Why Are So Many Power Plants Blowing Up?

Get the PBS App to watch Weathered: Earth’s Extremes for free: to.pbs.org/PBS...
If you're outside of the US and want to watch the show, you can check it out on PBS.org: to.pbs.org/Wea...
This episode of Weathered: Earth’s Extremes was originally released on Oct, 2nd, 2024.
Environmental policies are uncertain and so is our climate’s future. In this episode of Weathered: Earth’s Extremes, Maiya May digs into the science on where we actually are in the clean energy transition and what our most likely futures are.
In previous episodes, we have discussed climate tipping points, Maiya May sets off to learn about positive climate tipping points. She travels from Wyoming to Michigan and back to her hometown of Atlanta. In Cheyenne, she visits a supercomputer to see how climate systems are predicted and analyzed. In Michigan, she witnesses the explosive end of a coal plant, marking significant progress in the global energy transition to renewables. Back in Atlanta, Maiya and Dr. Marshall Shepard discuss climate challenges and vulnerabilities across the US. She gets a comprehensive picture of where our climate is now and where we are headed.
Weathered is a show hosted by weather expert Maiya May and produced by Balance Media that helps explain the most common natural disasters, what causes them, how they’re changing, and what we can do to prepare.
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/Dona...
*****
Subscribe to PBS Terra so you never miss an episode! bit.ly/3mOfd77
And keep up with PBS Terra on:
Facebook: / pbsdigitalstudios
Tiktok: / pbsterra
Instagram: / pbsterra
Thank you Margaret A. Carghill Philanthropies for supporting PBS.

[@pbsterra]

Thanks for watching! Weathered: Earth's Extremes is everything you love about Weathered but bigger and better. Across 6 incredible episodes, Maiya and the Weathered crew travel around the world to tell the definitive story about our changing weather and climate, and how a better future is within reach. This is only one of the episodes -- to support Maiya and the team (and help us make more of this show), you can watch the rest for free RIGHT NOW on the PBS App on your smart TV, phone, tablet or streaming device: to.pbs.org/PBSAppWeathered And if you're outside of the US and want to watch the show, you can check it out on PBS.org here: www.pbs.org/show/weathered/ Maiya and the team worked so hard on this special show -- we can't wait for you to watch it! -Team Terra

[@meinkamph5327]

I have lived for thousands of years, I will and have observed, witnessed, and been part of the whole of existence. I will always love you. I wish I could bring you with me.

[@danveerseewoo2332]

😂 More like "Weathered: America's Extremes"! 😅 This video covered nothing about what's happening around the globe.

[@meinkamph5327]

@@danveerseewoo2332 Live life as it is, You will eventually come around.

[@volkerengels5298]

"It is time to create some hope" - as fascism took over? Re-Think this strategy., please. A german

[@Skunk106]

​@@meinkamph5327 We don't have a choice. Most may not be aware, but we'll all be there with you. Om

[@ChroniclogicalJeff]

I appreciate your optimism. I don't share it, but I certainly do appreciate it.

[@Jvk1166z]

completely dodging the fact that the current president of the most powerful country in the world has the tagline 'drill, baby, drill'

[@carlbennett2417]

@@Jvk1166z yes, but power dropping fast, baby.

[@infinitemonkey917]

@@Jvk1166z And, of course, dropped out of The Paris Agreement.

[@JT_771]

@@Jvk1166z True, but "drill, baby, drill" can only last for so long when in the face of cheaper alternatives. Price is key.

[@E1Luch]

@@JT_771 The cheapest of those alternatives are all manufactured in China and are subject to import tariffs of up to 100% or even higher, put forward by Biden btw.

[@ronkirk5099]

The U.S. isn't building any more coal fired power plants because they are uneconomic, but we are building more natural gas fueled Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plants. The good news, if any, is that they have greater thermal efficiency (50-60%) than coal fired plants. The bad news is that the natural gas infrastructure still has far too much leakage (over ~4% and it is worse than coal) to make natural gas a more climate friendly solution to the crisis.

[@willjapheth23789]

Methane has a half-life of 9 years, so no, gas is absolutely better, but obviously needs to also end eventually.

[@davestagner]

Fossil fuel is not and will never be a “solution” to the climate crisis. It is the cause of the climate crisis. “Less bad” is not the same as “good”.

[@DirtFlyer]

​@@willjapheth23789Methane is hundreds of times more potent as a greenhouse gas prior to it breaking down in the atmosphere. And when it does break down, much if it reverts to CO2. How is that better?

[@willjapheth23789]

@DirtFlyer 120 times about, but co2 is a long-term risk that won't go away. CH4 is much more carbon efficient than coal is, so we can see emission reductions just from switching to gas. In 70 years, today's CH4 will be meaningless compared to today's CO2. Both need to end eventually, but coal is worse.

[@ThePirateParrot]

​@@willjapheth23789 if we hadnt already used our entire carbon budget. 25 years ago gas was probably a good transistional investment. We no longer have the headroom for new fossil fuel plants. Most new gas infrastructure is either doomed to be stranded assets or our climate is fucked.

[@linc234]

looking at that risk map toward the end makes the recent L.A. fires hit pretty hard. We ARE living out the extreme scenario.

[@LWRC]

The LA fires were caused primarily by Democrats and environmentalists ! ! ! - Not cutting underbrush and clearing the land of dead wood and not allowing regular burn cycles to clear out the dead vegetation! j- Not allowing all the normal run off water from Northern Kalifornia to reach Southern Kalifornia not to mention the water is desperately needed by the farmers in the Central Valley!

[@FaffyWaffles]

@@LWRC Oh look, a clown

[@Neojhun]

@@LWRC Stop with the lies about "environmentalists about Not cutting underbrush and clearing the land of dead wood". The SAME propaganda script was used for the Australia 2019-2020 fires. Here's the red flag, the propaganda kept calling it WILD Fires. That is the wrong term for Australia, it's BUSH Fires. Foreign trolls were spamming misinformation.

[@Neojhun]

@@LWRC Stop with the LIES about "Not cutting underbrush and clearing the land of dead wood and not allowing regular burn cycles to clear out the dead vegetation". That was the same script used on the 2019-2020 Australia Fires. The massive Red Flag was the foreign trolls kept calling it WILD FIREs. The wrong term because the foreign trolls have no clue what they are talkimg about. FYI It's BUSH Fires.

[@jhunwong8739]

@@LWRC Stop with the FALSEHOODs about - Not cutting underbrush and clearing the land of dead wood and not allowing regular burn cycles to clear out the dead vegetation. That was the same script used on the 2019-2020 Australia Fires. The massive Red Flag was the foreign trolls kept calling it WILD FIREs. The wrong term because the foreign trolls have no clue what they are talking about. FYI It's BUSH Fires. You are just another foreign troll.

[@joannmay-anthony1076]

In the 1970s we didn't expect the changes to start until the 2040s. At 72, i can honestly say, we where really really wrong.

[@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777]

Because the growth of emissions was, unprecedented.

[@joannmay-anthony1076]

@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 I know. Explained that to my husband when i brought this up after the video.

[@volkerengels5298]

_In the 1970s we didn't expect the changes to start _*_*until the 2300*_* WHO said "2040s" - at this time? The speed up in the eighties were not foreseen - same with 2000. The JUMP in 2023 is still not understood.

