[MUSIC] This week, we're going to be dealing with climate change and sustainability. A great global challenge that many of those who sign up for this class already known quite a bit about, others perhaps less. So you'll have to bare with me as, if you've come to this week with a lot expertise you may find some of these things rather basic, but we have a class of tens of thousands students and so we have to make sure that we're getting some of the basic facts out. Trying to understand also, why we should care about these facts and then in the end once again a big challenge what we could do in the, in the face of, of global climate change. So let's start of with some, some of the the, the basic facts climate science has made enormous strides in, in recent decades we understand patterns in the climate much better than we do, even 25, 30 years ago. And now there is an enormous body of evidence, an enormous body of evidence that shows that the planet is getting warmer, and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming of the planet. This, of course, was controversial for a while and I guess part of the reasons it's controversial is because the science is complex, it's based on big data and computer modeling that is not easy to grasp. It's not intuitive. I think is also controversial because, it calls to us, to change our behavior in ways, that will have very serious economic consequences for lots of people, in the industrial, and in the developing world different kinds of consequences for those two regions. But I, it, it's very clear now that the, that the massive consensis among scientists around the world, is that the planet is getting warmer and that human activities since industrialization in particular have contributed, are contributing greatly to the warming of the planet. The National Academy of Sciences in the United States, and science, science, climatologists all over the world agree on this. The human factor in climate change is really beyond scientific dispute and it comes through mostly the burning of Greenhouse, or the release of Greenhouse gasses due to the burning of fossil fuels. You know, very, very clear I, I stress this because, in my country, the United States, there are still politicians who want to deny this. There are still industrialists who want to deny this, that it's the burning of fossil fuels that is a great contributor to climate change. And we, the scientists no longer doubt about, have a, have doubts about this and, and you can, if you try to find somebody who says, I don't believe it, yeah, that's great. But there are thousands of scientists now who, who understand the dynamic and who have prudently come to conclusions about how much warming we can expect and what that warming will do to climate patterns and to our way of life, in different parts of the world. Now, the the projections for warming are may not sound as frightening as you think. We, we believe that between 1.4 and 6.4 degrees celsius is the range of the increase over the the, the coming century, between 1.4 degrees Celsius and 6.4 degrees Celsius. That's a very large range, right? I mean, that's not, that, that's a significant range, and it's on top of an increase since last century of .8%, .8% Celsius. We have a, a, an animated map that allows you to see, the the, the, the results of the, these changes. And, and, and I, I hope that putting it in graphic form, makes it makes it even more clear. what, where these trends are taking place, and over what periods of time. In Elizabeth Kolbert's book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, as she quotes a climate researcher saying this is not something that is dramatic now, that's why people don't really react, but if you can convey the message, he writes. This is the climate scientists. That it would be dramatic for our children and our grand children. The risk is too big not to care. I, I, I think that's the message really, we have, the risk, the risks are too big not to care. He went onto say right now its already five minutes past midnight. In other words, we have gotten so close to the edge of catastrophe we are in a catastrophe that's unrolling, and yet the actions that governments and industry are taking seem inadequate given the scale of the problem. Now, why is that, I mean that's, that's the puzzling part of this, right, is that we hear about the massive scale of the problem. And yet we hear about these long negotations that end in tepid resolutions about changing our behavior. We continue to dump tons and tons of carbon into the atmosphere, at increasing rates in many parts of the world. That we have the science to develop a renewable energy although we don't have it at the scale or at the, with the economic framework that's necessary for massive use. But, still, the reaction seems muted compared to the scale of the problem, and one of the reasons that people have speculated that that's the case is that we humans have a real hard time thinking long-term. You know, we, we like gratification. We like to get something done and then it's done and we feel good about it. You know, they, and many of you will know this experiment about a delayed gratification where the the toddler is looking at a marshmallow and is told if he doesn't eat that marshmallow for five minutes he's going to get more stuff right. And a lot of kids just as soon as the experimenter's not there eat that marshmallow. And in, the ones, some of them can wait, some of them do things, the way they go like this, they don't look at the marshmallow. They, they do all these things so that they, they can think of the long term, project into the future. And scientists have studied these kids many years, over many years. And they find the ones who could really wait are the ones who do better on their tests, who seem to have more success in their lives. And so the speculation is that it's, we have, if you can think in the long term, if