Видео

'Promoting poverty' the essence of SDG'S

1 metric tonne

Any time the globalist's refer to sustainability, they're talking about personal wealth...

SB

SB

Thanks!

In my belief you are talking about a belief and I don't belief this story. The is no proof. You can not put nature in diagrams and numbers, that is not nature. I assume that all these kind of inputs will hardly be independent as it will be funded by those who want more money and power. It is a money laundering machine, let's say green washing. Why? Because it is all about MONEY. I belief in change from within, smaller initiatives coming from mankind. Small, but increasingly growing rapidly to 'beat' this corporate fiction in 2030.

It's scientifically impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. All the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth is completely absorbed in earth's greenhouse effect by greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface that is always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor. This video has the United Nations Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.

thanks for a very informative concise and precise talk

C’est inexact si l’on prend l’échelle du temps car le CO² suit les températures avec 800 ans de décalage de retard. Donc, si le CO² augmente aujourd’hui, ce n’est pas forcément que la chaleur va monter. Elle va plutôt baisser rapidement d’après les cycles. Voir les carottes récentes faites et comparées à différents endroits sur Terre.

There is no such thing as "Climate Change, it's only used to control people, it's all a lie. I can prove it in many ways.

Sounds to me that this is only for the rich vegans. Strange how every aspect is linked to pushing veganism. I calculated our footprint as acurtate as possible and it came to 2.38. We do not fly, we eat basic as we are in the low income bracket. Now, according to your or the UN's program I must pay huge amounts of money to overseas projects to plant trees, etc to ofset our footprint. Why doesn't the UN not just devise another covid and wipe us out and be done with it?

Le carbone : lâchez nous la grappe avec vos histoires de carbone. Sans carbone, il n'y a plus de vie....!! 😡😉👋

I am interested to know more about calculating products carbon footprint, we produce materials which contain cement, limestone, silica sand, and other chemicals, the construction products or building materials manufacturing industry still doesn't have alternatives, I mean alternatives to Cement, Steel, Wood and other similar basic materials. Now I need to know for example from supply chain point of view, I am importing X or Y product, I understand I can ask the supplier to provide sustainability report if I am interested to monitor my carbon footprint, but once the products are sold, how can I calculate the carbon footprint of the vessels or trucks shipping them, we have different vessels types (bulkers, oil tankers, container carriers and others) and also different types of trucks as well, we rarely import by air, so I would like to know the logistical carbon footprint particularly, and thank you.

Vous relayez les mensonges du GIEC.

♻️♻️♻️♻️♻️♻️♻️🚮🚮🚮🚮🚮🚮🚮🗑🗑🗑🗑🗑🗑🗑réutilisons plus jetons moins.ensembles protégeons l’environnement.

lôooooooooooool

was studying for a pilot aptitude test when a question involving global hectars per person showed up. didnt know what it is and watched this video. very interesting knowledge.

Thanks for sharing

🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🦟 Introduction à la crise du paludisme à Bornéo et l'intervention de l'OMS* - Les années 1950 à Bornéo, lutte contre le paludisme avec le DDT. - Effets secondaires inattendus, incluant la destruction d'espèces utiles et l'effondrement des toits. 01:06 *🐈 Conséquences écologiques de l'utilisation du DDT* - Accumulation de DDT chez les lézards et impact sur les chats de l'île. - Augmentation de la population de rats, menant à des problèmes de peste et de destruction de récoltes. 02:04 *✈️ Solution improvisée et conclusions* - Parachutage de chats pour contrôler les rats. - Importance de la pensée systémique et appel à soutenir la chaîne pour de futures vidéos éducatives. Made with HARPA AI

Nice explanation

Zrównoważony rozwój to już był kiedy ludzie sami mogli produkować sobie jedzenie, współdziałali wspólnie. Rozwój to tylko u masoniwca u nas kontrolę i przymus tego co uważają za słuszne.

