"What do you make of climate dystopia?" The situation looks really, really bad. Though at least a majority of the population here in Germany does not completely deny anymore that climate change is real, still most people have no idea of the scale of the catastrophy that is about to come. Reality always turned out far worse than even the most pessimistic scientific models predicted, and the process is happening much faster than anticipated. "Are you with Ben or do you think we still have a chance for change?" Though Ben may be right that "the" big catastrophy may be inevitable, he does not take into account that climate change is a gradual process. Sure, 1,5°C is an illusion, we already surpassed that, 2°C will be almost impossible to achieve even if we fully hit the brakes on emissions today. Catastrophy may be inevitable, but there is still a huge difference between 3, 4, 6 or 8°C of warming. So my personal philosophy? The question if we are already doomed or not has no effect on how I act. To me, it is a moral obligation to try everything I can, period.
From my vantage point, the chance to change is reduced. Climate change is well on its way, and even stopping CO2 emissions right now, will not prevent ensuing increase in global temperature over the next century or more. So the next best thing would be a) reduction of emissions and b) planned adaptation to avoid the worst. Tipping points and positive feedback loops (arctic methane) have already started. For any useful adaption to work, there needs to be near universal acceptance of the measures to take. For this to happen, there needs to be more true statespersons (vs statesmen) instead of politicians as we know them in the US. Further, universal buy in can only happen if wealth disparity is greatly reduced, and all humans and species are supported. Who is likely to buy in to a solution, if they are poorly treated, underpaid, and forced into poverty? Who will sacrifice and change, if the well off don't have to? Good reporting by DW. But let me point out that I notice the journalist was using a MacBookPro if I am not mistaken. Isn't the source of these consumer electronics actually slave wage factories in a certain country reputed to do this? Is this inequality part of the problem? Is purchasing and using these devices, produced by essentially slaves, kind of complicit in the fundamental problems?
A true fatalist wouldn't care about making the environment worse. Burn coal to make your bunker, it doesn't matter anymore. What he's doing is preparing but not making things worse, so even if he's detached from society he's still helping us, relatively speaking.
I'm surprised he's getting all the criticism. He is growing his own food, he doesn't drive, nor probably use much electricity. They're acting as if he isn't doing anything for the climate. He is doing more than what most of us are doing. We're at the mercy of energy companies. We ask them to build more solar & wind farms. Ben- he just stops his electricity usage.
Or what he really thinks is that the likelihood of full blown catastrophe is 99+%, but he's still holding out hope that we can beat the odds and salvage the future.
I’m doing the same, off grid, vegan and I ride an e scooter 90 minutes (each way) to town to avoid driving a car.. I can’t live with my soul if I was just letting loose and not doing my bit..
I had a friend once who had cancer, her other friends thought she would pull through and so didn't really go visit her. She died. At the wake, they all said they didn't realize that she was in that bad of shape but wished that they had stopped by to visit. They were the people so wrapped up in making money that they let their so-called friend go without even a goodbye.
@@UKtoUSABrit the earths temperatures aren't enhanced by man, is that what your saying? when gases gather in the atmosphere that prevent heat from escaping, the temp rises, you dont agree?
Andrew we are supposed to be in a cooling period and we aren't. Earths avg global temperature have increased or changed in the last few hundred years not thousands. That should freak you out. Add methane from melting permafrost to the mix and humans will lose habitat for 3-6 billion people when AGT hit 3.5 degrees c above preindustrial levels. It's already started. Co2 is a heat trapping gas. Too much alcohol is not a good thing even though it makes you happy.
@@UKtoUSABrit Smoking is harmless too according to the nut jobs you are linking to. A bunch of libertarian right wing whack jobs. Profits before anything else.
It’s not only about making money as such it’s just about surviving my days are full up. My evenings are exhausted and that not because I’m trying to get rich but I’m trying to get by. I have pasta so many social engagement because I was just tired from the rat race we live in It’s a no way, because my friends are less valuable than the money I make But the money I make it feed me and it put a roof over my head 🤷♀️
even if it turns out that we were not doomed and reverted anthropogenic climate change, this dude took part in it as well by drawing people's attention to the topic and leading the way with his very sustainable life style. Cheers to him! Truly, he's doing more than most of us.
I love the default position of most media (include this one) of optimism. "People are going to look back and say the 2020's was when everything turned around" is utter fantasy. People have been anticipating big dramatic action since the 80's. Instead we got 40 years of nothing, or worse than nothing. Where these optimists get their faith in governments I have no idea, because it's certainly not from any past behaviour. I understand the human need to feel comfort, but keep that false hope and fantasy to yourself, because it's poison.
@@glennjgroves no disrespect intended, but anyone who's telling you that capitalism will solve a problem that capitalism created, then hid, then lied about, then obstructed, all while worsening... that person is trying to take your money from you.
@@glennjgroves 40 years ago, we had the same percentage of clean energy, none of which can be built or maintained without fossil fuel. The other thing is, this added energy is just that, addition to keep the economy afloat, to keep extracting resources.
Dude they said since the 80's the world is about to end. Just silly to continue this path when all this hysteria is worse than if they would have shut up.
@@glennjgroves It's not new information. We can't build or maintain any renewables without fossil fuel. You ignored that as well as the total energy needed, smart person.
@@borealphoto what part of the process that make renewable generation cannot be done with renewables? Then what is worse, using a little fossil fuel to make a renewable energy generator, then not needing any more input for decades, while generating energy, or continuously using fossil fuels to extract more fossil fuels to light on fire?
“Doomers” actually make the most changes to their lifestyles that minimize harm. Optimism leads to Business as Usual and inaction because of the feeling that someone else will take care of it.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! That's the point. Whoever is really aware of the situation can't help becoming a doomer. And doomer doesn't mean raise hands and do nothing because the actual people doing nothing are the ones that actively think we can save ourselves.
you are SO Right. Im 62 and been prepping since the crazy half of the country elected a treasonous traitor to POTUS in 2016. I'm the doomer in my family and my 2 grown Boys are the Optimist. Needless to say I have to prepare for them.
I adopted Ben's lifestyle back in the 70's in a remote area of Montana. I've been growing my own ever since so I've been prepped for a long time. Still, I only know a very small percentage of people that really care enough to make a change. The vast majority of humans just want the status quo. Over the last 60 years I have seen things get vastly worse. I think for the most part human society is reactive and will wait until the crisis slaps them in the face before they are willing to make sacrifices to avert the disaster which is already looming here in slow motion.
If everyone changes to your life style best be prepared for LOTS of neighbours because there wont be enough land for everyone. glad you are doing what you are doing you are at least attempting to change things which as you say most of us are not.
How did you type this and how do you have internet if you live like Ben? How can you afford a computer? How did you access a place that sells computers? Do you have to be technically savvy as well as farm savvy? It would be nice to know how this works. Kudos for you for taking action!
@@hexatorus5452 I lived on the edge of a wilderness area in Montana in the 70s and 80s, but I moved to Tennessee in the 90s and I now have electricity and internet. I used the internet to make a living since then. Yes, once the internet was invented I taught myself how to build websites and program software to earn $ remotely. I have electricity and running water at my current location because it is very convenient, but I know how to live without it. And I still grow 90% of my food all organic. I am close to self-sufficient but I live close to a city now. The city has crept out around me.
When I observe the apathy of politicians, shareholders, CEO's and the general population I feel inclined to agree with the dooms day theorists. I am old enough to remember when we discussed climate issues (acid rain, forest defoliation, river pollution etc.) in the 70's and had heated debates with politicians about the costs of climate protection and the cost of no action. 50 years later we are still doing more or less the same thing (hollow and useless climate talk fest conferences). We are already experiencing serious climate consequences but apathy prevails. I wonder what has to happen before we get serious about ourselves and the world that feeds us. The house is already on fire and we are still discussing who is paying for the fire hose and the water. Einstein was right: Human stupidity is boundless.
You probably live in a so-called 'liberal democracy'. Your nation has 2-5 'main-parties' all crowding the centre and debating performative, lively but ultimately unimportant issues and all heavily reliant on corporate funding for their campaign finance and board seats upon retirement and successful completion of corporate goals. Vote red, blue, orange or green corporate party. Vote harder!!!! Think globally, organize locally.
@@Scepticalasfuk honestly, I think the young generation, who don’t want to work as hard as their predecessors, simply see that the game is rigged against them, and they don’t want to play. What do you suppose would happen if we all stop playing, and taking “sides”? How long would it take?
Sadly true. A lot of polticans and CEO's are sociopaths and pyschopaths, climate change could have been prevented decades ago but profits are more important than the planet in their minds - or worse they don't care. They're planning on business as usual (ie making money) and then blasting off to the moon base with Elon, Bezos and friends: "Thanks for working to increase our profits and voting for us.... good luck!"
The more people, the more capitalism, the more energy, manufacturing and pollution, the more people... Unlimited growth was always unsustainable. The planet has caught a fever to solve the problem that is too many of us. Meanwhile, one country, Russia, has started a war and in some ways derailed what little progress we were making (and helped in other ways), BECAUSE it is determined to raise the price of its oil (capitalism). Everyone should see this video: it lays out many of the most salient arguments.
@@mrcuttime22 Being capitalism the problem doesn't lead to "more capitalism, more people", this is definatly not what is happening, since the rich countries (and many of middle income contries) have low and declining fertility rates. Also, capitalism and consumerism being the problem, doesn't make the problem being superpopulation. There is a reason of why populous and poor countries contribute less to climate change than rich and smaller countires. So, looking at the data, there is no sigh of the amount of people or the birth rates being the problem. Logically, population decline or control isn't the solution either. The important thing is lifestyle and capitalism(or, at least, production). On the other side, raisng the price of oil doesn't equate to rising the price of capitalism. Althought, Russia raising the price(including the risk) of gas being the most important, oil prices are still going down and than shows an profund change: oil consumption isn't going to grow much further.
WE LIVE IN THE USA. Our country has been pummeled by wave after wave of bizarre, damaging weather in the last year. Storms have rampaged across the country from West coast to East coast - leaving floods, landslides, wildfires, and other destruction in their wake. THIS IS NOT NORMAL ! People are stunned by these disasters, but fail to understand the "after-effects" : crop losses, death of livestock, and disruption of the distribution system. It's just GETTING WORSE by the year - with no improvement in sight.
This is why my wife and I moved to Puerto Rico and are planting food trees and food forest plants of immense diversity on multiple acres. We produce or own water and electricity, and the plan is that if things collapse in the next 5-10 years, hopefully the work we've put in will help our community not starve.
That's cool. It gets depressing again when you randomly see IPO's about green hydrogen magically being in place to move desalinated water full tankers about like your average crude.
@@magesalmanac6424 Yes, Puerto Rico is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially with warmer sea surface and air temperatures, coupled with the high humidity which contributes to higher wet bulb temperatures.
@@6thface That's not true actually. The soil will be wrong and there will be bacteria and viruses hiding there that human biology have never encountered before leading massive human die off. Also we already drank the water dry. Climate change is a GLOBAL catastrophe. The whole planet. There is nowhere to run from it.
How the hell is he a climate doomer he's literally a climate optimist I mean if he's trying (key word trying) to ensure humanity and the best of it's culture survives it's self imposed extinction then he's an optimist who believes some parts of our culture is even worth saving !!
I applaud Ben. I don’t have it in me to live like that, and also not the money to buy a farm or land, nor knowledge of what to do with it. I have however given up hope on the future. I realized 10 years ago after reading the climate reports then that children was no option ever, and it absolutely _baffles_ me that people are still having children. What futures do they imagine their kids will have? My retirement plan is suicide. I’m just over 30, and I fully except society to start collapsing before I become a senior. I hope for 10-20 normal years ahead still, before it gets too bad. I really hope for that. I’ll try to make the most of those years, and when quality in life is no longer an option, there is no point in living anymore. The only thing I really worry about is how I will die. I don’t want to be killed by others in some battle for food, starve or thirst to death, or die slowly or painfully. I feel tremendous sadness that humanity couldn’t be better than this, despite all our potential. I feel extreme anxiety for all the innocent individuals suffering the consequences of this: animals, and people in developing countries who didn’t contribute to this, but who suffers before developed countries do. I try to live my life and be happy, but there is a deep dread within, and this hollow feeling of pointlessness. We’re doomed. There is no future. I have this innate desire to build, but there is no future to build for. No reason to create anything for a world that will not be around for it. I just hope that something better will come after us through evolution, thousands of years from now. And I hope that in this infinite universe, there are other worlds hosting life, where life is represented by beings better than we could be. That is a nice thought I try to hold on to.
I feel you, Josephine. I'm 56, and I have had a deep sense for a long time that it's all meaningless, we're all screwed anyway so why bother? The people with the power to avert this have chosen to deny it, at least publicly, and pursue the feeding frenzy as business as usual. I've never been motivated to do the things I was supposed to, you know, date, find someone to marry, raise a family, etc. Truthfully, a lot of us might not make it to the end of this year. Just in the U.S., the devastation to the harvest in California's Central Valley due to the extreme heat, along with reductions in other places due to flooding, is likely to lead to severe food shortages by fall. People suffering from food insecurity will likely be pushed over the edge. Next year, and every subsequent year, will be worse. Ironically, reducing fossil fuel burning will make things worse in the short term by removing the aerosol masking effect.
99.99% of humanity's existence on Earth was absolute shit compared to modern standards. People still had children, the world still kept moving. You just deluded yourself and can't live up to whatever expectations you had about what life should be. This is not "the world's" fault, just your ineptitude to adapt to reality. Death will come eventually, and of course everything is meaningless. If this is a given you might as well just live your life and not worry about doomsday. Life is good and you're gonna miss out with that mentality
@@davidandre3719 You are right that whatever shit happens with the climate, most of human history people were living far worse lives. However, not having children is a great idea. Really, it is the best thing to reduce emissions. Whatever shit may or may not happen, it certainly is going to be a tiny bit easier to deal with the effects of climate change because Josephine's kids are not around as well.
imo, way too much in the existential nihilism direction. yes it will be bad, but positive change will come as well. we/industries are looking for solutions to these gigantic issues. and the battle to change, which will decide just how bad it'll be, isn't done yet, its happening now. negative psychology about the situation will only make things worse. dig deeper, be happy, reduce your consumption habits, then encourage others to follow the more people do it, the more likely your outlook about our future will improve. also, if you can, look to God for meaning. its a vast cosmos, and we're veritable toddlers. this may all be part of the bigger plan for our species.
Not sure about the land use part, but in terms of reduced personal emissions (significantly reduced consumer behavior, a vegan diet, extremely low energy use), he's spot on.
Everyone who has been paying attention agrees that it is going to be bad. We are only debating how bad. History suggests Ben's appraisal is the likely one. If we do avoid some of the worse case scenario it will be due to technology we have and will invent and adopt. Not because enough of us get serious about climate but just because it is better and less expensive.
It's hard to be optimistic when you see that the more evidence of global warming accumulates, the more climate deniers there are. It's probably because the more urgent it becomes to act, the more people are afraid of what it means for them: drastically changing their way of life. But I think Ben's got the right attitude: he hasn't given up on action, and he's doing what he can to try and make the world a better place. He's probably not as fatalistic as he thinks himself.
Where is everyone getting this "fatalist" perception of Ben? He literally stated that he's writing the manifesto so that humanity can survive the collapse. That's hope, not fatalism.
The methane bubbling out of the arctic has me believing we are heading for extreme hardship if not extinction. But I will do everything within my power to reverse the situation. Biochar, home gardening, solar (wind) power, increasing biomass, building humus, increasing local diversity and so on.
He’s definitely setting a very good example thinking about the lengths we’ll need to go to and hopefully make us happier about getting on and doing it .
The Green New Deal including Biden's actions have completely failed by shutting down fossil fuels. We need cheap fuel to make the transition to more efficient and eco-friendly energy.
I find it funny that he thinks his way of life is something special and people don't do that anymore. He is so used to his occidental confortable life that he doesn't realize that most of the people in poorer countries live like that and they have lived like this since forever. Here, in eastern Europe most of the people in the countryside have a life similar to the one he thinks is going to save the world . He and other doomsayers are so out of touch with the reality in this world that it hurts. The solutions they propose are stupid. Climate change exists, life on planet earth won't end because of it, it will only affect some species and our current way of life. Maybe there will be fewer people because of it but life always finds a way
It's not going to help. The land he's growing on will desertify and the trees are liable to be caught in a forest fire caused by a heatwave. He needs an underground "vertical farm" that's large enough for subsistence farming. And it needs to be designed with several layers of redundancies and failsafes and he needs to know how everything can be rebuilt and maintained. That's a multi-million euro project.
I tend to agree with that guy. Even if it’s theoretically possible that we could limit the damage, just based on how governments around the world are acting, it’s simply not going to happen fast enough. Doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t try to limit the damage but it’s not going to be pretty.
yep, I do agree to let the world burn with this kind of 10% rich people pollute more than rest of humans. Even if we somehow can reverse climate change, until how much should we extract natural resources to fulfill our capitalism need (especially to fill the pocket of the ultra mega hyper super legendary riches who contribute most of destruction), when and how much will be enough? and those riches have better education and must have been know the negative sides of their life style but they choose to ignore it (even if the have the ignorance then the system is broken), so it's really no use and just let the world burn might be a better choice to release the humans out of suffers.
There is no way humans are going to survive abrupt exponential climate change. It's not possible. Especially now. If the politicians would have acted responsibly when they were warned by Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Carl Sagan in 1987, we might have a chance. But sadly, it is far too late now. Technology cannot save us. The politicians are narcissists and that's why they are politicians. They are basically useless and lack integrity. They failed the entire human race.
