Importance of Natural Resources

2017 Colloquium on the Environment Keynote – Paul Hawken


– Please join me in welcoming
Paul Hawken to the stage. (audience clapping) – Thank you, Steve. I also want to thank
the planning committee and you know Lara, and
Paul, and Tom, and Nick, and people I haven’t
met and some I have met so far. I also thank you Chris and
Doug Goodstein for today for the student meeting we had. Brandon and Rob Ost for ferrying
me around in this campus and making sure I didn’t get lost. Anyway, so thank you to all of you. Thank you for coming out tonight. Drawdown is a term, in
this case, that refers to the first time on a year to year basis where greenhouse gases peak and go down. And, the purpose of draw
down and project Drawdown, first of all, was to name the goal. And, I feel like so often we hear about what our goals should be, and the goals tend to be about reduction, stabilization, and mitigation. Mitigation is the word we hear most often. And, most people actually
can’t define mitigation. They think they know what it means, but actually it means to reduce the pain, severity, or seriousness of something. And, I ask you if that is a laudable goal for climate change to reduce the pain, severity, or seriousness
of climate change? That’s underwhelming as a goal. I think the IPCC and other
people meant militate, but as an English major, I can only guess. But, I don’t think mitigate actually means anything to anybody frankly. And, so Drawdown, like
I said, is the first time where greenhouse gasses go
down on a year to year basis. And, so as a project and as
an NGO as an organization, our job, what we set out to do was to map, measure, and model the 100
most substantive solutions to reversing global warming. This is about reversing
and not about slowing down or stability. This school I think
produces more, the faculty, more authors, IPCC authors
than any other university in the world by the way,
so this is climate central. But, again I just feel like the science is just extraordinary. IPCC, the science is probably
the best problem statement ever enunciated by
scientists in the world. And, climate communication though, with all due respect, is inept. So we have to really separate those two because the science is really fantastic, but what’s happening is that we are losing the larger audience
because of how we communicate, and I’ll get back to that in a minute. This is a little harsh on the ears. It’s supposed to be. This is Northern Greenland,
and North Greenland Eemian Ice Research Station in the summer. (wind blowing) It’s cold. And, this is the ice cave
where the research is done. Scientists from 14 nations
drill through the ice core to bedrock to really
understand the Eemian period. And, I went there in
2009, and I’ll spare you the rest unless you
want to watch it later. This is what they do. They bring up the ice cores,
and from those ice cores, they can tell exactly what was happening on a year to year basis for 125,000 years in terms of sulfates, pollen,
CO2 levels, et cetera, and really get a very clear
understanding of this. This is the last 400,000 years. And, this shows what, this is
Al Gore’s famous step ladder. But, this shows CO2 levels up until today. They’re between 404, 405
parts per million of CO2. But, actually this is the
actual level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
because this includes the other greenhouse
gasses which is methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, and
this is what we don’t hear. We hear CO2 levels which is
all Mauna Loa observatory can measure, but these
are the rest of them and CO2 are prevalent. So we’re now at 490, okay. And, that dotted line that
you see there is 300 PPM represented. Our genus, homo, homo
foriensis, sapiens, erectus, you name it for 2,000,000
years, we’ve never lived on this planet above 300 PPM until 1937. So we don’t have any idea where we are. This is terra nova. This is not like already
been there, done that. We don’t know where we are. So any speculation about
what’s going to happen in the future is just that. It may be based on the very best science, but nevertheless we don’t know. And, what you see here is the circle, that is the Eemian period. You see that spike. It was not caused by
combustion or fossil fuels of course, very different cause, but the temperature at that
time was one to two C higher than it is in the preindustrial period. So we’re one C now almost. And, that’s one to two
C depending which part of the Earth. And, at that time, the ocean
was 20 to 30 feet higher. There was hippopotami
breeding in the Thames river delta. There wasn’t such a
thing a Sussex or Kent. There was lions and giraffes
romping across Germany and Denmark. Crocodiles were going up the coast of British Columbia to breed in Alaska. There was a very different regime, and that was one to two degrees. And, so again it just
gives sort of amplification to this idea that we don’t know where we’re going or where we are here. The only thing that
makes sense when you see this kind of data is to
go back the other way. And, that’s why we wanted
to sort of put that stake in the ground and see if it was possible by the way. This is how most people
get their information about climate change. Maybe not you. This is a very literate place, audience, students, faculty, university,
but most people get it through headlines. And, the headlines are
intended to basically scare the pee out of you and to adrenalize you to get your cortisol going, go ah. And, then at the same time,
you see clickbait next to it. You have a woman who
smashes her husband’s head with a frog ornament
and keeps him mummified for 18 years as if that
was equivalent importance to our bridge being overwhelmed by tsunami or ocean. I don’t know what this is really. And, you see it again and again. The headlines are accurate, they’re based on good science you know. But, you know chilling
study warns, you know I mean a few more decades to
save, you know this thing of like scaring people
into action is really what we think we’re doing or hope we’re doing. But, then you have 20
things you never knew you could do with Coca
Cola, and actually they are doing the right thing. They’re pouring it down the toilet. So that actually is
instructive as clickbait goes. But, as an individual, then what happens is you think whoa I read the headlines, and I’ve gotta do something. If you google the top
10, 20, 40, 100, whatever solutions to climate
change, you know this is what you will get. And, they’re both science
based organizations, great organizations. That one on the left,
Scientific American, to me, those aren’t solutions those are proverbs. Like love your mother should
be number six I mean for sure. Very difficult. (audience laughing) Forego fossil fuels,
easier, love your mother is much easier. I mean try it for one day. I mean you know come on. And, then you go on the right side to Union of Concerned Scientists, and you have put a
power strip in your home entertainment center. Huh? Who has a home entertainment center? I mean you know. I mean I know some people in LA who do. So again, so when you
see this as an individual I mean if your IQ is
over room temperature, you know that this is not
adequate to the task at hand. You go oh okay I’ll try
to do some of these, but you know in your heart, in your being that we’re screwed, right? And, so boy does that produce activity. No, it doesn’t. It produces disengagement. So you combine fear, threat, and doom with a sense of guilt
and shame that people get when they see what they’re supposed to do, and they know it’s inadequate. Then what you get is
disengagement, numbness you know. And, that’s really what the world is. It’s really disengaged
from this, a civilizational problem of extraordinary magnitude. And, so my question for
years was where do we stand? I wanted to know where
we stood with respect to global warming. And, believe me, I’m an English major. I’m not a scientist,
but I am a journalist. And, so my job as a journalist
is to ask stupid questions to the right people and to research. And, as I was saying today earlier, I grew up in a library. My father taught library
science at UC Berkeley. So I think research is really cool, and I think libraries are the best thing ever happening. And, so we do research. And, that’s what project does. Again, we really researched
the 100 most substantive solutions to reversing global warming. It’s never been done. Not the top 50, not the
top 75, not the top 30. Go find it. It’s never been done. So for at least 40 years, climate change has been in the public sphere. We’ve known about it. We’ve never done this. And, so how do we do it? Well we had no money. We’re a small NGO. There’s a handful of us. I took money out of my retirement plan and put it in. It’s still there. I want it back someday,
but we put the word out all around to top
universities and institutions in the world that we
want a draw down fellows, research fellows. And, we were overwhelmed by the quality and the quantity of the response. And, these people did the research. They’re from 22 countries, six continents, almost half women, half
PhDs all double degrees, all advanced degrees. Extraordinary group of
people in their 20s and 30s who came together to create the research that informs Draw Down. To that, we added 120 advisors. Some of these people you know. Michael Mann is one of them. He’s here. I don’t think he’s here
tonight, but I know he’s here. And, basically they
advised us on the content, what we wrote about it, and so forth. And, then we also added
40 outside experts, scientific reviewers to
review the models themselves. So it was a three step process of review and review and review before
we published our data. Now this is what we did, and we tried to do it without bias. In fact, we had one
bias, and that bias was to go conservative on every number. Always go to the conservative. We didn’t want to, as
