I wasn't worried about climate change. Now I am.
Summary
TLDREl script del video discute la preocupante ausencia de un contador de 'dislikes' en YouTube para videos sobre el cambio climático y revela que los más desfavorecidos son aquellos relacionados con este tema. El video se centra en el concepto de 'sensibilidad climática', una cifra clave en modelos climáticos que predice cómo subirán las temperaturas si seguimos elevando los niveles de dióxido de carbono. Se cuestiona la precisión de los modelos basados en datos históricos y destaca el estudio que sugiere una sensibilidad más alta que lo previsto, lo que podría acelerar drásticamente los efectos del cambio climático. El video concluye con una llamada a la acción para abordar el cambio climático de manera más urgente y efectiva.
Takeaways
- 📉 El script destaca que YouTube eliminó el recuento de 'dislikes', pero los números siguen disponibles y los videos sobre cambio climático son los más desfavorecidos.
- 🌍 El cambio climático es un tema cansado y tedioso para algunos, pero es crucial debido a su impacto en la vida de millones de personas.
- 🔥 2023 fue el año más caliente registrada, con aumentos en temperaturas promedio y períodos de calor más largos y intensos.
- ❄️ La disminución de hielo marino en la Antártida y el récord de temperaturas del océano global también marcan un retroceso en el medio ambiente.
- 🌡️ La sensibilidad climática es un número clave en modelos climáticos que determina cómo reaccionarán estos ante un doble de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera.
- 📊 Hasta 2019, la sensibilidad climática se estimaba entre 2 y 4.5 °C, pero algunos modelos sugirieron valores más altos, lo que podría acelerar el calentamiento global.
- 🔍 Los científicos climáticos cuestionaron la fiabilidad de los modelos con alta sensibilidad climática debido a su inconsistencia con datos paleoclimaáticos.
- 🌤️ Los procesos físicos en las nubes, especialmente en su fase supercooled, son un aspecto complicado y crítico en los modelos climáticos.
- ☁️ Un modelo 'hot' del UK Met Office que mejora las previsiones a corto plazo tiene una sensibilidad climática alta, lo que sugiere que los modelos con alta sensibilidad podrían ser más precisos.
- 🌍 Un aumento en la sensibilidad climática podría tener consecuencias devastadoras, como la falta de habitabilidad en regiones equatoriales y la migración masiva de personas.
- 💡 El script concluye con una lista de deseos para abordar el cambio climático, incluyendo poner un precio a las emisiones de CO2, expandir fuentes renovables, construir centrales nucleares y promover la remoción de carbono.
Q & A
¿Por qué YouTube eliminó el contador de 'no me gusta'?
-YouTube eliminó el contador de 'no me gusta', pero los números siguen estando disponibles en el backstage. Esto se menciona en el guion para destacar que los videos sobre el cambio climático son los más desfavorecidos, sin importar si son noticias buenas o malas.
¿Cuál es el principal motivo de preocupación del guionista con respecto al cambio climático?
-El guionista está preocupado por el 'sensible al clima', un número clave en los modelos climáticos que determina cómo reaccionará el sistema ante un aumento en los niveles de dióxido de carbono, y que podría ser significativamente más alto de lo que se había anticipado.
¿Qué es el 'sensible al clima' y por qué es importante?
-El 'sensible al clima' (ECS) es una propiedad de los modelos climáticos que mide el cambio de temperatura cuando se duplica el dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera en comparación con los niveles preindustriales. Es crucial para predecir la velocidad del aumento de las temperaturas a futuro.
¿Qué hace que los modelos climáticos 'cálidos' sean diferentes de los demás?
-Los modelos climáticos 'cálidos' difieren principalmente en cómo describen los procesos físicos que ocurren en las nubes, incluyendo la fase supercooled del agua, que complica la predicción de su influencia en el clima.
¿Por qué los científicos del clima pueden tener dificultades para verificar los modelos climáticos con datos históricos?
