lost in the Woods: Canada’s Hidden Logging Emissions Are Equivalent to Those from Oil Sands Operations. Nature Canada. naturecanada.ca/wp-content/up...
Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Banja, M., Solazzo, E., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Pagani, F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Olivier, J., Quadrelli, R., Risquez Martin, A., Taghavi-Moharamli, P., Grassi, G., Rossi, S., Jacome Felix Oom, D., Branco, A., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. and Vignati, E., CO2 emissions of all world countries - 2022 Report, EUR 31182 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report... - Наука та технологія
It's almost as if not having consequences guarantees a lack of effort.
When the boomers did so many fucked arounds and we had to receive the found outs in the future
@lovell8983 cool your jets bud, the internet and solar power didn't exist 30 years ago, let alone 50. Ain't boomers, more like impatient zoomers
@@TripleSuccotash1 the boomers are the ones in power making the decisions, they couldn't do anything at their time when they were young, but they have the power to make change now, but they aren't.
@@TripleSuccotash1 global warming has been known about since the 70s
Hydroelectricity has been know about since the 1840s, wind generated electricity since the 1880s, nuclear since the 1940s
Solar has actually been around since the 80s
@connortheandroidsentbycybe7740 existing and being ubiquitous are two very different things. Nuclear since the 1940s? Are you insane? When was the first plant opened? When was there one in every single state in the US? there was no internet, it wasn't something that any real person was aware of, just because the world shoves it down our throats now doesn't mean it was always that way, another 10 years and maybe you'll start to think a little harder about these things instead of just wiki factoids.
It is astounding and extremely depressing that we are still putting out more CO2 annually
CO2 is literally the only reason life exists lol
@@luisfilipe2023 Cover your head with a plastic bag and see how good too much CO2 is. I'll be more than happy to stand there and tell you all the CO2 is the reason you're alive, while you're dying.
economy go brrr
You have to keep in mind that a lot of countries are still developing, so their carbon emissions will obviously increase.
In short, it's over
As a Canadian it's been sucky to see how the lying and denialism is still so rampant. Canadians have a much better reputation than we deserve
Canadian here, seconded unfortunately
That's the nice thing about being French, our government is deceitful as well, but everyone already hates us so it doesn't feel as bad ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Canadá vs. China: Garbage edition
Hmmm… yes 🙌
Alright but if you think about it, including wildfires in the equation creates an unfair disadvantage to Canadians trying to actually go carbon neutral.
Canada, comparatively to other countries, has a lot of land with a lot of forests meaning that forest fires are bound to happen way more often than, say, in Indonesia. And Canada *DOES* put lots of effort into controlling these fires. They’ve even started pulling troops off of the reserves to go out and help.
It’s like if you were to set half of France on fire and then stood there with your arms crossed at the next meeting saying “Why didn’t you account for this, France? Why are your numbers up?” Like, what was France supposed to do? Shut down every single refinery, ban gas vehicles, shut down airports, and slaughter everyone’s livestock just so that they could stay under quota in response to a major fire burning down peoples homes and businesses?
1. Fires in Canada are so rampant because of decades of not heralding forests, and changing the Natives that used to.
2. Canada has a difficult time changing. In my province, Saskatchewan, we have informed the government that we are unable to stop using our coal power plants and install new base load power because it would cost too much.
Canada needs to stop demonizing the west, and understand that we WILL need extra subsidies (and uranium) to solve that power problem.
As well, we will need to heavily subsidize and teach forest heraldry. Most of our bush needs to be cleared by hand, and suddenly we have a lot fewer people that have that knowledge post residential schools.
One of the problems we face is that, in a democracy, how do we get politicians to prioritize things that have consequences beyond their lifetime, when they are focused on a 4-5 year election cycle?
I don't see how. It is a trap.
exactly! this is the biggest issue!
in my country it really shows that the political parties' only goal is to be elected. they no longer care about the citizens or even their own views/ agenda
We do that with constitutionalism, which counterbalances the temporary will of democracy, since it is conter-majoritary. The example is simples: what stops a country voting the return of slavery? Is it democracy? The same forces (checks and balances) that stop the return of slavery through vote is what would allow for this to happen.
If a nation is aware enough, long-term actions can too be used for political leverage - they just need to generate good press. Especially when said actions have long-term benefit - like for example building nuclear power plants.
One of the problems we face is that we *do not live in a democracy.*
saddest part is that developing countries are suffering from large countries outsourcing the CO2 intensive processes to their countries because it's cheaper
if they were doing that + financing the usage of the most developed best practices, it would be ok, but this isn't what is happening.
@@jgr7487 It's mostly coal. Developing countries can't just go to oil and natural gas without pricing themselves out of it. So, they have to industrialize with coal till they're wealthy enough to compete financially with more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Essentially, underinvesting in oil/natural gas is causing higher CO2 emissions. The developed world is emitting less because they're moving from coal to oil and natural gas.
Pakistan is moving to coal because the Russian invasion caused Europe (particularly Germany) to buy out all the natural gas and oil, leading to mass power outages.
