We Debunk the Latest Corporate Climate Lie | NYT Opinion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- Finally, corporations are jumping into action on climate change - or at least that’s what they’d like us to believe. Many of the world’s biggest and most polluting companies have recently promised to curb their carbon output, by reaching net-zero emissions in the next few decades. These sweeping pledges conjure a world where we can have it all: economic growth and global trade - without the global warming that usually comes with that. While saving the planet demands an approach more ambitious than incremental change, these corporate fantasies of the future just don’t stand up to scrutiny. In a new @nytopinon video, we expose three major flaws in net-zero pledges that make them a dangerous distraction from the crisis at hand.
Subscribe: bit.ly/U8Ys7n
More from The New York Times Video: nytimes.com/video
----------
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch.
It's also important to note that a lot of the "nature" solutions these companies talk about are where they pay a third party company to plant a certain number of trees, but the oversight on these third party companies is non existant. Planting trees as a way of removing CO2 only works if you can protect those trees for hundreds of years, but the third party companies don't have to do that, and will usually plant fast growing (and fast dying) non-native trees that ruin ecosystems in order to reach their corporate quotas.
They can also say what they like, do absolutely nothing, no tree planting, turn up at another summit meeting in 5 or 10 years time - and set a new date for their targets. By then, people will have long forgotten the targets they set this year at COP26.
Setting dates in the future is a waste of time, they know it, and so does every person wise enough to realise it's just a publicity stunt, all done for free advertisement and to ease the consciences of people who want to buy their products.
I love trees and have personally planted about 25 trees. Planting more trees helps erosion control, biodiversity, and pollution reduction, but unfortunately planting more trees does *nothing to fundamentally solve climate change.*
Capturing carbon by planing more trees is like throwing a sponge into an overflowing bathtub without turning off the faucet. If you don't turn off the faucet, all the sponges in the world won't save you.
A tree only starts taking up carbon when it is 15yrs old
Not to mention,if the climate is too warm with too little rain those transplants are dead in the soil.
The many forms of denial as our “Corporate Citizen” realizes it is facing its own death.
Corporations shouldn't be given a choice. We need clear, firm regulations strictly enforced, with real punishments for breaking promises (not just fines).
New laws need to be passed and they need to be enforced !
Too bad Repuptards hate regulation
💯
Yall love 2 dictate if the ends meet your agenda. But your dictator attitude is exactly why they will continue to push back
"Real punishments" for corporations do not exist: Their chartered lifetime is "in perpetuity" and they can't be put in prison. By definition, they're more powerful than humans. They can't (yet) vote directly, but they can, and do, choose our "representatives" and write our laws.
What’s sad is that we’ve been “talking” about this since the 70’s.
Major corporations don’t care about the little people.
you mean they don´t care about the planet including all lifeforms
Yup. They don't care about you... your physical being is a liability to their profits. They care about how much wealth can be extracted from what you can produce... just like any other commodity.
Expect major layoffs to protect corporate profits... even after taxpayers bailed them out again.
I'm convinced Americans will never learn.
They don’t have the capacity to care. Corporations are psychopaths.
People generally don't care about other people either. It's not like corporations are some mystical creatures that aren't run by humans. The vast majority of people don't want or aren't willing to change their lifestyles to help combat climate change. And let's not even get into the vast number of people who don't understand or just flat out refuse to believe there's even a problem in the first place.
I'd suggest reading 'The Discovery of Global Warming' by Spencer Weart, scientists have known something was wrong since the late 1800s but it took a while for other scientists to listen, than it took a while for the people to listen and understand
ua-cam.com/play/PLgRoK-eyLjomkPmes7u9Bv1j914MgroAn.html
Are we really surprised corporations are lying. Still?
Yes big oil lies all the time
"planned obsolescence"
This realization shook my whole life I believed Elon sorry I mean Tony Stark would personally donate me a kidney.
Untitl now, from today I know better
He will genetically engineer one if need be.
Elon is our savior god bless America
We need the government to step in and FORCE their hand. Never mind all this in the future BS. Get on it NOW or you will face SERIOUS consequences.
Amazingly, during pandemic, trust in corporations was higher than trust in government.
Even further, these pledges are dangerous because:
- The small slice of legit methods of achieving net zero (eg actually planting trees) often have adverse impacts on communities, ecosystems, and economies if not done with care
- As with all greenwashing, these promises are marketing solutions that absolve consumers from worry and can lead to MORE emissions when people believe their behavior has no environmental consequence and therefore consume more.
And trees burn; so instead of helping with climate, droughts cause planted tree death which then become kindling for even more wildfires, which actually adds to the problem
I'm actually surprised people talking about it I'm happy that people talk about climate change and Solutions 🤩
Saying these pledges are dangerous is like saying you shouldn't eat breakfast because you're not doing any work while sitting there eating.
@@DemPilafian If your pledge doesn't actually work until too late and is designed to prevent people from taking real action, it's dangerous.
@@planefan082 Interesting that you started your statement with "If". That's the whole point! It wasn't that long ago that companies didn't even bother making pledges. Now a lot of companies engage in greenwashing. Once they start making pledges, you can push them to make better pledges and then work to hold them accountable.
We would be further along towards saving the climate if more environmentalists were strategic and rational.
