The climate change policy is much like the coronavirus response.. "Everyone agrees that everyone else should do more"

Just to show you democracy doesnt give people the power, wealth does.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Humans are reactive and rarely proactive. Just like the boiling frog analogy, we only respond to immediate visible threats. Just look at how some countries handled this pandemic, despite warnings from intelligence and health officials. We like all the tech and advances that science brings us, but not the bigger questions it asks or the facts that challenge our ideologies, beliefs, or economic models.

The "It don't effect Me Syndrome" in full effect.

Politicians work in 5 years cycle, fighting climate change needs 20 years.

Is nobody gonna talk about that guy's badass wolverine beard? 😂

Only when the last tree is cut down, the last river is polluted, and the air we breath is toxic. Will man realize they can not eat money...

For those who are coming to this world just now: When it comes to global issues it is easier to ask to name one thing politicians have actually succeeded to tackle while having promised for decades. Eradication of poverty? End of wars and conflicts? End of discrimination? End of water pollution? Full protection of extinction of endangered species? End of hunger? End of slavery? ...and the list goes on and on. So what makes you think politicians will work to solve climate change exclusively this time?

The more accurate title should be: "WHY POLITICIANS HAVE FAILED TO TACKLE ANYTHING"...

pandemic beards be like.... look above

Here’s the thing. We developed countries benefit more from historical emissions while developing countries have less emissions at that time.Its unfair to require developing countries to emit greenhouse gases equally as same as us! It just like a zero-sum game!

*It will only happen when the damage it causes is too costly to deny* some may say that point has already been reached, but like in insurance you get the money today but pay the cost at some undetermined time in the future, consequently, they may think they've done well only to pay the price of their "mal-judgement" later

Because tackling climate change is like the prisoner's dilemma

The reason is very simple: Capitalism.

Carbon Tax. Demand a carbon tax, demand something quantifiable.

If we want to protect environment we should protect it without delay..

While blaming China, China's CO2 emission per capita is still only half of US.

If countries can take drastic measures during a virus outbreak, putting whole countries in lockdown, forcing people to stay indoors, shutting down half its economy, then why can’t they take such measures for climate change too? I really hope this pandemic outbreak will give us a new insight in the matter climate change too!

Hi guys! if u care for the environment, please use Ecosia as your search engine. For every 45 searches u make, a tree will be planted somewhere. If you think this is fake, u can always check out their KZfaq channel. Stay safe guys :) bai bai

Some countries discontinued their support on the paris agreement since the start of the pandemic. This means funds that are supposed to be allocated to climate change has been used for covid responses.

The girl looks 50 y/o angry woman because your not listening to her

Video about Climate change.. Comment section lets talk about his beard 🧔...

I can answer this question in one word without even looking at the video. GREED. did I get it?

In a fight between nature and civilization, money always wins

I got a Greta vegan ad and thought it was part of the video 🤦🏾‍♀️

HEY EVERYONE I feel obligated by the responsibility of understanding to implore you, whoever you are, to GROW YOUR OWN FOOD INDOORS RIGHT NOW! And get everyone u can to do the same. U can grow any kind of plant in a 5 gallon bucket with drainge holes. Use half topsoil half sand mixture for soil. Or use all topsoil with some rocks at the bottom. Use mirrors to direct sunlight from windows. Its not that hard u dont need to starve. Do it. GROW YOUR OWN FOOD TODAY! LETTS GOOO!!!! And raise some chickens they eat bugs and grass. Plant two or 3 plants per CROP variety every week. THERE IS literally no choice .

This video should be labeled how politicians ignored climate change.

Even this report is blaming somebody else the politicians need to solve it not us. Answer me this how do I heat my home without oil or gas? I live in Massachusetts. Give me a technology and a price point and a company to contact.

Only for the vested interests of few people,companies and countries, the whole world will suffer.

This is exactly the sort of video we need to be watching and learning from.