they say, egg the pudding. This isn’t advocacy. We’re not actually advocating. We’re not an advocacy group. We’re actually a reality group saying this is what we know. And, so when you see data,
and you see data here which is the rank, and you see carbon which I can light up here. Okay that is based only on
peer reviewed science, period. And, we always take the
median if there’s a spread, or we do sensitivity analysis to take the low median number in
terms of either reduction of emissions or the
sequestration of carbon. And, there’s only two things you can do about the atmosphere stuff,
putting the greenhouse gasses up there. In other words, efficiency, conservation, clean air energy, renewables, et cetera, or bring it back down. There’s only one way we know how to bring it back down reliably and
economically and that is photosynthesis. And, so on the bottom,
these numbers which is the cost and savings or
net expense were all taken again from reliable internationally
respected institutions, IEA, World Bank, FAO, Bloomberg Energy. So all the data you see in the book, and you see tonight you
know what I will present to you is actually what we know. So what we are at Drawdown is a coalition of 220, 40 people. What we did is we did the work. We did the math. What we’re presenting back to the world is what the larger world knows. It’s not what we know. This isn’t our information. This isn’t what we know and you don’t. It’s what we know and has
been obscured or buried. And, we put it together in this way. So really keep that in mind when you look at this tonight. The net cost, by the way,
it showed 155 billion. That was minus. The way we calculate that is
we compare that to business as usual which if you
didn’t do this where it is implementable and
practical to do geothermal, you’d be doing combined
cycle gas or you’re doing coal like that. So we’re comparing that to what you would generate electricity with
otherwise if you didn’t use geothermal. So that’s why it’s cheaper in those areas where it’s practical. And, that is the net
savings over 30 years. So all 80 solutions, there’s 100, but the 80 that we
modeled are all scaling. They’re all at hand. We know how to do them. We practice them. It’s W.W. Grainger. It’s not oh let’s make
hydrogen from coal with CCS. No, it’s like we know
how to do these things, every single one of them. And, what we did is continue to scale them in a rigorous but
reasonable way over 30 years to see if in fact we
could achieve draw down which is to say that point in time where greenhouse gases go
down on a year to year basis. So that is Drawdown. Now I’m just gonna share
some of the solutions, and the purpose of these really is to give you a sense of the diversity of solutions. And, you know again
we, with all do respect ’cause I’m a white male,
but we hear these white charismatic male vertebrates
standing up everywhere saying solar wind, solar,
solar wind, Elon Musk, and don’t eat so many hamburgers, and we’re gonna get a hall
pass to the 22nd century. You know, and it’s like oh really? That is a scientific howler. That’s not true, and
yet that’s what we hear over, and over, and over again. And, so I want, those are important, crucial, crucial solutions, but the idea that somehow if we focus on those, that we can make it through
the century just isn’t true. And, in no way it
denigrates those solutions so much as it just means
that that kind of simplistic thinking isn’t fair. It’s a system that caused the problem. It’s the system that heals the problem. And, it’s not just technology. So this is afforestation putting trees where they’ve never been
before, or where they were so long ago that we’ve
forgotten there were trees like Southern Greenland,
Iceland, and Scotland were forests. And, this is high speed rail. The Chinese and Japanese own this one. We are still fumbling
around in the United States. This is indigenous
people’s land management. And, the important figure
there isn’t the costs and savings which would
be almost offensive to calculate, incalculable,
it’s actually the amount of CO2 that they’re sitting on. That is indigenous people’s
manage and own lands in the world, and that’s more
CO2 that’s in the atmosphere itself, so you can see
how vital these lands are. It’s not surprising that the people who can basically manage
land the best in the world are people who’ve lived there
the longest on that piece of land and survived and prospered. Indigenous is the adjective for indigene, indigene as a noun means the
original inhabitant of land. So the original inhabitants
who’ve been there for five, 10, 6,000 years
whatever, and so forth, kind of know where they live. And, that’s some knowledge
that we should be accessing. This is improved rice cultivation. There’s two ways to do
it to reduce methane emissions by about 50%. And, each method improves
the productivity, the output, and reduces
therefore the cost. There’s no cost to learn to do this. There’s definitely a
benefit to the farmer. And, this is onshore wind. Again, on imagery, both
in the book and here you’ll see we’re trying
to break the cliches about imagery. This is the number two solution. You can see the saving, 7.43 trillion, very conservative. Data came out since we
locked this in last year, late last year that blow this way. It’s actually greater than that because capacity factors in wind
are just really increasing in a substantial way. And, this is offshore wind. And, this is really when we see an image of a wind turbine this is
really what we should be seeing. What we see is a green,
grassy knoll and kids playing in wildflowers, and
up there is a wind turbine going oh it’s so sweet, the future. And, that’s a terrible
place for a wind turbine. This is where you wanna put
them where the weather’s really shitty. And, this is the North
Sea, and this is Norfolk and the Sheringham Shoal. And, these are three
megawatt wind turbines. So this is offshore wind. This is an Uru woman,
Lake Titicaca who lives on a straw island in a
straw hut that floats, the island floats. It’s an island. She has to replace the straw
every 90 days, or it sinks. And, she has been
lighting on her straw hut on her straw island with kerosine, so here daughters could study. So what do you think she’s grinning about? She’s not grinning about the atmosphere, or that she’s saving carbon. She’s grinning because she’s a mom, and she can take care of her daughters in a way that’s safer
right now and so forth. So this is rooftop solar. And, again what we want to do is avoid the drone shots of three
car garages in Atlanta you know with solar arrays,
you know 10 kilowatt solar arrays. That actually is just a new
form or renewable materialism. And, it’s not really
very satisfying to me. You know just to not change your lifestyle but to plug into renewables. I don’t think that’s gonna work. This is women smallholders. I really important point
in this in ag school, we are told again and again,
or you have not an ag school but you have a great ag department. We are told again and again
that somehow if we don’t use industrial ag, industrial
farming techniques, that we can’t feed the world. You’ve heard it over and over again. I started in the organic
food business when I was 20 years old. And, that’s all I heard which
is you can’t grow organic. You can’t do it. People will starve. That was the thing. Don’t you feel bad, you know guilty about trying to do organic
farming when basically that means other people starve. Industrial ag produces about 24, 25% of the world’s food. It produces corn, soy, beef, pork, sugar. It produces diabetes, obesity,
stroke, heart disease, and so forth. Actually big ag is not feeding the world, it’s feeding the pharmaceutical industry. (audience clapping) 70% to 74% of food is
produced by smallholders in the world. 40% of those are women. Do the math. Women produce more food than big ag. And, why is this here as the solution? It’s because women do not get the support the land tenure, the seeds,
the training, the tools, that men get. When they do, they produce
15% more per hectare than men. So it’s like duh. Like help. I mean and the difference
in the amount of food that would create, the less
hunger that would create, the more avoided deforestation
that would create is tremendous and so forth. So that’s why it’s a solution. This is another forest protection. They’re not indigenous, actually probably this forest, in fact not
probably, most of them were indigenously owned as
well, but they’re not now. But, the point being is
that forest protection besides indigenously controlled forests is also an amazing number
on the bottom right of CO2 and the biomass in the soil bellow. This is the Kermode bear
in the Great Bear Forest in British Columbia. And, this is the number four solution. This is a plant rich diet. And, what does it mean? Does it mean vegan, no. Does it mean vegetarian? No. Does it mean omnivore, no. It means whatever you want
to do that’s your choice. But, it does mean is reducing
the amount of protein in the world to a healthy
level which is 50, 55 grams per day not 100, 110 grams
which is what you see in the so called developed world. And, also increasing the amount of protein where there is nutrient
deficiency in the world. So it does both. It brings the world into
some sort of equilibrium over 30 years. And, yes it’s 30, 35% plant based protein which is easily done you know broccoli has got as much protein as beef you know. So it’s not difficult to do. But, it’s the number four solution. And, this is regenerative agriculture. And, what do we mean by regenerative. We mean no till, you know
stop busting up the soil and emitting CO2 every
single time you do it. It meas complex cover crops. It means a more complex rotation. It’s not corn, soy which is
the Iowa, Nebraska rotation. And, it also means wherever
possible to use animals to graze the cover crops. And, basically you do
that, and you have in farm fertility. You have no inputs. Now it takes time to get
