For anyone who wondered as well: which emissions are 'hard-to-abate'? Answer: The report names things like "residual emissions like CO2 from industrial activities and long-distance transport, or CH4 and nitrous oxide from agriculture". I looked up the original paper that mentioned this (source below), which says "A shift to low-carbon energy inputs (using, e.g., electrification or hydrogen energy carriers) have the potential to reduce energy-related emission, but not process emissions. These factors contribute to what makes industry emission hard-to-abate." It then goes on to name "cement industry, iron and steel, chemicals" So, to be clear: This does _not_ mean processes that can keep burning fossil fuels. This is about chemical processes that inherently produce carbon dioxide. Source: Sergey Paltsev, Jennifer Morris, Haroon Kheshgi, Howard Herzog, Hard-to-Abate Sectors: The role of industrial carbon capture and storage (CCS) in emission mitigation, 2021

Last week I was reading an academic journal article from the 70s about responses too climate change for a seminar in one of my renewable energy modules. It was so depressing reading it, the author was very optimistic showing how easy it would be (with even 70s technology and with their Conservative predictions for energy efficiency improvements) too reduce our carbon footprint to managable levels, they thought it would just be cleared up like the ozone layer, DDT etc. It's so disheartening that we are 40 years later and have not even completed stage one of their recommendations, which was literally just fixing infrastructure and refurbishing power plants including adding recapture technology. I.e. a wind turbine or Stirling engine in an industrial chimney. They thought that would be naturally just done. Obviously we are not too late we have time but we do need to act quickly.

This is so impressive how you managed to put out a video on this extensive report on such short notice! Thank you! I will do my best to engage everyone I know.

Sadly, New Zealand was successful in scrubbing the IPCC report of “plant-based diet” at the behest of the dairy and meat industry, which was also granted an exception from the carbon budget.

I achieved a small personal goal. I know it is not a solution available for everyone, but I've been fighting very hard to get a work at home job, and I've been given an offer for it!!! I'm thrilled to be reducing my personal emissions by just that much more.

Thanks for the summary, you are doing much better job compared to world media on climate reporting. I am getting into eco-anxiety, you might have just saved me. More power to you Miriam and Climate Adam 🙌🏽

Very impressive and informative video on climate change realities. Some 3000 pages report condensed into a seven minutes video is not a mean task. Kudos to both of you.

Thank you so much for this! I'm currently finishing a research project for my Master's degree on what extent wind and solar can be relied upon for 1.5°C mitigation. The simple breakdown of the latest IPCC report (especially that cost-benefit graphic for mitigation options) will be super useful for me!!

Thank you for the video and sharing this information in an accessible way! Please make sure to include information on how we also need to shift our agriculture systems in order to reduce emissions and reach net zero. Many of the mitigation options in the AFOLU category could be implemented simply by phasing out animal agriculture and shifting to plant-based diets. We NEED to include this in the conversation when talking about climate change because it is absolutely not possible to reach net zero emissions if we continue farming animals the way we do. Thank you again, and I hope to hear more about this topic in your next video.

Thank you for your informative summary and the much needed humor....this is such a heavy topic for all and super overwhelming. We take solace there's a LOT of bright and amazing minds working on this from so many different angles...energy flows where attention goes so here's to keeping the focus on solutions and moving forward!

Thanks to both of you. I spent lots of time understanding the physics of the climate system. But humans being the cause, I also looked into us... My conclusions are: Profit is the deadliest of ll addictions, so, we are ran by junkies, “profit junkies” Which is why “Our politicians are interchangeable figureheads on the pirate ships of the global Corporatocracy” That sums up the summary of the summary of what I learned from philosophy and behavioural biology. Might be useful to help understand how we got here in the 1st place. ☮️

It's so great to get good information that's easily accessible like this video, with links provided to both the IPCC summary and the full report. Thanks!

Great video as always! Great work and absolutely loved the small crossover!! Glad that happened!!

In other news. The Western Australian Scarborough Gas project was given final approval last night.Thanks Woodside.... as for the rest of us, may the odds be ever in your favour

I genuinely laugh out loud when you showed the bar graph for CCS just after the wind and solar one. We keep hearing from fossil fuel companies that CCS will save us all and that it's cost will lower over time, seing that tiny red bar felt like they were being kicked in the balls

Thank you so much for your work, amazing video!!

