Climate change explained: why are world leaders in denial? | FT

► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.

[Avengerie]

The problem is that the legacy power structures we have now have never been used to tackle the issues the effects of which are stretched out to decades. Politicians can't be bothered with something that takes longer than an election cycle to come to fruition.

[DuffmanIRL]

FT, how do you square the infinite growth required by capitalism, with the finite resources of this planet?

[gop]

These countries can only agree to make a show
😨😁😉

[alanrobertson]

All the comments on this page will be from people who don't understand the science and will therefore give their POLITICAL opinion in ignorance. I'm not saying that we are unrepresentatively stupid either for there are few other political issues where the electorates are so ill equipped to make a judgement and therefore it becomes an issue of who do you choose to believe. It becomes more like a flock following their religious leaders. If you are struggling to understand whether this is real or not how would the antics of Greta Thunberg or climate protesters blocking traffic help? Are they scientists? What extra insights do these people have. Don't listen to the political opinions of others try to work it out for yourself.

[Caine]

Videos like this infuriate me not because they argue global warming, but because there's serious bias in the video that is being portrayed as if it isn't bias at all. Doing this insults our collective intelligence. One assumption that's heavily implied is somehow world leaders shouldn't be able to say no to climate scientists because they are climate "experts." For starters in a democracy, the government answers to the public, not scientists on public policy matters; That's US govt and politics 101. Second, Climate scientists are pushing for climate action that's going to effect every sector of our country from the auto industry to the trucking industry, to airlines, to healthcare and beyond. As such our government leaders are more than likely consulting a variety of experts in multiple fields, not just climate scientists. This is an intelligent thing to do. Because as much as Automakers may not have expertise in climate science, Climate scientists aren't automatically qualified to run the car business. For example, buying an electric car looks good to a climate scientist because of emissions reductions, but people balk because EV's have to be re-charged after a short duration so more EV's aren't sold. At the very least, hybrids seem more practical. The problem is EV tech is not advanced enough to make it super attractive. That problem is going to be viewed more from an automaker's perspective.

[minstrelofMir]

since 1962 there have been 46 end of the world reasons, , was going to be a freeze in the 70"s and when it got cold they were like "there you go" now its too hot ? im in uk and please make it hotter, then the uk can grow vines (like they did in vine street hundreds of years ago, when they climate was really hot in uk)

[denelson]

This is so stupid. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Global temps rising with industrialisation doesn't prove anything and it is absurd to suggest so. Things like this are why I unsubscribed to your paper.

[lucaslouzada]

Once again a very shallow and biased reporting. It’s not only world leaders who are saying there’s no climate change caused specifically by carbon-dioxide emissions, anyone with internet access is prone to find many scientists to say so, some of which left the international climate panel exactly on the account of certain political preferences getting in the way of pure research. There’s no doubt about climate change in itself - once all you have to do is measure the temperatures - but certainly the fact that humans are entirely responsible for it, or even in any relevant way, is evidently disputed among scientists. There are not only solar cycle explanations which haven’t thus far been rebutted, but the fundamental doubt about the emissions originated in human activities vis-à-vis all other sources of greenhouse gases. The effectiveness of the distinction by means of carbon-14 screening has been challenged by the successive absurd and failed predictions about melting polar caps and the sea level. Of course the mainstream activists will hold mathematical glitches for that, even though it’s hardly the case. It’s very bad journalism to say that politicians are “paid” to deny man-enhanced global warming when there are many politicians who, in the very same fashion, get elected exactly because they defend any apocalyptical theories concerning environmental issues. Anyone who’s familiar with the scientific debate will notice that the uncertainties end up being swallowed by political preferences which have driven environmental neomalthusian studies since the 1970’s, afterall no one wants to worsen the situation and it is commonplace that capitalism can find other solutions at some cost. That cost, however, is far from small and the perspectives of problem-solving are far from realistic, it being much more likely that greenhouse effect will be replaced by some other environmental theory in the long run. It’s understandable that politicians and layman in general have certain preferences - not for scientists, not for journalists. It only drives us further away from any effective solution of the real problems...

[garyha]

Industrial revolution began 1760. If warming a degree over the last 50 years (since 1970), then 8 years after 1970 ...
Why this Leonard Nimoy video? "Remember: Ice Age is Coming 1978 Science Facts"
Who takes the entire planet's temperature at any given point in time?
Who did so in 1760 for a baseline?

[linehauler]

According to our weatherman, temps have only risen a small fraction of one degree in the last 150 years! Where is climate change? Just more baloney dumped on the general public.

[viperking]

To be fair the people against the Paris Agreement said that in the agreement each country could choose what to do, making it useless. Right now realistically which is the country that is helping the most? France with its full nuclear energy? The US with companies like Tesla? Boyan (the Dutch guy) with his company, who I think went to the US to start that company? Maybe, the US, with its economic freedom is helping the climate more than all the countries in Europe, boasting innovation etc., and certainly it'd be worse with the Green New Deal or idiocies like that one, all in my opinion

[nunoalexandre]

Global Warming ??? nhaaaa is just God
hugging us Closer MUahahahahahah ho boy...

[TomboyGirl-nr]

Bec, they are the ones who are making it ofc 😏

[鹤绒]

All I can say is...the comment section is the best prove of people still in denial
You can't understand smtg doesn't mean that it's not real

[diveactive]

Reduce the use of Palm oil and stop anymore reduction of tree deforestation! re crate the rain forests.

[sarahashplant]

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and the Earth is still here.

[Marycelestial]

I prefer a warmer earth, the tropics won't heat up due to humidity and cloud cover. But here in Australia we love a warmer earth. Plants grow better and we get more rainfall.

[Marycelestial]

Life flourished in the Jurassic period when co2 levels were 1500 to 2000 ppm. I say bring it on but of couse get rid of sulphur in power plants and lead in petrol and remove plastics from oceans.

[thiagoribeiro]

Thank God it changes, imagine the hell it was living here million years ago. Or living on an Ice Age forever..

[darkphantasmx]

Overtime everything changes the planets isn't immune to that change why dont you think dinosaurs exsist anymore oh wait that right the evironment changed