Jancovici : Will technology save us from Climate Change ? MIT Media Lab - 23/02/2021

Jean-Marc Jancovici was invited for a talk by the MIT Media Lab : www.media.mit.edu/events/will-technology-save-us-from-climate-change/
Slides : fr.slideshare.net/JoelleLeconte/jancovici-mit-media-lab-23022021
Jancovici's website : jancovici.com/en/
Facebook page: jeanmarc.jancovici/
Video uploaded by Joëlle Leconte : www.linkedin.com/in/joelle-leconte-09b98860/detail/recent-activity/

[@piratesuryt]

Regarder cette vidéo c'est comme regarder un film que tu as vu 100 fois et que tu remates une nouvelle fois mais en Serbe. Ça pose aucun problème tu connais les dialogues par cœur.

[@ronan6882]

Tellement vrai :-)

[@romainmorlans1794]

@@ronan6882 Yes ! Telleming true !

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@romainmorlans1794 oh yeah ....Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia. Yes you can, oh yeah...

[@ecclesiafr9030]

Et du coup tu apprends passivement le serbe.

[@piratesuryt]

@@ecclesiafr9030 i am bilingue now

[@92310cesar]

the famous crockets for the machines

[@92310cesar]

@R Croissant yes chose your camp comrade but don't bet all your savings in it

[@FM-gt8jc]

But alors you are French ?

[@FM-gt8jc]

@@92310cesar Y’a pas d’hélice hélas, c’est là qu’est l’os !

[@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351]

@@FM-gt8jc tea for two and two for tea...,

[@azadsykes9880]

MY FLOWERS ARE BEAUTIFUL !!!

[@AdrienBurg]

I swear, in a few years, JMJ will get a nobel peace prize for his effort in broadcasting crucial knowledge to resolve the biggest crisis of the past centuries. We do not appreciate enough how fast we get in the journey to a sustainable world thanks to him.

[@fannymilleu5899]

oh yeah ....You must, very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia.... Yes you can ...

[@Reyvius78]

@@fannymilleu5899 carbon footprint was made by the company BP to redirect the attention to all the citizens of earth instead of themselves

[@mathieuSScote]

Climate change is only a symptom of the real meta issue : ecological overshoot. Unfortunately, our brains are wired in such a way that we can't confront the problem. As brillantly put by Dr Bill Rees : " what is politically feasible is ecologically irrelevant , what is ecologically necessary is polically unconceivable".

[@mathieuSScote]

@@Reyvius78 ecological footprint is a concept developped by prof. bill rees

[@J4Zonian]

@Ad Millions of others are saying the same things: scientists; activists; progressive politicians... Kevin Anderson is excellent; David Roberts; Bill McKibben. (I don’t understand your last sentence, which I think says the opposite of what you think it says.)

[@SirLetintin]

« Soit told en passant »

[@59DGO59]

Il a vraiment dit ça? 😂 Quelqu’un aurait un minutage? 😂

[@nicolaschristin393]

Haha Soit told en passant, JMJ a un excellent anglais avec un accent dont beaucoup d'expats feraient bien de s'inspirer :)

[@funky5742]

The smicard in France is living like a nabab

[@sterneurs1942]

The commentaires of la video is the meilleur du youtube

[@kiliandervaux6675]

Le niveau de franglish dans l'espace des commentaires est exceptionnel en effet 🤣

[@romainmorlans1794]

Yes we have a good rigoling in the commentariz.

[@b0db0d]

I had never laughed so much as when I read your answers in Frenglish, thx all

[@pierrefritsch6019]

Bravo ! Enfin une dimension internationale grandement méritée !

[@fl6831]

Il a déjà été auditionné à l'OECD, ça a beaucoup d'impact (un public de décideurs). Mais c'est vrai que le MIT, c'est une reconnaissance internationale importante.

[@alexhmbt]

Top, ça faisait longtemps que j’attendais une vidéo récente qui fasse « la totale » en 2h, car récemment il y avait que des approches thématiques et puis le cours des Mines de 20h. Super pour partager. En plus en anglais c’est encore plus simple (malgré l’accent, et les coquilles non traduites dans les images, ahah, on adore.) Merci Monsieur Jancovici

[@nicolaschristin393]

J'espère que vous êtes bilingue anglais-français car, vivant à l'étranger dans un pays anglophone, dans mon entourage, je connais peu de gens qui ont un accent aussi bon que celui de JMJ :)

[@yanisammouche5601]

@@nicolaschristin393 Je te jure...

[@Faman74]

All things beeing equals by elsewhere.

[@retropaganda8442]

*Other* things being equal (except that thing we're looking at). The "by elsewhere" is a bad translation for "other"

[@ladislasdurand8136]

Good blood, but it is well sure !

[@pn4960]

wow le MIT, very nice to be invited by this prestigious institution

[@tony_mo]

Recently discovered your channel and it's very enlightening, thank you! Didn't know that we're that much in the shit before finding your videos and the one from the other French channel "le Réveilleur".

[@lilibreizh8911]

Two wonderfull Channel, indeed. Sourced and factual. The two deserves thousand hundreds of followers. (More than cute kitten channels, in fact.)

[@kennethshowers9144]

@@lilibreizh8911 Dear Lili, may I suggest this other youtube channel, if you didn't discover it yet: "écologie rationnelle"? It is a small but quite efficient one. I learned new concepts such as the Cobra effect and good explaination about 5G issues. PS: I still feel great fun communicating with you in english :)

[@lilibreizh8911]

@@kennethshowers9144 thank you for this link. I will watch this channel quickly. (I already know the « cobra effect » but i have no doubt I will learn another concept or facts.) Thanks too for your compliment, I feared that my rusted english wasn’t clear. And it’s nice for me too to converse with you again.