There will be no one left to bury us 😭

Because of capitalism. Big corporations _want_ the climate to change, otherwise they would lose a _lot_ of profit.

Because in democracy... Leaders are chosen based on how big their mouths are... Hope one day human race would be intelligent enough to be able to self govern himself...

It makes me mad that the government aren't taking a serious situation seriously 😡

Why has The Economist failed to tackle this guy's beard?

One country cannot bear 95% of the entire BURDEN.

Politicians gets money from big auto, oil, gas, coals every year. They have not fail the people, is the people who failed by voting for the same politicians

No worries at all,Corona virus is taking care of business.

Not to belittle activists who are rightfully fighting for their future, but the message never focuses on how appropriate climate action will affect the daily lives of people in both developed and developing countries. If governments could (and wanted to) curb back emissions, how would that affect travel? Our food supply? Access to clothes, appliances, and household goods? COVID-19 has given us a taste of what happens when we don't have ready and easy access to these luxuries. Cutting them back will become necessary, but we've also seen how unwilling most people will be in accepting it.

Are we not going to talk about how messed up this guy's beard is?

Oh dude what type sideburn you have? 😂

Why did we expect politicians to tackle any problem of scientific nature

Greta Thunberg to Economist after seeing this video "How dare you"

Think of all the years of evolution into the human brain. These last few decades are but a "pale blue dot" compared to all the years where humans have never faced a problem similar. The collective brain has to quickly adapt to this threat even though their is no immediate threat of life (for those in power that is)

cause delusions are not real.

there is more money in pollution.

If I am a politician, do you think I have the power to help the world without corporations and people bringing me down.

Dump politicians🤢, save our🥀🌏 🌍🌎🌹beautiful planet!

Wellllll, when your poster child looks like the Grinch, it's hard to get people on your side. 😂 maybe if they got Scarlett Johansson to talk about climate change it would get more people's attention. Sadly this is how you have to get through to people.

Here in the United States, people may say that they care about climate change, but most of the people that I talk to are mostly concerned with their jobs, their income, their mortgages or rent, their bills and their retirement.

Well who is paying for the politicans? Why do you need 10 minutes to think of that. Politicans are owned by corporations. That's simple.

he is the inspiration for my next beard shape

How dare you? 😜😜😜

I am starting to think that nothing significant can be done. The economic benefits from producing CO2 are still far too advantageous. Basic game theory like the prisoner's dilemma suggest that short term gains will topple the precarious cooperation required for things like global carbon taxes.

The biggest reason for failure is that when Nuclear Reactors were built the idea was the bigger the better and that BAD decision made them overly complex, dangerous and uneconomical businesses such that you guaranteed failure. Instead of building bombs, the world could have build Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that could be built in numbers as high quality, uniform, VERY safe, and efficient CLEAN power generation that works 24/7. The large reactors that had accidents caused public backlash that blew away the only possible solution because solar and wind comes up with their own pollution that includes destruction of large areas of land that these so called "green" solutions take up. The environmental activists opposing nuclear power because of the lousy design of oversize reactors that are never fail-safe shut the door on the real solution. It all leads back to the erroneous mentality that bigger is better. This mentality is making solar panels and wind not environmentally sound as well. Wind and solar would be much more effective if the "farm" idea was eliminated. Likewise large animal farming operations cause more pollution than most other activities as well. BOTTOM LINE - transform everything to smaller is better and less is more, then you will solve the problem forever. The oligarchs do NOT want this because this would put power back into the hands of small businesses and the people. Getting away from the bigger is better and consumerist, gotta grow, mentality would eliminate oligarchs and firmly establish real democracy. Think about what I am saying.

What about animal agriculture?

One way to think of climate change is, it's no danger to the world but rather danger to humans. Nature will always find a way to thrive. It's the humans that are counting their final hours into hardship.

It's a hoax

No one wants to pay a carbon TAX. that's the reality. It's not very popular amongst voters to agree to paying more & being worse off.

