I get in trouble for handing in assignments too late but 2/3 of governments can be like "eh, don't feel like publishing new goals even though I'm legally obligated to"
There's no legal obligations in Paris (for now). Its more like an extra credit assignment than a required assignment - sure, you'll improve your grade if you turn it in but you're not going to lose anything if you don't bother. At worst you'll get a disapproving frown from your teacher.
@@thundersheild926 Well no, the disapproving look is the other Paris nations mocking you. The natural disasters are more parallel to heading out into the world after spending your entire school life doing as little as humanly possible and getting smacked in the face by the fact that the world doesn't really give a shit about you or your excuses and will nonchalantly grind you into the ground if you aren't prepared to face it.
Honestly it isn't a surprise (some) African countries are more ambitious. For one climate change might hit them hard due to a possibly greater desertification/higher temperatures and secondly they don't have to overhaul their entire system, rather now concentrate on having the development of their economy be more durable/green from the start, which is a lot easier.
I dont think its "easier" for developping countries. And beside, most climate change models say it will rain more and so give less deserts in africa and the heating will be less severe in africa. Ofcourse a little more heat is to much ...
@@hansvanwynsberghe It is easier in that they don't need to balance the transition of both the generation and the grid, it is isn't easy to at the same time change it and guarantee the same high standards we expect (no blackouts, constant availability of power and this together with a quickly growing demand due to electrification). However for developing nations that didn't yet rolled out this infrastructure yet, they would have needed to do so anyway, now they can just immediately do it right. Moreover the decentralised nature of renewables can help them, for example by not needing to immediately lay out a large grid (especially costly in the geographically large nations like many in Africa), but rather they can first concentrate to get everyone power, if necessary by creating independent microgrids that in the long run can be linked. Not to mention not needing constant deliveries of fuel etc. More rain doesn't mean better, it depends where there is more rain and when, for example it rains more in regions that already often deal with flooding, this together with growing sea level will actually aggravate their situation or if you get a lot of rain in short time, but followed by drought periods, that too can be worse (most of the southern hemisphere is expected to see an increase in floods). And not all poor nations are in Africa, you have also poor islands, poor floodprone regions, poor regions at the coast, ... And something that needs to be considered is that a greening of Africa can actually lead to a desertification/shrinking of the Amazon forest, which relies on the mineral rich dust from the Sahara for its growth/maintenance. A change in the Sahara could have huge potentional to disrupt the climate worldwide. Also there will be more erratic weather in general, which favors no one.
Loll, yup.. I'm guessing that the stats they were sourcing looked at top emitting countries and Germany was one, but the rules Germany was implementing were EU standards. Makes me wonder where the EU stands altogether though. That being said, it's quite the Freudian slip. Thanks for noticing.
That's not strictly accurate. Science presents _justified_ beliefs, but there is still plenty that is entirely founded on the faith that our justifications are accurate. For example, we can measure temperatures going up (facts) and sea levels rising (facts). Those are pretty much indisputable barring equipment failure. But putting those (and many other) facts together only generates a hypothesis, and no matter how well you test your hypothesis you're always assuming some amount of faith that you haven't overlooked something important - ie: things you don't know you don't know. Eventually if a hypothesis is well-tested enough, we start calling it a theory and _presuming_ its true, but every good theory can be falsified. Newton's theory of gravity was falsified by Einstein for example. Sure Newton's is still _really, really_ good because the differences are nanoscopic at the scale of normal human size/mass/speed/etc, but they're still off by a _tiny little bit_ if we want to get super technical. Climate change kind of sits in the middle of those two ends of the process - we have lots and lots and _lots_ of measured facts from which we can derive our hypothesis making it _very_ strong.. but we also have no way to test it. We can't just run the "experiment" on a dozen Earths and see if our hypothesis is accurate. And its in that grey area where deniers hang out. Because no matter how much data we collect or how many computer simulations we run, the only way we're going to ever be able to truly "prove" the climate change hypothesis is by letting the planet die and then giving ourselves a big old "oopsiedaisy!" as we try to build ourselves a new civilization with 1/2 the (habitable) landmass and 1/10 the biodiversity. Even if we successfully reverse climate change and _don't_ destroy the planet, the deniers will still be in denial as we will again never be able to say for sure that it was our actions that stopped the trend of climate change - it could have just been a colossal coincidence that the planet started warming up when we started dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air and then leveled off when we stopped. Correlation is not causation, after all!
@@altrag I'm not gonna write a detailed answer because this is UA-cam and not a debating club^^ You are, non the less, correct with most things you wrote but that climate change caused by us is so well proven in many experiments and calculations. The remaining doubt is so little that the chances it's false is as high as the chance that water flows upwards. In this case it is undoubtedly causation. We can't treat science ( in this advanced stadium ) as an opinion. You don't say gravity is an opinion that can equally be questioned by media as whether tacos are better than burgers...
@@davidschlosser8169 > so well proven in many experiments There has been exactly zero experiments "proving" climate change. The best we've got are computer simulations. > The remaining doubt is so little But not zero, and that's where the grey area sits. A grey area that can be (and is, of course) abused by the fossil fuel lobbies to induce inaction among the public. That climate change is happening at all has gotten to the point that its difficult to deny, so they've just shifted a little bit and now they claim its "not our fault" so why try to do anything about it? Of course there's one massive caveat to that argument that nobody bothers mentioning: Even if really isn't our fault, its still going to fuck the planet so we should probably do something about it. Termites chewing through our houses is also "not our fault" but we still call the exterminator. > We can't treat science as an opinion No, but we also have to acknowledge its limitations. We've gone down a lot of incorrect rabbit holes (some of them lasting thousands of years) purely because we insist that our current knowledge is "right" and refuse to accept contradictory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a climate change denier by any stretch. But if we just ignore the arguments that climate change deniers use, we will never be able to convince them that they've been misled. And one of those arguments is, very validly, that a hypothesis is not "proof", not matter how much evidence there is for it. We need to acknowledge that argument in order to start addressing the fact that while its not necessarily _wrong,_ its also not particularly _right_ either.
@@altrag Thank you for your detailed explanations. In general, I agree that we need to acknowledge the argument made by people with different view points, but I don't think I've ever seen somebody that denies climate change demonstrate as thorough an understanding of the scientific process as you've described above. As demonstrated with your example discussing Newton's theories, our scientific models for the world don't need to be perfectly accurate to be able to make useful predictions about reality. At a certain point, the body of knowledge surrounding a topic should be sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the science. Since this is not happening, I tend to conclude that climate change deniers are simply not reasonable people, and lacking reason, argument is often fruitless. People that are unmoved by rational argument voting and making decisions for countries is the biggest problem with the world today and I have no idea how to solve it.
At some point opinions are not only wrong but harmful. For example denying the holocaust in Germany is considered harmful to democratic structures and therefore forbidden to avoid people normalising this as a valid viewpoint. This obviously does not stop people from thinking it but it stops anyone from publicly asserting it because they will be arrested. I would argue that making "not believing in climate change" an acceptable argument does harm society and should therefore not be allowed especially by people in power. Yes this does infringe on some rights but so do a lot of laws protecting all people from one's actions. If we entertain the idea to argue with the deniers we will both go down with the ship, but reasonable people outnumber those deniers and if we start fixing the holes in the Hull now we might get away with a just a couple billion dead.
"People that believe in climate change" Dude, climate change isn't like God, it's not about choosing whether you "believe" in it or not. It's scientific facts.
That’s really the issue with TL;DR news, they often try to be as impartial as possible which results in them doing stuff like this. There’s a saying in journalism “if one guy says it’s raining and the other says it’s not, your job isn’t to quote them both it’s to look out the window”
the point isn't just to find practical solutions to climate change, its also about presenting a united front against those political factions denying it, its about finding a platform to begin combatting climate change, even if the Paris Agreement is weak its a start from where the world can expand on climate regulation. you dont have to find the perfect solution in the first try, you just have to start something thats better than was before and have everybody agree on the change needed and then start the negotiations on expanding those regulations further
I actually wrote a research paper about why the Paris Climate Accord was so well thought out. The goal was to get every single country to sign on, and utilize effectively peer pressure to make other countries push for and meet better targets. Since there were no set points or punitive measures, it would be a very difficult thing for any leader to reject joining the agreements, then, once involved, the countries would have a signed document basically giving them permission to hold each other accountable. My understanding is that the biggest failure was Trump withdrawing the US. Without the largest international force involved to set an example and hold other accountable, few others wanted to commit to this agreement that the US was even pulling out of.
In Australia we saw a change in the rhetoric of our Prime Minister almost as soon as Biden announced resigning. The peer pressure you've described seems like a really accurate way to describe it.
you should better write a scientific paper about why Paris Agreement doesnt work at all :P it is unscientific with unmeasurable outcomes - even if we meet all the goals there are no tools or methods how to measure the outcome, the goal set by PA is lower than the prediction span of possible temperatures in 2100. So the PA is unscientific propaganda project. We cannot measure the outcome because we do not know exactly where the global temperature will be in 2100. The video suggesting we know that with certainty and we could measure that by 0,5 % is just lie. Global temperature is extremely complex multivariable thing and we have no idea how will most of the variables work in next decades, especially the sun about which we know very little... In the video they address only the human pollution variable which is not enough... So when the Paris clownthing has goals of lowering global temperature by 1 degree or half a degree, we have no idea how to measure if it was succesfull in 2100 because the current prediction of temperature in 2100 is not cerain which they shamefully omitted in the video! The current scientific prediction about where the temperature might actually be in 2100 always gives some span of possible temps, usually in several degree points... By this video they completely mislead the public into believing we are able to know results of our climate actions, which we arent.
