Can YOU Fix Climate Change?
Summary
TLDRこのビデオスクリプトは、人類がこれまでにないほど豊かで進歩したにもかかわらず、急速な気候変動に直面している現実を示唆しています。産業社会の構造は地球に破壊的であり、個人の責任だけでなく、政治、経済、技術のシステム的なアプローチが求められます。個人の貢献は大切ですが、産業界や政府の取り組みが不可欠であり、持続可能な社会を実現するためには、全人類が些細なことでも積極的に取り組む必要があると結びます。
Takeaways
- 🌍 人类历史上从未如此富有、先进或强大,但面对快速气候变化,我们感到不知所措。
- 🌡️ 温室气体捕获太阳的能量并将其传递到我们的大气中,导致冬天变暖,夏天更炎热,干旱地区更干旱,湿润地区更湿润。
- 🏭 现代工业社会在过去150年中构建的,本质上对地球具有破坏性。我们为使生活更舒适所做的一切,都在恶化生物圈的状况。
- 🚗 公众关于阻止快速气候变化的辩论通常集中在一些关键特征上,如燃煤电厂、汽车或打嗝的牛,而解决方案往往过于简单化。
- 🌳 我们面临的挑战不仅仅是改变生活方式,而是需要对整个工业系统进行根本性的改变。
- 💨 发达国家和发展中国家在碳排放上存在明显差异,要求发展中国家减排可能看起来像是试图让他们保持落后。
- 🏠 目前,摆脱贫困和成为中产阶级的过程不可避免地会产生排放。
- 🔨 即使我们知道该怎么做,解决方案的存在并不意味着我们能够或愿意实施它。
- 🍖 食品生产是快速气候变化中最棘手的问题之一,因为我们不知道如何在不排放温室气体的情况下养活100亿人。
- 💡 技术,如直接空气捕获CO2,已经存在,但由于成本问题,我们尚未在每个行业、每个地方实施。
- 🗳️ 我们需要一种不同的思考和讨论快速气候变化的方式,这需要改变我们现代社会的基础。
- 🌐 个人责任的角度被过度强调,对于这种规模的技术、政治和经济的系统性变化,我们需要影响那些掌握杠杆的人。
- 💰 如果你足够富裕,可以通过投资目前仍然昂贵的低碳技术来发挥作用,这些机制将推动价格下降。
- 🔍 面对快速气候变化的现实,通过你的行为和行动来提升你的优先事项,同时,你可以少吃肉,少飞行或购买电动汽车。
Q & A
地球温暖化の原因は何ですか?
-地球温暖化の主な原因は、温室効果ガスが太陽からのエネルギーを大気圏に閉じ込めることです。これにより、冬が暖かくなり、夏は厳しくなり、乾燥地帯はより乾燥し、湿地域はより湿になります。
個人の責任感について、どのような議論がありますか?
-個人の責任感は、気候変動を防ぐための対策の一つとしてよく議論されますが、実際の解決策は産業や政治のシステム的な変更に重点を置くべきです。
現代の産業社会はどのようにして地球に有害なのですか?
-現代の産業社会は、150年間の発展の中で、食べ物、道路、衣服、ガジェット、移動手段、人工的に作り出した快適な気温など、生活を容易に、安全に、快適にする全てのことが、生物圏にとって悪影響を及ぼしています。
なぜ、産業界が環境問題に対処するのに抵抗があるのですか?
-産業界は、利益の損失や自己保護のために、変化に抵抗があることがあります。また、新しい技術の導入がまだ高価であるため、変化を後回しにする傾向があります。
貧困と排出量の間の関係について説明してください。
-国々の繁栄とその排出量には明確な関係があります。つまり、より裕福な人々はより多くの排出量を引き起こしますが、低所得〜中間所得国々からも63%の排出量が発生しており、彼らは貧困から脱出し、快適な生活を求めています。
発展途上国が排出量を削減することが困難である理由は何ですか?
