The climate lies you'll hear this year
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 кві 2024
- This year you will be lied to! Let me help prebunk some misleading statements you'll hear about climate. Watch extra content related to this video on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/simonclark
Thanks to my collaborators:
Dr Adam Levy: @ClimateAdam
Veronica Mulenga: / veronicamulenga_
Dr Ella Gilbert: @DrGilbz
Dave Borlace: @JustHaveaThink
Jacob Simon: / jacobsimonsays
Joycelyn Longdon: / climateincolour
Climate Creators to Watch list: climatecreatorstowatch.com/
Newsletters!
- www.climativity.com/
- theprogressplaybook.com/
- www.simonoxfphys.com/newsletter
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
REFERENCES
1. www.climatepolicyinitiative.o...
2. • Net Zero is Seriously ...
3. www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-asse...
4. skepticalscience.com/
5. www.theguardian.com/environme...
6. www.carbonbrief.org/daily-bri...
7. chinadialogue.net/en/pollutio...
8. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...
9. www.un.org/en/climatechange/n...
10. www.climativity.com/
11. theprogressplaybook.com/
12. www.simonoxfphys.com/newsletter
13. www.theguardian.com/environme...
14. www.reuters.com/sustainabilit...
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.net/@simonoxfphys
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
This video is about misinformation about the climate crisis and climate lies that you'll hear this yera. In this video experts, activists, and communicators dissect some of the lies you'll hear, and prebunk some misleading statements.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
Norm Zemke, I want to roll down a hill into a river of beans, Whitefang, Cemre D., David Mann, Jilbin George, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, Cifer, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, bitreign33 .
Bastian Pranzas, Lucas Johnston, Jeffry ., Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Pawel Piwek, Matze, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Dan Sherman, Peter Reid, Andy Hartley.
keybord1005, Ricky Jones, Guy Markey, Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Felipe Gutierrez, Faficzek, Tobias Ahsbahs, Stansky, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Josh Müller, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Nico Casal, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Philip Sullivan, Joseph , Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Knut Nesheim, Issy Merritt, Dajeni, AYS , Adam Fairris, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, Duncan Robertson, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Alexander Johnston, Tom Painter, Phil Saici, Tom Marsh, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Oriol MP, Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Eddy Torres, Clemens, Andy Giesen, Vernon Swanepoel, Jacob Speelman, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Felix Winkler, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Ivari Tölp, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, Trevor Berninger, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, ST0RMW1NG, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Thusto , Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering. - Наука та технологія
It's almost comical how willing we are to destroy our enviroment when we, you know, live in it.
Like, air quality alone you would think would be an easy thing to agree on.
How much more are you personally willing to pay extra for all of your purchases and downgrade your living standards?
@@4mb127How much of the money you plan to save by not investing in the protection and conservation of our planet will go towards cleaning up all the mess we keep causing for money‘s sake? Even in economical terms, immediate action on climate change makes total sense. This should be clear by now.
Is there proof the environment is being "destroyed"?
@@4mb127 do you not consider air quality a part of your living standard? or a low risk of disease and heat death? even if the argument made sense (which it doesnt as @JamesIT777 pointed out) id be willing to spend some bucks not to die a miserable heat death when im 60
*8:41* ''China actually added more solar power capacity in 2023 alone than any other nation in their full history'' _not even 20 seconds later_ *9:00* ''To be clear they aren't doing nearly enough.''
DEFINITELY something I could expect to hear from an Asian parent XD
🤣
China isn't doing nearly enough, China is still opening new coal plants that will run for decades to come. Of course they're doing that to manufacture the world's stuff, so it's not entirely on them.
Yes. A bit harsh.
"Coal-fired power capacities also increased last year by as much as 9 percent, which is more than half of what the entire world added together - and they continue to grow. Between 2000 and 2022, China added over 1000 GW of them to the system - that's as much as needed to power the entire European Union; a whopping 69 percent of all 'added' coal capacities worldwide during this time."
Those solar panels have huge emissions and material costs in their construction, and China has megaprojects going up left and right, the vast majority of which are carbon positive even in the long run. They are definitely not doing enough. But they are aware, and do some good things here and there. They've just chosen to prioritize maximum growth and superpowerdom over the planet.
Not preventing climate change because its to expensive is like saying oil changes on your car are too expensive. But its a lot of less expensive than a new engine two or three years down the lane.
It is why capitalism can not solve climate change.
Not so much that it is expensive. It isn't profitable.
If we think of things from a private perspective, climate change reduction is expensive. But from a collective perspective, climate change reduction will save money. This is because of externalities.
It’s like changing your oil on your car by stealing the oil from a homeless person as you can’t afford it instead of buying a new car when you could afford it
Moses, think of it this way. By getting solar, batteries and an EV, you are paying upfront for your next 10 years of driving, and next 20-30 years of heating, cooling and lighting your home. And, electricity prices in our region doubled in the last five years. So if you can afford to go EV and solar, you will be financially very far ahead of your neighbors who keep paying the Saudi and Exxon princes for gas.
Preventing climate change is wishful thinking.
There is no way to force Russia, China, India to reduce emissions, as the emission of the countries 'fighting climate ' is being transferred there. 'Fighting climate ' will only bring harm to the countries struggling.
I am deeply convinced that this 'fight' primarily serves the opening of new markets for products catering to the wealthy, potentially causing harm to the struggling countries. Expanding this fight to include poorer people will simply ruin them.
Saying heat pumps don't work when it's cold outside is like saying your fridge doesn't work when it gets hot inside ...
It depends how cold it gets because heat pumps do have lower limit. I live in Finland and last winter there were some days when it was -30 celcius outside. Most heat pumps stop working at those temperatures and that is the lower limit for my heat pump. In Lapland there were even few days when there was -40 celcius. Pretty much no regular heat pump is able to work then. Most of the time heat pumps work even here because those really cold days are quite rare.
Surely it's like saying your fridge doesn't work when it's *cold* inside the fridge? They take heat from a cold place and pump it to a warmer place.
But that is of course globally correct. There are some places in siberia and antarctica where heat pumps would not work in a few days in the year. That is why NOBODY is allowed to use heat pumps, or HVAC, or fridges, or cars...
They loose efficiency the higher the temperature-difference gets. But when you extract heat from solar-thermal elements or the ground at sufficient depth, or even from sewage, you can keep this difference quite small.
And a heatpump done right works in both directions, cooling in the summer as well.
Indeed. Not every technology is right for every location. Being right for most locations is good enough.
As an econ major I'd like to point out sonething about the solving climate change supposedly being expensive thing. This may sound morbid, but we have a mometary value for a human life (in terms of how valuable an average american will be to the economy throughout theor lifetime). Climate change, and the burning of fossil fuels which is part of its cause, kills people, between natural disasters, less hospitable environments, and in the short term probably most importantly, the truly terrible amount of dangerous air pollution that fossil fuels cause when they are burned. Living near a power plant is terrible for your health. All of those people who die, from an economist's perspective, cost money. If we were to save their lives it would benefit everyone. Another tangential way that reducing emissions would save lives is that if we get more people to use public transport (preferably by making it more attractive, not making cars less attractive) that would probably reduce car crashes. A significant number of people die every year in car crashes, and those are usually people who can drive cars, i.e. mostly working age adults. Their deaths cost money, and saving their lives saves money, from an economist's perspective. And not a single word of this includes the moral value of saving human lives, which probably could be quantified and would mean that in terms of what people value (the lives of their loved ones among those things), you're saving even more money. After all the entire purpose of an economy isn't to make as many dollar bills as possible, it's to get the most value according to the members of that economy. If someone values their loved one's life that matters just as much as if they value a commodity, and realistically speaking a human life, especially that of someone you care about, is worth much more than most items you can buy, so that's an especially valuable thing to save, especially when the solutions, like reducing fossil fuel use and increasing public transport, have other benefits like increasing energy independence in an increasingly turbulent geopolitical atmosphere and saving cold hard cash even from an accountant's perspective.
You'd say so much money by making public transport free of charge. All that cost that is linked to it not being free of charge. Dozens of things contribute to it. After coming to that realisation, I even heard about a place (a US city, I think) that has recently made at least part of public transport free of charge because it saves them money.
Very well said.
