Climate Scientist reacts to Greta Thunberg's speeches |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- Over the past 12 months, Greta Thunberg has become one of the most recognisable faces of the climate change movement, and was even just named Time Person of the Year. Culminating with this year’s climate negotiations, I give my climate scientist take on the impact of her words, and some of the science behind their message.
-Timestamps-
00:00 Introduction
02:05 Helsinki 2018
03:28 Katowice #COP24 2018
06:56 World Economic Forum 2019
13:00 New York United Nations 2019
20:29 Madrid #COP25 passing the mic
22:14 Madrid #COP25 Greta's address
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: / climateadam
#CreatorsForChange #ClimateChange #GretaThunberg #Greta #TimePersonOfTheYear #ClimateStrike
twitter: / climateadam
facebook: / climateadam
instagram: / climate_adam ==MORE INFO== Speeches Links
The Rules have changed: • The rules have to chan...
Greta Thunberg full speech at UN Climate Change COP24 Conference: • Greta Thunberg full sp...
Greta Thunberg: Our House Is On Fire! • Greta Thunberg: Our Ho...
Greta Thunberg's full speech to world leaders at UN Climate Action Summit: • WATCH: Greta Thunberg'...
Indigenous press conference: • LIVE: Pressekonferenz ...
COP25 address: • DIRECTO COP25 | Nueva ...
Activists joining Greta at COP25:
Carlon Zackhras
Rose Whipple: youthprise.org/blog/rose-whip...
Hilda Flavia Nakabuye
Arshak Makichyan
Angela Valenzuela
Kisha Erah Muaña
Vanessa Nakate
Other young activists (not an exhaustive list at all!):
Alexandria Villaseñor
Jamie Margolin
Isra Hirsi
Noga Levy Rapoport
Mari Copeny
Kevin J. Patel
Elsa Mengistu
Nadia Nazar
Xiye Bastida
Further reading:
time.com/person-of-the-year-2...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
www.vox.com/2019/2/21/1823320...
www.vox.com/identities/2019/1...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
News compilation source: www.newsnow.co.uk/h/UK/Climat... - Наука та технологія
For more, check the time stamps and links below. And try to make sure you comment on the content of what Greta Thunberg says, rather than how you perceive her. If you can't do that, take some time to ask yourself why not ❤️.
Timestamps:
Helsinki 2018: 02:05
Katowice #COP24 2018: 03:28
World Economic Forum 2019: 06:56
New York United Nations 2019: 13:00
Madrid #COP25 passing the mic: 20:29
Madrid #COP25 Greta's address: 22:14
Full speeches:
The Rules have changed: ua-cam.com/video/_17VnmSxcbM/v-deo.html
Greta Thunberg full speech at UN Climate Change COP24 Conference: ua-cam.com/video/VFkQSGyeCWg/v-deo.html
Greta Thunberg: Our House Is On Fire! ua-cam.com/video/M7dVF9xylaw/v-deo.html
Greta Thunberg's full speech to world leaders at UN Climate Action Summit: ua-cam.com/video/KAJsdgTPJpU/v-deo.html
Indigenous press conference: ua-cam.com/video/Vm4_CQb8-L0/v-deo.html
COP25 address: ua-cam.com/video/yA3N9YndJ3I/v-deo.html
thanks, maybe pin this at the top?
"AHWR" Thorium reactors can be cheaper than fossil fuel if fast tracked reducing CO2 emissions. Perforene Graphene filters can be used to desalinate the ocean using just 1% the energy consumption of previous desalination methods. this can be used for reforestation! Focus needs to be on innovation, rather than end of world drama which provokes terrorism. Greta has become a terrorist.
Oh the innocence of December 2019 :D
Nice to have an opinion from some who is qualified about climate. TY Adam for all that you do and have done. Whether you like Greta or not you have to admit she got us thinking.
In my opinion, Greta is way more intelligent than he is and his view of environmentalism is multi-dimensionally cherry-picked. He ignores a handful of undeniable and urgent environmental issues, rather than having to blatantly deny them.
@@jordanhalmosman9957 There really are no well substantiated studies are being ignored.
Far to many people want instant gratification from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep. That lifestyle leaves a tremendous carbon footprint. I'm 55 with no children, but it is hardly fair and moral to let the most vulnerable in the world suffer and or die because of our gluttonous selfish desires.
Then do something about it
@@chuckydombroski Oh hello how are you? You doing alright? I have been doing something about it. I'm vegetarian, recycle, don't fly , bicycle to grocery, don't have any children, barely ever have a/c on. My bank is a local credit union and I try to buy local produce. I live a pretty low key, low carbon foot print life. Now, don't get me wrong that's compared to 90% of American's and 1st world nation people. However compared to people in Sudan and West Congo I pollute a lot more then them cause you see in Dallas, Texas you have to have a car. They have some of the worst public transportation for any major American city. It's not like Boston! When your job is 16 miles from your home you can't walk there or bicycle when it's 103 degrees F for 4 months straight. Not eating meat and no children those are the biggies. How about you? Maybe, by telling me how you've done it I can get some more ideas. I'll wait for your response, I'm looking forward to your creative and innovative lifestyle and/or changes.
@@chuckydombroski Hello again, how are you? It's been 16 hours since you told me to do something about it and I responded by telling you what I was doing. Surely, in the intervening hours you have been able to read my public comment in response to yours? I'm just asking you this again so you can tell me how I can to go even further as you have done, since you so strongly stated that I do something about it. Please show me the innovative lifestyle you adopted so I can also add that to my arsenal in combating man made climate change. Hopefully, you'll pass along your wonderful changes soon. I'll be anxiously waiting thank you, Chucky!!
@@Odes1Angel Oh hello, how are you? You doin alright. I was hoping that someone would respond to my posts and you've done so thanks very cool. Yea, Mr. Odes it's been a rough life for me, however I've learned some things ya know and although my life is gonna be ok at best, I think adults owe it to younger people and generations not to have to experience and suffer some of the things ( I won't name them) I had to. Well, thanks for your comment it's welcome and have some peaceful days. Try to focus on doing your best for the health of life in this world all life. Take care!
@@Odes1Angel Oh I missed this comment are you saying climateAdam doesn't care are you a friend of his? did he tell you that? I think he's spot on and very cool! I learn a lot from him.
I love that it is a young person with new ideas. I have always believed that the old ideas are bad (not all) & we really,really need not just new but young ideas....!
Sorry for late answer, but this is NOT her ideas!
The irony... Nothing she says in new, these are old outdated ideas...
I am listening back to this 2 yr later. Dear Greta. she hasnet given up but she may be getting tired. She was right, she is right. You are right.
Thanks for clarifying the thing about un-included feedbacks. I've found it very hard to get good info on what is and isn't modelled, in order to assess the accuracy of what people are saying. Generally Thunberg is pretty accurate (she checks her stuff with Kevin Andersen and I trust him to get stuff right). But some people fail to distinguish between 'inevitable' and 'worst possible case' (McPherson and some XR people). That's not helpful IMHO.
