I hugely admire Hans Rosling a wonderful human being but as acknowledged in the interview he focussed on human wellbeing. At 37.20 ..."the disaster that's happening" the conversation became real. 97% of mammalian biomass on this planet are humans and their livestock. The rich countries need to reduce carbon emissions by 7% per year to stay below 2'C . Technically it's possible but unless we all suddenly change our values it's not going to happen
The real problem is that Business and financial leaders are more concerned about profits and dividends for investors , than sustainability or the climate , and are totally unaccountable for their decisions and actions
the actual real problem is, every time we create financial incentives to lower pollution, the industry moves to countries (like china) that have less environmental controls. We are just creating more pollution, and less financial growth.
I wouldn’t say totally unaccountable. They are accountable to their shareholders, and of course, if they cross the line, vulnerable to prosecution. But how many businesses did Kier prosecute?
Also worth looking at the question Hannah is answering. OF COURSE local food isn't always the most sustainable. Todays episode of 'the bottom line' put it well when they said bananas o grown locally with all the extra energy input are not going to be a sustainable option. Another point l'd like to make is who wants sustainable hormone injected beef or chlorine bleached chicken?
And "existence" is not necessarily "living". Perhaps extinction of Humanity isn't a high risk (even on a geological timescale) but life for billions will become extremely difficult to 'untenable' within a few centuries.
Well yes life is about to get very difficult for a lot of people, but shorten the time period, as the WEF say, we will own nothing and we will be happy. 2030.
more like a few decades... and I still think that's generous. I come from a third world country where the extreme summer heats have risen by almost ten degrees recently. without sufficient energy for cooling and other basic human needs, people are literally just dying on the streets. its mental that we are not treating this to reflect the urgency and severity of the situation.
This conversation seems to ignore the high cost to soil and the microbes that are depleted through tilling soil. Not to mention salination caused by irrigation and the monoculture required for most crop-focused systems. Regenerative agriculture isn’t something she’s even covered. Would like to know if her background includes studies in Soil Science. The minerals in soil require hundred years or so to be made available. So, soil is a non-renewable resource. Not to mention the glacial waterways that will be extinct very soon. They’re a source of both water and minerals for many of those downstream. And there are people mining this resource for Small Startups. Then there is the ubiquitous presence of plastic in soil, so it’s now in the tissue of most people, not to mention animals. A lot of factors she hasn’t address. Do appreciate this conversation, with emphasis on what can be done instead of always about “the sky is falling”.
Exceeding the Earth's Planetary boundaries is a big question mark. The $$billions spent by big Ag, big fisheries, big oil, big transport, and banks raises more and more questions. I've worked in the largest international merchant banking environment. This conversation is a tad naive to say the least. Let's not forget the two main wars occurring at present. Putting responsibility aside, we know they are causing untold damage to the climate and environment. To many big ticket questions not addressed and remaining unanswered. Realism is essential and addressing those questions cannot proceed without realism and action.
@@brianwheeldon4643 What the heck are you talking about? There’s nothing in your reply responding to anything I’ve said. Get off your soapbox for a moment. Your attitude shows the most ignorance. Realism involves dealing with reality, No?
Technically possible does not equate with likely to happen. This whole approach ignores that we have known the dangers for years and our carbon output continues to increase. It also ignores feedback loops and tipping points that have even caught climate scientists by surprise. An easy way to see if someone is serious is to look to see if they believe lab grown meat is part of the solution, if so it demonstrates they are not to be taken seriously, lab grown meat is just a great way to extract money from VCs.