-Es difícil verificar los modelos climáticos con datos históricos porque no disponemos de datos directos sobre el comportamiento de las nubes hace millones de años, y los científicos deben asumir que los modelos que son buenos para las nubes en el clima actual también lo fueron en el pasado.
¿Qué reveló el estudio de 2020 que compiló datos paleoclimaáticos?
-El estudio de 2020 reveló que los datos paleoclimaáticos se ajustan a un 'sensible al clima' entre 2,6 y 3,9 grados Celsius, lo que implica que los modelos 'cálidos' con un ECS más alto podrían no ser compatibles con estos datos históricos.
¿Cuál fue el resultado del uso de un modelo 'cálido' para pronosticar el tiempo a corto plazo?
-Cuando un grupo del UK Met Office utilizó un modelo 'cálido' para hacer un pronostico del tiempo de 6 horas, se encontró que este modelo, que tenía un ECS superior a 5 grados Celsius, dio un mejor pronostico, es decir, se ajustó mejor a lo que realmente ocurrió.
¿Qué consecuencias podría tener una ECS más alta que la actualmente asumida en las políticas?
-Si la ECS es considerablemente más alta que lo actualmente asumido, podría significar que las regiones del planeta se volverán inhabitables más rápido de lo previsto, lo que podría llevar a una rápida deterioro de la situación y a un gran problema.
¿Qué es el argumento del guionista sobre la necesidad de actuar rápidamente ante el cambio climático?
-El guionista argumenta que la posibilidad de una ECS más alta no puede ser descartada fácilmente, especialmente considerando la velocidad a la que las temperaturas promedio han estado aumentando en años recientes, y que esto es muy mala noticia para el futuro de nuestro planeta.
¿Qué recomendaciones does the guionista hace para abordar el cambio climático?
-El guionista sugiere poner un precio a las emisiones de dióxido de carbono, continuar expandiendo las fuentes de energía renovable, construir centrales nucleares, y dejar de preocuparse por la remoción de carbono, ya que no hay alternativa. También insta a dejar de protestar de forma ineficaz, como pegarse a cosas.
¿Por qué el guionista decide mencionar a Planet Wild al final del video?
-El guionista menciona a Planet Wild para ofrecer una nota optimista al final de un video que describe posibles consecuencias negativas del cambio climático. Planet Wild es una organización que trabaja en la restauración de ecosistemas y la protección de la naturaleza, lo que realza el mensaje de que se pueden tomar acciones concretas para proteger el planeta.
Outlines
🔥 Eliminación del recuento de 'dislikes' en YouTube y sensibilidad climática
El script comienza discutiendo la eliminación del recuento de 'dislikes' en YouTube, notando que los videos sobre cambio climático son los más desfavorecidos. Se menciona que, independientemente de las noticias, hay un desgaste por el tema. Sin embargo, el presentador destaca la importancia de hablar sobre el cambio climático debido a su impacto en la vida de millones de personas. Introduce el tema de la 'sensibilidad climática', una cifra clave en los modelos climáticos que predice el cambio de temperatura en caso de doble la concentración de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera. La sensibilidad climática hasta 2019 se estimaba entre 2 y 4.5 °C, pero hay preocupación por modelos que sugieren una sensibilidad más alta, lo que podría acelerar el impacto del cambio climático.
🌡 Discusión científica sobre la sensibilidad climática y su impacto
El script sigue con una discusión sobre los modelos climáticos que sugieren una sensibilidad climática superior a 5 °C, lo que podría significar un calentamiento más rápido del que se había anticipado. Se describe cómo la comunidad científica cuestionó la validez de estos modelos, argumentando que no se ajustaban a los datos paleoclimatólogos. Se menciona un estudio que limitó la sensibilidad climática a entre 2.6 y 3.9 °C, lo que desestimó los modelos 'cálidos'. Sin embargo, surge la preocupación de si estas conclusiones son válidas, ya que las nubes y sus procesos físicos son un factor crítico en el modelo, y hay incertidumbre sobre su comportamiento histórico y actual.