Who cares about the accountant’s perspective? The view of Econ students lies on a lot of incorrect fundamental assumptions about reality. I’m inclined to not care about Econ majors. Capitalism’s self-destruction and tendency to prove economists wrong (generally speaking, Ronald Coase seems to have gotten the memo) destroyed the credibility of economists.
The adults in the room will continue to solve the problem, thanks.
@musicdev I don't know what you think economists believe, but I just looked that Coase guy up and the stuff he believed in is some of the fundamentals of modern exonomics, not sure how he's supposedly any different from anyone else
Saying heat pumps don't work when it's cold is like saying jackets can't keep you warm because they don't generate any thermal energy.
It also denies Newton's time-verified 'claims' about thermodynamics
It's also like saying air conditioning doesn't work when it's hot.
To be fair, the missing word tend to be "too" cold. Heat pumps have a lower temperature bound, so they may not work - or work well - in the worst of cold snaps. But the solution is simple; get electrical heating or other supplemental heating for those rare occasions. I think mine is rated to -20°C and we did come close here this winters cold snap. It was like a 10 day period, so ~3% of the time you need heating/cooling. So while the argument is definitely mostly moot and ignorable, it's not completely inaccurate either.
I've had mine for ~16 or so years, without issues. Serviced every two years (rinse and afterfill, grease up bearings). But to be fair, as I live in an apartment building I "steal" a lot of heat from neighbors, so heating is rarely required. For me, it's mostly about the cooling.
@@gottagowork You're talking about heat pumps that always draw thermal energy and deliver it to homes, but when it's too cold, those drawing from the atmosphere stop working, a disadvantage not shared by those drawing directly from the ground, as the energy in the ground always originates from within the Earth.
Of course, to transmit this energy, heat pumps need to be powered electrically.
@@boguslawszostak1784 I'm talking about a regular heat pump drawing air used in most homes, and my very old one worked just fine at -15°C for the week we had those temperatures.
Lower "limit" is usually found in the spec sheet, but not being able to use it for all heating 3% of the time (for me) isn't a reason not to get one.
Of course it needs energy to do the refrigerant cycle, pump/compressor, and fans. Nobody said otherwise. It's just more efficient than relying completely on say electrical heating.
'it's just way too expensive to have breaks on this car' is SUCH an amazing line and I will be using it WHEREVER possible from now on
And if course even if it wasn't too expensive, it would require us to slow down or * gasp * maybe even change direction. Our current acceleration is just too profitable to the people driving the car
Problem is when you are talking to people who literally don't think we need brakes because there isn't a cliff
I don't know if I like it so much; there's no scenario where a car salesman would try to talk you out of brakes. This objection to climate change action is more akin to refusing to get a surgery to remove a tumor because it's too expensive after several doctors have told you with certainty that it is cancerous, it will metastasize, and at that point your only option will be a more expensive, painful and drawn out treatment with a lower probability of success.
@@slurmworm666 I can imagine a scenario where the car salesman tells you the brakes are fine, and besides you won't even need them anyway - meanwhile having left them worn down and useless
It’s not just the excellent content of Simon’s videos that deserve praise. (His video covering the hockey stick graph is easily the best internet content for debunking the “it’s normal, it’s not human activity” climate myth) Simons style of logic on these topics is well worth trying to emulate as well, if you want to avoid a pointless circular argument.
Below is a reply I gave recently on a chat forum, with me trying to emulate Simon’s light touch with the humour.
“It’s all a con to take away our freedom and make us live in a 15 minute city” reply “No, it’s a proposal for a safe cycle path for kids to get to school, and by the way you actually live in a town that takes less than 15 minutes to walk from one side to the other”
In a media landscape filled with people trying to debate or "destroy" disinformers, it's good to see someone who's just debunking them, and doing a solid job at it.
This response isn't as good as you might think promoting it. By creating some nonsense, in this case the phrase 'it's all', you're creating an adversary, and in response, you're providing another nonsense. The 15-minute city is a utopia, which like most utopias, may seem to work on a small isolated model. It's not any safer path.
The energy transformation is like jumping from a tower into an empty pool, hoping that by the time we reach the bottom, someone will have figured out how to fill it with water.
You want to transition the energy system to unstable energy sources in the hope that before the energy system collapses, humanity will invent sufficiently cheap and high-capacity electric energy storage. But what if we don't invent it? Will we be left without energy in the winter?
The 15-minute city can come to fruition when the majority of residents work remotely, with the rest employed in local services, and most tasks can be handled remotely. Only commuting to school and local shopping and primary health care remain. This is a vision of a world without industry, for people confined to their enclaves.
It's a terrifying prospect for those who value freedom.
@@boguslawszostak1784 The point is that this “Utopian threat” has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed. Ie a new safe cycle path in a very small rural town. I did not say I supported or that I was critical of 15 minute cities. You made the assumption that I did. At the end of the day, it is one of many concepts used by planners of city infrastructure. Actually it is one more thing. It is one item on the pointless culture war tick list.
Oh, and I have just reread my original post. I didn’t use the phrase “it’s all” you made that up.
You also wrote something about the path not being safer. How do you know? You don’t live there? You don’t know which town was being discussed. What has a cycle path from a residential area to a local school got to do with the sort of fear mongering clap trap you are talking about? Local parents campaigned for it, what right have you to say they can’t have it?
@@jgreen9361 It wasn't me who brought up the topic of 15-minute cities in this discussion, but contrary to appearances, it is related to the climate discussion because it is precisely this that justifies its purpose and rationale.
@@boguslawszostak1784 you are the epitome of a pseudo intellectual. i cannot imagine how much lead you were exposed to as a child. ' The 15-minute city can come to fruition when the majority of residents work remotely, with the rest employed in local services, and most tasks can be handled remotely.' how does that make any sense? there are real, currently existing cities in which one can efficiently traverse, get to and from work, run errands, and simply explore by foot and public transit. last time I checked, people in Amsterdam do have jobs and are not confined to their enclaves. the difference is that they understand car centric infrastructure and an over reliance on automobiles and individual transport is not efficient, so they have built a robust cycling system and transit system that allows large swathes of people to get to where they need to, quickly and consistently. your brain is made of pudding
0:30
Crazy you didn't use Rishi Sunak for the background joke
My side of the pond wouldn't get it. Even if we know his name, as I do, we wouldn't recognize his image. I expect a largely American viewership.
Is there a British general election due this year? My guess is he was referencing the American presidential race this coming November
@@joyrowancasey788 There is, yep. It's a big year for politics globally 🥲
@@joyrowancasey788 yes. But we might finally kick out the goddamn tories so its kinda hype. Not that anyone is great but tories are truly the worst
@@Wolfboy607 I mean he put modi up there after, not sure that was their concern
Hi. I am very happy to say that today is the day, that after years of just using UA-cam and watching all of those great creators without supporting any of them I decided it's finally time. I can kind of afford it, I always promised myself I will eventually. So today I'm going with Simons link for yearly nebula, tomorrow who knows possibly patron. Like half of my feed advertises nebula, and all of them doing it very convincingly, but I think Simon needs it the most rn. I hope he will never give up!
what a guy. just remember they wouldn’t want you to pay if you’ve got better uses for that money! that being said, good on you my guy!!
I'll hopefully start working this year after university, and probably go down the Nebula road as well. Great for you!!
Is that Craig's jacket? 🤔
Who's Craig
@@MrKOenigma editor for hat films
😁 I think it is! I would recognize the host of Fumple Fizz’s jacket anywhere!
Great video and I love this team idea, very well done indeed !
In facing the stressful hassle of trying to convert my American Driver's License over to Japan, then being told I can't unless I jump through several extra, expensive hoops or risk losing my work visa? I've decided to boycott ALL personal motorized vehicles for the rest of my life. I know it's extreme, but for me? It's been extremely freeing! Instead, I plan to recycle my current bicycle into a custom built, custom frame electronic assist tricycle with a cargo area in the back~ No need for a license! No polluting! Artistic! AND makes a statement! For long distance travel? There's reliable public transportation.
One of the other ones I hear is it's not fair on all the 3rd world countries as they won't be able to develop: when in fact Ethiopia which has the (edit: 2nd) largest population in Africa and is aiming for 100% of the population with electricity does it all woth Hydro electricity and is one of the few countries on the planet that uses 99% renewable energy. That is because renewables are much better than transporting a resource to burn in a place. A solar panel is going to be much more useful for a village than someone going to the town 50 miles away every week for fuel for their generator.
