Ten Billion (2015) - full transcript
Ten Billion is a film about us. It's a film about you, your children, your parents, your friends. It's about every one of us. It's about our failure: failure as individuals, the failure of business, and the failure of our politicians. It is about an unprecedented planetary emergency. It's about the future of us.
[FAINT RHYTHMIC BEEPING]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
STEPHEN EMMOTT:
If we discovered tomorrow
that there was an asteroid
on collision course
with Earth...
If we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth
on the third of June, 2080...
MAN: [OVER RADIO]
Third of June, 2080...
EMMOTT: And we knew
that its impact
was going to wipe out
70% of all life on Earth...
MAN: [OVER RADIO]
...wipe out... all life.
EMMOTT:
Governments worldwide
would marshal
the entire planet
into unprecedented action.
EMMOTT: We are now in almost
precisely that situation.
Except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.
The problem is us.
[INTERRUPTED RADIO SIGNAL]
[SOFT MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: The single most
important project
in my lab is to understand
the future of life on Earth.
We already know enough
to know that we're in trouble.
I think it's important
that someone
from in the science community
come out and say so.
LUCAS JOPPA:
We really are just interested
in trying to figure out
what are the impacts
of humans on the planet,
and can we make
valuable predictions
about what's going to happen
a day from now,
a year from now,
but probably more importantly,
10, 20, 30 years from now.
What does... What does that
predicted future mean
for the fate
of the human species?
MATTHEW SMITH: There is
an enormous problem looming.
But it... The problems
for the vast majority
of people now
are still too far off
to make you feel compelled
to do something
about it tomorrow,
and that is the real problem.
It's kind of such
an obvious thing that people
don't think about it.
Um, that, you know, all
the things that we throw away,
all the things that we buy
and replace and, you know,
that there is another
seven billion people
doing this,
and that's what
you don't think about.
So I think it's more
"ignorance is bliss."
DREW PURVES: We're just not
heading in the right direction
at the moment.
All the problems are heading
in the wrong direction
and we're showing
almost no sign
of actually
tackling these problems.
PURVES: There are a lot
of people that feel that way,
but a lot of them
won't say it publicly.
Stephen is in many ways braver
in terms of being willing
to express
perhaps pessimistic views
very honestly
and in a very clear way.
EMMOTT: I've simply
done my best
to paint as accurate a picture
as possible
of what's actually happening.
But...
I'm shocked at the number
of people
who just do not want to hear
the truth.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
EMMOTT:
If the film acts as a catalyst
for a much broader debate...
Brilliant.
If not, I've failed.
Earth is home
to millions of species.
Yet just one dominates it.
Us.
Our cleverness,
our inventiveness
and our activities
have modified almost
every part of our planet.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: In fact, we're having
a profound impact on it.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: Indeed,
our cleverness,
our inventiveness
and our activities
are now the drivers
of every global problem
we face.
And every one
of these problems
is increasing as we
continue to grow
towards ten billion.
[RUMBLING]
I do just want to point out
that I'm a scientist,
not an actor, as is
about to become
-all too painfully obvious.
-[AUDIENCE CHUCKLING]
I'm here because I believe
that we can rightly call
the situation we're in
an "emergency."
An unprecedented
planetary emergency.
And this is what
I'm going to talk about.
We humans emerged as a species
about 200,000 years ago.
And in geological time
that's really,
incredibly recent.
Just over 10,000 years ago,
there were one million of us.
Just over 200 years ago,
there were one billion of us.
Fifty years ago, there were
three billion of us.
There are now
over seven billion of us.
By 2050, your children,
or your children's children
will be living on a planet
with at least
nine billion other people.
And some time
later this century,
there will be
ten billion of us.
Possibly more.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
We got to where we are now
through a number
of landmark events
that have fundamentally shaped
the state of our planet.
Their legacy will continue
to shape our future.
So it's worth looking
at our growth
through the lens
of these developments.
One of the principal reasons
we were able to grow
was the invention
of agriculture
over 10,000 years ago.
What has become known as
the "Agricultural Revolution"
started with the domestication
of animals
and the cultivation
of plants for crops.
And has developed into today's
intensive industrialization
of the entire
food production system.
It enabled us to go
from hunter-gatherers
to highly organized
producers of food.
And allowed our population
to grow.
And this was also the start
of a fundamental
transformation
of land use by humans.
It's 1930, there are now
two billion of us.
And the impact
of another revolution,
the Industrial Revolution,
was being felt.
The world was
being transformed
by manufacturing,
technological innovation,
new industrial processes,
and transport.
But there's another story
here, too.
The start
of our lethal addiction
to oil, coal and gas
as our principal source
of energy.
Thirty years later,
we've grown to three billion.
It's 1960,
and we're in the middle
of the Green Revolution.
There were more of us,
far more of us,
and we needed more food,
far more food.
And the Green Revolution
provided this extra food.
And it did so,
through the use
of chemical herbicides,
chemical pesticides,
and chemical fertilizers.
And an unprecedented
expansion of land use
for agriculture.
But it was a revolution
that came at a cost
in terms of loss of habitat,
pollution and overfishing.
And it set in motion
the start of the degradation
of entire ecosystems.
[CHAINSAW BUZZES]
By 1980, 20 years later,
there were four billion of us.
Green Revolution
had produced more food,
much more food
and that made food cheaper.
This meant we have more
money to spend.
By the 1980s,
we'd well and truly
started to spend
all that money on "stuff."
Televisions, video-recorders,
Walkmans,
hairdryers, cars and clothes,
as well as holidays.
[SCREAMS]
And at the center of this
astonishing spending spree,
was an equally astonishing
growth of transport.
In 1960,
there were 100 million cars
on the world's roads.
By 1980,
there were 300 million.
In 1960, we flew
100 billion
passenger kilometers.
By 1980,
we flew a thousand billion
passenger kilometers.
And global shipping grew
at a similarly
astonishing rate.
All of the stuff
we were buying,
plus all of the food
we were consuming,
plus all of the raw
resources and materials
required to make everything
were increasingly
being shipped
all around the world.
Just 10 years later, in 1990,
we'd grown to five billion.
By this point,
the consequences of our growth
were starting to show.
Not least of these
was on water.
Our demand for water,
not just the water we drank
but the water we needed
for food production
and to make all of the stuff
we were consuming,
was starting to go through
the roof.
And something was starting
to happen to water.
We saw journalists
reporting from Ethiopia
in 1984
about a famine of so-called
biblical proportions
caused by widespread drought.
Ethiopia is turning
into the worst human disaster
for a decade.
A disaster begun by nature
but compounded by man.
EMMOTT: That, it seemed,
was over there in Africa.
Except that it wasn't
just over there.
Unusual droughts,
as well as unusual flooding,
were increasing in Asia,
Australia, the US
and in Europe.
Water, a vital resource
we thought of as abundant
and free,
was now something
that had the potential
to be scarce.
By 2000,
we'd grown to six billion.
And by this point,
it had become abundantly clear
to just about everyone
in the scientific community
that the climate was changing
and that we had a serious
problem on our hands.
[RADIO OPERATOR
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]
Now, obviously climate
is not the same as weather,
but climate is one of Earth's
fundamental
life support systems,
one that determines
whether or not
we're able to live
on this planet.
It's generated
by four components,
the atmosphere,
the air that we breathe,
hydrosphere, planet's water,
cryosphere,
ice sheets and glaciers,
and the biosphere,
the planet's
plants and animals.
And by now, our activities
had started to modify
every single one
of these components.
Our increasing CO2 emissions
had started to modify
our atmosphere.
And our increasing water use
had started to modify
our hydrosphere.
Rising atmospheric
and sea temperatures
had started to modify
the cryosphere,
most notably,
an unexpected loss
of Greenland and Arctic ice.
And our increasing use of land
for agriculture, cities,
roads, mining,
as well as
all pollution we were creating
had started to modify
our biosphere.
Or to put it another way,
we had started to change
our climate.
There are now
over seven billion of us.
And as we continue to grow,
we continue to increase
our need
for more water, more food,
more land, and more energy.
As a result,
our activities
are now fundamentally
interacting with and altering
the complex system
we live on...
Earth.
We're spending
8 billion euros
at CERN
to discover evidence
of a particle
called the Higgs boson,
to explain mass
and provide a thumbs up
for what's called
the Standard Model
of particle physics.
And CERN's physicists
are keen to tell us
that it's the biggest,
most important experiment,
on Earth.
