The IPCC mitigation report explained in less than 8 minutes feat.
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2022
- Read the Summary for Policymakers: report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPC...
Read the full report: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/do...
Check out Adam's video about why the IPCC reports matter: • Why the IPCC climate r...
If you're feeling overwhelmed by the content of this report, or just looking for tools to combat climate dread, despair, or eco-anxiety, here are the places I turn for guidance: The Gen Dread newsletter: gendread.substack.com/ Mary Annaise Heglar on how to deal with climate despair: www.vox.com/first-person/2018... and newrepublic.com/article/15705.... I also made a video a few years ago about eco-anxiety: • What is eco-anxiety? f...
** FIND ME ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERNET **
twitter :: / zentouro
instagram :: / zentouro
** SUPPORT **
interested in supporting zentouro?
Patreon allows me to keep my videos ad free, and independent. Even 1$ per video gets you access to all the behind the scenes content and helps immensely: / zentouro
All of my videos will always have closed captioning [CC] in English, and my Patrons fund Spanish captions for every video.
Like the music? I subscribe to soundstripe to find backing tracks for all my videos. soundstripe.com/start/?fpr=mi... (this is an affiliate link)
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
thanks for adding this extra information Sofie! if you're into podcasts, Volts has a great conversation with Rebecca Dell all about decarbonizing heavy industry: www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-rebecca-dell-on-decarbonizing?s=r
100% - the need for carbon dioxide removal is in *no way* an excuse to avoid cuts (especially given we don't know how to do it yet!). we need to cut everything damn bit of emissions we can, and cancel out what we *really* can't cut
I thought I'd seen somewhere that high energy processes like smelting could indeed be achieved without burning carbon. It's true that you can't make steel without carbon, but it should be possible to reduce the CO2 emissions. Also, there has been a lot done, especially in Canada and the US to produce cement without CO2 emissions.
@counselthyself Thanks for the info. More expensive is to be expected for now, but at least it's progress of a sort. We can hope that it will become cheaper over time in comparison to fossil fuels. If the expense comes from the production and transport of hydrogen, that should definitely get cheaper as many companies are currently investigating that. It's a difficult problem, but I know of at least 2 mining companies that are investing heavily in it. Also, we don't need to replace all fossil fuel usage in one go. If new processes become cheaper, that will happen anyway over time.
@@zentouro Have to go listen that podcast some time. Last month, the old province house in Gelderland, NL, EU, be taken apart, and re-used in new building project, first for such a major building. The firm doing it, is planning to expand and upscale processes.
I doubt however that anytime soon re-use of building materials (or decarbonization of _any_ major industrial process) is going to reach even the minimal coupla percents that renewables have in energy mix today.
Video shorts "Prinsenhof A- Update"
Firm name is Lagemaat, but Dutch language so far
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.
the fact that we've known for so long /and/ had so many of these technologies for so long will always be painful. :(
@@zentouro so true, it's awful and not one of the monied interests that caused this mess will stand trial or have any repercussions.
It was great. Thank you.
Yeah the last time to "act" was in the 70s I would argue too.
And carbon, sulphur, nitrogen, etc emission are just one factor.
We still have other factors.
Waste, population, land/space scarcity.
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.
adam and i had quite the whirlwind of a day yesterday
it took a lot of google doc discussion to get here!
Zentouro and Adam already have lots of experience in that domain. But yes, still impressive and well done.
You might like my channel too :)
@生活有滋有味 how much will it cost to supply the world's growing energy consumption with the above? How much land will solar and turbines need?
Over what time frame are you suggesting that these forms of energy production will replace gas, and coal?
You missed nuclear fission off your list.
Yes that tried and tested and very green way of making energy for humanity
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.
They are destroying New Zealand countryside and water supplies too
I want to know more about this. Where can people find more information on this?
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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.
congratulations on the job offer!
Great! I did something similar. I used to work with companies polluting plastic and not only. After a couple of years I was lucky and good enough to get a green job! Working from home or biking all the time. It feels much better!
Congratulations!
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!!
good luck on your project!