[@jfachard9777]

thank you very much Jean-Marc , it's an enormous pleasure to ear you in english !!!!!

[@Samsara_is_dukkha]

to hear you

[@philippeeich3287]

Thank you so much for this work! You give a little hope and a lot of motivation to work for our future 🌎

[@Franguiche]

I am very étonne by la possibility to watch la vidéo in 720p !...

[@UCxcRAwlfb7ozS7ZHtmUqonw]

Moi too but I pense que c'est because MIT needed higher qualité ?

[@Hichigo68]

I think c'est un tradeoff pour read les slides, and the consommation vidéo was revue to the baisse dans une étude du shift project (ce qui change nothing au problème général).

[@romainmorlans1794]

@@Hichigo68 Thank you for the explication.

[@SirLetintin]

Men, you made me rire so much!

[@jfachard9777]

but you can choose the number of p !!!

[@lacryman5541]

J'aime beaucoup cette version pour un public US qui rappelle davantage les variations naturelles du climat pour désamorcer l'argument 'le climat à toujours varié' en relativisant les variations naturelles par rapport au forçage que l'humanité y ajoute.

[@piratesuryt]

C'est vrai qu'il a extrêmement bien préparé son coup mais malheureusement ça n'est pas qu'un argument américain...

[@virgilius7036]

Envisager une autre approche est au dessus de votre intelligence! Au lieu de vous borner étudiez donc l'histoire du climat de la Terre. Il n'y a JAMAIS eu de climat stable ce qui veut dire qu'il a TOUJOURS varié, de même que le taux de CO2 dans l'atmosphère des millions d'années avant l'apparition de l'homme sur Terre! Et on ne sait pas pourquoi il varie ainsi !

[@guillaumec1636]

@@virgilius7036 Justement : c'est expliqué dans la vidéo, vers le début justement. Cela n'empêche pas les émissions de CO2 causées par l'homme d'être préoccupantes (et le mot est faible, regardez la vidéo en entier pour comprendre pourquoi). (si vous ne comprenez pas l'anglais allez voir une des autres conférences de la chaîne)

[@TontonPanda]

This is video is a must watch.

[@thomasamand9687]

French first ! But it is also very clear in english. I hope you will continue informing people whatever there laguages ! J'espère que vous continuerez d'instruire les gens dans un maximum de pays !

[@AurelienGuyot]

Merci / Thank you. It was cool for me to watch it in english and share whith friends who doesn't speack french and make them discover it, (saying its interesting, practical but natural and easy to follow) with some litle things typical french too verry funny to see here like "finger in the nose etc". JMJ always so good and serious, clear and efficient!!! J'ai adoré pouvoir regardé en anglais avec des amis anglophones pour partager et redécouvrir sous cet angle avec des petits cliens d'oeil marrants "finger in the nose" "le doigt mouillé" asterix à la fin... Marrant. Avec un Jean Marc toujours aussi clair et percutant, l'art de la pédagogie c'est de réexpliquer, je connais par cœur mais avec ce niveau de qualité j'ai toujours autant de plaisir à m'infliger des piqures de rappel.

[@Ash-yf5bn]

What is the source for the map at 27m12s? It says "Quaternary Environments Network", but I cannot find that organisation or their work. 27:12

[@michelrx]

Il est judicieux de faire comprendre le problème du changement climatique, ses causes et ses conséquences dans une langue plus internationale (hélas) que le français. J'espère que cette vidéo sera vue à une large échelle et dans de nombreux pays, car les enjeux sont considérables. Et les conséquences de l'inaction seront graves.

[@guilhemdugast7474]

Excellente présentation, merci de porter votre voix dans le monde anglophone

[@TuYolPol]

J'ai appris également que Gaël Giraud va essayer d'agir du côté de Washington. Il faut dire que de ce côté-ci on est à la remorque des US, et maintenant que Mister Debilos est parti, il y a une ouverture.

[@guilhemdugast7474]

​@@TuYolPol Toutes les ouvertures sont bonnes à prendre, sans un niveau de coordination international sans précédent nous n'y arriverons pas.

[@crpth1]

Awesome! Time well spent. ;-)

[@lazysloth8448]

Great, it's quite a complete presentation in English. A good way to share knowledge with my English speaker friends

[@thierrybo6304]

"fingers in the noise" ne veut rien dire en anglais il me semble ...

[@JLaalami]

Un plaisir de pouvoir partager ton point de vue a des anglophone!

[@philippeeich3287]

I have to add that even if numeric technology has a high cost, I believe it is still more efficient if we compare the impact such a video to a "classic" conference. You can be viewed by thousands of persons without taking transportation and without the infrastructure required.

[@semoncho]

You cannot forget Jevons' paradox. Certainly a lecture by Mr. Jancovici via youtube reaches many more people than it could in person, at a much lower economic and ecological cost. The problem is that on youtube, alongside such clarifying talks as this, there are a lot of videos that don't contribute one iota to the general knowledge, and that pollute not only the minds of the public, but also the environment.

[@mollyproctor2862]

no it's not

[@user-hk2uz1nu9p]

Its good if it is limited by this kind of information sharing. The issue is that 80% of internet bandwidth is occupied by videos, such as porn, netflix and youtube in majority.

[@MrAroone]

Excellent! On a une version en anglais! Je vais pouvoir partager avec les non-francophones! Thank you so much!

[@romainmorlans1794]

Yes me pareil

[@PierreGuilbaud]

Thank you for this video!

