What will the world look like in 2050 if we reach carbon neutrality? | DW News
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 10. 2021
- Many countries are aiming to reach carbon neutrality in 2050. The 2050s will be completely different from the 2020s. Let's say we meet our climate goals and manage to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is what many nations agreed to in the Paris Climate Agreement. But that means the planet will still be 1.5 degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times. So what will our future look like?
Subscribe: czcams.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #NetZero
And this is basically the best case scenario....
There are a lot of things to factor in with this.
With declining fertility rates we might have a smaller population in the next 30 years. Fewer people less carbon footprint. Some areas might actually become carbon negative. Also I am doubtful we will get the best case scenario. :(
@@BobBob-kr5wr The population drop will not be significant. Even if it evens out at, say, 6 billion, that's still a lot. More so, if, in spite of population decrease, living standards improve, we may end up emitting even more carbon. And personally I am skeptical that we will attain even the "not-so-bad" scenario, let alone the best case one. Essentially, a 2-degree warming is all but inevitable. Maybe a 3-degree increase can be avoided, however. Maybe.
@@giorgialadashvili4771 I know the future is grim, cutting down a billion people can in theory help out though.
We all know that the best case scenario is not going to happen. The best case scenario feels more like a lie than anything, it is useless. Stopping at 1,5 degrees is madness! The world leaders do not show enough drive nor enthusiasm yet. Somewhere around 3 degrees is what the end of this century will bring, and the consequences are going to be brutal.
@@BobBob-kr5wr So what are you volunteering Bob x 2?
“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.” Gus Speth, US advisor on climate change.
God is the past,the present and the future.
You said it eel
There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
@@Crashed131963 Yes, I also believe overpopulation has a huge impact on this. It is a shame that most people cannot even consider the idea of some sort of population growth control.
@@eelsoirdor3573 if you check the data from Oxfam, the top 1% of society are responsible for 50% of emissions
Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
And stupidity is acting w/o considering the consequences.
This will never happen sadly, the world is gone to influencers that peddle and spew materialistic consumeristic garbage everyday. Everyone is in it for themselves and their own greed, and that will never change. How many fast fashions will be between here and 2050? A whole lot of junk...you can't give large problems without first realizing the small ones, and they are infinite.
Correct, as long as the inequality between the huge majority of poor against the increasing few superritch will increase!
There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
@@Crashed131963 then why stop the pandemic? 🤔
@@Crashed131963 And 200 years ago, toxic chemicals didn't exist nor did plastic, so what's your point? That's the most underwhelming response I've ever gotten. What's your excuse in 2300, when there's nothing left, we USED it all?
@@Chris66Mas Covid has a 2% death rate , it makes not difference.
The format of this video was fun. I personally am good with the normal format, but with this, maybe I can get my teen to watch....
Don’t let your teen watch it, they’ll develop depression and intense resentment against your generation
This video will be 29 years old in 2050.
and the babies who already 29 be like: HOW DARE YOU
This is an excellent approach and video. Please keep doing this, perhaps this is the life of an office worker now and in 2050, this is how we commute, now and in 2050.
everyone appears so negative and self-defeating in the comments. Nice to read the ones that understand the reality of obstacles always being there in front of us, but we don't sit down and stop trying. "It will never happen" they say. Nope it won't with that attitude.
IPCC report is saying do today not after 2050.
2050 will be late
A ha.
There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
It's been too late for decades. Nothing will stop the warming now
@@Jc-ms5vv LOL you people are too funny. Don't you know prophesies don't come true 99.9% of the time? I think what's happening here is you people are searching for a new religion now that Christianity has faded. Like all religions it's all about the faith!
I realize I'm about a year late... but I enjoyed this format! I feel like it was a good balance of the dangers and risks of doom while recognizing the possibility of effort and hope.
Good video. How about one with Ajit in a 2050 that's 2.0 degrees warmer?
I heard a while ago that we might have already reached 1.5 degrees in my region.
I think even 2.0 is too optimistic.
If we do not really do something instead of looking for a scapegoat, we are lucky if we end up with 2.5-3.0 by 2050.
They should show that.
Great video!!! Putting the reporter in the year 2050, and describing the problems as they will be, is very effective. It would be useful to take this trend impact analysis a step further in two ways: 1) Offer a summary of what you have said so far (to help consolidate the picture in people's minds) and 2) then look at the combined impact of all of these changes on life in 2050. Peter Padbury, Canada.
