And as they do away with the fossil fueled means of production, none of their MMT money printing, nor UBI handouts will be able to provide anyone with anything. They are instigating the collapse. Whether it's by design, by stupidity, or ideogical followings. The threat isn't from man made climate change, or even natural climate change, but the snakeskin salesmen pushing the compulsory changes to society and the economy on the back of it.
Points well made Richard - Our younger generations are acutely aware of the issues needing tackled, hence increasing frustration and anger at a political class shuffling deck-chairs, and a media class bought and paid for by a business class ignoring the approaching iceberg... Last week one of my neighbours asked me how much it would cost to in material to insulate his home to the same performance standard as my own - At first he blanched at the 750 quid, but once I'd explained the 80% saving on his annual gas bill covered it with a nice profit on top, and he saw my gas bills to prove it, he decided to go ahead. Gas heating admittedly, but an 80% reduction in annual emissions inside of a week is not to be sniffed at. How many homes could be improved and emissions lowered for 20 odd billion instead of playing silly buggers over carbon capture which will fail.....
Sadly it's not about changing attitudes. We can change everyone's attitude and the problem will still be there as long as politicians are being bought by the fossil fuel industry. The real problem is the individual personal greed of those in power. Until there are laws in place to stop politicians from benefiting from vested interest groups nothing will change and of course that is not going to happen.
It isn't about personal greed of specific individuals. It's about a system that always puts the most selfish and sociopathic in charge. It's about an economic system that is tyrannical rather than democratic. The root of climate and ecological collapse is in the system of capitalism. Other systems might also be bad, but capitalism and its addiction to GDP growth is almost uniquely bad for the environment. We need a system that is designed to deliver good living standards for all in a sustainable economy. That is called degrowth. I highly recommend Jason Hickel's book "Less is More".
It's not just politicians though, is it? This malaise was built into the system by a few individuals that has influenced many more until it has become a self fulfilling prophecy. (A few individuals? Maybe most individuals. Thatcher knew her target audience - "there's no such thing as society.." - didn't she?)
The removal of oil, either forced or by choice will mean an incredible change in everybody's attitude including politicians. This will happen in your lifetime and we are the customers of those vested interests and nobody is going to replace something we didn't create or pay the external costs of, yet. I don't know anybody that has spent less, refused pay rises, not looked forward to a holiday, so let's not ignore our part in the system. There will be no replacement for something they didn't create, 6000 products come from oil and it surrounds us, single use plastic comes from the same barrel diesel does and people still plan driving holidays. Change will happen when it runs out or we stop using the products by choice which no one I know seems to do. I disagree it's not about attitudes, if people realised that other people have been killed for oil and how bad it will become, just so they can go for a drive, it changes things. People just don't know and are kept ignorant by the state, at least change the attitude of working dead end jobs, of wasting energy towards things that aren't sustainable, mindless debt that we call money, let's at least change those things and see instead of blaming people we are customers of and calling them greedy instead of looking at ourselves. Saying they should have a replacement so we can just carry on is where the problem lies as "they" have none and if we want one of the products from oil what do we do with the other 5999? The attitude of people being self sufficient could change and the problem will be less for them, especially considering people are asking for change from those they should expect it from the least, a change in that attitude would be a great start.
@@antonyjh1234 95% of oil is burned as fuel. That's the part that's causing climate change. And there are replacements for most applications for oil as a fuel. Likewise fossil gas. Scientists aren't scratching their heads wondering about how we will survive after we phase out oil and gas production for fuel. They already know how to do that. They are all tearing their hair out and screaming at governments to act faster to phase out fossil fuels. And btw, the "it's up to us personally to fix this" is a bs concept used by the fossil fuel industry to deflect attention away from them, and the governments that facilitate them. When we had to fix the hole in the ozone layer, we didn't kindly ask people to stop buying hairspray. The entire world banned CFCs.
No money "£22 billion black hole" so we must means-test the WFA but we have found £22 billion to "invest" in the unproven technology of carbon capture rather than better public transport or more charging points for all the electric vehicles we want people to use. Don't worry politicians will chase headlines rather than do the "boring" practical things like insulate homes, make triple glazing mandatory for new homes as well as solar-panels ( can't do that it will make houses unaffordable)
Incorrect. The £22bn for carbon capture is new capital. The £22bn black is due to the Tories over promising on projects without allocating capital for them.
Changing people minds changes the pressure of government, which changes their actions and our future. It is vitally we inform anyone who is not aware of the issue or the change needed.
Great video, you set out the case very clearly and your question is "Can we create the mindset where we will survive? No, so many institutions with vested interests in Petroleum Products.
That 1980’s Carl Sagan video where he lays out what will happen if things don’t change with climate at the US congress (?) really makes me angry. We were warned over 40 years ago and did nothing. Nothing. 😢
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system. CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming. CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming. BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
Today already too late to keep 1.5c!! The shock is that "overshoot" was always going to happen! A finite world cannot sustain the infinite growth!! Instead of tackling this rationally and a drive to Global Sharing and value of Human Life we see wars, disasters, death on an ever greater scale, leaders all in the pockets of Corporations! For me, I am getting together within Wards (lowest democratic) structure to share our worries and try to find solutions! This is so crazy we need to share with each other. 73% fall in wildlife over the last 50 years!
The £21 billion will be over 25 years & is most likekly to be put into lower emission ways to produce energy and so run our industries without the recent harms. 1975 was my second year in Greece on the Isle of Sifnos when the weather patterns recorded in Greek literature over 4 thousand years broke down and continued to get worse until I left in 1984 and continue to get worse to today. At 82 I've seen 99% of insects destroyed, 95% of small birds, 90% of large birds, at least 80% to 85% of all land animals and sea creatures destroyed. Not too late but too close for comfort.
I recently attended a presentation on the north west capture project. This was presented by the cement/limestone industry who will be a big user of this system. The presentation was extensive and probably expensive too. It was explained how it would work, the alignment of the pipelines etc etc. There was a consortium of companies employing in excess of 120 engineers just on their part of the project When they were asked how much co2 would be spent on capturing, processing and transporting the captured co2 imagine my incredulity when the answer came back - "we don't know, we haven't looked at that" - followed very quickly by "next question". The honest answer would have been that this process is so energy intensive that the reduction in co2 overall is marginal. Like so many 'solutions' to this problem, many of them are practically of no benefit or cause significant problems in other areas or both. It makes you wonder who is steering the ship and why are we going in this direction.
The £21 billion is specifically to build CCS plants which private companies will then be paid to run. 1. CCS doesn't work. 2. This is just an excuse to burn fossil fuels longer 3. The money could be far better spent reducing demand and building publicly owned renewables and that would achieve much faster emissions reductions 4. It's just a giant corporate giveaway as usual It absolutely stinks.
yep these guys are doomers, it is positive but they see negative as they are all about very fine grain data on carbon this and that, yet tell them about the planet greened up by nearly 20% in 40years and they look the other way, it is like they are committed to dooming themselves. They are like Christians from a few hundred years ago who would punish themselves, it is weird.
@@ChrisInToonwanting cleaner technology and industry is a positive outlook for our countries economic and social future. This is our end goal. What’s yours?
You answered a whole stack of questions when you said , we decided to put profits first . This would imply that the western countries such as ours are in the pockets of the big corporations . This tells me everything I need to know about what's really going on . Next time the PM or any other politician says anything about climate change remember these words .
Governments put a surcharge on fuel bills to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations (aka wind farms) to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices … To which government add a a surcharge to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices … To which government add a a surcharge to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices … …
The choice is to work or not work, we worked towards profit instead of sustainable goals, we all took pay rises and went on holidays, the first time you see a politician on a platform of LESS jobs vote for them, but would you?
@@Hickalumthe problem is that renewables are cheaper and less profitable than fossil fuels. And the energy market is highly concentrated with high barriers to entry. So the only way to get the energy companies to use renewables is by padding their profits with subsidies, otherwise they will drag their feet and keep using profitable fossil fuels for as long as possible. Remember all the big energy companies have upstream divisions that make money on fossil fuel extraction and distribution.