-発展途上国々は、多くの人々が貧困から脱出しようとしており、中産階級になることで避けられない排出量が発生します。彼らが持続可能な方法を採用するように求める 것은、彼らを压制しようとする試みのように見えます。
食料生産と排出量の関係について説明してください。
-食料生産は肥料や肥料の使用を必要とする現代の食料生産方法により、ゼロ排出の食品を持つことは不可能です。特に、米の生産が年間排出されるメタンの量は、世界中の航空機の排出量に等しいほどです。
なぜ、個人の排出量削減は気候変動全体の解決策には十分でないのですか?
-個人の排出量削減は良いことですが、システム的な現実の排出量に比べて非常に小さい影響しか与えません。個人の貢献は、産業界や政治の大きなレバーを動かすことに比べて、効果が乏しいです。
持続可能な解決策を導入するために、どのような政治的アプローチが求められるのですか?
-持続可能な解決策を導入するためには、政治家に気候変動を解決することの重要性と、科学を尊重することの必要性を感じさせる必要があります。彼らは効果的な気候変動戦略を実施し、産業界が協力しない場合は厳しい規制や罰則を適用する必要があります。
個人として気候変動に対処するために実際にできることは何ですか?
-個人として気候変動に対処するためには、投票や消費行動を通じて政治家や産業界に影響を与え、持続可能な技術への投資を増やすことが重要です。また、日常の生活において、肉を食べる量を減らしたり、飛行機を少なくしたり、電気自動車を利用したりすることもできます。
なぜ、気候変動の解決策は政治的、経済的、技術的なシステム的なアプローチを必要とするか?
-気候変動は単一の産業や行動によるものではなく、現代の産業社会の根本的な側面に関連しています。そのため、技術、政治、経済のシステム全体を変革する必要があり、個人の責任感だけでは解決できません。
なぜ、持続可能な社会を実現するためには誰もが少し不満を抱くことが必要なのですか?
-持続可能な社会を実現するためには、誰もが自分たちの利益を一部犠牲にして受け入れなければなりません。全ての解決策が誰にとっても完璧で喜ばしいものではないため、真の進歩を実現するためには、一部の不満を抱くことが重要です。
なぜ、個人の排出量削減の概念は誤解を招く可能性があるのですか?
-個人の排出量削減の概念は、石油会社BPが2005年の広告キャンペーンで普及させましたが、これは実際には全球的な排出量の現実から私たちを誤解させる効果的な宣伝であり、個人の貢献が産業界の排出量に比べて非常に小さいことを忘れさせます。
なぜ、技術的な解決策がすぐには実施されないのですか?
-技術的な解決策は現在、非常に高価であり、多くの研究と開発が必要なため、すぐに実施されることはできません。しかし、需要が高まることで、企業はより効率的な技術を開発し、価格を下げるインセンティブを得ることができます。
なぜ、気候変動に関する議論は複雑で灰色地帯に満ちているのですか?
-気候変動に関する議論は、経済成長、貧困脱却、食料供給、エネルギー需要など、多くの社会的な要因と絡み合っており、これらの要因をバランスさせることで解決策を見つける必要があります。そのため、議論は複雑で灰色地帯に満ちています。
Outlines
🌍 気候変動の複雑性と個人責任
この段落では、人類の歴史において私たちが最も豊かで進歩的で強大な時代を迎えているにもかかわらず、急速な気候変動に直面している現実が描かれています。温室効果ガスが太陽からのエネルギーを大気に閉じ込め、冬の暖化や夏の厳しさ、乾燥地帯の増水、湿地域の増湿をもたらし、海面上昇と沿岸地域の浸水を引き起こしていると説明されています。しかし、問題解決は単純ではなく、産業社会が150年で構築したものが地球に破壊的であると指摘されています。エネルギー、牛肉、車、飛行機などだけでなく、埋立地からの排出ガスや家屋の排出量、新車の製造時の排出量などが、気候変動に寄与していることが強調されています。また、貧富の差や発展途上国の貧困脱却と中間所得階級への移行が、避けられない排出量をもたらすという現実も触れられています。
🌱 食料生産と気候変動の絡み