Small businesses can be sustainable, big business can't. Herein lies the real answer.

NATURE ALLWAYS WINS.

The harsh truth of the climate change is not that we don't have ways to control it. Talking from the perspective of science we do have ideas in both theory and practice to take necessary measures. The real and the most vital problem is the system we have adopted to meet our day to day needs.And it's kind of hypocritical to say that the crowd we are used seeing to in such kind of rallies are also working in some way or the other to (in an chemical or a polymer industry) fuel this climate change problems. I would like to conclude that unless we don't develop the correct economic system we would never be able to address this problem. And believe me this same people would be seen in rallies for joblessness if the governments just go according to their say on this topic.

Politics can not help. It will continue to cater to those it answers to. The people must take control. Only the people can make it happen.

Please just make ciggerates illegal people and plant more trees ban plastic in places it’s unnecessary and replace it with paper NOW PLEASE. IM NOT ASKING *NOW*

Something cannot be political and scientific at the same time.

let us secure the future of our children

How can a reporter make a story about the history of climate change politics and totally miss the central issues that 50 years ago they said it was going to be a new iceage and we only had 10 years to act, and now its the opposite but still 10 years to act?

I'm not sure who the target audience of this is. Possibly the elderly who do not fear the damage they have done. Please don't blame the Chinese. Alot that you own is made by them. You paid for their pollution. This is really important, please vote for the politicians that are focused on this problem.

The premise of the question is faulty.

Although the Economist editor’s sideburns caught me off guard, l do think he was able to explain the climate situation very well.

Excellent. Look forward to further releases.

In today’s world, human race is prepared for everything, technologically. But when it involves money, especially when there’s chance of free riders, nobody will literally do anything about anything. And secondly, currently policy only involves tax, but nothing on technology advancement. Again, politicians want more money but less long term real solution, for me it would be technology solving the problem, never money itself.

But your title is "why" and you didn't get to the why, just a small history lesson of what everyone else already knows. This was a weak peace compared to your other works.

Because they don’t really care about the climate, everything is just political.

Environmentalists are back to nature luddites.

For goodness sake we've passed at least seven points of no return, so doing anything now would do nothing and be a waste of time, effort, and money.

Please find a better expression to use than "here's the thing".

A very one sided video. The reasons we have not been able to tackle the emissions sufficiently is fairly simple. Fossil fuels have proven the number 1 factor in improving our lives in the last 100 years. The advances in science, welfare or actually about any aspect of life would not have been able without it. We need fossil for about every aspect in society. Without it we would still have lived in the state of the 19th or early 20th century where disease and poverty are the norm. Of course this has come with a downside. Greenhouse gasses influencing our climate. But to what extent? Some will claim it will cost hundred of millions of lives in the future, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. If anything fossil fuel has had a overwhelming positive effect to humanity. To fight global warming however we need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. Ironically this can be done on a large scale to use nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but the very same people who are so emotional about climate change seem to reject this idea. The advances in science is are the only way to do this, because anyone who thinks we can fight climate change by denying access to means to improve their quality of life (especially in 3rd world countries) are delusional. This has fairly little to do with politics, but all about human nature to survive. No-one would deny himself affordable transportation if it makes his life easier and better. We already start to see the gradual electrification of transportation (like electric cars) and hopefully this will be followed of the heavy industry. But we need the advances in science to give us safe nuclear power, battery technology and regulation on CO2 emissions for industries where reduction of C02 emissions are feasible.

when our leaders fail, the people must act, when people stop consuming the leaders will listen

Interesting that there is no mention at all in this video of the Covid-19 crisis and its potential implications for the climate change movement

That’s why you need the leadership from China.

Corona cancels warming

Young people rise up!

Politicians want to personally do something about climate as much as they want to spend their own money. They want other people to do things and spend their money. These people all live like royalty (especially Prince Charles) while they publicly ask others to do something. Did you watch the Climate Conference in Scotland? What do you think was the average carbon footprint at that meeting?