Wow! Thanks for your speedy and important video! Fantastic as always!

This is such a good explanation of the report! Thanks for this! It’s so important for us to be aware of these kinds of topics !

Thanks for the summary, now I know which parts I want to dig into more!

If CDR is not working and we can't begin to stop even the increase in our annual emissions let alone start decreasing them, a better strategy would be to start the process of degrowth. A comprehensive and absolute reduction in our consumption to reduce our emissions is perhaps the only viable way. The main problem is it's not easy, however it is not impossible. More than half of humanity is living in that situation already, we're just too used to our luxuries to think along those lines. If the richest 10% of humans give up their luxuries we may have a chance to do something about the crisis otherwise, we are doomed.

Project Drawdown is the only silver lining Ive seen which can accomplish CDR

Such a great channel , thank u so much for sharing this valuable information it can be quite overwhelming to search for constantly so this helps a lot 💖💖🙏🏽

What is important to remember is that economic and governing methods also have to adapt to solve the climate crisis. Governments need to prioritise the well being of their lands and their people and that means prioritising GDP less and focusing on general wealth. (FYI they are not the same thing.) And wealth distribution and combating propaganda that sustains wealth gaps and excessive capital gain is essential. Excellent video btw

Great video again, thanks both of you!

Congrats, very nice team up and effective communication! I really enjoyed this format and style, I would love watching more videos from you two like this.

Brilliant Video

I just stumbled on this channel today and have watched a couple of videos; you really have helped me to understand the IPCC reports in a short period of time. I am used to reading lengthy standards and reports, but haven't really had the time (determination?) to study the IPCC reports, though I've wanted to have a broad understanding of the contents. You guys do a great job.

Stellar Video, will share it as much as I can.

Thanks for the summary, time to get to action !

Super clear and helpful - even for me and this is my world! My small team at UNEP focuses on the next steps of using the science to show what we can do for sustainable living. We look at what drives / influences consumption - including social media. Let me know if you want to know more!

That was fast!! I’m impressed 😎

I've seen a bunch of comments asking with carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture and storage are the same thing, and the answer is... sort of. Carbon capture and storage is a process where you stop emissions entering the atmosphere by (you guessed it) capturing and storing that carbon. So if, for example, you did this for coal (and it actually worked 100% perfectly, which it obviously doesn't), it would mean no emissions. Not removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide removal is any process that overall removes carbon from the atmosphere. This could, for example, include directly capturing CO2 from the air. The overall effect must mean less carbon in the atmosphere than before. The confusion really comes from the fact that our best bet (which still isn't a great bet) of carbon dioxide removal is something called BECCS - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. It's hoped this would work because you suck up carbon by growing the bioenergy, and then trap the emissions wich carbon capture and storage. So when this IPCC report says we need CDR (just to cancel out the uncuttable bits of emissions) but that CCS (our best bet for CDR!) is still pretty rubbish, that should just serve as a reminder that we should *only* be thinking about carbon dioxide removal for those emissions we really *really* can't cut any other way. Everything else should be cut directly (rather than cancelled out) and if we can absolutely avoid it, we should avoid overshoot (emitting too much CO2 and then have to suck it out later to undo our mistake). OK CDR/CCS rant over.

Great video. Your bestie🙂, Adam, sent me over. Wow you are a fast talker.

the video is so well made!! thanks for the useful info

Could you make another video on the AFOLU sector? In the main graph depicting potential contributions and their costs, the 3rd-, 4th-, 5th-, and 7th-biggest bars overall are located in AFOLU. Clearly this sector is very important. Also, two of them (carbon sequestration in agriculture and ecosystem restoration) are means of CO2 removal with much larger potential than technological CDR options.