there from where you are if you’re a chemically
dependent farmer for sure. But, these farmers are
all over this country. They didn’t do it to save the climate. They didn’t do it to get
organic certification. They did it to make the soil healthy to preserve their farms
to not go out of business to be safe. And, they’re just kicking
ass, and they’re really doing well. And, they’re teaching each other now. So yes, it’s organic,
but you can be organic. There’s a 30,000 acre
organic farm in California who produces carrots. I mean it’s technically certified organic, but I’m sorry it’s not
improving the life of the soil. This is reduced food waste,
the number three solution. And, again, in terms of conservatism what we didn’t model
here, measure or model, is the methane emissions
from landfill food which are tremendous. And, we didn’t do it
’cause we just couldn’t get reliable data. And, so we left that out, but with that, this would be much higher. And, this is a Daasanach
women in Ethiopia. And, what she has on her
head is a headdress made from things that she and her sisters find at the bar across the river
where they’re building a bridge and the men throw stuff away. And, they go there in the morning, and they get the beer bottle
caps, and the sim cards, and the watch bands, whatever else, and they make jewelry or headdresses and jewelry out of it,
and now they sell it to boutiques in France. This is household recycling. If you thought, we have a blue bin, and we have this gorgeous
Daassanach woman. I’m going to show the Daassanach woman as an example of recycling and reuse. And, then we have in the
book also 20 what we call coming attractions. These are scientifically validated, but we can’t model them. There’s insufficient data
both on the carbon side and on the economic side, but they work, and they are working. This is marine permaculture
which is frames placed under the water under
25 meters under the water and a tubes, hollow tubes
that basically are actuated by the rise and fall of the water. And, they go down to the
thermocline, down to the cold, nutrient laden waters
wherever these are placed, and in three or four weeks,
you get phytoplankton, zooplankton, algae, kelp,
feeder fish, forage fish. I mean it is so quick, it’s startling. 99% of tropical oceans are
marine deserts, deserts there is no life in them at all. So what happens kelp
sequesters carbon faster than any other single plant on Earth or below the ocean. And, so what this is doing
is de-acidifying the water, carbonic acid, and it’s cooling it. So it can reverse coral
bleaching and stop it and arrest it. And, it produces a huge amount of protein for fisher folk along those areas that have been fished out. So check, check, check,
check, there’re so many wins here. It’s hard to know where to stop. This is repopulating the Mammoth Steppe. And, again what we’re trying to show here is just how imaginative human beings are, and how we’re on the case that even though we modeled 80 which are extant, and we know how to do
it, and they’re scaling. What we want to show is
that humanity isn’t going oh well great. There’s thousands really
of ideas and technologies coming out. We have a database of
1,100 coming attractions. And, we’re gonna publish another book called D Two as a working title. I don’t know what we’ll call
it with 80 more of them. And, they’re just marvelous, fascinating. And, this one is from two biologists, Sergey Zimov and his son
who his father walked the Mammoth Steppe which is this area. The Mammoth Steppe used to be
the whole sub arctic region from Alaska, Canada, all
the way across to Europe. And, now it’s just a small
area relatively in Russia. But, the theory is that
you know the ice age came and all the animals left
you know were killed off, the wooly mammoth, et cetera. What Sergey Zimov is
saying having walked it for 30 years. He’s saying no we killed
them off because it got cold. It was the other way around. They were extirpated. And, the same group went
down across the bridge and down to the Americas
and extirpated 45 different distinct charismatic mammals. So what he’s talking about
is bringing them back. In other words, repopulating
the Mammoth Steppe with reindeer, elk with
muskox, can’t bring back the wooly mammoth, that was too bad. But, the Yakutian horse, animals that can withstand minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter in the dark. And, what do they do in the
dark when it’s minus 100? Is they brush away the snow
with their hooves usually, sometimes their snouts,
sometimes their horns, but always with their hooves mostly to get to the dead grass to eat. And, when they do that it lowers the temperature of the soil by two C, two degrees celsius which
means this is a permafrost protection plan. And, of course there’s many
other benefits as well. This is a reindeer herd. And, this is building with wood. We talked about this, Tom
Richards is here somewhere. We talked about it last night. Wood buildings are amazing. (laughing) And, we think well you
can’t build a skyscraper with wood. You have to use steal and concrete. That’s actually not true at all. Wood being so much lighter and so strong in terms of weight to strength ratio. You can build skyscrapers. I think the tallest
building now is 14 stories. A 30 story building is in construction. An 80 story, 1,000 foot building is in the planning stages in
London, and it’s all wood. There’s no steel. There’s no concrete. And, you say I don’t want to be in there during a fire of course. These are more fireproof than
steal and concrete buildings. You say no that’s not possible. Read the book. (audience laughing) This comes from Yale, so
it’s not us saying that, and explains why you’re
safer in a wooden building than you are in Grenfell
Towers or the Torch Tower in Dubai that’s burned down twice, badly named building I think. (audience laughing) And, so this is building with wood. A cow walks onto a beach. (audience laughing) Thank you for laughing, I named it. (audience laughing) But, it’s really again
observational science you know we sort of forget about that. But, really people are
outside and doing things and look at something and
go why is this happening? In this case, it’s a farmer
in Prince Edward Island who noticed that the
cows on his dairy farm who ate the kelp were producing more milk. And, the question was why. And, we talked to a county agent. He said I don’t know and
turned him onto a scientist and said it has to be methane production ’cause methane production in ruminants is so inefficient really. It’s parasitic in terms of metabolism. It doesn’t help anything for that animal. So they split the heard and fed some kelp and others not. And, then measured the
exhalations five times a day. And, sure enough, there was
less methane production. But, it’s like a science
experiment that’s interesting but not practical really. But, that scientist in Canada heard of a scientist in Queensland who was doing the same work, and
together they discovered a marine algae called
asparagopsis taxiformis which it fed as a 2%
supplement to ruminants, cow, sheeps, and goats
reduces methane emissions by at least 70%, in
artificial ruminants, 99%. We know the mechanism. So this is not like wow. And, this is algae that
the native Hawaiians have eaten in their cuisine
for over 1,000 years. And, so this is a cow walks onto a beach. Now what surprised us about the solutions about the impact, I would
say everything surprised us. We were shocked. I told the story. I’ll tell it again that
we didn’t get the numbers until February because the
models were so complicated and intersected. They’re systems models. They’re not siloed models. And, we didn’t see the
numbers until February. The book came out April 18th. And, we put in the numbers
last because the book isn’t in order of ranking. So we could just put the ranking last and the carbon numbers
and the dollar numbers. But, I got a call from one of our advisors who is one of the leading
experts in climate published professor IPCC. I mean you know couldn’t
get better and a friend and said how’s it going? I said wow it’s going great. The numbers just came in. We’re shocked. I said not in a bad way
maybe not even in a good way. Just shocked, no idea
this would be the ranking. And, I think like you,
all of us at Draw Down would’ve written down what we thought would’ve been the top
10 with some confidence. I would’ve, and I would’ve
been really wrong. Then I said I don’t think
anybody in the world knows the top five solutions to reversing global warming or climate
change if you will. Not, Ban Ki Moon, not Christiana Figueres, not you know Jeffery Sachs, not Al Gore, not Bill Mckibben, and not Jim Hansen, and not us. And, so we did this. And, she said well what are they? And, I said you tell me. And, she said okay. And so, and I can her
her talking, and she’s talking out loud. Oh mass transit. No it’ll be da-da, da-di. (muttering) It was so fun to listen to this, and she was doing this in her head. And, finally she said
okay, and then boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, you
know One, two, three, four, five. Not in order just that
would be in the top five. And, she said, how’d I do? And, I said that wasn’t
the point of the question. And, she said what’s the
point of the question? I said the point of the
question was look how long it took you to come up with five. And, you’re probably one
of the top one, two, three or 400 people in the world
in this area, climate. What about the other 99.999% of people? If you don’t know, what do they know and how could they know? She said, “Oh you’re right,” and she said, “Well how did I do?” (audience laughing) You got it. They’re all wrong. And actually significantly wrong. I mean she had things up
there that just didn’t make it that high at all. But, it’s emblematic
of where all of us were including us at Drawdown. I don’t want to make it