you can delay gratification lots of good things will come in the wake of that willingness to delay gratification. But the temptation to grab the gratification right away is strong, you want to employ more people tomorrow, so you want a quick industrilization, we want cheaper gas. We want we want to be able to cool our, houses in the summer more efficiently. All these things, [SOUND] we can do right now. We can do right now. The long term consequence of doing those things right now, scientists understand but the rest of us seem to be, just focused on the near term. And the neuroscientists, they, to, to say that, that's because our brains were built for shorter term responsiveness. And it's much harder to think about the world that our grandchildren will inherit, than it is to think about, wanting to set your thermostat higher in the winter and lower in the summer because that feels good right away. If we continue to aim at feeling good right away scientists have shown us we will destroy the planet. We will destroy the conditions for life as we know it. That's very dire and yet there are ways in which right now we can change the trajectory of our impact on climate change. There are, six major things that I want to talk about that we know will happen as a result of climate change. Rising sea levels, increase in rainfall and and in intense rainfalls in many parts of the, the world, a decrease in snow and ice cover, increase in heat waves. A change in the growing seasons different parts of the world will experience this differently. And then acid, acidification of oceans, the growing acid levels in the ocean. There are lots of other things one could talk about, but, I want to talk mostly about these, six areas. Now, I, I should say that, many things it's, it's complicated to make predictions in these areas because we're, this is a very dynamic system with many, many variables. And changing some of those variables will change all of the outputs. Despite that complexity it is clear that the earths future climate, the earth's future climate will be unlike the climate and that, that we have had for centuries, and that over the last 10,000 years Humans, and other species, and other ecosystems have gotten used to a certain climate. And we have, we thrive in a certain climate. And that will change very, that is changing very dramatically. Even in the 19th century, some economists and scientists recognized that industrialization was contributing to climate change. That dumping carbon into the atmosphere had to have some impact on the pattern, weather patterns because carbon interacts with other elements in the atmosphere. And that carbon can be reabsorbed in in the earth by vegetation for example but, as we put more and more carbon into the atmosphere, even in the 19th century, economists speculated and scientists speculated that we put more into the atmosphere than it could absorb. And that there would be consiquences for that. So, we're here today to talk with two of my colleagues at Wesleyan and we're going to be talking about climate change. You've met them before they, these are colleagues from the, College of the Environment at Wesleyan. And climate change is obviously one of the largest subjects of public concern, of scientific concern, and our students will be reading some short basic papers on the, the, the changes in the in the climate and responsibility of humans for those changes. And I, I thought we start off by just asking each of you to say just a few words about what are the, the most important facts that you think people should know about a climate change today. I mean what, as you think about citizens as, as researchers in this field. What, what do you think that everybody should know about the climate change? >> So, climate change is a reality. And I want you to know that out there that, that humans are largely responsible for the acceleration in climate change that's happening because of our daily lives, and this is being accentuated primarily by people in relatively rich countries, for example, in the United States, and now in China, and what not. And the key thing that we should know is, that what we, we're coming to a threshold soon and what we choose as a world to do and will really determine the prosperity of people on the entire planet in, within the next 50 to 100 years. >> I, I work in Peru with schools as well as native communities, and we are doing these communal gardens with schools. And, this, we do this to teach ecological literacy. >> Yes. >> Which is very low, abysmally low. And to motivate the teachers, the administrators my colleague from Harvard and I give workshop and we tell them, you know, now we're at 400 parts per million. >> Yeah. >> If we, when we reach 600 parts per million something cataclysmic is supposed to happen. And if we continue at the rate we are going, and don't do anything, this is going to happen, as you say, within a hundred year, less than a hundred years. So it is absolutely our responsibility to teach the new generation. >> Yes. >> and, and of course this kind of agriculture sequesters three times by not cutting the trees, by not burning them. >> Mm-hm. >> And by putting biochar in the soil which keeps sequestering CO2. >> Yes. >> So, you know, it is, we try to not scare them. >> Right, yeah. >> You know, keep that balance, not too scary, but really and I feel it intensely, I feel that we need to. And that is in fact why I do what I do. >> Mm-hm. >> Because otherwise I would be despairing. >> Yeah. >> So, direct action, and I love what Barry said, you know? And this agriculture is both for food sovereignty, and health, but it's also for climate change. >> Yes. >> I mean the great expert on, on this soil, and biochar, is at Cornell, Johannes Lehmann, and he has created the International Biochar Initiative. >> Mm-hm. >> And according to him, if all agriculture, were this kind of agriculture with biochar, we