@@rinnin 4 day week, you are funny, a ninety percent reduction in consumption won't happen if people work one day less. Degrowth of only working on either food, shelter, medical or services for the state and at most 4-5 years of your life. De growth is going back to everyone having a garden, degrowth is the removal of money if it can still buy the same amount of energy. A four day week if for the same wage then nothing has been achieved, it needs to living like they were 200 years ago, with electricity and staying home or walking, it means less jobs, overall not 20% less days working.
Human beings (homo sapiens) have been around for more than three hundred thousand years but we have wrecked the planet in just six hundred, since the advent of the industrial revolution. Perhaps we should have remained as hunter gatherers. Just a thought 🙂
This is vital stuff. The growth is exponential growth which is like continuous acceleration. It’s stupid. I first encountered Environmental Science studying Architecture from 1973. The Greenhouse Effect was one of the first topics. 1973!
Their chosen or imposed lifestyles are about to disappear. Prof Murphy doesn't mention the slowing AMOC. Drastic consequences for the UK. Where do you go when the AMOC stops?
Yes! Thank you once agin! I'm the same age and remember in the 70's ecological issues and the need to limit use of fossil fuels was in the political discourse. Then the 80's the great buy out by the oil industry in collusion with Regan-Thatcher- neoliberal economics. "The Decade We Could Have Saved the World " by N Rich an important heartbreaking enraging read. Following all your posts wish the Labour cabinet was!
I grew up in a happy coal mining area of Yorkshire, but thought it was a criminal waste of hard work to burn coal in locomotives at 8% efficiency, when it could be turned to electricity at 40% efficiency to drive local electric trains. Why has it taken so long to get back to considering trams for local transport.
@@OneAndOnlyMe That is why they made documentaries about it fronted by Leonard Nemoy . I suppose you will say the same about the ozone layer and the acid rain and the polar bears that were supposed to be extinct by now if you listened to Al Gore .
1.5C is already in the rear view mirror. I am still hoping for change but it's looking very hard. We need degrowth as described by Jason Hickel and many others. But that requires an overthrow of the ruling class when they seen more powerful, and we the people seem more disunited and distracted than ever. We need a revolution. I don't know if that's coming.
Great video and refreshing to hear from an economist. It was always too late though because virually nobody is willing to take personal repsonsibility and make essential changes, but then push back when they are legislated form We obviously need to consume considerably less but we all also need to go plant based - single biggest change to your lifestyle you can make; need to give up those overaeas holidays; need to drive much less; need to shop locally; need to shift to nuclear and renewables much more quickly; need to start embracing GMO; need to be weened off of our addiction to shiney new tech and digital; and i am afraid we need fewer people on the planet. Could go on and on and there will be push back but this all needs to happen for very obvious reasons and even then we are likley inly limit the impact of climate change. And for the record vegan with no passport that cycles and walks as much as possible, but yes i do have a car.
Definitely don't adopt a vegan diet, it's the most destructive system, based off skewed data of putting all the emissions onto the meat, while we get so much more. Crops have been pushed to subsidise meat, where more crop waste is fed than food we grow for them. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100k high, all the sprays etc go into this tiny sliver of atmosphere, crops are virtual deserts, absolutely worst system, ex.
@@zodd67 On reality that you could have checked before asking, As far as UK is concerned it is supposed to get unable to grow crops so will only be non arable land, the land we don't spray, going to all crops for food is not wise. We get far more from animals than just food though, wool, milk, gelatine to hold together toilet paper, fats that go into plastic like this device, activated carbon to filter water, leather, all these need a grown replacement, there isn't the arable land available to go crop based and get all that we get now.
We could do humans live in the here and now they do not look down the road like I’ve said in my other comments government serve not the people but business and money that is what power is all about
I am 57 now but when i was 14 growing up in essex, i work out our system is obsered and starmer can inly think about getting people to work, moron or corrupt
Like you, I saw a Horizon programme on in 1974 that showed how the oil industry was covering up the effects of oil on the planet. I was born in the same year as you and now teach economics and politics. Keep going, I enjoy your work and do use excepts in some of my lectures.
Was this the same documentary that showed that the oil industry bought all patents for electric car prototypes and subsequently shredded and shelved all research?
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system. CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming. CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming. BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
It is already way too late. People ignoring Nuclear Energy for decades. Only option left is planet scale geo-engineering and Nuclear Energy deployment. With secondary renewable energy network.
None of that replaces oil, if you want synthetic rubber on wires or mining oil will still be needed and that runs out in a few decades, the removal of plastic would be life changing for most of us. We can take electricity with us but not all energy and remove oil from your life how much do you have left?
@@antonyjh1234that's probably why it being "too late" and "geoengineering" was mentioned, for all our efforts the emissions are only growing. But we should be conducting tests now in order to determine side effects.
@@antonyjh1234 13% of petrochemicals used for non energy uses. Which would be a massive drop, it could be used as feedstock only. But in time, that could be replaced. Nuclear energy provides heat and energy to make chemicals and petrochemicals from waste products. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Irradiation of glycerol and no doubt more once processed developed nuclear energy becomes abudunat.
@@fastestkid 6000 products all come from the same barrel, if you want one of those products then the rest have to be refined off, nuclear will never replace all of that so some adjustment will have to be made, because electricity is a small part of our overall energy.
… but profit is necessary. The god worshipped is Maximum Profit, worshipped with devotion above ALL else (including safety now and the lives of future generations). This is even enshrined in law in many countries where traders, hedge funds and government can be severely fined for any action which might impinge on maximising profit and dividends to the Holy Shareholders.
If every polity takes care of their own local air and water pollution, the problem will take care of itself. We need to end African colonialism/oppression, until then, they are abused, and therefore not responsible agents.
Well said Richard. As Peter Kalmus says “we need a billion climate activists”. If everyone concerned would join their local community & activist group, lead to mass shift in conscious, put pressure on the government to #UpgradeDemocracy with #CitizensAssemblies in a #JustTransition, we can probably give a liveable (but still difficult) world to the next generation. #DeGrowth now. #XR #RebelForLife
This should have been the message back in the 90s, when I studied at SUMS. The latest trends in ocean temperatures seem to be non-linear, so perhaps Jem Bendell (Deep Adaption) was correct that it's too late and has been since before 2018. Of course we'll never hear this from the vast majority of scientists, otherwise it would cause panic and despair, exacerbating the collapse. Personally, we'll continue to reduce our carbon footprint with an electric car, vegan diet, less travel etc, if for nothing else, to mitigate our guilt for past consumption and pollution before we eventually got the message.
This is where MMT falls down, that centralizing the creation of money will lead to solutions. If we know anything it should be that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we need is the decentralization and democratization of the creation and allocation of money. We are too late to stop many of the worst effects of climate change, that change is already baked in; and it is naive to think that people that are forced to migrate will just be accommodated even if it were possible to accommodate them. Be thankful that you mostly lived in a time when human life was not cheap, it is unlikely to last.
problem is you get these "studies" saying animal agriculture is sustainable, or grass can absorb enough carbon to save life on earth, etc etc. this is to cast doubt and instil many peoples biases! we need the whole truth and the media needs to be honest and blunt with the information! thanks for this video.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system. CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming. CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming. BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
The government not building nuclear power is sick in UK. It's a small thing, but each government talks big but does not build. Been over 20 years knowing these facts and still it's just about the easy win over the next 5 fives.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system. CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming. CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming. BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
Same sentiment here at 60 years old, although came to the realisation later than you. My sons want what you want too, they both voted Labour because there was no decent alternative. I voted Green as a protest - which was all I could do. We can only hope that the budget will pivot back to the £28b they were promising before. Having watched the recent Starmer interviews I do get a sense that he knows it is necessary to get the backing of business and the markets with no return to old Labour. He talked of more investment coming in and creating stability. We have no choice but to be patient with Labour for a few years and hope their desired stability will pivot more to sustainability. I'm up for a quiet revolution if it doesn't. Thank you for your views. I still don't quite see how your thinking on taxation, government spending and money creation lead to better control over the economy - I need to understand how your ideas can be practically implemented.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system. CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming. CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming. BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
While we extol and reward the pursuit of personal interest and our systems of governance embed confrontation rather than cooperation, what hope have we?