You can't blame them, they're going through their own industrial revolution. Easy for US and EU to say that's wrong when they had 200 years of head start.
If they don't like it, they actually can adopt the same stringent environmental standards as the rich countries. This is not exploitation. Its a choice that both parties are engaging in together.
1) Developing countries have agency. Stop treating them like children.
2) They're not suffering from the influx of jobs and consequential boost to their economies this has created for them.
I think it’s important to note, that even during the pandemic in 2020, our species was still releasing emissions of greenhouse gases, just the rate went down, and it’s since recovered.
We've passed peak oil though, which happened in 2019.
@@8isPeak oil is a red herring devoid of reality.
Peak *demand* for oil is what the powers that be are fighting to keep from happening.
Why is that
@@8is but other fossil fuels we are still burning
@@_Super_Hans_ why is what?
"When the measure becomes the target, it ceases to be a good measure."
- Goodhart's Law
Unless the measure is literally the initial target. Here the problem is not that: its that people falsify the measure, not that they maximise it over what it is supposed to measure.
You forgot the part about where first world countries are offloading pollution heavy manufacturing to far less regulated countries for profit. And they are doing this by having open trade(no/low tariffs) with those countries, incentivizing companies to move. This tends to happen because politicians are either -bribed- donated/lobbied to, or have shares of businesses who would benefit from such a move.
And China cheating itself out of the agreement despite being the biggest polluter.
And don't forget that these third world countries are sometimes so corrupt, their Carbon output can be ten times worse than if all the industry were somwhere else.
Well said!
I believe the EU is implementing legislation to stop that. But yes it is a very common practice and part of the reason why China has such high pollution figures
That does happen. But, low tariffs first and foremost don't benefit businesses in America, they benefit college educated workers in America, because after you account for productivity, they are the relatively abundant factor. People with college degrees are, for the most part, the people writing the tariff laws. This really isn't about bribery or lobbying. Its about who is in office and not in office.
3:15 - There _is_ such a thing as "sustainable forestry", but that's certainly not what logging industry is doing. It is done by "culling" perhaps one tree out of hundred or more a year when it nears the end of its life, preventing its "corpse" from decomposing and freeing up space for saplings to grow. But, of course, it is too low-intensity to be very profitable.
Tree plantations also make sense, as long as they are not "sold" as "reforestation", but as a source of construction timber which _does_ tie up some carbon that used to be in the atmosphere.
But all this is small fry. If we are to have any hope of avoiding civilization disrupting (if not destroying) degree of warming, we must decarbonize energy production, transportation, and cement and steel production, along with radical rationalization of agriculture. There are no _technological_ obstacles for any of these, and they are often equally if not more profitable that business as usual, but not for entrenched players.
Intact forests bind more co2 than timber plantations do, and dead trees are important for the ecosystems as well. Of course you can make forestry more sustainable than it is right now, but in areas where trees do grow naturally, no forestry is generally better for the environment than "sustainable" forestry.
Or you know, use the wood for things that lasts for over a century instead of turning it into coal for bbq
Especially on transportation, we are way behind on that one. Beyond it being good for the climate, its great for the people since having more ways that are effective to travel besides just driving and saves people tons of money. Also could lead to people being slightly healthier, since generally countries with good public transit are less obese.
I don't think we can decarbonize steel production... Unless you wanna go back to the iron age
@@laurenz4934 yes, but we NEED timber, so since we will need to cut trees anyway, its better to go for the option that is more sustainable than the one that isn't.
I think it would be positive also to talk about the countries that are doing better than promised. To incentivize pride in the matter
Agreed! And some countries are making great progress!
@@MinuteEarth Will you mention them in another video?
Doesn't always work, though. Just think about how some other countries have a better work/life balance by giving more (paid) pto for ex. for maternal / paternal leave, and just in general. But in America, the work culture favours businesses by promoting the so-called meritocricy idea, that we just need to work hard(er) long(er) or we're not a team player yadda yadda. It makes people not only think insanely long (underpaid) work days are normal, but something to be proud of (or at least inescapable, so why fight it). That having the 'privelege' of an entire week per year off (except not really, because pto and sick leave are now merged together) is something we ought to be grateful for since some other places don't even have that (and they don't, but that's like saying that because some prisoners get no bread, we should praise our guards for giving us moldy bread). It's so toxic, but it's so 'normal' to so many that it never even enters their head to consider other countries' standards. And besides, 'Murican pride, doncha kno?? We gotta be different!!! We dun' need to change things to be like how them others do things, no matter how much smarter it'd be! And even if we did try to rally for it, our greedy corporate overlords will be sure to crush our rebellion quick enough. Yay, America...?
True, but at the same time, until we actually stop collectively lighting our planet on fire, I do think its more useful to focus on the fact that were doing that, rather than patting anyone on the back for not adding more proverbial fuel to the fire.
