Yuval Noah Harari: The Actual Cost of Preventing Climate Breakdown | TED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2024
- Nobody really knows how much it would cost to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Yet historian Yuval Noah Harari's analysis, based on the work of scientists and economists, indicates that humanity might avert catastrophe by investing the equivalent of just two percent of global GDP into climate solutions. He makes the case that preventing ecological cataclysm will not require the major global disruptions many fear and explains that we already have the resources we need -- it's just a matter of shifting our priorities.
Countdown is TED's global initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate crisis. The goal: to build a better future by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030, in the race to a zero-carbon world. Get involved at countdown.ted.com/sign-up
Learn more about #TEDCountdown:
Twitter: / tedcountdown
Instagram: / tedcountdown
Facebook: / ted
Website: countdown.ted.com
Watch the full 2021 TED Countdown Global livestream here: • [Replay] Watch the 202...
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/yuvalnoahharari2022
• Yuval Noah Harari: The...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy (www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #YuvalNoahHarari - Наука та технологія
The biggest problem is that the psychopaths who rule the world are not willing to give up any of their wealth. They figure that they will be dead before the climate catastrophe get really bad. Exxon, sign of the double cross, knew from their own research a long time ago the effects of continuing to burn petroleum is having. I'm an old man but I care about the world my grandchildren are about to inherit.
This needs to be heard by every single person alive right now
They're busy shopping. :(
He presents 0 facts
Ah the bible is the data people need , then they would be aware of what is going on .funny
@@larryrollyson3344 Amen, repent and believe the gospel.
A wolf in sheep's clothing.
I'm sure it would be incredibly complex, but it would be very interesting to see a publicized study on the "political capital" needed to make this 2% GDP investment a reality. That is, as the fossil fuel industries inevitably continue to fight against such shifts away from their technologies (possibly as just a way to buy time for companies like Exxon to buy up all the hydrogen or wind infrastructure so they dominate those markets and can then back off fossil fuels), how much effort or time or some other useful metric is needed to get this GDP shift to become a reality?
U do understand that this guy is on the same team as all world leaders, including the US...and that he thinks u r a useless feeder?! They want u dead friend.
This one is an antichrist. He might even be The Antichrist.
Run!
Ordinary citizens need to stop criticizing the system and get active in politics. That would be a great start
@@razakmeshouni8611 People have been doing that for decades and it hasn't been working. The fossil fuel industry has captured politicians on both sides the world over. Read Naomi Klein's 'This Changes Everything', it describes this corruption at depth. After we as average citizens have divested from banks and super funds that prop up the fossil fuel industry we need to engage in more public revolt. Mass civil disobedience of the likes of what Extinction Rebellion is trying to achieve is likely what we need to incite change in the systems on a scale grand enough to get us to a degrowth mindset and a war(like) footing that enables the 2% investment Yuval describes.
lol, even your own propagandized clown agencies, like the ipcc, stated the cost of doing nothing, in comparison to the ideal world where we prevent these hypothetical bad changes, would be about a 5% decrease in GDP by the year 2100.
so instead of the average person being 20x as wealthy as they are today, they will be 19x as wealthy.
what universeare you people living in? what socalled experts have scaremongered you to these degrees?? AOC?
@@wasdwasdedsf Your words don't make sense to me
While hope-filled and optimistic speeches like this can be good, they can also be somewhat dangerous, as they may lead people to think everything is in the governments' and politicians' hands, which may encourage societies to keep relegating actions and decisions to "them", "those who have the power", which ultimately may prevent any real changes from happening. That's precisely the kind of mindset that led us here. It's not as simple as that. It's far deeper and more complex than that. We, the people, societies, civilization, every single one of us, can and should make changes with an enormous impact in the world, whether locally or globally. We cannot keep doing what we do, stick to the same habits, concepts, and "traditions" that have always been part of our lives, change nothing in our way of living, and expect that the answer to all our problems lies in the committing 2 % of the global GDP.
It's not about just pressing politicians and governments. I assume people have have a brain they can use. They can think for themselves, take actions for themselves. We all know how to recycle; we all know how to quit eating meat (or at least cut on the amount of meat we eat); we don't need to travel by plane ten times a year; we don't need a new smartphone every year; we don't need to renew our wardrobe every year with the latest trends; most of us don't need to own a car; we don't need to eat as much food as we eat (obesity should be a hint); we don't need to own things we don't need just to flex to our neighbors or in social media; we don't need private jets; we don't need to eat animals every single meal of the day; we don't need more than 50 % of things we want or possess. The answer is and always has been our way of living. Compare the ecological footprint of an individual who lives in Costa Rica to another who lives in USA, for example, and you will have your answer.
While this is true, not every person has the ability/time/desire/whatnot to think in such a way. Politicians should be pressed to educate their voters on this, to take more initiative and explain/persuade. It's also their job at which they are skilled. When covid hit Germany, Merkel (although many don't like her in general, I think this was totally good) did exactly this. In the beginning, when some time passed but the numbers were still growing, she gave a speech and everyone was expecting an elaborate update on the situation and what to do. Her speech was less than a minute and then she left the mic. She said something like: "it's hard times, but what we should all do remains the same: keep distance, wear masks, wash hands". Such short speech was very persuasive, and everybody was wearing masks. We need politicians to make a big fuss of it, to not rely on just awakening of everyone. Everyone is in a different place socially and economically and psychologically, and might not move into this direction themselves for various reasons.
