I think this was a better speech than a lot of the commenters here seem to think. She talked about the different sources and the solutions for those sources though I have to say I'm surprised to not hear a word about just consuming less or no beef when talking about the methane cows produce.
Sponsored by the meat industry? She didn’t even mention plantbased meat, cultured meat or reducing meat consumtion. That’s much more effective because it has other advantages like less land use / deforestation etc.
Plantbased meat is unaffordable right now, reducing meat consumption isnt fast and not very likely as most people wont change their diet. Not everyone want to become a vegetarian. Her solutions are much faster and realistic
Good idea, but do you honestly believe meat eaters, are going to change their diets? These numbskulls won't even wear a mask or get vaccinated during A GLOBAL VIRAL PANDEMIC to reduce transmission and mutation of this virus. We're basically screwed Bro!! SMH
@It's not looking good Man I don’t know what party them numbskulls are a part of but I do know they are stubborn as an ox and are about to destroy our nation with their arrogance!
@It's not looking good Did you read my response? I just said, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTY THEM NUMBSKULLS ARE A PART OF". MEAT EATERS, WILL NOT STOP EATING MEAT!! Period! How long have we been alerting the planet about GLOBAL WARMING and NOTHING!!
This video was completely correct, until she said that we can change it and that we are already acting on it. So was someone made responsible for the abandoned wells leaking methane? Was someone forced to invest a penny into their leaking well? Was some fined? Did someone at least propose a fine? Hard nope. Please, let's just drop this optimism.
Check out the BritMonkey video “Stop being a Climate Change Doomer.” We can’t afford to doom, but we also can’t afford to understate things either, and we need to act as if nothing is being done at all, because we aren’t doing nearly enough. Doomerism only feeds into the issue though.
... and at 5:30 when she talks about agriculture it smells like marketing nonsense: "... agriculture emits the most and remains the hardest to address..." Why so? I would have thought it's the easiest to address: simply stop eating and drinking milk products and meat. Millions upon millions are going plant-based and/or vegan throughout the USA, the EU, and the UK all the time. But does she offer any explanation? No. Straight onto the implication that some great tech fix is the ONLY possible solution 'cos the very next phrase is ".. but there are exciting new technologies on the horizon." Why waste time waiting for any technological fixes when we do not need to be consuming the breast milk of another species to start with?! Then she shares the blame around evenly "the billion plus livestock animals worldwide," despite the fact that we all know it is only the absurd numberss of animals in the CAFOs of the USA and other long industrialized nations that cram those beautiful kind curious gentle animals into tiny fields, barnes, and crates. And this is how we know she's more than likely a paid marketing rep doing some nice advertorial work in a specially tailored suit. - The great truth is that it is the easiest and by far the fastest way to deal with methane by finding favourite plant-based milk products, and by letting others know of the health and environmental benefits we experience, too. There are some great documentaries on Netflix that help illustrate all the information we need in very clear, unambiguous terms, for example the devastating impacts the dairy industry has -- this other half of the beef industry -- on our health, and on the health of other living creatures with whom we share the ecosystem outside of the CAFOs in which so much milk and beef are produced. - Most of these titles are on Netflix, and other similarly great documentaries on the topic are available there and elsewhere too. * On health: Forks Over Knives (USA) What the Health? (USA) The Game Changers (USA) Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead (USA/ Australia, sort of) * On environmental impact: Cowspiracy (USA) Seaspiracy (USA, etc.) Plant-based Nation (USA) ... and as if all that's not enough, check out Earthlings (USA, etc.,; featuring Joaquin Phoenix), Dominion, Lucent (Australia), and very soon the new and equally excellent Milked (Aotearoa New Zealand), and Cow (the UK).
All very good points here, and I'm for implementing them. However I am very disappointed that the most obvious solution of not consuming animal products isn't even raised here. All her solutions still require business and government buy-in, but not eating animals is something that practically everyone can do right now.
That's true. She may be aiming at government, and industry over individuals. Government already puts too much emphasis on the individual, when what we need major structural change.
@@OceansEpilogue i agree with you. There is always ways for us as individuals to do something better, but corporations and governments contribute largely yo the problem and need to take spets also.
It is always hard to induct radical social change quickly. America at least is mostly made up of people that eat meat and to change that many people's minds would be difficult.
You can't be serious about the cows, though. We could also reduce our excessive and inhumane "use" of them alltogether, which would be as well or better for the climate and less pain and torture on earth, which most people would consider morally right.
Yea I was disappointed to not hear her mention this at all. I literally know people that eat a cheeseburger every day! Cut back to twice a week and the methane connected to their diet is cut drastically! Better yet, replace those two cheeseburgers a week with an impossible patty and now it’s a fraction of what it once was! Missed opportunity…
Except it's a bajilliion times easier to change what we feed cows than to convince people to eat less beef. Telling people to eat less meat creates a backfire effect where Fox News pundits whine that these authoritarian liberals are trying to take away your 4th of July cheeseburgers. There was an actual study done where they found out that if people thought climate change required difficult sacrifices to tackle, they were more likely to deny that it was happening altogether. Better to convince people to eat less beef out of self interest, by showing that it's unhealthy, or that the animals aren't treated humanely or that CAFOs are breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria.
@@Jebusankel Thanks! Hm, I guess the study thesis you state is pretty trivial, though, isn't it? I see the point, but I feel like such an argument for a TED talk is a bit weak. People who watch TED talks at least should be able to deal with reality, I hope.
I think it's great that we find solutions like these, but there's a few critical points she completely seems to miss in her technocratic approach: - We literally torture billions of animals. Even if we were able to reduce their methane output, this is a terrible state of affairs that needs fixing. I suggest the movie "Dominion" (just search-engine it). If we just change their feed and gestation and leave everything else as it is, we fix climate change, but leave another problem unregarded. - Her solution to emissions from waste is sucking out the methane. This might fix the emissions problem of waste, but not the problem of waste itself. Landfills are leaking toxic chemicals into the groundwater, destroy biodiversity and have a host of other negative consequences. We need to reduce waste overall, and by providing quick technofixes like this, I'm afraid this distracts from other problems such as I just mentioned. - By providing a fix to methane leaks in oil and gas production, she implicitly acknowledges that using those fossil fuels can just go on. I wholeheartedly disagree, we need to switch to renewable energy as soon as possible. CO2 is still and in the long run a big driver of climate change. If we only quick-fix, we might be buying time but not coming up with sustainable solutions.
@@bungertheboring2037 "We" is mostly Western, industrialised societies that rely on factory farming to produce ever-increasing amounts of meat for consumption. In most industrialised countries, 90 to 95% of the population eat meat. This probably includes many French people, but is not exclusive to them. Hence, "we" do not manually torture the animals, but "we", the "common folk" as you say, finance the industry that does so and are hence at least complicit.
@@Raketensofa1 financing the "torture" is not the same as doing the "torture". Also how tf do you know that ALL in the western world finance the so called "torture"?
@@bungertheboring2037 yes, that is what I wrote. Although, simple thought experiment: if noone financed it by buying cheap meat en masse, would it still exist? I did not say ALL, that's why I put the figures theres. I'm happy to make this a little more precise by pointing out that there are certainly people who try to buy responsibely sourced meat, but judging by the market share of cheap meat, I think it's fair to say that this is a minority among meat eater.
It is incredible that Ocko, in this detailed presentation, can avoid mentioning the most effective and obvious thing that individuals can do to slow and stop climate change. Instead she favors institutional, governmental, and industry-based "solutions" that are much more expensive and difficult to implement. This is a testament to the power and influence of the meat industry around the world. By changing our diet we can reduce methane drastically while improving our health, reducing costs, and making our diets much more interesting, enjoyable, and satisfying. Any advocate for reducing climate change who does not embrace drastic reductions in meat consumption is, simply, not a credible source. They are bowing to the power of industrialized agriculture.
Individual action on climate change is loughably insignificant, and that is something ppl who ran the numbers are already know for a while. You literally can't do a thing by yourself (even if you convince everyone around you), this is why climate change is a very hard issue to tackle, your actions as an individual doesn't matter that much. Changing the habits, and especially the diet of billions of ppl in the same time is not an easy task. What we should definatelly try to do is to reduce waste (both industrial and domestic), as a good portion of food (including meat) are wasted in wealthy countries, while ppl starving in poor countries. Not only detrimental to the enviroment but also presents a deep socio-economic injustice.
@@CraftyF0X individu action might be insignificant..but what if a large amount of people did that together... it won't be as laughable and insignificant as you think.. as people reduce their meat intake ..companies won't have to produce meat and cattles (these animals can't exist in the wild..) on such a large scale..things would be way more natural and sustainable.. it might start at the individual level.. but when it gets to the population level.. you would start to see the change.. If people were educated to not buy packaged unnecessary 🙄 items ..and prioritize environment over convenience..we would get better.. cuz human life weren't supposed to be this easy.. and hopefully there would be people offering you ecofriendly things
@@science-y9209 Additionally, big companies won't have the initiative to change if all the individual consumers keep giving them money for the destructive practices. It's everyone's responsibility because we are in this together. Both the population has to shift it's choices and the large industries, but if we keep giving the large industries money for bad stuff, they won't have a reason to change. Arguments from futility "oh it's insignificant, what can meezely old me do" are not true justifications for inaction or unwillingness to change. Usually we are just addicted to luxury/diet and want larger systems to somehow find a way to keep giving us these luxuries while also doing it sustainably, but like Greg said, this takes so much time, effort, money, debating, conflict of interests, etc. It is quicker to just eat much less meat and imported fruits/veg, lower waste, drive a little less, and buy some local stuff. If 200,000,000 people do this it will make such a huge impact. Getting that many people to do it takes a long time too, but only because people like the above make false excuses like "oh it doesnt matter if i do it".
Her speech is just a 'hopeful future info dump'. To those saying an individual's actions are useless, so is tightening one leaking bolt. To not at least add a personal action step to further reduce methane production is a missed opportunity. The methane satellite is only as helpful as the number of nations using the data. I agree that governments have lots of influence which is why they should stop subsidizing animal agriculture if they care about methane. Higher meat prices would put a dent in methane production. We need to deal with this issue on all levels, not just one or the other.
The remarkable information you provide to your viewers needs to be applauded. I sincerely appreciate your effort to expand your viewers knowledge. A sincere thank you!
Greenwashing is the new norm. Even the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is working on eco-friendly bombs. Remember "surgical strikes"? Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~ Albert Einstein.
Unfortunately your criticism is right. But all this attempt to control climate is not feasible. It will result only in a big mess... @Lorenzo Blum Eureka!! the vice of greed... That's the explanation!! GRIN Your comment is romantic. It resembles to listening my fella Americans in Berkeley 1968 and in Brazil about 1 decade after: in Brazil all the American cultural fashions and hypes had to delay about 10 years to arrive here around -- during the short unending second half of the XX century. There was the hippy shake in the US (romantic like you) but the lead rule in Brazil during the same period -- further ahead followed by the own delayed Brazilian hippy shake in the 80s. You are the product of your Era. You elaborate and cast psychological reductionist explanations of the social changes which are eventually mixed with a bit of Marxism. Me too (in that epoch...). But we were wrong. The only fundamental springs of change are ultmostly over population and technological advances. Marx, Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Freud all they are gone. Darwin survives. Brazil There will be no way even to the globalist dictatorships of good will to reduce carbon emissions including methane to the point of controling global warming (not to say to control the climate as a whole...) without millions of people killed (not burned, but buried) or artificially stopping humans births in the planet very fast. And no economists or politicians want to do so.