I think some are doing better on paper because they have shifted their economic output from heavy industry to services. The UK, for example, is consuming less energy than in the 1980's despite population growth, because of the exodus of heavy industry from the country. It's also one of the countries that is close to its Paris agreement targets. Problem is that industry hasn't gone away, it's just moved somewhere else, generally to the US or China. So you end up with quite a few countries that have really just outsourced their emissions elsewhere.
Australia is another particularly bad example. During the Kyoto conference, we threw a massive hissy fit right at the end to allow us to start counting at a higher base line. Than we emitted more into the atmosphere. Then we earned a bunch of carry over credits to keep emitting more, despite not earning them. Then we made a bunch of carbon credits, except we created them out of nothing (awarding credits for people not cutting down trees that weren’t even going to be cut down, creating credits in the outback where nothing grows, etc). We then sold these worthless credits to oil & gas companies so they could keep emitting while claiming to be carbon neutral. Its pretty depressing that most countries are being just as shoddy as us. Hopefully we get our act together before we set off too many positive feedback loops and end up turning the planet into a hellscape
Yeah man, this situation end up make it worse than initially we hope, because now everyone is releasing carbon than ever before but didnt feel bad about it because of made up number
To be fair Morrison was a an idiot, backed by a team of idiots.
Canada left the kyoto climate accord Because are conservatives are paid off by big oil
Wow, my country, Indonesia, not lying about something for a change. Crazy.
"Not lying" or at least "not lying as blatantly as Malasia"
The rich big wigs will tell you to stop using plastic straws and walk more while taking a jet three times a week to their favorite restaurant.
Cool it with the antisemitism
@@oz_jonesWhere's the antisemitism here? I don't see any mention of the jews
@@oz_jones Its true though, just one jet trip alone emits more carbon than hundreds of cars do in people's lifetimes. And they take these trips hundreds of times every year
Thank you for calling this out! It makes me so angry as someone with a degree in environmental sciences. We CAN reduce our emissions but due to greed don't. It frustrates me to no end.
I agree we can and should but it’s not necessarily just Greed that drives this. A common argument used by developing countries is that they see it as unfair that the West industrialized and caused great environmental harm and now they are rich. And now that these poor countries have the opportunity to develop and bring a decent standard of living for their population, they are told No by those western governments.
I can’t believe this video left out the part about countries just outsourcing the dirty energy and then saying “they” are clean cuz didn’t make it their inside own country. It’s an even bigger problem than the video’s problems.
I appreciate the wanting to care, would be neat to see ppl care one day about more real issues that are hidden from the masses tho such as corruption of the financial system for one example.
How do we reduce the emissions reasonably? While maintaining our living standards?
Yeah we need the big players in the world, China and US, to calm down. The reason we cant move forward is because of national security and sovereignty in the pacific. If China stops threatening Taiwan we can actually get somewhere. Also to mention how China’s a another big player in this climate change event.
@@deeppatel3530 Then the western governments have the responsibility to provide these developing countries with the tech they need to stay carbon-neutral and still ramp up industry. The problem is that they don't.
"Hey we gotta do something even if it means earning less money."
"Yeah true. You first."
"Nooooooo."
Biggest polluters, Big Oil / military industrial complex / cement industry. Much needed and appreciated during and after wartime. It is well known WARS are extremely ecofriendly.
- heard from two elementary school kids operating lemonade stands
(as in, governments are behaving just as maturely as elementary schoolchildren)
So what you are telling me is that the decades and decades of increassing public awareness about climate change has all been for nothing? What a lovely way to start my day
Public awareness doesn't fix the fundamental problem of how the global economy operates. And that awareness is directly opposed by pro-fossil fuel propaganda. The awareness itself is ineffective if it isn't leveraged into dissolving the bodies that use bribery, intimidation, and other nefarious tactics to continue getting their way.
Not for nothing. Countries are getting better, but better is not outpacing emissions. Total CO2 is increases, but the increase is slowing for example.
Yes,because it bullshit. They just want to lower population and keep everyting for themselves
@@jouaienttoi eh, it moreso depends on the entities like corporations with the highest carbon footprint to take the big steps. They’re quite a significant percentage of the carbon emitted and I don’t think we’ll stop climate change on a grand scale if they don’t.
You don’t have to be sad. Human carbon emissions aren’t actually a problem - that’s just a lie sold by politicians trying to take your rights away.
Last time i was talking to a green party member here we talked about how we have 25 years before we cant fix this anymore. its a politics thing, unfortunately the popular opinion in Canada is "there all the same"... and poorly run elections... not a lot of Canadians realize that the government works for us and not the other way around.
It's never too late to fix anything, you just need to keep at it.
Not a lot of Canadians realize that the government is elected by the voters, and if the voters elect bad politicians that's on the voters. If the government isn't working for you, blame yourself.
@@DemPilafianBlaming the victim... How do you know that he voted on any of the majority parties?
@@rpcruz This has nothing to do with majority or minority party. This is about people who push a bogus anti-government narrative. They want everything for free but don't want taxes. They'd rather burn the place down than compromise. And they always play the victim card.
oh, green party members? those who celebrate Germany burning lignite, because nuclear bad?