Actually I believe Nigeria has the biggest population in Africa. However like their sibling from the east side of the continent, Nigeria (an oil producer by the way) is doing something about climate change. They fairly recently got rid of most, if not all, subsides on fossil fuels in the country.
Needless to say fossil fuel prices shot up significantly immediately.
This has forced many Nigerians to rethink doing anything with fossil fuels.
Meanwhile Ethiopia produces so much electricity they supply it to some of their neighbors too.
Because they have so much electricity they recently banned the import of gas vehicles into the country.
You're absolutely right about how much more useful solar panels are then something you have truck in.
This brings us to micro grids which are taking off all over the continent of Africa.
It's entirely possible for the 3rd world to skip fossil fuels entirely and progress towards 1st world status.
This is definitely something that some in the 1st world fear.
@@jimthain8777 yes sorry you are correct, Ethopia is 2nd largest and great comment with illuminating and obviously we'll research information about Nigeria
but the ethiopian dam reduces water going to Egypt and Sudan, which is unfair to those countries
@@diztend8414
Isn't Sudan building it's own dam?
Egypt has it's own dam too.
These are the joys of living down stream on any river system.
The fact that Africa might be able to skip over fossil fuels during the development process is very good news. It means the majority of emissions we'll _ever_ see will come from what's already emitted, not from the future stuff developing countries will make.
The brakes on the car analogy is pretty good. I use a leaky roof as an analogy: no matter how much it's going to cost, you will lose the house if you don't fix it. You cannot affort to not fix it.
It's more like you were told a leak will spring in your roof in 100 years time, so you started blocking everyone on the road outside your house demanding they fix your roof, while billionaires who purposely put leaks in your roof support you financially and in the media.
Simon has been rapidly heading into his gameshow host era and I am here for it
Didn't realize you're a commentor here, but I'm here for it!
Edit: I didn't realise it was a truth or lie guessing gameshow before posting:
The "not" should not be in final lie "It's not too late for us to solve the climate problem"? (11:15)
It is a true statement (with the "not") in the sense we can stop it from getting much worse.
Removing the "not" would make it the lie that the responders seem to debunk.
Edit: Thanks to kotor1357 who pointed that out.
I thought I was going crazy LMAO
0:47
"I'm going to read u a statement and we're going to hear from an expert whether it's true or not"
So I guess, making a true statment and having the experts comment on it wasn't really an error in the script?
@@kotor1357Thanks, I apparently didn't listen carefully to the beginning of the video.
Everyone has incredibly crisp and beautiful audio... and then there's me walking around NYC with my headphones😅. A true pleasure to be a part of this great video! Combatting that misinfo one question at a time :)
Thank you for your contribution.
You did so well until the end. It's true, we all need to do our part. However, even if all of us do our part except 1,200 people in the four dozen petrostates that just exploit more efficient economics from climate solutions to extract and emit more fossil carbon then all that will happen is GHGs go up.
Permits, finance, and licenses for fossil trade must be curbed 2% of today's level, down to zero by 2030, to make all those other actions meaningful.
Also, a quibble I know, but Australia, Brunei, India and South Africa are all in the global south, four of the top ten petrostates.
More Petroleum State lies.
See, the problem for the industry, (any industry really) is that if the customer stops buying, it doesn't matter how much you try to "exploit more efficient economics", money not coming in while money continues to go out, means serious problems.
Sure they try to hide that, but that reality will get them eventually.
There's already proof that where change has taken place, (like in California), emissions decline.
I live in the No. 4 Petroleum State (Canada), and our governments (both federal, and provincial) play games with the electorate to protect the industry.
This is so effective that many of the people actually believe that some of these politicians are against the industry (Oil companies playing the victim).
The truth is 99% of our politicians know who funds their election campaigns and quietly supports the industry, even when they have to do something politically that LOOKS like it hurts the industry.
@@jimthain8777 I get that this is mental heavy lifting for most. That the framing of the problem makes it impossible to easily grasp how manipulated perceptions and dialogue is by some simple linguistic trickery. But please try.
25%. That's the maximum share of fossil trade demand from domestic end consumers (people who breath air and have heartbeats) in any nation; Business, Institutions and Governments (BIG) are responsible for 3/4's of all demand, and BIG isn't taking its cues from climate scientists: BIG does whatever financing and regulation allows.
Those regulations, that financing, is governed by just a few dozen public servants in any of the world's four dozen petrostates, like China, America, India, Russia, Canada, etc. Twelve hundred people oversee such regulation globally.
If they curb fossil trade, fossil emissions slow. If they stop fossil trade, those 1,200 people stop what you've learned to call carbon emissions. If they don't, those "economic efficiencies" you mock will let BIG just pollute more.
We all need to do our part. BIG regulators need to stop issuing fossil trade financing, permits and licenses.
5%. That's the share of emissions from end consumers in those petrostates. We can't solve climate change if we only affect 5% of emissions and call it a day.
And while politicians and donors may be to blame for upholding that costly and deadly situation, in a democracy you get the government you deserve.
How much have you personally spent to donate petro-parties out of power?
Individual action also includes political action.
6:57 To further this point that Dave was making about heat pumps, here in Canada, where it famously gets cold during the winter, we have about a 6% adoption of heat pumps (my parents included) and they work perfectly well. Keeps the house nice and toasty during cold winters and nice and cool during the summers. It's expected that this percentage will rise over the next few years. My parents save about $1500 a year compared to when they had a fossil gas burner. It was really a no-brainer type move, especially with the Federal Government rebates and incentives to help.
In one of our coldest territories, The Yukon did a test back in 2013 (report found either on the Yukon government website or by looking for An Evaluation of Air Source Heat Pump Technology in Yukon) that cold‐climate air‐source heat pumps should be included in the Government of Yukon’s suite of energy-efficient product promotion initiatives since they still save people money. If it can work in the Yukon where winters, on average are around -20-25 degrees Celcius, and can get to be below -50, then it certainly can work in the UK.
They're used in Antarctica...
@@gasdive
Interesting how that never makes the news. In fact I've never heard that from anyone else... ever.
I now want to find out more.
The European countries that are the best markets for heat pumps are the coldest ones, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
And they are also the best markets for EVs. 20% of cars on the road in Norway are EVs.
7:00 The real idiot-proof answer is "you have a freezer, right?"
The moment a freezer, which is just an insulated box with a heat pump, manages to extract heat from a -8C box to put it into your +20C Kitchen, the idiotic myth is dead.
The issue is that for some reason UK consumers will not install air to air heat pumps.
They install air to water, and the water needs to be about 65C if you connect it to radiators that are designed and sized for the 65C water that comes out of a gas boiler.
If you put your freezer in a 65C room it won't work.
What happens is that the poor heat pump can only reach 40C. That would be plenty for an air to air system, but it means that the radiators designed for 65C just don't warm the room much when there's 40C water in them.
You can't install a heat pump in my old building.
This also applies to the other houses on my street.
We use hot water bottles on our bodies for heating. 🔥🤣
The others, sadly, guiltily or ignorantly, continue to heat with gas.
The transition to electricity is way to slow.
@@gehwissen3975
Pretty much any building CAN be modified to work with a heat pump system of some kind.
Though some ARE much harder to change over, and that does cost more money, and possibly time too.
It's not impossible though, and one day it will probably happen to your building.
I really hope you see that day, because it will probably make you really happy.
@@gehwissen3975 if you have electricity, and an external wall, you can install a heat pump.
Unless it's a listed building, in which case you can still install a heat pump, but you'll probably need a vertical ground source heat pump so that there's no visible change to the building.
The problem with coming up with anything intended to be "idiot-proof", is it's far too easy to underestimate the stupidity of a complete idiot.
The trend i've been noticing recently is to claim that CO2 is actually good for us because it helps plants. There have been some organizations, like CO2 Coalition, usually formed after 2015 that have been aggressively pushing this idea.
They will be able to grow faster and bigger though right? You never know it could be a self correcting mechanism for the environment. It's very tricky to model all these cascading effects.
@@olit1234it’s called the CO2 fertilization effect! It is already accounted for in climate models, alongside a whole bunch of other effects that lead to the TCRE (transient climate response to cumulative emissions) being roughly linear. So it doesn’t cancel out the whole thing, but is part of why we’re not in as big a mess as a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation would suggest.