It's impressive how many environmentalists when addressing cutting methane from agriculture don't even consider the possibility to reduce meat consumption rather than creating advanced technologies to change the cow's fart or cover the manure. The solution is simpler than that, just create policies to reduce meat consumption, such as over-taxation and so on
Yep. That's true. Though, I'm not sure over-taxation is the answer. California has the highest gas rates in the country due to over taxation aimed to make people drive less while gaining money for the state to fix roads. It failed to make people drive less, and just proved to make it more difficult for poor people to drive to work. The problem is, people don't want to change their behaviors. We want the world to stop getting hotter and being destroyed by this stuff, but very few are willing to stop eating meat, stop drinking milk, stop driving their car, stop getting amazon delivered ridiculously quickly, stop heating and cooling down their home, etc. I don't think major change will come without major upheaval of something many have come accustomed to. Although, the blame doesn't fall on the individual completely, like many fossil fuel companies would like you to think. They spend a tremendous amount of money trying to make us think that carpooling and recycling will save us, when it wont. Anyway, I agree with you.
Because environmentalists are realists. They know reducing meat consumption simply won't happen without a fundamental shift in behaviour. It's not economically viable in the short term to do that, and humans are incredibly short sighted about short term cost and long term gain, hence the presenting the next best thing that can literally start working overnight
Talking about reducing methane emissions without mentioning going vegan is like suggesting you choose a squirt gun to put out a fire rather than a fire extinguisher
A bit weak on substance. Eliminating methane release is certainly the "low hanging fruit" for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. However, she missed the opportunity to remind the audience that methane contributes ~25-30% to our greenhouse gas global warming thru its contribution to the energy imbalance (Solar energy absorbed minus the infrared radiation emitted back into space). She might also have added that addressing methane emissions is also a priority to lessen greenhouse gas impacts because we have no technological means (on scale) to drawdown atmospheric CO2. Furthermore a huge contributor to methane release is Arctic permafrost thawing & as global mean temperature continues to rise, inexorably, this will accelerate permafrost thaw methane release.
Why she didn't mention we should all ditch our gas cars for electric cars is negligent to say the least. She even has the link to methane as it's produced during oil production
Ditch your electric /gas /oil.... car and buy a second hand bicycle. The kind without any battery. You'll save time because you will live younger, you will save money for obvious reasons but also because you will be healthier. And you might even save the planet. REDUCE, Reuse, Repair, Redistribute, Ride (a Real bicycle), Replant, Reconsider, Recycle, Rejoice.... Btw the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@stevenhill3136 Many cities in Europe are now developping efficient cycle paths ; And big surprise, once the city is safe for bicycles, people do ride, and they love it ! So no, changing our way of life is indeed noyt easy but it is possible. Unfortunately if we don't adapt now we may have to be forced on changes that are less desirable than just "riding a bike"
Electric cars don't produce anywhere near the benefit that many people believe, especially if the energy to charge the car batteries comes from natural gas power plants. For electric cars to meaningfully help reduce CO2, we need to shift from nat. gas and coal to wind and solar generated electricity. In other words, we have to harvest energy cleanly, not just consume it cleanly.
I think that speeches like this are more dangerous than the speeches made by climate deniers. We can't TECH OUR WAY OUT of the climate crisis people! That's what led us here, not just the technology itself, but the lazy, profit driven motivation behind it. We need to start valuing ECOlogy over ECOnomy and start changing our habits, starting today. That's more like yesterday, for us the in the "advanced" countries.
We couldn't "tech our way out" of many situations where that's just what we did. What led us here was not technology, it was wealth accumulation, overpopulation, waste, commercial production and industrial lobbying including fossil fuels which are at this point fully replaceable. Instead of kicking strops in the comments that "we" need to do something, let the world "leaders" and the many assorted corporate monsters take heed instead of copping out and blaming us for the pollution they make.
Stop driving now. Move to a tiny apartment. Keep it 55F. One cold shower every week. Only wear wool and wash it one time a year. Anything less is failure!
You are 100% wrong. take a look at the smog in California mostly solved by catalytic converters. Or wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal energy all these are technology. Have you seen how much carbon is emitted by the 2 billion poor people who still burn coal, wood and dubg in the homes? If you want to turn off all oil production and go back in time 200 years you will kill billions of people. Technology is the only solution.
For rice patties in Southeast Asia. I think it would take a few generations and modern thinking and management to change what is currently a tradition and proven method of outputting raw rice. Change can be scary for them.
SRI methods lower methane emissions by 60% and are nowadays applied globally, and particularly in South Asia, on 6.7 million hectares. It's not enough and we should do more. The goal is 50 million by 2030. Check for Sustainable Rice Intensification methods and you will be positively surprised!
Change is scary yes, especially for subsistence farmers and that's the why must developed incentives to adopt practices that improve the yields and drastically reduce the impact on the environment like SRI is and that is being done but it need all the support possible.
The methane emissions come from decomposition in water. Rice also looses a lot of water from its inefficient methods of irrigation. The two problems are interrelated.
how patronising. "for them". Unless your life has made every single possible global warming emission reduction (including going vegan, not using plastics, not using rare metals, not using air travel, not using fossil fuels) then it's "Change can be scary for US". Our society is not changing enough.
Where is veganism in this conversation? A solution to net zero has to address the devastating environmental damage of factory farming: deforestation, land use, water use, pollution, huge biodiversity loss. Not to mention the indescribably cruelty. If you're curious you should definitely look it up. It'll change your life.
"Where is veganism in this conversation? " Great comment' Largest study of its kind (Poore & Nemecek 2019) found that if everyone went vegan, we would need 75% less land to feed everyone, could then reforests and re-wild an area the size of North America plus Brazil because of the farmland we no longer needed, and that would sequester over 600 BILLION tons of CO2 by 2050, not even counting all the additional CO2 sequestered in the oceans from the booming marine life populations that would occur.
I translate what she said, because she made every effort not to say it. Burne the methane (to produce electricity and money) what makes the longer staying CO2. Change the cows diet instead the inconvenient you kill the planet if you eat beef. And forget the unregulated Indian cows. So it was smokescreen for the masses. I have no problem almost any of what she said if she strait and don't want to playing on your guilt under climate change. The almost part is the satellite what most likely going to be used to fine you not to provide information. Side note the last 5-6 years made appliances die in 4-5 years instead of 20+ how much waste is that and how nobody cares... And she feel good about what she did...
@Lorenzo Blum Eureka!! the vice of greed... That's the explanation!! GRIN Your comment is romantic. It resembles to listening my fella Americans in Berkeley 1968 and in Brazil about 1 decade after: in Brazil all the American cultural fashions and hypes had to delay about 10 years to arrive here around -- during the short unending second half of the XX century. There was the hippy shake in the US (romantic like you) but the lead rule in Brazil during the same period -- further ahead followed by the own delayed Brazilian hippy shake in the 80s. You are the product of your Era. You elaborate and cast psychological reductionist explanations of the social changes which are eventually mixed with a bit of Marxism. Me too (in that epoch...). But we were wrong. The only fundamental springs of change are ultmostly over population and technological advances. Marx, Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Freud all they are gone. Darwin survives. Brazil
I shall agree with you... I believe she is afraid to be fined... by the satellites because she eats hamburgers or something like that... Who knows... Brazil This was (mentally) translated from Portuguese...
@Despize Perform Dudes English is fine. He stated that CO2 stays in the air longer than methane does. He also said that we should change the diet of the cows instead of saying that eating beef is destroying the planet. The satellites will be meant as a surveillance measure to fine farmers. Also his point about planned obsolesce hits the nail on the head. Aka her talk was bullshit.
very interesting levers which are presented on this TED in a methodological way. but I'm afraid of the permaftost melt that will be a most important effect and the question is what we can do ?
Great speech! Very interesting to learn that there are more effective means to slow down climate crisis apart from reducing CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration. I believe we need to make use of all possibilties available in order to preserve our planet's beauty for our children
Another low hanging fruit is reducing the speed limit by 10%. This would save more than 15% of fuel and therefore CO2 with very little cost. Plus it would reduce accidents, pollution and micro plastic from tires.
@@madshorn5826 You mean rubber unless THERE'S really is Plastics in Tires. Well I definitely agree with reducing speed limits but you think the population would follow that rule/law? I don't consider myself as old but I have been driving slower to save gas and wear and tear on our minivan. Gotta make it last another 3-4 years till we can afford an EV minivan or SUV and a midsized EV.
@Jonathan Krost Let's hope we can do it soon. I'm waiting for our new metal roof so we can install as much as we can solar panels with Tesla PowerWall units. Then switch out our heating from natural gas to heat pump or just go with electric water baseboard heaters which ever is the lower cost and efficient. Love to go full throttle on all efficient electrical appliances and heating/cooling/cooking appliances. The install insulated siding and add more attic insulation.
@@robertlee8805 Micro plastic is a umbrella term I guess and while tyres still includes rubber they are a mix of so many chemicals that I think 'plastic' is pretty accurate :-) Anyway, the articles I have read about micro plastic attributes half the problem to tyre wear. And it is a problem. UN just declared it a crisis on par with climate change and biodiversity loss :-( A minivan _and_ a midsize car? Your job necessitates a van I take it? I am afraid that while we can keep a comfortable lifestyle and save a human friendly climate, we can't do this by continuing our current lifestyle 1:1. I too thought I wouldn't have the money for an EV for years to come, but looking at used cars and doing some hard thinking and a leap of faith, I bought a used Nissan Leaf 2016 a year ago. It has only 100 km range, but 95% of the time my need is 80 km -) The remaining 5% I have to spend half an hour fast changing once or twice a trip, but often this can be done while the car would be parked anyway. It has limited my options a little, but I haven't regretted it for a second. When we went on vacation we rented a petrol car. (EVs isn't available yet). My point is that being a first mover may be cheaper than you think, because thinking is hard, hence the competition is low ;-)
I agree but not at the cost of humanity itself, destroying lives, livelihoods, and futures of people, families, communities, and towns. I see a lot of scientists and experts imparting valuable information and pressing for immediate action, which I agree with but, with no understanding of the consequences to humanity, they have no solution for that, that is the next step. Pushing scientist out of the way and getting critical thinkers who understand the value of real life, and coming up with creative and innovative solutions to do the things we need to do now but while NOT destroying people in the process.
There is no clean energy. This greenwashing is diverting us from the real problem : greed which always leads to corruption. Greed is consumerism. We've been brainwashed to believe more is the key of happiness. All energies are fine if they are exploited and used with ethics. What's the point having a clean energy (which is an abstract concept) if we use it to manufacture trash? Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Very interesting speech! I think that it is especially crucial to raise awareness about the climate changes and especially all of the ways to prevent it. It is a pressing issue that affects us all the time, and we are still not concerned about it as much as we should. And I also believe that we should all individually try to take small actions so not all of the solutions are in the hands of countries and huge companies! 💪
She did more than think about solutions. She wasn't up there spitballing ideas. She had data to back up her reasons and proposals for some of the changes. OBVIOUSLY, implementing something new is always an issue. Nothing will change with your attitude, though.
Currently we have a solar/ warming imbalance of 1 watt per sq meter which is increasing. That's the warming mechanism right there. If we stopped emitting CO2 and CH4 now, the dwell time of just the CO2 (stays in atmosphere for 200 to 1000 yrs) means we maintain that imbalance and keep warming. Trees, agriculture, tech will not remove it in time that'd save us from terrible and likely existential damage.
reading these comments I agree, she glossed over agriculture without addressing the key issue- limiting or eliminating cows from our ordinary diet would be a solution that would help reduce methane emissions and everyone can participate in...we cant wait for scientists to make pills for cows to eat and say thats good enough with how dire this situation. Drive through socal or look at any high production meat industry/farm..they won't give a damn about methane emissions unless we have legal regulation and enforcement. All these privatized companies with their lobbying is destroying our planet.
It would sure be cool if TED talks started doing only online seminars so people aren’t wasting the fossil fuels to get to their events. A practice what you preach approach
@@NoWacko so what you are saying is Ted talks are not only getting people to pollute with travel but also pollute with the internet? Thanks for making climate change activist look like grifters even more.
