BritMonkey 
Climate Change doesn’t have to scare the Emojis out of you.
Sources: https://pastebin.com/whyRb0WD
Music used: https://pastebin.com/QZfN2Hkw
Follow me: https://www.twitter.com/_britmonkey
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/BritMonkey
Merch: https://crowdmade.com/collections/britmonkey
source
About The Author
The most optimistic video ive ever watched
Unfortunately, I doubt you'll respond to this comment, but this is some of the most egregious denialism I've ever seen. It's so much worse because you really seem capable of understanding the big picture but choose to muddy the waters instead.
It's important to do some framing right now. Some of the people who are shitting themselves the most are climate scientists. Now shouldn't that raise alarm bells—people who understand the problem intimately are the most concerned. You refer throughout to the ozone layer (and sometimes the production of sulfur oxides, which is a related, but different problem) as if this is generally equivalent to the production and sequestration of carbon. Climate scientists might actually agree the former two are in some ways less serious than they used to be, and indeed, this is because of corrective action governments took. But to draw on the example of sulfur dioxide, those results tended to be concentrated, and somewhat local. This means that while Britain was powering every sector of its island with coal burning plants, loads of SO2 got dumped not far away, in Scandanavia, where people were not pleased. International treaties were fought hard for, over the course of decades and finally won. But this was only because the results were obvious and immediate—extreme fish kills, soil depletion, forests dying off—and because of the political power their neighbors had to petition them. I take issue with your "neutral" presentation of "every nation getting together to fix it", change only happened because of immediate damage and the social pressure it generated by closely dependent countries. To drive the point home, who listens to the Maldives when it comes time to talk about the disastrous effects of climate change? "Global North" and BRIC both pretty much say, well, shit, good luck!
Carbon gets in the atmosphere and then tends to spread out. This carbon does not leave the atmosphere for a very long time. When I said sequestration earlier, I should have put it in quotes, because that is a problem that only entropy has solved (when what we now call fossil fuels were just simple carbon-based material being buried under many millennia of tectonic movement, erosion, and buildup). For all practical purposes, the carbon which has been emitted into the atmosphere will be here for a long time. The damage it will cause will get worse over time. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today, there is a definite amount of warming that is, for better or worse, locked in. Any attempts at sequestration technology have been proven snake oil or impractical time and time again. Despite your pleas to ignore the tsunami of bad news in favor of the piddling trickle of "good" news, some of it is actually not very good or has not been placed in context. For instance:
– US reduces coal power plants, France using more nuclear power: drops in the bucket. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has just hit record amounts, hence this is cherry-picking at its finest. Also, that US chart shows a big spike in "Natural" Gas to replace its coal output. Read up on a bit and you'll realize that extensive leaks throughout the entire natural gas system make it anywhere between 25 and 250% more polluting than coal. You been greenwashed, mate.
– LA Smog is just unrelated—that's nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxide, ozone, smoke, this stuff has far less to do with climate change than carbon dioxide. This is hardly surprising, catalytic converters have been pretty widespread the mid-70s, and the tech has improved since then. Still, CO2 is a necessary output of catalytic converters. LA has a nearly 9% higher concentration of CO2 than the surrounding atmosphere.
– Cap and trade is the wrong incentive. It's vulnerable to all sorts of fraud, since there's no physical commodity being delivered. Countries can make fake claims and then sell off the credits. Believe when I say that the Volkswagen scheme resembles cap and trade and other carbon markets (including emissions trading) on the large scale.
It's also kind of rich (pun intended) to cheer at particular urbanized, industrialized countries going renewable, but it undermines your own point a few minutes later, when you admit they rely now more than ever on systems of neocolonialism—massive systems of imported goods, dirty factories, and entire vassal economies that will continually create emissions. Surely we'll all get together and wag our fingers at China and Bangladesh while still outsourcing labor and having them ship cheap plastic shit to us. Hopefully we don't pat ourselves on the back hard enough to cause serious injury.
The "we spend so much money on this" actually makes your argument worse, in my opinion. Surely if the answer were spending more money, the problem would have already been solved by now. I also don't have a dog in the fight of which renewable energy source will be the most efficient or cost effective, but I doubt your assertion that something once exponential will remain so forever. The point ignored however is that fossil fuel companies will not let go of their assets—we are far past the point that we should be burning any fossil fuels; yet even with the supposed economic incentives of renewables, why wouldn't they choose to keep selling off gas and oil and coal to anyone willing to burn it, for as long as there is no ban on it?
You're imagining a switch will flip at some point, but reality will likely be more obfuscation. The "point of no return" moving on your map is more of this wishful thinking. Ignorance of material realities means you don't think that "no return" is a real, physical, point—like, lets say 2.O degrees warming over historical averages, (well on our way), but instead some kind of magical threshold that can never be crossed due to the "indomitable will of man" or some other neoliberal hoke. I don't think I can agree that we're headed the "right" direction when you consider the most likely outcomes our current behavior will engender. The idea that doing something really, really poorly is anything like doing it in a correct, ambitious, or enthusiastic manner is, I'm afraid, exactly what is going to doom us.
Instead of false hope, why don't you give us real hope and compel us to SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION?
8:00 i definitely agree that china is making progress regarding the environment but they're also destroying the marine life all over the world just so its harder for other countries to feed themselves. That's what is really worrying
Climate Activists: I'm gonna ignore that.
6:13 is kinda ridiculous. Nearly every company you highlight is not from a democratic state. Good luck voting against Gazprom or Saudi Aramco
Funny how he doesn't mention political parties when talking about postitive news
🙂
❌
HERE HERE, I couldn't say it better.
All I eat is porterhouse steak, every night of the week, without fail.
Holy Misinformation…
From making consumers responsible for corporate pollution all the way to the tree planting. Its complete rubbish and you know it. I hope someone takes this video apart
I see a guy saying voting is the most valuable thing to do. I say no. We need a government form that can keep long term plans and interest for more than just four years and globally. One tgat can go against the short sightedness of the people and economy. The most valuable thing to humanity right now are a few well placed coups with the right people
Free market is going to save us, right?
3:14 3255% not 3155%
four years later…
That's why we need Nuclear power with renewable energy sources combined. The nuclear power can just fill the gaps in electricity supply or even replace the renewable sources temporarily (just in case something was up with nature or something), while the renewables do their own thing. What do ya'll think?
It only got worse
3:38 No such thing as "generating X amount of gigawatts per hour" HORRIBLE CRINGE! NOBODY SAYS THAT!
Gigawatts are already units of a RATE: energy per unit time. Of power. This is basic 7th grade physics and math that I understood and learned in our excellent American public schools in 7th grade. If you cannot get that right, then no reason to listen to anything else you say.
i'd like to see the coal plant statistics for china
Edit: I should keep quiet and wait till the end of the video before thinking i'm extra-smart
This looks like a bunch of corporate consumer stats and not scientific fact…
This aged like milk, my guy
Until I watched this video, I was kinda sure that things were gonna go south due to this and that I couldn’t have grandchildren, thank you so much BritMonkey.
That’s kind of a misleading thumbnail…
Fixing climate change isn’t guaranteed, and especially not if we stick to a free-market type system
As someone who studied climate change at university, you are spot on with all of this commentary, especially cutting out meat
Hell yeah