sound like we’re lording over with you know we knew, you didn’t. It’s not. None of us knew. So it really all surprised us. This surprised us, food
my gosh being the top one. Now electrical generation here is energy, not liquid fuels, so I
want to make that clear. But, food why was it the top sector? It’s the top sector because it’s a twofer. It’s probably along with transport the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses is food production. CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, but when you change practices it can be one
of the biggest sequesters of carbon in terms of agriculture. So it goes both ways. Very few sectors do that. They either stop or they sequester. Land use is purely about sequestration except for you know
avoiding deforestation. So anyway this is how they came out. The number one solution
was refrigerant management. And, we were so disappointed. We thought no. We wanted something sexier. And, yet there it is. And, this does not include
the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol passed last year in Kigali, Rwanda which
basically phases out HFCs by 2030. You put that in, it goes way, way up. And, this is electricity generation. Electricity generation. And, you put 22 which is offshore wind with onshore, and you
put those two together. That would be the number one solution, not refrigerant management. This little cutie pie is
the number six solution, and this is educating girls. And, you say what is that doing here? Well it’s doing a lot here because girls, and I mean just read
about the thing in Iraq that today I read it you can
marry a nine year old girl. I mean come on. So whether it’s early marriage
or whether it’s pulling girls out of school at
puberty or prepuberty to work so they can make money
so their brothers can go to school or whatever
religious customary reason or religious family reasons. 62,000,000 girls who should be going to high school are not, and what happens? Well early marriage,
and they have on average five plus children, and
they earn less money. And, those children’s health is impacted. The income is impacted. The children tend to repeat
their mother’s dilemma. I won’t call it behavior, dilemma. And, if she is allowed and supported to go to school and matriculate
to what we would call high school level, she has on
average of two plus children, replacement rate, and
she earns more money. She becomes a woman on her
terms not somebody else’s terms, or more or less her terms
or a lot more than would be otherwise. And, her children repeat that pattern. And, she puts more resources
’cause she has them into fewer children. They’re better educated. In other worlds, you have a vicious cycle, or a virtuous one. You choose. This is just one pathway to
family planning basically. And, then here’s the other one. It’s called family planing. What we model here is
clinics all over the world that support women’s
reproductive wellbeing, their health and their families. And, when you put the two together, however and you look at it, and this is 59.6 gigatons of CO2. This is 59.6. Actually it’s a 119.2
when you total ’em up. That’s the number from the
difference between the high and the median UN population
projections for 2050 and the UN is very clear that that’s due to the presence or
absence of family planing. And, it’s so interesting. When I gave this
presentation and afterwards at UC Santa Cruz, somebody
said okay yeah great, but how do we control population? And, I thought wow he
really didn’t listen did he. Lose the verb. Just lose the verb control. It’s about empowerment of
women, girls and women. And, that if you put those two together, that is the number one
solution to reversing global warming. And, again, who knew? And, why don’t we know? So here you have three different scenarios and the top 15 solutions. And, you can see how the rankings change as they go across. Those are three different scenarios. The first one’s called plausible. We just took the solutions and scaled them from where they had been
growing up until 2050. So we didn’t really
monkey with it so much. We just continued to
scale in a reasonable way. You know LEDs are not here,
but they actually peak out in 2030s, market saturation. And, then the draw down scenario there is draw down in 2050. In other words, we achieve it in 2050. And, you can see the difference required. And, most of that is in
renewable energy, the increment. But, not all of it, I mean in other areas you can see where there’s increments. So we increase the scaling
of those solutions. And, most of it came in the top 20. And, then the optimum scenario where we go to 100% clean energy by
2050 and other things we achieve drawdown in 2045. So the answer is yes we
can achieve draw down in the next 30 years or 25 years. And, these are the pathways. And, this is what it
looks like on a pie chart. And, again there’s a tendency
to think we should focus on the biggest solutions,
and I just say no. That’s not true. We should focus on all of the solutions. It doesn’t mean you need
to focus on all of them. You can focus on one of them. But, there’s no such
thing as a small solution. We need all of them to achieve draw down not just the top 20% or
the top you know slice that anyway you want. We need it all. And, this idea that small things are less important than big things. I mean which small gland in your body do you think in unimportant? Is it the thymus gland
or is it the thyroid? I mean come on. I mean this idea if it’s
big, it’s important, if it’s small, we can pay
attention to that later. It’s not true. And, so there’s no such
thing as a small solution when it comes to reversing global warming. I just want to make that really clear. The book, the title, the
most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming. It’s the most comprehensive
plan ever proposed because no one’s proposed one. (audience laughing) And, we didn’t even title it. Actually it was a Stanford
inter at Penguin last summer who suggested it. And, I looked at it and I
just oh that’s terrible. It’s so brash. (audience laughing) Really I was like oh. But, I left it on my desk,
and I kept looking at it. You know going actually
he’s right actually. It is the most comprehensive plan. It could be the most
literate, the most nuanced, the most whatever plan. It could be any adjective
you want ’cause there is no plan proposed. But, the important thing about the plan is this is not our plan. I really want to make this clear. We’re not proposing a plan. We are, the big we which
is we found a plan. In other words, we found that in our collective
wisdom and understanding we do have a plan. It’s not coming from
the top or the bottom. It’s not coming from the IPCC. It’s not coming from Columbia or Princeton or anyplace else. It’s coming from humanity. And, that’s what we found out. And, that’s what we’re
trying to share with you as opposed to saying oh we have a plan. We don’t, small we. The big we, we do. And, I want to talk about
this really quickly with this language and the way we language. It’s not really a verb, but okay. The way we language climate
change is to great detriment I think. First of all, we’re using war metaphors. I don’t know how we got
there, but the fight, the battle, combat, you
know slash emissions as if we had emission
machetes and you know and climate crusade. What an unfortunate term that is. I mean apparently somebody
didn’t ready their history. But, what those terms
are is, besides being combative and warlike,
what the are is saying that the atmosphere and
the climate is other. In other words, we’re
here, and it’s a problem, and we’re gonna fight it. Well first of all, you can’t fight change. The climate is supposed
to change, and it does every nanosecond and
thank goodness it does, otherwise it wouldn’t
be fall in Pennsylvania. So that’s what climates do. That’s what atmospheres do. That’s what the human body does. You know you’re body
changes one septillion times every 100th of a second, your body. Everything on this Earth
changes constantly. So to fight change is a fools errand. That’s not what it’s about. So that term fighting
climate change, ditch it. And, the carbon war room,
carbon is not the enemy. I mean this is carbon
lifeforms sitting here you know talking, listening I guess. I’m the carbon lifeform talking. But, the point being is
that carbon’s our ally. And, this term you know decarbonization as a solution, decarbonization is the name of the problem. We took our forests, our
land, coal, gas and oil combusted those, you
know cut down our forest, broken open the soil and put
that carbon back up there. We decarbonized the Earth. That’s not the name of the solution. It’s recarbonization. We want to bring it back home. And, finally this cute little number. You hear it all the time. Two degrees, two degrees,
two degrees, you know C. Now what does that mean to Americans? Most Americans can’t even
tell you what that means in Fahrenheit. Like whatever. But, even if they could,
that’s not the point. Most of the world can. And, what is that number? Well it’s supposed to be a
science based target, right? Beyond which terrible things will happen if we exceed it, and we
don’t know exactly what or when but we know it’ll happen. That’s the implication. First of all, it’s not science based. Joachim Schellnhuber
pulled that out of thin air in 1994 for the German
Ministry ’cause they couldn’t understand the science. He said let me make it simple. Think about it as not going above two C. Maybe he was right. He’s a great scientist. But, he would be the first to tell you he pulled that out of thin air. So that’s our science
based target first of all. Now let’s just assume for
example though that it is accurate. Let’s say it is accurate,
and it very well may be. What does that mean to
a family in Botswana, to a person waking up in Hong
Kong, to a Russian farmer, to 99.999 whatever percent
of the people in the world? It has no meaning whatsoever. Try it. Go talk to somebody in the
morning and say what do you think about two C? Go to the coffee shop,