It isn't.
The biggest,
most important experiment
on Earth,
is the one
we're all conducting
right now on Earth itself.
Just want to take us on a tour
of what's happening right now.
It turns out that doing so
is important to understanding
where we're heading.
Right now, nearly 40%
of all the ice-free land
on Earth
is being used
for food production.
That leaves deserts,
towns and cities,
land used for the mining
and extraction of Earth's
finite resources,
protected areas
such as national parks,
and the world's
remaining forests.
And let's
put that into context.
Demand for food
is said to double by 2050,
increasing demand
for more land.
So no wonder that there's
a remarkable land grab
underway right now.
In the past 13 years,
there have been thousands
of land deals
involving governments
and corporations
buying up lots of land
in places
such as sub-Saharan Africa,
Asia and South America.
Around 50 million
hectares of land
are being traded.
That's an area
approaching half the size
of Western Europe,
bought and sold,
in just the past 13 years.
But that's
not the most important story.
Land use, land degradation,
loss of habitat,
and pollution run-off
are now causing
significant species loss.
The International Union
for the Conservation
of Nature,
IUCN,
the world's leading authority
on biodiversity,
estimates almost 31%
of all amphibians,
21% of all mammals,
and 13% of all birds
are threatened
with extinction.
We're now, almost certainly,
starting to lose species
at a rate at least
a thousand times greater
than we would expect
from ordinary background
natural processes.
Indeed, we may well
have embarked
on the greatest
mass extinction
of life on Earth
since the event
that wiped out dinosaurs
65 million years ago.
Now, when we think
about loss of species,
some of us thinks
about images of polar bears
on thin bits of ice
looking as though,
"This is it."
But losing polar bears
is just the tip
of the iceberg.
No pun, quite intended.
[SCATTERED LAUGHTER]
What we need to be
a lot more concerned about
is the loss
of biodiversity itself.
'Cause it turns out
that biological diversity
is not just a nice thing
to have.
It's the very diversity
of life on Earth itself,
the diversity
that we are eroding,
which provides the things
that we rely on
for free,
like our water, our food,
and our climate.
The loss of biodiversity
on a current scale,
is inevitably going to mean
degradation of these vital
ecosystem services,
as they're called.
Services
that we all depend upon.
The loss
of these ecosystem services
poses a very real threat
to our survival.
You might not be surprised
to learn
that food demand
is increasing.
What might be surprising
is that food demand
is increasing
faster than even
population growth.
Why?
First,
is as more of us get richer,
or are lifted out of poverty,
we consume more calories,
we simply eat more food.
Second, is that more of us
are not only consuming more,
we're consuming differently,
and in particular,
we're consuming more meat.
More importantly though,
the entire
global food production system
is dependent
on a stable climate.
And right now,
the climate
is anything but stable.
And is set to become
more and more unstable
every decade this century.
Think about this.
Food production accounts
for nearly
30% of all greenhouse gases
produced by human activity.
That's more than manufacturing
or transport.
Producing more food itself
is going
to accelerate climate change.
But what's certainly true,
is that we really do
need a food revolution.
Because without one,
billions of us
are going to starve.
Our most recent
food revolution
started in the 1950s.
It's known
as the Green Revolution.
But it has come at a cost.
The first Green Revolution
focused on increasing
crop yield.
But to increase yield,
we had to introduce
chemical fertilizers
and breed shorter crops.
In breeding shorter crops,
we then had to compensate
by deploying
chemical herbicides
to kill the weeds
that would have otherwise
have outcompeted the crops
for light.
We also bred out crops'
natural defenses to pests,
because plants'
natural defenses to pests
slowed their rate of growth.
But we then had to
compensate for this
by introducing
chemical pesticides.
We became reliant
upon an agricultural system
that was ludicrously
profligate with water.
The Green Revolution
turns out not to be a story
about clever people
who worked out
how to get more food
from our fields.
The truth is
the Green Revolution
is a story
about how clever people
thought it was
a good idea to buy
every extra unit of food
through energy and chemicals.
We do need a food revolution.
But it's one that will require
a radically
new kind of science.
A science that enables us
to no less
redesign the world's crops
for the world
that we will be living in.
Right now,
something like
a billion people
are living in conditions
of water shortage.
Yet our consumption of water
just continues to increase.
A staggering 70%
of all available fresh water
on Earth
is being used for agriculture.
And I want to focus
on just one important aspect
of increasing water use.
Hidden water.
Hidden water is water used
to produce things we consume,
but typically
do not think
of as containing water.
So just chickens, beef,
cotton, cars, chocolates,
and even mobile phones.
For example, it takes around
3,000 liters of water
to produce a burger.
Over 100 billion burgers
are likely to be consumed
this year globally.
That's 300 trillion
liters of water
to produce burgers
in one year.
It takes around 9,000
liters of water
to produce a chicken.
We'll probably
consume 80 billion chickens
this year.
That's an astonishing
700 trillion liters of water
on chickens in just one year.
And it takes approximately
2,700 liters of water
to produce a single bar
of chocolate.
This should
surely be something
to think about while you're
curled up on your sofa
eating one in your pajamas.
But I've got bad news
about pajamas.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHING]
Because your cotton pajamas
takes something
like 9,000 liters of water
to produce.
And irony of ironies,
it takes something like
four liters of water
to produce a one-liter plastic
bottle of water.
In short,
we're consuming water
like food
at a rate which is completely
unsustainable.
The term "peak oil"
is an increasingly
familiar one.
It refers to the point at
which maximum possible
oil extraction is reached,
beyond which it starts
to decline.
And a generally accepted claim
is that we've reached
peak oil,
and that we're heading
for some global energy crisis
in the next few decades
as we start to run out.
But it's almost certainly
not true.
There are
enormous reserves of oil,
coal and gas left.
And every year
we're discovering significant
new reserves
from Brazil to the Arctic.
And on top of that,
there's the so-called
energy game-changing
revolution
that is fracking.
So I'm not worried
about us
running out of fossil fuels,
I'm worried that we're going
to continue to use them.
'Cause doing so
is simply going to accelerate
our climate problem
even further.
But of course,
that's precisely
what we're doing.
REX TILLERSON:
It's very nice to
see you again.
And it is a historic day
for Exxon Mobil and Russia.
EMMOTT:
Take, for example, Exxon,
a US oil giant.
In 2012,
Exxon signed a deal
with Russia
to invest up to $500 billion.
$500 billion
in oil and gas exploration
and production in the Arctic.
Why?
Because climate change
is now making oil and gas
exploration production
in the Arctic
economically viable
because the Arctic
is no longer covered
in thick ice all year round.
It's worth reminding ourselves
that our stuff
does not actually
come from Tesco, Amazon,
Wal-Mart, or Best Buy.
Our stuff comes from China,
Morocco, Brazil,
Spain, South Korea,
whether it is asparagus,
pajamas,
or consumer electronics.
[SHIP HORN BLOWING]
EMMOTT: Something like
500 million containers
of our stuff.
Stuff that we love to consume.
Plus billions of tons
of raw materials,
metals, phosphates, grain,
oil, coal and gas,
will be handled
and transported
all around the world
this year.
There are now
over a billion motor vehicles
on our roads,
and more than
two billion motor vehicles
have been produced since 1900.
Now, car companies
keep telling us
that we can buy a car
for as little as £8,000.
But that's not what
a car really costs.
The iron ore forming
the basis of the car's body
has to be mined,
probably somewhere
like Australia.
It's then transported
on a very large,
very polluting ship
to somewhere like Brazil,
Indonesia, France
and made into steel.
That steel is then transported
on a very large,
very polluting ship
to a car factory
in, say, Germany.
The tires
have to be manufactured
and the rubber
will have been produced
in Malaysia, Thailand
or Indonesia.
That rubber
then has to be shipped
to a country
that manufactures tires,
then those tires
shipped to a car factory.
The plastic for the dashboard
starts out
as oil in the ground.
That oil has to extracted,
exported
to be made into plastic.
Then that plastic
gets transported
to a car factory
to be turned into a dashboard.
The lead in the battery
has to be mined,
and then shipped
to be made into batteries,
then those batteries
are then shipped
to car factories in Germany,
US or elsewhere.
And all of this
is before a single car
is even assembled.
Let alone,
before the car itself
is then transported
so that you can buy it.
And all that
is before you've put
a single liter of petrol
in your car to make
your own little contribution
to climate change.