[@carlbennett2417]

The Limits to Growth published in the 70s predicted a time of transition noticeable before 2040. The "pollution" curve captures GHG emissions and their impact quite well.

[@volkerengels5298]

@ Limits to growth - didn't covered climate change at all. I remember they've foreseen a total collapse til 2070. Which fits with 2040 and a "transition noticeable"

[@waltertoki1]

I used to drive a gasoline engine car that used 500 gallons a year which emitted (@20 lbs of CO2 per gallon) 10,000 lbs of CO2. And my San Francisco home HVAC heating used 400 therms of natural gas per year which produced (@12 lbs of CO2 per therm) 4800 lbs of CO2. This totaled ~15,000 lbs of CO2 emissions per year. Now, I drive an EV car, installed a heat pump for my house HVAC heating and changed to an all electric kitchen. All of these are now powered by my rooftop solar panels. So now my CO2 emissions or carbon footprint is essentially ZERO (except for a hot water heater which soon will be changed to a heat pump). CO2 greenhouse effects are causing extreme weather events such as hurricanes, heat waves and wildfires (ex. Florida, Las Vegas, Colorado and Los Angeles). I urge everyone to reduce their CO2 emissions. Note that switching to green appliances and solar power is expensive, but Biden’s energy tax credits and rebates have been helpful.

[@TheRealSnakePlisken]

And what kind of energy was used to build those devices, and what kind of energy is used to rebuild or repair those items?

[@HighGek]

​@@TheRealSnakePlisken Exactly

[@Sixtyhat25]

@@TheRealSnakePlisken The amount of energy used to build and maintain those devices is many times less than the total lifetime emissions of continued use of a gas car and natural gas heating.

[@mbthe8731]

​@@TheRealSnakePliskenInvestments have management fees that use cash. Using your line of thinking, everyone should put their money in Mason jars lol.

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

​@@TheRealSnakePlisken This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

[@hollycook7497]

In the UK, we shut down our last coal power plant last year. We now use 0 coal to produce electricity. 😁

[@johndolph5158]

First, 1850 IS NOT the baseline for pre-industrial civilization; the coal-fired steam engine was invented in 1712 and CO2 emissions began a steady rise by 1750. Second, for every coal plant that is shut down, it is replaced by three bio-mass plants. Third, the Global Mean Temperature for just 2024 was 1.5C above the 1850-1900 Berkley study; it was also the hottest year in recorded history. With the correct 1750 baseline, we have now exceeded 3C. Finally, we have already released more CO2 into the atmosphere, land and oceans, than can be absorbed. Politics aside, dystopia is impending.

[@lisagriffith665]

In idaho 70% of our power is from renewables. And the power company plans to be completely coal free by 2030 and emission free by 2045. If idaho can do it any state can do it.

[@TheRealSnakePlisken]

And what kind of energy was used to make the renewable energy machines?

[@rzezzy1713]

@@TheRealSnakePlisken I'd imagine some amount of fossil fuel energy was used to prevent a larger amount of fossil fuel energy from being needed in the future.

[@alexw2394]

"any state" gang this is ab the whole world lol

[@krslavin]

@@TheRealSnakePlisken In the future, renewable energy will make and run all renewable energy machines, including manufacturing and mining.

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

@@TheRealSnakePlisken This isn't the gotcha you think it is. "You used our current infrastructure to build a better, less polluting infrastructure! Therefore..." What? Hypocrisy? Is that the goal, accusing hypocrisy? All this reveals is that you and the industries you're toadying for can't or refuse to understand how basic reality works. Nobody is going to build clean energy starting from square one. Pretending that's a reasonable expectation and barking like a dog about infrastructure that isn't is ridiculous - the target of ridicule.

[@TomMS]

This is a really well put together video! Love how you have a sort of cautious and grounded optimism that acknowledges the awful damage that climate change will cause while still lauding the progress we have made so far. We need a green new deal here in the states!

[@gamingtonight1526]

At the start of this video, she shows a chart showing coal and gas use climbing faster than clean energy. At the end of this video, she says, "coal is no longer king". Unfortunately, PBS does not want to scare people when they should. So they tend to be quite positive!

[@sIosha]

Americans don't lose hope. What the media and influencers won't tell you is that the rest of the world, even China, are moving forward. We actually ARE the exceptional country in this case.

[@anthonyc8499]

China is projected to use less coal in 2026 than 2025. Like the USA, the Chinese economics for coal don’t make sense anymore compared to renewables.

[@LWRC]

That still doesn't refute the fact that energies for 'charging' these battery cars still come from fossil fuels ! ! ! Solar panels? How many days will you have to connect a car to get it fully charged from these panels alone? 3 weeks??!!! Remember, panels only put out enough barely to supply energy through inverters to power 120VAC and the chargers these battery cars require are high power chargers running at 480VAC with high current ! ! ! It will take weeks for a car connected up to only solar panels to charge from 1% to 100%!!! You people supporting this have no clue what you are even talking about ! ! !

[@aaronmett5678]

The United States is doing more than what the news says. Wisconsin has gotten rid of all but one coal powerplant now. They will all be shut down soon. There are also a ton of solar farms going up.

[@andrewjoy7044]

@@LWRC Your ignorance is astounding. A 10 KW solar system will produce about 60 KWh of energy over a day. Put half that into your EV and you will have half charged the EV in one day. This is more than enough for the average driver. As the grid goes more and more towards renewables the charging for EVs will become cleaner and cleaner. Here in my state of South Australia, home to the world's first big battery built in 2017, over 70% of all electricity used by both domestic and industry now comes from wind and solar exclusively. The state government here has plans for this to become 100% by 2030.

[@rohitwankhede9153]

Ever heard of a super cool energy type known as nuclear fission? Yeah thats the solution, I agree at least ​with xurrent tech efficiency, solar and wjnd cant sustain our needs alone thats why nuclear power is so important for us humans, fission till we figure out fusion And complimenting it with solar and wind While still easing the climate crisis by lowering coal and fossil fuel usage @LWRC

[@davestagner]

It’s hard to wrap our heads around how technology disruption S-curves work, even while we’re now entering the steep part of the solar/battery adoption disruption curve. It’s hard to grok exponential behavior. Few people have ever heard of Wright’s Law, but Wright’s Law is now driving the world to renewable energy faster than even the most optimistic believed just a few years ago. Wright’s Law says that production costs of manufacturing decline with the volume being manufactured - each doubling of production causes a fixed percentage of cost reduction. Solar power has steadily dropped 20% in price with each doubling of production - and it has doubled every 2-3 years since the 1970s! In recent years, doubling cycles have been less than two years, each one dropping prices another 20%. So the cost of solar panels is dropping nearly 90% every decade now! Lithium batteries have seen a similar exponential price curve - they’re now 97% cheaper than they were in the early 1990s. So a few years ago, solar panels became the cheapest source for raw electricity in the world. This contributes to explosive growth, keeping the pace of the doublings. Now, batteries are getting so cheap that it’s now cheaper to just buy batteries to keep the grid going overnight and some solar panels just to charge them, than it is to pay for fossil fuel to produce the same electricity for 20-30 years. Lots of people look at the state of the grid today and think “See, solar and batteries don’t really matter”, but they’re not thinking about the exponential rate of adoption, or the exponential drop in prices. It’s not about where we are now, it’s about where we’re going - what will the grid look like after 20 more years of this?

