Climate Change Is Simple: We Are Completely Screwed If We Don’t Do Something Fast

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Zachary Shahan

David Roberts of Grist gave a good TEDx talk recently. Along with a video of this speech and much commentary in text to go along with it (all worth your time), he recently posted his slides for the speech — the slides are great, so I’m reposting them here very quickly, followed by the video:

For anyone who follows climate science, none of this is new, but it’s very well summarized and presented here. For anyone who doesn’t follow the science, believe us, this is the case… or look into it yourself. Skeptical Science’s The Big Picture is a great place to start.

If you want to read more from David on this, check out his full piece: Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed [my TEDx video].

This is why I’m in the job I’m in.

Zachary Shahan (2298 Posts)

I'm the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular clean energy website in the world, and Planetsave, a leading green and science news site. I've been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and I've been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, bicycling, and wind energy for the past few years. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Think Progress, GE's ecomagination site, several sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. To connect on some of your favorite social networks, go to zacharyshahan.com or click on some of the links below.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Corcoran/1591985520 Jim Corcoran

“As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”

“The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.” UN Food and Agricultural Organization’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”

“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org
- Ross
  
  I haven’t gone full vegan but have greatly reduced the amount of animal products I eat.
- http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  
  Full vegan is fine, but not required for responsible eating. Occasional meals that include locally and “naturally” raised meat is a great way to get all required nutrition. Hindi folks who move to other countries that have no “bug bits” in grains often get anemic. So, a tiny amount of animal proteins are beneficial.
  
  It is factory farming that is the problem, and the immense distance we can ship food (for too little cost) — the average food item travels 1,400-1500 miles to get to your plate. We use way too much water, as well. We farm in the frickin’ desert, fer cryin’ out loud!
  
  Slow food, in-season food, local food, organic food (no chemicals at all), and we’d all be a lot healthier and the world would be in a better state, too. A lot more people would be working very productively, and we’d all be happier. We need more CSA’s, more coops, more farms that grow everything within a couple of hours drive of where it is eaten.
  
  Neil
  - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
    
    Meat is far from necessary for a healthy life though. All one has to do is eat responsibly — eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes. Carl Lewis, athlete of the century last century, was vegan. I’ve been vegetarian my whole life and know many others who have too.
    - http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
      
      Right meat is not required, but it is not necessarily a problem, either.
      
      Neil
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        “Right meat is not required, but it is not necessarily a problem, either. ”
        Perhaps – “Meat is not required, but people can eat some meat without meat production being a major driver of climate change” would be better?
        
        If we cut the amount per person and modify our production systems we could get this portion of the climate change drivers to an acceptable level.
      - http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
        
        Hi Bob,
        
        Factory farmed meat is the problem; both because it downgrades the food value of the food we force upon them, and also because it makes them sick (giving them indigestion) and because of the large amount of fuel and water we then have to use to transport and process it.
        
        Cows that eat grass for their whole lives turn something we cannot eat into something we can; and they do not add any carbon at all — they fart less and it comes from the grass that just got it from the atmosphere and the ground, anyway. If they are locally raised and processed, then this adds very little carbon to the air.
        
        As I said, the chemical fertilizer and pesticides we use on factory *plant* farms contribute about 25% of the overall GHG. So, this needs to change, too! By then feeding 1/3rd of this to animals, we are adding insult to injury.
        
        To sum up: it is factory farming AND the immense amount of fossil fuels we burn (for transportation and electricity) that are the majority of human-caused GHG. The rest is largely deforestation.
        
        Local farming (both plants and animals) are NOT contributing to GHG. And guess what? Since both animals and plants are required in the complete cycle of life, we actually need to have both on our local farms — they each enhance the other; as Wendell Berry points out.
        
        Many people like meat, and therefore we will “bring” a lot more people onboard. Meat is a very efficient way to get a part of the nutrition we need. I am in complete agreement with you that we should NOT eat a LOT of meat, but that doesn’t mean that we have to eliminate it from our diet.
        
        We are omnivores, after all.
        