Life has never been something that should be sustainable. Everything must come to an end at some time. Let's just make the most of burning stuff for now.
As carbon capture is being proposed for Merseyside when frustratingly the government could be moving forward with greater commitment to using the Mersey instead as generator of tidal power…
All my replies to comments about my posts here have been deleted by youtube (or someone) - it seem alternative points of view are being actively suppressed.
Thank you Richard great informative Video and stired my feelings, like you I am more than 1/2 way through my life and have been banging the drum of stainable energy. I am a big fan of PV energy and water consivation but NO one wants to listen and pay. No long term investment unlike the victorians with there Railways Public water / sewage etc Fast Buck schemes only so short sighted and GOV has no ideas based in realality ie: Mad ED MILLBAND he will doom the once great nation .
Cheer up … Over the past 150 years, while global temperature has increased about 1.3 degrees, life expectancy has increased from 30 something to 70 something. Agriculture has progressed from feeding 2 billion to feeding 9 billion, GDP per capita has gone up a factor of 7, Literacy has gone up a factor of 4 etc, etc, etc ... basically the greatest flourishing of humankind ever ... Now, they want you to believe the next 1.3 degrees is going to be an unmitigated, catastrophic nightmare ... It is pure fear mongering and propaganda. The climate ‘crisis’ is a problem invented by Giant Corporations to empty the jar marked ‘Environment’ into the coffers of Giant Corporations.
Why do I never hear an argument to get all the patents and ip related to anything to do with energy creation / usage into the public domain. All governments null and void any such things, force the corporations to release any and all documents. There may be nothing there but they may have discovered a way to create energy much cheaper and cleaner that simply is not financially incentivising for the company's.
There is one deep problem to modernity, and that is that the west never learned how to maintain itself on a set territory. It’s agricultural practices deplete and erode soil, and, over time, face food crisis. It is in that single problem that most of the imperative to growth comes from, either directly or from downstream consequences of the crisis. Growth is an imperative of a defective backwards system.
I always hate being included in the big royal "we", I get it, but it's grating. Nomad Century by Gaia Vince is an awesome book on the subject. I believe it gives you a total different perspective if we start to think there is very little free will in humanity even though it seems so intuitive and obvious there is, we have choices, but do we really have free will? Makes a huge difference if we don't, we need to understand the source of our intent.
governments/corporations/people don't have the appetite to make changes of the magnitude necessary to make a significant difference. the tipping point may not have literally been reached but it was practically crossed some time ago
Cynical me says the powers above will do the right thing only when everything else is exhausted. That is too late. We are in trouble. Yes the climate has been much hotter or colder in the past however we are racing ahead to the inevitable man made change without the time and infrastructure to adapt.
Change is hard when no-one's seen it. It's the definition of utopia, a place no-one has ever seen but we are all supposed to go towards it. A carbon value system could equalise emissions but would we change by choice if it means 90% less, could we all go back to the carbon levels of the 1800's? I think so.
4:30 not so fast. Current models for the collapse of the AMOC show it is likely to stop within the next 20 to 50 years. When it does that will create dramatic climatic change in the UK. Winter temperatures in Scotland and the north of England will be 30 C lower than currently.it will also create huge storms during the summer as well as droughts and catastrophic flooding. So the idea that the UK is going to be a safe country in the coming decades is unfortunately false.
Is it us or is it our political economic system - our political economy? And if it is the system, what is the fundamental nature of a system that needs to change? It's not simply growth, it's whatever it is about the system that requires growth. And that, under capitalism, is that there is an inextricable link between wealth, power and capital.
Let's be honest - if restrictions are brought in, we all know who will suffer or be restricted. It will be the poorer sections of society. The rich and the politicians (no matter what their colour) will glob-trot around the world and everyone else will have to "stay at home". If restrictions are to be implemented we should ensure that ALL people are equally restricted - no matter what their wealth or social status is. Also, to minimize carbon emissions due to the transportation of goods, each country should attempt to be as self-sufficient as possible (where this is possible). It will mean the end (or great reduction) to globalization. On another point, it will be China, India, and Africa (BRICS) who will decide the future - not us. Unless we can get them on-board, what we do will be "pissing in the wind". It will not be as if we can put political or economic pressure on them - they are becoming too powerful for that!
Democratic socialists believe that increasing democracy in all institutions necessarily leads to a political-economy that serves the interests of the many, rather than the few. I think the same is true for addressing a changing climate. If we had an economics built for democracy, and a political system built for democracy, we'd have a much higher standard of living AND stand a chance of addressing the climate-related problems. And we'd have fewer wars. Without a democratic revolution in politics and economics, climate catastrophe for all seems inevitable - assuming we survive the push toward the nuclear annihilation of humanity. (By current estimates, a nuclear war is expected to last 72 minutes at a cost of 5 billion people, with the remaining 3 billion sacrificed in a nuclear winter. NATO stooge Kid Starver scares the crap out of me)
Yeah but you try stopping people having the latest technology and/or flying abroad on holiday. Yes we need the corporations to step up and do something but ordinary people also need to change their mindset 😐
Hell mend them as the saying goes. Yes, Greenpeace has been going for years but their message wasn't taken seriously soon enough. BRICS won't change so it's rather like quitting harmful smoking whilst your other half won't. You're still at risk. Then there is the fossil fuel market. Prices are hyped to pay for sustainable green technology as we have no control over the market having sold our own UK resources off, in some cases not even for what they're worth. Corporate profits before our needs.
Environmentalists highlight the consequences of climate change yet oppose our most effective means of mitigation such as nuclear power. In terms of renewable energy a Severn barrage would represent the largest asset in Europe yet the greens don't like that either. As for when is too late, we've almost certainly passed that point, carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for centuries and thus impacts temperatures over that time frame. Moreover China continues to expand its use of fossil fuels. Against this background we need to develop means of climate engineering or else adapt to our changing climate. Perhaps unsurprisingly environmentalists are opposed to the former.
The earth will recover if we make steps to reduce our use of fuels but governments want the taxes we pay for these fuels and the vehicles that use them, of boilers etc. I worked in a factory in the 1960’s with 22,000 other workers. Hardly anyone could afford a car and there was a massive fleet of busses to transport the workers. Now we have families with several cars per household. Young people expect to own and drive a car. They expect central heating (I never had this). All this extra spending helps the economy and the taxes go to help our society. I think the millennial generation will throw their toys out of the pram if they have to live how the old people had to.
We are certainly heading for civilisational collapse. Not sure that it is climate related though. As for survival, the rule in nature is that "generalists" survive a change in ecology i.e. those able to adapt. For our purposes a generalist isn't someone who watches computer games all day; or works to prop up, in some way, the global managerial system and who depends on a migrant arriving with a Deliveroo pizza to stay alive. Sorry if that's you. Better get some real skills
Geoengineering Watch with Dane Wigington has history and resources on geoengineering projects. Weather weapons were banned by the UN in 1978. Mass extinction events always occur when planetary levels of carbon dioxide fall below 150 parts per million, (1.50%). Planetary levels of carbon dioxide are at 4 parts per million (0.04%). When available levels of planetary atmospheric carbon dioxide fall to 2 parts per million (0.02%) then all plant photosynthesis will end with the catastrophic collapse if available atmospheric oxygen in addition to crop failures. Levels of carbon dioxide have been as low as 3 parts per million or 0.03%. The planet and human civilisation need carbon dioxide, need nitrogen and need oxygen. Climate change agenda is terraforming the planet and terraforming the people. Planetwide temperature data gas been rigged by removing thousands of sensors and relocating sensors to areas of higher temperatures to skew data.
Don't forget that in 1967 the worlds population was 3.47 Billion, today it's 8.2 Billion and it's increasing by around 70 million per year and with that comes increasing demand and that will drive climate change as some countries strive to fill those demands without caring about the climate..