I'm thinking it might be better at this stage to let the collapse happen. The sooner things collapse, the sooner we can rebuild. There will be a lot of suffering yes, but there is more suffering by prolonging the collapse. The quicker we pull off the band-aid, the more arable land, drinkable water that'll still be there instead of this slow death.
government is nothing more than a tool in hands of ruling class. A tool to promote interests of the ruling class. So nothing will change until capitalists are the ones who are holding governments in their grip. Because the only interest capitalists have is profit, so doesn't matter how many elected figurehead we change, things will continue as they are until the whole system won't change.
I will say that after talking to a therapist and being reminded about what I was taught in communication classes, I felt better about myself and wanting to take more actions. I boughts plants for my apt and looking into climate action orgs. It's still not much, but I'm being more militaristic about how to approach our climate issue.
I live in Washington DC and for my entire life our government has always fallen short in one way or another. Our nation had the opportunity to get out infront of CC in 1991 but our own people torpedoed the talks. We will never make meaningful progress without the devotion of either China or US. Unfortunately both seem to be more worried about prestige and domination. With no meaningful action it’s simply a race to rule the rubble.
hey china made solar panels affordable via mass production, something the idiotic usa couldnt be bothered with - even tho they invented the tech decades earlier
I think it’s not a matter of it being physically impossible to defeat climate change, it’s a lack of the will to make the changes. With all the warnings, agreements, and global weather events, we still see all around us a deluge of oil based waste. A simple example. No one has to use plastic bags, other, natural materials can be used but we’re too lazy and that’s why, sadly, I think Ben has got it right. Not to scare but just accepting the truth. We can’t be bothered to save ourselves.
It’s not so much that we can’t be bothered to save ourselves it’s that our brains are literally not evolved to deal with the sort of enormous, abstract and complex problem that is climate change. We aren’t able to see the damage our individual consumption makes so it feels like a waste of energy to bother to change. We don’t think on a planetary scale.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been going on since the planet has had an atmosphere! There is nothing humans can do to stop it! Trying to stop it is as useless as trying to slow down the rotation of the planet!
There most likely won't be a collapse everywhere all at once and there won't be a specific moment where someone will say "it has happened". It really depends on where you are located as to how bad things will get. Ultimately the planet will be fine, it's just humans (and countless animals) that won't be. In a million years the planet will have forgotten about us.
In a million years, the Earth will likely get hit by multiple asteroids owing to Gliese 710 fly-by. A species like ours could've been the one capable of preserving life & preventing apocalypse. However, if we die, the life on planet will loose it's most optimal chance of survival that was afforded by the presence of this specie of neurally evolved apes. That's the significance of humanity which is overlooked when talking about a doomsday climate change scenario where our civilisation is extinguished slowly & painfully. The fact that we brought it upon ourselves makes it even more of a testament of our incredible greed & selfishness bordering stupidity. Earth won't get another chance to evolve complex beings like ourselves in the next billion years as the sun swallows the Earth whole. It'd be the end of all life as we know & understand it. Sad & incredibly under-utilized potential as a space-faring civilisation.
My father owns a farm in the US where he has cultivated his own crops for decades. When I moved to the city, it blew my mind that people don't even bother to grow even simple herbs. We could really benefit from every single window in residential buildings hosting lettuce, tomatoes, and other veggies. It really humbles anyone who gardens that they understand the lengths to which food is created. But again, the rich and politically connected are so disconnected to where their food comes from that they can't even comprehend the lengths at which change must happen to accommodate positive ecological change.
Lol aight, where's the profit in any of that? Nowhere. So how are you going to get everybody to do that? How do you propose to enact that sweeping, systemic change? Lmao. The issue is capitalism, the solution must therefore be a solution for/to capitalism. The result is obvious and inevitable, as it has been for the past 160 years; no amount of "individual action" can or will have any consequence. History is collective, dialectical, and materialist.
@@RosscoAW Oh yeah a political revolution will do wonders for the environment. back in reality capitalism is what there is so we have to work in its frame work. You people are dreaming.
@@raclark2730 after all the "American Dream" will be nothing mote than that. A dream lasting 2(?) centuries until reality floods the garden, the garage and the mall
@@aldoconciso Yeah thanks edge lord. You are confusing one country with something even the hard line commies like the CCP now embrace. Good luck with your revolution you are going to need it. Or you could support the quiet but growing revolution of people working to do things differently. Up to you comrade. 😉
My doomerism comes from the experience of living in a tent in rural Ohio with no running water but two cars parked beside it, and the realization that even what most all of my family and friends thought was EXTREMISM was not nearly enough to combat the climate catastrophe at our door. I still drove a car, had solar panels and batteries, ate industrialized food, wore sweatshop manufactured clothes, etc. Maybe humans will figure out carbon capture and make it scalable in time to advert the worst parts of the impending catastrophe, but my hunch is that we won't. Governments around the world aren't doing enough, and if they did, we'd all fucking revolt against them because what is needed is beyond what we'd call sanity and we don't tolerate the slightest inconvenience, let alone the monumental changes necessary. It is not sanity to be optimistic, as this program aims to do. It's all down hill from here and the more we roll, the faster it all gets.
Stop buying into this doomsday climate cult. They’re trying to manipulate you guys, fear is the greatest tool. The world has been way warmer than it is now, everything is going to be okay.
You really nailed it on the part where the government finally tries to do something, and the real entitled babies in this country throw a fit over it. I have neighbors who moved out of California because the state government is at least trying, more than anywhere in the US, to tackle this problem.
Here in the USA, the Congress just passed another MILITARY funding bill - $900 BILLION$ for the year ! Yet, we are supposedly NOT "at war", and already have the world's largest & most expensive military. Can you imagine the amount of GOOD that we could do with $900 BILLION$ - instead of offering our $$$ to the "god of war" ?
When I was a teenager in the late 80s I recall having a number of conversations about the "greenhouse effect" and being berated by my elders for my cynicism, since I maintained that we'd not act to solve it. Looking back i wonder if I was merely realistic or whether that pessimism was my complicity with the system
Yep, I’ve been an environmentalist since the ‘60s. I’m 82 now & see exactly what the scientists predicted. I tell my Gr.children to enjoy the present cuz the rich will destroy the world soon.
Watch the film “Soylent Green” made in 1973 based on a book written in 1968. They’ve been warning about global warming since 1950’s and it’s been ignored until now.
You were intelligent and realistic stopping climate change is impossible without the use of new technology’s to do it. It’s basically pissing in wind trying to cut CO2 lvs while countries are developing all the time. No point protesting saying cut this that it won’t make any difference they be better off raising money for carbon capture research projects and things like that.
I was in 4th grade around 2002 and read a Climate Change book from my local library and realized the implications then. My dad walked in my room since they knew I was concerned about it and did something like turning on the light and saying "this uses energy and creates CO2. There's nothing we can do, why worry about it?"
Im graduating high school in a few days, and I have spent nearly all of my teenage years thinking about climate change. I've determined that if we are going to suffer anyways, I am going to make it as bearable as possible.
The last time time there was this much carbon in the air temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees warmer and sea levels were around 20 meters higher. A recent study on global dimming made the authors remark “the 2 degrees target is dead”. It’s not a question of hope. It’s a question of realism. We have entered a new climate state, and the outcome isn’t clear. But it won’t be good.
CO2 follows temperature, not (so much) the other way around. When the planet warms, CO2 is released from the sea. Today CO2 levels are elevated for a unique reason - man got sequestered carbon out of the ground and re-introduced it to the atmosphere. You have your arrow of causation (largely) the wrong way around. Sleep easy tonight my friend.
@cnrspiller3549 in most historical climate change events, co2 has followed temperature and caused a positive feedback. The temperature would rise from some event which caused co2 to evaporate from the oceans which caused further warming. Man made climate change is a bit different because we have released co2 without a serious climate event happening first so in this case co2 is happening first and the more it warms the more co2 the ocean releases or the more methane the permafrost releases. There's many different causes of climate change. Sometimes it was volcanoes, sometimes it was the metabolism of a new species but the case today is man made emissions. This is novel and the first time man made emissions were the cause of climate change in all of earth's history.
@@BM1982.V2 all very interesting, but it doesn't change my main observation that the original posting compared present day CO2 levels with the last time we were at around 400ppm, and because it was way warmer back then he concluded (in error) that it will therefore, be as hot this time. His prediction relies entirely on the assumption that CO2 drives warming, without considering the reverse effect, ie. Warming increases CO2.
The collapse is not a sudden event but an ongoing process, it is already happening, and it will take at least another half century, probably a lot more, perhaps as much as two centuries. There will be times when catastrophes happen more often, and when things go worse quickly, and there will be times when things even get a little better for a while or at least stagnate. IF it was just the climate, I would say there's still hope for this civilisation to change for the better. But it is not just the climate - we have destabilised not just the global carbon cycle but also the phosphorus and the nitrogen cycle, we have triggered the global biodiversity crrisis aka the Sixth Extinction, we are running out of fossil resources fast, we are using renewable resources at an unsustainable rate (i.e., faster than they renew). Capitalism is the cancer eating the planet, we need our global economy to shrink instead of growing, and the only way we can still make things a little better for the poorer parts of the planet is for the rich parts of the planet to become just as poor. Either we have some kind of global revolution and create a sustainable global eco-socialist economy, or we just collapse. Either way, THIS civilisation is over--either we get a radically different one or none at all, just primitive tribes of survivors and perhaps a few feudal states. But the downfall will still take a long time. There will be times and places where it looks apocalyptic for a while, like heatwaves killing tens of millions in a few days, but for most of the time, it will just slowly get worse. At some time, people will notice that the old world is gone, but nobody will be able to pinpoint an exact point in time when it ended.
@@ThePirateBen A civilisation is an incredibly large and complex system, and things like that take a lot of time to collapse. As long as we can avoid something like a global thermonuclear war, the collapse will be spread out over at least another century. It will go significantly faster than civilisations in the past, but our rise was significantly faster as well, since it was all driven by enormous stores of fossil energy and the increasingly complex machines we built using that energy.
@@goodwifeweaver They probably thought that Climate Change or more specifically "Net Zero" was the "easier problem to solve" at the time, governments liked it because it meant business as usual but this time they got to be perceived as proactive because they signed some pieces of paper and made some resolutions, and businesses liked it because they saw how much money they stood to make from the resurgence in demand for raw materials caused by decarbonization & electrification, financializing nature through natural asset corporations, carbon offsets, and the sale of "ecological services".
It needs to be said that the IPCC is always on the more cautious site. In the last report, they did not even account for the global warming due to methane, because they could not agree on the heating factor it should be accounted with. So they just left it out of the calculation
And here we are past 1900 ppb of methane which is nuts and we already know it's 80x more potent than co2 over 20 years. it's just if you tell thos politicians that methane is actually worse than coal imagine the issues. I want to clarify. Methane is better than coal ONLY if runaway emissions and leakage is under 8-10%. Studies revealed that most infrastructures actually leak about 15-16% of the methane. So in the end, the total impact of methane is worse than coal.
There's great uncertainty over CH4 (methane) as its entire frequency contribution to the greenhouse effect is encompassed by water vapour (unlike CO2). Water vapour and water in all its its forms is a big question mark when it comes to climate change and so the effect of adding a tiny amount of something that does exactly the same thing as something that is already up there but in much, much higher quantities is very hard to know. Might be that CH4 does next to nothing at all. When they say "the science is settled" this is the sort of uncertainty they are still wrestling with.
@@cnrspiller3549 However, every single bit of methane will turn into CO2 eventually, so methane has to be counted as AT LEAST one CO2 equivalent. Being spectrally co-incident with water doesn't give methane a free ticket. Consider a tank of water, with some dye. Now add another dye that absorbs at least some of the same colours. Light passing through will get stopped somewhat sooner than otherwise, yes? Similar for infrared. Methane scattering is not diminished because it occurs in the same range as water vapour. When you consider the mean path length for scattered infrared to escape the atmosphere, adding more absorption in saturated bands is probably exponentially *worse* than in unsaturated bands.
@@aaroncosier735 this is my point though. The mechanics of CH4 and CO2 contributions to the greenhouse effect are well understood, but the complex interplay with water in all its many forms is unknown and quite possibly unknowable. Water is one of the biggest missing pieces in this whole puzzle. I am guessing (but we all are tbh) but I am strongly inclined to venture that water is the thermostat in our atmosphere. That water dampens out all the other changes in the various climate temperature forcings, from sun cycles to orbit variations through man-made aerosols and random volcanoes etc. The world's temperature is remarkably stable despite reports of boiling seas and the planet being on fire. I think that's water acting as a big old negative feedback mechanism. Call me an optimist, but I reckon I could easily be just as right as the so-called settled science. Trouble is, there's no bloody money in my rather boring prediction.
@@cnrspiller3549 You might be disappointed. The contributions of water are also well understood. As vapour, it is a greenhouse gas, night and day, just like CO2, except that some condenses out. And of course, more CO2 means more heat night and day to keep more of it as vapour. As clouds, the impact is almost neutral, near as. Papers over the last few years have reported this near-neutrality. Clouds trap heat as well as reflecting, and they trap heat at night as well as day. whereas they only reflect light during day. Misrepresenting the facts as "reports of boiling seas" is not helpful. Ocean temperatures have increased, especially near the surface. Given the huge mass of material involved, this is genuinely cause for concern. Those same seas will not cool down quickly, even if we ceased emissions tomorrow. The "stability" you mention has to keep in mind the very narrow range of average temperatures and conditions where humans and our major crops can thrive.
For Ben: you probably could just go on with that kind of living, even if that kind of apocalypse would not happen, because your kind of lifestyle is right.
Sadly, I’m with Ben. Scientists all over the planet has estimated for years that global temperature increase will reach 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2027, which was the agreed upon limit of the Paris Agreement, which is the greatest political action taken against climate change in the entire world. That’s FOUR YEARS from now and we are still BARELY taking any action to stop it from going above that limit. Keep in mind that right now, if were able to reach net zero emissions today, the climate change that has already occured would be easily reversed. In less than five years, global temperatures would return to what they were before the industrial age, weather patterns would go back to what they have been for thousands of years and everything would return to normal. But that’s only as long as we stay at a 2 degrees Celsius increase. If we go any higher than that, even if we reach net zero emissions the day afterwards, global temperatures will be too warm to reverse and will not go any lower again for over 100 000 years. Climate change would be irreversible and unpreventable. We are projected to reach a 2 degrees Celsius increase by a son as the early 2030s. That’s only 8 - 10 years from now. And, whereas before scientists estimated a 50% risk that we would go above 2 degrees global temperature increase, they now estimate that the risk has risen to at least 60%. I’ve accepted that we are more than likely living in the best years in human history. And, as such, I choose to enjoy what time we have in such a beautiful world, unburdend by any anxieties of what the uncertain future will hold. However, that does not mean we should give up. It may be hopeless, but it is better to know yourself as someone who did everything they could to save the world than to know yourself as one of the people who caused it’s destruction. It is estimated that we will have reached 4 degrees increase in global temperatures by 2100. This is the absolute worst case scenario for climate change, but it is survivable. For those who fear for their survival or of the survival of their children, I can only give you my advice on what to do to prepare yourselves: If you live in Polynesia, Southeast Asia, Indochina, the Indian subcontinent, Tibet, Southeastern Africa, the US East Coast, Southwest USA, the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America or in the middle of South America - migrate as soon as you can. All of these regions will be almost completely uninhabitable by 2100. Move as far north as physically possible, at least as far north as Canada, the north of Central Europe, Russia or Siberia. Everything below these lands will become a desert, but not necessarily uninhabitable. I very much recomend that you aim for lands that are the closest to the Arctic - such as Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, England, Scandinavia, Finland, Russia and Siberia - because climate change will actually alter their climates in a positive way, making their lands much more fertile for farming. However, no matter which country you go to, be sure to stay away from coastal areas.
I absolutely believe there are things we *can* do. The real question is *will* we do them. I think most doomers have look at the last 40 years of inaction and concluded that the answer is no. I don't want to agree with them, but it gets harder everyday.
Shutting down everything when Covid happened caused dramatic reduction in air pollution for obvious reasons. But not global temperature averages. We may be able to prolong the time it takes to reach the tipping points, but we're not (including myself) willing to make the sacrifices required to reverse it. Reaching the tipping points, natural processes take over and everything is out of our control, and the effect far worse than "our" mere 2-3 degrees. If we listened to Carl Sagan and acted promptly then, we'd be better off temperature wise. But we wouldn't be living the "good life" we currently do (or are supposed to do).
If I take anything from this video it will be the words of the psychologist - you need to feel anxiety and doom but don't get stuck there, remember the creativity, joy, connection, then take action on a personal, social and political level. Then I am reminded of the German police raiding the homes of environmental activists because they disturbed someone's comfort with their message and DW not even posing the question - how is this a crime to get police involved?! And then we are back to where we started.
Farm dude just tells it how it is to their faces and they aren’t used to that. Reporters are SO used to showing up and getting an optimistic story they are dumbfounded when someone is like “yea they have your number, they know what stories you’ll run”
I work in the climate space. Every day there is the push and pull between doomerism and optimism. Between action and inaction. But I do believe we are at an incredibly profound moment in human history. One where actions count. Even the smallest one. I tell my colleagues that all we can do is our best within our control, but you damn well better believe we are going to do that. So no matter which corner of the world you call home, do your best and create local change!