She’s correctly identified the sources, however, fixing these problems still remains difficult to incentivize. Yes, it’s not rocket science… but her “solutions” oversimplify the logistical complications of their implementation.
@@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb that’s consumer behaviour and changeable - plenty of ways in most places to be vegan and local if one chooses. I don’t eat red meat anymore but what I do eat is as local as I can make it.
@@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb Source for that claim? "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local" on Our World in Data, University of Oxford. A plant-based diet is and will always be more environmentally friendly.
How about reducing our consumption of meat? This also has the massive advantage that trees can be planted on the land that is freed up when we stop feeding the soya and corn to animals. Trees will take huge amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, giving a double benefit.
To reduce our consumption of meat, we should get rid of feedlots, which create manure runoff problems, create sick animals (who are not designed to eat grain), and create tons of methane. Contrast all this with regenerative farming, where the cows are moved to a different fenced off pasture three times a day, thus optimizing the use and regeneration of the grass, spreading the manure around, and allowing the trampling of the hooves to assist in the absorption of CO2 into the soil. In addition, there is a little-known process whereby the methane interacts with the grass, countering much of the negative effects of the methane. THEN we have to get beef eaters to adapt to grass-fed beef, which will mean not allowing importation of grain-finished beef.
Reducing speed limits by 10% would slash fuel consumption by more than 15%. And reduce noise, pollution, accidents and micro plastic from tyres. What are we waiting for?
I guess what her message here is: 'Don't forget about the methane problem!' - Everyone who cares, best to act now and drop excuses for not acting. Help our societies to grow up and mature to a responsible humanity
There isn’t a viable alternative yet. You must have backup power for solar and wind. That is fossil fuel power power plants. The only viable alternative is NUCLEAR. Unfortunately, that has been blocked by peoples who may mean well but do not understand the problem. New technology nuclear will be safe. NIMBYs must stop blocking deep underground waste storage.
Its equally as important everywhere. Russia I’ve read has methane leaking everywhere. We can’t continue with this national sovereignty and borders junk anymore. The atmosphere is a big chemistry experiment that doesn’t care.
Congratulations, clear, strong message for critical times. I am concerned that change driven sources are emitting large scale methane in particular, Arctic Permafrost emissions. So, good message, no time to loose, save the permafrost to save the climate.
OR: 1) Consumption and waste reduction, 2) fossil fuel moratorium 3) Prohibit the farming of beed and adopt meatless diets. They are going to decimate a future on vain strategies to avoid changes. This isn’t complicated. And it’s perfectly apparent many things are required of everyone, but when it impacts some privileged groups they complain and refuse to obey. Can we all be accommodated for doing whatever we want no matter the consequences?
I don’t think this is accurate. Transportation represents about 15% of global carbon emissions. Every wealthy country beats this figure in meat consumption, energy production, and others.
It's a great idea to monitor where and how much methane is being emissioned, however, I have a question on this "sealing" idea. How can we "seal" volcanoes, faults, melting glaciers, and permafrost as these things now produce way more methane than energy production, agriculture, and waste? And the logical question arises, why no natural causes are taken into account at all? They input into the greenhouse effect in particular and into climate change as a whole much more than humans. The tectonic plates, magma plumes, and volcanoes are going crazy more and more every day (and they produce all these greenhouse gases more and more), the huge amount of water vapor is increasing (as you know this is the major substance that causes the greenhouse) because of the heat that comes closer to the earth's surface, and boils the underground water. Isn't it the task for real scientists to research what is causing this madness with our planet from the inside? And once the reason is found, to look for the way out for whole our civilization? As we monitor the trends for more than 10 years, we don't have much time to solve this problem and to waste the precious time of scientists to the dead-end but well-paid theories. All honest scientists are welcome to join the preparation for an international forum "Global Crisis. We are people. We want to live" that is aimed to truthfully and objectively inform humanity about the increasing danger of climate and environmental disasters and to consider practical solutions to overcome all the crises by building the human-centered society worldwide.
@@ФедірГордус indeed huge work was done by researchers! All the information is on open sources, but it is hard to find it just by googling, you need to review all the dedicated platforms, check it and so on, as well as contact scientists who research these topics! So this work is great help for all of us to have big picture on the problems
It's all fun & games until you realise much of that science is still on a kids groping in the dark level in terms of having a full picture of what's actually going on & more often than not all that gets filterd to us via groups of interest and finally delivered by mass media, as a bunch of biased, low resolution half truths
Hi ! Indeed scientists are taking into account natural causes too ! If you're looking for a reliable source on the advances on this (very) complex subject of research that is climate change, i would recommend reading the ipcc'reports. Those reports are written following as closely as possible the scientific method, and produce a summary of every scientific study from the last few years. As the ipcc is mandated by the UN, they are the least likely to be subject from direct state corruption nor pressured by greedy lobbies. I believe those reports can greatly help one understand these questions better. Not only they provide informations on the sources and the risks of climate change, but they also suggest possible responses.
@@arnspyarchi6040 In 1988 when IPCC was established they highliggted that their goal is to research the human input to the climate change only. They stated that yes, water vapor is the main reason of the greenhouse, however as human doesn't affect it much, let's not dig in this direction
The speaker is a scientist so I can't believe she is saying what she is saying. I suspect she is overly simplifying and twisting the facts to make the topic understandable. But what she ends up saying is simply NOT TRUE Regarding "we need to reach net zero to stabilize our climate" - NOT TRUE. Since the arctic and permafrost are both melting at CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels, achieving net zero will only MAINTAIN current (or some future higher) atmospheric CO2 level. This means the arctic and permafrost will continue to melt, and climate change will continue to worsen. Regarding: "when we reduce methane, we can reduce a lot of warming right away..." - NOT TRUE. Consider that CO2 is being emitted at 33-35 BILLION tonnes per year while methane is about 570 MILLION tonnes. In the atmosphere CO2 has been rising about 2-3 Parts Per MILLION per year. Methane increased last year about 14 Parts Per BILLION or 0.014 Parts Per MILLION. (1/74'th of CO2 - notice the unit of measure for methane is PPB which is 1/1000 that of CO2's PPM) Methane has an atmospheric half life of about 10 years while CO2 has an atmospheric half life of about 120 years.There is no denying that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (about 70 times greater over those first 10-12 years). But, considering the tiny amount of methane emitted compared to CO2 (about 1/60th of Co2), and the vastly shorter half life of methane compared to CO2 (about 1/12th), and the lower yearly atmospheric rise of methane compared to CO2 (1/74'th of Co2), a reduction of methane alone will have only a TINY reduction in climate heating. Regarding "if we succeed in cutting methane... we can... hit the breaks on worsening extreme events." NOT TRUE - those events will continue because they are driven by CURRENT greenhouse gas emissions which remain in the atmosphere for over a century. Thus simply slowing (rather than reversing) atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions will NOT change the fact those extreme weather events will continue to happen. (Similarly, just slowing the speed of a car pointed at a cliff, will not change the fact that the car will sooner or later go off the cliff.) In summary, this is one of those pseudo-scientific talks meant to make people feel good. But it is of little actual informational value. Are TED talks becoming "feel-good" talks?
Rising tides lift ...In my opinion, short and long term solutions can be achieved in a generation. By making methane capture/reduction a cash crop, innovative companies will flock to cash in. For the short term, it's "all about the Benjamins". For the long term, using global education systems to incorporate the Japanese model of environmental care by having school children clean up their own environments (classrooms, hallways, etc.) instills a sense of personal responsibility in the child that carries into adulthood.
Not only does the meat industry directly emit methane, it has a massive land footprint leading to deforestation and requires a lot of water. The animals are held in very dense environments, leading to disease that can evolve and spread to humans and perhaps start the next pandemic. Most of the modern influenza variants evolved in pigs. This also leads to a massive use of antibiotics that contributes to evolving superbugs much more than humans taking antibiotics when they don't need to. And there is also a moral dilemma. Are we fine with hundreds of billions of animals suffering daily for their entire lives? There is a simple way to end all of that. We need to drastically reduce our consumption of meat and dairy products. The more you cut your meat consumption the better, even if this means cutting it only by 20-30%. There are already many meat and dairy substitutes that are indistinguishable from the real thing in blind tests.
U.S. exported nearly 6.75 million metric tons of wood pellets during the first 11 months of 2021 at a value of $959.94 million, compared to 6.69 million metric tons exported at a value of $905.77 million during the same period of 2020.
Yep, not roots or tree barks, and trees get it from wild fires too, forest are a ecosystem with ground water tables. The oil ban is narrow minded also. As jet fuel & diesel and 10s of types of plastic are part % of a barrel oil crew & come from the amount of oil used now. Natural gas ban too. Is a Sham also beside hair products and lotions.all from natural gas by product. urea fertilizer. More than 90% of world industrial production of urea is destined for use as a nitrogen-release fertilizer Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use. Therefore, it has a low transportation cost per unit of nitrogen nutrition The most common impurity of synthetic urea , Urea breaks down in the soil to give ammonium. The ammonium is taken up by the plant. In some soils, the ammonium is oxidized by bacteria to give nitrate, which is also a plant nutrient. Petrochemical: Agriculture. urea fertilizer. More than 90% of world industrial production of urea is destined for use as a nitrogen-release fertilizer Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use. Therefore, it has a low transportation cost per unit of nitrogen nutrition The most common impurity of synthetic urea , Urea breaks down in the soil to give ammonium. The ammonium is taken up by the plant. In some soils, the ammonium is oxidiz
Qoute . IHC chemical study that hydrogen petrochemical or hydrocarbon estimate 2021 average E.V car contain 778 lb of petrochemical plastic most used material after metal, to weight saving from metal thousand of pounds. for longer range and cost saving. So No gas = no plastic or ev cars that need lighter weight. No gas = no plastic = no ev cars or even high tech just huge inflation Adding Gas is 40% of barrel of oil. The rest is diesel, kerosene or jet fuel, petrochemical or hydrocarbon , paint thinner, road tar With oil our infrastructure stops
@@thomas4315 the interesting thing about wood pellets is that nasty coal 1Kg emit 3Kg of CO2 for X power but wood pellets aren't as energy dense so you need 1.5 Kg to give X power so you get 4.5 Kg of CO2 - how does that make sense also the demand for the wood pellet scam is causing price rises and increased power costs - the environment would be better off burning the coal and looking for a lesser CO2 alternative - Oh wait Gen 4 nuclear that will actually reduce CO2
In Canada 8 more biomass coming on this yr for about 18 total.they open up the forest reserve land. A guy show one factory took a while to pass it and it waslike 2 blocks the trees stacked was about 3 story high and about 2 football field long. It nuts how much lumber they are useing that why lumber are 90 buck a good ply wood lat lowes now. If you know solar you know a stove or ac or charging will tax and empty a 1,000 watts system. Silat can't cut it and it don't walk at night. The amount of battery and sand will do more damages than coal or oil. They is no extra electric or it's wastefu. And the nurse the eu want to ban nuclear power plant. What going to power the world?
Rice doesn't need flooding, it's just for weed and pest control. Some (not sure if it's a lot) paddies are also used to raise fish in them, so that increases food production.
Getting rid of threaded fittings for natural gas would be a good first step , a system like SSP's "ultraflare" being universally adopted for gas would eliminate the "spiral leak path" that are threaded fittings.
Getting rid of corruption because corruption is the reason for most pollution. Corruption is the consequence of GREED. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Methane remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, with a half-life of about ten years. It's the accumulation in the atmosphere that poses the problem, which explains why more than 80% of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2. It is important to understand that between 10 and 25% of the CO2 emitted will still be present in the atmosphere in 10,000 years. We must therefore absolutely stop emitting CO2 of fossil origin if we do not want to modify the climate in the long term.
