Climate Change Is Happening. Here's How We Adapt | Alice Bows-Larkin | TED Talks

Imagine the hottest day you've ever experienced. Now imagine it's six, 10 or 12 degrees hotter. According to climate researcher Alice Bows-Larkin, that's the type of future in store for us if we don't significantly cut our greenhouse gas emissions now. She suggests that it's time we do things differently-a whole system change, in fact-and seriously consider trading economic growth for climate stability.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector

[@rchuso]

We're not going to change, and we're probably not going to adapt -- because it's not financially advantageous in the short term. No politician can afford to follow the path of _change and adapt_ because they're only elected for a few short years, and their supporters are the wealthy.. it's not to their advantage in the short term. Austerity? Not until it's too late.

[@sinjint4247]

+Rand Huso ur dumb

[@rchuso]

Cryptonymicus My cynicism does not mean I espouse the view I've posited (I've put up 34 solar panels, I have a 5000l tank coming for gathering rainwater - delivery next week, my entire yard is a garden and I grow many vegetables, fruits, spices, and nuts). I just realize that as long as there is money to be made, and politicians to be bought, nothing of the necessary radical agenda will precipitate.

[@Cryptonymicus]

Rand Huso -- I think we're starting to make progress now. As the republican party crumbles toward extinction we will do better.

[@SaltVinegar2010]

Your right though. Capitalism does not care about the planet at all. It will consume it till there is nothing left.

[@LucasRizzotto]

+Rand Huso We are changing and we are adapting. The cost of things like solar energy is decreasing exponentially, it won't be long before it's financially advantageous for the general public. Last year was the first year in which carbon emissions have not lowered since the Industrial Revolution.

[@thebluefarmer6406]

Why is there no talk of Livestock agriculture? The amount of energy put into that one sector dwarfs all others.

[@josephinemarquard8144]

the manipulation of media - they choose what we hear

[@thebluefarmer6406]

Josephine Marquard One hidden aspect of these talk is that the audience is full of wealthy individuals. The speakers are often looking for funding or support. Im sure she knows that even hinting that their extravagant food choices are to blame is a death sentence.

[@Pookie250]

This whole speech is pointless unless we deal with the agriculture industry.

[@thebluefarmer6406]

Pookie250 yes, thank you! Non animal agro could do a lot more too. We should all have a garden bed or support a small scale farmer in another way.

[@Doddibot]

+Pookie250 That's not true at all. If we literally stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow (with some amazing new technology), we wouldn't need to change agriculture in any other way.

[@61shirley]

There is still a great deal of uncertainty about climate theory, It is not clear that the rise in co2 is anthropogenic, and the climate hasn't warmed in the 20 years according to RSS satellite data, the very satellite designed to measure changes in climate, Or that atmospheric co2 has anything like the effects postulated by the IPCC, Nor is it clear that the climate policies we are pursuing will have any material effect on atmospheric co2 or the climate, It is very clear that we are unable to predict future changes, All the predictions so far have been falsified by the data, It is clear that our climate policy will do far more economic damage than climate change it's self. The scientific evidence does not support the great floods and droughts, famine and pestilence from global warming which the Climate Cult has been demanding from their priests.

[@61shirley]

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. The "97 percent" figure represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. 79 scientists of the 3,146 who responded to the survey does not make a consensus. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. There hasn't been gloBULL warming in 19 years. According to the RSS satellite data (the very satellite designed to measure changes in the temperature of the climate), whose value for March 2014 is in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict. The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We've only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world. ocean temperature measurements by Argo have risen by about 0.01°C According to a report compiled last year on Canadian polar bear populations by academics at Lakehead University, Ontario, only one out of 13 areas showed declining numbers. In fact, in some areas numbers have steadily increased. In the Foxe Basin area in the Arctic Circle, aerial surveys show polar bear numbers have risen from 2,200 in 1994 to 2,580 in 2010, while the population in West Hudson Bay has increased from 935 in 2004 to 1,013 in 2011. Dr Susan Crockford, an evolutionary biologist and expert on polar bears, was criticised as a ‘climate change denier’ when she published a paper called Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears earlier this year. Polar bear Population forecasting expert Dr J Scott Armstrong agrees: ‘The decision by the US Senate in 2008 to name the polar bear as an endangered species because of global warming was based on flawed information. If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about. The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world". by the ipcc's scientists own admission they are no longer measuring temperatures - they are measuring temperature anomalies, running them through a computer program and viola - global warming for 19 straight years, defying terrestrial data and thermometers. Global Warming science claimed the debate was over before it began, provided preposterous theories and pushed a vast propaganda campaign. Yet provided no proof of its claims.

[@mmc8514]

And yet no mention of ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

[@aaronrosenberg6633]

+Rae Rae Well, no mention of too many specific causes or solutions in general, but rather a wake-up call nonetheless. She got her point across, I believe.

[@Clubdj14]

Since it's an agenda to keep the people enslaved and for depopulation purposes created by the NWO elite, they would like to keep their blame on humans, not the sun,...

[@BroCactus]

+Rae Rae GO VEGAN

[@mmc8514]

Eric O I am, haha

[@joshuawilson2737]

+Clubdj14 The sun has been emitting energy at a relatively constant rate so long as humans have been alive. What the Earth does with it is variable (how much does it retain it, or omit it?).

[@Daekar3]

I'm willing to admit that the climate might be changing, but I'm not convinced that it's not part of the massive shifts in conditions that have always been the hallmark of the earth. If the climate models were actually accurate, both the ice caps would be melted by now.

[@Daekar3]

***** Look at any global warming media predictions from 20 years ago.

[@SexualPotatoes]

What about last year, when the world experienced economic growth but no change in CO² emissions?

[@bosonrider]

+Sexual Potatoes Some parasites will not be able to adapt.