I like the effort, and the knowledge of the reporter and the interviewees. I was left expecting more contrasting with higher warming. I think it was quite demoralizing and unlikely to trigger action.
There are already 53 people per square kilometre of land on earth. And that's not even habitable land. That's all the land on earth including what is mostly inhabitable already - deserts, mountains, arctic etc. Think about what one person would do to 1 square kilometre of land over a lifetime. Think about what 53 people would do to that same 1 square kilometre of land over a lifetime. There are also ~220,000 (births - deaths) people added to the earth each day, so that number is only going up. And where do the plants and animals that support this ecosystem that maintains us live? This idea that we somehow maintain our current complex societies and modern ways of life in this setting is a joke. I'm not saying we all cark it tomorrow, but you only have to crunch some very basic numbers to realise civilisation is already living on borrowed time. Humanity will go on, but our civilisation? Beyond unlikely.
Overpopulation is one of the major driving factors when it comes to the emission of greenhouse gases. Mind to share the sources of the figures you mentioned? I'm interested in investigating further.
A feedback on the video: really great! It was fun with the CGI thingy and i wish that you proceed in discovering new interesting ways to show your material also to the younger generations :)
New things you have tried in this video have worked really well.
What a lie! We were talking about climate change already end of the sixties.
I remember from junior high on, we talked about pollution and over population. The actions taken now, should have been done then.
What alarms me is so many young people ready to give up before they even try. By 2050 I will be gone, but we MUST make a start to have any hope at all.
Don't make up what you think they said: "This is you in the 1990's ... that's when the world *really* started talking about climate change".
I've been involved in the climate change movement since the mid-70's and think that is a very reasonable statement. You and I may have been talking about it earlier, but the world wasn't.
@@Neilhuny The discussions were widel discussed in our public TV service already in the first halve of the seventies. Hoimar von Ditfurth, a science journalis, warned in ZDF TV of the upcoming climate change. His predictions then of the situation today were shockingly precise.
I haven't owned a car and flown by plane for decades. I eat meat like three times a year if at all. I rarely eat fish or eggs - since two decades. But I really hope the internet stays until I am dead.
I would miss so much to be able to look up information that quickly. I grew up with an encyclopedia right beside our eating table - constantly in use. Having knowledge at a fingertip's distance is the best thing for me personally.
Thank you very much!
Bravo, the world needs more people like you. proud of you!
Sadly, even if every person and all corporations become net neutral right now (which isn't going to happen) it would only reduce rising temperatures by 0.1 degrees.
I feel your pain…
@@zjean3417 Net neutral seems impossible. And, yes, it’s not enough. To return to a stable climate we need to sequester all that was released. And it’s not just the 450-500 ppm in the atmosphere but all the CO2 that was absorbed into the oceans. Acidification is doing just as much damage as rising temperatures.
We need all energy alternatives on-deck. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal…. and nuclear. Fossil fuels, all of them, must stop. No coal electricity, no natural gas for electricity or home heating. No air travel. Sharply reduced food travel. Minimal to no powered personal transportation. If there has to be long distance travel then it’s by train or sail boat and heavily taxed, it should be available but it should be prohibitively expensive. For too long the regulatory thumb has been on the scale for unsustainable, profligate practices. If humanity is to survive that thumb must dramatically change.
If you think that's a problem then solve it with knowledge: Grow meat in labs. Build machines that can disassemble and reassemble materials atom by atom to turn rubbish into valuable products. Technology will solve all our problems.
So basically humanity is doomed.
Yeah, humanity knows nothing of living in moderation. We take over like a virus until we kill our "host"
@@user-qr7ee2cp4y So it seems.
NO. If we do not reach tipping points we could reverse the warming. By that time we probably have invented many things to suck the pollution out of the atmosphere.
For the fifty eleventh time. It's only a political narrative scare tactics to make you comply with anything they throw at ya. *YOU* become the most dangerous element in the equation when you uncrittically buy all the lies.
Isn’t it a good piece of news .?
Will there be a "What will the world look like in 2050?" video for each of the situations where we don't reach climate neutrality? Because that's the direction we're heading in at the moment.
We literally have the chance to SAVE THE WORLD
.There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
I believe you're in favor of Thanos
Not always true. Technology can dramatically change the situation. EG Meat grown in labs, better housing using less heating. In a few hundred years we will probably have machinery that disassembles and assembles materials atom by atom. Making all rubbish valuable, to be used for new products.