Our economy is a subset of our ecology - we seem to teach the opposite. Our metrics of climate, wellbeing, social inequality, inequity, political conflicts, […] are all abstractions to the same ecological holistic, showing parallel trends for the same reasons - i.e. NOT for _separate and isolated_ reasons. Reductionism works for science and tools - our labour and work. It doesn’t for imagining anything outside the given “box” of current abstractions or normatives - our being. Stretching the dichotomy of “doing” and “being” beyond the constraints of ecology now carries costs beyond our means. Our given metrics and solutions become irrational - insights of change, but also for suffering from resisting change. General philosophy is a “tool” that may bridge epistemology and our ontological tensions. Needed answers are usually close to the box, but seldom found within it…
We need to learn to live better with less; which is totally possible. Stop coveting the material and find the spiritual. Halt the advance of the military industrial complex and it's promotion of the pound/dollar, turning abundance into scarcity.
Some of us have been saying this, campaigning about this, since the 70s. We tried, but what we failed to do was get these ideas outside the small bubble I now realise we were in, failed spectacularly. For that, I apologise.
A story written to justify the Club of Rome being self appointed demugods. Climate is always changing, the worst decline in food production and nature Ive witnessed in 70 years has occured in the last two years of obvious geoengineering and volcano driven changes. This doom and gloom, and the "must accept consequences" is heard only from those who have chosen to be railroaded by globalists posing as climate experts. There is mich that can be done to mitigate real climate change that does not require populations to slosh around the world. It just sepends on how and where resources are used. Globalists are destroying small farms everywhere, but permaculture is a massive environmebtal benefit. And so on. Wars consume vast resources and destroy environments, so maybe instead of this self flagellation we should try peace and prosperity.
@@thomaswikstrand8397 it’s almost like it was an exaggeration back then. Don’t forget the same people who were saying the parts of Miami would be underwater at the same people who are buying what is presently beachfront property. That either is staggering display of altruism to make sure that poor individuals don’t pick up that property or it’s because they don’t actually believe what they spout.
@@thomaswikstrand8397 short term would be something less than 40 years plus another 20, 40, 60… etc. they don’t believe it but expect you to alter your lifestyle in a way they wont.
If it is vital that we reduce emissions of devil-gas, why have we had 27 years of by far the highest immigration in our history, with almost all of the immigrants coming from countries with much lower, often very much lower, per capita emissions? And exactly how does exporting our industry help?
@@keithshippey230 10,000 years ago they told the peasants to collect the flesh of RA the sun god from creeks, this was gold, and they might get an extra sheaf of wheat, we now have money, the level of control of the masses goes much further back than Cameron.
Given that strong solar activity has been shown to interact with the Earth's magnetic field to increase the effects of El Niño, etc, which is increases storms, floods, and leads to temperature extremes, and that the Earth’s magnetic field has been slowly declining since the C19, but accelerating in a more rapid loss since 2010 or so, to around 75% of its full field strength that we see today, which amplifies the sun’s effect, would this not account for a lot of the climate issues? There’s clear evidence for the weakling magnetic field - low latitude aurora from weak X1 class solar flares that we’d never see around 20:years ago when the field was stronger. Is this effect built into the climate models we typically see, or has CO2 been cherry picked to be the only problem?
@@robmaslen6446 i’d be more inclined to believe them if all of these rich elite who were spouting off about climate change weren’t all buying beachfront property which is supposed to be underwater about five years ago. I’m not denying that climate changes isn’t real. All I’m saying is I think that the crisis elements of this is grossly over exaggerated for the same profit motivations being touted in this video
@@antonyjh1234 everything I have I own there’s nobody who can take a single thing that I have away from me. I’m perfectly happy just the way I am thank you very much.
On average, the World is wealthier, healthier, safer and better educated than its ever been. This is due almost entirely to per capita economic growth. The percentage of the World's population that dies each year from natural disasters, including adverse weather conditions, is in long term decline, as is the percentage of the World's GDP lost to such events. The economic costs imposed by a changing climate during the rest of this century will be dwarfed by the benefits of continuing economic growth over the same period. Infinite per capita economic growth doesn't require infinite resources, as growth will come from how finite resources are used and reused.
None of us know anything about climate change because there is so much dishonesty swirling around it. The dishonesty is on both sides off the argument. I used to believe that global warming was the enormous problem it is presented as, but now decades later I take a more pragmatic view. We see real world effects that are categorically blamed on global warming which in all honesty shouldn't be attributed as such. We see 'solutions' to the 'problem' that simply aren't solutions. We see unimaginable amounts of money being spent on these solutions and they achieve nothing. We see actual real world solutions being squashed or ignored for no apparent reason We see crypto coin miners devouring the electrical energy of entire countries to 'mine' crypto - this would be stopped immediately if the threat from global warming was as is it presented. Many of the issues you mentioned in this video are partly or mainly caused by factors other than co2/global warming. Richard your work on economics is relatively well informed and evidence based - I'd suggest either keep out of the global warming debate or treat the issues/evidence with the same care/scepticism/nuance instead of reiterating alarm. After there is more than enough ill-informed alarmism out there already - you don't need to switch people like me off by joining them
@@malcolm8564 great answer - play the man not the ball - you do highlight one of the main problems with this subject which is inability of some of the participants to engage - so thanks for that.
How can we feed and house all these incoming peoples, even if we are willing to take them; when we cannot grow enough food, or build enough houses NOW?
I like the work of Tim Morgan on this. His assertion that "the economy is an energy system and not a financial one", is I feel, very insightful.
And as they do away with the fossil fueled means of production, none of their MMT money printing, nor UBI handouts will be able to provide anyone with anything. They are instigating the collapse. Whether it's by design, by stupidity, or ideogical followings. The threat isn't from man made climate change, or even natural climate change, but the snakeskin salesmen pushing the compulsory changes to society and the economy on the back of it.
Not read him (yet), but sounds like he knows something most economists don't understand
Steve Keen has similar ideas
Points well made Richard - Our younger generations are acutely aware of the issues needing tackled, hence increasing frustration and anger at a political class shuffling deck-chairs, and a media class bought and paid for by a business class ignoring the approaching iceberg...
Last week one of my neighbours asked me how much it would cost to in material to insulate his home to the same performance standard as my own - At first he blanched at the 750 quid, but once I'd explained the 80% saving on his annual gas bill covered it with a nice profit on top, and he saw my gas bills to prove it, he decided to go ahead.
Gas heating admittedly, but an 80% reduction in annual emissions inside of a week is not to be sniffed at.
How many homes could be improved and emissions lowered for 20 odd billion instead of playing silly buggers over carbon capture which will fail.....
Sadly it's not about changing attitudes. We can change everyone's attitude and the problem will still be there as long as politicians are being bought by the fossil fuel industry. The real problem is the individual personal greed of those in power. Until there are laws in place to stop politicians from benefiting from vested interest groups nothing will change and of course that is not going to happen.
It isn't about personal greed of specific individuals. It's about a system that always puts the most selfish and sociopathic in charge. It's about an economic system that is tyrannical rather than democratic.
The root of climate and ecological collapse is in the system of capitalism. Other systems might also be bad, but capitalism and its addiction to GDP growth is almost uniquely bad for the environment.
We need a system that is designed to deliver good living standards for all in a sustainable economy. That is called degrowth. I highly recommend Jason Hickel's book "Less is More".
Oxbridge and the LSE graduates control the UK. Oxbridge has the highest plagiarism rates in the UK. The corruption is trained over into them.
It's not just politicians though, is it? This malaise was built into the system by a few individuals that has influenced many more until it has become a self fulfilling prophecy.
(A few individuals? Maybe most individuals. Thatcher knew her target audience - "there's no such thing as society.." - didn't she?)
The removal of oil, either forced or by choice will mean an incredible change in everybody's attitude including politicians. This will happen in your lifetime and we are the customers of those vested interests and nobody is going to replace something we didn't create or pay the external costs of, yet.
I don't know anybody that has spent less, refused pay rises, not looked forward to a holiday, so let's not ignore our part in the system. There will be no replacement for something they didn't create, 6000 products come from oil and it surrounds us, single use plastic comes from the same barrel diesel does and people still plan driving holidays.
