Dishonest drivel by ridiculous ignorami who talk like snobby arrogant 12 year olds with a chip on their shoulders.

Really….he claims indoor plumbing is a major climate change driver, or a symbol of “wokeness”? Wtf is he talking about? More proof that he’s simply rambling nonsense to a crowd or braying morons in suits applauding every insult of the left, not making any valid points.

If enough people press that button to do everything to save their child at all costs without a thought to consequences, every child in the next generation has 5 times the likelihood of not surviving his first year, button or no, and the next 10 times the death rate, and the next 25times….and if everyone pushes that button, it guarantees a near 100% infant death rate this century. There are many ways to improve infant mortality rates without adding to greenhouse emissions….the best being STOP HAVING CHILDREN YOU CANNOT SUPPORT or FEED.

Undeveloped India is going to largely dissolve before they advance technologically. Over 2/3 of the water in that region comes from glaciers….glaciers in many cases expected to be gone completely by 2030. That’s almost 2 billion people suddenly with no water source. There is no technological way to replace that amount of water, never mind the money and energy. Therefore the India and China emission issues he claims are upcoming will likely largely solve themselves as they will be the spearhead of the first major wave of our extinction.

BTW, the comatose (the un-woke) admitted they actually want to ban women in red states from traveling legally because they could get in a car and drive/move to a state where abortion is legal….and they know their HUGELY unpopular plan to make an anti abortion federal law (funny it’s no longer a states rights thing) is a non starter.
So much for freedom.
They also are moving to ban contraception, sodomy, homosexuality, literally any sex that doesn’t lead to unwanted children except heterosexual sex with pre-pubescent girls….they’re in favor of THAT, and have written multiple bills attempting to legalizing it.

You know what also works to cut dairy cow methane emission? Not exploiting cows; breeding them to always produce milk, feeding them hormones to increase their milk production, and not stealing their babies away from them. That plus all the agriculture you feed them that you could instead feed to humans.

Red seaweed (e.g., Asparagopsis taxiformis) has been praised for inhibiting methane production from cattle by more than 80 percent because of its high bromoform content. trihalomethanes, such as bromoform decreases methane emissions from cattle belches.
Unfortunately, red seaweed is difficult to farm.

This particular video above is 4 years old, and seaweed supplements are now past the initial testing phase.

A few more recent articles I found include….

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/592243-hold-off-for-now-on-feeding-seaweed-to-cows-to-reduce-methane/

Professional economist here (hence, perceived as right wing) who began studying economics due to concern about climate change (hence, perceived as left wing).

[1] The classic statement of when markets 'work' is the 'first fundamental theorem of welfare economics'.

[2] 'work' in this sense means 'leads to a Pareto-optimal outcome', which means an outcome in which no one can be made better off without making someone worse off. This is a low standard: an outcome in which I have everything is Pareto-optimal.

[3] the conditions for the welfare theorems are generally not satisfied in practice. Here, as alluded to in the ad, carbon emissions are 'externalities': if an oil company sells you gas, which you then use, both of you are better off, because you're assumed to have taken into account the effects of your exchange, and decided to proceed; other parties have not, so may be worse off.

[4] in general, failure of the welfare theorem conditions isn't enough to make the case for government intervention: the outcome may still be 'constrained' efficient - meaning that, given the inherent constraints in the problem (e.g. asymmetric information), the market outcome is Pareto efficient.

[5] again, even if it is, you may not like the particular constrained efficient outcome the market yields (e.g. I get everything).

[6] in the case of externalities, the theory is pretty well established - if we want efficient outcomes, we need to align the private and social costs. There are two basic market-based tools for doing that: quantity tools (e.g. carbon permits) and price tools (e.g. carbon taxes). Which performs better depends on the sort of market imperfections.

[7] obviously, we will never have a perfect estimate of the efficient price or quantity of carbon to emit in a given year. Equally obviously, to me at least, this is a classic case of an externality with a well developed body of theory pointing in the direction of some level of controls.

[8] in my experience: people familiar with the economic theory tend not to be 'pro-market' or 'anti-market': they tend to want to understand how the market can be used to deliver societal objectives and, when it can't, how to correct its imperfections.

I think the truly scary part is that our emissions today continue to have an effect on the climate for decades - centuries, so to affect today’s climate we needed to change our emissions decades ago or find feasible, economically and ecologically viable massive carbon sequestration techniques yesterday.

That’s why I believe we are locked into massive unsurvivable changes as a best case scenario, and a mass extinction of anything bigger than a large cat. Much worse if we continue the current course.

