The Climate Crisis

Great Channels On Climate Change:
Simon Clark: @SimonClark

Sources Cited:

📱 Connect With Me:
➤ Second Channel: @CoalHastings

🎥 My Camera Gear:
#climatechange #climatecrisis #globalwarming

Timestamps
2024 Was Peak Climate Change: 0:00
What Causes Global Temps To Rise?: 1:28
Why Do People Think It's A Myth?: 2:12
Sustainably Sourced Food: 4:24
You Are Not Causing Climate Change: 5:59
ExxonMobil's Propaganda: 7:19
The Severe Consequences Of Global Warming: 8:21
The Good News: 10:36
What Can You Do?: 14:52
The Indomitable Human Spirit: 16:14
Other Modern Issues: 17:15

Topics: how global warming works, the climate crisis, climate change explained debate

[ColeHastings]

Things I should've done differently (that would've strengthened my arguments):

1. Starting the video with Trump (in the way i did) immediately puts off people who support Trump from listening to my arguments. If I frame Trump as "bad guy" (despite the fact that I do still believe what he's doing is a step backwards) those who side with him will probably put off anything else I have to say about climate change, even if it's reasonable.

2. Saying "People can be stupid" . Accomplishes the same sort of thing as undermining trump supporters. Even though I find it very difficult to disbelieve in global warming due to the mountains of academic evidence to support it, simply calling these people "stupid" is neither a good argument, nor a good way to make climate change deniers more open minded about the issue - only more angry and unwilling to listen.

3. Diving more into the opposing research. While the amount of scientists that don't believe in the severity of climate change in the future are slim, I think it's worth considering, if it actually comes from strong evidence. If anyone has any sources they would like to point me to, would be more than happy to check them out.

Ultimately, this video's structure and research wasn't up to my usual standard. As a result, I only swayed climate change deniers to be more angry at the typical climate change narrative, rather than making them more open to considering it. That's on me.

[badbabybear]

A small group of greedy people ruining things for everyone is the story of humanity.

[OptimisticVegan]

Let’s not act like hello fresh is an eco solution please. Their plastic packages is basically not recyclable. Anything individually packaged like that is NOT eco friendly

[kyle.sterritt]

The part of it that’s annoying is you have members at the WEF telling you your the problem when a single individual doesn’t cause more harm to the environment than a big corporation

[sirgusdaddyix]

I’ve subscribed to you for years now through your self development content, your “how to unf**k your life” video especially helped me get out of a dark period from the last few years, but of all videos I’d find from you, this was not a topic I expected to see, and it honestly makes me really happy. It means so much as a guy who thinks about environmental issues every waking moment of his life to find genuine concern and passion from someone outside of that community. Thank you for using your platform to talk about it.

[jt]

Nuclear power is very clean. The only issue is long-term storage of the waste. Wind and solar are fine to supplement the power grid but aren't stable enough to be primary power sources.

[poiuztrewqlkjhgfdsamnbvcxy]

Watching this debate, whether climate change is real or not, from a country with ever shorter winters, hotter summers, more extreme weather and crumbling mountains because of melting permafrost is fascinating. Like watching a car crash in slow motion. You can't look away, you should be horrified, yet you just watch it burn brightly...

[Raging-Lion]

If we banned fracking, built more walkable cities, and did more to protect the environment instead of becoming an oligarchy, this shit wouldn't have happened 😂😂😂

[ludicrousspeeds]

The reason why we're (the average American) happy about these policy changes is because we can't afford the alternative yet. I believe climate change is real, and that something needs to be done about it, but it needs to be done in a way that's affordable, and won't offset millions of people.

I can't afford an electric car. Not only are they too expensive, but I wouldn't even have a reliable way to charge it where I currently live. Even if we figure out a way to change our vehicles to electric and change a majority of our energy sources to renewable sources, our electric grid would be completely incapable of handling the extra demand. Something as small as a windy rain storm is already enough to knock power out for large portions of the US, so I'm afraid of what could happen if we don't upgrade our grid.

Our country simply is not yet ready to handle more green energy. If we were to switch overnight, it would cause more harm than good.

[muhammadfadhilnurhafizwang]

Switching to renewable energies means less profit for those fossil fuel companies. So as long as profit is the driving motive, they will fight tooth and nail to keep their bottom line - that includes influencing governments

[ethanx]

A lot of the divide comes down to socioeconomics. There’s rich people who are big big advocates for climate change solutions and think everyone has to save the world, vs low income poor people at the bottom who are like well I can’t afford this energy or that energy and think that the whole climate change thing is a luxury belief. Unless they both get on the same page Nothing will happen.

