This is the most important video you are ever going to watch, and it's why I'm here on screen talking to you today. Because humanity has lost the fight against climate change. These were the words of renowned environmentalist David Suzuki, and they sent shockwaves around the world in July 2025 when he spoke them. And I'm afraid it gets worse. Carl Sagan, an American scientist, said extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception. So yes, he said, we will go extinct. The only question is when and not if. I find it hard to believe that humans will still populate the planet by 2100. And if you think that's bad, wait till you hear this one. Michael Dowd said I think half or more of the human population, that's three to five billion people, will likely starve within 16 months of the first multi-bread basket failure, most likely this decade. Truthfully, I would rather tell you differently. I'd love to talk about some sort of climate silver bullet that can bring us back from the edge of the cliff, but I don't think that exists. And I actually, I didn't really want to make this video if I'm honest with you, but I felt like I had to say something in response to all those words. You know, I have a channel called Astrum Earth. It would be remiss not to talk about what's actually happening here on Earth. And this one's a little bit different, as I'm sure you may have noticed. This feels like way too an important conversation not to have eye to eye. So that's what we're going to do in this video. You and I having a conversation. I want this to be your all encompassing guide to climate change. And we're going to look at where we're really at. And fair warning this this ain't gonna be pretty you're gonna get angry i mean geez i'm angry i'm outraged whatever the right word is i feel it too and i'm right here with you on this strange journey we're about to embark upon i feel like i should say now please don't hate me during this be angry at why it's been allowed to happen feel free shout in the comments rage at policymakers be pissed off please we all are this video is based not on my opinions or anyone here at astromearth's but And in true Astrum Earth style, this is based on science. All right, let's get into it. I'm James Stewart and you're watching Astrum Earth. In this video, I'm going to show you every single chance humanity had to stop climate collapse and how we blew every single one. We'll explore the latest climate data to see whether David Suzuki's claims are backed up and we'll confront the ultimate question. Have we truly lost the fight against climate change? So first things first, you may be wondering how we got here. So let's start by looking at all the times the world has come together to successfully unite on fighting climate change and save humanity. Yeah, makes for short reading that, doesn't it? Actually, it makes for no reading at all. So instead, let's look at all the times we could have saved the world. the air. I've set up a handy counter in the corner of the screen so you can keep track. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there weren't any conferences or meetings of world leaders to talk about climate change at all. Then, as science caught up, the UN sort of decided it would be a good idea to have some policies or agreements that sought to regulate our changing world. Enter the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was set up in 1988 to provide scientific assessment on climate change for policymakers. And I bet all those policymakers were thrilled. They set up some other fancy-sounding groups too, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is a bit of a mouthful, or UNFCCC, which is the treaty that provides the framework for international climate action. They also started hosting COPS, or Conference of the Parties, which of the annual meetings you may have seen hit the news every year, in which countries that are parties to the treaty gather to make decisions, or at least they're supposed to. And by the end of this video, you'll see why every one of those meetings failed, and why actually the most dangerous decade to be alive is the one we're living in right now. It wouldn't be until 1992 that one of those UN acronyms came to fruition. And at the UNFCCC, parties agreed to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Chance number one to save the world went about as well as you might expect. In the subsequent years the planet did actually cool down, but not due to government action, but because of a huge volcanic eruption. With little human progress made, just five years later another meeting was held. The Kyoto Protocol, which although adopted in 1997, due to a complex ratification process, didn't enter into force until 2005. Who needs urgency anyway? Its main purpose was to commit 37 industrialised nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012, with, by the way, no mention of temperature limitations. You can probably see where this is going. Fear not, because there was another agreement in 2010, of course there was, the Cancun Agreement. Maybe this could be the one. Now, this really was the first time temperature levels were mentioned, and an agreement was formalised to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, during this time, research continued to show, unsurprisingly, that for some countries and vulnerable ecosystems, the risk of grave damage rapidly increases at less than 2 degrees Celsius of warming. So, yeah, another miss. Now, here's the good stuff, because in 2015, nearly the entire world, 195 odd nations, came together at the United Nations held International Climate Meeting, or COP21, to sign the Paris Agreement. And that date in December 2015 should have been remembered as the day the human race came together and saved the world. Now, up to this point, you could argue the world didn't really understand the scale of the problem. But after this next meeting in Paris, that excuse disappears completely. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century and pursue efforts to keep warming within the safer limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius. And I don't think I need to tell you what happened here, do I? Once again, owing to self-interest, economic inequalities, and some would say downright greed. Spoiler alert, current end of century predictions place us at 3.5 to 4 degrees of warming. Now, hilariously, I'm also recording this hot on the heels of the most recent COP. COP30 in Brazil took place recently and once again, they failed to cut fossil fuels. Great work, everyone. Great trip. Love that. Now, in any conversation about climate change, you'll notice the figure 1.5 degrees Celsius is rarely far from the discussion. But what does this actually mean? Because it doesn't sound like a huge number, does it? So what's all the fuss about? 1.5 degrees Celsius above what? Well the answer is a wholly unsatisfactory average We usually define it as the average global temperature over the pre period or the time before the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human emissions began to significantly influence global temperatures. For instance, the September 2023 global surface temperature was 1.44 degrees above average, specifically the average September of the 20th century. But it's not always that simple, because we don't make it easy for ourselves. The definition of which years make up this pre-industrial period varies. Most historians would define the dates of the Industrial Revolution between the mid-1700s and the mid-1800s. But scientific definitions of pre-industrial typically cover some ranges of decades between 1850 and 1900. Now, that's not because scientists are terrible at history, but because that's the earliest time period with widespread, consistent surface temperature records to go off. Without getting too bogged down in the technicalities, the crucial takeaway really here is that industrial versus pre-industrial is actually about the human impact on our climate and how scientists can distinguish that from natural variability going back thousands of years. Which brings us back to the big question. who decided 1.5 was going to be the magic number? The Paris Agreement was the only time everyone agreed to an actual number for the global warming limit. That's it. We sort of have no other benchmark but that 1.5 degrees. As a direct result of the Paris Agreement, the IPCC put together a special report in 2018, in which they warned global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees between 2030 and 2052, if it continues to increase at the current rate. OK, good news, it's still 2018 at this point. Remember, there's still time to act. So, did we listen to that warning? What do you reckon? Well, in its sixth assessment report, the AR6, released in parts from 2021 through to 2023, the IPCC said if we wanted to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, then global CO2 emissions would need to peak by 2025. at the latest and then fall by 43% in time for 2030. That's relative to 2019 levels. And methane emissions will then need to drop by about a third in the same time frame. Now, here's a good bit, because I'm here. This, this is the future. It's early 2026 as I record this. They've had so many chances to sort this out. Oh, they wouldn't let us down, would they? Sure, surely not. Up until this point, everything so far has been nothing short of a brief history lesson, really. But what comes next is the part that decides whether this century is survivable. Let's start with emissions, where the news is not good. In fact, it's terrible. Because atmospheric emissions of CO2 hit a record high in June 2025, at 427 parts per million. For context, the last time CO2 was that high was likely over 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were about 2.5 to 4 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels. And sea levels were 25 metres higher than today. What? So yeah, what I'm telling you is that despite knowing this would happen for 40 odd years, not only did emissions continue to rise, they're now so high they're at the same level as before or the earliest known members of our genus even existed. Should quickly say the reason it's not actually 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius hotter today is down to a time lag between cause and effect in our climate. In other words, we'll experience the full effects of today's emissions in the years to come. So sorry in advance, future grandchildren. And if you thought that was bad, it gets worse, because the growth isn't slowing. In just one year, from October 2024 to October 2025, CO2 jumped by about 2.2 parts per million, from 422.35 to 424.54. And there is no sign, according to NOAA, that we've even hit the peak yet. At the beginning of 2020, scientists estimated that humanity could only emit 500 billion more tonnes of carbon dioxide only, if we were to have a 50% chance of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees. But by the start of 2025, a new study said this so-called carbon budget had shrunk to just 130 billion tonnes. Oof, ouch. Yeah, if you're still keeping score. Emissions-wise, there's not really anything else to say other than based on those IPCC reports and those numbers. Yeah, as our friend David Suzuki said, we have lost the fight against climate change, and