Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Want to restore the planet’s ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my code SABINE2 will get the first month for free at planetwild.com...
If you want to get to know them better first, check out their latest mission, where they go on an insane journey to save the most trafficked mammal on the planet. planetwild.com...
With the Trump administration fully in control of the U.S., it appears that the tides are changing in the climate change discussion. The White House has already withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, Trump wants to end what he’s calling “the green new scam,” and corporations around the world are abandoning their carbon neutrality pledges. How will this affect the climate change situation? Let’s take a look.
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #climate #politics
we gave up because the richest people figure they'll be okay either way
and convinced everyone else that this will be good enough
Even the richest people will suffer, especially the next couple generations. After that, there may not be another generation.
Because decades of climate models failed carbon dioxide doesn't even increase temperature. It's Pseudo science
China is rich and don't care a bit, why the blame never put in the left or globalists? That is the point.
Trump and others just stop being the retard who make all the sacrifice and gain nothing from it.
This is bleak, but people need to hear it. Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder.
they didn't give up they just stopped pretending to care
edit: lol
Yeah there’s no reason to pander to the base they no longer need 😭 What little balance there was to the force just got sucked into a black hole 😢😢
@@lmzaadi We haven't been able to eliminate economic deprivation in our own countries, let alone across the world.
What makes you believe we can control the climate? Because "someone said we could"?
Don't you see just how asinine that is?
No-one cares really....what have any of us done? Cancelled a single holiday?
Its not even possible to buy food in any urban area without consuming plastic and oil emissions...
They never cared, all they care about is financial report at the end of the quarter. They took a facade of caring (aka green washing) when it was in fashion to care about such matters, RN it's not and it's cheaper to continue the old methods.
@@lazydaisee3997 none of us could have done anything individually, it's a purely institutional responsibility.
Anyone who ever played any kind of complex management games can tell how inefficient and futile individual efforts are.
It's like an individual molecule trying to knock the whole system out of equilibrium state
Stupidity runs rampant. Nuclear energy is a better solution for huge electrical needs.
Thanks
I agree, it has been a no-brainer maybe people will wake up..
Finally acknowledged without China and India, what's the point
Only problem is when you see your staggering nuclear power bill. But that's no problem for the rich, so who cares.
Humans are a tragic species: smart enough to make fire, too dumb to escape the smoke.
Since 2020, the realisation that we, humans, are actually morons has been a tough pill to swallow. I've never felt more atheist - we act like animals because we are animals
I don't cry when ants fall into syrup, should I cry over humans? Nah, live is too short to bother.
No we are not. The tragedy was wasting time with this scam. So many other things we could have done.
Your comment is so clever.
I need to steal that quote.
I finally came to the conclusion that pretty much no one important GAF about climate change after the events of COPs 28 and 29, which were held in the oil-state capitals of Dubai and Baku, respectively.
😂😂😂 ..you couldn't make that sh!t up! Lol
IPCC has long demanded $2400-a-CO2-Ton tithe to the New Catholic in Brussels. For the maff-challenged, that's about $25 a gallon carbon tax at the pump. Since you care so much, set aside $400 every time you fill up. IPCC's address is on their website. Send your Save the Planet tithe in to Brussels, attention 'Green Pope'. *BUT YOU WON'T, WILL YOU?*
Probably because they all stopped listening to "academics" & "scientists" whos next paycheck depended on how much GW hype they could pump out of every waking hour of their days.
@@MR-nl8xr You still believe that, don't you? There is no underestimating human stupidity.
"The planet is fine, the people are f@cked" - George Carlin (R.I.P)
But it's false
It's the exact opposite in fact...
Humanity is growing faster than ever, 8.3 billion in 2025!
The planet isn't, 95% of all animals on Earth are now cattle, pigs, chicken, sheep, and 75% of wildlife's populations have disappeared in 50 years!
@@jimmcneal5292 How so the planet dealt with far higher carbon levels in the past
George Carlin hates white people.
@@southcoastinventors6583 right! and say we could `stop climate change` whats that mean. Stop life from evolving and everything go extinct? We couldn`t even if we tryed!
Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it's too late now.
Always works.
Go find the crisis for yourself. Just scratch the surface. Look at Mann’s hockey stick data. Look at the confidence level of the IPCC working group data. It’s not even hiding in plain sight.
The push back against nuclear energy will one day be considered humanity's dumbest move.
Most probably not.
Russia cancels construction of 40 nuclear reactors after Soviet Union collapses. If the world's oil and gas exporting countries go nuclear. We definitely won't get to 1.5°C
Nope, the dumbest move was capitalism itself which is predicated upon ever more people and energy.
@ArturoTabera Because we won't be around in a few hundred years to study ourselves from a few hundred years ago
China is going all in nuclear. Dual use of course 😂
The avarage joe, ain't convinced.
By a bunch people flying Private Jets every week
Telling everyone how the climate should be managed.
While buying up seafront property.
Yea, we should trust the science, the science that Al Gore touted and told us that by 2020 all the polar bears would die of sun burns because of "Global Warming." Then when the un-doctored scientific data came out to prove him and his scientists were full of shit they (you) quickly switched to "Climate Change" because you can't prove that either way. No thanks, they are both just money grabs from governments for research dollars. The people that believe that load crap are just not smart enough to see the grift.
which means everybody shld
just say: fk it.
got it.
The bunch of people flying private jets isn't what should convince the average joe. But nothing can convince the average joe that can't be explained in 5 minutes or less on Fox or CNN or MSNBC.
I wasn't fully convince even after 3 credits of climate science at university. It took the years-long warming hiatus to finally throw in the thermal towel to do that.
OK. Well then the “average joe” can be convinced when they die in a disaster that was the direct result of climate change. And with their last breath, they can keep believing that climate change was a hoax.
The wealthiest people buy up seafront property *knowing* it will be underwater in 20 years, but *not caring* because they have effectively infinite wealth.
Similarly they fly private jets because they want to and, at the end of the day, it’s *mainly* the “average Joe” that’s going to die, so they don’t have to care *that* much honestly.