@@olit1234 Depends on the plants, not all need the extra carbon or some can use it up to a certain point. For the ones where you eat the fruit there's a downside that it will use less nutrients from the soil. For trees carbon is good cause it makes it taller, this helps get more light in a forest but in an orchard you choose where to plant them so they don't have to compete for sunlight.
There is no simple answer and carbon alone generally doesn't make plants grow faster, they would also need extra water/minerals/etc
The only respinse needs to be " how's it been working for us so far?"
@em945 But that is not a useful response. Maybe it has worked out great. Perhaps plants are growing so much better that we oughtn't decrease CO2 levels. What if climate scientists have missed a huge benefit of higher CO2 levels (they haven't). You need answers, not quips.
Remember to like and comment for the algorithm! Great Stuff!
So many of us are geniuses, scientists, science communicators, well-read, amazing critical thinkers, yet we never seem to learn that attempting to send the badly misled to a website (or any other resource) that requires them to read and study and think is a fool’s errand. If they were the type to read, study, and think, they wouldn’t be badly misled in the first place. The problem lies elsewhere, the solution lies elsewhere. I don’t know where, but it’s not in asking them to be more like us and less like themselves
10:43 While I wholeheartedly agree with this section, those terms have been used as buzzwords to a large extent. I think this video mainly ignored two aspects:
1.) I think also with the Heat Pump Example and some of the “too expensive” logic is moreso caused by impacts on the individual level, not on the people not understanding the facts/having the information provided to them.
Many voters don’t care about the geopolitics, or sometimes even the overall morals/politics (excluding major fights infringements/not going along with moral panics, but mainly instantaneous changes to cost of living. Gas Prices, Food Prices, Inflation, Taxation, etc
So for most people that think like that, if they cannot buy a gas heater, they must buy a heat pump. This *can* be a “no brainer” if they are the same price or subsidized to be the same price, *but this is NOT the case in many areas* (sometimes as a feature not a bug i would bet).
Another example more adjacent to climate change would be vehicle emissions. Things like Diesel Particulate Filters and Catalytic Converters often use a bit more fuel to reduce emissions. This means for most people spending more money for something they find abstract/doesn’t effect them and their’s so they don’t care and hate it. Similar thing for SCR systems using DEF. With new trucks people have to buy DEF often sold as AdBlue. This is *another* thing to worry about, and again spending on money on things they may not care about (if even know about/believe)
2.) I think also the Post-Truth Aspect (especially here in the USA) needs to be addressed. Not only Conspiracy Theories, but also just how some people will vote against their own interest / support policies out of spite.
I would need to grab proper links and whatnot, but some people will refuse coverage under the Affordable Care Act after realizing that’s ObAmA CaRe 😧.
This is probably the most depressing as short of vaccinating (minor pun there!) the next generation via messaging like this, and teaching logical fallacies+media literacy in schools (if the people aren’t homeschooled…), there is little that can be done. If you don’t believe me try and convince a flat earther or Westburo Baptist Church type.
At the end of the day we mist try for a just transition nonetheless, and try and convince people, but i think ignoring this aspect is not only untrue, but that can come off as elitist…to people who are often very anti-elitist (without the nuance of someone who dislikes unjust power structures).
Best way is to not antagonise them.
As soon as you drop a buzzword associated with "the left" or "mainstream science" or whomever, all reasonable discussion goes out the window. You've been identified as the enemy (the one who has actually been indoctrinated), and need to be converted or fought off at any cost.
Post-truth reality really hit me this year when trying to discuss some of these issues with otherwise reasonable people.
It's difficult because:
1.We need to stand united for productive climate policies and behaviour
2. We can't use any sort of jargon or buzzwords that we as a collected front would use, lest we be identified as the mislead people they were warned about.
(It's hard, it's even hit us here in South Africa. I feel like I spend more time talking about American and EU politics than our own, because of the shit some people here consume online.)
“I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation. I’m not in any way signing up to any discussion that is alarmist. There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”
- Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP 28, also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Mukhtar Babayev will be the president for COP 29; he is also a former executive of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijian Republic.
Seems more and more likely, scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment may come to fruition (or at least the higher end of the spectrum). I say enjoy what you can, while you still can; pity the generations to come.
The video debunks defeatism last, about 11 minutes into it.
(Perhaps a misplaced "not" in the claim that the responders debunk)
That first dude publicly took back that statement and apologized, and COP28 was more productive than most of the other ones. Like dont get me wrong it was still a shit show and wasnt nearly enough but there is more to the story.
The biggest influence on COP is what the US and China decide they will support. Everyone else will follow suit. The petro states obviously want to continue the status quo but they are not the deciders.
Sure, he said that, and meant every word of it;
BUT, we shouldn't be defeated by such talk.
Instead we should be emboldened to fight HARDER!
great content as always!
The most banger collab of 2024
Yup, love my heat pump. Installed it in my garage/workshop/music studio. It is rated to -15 degrees (F) and has performed very well, although does struggle at those lower temps (that's why most homes in our Wisconsin climate have a back up high efficiency gas furnace for those times).
Out of curiosity, is that an air-to-air heat pump, or one that heats radiator water?
Yes, the newest ones are rated for as low as -25 F even.
@@anderslvolljohansen1556 In the USA, air-to-water heat pumps are uncommon, particularly as DIY installs. The unmodified term "heat pump" almost always refers to air-to-air heat pumps.
Surely a better backup would be an electric resistive heater? That way you could completely disconnect your gas and save heaps on the connection fee. Connection fees can often be more than 50% of the bill.
Brilliant cast of people involved in this
Sadly there are some sociopaths that actually like the idea of the global south suffering.
Yep. Theyre also the ones who complain about immigrants 🙃
@@ypp0pfunny, I was thinking during this video about how mass immigration is one of the only ways to get western countries to clean up their acts… it’s the only “threat” these poor countries have against countries that have created the climate problems.
Seems racists would see the connection, but nope… they’re always easily fooled, and in politics it’s all about having enemies when you’re running for political office. Immigration (racism) is an easy target
@@ypp0p
Which is a cyclical problem, because those migrants come here because of the suffering.
Let's face it most of us are happy where we live, and would only move if we absolutely had to.
The 3rd world feels exactly the same. If conditions in their countries were better they'd very happily stay there all their lives.
We'd actually have to offer them stuff to move to our countries.
So yes, the wealthy countries do gain from suffering in these countries, which is entirely wrong.
@@ypp0p (illegal) immigrants are indeed a problem
@@ypp0p Well, the ones pretending to care about them are also the ones constantly in favour of waging supremacist ideological wars ⚔ on those countries causing the problem 🙃
I really would avoid saying something like "it will more negatively affect those in the global south" when talking with climate "sceptics" for a number of reasons. For one, the term "global south" to my knowledge is almost exclusively used in left wing circles and so is likely to be not understood/misunderstood by someone not already in the space or worse yet seen as a "lefty buzzword" signaling/reminding them you are a part of the out group and triggering all the mental barriers associated with that. If you are to use this point, use more generally common terms like "developing country" or even "poor countries".
Secondly, people who are climate deniers tend to be right leaning and are often implicitly or explicitly for aggressive self-interest or even against altruism in general (at least of anything but an interpersonal level). Bring up the plight of developing countries will unfortunately often be met with "they aren't our problem/concern" if not social Darwinism. Generally, you should focus how things will affect them and things they care about or risk them inferring that climate change won't affect them much. Obviously not all climate sceptics will be like this so use your judgement, but as a general approach I would avoid this framing or point entirely with climate skeptic/deniers.
Those persons minds are not going to be changed regardless...
@@BeautifulEarthJa They can be. It's very difficult to completely change someones mind but even a small shift is a win.
Doesn't the global south also include Australia? Is Australia considered a developing country? I always took "the global south" as synonymous with "the southern hemisphere" (if I am wrong I am just further proving your point about the term being likely to get misinterpreted, so yeah it's probably best to avoid it)
They can't be convinced. However there is an argument that is not used often enough: The problems in poor countries are our problems because:
- We can fix then.
- If we don't we'll have MASSIVE waves of immigration after their countries get the worse of climate change. The "migrant caravans" the right has talked so much about are NOTHING in comparison. We're talking millions each year.
