Turning the Tide on Climate Change

[@ClimateAdam]

help push climate education to its tipping point here: www.patreon.com/ClimateAdam and a special shout out to the CliMate who said came to say hello while I was busy editing this on the train to Switzerland!

[@Privacityuser]

How much ALGAE do you need to breathe? TESTED

[@bartroberts1514]

Shout out to Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 & Roadmap, a good jumping off point for effective action.

[@oleonard7319]

Until I actually see the C02 trend line go down. I won't believe it. We are on track to exit this year having raised the c02 3ppm's. which is an increase over the last year's increase of 2.56 ppm

[@zacharythomas8617]

You lost me at your Pro-Lithium Stance.

[@zacharythomas8617]

Literally stop talking about Climate Change. Fraud.

[@fayebird1808]

Canada is investing heavily in Natural gas. Heavy guilt for the government here, Greed is rampant!

[@ClimateAdam]

*and* canada has higher per person emissions than the US!! wild that the country occasionally manages to convince others that it's relatively green!

[@ishmaelmcgoo2945]

@@ClimateAdam That's a myth that we have to dispel. I find that barely anyone actually understand how bad it is (though once they do they're resistant to taking responsibility so I don't know how much is just willful ignorance). Part of the myth might be because coal burning is low and electricity in most parts if fairly green, but other factors more than make up for it. You could say that without the oil sands, Canada's emissions would be lower than the US, but Canadians fail to hold them to account. All that it would require to make drastic reductions in emissions from that industry would be to use nuclear and renewable electricity for the extraction process and take precautions against methane leaks. But the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan where it largely takes place are entirely controlled by the industry and not held accountable by the largely propaganda-believing populace. So I think you should judge the rest of Canada differently than those two areas. But really all of it is dreadful compared with Europe. Canadians still largely take little initiative and pick the most polluting lifestyle (suburban sprawl and consumerism) they possibly can even decades after the crisis was a apparent.

[@LBeaudoin]

In Quebec (the French province in Canada) we don't use Natural Gas, we have Hydro Electric. Providing cheap electricity and promoting EV car adoption.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@ClimateAdam Canada's per person emissions when you remove business, institution and government emissions are no different from China's, or the US, or almost any nationality's on the same basis. It's not people, not individual domestic end users. Over 95% of emissions come back to business, institution, or government.

[@KidHorn7001]

@@ClimateAdam They have to do a lot more heating, so not really a fair comparison.

[@mewtwoinchernobyl]

It's good to not dee just how far we have to go, but also how far we have gone. As Marie Curie said, "One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done." Accepting that action still needs to be taken is important, but so is stubborn optimism in the face of this challenge. Again, Curie; “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.” We are not alone in the problem, but we are also together in the solutions. The future is uncertain, but we can always make this future better than it was predicted, and we can make this future even better than the present. Stay strong and stay optimistic, comrades. P.S. I was in hysterics when you dropped that STI line! edit: then there's the fourth wall break with the "please stick to the script" and the ending blooper (the haircut/inhaling hair part)? bloopers aside, amazing video as always! :)

[@ClimateAdam]

"The future is uncertain, but we can always make this future better than it was predicted, and we can make this future even better than the present." beautifully put 💚 thanks for watching and commenting, CliMate!

[@blazer9547]

Heat stress in already making parts of india uninhabitable

[@ClimateAdam]

it's hard to overstate just how severe the direct effects of heat can be - shifting temperatures will literally shift where we can safely live

[@KidHorn7001]

What parts?

[@jamesharkins6799]

Texas and Louisiana also

[@aimeev49]

Jesus this year's monsoon was a rollercoaster. Pouring for days one week and burning heat the next.

[@thepandaman]

Thanks Adam, you must have thick skin and a lot of patience tending to comments. I'll admit that I'm afraid that tipping points will take it out of our hands if we implement changes too slowly, but having made the mistake of scrolling through r/collapse, I maintain that an element of hope and optimism is more productive.

[@NicholasRyanKelly]

Yes! I think a lot of climate people like to talk about resilience instead of hope (it's more empowered and realistic)... but regardless, doomerism just exacerbates the status quo and serves the same old power structures.

[@YohannParis]

Thanks!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks for your support!

[@madshorn5826]

Adam, please address the root problem: Growth. All else is details. We can't expect a system geared for eternal growth to implement policies meant to stop growth. Therefore we must change the economic model first. And please look into Deep Warming. Eaon Newsletter has a good summary. Deep Warming sounds like a problem far into the future, until you realise that a 3% growth double energy consumption in 25 years. If we double our energy consumption 5 times the waste heat _will_ match the heat retained by CO2. And there is no way to export waste heat in a vacuum, other than raising temperature. That is basic thermodynamics.

[@senhox970]

And the energy consumption will grow at that rate? This is an assumption that is far from certain even more when you consider it didn't grew that fast in the last decades.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@senhox970 Growth in energy consumption and material throughout are tightly linked to growth in GDP (and thus ecological instruction) except there's about a 1.1% per year decoupling of GDP growth from energy use.

[@TheDanEdwards]

Bragging about Norway eliminating ICEs *while Norway still exports 1.7 million barrels of oil per day* is just absurd. Adam, you've got to be more realistic. Norwegian companies are also looking to make record investments, and natural gas exports will likely rise.

[@ClimateAdam]

at no point do I suggest Norway as a nation is a role model. but their policies on EVs and ICEs have been successful, and that's worth understanding.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@ClimateAdam Norway is *increasing* carbon exports - that's a policy. That's a policy on ICEs. You're just giving them a pass in the carbon blame-game. Norway is like a drug dealer - not doing drugs himself, just selling them.

[@fromnorway643]

@@ClimateAdam The major political parties here in Norway have absolutely *_zero_* interest in highspeed rail despite the fact that the domestic air traffic per person is 10 times higher than in the rest of Europe and 4 times higher than in Sweden. The main lines between the largest cities in southern Norway are still almost entirely single-tracks with speeds limited to 130 km/h or less. The travel time from Oslo to Bergen or Trondheim is at best 6½ - 7 hours (often more!) and hasn't changed much over the last 40-50 years.

[@jamesgrover2005]

I first read your comment and then watched, you seem to have misunderstood the context.

[@ericritchie6783]

Electric cars just undermine the far greater efficiency of smaller personnel transport platforms like bikes and trikes/quads and mains electric rail.

[@kcaa3953]

Curious. The paper "Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions: Global evidence from two decades" concluded that in wealthy countries, pricing - carbon taxes or other ways to make fossil fuels more expensive - was key to the policies that worked. "Our findings demonstrate that more policies do not necessarily equate to better outcomes. Instead, the right mix of measures is crucial. For example, subsidies or regulations alone are insufficient; *only in combination with price-based instruments, such as carbon and energy taxes, can they deliver substantial emission reductions.*" (Emphasis mine.) Yet you don't even mention that making fossil fuels more expensive was evaluated. Why? Also, they say it's 63 combinations of policies that worked. ;-)

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks for bringing this up! I actually spoke specifically about carbon and energy taxes in an earlier draft of the script, but it got cut for time -- to me the most interesting point of the study was that mixes worked best, but I absolutely agree that that's a very important finding too! in fact one worthy of a whole separate conversation (and maybe the topic of a future vid) as for 63 - that's the number of combinations that worked. the number of dips they found was 69. As the study puts it: "Our break detection DID analysis suggests that large emission reductions have materialized in only 69 cases"

[@JustMe-vn5pq]

@@ClimateAdam I agree. A carbon tax alone would get us about half way to where we need to be. One puzzling part of the video was when the audio said, "Stop burning fossil fuels" at the same time that 2 cooling towers at a nuke plant were being demolished.

[@ClimateAdam]

​@@JustMe-vn5pqcooling towers aren't just used for nuclear power plants (that misconception primarily comes from the simpsons). That was a coal plant.

[@clintstinkeye5607]

Why do you avoid the topic of overshoot? I don't get it. Overshoot is the catastrophe.

[@nolanjdon3514]

Anti-paranoia: Not panicking as much as you should be with the knowledge you have

[@ReesCatOphuls]

Yay, globally we've reduced our emissions up to a new record high in 2023, and we've got our ghg concentrations down to new record highs in 2024. Impressive that we're increasing our annual damage to a lower increase than previously feared.

[@senhox970]

we've reduced the forecast, but the peak fossil fuel use is near at least.

[@ReesCatOphuls]

Will be interesting to see how peak oil/gas/coal progress. Not seeing any good news in Keeling curve, or the CH4/N2O counterparts,as of yet.

[@senhox970]

@@ReesCatOphuls First you need to remember that emissions are equal to growth in GHG concentration in atmosphere. So, you will see a difference in this curves only after a very substantial reduction in emissions.

[@ReesCatOphuls]

... and factor in the effectiveness of the sinks and non human sources. The keeling curve acts as excellent bottom line aggregate value. Same with CH4 and N20 concentration values. Avoids BS from carbon accounting such as drax and underreporting of CH4 emissions.

[@jarlkampen8650]

Even easier is to remember: we have stop burning anything.

[@joemcaverage8169]

Everything except hydrogen.

[@valoriethechemist]

@@joemcaverage8169Still can create Nitrogen Oxide molecules that create and extend the life of ghg's and hydrogen itself does much of the same. Hydrogen replacing what we have would not reach the efficiency we require. We should not be thinking about burning anything but how instead to be radically more efficient in energy use as a society as 70% of all emissions are generated by companies purely to maximize profit and debt.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

@@joemcaverage8169how do you produce the hydrogen and create the global supply infrastructure and vehicles/machines that use it? It’s yet another distraction that fools fall for.

[@matthiasknutzen6061]

Burning is fine if we use CCS, burning biomass can even he negative with CCS.

[@valoriethechemist]

@@matthiasknutzen6061 That's not exactly what is being shown in practice. The potential for efficiency may be particularly significant on a global reduction of emissions. Which wouldn't be nothing. But locally we really don't have the data to make the same determination and what is shown doesn't exactly provide a strong argument. In terms of transitioning we likely have a short term efficiency advantage but in terms of what's occurring now we're just adding to the emissions in burning pretty much anything for energy.

[@graysils197]

Having hope and being solutions-focused is very important, as someone who has climate grief/anxiety episodes relatively often (I live in Southeast Asia). Thank you for all your hard work!

[@ClimateAdam]

thanks a lot for sharing - it's so important that we remind ourselves of the progress that is made, and how much can still be done (while also acknowledging and grieving what we are losing)

[@mewtwoinchernobyl]

@@ClimateAdam I live in Singapore. I wasn't as passionate about climate, but all the while my passion was physics and sciences in general. The amount of misogyny and homophobia at my primary school was at a disturbing level. One of my seniors I knew actually committed "sewerslide" when I was seven, and I never understood the cause of death until I was nearly in the exact same situation, at the age of twelve. I did have many anxiety episodes but after receiving professional help I'm ok now. And back to doing physics like I always was. :)

[@nolanjdon3514]

I live in a place that thankfully wont see the worst of it but please do not trust governments to change as fast as we need. We suck and are too addicted to our ways to save ourselves. What ever you do, consider moving as fast as you can. Getting out first will be the make or break. There are maps online that show areas that will be better off than others and some still have loose immigration rules. Stay safe and sending much love. Remember, it is normal and okay how you feel and you are not alone in this

[@mewtwoinchernobyl]

@@nolanjdon3514 The rate of progress AS OF NOW is not enough. Who said the rate of change of progress, couldn't change?

[@anubis2814]

I am 100% expecting to find out in a few years that there was a active collusion to slow down rollout of charging stations in the US. More people are switching back to ICE or sticking with hybrids than ever before and I can understand why, charging if you rent or go on long trips is a nightmare. If you own your home and just use them to get around town they are great. We NEED to get charging stations to roll out faster or we will see a reverse in the progress we are making for at least a few years.

[@ComplicatedMoose137]

It’s important to remember that the charging stations and EVs that we have today are the equivalent of 2G cellphones

[@serroba]

Thank you Adam. This was great information! Thanks for sharing links to the papers too

[@ClimateAdam]

Well thank you for watching! And enjoy the studies - there's so much info I didn't get a chance to cover

[@danwylie-sears1134]

We don't have to completely stop burning fossil fuels. That will probably be the best option, but we also have the option of restricting them to a few little niche uses and making up for it with direct air capture. We need to do a ton of direct air capture anyway, unless we also invent time travel, because we've already put too much carbon into the atmosphere. Taking some of it out is definitely going to be heinously expensive, far more expensive than it would have been to just not put it there in the first place. But it will still be less expensive than the effects of leaving it there.

[@ClimateAdam]

that's what the "net" in net zero is there for. for certain niches (as you nicely put it!) it's very hard to get to zero emissions, and so cancelling out those emissions is key, so we can reach zero overall.

[@KidHorn7001]

I think it would be far more effective to increase reflectivity during the day and emissivity at night in desserts. Do it in a way we can turn it on and off in sections. So things don't get out of control. Maybe someone can invent a coating that reflects visible light and emits infrared.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

@@ClimateAdam I think we should go for large net negative. Carbon in the air, that we emitted in 1990, is no less harmful than carbon we emit today.

[@danwylie-sears1134]

@@KidHorn7001 We should do the R&D for both. But there's no way for going back to 2005 CO2 levels (or 1985 or 1800 or whenever) to get out of control. If air capture isn't worth it beyond some point, we can just stop doing it.

[@marcingolab6227]

Carbon capture from the atmosphere has so far proven to be about as realistic as time travel. This is the decade for massive action on climate change and we're not seeing anything near what's required. Had China not made a strategic decision to develop their ev sector some 15 years ago, we would've seen almost no progress at all.

[@greywolf845]

Seeing Some ecology rebound at the start of the pandemic, when exports and businesses largely shut down (Such as the dolphins In Venice) Gives me a positive Memory to think back on. More importantly, it tells me how Quickly natural systems can rebound if we stopped our toxic systems. Give nature credit for how we can rebound if we change, For it may surprise us in regeneration and new forms could take

[@General12th]

Hi Dr. Levy! It's good to hear that the worst-case heating is impossible at this point. But since there's also tipping points known and unknown, speedy and slow, I'm worried we might end up reaching worst-case heating anyway despite making good (and accelerating) progress.

[@Killerfin100]

The EU's power sector is now 50% Renewables and 25% Nuclear. Still lots of work to be done in the transport and industrial sectors. That being said it's still progress.

[@TheDanEdwards]

"EU's power sector is now 50% Renewables and 25% Nuclear."

[@Killerfin100]

@@TheDanEdwards Yep that's what I meant

[@volkerengels5298]

The 25% Nuclear are mostly in France. _Ancient power plants with extended operating times to the limits of safety_ In summer the cooling system regularly fails - the rivers get too warm. The 25% is part of the problem. Certainly not a solution.

[@Mike.Meteorologist]

-> Thank you, Dr. Levy, for this realistic-and somewhat encouraging-analysis. Here in the States, our upcoming presidential election is of crucial importance, for a multitude of reasons. We have one candidate who fully recognizes the existential threat posed by climate change, while her opponent is a climate change denier and a huge supporter of the fossil fuel industry. I hope my fellow citizens make the right choice. Our future depends on it! . . . .

[@ClimateAdam]

really glad you found it valuable, Mike! thanks for watching.

[@KidHorn7001]

Biden put heavy tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels. Same as Trump. Neither side is willing to help the environment if it costs them votes.

[@marcingolab6227]

She has also said she would not ban fracking, in a reversal of her position in the last election cycle. Neither of your candidates are good for the planet.

[@DobrinWorld]

Thank you! ❤

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

Combustion engines aren't banned in Norway. Not even for new cars. August saw a record 94.3% of new personal cars registered being battery electric, but still 4.2% petrol or diesel powered and 1.4% plug-in hybrids. Using fossil oil or kerosine/paraffin for central heating is banned as of 2020.

[@rdklkje13]

And there's still the special national pensions fund based on the country's fossil fuels earnings, right?

[@leejimmy2209]

When I talked about my climate anxiety with my friend, he ended up questioning my anxiety. Utterly unbelievable.

[@idk-f4x]

your videos are always so helpful, informative and educational. thank you so much for doing what you do!

[@jensmalling1]

I applaud your analysis, the single most important issue is education. Regards, a teacher in Spain

[@zacharythomas8617]

STUDY AND TEACH CONSERVATION!

[@ClimateAdam]

Educators unite!

[@ingridzabel566]

Thanks for another great video. I'm going to up my Patreon contribution.

[@ClimateAdam]

That's awesome - thanks so much!

[@patrickkelly1195]

Thanks again, Adam for another thought provoking video. We have 2 main problems as far as I can see (and I come at this from my own perspective as a sustainability professor. 1. The so-called 'green transition' to renewables has been repeatedly debunked as a myth and yet governments choose to ignore the science on this as it's terribly inconvenient and they simply don't have a plan B. Multiple reports have highlighted that the idea of moving from fossil fuels to renewables is nothing more than smoke and mirrors - revealing the very unsettling truth: Our leaders don't have a plan to deal with the climate crisis and the green transition is at best a fantasy that doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny, and at worst a conscious attempt to deceive. Either way, amongst the questions yet to be answered by green transition advocates: - How do we replace (fossil-fuel-derived) plastics in manufacturing - given that 84% of everything we produce contains plastics in one form or another, and many plastics have highly specialised properties not easily reproduced with other materials. We cannot use wood (deforestation) and we cannot use metals (fossil fuel intensive) so from what will we make our stuff? (there are some green ways of creating limited forms of plastics currently but all of them prohibitively expensive and unscalable) - How do we replace the intensive use of fossil fuels in the pharmaceutical industry? fertilisers? textiles and fashion? - How do replace the use of fossil fuels in steel manufacturing? concrete manufacturing? the air transport industry? shipping? (and don't be fooled by reports suggesting breakthroughts in the use of wind powered ships and solar planes. They are simply not viable) - Around 2.3% of our power needs are currently met by renewables. (Yes, only 2.3%. 27% is often cited in the media but that figure is electricity generation, not total fuel consumption, which includes air transport and shipping etc) The energy needed to get to 15% is 6 times more than our remaining carbon budget. We have sufficient raw materials to get to 23%. Scientists estimate that we need to get to 65% to have a chance of negating the worst impacts of climate change. Given these limitations what does 'success' look like? - Simon Michaux from GTK has highlighted massive minerals shortfalls to complete the green transition. He estimates, for example, that we have sufficient minerals for just one generation of electric vehicles. 2. Ecologists have pointed out that climate change isn't THE problem, but simply a symptom of a larger problem which is mankind's overshoot of the planet's carrying capacity. There are simply too many of us living in too consumptive a manner for the planet to cope. Other symptoms of overshoot are the proliferation of PFAS, collapse of fish stocks, collapse of insect numbers, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution of land sea and air, the microplastics problem, pollution of waterways, habitat loss, collapsing fertility rates in all species, the ozone layer problem (yes, it's back!), desertification, acidification of oceans, increasing pandemic vulnerability, the spread of avian influenza and it's devastating impact on the poultry industry, the spread of invasive species, soil erosion and degradation etc... What all this means is that we could solve climate change and still have dozens of potentially civilisation-ending challenges to address. So, forget your response to climate change, what is our response to overshoot? The global population is set to increase to at least 10 billion in the next 2 - 3 decades, so if you think the above are problems now, you aint seen nothing yet. There is, of course, a third reason to be utterly pessimistic. Jevons paradox. The reason we spend so much money and effort on renewables without seeing a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Jevons paradox beats us every time. We have only 2 solutions available to us: - Revolt against and overthrow the current economic system en mass and demand a different economic system not based upon growth (degrowth, doughnut economics, circular economics, call it what you will...anything but the growth paradigm, which has proven to be unsustainable). It is unlikely in this divided world that enough people could get behind suich a cause without leading to civil war and decades of economic hardship during the painful transition. - Prepare for the chaos and collapse to come. Some of us will probably survive. The nouveau riche in the post-collapse world will be those with energy, food and water independence, the rest are very vulnerable.

[@MindfulArcher]

Hot take, but I think they're waiting for batteries and solar to get better. I have a lot of hate for the society we have developed in, but I honestly think we're smart enough to engineer our way out of it. A lot of the us should reframe the fight on CC more on stalling for time, until we have the technology to transition for much cheaper. In the past decade alone, Solar efficiency increased 10 fold, CRISPR developed in 2015, and we now have the AI industry popping up out of nowhere. Our technology is increasing at such a fast rate, and we should be having talks with our government about the age of congress/how we pass legislation. It's just too slow and we're going to have more issues then just climate change. On top of that, wait for all these issues to completely disappear once we are able to bioengineer. I know it's unethical, but I do believe we have the ability to bring back a lot of species and climates given enough time. At the end of the day, most people do care about preserving their environment. Ask around and you'll hear of people being disappointed about how hot it is in the summer or how little snow there is for the year.

[@miguel5785]

See "How can we stop burning fossil fuels if we still need everything else they make?" for some of your questions. Regarding not only climate change, but all planetary boundaries we are crossing, even if we cannot solve it all (I still hope we can, but even if we can't) I think we can make a lot of progress by catching the low hanging fruits, give us and our fellow living beings more time to adapt.

[@zacharythomas8617]

TL;DR.

[@General12th]

I don't understand your first point. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change when they're _burned._ Plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers use petrochemicals but do not burn them.

[@patrickkelly1195]

@@General12th Good question. Of course these products are all a result of the process called cracking oil, which is itself a carbon-heavy process, but the real problem is EROEI and costs. To process oil without gaining value for all of the separate constituents (propane, methane, parafin wax, bitumen, pertoleum, etc) would render it cost prohibitive. in other words, to simply take the constituents of fertiliser and plastic and 'throw away' the 'bad stuff'; petroleum, propane, butane etc without using it would render the entire process incredibly expensive and therefore the cost of extraction would outweight the value of the end product many times which would make it prohibitive to extract in the first place, let alone process. It's only cost effective currently because of the value gained from all of the constituent parts of the cracking oil process. The EROEI of extracting oil is incredibly high already, and is rising constantly (extracting and processing tar sands for example has an EROEI of about 1 to 3 which means we burn 1 barrel of oil for every 3 extracted), but without the full gain, the energy we use to extract the oil, would be higher than the energy we gain from extracting and processing oil to achieve enought material for plastics, fertiliser and textiles alone. Also, can you imagine corporations cracking oil and throwing away potentially valuable consitiuents?...I can't see it. We would just create a black market.

[@DrDanWeaver]

Good stuff and good level of humour etc, subscribed .❤

[@ClimateAdam]

Thanks so much! Welcome!

[@zacharythomas8617]

Would you agree that there needs to be a look into World-Wide Conservation efforts?

[@zacharythomas8617]

I stand alone.

[@louishennick6883]

Do we stand alone together? Is the power of money stronger than 8 million humans?

[@pierrevaillancourt1371]

what can we do if the rulers of this world doesnt care ?

[@blazer9547]

West is declining emissions tho.

[@ClimateAdam]

that is the trillion tonne question - and what the social tipping points paper tries to answer, arguing that we need to build momentum towards as many social shifts as possible (power sector, education, moral, financial, etc, etc)

[@mewtwoinchernobyl]

People like these run on manipulation and fearmongering. If the masses defy their influence they will be left helpless.

[@Aanthanur]

is it the rulers or is the people that simply dont get it in daily life? as long people all drive alone in their SUV to work emitting CO2 because its so confy, why would we expect they vote for people that take the problem seriously? we collectively have not understood this problem.

[@KeithV-hd1pu]

@@Aanthanur we are not in charge. they make things that we buy because they make them the most money. if they wanted us to all ride around of vespas because that made them the most money, we would all be riding vespas. People need to stop pretending that we all have this massive amount of power to dictate what large multinational corporations are doing. They will never sit in a board room and discuss how to sell cars that lower emissions without being forced to do so, or how to sell fewer cars. Try this. Go to your state or county government and try to get public transportation, or better yet, public transportation that takes away car traffic lanes. The car industry will go to the ends of the earth to stop it. I agree with dr. adam but until people get way more aggressive, they aren't going to change. And while carpooling sounds like a great idea, it's often logistically challenging. It's easier if everyone just rides on a train.

[@davidlepage1183]

Thanks so much for your efforts!

[@Alena_Lobyzaeva]

I'm so happy that I found your channel last year, thank you for your amazing work! I hope to start working in climate change education and I also believe it's one of the essential things now, definitely will read this study. Thank you again🩵

[@ClimateAdam]

I'm so happy you found the channel too, Alena! glad to have you on board and good luck with your work!

[@compostjohn]

Good stuff as usual - and I shared this one.

[@ClimateAdam]

Thank you!

[@zeit.flaeche]

Hi Adam, great video as always. However, since you are mentioning Norways electric car policy: isn’t it in fact a “bad” example? (or a „great“ example for the larger problems of our modern societies and their political system) One the one hand the government is implementing “green” policies; on the other hand they still export gas and oil on a huge scale. But maybe these policies only serve the goal of appeasing the public, letting them think their government is actually addressing the problem and are less incentivised to protest against fossil fuel exports. Changing to electric cars may seem to be a “good” policy and reduces the amount of emitted CO² on paper. But one also has to keep in mind, that these new cars need to be produced; and the environmental impact of the production is huge. But this is “hidden” to the Norwegian public (and in the statistics), because it doesn’t happen in Norway itself. This policy represents a substitute, not real change, which is urgently needed. A really effective policy would be to stop exporting fossil fuels.

[@ClimateAdam]

the point of this case study is not to say Norway is doing a great job, but rather to point out an example of a (somewhat) self contained policy that had the desired effect in reducing emissions. this is no endorsement whatsoever of Norway's relationship with fossil fuels. another example from the study was UK's phasing out of coal power (which also required a mix of policies). this success in also no endorsement with the UK's general strategy, which has also been to push for more fossil fuel resources, and hamper renewable construction over the past decade.

[@gabinohernandezgodinez6632]

I love your videos

[@ClimateAdam]

I love comments like these!

[@chinookvalley]

Wildlife: "Help!! Stop destroying our habitat! You've poisoned our water, wrecked our habitat beyond repair, made the soil useless, and all the roads, bridges, and damns have left us with no where to run or hide! HELP US!!" Humans: "What? Did someone hear something? No? Lalalalalala. Hummmm."

[@elydakai]

Weve definitely gone over 1.5*C average.

[@nolanjdon3514]

High was 1.64 C above pre-industrial levels this year. Idk how people are missing that terrifying number

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Over 2c according to some

[@diogomatias5375]

Hi Adam, thanks for the awesome content! I often hear "we already have the solutions we need to stop climate change" so it's great to see them actually listed in a political context. Can I ask where/how you discover these articles? I want to get better at science communication, especially "solutions journalism", and resources like these would be super helpful! P.s. Your self-talks are getting very compelling. :)

[@ClimateAdam]

good question - it's a whole range of sources, from mailing lists, to word of mouth, to social media (used to learn a lot from climate scientists on twitter, now still learn quite a bit from bluesky)!

[@Lav_DoesIt]

I still question myself today, as I really overthink things and mostly just want answers, like how will the world be in the next 30 years, can we really reach net zero? But really as people theres not much we can do, we play our parts and thats about all. Another thing, with reading articles about the affects that the climate has on us, people say such things as, "We wont reach net zero!", "climate change is now irreversible!", or "humans will go extinct!", really.. I dont know who to believe, but of course this video gave me a better understanding, the cost of our own downfall is being brought upon us, but I think as it was stated before, "humans have to get it together.", Please take your time on reading this as I will be looking deeper into answers throughout the videos on your channel. :3

[@user-bp1yc7kh2e]

You mentioned that the Amazon switching from a carbon sink to ancarbon source was a tipping point...but i heard a few months ago that it had already happened. : (

[@ClimateAdam]

The tipping point I'm describing is it switching to stop functioning as a rainforest which (thankfully!) is still considered to be some way off from happening. If you're curious, I have a whole vid on the topic! kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4m0lqufedl_n6M

[@chelseashurmantine8153]

Yay. It’s so positive! I’m hopeful and I know we have no choice but to get there 😂

[@dirkeisinger4355]

I.d recommend to enable KZbin memberships. The entry hurdle to support is much lower so i.d expect it to be be in efficial even though i guess youtube will get a cut ot it

[@ClimateAdam]

for me patreon is a much nicer model, but I'd be curious: do you think you'd personally find it easier to support via memberships?

[@rickyjulian496]

Need to hurry up and put that ban on brand new petrol and diesel powered cars now.. not 2030

[@AndrewThoesen]

We just had our first 110F day in October since they started recording Phoenix temps in 1896

[@reedclippings8991]

2018 Oxford study's "Single biggest way" to reduce our climate impact not mentioned at all. And I've only found it mentioned in (I think) 2 of your other videos.

[@skaterfreak7658]

Can you do a video on green banking? I don't want my financial institutions to give out loans to fossil fuel projects but the space is very complicated to navigate.

[@ClimateAdam]

yes that's a topic I've covered but only yeeeears ago, and would love to return to!

[@timothyrussell4445]

Governments in Europe have to do more to move way from subsidising fossil fuels and start banning combustion engine vehicles to include hybrids.

[@qbas81]

Speaking of education - have you heard about "Climate Fresk"? Very interesting education idea - perhaps worth doing video about it?

[@lostgleammedia]

Eat mostly plant based with a lot less animal profucts, is the best thing we can all do to save the planet and our health

[@Anniefawesome]

We need to get you on real time with bill maher! Last night they had some rando who was saying that climate change isn't that bad and technology will magically save us. And of course, no one there knew enough to combat it and it was just me yelling at my tv!

[@KarsonsChannel]

Why would you want to try to stop a runaway train? Ride the tiger baby! Practice wu-wei

[@jeremymahrer1832]

FUCKING BRILLIANT AS EVER....

[@ClimateAdam]

🎉🎉🎉

[@jocelynevkb5889]

To turn the tide on the Climate Heating emergency situation in the making, developed nations need to show the way forward: - Revamp the grid & invest in battery systems to allow renewable energy transfer & storage in peak times, - Funding these upgrades with the massive tax-funded subsidies wasted on international Coal/Fuel & Gas corporations, - Nationalising the Clean Energy sector, owned by the People & for the People (& not by Wall Street!), - Implementing a Carbon tax on any new item purchased, - STOPPING bloody & senseless wars for Profit ...

[@sirbbq2403]

N I C E

[@imacmill]

Our financial system doesn't just invest in fossil fuels, it IS fossil fuels. Full stop. Take away fossil fuels, and the world literally melts down. One mearly needs to look around their environment, and take stock of everything they see that needs fossil fuels to exist, to get a sobering idea of what it means when the energy party ends.

[@maxmorimoto6481]

Adam, if people like you were our politicians, im certain the world would be a FAR BETTER place

[@proffessorclueless]

Cop 29 coming up in November so, sadly, we can expect another rise in CO2 emissions next year. After every COP CO2 emissions have risen. Pretending we are making progress is wrong. Not only are we not making progress we have made the situation worse every year for the past 40 years ( with the exception of 2020 due to covid). If progress is made very soon then maybe we will keep below 3 degrees warming by the end of the century but we are now in a period of increased likelihood of wars breaking out so progress is becoming less and less likely. Net zero is a pipe dream.

[@Famous-Potatoes]

Who remembers reading their “Weekly Readers” (newspaper for elementary students) in the late 60’s and they were trying to scare us with cartoons portraying how life would be for us after acid rain and the ozone hole had overtaken the earth. Images of children playing outside in spacesuits, ala NASA, complete with helmets and the life support backpack.

[@ClimateAdam]

You know what happened to acid rain? Thanks to serious air pollution regulation in Europe and North America, it has far less of an impact! So thanks for bringing up this wonderful environmental policy win!

[@louishennick6883]

We actually took action on acid rain and ozone depletion as well as other types of pollutants such as lead in gasoline. We need to follow our own example and get to business now before the future generation dying on its last breath asks what the f was wrong with us.

[@shabblabbat]

Did the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcano emit more or less co2 than Taylor Swift’s yearly jet trips?

[@KidHorn7001]

LOL. I think it produced far more water vapor than CO2. Which is also a greenhouse gas.

[@shabblabbat]

There was actually a significant co2 emission which will temporarily derail the 1.75 degree goal. I just like saying Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai as much as possible and am a Swifty.

[@dennismurray703]

I really enjoy your battle with your pesky doppelganger. It seems to me that it's now a race between social awareness tipping points and nature's climate induced tipping points. I am not so sure nature will let us off the hook easily. I hate being negative like this and certainly I appreciate the hope and good news that you and the wonderful Engineering with Rosie are able to reveal. Australia under a Labor Government is making progress, but it needs to ramp up its ambition and cut out giving subsidies to fossil fuel industries that give them the let-off of the dubious and underwhelming carbon sequestration projects.

[@georgyj111111]

We won't stop anything. We're done.

[@webextrax]

Energy is everywhere, we just need to use efficient Renewable technology. Active Kinetic 1.

[@JugglinJellyTake01]

Let's take the mantra that came out a couple of decades ago 'We need to cut fossil fuels by 80%'. Sounds good. So from that we need to cut transport emissions by 80%. That is 10% for running cars and 10% for their manufacturing. A high proportion of transport would need to be public transport and some for emergency services. We would be left with a rental model for cars which currently most are under used. When new oil, gas and coal extraction is proposed their impact has to be taken in to account. Now try the same for cars which claim not even 1 or 2% emissions savings on previous models. By the same token no new models would be released for private purchase and certainly not in the volumes they expect. They would need to be electric or compressed air buses or rental electric cars. Certainly no new intensive animal agriculture proposals would get through planning either.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Prof Jim Hansen's study & paper projects a continuing rise in global mean temperatures of at least 0.25°C per decade which would get us to +3°C by 2084 - way off track indeed. That is perhaps conservative because I dont think we can eliminate the self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms without either 1) LOWERING the total cumulation of GH gases, or 2) gambling with untried geoengineering interventions.

[@louishennick6883]

Yes both 1) and 2)

[@Sr.Yamasaki]

Currently the IEA says we are heading towards 2.4°C by 2100, which is tragic but more acceptable than 3.7°C and 4°C.

[@nvsv_wintersport]

Us humans will die out some day, Earth doesn't care: next species please!

[@timbushell8640]

STIs... where is Al Vernacchio or Terri Conley when you need them... : ))))))

[@christerdehlin8866]

Norway has currently not banned internal combustion vehicles. That assertion is flat out wrong. The policy won't be implemented until 2035, when we'll follow the EU's legislation. It is however correct that our government did subsidize the transition to EVs, and that policy has been a success.

[@DrSmooth2000]

Cli-mates is great but won't come across in print 🐒

[@tylerwhorff7143]

💙✌️

[@jonshouse1]

How can we aspire to a 1.5c target, I thought we had already hit that mark?

[@ClimateAdam]

while temperatures have passed 1.5°C based on most temperature records over the past year (and relative to the standard baseline), this is understood to be a freakishly hot year, whereas the temperature limit refers to *average temperatures*. I discussed this (in advance of the freakish temperatures!) here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZrVqa2sj6mXabc all that said, we are incredibly close to the limit, and I think it would be hard to find many who believe we won't breach it.

[@jonshouse1]

@@ClimateAdam Interesting subject, thanks for making the videos. I will watch the linked video later.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@ClimateAdam "this is understood to be a freakishly hot year"

[@ronvandereerden4714]

@@TheDanEdwards Nope. I suppose you just confirmed Adam's point about patchy climate education. Temperatures need not plunge over a decade to be consistent with the observation. They can drop slightly toward the average trendline before they continue their upward trend and pass 1.5C, on average, in a few year's time. Or, better yet, stabilize below 1.5C if everybody would take this terrible threat seriously. Let's all try to make it plunge over a decade. But let's be pretty happy if we can just get it to stabilize around 1.5C.

[@guapochino140]

@@ronvandereerden4714 How would it go down over the next decade exactly? Netzero tomorrow would not lower temps due to melting in progress and the removal of the accidental geoengineering we did putting all those particulates in the sky that help to reflect a bit of sunlight.

[@boxodrive]

This sounds nice but I don't see how you sustain any of these social tipping points when there's the least bit of adversity. There are no examples in human history of us doing this, all the examples go the other way.

[@ClimateAdam]

actually the paper cites some examples - for example on norms and values, looking at the abolition transatlantic slave "trade", which certainly had substantial push back

[@boxodrive]

@@ClimateAdam sure, but slavery existed before and after the transatlantic slave trade and it wasn't just accepted by everyone in those instances either. Nobody has ended the desire to own slaves by some people. The transatlantic slave trade was just an instance where slavery got very large, the end was very dramatic and the whole thing is very well documented and recent. So we think we all got together and ended slavery, yay humanity. Wherever there's societal collapse from climate change, slavery is going to come back big time.

[@ericritchie6783]

... Oils going to run out basically and we're not using what we have left to prepare for a decent lower consumption lifestyle.

[@lorah3005]

👍 Whole food plant based _for the environment_ and health; vegan for the victims! *Ask your city government to sign the Plant Based Treaty!* 🖖

[@SamWilkinsonn]

Sticking with the smoking analogy - we’re on our deathbed due to many types of ailments caused by the smoking. We were chain smoking for our whole life, but have been slowly increasing our cigarette intake (fossil fuel use) over the decades. Since the doctors have told us that we need to stop smoking, we’ve kept of smoking the same amount of cigarettes but instead of smoking even more we’ve added vaping (‘green’ energy). Vaping is still damaging, and we’re not able to reverse the damage done anyway, it will carry on worsening even if we suddenly gave up smoking altogether. Diagnosis: we are going to be in severe decline for several years until lights out by the end of the decade. The end will be painful.

[@rolandgibson-murphy2853]

We have ADDED green energy and not slowed greenhouse gasses overall. As more countries move up the developing chain or/and move to more developing countries used more resources. In addition, trading fossil fuels or mining doesn't really change many problems, just the way the problems affect us. Not to mention that it is NOT ONLY climate change that is having a negative effect on us. Biodiversity is down!! Pollution is growing. ...

[@red_rassmueller1716]

Comment for the algorithm

[@ClimateAdam]

10010001110101

[@Conus426]

Man you are funny!

[@peterdollins3610]

Nate Hagens does a series 'The Great Simplification.' No 53 with William E. Rees is interesting. He also has guy called Cai? on. 80? Using such things as beavers, replacing Mangroves as investments etc. We can each support wildlife environmental groups. I support 7 plus Amnesty & Labour. James Hansen says Renewables need Nuclear Power to help & a Carbon Tax to be returned to the General Public. Lots of things to do, too many perhaps.

[@VladBunea]

The Great Simplification is a version of degrowth but without saying the word “degrowth”. Nate doesn’t do much class analysis which is regrettable.

[@roberthornack1692]

The aerosol masking paradox makes abundantly clear that the loss of reflective cooling aerosols in fossil fuels will only cause a rapid doubling in heating From the 2c. we are currently at to 4c. in a matter of days. This has been extensively documented by James Hanson regarding the removal of sulphates from shipping fuel which has led to an increase in ocean temps. We are damned if we do & damned if we don't at this point!

[@ClimateAdam]

aerosols are absolutely taken into account by climate scientists when we assess limits

[@Jc-ms5vv]

Looks like we’re doomed either way

[@Cloudhead0]

Your hair is cool! what are you talking about!

[@mathieucaron4957]

Be positive, it will change china, ruSSia, usa, india, etc. 😃

[@Quyanxi]

If 69 out of 1.5K climate policies have worked, it's actually quite the achievement that indicates just how little can be done to achieve something. Is there a list that details what policies have worked, where and why?

[@ClimateAdam]

have a peek at the study - there's loads more info than I went into. worth noting, for example, that carbon taxes seemed particularly successful even on their own (as compared to other policies that needed to be in combination). links (as ever) provided in the description.

[@halflive3convirmed553]

Im very sorry but I don’t think changing our mindset and social values towards climate change is gonna solve the problem. Because in my experience policy makers don’t allways value the public opinion or what might be the best for earth as much as what is good for business. The only thing that’s happening is that people feel guilty for something that they are not in control of.

[@boringsoftware2093]

thanks for making the effort, but education alone will not cut it, unless u can educate people on how to finance a solar system at lower than their monthly electrictiy costs

[@nicksalve]

Algorithm+

[@ClimateAdam]

Beep boop!

[@Rene-uz3eb]

It seems at the absolute very least, we don't need to install more power on fossil fuel so that someone somewhere can have growth. Don't care if it's 'just' to catch up or whatever, that's a ridiculous mindset, right now everyone can wait for growth if fossils were the only option

[@senhox970]

If you are talking about mindset, a limited growth for the ones that are behind and degrowth for the ones ahead would make much more sense.

[@Rene-uz3eb]

No

[@senhox970]

@@Rene-uz3eb Yes, it would.

[@pdevito]

69 and STIs 😂

[@activekinetic1]

Well pointed out ! Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. All renewables are great however most people are unaware that electromagnetic induction is still the cheaper form of generating electricity compared to solar. Electromagnetic induction is less impacting on the environment and a far more sustainable form of harvesting energy. Kinetic energy is available 24 hours whereas solar only has energy for 5 hours a day. Undertaking an LCOE has proven Active Kinetic 1, may well be the cheapest method to generate electricity !

[@林二郎-k5h]

Nuclear is much more reliable than renewable,and it will be much more appealing to investors

[@louishennick6883]

I agree. We need to cure the mass phobia of nuclear and educate ourselves on the fossil fuel misinformation campaign against nuclear, wind, and solar.

[@jaykanta4326]

Sure, as soon as you can convince capitalists that it's profitable when it's not.

[@MrNick3742]

If we stopped all fossil fuel burning today, it would make things worse. The sulphates from the burning creates one degree of cooling, and we're already at 1.5 above pre-industrial temperatures. Since CO2 has an atmospheric residence of hundreds of years, this means focusing on fossil fuels instead of methane emissions is the best way to accelerate tipping points and the inevitable extinction triggering those will bring about. The only viable solution is to end animal agriculture via collective boycott and push for capping "natural gas" and other methane leaks from fossil fuels. We should also farm rice differently. If we can halve methane emissions, while simultaneously rewilding the 42% of our planet currently being used to feed farmed animals, we can halve methane in the atmosphere within a decade and also increase our planet's ability to store the excess carbon we've already put in the atmosphere. It will buy us time to phase out fossil fuels as the warming decreases over the course of the decade. Emissions are not the same thing as resultant radiative heating. Please consider reading Dr. Sailesh Rao's work and doing a video on its conclusions.

[@KidHorn7001]

If we stopped all human induced greenhouse gas creation, in a few decades we would discover an even bigger issue. Too much global cooling. We need some greenhouse gas creation to prevent an ice age. Just not too much.

[@miguel5785]

Interesting. Not all sulphates come from burning fossil fuels and their cooling effect is still subject to big uncertainties, but you may be right.

[@MrNick3742]

@@miguel5785 Hi friend, thank you for your reply. Don't take my word for it, please consider looking into the full analysis by Dr. Rao by searching Climate Healers and "Animal Agriculture Position Paper." It expounds upon the much older science presented by Goodland and Anhang that negated what the non-climate scientists at FAO put forth in "Livestock's Long Shadow," which turned out to be incredibly inaccurate thanks to its dilution of methane and for completely ignoring land use change, livestock respiration, and supply chain emissions.

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

A recent study estimated the global average temperature over the last 485 million years with the highest peak at about 35°C, 20° higher than today. Life on Earth didn't go extinct from that. Still, the study suggests the climate is more sensitive than implied by the middle of uncertainty ranges for future warming. Worth mentioning is that Michael Mann has expressed skepticism about the results, but not debunked it.

[@EdwardM-t8p]

​@@anderslvolljohansen1556 True, but nowhere will you find that the temperature spiked 20° C all at once. The closest is the End-Permian Extinction where temperatures went up 6° C over 10,000 years which caused 90% of all life on Earth to go extinct.

[@levmoses742]

Thanks for the video!! Also want to be sure to mention that we can do a better job at sourcing the matériels for energy fuel. We’ve got to get the kids out of the mines. Right now poor folks and people of color are both impacted by climate change and are harmed by the “solutions.” Children crawling into cobalt mines for our EV and phone batteries is one example. We can slow, and perhaps reverse climate change and we can do so by Not causing harm to humans if we choose not to.

[@rickicoughlan8299]

If you’re not talking about people changing to a plant based diet, ending large scale animal agriculture and industrial fishing you’re not talking about a complete climate solution. You’re not even understanding the problem.

[@ishmaelmcgoo2945]

Fair point, it would have been nice to mention it. It will also be especially important in order to be able to feed everyone as we lose more and more land to desertification. It's just staggering how much of the world's farmland is used to produce a comparably small amount of meat. People should at least reduce their beef consumption to occasionally, it's by far the most polluting food.

[@red_rassmueller1716]

All I hear is "you are eating the food of my food". And it's from people who actually feel the same way, know it's bad, want to change something but can't so they hit on vegans and vegetarians... it's a tough world, but it's gonna change for the better... I hope anyway

[@Thanir8957]

He made videos about those topics though.

[@ClimateAdam]

I have videos discussing agriculture and diet. That's not the topic of this video (which is about successful policy, and social momentum, rather than the specific solutions)

[@rickicoughlan8299]

@@ClimateAdam Cool, I'll check them out. Thanks for responding.

[@zm1786]

even if every single person in the USA and europe stop using fossil fuels of any kind, it will do nothing in the long run as long as china and india exist

[@zm1786]

@TinoMartinelli why would they produce less. China does not care at all.

[@zm1786]

@@SteveLomas-k6k that's the entire point of climate change. If Temps did rise, millions of acres in Siberia would become fertile.farmland

[@zm1786]

@@SteveLomas-k6k the EV with the battery made in china? exactly my first point

[@guapochino140]

It's not about the fossil fuels, it's about the consumption. The USA, UK, and EU still consume more of everything, including fossil fuels that are burned in China and India to produce plastic and steel for them. And the UK and US have been burning enough FF to power a complex economy for over 200 years, with all the raw materials inputs that required, taken from all over the world. But if you want to be selfish about it, I am sure future generations in the USA and Europe will remember you. And of course the USA would love to make China cease to exist, colonize it economically which would of course clean up the planet and make everything awesome (sarcasm)

[@colinmartin6096]

China has more than 80 percent of the world's solar manufacturing capacity and 60% of the world's wind turbine production capacity. The massive scale of China's renewables sector output has driven down prices worldwide, which has been and is a key factor in reducing the cost barrier to renewable systems for poorer countries. Furthermore, China's CO2 intensity reduced by 48.4% in 2020 compared to 2005 level while the share of non-fossil fuel in primary energy consumption reached 15.9% in 2020, achieving China's climate pledges for 2020 ahead of schedule. They held up their end of the deal so far, so why not live by example with your country instead of pointing fingers at other's who are doing more?

[@chicoterra4000]

Ô menino de Oxford, seu papo é muito engraçado, fala... fala e não diz nada, me diz aí como fazer cimento, aço, plástico, etc sem emitir gases poluentes? É só enterrá-los... É? e quem vai pagar isso? Vc vai parar a indústria? Vc vai falar pros americanos, russos e árabes pararem de vender petróleo? Cai na real, monta um programa de piadas e vai ser feliz!!

[@senhox970]

Não precisa falar para quem vende petróleo parar de vender petróleo, é só deixar de se comprar petróleo, que vender petróleo vai deixar de ser lucrativo.

[@Sr.Yamasaki]

Calma ai gênio

[@Sr.Yamasaki]

​@@senhox970exatamente cara, o gênio aí não deve ter lembrado disso.

[@SheilaMink-c2t]

Adam, thank you for your inspiring words. Two things that we each can do are use the search engine that plants trees... hint it is named Ecosia. And take the must pledge, say to yourself I will only drive my car when I must go someplace and not so often when I want to go someplace. Both are small changes, but think of the difference they can make if MANY people choose to do them...

[@Argrouk]

I see lots of assertions with no data to back it up. How are we running out of food and water? Who has been swept away by rising sea levels? Crop yields have been rising for centuries, unless you try to force people to go organic. The planet is 2/3 water, it is not scarce, but it is very badly managed. Sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, something fully expected at the end of an ice age. Building and trying to live at sea level is a moving goal post of futility, not a necessity. Absolutely none of that has anything to do with CO2 or it's part in any warming.

[@KidHorn7001]

Human activities are speeding up the warming, but you have some good points. Calling what we're experiencing now an emergency is hyperbole. The no evidence of an emergency. But things could change.

[@Argrouk]

@@KidHorn7001 Too many "coulds" in the climate argument, that never seem to quite match up to the "is". I think many of them need to go back and look at what did happen in the last 2 million years and reconsider what "could" happen and why. I for one do not want (if we even could) a return to preindustrial temperatures, otherwise known as the little ice age, the coldest period in centuries. Shorter growing seasons, winter death spikes, and you guessed it, that old favourite, extreme weather events.

[@notrueflagshere198]

Have you ever worn an ape suit?

[@laletemanolete]

69 hehe

[@Randomrayray666]

Isn’t going to happen.

[@drawyrral]

What's with the nail polish?

[@liamhodgson]

It’s a nice color, not with that shirt tho lmao

[@ronvandereerden4714]

Y'all must be un of 'em country bumpkins drivin' big ol' trucks spewin' thick black smoke whilst chawin' bacci.

[@drawyrral]

@@ronvandereerden4714 I find distracting, no matter who wears it.

[@ronvandereerden4714]

@@drawyrral Women too?

[@drawyrral]

@@ronvandereerden4714 Yes. It drives me nuts that I can't ignore it. Nose rings and large ear rings too.