What's the real cost
of the car?
An absolute fortune.
But you don't have to pay it.
Not yet.
That is the cost
of environmental degradation,
pollution from mining,
industrial processes
and transportation.
The resulting degradation
of ecosystems
and climate change.
What economists
like to formally call
"externalities."
But this cost,
the real cost of a car
will have to be paid for.
Maybe by you,
more likely by your children.
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: Finally, let's look
at the state of the climate
right now.
In the last 30 years,
the volume
of summer Arctic sea ice
has shrunk by 70%.
Greenland and Antarctica
are losing between
300 and 600 billion tons
of ice per year into the sea.
And to make matters worse,
probably much worse,
melting Arctic ice
caused by our activities
is now causing the release
of significant quantities
of methane.
At the end of 2011,
scientists from
the International Arctic
Research Center
discovered for the first time
vast fields containing
over 100 plumes of methane,
some over
a kilometer in diameter.
Methane is
many times more potent
a greenhouse gas
-than carbon dioxide.
-[GURGLING]
And if, as seems likely,
melting sea ice is now causing
the release of this methane,
it will go on for decades,
possibly centuries,
and we'll be
completely unable to stop it.
It has every potential
to accelerate climate change
even faster.
This could be
very big trouble
on a very big scale.
Almost all of the data that
are emerging from the Arctic
are worse.
Far worse
than even the most pessimistic
scientific predictions
of even just 10 years ago.
And think about this.
Right now, every leaf
on every tree on Earth
is experiencing
a level of carbon dioxide
that has not been
witnessed on this planet
for millions of years.
And how the planet's plants
will respond to this
we simply
don't fully understand.
But it's very important.
Because the planet's plants
are a fundamental component
of what's called
the "global carbon cycle."
The global carbon cycle
processes around 200 gigatons
of carbon every year.
And it does
all seven billion of us
an enormous favor
by slowing down climate change
because the planet's plants,
soils and oceans
absorb around 50%
of our CO2 emissions.
But this favor might be
about to come to an end
because we are
fundamentally modifying
every single component
of the global carbon cycle
right now
through deforestation,
urbanization, agriculture
and changes to the chemical
and ecological composition
of the planet's oceans.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: Moreover, the CO2
that the oceans are absorbing
is now having a serious impact
in terms
of ocean acidification
and deoxygenation.
The science
now points
to the inescapable fact
that we are in trouble.
Serious trouble.
And right now we're heading
into completely
uncharted territory
as we continue to grow
towards ten billion.
But one thing
that is entirely predictable
is that things
are going to get worse.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: What kind of
challenges do we face
over the coming decades
as a consequence
of our growing population
and our activities?
We are already using
nearly 40% of land on Earth
for food.
The demand for food
is set to double by 2050.
This means
the pressure to clear
many of the world's
remaining forests
for human use
looks set to intensify.
Why?
Because this is
the only land available
for cheaply
expanding agriculture
at the scale that we need.
By 2050,
it's quite possible that some
one billion hectares of land
could be cleared
to meet rising food demand.
This is an area larger than
the United States of America.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
[FIRE BLAZING]
EMMOTT: Meanwhile, by 2050,
70% of us are going
to be living in cities.
Just worth mentioning.
Of the 19 Brazilian cities
that have doubled
in population and size
in the last 10 years,
10 are in the Amazon.
It is becoming apparent
that there is no known way
of feeding a population
of ten billion people
with our
current agricultural system
and our
current rates of consumption.
Because global
agricultural productivity
actually looks set to decline,
possibly sharply,
over the coming decades.
There are
three reasons for this.
The first is climate change.
As global average temperature
continues to increase,
food productivity is actually
predicted to decline.
Some of the world's
most important crops
such as wheat
could be worst affected.
And increasing frequency
and severity
of extreme weather events
associated with climate change
will increase
the frequency and severity
with which we lose crops
around the world.
The second reason
is soil degradation
and desertification.
Both of which are increasing
as a result
of water run-off, pollution,
intensified agricultural
practices and overgrazing.
And the third reason
is water stress
from more frequent
and severe droughts
and the rising
consumption of water
by billions more people.
If we want to get
just a glimpse
of what we can expect
of the decades to come,
we need only look
at the impact of heat waves
in Australia in 2008,
Russia in 2010
and the United States in 2012,
which destroyed up to 40%
of grain and corn harvests
and killed tens of thousands
of livestock.
[FLIES BUZZING]
In the heat wave of 2010,
the Russian government
was forced to place an embargo
on grain exports,
and this caused chaos
in the commodities markets...
-[CROWD CHATTERING]
-...and a massive
food price spike.
This consequently led
to food riots
across Asia and Africa...
-[GUNFIRE]
-...and unrest that eventually
led to the violence
that we now call
the Arab Spring.
[CHANTING IN ARABIC]
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
[GUNSHOT]
Indeed, anyone who thinks
that the emerging state
of global affairs
does not have
potential for civil
and international conflict
is deluding themselves.
[SIREN BLARING IN DISTANCE]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: It's no coincidence
that almost
every scientific conference...
-[HELICOPTER WHIRRS]
-...I go to
about climate change
now has
a new kind of attendee.
The military.
[SPRINKLERS WHIRRING]
EMMOTT: By the end
of this century,
large parts of this planet
will not have anything like
enough usable water.
Billions of people
are likely to be living
in conditions
of extreme water shortage
as a result
of increasing climate change,
increasing food demand
and increasing population.
Our use of ground water,
which is
essential for irrigation,
is accelerating rapidly,
far faster than ground water
is or can be replenished.
And fresh water supplies
stored in the planet's
glaciers and snow cover
are projected to decline
alarmingly this century,
severely affecting
up to one-sixth
of the entire human population
in countries such as China,
Pakistan and India.
Our water problem
is unavoidably
going to have
very adverse consequences
for agriculture, human health
and ecosystems.
You might not be surprised
to learn that air traffic,
global car production
and shipping
are all expected to continue
to grow this century.
Well, for starters,
we look set to produce
another four billion cars
in just the next 50 years.
Global shipping
and air traffic
are projected to expand to
transport more of our stuff
to more of us
around the planet.
That's going to cause
yet more problems
in terms of CO2 emissions,
more black carbon
and more pollution.
Our emerging energy problem
is also simple.
We are going to need to triple
energy production
by the end of this century
to meet expected demand.
To meet that demand,
we would need to build,
roughly speaking,
1,800 of the world's
largest dams
or 23,000 nuclear
power stations,
14 million wind turbines,
or 36 billion solar panels.
Or we could just keep going
with predominantly
oil, coal and gas,
and build something like
36,000 new power stations
that we will need.
Our existing
fossil fuel reserves
are worth
trillions of dollars.
Are governments and
the world's major
energy companies,
some of the most influential
corporations on Earth,
really going to decide
to leave all of that money
in the ground
as demand for energy
continues to grow and grow?
I really doubt it.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: And so on to
our emerging climate problem.
This problem is on
an entirely different scale.
Because the problem is
that we may well be heading
towards a number
of tipping points
in the global climate system.
All complex systems
are characterized
by one important feature.
A very small change can lead
to a very large effect
that can tip the system
into an entirely different
and entirely
unpredictable state.
The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change,
the IPCC,
has said
that we need to aim to limit
global average
temperature rises
to two degrees or less.
-The rationale
for this target...
-[THUNDER RUMBLES]
...is that a rise
of above two degrees
risks catastrophic
climate change
that would almost certainly
lead to irreversible
planetary tipping points
caused by events such as
the melting of the Arctic
and Antarctic ice,
the release of methane
from the Arctic
and Siberian permafrost
or dieback of the Amazon.
But the fact is
loss of ice from
the Arctic and Antarctic
and the release of methane
is already happening now,
well below
the two degree threshold.
And as for
the dieback in the Amazon,
we're not even waiting for
climate change to do this.
We're doing it right now
through deforestation.
-[CHAINSAW WHIRRS]
-[TREE CREAKS]
EMMOTT: And recent research
shows that we actually
look to be heading
for a larger rise
in global average temperature
than two degrees.
A far larger rise.
It looks as though
we're heading
for a global
average temperature rise
of four degrees.
And we can't even rule out
a rise of six degrees.
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT:
A four-to-six-degree rise
in global average temperature
will be
absolutely catastrophic.
It will lead
to runaway climate change
capable of tipping the planet
into an entirely
different state,
rapidly.