Change will happen when it runs out or we stop using the products by choice which no one I know seems to do. I disagree it's not about attitudes, if people realised that other people have been killed for oil and how bad it will become, just so they can go for a drive, it changes things. People just don't know and are kept ignorant by the state, at least change the attitude of working dead end jobs, of wasting energy towards things that aren't sustainable, mindless debt that we call money, let's at least change those things and see instead of blaming people we are customers of and calling them greedy instead of looking at ourselves.
Saying they should have a replacement so we can just carry on is where the problem lies as "they" have none and if we want one of the products from oil what do we do with the other 5999?
The attitude of people being self sufficient could change and the problem will be less for them, especially considering people are asking for change from those they should expect it from the least, a change in that attitude would be a great start.
@@antonyjh1234 95% of oil is burned as fuel. That's the part that's causing climate change. And there are replacements for most applications for oil as a fuel.
Likewise fossil gas.
Scientists aren't scratching their heads wondering about how we will survive after we phase out oil and gas production for fuel. They already know how to do that.
They are all tearing their hair out and screaming at governments to act faster to phase out fossil fuels.
And btw, the "it's up to us personally to fix this" is a bs concept used by the fossil fuel industry to deflect attention away from them, and the governments that facilitate them.
When we had to fix the hole in the ozone layer, we didn't kindly ask people to stop buying hairspray.
The entire world banned CFCs.
No money "£22 billion black hole" so we must means-test the WFA but we have found £22 billion to "invest" in the unproven technology of carbon capture rather than better public transport or more charging points for all the electric vehicles we want people to use.
Don't worry politicians will chase headlines rather than do the "boring" practical things like insulate homes, make triple glazing mandatory for new homes as well as solar-panels ( can't do that it will make houses unaffordable)
Incorrect. The £22bn for carbon capture is new capital. The £22bn black is due to the Tories over promising on projects without allocating capital for them.
Changing people minds changes the pressure of government, which changes their actions and our future. It is vitally we inform anyone who is not aware of the issue or the change needed.
Great video, you set out the case very clearly and your question is "Can we create the mindset where we will survive? No, so many institutions with vested interests in Petroleum Products.
That 1980’s Carl Sagan video where he lays out what will happen if things don’t change with climate at the US congress (?) really makes me angry. We were warned over 40 years ago and did nothing. Nothing. 😢
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos
CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system.
CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming.
CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming.
BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
Today already too late to keep 1.5c!! The shock is that "overshoot" was always going to happen! A finite world cannot sustain the infinite growth!! Instead of tackling this rationally and a drive to Global Sharing and value of Human Life we see wars, disasters, death on an ever greater scale, leaders all in the pockets of Corporations! For me, I am getting together within Wards (lowest democratic) structure to share our worries and try to find solutions! This is so crazy we need to share with each other. 73% fall in wildlife over the last 50 years!
The £21 billion will be over 25 years & is most likekly to be put into lower emission ways to produce energy and so run our industries without the recent harms. 1975 was my second year in Greece on the Isle of Sifnos when the weather patterns recorded in Greek literature over 4 thousand years broke down and continued to get worse until I left in 1984 and continue to get worse to today. At 82 I've seen 99% of insects destroyed, 95% of small birds, 90% of large birds, at least 80% to 85% of all land animals and sea creatures destroyed. Not too late but too close for comfort.
I recently attended a presentation on the north west capture project. This was presented by the cement/limestone industry who will be a big user of this system. The presentation was extensive and probably expensive too. It was explained how it would work, the alignment of the pipelines etc etc. There was a consortium of companies employing in excess of 120 engineers just on their part of the project
When they were asked how much co2 would be spent on capturing, processing and transporting the captured co2 imagine my incredulity when the answer came back - "we don't know, we haven't looked at that" - followed very quickly by "next question".
The honest answer would have been that this process is so energy intensive that the reduction in co2 overall is marginal.
Like so many 'solutions' to this problem, many of them are practically of no benefit or cause significant problems in other areas or both. It makes you wonder who is steering the ship and why are we going in this direction.
The £21 billion is specifically to build CCS plants which private companies will then be paid to run.
1. CCS doesn't work.
2. This is just an excuse to burn fossil fuels longer
3. The money could be far better spent reducing demand and building publicly owned renewables and that would achieve much faster emissions reductions
4. It's just a giant corporate giveaway as usual
It absolutely stinks.
Limits to Growth....Yet the planet has greened up by 14% since 1980.
yep these guys are doomers, it is positive but they see negative as they are all about very fine grain data on carbon this and that, yet tell them about the planet greened up by nearly 20% in 40years and they look the other way, it is like they are committed to dooming themselves. They are like Christians from a few hundred years ago who would punish themselves, it is weird.
@@ChrisInToonwanting cleaner technology and industry is a positive outlook for our countries economic and social future. This is our end goal. What’s yours?
@@Redf322 My comment appears to have been removed for some reason
Powerful point Richard. Economic growth is destroying our planet. Well said.
You answered a whole stack of questions when you said , we decided to put profits first .
This would imply that the western countries such as ours are in the pockets of the big corporations .
This tells me everything I need to know about what's really going on .
Next time the PM or any other politician says anything about climate change remember these words .
Governments put a surcharge on fuel bills to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations (aka wind farms) to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices …
To which government add a a surcharge to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices …
To which government add a a surcharge to pay giant corporations to build renewable power stations to make ever increasing profits at ever increasing prices …
…
The choice is to work or not work, we worked towards profit instead of sustainable goals, we all took pay rises and went on holidays, the first time you see a politician on a platform of LESS jobs vote for them, but would you?
I’d vote for people advocating a 4 day work week, degrowth and public luxury over private sufficiency.
@@Hickalumthe problem is that renewables are cheaper and less profitable than fossil fuels. And the energy market is highly concentrated with high barriers to entry. So the only way to get the energy companies to use renewables is by padding their profits with subsidies, otherwise they will drag their feet and keep using profitable fossil fuels for as long as possible. Remember all the big energy companies have upstream divisions that make money on fossil fuel extraction and distribution.
@@rinnin 4 day week, you are funny, a ninety percent reduction in consumption won't happen if people work one day less.
Degrowth of only working on either food, shelter, medical or services for the state and at most 4-5 years of your life.
De growth is going back to everyone having a garden, degrowth is the removal of money if it can still buy the same amount of energy.
A four day week if for the same wage then nothing has been achieved, it needs to living like they were 200 years ago, with electricity and staying home or walking, it means less jobs, overall not 20% less days working.
We are a couple of decades late to stop it having a massive impact on our future but there's still a very narrow window to avoid absolute catastrophe
Rachel Carson was my first introduction to this issue.
I just read that the world bank is still financing fossil fuel projects around the world. That should have stopped decades ago.
And who is the World Bank but a Bank? Try harder.
The future seems bleak, regardless if climate change is tackled or not.
Human beings (homo sapiens) have been around for more than three hundred thousand years but we have wrecked the planet in just six hundred, since the advent of the industrial revolution. Perhaps we should have remained as hunter gatherers. Just a thought 🙂
Actually since the Age of Exploration, colonisation, empire & capitalism. We were well on the way before Big Oil which turbocharged the destruction.
This is vital stuff.
The growth is exponential growth which is like continuous acceleration. It’s stupid.
I first encountered Environmental Science studying Architecture from 1973.
The Greenhouse Effect was one of the first topics.
1973!
People don't vote against their chosen lifestyles.
Their chosen or imposed lifestyles are about to disappear. Prof Murphy doesn't mention the slowing AMOC. Drastic consequences for the UK. Where do you go when the AMOC stops?
thanks for the clear voice
Yes! Thank you once agin! I'm the same age and remember in the 70's ecological issues and the need to limit use of fossil fuels was in the political discourse. Then the 80's the great buy out by the oil industry in collusion with Regan-Thatcher- neoliberal economics. "The Decade We Could Have Saved the World " by N Rich an important heartbreaking enraging read. Following all your posts wish the Labour cabinet was!
Bush Senior said we had a choice between the environment or jobs and then we all went back to work.
I grew up in a happy coal mining area of Yorkshire, but thought it was a criminal waste of hard work to burn coal in locomotives at 8% efficiency, when it could be turned to electricity at 40% efficiency to drive local electric trains. Why has it taken so long to get back to considering trams for local transport.