🌍 Consecuencias del cambio climático y la necesidad de acción
El script aborda las posibles consecuencias del cambio climático si la sensibilidad climática es más alta de lo que se había estimado. Se enfatiza que las regiones equatoriales serán las más afectadas, lo que podría llevar a una crisis humanitaria y migratoria masiva. Se sugiere que los efectos del cambio climático podrían desencadenar conflictos políticos, pandemias y un retroceso económico significativo. Se hace un llamado a la acción, instando a tomar medidas inmediatas para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y adaptarse a los cambios climáticos.
🌳 La importancia de la protección del medio ambiente y la esperanza
El script concluye con un mensaje más optimista, presentando a Planet Wild como un ejemplo de una organización que está haciendo una diferencia positiva en la protección del medio ambiente. Se describe cómo la organización se enfoca en la restauración de ecosistemas y la preservación de la naturaleza y la vida silvestre. Se invita a los espectadores a unirse a la comunidad de Planet Wild y contribuir al esfuerzo de conservación, subrayando la eficacia y transparencia de su trabajo.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Cambio climático
💡Sensibilidad climática
💡Modelos climáticos
💡IPCC
💡Supercooled
💡Dinámicas de nubes
💡Data paleoclimática
💡Modelo del UK Met Office
💡Migración masiva
💡Pandemia
💡Recesión económica
Highlights
YouTube eliminó el contador de 'no me gusta', pero los números siguen disponibles en privado, y los videos sobre el cambio climático son los más rechazados.
El año 2023 fue el más caliente desde que se tienen registros, con aumentos en la temperatura promedio y períodos de calor más largos y intensos.
La discusión científica gira en torno al 'sensible al clima', un número clave en modelos climáticos que determina cómo reaccionarán ante el aumento de dióxido de carbono.
Hasta 2019, el rango de sensibilidad al clima en modelos climáticos era de 2 a 4.5 °C, pero algunos modelos del 2019 mostraron una sensibilidad superior a 5 °C.
Los modelos con alta sensibilidad al clima fueron cuestionados por no coincidir con datos paleoclimáticos, que sugieren una sensibilidad entre 2.6 y 3.9 °C.
Los modelos 'cálidos' difieren en la descripción de procesos físicos en las nubes, especialmente en la fase supercooled del agua.
Un modelo 'cálido' del UK Met Office demostró una mejor predicción en pronósticos del tiempo a corto plazo, con una sensibilidad al clima superior a 5 °C.
Una nueva revisión de datos históricos por Hanson et al. sugiere una sensibilidad al clima compatible con los modelos 'cálidos', de 4.8 ± 1.2 °C.
La sensibilidad al clima alta podría significar una rápida degradación de la situación, con consecuencias económicas y sociales devastadoras.
Las consecuencias de un aumento rápido de temperaturas incluyen la migración masiva, tensiones políticas, posibles pandemias y un retroceso económico.
Se necesita una acción inmediata, como poner un precio a las emisiones de CO2, expandir fuentes de energía renovable y construir centrales nucleares.
La organización Planet Wild trabaja en la restauración de ecosistemas y la protección de la naturaleza, financiando proyectos concretos.
Planet Wild permite a los miembros ver el impacto de sus contribuciones a través de informes de video de sus misiones.
La comunidad de Planet Wild demuestra que la acción colectiva puede lograr cambios significativos en la preservación de la naturaleza.
El orador ofrece su apoyo a Planet Wild y anima a los espectadores a unirse a la comunidad para apoyar proyectos de conservación.
Se ofrece un código promocional (SABINE) para la primera suscripción de los nuevos miembros, cubriendo el primer mes de membresía.