[@jstreet514]

Explosive growth of industry is exactly what the problem is. This culture will destroy ecosystems just as fast with solar and lithium batteries. You are an idiot. Thanks for sharing.

[@johnjakson444]

That's a load of BS. When the sun don't shine and wind don't blow it's usually fossil power that keeps the grid working. Germany already did your fantastic experiment replacing a butt load of nuclear with solar+wind + MASSIVE BROWN LIGNITE COAL plants because greens get upset with the ATOM. See Wikipedia for Per Capita Energy Use by country to see the magnitude of the problem. US is 300GJ per capita, that's the same as 300 solar panels per person. See also LLNL Energy Flow Graph to see how primary energy is sourced by country and US state. See also Without The Hot Air by physicist David MacKay

[@klbriceno1]

so how do we stay optimistic now that we have an administration that no longer cares about climate change, renewable energy and even pulled us out of the Paris agreement AGAIN? Can we even survive the next 4 years of back sliding the progress that has been made, however little it was in the first place? I'm really asking for some hope I guess.

[@tomselek1000]

I think the world largely realizes this problem and is making improvements abroad. Unfortunately the US will just not be a leader on this. I wish US lawmakers would realize there is opportunity in this.

[@klbriceno1]

@@tomselek1000 me too.

[@aussietom85]

The US is a bunch of states in a trench coat pretending to be a country. The President hardly determines climate outcomes. Organise locally.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

The energy transition is too far along for Trump and his MAGA cult to stop. It will continue because it is the cheapest form of electric generation, and EVs are the cheapest cars to own long term, as well as the most fun to drive. It will continue because the rest of the world is not stupid. They want clean air and a livable planet.

[@johnjakson444]

Donald Trump is a very simple man as are most republicans, (not an insult), these people tend to support nuclear energy because something in their mind intuitively understands energy density, while the much more edumacated dems go for the shiny tech that is really low energy density and is silicon tech dense. The Per Capita Energy Use (see Wikipedia) of Americans is about 300GJ/yr, that could all be made with solar panels, each panel kicking in 1.1GJ a year.That comes to 300 panels per person. It does not include the cost of balancing day and night or winter summer or of rebuilding it all every 20 years or the tremendous new eWaste stream. Now Biden did support nuclear too, he just could not bring himself to utter the words in front of the edumacated supporters who only want to hear about solar and wind and batteries. And batteries at scale is a whole other toxic subject, on the minerals front.

[@TheDoomWizard]

No we're toast.

[@Mike80528]

regarding future CO2 emissions - At this point the models need to take into account permafrost melt, methane hydrates, and swamp methane. We've kicked in feedback loops. Things have changed. We are much worse off now. None of this matters.

[@lostincyberspaceIII]

In most areas renewable generation is cheaper than fossil fuels in the long term and are getting closer to the initial costs, and they are tending to last longer than initially expected so the long term costs are also dropping.

[@LWRC]

That a bunch of nonsense! The energy densiry of fossil fuels is far greater than any li-Ion battery or solar panel output efficiency at about 13%! And that doesn't even factor the costs of raw ore mining and fabrication costs of these two power sources!!!

[@AzrethK9]

@@LWRC What are you talking about? There is no fuel for solar panels. They get build and and then you have zero costs on fuel.

[@LWRC]

@@AzrethK9 The energies going into making the solar panel not to mention all the raw materials, especially rare earth elements, must be MINDED! Those energies are NOT FREE ! ! ! Solar panels barely last 10 years and then become toxic waste. The manufacturing of solar panels generate tons of toxic waste that must be hauled away from the plant! Not every location in the US can rely on solar panels for power generation! So if you want to go down this green energy path, then stop using all the consumer products that you have today because they ALL came from fossil fuels ! ! !

[@LWRC]

@AzrethK9 The solar panels are made from energy! Not only production but the raw ore mining of the rare earth elements needed also require huge amounts of energy! There is no free lunch in energy conversion ! ! ! Solar panels barely last 10 years and then they become toxic waste! Not every location in the US nor around the world can use solar panels as a reliable source of energy production ! ! !

[@kurtniznik8116]

@@AzrethK9 A lot of fossil fuels get burnt to make the solar panel and there are no ways to replace them; the necessary process heat cannot be generated in any economically scalable way without coal. Lots of coal. Same for steel and cement.

[@AdventureHunter.]

One of the most interesting, well rounded, and informative videos I've seen made on this subject. Well done guys!

[@lordraiden5398]

I am 57 and plan to retire at 65. I own my house and cars. My largest expense is my bill from my energy company. Two years ago they started charging more between 3pm and 7pm. This last month was my largest bill ever. This spring I am investing in solar panels, a controller and battery storage. By the time I retire I hope to be ditching my energy company.

[@johnjakson444]

good for you, also look up you total energy production, each panel of 250W nameplate will net you about 1GJ a year or more. Then note that in Wikipedia it gives your Per Capita Energy Use, in the US you will be noted as using 300GJ of energy every year, not in your house, but in your total worldly energy use, the energy in your car, house, those solar panels, the college or military or hospital you might have gone to, the food and agriculture sector and roads bridges planes and infrastructure etc. To double check on that look up LLNL Energy Flow Graph for 2023, note that it says the entire US used about 97Quads or in SI units 100XJ or 100 G GJ. Divide that by 330M and you get 300GJ per person. It would take 300 panels to make the same energy as used per person, hard to believe as it maybe.Your rooftop represents only about 1% of your true energy use.

[@JT_771]

That's the way to go. Supply your own power.

[@donnamarie3617]

I call BS on the graph at 4:54 . The blue line actually travels backward at one point. Doesn't do much for your credibility.

[@2008-wii-remote]

It's a graphic for a video, not included in a paper. The people who make the graphics probably just made a mistake lol

[@FelipeKana1]

Its stylized. I agree that it was a bad choice, but just that

[@cindyphillips3585]

There is so much confusion and misinformation today. But Common sense should tell us all, we can't continue producing so much waste without severe consequences. Maybe start with If you dont truly need something, dont buy it, buy things with less packaging and made of reusable materials, We must all work together globally to solve major issues asap.

[@bobpenny8011]

Thanks again Maiya for this installment. Btw 17:10 we've said we won't reach the upper estimates before, and we were wrong

[@RHCole]

Ahh, yes, just what I needed to take my mind off of the apocalyptic political landscape... A video about the apocalyptic environmental landscape 😅 Perfect LOL

[@wallycola5653]

The video is literally about how a lot of hopeful changes are already well underway

[@MyLoganTreks]

Agree deny Delay and Distract yet the largest glacier over 800 SQ miles broke off and it's not being covered in mainstream media. Billionaires own the media companies that support their ideologies not the well-being of people.

[@RHCole]

​@@wallycola5653Yeah, the problem is that the damage is already done. Welcome to the Human Era, my friend.

[@Ilamarea]

The political landscape is full of hope and relief. Common sense is winning against extremism.

[@AmonTheWitch]

​@@Ilamarea where????

[@Robert-cu9bm]

Coal use is going up, not down.

[@stacysharlet3486]

Yes we are building more alternative energy sources, but it seems all that does is increase consumption. We are using more fossil fuels than ever.

[@panpsychism_]

Maiya I really respect your work. Thank you for helping us understand the causes behind doom we are heading towards.

[@stephencampbell5829]

Great video! Intellectually rigorous, relevant, current, etc.

