Never before in human history have we been
richer, more advanced or powerful. And yet we feel overwhelmed in the face of
rapid climate change. It seems simple on the surface. Greenhouse gases trap energy from the Sun
and transfer it to our atmosphere. This leads to warmer winters, harsher summers. Dry places become drier and wet places wetter. Countless ecosystems will die while the rising
oceans swallow coasts and the cities we build on them. So why don’t we just like… prevent all
of that? Well, it’s complicated. The public debate about stopping rapid climate
change often focuses on a few key features, like coal plants, cars or burping cows. And so the solutions are often simplistic
– rows of solar panels, biking to work, something something sustainability. And a huge talking point is personal responsibility. How YOU should change your lifestyle to prevent
rapid climate change, which we will find out together in the next few minutes. This is one of those videos where we want
to encourage you to watch to the end, because to discuss real doable solutions, we first
need to understand the problem. A Fuller Picture Modern industrial society as we constructed
it in the last 150 years, is inherently destructive to the planet. Basically everything we do to make our lives
easier, safer and more comfortable is making things worse for the biosphere. The food we eat, the streets we walk on, the
clothes we wear, the gadgets we use, the way we move around and the pleasant temperatures
we artificially create around us. While most people know about the serious impact
of energy, beef, cars and planes, many major polluters are barely ever talked about. The emissions leaking out of landfills are
as significant as the emissions of all the jets in the air. More CO2 is released to run our homes than
from all cars combined. And the emissions produced when making a new
car is equivalent to building just two metres of road. So it is nice to switch to electric cars but
they won’t solve anything if we keep building roads the same way. Fixing one small part of the industrial system
is not enough. Each of the many different parts needs its
own solution and many of them aren’t straight forward. But even where we know what to do, just because
a solution exists doesn’t mean we are able or willing to implement it. There are many gray areas in the fight against
rapid climate change, the most prominent one is the divide between rich and poor. Emissions vs poverty There is a clear connection between the prosperity
of a nation and its carbon emissions. In other words, richer people tend to cause
more emissions. So the key to fixing climate change is simply
for the world’s richest to cut back on their extravagant lifestyles right? While this would help, it wouldn’t make
the problem go away. This is because 63% of global emissions come
from low to middle income countries. Countries where most people are not living
extravagantly but are trying to escape poverty at worst, and achieve a comfortable lifestyle
at best. The unfortunate reality is that, currently,
escaping poverty and becoming middle class creates unavoidable emissions. So asking developing countries to cut emissions
just looks like an attempt to keep them down. It is very hard to argue that a region should
protect their primeval forests and spend money on solar panels instead of burning wood, when
it can’t meet basic needs for significant parts of its population. So, cutting back is not a popular demand,
especially if the countries making these demands got rich by causing environmental damage in
the past. For billions of people, more emissions are
a good thing personally. When we forget about this, we tend to propose
unworkable solutions. Take concrete. 8% of CO2 emissions are released by the concrete
manufacturing industry. Ok cool, stop using concrete, right? But right now, concrete is also a cheap and
easy way for growing populations in developing countries to build affordable housing. And there are many examples like that. Even rich countries aren’t immune from disagreeing
about rapid climate change solutions. Banning coal, gas and oil from the energy
mix is slowed down by heated discussions about what should replace them. Citizens can be strictly against nuclear power
but also oppose wind or solar infrastructure in their backyards. In principle all of these issues can be overcome
– but there are things we don’t currently know how to overcome. The most problematic one is food. Emit or Die We will soon need to feed 10 billion people,
and we don’t know how to do that without emitting greenhouse gases. Because of the nature of modern food production
that requires fertilizers or manure, it is impossible to have zero-emissions food. Rice alone emits so much methane each year
that it practically equals the emissions of all the air traffic in the world. What’s worse is that the foods we like the
most emit the most. 57% of food emissions come from animal-based
foods, although they make up only 18% of the world’s calories, and 37% of its protein. And as people across the world grow richer,
they want more meat. Traditional diets in most cultures were primarily
plant based with a little meat on top. But with the rise of industrial style meat
production and factory farming, meat has become a staple food; a regular indulgence in developed
countries and a symbol of status and wealth in developing countries. Today about 40 percent of the world’s habitable
land is used for meat production in some form or another, the size of North and South America
combined. This is land on which we could otherwise allow
native ecosystems to regrow, like forests in the Amazon, and suck carbon out of the
atmosphere, but instead most of it is used to feed animals. The available solutions are uniquely able
to make everybody on the political spectrum, rich or poor, unhappy. Meat is highly emotional and there are a lot
of whataboutism arguments floating around, like comparing it to the worst sources of
emissions. In the end it is pretty simple: eating less
meat alone won’t stop climate change, but we also can’t stop climate change without
eating less meat. The same holds true for other things that
are less crucial to our survival but frankly not realistic to make go away. Like air travel, oversea shipping, mining