@@user-qr6mn4je5h I agree with you to some extent. However, COVID pandemic was an extraordinary situation, with immediate, direct effects on people and the ones they cared about. People panicked, activated survival mode and realized they would very likely die or get very sick if they didn't follow the health authorities' recommendations. I don't think societies would be so compliant and understanding if governments suggested they should cut down on meat, eat plant-based diets, use only public transports, reject consumerism, etc. Actually, one would be very gullible to assume governments would ever be willing to do that. That contradicts the whole point of capitalism and the "infinite economic growth" they love so much (not to mention lobbying: politicians are mere puppets reading a script of those who have the real money, for whom laws are made). That's why I said change should come from within, from self-educating oneself, from being informed and taking conscious decisions.
Yes, and I agree with you that it's good and helpful if we stop eating meat. travelling, consuming to excess and so on. However, if my hidden tax wealth equated to 10% of GLOBAL GDP, then that equates to about 500 million people not eating meat, travelling, and consuming to excess. So, while we may exercise our powers in restraint to help the environment. If it is a replacement to demanding the ultra-rich - the people responsible for the creation of excess, and therefore the ecological crisis - pay their share, then it is potentially energy ill spent.
It's a bit like saying to a child, 'you can't have that cookie, it will damage the environment.' Meanwhile the adult has factory upon factory, selling them to anyone and everyone they can, telling people they need to 'do their bit', and in reality, we did not create the demand.
I could go on, but that's the essential point.
This whole discussion of this point is just SO tiresome. Of course, actions need to be taken by governments, corporations, other institutions, AND individuals. It's not an either/or choice in any way.
@@ronaldgarrison8478 yep
Excited!
Good study as usual
Brilliant and yet nobody listens. The hardest pill to swallow when i educated my self was that we have the answers, the ability and the biology (being dependent on each other) yet we fight in Ukraine, in Yemen, in Eritrea in Mexico any where we can. We argue at work because we didn't think of the good idea, jealousy and pettiness prevail and i don't know why? Our news lies through omission because we cant handle the fact that we need other countries and they need us, sharing and understanding are not weaknesses its human... hopefully. Yuval reminds me of that.
Sounds like a verse in the Bible which predicts everything happening now. You do realize this man thinks we are a waste sucking the life out of earth. I don’t trust any men who say that they can make the world a better place when they are the richest people in the world. They cause all these wars and profit off of innocent lives. All governments are evil and are murdering millions of people daily. Nope I would rather trust in Jesus Christ! Don’t trust in any man they’re all evil even if you don’t believe in God. He’s not trying to save us!
Yeah The framing is mad, read the book ‘manufacturing consent’ of Chomsky. Very important ideas in that book.
Should watch the movie network 1976
I love this guys ability to convey information. Salute sir!
I didn't know Borat was interested in this stuff.
Thank you
Aaaand adding this to my absolute favourite videos, naturally right after sharing it to every social media I have
Don't believe the hype. Try going to triggernometry UA-cam page and watch an interview with Marion Tupay to see a well prepared counter to this video. Good to have a balance of views to form your opinion
@@rig4365 watched it, this video still makes way more sense
@@fixafix69 well, we'll disagree but at least you've seen an alternatie viewpoint.
I think humanity's doom will stem from its inability to prevent a catastrophe *that it can see coming*. Societies are simply unable to do anything about things that haven't happened yet, even if they will surely happen. We can only fix, we cannot prevent.
Commenting on the video, so the algorithm knows it's important!
What is interesting is that we calculate the price of our survival through the completely human construct of 'money' whilst we have no obligations towards anyone in the universe.
What do you mean with the last part of the sentence?
@@SchgurmTewehr that we have made up the concepts of 'money' and 'the economy ' to trade products and services in a business as usual context. However, climate change and biodiversity loss are such pressing issues that actually threaten our existence. Still, we calculate things in 'money' to see whether it is feasible to basically stay alive whilst the construct is only used between humans. It's not like we have got into a deal with an alien loan shark that's going to break our knees if we don't pay back or anything.
Given his books (which i liked quite a bit), i am surprised that he is coming out with this "analysis". As an ecologist, i am beyond despair over the state of our planet, and I have not even experienced a real hardship personally. No amount of money will get us back the planet that our parents and grandparents had.
@@a.n.4388 that's correct. I think he came up with this because the 2%, if true, is so absurdly doable I can't imagine anyone being against it. Renewable energy is also very cheap energy. People seem to forget that.
@Saxon Investments are we still paying for those damn pyramids?
What Harari talks about is more than just a compelling, evidence-backed argument. It's an increasingly urgent imperative, given that climate change is probably the most consequential thing that we as humankind face.
In simplistic terms it is the old struggle between good and evil and the choice lies within every individual.
There is the old world based on self, fear greed, competition that many wish to cling to and the fear of change.
On the other side of the divide are those that have raised their consciousness to the recognition of the oneness of life where to serve the whole is to uplift us all towards unity peace and prosperity. We are all part of an evolving system. What will be will be.
Ah yes, that old New Age BS.
defeating climate change may be feasible in terms of economics but there are many, many other barriers and political interests which cannot be so easily overcome.
F'real.
thanks!
Whenever I hear you speak or read your books, I am amazed at your ability to harness macro and historical inputs and drive realistic, meaningful insights and action plans. Thank you for all that you do.