If everybody held spoken promises like that, there would be peace, harmony, and unity in the world and the unicorns would return
And the dragons
@@eisflamme2438 Hmm... maybe we should keep breaking promises, then.
@@nessesaryschoolthing
Because they coud be dangerous?
Well, unicorns have Horns...
I miss the unicorns so much. 😭
@@eisflamme2438 Yeah but are they giant fire-breathing flying carnivors? I think not... dear God... how horrible would it be to see giant fire-breathing carnivorous flying unicorns. The horror. 😢
Everyone wants to LOOK like they're acting responsibly but almost no one with power actually WANTS to... At this point I've just accepted my fate TBH...
its just a huge prisoner's dilemma, the one that plays fair will lose, so you cheat to not fall behind the other cheaters. the problem is that in the end EVERYONE will lose.
or you can just not cheat. there are actually no consequences imposed by the paris agreement so countries are just plain out fudging their numbers to look good. I can understand bangladesh not wanting to loose competitive advantage, but its not like canada will go bankrupt if they actually try to reduce their emissions. its more of a short term dilemma. the advantages of cutting emisions are long term, but the disadvantages are short term.
Yep. But before everyone everywhere loses forever, someone will win big for a while (and make sure everyone else loses bad if it means a penny more for themselves) and no wants or even can afford to be the biggest loser in the indeterminate meantime while we all rush towards Ragnarok.
@@alejandroojeda1572 There are consequences: more expenses and lower incomes. The problem is that the people with the power to actually address these issues consider those consequences more immediately important than the long term consequences of continuing what they're doing.
The carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Tragedy of the commons.
GDP per capita CO2 emissions of Canada and US are very high.
Car centric cities.
*pretends to be shocked*
Humans/Politicians _lie_ about their ability to do good and not greed?
_To the suprise of no-one_
Shocked by the carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Only after the last tree has been cut down / Only after the last river has been poisoned / Only after the last fish has been caught / Then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”
The claim that Canada does not report emissions from forest fires is incorrect. I've talked to scientists who work for the Government of Canada. These emissions are instead reported under land use changes.
Another critical cheating technique is the way most "developed" countries have offshored much of their industrial production to the global south. Massive amounts of profit are made by companies in places like the U.S. and Europe without ever needing to release carbon *domestically*. By building their factories in poorer countries, they simultaneously get to exploit cheap labor and get to brag about how "green" their home countries are. This has led to a pernicious myth that most of the expansion of carbon emissions is happening in the global south, as these poor nations industrialize -- but who is reaping the majority of the gains of this industrialization? Still the wealthiest countries and the biggest carbon cheaters.
That is a very honest and necessary reporting which is left out by the mainstream media. Good job, Minute Earth!
I would like to know which countries are the most accurate when providing data for carbon emissions.
How would you know? We can measure the total CO2 in the atmosphere, but we can only model who contributed how much. We can all out blatant inconsistencies, but we can only guesstimate the real numbers for each country.
Plus, America, and probably many other counties, outsource much of the labor that requires high carbon emissions.
If a volcano erupts, do we count that as emissions by the country in which the volcano is situated?
Same question when a bomb explodes.... Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex PAND(or)A?
@@lorenzoblum868 do you know the more you scream this at people, the more they get irritated and less likely to listen to you, yes?
Yes, but that source is minuscule compared to everything else so it usually doesn’t affect the chart.
@@Aleph_-_0 This is in reference to Canada not counting wildfires that are a product of nature and reasonably outside of it's control. It is blaming people for the geography they live in.
@@SurmaSampothe video literally pointed out the problem is the double standard Canada is using.
The environment doesn't count when it releases CO2, but does count when it absorbs it?
Woo, Malaysia is mentioned one-quarter times!
Puts a 25% smile on my face. 😄
not in a good light, tho.
@@nurphurecarnium Considering the recent political climate, that's pretty much expected, unfortunately.
as long as there are no real penalties then nothing will be done
I feel really bad about a lot of things I do but can’t change… I’m disabled so I frequently order from Amazon. I do carpool with people I know when I have to go to an appointment or a store though. I also recycle as much as I can and reuse boxes from Amazon as well. I also repair my clothes and blankets instead of throwing them out. I plan to replace my phone’s battery instead of buying a new phone when/If that’s eventually needed. I’m doing everything I can to limit my carbon footprint but it’s hard when I heavily rely on Amazon and a pharmacy in Eugene that does home delivery. I’m very far away from Eugene but they do deliver to many cities. Problem is that’s more gasoline using vehicles on the road. So I’m stuck in a middle ground where I’m doing the best I can but I’m unable to do more. There’s also the cost of sustainable and compostable products and the lack of access to recycling electronics correctly.
I feel you dude. The guilt can feel suffocating, and we can all feel helpless. But we have to try, at least, and it sounds like you are. I know if feels so stupid to say, because it really feels we aren't enough. I applaud you anyways, because we owe it to the planet and all ecosystems to be accountable. Keep it up.