We never seem to hear from the actual modellers and integrated assessment people. I don't even know who they are. Sometimes you can find good info in a particular field (e.g. Tom Crowther on which soil feedbacks are/aren't included). What I think is really important is are any of the un-included feedbacks really significant enough to signifantly change the trajectory? My understanding is that all the important stuff is in and we are just making things more accurate now (even though the combined soil feedback is equivalent to something like an extra large country like the US of emissions, which sounds pretty significant (+13%?). And I guess the ice-cliff instability makes a very big difference to the rate of large ice-shelf retreat, so not the final numbers, but changing the time period from 300 years to 40 or something.
The methane hydrate thing is confusing too. Plenty of people say there is no mechanism for major releases without temps getting up to at least 4C so those saying it's going to happen this decade (McPherson again) are talking complete bollocks. Wadhams and Beckwith both tend to the pessimistic, but aim to be within the bounds of reasonable possibilities, and they worry about this. What do you think?
That's enough for now - but thanks for reviewing Greta's excellent work - my reactions match yours almost exactly.
I don't know enough about hydrates to know when they would become an issue, but I guess that's one of the reasons to include them in models (though I imagine they have been modelled independently).
There are *huge* uncertainties in the impacts of ice sheet and ice cliff instability... Understandably, since these are processes we have very few observations to constrain.
As for permafrost, though, that seems something that you'd hope to be included in our future assessments very soon..! Don't know what cmip6 models are looking like..
@@ClimateAdam "Don't know what cmip6 models are looking like.."
At the moment some are running very hot - as in YIKES!!! hot - and there's a lot of consideration and checking going on
@@nicholaspalmer2220 Yeah I saw there seems to a bimodal distribution coming out of CMIP6 with a new hump around 5. Which is 'surprising'. The Crowther lab arctic/sub-arctic soils info is about 2 years old - I don't know if that means it's made it into cmip6. I hope so as it seems to be one of the largest remaining unmodelled pieces.
@@xxwookey We have to hope that the 'hot' CMIP6 models are in error, or else we truly are in serious trouble!
@@dayshadow39 If your silly conspiracy theories and fallacious assertions had any validity, Big Oil would be shouting them from the rooftops to avoid the threat to their humongous financial bottom lines that climate policies pose. They're not. You're wrong.
Adam, what options available for us (especially the Governments), to tackle this climate change issue? And what cost (both financial & lifestyle) do we all have to pay for that?
First of all, STOP voting for the fucking paid-for politicians elected to protect the fucking oil & gas & coal industries.
How's that?
@@mrunning10 every politician is paid. And to think not so, IS NAIVE. Of course there are exceptions. But that's probably 1 out of a million politicians.
IF... we can manage to only vote for the clean politicians, there will be no one left to run the government.
Also, to think that this is possible, IS NAIVE.
And, how do we know that we voted for the clean politicians; not paid ones?
Everything we see on the media about politics is all fabricated.
No one is holding their integrity in politics. It's all about power game.
And to think that a politician is clean by what one's saying in the media, IS ALSO NAIVE.
@@mrunning10 the other thing is...
Do we now really have the technology to replace all the oil, gas, coals that we use everyday?
Is the technology sustainable & capable enough to replace the insanely massive amount of energy demand that we all as humans consume?
My cousin studied chemical engineering. Her paper is about chemical compound used for solar panel manufacturing.
She told me that the reason we still can't solve the climate issue is that we still don't have reliable technologies to replace fossil fuels.
All of the options available right now is either inefficient in providing us the energy we needed, or it is not affordable for all.
So, if there's no such technology yet, then forcing to ban those companies are just a highway to disaster.
Have you seen the effect of the energy shortage on Europe's society & economy?
Even you commenting on my comment on this platform (YT), requires energy from your phone battery.
That battery requires electricity periodically to recharge itself.
Do you realize how much energy source required to recharge that single phone?
I'm not talking about how much coal needed per single charge only. I'm talking about all the lithium, all the copper, all the plastic, all the rubber, all the iron to manufacture a single battery; all the gasoline, all the steel, all the rubber, all the lubricating oil to operate the excavator to extract all the coals we needed to recharge the battery.
Not to mention all the meats, vegetables, pesticides, fertilizers, hormones to grow the foods eaten to fuel all the workers who work at the coal mines, oil & gas refineries.
(Don't forget that growing crops & raising cattles also requires another amount os energies!)
The climate issue is not a simple problem. Stop acting so naive, and look at the problem holistically.
I'm not pro-fossil fuel. I love this planet too.
But to oversimplify this massive problem, is just NAIVE.
If you stop all those companies activities, without providing a reliable solution; you will just bring a destructive catastrophy to mankind in no time!
All industry that exist now will entirely collapse, because of the shortage of supplies to support the industry from operating.
Countless people will die, all thanks to people like Greta & all of you, who are SO NAIVE & IGNORANT.
Instead of studying hard to find the soultion & mindfully use the planet's resources; going out on rally to get social validations, wasting so much resources for rally atributes, for attention-seeking actions (justifications for raising-awareness; like people aren't aware of the issue already), and blah blah blah...
Shame on THE NAIVETY, THE HIPOCRISY, AND THE IGNORANCE...
@@dr.charlestjang9789 Nuclear energy is a wonderful option that we’ve had for a long time now. If the major governments around the world invested less in fossil fuels and instead invested more in nuclear energy then that would help solve the climate crisis.
@@yancgc5098and all that you will get is the "nuclear bad" fearmongering response that vastly exaggerates the dangers of modern nuclear reactors. It's sadly been pushed by oil companies and sef proclaimed "green" activitists for decades.
Important work because it comes from a scientist corroborating what Greta has been saying. And she is saying it is not about me, it is about the science. Finishes with a call to action. What are YOU going to do about climate change?
let it happen...as it's happened for billions of years. let. it. happen...because nothing us puny humans will do can change it.
All fossil emissions (and it is only fossil emissions that matter) start with fossil extraction and propagate by trade. All fossil extraction or trade begin with licenses or permits OK'd by some public servant somewhere. The only way to hit the emissions targets Science tells us we need to achieve is to lead the target: relative to 2019 levels cap emissions below 90% by 2021, 80% by 2022, 70% in 2023 down to 0% in 2030. Find out what public servants OK those licenses and permits and educate them on how vital this is, and remove them from their positions if they can't learn to do their FREAKING JOB.
What I dislike about media coverage of people like Thurnberg (or Nye, or Gore..etc) is that it seems most people just end up debating what those people have to say, or finding faults in them and thinking that discredits their concerns... despite the fact these people are not climatologists, and we have access to plenty of information about what ACTUAL experts think, which get way less coverage.
2 years later and it's still the same old strategy from reactionaries
Who wrote her speeches?
The main suspect is a girl named Greta Thunberg.
She did.