Now we’re good. Everyone can be happy. The very wealthy can go back to doing whatever they want, and the “average Joe” can just start to die off en masse, blaming “immigrants” or “trans” or whatever they want. It’s a win win!
I would speak as a third world person, which is the majority of the population of the planet. People while they are poor, will always prefer economical growth and adapt to climate change than to be even poorer and still have the climate change.
Exactly.
Precisely. There is no way climate change will be stopped, no matter the cause of it, there is no need to impoverish yourself, instead focus on adapting as best as you can, which is what humanity has always done. We're not even a pimple on the surface of the planet, we've always been thrown around by the tides.
Your economical growth wont matter when the shit hit the fan
@@mariusvanc
Climate change will be stopped. It's pretty much a certainty, because most of the necessary technologies are now cheaper and better, and the rest will be cheaper soon.
Based on current adoption trends, we should easily beat the 2050 deadline.
How does that work when climate change also worsens your heatwaves, rainfalls/flooding, wildfires, and wet bulb events? You will not benefit from adaptation like first-world countries can - you wouldn't be able to afford the damage those disasters will incur on your properties and infrastructure, and your people would not survive these extreme conditions.
Adaptation works when you can afford it and if it is available to you. What if you had mere hours before you died of heatstroke due to a wet bulb event, and your air conditioners are overloading the electric grid? Can you afford the insurance to cover your properties as risks of disasters push your premium prices up - or the electricity bills to pay to cool your homes?
You're right that you will have no option. But you will not fare well without millions of lives lost. There is no decent living or sustainable economic growth from adaptation if you lose everything you've built because of a biblical flood.
Mother nature will correct the problem. Unfortunately, she doesn't care if it hurts.
That's magical thinking. Nature has no purpose OR its "desired" level of CO2 for that matter.
@@deadvatniks Nature may not but we do. We can't sustain shit at 4c
@@Ssg-xi3vi 4C doesn't sound awful hot🤔
@The dead don't sweat much my friend.
@@deadvatniks It's not just how hot, it's how _fast._
"What have future generations ever done for us?"
They don't need this shit
yeh!
Personally think that the only thing that will stop energy being dug out of the ground is when the alternative is more profitable.
It actually already is, but not everyone has noticed.
But that's the reason why alternative energy transition is unstoppable, not even Trump can stop it, he just puts a dent in the timeframe
@@ItsAlways42-z1e Same thought. Carbon neutrality is toast as a political frame, nothing more
@@ItsAlways42-z1e If this were true, every energy source would be green. Or do you imagine corporations go "do we want to make 10% more money this year or 50% more money? I know, let's be conservative and only make 10% more"
@@ItsAlways42-z1eYou are confusing profitable with cheap. Clean energy is cheaper for the user, but being a petrochemical company keeps being one of the most profitables busineses.
Also, its not only for energy, its for chems too, as its name suggest. Those chems are way cheaper than any alternative.
For 100,000 years we operated on human labor. If we regress on the industrial revolution it will be because oil has become more expensive than returning to slavery.
No matter what we humans do, Mother Earth always wins in the end.
..."The planet isn't going enywhere.. We are!!" G.Carlin
I wouldn't bet on that long term. If we became a true space faring civilization, we'll have the capability of dismantling entire planets for raw materials. Even stars.
@@andrasbiro3007 We will have to survive as a civilisation long enought to become a true space faring civilization and currently we aren't really showing a particularly good performance in that respect.
@@scruffy4647 somehow you KNOW that's right.
C02, the food of life. The more the better. We can’t have enough of it.
Today Australia announced it's last glass manufacturer is closing after 169 years due to the rapid and continuing increase of natural gas prices. Does this mean we will stop using glass in new homes and offices? Of course not! We will import the glass, moving the emissions offshore for no net change to the planet.
which reveals that it was never about the climate, only about destroying the economies of western countries.
That's an indication of either a poorly run business and/or too much international competition and not directly related to emissions policy/pledges.
Western economies were destroyed by liberals. It is what it is.
Or you can pay more for the glass? Or maybe invest in solar and use that for business needs? Which in turn will again rise the price of glass, because the furnaces won't be operating 24/7.
@@lamcho00 Or we can just get rid of these nonsense emissions restrictions and go back to burning as much gas and oil and coal as we need, and have a thriving industrial economy, because CO2 emissions are good for the planet, it's plant food and it has no significant effect on the climate.
"planets not going anywhere, we are. The planets fine, planets gonna shake us off like a bad case of fleas" - George Carlin
Sounds fair, looking at the 11/5 election results, we're behaving more like insects than humans.
... and the human race deserves it. Granted, there are some who actually do care, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who are in full on denial (validated by their Special Interest Echo-Chambers). I hope the descendants of the politically brainwashed "Take No Responsibility" crowd curse their ancestors for the mess they created for them. Or, better yet, that the anti-Environment Protection crowd is reincarnated at a future date and get to deal with the mess they made. Hmm... That would be actually make for a feel-good movie.
@@jlvandat69 Newton said, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The same is true in politics. The farther a pendulum is pushed to the left, the farther it will swing to the right. Natural laws not only are true in the physical world but also the political.
@@markfabre7682 Comparing science to politics is like comparing astronomy with astrology. There's a few similarities, but they are based on completely different foundations. One uses facts and rational thought to form laws and principles, the other uses opinions from people which are often very misguided.
@ yes but politics attempts to impersonate science and religion as arbiter of truth. Astronomy grew out of astrology. Chemistry grew from alchemy. Politics is still closely tied to religion, which originally justified its authority. Our US "experiment" was instituted upside down from every preceding government. Up until then the pecking order went from God to government, to subjects. Our Founders set up a system where power (and Rights) flowed from God/Nature/Creator to the citizens and the government is subject to the citizens collectively.
The fact that Germany wiped a town off the map to get at the poor quality coal underneath it, because it didn’t have enough energy to keep warm during the winter, tells you all you need to know about green energy policies.
That and absolute refusal to go nuclear.
Yup. The greenest power production if you have the geography for it? Hydro. Second greenest? Nuclear. But conveniently these morons hate nuclear and only preach solar and wind, which is worthless as a primary power generator for a country. It's only real use is in remote locations without proper power infrastructure.