Lmao literally what individual actions matter? This whole "even the smallest actions contribute to change" thing is literally absurd bullshit. You're a scientist, act it. Stop pretending in fairy tales. The problem is capitalism, and any solution short of international socialism will fail to ameliorate the profit incentive justifying exploitation, extraction, and free externalities (like pollution and emissions). As a climate scientist it is morally imperative that you advocate for the abrupt and immediate usurpation of capitalism, period, end discussion. Anything short of that is an utter absconding of the necessary ethics needed to even have a chance at surviving environmental catastrophe at this stage. Alas, that won't happen, hence why doomerism is entirely realistic: not because lamenting people "failing to take individual actions," but because the systemic structure of society is violent and classist and privileges only wealthy corporate shareholders, period.
The truth is that we are so reliant on the present fossil-fuel economy that we literally cannot break free of it, and even if it were possible to do so, just what would the alternative way of living be for the approximately 8 billion people on this planet? The present fossil-fuel based society took quite some time to evolve into its present form. It simply won't be possible to dismantle it in a short period of time.
4:47 dang that lady’s cancer argument really hit the nail on the head! Yea climate change is happening and we can’t completely stop it. But we can still take plenty of actions which ensure that the effects won’t be as worse. As a result more people will survive and have less pain in their lives. Sounds like worthy actions to take!
@@ChillinLikkkkkkeAVillian yup, in my video on a similar topic I use the comparison of driving a drain which is speeding towards a wall at 100 mph. Slowing all the way to 0 mph and not hitting the wall may not be an option anymore, but slowing down to 40 mph and putting seatbelts on is. And that would still save a lot of lives so we might as well do it!
Except when you have cancer you don’t have a bunch of wealthy and powerful people telling you it doesn’t exist and actively trying to prevent you from treating it. A popular candidate for US president refers to climate change as “politicization of the weather” and people believe him. It’s like the president of the hospital believing cancer doesn’t exist. How are we supposed to treat it if we fire all of oncologists?
Let's take 1988 when James Hansen gave his speech to the american congress as the moment we got our cancer diagnosis. So it's more than 3 decades ago that we got our cancer diagnosis and we did barely anything to combat the cancer. We only let the cancer get worse and worse. If we now would have another diagnosis, it might possibly be terminal or near terminal.
I mean, a better analogy than cancer would be "You've been shot sixteen times in the chest. You're not dead yet, but there are sixteen more bullets in the chamber ready to fire. Would you like to call the ambulance to treat your injuries (climate adaptation) or the police to stop the shooter (fossil fuel abolitionists)?" And the answer of course is that the question is trivial, because at the end of the day you've been shot sixteen times in the chest and you are going to die. Sure the extra sixteen bullets being fired would make it worse and further guarantee your death, but death is already basically certain.
I thought this as well. Also, the primary ""treatment"" we have for cancer is radiation therapy, which is often more lethal than the actual cancer itself.
We CAN change. We're not likely to but we can. We keep hearing "if we reach 1.5C..." and we're almost there but we're not actually doing anything. We needed to change 30 years ago to ensure our survival. Keep living and doing everything you can but just know humanity as a whole is not changing and shows no signs of doing so.
The hopelessness comes from the total lack of real meaningfull action and ambition from those in power. Even IF everyone meets their targets, we still get more than 2.5C and the window to do anything gets ever smaller and the neccesary measures just get harder and more urgent.
@@michaelcap9550 Dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles, they didn't need technology to survive, they didn't need internet, phones, cars, planes, roads and cities, they didn't need hospitals and schools, they didn't need to feed over 8 billion people through agriculture and they still went extinct. Do you know why they went extinct? It wasn't because of the asteroid impact, it was due to lack of food from a rapidly changing enviroment which caused 90% of plant life to die out, which in turn caused the herbivores to die out, which in turn caused the carnivores to die out. It's called a feedback loop.
2.5c that is less than the increase in temperature between 11am and noon. LOL, there is absolutely no correlelation between CO2 levels and climate, the greenhouse effect does not determine climate. water vvaper holds a shitload more heat than co2 and co2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere how the hell woudl that have any effect on the globe. we will look back at this as one of the biggest cons that have ever existed, co2 the best fertilizer something that plants depend on to survive by burning co2 we are restoring a balence to our planet. co2 is not a pollutant! The wall of dishonesty is ABsolutely impenitrible!
@@mrschnider6521 Your comment is unfortunately shows how the education system has failed a lot of you. CO2 makes up only 4 of every 10,000 parts of our atmosphere, yet it’s quite obvious that its increasing prevalence in the atmosphere is having a negative effect on the climate. This has been observed by many studies and measurements. As for the argument surrounding water vapor: while it is responsible for about half of the Greenhouse Effect, its trapping of heat is not a bad thing. You should have learned about the water cycle back in 6th grade and it explains how water vapor eventually gets turned back into water in the form of rain because of condensation. Increased water vapor doesn’t _cause_ global warming. Instead, it’s a _consequence_ of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases. In case you don’t understand it I’ll explain: There is a direct relationship between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane and Earth’s temperature. As one increases, so does the other. This means that evaporation from both water and land areas increases. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. This happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone. Therefore, we should limit carbon dioxide and methane emissions in order to lessen the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. There are 5 non-condensable greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons. The increasing presence of these gases are solely due to human activities. Non-condensable gases can’t be changed into liquid at the very cold temperatures present at the top of Earth’s troposphere, where it meets the stratosphere. As atmospheric temperatures change, the concentration of non-condensable gases remains stable. On the other hand, water vapor is the only one which is condensable, since it’s concentration depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the planet was not warming up due to the increased presence of non condensable greenhouse gases, then we would see the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere to be unchanged since pre-industrial revolution levels. Carbon dioxide is responsible for a third of the total warming of Earth’s climate due to human-produced greenhouse gases. Even small increases in its concentration have major effects. A big reason for this because of the relatively long duration of time that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere. Methane, carbon dioxide, and chlorofluorocarbons don’t condense, and they aren’t particularly chemically reactive or easily broken down by light in the troposphere. For these reasons, they remain in the atmosphere for anywhere from years to centuries or even longer, depending on the gas. Hopefully this helped you understand why this is a big problem and filled in some of the gaps in your scientific knowledge 😊
I am a doomer. I am currently buying a big house and have lots of debt. I'm aiming to maintain this lifestyle for around 10 to maybe 15 years. I will borrow and borrow and borrow during this time. I am living for today as I don't think anyone will be well off 15 years from now.
Ben Green takes action in a very reasonable and dedicated way, respect. Hopefully he will share his experiences growing plants under severe climatic conditions. Permaculture is supposed to be one of the methods make a living to live according to rules of nature, as far as we can grab them. Yes please, I would like being introduced to more examples of people heading for sustainable ways of living...
As long as we're immersed in this senseless competition against each other and neverending growth model, where governments work mostly to protect the interests of a few, I am afraid that we're just doomed to face several dystopias. It doesn't come down to personal lifestyle changes... As long as the capitalist model doesn't step down, and something better takes its place, there's no way of stopping the collapse. Heck! So stupid are those among the ruling elite that they'd rather go to a world war 3 and use nukes instead of working towards solutions to social and ecological problems.
Not saying the job is perfect but ,life has never been so good .and the rest of the world still seems to be craving capitalism.they are queuing up to get in .what better system can you imagine ?
@@andrewtrip8617 I do imagine one where the state at least mediates between society and corporations in favor of workers, environment ,and society instead of corporate profits and interests, and where consumption and endless growth is not the main purpose of life.
5-27-23. I believe we've already reached tipping points in too many aspects of climate change. Greed, benefitting from the current economic way of life stands between humanity and the radical changes needed to prevent human extinction. Best case, many billions will die. Worse case, all of us. I'm 72 and have been concerned about this issue since the 1980.
I’m curious, having been concerned about this for more than 40 years, how do you even get out of bed in the morning? How do you fight off the overwhelming sense of dread? How do you even make life meaningful? I am still so young but it feels like I cannot move forward, like I am stuck
While life is here it still has beauty and is worthy of love and admiration. 95%+ of all living species has gone extinct so us leaving the scene is more probable than not. The earth will survive for a long time. Lots of wonderful moments still in its future. We don't know the outcome of our current ecoexperiment with the earth.
Oh, it's extremely likely that some forms of plant, animal, and microbial life will survive. Larger mammals, birds, and reptiles probably won't. Amphibians are going extinct now at an alarming rate, as are insects of most species - and families. Out of whatever lives through this, new species taking whatever niches exist in the next era will evolve. Possibly even intelligent species.
That won't be the most immediate problem though. The problem will be climate fugitives, famine, lack of clean water, and societal collapse due to these problems.
@@bobrandom5545 It depends. If all of the nukes extant go off in a close succession, radiation levels will be high enough to kill anyone who's not in a shielded bomb shelter. Those who are will eventually run out of food, water, and air. As most of these have very long half lives, they will emerge into a radioactive wasteland in which they have a short life expectancy. If there is not a great deal of radiation in the fallout, such as might theoretically happen with a "limited nuclear war" indeed there will be worldwide societal collapse, billions of refugees, famine, starvation, lack of clean water. With that will come water-borne disease on top of everything else.
I agree, it does seem a little late to try and stop the change, tipping points have already been reached. Focusing on how to adapt and survive the coming change would be more productive at this point in the game. I suppose if you live in a bubble of incredible privilege you have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse but in many parts of the world it's already here.
Absolutely. We need to not call them "tipping points". We're already flopped over. Stop polluting the atmosphere, still lose the icecaps, and the world will fry. In "doing the right thing" we will destroy civilization as we know it. There's no magic "carbon capture", because the materials to build enough of them will be depleted/be unobtainable long before we build enough. That's where people like Ben come in, teaching us how to continue to survive. We need more volunteers with the money and the time to build the sustainable structures of the future.
I am still stunned by how many people don’t believe the problems are real. Lots of these people have children and I guess they don’t care about their futures. Sad!
I used to work at equity trading floor. And this one of my manager said "Remember the optimist never wins, it's the pessimist that always wins" and it hit me hard.
True. Especially on climate change. I wouldn't mind if I'm wrong and everything would turn out just fine. I would call that a win, if my pessimism was wrong.
Ben's effort is basically a microcosmos of what needs to be done. It starts with the money he was lucky to get from selling his house. This reflects into the willingness of humanity to make vast investments in a sustainable society. Next, Ben didn't build anything: he bought an existing complex, meaning that humanity should focus on recycling instead of building more and more new stuff, including real estate. The construction industry is responsible for vast emissions. To reduce those, either production has to move to other, sustainable, fuels, which is very expensive or move to other materials and techniques. Thirdly, Ben is vegan, meaning that the world population has to steer away from meat and dairy big time. Governments have to invest in policies to support plant based meat and dairy alternatives and take care that they are grown in sufficient amounts to feed all people. Meanwhile, meat and dairy should be limited in availability, not necessarily taxed. Because plant based nutrition requires much less room for crops, land comes free for rewinding and planting trees to capture carbon. It's a three-edged win. If these three targets are met, I think we have solved 70% of the issue.
I liek the analogy with cancer, there's a treatment with horrible sideffects called geoengineering now we are in a hothouse state, meanwhile our life styles would have to dramatically change beyond measure in order to prevent it coming back. Sign that we would be going in the right direction? A less car orientated society focused on efficient transportation (shared transport or manually powered). Reduced meat consumption and processing of food that is more locally sourced. A realignemnt of priorities, an understanding that many of our actions we deem as 'private' effect others thus should not be solely our choice. None of this is happening, much of it is worsening. Furtermore, a gret deal of the solutions are over simplified. renewable energy will require energy storage that is in itself expensive and requiring resources with all its costs and geopolitical consequences. Just as if we had cancer, we should do what we can while being realistic, and preparing for, the outcomes. I work in statistical physics and have a decent understanding of the studies I ahve read. I have friends who are proffessors who are terribly depressed given the delusion of society generally not realising how far we are from being in touch with a stable way of life. I know climate scientists leaving the field because the more complex models that incorporate the interplay between variables is much more difficult and will delay publication (in the sciences we have the motto, publish or prish). Things are much worse than the media is generally depicting. In democracies we must as members of society take some responsiblity because our governments can't go so far away from public opinion, this is even true in dictatorships. The media has in part failed us by portraying climate activists as extreme (a bit like calling this man a 'doomer'). Responsiblity is something best understood as shared.
And another comparison with cancer is our naive delusion of eternal growth which is necessary for an economic system based on debt and interest, but in reality, growth for the sake of growth is just like that cancer cell.
Yeah but Ben is actually doing the right & realistic actions. We can't change the car-centric infrastructure on a national/global scale within 20-30 years. It is more realistic for people to stop using AC/heaters and bike or commute to work.
Geoengineering is not a good ideia, it can be worse than the desease and we need to remmember that climate change is, in a certain way, a geoengenering experiment. Also, we are far from a hothouse state, that is a very expreme thing, closer to 10ºC hotter and Antartica having forests(yeah, an oversimplification, but it gives the ideia).
@@gregorymalchuk272 that is the other extreme, and also completly wrong. We aren't even remotely close to snowball Earth, and things we are hotter than, maybe the last 3 million years.
I’ve followed this topic for over 30 years. Yrs back I went through a phase of false hope regarding new technologies that were never implemented. Then I realized it’s to late. The 6th extinction is real.
Ben is my new hero! I too think we've gone beyond the tipping point. I'm poor, old, and disabled. l live in Montana, next to constant coal trains, and I don't have the space to grow my own food. I'm glad I'm old so I will die before the worst. Humans may survive, but it doesn't look good. Go Ben.
I see people acting as if it were 1971 again. At the time I was born, we were 2.5 billion people on this planet. Now we are more than 8 billion. We cannot continue to behave as if we were in the 1970's anymore. I live simply. I grow my own food to some extent. I don't buy anything except food and the occasional item of clothing. I don't travel. This is my contribution, but each person will make their own contribution. For me, it is about living within the carrying capacity of our planet. Every time I see an advertisement for fast fashion or a car that is so fun to drive, I feel for the person who made that advert, who is trying desperately to sell that fantasy - and succeeding in selling it to far too many of us. I feel for the young people who have fewer options now if they wish to live responsibly. When I was young in the 1960's and 70's, my parents regularly flew the whole family to vacation in warm places in the wintertime. At that time, there was no concern about it. If all of us were dedicated to living as simply as we can, to limiting travel, consumption of unnecessary consumer products and to eating no meat or much less meat, we could make a big difference. I like to use the 50% reduction idea. Can we reduce our driving by 50%? Reduce our meat consumption by 50%? And so on. The other thing I will say about how to live with the idea of humanity's doom is to ask yourself how would you live if you knew for certain that you only had - say - three months to live. Would you offer more love to those you care for? Would you spend all your money on consumer goods and travel? Would you delve into the meaning of life, become a philosopher? I would try to love more every day and enjoy the beauty in the world around me. I wouldn't buy more things. I would be as kind and loving as possible to the people around me.
A degree of preparedness is sensible as it makes you more self-reliant. I make my own power for my house and EV, all my water comes from rainwater harvesting and I grow an increasing % of my food. Eating a diet with lots of home grown fruit and vegetables and free of processed foods is better for the planet and more healthy for your body. I have designed my house to stay as cool as possible as where I live in Thailand is increasing breaking heat records.
I'm optimistic that we won't cause our own extinction. However I think it will take mass migration and millions of deaths before the majority of people will leave their comfort zone and take real action. I also think next year's El Nino could be what does it.
Outright extinction is incredibly unlikely, at least a few of us will keep going even in the worst case scenario. The problem is, can we avoid societal collapse? Similarly to climate tipping points, societal collapse also cannot be stopped once it reaches a certain threshold. The more disasters strike cities the more infrastructure is damaged. The more infrastructure is damaged the less resources we all have. The less resources we all have the harder it is to fix the damage and prevent it from happening again. Add revolts and mass migration to the mix and you've got a deadly vicious cycle that is virtually impossible to stop once it starts moving
Accurately stolen words from my heart! we need to be optimistically about our human race learning a hard lesson soon or later! Yes, waiting for that El Nino!
the only omptimistic thing about this is, that we will burn through fossil fuels, which means that the next civilization, which comes after us, won't be able to pollute to the same extent. But our days are numbered sadly.
This civilization will be gone in less than 30 years. Just as Ben observes, the collapse has already begun. Exactly when we transition from some sense of a continuing order to chaos is impossible to pinpoint. But we can be 100% certain it's going to be awful.
1000% I'm ringing that same bell along the southwest shores of Michigami (meaning “big water” in Anishinaabemowin), where the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River meet. At 43° N latitude and near a huge source of fresh water, this place will be a refuge for people trying to escape the worst. I'm trying to get people, here and now, to wrap their minds around this reality. We need to live densely, grow locally, and focus on community far more than profits. We won't know if we avoid the worst until the middle of the 22nd century. Ben and I will be gone before the middle of this one
I've often thought the Great Lakes are going to get an influx of people, especially from the Southwest. I know this isn't your aim, but cynically speaking it might be worthwhile to talk about the economic potential of getting people back in.
If you feel optimistic you haven't been paying attention. Human civilization as we know it is over, it's just a matter of time before people start to panic.
I think the only thing missing from this reporting is that the billionaire owners of most western news outlets are buying up land in NZ for their own climate and societal collapse escape bunkers. So bit hypocritical to give preferential treatment to news that reports anything other than "we are screwed."