[@TimothyGasser]

Rigorous? It's anything but. I'm guessing Maiya has never gotten within shouting distance of a course in Atmospheric Physics.

[@granitfog]

This report omitted or under stressed three things 1) Global warming is not due to the rate of increase of CO2 emissions but to a rise of CO2 emissions greater than the planet's ability to absorb them thus causing atmospheric CO2 to raise above a certain threshold that caused greater heat retention than hear radiation to outspace. Thus, once that level has been reached, global warming will continue. This is just like opening your freezer's door just past the point where the refrigeration cannot compensate for the heat entering the door. Stopping to open the door more, but keeping it open at the current level, will continue to melt ice. Thus we can adopt all the solar possible, the CO2 is still past the threshold that keeps more heat then it releases and global warming will continue. 2) CO2 has a half life of 125 years or so, even if we get to net zero today, the CO2 of past decades will continue to heat the planet. Considering that global warming was uncovered in 1938 atmosphieric CO2 was below 330 ppm (and emissions ~ 5 gt), and it is now 424 ppm (and emissions ~ 36gt). The currrent CO2 is 144 ppm above pre industrial levels and 90 ppm above the level when global warming was first measured. 3) earth feedback loops in the case of warming, continue global warming even in the abscence of further human action. These include ice lose, water vapor, permafrost melt and methane release,, increase forest fires, loss of low level clouds. - you did cover this but this was not expanded as much as it should have been becasue this is a major issue despite mitigating human activity. There are two question which you didn't answer, which I'm sure that super computer did (which you did not air) what are the probabilities of continued warming despite net zero emissions (due to past co2 and currrent feedback loops), and how long will it take for current atmospheric CO2 levels to drop below 330 ppm once net zero is reached. As long as the "public relatable" science media continue to paint a rosy picture, no one (other than those who delve into the science) will take the danger of climage change seriously!

[@mikeem848]

I love how even this video wraps up with emphasizing the importance of adaptability as if it also resorted to the fact that we're just not going to change our trajectory. We're essentially creatures of self destruction. Where was the talk of how Nuclear Energy can play a role in stabilizing the climate? Not to mention the fact that they don't address how bullsh*t solar, wind, and batteries really are.

[@plexi3d]

This channel deserves way more subscribers.

[@ryanmeyer2118]

On the maps that you use, can you please note the units? 18:54 On every map showing a numical range of risk there are no declared units. Clearly you excel in your climate reporting & explaining complex problems. I wonder if this wasn't merely an oversight.🤔

[@braddibble5581]

The one variable that really wasn't talked about was the problem of sea level rise. The Twaite glacier is going to give us a large rise in sea levels in the next decade.

[@kmoses582]

Alarmist predictions are always correct, even when you are wrong

[@FelipeKana1]

Actually sea level rise is slow. Even if twaites melt today, effects will roll for two or three decades

[@FelipeKana1]

​@@kmoses582what do you mean?

[@FreeXenon]

I just want to say, you are a great speaker and great presenter. Love the content. This series is just full of absolute WIN!!

[@hanshansen3885]

I feel like I have seen elements of this segment previously. Am I wrong?

[@michaeloreilly657]

Recycling is a virtue!

[@hanshansen3885]

@@michaeloreilly657 True enough 😄

[@nightbringerO18]

begining background music is dope fr

[@isaacmorris4932]

i think it’d be interesting to look at how heat will effect crop failures. The midwest which was specifically “not at risk” will be destroyed by the record droughts that we will continue to see based on these models

[@kmoses582]

Crops love cold, that is why Alaska is a agriculture powerhouse and Florida, California, and Arizona have no farms.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@kmoses582 Are you trying to be intentionally dense? This isn't about warm vs. cold, it's about hundreds of disruptive changes that are already hurting the web of life in hundreds of ways, including increasing crop failures and livestock deaths due to MORE extreme droughts and heatwaves, and the expanding range of crop-killing insects.

[@kmoses582]

@@HealingLifeKwikly The obesity epidemic is due to lack of food, I am a smart climate alarmist.

[@TimothyGasser]

@@HealingLifeKwikly Gotta love folks who spout stuff someone tells them without ever actually checking the data. Agricultural output keeps setting new records. There is no identifiable trend in the US for increasing drought or flooding. That's according to the USGS (where I interned years ago while in grad school). If anything a warmer planet will open up more currently marginal land to agricultural production.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

​@ Thanks for your reply. "Gotta love folks who spout stuff someone tells them without ever actually checking the data." Actually, I'm a senior university professor and researcher, and I've spent tens of thousands of hours researching, teaching, and writing about the unraveling health of Earth's societies and ecosystems and about what we must do to prevent catastrophic collapse. So no, I didn't "spout off" without checking the data. "Agricultural output keeps setting new records." Yes, Tim that's true--and due to more widespread use of modern farming methods--methods that are squeezing as much juice out of the lemon as possible today while steadily degrading the Earth's ability to provide food and support life in the future. However, it is also true that man-made global warming has increased crop failures and livestock deaths and reduced the increase in crop yields by 21% since the 1970s. In other words, the increases would have been bigger on a cooler planet with less CO2 and more consistent precipitation patterns (that's research from folks at Cornell). "There is no identifiable trend in the US for increasing drought or flooding. That's according to the USGS" Gosh, a few seconds of searching and you could have found that both trends have increased in the US, and the USGS not only has lots of charts and graphs showing the increased drought, the Palmer Index is approaching 1930s levels, and as you probably know, the 1930s Dust Bowl in the U.S. was one of the worst man-made ecological disasters ever. The USGS even has one page with a big headline "DROUGHT--It's all about climate change." The USGS and other are predicting even worse droughts in the future and worse flooding for all regions of the US except skinny middle of the country. Meanwhile, the dividing line between the warm dry west and cool moist east has already moved 140 miles eastward and the aquifer levels for the 48 states are at terrifyingly low levels. "If anything a warmer planet will open up more currently marginal land to agricultural production." Maybe they didn't teach you systems thinking in grad school, but my grad schools taught it to me, and you have to look at the big picture. Here's just the tip of the iceberg: 1) Some marginal lands WILL become suitable for farming but by the same token, other lands will become unsuitable for farming due to the heat. The corn belt has already moved 100 miles north and will keep moving, until it's in Canada and more and more of the US looks like a Mad Max movie. 2) Some of the lands that will become suitable for farming are under boreal forests, but the soils there are poor and chopping down those forests would just make the climate crisis and biodiversity crisis worse. 3) The range of crop-killing insects is expanding. 4) AGW means that extreme heat waves--the kinds that wipe out lots of crops and livestock--are becoming more intense and frequent. 5) Ongoing AGW means increasing losses of crops due to too-hot-to-harvest conditions. 6) Warming is making many grains less nutritious but more fattening. There's more, but I'd better get back to my real writing. Be well.

[@majoskorica8506]

Very imformative, thanks for great work done to explain all aspects of climate change ❤

[@michaelkhoo5846]

Very informative episode, thank you!

[@jonathanclark5240]

Why would our goal be net zero by 2050, given the Climate Crisis events we're already seeing today? We need to be demanding that our government reach net zero ASAP, within the next ten years. It's doable--we just have to do it!

[@miguel5785]

The sponge atmosphere would not increase the extremes of drought and flood if we had lush vegetation cover. Then we'd have more constant but less intense precipitation. I don't think that's achievable given how fast the climate is changing, but worth trying maybe?