Media: can do much, much, much, much more to give a clear, honest, no-holes barred picture of what the future will look like at various degrees of climate-change combat/mitigation success (let's be positive)
WHY did Channel 4 post the short clip from this interview about local vs imported food emissions to it's social media? They took this one piece out of context of the entire interview, making it look like a data scientist says not to bother about buying local because it's probably been industrially produced anyway. The caption is this: "Buying local food to reduce your impact on the environment is 'a really big myth' The environmental data scientist tells Krishan Guru-Murthy why sustainable food choices are complicated and why buying local isn't always the climate friendly way" ... this is WILDLY deceptive and misinformative, dangerous in fact as those who see this will simply abandon any efforts to making positive change because it's too 'complicated'. Krishan moves her on from agriculture swiftly, and there is no mention of regenerative agriculture practices, or soil biology, which is the solution to these problems. The UK has incentive schemes in place for farmers to transition to RegenAg, so it's very much on the way. Channel 4, please stop this, you have literally just proven her point that you will pursue the attitude of 'the problem is too big for us to fix' just to get clicks. It's irresponsible and disgraceful really, and the reel should be taken down. The way that Krishan is continually trying to push Hannah to say that it's not as bad as it seems is quite gross, and you can see her choosing what she says very carefully to avoid her words being twisted. The irony is that her entire persona is built around exposing media firms for promoting misinformation, using shocking headlines to get clicks and ad revenue, and she aims to encourage people to look at the real data... and then Channel 4 do exactly that with her discussions of real scientific research. When I saw the reel, frankly I thought Hannah was a bit of a muppet, making baseless claims based on cows burping to turn everyone vegan, but the full interview shows an entirely different story. Not to say that she's not shown some irresponsible use of this data herself, and had some outside influence of concern- she's by no means a perfect poster-child, but Channel 4's use of this out of context clip to drive a denialist narrative is abhorrent. FGS just report the truth, stop with the mind control for profit, what's really important- a few extra quid in your pocket or preventing the reality of millions facing climate related disasters for generations?
We have the ability to change how we create products and conduct commerce that can have a major change on both climate change and pollution levels. Paul Hawken's book "The Ecology of Commerce" is just jam-packed with how we can shift our business world into a part of the solution in reducing both the impact of climate change and the level of pollution in the world.
I found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament). She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible. I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem. It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect. Ritchie states in the book, as cause for optimism, that the EU and USA have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. Which is, of course true, but not the cause for optimism that she suggests. Since the rise of China as the world's manufacturing powerhouse, countries like the USA, those in the EU and other developed nations have essentially delegated all of their manufacturing to China which has resulted in their own emissions reducing and China's growing. Overall, global emissions are still rising - it's just that the manufacturing component of those emissions have shifted from other G20 nations to China. This makes China look like the bad guys, when actually all they are doing is producing all of our stuff for us. Against that backdrop, you can understand why it is disingenuous for Ritchie to pick out EU and US emissions to support her case for optimism when these wealthy countries are contributing to record global emissions by buying more stuff than ever from China. At no point in her book does she caveat her positive message with these ugly truths. She's set out to write a positive book and has evidently cherry picked her data to support that thesis. This is why Greta Thunberg urges people to keep their eye on the global emissions data and nothing else. This clarity of focus makes one immune to the positive spin that the likes of Ritchie churns out. I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
(Caveat, I haven't read the book) I'm not sure what technological solutions she refers to, but there is definitely a plausible path to the required emissions reductions, without the need for system collapse, or, solar mirrors etc. We just need to implement, and that does require behaviour change (but above all, giving up on short term thinking and short term profits)
There are 4 big sectors for emissions we need to tackle - Transport - Energy - Food - Industry From my understanding we have most of the tech needed for Transport and energy and some for Industry, and food is more of a behavioural thing, tho precision fermentation will also have huge impacts. So tell me - from your understanding where are the biggest holes we have in the technologies that we need?
@@Acemeistre86% of everything we produce includes fossil-fuel-derived plastics. No plastics, no manufacturing. Everything we build uses concrete, which uses huge amounts of fossil fuels in its production. According to Simon Michaux, the world's leading expert on mineral mining, there are sufficient for only 1 generation of EVs and a 400% mineral shortfall to achieve a full green transition As climate impacts wreak devastation to homes, cities, cars and belongings, the demand for the above resourves rises. It's a doom loop. There has been a massive investment in solar and wind, but as of 2024 only 6% of our global power needs are met by renewables. And every year our economic growth and population growth outstrips the growth in the deployment of renewables. It's called Jeavons paradox. ...just a few examples of why we're utterly screwed. There are many, many more.
The amount of carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere over time is on an exponential curve with a positive gradient (accelerating faster and faster) - until this changes to a curve with a negative gradient, there is no room for any kind of optimism. What we have done so far to reverse climate breakdown - compared to what needs to be done - is indistiguishable from nothing. It's important to state here that you shouldn't blindly accept what any individual climate scientist tells you about climate breakdown. Especially if they are saying something that you would like to hear.