I think the reason they went for countries setting their own goals with the Paris Agreement is because of Kyoto. They had overarching global policy at Kyoto, but it let politicians blame a global entity. Failing individual goals puts the burden on that country.
We don't say "believe in gravity", or "believe in atoms".... So can we please stop using phrases like "people who believe in climate change", as if believing in climate change is a matter of faith?!? This is *really REALLY* important.💕 Climate change is not a matter of belief, It's a theory backed up by mountains of hard peer reviewed science. [*mic drop*]
"This is really REALLY important." - Not really. Don't kid yourself. You're not gonna convince the other side by just being more emphatic about how the science backs you up. All you'll do is potentially piss off more people and thus lead to avoidable drama.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Actually I've managed to convince plenty of people on the other side about climate change throughout my life, and continue to do so. I was being "emphatic" in my comment (as you quite rudely put it) because the kind of language that is used to talk about climate change is critical in helping people understand the scientific consensus on the issue. Most people understandably don't have the time in their busy lives to trawl through peer reviewed science and check on the current scientific consensus on climate change. So yes, it IS *REALLY* important that amazing unbiased news sources such as TLDR try to avoid using phrases like "people who believe in climate change". News sources should reflect this consensus in how they talk about scientific issues. I'm not sure why my comment upset you so much, sounds like you could do with a hug and some deep breaths 😂🌹💕
@@todimusic "as you quite rudely put it" ... "I'm not sure why my comment upset you so much" - defensive much? Sounds like someone's trying to project, the icing on the cake being your cute little bit self-help 'advice' at the end. Coupled with your impressively self-assured assurance of your own prowess at this sorta thing, it paints a pretty compelling picture from one little internet comment. That picture isn't of someone who's particularly convincing btw, although they certainly believe they are. I suspect climate change isn't the only thing you like 'enlightening' people about, be it about science or other issues. As long as you're happy, I suppose. The vid is still what it is though, like it or not. Cheers! *insert cute deflecting emojis here*
@@todimusic Well, there's that take too^. Feel free to demonstrate your prodigious talents at convincing people by knocking enough science cred into them now.
Its a theory backed by pretty weak evidence for the extent and impact of human-based pollution and extensive evidence that it happens in general, and thats a huge problem for creating real solutions to the problem. Quite literally, the whole theory of climate change is that CO2 increase = temp increase, despite most of the CO2 increase happening only 60 years ago. Theres minimal/no research into global climate cycles, solar/orbit cycles, and most publicized "evidence" by way of natural disasters are usually well within the range of normal weather cycles. It requires faith to believe a poorly founded theory, and it requires faith to believe that the proposed solutions are reasonable for today's economy.
Also just because countries are not meeting the targets doesn't mean it should be scrapped. Makes me laugh that countries that aren't trying, are criticising the agreement.
Gotta say I was surprised Canada was on that top ten polluter list. Canada, bro, what are you guys doing up there? You have like half the population of France or the UK?
First of all, clean energy like solar energy is not gonna be good for Canada. I live in Alberta and it literally snows half the year, the snow as well as the lack of sunlight is a major factor to why solar energy isn’t going to work out well at the current state. This is why we depend on resources like oil.
@@Jellae Nuclear and hydro power both exist. There are other northern countries. The reason Canada uses a lot of oil is because they have a lot of oil, so that's cheap. You, like Norway, could probably afford to leave it in the ground.
i like how trump was absolutely blasted for leaving the agreement, but once he was out of office, people started to see how the accord wasn’t very practical
But then you gotta look at it from the perspectivw he was blaste dmore cause this was seen as representative of all the other things he did in relation to the environemnt, disregarding any science and choosing to pander to oiligarchs
True, but if you aren’t meeting your targets, that you set for yourself, then you can be called out for it. There may not be punitive penalties but it’s political gamesmanship, it’s particularly bad if your allies can meet their targets but you can’t, you become a mockery, for over promising and under delivering.
@@ChristopherChestnutNI Kind off, but from what I've understood, they self-report results. And through that, they can play semantic word games to make it seem like they reached their goals.
@@Raigan_Avalon I don't think "legally binding" is even a meaningful phrase in terms of country thou. Who is binding them? "International law" is an oxymoron. Countries break such "laws" all the time with no consequence. In contrast I think it's good that it's not pretending to be binding. I think it's smart bc for one countries will actually feel like joining (eg, look at how many internationally agreements the US skipped out on that even pretends to be binding), for another it allows countries to virtue signal each other and create sort of peer pressure.
I don't believe that Germany is doing as well as shown in the map. I'm German and I've seen no real progress. In the beginning Germany did well but now... I would say we are getting worse over the time and the state has done less and less. Especially with the controversy about nuclear power plants and wind turbines and their impact in the environment. Eventhough it would greatly decrease CO2 emissions. And on top of that the idea to change completely to electric cars which would ironically increase CO2 emissions if not most of the stations provide renewable energy. On top of that an electric car must be driven around 10 years to have less impact than other cars in the environment because of the way they are build, not to mention the cost of repairs. Instead of more cars we should concentrate having public transportation, walking and cycling promoted. We should have the least amount of vehicles as possible.
Thank you so much! We receive negative PR so often. Positive comments like this really help. We are proud of being one of the few countries who stuck to their promises in the Paris Climate Agreement
The reduction of carbon emissions over the last year shows that supporting peoples ability to work from home rather than commute is a good step forward in terms of making the economy more environmentally friendly. Further a focus on creating better charging and electricity generation capabilities in environmentally responsible ways is the obvious next step. Unfortunately hardly anyone can agree on how this should be done.
Trump: "it's a failing experiment" Media: "OML CLIMATE DENIER" People now: "It's a failing experiment" Media: "I mean yeah it was obvious because X, Y and Z"
Is it working? Depends on what you expect it to deliver. For politicians, it's a wonderful opportunity to present yourself as a saviour of the world whilst knowing that you'll never be held accountable as the timescales are so long. It's a win-win! So from that point of view, the Paris Accord has been a great success.
Permafrost melting is a huge concern being that it’s releasing methane at an astronomical amount and at a certain point will be irreversible. To continue life on this earth every country needs to meet the goals needed to lower the global temperature.
no it's not? If it's binding people will simply not join. Besides, if you or I break an agreement we can be sued and the courts have power over us. Who's going to hold a country accountable? I don't think "binding" is even meaningful in the context of international agreements.
@@randomnobody660 countries are held accountable by the soft power of other countries(occasionally also military power, but that's not relevant to this discussion) if countries won't join an agreement because it's binding, they'll likely not follow through on non binding agreements, which is better because we can call them out instead of pretending they're doing something by making promises they won't keep.
@@yarielrobles9003 I guess that's where we disagree. I think it's more powerful to shame a country that made promises it didn't keep compared to a country that promised nothing in the first place. That's why I think the Paris accord is quite smart. You think the opposite, and so your conclusion is naturally the opposite as well.
One point you seemed to have missed is that rejoining Paris isn't just about the climate goals, but also about signaling to America's traditional allies a return to a more normal foreign relations. This may be particularly important in a post-Trump America where one of the lessons learned is that foreign involvement in America's elections is essentially going to go unpunished.
The fact that people are telling me I should vote Democrat for a bigger government and more taxes is laughable. We didn’t have the infrastructure for the extreme weather and if was definitely unexpected.
@@TexasTeaHTX We knew about the potential issues for at least a decade. Also the state’s biggest Republicans were MIA during the worst of the crisis. Cruz going to Cancun should have gotten him expelled from Congress, and him actively supporting the riots was already bad enough. Cornyn was no where to be scene, Abbott was to slow to respond and Paxton just found out yesterday that he was in Utah.
@@tannerwilson4843 What would those Republicans that that you just mentioned do to make a difference? They literally have zero administrative power, that falls on the governor and the president. Still not voting Democrat.
@@TexasTeaHTX They should have been on the ground helping! Beto O’Rourke organized phone banks making nearly a million phone calls to people looking to get help and raised over a million dollars in donations. The Castro brothers were at food banks helping get food out. The Republican Party is an extremely outdated party that refuses to progress on any issue whatsoever and after refusing to take out Trump in the Impeachment and trial following the Capitol Hill Riots. I’m officially done with them. The fact that you still support them after all this is absolutely moronic. If we had a real political system instead of the two Party System. They party would be committing political suicide and basically be relegated to being a far right fringe party with very little influence or support, similar to say a party like The People’s Party of Canada or the former UKIP or Brexit Party in the UK. The People’s Party of Canada for example was created following after a former candidate for the Consverative Party Leadership lost out in a really close vote to be the party’s new National Leader. After he lost the vote, he created the People’s Party as a further right alternative to the Conservatives and the Canadian people recognized how awful their positions were and shunned them. Not only did they failed to win even a single seat in Canada’s House of Common’s. They didn’t even come close, with the exception of the party’s leader and one other candidate, no one else was even able to reach 5% of the vote of any individual race and only got about 3% of the total national vote. And they have gotten squashed in provincial legislative and local races as well. This should be the Republican Party’s future if more people would smarten up and realize how awful party of a party they have become. Oh, that’s right, since the riots. They are in increasing reports that party members are leaving the Republican party in droves and they are talks of at least 100+ current and former Republican Party officials looking to possibly leave and forming their own party.