Cellular cultures and plant proteins can replace much or all animal exploitation. It's absurd to tweak feeds or cover manure lagoons when full and permanent solutions are at hand.
plant proteins, mostly from soybeans, account for a lot of the worlds current deforestation in very sensitive places like the amazon rainforest and they dont contain nearly the same essential nutrients. cellular cultures generate a huge amount of plastic waste per very very small quantities of meat and are too energy intensive to sustain anyone. these are not viable solutions to anything, they are marketing gimmicks
@@btzrdj Actually 98% of soy meal (the protein product) is fed to livestock. There are also misguided and fortunately waning biodiesel programs that relied on soy oil (better to limit sourcing to waste oil and perhaps vat-grown algae). The energy saved in transporting and storing legumes is also vast (meat requires refrigeration or freezing). As for cellular cultures, they can't compete with meat for plastic waste and the technology is just taking off -- you'll be witnessing huge strides. So you arguments are quite weak. Maybe give them some plant protein. ;)
It was a very impressive speech. Our practices are important, but I think solutions to reduce greenhouse gases, which are the sources of the greenhouse effect, are also very important.
Through taxes, we're already funding the biggest polluter on Earth, the military industrial complex. So reducing taxes would be the solution. Or using the Pentagon's money to fix rather than to destroy our ecosystem.
Old depleted oil wells that have been capped tend to leach large amounts of methane. Shale oil extraction will cause large releases of methane as a by-product.
Nice speech and good and refreshing insights! BUT what about the melting of permafrost in Siberia? There the emission of methan gas is not controllable.
Feed supplements? Does she mean another pill as a solution? Moving away from CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and moving towards better practices in livestock management within the natural ecosystem will feed the soil and build better soil resilience for hot and wet climates changes. Consider and support silvopasture and regenerative farming and ranching practices. Healthier soils and animals. Healthier people. Healthier Earth.
2 Scenarios: - Continue hopping for the ultimate technological innovation that will save us all from destroying ourselves but might never happen: millions of dollars going into researching food that will stop cows from farting (seriously???) - Reducing meat consumption: immediate effect, healthier, no cost whatsoever, stops most of the worldwide deforestation, ... the list goes on and on
So instead of putting this on all of us to change the way we live our lives, we can just put it on some poor farmers. Genius! With the added benefit that the rich get off free! Let's not blame the oil, gas, and industrial companies that have lots of money. Let's blame it on the poorer agriculturalists that's industry has existed long before the oil and gas companies.
I think I was a bit light on this talk with my first comment, so I'm back. Of the five major economic sectors that produce harmful pollutants agriculture is in last. The first is transportation. If we really wanted to make things change we would invest more money in mass-transit and pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure. We would come to the realization that everyone owning their own private vehicle isn't sustainable. But the oil and gas companies and car manufacturers won't let us do that, because that would hit their profit margins. So instead, this women from the EDF (who gets funding from major companies) is telling us it's the livestock. Now if you're talking about reducing factor farming and regulating that farmers stop feeding cows less-expensive feed (corn and beans) that is outside their natural diet then that would be right to change. But she is instead saying that "No, we don't have to change a thing! We're going to sell you a product to make the cows burp and fart less!". Utter capitalist pseudo-science bullshit. We don't know how it will effect the cows but they'll burp and fart less! Can't believe TED let her on this platform.
Grow your own food, eat only minimally processed plants, and replace rice with healthier grains like oats and barley. Rice is full of arsenic anyway. Oh but people won’t change cuz “cheese tastes too good” and they’re selfish bastards
There is no miracle solution but fighting corruption would solve some. Corruption is responsible for most pollution. Corruption is the consequence of GREED. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@jhunt5578 why are you bringing the vegan debate while I'm pointing out the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex? Are you gaslighting? From a personal perspective, I eat meat or fish once a week on average. I haven't taken a plane in 35 years and I get around with my bicycle that I repair.... What is truly evil is excess and greed my friend.
Nuclear power is fastest way to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Also, the latest IPCC AR6 report shows a global increase in vegetation and crop production. Plants love CO2.
To increase vegetation we would need the majority of the population to adopt a plant-based diet and reforest the 40% of the land animal agriculture is currently using, but no, most people would rather die from heart disease and destroy the planet.
Nuclear power is the slowest way. Reducing the economy is the fastest. As for plants, they can’t migrate as biomes change, they can move as far as a root or a fallen seed each season. And while yes climates changes have happened before, never ever ever this fast. And plants in higher C02 take up less nutrients from soil making them less nutritious for consumption. Chocolate and coffee are going to be among the first to vanish.
This is such a business and growth view of solving climate change... The easiest solution RIGHT NOW that YOU can do is to indvidually reduce your consumption. Eating less or no meat. Composting food scraps. Using less gas, oil, and coal where you can by consuming less and throwing away less stuff. It's sImple but she doesn't mention any of it? We should also patition governments to change their policies and adopt new technologies but this is not the most immediate impact. Right now, make a personal sacrifice to climate change by not buying that new fancy phone, or clothes, or eating takeaways and cosuming meat etc. Its not easy but niether is launching satalites into space to measure methane leaks or getting China to change its rice farming which is only responsible for about 5% of methane production is going to be a lot harder as the crop sustains a lot people than livestock farms in the western countries. Maybe just stop buying rice if you can??? Sorry for the rant, it's just clear this video isn't being entirely honest but interesting angle of attack.
Summary of tge video: Cut methane emissions. No actual examples of methods, no data and no evidence. Feels like a 13-year-old trying to write an educational essay, oversimplified and sometimes over exaggerated. It's very difficult to address an issue so complicated with so less time. Could've made the entire talk into a 5 minutes slideshow video and save the energy comsumed for hosting such event.
@@elvytan4682 Very true. Any idea or theory has to simplified before introducing to non specialist, but this speech feels more like educating children, which isn't a bad thing but it could be more informative.
Naive comment. That's like criticizing a semi running on gas for transporting electric vehicle parts, or criticizing someone who makes a RUclips video to complain about RUclips policies. Or using a wrench to make a tool that's better than a wrench. If that's the best way to get information out, so be it. Can't blame them for living in a world they were born into..
@@RantKid Just an opportunity for another bunch of people sitting around in comfort, feeling good about themselves. Al Gore is still zooming around the world in private jets, hawking fictional "carbon credits", raking it in. Barack Obama is not selling his $12M+ Hamptons waterfront property anytime soon. Grifters.
They.don’t have to better than the same old words, if the same old words are worth repeating. And who says it has to be absolute best outlet? (I’d like to hear your better suggestion).
Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Carbon Adjustments are the fastest way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This single policy is strong enough to address 50% of the global CO2 pollution problem. And it puts more money in people's pockets while doing so.
I really wish this topic in particular didn't have a speaker who was so cookie-cutter and non-engaging in delivery. It's like she came right from TED school to give her TED talk. When you're trying to inspire people with ideas, the number one thing is to be yourself and tell your story--not come up with the exact right hand gestures and pinpoint precise word emphasis in your perfect clothes and makeup. None of that sh%^ matters and it just came off for me as disingenuous.
Are any of these projects even being funded? We are facing a total loss of polar ice, The IPCC now knows it is melting far faster then was projected. Yes we need to reduce methane but the projects have not been reported on. She showed pictures of various ideas but nothing scaled so the question becomes did big oil pay her to do this "research" and if so which oil company paid her to do it? If they didn't then this is just a book report so she can get her degree.
I am for improving efficiency & reducing waste. The problem in detecting methane is that it is colorless & oderless. Since it is such a good radiator of heat, I suppose 1 could devise a device to project IR and with a shielded camera observe the sources of methane. Granted, it would only be good in low wind conditions, and probably only good for less than 100 meters.
The question I have is; How are we going to implement these changes? We need regulation to make it happen. I'm at a point where I'm thinking about giving up beef (which I love) if they can't find a way to sustainable raise cattle! We all need to make sacrifices to help.
I think this was a better speech than a lot of the commenters here seem to think. She talked about the different sources and the solutions for those sources though I have to say I'm surprised to not hear a word about just consuming less or no beef when talking about the methane cows produce.
It was implied (by hers) that some strongly bonded options are impossible to change.
Brazil without translator.
Agreee! Better feed is not the solution
Agreed. I definitely want to hear the reduction of beef consumption become normalized in these types of speeches.
But reducing our consumption is not "business as usual" that is the key problem
@@shadowf3r4l Neither reducing reproductive behavior of too viviparus women...
Sponsored by the meat industry? She didn’t even mention plantbased meat, cultured meat or reducing meat consumtion. That’s much more effective because it has other advantages like less land use / deforestation etc.
Plantbased meat is unaffordable right now, reducing meat consumption isnt fast and not very likely as most people wont change their diet.
Not everyone want to become a vegetarian.
Her solutions are much faster and realistic
Good idea, but do you honestly believe meat eaters, are going to change their diets? These numbskulls won't even wear a mask or get vaccinated during A GLOBAL VIRAL PANDEMIC to reduce transmission and mutation of this virus. We're basically screwed Bro!! SMH
@It's not looking good Man I don’t know what party them numbskulls are a part of but I do know they are stubborn as an ox and are about to destroy our nation with their arrogance!
@It's not looking good Did you read my response? I just said, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTY THEM NUMBSKULLS ARE A PART OF". MEAT EATERS, WILL NOT STOP EATING MEAT!! Period! How long have we been alerting the planet about GLOBAL WARMING and NOTHING!!
@@RodZilla11 u should be banned from ever writing another word on the internet.
This video was completely correct, until she said that we can change it and that we are already acting on it. So was someone made responsible for the abandoned wells leaking methane? Was someone forced to invest a penny into their leaking well? Was some fined? Did someone at least propose a fine? Hard nope. Please, let's just drop this optimism.
Abandoned rigs yes, but also trials and probes. Those are not “plugged back”, just left behind leaking.
@@tothzoliemail indeed. And these could be fixed really cheaply. At least in comparison to inventing electric planes and all that. Yet, nobody cares
Check out the BritMonkey video “Stop being a Climate Change Doomer.”
We can’t afford to doom, but we also can’t afford to understate things either, and we need to act as if nothing is being done at all, because we aren’t doing nearly enough. Doomerism only feeds into the issue though.
There is a non-profit run by a former oil mogul thats working on the problem by sealing old oil pumps. Yeah they havent made it very far.
... and at 5:30 when she talks about agriculture it smells like marketing nonsense:
"... agriculture emits the most and remains the hardest to address..." Why so? I would have thought it's the easiest to address: simply stop eating and drinking milk products and meat. Millions upon millions are going plant-based and/or vegan throughout the USA, the EU, and the UK all the time. But does she offer any explanation? No.
Straight onto the implication that some great tech fix is the ONLY possible solution 'cos the very next phrase is ".. but there are exciting new technologies on the horizon."
Why waste time waiting for any technological fixes when we do not need to be consuming the breast milk of another species to start with?!
Then she shares the blame around evenly "the billion plus livestock animals worldwide," despite the fact that we all know it is only the absurd numberss of animals in the CAFOs of the USA and other long industrialized nations that cram those beautiful kind curious gentle animals into tiny fields, barnes, and crates.
And this is how we know she's more than likely a paid marketing rep doing some nice advertorial work in a specially tailored suit.
- The great truth is that it is the easiest and by far the fastest way to deal with methane by finding favourite plant-based milk products, and by letting others know of the health and environmental benefits we experience, too.
There are some great documentaries on Netflix that help illustrate all the information we need in very clear, unambiguous terms, for example the devastating impacts the dairy industry has -- this other half of the beef industry -- on our health, and on the health of other living creatures with whom we share the ecosystem outside of the CAFOs in which so much milk and beef are produced.
- Most of these titles are on Netflix, and other similarly great documentaries on the topic are available there and elsewhere too.
* On health:
Forks Over Knives (USA)
What the Health? (USA)
The Game Changers (USA)
Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead (USA/ Australia, sort of)
* On environmental impact:
Cowspiracy (USA)
Seaspiracy (USA, etc.)