[@fyodorkaramazov2136]

1:16:35 Ça c'est de la masterclass Janko !

[@charptho]

Now it's time for Janco to go international

[@fannymilleu5899]

Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia.

[@makefunable]

Economics is closer to cooking recipes than to science !

[@franckdiboues1201]

C’est de l’idéologie mise en équation...

[@mhcbon4606]

c'est vache pour l'art culinaire ! La science du plaisir gustatif.

[@benovr]

The Molecular Gastronomy Chef Association disavow this message

[@charptho]

Il y a des gens sérieux en sciences économiques comme en sciences sociales en général. Le problème c'est que en tant que science humaine, elle est profondément politique et reprise a tort et à travers par tout les politicards, journalistes, etc

[@fabricesioul3397]

I feel like the presentation is even scarier in english than in french !

[@SOCRATELEFOU]

🤣🤣🤣

[@retropaganda8442]

It's adapted to the American audience : more of everything!

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@retropaganda8442 oh yeah ....Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia.

[@johnjohn-kg5yx]

Wowww... C'est la première fois qu on entend Jancovici en anglais !!!

[@ivanbarzani]

Aussi fluide en anglais qu'en français. As fluent in english as in french.

[@pierremarchal3496]

Désolé de jouer les rabat-joie, mais il y a beaucoup de faux-amis employés mal à propos. Inconveniences, au lieu de drawbacks, par exemple.

[@aarrttnoel]

@@pierremarchal3496 il a parlé de fluidité, pas d'exactitude ;) et puis bon ça reste un français en live, c'est plutôt largement au dessus de la moyenne nationale :p

[@ivanbarzani]

@@pierremarchal3496 je ne suis pas rentré dans les détails c'est vrai, disons que l'anglais est fluent à défaut d'être native. Si on compare à nos politiques, le niveau est plutôt très propre.

[@retropaganda8442]

@@pierremarchal3496 18:27 Inconvenience est le bon terme, pas drawback. Il parle bien de la condition physique du corps humain. Sinon, généralement, si c'est de l'anglais un peu plus latinisé, on peut supposer que les auditeurs sont habitués à ces glissements internationaux opérés sur leur langue. Les anglais absorbent depuis des siècles, alors pourquoi ça ne continuerait plus.

[@pierremarchal3496]

@@retropaganda8442 les auditeurs anglophones sont effectivement habitués au globish, anglais métissé par l’usage international.

[@jfachard9777]

it's very funny to ear you in english Jean-Marc !!!! to be continued !!!

[@Marceaulefourbe]

Quelqu'un connaîtrait le nom du monsieur qui l'accompagne ? Il me semble que c'est un avocat en droit de l'environnement, j'aimerais beaucoup le contacter :)

[@victornowakowski9163]

That's true... your voice arond all contries !

[@fannymilleu5899]

Mongolia also !

[@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351]

@@fannymilleu5899 that's why even a yellow vest is able to write something stupid, but as always without any proof.

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351 oh yeah ! But there are all types of people among the yellow vest, but you should know that there is also the kind of one that if you want to attack their standard of living by always taxing your car fuel, it could become easily dangerous .... the kind we saw especially during the first demonstrations. When he is determined to settle a case, he never procrastinates; it is a promise ...Nothing to do with a pathetic green leftist like you .....

[@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351]

@@fannymilleu5899 I'm shure that your mouth is too big in comparation with what you're really able to do. That's why I can't Feel scared by these boring and so stupid words. Show us the proof that you're more right than Jancovici or the MIT. I'm already laughing.

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351 You leftist ecologists, you have not yet understood what you risk if you continue in your carbonic delusions, to attack the standard of living of the French ... I am sure that Samuel Paty would have answered the same thing as you ... Like what, temerity sometimes makes you lose your head ... So Guignol, are you still laughing?

[@pelkaim]

JM the best even in english !! 8 billions people on earth = extractivist,productivist,exponential and energy consuming society !!

[@1vor12dokus8]

really great summary, I specially love that part of the uselesness of economic models. I whished, I had known all of this, when I was still Post-Doc at the ENS in Paris, I would have visited his lectures, and avoided lots of wrong choices that I made, because back then I did not know all of this in detail.

[@bernardlheraud2697]

Bonjour, serait il possible avoir une version traduit en français ? À disposition la chaîne " La page" Merci

[@neclis7777]

Great presentation, thank you SIr ! Not sure how your US audience took your French jokes though.

[@fannymilleu5899]

oh yeah ! Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia....Yes you can , oh yeah !

[@georgesmajerus3272]

@@fannymilleu5899 vous êtes légèrement pénible. Mais si ça vous amuse...

[@leechong5335]

Thank you very much Mister Jancovici for explaining climate change to us , in both English en French, my question.. Is Wath are the alternatives in the face of a predicticted disaster ? Hwo to solve such a dramatic problem with politicians who don't take the climate change emergency . Thank you very much for your excellent presentation en thank you so much for the citizens around the world, have nice day everyone

[@sal0r]

I don't think Mr Jancovici is going to answer your question (unfortunately) but maybe we can debate about it together and with any person that want to join. What I believe is that politicians are doing quite good for the people they get elected by. Since a big majority of people still don't know or don't care about the climate change problem, then politicians do so. Our duty is then to make people know about it, to make people care about these subjects. Then, at that moment, when majority will want real ecological actions, politician will finally become serious on the subject. Furthermore, we have to reduce our carbon emission already as individuals because the ecological problem can't wait the majority of people and the politicians to care about to reduce our emissions, it has to be started asap I do not pretend to be Mr Jancovici, so my answer may be wrong, I acknowledge this. Kind regards

[@retropaganda8442]

I think Thomas got JM's thoughts right. Just wanted to add that he also says that democracies aren't "equipped" to tackle the problem. I think he foresees a collapse of democracies.