@@TexasTeaHTX yea they can. You do realize that they have a lot of political power and influence. Hell even people outside and of Texas did more than them.
@@PRWilson88 yes but their goal was to reach peak emissions by 2030. Or in other terms keep polluting more until 2030. My point was that every little bit helps but China still is not cooperating well and pollutes 2x as much as the USA
@@Ueiksg That makes sense. Not to entirely defend China but, they are kicking the west's ass regarding electric vehicles and are making substantial technical changes to their infrastructure. They have a long way to go but, they essentially have the west offshoring our emissions, so they can supply us with goods. I just hope the Paris agreement can make a decent start.
@@PRWilson88 yeah but it’s gonna require more. The top 5 countries (USA, Russia, China, India, Japan) account for 60% of emissions. So whilst the Paris agreement is necessary, it puts too much on little countries and not enough on the big 5 and more specifically the big two.
Because Trump is the only principled politicia of them all who will not lie to people and pretend he is doing some good to save the world when of course Paris Agreement is just a giant waste of money with very uncertain effects...
@@andrewearl8926 I'm not sure it failed, certainly not entirely. Okay, the usa and some other countries did fail miserably with their goals, some others didn't fail. And we talk about it. Without the Paris agreement we weren't talking about it and didn't have benchmarks. And as far as I conclude, a big part of the 'failing' of the agreement so far is because of the usa pulling out. Trump made it a self-fulfilling prophecy; "I won't follow the clean up scheme, because not everyone will clean up accordingly".
Treaties and accords are things countries sign and expect others to live up to but have little to no intention of doing so themselves. About as valuable as the paper they're written on.
Insightful video. However, few points / perspectives you may have missed. (I recommend watching Kurzgesagt video too on this topic) 1. Emission per person is an important statistics that needs more attention. Russia not meeting their targets is not as nearly as bad as China not meeting emissions (as China has a lot more people) for example. I'm not Chinese nor defending them here. 2. Speaking of Russia, who has everything to gain from climate change (their land will become more liveable) and everything to lose (they export massive amounts of oil) why are we not talking about them more? The problems Russia pose (Putin, bots on SNS, meddling with US elections) needs to be highlighted more without scapegoating. 3. Developed nations (like old powers of Europe) already emitted and actively caused the climate change today (gaining the status of superpower in the process) Blaming developing nations by current emission amount is not only ignorant, it's downright deceptive. Stop being the Bad Samaritans (it's a book, read it up) Sharing technological advances isn't a charity, it's an obligation given the history.
@@sauffle I'm not against green energy I'm just stating the obvious. Also green energy is far less reliable as seen in texas and from projections it won't employ those people who got fired from their original jobs maybe some but not all. And all this will do is make it so the US has to import energy from other countries which is bad for the environment. And not to say all this is useless if other countries don't follow suit which they won't as all it will do is damage their economies.
I would like to make it clear that the agreement is in no way legally binding and that in general for most countries it was a promise to do nothing excluding America and a few eastern European countries, so now China can not only not do anything about the environment but now they will be applauded for it.
If you believe in science then you know regardless of upfront costs it’s essential that the US does this and more to keep the planet around for future generations.
The paris agreement has a goal, but is so ineffective. It may be doing more harm than good as heavy polluters can say they are in the agreement, and get brownie points for doing nothing or what they were already going to do. If the agreement has no standards and are just countries saying "I promise to do x" you dont need the agreement. Just promise and do it
One other major issue with the accord is it makes absolutely no provision for expanding countries or countries accepting migrants from other countries. The accord requires any country accepting refugees and migrants from the trouble zones to provide housing, work places, increased infrastructure, and increased food needs without adding any carbon emission while providing for the migrants and refugees. The only way to do that is to not give them any housing, employment, or food.
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change" I think in the main body of the agreement there is actually a more forceful version of this. It's set out as an obligation, not a target which has a difference from a psychological standpoint as well as from a compliance standpoint. You can miss a target, you can't miss an obligation, it is something that must be done.
I think it would be a good idea if the Paris Climate Agreement had something like this added: "Member countries have to set aside 0.5% of their quintennial GDP, and if they don't meet the 2ºC goal, they lose it."
The architects of the Paris agreement managed a miracle by getting agreement even to voluntary NDCs. And it's a multiple marathon we're running not a single race. Have to get people involved step by step in that type of thing. The Paris meeting this year, in Glasgow, will be asking for bigger and faster commitments, and many countries are getting to grips with the fact that that's essential if we want to continue to live on this planet. Guys, please do a piece on expectations for Glasgow!!
Two problems: you need to include a reference for the Global Emissions increase figures with similar data from before the Accord was signed; sure it's increased but has the amount of the increase been significantly reduced or not. Sanctions are left up to the individual countries as they can choose to do business with countries that are in compliance instead of with countries that are not. If sanctions were included in the Agreement, it would have never existed.
If Paris is upheld by the United Nations perhaps the UN could enforce economic sanctions against Nations that have completely missed their target, however first the UN Security Councils veto of any resolution that does not favor them will need to be abolished.
At 1:57 you put Germany in 6th place but later in the video (4:46) you refer to the German flag as the EU. Can you clear up whether it's Germany or the EU that are 6th (and ranked insufficient)? If it is the EU that this should refer to, does that include the UK? Thanks!
European union is the third largest polluter (making up 9,6% vs US 13,8% and China's 29,3% of global emissions). This does include the UK, EU's pollution is 8,6% of the global pollution.
When we see developing countries pollution rise by the same amount as Developed countries lowering... is that because of pollution exporting? Industries and waste disposal exported to other countries to make the original country look better?
It's a bit strange when you look at the numbers. Paris was supposed to achieve a maximum of 2 degrees C rise over pre-industrial temperatures, with a target of 1.5 deg. But we've already got approx. 1.5 deg., so Paris expects to achieve between zero and 0.5 further degrees of warming. it's had to see how the Paris measures could possibly have the intended effect.
The main problem with the accord is the target they wish to hit is lower than what the natural warming of the Earth itself has caused in that time period. The accord also ignores a large range of possible actions to improve the climate.
1. What have the USA carbon emissions been each year since the Paris agreement was signed? 2. What have happened to the green jobs in Germany over the last decade?
the people who argue that climate related RND, infrastructure, and modernization investments are bad for the economy really need to understand how few people actually work in the fossil fuel industry, and that hurricanes are bad for business... of course those same people are also just looking for literally any excuse to ignore the concept of reality anyways
My go to rebuttal to people who say "bUt ThE eCoNoMy!!" In regards to climate change is; there won't be an economy of were all roasted alive or underwater ya dingus
Furthermore, I'd say even if climate change were not an existential threat to poor nations (as it is) and even if it weren't a serious threat to poor people in rich nations as well (just look in the US: Texas, California, West Virginia, Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana for starters), the solutions for climate change are usually very good for the nation as a whole even if by some miniscule chance the scientific consensus is mistaken. Meeting our targets would make our grids more resilient by generating local power alongside regional power, integrating networks across nations with multiple redundancy measures and safeguards for resiliency, less dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets, a wide range of energy sources in case of shocks to one system or another, preparing our infrastructure for natural hazards and disasters, storing energy for times when it's harder to generate, etc. And if we avoid the ecofascist route forward, we will see our food systems become more efficient at feeding everyone and wasting less (right now it is efficient merely at profiting), and we will take in refugees from natural disasters, making us altogether more humane as a society. If we choose to build circular material economies, we will see our economies stabilize because they are less dependent on extraction and corresponding price volatility for resources. Most of these solutions make us better people, a better society, a stronger country, and a more peaceful world. Even if science were wrong these would be good things to do.
Can someone explain how the temperature can change by 10 degrees c in one day but somehow a 2 degree c change over the course of 50 years is horrific? This isn’t supposed to be a snarky/cocky comment I’m genuinely curious
Also there's too much greenwashing: to state accurately that your energy is clean or cleaner (green/greener) you need to assess your carbon footprint before and after the change.
the 10 top manufacturers of Solar panel are Chinese, therefore, buying from abroad decreases employment (you pay another country to work for you). Switching any type of primary energy that are mostly "homemade" for made abroad is never going to massively contribute to the external balance.
Yes, it's good to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. No, the agreement isn't working or well designed. But joining at least shows a willingness to care and hopefully that's the first step in the LONG journey to change.
You don't believe in climate change, it's a scientifically proven fact. Just like how the Earth isn't flat is a scientifically proven fact. Other than that this was a well made and informative video.