[THUNDER RUMBLING]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: In the decades
along the way
we will witness
unprecedented extremes
of fires, floods, heat waves,
loss of crops, water stress
and sea level rises.
There almost certainly
won't be a country
called Bangladesh
by the end of this century.
It will be under water.
And the Amazon could be turned
into savannah
or even desert.
And the entire
agricultural system
will be faced
with an unprecedented threat.
More fortunate countries,
such as the UK, United States,
most of Europe,
may even look
something approaching
like militarized countries,
at least in terms
of border controls,
to prevent millions of people
from entering
who are on the move
because their own country
is either no longer habitable
or has insufficient
food of water
or is experiencing conflict
over increasingly
scarce resources.
This people
will be climate migrants,
a term I think we're going to
have to get used to.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
[CROWD CLAMORING]
EMMOTT: Even more worryingly,
there is now
compelling evidence
that the entire
global ecosystem
is not only
capable of suffering
a catastrophic tipping point,
but is already approaching
such a transition.
[WIND WHISTLING]
[HEAVY WINDS SWIRLING]
[STORM CHASER
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]
-[METAL PIECES CLANKING]
-[WIND HOWLING]
[CLANKING]
[WIND HOWLING]
EMMOTT: We are the drivers
of every global problem
we face.
Climate change,
ecosystem degradation,
mass extinctions,
alteration of the planet's
global carbon cycle,
increasing demand for food,
water, energy,
and other resources.
Highly interconnected
problems,
each one contributing
to the other.
And as the human population
continues to increase,
every one of these problems
is set to grow.
Yet, we are failing
to do much, if anything,
about them.
What, then,
are our options?
The first, is technologize
our way out of it.
And this is the domain
of what's known
as the rational optimist.
And the rational optimist
argument says that
past predictions of doom
such as those
of Malthus and Ehrlich
have turned out to be wrong,
not least because
our cleverness
and our inventiveness
have enabled us to solve
the population problem
on every occasion.
And a great example they show
is the Green Revolution.
Now, setting aside the fact
that we've technologized
our way into these problems
in the first place,
let's look at the current
ideas for technologizing
our way out of them.
First is green energy.
Wind, wave, solar, hydro,
bio fuels,
sometimes called renewables.
The fact is that green energy
technologies
are currently highly unlikely
to be a viable
planetary solution
on the scale required
or in the time required.
Even if existing
green technologies
were a global solution,
we would need to be
embarking on a planetary wide
green energy program
right now.
And we're not.
Even if we had embarked
on such a program,
it would be decades
before we could power
the planet with green energy.
And in the meantime,
almost all of our energy
will continue to come
from fossil fuels,
from oil, coal and gas,
continuing to contribute
to our climate problem
every year.
I never thought
I'd say this,
but in the short term,
nuclear power would seem to be
the only existing technology
for solving
the energy problem.
But for nuclear power
to be a solution,
we would need to be embarking
on a global nuclear power
program right now...
And we're not.
Governments the world over
are retreating
from nuclear power,
because it's expensive,
because neither government
nor industry
wants to pick up the cost
of decommissioning,
and because voters
do not like it.
Next...
We could potentially solve
some of our water problem
through the building
of desalination plants
which convert sea water
into usable water.
But again, such programs
are not even on the horizon.
Next, geo-engineering.
This is essentially the notion
that planetary scale
engineering efforts
might be needed
simply to mitigate
the worst consequences
of the problems
that we're going to face.
For example,
putting massive umbrellas
into orbit around our planet
to reflect the sun's energy
back out into space.
And I'll leave it to you
to make of that as you wish.
The problem is
all of the current
geo-engineering ideas
are completely unproven.
All of them are
extremely expensive.
And all of them
are likely to come
with significant
knock-on effects,
the long-term consequences
of which are completely
unpredictable.
So, as far as I'm concerned,
on current evidence,
technologizing
our way out of this
does not look likely.
So let's look
at our second option...
Behavior change.
We're going to need
to change our behavior
radically and globally
on every level.
But to accomplish this
will almost certainly require
radical government action.
But here,
politicians are currently
part of the problem.
Because the decisions
needed to be taken
to implement the kind of
behavior change needed
will inevitably
make politicians
remarkably unpopular.
And politicians
do like to be popular.
So what politicians
have opted for instead
is failed diplomacy.
For example,
the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to ensure the stabilization
of greenhouse gases
in the Earth's atmosphere...
Failed.
The UN Convention
to Combat Desertification,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to stop land degrading
and becoming desert...
Failed.
The Convention
on Biological Diversity,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss...
Failed.
These are just three examples
of failed global initiatives.
In Rio+20,
COP18 in Doha,
and COP19 in Warsaw,
all produced
even weaker rhetoric
than previous pledges,
conventions and commitments.
The world is expecting us to
reach some kind of agreement
concerning climate change,
and not just continuing
discussing procedure,
procedure, procedure.
It looks like 20 years
of words and inaction
is said to continue
with another 20 years
of words and inaction.
And all the while,
we're heading into deeper
and deeper trouble.
And the way
governments justify
this degree of inaction
is by exploiting
public opinion
and scientific uncertainty.
It used to be the case of,
"We need to wait
for science to prove that
climate change is happening."
And that is now beyond doubt.
So now, it's that
we need to wait for scientists
to be able to tell us
what the impact will be,
and what the costs are.
And then, we will need
to wait for public opinion
to get behind action.
But climate models
are never going to be free
from uncertainties.
And as for public opinion,
politicians seem remarkably
free to ignore it
when it suits them.
What about us?
How can we change
our behavior?
I confess, I did once find it
quite amusing
to read in the weekend papers
about some celebrity saying,
"I've given up my 4x4
and now I've bought a hybrid.
"Aren't I doing my bit
for the environment?"
They're not doing their bit
for the environment.
But in many respects,
it's not their fault.
The fact is that they and we
are not being well informed.
We're simply not getting
the information that we need.
When we are advised
to do something,
it's a token gesture
that missed
the fundamental fact
that the scale and the nature
of the problems we face
are immense, unprecedented,
and possibly unsolvable.
The behavior changes
that are required
are so fundamental
that no one wants
to make them.
What are they?
Well, consume less,
but a lot less.
Less food, less energy,
less stuff.
Fewer cars, electric cars,
cotton T-shirts, laptops,
TVs, far fewer.
And the interesting thing is
we know this.
Yet every decade,
global consumption
just continues to increase.
And it is worth
pointing out here
that "we" simply refers
to the people who live
in the west and the north
of the planet, predominantly.
There are currently almost
three billion people who need
to urgently consume more.
More water, more food,
more energy.
By the end of this century,
there will be billions more
who'll need to consume
more water, food
and energy.
So what about
population growth itself?
Even saying,
"Don't have children,"
is utterly ridiculous.
That said,
the worst thing that we could
continue to do globally
is continue to have children
at our current rate.
'Cause if we do so,
according to UN predictions,
by the end of this century,
there will not be
ten billion of us.
There will be
28 billion of us.
Only an idiot would deny
that there's a carrying
capacity to Earth.
And the question is...
Is it seven billion,
ten billion,
or 28 billion?
I think we've already
gone past it, well past it.
We could potentially
change the situation
we are in.
Probably not by
technologizing
our way out of it,
but by radically changing
our behavior.
But there is no sign
that this is happening,
or that it's about to happen.
So I think it's going to be
business as usual for us.
[FRENETIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: As a scientist,
what I think
about the current situation...
Well, science is essentially
organized skepticism.
I spend my life trying
to prove my work wrong
or look for
alternative explanations.
I hope I'm wrong.
But the science points to
my not being wrong.
As I said at the beginning,
we can rightly call
the situation we're all in
an emergency.
An unprecedented
planetary emergency.
And why we're not doing more,
given the scale
and the urgency
of the problem,
I simply cannot understand.
We urgently need to do,
and I mean do,
something radical
to avert a global catastrophe.
But I don't think we will.
I think we're fucked.
If we discovered tomorrow
that there was an asteroid
on collision course
with Earth,
we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth
on the 3rd of June, 2080,
and we knew that its impact
was going to wipe out
70% of all life on Earth,
governments worldwide
would marshal
the entire planet
into unprecedented action.
Every scientist, engineer,
university and business
would be enlisted
to find a way of stopping it.
We are now in almost precisely
that situation,
except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.