Great video. Nice intro with the time travel! I would also like to hear more about solutions! We need to link the problems/benefits of the future to actions in the "now". Like for example the Drawdown project. Something like spotlight on the people working on achieving carbon neutrality and on the quantification of their efforts. Good work.
It was a better initiative and quite thoughtful way to represent the Idea of the future. Some people may dislike the video because of the content or their political leaning, but that doesn't mean that your way of presenting this video was wrong. It actually was good. It is more thought-provoking.
It was a good episode, simple and crisp.
Awesome premiss, and great delivery. I would however like to see both the other option, business as usual and the middle scenario of 2 to 2.5 degrees.
2050 will be so cold, that his beard gets frozen and his lips become blue. xD
A very creative to report on this. Great job!
All the people making these videos should be required to discluse their personal climate footprints. They fly around in private jets and then lecture us not to drive our cars
Great video, I would love to see more like this one. Thank you from 🇨🇦
The format of video was such that I forgot that this video has a format.
Can you do something like this as well for 2 and 3 degrees?
Can someone enlighten me how will they achieve the negative emissions to achieve net zero ? Planting more trees ?
check out this: the most comprehensive plan to reverse global warming.
Not.
Negative emissions does not mean net zero. Net zero means how much CO2 you produce - you also take from the atmosphere. It's unrealistic, thats why they want to get rid of theyr sources. There is already 30 billion gigatons of it produced by us.
Yes planting more trees can achieve negative emissions, but it's not very fast.
It's not a problem with coal, or fossil fuels. It's the problem with CO2 we are pumping into atmosphere, where it should stay on the ground. People are too lazy to invent, clean, separate stuff. This is the outcome. (there is 4630 billion gigatons of C, but we luckily never have access to it).
@@ivobrick7401 in order to achieve net zero, postive and negative emissions has to be balanced . isnt the whole concept of net zero a sham if I'm being honest . If I'm not wrong, doesn't it give a country the excuse to emit CO2 as much as they want as long as they say they'll absorb the amount they produce.
I get it , there's so much CO2 that even if we stop all emissions immediately , the planet would still heat up and suffer.
Apart from planting trees , there's just no significant technology to absorb it! I think it's impossible to reduce emissions to make a difference because it's expensive and most countries won't be willing to invest in it.
And if I'm not wrong , the targets the countries are setting , mine included are not legally binding. What happens if my country doesn't meet the net zero target by 2050, absolutely nothing right ?
Sorry for the long reply but I'm genuinely asking and curious. I simply don't get the concept of net zero. Why can't we just come up with a legally binding reduction target instead where if a country fails to meet the target face economic sanctions or something.
Great work. DW, in general, is putting out great work recently.
A good report . I suggest more of doing this
Well put
I have been developing projects to help the environment since 1996, we have to plant trees and make people awere about that, lets go green ...
There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
DW has become my favorite news and reportage source lately. Good work!
This video is a fairy tail. Unfortunately it will never happen.
Fairies don't have tails, they have wings
@@TomNook. it's a misspelling of Fairy Tale. 🧚♀️
To keep the temperature below 1.2 degree, you need to keep the population in check. This means enacting tough population control measure to keep the human population below ten billion.
Yes, that would be helpful...some people I know have given existence to 60+ grandchildren...imagine that--one human being creating a sequence of lives that may each give rise to as many descendants...is this really necessary? I have not created any offspring and don't intend to.
We can and should start terraforming for water retention. It’s completely feasible for us, and it’s a great shame that we haven’t begun to work on it.
You made a mistake. The world is already nearly 1.5 degrees warmer than before the industrial revolution... The 1.5 degrees is not in relation to the industrial revolution. That would be impossible to achieve.
There isn’t enough land for farming??? In Australia there are massive rural areas that aren’t being used for farming. Whenever I go on a road trip in Australia, I see endless hills that look like they’re not being used. I know in other countries that they are running out of space, but some countries have plenty of space for farming and those are the countries that should focus on agriculture so that they can trade with countries that are running out of space for farming, also, crop farms take up space too.
I honestly do not know how one can say they love their child while they brought that child into this very grim outlook. Why don’t people adopt unwanted unloved children or take care of life (animals, nature, elderly, disabled humans etc) that already exists?
Are you blind? people already do these things. You being feed dramatized information, that is how companies sell their media and make money. You have to read carefully, lots of climate articles say "could", "might", "perhaps".
The reality is we are moving forward nicely. We have less poverty than ever. We have more food than ever. We have more energy that ever. We have more education than ever, and unlimited access to education with the internet. The average life expectancy is higher than ever. Less murders percentage wise than ever before. More wealth than ever before. More medicine than ever before.