would solve, our climate change, issue in a few years of course, the obstacles to that are staggering. >> Mm-hm. >> But from my tiny experiment, and from the studies of soil scientists and other scientists, this kind of soil is much more productive. In fact, experiment that he did with one of his graduate students, he said it's 800% more productive and it's permanent. So you can grow more food without any agrochemicals, without petroleum products and it's healthy, and you are sequestering CO2. So, it's my passion. I push it whenever I can and this is something you know, and we are trying to do it here. Even though got bad news from Barry recently [LAUGH] about the little experiment with biochar they did. >> Yeah and, and that doesn't prove anything. >> We. >> Tell us a little bit, because some of the, some of us won't know enough about biochar and, and. >> Okay so this, this soil was discovered fairly recently by archaeologists. >> Mm-hm. >> In the whole Amazon basin, the low Amazon, the high Amazon. And it's been studied. The one who studied the soil is Johannes Lehmann, a soil scientist. He was in Manaus for years, now he's at Cornell, has his lab. And what gives it is called [FOREIGN] in Brazil which means black earth of the Indians, and it's still fertile today. It's sold as potting soil. >> I see. >> And it hasn't been touched for 500 years, because nine out of ten Amer-Indians died after the Spaniards arrived, so the forest took over. But there were great cities, it was a very populous, complex civilization, that just vanished. But the soil hasn't vanished, and the local people know how to use it and continue to use it. So it's really extraordinary. And the oldest ones are 8,000 years old. The black color is given by biochar, now biochar is a particular kind of charcoal, which is carbonized without oxygen. >> Mm-hm. >> And it produces this biochar, the name is very recent. >> Mm-hm. >> I think it was given in 04 or 05. >> Mm-hm. And ideally, you use agricultural residue. That's what we do. >> Yeah. >> To make biochar, and it is porous so it, it can retain nutrients. The nutrients stick to it. >> Yes. >> And the torrential rains don't wash out. >> Mm-hm. >> And it sequester CO2. >> Mm-hm. >> So I am taking it on the word and the work of the scientists. >> Yes. >> I have not had, this, scientifically, legitimized in what I do, we just know that on degraded land, we have bumper crops. >> Nice, yeah. >> Where nothing grew, so, but, you know, I don't know about, is it sequestering CO2. I just know that we need it. >> It's a good start, yeah. >> We need it to not continue cutting the forest and burning it. That sense. So in those two things, we are, but whether additionally, they sequester it I take it on the word of the scientists. >> It, yeah the, the reason it's sequestering is because it, as you said, it's, it's, the, the, the chemical term is pyrolizatoin. >> Mm-hm. >> Mm-hm. >> That is it's formed without oxygen so actually none of the carbon leaves into the atmosphere in the formation of this. Now it doesn't suck carbon out of the atmosphere but what happens is, is that when the roots of the plants respire they actually, just like we do, they give off carbon dioxide. >> Mm-hm. Right. >> And then it sticks to the, to those clay, clay-like soil particles. >> Mm-mm. What many people don't realize, which really contributes a lot to climate change Is that when people till the earth and turn it over for replanting, huge amounts of soil are, are released. So for example, in tropical areas. >> Carbon, carbon. 800. Yeah. 832 metric tons per acre of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere in the temperate zone or an average like the United States, it's about in excess of 6 metric tons per acre that's released into the atmosphere. And that comes from both microbial respiration, and plant root respiration, so this stuff is able to, to stick it and unlike with normal, with normal agriculture for biochar, you do not tilt the soil. You just plant and then you're returning the excess back into the soil. So the process of formation doesn't release Carbon into the atmosphere and the carbon of root respiration doesn't go. So it, it has that, that property. And one thing's that you know, Frederick has brought up the issue of the relationship of climate change to global temperatures. What I'd like to point out is that, if we don't put another molecule of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today, the Earth will still heat for another 63 years on average. Because the carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for an average of about 63 years. So, so even with what we have, the experts like Jim Hanson are, are convinced that we are committed to about a degree and a half of global Centigrade of global warming. And we should know that every grain crop that exists whether it's wheat or maize, barley, etc., for every degree Centigrade nighttime temperature that the Earth heats up, there's an approximate diminution of productivity by about 10%. That includes rice. So as the Earth heats up, our, the current plants that we have will be decreasing their productivity and this has been taking place for quite a while. >> So the, the question of the effects on people in different parts of the world. is, is one that I know policy makers and citizens and corporations are, are much concerned with and I, I'd like to talk a little bit I guess about the differential effects of climate change. I mean it is a global phenomenon. Everyone will be effected somehow but you know you hear people joking about it, you know, weather's nice. And they say oh, I like this climate change. It's warmer in October. And, and I guess there will be I hate to put it so crudely, but winners and losers or people who will be more vulnerable and less vulnerable. And after I, maybe we can, we can just talk about that. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]