The first I heard of global warming was in the early 1980s with reports from Alaska about the headstones of the original settlers tipping over because the permafrost in which they had been anchored was melting. Also, the Inuits were having to travel further and further north over time to gather the berries they needed for sustenance. At the time, I was living on my ranch along the border in South Texas. I was surrounded by a dry land farming agribiz operation, and I could see that when things got hotter that my marginal pasture and their yields would shrivel. Since I was was young enough to start over somewhere else, I sold out and moved north. Now, with ever increasing temperatures and greenhouse gas levels, I’m thinking that I didn’t move far enough.
@@anthonymorris5084 I’m talking long range changes. The kind that our grandkids will have to deal with. For example, where I was, our average annual rainfall was 12 inches - fast forward to a 10% reduction and that’s a big difference. Couple that with a couple of degrees temperature increase and south Texas starts looking like La frontera of north Mexico. And that’s just for starters. Where I was, we had no irrigation and well water was not suitable for plants.
@@samlair3342 Your anecdotal evidence does not represent the historic record. Data clearly shows that droughts across the world are all within historical norms. The issue is people. 8 times more of them since 1850 placing a strain on every single resource. In 1850 the population of Texas was just barely over 200,000. There are 31 million today. Thats a 15,400% increase in humans. Poverty kills vastly more people across the world than warming. Inexpensive reliable energy generates the wealth that lifts people out of poverty. Wealth creates irrigation and other technological advancements. Depriving the world of energy is going to cause millions of deaths.
@@derekdube3708 where's your evidence? You seem to be ignoring the possibility of dampening effects, eg more heat produces more cloud which produces more reflection of incoming radiation (increased albedo). This runaway, spiral hypothesis would seem to be contradicted by all of earth's climate history. What evidence do you have that compounding effects will outweigh mitigating effects? I cannot see how you, or anyone can know at this stage.
I've been following along and researching climate change and I myself am unsure about what will be of the future, But when people call of the end of the world, as someone who learned a lot of history, I think "End of the World" is always the "End of the World we Know". The World changes, and I think the climiate crisis might not wipe out humanity, it will certainly shake and reshape the future into a world that will be unfamiliar and scary to us. Perhaps to people who were raised on zombie movies, a Post-Apocalyptic world is more easier to digest than a actual future where governments, communities and lifestyle will be completely different from what we are used to.
I honestly feel like we are past the point of no return when it comes to climate change. The time to have acted was around 2000 up to 2013/2014. There are so many climate change deniers out there. No-one will really want to step up and try to make a change like people did in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't think it's that people don't care, either. I think there's an attitude of someone else will say something, someone else will do something, so most people will believe they don't have to.
In the 60s and 70s, real tangible change was possible. People could see it and feel it from everything to worker rights, race rights, women's lib etc. Democracy really worked and politicians were far less beholden to corporate interests. That's all gone now. Younger generations know that democracy is largely a pantomime to keep people talking about things that don't affect the bottom line of corporate power. The US govt is an instrument of corporate power. Western European democracies are owned by big finance and the Davos set. Look at Greece and its treatment during after the 08 crash. NOTHING can be allowed to interfere with financial certainty and economic growth.
My advice to everyone is to move away from large coastal cities, and settle in smaller cities in the cooler temperate zones (which will be warmer before long) that are strategically positioned outside of the flood zone, but near enough to navigable waterways that they are likely to still have access to ocean-going transportation as sea levels rise, and near enough to arable farmland such that food will be readily available. And not for nothing, but stock up on firearms and ammunition supplies. If you think you are going to buy a cabin in the woods or the mountains now, and "bug out" when times get tough, I regret to tell you that rural communities don't take in outsiders easily, and in time of crisis, the likelihood that you will actually be able to get to your getaway property is slim to none.
The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
Thanks for this video. I changed a lot of things in my life with respect to other living beings and spend money thus saved with respect to other living beings. That's not changing the world, but the world of some. Including perhaps giving some living being in the future some more time to live. I try to reduce thinking of terms like optimism or pessimism with regard to "the world". There are so many abstract entities like "humanity" which do not suffer. Living beings are suffering and will be suffering, and the most I can do is to reduce this suffering. I think I'm in accordance with the psychologist saying it's the ego calling for control when you try to deny reality or try to save the world. My way to deal with this controlling process of my mind is meditating. Thanks again.
Unfortunately, those in positions of power to make a significant difference have repeatedly shown they dgaf about climate change and it's consequences for humanity as a whole. Some don't even believe in it. Any effect individuals can have is negligible compared to corporations.
@@the_earth_mysticexcept you chose to buy their product, you’re using energy provided by them, im guessing most of your shopping is done at their stores. For someone who thinks they’re “awful,” you sure like giving them your money.
Our justification for over consumption as a norm today and our individual rights is beyond absurd hahahahahaha. We never know but we can see the evidence mounting over time when we genuinely investigate and add up the real numbers. We are conditioned early in life to consume and to be gluttonous. To produce more babies and to increase wealth. These things add up and there is a line we can cross that will tip the scale and inevitably break our existence completely. It's just a matter of time. Prepare all you like, dream all you want. If we learned anything at all, surprises and twists happen with each blink of an eye. Said my great grandfather. People are less and less able to truly afford anything substantial now, like their own home, their own vehicles, their own place of business etc... Industry keeps producing more and more options desperately justifying their insatiable need for ultra wealth and supremacy in any industry, so they make so called green this and sustainable that. But it's contributing to overall mass and scale, still. Nothing is slowing down sincerely. Money is still pumped into policies to consume more, just consume differently somewhat but still sustain consumerism. This capitalism is devoid of compassion. So... It's an illusion that you have choices. But no, you're presented with alternatives to the same outcomes, you are expected to spend for it. You're paying for this collective destruction. Unless you're like that guy living "off grid with pigs", you're contributing to a major problem by aiding in its sustained demise. .. 😅 Is govn't really working for us the citizens who exercise our right to vote? Are they really serving us or are they just puppets answering to multinationals, in this crumbling idea of "democracy " is it really democratic though?
I completely agree with Ben. I think we have 3-10 years, maybe 20 on the long term side. I have watched many videos on Guy McPherson PhD, his UA-cam channel is Nature Bats Last. Michael Dowd is another important voice in Climate collapse, his UA-cam channel is thegreatstory. We are around 422ppm, when you factor in methane and nitrous oxide we are at around 500. We are close to an ice free arctic in the next few years. All we can do is take care of the planet and each other with the little time we have left.
There are lots of things we *could* be doing, but when it comes to what we *will* do about it, I expect the people with the power to make a large impact are going to avoid doing any of those things because doing so would involve reducing their own power. So Ben has the right idea. I just think he needs to get others around him involved in what he's doing, instead of aiming to do it all himself.
Well I think Ben is right. Not because it is too late already, I believe the IPCC in that. However, it will require a huge change worldwide, far more significant that the corona lockdowns, to reduce emissions fast enough to achieve a
Our forests around the globe are turning from carbon sinks to carbon emitters.This means large areas that are calculated to be a sink is now actually emission source. Forest fires, droughts, losing soil and its inhabitants (like fungus), logging, pests, using forests as a base for industries and so on have made these changes. There are way less chances to stay under the limits that are needed. Our permafrost areas are thawing and they are releasing increasing amounts of ghg's. But yet still our own emissions are still growing globally. We still buy everything without thinking products ecological costs, but just how cheap it is. Whole economy HAS TO CHANGE and take account on what damage the production makes, what does consumption make and how much pollution will the end product waste make. Just today I ran through 15 TV-channels. None has anything living in them, except humans. We are killing this planet. And we like it.
When this way of life collapses, it collapses. People will searche for food and some people even will eat human flesh to survive when nothing else is available. We live at fertilizer and diesel power. If this supply is interrupted, it is for 99% modern game over. Because future is very large and not just some days or weeks. People will struggle for thousands of years, because it will be worst than ever before.
I lean more towards the Climate Doomer belief. I have hope that we can turn things around, and I do my best to not contribute to climate change...but I am always preparing for the worst. We never meet our climate goals, it only makes sense to be somewhat prepared.
We have governments and companies around the world continuing to explore new oil and gas sources, carbon capture at the scale required is never going to happen. There is absolutely no way we stay below 2 degrees let alone 1.5 The general public seem unwilling to accept exactly what this means on a worldwide scale, mass starvation, mass migration, blackouts, food shortages, water shortages, more extreme weather.
They could be right. However as an ecologist and just lover of life in general, every bit of progress we do make and fight for means lives are saved both human and non human, and that’s enough to keep me going.
@@ThePirateBen No, but we do have to understand what is the most likely scenario going forward. In my opinion sometime after 2030 they (UN) will put sulfur particles in the stratosphere to regulate temperatures.
@@sandelu635Geo engineering doesn't come without it's own consequences - ones that can irreparably alter the planet's climate without any solution to counteract the ill-effects. A quick fix will not solve our problems, it'll have to be radical steps to truly resolve this issue once & for all
@@TheCycloneTrooper I know but that is the only thing we have. It's just inevitable as things look right now. Reneweble tehnology is just not good enough for our level of consuption and there are one bilion people that will want UE level of consuption in the next decade or so. We will run out of cheap fosile fuels before new renewables reaches even 25% of total energy consuption
My 8th grade science teacher in 1985 told the class that either we will have controlled birth or uncontrolled death to deal with over population and climate catastrophe. So far he has been proved right.
The correct cancer analogy is this. You're a doctor and have diagnosed a patient with cancer. It's been caught early and it's one of those cancers with a good rate of remission. You inform the patient of some lifestyle changes they can make, and of their treatment options. The patient doesn't do anything and refuses treatment. Over the months, you watch the condition of the patient deteriorate. The treatment options dwindle and the prognosis gets worse. The patient continues to refuse treatment and their health further deteriorates. At some point, you have to tell the family to make arrangements for a funeral. You don't tell the family of a stage 4 cancer patient who has continuously demonstrated an unwillingnes to live that there is hope.
No one wants to talk about this because it presents a damned if we do, damned if we don’t scenario. But lately I’ve heard more mention of this concept. After 9/11 when flights were stopped, the absence of contrail caused a noticeable warming. No easy way out of this mess…
Exactly. Pollution is masking the real temperature rise. Air pollution is cooling the temperature rise by half because of something called global dimming. Without pollution, we are already past 2 degrees above preindustrial levels.
the problem with this is, that in every possible case, you can ALWAYS imagine a worse scenario. so in the end no matter the actual outcome, you will always be successful in avoiding the worst and than the survivors can pat each other on the back because they managed to stay right in middle. the middleground that for decades we keep adjusting upwards (or downwards if you like). some 50 years ago 1,5 degrees was the worst possible case, which today is a case of utopia.
Global warming in itself especially in 2023 is deliberetly done to control the people by imposing a tax related to it, ive been around the block 50 yrs and never has their been more pollution since the carbon tax, forest fire spikes as a result can be deliberetly set to prove to the world we need to make the poor poorer by making them pay extra tax , three years ago i said i would pollute every lake and burn every forest for billions of dollars, prove me wrong that this is all an agenda, truth is obvious more forest fire more global warming agreed?
Yes, yes they are. There's already too much CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Even if you stopped putting ALL CO2 into the atmosphere today, it's already too high. Various feedback loops are already in effect. The oceans aren't going to hold much more and in fact the oceans will start to outgas CO2 if the level in the air above the oceans drop. So we are stuck with a good 2 - 4C rise. We can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere with large machines, and make Microsoft a lot of money since they're invested into this. But it won't matter because the feedback loops in play release lots of methane and wipe out Arctic ice for parts of the year, and methane as should be known is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. This is something scientists won't talk about because it leads to more inaction. You go from the human mentality of denial, accepting there's an issue (where we are now), and the next step in human thinking is either "we can't do anything about it so no sense in inconvenience", or "take actions to mitigate this". Right now part of the business world that wants to keep making money with fossil fuels say we can't do anything about it to convince people that's true. Certain govts. or political parties echo this, which is even if this is true (meaning acceptance with denial), we can't change it.
Best thing we can do to lower our individual impact is change to a fully plant based diet. Animal agriculture is responsible for 16.5% of ghg emissions while it's the leading cause of biodiversity loss, soil degradation and water use/pollution.
Hey! We made a video on beef industry and checked whether we can produce beef that doesn't ruin the planet 👉ua-cam.com/video/MjpGsG1gAso/v-deo.html. Let us know what you think in the comments. 🌱
@@DairyQueenY2K So a group of people aren't willing to fight climate change, so therefore I shouldn't as well. Your reasoning is exactly what will lead to a worst case climate change scenario. Just because others aren't willing that are more capable and more powerful than you doesn't mean you yourself shouldn't do anything, otherwise you are just as bad as them.
What do you make of climate dystopia? Are you with Ben or do you think we still have a chance for change?
with the current heatwave experienced, it feels pretty grim
probably
I think if more people thought about this issue with Ben's seriousness we would have a better chance to act in time to avoid doom.
"What do you make of climate dystopia?"
The situation looks really, really bad. Though at least a majority of the population here in Germany does not completely deny anymore that climate change is real, still most people have no idea of the scale of the catastrophy that is about to come. Reality always turned out far worse than even the most pessimistic scientific models predicted, and the process is happening much faster than anticipated.
"Are you with Ben or do you think we still have a chance for change?"
Though Ben may be right that "the" big catastrophy may be inevitable, he does not take into account that climate change is a gradual process. Sure, 1,5°C is an illusion, we already surpassed that, 2°C will be almost impossible to achieve even if we fully hit the brakes on emissions today. Catastrophy may be inevitable, but there is still a huge difference between 3, 4, 6 or 8°C of warming.
So my personal philosophy? The question if we are already doomed or not has no effect on how I act. To me, it is a moral obligation to try everything I can, period.
From my vantage point, the chance to change is reduced. Climate change is well on its way, and even stopping CO2 emissions right now, will not prevent ensuing increase in global temperature over the next century or more. So the next best thing would be a) reduction of emissions and b) planned adaptation to avoid the worst. Tipping points and positive feedback loops (arctic methane) have already started.
For any useful adaption to work, there needs to be near universal acceptance of the measures to take. For this to happen, there needs to be more true statespersons (vs statesmen) instead of politicians as we know them in the US. Further, universal buy in can only happen if wealth disparity is greatly reduced, and all humans and species are supported. Who is likely to buy in to a solution, if they are poorly treated, underpaid, and forced into poverty? Who will sacrifice and change, if the well off don't have to?
Good reporting by DW. But let me point out that I notice the journalist was using a MacBookPro if I am not mistaken. Isn't the source of these consumer electronics actually slave wage factories in a certain country reputed to do this? Is this inequality part of the problem? Is purchasing and using these devices, produced by essentially slaves, kind of complicit in the fundamental problems?
A true fatalist wouldn't care about making the environment worse. Burn coal to make your bunker, it doesn't matter anymore. What he's doing is preparing but not making things worse, so even if he's detached from society he's still helping us, relatively speaking.
And that is his own "call to action".
I'm surprised he's getting all the criticism. He is growing his own food, he doesn't drive, nor probably use much electricity. They're acting as if he isn't doing anything for the climate. He is doing more than what most of us are doing. We're at the mercy of energy companies. We ask them to build more solar & wind farms. Ben- he just stops his electricity usage.
no true scotsman, very convincing
Or what he really thinks is that the likelihood of full blown catastrophe is 99+%, but he's still holding out hope that we can beat the odds and salvage the future.
I’m doing the same, off grid, vegan and I ride an e scooter 90 minutes (each way) to town to avoid driving a car.. I can’t live with my soul if I was just letting loose and not doing my bit..
I had a friend once who had cancer, her other friends thought she would pull through and so didn't really go visit her. She died. At the wake, they all said they didn't realize that she was in that bad of shape but wished that they had stopped by to visit. They were the people so wrapped up in making money that they let their so-called friend go without even a goodbye.
Eat two bulbs of organic garlic a day.
@@UKtoUSABrit the earths temperatures aren't enhanced by man, is that what your saying? when gases gather in the atmosphere that prevent heat from escaping, the temp rises, you dont agree?
Andrew we are supposed to be in a cooling period and we aren't. Earths avg global temperature have increased or changed in the last few hundred years not thousands. That should freak you out. Add methane from melting permafrost to the mix and humans will lose habitat for 3-6 billion people when AGT hit 3.5 degrees c above preindustrial levels. It's already started. Co2 is a heat trapping gas. Too much alcohol is not a good thing even though it makes you happy.
@@UKtoUSABrit Smoking is harmless too according to the nut jobs you are linking to.
A bunch of libertarian right wing whack jobs.
Profits before anything else.
It’s not only about making money as such it’s just about surviving my days are full up. My evenings are exhausted and that not because I’m trying to get rich but I’m trying to get by.
I have pasta so many social engagement because I was just tired from the rat race we live in
It’s a no way, because my friends are less valuable than the money I make
But the money I make it feed me and it put a roof over my head
🤷♀️
even if it turns out that we were not doomed and reverted anthropogenic climate change, this dude took part in it as well by drawing people's attention to the topic and leading the way with his very sustainable life style. Cheers to him! Truly, he's doing more than most of us.
@@kevinjensen2071 lul
"anthropogenic climate change" is not harmful
I love the default position of most media (include this one) of optimism. "People are going to look back and say the 2020's was when everything turned around" is utter fantasy. People have been anticipating big dramatic action since the 80's. Instead we got 40 years of nothing, or worse than nothing. Where these optimists get their faith in governments I have no idea, because it's certainly not from any past behaviour. I understand the human need to feel comfort, but keep that false hope and fantasy to yourself, because it's poison.