[@brandonlopez3414]

You should have really looked into where the “business as usual” model came from. It has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It deals with population growth, resource use and recycling, food production, etc. basically everything but climate change and guess what? We are precisely on track for that model, which isn’t good.

[@stevenharrison151]

Good report 👍

[@luipaardprint]

People seem to forget that emissions from power generation and heating is only about twenty percent of the problem.

[@thefishisdead]

Thanks alot for Your work and this episode. But You got over the probably most interesting and important dispute currently in climate science by claiming "most scientists now agree..." at 17:40. I´m not a doomer and James Hansen is neither. I´d simply agree with You that we should not forget about the worst possible outcomes. I´d love to see You do a whole episode about the arguments of both sides of this dispute, kind of a James Hansen´s vs Michael Mann´s arguments episode.

[@PirateOfTheWastes]

I love PBS Terra because they usually don’t pull back their punches, they keep it real even when the answer to the questions might be depressing or scary. But this seems to fly in the face of the reality of what is happening with the United States right now. I work in clean heat, they’re ending ALL programs that were helping homeowners convert from oil to heat pumps. They want everyone to stay on gas and oil. In New York, we cancelled every wind farm that was planned on being built off the coast, and our large solar farm project is on indefinite hold. It does NOT look good

[@juandavidgilwiedman]

You dont seem to notice that this administration is going the other way

[@MyLoganTreks]

Deny delay distraction, yet during the current CO2 concentrations the sealevel was 200 ft higher.in the past. Take all the time you need to let this sink in.

[@jonathanedwardgibson]

Ia am confident the budget will soon demand their attentions away from agit-prop as this tripe.

[@jonathanedwardgibson]

@@MyLoganTreksyawn. Is there a chemist in the house? How did the greatest flourishing of life on this planet, the Cambrian, ‘suffer’ exuberant growth at 6,000+ppm? The CO2 rule of thumb I learned is for every 100ppm added there are diminishing returns - rapidly approaching zero. It’s logarithmic describing the upper limit of what CO2 can even reflect. Scary IPCC bed-time stories has people peeing their bed over the number 450ppm and Steve is glad to pick up what Bosses lay down. Mankind is so very mighty the earth trembles and future ages fear our mighty fizzy water drinks, Steve? Go ahead and count the {tens of} thousands of industrial, commercial and consumer ways we deploy carbon dioxide, then compare-and-contrast how many tons sea magma vents spew more than All of Mankind, and does this about every decade, across deca-millennia: you see the Earth abides. What’s the market opportunities and ROI on reducing CO2 until plant life fails? Just wondering how to make sense of the goals IPPC states, maybe your fancy dire-maths can help? Meantime, there are plenty and real industrial pollutions choking ecosystems and toxifying our lives, but CO2 is silly distraction - at best.

[@20-Foot-Anaconda]

​@@MyLoganTreks because _shocker_ there were different conditions You should sink in these balls

[@MIKOOL13]

GLOBAL Warming is bigger than the US. Rest of the world will leave us behind as we hide under a rock with our torches, and afraid of shadows.

[@nbburn]

This feels misleading, because even if all the coal plants are removed from service today, it might not matter. This video is not taking into consideration that it's likely we have already passed several tipping points, including the runaway melting of the permafrost, which will release untold amounts of methane into the atmosphere, and the shutting down of the AMOC (the Atlantic current that functions like a conveyor belt that regulates global temperatures). So even if we stopped all coal and gas burning, it is likely too late. So far it's been clear that our models have underestimated how quickly we will feel the myriad effects from climate change, and there does not appear to be the political will nor a capitalist solution to solving the carbon crisis. We should focus on adapting, not "looking for the bright side."

[@GroovyVideo2]

Big Oil propaganda piece to make you not care - Bad things are 30 yrs away -

[@one_field]

Hey while you're around OSU, you should go interview professor Andrew Millison! He's got a ton of inspiring information on the water infrastructure (and refilling aquifers) of dry climates around the world, and how villages are getting together to change their agriculture to sustainable, lush new methods (sometimes very old methods re-adopted with modern understanding) to fix their water insecurity, food insecurity and economic struggles. It's all documentable; you can reach out to the villages themselves and even go visit the sites to verify it. Really worth highlighting! This is a model for how future societies can fix the damage of the 1900's and early 2000's, becoming resilient and stable while boosting education and the wild ecosystem, simultaneously.

[@kidmohair8151]

i cannot imagine the amount of carcinogens that were released in those demolitions…however. that pales in comparison to the carcinogens released in the *lifetime* of those coal plants. the upshot is that there is an administration in power that is invested (i mean that in the most venal way you can imagine) in denying that anything is wrong, and will use whatever means they can latch onto, to get their way. including stopping funding for any “alarmist” programming, such as this. 07:33 seatbelt, Ms May?

[@AWildBard]

communities and utilities that produce electricity will continue to choose renewables like wind, solar, and batteries because they are cheaper and profitable even DT can't stop capitalism

[@kidmohair8151]

@@AWildBard he will merely expose 'capitalism" for the lie that it is and, hopefully hasten its end.

[@joski58]

Imagine Gaza, et le responsable est le grand copain de votre président. Le premier invité officiel qui a les main pleine de sang. Et en plus il veut faire un nettoyage ethnique et exproprié les habitants de leurs territoires mais ne veut avoir personne dans le sien. Sans compter la guerre commercial avec les voisins qui ne seront plus des alliés face a un ennemi arrogant.

[@Obbij]

@@AWildBard Wyoming is home to the windiest region in the US and its own govt and people are extremely slow and resistant to make the necessary change. They literally have a free and reliable source of energy and could probably power the whole state or heavily supplant it if they wanted but they still choose to rely on fossil fuels. The US has no hope with the climate crisis, we rely too much on fossil fuel driven economies.

[@AWildBard]

@ There are some wind turbine farms, solar installations and batteries in Wyoming. And more are planned.

[@memathews]

I enjoy that Ecola State Park background. Thanks for keeping us backgrounded on climate issues.

[@blue_beephang-glider5417]

Young people around the world are depressed, rightly so, due to climate change. The ramping up or renewables will lead to plentiful cheap energy. When energy is cheap the economy booms. I'd like you to interview economists, show them the predictions for renewable energy amount and price and see if our young people are heading into a long term boom.

[@johnjakson444]

When energy is cheap the economy booms. So true. When energy is unreliable it breaks the economy. Renewables are not base load, look at Germany, it replaced all of its base load nuclear with useless solar+wind +++ a shit load of the dirtiest coal, because the word Atom scares the bejusus out of greens and liberals. Net result Germany has 2 grids, the industrial grid for car building with brown coal, and the expensive broken grid for everyone else. And Germany and Denmark would force their unwanted solar wind excesses onto the Euro grid. Fortunately the EU grid is quite resilient up to a point thanks to French nuclear and Norwegian hydro.

[@blablubb2466]

Shareholder value or lower prices 🤔

[@philmillieret1899]

in a sense i wish they were. Most Young people are addicted to social network and consumption. and looking cool.

[@MusicalRaichu]

You mentioned droughts and extreme weather, but you neglected to say that these will result in famines, diseases and large-scale migration.