FYI. Actually, Greta said "real zero" (@ 23:57) not "net zero". What's called "net zero emissions" or "carbon neutrality" doesn't mean that there will be no emissions but that emissions will 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 be balanced by sequestration of an equal amount of carbon dioxide. Emissions minus amount sequestered = 0. This means that capitalis'ts will still be able to produce and combust fossil fuels with continuing leaks, spills, poisonings, explosions, pollution, cancers, etc. Net zero should not be an option. 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭 zero, like Greta said, should be the goal.
24:09..."we know the world needs to get to net zero carbon dioxide emissions round the middle of the century if we're to stay under 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. So that means the entire world not emitting carbon dioxide in the middle of the century"...
21:39..."we will all be affected by climate change but we will not all be affected by climate change equally"...
Through the anthropogenic sixth great mass extinction we all will be dead.
On the "global south", remember that all counties have ruling classes and working classes. The ruling classes of a given country exploit and get rich off the labour of their national working classes. This happens whether the country is in the "global south" or anywhere else. Inequality between owning classes and producing classes exists within all nations today. The concept that the "global south" as being somehow separate and apart from the global economy is fallacious. The "global north" does not exploit the "global south". Capitalist's exploit labour and natural resources whether they're north, south, east or west.
Capitalist profit considerations aside though, we either live and act as a united species planetwide harmoniously with the biosphere as a whole, or, we go extinct. Not only greenhouse gas emissions gotta go but also capitalist social relations and it's necessity for compound economic growth month to month, year to year, decade on decade, etc.
I think I might have been a few days or a week late to finding out about the school strike, but then I saw some video coverage of it and followed her, and then when I saw the video of the first big speech I sent her a positive comment on twitter and she followed me back. I have to say I’m quite proud of that even if it is a silly thing.
And I’ve followed her closely ever since. I think it was obvious a few weeks into it that this wasn’t going to go away and she had the potential to break through into the mainstream consciousness, and of course she has in a bigger way than anyone could have expected.
Good job Adam we need more people like you cheers from chicago
moshay Sett ... Over 4000 additional subscribers Agree !
She's absolutely amazing to me!
She's an inspiration to me, who also has Asperger's
This is such a great video! I'm the kid closest to the camera in the COP25 FFF protest (not the one with yellow hair).
oh wow you're famous! and glad you enjoyed the vid! really glad you enjoyed the vid.
Doesn't UA-cam let you delete the troll comments, Adam?
I am not a troll, I am a person with a different point of view. Why would you need to silence me. I am not the enemy to be shut down just a person with a different view, who can show some facts too. I respect you have your view and I'm sharing mine, that use to be a good way to work together to find the actual truth, which I would like to believe we all are really wanting to know
@@fizzytins3793 You're quite fact-free so far. But really it's worse than that; nobody is actually as stupid as you're pretending to be, which means you're just a bad faith troll.
Support Climate Leaders,
Dump Climate Deniers.
If not you then who
If not now then when.
Join in and speak up.
Great video, thank you!
Thanks for watching, Gomes!
"How will you add your voice to this conversation?" Well said. Everyone here, find gentle ways to share thoughts and feelings regarding climate change. That's how to build social momentum
The best way to actually learn is ranting about somebody's claims :)
I love these videos
Thank you for being one of the only you tubers to talk about Climate Change from a scientific standpoint. This is so important
Don't forget Potholer54's channel...
Do u know more channels (besides our changing climate)
@@neildegrassetyson2615
Sorry, i don't quite understand what you're looking for. Climate change related channels?
The idea of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere is stupid.
We dug up carbon, not carbon dioxide. We then combined it with oxygen in the atmosphere.
For every atom of carbon we return underground via CO2 capture, we take two atoms of oxygen out of the atmosphere.
she got well now in Sweden because she sat outside the politicians office in Stockholm with a sign that said 'skolstrejka för klimatet' Witch Mean school strike for the climate
Trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. How about paying, from the carbon tax raised, countries in South America, Congolese Africa, and South East Asian countries to stop deforestation, monitored from satellites? A bonus is that we save some of the biodiversity that is being lost by deforestation of the evergreen tropical belt. Obviously, in the interim period, we need to reduce our emissions, but halting deforestation would give us a bit more time to achieve that.
Fully agreed.
Thank you Adam!. Great to see the list of other young activists in your notes. Your vids are making a difference!
Thanks Adam, I learned a lot from your commentary on Greta's comments. The emphasis on not simply 'hoping' but getting on with radically changing everything is so important.
Wy was there no tipping point when CO2 was 2000 ppm or 1500 or 800 or 4000. ? Because there are negative feedbacks as well like in almost every physical system. Computer models inherently tend to result in tipping points where there are none in reality. I am baffled about the ignorance even among climate scientists when it comes to how history is treated vs computer models.
there is no computer at the current time powerful enough to simulate climate as realist as possible, what they end up doing is discard many variables that are important and why their computer models are always wrong.
This was excellent, thank you! During all the controversy about Greta I never actually watched the speeches, I guess because I knew I'd agree with her anyway. I've always been more curious about the reactions to her, because to me that's an indication of whether what she's saying is having an (positive) impact. Sometimes it's hard to know if panic is the best way of making an impact, although I guess if we consider humans are often motivated to act because of a fear of missing out on something... Well perhaps panic is a useful emotion to evoke. That being said, in Australia where I'm from, our Prime Minister seems to be becoming more ignorant and inactive in response to people's panic, preventing people from protesting about climate change despite the entire country being engulfed in fire and smoke. Perhaps it depends on the leaders' fight or flight response as to how they will act on this...
I'd definitely recommend watching some of the speeches in full too if you have the time!
And yes, Australia and America seem to be competing for who can bury their heads deepest in the sand.. 😔
I didn't watch her speeches either. I didn't want to be influenced by an emotional presentation.
@@ClimateAdam "This video details how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology hides Australia's hottest temperatures, which occurred before the year 1910"; ua-cam.com/video/WppbuIoyXdg/v-deo.html
Katherine. " Mass Climate Hypnosis” - ua-cam.com/video/6T-Yrrg5iJs/v-deo.html, v637g.app.goo.gl/JCtZxBnT5ub2Yz4J6, $11M boost ua-cam.com/video/ADM8Khhveuc/v-deo.html
@@ClimateAdam I've just watched the first four speeches you've linked, and for those I really appreciate how her speech about "The Rules Have Changed" foreshadowing everything else to come. The rules have changed so that children can actually combine their voices and tell the powers that be that they are aware and unhappy. The rules have changed so that people are talking about what leaders are doing (or not doing) to make change, rather than talking so much about whether or not climate change is actually happening. Even in Australia ScoMo is saying climate change is happening, despite still failing to acknowledge the extent of human influence. The rules have also changed to some extent where people are focusing on panic more than hope. The rules have changed such that the focus seems more international than it ever has previously.