This video and the Kurzgesagt video were what I needed today, my climate doomerism has been creeping up on me again and I need to be reminded that we c̶a̶n̶ WILL absolutely do this

Meriam and Climate Adam, I love you both and am subscribed to you both. However, Climate Adam cannot say that it is unlikely that the Earth will reach 4 or 5 degrees C because there are exponential tipping points like 1,400 gigatons of carbon in permafrost and 10,000 gigatons of methane in methane hydrate in waterways and oceans. Both those tipping points may or may not have been reached already. Climate Adam can say that the policies to avoid 4-5 degrees C are being followed (if he would like to say that). That being said, thank you as always for your clear, thorough reporting and all your efforts for our Earth.

Hello from the UK. I've watched your videos and all are well received. I have an issues with climate change reporting, they are researched and presented by academics (correct) and as far back as I can recall, the message about damage to our climate has not reached enough people. I believe this is because the emphasis of climate change has been concentrated on Informing the public about the science and not enough about the catastrophic of impact to ourself. If one wants to snap mankind (mainly the West) out of its 'have everything want everything coma', enough to be concerned about what's waiting for them in the not too distant future, they'er going to need more than "the sea may rise by 1-2 meters". People will respond to this having watched the movie 2012, and wonder what all the fuss is about. In the UK just a few months after COP26, on the 1 Apr, our domestic energy bills rose by 54%. There will be another rise in Oct of 42%, with customers energy bills topping £3,000 a year. This compares with France increase of 4%. So after all the promises at COP26 from the UK, our politicians are looking at Fracking and even calls to re-open coal mines, a real disaster. One thing I did see come out of COP26 which was a small piece/warning: In a chilling warning about what the world is facing in the coming decades, Chair of the Elders Mary Robinson said it is on the "conscience" of world leaders to prevent global warming of 2.4 degrees. If global temperatures rise by this much, she said, "it would mean that if you're younger than 60, it's likely you'll witness the total destabilisation of life as we know it." This would include crop failures, fracturing economies, and hundreds of millions of people fleeing uninhabitable regions. "If you're under 30 years old, then science tells you that you're guaranteed to have that, Ms Robinson said.” Perhaps to get the desired response a campaign with chilling prospects for ourself, children and grandchildren. I hope that tapping into primitive fear might be successful where "academic" speak has not been received. Whatever happens, people of the future may look back on this period and it'lll be known as the age of the idiot.

I have fully reached climate despair. I don't believe that we'll ever be able to do this. We're screwed. I live a rather sustainable life myself, and I vote for the green party in my country, but beyond that, I don't think there's anything I can do. So I pretty much decided to disengage. What use is it to stare at the train that's gonna run you over? May as well enjoy the scenery. If anyone has a recommendation to get me out of climate doom, I'm interested.

Great video! Thank you very much! :) The analogy with the glass, the tap and the straw is brilliant

Great team work.

Thanks both for your super helpful insight. A pleasure to watch as always!

Thanks for the video!

We need content like this. Thank you for making these videos.

Excellent video, thank you!

LOL. I'm practically silent on KZfaq, but I made an audible 'awwwwsome!' when i saw the wind turbine made out of LEGO!😍 Bravo!

I like your approach to this video and, yes, thanks for mentioning Nuclear power. I think it needs to remain a part of the solution and don't agree about the cost features. While true that nuclear is a lot more expensive in the short term (which is what the report looked at), it is actually cheaper in the long term. Nuclear power plants last much longer than either solar or wind infrastructure and don't need a natural gas plant to support them for base load. We aren't even close to having the technology to provide that base load or backup power for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Cheers!

This video was good for the lay person.

How are we to tackle the AEROSOL MASKING EFFECT???? I will donate some more to the MEER REFLEKTION effort. Any other ideas?

Thank you!

3:24 :] I came here for knowledge but I ended up staying for the jokes.

I love the collaboration here

Stopping fossil fuel use is FAR more difficult than conveyed here. Big problem is that it is expensive. The call for "more renewables" ignores the problem of intermittency. Batteries are getting cheaper, but they are still expensive, and so is pumped hydro. Nuclear is expensive too, but not so bad when you consider their long plant life and space density, and compare the price of RE+batteries, neediong replacement every 20 years. We need a mix of RE and nuclear. We will also need to continue to use gas (methane and hydrogen cogeneration) as we transition, so there is a reason to continue to build gas infrastructure at leats in the short term. Ignoring the very high cost of greenhouse gas reduction will not make the problem go away, there are a lot more "red bars" than "blue bars", and that is the elephant in the room.

thanks for this summary! question: what about energy sobriety? isn't this mentioned at all in the IPCC report? because our consumption of energy has been growing more and more ( internet, streaming, more and more consumption) and therefore renewables can't cope with all of it... cannot understand why there is no mention at all of this?