Umm no 🤔 we shouldn't like what this man has to say... May sound good but it most definitely isn't, especially if you've done your own deep research using multiple sources and your own concernment and if you know how to think & learn according to the Trivium.
@@brittanyferera5177 yeah. that guy is one of those evil elites. no one should take him as a role model or something
This is bot and a fake account.
@@grantpjscott9042 Exactly. These responses are so contrived and banal.
Soothing. Will it be done in time and with focus and intensity, as implied by the words 'breakdown' and 'catastrophe'?
"Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore, be at peace..." Desiderata
Thanks you!
Indeed! Restraining rich countries’ consumption and eliminating politicians' investment in the stock market can definitely appear instant effects!🙈
I'm going to short Pelosi's designer ice cream brand....and vodka.
@@paulslevinsky580 😂👍🤞
We are passengers on the Titanic after the Iceberg has been hit. The ship is sinking but only a few of us realize that there is a serious problem. Most of us are in denial.
Thanks for an excellent presentation
Everything Harari says makes sense. The main problem is that the political-economic system and the culture are resisting the needed changes. Entrenched powers see the dramatic changes needed as a threat to their position and the people find change uncomfortable.
Thank you for the Good video. I hope that politicians will sign their checks in November 2022.
What Harari fails to account for, is the price we’re going to have to pay once we’re in total climate apocalypse. I think if people compared this price with the price of mitigation as far as possible, the latter is a deal.
Indeed, we should calculate the total cost of all negative climate change impacts; likely it will be significantly more.
But people suck at acting now for effects that will only happen several decades later. It's easy to procrastinate and let your future self deal with the consequences. But here, we can't wait! Every day, it gets harder and harder to steer the ship around the ... Wait ice berg is a bad choice of words here... But you get the picture 😉
Would be far better to have next COP with all the political & business & finance leaders to the Arctic, be it Spitsbergen/ Svalbard, Greenland Alaska/North Canada. Only when those guys see what's happening there already, they will realize what's going to happen to the rest of the world.
It is very nice going to Nairobi, but first let them touch down in Somalia Sudan Ethiopia where drought and hunger van be seen first hand. But most likely, everything will be done in nicely air-conditioning 6* hotels, never ever in touch with environment or normal ppl, even worse than Glasgow.
@@reuireuiop0 what is happening there? I'll tell you. Just the very same thing that happened there 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago. That's it. Nature.
lol, even your own propagandized clown agencies, like the ipcc, stated the cost of doing nothing, in comparison to the ideal world where we prevent these hypothetical bad changes, would be about a 5% decrease in GDP by the year 2100.
so instead of the average person being 20x as wealthy as they are today, they will be 19x as wealthy.
what universeare you people living in? what socalled experts have scaremongered you to these degrees?? AOC?
Every politician in the world should hear this.
It would be a wasted effort. They know. They don't care.
@@NerdyBirdy16 politicians are exactly the people that don't care about long term issues. Their entire goal is based around short-term cyclical aims. Eg. A 4 year political election cycle. F*** them, people need to do it for themselves. ✊️
Very well done. All conscientious, moral, and intelligent people will end up supporting this proposal. The trouble is that other 95% of the population will outvote it. Oh well. It was a nice moment while it lasted.
I think you have it wrong - I think 95% of people, if not more, are moral, conscientious and intelligent, but we need to make sure they are not demoralized and demobilized by the 5% who aren't (and probably profit short term from the way things are atm)
So sad you enlightened and noble 5 percent are stuck on earth with us unenlightened 95 percent And to think. We vote. And breed. We are not going away. Sad.
lol, even your own propagandized clown agencies, like the ipcc, stated the cost of doing nothing, in comparison to the ideal world where we prevent these hypothetical bad changes, would be about a 5% decrease in GDP by the year 2100.
so instead of the average person being 20x as wealthy as they are today, they will be 19x as wealthy.
what universeare you people living in? what socalled experts have scaremongered you to these degrees?? AOC?
so you want technocrats to decide what you should eat? And what to do in every aspect of your life? Thats pretty much a totalitarian world/state.
@@Alex1710XVII Yuval Noah Harari is a pathetic weak little gay man that is pure evil and a Luciferin
Yuval is the dream come true. I was hoping someone would come up with the evidence based mathematical calculations on the whole picture on the waste of money and the needed finance to tackle this urgent crisis. Today, the temperatures reached 3 digits in Europe and in the Northeast part of the United States.
You want to bebeie this can be done at light cost.
Three digits?! Ah, that bloody imperial system!
@@jonathanwalther It's also three digits in metric. You just have to use Kelvin instead of Celsius.
@@MikelVerhoeven Nice one. But this is not the point, bc in Kelvin it's always three digits no matter if 10 or 40°C.
Nightmare more like it.
The 1.5C limit is also a “guesstimate“. Nevermind, I agree with the overall message.
I agree. But the reality is much more dire.
Excellent speach.
Yuval is a goddamn legend! Love your work and love this video! Thank you for the sense and hope!
Oh look another world economic forum member promoting the 2030 agenda where they say you will own nothing and be happy wake up people!
You could have read Lomborg. He did that some time ago.
How can this video have less than 100k views after three weeks? Let's share this!