It’s quite rare to listen to someone who’s spot in all areas…IMO. Our experience with having solar, battery storage and electric vehicles with largely free solar charging, bears out that we can achieve cheap abundant energy world wide, with will and effort. Also, cheap overnight tariffs, at 7p per kWh enabled by having EV, solar and battery storage, results in very cheap energy compared to fossil…people would be surprised. If the last govt hadn’t basically stopped community renewable projects, we’d all be in a much better place now. We’ve got to play catch-up. There’s no room for negativity…it’s counter productive, and just plain wrong.
Dr Ritchie has gained a lot of traction with her "can do" optimism, but she broadly misses the larger context of biophysical overshoot driven by the exponentially expanding energy metabolism of industrial civilization. For me, her conception that science + adaptation + technological innovation will save us from a diminished future is just more magical thinking, sitting atop the same fallacy of infinite growth that has delivered us to the predicament we inhabit.
Transition to solving climate change is a great challenge BUT few people realise that the World will be a much cleaner and peaceful place, thanks to near zero smoke and vastly reduced machine noise.
I think she needs to work in government; 'It is very clear we can build low carbon electricity system pretty cheaply' I am sure we would all appreciate it if she would share this secret with the Uk. Edit: Also when she is talking about the children living in poorer countries who are at a higher risk would she include the children in the Congo there, who are effectively slaves for our green agenda when they go into dangerous holes in the ground to mine cobalt?
Weird, not to mention war as worst environment impacting scenario possible. And co2 ? Humans/animals inhale o2, exhale co2 > plants take up co2 for photosynthesis = growth, libarate o2... What i also miss in those extinction discussions is the devastating effects of genetical modification in plants, animals - ask indian cotton farmers, or mosquitos (foodchain upwards?)... Electrical vehicles are just not emitting while driving... And soil depletion and erosion because of mono cultures - let cows take care of to recover the land... and farming vehicle big and heavy as family homes kill all worms and compromise water uptake capabilities... lab meat is far worse in energy need (beside being bread on cancer cells), insect's chitin is not suitable for humans (just as eggs not for rabbits) It is debatable, what is dicussed. Many important aspects are even not mentioned.
Isn't it reasonable to hypothesise that even +2.5°C (above preindustrial levels) will ultimately result in a number of tipping points being breached and Human extinction within perhaps two millennia..?
Where is the evidence that higher yield = less land developed for agriculture?? This may or may not be true in developing countries but very doubtful in capitalist economies, in fact far more likely to lead to more marginal land developed for agriculture if systems are seen to be more viable with new technology. Theres perverse incentives at play. Land is already the highest cost in agriculture in developed countries and the margins are already tight. I can't see the logic in a capitalist economy how increasing yield potential will result in less land being used for ag. No, it will only result in land being pushed harder to make up the margin. This idea that land will just be "left to go go wild" or not cleared for agriculture because we can increase yield potential is a naive baseless myth that does not play out in the real world. We just just push things harder, that's how capitalism works. Vast majority of farmers in these economies do not grow food at all. They grow commodities for the global market in order to pay for the capital cost of land. It's a system that is ever expanding and eats itself.
Hannah Ritchie is not a serious thinker and her book serves best as a justification for capitalism to do nothing without the intellectual rigorousness of Bjorn Lomborg (that is an insult to anyone lucky enough to read his trashy books).
I did not say there was is no climate, there is no crises in the climate and whether we sea. If it was no for carbon that we are made of and breath out. humans would be on this planet.@@user-kh2rk4bd2y
I hugely admire Hans Rosling a wonderful human being but as acknowledged in the interview he focussed on human wellbeing. At 37.20 ..."the disaster that's happening" the conversation became real. 97% of mammalian biomass on this planet are humans and their livestock. The rich countries need to reduce carbon emissions by 7% per year to stay below 2'C . Technically it's possible but unless we all suddenly change our values it's not going to happen
The real problem is that Business and financial leaders are more concerned about profits and dividends for investors , than sustainability or the climate , and are totally unaccountable for their decisions and actions
yes completely agree. This young environmental data scientist seems rather naive., to put it mildly.
the actual real problem is, every time we create financial incentives to lower pollution, the industry moves to countries (like china) that have less environmental controls. We are just creating more pollution, and less financial growth.
I wouldn’t say totally unaccountable. They are accountable to their shareholders, and of course, if they cross the line, vulnerable to prosecution. But how many businesses did Kier prosecute?
Also worth looking at the question Hannah is answering. OF COURSE local food isn't always the most sustainable.
Todays episode of 'the bottom line' put it well when they said bananas o grown locally with all the extra energy input are not going to be a sustainable option.