第二段落では、食料生産が気候変動に及ぼす影響が焦点に当てられています。現代の食料生産は肥料や肥料の使用を伴い、ゼロ排出の食品を生産することは不可能とされています。特に、米のメタン排出量は世界的に航空機の排出量に匹敵すると示されています。さらに、動物性食品による食料排出量が世界的に増加しており、これらは文化や生活水準の向上と共に、より多くの肉を求める傾向があります。肉生産に使用される土地の面積は、南北アメリカの合計面積に相当し、本来は森林などの自然生態系を再生させることができた土地を使用していると指摘されています。
💡 技術革新と気候変動対策のコスト
この段落では、技術的な解決策が存在するにもかかわらず、その実装が困難である理由が議論されています。例えば、CO2の直接空気吸収技術は存在しますが、現在の技術レベルでは、その実装には膨大なコストがかかることになります。また、産業界や政府による取り組みが不足している現状が指摘されており、産業の利益と排出削減のニーズを調整する必要があると強調されています。さらに、市場経済や国家の政策が持つインセンティブ構造が、化石燃料の使用を維持し続ける要因であることも触れられています。
🗳️ 政治的参加と気候変動への取り組み
最後の段落では、個人の責任だけでなく、政治的参加が気候変動に対処する上で重要な役割を果たすと述べています。政治家が気候変動を真に受けるよう、国民の意志を示し、適切な政策を推進する政治家を支持することが求められています。また、技術の進歩や革新に投資し、市場の需要を創出することで、低炭素技術の開発と普及を促すことが重要です。個人として、選挙で投票したり、エコロジカルな選択を消費行動に反映させたりするなど、システム的な変化に向けた取り組みを通じて、気候変動に対処することが奨励されています。
🔗 ゲイツノートとの提携
この動画は、ビル・ゲイツの個人ブログであるゲイツノートによってサポートされており、グローバルな健康や気候変動に関する情報を提供しています。gatesnotes.comで、世界がゼロ排出目標を達成するための方法について学ぶことができます。また、スポンサーシップの取り扱いについて詳しく知りたい場合は、Mediumの記事も参照可能です。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡気候変動
💡温室効果ガス
💡産業社会
💡個人責任
💡貧困と排出
💡食品生産
💡動物性食品
💡持続可能な発展
💡政治的ロビー
💡システム的解決策
Highlights
人类历史上从未如此富裕、先进或强大,但面对快速气候变化我们却感到不知所措。
温室气体捕获太阳的能量并将其转移到我们的大气中,导致冬季变暖,夏季更加严酷。
干旱地区变得更加干燥,湿润地区变得更加湿润,无数的生态系统将会死亡。
现代工业社会在过去150年中构建的,本质上对地球具有破坏性。
我们为使生活更舒适所做的一切,都在使生物圈变得更糟。
垃圾填埋场的排放与空中所有飞机的排放相当。
建造新汽车产生的排放等同于建造两米道路。
修复工业系统的一小部分是不够的,每个不同的部分都需要自己的解决方案。
国家繁荣程度与其碳排放量之间存在明显联系,富裕人群往往造成更多排放。
全球63%的排放来自中低收入国家,这些国家的大多数人不是奢侈生活,而是试图摆脱贫困。
目前,摆脱贫困和成为中产阶级,不可避免地会产生排放。
混凝土制造业释放的8%的CO2排放量,但混凝土也是发展中国家建造经济适用房的廉价易行方式。
我们需要喂养100亿人口,但我们不知道如何在不排放温室气体的情况下做到这一点。
57%的食物排放来自动物性食品,尽管它们只占世界热量的18%和蛋白质的37%。
全球约40%的可居住土地用于某种形式的肉类生产,这相当于南北美洲的总和。
直接空气捕获CO2的技术已经存在,但由于成本高昂,尚未广泛应用。
我们需要一个不同的思考和谈论快速气候变化的方式,需要一个全面的系统方法。
个人责任角度被过度强调,我们需要影响那些掌握杠杆的人。
我们需要政治家知道并强烈感受到人们关心,他们的成功取决于解决快速气候变化。
我们需要通过投票和用钱包投票来推动系统性变革。
如果我们都接受一些解决方案会对我们产生负面影响,我们才能进行诚实的对话并取得进展。
这个视频得到了Gates Notes的支持,这是比尔·盖茨的个人博客,他在那里写关于全球健康、气候变化等主题。
Transcripts
Never before in human history have we been richer, more advanced or powerful.