I wonder if Tony Seba is right and a lot of the models are just wrong.
@@zentouro Hello, Please tell Nanci to upload videos oh her channel
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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!
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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.
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.
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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!
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
Great video as always! Great work and absolutely loved the small crossover!! Glad that happened!!
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 🙌🏽
thanks Maulin - really glad you found the video valuable 💚
Check out the latest kurzgesagt, good for your eco-anxiety.
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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 💖💖🙏🏽
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 !
Wow! Thanks for your speedy and important video!
Fantastic as always!
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.
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. ☮️
In addition to what you already said, I would say that what still keeps us here and prevents people from demanding more from governments and taking action, is our inability to deal with large numbers and with problems that are far far away in the future (we weigh the present much more) and also cognitive dissonance (cognitive dissonance is a mechanism for which, if there is an unbalance/something not coherent, we make it balanced by modifying our beliefs e.g. if I am a smoker and people tell me cigarettes are bad, it will be easier to unconsciously change my belief that cigarettes are bad for me than to stop smoking).
These things are just characteristics of our cognitive systems. You could say we are programmed by evolution to reason in this way. Thus, I think the more we manage, in communication, to make the problem immediate and concrete, but also solvable, the more likely it is that people will perceive it as an urgent problem and something they need to act upon.
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.
Asking the richest 10% to give up all their luxuries will never work. However if the other 90% of us give up some smaller thing we'd get a better result. Install better insulation - reduce home heating by only 1 degree - replace old energy-guzzling fridges with more effective ones, or limit yourself to opening your fridge to only twice a day - plant trees and install fountains in our public spaces to achieve cooling. There is still a lot we can do.
Some would argue that none of the current policies will work unless we also address the huge inequality, energy & resource use and waste created by the obsession with economic growth (in GDP). It's good to see degrowth mentioned several times in the main report (although predictably missing from the SPM).
Personally, I prefer to follow the Doughnut economics view that, rather than use an admittedly inaccurate measure (GDP) to gauge either growth or degrowth, we should just be agnostic to growth, ignore it, so do what's necessary to help humans & life thrive, within the planetary boundaries, and economic growth will happen or it won't.
@@paulscholes54 Yeah, I agree. We need to redesign the policy framework and our policy goals. Focus on fulfilling the basic needs and to cut everything else. If everyone has enough resources to survive, does it really matter if we have growth or not. Alas, these are far from the reality and the world has been overtaken by madness of growth. Even this video is evidence of being framed in the same narrative, albeit with good intentions. Green growth is an oxymoron.
@@anthonymorris5084 Stagnation is death
@@anthonymorris5084 Or a quick death the moment an external threat appears.
Thank you so much for your work, amazing video!!
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
It’s honestly becoming more and more depressing every time I hear about more new fossil fuel projects being approved and put into production.
Really makes me worried that we’re just going to drive off the cliff at full speed and not even try to slow down 😞
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet i like your analogy, but to add to it... we have already driven off the cliff, what we SHOULD be doing is working together on our parachute to soften the landing but instead we are nose down heading for the inevitable. I dont understand why
Great video again, thanks both of you!
Stellar Video, will share it as much as I can.
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
Yeah. I think CCS is a stupid solution.
This is exactly why we need to get better about letting the science lead us. Fossil fuel companies love to promise that CCS will save us because it lets them keep making gobs of money!
If they follow the science then that means they have to invest a ton of money and work into transforming their company into something that can make money after fossil fuels are no longer used. And that just sounds…..hard!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet It's a bit like crypto. The fossil fuel companies can run the ccs on fossil fuels, making it look green and be a win-win. Plebs might think they'll become rich by investing in this technology, but in the end, only the creators become actually rich and they can pull the plug on it anytime.
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
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.)
Its on page 50 of the SPM: report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf and here's the high res version i used in the video: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/static/dc71a9b28d7cedca36bd2f77e588664f/9a979/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png ( you can find all the figures from the SPM here: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/ )
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.
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!
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.
Agreed. Climate adam is just too much alone.
the video is so well made!! thanks for the useful info
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.