I've got to say too that it speaks to me personally based on my experience. I learnt about anthropogenic climate change (and other human-induced environmental catastrophes) from a young age and was confused as to why it wasn't more talked about or acted upon. I suppose I also didn't know what there was to do about it. But as Greta highlights, this is rightfully so. It shouldn't be up to children to tell the adults to listen to climate scientists. Nowadays, however, young people can interact across the globe through the internet, and I think this is probably a huge driver for how someone like Greta could be moved to act, and also gain the traction that she has. I think if it weren't Greta herself at this moment in time, it would have been some other young person to tell it like it is.
As another note, I really love that at the World Economic Forum, she talked about "climate budget". Perhaps this concept can speak to the economy-centric boomers. We are in debt to our atmosphere. When you're financially in debt, you look at your cashflow, figure out where the problems are, and start knocking down those debts piece by piece. Governments need to do the same with our climate debt.
“Most impressive is the work of Citizens' Climate Lobby… If you want to join the fight to save the planet, to save creation for your grandchildren, there is no more effective step you could take than becoming an active member of this group.” - James Hansen
Adam, did you know that Greta is related to one of Carl von Linnaeus most prominent deciples, Carl Peter Thunberg. I think that’s quite interesting. There’s a flower in Japan named after him. Thunbergia Alata. And I think Greta has a newly found species of frog named after her too. Pristimantis gretathunbergae. :) So cool.
How can we help In a day to day capacity? I already recycle with diligence and fly as little as possible. How else can I help?
Eat lower on the food chain, take public transit, utilize renewable energy.
Every time you reach out your hand to turn on a motor or a machine of any kind, ask yourself, "Do I need that machine to be turned on?" If the answer is "no", don't turn it on. If the answer is "yes" think about how you can change that answer next time. Do it every time, it takes practice to get good at it.
Join an activist organization!
Natacha is great that you recycle and choose less polluted ways to live your life, the other way you can help is to continue to educate yourself and make sure that you are fact checking. It may be useful for you to look up climategate www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html. The sad thing is that because we are being so consumed about c02 we are not working at better ways to deal with the real pollutants
@@ericbray4286 Public transit is only reduces your footprint if you live in the city. Urban and rural routes are worse than cars. The reason for this is the off hours where they still need to run with few or no passengers. A bus gets between 2-4 km / L diesel, so 8-10 times than of a car and there is additional footprint for hired drivers, so a bus needs roughly 15 passengers on average to pollute as little as a car with one passenger. Same with trains, even with 45g CO2 per passenger km, it makes better sense to to use your car as your holiday vehicle (remember Greta rather drives than go by train, when she needs to be somewhere with a group of people). With 4 people in the car, you get as low as 30g CO2 per passenger km or 23g if you drive a compact. What is bad is commuting alone in a car, most likely in rush hours. Then you are worse than any other kind of transport. Cycling wont save the planet either. Average yearly footprint from food production per EU citizen is 3.5 tonnes. That means if you increase your calorie intake by 20%, which is typical if you commute 20km daily on your bicycle, you emit 118g CO2/km = worse than a car. The solution to low CO2 transport, is really to get a job close to your home, walk or carpool with your neighbour. Driving an EV is really not an option yet, as all current models are too power hungry. The only production model that emits marginally less than a gasoline car, with the current 330g CO2/kWh in Europe, is the Renault Twizzy. The ideal vehicle for individual transport is an E-bike at 16g CO2/km and electric scooters, as long as you buy and own them, as opposed to renting, that has an enormous overhead from service, charging and generating profit to their company.
Another important area is you household energy consumption. That means top notch insulation in accordance with current energy codes, even if your house is older, so stuff your ceiling, make sure your vapor barrier is intact. Thermal energy windows and LED lighting. light sensors and every pc in your house hibernating when not in use, . My single work PC which doesn't allows for that because tech support requires remote desktop access 24/7, uses 40W when idling with the monitor off! That is still 350kWh per year or roughly 70kg CO2. Recycling makes sense sometimes, but using less packaging in the first place is better. Recycling paper has almost as big a footprint as cutting trees, but it saves on trees! In that respect, plastic is better to recycle, however it still has a larger energy footprint than virgin plastic, so it has to potential to be much cleaner if the the national grid becomes renewable. SO in reality, currently any kind of recycling, is not reducing your emissions, sadly! Your food: You know what to do, and as it accounts for roughly 1/3 of your personal footprint, eating meat as often as you eat brandy chocolates, will have the greatest impact of your emissions.
i am looking for the statement that scientist sent to un secretary general after greta's how dare you speech. can't find it anywhere now on hte internet
Great video! Thank you :)
I appreciate your great video and am sure you are reflective on these matters over time but the reason Ms. Thunberg deals with 1.5 as a black & white issue is twofold: one, it is an Agreement, The Paris Agreement, that measures commitment and to which disturbing tendencies to evade the Agreement are revealing, second it is widely held to be an insupportable turning point into insurmountable disaster, an estimate that serves as a sort of consensus, three, as there may well be, it is still theoretically attainable. Loose talk on this topic can feed denial.
Why oh why can anyone not get her name right.. Why is it that even people with a brain don't get this right..????
I remember actually looking it up at the time I made this video and finding a video of her being introduced at the start of a talk, and assuming that the introducer must have checked and got it right.
sadly, my assumption was wrong!
Great Sumery of Greata's famous speeches. She does an excellent job. Adam, too. But I disagree on Adams opinion on the 1.5 degree warming not being black and white. There are indications, that the world will warm up by at least 0.5 degree even if we stop carbon emissions today. And we will only then see, which ecosystems will survive. And they need to survive for many generations - don't forget that even 0.1% lower or higher reproduction rates of any organism will sum up to big effects over generations. Taking this into account, I doubt that there is any possibility to forsee, how long the amazonian rainforest will stay or how the methanogen producing microorganisms will do in the soil or open sea. The 1.5 degree target is not at all a save habor.
It's not a topic that I've looked into in great depth, but Glen Peters has, and points out that once net emissions of CO2 go to zero, the warming (from CO2) should too:
twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1190186866445869056?s=19
(note I think there's some confusion, because if CO2 *concentrations* were held constant then there would be some additional warming)
Other things *would* continue to change, though, most notably sea levels as ice and ocean temperatures gradually equilibrated.
Definitely agree there are no safe harbours though. Every bit of warming we can avoid matters.
Much more info in this thread too:
twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1190391489836322818?s=19
Watching this video was even more excruciating the Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Greta’s comments are obvious from a script given to her. So I don’t pay any attention to her. But Adam’s fawning admiration for her is the worst. All feelings and emotion. I’ve heard numerous of predictions of environmental and climate doom since the 1970’s. None of them have come true, so pardon me for my healthy bit of scepticism about the latest round of them.
You should have come to Australia and seen the fires up close, the numerous homes currently being written off as the floods every 5-10 years to new highs makes building property untenable and the land yielding no value, the farmers struggling with intense droughts, and a myriad of other issues. The problem is people like you want one big catastrophe but it’s just going to be our conditions increasingly worsening as global warming increases. In the research rarely are the timeframes as certain but the trend and projected potential impacts are clear… why won’t we prepare. Better to be safe than sorry.