[@evadd2]

+Sexual Potatoes Oversimplification. Growth does not mean CO2. Chinese manufacturing slumped but their service industries grew. And many areas experienced growth renewables like the US where renewables now equal coal n employment.

[@writerconsidered]

+Thunder Cat thank you, it's nice to see sanity in a wilderness of lunacy.

[@andrewjackson7785]

Watch a few videos by Tony Heller. He provides evidence through the last 160 years of more extreme floods, fires, droughts, heatwaves, and warmer periods and cooler periods in the past, all when CO2 was lower than current levels. He also provides interesting details indicating that the current temperatures presented to those at the top, have been manipulated. The Roman warm period, the medieval warm period where the Danes settled in a new land they called Greenland, and farmed successfully for a few hundred years until it became too cold. England grew grapes during the medieval warm period to rival French wines; that can’t be done today because it’s not warm enough. All before the extensive use of coal, oil, and gas, and at lower CO2 levels. The newspaper stories of 100 years ago demonstrate the glaciers and ice sheets were melting and had been doing so since the late 1700’s. In the 60’s & 70’s we had a cooler period where scientists thought an ice age was coming. It appears that it has warmed slightly, but there is evidence now that glaciers are growing again. This won’t be reported because it doesn’t suit the current narrative.

[@felixthecrazy]

I'm just glad that the temperature of the earth was completely stable before the industrial revolution.

[@TheNeilDarby]

+felixthecrazy In timescales of a few centuries at a time, it was. Climate change happens over thousands/millions of years until humans get involved.

[@felixthecrazy]

+Advaita Firstly, climate change happens continuously, forever. And pretty much every chart that looks at data more than 100,000 years ago has plenty of incredibly rapid spikes, as well as dips, in temps. My layman interpretation is that this is part of a regular cycle the earth goes through. The expectation that we can fight or reverse it is pretty presumptuous, in my opinion.

[@TheNeilDarby]

felixthecrazy Ok one: humans would likely not have survived those spikes and dips in the past.. and two: I think it is pretty presumptuous to assume that we can release the energy of millions of years of global biomass into the air within a few human generations and NOT go extinct..

[@TheNeilDarby]

felixthecrazy I would expect us to be different because we are the only animals that can both see it coming far in advance and intelligently alter the climate for the better if we choose to. The thing is, it wouldn't be that hard to avoid extinction if the west wasn't such a short-sighted culture.. oh, and if banks were't going for world domination..

[@TheNeilDarby]

***** Produce more carbon? yea. I guess I shouldn't have said the west, considering they are following the western model.. But they don't do it like the Bilderbburg group does..

[@StephenCMcArthur]

It appears that so-called climate change data requires looking at data over decades. The change also appears to be simultaneous trends of warming and cooling. Current climate change models assume a linear path, and ignores a number of simultaneous cooling and warming trends. I believe the current climate change models lack validity. But, just to be a on a safe side, a Risk Management plan customized to local realities, should be developed. This Alice reminds me of all the fear mongers and they always seem to be on the verge of breaking into uncontrollable sobbing. They may want to make sure hey are healthy mentally before they dive into this big issue.

[@1schwererziehbar1]

I came to the comment section expecting a flame war. But people are pretty nice here.

[@sinjint4247]

+1schwererziehbar1 welcome

[@xinterest9029]

Don't speak too soon...

[@Cryptonymicus]

+1schwererziehbar1 -- You have just won your Doctorate of Sarcasm degree.

[@donniemoder1466]

As a whole, we churned out more CO2 in 2019 than in 2015 when this talk was filmed. Oh well. If you participate in the commerce and activity of your community, you are contributing to climate change and our mutual distruction.

[@FranNoesse]

Did she mention the geoengineering going on that is, effectively, killing the humans? Did she mention that there is NO data to support WARMING and alot of data to support COOLING? Did she mention that the majority of pollution is produced by big industry, not individuals? No. Because THIS is about FEAR! And, of course, MONEY.

[@RodMartinJr]

Yes, and it's about control. Cooling the planet in an ongoing Ice Age is a perfect way to kill off several billion "useless eaters." The only thing that is truly unsustainable on this planet is rich psychopaths and their corrupt corporations. Ironically, most of their clueless minions hate corporations, but get all their news and science from ... (wait for it) ... corporations!

[@finlarg]

This planet would be cooling if not for the increased CO2 levels put into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels, cement production and deforestation. Why do you conflate science with politics and business so much?

[@micaelg4230]

idiot

[@FranNoesse]

Yes, yes she is.

[@finlarg]

L8blumR *"Did she mention the geoengineering going on that is, effectively, killing the humans?"* What geoengineering are you alluding to? *"Did she mention that there is NO data to support WARMING and alot of data to support COOLING?"* I can tell that you've never been to a glacier and understood what has been happening for several decades. *"Did she mention that the majority of pollution is produced by big industry, not individuals?"* Your question throws up a red herring: Individuals may not directly pollute very much, but unless we live without the commodities made BY big industry, we are complicit. *"No. Because THIS is about FEAR! And, of course, MONEY."* Please help me to understand what you believe and why. Is it not the case that governments and big business already make a killing by extracting, refining and selling fossil fuels? What do they have to gain by raising awareness of CO2 levels and how that affects the greenhouse effect? It seems to me like you haven't properly thought your argument through to it's logical conclusion...

[@tmm226]

It's going to take a major catastrophe to initiate change in human behavior in this day and age.

[@carusmike]

Yes. In fact it needs many man made catastrophic and catalysing events.

[@JonathanHartwig]

Projections based on current trends only cannot factor in carbon reductions brought on by emerging technologies. There may be hope. Because if you're asking people to change at the cost of a lifestyle reduction/financial deficit, we're all screwed. But if you make the necessary change easily adoptable and financially beneficial (reduced electric bill, for example), now we're talking. Basically we just need Elon Musk to save us all.