@@AORD72 sounds to me like the last words of a goose a couple of hours before St. Martin's Day...
@@notabene2403 you have to resort to insults because you can't use logic.
Keep your thoughts to yourself Den.
Great video!
Super! Thumb up!
@John Dennis 👻
I wonder how bad things have to get before enough people get motivated to do enough to turn it around. And that will be a very slow fix.
I think we may have just passed the possibility of 1.5 :(
great vid
I remember it was just a few years ago that we were fighting for non leaded and low sulpher petrol because pure CO2 emissions would be safer. Turns out we were aiming too low. :(
merci beaucoup
Glad the info is spreading...but I do think it's time we begin to see it as the crisis it is and start including our emergency managers, military leaders, and other security experts to have a voice in these discussions.
I don't think even china is going to be carbon netural by the year 2050.
Lets just say carbon netural will save humanity, or even the human population we have wind, solar, and water things will help the climate change affect.
The producers of this show make a critically flawed assumption that we can and will reduce our emissions sometime in the future.
I think you where watching a different video..
They said: "what If we did"
It's a pretend situation of best scenarios
Great video
Well, the tagesschau already had a feature on the first climate conference with the topic of co2 emissions in 1979... saying the same as today. essentially.
This would have been much better without supposedly 'funny' jokes
DW coverage of current events is by far better than any other news channels I know. Keep it up and thanks!
what about drones for airflights ?
Here me out... don't plants take carbon to grow though? 😁🤣
Yeah, CO2 is great. You should spend time with your running car in a locked garage to get the full goodness of CO2.
Yes, but how much carbon do you think one plant uses? That's why they say it's bad to cut down too much forest
By 2050 using coal and oil won't be cost effective anyway (already solar, wind,, geothermal are cheaper). People will start to panic about not enough co2 by the end of the century.
Carbon sucking machines should be invented that run on solar power.
This concept has been invented! They’re suggesting the want to use the carbon dioxide as the additive that gives the fizzies to Coca Cola but that is still in discussion.
They do exist, the problem is that with the current efficiency level of the technology we would need to build literal millions of these carbon capture plants + energy generation, which doesn't seem physically doable let alone financeable. On top of that you still need to put the captured carbon somewhere and that's a lot of gaz to sustainably contain. At the moment they push it down into fracking sites but not sure it scales well or even stays there. On top of that they get bloody oil back in the process 😢
@Infos Gods trees are not good enough because they can burn. But we need to plant 10 times more trees than we cut.
@@anne4922 we can always send it to space.
Very good start, I would have loved the extra detail about how much needs to happen until 2030 already,
Get on a bicycle and start cycling instead of driving everywhere especially if your fit and healthy and want to go places not to far from your home, for e.g. the local shops, and try plant as many plants as you can! Thanks guys! ❤️❤️❤️
Already over 1.5c and closer to 2c if using a 1750 baseline. Could we see 3c this decade?
You people love to worry about things you can't control in any meaningful way?
@@Neil-Aspinall we could of in the 50s but not now
This was sad... keep them coming!
Are there going to be places on earth with snow and winter in 2050 at all?
Maybe really high mountains. But those regions will be more dangerous without glaciers stabilizing massifs. The risk of both rockslides and landslides will be much higher than it is now.
Old Man Ajit looking good with that beard 🧙♂️
I can only watch videos if they have kindergarten vibes so thank you DW
Greenest thing you can do for the planet ... is not having children
Or stop eating meat, do you eat meat Hay Fay?
@@Neil-Aspinall Or doing a darn better job then the inept Putin in racking up kills He should open up his silos that will rack in good numbers
It seems that even in the best case scenarios, some tipping points will have tipped over. No more multi-year artic sea ice, and the ecosystem of seals and polar bears will be gone. Maybe the polar bears will move south and interbreed with the grizzlies, their descendants will be brown bears again. No more glaciers, and the rivers they feed will suddenly supply much less fresh water. In fact, any region that depends on snow packs to feed rivers is in for some difficulties. And no more coral reefs! That will take a lot of the coastal biodiversity away with it. A small minority of species might move to higher latitudes, but most will not be able to. And sea levels will be higher, so many overcrowded cities which can't afford to invest in seawalls in the next 25 years will face regular flooding due to storm surges. In fact, many cities that are subsiding because of depleted aquifers will face salt water intrusion into their artesian wells. Those cities (like Jakarta and Lagos, maybe even New Orleans and Miami) will lose whole districts to the sea. Their cultural heritage will be in abandoned buildings with two stories under water. And because of the nature of tipping points, that they are irreversible even if the worst hasn't happened, some trends may continue for decades after the average global temperature has stabilized. Greenland's ice sheet may continue to melt, maybe even parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet, leading to continuing sea level rise for decades or centuries more. And the permafrost and methane hydrates may continue to deteriorate, keeping the world's resources busy and tied up into carbon removal just to stay at 1.5 degrees. It increasingly looks like stabilizing at 1.5 degrees, with as little overshoot as possible, is only the first step. For our grandchildren's generation, we have to start thinking about how to get back to something like 350 parts per million carbon dioxide and reversing some of the effects of other greenhouse gases as well. The last time 350 ppm was recorded in Moana Loa was 1988, I think. According to James Hansen, this is probably a "safe" level of carbon dioxide.