[@vadepierce4542]

This video pissed me off extensively. There is absolutely no reason to be optimistic, hopeful or cheery about any of the climate predictions and any of the progress we’ve made moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy has been nothing but a laughing stock 2024 we admitted the most CO2 ever. ever. Saying we should be optimistic is not only misguided. This feels like a disinformation campaign that you’ve just posted on KZbin. This was a channel that I truly respected for not sugarcoating the reality of what’s happening, but this is a blatant sugarcoat over what is actually happening. We are burning more fossil fuels than ever. We are moving away from renewable energy initiatives. And the current greatest CO2 emitter, the USA, has BY NAME said they are going to stop funding off shore wind power. And! Said “drill baby! Drill!” If the price of renewables fall, simply the price of non-renewables needs to fall more. Fossil fuels may be non-renewable , but there is more than enough for us to destroy the world three times over. This feels like a disinformation video. I’m disappointed in you and this video. We need to get real. Unless there is regulation and rules put in place, big companies and governments will always favor fossil fuels because it is profitable. Fundamentally renewable energy is not profitable. And this is the actual obstacle we need to tackle. We are living in a profit driven world. And pretending things are getting better WHILE THEY ARE NOT IS WORSE THAN SAYING NOTHING AT ALL!!! This video is a waste of time and energy. Go figure. Coal makes up a small margin of CO2 emissions. We need to tackle the food industry. We need to tackle automotive industries. We need to tackle areas of greater effect. This is a waste of time. Things are not getting better at all.

[@pedrolopes3542]

07:47 use the seatbealt woman!

[@ecocentrichomestead6783]

With the proposed tariffs against canada, the USA might need to start up those coal generators. The USA gets a ton of energy from canada.

[@phil20_20]

Once Fusion breaks through, everything is going to change. You all can speculate all you want, but we absolutely must replant most of our forestlands. Everywhere we can, we must reintroduce biomass to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. This will help cool the planet faster as well as facilitate long term viability for the human species.

[@NotTheRealRustyShackleford]

Why wait for fusion when we've had fission for decades?

[@johnjakson444]

Fusion is a scientific farce. A single sheet of paper can describe the essentials of how a fission power plant works with temperatures that could reach 800c for say Molten Salt reactors or MSRs and the current generation is also well understood. For fusion, all you can write on a sheet of paper is how the Deuterium Tritium reaction works and state that Deuterium is abundant as water (well 1 part in 1000s) while Tritium simply does not exist and never will and it's only source is from Candu fission plants and it can not be bred. It also requires temperatures of 100M K, vs 1000K for fission. And it also requires multiple impossible technologies in close proximity, so 100M K plasma, a water cooled steel vessel being irradiated by neutron flux, cryogenic chilled superconducting magnets to drive the plasma confinement. A practical fusion plant in 100 years will require about 100x the resources of a fission power plant for theoretical power vs actual power output. The Trouble With Tritium by Daniel Jassby for the deeply interested. next up, Once Antimatter power plants break through, we can retire all the old fusion power plant as not being cool enough.

[@johnjakson444]

@@NotTheRealRustyShackleford Actually the world had fission 2B years ago in the natural Oklo reactor in Gabon, it likely ran for 100k years at a thermal power output of 100KWth IIRC. Life had not even started, but the U235 ratio was many times higher back then maybe 4% vs today at 0.7%.

[@NotTheRealRustyShackleford]

@johnjakson444 I remember reading about the natural reactor in Africa a while back. I was mostly talking about modern nuclear power plants. I just hate seeing all this fusion hype when we could have been building fission reactors like crazy, and have an abundance of cheap green energy. You definitely sound more knowledgeable than me on nuclear energy. You work for DOE or at the national labs, lol?

[@johnjakson444]

@@NotTheRealRustyShackleford Thanks, no I am a semiconductor veteran, I should and did used to be lukewarm on solar because its silicon, but the math didn't add up. When I retired I had loads of free time to study whatever but especially astro physics and the nuclear processes that go on in the Big Bang and various types of stars. And that leads to studying the various nuclear weapons devices and of course the pie in the sky fusion and space travel nonsense. As for DOE the Oakridge labs story in Tenn where the Molten Salt Reactor was built in late 60s and cancelled by Nixon etc, so many interesting political science stories. That's what drew me in to MSRs, not so much the Thorium angle. It does seem as if we will get some interesting reactors now simply because of the cloud and AI requirements so we will see. Even Bill Gates is in good standing with nuclear now since his natrium reactor ticks a lot of boxes and is being built and it copies a lot of the best ideas of MSR being partially salt loop cooling based. IIRC His fuel is in pebbles in the liquid sodium and the salt is the secondary coolant loop. He copied the idea of using the secondary salt loop for daily buffering so 24GWhrs could produce electrical power on any load pattern the grid could throw at it as long as extra generators could draw down the heat from the tanks as needed. The heat still has to go through a steam loop but the sodium is a km away. The irony is that the cooling salt likely also uses sodium chloride table salt. Also you might enjoy a free PDF download book on energy by David MacKay a physicist that wrote Without The Hot Air text about 10 years ago, he also had to rediscover energy because he also found himself in lala land where he knew something was wrong but had no data, so he went and got all the world's data on energy. His UK book prompted Bill Gates to translate it for the US audience to make it more relevant to the US audience. MacKay did not know about any of the modern nuclear work but he did conclude that the UK needed to be 3 times bigger to have enough land to be all Renewable, but with all nuclear could just put new reactors right next to the old ones. There is Also LLNL Energy Flow Diagrams and Wikipedia Per Capita Energy Use where they have all the data on energy use production etc. cheers

[@cpypcy]

Trump said drill baby drill. We're in for a VERY hot century.

[@orpal]

I welcome the solar punk future. Vegan cycle commuters rise up!

[@hahtos]

Renewable transition is inevitable. All you have to do is to look up the price and efficiency curves of solar, the price of batteries and the deployment rate of wind. Game over. Nothing can compete with that in price per kW already, not to mention in 5 years when the economies of scale truly kick in. Until there is enough storage capacity some base line capacity will be provided by gas, nuclear, hydro. But in the long term even that is not necessary.

[@AWildBard]

absolutely right

[@AWildBard]

and those lower prices are continuing to decline year after year after year

[@TimothyGasser]

Tell that to Germany and Britain.

[@frankstetzer6773]

Appears the data for this was thru 2023. 2024 was a very hot year, especially for ocean temps. That was surprising and scary. No discussion or mention of the several “tipping points” like declining arctic ice or the AMOC getting wobbly. You can’t say that limiting warming to 2.5 or some other number will be reversible with no catastrophic impacts.

[@lunarminx]

Clean energy means nothing with our elderly, failing grid system.

[@paulc6766]

You may not need a grid as people go for energy independence.

[@antred11]

@@paulc6766 "You may not need a grid as people go for energy independence." Extremely naive view. The average person is never going to be energy-independent to the point of not needing the grid at all.

[@sloanNYC]

Fortunately the Biden infrastructure bill has $20 billion for grid upgrades. Hopefully we do more.

[@johnjakson444]

Nuclear and hydro is still considered clean and are base load on demand, it is only the solar and wind that is completely unreliable subsidized by fossil fuel in peaker plants.