to the barista, anybody, say what do you think? It’s zero. This is climate speak. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. I’m just saying what it does mean is it has no relevance to people’s lives. And, basically what we’re
saying is this is a future existential threat. We’re saying this is a
future existential threat. The human brain is not wired to deal with future existential threat. The people, our ancestors,
who actually were worried about future existential threats are not in the gene pool anymore. They’re gone. Who’s here is worried about
current existential threat, and that’s why we’re here. So that’s how our brain developed. Maybe it should be different,
maybe it will be someday. But, that’s the human brain
that’s walking around on Earth. So that type of communication
is upside down and backwards. What we’re saying we’re
going in the locked backdoor of humanity. Knock, knock, knock, and it’s locked shut. And, that’s because that means nothing to almost everybody on the planet. You got a mortgage, you
got a job, you got kids in school, you know my
mom has Alzheimer’s. I mean those are the things
that people are thinking about, right? You know I can’t pay my
student loan, whatever. I mean two C, I mean it
doesn’t even get on the list much less rank on it. The front door of humanity is wide open. And, what is that front door? The front door is human needs. We’re the only species
without full employment. Think about it. 10,000,000 species,
they’re busy all day long. We have marginalized human
beings basically told them basically in so many economic
words we don’t need you apparently because there’s
nothing for you to do of value. And, then they act out that
value or their dis-value. And, then we have a
prison industrial complex to put them in. We make an industry out
of dis-valuing people. And, never has there been
so much extraordinary work to be done on the planet. That’s the mismatch. So if we’re gonna reverse global warming, it’s about jobs. It’s about jobs. There is just extraordinary
work that wants to be done. And, it’s not shovel ready
jobs like whatever that is. I never understood that term. The shovel’s ready you know. It’s like you go pick it up or whatever. And, that was in the Obama administration, shovel ready. What we’re talking about is
regenerative development. That is to say processes, jobs, techniques that actually when you
built the transfer system, when you’ve built the city,
you’ve built the habitat, when you’ve created any
system, the whole world is better off than when you started. In other words, in terms of water, carbon, pollinators, biodiversity,
health, human health. Everything is better. And, that’s what we’re talking about. And, if you look at 98
of the 100 solutions in Draw Down, they’re about
regenerative development. That’s what they’re about. And, we would want to
do them if there wasn’t a climate scientist alive on Earth, and we were clueless
as to what was causing extreme weather. We would want to do them. They have so many benefits to humanity. And, so that’s really the pathway forward. This is one of our best science advisors. Spoiler alert, if you didn’t
see the movie, he’s back actually. This is from The Martian. How many people know about the Martian? Good, remember at the end of
the film, he’s in a university I guess it looks like, and he’s talking to one of the astronauts. And, he’s on screen, he’s
the one who came back. And, basically he says pay attention because this could save your
life when I was up there, did I think I was going to die? And, he said yes absolutely. I thought I was going to die. And, that’s what you need
to know going up there because space does not cooperate. The atmosphere does not cooperate. This is the parallel. At some point, everything’s
going to go south on you, and you’re going to think you know this is how my life ends. This is how it ends. And, he said you can either accept that, or you can go to work. And, that’s all there is to it. And, he says you do that math. I love that part. You do the math. You solve one problem, and
you solve the next problem. And, if you solve enough
problems, you get to come home. That’s Andy Weir, the end of The Martian. And, that’s exactly what
we’re talking about here. We’re problem solving creature. We have opposable thumbs. That’s why dolphins don’t
run the world, okay. We do. So we’re a problem solving creature. And, we have problems. The idea that we should
keep sort of talking about the problem to me seems pointless. If you understand the problem, and we do. The science is incredible. What’s the point of saying
over, and over, and over again, we have a problem, we have a
problem, we have a problem? Once you know the problem,
work on the solutions. That’s what we need to do. Not in a try to convince
people that we have a problem. They don’t understand it, that’s okay. Maybe they’ll get
interested in the solutions because that is where the action is, and this is where it’s
going to continue to be and so forth. So again, when we think
about global warming, and we think about this,
it is about coming home. Just what he said, Andy Weir said. It’s about coming home. Let’s come home. It’s our home. This is this exquisite, beautiful, miracle that we live on that’s so complex we’ll never fully understand it. And, it gives us everything
we need and want and more. And basically the only way we can do that is make a tent big enough
for all this to come in and work together. And, so that’s why in Draw Down we don’t make anybody wrong. We don’t blame. We don’t shame. We don’t think we should sue Exon. Go ahead, if you want,
but to me that energy should go elsewhere. Let’s go solve the problem. Thank you so much. (audience clapping) – And with that, I think we should get some questions going. So who wants to ask the first question? – [Paul] Maybe you should, Tom. You had a lot of questions last night. – Actually if you can work to the mic. So I mentioned this. I got a chance to talk
to Paul about last night. And, I wanted, as he’s
coming up, I’ll just let this warm up. Okay so there we go. First question. – [Paul] There’s a proud father here. – [Audience Member] Wouldn’t
building wooden structures cut down more trees? – Yes it would, and the reason we showed aforestation is that we
should be growing trees for the CLTs, laminated
beams, cross laminated timber. But, not the forest that
we talked about indigenous people’s land or other
native forest and so forth. And, the thing about trees
is that when you plant them, aforestation, though you do silver pasture where you plant them with grasslands. Basically they sequester carbon. Then you cut them, and you
put them in a building, you lock up that carbon
for decades and decades. Whereas steal and concrete
are huge energy users, and they produce about 10
to 11% of all CO2 emissions come from steel and concrete. So you’ve eliminated
that, and now you’ve done the opposite which is
you’re using material that’s actually drawing down
carbon from the atmosphere. And, so that’s why Yale says it would have at minimum of a 14%
reduction in total emissions if we built our high rise
or you know three, four, five, story buildings whatever out of wood instead of steel and concrete. It’s a great question. Thank you. – It’s amazing. Thank you very much. Your book is astonishing. Your presentation I think
was something that opens a dialogue rather than shuts it down. Stephen Hawking brilliantly
said that everything we need to know is already
within us just waiting to be realized, and you have realized it. So it’s very exciting. I hope people actually act on it. California, in your book you
talk about how California has committed to by 2020
I think all residences will be net zero and by
2030 all business buildings will be net zero, but what
do we do, for instance, on campus here constantly
buildings are going up. Most of them are empty anyway,
but constantly new buildings are going up, and they’re
not abiding by the knowledge that we have learned. We’re ignoring it I think. What do we do about that? – It’s a great question. If I answer the question, you should run. I have no idea what you should
do ’cause I don’t know you. And, I’m not a Penn
Stater, and I don’t live in State College now. I can make suggestions. But, I really don’t know. I can’t give you a call to
action as to what you should do. Steve is here. You can talk to Steve. He has the same question
you have by the way ’cause we were talking backstage
before the presentation and talking exactly on
that subject which is what do you do with the inertia of people who set the codes and establish criteria? What do you do about people only think about first cost, cap X,
and don’t look at op X which is what does the cost
to operate this building for the next 50 years. And, as long as those are
separate, you know you don’t get to the true cost of a building. I work with one of the largest companies in the United States as a
consultant on buildings, and they have 60,000 employees. And, their buildings, they
make your buildings look pretty good actually. And, really 1950s you know. But, in my work with them,
I showed ’em the data on just worker productivity,
just that one thing then when you go to
basically plant in them or living building, or you go to buildings that actually really work
in terms of light, air, and energy, and everything
that productivity goes up a minimum of 6%. And, that we did the
calculations, and they’re spending over $350 a square foot on people, and they’re worried about
whether the building is $222 a square foot, or
$225, and they’re going there, and the accountants are
trying to cut the costs. And, their actual return
at minimum would be 6% on that cost. In other words, they’re
losing money by saving money. And, the problem is that
students aren’t considered workers, and therefore their
productivity is not measured. Well come on, I mean
that’s so reductionist. So I think whether