@@Coastpsych_fi99 I don’t need to come to Australia to see wildfires and floods. We get enough of them here in Canada. I prefer to get climate information from experts like Australians Ian Plimer and Robert Carter, Canadian Patrick Moore and American Richard Lintzen. Not some Swedish teenager and scientific illiterate politicians. We live on a climatic and geologically active planet. It seems to me that people like you just want to moan about how awful it is rather than prepare for the inevitable. Climate works in short and long term cycles over thousands of years and today isn’t anything special or unusual. We just need get down and prepare for what climate and geology will throw at us.
This is pretty great video :). I've had a bunch of conversations about Greta recently, and I have somewhat mixed feelings about her. One thing she really has going for her is that her facts are basically correct, which I don't feel is often the case at all. And she has had an enormous impact in bringing climate action to the forefront, for reasons you said. And while it's obviously great what she's doing, I feel her tone has changed a lot recently, going from emotional to what I see as more aggressive, which I don't think helps at all for actually getting something done. I've heard her pointing the finger as well, even at "green" politicians and climate scientists for not doing enough (i.e still flying to conferences etc.), which I don't think helps to engage the people that should be most aligned with her :/. But I'd still much much rather have her there than not :)
She’s right to be angry. You should be angry too. I think the “how dare you” speech is one of the best speeches over. I love that she just gives them hell. They deserve it.
I don’t understand the outrage. Except I know, being black people get angry when your existence makes them feel impotent guilt. All on them. Don’t own it. They own it. Sad that people will not look at the work people in the work have done and continue to do for all of us
If the main message of Greta Thunberg is listen to the science, then could be good if you do a video that show what IPCC report said .
Oh that would be a long video.
I actually made videos for the release of each of the three recent IPCC special reports.
But here's the one I made on the 1.5 degree report (which is what Greta most commonly references):
ua-cam.com/video/k5CV_s8rpiM/v-deo.html
@@ClimateAdam Thanks. I will watch.
Climate adam / god greta. Comletely covered thanks
"stop CO2 emissions": The number that I heard is that 1 climate scientist emits as much as four cars running his models. Yet it is other people who are supposed to stop emitting, they are not nearly as important.
this is why we need change on a gov't level.. because it is too hard to survive in society without a carbon footprint unless there is systemic change.
how do u feel about the solar model of climate change?
There isn't one.
@@jitteryjet7525 sure there is, have u seen the work of piers corbyn?
@@Howard0Beale Bud, take your robotic trolling somewhere else.
@@jitteryjet7525 Trolling? im not sure what u mean, can u expand on this please?
Hi Steve - climate experts focused on the sun (e.g. Jo Haigh) are very clear that nothing the sun is doing could explain the warming we have seen.
Further, if the warming was coming from the sun, the extra heat would be absorbed by the Earth's surface directly. From greenhouse gases the extra heat is absorbed by the atmosphere directly. From this we'd expect a different pattern of warming in the atmosphere, between days and nights, between latitudes and expect different patterns of rainfall change. All of the changes we see match what would be expected from a greenhouse gas warming, *not* a change in solar intensity.
Thanks for this most informative video.
So what degree do you have?
an MPhys in physics and a PhD in atmospheric physics
Here's my take: Greta Thunberg was good in raising awareness in the short term, but her approach won't work on a timescale of more than a few years. That's because our brains are designed to make our emotional states equilibrate. So panic, which is what she's raising, is only a short-term solution. What we need now is concrete steps, even if they're small, to change what is the equilibrium. Stuff like ending minimum parking requirements throughout the US in non-residential areas.
Will it be enough to stop catastrophe? Perhaps not. But in the long term, I think that it's the only approach that has a shot at making a difference.
Keep up the good (and sometimes funny) work !
I know Greta's amazing. Listen Adam you are as much a part of the solution as anyone and we think you are an awesome person. Keep speaking the truth. You are a hero your friend from Dallas!
I totally disagree with you
Real and raw Greta Thunberg
Good video. I could hear the emotion in your voice. It is astounding isn't it, global warming is an existential (not to mention anti-science) crisis, yet your country has been sidelined by the political distraction of Brexit, my country is sidelined on the economically-dubious policy to expand coal mining and Christian religious freedom, the Americans have their anti-immigration wall. Personally I am hopeful that the younger people who are now reaching voting age will vote more sensibly than the older people, and focus on what is really important.
@Alice Brennan You are disturbed.
Thank you ClimateAdam for putting these clips together and for your analysis of Greta's statements.
14:17..."We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth."
I think this point is key to what Greta said at the United Nations 2019. Talk of eternal economic growth on a planet with finite renewable resources is absurd. Capitalism though requires 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 economic growth. And the wealth represented by this increased growth goes largely into the pockets of the already wealthy 1%.
Just as one cannot intuit the laws of physics or chemistry of our universe simply by looking at it, one cannot intuit the laws of motion of human society. Greta was right: "talk about ...money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth", using money to make more money as the foundation of a society's economy has become problematic to the point of extinction.
We working classes must recognise that human history has a trajectory and that modes of social production (ways of producing, appropriating and distributing necessities in societies) are not static but can and do change. History is full of class struggle. Like how a molecular cloud in interstellar space collapses to form a protostar or planetary chemistry creating biological life or a massive star going supernova represent revolutions in the evolution of these particular natural phenomena, class struggle based in material relationships and the overthrow of one economic mode and it's ruling class by another class represent evolution and revolution in human society. Slave relations replaced egalitarian relations, feudal relations replaced slave relations, capitalist relations replaced feudal relations so what relations will replace capitalist relations and which class has been historically positioned to overthrow the present ruling classes? The 99%?
There are 195 countries of human society on this earth and thus 195 capitalist ruling classes with competing economic and political interests. In terms of addressing climate change holistically, like it must be treated, this present global political setup is a recipe for continuing ecological collapse. There's one global proletariat class which is the vast majority of humanity and 195 capitalist ruling classes which represent a tiny, tiny fraction of humanity's numbers.
These ruling classes, in the industrialised countries especially, have downplayed, ignored and even funded and pushed climate change denialism on behalf of fossil fuel and fossil fuel related capital for decades. And fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobile and Shell knew from at least the 1970's that climate change was happening. These ruling classes spend more public money on military R&D, weapon systems procurements and deployment, weapon systems upgrades, etc. than on anything to do with addressing climate disruption. Just like after the crash of 2008 those who caused it were not only bailed out but also were left in the driver's seat, so today, those who have pushed us to the brink of mass extinction in terms of their energy policies and energy commodities, are still in charge!
Climate change and disruption was/is not an unpredictable phenomenon that's developed unexpectedly all of a sudden outta nowhere. The recognition that human CO2 emissions could create a greenhouse effect on Earth goes back to at least the early 1800's. The science could have and should have guided societies climate policy since, at the latest, the 1960's but didn't because it spelled the "creative destruction" of fossil fuels as an energy source and as commodities, and thus Exxon Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum, etc. and their hundreds of billions of annual profits.