@@glennjgroves no disrespect intended, but anyone who's telling you that capitalism will solve a problem that capitalism created, then hid, then lied about, then obstructed, all while worsening... that person is trying to take your money from you.
@@glennjgroves 40 years ago, we had the same percentage of clean energy, none of which can be built or maintained without fossil fuel. The other thing is, this added energy is just that, addition to keep the economy afloat, to keep extracting resources.
Dude they said since the 80's the world is about to end. Just silly to continue this path when all this hysteria is worse than if they would have shut up.
@@glennjgroves It's not new information. We can't build or maintain any renewables without fossil fuel. You ignored that as well as the total energy needed, smart person.
@@borealphoto what part of the process that make renewable generation cannot be done with renewables?
Then what is worse, using a little fossil fuel to make a renewable energy generator, then not needing any more input for decades, while generating energy, or continuously using fossil fuels to extract more fossil fuels to light on fire?
“Doomers” actually make the most changes to their lifestyles that minimize harm. Optimism leads to Business as Usual and inaction because of the feeling that someone else will take care of it.
This!
Bingo!🎉
Ding ding ding we have a winner! That's the point. Whoever is really aware of the situation can't help becoming a doomer. And doomer doesn't mean raise hands and do nothing because the actual people doing nothing are the ones that actively think we can save ourselves.
you are SO Right. Im 62 and been prepping since the crazy half of the country elected a treasonous traitor to POTUS in 2016. I'm the doomer in my family and my 2 grown Boys are the Optimist. Needless to say I have to prepare for them.
Be proud to be a climate doomer
I adopted Ben's lifestyle back in the 70's in a remote area of Montana. I've been growing my own ever since so I've been prepped for a long time. Still, I only know a very small percentage of people that really care enough to make a change. The vast majority of humans just want the status quo. Over the last 60 years I have seen things get vastly worse. I think for the most part human society is reactive and will wait until the crisis slaps them in the face before they are willing to make sacrifices to avert the disaster which is already looming here in slow motion.
If everyone changes to your life style best be prepared for LOTS of neighbours because there wont be enough land for everyone. glad you are doing what you are doing you are at least attempting to change things which as you say most of us are not.
How did you type this and how do you have internet if you live like Ben? How can you afford a computer? How did you access a place that sells computers? Do you have to be technically savvy as well as farm savvy? It would be nice to know how this works. Kudos for you for taking action!
@@hexatorus5452 I lived on the edge of a wilderness area in Montana in the 70s and 80s, but I moved to Tennessee in the 90s and I now have electricity and internet. I used the internet to make a living since then. Yes, once the internet was invented I taught myself how to build websites and program software to earn $ remotely. I have electricity and running water at my current location because it is very convenient, but I know how to live without it. And I still grow 90% of my food all organic. I am close to self-sufficient but I live close to a city now. The city has crept out around me.
@@rickmoore52 Very cool
When I observe the apathy of politicians, shareholders, CEO's and the general population I feel inclined to agree with the dooms day theorists. I am old enough to remember when we discussed climate issues (acid rain, forest defoliation, river pollution etc.) in the 70's and had heated debates with politicians about the costs of climate protection and the cost of no action. 50 years later we are still doing more or less the same thing (hollow and useless climate talk fest conferences). We are already experiencing serious climate consequences but apathy prevails. I wonder what has to happen before we get serious about ourselves and the world that feeds us. The house is already on fire and we are still discussing who is paying for the fire hose and the water. Einstein was right: Human stupidity is boundless.
It’s as if “Idiocracy” and “Dont look up” were actually based on real people.
You probably live in a so-called 'liberal democracy'. Your nation has 2-5 'main-parties' all crowding the centre and debating performative, lively but ultimately unimportant issues and all heavily reliant on corporate funding for their campaign finance and board seats upon retirement and successful completion of corporate goals.
Vote red, blue, orange or green corporate party. Vote harder!!!!
Think globally, organize locally.
@@Scepticalasfuk honestly, I think the young generation, who don’t want to work as hard as their predecessors, simply see that the game is rigged against them, and they don’t want to play.
What do you suppose would happen if we all stop playing, and taking “sides”? How long would it take?
Sadly true. A lot of polticans and CEO's are sociopaths and pyschopaths, climate change could have been prevented decades ago but profits are more important than the planet in their minds - or worse they don't care. They're planning on business as usual (ie making money) and then blasting off to the moon base with Elon, Bezos and friends: "Thanks for working to increase our profits and voting for us.... good luck!"
Sometimes the eradication of nature is a necessity to make changes
"its easier to imagine the end of the world, than the end of capitalism'
The more people, the more capitalism, the more energy, manufacturing and pollution, the more people... Unlimited growth was always unsustainable. The planet has caught a fever to solve the problem that is too many of us. Meanwhile, one country, Russia, has started a war and in some ways derailed what little progress we were making (and helped in other ways), BECAUSE it is determined to raise the price of its oil (capitalism).
Everyone should see this video: it lays out many of the most salient arguments.
exactly
shhhhh you cant say that stuff, just say that the market will do everything itself (ignore the coal corporations that reach record profits yearly)
so true!!
@@mrcuttime22 Being capitalism the problem doesn't lead to "more capitalism, more people", this is definatly not what is happening, since the rich countries (and many of middle income contries) have low and declining fertility rates. Also, capitalism and consumerism being the problem, doesn't make the problem being superpopulation. There is a reason of why populous and poor countries contribute less to climate change than rich and smaller countires. So, looking at the data, there is no sigh of the amount of people or the birth rates being the problem. Logically, population decline or control isn't the solution either. The important thing is lifestyle and capitalism(or, at least, production). On the other side, raisng the price of oil doesn't equate to rising the price of capitalism. Althought, Russia raising the price(including the risk) of gas being the most important, oil prices are still going down and than shows an profund change: oil consumption isn't going to grow much further.
WE LIVE IN THE USA. Our country has been pummeled by wave after wave of bizarre, damaging weather in the last year. Storms have rampaged across the country from West coast to East coast - leaving floods, landslides, wildfires, and other destruction in their wake. THIS IS NOT NORMAL ! People are stunned by these disasters, but fail to understand the "after-effects" : crop losses, death of livestock, and disruption of the distribution system. It's just GETTING WORSE by the year - with no improvement in sight.
This is why my wife and I moved to Puerto Rico and are planting food trees and food forest plants of immense diversity on multiple acres. We produce or own water and electricity, and the plan is that if things collapse in the next 5-10 years, hopefully the work we've put in will help our community not starve.
That hurricane risk tho 😟
That's cool.
It gets depressing again when you randomly see IPO's about green hydrogen magically being in place to move desalinated water full tankers about like your average crude.
@@magesalmanac6424 Yes, Puerto Rico is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially with warmer sea surface and air temperatures, coupled with the high humidity which contributes to higher wet bulb temperatures.
@@magesalmanac6424 that's why we've built our homes with Earthbag construction. We're also situated in the mountains, and that helps
@@magesalmanac6424 Trees grow back.
His views aren't "extreme". Everyone else is just oblivious.
"I'm not wrong, everyone else is." - You
@@MostlyPonies1um literally all climate scientists agree buddy
You realize that as some places on the planet become "uninhabitable" others will become better suited for human habitation.
@@6thface That's not true actually. The soil will be wrong and there will be bacteria and viruses hiding there that human biology have never encountered before leading massive human die off. Also we already drank the water dry.
Climate change is a GLOBAL catastrophe. The whole planet. There is nowhere to run from it.
How the hell is he a climate doomer he's literally a climate optimist I mean if he's trying (key word trying) to ensure humanity and the best of it's culture survives it's self imposed extinction then he's an optimist who believes some parts of our culture is even worth saving !!
I applaud Ben. I don’t have it in me to live like that, and also not the money to buy a farm or land, nor knowledge of what to do with it. I have however given up hope on the future. I realized 10 years ago after reading the climate reports then that children was no option ever, and it absolutely _baffles_ me that people are still having children. What futures do they imagine their kids will have? My retirement plan is suicide. I’m just over 30, and I fully except society to start collapsing before I become a senior. I hope for 10-20 normal years ahead still, before it gets too bad. I really hope for that. I’ll try to make the most of those years, and when quality in life is no longer an option, there is no point in living anymore. The only thing I really worry about is how I will die. I don’t want to be killed by others in some battle for food, starve or thirst to death, or die slowly or painfully. I feel tremendous sadness that humanity couldn’t be better than this, despite all our potential. I feel extreme anxiety for all the innocent individuals suffering the consequences of this: animals, and people in developing countries who didn’t contribute to this, but who suffers before developed countries do. I try to live my life and be happy, but there is a deep dread within, and this hollow feeling of pointlessness. We’re doomed. There is no future. I have this innate desire to build, but there is no future to build for. No reason to create anything for a world that will not be around for it. I just hope that something better will come after us through evolution, thousands of years from now. And I hope that in this infinite universe, there are other worlds hosting life, where life is represented by beings better than we could be. That is a nice thought I try to hold on to.
I feel you, Josephine. I'm 56, and I have had a deep sense for a long time that it's all meaningless, we're all screwed anyway so why bother? The people with the power to avert this have chosen to deny it, at least publicly, and pursue the feeding frenzy as business as usual. I've never been motivated to do the things I was supposed to, you know, date, find someone to marry, raise a family, etc.
Truthfully, a lot of us might not make it to the end of this year. Just in the U.S., the devastation to the harvest in California's Central Valley due to the extreme heat, along with reductions in other places due to flooding, is likely to lead to severe food shortages by fall. People suffering from food insecurity will likely be pushed over the edge. Next year, and every subsequent year, will be worse. Ironically, reducing fossil fuel burning will make things worse in the short term by removing the aerosol masking effect.
99.99% of humanity's existence on Earth was absolute shit compared to modern standards. People still had children, the world still kept moving. You just deluded yourself and can't live up to whatever expectations you had about what life should be. This is not "the world's" fault, just your ineptitude to adapt to reality. Death will come eventually, and of course everything is meaningless. If this is a given you might as well just live your life and not worry about doomsday. Life is good and you're gonna miss out with that mentality
@@davidandre3719 You are right that whatever shit happens with the climate, most of human history people were living far worse lives. However, not having children is a great idea. Really, it is the best thing to reduce emissions. Whatever shit may or may not happen, it certainly is going to be a tiny bit easier to deal with the effects of climate change because Josephine's kids are not around as well.
This is verbatim how I feel.
imo, way too much in the existential nihilism direction.
yes it will be bad, but positive change will come as well.
we/industries are looking for solutions to these gigantic issues.
and the battle to change, which will decide just how bad it'll be, isn't done yet, its happening now.
negative psychology about the situation will only make things worse.
dig deeper, be happy, reduce your consumption habits, then encourage others to follow
the more people do it, the more likely your outlook about our future will improve.
also, if you can, look to God for meaning. its a vast cosmos, and we're veritable toddlers.
this may all be part of the bigger plan for our species.
The great irony is Ben has already done more to help the environment by overhauling his lifestyle than anybody else trying to gaslight his beliefs
One man taking acres and acres to himself to not actually sustain himself......... sure dude.
Not sure about the land use part, but in terms of reduced personal emissions (significantly reduced consumer behavior, a vegan diet, extremely low energy use), he's spot on.
Not really, since there's a little thing called aerosol masking effect.
To be honest I don't think he cares what people think, he's the smart one for being prepared. Jokes on everyone else.
Everyone who has been paying attention agrees that it is going to be bad.
We are only debating how bad. History suggests Ben's appraisal is the likely one.
If we do avoid some of the worse case scenario it will be due to technology we have and will invent and adopt. Not because enough of us get serious about climate but just because it is better and less expensive.
It's hard to be optimistic when you see that the more evidence of global warming accumulates, the more climate deniers there are. It's probably because the more urgent it becomes to act, the more people are afraid of what it means for them: drastically changing their way of life.
But I think Ben's got the right attitude: he hasn't given up on action, and he's doing what he can to try and make the world a better place. He's probably not as fatalistic as he thinks himself.
Where is everyone getting this "fatalist" perception of Ben? He literally stated that he's writing the manifesto so that humanity can survive the collapse. That's hope, not fatalism.
They are deniers because it is all bullshit.
Ben might be changing but others must be made to act like him
No. Climate deniers are a shrinking minority. People are starting to act and demand their governments act. We just need to ramp this up big time.
Denial is a hell of a drug
The methane bubbling out of the arctic has me believing we are heading for extreme hardship if not extinction. But I will do everything within my power to reverse the situation. Biochar, home gardening, solar (wind) power, increasing biomass, building humus, increasing local diversity and so on.
You greatly underestimate our ability to survive. We may have a population loss but we aren’t going extinct
He’s definitely setting a very good example thinking about the lengths we’ll need to go to and hopefully make us happier about getting on and doing it .
The Green New Deal including Biden's actions have completely failed by shutting down fossil fuels. We need cheap fuel to make the transition to more efficient and eco-friendly energy.
I find it funny that he thinks his way of life is something special and people don't do that anymore. He is so used to his occidental confortable life that he doesn't realize that most of the people in poorer countries live like that and they have lived like this since forever. Here, in eastern Europe most of the people in the countryside have a life similar to the one he thinks is going to save the world . He and other doomsayers are so out of touch with the reality in this world that it hurts.
The solutions they propose are stupid.
Climate change exists, life on planet earth won't end because of it, it will only affect some species and our current way of life. Maybe there will be fewer people because of it but life always finds a way
It's not going to help. The land he's growing on will desertify and the trees are liable to be caught in a forest fire caused by a heatwave. He needs an underground "vertical farm" that's large enough for subsistence farming. And it needs to be designed with several layers of redundancies and failsafes and he needs to know how everything can be rebuilt and maintained. That's a multi-million euro project.
I tend to agree with that guy. Even if it’s theoretically possible that we could limit the damage, just based on how governments around the world are acting, it’s simply not going to happen fast enough. Doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t try to limit the damage but it’s not going to be pretty.
Absolutely. We can fix climate change, but even the governments that are doing something about it, are not doing anywhere near enough.
yep, I do agree to let the world burn with this kind of 10% rich people pollute more than rest of humans. Even if we somehow can reverse climate change, until how much should we extract natural resources to fulfill our capitalism need (especially to fill the pocket of the ultra mega hyper super legendary riches who contribute most of destruction), when and how much will be enough? and those riches have better education and must have been know the negative sides of their life style but they choose to ignore it (even if the have the ignorance then the system is broken), so it's really no use and just let the world burn might be a better choice to release the humans out of suffers.
There is no way humans are going to survive abrupt exponential climate change. It's not possible. Especially now. If the politicians would have acted responsibly when they were warned by Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Carl Sagan in 1987, we might have a chance. But sadly, it is far too late now. Technology cannot save us. The politicians are narcissists and that's why they are politicians. They are basically useless and lack integrity. They failed the entire human race.
I'm thinking it might be better at this stage to let the collapse happen. The sooner things collapse, the sooner we can rebuild. There will be a lot of suffering yes, but there is more suffering by prolonging the collapse. The quicker we pull off the band-aid, the more arable land, drinkable water that'll still be there instead of this slow death.
government is nothing more than a tool in hands of ruling class. A tool to promote interests of the ruling class. So nothing will change until capitalists are the ones who are holding governments in their grip. Because the only interest capitalists have is profit, so doesn't matter how many elected figurehead we change, things will continue as they are until the whole system won't change.
I will say that after talking to a therapist and being reminded about what I was taught in communication classes, I felt better about myself and wanting to take more actions. I boughts plants for my apt and looking into climate action orgs. It's still not much, but I'm being more militaristic about how to approach our climate issue.
And yet here you are using the internet 😂the irony! So you pick and choose do you?
@@MrThedonheadyou must be a real fun person to interact with
Very Wholesome 🤗
Sound urban so community garden/private allotment is next step
I live in Washington DC and for my entire life our government has always fallen short in one way or another. Our nation had the opportunity to get out infront of CC in 1991 but our own people torpedoed the talks. We will never make meaningful progress without the devotion of either China or US. Unfortunately both seem to be more worried about prestige and domination. With no meaningful action it’s simply a race to rule the rubble.
100% agree
Ever considered voting and change who are in charge? Running yourself for office?
hey china made solar panels affordable via mass production, something the idiotic usa couldnt be bothered with - even tho they invented the tech decades earlier
@@emaarredondo-librariannot everyone is rich
@@emaarredondo-librarianWhen I look at the US I always wonder if there is a real choice you can make in the elections.
I think it’s not a matter of it being physically impossible to defeat climate change, it’s a lack of the will to make the changes. With all the warnings, agreements, and global weather events, we still see all around us a deluge of oil based waste. A simple example. No one has to use plastic bags, other, natural materials can be used but we’re too lazy and that’s why, sadly, I think Ben has got it right. Not to scare but just accepting the truth. We can’t be bothered to save ourselves.
It’s not so much that we can’t be bothered to save ourselves it’s that our brains are literally not evolved to deal with the sort of enormous, abstract and complex problem that is climate change. We aren’t able to see the damage our individual consumption makes so it feels like a waste of energy to bother to change. We don’t think on a planetary scale.
Most people don't get worked up and fight fairy tail monsters either.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been going on since the planet has had an atmosphere! There is nothing humans can do to stop it! Trying to stop it is as useless as trying to slow down the rotation of the planet!
don't worry about saving the planet, you are not responsible for it. You cannot force people to not use plastic bags, that makes 0 sense
We don't have to use cars too
What an amazing man. Love that his aim is to walk the talk
There most likely won't be a collapse everywhere all at once and there won't be a specific moment where someone will say "it has happened". It really depends on where you are located as to how bad things will get. Ultimately the planet will be fine, it's just humans (and countless animals) that won't be. In a million years the planet will have forgotten about us.