[@galaxxy09]

Can we at least reduce the Methane emissions?

[@win-tt8ej]

+galaxxy09 An authoritarian global governance can certainly micromanage all behaviors and activities in all 195 states.

[@markhillband7635]

+galaxxy09 we should just burn it off like a flare in the oil industry ;)

[@lennyf1957]

+galaxxy09 DOES THAT MEAN I MUST STOP FARTING?

[@markhillband7635]

Donald Kasper So that means genicide is bad right? Beats bill gates theory of population reduction

[@saa25tube]

Ban GMO's, Glyphosate... And people should be made aware *THAT PLANES DO SPRAY*: freetexthost.com/lixnlnj5b2

[@solohoh]

Thank you Alice, I will do my part.

[@OCSnowBoarder]

Save the trees, save the bees, save the whale, save those snails. All I heard was "WE this" and "We have to" Weather Warfare working it's wizardry.

[@slimyweasles4973]

Why does this have so many downvotes and so few views? This is important stuff, guys!

[@kevinsean1520]

+Slimy Weasles because of butthurt vegans who don't realize that this is used only to raise more awareness..

[@mangoman7042]

+Kevin Sean no It is people that believe climate change is a hoax

[@madelinehenery8929]

+Slimy Weasles Its because teachers assign this and we HAVE to watch it

[@Cryptonymicus]

+Slimy Weasles -- It's because people don't want to face the reality that one way or another the modern lifestyle is going to be seriously impacted.

[@madelinehenery8929]

k so cool story I was too tired to read past the second sentence but yup...sure

[@davidlloyd5456]

Still can't explain why temp increases before CO2.

[@berndmayer3984]

david lloyd: both is right in the past. It is not so easy, cause and effect are not so clear they changed. But people like simple linear relationships. It's easier to argument. Hi from Gemany !

[@joshuagarner1654]

How do I adapt? Live in Colorado in summer, Bahamas in winter, and adjust the ac accordingly

[@AceofDlamonds]

The point is sustainability for society at large. Of course those of you who can afford travel like that and AC (not sustainable for all), not to mention avoiding crime and desperation from people surrounding you, will be less affected.

[@richardsheehan6983]

How do you expect your youngest friends an/or loves to thrive or perhaps to thrive? What can you possibly do right now? How?

[@TheNeilDarby]

Damn, looks like the kato institute has done well at anti-climate science propaganda.. Gotta love how destructive think tanks can be..

[@matthiaswitt6135]

I fear, change will not happen. Period. Sad but true. Conflict will though. Hope to be around long enough to see this drama play out.

[@andreaskarlsson1187]

Here are some instructions on how to think. If it's hot on day - It's Man made global warming. If it's cold one day - It's climate change. If it's juuuust right for you one day - You got to be aware, because it might be man made global standard. If you can't predict the weather even 2 weeks ahead - It's just "how the weather works" If you can't make any of 12 000 climate predictions for 15 years ahead to work -It's a "pause" in the man made global warming. If it's the most snowfall in 50 years - It's because of something that has to do with... you guessed it - Man made global warming. If you don't feel guilty about breathing out co2 or to fart - you're a bad person. If it's dark at night - it's because man made distribution of people on the planet is skewed so the rotation is out of order. If it's a tsunami somewhere on the planet - It's because of co2 density buildup in the acid oceans that's pushing water ashore. If someone doubt your information - Attack If you're an mathematician and realizes it would take an 80% income tax level worldwide, and a complete consumption stop, to even scratch the surface of goals set for 2040 - You're a person that should be stoned to death as a heretic. This cult is no different from the y2k freaks who believed the world would explode. Or the 2012 Mayan doomsday preppers. Get over yourself.

[@satrioem6162]

Have you attended any form of college education sir/madam?

[@u_wind_sprint4393]

She's right. Focus toward maintenance and management of economies instead of growing economies.

[@BroCactus]

this isn't about saving the earth. It's about saving ourselves. The earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas and go about its business like we were never even here.

[@pinkimerz1]

She didn't touch on the fact that reduce our farming and consumption of animals products will make a staggering difference.

[@darrishawks6033]

I use like 50% less electricity than other people I know, so I don't think it's hard to reduce by 10% for residences. That just requires a bunch of timer switches so people turn off their stuff lol But it's not individual choices that are the problem, it's the big corporate choices. Where the money is.

[@lpiavelino6598]

you can do all of that to minimise your enerby bill but don't think you can influence the climate in any way. real scientists are not claiming co2 is causing any hanges in the atmosphere.

[@anurag92223]

Time to leave Earth !!!

[@aseredy]

Though, it should be mentioned that long-term systems, like the global climate, do not remain "long-term" if they are susceptible to feedbacks. There is so much we don't understand about this large long-term system, it's hard to predict anything. A couple facts we rarely consider are; The Earth averages no ice on the poles; we are currently in an ice age, which began 2 million years ago.

[@ThatOneScienceGuy]

Unfortunately, without some kind of miracle, Americans won't all collectively decide to put aside economic growth and live according to the economic austerity she describes. At least not until it's too late and it becomes obvious we are on a path to self destruction. This would require that everybody collectively radically change our lifestyles. That will require a strong wave throughout the culture and unfortunately this kind of change doesn't happen unless it is done by force somehow. What she is saying is that we should all live extremely frugally, very little or no excess, where our basic needs are being met with some comforts. This is a HUGE shift. We are talking no air travel, minimal air conditioning, etc. I just don't see people willingly adopting that lifestyle. My hope would be that some genius (or geniuses) come up with a way of sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. I can't help but feel this is the only solution that will remedy the problem without too much turmoil.

[@lpiavelino6598]

in america alone some live in 40 celcius temperatures while other average 20, yet no one is destroyed so what do you mean by self destruction?