Are you living somewhere with car dependency? I don't know your situation of course, but it sounds like you can go outside a bit(?), but driving is too much. In places around the world with robust subway and train systems independent mobility from say a wheelchair is very doable
Of course, simply hopping over to a different city or country is easier said than done, so you shouldn't feel guilty about it. Easiest thing to do is just donate to environmental and conservation charities
@@Amaling I second this notion. Even if it's not possible for everyone, it's a great way to help for people who are able.
@@Amaling currently I can’t drive due to my disabilities so I rely on people I know to drive me around 😅 problem is their schedules are busy so it’s not always an option. I used to take the bus where I used to live but this town only has 2 stops per town and doesn’t come by much. I plan on eventually moving to somewhere with an actual bus system again
All anyone can do is their best. And you're certainly putting in more effort than governments and companies by the sound of it.
We're glad to have played a role in bringing light to such an important issue!
As someone who lives in Saudi Arabia there should be a huge fine for reporting incorrectly, altho I think it should be redirected into sucking more Co2, like 50k-500k fine going all into trees,algae, maybe even co2 reduction
The fine might just be seen as a business expense. A harsher punishment like business shutdown or firing maybe would be needed as we go further,
As a Canadian, I greatly thank you for bringing this to the attention of so many ♡.
I work at another Big Green and am so happy that NRDC worked with Minute Earth to create this-but am also so bummed that my org didn’t do it first!
The first step would be to entirely review WTO rules... So countries could tax importation according to the origin country CO2 emissions.
Or put the ones that making it look lower back to school or give them some brain cells bc they not helping they making it worst and thats how human gonna die :)
yeah... we're never getting past the great filter
Or, we will need to leave Earth, and go to others planets to survive...
@@Kabup2 you're missing my point. we can't even cooperate when it's mutually beneficial for everyone involved
it'll just be yet another planet to destroy if we adopt a "use and throw" strategy
edit:typo
@@Kabup2 Hah. "We". The people who will be able to flee are the people who now cause the biggest problems.
No one seriously thinks climate change will ever pose any kind of threat whatsoever to humanity's survival.
@@8is feel free to read my response to the other guy cause the point missed you too
Would shaping to nuclear not be the correct move?
it too contributes to global warming by releasing heat into the oceans
Yes it would
@@nattygsbord Is Thermal Pollution preferable to CO2 Pollution?
Slow to start, expensive. If you have money to build more nuclear you have money to build even more renewables for the same price
It wouldn't solve everything, but yes, this would probably be a good way to at least deal with electricity related emissions. All you have to do to make that happen is convince people that they should be willing to have nuclear powerplants built vaguely near their homes without protesting so hard that any party that suggests such a thing gets immediately voted out.
I imagine it would be easier to gradually rework cities to be much less car-focused, so that domestic transportation stops being such a major factor. Unlike with nuclear power, people actually prefer if public transport works well, and if they didn't have to use a transportation method so susceptible to human error.
Don't get me wrong, I think both things need to happen, and I am in favour of any movements that suggest "nuclear power is good to have nearby, actually (even if only for the electricity costs)". I'm just explaining why electricity isn't switching to the obviously correct choice.
Isn’t it interesting how the Kyoto agreement failed? It had binding goals which cost money and was made in 1997.
I'm kinda annoyed that we focus solely on carbon dioxide , because their are so many other green house gasses that we can minimize. Alot of them are simpler to deal with then carbon.
Don't forget that carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. 200 years ago the planet was the closest it's ever been to having plant life choke itself to death.
Thanks for clarifying this!!
This feels like when Teachers when they found out their students used chat gpt
It’s almost like not putting a legitimate alternative results in continued reliance on hydro-carbons. The west might get away with it but the global south will not,which is way they will not stop industrialization and stay poor forever like some expect in the west.
For Canada, they are probably right about not counting forest fires as CO2 emissions, even though it might not be accurate. If it was counted as CO2 emissions then Canada's best bet for reducing emissions might be to invest heavily into fighting and preventing forest fires, which humanity has, over the past many decades, realized is likely a bad idea overall, as forest fires can rejuvenate the ecosystem. Not counting it also is not too unreasonable as many of the forests that burn down will all eventually regrow on their own in the natural circle of life, overall making it net neutral.
This doesn't excuse them counting trees they replant themselves due to forest fires as a carbon sink though, that is clear double counting and cheating.
The correct solution is to count the forest fires but invest more in removing carbon from the atmosphere.
That's not relevant for forest fires in Canada though. By and large, the logging industry is to blame for the massive fires we have every year now with their unsafe practices. The problem has gotten to the point that the system straight-up can't fight all the fires every year, and we literally have fires burning from the moment snow melts until the next winter - then the fires keep smouldering under the snow all winter - so they immediately flare up again after the snow melts.
This is why the west has had terrible air quality every year for over a decade now.
Forest fires are an important part of a natural forest cycle, but BC and Alberta fires should not get bad enough to change the colour of the sky in New York (on the full opposite side of the continent).