In a million years, the Earth will likely get hit by multiple asteroids owing to Gliese 710 fly-by. A species like ours could've been the one capable of preserving life & preventing apocalypse. However, if we die, the life on planet will loose it's most optimal chance of survival that was afforded by the presence of this specie of neurally evolved apes. That's the significance of humanity which is overlooked when talking about a doomsday climate change scenario where our civilisation is extinguished slowly & painfully. The fact that we brought it upon ourselves makes it even more of a testament of our incredible greed & selfishness bordering stupidity. Earth won't get another chance to evolve complex beings like ourselves in the next billion years as the sun swallows the Earth whole. It'd be the end of all life as we know & understand it. Sad & incredibly under-utilized potential as a space-faring civilisation.
Water wars will star in some years if we are going down this path
At no point did he even bring up religion. Stop being in denial about the reality of the ongoing climate crisis and wake up.
@@rmac3217 so angry lol
And in a couple million years after that the suns rays will have sterilized this planet.
My father owns a farm in the US where he has cultivated his own crops for decades.
When I moved to the city, it blew my mind that people don't even bother to grow even simple herbs.
We could really benefit from every single window in residential buildings hosting lettuce, tomatoes, and other veggies. It really humbles anyone who gardens that they understand the lengths to which food is created.
But again, the rich and politically connected are so disconnected to where their food comes from that they can't even comprehend the lengths at which change must happen to accommodate positive ecological change.
Lol aight, where's the profit in any of that? Nowhere. So how are you going to get everybody to do that? How do you propose to enact that sweeping, systemic change? Lmao.
The issue is capitalism, the solution must therefore be a solution for/to capitalism. The result is obvious and inevitable, as it has been for the past 160 years; no amount of "individual action" can or will have any consequence. History is collective, dialectical, and materialist.
@@RosscoAW Oh yeah a political revolution will do wonders for the environment. back in reality capitalism is what there is so we have to work in its frame work. You people are dreaming.
@@raclark2730 after all the "American Dream" will be nothing mote than that. A dream lasting 2(?) centuries until reality floods the garden, the garage and the mall
@@aldoconciso Yeah thanks edge lord. You are confusing one country with something even the hard line commies like the CCP now embrace. Good luck with your revolution you are going to need it. Or you could support the quiet but growing revolution of people working to do things differently. Up to you comrade. 😉
Isn't more polluting and wasting to grown your own food? And how will you manage the time when you have a full time job?
My doomerism comes from the experience of living in a tent in rural Ohio with no running water but two cars parked beside it, and the realization that even what most all of my family and friends thought was EXTREMISM was not nearly enough to combat the climate catastrophe at our door. I still drove a car, had solar panels and batteries, ate industrialized food, wore sweatshop manufactured clothes, etc. Maybe humans will figure out carbon capture and make it scalable in time to advert the worst parts of the impending catastrophe, but my hunch is that we won't. Governments around the world aren't doing enough, and if they did, we'd all fucking revolt against them because what is needed is beyond what we'd call sanity and we don't tolerate the slightest inconvenience, let alone the monumental changes necessary. It is not sanity to be optimistic, as this program aims to do. It's all down hill from here and the more we roll, the faster it all gets.
Waiting on the government to do anything is a huge mistake.
We need to change our expectations so governments have the bandwidth to do what needs to be done. You're right though. The populace is not ready. ^^^
@SequoiaMakes The total percentage of carbon dioxide in earths' atmosphere is a mere 0.04%. If it drops below 0.02%, plants DIE, WE DIE !!!!!
Stop buying into this doomsday climate cult. They’re trying to manipulate you guys, fear is the greatest tool. The world has been way warmer than it is now, everything is going to be okay.
You really nailed it on the part where the government finally tries to do something, and the real entitled babies in this country throw a fit over it. I have neighbors who moved out of California because the state government is at least trying, more than anywhere in the US, to tackle this problem.
I'm over 80 years old and I agree with the young people, government is beholden to the money interests so does nothing.
Here in the USA, the Congress just passed another MILITARY funding bill - $900 BILLION$ for the year ! Yet, we are supposedly NOT "at war", and already have the world's largest & most expensive military. Can you imagine the amount of GOOD that we could do with $900 BILLION$ - instead of offering our $$$ to the "god of war" ?
When I was a teenager in the late 80s I recall having a number of conversations about the "greenhouse effect" and being berated by my elders for my cynicism, since I maintained that we'd not act to solve it. Looking back i wonder if I was merely realistic or whether that pessimism was my complicity with the system
Yep, I’ve been an environmentalist since the ‘60s. I’m 82 now & see exactly what the scientists predicted. I tell my Gr.children to enjoy the present cuz the rich will destroy the world soon.
Watch the film “Soylent Green” made in 1973 based on a book written in 1968. They’ve been warning about global warming since 1950’s and it’s been ignored until now.
You were intelligent and realistic stopping climate change is impossible without the use of new technology’s to do it. It’s basically pissing in wind trying to cut CO2 lvs while countries are developing all the time. No point protesting saying cut this that it won’t make any difference they be better off raising money for carbon capture research projects and things like that.
I was in 4th grade around 2002 and read a Climate Change book from my local library and realized the implications then. My dad walked in my room since they knew I was concerned about it and did something like turning on the light and saying "this uses energy and creates CO2. There's nothing we can do, why worry about it?"
@@cmath6454 That is sad, displaying shear ignorance and indifference to others really. Part of that generation I suspect.
The biggest problem isn't that there's nothing we can do to mitigate climate change.
The biggest problem is that there is nothing that we ARE DOING.
Im graduating high school in a few days, and I have spent nearly all of my teenage years thinking about climate change. I've determined that if we are going to suffer anyways, I am going to make it as bearable as possible.
Good for you. That's a good attitude to have.
Don't worry about it. It is all bullshit. This same BS has been preached about for at least 30 years. Nothing is happening.
Can’t you see a child was destroyed here with mindless bull hit? And you encourage it
Keep on keeping on!
Im graduating next year from 9th grade if all goes well, and i just want to die, why would i want to live in this cancerous hell
Governments and corporations are making a dystopia right now 2024.
The last time time there was this much carbon in the air temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees warmer and sea levels were around 20 meters higher. A recent study on global dimming made the authors remark “the 2 degrees target is dead”. It’s not a question of hope. It’s a question of realism. We have entered a new climate state, and the outcome isn’t clear. But it won’t be good.
Where is your resources?
@@iraqi2015 if you look online you’ll find them.
CO2 follows temperature, not (so much) the other way around.
When the planet warms, CO2 is released from the sea.
Today CO2 levels are elevated for a unique reason - man got sequestered carbon out of the ground and re-introduced it to the atmosphere.
You have your arrow of causation (largely) the wrong way around.
Sleep easy tonight my friend.
@cnrspiller3549 in most historical climate change events, co2 has followed temperature and caused a positive feedback. The temperature would rise from some event which caused co2 to evaporate from the oceans which caused further warming. Man made climate change is a bit different because we have released co2 without a serious climate event happening first so in this case co2 is happening first and the more it warms the more co2 the ocean releases or the more methane the permafrost releases.
There's many different causes of climate change. Sometimes it was volcanoes, sometimes it was the metabolism of a new species but the case today is man made emissions. This is novel and the first time man made emissions were the cause of climate change in all of earth's history.
@@BM1982.V2 all very interesting, but it doesn't change my main observation that the original posting compared present day CO2 levels with the last time we were at around 400ppm, and because it was way warmer back then he concluded (in error) that it will therefore, be as hot this time. His prediction relies entirely on the assumption that CO2 drives warming, without considering the reverse effect, ie. Warming increases CO2.
The collapse is not a sudden event but an ongoing process, it is already happening, and it will take at least another half century, probably a lot more, perhaps as much as two centuries. There will be times when catastrophes happen more often, and when things go worse quickly, and there will be times when things even get a little better for a while or at least stagnate.
IF it was just the climate, I would say there's still hope for this civilisation to change for the better. But it is not just the climate - we have destabilised not just the global carbon cycle but also the phosphorus and the nitrogen cycle, we have triggered the global biodiversity crrisis aka the Sixth Extinction, we are running out of fossil resources fast, we are using renewable resources at an unsustainable rate (i.e., faster than they renew). Capitalism is the cancer eating the planet, we need our global economy to shrink instead of growing, and the only way we can still make things a little better for the poorer parts of the planet is for the rich parts of the planet to become just as poor.
Either we have some kind of global revolution and create a sustainable global eco-socialist economy, or we just collapse. Either way, THIS civilisation is over--either we get a radically different one or none at all, just primitive tribes of survivors and perhaps a few feudal states. But the downfall will still take a long time. There will be times and places where it looks apocalyptic for a while, like heatwaves killing tens of millions in a few days, but for most of the time, it will just slowly get worse. At some time, people will notice that the old world is gone, but nobody will be able to pinpoint an exact point in time when it ended.
@@ThePirateBen A civilisation is an incredibly large and complex system, and things like that take a lot of time to collapse. As long as we can avoid something like a global thermonuclear war, the collapse will be spread out over at least another century. It will go significantly faster than civilisations in the past, but our rise was significantly faster as well, since it was all driven by enormous stores of fossil energy and the increasingly complex machines we built using that energy.
You’re spot on g.
Yep, so business as usual, the capitalists will whip their slaves to death rather than admit culpability .
@@goodwifeweaver They probably thought that Climate Change or more specifically "Net Zero" was the "easier problem to solve" at the time, governments liked it because it meant business as usual but this time they got to be perceived as proactive because they signed some pieces of paper and made some resolutions, and businesses liked it because they saw how much money they stood to make from the resurgence in demand for raw materials caused by decarbonization & electrification, financializing nature through natural asset corporations, carbon offsets, and the sale of "ecological services".
Wrong. Sudden collapse of ecosystems is the norm. Take the North Atlantic cod collapse or the recent Alaskan Snow crab collapse.
"Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous."
Admiral H.G. Rickover
It needs to be said that the IPCC is always on the more cautious site. In the last report, they did not even account for the global warming due to methane, because they could not agree on the heating factor it should be accounted with. So they just left it out of the calculation
And here we are past 1900 ppb of methane which is nuts and we already know it's 80x more potent than co2 over 20 years. it's just if you tell thos politicians that methane is actually worse than coal imagine the issues.
I want to clarify. Methane is better than coal ONLY if runaway emissions and leakage is under 8-10%. Studies revealed that most infrastructures actually leak about 15-16% of the methane. So in the end, the total impact of methane is worse than coal.
There's great uncertainty over CH4 (methane) as its entire frequency contribution to the greenhouse effect is encompassed by water vapour (unlike CO2).
Water vapour and water in all its its forms is a big question mark when it comes to climate change and so the effect of adding a tiny amount of something that does exactly the same thing as something that is already up there but in much, much higher quantities is very hard to know. Might be that CH4 does next to nothing at all.
When they say "the science is settled" this is the sort of uncertainty they are still wrestling with.
@@cnrspiller3549
However, every single bit of methane will turn into CO2 eventually, so methane has to be counted as AT LEAST one CO2 equivalent.
Being spectrally co-incident with water doesn't give methane a free ticket. Consider a tank of water, with some dye. Now add another dye that absorbs at least some of the same colours. Light passing through will get stopped somewhat sooner than otherwise, yes? Similar for infrared.
Methane scattering is not diminished because it occurs in the same range as water vapour.
When you consider the mean path length for scattered infrared to escape the atmosphere, adding more absorption in saturated bands is probably exponentially *worse* than in unsaturated bands.
@@aaroncosier735 this is my point though. The mechanics of CH4 and CO2 contributions to the greenhouse effect are well understood, but the complex interplay with water in all its many forms is unknown and quite possibly unknowable.
Water is one of the biggest missing pieces in this whole puzzle.
I am guessing (but we all are tbh) but I am strongly inclined to venture that water is the thermostat in our atmosphere. That water dampens out all the other changes in the various climate temperature forcings, from sun cycles to orbit variations through man-made aerosols and random volcanoes etc.
The world's temperature is remarkably stable despite reports of boiling seas and the planet being on fire. I think that's water acting as a big old negative feedback mechanism.
Call me an optimist, but I reckon I could easily be just as right as the so-called settled science.
Trouble is, there's no bloody money in my rather boring prediction.
@@cnrspiller3549
You might be disappointed.
The contributions of water are also well understood.
As vapour, it is a greenhouse gas, night and day, just like CO2, except that some condenses out. And of course, more CO2 means more heat night and day to keep more of it as vapour.
As clouds, the impact is almost neutral, near as. Papers over the last few years have reported this near-neutrality.
Clouds trap heat as well as reflecting, and they trap heat at night as well as day. whereas they only reflect light during day.
Misrepresenting the facts as "reports of boiling seas" is not helpful. Ocean temperatures have increased, especially near the surface. Given the huge mass of material involved, this is genuinely cause for concern. Those same seas will not cool down quickly, even if we ceased emissions tomorrow.
The "stability" you mention has to keep in mind the very narrow range of average temperatures and conditions where humans and our major crops can thrive.
For Ben: you probably could just go on with that kind of living, even if that kind of apocalypse would not happen, because your kind of lifestyle is right.
Sadly, I’m with Ben. Scientists all over the planet has estimated for years that global temperature increase will reach 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2027, which was the agreed upon limit of the Paris Agreement, which is the greatest political action taken against climate change in the entire world. That’s FOUR YEARS from now and we are still BARELY taking any action to stop it from going above that limit.
Keep in mind that right now, if were able to reach net zero emissions today, the climate change that has already occured would be easily reversed. In less than five years, global temperatures would return to what they were before the industrial age, weather patterns would go back to what they have been for thousands of years and everything would return to normal. But that’s only as long as we stay at a 2 degrees Celsius increase. If we go any higher than that, even if we reach net zero emissions the day afterwards, global temperatures will be too warm to reverse and will not go any lower again for over 100 000 years. Climate change would be irreversible and unpreventable.
We are projected to reach a 2 degrees Celsius increase by a son as the early 2030s. That’s only 8 - 10 years from now. And, whereas before scientists estimated a 50% risk that we would go above 2 degrees global temperature increase, they now estimate that the risk has risen to at least 60%.
I’ve accepted that we are more than likely living in the best years in human history. And, as such, I choose to enjoy what time we have in such a beautiful world, unburdend by any anxieties of what the uncertain future will hold. However, that does not mean we should give up. It may be hopeless, but it is better to know yourself as someone who did everything they could to save the world than to know yourself as one of the people who caused it’s destruction.
It is estimated that we will have reached 4 degrees increase in global temperatures by 2100. This is the absolute worst case scenario for climate change, but it is survivable. For those who fear for their survival or of the survival of their children, I can only give you my advice on what to do to prepare yourselves: If you live in Polynesia, Southeast Asia, Indochina, the Indian subcontinent, Tibet, Southeastern Africa, the US East Coast, Southwest USA, the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America or in the middle of South America - migrate as soon as you can. All of these regions will be almost completely uninhabitable by 2100. Move as far north as physically possible, at least as far north as Canada, the north of Central Europe, Russia or Siberia. Everything below these lands will become a desert, but not necessarily uninhabitable. I very much recomend that you aim for lands that are the closest to the Arctic - such as Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, England, Scandinavia, Finland, Russia and Siberia - because climate change will actually alter their climates in a positive way, making their lands much more fertile for farming. However, no matter which country you go to, be sure to stay away from coastal areas.
I absolutely believe there are things we *can* do. The real question is *will* we do them. I think most doomers have look at the last 40 years of inaction and concluded that the answer is no. I don't want to agree with them, but it gets harder everyday.
It's already too late. That's the thing
Shutting down everything when Covid happened caused dramatic reduction in air pollution for obvious reasons. But not global temperature averages. We may be able to prolong the time it takes to reach the tipping points, but we're not (including myself) willing to make the sacrifices required to reverse it. Reaching the tipping points, natural processes take over and everything is out of our control, and the effect far worse than "our" mere 2-3 degrees. If we listened to Carl Sagan and acted promptly then, we'd be better off temperature wise. But we wouldn't be living the "good life" we currently do (or are supposed to do).
@@EdWard-ie5wn there's only one way out now. people need to realize that.
If I take anything from this video it will be the words of the psychologist - you need to feel anxiety and doom but don't get stuck there, remember the creativity, joy, connection, then take action on a personal, social and political level. Then I am reminded of the German police raiding the homes of environmental activists because they disturbed someone's comfort with their message and DW not even posing the question - how is this a crime to get police involved?! And then we are back to where we started.
Exactly that. How can this action prevail, if you get actively resisted by society?
Our indivual contribution matters little to none. Capitalism has to go if we want to end or minimize climate change
Farm dude just tells it how it is to their faces and they aren’t used to that. Reporters are SO used to showing up and getting an optimistic story they are dumbfounded when someone is like “yea they have your number, they know what stories you’ll run”
I work in the climate space. Every day there is the push and pull between doomerism and optimism. Between action and inaction. But I do believe we are at an incredibly profound moment in human history. One where actions count. Even the smallest one. I tell my colleagues that all we can do is our best within our control, but you damn well better believe we are going to do that. So no matter which corner of the world you call home, do your best and create local change!