The problem is us.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
[CHILD SHRIEKS]
[CROWD CHEERING]
[PEOPLE SHOUTING]
[BLASTING SOUNDS]
[CLOSING TITLE MUSIC]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
STEPHEN EMMOTT:
If we discovered tomorrow
that there was an asteroid
on collision course
with Earth...
If we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth
on the third of June, 2080...
MAN: [OVER RADIO]
Third of June, 2080...
EMMOTT: And we knew
that its impact
was going to wipe out
70% of all life on Earth...
MAN: [OVER RADIO]
...wipe out... all life.
EMMOTT:
Governments worldwide
would marshal
the entire planet
into unprecedented action.
EMMOTT: We are now in almost
precisely that situation.
Except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.
The problem is us.
[INTERRUPTED RADIO SIGNAL]
[SOFT MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: The single most
important project
in my lab is to understand
the future of life on Earth.
We already know enough
to know that we're in trouble.
I think it's important
that someone
from in the science community
come out and say so.
LUCAS JOPPA:
We really are just interested
in trying to figure out
what are the impacts
of humans on the planet,
and can we make
valuable predictions
about what's going to happen
a day from now,
a year from now,
but probably more importantly,
10, 20, 30 years from now.
What does... What does that
predicted future mean
for the fate
of the human species?
MATTHEW SMITH: There is
an enormous problem looming.
But it... The problems
for the vast majority
of people now
are still too far off
to make you feel compelled
to do something
about it tomorrow,
and that is the real problem.
It's kind of such
an obvious thing that people
don't think about it.
Um, that, you know, all
the things that we throw away,
all the things that we buy
and replace and, you know,
that there is another
seven billion people
doing this,
and that's what
you don't think about.
So I think it's more
"ignorance is bliss."
DREW PURVES: We're just not
heading in the right direction
at the moment.
All the problems are heading
in the wrong direction
and we're showing
almost no sign
of actually
tackling these problems.
PURVES: There are a lot
of people that feel that way,
but a lot of them
won't say it publicly.
Stephen is in many ways braver
in terms of being willing
to express
perhaps pessimistic views
very honestly
and in a very clear way.
EMMOTT: I've simply
done my best
to paint as accurate a picture
as possible
of what's actually happening.
But...
I'm shocked at the number
of people
who just do not want to hear
the truth.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
EMMOTT:
If the film acts as a catalyst
for a much broader debate...
Brilliant.
If not, I've failed.
Earth is home
to millions of species.
Yet just one dominates it.
Us.
Our cleverness,
our inventiveness
and our activities
have modified almost
every part of our planet.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: In fact, we're having
a profound impact on it.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: Indeed,
our cleverness,
our inventiveness
and our activities
are now the drivers
of every global problem
we face.
And every one
of these problems
is increasing as we
continue to grow
towards ten billion.
[RUMBLING]
I do just want to point out
that I'm a scientist,
not an actor, as is
about to become
-all too painfully obvious.
-[AUDIENCE CHUCKLING]
I'm here because I believe
that we can rightly call
the situation we're in
an "emergency."
An unprecedented
planetary emergency.
And this is what
I'm going to talk about.
We humans emerged as a species
about 200,000 years ago.
And in geological time
that's really,
incredibly recent.
Just over 10,000 years ago,
there were one million of us.
Just over 200 years ago,
there were one billion of us.
Fifty years ago, there were
three billion of us.
There are now
over seven billion of us.
By 2050, your children,
or your children's children
will be living on a planet
with at least
nine billion other people.
And some time
later this century,
there will be
ten billion of us.
Possibly more.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
We got to where we are now
through a number
of landmark events
that have fundamentally shaped
the state of our planet.
Their legacy will continue
to shape our future.
So it's worth looking
at our growth
through the lens
of these developments.
One of the principal reasons
we were able to grow
was the invention
of agriculture
over 10,000 years ago.
What has become known as
the "Agricultural Revolution"
started with the domestication
of animals
and the cultivation
of plants for crops.
And has developed into today's
intensive industrialization
of the entire
food production system.
It enabled us to go
from hunter-gatherers
to highly organized
producers of food.
And allowed our population
to grow.
And this was also the start
of a fundamental
transformation
of land use by humans.
It's 1930, there are now
two billion of us.
And the impact
of another revolution,
the Industrial Revolution,
was being felt.
The world was
being transformed
by manufacturing,
technological innovation,
new industrial processes,
and transport.
But there's another story
here, too.
The start
of our lethal addiction
to oil, coal and gas
as our principal source
of energy.
Thirty years later,
we've grown to three billion.
It's 1960,
and we're in the middle
of the Green Revolution.
There were more of us,
far more of us,
and we needed more food,
far more food.
And the Green Revolution
provided this extra food.
And it did so,
through the use
of chemical herbicides,
chemical pesticides,
and chemical fertilizers.
And an unprecedented
expansion of land use
for agriculture.
But it was a revolution
that came at a cost
in terms of loss of habitat,
pollution and overfishing.
And it set in motion
the start of the degradation
of entire ecosystems.
[CHAINSAW BUZZES]
By 1980, 20 years later,
there were four billion of us.
Green Revolution
had produced more food,
much more food
and that made food cheaper.
This meant we have more
money to spend.
By the 1980s,
we'd well and truly
started to spend
all that money on "stuff."
Televisions, video-recorders,
Walkmans,
hairdryers, cars and clothes,
as well as holidays.
[SCREAMS]
And at the center of this
astonishing spending spree,
was an equally astonishing
growth of transport.
In 1960,
there were 100 million cars
on the world's roads.
By 1980,
there were 300 million.
In 1960, we flew
100 billion
passenger kilometers.
By 1980,
we flew a thousand billion
passenger kilometers.
And global shipping grew
at a similarly
astonishing rate.
All of the stuff
we were buying,
plus all of the food
we were consuming,
plus all of the raw
resources and materials
required to make everything
were increasingly
being shipped
all around the world.
Just 10 years later, in 1990,
we'd grown to five billion.
By this point,
the consequences of our growth
were starting to show.
Not least of these
was on water.
Our demand for water,
not just the water we drank
but the water we needed
for food production
and to make all of the stuff
we were consuming,
was starting to go through
the roof.
And something was starting
to happen to water.
We saw journalists
reporting from Ethiopia
in 1984
about a famine of so-called
biblical proportions
caused by widespread drought.
Ethiopia is turning
into the worst human disaster
for a decade.
A disaster begun by nature
but compounded by man.
EMMOTT: That, it seemed,
was over there in Africa.
Except that it wasn't
just over there.
Unusual droughts,
as well as unusual flooding,
were increasing in Asia,
Australia, the US
and in Europe.
Water, a vital resource
we thought of as abundant
and free,
was now something
that had the potential
to be scarce.
By 2000,
we'd grown to six billion.
And by this point,
it had become abundantly clear
to just about everyone
in the scientific community
that the climate was changing
and that we had a serious
problem on our hands.
[RADIO OPERATOR
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]
Now, obviously climate
is not the same as weather,
but climate is one of Earth's
fundamental
life support systems,
one that determines
whether or not
we're able to live
on this planet.
It's generated
by four components,
the atmosphere,
the air that we breathe,
hydrosphere, planet's water,
cryosphere,
ice sheets and glaciers,
and the biosphere,
the planet's
plants and animals.
And by now, our activities
had started to modify
every single one
of these components.
Our increasing CO2 emissions
had started to modify
our atmosphere.
And our increasing water use
had started to modify
our hydrosphere.
Rising atmospheric
and sea temperatures
had started to modify
the cryosphere,
most notably,
an unexpected loss
of Greenland and Arctic ice.
And our increasing use of land
for agriculture, cities,
roads, mining,
as well as
all pollution we were creating
had started to modify
our biosphere.
Or to put it another way,
we had started to change
our climate.
There are now
over seven billion of us.
And as we continue to grow,
we continue to increase
our need
for more water, more food,
more land, and more energy.
As a result,
our activities
are now fundamentally
interacting with and altering
the complex system
we live on...
Earth.
We're spending
8 billion euros
at CERN
to discover evidence
of a particle
called the Higgs boson,
to explain mass
and provide a thumbs up
for what's called
the Standard Model
of particle physics.
And CERN's physicists
are keen to tell us
that it's the biggest,
most important experiment,
on Earth.
It isn't.
The biggest,
most important experiment
on Earth,
is the one
we're all conducting
right now on Earth itself.
Just want to take us on a tour
of what's happening right now.
It turns out that doing so
is important to understanding
where we're heading.