Because it does nothing to address reaiity. Nature's realms have nothing to do with GDP.. For example, if the cost of buyng the entire Amazon forest is less than 1 trillion dolars, perhaps telling that to the people whose only survival option is to carve out a iece of the Amazon to build a home. Ibstead, why not carve out pieces of the rich who own the rest of the planet, and force the poor to cut down rainforests, for starters.... If you believe that climate apocalypse can be prevented by using 2% of the world GDP, I have parts of London bridge to sell, real cheap.
look at the title of this video in a sea of sensationalist clickbait. Some big political tribes would intentionally avoid it, sounds too complex...many would rather watch the football game, many assume it's just too complex. I clicked on it because of Yuval Noah Harari and the fact that I am a scientist...you did because you care...we are a small group. These are a few reasons just off the top of my head. Share it, talk about it, vote for it...get involved
Shifting the focus on clean energy provided through nuclear fusion reactor's should also be consider an alternative way to save the earth from catastrophic climate change, government's should invest in that method of generating energy
....and geothermal, solar, ocean tidal flow opportunities, and so many more. Many methods are suited only to favorable geologic conditions, or positions. But yeah. We can do this if we want to. It's at least time to at least stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industries.
Unfortunately, fusion will take far too long to achieve proof of concept, productionising, manufacturing at scale, construction and commissioning.
We don't have time for that, and we currently have all of the solutions to rapidly reduce carbon emissions.
While so much fossil fuel wealth goes to muddying the waters, Harari's message is crystal clear and undeniably true; that saving our kids won't cost much..
lol, even your own propagandized clown agencies, like the ipcc, stated the cost of doing nothing, in comparison to the ideal world where we prevent these hypothetical bad changes, would be about a 5% decrease in GDP by the year 2100.
so instead of the average person being 20x as wealthy as they are today, they will be 19x as wealthy.
what universeare you people living in? what socalled experts have scaremongered you to these degrees?? AOC?
How is it undeniable? His message is deniable or at least arguable because the science that he is talking about is arguably deniable. ALL science is arguable, especially when the science is based more on political and monetary power shifts.
He is a blatant liar and has NET ZERO evidence to support his claims. The same is true for all climate alarmists.
@@1angrykoala Perhaps you might look at it this way; What we call 'science' is made up of a jigsaw of disciplines; physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry, geology, oceanography etc (it's a long list). It all has to fit together as one coherent picture, if there are anomalies then further research is needed. So what we call 'climate science' is not some sort of bunker filled with unhinged radicals, but many, many of these disciplines working together to make the best possible understanding of our complex planet. The consensus is clear; burning fossil fuel is causing risk to our children. The question is; how much risk to your children will you tolerate?
What a pity this man is the WEF's top-thinker and calls humans "hackable animals"
Are we not?
Also the "Useless Class." This psychopath should be locked up before he creates serious harm on a grand scale with the influence of the WEF.
That is not a view that we should be idolizing that's for sure. People who think like this are those who want to control us. I don't know how others are so blind to this.
@@x9147 Any doubt??
@@klaushubbertz7009 we are certainly animals. And we are “hackable” through our chemicals in the brain. Through our hormones in the body. Through your phone and what information it shows to you. And maybe in the future we are literally hackable via brain chips etc.
“The Useless Class The most important question in twenty-first-century economics may well be what to do with all the superfluous people. What will conscious humans do once we have highly intelligent non-conscious algorithms that can do almost everything better?”
- Yuval Noah Harari
You should let him loose on the subject of how to control humans! He is very strong in this field.
Yup, trying to push the WEF initiatives on worldwide destabilization and degradation.
If ever there were James Bond villains, this man and Klaus Schwab would be primary examples.
The world is doing just fine. Do not try to enact control over the masses. They were given a warning, we’ll see what happens.
I detect some sark.
hahah factz
Actually he frequently criticizes the Israeli government for the occupation. Don't assume every jew from Israel supports the occupation.
@@YoavHillel sorry, but that was not the subject of my comment. It was regarding his ideas about controlling humans globally as Klaus Schwab would love to do it!
but the loss and damage? The historical Emissions Debt, what will do the principal emissores about this?
well said!👏👏👏
Ignoring global GDP, what does that come out in, in terms of countries that can maybe actually contribute that money? (More so now when many countries are under economic threat)
It's a good perspective on what is needed, but that 2% is not as easy as you think.
Edit: I also believe that we somehow survive, but what will we be at the next century?
Criando problema para vender solução. A estratégia está tão avançada que já tem até o preço do "solução" hahahahahha. A sutileza em querer controle social controlando até o que vamos comer para impedir o "apocalipse climático" é linda, mesmo que todos os modelos de previsão das mudanças climáticas tenham falhado miseravelmente.
Nice talk about GDP, I am totally for new enery technologies.
but where is the evidance of any unnatural climate change caused by humans?
where are the models showing the factual change to climate by those actions?
When I read his books I hear his voice in my head…
You have probably become "a hacked animal" as he wants to define human beings nowadays.
occult
Let's see if something like a kickstarter, with the highest goal ever, would get something moving.
Of course hitting the goal is unrealistic, but it might come as close as no one has ever come before.
That could show a lot of people that it might be possible and the money could be used as the beginning of the 1.7 bn.
Great idea 💡!! Sorta like a GoFundMe for the planet 😀🌎
Very relevant. 🤝
man muß dran glauben........
@@andyko09 I am sorry. I don't understand. 😊 which language is this?
I would like to see that scientific study of only 2% of GDP, and if it has been contrasted with how many scientists, it is normal for us to distrust everything and we need more concrete evidence.
If the government's so easily redirected the gdp intake to pay for the coved crisis, why did they end up so much more in debt? Why did they have to borrow so much if it is so easy?