[@madeleine7884]

Jean Marc, futur Président of France...?!! This would make climat change more easy....!!

[@randomrandom4667]

@@retropaganda8442 Democracy, but neither other form of government. Even in most tyranical systems, the choices depend a lot on the politics with most influence and on people stomacks. The best way as @thomas said is to educate/inform people around you

[@J4Zonian]

@@sal0r Tu quoque The only thing that will matter is to organize to remove the right wing from power so actual solutions can be implemented. By the time the few people who care enough to do anything personal have reduced their harm from the already-small bit that it is, the richest 3 people in the US have gotten hundreds of millions richer & increased their impact by thousands of times more than the poor folks have reduced theirs. This is not a struggle that can be won by personal lifestyle change.

[@madeleine7884]

I didn't know that Jean Mark speaks english so good.....!!!

[@SirLetintin]

But alors le guy avec la barbe is french? Vous avez seen comment il a dit « Jean Marc Jancovici » with a perfect french accent?

[@djudju8047]

Great video !

[@cheenuerens3972]

I have a contention that environmental degradation is due to "lifestyle", not "population" as many people still seem to communicate.... This presentation is absolutely incredible. I most especially like the comment on "economics being closer to cooking recipes than science". Coming from an econ background, I keep stating that economics is a pseudo-science, that it uses scientific methods, but isn't a science at all (it's tautological). But people look at me cross-eyed, like I'm a fringe lunatic. So thank you for that, JMJ. I have a contention that environmental degradation is due to "lifestyle", not "population" as many people still seem to communicate. This proposed policy guideline is a "red herring" and categorically false. I am a BI/Analytics expert and have built an application whereby I can "remove" country/countries from their world CO2 output and redistribute it across the remaining countries to see how population could change for the same overall CO2. For (a simple) example, if there are 3 "Countries" with 1 person each, "A" with a 10 per capita CO2, "B" with a 2.5 per capita CO2 and "C" with a 1 per capita CO2. I can remove country "A" and 'gain' a 10 CO2 credit that I can redistribute to country "B" and "C". Since "B" and "C" are 1 person each, they are 50% of the remaining population and I allocate the 10 carbon credit as 50% each. Hence, country "B" can add 2 people (at 2.5 CO2 per capita) and country "C" can add 5 people (at 1 CO" per capita). The result is original population of 2, plus 2 new "Bs" and 5 new "Cs" which is a population of "9" or an increase of "7" on the "remainder population. Hence, the "1" in "A" is equivalent to "7" others. These are a few findings based on the above: - If US was excluded (pop. of 320 million), remaining population of 6.5 billion could increase to 71 billion. - If Low Income, Low Medium and Upper Medium income countries were excluded (pop. of 5.7 billion), then the remaining High Income countries could increase from 1.153 billion to 1.72 billion. - If High Income countries were excluded (pop. of 1.153 billion ), then the remaining Low Income, Low Medium and Upper Medium income countries could increase from 5.7 billion to 181 billion. - If the top 10 CO2 per capita countries (excluding US) would be removed (pop. of 54.3 million), rest of world population could increase to 19.152 billion. Is there any research or documentation in order to validate my hypothesis? One other article/journalist, Juliette Jowett, seems to point out that decreasing population in certain countries (the lower end of the income scale) would actually increase the standards of living and hence exacerbate the current environmental degradation, not resolve it. This is why my contention that environmental degradation is (which I anyhow think is quite obvious, a "secret de polichinelle" as the French would say) is not a population issue, as so many claim, but a lifestyle issue.

[@marcingolab6227]

THANK YOU! Comment for the algorithm.

[@laurentf8120]

On the slide on the Kaya identity, JMJ says that consumption is proportional to population. It's been true only because population has always grown. If population got constant, CO2 per capita would decrease. A simple exemple is a home. In places where the population is stable, very few new homes are build. Its for the newcomers that we make new buildings. And all the CO2 for the construction of a new building is emitted at construction time and almost nothing for the next 200 years or so of building life. The same is true for a lot of long life infrastructures.

[@retropaganda8442]

If only buildings built today lasted 200 years.

[@fannymilleu5899]

Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia....Yes you can, oh yeah !

[@mollyproctor2862]

Not only, one of his main idea, fairly documented is that when you increase efficiency, or lower the consumption on a specific task, then we just try to do more, returning to the previous consumption. It's clearly obvious with the internet, since electricity is so cheap, we stream as much as we can.

[@veroneti]

Insane Amazing Jancovici @MIT, rendez-vous White House next time...

[@samuctrebla3221]

Janco delivering kicks in the ant nest

[@fannymilleu5899]

yes but except with a Yellow Vest, it would be the opposite ... oh yeah ...

[@samuctrebla3221]

@@fannymilleu5899 Notre dernier échange était si infructueux que j'ai des sueurs froides à l'idée de refaire la même chose en anglais.

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@samuctrebla3221 Did you know ? your buddy Janco is heated in winter with natural gas .... to be continued.

[@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351]

@@samuctrebla3221 j'ai eu la même triste expérience. Une folle furieuse incapable d'argumenter quoi que ce soit, n'apportent aucun lien, aucune source sinon ses certitudes et sa haine qu'elle vomit sur les fils de discussion: climatosceptique, raciste, injurieuse, et j'ose dire dénuée de toute culture scientifique.

