The true cost of not acting and Restore Nature Now! | XR UK
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2024
- Extinction Rebellion’s co-founder Clare Farrell and conservation scientist Dr Charlie Gardner team up once more to discuss issues and stories they feel are not getting enough airtime. They want to make sure that the latest news in science and important reports that are relevant to the climate and ecological crisis are flagged and explained in ways that are easy to understand.
EPISODE 12: The true cost of not acting and Restore Nature Now!
This time, Clare and Charlie discuss some recent papers that try to formulate a cost for the damages that will be inflicted by the climate and ecological crisis. They also discuss the Restore Nature Now march happening in London on the 22nd June 2024 and give an update on a number of ongoing legal cases.
www.restorenaturenow.com/
---------------------
If you found this useful please, share, comment, subscribe, like, mobilise, and donate! chuffed.org/xr/uk
Extinction Rebellion UK: extinctionrebellion.uk/
THE 3 DEMANDS
1. Tell The Truth
2. Act Now
3. Decide Together
#extinctionrebellion #climatechange #globalwarming #citizensassemblies
Keep fighting people! 💪💪💪
You guys are amazing. Thanks so much 🤘
Keep up the good work, you'll soon be mainstream....
I'm knackered and can't be arsed, but I will go on the march anyway as it's too important!
Thank you for all you do and for educating us on these further perversions of an already disturbing "legal" system. Truly terrifying. What a scary trajectory towards fa$cism!
Unfortunately, I'm going to be out of the country during the march but will try and catch the live stream. I attended the Big One and that was a great event. Thanks for all of your work ⏳🌍❤
This thought crime model of guilt through association etc is very similar to the way that Starmer has purged the Labour party of left wingers, so I can easily see him taking the baton from the Tories in the direction of draconian clamp down on protest.
On my way down to London now, see you at 12 on Park Lane
Love your video's, so informative, calm and at the same time forceful message
What is the assessment report your speaking about? Is it possible to have a link ?
More than half of the comments have disappeared.
AH CENSORSHIP 😅
Were they the usual Fossil-Fuelled Bots and Trolls?
If so - thank god for that!!
We've all read their non-points too often before.
Cheers.
@@summess5567 its true, we run on fossil fuels
Arctic methane is coming for us.
Hey! 😮 I thought Trudi Said that the Attorney General Dropped the charges??
Also if parliament has been dissolved, wont there be a new Attorney General??
So she actually won the case the courts were in Favour 😳
Do you know i have done loads on this??
Trudi actually said the Charges were dropped.
So..... The Jurors are "supposed to know those rights" regardless of what law the prosecutor and Defence raise.
Because the rights are separate from plea.
The rights are not plea based.
Also, petitioning IS covered by parliament privileges so its shouldnt have been in the court anyway and as you are opposing parliament, the Attorney General is not supposed to be taking any side. In a case that already exists the XR actions in the first place....
The Prosecutions were illegal.
Hmmmm have you not seen my page yet with all the research and updates of law???
The Mycelium will still be here...
It sure sounds like the MAGA court isn't the only group pushing authoritarian values.
$38 billion of inaction costs by 2050. This is exactly what Disaster Capitalists want. The inequity that will flow from NOT moving to a war footing on the climate catastrophe is incomprehensibly huge and can never ever been undone. #ActNow
Relating to costs of climate change... Problem is no one country is going to solve climate change by itself. The UK's and even Europe's emissions hardly matter for the overall.
Investing in costly measures to reduce emissions, will 1) be costly to that countries budget 2) give you no garantee that you will avoid future costs from climate change, and 3) will even put said country at an economical and geo-political disadvantage vis-a-vis countries that do not make these costs.
This is a collective action problem/prisoners dillema and should be treated as such, instead of creating moralising narratives of evil rich governements/corporations destroying us all.
Yes, we are in the shit,not so much for myself as my time is limited, but for the younger generation it is not looking good, our demand for resources alone cannot be maintained.