Transcripts
YouTube has removed the dislike counter, but the numbers are still
available backstage. And I can tell you that my most disliked videos, by far,
are those on climate change. Doesn’t matter if it’s good news or bad news,
some people it seems reflexively dislike anything about the topic. Every time.
And to be honest, I can kind of understand that. It’s a little tiresome, isn’t it? Climate change,
extreme weather, heat records, blabla, we’ve heard this for so long. And look we’re still here. Stop
talking about it already, I get it. And I’d really rather talk about some fun new physics stuff.
But I feel like I need to tell you about this because the lives of hundreds of
millions of people depend on it. Climate scientists are having an argument about a
number. One single number called the climate sensitivity. I don’t like what I’ve read,
it really worries me, and I think you should know.
I know you expect me to be funny-haha, not funny-peculiar. But I’m afraid this video
will be more on the peculiar side. Why does Sabine worry about climate change,
and why now? That’s what we’ll talk about today.
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check how much you remember.
2023 was the hottest year on record, since the beginning of records in the mid-19th
century. Not just the average temperature increased to never before seen levels,
in many places heat waves were also longer and hotter than ever before. In February,
Antarctic sea-ice reached an absolute record low since the beginning of satellite
measurements in 1979, and global ocean temperatures reached a new record, too.
I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds pretty bad.
Now, it’s possible that 2023 was somewhat of an outlier, and average temperatures
will somewhat decrease in the next few years. There are several reasons for this.
First, there’s just regression to the mean. But second,
there’s also that in 2023 we switched from a La Nina to an El Nino phase. The La Nina,
El Nino phases are quasi-periodic global climate pattern. These phases switch somewhat irregularly,
but roughly every 2-3 years, and the El Nino phase that we just switched to is typically
somewhat warmer. So, next year might break more records because it’ll still be El Nino, but
in 2 or 3 years, we might see a slight cooling. And third, some researchers have speculated that
part of this year’s warming might have to do with a decrease in pollution over the oceans, caused by
new regulations of ship exhausts. It’s somewhat unclear how large this effect is, but we do know
that air pollution does indeed have a cooling effect, so maybe that’s part of the reason.
Be that as it may, I worry that even if 2024 is not a new record breaker, the overall trend in the
next years will be steeply up and the situation is going to deteriorate rapidly. The reason is
to do with a quantity called climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity, contrary to what you might
think, is not what makes people hit “dislike” on climate change videos. It’s a property of
climate models. It’s the temperature change that one finds in a model when one doubles atmospheric
carbon dioxide over the levels of pre-industrial times, and then waits for the system to come into
equilibrium. In the literature it’s called the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, ECS for short.
This equilibrium climate sensitivity isn’t something we directly observe because no matter
how much they dig in Saudi Arabia, in reality carbon dioxide levels don’t suddenly jump by
a factor two. However, it’s a useful quantity to gauge how strongly a model will react to changes
in carbon dioxide. And this climate sensitivity is the key quantity that determines the predictions
for how fast temperatures are going to rise if we continue increasing carbon dioxide levels.
Up to 2019 or so the climate sensitivity of the world’s most sophisticated climate
models was roughly between 2 and 4 point 5 degrees Celsius. These big climate models
are collected in a set that’s called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project,
CMIP for short. That’s about 50 to 60 models and is what the IPCC reports are based on.
So, until a few years ago, we have a climate sensitivity of 2 to 4 point 5 degrees or so,
and that’s what we came to work with, that’s what all our plans rely on, if you can even call them
plans. You have probably all seen this range in the IPCC projections for the temperature increase
in different emission scenarios. It’s this shaded region around the mean value. Loosely speaking,
the lowest end is the lowest climate sensitivity, the highest end the highest climate sensitivity.
Then this happened. In the 2019 model assessment, 10 out of 55 of the models
had a climate sensitivity higher than 5 degrees Celsius. That was well outside
the range that was previously considered likely. If this number was correct, it’d
basically mean that the situation on our planet would go to hell twice as fast as we expected.