Nobody raised taxes. Governments borrowed money to pay for the covid crisis expenses. Same as they did to save auto corporations, banks and others during the 2008 Financial Crisis.
Also, the development of new technologies will add to the economy.
He missed a big question here: if it is so cheap, why has it not been delivered already? It is not possible with current knowledge to pretend to deal with the climate crisis without also interrogating the lack of democracy in the US, the massive inegality of the society and the culture we live in.
The momentum and cascading feedback loops mean we're deciding if we'll stay under 2°c. After that, there is no choice without technology not invented
Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006 the CO2 level in the atmosphere at that time was about 380ppm, now we are at 420ppm, 40% of the increase over preindustrial levels has occurred since 2006. Methane numbers are even more shocking. That is the reality!
I wonder if he studied the methane problem. I think no matter who is trying to do the changes has to involve 8 billion people. It's like a lockdown of an unimaginable scale. Overshoot is just what all of nature-beings do if they are "successful".
While it takes centuries to absorb Co2 it only takes 10 years to absorb methane.
Co2 is 30% higher indoors than outside. Horticulturalists deliberately pump up to 1500ppm of Co2 into their green houses. There are no warnings on the door. The people who work inside don't wear protective gear, and their time within the greenhouse is not limited. The plants grow larger, faster, and are more resilient. Nobody is harmed.
On Submarines and the International Space Station Co2 levels are regularly as high as 5,000ppm. Nobody gets sick, nobody dies.
When Co2 levels on Earth were at 7,000ppm the largest herbivores the planet has ever seen walked the Earth. The planet was covered in jungle all the way to the Arctic circle and life flourished.
The greatest diversity of life on this planet resides in the tropics not Greenland. Life flourishes under warming and high Co2.
Your math is also off 420ppm over 380ppm is only a 10% increase, but perhaps I misunderstood. Co2 is .04% of atmospheric or greenhouse gas. It's a harmless gas that 7.5 billion humans exhale every second. Cheers.
@@anthonymorris5084 2006 the CO2 level was 380ppm, preindustrial level of CO2 was 280ppm...."40% of the increase over preindustrial levels"....CO2 is not toxic, it is greenhouse gas released from burning fossil fuels.... 25 BILLION tons so far this year alone. Sounds like you either work for or get a lot of your info from fossil fuel lobbyist or public relations firm.
@@scrabbleking1965 *"Sounds like you either work for or get a lot of your info from fossil fuel lobbyist or public relations firm"* This is such a lazy way to argue and it's the most common and tiresome tactic. When you don't have an argument, invalidate the messenger. I have zero ties to the fossil fuel industry with the exception that I put gas in my car. Even if I was the CEO of Exxon everything I stated is indisputable and easily verified.
*"CO2 is not toxic, it is greenhouse gas released from burning fossil fuels.... 25 BILLION tons so far this year alone."* None of this refutes what I stated so it's irrelevant. Science tells us that Co2 is logarithmic. It has diminishing returns. This simply means as we add more Co2 the additional amounts have an almost exponentially smaller effect on warming.
Data unequivocally proves that humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history. This trend has never been interrupted and continued unabated through the last 200 years of warming and 42 years of climate hysteria. How do you reconcile this?
@@anthonymorris5084 "On Submarines and the International Space Station Co2 levels are regularly as high as 5,000ppm. Nobody gets sick, nobody dies." This is like arguing it must be OK to take a crap in the well, because everybody craps in the toilet and nobody gets sick, nobody dies.
Beautiful truth! I love it (Except, it’s not “1.5 degree Celsius” but 1.5 Kelvin).
Can you explain the difference, keeping in mind it is not the name of scale that is of interest, but the change in temperature. Any scale can be used to represent an equal change in temperature in terms of any other particular scale being discussed.
@@bipl8989 I think this is a physics convention. A problem with 1.5 degree Celsius is that it also means a specific (and pretty cold) temperature. The differences between temperatures are given in Kelvin (as far as I know). Even though for all practical purposes this is not important and probably everybody understands.
@@benytlist17 Yes, you are right; it doesn't make any difference really...at all The scales are different; 273°K = 0°C, but other than that, 1 Centigrade degree does equal the same amount of temperature change as 1 Kalvin degree. I'm an engineer, so it got my attention. It could be important in some situations to know that they represent the same amount of heat. Sorry if I interrupted you.
Brilliant and necessary exposition from world leader intelectual . This is what we need from recognise leaders from every field of science, politics and society. The money is there to make the right invesments.
We need an organized citizenship at a global scale to trigger political actions intended to recover the money that is already there… 2%
This focus on what is the monetary cost is a little ridiculous in a fiat money floating exchange rate era , the money is not the real obstacle, the obstacle is a) the power of those that benefit from the status quo, b) actually figuring out how to gather and allocate real resources for this
Obstacle c) the technology is not available.
Please be specific - If I wanted to spend the 2% you are asking for, where (very specifically) would I send it?
(I think we need to be this direct in order for real change to have a chance)
...well Tel Aviv of course. Your naivete is astounding.
Ya, just fund what I say and I’ll solve all your problems 🙄
No countries denied climate change.
That's cool. If we haven't left it too late and are already factored into about 3C of change, as some studies suggest.
Personally a species who wants to survive should invest a bit more into survival. But what do i know.