@@Mrpapayaheadrulesall Just wanted to interject here, the bad air out east was mostly from fires in Quebec and Ontario, and a bit from the Maritime provinces.
@@Ripplez13 Fair enough on that. Tbh I forgot about Quebec and Ontario (sorry), but the fact that basically the whole country is burning rn is definitely not something we should be cool with.
I dont see where the problem is. Forest fires is not really something that is Canadas fault, and replanted trees or preserved forests do decrease the CO2 in the air. This is the very simple math the video presents at the beginning.
thanks for sharing this info, things like this need to be held accountable.
Exactly. We need to boycott people like Tom Scott who have huge carbon footprints.
People like the idea of cutting back carbon emissions, but nobody wants to reduce their living standards, so they don’t.
Kind of interesting how China, the 2nd biggest carbon emitter, is never mentioned, and India, the 3rd biggest, is only mentioned in a screenshot of an article headline.
So, countries that have made progress are taken to task, but the biggest polluters -- China & India -- get no mention here?
If you *really* want to take the US, England, Canada, France, etc to task, how about for not sharing the cleaner technology we have with the big polluters to help them reduce, rather than buying dubious "offsets"?
Also, what *should* the carbon levels be? We hear all the time it's too high and we need to reduce, but not what the levels ought to be? Plants seem to be growing quite happily in with more carbon in the air.
Plants seem to be growing happily with more CO2 in the air. That is true. However, those aren't the plants that we rely on for food.
If you want bananas and other tropical starchy fruits as your main source of calories, sure.
Can't believe I had to scroll this far down to find this comment. Correct. Even if the US, Canada and many other countries were doing way better, we'd still be, as a planet, putting out lots of pollutants thanks to China and India (especially China).
Why does every climate bleeding heart ignore China?
@@samuelcheung4799 As someone who eats a high carb/starchy diet with an emphasis on fruit... sounds good!
@@venus_envy And as a Chinese person: We're all trying what we can do, if it's easy we'd have done it by now considering how many people we have. Getting our government to focus on these problems, however, isn't easy at all. And we have to solve the problem of "getting our birth rates up so that we have more engineers and scientists to solve this problem", I presume.
We've got many climate bleeding, nationalistic Chinese hearts in this country.
Walked home today in smoke covered Wisconsin, and watching this just makes me even angrier ಠ ೧ ಠ
China: huh they don’t see me
I love how they did not mention china at all in this video. We all know India, China, and the US are #1 in this climate change event. Dont only mention 1 major player.
I mean, no shit the top three most populous countries are big polluters.
Like, they don't completely lack responsibility, especially not US since US is a distant third where China and India are pretty close, but still.
Also has China cheated on it's climate numbers?
US per capita emissions are 60% higher than China's and 650% higher than India's.
If you look at total (historical) emissions per country, China and India actually have an easy job of keeping their total emissions low despite taking more time to get to net zero (China's goal: 2060, India's goal: 2070).
The video is about manually manipulating CO2 emission data, tho. Do China and India do that?
Честно говоря я удивлён таким качеством видео. Было очень интересно
Wow, as bad as Indonesia government is, I'm surprised they reported the carbon intake number correctly!
I guess scientist in Indonesia is more honest in reporting those number. Congratulations 🎊 Indonesia.
Mfs in first world countries be like "omg this is so horrible" then go on to live their unchanged first world lifestyle
During video: Canada Bad!
After Video: Thanks for funding this video Canada!
Yhea, as a Canadian, I’ve noticed a pattern of out government *pretending* to care about issues but not actually doing anything. (I’ve seen this with climate change and indigenous people’s issues.)
This just made me sad.
I suppose I could feel angry or bewildered, but I really just feel sad. Maybe we really do not deserve this world.
Can you make a video which countries deserve praise for their results
As a Canadian and an environmental science graduate, not counting the emissions from forest fires makes more sense. Forest fires are part of the natural ecosystem and we've been controling them for too long. The amount of forest fuel has accumulated to dangerous levels and we get those big fires that are unstoppable. Which is sad but also good in some ways that help the forest regrow stronger and healthier. Like shaving your head after not cutting your hair for many years
need a penalty system for the fudging countries.. more then just regular the regular fees.. money that goes to countries that actually have plans in place but cant enact on them because lack of funds.. the green fight ive been wondering if it was solvable since i was a kid learning about the climate problem like 30 years ago is how to turn the desert green again.. mainly sahara back then. Ive learned that there are efforts to turn the spreading desert around and make it green again, but plans to reclaim the deserts around the world. costs a lot and are just about non profit.. and they could use these fudging cheaters money.
I wish I could be cool about this but such cheating makes me hot!
Sooner or later someone will go nuclear about this (I hope).
Yes, big government will always lie. It's important not to agree to bigger and bigger government that wants more and more control over our lives. Bigger government is never the answer.
To be fair, it’s all the countries like china and India we have to worry about when it comes to emissions
The current forest fires here in Canada certainly doesn't help...effectively converting huge amount of land from being a carbon sink into a carbon source. Climate change is actually making it harder to stop climate change. I'm so pessimistic about our collective future😭
This is what happens when you allow same-sex marriage.
