That would work and then America will no longer be a corporation. Can’t wait.

AGREE.

"Independent agencies must replace government" Government IS the independent agency, but it's up to US to elect the right people. Unfortunately, the primary system has led to extremists on the right.

Facts are Wars create more carbon emissions than any country.. vote for Politicians who don't deny delay or distract from the truth for their own personal gains.

Definitely over due

Good response.

Project Drawdown's Climate Solutions 101 & Roadmap are having that part 2 conversation. The problem is, the conversation has to start with those in governments who issue fossil trade licenses, to convince them to cut those back to zero by 2030.

It's not the planet that is on a timeline. Earth has been here for billions of years. It's people on a timeline.

Wars create more carbon emissions than any country and as resources diminish will create greed and profits for the oligarchs who control the highly concentrated holdings of the corporations who Monopolizing these resources

Exactly, we built our economy on growth instead of the well being of our peers

@@cheese7119 instead the well beïng of our biosphere.

Right, and corporations will simply increase food prices so it's the individual who will indirectly pay the tax.

nah, taxing the product when it is sold is the way to go as you need a tax that is applied per unit and want the corporations to go for less taxed products/ingredients as the consumer habits will also change with the price. (cheap) Meat, cheese, Milk, Butter all have readily available plant based alternatives, that also taste better. They should be also favored taxwise, it is often the other way around (in germany at least).

@@amenoum7623 as the price goes up fewer people will buy it.

how about no taxes 😂

There's $95B of 'pet'(sic) meat walking around, _eating meat!_ First the 'pets' get eliminated, only THEN the livestock. BUT YOU WON'T, HYPOCRITE.

and the Birds

​@@tracysmith-yv5lt nooo not the birds :(( 😢 And butterflies

food and water and shelter. And the rich western world will just make higher fences and pay even more money to dictators to do the dirty work. Ofc people in the western world will suffer but it will pale in comparison to the rest of the world

They did a blind test just on ingredients between fake meat ingredient labels and 'pet'(sic) kibble labels but impossible to tell because THEY HAVE NEAR THE SAME INGREDIENTS.

​@@robertmarmaduke186 "blind test" and "comparing ingredients" doesn't make any sense. Have you ever noticed the ingredients of meat made processed sausages, by the way?

Unfortunately, governments aren't willing to subsidize the building of vertical farms for those who are interested and skilled enough to make them work Meanwhile, some rich people tried vertical farms, didn't take enough care to stop pests coming in, and didn't receive a fast enough turnaround in profits (they hoped it to be another get rich scheme). So a lot of vertical farms have already closed down. Best thing is to start small at home if you can - a spare room you can fit out. Learn how to create the necessary plumbing, lighting, racks, etc. Make a double door, so you have a clean space to change, check for pests before going into the growing room). I'm thinking of putting a small corner of a spare room to vertical farming, just for my own needs to start with. However, there's no need quite yet. I'm very lucky in that my climate is still quite stable, and I'm still growing things outdoors. But I don't expect this to last long. I think things are going to start getting very bad within 3 years.

@@Debbie-henri Agrivoltaics where solar panels provide partial shade is a possible solution, especially for grapes.

Very material and energy intensive, not practical for feeding large quantities of people.

Bingo!

Try telling that to the Politicians, world-wide, currently freaking out about dropping birth rates in a Capitalistic world that demands endless growth in order to sustain itself!

Nope. Actually it’s a function of the imposed scarcity created by the capitalist system.

@@kated3165~ You’re on the right track, but capitalism is about the restriction of growth that serves to create imposed scarcity and the justification for raising prices. We actually waste enough food to feed every American. The growth required by capitalism is in the economy, not in the supply of goods and services.

So, too many people because climate change fueled by fossil fuel companies is destroying our food systems. Yeah, let's blame the people. When we look around the world and see undeveloped countries starving, it's because of the rich companies and countries. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

Chances are that even when they lit. loose their homes they will not react, at least not permanently. In germany there were studies in a region that experiences a massive flooding. At first the polls showed an increased interest in climate change related matters and google searches, but this did not last and things soon returned to how they used to be. This did not change how people vote in long term either. Scientists have found out that when events from reality contradicts the political belief of people... political views will win and remain unchanged most of the time. That is just how the human brain works that still thinks in tribes (politically). HEaring that I even lost hope that coming catastrophies might change the way we think and act.

Unfortunately it will probably take major food shortages in wealthy countries before Politicians even start to take Climate Change seriously...

@@kated3165 I am not even sure of that. Unfortunately.

Very true, and they forget the other problem - that if food starts becoming scarce in other countries, the food wars start there, and then move into Europe and America with mass migration.

@@presbiteroo Yeah... I wouldn't blame you for thinking that...