Great point about indoctrinated people raising their spines when an offensive buzzword that they've heard demonized in their media appears in discussion.
It stops the discussion from proceeding coolly and rationally, as your arguments have now been identified as (lies of) the enemy.
Seen it a lot with otherwise rational people I'm very fond of, who are also able to have conversations about difficult or controversial issues. They stop listening and then try to save you with their "*independent* scientifically sound" truths, because in their eyes you are actually the one who's been deceived.
It's really difficult to navigate...
Hope things are going better, update us please
I just want to say that I think a lot of people are worrying about the wrong thing.
Here in the comments, so many people are saying things like "we're choosing to destroy the planet", or "big business and the status quo are the problem". And sure, that is true, but that's beside the point!
As this video touches upon, the main issue is that science discovers something new and nobody listens. The vast majority of people don't value the work of scientists. They dont realise that its because of the scientific method that modern society exists; everything you see and touch on a daily basis only exists because we have the scientific knowledgebase to pull from.
Some of us are choosing to ignore the science, but most of us are ignorant to the fact that science is giving us choices
Then you get the classic
"But who funded the research?" conspiracy, which when you show them the Conflict of Interest and Acknowledgements etc. sections, somehow still prevail.
"Mainstream Science is in industry's pocket. 'Real' independent science is incorruptible and much more truthful than anything published by a journal."
Education helps a lot, but a lot of these conspiracies are created or supported by big businesses. Until we get the media and industry interests under control, we will constantly have people stop trusting science. Hopefully with a good enough educational foundation, future generations will be immune to misinformation, but it's not looking good at the moment.
@@Sprosbold what do you mean "then"? That already happens all the time anyway. Though, that's a good thing that people are questioning who funded the research, though yes people have no idea what questions to ask nor how to interpret the answers
But anyway a handful of research papers does not constitute the body of scientific knowledge. Even if something is published in a prestigious journal, it needs many more replication studies etc. before a consensus can be achieved
Education is the most important thing for humanity! You're almost dismissive of it? The solution to the lack of understanding of the importance of science by the public is better education, particularly in the sciences and the history of science
True, Science is more important than the lives of my children.
@@wolfgangpreier9160 Firstly, yeah probably hahha
Secondly, neither you nor your children would even be alive if it wasn't for the work of scientists before you. Do you know how many deadly diseases have been eradicated (or at least no longer deadly) in the last 100 years?
In mediaeval times, about 1 in 4 children died in the first year after birth... In the 1800s, 2 in 5 children didn't live to be 5yo
So yeah, your individual children don't mean shit to the millions of lives scientific knowledge has saved, and the billions of lives it has improved. And I genuinely mean no disrespect to you or your children; I'm just telling you how it is :)
@@wolfgangpreier9160 I'd say it is. More important than the lives of mine too.
We live in a society, it's not everyone for themselves - advances in science help your children, and if not them, their children and those of millions of others.
ALSO won't you get the BBC angry by using WILTY? Rob, Lee, and David would probably be chill but you might wanna avoid a confrontation with the beeb 😅
I hate that I can't not be a doomer on this subject, but it kinda is too late. Not physically, not scientifically, but also, not without massive change that is being held back by people with too much power who just don't care. It's too late because of them. We passed the 1.5 degrees warming last year and it won't surprise me if that's permanent, as every year is the hottest year on record and we STILL are putting out more emissions every year without fail.
I don't mean to say we're fucked. I mean to say we need to be in doing emergency planning and emergency revolutions everywhere, or else we are.
It's too late for what?
@@cmmartti that's a really great question, and it leads to a good point. But my answer is too late for more extreme climate change than we are currently prepared for.
I also don't mean to imply that work done to mitigate climate change now isn't worth it. I'm saying it's where we should've been 20 years ago, we are behind and it is emergency time.
If we pass X degree of warming in one direction (higher) we CAN also pass it in the other direction, (lower).
That isn't going to happen without work, but that work is already underway, and is already achieving results.
Stay strong! Just keep swimming!
It's pretty unlikely that the 1.5 degrees we saw this/last year was permanent. We still have a few more years until we hit 1.5 permanently -- and while I think it's certain we'll get there, the good news is our emissions will not only be a fair bit lower by then, but trending downward faster and faster.
Here's the thing: the year-on-year change in emissions from 2022 to 2023 was just +0.1%. The year before, it was around +1%. Before that, around +2%. If things keep accelerating downward like this, there's a good chance that we will have reached peak emissions _in 2023._ Not this year. Not five or ten years from now. _Last_ year.
Saying heat pumps don't work when it's cold is like saying an air-conditioner doesn't work when it's hot. They're the same damn thing!
Comment to boost engagement!
As always extremely good video and it's nice that you are disproving all this extremely persistent myths specially the "climate change is better than actually fixing it" which so much people fall prey to specially in economic crisis like the current one, definitely caused in some measure by a more erratic climate, (still not the biggest fan of the new style but I understand)
Great video!!!!
John Cook is a legend!
@6:30 heat pumps do get less efficient (at heating) when at very cold temperatures, so they may not be the best heating source selection for cold climates. Exact number of HDD varies with heat pump, obviously. However, for most of europe and united states populated areas, they will probably work fine, especially with buildings built with any amount of attention paid to building envelope. Same problem exists of course when trying to cool in very hot temperatures... but they are just so efficient that oversizing them is not a horrible idea given they are electric. COPs up to 5!
Hotter climates probably also have better solar efficiency too.
@@gmarefan some of them, certainly. at least in the usa and europe, that's probably vaguely true most of the time.
Let's put it this way: to have heat pump on a poorly insulated house is like having an electric giant SUV. Still better than the fossil equivalent, but quite "meh". On the contrary, a well sized heat pump with proper heat distribution system and in an insulated building will work great in all conditions.
i live in a cold climate and my heat pump is faultless during the winter. i cant tell the difference between the previous gas boiler and what i have now. so while it may be technically true that they are less efficient at cold temps - i dont know - it's certainly not a practical consideration for me. the key to efficient heat pumps as far as i know is to have communal systems because the smaller they are, eg for an individual house, the less heat they provide.
The top performer at -22°C boasts a COP of 2.6.
That's for an air-to-air heat pump, that works like air condition in reverse, heating the indoor air directly.
Air-to-air heat pumps are cheap to buy and install, typically only a few thousand $, € or £.
If you want to heat radiator water, then that water needs to be heated to a higher temperature than the air blown through an air-to-air heat pump, raising what the outdoor temperature needs to be to give a COP above unity.
Air-to-water heat pumps are much more expensive than air-to-air, so as a compromise, you can keep your gas fired boiler, but run your air-to-air heat pump to reduce your gas consumption.
I installed Fujitsu Halcyon heat pumps in Vermont USA in 2021. They are rated to full output at -15F/-26.1C. It sometimes gets to -30F/-34.4C in Vermont, but I've only hit -20F/-28.8 in the 3 years since. Not only have I been able to eliminate my natural gas system completely, but I haven't had to use my backup electric baseboard heat when temperatures get below the full output rated temperature. Whatever drop in output I might have had below -15F/-26.1C wasn't noticeable.
Great video, climate lies are definitely something worth talking about and adressing. I personally very much believed that ''Reverting climate change is too expensive'' too, because... _It would literally take uprooting the world's entire energy sector and construction industry to stop it!_ And I still partially believe in this idea, even though yeah, it is true that getting to Net 0 would also save a lot of costs (The mentioned pollution deaths for example) on its own that might just dampen the price of climate change revertion.
Another thing I think worth talking about is the whole ''electrical cars'' thing. The thing is, vehicles contribute a relatively small part to the world's harmful gas and heavy metal emissions. You or your friend selling their internal combustion engine cars won't even put the slightest fraction of a dent to the whole world's emissions, an entire country outright banning them and only allowing electrical cars would barely dent it either. The biggest producers of CO2 and other harmful substances are the energy sector, concrete production, etc. The meat industry alone outweighs the emissions of almost every vehicle on earth. Those must be the highest on the bucket list, instead of your neighbor's old car.
It's expensive for capitalists and businesses and even for consumers (who don't have cash to buy what saves them money), but if the Soviet Union still existed, they'd probably be a solarpunk society by now, because they don't have an economy divided into different private interests, so they would do what's better for the economy as a whole.