❤🫂
Lmao literally what individual actions matter? This whole "even the smallest actions contribute to change" thing is literally absurd bullshit. You're a scientist, act it. Stop pretending in fairy tales. The problem is capitalism, and any solution short of international socialism will fail to ameliorate the profit incentive justifying exploitation, extraction, and free externalities (like pollution and emissions). As a climate scientist it is morally imperative that you advocate for the abrupt and immediate usurpation of capitalism, period, end discussion. Anything short of that is an utter absconding of the necessary ethics needed to even have a chance at surviving environmental catastrophe at this stage. Alas, that won't happen, hence why doomerism is entirely realistic: not because lamenting people "failing to take individual actions," but because the systemic structure of society is violent and classist and privileges only wealthy corporate shareholders, period.
Nobody achieved by giving up did they, still in and worth the fight for better balance on this world.
Example? Beside "Do your best"
And what have you done?
But this guy in the video, labeled a “doomer,” Is taking the MOST action. More action than the optimists, who tend toward BAU.
The truth is that we are so reliant on the present fossil-fuel economy that we literally cannot break free of it, and even if it were possible to do so, just what would the alternative way of living be for the approximately 8 billion people on this planet? The present fossil-fuel based society took quite some time to evolve into its present form. It simply won't be possible to dismantle it in a short period of time.
4:47 dang that lady’s cancer argument really hit the nail on the head!
Yea climate change is happening and we can’t completely stop it. But we can still take plenty of actions which ensure that the effects won’t be as worse. As a result more people will survive and have less pain in their lives.
Sounds like worthy actions to take!
@@ChillinLikkkkkkeAVillian yup, in my video on a similar topic I use the comparison of driving a drain which is speeding towards a wall at 100 mph.
Slowing all the way to 0 mph and not hitting the wall may not be an option anymore, but slowing down to 40 mph and putting seatbelts on is. And that would still save a lot of lives so we might as well do it!
Cancer treatments are way more affective when used in the early stages and far less affective as time passes.
Except when you have cancer you don’t have a bunch of wealthy and powerful people telling you it doesn’t exist and actively trying to prevent you from treating it.
A popular candidate for US president refers to climate change as “politicization of the weather” and people believe him. It’s like the president of the hospital believing cancer doesn’t exist. How are we supposed to treat it if we fire all of oncologists?
A spectrum in fractions of degrees, it all matters.
Let's take 1988 when James Hansen gave his speech to the american congress as the moment we got our cancer diagnosis. So it's more than 3 decades ago that we got our cancer diagnosis and we did barely anything to combat the cancer. We only let the cancer get worse and worse. If we now would have another diagnosis, it might possibly be terminal or near terminal.
I mean, a better analogy than cancer would be "You've been shot sixteen times in the chest. You're not dead yet, but there are sixteen more bullets in the chamber ready to fire. Would you like to call the ambulance to treat your injuries (climate adaptation) or the police to stop the shooter (fossil fuel abolitionists)?"
And the answer of course is that the question is trivial, because at the end of the day you've been shot sixteen times in the chest and you are going to die. Sure the extra sixteen bullets being fired would make it worse and further guarantee your death, but death is already basically certain.
This is a truth that folks cannot deal with. That they themselves are the shooter, the polluter, the hypocrite is the fact.
I thought this as well. Also, the primary ""treatment"" we have for cancer is radiation therapy, which is often more lethal than the actual cancer itself.
Beautiful; and truthful. I’m looking forward to this series.
We CAN change. We're not likely to but we can. We keep hearing "if we reach 1.5C..." and we're almost there but we're not actually doing anything. We needed to change 30 years ago to ensure our survival. Keep living and doing everything you can but just know humanity as a whole is not changing and shows no signs of doing so.
The hopelessness comes from the total lack of real meaningfull action and ambition from those in power.
Even IF everyone meets their targets, we still get more than 2.5C and the window to do anything gets ever smaller and the neccesary measures just get harder and more urgent.
Dinosaurs did ok with a warm globe.
@@michaelcap9550Yeup, served as good manure for the future beings
@@michaelcap9550 Dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles, they didn't need technology to survive, they didn't need internet, phones, cars, planes, roads and cities, they didn't need hospitals and schools, they didn't need to feed over 8 billion people through agriculture and they still went extinct. Do you know why they went extinct? It wasn't because of the asteroid impact, it was due to lack of food from a rapidly changing enviroment which caused 90% of plant life to die out, which in turn caused the herbivores to die out, which in turn caused the carnivores to die out. It's called a feedback loop.
2.5c that is less than the increase in temperature between 11am and noon. LOL, there is absolutely no correlelation between CO2 levels and climate, the greenhouse effect does not determine climate. water vvaper holds a shitload more heat than co2 and co2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere how the hell woudl that have any effect on the globe. we will look back at this as one of the biggest cons that have ever existed, co2 the best fertilizer something that plants depend on to survive by burning co2 we are restoring a balence to our planet. co2 is not a pollutant! The wall of dishonesty is ABsolutely impenitrible!
@@mrschnider6521 Your comment is unfortunately shows how the education system has failed a lot of you. CO2 makes up only 4 of every 10,000 parts of our atmosphere, yet it’s quite obvious that its increasing prevalence in the atmosphere is having a negative effect on the climate. This has been observed by many studies and measurements.
As for the argument surrounding water vapor: while it is responsible for about half of the Greenhouse Effect, its trapping of heat is not a bad thing. You should have learned about the water cycle back in 6th grade and it explains how water vapor eventually gets turned back into water in the form of rain because of condensation.
Increased water vapor doesn’t _cause_ global warming. Instead, it’s a _consequence_ of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
In case you don’t understand it I’ll explain: There is a direct relationship between greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane and Earth’s temperature. As one increases, so does the other. This means that evaporation from both water and land areas increases.
Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. This happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space.
This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone. Therefore, we should limit carbon dioxide and methane emissions in order to lessen the amount of water vapor in
the atmosphere.
There are 5 non-condensable greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons. The increasing presence of these gases are solely due to human activities. Non-condensable gases can’t be changed into liquid at the very cold temperatures present at the top of Earth’s troposphere, where it meets the stratosphere. As atmospheric temperatures change, the concentration of non-condensable gases remains stable.
On the other hand, water vapor is the only one which is condensable, since it’s concentration depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the planet was not warming up due to the increased presence of non condensable greenhouse gases, then we would see the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere to be unchanged since pre-industrial revolution levels.
Carbon dioxide is responsible for a third of the total warming of Earth’s climate due to human-produced greenhouse gases. Even small increases in its concentration have major effects. A big reason for this because of the relatively long duration of time that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere.
Methane, carbon dioxide, and chlorofluorocarbons don’t condense, and they aren’t particularly chemically reactive or easily broken down by light in the troposphere. For these reasons, they remain in the atmosphere for anywhere from years to centuries or even longer, depending on the gas.
Hopefully this helped you understand why this is a big problem and filled in some of the gaps in your scientific knowledge 😊
I am a doomer. I am currently buying a big house and have lots of debt. I'm aiming to maintain this lifestyle for around 10 to maybe 15 years. I will borrow and borrow and borrow during this time. I am living for today as I don't think anyone will be well off 15 years from now.
Ben Green takes action in a very reasonable and dedicated way, respect. Hopefully he will share his experiences growing plants under severe climatic conditions. Permaculture is supposed to be one of the methods make a living to live according to rules of nature, as far as we can grab them. Yes please, I would like being introduced to more examples of people heading for sustainable ways of living...
The UA-cam channel Happen Films is really good for that
@@ThePirateBen or there’s maybe more knowledge out there than even exists on a packet of seeds. Plus UA-cam is a free resource. So chill.
How is one dude sustaining himself alone on a hundred acres fix anything? There is not enough land on this planet for said solution.
As long as we're immersed in this senseless competition against each other and neverending growth model, where governments work mostly to protect the interests of a few, I am afraid that we're just doomed to face several dystopias. It doesn't come down to personal lifestyle changes... As long as the capitalist model doesn't step down, and something better takes its place, there's no way of stopping the collapse. Heck! So stupid are those among the ruling elite that they'd rather go to a world war 3 and use nukes instead of working towards solutions to social and ecological problems.
Yeah thats why there must be a revolution,if that doesnt happen ill just off myself
@@justarandompersonininterne6583well you will be disappointed there is no global revolution
@@axel665 yes i agree
Not saying the job is perfect but ,life has never been so good .and the rest of the world still seems to be craving capitalism.they are queuing up to get in .what better system can you imagine ?
@@andrewtrip8617 I do imagine one where the state at least mediates between society and corporations in favor of workers, environment ,and society instead of corporate profits and interests, and where consumption and endless growth is not the main purpose of life.
Top notch journalism! Thanks
5-27-23. I believe we've already reached tipping points in too many aspects of climate change. Greed, benefitting from the current economic way of life stands between humanity and the radical changes needed to prevent human extinction. Best case, many billions will die. Worse case, all of us. I'm 72 and have been concerned about this issue since the 1980.
I’m curious, having been concerned about this for more than 40 years, how do you even get out of bed in the morning? How do you fight off the overwhelming sense of dread? How do you even make life meaningful? I am still so young but it feels like I cannot move forward, like I am stuck
While life is here it still has beauty and is worthy of love and admiration. 95%+ of all living species has gone extinct so us leaving the scene is more probable than not. The earth will survive for a long time. Lots of wonderful moments still in its future. We don't know the outcome of our current ecoexperiment with the earth.
I'm with Ben.
I'm not sure our species can survive in a biosphere that we've utterly ruined, the plant and animal life certainly won't.
Oh, it's extremely likely that some forms of plant, animal, and microbial life will survive. Larger mammals, birds, and reptiles probably won't. Amphibians are going extinct now at an alarming rate, as are insects of most species - and families. Out of whatever lives through this, new species taking whatever niches exist in the next era will evolve. Possibly even intelligent species.
The rats, mice and roaches will. and we will spring up & evolve from them again.
@@westho7314lol
That won't be the most immediate problem though. The problem will be climate fugitives, famine, lack of clean water, and societal collapse due to these problems.
@@bobrandom5545 It depends. If all of the nukes extant go off in a close succession, radiation levels will be high enough to kill anyone who's not in a shielded bomb shelter. Those who are will eventually run out of food, water, and air. As most of these have very long half lives, they will emerge into a radioactive wasteland in which they have a short life expectancy.
If there is not a great deal of radiation in the fallout, such as might theoretically happen with a "limited nuclear war" indeed there will be worldwide societal collapse, billions of refugees, famine, starvation, lack of clean water. With that will come water-borne disease on top of everything else.
I agree, it does seem a little late to try and stop the change, tipping points have already been reached. Focusing on how to adapt and survive the coming change would be more productive at this point in the game. I suppose if you live in a bubble of incredible privilege you have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse but in many parts of the world it's already here.
Absolutely. We need to not call them "tipping points". We're already flopped over. Stop polluting the atmosphere, still lose the icecaps, and the world will fry. In "doing the right thing" we will destroy civilization as we know it. There's no magic "carbon capture", because the materials to build enough of them will be depleted/be unobtainable long before we build enough.
That's where people like Ben come in, teaching us how to continue to survive. We need more volunteers with the money and the time to build the sustainable structures of the future.
I am still stunned by how many people don’t believe the problems are real. Lots of these people have children and I guess they don’t care about their futures. Sad!
Their Ego is more important for them then their loved ones
I used to work at equity trading floor. And this one of my manager said "Remember the optimist never wins, it's the pessimist that always wins" and it hit me hard.
True. Especially on climate change. I wouldn't mind if I'm wrong and everything would turn out just fine. I would call that a win, if my pessimism was wrong.
@@sebastianb5036 right
Pessimists lose their ass on Wall Street everyday..... otherwise, everyone would just short everything and there would be no economy.
Ben's effort is basically a microcosmos of what needs to be done. It starts with the money he was lucky to get from selling his house. This reflects into the willingness of humanity to make vast investments in a sustainable society. Next, Ben didn't build anything: he bought an existing complex, meaning that humanity should focus on recycling instead of building more and more new stuff, including real estate. The construction industry is responsible for vast emissions. To reduce those, either production has to move to other, sustainable, fuels, which is very expensive or move to other materials and techniques. Thirdly, Ben is vegan, meaning that the world population has to steer away from meat and dairy big time. Governments have to invest in policies to support plant based meat and dairy alternatives and take care that they are grown in sufficient amounts to feed all people. Meanwhile, meat and dairy should be limited in availability, not necessarily taxed. Because plant based nutrition requires much less room for crops, land comes free for rewinding and planting trees to capture carbon. It's a three-edged win.
If these three targets are met, I think we have solved 70% of the issue.
I liek the analogy with cancer, there's a treatment with horrible sideffects called geoengineering now we are in a hothouse state, meanwhile our life styles would have to dramatically change beyond measure in order to prevent it coming back.
Sign that we would be going in the right direction? A less car orientated society focused on efficient transportation (shared transport or manually powered). Reduced meat consumption and processing of food that is more locally sourced. A realignemnt of priorities, an understanding that many of our actions we deem as 'private' effect others thus should not be solely our choice.
None of this is happening, much of it is worsening. Furtermore, a gret deal of the solutions are over simplified. renewable energy will require energy storage that is in itself expensive and requiring resources with all its costs and geopolitical consequences.
Just as if we had cancer, we should do what we can while being realistic, and preparing for, the outcomes.
I work in statistical physics and have a decent understanding of the studies I ahve read. I have friends who are proffessors who are terribly depressed given the delusion of society generally not realising how far we are from being in touch with a stable way of life. I know climate scientists leaving the field because the more complex models that incorporate the interplay between variables is much more difficult and will delay publication (in the sciences we have the motto, publish or prish).
Things are much worse than the media is generally depicting. In democracies we must as members of society take some responsiblity because our governments can't go so far away from public opinion, this is even true in dictatorships. The media has in part failed us by portraying climate activists as extreme (a bit like calling this man a 'doomer').
Responsiblity is something best understood as shared.
And another comparison with cancer is our naive delusion of eternal growth which is necessary for an economic system based on debt and interest, but in reality, growth for the sake of growth is just like that cancer cell.
Yeah but Ben is actually doing the right & realistic actions. We can't change the car-centric infrastructure on a national/global scale within 20-30 years. It is more realistic for people to stop using AC/heaters and bike or commute to work.
Geoengineering is not a good ideia, it can be worse than the desease and we need to remmember that climate change is, in a certain way, a geoengenering experiment. Also, we are far from a hothouse state, that is a very expreme thing, closer to 10ºC hotter and Antartica having forests(yeah, an oversimplification, but it gives the ideia).
We aren't even remotely in a hothouse. The earth is nearly in the coldest it has ever been in 5 billion years, dangerously close to snowball earth.
@@gregorymalchuk272 that is the other extreme, and also completly wrong. We aren't even remotely close to snowball Earth, and things we are hotter than, maybe the last 3 million years.
I’ve followed this topic for over 30 years. Yrs back I went through a phase of false hope regarding new technologies that were never implemented. Then I realized it’s to late.
The 6th extinction is real.
Oh lord. There is plenty to be hopeful for, don’t fall for the doomsday propaganda which is meant to control you. Fear is a tool.
Ben is my new hero! I too think we've gone beyond the tipping point. I'm poor, old, and disabled. l live in Montana, next to constant coal trains, and I don't have the space to grow my own food. I'm glad I'm old so I will die before the worst. Humans may survive, but it doesn't look good. Go Ben.
I see people acting as if it were 1971 again. At the time I was born, we were 2.5 billion people on this planet. Now we are more than 8 billion. We cannot continue to behave as if we were in the 1970's anymore. I live simply. I grow my own food to some extent. I don't buy anything except food and the occasional item of clothing. I don't travel. This is my contribution, but each person will make their own contribution. For me, it is about living within the carrying capacity of our planet. Every time I see an advertisement for fast fashion or a car that is so fun to drive, I feel for the person who made that advert, who is trying desperately to sell that fantasy - and succeeding in selling it to far too many of us. I feel for the young people who have fewer options now if they wish to live responsibly. When I was young in the 1960's and 70's, my parents regularly flew the whole family to vacation in warm places in the wintertime. At that time, there was no concern about it. If all of us were dedicated to living as simply as we can, to limiting travel, consumption of unnecessary consumer products and to eating no meat or much less meat, we could make a big difference. I like to use the 50% reduction idea. Can we reduce our driving by 50%? Reduce our meat consumption by 50%? And so on.
The other thing I will say about how to live with the idea of humanity's doom is to ask yourself how would you live if you knew for certain that you only had - say - three months to live. Would you offer more love to those you care for? Would you spend all your money on consumer goods and travel? Would you delve into the meaning of life, become a philosopher? I would try to love more every day and enjoy the beauty in the world around me. I wouldn't buy more things. I would be as kind and loving as possible to the people around me.
Wise words. Love from Aotearoa/New Zealand.
I'm a Doomalist, the science becomes more irrefutable with every hotter day.
The fact of the matter isn't that there is nothing we can do, it's the will. It's not that we can't, it's that we won't
A degree of preparedness is sensible as it makes you more self-reliant. I make my own power for my house and EV, all my water comes from rainwater harvesting and I grow an increasing % of my food. Eating a diet with lots of home grown fruit and vegetables and free of processed foods is better for the planet and more healthy for your body. I have designed my house to stay as cool as possible as where I live in Thailand is increasing breaking heat records.
I'm optimistic that we won't cause our own extinction. However I think it will take mass migration and millions of deaths before the majority of people will leave their comfort zone and take real action. I also think next year's El Nino could be what does it.