Spread the word, friends, communes, work on ways how they can make it feasible for themselves, and teach them to spread the word further.
The situation is dire but not hopeless, the worst thing you can do is to give up - the best thing you can do now is inspire others to act. Also here's video to give you hope, czcams.com/video/LxgMdjyw8uw/video.html
Well, this might cheer you up: your despair is realistic! I, too, have zero hope that I will see even a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in my lifetime: They will go up and up and the planet will get hotter and hotter.
Like you, I live - well, not sustainably, I admit - with a fairly low carbon footprint compared to the national (German and USA) average, yet I am well aware that has no relevance for global carbon emissions. However, I have not disengaged, but instead try to look for answers, good answers, real approaches to the problem, and, if I find some potential solutions, I discuss these with others in order to either throw the ideas out or change them to overcome the challenges and critique they face. This can be frustrating, but it is a process that gets you closer and closer to presenting your thinking to a wider and wider audience and, eventually, ultimately, submitting a proposal to an IPCC scientist or the United Nations, where global warming should be handled more rigorously.
The good news is, as the report lays out, we have all we need to implement the necessary changes.
The bad news is, as the report also lays out, there is only the lack of global human will! This is the REAL issue preventing us from doing anything meaningful to stop increasing CO2 levels. Any of your own ideas you might have need to deal with this horrible human psychological conundrum. That may make it easier for you, if you understand, say, yourself or others. How do you get people (the world) to do something that is good for them (it)? How do you get people (the world) to work together on a project that would save them (it)? In fact, maybe you have no clue about how to deal with reducing CO2 levels, but maybe you can contribute in another way - helping to get people, nations to cooperate.
In short, don't give up. Team up! Use whatever talents you have to contribute to others who have whatever talents they have toward a common goal. It is not just about Climate Change; it is about who we are, how we are, and how to work together to overcome ... well, our own inadequacies.
(If none of that helped, well, all I can say is, yeah, I totally understand.)
I don't know either. I just exist in constant awareness and dread of the train. All I can think to do is volunteer with groups and donate and join protests. But when I can't do that, I guess alcohol
My only sollution is to act out in radically subversive ways
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?
Do you want a global economic crisis?
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?
yeah you're correct there's still one more piece but it shouldn't add anything new, just connecting the dots between the 3 major sections
Great video! Thank you very much! :)
The analogy with the glass, the tap and the straw is brilliant
Ah thanks Marta!
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?
Project Drawdown is the only silver lining Ive seen which can accomplish CDR
Excellent video, thank you!
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
but they left out all the other elephants...its not just temperature rises at all
@@MyKharli exactly. If we hit “net zero” by 2050, that means we still have close to 30 YEARS of a net positive increase of carbon emissions, which drastically increases the likelihood of breaching one of the many tipping points in terms of our fragile climate. It may be too late by then
Hi Derek , yes we absolutely can make a difference to the possible outcomes. It takes courage to create the new.
CO2 has nothing to do with the climate and temperature on earth Only 4% of all CO2 produced on earth comes from humans and human activity That means 0,00152% of air on earth is CO2 from humans and has no impact at all ! Stop the climate madness and grean corruption with tax money !
Hey where in the report is this figure that you talk about?
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
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.
There are many other tipping points, like terrestrial photosynthesis, which is expected to drop by 50% in next 2 to 3 decades.
@@a.randomjack6661 Wow, that is devastating as well. Good to know. Thanks.
@@dianewallace6064 I wrote about 120 articles (in French) about climate change. Most of them are traductions/adaptations/explanations from scientific papers or interviews of climate scientist.
The first article about forests turning into carbon sources dated to 2007 and talked about the Amazon. Later ones from around 2011 mentioned the same thing happening in Africa... In 2020, scientists started to observe the same in the boreal forests.
It's another accelerating process.
This is the title of the science article 'Earth to reach temperature tipping point in next 20 to 30 years, new NAU study finds' but the author was also interviewed on Radio Ecoshock which is how I first heard of it.