Humans live in a temperature spectrum of close to 100 degrees, from the freezing cold of Siberia to the scorching heat of the desert . A few degrees of change wouldn't kill off humanity. In fact, in many countries alone the difference in temperature is much larger than that when moving east-west or north-south.
@@SweBeach2023 I don't think you're paying attention to how much currently small changes are having vast negative and deadly effects we are not used to. 1000 plus died of heatstroke, in the UK. India, a country used to heat, is having vastly more die of this than usual. And much bigger changes are coming. You don't know humans will survive. And the fact there is a reasonable chance they won't: That level of risk is what we should hold in our minds when we think and *actually act* about this. Saying "it probably won't be that bad" is not a mindset that will do us any good right now.
@@richardallan2767 That's no more than alarmism. You have no proof whatsoever that heat is a major problem killing of large number of people. And it will be easier and easier to deal with it as time and technology progress.
If I give the government and its friends more of my money will they make the weather better in 50 -100 years? You are a fool taken by programmed fear if you believe any of this. Did you think 2 weeks to flatten the curve was the answer also? I'll bet you did.
it's not about the money it's about the will of the people
Brilliant! We know what to do, and there are resources for that. We, as humanity, just need to do it (quickly)
Not true. Unfortunately.
Keep in mind that in Ireland at least, 2% of GDP is about 14.2% of the yearly budget. But still an interesting video!
Great idea!💪
毎日見てます。うほーい
bist du ein cyborg aus wuhan ?
@@andyko09 I am Japanese. Should I refrain from saying that
2,000 views in such a short time. There is a lot to do in the middle of all the events and conflicts. There must be such a profound event to wake the ones in control. As time proceedes the effort will increase in a exponential way. After the Thwaites collapse the game will not be reversable.
er ist so ein wichtiger mensch, mit einem lebenswichtigem anspruch....... wir sollten ihm alle zuhören......... realy.....? oder ist er einfach nur vor ca. 10-20 jahren auf die "bühne" gehieft worden......? als zionistisches sprachrohr ?
why not to try sign a petition for this?!
What would it cost to eliminate planned obsolescence?
How much do consumers lose on the depreciation of durable consumer goods each year?
How much CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence? Too complicated for economists and climate scientists?
I doubt it's too complicated, perhaps they're trying to focus on other issues.
@@philip2205
It is too complicated for educators to advocate mandatory accounting/finance in the schools. The United States could have done that since Sputnik. What would that have done for the economy by now?
well said. planned obsolescence is a terrible thing for our resouces. harari talks about technology, but its a race against the clock between this and the constant plundering of the earth, polluting ecosystems, killing them.
"Apocalypse" Does he has evidence to back that up? con someone share a source of that conclusion?
No they never have evidence they have prediction models which they all get government funding if they keep putting them out
Great Video !!!.
@T E D Thanks for replying.
It amazes me that it would cost so little of the world's GDP to fix major problems which are causing humanity so much grief such as the instability and conflict caused by extreme poverty, of course, everything catastrophic related to climate change. The lack of political will to solve these problems buggers belief.
Beggars* belief.
so basically we are talking lobbyismus and corruption is the biggest issue to prevent it from happening.
easy and hard at the same time...
i cannot see how the global protests can fight this...
there is the miracle you mentioned... hopefully someone can organize that.
This should have far far more views. Comment away, viewers!
Yuval is a fascinating thinker, and one of the people I trust most for information. But like many others in the comments, I think he has got it gravely wrong here. We currently endure a climate AND ecological crisis. They are both deeply interlinked, exacerbating each other. The current rate of species extinction is over 1000 TIMES the natural rate (peer reviewed research, Stuart Pimm). Less that 10% of big ocean fish remain, relative to 1950 levels. 60% of insect populations dead in 20 years in the UK. We are pushing ecosystems into collapse - and when they collapse, food production collapses, and so does humanity. Not only this - over 77% of C02 is absorbed by oceans and land biomass (plants, trees etc). Without fundamental restructuring of our economies, away from neoliberal corporate capitalism, we will not stop this ecosystem destruction. And don't let anybody tell you that we can cut emissions as fast as we need whilst global gdp keeps growing anywhere near the rate it is today, with the world population hitting 10 billion by 2050 (UN).
We need fundamental economic change, and a huge shift of power away from the corporate class. 2% of GDP will not change the economic system that has got us here - it is merely syphoned off from it. These growth based solutions will kill us all.
I’ve been a huge fan of Yuval over the last years. I’ve read all his books and I think they are all phenomenal. That being said, this has to be the absolute worst video of him I’ve ever seen.
The problem with climate change and ecological collapse is not merely of money, but of a much deeper structural problem that “green” technologies are completely incapable of solving. We could invest even 10 times the money that Yuval is suggesting, replace all fossil fuel cars with electric ones, shut down all carbon power plants, make every single energy source “green”, and that would still result in a massive catastrophe for the vast majority of humanity.
So why is that? The main problem that’s driving us towards ecological collapse, is our growth dependent economy. Under capitalism, every industry must grow forever, independent of any actual social goals. And this growth, unfortunately, simply can’t be decoupled from material usage (not in the long run at least). What’s gonna happen when we invest “2%” of the global GDP on green technologies? What will happen is that we will continue to use that “green energy” in exactly the same way that we’ve been doing: Striping mountains for metals, overfishing the ocean, destroying forests, etc.