Could our species have taken a different path, It is debatable.
But at this present time, we are still slaughtering our own kind.
Surely there must be intelligent life existing within the cosmos that has taken a different pathway.
or maybe we are alone.?
This Charlie Gardner thing feels like a major step down. Like come on. I’m done checking in. Roger to Charlie.
If we stop putting particulate matter into the atmosphere the planet will heat up faster because we now need this pollution to reflect sunlight as the global ice sheets and glaciers are disappearing. We have built the perfect box that we will not get ourselves out of. And it breaks my heart.
It is exciting, isn't it. I can not wait 😅
Yeah but those year over year profits 📈 . ... ooooh man
Misinformation. The particles you're talking about are NOT GHGs. Those radiation blocking particles (specifically ones with short durations and relatively innocuous greenhouse effect) we could use to produce such effects are different than what's being emitted. We could curtail pollution to net negative levels while engaging the dispersion of much more appropriate radiation blocking particles. Which would be vastly preferable to what's occurring.
@@valoriethechemist He knows they're not GHGs. He has a PhD you know lol (its in the name). "Those radiation blocking particles are different than what's being emitted" this is wrong, the radiation blocking particles ARE being emitted along with the CO2. Coal, oil and gas plants emit both soot and dirt as well as sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight. You even admit that in your own comment when you say "while engaging the dispersion of much more appropriate radiation blocking particles" tacitly admitting this!
In other words Russ is right...and he's not the only one to say what he did, but world reknowned climatologist James Hansen as well who led one of the studies that discovered this effect on cargo ships crossing the ocean. So its not "misinformation". We are trapped in a situation where cutting down the use of coal plants will exacerbate warming because of the effect of reduced aerosols and other particulates.
Now we COULD counter this with geoengineering, but the problem is many climate scientists are either too scared or too irresponsible and claim that it is too dangerous, in spite of the fact it is literally our only remaining option at this point - we can't reduce CO2 without reducing particulates.
We HAVE to engage in geoengineering and geoengineering research. That is our only option. Dim the sun by 1% and you have roughly 1 degree less of warming. It is even better if they do it in space because they don't have to worry about respraying the atmosphere with more aerosols.
@@radscorpion8 My comments were about the claim "we need this pollution." And yes, it is a misinforming claim. The exact particles produced and spread in pollution and are not the only particles capable of causing the effect.
We are absolutely caught in a situation where trade offs toward progress cause short term increases in various manners. But we probably want to rip the bandaid off the bullet wound and fix the bullet wound even if we're causing a bit more harm now before we're amputating. An increase at 1.5 is going to be much easier to handle than one at 2.6. And that's the trade off. The problem is really that in terms of total energy added to the system. We're doing nothing toward reducing our impact or the energy rise. Quite the opposite.
And while impacts due to scaling down our energy and pollution problems will have a variety of effects. To claim we need pollution is not a claim that, especially in a public forum, would be understood in the manner intended or even what would "need" to occur. There simply isn't extraordinary evidence to suggest we should continue polluting so we don't have to ramp down our emissions and environmental damage purely because it would increase the warming. Quite the contrary in fact. The only issue here is that as we continue to add energy... we do want a mitigating factor... but this mitigating factor isn't "needed" or even the only manner in which we can produce such a mitigating factor. Even if we could or should use some of them.
I'll tell you when we really need to start worrying.....
When the spokespeople for this ideology begin wearing unremarkable clothes and non-attention seeking hairstyles because they've copped on to the fact that it would give them more credibility.....
That would be worrisome
Ah yes, this is where the hippie doomsters hang out!
There is neither a climate nor ecological crisis.
You are a crisis made manifest. If the human race goes extinct, I will make an effort to ensure that as people die out due to lack of resources, you will be the first person to go without stuff like food.
😂😅 oh you poor thing. 😅😮
Thanks for that the checks in the post
... and bananas are orange coloured
With all due respect, you're an idiot