In a capitalist society like the USA, political power is determined by how wealthy one is. Material wealth is produced by physical labour. Capitalist wealth multiplies by exploiting human labour. Capital is social political power, concentrated economic power as workers are dependent upon capital to provide jobs to get money wages to buy means of subsistence. Thus the labor process is a value and wealth producing process of commodity production whereby labour creates fresh values that the owner of capital has control over. Capitalist's have ignored how their production processes have affected the biosphere and it's ecosystems. Yet there are very real limits to capitalism's abuse set by Nature responding to anthropogenic abuse.
Capitalist wealth multiplies by producers being forced to produce a value greater than their wage, the difference becoming capitalist profit. Mass extinction is ignored because capitalists and their lackeys can only count, calculate and talk about money. Vulgar economists don't give a damn for science because they get paid to spin fairy tales of eternal economic growth.
An organism that destroys it's natural habitat not only dooms itself but, in the case of planet Earth, all other organisms reliant on these same natural habitats. This is what humans are presently doing to Earth's biosphere and it's ecosystems, flora and fauna and, all for the sake of profits!
Pleading to "leaders" for change is no solution.
Once capitalist commodity production and exploitation of wage workers has been overturned, the labour process as a process of surplus labour and profit extraction from wage workers ceases to exist. Along with the end of capitalist commodity production labour processes cease to be valorising relations of production of value and surplus value. Along with the end of value and surplus value, capital and capital accumulation ends as well. The economic necessity for compound capital growth comes to an end and with its end so ends the assault on nature by capitalists commodity production.
@jeff Claiming something is "complete bullshit" is no argument. It's a bare, baseless assertion. Global cooling was a topic of discussion in the 1970's but it wasn't coming from the United Nations. The global cooling concerns were based upon observation and data. Temperatures did cool. And today it's crystal clear that global average temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising.
Are you getting your data from fossil fuel companies? Perhaps from a fossil fuel funded climate change denial think tank?
This link shows the recorded 1981-2010 median Antarctic Sea ice extent and the 2019 level. Antarctica is 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 losing ice.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And here's an article with a bit more detail:
What’s Driving Antarctica's Meltdown?
insideclimatenews.org/news/12112019/antarctica-ice-shelf-melt-atmospheric-river-thwaites-glacier-ocean-sea-level-rise
I thought you were going to have your OWN point of view about the topic, but you ONLY agreed with Greta's saying... NOT enriching at all... Sorry...
It's all about influencers piling on other influencers. I wish these people would just shut the heck up. Entitlement generation. So annoying. Dude. Stop talking.
Thank you Adam. Appreciate your well-informed commentary.
This has been said since TV was invented. And still there is almost no change! Escept the limate is changing from the latest ice age. And if we do as Greta says, feel some level of panic? What do you do when panicing - wrong things. We have to act without panicing. The world is not going under, the human wokeness is actually destroying our way of acting!
Emotional viewing. Thank you.
I love your channel! It's so inspiring and informative!
thanks Matt - that's great to hear!
Me too
Thank you Adam, this is a wonderful collection of Greta wisdom and expert commentary. Gretas words inspire people to action. I've added a quote from this to my email sign - "Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope." - to help motivate people to learn more about and advocate for Carbon Fee and Dividend with a CBAM.
13:30 - I've seen this speech 20x and it STILL MAKES ME 💔😭💔😭💔😭
We NEED MORE GRETAS, because she's one of less than a handful of people who are able to say it like it is!! Too many of us are already victims of corporate greed, fossil fuel pillaging of the planet, extreme inequality, and govts climate denying & destruction, and if I hadn't been born sick & spent my childhood in the hospital, and contracted over a dozen chronic & terminal illnesses I'm expected to die from any day now, at age 35! If I were healthy & had any supportive family at all, I'd be doing what Greta is!! My heart is on 🔥🔥🔥 & I have the anger & passion, but not the physical or financial ability...
You poor thing! You are completely deluded
Thanks, Adam. Excellent review of the speeches of Greta Thunberg, Carlon Zackhras and others. Greta has always been explaining the scientific facts and showing an emotional response, and it's good for a scientist to explain in return. The emotional hook meant you got a day off from being funny.
I think politicians would still benefit from science lessons. Dr Kate Marvel wrote recently:
"I’m angry at a culture of precarity and fear that makes scientists timid, compliant, and reluctant to speak truth to power. ... I’ve been scared to let myself feel anger, because I’m a scientist. We’re supposed to be objective, to prevent emotions from clouding our judgement. But it strikes me as unscientific to pretend a thing that clearly exists does not, and I’m unsure that lying about our feelings will somehow make us more honest. I’ve read too much British literature to believe that repressing emotions will lead to a healthy outcome for anyone."
I've noticed Greta honing the accuracy of her message, moving from 'the middle of the sixth extinction' to the 'beginning' of the extinction, so 'every fraction of a degree matters' is probably a similar shift.
I've never been to a COP so can I ask: how realistic do you think it is that COP26 might take the advice of 'Polluters Out' and exclude representatives of the industries who are (or should be) under discussion?
Kate Marvell hitting the nail on the head once again!
I'm no expert in the COPs and I've only been to one. But the impression I get of it is that it's such a juggernaut that these kind of fundamental shifts are incredibly difficult to make... I'd love to be proved wrong, though.
Where I live the glaziers we’re 1 mile thick historicly in the glaciers have retreated ever since to the north pole it’s just a cycle of the years and not man made entirely.
It's not a cycle - it's a direction of travel. The glaciers left due to the ice age cycle, but we have now completely disrupted that natural cycle by adding a huge amount of greenhouse gas. That cycle is not restarting for at least 50,000 years now - we have made that impossible. We have gone back to an atmosphere not seen for millions of years - well before humans arrived on the planet. This is now uncharted territory.
xxwookey real Climatologists agree we have been in a 12 year cooling trend and this will continue for approximately 35 years (Sun related) we are at an historical low point for CO2 not a high (greenhouses pump CO2 in) to feed the world we need more CO2. Watch some Tony Heller UA-cam videos to balance with your views. Love life don’t fear it !
@@ronpreece3429 Zero sane people (never mind actual climatologists) 'agree we have been in a 12-year cooling trend'. That's flat-earth territory.
Here's the 5 main temp datasets over the last 70 years, (both with and without adjustments for ENSO, volcanos and solar variation). Now show us all this cooling trend: tamino.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/second-least-cold-year/
@@ronpreece3429 "12 year cooling trend"-nope. July was the hottest month measured on Earth since records began in 1880, the latest in a long line of peaks that scientists say backs up predictions for man-made climate change.
On July 26, the Swedish hamlet of Markusvinsa recorded a sizzling 34.8 C (94.6 F), the highest temperature ever measured north of the Arctic Circle.