It's a lost battle already 😥

most of these girls are just VSCO girls who are tryna catch a Starbucks Frappuccino while tryna win a vivavida bracket in a giveaway

The main problem is that most politician and scientist seems to think that when a technology is selected, everything fixes itself afterwards. But that is not so. E.g. Nuclear is unavoidable. Exercise : Explain why. Nobody understands that the treaties are completely unecessary. The underlying broken understanding is that energy prices have to rise when the reality is that they will go down. Think half. Why ??? Fossil free can be significantly cheaper than anything which uses fossil power. Is 40% cheaper than coal cheap enough? The real problem is that people love to talk, but does not want to do anything. Very few nations have actually investigated the fossil fuel alternatives; they have started their efforts based on assumptions which do not hold water. The main problem with fossil power was demonstrated solved between 1965 and 1969. If that work had continued there would be no fossil powered powerstations now. They would be too expensive. I believe that the EU beuracracy and the IEA is horriffied by the lack of understanding of the future needs of fossil free power. The deficiencies of wind and solar is hidden by the existing fossil fueled energy providers. And there is simply no understanding of the need for industrial heat. If China follows their plans, they will have built at least 300 1GW nuclear power stations based on Thorium by 2030. Those who do not understand that this is likely to change many industries that depends on industrial heat, will get a big surprise. Countries like China and India know that the treaties are no longer useful for them since they are heading for cheap nuclear.

The core of the problem lies with the rich. China is a concise sample of what the world did wrong. As the world's factory for 20 years, China did not add to global warming coz without it the goods would have to be produced in developed countries or less efficient developing countries and the total carbon output would be staggering. The developed countries also wanted to make money out of the richer China so they marketing all kinds of high carbon goods and services to China-cars, luxury goods, extravagant lifestyles, excessive tourism, steaks. Before getting rich, China did contribute to lowering carbon by its one child policy. It seemed to have worked well. Maybe all countries could consider in that direction. Take Mcdonald's as another example, they have a factory ship called Alaskan Ocean that have been trawling deep water Orange Rouphy for decades to supply the world's Filet O Fish. In recent years do you find them taste different? Are the fishes running out and replaced? How much of the hamburger beef is coming from the ranches cleared from the Amazon forest? We can stop eating those. There are plenty of alternatives. Ultimately that mean some rich people must give up their money, For that matter, there are sections of blue chips stocks to be sacrificed. Obviously, not only they are not willing to but they are putting in measures to push green deals at a safe distance from touching their money. So, what should we do?

This report was uploaded in May, 2020. Conspicuous by its absence is the greatest pushback against climate change in recent history.

I don't like how this video is blaming China. For a developing country, let's just say that climate problems are not their priority when they need get their own citizens out of poverty. China is a wealthy country now, but it wasn't the case back then. Making sure their people don't starve seems like a more important task.

Virus has 3 meanings that was most important .so .it is difficult to stop everything Power Money Eco nomika Economika is eco Omika is matetial energy Om.omika small .low energy before Highs.Gods.

Maybe because the problem isn't a political one, but an economic problem?

How is 159% nearly tripled..??

I suggest that The Economist report on UN Agenda 21 and how it is being implemented locally across the world. That way people can see it happening, not just a "conspiracy theory."

Young heroes

regardless weather human population makes the earth's climate change, the Paris Accords Agreement is a construct to create more wealth and power for the already extremely wealthy. The ability to pollute the air is monetized by the means of "carbon credits" which are a commodity sold similarly to stocks. It will actually create more air pollution and make prices rise for consumers as producers offset the costs caused by their need to buy carbon credits in order to produce. This guy explains the process quite well: @ in s 12 minute presentation.

At 2.13, the guys is wrong, in 1997 China was at least second producer of C02 and methane of the world

Just assuming CAGW as a premises, even the economist has fallen deep.

That haircut is wild.