The few have always had to suffer for the good of the many. It has been that way since the beginning of time.
@@Taskarninbut in this case the many had to suffer for the “good” of a few. Germany had cheap, clean Russian gas and nuclear power. Now they have coal and LNG which costs 3 to 10 times more. Who benefits? Certainly not German citizens and workers.
@@crinklecut3790 well we aren’t exactly going to solve all of Europes problems now are we?
The fact Europe decided to be completely dependent on their violent autocratic neighbor and now they’re paying the price is poetic justice. Maybe if they had some standards in the first place they wouldn’t be in that position?
It’s not like Europe has ever held the moral high ground, see Syrian and Libyan refugee crises.
There never was any chance of carbon neutrality. China has claimed developing nation status for decades and in the 2022 WorldInfo data (can't find newer) it's carbon emissions very nearly equalled *the other nine nations in the top ten combined.*
This. China and India are ramping up their CO2 emissions and no one is saying boo about it. As the West's emissions fall significantly, there is no effect on total global CO2 emission. We won't see India and China slow the rate of increase of CO2, let alone a reduction, for decades and even if we do, we will have manufacturing move to some other place, like Africa, to exploit cheap energy.
There was absolutely no friggin' chance to change this outcome.
Are you taking into account the historic residence time of CO2. given the UK, US, France etc. Industrial revolution since about 1770. Along with 'western' offshore industries
China has over 30 nuclear power plants under construction and is now leading the world in EV production and use. They’re actually doing something.
@MrJohnAndrewhall No, because that's irrelevant. At most you could make a fairness argument that China deserves an equal opportunity to wreck the planet as everyone else, which seems like a rather counterproductive tact to take.
For the record, this is a rare case where I do not think China is particularly in the wrong. If anything, they were the realists making practical policy decisions to ignore broken Western policies. The problem was that Western climate policies were never in the correct order of magnitude to prevent climate change. It wound up exporting the carbon emissions to China instead of reducing it.
Chi has still only put out about half the total historical emissions of the us, and is even lower if you measure per capita. In addition it's literally the fastest growing renewable energy market in the world, accounting for more solar installation than the rest of the world combined. They literally are ahead of everyone else in raw capacity, only looking bad due to their massive total energy needs for over a billion people and a heavy manufacturing economy for the whole world.
Truth is, if customers and voters don't care, of course companies and politicians won't either.
Yup, the ‘future preference’ that Clinton and Obama talked about has clearly been thrown in the bin. I mean, why should we care about our great great grandchildren anyway?
💯
Imagine thinking that companies and politicians' policies are shaped by the interest of customers and voters, and not the other way around.
@@Thomas-gk42😮😮😮 4a WW2 we🎉 saw
@@raulvidal2343such comments are made scientificly to boil my blood
Just seems like carbon programs arent about lowering carbon ,but are just social programs .Also allowing countrys who dont care about the climate ,control over other countries .
I'm not sure if I'm more terrified of climate change or of human attempts to mitigate it through geo-engineering.
The war is over once we reach there geo-engineering point.
how about the human attempts about deleting inventors that make patents for 100MPG vehicles?
@ if true then blame the fossil fuel industry, they are there ones limiting all of our progress and funding politicians who reverse any good climate strides
do you believe the environmentalists to be the shadow government or is it just multi billion a week industry that doesn't want to let go of their profits? who would benefit the most from limiting innovation in mpgs
These companies can't give up on climate goals because they never had them in the first place
On paper they did. Now not even on paper.
And everyone still buys their stuff anyways.
Nothing will change because everyone goes to fund the very same Co.'s that make the 1941 ISA happen.
Exactly, they know it needs to be done, but they don't want the cost of actually doing it, so they use it as a virtue signal. We need them to actually do it, and not pretend to do it, people are living in poverty because our tech consumes more and more energy, and no sustainable solutions are getting solved for.
Trump is the Russians' candidate:
swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties
“The good Earth - we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.” (Kurt Vonnegut)
Right now we're too broke.
@justaskin8523 and soon we'll all be dead. So it goes.
@@justaskin8523 broke? money is a construct, just change the construct...
@ and soon we will all be six feet under. So it goes.
@ leave the planet in better shape when you leave, not just about you or I...
Last living CEO on Earth, as the wildfires close in: "For a while there, we really generated a lot of profit for the stakeholders"
👍..like money will be of any use in a world that is falling apart....
Stakeholders? You probably mean shareholders.
@@noneofyourbusiness4830
a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business.
denoting a type of organization or system in which all the members or participants are seen as having an interest in its success.
But sure, shareholders works too...
You do realise that the data very clearly shows that globally burn acres are much less than a centuary ago?.
As sad as it is, as long as people wage wars to gain a reputation and to pay homage to colonialism, humanity will perish. Instead, we should have used technological advances long ago to enable all people to live together in dignity and to promote humanism and education. Instead, we have uneducated and hateful leaders of nations whose gaze is directed centuries back instead of to the future.
It's hard to make people stop acting like humans always have.
You closed your nuclear plants.
Right, but where´s the connection? Make one fault is agood reasoning to make more?
@@Thomas-gk42 They traded a power system that makes a suit case's worth of environmental waste products per year for one that makes 12 rail cars worth of environmental waste products per year and then yell at the USA for not doing better and for stopping funding them for free through USAID when the funds can be better used where less pollution is produced doing the same things.
@ What waste are you talking about? We need both, nuclear AND renewable energy to feed our energy hunger. What we don´t need is more fossil fuel burning.
@@Thomas-gk42 Nuclear produces no atmospheric pollutants just some actinides like neptunium, americium and curium. An equivalent coal plant produces about 12 rail cars worth of sulfurdioxide, Nitrousoxide, mercury, carbon dust, and asebestos fibers and other dangerous atmospheric pollutants. Even Gas plants have the same impact just not where the LNG or propane is burned but where the oil is refined into those products. The planet only has one atmosphere. It doesn't matter where its released it still has the same global effects.