Plant-based Nation (USA)
... and as if all that's not enough, check out Earthlings (USA, etc.,; featuring Joaquin Phoenix), Dominion, Lucent (Australia), and very soon the new and equally excellent Milked (Aotearoa New Zealand), and Cow (the UK).
All very good points here, and I'm for implementing them. However I am very disappointed that the most obvious solution of not consuming animal products isn't even raised here. All her solutions still require business and government buy-in, but not eating animals is something that practically everyone can do right now.
That's true. She may be aiming at government, and industry over individuals. Government already puts too much emphasis on the individual, when what we need major structural change.
@@OceansEpilogue i agree with you. There is always ways for us as individuals to do something better, but corporations and governments contribute largely yo the problem and need to take spets also.
It is always hard to induct radical social change quickly. America at least is mostly made up of people that eat meat and to change that many people's minds would be difficult.
NO! What everyone could do is not eat animals but to plant trees
You can't be serious about the cows, though. We could also reduce our excessive and inhumane "use" of them alltogether, which would be as well or better for the climate and less pain and torture on earth, which most people would consider morally right.
Yea I was disappointed to not hear her mention this at all. I literally know people that eat a cheeseburger every day! Cut back to twice a week and the methane connected to their diet is cut drastically!
Better yet, replace those two cheeseburgers a week with an impossible patty and now it’s a fraction of what it once was!
Missed opportunity…
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet True!
Yes yes yes!! I was looking for this comment thank you ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😊😊😊😊😊
Except it's a bajilliion times easier to change what we feed cows than to convince people to eat less beef. Telling people to eat less meat creates a backfire effect where Fox News pundits whine that these authoritarian liberals are trying to take away your 4th of July cheeseburgers. There was an actual study done where they found out that if people thought climate change required difficult sacrifices to tackle, they were more likely to deny that it was happening altogether. Better to convince people to eat less beef out of self interest, by showing that it's unhealthy, or that the animals aren't treated humanely or that CAFOs are breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria.
@@Jebusankel Thanks! Hm, I guess the study thesis you state is pretty trivial, though, isn't it? I see the point, but I feel like such an argument for a TED talk is a bit weak. People who watch TED talks at least should be able to deal with reality, I hope.
I think it's great that we find solutions like these, but there's a few critical points she completely seems to miss in her technocratic approach:
- We literally torture billions of animals. Even if we were able to reduce their methane output, this is a terrible state of affairs that needs fixing. I suggest the movie "Dominion" (just search-engine it). If we just change their feed and gestation and leave everything else as it is, we fix climate change, but leave another problem unregarded.
- Her solution to emissions from waste is sucking out the methane. This might fix the emissions problem of waste, but not the problem of waste itself. Landfills are leaking toxic chemicals into the groundwater, destroy biodiversity and have a host of other negative consequences. We need to reduce waste overall, and by providing quick technofixes like this, I'm afraid this distracts from other problems such as I just mentioned.
- By providing a fix to methane leaks in oil and gas production, she implicitly acknowledges that using those fossil fuels can just go on. I wholeheartedly disagree, we need to switch to renewable energy as soon as possible. CO2 is still and in the long run a big driver of climate change. If we only quick-fix, we might be buying time but not coming up with sustainable solutions.
@@justanotherguy7215 ❤
"We literaly torture billions of animals". You talking french? Who tf is we? It is THEY who do that, not the common folk.
@@bungertheboring2037 "We" is mostly Western, industrialised societies that rely on factory farming to produce ever-increasing amounts of meat for consumption. In most industrialised countries, 90 to 95% of the population eat meat. This probably includes many French people, but is not exclusive to them.
Hence, "we" do not manually torture the animals, but "we", the "common folk" as you say, finance the industry that does so and are hence at least complicit.
@@Raketensofa1 financing the "torture" is not the same as doing the "torture". Also how tf do you know that ALL in the western world finance the so called "torture"?
@@bungertheboring2037 yes, that is what I wrote. Although, simple thought experiment: if noone financed it by buying cheap meat en masse, would it still exist?
I did not say ALL, that's why I put the figures theres. I'm happy to make this a little more precise by pointing out that there are certainly people who try to buy responsibely sourced meat, but judging by the market share of cheap meat, I think it's fair to say that this is a minority among meat eater.
It is incredible that Ocko, in this detailed presentation, can avoid mentioning the most effective and obvious thing that individuals can do to slow and stop climate change. Instead she favors institutional, governmental, and industry-based "solutions" that are much more expensive and difficult to implement. This is a testament to the power and influence of the meat industry around the world. By changing our diet we can reduce methane drastically while improving our health, reducing costs, and making our diets much more interesting, enjoyable, and satisfying. Any advocate for reducing climate change who does not embrace drastic reductions in meat consumption is, simply, not a credible source. They are bowing to the power of industrialized agriculture.
Individual action on climate change is loughably insignificant, and that is something ppl who ran the numbers are already know for a while. You literally can't do a thing by yourself (even if you convince everyone around you), this is why climate change is a very hard issue to tackle, your actions as an individual doesn't matter that much. Changing the habits, and especially the diet of billions of ppl in the same time is not an easy task. What we should definatelly try to do is to reduce waste (both industrial and domestic), as a good portion of food (including meat) are wasted in wealthy countries, while ppl starving in poor countries. Not only detrimental to the enviroment but also presents a deep socio-economic injustice.
If you think that reducing meat consumption is actionable then you are very deluded.
@@CraftyF0X individu action might be insignificant..but what if a large amount of people did that together... it won't be as laughable and insignificant as you think.. as people reduce their meat intake ..companies won't have to produce meat and cattles (these animals can't exist in the wild..) on such a large scale..things would be way more natural and sustainable.. it might start at the individual level.. but when it gets to the population level.. you would start to see the change..
If people were educated to not buy packaged unnecessary 🙄 items ..and prioritize environment over convenience..we would get better.. cuz human life weren't supposed to be this easy.. and hopefully there would be people offering you ecofriendly things
@@science-y9209 Additionally, big companies won't have the initiative to change if all the individual consumers keep giving them money for the destructive practices. It's everyone's responsibility because we are in this together. Both the population has to shift it's choices and the large industries, but if we keep giving the large industries money for bad stuff, they won't have a reason to change. Arguments from futility "oh it's insignificant, what can meezely old me do" are not true justifications for inaction or unwillingness to change. Usually we are just addicted to luxury/diet and want larger systems to somehow find a way to keep giving us these luxuries while also doing it sustainably, but like Greg said, this takes so much time, effort, money, debating, conflict of interests, etc. It is quicker to just eat much less meat and imported fruits/veg, lower waste, drive a little less, and buy some local stuff. If 200,000,000 people do this it will make such a huge impact. Getting that many people to do it takes a long time too, but only because people like the above make false excuses like "oh it doesnt matter if i do it".
Her speech is just a 'hopeful future info dump'. To those saying an individual's actions are useless, so is tightening one leaking bolt. To not at least add a personal action step to further reduce methane production is a missed opportunity. The methane satellite is only as helpful as the number of nations using the data. I agree that governments have lots of influence which is why they should stop subsidizing animal agriculture if they care about methane. Higher meat prices would put a dent in methane production. We need to deal with this issue on all levels, not just one or the other.
So basically she didn't even mention not eating beef but addresses the "problems" with rice production
The remarkable information you provide to your viewers needs to be applauded. I sincerely appreciate your effort to expand your viewers knowledge. A sincere thank you!
Giving cows artificial food? I see no solution there. Let's reduce/cut meat consumption... That makes much more sense!
Incredible. And what is big oil trying to promote as an eco-friendly alternative? “natural” gas
Greenwashing is the new norm. Even the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex is working on eco-friendly bombs. Remember "surgical strikes"?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~ Albert Einstein.
Unfortunately your criticism is right. But all this attempt to control climate is not feasible. It will result only in a big mess...
@Lorenzo Blum Eureka!! the vice of greed... That's the explanation!! GRIN Your comment is romantic. It resembles to listening my fella Americans in Berkeley 1968 and in Brazil about 1 decade after: in Brazil all the American cultural fashions and hypes had to delay about 10 years to arrive here around -- during the short unending second half of the XX century. There was the hippy shake in the US (romantic like you) but the lead rule in Brazil during the same period -- further ahead followed by the own delayed Brazilian hippy shake in the 80s. You are the product of your Era. You elaborate and cast psychological reductionist explanations of the social changes which are eventually mixed with a bit of Marxism. Me too (in that epoch...). But we were wrong. The only fundamental springs of change are ultmostly over population and technological advances. Marx, Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Freud all they are gone. Darwin survives. Brazil
There will be no way even to the globalist dictatorships of good will to reduce carbon emissions including methane to the point of controling global warming (not to say to control the climate as a whole...) without millions of people killed (not burned, but buried) or artificially stopping humans births in the planet very fast. And no economists or politicians want to do so.
I burn tires for heat
@@lorenzoblum868 like when biden drone striked that afghan family on their way to kabul airport. Like that?
@@KRYPTOS_K5 libtard.
It's impressive how many environmentalists when addressing cutting methane from agriculture don't even consider the possibility to reduce meat consumption rather than creating advanced technologies to change the cow's fart or cover the manure. The solution is simpler than that, just create policies to reduce meat consumption, such as over-taxation and so on
Or just stop subsidizing it !
Yep. That's true. Though, I'm not sure over-taxation is the answer. California has the highest gas rates in the country due to over taxation aimed to make people drive less while gaining money for the state to fix roads. It failed to make people drive less, and just proved to make it more difficult for poor people to drive to work. The problem is, people don't want to change their behaviors. We want the world to stop getting hotter and being destroyed by this stuff, but very few are willing to stop eating meat, stop drinking milk, stop driving their car, stop getting amazon delivered ridiculously quickly, stop heating and cooling down their home, etc. I don't think major change will come without major upheaval of something many have come accustomed to. Although, the blame doesn't fall on the individual completely, like many fossil fuel companies would like you to think. They spend a tremendous amount of money trying to make us think that carpooling and recycling will save us, when it wont. Anyway, I agree with you.
Greed, corruption, consumerism and lack of ethics... Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Through taxes, we're already funding the biggest polluter on Earth, the military industrial complex. No need for more taxes. We need ETHICS.
Because environmentalists are realists. They know reducing meat consumption simply won't happen without a fundamental shift in behaviour. It's not economically viable in the short term to do that, and humans are incredibly short sighted about short term cost and long term gain, hence the presenting the next best thing that can literally start working overnight
Talking about reducing methane emissions without mentioning going vegan is like suggesting you choose a squirt gun to put out a fire rather than a fire extinguisher
A bit weak on substance. Eliminating methane release is certainly the "low hanging fruit" for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. However, she missed the opportunity to remind the audience that methane contributes ~25-30% to our greenhouse gas global warming thru its contribution to the energy imbalance (Solar energy absorbed minus the infrared radiation emitted back into space).
She might also have added that addressing methane emissions is also a priority to lessen greenhouse gas impacts because we have no technological means (on scale) to drawdown atmospheric CO2. Furthermore a huge contributor to methane release is Arctic permafrost thawing & as global mean temperature continues to rise, inexorably, this will accelerate permafrost thaw methane release.
Why she didn't mention we should all ditch our gas cars for electric cars is negligent to say the least. She even has the link to methane as it's produced during oil production
Ditch your electric /gas /oil.... car and buy a second hand bicycle. The kind without any battery. You'll save time because you will live younger, you will save money for obvious reasons but also because you will be healthier. And you might even save the planet.
REDUCE, Reuse, Repair, Redistribute, Ride (a Real bicycle), Replant, Reconsider, Recycle, Rejoice....
Btw the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@lorenzoblum868 Nice dream world you're living in but bicycles? LOL Be realistic
@@stevenhill3136 it's what I do. Not a dream.
@@stevenhill3136 Many cities in Europe are now developping efficient cycle paths ; And big surprise, once the city is safe for bicycles, people do ride, and they love it ! So no, changing our way of life is indeed noyt easy but it is possible.