Another point l'd like to make is who wants sustainable hormone injected beef or chlorine bleached chicken?
I think the idea is to grow food which naturally grows locally.
Doom & Hope, finally, someone reminding us that what we hear is often only half the story
"Don't Look Up"
And "existence" is not necessarily "living". Perhaps extinction of Humanity isn't a high risk (even on a geological timescale) but life for billions will become extremely difficult to 'untenable' within a few centuries.
Well yes life is about to get very difficult for a lot of people, but shorten the time period, as the WEF say, we will own nothing and we will be happy. 2030.
@@elwoodbluesmorris2120billions of humans already own nothing and you never cared about them.
It’s hard for Palestinians & many in the North East right now. There are other more pressing issues.
@@aclark903 don't look up
more like a few decades... and I still think that's generous. I come from a third world country where the extreme summer heats have risen by almost ten degrees recently. without sufficient energy for cooling and other basic human needs, people are literally just dying on the streets. its mental that we are not treating this to reflect the urgency and severity of the situation.
This conversation seems to ignore the high cost to soil and the microbes that are depleted through tilling soil. Not to mention salination caused by irrigation and the monoculture required for most crop-focused systems.
Regenerative agriculture isn’t something she’s even covered. Would like to know if her background includes studies in Soil Science. The minerals in soil require hundred years or so to be made available. So, soil is a non-renewable resource.
Not to mention the glacial waterways that will be extinct very soon. They’re a source of both water and minerals for many of those downstream. And there are people mining this resource for Small Startups.
Then there is the ubiquitous presence of plastic in soil, so it’s now in the tissue of most people, not to mention animals.
A lot of factors she hasn’t address.
Do appreciate this conversation, with emphasis on what can be done instead of always about “the sky is falling”.
Exceeding the Earth's Planetary boundaries is a big question mark. The $$billions spent by big Ag, big fisheries, big oil, big transport, and banks raises more and more questions. I've worked in the largest international merchant banking environment. This conversation is a tad naive to say the least. Let's not forget the two main wars occurring at present. Putting responsibility aside, we know they are causing untold damage to the climate and environment. To many big ticket questions not addressed and remaining unanswered. Realism is essential and addressing those questions cannot proceed without realism and action.
@@brianwheeldon4643 What the heck are you talking about? There’s nothing in your reply responding to anything I’ve said. Get off your soapbox for a moment.
Your attitude shows the most ignorance. Realism involves dealing with reality, No?
"Regenerative agriculture" is widely debunked now.
@@dontnoable According to who or what? It’s pretty simplistic and out of hand to say it’s “debunked”.
@@dontnoable How about organic matter? Or the bacteria and mineral levels in soil?
Or monoculture?
Technically possible does not equate with likely to happen. This whole approach ignores that we have known the dangers for years and our carbon output continues to increase. It also ignores feedback loops and tipping points that have even caught climate scientists by surprise. An easy way to see if someone is serious is to look to see if they believe lab grown meat is part of the solution, if so it demonstrates they are not to be taken seriously, lab grown meat is just a great way to extract money from VCs.
Uh huh and her onlyfans?
On Extinction Rebellion - there are plausible arguments that conflict driven by a changing climate could lead to something catastrophic....
Media: can do much, much, much, much more to give a clear, honest, no-holes barred picture of what the future will look like at various degrees of climate-change combat/mitigation success (let's be positive)
Very inspiring!
WHY did Channel 4 post the short clip from this interview about local vs imported food emissions to it's social media? They took this one piece out of context of the entire interview, making it look like a data scientist says not to bother about buying local because it's probably been industrially produced anyway.
The caption is this: "Buying local food to reduce your impact on the environment is 'a really big myth' The environmental data scientist tells Krishan Guru-Murthy why sustainable food choices are complicated and why buying local isn't always the climate friendly way"
... this is WILDLY deceptive and misinformative, dangerous in fact as those who see this will simply abandon any efforts to making positive change because it's too 'complicated'.
Krishan moves her on from agriculture swiftly, and there is no mention of regenerative agriculture practices, or soil biology, which is the solution to these problems. The UK has incentive schemes in place for farmers to transition to RegenAg, so it's very much on the way.
Channel 4, please stop this, you have literally just proven her point that you will pursue the attitude of 'the problem is too big for us to fix' just to get clicks. It's irresponsible and disgraceful really, and the reel should be taken down.