Yeah. Those massive forest fires sure don't shed any light to the situation. Only 6,5 years left before the whole planet needs to be carbon neutral or we can't anymore contain the runaway effect. This is going to be a Chernobyl 2.0 or Fukushima 2.0 but on global scale.
Another title and thumbnail change?
Crazy how the biggest polluter didn't show up, congrats on your social credit score.
So this is why we needed to show our working in exams...
I am shocked, SHOCKED! Well, not that shocked
Futurama is a beautiful show :P
We need some sort of enforcment to make sure the environment really gets protected.
It would require a power bigger than the oil industry.
But who could we all agree on to fairly enforce... what ever rules ...we all decide on? With what consequences? Who would oversee the process to prevent corruption? Could we all even agree on rules to be enforced? Who's 'we' anyway -- who qualifies to have a say? Doing things by committee is more likely to be fair, since more people get their say, but it's also slow going if it ever goes at all. Also, who's going to pay these committee members for their time, since they presumably need to eat and pay bills, too? And on and on. Nothing's ever really as simple or easy at it seems at first.
That's impossible, the only way to enforce climate quotas is to willing subject yourself to them.
Let's start with controlling population growth. Good luck with that.
and what country or group of countries is going to enforce the rules on the American empire? the USA alone has the military budget of the next 10. or should we just ask North Korea to nuke the USA and be done with it ?
I remember working in a Climate Change Action Plan on a recent job. And it was carried out so badly. The whole process was a bureaucratic mess, meant only to obtain some funding for "sustainability", while spending as little of it on actually measuring or developing actual solutions, instead keeping most of it to line pockets of some people. And as pointed out here, most carbon reductions or the overall carbon intake was greatly exaggerated, while carbon output by the state was also underreported, especially from the same companies which were supposedly "climate partners" and providing some of the funding. The economic incentive really poisoned that whole job from the inside, and I'm sure it has done similar things in some of these cases too.
Its almost as if they dont care because its not a real issue
Nothing on China I see.
Good job, countries! Thanks for helping the human race die faster than ever before!
I don't think that the human race will die out. Only most of the humans will and the rest will have to drastically change their way of life.
Top tier sarcasm 👌
Only in fantasyland luckely
We'll be fine. We've been through tough times before
I would have expected Carbon Credits to come up when talking about fudging the numbers.
Actually there is only ONE country that is following the Paris agreement. Gambia!
Here's something you didnt mention: Many 1st world nations just outsource their carbon. What a lot of countries do is shut down their big factories/carbon producers, but the thing is is that the demand is still the same. That means other nations jump on the new opportunity to fill what has just been left, meaning the total CO2 that is being produced stays the same, but the nation who shut down their factories can brag about how they're doing their part. In fact it can drive up emissions in some cases as these new factories may have more relaxed rules than what they had in the 1st world country.
What nations should do is try to find alternatives or cleaner ways to produce the product. Try to drive down the demand. Just do something that's not pushing the problem under the rug and declaring "It's someone elses problem"
That's just how the first World commonly act
The world needs to be tough on this. Hit the countries were it hurts, the money. If a country fails to meet the goals or are tweaking the reports, they get slapped with sanctions. Its harsh but it will make the governments listen
Sanctions by whom? The countries falling short include most of the global economy. Those sanctions would hurt the good actors more than the offenders, in that situation.
Its painful and difficult to even sanctions against the tiny 3rd world country Russia in place. And USA have been sanctioning China and tried to get EU to join them, but they refuse because France and Germany have too much profits to make. So France and Germany are okay with China putting a million uighurs into concentration camps, and torturing them and using them as slave labor and harvest their organs. They are okay with China breaking their promise to respect Hong Kongs democratic rule. They are okay with China bullying other EU countries like Sweden, and allies like Canada.
So if they could not boycot China now, then what says they will do so in the future for climate hysteria reasons when they cannot even do so to defend people against human rights violations?
Delusional considering the money comes from the biggest polluters... Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex anybody?
Cheating actually harms the process even more
It's really funny to me that you don't mention China even once
where's the china mention tho
Now I Wanna Move Outta Canada And Idk If Earth Isn’t Safe Any More
Earth was always safe until human started it destroying with this hell of pollution and greatest thing is no one at least feels accountable for them. Instead of reducing Co2 emissions, people like musk are thinking to leave the Mother earth😕. Sadly "Karma" is what are experiencing now😒. United states has only 35-40% population compared to India’s 1.4 Billion people and they are using the resources like hell, plus they are the most Co2 contributors after china. Shame on them
Or, like, we could stand up and tell the 50 or so people driving all of this bullshit to take a hike instead of running scared from literally the weakest people in our society.
Add someone else mentioned Canada does count wildfires as part of its national emissions, just not as manmade carbon emissions. There's tons of article from official Canadian sources concerned about how the wildfires will affect Canada annual carbon output so it was a little inaccurate to say Canada doesn't count it.