Wealthy Elite: “We want to be responsible with the climate.”
Reality: “That means you’re going to have to make some changes & probably even have to tighten the belt financially.”
Wealthy Elite: “Well forget that then.”
Politicians: “Maybe we really should do something.”
Wealthy Elite: “You want your campaign funding?”
Politicians: “Never mind, you do you man.”
You left out;it's up to you citizens to cut back on YOUR carbon footprint to make this change happen.
Wealthy Elite: "So realistically, when is the climate crisis going to have a significant negative impact on my life?"
Climate scientists and economists: "Realistically, probably in 30 or 40 years."
Wealthy Elite: "Haha, I'm 70."
how about you FIRST stop consuming (hence emitting) on average around 80 times more than a Liberian citizen, so you can then start giving us moral lessons? Easy to blame others for the impact of our own living standards. It is not practical to reduce emissions. And damage to the economy (and hence society) can be much worse for the average Joe than letting the planet warm up.
@@davidroullierm it's not only practical to reduce emissions, it's suicidal not to do so. I have made, and will continue to make efforts to reduce my own footprint as a member of the group that bares the most fault for our current situation (is the West/Global North). In my opinion, we can achieve a solution to climate change AND global poverty and wealth inequality at the same. It won't be easy, and it'll require a drastic rework of our existing global systems of economy.
@@Briggsian Yes, very deep systemic changes need to be emphasized. The economy need to be "democratized" and made to serve essential human needs. We also have to eliminate corruption not by punishing people for it, but by making corruption itself impossible, and by removing the incentives leading to it. That means distributing power in a much more egalitarian fashion than we are.
I worked at the corporate office of a huge international business, and they were one of the first businesses to try a net zero policy on a smaller scale - it was a joke of a publicity stunt. The “recycling” in the building was just a trash can with a recycling logo on it, the light timers would regularly go off while we were working overtime or using the restroom, and none of the real problems were addressed - like the company’s affect on ecosystems around the world, and their products being un-reusable or recyclable.
Climate-Change-DENIAL is way more interesting and important Topic than the Thing itself, tbh.
I mean, UpisnojJump gets praised for his humourous way of explaining it, and yeah, that's great, but Hbomberguy and Second-Thought adressed the political Issues and all that!
Net zero is socialism and a killer
@@untoldtruth5731 ???
I had a friend who used to say about the world: "Everything is a business of fooling others."
I haven't heard a wiser sentence in my life.
A friend of mine in the Army said, "Don't worry the nuclear winter will cancel out the global warming." Nature and human venality are only going to solve this problem with civilization collapse, mass deaths and quite possibly human extinction.
Oh my goodness we need more government regulation to fix the problems caused by government regulation.
When has the NYT ever been honest? NEVER!
It's not up to them to decide what time they're going to stop, it's up to the government enforcing these changes now, and the businesses need to comply, or we will all pay the price while they scurry away with their profits
If you're expecting the government to do anything, don't hold your breath. These same companies are the exact reason for government inaction, as it is they who fund politicians who will work in their own favor and economic interest, who lobby the government into impotence when it comes to addressing any of society's most pervasive and pressing issues.
Its sad to say that the government doesn’t care either so the people should rise up and take on the responsibility
@@Paonporteur we don't live in a democracy. We live in a functional oligarchy with democratic theatre.
You can't vote against the oil industry or the banks or the military industrial complex or the meat industry or the giant tech companies or the health insurance companies etc. You cannot vote against largely untrammelled corporate capitalism. The parties may differ in some superficial areas but they are both servants of capital and they don't have any incentive to change.
The action needed now is to cripple this system of oligarchic corporate power through withdrawing consent for the way it derives its power. That means mass strikes and NVDA.
If the American people have any sense or courage, they should be on the streets like during the 1930s making BAU impossible.
@@michaelrch you can vote against meat by not eating meat.
You can go out on the streets.
@@climatechangedoesntbargain9140
I am vegan already.
How do I vote against massive government handouts to the meat industry?
How do I vote against risibly lax environmental regulations on animal ag?
I already go on protests. It changes nothing.
The thing that might work is NVDA.
And also strikes.
Anything to hit capital where it hurts.
Oh yeah, only real regulations could address the problem. Expecting the corporations to solve it is like waiting on your local drug dealer to cure your addiction to drugs.
Why on earth would corporations get ‘credit’ or compensation for the carbon removal of forests? Trees plant themselves, and were deforested already. It is a double standard, because they did not account for the removal of carbon sinks, the emissions already released, or the cost of a larger economy. It is saying there is economic value in nature, but it was free to extract and destroy to the point of catastrophe, but now restoring or foregoing further destruction will be counted as a credit which justifies further extraction and destruction. Nature is not capital, it is a living system. It cannot be treated like a bank with deposits and withdrawals. Plus, market growth rates and emission rates are logarithmic, they will double every few years. And atmospheric carbon is persistent, it compounds. But natural systems are organic systems that seek equilibrium, within the limits of physical constraints. They are resilient until the moment they collapse. Economic growth is not possible to reach zero emissions because net emissions will not be zero if they grow. Do economists not understand climate science, or are they purposefully misrepresenting reality?
Well said.