we've lost bad. The next factor we have to look at is global temperature, the sort of bottom line outcome of all those emissions. I don't even want to tell you about this one, if I'm honest. So NOAA, NASA, other agencies track Earth's surface temperature by thousands of weather stations, ocean buoys and satellites. And when they're not being torn apart by the US government, they release their findings. And who'd have thunk it? It's more bad news. I did tell you at the start of this video, this was going to be a tough watch didn't I? Well done if you've got this far. The data here shows an unequivocal warming trend. In fact the past decade from 2015 to 2024 has been the hottest since records began in the 19th century. For small islands and low-lying nations the reality is hitting hard. They are already seeing storms like 2025's Hurricane Melissa, the largest hurricane ever to hit Jamaica. There water temperatures were 1.4 degrees warmer than average, dramatically and rapidly increasing the intensity of the storm by nearly double. These conditions were made up to 700 times more likely due to human-caused climate change, according to analysis from science non-profit Climate Central. A once-in-10-year heatwave in pre-industrial times is twice as frequent at 1.5 degrees warming, and would cause about 14% of Earth's population to face severe and regular heat waves. A new report from The Lancet suggests heat-related deaths would surge, increasing by 23% from the numbers seen in the 1990s. And they were absolutely right. Very sadly, heat-related deaths now register at well over half a million per year. Even in 2024, pollution from wildfire smoke alone was attributed to 154,000 deaths. In short, even at 1.5 degrees, billions of people would be impacted. The best case scenario is arguably still horrendous. And if that doesn't piss you off enough, this might. Even if you think about the most recent years, 2023 was the warmest year on record at the time. 1.18 degrees above the 20th century average and roughly 1.3 degrees above the pre-industrial level. And no one said a thing. And even more ridiculous still is it barely held that title for 12 months. 2024 came along and shattered that record at 1.55 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Oh, honestly, I need a break. I'm sure you must do as well, because this this is exhausting. So if you're looking for a tiny piece of positivity in amongst all of that, I might have one. Because Noah points out that although global surface temperatures in September, October and November 2023 exceeded 1 degrees Celsius above the pre period there were other influences outside of human changes Factors like El Nino and random weather events can briefly push up monthly or even yearly global temperatures above 1 degrees But to bring us back to reality, human-caused warming was by far the main reason for those high temperatures. And 2025, now we have the data, was the third hottest on record, beaten only by, yeah, you guessed it, 2023 and 2024. Now, these aren't sort of secret stats I've conjured up and hidden in a vault down here. These are readily available to you, to everyone, and of course, that includes governments. And well, should I say this? We might cut this bit out. Anyway, in the 12 months leading up to 2025, governments awarded 492 new oil and gas exploration licenses globally and right on cue donald trump to start 2026 very generously helped venezuela the country with the largest known crude oil reserve influence how that oil is sold so 2026 is picked off where 2025 left off it's off to a flyer But it's not all about data and scary numbers, because all of this alarming information affects something we can't see too. As the independent climate change research organisation Berkeley Earth put it, the Paris target of staying below 1.5 degrees Celsius at this point is unobtainable. Even UN chief Antonio Guterres, speaking ahead of COP30 in Brazil, acknowledged it's now inevitable that humanity will overshoot the target. Let's recognise our failure, he told the Guardian newspaper. Looking at those temperatures on their own without context can be a little meaningless, but these temperature records aren't just numbers, they translate into tangible extremes. NOAA's data also calculates an uptick in extreme events that aligns with climate change predictions. For example, in the United States in 2023, they suffered a record number of billion-dollar weather disasters, things like wildfires, hurricanes, severe storms, which NOAA tallied at 28 separate major events. Globally, we've seen unprecedented wildfire seasons, as in Canada and Australia. Deadly heatwaves, I think back to 2022 in South Asia, or 2023 even in the Mediterranean. Intense floodings like we've seen in Pakistan. done. These kinds of extremes regularly make the headlines now, they've become normal. Climate change has moved from a future threat to a present day emergency. Indeed if we judge by atmospheric metrics alone, humanity hasn't even slightly begun to win. In fact, you could argue we're still digging the hole deeper. For David Suzuki, the man whose words prompted this video, data around temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions are just the start because there's something else going wrong too. Very wrong. I know that was a lot, so thanks for sticking with me. And if you are in desperate need for some good news, you're not alone, I promise you. Not because we want a comforting story, but because we need evidence that doing something still matters because it does. Enter Planet Wild. They are a community-based nature protection organisation helping our planet. I think of them like crowdfunding but for