I got some climate change playlist on my channel, all science of course. I have become very climate nerdy :)
Keep fighting.
ah darn I wrote a comment, but forgot links aren't allowed. you're absolutely right that these processes could add to warming and that while most feedbacks are explicitly included in calculations of total warming or carbon budgets, permafrost methane generally isn't to date.
that said, there's generally a bit of a misunderstanding of how methane could operate, and rather than being some kind of exponential self-feeding spiral, our best guess is that it would actually be more like a continuous feedback, which would more or less stop when we stop heating the planet up ourselves. this isn't to say it's nothing to worry about, but the idea of an out of control chain reaction from methane release is not considered likely.
The article I wanted to link to is called "Explainer: Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change" from carbon brief and has an excellent section on methane.
@@ClimateAdam Thank you, Adam. I will read the article. Thank you for the update on permafrost and methane hydrate. That is good to know. I was also told to keep watching CAMS regarding methane so I will do that as well. Thank you for the clarification. The article will help me a lot to understand tipping points better.
Thanks for the video!
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!
At the very least, I’d like to see us use all current nuclear plants at full capacity and continue forward with plans to build any which are already moving along.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet That's part of the issue, there are only a couple being built and we haven't really added to the nuclear footprint significantly in the last 30 years. The newest generation of Thorium plants are BY FAR our best solution for both clean energy (CO2/emissions free) and ecologically friendly. After all, a solar facility of the same output requires 75x the land area as does nuclear.
Look at it this way, assuming we had batteries or whatever and could go 100% wind and solar, we'd have to cover up the ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in order to meet the current power demands of the US. This doesn't include future energy needs.
@@emack76 sure, but how long will that reactor take to be built? I’m all for starting to build it now, but we also need to do stuff this year which will reduce the carbon in our grid next year.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet that’s a brilliant challenge. You are 100% correct. How do we get there now, ASAP!?!?!?
We turn off all the lights. All of it. Every light in every home. Every node on the internet (CZcams). Every restaurant as we know it. Every single car, plane or ship. Toilet paper, all of it.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet there is no current path with solar/wind. We’ve been subsidizing it for 30 years but fossil
Fuels have remained 80% of our energy budget (USA) in the mean time. Each solar/wind farm needs gas backup/baseload. Theeefore big oil is all in on solar/wind.
Great video. Your bestie🙂, Adam, sent me over. Wow you are a fast talker.
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.
Batteries are getting cheaper and less polluting. We should not stop researching them.
As Simon mentions battery tech is developing by the month, with the world's biggest battery maker recently announcing Sodium ion batteries which are safer, lighter & cleaner than Lithium ion. But there are also other ways to store energy, eg gravity, hydrogen, ammonia & concentrated solar heat, plus of course we can develop other forms of renewables, eg hydro, tidal & geothermal
Great team work.
I couldnt find the graphs about energy costs in the full report
How are we to tackle the AEROSOL MASKING EFFECT????
I will donate some more to the MEER REFLEKTION effort.
Any other ideas?
This video was good for the lay person.
I try to make mine very simple & informative too.
LOL. I'm practically silent on CZcams, but I made an audible 'awwwwsome!' when i saw the wind turbine made out of LEGO!😍 Bravo!
i love that silly thing!
Thanks both for your super helpful insight. A pleasure to watch as always!
Brilliant Video
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.
note there are - of course - natural ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere too (trees, anyone). but these are pretty limited in what they can achieve. some argue we could do all the CO2 sucking up we need with natural approaches, but I believe that's a contentious claim.
If we could switch much of our home building to something like Hemp bricks and bamboo that would capture a lot.
@@ClimateAdam Thank you for clearing up (a bit) the CDR/CCS confusion, here. (Note that if you 6:00 place the end of your straw in the water flow you have CCS. What you demonstrated with the straw end in the glass is CDR. :-)
What do you mean by "trees are pretty limited in what they can achieve"? Plant life (i.e., photosynthesis) is the only large scale CDR "technology" available and which has been "in use" for well over 500 million years. CO2 levels are determined by the imbalance between carbon sequestration (burial in sediments, capture and storage by plants, soils, oceans, etc.) and carbon emissions.