A big part of it stems from the idea that doing anything positive is better than ignoring the problem entirely. So they reframed the problem in terms corporations could understand - as a liability on their ledgers in need of balancing. Theoretically, it has/had the potential to move the needle in the right direction while (and this is crucial) easing the corporate world into publically acknowledging the problem and committing to trying to solve it in the first place.
Fast forward a few years to today, and we have now seen just how flawed the premise is, how far we are from developing the mythical, game-changing carbon sequestration technologies originally proposed, how dishonest / inadequate carbon-credit-generating companies have been, and how increasingly urgent the climate problem has become. We still feel royally f*cked - moreso than ever in fact.
But at least one positive milestone was achieved that cannot be undone. The corporate world has publically acknowledged the problem and committed themselves to actually doing something about it, even if only in PR campaigns. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.
This is also applicable to Third World debt.
Economics is a large scale circular reasoning fallacy that does nothing but justify its own existence. The only part of economics that can be considered scientific is the way they write their wishful thinking down.
2008 green 2014 sustainable 2018 environmentally friendly. They have done this before, nothing has actually changed, y'know why? Because companies are a lot like AI designed from scratch, the things they do are efficient since you coded rewards for certain behaviours in their system. But it takes a long time to properly develop and if the system finds a single loop hole you can't patch then you have famously do it all over again from scratch. In this instance taking years
Why/How can NYT host greenwashing ads and later turn around and call out greenwashing? The NYT was on the wrong side of this issue for years before now.
Owning corporate stock means owning a stake in the machinery that is rapidly destroying the planet. Everyone is complicit. People like to blame corporations for everything, but they like the things and lifestyle that capitalism offers.
This comment right here!!
I don’t and never will own stocks.. I’m with you. Also everyone is going to have to go vegan if we’re going to survive 😅 so I’ve already accepted that the human race will probably either be extinct in 200 year or near extinction.. small numbers living at the green poles. Humans just don’t want to sacrifice to save the planet.. plus.. lots of people STILL don’t even believe that humans are the cause.. so yeah.. I have next to no hope. 5c hotter here we come!
The House Is On Fire And Corporations Are Arguing What Color To Paint The Living Room!
Nature based solutions are the key, and that doesn't just mean planting trees.
Regenerative agriculture, syntropic Agroforestry, biochar, and wetland restoration are some examples nature based solutions that can sequester billions of tons of CO2 annually.
I work in the carbon removal space & the money these corporations are contributing are actually making a huge difference. It's allowing promising climate change reversing projects to scale.
Hi Agnes,
Nature based solutions are the key, and that doesn't just mean planting trees.
Regenerative agriculture, syntropic Agroforestry, biochar, and wetland restoration are some examples nature based solutions that can sequester billions of tons of CO2 annually.
I work in the carbon removal space & the money these corporations are contributing are actually making a huge difference. It's allowing promising climate change reversing projects to scale.
I would love chat with you to dive into this further, and maybe share a more hopeful perspective on what's happening here :)
(& FYI I don't work for any corporations with net zero policies, I don't think I have a strong bias here, just a different perspective)
We are long past the point where nature based solutions alone will suffice. The only way to fix the damage is to use technology. It's also clearly the only way to get the industrial sector and economies built on growth to do what's necessary.
If we wanted to use nature-based solutions only, we should have started somewhere around the 1970s or 80s. Now, we need to take more aggressive action.
As much as I despise corporations who have undermined efforts to correct climate change (and the politicians they fund), we live in a global economy where capitalism is king. Every industrial and developing nation is disincentivized from doing anything that makes their own private sector less competitive to other nations. This is why climate change denial is so strong in the US and why so few nations are doing their fair share to reverse the climate trends. We have to make it economically beneficial - to tie it directly into profit and investment opportunities - to counteract climate change. Cap-and-trade was the first attempt at something like this, but was not quite saleable enough because it was seen as a green tax instead of a profit opportunity. Geo-engineerring innovation is likely to do the trick. Imagine an Elon Musk of climate technology. That's where we must go next.
Corporate liars debunk corporate liars.
I would put this video an the opening of every business climate meeting. So we have a real baseline of truth being discussed.
This all puts things into perspective, we need companies to expedite the processes they promised
Oh yes! What could go wrong! Imagine being so stupid we actually expect governments and businesses to do the job we're too lazy to do ourselves XD
Nietczhe was right, might as well enjoy things while you still can.
Except they won't ever, because they never have. wake up.
@@TheDoomWizard then do something about it, protest, stop buying their products, go straight for their bottom line, buy a bike, a electric scooter, whatever you can afford, point is don't complain if you're not gonna try doing anything.
@@TheDoomWizard yah how can we hold companies to standards we dont hold to ourselves lol the average person doesn't care and the average activist over exaggerates the impact as some world destroying apocalypse.
" we need companies to expedite the processes they promised" - won't happen. They'll pledge "net zero" until they identify the next buzzword and then give themselves another 10 to 20 years on top of that. In the meantime, business as usual.
I love how this is an opinion video when everything shared were simple facts
necessary in this climate unfortuantely. Bravo NYT
Strange thing to love, but okay.
Plant trees, clean up 'brownfields' and waterways, use filters and mufflers properly, make more reusable packaging that can be collected in recycling, disinfected and refilled again at manufacturer. Use bacteriological waste eating microbial creatures in waste prone watersheds and polluted canals, etc.
