What Must Change To Combat Climate Change? - Hannah Ritchie | Intelligence Squared

In this clip from our recent session, ‘Not The End Of The World: How To Build a Sustainable Planet’, author and ecologist Hannah Ritchie sits down with Intelligence Squared to discuss and explore actionable steps to mitigate climate change and reduce emissions, thereby safeguarding our precious ozone layer. Are our current environmental efforts sufficient? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
See the full session here: • Not The End Of The Wor...
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: kzbin.info...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#intelligencesquared #intelligencesquaredplus #iq2 #climatechange #hannahritchie #environment

[@flashgordon6670]

If you don’t like it getting warmer where you are, MOVE SOMEWHERE COLDER AND STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO AND THINK.

[@ceeemm1901]

People really went from "Climate change isn't real" to: "Climate change is happening but it's not caused by humans" to: "climate change is happening and it's caused by humans but we're already fucked so might as well just keep polluting"

[@theunknownunknowns5168]

Yeah thanks northern hemisphere for placing the ozone hole directly over my home! Turns out your co2 makes my home the most susceptible to top soil erosion too!

[@GeorgiaGrowGuy]

You're going to have to change the name of your channel to Intelligence Quartered with a question like that.

[@starc.]

they lack the intelligence to do that

[@robertokeefe5944]

What science ???

[@garysarela4431]

"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." - 2018 National Climate Assessment.

[@chriskopek27]

Thats not science

[@larrybedouin2921]

​@@garysarela4431 That's utter nonsense! One volcano can put as much of the gas of life (co2) in the atmosphere as does all of human activity (including farming) does annually.

[@garysarela4431]

@@larrybedouin2921 "Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors." - Scientific American, 11 Feb 2009

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@garysarela4431 🤥

[@robroberts1473]

The weather?

[@starc.]

The Mind of Man must change. Our species has to learn how to exist peacefully which means learning how politics is not the solution but the source of the problem.

[@starc.]

Belief is the foundation for ignorance. Peace cannot be through ignorance or deception, peace cannot be forced, enforced or legislated only war can.

[@starc.]

Living in peace requires an understanding of how to do so. The economic, political and legal system is globalised, our species lives under rule, we are denied peaceful existence and that is not consensual.

[@starc.]

The men in charge of The Estates and deceptively named Law Society and anyone enabling them are in violation of The Law.

[@starc.]

They can never win the 'raw' (spelt backwards) against The Law as The Law never changes however their actions and policies have to in order for them to maintain an eternally losing battle. Law is a scientific term not a legal one. Language has been used to 'kcirt' (spelt backwards) our species and 'laets' (spelt backwards) our consent. Being Lawful or that is to say peaceful requires being true by thinking true, speaking true and doing true. Consent is the litmus test of morality and the foundation of morality is The Law. If one intends peace then morality is centred in the inherent duties of the First Protector of The Law. If one intends war then morality is centred in the inherent duties of the First Violation of The Law. the following is a proper explanation of The Law and how that relates: "Most of what we are is non physical, though, our lowest form is physical. All life on our planet has the lowest form, the Body. Our Body is an Animal and the other type of Body on our planet is a Plant. Bodies are bound absolutely to Natural Law, which is the lowest form of true Law. Natural Law is a localised form of Law and is derived from the Laws of Nature. Natural Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of species, members of species, and the material sources of a planet. The lowest non physical form of what we are is the Mind, which is a Process. There are other forms of life on our planet that have both a Body and a Mind, however, so far as we currently know, there are no Plants and only some Animals that have a Body and a Mind. The lowest forms of Mind, Instinct and Emotion, are predominantly bound to Natural Law. The next higher form of Mind is Intellect which is bound predominantly to the Laws of Nature. Intuition, the highest form of Mind, can be bound or not to both Natural Law and the Laws of Nature separately or together, or to higher forms of Law altogether. Intuition is the truest guide for our Selves. The next non physical form of what we are is the Self, which is an Awareness. There are relatively few other forms of life on our planet that have a Self. The Self is not bound to any form of Law other than One's Own Law. It is the only form of Law that cannot be violated. The foundation of what we are is the highest non physical form of what we are. The highest form of what we are is the Being, which is an Existence. The Being is not bound to any form of Law originating within Existence. The Being is bound absolutely to The Law. Existence, and the Laws of Nature which are the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements within Existence, cannot Be without The Law being The Law. So, what is The Law? In a word, The Law is options. Definition option: a thing that is or may be chosen. The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is. Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is. In clarifying what The Law is; The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing. Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate. Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating; the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon, the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded, the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded, the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence, the concept of options, and Free Will. However one thinks, believes, guesses, hopes, or "knows", whether by a Big Bang, a creation story, a computer program, an expansion of consciousness, or whatever means by which Existence could have come to Be, the option for Existence to not Be also exists. Existence and Non Existence, the original options connected by the very concept of options, connected by The Law. Outside of space and before time. Extra-Existential. As we experience The Law in our Being, The Law is Free Will. The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent." - Goho-tekina Otoko

[@ceeemm1901]

@@starc.Just askin...did you fall down the stairs when you were little?

[@advocate1563]

Nothing. Steve Koonin"unsettled". Moving on ....

[@ceeemm1901]

Yeah you can trust oil employees....guffaw! guffaw!