[@ThatOneScienceGuy]

@@lpiavelino6598 I said on a path to self destruction. Severe and regular heatwaves, droughts, water insecurity, agricultural disturbances, etc.

[@lpiavelino6598]

@@ThatOneScienceGuy we are not on the path to destruction. i know this because we have not seen new weather conditions. every weather condition we now has occured in the past. the truth is better than lies.

[@trollerboy5555]

watched this is in geography great great piece of information •blow•

[@mudit5151]

this one is tough.. we know that we can't work like this anymore.. when the people are getting detached with the "big picture", there are revolutions and occupy wall street.. but nobody is stepping up to be a competition to the present industry.. you can't stop the growth just because of temperature.. unless you get a better profit with environment friendly resources, people won't switch . . I'm trying to join the industry(rather build a business) and also trying to incorporate better policies that support environment in dairy business.. Elon musk is pretty inspiring, he took this thing seriously and instead of occupying wall street, he worked on it..

[@call-1515]

People that don't believe in global warming probably don't have vegetable gardens or at least haven't been gardening for a long time to see the change in growing seasons.

[@somecallmetim451]

Solar energy is the simplest solution and yet we still have to struggle to roll out hybrid cars.

[@kokofan50]

+somecallmetim451 Solar is not the simplest by a long way.

[@Emperor9992001]

+somecallmetim451 Hybrid cars run on Gasoline. Electric Cars like the Tesla run on coal that is burned to provide electricity to that outlet you plug your car into. You could cover the entire planet in solar panels and still not meet the energy needs.

[@HiAdrian]

*+Emperor9992001* Your last statement is false, but the rest is true. And without a reliable, environmentally friendly storage method (current batteries aren't), solar power will remain a niche.

[@hermanwilhelm6871]

No one talks about black top used in parking lots, driveways, etc....if you have ever walked on it on a hot day, you know.

[@Bookhermit]

I'm still hoping for at least 5 degrees C of warming....

[@berndmayer3984]

in my hometown in Germany whe have one Building which produces with motors elektricity and by the way hot water for warming for 5000 people. Not ideal but way way better then other things.

[@noviceprepper53]

great talk. I wish she'd said specifically what ordinary citizens can do to decrease energy consumption. I know we can turn off lights when we leave a room or unplug appliances we're not using, and I know about buying energy efficient light bulbs, but I wish I knew more specifics. I use my fan instead of my air conditioner but I feel like I need to understand more about how our energy consumption model works. thanks for the talk

[@keriford54]

From the title I thought that's what it was going to be. It was a very good talk though.

[@j0hnydelfino353]

It is complete falsification on data on this topic. And it is on the path of pro-poverty and antihumanism

[@chrisherbert2461]

wish human beings cared a lot better about the climate

[@SaltVinegar2010]

A lot of humans do but capitalism dosent & capitalism beats humans every time.

[@Charlie-qe6lv]

A) CO2 has almost no affect on climate, or if it does, it is a cooling gas; B) ocean rise is attributable to heat (expansion); C) the sun's activities have been scientifically proven to have the greatest influence on worldwide climate; D) as do cosmic rays on cloud formation, (water vapor is THE biggest greenhouse gas. Alarmists are simply ignorant.

[@Hijabibti925]

Perhaps the Zero Waste movement, taxing meat and plastics would help if the tax collected was used towards ecological projects. I also don't see many people who truly car about recycling and that includes buying things second hand.

[@rdkuless]

Methane from the 80 million animals we raise for food has 4 times the impact that all Co2 emissions from transportation. If you want to make a difference, eat 80% plant based diet. Facts are Facts. Cars are not the problem, it is all the animals we raise. It takes 600 gallons of water to produce only 1 hamburger. We don't have that much fresh water. Alice needs more education. Try meatless Mondays and possibly meatless Fridays if you want to make a difference on the emissions problem.

[@rdkuless]

+3MonkeesInDenial I will let that comment stand on its own. I hope no one judges you too harshly. I believe it is better not to use the plastic bag in the first place. Portland laws do not allow the use of plastic bags. And Yes.. Meatless Mondays would help greatly with global warming. Just think how quickly we could reduce it if we didn't have factory farming where they raise and slaughter over 80 million animals every year in the USA. Every acre of land could be used to raise 3,200 pounds of produce or only one cow. Which one makes sense. PEACE

[@limede]

I haven't seen the video, but either way; we shouldn't adapt, we should change our ways. will watch now

[@arconte2100]

+Limede45 The climate will be getting warmer even if we stopped releasing CO2 right now. We have to adapt to the changes.

[@DEad7890]

+Limede45 Vai jogar tf2

[@Max-vb6le]

+arconte2100 we have to stop releasing co2 otherwise we will mess up the environment more. Yes, we need to adjust to the damage already done. That doesn't mean we should continue releasing co2.

[@ClockinLoot]

we shouldn't adapt? that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on KZbin. 👏👏

[@limede]

+arconte2100 Agreed, but in the video she's not really talking about how to adapt to the climate change, but how we need to adapt to change it; which ultimately it's, as I said, changing our ways. +DEad7890 Já jogo pouco disso pah

[@nickjoeb]

Basically today is the day to combat climate change. We need more ground level stuff apartment complexes need composting areas and recycling bins all around to make our impact lowered better public transit a large move away from cars. Not to mention wind, sun and air power harnessing needs to be done in large scale.

[@reinux]

Austerity won't help. That's a seriously ham-fisted thing to say. A reduction in the most significant sources of GHGs, yes, but as much as GDP and GHGs are correlated, some parts of the economy contribute much more significantly to GHG emissions than others. Asking the *whole* economy to change is more unrealistic than anything. Disappointing.

[@mick7sp]

Some one should contact VW about this problem.