Two in WADC one in NYC and one in Brussels.

Because it's a logical fallacy, never blame the victim(s).

Willie Soon is a notorious source of climate MISinformation, so people should ignore what he says about climate.

Soon is so incredibly wrong about AGW that he is relegated to speaking for Heartland Institute. Soon thinks that solar variation is the cause of warming, and as we all know there is less TSI so what is he talking about? According to David Suzuki: “U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests." Also, a Soon quote: "In the past, I have received scientific research grants from Exxon-Mobil Foundation, Southern Company and the Charles G. Koch Foundation for my work on various topics, including scientific research on the Sun-climate connection.” Soon is one of those "CO2 is the gas of life" nonsense talkers. I would counter that "water is the liquid of life" but who wants to drown?

Really? My understanding of that phrase is that it allows for a small amount of animal products, e.g. some dairy and eggs or a small amount of seafood. That's still a really huge change from our current food systems.

@@TimpanistMoth_AyKayEll Right now, my ratios are 49 veggies to 51 meats.

Wars create more climate change than any country's emissions, through their carbon emissions

Few Republicans see climate change as a top priority for the country. Just 12% of Republicans and Republican leaners say dealing with climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress, according to a January 2024 survey. For Republicans, dealing with climate change ranks last among the 20 issues included in the survey

Though you are partly right still up to 20 Percent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally result from agriculture, mainly animal farming! Better inform yourself next time before posting. And Whataboutism doesn't really help generally!

There has always been food waste. If anything, our food distribution, processing and storage systems are more expensive than ever before. Most of our current waste comes from our growing corn and other crops for energy and to feed industrial livestock.

There was a big boom on this idea a few years ago. It doesn't work. It becomes way more expensive as plants grown like this are less resistant to pests. So the output is low.

you're right, high time the wealthy and corporate people cough up their due

i am quite critical towards montbiots extreme vegan agenda, which makes his books sell. on the other hand, with regenerative animal husbandry, we will end up with a fraction of the meat that is produced now withg industrial meat production. we will need a totally different way of distributing those animal products so that not just the rich can afford it.

Why don't you just google before spreading false informations? Animal products generally imply a huge waste of nutrients. At least 7 kcal plant based food (mostly grain) is needed to produce 1 kcal of meat. In Europe for instance 60 percent of the total annual grain production is wasted for animal feeding.

true but it is expensive and firms are going out of business, unable to keep up the repayments for the technology. As a last resort it is great, but growing outdoors is by far the cheapest method of producing food and uses far less energy.

​@edwardbernthal160 true, it takes massive amounts of gas to make the veggies think it is spring instead of winter, why we can have veggies year round

talk makes them money, that's the point. now let's all ignore all the government money printing that really caused the inflation and eat some bugs

no my friend you are wrong. Beef is not the least of our problems. It is one of the major issues. Only 55 of the grown calories are consumed by humans, we could thus almost double the amount of food we produce. But yeah who cares about solving world hunger its just a couple million human lifes, no biggy. Maby soon it could be a couple tens or maybe hundrets of millions who cares ... being able to eat cheap meat every day is more importand.

Heartland got you confused?

@@scottekoontz Here's what confuses me. In every interglacial since the mid-Brunhes shift, Greenland's ice sheet has been reduced by 90 to 95 percent. In two of those interglacials, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was completely removed (MIS 5e and MIS 11c) and greatly reduced in the other two (MIS 7 and MIS 9). Now everybody thinks that if we just blame the petroleum industry hard enough, they'll stay frozen during THIS interglacial. If you believe that, I have some prime farmland for sale about 40 miles NE of Chicago.

@@JimmyD806 Yes, you seem to be confused, but mostly about what constitutes natural forcings and their timeframes. Magnitudes matter, forcings matter. Based on natural forcings (less the CO2 increase) Earth should be cooling and not warming, but at a rate so slow we would not be able to perceive it, so basically we should be witnessing a fairly flat temp for centuries like we had for millennia. Just take a look at temps for past 2,000 years. Also: "Earth’s axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 10,000 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Sun’s energy back into space, promoting even further cooling." Ice is building up? Promoting further cooling? Cooler summers? None of that sounds like what is happening today. Milankovotch cycles are not the issue (obviously) since the short ones are 20,000 year cycles. Solar irradiation is not the issue since there is slightly (ever so slightly) less in the past 60 years, yet earth warms. If you close your eyes and wish that >99% of all experts from all countries coming at the topic from a wide variety of disciplines are wrong, and that Heartland (Thank You For Smoking, that Heartland) is correct with their employment of non-scientists posing as scientists, then I have... well, I have some science books you should be reading. I have to wonder if you are getting your science from any of the following: Watts, Monckton, Heller, Bast, Morano, Epstein, Moore, Curry, anyone at Heartland, anyone at Fox entertainment. Just continue pretending that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and the *very* rapid rise in temps, and the extremely rapid rise in CO2 are not the issue, then by gum it must be a natural cycle that takes 20,000 years or more.