Why has the South of England got electric trains, while West Yorkshire is still meakly waiting for an electric Metro?
Fools think electric buses with heavy batteries(fire risk) are better than trams.
Thanks Richard, the more voices we have saying this the better, but I share your fears about the future.
Too late for Florida! As an American who loved vacationing there, I'm really going to miss it!
I'm still waiting for the upcoing Ice Age that was predicted in the 1970's.
If the gulf stream breaks down,which is possible with meltting ice,we will get one.
Scientists never said when the ice age would come, they only said it would cause one. They were talking in the timeframes of ecological disasters.
@@OneAndOnlyMe That is why they made documentaries about it fronted by Leonard Nemoy . I suppose you will say the same about the ozone layer and the acid rain and the polar bears that were supposed to be extinct by now if you listened to Al Gore .
We're actually in an Ice Age right now. We just happen to be in an interglacial period.
The change comes slowly but it is too late.
1.5C is already in the rear view mirror.
I am still hoping for change but it's looking very hard.
We need degrowth as described by Jason Hickel and many others.
But that requires an overthrow of the ruling class when they seen more powerful, and we the people seem more disunited and distracted than ever.
We need a revolution. I don't know if that's coming.
Climate change must have fried the brains of those in charge.how did we end up with so many nutters in charge?
Great video and refreshing to hear from an economist. It was always too late though because virually nobody is willing to take personal repsonsibility and make essential changes, but then push back when they are legislated form We obviously need to consume considerably less but we all also need to go plant based - single biggest change to your lifestyle you can make; need to give up those overaeas holidays; need to drive much less; need to shop locally; need to shift to nuclear and renewables much more quickly; need to start embracing GMO; need to be weened off of our addiction to shiney new tech and digital; and i am afraid we need fewer people on the planet. Could go on and on and there will be push back but this all needs to happen for very obvious reasons and even then we are likley inly limit the impact of climate change.
And for the record vegan with no passport that cycles and walks as much as possible, but yes i do have a car.
You have articulated what I have been thinking for a number of years.
"The planet is burning!" "Dispose of your car, stop taking flights, adopt a vegan diet, put a green tariff on your electric." "Steady on..."
Definitely don't adopt a vegan diet, it's the most destructive system, based off skewed data of putting all the emissions onto the meat, while we get so much more. Crops have been pushed to subsidise meat, where more crop waste is fed than food we grow for them. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is 100k high, all the sprays etc go into this tiny sliver of atmosphere, crops are virtual deserts, absolutely worst system, ex.
Yup; when it comes to the choice between our luxuries and saving our planet we go for the former every time 🤬
more crop waste goes to animals than food we grow for them as ex v, don't believe the hype.
@@antonyjh1234based on what evidence?
@@zodd67 On reality that you could have checked before asking, As far as UK is concerned it is supposed to get unable to grow crops so will only be non arable land, the land we don't spray, going to all crops for food is not wise. We get far more from animals than just food though, wool, milk, gelatine to hold together toilet paper, fats that go into plastic like this device, activated carbon to filter water, leather, all these need a grown replacement, there isn't the arable land available to go crop based and get all that we get now.
We could do humans live in the here and now they do not look down the road like I’ve said in my other comments government serve not the people but business and money that is what power is all about
I am 57 now but when i was 14 growing up in essex, i work out our system is obsered and starmer can inly think about getting people to work, moron or corrupt
Like you, I saw a Horizon programme on in 1974 that showed how the oil industry was covering up the effects of oil on the planet. I was born in the same year as you and now teach economics and politics. Keep going, I enjoy your work and do use excepts in some of my lectures.
Was this the same documentary that showed that the oil industry bought all patents for electric car prototypes and subsequently shredded and shelved all research?
Illuminate for me … What are these secret “effects on the planet” that are being covered up ?
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos
CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system.
CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming.
CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming.
BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
It is already way too late. People ignoring Nuclear Energy for decades. Only option left is planet scale geo-engineering and Nuclear Energy deployment. With secondary renewable energy network.
None of that replaces oil, if you want synthetic rubber on wires or mining oil will still be needed and that runs out in a few decades, the removal of plastic would be life changing for most of us. We can take electricity with us but not all energy and remove oil from your life how much do you have left?
@@antonyjh1234that's probably why it being "too late" and "geoengineering" was mentioned, for all our efforts the emissions are only growing.
But we should be conducting tests now in order to determine side effects.
@@antonyjh1234; “Oil runs out in a few decades” … I first heard that in the ‘60s.
@@antonyjh1234 13% of petrochemicals used for non energy uses. Which would be a massive drop, it could be used as feedstock only. But in time, that could be replaced. Nuclear energy provides heat and energy to make chemicals and petrochemicals from waste products. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, Irradiation of glycerol and no doubt more once processed developed nuclear energy becomes abudunat.
@@fastestkid 6000 products all come from the same barrel, if you want one of those products then the rest have to be refined off, nuclear will never replace all of that so some adjustment will have to be made, because electricity is a small part of our overall energy.
“On a planet of finite resources, to talk of unlimited or unending growth one has to be either mad or an economist.”
Sir David Attenborough
The god of profit has brought us to our knees.
… but profit is necessary. The god worshipped is Maximum Profit, worshipped with devotion above ALL else (including safety now and the lives of future generations). This is even enshrined in law in many countries where traders, hedge funds and government can be severely fined for any action which might impinge on maximising profit and dividends to the Holy Shareholders.
Profit and GDP growth.
The twin altars in the dark temple of capitalism.
It's far wider than UK £22bn on co2 capture. It's far wider than a looking through the lens of country with a fee million people
If every polity takes care of their own local air and water pollution, the problem will take care of itself. We need to end African colonialism/oppression, until then, they are abused, and therefore not responsible agents.
Well said Richard. As Peter Kalmus says “we need a billion climate activists”. If everyone concerned would join their local community & activist group, lead to mass shift in conscious, put pressure on the government to #UpgradeDemocracy with #CitizensAssemblies in a #JustTransition, we can probably give a liveable (but still difficult) world to the next generation. #DeGrowth now. #XR #RebelForLife
This should have been the message back in the 90s, when I studied at SUMS. The latest trends in ocean temperatures seem to be non-linear, so perhaps Jem Bendell (Deep Adaption) was correct that it's too late and has been since before 2018. Of course we'll never hear this from the vast majority of scientists, otherwise it would cause panic and despair, exacerbating the collapse. Personally, we'll continue to reduce our carbon footprint with an electric car, vegan diet, less travel etc, if for nothing else, to mitigate our guilt for past consumption and pollution before we eventually got the message.
This is where MMT falls down, that centralizing the creation of money will lead to solutions. If we know anything it should be that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What we need is the decentralization and democratization of the creation and allocation of money. We are too late to stop many of the worst effects of climate change, that change is already baked in; and it is naive to think that people that are forced to migrate will just be accommodated even if it were possible to accommodate them. Be thankful that you mostly lived in a time when human life was not cheap, it is unlikely to last.
Fixing climate change is easy.... Fixing climate change AND keeping the people profiting that currently do from how things are is the difficulty.
problem is you get these "studies" saying animal agriculture is sustainable, or grass can absorb enough carbon to save life on earth, etc etc. this is to cast doubt and instil many peoples biases! we need the whole truth and the media needs to be honest and blunt with the information! thanks for this video.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos
CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system.
CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming.
CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming.
BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
The government not building nuclear power is sick in UK.
It's a small thing, but each government talks big but does not build.
Been over 20 years knowing these facts and still it's just about the easy win over the next 5 fives.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos
CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system.
CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming.
CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming.
BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
It's already too late...has been for a long time.
Same sentiment here at 60 years old, although came to the realisation later than you. My sons want what you want too, they both voted Labour because there was no decent alternative. I voted Green as a protest - which was all I could do. We can only hope that the budget will pivot back to the £28b they were promising before. Having watched the recent Starmer interviews I do get a sense that he knows it is necessary to get the backing of business and the markets with no return to old Labour. He talked of more investment coming in and creating stability. We have no choice but to be patient with Labour for a few years and hope their desired stability will pivot more to sustainability. I'm up for a quiet revolution if it doesn't. Thank you for your views. I still don't quite see how your thinking on taxation, government spending and money creation lead to better control over the economy - I need to understand how your ideas can be practically implemented.