The way that Krishan is continually trying to push Hannah to say that it's not as bad as it seems is quite gross, and you can see her choosing what she says very carefully to avoid her words being twisted. The irony is that her entire persona is built around exposing media firms for promoting misinformation, using shocking headlines to get clicks and ad revenue, and she aims to encourage people to look at the real data... and then Channel 4 do exactly that with her discussions of real scientific research. When I saw the reel, frankly I thought Hannah was a bit of a muppet, making baseless claims based on cows burping to turn everyone vegan, but the full interview shows an entirely different story. Not to say that she's not shown some irresponsible use of this data herself, and had some outside influence of concern- she's by no means a perfect poster-child, but Channel 4's use of this out of context clip to drive a denialist narrative is abhorrent.
FGS just report the truth, stop with the mind control for profit, what's really important- a few extra quid in your pocket or preventing the reality of millions facing climate related disasters for generations?
We have the ability to change how we create products and conduct commerce that can have a major change on both climate change and pollution levels. Paul Hawken's book "The Ecology of Commerce" is just jam-packed with how we can shift our business world into a part of the solution in reducing both the impact of climate change and the level of pollution in the world.
I found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament).
She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible.
I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem.
It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect.
Ritchie states in the book, as cause for optimism, that the EU and USA have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. Which is, of course true, but not the cause for optimism that she suggests.
Since the rise of China as the world's manufacturing powerhouse, countries like the USA, those in the EU and other developed nations have essentially delegated all of their manufacturing to China which has resulted in their own emissions reducing and China's growing. Overall, global emissions are still rising - it's just that the manufacturing component of those emissions have shifted from other G20 nations to China. This makes China look like the bad guys, when actually all they are doing is producing all of our stuff for us.
Against that backdrop, you can understand why it is disingenuous for Ritchie to pick out EU and US emissions to support her case for optimism when these wealthy countries are contributing to record global emissions by buying more stuff than ever from China. At no point in her book does she caveat her positive message with these ugly truths. She's set out to write a positive book and has evidently cherry picked her data to support that thesis.
This is why Greta Thunberg urges people to keep their eye on the global emissions data and nothing else. This clarity of focus makes one immune to the positive spin that the likes of Ritchie churns out.
I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book.
(Caveat, I haven't read the book) I'm not sure what technological solutions she refers to, but there is definitely a plausible path to the required emissions reductions, without the need for system collapse, or, solar mirrors etc. We just need to implement, and that does require behaviour change (but above all, giving up on short term thinking and short term profits)
I think this comment should have a star or distinction. Very well argumented.
There are 4 big sectors for emissions we need to tackle
- Transport
- Energy
- Food
- Industry
From my understanding we have most of the tech needed for Transport and energy and some for Industry, and food is more of a behavioural thing, tho precision fermentation will also have huge impacts.
So tell me - from your understanding where are the biggest holes we have in the technologies that we need?
@@Acemeistre86% of everything we produce includes fossil-fuel-derived plastics. No plastics, no manufacturing.
Everything we build uses concrete, which uses huge amounts of fossil fuels in its production.
According to Simon Michaux, the world's leading expert on mineral mining, there are sufficient for only 1 generation of EVs and a 400% mineral shortfall to achieve a full green transition
As climate impacts wreak devastation to homes, cities, cars and belongings, the demand for the above resourves rises. It's a doom loop.
There has been a massive investment in solar and wind, but as of 2024 only 6% of our global power needs are met by renewables. And every year our economic growth and population growth outstrips the growth in the deployment of renewables. It's called Jeavons paradox.
...just a few examples of why we're utterly screwed. There are many, many more.
The amount of carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere over time is on an exponential curve with a positive gradient (accelerating faster and faster) - until this changes to a curve with a negative gradient, there is no room for any kind of optimism. What we have done so far to reverse climate breakdown - compared to what needs to be done - is indistiguishable from nothing.
It's important to state here that you shouldn't blindly accept what any individual climate scientist tells you about climate breakdown. Especially if they are saying something that you would like to hear.
It’s quite rare to listen to someone who’s spot in all areas…IMO.
Our experience with having solar, battery storage and electric vehicles with largely free solar charging, bears out that we can achieve cheap abundant energy world wide, with will and effort.
Also, cheap overnight tariffs, at 7p per kWh enabled by having EV, solar and battery storage, results in very cheap energy compared to fossil…people would be surprised.