Ok, you might say, but that was 5 years ago, so why haven’t we ever heard of this?
What’s happened is that climate scientists decided there must be something wrong with those models
which gave the higher climate sensitivity. They thought the new predictions should
agree with the old ones. In the literature, they dubbed it the “hot models” problem,
and climate scientists argued that these hot models are unrealistic because such
a high climate sensitivity isn’t compatible with historical data.
This historical data covers many different periods and reaches back to a few million years ago when
we still used dial-up modems. It’s called the “paleoclimate data”. Of course we don’t have
temperature readings from back then, but there’s lots of indirect climate data in old samples,
from rocks, ice, fossils and so on. In 2020, a massive study compiled all
this paleoclimate data and found that it fits with a climate sensitivity between
2 point 6 and 3 point 9 degrees Celsius. And this means implicitly that the “hot” models,
the ones with the high climate sensitivity, are not compatible with this historical data.
As a consequence, the newer IPCC reports now weigh the relevance of climate models by how
well the models fit the historical data. So the models with the high climate sensitivity
contribute less to the uncertainty, which is why it has barely changed.
And that sounded reasonable to me at first. Because if a model doesn’t match with past
records, there’s something wrong with it. Makes sense. Then I learned the following.
The major difference between these hot models and the rest of the pack is how they describe
the physical processes that are going on in clouds. A particular headache with clouds is
the supercooled phase of water, that’s when water is below the freezing point but remains
liquid. The issue is that the reflectivity of the clouds depends on whether it's liquid or not, and
that supercooling makes the question just exactly what influence the clouds have very complicated.
But how much data do we have about how clouds behaved a million years ago? As you certainly
know, the dinosaurs forgot to back up their satellite images, so unfortunately all that
million-year-old cloud data got lost and we don’t have any. To use the argument from historical
data, therefore, climate scientists must assume that a model that is good for clouds in the
current climate was also good for clouds back then, under possibly very different circumstances,
without any direct data to check. That seems to me a very big “if” given that getting the clouds
right is exactly the problem with those models. Wouldn’t it be much better to check how well
those models work with clouds for which we do have observations. Like you know,
the ones that we see on the sky? In principle, yes, in practice, it’s difficult. That’s
because most climate models aren’t any good as weather models. While the physics is the same,
they’re designed to run on completely different time scales. You make a weather forecast two
weeks at most. But climate models you want to run a hundred years into the future.
There is one exception to this. There is one of the “hot” climate models that can
also be used as a weather model with only slight adaptations. It’s the one from the
UK Met Office. So a small group from the UK met office went and used this “hot” model to make
a 6 hour weather forecast. They compared the forecast from the “hot” model with a
forecast from an older version of the same model that didn’t have the changes in the
cloud physics and was somewhat “colder”. They found that the newer model, the “hotter” one,
gave the better forecast. And just so we’re on the same page, when I say the forecast was better,
I don’t mean it was all sunny, I mean it agreed better with what actually happened. And that
model with the better predictions had a climate sensitivity of more than 5 degrees Celsius.
I know this all sounds rather academic, so let me try and put this into context. The
climate sensitivity determines how fast some regions of our planet will become
uninhabitable if we continue pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The regions to
be affected first and most severely are those around the equator, in central Africa, India,
and South America. That’s some of the most densely populated regions of the world. The
lives of the people who live there depend on that scientists get this number right.
So we need this number to get a realistic idea of how fast we need to act. That the
climate sensitivity might be considerably higher than most current policies assume
is a big problem. Why wasn’t this front page news.
Well, quite possibly because no one read the paper. I didn’t either. As of date it’s been
cited a total of 13 times. I only know about this because my friend and colleague Tim
Palmer wrote a comment for Nature magazine in which he drew attention to this result.
He also asked other researchers to try and do similar tests with other models, to see
how well they perform with the short-term weather forecast. Unfortunately, no one listened to him.