Unfortunately if we don't adapt now we may have to be forced on changes that are less desirable than just "riding a bike"
Electric cars don't produce anywhere near the benefit that many people believe, especially if the energy to charge the car batteries comes from natural gas power plants. For electric cars to meaningfully help reduce CO2, we need to shift from nat. gas and coal to wind and solar generated electricity. In other words, we have to harvest energy cleanly, not just consume it cleanly.
I heard agriculture being the #1 but yet DIDNT encourage healthier eating habits hmm
Yea that was definitely a missed opportunity
I can almost hear animal agriculture industry's coins in her pocket... SMH
I think that speeches like this are more dangerous than the speeches made by climate deniers. We can't TECH OUR WAY OUT of the climate crisis people! That's what led us here, not just the technology itself, but the lazy, profit driven motivation behind it. We need to start valuing ECOlogy over ECOnomy and start changing our habits, starting today. That's more like yesterday, for us the in the "advanced" countries.
We couldn't "tech our way out" of many situations where that's just what we did. What led us here was not technology, it was wealth accumulation, overpopulation, waste, commercial production and industrial lobbying including fossil fuels which are at this point fully replaceable. Instead of kicking strops in the comments that "we" need to do something, let the world "leaders" and the many assorted corporate monsters take heed instead of copping out and blaming us for the pollution they make.
Stop driving now. Move to a tiny apartment. Keep it 55F. One cold shower every week. Only wear wool and wash it one time a year. Anything less is failure!
Absolutely spot on! Humans are now learning the hard way that if you don't respect natural processes, your methods are unsustainable.
You are 100% wrong. take a look at the smog in California mostly solved by catalytic converters. Or wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal energy all these are technology. Have you seen how much carbon is emitted by the 2 billion poor people who still burn coal, wood and dubg in the homes? If you want to turn off all oil production and go back in time 200 years you will kill billions of people. Technology is the only solution.
For rice patties in Southeast Asia. I think it would take a few generations and modern thinking and management to change what is currently a tradition and proven method of outputting raw rice.
Change can be scary for them.
SRI methods lower methane emissions by 60% and are nowadays applied globally, and particularly in South Asia, on 6.7 million hectares. It's not enough and we should do more. The goal is 50 million by 2030. Check for Sustainable Rice Intensification methods and you will be positively surprised!
Change is scary yes, especially for subsistence farmers and that's the why must developed incentives to adopt practices that improve the yields and drastically reduce the impact on the environment like SRI is and that is being done but it need all the support possible.
The methane emissions come from decomposition in water. Rice also looses a lot of water from its inefficient methods of irrigation.
The two problems are interrelated.
how patronising. "for them". Unless your life has made every single possible global warming emission reduction (including going vegan, not using plastics, not using rare metals, not using air travel, not using fossil fuels) then it's "Change can be scary for US". Our society is not changing enough.
Boycott beef! Its production is extremely cruel and polluting. I sure don’t miss it.
Where is veganism in this conversation? A solution to net zero has to address the devastating environmental damage of factory farming: deforestation, land use, water use, pollution, huge biodiversity loss.
Not to mention the indescribably cruelty. If you're curious you should definitely look it up. It'll change your life.
Yes!!!
"Where is veganism in this conversation? " Great comment' Largest study of its kind (Poore & Nemecek 2019) found that if everyone went vegan, we would need 75% less land to feed everyone, could then reforests and re-wild an area the size of North America plus Brazil because of the farmland we no longer needed, and that would sequester over 600 BILLION tons of CO2 by 2050, not even counting all the additional CO2 sequestered in the oceans from the booming marine life populations that would occur.
I translate what she said, because she made every effort not to say it. Burne the methane (to produce electricity and money) what makes the longer staying CO2. Change the cows diet instead the inconvenient you kill the planet if you eat beef. And forget the unregulated Indian cows. So it was smokescreen for the masses. I have no problem almost any of what she said if she strait and don't want to playing on your guilt under climate change. The almost part is the satellite what most likely going to be used to fine you not to provide information. Side note the last 5-6 years made appliances die in 4-5 years instead of 20+ how much waste is that and how nobody cares... And she feel good about what she did...
More "gaslighting" so we keep ignoring the elephant in the room fart aka the military industrial complex.
@Lorenzo Blum Eureka!! the vice of greed... That's the explanation!! GRIN Your comment is romantic. It resembles to listening my fella Americans in Berkeley 1968 and in Brazil about 1 decade after: in Brazil all the American cultural fashions and hypes had to delay about 10 years to arrive here around -- during the short unending second half of the XX century. There was the hippy shake in the US (romantic like you) but the lead rule in Brazil during the same period -- further ahead followed by the own delayed Brazilian hippy shake in the 80s. You are the product of your Era. You elaborate and cast psychological reductionist explanations of the social changes which are eventually mixed with a bit of Marxism. Me too (in that epoch...). But we were wrong. The only fundamental springs of change are ultmostly over population and technological advances. Marx, Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Freud all they are gone. Darwin survives. Brazil
I shall agree with you... I believe she is afraid to be fined... by the satellites because she eats hamburgers or something like that... Who knows... Brazil
This was (mentally) translated from Portuguese...
@Despize Perform Dudes English is fine. He stated that CO2 stays in the air longer than methane does. He also said that we should change the diet of the cows instead of saying that eating beef is destroying the planet. The satellites will be meant as a surveillance measure to fine farmers. Also his point about planned obsolesce hits the nail on the head. Aka her talk was bullshit.
very interesting levers which are presented on this TED in a methodological way. but I'm afraid of the permaftost melt that will be a most important effect and the question is what we can do ?
Great speech! Very interesting to learn that there are more effective means to slow down climate crisis apart from reducing CO2 emissions and carbon sequestration. I believe we need to make use of all possibilties available in order to preserve our planet's beauty for our children
Another low hanging fruit is reducing the speed limit by 10%. This would save more than 15% of fuel and therefore CO2 with very little cost.
Plus it would reduce accidents, pollution and micro plastic from tires.
@@madshorn5826 You mean rubber unless THERE'S really is Plastics in Tires. Well I definitely agree with reducing speed limits but you think the population would follow that rule/law? I don't consider myself as old but I have been driving slower to save gas and wear and tear on our minivan. Gotta make it last another 3-4 years till we can afford an EV minivan or SUV and a midsized EV.
@Jonathan Krost Let's hope we can do it soon. I'm waiting for our new metal roof so we can install as much as we can solar panels with Tesla PowerWall units. Then switch out our heating from natural gas to heat pump or just go with electric water baseboard heaters which ever is the lower cost and efficient. Love to go full throttle on all efficient electrical appliances and heating/cooling/cooking appliances. The install insulated siding and add more attic insulation.
@@robertlee8805
Micro plastic is a umbrella term I guess and while tyres still includes rubber they are a mix of so many chemicals that I think 'plastic' is pretty accurate :-)
Anyway, the articles I have read about micro plastic attributes half the problem to tyre wear.
And it is a problem. UN just declared it a crisis on par with climate change and biodiversity loss :-(
A minivan _and_ a midsize car?
Your job necessitates a van I take it?
I am afraid that while we can keep a comfortable lifestyle and save a human friendly climate, we can't do this by continuing our current lifestyle 1:1.
I too thought I wouldn't have the money for an EV for years to come, but looking at used cars and doing some hard thinking and a leap of faith, I bought a used Nissan Leaf 2016 a year ago.
It has only 100 km range, but 95% of the time my need is 80 km -)
The remaining 5% I have to spend half an hour fast changing once or twice a trip, but often this can be done while the car would be parked anyway.
It has limited my options a little, but I haven't regretted it for a second.
When we went on vacation we rented a petrol car. (EVs isn't available yet).
My point is that being a first mover may be cheaper than you think, because thinking is hard, hence the competition is low ;-)
I agree but not at the cost of humanity itself, destroying lives, livelihoods, and futures of people, families, communities, and towns. I see a lot of scientists and experts imparting valuable information and pressing for immediate action, which I agree with but, with no understanding of the consequences to humanity, they have no solution for that, that is the next step. Pushing scientist out of the way and getting critical thinkers who understand the value of real life, and coming up with creative and innovative solutions to do the things we need to do now but while NOT destroying people in the process.
Does she mention nuclear power? Getting tired of the greens ignoring something that would actually work.
Ignore? "Greens"? Says who? That would certainly be an ignorant claim to make.
There is no clean energy. This greenwashing is diverting us from the real problem : greed which always leads to corruption. Greed is consumerism. We've been brainwashed to believe more is the key of happiness. All energies are fine if they are exploited and used with ethics. What's the point having a clean energy (which is an abstract concept) if we use it to manufacture trash?
Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@JanDeeKat says anyone who recognizes that they ignore nuclear energy and propose plans which make unicorn farts look plausible
This presentation is excellent - factual and to the point. Is humanity up to the task?
Nope, we are too greedy and focused on short term gains :/
Very interesting speech! I think that it is especially crucial to raise awareness about the climate changes and especially all of the ways to prevent it. It is a pressing issue that affects us all the time, and we are still not concerned about it as much as we should. And I also believe that we should all individually try to take small actions so not all of the solutions are in the hands of countries and huge companies! 💪
It's easy to think about those solutions, but implementing them might be a real issue
She did more than think about solutions. She wasn't up there spitballing ideas. She had data to back up her reasons and proposals for some of the changes. OBVIOUSLY, implementing something new is always an issue. Nothing will change with your attitude, though.
Currently we have a solar/ warming imbalance of 1 watt per sq meter which is increasing. That's the warming mechanism right there. If we stopped emitting CO2 and CH4 now, the dwell time of just the CO2 (stays in atmosphere for 200 to 1000 yrs) means we maintain that imbalance and keep warming. Trees, agriculture, tech will not remove it in time that'd save us from terrible and likely existential damage.
reading these comments I agree, she glossed over agriculture without addressing the key issue- limiting or eliminating cows from our ordinary diet would be a solution that would help reduce methane emissions and everyone can participate in...we cant wait for scientists to make pills for cows to eat and say thats good enough with how dire this situation. Drive through socal or look at any high production meat industry/farm..they won't give a damn about methane emissions unless we have legal regulation and enforcement. All these privatized companies with their lobbying is destroying our planet.
It would sure be cool if TED talks started doing only online seminars so people aren’t wasting the fossil fuels to get to their events. A practice what you preach approach
😳🤣🤣🤣
It would sure be cool if TED talks started pointing out the elephant in the room... The military industrial complex.
You should look up how much pollution is emmited by the Internet. Servers don't run on hopes ad dreams you know.
@@NoWacko Immediate love for you
@@NoWacko so what you are saying is Ted talks are not only getting people to pollute with travel but also pollute with the internet? Thanks for making climate change activist look like grifters even more.
She’s correctly identified the sources, however, fixing these problems still remains difficult to incentivize. Yes, it’s not rocket science… but her “solutions” oversimplify the logistical complications of their implementation.
Or....y'all can just go vegan. Shocking..no mention of the immediate effects of not eating or using animal products.
Many people simply aren’t willing to go strictly vegan but even replacing beef with other meats would be a drastic improvement.
Lol, studies show a vegan diet is often more unfriendly since many countries import most of their food.
@@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb that’s consumer behaviour and changeable - plenty of ways in most places to be vegan and local if one chooses. I don’t eat red meat anymore but what I do eat is as local as I can make it.
@@ArthurDentZaphodBeeb Source for that claim? "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local" on Our World in Data, University of Oxford. A plant-based diet is and will always be more environmentally friendly.
So you're Pro Animal and yet advocate eating their food.
🌎TED | Let's to respect one another!
'' we are talked a lot about, but we are not listened to '' -why?
🌎TED | Thank you
.
How about reducing our consumption of meat? This also has the massive advantage that trees can be planted on the land that is freed up when we stop feeding the soya and corn to animals. Trees will take huge amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, giving a double benefit.