[@johnjakson444]

@@paulc6766 covering your roof with net zero solar does not make you independent, since US NE winters produce only 1/5 of the summer energy production. So personal energy independence is a complete fantasy. A net zero solar home also only shave about 1% off your carbon emissions, to understand why you need to know that US per Capita Energy Use is 300GJ per person see Wikipedia. That's the same amount as produced by 300 solar panels for primary production yet you have maybe 20 panels on a roof. If my roof had 15 panels we would be net zero, but that's only 1% of all our primary energy use.

[@oldbrokenhands]

So, we're not as boned as we used to be, but we're still boned...Hmm. I'd pop the cork on some Champaign, but that might add to CO2 emissions.

[@d.w.stratton4078]

9:00 I mean I'm all in favor of dismantling coal plants, but is blowing them to kingdom come really a good idea? Think of all the soot, the concrete dust, the atomize officer furniture, asbestos, etc. that was probably in an old building like that that is now in the atmosphere slowly raining down on anybody and anything downwind. Seems crazy to me. Feels like when we have a huge unemployment rate there should be a civilian engineering corp that dismantles old buildings like this brick by brick so as to cause minimal environmental impact from the removal of old carbon-hogs like coal plants.

[@willjapheth23789]

Is there any example of a large building successfully being dismantled piece by piece?

[@ericsmith6394]

​@@willjapheth23789aircraft carriers, maybe? This is rarely done for historic buildings to save them from things like sinkholes, but they're smaller than a coal plant.

[@stevencampbell365]

Its to late !! Unfortunately!!

[@thatoneguy88alpha]

Y'all came to my city to watch my power plant blow up and couldn't even say hi? Sad. ( did Y'all enjoy the stay? )

[@Unruffledbird]

Well we're not in the Paris Agreement anymore

[@benjamincornia7311]

It was always unstoppable. We either switch to renewables by choice or by force (and when I say force I mean forced back to a preindustrial society. Any system that isn’t sustainable will eventually stop.)

[@paulc6766]

Yep that what faces us.

[@benjamincornia7311]

@ That’s why I never had much empathy for the drill-baby-drill people. Even if I was dumb enough to believe climate change was fake, I would still support the exact same policies because the modern lifestyle, of which I and billions of others have grown accustomed, is entirely dependent on resources that will be exhausted this century. To support Trump’s energy policy, one would need to make a moral argument about why modern society should be destroyed and why forcing us back to a preindustrial society is better.

[@johnjakson444]

Or read up on energy use to see why renewables are just green washing, clue is Energy Density. It takes 300 solar panels to make every year the "Per Capita Energy Use" of every US citizen, (plug that into Wikipedia). The US has enough l;and to cover itself with solar for 300 panels per person every 20 years, but the rest of the rich world does not and anyway even if land and solar PV is free, making it work will not work. Summer is 5x more productive than winter for solar. Also if you have the guts, "Without The Hot Air" by MacKay will explain how energy works, or the Bill Gates version for the American audience.

[@sloperdad4835]

"...if we allow warming to reach 4 degrees." Good words. We are doing this to ourselves.

[@albin4323]

Humans cannot control earth's thermostat, only narcissists thinks so.

[@hypotheticalaxolotl]

@@albin4323 Refuse to understand so just insult people who do. You're real chummy, pal.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@albin4323 "Humans cannot control earth's thermostat, only narcissists thinks so." Uhhh, Scientists have known since the 1800s that more CO2 makes the Earth warmer, and since 1776, we have increased global CO2 levels by 52%, from 279 ppm to 423 ppm. Every time you burn just one gallon of gas in your car/truck, you add 20 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere, where much of it will stay for centuries. Thus every tankful adds 200-1000 pounds of CO2 to the Earth's systems. Now multiply that times all the vehicles and boilers etc. on Earth. Thousands of research studies prove that our emissions caused ~98% of all global warming since 1900. The evidence for that is so rock solid that every nation on Earth has signed off in agreement on that fact. IN fact, we are warming the planet 20 times faster than it usually warms when coming out of an ice age, and that is lethally-fast change for the ecosystems our lives depend on. Thousands of other research studies have documented hundreds of ways in which our emissions are hurting people and the planet. Please, read some science.

[@albin4323]

@ Refusing to understand what exactly? You can't force people to give up their lives because scientists has decided CO2 has a marginal effect on earth's temperature, all 7,999 billion people on this earth has a right to say no to that idea if that's the case.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

@@albin4323 "You can't force people to give up their lives because scientists has decided CO2 has a marginal effect on earth's temperature," Uhh, maybe you didn't see my post before you replied, but this isn't just about it becoming a little warmer. The research shows that our emissions are slowly but steadily destroying the Earth's ability to support life, including humans life. We are increasing global CO2 levels TEN times faster than they increased before the worst mass extinction event in Earth's history.

[@paddy654]

The first can be changed the second is much more complicated

[@saskatoni5199]

How hard would it be to include Canada and Mexico into some of your weather maps? We live here too!

[@ARandomDonut]

I don't know if they were using heat indexes or what, but the data I came up with for "number of 100 degree days by county" in 2023 is slightly different than what they have, it's slightly more promising. Imperial County California, the warmest county in the US, had 124 days over 100 degrees in 2023, which is slightly lower than their 131 number. There were also many more states in my data that had near zero 100 degree days in 2023, including Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota. However, the three states in the Pacific Northwest had substantially more 100 degree days in my data than what their map says. So I'd be curious on where they got that map at 20:14 .

[@kevinc-727]

They don't update the "business as usual" graphs yearly for current projections if "no changes". I assumed the worst case graph got updated with the other graphs

[@russelstrawmire9817]

Imagine all the asbestos that got released into the air.

[@TimothyGasser]

I'm curious which type of meteorologist Maiya is. One with a degree in Meteorology or one with a pretty face for the camera. I suspect it may be the latter, particularly how she talks about models. Model output is not data. Yet those claiming we are facing a crisis use it as such. GSM's are all unverified. (Example of a verified model: aerodynamic models, which have been verified by wind tunnel and actual flight data.) When researchers try to hindcast with them - calculate weather and climate from the past - they do poorly unless they get tweaked. I can't watch anymore of this. It's propaganda for those with zero STEM background.

[@mhub3576]

Another great, informative video, Maya. Your team does great, and important work. I'm not aware of anyone else covering this topic so well. Hope it continues in light of the new felonius "leadership" in D.C. P.S. Always wear your seat belt, even when filming. (Unless you're driving on a frozen lake).😅

[@moocowpong1]

You should post the uncut footage of the demolition!

[@ikeekieeki]

thank you for this important and informative video

[@rovert1284]

You produce a lot of CO2 mining/manufacturing the solar panels/wind turbines. They will produce CO2 savings over time but not during the implementation. Personally I don't believe CO2 is a significant factor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. My understanding is that historically CO2 increases following temperature increases rather than causing it. Indeed I don't think there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. To think the earth will stabilise is wrong - we already have had an exceptionally long period of stable temperature. Variation is really a normal. It'll be interesting what develops.

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

the vulnerability map is particularly useful for the US since draws similarities to the electoral map. Americans love color coded maps

[@CSasmor96]

9:51 is there a reason that the buildings are not reused rather than being demolished? Are they gutted for useful materials?

[@egghead888]

Well if you blow it up it can’t be reopen if political winds shift

[@ericsmith6394]

If the place is abandoned there's usually illegal scrapping. Antique dealers will also go through old buildings and take doorknobs, wood trim, doors, sinks, etc. Wood workers might want the floorboards & joists if they're species/sizes that are hard to get today. Insects & rodents eat or nest in a lot of building materials. There's no incentive to stop this when the owner expects it to stay vacant. You might be surprised how fast an unused building becomes unusable even without a leaky roof.