That includes me, because I have other things to do than read all of Tim’s comments,
sorry Tim, and in all honesty I had pretty much forgotten about this. But then late last year,
a new paper with Jim Hanson as lead author appeared which reminded me of this.
The new Hanson et al paper is a re-analysis of the historical climate data. In a nutshell,
they claim that the historical data is compatible with a climate sensitivity
of 4 point 8 plus minus 1 point 2 degrees Celsius. That’s agrees
with the “hot models.” And if it was right, it’d invalidate the one reason that climate
scientists had to dismiss the models with the higher climate sensitivity.
I don’t want to withhold from you that some climate scientists have criticised
the new Hanson et al paper. They have called it a “worst-case scenario” that is “quite subjective
and not justified by observations, model studies or literature.” Though it isn’t irrelevant to
note that the person who said this is one of the authors of the previous paper that claimed the
climate sensitivity from historical data is lower. I don’t know who’s right or wrong. But for me the
bottom-line is that the possibility of a high climate sensitivity above 5 degrees Celsius
can’t be easily dismissed, especially not seeing how fast average temperatures have been rising in
recent years. And that’s really bad news. Because if the climate sensitivity is indeed that high,
then we have maybe 20 years or so until our economies collapse, and what’s the point
of being successful on YouTube if my pension savings will evaporate before I even retire.
Yeah, that’s a tad bit depressing, but if you want to hear an uplifting story about environmental
protection stay around until the end because I want to tell you about my friends at Planet Wild.
This isn’t in the script. But it just blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that
the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the
properties of supercooled droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can’t even remember.
And that returns me to the people who reflexively dislike any video on climate change because they
really really don’t want to hear about it. I believe that most of them aren’t actually
climate change deniers, I think they just can’t see how it’s going to affect them. What’s the
big deal with a few degrees temperature increase? We’ll just turn up the air conditioning, right?
I think it won’t be that easy. Which is why I now want to spend a few minutes
telling you what I think will happen in the next 20 years or so. The next minutes
of this video will be quite depressing, and if you are struggling with anxiety,
I sincerely think it’d be better if you stopped watching here.
Did I just tell people to not watch my video. I’m not doing this YouTube thing right am I.
If you’re still with me, here we go. Earth has 5 different climate zones,
and each has its own typical type of vegetation. If climatic conditions change rapidly, a lot of
plants will not grow properly or die, because it’s too hot or too dry or too wet or all the above.
Yes, plants like carbon dioxide, but that isn’t going to make up for the much bigger problem of
the rapidly shifting climate zones. And yes, we can try to genetically engineer plants that are
better adapted to the new circumstances, but that’s going to take time. And time is exactly
what we don’t have if the climate sensitivity is really as high as the “hot” models say.
People in the developed world will somehow cope with the hotter conditions
by fertilizing and irrigating the hell out of any agricultural areas they have. But in
many countries around the equator, crop yield will substantially drop. This will
most affect countries that are already prone to famine, and at the same time,
some of the poorest countries in the world will be hit very hard by heat waves and drought.
I don’t think that a “human right for air conditioning” that some people argued for
in a scientific American article is going to make much of a difference.
Ok, so we have famine and drought and heat waves. But it’s just, you know, where poor people live,
it isn’t really our problem, right? Well, that’s not the end of the story. Because those
poor people who don’t conveniently die right away will draw consequences. They’ll leave.
We’re talking about some hundred millions of people who have nothing left to lose,
suddenly beginning to migrate. Where will they go? Most of them will go
North. Why? Just because there’s more land North of the Equator than South.
That’s going to cause a lot of tensions at the Southern borders of Europe, Russia, and Mexico,
for just to mention a few. Someone somewhere will make a lot of money by selling weapons.
Drones will be deployed. Some of them will shoot. Innocent people will die.
But wait, that’s not it. Because death and migration make a great breeding ground for
new viruses, bacteria, and fungi, so chances are we’re going to get a new pandemic along with it.