Two observations. In all four Vostock climate cycles. Clearly the rise in CO2 followed not lead temperature rise. Second, you didn't say anything supporting why human activity causes climate change. If fact dudnt say anything to explain why the four 100k year cycles repeated

'Carbon footprint' - A government thinktank promotional concept or maybe an attempt by Greenpeace as a reaction to 'global warming' ? Actually, a term invented in 2004 by an oil company (BP) through their PR company (Ogilivy & Mather) at a cost of approx $100M to shift the blame from the producer onto the consumer when the oil companies were getting grief after the millenium from enviromentalist groups. This term has efficiently and affectively been normalised into society and the majority of people have fallen for this genius marketing ploy. The shift of the 'problem' onto 'individuals' and 'your lifestyle' is well established thus diverting attention away from the oil refining process and all of it's associated emissions. The 'carbon capture' scheme championed and funded by oil companies is to facilitate the collection and use of CO2 in order to extract more oil from the earth in a more effective process (called EOR 'Enhanced Oil Recovery' ). Can't believe this old nonsense misinformation is still being banded about in 2024. By all means try to reduce your 'carbon footprint' but don't let huge multinational oil companies convince you that it is your fault. Impeccable social engineering accepted by gullible and unsuspicious populations.

Thank you so much for sharing 🙏🙏🙏

What many don't realize is that the elites of the world want about 90% of the world’s human population eliminated, because there aren’t enough resources to support all of those humans . The idea isn't new, it was started by Thomas Robert Malthus (14 February 1766 - 29 December 1834), and the Malthusian concept is alive and well in the 21st Century--Obama's "Science Czar. John P. Holdren coauthored a book entitled Eco-Science along with George and Anne Ehrlich which called for strict control over human reproduction in order to achieve the Georgia Guidestones' demand that we keep human poulation at under 500,000,000. Climate Change is the excuse for these demands ostensibly to save the Earth. Not much hard science in public school curriculum these days. Most people graduate high schools here never knowing that in the 1600’s the Earth experienced a “mini” ice age, that left many areas of the north Atlantic under hundreds of feet of glacial ice that persists to this very day. The Earth isn’t as warm as it was in the 1500’s-when the world famously did NOT burst into flames-and until the last of those hundreds of feet of glacial ice are completely gone, still won’t be as warm as it was. It is THIS glacial ice that’s slowly melting, causing the oceans to rise. NASA and NOAA can’t seem to agree on the rate at which they’re rising-one says 1/8” per year, the other 1/10” per year. No need to build an Ark just yet. I’ve lived in the same house for 40 years, and the climate in my backyard hasn’t changed. No species have actually disappeared. We have the same wild plants (you might call them weeds); Purslane, Salsify, Goatheads, Silverleaf Nightshade, Black Nightshade, Kochia, Lamb’s Quarters, Amaranth, Wild Mustard, Native Clump grasses, and Dandelions. In my front yard, Prickly Pear Cactus volunteers (seeded by birds) and Spiny Goldenweed.Only one species of reptile-Aspidoscelis neomexicanus. Harvester Ants, “Sugar” Ants, two species of Grasshoppers, Chinese Praying Mantis (Invasive but welcome)Lady Bugs, Leaf Hoppers, Darkling and Dermestid Beetles, Cottonwood Borer Beetles, Black Crickets, Paper Wasps, Yellow Jacket Wasps, Hawk Moths, Noctuid Moths, the occasional Monarch, Tiger Swallowtail and Cabbage Butterflies, the Oriental Cockroach (invasive, unwelcome) and a Mediterranean Cockroach (invasive, unwelcome)-and Sowbugs, not insects, but… . For Spiders, we have two species of Wolf Spiders, two species of Jumping Spiders, Western Black Widows, 2 species of Crab Spiders, Yellow Sac Spiders (invasive, unwelcome), Southern House Spiders,Psilochirus, Herpyllus, Dysdera, Oecobius, Lithyphantes and Clubiona. For birds, we have Flickers, Robins, Sparrows, House Finches, Road Runners, Cooper’s Hawks, Screech Owls, Barn Owls, Mourning Doves-being pressured out of the area by Eurasian Collared Doves (invasive, but good eating) and Grackles (invasive) who ran out the equally invasive Starlings. Only a few mammals-I live in a fairly large city: Squirrels (don’t know the variety), Field Mice, Skunks and Raccoons. It’s true that we’re going through a period of several years of drought, but fossil trees from the area have growth rings that indicate that we’ve had droughts lasting for more than a century. Some Summers are hotter than others, some Winters colder than others, some entire years wetter/dryer than others. In the end, though, it’s the same mile-high Rocky Mountain scrub desert it’s always been. The sky ain’t falling. Remember, when you drive your SUV and your cows are farting, you’re RISKING THE LIVES OF 8 BILLION PEOPLE who will almost certainly die from climate change, and so the punishment for your crime is you have to PAY A TAX. If you build hand grenades in your garage without proper licenses, you risk the lives of your family, and maybe the family next door to your garage-RISKING THE LIVES OF PERHAPS 10 PEOPLE in all, the punishment is 20 YEARS IN A FEDERAL PRISON. Hmmmm… A great book by actual scientists that don’t live on govt grant money stolen from the paychecks of taxpayers is “Hot Talk, Cold Science” by S. Fred Singer, David R. Legates and Anthony R. Lupo. They state that none of the “harm” you’re being told is happening is actually happening to the Earth or any of it’s inhabitants. There is NO empirical evidence that any of the claims of the dangers of “Greenhouse Gases” exists, nor have any of these claims ever been proven, nor is there any evidence to support the claims. Instead of evidence,”CLIMATE CHANGE” COMPUTER MODELS HAVE BEEN CREATED that allegedly prove their wild claims. A COMPUTER MODEL IS A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT DOES WHAT IT WAS CREATED TO DO. Excel can total a column of numbers because that’s what it was created to do: crunch numbers, and Climate models were created to increase the temperatures automatically, once entered into the system from the raw data received from satellites that collect the actual temperatures on the ground all over the world, all day, all night. Remember, when your smiling, lying elected officials tell you about a dangerous situation that can only be solved by you paying higher taxes, the problem is that your lying elected officials want more of your money, and want to convince you that it’s somehow your own fault. One last fun fact: Cows DON’T fart…