When she didn't include any of that important and tangible information, I switched it off. You cannot have recovery without sacrifice.
To reduce our consumption of meat, we should get rid of feedlots, which create manure runoff problems, create sick animals (who are not designed to eat grain), and create tons of methane. Contrast all this with regenerative farming, where the cows are moved to a different fenced off pasture three times a day, thus optimizing the use and regeneration of the grass, spreading the manure around, and allowing the trampling of the hooves to assist in the absorption of CO2 into the soil. In addition, there is a little-known process whereby the methane interacts with the grass, countering much of the negative effects of the methane. THEN we have to get beef eaters to adapt to grass-fed beef, which will mean not allowing importation of grain-finished beef.
Great speech that introduce an effective and possible way to reduce climate change. Hope them could discover more methods.
Cow Burping!?
Reducing speed limits by 10% would slash fuel consumption by more than 15%.
And reduce noise, pollution, accidents and micro plastic from tyres.
What are we waiting for?
We already know multiple ways to reduce it, that's not the issue the issue it implementing these ideas and getting bit corporations on borad.
I guess what her message here is: 'Don't forget about the methane problem!' - Everyone who cares, best to act now and drop excuses for not acting. Help our societies to grow up and mature to a responsible humanity
And the EU right now is saying, gas is sustainable source of energy ... i could cry.
You could also cry over the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex.
There isn’t a viable alternative yet. You must have backup power for solar and wind. That is fossil fuel power power plants. The only viable alternative is NUCLEAR. Unfortunately, that has been blocked by peoples who may mean well but do not understand the problem. New technology nuclear will be safe. NIMBYs must stop blocking deep underground waste storage.
I used to fly over Iraq, 3 years ago at night. The amount of GAS FLARING is unbelievable. Also in Iran. That is as important as fixing leaks here.
Its equally as important everywhere. Russia I’ve read has methane leaking everywhere. We can’t continue with this national sovereignty and borders junk anymore. The atmosphere is a big chemistry experiment that doesn’t care.
Congratulations, clear, strong message for critical times. I am concerned that change driven sources are emitting large scale methane in particular, Arctic Permafrost emissions. So, good message, no time to loose, save the permafrost to save the climate.
OR: 1) Consumption and waste reduction, 2) fossil fuel moratorium 3) Prohibit the farming of beed and adopt meatless diets. They are going to decimate a future on vain strategies to avoid changes. This isn’t complicated. And it’s perfectly apparent many things are required of everyone, but when it impacts some privileged groups they complain and refuse to obey. Can we all be accommodated for doing whatever we want no matter the consequences?
In the U.K. transport is the largest CO2 producer. And from the last data I’ve seen the second largest in the US but this wasn’t mentioned. Why?
I don’t think this is accurate. Transportation represents about 15% of global carbon emissions. Every wealthy country beats this figure in meat consumption, energy production, and others.
🌎TED | yes 👍
👍
# Cop 26
SAVE OUR PLANET 🌏🌍🌎!
👍
'' we are talked a lot about, but we are not listened to '' -why?
Thank you.
It's a great idea to monitor where and how much methane is being emissioned, however, I have a question on this "sealing" idea. How can we "seal" volcanoes, faults, melting glaciers, and permafrost as these things now produce way more methane than energy production, agriculture, and waste? And the logical question arises, why no natural causes are taken into account at all?
They input into the greenhouse effect in particular and into climate change as a whole much more than humans.
The tectonic plates, magma plumes, and volcanoes are going crazy more and more every day (and they produce all these greenhouse gases more and more), the huge amount of water vapor is increasing (as you know this is the major substance that causes the greenhouse) because of the heat that comes closer to the earth's surface, and boils the underground water.
Isn't it the task for real scientists to research what is causing this madness with our planet from the inside? And once the reason is found, to look for the way out for whole our civilization? As we monitor the trends for more than 10 years, we don't have much time to solve this problem and to waste the precious time of scientists to the dead-end but well-paid theories.
All honest scientists are welcome to join the preparation for an international forum "Global Crisis. We are people. We want to live" that is aimed to truthfully and objectively inform humanity about the increasing danger of climate and environmental disasters and to consider practical solutions to overcome all the crises by building the human-centered society worldwide.
everything is written very correctly and competently, it would also be very interesting for me to know the truth from scientists
@@ФедірГордус indeed huge work was done by researchers! All the information is on open sources, but it is hard to find it just by googling, you need to review all the dedicated platforms, check it and so on, as well as contact scientists who research these topics! So this work is great help for all of us to have big picture on the problems
It's all fun & games until you realise much of that science is still on a kids groping in the dark level in terms of having a full picture of what's actually going on & more often than not all that gets filterd to us via groups of interest and finally delivered by mass media, as a bunch of biased, low resolution half truths
Hi ! Indeed scientists are taking into account natural causes too ! If you're looking for a reliable source on the advances on this (very) complex subject of research that is climate change, i would recommend reading the ipcc'reports. Those reports are written following as closely as possible the scientific method, and produce a summary of every scientific study from the last few years. As the ipcc is mandated by the UN, they are the least likely to be subject from direct state corruption nor pressured by greedy lobbies.
I believe those reports can greatly help one understand these questions better. Not only they provide informations on the sources and the risks of climate change, but they also suggest possible responses.
@@arnspyarchi6040 In 1988 when IPCC was established they highliggted that their goal is to research the human input to the climate change only. They stated that yes, water vapor is the main reason of the greenhouse, however as human doesn't affect it much, let's not dig in this direction
The speaker is a scientist so I can't believe she is saying what she is saying. I suspect she is overly simplifying and twisting the facts to make the topic understandable. But what she ends up saying is simply NOT TRUE
Regarding "we need to reach net zero to stabilize our climate" - NOT TRUE. Since the arctic and permafrost are both melting at CURRENT atmospheric CO2 levels, achieving net zero will only MAINTAIN current (or some future higher) atmospheric CO2 level. This means the arctic and permafrost will continue to melt, and climate change will continue to worsen.
Regarding: "when we reduce methane, we can reduce a lot of warming right away..." - NOT TRUE. Consider that CO2 is being emitted at 33-35 BILLION tonnes per year while methane is about 570 MILLION tonnes. In the atmosphere CO2 has been rising about 2-3 Parts Per MILLION per year. Methane increased last year about 14 Parts Per BILLION or 0.014 Parts Per MILLION. (1/74'th of CO2 - notice the unit of measure for methane is PPB which is 1/1000 that of CO2's PPM)
Methane has an atmospheric half life of about 10 years while CO2 has an atmospheric half life of about 120 years.There is no denying that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 (about 70 times greater over those first 10-12 years). But, considering the tiny amount of methane emitted compared to CO2 (about 1/60th of Co2), and the vastly shorter half life of methane compared to CO2 (about 1/12th), and the lower yearly atmospheric rise of methane compared to CO2 (1/74'th of Co2), a reduction of methane alone will have only a TINY reduction in climate heating.
Regarding "if we succeed in cutting methane... we can... hit the breaks on worsening extreme events." NOT TRUE - those events will continue because they are driven by CURRENT greenhouse gas emissions which remain in the atmosphere for over a century. Thus simply slowing (rather than reversing) atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions will NOT change the fact those extreme weather events will continue to happen. (Similarly, just slowing the speed of a car pointed at a cliff, will not change the fact that the car will sooner or later go off the cliff.)
In summary, this is one of those pseudo-scientific talks meant to make people feel good. But it is of little actual informational value. Are TED talks becoming "feel-good" talks?
Biochar reduces methane releases from soils by 90%. It can also reduce methane in livestock production when added to feed.
Why not reduce meat eating habit instead of making efficient cattle farming.
We should paint rooftops white. They need painting anyway.
Rising tides lift ...In my opinion, short and long term solutions can be achieved in a generation. By making methane capture/reduction a cash crop, innovative companies will flock to cash in. For the short term, it's "all about the Benjamins". For the long term, using global education systems to incorporate the Japanese model of environmental care by having school children clean up their own environments (classrooms, hallways, etc.) instills a sense of personal responsibility in the child that carries into adulthood.
Overpopulation is a core problem. Continued growth in India and Africa,parts of SE Asia and Mid East is a big problem.
Not only does the meat industry directly emit methane, it has a massive land footprint leading to deforestation and requires a lot of water. The animals are held in very dense environments, leading to disease that can evolve and spread to humans and perhaps start the next pandemic. Most of the modern influenza variants evolved in pigs. This also leads to a massive use of antibiotics that contributes to evolving superbugs much more than humans taking antibiotics when they don't need to. And there is also a moral dilemma. Are we fine with hundreds of billions of animals suffering daily for their entire lives?
There is a simple way to end all of that. We need to drastically reduce our consumption of meat and dairy products. The more you cut your meat consumption the better, even if this means cutting it only by 20-30%. There are already many meat and dairy substitutes that are indistinguishable from the real thing in blind tests.
It’s a no brainer, go vegan!!!!
How about the Rice production? 😂😂
U.S. exported nearly 6.75 million metric tons of wood pellets during the first 11 months of 2021 at a value of $959.94 million, compared to 6.69 million metric tons exported at a value of $905.77 million during the same period of 2020.
but according to IPCC it is zero carbon footprint which is why countries are doing it to say they have reduced emissions - a scam
Yep, not roots or tree barks, and trees get it from wild fires too, forest are a ecosystem with ground water tables.
The oil ban is narrow minded also. As jet fuel & diesel and 10s of types of plastic are part % of a barrel oil crew & come from the
amount of oil used now.
Natural gas ban too. Is a Sham also beside hair products and lotions.all from natural gas by product.
urea fertilizer.
More than 90% of world industrial production of urea is destined for use as a nitrogen-release fertilizer Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use. Therefore, it has a low transportation cost per unit of nitrogen nutrition The most common impurity of synthetic urea , Urea breaks down in the soil to give ammonium. The ammonium is taken up by the plant. In some soils, the ammonium is oxidized by bacteria to give nitrate, which is also a plant nutrient.
Petrochemical:
Agriculture.
urea fertilizer.
More than 90% of world industrial production of urea is destined for use as a nitrogen-release fertilizer Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use. Therefore, it has a low transportation cost per unit of nitrogen nutrition The most common impurity of synthetic urea , Urea breaks down in the soil to give ammonium. The ammonium is taken up by the plant. In some soils, the ammonium is oxidiz
Qoute . IHC chemical study that hydrogen petrochemical or hydrocarbon estimate 2021 average E.V car contain 778 lb of petrochemical plastic
most used material after metal, to weight saving from metal thousand of pounds. for longer range and cost saving.
So No gas = no plastic or ev cars that need lighter weight.
No gas = no plastic = no ev cars or even high tech just huge inflation
Adding Gas is 40% of barrel of oil. The rest is diesel, kerosene or jet fuel,
petrochemical or hydrocarbon , paint thinner, road tar
With oil our infrastructure stops
@@thomas4315 the interesting thing about wood pellets is that nasty coal 1Kg emit 3Kg of CO2 for X power but wood pellets aren't as energy dense so you need 1.5 Kg to give X power so you get 4.5 Kg of CO2 - how does that make sense also the demand for the wood pellet scam is causing price rises and increased power costs - the environment would be better off burning the coal and looking for a lesser CO2 alternative - Oh wait Gen 4 nuclear that will actually reduce CO2
In Canada 8 more biomass coming on this yr for about 18 total.they open up the forest reserve land. A guy show one factory took a while to pass it and it waslike 2 blocks the trees stacked was about 3 story high and about 2 football field long. It nuts how much lumber they are useing that why lumber are 90 buck a good ply wood lat lowes now. If you know solar you know a stove or ac or charging will tax and empty a 1,000 watts system.
Silat can't cut it and it don't walk at night. The amount of battery and sand will do more damages than coal or oil. They is no extra electric or it's wastefu. And the nurse the eu want to ban nuclear power plant. What going to power the world?