That’s really the issue with TL;DR news, they often try to be as impartial as possible which results in them doing stuff like this. There’s a saying in journalism “if one guy says it’s raining and the other says it’s not, your job isn’t to quote them both it’s to look out the window”
@@FraserSouris I'd much rather this than they follow in the footsteps of the polarizing circus that regular media has become. This is a small price to pay for avoiding that.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Except this approach can also cause damage in the long term Climate change is actually a thing that exists. By trying to be impartial here, they inadvertently legitimize Climate Change denial as a valid position with valid points rather than as nutjobs more concerned with making money instead of being focused on protecting the future. Being impartial for impartial's sake is a bad move. I'm reminded of a quote against early Philip de Franco that was like "this dude is so focused on being impartial that the government could legitmatly propose burning down orphanages and he would be like 'well, both sides make worthwhile points but I'm not going to make a call on it. What do you guys thing?"
@@FraserSouris "Except this approach can also cause damage in the long term" - does it? Don't kid yourself. You're not gonna convince the other side by just being more emphatic about how the science backs you up. All you'll do is potentially piss off more people and thus lead to completely avoidable drama. You seem to subscribe to the 'they're just poor misguided souls' school of 'understanding people who feel different from me'. Better than the outright demonization school, I guess. But still not on point, as it effectively infantilizes them. They've heard aplenty about how much science backs climate change, 97% of scientists figure included. But they're evidently not convinced (cue Upton Sinclair quote about people not understanding stuff if their living depends on that...). It's wishful thinking to imagine that's going to change if you just keep beating them over the head with it even more. All you'll do is potentially get people up in arms more, or worse - get them to simply click away. There's no dearth of writing that takes climate change seriously. So it's no use pretending as if there isn't i.e. as if the reason those people exist is cos we just haven't hammered the science point hard enough. You have. They still don't agree.
@@FraserSouris Btw, TL;DR is hardly impartial. They certainly try hard to be, but it's still pretty easy to tell which way they lean by way of WHAT they choose to cover, even if the WAY they cover it does its best to sound neutral. That's better than some of the media sure, but not all that different from, say, the BBC. The channel started with covering Brexit after all, and it wasn't hard to guess which option they preferred on that. Ditto the US presidential race, which helped launch their US channel. Which set the stage for their audience going forward. As such, you can be pretty confident most of their viewers aren't climate change deniers to begin with. So your worries about messaging are likely mostly wasted, as even in these comments you can clearly see there's very little evidence of much climate change denial to begin with.
Develop countries should help other countries so that they can get renewable energy and we need to shift our transportation sector from fossil fuels to electric completely as fast as possible
I find it quite likely that the developed nations have effectively exported their climate emissions to the developing worlds through the globalization of industry. You're simply moving the source of the emission rather than reducing the need to emit. For example, the production of solar panels causes almost as much pollution as the burning of natural gas per kWh generated. Therefore a Solar panel produced in China increases their emissions and decreases ours, but the net emissions remain the same.
I just don't know how Russia, a so giant country, with so much rivers, plains and mountains, and also lots of Uranium (therefor has a huge potencial in clean energy) can polute so much, even more than Germany for exemple wich has far less land and a much bigger economy to support
Cause they use coal, also lot's of Russia isn't even built on. Germany gets resources from the EU so there fine, they have gold mines to fund stuff for climate change
@@TemplatedWolf Rússia literally had Gold mines a lot of times more than that of Germany. Plus the majority of the EU found fomes FROM Germany itself Rússia has a lot of potencial, and a lot of resources to pay for that
Time to put money into developing solar reflecting technologies and sequestering technologies. The first to part to be used as a stop-gap for 150 years or so until we transitioned to fusion and renewables. and sequestering technologies taken the greenhouse gas levels down to sustainable levels. Hopefully a better-looking solution than in Highlander ll
Honestly? We're all fucked. A lot of people like to talk about climate change, but precious few, especially in the US and Australia, are willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary to make a real difference. Pretty much everyone has an excuse, whether it's to drive, eat excess meat, guzzle electricity with dryers and air conditioners, buy products with excess, plastic packaging, or, in too many cases, supporting governments and companies that make the problem even worse.
People against improving the climate because it hurts jobs or businesses... you can't have either if our planet becomes uninhabitable. While it sucks for the people caught up in the extreme snowfall in the US I really hope this wakes the country up to how much of an effect climate change has on them and everyone else. Because weather is only going to become more extreme and will be more extreme more often.
This agreement is a blessing for fighting climate: nobody realised/s what it involves to get below 2°C. Short version: contract economy by 4% each year until 2050 i.e. an extra covid every year. Long version: look for Jancovici and MIT to get the full explanation which is a life changing experience.
We need to put money towards getting renewable- energy to our individual houses businesses and building instead of giving it to other countries who are clearly failing to meet the goals we need to focus onourselves.
There's no/little punitive measures for not achieving climate targets, in the Paris Climate Accord. THAT'S, largely, why it's failing.
Damn
If there were, most nations would probably have not signed it.
@@TheBard1999 True
Can't easily play geo energy politics with self sufficient countries.
@@TheBard1999 Eco-posadism: Joe Biden personally nukes any country that doesn't meet the goals, including the US itself.
I get in trouble for handing in assignments too late but 2/3 of governments can be like "eh, don't feel like publishing new goals even though I'm legally obligated to"
Yeah, that is really messed up. The governments needs to be in trouble for the same reasons.
There's no legal obligations in Paris (for now). Its more like an extra credit assignment than a required assignment - sure, you'll improve your grade if you turn it in but you're not going to lose anything if you don't bother. At worst you'll get a disapproving frown from your teacher.
@@altrag And in this case a disapproving look from your teacher are natural disasters brought on by climate change.
@@thundersheild926 Well no, the disapproving look is the other Paris nations mocking you. The natural disasters are more parallel to heading out into the world after spending your entire school life doing as little as humanly possible and getting smacked in the face by the fact that the world doesn't really give a shit about you or your excuses and will nonchalantly grind you into the ground if you aren't prepared to face it.
I successfully used Brexit as an argument to get my teacher to hand me an extension 😂
Honestly it isn't a surprise (some) African countries are more ambitious. For one climate change might hit them hard due to a possibly greater desertification/higher temperatures and secondly they don't have to overhaul their entire system, rather now concentrate on having the development of their economy be more durable/green from the start, which is a lot easier.
I dont think its "easier" for developping countries. And beside, most climate change models say it will rain more and so give less deserts in africa and the heating will be less severe in africa. Ofcourse a little more heat is to much ...
@@hansvanwynsberghe It is easier in that they don't need to balance the transition of both the generation and the grid, it is isn't easy to at the same time change it and guarantee the same high standards we expect (no blackouts, constant availability of power and this together with a quickly growing demand due to electrification). However for developing nations that didn't yet rolled out this infrastructure yet, they would have needed to do so anyway, now they can just immediately do it right. Moreover the decentralised nature of renewables can help them, for example by not needing to immediately lay out a large grid (especially costly in the geographically large nations like many in Africa), but rather they can first concentrate to get everyone power, if necessary by creating independent microgrids that in the long run can be linked. Not to mention not needing constant deliveries of fuel etc.
More rain doesn't mean better, it depends where there is more rain and when, for example it rains more in regions that already often deal with flooding, this together with growing sea level will actually aggravate their situation or if you get a lot of rain in short time, but followed by drought periods, that too can be worse (most of the southern hemisphere is expected to see an increase in floods). And not all poor nations are in Africa, you have also poor islands, poor floodprone regions, poor regions at the coast, ... And something that needs to be considered is that a greening of Africa can actually lead to a desertification/shrinking of the Amazon forest, which relies on the mineral rich dust from the Sahara for its growth/maintenance. A change in the Sahara could have huge potentional to disrupt the climate worldwide.
Also there will be more erratic weather in general, which favors no one.
@@MDP1702 the problem in rich countries isnt the system it’s also the people
Did you just use "EU" synonymously with the German flag? That's priceless.
Loll, yup..
I'm guessing that the stats they were sourcing looked at top emitting countries and Germany was one, but the rules Germany was implementing were EU standards. Makes me wonder where the EU stands altogether though.
That being said, it's quite the Freudian slip. Thanks for noticing.
Yeah ! I noticed that too. I'm a Dutchman living in Germany with my Spanish girlfriend... I have nothing against Germany, but yeah that was strange.
Accurate, sadly.
They used Germany's flag since it is one of the top 10 polluters and described it as EU because all of them have the same proposals.
@@samiltajani1052 *citation needed.
As with all governments, they over-promise, under-deliver, and later than expected, if at all
Except some nations like Canada and the US are even under promising and under delivering. They're not even being ambitious.
@@Julian1T1 Oi Canada has an extremely harsh plan ok
And the more they over promise the more people vote for them.
"While Canada and the EU..."
shows Canada and Germany
To quote the fabulous Erin Douglas:
"Isn‘t America basically the planet?”
Isn’t Germany basically the EU?
Ikrr
Yeah I had to rewatch that but cuz what he said didn't line up with the graphic
@@johnr.2398 well it can be called unofficially the fourth reich
@@processlayer1212 don't say that
So american: "if you BELIEVE in climate change" This has nothing to do with believing it's science guys...
That's not strictly accurate. Science presents _justified_ beliefs, but there is still plenty that is entirely founded on the faith that our justifications are accurate. For example, we can measure temperatures going up (facts) and sea levels rising (facts). Those are pretty much indisputable barring equipment failure.