[NordenzurZukunft]

The idea that climate change skepticism comes mainly from distrust in government or institutions ignores the well-documented role of the fossil fuel industry and right-wing think tanks in manufacturing doubt.

Yes, there were discussions in the 1970s about a possible cooling trend—primarily in magazines, not within the scientific consensus. The vast majority of climate studies, even then, pointed toward warming due to CO₂ emissions. The “global cooling” narrative has been cherry-picked to create the illusion that scientists were indecisive, but the overwhelming consensus today—based on decades of data—is that human activity is driving rapid warming.

Climate denial didn’t spread organically from public skepticism—it was deliberately fueled by corporations, lobbyists, and media outlets with financial and ideological interests in downplaying the crisis. This misinformation campaign is the real reason climate change denial remains so persistent today. Ignoring this history only helps keep the misinformation cycle alive.

[luc]

Activism was so obnoxious in germany that a lot of people got turned away or even against the subject, please be smart with your activism or leave it, there is a chance to ruin it and that is worse than keeping people neutral or even ignorant about it.

[albertnewtonify]

Biggest mistake a poor man ever made is he idolized the rich. That's why rich get away with any amount of environmental destruction.. and tomorrow if the poor man gets money, he'll probably do the same. This root cause needs to be addressed.

[Lev-tt]

This is a very complex issue. I wish people would research things properly. The ice age prediction wasn't wrong. Earth does go through these cycles. But they happen on geological time scales that span millions of years. GCC is a climate change issue that spans between 40 and 100 years, and it's anthropogenically driven. The cooling won't happen in time to mitigate the heating we are going through because of the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

[Touma]

People going on about America but as everyone else loves to remind us is thst we're not the entire world. India and China are much much bigger.

[jonathankershner]

IMPORTANT: One of Trumps first actions was to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

[hieunguyenrileygekko]

now waiting for the summer is the equivalent of opening the portal to hell

[GoldenNorway]

Even though it's obvious that the temperature is increasing and the climate is changing due to humans, the "green shift" is a lie. Why? Because it's impossible, at least as we live right now.

Let me explain:
1. The West consumes more and more resources each year (through goods). These goods has to be produced somewhere.
2. Until somewhat recently, we produced them locally.
3. Now, the production is moved to poorer regions of the world.
4. This is mostly done to save on money, as factories in countries like China are far less regulated than the ones in, for example, Europe.
5. However, both EU and the US are heavily into the concept of "the green shift", where the goal is to reduce or stop emitions/pollution entirely. They do this by sanctions on production facilities, or ETSs.
6. The result of this is as following: the factories have been moved, yet consumption hasn't decreased. In fact, consumption is increasing each year and will continue to do so.
7. Goods now has to be transported around the globe instead of beeing produced locally. I don't need to explain why this is bad for the climate.
8. Another consequence, is that goods are now much cheaper to buy than before. - Why? Because China does not care about their workers, nor to they care about cimate.
9. The Paris agreement doesn't really change anything of the above. If anything, it serve as camouflage for the Western world that allows them to emit even more pollution (indirectly).
10. Yes, the CO2 emitions are going down - on paper. Of course they are, when the emitions on imported goods is not tracked.

The total consequence is as afollows: Climate change will increase even faster the more production lines we have to move to poorer countries. Consumption will not go down, and as goods aren't teleported into the world from the void, they have to be produced somewhere. This includes power production as well as raw resource collectiong (such as mining). In sociology, we call this the "NIMBY-effect".
As a sociologist myself, I find this quite ironic; the green politicans putting sanctions on western producers, are actually making the problem bigger by the hour. How do you expect the problem to disappear by people actually buying more stuff than ever before? It's a paradox.

It's also funny how, for example, EU is limiting mining on its own continent, while still wanting to produce wind turbines and advanced electronics. The refuse mining companies to mine in countries like Norway (which is rich in all the resources we need right now) to "stop climate change", yet... well, we need the ore, so we ship it from Africa and China instead.

And one last thing: the green companies make just as much money as the big and bad oil producers. To think otherwise, would be very naive.

And no, I don't support the tactics of Donald Trump. I don't care about politics, as that's just ideology. I just want to adress the objective facts. If you want to fight climate change, then allow heavy industry back in your (rich) country. It's far more regulated, much safer and far better for the environment. That, and please embrace nuclear power.

Blame the companies all you want... but the real problem actually lies with the consumer, which consumes. And always want to buy more, which means more has to be produced. Solar and wind power is not, by far, nearly enough to replace more stable and reliable sources (like coal, gas and nuclear). If you want change, go for nuclear power. It's completely safe, totally green and sustainable.

[TheHatandBeardShow]

The dust from your brakes on your car is more detrimental than the exhaust