- 50 years ago the so called experts (govt chosen) were saying we are heading for an ICE AGE - I have the videos
CO2 Net Zero is yet another control system.
CO2 makes up ONLY 4 Hundredths of ONE percent of the atmosphere - that's 0.04 % and is NOT causing runaway warming.
CO2 we are told was 50x higher in the days of the dinosaurs, and clearly didn't lead to unstoppable warming.
BTW - I am all for reducing pollution - they can start with Chemtrails (now banned in 7 US states) and cleaning up our rivers and seas.
STOP WARS PEACE FOR OUR WORLD 🌎 🙏
While we extol and reward the pursuit of personal interest and our systems of governance embed confrontation rather than cooperation, what hope have we?
Life has never been something that should be sustainable. Everything must come to an end at some time. Let's just make the most of burning stuff for now.
Nope.
We could, we won't.
As carbon capture is being proposed for Merseyside when frustratingly the government could be moving forward with greater commitment to using the Mersey instead as generator of tidal power…
All my replies to comments about my posts here have been deleted by youtube (or someone) - it seem alternative points of view are being actively suppressed.
Thank you Richard great informative Video and stired my feelings, like you I am more than 1/2 way through my life and have been banging the drum of stainable energy. I am a big fan of PV energy and water consivation but NO one wants to listen and pay. No long term investment unlike the victorians with there Railways Public water / sewage etc Fast Buck schemes only so short sighted and GOV has no ideas based in realality ie: Mad ED MILLBAND he will doom the once great nation .
reading the comments leaves me with little hope
Cheer up …
Over the past 150 years, while global temperature has increased about 1.3 degrees, life expectancy has increased from 30 something to 70 something. Agriculture has progressed from feeding 2 billion to feeding 9 billion, GDP per capita has gone up a factor of 7, Literacy has gone up a factor of 4 etc, etc, etc ... basically the greatest flourishing of humankind ever ...
Now, they want you to believe the next 1.3 degrees is going to be an unmitigated, catastrophic nightmare ... It is pure fear mongering and propaganda.
The climate ‘crisis’ is a problem invented by Giant Corporations to empty the jar marked ‘Environment’ into the coffers of Giant Corporations.
I've been looking at the subject for fifty years, OK that's enough of this nonsense.
Why do I never hear an argument to get all the patents and ip related to anything to do with energy creation / usage into the public domain. All governments null and void any such things, force the corporations to release any and all documents. There may be nothing there but they may have discovered a way to create energy much cheaper and cleaner that simply is not financially incentivising for the company's.
There is one deep problem to modernity, and that is that the west never learned how to maintain itself on a set territory. It’s agricultural practices deplete and erode soil, and, over time, face food crisis. It is in that single problem that most of the imperative to growth comes from, either directly or from downstream consequences of the crisis. Growth is an imperative of a defective backwards system.
100%
More on the interface of MMT, degrowth and ecological economics please.
"it's too late to be ready"
Dogen Zenji
I always hate being included in the big royal "we", I get it, but it's grating.
Nomad Century by Gaia Vince is an awesome book on the subject.
I believe it gives you a total different perspective if we start to think there is very little free will in humanity even though it seems so intuitive and obvious there is, we have choices, but do we really have free will? Makes a huge difference if we don't, we need to understand the source of our intent.
governments/corporations/people don't have the appetite to make changes of the magnitude necessary to make a significant difference. the tipping point may not have literally been reached but it was practically crossed some time ago
This resonates so much, brilliant video, thank you so much for putting it out.
Cynical me says the powers above will do the right thing only when everything else is exhausted. That is too late. We are in trouble. Yes the climate has been much hotter or colder in the past however we are racing ahead to the inevitable man made change without the time and infrastructure to adapt.
Change is hard when no-one's seen it. It's the definition of utopia, a place no-one has ever seen but we are all supposed to go towards it.
A carbon value system could equalise emissions but would we change by choice if it means 90% less, could we all go back to the carbon levels of the 1800's? I think so.
4:30 not so fast. Current models for the collapse of the AMOC show it is likely to stop within the next 20 to 50 years. When it does that will create dramatic climatic change in the UK. Winter temperatures in Scotland and the north of England will be 30 C lower than currently.it will also create huge storms during the summer as well as droughts and catastrophic flooding. So the idea that the UK is going to be a safe country in the coming decades is unfortunately false.
Is it us or is it our political economic system - our political economy? And if it is the system, what is the fundamental nature of a system that needs to change? It's not simply growth, it's whatever it is about the system that requires growth. And that, under capitalism, is that there is an inextricable link between wealth, power and capital.
We will not go quietly into the goodnight, that's for sure at least. I don't care that's cliché.
Let's be honest - if restrictions are brought in, we all know who will suffer or be restricted. It will be the poorer sections of society.
The rich and the politicians (no matter what their colour) will glob-trot around the world and everyone else will have to "stay at home".
If restrictions are to be implemented we should ensure that ALL people are equally restricted - no matter what their wealth or social status is.
Also, to minimize carbon emissions due to the transportation of goods, each country should attempt to be as self-sufficient as possible (where this is possible).
It will mean the end (or great reduction) to globalization.
On another point, it will be China, India, and Africa (BRICS) who will decide the future - not us. Unless we can get them on-board, what we do will be "pissing in the wind".
It will not be as if we can put political or economic pressure on them - they are becoming too powerful for that!
Democratic socialists believe that increasing democracy in all institutions necessarily leads to a political-economy that serves the interests of the many, rather than the few. I think the same is true for addressing a changing climate. If we had an economics built for democracy, and a political system built for democracy, we'd have a much higher standard of living AND stand a chance of addressing the climate-related problems. And we'd have fewer wars. Without a democratic revolution in politics and economics, climate catastrophe for all seems inevitable - assuming we survive the push toward the nuclear annihilation of humanity.
(By current estimates, a nuclear war is expected to last 72 minutes at a cost of 5 billion people, with the remaining 3 billion sacrificed in a nuclear winter. NATO stooge Kid Starver scares the crap out of me)
Yeah but you try stopping people having the latest technology and/or flying abroad on holiday. Yes we need the corporations to step up and do something but ordinary people also need to change their mindset 😐
Hell mend them as the saying goes. Yes, Greenpeace has been going for years but their message wasn't taken seriously soon enough.
BRICS won't change so it's rather like quitting harmful smoking whilst your other half won't. You're still at risk.
Then there is the fossil fuel market. Prices are hyped to pay for sustainable green technology as we have no control over the market having sold our own UK resources off, in some cases not even for what they're worth. Corporate profits before our needs.
Environmentalists highlight the consequences of climate change yet oppose our most effective means of mitigation such as nuclear power. In terms of renewable energy a Severn barrage would represent the largest asset in Europe yet the greens don't like that either. As for when is too late, we've almost certainly passed that point, carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for centuries and thus impacts temperatures over that time frame. Moreover China continues to expand its use of fossil fuels. Against this background we need to develop means of climate engineering or else adapt to our changing climate. Perhaps unsurprisingly environmentalists are opposed to the former.
Man..I am going to change the weather..
Mother Nature..😂
Maybe we should do things better and repair things. Oh of course this is not counted as GDP!
There will be blood...................
The earth will recover if we make steps to reduce our use of fuels but governments want the taxes we pay for these fuels and the vehicles that use them, of boilers etc. I worked in a factory in the 1960’s with 22,000 other workers. Hardly anyone could afford a car and there was a massive fleet of busses to transport the workers. Now we have families with several cars per household. Young people expect to own and drive a car. They expect central heating (I never had this). All this extra spending helps the economy and the taxes go to help our society. I think the millennial generation will throw their toys out of the pram if they have to live how the old people had to.
Atir-Rozenzwieg-Dunning effect on display here. The statement about Hurricanes is just plain wrong.
We are certainly heading for civilisational collapse. Not sure that it is climate related though.
As for survival, the rule in nature is that "generalists" survive a change in ecology i.e. those able to adapt.
