by The Economist
My articles My siteMy videosMy books
Follow on:LinkedINTwitterFacebookYoutubeAmazonGoogle +
| Until a few hundred years ago there was a perfect balance of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Human activity has disrupted that balance. What can be done to restore it? Find our school briefings series here, including our recent climate explainers: https://econ.st/2BQkGqU Sign up to receive The Economist’s fortnightly newsletter to keep up to date with our latest coverage on climate change: https://econ.st/2APVAIj Find The Economist’s most recent climate-change coverage here: https://econ.st/3hbvD6B Read our briefing on why carbon offsetting is essential to tackling climate change: https://econ.st/3dIX7ye Read our article about new advances in solar energy: https://econ.st/37m19Kv Covid-19 presents an opportunity for countries to flatten the climate curve: https://econ.st/3em6YKn |
The Economist offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology and the connections between them.
Tags:
24 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
ce sil
2020-06-29 at 04:06 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
is incredible how the system lead directly to the mass to do whatever the system wants
G Sterling
2020-06-30 at 04:15 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
The lemmings eat this stuff up. You can save the world by eating plant burgers. You can solve racism by tearing down old statues and kneeling during a National Anthem.
Dundoril
2020-06-30 at 16:29 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Yes it's part of it. I
Khalid Pirzada
2020-07-01 at 14:56 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Very comprehensive coverage.
Thank you..
Herza I. M.
2020-07-03 at 18:51 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
It's impossible to reserve our nature while we still use fossil fuels, until we switch to clean energy. Why don't we just do that now? Because that's not cheap. It's gonna collapse entire oil industry, and the cost of building the infrastructure is magnificent. So, we're not gonna do that until the emergence of human extinction caused by the backlashing natural disaster we'll bring upon ourselves, at that time it'll be too late
B L
2020-07-04 at 18:39 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
"key to reversing the damage…" Yeah, we can't reverse it, at least not in human lifetimes. It will take centuries. The best we can do is slow down the warming. This is why people who understand this stuff are freaking out.
Reggie Cyde
2020-08-15 at 23:43 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
What damage?
Kor Wai Chong
2020-07-07 at 15:34 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
the us president donald dumb had said before there is no climate change, thats why he pulled usa out of the climate change treaty. so you guys stop worrying about climate change.
Matt Biondic
2020-07-07 at 20:00 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
What a beard!!
jonneyboy211
2020-07-07 at 23:09 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
I wonder what cost of one of those negative carbon facilities
Erik Medina
2020-07-10 at 03:24 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Can someone explain to me why the Earth can't easily make up for the human emissions by absorbing more CO2? I read that Earth is a natural carbon sink, so why shouldn't it be able to absorb the extra amount by, in a sense, feeling that things are out of balance and adjusting for it?
By the way, I'm not a climate denier; just want to understand better.
siddharth Tripathi
2020-07-10 at 08:15 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Why you didn't mention GHG emissions by cattle rearing industry which is way more than other sources of emission. This tacit ignorance of THE REAL FACTOR speaks of your ethics and research
Thinker
2020-07-10 at 13:03 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Why there is an underlying tone of hatred to human development and progress. When they put the first clip of the industrial revolution, they put that scary sound effect along with it. Why I feel like there is an ungrateful sentiment in this whole video. I mean, it is complicated. Yes, climate change is happening, and yes humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but at least we stopped dying at the age of 4! Also, we've only been aware of our impact on the climate since the 1960s. That's not a long time ago, and we aren't doing very bad for people who just woke up to the problem. The world is not going to end from climate change, and we will be okay, as is the earth and the ecosystems will be. Technological development, and reduced poverty will be the most important aspects when it comes to battling climate change. Not stopping fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will be abandoned if renewables are more attractive. Therefore we need to make renewables more attractive and not just demand that fossil fuels be banned, and demonize humans and human development. Read Bjørn Lomborg if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.
Trade Prosper
2020-07-12 at 15:12 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Being an engineer, I love tech but there are consequences. Lomborg is a tech utopian. Increased development will not fix climate change. Our greenhouse gas emissions go up every year so we have effectively done nothing substantial. No one will pay to sequester CO2 in any meaningful amount (billions of tons every year). The water is coming so don't buy any property below 3 meters. Our current path will lead to a sea level rise of 70 meters (230 feet) although it will take several hundred years to complete. No sure our current civilization will survive that.
Thinker
2020-07-12 at 16:08 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
@Trade Prosper Also being an Engineer I seriously disagree with that. Technological development is powerful if we invest enough in R&D instead of wasting huge amounts of money to not solve the problem. Even if I agree with you that Lomborg is a tech utopian, he still makes a strong argument for the lack of effectiveness of the proposed climate change solutions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Most of the emission reductions so far have been the result of technology, not policy.
I'm not even gonna go into the 70 meters sea level rise and other apocalyptic scenarios, which are the result of lacking and inaccurate models that ignore a lot of complex and interacting variables.
Harry Da Platypus
2020-07-12 at 12:57 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Just…wow. Didn't think an "economist" would care about climate change tho
It's the Economy,
2020-07-26 at 13:00 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
5:29 I did not know that the field of science known as Geology had any in situ carbon absorption qualities.
Alex Drozan
2020-08-06 at 09:32 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
When they call you for an interview and you didnt get the time to finish shaving your beard.
Petya
2020-08-10 at 16:53 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
A bit disappointed that animal agriculture wasn't even mentioned
Reggie Cyde
2020-08-15 at 23:37 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
The climate change agenda is much like the coronavirus. The empirical experience is divergent of the data we are being provided. In fact, both agendas are entirely asserted by data alone, empirical evidence is bereft. Thus, both require a leap of faith. Much like religions….
Sweet Jesus Emmanuel
2020-08-19 at 17:04 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
Hmm
Harsh Gupta
2020-08-20 at 13:07 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
0:10 sun moon is also same
徐瑞君
2020-08-20 at 15:51 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
sofa
B S
2020-08-23 at 16:50 (UTC 2) Link to this comment
The current generation in power needs to move away or to be removed in order for our world to advance.