@@Moses_VII
That's NOT how the Soviet Union worked. It was VERY much like Russia is today. Except that like China does today, they paraded under a Communist slogan. The fact is BOTH the Soviet Union, and Communist China, were, and are dictatorships.
They are run by oligarchs that make up the upper leadership of their "Communist Parties".
Reality is that no attempt at Communism has ever survived.
The country quickly becomes a dictatorship, while the economy becomes an oligarchy of high lever Communist Party officials.
It's incredibly difficult to completely decarbonize a sector of industry.
Saying we should go after the biggest offenders instead of pushing for helpful changes across the board is not productive. I agree with you entirely, that the biggest offenders should be worked on with just as much gusto, but to say that other progress is relatively meaningless is a bad take.
By all means, decarbonize agriculture and husbandry!
Advances are being made to the agricultural sector to make it more efficient and less polluting constantly (I've not looked at their site in about 5 years, but I'm sure if you check the University of Wageningen's website for current research you'll see what the cutting edge is. Wageningen is considered one of the top agri institutes in the world.). Ideally populations would also change their diets to be (mostly) plant-based. That's not something you can reasonably expect the majority to do. Then if you ie. impose restrictions on the sale of meat, you'll just be voted out and replaced by a populist government who will go ahead and revert any progress you made.
It's complicated, and every little bit helps.
@@Moses_VII Except they weren't very good at it. Which is the main reason they aren't still around.
Transportation accounts for about a third of all global emissions so you're completely off the mark there. You are correct that switching to electric cars isn't particularly effective and that's why the switch needs to be to public transit and walkable cities. As a bonus this will also massively improve public health and save huge ammounts of money in road maintenance while freeing up enormous land areas in cities helping to lower rent.
I always feel when speaking to deniers, that instead of trying to debunk and search for counter-arguments, I'd want to go to "psychological mode": "Whatever I say, you want to deny it. In face of a looming global disaster, your reaction is 'Ah, it's probably nothing.' - but in other situations (let's say, immigrants moving into your neighborhood etc.?) you are always on full alert. Why is that? What do you feel, when you hear about climate change?"
It would still be difficult going into this psychiatrist mode without sounding patronizing though....
I'm a denier. Do you really bother talking to people like me? We have all been subjected to a psyop and have reacted to it in different ways. The sort of people who don't question the "climate crisis" are the sort of people who if told the vaccine is safe and effective enough times, they would probably queue up for it.
The difference is that the immigration “problem” is a concrete, and easy to comprehend one which can be summarized using absolutist terms. Climate change (or any discussion about the climate in general) is so multifaceted that it comes across as abstract; not an absolute. And most climate deniers (well, the ones I know personally) REALLY don’t like thinking in any way they perceive as abstract.
@@philipbrown9006I'll talk to you mate I've lived on a boat near the Great Barrier Reef my whole life and the reef is f'cking dying. Every day the reef just gets more white, now there are whole massive areas of dead coral and it wasn't nearly as bad ten years ago. In fact ten years ago you would only see a little bit of dead coral every now and then a healthy amount. In some parts of the reef now most of its dead it's insane what the rise in temperature has done to the reef it's destroyed it horribly.
@GD-zy6sk Everything you said was a lie.
And no one is talking about being able to realistically reduce CO2, just that we stop emitting it and increasing the global amount.
Why are denialists so stupid?
The change caused by immigration is quicker and self-evident, it is right in front of your eyes, at worst you just need to look at a map with percentage of immigrants in your country or a graph with the growth of migrant population. Now climate change??? Not as quick as mass immigration and not as self-evident
Saying it's too expensive to get to net zero would be like when the car was introduced saying it's too expensive to transition from trains to cars. Even though the economy grow massively during that time.
Awesome video with a superb panel whom I watch all the time! And your game show host attire is impeccable! ❤🎉😊
09:52 Why do I immediately think about Apple?
I'm supposed to sleep but for simon I'm okay watching another video (also love that gold suit thing)
Liked the collabs with other climate activists, Simon! That was a nice element!!! Well done.
Thanks so much having me on to do some prebunking Simon! 💚
Hurrah for Simon! Many thanks for telling the truth about lies! 😅
No alligators were killed in making the wardrobe of this video. There are no gold alligators, anyway.
Reminds me of an interaction on TikTok. A commenter got mad that I had a mask on, and that covid was fake. I explained that its real and he's uneducated on it. And he pointed out his engineering degree.
You can be the most skilled engineer in the world, having memorised every shread of engineering info ever, even ancient lost knowledge. None of that matters when talking about biology.
Likewise, it doesn't matter what title or skill someone has if it's irrelevant to the subject. Listen to those that study the science they're teaching.
Engineers kinda have a bad habit of being like that, it frankly sucks for the rest of the engineers who know their shit. Like that mask was designed by a medical engineer.
@@hedgehog3180 Didn't know this was an ongoing issue amongst engineers. Thought it was just the one guy.
Other engineers I've talked to have all been intelligent and good people.
@@rmt3589 Like with everything the vast majority of engineers are nice people but you also fairly often encounter engineers who are convinced that they're the smartest person in the world for being an engineer. They're especially common when it comes to pseudoarcheology where they'll be convinced they know more about historical construction techniques than archeologists.
I don't know about money but i don't think we have enough material for only solar and wind. In theory we do but when we go about EROEI and the massive scale required, we note that we have a lot of material that we simply can't exploit with a positive energy return. Basically, we actually can't exploit some ressource unless the energy to do so come from another source like hydrocarbon. The panels and turbine are the easy part. The real kicker is the storage for which we need better batteries as soon as possible.
We can decarbonise a lot with nuclear, which i am very much in favour of, and a little bit of degrow.
Also deep geothermal look like very promising.
You mention EROEI and then nuclear or geothermal power...
Nuclear is good, it's not cheap though
Is it really that much more expensive when you account for all the benefits it gives?
this year? ive never in my half century known it to be any different
0:28 - yes, this is a defining feature of the current mode of production
9:25 a pterodactyl flies up behind him
Tactical evolution of climate change deniers:
Faced with the accumulating evidence, climate change deniers have adopted a tactic of retreat in stages but without ever losing sight of their sole objective: CLIMATE INACTION.
Position #1: There is no climate change
Position #2: There is climate change, but it is “natural”
Position #3: There is human-caused climate change, but its effects are actually beneficial
Position #4: There is human-caused climate change, but the cost of doing anything about it is too high relative to the benefits.
Position #5: It's too late to do anything anyway, we just have to adapt.
anyone who says heat pumps don't work in the cold must have never used a fridge.
Also got to love the tired trope of "the climate changed before and it was warmer in the past" as if that's news.
Unfortunately for many of these folk, the first time they heard of previous climatic changes is from folk like Patrick Moore and other PR people for fossil fuel, so they see it as a giant big conspiracy that's being kept secret and not the more depressing truth: science education for the public is often dreadful and more about passing tests than actually teaching kids the beautiful amazing history of the planet and how very complex systems and things work together, and how they function.
We need to start with quality education.
Last time the climate changed dramatically humanity was brought close to extinction and many of our cousins did go extinct.
@@hedgehog3180 and we can't forget we also weren't completely immersed in an extremely complex interconnected civilisation dependent on so many moving parts that's gotten rid of resiliency in favour of greater and greater efficiency and profit at that point.
Love it!
I hear that "Earth have been hotter before. There is nothing wrong with that. "
It's true there is a pretty green period of Earth where the Earth is hotter than now. (Like in Cretaceous age. In fact, it's the majority of Earth's time period) Except that we and all the creature here has been adapted to the relative cold of what is the Quartenary Ice Age.
Came for the gold suit.
Thank you for your efforts, Simon and co. ✌😁
One of the things to keep in mind with the whole net zero thing is diminishing returns. To really get to net zero for the entire globe we all would probably have to deal with massive diminishments in quality of life. On the other hand, getting 70-80ish% there probably wouldn't affect the average person all that much. I think it's super important to maintain the political will to move beyond the little we've already done to mitigate climate change and to get as close as feasible to those net zero emissions.
I don't think the last 20% will be too much harder than the penultimate 20%, which in turn shouldn't be too much harder than the antepenultimate 20%. The reason is because the Sun shines upon us several thousand times more power than humanity uses, so if we can capture 0.2% of that, I don't see why capturing 0.3% or 0.4% will be all that much harder. Plus, we may see advances in nuclear construction.