[@Cryptonymicus]

So basically the next several generations are going to have to clean up the mess created by the previous several generations and it's going to require significant changes in lifestyle.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

I notice that her key suggestion at the end is to have wealthy nations move to AUSTERITY. That is clearly a very poorly thought out, neo-liberal agenda - and exactly the wrong thing to do. Instead, we need wealthy, developed countries to immediately invest a massive amount of government and private capital into driving an accelerated WWII style transition to a net-zero carbon economy - wind, solar, hydrogen, efficiency, etc (but not nuclear). We have the capacity, we have the technology, we have the methodologies and we have the science. Now, we just have to do it. And we have to do it now.

[@kennethsouthard6042]

The real problem is population. None of her graphs show it, but if they did you would have seen her exponential curve rising at pretty much the same rate of C02 since 1850 when earth had 1Billion people. There are 7.5 Billion now. My concern is even if you were to meet her 2-degree solution without doing anything about population growth, you will continue to have the same problem, as the ever-increasing population will just continue to consume whatever incremental gains that you achieve.

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

@@kennethsouthard6042 100% agreed.

[@Anon-xd3cf]

Another 14 minutes of what's happening, what the challenges are and what will happen if we do nothing. Still no information about what to do about any of it.

[@Anon-xd3cf]

I want to talk about the infrastructure changes that need to be made, about farming practice's, about the reasons why industry is slow to change. Want to hear more about real world consequences of mass migration on law and order, per capita resources... I want to hear about how we adapt to a hotter world... If we were talking about building a base on Mars... We would be having practical discussions.

[@NoTaboos]

...and she's covered in makeup. Women will never give up their makeup. Cosmetics is one of the most CO2-intensive industries in the world; both the chemical products and the blatant over-packaging. Such hypocrisy.

[@sarthakjoshi9824]

Definetly the luxury items are most dangerous to environment. They are not needed to survive our earth n us. TIP TO DECREASE THE IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT OR CARBON FOOTPRINT .DONT BUY TO EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS. TOO ABUNDUNF LIKE PLASTIC WHICH ARE CHEAP SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

[@snorman1951]

Commenting in December 2019: We now know it was all a scam.

[@gregmckenzie4315]

Vegetarianism is a behavior that can radically reduce our own carbon footprint. But the most effective action anyone can take to reduce climate change is to make the conscious choice to have one less child than we would have otherwise had. This is the dirty little secret that is almost never mentioned.

[@alanblanes1614]

"Energy austerity in wealthy nations" needs a rigorous examination of what this means: The film PLANET OF THE HUMANS exposed a lot of co-optation and knuckling under to the free market neoliberal model by ENGOs that are in league with the corporatocracy. That kind of advocacy is not equipped to get into a serious focus on decarbonization at the pace that Alice is describing. There ought to be some more specified actions that can get us on track 1] massive engagement in #GenIVNuclear with the whole world joining India and China moving this technology beyond the demonstration reactor into becoming a main feature of a world superconducting power grid. This will reduce the need for battery storage for renewables, and will also provide INDISPENSABLE safeguard to civilization in the event that we have a major super volcano caldera explode or a large >1km asteroid fling out of orbit in the Kuiper Belt or the Asteroid Belt. We are totally derelict if we don't face this need for authentic emergency preparedness. 2] We also must face the fact that continental water management that conserves seasonal runoff and floodwater on continents rather than allowing to flow uninterrupted back to oceans is a crucial #SDG15 project. Keeping the water table full and the continents fully hydrated will be essential if we have such temperature rises. At the same time, massive reforestation and indeed afforestation in regions that are barren, will be essential projects that have to be put on the #SDG13 agenda without delay.

[@princeofexcess]

1. Economy is so much more important. * 2. Nuclear power (for some reason read more doesnt appear) *progress is the only reason why we can live our lives in standards we currently enjoy. If you decrease emissions by the desired numbers you are risking economic collapse and death everywhere not to mention slowed progress. In fact progress might show us solutions that we have previously not thought of. (like everyone driving an electric car and we use nuclear power only. This would definitely halt global warming. )

[@Lerppunen]

Of course climate is changing, and always has been. But I don't think that our CO2 emissions have much to do with it.

[@PATYPUS3]

The ESSENCE of what she is saying is to DO LESS. I agree. I'm lazy. I WANT to do less. I live in reality though, she doesn't.

[@davevenson]

wait, what about live stock? aren't the cows responsible for most of the greenhouse gas? it is strange she hasn't mention it once.... COW'SPIRACY???

[@davidsweeney111]

I'm assuming she's wrong.

[@viktorthekiing]

Why are you talking about adapting? Why not talking about trying to change the ways people live, so that we don't have to adapt?

[@Dead_pixelz_]

Because like she said, and it's understood by most. It's to late to change, so we have to adapt.

[@writerconsidered]

+Honesthedgehog Life Both of you should google the word adapt, then read your posts again.

[@Dead_pixelz_]

+writerconsidered ok and? We have to become suited with new conditions ?

[@plugpulled]

Ban every fucking Diesel vehicle most of the GW problems will be solved.

[@saa25tube]

*WAKE UP TO THE WORLD-GOVERNMENT PLAN* : freetexthost.com/faoikfs0ia

[@Cryptonymicus]

+meetajhu -- If you ban diesel you bring an end to economic activity because nearly every product of modern industrialized nations--including food--require diesel trucks for distribution.

[@eniorj.jimenez3641]

nuclear and hydroelectric energy expansion, reliable and renewable sources of energy with 0 carbon emissions. Yet the same camp of environmentalists that cry the sky is falling is the very camp that opposes/ignores these alternative energy sources. Secondly, it's really easy to decry fossil fuel usage from your ivory tower that is erected and maintained by this very same energy consumption. What about the majority of the population that desperately needs reliable and cheap energy for a better livelihood?

[@awdrifter3394]

Yes, we need to adapt, but not by using less energy. We should accelerate the technology research so we'll be able to explore other planet, do geo engineering, or even brain uploading so climate won't even be an issue for us. All this talk about limiting carbon output is slowing down the world's advancement for a problem that may or may not be caused by human activities.

[@oneman9620]

What's with all the vegan comments all quoting the same 51% agriculture number? Were they all pipelined here to comment and downvote?

[@richardmuller7667]

Misleading title.

[@ygui7558]

Most of the older generation don't care because they won't live long enough to witness it. The sad thing is many others don't believe in it too. Once people begin to act it'll already be too late. Procrastination at it's best.

[@abbyferrari]

+K dud I don't think is procrastination, it's not acting upon something you don't believe in, and that is something tht makes sense, I don't act upon karma or reincarnation because I don't believe in it. I don't believe in a Christian Heaven either. Why are there so many common people who don't believe in what this video presented? I don't know but I'm pretty sure there's not only one reason.

[@7amanito]

I want to know: who hits the dislike to something as important as this???!!

[@mickwest7918]

2019 Check out the other side of the equation - it was all lies - Gore- Suzuki etc. all liars - follow the money - it always tells the TRUTH, The East Anglia "Hockey Stick" The United Nations - its all about robing you in a politically correct fashion - Go for it if your a sucker - and your going to die anyway.

[@TamNguyen-oe6bo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:12 🌊 Louisiana flood maps show climate-induced land loss across the Gulf Coast. 02:18 🌍 Over 180 million people globally will be displaced due to climate change by the century's end. 03:50 🗺️ Misused terms like "refugees" hinder recovery and integration of climate-displaced individuals. 06:23 🌎 Addressing climate migration means reframing the issue as a symptom of an extractive system, requiring social restructuring towards justice. 10:52 🌱 Preparation for climate migration necessitates honoring ecological equity, human rights, indigenous knowledge, and collective resilience. Made with HARPA AI

[@ThanosSofroniou]

Why the high % of dislikes?

[@fairouzelhelo2083]

Someone help me in metrology reachers

[@k97sakura56]

I know it's not related with that... but do iluminati exsist?

[@marcelopacheco2479]

What we can do is have a renewables economic boom, while serious curtailing everything fossil. Building out nuclear and geothermal can be accelerated compared to today's level, there is idle capacity to grow that, meanwhile new solar/wind plants are being built too. And don't blame it on capitalism. Blame it on wild wild west unregulated capitalism. Adopt a carbon tax everywhere that capitalism will be on the plus side.

[@lpiavelino6598]

none of us have experienced climate change. we have not seen a desert climate change into a tropical climate or any other climate for that matter. stop lying to the children. fact is the carbon dioxide composition of the atmosphere is a mere 0.04%, nitrogen 89% and oxygen 21%. the amout of energy absorbed by the atmosphere = mass of the atmosphere x specific heat capacity of the atmosphere x temperature rise. the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide is only 40 times bigger than those of oxygen and nitrogen so stop lying to the kids. the specific heat capacity of water is 4200, we all know that water evaporate from ocoans and lakes to fall back down as rain, dumping all that heat it absorbs, into the atmosphere. yet you blame carbon dioxide. there is nothing human can do to influence the evolutiuon of the atmosphere. it will keep evolving. like it or not.

[@lukegrabham9859]

Climate change pre dates humanity and its vanity. All our efforts have a temporary effect only, the climate normalization will continue, temperatures will rise, icecaps will shrink, the final moment of climate change as is occurring currently will coincide with stabilization of earth's wobble. Now is not normal, 1000 years ago was not normal, when was the last normal period for climate? Dinosaurs 85 feet long don't grow overnight, they lived for centuries, cold blooded, all over the entire planet, even Antarctica has a fossil record of tropical life, climate change is an inevitability until the ends of summer and winter

[@carlaaaaa20]

What about animal agriculture??? Not a single mention of this in the video!

[@aibot7618]

Good talk.

[@robertstephenson5897]

Climate has always changed. Anthropogenic climate change is not significant. This woman is advocating for more tax and control, but I don’t know if she understands that.

[@roberttormey4312]

Robert Stephenson she understands, they are all totalitarians.

[@foldby37]

Please reed this....Where do all the co2 released in to the atmosphere since the start of the industrialization go, ?? where and how will the co2 be stored back in the nature ???-- the atmosphere and ocean wants to be in co2 equilibrium, cold water holds more co2 than worm, when it rains the co2 goes faster down in the ocean, -- in the oceans there are a lot of chell fish this chell are made of calsium carbonate, it is throu thise chells the co2 will be stored back, to be sand stone, marble, and other wery big calsium carbonate deposits, you see the shell fish fosils all around in the sedimentary rocks around us, -- and now,,, they cant keep up the acedification in the ocean are reising so moutch that it is slowing the Groth rate down,,-- the pool see ice in the summer time, the underside holds a bonansa og algee Groth they have sunn light 24 houers a day, the krill, have a eating frensee ( its a chrinp like chell fish ) the amount are twise the total wigth of people on earth, with a lifespand from 2 to 5 years, so its an enormous amount of Calsium Carbonate they are depositing on the see flor, and now the ice are melting and the main animal`s shell that are depositing our co2, are going hungry, i think you get it now......

[@8maxthemax8]

Everyone here is wrong. The main problem is that there are too many people!

[@chromanin]

Doesn't that graph simply assume that the given amount of CO2 will equal the given increase in temperature? Is that actually a known factor? I think the only science in these graphs are the projections of CO2 emissions themselves. There has been a long pause in the 'warming trend' of actual temperatures year on year, which she has not addressed. We could actually be headed towards a cooler climate for non-anthropic reasons, in which case an extra warm blanket of greenhouse gas might not be terrible. More science please.... Less blah blah blah politics blah. Also, we know things we could do.... If we aggressively re-forested (especially rain forests) and maybe even changed a desert or two into forests, we'd do much more to help the climate and ecological health in general than any of this unproven and highly political stuff.