[@marekdg]

Probably the building is also very unhealthy from all the coal dust

[@e1123581321345589144]

what is the source of the map at 22:57? I would have likes to see some annotations on it. What does the projection at 23:04 mean? what time frame are we talking about and under which emissions scenario? what does red represent? this is very relevant because most human beings that are alive and a vast majority of those being born today live in those red areas at 23:04.

[@scpierobon]

Also interested. It's a striking map with no information provided.

[@happymusicschool-it1qc]

We're past 1.5 already folks

[@quecisneros]

Weird enough and counterintuitively, the fact that USA is closeing coal mines doesn not mean a reduction of fossil fuels usage but all the opposite as its resoursefulness of natural gas with fracking and petroleum availability is increasing and refusing to stop their dependency and divestement to renewable energy sources.

[@chutechi]

Climate Emergency Statement The current rate of climatological change prevents complex life from adaptation. We have a finite amount of time to adapt. World wide biosphere collapse is well underway. Heating trends will continue unabated. Nothing can stop this process in time. No living being will be immune, No Location will be unaffected, No solutions to this problem exist at time scales that matter. The Climate graphed and modeled by math, physics, chemistry and fed with extensive historic data are reliable indicators of future trends. Consensus from qualified climate experts justify the term "Emergency." Weather-this-variable is evidence of impending near-term-catastrophe. The maintenance of Civilization is paramount for adequate adaptation and focusing of priorities, Humanity can adapt when safe and free. Aerosol Masking Effect needs to be integrated into any change strategy involving draw down reductions of carbon. Some pollution cools the planet. Systems Change is needed. Humanity's systems of governance, commerce, academia, and religion have failed to protect us from the "Progress of Consequence" The process of Societal Change needs to be an Orderly Sequence to empower the correct Human Resources on tasks that match Worldwide Collective Policy. Concentrations of power need to be democratized. Big Decisions need Big Sample Size of decision makers. We are facing no-good-choice situations. Human competitive zeal transforms into the best policy's and strategies to benefit as many living beings. There will be no real winners. Goals worth living for: Building De-growth Economics from scratch. Managing Reductions in commerce. Reprioritizing Society towards a new Cooperative Paradigm. Meaning arises from a commitment to help others of in all strata of life. We can be happy in-spite of loss. Abundance arises from scarcity. Compassion is Power. The #UniversalAlignment Solution to the Climate Emergency. Everything must stop-Inner Peace End humanity's games-Outer Peace Everybody is cared for-Enlightened Compassion Make joy for all-Enlightened Effort Solve only two problems-Enlightened Discipline Use Resources for only those two-Enlightened Giving

[@AngryManSki]

1.5 ppm is scary enough on its own, especially considering the 30 yr delayed response our climate needs before it unleashes a new range of weather conditions.

[@wind-leader_jp]

Commenting from the standpoint of an electrical engineer, balance is extremely important from now on. At present, we also need large, responsive thermal power plants because the large inertia of turbines helps prevent power outages. I think the reason for the massive power outages in California last year was because this balance could not be achieved. EVs and residential storage batteries also emit a lot of CO2 during production. In the first place, efficiency occurs in both charging and discharging, so if you do not control it correctly, you may end up using electricity from thermal power generation when charging. To seriously reduce CO2 emissions, it is necessary to reduce electricity consumption during sunset when solar panels are not functioning. And then we need to look for batteries that don't emit large amounts of CO2 during production, or temporarily ban nighttime production. When it comes to electricity, I achieved 94.9% carbon neutrality last year with only max 2.2kW of solar power generation.

[@johnmoncrieff3034]

That statement that we have increased the level of CO2 by a factor of ten is completely false, As the human element of climate change is only 7% of the total, not the 100% alluded to in that clip! From 1850 to 2020 the level of Co2 rose from 180ppm to 420ppm when all of the industrial revolution was at its height. We actually prevented the complete collapse of the planets plantlife as the CO2 level was heading to the cutoff point of 150ppm. when the planet would have died from a complete lack of CO2, Also what that scientist with the ice did not tell you was that the level of CO2 in that core was far higher than we have today

[@grischa762]

The climate on planet earth has always been rather stable. Yes it has changed but always in a timespan of thousands of years. We managed to speed that up to hundreds of years. 1000 Vs 100 is a factor of what? Yes there have been higher levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere in the past, but it was also a lot warmer back then. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has always affected global temperatures. Look mate ... Even if you for whatever reason have decided you are smarter than 99.9% of all the experts and scientists and do not believe them. Even Exxon, BP and Shell have concluded since the 70ties that human activity is basically the sole factor that drives global warming. And they then invested billions of $ to adapt. And they spend even more billions to spread misinformation. There is no hidden conspiracy, no "secret information" that is kept from the ignorant masses in this matter. The truth is so glaringly obvious you need to make a real effort not to see it.

[@NeptuneDesign]

This is a dope documentary...very comprehensive...I'm much more optimistic now

[@gyorgyigabor]

Thanks for this video, I enjoyed it! Perfect job! Also thanks for your other videos! They are at a high quality.

[@tracygresham4869]

Can anyone answer this question? how does it help the environment if the governemt taxes people for climate change?

[@2008-wii-remote]

Theoretically fund climate change initiatives

[@geneherald8169]

it doesn't.

[@epicchocolate1866]

@@geneherald8169it does. Carbon taxes have proven effect on emissions

[@geneherald8169]

​@@epicchocolate1866 Again, it doesn't. You need to really question your values and understanding of morality. Fossil fuels obviously help our environment. That's why we use them in the first place. We use fossil fuels to make the naturally unlivable environment into a good environment - an unnaturally livable environment. Environmentalists have no moral compass. They think that ANY human impact is an inherent evil which means in reality they hate themselves and the human race. Truly ask yourself - what is a good environment? Is it one that's simply natural and untouched? Or is it one that SERVES HUMANS? A good environment is not the natural environment where people live in caves or die to wolves. If you want to live in that so called good environment go ahead and live in the woods and learn what reality has in store for you. Your entire moral framework is wrong

[@christyhughes6632]

Awe❤ I didn't realize the birthday gift😊 Thank you!

[@E1Luch]

21:28 maps like these can be misleading because how dry the climate is depends not on precipitation alone, but on precipitation/evaporation balance

[@sukmykrok3388]

8:37 "The best part is when the buildings fall down." -Homer Simpson, circa 199x-

[@williammatthews7735]

This video is very informative, and proves some of my intuitions about systematic effects correct, unfortunately. Hope the best for all of you.

[@scottryan5634]

Director Shepherd defined Vulnerability as "communities of color, the elderly, children under 5, and the poor irrespective of color." I know "communities of color" is often short-hand for poor people, but he also said "poor irrespective of color," so obviously not in this case. Why are people of color more vulnerable to climate change?

[@bhangela]

great video!

[@AngelRivera-wp9bg]

Too late.What we need to do is prepare for weather change. It was predicted that the turing point was in the 1970s. Weather change warning started in the 1960s.

[@joehopfield]

Thank you, well done. Love that broken phone screen :-D

[@ObscurelyTitled]

love your work!!!