Lmao okay. And what is "real action"? Recycling? The solution must target the problem: capitalism. Fat chance we'll see that happen anytime soon.
Outright extinction is incredibly unlikely, at least a few of us will keep going even in the worst case scenario. The problem is, can we avoid societal collapse? Similarly to climate tipping points, societal collapse also cannot be stopped once it reaches a certain threshold. The more disasters strike cities the more infrastructure is damaged. The more infrastructure is damaged the less resources we all have. The less resources we all have the harder it is to fix the damage and prevent it from happening again. Add revolts and mass migration to the mix and you've got a deadly vicious cycle that is virtually impossible to stop once it starts moving
Accurately stolen words from my heart! we need to be optimistically about our human race learning a hard lesson soon or later! Yes, waiting for that El Nino!
Can we call it "optimism embedded in pessimism" ? My version is that humans go extinct without pain
the only omptimistic thing about this is, that we will burn through fossil fuels, which means that the next civilization, which comes after us, won't be able to pollute to the same extent. But our days are numbered sadly.
Climate collapse is not about "belief", but, rather, scientific study (aka the "truth").
This civilization will be gone in less than 30 years. Just as Ben observes, the collapse has already begun. Exactly when we transition from some sense of a continuing order to chaos is impossible to pinpoint. But we can be 100% certain it's going to be awful.
1000% I'm ringing that same bell along the southwest shores of Michigami (meaning “big water” in Anishinaabemowin), where the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River meet. At 43° N latitude and near a huge source of fresh water, this place will be a refuge for people trying to escape the worst. I'm trying to get people, here and now, to wrap their minds around this reality. We need to live densely, grow locally, and focus on community far more than profits. We won't know if we avoid the worst until the middle of the 22nd century. Ben and I will be gone before the middle of this one
I've often thought the Great Lakes are going to get an influx of people, especially from the Southwest. I know this isn't your aim, but cynically speaking it might be worthwhile to talk about the economic potential of getting people back in.
The thumb cracks me up. People actually think it's smoke that comes out of nuke plants
I feel optimistic and pessimist at the same time watching this. Good work DW 👍
If you feel optimistic you haven't been paying attention. Human civilization as we know it is over, it's just a matter of time before people start to panic.
I think the only thing missing from this reporting is that the billionaire owners of most western news outlets are buying up land in NZ for their own climate and societal collapse escape bunkers. So bit hypocritical to give preferential treatment to news that reports anything other than "we are screwed."
The first I heard of global warming was in the early 1980s with reports from Alaska about the headstones of the original settlers tipping over because the permafrost in which they had been anchored was melting. Also, the Inuits were having to travel further and further north over time to gather the berries they needed for sustenance.
At the time, I was living on my ranch along the border in South Texas. I was surrounded by a dry land farming agribiz operation, and I could see that when things got hotter that my marginal pasture and their yields would shrivel. Since I was was young enough to start over somewhere else, I sold out and moved north. Now, with ever increasing temperatures and greenhouse gas levels, I’m thinking that I didn’t move far enough.
Then how is everybody else along the border of South Texas surviving? How is everybody in Mexico still farming and ranching?
@@anthonymorris5084
I’m talking long range changes. The kind that our grandkids will have to deal with. For example, where I was, our average annual rainfall was 12 inches - fast forward to a 10% reduction and that’s a big difference. Couple that with a couple of degrees temperature increase and south Texas starts looking like La frontera of north Mexico. And that’s just for starters. Where I was, we had no irrigation and well water was not suitable for plants.
@@samlair3342 Your anecdotal evidence does not represent the historic record. Data clearly shows that droughts across the world are all within historical norms. The issue is people. 8 times more of them since 1850 placing a strain on every single resource. In 1850 the population of Texas was just barely over 200,000. There are 31 million today. Thats a 15,400% increase in humans.
Poverty kills vastly more people across the world than warming. Inexpensive reliable energy generates the wealth that lifts people out of poverty. Wealth creates irrigation and other technological advancements. Depriving the world of energy is going to cause millions of deaths.
@@samlair3342American desert might be untenable. Lot more to America though
Ah so just keep burning the coal until the atmosphere is screwed, got it.@anthonymorris5084
I needed this, thank you
I believe he's right. I was sparked in 2020 and believe we have come to a cataclysmic chain reaction. The tipping point has already been met.
What is your evidence for this tipping point?
Well, I believe sky fairies are going to save us. That doesn't make my belief real.
@@derekdube3708 where's your evidence? You seem to be ignoring the possibility of dampening effects, eg more heat produces more cloud which produces more reflection of incoming radiation (increased albedo).
This runaway, spiral hypothesis would seem to be contradicted by all of earth's climate history.
What evidence do you have that compounding effects will outweigh mitigating effects? I cannot see how you, or anyone can know at this stage.
@@derekdube3708 Exponential growth... you do realize that the temperature anomaly equation for CO2 is logarithmic, right? dT = A*ln(C/Co)
I've been following along and researching climate change and I myself am unsure about what will be of the future, But when people call of the end of the world, as someone who learned a lot of history, I think "End of the World" is always the "End of the World we Know".
The World changes, and I think the climiate crisis might not wipe out humanity, it will certainly shake and reshape the future into a world that will be unfamiliar and scary to us.
Perhaps to people who were raised on zombie movies, a Post-Apocalyptic world is more easier to digest than a actual future where governments, communities and lifestyle will be completely different from what we are used to.
I honestly feel like we are past the point of no return when it comes to climate change. The time to have acted was around 2000 up to 2013/2014. There are so many climate change deniers out there. No-one will really want to step up and try to make a change like people did in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't think it's that people don't care, either. I think there's an attitude of someone else will say something, someone else will do something, so most people will believe they don't have to.
In the 60s and 70s, real tangible change was possible. People could see it and feel it from everything to worker rights, race rights, women's lib etc. Democracy really worked and politicians were far less beholden to corporate interests.
That's all gone now. Younger generations know that democracy is largely a pantomime to keep people talking about things that don't affect the bottom line of corporate power. The US govt is an instrument of corporate power. Western European democracies are owned by big finance and the Davos set. Look at Greece and its treatment during after the 08 crash. NOTHING can be allowed to interfere with financial certainty and economic growth.
My advice to everyone is to move away from large coastal cities, and settle in smaller cities in the cooler temperate zones (which will be warmer before long) that are strategically positioned outside of the flood zone, but near enough to navigable waterways that they are likely to still have access to ocean-going transportation as sea levels rise, and near enough to arable farmland such that food will be readily available. And not for nothing, but stock up on firearms and ammunition supplies. If you think you are going to buy a cabin in the woods or the mountains now, and "bug out" when times get tough, I regret to tell you that rural communities don't take in outsiders easily, and in time of crisis, the likelihood that you will actually be able to get to your getaway property is slim to none.
But... don't try to do anything about climate change? Just find somewhere comfy to watch the ship go down and shoot the people in the water?
@@sandradixon6205 actually I'm an agnostic.
The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
Thanks for this video. I changed a lot of things in my life with respect to other living beings and spend money thus saved with respect to other living beings. That's not changing the world, but the world of some. Including perhaps giving some living being in the future some more time to live. I try to reduce thinking of terms like optimism or pessimism with regard to "the world". There are so many abstract entities like "humanity" which do not suffer. Living beings are suffering and will be suffering, and the most I can do is to reduce this suffering. I think I'm in accordance with the psychologist saying it's the ego calling for control when you try to deny reality or try to save the world. My way to deal with this controlling process of my mind is meditating. Thanks again.
Unfortunately, those in positions of power to make a significant difference have repeatedly shown they dgaf about climate change and it's consequences for humanity as a whole. Some don't even believe in it. Any effect individuals can have is negligible compared to corporations.
The Reality is, Your neighbors could step up, but they don't.
I agree...corporations are a representation of the narcissism of humanity
@@the_earth_mysticexcept you chose to buy their product, you’re using energy provided by them, im guessing most of your shopping is done at their stores.
For someone who thinks they’re “awful,” you sure like giving them your money.
Our justification for over consumption as a norm today and our individual rights is beyond absurd hahahahahaha. We never know but we can see the evidence mounting over time when we genuinely investigate and add up the real numbers. We are conditioned early in life to consume and to be gluttonous. To produce more babies and to increase wealth. These things add up and there is a line we can cross that will tip the scale and inevitably break our existence completely. It's just a matter of time.
Prepare all you like, dream all you want. If we learned anything at all, surprises and twists happen with each blink of an eye.
Said my great grandfather.
People are less and less able to truly afford anything substantial now, like their own home, their own vehicles, their own place of business etc... Industry keeps producing more and more options desperately justifying their insatiable need for ultra wealth and supremacy in any industry, so they make so called green this and sustainable that. But it's contributing to overall mass and scale, still. Nothing is slowing down sincerely.
Money is still pumped into policies to consume more, just consume differently somewhat but still sustain consumerism. This capitalism is devoid of compassion.
So... It's an illusion that you have choices. But no, you're presented with alternatives to the same outcomes, you are expected to spend for it. You're paying for this collective destruction.
Unless you're like that guy living "off grid with pigs", you're contributing to a major problem by aiding in its sustained demise. .. 😅
Is govn't really working for us the citizens who exercise our right to vote? Are they really serving us or are they just puppets answering to multinationals, in this crumbling idea of "democracy " is it really democratic though?
early prepers are a must for humanity
I completely agree with Ben. I think we have 3-10 years, maybe 20 on the long term side. I have watched many videos on Guy McPherson PhD, his UA-cam channel is Nature Bats Last. Michael Dowd is another important voice in Climate collapse, his UA-cam channel is thegreatstory. We are around 422ppm, when you factor in methane and nitrous oxide we are at around 500. We are close to an ice free arctic in the next few years. All we can do is take care of the planet and each other with the little time we have left.
Ice free arctic in summer starts as possibility in 20 years or 30
There are lots of things we *could* be doing, but when it comes to what we *will* do about it, I expect the people with the power to make a large impact are going to avoid doing any of those things because doing so would involve reducing their own power.
So Ben has the right idea. I just think he needs to get others around him involved in what he's doing, instead of aiming to do it all himself.
Well I think Ben is right. Not because it is too late already, I believe the IPCC in that. However, it will require a huge change worldwide, far more significant that the corona lockdowns, to reduce emissions fast enough to achieve a
Really thoughtful piece!
Our forests around the globe are turning from carbon sinks to carbon emitters.This means large areas that are calculated to be a sink is now actually emission source. Forest fires, droughts, losing soil and its inhabitants (like fungus), logging, pests, using forests as a base for industries and so on have made these changes. There are way less chances to stay under the limits that are needed.
Our permafrost areas are thawing and they are releasing increasing amounts of ghg's.
But yet still our own emissions are still growing globally. We still buy everything without thinking products ecological costs, but just how cheap it is. Whole economy HAS TO CHANGE and take account on what damage the production makes, what does consumption make and how much pollution will the end product waste make.
Just today I ran through 15 TV-channels. None has anything living in them, except humans.
We are killing this planet. And we like it.
When this way of life collapses, it collapses. People will searche for food and some people even will eat human flesh to survive when nothing else is available. We live at fertilizer and diesel power. If this supply is interrupted, it is for 99% modern game over. Because future is very large and not just some days or weeks. People will struggle for thousands of years, because it will be worst than ever before.
I lean more towards the Climate Doomer belief. I have hope that we can turn things around, and I do my best to not contribute to climate change...but I am always preparing for the worst. We never meet our climate goals, it only makes sense to be somewhat prepared.
Everything is going to be okay. The gloom and doom is not accurate, humanity and it’s species are just fine.
Stop buying into the propaganda.
We have governments and companies around the world continuing to explore new oil and gas sources, carbon capture at the scale required is never going to happen. There is absolutely no way we stay below 2 degrees let alone 1.5
The general public seem unwilling to accept exactly what this means on a worldwide scale, mass starvation, mass migration, blackouts, food shortages, water shortages, more extreme weather.
They could be right. However as an ecologist and just lover of life in general, every bit of progress we do make and fight for means lives are saved both human and non human, and that’s enough to keep me going.
Agree with Ben. We won't change because we can't.
No, we can't change because we won't.
@@canoetripper4651And we won’t because we don’t want to, we are here for a good time, not a long time.
"Every schoolchild knows that our recycling technologies will cure the environment..."
"Every schoolchild was lied to."
I am all for the environment, absolutely but we do not control the weather, two different things.
The momentum we're on with no sign of stopping ensures Ben's right on the money.
After all "follow the money" precisely explains why we are here
but off by several dacades
@@ThePirateBen No, but we do have to understand what is the most likely scenario going forward. In my opinion sometime after 2030 they (UN) will put sulfur particles in the stratosphere to regulate temperatures.
@@sandelu635Geo engineering doesn't come without it's own consequences - ones that can irreparably alter the planet's climate without any solution to counteract the ill-effects.
A quick fix will not solve our problems, it'll have to be radical steps to truly resolve this issue once & for all
@@TheCycloneTrooper I know but that is the only thing we have. It's just inevitable as things look right now. Reneweble tehnology is just not good enough for our level of consuption and there are one bilion people that will want UE level of consuption in the next decade or so. We will run out of cheap fosile fuels before new renewables reaches even 25% of total energy consuption
My 8th grade science teacher in 1985 told the class that either we will have controlled birth or uncontrolled death to deal with over population and climate catastrophe. So far he has been proved right.
no, this sentence is as stupid now as it was then
I think if we started acting more like him we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Excellent video. Excellent comment section. Both rarities on this topic.
@gregmactaylor Thanks for your encouraging comment! Be sure to subscribe ✨ We post new videos every Friday 🙃
The correct cancer analogy is this. You're a doctor and have diagnosed a patient with cancer. It's been caught early and it's one of those cancers with a good rate of remission. You inform the patient of some lifestyle changes they can make, and of their treatment options. The patient doesn't do anything and refuses treatment. Over the months, you watch the condition of the patient deteriorate. The treatment options dwindle and the prognosis gets worse. The patient continues to refuse treatment and their health further deteriorates. At some point, you have to tell the family to make arrangements for a funeral. You don't tell the family of a stage 4 cancer patient who has continuously demonstrated an unwillingnes to live that there is hope.
You realise when solar is implemented, the loss of the aerosol masking effect will immediately give us a degree rise in temperature.
No, they don't realize it... You are one of the few human beings on this planet who got the knowledge... 1% of 1% of 1%... You are very unique...
No one wants to talk about this because it presents a damned if we do, damned if we don’t scenario. But lately I’ve heard more mention of this concept. After 9/11 when flights were stopped, the absence of contrail caused a noticeable warming. No easy way out of this mess…
Shhh, we need to smoke optimism, remember?
Exactly. Pollution is masking the real temperature rise. Air pollution is cooling the temperature rise by half because of something called global dimming. Without pollution, we are already past 2 degrees above preindustrial levels.
the problem with this is, that in every possible case, you can ALWAYS imagine a worse scenario. so in the end no matter the actual outcome, you will always be successful in avoiding the worst and than the survivors can pat each other on the back because they managed to stay right in middle. the middleground that for decades we keep adjusting upwards (or downwards if you like). some 50 years ago 1,5 degrees was the worst possible case, which today is a case of utopia.
Global warming in itself especially in 2023 is deliberetly done to control the people by imposing a tax related to it, ive been around the block 50 yrs and never has their been more pollution since the carbon tax, forest fire spikes as a result can be deliberetly set to prove to the world we need to make the poor poorer by making them pay extra tax , three years ago i said i would pollute every lake and burn every forest for billions of dollars, prove me wrong that this is all an agenda, truth is obvious more forest fire more global warming agreed?
Yes, yes they are. There's already too much CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Even if you stopped putting ALL CO2 into the atmosphere today, it's already too high. Various feedback loops are already in effect. The oceans aren't going to hold much more and in fact the oceans will start to outgas CO2 if the level in the air above the oceans drop. So we are stuck with a good 2 - 4C rise. We can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere with large machines, and make Microsoft a lot of money since they're invested into this. But it won't matter because the feedback loops in play release lots of methane and wipe out Arctic ice for parts of the year, and methane as should be known is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
This is something scientists won't talk about because it leads to more inaction. You go from the human mentality of denial, accepting there's an issue (where we are now), and the next step in human thinking is either "we can't do anything about it so no sense in inconvenience", or "take actions to mitigate this". Right now part of the business world that wants to keep making money with fossil fuels say we can't do anything about it to convince people that's true. Certain govts. or political parties echo this, which is even if this is true (meaning acceptance with denial), we can't change it.
Best thing we can do to lower our individual impact is change to a fully plant based diet. Animal agriculture is responsible for 16.5% of ghg emissions while it's the leading cause of biodiversity loss, soil degradation and water use/pollution.
While the rich keeps eating meat and flying on jets? No thank you, I’d rather we all die in this together
Hey! We made a video on beef industry and checked whether we can produce beef that doesn't ruin the planet 👉ua-cam.com/video/MjpGsG1gAso/v-deo.html. Let us know what you think in the comments. 🌱
@@DairyQueenY2K So a group of people aren't willing to fight climate change, so therefore I shouldn't as well. Your reasoning is exactly what will lead to a worst case climate change scenario. Just because others aren't willing that are more capable and more powerful than you doesn't mean you yourself shouldn't do anything, otherwise you are just as bad as them.
@@DairyQueenY2K Elites eat on average less meat, they're also a minority accounting only for a very tiny percentage of the total demand.
@@DWPlanetA I've seen it but I think that the environmental and climate crisis asks us to do as much as possible not as little.