@@Thomas-gk42 The thing about nuclear power is this: even if you see it as a fault, once you started doing it, you might as well keep doing it. Radioactive waste will be radioactive for millenia. Another century or two of using the technology, especially in inland facilities with no risk of exposure to tidal waves or earthquakes, doesn't make much difference. At the very least we should have kept using the power plants we had until the end of their natural life cycle.
Climate change is a rich people problem, while regular people are busy just trying to survive
As long as the main greenhouse gas producers (e.g. China and India) have no intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions then the rest of the world is just pissing in the wind! The result thus far has been increased energy prices in Western countries which in turn has caused increased prices pretty much across the board with groceries and other living essentials that ends up affecting vulnerable populations (i.e. elderly, disabled, and minorities) the most.
I've been saying this for probably a decade now. Years ago I calculated that if the US stopped producing CO2 instantaneously, within a human lifetime, based on the contributions of India and China, the planet would be back on course. What this means is we could do everything possible in the U.S. to avert climate change, and if they whole world isn't onboard, the maximum we could buy ourselves would be very little.
From this I realized that unless the west is willing to go to war with China and India and force them to stop their greenhouse emissions, then no one truly believes it's a crisis. A crisis situation requires decisive actions, not attempting to tax people into one kind of a solution or another.
China has installed more renewable energy capacity in the last year than the rest of the world combined, they are way ahead of their carbon reduction goals while they're still the producer of goods for large parts of the world.
I hadn't looked at those numbers in a long time and so I was curious about what it was. I was right that it within a human lifetime. But the real number is 15 months.
Based on 2023 numbers from wikipedia and using the billion+ producers (China, US, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan) if on January first 2023 the US stopped producing all CO2, it would take 15 months for the rest of them to fill the gap of 1 year without US CO2 emissions. So what that means is the graph of global C02 emissions would be shifted to the right by 15 months.
I made a couple of simplifying assumptions here. Most important is I assumed all the other countries did NOT increase their co2 emissions. Including some idea of an annual increase would obviously reduce that 15 month interval.
You can Tax the human race into extinction and the most you can buy yourselves is 15 months.
Only thing is China and India are massively investing in renewables at a faster rate than the west.
In America during WW2 private citizens were encouraged to start their own gardens known as "victory gardens" so that more farm grown food could go toward the war effort. I've always felt there should be similar individual efforts for reducing carbon footprints, but so far it seems like the most anyone is willing to do is point at other people without making any efforts themselves. Sad.
This pretty much happens. Here in Germany, most of the solar panels are installed on roofs. More than 3 million small (5 kWp … 30 kWp) installations already. Simple, safe, cheap. Even those not caring about climate change do it, because it saves money.
We're doing that already. But in this case, there are people in power who are willing and able to engorge and enrich themselves on convenient cheap-to-produce fossil fuels in your stead.
Note I don't say cheap for consumers: it's still more expensive, and in particular no rational consumer would opt for continuing fossil fuel dependence in the long term. But clean electrification is an investment, one that no fossil fuel producer desires with such a high profit margin for themselves, and thus the industry has plenty of incentive to keep the status quo.
Imagine if victory gardens were met with rich agricultural conglomerates propagandizing, and spreading the idea to hoard and waste food in response. I think it would see the same complications.
Yes, we can do all we can as customers on the demand side. But when it gets to the point where the obstacle is political capture and market failure, you really do have to bring in a political solution that will physically stop the supply.
Some want to ban home grown food.A study from the university of Michigan suggest it produces five times the carbon footprint than mass agricultural produced
food.
@@traumflug It also uses more carbon than it will ever recover. In other words you would have saved more carbon just by using it efficiently as oil or coal.
@ Nonsense. It takes just a year or two until carbon emissions caused by manufacturing are compensated.
I never understood the argument that if climate change isn't caused by humans then we don't have to do anything about it. Hurricanes aren't caused by humans either but we do a lot to try to minimize their impacts on us - just ask anyone who lives in Florida. Same things with earthquakes - California and Japan do a lot of things differently with their buildings to help them survive earthquakes. If we can make changes that help mitigate the negative impacts of climate change then it makes sense to do them, no matter what the real cause of climate change may be.
You do know that all that extra mitigation construction comes at the cost of additional power production and therefore carbon emission. Its just a shell game taking from one to fix the other.
It influences what we can do. If our co2 emission is not the cause, then reducing it won't help. On the other hand, if we cause it, then it's so much easier to do something about it. Any sane person should hope for the second alternative. And fortunately, indeed, it's the strong scientific consensus.
We do not prevent hurricanes.
Because if climate change is actually just a 100 year long temperature cycle that sees both period increases and decreases in global temperature over time, anything Humans do will be totally dwarfed by what nature does.
Even if you believe what we are seeing is man made, there is no evidence we are doing anything but moving emissions generation to China and eastern Europe. Those who believe in climate change should be angry that the last twenty years focused on making a few people very rich and not on delivering a good outcome for the planet.
@@andrasbiro3007 Strong scientific consensus isn't real--it's just marketing.
Business analysts are tracking about USD$3.4Tn in current global oil and gas infrastructure projects...
Be adults, and stop pretending that oil and gas are done and that an EV charged by coal is clean
Its long overdue to consider the outcomes...
When you radicalize an important topic and beat people over the head about it, while using it as an excuse to overcharge for products what do you expect?
Many of us simply don't trust opportunistic activists/politicians to arrive at honest serious solutions. We see their measures as merely performative, bringing needless hardships and leaving us with less resources to mitigate CC.
This! Let's also not forget the heavily biased "scientists" that exaggerate, skew, and in some cases outright lie, because of financial and or some twisted ideological belief reasons.
Therefore, the best solution is to give up altogether and make CC worse.
@@zualapips1638 No, the best solution is *adaptation* and *mitigation* regardless of what happens to the climate.
@@zualapips1638 Not necessarily no, there is good reason to believe that building a strong economy will allow our technology to advance by orders of magnitude. That would allow us to find real solutions to whatever comes. This is far better than these insufficient half measures that aren't even working anyway.
So the choice is misery and suffering on something that doesn't work, or go all in to make the world a better place now, and solve future issues through human innovation.
That is the better solution in our opinion.