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?
That was fast!! I’m impressed 😎
You might like my channel too :)
3:24 :] I came here for knowledge but I ended up staying for the jokes.
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.
I'm in Germany too, and the better I understand the situation, the more baffled I am why the country has such a strong green reputation!
I know exactly what you mean. It's basically like this: around 20 years ago, the government invested a bit into Solar and Wind energy and established a green business case. Then over the 20 years policies were put in place, which expanded fossils and destroyed the solar and wind business in Germany. Ever since the beginning of the story, policy makers, diplomats etc. emphasized the story of investment into the renewable energy and rather inconveniently forgot to tell the part about subsidizing coal and other fossils at the same time.
Also in Germany: there is so much brown in the "green", that Germany's "green movement" is, at best, dunkelgrün. Germany's reputation for being green is only by comparison to other major industrial nations (I'm looking at you, USA), which do much, much less when it comes to investing in so-called renewable energy (primarily solar, wind, and water).
As far as carbon capture is concerned, I can't see Germany doing anything about that, but, then again, what is there to do that is really effective besides boycotting deforestation (and the resulting commodities) together with investing in reforestation and afforestation? I was "happy" to see in the IPCC report that CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies got such a dismal rating.
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!
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.
Thanks mom and dad - as they berate me why I don't want _to give them grandchildren_ or why I haven't started my pension yet.
I'm afraid the "horror scenario" approach is not working either: there are plenty of reports to be read, news- and podcasts to be heard, videos to be seen in which sea level rise, drought, ocean acidification, rampant forest fires, torrential flooding, extreme weather disasters, etc. are given great attention. Scaring the general public who are not immediately affected by the consequences of global warming just doesn't do much. Even folks who have been affected - their houses burned down, washed, or blown away; family members injured or even killed - just don't feel empowered to do anything about such a huge problem. No individual person, community, or nation can take on climate change single-handedly. Those that try, do not reap the benefits, either. That is probably the crux of the issue: If a state like, say California, or a country like the UK goes all out "green" with zero-carbon emissions, that will more than likely have no effect on the local consequences of global climate change: California will still burn ever year; the UK will have some bizarre combination of extreme rain, wind, heat, and cold. Why? Because the climate and weather does not stay in one place. What any single state or nation does to mitigate climate change gets diluted in the ocean of the atmosphere and distributed around the globe. So while the UK may cut carbon emissions in half by, say 2030, it will likely have zero impact on what the UK experiences climatically.
It takes a global effort with a global plan (a job for the United Nations, actually). Short of this, well, there are those who will be lucky and those who will be very, very unfortunate.
I feel like this is what Greta has been saying for years, though. They literally stole her future
@@jazwhoaskedforthis Thanks for your reply. Because many people are not informed of the grave dangers soon to be unleashed upon us in many destructive ways, the brave struggle by scientists to convince the world about climate change is now unlikely to succeed. This leaves governments to. prepare countries to cope with future climate change. I don't have much confidence governments will address this this either. That doesn't mean there's no hope, Greta Thunberg and I share the same superpower.”. The world hasn't heard the last of Greta and as an adult she'll not be so easily dismissed.
"We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it." - President Obama
Thank you!
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 love the collaboration here
Great breakdown
You might like my channel too :)
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?
Yup that's exactly what is normally referred to when we talk about carbon capture and storage. Technologies that capture it once it has dissipated are generally referred to as "direct air capture"
@@ClimateAdam ohh okay thanks!
We need content like this. Thank you for making these videos.
You might like my channel too :)
It seems based on that last figure that, due the amount of land it would free from agriculture, a global plant-based diet is as important as an energy transition.
Any reason you didn't comment on this?
well because 1. dietary change is a much smaller bar than many of the other mitigative tools on that plot (that we also didn't talk about either bc it is a relatively short video) and 2. i've already made tons of videos about that over on Hot Mess PBS
Thank you so much
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.
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)
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.