So we have: widespread crop failure, high numbers of people dead, mass migration,
political tensions and possibly war, likely public health disasters. Meanwhile people in the
developed world are scrambling to adapt, moving inland as sea water levels continue to rise,
trying to install air conditioning wherever they can, and are giving up pretending to
cut back carbon dioxide emissions which is going to speed up the further proceedings.
The result will be an enormous economic downturn. The practical consequences for
you and I will be that every-day products will become more and more expensive,
until most of us simply can’t afford them. And then they’ll disappear.
Need a new phone? That’ll be 50 thousand dollars. Internet connection at home?
8 thousand a month. Want a new microwave? Sorry we’re all out of stock. Need someone to fix your
roof? We’re short on staff, they’re still cleaning up the mess from the recent flood.
In simple terms the problem is that there’s only so much work one person can do in one day. And
if we’re busy trying to survive, everything else will go on a pause. People who are busy building
air conditioning units are people who are not pushing the cutting edge of nanotechnology.
I don’t think we’ll go extinct. There’s just too many of us. And I don’t think civilization
will entirely collapse, because much of the infrastructure we already have is going to
last until the worst is over. But it’s going to be a phase of regress, rather than the progress
that we’ve become used to. It’s going to be really unpleasant, will quite possibly
reduce the world population by a few billion, and it’s not a world that I want to live in.
And no, AI isn’t going to solve the problem, because the problem isn’t that we’re missing
a technological solution. The problem is that we can’t agree to implement the solutions we have.
You probably expect me to end on some recommendations. I don’t think it matters
much what I recommend, but I also don’t want you to go away complaining that I haven’t thought
about it. So here’s my wish list. Put a price on carbon dioxide emissions now. Continue to expand
renewables. Build nuclear, build nuclear, build nuclear, stop bitching about carbon removal,
there’s no way around it. And for heaven’s sake, stop gluing yourself to things.
Nah, I’m not asking you to like this video. I don’t really like it myself.
But then let me tell you about something that I do like,
that’s my friends at Planet Wild who are saving this planet, one step at a time.
Planet Wild is a community-based environmental protection organization. They’re funding the
restoration of ecosystems to preserve our nature and wildlife. I've been part of
their community since earlier last year, and I have been really impressed by their work.
They select a new partner every month, and they document their
missions with video reports that you can find right here on YouTube. This
way you get to immediately get to see the impact of your contribution
For example, they’ve repopulated a forest in Germany with the Eurasian Lynx and in their
latest mission they’ve gone to Cape Verde to protect sea turtles from poachers with the
help of dogs. It’s such a lovely hands-on approach and it really makes a difference.
All of this is made possible by a community that funds these projects,
a community of nature enthusiasts like you and I. One person doesn’t have a lot
of impact on the environment, but bundling resources of a community can achieve a lot.
What I find so great about Planet Wild is that they don't leave me wondering where
my money goes. You can become a nature supporter for as little as $6 a month,
that doesn't even buy you a sandwich at Heathrow. And don't worry that you get stuck with them,
you can cancel your membership every month.
I support Planet Wild because I can see it has a direct impact on preserving nature and
protecting our ecosystems. If you want to join a growing community that makes a real difference,
go check out Planet Wild through the link in the description or by
scanning the QR code and consider becoming a supporter. I’ll cover the first month of
your subscription if you’re among the first 200 people signing up with the code: SABINE.
Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
FAO Serie sobre políticas: Agricultura climáticamente inteligente (con subtítulos)
ODS 13 | Acción por el clima
5 revelaciones del informe de la ONU sobre cambio climático y qué dice sobre América Latina
La sorprendente inteligencia de los árboles
La crisis climática: ¿Se puede salvar el planeta con ideas ingeniosas? | DW Documental
10 years to transform the future of humanity -- or destabilize the planet | Johan Rockström
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)