they’re business buildings or whether they’re
administrative buildings or whether they’re teaching
or lab buildings and so forth, the fact is that the
difference is demonstrable and measurable. Again, it’s peer reviewed science. I mean this is not you saying that’s true. It is just true, and it’s been proven over and over again. So really it’s about trying to get people to understand the possibilities as opposed to what’s wrong again. In other words, what we
do is what’s happening is that so much is about
the probability of what’s gonna go wrong and hearing that litany over and over and over
again as if that’s going to make it right. And, really when you talk
about the possibility of what can happen when you move towards these solutions people actually light up, and they come together. And, that’s what has to be done here whether it’s local or statewide depending on where the regs are coming
or where the purchasing decisions are coming. And, again the contractors
and the engineers and the people who build
these buildings have a big influence. And, basically what we call
it is infectious repititis. Basically it worked
here, let’s do it again. But, everything has changed,
and the building hasn’t. Yeah it’s a great question. – So many friends of mine seem to have the attitude of like you
know they accept the science and things like that, but
it’s just kind of like they shrug and still go out and get their Purdue chicken from
Walmart and this and that, and it’s just like what are
they gonna do personally is kind of the attitude. I’m just kind of wondering
do you come across a lot of attitudes like
that, and how do you kind of short of you know
giving them this book, how do you lead that
conversation more productively? – Let me ask you all a question
which is when’s the last time you wanted somebody
to change your mind? How do you feel about it? Somebody thinks you’re thinking wrong, and they want to change your mind. It doesn’t work. And, I can ask you a
more personal question which is how difficult
is it for you to change your mind? We get locked into ways
of seeing and being in the world, and this
just what humans do. So the idea of like trying
to convince somebody I think is a fool’s errand as well. It doesn’t work because
they’re gonna feel bad. They’re gonna feel defensive right away. Again, it’s how the brain is wired. And, so what is important
actually is to exemplify to live a life that people look at and go that’s a really interesting life. She’s doing a really interesting thing. They seem really happy. They seem really engaged. They seem, what are you doing? You know? Instead of I’m eating
Purdue chicken from Walmart, and you are what? (audience laughing) So really that’s the way to do it which is to really be an
example of what you want to see as opposed to trying to convince somebody else that they
should change their life because of this fact. – So great talk. I was really excited to
see that food systems and energy were up there. I’m an agro ecologist who’s
getting an energy degree, and so it looks like I have
a future employment option. But, I love the calculations. That exercise is so
necessary, and yet it ignores as others have eluded to
the people in the equation. There are folks trying to
address women’s education and women’s farming and
some of these other ideas, but some of the obstacles are not mathy, they’re people problems. How do you take some of
these solutions and convince people who are embedded in cultures in different value
systems and maybe not even capitalistic economies
and get them to understand that this is a solution
that need attention now not 100 years from now when
your values and culture adapt to the problem – Do you notice something
about your question? Your question is how do you,
pointing to me, do this? – [Audience Member] Can I amend? How do we as scientists
and community members who want to share? – Good you’ve changed the pronoun, good. (audience laughing) ‘Cause now you’re part of it. What we have on the website
is there’s two things. One is educate, one is activate. One, educate means I want to know more about the solution, so
whether it’s a documentary, whether it’s a book, or
whether it’s an article, or whether it’s a paper,
you know whatever it is. Okay so you can educate yourself more. Activate is this is how I
can actually get involved and do something about
this particular solution. In every one of these
things, in girls’ education, in women smallholders,
they’re extraordinary organizations in the world. We’re not standing up and saying the world ought to do this. We’re saying it is doing it. And, those organizations, and those people are brilliant in how they
understand not just the problem in the global sense but in a
very local, cultural sense. And, how do you talk like
with girls’ education there’s some really
brilliant work being done in terms of talking to
the elders in villages, in communities where these
practices still exist in terms of early
marriage and pulling girls out of school for religious
customary reasons. And, what they have done is
learned to talk in a way, in a patient, listening way to allow the elders ’cause they’re all men you know who are setting up the meets and bounds to understand that
everybody in the village benefits when the women
are better educated. In other words, it’s
not like their daughter or this girl. It’s everybody. And, to make that synapse
connection for them with examples, but it takes
patience in other words ’cause it can’t be done by force. And, so what we impressed
us in the research that we did is how much
people are on the case. And, are doing it extraordinarily well. I wrote a book, 10 years
ago called Blessed Unrest, and that book actually we spent two years researching how many NGOs in
civil society were out there addressing environmental
degradation, social justice, and indigenous rights. And, we came up with over
1,000,000 in the world, you know one for every
6,000 people at the time. And, so we’re not aware of them so much. You know we don’t know about
them, but it’s not like you have the problem on
your shoulders, oh my God what are we gonna do about this. It’s important for us to
be able to connect to you to what we are doing about it. And, then you can figure
out what you can do about it, how you can
add, how you can augment, how you can support, how you
can you know that knowledge. It’s an important question. We share the same questions by the way, but we don’t share the burden of it. Thank you. – Hi, I like the optimism of being able to actually achieve some draw down. I think a lot of people
have recently heard about the Paradise Papers
about the tax havens throughout the world, and this is not just from the United States
but of course world wide. And, the numbers being that
1% of the world’s population controls 50% of the world’s wealth. 10% of the world’s population controls 90% of the world’s wealth. So this is not a
tremendous number of people that control 90% of the world’s wealth. In addition to our own
efforts based on you book and everything that we can do personally to try to decrease
greenhouse gas production, do you have suggestions
as to how we can get the attention of those 10%
that control 90% of the world’s wealth as to
try to join this effort? – With all due respect, you
probably are part of that 10%. You live here. – Most of us in this room, sure. – And, so forth. So you have to ask yourself how do we get our own attention? – Well yeah, I may be part of that 10%, but I’m not part of that 1%. The fact is that you know
those people that are making their profit off
of burning fossil fuels, are not interested at
this point, and how do we get our message to them? – And, I want to say we know that. And, reaed Piketty’s book
Capital, and you understand what has happened, why there’s this enormous concentration
of money in the world and getting worse every
year and getting worse and worse. It is highly unstable. That leads to revolution. It leads to tyrannies. It leads to despotism. It leads to dictatorships. It’s leads to demagoguery. It leads to fascism. We know that historically,
and that’s where we are right now. No question about that,
but again, if we go down that rabbit hole, it
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address it, but if we
go down that rabbit hole where are we? Really where are we? Instead of saying got it,
know it, understand it, this is what I’m going to do. What are you gonna do? You’re asking me what I’m going to do. I’ll tell you what I’m doing. I do Project Draw Down. That’s what I’m doing
you know ’cause I have the same concerns that you do. I’m sure absolutely the
same and probably the same take on you know the
headline about 1% having and 10% having 90%. To me, it’s like whoa. And, I can see like you and everyone here the results of that. Maybe not right here on campus, but you can see the
results, and you don’t have to go far to see the results. You don’t have to go far. You know Pennsylvania, who
they voted for as a state and so forth. You know that’s real. That’s where we are. That’s reality. Now what are we gonna do? And, the thing about Draw
Down, it may not be in there. What I know is that what you should or you should do is not
something I know about, but you should do something
that lights you up that really gets you going
that really wants you. Wake up and do it. That’s what you should
do, and I have no idea what that is. So the menu or the breadth
of solutions in Draw Down, and that’s why I said at the beginning look at the diversity,
and that’s just a sample of the diversity. It’s very diverse and so forth. So the women, I forgot, we
didn’t get each other’s name, but I mean the woman talked
about okay what about girls’ education and so forth? Maybe that’s what lights her
up, you know like go for it. And, the thing is if you
look and even as we’re measuring and modeling these things, we’re seeing tremendous growth and scaling of these things. The thing is that the fossil fuel industry had a 200 year headstart on this. It has a big head start on