We aren't going to solve the climate crisis by using solar powered bulldozers to continue to clear forests so as to grow animal feed crops.
Wouldn't planting trees remove CO2 from the atsmosphere?
Interesting video…can renewable energy infrastructure be manufactured and transported without the input of fossil fuels?
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!
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.
Thank you! I've been avoiding learning anything about the IPCC until now, and this helped bite the bullet a lot.
What is the difference between CDR and carbon capture?
different names for basically the same thing, apologies for not making that more clear!
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.
yes it does. ch.7 of working group 1 covers climate feedbacks and their relative risks.
@@zentouro Chapter 7 at least acknowledges "feedbacks" as a "knowledge gap"(ノへ￣、) I mean, acknowledgement is big improvement from the previous reports which would entirely omit. There is a lot of science with projections that have been out about these tipping points. In the final reports it has been ignored and largely still is.
chapter 7 does a lot more than 'acknowledge' its like 30 pages on climate feedbacks, physical, chemical and long-term. i really encourage you to read the chapter. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf
@@zentouro Also - IPCC AR6 WG1, Chapter 5, Figure 5.29.
You both are very impressive in your knowledge of making it simple to understand what's needed for us in what to do to slow climate change, however Miriam talks, really, fast I'm glad English is my first language....lol! That being said this subject is such a pressing one and I wouldn't consider myself a climate nerd. I couldn't sit through an hour of this. Although for some reason when Greta speaks I understand clearly the problem and am mesmerized.
Stop being so gullible, Mike.
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’?
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.
What means, "restructuring with equity and justice"?
Yay!
Walkable cities!(non car centric)
Yea, we definitely need to break from car centric cities as quickly as possible. It’s insane how much of our emissions is tied up in simply getting to and from work!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet and going to get groceries. It adds up !
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
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.
This was such a great video and really appreciate you and ClimateAdam going over everything! I always love when you both colab on a video
thanks Kathryn!
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.
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.
I also wonder this. There are newer, smaller and safer nuclear power plants which take less time to install being proposed now. I wonder if the report took them into account or if they simply used numbers from the old, outdated and deteriorating existing plants.
It is a trend among climate CZcamsrs 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.
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.
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.
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 )
Every day I read stuff about the science that has been diluted or even ignored when getting from the full report to the SPM, indicated by what appears to have been mega haggling over the SPM. It's almost as if, in addition to the SPM, the IPCC should release a "what didn't make it to the SPM" report. Assuming they won't be allowed to do that, can I suggest it would be a great subject for one of these videos?
you're not wrong, it would make a great video. but unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to dedicate to the research/reporting that would be needed on that front. WG3 especially, which is the field of climate science/research that I have the fewest connections in/is the most far from my own research.
WG2 would probably be the easiest for me, but there was a lot less drama around that one.
@@zentouro Thanks Miriam yes, fully understand, you do a brilliant job on this stuff and it must take hours to get the summaries out. It took weeks for details of behind the scenes stuff to surface from WGll and it'll be the same with this one, so I'll keep watching Twitter.
The trouble is that the media and public treat the SPM as gospel "this is what everyone agrees" without realising that key stuff the scientists agreed are regarded as politically distasteful (especially by fossil fuel authors!) and so are either diluted or just ignored (eg degrowth). Best wishes
@@paulscholes54 Absolutely, and the countries involved in the watering down should be named and shamed , though you could auto include everyone .
@@MyKharli Yep, trouble is it’s one thing spending days working out how 3,000 pages made it to 60, and what was diluted/ignored, it’s another trying to discover who drove the changes, although there are obvious “vested interests” which, as it happens, is a term that is mentioned about 12 times in the main report and not at all in the SPM.
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".
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.
3:37 nothing about energy storage on this chart ? That's pretty sad.
Hi your voice is good
I was recently told that the U.S. Military with its 800 bases, bombing, burning, heating, cooking, transporting and eternal 'wars' are not included in the U.S. emission calculations. Could this be true? Are 'clean energy' countries still dumping nuclear waste and toxic waste off the coast of Somalia?
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.
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.