How foolish people have become!

Thanks I finally understand about the carbon footprint

All countries should Ban private jet first

Fantastic video. I've gained a wealth of knowledge from your video and have applied much of this information to a paper for my college course!

How many tree do you need to off set you 8.x amount? I have some bamboo tree if you need to buy some.

What a wonderful video, playful, interesting, insightful, clear! Thank you!!! Very useful tool for learning!

Sacrée propagande !

Carbon Footprint originated from a £ multi-million marketing campaign by BP, aimed successfully to place the blame, on you. Don’t believe me, then check it out.

Co2 levels above 300 .13000 years ago wooly mammoth roam around the northern hemisphere. It makes since we are in a ice age

I would rename the 9 Human needs to: subsistence, safety/security, power/contol, leisure, connection/love, knoledge, self-expression, significance, and freedom/spoteneiety! That would be my version of the 9 Human needs!

J’ai enfin compris la RSE merci.

This video by Sustainability Illustrated offers a brilliant breakdown of the circular economy, making complex concepts easy to understand. I particularly appreciated the emphasis on substitution and dematerialization as key transition strategies. The analogy of explaining the circular economy to a child was both charming and insightful.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:38 *🦟 DDT spraying led to unintended consequences, including collapsing roofs due to the elimination of parasitic wasps controlling thatch-eating caterpillars.* 01:35 *🦎 Accumulation of DDT in geckos, consumed by cats, led to cat mortality, causing an increase in the rat population.* 02:05 *🐈 Operation "Cat drop" was initiated to control the rat population, highlighting the unforeseen consequences of environmental interventions.* Made with HARPA AI

You missed the drawings of all the people losing their homes and starving to death in all of the slave camps. You should do an update.

Is a con

🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤

Si vous avez des questions sur le sujet, essayez donc la science de l'ignorance....edifiant !

The best way to erase carbon footprints Is to Put John Kerry And Al Gore In prison For this Scam they have Perpetrated!

So how does the video define the term "cradle to cradle" in the context of the circular economy?

We need more Co2 not less, we are a 0.004, when we come under 0.003 all plant life begins to die! This is the real plan by the NWO terrorists.

The approach to sustainability and corporate social responsibility showcased in this video is truly commendable. By prioritizing environmental stewardship, social impact, and ethical business practices, the company is setting a positive example for others to follow. It's inspiring to see businesses taking proactive steps towards creating a more sustainable and socially responsible future. This video serves as a reminder of the importance of corporate citizenship and the power of businesses to drive positive change in the world. Kudos to the company for their commitment to making a meaningful difference!

Hi, I love your video. It is now 2024, do you still use the pen tablet to draw or something else, like an iPad, for example?