And yet we feel overwhelmed in the face of rapid climate change.
It seems simple on the surface.
Greenhouse gases trap energy from the Sun and transfer it to our atmosphere.
This leads to warmer winters, harsher summers.
Dry places become drier and wet places wetter.
Countless ecosystems will die while the rising oceans swallow coasts and the cities we build
on them.
So why don’t we just like… prevent all of that?
Well, it’s complicated.
The public debate about stopping rapid climate change often focuses on a few key features,
like coal plants, cars or burping cows.
And so the solutions are often simplistic – rows of solar panels, biking to work,
something something sustainability.
And a huge talking point is personal responsibility.
How YOU should change your lifestyle to prevent rapid climate change, which we will find out
together in the next few minutes.
This is one of those videos where we want to encourage you to watch to the end, because
to discuss real doable solutions, we first need to understand
the problem.
A Fuller Picture
Modern industrial society as we constructed it in the last 150 years, is inherently destructive
to the planet.
Basically everything we do to make our lives easier, safer and more comfortable is making
things worse for the biosphere.
The food we eat, the streets we walk on, the clothes we wear, the gadgets we use, the way
we move around and the pleasant temperatures we artificially create around us.
While most people know about the serious impact of energy, beef, cars and planes, many major
polluters are barely ever talked about.
The emissions leaking out of landfills are as significant as the emissions of all the
jets in the air.
More CO2 is released to run our homes than from all cars combined.
And the emissions produced when making a new car is equivalent to building just two metres
of road.
So it is nice to switch to electric cars but they won’t solve anything if we keep building
roads the same way.
Fixing one small part of the industrial system is not enough.
Each of the many different parts needs its own solution and many of them aren’t straight
forward.
But even where we know what to do, just because a solution exists doesn’t mean we are able
or willing to implement it.
There are many gray areas in the fight against rapid climate change, the most prominent one
is the divide between rich and poor.
Emissions vs poverty
There is a clear connection between the prosperity of a nation and its carbon emissions.
In other words, richer people tend to cause more emissions.
So the key to fixing climate change is simply for the world’s richest to cut back on their
extravagant lifestyles right?
While this would help, it wouldn’t make the problem go away.
This is because 63% of global emissions come from low to middle income countries.
Countries where most people are not living extravagantly but are trying to escape poverty
at worst, and achieve a comfortable lifestyle at best.
The unfortunate reality is that, currently, escaping poverty and becoming middle class
creates unavoidable emissions.
So asking developing countries to cut emissions just looks like an attempt to keep them down.
It is very hard to argue that a region should protect their primeval forests and spend money
on solar panels instead of burning wood, when it can’t meet basic needs for significant
parts of its population.
So, cutting back is not a popular demand, especially if the countries making these demands
got rich by causing environmental damage in the past.
For billions of people, more emissions are a good thing personally.
When we forget about this, we tend to propose unworkable solutions.
Take concrete.
8% of CO2 emissions are released by the concrete manufacturing industry.
Ok cool, stop using concrete, right?
But right now, concrete is also a cheap and easy way for growing populations in developing
countries to build affordable housing.
And there are many examples like that.
Even rich countries aren’t immune from disagreeing about rapid climate change solutions.
Banning coal, gas and oil from the energy mix is slowed down by heated discussions about
what should replace them.
Citizens can be strictly against nuclear power but also oppose wind or solar infrastructure
in their backyards.
In principle all of these issues can be overcome – but there are things we don’t currently
know how to overcome.
The most problematic one is food.
Emit or Die
We will soon need to feed 10 billion people, and we don’t know how to do that without
emitting greenhouse gases.
Because of the nature of modern food production that requires fertilizers or manure, it is
impossible to have zero-emissions food.
Rice alone emits so much methane each year that it practically equals the emissions of
all the air traffic in the world.
What’s worse is that the foods we like the most emit the most.
57% of food emissions come from animal-based foods, although they make up only 18% of the
world’s calories, and 37% of its protein.
And as people across the world grow richer, they want more meat.
Traditional diets in most cultures were primarily plant based with a little meat on top.