@@ericmichel3857 That is a complicated way of trying to convince people that burning more oil and coal now is somehow actually beneficial in the fight against climate change. I'm not buying it.
The irony: we cancel a billionaire who sells EV and who doesn't care about climate. Now we'll get our EV from China and India where rivers turn blue, purple and green.
And they build a new Coal burning power plant every week.
Oh Lord Sabine, are you still showing cooling towers as emitters of CO2. I thought that went out with the atmospheric green house effect and Al Gore as a knowledgeable leader of climate science,
Just in case you didn't know, water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas, by both weight and volume
@raoulrr You are correct. We need to ban water.
If you want people to care about the climate, stop making them poorer. I don't frankly give a damn about the climate when my heating bill has tripled. My utilities are actually my biggest outlay it costs me more than my mortgage now. Food is just behind that. The mortgage is a distant third.
climate protesters don't sell you oil & gas or set the prices. you defend the people that make your life worse and blame it on others.
That’s a fallacy just because people are suffering does not mean we should stop crying about the near future. I forage for a lot of my food. And I can see droughts in fires are getting a lot worse.
@misshapenwhale5045 It's not a fallacy wtf are you talking about? The reason my heating bills are so high is because the government solution to climate change is a deliberate policy of impoverishment. And I'm not going to forage for food like a damn ape go to a supermarket like a normal person.
These things are all linked together. Did you ever wonder why things have started getting harder for almost everyone when we are living in an era of unprecedented surplus? The same people who will be insulated from the effects of climate change are the same people profiting while we struggle to pay bills and they profit more when we ignore climate change. Global inequality and climate change are intrinsically linked together. The wealthiest people in the world want more and they will gladly take more while us and our children all die of heat exhaustion, or drown in floods, or starve.
@lolclevername I just said they are linked. The reason things are getting harder is because the "solution" to climate change that is being implemented, is a deliberate policy of impoverishment.
I don't actually begrudge the mega rich their yachts and private jets. If you can afford it, good for you. The cry of "inequality" is the whine of the loser. What I do have a problem with is when they make it impossible for the rest of us to build up any financial...I suppose "momentum" would be the word.
1. Most of these climate efforts were only PR stunts anyway. Won't change much.
2. Change in oil supply barely affects demand. But it reduces prices, which is good for the world economy, and a strong economy is good for actual change.
3. Elon lost interest in climate change because in his mind it's a solved problem. All of the necessary technologies exist, and their prices are falling, so from here good old capitalism will finish the work. For example if you talk about electric car owners, or potential buyers, climate change or clean air barely enters the debate. It's all about the advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of everyday use. It's just another car that happens to be green to. Same for solar panels, it's not tree huggers who are buying them, but those who don't want to depend on the grid, those who don't have reliable power, and those want to reduce their bills.
4. For Germany the best would be to turn back on nuclear power. I'm pretty sure the AfD wants that. They may talk about coal, but if it doesn't make economic sense, it won't happen. Trump during his first term also talked about reviving coal, but got no traction for economic reasons. I don't think coal has any chance against nukes and renewables if the free market is the arbiter.
In the US Texas has almost as much solar power as California. And I guarantee it's not due to any government action.
Good explanation
Frankly, did anyone really thought that, as a global civilization, we would really make real sacrifices for the coming generations ? When did it ever happen in the past ? Remember that our leaders come from our ranks : they are not "like us", they are literally "us". We're electing morons or, as concern dictatures, we allow morons to lead us because... that's what we are. Eventually, we'll get what we deserve, and that's nothing but fair.
I knew that's going to happen after Paris agreement 2015. Kyoto protocol was a waste and when Paris went poorly (no legal obligations) I knew that this civilization gonna collapse about mid century.
Why collapse?
I would love to see you apply your analytical skills to one claim that I keep hearing. That is that the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise is logarithmic, not linear. So going from 400ppm to 500ppm would have much less warming effect than going from 200ppm to 300ppm. This is used to justify claims that ongoing increased levels become less and less harmful than previous increases. It is certainly the case with house insulation that twice the insulation thickness is way less than twice the heat saving, and a quick Google search says there is an exponential (like 1-e^-x) relationship between thickness and energy saved. I am so tired of the cancellation of any opposing views without informed scientific debate. It leaves even the scientifically aware and numerate people like me finding it hard to know what to believe when we have two camps shouting at each other.
It's not a claim, the whole thing is based on it. It's an increase of 0.9 per doubling of CO2 and it's called "climate sensibility". It's why there is a saturation point and we have reached it some time back. Sabine talked about it in order to deny it so she isn't following the science anymore on that subject.
@ Thanks for the reply. What increases by 0.9? Temperature? What are the units? Deg C or F?
You can go in part on geological evidence. In times past, when CO2 levels were in the 400-500 ppb range (around 3 million years ago), earth was on average around 4 degrees C warmer than present day.
@ericrawson2909 Theoretically, 1.5C warming for every doubling of CO2. Empirical data shows a range of 1.6C to 2C.
The warming effect is strongly inversely logorithmic,most of the warming effect of co2 has already occurred by 50 ppm, by 400ppm it is near to or at saturation point.
well , the earth never actually needed humans anyway
But we need the Earth (with an agreeable climate) , which is what matters.
Humans are very, very bad at giving up short term gains to avoid long term disaster.
if you paid as much for electricity like i do, you would not bore yourself with trying to save the world.
@@SuperTheTheresa I suspect I pay just as much if not more, not to dox myself. Yes, electricity needs to be inexpensive enough to be accessible to all, but you can also do that with subsidies and controls. Limiting emissions on things like diesel trucks isn't that hard or expensive, but because it costs anything at all, we don't do it.
Humans also have an alarming propensity to believe in complete and utter nonsence, we have many religions and cults( including climate alarmists ,and catastrophists)to attest to that fact.
@@SuperTheTheresa electricity bills aren't an important part of my expenses. for all i care they could double until i'd put in effort to find a cheaper provider. rent, food, heating, insurances and so on are much more expensive.
It's a moot point since the worst contributors never participated.