But putting those (and many other) facts together only generates a hypothesis, and no matter how well you test your hypothesis you're always assuming some amount of faith that you haven't overlooked something important - ie: things you don't know you don't know.
Eventually if a hypothesis is well-tested enough, we start calling it a theory and _presuming_ its true, but every good theory can be falsified. Newton's theory of gravity was falsified by Einstein for example. Sure Newton's is still _really, really_ good because the differences are nanoscopic at the scale of normal human size/mass/speed/etc, but they're still off by a _tiny little bit_ if we want to get super technical.
Climate change kind of sits in the middle of those two ends of the process - we have lots and lots and _lots_ of measured facts from which we can derive our hypothesis making it _very_ strong.. but we also have no way to test it. We can't just run the "experiment" on a dozen Earths and see if our hypothesis is accurate.
And its in that grey area where deniers hang out. Because no matter how much data we collect or how many computer simulations we run, the only way we're going to ever be able to truly "prove" the climate change hypothesis is by letting the planet die and then giving ourselves a big old "oopsiedaisy!" as we try to build ourselves a new civilization with 1/2 the (habitable) landmass and 1/10 the biodiversity.
Even if we successfully reverse climate change and _don't_ destroy the planet, the deniers will still be in denial as we will again never be able to say for sure that it was our actions that stopped the trend of climate change - it could have just been a colossal coincidence that the planet started warming up when we started dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air and then leveled off when we stopped. Correlation is not causation, after all!
@@altrag I'm not gonna write a detailed answer because this is UA-cam and not a debating club^^
You are, non the less, correct with most things you wrote but that climate change caused by us is so well proven in many experiments and calculations. The remaining doubt is so little that the chances it's false is as high as the chance that water flows upwards.
In this case it is undoubtedly causation.
We can't treat science ( in this advanced stadium ) as an opinion.
You don't say gravity is an opinion that can equally be questioned by media as whether tacos are better than burgers...
@@davidschlosser8169 > so well proven in many experiments
There has been exactly zero experiments "proving" climate change. The best we've got are computer simulations.
> The remaining doubt is so little
But not zero, and that's where the grey area sits. A grey area that can be (and is, of course) abused by the fossil fuel lobbies to induce inaction among the public.
That climate change is happening at all has gotten to the point that its difficult to deny, so they've just shifted a little bit and now they claim its "not our fault" so why try to do anything about it? Of course there's one massive caveat to that argument that nobody bothers mentioning: Even if really isn't our fault, its still going to fuck the planet so we should probably do something about it. Termites chewing through our houses is also "not our fault" but we still call the exterminator.
> We can't treat science as an opinion
No, but we also have to acknowledge its limitations. We've gone down a lot of incorrect rabbit holes (some of them lasting thousands of years) purely because we insist that our current knowledge is "right" and refuse to accept contradictory evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a climate change denier by any stretch. But if we just ignore the arguments that climate change deniers use, we will never be able to convince them that they've been misled. And one of those arguments is, very validly, that a hypothesis is not "proof", not matter how much evidence there is for it. We need to acknowledge that argument in order to start addressing the fact that while its not necessarily _wrong,_ its also not particularly _right_ either.
@@altrag Thank you for your detailed explanations. In general, I agree that we need to acknowledge the argument made by people with different view points, but I don't think I've ever seen somebody that denies climate change demonstrate as thorough an understanding of the scientific process as you've described above.
As demonstrated with your example discussing Newton's theories, our scientific models for the world don't need to be perfectly accurate to be able to make useful predictions about reality. At a certain point, the body of knowledge surrounding a topic should be sufficient for a reasonable person to accept the science.
Since this is not happening, I tend to conclude that climate change deniers are simply not reasonable people, and lacking reason, argument is often fruitless. People that are unmoved by rational argument voting and making decisions for countries is the biggest problem with the world today and I have no idea how to solve it.
At some point opinions are not only wrong but harmful. For example denying the holocaust in Germany is considered harmful to democratic structures and therefore forbidden to avoid people normalising this as a valid viewpoint. This obviously does not stop people from thinking it but it stops anyone from publicly asserting it because they will be arrested.
I would argue that making "not believing in climate change" an acceptable argument does harm society and should therefore not be allowed especially by people in power.
Yes this does infringe on some rights but so do a lot of laws protecting all people from one's actions.
If we entertain the idea to argue with the deniers we will both go down with the ship, but reasonable people outnumber those deniers and if we start fixing the holes in the Hull now we might get away with a just a couple billion dead.
"People that believe in climate change"
Dude, climate change isn't like God, it's not about choosing whether you "believe" in it or not.
It's scientific facts.
YOU CAN NOT BELIVE IN SCIENCE MA DUDE
i also like my science acceptabled unquestionably
Sadly not the case here in America.
I’m sorry sir. I’m going to have to ask you to leave, this is a Christian minecraft server.
That’s really the issue with TL;DR news, they often try to be as impartial as possible which results in them doing stuff like this.
There’s a saying in journalism “if one guy says it’s raining and the other says it’s not, your job isn’t to quote them both it’s to look out the window”
the point isn't just to find practical solutions to climate change, its also about presenting a united front against those political factions denying it, its about finding a platform to begin combatting climate change, even if the Paris Agreement is weak its a start from where the world can expand on climate regulation. you dont have to find the perfect solution in the first try, you just have to start something thats better than was before and have everybody agree on the change needed and then start the negotiations on expanding those regulations further
Man can't solve climate change,only God can!
@@kevinmcduffie3285 bruh
@@kevinmcduffie3285 then he's doing a shit job.
@@kevinmcduffie3285 Guess the god want us dead
So just virtue signalling?
If you can understand an addiction support group, you can understand to Paris Agreement. It's basically the same thing.
I actually wrote a research paper about why the Paris Climate Accord was so well thought out. The goal was to get every single country to sign on, and utilize effectively peer pressure to make other countries push for and meet better targets.
Since there were no set points or punitive measures, it would be a very difficult thing for any leader to reject joining the agreements, then, once involved, the countries would have a signed document basically giving them permission to hold each other accountable.
My understanding is that the biggest failure was Trump withdrawing the US. Without the largest international force involved to set an example and hold other accountable, few others wanted to commit to this agreement that the US was even pulling out of.
In Australia we saw a change in the rhetoric of our Prime Minister almost as soon as Biden announced resigning. The peer pressure you've described seems like a really accurate way to describe it.
The problem is that peer pressure only works when there is pressure from peers. Most countries haven’t done a good job or hold each other accountable
So you need to bully other countries that don't agree with you? It's sad for those underdevelop small countries with very small carbon emissions.
Weird to see Hector from Ostia agreeing on this issue with Biden. This won't really help Ostia if analyzed in depth.
you should better write a scientific paper about why Paris Agreement doesnt work at all :P it is unscientific with unmeasurable outcomes - even if we meet all the goals there are no tools or methods how to measure the outcome, the goal set by PA is lower than the prediction span of possible temperatures in 2100. So the PA is unscientific propaganda project. We cannot measure the outcome because we do not know exactly where the global temperature will be in 2100. The video suggesting we know that with certainty and we could measure that by 0,5 % is just lie. Global temperature is extremely complex multivariable thing and we have no idea how will most of the variables work in next decades, especially the sun about which we know very little... In the video they address only the human pollution variable which is not enough... So when the Paris clownthing has goals of lowering global temperature by 1 degree or half a degree, we have no idea how to measure if it was succesfull in 2100 because the current prediction of temperature in 2100 is not cerain which they shamefully omitted in the video! The current scientific prediction about where the temperature might actually be in 2100 always gives some span of possible temps, usually in several degree points... By this video they completely mislead the public into believing we are able to know results of our climate actions, which we arent.
I think the reason they went for countries setting their own goals with the Paris Agreement is because of Kyoto. They had overarching global policy at Kyoto, but it let politicians blame a global entity. Failing individual goals puts the burden on that country.
According to Ted Cruz it's because people don't care about Paris lol 😂 🤣
I also don't care about Paris too
@@Chiyenworkout same tbf
@@Chiyenworkout do you know what the Paris Climate Agreement is?
Ted Cruz is a wanker who dumps Texas for warmer climates as soon as it gets cold 😂
@@Chiyenworkout guess we should just do nothing to stop climate change then
"If we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
Using a german flag to represent the EU on the graph really shouldn't be done guys
@@snailevangelist not really, and while the economy could be argued, culturally it's 100% wrong
@@snailevangelist Think the European Council and European Commission would disagree. Strange to try justify a mistake.
@@snailevangelist Economically yes, but culturally? No.