Net zero will not stop global warming. There is significant lag time between warming emissions and the consequences. The full effects of the emissions already in our atmosphere will continue to unfold for generations.
That's like saying turning the rudder of a super tanker will not turn the ship.
@@DemPilafian There's a point at which you can steer as hard as you like but the ship will still run aground.
@@DemPilafian It may start to turn but it's too late to stop it running aground.
@@adamwhiteson6866 Climate change is real, and it's bad. The environmental damage is already harming our livelihoods and the economy, and it will increasingly wreak more extensive havoc. However, there are no magical thresholds. There is no specific point at which we run aground. The sooner we get to true net zero, the better.
This is why anyone serious about advocating for a climate change fix must seriously consider pressing for much more aggressive, technological solutions that accelerate carbon removal.
Corporations have learned that they can say anything, without actually doing much or nothing at all, and still keep their "good" image to consumers. We got to wake up.
You're describing the 1950s. Our society still has a very long way to go, but corporations are under significantly more scrutiny today, and many corporations are indeed making significant progress to do better. Again, we still have a very long way to go, but we're well past the era that corporations can say anything.
But that works for politicians.
@@frederickclause2694 Maybe for the politicians who get your vote.
I don't think that's an accurate description of their deception. They don't "say anything.". They dissemble and evade with great skill.
@@ems7623 Sadly, that is true. There are exceptions, but they're rare.
The only thing you can count on from corporations is that they will do everything in their power to grow their profit every year - that’s it.
Yes, Will M -- that's their only chartered commitment; if they fail that, they go away. If they fail any other promises, they accrue tiny black checkmarks against their growing profits and influence
There is no climate crisis.
More of that, pls !!!
Like tons more ! We need this kind of climate change videos, news to be you main subject !
You might like my channel then :)
🐑
Honestly, I am still surprised how little American news talks about climate change. In Europe we are talking about it a lot more even in the middle of a European war.
@@lupen_rein
because you are a sheep and you follow your master. 🐑
@@lupen_rein Well, USA are actually the biggest oil producers today, before Saudia Arabia. So it is not very surprising that American mass media don't talk much about it.
Yup, they lied. When you are dealing with ridiculous demands , you humor the child
thank you NYT for taking responsibility and inform about the climate collapse, the reason its speeding up and how to fix it. MORE OF THIS PLEASE
Two important but unanswered questions: 1) How and why is CO2 bad and 2) How and why is the global warming bad? Why have we adopted those two axioms (dogmas)? And one more question... How and why is CH4 bad? At least in context of Stefan Boltzmann
If my boss asked me when I plan to resolve some catastrophic issues we are facing, and I seriously answered "I will solve it by 2040". What would happen? 🤔
He would see that you are board material!
Kicking the can will earn a promotion.
The president recently took a jet plane for a ride from DC to his home state to vote. Just to vote! Then he flew back to DC that same day. Its not clear to me that he is serious about climate change.
That's a pretty silly argument. Did you make the same argument when trump repeatedly and most often went Florida, or do you simply hate Biden?
This issue is the same as our recycling issue. We preach the usual "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" thing over and over again. But read that again. What do you see us doing 99% of the time? Just recycling. A little reusing here and there, and no reducing.
The solution here is simple. We don't continue to put emissions out at increasingly large rates while saying we'll fix it later. **We reduce the emissions where they start.** This means companies using more expensive, but cleaner methods of transport for delivering goods, us not buying as many throwaway products whose supply chains produce carbon emissions, and us investing in technologies like artificial meats & materials to reduce our emissions globally. Unfortunately, cutting back on anything is hard for us.
Can we please have a carbon tax?
I don’t think these companies can exist as they are in a future where we solve this crisis. I fear that companies can’t meet the current demands of their customers and still achieve their climate pledges. I don’t think the future is one where West Elm delivers your bar stools from across the sea. The future is you learning how to make bar stools yourself or commissioning your local carpenters guild.
In addition, companies driven by the profit motive have conflicts of interest when it comes to solving global, environmental, societal problems.
Great idea, can you build me a new computer, mine is running slow. I'd also like to fly south this winter so how about an airplane while you're at it.
@@anthonymorris5084 Sorry you don’t have the money to do those things anymore
@@everythingBLUE Sorry for being so flippant but I have no incentive to live in your world concept. If I don't like it, how do expect to entice almost 8 billion people? I'm sure you mean well, but this will never work.
@@anthonymorris5084 I’m messing with you. I don’t care to entice anyone. I don’t want infinite convenience to end! Who really does? But I’m not convinced that it’s here to stay… oh well
Bring back fracking in the UK
Thanks so much for this video Agnes and NYT. Net zero is a flawed concept and does not account for the fact that emissions that are released today can stay in our atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. We must prevent their release today. While it does seem like governments and companies are not going to act on this quickly we as individuals still have things we can do to start the culture shift needed to drive more action: 1. We can reduce our personal dependence on fossil fuels and animal products much as possible. 2. We can mobilize inside the companies we work at to push for actual reductions. We can start a climate group, bring up the topic often and hold our company leaders accountable. And work within each of our roles to influence reductions.