If the last govt hadn’t basically stopped community renewable projects, we’d all be in a much better place now. We’ve got to play catch-up.
There’s no room for negativity…it’s counter productive, and just plain wrong.
Jethalal be like : Ae pagal auratt🤣🤣
Dr Ritchie has gained a lot of traction with her "can do" optimism, but she broadly misses the larger context of biophysical overshoot driven by the exponentially expanding energy metabolism of industrial civilization. For me, her conception that science + adaptation + technological innovation will save us from a diminished future is just more magical thinking, sitting atop the same fallacy of infinite growth that has delivered us to the predicament we inhabit.
Aside from crossing the 1.5 degree Celsius limit leads inevitably to the collapse of civilization be optimistic!
Transition to solving climate change is a great challenge BUT few people realise that the World will be a much cleaner and peaceful place, thanks to near zero smoke and vastly reduced machine noise.
I think solving climate change will entail a much simpler life style, which will accordingly be cleaner and more peaceful.
I think she needs to work in government; 'It is very clear we can build low carbon electricity system pretty cheaply' I am sure we would all appreciate it if she would share this secret with the Uk.
Edit: Also when she is talking about the children living in poorer countries who are at a higher risk would she include the children in the Congo there, who are effectively slaves for our green agenda when they go into dangerous holes in the ground to mine cobalt?
She is pretty
Weird, not to mention war as worst environment impacting scenario possible. And co2 ? Humans/animals inhale o2, exhale co2 > plants take up co2 for photosynthesis = growth, libarate o2...
What i also miss in those extinction discussions is the devastating effects of genetical modification in plants, animals - ask indian cotton farmers, or mosquitos (foodchain upwards?)...
Electrical vehicles are just not emitting while driving...
And soil depletion and erosion because of mono cultures - let cows take care of to recover the land... and farming vehicle big and heavy as family homes kill all worms and compromise water uptake capabilities... lab meat is far worse in energy need (beside being bread on cancer cells), insect's chitin is not suitable for humans (just as eggs not for rabbits)
It is debatable, what is dicussed. Many important aspects are even not mentioned.
Absolutely. She is just promoting her book!
You should do some reading on the global carbon cycle - perhaps it will help you understand.
Isn't it reasonable to hypothesise that even +2.5°C (above preindustrial levels) will ultimately result in a number of tipping points being breached and Human extinction within perhaps two millennia..?
To save the world we'll need to shed capitalism.
Couldn't agree more.
AMOC shuts down. THEN you will see catastrophe :-00)))
Where is the evidence that higher yield = less land developed for agriculture?? This may or may not be true in developing countries but very doubtful in capitalist economies, in fact far more likely to lead to more marginal land developed for agriculture if systems are seen to be more viable with new technology. Theres perverse incentives at play. Land is already the highest cost in agriculture in developed countries and the margins are already tight. I can't see the logic in a capitalist economy how increasing yield potential will result in less land being used for ag. No, it will only result in land being pushed harder to make up the margin. This idea that land will just be "left to go go wild" or not cleared for agriculture because we can increase yield potential is a naive baseless myth that does not play out in the real world. We just just push things harder, that's how capitalism works. Vast majority of farmers in these economies do not grow food at all. They grow commodities for the global market in order to pay for the capital cost of land. It's a system that is ever expanding and eats itself.
jordan peterson is this channels daddy
I am. Tonio custorio
Please someone explained to me why all the other planets in our Solar System are getting hotter and none of them have farting cows or s. U. V's
They aren't.
Just because your brother-in-law's dentist's second cousin says so doesn't make it true. Sheesh!
More like fake optimism.
Hannah Ritchie is not a serious thinker and her book serves best as a justification for capitalism to do nothing without the intellectual rigorousness of Bjorn Lomborg (that is an insult to anyone lucky enough to read his trashy books).
well, if you decide to go this path, u already much behind Times Radio, and perhaps we better start to watch them...
Eco-anxiety = loons pumped full of fear.
There is no climate crisis.
I did not say there was is no climate, there is no crises in the climate and whether we sea. If it was no for carbon that we are made of and breath out. humans would be on this planet.@@user-kh2rk4bd2y
@@adriangoodfellow1876 Doesn't sound like you know what you're on about.
The climate is always changing, it will change regardless of men, man made climate change is a myth the power hungry need.
@@django3422 did you not just listen to this interview!?
@@joshuajames1720 Did Ritchie say anything that could be interpreted as denial of man-made climate change?