Already today, around 85% of global fish stocks are depleted or facing collapse, earthworm biomass are plummeting, turning soils into lifeless dirt, copper mines are poisoning rivers and many more problems that “green technologies” simply cannot solve, and won’t solve.
But of course, the problem gets even much worse than that, because transitioning our entire planet to renewables, while maintaining our current energy usage, would require us to massively increase our material extraction. Just to give a taste of what this means. To produce the batteries we need to store the energy generated by our renewables, we would need around 40 million tons of lithium, a 2700% increase over current levels of extraction! And that’s just for electricity (not vehicles).
Already in Andes, where most of the world’s lithium is located, mining companies are consuming vast amounts of the water required to produce lithium, to the point where farmers end up with nothing to irrigate their crops. This means that we are not even remotely close to produce the lithium we need to transition to green energy, and this is already a catastrophe. What’s going to happen when we massively increase our material extraction of lithium, silver, copper (and all other things we need for renewables)? Most likely, many countries in the global south will have to be turned into concentration camps of extraction, introducing a new colonial era far, far worse than what we’ve seen in history.
The problems I’m listing here are just the tip of the iceberg, if you want to learn more, you can read Jason Hickel’s “Less is more”, Kate Raworth’s “Doughnut economics”, and also, youtuber badempanada made an excellent video called “No, Kurzgesagt, We WON'T Fix Climate Change - The Danger of Fake Optimism”
Totally agree with everything you've said. I find this really disappointing, and actually irresponsible. He's speaking the language of business in the context of a situation that requires a restructuring of how we extract resources and for what.
@@backbeat3254 It's a shame too, because Yuval is obviously a very intelligent man. He has fair criticism about capitalism in his books, and I'm pretty sure he is at least somewhat aware of the deeper structural problems that's causing the climate crisis (mainly, the "growthism" of capitalism).
I think he is probably just unable to propose the obvious structural adjustments and massive government intervention needed to cease key industries. Because doing so, will inevitably result in a massive backlash from his influential "new optimist" figures like Steven pinker or bill gates. So he has to stick to this idea of continuing free market capitalism, but with minor government tweaks.
@@esc5272 I think that's a likely explanation. We just need people with public platforms to step out a bit.
This is not going to be easy.
I agree, there is a structural problem. Though It has to start somewhere. Money is a big motivation, why not start there, bond it with political bravery, supported by the people.
Call me naive. It's just very disappointing to listen to all the naysayer. With this mindset we wont get anywhere.
There is no perfect world, but we can try to do our best.
Every problem you cited has it's foundation in over population. Over population is the fundamental problem of virtually every threat facing humanity. The climate movement refuses to address this.
Thanks for being honest and proving that the climate movement is just another anti capitalist endeavor. You're confusing capitalism with consumption. It doesn't matter what economic system you use, consumption and demand don't magically disappear. Are you planning to legislate consumption, demand rationing, coerce or guilt trip people? No thanks, we don't require more authoritarianism. Economic growth is synonymous with rising standards of living, so clearly you wish to reverse standards of living and quality of life. That's a tough sell and puts more people in danger.
The entire Western world embraces capitalism as it's economic system. The Western world represents the most successful societies the planet has ever witnessed, by any measurement you care to examine. It is economic growth and the modern world that keeps you safe. When a hurricane hits the U.S. coast 20 people may die. When it hits the Philippines 20,000 may die. Clearly poverty is the more serious issue so implementing polices that exacerbate poverty is not recommended. Cheers.
so convenient to ignore the opportunity costs. those resources wouldn't be sitting idle if you didn't use them, so it doesn't even matter if your projects eventually pay for themselves. It matters that we can't do anything else.
Brilliant. It is up to society to raise their voice and demand change.
Mark Green
1 second ago
They're busy shopping. :(
@@markgreen6229 Have to laugh because you're right 95% of the time.
Yes, change if this new technocratic elites and the climate nonsense.
1.5° was a good goal 20 years ago. Now, 2° is ambitious. Personally, I think we'll peak somewhere between 2° and 2.5° before it comes back down. It's going to be rough, but we'll get through it.
Wo is we’ll.? Hundreds of millions of people will perish. Most humans live in developing countries.
2.5° is wishful thinking; highs are regularly being broken by more than that. Incremental rises should be fractions of a degree, not over 1.0° which shows the crisis is worse than any models out there.
Is there such a thing as global GDP? There is no single body holding this budget. So no one can really write this check. It needs to be done in partnerships. And the modern world seems to be all about competition… 💔
Commenting for the algorithm.
Great insight
How sad is that first so few people watch this and secondly how people generally didn't care about their kids life......
Although the actual cost of inaction is much much higher, we are on a path of inaction.........
I vietnam i support
We just need to work on time crystals and quantum computers. Once we can model reality down to its smallest particles we can predict any solutions to any problems in the quickest time. It might even tell us if we need to have climate change a priority at all!
We don't need to invent anything, just use your common sense, the Earth cannot sustain this many humans.
We can’t get out of this by clinging to a economical model that relies on endless growth. We need to change to circular economy.
Fuzzy words and phrases like "circular economy" do not eliminate demand or consumption. How do you intend to control consumption? With rationing, legislation, coercion? No thanks, we don't need more authoritarianism.