Right now, nearly 40%
of all the ice-free land
on Earth
is being used
for food production.
That leaves deserts,
towns and cities,
land used for the mining
and extraction of Earth's
finite resources,
protected areas
such as national parks,
and the world's
remaining forests.
And let's
put that into context.
Demand for food
is said to double by 2050,
increasing demand
for more land.
So no wonder that there's
a remarkable land grab
underway right now.
In the past 13 years,
there have been thousands
of land deals
involving governments
and corporations
buying up lots of land
in places
such as sub-Saharan Africa,
Asia and South America.
Around 50 million
hectares of land
are being traded.
That's an area
approaching half the size
of Western Europe,
bought and sold,
in just the past 13 years.
But that's
not the most important story.
Land use, land degradation,
loss of habitat,
and pollution run-off
are now causing
significant species loss.
The International Union
for the Conservation
of Nature,
IUCN,
the world's leading authority
on biodiversity,
estimates almost 31%
of all amphibians,
21% of all mammals,
and 13% of all birds
are threatened
with extinction.
We're now, almost certainly,
starting to lose species
at a rate at least
a thousand times greater
than we would expect
from ordinary background
natural processes.
Indeed, we may well
have embarked
on the greatest
mass extinction
of life on Earth
since the event
that wiped out dinosaurs
65 million years ago.
Now, when we think
about loss of species,
some of us thinks
about images of polar bears
on thin bits of ice
looking as though,
"This is it."
But losing polar bears
is just the tip
of the iceberg.
No pun, quite intended.
[SCATTERED LAUGHTER]
What we need to be
a lot more concerned about
is the loss
of biodiversity itself.
'Cause it turns out
that biological diversity
is not just a nice thing
to have.
It's the very diversity
of life on Earth itself,
the diversity
that we are eroding,
which provides the things
that we rely on
for free,
like our water, our food,
and our climate.
The loss of biodiversity
on a current scale,
is inevitably going to mean
degradation of these vital
ecosystem services,
as they're called.
Services
that we all depend upon.
The loss
of these ecosystem services
poses a very real threat
to our survival.
You might not be surprised
to learn
that food demand
is increasing.
What might be surprising
is that food demand
is increasing
faster than even
population growth.
Why?
First,
is as more of us get richer,
or are lifted out of poverty,
we consume more calories,
we simply eat more food.
Second, is that more of us
are not only consuming more,
we're consuming differently,
and in particular,
we're consuming more meat.
More importantly though,
the entire
global food production system
is dependent
on a stable climate.
And right now,
the climate
is anything but stable.
And is set to become
more and more unstable
every decade this century.
Think about this.
Food production accounts
for nearly
30% of all greenhouse gases
produced by human activity.
That's more than manufacturing
or transport.
Producing more food itself
is going
to accelerate climate change.
But what's certainly true,
is that we really do
need a food revolution.
Because without one,
billions of us
are going to starve.
Our most recent
food revolution
started in the 1950s.
It's known
as the Green Revolution.
But it has come at a cost.
The first Green Revolution
focused on increasing
crop yield.
But to increase yield,
we had to introduce
chemical fertilizers
and breed shorter crops.
In breeding shorter crops,
we then had to compensate
by deploying
chemical herbicides
to kill the weeds
that would have otherwise
have outcompeted the crops
for light.
We also bred out crops'
natural defenses to pests,
because plants'
natural defenses to pests
slowed their rate of growth.
But we then had to
compensate for this
by introducing
chemical pesticides.
We became reliant
upon an agricultural system
that was ludicrously
profligate with water.
The Green Revolution
turns out not to be a story
about clever people
who worked out
how to get more food
from our fields.
The truth is
the Green Revolution
is a story
about how clever people
thought it was
a good idea to buy
every extra unit of food
through energy and chemicals.
We do need a food revolution.
But it's one that will require
a radically
new kind of science.
A science that enables us
to no less
redesign the world's crops
for the world
that we will be living in.
Right now,
something like
a billion people
are living in conditions
of water shortage.
Yet our consumption of water
just continues to increase.
A staggering 70%
of all available fresh water
on Earth
is being used for agriculture.
And I want to focus
on just one important aspect
of increasing water use.
Hidden water.
Hidden water is water used
to produce things we consume,
but typically
do not think
of as containing water.
So just chickens, beef,
cotton, cars, chocolates,
and even mobile phones.
For example, it takes around
3,000 liters of water
to produce a burger.
Over 100 billion burgers
are likely to be consumed
this year globally.
That's 300 trillion
liters of water
to produce burgers
in one year.
It takes around 9,000
liters of water
to produce a chicken.
We'll probably
consume 80 billion chickens
this year.
That's an astonishing
700 trillion liters of water
on chickens in just one year.
And it takes approximately
2,700 liters of water
to produce a single bar
of chocolate.
This should
surely be something
to think about while you're
curled up on your sofa
eating one in your pajamas.
But I've got bad news
about pajamas.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHING]
Because your cotton pajamas
takes something
like 9,000 liters of water
to produce.
And irony of ironies,
it takes something like
four liters of water
to produce a one-liter plastic
bottle of water.
In short,
we're consuming water
like food
at a rate which is completely
unsustainable.
The term "peak oil"
is an increasingly
familiar one.
It refers to the point at
which maximum possible
oil extraction is reached,
beyond which it starts
to decline.
And a generally accepted claim
is that we've reached
peak oil,
and that we're heading
for some global energy crisis
in the next few decades
as we start to run out.
But it's almost certainly
not true.
There are
enormous reserves of oil,
coal and gas left.
And every year
we're discovering significant
new reserves
from Brazil to the Arctic.
And on top of that,
there's the so-called
energy game-changing
revolution
that is fracking.
So I'm not worried
about us
running out of fossil fuels,
I'm worried that we're going
to continue to use them.
'Cause doing so
is simply going to accelerate
our climate problem
even further.
But of course,
that's precisely
what we're doing.
REX TILLERSON:
It's very nice to
see you again.
And it is a historic day
for Exxon Mobil and Russia.
EMMOTT:
Take, for example, Exxon,
a US oil giant.
In 2012,
Exxon signed a deal
with Russia
to invest up to $500 billion.
$500 billion
in oil and gas exploration
and production in the Arctic.
Why?
Because climate change
is now making oil and gas
exploration production
in the Arctic
economically viable
because the Arctic
is no longer covered
in thick ice all year round.
It's worth reminding ourselves
that our stuff
does not actually
come from Tesco, Amazon,
Wal-Mart, or Best Buy.
Our stuff comes from China,
Morocco, Brazil,
Spain, South Korea,
whether it is asparagus,
pajamas,
or consumer electronics.
[SHIP HORN BLOWING]
EMMOTT: Something like
500 million containers
of our stuff.
Stuff that we love to consume.
Plus billions of tons
of raw materials,
metals, phosphates, grain,
oil, coal and gas,
will be handled
and transported
all around the world
this year.
There are now
over a billion motor vehicles
on our roads,
and more than
two billion motor vehicles
have been produced since 1900.
Now, car companies
keep telling us
that we can buy a car
for as little as £8,000.
But that's not what
a car really costs.
The iron ore forming
the basis of the car's body
has to be mined,
probably somewhere
like Australia.
It's then transported
on a very large,
very polluting ship
to somewhere like Brazil,
Indonesia, France
and made into steel.
That steel is then transported
on a very large,
very polluting ship
to a car factory
in, say, Germany.
The tires
have to be manufactured
and the rubber
will have been produced
in Malaysia, Thailand
or Indonesia.
That rubber
then has to be shipped
to a country
that manufactures tires,
then those tires
shipped to a car factory.
The plastic for the dashboard
starts out
as oil in the ground.
That oil has to extracted,
exported
to be made into plastic.
Then that plastic
gets transported
to a car factory
to be turned into a dashboard.
The lead in the battery
has to be mined,
and then shipped
to be made into batteries,
then those batteries
are then shipped
to car factories in Germany,
US or elsewhere.
And all of this
is before a single car
is even assembled.
Let alone,
before the car itself
is then transported
so that you can buy it.
And all that
is before you've put
a single liter of petrol
in your car to make
your own little contribution
to climate change.
What's the real cost
of the car?
An absolute fortune.
But you don't have to pay it.
Not yet.
That is the cost
of environmental degradation,
pollution from mining,
industrial processes
and transportation.
The resulting degradation
of ecosystems
and climate change.