Three things that are in most plant based foods, No 1, Ferric phosphate (used in slug pesticide ) No 2, Methylcellulose ( bucking agent used in laxatives ) No 3, Propylene glycol ( liquid used in antifreeze ) Mmmmm sounds yummie
If you live in the US, join the Citizen's Climate Lobby. They're the best method we have of directly influencing politicians.
@@davideaston1139 interesting that you say "used in" those things, considering water is also a liquid used in antifreeze. And ferric phosphate is iron and phosphoric acid. Iron is in a lot of food, and phosphoric acid is sometimes drank with flavoring... in this mystical thing known as coca cola. Obviously too much of these things is bad, but just saying that they exist in other things and that makes them bad is disingenuous.
@@godlyvex5543 Nearly everything we are sold are waste product from other industry's, and as for coke, it's pure poison
@@davideaston1139 you sound like a conspiracy theorist, interesting how you say coke is pure poison yet millions drink it and suffer few side effects other than what normally occurs from having too much sugar
Stop Govt Lobbying NOW! The billionaire club needs to be disempowered....NOW!
Companies/countries pledge to balance their carbon footprint by planting trees. Unfortunately, the planted trees are a commercial crop, to be cut down in a decade or two. Trees become carbon sinks when they are OLD GROWTH. If you want a carbon sink, you have to plant trees and then LEAVE THEM ALONE, FOREVER. The tree planting pledges are smoke-and-mirrors.
There isn't enough land on the planet to plant all the trees to offset all the CO2 produced by these companies - let alone all the companies that didn't bother to pledge.
You watch, in the next summit meeting, even more companies will put forth empty pledges when they realise that a COP summit is merely an opportunity for a bit of televised free advertising.
@@debbiehenri345 You are so right. It's greenwash.
We must admit that the only real solution is to cut consumption. If we went back to the level of consumption of, say, 1962, we could live well and make a big difference. But we are flooded with distracting yap about pie-in-the-sky "solutions" such as wind-and-solar. It's an evasion, a refusal to confront the real problem. It's irresponsible, and childish. I was so pleased during the pandemic shut-down to think of the shut-down of the cruise ships. Obscene consumption. People want to believe that governments and corporations will make climate change go away. Ain't gonna happen. Politics and capitalism won't permit it. LIVE SIMPLY THAT MOTHER EARTH MAY SIMPLY LIVE.
There is a fourth reason: Net zero is impossible. It's also not necessary.
Why the denial.
Similar to a nutrition label, there should be an environmental impact score on every product so people can make an informed decision before they spend their money. We don't have time to wait on greedy to people to curb their greed.
Lies, more lies, New York times
"However one idea looks promising: Direct Air Capture" I laughed out load at this, the new york times should try to actually investigate stuff, not just repeat lie by the people working on something
Direct carbon capture does sound like the most scalable solution, in my opinion. Sequestration via algae could be useful but algae is prone to decomposition and re-releasing their carbon, tree-planting is slow and takes up land, so there's a limit to it. Overall I think best plans is to preserve the existing carbon reserves (permafrost, trees, etc) and subtract emissions from the source. Carbon removal should be a last resort
@@iCarus_A The only reason to think that is if you know nothing about it, direct air capture is simply just stupid.
19 plants to remove 400 peoples emissions 😂😂😂 how about we do the following. 1. Ban animal agriculture (its barbaric anyways) 2. Ban fossil fuels yeah.. the worlds economy will slow and crash but hey.. it’s a piece of sh*t system anyways.. we can replace it with something more fair.. atleast we will be alive on a planet that isn’t on FIRE!
@@hans7743 not wrong. I'm not sufficiently well-versed in that technology to agree or refute you on your claims, though I'd consider myself someone who knows about the climate change situation at least as well as the average millennial. Now, as far as I know, we are still going towards climate ruins even if we found a magic solution to completely stop all carbon emissions yesterday. If this premise was true, what would be the best technology or method to remove carbon from the atmosphere while preventing natural carbon cycle from re-releasing these carbon (a major issue with planting trees or algae sequestration, for instance)?
@@iCarus_A I'd say that "going towards climate ruins" is a bit overstated. Based on the IPCC reports, climate change is definitely problematic, but it is largely possible to adapt (for us humans at least) with the right infrastructure.
If we want to actually reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, three planting is far far cheaper and less energy demanding. I'm not very versed in algea based solutions, I think they're generally a bit experimental, but it is probably a far better idea than direct air capture
It’s not them is US as a community, we decided when to stop using so much gas and eating so much meat, when to stop wasting electricity, don’t blame the ones giving us what we want!!
You made an error at 30s in. Even if we all stopped emitting any more carbon into the atmosphere, the carbon which is already in the atmosphere will continue to cause global warming. Its not enough for us to just stop emitting carbon, we need to reduce the carbon which is already in the air.
🐑
Going net negative will never happen. Going net zero won't either, but it's slightly a more possible reality than reducing carbon in the air completely, making it a more attainable goal for those still under the delusion that humanity has the range to save itself.
When are we gonna ban all plastic ? I'll gladly support that !
Fantastic video, short and to the point
_"The planet is in a full-blown meltdown"_
*Never explains how.* Because it's not 🙄
Net zero by 2050 is meaningless if we are net doomed by 2030
"Doomed" might be a little strong of a word... net flucked might be more appropriate
@@drblitzzz you mean how The Juice Media eloquently expressed it :-)
Remember, if you want to fix a problem, just scream at rich people and say it's all their fault. That always works.