@@anthonymorris5084 You seem to be stuck into a cold-war-era mindset and/or the fantasy of randism/economic liberalism. Those models benefit 1% of humanity by chance in the birth lottery while 99% suffer from exploitation and the simulation of democracy. The worst aspect of it is the production of stuff no one needs. Rubbish machines to put rubbish in your head, i.e. the distraction from education by fox (pronounced ‚faux’) news. A fantasy that is not based on natural laws but on some crude statistics that impress the uneducated. If you wouldn’t denunciate everything you don’t understand as „totalitarian“ you might have a chance to understand that a circular economy calculates the real prices of products. Thus reconnecting human consumption to natural laws. Giving humanity a chance to stay in the evolutionary race. Right now the stakes are high that we will drop out thanks to individuals like you that consider themselves ‚more equal than other animals‘ and keep on heating up the planet in a manner it has never seen before while at the same time killing off all other animals that provide for your existence. Please educate yourself on the importance of earth worms and the effects of greenhouse gases and act accordingly. Otherwise you will be just a bigmouth with less dignity than an earth-worm.
@@eshatbereitsbegonnen7313 Spare me the sanctimony. Your post is full of vague generalizations and complete fallacies. "Those models", you mean capitalism? Claiming that capitalism only benefits 1% is the height of naivete. To characterize 99% of people as "exploited" is an archaic expression of debunked Left wing dogma at it's worst. Your method is simply to defend the narrative at all costs, facts, data and evidence be damned. Go tribe!
*"The worst aspect of it is the production of stuff no one needs."* And who gets to decide this? You? The authoritarian Left? "Begonnen will now decree through legislation what everybody needs". Funny how every solution from the Left involves tyranny and control.
Here are some facts that you'll absolutely hate. They are indisputable. Data proves humanity has never been safer, healthier or more prosperous than at any time in history. This trend has never been interrupted.
The entire Western world embraces free market economics and represents the most successful societies the planet has ever seen, by any measurement you care to examine.
Plants and animals are headed to extinction due to over fishing, poaching and habitat destruction due to rising populations. In fact over population is the fundamental foundation of almost every single threat facing humanity.
Before you self righteously tell me to get educated, I'd advise you of two things - maybe finally take that economics course that you've never done, and learn to communicate in a respectful manner like an adult instead of a spoiled child. Going through life thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a Fox news supporter is intellectually juvenile.
The road to climate rejuvenation travels through both hope and despair. We have people like YNH on one side and politicians on the other side.
It will take all of us to bring about the change starting from our backyards and not waiting for others to chip in.
The global economic hardship, recession , increments in the price of the gas and loss of job caused by pandemic are not making things look better... it's obvious we are headed for hyperinflation, unfortunately having a job doesn't mean been safe either, having multiple income streams that doesn't depends on the government would be a great idea.
Over 40% of Americans think Jesus is coming back within 50 years, they think their God won't let anything bad happen so they aren't willing to change their ways.
This is good news, indeed! My cynical nature says that, in the US, at least, our politicians who are funded by PACs that draw the vast majority of their funding from the oil and transportation industry won't ever be convinced, even if the cost of the necessary change was zero. You would have to pay those politicians more than their campaigns get from those PACs in order to spur them to action.
U do understand that this guy is on the same team as all world leaders, including the US...and that he thinks u r a useless feeder?! They want u dead friend.
This one is an antichrist. He might even be The Antichrist.
Run!
I’m from Canada, but it’s surprised me that nobody has done exactly that. It’s ludicrous but it seems you are right - America might need to be bought back.
I have a question for Yuval. What if we dont change our diet? Do you want to impose and say what to eat to every human? I eat everything, in a varied diet. I don't want technocrats to decide I sould not eat meat.
Let me be the first person to nominate Yuval to be the first symbolic President of the World and have him governing with a World Government that would oversee the necessary elements that would finance the prevention of climate breakdown.
“What’s the point of a pension if you don’t have a future?”. Devastating.
My country, Italy, has pledged instead to increase the military expenses to the 2% of our GDP. Does it count? 🙂
We can actually make a profit at the same time as preventing climate change.
Do you read comments?
Two great books anyone concerned about the climate crisis should read:
- Naomi Klein's 'This Changes Everything'
- Dr Karl Kruszelnicki's 'Dr Karl's Little Book of Climate Change Science'
I have no doubt that Yuval's 2% figure is accurate and I appreciate the positive outlook, but the world and the climate crisis itself is not as simple as that.
Dr Karl writes in his book that "if we were to go on a war(like) footing we could stop, and then reverse, climate change." This aligns with Yuval's reference to war spending and pandemic response and would be a great scenario, but I just can't see that happening with current vested interests. The systems we live under that have enabled corporate greed and power to insane degrees are the real problem, the fossil fuel giants and the governments that are compliant are the real problem. The only way I think they will change, as Naomi Klein points out, is a move away from a limitless growth capitalist approach to society.
After we as average citizens have divested from banks and super funds that prop up the fossil fuel industry we need to engage in more public revolt. Mass civil disobedience of the likes of what Extinction Rebellion is trying to achieve is what we need to incite change in the systems on a scale grand enough to get us to that war(like) footing and that 2% investment.
The banks that 'prop up' the fossil fuel industry also pay for ignoring the sun. The only guaranteed winner in the war is the arms dealers.
Unfortunately, unless climate change directly affects the elites, there will be 0 efforts, on the contrary it will get worse. We are way too greedy by nature. Once climate change does affect politicians, we may see a quick turnaround.
I don't think it's just nature. I think there's also a cultural push for greediness, especially among the elite.
Prophessor rightly said : what will you do with pensions if you have no future at all. 👌