        Neil
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Corcoran/1591985520 Jim Corcoran
    
    FOOD MILES DON’T FEED CLIMATE CHANGE – MEAT DOES
    
    That locally-produced, free-range, organic hamburger might not be as green as you think. An analysis of the environmental toll of food production concludes that transportation is a mere drop in the carbon bucket. Foods such as beef and dairy make a far deeper impression on a consumer’s carbon footprint. “If you have a certain type of diet that’s indicative of the American average, you’re not going to do that much for climate while eating locally…
    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change–meat-does.html
    - http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
      
      We need to stop using chemicals on plants, and we need to stop feeding ~1/3 of the plant protein to animals, and we need to grow as much food as possible locally.
      
      The fertilizer we use now comes largely from natural gas (!) and it is water soluble, so it runs off in the very first rain, and pollutes the ground water and when it makes it into the local bodies of water, it causes algae bloom, and then the oxygen level spike killing most things. When it makes it to the ocean, it causes dead zones.
      
      In the end, the nitrogen combines with oxygen to become nitrous oxide, which is — you guessed it: a powerful greenhouse gas! This is the source for about 25% (or more) of the human caused greenhouse gasses!
      
      Then we transport our food great distances, which adds even more GHG.
      
      When we feed soybeans and corn, etc. to animals we lose a huge percentage of the calories and the proteins.
      
      All along this process, we use way too much water, which we are pumping up from very deep wells and we are quickly depleting the aquifers. The power used to pump and process the water adds more GHG to our shared atmosphere.
      
      Locally grown meat that is fed properly i.e. cows that eat fresh grass and true free-range chickens and pigs — just like all farms *used* to be and how people like the Amish still do — is the perfect solution. As Wendell Berry said:
      
      “Once plants and animals were
      raised together on the same farm – which therefore neither produced
      unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the
      water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial
      fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well
      demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into
      two problems.”
      
      We have to solve both our addiction to fossil fuels and how we grow our food, if we expect to survive.
      
      Neil
silqworm

AGW is a Rockefeller eugenical hoax. It was debunked by R.W. Wood at Hopkins in 1908. Was this so-called journalist a sports reporter before? Let’s see :

I have a B.A. in environmental studies and sociology (from New College of Florida, the Honors College of Florida) and a Master’s in city and regional planning (from UNC-Chapel Hill).

Good guess, just a sociology major. Hey buddy, before you spout your genocidal nonsense in public why don’t you learn something first.
Stan Lippmann, Ph.D. (Physics) J.D.
Pingback: Global Warming News Roundup | Planetsave
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

Even though I already “know” this, and I am already thinking really hard about this — watching this brave soul say what he says — still takes my breathe away.

We simply have to take this head on. We have to change the way we are burning through fossil fuels as fast as we can…

Neil
- Energy4all
  
  You are correct Neil. We need to move to zero emmissions systems as soon as humanly possible for energy production and transportation purposes as much as we can.
  - Ross
    
    That needs to be the primary strategy and message to the public as we have to stop digging the hole we’re in.
    
    Geoengineering solutions to delay the onset of the worst effects of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere will probably as be necessary as the 2 degrees Celcius limit looks too high to avoid them. The appropriate place for them is with the peer-reviewed scientists.
    
    Geoengineering is also more speculative and could have other negative impacts on the environment. We need to guard against the fossil fuel burning lobby using it to create doubt about the measures we should be taking.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  Agreed.
  
  Same here.
http://twitter.com/RSDenton RSDenton

This is less a ‘call to action’ and more ‘either way you’re fairly fucked’. Considering the news is a near constant peddling of fear and anxiety, this sort of thing doesn’t bear well on most.

As with the comment below, you need to give people hope and a reason to fight for a better future, not bludgeon them with fear. Otherwise you’re just the guy in the sandwich board wrapped in 21st century digital media. And no one ever listened to that guy.
- http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  
  This is the situation we are in. It is very scary. And yes we have to find a way, and try like hell to change the way we live. As quickly as possible.
  