nature. Each month their community funds a mission to restore nature around the world and they document it with a YouTube video so you can see the impact of your contribution. It's actually that transparency that encouraged me to become a member in the first place. They've done such a good job at helping our planet. All you need to do is check out their page to see what they're all about. From turning farmland into an ancient swamp to a wild plan at restoring a forest without planting a single tree. That's particularly impressive. Honestly, I adore what these guys do, which is why the first hundred people to sign up using my code, ASTRUM2, will get their first month paid for by me. Yeah, I mean it. Just scan this QR code or click the link in the video description. You'll immediately have an impact and see the results in less than 30 days. If you want to see them in action, check out their mission to restore a forest with the link in the description below. As we head back to the video. Well, apparently I'm a glutton for punishment because here we go again. Strap in, folks. It gets better. And by better, I mean worse. In the mid-2000s, a group of Earth system scientists led by Johann Hochström identified nine planetary boundaries. essentially Earth's critical life support systems, each with a threshold we shouldn't cross if we want to maintain a stable planet. This is something Suzuki directly referenced in that interview. And the boundaries include climate change, biodiversity, land system change, that's when the transformation of landscapes from things like deforestation and urbanisation, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows, which includes the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading and novel entities, so things like chemical pollution. Staying within these boundaries keeps us in what science calls a safe operating space for humanity, which obviously would be very nice. Crossing them risks triggering large-scale, potentially abrupt or irreversible environmental changes. Think of them like pressure limits on a life support machine. Push beyond the red line and the system can fail in unpredictable ways. So how are we doing with these? Honestly, at this point, I'm almost scared to tell you. From research published in 2023, six of the nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed. Those are climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows and novel entities. Yes, six, two thirds, done, gone, finito, goodbye. And just when it seemed things couldn't get any worse, they did. Quite literally, as I was recording this live, we crossed a seventh ocean acidification gone. Since the start of the industrial era, the ocean's surface pH has fallen by around 0.1 units. That's a 30 to 40 percent increase in acidity, pushing marine ecosystems beyond safe limits. and degrading the ocean's ability to act as Earth's stabiliser. What this means in real terms is that warm water coral reefs, vital to nearly a billion people and a quarter of marine species, have already passed their threshold of stability. Mass coral die-off is underway, and unless global warming is reversed, large reef systems as we know them will disappear. Only two of Earth's boundaries remain in the safe green area, the stratospheric ozone layer and atmospheric aerosol loading. Some of you of a certain age, like me, may remember hearing about the ozone layer at school, but these days we never really hear much more about it. And this is kind of a good news story. It's all down to a global phase out of CFCs, which worked spectacularly well. So well, in fact, the ozone is slowly recovering. A rare success story in amongst all this chaos. Everything else, climate, biodiversity, deforestation, fresh water use, pollution, ocean chemistry, and nutrient overload. Well, that's lit up in warning colours. In Suzuki's words, if we pass one boundary, we should be shitting our pants. We've passed seven. You know what really gets me after all that we just digested from this video There was a 2019 report from the Climate Accountability Institute and they found that just 20 state and private companies are responsible for one of all global emissions since 1965. All of them are big fossil fuel companies, in many cases still to this day turning record profits. Collectively, national governments spent $956 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2023. Yeah, subsidies. Why do these oil companies need subsidies with their profit margins? Like, have they suddenly rebranded as charities that we weren't aware of? Yet, despite all of that, somehow we, we're made to feel like it's our fault. Make that make sense. Okay, granted, passing multiple boundaries doesn't guarantee immediate catastrophe, but it heightens the likelihood of severe disruptions to the planet's equilibrium. We might not notice the cliff until we're falling off it, in other words. So, another battle lost, and another win in the column of David Suzuki's statement for a game he does not want to be the victor in. So is that it? Did we lose? Despite all of what we've just talked about, the IPCC still doesn't frame this as game over, and I don't know frankly if they're just naive or if they're too scared to say it. Instead, they say limiting to 1.5 degrees with a small overshoot, or to well below 2 degrees, is still worth fighting for. After Paris set 1.5 degrees as a goal, Researchers scrambled to figure out how and if it could be done. The emerging consensus was that meeting 1.5 degrees likely requires a temporary overshoot. In other words, we have to go over the 1.5 degrees before we bring it back down again, which is surely an emission of defeat from that