What economists
like to formally call
"externalities."
But this cost,
the real cost of a car
will have to be paid for.
Maybe by you,
more likely by your children.
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: Finally, let's look
at the state of the climate
right now.
In the last 30 years,
the volume
of summer Arctic sea ice
has shrunk by 70%.
Greenland and Antarctica
are losing between
300 and 600 billion tons
of ice per year into the sea.
And to make matters worse,
probably much worse,
melting Arctic ice
caused by our activities
is now causing the release
of significant quantities
of methane.
At the end of 2011,
scientists from
the International Arctic
Research Center
discovered for the first time
vast fields containing
over 100 plumes of methane,
some over
a kilometer in diameter.
Methane is
many times more potent
a greenhouse gas
-than carbon dioxide.
-[GURGLING]
And if, as seems likely,
melting sea ice is now causing
the release of this methane,
it will go on for decades,
possibly centuries,
and we'll be
completely unable to stop it.
It has every potential
to accelerate climate change
even faster.
This could be
very big trouble
on a very big scale.
Almost all of the data that
are emerging from the Arctic
are worse.
Far worse
than even the most pessimistic
scientific predictions
of even just 10 years ago.
And think about this.
Right now, every leaf
on every tree on Earth
is experiencing
a level of carbon dioxide
that has not been
witnessed on this planet
for millions of years.
And how the planet's plants
will respond to this
we simply
don't fully understand.
But it's very important.
Because the planet's plants
are a fundamental component
of what's called
the "global carbon cycle."
The global carbon cycle
processes around 200 gigatons
of carbon every year.
And it does
all seven billion of us
an enormous favor
by slowing down climate change
because the planet's plants,
soils and oceans
absorb around 50%
of our CO2 emissions.
But this favor might be
about to come to an end
because we are
fundamentally modifying
every single component
of the global carbon cycle
right now
through deforestation,
urbanization, agriculture
and changes to the chemical
and ecological composition
of the planet's oceans.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: Moreover, the CO2
that the oceans are absorbing
is now having a serious impact
in terms
of ocean acidification
and deoxygenation.
The science
now points
to the inescapable fact
that we are in trouble.
Serious trouble.
And right now we're heading
into completely
uncharted territory
as we continue to grow
towards ten billion.
But one thing
that is entirely predictable
is that things
are going to get worse.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: What kind of
challenges do we face
over the coming decades
as a consequence
of our growing population
and our activities?
We are already using
nearly 40% of land on Earth
for food.
The demand for food
is set to double by 2050.
This means
the pressure to clear
many of the world's
remaining forests
for human use
looks set to intensify.
Why?
Because this is
the only land available
for cheaply
expanding agriculture
at the scale that we need.
By 2050,
it's quite possible that some
one billion hectares of land
could be cleared
to meet rising food demand.
This is an area larger than
the United States of America.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
[FIRE BLAZING]
EMMOTT: Meanwhile, by 2050,
70% of us are going
to be living in cities.
Just worth mentioning.
Of the 19 Brazilian cities
that have doubled
in population and size
in the last 10 years,
10 are in the Amazon.
It is becoming apparent
that there is no known way
of feeding a population
of ten billion people
with our
current agricultural system
and our
current rates of consumption.
Because global
agricultural productivity
actually looks set to decline,
possibly sharply,
over the coming decades.
There are
three reasons for this.
The first is climate change.
As global average temperature
continues to increase,
food productivity is actually
predicted to decline.
Some of the world's
most important crops
such as wheat
could be worst affected.
And increasing frequency
and severity
of extreme weather events
associated with climate change
will increase
the frequency and severity
with which we lose crops
around the world.
The second reason
is soil degradation
and desertification.
Both of which are increasing
as a result
of water run-off, pollution,
intensified agricultural
practices and overgrazing.
And the third reason
is water stress
from more frequent
and severe droughts
and the rising
consumption of water
by billions more people.
If we want to get
just a glimpse
of what we can expect
of the decades to come,
we need only look
at the impact of heat waves
in Australia in 2008,
Russia in 2010
and the United States in 2012,
which destroyed up to 40%
of grain and corn harvests
and killed tens of thousands
of livestock.
[FLIES BUZZING]
In the heat wave of 2010,
the Russian government
was forced to place an embargo
on grain exports,
and this caused chaos
in the commodities markets...
-[CROWD CHATTERING]
-...and a massive
food price spike.
This consequently led
to food riots
across Asia and Africa...
-[GUNFIRE]
-...and unrest that eventually
led to the violence
that we now call
the Arab Spring.
[CHANTING IN ARABIC]
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
[GUNSHOT]
Indeed, anyone who thinks
that the emerging state
of global affairs
does not have
potential for civil
and international conflict
is deluding themselves.
[SIREN BLARING IN DISTANCE]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: It's no coincidence
that almost
every scientific conference...
-[HELICOPTER WHIRRS]
-...I go to
about climate change
now has
a new kind of attendee.
The military.
[SPRINKLERS WHIRRING]
EMMOTT: By the end
of this century,
large parts of this planet
will not have anything like
enough usable water.
Billions of people
are likely to be living
in conditions
of extreme water shortage
as a result
of increasing climate change,
increasing food demand
and increasing population.
Our use of ground water,
which is
essential for irrigation,
is accelerating rapidly,
far faster than ground water
is or can be replenished.
And fresh water supplies
stored in the planet's
glaciers and snow cover
are projected to decline
alarmingly this century,
severely affecting
up to one-sixth
of the entire human population
in countries such as China,
Pakistan and India.
Our water problem
is unavoidably
going to have
very adverse consequences
for agriculture, human health
and ecosystems.
You might not be surprised
to learn that air traffic,
global car production
and shipping
are all expected to continue
to grow this century.
Well, for starters,
we look set to produce
another four billion cars
in just the next 50 years.
Global shipping
and air traffic
are projected to expand to
transport more of our stuff
to more of us
around the planet.
That's going to cause
yet more problems
in terms of CO2 emissions,
more black carbon
and more pollution.
Our emerging energy problem
is also simple.
We are going to need to triple
energy production
by the end of this century
to meet expected demand.
To meet that demand,
we would need to build,
roughly speaking,
1,800 of the world's
largest dams
or 23,000 nuclear
power stations,
14 million wind turbines,
or 36 billion solar panels.
Or we could just keep going
with predominantly
oil, coal and gas,
and build something like
36,000 new power stations
that we will need.
Our existing
fossil fuel reserves
are worth
trillions of dollars.
Are governments and
the world's major
energy companies,
some of the most influential
corporations on Earth,
really going to decide
to leave all of that money
in the ground
as demand for energy
continues to grow and grow?
I really doubt it.
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: And so on to
our emerging climate problem.
This problem is on
an entirely different scale.
Because the problem is
that we may well be heading
towards a number
of tipping points
in the global climate system.
All complex systems
are characterized
by one important feature.
A very small change can lead
to a very large effect
that can tip the system
into an entirely different
and entirely
unpredictable state.
The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change,
the IPCC,
has said
that we need to aim to limit
global average
temperature rises
to two degrees or less.
-The rationale
for this target...
-[THUNDER RUMBLES]
...is that a rise
of above two degrees
risks catastrophic
climate change
that would almost certainly
lead to irreversible
planetary tipping points
caused by events such as
the melting of the Arctic
and Antarctic ice,
the release of methane
from the Arctic
and Siberian permafrost
or dieback of the Amazon.
But the fact is
loss of ice from
the Arctic and Antarctic
and the release of methane
is already happening now,
well below
the two degree threshold.
And as for
the dieback in the Amazon,
we're not even waiting for
climate change to do this.
We're doing it right now
through deforestation.
-[CHAINSAW WHIRRS]
-[TREE CREAKS]
EMMOTT: And recent research
shows that we actually
look to be heading
for a larger rise
in global average temperature
than two degrees.
A far larger rise.
It looks as though
we're heading
for a global
average temperature rise
of four degrees.
And we can't even rule out
a rise of six degrees.
[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT:
A four-to-six-degree rise
in global average temperature
will be
absolutely catastrophic.
It will lead
to runaway climate change
capable of tipping the planet
into an entirely
different state,
rapidly.
[THUNDER RUMBLING]
[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]
EMMOTT: In the decades
along the way
we will witness
unprecedented extremes
of fires, floods, heat waves,
loss of crops, water stress
and sea level rises.
There almost certainly
won't be a country
called Bangladesh
by the end of this century.