[@garysarela4431]

Steve K. used to work for BP. Scientific American debunked his book. Source: Scientific American, May 2021, "A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong"

[@larrybedouin2921]

They 👆 bend their tongues like their bow for lies: 🤥 but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; *for they proceed from evil to evil* and they know not me, saith the LORD. {Jeremiah 9:23} He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. {Psalm 2:4}

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Just wait until 2050, if my calculations were correct back in 1984, four years before the cockamamie notion of "antrhopgenic global warming" was circulatated. There was an earlier idea, built around centiries-long sunspot cycles and validated by matching the highs and lows with dentritic chronology, art showing how persons dressed, core samples whowing what kind of plants and animals lived and what that said about climate and business records, detailing what was grown and sold, and what THAT said about the climate. Everything was pretty much on time.Then look up the medieval and Minoan warming periods and the corrent wone was right on time give or take 5 or so years. Not climate change; climate shift. This happens regularly. When I got this data, the Church of the Sacred Tomato Warm were telling us we were going to freeze to death. I predicted that they would soon do a 180 but they took longer than I expected. However don't jump for joy. The Minoan warming period ended in the famous Bronze Age collapse and the Medieval warming period ended with the glaciation of Greenland and the disappearnce of the Norse from that land and we saw the "Little Ice Age". So you better start stocking up a LOT of coal and natural gas and someon get Greta the Obnoxious Child Prophetess a warm coat, her teeth are beginning to chatter. Too bad I will not be around in 2050 to see if my other prediction was as accurate as my psychohistorical one

[@ceeemm1901]

Wow, your parents really did a number on you, huh......

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@ceeemm1901 Wanna run that by me in English, Esperanto or some other humanly comprehensible form - IF you are capable of it

[@ceeemm1901]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser Just leave your bedroom and join us and all will become obvious. There's more to life than , Marvel Comics, Buckets of KFC ,greasy gaming consoles, Graham Hancock, Mr Spock and paranoia, you know.....

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@ceeemm1901 Dequelle planete venez-vous? Only if you include the Stainless Steel Rat

[@ceeemm1901]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser Sorry I take it back about your parents. I can see now you came from a single parent family and that parent was a test-tube.

[@TheTastefulThickness]

Im sure whatever it is involves taxes and control and the mitigation of human flourishing. Funny, huh?

[@shades2.183]

What we humans do have no effect WSE, it is absolutely BS.

[@MrPaddy924]

I found Hannah's case for optimism from our dire predicament quite strenuous and unconvincing, and she constructed a lot of straw men in the book in order to make her points. Her use of data in her book was selective to say the least. I also noted a number of inaccuracies (or at least significant divergencies from my own understanding of our predicament). She has also struggled to justify a lot of the positions she adopted in her own book. The section on de-growth was particularly ill informed, and the idea that renewables can replace fossil fuels, simply fanciful. I also struggled with her 'war' metaphor in the book, which I found bizarre. Her claim to absolute apolitical objectivity also, clearly indefensible. I don't concur with Hannah's definition of a 'doomer'. I regard myself as a doomer in that I think I have a realistic understanding of our predicament and tend not to seek solace in cognitive dissonance or denial. I try to be a grown up and face the grim reality of our predicament. That doesn't mean that I will ever give up hope in our ability to address some of the worst impacts of climate change - far from it - but I do push back against baseless optimism, which I regard as dangerous. Panic is an important human emotion as it can help us to conjure up the motivation and will to act on our worst fears. Buffering people from panic is unhelpful. In respect of the climate crisis, too much panic is not our problem, not enough panic is our problem. It's a shame, because I so want to encounter a positive narrative on the climate crisis in which I can believe. Hope is so difficult to come by, that I really willed Hannah to provide a convincing space for hope, but alas, I struggled to find it in her book. In order to make her somewhat plaintive case for optimism, Hannah found herself contorting and making use of accounting tricks and statistical sleight of hand. These strategies needed to be exposed. They are the same strategies used by climate deniers to such great effect. Ritchie states in the book, as cause for optimism, that the EU and USA have significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. Which is, of course true, but not the cause for optimism that she suggests. Since the rise of China as the world's manufacturing powerhouse, countries like the USA, those in the EU and other developed nations have essentially delegated all of their manufacturing to China which has resulted in their own emissions reducing and China's growing. Overall, global emissions are still rising - it's just that the manufacturing component of those emissions have shifted from other G20 nations to China. This makes China look like the bad guys, when actually all they are doing is producing all of our stuff for us. Against that backdrop, you can understand why it is disingenuous for Ritchie to pick out EU and US emissions to support her case for optimism when these wealthy countries are contributing to record global emissions by buying more stuff than ever from China. At no point in her book does she caveat her positive message with these ugly truths. She's set out to write a positive book and has evidently cherry picked her data to support that thesis. This is why Greta Thunberg urges people to keep their eye on the global emissions data and nothing else. This clarity of focus makes one immune to the positive spin that the likes of Ritchie churns out. I think Bill Gates, and perhaps Elon Musk, had much more influence on this book than Hannah would ever admit. The book is a techno-optimist, neoliberal manifesto and highly ideological and, despite Hannah's assertions to the contrary, very political. She seems to be suggesting that there is a 'business as usual' route to addressing climate change and the book repeats the myth that 'we have the technology in place to solve this' - an assertion that, for me, has never stood up to scrutiny. I found it a troubling book. I recommend listening to her interview with Rachel Donald on Mongabay. Ritchie is utterly exposed. It's excruciating.

[@josephknurek7795]

lol mostly bad science and misconceptions. lol