Rice doesn't need flooding, it's just for weed and pest control. Some (not sure if it's a lot) paddies are also used to raise fish in them, so that increases food production.
I just hope government and industries take notes while planning any kind of business model.
Getting rid of threaded fittings for natural gas would be a good first step , a system like SSP's "ultraflare" being universally adopted for gas would eliminate the "spiral leak path" that are threaded fittings.
Getting rid of natural gas in general would be a good step
Getting rid of corruption because corruption is the reason for most pollution. Corruption is the consequence of GREED.
Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Methane remains in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, with a half-life of about ten years. It's the accumulation in the atmosphere that poses the problem, which explains why more than 80% of the greenhouse effect is due to CO2. It is important to understand that between 10 and 25% of the CO2 emitted will still be present in the atmosphere in 10,000 years. We must therefore absolutely stop emitting CO2 of fossil origin if we do not want to modify the climate in the long term.
Cellular cultures and plant proteins can replace much or all animal exploitation. It's absurd to tweak feeds or cover manure lagoons when full and permanent solutions are at hand.
plant proteins, mostly from soybeans, account for a lot of the worlds current deforestation in very sensitive places like the amazon rainforest and they dont contain nearly the same essential nutrients. cellular cultures generate a huge amount of plastic waste per very very small quantities of meat and are too energy intensive to sustain anyone. these are not viable solutions to anything, they are marketing gimmicks
@@btzrdj Actually 98% of soy meal (the protein product) is fed to livestock. There are also misguided and fortunately waning biodiesel programs that relied on soy oil (better to limit sourcing to waste oil and perhaps vat-grown algae). The energy saved in transporting and storing legumes is also vast (meat requires refrigeration or freezing). As for cellular cultures, they can't compete with meat for plastic waste and the technology is just taking off -- you'll be witnessing huge strides. So you arguments are quite weak. Maybe give them some plant protein. ;)
It was a very impressive speech. Our practices are important, but I think solutions to reduce greenhouse gases, which are the sources of the greenhouse effect, are also very important.
Thanks
I agree, an ever faster reduction of gases would occur by taxing human consumption based on waste vs consumed energy.
Or removing animal product subsidise
Through taxes, we're already funding the biggest polluter on Earth, the military industrial complex. So reducing taxes would be the solution. Or using the Pentagon's money to fix rather than to destroy our ecosystem.
Old depleted oil wells that have been capped tend to leach large amounts of methane. Shale oil extraction will cause large releases of methane as a by-product.
Nice speech and good and refreshing insights! BUT what about the melting of permafrost in Siberia? There the emission of methan gas is not controllable.
But what is the slowest way to fast climate change? 🤔
Give politicians all your money and they will solve the climate hoax
@@hotrod8915 How ignorant & naive of you to say that, no respect for the people who have already died & aren't nearly as much of the cause as you are.
Feed supplements? Does she mean another pill as a solution? Moving away from CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and moving towards better practices in livestock management within the natural ecosystem will feed the soil and build better soil resilience for hot and wet climates changes. Consider and support silvopasture and regenerative farming and ranching practices. Healthier soils and animals. Healthier people. Healthier Earth.
2 Scenarios:
- Continue hopping for the ultimate technological innovation that will save us all from destroying ourselves but might never happen: millions of dollars going into researching food that will stop cows from farting (seriously???)
- Reducing meat consumption: immediate effect, healthier, no cost whatsoever, stops most of the worldwide deforestation, ... the list goes on and on
That's awesome, I really hope that the knowledge is put to use by those who can
Not a word about the permafrost melting...
So instead of putting this on all of us to change the way we live our lives, we can just put it on some poor farmers. Genius! With the added benefit that the rich get off free! Let's not blame the oil, gas, and industrial companies that have lots of money. Let's blame it on the poorer agriculturalists that's industry has existed long before the oil and gas companies.
I think I was a bit light on this talk with my first comment, so I'm back. Of the five major economic sectors that produce harmful pollutants agriculture is in last. The first is transportation. If we really wanted to make things change we would invest more money in mass-transit and pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure. We would come to the realization that everyone owning their own private vehicle isn't sustainable. But the oil and gas companies and car manufacturers won't let us do that, because that would hit their profit margins. So instead, this women from the EDF (who gets funding from major companies) is telling us it's the livestock. Now if you're talking about reducing factor farming and regulating that farmers stop feeding cows less-expensive feed (corn and beans) that is outside their natural diet then that would be right to change. But she is instead saying that "No, we don't have to change a thing! We're going to sell you a product to make the cows burp and fart less!". Utter capitalist pseudo-science bullshit. We don't know how it will effect the cows but they'll burp and fart less! Can't believe TED let her on this platform.
Grow your own food, eat only minimally processed plants, and replace rice with healthier grains like oats and barley. Rice is full of arsenic anyway. Oh but people won’t change cuz “cheese tastes too good” and they’re selfish bastards
They're not enough arsenic in rice to be unhealthy.
Please try it. Please show me how I can grow enough "my own food" on my balcony....
There is no miracle solution but fighting corruption would solve some. Corruption is responsible for most pollution. Corruption is the consequence of GREED. Btw, the carbon footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
@@lorenzoblum868 Yeah but from a personal perspective you could go Vegan
@@jhunt5578 why are you bringing the vegan debate while I'm pointing out the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex? Are you gaslighting? From a personal perspective, I eat meat or fish once a week on average. I haven't taken a plane in 35 years and I get around with my bicycle that I repair.... What is truly evil is excess and greed my friend.
Nuclear power is fastest way to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Also, the latest IPCC AR6 report shows a global increase in vegetation and crop production. Plants love CO2.
To increase vegetation we would need the majority of the population to adopt a plant-based diet and reforest the 40% of the land animal agriculture is currently using, but no, most people would rather die from heart disease and destroy the planet.
Nuclear power is the slowest way. Reducing the economy is the fastest. As for plants, they can’t migrate as biomes change, they can move as far as a root or a fallen seed each season. And while yes climates changes have happened before, never ever ever this fast. And plants in higher C02 take up less nutrients from soil making them less nutritious for consumption. Chocolate and coffee are going to be among the first to vanish.
Also: where is the garbage lying? in other countries, where the rich leave the garbage and these countries are left alone with their problems!
This is pretty interesting plan but Doesnt sound easy... but she does give a lot of ideas...
Simple and informative
Need a Refereed journal article that shows methane causes more warming than CO2 when considering very low concentration of methane in the atmosphere.
This is such a business and growth view of solving climate change... The easiest solution RIGHT NOW that YOU can do is to indvidually reduce your consumption. Eating less or no meat. Composting food scraps. Using less gas, oil, and coal where you can by consuming less and throwing away less stuff. It's sImple but she doesn't mention any of it? We should also patition governments to change their policies and adopt new technologies but this is not the most immediate impact.
Right now, make a personal sacrifice to climate change by not buying that new fancy phone, or clothes, or eating takeaways and cosuming meat etc. Its not easy but niether is launching satalites into space to measure methane leaks or getting China to change its rice farming which is only responsible for about 5% of methane production is going to be a lot harder as the crop sustains a lot people than livestock farms in the western countries. Maybe just stop buying rice if you can??? Sorry for the rant, it's just clear this video isn't being entirely honest but interesting angle of attack.
Why not stop eating meat ?
Why not stop financing the elephant in the room, biggest polluter on Earth, the military industrial complex?
So just stop it.
Project Lucy and Project Alamo. Two SBX units have been used for years in the fight against methane release.
gosh or maybe we should move to whole food eating, that's a technology we have in our brains.
Summary of tge video: Cut methane emissions. No actual examples of methods, no data and no evidence.
Feels like a 13-year-old trying to write an educational essay, oversimplified and sometimes over exaggerated. It's very difficult to address an issue so complicated with so less time. Could've made the entire talk into a 5 minutes slideshow video and save the energy comsumed for hosting such event.
Well, do you know more about climate change mitigation than this scientist? It's made simple so that many people can understand and be aware.
@@elvytan4682 Very true. Any idea or theory has to simplified before introducing to non specialist, but this speech feels more like educating children, which isn't a bad thing but it could be more informative.
The carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
Finally talking about something other than CO2!
Should CO2 not be the bulk of the conversation?
@@StreetcarHammock the bulk sure, not 99.9% like it is today 😕
@@geraldmerkowitz4360 agreed, a lot of problems to solve simultaneously
Nitrogen and phosphorous
@@Rnankn hum... phosphorous okay, but what's the problem with nitrogen?
I knew that methane so much more potent but I am shocked how bad it really. So why is this not on the radar screen of our policy makers ???
Almost 10 minutes of letting hot air out in a well-lit and air-conditioned room. Well done!
Naive comment. That's like criticizing a semi running on gas for transporting electric vehicle parts, or criticizing someone who makes a RUclips video to complain about RUclips policies. Or using a wrench to make a tool that's better than a wrench.
If that's the best way to get information out, so be it. Can't blame them for living in a world they were born into..
@@RantKid Just an opportunity for another bunch of people sitting around in comfort, feeling good about themselves. Al Gore is still zooming around the world in private jets, hawking fictional "carbon credits", raking it in. Barack Obama is not selling his $12M+ Hamptons waterfront property anytime soon. Grifters.
@@RantKid You're making the assumption that her words are an improvement over the same old words and that this forum is the best outlet for her.
They.don’t have to better than the same old words, if the same old words are worth repeating. And who says it has to be absolute best outlet? (I’d like to hear your better suggestion).
Where is Rankid making an assumption her words are better than the same old words? If the same old words are worth repeating then repeat them.
How could I make such a transition during my presentation? It gonna be so nice
If only we could harness the renewable energy of people arguing about climate change.
CO2 is not a pollutant. And greenhouse gasses affect the low temperature.
Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Carbon Adjustments are the fastest way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This single policy is strong enough to address 50% of the global CO2 pollution problem. And it puts more money in people's pockets while doing so.
why is there no mention of eating a more plant based diet to reduce methane from livestock?!
I am crying.. We should stand up do something
I really wish this topic in particular didn't have a speaker who was so cookie-cutter and non-engaging in delivery. It's like she came right from TED school to give her TED talk. When you're trying to inspire people with ideas, the number one thing is to be yourself and tell your story--not come up with the exact right hand gestures and pinpoint precise word emphasis in your perfect clothes and makeup. None of that sh%^ matters and it just came off for me as disingenuous.
Are any of these projects even being funded? We are facing a total loss of polar ice, The IPCC now knows it is melting far faster then was projected. Yes we need to reduce methane but the projects have not been reported on. She showed pictures of various ideas but nothing scaled so the question becomes did big oil pay her to do this "research" and if so which oil company paid her to do it? If they didn't then this is just a book report so she can get her degree.
Thanks help me!
I am for improving efficiency & reducing waste. The problem in detecting methane is that it is colorless & oderless. Since it is such a good radiator of heat, I suppose 1 could devise a device to project IR and with a shielded camera observe the sources of methane. Granted, it would only be good in low wind conditions, and probably only good for less than 100 meters.
The question I have is; How are we going to implement these changes? We need regulation to make it happen. I'm at a point where I'm thinking about giving up beef (which I love) if they can't find a way to sustainable raise cattle! We all need to make sacrifices to help.
Why is it so hard for intelligent people to come out and just say that we must reduce animal agriculture?
Is there a technique for quickly and firmly able to seal a drilled hole which has not been back-filed?Cost per hole?
I DID NOT write the above comment
good talk, am i the only one hear Janice in my head? the resemblance is just uncanny, "ohhhh myyy god! "
But what about all the methane that comes from the thawing of the arctic??
Spot on!
Finding a solution to climate change is an onerous task.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
no relevance to this video
@@RantKid oh very...
@@Regirs facts over feelings
@@RantKid intellectual humility over scientism hubris
@@Regirs science is what makes you have the ability to write your ignorant thoughts here 💡
Easy stop buying and building things, the end.