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.

Trump has blamed State governors for fires on federal land for 3 1/2 years+ but has done nothing to solve the problems on land he controls.

The failure has been in the making longer than that, try since the industrial revolution. I live in a rain forest starting it's third decade of drought. It's a major climate shift. The science is settled, not in question for decades.

No, he needs to listen to the professional forest managers already there instead of ignoring them because he knows more about everything than anyone. See his recent meeting with California's forest managers for examples of his stupidity, his plan is just like for Covid, do nothing, blame others, deny there's a problem, claim it will just go away, blame others again, pat himself on the back for a job perfectly done.

His idea, rake the forests, is just dumb and impossible. Only a complete moron believes you can rake up 33 million acres of mountainous forests, including removing all forest litter which is necessary habitat for many forest creatures and downed trees like redwoods that are useless as lumber. Only a stupid ignoramus believes that's a solution.

Let's say it costs about $1000 per acre, a vast underestimation, that's an extra $330 billion per year for raking California's forests alone. Is Trump offering to fund that, or is he cutting funding instead? (Hint, he cut funding)

Much of the mismanagement is from fighting fires. For decades the plan was don't let any fire burn, that's left forests with 2-5 times the fuel it would naturally have. The last decade that's been realised and when possible fires are allowed to burn. It's too little too late.

Trump's idea of draining the swamp has been plugging the outlets and pumping millions of gallons of sewage into it. That means removing career civil servants and selling positions to friends and contributors with no experience and massive conflicts of interests. Trump's is the most criminal administration ever, with more convictions than any other including Nixon. Politics are incredibly more swampy than before Trump, and the state of the union is crumbling and poised to dissolve into another civil war.

🤦‍♂️

1) I question your sources, because some of the earliest writings ever found were business ledgers dealing with selling grains as I understand it. Capitalism has been a thing since before writing was a thing.

2) um...I think those kids in China would dispute that....THEY made the Iphones, which created a smart phone market by being useful and fun (for most people).

3) do you believe capitalism and the industrial revolution started at the same time, or that capitalism has something to do with surfs, civil rights, or secularism? Capitalism applied to people is indentured servitude, what we lazily call slavery. Unfettered capitalism created a situation where civil rights needed to be delineated and codified, it didn't create them any more than wildfires created firemen imo.

Some people do educate themselves before acting or making purchases, but it's not the norm.

Capitalism says your poor neighbors should die, because capitalism says there is no value to human life...I did a term paper on that. Value is derived from a supply/demand equation, and there's such a glut of humanity that human life has a negative value.

The government paid for around 75% of the technology development. "...it paid for some of the technology...." is incredibly misleading, if technically correct (the best kind of correct). Without a healthy dose of socialism, progress slows to a crawl and only the privileged few can afford it.

1 word....flip-phones. ;-) (I don't even have one of those)

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

There are a few problems they skipped.
First, that bigger pie is still finite, but we act as if it's infinite, pretending that one person having billions doesn't adversely effect others, but that's simply not true.
Second, it overlooked the fact that those countries going through industrial revolution often do so by using other non industrial countries resources, making it impossible to industrialize everywhere....we would need at least one more planet to harvest.
Third, it never pointed out that the GDP increases caused by industrial revolutions were met with massive increases in population, which decreases the per capita net worth significantly. Doubling GDP while tripling population makes the average person have less, not more.

I'm disappointed they didn't mention the French revolution, caused largely by the wealth disparity they're discussing.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.

This video seems to be a long winded version of 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

Misleading title, otherwise it would be a good post. The slave trade of the 1700's would never have grown into what if became if there were not buyers.

@newtboy, you are correct. Slavery indeed long predates the trade of Africans across oceans. Though, it probably didn't start in Mesopotamia because it was probably happening a little bit everywhere there were tribes that were aggressive with each other.

When slavery is thought of in a modern sense, we tend to think of the slave trade during the early stages of the industrial revolution.

And indeed, members of different tribes were more or less kidnapped and brought to the coast by coastal tribes, where they were sold to ships, which usually originated in Europe or N. America.

One of the busiest ports for the slave trade was Dakar, Senegal. The kingdom there would collect people, to take to Goree Island where they would be later loaded onto ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor%C3%A9e

"Literally doom the human race."