Lol.
Reasontv, the network of the insanity from Stossel, with the stated position that “free market and deregulation is the solution to any and every problem imaginable”. That’s the best you’ve got!?! Then you’ve got NOTHING. You actually complain that CNN isn’t trustworthy, then you post from Reasontv!?! Er mer gerd! 🤦‍♂️ why not just post Beck or Jones?

They completely misrepresent what the report, and climate activists, and politicians have said with bad editing and lies here, no surprise, you posted it, it was guaranteed to be DISHONEST nonsense propaganda.

Land temperatures reached 1.3C above pre industrial norms in 2020. Every prediction made has come true well ahead of schedule. Temperature rise is accelerating, it’s not the flat straight line nor a slowing rate like they showed but an increasing curve. The last 7 years were all in the top 10 hottest ever, the last decade had 9 of the hottest ever, and we are experiencing a global drought never seen by modern man….but according to you, nothing burger, totally normal, chicken little.

https://www.iflscience.com/nine-of-the-top-10-hottest-years-ever-all-occurred-in-the-last-decade-62232

There is one thing I agree with, the “12 years to stop climate disaster” notion (not what the science says btw) is wrong. We have -20 years +-. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere today will effect climate for hundreds to a thousand years, the nitrous oxide for about 120, methane around 10. We have reached the point where natural emissions will soon take over, adding more than humans ever did. Scientists estimate that’s at 1.5C, but every estimate they’ve made public has turned out to be optimistic in the extreme, so 1.5C is almost certainly wishful thinking and 1.25C is more likely the threshold. We can both mitigate the effects and slow the rate of change, but at this point staying below 1.5C is a pipe dream no one is actually even working towards.

I think the reality is that, using current models, assuming no surprises or feedback loops, we have (now 8 ) years before the adding these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will carry us well beyond 1.5C above “normal” with no additional emissions needed….not that we will definitely hit 1.5 by 2030 but we will be able to coast there even with zero emissions.
I know, math and science together, way too hard, better to just listen to the oil spokesmen who say “it’s a hoax, pay no attention to the cities reaching 130F, the unprecedented heat globally, the rapidly melting (or melted) glaciers that historically provide drinking water for 1.9 BILLION people, or the never before seen by man extreme global droughts, they’re all normal and natural and why are you still talking about it?”.

No surprise, one more undeniable, in your face disaster you simply deny exists….like Covid, Jan 6, Russian election interference, -3.5%gdp, Trump terrorism, etc.
Can we have your name so when the global food supply is insufficient we know who’s family to deny food?

When your grasp on reality is broken, you can be convinced of any nonsense.

I wonder how this man profits from spreading this misinformation.

So you know, bob. Oil isn’t made out of dinosaurs, it’s made up mostly of decomposed diatoms, algae, zooplankton, and other microorganisms, transformed under heat and pressure.
It is a finite resource.
If we burn it all, it’s CO2 emissions alone would cause an estimated approximately 200 ft of sea level rise (and likely near total planetary extinction).

PS- shouldn’t it be “The oranges of oil falsely defined in 1892”?

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

I think the worst part of these summits is their stated goals.
Paris intended to keep warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050 (no real plan beyond then)…but you might recall, 1.5 degrees of warming is considered the tipping point where feedback loops and natural processes outpace human inputs, meaning even if we hit zero emissions by 2050, and if everyone kept to their Paris agreement promises, and if other nations don’t continue to ramp up emissions, and if unforeseen feedback loops aren’t stronger or faster acting than predicted, we still lose control completely by 2050. That’s the best plan we have, runaway climate shifts in <30 years AT BEST….and no one seems to be living up to even that planned disaster of a plan. Emissions aren’t being cut, they’re increasing. Feedback loops are ramping up 40 years earlier than predicted. All the while, people are complaining that gas is over $3 (I haven’t seen it under $4 in decades where I live) and insisting we adopt some heavily polluting power generation instead of investing in green energy solutions. People assume, it seems, that some last minute fix will solve climate change, ignoring the fact that emissions from today are reactive in the atmosphere for between 25 and 150 years, so we needed to be at net zero 25 years ago to even start effecting the atmosphere today…and some emissions from the industrial revolution are still effecting us now. Net zero by 2050 (a pipe dream, and the best plan so far) is planning to fail completely…like turning off the blast furnace in your house when the thermometer hits 450.5 inside and thinking you can stop it from burning down.
If Covid taught us anything, it’s that there is 0% chance humans will be able to cooperate enough to tackle climate change. People were asked to simply wear a mask and distance a bit to save their lives, and enough refused to do it that the methods that worked beautifully elsewhere failed miserably to control a virus. If we can’t pull off such a simple, blatantly obvious plan against a virus, what chance is there of cooperation across the board to sacrifice enormous amounts of money and completely revamp our wasteful way of life in uncountable ways to stop something seen as a future problem by many? IMO, there so little chance of pulling it off that it’s statistically correct to say there’s absolutely no chance at all.