I live close to where tourists come to see Polar bears. It is a biological fact that if the Arctic was closed over with multi-year sea ice, that would wipe out the entire Arctic ecosystem including the Polar bears themselves. Because Polar Bears feed on seals...and seals feed on fish...and fish feed on plankton...and plankton needs to see the sun in order to live. That's why open areas of water , year round in the Arctic are absolutely NECESSARY and NORMAL. Any person trying to tell you that science says otherwise is a LIAR.
As a human being, we should also to protect and to take care our mother earth as soon as possible. By segregated our garbages into non-biodegrable and biodegradable. At the same time, we were plant more trees and cleaning our oceans, rivers and lakes.
Is it because carbon netural makes the help of climate change due affect, of wind, solar and water we will see alot of people grow a million of tree's.
A Delightful Change!
big blube excellent analysis of the situation the world is in
In 2050 we'll find out what the introduction to Armageddon looks like.
Nice dog
Or we will before 2050 find out what Orwells 1984 looks like.
@@TheIgdrasil1
Maybe both.
2050, humanity will still be doing fine. It's only another 30 years. 30 years ago people were panicking about the climate and still humanity has thrived. We thrive in warmer climates, so does plant and other animal life. Warm is life's friend. Look along the equator, it is full of life.
@@AORD72 Yeah we will survive high temperatures, but fighting unavoidable climate change will lead to dictatorship of green ideology. It can be seen in Germany where they stop using nuclear power which is absolutely carbon neutral! Green maniacs are uncientific demagogues.
The same as is today because today is also the same as it was 30 years ago when i was a child.
Make Renewable energy available to property owners with financial Incentives. We can utilize our space to generate energy and decrease our dependence on the grid which could be extremely important in the future.
It would capture and manage the heat that is causing problems while generating countless well-paying jobs.
Green energy's have been debunked as no better than any other energy source VM.
@@Neil-Aspinall Sources?
@@Virtual-Media You lazy git, do your own research into the illusion.
@@Neil-Aspinall So you don’t have any reliable sources?
World leaders and polititians don´t seem to be as aware of the catastrophic situation we are now. They are not creative enough and they don´t seem to have the real picture of the situation.............
We are already at 1.2C. That we should stop at 1.5C is completely unrealistic. 1.5C will happen before 2050, best case end of the 2030's. Zero emissions can only be achieved if all industrial manufacturing, agrculture and transport stops. And even the warming will continue. Zero emissions in 2050 is completely unrealistic unless there has been a global collapse of the industrial society. Conclusion is that we have to adapt.
we need to bring back rabbit meat for the meat-eaters. They are not ruminents, they use less land, their poop is 'cold-fertilizer' and can be applied to the soils directly and folk with big gardens can keep them (if they can tolerate eating their own 'pets', but i think thats a good thing, cos it'll reduce meat-eating) but i strongly advocate for expanding the animals we eat away from the more carbon and methane producing ones to insects, rabbits etc that can be raised on smaller, local plots of land in a sustainable organic way
Ajeet as pronounced! not Ajad/Ajed.Nice touch on old Ajit talking!
"if people take the right decisions" (circa 10:30)
Really? Who is "people"? How can we FORCE the politicians and governments to honor their pledges, to actually enforce the policies, considering many of them won't be in power by 2050 and some may not even be alive?
And we get the news that one reusable cotton bag is equivalent to thousands of plastic bags.... so was there any point?!