But with the rise of industrial style meat production and factory farming, meat has become
a staple food; a regular indulgence in developed countries and a symbol of status and wealth
in developing countries.
Today about 40 percent of the world’s habitable land is used for meat production in some form
or another, the size of North and South America combined.
This is land on which we could otherwise allow native ecosystems to regrow, like forests
in the Amazon, and suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but instead most of it is used
to feed animals.
The available solutions are uniquely able to make everybody on the political spectrum,
rich or poor, unhappy.
Meat is highly emotional and there are a lot of whataboutism arguments floating around,
like comparing it to the worst sources of emissions.
In the end it is pretty simple: eating less meat alone won’t stop climate change, but
we also can’t stop climate change without eating less meat.
The same holds true for other things that are less crucial to our survival but frankly
not realistic to make go away.
Like air travel, oversea shipping, mining and the production of devices that play youtube
videos.
So what does this mean?
Do we need to give up our way of life and can the poor never achieve it?
Can’t some technology save us so we can continue to drive our big cars and eat meat
every day?
Solutions vs Expenses
In principle, this technology already exists: Direct Air Capture of CO2 draws carbon dioxide
from the air so that it can be stored underground or transformed into products.
So why aren’t we implementing it in every industry, everywhere?
Because with the technology we have right now, this would cost some ten trillion dollars
per year, or half the United States’ GDP.
This money has to come from somewhere and currently no-one is offering it.
Just dumping these costs on massive polluters like steel mills and coal power stations would
double the cost of their products – and so these industries that operate on very tight
profit margins would go bankrupt.
Getting the government to pay for it seems logical but a lot of state resources are actually
tied up doing the opposite, like subsidizing oil and gas.
Which seems counter intuitive but follows clear incentives.
By artificially keeping fuel prices low, shipping and everyday goods are kept artificially cheap
too.
Which has a major social impact on billions of people around the world.
That creates political lobbies and incentives that perpetuate this cycle that makes it so
hard to cut off fossil fuel production.
Meanwhile, very costly solutions for a far-off problem like carbon capture seem like they
can wait, as technically nobody benefits from it right now.
Some argue that a move away from capitalism is the only solution to this mess, others
insist that markets should be even freer, without any interventions like subsidies and
some suggest that we need what’s referred to as “degrowth” and to cut back as a
species overall.
But the truth is at least as of now, no political system is doing an impressive job at becoming
truly sustainable and none have really done so in the past.
We also don’t have the time to figure this out and do a lot of experiments.
We must implement solutions now.
Not just to halt the release of all possible greenhouse gases, but also to start reducing
the amount of CO2 in the air.
It’s too late to just mend our ways, we have to actively correct our past mistakes.
With every year we waste, more extreme changes will be unavoidable.
Ok.
Let’s take a deep breath.
Rapid climate change and the world we live in are complicated.
So here is where YOU, dear viewer, come in again.
Could YOU please fix the climate?
A narrative of our time is that we are all responsible for rapid climate change.
That everyone needs to play their part.
Why don’t you buy a new electric car?
Why don’t you replace your gas stove with an electric one?
How about you double glaze your windows, stop eating meat and switch off your lights?
Shifting responsibility from the largest carbon emitters to the average person, you, is much
easier to do than solving problems.
There’s an extra bonus if solving rapid climate change sells a new product.
If you don’t have the money or time for these things, you should feel bad.
It’s an effective message because it is true.
The quickest way to cut CO2 emissions would be if all rich populations on Earth drastically
changed their lifestyles and if the people on the rise would not seek to achieve it.
Favouring the climate over comfort and wealth.
If you are able to watch this video, this includes you.
But we’ve just witnessed a global experiment in staying at home, not using transport and
consuming less during the coronavirus pandemic.
And all it did was reduce CO2 emissions by 7% for 2020.
Asking average people to solve rapid climate change breaks down when we look at the scale
of the problem.
Personal contributions toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions are nice, but they are dwarfed
by the systemic reality of global emissions.
The concept of your personal carbon footprint was popularized by the oil producer BP in
a 2005 ad campaign.
Arguably one of the most effective and sinister pieces of propaganda that still seriously
distracts all of us from the reality of the situation.