0:33 Those grades are overly generous. Barely below (true) net zero is a D since that still won't be good enough, and breaking even is a D-. That's still generous, since so many countries just do much of their emitting outside their borders, such as by importing the things whose production emit greenhouse gases.
While this regrettable this a natural products of letting countries self report. Any nation has an interest to protect its own interests above all other interests. Logging is big business in Canada which the country requires for revenue and job creation. So until you can get countries to care more about the environment than their own citizen’s interests you won’t get them to be honest.
So lets chain all countries to one dictatorship. A new world order
...Please tell me the UK isn't a cheater...
Edit: I checked out the very last link... the UK isn't cheating. Apart from 2020 (pandemic year), every single year has less emissions than the last. My country still is a relatively big contributor (0.9% of world total), but at least we're trying.
Be careful, a fair bit of that might be from primary industries being outsourced elsewhere. Idk UK too well but that could be possible. Stuff like average household emissions, sourcing of electricity, car ridership statistics, dietary trends are pretty honest indicators
But anyways the UK is doing great compared to Canada just by the merit of having smaller housing less gas heating less hours driving cars etc. Still work to do and politicians should be held accountable by people such as yourself, but it could be worse
Well at least UA-cam is honest enough to mark both sides with little context bubbles.
To put it in perspective a single pellet of nuclear fuel, which is about the size of the last segment of your pinky finger, at only 5% enrichment produces as much power as 149 gallons of oil or 1.3 tons of coal. It takes *only 5* pellets to supply a household, with modern energy demands, electricity FOR A YEAR. Uranium fuel production and consumption are emmisionless with exception of the internal combustion engines used for transportation and mining of the materials. The pellets once depleted after 2 years being inside a boiling water reactor can be taken and recycled, having any remaining fissile daughter products extracted from it to be used again in other things. Any remaining activated radioactive products can be dry stored in canistors and left above ground for them to decay into "cool" materials. The entire industry is engrossed in saftey culture on top of being extraordinarily well regulated to protect worker and public safety. Every plant contributes its faults with the others and improvements are made across the board to prevent potential accidents from ever occuring at any one. The NCR even makes the technical specifications for all nuclear power plants in the U.S. available to the public.
Furthermore, new technologies are being developed to scale down nuclear based power production. Micromodular reactors, liquid salt batteries, and TRISO fuel all have the potential to eventually supply individual factories or towns scaled to match the demand they need so they don't have to be reliant on stressing the grid or making their own power with coal or oil burners.
@illinoisenergyprof6878 has great videos on the matter to demystify nuclear power.
Who would've thought
I was actually thinking the Canada argument was actually not unreasonable at least not like the other examples so I wondered why it was included then the sponsorship happened
Every building thats made out of trees isn't made out of concrete or steel. Plus trees grow back. I'd call making structures out of captured carbon a win.
They can't take responsibility for the forest fires, but they need to report them as releasing CO2 otherwise they are leaving out an important data point. Minute earth was just pointing out that if U didn't include forest fires cos they aren't human made, by the same argument you shouldn't include the forest removing CO2.
@@nicholasarena7419 definitely a win as long as they are replanting more than they cut down and arnt burning them
Also, outsourcing the manufacturing so that it doesn't show co2 emissions of their own 😂
It's really weird to see a video like this with no mention of China.
Just a cohencidence
No mention of China? Seriously?
Of course not. The agenda isn't to discourage collectivism.
Not every video needs to be about china. Kurzgesagt talks about china
Wait, Canada isn't the paragon they've attempted to make themselves out to be? Wild
wait till they hear about the genocides...
Wait till you learn that Canada never claims to be good
@@ryebreaddesalsa8157Canadians absolutely coast on their reputation of being the Good Boys™️ of Anglo-North America
@@kfcnyancat bruh it's literally the other Countries in the area that claims Canada to be the Good Boys, Canada never claims it, it's all stereotypes.
@@kfcnyancat i mean compared to the united states.....
It sucks because the citizens care, but the politicians get fed tons to oppose fixing the problems or deny the issue
Germany:am i a joke to you
Business as usual I guess.
B-but kurzgesagt made a funny, confusing and poorly sourced video saying everything is going to be fine!
it was based on official numbers, can't blame them if we later found out that some countries were cheating. also future prospects are good, we are migrating all our transportation to electric, more sustainable battery designs are ready to be deployed for commercial use soon, renewables are expanding faster than ever. we just need to get our shit together and stop fear mongering nuclear and maybe slow down our population growth.
@@danilooliveira6580 Wrong. Electricity is just burning fuel fossil, with a little help from solar, wind, and others sources.
@@Kabup2Have you seen Kurzgesagt promoting nuclear electricity generation like no other big UA-cam channel? (He did.)
Step 1: Make everything electric.
Step 2: Generate your electricity with nuclear + renewables.
Step 3: Potentially save the world.
_5. Why just shells? Why limit yourself? She sells seashells; sell oil as well._
Cheating implies there being a rule. There are no rules here. No one cheated. They simply protected their economic interests. Plain and simple.