Bravo. That's the truth.
Only takes $1 to plant a tree
Takes 1,000 trees to reduce one person's carbon emissions.
So.. that's a lot of trees just for Americans, and I don't know where where are going to plant this new forest and not have it die, because you can't just plant a tree anywhere and expect it to live.
~350 billion trees for America alone FYI
Assuming the $1 number is actually accurate, few Americans can afford to pay that $1000 amount which might be required.
Other more aggressive solutions are now essential.
If we could actually stop emitting excess carbon tomorrow the carbon we've already put up there would still continue to warm the planet for about 40 years. We need to draw down.
Its all a scam
All these companies are doing when they make these pledges during summits - is getting 'FREE ADVERTISING.'
And that's why they do it.
And ordinary citizens, easily convinced when they see big company names making these empty pledges so publicly, either continue or start to patronise them - as if these grasping CEOs are already making changes to their businesses. People instantly forget that these companies have made those pledges for the distant future, and in human terms that is the distant future, because we've got a whole load of terrible suffering in front of us before 2040 and 2050 arrive.
I say boycott the lot of them until they show themselves as doing some good for the environment 'now,' not later - when it's too late to make a difference any more.
We r DOOMED!!! 😱
Finally someone started to blame the companies not the ordinary people. Why am I to blame when I have to buy a new washing machine or a car every few years because companies NEED to sell and profit more.
The climate is changing anyway, we are technically still in an ice age
"If governments won't fix this, cooperations certain can right?"
LMFAO who do you think the government is 😅
This video is nihilist. No one with any basic understanding would want to cut carbo dioxide; carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet. This does not require to be fixed.
Put a #PriceOnPollution. Like Canada, put a fee on fossil fuel that gradually rises year after year. Give it back as climate income to all households.
There’s no getting around it. Companies either reduce fossil fuel use or go out of business. Smart companies invest in the clean energy economy and see higher profits.
👍 Exactly. This is the practical, unemotional approach. Clean energy will be a fundamental part of a strong economy.
There's way too much irrational narrative out there, like coal jobs are somehow more patriotic or planting trees can solve climate change.
No.. you use that money to build sustainable infrastructure .. ev charge stations, hydrogen electrolysis plants, solar and wind farms.. your idea is stupid. We will just what tax the rich and then give that money to the public to waste?? Lol
Co2 is the food of life, greening our Earth and with more of it, the better for all things alive!
Something that isn’t in the video is that scientists say we only have until 2030 to become net zero. Even if companies are able to keep their promises(and that’s a big if) it would still be a decade too late
🐑
Yes, a detailed study proves that everything will be just fine on December 31, 2029. However, it's established fact than on the morning of January 1, 2030 the environment will collapse and the human species will go extinct.
_Message to my fellow environmentalists:_ Stop repeating hysterical thresholds and deadlines. Climate change is real, and it's bad. The environmental damage will wreak havoc on our livelihoods and the economy, but talking about magical numbers and dates makes us look like fools.
And unfortunately, the faster we ditch fossil fuels, the faster we also experience the effects of “global dimming” aka “the aerosol masking paradox”-essentially, our emissions in the form of aerosols actually partially block solar radiation from entering in the first place. With fewer emissions, that aerosol goes away, and we start to see the true amount of global warming from greenhouse gases, with increased solar radiation. There unfortunately is no scenario in which we do not have to pay a terrible price for the mistakes we’ve already made. The tipping points have long been transgressed.
@@AvanaVana It's a sliding scale -- there are no "tipping points."
@@DemPilafian Tipping points do not mean that change is not continuous and constant, but rather that the system has points of metastability and instability, and is subject to hysteresis. You can think of it like a ball being pushed over the top of the hill. There is no sharp “point”-the hill is smooth, but there is a directionality and a history to the system, ie if the ball is pushed over the local maximum of the hill, it enters an unstable regime and begins to fall, until it finds a new local minimum, a new point of metastability. There are many examples of the earth system undergoing such changes in the geological record-several periods of global glaciation, especially the well known Cryogenian Marinoan and Sturtian glaciations, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Eocene Thermal Maxima 1 and 2 (aka ELMo, Eocene Layer of Mysterious Origin), Mid-Miocene Climactic Optimum, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Current during the Younger Dryas event, and similar thresholds of instability are thought to have been reached in several extinction events of the past, in part due to volcanic emissions and especially large igneous provinces erupted through organic- and halide-rich sediments, such as the End-Permian extinction, End-Guadalupian extinction, and End-Triassic Extinction events.
Unfortunately there is no question of the existence of tipping points/thresholds in the earth system and especially the earth climate system. Even the IPCC, which id famously bullish and deluded about climate change, acknowledges both the existence of tipping points, and that they have been crossed.
I encourage you to check out the book “Overshoot” by William R. Catton.
How do you know if a CEO is lying? Their mouth is moving.