[@tjampman]

6:20 Surely this graph is wrong, or am I misunderstanding something? I don't believe we only emit 12 times the CO2e today, as we did in 1860.

[@michaelrenper796]

Its cumulative. We have emitted 12x time by the now, the amount humanity emitted before 1860. And a large part of the pre-1860 emissions was from deforestation and agriculture.

[@nixx5490]

He's even better in english, great job as always

[@sharonrose2751]

The Problem with reducing emissions is that it will also reduce masking aerosols. A reduction of masking aerosols increases global warming. The emissions went down by 5 percent in the last year due to COVID but the earth has continued to warm due to the reduction of masking aerosols. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

[@sg7860]

Give me more little rule of 3 !

[@daveg5857]

I haven't watched the whole thing. What's the answer? Are we screwed?

[@camilohiche4475]

Short answer: No.

[@philippeeich3287]

Technology is a part of it, a small one though 🤷‍♂️ either this or back to medieval age

[@retropaganda8442]

Pshht!

[@Studio23creation]

@@philippeeich3287 yes, but then the answer to "Will technology save us from Climate Change ?" is still no. This is actually more part of the problem than part of the solution. believing tech will save us is leading us too close from the edge of the cliff each day... soit dit en passant

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

Absolutely stellar, riveting and what is needed. Jean-Marc- your speaking style is wonderful I have been advocating for female empowerment for awhile, no one talks about this in the population discussion. Religious leaders have to stop controlling female reproduction! There is so much more I could comment this was so good. Thank You!

[@J4Zonian]

@Env ??? The only woman there barely got to say a word (& the last 20 minutes of the talk & all the questions from the guy were moronic at best, focusing on high tech fossil-fueled non-solutions rather than the actual solutions of renewable energy, EVs, batteries. Our problem is not the numbers of us; it’s the far right oligarchy that’s trying to destroy Earth & all the solutions to the crisis.

[@ronan6882]

Said differently :-)

[@Deniz-jw6xh]

Comment on dit "soit dit en passant" en English please

[@harrycover9180]

By the way

[@rickman3401]

Said differently

[@frenchfriend6971]

We do have some benchmark how much it could cost at least in Europe to mitigate ocean rise with the somewhat large dams... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_European_Enclosure_Dam

[@rougecoquin7296]

erased

[@victorwarhem]

It sounds the Anglo-Saxon civilisation can't work without some sort of optimism ... Optimism "whatever it takes" ...

[@sookiezboly4502]

do you know a civilisation that doesnt work with optimism ? Optimism bind people together.

[@pasdepsedos]

@@sookiezboly4502 the French people. Bitching about everything is what binds us haha

[@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse]

Do you worry about the nuclear waste? This is where I may differ....but I am open and willing to learn more. It already feels like the planet is overflowing with radioactive waste from so many sources.

[@karlnoben8199]

His asumption is that we'd better live with engraved atomic wastes in some points ofour countries than with an average 4+ extra degrees in the air..

[@fyodorkaramazov2136]

You vitrify and bury it in sedimentary layers at peace since millions of years, you remove the entrance and they will be left alone for some more millions of years, nobody will dig that up ever and die that's nonsense.

[@abderrahimbenmoussa4359]

Encore une fois un excellent topo, bon j'ai toujours du mal avec les correlations présentée comme des causalité en revanche. Ca va prendre des meilleure modelisation pour intégrer tout ca mais clairement il faut qu'on se débarasser des centrales à charbon ou qu'on capte le CO2 qui en sorte immédiatement ce qui est virtuellement infaisable.

[@ecclesiafr9030]

En effet il faudrait présenter les connaissances qui les rendent causales, car elles existent.

[@macronchampion]

C'est marrant le mit media lab n'a pas publié la vidéo, sûrement que l'accent de JM est un peu dur a comprendre pour eux :D

[@julienrialan]

Ce que j'adore c'est son rire nerveux chaque fois qu'il lache une punchline : "People are not waiting here to die"

[@mhcbon4606]

donc c'est le moment d'aller propager la bonne parole sur internet. Cette version anglaise associée au prestige d'un nom tel que le MIT est une occasion à ne pas manquer.

[@retropaganda8442]

@@patriceleplombier8351 hmm, prêcher ça sonnerait religieux, propager c'est politique.

[@mhcbon4606]

@@patriceleplombier8351 le plus dur étant d'admettre que ma charité doit aussi se diriger aussi vers vous.... il y a des choses que nous ne nettoierons pas en changeant nos méthodes productives ou à coup de karcher...

[@mhcbon4606]

@@patriceleplombier8351 vous n'expliquez pas en quoi ça nous tire vers le bas. Qu'est ce qui vous faite dire que nous devrions nécessairement satisfaire à notre désir, quitte à nous mettre en danger ? Si c'est cela le devenir nécessaire de l'homme, alors pourquoi le concept de dette ? Certes c'est pour faire du pognon, mais à un moment donné pour rembourser, il faut un système stable dans lequel il est possible d'exploiter au maximum les capacités de retour sur investissement du génie humain. D'une manière plus générale c'est profondément mé-comprendre la conférence que de la réduire à un discours de politique écologique. Que la solution soit une politique économique et sociale intégrée au système écologique de la biosphère n'est que le signe que nous avons largement dépassé les limites qui étaient à notre disposition. (elles étaient à notre disposition car de par la dégradation intensive de notre environnement nous réduisons le périmètre de ces limites). que de charité de ma part...

[@mhcbon4606]

@@patriceleplombier8351 Clairement, on est pas sur la bonne pente. Où qu'on regarde. Mais comme ce problème engage ma survie, je choisit mon interet. Le covid c'est de la pissette de poussin à côté de la situation que nous avons et sommes entrain de générer par notre infantilisme du toujours plus.