I don't really think that's the case though. This is only true if you measure QOL based on consumption but like who actually sees it that way? Net zero will improve public health massively, make our cities more pleasant and get rid of planned obscelesance, those are all really good things.
"You may think your efforts will amount to no more than a drop in the ocean, but oceans are made up of drops..." was a simple yet great line. Fantastic video Simon!
A question the climate activists cant answer: what percentage of the climate change is natural vs anthropogenic?
Your impact is limited if you live in an apartment block with 500 other families and don't engage in the local politics (this is true for like 70% of the population where it matters (citation needed)). I honestly just don't see how individual action can make an impact. At the rate we are going, what we need is legislation and organised mass action.
@@Fabric_Hater This is a tough question because it's complicated. Let's flip this question a bit. Let's see what we know.
a) We know that natural shifts in Earth's temperature are on geological timescales. The last ice age, or the Last Glacial Maximum, was about 20,000 years ago. After the Last Glacial Maximum, the Earth *gradually* warmed over about 8,000 years, leading to the retreat of ice sheets and the onset of the current interglacial period, known as the Holocene Epoch, which began around 11,700 years ago. Compared to the dramatic temperature swings and extensive glaciation of the preceding ice age, the Holocene has generally been a period of milder and more stable climate conditions.
b) We know that carbon dioxide traps infrared (IR) light. Specifically, CO2 absorbs IR radiation at wavelengths of approximately 4.3 micrometres (µm) and 14.9 µm. These absorption bands correspond to specific vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule. The absorption of IR radiation by CO2 molecules in these bands, which in turn generates heat, is a key mechanism through which CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere and leading to global warming. This absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases like CO2 play a crucial role in regulating Earth's temperature and climate.
c) We know that the combustion of fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. We know that we emit roughly 37 Billion metric tons annually. We have various tests, such as isotopic analysis and just generally how much carbon we burn, to prove that we are contributing to the atmosphere in a significant way.
d) Natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and variations in solar radiation also influence the Earth's climate, but their contributions to recent climate change are relatively smaller compared to human activities.
Let's sum up then. We know that before the Industrial Revolution, the Holocene was characterized by stabilization in the Earth's temperature around delta 0 (mainly between +/-0.5 degrees). We know that large changes in global temperature take geological timeframes to change, not within 200 years like the current situation. We know that humans generate CO2 in excessive amounts and that CO2 traps IR light contributing to heat-trapping. We know that our global temperatures are rising, 2023 was nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than delta 0 and way outside natural variation. We know that other sources of temperature modulation (the sun, volcanoes, etc.) are not responsible for this increase in global temperature.
TLDR: Climate change is driven by humans. It's over 95% certain that humans are the cause of global warming.
@Fabric_Hater I just looked it up for you. According to Lower CO2 emissions through better technology by Gernot Gessinger, about 60% of excess emissions are anthropogenic. A huge amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere every year by natural causes. The paper is from 1997, so these numbers are probably around 1990, but at that time, 200 gigatons of CO2 were from natural causes and humans provided about 8 more gigatons into the atmosphere. Almost all of the 200 gigatons emitted are reabsorbed, but the extra CO2 provided by anthropogenic means accumulates in our oceans and in the atmosphere which causes global warming. Iirc Wikipedia puts the contribution of CO2 to the total greenhouse effect at around 9-26 percent. This is the second largest contributor, with the largest being water vapor. This is why the small net carbon emissions provided by human kind causes an increase in CO2 levels which then contributes to the total greenhouse effect, thus warming the planet. This is in spite of decreased solar output in the past couple decades. The effect of anthropogenic CO2 is not large, but it is big enough for us to not want it around. The fact that we output only a small amount of the total CO2, but a relatively large amount of the net CO2 means that this is a problem that takes a long time to accumulate, as we have seen.
@@ethanbottomley-mason8447 so what percent of climate change is naturally occuring vs anthropogenic? There was a noaa study a couple years ago that determined 80% of the warming off the California coast was caused by slower winds. That leaves 20% for all other effects.
I do love how confidently climate change deniers will spout lies that could literally be debunked with grade school science. I'm not even kidding I could see through them when I was 12 just as easily as I could now at 25. I think they're the type of person that didn't listen in science class because they thought it was boring and now they're unknowingly making fools of themselves.
No amount of heat from CO2 will ever be enough to break sweden's old heat record from the 29th of june 1947.
Abolish all fossil fuel subsidies
I can't believed you skinned Craig for his jacket hide
It's the overly optimistic crew United. Meanwhile in the real world things are getting worse faster. Record GHG levels and rising fast, accelerating warming (as stated by Hausfarther, Hansen, WMO), 16-month average is over 1.5C (copernicus 1850-1900). SST completed a run of 365+ contiguous daily temperature records. EEI double what it was 20 years ago (Schuckmann). Planetary boundary violations worsening (Rockstrom). In the zone for 5 tipping points (lenton), and closing in on 5 more.
I think we all need to be a little delusional in our optimism to not fall into despair. It's absurd, but it's the way to make the least terrible out of a bad situation.
Another might be to mobilize and topple the world's governments by force immediately (or even better, via time-machine, 50 years ago), and enact reasonable policy changes in a stable political climate, but that's even more delusional.
Right, but this is a self selecting group who are trying to understand reality. How closely do we dare to look at the biophysical reality, upon which all our social, political, economic, and cultural realities rest. I wish for better from these highly intelligent engaged communicators. There appears to be an interesting dynamic around what entities are willing to say, and what their audiences are willing to hear.
Emissions have been accelerating downwards for years, and likely peaked last year. Whether or not overall warming is spiraling out of control, emissions aren't.
I never mentioned emissions. I was referring to GHG atmospheric concentrations at record highs and going up fast. Why are the levels so high? ... That is for the scientists to work out. The levels dictate the climate forcing, not the yearly emissions. There is a list of usual suspects that could explain it, but need to listen to the experts and see their evidence.
One of the latest podcasts of Jordan Peterson hosted a former GreenPeace Canada president and scientist, where they discussed how climate change would be beneficial. It all felt off for me, and I'm wondering if there is anyone offering counter points to what was said there.
They mainly discussed how we're actually in the coldest period in a few million years, how more CO2 is actually good for the environment (because plants), and how warming is OK since we're tropical and it will open up more opportunities for living and farming in cold areas.
Thanks!
The former Greenpeace guy is known to receive money from fossil fuels, and he is like extremely former Greenpeace no longer holds any relationship to him and actively denounces him for pulling a 180°, that doesn't mean they were lying but it is something to bear in mind
There can be benefits without it being beneficial. Us being in a cold period doesn't mean that it's good to accelerate us to a hotter one. C02 is survivable for much of the environment, that's true to my knowlege.
While it could open opportunities in cold areas, the extremes of the weather caused by climate change will make many warm/hot areas completely uninhabitable. So, that's a net balance except that you'd have people moving out of these areas into areas unprepared for them
that's not even accounting for any of the other unpleasant side effects of climate change like all the animals that are dying and more severe weather events. i don't see those points as doing much of anything to balance out the potential harm of a climate changing in this way. after all, plants would be fine if we just left them alone as well - deforestation is done by humans. plants existing is not a benefit of climate change
thing is that they twist truths. Yes (as far as I know anyay) we are/were in the colder era of the cycle, but thanks to us going haywire in the 1800s up until even today, our planet isn't warming up slowly over a few hundred thousand years, but over just 200 years. This is ofc bad for the planet because plants and animals can't adapt that quickly to such a temperature change
@@Barely_Edited and the speed of the change along with it not just being a, places get warmer. Biggest problem is that climate is complex so the more you distance yourself from the previous equilibrium, the harder it will be for us to function as we are accustomed to, add on top of that the morality of stuff like deleting coral reefs and so on and there is very clearly a good action and a bad inaction
@@AnymMusic end of a glaciation, yes, but when this guys talk about it, they almost want you to think the earth was a snowglove two decades ago and fossil fuels saved us, most often it goes beyond twisting truths and they straight up twist logic I feel like
Thank you for continuing to help educate and inform us :)
Lets get some activity multiple comments!
Great video! :)
Excellent collab video, Simon!!! Thank you, Sir!
I love that you had so many collaborators on this video!