According to NOAA’s records, nine of the 10 hottest Julys on record have occurred since 2005 and last month was the 43rd consecutive July above the 20th century average.
Did u get that?... the 43rd consecutive July above the 20th century average!!
The previous month also set a record as the hottest June in the last 140 years.
@@xxwookey lets assume you are 100% correct. Isn't that a good thing? As it stands now, ice age in all its glory, would probably decimate human population in terms of food and energy.. We should be really burning more coal, "just in case" xD
do i get that right you as expert had to look methan gas tipping points up mentioned by a 15 year old?
Support car free towns and cities.
Nice video adam
I have a problem wich any kind of activism that stays on following and liking on social media, and does not involve partaking in actual activies.
I'm not even going to talk about Greta, because this is not about her IMHO. The problem I have here is a certain degree of tokenism. No one should have to be "the face" for climate change action, or any other collective issues that demand collective actions. We need to give all kinds of voices a chance.
Well Done! This is probably the best video you've ever made!!
I've been watching your channel for years and this is probably this first time I've ever seen you come close to honestly and sincerely expressing your true feelings about Climate Change. Unfortunately you still seem to fall a little short and still seem to cling desperately to the needing to give people "Hope". I feel that when you do this you unwittingly nullify your entire message. I say this for a few reasons. First, when you state that you want to be hopeful, you implicitly are saying that you are going to sugar-coat reality and so the viewer should take into account that you putting a positive spin on what's actually happening wrt our climate. Next, being "Hopeful" in a situation as frightening and threatening as the climate crisis creates a sense of cognitive dissonance in the viewer (at least for me it does) because, as social creatures, we look to the reactions of others around us (especially experts like yourself) to gauge how serious a situation is. We (I) think, if someone is really concerned about a crisis and legitimately frightened by it, the normal human cues (grief, panic, despair, sadness, anger) should be obvious. If, on the other hand, science communicators act emotionally detached, hopeful, joking around, etc then we get the sense that the situation isn't all that bad.
Imagine you're a passenger on a plane that's about to run out of fuel over the ocean and the captain comes out and presents a confusing set of stats about rates of fuel consumption, engine efficiency, aerodynamic efficiency, prevailing wind strengths and atmospheric dynamics. At the end of it you think he's just explained that the plane can no longer reach it's destination but without doing the math you're not exactly sure. You ask for clarification and he just chuckles and says "the good news is we can still make it" - (credit to Michael Mann) ... but what he doesn't mention that you'd need a 300MPH tailwind from a freak hurricane. You try to pin him down by pointing out that engine is making sputtering noises but he just laughs it off. Looking for more information you ask Co-pilot Adam. He proceeds to act out a clever little skit that illustrates the absurdity of thinking you fly across the Pacific on only 10 gallons of fuel and ends his skit with a happy hopeful little message about landing safely. This is what I feel its like for the broader public trying to get information about Climate Change. Its a bizarre disconnect of unbelievable tragedy married with psychotic levels of indifference and emotional detachment. Add to that a massive disinformation campaign and a world that also collapsing economically and geopolitically and its no wonder that people to assign a lot of importance to climate change in their daily lives.
For me, as I've watched your videos and lectures from many other climate scientists it has been very frustrating (even infuriating) to see the presentations of truly horrific scientific data which I've interpreted as being very serious and demanding radical action ... but the delivery has often been summarized with some hopeful message or softening of the implications of the data. It's not that I want people to be hopeless ... I just want honesty ... honesty about the science, honesty about the implications of the science ... and most importantly honesty at a human emotional level about how you perceive our situation. When you factor in how we're all bombarded with "Fake News" and propaganda from fossil-fuel interests, corporate advertisers, governments, and even the evening news, sources of reliable, unbiased truth like scientists become rare and precious resources for the public to try to make sense of the world. So when you state that you're going to be "positive" or "hopeful" that tells people that at the very least you're spinning the information, possibly cherry-picking good news over bad news, or just outright lying. In the end you've eroded your own trust and credibility and undermined your own efforts to bring about positive change.
The reason I think Greta has connected with people (at least with me) is that finally someone is being honest. The emotions match the science. Finally the bubble of cognitive dissonance has burst and all the bullshit of saying things are bad but carrying on as though everything was normal has been called out. I think people have been desperate for this. I personally would love to find just one climate scientist who would just tell it like it is. Not oversell it, not doom and gloom ... but just matter-of-fact, no-spin, this is this situation we're in, this is where I think we're going and this is how I feel about it. Preferably they would also take into account human behaviour, politics, economics, etc to further ground their view of what's in store for us. What I usually see is a myopic focus on some narrow facet of climate science that ignores the broader context of ecological destruction that we're seeing and (still unbelievably )tries to sell the idea that staying below 1.5C might still be possible (if we can all just close our eyes and click our heals and really really believe).
Anyway ... keep up the good work. I "HOPE" that you've come to a realization that a more honest presentation of our situation is more effective. I think there's still room for humour and trying to find joy as we go forward but deluding ourselves is only going to bring complacency and inaction. I believe that its possible to strive for a best-possible-outcome without resorting to selling ourselves delusional fantasies. I also "HOPE" that you can get the message out to your peers that we need to know how they truly feel about the science as well as the unspun, true science.
✊✊✊
Part of the problem is that we need too adapt to the problem along with changing our ways & quit blaming.
David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg are equally important in the fight to prevent climate change. Indeed we ALL are!
@jeff Are you getting your data from fossil fuel companies? Perhaps from a fossil fuel funded climate change denial think tank?
This link shows the recorded 1981-2010 median Antarctic Sea ice extent and the 2019 level. Antarctica is 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 losing ice.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And here's an article with a bit more detail:
What’s Driving Antarctica's Meltdown?
insideclimatenews.org/news/12112019/antarctica-ice-shelf-melt-atmospheric-river-thwaites-glacier-ocean-sea-level-rise
Great video!
How dare you suffocating those plants behind you
Hahaha
Going renewable is just another mean for business to price the people.
She is saying "WE the people" - does it mean all of us, or does all of us have to agree to here understanding?
Lol I feel bad that you fall for grifters. "How dare you!" ~ Greta
Oh I am 56 years old.
No one ever reply's too my comments. Am not understanding how to use this site? I am sorry.
super cute ;D
As someone who fought this fight most of my life by teaching environemtal biology at the college level, you need to let go of hope. It just keeps you from starting the mourning process for the fact that humans have caused a 6th Great Extinction. We started burning down the world when our ancestors first discovered to use fire. Greta is just at the first phase anger. We are a planet in hospice and denying it with anger and hope doesn't change the cheimistry.
Giving up is a cop out.
Bear in mind that we can always makes things worse, and then get to work.
18:22 you want solutions? i give you a simple one: b-a-n half of ca-rs by the system: half run a week and half the other week. it is so simple. i lived on Ceausescu time and we had this rule here. nobody protested a bit. people are complacent. the wo-rld lead-ers put too much emphasis on what people think. people are just a ma-ss of man-euver.