basically double glazing the planet. And, we’re all part of
it, and we all benefited from it. And, we built this
campus from fossil fuel, and that’s where we are
as well as this theater. So the question is how to move from here in a way that’s inclusive,
that’s collaborative, that’s communal that
actually engages people? And, that’s always my
question everyday of my life. I wake up thinking how do we do this? What can we do with Draw Down? And, that’s what we’re trying to do. – [Audience Member] Think
positive and do our best. – What’s that? – [Audience Member] Sounds good. – But, what we’re doing, what we’re seeing is that collaborations are
coming all over the world. There’s Draw Down Nova Scotia. It came up. We’re not managing it. They’re gonna reverse
their emissions in 2025. And, that’s churches, schools, colleges, city, provincial
government, NGOs, artists, coming together, are already
there, and they’re saying we’re doing it. We have cities. We have draw down cities now. We have a university that’s
committing to draw down. You know big one, 35,000 students. So you know that’s people coming together and saying let’s just fix the problem. There’s a lot of other
problems too for sure. – [Audience Member] Thank you. – [Tom] So we’re about 10 minutes away from a reception and book signing. So we’re gonna move into
a lightning round now. And, if anybody else did
want to ask a question, you need to get in line right now. And, the line’s gonna close. Go ahead. – [Paul] We’re speed dating now, okay. – Okay I’m gonna be lighting fast. First of all, I like the
paradigm of turning it around from the negative to the positive. And, I can think that
Sierra Club right now has to be thinking about not ban the bag but promote reusable. So what I want to know is I don’t know about the management of refrigeration. I know what I think I mean, but I think that I don’t know really
what you mean in totality. Can you explain that a little bit? – Sure, it’s the one area where you don’t have to worry about. When that book came out,
the refrigeration industry was all over us. They’re like, yeah! And, that’s what they’re
doing, and it’s business and they love it. They wanted to feature me
in Refrigeration Weekly. (audience laughing) So what it means is in terms of replacing hydrofluorocarbons with
basically it could be propane, it could be ammonia, it could be a super critical CO2. And, you replace the refrigerants. And, they’re doing it. They’ve already done 10,000
supermarkets in this country. What it means in India and
China is a little different. It’s about decommissioning,
and when you recycle to make sure that the gasses
have been decommissioned before you take the
copper out and so forth. So it means different things
in different countries. But, it’s the one area or the one solution where the industry is all over it. But, what it means is to make sure that those refrigerants don’t
go up into the atmosphere. They’re super volatile,
and they’re basically one to 9,000 times more
effective or more powerful in the radiative effect than CO2. Yeah. – So I have two things. One’s kind of a comment about
the previous guy’s question. Then I have my own. When it comes to trying
to influence the people who have 90% of the wealth in the world, they got wealthy by selling us things, so the way you influence
them is by changing what you’re willing to
buy generally speaking. Like any successful movement
that has made change has done it via that method pretty much. My question is kind of more,
I might be a little bit too forward worried about
this because I haven’t done the math, but geothermal if
you’re heating and cooling your house it’s kind of neutral because you pull heat out
of the ground in the winter and you put heat back in
the ground in the summer. So it’s kind of neutral. When you’re generating
electricity with it, you’re pretty much pulling
heat out of the ground, 24/7, and the heat in the ground it what drives the electro magnetic
field and plate tectonics. And, how much power,
you know how much heat do you have to pull out
before you aren’t protected from the solar wind anymore? Because I kind of like not living on Mars. – I don’t have the physics
on that one, but I do know that the amount of energy
that is in is so massive as to dwarf anything we
could take out geothermally. It’s an interesting question. We take it out of the
ground that’s heat pumps. Actually we model that
differently than this geothermal which you
was here which is really for electrical generation. – So I had a question,
there’s been some talk about newer technologies
that react carbon dioxide with calcium to kind of make
calcium carbonate pellets to draw carbon dioxide out of the air. Is that in your ranking system? Do you think that would even
make it in the ranking system? – Yeah, I think there’s
a tendency for all of us to kind of you know bend
our ear to what we call silver bullets. You know which is like really. I can just pull it out of the air and make calcium carbonate. They can. We’ve actually known how
to do that for a long time. That’s in Iceland where
they did it successfully, but when you look at the
thermodynamics that is to say the cost of that, now they have geothermal energy, so they
can do it really cheaply, but the rest of the world can’t. The costs are prohibitive,
and you have issues of density which is you know
about seven parts per million. And, to capture that CO2 is
a challenging thing to do within the realm to economics. It’s so funny. People get excited about
putting calcium carbonate in a cave and this and that. You know there’s never going to be a more successful direct
air capture machine in the world than a tree. You know so I just feel like we kind of. It’s such a male thing too by the way. It’s like wow trees yeah,
but I got this cave, and I’m gonna liquefy. (audience laughing) – [Audience Member] Thank you. – Hi, I know this is the lighting round, so I’ll be quick. In your judgment, how much value would a carbon cap and trade market have on the success of a draw down plan? – Extraordinary value. Cap and fee, cap and
dividend, there’s different you know permutations. We price carbon, and it is the biggest accelerator of every single
solution in Draw Down. It’s the number one thing that you can do if you could do it. Would be to get it priced,
and what you’re seeing is you know California is
doing it and Saskatchewan is doing it. And, you know you’re starting to see these governments kind of connect in on a tariff kind of like
system you know where you get an advantage if you buy
it from Saskatchewan you know as opposed to
Manitoba or British Columbia. You know if you’re a
Californian and vice versa. And, so I think it’s
actually going to happen from sort of, not the ground up, but you know from smaller
political entities on up instead of happening at
the top which it should happen really. It’s like duh, D, U, H, you know come on. But, you’re seeing
bipartisan support for it in this country which is really fantastic because it is about economics,
and it’s about creating innovation not about you know suppressing economic wellbeing. It’s the opposite. – Hi, appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions. So I work in science communication, and one of the questions I had based on the framing issues you put with, I think you put it as the climate crusade, and that whole genre of
framing and semantics. How would you positively
frame that in your writing and your communication? – Well we do that’s why
we created the book. I’m not recommending
you buy it or read it, but if you do read it, what you will find is that we don’t, as I
said, make anybody wrong. We talk about possibilities as opposed to probability. So we accept the science,
not only accept it. We laud the science, but we don’t then rub people’s noses in what’s gonna
happen if they don’t act. They have to figure that out themselves. What we want to show is
really about reversing global warming and that
depends on activity we do together here not
of fighting or slashing or crusading or combating
or whatever other verb you want to use. So that’s how we do it. It’s not like we’re trying to change that particular language
’cause we just think the focus is wrong. And, the focus should be on who we are and what we do, about
re-imagining what it means to be a human being in this time on Earth given what we know and given the science which is just extraordinary. And, so what does it mean to be alive? Why are where here? What are we gonna do? What am I gonna do with my life? Another way to look at
it is like those verbs and those things imply that
this is happening to you. You know you’re the victim. You’re the object. You know, and you’re just this individual. Like I didn’t do this, but I’m part of it. And, that is such a disempowering way to look at yourself and the world. And, really the way to look at it is that climate change is happening for you. This is for you. Climate change is a gift. It’s an offering. Any system that ignores feedback dies, and that’s just feedback. We should be so grateful for the feedback from our atmosphere
because it’s just nudging, nudging, nudging like come
on you know are you listening yet? Okay try two cat five
hurricanes in a month? Now do you hear me? Okay well I’ll work on it next season. And, so forth. So what happens when you
think it’s happening for you is that you take 100%
responsibility for everybody and everything that’s happened all the way up to this moment in time. So you’re free from that. You don’t have to blame,
demonize, you know anybody else. And, now you’re free to
imagine, innovate, create what’s possible. And, to create a town, a
technology, a family, a life, a community that actually is
very different from the one we have. You’re free to create a much better world than the one we live in now. – [Audience Member] Thank you. – Hello.