[@mhcbon4606]

​@@patriceleplombier8351 Il faut prendre garde à ne pas confondre vicissitudes et crises existentielle. Dans l’intérêt de tous et chacun, cette distinction est primordial pour aborder ce sujet.

[@jeromejerome2492]

He did it !

[@sdvvseezfs3572]

As always thank god we've the french

[@b0db0d]

chauvinist

[@kenikenon7137]

Champion

[@maitrebug9686]

"until two thousand years ago." il a dit hundred la première fois.

[@rolandpalatino5934]

JANCO save the queen

[@1Bman]

Mp behöver se denna...

[@pepito5079]

Very dommage, ça a l’air intéressant but je panne rien quand vous parlez English? Est-il possible d’ajouter des sous titles svp?

[@pn4960]

si je trouve le temps de le faire je mettrais un autre commentaire en réponse pour te prevenir

[@sebastiencarre7111]

@@pn4960 tu trouveras la même presentation par Mr jancovici sur sa chaine en français

[@stromadere]

You have a palanquée d'autres vidéos où il raconte basically la même thing

[@romainmorlans1794]

you can regarding the others vidéo in französisch bicause he said the même chose

[@pepito5079]

Merci à tous!

[@chrisar6068]

Are you using renewable energy to run your video? The more renewable energy in the system the less carbon intense.

[@jfachard9777]

it's less tragic than in french !!!!

[@Kataklysme666]

1:30:00 (this is a bookmark)

[@AdrienBurg]

36:45

[@retropaganda8442]

Americans will censor that sexual part.

[@franchouillard17]

La qualité de votre micro est très médiocre je trouve. Je 'regarde', ou plutôt 'écoute', vos interventions pendant que je travaille sur ordinateur, et l'effort pour me concentrer sur le son me déconcentre de mon travail premier.

[@ecclesiafr9030]

Il préfère sans doute éviter de prendre du matériel trop sophistiqué et donc à l'empreinte supérieure. Son leitmotiv est le visionnage en 140p.

[@blarrouturou]

What is the study that shows the energy required to remove the CO2 from the air?

[@ginabean9434]

As energy is mostly generating CO2, the more energy you put in removing CO2 from the air, the more CO2 you release in the air. We're looking for passive solutions here (fueled with solar energy b.e.).

[@randomrandom4667]

He generally avoid it, but there is also the possibility to capture co2 directly after the emission, for exemple in factories. I don't know if it is in this study (which I want to read to) but energy should be less.

[@randomrandom4667]

I found this study that is quite close to what he said (1GT of CO2 need 10% of 2018 consumption) www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda Because of the paywall I trust the link put in www.wri.org/blog/2020/06/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky but it would need verification There are also other links that details a bit more different CO2 sequestration methods news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025 blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/11/27/carbon-dioxide-removal-climate-change/

[@ginabean9434]

@@randomrandom4667 Yes, Jancovici talks about it in other presentations, specially for oil and gaz wells. Unfortunately it might be in french.

[@hugolemonnier228]

@@randomrandom4667 Comme tu es français, pour la capture et la séquestration de carbone il y a une vidéo de la chaîne Le réveilleur kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4LPooR7nbucZ68

[@jjolla6391]

80% of cropland goes to feed animals (which chicken is the vast majority).. but cropland is only 25% of grasslands. ruminants, such as cattle, sheep, and goats should be eating grass, not crops we grow. there is more than enough pasture, but we don't do it bc it costs too much. Bigfood won't be able to make as big a profit. upping monocrop production for humans is a trap bc we need to add minerals and fertilizer. even with that addition, our crops are becoming less nutritious. and NO2 pollution as a byproduct of using artificail NPK produces 10x more heating than CO2. feeding humans is more than just getting fuel into our bodies. we need vitamins and minerals which needs a properly balanced ecosystem .. which includes animals playing a big part

[@AurelienGuyot]

I would like to see him Minister.... Qu'est ce que j'aimerai le voir ministre de l’environnement et de la transition écologique/ énergétique... Et en faire un ministère d'état qui soit central... On a pas de pétrole mais on a des idées... On a tant de cerveaux non utilisés.. a voir aussi les videos de la ferme hellouin qui sont dans la même intelligence et très pédagogiques sur la permaculture même si on change "un peu" de registre.

[@olivieretcecilepineautexie9351]

I think almost all of the coments are actually written by french people, aren't they? Just click a "like" if you're really american.

[@drawinglab2031]

all the comments in english below are writen by french people lol

[@cfdandfreeride5154]

Aie am not completelie chure zat zis fing is sustaïnable !

[@jacquesmiller2068]

go janco repand la bonne parole pour faire reflechir les gens

[@rotebick]

Very insightful presentation! I gained a better understanding of the severity of climate change and its complexity. However, it seems that some factors were not taken into account. I think it’s a mistake to simply assume that the level of energy use is uniform around the entire human population (because it clearly isn´t). In fact, during the last decades the social breaches have become so massive that the ecological impact resulting from the total sum of actions of the poorest end of the population is virtually insignificant in comparison to what different demographics (specially the richest) contribute to accelerate climate change. I think the issue of human population should be addressed alongside the huge challenges that are posed by a world where, for example, more than a million people in Kibera (the biggest ghetto in Kenya) live in extreme poverty with such scarcity of resources that they lack even clean water and have to walk miles to fill a bucket, while at the same time Jeff Bezos can set in motion an enormous machinery capable of generating far greater impacts on the environment (without taking into account the fact that the lifestyle of a billionaire alone will inevitably cause a huge ecological footprint). To me the problem is not so much the total amount of people living in this planet, but rather a system that allows millions and millions around the world to die from lack of food and shelter, while a handful of people have nearly total control over whether or not this planet can sustain the possibility for human life on the long term.

[@charptho]

Wonderful comment. The matter of inequality is not addressed in his presentation. Scarcity of ressources, especially energy, and consequent high prices could accelerate the gap between rich and poor country, especially in Africa which is facing huge population growth in the future (their GDP per capita is likely to dive then). Energy scarcity could drive rich country toward a more "imperialist" geopolitical policy as well. Example: the middle east US interventionism after the US oil production growths peak and oil shock.

[@fannymilleu5899]

@@charptho Very quickly, new parameters like "carbon footprint" have to be incorporated in order to supposedly lower the air temperature by 2050, somewhere in Outer Mongolia. Yes you can, oh yeah !

[@mollyproctor2862]

Yes and no, the problem is if you were to feed those poor people "correctly", the problem of climate change would be worse. Besides, you might reconsider who consumes what if you take in account the huge development of China and India, their consumption of resources and the growth of thri demand. Rich people consume more resources than poor, but poor people outnumber rich people by of factor of several thousands.

[@mollyproctor2862]

@@charptho It's something addressed in other presentations and he frequently hints at the average US citizen consumption. (dividing the US GDP per capita by 4 to 5 for US citizens, US cars are too big etc...)

[@rotebick]

@@mollyproctor2862 I think this still just gets part of the picture. As it is explained in the video, 20% of emissions come from agriculture processes. Is commonly known that companies all over the world overproduce, that is to say, waste tons of food because they are consider leftovers from production. From an economic standpoint, companies have an active incentive to produce as much as possible, but whenever there is a surplus of production (which happens because of this very reason) those products (mainly food) are "preferably" wasted, because having products freely given out to people who can't afford them equals to losing competitivity within the context of a market based economy driven by profit. The surplus of agricultural and food production (which ends up wasted) traduces directly to a totally unnecessary surplus of emissions. In other words, the air pollution is still happening regardless we feed or not millions of people (in fact we could perfectly feed people in extreme poverty with roughly the same amount of food that is continuously dumped). There is an inherent irrationality to the way our economic system behaves. To comprehend that is essential in order to accurately diagnose some of the factors contributing to the problem of climate.

[@BZHoQC]

He still think nuke plant is part for the answer, yet during the summer some nuke plant has to be stoped or slow down in production just because the river in where they get their cooling water was to hot and was enable to do the job. So if climate still warming, we will have that issue more frequently.

[@nicolasgillet9059]

A quand la même chose en espagnol, avec un une université de renon par exemple au Mexique qui vient d'approuver de revenir à la génération d'électricité par fuel lourd en lieu et place du gaz naturel et de limiter les investissement en éolien solaire, et ne rien faire pour le nucléaire!

[@normanocra]

Le raisonnement visant à montrer que la technologie ne nous sauvera pas est biaisé. "Le C02 augmente depuis plusieurs décennies et aucune technologie n'a réussi à enrayer ce phénomène pour le moment (l'ordinateur, internet...) donc il n'y a pas de raison que la technologie puisse le faire à l'avenir."... oui en même temps ce n'était pas le but de ces technologies. Depuis combien de temps cherche-t-on à concevoir des technologies qui ont pour but de réduire les émissions de carbone ? Pas longtemps, à supposer qu'on soit en train de le faire et qu'on y ait mis les moyens. On pourrait très bien poser le problème de cette façon : "Mr Jancovici va-t-il nous sauver du changement climatique ?" et constater que malgré sa naissance en 1962, la création de sa part, depuis, de plusieurs entreprises ou associations, de sa participation à plusieurs conférences, etc. le carbone continue de monter. Donc non, Mr Jancovici n'a eu aucun impact sur le CO2 jusqu'à présent, on peut donc en déduire qu'il en sera de même pour l'avenir. Mr Jancovici peut donc économiser sa salive et faire autre chose de sa vie. Bien sûr ce raisonnement ne vaut rien. Mr Jancovici, continuez à vous démener pour faire passer votre message... de façon un peu plus rigoureuse ! Vous n'êtes pas journaliste !

[@drafura]

C'est toi qui biaise son raisonnement pour le coup et qui l'interprète de manière très naïve. Ca change rien que la techno ait été pondue pour faire baisser les émissions de CO2... Techniquement les conséquences attendues auraient du conduire à une baisse de CO2. Le premier ordinateur consomme plus q'un ordinateur moderne, en utilisant l'ordinateur moderne on devrait émettre moins, hors globalement ce n'est pas le cas à cause du nombres d'ordinateurs moderne utilisés simultanément dans le monde. Le but n'est pas de dire que la technologie ne sert à rien pour combattre le CO2, le but est de montrer que malgré la technologie l'humanité arrive tout simplement à aller à l'encontre du résultat qui aurait pu être espéré car elle continue à surconsommer. Autrement dit tu peux développer de nouvelles choses pour émettre moins de CO2 si tu ne traites pas le problème de la surconsommation tu ne changeras rien au fait que les émissions continuent de croitre, et au final quand on prend le problème dans son ensemble cette surconsommation est exactement au coeur du problème. En nous mettant dans le contexte d'une technologie destinée à faire baisser les émissions : Tu peux demain créer de nouvelles centrales à charbon qui dégagent deux fois moins de CO2 pour la même quantité d'énergie produite. Après avoir démonté ou upgrade toutes les anciennes centrales à charbon et installé de nouvelles centrales avec cette techno, si tu produis 4 fois plus d'énergie bah tu émettras au final 2 fois plus de CO2 avec tes centrales technologiquement optimisées pour réduire les émissions de CO2.

[@normanocra]

@@drafura Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec vous. Mais je ne l'avais pas compris comme cela.

[@georgescyril2683]

I overall like Mr. JANCOVICI's speech but regarding cryptos, and more specifically bitcoin, he should do his homework and read up about "difficulty adjustment".

[@kevalan1042]

Agreed, he seems to be poorly informed on this subject. Bitcoin is the first monetary system which is explicitly linked to energy, and in fact it can allow to make intermittent renewable energy sources like solar and wind financially viable. In addition, bitcoin's finite supply reflects the finiteness of the planet's resources and could enable saner economics than today's currencies which are printed at will (and which encourage people to wastefully spend their cash as fast as possible before it gets devalued through inflation).

[@louisoddone992]

ClimatS are changing, it's their nature since their existence. Wi will stop them guys.

[@unfemme936]

L'humanité tient au bilinguisme de vos blagues et de vos règles de 3. Et aussi malheureusement , d'une philosophie encore trop molle pour comprendre la mollesse structurelle de l'humain dans le domaine l'intérêt général vs l'attachement à la diversité de ces désirs ( les soit disant désirs altruistes autant que soit disant égoïstes ) Qui sont le déterminant principal à l'utilisation des énergies faciles ( qui riment avec fossiles ) Bilan carbone du désir d'être aimer, de sauver, d'être responsable, de perfectionner, etc... de méditer à une philosophie vraiment efficiente pour modérer le désir humain de manière globale en ayant un sentiment de croissance :)

[@backToFreedom]

Encore une brillante démonstration basée sur des ordres de grandeurs pertinents et incontestables mettant en évidence l'incompétence des économistes et des dirigeants qu'on nous impose et qui nous mènent tout droit à l'effondrement de l'humanité.

[@hNtprodHD]

Le fort la latte en vignette et le tacle pour l'économie main stream 1:06:00 ré-gale

[@Franguiche]

Hé oui, Fort la Latte, dédicace à Manau ! Fallait avoir de bons yeux ;)

[@LesHavrais]

I am not sure that this affair will end in happiness and good mood

[@jerhykhan7926]

Why god allowed Jancovici's birth. I am more anxious than ever after watching these videos.

[@Studio23creation]

that's a path everybody must do. question our way of living, and the future often thought in our culture as a crazy technological world. It will not be like that. when you realize we as humanity are on the verge of collapsiing, the only way to adress that is to change and "decarbonate" your life. it eases your spirits, makes you happier than before actually ! grow a garden, that so interesting !

[@fab27485]

la même chose en anglais....

[@lefuturiste27]

Par contre le système solaire n'a toujours pas 9 planètes 😁😁

[@sebastienc8797]

Quand on parles aux états-uniens, ils aiment bien entendre 9, vu que Pluton est la seule qui ait été découverte par un américain :-)

[@lilibreizh8911]

Exact pour Pluton, c’est un sujet extrêmement sensible aux US où nombre d’astronomes continuent à considéré Pluton comme la 9e planète (car c’est la seule à avoir été découverte par un américain). Par ailleurs, quand M. Jancovici parle (dans les versions françaises) de ménage a 9, il s’agit du soleil et des 8 planètes 😉

[@skuizhopatt5318]

Naïgne planetzz ??

[@adrienc.7679]

You can be an Iron Man pour de vrai !

[@stauffap]

Nuclear energy? Sure, that can be a part of the solution in regards to achieving a carbon neutral energy production, but there's not a single study that showed that it can be done with nuclear energy. I'm not aware of a single one such study. I'm also not aware of a study that shows that it can be done without a massive increase in Photovoltaics and wind turbines. In other words the scientific literature is very clear about the fact that the pillars of achieving a carbon neutral energy production are photovoltaic panels and wind turbines. The rest of the power supply is up for debate and a matter of preference. Do you prefer biomass, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear power? That's up for debate. Interesting talk, but odd conclusions that are at odds with all the studies i've read in regards to carbon neutral energy systems. And if you prefer nuclear then you maybe you should mention to costs of nuclear energy and maybe you should mention that the cheapest forms of electricity right now are comming from photovoltaic panels and wind turbines - not nuclear reactors: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source And of course nuclear energy isn't a long term fix either it's a non-renewable, finite energy source and especially if we try to solve global warming primarily with nuclear power we'll use up the fuel very quickly. There's a reason why this isn't in the scientific literature as a main solution to the problem of decarbonizing the energy system.

[@michaelrenper796]

If the studies your read ask "Do you prefer biomass, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear power? " then the study is complete nonsense. biomass, geothermal, hydropower don't scale. They have either largely exhausted their potential (biomass and hydro) or only work in certain parts of the world (geothermal).

[@stauffap]

@@michaelrenper796 I wrote that photovoltaics and wind energy are the pillars of every energy revolution, but they leave small gaps to fill and hydropower, geotherman and biomass can help to fill those gaps. Of course different countries have different potentials for those energy sources, so it will be different from country to country. Of course you could also just use power-to-x technologies to produce the fuel to then fill those gaps. But that probably wouldn't be the most economical option. The most economical option will likely be a combination of those technologies. Of course there are various other strategies to deal with the variability of Photovoltaics and wind turbines and of course there's a lot more to talk about in terms of 100 percent renewable energy systems. Just read the many studies on the subject if you're interested. They shouldn't be hard to find....