A bit odd they're making an enormous concrete dam as a carbon emission offset, because cement makes .9lbs of CO2 for every lb of cement. (Cement makes up approximately 10% of concrete by weight...1 gallon of concrete weighs approximately 20 lbs, they used 21.4 million gallons) ....that's a shitload of CO2 for materials alone.
Plus big dams kill their rivers.
Hydro electric is not really green energy....not this kind of hydro electric anyway. Maybe micro hydro.

Duh....install as many high power using carbon sequestering designs as there's room for. Use that surplus clean power to offset some of the enormous dirty power emissions...suddenly there won't be enough wind and water power again.
Too much clean power is only a problem for the completely unimaginative.

He touched on why I've said for 20+ years that it's already too late to stop out of control climate change or save civilization as we know it. Even if we managed to produce more clean energy than we can distribute, switching older polluting technology over to clean energy is a bigger problem than clean generation. Assume we had the ability to power every form of transportation using clean and cheap energy....it would still take decades and tens if not hundreds of trillions to replace the combustion engines alone, with the corresponding new ecological issues of creating, building, and implementing a new power usage method across the board. In order to reverse the carbon trend, we needed an excess of clean energy and the desire to use it exclusively decades ago, because the change over will take decades after the clean power generation ability exists.... decades we no longer have.


Side note, aren't they worried all those wind turbines are going to give them all cancer?

*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

Says the dumb fuck who didn't graduate 8th grade, just like his pa and paw paw.

118F, Bob. Shouldn't be over 40F. All time highs broken world wide daily...but nope, Bob knows better than everyone with his 80 IQ and D average through middle school. You are such a dumb fuck it's amazing. I bet you also insist trickle down works for the poor, cigarettes aren't addictive and don't cause cancer, and the sun revolves around the earth carried in a flying chariot. Leave the science to people with brains, please. You only force us to ridicule you when you pretend to know or even understand it.

No Bob. All is lost now thanks to fucking idiotic morons like you.
We have tipped some tipping points, started the natural feedback loops that signal the end of our opportunity to control the changes, there is now no avoiding severe climate change that civilization will not survive, likely humans won't survive at all.

Yes, Bob, actually ALL experts, including UN experts, agree. Climate change isn't a theory, it's reality. It's unavoidable. Now, it's likely unmitigateable and unsurvivable. Your video was from 3 years ago and was overly optimistic then, assuming we would lower emissions rather than ramp them up, things are exponentially worse today because instead of curtailing our emissions we've increased them to over 36.5 BILLION tons per year...if forests were all healthy at 1900 levels they could absorb 7 billion tons, but thanks to deforestation and droughts, that's cut in half or worse. Same goes for the carbon sinks in the ocean, they were absorbing around 7 billion tons a year, now heat and acidity have all but stopped them from absorbing CO2 and destroyed the most diverse ecosystems underwater.
Estimates are 1600 billion tons of carbon are stored in permafrost as methane, which is 25 times as damaging as CO2 in the short term. That's >40 times the carbon humans produce annually, all in the worst of greenhouse gasses, and it's melting out rapidly....exploding out in many cases.

I hope you live long enough to be forced to accept responsibility for your stupidity...something fitting, along the lines of being slowly eaten alive by your family for days before they're murdered by a mob of survivors for their water before you die in agony, limbless, dehydrated, and burnt to a crisp. You deserve no less.

Such an unbelievable bat shit crazy moron you've become.

"Climate scientists are increasingly concerned that global heating will trigger tipping points in Earth’s natural systems, which will lead to widespread and possibly irrevocable disaster, unless action is taken urgently.

The impacts are likely to be much closer than most people realise, a a draft report from the world’s leading climate scientists suggests, and will fundamentally reshape life in the coming decades even if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under some control.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is preparing a landmark report to be published in stages this summer and next year. Most of the report will not be published in time for consideration by policymakers at Cop26, the UN climate talks taking place in November in Glasgow.

A draft of the IPCC report apparently from early this year was leaked to Agence France-Presse, which reported on its findings on Thursday. The draft warns of a series of thresholds beyond which recovery from climate breakdown may become impossible. It warns: “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems … humans cannot.”"