and the production of devices that play youtube videos. So what does this mean? Do we need to give up our way of life and
can the poor never achieve it? Can’t some technology save us so we can
continue to drive our big cars and eat meat every day? Solutions vs Expenses In principle, this technology already exists:
Direct Air Capture of CO2 draws carbon dioxide from the air so that it can be stored underground
or transformed into products. So why aren’t we implementing it in every
industry, everywhere? Because with the technology we have right
now, this would cost some ten trillion dollars per year, or half the United States’ GDP. This money has to come from somewhere and
currently no-one is offering it. Just dumping these costs on massive polluters
like steel mills and coal power stations would double the cost of their products – and
so these industries that operate on very tight profit margins would go bankrupt. Getting the government to pay for it seems
logical but a lot of state resources are actually tied up doing the opposite, like subsidizing
oil and gas. Which seems counter intuitive but follows
clear incentives. By artificially keeping fuel prices low, shipping
and everyday goods are kept artificially cheap too. Which has a major social impact on billions
of people around the world. That creates political lobbies and incentives
that perpetuate this cycle that makes it so hard to cut off fossil fuel production. Meanwhile, very costly solutions for a far-off
problem like carbon capture seem like they can wait, as technically nobody benefits from
it right now. Some argue that a move away from capitalism
is the only solution to this mess, others insist that markets should be even freer,
without any interventions like subsidies and some suggest that we need what’s referred
to as “degrowth” and to cut back as a species overall. But the truth is at least as of now, no political
system is doing an impressive job at becoming truly sustainable and none have really done
so in the past. We also don’t have the time to figure this
out and do a lot of experiments. We must implement solutions now. Not just to halt the release of all possible
greenhouse gases, but also to start reducing the amount of CO2 in the air. It’s too late to just mend our ways, we
have to actively correct our past mistakes. With every year we waste, more extreme changes
will be unavoidable. Ok. Let’s take a deep breath. Rapid climate change and the world we live
in are complicated. So here is where YOU, dear viewer, come in
again. Could YOU please fix the climate? A narrative of our time is that we are all
responsible for rapid climate change. That everyone needs to play their part. Why don’t you buy a new electric car? Why don’t you replace your gas stove with
an electric one? How about you double glaze your windows, stop
eating meat and switch off your lights? Shifting responsibility from the largest carbon
emitters to the average person, you, is much easier to do than solving problems. There’s an extra bonus if solving rapid
climate change sells a new product. If you don’t have the money or time for
these things, you should feel bad. It’s an effective message because it is
true. The quickest way to cut CO2 emissions would
be if all rich populations on Earth drastically changed their lifestyles and if the people
on the rise would not seek to achieve it. Favouring the climate over comfort and wealth. If you are able to watch this video, this
includes you. But we’ve just witnessed a global experiment
in staying at home, not using transport and consuming less during the coronavirus pandemic. And all it did was reduce CO2 emissions by
7% for 2020. Asking average people to solve rapid climate
change breaks down when we look at the scale of the problem. Personal contributions toward reducing greenhouse
gas emissions are nice, but they are dwarfed by the systemic reality of global emissions. The concept of your personal carbon footprint
was popularized by the oil producer BP in a 2005 ad campaign. Arguably one of the most effective and sinister
pieces of propaganda that still seriously distracts all of us from the reality of the
situation. If you eliminated 100% of your emissions for
the rest of your life, you would save one second’s worth of emissions from the global
energy sector. Even the most motivated person can’t even
make a tiny dent. When we put together the dangers of rapid
climate change, the scale of emissions and the lack of consensus over how to solve it,
the challenge seems insurmountable. It can cause decision fatigue and moral licensing,
where you no longer feel bad about behaving in a counter productive way. We have struggled a long time with this, which
is why this video took us so long to make. So. What can you actually do? There are many different takes and they are
passionately discussed. We don’t know who is right, so we can only
offer you the Kurzgesagt perspective and opinion. Opinion Part: What can you ACTUALLY do? We need a different way to think and talk
about rapid climate change. An all-encompassing systemic approach, nothing
less than changing the fundamentals of our modern industrial societies. As discussed in frustrating length, the personal
responsibility angle is overplayed. For systemic changes in technology, politics
and the economy of this magnitude, we need to influence the people at the levers. Politicians need to know and feel strongly
that the people care, that their own success depends on tackling rapid climate change. When governments and local politicians are
reluctant to change laws that affect their biggest tax contributors or campaign donors,
we need to vote them out and vote in people who respect science. We need to hold them accountable for implementing
the most effective climate change strategies. Not waste our time with things like banning
plastic straws but by moving the big levers: Food, transportation and energy while not
forgetting the smaller ones like cement or construction. When industries fight against changing their
ways, for fear of losses or in an honest attempt to protect their own, we need politicians
to change the laws and incentivise the deployment of existing technologies and massively invest
in innovation for the fields where we don’t have great solutions yet. There is no reason that the profit interests
of industries could not match the need to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. And if they still don’t cooperate harsh
punishments and regulation need to force or bankrupt them. It's still unrealistic that change of that
scope can be forced onto a worldwide economy quickly enough, because many low carbon technologies
still need a lot of time and research – which means they are expensive. But more companies will make more efficient
carbon capture systems, tasty meat alternatives, better batteries, cement alternatives and
so on, if there is a clear and growing demand. And if you are affluent enough, you can do
your part by investing in these things right now while they're still expensive. These are the mechanisms that will drive the
prices down later on. So this is basically what you can do. Vote at the ballot, vote with your wallet. There are too many opposing interests and
complicated grey zones. In the end if we truly get the systemic change
we need, everybody will be unhappy about some aspect of it. Only if we all accept that some solutions
will have negative impacts for us, can we have an honest conversation and make progress. Everybody will be a little unhappy. And that is ok. This is the best you can do. You can deal with the reality of the situation
and promote your priorities through your behaviour and your actions. And while you do so, you can eat less meat,
fly less or get an electric car. Not because you should feel guilty if you
don’t or because you naively believe that you alone can stop rapid climate change – but
to do your tiny, tiny part for the systemic change we need. This video was supported by Gates Notes, the
personal blog of Bill Gates, where he writes about global health, climate change, and more. Check out gatesnotes.com to learn more about
ways the world can work together to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions, or use the
link below. And in the spirit of transparency, if you
want to learn more about how we handle Sponsorships like this one, we also have a medium article
describing how we do it.
I'm glad they brought this fact up. A lot of people seem to think the whole planet will turn into a desert because of climate change when in reality it will actually get wetter on average. Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
edit: A counter-intuitive result of this phenomenon is that places like Antarctica and Greenland will get more snow during the winter than they have in the past. This effect is generally overwhelmed by the increased melting in the summer, but the flux in sea and land ice has increased significantly. You can see in this video how the maximum arctic sea ice extent during the winter has been relatively unchanged over the past decades, while the minimum and thickness has plummeted.
Here's a TL;DW (didn't watch) for those interested in spreading the word.
21st C. industry is inherently destructive to the planet. Everything is bad for the planet, and there's a lot that's overlooked when we talk about individual pollution sources:
Carbon capture technology exists, but it's too costly at present; would cost $10 trillion per year to eliminate all GHG produced (=50% US GDP). Problem is there is no incentive to act because no one would benefit from this in the near term.
Do we need to give up our way of life? Worldwide subsidies for energy production make everything else artificially cheap, disincentivizing everyone from doing something about GHG emissions.
Suggested solutions:
Can you personally fix climate change?
What can you actually do?
And I might add: follow the money...don't forget your retirement savings! Move investments from oil, gas, weapons, and other polluting and inequitable industries into environmental, social and governance (ESG) or socially responsible (SRI) investments!
An uncomfortable fact for many, I'm sure.
The uncomfortable truth is that for any 1 country to become more sustainable, they have to willingly reduce their quality of life while watching other countries continue to pollute the environment and reap the benefits.
What an absolutely fantastic take, Kurzgesagt has once again hit it out of the park. No solution is too small or too big, we need to do what we can at the personal level and push for systemic change at the same time.
People have been saying this for years but unfortunately Social media loves to shift blame everything.
whataboutism and other stuff. Its frustrating to talk about climate change solutions on the internet imo.
IMO there's a natural response to the whole political argument which is that currently our voices are not considered in politics and elections. So then to fix climate change we have to get money out of politics. You can't just say "make your voice heard" when our system is so fucked only the rich are truly heard.
Individuals planting trees, going zero waste and going vegan helps, but isn't nearly enough, this video is why: https://youtu.be/awyp495Ran4
And it's why so many environmentalists are behind the https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/
It has widespread support from economists
https://www.econstatement.org/
as well as many other groups https://energyinnovationact.org/statements/
As well as bipartisan popular support https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/566589-what-if-the-us-taxed-its-fossil-fuels-and-gave-a-check-to-every?amp
Using efficient economic levers of taxes and dividend is a conservative method that doesn't require big government bureaucratic bloat.
However, the EICD act does not have congressional support from republicans. As for why, the hold that mega donor special interest groups have on politicians is not a well-kept secret: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Network
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/
Nuclear energy has a tiny footprint and releases no greenhouse gases after its construction. It is incredibly stable and steady and provides a lot of energy.
It is safer than all the forms of mass energy production. Natural gas, oil and coal have much larger death toll than all nuclear plant incidents combined. We need to safely store the used fuel rods but that’s it for downsides.