[@smartcatcollarproject5699]

+chromanin CO2 may well be a trailing factor in this story. In the late Cretaceous when dinosaurs thrived and grazed on the South Pole, CO2 levels were twice what they are now, and temps and sea acidity much higher than today. In fact in the big picture, our high CO2 emissions are caused by the natural warming since the latest Ice Age : human development (and so CO2 emissions) could not reach such levels if the climate had not first warmed.... Main problem is population growth. Most rain forests can not be re-forested, because they are not only destroyed for logs, but mainly for crops. 40 years ago the population was half what it is now, meaning that with the more efficient and green techs that we have now, we would only produce HALF of today's CO2 emissions - if not for the southern hemisphere population growth (the northern population already peaked in the 1970's) !

[@chromanin]

Smart Cat Collar Project Thanks for that info... Makes sense, semi-cold blooded dinosaurs thriving in a hot world. I guess we wouldn't fare as well. Do you think the certainty of a 4 degree increase is in question if CO2 is a trailing factor? Or are we really spiking it? What about deserts though? Nobody living there. I think it was on TED previously that a speaker mentioned we have the technology to irrigate deserts into forests if we so desired. We could grow a few extra lungs for our planet.

[@smartcatcollarproject5699]

+chromanin I agree, I find the tropics already too hot for me ! I wouldn't risk any bet about climate's future ! I have to admit we have warmer summers in Europe, at least since I can remember, in the 1970's (but it was maybe a colder decade). And I think deforestation, concrete everywhere, etc are making a difference, as well as green house gases, but which part of the warming is natural, which isn't, I'm not convinced anyone can answer that question, certainly not with a 1°C precision ! Looking at graphs of previous Interglacial periods, some have reached temps a bit warmer than today, but not much. I'm all for reforestation, in fact if not for the costs, it would maybe be wise to try it before we are forced to. On the other hand, it would be better to preserve existing forests, and irrigate desertic areas to produce food and plant trees, but you know how things and people are, politics, money, etc in many countries you simply can't do things like that, people don't care about the environment and there is too much corruption, etc... Not saying the idea should not be promoted, though !

[@chromanin]

Smart Cat Collar Project Thanks, I appreciate your realist perspective.

[@xHaRdStYlExHuNgErx]

+chromanin The warming we're experiencing today isn't anything special. But if you look at the earths past when CO2 was higher, the earth was warmer, sea levels were higher and there was no ice at the poles. I love how people use past climatic events to show that the earth always warms and cools so climate change is bs. While that's true, those events show the power of carbon dioxide. I forgot the name of the Epoch but at one point in earths history the sea levels were up to 100m higher.

[@elinope4745]

indonesia is producing more CO2 than the united states, perhaps we should be talking about that as well?

[@mrwaibel]

Your not going to take our diesel pickup trucks away from us any more than our guns Freedom first

[@Yarshy.]

Proud to be Mancunian lol

[@tmm226]

It's truly amazing how with all this increase in Co2 activity over the last 100 years, all this industry, all these consumers, and still, STILL, the world is broke and worse off than ever before in history. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO money.

[@carlosdanger2013]

well... most of the surface of the planet is made of water. obviously that's not true of the whole planet.. not that it mattered for the argument or anything... i'll show myself out

[@MrFlatTaxi]

We don't live on a globe, that theory has passed it's sell-by date. It's FLAT, no joke

[@victorolson1477]

Shut up everyone the polar ice caps are growing do ur research

[@miha123451]

everyone loking for change ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but ..................

[@robinandreae8088]

Population is the key. We're projected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 and growing exponentially. Even if everyone became vegan, we're only putting off the inevitable. Until we reach zero population growth, we will continue to outstrip our resources.

[@hitssquad]

+Robin Andreae > We're projected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 and growing exponentially. Exponential growth would mean growth at the same percentage rate each year. Population has never grown exponentially, and it isn't predicted to grow exponentially. > Until we reach zero population growth, we will continue to outstrip our resources. There are more resources per capita every decade. We're clearly not "outstripping" any of them.

[@robinandreae8088]

Your right about the exponent as there are certain limits making the exponent variable. But one thing you seem to be neglecting is a very basic law of physics. Matter can neither be created or destroyed. So as population grows something has to gives. We do not live in a limitless world. Remember the old Petri dish experiment?

[@hitssquad]

Robin Andreae > Matter can neither be created or destroyed. ...Yet there are more resources per capita every decade. If that weren't the case, resource prices wouldn't be dropping over time. > We do not live in a limitless world. We're limited by energy, of which we have at least 9.7 billion years' worth in the form of the 75 trillion tonnes of uranium in the earth's crust. Energy is the *Master Resource*. The other natural resources are just details: www.masterresource.org/about-masterresource/energy-as-the-master-resource-where-left-right-and-center-agree/ > Remember the old Petri dish experiment? Unlike bacteria, human populations don't grow exponentially, and humans -- on average -- make more resources than they consume. In the Petri dish experiment, at some point life expectancy of the average bacterium dropped precipitously. Name an exact date by which you believe global human life-expectancy from birth should have again dropped below 70 years.

[@robinandreae8088]

+hitssquad I can't give you an exact date. But I do know that human population is expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100. We're already experiencing great mass extinctions of other species. As humans consume other things die off. You mention uranium. Remember Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Have we figured out what to do with the nuclear waste or realized the health risks of mining uranium, As for the fossil fuel resources, if it were so abundant we wouldn't be fracking or considering drilling in a closed basin like the arctic. The only reason there seems to be more resources is that we have become better at exploiting them. Back to that basic law of physics, matter can not be created or destroyed. As we exploit and consume, it has to come from somewhere and it is not limitless. Humans are not above natural law.