Petite clarification à toutes les personnes qui tirent des conclusions hâtives et lisent des commentaires aux raisonnements erronés. Par le passé, ce sont des mécanismes naturels et non anthropiques qui expliquent que les variations de températures précèdent les variations de CO2 dans l'atmosphère : cycles de Milankovitch, changement de l'orbite terrestre, de l'irradiance solaire, de l'albédo, de la solubilité du CO2 dans les océans... C'est cette chronologie de processus et de boucles de rétroactions positives qui explique l'écart observé d'environ 800 ans entre la température et le CO2 atmosphérique. Actuellement et notamment depuis la révolution industrielle, ce sont les activités humaines telles que la combustion des énergies fossiles, la déforestation ou encore le changement d'utilisation des sols, qui expliquent la variation et l'émission massive de gaz à effet de serre (GES) dans l'atmosphère. Ces émissions de GES représentent un ajout, car initialement stockés dans les sols (sous forme de pétrole, de charbon ou de gaz) ou dans les puits de carbone. Les échelles de temps ne sont d'ailleurs pas du tout les mêmes. Sur les 800'000 dernières années, les niveaux de dioxyde de carbone dans l'atmosphère ont oscillé entre environ 180 ppm lors des périodes glaciaires et au maximum jusqu'à environ 300 ppm lors des périodes interglaciaires (soit les périodes les plus chaudes), selon les données recueillies à partir de carottes de glace (et la mesure des isotopes de l'oxygène) et d'autres archives climatiques. La concentration de CO2 variait de quelques dizaines de ppm sur des dizaines de milliers d'années. Depuis la révolution industrielle, nous sommes passés de niveaux de CO2 relativement stables, d'environ 280 ppm, à plus de 420 ppm aujourd'hui. Ceci représente une augmentation de plus d’une centaine de ppm en moins de 200 ans (et non pas sur plusieurs dizaines de milliers d'années). La science est faite pour être remise en cause me direz-vous. Cependant, nous ne sommes plus à l'époque où l'on doit se protéger des foudres de l'Église ou bien à l'époque d'Aristote et de sa théorie géocentrique, sans validation par la donnée mesurée voire prédite. Ce que nous observons aujourd'hui et depuis des années par des données empiriques résulte de causes anthropiques et non d'une variabilité naturelle. Contrairement à ce qui a pu se passer dans l'histoire de la Terre (soit des milliards d'années), aucun évènement naturel récent (activité tectonique, volcanisme, activité solaire...) n'explique aujourd'hui la variation actuelle de GES et de températures. Les modèles climatiques doivent prendre en compte les variations naturelles du climat, comme les cycles solaires, les éruptions volcaniques et les oscillations océaniques. Cependant, ces variations ne suffisent pas à expliquer les tendances observées de réchauffement climatique au cours des dernières décennies. Lorsque les émissions humaines de GES ne sont pas prises en compte dans les modèles climatiques solides dont nous disposons, les résultats ne concordent pas avec les mesures réalisées et observées aux 4 coins du globe, loin de perturbations et de sources de pollutions humaines (Mauna Loa, Neumayer III en Antarctique, Observatoire de l'île de Pâques, balises au milieu de l’océan…). Ainsi, sans inclure les émissions humaines dans les modèles, le forçage radiatif global est sous-estimé, ce qui conduit à des projections de températures plus faibles que celles observées. En somme : Oui, la Terre s'est naturellement réchauffée par le passé et le climat de la Terre a toujours fluctué au fil du temps en raison de facteurs naturels tels que les cycles solaires, les éruptions volcaniques et les variations de l'orbite terrestre et ce, sans activités humaines. Oui, par le passé le CO2 a été la conséquence du réchauffement et non la cause. MAIS NON, le CO2 et la température ne varieraient pas naturellement de la manière actuelle sans émissions humaines. Oui, l'augmentation actuelle du taux de CO2 est la cause d'une hausse de la température et non sa conséquence. Oui certaines études et groupes scientifiques démontrent solidement le contraire, grâce à de beaux éléments de langage, des raisonnement tordus et en étant massivement financés par l’industrie du pétrole (ils n'ont aucun intérêt à ce que l'on arrête de les rendre riches et puissants). Oui, il y a un consensus mondial sur le sujet et sur la différence entre la variation du climat passé en lien avec les cycles de Milankovitch et ce qu’il se passe aujourd’hui. Oui on peut trouver des périodes de refroidissement localisé ou des fluctuations à court terme dans les températures globales. Oui le changement climatique représente aussi du greenwashing, des transferts de responsabilité (triangle de l’inaction), de la culpabilisation ainsi que des intérêts et des conflits d'intérêts économiques et politiques. Attention donc, car le climatoscepticisme, ses raisonnements erronés et le refus de prise de responsabilité compromettent notre capacité collective à prendre des mesures urgentes et efficaces pour atténuer les effets du changement climatique et à protéger notre génération ainsi que les générations futures. Il est donc essentiel de combattre activement les idées fausses et les informations trompeuses en fournissant des arguments solides et accessibles, basés sur des preuves scientifiques vérifiables.