Great breakdown

Soil carbon sequestration is certainly a part of the answer for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. You said the we dont know how to get CO2 out of the atmosphere though. We've known for a longtime that the carbon in biomass comes from the atmosphere and that in ecological systems, with many variables at play, a portion of that is stored in the soil. I'm an undergrad doing my capstone research project on measuring the carbon in my colleges farm fields and Ive been immersed in such research for a while now. It is pretty clear that sequestering carbon in soils has to be apart of the answer. For every 1% increase in organic matter in soil there is on average 10 tons of carbon sequestered, this converts to 36.6 tons worth of CO2, if you scale this number up to the 12.35 billions acres of farmland world wide you get 452 billion tons of CO2 sequestered out of the atmosphere. which is like 30% of what we need to drawdown to get back to preindustrial levels(assuming zero emissions so of course this is only a thought experiment to demonstrate a point) I just wanted to comment here to say we have very solid data on pathways for CO2 draw down. Worth exploring :). Cheers!

Something I don't get is that in the report it says that Carbon Capture and Storage is not useful, yet later on says we do need Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques. Wouldn't this be one of them?

Yes, we need to cut carbon. But please keep in mind that to build the non-carbon infrastructure requires carbon based energy sources for now.

The IPCC report does not consider so-called feedback loops that once begun to be unwound cannot be stopped. Some of the feedback loops are currently engaged while others are set to go off at 1.5 - 3C. The effects of the feedback loops when fully unwound will be worse then all the C02 we put out. And, this is inevitable with the amount of C02 we have already released.

It should be heavily noted that due to general politics, a lot of particular industries are more likely to be able to afford or get funded to produce certain alternatives to carbon-based fuel emissions. Carbon storage is expensive, but the expense is currently more feasible in the US due to companies currently working on it having an incentive with tech they're already developing. It's less feasible in Europe, but they do have more plausible interest in wind and solar compared to the US, which struggles with wind and solar energy storage and the infrastructure needed to get it to households across the most scarsely populated regions as well as across cities without having to tear everything we currently use down. It's a complicated topic about a process with a lot of moving parts, so I'm just focused on doing what we can do. Thanks for the video! The "doomerism" attitude is understandable--not quite ideal--but still important to get the ball rolling. That said, I highly recommend Kurtz' recent video about how the progress we've made, while disappointingly short of our goals, is still worth celebrating and holding onto hope that things are changing and still not too late. The key being that the progress we've made now was still outside what we thought was possible years ago. How we see the future is definitely going to fall short of reality, too. We _can_ still do this and it's theoretically possible for us to pass the finish line with flying colors. We have to be proactive in so many ways, though. Create demand and seek attention! Sending hope and love!

On the nuclear question I wonder if they’re taking into account energy storage requirements with the solar and wind when comparing to nuclear. Batteries pollute a ton and cost a lot, and nuclear doesn’t need them.

Did I understand correctly that we are currently waiting on the Synthesis Report to fully close the Sixth Assessment Cycle? Will it contain any new information?

Yay!

The second largest news show in Germany (ZDF heute) covered the report as well, drastically overemphasizing the role of carbon capture... I already fear that large parts of the public and politics will still draw wrong conclusions from the report... Anyways, let's do our best to avoid the worst. And thanks for the summary! It brings a lot of clarity as well.

Thanks for creating this. Great job summarizing. Not sure about the negative take on Carbon Capture and the positive take on CDR. I would think that Carbon Capture (CC) is one way of doing CDR and all the different CDR techniques may or may not help us -- so why not explore each of them and let the winners prevail?

Where can i find the image on Mitigation Options in the IPCC 3:09 Would be very helpful if someone can spot it (direct page, link, etc.)