– Hi. – I’m a graduate student
here, and I’m originally from India. So the question that I
have is that over the past few years, at least, I’ve noticed that rapidly developing
countries, like India, are mirroring a lot of
things that they see from developed countries
especially in terms of mass production of
food are basically going big pharma, big food, big agriculture. So obviously this concerns me. And, I would just like to know
your thoughts and reflections on this, and also what I
can do as a future scientist or what I can say to probably
negate these assumptions that people have. – You know honestly if were just in a cafe or coffee place I would
ask you that question ’cause you know India, and I don’t. And, I agree with you. I mean I agree with the question, and you see it exactly. Why? ‘Cause big money goes to it. That’s why, it’s big money. You know it’s capital. And, capital wants to recreate itself. That’s what capital does. So you’re seeing India, I mean you think of Ayurvedic medicine, and
you think of the wisdom of the India culture, it’s just crazy that it would surmount
that for basically pharmas which are basically toxicity. And, yet that’s what you
see everywhere in the world. And, you see it in the
recent series of pieces in the New York Times on
how basically cultures that did very well with
their food, very well indeed, and then now Kentucky Fried
Chicken, and then Pepsi, and Coke, they’re coming in and basically you know with the
advertising and promotion making people feel like if
they don’t eat those foods, they’re not cool. And, it’s the same thing
Nestles did with formula you know in Africa which
is convince African women that basically their
breast milk was not as good as the formula when it was just
diametrically the opposite. Formula is a disaster and only
to be used in emergencies. And, so that is happening,
and it’s disgusting. To my way of thinking, it’s disgusting. We said food is the biggest solution. I would say more than anything else food is one of the biggest
culprits in the world, the food industry in
terms of what it’s doing. Because as I said, it’s
creating the pharmaceutical industry. – Hello, I’m grateful that you’re here. I want to kind of move
what you said right now and the idea of advocacy in how can we create venues of advocacy
that are related? How can project Draw Down
and us help to create that which is needed to you know move us? – Good question, and
this’ll be my last answer. So the book came on April
18th, and what’s happened is that in area after area,
for example curriculum, people’s idea of curriculums. Or, people say I want
to develop curriculum. Or, I am developing a curriculum. What we do is connect them to each other, and we then become a part of that, but we’re not managing it or dictating it or telling people what to do. We are listening. We’re supporting. We’re helping. So you have now fourth grade
curriculum for draw down. It is so charming, it’s amazing. Only a fourth grade
teacher could’ve done that ’cause she, in this case, she knows how to teach fourth graders,
how to get them engaged and so forth. We have all the way up to graduate school. And, we have people coming
in who want to support that. And, so we are like this. This is you know maybe like
sometimes traffic managing in a sense. Well do you know this person? You should talk to this person. There is short form video
coming out for curriculum. We’re not doing it. We’re working with the
company that’s doing this. But, the same thing in terms
of faith based communities, they’re collaborating around the country. In terms of cities, they’re collaborating around the country. We’re pointing at cities
in Austria, and Canada, and the Unites States,
and we’re connecting them, Austria I said, Australia,
we’re connecting them together. And, they’re working together
about best practices, how to do it, getting a grant
from the Victorian government in Wendigo near Melbourne
to do Draw Down Wendigo. And, there’s Draw Down Nova Scotia. So we’re doing that. We’re doing that with
investing money, capital. People coming with impact
investors, family funds saying where should we put our money? We want to make a difference. It’s a generational change. People are taking over their family funds, and they don’t want to invest
in fossil fuels, whatever, and pharma. So we’re connecting those groups together. So there’s about 150,000,000,000 of money that’s come and contacted us you know. And, so we are trying to support that. You see it in universities. There’s seven universities
now involved with us. There’s going to be a
permanent Draw Down research institute housed at UC
Davis and connected to ANU, Australian National
University, to TERI in Hyderabad, to Grantham
Institute in London, Imperial College, to ASU, to Duke. I mean, and we want Penn
State to be a part of this too if they want to be, and so forth. That means all the data
is Open Source, API’d, everybody participates. Students here can go into the models, remodel them for Pennsylvania,
make ’em specific to a political, geographic area. And, so we can just
continue this collaboration and expand it. And, that’s how we’re doing it. And, what we notice is that people are doing this spontaneously. It’s self actualizing. I was invited to address Climate Reality which is Al Gore’s group,
and there’s I think 15,000 people who’ve been trained in it. In San Francisco, I gave a
talk, and before the talk, the woman from Climate Reality said I want to congratulate you all because this is the first basically
chapter of Climate Reality in San Francisco. You’re ahead you know of everybody. And, I’m going it took 10
years to make a chapter. And, we don’t have
chapters, but we must have 20 collaborative groups all
over the world right now, more I think. And, we didn’t create ’em at all. You know people are creating
’em, and they’re creating ’em because they have a
sort of feast of solutions of possibility. And, so let’s kind of get together. Let’s figure it out
together as opposed to us saying we know, or you should. Again having this top down
idea of what we should do. You’ve noticed me twice
tonight say I don’t know what you should do. You know this is not a call to action. Your call to action is in you. It would be crazy for me to
say this is a call to action. The carbon tax, fantastic, unbelievable. Let’s do it. I mean let’s come together. Let’s create curriculum. Let’s educate our students. Let’s change our curriculum on all levels. Let’s change where money goes. Let’s change what we eat. I mean all that’s there. The possibilities are extraordinary. And, I think that’s
really what we discovered in doing this by you
know just doing the math and kind of you know
looking down so to speak and really working it and doing it is that the possibilities are extraordinary. – [Tom] So that was a great last question and a great last answer. (audience clapping) And overall, a totally inspirational talk. So we can continue the conversation. It’s really just beginning. And, if you want to spend a
little more time this evening, Paul is going to join us
at the Hintz Alumni Center which is only a three
minute walk from here right across the street
through the Engineering Hammond Building. It’s right there, and there’s
group that’s already there with some food and refreshments
and a book signing. So I hope you’ll join us. And, with that I’d like to
give Paul one last round of applause. Thank you so much. (audience clapping)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *