If you watch this at 1.6x speed, you're done in 5minutes and still don't miss a word.

One crucial aspect to the fight that people are mostly overlooking is that of the health of our topsoil. Cutting emissions alone will do absolutely nothing to stop the climate crisis because, as he mentioned here, we're already passed the tipping point as far as what is feasible in stopping or slowing them down. So even if we stopped what people generally think is the cause of climate change (fossil fuel emissions), we would still be heating up due to the current state of the ecosystem and the underrated amount of emissions coming from the monocropping industry. (One hectare of burned crop residue releases as much CO2 as 4,000 cars, and over a billion hectares are burned a year in Africa alone; crop residue burning for the sake of plant agriculture is a common practice around the world, including in the US), we would still be increasing the CO2 while, conversely, fixing the topsoil allows for a place that the CO2 can go that promotes the healthy growth of plant life. How this happens is that when it rains, the rainwater rinses our atmosphere of greenhouses gasses (including methane; this is how rain forms) and then deposits those gasses (carbon) into the soil for plants and microbes to utilize for growth. But if the soil is unhealthy, as most of it is now, the rainwater cannot be absorbed by the soil and simply evaporates back into the atmosphere, increasing the buildup of greenhouse gasses in our skies that has nowhere to go. To learn more about this process, look to Alan Savory's TedTalk on it. And, spoiler alert: the key component to this working is regenerative agriculture. And what regenerative agriculture must necessarily include is animals, if it's to be sustainable. You can't have a self-sustain ecosystem without animals, therefore livestock is absolutely key to restoring our planet's vitality and reversing climate change. Also look to a documentary available on Netflix called Kiss the Ground for more information on this aspect of the fight. It is absolutely vital that people understand that cutting emissions alone is worthless. The key to reversing climate change is under our feet, not above our heads.

It isn't the governments that we have to fight to get action, it is the fossil fuel companies determined to make as much as they can while they still can by extracting and burning those fuels.

Whether this turns out to be true or not... thank you for spreadimg a bit of hope and good news/positivity. ❤

I think the people are too individualistic often in their choices, and a sum total of those individual actions has made us what we are right now - a human civilization on the brink of destruction. Not just policy level changes are necessary, but also inclusion of climate studies in school curriculums and a general change in the attitude towards the entire planet being Us rather than just me or the tiny boundary I have built around myself to protect my "individualism".

My passion is in Architecture. I will concern for sustainable concept for my master. And still wondering where is the best univ in this world to concern about the concept?

Play your role as responsible citizens by going green and clean !

climate action, one need to be climate resilient and helping mother planet to sustain for longer life.

I actually did not believe any of this until i witnessed the polar caps melt 20 years ago. my kids ask me what snow looked like back in the day.

Simon says _"Then ask yourself the question, 'How can I apply this to the climate crisis?' then do exactly that thing. If you act, then the exponential change that is needed will happen."_ Simon, if I was a climate superhero with the mechanokinetic power to disable *_all_* the passenger vehicles in the US, what would the reduction in global CO2 emissions be? 1.006%. If I had the mechanokinetic power to disable *_all_* US-attributable aircraft (commercial, military, general aviation), what would be the reduction in global CO2 emissions? 0.418%. If I could disable *_all_* air conditioners in the US, what would the reduction in global CO2 emissions be? 0.314%. In the five years between 2016 and 2021, the US reduced per capita CO2 output around 3%, but reduced *_total_* CO2 output just 0.087% -- less than one-tenth of one percent. In other words, if we'd have done ten times better than we did in that period, we'd still have reduced America's total CO2 output less than one percent. On the bright side, the US share of global CO2 output is shrinking, but it's mostly because the emissions of much of the rest of the world is growing. As it stands now, in terms of CO2 output per person, it would take nearly two Chinese people to equal one average American. It would take nearly eight (7.7) Indian people to equal one average American. By the year 2100, the US is projected to fall to sixth place (from its current third place) in terms of population. Which countries are projected to pass America? In order, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Let's look at their current CO2 output levels, using the same comparison type to China and India above. It would take 23.22 Nigerians to output the carbon of the average American. It would take 15 Pakistanis to output the carbon of the average American. It would take *_495_* Congolese (from the Democratic Republic of the Congo) to output the CO2 of the average American. Do you think the per capita CO2 output of India - let alone Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo - will decrease over time, especially if they can increase their per capita GDP? What about the other poor countries who (like most everyone) aspire to improve their situations? Simon, you didn't detail the kinds of major changes *_you've_* personally made to how *_you_* live? What about anyone else watching this video? When it's hot out, how many of you have kept your air conditioners off? How many of you carpool? How many of you have increased your income and bought *_smaller_* televisions? Again, even if we do *_all_* of that (you probably won't, and we probably won't), it essentially would not make any meaningful difference. In general, the people in the world who _cannot_ afford all the luxuries we're surrounded with will _want_ all the luxuries we're surrounded with, and will start accumulating those things just as soon as they can afford to -- like we do, and like we have done for decades. So, what do I think? I think I'm going to prepare. We're planning on buying a second home further up north, in a location projected to be one of the top places in the future for climate migration. And we're also having a large whole-house backup generator installed at our primary home (already scheduled), to prepare for increased grid-overload outages. You were able to get on the TED channel, Simon, to pass on the message that we can effect changes and turn this around. That's further than I'll ever get - I’m sure I’ll never make it on a TED stage. So tell us now _what_ we can do. Tell us the projected effects (with numbers) of what you propose we do, and _specifically_ what you propose we do.