IPCC - "Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods. It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in an agnostic state on this issue". John Howard former Australian Prime Minister.

The thing about nuclear energy is that it produces so much more electricity than renewables in such a small space, saving the natural environment. Solar takes up 380x more land than a natural gas or nuclear plant and solar produces 300x more waste than nuclear that because it’s not radioactive, never goes away, and it’s very toxic. And solar and wind don’t produce enough energy when it’s needed and to much energy when it’s not needed. In Germany, they’re grid is almost 50% renewables and now there carbon emissions have barely if at all gone down and sometimes gone up, they also have some of the most expensive electricity in the EU. France is almost 80% nuclear have some of the cheapest electricity in the EU and some of the lowest carbon emissions. I think we should follow France and then we can have an electricity future that works well.

I couldnt find the graphs about energy costs in the full report

Carbon capture doesn't need to be a technocratic dystopia, there are other, natural ways of doing this, I can recommend to look up the idea of a Forestry-Construction Pump by Joachim Schellnhuber.

Thank you so much

The nuclear is only so low in potential because it’s hard to build them in 8 years (this graph is potential mitigation by 2030). In a longer view surely it is much more competitive with wind and solar

cap an carbon dioxide source, say in the form of a cement manufactory or other concentrated source, capture that co2 and use it to manufacture synthetic fuels, using nuclear to do so. Those syn fuels can be used for industries that are currently difficult to decarbonise. The carbon is recycled, not dug up as a fossil fuel, in this case.

It is a trend among climate KZfaqrs to say that carbon capture and storage is expensive, has a small potential for mitigation, etc. Well of course, at the present it is small and expensive because very little has been invested in it, and it's only been around on a small scale for about a decade! It needs a lot of investment, scaling up, and operational experience to bring the cost down. Of course it isn't a silver bullet (I've actually never heard anyone call it that), but it's a very important process to develop. Look up Climeworks and Carbon Engineering. Also, the carbon capture part, without the storage, is a very important technology to develop so that in the future we can have carbon neutral fuels. Yes, they are very expensive now, because they are relatively new. Look up Carbon Recycling in Iceland. (They don't use CO2 captured from the air, but the same technology could use atmospheric CO2. They use CO2 from a geothermal vent, which makes the fuel carbon neutral.) While you're at it, look up Eavor and GreenFire. They are developing geothermal that can be installed in far more locations than present geothermal technology, and it can provide baseline electrical power, which wind and solar will never do at low cost.

Carbon pricing was mentioned 680 times in the AR6 WG3 mitigation report. Cash-back carbon pricing is the equitable way to do it. Check out Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Carbon Adjustments from Citizens Climate Lobby, and please consider the effort to help governments around the world do it. Canada has done it, and the US is considering it as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act in Congress right now. Please tell your members of Congress you support it.

It's very misleading comparing the costs of solar, wind, and nuclear for a few reason I can see. 1. The chosen reference year is too near the present day, nuclear has much longer term benefits. The other main reason is the deceptively low cost of wind and solar, because when storage or backup gas costs are factored in the energy system overall becomes very expensive again. Nuclear is much cheaper in system terms as is evidenced by the fact it competed successfully against fossil since the early 70's... Nuclear can easily replace coal for example too, which is a huge polluter and emitter, and uses much of the same infrastructure. I'm sure updated info from wider system analysis will come from IPCC soon.. if they're brave enough to appear pro-nuclear.

You two are great. 💚

Walkable cities!(non car centric)

Thanks. Great presentation and thanks for bringing Adam here. Please sign the #PlantBasedTreaty. We also need to phase out animal agriculture. The IPCC 2019 climate change and land report showed a vegan diet is optimal: can reduce emissions by 8 Giga tons a year. Also the recent NYU Hayek/ Bill Ripple 2022 study showed a vegan diet is optimal and performs better than the Eat Lancet diet.

Guess I'll be the guy who talks about nuclear 😅 I'm just wondering that because nuclear plants take so long to plan and construct that it might reflect poorly on a 8 years time scale.