It will be under water.
And the Amazon could be turned
into savannah
or even desert.
And the entire
agricultural system
will be faced
with an unprecedented threat.
More fortunate countries,
such as the UK, United States,
most of Europe,
may even look
something approaching
like militarized countries,
at least in terms
of border controls,
to prevent millions of people
from entering
who are on the move
because their own country
is either no longer habitable
or has insufficient
food of water
or is experiencing conflict
over increasingly
scarce resources.
This people
will be climate migrants,
a term I think we're going to
have to get used to.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
[CROWD CLAMORING]
EMMOTT: Even more worryingly,
there is now
compelling evidence
that the entire
global ecosystem
is not only
capable of suffering
a catastrophic tipping point,
but is already approaching
such a transition.
[WIND WHISTLING]
[HEAVY WINDS SWIRLING]
[STORM CHASER
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]
-[METAL PIECES CLANKING]
-[WIND HOWLING]
[CLANKING]
[WIND HOWLING]
EMMOTT: We are the drivers
of every global problem
we face.
Climate change,
ecosystem degradation,
mass extinctions,
alteration of the planet's
global carbon cycle,
increasing demand for food,
water, energy,
and other resources.
Highly interconnected
problems,
each one contributing
to the other.
And as the human population
continues to increase,
every one of these problems
is set to grow.
Yet, we are failing
to do much, if anything,
about them.
What, then,
are our options?
The first, is technologize
our way out of it.
And this is the domain
of what's known
as the rational optimist.
And the rational optimist
argument says that
past predictions of doom
such as those
of Malthus and Ehrlich
have turned out to be wrong,
not least because
our cleverness
and our inventiveness
have enabled us to solve
the population problem
on every occasion.
And a great example they show
is the Green Revolution.
Now, setting aside the fact
that we've technologized
our way into these problems
in the first place,
let's look at the current
ideas for technologizing
our way out of them.
First is green energy.
Wind, wave, solar, hydro,
bio fuels,
sometimes called renewables.
The fact is that green energy
technologies
are currently highly unlikely
to be a viable
planetary solution
on the scale required
or in the time required.
Even if existing
green technologies
were a global solution,
we would need to be
embarking on a planetary wide
green energy program
right now.
And we're not.
Even if we had embarked
on such a program,
it would be decades
before we could power
the planet with green energy.
And in the meantime,
almost all of our energy
will continue to come
from fossil fuels,
from oil, coal and gas,
continuing to contribute
to our climate problem
every year.
I never thought
I'd say this,
but in the short term,
nuclear power would seem to be
the only existing technology
for solving
the energy problem.
But for nuclear power
to be a solution,
we would need to be embarking
on a global nuclear power
program right now...
And we're not.
Governments the world over
are retreating
from nuclear power,
because it's expensive,
because neither government
nor industry
wants to pick up the cost
of decommissioning,
and because voters
do not like it.
Next...
We could potentially solve
some of our water problem
through the building
of desalination plants
which convert sea water
into usable water.
But again, such programs
are not even on the horizon.
Next, geo-engineering.
This is essentially the notion
that planetary scale
engineering efforts
might be needed
simply to mitigate
the worst consequences
of the problems
that we're going to face.
For example,
putting massive umbrellas
into orbit around our planet
to reflect the sun's energy
back out into space.
And I'll leave it to you
to make of that as you wish.
The problem is
all of the current
geo-engineering ideas
are completely unproven.
All of them are
extremely expensive.
And all of them
are likely to come
with significant
knock-on effects,
the long-term consequences
of which are completely
unpredictable.
So, as far as I'm concerned,
on current evidence,
technologizing
our way out of this
does not look likely.
So let's look
at our second option...
Behavior change.
We're going to need
to change our behavior
radically and globally
on every level.
But to accomplish this
will almost certainly require
radical government action.
But here,
politicians are currently
part of the problem.
Because the decisions
needed to be taken
to implement the kind of
behavior change needed
will inevitably
make politicians
remarkably unpopular.
And politicians
do like to be popular.
So what politicians
have opted for instead
is failed diplomacy.
For example,
the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to ensure the stabilization
of greenhouse gases
in the Earth's atmosphere...
Failed.
The UN Convention
to Combat Desertification,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to stop land degrading
and becoming desert...
Failed.
The Convention
on Biological Diversity,
whose job it's been
for 20 years
to reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss...
Failed.
These are just three examples
of failed global initiatives.
In Rio+20,
COP18 in Doha,
and COP19 in Warsaw,
all produced
even weaker rhetoric
than previous pledges,
conventions and commitments.
The world is expecting us to
reach some kind of agreement
concerning climate change,
and not just continuing
discussing procedure,
procedure, procedure.
It looks like 20 years
of words and inaction
is said to continue
with another 20 years
of words and inaction.
And all the while,
we're heading into deeper
and deeper trouble.
And the way
governments justify
this degree of inaction
is by exploiting
public opinion
and scientific uncertainty.
It used to be the case of,
"We need to wait
for science to prove that
climate change is happening."
And that is now beyond doubt.
So now, it's that
we need to wait for scientists
to be able to tell us
what the impact will be,
and what the costs are.
And then, we will need
to wait for public opinion
to get behind action.
But climate models
are never going to be free
from uncertainties.
And as for public opinion,
politicians seem remarkably
free to ignore it
when it suits them.
What about us?
How can we change
our behavior?
I confess, I did once find it
quite amusing
to read in the weekend papers
about some celebrity saying,
"I've given up my 4x4
and now I've bought a hybrid.
"Aren't I doing my bit
for the environment?"
They're not doing their bit
for the environment.
But in many respects,
it's not their fault.
The fact is that they and we
are not being well informed.
We're simply not getting
the information that we need.
When we are advised
to do something,
it's a token gesture
that missed
the fundamental fact
that the scale and the nature
of the problems we face
are immense, unprecedented,
and possibly unsolvable.
The behavior changes
that are required
are so fundamental
that no one wants
to make them.
What are they?
Well, consume less,
but a lot less.
Less food, less energy,
less stuff.
Fewer cars, electric cars,
cotton T-shirts, laptops,
TVs, far fewer.
And the interesting thing is
we know this.
Yet every decade,
global consumption
just continues to increase.
And it is worth
pointing out here
that "we" simply refers
to the people who live
in the west and the north
of the planet, predominantly.
There are currently almost
three billion people who need
to urgently consume more.
More water, more food,
more energy.
By the end of this century,
there will be billions more
who'll need to consume
more water, food
and energy.
So what about
population growth itself?
Even saying,
"Don't have children,"
is utterly ridiculous.
That said,
the worst thing that we could
continue to do globally
is continue to have children
at our current rate.
'Cause if we do so,
according to UN predictions,
by the end of this century,
there will not be
ten billion of us.
There will be
28 billion of us.
Only an idiot would deny
that there's a carrying
capacity to Earth.
And the question is...
Is it seven billion,
ten billion,
or 28 billion?
I think we've already
gone past it, well past it.
We could potentially
change the situation
we are in.
Probably not by
technologizing
our way out of it,
but by radically changing
our behavior.
But there is no sign
that this is happening,
or that it's about to happen.
So I think it's going to be
business as usual for us.
[FRENETIC MUSIC PLAYING]
EMMOTT: As a scientist,
what I think
about the current situation...
Well, science is essentially
organized skepticism.
I spend my life trying
to prove my work wrong
or look for
alternative explanations.
I hope I'm wrong.
But the science points to
my not being wrong.
As I said at the beginning,
we can rightly call
the situation we're all in
an emergency.
An unprecedented
planetary emergency.
And why we're not doing more,
given the scale
and the urgency
of the problem,
I simply cannot understand.
We urgently need to do,
and I mean do,
something radical
to avert a global catastrophe.
But I don't think we will.
I think we're fucked.
If we discovered tomorrow
that there was an asteroid
on collision course
with Earth,
we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth
on the 3rd of June, 2080,
and we knew that its impact
was going to wipe out
70% of all life on Earth,
governments worldwide
would marshal
the entire planet
into unprecedented action.
Every scientist, engineer,
university and business
would be enlisted
to find a way of stopping it.
We are now in almost precisely
that situation,
except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.
The problem is us.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER]
[CHILD SHRIEKS]
[CROWD CHEERING]
[PEOPLE SHOUTING]
[BLASTING SOUNDS]
[CLOSING TITLE MUSIC]