  Neil
  - Energy4all
    
    See my earlier post Neil. There are things that we can do.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  clearly, this site focuses on the solutions and the inspiration.
  
  but we need a good wake-up call and kick in the ass sometimes. i certainly wouldn’t be in this job without it, and i think most wouldn’t.
Energy4all

Through some direct application of engineering technology in concert with real time monitoring of a few indicative environmental aspects such as relative humidity mean average temperature fluid systems dynamics and temperatures fluid and atmospheric we should be able to reverse the increase in temperature by applying a patented mechanicaly produced thermocline to reduce the oceanic surface temperature utilizing the existing flow patterns that are intimately associated with weather and climate patterns. I suggested this several years ago and a colleague of mine has been granted patent on the technology to accomlish this with simple wave powered pumping systems that draw much colder water from lower depts and intrduce it into the surface flows of the oceanic bodies. This will reduce the surface temperature of a vast surface area of the oceanic bodies. The clock keeps ticking and the price to do something like this just keeps climbing. I suggested this to the National Science Foundation and have yet to receive a reply.
Energy4all

It couldn’t have been stated more simply Zach.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  i was a big fan of just the straight slides. think the talk isn’t quite as pointed. but it’s still good.
Hh

I appreciate his decision to confront the issue and talk about it. My only suggestion is how about working *with* the human mentality instead of against it? Instead of talking about how expensive it must be to do, how about turn it into a renewable energy race where the winning countries end up with cheap and abundant energy and economically dominate the losers using fossil fuels? Think of the race to the moon. A little competition for domination drives action, unlike trying to convince people to do the “right” thing because it is responsible.
- ThomasGerke
  
  Yep, that’s the way to go.
  
  Join the race and try to catch up!
  
  Alot of apathy is due to lack of information about the possibilites, which leads to a lack of positive imagination. The later causes people to reject the problem because they feel it’s not solveable.
  
  Knowing that it’s possible to build a home that needs no energy for heating / cooling and can be turned into a clean powerplant that produces enough energy for all appliances AND an electric vehicle makes the problems look solveable.
  
  That level of independence and the knowledge about not harming others & future generation puts that home pretty high on my wish-list.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    Thomas – you might be interested in this article…
    
    “Renewable generation, such as wind and solar, receives support from the German government in the form of a feed-in tariff, or FIT. Because there are no costs associated with the wind and sunshine, renewables have a generating margin of zero, as well as legally mandated priority access to the grid. As a result, fossil fuel-fired plants are generating for fewer hours and selling their power at cheaper prices, making them less profitable.
    
    “As long as renewables have zero margin costs, the market design we have doesn’t work,” Jens Teresniak, team manager for business development and market analysis at Stadtwerke Leipzig, said in an interview in Leipzig on June 21. “Capacity markets could be a solution.””
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/renewables-make-german-power-market-design-defunct-utility-says
    - ThomasGerke
      
      Yeah I’ve seen that one .
      
      Despite the fact that Renewables “only” have a 20% share right now, they begin breaking the system.
      That’s why the conventional energy industry is trying once again to slow / harm the further expansion of renewable energy sources here in Germany.
      They are stuck with all sorts of multi-billion investments and solar power & wind energy (owned largly by private individuals) begins to destroy any chance of making a profit with those investments.
      - Ross
        
        I hope no politicians in Germany are buying into that lobbying from a dying industry.
      - ThomasGerke
        
        Unfortunatly, many of the lobbyists are politicans… and they do manage to influence policy in their favour.
        
        But they can’t change things as much as they would like… and there is also a pro-renewable energy lobby.
        Complicated situation. Before Fukushima happend the roll-back against renewables was alot more organized… cloaked in a pro-nuclear course. Now that the nuclear cash cows are being removed the dying industry is trying everything to change public opinion with depserate action.
        
        The current government is in a situation where they have to oversee and shape the transition to renewables, despite the fact that they opposedthe successful laws that made Germany a renewable leader from the beginning.
        In other words:
        They got a task and they proclaimed that they want to accomplish it, but they don’t understand why it has been working so well up untill now. Unfortunatly they still seem to have the ego of thinking that they know a better way… and there are the lobbyist-politicans I spoke of before.
        
        Well, but they won’t rule forever. There are elections in 2013 and the opposition parties want a 100% renewable power supply by 2040.
      - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
        
        i’m going to be watching those German elections closely this time i think.