Feels deeply ironic to me that “drill baby drill” is a play on “burn baby burn”
The story of that phrase is amazing: popularized by soon-to-be RNC Chairman Michael Steele in '08, then part of the losing McCain/Palin campaign...and later becoming pariah to the far right, and now a center-right contributor to left-leaning MSNBC. A certified "leopards eating faces" story.
Perhaps relatedly, I'm not sure how ironic it is. The sentiment is ever more blatant about encouraging destruction of the commons, especially after the BP oil spill, and of course Trumpism writ large.
..if you're gen Z, or there about, sure!
You realise there were people and a world before you plopped out, right? ..RIGHT??
Holy f@ckballz the entitlement! 👀
@@adashofbitter The story of that phrase is amazing: popularized by soon-to-be RNC Chairman Michael Steele in '08, then part of the losing McCain/Palin campaign...and later him becoming pariah to the far right, and now a center-right contributor to left-leaning MSNBC. A certified "leopards eating faces" story.
Perhaps relatedly, I suspect that's not ironic at all - it's part of what they were trying to evoke. The sentiment has become ever more blatant about encouraging more destruction of the commons, especially after the BP oil spill, and of course Trumpism writ large.
More ironic that Europe thinks it is up to the USA to pay for everything. Daddy Trump cut off your allowance and now you are throwing a tantrum.
Trump is the Russians' candidate:
swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties
Here in America we have learned that all the things we learned growing up, honesty, truthfulness, politeness, the so called Golden Rule, and everything else was all a lie. We now know the only thing that matters is money and power. So for me personally if something doesn’t affect me and my family and a few friends I don’t care what happens. Why get my guts in a tumble over something I cannot change.
More people are coming to the same conclusion. May be the majority now.
yeah, the minority that makes the rules that govern our society are the achilles heel we fell on, they create/maintain rules that benefit a few at the cost of the rest - no wonder it all looks/works how it does and the worst of us are at the top - because all others are unable to keep up with them competing over those positions.. it's a failure of our social organism, again.
That's so destructive to society and nature. It's very sad to witness.
The reason people are moving away from our climate goals is because the politicians that support a green transition are horrible leaders. Example Canadian liberal/ndp. Along with a green transition is an overpowering government that doubled our national debt by giving handouts to everyone. The liberal/ndp have also ruined Canada's economy and reputation. They have turned Canada, a resource rich country with low population into a country full of middle east and Chinese immigrants, and an economy who's gdp relies on mass immigration and an increasing housing bubble. I have never and will never vote for the liberals or ndp. F trudeau.
And the world is not going to end anyway.
Get out your checkbook, EU. We'll be glad to spend your money on climate.
You love handouts, don't you..
TBH I have lost interest in such concerns because they make me feel silly being the minority, if not the only few, who care. I do not deny the human influence over global climate change, I simply give up on further action since my effort has no point. My neighbor races his pickup truck spewing out so much black smoke one can see from the other side of town, and I suppose to cut back use of plastic and reduce my CO2 emission? I have no children and already in my early 50s, at best I will be around for another 40 or so years, after then the earth can explode for all I care. Come to think about it, the United Nations should give me a medal for 100% prevention of future pollution.
I see, so they manage to get you to give up hope on the future. That's unfortunate, I hope that one day you can find some hope for the future again.
I'm 55.
The majority of humanity isn't worth it. It's clear that we're not going to make it, but that's okay, the .1% won't last much longer either since they're just parasites. The universe is inconceivably large, and it is insane to think that we're the best that it has to offer.
The goals were unlikely to be achieved, and even if they were, it wouldn't have mattered. The Paris Agreement lacked a realistic plan; it amounted to mere virtual signaling.
This video is very disingenuous. Don't blame the AFD, nor Trump on Germany's energy policies - Germany has moved away from nuclear plants way before any of this happened.The replacement? First it was oil, and since the Ukraine-Russian war, it's coal which is the worst in terms of CO2 emissions.
Fact remains that carbon emissions have risen at an accelerating rate throughout three decades worth of IPCC and COPs, and all the jet fuel they've burnt. Many Western Nations such as Great Britain have substantially cut back their emissions. And yet very few, especially not climate activists, want to talk about the real cause, not just China but India and most of the developing world. They talk about "climate justice" and emissions per capita, but the planet doesn't care about that. Trump will make little difference to the course of whatever may or may not happen because of rising CO2.
The only thing Trump is going to do is make the people demanding climate change justice pay for it themselves instead of siphoning off from the US taxpayer through USAID. The ones complaining are the ones that aren't getting their free stuff any more.
by the time temperatures go up substantially we will all have been sufgocated. The amount of CO2 in the air is astonishing already, cancer of lungs have skyrocketed too.
@@swojnowski8214 The lung cancer is probably more from for instance poorly burnt combustion products. Or other toxic emissions.
CO2 itself shouldn't be a cancer agent really... though it will cause enough other problems regardless of not causing that one.
@philiphumphrey1548 Personally I think emissions have actually some what stagnated in recent decades. And in some developed economies these days you can see an interesting new trend where improvements in economic development now can happen at increasingly lower CO2 intensities.
So personally I think the overall trend is going the right way, it's just not particularly obvious yet because most changes occur at accelerating rates. Where for a long early period when the tech is immature and methods of changing are unproven, things move slowly. And then eventually as things become ever cheaper and easier to do, the pace eventually reaches a surprisingly fast pace.
One can in fact find an example of this when one looks at projections various agencies made on how much Solar and Wind power they expected for the next decade to be installed, only to have them over and over again vastly underestimate how quickly installation would actually happen. And by this point install rates are high enough to allow for transitioning large parts of power supply to Wind and Solar in just a few decades. Though I'm sure some places will lag far more then others in this, local politics has a big impact on actual uptake rates after all.
so what you want? kids in india living with 1 dollar a month to reduce their energy use while you watch Netflix on your cosy sofa with a modern ac on all night?
Should have prioritized nuclear long ago.
Im curious to see how money will be of any importance, when the planet turns to shit.
if you look at any number of climate disasters and warzones around the world you will see that ppl become even more mercenary and money is even more ruthless than normal
Trump is the Russians' candidate:
swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties
money is gold and silver, everything else is debt and we are drowning in it, so will our efforts to stop the catastrophe.