[@hitssquad]

Robin Andreae > we're only putting off the inevitable [...] I can't give you an exact date If you can't give an exact date *by which* you predict *it should ever have occurred in the meantime*, then your prediction is unfalsifiable. You're also implying you predict it *won't* happen in the next 100 years. Why should we care, then? > We're already experiencing great mass extinctions of other species. People don't rely on wild species. > As humans consume other things die off. Name a species that died off specifically because of human consumption of uranium. > Remember Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl All three demonstrated the safety of nuclear power. No on died at the first two, and no one died off-site at Chernobyl -- which wasn't even a commercial nuclear power plant. No radiological accident at any commercial nuclear power plant has ever killed anyone. Furthermore, the US Navy, in its more than half-century of operating over 100 nuclear-powered vessels, has never had a radiological accident. Contrast that with wind-power: www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/AccidentStatistics.htm ...At least 162 dead, and it's only getting started. > Have we figured out what to do with the nuclear waste Yes. We've never not-known what to do with spent fuel. Currently, we store it onsite on inexpensive concrete patios. It has never hurt anyone. > or realized the health risks of mining uranium Mining uranium makes it safer (going by government exposure methodology), because it reduces the ultimate amount of radon that people would otherwise be exposed to. Also, the only thing radioactive substances can do to people is cause cancer, and we're curing cancer. There don't seem to be any tailings issues with mining of uranium from seawater. If you don't like mining it from land, then mine it that way. > if [fossil fuels] were so abundant we wouldn't be fracking Prices are dropping, and life-expectancy is rising. That's all you need to know. Fracking is one of the life-giving resources you claim people haven't created. Either it's here, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. > The only reason there seems to be more resources is that we have become better at exploiting them. Oh. So, before people arrived on Earth, there were lots of shoes here? Prove it. >>> We do not live in a limitless world. >> We're limited by energy, of which we have at least 9.7 billion years' worth in the form of the 75 trillion tonnes of uranium in the earth's crust. > matter can not be created or destroyed. As we exploit and consume, it has to come from somewhere and it is not limitless Indeed. We might be limited to the 9.7 billion years' worth of uranium in the earth's crust. Why should that worry anyone?

[@user-eo3wl2gk9e]

I'm making a guess that likes- dislikes will be 60-40

[@Max-vb6le]

You will probably be right.

[@davidlloyd5456]

Nuclear energy is the only option. Climate changes all the time.

[@mrosbaum]

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day."

[@Pirispanen]

+mrosbaum +Anders Persson Don't hold your breath while waiting for a counterargument. Or if you'll get one its probably an ad hominem in any case.

[@oldmanvollox7793]

reality check- dr nil axel morner--polar bear hunt canda --lol lo

[@j0hnydelfino353]

Just the first words are a blatant falsehood. This the clear most ignorant statement about this topic.

[@WaxingRadiance]

Hahahahahaha....

[@tazisayshi]

We are going to destroy our earth for the sake of profit. So sad

[@Dead_pixelz_]

You can't eat money

[@hitssquad]

+Honesthedgehog Life > You can't eat money People can produce resources for money, and exchange that money for efficiently-produced food. What's your point? There's more food per capita every decade.

[@Dead_pixelz_]

+hitssquad when it comes down to it, when their's no food left because the climate is too hostile to grow an adequate amount, you won't survive off the money. It'll become useless, and you won't be able to eat it...

[@hitssquad]

Honesthedgehog Life There's more food per capita every decade. By exactly when will the food production per capita again be below that of the year 2000?

[@Dead_pixelz_]

You sound like a money man. No different than those who'd sell the world to make a profit. It's pretty clear the world is struggling, it's getting harder to grow food actually, not easier. California is drying up, and considering they are the bread basket of the world, what is the world going to do when they don't have enough water to raise the crops? We keep relying on plants that are cloned to be resistant to current bacteria and pest, but since most of these plant species carry the same genetic code, their is less resistance when a new bacteria affects one, because it'll affect them all. It doesn't matter what was, it's going to matter what will be.

[@hitssquad]

Honesthedgehog Life > it's getting harder to grow food ...Then why is the price dropping? ...And why is it that "compared to 1961, the world used *68%* less land in 2012 to produce the same amount of food"?: www.aei.org/publication/today-is-world-statistics-day-2015/ > what is the world going to do when they don't have enough water ...Desalinate. > We keep relying on plants No. We rely on people responding to price signals.

[@jdfreality]

my god this talk is full of shaky pseudo-science, debunk able computer models and appeals to people emotions rather than dealing with the facts. its funny how changes in solar activity are not brought up when dealing with weather changes here.

[@tapir78]

+jdfreality It's because these people are not interested in facts. They want to reach their goals - and that's definitely not saving the planet by demonizing a very beneficial trace gas...

[@Cryptonymicus]

+jdfreality -- Unfortunately, every national science academy and science organization of national and international standing disagrees with you -- including the oil companies' pet lapdog the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[@Emperor9992001]

+jdfreality Thanks for being the voice of reason in the crowd of socialist propagandists.

[@knucklesamidge]

+jdfreality I'm learning about global warming at university, and what you're saying is laughable. What is your education on the subject? A few right wing conspiracy theory articles you found online?

[@jdfreality]

+knucklesamidge ok...................... the next day you have a lecture ask your lecturer to explain what began and then ended the last 2 ice ages, then ask them what caused the medieval warming period and the effect of volcanic eruptions on gw. better still ask them how to prevent volcanoes erupting.

[@LanaLeon]

GO VEGAN!!!! AND SAVE THE PLANET. SIMPLE AS THAT.

[@F22C1]

I could care less about climate change. I won't be around long enough to see its effects, and I don't plan on having kids.

[@55newcastle]

Bad Science and theories...Suppose you had a weather man who was wrong every day for 30 years. Best was to describe these theories. Carbon is such a small part of the atmosphere. No proof of anything she is saying.