Germany control EU anyways
Bit sensitive
We don't say "believe in gravity", or "believe in atoms".... So can we please stop using phrases like "people who believe in climate change", as if believing in climate change is a matter of faith?!? This is *really REALLY* important.💕
Climate change is not a matter of belief, It's a theory backed up by mountains of hard peer reviewed science. [*mic drop*]
"This is really REALLY important." - Not really. Don't kid yourself. You're not gonna convince the other side by just being more emphatic about how the science backs you up. All you'll do is potentially piss off more people and thus lead to avoidable drama.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Actually I've managed to convince plenty of people on the other side about climate change throughout my life, and continue to do so. I was being "emphatic" in my comment (as you quite rudely put it) because the kind of language that is used to talk about climate change is critical in helping people understand the scientific consensus on the issue. Most people understandably don't have the time in their busy lives to trawl through peer reviewed science and check on the current scientific consensus on climate change. So yes, it IS *REALLY* important that amazing unbiased news sources such as TLDR try to avoid using phrases like "people who believe in climate change". News sources should reflect this consensus in how they talk about scientific issues. I'm not sure why my comment upset you so much, sounds like you could do with a hug and some deep breaths 😂🌹💕
@@todimusic "as you quite rudely put it" ... "I'm not sure why my comment upset you so much" - defensive much? Sounds like someone's trying to project, the icing on the cake being your cute little bit self-help 'advice' at the end. Coupled with your impressively self-assured assurance of your own prowess at this sorta thing, it paints a pretty compelling picture from one little internet comment. That picture isn't of someone who's particularly convincing btw, although they certainly believe they are. I suspect climate change isn't the only thing you like 'enlightening' people about, be it about science or other issues. As long as you're happy, I suppose. The vid is still what it is though, like it or not. Cheers! *insert cute deflecting emojis here*
@@todimusic Well, there's that take too^. Feel free to demonstrate your prodigious talents at convincing people by knocking enough science cred into them now.
Its a theory backed by pretty weak evidence for the extent and impact of human-based pollution and extensive evidence that it happens in general, and thats a huge problem for creating real solutions to the problem. Quite literally, the whole theory of climate change is that CO2 increase = temp increase, despite most of the CO2 increase happening only 60 years ago. Theres minimal/no research into global climate cycles, solar/orbit cycles, and most publicized "evidence" by way of natural disasters are usually well within the range of normal weather cycles.
It requires faith to believe a poorly founded theory, and it requires faith to believe that the proposed solutions are reasonable for today's economy.
TLDR US: don't know where to put this but the Missouri tshirt on your website has the wrong seal on it.
Consider the source.
Thats what happens when you make an agreement based on feelings
Ahh yes good ole climate change is a feeling, gosh it snowed in Texas that means it's fake right?
Africa
❤️ India
I'm glad our countries are able to keep their promises made to the Paris Climate Agreement. Let's lead the world in this aspect :)
Also just because countries are not meeting the targets doesn't mean it should be scrapped. Makes me laugh that countries that aren't trying, are criticising the agreement.
The world economy is currently based on consumption so no climate change ain't getting fixed anytime soon
And yet Europe is doing better.
Gotta say I was surprised Canada was on that top ten polluter list. Canada, bro, what are you guys doing up there? You have like half the population of France or the UK?
They have a lot of oil that is a lot harder to purify than other types so that's probably why
1 place: Alberta Tar Sands. The people there are also just as fucking ignorant as the oli companies in regards to climate change
@@kumbaya69421 clearly they're trying to open the North west passage. Canada is secretly planning our Doom!
First of all, clean energy like solar energy is not gonna be good for Canada. I live in Alberta and it literally snows half the year, the snow as well as the lack of sunlight is a major factor to why solar energy isn’t going to work out well at the current state. This is why we depend on resources like oil.
@@Jellae Nuclear and hydro power both exist. There are other northern countries. The reason Canada uses a lot of oil is because they have a lot of oil, so that's cheap. You, like Norway, could probably afford to leave it in the ground.
LOL, did they really just do a "Pullout game" joke? Ya'll have just earned my like and subscription.
i like how trump was absolutely blasted for leaving the agreement, but once he was out of office, people started to see how the accord wasn’t very practical
But then you gotta look at it from the perspectivw he was blaste dmore cause this was seen as representative of all the other things he did in relation to the environemnt, disregarding any science and choosing to pander to oiligarchs
A lot of international treaties are legally binding, but most don't really stick to them
4:45 "... while Canada and the EU..."
German flag: 🇩🇪
EU flag: 🇪🇺
Germany is not the entire EU, TLDR!
It doesn't matter what goals they set as they aren't legally binding.
True, but if you aren’t meeting your targets, that you set for yourself, then you can be called out for it. There may not be punitive penalties but it’s political gamesmanship, it’s particularly bad if your allies can meet their targets but you can’t, you become a mockery, for over promising and under delivering.
@@ChristopherChestnutNI Kind off, but from what I've understood, they self-report results. And through that, they can play semantic word games to make it seem like they reached their goals.
@@Raigan_Avalon I don't think "legally binding" is even a meaningful phrase in terms of country thou. Who is binding them? "International law" is an oxymoron. Countries break such "laws" all the time with no consequence.
In contrast I think it's good that it's not pretending to be binding. I think it's smart bc for one countries will actually feel like joining (eg, look at how many internationally agreements the US skipped out on that even pretends to be binding), for another it allows countries to virtue signal each other and create sort of peer pressure.
I don't believe that Germany is doing as well as shown in the map. I'm German and I've seen no real progress. In the beginning Germany did well but now... I would say we are getting worse over the time and the state has done less and less. Especially with the controversy about nuclear power plants and wind turbines and their impact in the environment. Eventhough it would greatly decrease CO2 emissions.
And on top of that the idea to change completely to electric cars which would ironically increase CO2 emissions if not most of the stations provide renewable energy. On top of that an electric car must be driven around 10 years to have less impact than other cars in the environment because of the way they are build, not to mention the cost of repairs.
Instead of more cars we should concentrate having public transportation, walking and cycling promoted. We should have the least amount of vehicles as possible.
i love the way these lads have bearly any bias, just give pure news and facts
no tdlr newss is very biassed and is part of da far left news meddia brianwashing us all /s
@@gavinthecrafter Ima be honest here I'm on the political right and idk if you're being serious
@@orbitlizz7619 /s means I'm being sarcastic
Good job India, Morocco and Gambia
Thank you so much! We receive negative PR so often. Positive comments like this really help. We are proud of being one of the few countries who stuck to their promises in the Paris Climate Agreement
Bhutan deserves the biggest credit.
The reduction of carbon emissions over the last year shows that supporting peoples ability to work from home rather than commute is a good step forward in terms of making the economy more environmentally friendly. Further a focus on creating better charging and electricity generation capabilities in environmentally responsible ways is the obvious next step. Unfortunately hardly anyone can agree on how this should be done.
Trump: "it's a failing experiment"
Media: "OML CLIMATE DENIER"
People now: "It's a failing experiment"
Media: "I mean yeah it was obvious because X, Y and Z"
Is it working? Depends on what you expect it to deliver. For politicians, it's a wonderful opportunity to present yourself as a saviour of the world whilst knowing that you'll never be held accountable as the timescales are so long. It's a win-win! So from that point of view, the Paris Accord has been a great success.
It's gonna take me a long time to get tired of the term 'former US president Donald Trump'
You’re probably one of those people the thinks anything to the right of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is fascist.
@@TexasTeaHTX that's a rather hefty assumption from someone that's never met me before, kind sir
@@TomFegredo imagine if everyone who disliked Trump actually was left of AOC. Politics would look rather different, I think.
@@TexasTeaHTX this is closer to the truth than calling Biden a socialist lol
@@billys3463 Biden definitely isn’t a socialist, he’d certainly be conservative af by European standards.
Permafrost melting is a huge concern being that it’s releasing methane at an astronomical amount and at a certain point will be irreversible. To continue life on this earth every country needs to meet the goals needed to lower the global temperature.
The Paris climate agreement is a great example of why you make agreements binding
no it's not? If it's binding people will simply not join. Besides, if you or I break an agreement we can be sued and the courts have power over us. Who's going to hold a country accountable?
I don't think "binding" is even meaningful in the context of international agreements.
@@randomnobody660 countries are held accountable by the soft power of other countries(occasionally also military power, but that's not relevant to this discussion) if countries won't join an agreement because it's binding, they'll likely not follow through on non binding agreements, which is better because we can call them out instead of pretending they're doing something by making promises they won't keep.
@@yarielrobles9003 I guess that's where we disagree.
I think it's more powerful to shame a country that made promises it didn't keep compared to a country that promised nothing in the first place. That's why I think the Paris accord is quite smart.
You think the opposite, and so your conclusion is naturally the opposite as well.
One point you seemed to have missed is that rejoining Paris isn't just about the climate goals, but also about signaling to America's traditional allies a return to a more normal foreign relations. This may be particularly important in a post-Trump America where one of the lessons learned is that foreign involvement in America's elections is essentially going to go unpunished.
Any plans for a full video on the Texas Power Grid Failure?
The fact that people are telling me I should vote Democrat for a bigger government and more taxes is laughable. We didn’t have the infrastructure for the extreme weather and if was definitely unexpected.
@@TexasTeaHTX We knew about the potential issues for at least a decade. Also the state’s biggest Republicans were MIA during the worst of the crisis. Cruz going to Cancun should have gotten him expelled from Congress, and him actively supporting the riots was already bad enough. Cornyn was no where to be scene, Abbott was to slow to respond and Paxton just found out yesterday that he was in Utah.
@@tannerwilson4843 What would those Republicans that that you just mentioned do to make a difference? They literally have zero administrative power, that falls on the governor and the president. Still not voting Democrat.