I have been in south america. the avarage person runs cars from the '80 with gasoline at 1.70 per gallon. how do we address that

Well done bro!

Looking at how fast the global temperatures increased in the last 2 years, this speed of warming can not be explained with CO2 increase alone. Some climate tipping point has to have tipped. The most likely suspect is the release of methane from thawing permafrost having become a self-reinforcing process. Which would mean that the release of methane from thawing permafrost makes the temperatures rise, and the temperature rise makes more permafrost thaw and release more methane, until most of the methane currently trapped in permafrost is released. And there is nothing we can do at this point to stop this process, no matter how exponential our climate actions become. It will just run its course until it finishes releasing methane from permafrost into the atmosphere. And then, in case we reach zero carbon emissions by this point, the temperatures will remain at the same level for about 20 years, until the methane in the atmosphere degrades sufficiently for the change to become noticeable.

Wow this is one of the nice discussion 🎉

While he may be right in saying that an exponential rise in climate action is coming, what is likely to come before that is a rise in antagonism towards climate action. Some governments around the world are introducing harsher penalties because they detect a ‘I’m so over it’ attitude amongst the general public. And of course big business and elements in the media are in favour of the new policies.

Come to the point

Believe it, when I see it. Native trees are needed ,not more pine.

Stopping the rain and heat waves is not the same as stopping apartheid, obviously...

Unless and until China, Russia, and India hop aboard, all we’re doing is providing cleaner air for Europe.

May the Anthropocene (Pyrocene (?)) epoch make the Permian-Triassic extinction event seem like a minor footnote in the pages of Earths history. Let us bear witness to the fruition of scenario SSP5-8.5 of the IPCC assessment

Eat less meat, specially red one. 🙃🌏

This guy looks like Penfold from Dangermouse😂😂😂😂

why is he standing so wide 🤣🤣🤣

The animal agriculture industry must be held accountable for their exploitation and abuse of sentient beings and the planet as well. 🌱🏴👏🏼

Or, How to shift "cultural hegemony."

What bugs me is the people who deny its happening will just say "sorry, I couldn't have known I was wrong" when we are gonna be deep inside of the pain of climate change. What do we do with those people who refuse to be accountable for their egregious oversight on their own education? Because its hard to run to help out in an emergency when one of your legs refuses to work because its lazy and prefers not to do what the rest of the body wants to do.

A relationship manager at Nokia and the Chairman of the Grenada Board of Tourism and real estate investor in the Carribean. Now minister of climate resilience and the environment Grenada. Nice accent for speeches but it appears you dont have much of a climate background.

I believe Konstantin Kisin made a great point about the fact that the dominant powers now, such as the US and the EU, have no right to tell developing countries that they can’t industrialise to grow because that would worsen climate change, and because of the fact that in a few short decades they will without a doubt surpass us, what must instead be prioritised is the investment in and development of economically-viable green technology that we can then provide those countries with. Changing our lifestyles is important in a moral sense, but doing so to stop climate change directly is pointless. The conclusion being, the responsibility of the western world currently is almost entirely for governments and businesses to make a concerted push for green technology.

Thứ2/7/8/2023

Thumbnail looks like a pastor speaking.

I hope he is right.

What An Awful Waste, Of A Beautiful Old Theater.❤

Love the effort but I was kind of bored watching this.

1st to comment ❤

Here again ❤

First, maybe?

Randall Carlson debunked every facet of the climate change debate over 10 years ago.

KZfaq “context” warns me that I’m about to watch some propaganda.

Conspiracy and misinformation.

TED what have you become?

Oh no, the nutters are trying to run the asylum.