There are several important tipping points we will cross as we heat up. We could drop all emissions to zero and our temperatures will still keep going up. Nature is kicking in and we're not going to stop nature. Depending on the preindustrial baseline used we have cross the 2degree C temperature line. We are not going to stop this. However, a simple solution that would give more time to act would be to change the baseline to 1996. On paper we would have lots of time to sort things out. Please remember the IPCC already changed the base line from 1750 to 1850. Humans were already having an effect on the climate pre 1750 through agricultural practices. As much as 0.3 degrees C could have occurred pre 1750 by human activities. The IPCC has underestimated the heating that has occurred and has been incorrect by being far to conservative on their projections. We have far less time left then you can imagine. Live your life the best you can. Keep up the good work. We need to keep the wheels on the cart as long as we can.

Enjoying a beautiful hot day in the U.K. today… I wish summer would last longer! Oh hang on 🌞🌞🌞🌞🌞

Best CDR are trees seaweed plankton etc

It looks like after wind and solar the biggest impact will be made by reducing deforestation and reforestation. But the drawback is the expense. Also it is my understanding that photosynthesis IS a form of natural carbon capture. So is that included in the impact of reforestation?

I'm sorry, I'm confused about something: what is the difference between "carbon capture" and "carbon dioxide removal"? You guys seem to be saying the CDR is possible and must be implemented, but carbon capture does not work (at least, not yet)

The longer the timeline goes on the bluer the nuclear bar will become because the major costs will occur during construction. It's ironic that the anti nuclear campaigns of the last 50 years have contributed massively to our current situation. I've often wondered if they weren't astroturf organisations from fossil fuel companies.

Has there been much discussion about capturing carbon at the source, i.e. collecting it as industrial processes are carried out instead of waiting for it to dissipate? And concentrating carbon capture devices near agricultural centres?

Amazing! Thanks y'all for the work, I hope y'all know that it really is important, impactful and valuable. Information like this really does helping me make decisions, and make them better.

Idea. What if young people had their own climate conference? Like these climate KZfaqrs. Either in the form of panels, webinars, conferences or full blown conventions. Tho, the latter 2 may be counter-productive especially if we get the viewers involved😬.

I live in Canada and we need moreheat.

Wouldn't planting trees remove CO2 from the atsmosphere?

Hi! The IPCC report shows that wind and solar energy are the most effective. However how can we cut fossil fuels if the resources for batteries are very scarce as well? We will never have enough materials for batteries that store solar and wind energy for the whole world. Do you see nuclear energy as a great supplement to the ‘energy diet’?

3:37 nothing about energy storage on this chart ? That's pretty sad.

All of the claims that temperatures are unusual are based on comparing modern thermometer readings to past proxies. That makes them all of these claims very likely to be wrong. Just download a few proxy reconstructions and see how few have the resolution needed to support these claims, how poorly huge areas of the Earth are represented and how many have quality issues or big gaps in the records. The range of results from individual reconstructions implies that +/-0.6C is perfectly normal and the differences between reconstructions is even bigger. It is therefore highly likely that our current temperatures are well within normal limits.

The IPCC has collected many accolades over the years, but criticism has also grown over whether its assessment reports are as objective and comprehensive as they ought to be. Three concerns make it particularly timely to consider reforms to the IPCC process. First, while the IPCC has long had critics, their number is growing and their ranks include new members who have in the past been advocates on its side. Second, the IPCC plays a very influential role in the world, and it is imperative that its operations be unimpeachable. Yet the oversight mechanisms of the IPCC simply do not appear to be adequate to assure this. Third, there is a wide misunderstanding about the IPCC assessment process, such that it is often considered more formal and rigorous than it actually is".

Hey where in the report is this figure that you talk about?

Globally, our energy usage continues to increase. As we add renewable energy sources they just end up backfilling the energy we get from fossil fuels. So, in order to stop using fossil fuels, we will need to drastically cut our energy usage. All the curves need to go negative; that includes population growth as humanity's ecological overshoot is the root cause of our problems.

Thank you! I've been avoiding learning anything about the IPCC until now, and this helped bite the bullet a lot.

What means, "restructuring with equity and justice"?

Well you never talk about the u settling issue which is global production and profit whicj is incompatible with emissions cuts and ressources preservations (metal, ice, water , social fair , biosphere )