I used to be a global warming denier, then a skeptic. I've come around that it is real and that it is caused in large part by human actions. I do admit that I'm still a bit skeptical about how catastrophic it would be to do nothing. Doom the human race? Nah. Decimate the human race (literal/historical definition of "decimate" meaning 10% dead)? Possible, but I think unlikely -- extremely unlikely unless deaths by famine/disease are wholly attributed to climate change. Lots and lots of people displaced over the next 100-200 years if, say, all polar and glacial ice melted (resulting in a ~70 meter sea level rise)? For sure. But they won't drown unless they are incapable of moving away from the ocean at a rate of at least a few meters per year.

In climate terms, a 4 year presidential term is a fraction of a second. In geological terms, 4 years is absolutely nothing. If the (admittedly terrible) climate policies of any single person, even one as powerful as the "leader of the free world" President of the United States over 4 years could literally doom the human race, we'd have been dead a LONG time ago.

I'm not saying it isn't important, and that it won't matter at all what Trump does with regards to climate, the EPA, etc. But even if you limit the timescale to sensible human terms (say, since the Industrial Revolution roughly 250 years ago), another 4 years, no matter how bad, aren't going to throw us over some sort of unrecoverable tipping point.

"The grid" means connected services, like grid electricity, city water, city sewer, piped in natural gas, wired phone, and wired internet.
Living off the grid means living where these services aren't available (or just not using them). It does not mean living like the Hamish or living as if you lived in the pre-industrial revolution era.

I can't fathom why that annoys you. He didn't claim to be living primitively, that's a different guy (and he's awesome).

We will all enjoyed the freedom and comfort of fossil fuel since the industrial revolution. At some point, we all have to pay for the gigatons of mess that we're pumping in the air.

The smart money is on clean energy as oil bounces back above $40 per barrel after the global supply glut had it below $30. Coal investment has tanked since oil peaked in 2009 and solar plants and wind plants are often more cost effective over their lifetimes.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/average_crude_oil_spot_price
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/

These methane clathrate (methane hydrate/hydromethane) deposits have been releasing both under the ocean and from permafrost melt for years now...with the rate of their melt release increasing exponentially.
Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
For those of you who are religious....this is the 'burning seas' you would expect from the apocalypse, because the pockets of gas coming from the ocean are highly flammable, even explosive.
This is why I have said for over a decade that there's absolutely no chance to avoid human extinction along with a world wide extinction of most of life. Once the methane started bubbling up from the sea floor, any chance of stopping the change was gone, and that was a while ago and we've done absolutely nothing but increase the amount of greenhouse gasses we produce. The ocean responds quite slowly to climate change, so there's nothing that can be done now that it's warm enough to release the methane, even if we stopped producing all greenhouse gasses today.

This is game over, people, game over. A massive methane release will have almost immediate effects and could double the entire temperature rise since the industrial revolution almost overnight. When (not if) that happens, say goodbye to nature both on land and in the seas.
The above number, 80% of life on earth vanished, is misleading. 80% of species were lost completely forever, 98% of all biomass died, so of the 20% of species that were left, only 10% of their population survived. Humanity won't.
*doublepromote
*quality

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Brutal, but so true. But ... didn't coffee contribute to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsFxH2zdi_Y

This isnt about the change new technology brings. You can welcome the Digital Age or you can condem it. Doesnt matter. What matters that things WILL change. Very drastically in a small amount of time. A LOT of stupid, boring, menial jobs will soon vanish. Which is a good thing, but what to do with all this people who worked on those jobs?

Our wealth is based on us buying lots and lots of new things. Things and services. For that, we need money. We work to get that money. But if more and more jobs vanish, you cant just wait and hope for the best. You have to somehow counter that loss of expendable income.

What method you use or what combinations will be effective ... time will tell. But relying on the Invisible Hand of God (err ... The Free Market) and making the already super rich even more rich will NOT work.

As i said ... in Davos more and more influental people finally agree that something has to be done, because those job losses and economic changes will happen. Very fast. This is not a slow process like changing from hunter/gatherer to farming. Even the Industrial Revolution took several generations to finally establish itself. The Digital Revolution, in combination with a more and more intertwined, globalized world will change our lives in a matter of only a few decades.