@@swojnowski8214 also aliens are coming, but lets solve more realistic problems instead
It'll be even more important, so you can protect your family from negative effects. People will get even more greedy.
About these company "pledges". Imagine the kid in the store "Pls can I habe that chocolate, I'll behave I promise.
*eats chocolate
*quits behaving right away
In case you missed it Sabine, the comments should show you that climate change will soon be the least of our problem.
We're heading straight into a barbaric fascist era.
Not to mention all the raving brain dead sycophantic morons running around.
Nah, just the 'Dead Internet'
Just report the bots and move on with your life. Any of them that are real people aren't worth your worry either; they will get their karma when the next round of extreme weather hits them because no one is safe...
you should see a doctor, or two
@GoneSurfing - you need help homie... seriously!
Yes, the tide is turning- because it's a load of bollocks.
There he is, the problem
You voted Brexit didn't you?
Climate goals were always a load of bollocks.
The companies go to Asia and USA, the CO2 production per product is higher than in Europe. And we pay all from Asia and USA. Why we do not everything that they produce factories are still in Europe again.
Let the focus of our own country what we can do. We can not change other people, only our own doing...
Agreed, I'm jut afraid, we have become too lazy a stupid to do our own stuff, thanks economical globalism. So much easier to buy the goods for low prices in the global supermarket, that doesn't care about environment and human rights in the poor countries.
Having several tons of batteries going up in flames in warehouses, factories, recycling plants, storage facilities, etc. almost every week should give cause to reconsider the safety and green-ness of a rushed and forced transition to electric-everything. Fields affected by the Moss Landing battery fire may need years to recover.
When we put faith in those most able to afford to adapt to climate change. Do we really expect them to do what’s right for the rest of us and not use it as a means to get richer themselves.
How many times have agreements been watered down.
Money talks, morals walk.
especially fake morals
Not at all.
China are getting rid of coal as fast as possible.
I've been saying for years that "goal-setting" is useless, if not worse. Why? Because they don't prescribe any action, and they can (as we see) be abandoned as soon as investors get antsy. But we CANNOT give up the push for effective action and just "adapt." That will quickly cause the emissions to increase to the point that adaptation will never keep up.
The only way to solve this is nation-level carbon pricing, no matter how many times the analysts whine that it is "politically impossible." Climate change is, despite what the cynical demagogues keep saying, the BIGGEST threat TO the world economy. That's the message that has to be driven home: the claim that we have to choose between the climate and the economy is the biggest LIE of our time.
It’s what happens if you put old men in charge. They won’t suffer the consequences of their actions and thus they don’t care. What’s despicable is convincing the general population that science is lying to them.
It’s desperately sad.
Things won’t improve at this point until the global system totally fails.
Giving the government more money and more power isn't the answer.
Giving the billionaires more money and power, especially Elon, is an even worse idea by orders of magnitude.
How else do you propose to fix this problem?
@@burgundian-peanuts Decentralized dynamic incentives, at all levels of society.
they switched their message from sustainability and not
trashing the earth to “if u live worse lives and let us tax you for everything we can solve the problem, but we need absolute power over all of you.” if you can’t see it for what it is i don’t know what to tell you.
Species come and go. Once the species and systems we depend on have gone, we will be goner, too. I'm glad I'm in my seventies. Feed sad about young people, though.
Im not that young anymore too. However it must be very disheartening being young, knowing that you have to 'build your futre life' at a time when there might be no future. We have 'cut the wings' of our own species, and wonder why they are lost with isolation, antisocial behavior and 'all that jazz' 😔
The moment you started talking in a positive attitude I just knew the placed ad was about to start, you just gotta love Sabine.
At least the ad seems to be for a group trying to fix the bad news (note, I haven't vetted the group myself, so don't take that as a certainty)
$abin€ aSSenfelder
The "everyone" doesn't include the Chinese. They ll reach their neutrality goal and enjoy their new energy base based on new technology anyway. The irony is that even though they can't stop climate change on their own, they d still be better off in the disaster scenario, indeed particularly in the disaster scenario. If they manage to electrify Africa without having to duplicate fossilfuel based energy infrastructures, that d be a true game changer.
Chinese went electric because the air in their big cities was impossible to breathe.
Exactly how will China be in a better position? The Nordic countries are gonna reach net zero before China, but they're still gonna suffer from the rising sea levels and extreme weather events.
Around 60% of energy in China is from coal. Less than 10% is solar or wind.
They didn't have a domestic car industry, and so when they started it they focused on evs for a variety of reasons.
China has entered into the AI race same as everyone else, and whatever environmental goals they may have declared, they are still building coal power plants by the dozens. Their main goal is to clean up the air of their cities. But you don't need to be carbon-neutral for that. Just have the dirty industries in places with less people, not the megacities.
CCP will sacrifice population to achieve its objectives as it has in the past and power and control is its aim!
People don't wanna change their lifestyle for preventing climate change like not giving up cheese.
One person said cows contribute gaseous pollution, and another person made a brochure. It's all fraud.
I'm Sorry, to children everywhere.
People complaining about co2 are clearly bigoted against trees and plants. 🌿🌱☹
Mother Earth will eliminate its cancer. Unfortunately that’s us.
Money money money must be funny in a rich man's world... 💀
I don't think we are giving up. We are just being pragmatic. Don't destroy economies as we change at a reasonable pace.
I think the best portrait of our future is in the film Ready Player One, which shows a devastated world, but no one cares because they live in a virtual reality all the time.
You do....the majority of the wold lives day to day not knowing what virtual even means.
@@jimb4090 Do you have a smartphone? Do you know someone who doesn't have a smartphone? People already live in their social media bubbles. The vision shown in the film is just another layer of virtualization.
“climate change is a religion “ [freeman dyson]
Nonsense. China is by far the main source. Please have a word with the Chinese
The US is a huge trendsetter, as well as the second largest polluter. If the US gives up, so do many European companies, as Sabine's video demonstrates.
dude, china is the only major economy that is set to fulfil their climate goals
Get your facts straight.