@@TexasTeaHTX They should have been on the ground helping! Beto O’Rourke organized phone banks making nearly a million phone calls to people looking to get help and raised over a million dollars in donations. The Castro brothers were at food banks helping get food out.
The Republican Party is an extremely outdated party that refuses to progress on any issue whatsoever and after refusing to take out Trump in the Impeachment and trial following the Capitol Hill Riots. I’m officially done with them.
The fact that you still support them after all this is absolutely moronic. If we had a real political system instead of the two Party System. They party would be committing political suicide and basically be relegated to being a far right fringe party with very little influence or support, similar to say a party like The People’s Party of Canada or the former UKIP or Brexit Party in the UK.
The People’s Party of Canada for example was created following after a former candidate for the Consverative Party Leadership lost out in a really close vote to be the party’s new National Leader. After he lost the vote, he created the People’s Party as a further right alternative to the Conservatives and the Canadian people recognized how awful their positions were and shunned them. Not only did they failed to win even a single seat in Canada’s House of Common’s. They didn’t even come close, with the exception of the party’s leader and one other candidate, no one else was even able to reach 5% of the vote of any individual race and only got about 3% of the total national vote. And they have gotten squashed in provincial legislative and local races as well. This should be the Republican Party’s future if more people would smarten up and realize how awful party of a party they have become.
Oh, that’s right, since the riots. They are in increasing reports that party members are leaving the Republican party in droves and they are talks of at least 100+ current and former Republican Party officials looking to possibly leave and forming their own party.
@@TexasTeaHTX yea they can. You do realize that they have a lot of political power and influence. Hell even people outside and of Texas did more than them.
He was right to rejoin but it’s not nearly enough. There is only so much we can do without China helping
I thought China is part of the Paris agreement
@@PRWilson88 they are
@@PRWilson88 yes but their goal was to reach peak emissions by 2030. Or in other terms keep polluting more until 2030. My point was that every little bit helps but China still is not cooperating well and pollutes 2x as much as the USA
@@Ueiksg That makes sense. Not to entirely defend China but, they are kicking the west's ass regarding electric vehicles and are making substantial technical changes to their infrastructure. They have a long way to go but, they essentially have the west offshoring our emissions, so they can supply us with goods. I just hope the Paris agreement can make a decent start.
@@PRWilson88 yeah but it’s gonna require more. The top 5 countries (USA, Russia, China, India, Japan) account for 60% of emissions. So whilst the Paris agreement is necessary, it puts too much on little countries and not enough on the big 5 and more specifically the big two.
Ethiopia is truly a role model. They planted millions of trees in one day too
You realize that orange man pulled out because he knew it wasnt going to happen anyway. So he wasnt held accountable for a future failure
Because Trump is the only principled politicia of them all who will not lie to people and pretend he is doing some good to save the world when of course Paris Agreement is just a giant waste of money with very uncertain effects...
You both sound very confident in your future predictions. What makes you so confident it won't work?
@@edopronk1303 The same reason it didnt work this time. Tragedy of the commons
@@andrewearl8926 I'm not sure it failed, certainly not entirely. Okay, the usa and some other countries did fail miserably with their goals, some others didn't fail. And we talk about it. Without the Paris agreement we weren't talking about it and didn't have benchmarks.
And as far as I conclude, a big part of the 'failing' of the agreement so far is because of the usa pulling out. Trump made it a self-fulfilling prophecy; "I won't follow the clean up scheme, because not everyone will clean up accordingly".
@@edopronk1303 So its still the united state's fault a majority of the other nations didnt make their commitments?
Treaties and accords are things countries sign and expect others to live up to but have little to no intention of doing so themselves.
About as valuable as the paper they're written on.
Insightful video. However, few points / perspectives you may have missed. (I recommend watching Kurzgesagt video too on this topic)
1. Emission per person is an important statistics that needs more attention. Russia not meeting their targets is not as nearly as bad as China not meeting emissions (as China has a lot more people) for example. I'm not Chinese nor defending them here.
2. Speaking of Russia, who has everything to gain from climate change (their land will become more liveable) and everything to lose (they export massive amounts of oil) why are we not talking about them more?
The problems Russia pose (Putin, bots on SNS, meddling with US elections) needs to be highlighted more without scapegoating.
3. Developed nations (like old powers of Europe) already emitted and actively caused the climate change today (gaining the status of superpower in the process)
Blaming developing nations by current emission amount is not only ignorant, it's downright deceptive. Stop being the Bad Samaritans (it's a book, read it up) Sharing technological advances isn't a charity, it's an obligation given the history.
I'm happy the US has gotten back into the agreement and I feel anything at all that gets accomplished is a good thing.
Tbh is seems like all it will do is cost us tax payers a lot more and will do very little for climate if non at all...
@@Mrfizzly The accords itself probably won't cost task payers much but subsidies for green energy job creation will cost them
@@andrewsciacca3016 also trying to close down/regulate industries such oil/fracking which are not good for the environment but employ millions.
@@Mrfizzly it will also make millions of home go underwater, also those people can be employed for green energy companies
@@sauffle I'm not against green energy I'm just stating the obvious. Also green energy is far less reliable as seen in texas and from projections it won't employ those people who got fired from their original jobs maybe some but not all. And all this will do is make it so the US has to import energy from other countries which is bad for the environment. And not to say all this is useless if other countries don't follow suit which they won't as all it will do is damage their economies.
I would like to make it clear that the agreement is in no way legally binding and that in general for most countries it was a promise to do nothing excluding America and a few eastern European countries, so now China can not only not do anything about the environment but now they will be applauded for it.
If you believe in science then you know regardless of upfront costs it’s essential that the US does this and more to keep the planet around for future generations.
Thanks for commenting,I will refer you to trade analyst and, accountant to make good income, go more on digital asset's
HIS AVAILABLE ON Whats App ASSURED
+_1_2_8_1_6_4_3_6_1_3_3 For trading guidelines
I wouldnt consider ANY efford to protect our home "failing"..
The paris agreement has a goal, but is so ineffective. It may be doing more harm than good as heavy polluters can say they are in the agreement, and get brownie points for doing nothing or what they were already going to do.
If the agreement has no standards and are just countries saying "I promise to do x" you dont need the agreement. Just promise and do it
The project’s failure is on the members not the agreement...
Thanks for commenting,I will refer you to trade analyst and, accountant to make good income, go more on digital asset's
HIS AVAILABLE ON Whats App ASSURED
+_1_2_8_1_6_4_3_6_1_3_3 Do well to let him know I referred you to him his strategies are top notch✅
The saddest words of tongue or pen, “Trump was right again.”
One other major issue with the accord is it makes absolutely no provision for expanding countries or countries accepting migrants from other countries. The accord requires any country accepting refugees and migrants from the trouble zones to provide housing, work places, increased infrastructure, and increased food needs without adding any carbon emission while providing for the migrants and refugees. The only way to do that is to not give them any housing, employment, or food.
I support it with reservations. Put nuclear energy into the package in a big way and most of those reservations leave.
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below
2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change"
I think in the main body of the agreement there is actually a more forceful version of this. It's set out as an obligation, not a target which has a difference from a psychological standpoint as well as from a compliance standpoint. You can miss a target, you can't miss an obligation, it is something that must be done.
As long as the CO2 reduction comes from investing in hydropower and nuclear power, sign me up!
Yeah these new power methods are good and electrical in general can phase out co2 like electrical cars for example
The worst effort is the one not made. If the most powerful countries on the planet do not show an united front what hope does the planet have?
I think it would be a good idea if the Paris Climate Agreement had something like this added: "Member countries have to set aside 0.5% of their quintennial GDP, and if they don't meet the 2ºC goal, they lose it."
The architects of the Paris agreement managed a miracle by getting agreement even to voluntary NDCs. And it's a multiple marathon we're running not a single race. Have to get people involved step by step in that type of thing. The Paris meeting this year, in Glasgow, will be asking for bigger and faster commitments, and many countries are getting to grips with the fact that that's essential if we want to continue to live on this planet. Guys, please do a piece on expectations for Glasgow!!
AVAILABLE ON Whats App ASSURED
+_1_2_8_1_6_4_3_6_1_3_3 For trading guidelines
Facts check: NOT LEGALLY BIDING 😂 It is based on the "Wall of SHAME" strategy.
Two problems: you need to include a reference for the Global Emissions increase figures with similar data from before the Accord was signed; sure it's increased but has the amount of the increase been significantly reduced or not. Sanctions are left up to the individual countries as they can choose to do business with countries that are in compliance instead of with countries that are not. If sanctions were included in the Agreement, it would have never existed.
If Paris is upheld by the United Nations perhaps the UN could enforce economic sanctions against Nations that have completely missed their target, however first the UN Security Councils veto of any resolution that does not favor them will need to be abolished.
That’s never going to happen, unfortunately.
At 1:57 you put Germany in 6th place but later in the video (4:46) you refer to the German flag as the EU. Can you clear up whether it's Germany or the EU that are 6th (and ranked insufficient)? If it is the EU that this should refer to, does that include the UK? Thanks!
Eu or germany there is no difference, merkel has more power in my country than my pm.
European union is the third largest polluter (making up 9,6% vs US 13,8% and China's 29,3% of global emissions). This does include the UK, EU's pollution is 8,6% of the global pollution.