"Nature-based solutions" i.e. "let the environment worry about that" i.e. "we're not gonna think about externalities" i.e capitalism's forte
All the reasons why you can't depend on capitalism to fix this. You can depend on capitalism to find good solutions after you impose some limitations, but in the US at least, people think that governments should pose no limitations on corporations. It's absurd, really. To keep a plant growing nicely, you have to do little tweaks now and then. Just like a market. Since the 80s that hasn't happened, though.
Are you serious?
As usual tackling climate change with marketing. Depressing. As humans we can’t get out of own way. Politics, crisis and priorities are all obstacles to the real problem. Yes there are some huge crises but we are going to face the ultimate one. And all this easy to say from countries not already facing poverty government corruption. It’s a situation we are going to have to suffer through because we just can’t get past what happens tomorrow. Oh yeah and Senator Manchin.
I encourage every community to become as self sufficient as possible so as not to support corporate polluters. They need us more than we need them.
Everyone is full of it on this issue. The main reason is that no one wants to admit that you can't really stop climate change in any way that will actually make a difference in the end. This whole issue is clouded in politics & opinions. Like most things, it will get out of hand and the measures that will be forced into everyone's life will not make their lives better but worse. That is what always happens when the so-called experts get involved.
I'd avoid universals were I you, *Everyone* is some billions of beings and you cannot canvas each and every one of them to exclude any exceptions. The chatteratti aka the meeja is just a few hysterical weakling mice
Corporations lie to us? Say it isn't so. Capitalism cannot solve two issues, pollution/climate change and the disparity of wealth. To capitalist, any regulation means economic downfall. Remember carbon vouchers? How is that coming along?
The only way to get anything done in a global capitalist economy is to make providing the solution to a great problem profitable.
This video is a very good breakdown of the Net Zero problem, other than calling direct air capture a good solution.
Yep, like sure we're gonna fan down the entire emissions of human civilization since 1845, lmfao so nonsensical
Another error, Bronze, is the assertion that net zero would stop global warming. In truth, if we were to stop all oxidation of fossil fuels instantly, it would be at least ten years before the impact would be recognizable.
What corporations are doing is not the only issue. People should take individual responsibility for their lifestyle choices. They should introspect their consumptive behaviour first.
corporations make up 70% of emissions compared to 30% by consumers
I am surprised at the amount of truth there is in this NYT piece. Things must be getting bad. It's almost like what was said in the early 70's but thank you
Yes. I was waiting for it to go off track at some point. Never did.
I don't know if this is being sarcastic but have you not heard of the recent heatwave that killed thousands in Europe?
@@silco5343 I live in Italy, thanks for noticing
The thought of New York City streets being covered by the ocean is quite amusing.
Thank you for your journalism. It's better to know the truth, even if it is depressing. No wonder so many young people are on anti depressants. We oldies will be dead and they'll be dealing with the consequences of our civilisation's greed.
Biggest solution to this issue is government regulation. When it’s the law, big corporations have to abide.
When it is an enforced law, corporations have to decide if it is more profitable to comply or break it. If it makes more money to just break the law, that is what corporations will do.
I'm sort of OK with "corporations are people too", by you have to think of them as sorts of AIs or psychopaths.
lobbying needs to be illegal. Our govt's are in the pockets of corporations.
🐑🐑 gullible sheep 🐑🐑
its sad that they are aware of the harm but continue to do nothing
This makes some good points but to posit technology changes, we need an understandable engineering approach. For example, should the goal be Net Zero on an industry by industry basis? That is arbitrary constraint without justification , optimization strategies are yet to be discovered - water supplies, health impacts of pollution, fertility of soil, third world development vectors, average global atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature, and dozens of other factors all need to be factors in optimization across all industries. The media has a long way to go before it can be relevant.
You're right, Steve Padgett, that net-zero constraints will have a devastating effect on some industries, while hardly impacting others at all. Yes, we are not yet competent in determining allowable parameters. Mining, for example, which is of primary importance for any industrial production, does require huge inputs of energy; hairdressers can far more readily shift from using clippers to scissors.
@@jimmoore1653 Or maybe we could stop making less crap that gets thrown right into landfills or the ocean. Stop expanding suburbs so that white people commute four hours a day so they don't have to live with those people. Build real mass transit in this country and destroy freeways. Make our cities and towns walkable and bikeable and livable. But we aren't going to do any of those things. We're just going to drive our Teslas full of single use plastic containers at 120 mph over the bodies of poor people collapsed from heat exhaustion into the bridge abutment saying, "Somebody should have done something."
Your points are well taken. Research Tesla's mission. Tesla is changing - saving - Earth.
something does not add up here
The collapse of civilization was rendered inevitable at 350 ppm, the extinction of humankind inevitable at 400 ppm, all polluting above these numbers only steepens the curve of collapse. If this world holds together until 2040 that will be a miracle, 2030 seems increasingly likely to be the terminal collapse of civilization.
a scared sheep.🐑
Corporations knew about global warming in the 1970s, and chose denialism and disinformation. Why would they change now?
One corporation can't make the change (the necessary changes would make them less competitive and they'd lose market share and eventually go out of business). As long as there is the option to ignore the environmental impact with no consequences, some companies will do so and will have a competitive advantage. The only way to make the necessary changes is to mandate it so that everyone is working on a level playing field (and those companies that innovate the best for the benefit of the environment do the best). Of course this has to be done carefully - you don't want to mandate something that unexpectedly has a major negative impact, for example, on the global supply of food and causes mass famine. Hindsight is 20/20 so when it happens we'll all say "I told you so" and complain that they should have come up with a better solution. The reality is, this is a complex problem, one that will likely need more cooperation and more public funding to fix. When we aren't all in agreement on the severity of the problem or the need to make changes now (likely involving some sacrifices) for a better future, that's hard to do.