If you eliminated 100% of your emissions for the rest of your life, you would save one
second’s worth of emissions from the global energy sector.
Even the most motivated person can’t even make a tiny dent.
When we put together the dangers of rapid climate change, the scale of emissions and
the lack of consensus over how to solve it, the challenge seems insurmountable.
It can cause decision fatigue and moral licensing, where you no longer feel bad about behaving
in a counter productive way.
We have struggled a long time with this, which is why this video took us so long to make.
So.
What can you actually do?
There are many different takes and they are passionately discussed.
We don’t know who is right, so we can only offer you the Kurzgesagt perspective and opinion.
Opinion Part: What can you ACTUALLY do?
We need a different way to think and talk about rapid climate change.
An all-encompassing systemic approach, nothing less than changing the fundamentals of our
modern industrial societies.
As discussed in frustrating length, the personal responsibility angle is overplayed.
For systemic changes in technology, politics and the economy of this magnitude, we need
to influence the people at the levers.
Politicians need to know and feel strongly that the people care, that their own success
depends on tackling rapid climate change.
When governments and local politicians are reluctant to change laws that affect their
biggest tax contributors or campaign donors, we need to vote them out and vote in people
who respect science.
We need to hold them accountable for implementing the most effective climate change strategies.
Not waste our time with things like banning plastic straws but by moving the big levers:
Food, transportation and energy while not forgetting the smaller ones like cement or
construction.
When industries fight against changing their ways, for fear of losses or in an honest attempt
to protect their own, we need politicians to change the laws and incentivise the deployment
of existing technologies and massively invest in innovation for the fields where we don’t
have great solutions yet.
There is no reason that the profit interests of industries could not match the need to
reduce carbon emissions as much as possible.
And if they still don’t cooperate harsh punishments and regulation need to force or
bankrupt them.
It's still unrealistic that change of that scope can be forced onto a worldwide economy
quickly enough, because many low carbon technologies still need a lot of time and research – which
means they are expensive.
But more companies will make more efficient carbon capture systems, tasty meat alternatives,
better batteries, cement alternatives and so on, if there is a clear and growing demand.
And if you are affluent enough, you can do your part by investing in these things right
now while they're still expensive.
These are the mechanisms that will drive the prices down later on.
So this is basically what you can do.
Vote at the ballot, vote with your wallet.
There are too many opposing interests and complicated grey zones.
In the end if we truly get the systemic change we need, everybody will be unhappy about some
aspect of it.
Only if we all accept that some solutions will have negative impacts for us, can we
have an honest conversation and make progress.
Everybody will be a little unhappy.
And that is ok.
This is the best you can do.
You can deal with the reality of the situation and promote your priorities through your behaviour
and your actions.
And while you do so, you can eat less meat, fly less or get an electric car.
Not because you should feel guilty if you don’t or because you naively believe that
you alone can stop rapid climate change – but to do your tiny, tiny part for the systemic
change we need.
This video was supported by Gates Notes, the personal blog of Bill Gates, where he writes
about global health, climate change, and more.
Check out gatesnotes.com to learn more about ways the world can work together to reach
zero greenhouse gas emissions, or use the link below.
And in the spirit of transparency, if you want to learn more about how we handle Sponsorships
like this one, we also have a medium article describing how we do it.
Browse More Related Video
【ゆっくり解説】3年後にAGIが到来する。私達は驚く程準備が出来ていない。OpenAI元社員が警告する衝撃の未来予測
【要注意】人事には細心の注意を払います。1つの判断で組織は大きく変わります。昇進・昇格させてはいけない社員の特徴をお伝えしました。/出世させてはいけない/才能・成果だけでは上げない/【42/100話】
衰退する日本の未来。若者はどう動くべき?
We are not alone: Illya Azaroff at TEDxNYIT
Crypto Lobby Bolsters War Chest for US Elections
【なぜ必要なのか】目先の儲けや売上、短期的な発展ではなく、長期的に会社の繁栄をつくるためには、理念をお題目にせず、利益までの一貫性を通しきる理念経営を追求するべきです/パーパス経営/【46/100話】
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)