agreement, but there we go. The basic concept is that we'd have to use negative emissions, things like carbon removal, to draw CO2 down and cool the planet back below 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. This was a concept floated by renowned climate scientist Professor Piers Forster at the University of Leeds. Forster's article points to modelling scenarios where this happens. He even provided a chart showing how a five-year ratchet mechanism of increasingly ambitious pledges could flatten or even slightly reduce emissions in the 2020s and then drive them down in the second half of the century. During the process, global temperature might overshoot 1.5 degrees by a few tenths of a degree for several decades, maybe hitting 1.7 or 1.8 degrees mid-century, but then slowly decline to 1.5 degrees by 2100. Now, for this to work, every single tool must be used in parallel. Renewables, efficiency, electrification of transport, reforestation, carbon capture, behaviour change, methane reduction, you name it, we have to do it. And that also includes things that were once unthinkable at scale. Things like direct air capture of CO2 or burying carbon with biochar. Because to pull the planet back from an overshoot, we likely have to go to net negative, where we remove more carbon than we emit later this century. And perhaps we stand a chance. The IPCC has documented rapid advances in clean energy. Since 2010, the cost of solar power, wind power and lithium batteries, for example, has plummeted by as much as 85%, making a renewable energy transition more attainable than ever. Many nations have strengthened policies, and by 2022, over 170 countries included adaptation and mitigation in their plans. The IPCC chair Ho-Sung Lee stated, we have the tools and know-how required to limit warming. But the big question still remains, doesn't it? Just because we've got the tools, will we use them? Because what I find particularly worrying about all of this is where this blame for not meeting these targets is being placed, because it's not on the biggest offenders, is it? It's not on big companies and industry, it's on us, it's on individuals. The focus of many policies calls on regular people like me and you to drive less, recycle more, minimise water use, eat less meat, etc, etc. Even the term carbon footprint was marketed by BP, who are a petrol company, to shift the rhetoric and put the onus on individuals to save energy instead of fossil fuel companies. Given that only 27% of electricity is used domestically, this is a huge win for fossil fuel company lobbyists. While I'm worrying about turning my heater down by one degree, BP in Q3 of 2025 reported a $2.2 billion profit. But there is still a reason to lower your carbon footprint. Not because turning your lights off or cycling to work make a big difference in itself, but because the real impact comes from the collective action of others doing the same, just by watching this video for example. It's not about the carbon you save, but the cultural and political change you build. Now this is hugely important. When millions of people start changing their habits, it does two things. First of all, it builds personal awareness and a climate conscious culture. But secondly, it creates social and political pressure. It signals to politicians and corporations that voters and consumers demand drastic change elsewhere. If we keep that pressure on, then hopefully it's only a matter of time before we see a shift in global policies. And those most responsible for climate change are forced to stop. So, have we lost the battle against climate change? If winning meant no damage, no overshoot and staying under 1.5 degrees Celsius, then yeah, David Suzuki was right. the battle is well and truly lost. Even the greatest scientific mind seems to suggest the only way back is going over the target set. Suzuki's despairing view that it's too late also resonates when we count the missed opportunities over the last 30 years and we still, to this day, see emissions rising. We will endure a period of climate suffering that might have been averted with earlier action, and that is just a fact. And the stark reality is there's a 50% chance, according to research at Stanford, that global warming will breach 2 degrees Celsius, even if humanity meets our current goals of rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by the 2050s. With our current rate of warming at around 0.27 degrees per decade, which is faster than anything in the geological record, by the way, 3.6 billion people will be left highly vulnerable. Yes, a lot of change is already baked into the climate and ecological systems. And yes, a lot of bad things are going to happen. But remember this also. The Earth is incredibly resilient. And guess what? So are we. So are humans. I find myself watching the film Don't Look Up every now and then. And if you've seen that or you've heard of it, take a moment as we come to the end of this video to think about who you are in that film. And more importantly, who do you want to be? Thank you for watching this video. If you've got to this far in the video, please let me know your thoughts. You're probably going to need some time to digest everything we've just talked about and that's absolutely fair enough. That's what the comments are there for. We read them all, even the ones that think I'm AI. I'm here, I'm in real life. And on that point, obviously this video was a bit different. I wanted to have this conversation with you like this. If you like this kind of format, let us know. If you prefer just a voice, also fine. Thank you so much for watching and we'll see you in the next one. Thank you.