When we see developing countries pollution rise by the same amount as Developed countries lowering... is that because of pollution exporting? Industries and waste disposal exported to other countries to make the original country look better?
It is not legally binding treaty because it wasn't approved by the senate.
This is just so depressing... Is this really how our species destroys its only planet? Shortsighted like any animal with no regards for consequences
It's a bit strange when you look at the numbers. Paris was supposed to achieve a maximum of 2 degrees C rise over pre-industrial temperatures, with a target of 1.5 deg. But we've already got approx. 1.5 deg., so Paris expects to achieve between zero and 0.5 further degrees of warming. it's had to see how the Paris measures could possibly have the intended effect.
Rejoining with no plan of action is not going to do much
The main problem with the accord is the target they wish to hit is lower than what the natural warming of the Earth itself has caused in that time period. The accord also ignores a large range of possible actions to improve the climate.
1. What have the USA carbon emissions been each year since the Paris agreement was signed?
2. What have happened to the green jobs in Germany over the last decade?
If it was a treaty then the US Senate would have to ratify it.
Green new deal.
There's more jobs per kilowatt hour of energy of solar than fossil fuels.
the people who argue that climate related RND, infrastructure, and modernization investments are bad for the economy really need to understand how few people actually work in the fossil fuel industry, and that hurricanes are bad for business... of course those same people are also just looking for literally any excuse to ignore the concept of reality anyways
My go to rebuttal to people who say "bUt ThE eCoNoMy!!" In regards to climate change is; there won't be an economy of were all roasted alive or underwater ya dingus
There are major industries (including oil, mostly) who are plotting against climate policies, and they're really powerful.
Not to pick a favorite, but to significantly mitigate climate change all countries have to up their game to the Denmark level
Denmark level? Denmark is “good” but far from perfect or the best...
This is good and unbiased. Keep it that way....
4:36 no surprise, I was expecting that tbh.
Can something that is non-binding fail?
Correction: scratch "if you believe in climate change", and replace it with "if you recognize the overwhelming evidence of climate change"
Furthermore, I'd say even if climate change were not an existential threat to poor nations (as it is) and even if it weren't a serious threat to poor people in rich nations as well (just look in the US: Texas, California, West Virginia, Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana for starters), the solutions for climate change are usually very good for the nation as a whole even if by some miniscule chance the scientific consensus is mistaken.
Meeting our targets would make our grids more resilient by generating local power alongside regional power, integrating networks across nations with multiple redundancy measures and safeguards for resiliency, less dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets, a wide range of energy sources in case of shocks to one system or another, preparing our infrastructure for natural hazards and disasters, storing energy for times when it's harder to generate, etc.
And if we avoid the ecofascist route forward, we will see our food systems become more efficient at feeding everyone and wasting less (right now it is efficient merely at profiting), and we will take in refugees from natural disasters, making us altogether more humane as a society.
If we choose to build circular material economies, we will see our economies stabilize because they are less dependent on extraction and corresponding price volatility for resources.
Most of these solutions make us better people, a better society, a stronger country, and a more peaceful world. Even if science were wrong these would be good things to do.
Can someone explain how the temperature can change by 10 degrees c in one day but somehow a 2 degree c change over the course of 50 years is horrific? This isn’t supposed to be a snarky/cocky comment I’m genuinely curious
Also there's too much greenwashing: to state accurately that your energy is clean or cleaner (green/greener) you need to assess your carbon footprint before and after the change.
the 10 top manufacturers of Solar panel are Chinese, therefore, buying from abroad decreases employment (you pay another country to work for you). Switching any type of primary energy that are mostly "homemade" for made abroad is never going to massively contribute to the external balance.
The Paris Climate Agreement is more or less a limp handshake
Yes, it's good to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. No, the agreement isn't working or well designed. But joining at least shows a willingness to care and hopefully that's the first step in the LONG journey to change.
You don't believe in climate change, it's a scientifically proven fact. Just like how the Earth isn't flat is a scientifically proven fact. Other than that this was a well made and informative video.
That’s really the issue with TL;DR news, they often try to be as impartial as possible which results in them doing stuff like this.
There’s a saying in journalism “if one guy says it’s raining and the other says it’s not, your job isn’t to quote them both it’s to look out the window”
@@FraserSouris I'd much rather this than they follow in the footsteps of the polarizing circus that regular media has become. This is a small price to pay for avoiding that.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Except this approach can also cause damage in the long term
Climate change is actually a thing that exists. By trying to be impartial here, they inadvertently legitimize Climate Change denial as a valid position with valid points rather than as nutjobs more concerned with making money instead of being focused on protecting the future.
Being impartial for impartial's sake is a bad move. I'm reminded of a quote against early Philip de Franco that was like "this dude is so focused on being impartial that the government could legitmatly propose burning down orphanages and he would be like 'well, both sides make worthwhile points but I'm not going to make a call on it. What do you guys thing?"
@@FraserSouris "Except this approach can also cause damage in the long term" - does it? Don't kid yourself. You're not gonna convince the other side by just being more emphatic about how the science backs you up. All you'll do is potentially piss off more people and thus lead to completely avoidable drama. You seem to subscribe to the 'they're just poor misguided souls' school of 'understanding people who feel different from me'. Better than the outright demonization school, I guess. But still not on point, as it effectively infantilizes them. They've heard aplenty about how much science backs climate change, 97% of scientists figure included. But they're evidently not convinced (cue Upton Sinclair quote about people not understanding stuff if their living depends on that...). It's wishful thinking to imagine that's going to change if you just keep beating them over the head with it even more. All you'll do is potentially get people up in arms more, or worse - get them to simply click away. There's no dearth of writing that takes climate change seriously. So it's no use pretending as if there isn't i.e. as if the reason those people exist is cos we just haven't hammered the science point hard enough. You have. They still don't agree.
@@FraserSouris Btw, TL;DR is hardly impartial. They certainly try hard to be, but it's still pretty easy to tell which way they lean by way of WHAT they choose to cover, even if the WAY they cover it does its best to sound neutral. That's better than some of the media sure, but not all that different from, say, the BBC. The channel started with covering Brexit after all, and it wasn't hard to guess which option they preferred on that. Ditto the US presidential race, which helped launch their US channel. Which set the stage for their audience going forward. As such, you can be pretty confident most of their viewers aren't climate change deniers to begin with. So your worries about messaging are likely mostly wasted, as even in these comments you can clearly see there's very little evidence of much climate change denial to begin with.
Develop countries should help other countries so that they can get renewable energy and we need to shift our transportation sector from fossil fuels to electric completely as fast as possible
I find it quite likely that the developed nations have effectively exported their climate emissions to the developing worlds through the globalization of industry. You're simply moving the source of the emission rather than reducing the need to emit. For example, the production of solar panels causes almost as much pollution as the burning of natural gas per kWh generated. Therefore a Solar panel produced in China increases their emissions and decreases ours, but the net emissions remain the same.
I thought the Paris Climate Agreement was a non-binding resolution. I guess it was just part of it is
I just don't know how Russia, a so giant country, with so much rivers, plains and mountains, and also lots of Uranium (therefor has a huge potencial in clean energy) can polute so much, even more than Germany for exemple wich has far less land and a much bigger economy to support
Cause they use coal, also lot's of Russia isn't even built on. Germany gets resources from the EU so there fine, they have gold mines to fund stuff for climate change
@@TemplatedWolf Rússia literally had Gold mines a lot of times more than that of Germany. Plus the majority of the EU found fomes FROM Germany itself
Rússia has a lot of potencial, and a lot of resources to pay for that
Time to put money into developing solar reflecting technologies and sequestering technologies.
The first to part to be used as a stop-gap for 150 years or so until we transitioned to fusion and renewables. and sequestering technologies taken the greenhouse gas levels down to sustainable levels.
Hopefully a better-looking solution than in Highlander ll
Petition to replace politicians with expert speedrunners.
Despite the many problems Morocco is facing, i am really proud of being Moroccan for such achievements
Countries that does not submit should be fine
Honestly? We're all fucked. A lot of people like to talk about climate change, but precious few, especially in the US and Australia, are willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary to make a real difference. Pretty much everyone has an excuse, whether it's to drive, eat excess meat, guzzle electricity with dryers and air conditioners, buy products with excess, plastic packaging, or, in too many cases, supporting governments and companies that make the problem even worse.
People against improving the climate because it hurts jobs or businesses... you can't have either if our planet becomes uninhabitable. While it sucks for the people caught up in the extreme snowfall in the US I really hope this wakes the country up to how much of an effect climate change has on them and everyone else. Because weather is only going to become more extreme and will be more extreme more often.
This agreement is a blessing for fighting climate: nobody realised/s what it involves to get below 2°C. Short version: contract economy by 4% each year until 2050 i.e. an extra covid every year. Long version: look for Jancovici and MIT to get the full explanation which is a life changing experience.
It's predictably disappointing. But any amount that is achieved is a success.
3:04 I want a Paris Climate Accord with shoes pin badge!
It's not.
So basically governments cannot govern themselves w/o some kind of reprimanding?
We need to put money towards getting renewable- energy to our individual houses businesses and building instead of giving it to other countries who are clearly failing to meet the goals we need to focus onourselves.
Great video!