Western countries develop their nation first.... The global warming is the fault of their civilization... And now when other developing countries want to develop their nation... Now come the topic global warming... Yes it's a serious issue.. But why not the developed western countries do something about it first ... Today USA is the first country in cause of global warming... What doesn't it do something practically instead of lecturing?!.... If you want to stop global warming.. Do something about developing countries.. Instead blocking their development.. Ohh. You does not want that.. Other countries don't develop like you... Financial package should be provided to developing countries.. Because the so called developed countries are the reason of global warming
Nice video!! Very engaging from beginning to end. Nevertheless, businesses and investment are the easiest way to make money. When it comes to the world of investing,most people don't know where to start.fortunately,great investors of the past and present can provide us with guidance
Crypto is the new gold❤️❤️
@Grace meLotte That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Logan Willie
I heard that his strategies are really good
He has really Made a good name for himself
I got sir Willie info, how good is he ?
Like Mars perhaps, best case.
Pay for clean breathable air.
I didn't even bother to watch the video. Get real, wake up and smell the coffee - we will never reach carbine neutrality and if you need to ask why then I won't bother explaining
NO, the world really started talking about climate change in the 1980's! . . . We are NOW close to 1.5° and by 2050 we will at present rates be heading for 2* + NOT 1.5* C
In Australia we have been getting temps in the range of 40-50 *C for the last decade but not every yr. it depends on the prevailing El Niño or La Niña effect at that time from the Pacific Ocean.
I notice also that the M/E is also reaching into the 50* C mark periodically in their summers. If/when we get to 3* warmer temps will not simply be 1.5* warmer than today's average, some places on the planet will be at 60* C which is a death sentence for any willing to work outdoors for more than 1/4 - 1/2 hr. at a time.
Even if we reach carbon neutrality tomorrow, we will still see the collapse of ecosystems such as the coral reefs. We will still see costal communities have to relocate. We will still see huge areas that are uninhabitable due to extreme heat and drought. The world's aquafers will continue to dry up. We will continue to see species going extinct at rates 1000 times higher than any time in history aside from
the great extinction events in our planet's history.
What? Please name 10 species that have gone extinct in the last one hundred years. I think you are being hysterical.
Carbon netural is wind, solar, and water there's nothing to be afraid of leave the planet alone.
Nukes Nukes Nukes but not within a 100 miles downwind of where I live. Nukes in other ppl backyards
good video, felt more authentic and transparent
Remind me to watch this in 30 years for a good laugh
Thank you for the great video. i had some undergraduate and master classes on this subject. Yes, there is so much to be done. We are doing it but developed countries must help their developing brothers. Otherwise, we may never make it. Developing brother should also have the right political will for the change and stop being fussy on their resource curses.
Exactly what I've been saying.
If the world doesn't co-operate no significant positive development will happen.
You said it best.
A better video would have been "this what 2050 will actually look like when politicians yet again kick the can down the road"
No, this is the best case scenario when we do tackle the crisis.
Your title would be for a video that is far more dire, and sadly more likely.
I was expecting some listing and quantification. This kind of vague blather is really damaging to public understanding and will not get people 'with the project'. Old guy is hopeless. We have already lost over 60% of lifeforms by weight in my country in the last 30 years. And of course, capitalist profit based systems can't decarbonise without economic crash.
"And of course, capitalist profit based systems can't decarbonise without economic crash."
Why not?
Now do the worst case scenario please
Adobe face swap? Love you guys❤️
DW - "We will reach carbon neutrality..."
Great Thunberg - "YES"
DW - "....in 2050"
Great Thunberg - "How dare you"
Greta who?
...and one volcano......boom !
It is good to see what best can happen to us but we need to expose more data on corrupted politician and big industry houses , how they are not letting this happen to us for their profit. We need more courageous investigating kinda journalism for the sake of humanity.
Everyone blames 'climate change'....talk about the causes!
There was 4.3 billion people in 1980 ,today it is 7.9 billion and 2050 will be 10 billion.
More people use MORE ,it's that simple.
I.5c already surpassed....Pretty presentation though.
Yea and we all haven't burnt to a crisp. No problem going to another 5 degrees hotter, life with still thrive.
@@AORD72 species already can't adapt hence why we're in the midst of a mass extinction
@@Jc-ms5vv O really, can you name 10 species that have died off in the last 100 years? or are you listening to nonsense?
Change is inevitable, without humans the glacial cycles have a 12 degrees Celsius change over 100k years. How many species die off from the natural solar system cycles (as pointed out by Milankovitch). Life lives better in warmth, look along the equator at all the lush forests.
Im Jahr 2050 ist Andy Scheuer ist nichtmehr Verkehrsminister