The world did not start last hour, so don't just take data from the last hour.
Start in 1950 and try again.
I gave up on it, when the same people who are complaining about it, dismantled 4 hydroelectric dams, and wanted to do the same with 8 others. The stated reason was to save the salmon, but these fish are doomed regardless.
You need to talk with CHINA...... Don't talk about climate goals.....
I am very critical of China. But to their credit they are doing what any sensible country in their position would do. They are building out Nuclear, Solar, and wind while realizing in the shorter term they need Coal and other fossil fuel driven energy. To think that any country is going to not develop due to lack of energy just because some rich western country is critical of them is fantasy. India is on the same track, just in a much more disorganized way.
@@jeffreysims1249 Not true
dude, china is the only major economy that is set to fulfil their climate goals
Ah, this is rich.
Most of your businesses outsourced manufacturing and exported waste into China and other 3rd world countries so Europeans can congratulate themselves for restricting 3rd world countries more efficient biofuel to fight against climate change.
At least China is trying to go Green, unlike a certain political party in Germany. Pun is fully intended.
China shills out in force in this comment section lol
While Trump's presidency may present challenges to climate progress, it's clear that there are still many opportunities for action at the subnational level and through bipartisan cooperation.
A good example of this is the amount of Wind and Solar energy expandation in a state like Texas. Here is a snippet from by AI buddy
"Texas has the highest projected solar energy growth in the country.
In 2023, Texas generated more solar energy than it did in all previous years combined.
Texas's solar capacity has grown rapidly, with over $21 billion in investment in the first quarter of 2023.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that Texas will account for 35% of new solar capacity in 2024"
Planning has been vilified for six decades now in my country, so it will never be done now.
The problem with 'planning' is it's done y the single most inefficient form of organisation known to man - central government.
@harpo345 If government were by, for and of the people as the framers suggested maybe it'd be different.
@@harpo345 we have a way to make people smarter now, if we'd only use it for such rather than causing a rift and selling crap.
When people are told every little climate variation is due to climate change, they begin to ignore the problem and I don't blame them.
Chat, we are so cooked, literally
This is the saddest video you’ve made Sabine. I know you have at least one child and wonder if you are as bluntly pessimistic with them as you are with us. Is there any hope for younger generations? Do you actually believe AI will somehow synthesise a solution that negates/reverses the physics of global warming? And if it does, will humanity even take the suggestion?
C02 is the food of life. The more the better. We can’t have enough of it.
Global warming ! How childish.
@@NatMart9394 Ignorant trolling, how childish!
@@MarksElectricLife
C02 good, a fact your brain cannot accept. You’re in a loop, get off that hamster wheel.
I screamed into the void to no avail and here we are.
Try harder... obviously you are THE most important deity!
Are you the chick with glasses and the green hat in 2016? If you are, do you realize that you are the biggest meme on the planet?
@soaringeagle5418 Ahahaha... nice! 😎😂😂
It’s not so much that we’ve given up on our climate goals. It’s that we’ve shifted our priorities to mitigation and adaptation now that prevention is no longer possible.
This is wonderful news. 15 to 20 years ago I said that there is no way we are going to make all the changes needed to stop climate change. So, we should be spending the time, effort, and money adapting to the coming changes. If you grow grapes in the south of France, make plans to move some of you production to north of France or the northern UK.
Let's stop building and rebuilding where hurricanes and storm surge regularly come through and wipe out everything. But, there isn't a whole lot of political will for that yet.
There are living soon more than 2 billion people south of the south of France. So they should all move north?
That grape-growing in the UK will be awfully difficult after the GulfStream stops and the UK will have the same climate as Newfoundland
@@raoulrr Well, for now it seems to be working. The one thing that is certain to stay the same is that everything changes, nothing stays the same for very long. From 1930 to 1940 the Great Plains area of the US and Canada had the Great Dust Bowl Drought. Millions of people lost their land and fled. Now, with better farming techniques and irrigation it produces huge amounts of food.
@@ThomasVWorm No, some could move south. Most can stay where they are because a climate isn't going to make it unlivable, just different. And, may be not all that different.
@@BryanTorok in Afrika you cannot go so far south. There is the ocean where you have Europe in the north.
And over 40°C makes it hard to survive.
We should also ban Daylight Saving Time.
Trump, just do it!
Keep time, no switch back and forth by one hour.
Depressing.
I get hope from the thought that when humanity stuffs itself, the world might be taken over by honey badgers. 😂
One needs to remember a few simple things. 1. CO2 is plant food and makes plants grow better. Plants are food for animals including those we eat. 2. Work requires energy. The more expensive energy is the poorer people become. 3. Petroleum has done more to enrich people perhaps more than anything else. Perhaps the only thing we really know about climate is that it will be warm in Summer and Cold in Winter and that sometime in the distant future there will be another ice age. Think magenta.
Quite possibly the stupidest comment I've seen on the internet.
We will go into "Climat engineer age" in 10-20 years.
Surrender to the fossil fuel/tech kings is NOT an option.
It is not an option because they were always in control in the first place.
Oh boy!!
Don't do drugs kids! 😳
I take it you're gonna do a Steven Segal on em then!? 🤔
win or die trying ...
So greed wins out! . . . sigh
China and India...DUH....
America has double the emission despite having 1/5 th population
@@complex_vector [citation needed]
@@notanemoprog do simple Google search it's not a hidden data , it's there in world o meter and many other sites and research papers , not able to post link as for some reason the comment gets deleted when doing that
@@complex_vector america has less emissions than china. India will also have more than US in a couple of decades, maybe even in 10 years
@@jimmcneal5292 America has 40% more per capita emmision's than China who is manufacturing goods for whole world,
The reason America is lower now is because it's outsourced it's manufacturing hence it's carbon emissions to China.
Ok, I love that they let me pay even little amounts to support them. I used your code, thank you for paying for the first 200 people and that you draw attention to their contribution to a better world
When Nvidia is pushing and advertising wasteful ray-tracing technology for games, you know it is never about caring about climate or your electricity bill.
We've come to the point to acknowledge that decline is imminent and necessary. Humans are not finished evolving.