@@scottekoontz You threw a lot of terms out there that I'm pretty sure you don't really understand. Fact is, most of them are artificial constructs that were invented so that computer models will appear to match what the the climate is like. They're meaningless. You most likely read them somewhere and they sound good, so you throw them out there. If you want to get my attention, tell me how many quanta of energy CO2 has when its fundamental transition is above vibrational ground state. What's the angular momentum? Or is it zero in that mode? How many modes are doubly degenerate? How many are triply degenerate? When does a greenhouse gas limit out? Or is the greenhouse effect the only thing in the universe that has no limit? How does the greenhouse effect work? Can you explain it without using the word "trap?"

@@scottekoontz Most people look at the atmosphere like a flat sheet of paper. They don't realize it has depth. They don't understand absorption coefficient or attenuation coefficient or extinction coefficient. They don't know what pathlength is. They think that carbon dioxide is some type of energy. And when you ask them what heat is in a gas, you get the deer in headlights look. If an IR photon with a wavelength of 15 microns is emitted from the surface how far will it travel up into the atmosphere? There's a range of probability based on pathlength and the Lorenz curve.

Pollution from Bombings in Gaza & Ukraine?

Food commodities in those nations won't be any more reliable than from other nations in the coming decades if we don't change our energy sources and close our legs...

What you are talking about is a grain of sand in a desert as what climate change will cause to food supply. Think of Brasil not being able to produce food to export, not just east Ukraine.

Excellent points! Add the Climate Geo engineering experiments by the Elite Globalists Cartel that could be causing this climate havoc during the past two years..

Let’s get it right!....Learn the effect of adding excess C02 to the atmosphere and go see the Keeling Curve.

😂😂😂

"Plant based diets are absurd. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years." It doesn't matter what we used to do, we also used to burn fire and coal for heat, and we know we must stop doing that--or at least do it as little as possible. We've treated women like second-rate human beings for thousands of years, and we must stop doing that. Unfortunately, eating meat (and especially beef) has been the most eco-destructive thing that humans have done to land ecosystems and biodiversity while eating seafood has been the most eco-destructive thing we have done to marine life and marine ecosystems. Thus, and given that we are pushing the whole web of life toward collapse, we have to make the changes that have the largest ecological benefits and shifting to mostly or entirely plant-based diets has MASSIVE ecological benefits. Most people don't know the science of this, but if everyone went vegan tomorrow, we would need 75% less land to feed everyone and could then reforest and re-wild an area the size of North America plus Brazil, with massive benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Doing this would heal ecosystems that are now breaking down. In the oceans, ecosystems and biodiversity would rebound dramatically. A typical omnivorous diet uses about 2.4 times as much water as a vegan diet so ditching the meat helps us solve global water and groundwater crises. Not only does an omnivorous diet have roughly double the CO2 emissions of a vegan diet, that vast reforestation and re-wilding effort would sequester over 600 BILLION tons of CO2 by 2050 (and more after that). Thus, other than having fewer children, for people who eat a fair amount of meat and dairy, switching to almost entirely planet based diets is probably the most eco-beneficial thing they can do (although for some people, flying less would be more beneficial). Nutrition research also reveals that diets dominated by whole plant foods are healthiest, and for reasons that are well-documented. Among the other problems of modern civilization is that we have unleashed on the world hundreds of plastics and over 200,000 man-made chemicals and many toxic chemicals naturally accumulate at high levels in the fat of animals, which makes eating more meat a vector for more diseases. Take care.

@karlwheatley1244 admittedly humans are very destructive. We have destroyed every environment and eco system we live in. That doesn't bely the facts that it's the agricultural practices not the animals themselves that are harming the planet. There in also remains the issues of over population as stated in this video. They talked about the absolute need to import food because that area doesn't have the sustainability to feed itself, that is an issue that is not the world as wholes problem but of that country and government. I have no qualms with helping others and frequently donate including 80% of the garden I raise annually to people in need, but food needs to be mostly sourced locally. Breadbaskets of the world wouldn't have to be as they are if there weren't the pressures to feed an overpopulated globe. Water is another such instance in this same topic, look at the state of California or Nevada for instance who have to ration water. The point is people live in places they shouldn't be living in the 1st place. We can take it a step further and say the same thing about flooding, because when you build in known flood prone areas you shouldn't be upset when you flood. This same philosophy applies in many areas because humans think we can force our will upon nature, but as global warming is proving mother nature bits back! Now you enjoy your day.