Being in my mid/late fifties myself, I have friends (on the conservative side of the spectrum) whose main argument seems to be 'well, we didn't need it in our day, so why should we do it now?' And I have both tons of answers to that...and none, because they are intelligent, and educated and motoring enthusiasts (and also, to be fair, somewhat disabled, so are more car dependent than we are) and nothing I can say (and do say!) and I can't change their minds. I know this, because I've tried (and, as has been pointed out, there are often not the personal mitigations that would perhaps change their minds). Sigh.
That must be incredibly grating.
Brilliant insights from everyone and brilliant video.
Thank you so much for having me on this, so honored.
I should also mention that I love the jacket. 💚
Great video Simon! Keep up the good work!
Overall, great video! Love the range of experts especially!
If you don't mind some constructive criticism though, I think your video could be more powerful if you changed the order of the questions. A mistake a lot of us on the Left often make is assuming the types of arguments that work on us will work on the Right. But if they did, then they wouldn't be on the Right.
For example, the first question was on the cost of fixing climate change. The question veered very quickly off the economics, or at least didn't link back strongly enough for somebody who's actually asking that question. Eg I think you'd reach more people if that answer had focussed first on the stuff similar to your previous video where changes to protect the climate save money in and of themselves, and when talking about the additional economic cost of _not_ taking action, not giving the hard examples such as cost of infra repair following natural disasters. If somebody from the Right came to this video and saw that as the first answer, they would check out completely right then, not getting to the later parts that _do_ actually address this!
And then that was followed up immediately with a question whose answer appeals to the watcher's sense of being a part of a global community, when many of the people asking that second question do not care about those more than a few miles from their front door; if they _did_ care, they would already care about climate change. Appealing to the sense of global community would be more impactful if you'd already appealed to the Right's selfish interests first, eg "examples of wildfires destroying more homes, that freak snowstorm in Texas a few years ago, other natural disasters that _you_ are more likely to experience more often. And if you're worried about more natural disasters impacting your family, also spare a thought for the Global South, where families are being impacted by these events even more often, where our actions are having an outside impact on them."
To be clear, all the info provided in this video was really good, and all the presenters really good! I just think your argument would work more effectively if you tweaked the order to put the stuff that the Right (the group we're trying to convince, because the Left is already convinced) cares about at the top, and use all the other arguments as additional reinforcement once those initial assumptions have been cracked apart 😊
Great video, gonna be sharing this around
Love the new look with the jacket
This is great Simon! It's heartwarming to see everyone great in a single video.
You forgot “CO2 is plant food”. Hear that one all the time.
I think it’s about time that we stopped referencing just the global rise in temperature (because people translate this to thinking if their own climate is 2 degrees warmer and they experience cold winters then it’s happy days). We need to reference how each 0.1% of temperature rise translates to extra retained energy and how this corresponds to extreme weather events etc.
Thank you for this video. I immediately added skepticalscience to my bookmarks!
Thank you Simon :) I hadn't come across the sceptical science site before - will definitely look into that!
Based.
I'll come back for my innoculation again next year.
great video, looking forward to the year
All ny favourite UA-camrs in one video! 😊
Love this colab and gameshow getup, brings across the info in an entertaining way
It’s depressing how powerful denial is.
You don't even know what denial means, sweden's seasons are all cooling since the peak in mid 2010's everyone can feel our springs are colder and less reliable than for example 20 years ago.
@@albin4323 They're getting wetter not colder, and it's because of climate change.
@@hedgehog3180 Stop blaming every change on the seasons of climate change, it's cooling here anyone can feel it even those highly educated upper middle class people in my area all say springs are getting colder, the 10-year average clearly shows that spring peaked around the mid 2010's.
@@albin4323 Changing seasons is literally by definition an example of climate change. And no they're not saying that and I know it because I live in Denmark and read Swedish newspapers so sorry but your tricks won't work on me. Hell I can go ask some of my Swedish friends about this and they'd probably laugh at you.
@@hedgehog3180 I live here so i should know what's changing or not, swedish strawberry harvests is going down last couple of years and these cold mid april-end of may periods are the reason for it.
I'm not interested if the global average climate will warm but that doesn't mean every place will experience the same effect.
Commenting to boost for the algorithm, let's put this video in front of more people!
Simon the climate Shill. 👎🏻
@@lizelleswanepoel116 You don't have to keep watching.
something you haven't mentioned here that I think is worth knowing is the "look at how much energy green power needs to replace" diatribe
most graphs that appear in the media about how much energy we consume don't take into account the near 70% losses of fossil fuels, only about 30% of that power needs to be replaced since only 30% of it is actually useable
the acceptable "green coal" is coal that is spray painted green with automotive paint and classified as decorative item, otherwise it's just a waste of time, energy and hot air... if we were able to harvest as much energy as it is to "prove" that coal can be clean and green we could have deemed it enough to compete with nuclear energy and all the energy issues would be solved by the energy of debate.
About 'individual effort', by us little raindrops; we need to be careful of the Carbon Footprint trap. (Promoted by BP), as it can look like it is impossible to make real change, and live the life you had previously. We also need to be careful of imagining a real net zero, as meaning a reduced, shrunken life, with cold rooms, and hot water only when the sun shines. The 'New Energy' and its electrical gadgets, from EVs to heat pumps, are simply better, and cheaper over a lifetime.
Individual effort can also include political action.
Oh-oh elections coming up. Better call up the team for this one. *Climate Avengers Theme*
This whole "country x is to small, we have no impact, China should do something" argument is so tiring. I'm from a small country, Austria, and I once compared doing something against climate change on a global level vs voting in an election. Long story short my country's global CO2 emissions are about 0,22% of all emitted CO2. One vote in an election comes down to 0,000017% of all votes. So doing something against climate change as a small country has, in percentage terms, far more impact then a single vote in an election, yet most people think it is very important to vote.
Maybe someone from another small country can use this comparison in one of those tedious conversations (assuming the math is done for that country obviously).
It's also very dumb because if you're a small country it is obviously way more important to get ahead of the curve so your economy doesn't end up being outdated. I mean just look at my country, Denmark, we were early adopters of wind, energy efficiency technologies and loads of other things and we're raking in the cash right now. Vestas and Siemens Wind Power are both located in Denmark and are the biggest wind power companies in the world. Denmark basically wasn't touched by the post-Covid recession because Danish tech companies have suddenly become giants.
Skeptical science is such a great resource. Excellent video as always.
A major cause of global warming is that CO2 retains thermal energy, and the explanation regarding vibrations in quantum physics that was introduced last time on this site is correct.
I think the heated CO2 rises a little and convects along with water vapor to a height that promotes global warming.
Therefore, if explanations from quantum theory had been widespread throughout the world since ancient times, I believe that the naysayers would have been refuted and global warming would have slowed down much more slowly.
I'm aware that the current hot topic in North America and Europe is that the seawater temperature in the Atlantic Ocean has risen, but this is becoming more complex because the seawater temperature has coincided with the rise in temperature.
Personally, I think that summers are getting hotter, and many people are using coolers to emit more CO2, and outdoor units are emitting heat into the atmosphere, which is a contributing factor to accelerating global warming.
If you know anyone who works as a window manufacturer in North America, please introduce them.
I have an idea to install the device that is my icon in the window, and I would like to discuss it with you.
Thoughts on disrupting cirrus clouds that trap the most heat?
So, let me just say first, excellent video. And second, I get it that youtube isn't conducive to these kinds of discussions. But I for one am of the strong opinion that information should be free and accessible to anyone and everyone. Especially science-related and education-related information. Nebula, as a paid service, *does not fit that ideal,* and is not a service I can personally support, both from a financial perspective as a broke disabled person who can't seem to get any benefits, and from a moral standpoint as I do not believe that educational information should be behind a paywall, no matter how small that paywall is.
Don't get me wrong, you do excellent work and I hope you continue to do said work, and I do believe you deserve to be compensated fairly for the work that you do, and Nebula as a concept is utterly brilliant - a website specifically dedicated to educational and scientific content would be great. But it being a paid service completely undermines any value it would otherwise have by continuing to keep education and knowledge - information necessary to actually effect real change and improve not just one's own life but the lives of all those around them - out of the hands of the poorest, and in the hands of those with enough disposable income to waste on a subscription to something which, from an ethical standpoint, should be free in my opinion.
Love to hear all these different scientists! Thanks for all your great work!