"Only an Airhead Can Save US from Air" > principia-scientific(.)org > NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light
The following video shows good science, independently if you believe in GW or not
ua-cam.com/video/zINbEum6sBQ/v-deo.html
I don't think AGW is happening, but I love our Planet as I think that these people promoting the idea of Ocean Pastures restoration also do.
Blaming is a wasted time & energy. The energy could be better spent.
I think she's awesome.
Gretta Thumbeg is a young girl with wisdom , a gift from God to few humans, and it's also a gift understand it. God bless Gretta and all of those good humans out there who are trying to help humanity.
there’s no critique at all here yikes..
Imaging that. THe United Nations listening to 15 year old and changing the world. Who wrote this speech for her. Is there any reality here, You decide
she's very sweet. one can't be unmoved when hears her speak.
1. i keep just one radiator on, out of 5 in my apartment.
2. i take a full-body shower maximum twice a week
3. i keep just a bulb on.
4. i don't have a c-a-r.
5. i travel just to work and home, by public tra-ns-portation.
6. i am struggling to buy less clothes, although it's hard (this is my main hobby).
7. i eat meat. i don't understand what meat con-s-umption has to do with all this?!
Political Fashionista meat consumption has a lot to do with carbon admissions because 2/3rds of the worlds agriculture land is used to feed meat and dairy livestock which means almost all of the deforestation, desertification, and soil erosion is a product of the meat and dairy industry, also the amount of water used to farm the soy, corn and alfalfa that meat and dairy live stock eats is extremely harmful to local water sources and causes acidification and eutrophication to the water from chemical run off and pesticides. Also the grain and food we give the meat and dairy livestock could feed an extra 3.5 billion people which would completely solve world starvation but instead because people keep buying meat and dairy the industry continues to grow and demand more agricultural land which is why the Amazon was burnt down it was to free up more space to grow soy for meat and dairy livestock. Not only this but with millions and millions of livestock animals on this earth they each produce up to 16 pounds of fecal matter a day which is left to emit methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia which adds to the already exists atmospheric gas. So in conclusion yes eat meat and dairy and supporting that industry has a huge impact on our climate. A whole vegan diet is actually a lot cheaper then media likes to say so I would recommend if not completely switching over incorporating it more into your dairy diet. Saving meat for rare occasions like holidays and sticking to plant based proteins to save ecosystems around the world.
@@jadalove3687
do you think that anyone cares more about the so-called ecosystem than about their own gut, unless they are utterly insane?
now let me formulate some responses.
1. meat has suddenly become climate-related.
2. a starved population is more prone to disease, which stresses the pharmaceutic industry, which is a significant polluter, yet nobody talks about it.
3. i thought that pesticides are used for veggies.
Political Fashionista your first sentence is confusing, meat and dairy are a lot more harmful to the body then a plant based diet watch “game changers” to learn why. Meat has not suddenly become climate related it always has been climate related but the sciences and understanding of it has recently grown a lot making the information more open and understandable to the public. That is very true the pharmacy industry is awful for the environment but when people have a steady amount of food they are less likely to get extremely sick it’s cycle. Also animals eat plants and only plants meat is simply the mediator of plant proteins which means all of the plants (corn, alfalfa, and soy) that animals eat is grown using a lot of pesticides to control crop decay. Those chemicals end up in the ocean and cause acidification where the pH level of the ocean rises and plants and animals start to decay like reefs which create over 80% of the oxygen we breath. So yes the meat Industry is very deeply related to the climate industry and it’s a very simple switch that has many Benefits larger than ones gut.
@@jadalove3687 your letters are very long and now i have to go to bed, but what i observe is that quite recently meat has become the no. 1 enemy of the planet and in the future it will be available just for the rich, while the poor will eat the "plant based" nothing.
Political Fashionista that could be true and honestly that would be better for the planet because of less people ate it then there would be a much lower demand for livestock and it would be much better on the environment, I think what’s important is perceptions need to change globally about plant based diets, plants have so much more protein and nutrients then animal meat and there’s so many more varieties of foods to eat when you eat plant based, plus it tastes amazing and can be done very cheap which widespread media likes to convince people otherwise. I don’t think the meat and dairy industry is the number one harm on the environment that is definitely Fossil fuels and oil fracking but by eating plant based it is something you can do individually to help the planet. A lot of youth struggle with depression from facing climate change and the extremities of it and plant based diets have helped people feel involved and it makes a positive impact. Plant based is the future it is sustainable and healthy, Its just apart of being on the right side of history.
I think she is ignoring the real issues in the world, it's very simple to demand a solution from the perspective of a privileged girl who lives in a first world country, which by the way I dont think her childhood has been taken away, she probably lives like a princess in her home, what about children in Africa, south America or in any other third world countries? Who lives in extreme poverty and violence? Her childhood is definitely not ruined.
9:45 we can't stop all the emi-ssions. that is unrealistic. we can just slow them down in the hope that some re-newable thing will be discovered meanwhile. if not, we are doo-med sooner or later. 11:10 yes
There is no incentive for "emerging economies" (PRC, India, etc.) to cut emissions. Emissions will continue to rise, regardless what the Europeans do.
I ignored This little girl 3 years ago and will continue to ignore this girl..
strange comment from someone who clicked on a video whose thumbnail and title refers to this young woman. I think you might need to check the definition of 'ignore'
Globull warming. Lmao
C02 makes the world live!
C02 save lives!
ua-cam.com/video/bsxqEWv2qfU/v-deo.html
This comedian needs some new writers,I don't find him in the least funny.
It's Sunday law they're gonna bring ,Jesus is coming soon
So you answer big problems with farytales... Ingnorant anti-sciencetist.
She makes me not want to do anything because she is so dislikable.
so you want to do nothing about dangerous disruption to our planet, because of your dislike of a minor?
why is she dislikable, because of a few online memes started and used to bully a child for being a child, so she doesn't understand the science behind she was a child that's to be expected she was imp, showing a great deal of maturity with the fact that she's willing to admit and show her youth on the topic. She will learn in the same way everyone does while growing up and going to class so let her. I feel like it's a similar thing to how teenagers got pissed at younger siblings for thinking fidget spinners were cool because Big bro thought it was cool. Were concerned about it, so the kids are as well. We talk about so should they this is our future, let them learn grow, discover, and come up with unique ideas. Don't simply hate on others because of a lack of opportunities or full knowledge on a topic, help build them up.
what precisely is the point of this video? This young man clearly needs professional help.
You mean Dr Adam Levy? He has a doctorate from Oxford Uni in atmospheric physics. What are your qualifications to pontificate about stuff you undoubtedly know nothing about?
I have replied many time on UA-cam. I have an opinion & I am not sure if I am being heard or. I am sorry.
The only important movement is a bowel movement. Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time as we know it. Yes polutiotion is an issue. Over population is an issue