Got to love the amazing no holds barred reporting the world has come to know from The NY Times. If only all news agencies could do the same. Just report the news.
Another problem is that corporations often claim to be carbon neutral because they offset their emissions. But these offsets are often a scam and don't reduce any emissions at all (there's a video by Wendover explaining why). And often, companies use the badge they receive by offsetting their emissions to advertise their product, which can even increase the emissions of the company
Thanks for the video! This really puts those phrases into perspective
Ecosia is like Google but plants trees when you search the web
Thank you for saying the truth about JBS & the 9 billion animals a day. Did I say that correctly? Billion? That’s so wrong. Corporations are using these trend words like “sustainability” and it’s awful. Thank you for spelling it out. Please keep it up.🌱🌱
"Planned obsolescence"
Most of this companies buy what are called "carbon credits". These are certificates given to renewable energy producers for each kWh produced. The thing is that Google or any of these companies do not offset anything, they keep polluting and then they just pay some solar energy company for the clean energy they produced to get credit for it.
That's true, as I understand things, David, and that's why the "carbon credits" concept is just a way to side-step the changes our consumerist/corporatist culture needs to make, to restore sustainability.
The energy for direct carbon capture that would be needed to remove all CO2 emitted yearly would greatly exceed current energy consumption. Soooo yeah thats not gonna happen, that would be a more than x2 of energy need without more CO2 emissions
The answer to that, Spad, is that in addition to planting vertical farms, we need to greatly reduce our demands: household climate controls, energy use and consumerism. That WILL happen, whether we like it or not. If we do it by choice, it will be easier to accept.
@@jimmoore1653 How does reducing demand answer what Spad said at all? If anything it would make the total energy required for DCC vs total energy consumption look even more ridiculous.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr -- "direct carbon capture" is what every plant on earth is doing right now, and it doesn't impact electrical energy consumption, and doesn't produce greenhouse gases (other than water vapor). Also, it generates the oxygen we breathe (which an engineered system would not).
Thank you!!!! 🌱🌱🌱💚💚💚
"... which in a year can remove the annual emissions of only about 700 Americans."
Actually, "Americans" is a very interesting way to measure emissions.
It is the NEW YORK Times
Because Americans love overconsumption, they’re the type of people that sit in the car under the sun with the aircon on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because their comfort is more important.
@@Matt-eq1yd
Yeah, that's actually people in most countries fool. Travel the world a bit more.
Nature based solutions is so much more than planting trees. Unfortunately like you said these corperations have no idea...maybe tell them about this buzz word.. PERMACULTURE
Shoutout to Apple and CVS for actually committing to their net zero goals, including the consideration of factory and transportation emissions.
It's all BS. THey haven't done anything
🐑
I'd like to know when we're gonna ban plastic!!!!!
"Drill Baby Drill...Drill Baby Drill...Drill Baby Drill" - GOP & Big Oil
*Here's the ANSWER... Just give the government even MORE POWER.. that'll solve it all. And don't worry they're completely trust worthy I promise. But it'll be capitalism that'll solve this problem all while demonizing capitalism. For anyone following along, the government, is what's caused this problem to begin wit*
I trust a government elected by the people more than a corporation elected by nobody.
@@slightlyirradiatedmuffin3257 lol, because they are doing such a great job. That inflation is just amazing
@@Cousin.Justin Right, because it just so happens that every single government is screwing up simultaneously around the world and causing inflation.
Or, let me guess, you're one of those dipshits who didn't realize that inflation is just as high everywhere else in the world right now as it is in the U.S.
Inflation is being caused by the natural forces of the economy as it tries to keep up with the positive demand shocks after the negative supply shock from COVID. It was inevitable one way or another.
I don't understand these titles. How do you debunk something with an opinion piece? It can't be both a debunk and an opinion piece at the same time
Climate-Change-DENIAL is way more interesting and important Topic than the Thing itself, tbh.
I mean, UpisnojJump gets praised for his humourous way of explaining it, and yeah, that's great, but Hbomberguy and Second-Thought adressed the political Issues and all that!
Editing was brilliant. Thank you
Take some responsibility yourself, we need to drastically reduce meat consumption and this is something you can start TODAY!
This is such a sad, tepid video... it's almost like we can't count on unregulated corporations, and economic system, that largely got us into this mess to get us out. All they care about is profits. If there is no one and nothing to meaningful regulate them, they will always seek profits over ALL else. We need progressive politicians willing to change the corrupt and broken system that enables this ongoing climate crisis.
At 2:23 the map shows that Germany annexed Luxembourg lol
If you’re a human that requires food to live, it is your responsibility as a consumer to go vegan and force companies to produce food that align with our climate goals!!!!🌱
Going vegan instantly slashes your carbon footprint by like 1/3
We, the average person, have to take action. They won't stop while we are suffering and dying from increasing natural disasters. We don't have any time left and it seems like we don't even have a choice left.