For our purposes a generalist isn't someone who watches computer games all day; or works to prop up, in some way, the global managerial system and who depends on a migrant arriving with a Deliveroo pizza to stay alive.
Sorry if that's you. Better get some real skills
Geoengineering Watch with Dane Wigington has history and resources on geoengineering projects.
Weather weapons were banned by the UN in 1978.
Mass extinction events always occur when planetary levels of carbon dioxide fall below 150 parts per million, (1.50%).
Planetary levels of carbon dioxide are at 4 parts per million (0.04%).
When available levels of planetary atmospheric carbon dioxide fall to 2 parts per million (0.02%) then all plant photosynthesis will end with the catastrophic collapse if available atmospheric oxygen in addition to crop failures.
Levels of carbon dioxide have been as low as 3 parts per million or 0.03%.
The planet and human civilisation need carbon dioxide, need nitrogen and need oxygen.
Climate change agenda is terraforming the planet and terraforming the people.
Planetwide temperature data gas been rigged by removing thousands of sensors and relocating sensors to areas of higher temperatures to skew data.
Don't forget that in 1967 the worlds population was 3.47 Billion, today it's 8.2 Billion and it's increasing by around 70 million per year and with that comes increasing demand and that will drive climate change as some countries strive to fill those demands without caring about the climate..
Our economy is a subset of our ecology - we seem to teach the opposite.
Our metrics of climate, wellbeing, social inequality, inequity, political conflicts, […] are all abstractions to the same ecological holistic, showing parallel trends for the same reasons - i.e. NOT for _separate and isolated_ reasons.
Reductionism works for science and tools - our labour and work. It doesn’t for imagining anything outside the given “box” of current abstractions or normatives - our being.
Stretching the dichotomy of “doing” and “being” beyond the constraints of ecology now carries costs beyond our means. Our given metrics and solutions become irrational - insights of change, but also for suffering from resisting change.
General philosophy is a “tool” that may bridge epistemology and our ontological tensions. Needed answers are usually close to the box, but seldom found within it…
we are the carbon they want rid of!
They will take your words, your light, your fire, your family, your food, your freedom.
We need to learn to live better with less; which is totally possible. Stop coveting the material and find the spiritual. Halt the advance of the military industrial complex and it's promotion of the pound/dollar, turning abundance into scarcity.
Some of us have been saying this, campaigning about this, since the 70s. We tried, but what we failed to do was get these ideas outside the small bubble I now realise we were in, failed spectacularly. For that, I apologise.
Similar age. Similar story. Could make practically all the same comments.
Nuclear power ftw 🤷
I've been hearing that story since the 80's....
A story written to justify the Club of Rome being self appointed demugods. Climate is always changing, the worst decline in food production and nature Ive witnessed in 70 years has occured in the last two years of obvious geoengineering and volcano driven changes. This doom and gloom, and the "must accept consequences" is heard only from those who have chosen to be railroaded by globalists posing as climate experts. There is mich that can be done to mitigate real climate change that does not require populations to slosh around the world. It just sepends on how and where resources are used. Globalists are destroying small farms everywhere, but permaculture is a massive environmebtal benefit. And so on. Wars consume vast resources and destroy environments, so maybe instead of this self flagellation we should try peace and prosperity.
Almost like important things don't happen overnight.
@@thomaswikstrand8397 it’s almost like it was an exaggeration back then. Don’t forget the same people who were saying the parts of Miami would be underwater at the same people who are buying what is presently beachfront property. That either is staggering display of altruism to make sure that poor individuals don’t pick up that property or it’s because they don’t actually believe what they spout.
@@jameswlong Short-termism.
@@thomaswikstrand8397 short term would be something less than 40 years plus another 20, 40, 60… etc. they don’t believe it but expect you to alter your lifestyle in a way they wont.
If it is vital that we reduce emissions of devil-gas, why have we had 27 years of by far the highest immigration in our history, with almost all of the immigrants coming from countries with much lower, often very much lower, per capita emissions?
And exactly how does exporting our industry help?
Richard, you are a fantasic economist but you havent got a clue regarding climate change. Please stick to economics.
You are seeing the end of life as we know it!!
For more info on CCS ua-cam.com/video/MSZgoFyuHC8/v-deo.html
We should be living in a direct democracy but someone sabotaged it called starmer
Stop thinking it's one person, this is global.
14 years of Tory rule yet 3 months of a Labour government & everything is Starmer's fault. What a muppet!
@@zetectic7968 I’d like to see you call me a muppet to my face
@@antonyjh1234 it’s been covered up from when David Cameron was Prime Minister
@@keithshippey230 10,000 years ago they told the peasants to collect the flesh of RA the sun god from creeks, this was gold, and they might get an extra sheaf of wheat, we now have money, the level of control of the masses goes much further back than Cameron.
Given that strong solar activity has been shown to interact with the Earth's magnetic field to increase the effects of El Niño, etc, which is increases storms, floods, and leads to temperature extremes, and that the Earth’s magnetic field has been slowly declining since the C19, but accelerating in a more rapid loss since 2010 or so, to around 75% of its full field strength that we see today, which amplifies the sun’s effect, would this not account for a lot of the climate issues?
There’s clear evidence for the weakling magnetic field - low latitude aurora from weak X1 class solar flares that we’d never see around 20:years ago when the field was stronger.
Is this effect built into the climate models we typically see, or has CO2 been cherry picked to be the only problem?
Bollocks. It’s just an excuse to impose taxes. GDP per capita is a far more insightful measure and not the most important.
Yep complete bull shit.
You forgot to say “you will own nothing and be happy”.
How about "you and your children will have a chance of survival". Or is survival just too expensive?
What is definitely true is the complete collapse of biodiversity in many parts of the world, regardless of whether climate change has occurred
@@robmaslen6446 i’d be more inclined to believe them if all of these rich elite who were spouting off about climate change weren’t all buying beachfront property which is supposed to be underwater about five years ago. I’m not denying that climate changes isn’t real. All I’m saying is I think that the crisis elements of this is grossly over exaggerated for the same profit motivations being touted in this video
Like you own anything now, you basically rent and what's wrong with happy?
@@antonyjh1234 everything I have I own there’s nobody who can take a single thing that I have away from me. I’m perfectly happy just the way I am thank you very much.
On average, the World is wealthier, healthier, safer and better educated than its ever been. This is due almost entirely to per capita economic growth. The percentage of the World's population that dies each year from natural disasters, including adverse weather conditions, is in long term decline, as is the percentage of the World's GDP lost to such events. The economic costs imposed by a changing climate during the rest of this century will be dwarfed by the benefits of continuing economic growth over the same period. Infinite per capita economic growth doesn't require infinite resources, as growth will come from how finite resources are used and reused.
None of us know anything about climate change because there is so much dishonesty swirling around it.
The dishonesty is on both sides off the argument.
I used to believe that global warming was the enormous problem it is presented as, but now decades later I take a more pragmatic view.
We see real world effects that are categorically blamed on global warming which in all honesty shouldn't be attributed as such.
We see 'solutions' to the 'problem' that simply aren't solutions.
We see unimaginable amounts of money being spent on these solutions and they achieve nothing.
We see actual real world solutions being squashed or ignored for no apparent reason
We see crypto coin miners devouring the electrical energy of entire countries to 'mine' crypto - this would be stopped immediately if the threat from global warming was as is it presented.
Many of the issues you mentioned in this video are partly or mainly caused by factors other than co2/global warming.
Richard your work on economics is relatively well informed and evidence based - I'd suggest either keep out of the global warming debate or treat the issues/evidence with the same care/scepticism/nuance instead of reiterating alarm. After there is more than enough ill-informed alarmism out there already - you don't need to switch people like me off by joining them
You've already decided to ignore science and side with the deniers.
@@malcolm8564 great answer - play the man not the ball - you do highlight one of the main problems with this subject which is inability of some of the participants to engage - so thanks for that.
How can we feed and house all these incoming peoples, even if we are willing to take them; when we cannot grow enough food, or build enough houses NOW?
Tell that to Robert Jenrick, not to mention his Black-White opponent! 😁
So what, shit happens! Do you really think some of us care?
Thanks for the miss information, you lie