Starts at 11:20

Interesting presentation.  I appreciate Kevin's no nonsense ability to communicate what people don't want to hear. The present circumstances are not sustainable but exactly how humans are going to respond will be like watching a slow train wreck.

Congratulations to Kevin  again for his arguments!
Could you guys at the Alumni Association change the parameters of the video, so that it becomes possible to submit subtitles in french? K.Anderson's speeches are essential.

we knew, we did not believe, we were not interested... I d left that sentence for future us..

Possibly the biggest romantic illusion of Kevin's whole presentation, is that he foolishly adheres to the notion, that we are going to do ANYTHING to even BEGIN to get carbon emissions to zero.   We are not going to take one tiny little step towards getting carbon emissions to zero.

The biggest reason for this, is the very simple fact, that humans are not going to stop reproducing, nor are we, as a collective, even going to suggest that we should stop reproducing.  I don't mean completely stop, but, at the very least, right now, today, we need to stop reproducing at a rate that leads to growth.  Right now, today, we need to get reproduction down to a rate where it actually gradually decreases the population, until such time where it is OK to get the reproduction rate back up to simply a sustainable rate.  Why can't we just stop producing at a rate that leads to population growth?   Ask any economist.  

As smart as Kevin is, he can't seem to grasp this very simple fact.  Either that, or he just chooses to ignore it.

There's literally no way that we're going to reduce carbon emissions to zero, while reproducing at the rate we are.

Another very simple math based fact, is that, in order to produce enough "green energy" machines, ie, wind farms, solar farms, etc, in order to get our carbon emissions to zero,  it  would take MASSIVE amounts of fossil fuels in order to achieve it.  It would actually require us to put even MORE carbon into the atmosphere in the little time we have left, even further offsetting our carbon budget to the point where we'd literally have to go from putting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, to zero, in literally months.

It would also require massive overhauls of current laws, especially in the US, where, in many areas.  it is currently illegal to have any kind of off-grid set up on your property. In most cities, you can't just go setting up solar panels as you wish.  There's strict zoning laws, and all kinds of red tape to cut through, IF they even allow it in the first place.  Aesthetics and all, ya know... It is also illegal in many areas to collect rainwater.  Yeah....I bet Kevin doesn't know that.
Why the hell would that be illegal?   Good question....

Nothing of that magnitude, is going to happen in the time frame that we have. Period.  Nothing that profound is going to happen that quickly.  Especially not when a good portion of the population doesn't even believe climate change even exists.......but they
do believe in the Bible....

I'm also surprised he's still using the 800 billion tons carbon budget.   That was the budget of at least 5 years ago.  The Paris Agreement was in 2015, meaning that they data presented was done well before that.  In order to come to an agreement between the scientists, they had to poll them, compile the data, get it into presentable form, etc etc, etc.  There's no way that the data presented at the Agreement was any newer than 2 years old.  So...2015, minus 2 years....= 5 year old data.  At the minimum.

Meaning....since then, we've put at least another 200 billion tons into the atmosphere, meaning that we now only have a 600 billion ton budget.  Which means that we have 15 years before we reach the budget max, and that is just the budget required to supposedly stop 2 C warming.....which is actually very laughable at this point.

I'm not sure when the video was actually recorded, but, as it sits right now, if you take the correct start date for pre-industrial, we're already past 1.5 C warming.  So....he's a little behind the times here.

There is absolutely ZERO chance, that we're going to be at ZERO emissions, especially globally, in less than 15 years.  

And the scientists wonder why no one takes them seriously....

The world goes through cycles. Have you all forgotten the ice age?

This is an excellent illustration of a very simple minded approach to an unimaginably complex issue. Let's boil the entire argument down to exactly what the argument is in support of AGW (man made warming). First,  let me say that breaking this argument down to it's true self, it's very essence, it's entire entirety at its core fundamental level should not be as simple as uttering two words but it is. Ready?  

"Scientist say"

VIOLA! That is it in a nutshell.  You need look no further and nobody actually does including this guy. Simple minded explanations for simple minded people make for good propaganda